Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-LAW.filter - rwp subject:


rwp@1Corinthians:1:17 @{For Christ sent me not to baptize} (\ou gar apesteilen me Christos baptizein\). The negative \ou\ goes not with the infinitive, but with \apesteilen\ (from \apostell“, apostolos\, apostle). {For Christ did not send me to be a baptizer} (present active infinitive, linear action) like John the Baptist. {But to preach the gospel} (\alla euaggelizesthai\). This is Paul's idea of his mission from Christ, as Christ's apostle, to be {a gospelizer}. This led, of course, to baptism, as a result, but Paul usually had it done by others as Peter at Caesarea ordered the baptism to be done, apparently by the six brethren with him (Acts:10:48|). Paul is fond of this late Greek verb from \euaggelion\ and sometimes uses both verb and substantive as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1| "the gospel which I gospelized unto you." {Not in wisdom of words} (\ouk en sophiƒi logou\). Note \ou\, not \mˆ\ (the subjective negative), construed with \apesteilen\ rather than the infinitive. Not in wisdom of speech (singular). Preaching was Paul's forte, but it was not as a pretentious philosopher or professional rhetorician that Paul appeared before the Corinthians (1Corinthians:2:1-5|). Some who followed Apollos may have been guilty of a fancy for external show, though Apollos was not a mere performer and juggler with words. But the Alexandrian method as in Philo did run to dialectic subtleties and luxuriant rhetoric (Lightfoot). {Lest the cross of Christ should be made void} (\hina mˆ ken“thˆi ho stauros tou Christou\). Negative purpose (\hina mˆ\) with first aorist passive subjunctive, effective aorist, of \keno“\, old verb from \kenos\, to make empty. In Paul's preaching the Cross of Christ is the central theme. Hence Paul did not fall into the snare of too much emphasis on baptism nor into too little on the death of Christ. "This expression shows clearly the stress which St. Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great moral spectacle, and so the crowning point of a life of self-renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation" (Lightfoot).

rwp@1Corinthians:1:18 @{For the word of the cross} (\ho logos gar ho tou staurou\). Literally, "for the preaching (with which I am concerned as the opposite of {wisdom of word} in verse 17|) that (repeated article \ho\, almost demonstrative) of the cross." "Through this incidental allusion to preaching St. Paul passes to a new subject. The discussions in the Corinthian Church are for a time forgotten, and he takes the opportunity of correcting his converts for their undue exaltation of human eloquence and wisdom" (Lightfoot). {To them that are perishing} (\tois men apollumenois\). Dative of disadvantage (personal interest). Present middle participle is here timeless, those in the path to destruction (not annihilation. See strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:10|). Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:4:3|. {Foolishness} (\m“ria\). Folly. Old word from \m“ros\, foolish. In N.T. only in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:18,21,23; strkjv@2:14; strkjv@3:19|. {But unto us which are being saved} (\tois s“zomenois hˆmin\). Sharp contrast to those that are perishing and same construction with the articular participle. No reason for the change of pronouns in English. This present passive participle is again timeless. Salvation is described by Paul as a thing done in the past, "we were saved" (Romans:8:24|), as a present state, "ye have been saved" (Ep strkjv@2:5|), as a process, "ye are being saved" (1Corinthians:15:2|), as a future result, "thou shalt be saved" (Romans:10:9|). {The power of God} (\dunamis theou\). Songs:in strkjv@Romans:1:16|. No other message has this dynamite of God (1Corinthians:4:20|). God's power is shown in the preaching of the Cross of Christ through all the ages, now as always. No other preaching wins men and women from sin to holiness or can save them. The judgment of Paul here is the verdict of every soul winner through all time.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:9 @{But as it is written} (\alla kath“s gegraptai\). Elliptical sentence like Rom strkjv@15:3| where \gegonen\ (it has happened) can be supplied. It is not certain where Paul derives this quotation as Scripture. Origen thought it a quotation from the _Apocalypse of Elias_ and Jerome finds it also in the _Ascension of Isaiah_. But these books appear to be post-Pauline, and Jerome denies that Paul obtained it from these late apocryphal books. Clement of Rome finds it in the LXX text of strkjv@Isaiah:64:4| and cites it as a Christian saying. It is likely that Paul here combines freely strkjv@Isaiah:64:4; strkjv@65:17; strkjv@52:15| in a sort of catena or free chain of quotations as he does in strkjv@Romans:3:10-18|. There is also an anacoluthon for \ha\ (which things) occurs as the direct object (accusative) with \eiden\ (saw) and \ˆkousan\ (heard), but as the subject (nominative) with \anebˆ\ (entered, second aorist active indicative of \anabain“\, to go up). {Whatsoever} (\hosa\). A climax to the preceding relative clause (Findlay). {Prepared} (\hˆtoimasen\). First aorist active indicative of \hetoimaz“\. The only instance where Paul uses this verb of God, though it occurs of final glory (Luke:2:31; strkjv@Matthew:20:23; strkjv@25:34; strkjv@Mark:10:40; strkjv@Hebrews:11:16|) and of final misery (Matthew:25:41|). But here undoubtedly the dominant idea is the present blessing to these who love God (1Corinthians:1:5-7|). {Heart} (\kardian\) here as in strkjv@Romans:1:21| is more than emotion. The Gnostics used this passage to support their teaching of esoteric doctrine as Hegesippus shows. Lightfoot thinks that probably the apocryphal _Ascension of Isaiah_ and _Apocalypse of Elias_ were Gnostic and so quoted this passage of Paul to support their position. But the next verse shows that Paul uses it of what is now {revealed} and made plain, not of mysteries still unknown.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:11 @{Other foundation} (\themelion allon\). The gender of the adjective is here masculine as is shown by \allon\. If neuter, it would be \allo\. It is masculine because Paul has Christ in mind. It is not here \heteron\ a different kind of gospel (\heteron euaggelion\, strkjv@Galatians:1:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4|) which is not another (\allo\, strkjv@Galatians:1:7|) in reality. But another Jesus (2Corinthians:11:4|, \allon Iˆsoun\) is a reflection on the one Lord Jesus. Hence there is no room on the platform with Jesus for another Saviour, whether Buddha, Mahomet, Dowie, Eddy, or what not. Jesus Christ is the one foundation and it is gratuitous impudence for another to assume the role of Foundation. {Than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus} (\para ton keimenon, hos estin Iˆsous Christos\). Literally, "alongside (\para\) the one laid (\keimenon\)," already laid (present middle participle of \keimai\, used here as often as the perfect passive of \tithˆmi\ in place of \tetheimenon\). Paul scouts the suggestion that one even in the interest of so-called "new thought" will dare to lay beside Jesus another foundation for religion. And yet I have seen an article by a professor in a theological seminary in which he advocates regarding Jesus as a landmark, not as a goal, not as a foundation. Clearly Paul means that on this one true foundation, Jesus Christ, one must build only what is in full harmony with the Foundation which is Jesus Christ. If one accuses Paul of narrowness, it can be replied that the architect has to be narrow in the sense of building here and not there. A broad foundation will be too thin and unstable for a solid and abiding structure. It can be said also that Paul is here merely repeating the claim of Jesus himself on this very subject when he quoted strkjv@Psalms:118:22f.| to the members of the Sanhedrin who challenged his authority (Mark:11:10f.; strkjv@Matthew:21:42-45; strkjv@Luke:20:17f.|). Apostles and prophets go into this temple of God, but Christ Jesus is the chief corner stone (\akrog“naios\, strkjv@Ephesians:2:20|). All believers are living stones in this temple (1Peter:2:5|). But there is only one foundation possible.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:13 @{The day} (\hˆ hˆmera\). 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:3:18 @{Let no man deceive himself} (\Mˆdeis heauton exapat“\). A warning that implied that some of them were guilty of doing it (\mˆ\ and the present imperative). Excited partisans can easily excite themselves to a pious phrenzy, hypnotize themselves with their own supposed devotion to truth. {Thinketh that he is wise} (\dokei sophos einai\). Condition of first class and assumed to be true. Predicate nominative \sophos\ with the infinitive to agree with subject of \dokei\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1038). Paul claimed to be "wise" himself in verse 10| and he desires that the claimant to wisdom may become wise (\hina genˆtai sophos\, purpose clause with \hina\ and subjunctive) by becoming a fool (\m“ros genesth“\, second aorist middle imperative of \ginomai\) as this age looks at him. This false wisdom of the world (1:18-20,23; strkjv@2:14|), this self-conceit, has led to strife and wrangling. Cut it out.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:18 @{Flee} (\pheugete\). Present imperative. Have the habit of fleeing without delay or parley. Note abruptness of the asyndeton with no connectives. Fornication violates Christ's rights in our bodies (verses 13-17|) and also ruins the body itself. {Without the body} (\ektos tou s“matos\). Even gluttony and drunkenness and the use of dope are sins wrought on the body, not "within the body" (\entos tou s“matos\) in the same sense as fornication. Perhaps the dominant idea of Paul is that fornication, as already shown, breaks the mystic bond between the body and Christ and hence the fornicator (\ho porneu“n\) {sins against his own body} (\eis to idion s“ma hamartanei\) in a sense not true of other dreadful sins. The fornicator takes his body which belongs to Christ and unites it with a harlot. In fornication the body is the instrument of sin and becomes the subject of the damage wrought. In another sense fornication brings on one's own body the two most terrible bodily diseases that are still incurable (gonorrhea and syphilis) that curse one's own body and transmit the curse to the third and fourth generation. Apart from the high view given here by Paul of the relation of the body to the Lord no possible father or mother has the right to lay the hand of such terrible diseases and disaster on their children and children's children. The moral and physical rottenness wrought by immorality defy one's imagination.

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: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:9:15 @{For it were good for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void} (\kalon gar moi mallon apothanein ˆ to kauchˆma mou oudeis ken“sei\). The tangled syntax of this sentence reflects the intensity of Paul's feeling on the subject. He repeats his refusal to use his privileges and rights to a salary by use of the present perfect middle indicative (\kechrˆmai\). By the epistolary aorist (\egrapsa\) he explains that he is not now hinting for a change on their part towards him in the matter, "in my case" (\en emoi\). Then he gives his reason in vigorous language without a copula (\ˆn\, were): "For good for me to die rather than," but here he changes the construction by a violent anacoluthon. Instead of another infinitive (\ken“sai\) after \ˆ\ (than) he changes to the future indicative without \hoti\ or \hina\, "No one shall make my glorying void," viz., his independence of help from them. \Keno“\ is an old verb, from \kenos\, empty, only in Paul in N.T. See on ¯1Corinthians:1:17|.

rwp@1Corinthians:10:6 @{Were our examples} (\tupoi hˆm“n egenˆthˆsan\). More exactly, examples for us (objective genitive \hˆm“n\, not subjective genitive, of us). The word \tupoi\ (our types) comes from \tupt“\, to strike, and meant originally the mark of a blow as the print of the nails (John:20:25|), then a figure formed by a blow like images of the gods (Acts:7:43|), then an example to be imitated (1Peter:5:3; strkjv@1Timothy:4:12; strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:7; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:9|), or to be avoided as here, and finally a type in a doctrinal sense (Romans:5:14; strkjv@Hebrews:9:24|). {To the intent we should not lust after} (\eis to mˆ einai hˆmas epithumˆtas\). Purpose expressed by \eis\ with the articular infinitive \to einai\ and the accusative of general reference with \epithumˆtas\ (lusters) in the predicate.

rwp@1Corinthians:10:17 @{One bread} (\heis artos\). One loaf. {Who are many} (\hoi polloi\). The many. {We all} (\hoi pantes\). We the all, the whole number, \hoi pantes\ being in apposition with the subject {we} (\hˆmeis\ unexpressed). {Partake} (\metechomen\). Have a part with or in, share in. See on ¯9:12; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14; strkjv@5:13| (partaking of milk). {Of the one bread} (\tou henos artou\). Of the one loaf, the article \tou\ referring to one loaf already mentioned. {One body} (\hen s“ma\). Here the mystical spiritual body of Christ as in strkjv@12:12f.|, the spiritual kingdom or church of which Christ is head (Colossians:1:18; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23|).

rwp@1Corinthians:10:20 @{But I say that} (\all' hoti\). The verb \phˆmi\ (I say) must be repeated from verse 19| before \hoti\. {To demons, and not to God} (\daimoniois kai ou the“i\). Referring to LXX text of strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:17|. It is probable that by \ou the“i\ Paul means "to a no-god" as also in strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:21| \ep' ouk ethnei\ (by a no-people). This is Paul's reply to the heathen who claimed that they worshipped the gods represented by the images and not the mere wood or stone or metal idols. The word \daimonia\ is an adjective \daimonios\ from \daim“n\, an inferior deity, and with same idea originally, once in this sense in N.T. (Acts:17:18|). Elsewhere in N.T. it has the notion of evil spirits as here, those spiritual forces of wickedness (Ephesians:6:12|) that are under the control of Satan. The word \daimonia\, so common in the Gospels, occurs in Paul's writings only here and strkjv@1Timothy:4:1|. Demonology is a deep and dark subject here pictured by Paul as the explanation of heathenism which is a departure from God (Romans:1:19-23|) and a substitute for the worship of God. It is a terrible indictment which is justified by the licentious worship associated with paganism then and now.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:6 @{Let her also be shorn} (\kai keirasth“\). Aorist middle imperative of \keir“\, to shear (as sheep). Let her cut her hair close. A single act by the woman. {If it is a shame} (\ei de aischron\). Condition of first class assumed to be true. \Aischron\ is old adjective from \aischos\, bareness, disgrace. Clearly Paul uses such strong language because of the effect on a woman's reputation in Corinth by such conduct that proclaimed her a lewd woman. Social custom varied in the world then as now, but there was no alternative in Corinth. {To be shorn or shaven} (\to keirasthai kai xurasthai\). Articular infinitives subject of copula \estin\ understood, \keirasthai\ first aorist middle, \xurasthai\ present middle. Note change in tense. {Let her be veiled} (\katakaluptesth“\). Present middle imperative of old compound \kata-kalupt“\, here alone in N.T. Let her cover up herself with the veil (down, \kata\, the Greek says, the veil hanging down from the head).

rwp@1Corinthians:11:10 @{Ought} (\opheilei\). Moral obligation therefore (\dia touto\, rests on woman in the matter of dress that does not (\ouk opheilei\ in verse 7|) rest on the man. {To have a sign of authority} (\exousian echein\). He means \sˆmeion exousias\ (symbol of authority) by \exousian\, but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman's head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her. It is, as we see it, more a sign of subjection (\hypotagˆs\, strkjv@1Timothy:2:10|) than of authority (\exousias\). {Because of the angels} (\dia tous aggelous\). This startling phrase has caused all kinds of conjecture which may be dismissed. It is not preachers that Paul has in mind, nor evil angels who could be tempted (Genesis:6:1f.|), but angels present in worship (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:4:9; strkjv@Psalms:138:1|) who would be shocked at the conduct of the women since the angels themselves veil their faces before Jehovah (Isaiah:6:2|).

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 @ 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@1John:2:24 @{As for you} (\humeis\). Emphatic proleptic position before the relative \ho\ and subject of \ˆkousate\, a familiar idiom in strkjv@John:8:45; strkjv@10:29|, etc. Here for emphatic contrast with the antichrists. See strkjv@1:1| for \ap' archˆs\ (from the beginning). {Let abide in you} (\en humin menet“\). Present active imperative of \men“\, to remain. Do not be carried away by the new-fangled Gnostic teaching.

rwp@1John:3:2 @{Now} (\nun\). Without waiting for the \parousia\ or second coming. We have a present dignity and duty, though there is greater glory to come. {It is not yet made manifest} (\oup“ ephaner“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \phanero“\. For the aorist indicative with \oup“\ with a future outlook Brooke notes strkjv@Mark:11:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:8:2; strkjv@Hebrews:12:4; strkjv@Revelation:17:10,12|. {What we shall be} (\ti esometha\). Not \tines\ (who), but \ti\ (what) neuter singular predicate nominative. "This _what_ suggests something unspeakable, contained in the likeness of God" (Bengel). {If he shall be manifested} (\ean phaner“thˆi\). As in strkjv@2:28|, which see. The subject may be Christ as in verse 9|, or the future manifestation just mentioned. Either makes sense, probably "it" here better than "he." {Like him} (\homoioi aut“i\). \Aut“i\ is associative instrumental case after \homoioi\. This is our destiny and glory (Romans:8:29|), to be like Jesus who is like God (2Corinthians:4:6|). {We shall see him even as he is} (\opsometha auton kath“s estin\). Future middle indicative of \hora“\. The transforming power of this vision of Christ (1Corinthians:13:12|) is the consummation of the glorious process begun at the new birth (2Corinthians:3:18|).

rwp@1John:3:4 @{Sin is lawlessness} (\hˆ hamartia estin hˆ anomia\). The article with both subject and predicate makes them coextensive and so interchangeable. Doing sin is the converse of doing righteousness (2:29|). The present active participle (\poi“n\) means the habit of doing sin.

rwp@1John:3:22 @{Whatsoever we ask} (\ho ean ait“men\). Indefinite relative clause with modal \an\ and the present active subjunctive, like \hoti ean katagin“skˆi\ in verse 20|. In form no limitations are placed here save that of complete fellowship with God, which means complete surrender of our will to that of God our Father. See the clear teaching of Jesus on this subject in strkjv@Mark:11:24; strkjv@Luke:11:9; strkjv@John:14:12f.; strkjv@16:23| and his example (Mark:14:36; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|). The answer may not always be in the form that we expect, but it will be better. {We receive of him} (\lambanomen ap' autou\). See strkjv@1:5| for \ap' autou\ (from him). {Because} (\hoti\). Twofold reason why we receive regularly (\lambanomen\) the answer to our prayers (1) "we keep" (\tˆroumen\, for which see strkjv@2:3|) his commandments and (2) "we do" (\poioumen\, we practise regularly) "the things that are pleasing" (\ta aresta\, old verbal adjective from \aresk“\, to please, with dative in strkjv@John:8:29| with same phrase; strkjv@Acts:12:3| and infinitive in strkjv@Acts:6:2|, only other N.T. examples) "in his sight" (\en“pion autou\, common late vernacular preposition in papyri, LXX, and in N.T., except Matthew and Mark, chiefly by Luke and in the Apocalypse), in God's eye, as in strkjv@Hebrews:13:21|.

rwp@1John:4:3 @{Confesseth not} (\mˆ homologei\). Indefinite relative clause with the subjective negative \mˆ\ rather than the usual objective negative \ou\ (verse 6|). It is seen also in strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Titus:1:11|, a survival of the literary construction (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 171). The Vulgate (along with Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine) reads _solvit_ (\luei\) instead of \mˆ homologei\, which means "separates Jesus," apparently an allusion to the Cerinthian heresy (distinction between Jesus and Christ) as the clause before refers to the Docetic heresy. Many MSS. have here also \en sarki elˆluthota\ repeated from preceding clause, but not A B Vg Cop. and not genuine. {The spirit of the antichrist} (\to tou antichristou\). \Pneuma\ (spirit) not expressed, but clearly implied by the neuter singular article to. It is a repetition of the point about antichrists made in strkjv@2:18-25|. {Whereof} (\ho\). Accusative of person (grammatical neuter referring to \pneuma\) with \akou“\ along with accusative of the thing (\hoti erchetai\, as in strkjv@2:18|, futuristic present middle indicative). Here the perfect active indicative (\akˆkoate\), while in strkjv@2:18| the aorist (\ˆkousate\). {And now already} (\kai nun ˆdˆ\). As in strkjv@2:18| also (many have come). "The prophecy had found fulfilment before the Church had looked for it" (Westcott). It is often so. For \ˆdˆ\ see strkjv@John:4:35; strkjv@9:27|.

rwp@1John:4:9 @{Was manifested} (\ephaner“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \phanero“\. The Incarnation as in strkjv@3:5|. Subjective genitive as in strkjv@2:5|. {In us} (\en hˆmin\). In our case, not "among us" nor "to us." Cf. strkjv@Galatians:1:16|. {Hath sent} (\apestalken\). Perfect active indicative of \apostell“\, as again in verse 14|, the permanent mission of the Son, though in verse 10| the aorist \apesteilen\ occurs for the single event. See strkjv@John:3:16| for this great idea. {His only-begotten Son} (\ton huion autou ton monogenˆ\). "His Son the only-begotten" as in strkjv@John:3:16|. John applies \monogenˆs\ to Jesus alone (John:1:14,18|), but Luke (Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|) to others. Jesus alone completely reproduces the nature and character of God (Brooke). {That we might live through him} (\hina zˆs“men di' autou\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist (ingressive, get life) active subjunctive of \za“\. "Through him" is through Christ, who is the life (John:14:6|). Christ also lives in us (Galatians:2:20|). This life begins here and now.

rwp@1John:4:12 @{No one hath beheld God at any time} (\theon oudeis p“pote tetheƒtai\). Perfect middle indicative of \theaomai\ (John:1:14|). Almost the very words of strkjv@John:1:18| \theon oudeis p“pote he“raken\ (instead of \tetheƒtai\). {If we love one another} (\ean agap“men allˆlous\). Third-class condition with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive, "if we keep on loving one another." {God abideth in us} (\ho theos en hˆmin menei\). Else we cannot go on loving one another. {His love} (\hˆ agapˆ autou\). More than merely subjective or objective (2:5; strkjv@4:9|). "Mutual love is a sign of the indwelling of God in men" (Brooke). {Is perfected} (\tetelei“menˆ estin\). Periphrastic (see usual form \tetelei“tai\ in strkjv@2:5; strkjv@4:17|) perfect passive indicative of \teleio“\ (cf. strkjv@1:4|). See verse 18| for "perfect love."

rwp@1John:5:6 @{This} (\houtos\). Jesus the Son of God (verse 5|). {He that came} (\ho elth“n\). Second aorist active articular participle of \erchomai\, referring to the Incarnation as a definite historic event, the preexistent Son of God "sent from heaven to do God's will" (Brooke). {By water and blood} (\di' hudatos kai haimatos\). Accompanied by (\dia\ used with the genitive both as instrument and accompaniment, as in strkjv@Galatians:5:13|) water (as at the baptism) and blood (as on the Cross). These two incidents in the Incarnation are singled out because at the baptism Jesus was formally set apart to his Messianic work by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon him and by the Father's audible witness, and because at the Cross his work reached its culmination ("It is finished," Jesus said). There are other theories that do not accord with the language and the facts. It is true that at the Cross both water and blood came out of the side of Jesus when pierced by the soldier, as John bore witness (John:19:34|), a complete refutation of the Docetic denial of an actual human body for Jesus and of the Cerinthian distinction between Jesus and Christ. There is thus a threefold witness to the fact of the Incarnation, but he repeats the twofold witness before giving the third. The repetition of both preposition (\en\ this time rather than \dia\) and the article (\t“i\ locative case) argues for two separate events with particular emphasis on the blood ("not only" \ouk monon\, "but" \all'\) which the Gnostics made light of or even denied. {It is the Spirit that beareth witness} (\to pneuma estin to marturoun\). Present active articular participle of \marture“\ with article with both subject and predicate, and so interchangeable as in strkjv@3:4|. The Holy Spirit is the third and the chief witness at the baptism of Jesus and all through his ministry. {Because} (\hoti\). Or declarative "that." Either makes sense. In strkjv@John:15:26| Jesus spoke of "the Spirit of truth" (whose characteristic is truth). Here John identifies the Spirit with truth as Jesus said of himself (John:14:6|) without denying personality for the Holy Spirit.

rwp@1John:5:10 @{Believeth on} (\pisteu“n eis\). John draws a distinction between "not believing God" (\mˆ pisteu“n t“i the“i\) in next clause, the testimony of God about his Son, and surrender to and reliance on the Son as here (\eis\ and the accusative). See the same distinction less clearly drawn in strkjv@John:6:30f|. See also \eis tˆn marturian\ after \pepisteuken\ in this same verse and strkjv@John:2:23|. {In him} (\en haut“i\). "In himself," though the evidence is not decisive between \haut“i\ and \aut“i\. {Hath made} (\pepoiˆken\). Perfect active indicative of \poie“\ like \memarturˆken\ and \pepisteuken\, permanent state. {A liar} (\pseustˆn\). As in strkjv@1:10|, which see. {Because he hath not believed} (\hoti ou pepisteuken\). Actual negative reason with negative \ou\, not the subjective reason as in strkjv@John:3:18|, where we have \hoti mˆ pepisteuken\). The subjective negative is regular with \ho mˆ pisteu“n\. Relative clause here repeats close of verse 9|.

rwp@1Peter:1:2 @{According to} (\kata\). Probably to be connected with \eklektois\ rather than with \apostolos\ in spite of a rather loose arrangement of words and the absence of articles in verses 1,2|. {The foreknowledge} (\progn“sin\). Late substantive (Plutarch, Lucian, papyri) from \progin“sk“\ (1:20|), to know beforehand, only twice in N.T. (here and strkjv@Acts:2:23| in Peter's sermon). In this Epistle Peter often uses substantives rather than verbs (cf. strkjv@Romans:8:29|). {Of God the Father} (\theou patros\). Anarthous again and genitive case. See \patˆr\ applied to God also in strkjv@1:3,17| as often by Paul (Romans:1:7|, etc.). Peter here presents the Trinity (God the Father, the Spirit, Jesus Christ). {In sanctification of the Spirit} (\en hagiasm“i pneumatos\). Clearly the Holy Spirit, though anarthrous like \theou patros\. Late word from \hagiaz“\, to render holy (\hagios\), to consecrate, as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:7|. The subjective genitive here, sanctification wrought by the Spirit as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:13| (where the Trinity mentioned as here). {Unto obedience} (\eis hupakoˆn\). Obedience (from \hupakou“\, to hear under, to hearken) to the Lord Jesus as in strkjv@1:22| "to the truth," result of "the sanctification." {And sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ} (\rantismon haimatos Iˆsou Christou\). Late substantive from \rantiz“\, to sprinkle (Hebrews:9:13|), a word used in the LXX of the sacrifices (Numbers:19:9,13,20|, etc.), but not in any non-biblical source so far as known, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:12:24| (of the sprinkling of blood). Reference to the death of Christ on the Cross and to the ratification of the New Covenant by the blood of Christ as given in strkjv@Hebrews:9:19f.; strkjv@12:24| with allusion to strkjv@Exodus:24:3-8|. Paul does not mention this ritual use of the blood of Christ, but Jesus does (Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Mark:14:24|). Hence it is not surprising to find the use of it by Peter and the author of Hebrews. Hort suggests that Peter may also have an ulterior reference to the blood of the martyrs as in strkjv@Revelation:7:14f.; strkjv@12:11|, but only as illustration of what Jesus did for us, not as having any value. The whole Epistle is a commentary upon \progn“sis theou, hagiasmos pneumatos, haima Christou\ (Bigg). Peter is not ashamed of the blood of Christ. {Be multiplied} (\plˆthuntheiˆ\). First aorist passive optative (volitive) of \plˆthun“\, old verb (from \plˆthus\, fulness), in a wish. Songs:in strkjv@2Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|, but nowhere else in N.T. salutations. Grace and peace (\charis kai eirˆnˆ\) occur together in strkjv@2Peter:1:2|, in strkjv@2John:1:2| (with \eleos\), and in all Paul's Epistles (with \eleos\ added in I and II Timothy).

rwp@1Peter:2:4 @{Unto whom} (\pros hon\). The Lord, carrying on the imagery and language of the Psalm. {Coming} (\proserchomenoi\). Present middle participle masculine plural of \proserchomai\ (\proselthate\ in the Psalm) agreeing with the subject of \oikodomeisthe\. {A living stone} (\lithon z“nta\). Accusative case in apposition with \hon\ (whom, the Lord Christ). There is apparent an intentional contradiction between "living" and "stone." Cf. "living hope" in strkjv@1:3| and "living word" in strkjv@1:23|. {Rejected indeed of men} (\hupo anthr“p“n men apodedokimasmenon\). Perfect passive participle of \apodokimaz“\, old verb to repudiate after test (Luke:9:22|), in the accusative case agreeing with \lithon\. {But with God} (\para de the“i\). "By the side of God," as he looks at it, in contrast with the rejection "by men" (\hupo anthr“p“n\). {Elect} (\eklekton\). From strkjv@Isaiah:28:6| as in \entimon\ (precious, for which see strkjv@Luke:7:2|) rather than \dokimon\ (proved) expected after \apodedokimasmenon\ as meaning far more in God's sight, "a pre-eminence of position with" (Hort).

rwp@1Peter:2:13 @{Be subject to} (\hupotagˆte\). Second aorist passive imperative second person plural of \hupotass“\, to subject to, as in strkjv@3:22|. {Every ordinance of man} (\pasˆi anthr“pinˆi ktisei\). Dative case of old and common word \ktisis\ (from \ktiz“\, to create, to found), act of creation (Romans:1:20|), a creature or creation (Romans:1:25|), all creation (Colossians:1:15|), an institution as here (in Pindar so). For \anthr“pinos\ (human) see strkjv@James:3:7|. Peter here approves no special kind of government, but he supports law and order as Paul does (Romans:13:1-8|) unless it steps in between God and man (Acts:4:20|). {For the Lord's sake} (\dia ton kurion\). For Jesus' sake. That is reason enough for the Christian not to be an anarchist (Matthew:22:21|). The heathen were keen to charge the Christians with any crime after Nero set the fashion. "It should not be forgotten that, in spite of the fine language of the philosophers, the really popular religions in Greece and Rome were forms of devil-worship, intimately blended with magic in all its grades" (Bigg). {As supreme} (\h“s huperechonti\). Dative singular of present active participle of \huperech“\, old verb (intransitive), to stand out above (to have it over), as in strkjv@Romans:13:1|. It is not the divine right of kings, but the fact of the king as the outstanding ruler.

rwp@1Peter:2:18 @{Servants} (\hoi oiketai\). Note article with the class as with \andres\ (3:7|), though not with \gunaikes\ (3:1|). \Oiketˆs\, old word from \oikos\ (house), means one in the same house with another (Latin _domesticus_), particularly house servants (slaves) in distinction from the general term \doulos\ (slave). "Ye domestics." See similar directions to Christian servants (slaves) in strkjv@Colossians:3:22-25; strkjv@Ephesians:6:5-7; strkjv@1Timothy:6:1f.; strkjv@Titus:2:9f|. \Oiketˆs\ in N.T. occurs only here, strkjv@Luke:16:13; strkjv@Acts:10:7; strkjv@Romans:14:4|. {Be in subjection} (\hupotassomenoi\). Present middle participle of \hupotass“\, common late compound to subject oneself to one (Luke:2:51|). Either the participle is here used as an imperative (so in strkjv@3:1,7|) as in strkjv@Romans:12:16f.|, or the imperative \este\ has to be supplied (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 945). {To your masters} (\tois despotais\). Dative case of \despotˆs\, old word for absolute owner in contrast with \doulos\. It is used also of God (Luke:2:29; strkjv@Acts:4:24,29|) and of Christ (2Peter:2:1; strkjv@Jude:1:4|). \Kurios\ has a wider meaning and not necessarily suggesting absolute power. {To the good and gentle} (\tois agathois kai epieikesin\). Dative case also with the article with class. For \epieikˆs\ see on ¯James:3:17|. There were slave-owners (masters) like this as there are housekeepers and employers of workmen today. This is no argument for slavery, but only a sidelight on a condition bad enough at its best. {To the froward} (\tois skoliois\). "To the crooked." Old word, also in strkjv@Luke:3:5; strkjv@Acts:2:40; strkjv@Phillipians:2:15|. Unfortunately there were slave-holders as there are employers today, like this group. The test of obedience comes precisely toward this group.

rwp@1Peter:3:1 @{In like manner} (\homoi“s\). Adverb closely connected with \hupotassomenoi\, for which see strkjv@2:18|. {Ye wives} (\gunaikes\). Without article. About wives see also strkjv@Colossians:3:18; strkjv@Ephesians:5:22; strkjv@Titus:2:4|. {To your own husbands} (\tois idiois andrasin\). \Idiois\ occurs also in Ephesians and Titus, but not in Colossians. It strengthens the idea of possession in the article \tois\. Wives are not enjoined to be in subjection to the husbands of other women, as some think it fine to be (affinities!) {Even if any obey not the word} (\kai ei tines apeithousin t“i log“i\). Condition of first class and dative case of \logos\ (1:23,25; strkjv@2:8|), that is, remain heathen. {That they be gained} (\hina kerdˆthˆsontai\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first future passive indicative of \kerdain“\, old verb, to gain (from \kerdos\, gain, interest) as in strkjv@Matthew:18:15|. See the future with \hina\ also in strkjv@Luke:20:10; strkjv@Revelation:3:9|. {Without the word} (\aneu logou\). Probably here "word from their wives" (Hart), the other sense of \logos\ (talk, not technical "word of God"). {By the behaviour of their wives} (\dia tˆs t“n gunaik“n anastrophˆs\). Won by pious living, not by nagging. Many a wife has had this blessed victory of grace.

rwp@1Peter:3:22 @{Having gone} (\poreutheis\). First aorist (deponent) participle (not periphrastic) of \poreuomai\. {Being made subject} (\hupotagent“n\). Second aorist passive participle of \hupotass“\ (see strkjv@2:18; strkjv@3:1|) in the genitive absolute construction. {Unto him} (\aut“i\). Christ. See strkjv@1Corinthians:15:28|.

rwp@1Peter:4:17 @{For the time is come} (\hoti ho kairos\). No predicate, probably \estin\ (is) to be supplied. The phrase that follows comes from the vision of Ezekiel (chapter strkjv@Ezekiel:9|). The construction is unusual with \tou arxasthai\ (genitive articular aorist middle infinitive of \arch“\), not exactly purpose or result, and almost in apposition (epexegetic), but note \tou elthein\ used as subject in strkjv@Luke:17:1|. The persecution on hand (1:7|) was a foretaste of more to come. By "house of God" he can mean the same as the "spiritual house" of strkjv@2:5| or a local church. Biggs even takes it to refer to the family. {And if it begin first at us} (\ei de pr“ton aph'hˆm“n\). Condition of first class again, with the verb \archetai\ understood. "From us" (\aph' hˆm“n\) more exactly. {End} (\telos\). Final fate. {Of them that obey not the gospel of God} (\t“n apeithount“n t“i tou theou euaggeli“i\). "Of those disobeying the gospel of God." See the same idea in strkjv@Romans:2:8|. See strkjv@Mark:1:14| for believing in the gospel.

rwp@1Peter:5:5 @{Be subject} (\hopotagˆte\). Second aorist passive imperative of \hupotass“\. {Unto the elder} (\presbuterois\). Dative case. Here the antithesis between younger and elder shows that the word refers to age, not to office as in strkjv@5:1|. See a like change in meaning in strkjv@1Timothy:5:1,17|. {All} (\pantes\). All ages, sexes, classes. {Gird yourselves with humility} (\tˆn tapeinophrosunˆn egkomb“sasthe\). First aorist middle imperative of \egkomboomai\, late and rare verb (in Apollodorus, fourth cent. B.C.), here only in N.T., from \en\ and \kombos\ (knot, like the knot of a girdle). \Egkomb“ma\ was the white scarf or apron of slaves. It is quite probable that Peter here is thinking of what Jesus did (John:13:4ff.|) when he girded himself with a towel and taught the disciples, Peter in particular (John:13:9ff.|), the lesson of humility (John:13:15|). Peter had at last learned the lesson (John:21:15-19|). {The proud} (\huperˆphanois\). Dative plural of \huperˆphanos\ (James:4:6; strkjv@Romans:1:30|) after \antitassetai\ (present middle indicative of \antitass“\ as in strkjv@James:4:6| (quoted there as here from strkjv@Proverbs:3:34|).

rwp@Info_1Thessalonians @ FIRST THESSALONIANS FROM CORINTH A.D. 50 TO 51 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION We cannot say that this is Paul's first letter to a church, for in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:2| he speaks of some as palming off letters as his and in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:17| he says that he appends his own signature to every letter after dictating it to an amanuensis (Romans:16:22|). We know of one lost letter (1Corinthians:5:11|) and perhaps another (2Corinthians:2:3|). But this is the earliest one that has come down to us and it may even be the earliest New Testament book, unless the Epistle of James antedates it or even Mark's Gospel. We know, as already shown, that Paul was in Corinth and that Timothy and Silas had just arrived from Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:3:6; strkjv@Acts:18:5|). They had brought supplies from the Macedonian churches to supply Paul's need (2Corinthians:11:9|), as the church in Philippi did once and again while Paul was in Thessalonica (Phillipians:4:15f.|). Before Timothy and Silas came to Corinth Paul had to work steadily at his trade as tent-maker with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts:18:3|) and could only preach in the synagogue on sabbaths, but the rich stores from Macedonia released his hands and "Paul devoted himself to the word" (\suneicheto t“i log“i Paulos\). He gave himself wholly to preaching now. But Timothy and Silas brought news of serious trouble in the church in Thessalonica. Some of the disciples there had misunderstood Paul's preaching about the second coming of Christ and had quit work and were making a decided disturbance on the subject. Undoubtedly Paul had touched upon eschatological matters while in Thessalonica. The Jewish leaders at Thessalonica charged it against Paul and Silas to the politarchs that they had preached another king, Jesus, in place of Caesar. Paul had preached Jesus as King of the spiritual kingdom which the Jews misrepresented to the politarchs as treason against Caesar as the Sanhedrin had done to Pilate about Jesus. Clearly Paul had said also that Jesus was going to come again according to his own promise before his ascension. Some asserted that Paul said Jesus was going to come right away and drew their own inferences for idleness and fanaticism as some do today. Strange as it may seem, there are scholars today who say that Paul did believe and say that Jesus was going to come back right away. They say this in spite of strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1f.| where Paul denies having ever said it. Undoubtedly Paul hoped for the early return of Jesus as most of the early Christians did, but that is a very different thing from setting a time for his coming. It is open to us all to hope for the speedy return of Christ, but times and seasons are with God and not with us. It is not open to us to excuse our negligence and idleness as Christians because of such a hope. That hope should serve as a spur to increased activity for Christ in order to hasten his coming. Songs:Paul writes this group of Epistles to correct gross misapprehension and misrepresentation of his preaching about last things (eschatology). It is a rare preacher who has never been misunderstood or misrepresented.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:5 @{How that} (\hoti\). It is not certain whether \hoti\ here means "because" (\quia\) as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:2:14; strkjv@Romans:8:27| or declarative \hoti\ "how that," knowing the circumstances of your election (Lightfoot) or explanatory, as in strkjv@Acts:16:3; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:3f.; strkjv@Romans:13:11|. {Our gospel} (\to euaggelion hˆm“n\). The gospel (see on ¯Matthew:4:23; strkjv@Mark:1:1,15| for \euaggelion\) which we preach, Paul's phrase also in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:3; strkjv@Romans:2:16; strkjv@16:25; strkjv@2Timothy:2:8|. Paul had a definite, clear-cut message of grace that he preached everywhere including Thessalonica. This message is to be interpreted in the light of Paul's own sermons in Acts and Epistles, not by reading backward into them the later perversions of Gnostics and sacramentarians. This very word was later applied to the books about Jesus, but Paul is not so using the term here or anywhere else. In its origin Paul's gospel is of God (1Thessalonians:2:2,8,9|), in its substance it is Christ's (3:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:8|), and Paul is only the bearer of it (1Thessalonians:2:4,9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14|) as Milligan points out. Paul and his associates have been entrusted with this gospel (1Thessalonians:2:4|) and preach it (Galatians:2:2|). Elsewhere Paul calls it God's gospel (2Corinthians:11:7; strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@15:16|) or Christs (1Corinthians:9:12; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@10:14; strkjv@Galatians:1:7; strkjv@Romans:15:19; strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|). In both instances it is the subjective genitive. {Came unto you} (\egenˆthˆ eis humƒs\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\ in practically same sense as \egeneto\ (second aorist middle indicative as in the late Greek generally). Songs:also \eis humƒs\ like the _Koin‚_ is little more than the dative \humin\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 594). {Not only--but also} (\ouk--monon, alla kai\). Sharp contrast, negatively and positively. The contrast between \logos\ (word) and \dunamis\ (power) is seen also in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:4; strkjv@4:20|. Paul does not refer to miracles by \dunamis\. {In the Holy Spirit and much assurance} (\en pneumati hagi“i kai plˆrophoriƒi pollˆi\). Preposition \en\ repeated with \log“i, dunamei\, but only once here thus uniting closely {Holy Spirit} and {much assurance}. No article with either word. The word \plˆrophoriƒi\ is not found in ancient Greek or the LXX. It appears once in Clement of Rome and one broken papyrus example. For the verb \plˆrophore“\ see on ¯Luke:1:1|. The substantive in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:2; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|. It means the full confidence which comes from the Holy Spirit. {Even as ye know} (\kath“s oidate\). Paul appeals to the Thessalonians themselves as witnesses to the character of his preaching and life among them. {What manner of men we showed ourselves toward you} (\hoioi egenˆthˆmen humin\). Literally, {What sort of men we became to you}. Qualitative relative \hoioi\ and dative \humin\ and first aorist passive indicative \egenˆthˆmen\, (not \ˆmetha\, we were). An epexegetical comment with {for your sake} (\di' humƒs\) added. It was all in their interest and for their advantage, however it may have seemed otherwise at the time.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:8 @{From you hath sounded forth} (\aph' hum“n exˆchˆtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \exˆche“\, late compound verb (\ex, ˆchos, ˆch“, ˆchˆ\, our echo) to sound out of a trumpet or of thunder, to reverberate like our echo. Nowhere else in the N.T. Songs:"from you" as a sounding board or radio transmitting station (to use a modern figure). It marks forcibly "both the clear and the persuasive nature of the \logos tou Kuriou\" (Ellicott). This phrase, the word of the Lord, may be subjective with the Lord as its author or objective with the Lord as the object. It is both. It is a graphic picture with a pardonable touch of hyperbole (Moffatt) for Thessalonica was a great commercial and political centre for disseminating the news of salvation (on the Egnation Way). {But in every place} (\all' en panti top“i\). In contrast to Macedonia and Achaia. The sentence would naturally stop here, but Paul is dictating rapidly and earnestly and goes on. {Your faith to God-ward} (\hˆ pistis hum“n hˆ pros ton theon\). Literally, {the faith of you that toward the God}. The repeated article makes clear that their faith is now directed toward the true God and not toward the idols from which they had turned (verse 10|). {Is gone forth} (\exelˆluthen\). Second perfect active indicative of old verb \exerchomai\, to go out, state of completion like \exˆchˆtai\ above. {Songs:that we need not to speak anything} (\h“ste mˆ chreian echein hˆmƒs lalein ti\). \H“ste\ with the infinitive for actual result as in verse 7|. No vital distinction between \lalein\ (originally to chatter as of birds) and \legein\, both being used in the _Koin‚_ for speaking and preaching (in the N.T.).

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:10 @{To wait for his Son from heaven} (\anamenein ton huion autou ek t“n ouran“n\). Present infinitive, like \douleuein\, and so linear, to keep on waiting for. The hope of the second coming of Christ was real and powerful with Paul as it should be with us. It was subject to abuse then as now as Paul will have to show in this very letter. He alludes to this hope at the close of each chapter in this Epistle. {Whom he raised from the dead} (\hon ˆgeiren ek [t“n] nekr“n\). Paul gloried in the fact of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead of which fact he was himself a personal witness. This fact is the foundation stone for all his theology and it comes out in this first chapter. {Jesus which delivereth us from the wrath to come} (\Iˆsoun ton ruomenon hˆmƒs ek tˆs orgˆs tˆs erchomenˆs\). It is the historic, crucified, risen, and ascended Jesus Christ, God's Son, who delivers from the coming wrath. He is our Saviour (Matthew:1:21|) true to his name Jesus. He is our Rescuer (Romans:11:26|, \ho ruomenos\, from strkjv@Isaiah:59:20|). It is eschatological language, this coming wrath of God for sin (1Thessalonians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:3:5; strkjv@5:9; strkjv@9:22; strkjv@13:5|). It was Paul's allusion to the day of judgment with Jesus as Judge whom God had raised from the dead that made the Athenians mock and leave him (Acts:17:31f.|). But Paul did not change his belief or his preaching because of the conduct of the Athenians. He is certain that God's wrath in due time will punish sin. Surely this is a needed lesson for our day. It was coming then and it is coming now.

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:11 @{Our God and Father himself} (\autos ho theos kai patˆr hˆm“n\). Note one article with both substantives for one person. {And our Lord Jesus} (\kai ho Kurios hˆm“n Iˆsous\). Separate article here with \Iˆsous\. In strkjv@Titus:2:13; strkjv@2Peter:1:1| only one article (not two) treating "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" as one just like "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" in strkjv@2Peter:1:11; strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:18|. {Direct our way} (\kateuthunai tˆn hodon hˆm“n\). First aorist optative (acute accent on penult, not circumflex first aorist active infinitive) of \kateuthun“\, old verb to make straight path. Singular verb also, though both God and Christ mentioned as subject (unity in the Godhead). Apart from \mˆ genoito\ ({may it not come to pass}) the optative in a wish of the third person is found in N.T. only in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:11,12; strkjv@5:23; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:17; strkjv@3:5,16; strkjv@Romans:15:5,13|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:15 @{By the word of the Lord} (\en log“i Kuriou\). We do not know to what word of the Lord Jesus Paul refers, probably Paul meaning only the point in the teaching of Christ rather than a quotation. He may be claiming a direct revelation on this important matter as about the Lord's Supper in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23|. Jesus may have spoken on this subject though it has not been preserved to us (cf. strkjv@Mark:9:1|). {Ye that are alive} (\hˆmeis hoi z“ntes\). Paul here includes himself, but this by no means shows that Paul knew that he would be alive at the Parousia of Christ. He was alive, not dead, when he wrote. {Shall in no wise precede} (\ou mˆ phthas“men\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \phthan“\, to come before, to anticipate. This strong negative with \ou mˆ\ (double negative) and the subjunctive is the regular idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 929). Hence there was no ground for uneasiness about the dead in Christ.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:11 @{Build each other up} (\oikodomeite heis ton hena\). Literally, build ye, one the one (\heis\ nominative in partitive apposition with unexpressed \humeis\ subject of \oikodomeite\. Then \ton hena\ the accusative in partitive apposition with the unexpressed \heautous\ or \allˆlous\. See the same idiom in strkjv@1Corinthians:4:6| {one in behalf of the one}, \heis huper tou henos\. Build is a favourite Pauline metaphor.

rwp@1Timothy:1:4 @{To give heed} (\prosechein\). With \noun\ understood. Old and common idiom in N.T. especially in Luke and Acts (Acts:8:10ff.|). Not in Paul's earlier Epistles. strkjv@1Timothy:3:8; strkjv@4:1,13; strkjv@Titus:1:14|. {To fables} (\muthois\). Dative case of old word for speech, narrative, story, fiction, falsehood. In N.T. only strkjv@2Peter:1:16; strkjv@1Timothy:1:4; strkjv@4:7; strkjv@Titus:1:14; strkjv@2Timothy:4:4|. {Genealogies} (\genealogiais\). Dative of old word, in LXX, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:9|. {Endless} (\aperantois\). Old verbal compound (from \a\ privative and \perain“\, to go through), in LXX, only here in N.T. Excellent examples there for old words used only in the Pastorals because of the subject matter, describing the Gnostic emphasis on aeons. {Questionings} (\ekzˆtˆseis\). "Seekings out." Late and rare compound from \ekzˆte“\ (itself _Koin‚_ word, strkjv@Romans:3:11| from LXX and in papyri). Here only in N.T. Simplex \zˆtˆsis\ in strkjv@Acts:15:2; strkjv@1Timothy:6:4; strkjv@Titus:3:9; strkjv@2Timothy:2:23|. {A dispensation} (\oikonomian\). Pauline word (1Corinthians:9:17; strkjv@Colossians:1:25; strkjv@Ephesians:1:9; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@1Timothy:1:4|), strkjv@Luke:16:2-4| only other N.T. examples. {In faith} (\en pistei\). Pauline use of \pistis\.

rwp@1Timothy:2:11 @{In quietness} (\en hˆsuchiƒi\). Old word from \hˆsuchios\. In N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:22:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:12|. {In all subjection} (\en pasˆi hupotagˆi\). Late word (Dion. Hal., papyri), in N.T. only here, strkjv@2Corinthians:9:13; strkjv@Galatians:2:5|. See strkjv@1Corinthians:14:33-35|.

rwp@1Timothy:3:4 @{Ruling} (\proistamenon\). Present middle participle of \proistˆmi\, old word to place before and (intransitive as here) to stand before. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12; strkjv@Romans:12:8|. {In subjection} (\en hupotagˆi\). See verse 11|.

rwp@1Timothy:3:6 @{Not a novice} (\mˆ neophuton\). Our "neophyte." Vernacular word from Aristophanes on, in LXX, and in papyri in the original sense of "newly-planted" (\neos, phu“\). Only here in N.T. {Lest} (\hina mˆ\). "That not." {Being puffed up} (\tuph“theis\). First aorist passive participle of \tupho“\, old word (from \tuphos\, smoke, pride), to raise a smoke or mist (a smoke-screen of pride). In N.T. only here; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@2Timothy:3:4|. {He fall into} (\empesˆi eis\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \hina mˆ\, negative purpose, of \empipt“\, old verb, to fall into. Note both \en\ and \eis\ as in strkjv@Matthew:12:11; strkjv@Luke:10:36|. {The condemnation of the devil} (\krima tou diabolou\). See strkjv@Romans:3:8| for \krima\. Best to take \tou diabolou\ as objective genitive, though subjective in verse 7|, "the condemnation passed on or received by the devil" (not just "the slanderer," any slanderer).

rwp@1Timothy:3:7 @{From them that are without} (\apo t“n ex“then\). "From the outside (of the church) ones." Paul's care for the witness of outsiders is seen in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32; strkjv@Colossians:4:5|. There are, of course, two sides to this matter. {Reproach} (\oneidismon\). Late word from \oneidiz“\. See strkjv@Romans:15:3|. {The snare of the devil} (\pagida tou diabolou\). Here subjective genitive, snare set by the devil. \Pagis\, old word from \pˆgnumi\, to make fast. Songs:a snare for birds (Luke:21:35|), any sudden trap (Romans:11:9|), of sin (1Timothy:6:9|), of the devil (1Timothy:3:7; strkjv@2Timothy:2:26|). Ancients used it of the snares of love. The devil sets special snares for preachers (conceit verse 6|, money strkjv@6:9|, women, ambition).

rwp@1Timothy:6:3 @{Teacheth a different doctrine} (\heterodidaskalei\). See strkjv@1:3| for this verb, present active indicative here in condition of first class. {Consenteth not} (\mˆ proserchetai\). Also condition of first class with \mˆ\ instead of \ou\. \Proserchomai\ (old verb, to come to, to approach, with dative) is common enough in N.T. (Hebrews:4:16; strkjv@7:25|, etc.), but in the metaphorical sense of coming to one's ideas, assenting to, here only in N.T., but is so used in Philo and Irenaeus (Ellicott). {Sound words} (\hugiainousin logois\). See strkjv@1:10| for \hugiain“\. {The words of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tois tou kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). Either subjective genitive (the words from the Lord Jesus, a collection of his sayings in Lock's opinion like strkjv@5:18; strkjv@Acts:20:35|, at least in the Spirit of Jesus as strkjv@Acts:16:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23|) or objective genitive about Jesus like strkjv@2Timothy:1:8; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:18|. {According to godliness} (\kata eusebeian\). Promoting (designed for) godliness as in strkjv@Titus:1:1|.

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ The occasion of the Epistle is made plain by numerous allusions personal and otherwise. Paul had arrived in Ephesus from Antioch shortly after the departure of Apollos for Corinth with letters of commendation from Priscilla and Aquila (Acts:18:28-19:1|). It is not clear how long Apollos remained in Corinth, but he is back in Ephesus when Paul writes the letter and he has declined Paul's request to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). Some of the household of Chloe had heard or come from Corinth with full details of the factions in the church over Apollos and Paul, clearly the reason why Apollos left (1Corinthians:1:10-12|). Even Cephas nominally was drawn into it, though there is no evidence that Peter himself had come to Corinth. Paul had sent Timothy over to Corinth to put an end to the factions (1Corinthians:4:17|), though he was uneasy over the outcome (1Corinthians:16:10f.|). This disturbance was enough of itself to call forth a letter from Paul. But it was by no means the whole story. Paul had already written a letter, now lost to us, concerning a peculiarly disgusting case of incest in the membership (1Corinthians:5:9|). They were having lawsuits with one another before heathen judges. Members of the church had written Paul a letter about marriage whether any or all should marry (1Corinthians:7:1|). They were troubled also whether it was right to eat meat that had been offered to idols in the heathen temples (1Corinthians:8:1|). Spiritual gifts of an unusual nature were manifested in Corinth and these were the occasion of a deal of trouble (1Corinthians:12:1|). The doctrine of the resurrection gave much trouble in Corinth (1Corinthians:15:12|). Paul was interested in the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Corinthians:16:1|) and in their share in it. The church in Corinth had sent a committee (Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus) to Paul in Ephesus. He hopes to come himself after passing through Macedonia (1Corinthians:16:5f.|). It is possible that he had made a short visit before this letter (2Corinthians:13:1|), though not certain as he may have intended to go one time without going as he certainly once changed his plans on the subject (2Corinthians:1:15-22|). Whether Titus took the letter on his visit or it was sent on after the return of Timothy is not perfectly clear. Probably Timothy returned to Ephesus from Corinth shortly after the epistle was sent on, possibly by the committee who returned to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:17|), for Timothy and Erastus were sent on from Ephesus to Macedonia before the outbreak at the hands of Demetrius (Acts:19:22|). Apparently Timothy had not fully succeeded in reconciling the factions in Corinth for Paul dispatched Titus who was to meet him at Troas as he went on to Macedonia. Paul's hurried departure from Ephesus (Acts:20:1|) took him to Troas before Titus arrived and Paul's impatience there brought him to Macedonia where he did meet Titus on his return from Corinth (2Corinthians:2:12f.|).

rwp@2Corinthians:1:5 @{The sufferings of Christ} (\ta pathˆmata tou Christou\). Subjective genitive, Christ's own sufferings. {Abound unto us} (\perisseuei eis hˆmas\). Overflow unto us so that we suffer like sufferings and become fellow sufferers with Christ (4:10f.; strkjv@Romans:8:17; strkjv@Phillipians:3:10; strkjv@Colossians:1:24|). {Through Christ} (\dia tou Christou\). The overflow (\perisseuei\) of comfort comes also through Christ. Is Paul thinking of how some of the Jewish Christians in Corinth have become reconciled with him through Christ? Partnership with Christ in suffering brings partnership in glory also (Romans:8:17; strkjv@1Peter:4:13|).

rwp@2Corinthians:2:14 @{But thanks be unto God} (\t“i de the“i charis\). Sudden outburst of gratitude in contrast to the previous dejection in Troas. Surely a new paragraph should begin here. In point of fact Paul makes a long digression from here to strkjv@6:10| on the subject of the Glory of the Christian Ministry as Bachmann points out in his _Kommentar_ (p. 124), only he runs it from strkjv@2:12-7:1| (_Aus der Tiefe in die Hohe_, Out of the Depths to the Heights). We can be grateful for this emotional outburst, Paul's rebound of joy on meeting Titus in Macedonia, for it has given the world the finest exposition of all sides of the Christian ministry in existence, one that reveals the wealth of Paul's nature and his mature grasp of the great things in service for Christ. See my _The Glory of the Ministry (An Exposition of II Cor. strkjv@2:12-6:10_). {Always} (\pantote\). The sense of present triumph has blotted out the gloom at Troas. {Leadeth in triumph} (\thriambeuonti\). Late common _Koin‚_ word from \thriambos\ (Latin _triumphus_, a hymn sung in festal processions to Bacchus). Verbs in \-eu“\ (like \mathˆteu“\, to make disciples) may be causative, but no example of \thriambeu“\ has been found with this meaning. It is always to lead in triumph, in papyri sometimes to make a show of. Picture here is of Paul as captive in God's triumphal procession. {The savour} (\tˆn osmˆn\). In a Roman triumph garlands of flowers scattered sweet odour and incense bearers dispensed perfumes. The knowledge of God is here the aroma which Paul had scattered like an incense bearer.

rwp@2Corinthians:3:7 @{Of death} (\tou thanatou\). Subjective genitive, marked by death in its outcome (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15:56; strkjv@Galatians:3:10|). The letter kills. {Engraven on stones} (\entetup“menˆ lithois\). Perfect passive participle of \entupo“\, late verb, to imprint a figure (\tupos\). Used by Aristias (67) of the "inlaid" work on the table sent by Ptolemy Philadelphus to Jerusalem. \Lithois\ in locative case. {Came with glory} (\egenˆthˆ en doxˆi\). In glory. As it did, condition of first class, assumed as true. See strkjv@Exodus:34:29,35|. {Look steadfastly} (\atenisai\). Late verb from \atenˆs\ (stretched, intent, \tein“\ and \a\ intensive) as in strkjv@Luke:4:20; strkjv@Acts:3:4|. {Was passing away} (\katargoumenˆn\). Late verb, to render of no effect, and present passive participle here as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:6|.

rwp@2Corinthians:5:14 @{The love of Christ} (\hˆ agapˆ tou Christou\). Subjective genitive, Christ's love for Paul as shown by verse 15|. {Constraineth us} (\sunechei hˆmas\). Old and common verb, to hold together, to press the ears together (Acts:7:57|), to press on every side (Luke:8:45|), to hold fast (Luke:22:63|), to hold oneself to (Acts:18:5|), to be pressed (passive, strkjv@Luke:12:50; strkjv@Phillipians:1:23|). Songs:here Paul's conception of Christ's love for him holds him together to his task whatever men think or say. {Judging this} (\krinantas touto\). Having reached this conclusion, ever since his conversion (Galatians:1:17f.|). {One died for all} (\heis huper pant“n apethanen\). This is the central tenet in Paul's theology and Christology. \Huper\ (over) here is used in the sense of substitution as in strkjv@John:11:50; strkjv@Galatians:3:13|, death in behalf so that the rest will not have to die. This use of \huper\ is common in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 631). In fact, \huper\ in this sense is more usual in Greek than \anti, pro\ or any other preposition. {Therefore all died} (\ara hoi pantes apethanon\). Logical conclusion (\ara\, corresponding), the one died for the all and so the all died when he did, all the spiritual death possible for those for whom Christ died. This is Paul's gospel, clear-cut, our hope today.

rwp@2Corinthians:7:11 @{This selfsame thing} (\auto touto\). "This very thing," "the being made sorry according to God" (\to kata theon lupˆthˆnai\, articular first aorist passive infinitive with which \auto touto\ agrees and the proleptic subject of the verb \kateirgasato\. {Earnest care} (\spoudˆn\). Diligence, from \speud“\, to hasten. Cf. strkjv@Romans:12:11|. {Yea} (\alla\). Not adversative use of \alla\, but copulative as is common (half dozen examples here). {Clearing of yourselves} (\apologia\). In the old notion of \apologia\ (self-vindication, self-defence) as in strkjv@1Peter:3:15|. {Indignation} (\aganaktˆsin\). Old word, only here in N.T. From \aganakteo\ (Mark:10:14|, etc.). {Avenging} (\ekdikˆsin\). Late word from \ekdike“\, to avenge, to do justice (Luke:18:5; strkjv@21:22|), vindication from wrong as in strkjv@Luke:18:7|, to secure punishment (1Peter:2:14|). {Pure} (\hagnous\). Kin to \hagios\ (\haz“\, to reverence), immaculate.

rwp@2Corinthians:9:13 @{Seeing that they glorify God} (\doxazontes ton theon\). Anacoluthon again. The nominative participle used independently like \ploutizomenoi\ in verse 11|. {Obedience} (\hupotagˆi\). Late and rare word from \hupotass“\, to subject, middle to obey. Only in Paul in N.T. {Of your confession} (\tˆs homologias hum“n\). Old word from \homologe“\ (\homologos, homou, leg“\), to say together. It is either to profess (Latin _profiteor_, to declare openly) or to confess (Latin _confiteor_, to declare fully, to say the same thing as another). Both confess and profess are used to translate the verb and each idea is present in the substantive. Only the context can decide. Actions speak louder than words. The brethren in Jerusalem will know by this collection that Gentiles make as good Christians as Jews. {For the liberality of your contribution} (\haplotˆti tˆs koin“nias\). This is the point that matters just now. Paul drives it home. On this use of \koin“nia\ see on ¯8:4|.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:2 @{I beseech} (\deomai\). Songs:here, but \parakal“\ in verse 1|. Perhaps, "I beg" suits the new turn here. {That I may not when present show courage} (\to mˆ par“n tharrˆsai\). Articular infinitive (aorist active of \tharre“\) in the accusative case with negative \mˆ\ the direct object of \deomai\. Literally, "I beg the not when present (\par“n\ nominative present participle agreeing with subject of \tharr“\ in spite of being in the accusative infinitive clause, \to mˆ tharrˆsai\) showing courage." The example of humility in Christ makes Paul drop "from magisterial exhortation to earnest entreaty" (Plummer). {As if we walked according to the flesh} (\h“s kata sarka peripatountas\). Another sneering charge as made plain by the use of \h“s\ with the participle for the alleged reason.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:6 @{Rude in speech} (\idi“tˆs t“i log“i\). Locative case with \idi“tˆs\ for which word see on ¯Acts:4:13; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:16,23,24|. The Greeks regarded a man as \idi“tˆs\ who just attended to his own affairs (\ta idia\) and took no part in public life. Paul admits that he is not a professional orator (cf. strkjv@10:10|), but denies that he is unskilled in knowledge (\all' ou tˆi gn“sei\). {Among all men} (\en pƒsin\). He has made his mastery of the things of Christ plain among all men. He knew his subject.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:26 @{In journeyings} (\hodoiporiais\). Locative case of old word, only here in N.T. and strkjv@John:4:6|, from \hodoiporos\, wayfarer. {In perils} (\kindunois\). Locative case of \kindunos\, old word for danger or peril. In N.T. only this verse and strkjv@Romans:8:35|. The repetition here is very effective without the preposition \en\ (in) and without conjunctions (asyndeton). They are in contrasted pairs. The rivers of Asia Minor are still subject to sudden swellings from floods in the mountains. Cicero and Pompey won fame fighting the Cilician pirates and robbers (note \lˆist“n\, not \klept“n\, thieves, brigands or bandits on which see ¯Matthew:26:55|). The Jewish perils (\ek genous\, from my race) can be illustrated in strkjv@Acts:9:23,29; strkjv@13:50; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@17:5,13; strkjv@18:12; strkjv@23:12; strkjv@24:27|, and they were all perils in the city also. Perils from the Gentiles (\ex ethn“n\) we know in Philippi (Acts:16:20|) and in Ephesus (Acts:19:23f.|). Travel in the mountains and in the wilderness was perilous in spite of the great Roman highways. {Among false brethren} (\en pseudadelphois\). Chapters strkjv@2Corinthians:10; 11| throw a lurid light on this aspect of the subject.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorˆge“\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophˆteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai idi“tai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE READERS The author says that this is his second Epistle to them (2Peter:3:1|), and that means that he is writing to the saints in the five Roman provinces in Asia Minor to whom the first Epistle was sent (1Peter:1:1|). Spitta and Zahn deny this on the ground that the two Epistles do not discuss the same subjects, surely a flimsy objection. Zahn even holds that II Peter precedes I Peter and that the Epistle referred to in strkjv@2Peter:3:1| has been lost. He holds that II Peter was addressed to the church in Corinth. He considers the readers to be Jews while I Peter was addressed to Gentiles. But "there is nothing in II Peter to differentiate its first readers from those of I Peter" (Bigg).

rwp@2Peter:2:20 @{After they have escaped} (\apophugontes\). Second aorist active participle here (see verse 18|). {The defilements} (\ta miasmata\). Old word miasma, from \miain“\, here only in N.T. Our "miasma." The body is sacred to God. Cf. \miasmou\ in verse 10|. {They are again entangled} (\palin emplakentes\). Second aorist passive participle of \emplek“\, old verb, to inweave (noosed, fettered), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Timothy:2:4|. {Overcome} (\hˆtt“ntai\). Present passive indicative of \hˆttao“\, for which see verse 19|, "are repeatedly worsted." Predicate in the condition of first class with \ei\. It is not clear whether the subject here is "the deluded victims" (Bigg) or the false teachers themselves (Mayor). See strkjv@Hebrews:10:26| for a parallel. {Therein} (\toutois\). Songs:locative case (in these "defilements"), but it can be instrumental case ("by these," Strachan). {With them} (\autois\). Dative of disadvantage, "for them." {Than the first} (\t“n pr“t“n\). Ablative case after the comparative \cheirona\. See this moral drawn by Jesus (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|).

rwp@2Peter:3:4 @{Where is the promise of his coming?} (\pou estin hˆ epaggelia tˆs parousias autou;\). This is the only sample of the questions raised by these mockers. Peter had mentioned this subject of the \parousia\ in strkjv@1:16|. Now he faces it squarely. Peter, like Paul (1Thessalonians:5:1f.; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1f.|), preached about the second coming (1:16; strkjv@Acts:3:20f.|), as Jesus himself did repeatedly (Matthew:24:34|) and as the angels promised at the Ascension (Acts:1:11|). Both Jesus and Paul (2Thessalonians:2:1f.|) were misunderstood on the subject of the time and the parables of Jesus urged readiness and forbade setting dates for his coming, though his language in strkjv@Matthew:24:34| probably led some to believe that he would certainly come while they were alive. {From the day that} (\aph' hˆs\). "From which day." See strkjv@Luke:7:45|. {Fell asleep} (\ekoimˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \koima“\, old verb, to put sleep, classic euphemism for death (John:11:11|) like our cemetery (sleeping-place). {Continue} (\diamenei\). Present active indicative of \diamen“\, to remain through (Luke:1:22|). _In statu quo_. {As they were} (\hout“s\). "Thus." {From the beginning of creation} (\ap' archˆs ktise“s\). Precisely so in strkjv@Mark:10:6|, which see.

rwp@2Peter:3:5 @{For this they wilfully forget} (\lanthanei gar autous touto thelontas\). Literally, "for this escapes them being willing." See this use of \lanthan“\ (old verb, to escape notice of, to be hidden from) in strkjv@Acts:26:26|. The present active participle \thelontas\ (from \thel“\, to wish) has almost an adverbial sense here. {Compacted} (\sunest“sa\). See Paul's \sunestˆken\ (Colossians:1:17|) "consist." Second perfect active (intransitive) participle of \sunistˆmi\, feminine singular agreeing with \gˆ\ (nearest to it) rather than with \ouranoi\ (subject of \ˆsan\ imperfect plural). There is no need to make Peter mean the Jewish mystical "seven heavens" because of the plural which was used interchangeably with the singular (Matthew:5:9f.|). {Out of water and amidst water} (\ex hudatos kai di' hudatos\). Out of the primeval watery chaos (Genesis:1:2|), but it is not plain what is meant by \di' hudatos\, which naturally means "by means of water," though \dia\ with the genitive is used for a condition or state (Hebrews:12:1|). The reference may be to strkjv@Genesis:1:9|, the gathering together of the waters. {By the word of God} (\t“i tou theou log“i\). Instrumental case \log“i\, "by the fiat of God" (Genesis:1:3; strkjv@Hebrews:11:3| \rˆmati theou\).

rwp@2Peter:3:16 @{As also in all his epistles} (\h“s kai en pasais epistolais\). We do not know to how many Peter here refers. There is no difficulty in supposing that Peter "received every one of St. Paul's Epistles within a month or two of its publication" (Bigg). And yet Peter does not here assert the formation of a canon of Paul's Epistles. {Speaking in them of these things} (\lal“n en autais peri tout“n\). Present active participle of \lale“\. That is to say, Paul also wrote about the second coming of Christ, as is obviously true. {Hard to be understood} (\dusnoˆta\). Late verbal from \dus\ and \noe“\ (in Aristotle, Lucian, Diog. Laert.), here only in N.T. We know that the Thessalonians persisted in misrepresenting Paul on this very subject of the second coming as Hymenaeus and Philetus did about the resurrection (2Timothy:2:17|) and Spitta holds that Paul's teaching about grace was twisted to mean moral laxity like strkjv@Galatians:3:10; strkjv@Romans:3:20,28; strkjv@5:20| (with which cf. strkjv@6:1| as a case in point), etc. Peter does not say that he himself did not understand Paul on the subject of faith and freedom. {Unlearned} (\amatheis\). Old word (alpha privative and \manthan“\ to learn), ignorant, here only in N.T. {Unsteadfast} (\astˆriktoi\). See on ¯2:14|. {Wrest} (\streblousin\). Present active indicative of \streblo“\, old verb (from \streblos\ twisted, \streph“\, to turn), here only in N.T. {The other scriptures} (\tas loipas graphas\). There is no doubt that the apostles claimed to speak by the help of the Holy Spirit (1Thessalonians:5:27; strkjv@Colossians:4:16|) just as the prophets of old did (2Peter:1:20f.|). Note \loipas\ (rest) here rather than \allas\ (other). Peter thus puts Paul's Epistles on the same plane with the O.T., which was also misused (Matthew:5:21-44; strkjv@15:3-6; strkjv@19:3-10|).

rwp@2Peter:3:17 @{Knowing these things beforehand} (\progin“skontes\). Present active participle of \progin“sk“\ as in strkjv@1Peter:1:20|. Cf. \pr“ton gin“sk“\ (1:20; strkjv@3:1|). Hence they are without excuse for misunderstanding Peter or Paul on this subject. {Beware} (\phulassesthe\). Present middle imperative of \phulass“\, common verb, to guard. {Lest} (\hina mˆ\). Negative purpose, "that not." {Being carried away} (\sunapachthentes\). First aorist passive participle of \sunapag“\, old verb double compound, to carry away together with, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Galatians:2:13|. {With the error} (\tˆi planˆi\). Instrumental case, "by the error" (the wandering). {Of the wicked} (\t“n athesm“n\). See on strkjv@2:7|. {Ye fall from} (\ekpesˆte\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \hina mˆ\ of \ekpipt“\, old verb, to fall out of, with the ablative here (\stˆrigmou\, steadfastness, late word from \stˆriz“\, here alone in N.T.) as in strkjv@Galatians:5:4| (\tˆs charitos exepesate\, ye fell out of grace).

rwp@3John:1:6 @{Before the church} (\en“pion ekklˆsias\). Public meeting as the anarthrous use of \ekklˆsia\ indicates, like \en ekklˆsiƒi\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:19,35|. {Thou wilt do well} (\kal“s poiˆseis\). Future active of \poie“\ with adverb \kal“s\, a common polite phrase in letters (papyri) like our "please." See also strkjv@Acts:10:33; strkjv@James:2:19; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:37f.; strkjv@Phillipians:4:14; strkjv@2Peter:1:19|. {To set forward on their journey} (\propempsas\). First aorist active participle (simultaneous action) of \propemp“\, to send forward, "sending forward," old word, in N.T. in strkjv@Acts:15:3; strkjv@20:38; strkjv@21:5; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:6,11; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:16; strkjv@Romans:15:24; strkjv@Titus:3:13|. {Worthily of God} (\axi“s tou theou\). Precisely this phrase in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:12| and the genitive with \axi“s\ also in strkjv@Romans:16:2; strkjv@Phillipians:1:27; strkjv@Colossians:1:10; strkjv@Ephesians:4:1|. See strkjv@John:13:20| for Christ's words on the subject. "Since they are God's representatives, treat them as you would God" (Holtzmann). From Homer's time (_Od_. XV. 74) it was customary to speed the parting guest, sometimes accompanying him, sometimes providing money and food. Rabbis were so escorted and Paul alludes to the same gracious custom in strkjv@Romans:15:24; strkjv@Titus:3:13|.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE HISTORICAL VALUE It was once a fad with a certain school of critics to decry Luke in the Acts as wholly untrustworthy, not above the legendary stage. But the spade has done well by Luke for inscriptions and papyri have brought remarkable confirmation for scores of points where Luke once stood all alone and was discounted because he stood alone. These will be duly noted in the proper places as they occur. Ramsay has done most in this restoration of the rank of Luke as a credible historian, as shown in particular in his _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_ and in _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_. In every instance where discoveries have been made they have confirmed the testimony of Luke as concerning _politarchs_ in Thessalonica, _proconsul_ in Cyprus, etc. The result is that the balance of evidence is now in favour of Luke even when he still stands alone or seems to be opposed by Josephus. Luke, as it stands today, is a more credible historian than Josephus. Ramsay dares to call Luke, all things considered, the greatest of all historians, even above Thucydides. An interesting book on this phase of the subject is Chase's _The Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles_ (1902).

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:1:4 @{Being assembled together with them} (\sunalizomenos\). Present passive participle from \sunaliz“\, an old verb in Herodotus, Xenophon, etc., from sun, with, and \haliz“\, from \halˆs\, crowded. The margin of both the Authorized and the Revised Versions has "eating with them" as if from \sun\ and \hals\ (salt). Salt was the mark of hospitality. There is the verb \halisthˆte en aut“i\ used by Ignatius _Ad Magnes_. X, "Be ye salted in him." But it is more than doubtful if that is the idea here though the Vulgate does have _convescens illis_ "eating with them," as if that was the common habit of Jesus during the forty days (Wendt, Feine, etc.). Jesus did on occasion eat with the disciples (Luke:24:41-43; strkjv@Mark:16:14|). {To wait for the promise of the Father} (\perimenein tˆn epaggelian tou patros\). Note present active infinitive, to keep on waiting for (around, \peri\). In the Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee this item was not given (Matthew:28:16-20|). It is the subjective genitive, the promise given by the Father (note this Johannine use of the word), that is the Holy Spirit ("the promise of the Holy Spirit," objective genitive). {Which ye heard from me} (\hˆn ˆkousate mou\). Change from indirect discourse (command), infinitives \ch“rizesthai\ and \perimenein\ after \parˆggeilen\ to direct discourse without any \ephˆ\ (said he) as the English (Italics). Luke often does this (_oratior ariata_). Note also the ablative case of \mou\ (from me). Luke continues in verse 5| with the direct discourse giving the words of Jesus.

rwp@Acts:4:5 @{Rulers and elders and scribes} (\tous archontas kai tous presbuterous kai tous grammateis\). The three classes composing the Sanhedrin (rulers=chief priests who were Sadducees, the scribes usually Pharisees, the elders not in either class: 24 priests, 24 elders, 22 scribes). {Were gathered together} (\sunachthˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \sunag“\ with accusative of general reference and the subject of \egeneto\.

rwp@Acts:4:32 @{Of one heart and soul} (\kardia kai psuchˆ mia\). It is not possible to make sharp distinction between heart and soul here (see strkjv@Mark:12:30|), only that there was harmony in thought and affection. But the English translation is curiously unlike the Greek original. "There was one heart and soul (nominative case, not genitive as the English has it) in the multitude (\tou plˆthous\, subjective genitive) of those who believed." {Not one of them} (\oude heis\). More emphatic than \oudeis\, "not even one." {Common} (\koina\). In the use of their property, not in the possession as Luke proceeds to explain. The word \koinos\ is kin to \sun\ (together with)=\xun\ (Epic) and so \xunos=koinos\. See this word already in strkjv@2:44|. The idea of unclean (Acts:10:15|) is a later development from the original notion of common to all.

rwp@Acts:7:16 @{They were carried over unto Shechem} (\metetethˆsan eis Suchem\). First aorist passive of \metatithˆmi\, only here in the N.T. in this sense of changing places. Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis:50:13|). The O.T. does not say where the sons of Jacob were buried save that Joseph was buried in Shechem (Joshua:24:32|). Possibly only "our fathers" without Jacob is the subject of "were carried." {Which Abraham bought} (\h“i “nˆsato Abraam\). Hackett is sure that our present text is wrong. Hort notes some sixty "primitive errors" in the critical text of the N.T. It is possible that this is also one. If "Jacob" is substituted for "Abraham," the matter is cleared up. "It is quite as likely, judging _a priori_, that the word producing the error escaped from some early copyist as that so glaring an error was committed by Stephen" (Hackett). At any rate Abraham bought a burying-place, the cave of Machpelah, from Ephron the Hittite at Hebron (Genesis:23:16|), while Jacob bought a field from the sons of Hamor at Shechem (Genesis:33:19; strkjv@Joshua:24:32|). Abraham had built an altar at Shechem when he entered Canaan (Genesis:12:6f.|). It is possible, of course, that Abraham also bought the ground on which the altar stood. {In Shechem} (\en Suchem\). This is the reading of Aleph B C instead of the Textus Receptus \tou Suchem\ which makes it "Hamar the father of Sichem." "In Shechem" is the true reading.

rwp@Acts:12:9 @{Wist not} (\ouk ˆidei\). Past perfect of \oida\ used as imperfect, did not know. {Followed} (\ˆkolouthei\). Imperfect active, kept on following as the angel had directed (verse 8|). That it was true (\hoti alˆthes estin\). Indirect assertion and so present tense retained. Note "true" (\alˆthes\) in the sense of reality or actuality. {Which was done} (\to ginomenon\). Present middle participle, that which was happening. {Thought he saw a vision} (\edokei horama blepein\). Imperfect active, kept on thinking, puzzled as he was. \Blepein\ is the infinitive in indirect assertion without the pronoun (he) expressed which could be either nominative in apposition with the subject as in strkjv@Romans:1:22| or accusative of general reference as in strkjv@Acts:5:36; strkjv@8:9| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1036-40). Peter had had a vision in Joppa (10:10|) which Luke describes as an "ecstasy," but here is objective fact, at least Luke thought so and makes that distinction. Peter will soon know whether he is still in the cell or not as we find out that a dream is only a dream when we wake up.

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:14:1 @{They entered together} (\kata to auto eiselthein\). Like \epi to auto\ in strkjv@3:1|. The infinitive \eiselthein\ is the subject of \egeneto\. {Songs:spake that} (\lalˆsai hout“s h“ste\). Infinitive again parallel to \eiselthein\. With the result that, actual result here stated with \h“ste\ and the aorist infinitive \pisteusai\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 999f.) rather than \h“ste\ and the indicative like strkjv@John:3:16|. It was a tremendous first meeting.

rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo tˆs 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 peritmˆthˆte t“i ethei M“use“s, ou dunasthe s“thˆnai\). 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 (\t“i ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\s“thˆnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Acts:17:3 @{Opening and alleging} (\dianoig“n kai paratithemenos\). Opening the Scriptures, Luke means, as made plain by the mission and message of Jesus, the same word (\dianoig“\) used by him of the interpretation of the Scriptures by Jesus (Luke:24:32|) and of the opening of the mind of the disciples also by Jesus (Luke:24:45|) and of the opening of Lydia's heart by the Lord (16:14|). One cannot refrain from saying that such exposition of the Scriptures as Jesus and Paul gave would lead to more opening of mind and heart. Paul was not only "expounding" the Scriptures, he was also "propounding" (the old meaning of "allege") his doctrine or setting forth alongside the Scriptures (\para-tithemenos\), quoting the Scripture to prove his contention which was made in much conflict (1Thessalonians:2:2|), probably in the midst of heated discussion by the opposing rabbis who were anything but convinced by Paul's powerful arguments, for the Cross was a stumbling-block to the Jews (1Corinthians:1:23|). {That it behoved the Christ to suffer} (\hoti ton Christon edei pathein\). The second aorist active infinitive is the subject of \edei\ with \ton Christon\, the accusative of general reference. This is Paul's major premise in his argument from the Scriptures about the Messiah, the necessity of his sufferings according to the Scriptures, the very argument made by the Risen Jesus to the two on the way to Emmaus (Luke:24:25-27|). The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah was a passage in point that the rabbis had overlooked. Peter made the same point in strkjv@Acts:3:18| and Paul again in strkjv@Acts:26:23|. The minor premise is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. {To rise again from the dead} (\anastˆnai ek nekr“n\). This second aorist active infinitive \anastˆnai\ is also the subject of \edei\. The actual resurrection of Jesus was also a necessity as Paul says he preached to them (1Thessalonians:4:14|) and argued always from Scripture (1Corinthians:15:3-4|) and from his own experience (Acts:9:22; strkjv@22:7; strkjv@26:8,14; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:8|). {This Jesus is the Christ} (\houtos estin ho Christos, ho Iˆsous\). More precisely, "This is the Messiah, viz., Jesus whom I am proclaiming unto you." This is the conclusion of Paul's line of argument and it is logical and overwhelming. It is his method everywhere as in Damascus, in Antioch in Pisidia, here, in Corinth. He spoke as an eye-witness.

rwp@Acts:21:5 @{That we had accomplished the days} (\exartisai hˆmƒs tas hˆmeras\). First aorist active infinitive of \exartiz“\, to furnish perfectly, rare in ancient writers, but fairly frequent in the papyri. Only twice in the N.T., here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:17|. Finish the exact number of days (seven) of verse 4|. The accusative of general reference \hˆmƒs\ is the usual construction and the infinitive clause is the subject of \egeneto\. We departed and went on our journey (\exelthontes eporeuometha\). Sharp distinction between the first aorist active participle \exelthontes\ (from \exerchomai\, to go out) and the imperfect middle \eporeuometha\ from \poreu“\ (we were going on). {And they all, with wives and children, brought us on our way} (\propempont“n hˆmƒs pant“n sun gunaixi kai teknois\). No "and" in the Greek, simply genitive absolute, "They all with wives and children accompanying us," just as at Miletus (20:28|), same verb \propemp“\ which see. The first mention of children in connection with the apostolic churches (Vincent). Vivid picture here as at Miletus, evident touch of an eyewitness. {Till we were out of the city} (\he“s ex“ tˆs pole“s\). Note both adverbial prepositions (\he“s ex“\) clear outside of the city.

rwp@Acts:21:21 @{They have been informed concerning thee} (\katˆchˆthˆsan peri sou\). First aorist passive indicative of \katˆche“\. A word in the ancient Greek, but a few examples survive in the papyri. It means to sound (echo, from \ˆch“\, our word) down (\kata\), to resound, re-echo, to teach orally. Oriental students today (Arabs learning the Koran) often study aloud. In the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:4| which see; strkjv@Acts:18:25; strkjv@21:21; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:19; strkjv@Galatians:6:6; strkjv@Romans:2:18|. This oral teaching about Paul was done diligently by the Judaizers who had raised trouble against Peter (Acts:11:2|) and Paul (15:1,5|). They had failed in their attacks on Paul's world campaigns. Now they try to undermine him at home. In Paul's long absence from Jerusalem, since strkjv@18:22|, they have had a free hand, save what opposition James would give, and have had great success in prejudicing the Jerusalem Christians against Paul. Songs:James, in the presence of the other elders and probably at their suggestion, feels called upon to tell Paul the actual situation. {That thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses} (\hoti apostasian didaskeis apo M“use“s tous kata ta ethnˆ pantas Ioudaious\). Two accusatives with \didaskeis\ (verb of teaching) according to rule. Literally, "That thou art teaching all the Jews among (\kata\) the Gentiles (the Jews of the dispersion as in strkjv@2:9|) apostasy from Moses." That is the point, the dreadful word \apostasian\ (our apostasy), a late form (I Macc. strkjv@2:15) for the earlier \apostasis\ (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3| for \apostasia\). "In the eyes of the church at Jerusalem this was a far more serious matter than the previous question at the Conference about the status of Gentile converts" (Furneaux). Paul had brought that issue to the Jerusalem Conference because of the contention of the Judaizers. But here it is not the Judaizers, but the elders of the church with James as their spokesman on behalf of the church as a whole. They do not believe this false charge, but they wish Paul to set it straight. Paul had made his position clear in his Epistles (I Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) for all who cared to know. {Telling them not to circumcise their children} (\leg“n mˆ peritemnein autous ta tekna\). The participle \leg“n\ agrees with "thou" (Paul), the subject of \didaskeis\. This is not indirect assertion, but indirect command, hence the negative \mˆ\ instead of \ou\ with the infinitive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p.1046). The point is not that Paul stated what the Jewish Christians in the dispersion do, but that he says that they (\autous\ accusative of general reference) are not to go on circumcising (\peritemnein\, present active infinitive) their children. Paul taught the very opposite (1Corinthians:7:18|) and had Timothy circumcised (Acts:16:3|) because he was half Jew and half Greek. His own practice is stated in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:19| ("to the Jews as a Jew"). {Neither to walk after the customs} (\mˆde tois ethesin peripatein\). Locative case with infinitive \peripatein\. The charge was here enlarged to cover it all and to make Paul out an enemy of Jewish life and teachings. That same charge had been made against Stephen when young Saul (Paul) was the leader (6:14|): "Will change the customs (\ethˆ\ the very word used here) which Moses delivered unto us." It actually seemed that some of the Jews cared more for Moses than for God (Acts:6:11|). Songs:much for the charge of the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:21:35 @{Upon the stairs} (\epi tous anabathmous\). From \ana\, up, and \bain“\, to go. Late word, in LXX and _Koin‚_ writers. In the N.T. only here and verse 40|. {Songs:it was} (\sunebˆ\). Second aorist active of \sumbain“\, to happen (see on ¯20:19|) with infinitive clause as subject here as often in the old Greek. {He was borne} (\bastazesthai auton\). Accusative of general reference with this subject infinitive, present passive of \bastaz“\, to take up with the hands, literally as here. {Violence} (\bian\). See on ¯Acts:5:26|. \Biaz“\, to use force, is from \bia\.

rwp@Acts:22:6 @{And it came to pass} (\egeneto de\). Rather than the common \kai egeneto\ and with the infinitive (\periastrapsai\), one of the three constructions with \kai (de) egeneto\ by Luke (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1042f.), followed by \kai\, by finite verb, by subject infinitive as here. {As I made my journey} (\moi poreuomen“i\). To me (dative after \egeneto\, happened to me) journeying (participle agreeing with \moi\). See this same idiom in verse 17|. Luke uses \egeneto de\ seventeen times in the gospel and twenty-one in the Acts. {Unto Damascus} (\tˆi Damask“i\). Dative after \eggizonti\ (drawing nigh to). {About noon} (\peri mesˆmbrian\). Mid (\mesos\) day (\hˆmera\), old word, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@8:26| which see where it may mean "toward the south." An item not in ch. 9. {Shone round about me} (\periastrapsai peri eme\). First aorist active infinitive of \periastrapt“\, to flash around, in LXX and late Greek, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@9:3| which see. Note repetition of \peri\. {A great light} (\ph“s hikanon\). Luke's favourite word \hikanon\ (considerable). Accusative of general reference with the infinitive.

rwp@Acts:23:25 @{And he wrote} (\grapsas\). First aorist active participle of \graph“\, agreeing with the subject (Lysias) of \eipen\ (said) back in verse 23| (beginning). {After this form} (\echousan ton tupon touton\). Textus Receptus has \periechousan\. The use of \tupon\ (type or form) like _exemplum_ in Latin (Page who quotes Cicero _Ad Att_. IX. 6. 3) may give merely the purport or substantial contents of the letter. But there is no reason for thinking that it is not a genuine copy since the letter may have been read in open court before Felix, and Luke was probably with Paul. The Roman law required that a subordinate officer like Lysias in reporting a case to his superior should send a written statement of the case and it was termed _elogium_. A copy of the letter may have been given Paul after his appeal to Caesar. It was probably written in Latin. The letter is a "dexterous mixture of truth and falsehood" (Furneaux) with the stamp of genuineness. It puts things in a favourable light for Lysias and makes no mention of his order to scourge Paul.

rwp@Acts:25:26 @{No certain thing} (\asphales ti--ou\). Nothing definite or reliable (\a\ privative, \sphall“\, to trip). All the charges of the Sanhedrin slipped away or were tripped up by Paul. Festus confesses that he had nothing left and thereby convicts himself of gross insincerity in his proposal to Paul in verse 9| about going up to Jerusalem. By his own statement he should have set Paul free. The various details here bear the marks of the eyewitness. Luke was surely present and witnessed this grand spectacle with Paul as chief performer. {Unto my lord} (\t“i kuri“i\). Augustus (Octavius) and Tiberius refused the title of \kurios\ (lord) as too much like _rex_ (king) and like master and slave, but the servility of the subjects gave it to the other emperors who accepted it (Nero among them). Antoninus Pius put it on his coins. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105) gives an ostracon dated Aug. 4, A.D. 63 with the words "in the year nine of Nero the lord" (\enatou Ner“nos tou kuriou\). Deissmann (_op. cit._, pp. 349ff.) runs a most interesting parallel "between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term \kurios\, lord" in ostraca, papyri, inscriptions. Beyond a doubt Paul has all this fully in mind when he says in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| that "no one is able to say \Kurios Iˆsous\ except in the Holy Spirit" (cf. also strkjv@Phillipians:2:11|). The Christians claimed this word for Christ and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say " Lord Caesar" and insisted on saying "Lord Jesus" when it meant his certain death. {Before you} (\eph' hum“n\). The whole company. In no sense a new trial, but an examination in the presence of these prominent men to secure data and to furnish entertainment and pleasure to Agrippa (verse 22|). {Especially before thee} (\malista epi sou\). Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as verse 22| shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul's case. {After examination had} (\tˆs anakrise“s genomenˆs\). Genitive absolute, "the examination having taken place." \Anakrisis\ from \anakrin“\ (cf. strkjv@12:19; strkjv@24:8; strkjv@28:18|) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. {That I may have somewhat to write} (\hop“s sch“ ti graps“\). Ingressive aorist subjunctive \sch“\ (may get) with \hop“s\ (final particle like \hina\). \Ti graps“\ in indirect question after \sch“\ is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a "trial," but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament.

rwp@Acts:26:23 @{How that the Christ must suffer} (\ei pathˆtos ho Christos\). Literally, "if the Messiah is subject to suffering." \Ei\ can here mean "whether" as in strkjv@Hebrews:7:15|. This use of a verbal in \-tos\ for capability or possibility occurs in the N.T. alone in \pathˆtos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 157). This word occurs in Plutarch in this sense. It is like the Latin _patibilis_ and is from _pasch“_. Here alone in N.T. Paul is speaking from the Jewish point of view. Most rabbis had not rightly understood strkjv@Isaiah:53|. When the Baptist called Jesus "the Lamb of God" (John:1:29|) it was a startling idea. It is not then "must suffer" here, but "can suffer." The Cross of Christ was a stumbling-block to the rabbis. {How that he first by the resurrection of the dead} (\ei pr“tos ex anastase“s nekr“n\). Same construction with \ei\ (whether). This point Paul had often discussed with the Jews: "whether he (the Messiah) by a resurrection of dead people." Others had been raised from the dead, but Christ is the first (\pr“tos\) who arose from the dead and no longer dies (Romans:6:19|) and proclaims light (\ph“s mellei kataggellein\). Paul is still speaking from the Jewish standpoint: "is about to (going to) proclaim light." See verse 18| for "light" and strkjv@Luke:2:32|. {Both to the people and to the Gentiles} (\t“i te la“i kai tois ethnesin\). See verse 17|. It was at the word Gentiles (\ethnˆ\) that the mob lost control of themselves in the speech from the stairs (22:21f.|). Songs:it is here, only not because of that word, but because of the word "resurrection" (\anastasis\).

rwp@Acts:27:1 @{That we should sail} (\tou apoplein hˆmas\). This genitive articular infinitive with \ekrithˆ\ like the LXX construction translating the Hebrew infinitive construct is awkward in Greek. Several similar examples in strkjv@Luke:17:1; strkjv@Acts:10:25; strkjv@20:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1068). Luke alone uses this old verb in N.T. He uses nine compounds of \ple“\, to sail. Note the reappearance of "we" in the narrative. It is possible, of course, that Luke was not with Paul during the series of trials at Caesarea, or at least, not all the time. But it is natural for Luke to use "we" again because he and Aristarchus are travelling with Paul. In Caesarea Paul was the centre of the action all the time whether Luke was present or not. The great detail and minute accuracy of Luke's account of this voyage and shipwreck throw more light upon ancient seafaring than everything else put together. Smith's _Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_ is still a classic on the subject. Though so accurate in his use of sea terms, yet Luke writes like a landsman, not like a sailor. Besides, the character of Paul is here revealed in a remarkable fashion. {They delivered} (\paredidoun\). Imperfect active \“mega\ form rather than the old \-mi\ form \paredidosan\ as in strkjv@4:33|, from \paradid“mi\. Perhaps the imperfect notes the continuance of the handing over. {Certain other prisoners} (\tinas heterous desm“tas\). Bound (\desm“tas\) like Paul, but not necessarily appellants to Caesar, perhaps some of them condemned criminals to amuse the Roman populace in the gladiatorial shows, most likely pagans though \heterous\ does not have to mean different kind of prisoners from Paul. {Of the Augustan band} (\speirˆs Sebastˆs\). Note Ionic genitive \speirˆs\, not \speiras\. See on ¯Matthew:27:1; strkjv@Acts:10:1|. \Cohortis Augustae\. We do not really know why this cohort is called "Augustan." It may be that it is part of the imperial commissariat (_frumentarii_) since Julius assumes chief authority in the grain ship (verse 11|). These legionary centurions when in Rome were called _peregrini_ (foreigners) because their work was chiefly in the provinces. This man Julius may have been one of them.

rwp@Acts:27:12 @{Because the haven was not commodious to winter in} (\aneuthetou tou limenos huparchontos pros paracheimasian\). Genitive absolute again present tense of \huparch“\: "The harbour being unfit (\aneuthetou\, this compound not yet found elsewhere, simplex in strkjv@Luke:9:62; strkjv@14:35; strkjv@Hebrews:6:7|) for wintering" (\paracheimasia\, only here in N.T., but in Polybius and Diodorus, in an inscription A.D. 48, from \paracheimaz“\). {The more part advised} (\hoi pleiones ethento boulˆn\). Second aorist middle indicative of \tithˆmi\, ancient idiom with \boulˆn\, to take counsel, give counsel. Lysias held a council of the officers of the ship on the issue raised by Paul. {If by any means they could reach Phoenix and winter there} (\ei p“s dunainto katantˆsantes eis Phoinika paracheimasai\). The optative \dunainto\ (present middle of \dunamai\) here with \ei\ is a condition of the fourth class with the notion of purpose implied and indirect discourse (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). "We vote for going on the chance that we may be able" (Page). Phoenix is the town of palms (John:12:13|), the modern Lutro, the only town in Crete on the southern coast with a harbour fit for wintering, though Wordsworth and Page argue for Phineka which suits Luke's description better. The verb \paracheimaz“\, to winter, is from \para\ and \cheim“n\ (see also strkjv@28:11|). Used in several _Koin‚_ writers. {Looking northeast and southeast} (\bleponta kata liba kai kata ch“ron\). There are two ways of interpreting this language. \Lips\ means the southwest wind and \ch“ros\ the northwest wind. But what is the effect of \kata\ with these words? Does it mean "facing" the wind? If so, we must read "looking southwest and northwest." But \kata\ can mean down the line of the wind (the way the wind is blowing). If so, then it is proper to translate "looking northeast and southeast." This translation suits Lutro, the other suits Phoenike. Ramsay takes it to be Lutro, and suggests that sailors describe the harbour by the way it looks as they go into it (the subjectivity of the sailors) and that Luke so speaks and means Lutro which faces northeast and southeast. On the whole Lutro has the best of the argument.

rwp@Acts:27:44 @{Some on planks} (\hous men epi sanisin\). Common Greek idiom (\hous men--hous de\) for "some--some." The only N.T. instance of the old Greek word \sanis\ for board or plank. The breaking of the ship gave scraps of timber which some used. {They all escaped safe} (\pantas dias“thˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \dias“z“\ (the very word used for the desire of the centurion about Paul) with accusative of general reference, the clause being subject of \egeneto\. Songs:Luke in this marvellous narrative, worthy of any historian in any age, shows how Paul's promise was fulfilled (verse 24|). Paul the prisoner is the hero of the voyage and shipwreck, a wonderful example of God's providential care.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE Epaphras did not come in vain, for Paul was tremendously stirred by the peril to Christianity from the Gnostics (\hoi gn“stikoi\, the knowing ones). He had won his fight for freedom in Christ against the Judaizers who tried to fasten Jewish sacramentarianism upon spiritual Christianity. Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke“\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. Songs:then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God. One cannot understand Colossians without some knowledge of Gnosticism such as may be obtained in such books as Angus's _The Mystery-Religions and Christianity_, Glover's _The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire_, Kennedy's St. _Paul and the Mystery-Religions_, Lightfoot's _Commentary on Colossians_.

rwp@Colossians:1:19 @{For it was the good pleasure of the Father} (\hoti eudokˆsen\). No word in the Greek for "the Father," though the verb calls for either \ho theos\ or \ho patˆr\ as the subject. This verb \eudoke“\ is common in the N.T. for God's will and pleasure (Matthew:3:17; strkjv@1Corinthians:10:5|). {All the fulness} (\pƒn to plˆr“ma\). The same idea as in strkjv@2:9| \pƒn to plˆr“ma tˆs theotˆtos\ (all the fulness of the Godhead). "A recognized technical term in theology, denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes" (Lightfoot). It is an old word from \plˆro“\, to fill full, used in various senses as in strkjv@Mark:8:20| of the baskets, strkjv@Galatians:4:10| of time, etc. The Gnostics distributed the divine powers among various aeons. Paul gathers them all up in Christ, a full and flat statement of the deity of Christ. {Should dwell} (\katoikˆsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \katoike“\, to make abode or home. All the divine attributes are at home in Christ (\en aut“i\).

rwp@Colossians:1:20 @{Through him} (\di' autou\). As the sufficient and chosen agent in the work of reconciliation (\apokatallaxai\, first aorist active infinitive of \apokatallass“\, further addition to \eudokˆsen\, was pleased). This double compound (\apo, kata\ with \allass“\) occurs only here, verse 22; strkjv@Ephesians:2:16|, and nowhere else so far as known. Paul's usual word for "reconcile" is \katallass“\ (2Corinthians:5:18-20; strkjv@Romans:5:10|), though \diallass“\ (Matthew:5:24|) is more common in Attic. The addition of \apo\ here is clearly for the idea of complete reconciliation. See on ¯2Corinthians:5:18-20| for discussion of \katallass“\, Paul's great word. The use of \ta panta\ (the all things, the universe) as if the universe were somehow out of harmony reminds us of the mystical passage in strkjv@Romans:8:19-23| which see for discussion. Sin somehow has put the universe out of joint. Christ will set it right. {Unto himself} (\eis auton\). Unto God, though \auton\ is not reflexive unless written \hauton\. {Having made peace} (\eirˆnopoiˆsas\). Late and rare compound (Proverbs:10:10| and here only in N.T.) from \eirˆnopoios\, peacemaker (Matthew:5:9|; here only in N.T.). In strkjv@Ephesians:2:15| we have \poi“n eirˆnˆn\ (separate words) {making peace}. Not the masculine gender, though agreeing with the idea of Christ involved even if \plˆr“ma\ be taken as the subject of \eudokˆsen\, a participial anacoluthon (construction according to sense as in strkjv@2:19|). If \theos\ be taken as the subject of \eudokˆsen\ the participle \eirˆnopoiˆsas\ refers to Christ, not to \theos\ (God). {Through the blood of his cross} (\dia tou haimatos tou staurou autou\). This for the benefit of the Docetic Gnostics who denied the real humanity of Jesus and as clearly stating the _causa medians_ (Ellicott) of the work of reconciliation to be the Cross of Christ, a doctrine needed today. {Or things in the heavens} (\eite ta en tois ouranois\). Much needless trouble has been made over this phrase as if things in heaven were not exactly right. It is rather a hypothetical statement like verse 16| not put in categorical form (Abbott), _universitas rerum_ (Ellicott).

rwp@Colossians:2:13 @{And you} (\kai humas\). Emphatic position, object of the verb \sunez“opoiˆsen\ (did he quicken) and repeated (second \humƒs\). You Gentiles as he explains. {Being dead through your trespasses} (\nekrous ontas tois parapt“masin\). Moral death, of course, as in strkjv@Romans:6:11; strkjv@Ephesians:2:1,5|. Correct text does not have \en\, but even so \parapt“masin\ (from \parapipt“\, to fall beside or to lapse, strkjv@Hebrews:6:6|), a lapse or misstep as in strkjv@Matthew:6:14; strkjv@Romans:5:15-18; strkjv@Galatians:6:1|, can be still in the locative, though the instrumental makes good sense also. {And the uncircumcision of your flesh} (\kai tˆi akroboustiƒi tˆs sarkos hum“n\). "Dead in your trespasses and your alienation from God, of which the uncircumcision of your flesh was a symbol" (Abbott). Clearly so, "the uncircumcision" used merely in a metaphorical sense. {Did he quicken together with him} (\sunez“opoiˆsen sun aut“i\). First aorist active indicative of the double compound verb \sunz“opoie“\, to make alive (\z“os, poie“\) with (\sun\, repeated also with \aut“i\, associative instrumental), found only here and in strkjv@Ephesians:2:5|, apparently coined by Paul for this passage. Probably \theos\ (God) is the subject because expressly so stated in strkjv@Ephesians:2:4f.| and because demanded by \sun aut“i\ here referring to Christ. This can be true even if Christ be the subject of \ˆrken\ in verse 14|. {Having forgiven us} (\charisamenos hˆmin\). First aorist middle participle of \charizomai\, common verb from \charis\ (favour, grace). Dative of the person common as in strkjv@3:13|. The act of forgiving is simultaneous with the quickening, though logically antecedent.

rwp@Colossians:2:14 @{Having blotted out} (\exaleipsas\). And so "cancelled." First aorist active participle of old verb \exaleiph“\, to rub out, wipe off, erase. In N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:3:19| (LXX); strkjv@Revelation:3:5; strkjv@Colossians:2:14|. Here the word explains \charisamenos\ and is simultaneous with it. Plato used it of blotting out a writing. Often MSS. were rubbed or scraped and written over again (palimpsests, like Codex C). {The bond written in ordinances that was against us} (\to kath' hˆm“n cheirographon tois dogmasin\). The late compound \cheirographon\ (\cheir\, hand, \graph“\) is very common in the papyri for a certificate of debt or bond, many of the original \cheirographa\ (handwriting, "chirography"). See Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 247. The signature made a legal debt or bond as Paul says in strkjv@Philemon:1:18f.|: "I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it." Many of the papyri examples have been "crossed out" thus X as we do today and so cancelled. One decree is described as "neither washed out nor written over" (Milligan, N. T. _Documents_, p. 16). Undoubtedly "the handwriting in decrees" (\dogmasin\, the Mosaic law, strkjv@Ephesians:2:15|) was against the Jews (Exodus:24:3; strkjv@Deuteronomy:27:14-26|) for they accepted it, but the Gentiles also gave moral assent to God's law written in their hearts (Romans:2:14f.|). Songs:Paul says "against us" (\kath' hˆm“n\) and adds "which was contrary to us" (\ho ˆn hupenantion hˆmin\) because we (neither Jew nor Gentile) could not keep it. \Hupenantios\ is an old double compound adjective (\hupo, en, antios\) set over against, only here in N.T. except strkjv@Hebrews:10:27| when it is used as a substantive. It is striking that Paul has connected the common word \cheirographon\ for bond or debt with the Cross of Christ (Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 332). {And he hath taken it out of the way} (\kai ˆrken ek tou mesou\). Perfect active indicative of \air“\, old and common verb, to lift up, to bear, to take away. The word used by the Baptist of Jesus as "the Lamb of God that bears away (\air“n\) the sin of the world" (John:1:29|). The perfect tense emphasizes the permanence of the removal of the bond which has been paid and cancelled and cannot be presented again. Lightfoot argues for Christ as the subject of \ˆrken\, but that is not necessary, though Paul does use sudden anacolutha. God has taken the bond against us "out of the midst" (\ek tou mesou\). Nailing it to the cross (\prosˆl“sas auto t“i staur“i\). First aorist active participle of old and common verb \prosˆlo“\, to fasten with nails to a thing (with dative \staur“i\). Here alone in N.T., but in III Macc. strkjv@4:9 with the very word \staur“i\. The victim was nailed to the cross as was Christ. "When Christ was crucified, God nailed the Law to His cross" (Peake). Hence the "bond" is cancelled for us. Business men today sometimes file cancelled accounts. No evidence exists that Paul alluded to such a custom here.

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:2:20 @{If ye died} (\ei apethanete\). Condition of the first class, assumed as true, \ei\ and second aorist active indicative of \apothnˆsk“\, to die. He is alluding to the picture of burial in baptism (2:12|). {From the rudiments of the world} (\apo t“n stoichei“n tou kosmou\). See strkjv@2:8|. {As though living in the world} (\h“s z“ntes en kosm“i\). Concessive use of the participle with \h“s\. The picture is that of baptism, having come out (F. B. Meyer) on the other side of the grave, we are not to act as though we had not done so. We are in the Land of Beulah. {Why do ye subject yourselves to ordinances?} (\ti dogmatizesthe?\). Late and rare verb (three examples in inscriptions and often in LXX) made from \dogma\, decree or ordinance. Here it makes good sense either as middle or passive. In either case they are to blame since the bond of decrees (2:14|) was removed on the Cross of Christ. Paul still has in mind the rules of the ascetic wing of the Gnostics (2:16ff.|).

rwp@Colossians:3:16 @{The word of Christ} (\ho logos tou Christou\). This precise phrase only here, though "the word of the Lord" in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:8; strkjv@4:15; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:1|. Elsewhere "the word of God." Paul is exalting Christ in this Epistle. \Christou\ can be either the subjective genitive (the word delivered by Christ) or the objective genitive (the word about Christ). See strkjv@1John:2:14|. {Dwell} (\enoikeit“\). Present active imperative of \enoike“\, to make one's home, to be at home. {In you} (\en humin\). Not "among you." {Richly} (\plousi“s\). Old adverb from \plousios\ (rich). See strkjv@1Timothy:6:17|. The following words explain \plousi“s\. {In all wisdom} (\en pasˆi sophiƒi\). It is not clear whether this phrase goes with \plousi“s\ (richly) or with the participles following (\didaskontes kai nouthetountes\, see strkjv@1:28|). Either punctuation makes good sense. The older Greek MSS. had no punctuation. There is an anacoluthon here. The participles may be used as imperatives as in strkjv@Romans:12:11f.,16|. {With psalms} (\psalmois\, the Psalms in the Old Testament originally with musical accompaniment), {hymns} (\humnois\, praises to God composed by the Christians like strkjv@1Timothy:3:16|), {spiritual songs} (\“idais pneumatikais\, general description of all whether with or without instrumental accompaniment). The same song can have all three words applied to it. {Singing with grace} (\en chariti ƒidontes\). In God's grace (2Corinthians:1:12|). The phrase can be taken with the preceding words. The verb \ƒid“\ is an old one (Ephesians:5:19|) for lyrical emotion in a devout soul. {In your hearts} (\en tais kardiais hum“n\). Without this there is no real worship "to God" (\t“i the“i\). How can a Jew or Unitarian in the choir lead in the worship of Christ as Saviour? Whether with instrument or with voice or with both it is all for naught if the adoration is not in the heart.

rwp@Colossians:3:18 @{Wives} (\kai gunaikes\). The article here distinguishes class from class and with the vocative case can be best rendered "Ye wives." Songs:with each group. {Be in subjection to your husbands} (\hupotassesthe tois andrasin\). "Own" (\idiois\) is genuine in strkjv@Ephesians:5:22|, but not here. The verb \hupotassomai\ has a military air, common in the _Koin‚_ for such obedience. Obedience in government is essential as the same word shows in strkjv@Romans:13:1,5|. {As is fitting in the Lord} (\h“s anˆken en Kuri“i\). This is an idiomatic use of the imperfect indicative with verbs of propriety in present time (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 919). Wives have rights and privileges, but recognition of the husband's leadership is essential to a well-ordered home, only the assumption is that the husband has a head and a wise one.

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@Ephesians:1:22 @{He put all things in subjection} (\panta hupetaxen\). First aorist active indicative of \hupotass“\, quoted from strkjv@Psalms:8:7| as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:27|. {Gave him to be head} (\auton ed“ken kephalˆn\). {Gave} (\ed“ken\, first aorist active indicative of \did“mi\) to the church (the universal spiritual church or kingdom as in strkjv@Colossians:1:18,24|) Christ as Head (\kephalˆn\, predicate accusative). This conception of \ekklˆsia\ runs all through Ephesians (3:10,21; strkjv@5:23,24,25,27,29,32|).

rwp@Ephesians:2:12 @{Separate from Christ} (\ch“ris Christou\). Ablative case with adverbial preposition \ch“ris\, describing their former condition as heathen. {Alienated from the commonwealth of Israel} (\apˆllotri“menoi tˆs politeias tou Israˆl\). Perfect passive participle of \apallotrio“\, for which see strkjv@Colossians:1:21|. Here followed by ablative case \politeias\, old word from \politeu“\, to be a citizen (Phillipians:1:27|) from \politˆs\ and that from \polis\ (city). Only twice in N.T., here as commonwealth (the spiritual Israel or Kingdom of God) and strkjv@Acts:22:28| as citizenship. {Strangers from the covenants of the promise} (\xenoi t“n diathˆk“n tˆs epaggelias\). For \xenos\ (Latin _hospes_), as stranger see strkjv@Matthew:25:35,38,43f.|, as guest-friend see strkjv@Romans:16:23|. Here it is followed by the ablative case \diathˆk“n\. {Having no hope} (\elpida mˆ echontes\). No hope of any kind. In strkjv@Galatians:4:8| \ouk\ (strong negative) occurs with \eidotes theon\, but here \mˆ\ gives a more subjective picture (1Thessalonians:4:5|). {Without God} (\atheoi\). Old Greek word, not in LXX, only here in N.T. Atheists in the original sense of being without God and also in the sense of hostility to God from failure to worship him. See Paul's words in strkjv@Romans:1:18-32|. "In the world" (\en t“i kosm“i\) goes with both phrases. It is a terrible picture that Paul gives, but a true one.

rwp@Ephesians:4:8 @{Wherefore he saith} (\dio legei\). As a confirmation of what Paul has said. No subject is expressed in the Greek and commentators argue whether it should be \ho theos\ (God) or \hˆ graphˆ\ (Scripture). But it comes to God after all. See strkjv@Acts:2:17|. The quotation is from strkjv@Psalms:68:18|, a Messianic Psalm of victory which Paul adapts and interprets for Christ's triumph over death. {He led captivity captive} (\ˆichmal“teusen aichmal“sian\). Cognate accusative of \aichmal“sian\, late word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:13:10|. The verb also (\aichmal“teu“\) is from the old word \aichmal“tos\, captive in war (in N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:4:18|), in LXX and only here in N.T.

rwp@Ephesians:5:21 @{Subjecting yourselves to one another} (\hupotassomenoi allˆlois\). Present middle participle of \hupotass“\, old military figure to line up under (Colossians:3:18|). The construction here is rather loose, coordinate with the preceding participles of praise and prayer. It is possible to start a new paragraph here and regard \hupotassomenoi\ as an independent participle like an imperative.

rwp@Ephesians:5:22 @{Be in subjection}. Not in the Greek text of B and Jerome knew of no MS. with it. K L and most MSS. have \hupotassesthe\ like strkjv@Colossians:3:18|, while Aleph A P have \hupotassesth“san\ (let them be subject to). But the case of \andrasin\ (dative) shows that the verb is understood from verse 21| if not written originally. \Idiois\ (own) is genuine here, though not in strkjv@Colossians:3:18|. {As unto the Lord} (\h“s t“i Kuri“i\). Songs:here instead of \h“s anˆken en Kuri“i\ of strkjv@Colossians:3:18|.

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-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:2:5 @{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:5:21 @{Forewarn} (\proleg“\) {--did forewarn} (\proeipon\). Paul repeats his warning given while with them. He did his duty then. Gentile churches were peculiarly subject to these sins. But who is not in danger from them? {Practise} (\prassontes\). \Prass“\ is the verb for habitual practice (our very word, in fact), not \poie“\ for occasional doing. The {habit} of these sins is proof that one is not in the Kingdom of God and will not inherit it.

rwp@Galatians:6:14 @{Far be it from me} (\emoi mˆ genoito\). Second aorist middle optative of \ginomai\ in a negative (\mˆ\) wish about the future with dative case: "May it not happen to me." See strkjv@2:17|. The infinitive \kauchƒsthai\ (to glory) is the subject of \genoito\ as is common in the LXX, though not elsewhere in the N.T. {Hath been crucified unto me} (\emoi estaur“tai\). Perfect passive indicative of \stauro“\, stands crucified, with the ethical dative again (\emoi\). This is one of the great sayings of Paul concerning his relation to Christ and the world in contrast with the Judaizers. Cf. strkjv@2:19f.; strkjv@3:13; strkjv@4:4f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:23f.; strkjv@Romans:1:16; strkjv@3:21ff.; strkjv@4:25; strkjv@5:18|. {World} (\kosmos\) has no article, but is definite as in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19|. Paul's old world of Jewish descent and environment is dead to him (Phillipians:3:3f.|).

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE STYLE It is called an epistle and so it is, but of a peculiar kind. In fact, as has been said, it begins like a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and concludes like a letter. It is, in fact, more like a literary composition than any other New Testament book as Deissmann shows: "It points to the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its more definitely artistic, more literary language (corresponding to its more theological subject matter), constituted an epoch in the history of the new religion. Christianity is beginning to lay hands on the instruments of culture; the literary and theological period has begun" (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 70f.). But Blass (_Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa_, 1905) argues that the author of Hebrews certainly and Paul probably were students of Greek oratory and rhetoric. He is clearly wrong about Paul and probably so about the author of Hebrews. There is in Hebrews more of "a studied rhetorical periodicity" (Thayer), but with many "parenthetical involutions" (Westcott) and with less of "the impetuous eloquence of Paul." The eleventh chapter reveals a studied style and as a whole the Epistle belongs to the literary _Koin‚_ rather than to the vernacular. Moulton (_Cambridge Biblical Essays_, p. 483) thinks that the author did not know Hebrew but follows the Septuagint throughout in his abundant use of the Old Testament.

rwp@Hebrews:1:8 @{O God} (\ho theos\). This quotation (the fifth) is from strkjv@Psalms:45:7f|. A Hebrew nuptial ode (\epithalamium\) for a king treated here as Messianic. It is not certain whether \ho theos\ is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in strkjv@John:20:28| with the Messiah termed \theos\ as is possible, strkjv@John:1:18|) or \ho theos\ is nominative (subject or predicate) with \estin\ (is) understood: "God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God." Either makes good sense. {Sceptre} (\rabdos\). Old word for walking-stick, staff (Hebrews:11:21|).

rwp@Hebrews:2:8 @{In that he subjected} (\en t“i hupotaxai\). First aorist active articular infinitive of \hupatass“\ in the locative case, "in the subjecting." {He left} (\aphˆken\). First aorist active indicative (kappa aorist) of \aphiˆmi\. {Nothing that is not subject to him} (\ouden aut“i anupotakton\). Later verbal of \hupotass“\ with \a\ privative. Here in passive sense, active sense in strkjv@1Timothy:1:9|. Man's sovereignty was meant to be all-inclusive including the administration of "the world to come." "He is crowned king of nature, invested with a divine authority over creation" (Moffatt). But how far short of this destiny has man come! {But now we see not yet} (\nun de oup“ hor“men\). Not even today in the wonderful twentieth century with man's triumphs over nature has he reached that goal, wonderful as are the researches by the help of telescope and microscope, the mechanism of the airplane, the submarine, steam, electricity, radio.

rwp@Hebrews:2:10 @{It became him} (\eprepen aut“i\). Imperfect active of \prep“\, old verb to stand out, to be becoming or seemly. Here it is impersonal with \telei“sai\ as subject, though personal in strkjv@Hebrews:7:26|. \Aut“i\ (him) is in the dative case and refers to God, not to Christ as is made plain by \ton archˆgon\ (author). One has only to recall strkjv@John:3:16| to get the idea here. The voluntary humiliation or incarnation of Christ the Son a little lower than the angels was a seemly thing to God the Father as the writer now shows in a great passage (2:10-18|) worthy to go beside strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {For whom} (\di' hon\). Referring to \aut“i\ (God) as the reason (cause) for the universe (\ta panta\). {Through whom} (\di' hou\). With the genitive \dia\ expresses the agent by whom the universe came into existence, a direct repudiation of the Gnostic view of intermediate agencies (aeons) between God and the creation of the universe. Paul puts it succinctly in strkjv@Romans:11:36| by his \ex autou kai di' autou kai eis auton ta panta\. The universe comes out of God, by means of God, for God. This writer has already said that God used his Son as the Agent (\di' hou\) in creation (1:2|), a doctrine in harmony with strkjv@Colossians:1:15f.| (\en aut“i, di' autou eis auton\) and strkjv@John:1:3|. {In bringing} (\agagonta\). Second aorist active participle of \ag“\ in the accusative case in spite of the dative \aut“i\ just before to which it refers. {The author} (\ton archˆgon\). Old compound word (\archˆ\ and \ag“\) one leading off, leader or prince as in strkjv@Acts:5:31|, one blazing the way, a pioneer (Dods) in faith (Hebrews:12:2|), author (Acts:3:15|). Either sense suits here, though author best (verse 9|). Jesus is the author of salvation, the leader of the sons of God, the Elder Brother of us all (Romans:8:29|). {To make perfect} (\telei“sai\). First aorist active infinitive of \teleio“\ (from \teleios\). If one recoils at the idea of God making Christ perfect, he should bear in mind that it is the humanity of Jesus that is under discussion. The writer does not say that Jesus was sinful (see the opposite in strkjv@4:15|), but simply that "by means of sufferings" God perfected his Son in his human life and death for his task as Redeemer and Saviour. One cannot know human life without living it. There was no moral imperfection in Jesus, but he lived his human life in order to be able to be a sympathizing and effective leader in the work of salvation.

rwp@Hebrews:2:15 @{And might deliver} (\kai apallaxˆi\). Further purpose with the first aorist active subjunctive of \appallass“\, old verb to change from, to set free from, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:12:58; strkjv@Acts:19:12|. {Through fear of death} (\phob“i thanatou\). Instrumental case of \phobos\. The ancients had great fear of death though the philosophers like Seneca argued against it. There is today a flippant attitude towards death with denial of the future life and rejection of God. But the author of Hebrews saw judgement after death (9:27f.|). Hence our need of Christ to break the power of sin and Satan in death. {All their lifetime} (\dia pantos tou zˆin\). Present active infinitive with \pas\ and the article in the genitive case with \dia\, "through all the living." {Subject to bondage} (\enochoi douleias\). Old adjective from \enech“\, "held in," "bound to," with genitive, bond-slaves of fear, a graphic picture. Jesus has the keys of life and death and said: "I am the life." Thank God for that.

rwp@Hebrews:2:17 @{Wherefore} (\hothen\). Old relative adverb (\ho\ and enclitic \then\, whence of place (Matthew:12:44|), of source (1John:2:18|), of cause as here and often in Hebrews (3:1; strkjv@7:25; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@9:18; strkjv@11:19|). {It behoved him} (\“pheilen\). Imperfect active of \opheil“\, old verb to owe, money (Matthew:18:28|), service and love (Romans:13:8|), duty or obligation as here and often in N.T. (Luke:17:10|). Jesus is here the subject and the reference is to the incarnation. Having undertaken the work of redemption (John:3:16|), voluntarily (John:10:17|), Jesus was under obligation to be properly equipped for that priestly service and sacrifice. {In all things} (\kata panta\). Except yielding to sin (Hebrews:4:15|) and yet he knew what temptation was, difficult as it may be for us to comprehend that in the Son of God who is also the Son of man (Mark:1:13|). Jesus fought through to victory over Satan. {To be made like unto his brethren} (\tois adelphois homoi“thˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \homoio“\, old and common verb from \homoios\ (like), as in strkjv@Matthew:6:8|, with the associative instrumental case as here. Christ, our Elder Brother, resembles us in reality (Phillipians:2:7| "in the likeness of men") as we shall resemble him in the end (Romans:8:29| "first-born among many brethren"; strkjv@1John:3:2| "like him"), where the same root is used as here (\hoi“ma, homoios\). That he might be (\hina genˆtai\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\, to become, "that he might become." That was only possible by being like his brethren in actual human nature. {Merciful and faithful high priest} (\eleˆm“n kai pistos archiereus\). The sudden use of \archiereus\ here for Jesus has been anticipated by strkjv@1:3; strkjv@2:9| and see strkjv@3:1|. Jesus as the priest-victim is the chief topic of the Epistle. These two adjectives (\eleˆm“n\ and \pistos\) touch the chief points in the function of the high priest (5:1-10|), sympathy and fidelity to God. The Sadducean high priests (Annas and Caiaphas) were political and ecclesiastical tools and puppets out of sympathy with the people and chosen by Rome. {In things pertaining to God} (\ta pros ton theon\). The adverbial accusative of the article is a common idiom. See the very idiom \ta pros ton theon\ in strkjv@Exodus:18:19; strkjv@Romans:15:17|. This use of \pros\ we had already in strkjv@Hebrews:1:7f|. On the day of atonement the high priest entered the holy of holies and officiated in behalf of the people. {To make propitiation for} (\eis to hilaskesthai\). Purpose clause with \eis to\ and the infinitive (common Greek idiom), here present indirect middle of \hilaskomai\, to render propitious to oneself (from \hilaos\, Attic \hile“s\, gracious). This idea occurs in the LXX (Psalms:65:3|), but only here in N.T., though in strkjv@Luke:18:13| the passive form (\hilasthˆti\) occurs as in strkjv@2Kings:5:18|. In strkjv@1John:2:2| we have \hilasmos\ used of Christ (cf. strkjv@Hebrews:7:25|). The inscriptions illustrate the meaning in strkjv@Hebrews:2:17| as well as the LXX.

rwp@Hebrews:4:6 @{It remaineth} (\apoleipetai\). Present passive indicative of \apoleip“\, old verb to leave behind, to remain over. Songs:again in strkjv@4:9; strkjv@10:26|. Here the infinitive clause (\tinas eiselthein eis autˆn\) is the subject of \apoleipetai\. This left-over promise is not repeated, though not utilized by the Israelites under Moses nor in the highest sense by Joshua and David. {Failed to enter in} (\ouk eisˆlthon\). "Did not enter in" (second aorist active indicative of \eiserchomai\). It is a rabbinical argument all along here, but the author is writing to Jews.

rwp@Hebrews:6:1 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). Because of the argument already made about the difficulty of the subject and the dulness of the readers. {Let us cease to speak} (\aphentes ton logon\). Second aorist active participle of \aphiˆmi\, to leave off or behind. {Of the first principles of Christ} (\tˆs archˆs tou Christou\). Objective genitive \Christou\ (about Christ). "Leaving behind the discussion of the beginning about Christ," another way of saying again \ta stoicheia tˆs archˆs t“n logi“n tou theou\ of strkjv@5:12|. {And press on} (\kai pher“metha\). Volitive present subjunctive passive, "Let us be borne on" (both the writer and the readers). The Pythagorean Schools use \pher“metha\ in precisely this sense of being borne on to a higher stage of instruction. Bleek quotes several instances of Greek writers using together as here of \aphentes pher“metha\ (Eurip., _Androm_. 393, for instance). {Unto perfection} (\epi tˆn teleiotˆta\). Old word from \teleios\ mature, adults as in strkjv@5:14|. Only twice in N.T. (here and strkjv@Colossians:3:14|). Let us go on to the stage of adults, not babes, able to masticate solid spiritual food. The writer will assume that the readers are adults in his discussion of the topic. {Not laying again the foundation} (\mˆ palin themelion kataballomenoi\). The regular idiom for laying down the foundation of a building (\themelion\, strkjv@Luke:6:48f.|). The metaphor is common (1Corinthians:3:11|) and the foundation is important, but one cannot be laying the foundation always if he is to build the house. There are six items mentioned here as part of the "foundation," though the accusative \didachˆn\ in apposition with \themelion\ may mean that there are only four included in the \themelion\. Two are qualitative genitives after \themelion\ (\metanoias\ and \piste“s\). What is meant by "dead works" (\apo nekr“n erg“n\) is not clear (9:14|), though the reference may be to touching a corpse (Numbers:19:1f.; strkjv@31:19|). There are frequent allusions to the deadening power of sin (James:2:17,26; strkjv@John:7:25; Rom strkjv@6:1,11; strkjv@7:8; strkjv@Colossians:2:13; strkjv@Ephesians:2:1,5|). The use of repentance and faith together occurs also elsewhere (Mark:1:15; strkjv@Acts:20:21; strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:9|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:2 @{A tenth} (\dekatˆn\). It was common to offer a tenth of the spoils to the gods. Songs:Abraham recognized Melchizedek as a priest of God. {Divided} (\emerisen\). First aorist active of \meriz“\, from \meros\ (portion), to separate into parts. From this point till near the end of verse 3| (the Son of God) is a long parenthesis with \houtos\ of verse 1| as the subject of \menei\ (abideth) as the Revised Version punctuates it. Philo had made popular the kind of exegesis used here. The author gives in Greek the meaning of the Hebrew words Melchizedek (King of righteousness, cf. strkjv@1:8|) and Salem (peace).

rwp@Hebrews:11:4 @{A more excellent sacrifice} (\pleiona thusian\). Literally, "more sacrifice" (comparative of \polus\, much). For this rather free use of \plei“n\ with the point implied rather than stated see strkjv@Matthew:6:25; strkjv@Luke:10:31; strkjv@12:23; strkjv@Hebrews:3:3|. {Than Cain} (\para Kain\). For this use of \para\ after comparative see strkjv@1:4,9|. For the incident see strkjv@Genesis:4:4|. {Through which} (\di' hˆs\). The sacrifice (\thusia\). {He had Witness borne to him} (\emarturˆthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \marture“\ as in verse 2|, "he was witnessed to." {That he was righteous} (\einai dikaios\). Infinitive in indirect discourse after \emarturˆthˆ\, personal construction of \dikaios\ (predicate nominative after \einai\) agreeing with the subject of \emarturˆthˆ\ (cf. strkjv@Romans:1:22|, \einai sophoi\). {God bearing witness} (\marturountos tou theou\). Genitive absolute with present active participle of \marture“\. {Through it} (\di' autˆs\). Through his faith (as shown by his sacrifice). Precisely why Abel's sacrifice was better than that of Cain apart from his faith is not shown. {Being dead} (\apothan“n\). Second aorist active participle of \apothnˆsk“\, "having died." {Yet speaketh} (\eti lalei\). Cf. strkjv@Genesis:4:10; strkjv@Hebrews:12:24|. Speaks still through his faith.

rwp@Hebrews:12:9 @{Furthermore} (\eita\). The next step in the argument (Mark:4:17|). {We had} (\eichomen\). Imperfect indicative of customary action, "we used to have." {To chasten us} (\paideutas\). Predicate accusative after \eichomen\, "as chasteners." Old word from \paideu“\, as agent (\-tˆs\). Only once in LXX (Hosea:5:2|) and twice in N.T. (here and strkjv@Romans:2:20|). {We gave them reverence} (\enetrepometha\). Imperfect middle of old word \entrep“\, to turn in or at. Here "we turned ourselves to" as in strkjv@Matthew:21:37|, habitual attitude of reverence. {Shall we be in subjection} (\hupotagˆsometha\). Second future passive of \hupotass“\. There is no \de\ here to correspond to \men\ in the first part of the verse. {Unto the father of spirits} (\t“i patri t“n pneumat“n\). Rather, "Unto the Father of our spirits" (note article \ton\). As God is.

rwp@Hebrews:13:2 @{As bound with them} (\h“s sundedemenoi\). Perfect passive participle of \sunde“\, old verb, here only in N.T. For sympathy with prisoners see strkjv@10:34|. {As being yourselves also in the body} (\h“s kai autoi ontes en s“mati\). And so subject to evil treatment. See strkjv@11:37| for \kakouche“\ and strkjv@11:25| for \sunkakouche“\.

rwp@James:4:5 @{The Scripture} (\hˆ graphˆ\). Personification as in strkjv@Galatians:3:8; strkjv@James:2:23|. But no O.T. passage is precisely like this, though it is "a poetical rendering" (Ropes) of strkjv@Exodus:20:5|. The general thought occurs also in strkjv@Genesis:6:3-5; strkjv@Isaiah:63:8-16|, etc. Paul has the same idea also (Galatians:5:17,21; strkjv@Romans:8:6,8|). It is possible that the reference is really to the quotation in verse 6| from strkjv@Proverbs:3:34| and treating all before as a parenthesis. There is no way to decide positively. {In vain} (\ken“s\). Old adverb (Aristotle) from \ken“s\ (2:20|), here alone in N.T. "Emptily," not meaning what it says. {Made to dwell} (\kat“ikisen\). First aorist active of \katoikiz“\, old verb, to give a dwelling to, only here in N.T. {Long unto envying} (\pros phthonon epipothei\). A difficult phrase. Some even take \pros phthonon\ with \legei\ rather than with \epipothei\, as it naturally does go, meaning "jealously." But even so, with God presented as a jealous lover, does \to pneuma\ refer to the Holy Spirit as the subject of \epipothei\ or to man's spirit as the object of \epipothei\? Probably the former and \epipothei\ then means to yearn after in the good sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:8|.

rwp@James:4:7 @{Be subject therefore unto God} (\hupotagˆte oun t“i the“i\). Second aorist (ingressive) passive imperative of \hupotass“\, old verb, to range under (military term also). Same form in strkjv@1Peter:2:23; strkjv@5:5|. With the dative case \the“i\ (unto God). The aorist has the note of urgency in the imperative. Note the ten aorist imperatives in verses 7-10| (\hupotagˆte, antistˆte, eggisate, katharisate, hagnisate, talaip“rˆsate, penthˆsate, klausate, metatrapˆt“, tapein“thˆte\). {But resist the devil} (\antistˆte de t“i diabol“i\). Second aorist (ingressive) active (intransitive) imperative of \anthistˆmi\, "take a stand against." Dative case \diabol“i\. Result of such a stand is that the devil will flee (\pheuxetai\, future middle of \pheug“\). See strkjv@1Peter:5:8f.; strkjv@Ephesians:6:11f.; strkjv@Luke:10:17|.

rwp@James:4:11 @{Speak not one against another} (\mˆ katalaleite allˆl“n\). Prohibition against such a habit or a command to quit doing it, with \mˆ\ and the present imperative of \katalale“\, old compound usually with the accusative in ancient Greek, in N.T. only with the genitive (here, strkjv@1Peter:2:12; strkjv@3:16|). Often harsh words about the absent. James returns to the subject of the tongue as he does again in strkjv@5:12| (twice before, strkjv@1:26; strkjv@3:1-12|). {Judgeth} (\krin“n\). In the sense of harsh judgment as in strkjv@Matthew:7:1; strkjv@Luke:6:37| (explained by \katadikaz“\). {Not a doer of the law, but a judge} (\ouk poiˆtˆs nomou, alla kritˆs\). This tone of superiority to law is here sharply condemned. James has in mind God's law, of course, but the point is the same for all laws under which we live. We cannot select the laws which we will obey unless some contravene God's law, and so our own conscience (Acts:4:20|). Then we are willing to give our lives for our rebellion if need be.

rwp@James:5:6 @{Ye have condemned} (\katedikasate\). First aorist active indicative of \katadikaz“\, old verb (from \katadikˆ\, condemnation, strkjv@Acts:25:15|). The rich controlled the courts of justice. {Ye have killed the righteous one} (\ephoneusate ton dikaion\). First aorist active indicative of \phoneu“\ (2:11; strkjv@4:2|). "The righteous one" (\t“n dikaion\) is the generic use of the singular with article for the class. There is probably no direct reference to one individual, though it does picture well the death of Christ and also the coming death of James himself, who was called the Just (Eus. _H.E_. ii. 23). Stephen (Acts:7:52|) directly accuses the Sanhedrin with being betrayers and murderers (\prodotai kai phoneis\) of the righteous one (\tou dikaiou\). {He doth not resist you} (\ouk antitassetai humin\). It is possible to treat this as a question. Present middle indicative of \antitass“\, for which see strkjv@James:4:6|. Without a question the unresisting end of the victim (\ton dikaion\) is pictured. With a question (\ouk\, expecting an affirmative answer) God or Lord is the subject, with the final judgment in view. There is no way to decide definitely.

rwp@Info_John @ THE UNITY OF THE GOSPEL This has been attacked in various ways in spite of the identity of style throughout. There are clearly three parts in the Gospel: the Prologue, strkjv@John:1:1-18|, the Body of the Book, strkjv@John:1:19-20:31|, the Epilogue, strkjv@John:21|. But there is no evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter. This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but here again there is no proof and no real reason for the supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped at strkjv@John:20:31| and then added strkjv@John:21| before sending the book forth after his friends added strkjv@John:21:24| as their endorsement of the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there. Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands even if that be true.

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:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \ˆn\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\eskˆn“sen en hˆmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skˆno“\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\skˆnos\ or \skˆnˆ\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tˆn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\h“s monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogenˆ\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patˆr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogenˆs\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plˆrˆs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plˆrˆs\ can agree with the subject of \eskˆn“sen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai alˆtheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \alˆtheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

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

rwp@John:4:4 @{He must needs pass through Samaria} (\Edei de auton dierchesthai dia tˆs Samarias\). Imperfect indicative of the impersonal verb \dei\ with subject infinitive (\dierchesthai\) and accusative of general reference (\auton\). Note repetition of \dia\. It was only necessary to pass through Samaria in going directly north from Judea to Galilee. In coming south from Galilee travellers usually crossed over the Jordan and came down through Perea to avoid the hostility of the Samaritans towards people who passed through their land to go to Jerusalem. Jesus once met this bitterness on going to the feast of tabernacles (Luke:9:51-56|).

rwp@John:4:19 @{Sir} (\Kurie\). Songs:still. {I perceive} (\the“r“\). "I am beginning to perceive" from what you say, your knowledge of my private life (verse 29|). See strkjv@2:23| for \the“re“\ which John's Gospel has 23 times, of bodily sight (20:6,14|), of mental contemplation (12:45; strkjv@14:17|). See both \the“re“\ and \optomai\ in strkjv@1:51; strkjv@16:16|. {That thou art a prophet} (\hoti prophˆtˆs ei su\). "That a prophet art thou" (emphasis on "thou"). She felt that this was the explanation of his knowledge of her life and she wanted to change the subject at once to the outstanding theological dispute.

rwp@John:4:34 @{To do the will} (\hina poiˆs“ to thelˆma\). Non-final use of \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive as subject or predicate nominative as in strkjv@6:29; strkjv@15:8; strkjv@17:3|. The Messianic consciousness of Jesus is clear and steady (5:30; strkjv@6:38|). He never doubted that the Father sent him. {And to accomplish his work} (\kai telei“s“ autou to ergon\). \Hina\ understood with \telei“s“\ in like idiom, first aorist active subjunctive of \teleio“\ (from \teleios\), to bring to an end. See strkjv@5:36|. In strkjv@17:4| (the Intercessory Prayer) he will say that he has done (\telei“sas\) this task which the Father gave him to do. On the Cross Jesus will cry \Tetelestai\ (It is finished). He will carry through the Father's programme (John:3:16|). That is his "food." He had been doing that in winning the woman to God.

rwp@John:8:43 @{My speech} (\tˆn lalian tˆn emˆn\) and {my word} (\ton logon ton emon\). Perhaps \lalia\, old word from \lalos\ (talk), means here more manner of speech than just story (4:42|), while \logos\ refers rather to the subject matter. They will not listen (\ou dunasthe akouein\) to the substance of Christ's teaching and hence they are impatient with the way that he talks. How often that is true.

rwp@John:8:44 @{Ye are of your father the devil} (\humeis ek tou patros tou diabolou\). Certainly they can "understand" (\gin“skete\ in 43|) this "talk" (\lalian\) though they will be greatly angered. But they had to hear it (\akouein\ in 43|). It was like a bombshell in spite of the preliminary preparation. {Your will to do} (\thelete poiein\). Present active indicative of \thel“\ and present active infinitive, "Ye wish to go on doing." This same idea Jesus presents in strkjv@Matthew:13:38| (the sons of the evil one, the devil) and strkjv@23:15| (twofold more a son of Gehenna than you). See also strkjv@1John:3:8| for "of the devil" (\ek tou diabolou\) for the one who persists in sinning. In strkjv@Revelation:12:9| the devil is one who leads all the world astray. The Gnostic view that Jesus means "the father of the devil" is grotesque. Jesus does not, of course, here deny that the Jews, like all men, are children of God the Creator, like Paul's offspring of God for all men in strkjv@Acts:17:28|. What he denies to these Pharisees is that they are spiritual children of God who do his will. They do the lusts and will of the devil. The Baptist had denied this same spiritual fatherhood to the merely physical descendants of Abraham (Matthew:3:9|). He even called them "broods of vipers" as Jesus did later (Matthew:12:34|). {A murderer} (\anthr“poktonos\). Old and rare word (Euripides) from \anthr“pos\, man, and \ktein“\, to kill. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1John:3:15|. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus and so like their father the devil. {Stood not in the truth} (\en tˆi alˆtheiƒi ouk estˆken\). Since \ouk\, not \ouch\, is genuine, the form of the verb is \esteken\ the imperfect of the late present stem \stˆk“\ (Mark:11:25|) from the perfect active \hestˆka\ (intransitive) of \histˆmi\, to place. {No truth in him} (\ouk estin alˆtheia en aut“i\). Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. {When he speaketh a lie} (\hotan lalˆi to pseudos\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the present active subjunctive of \lale“\. But note the article \to\: "Whenever he speaks the lie," as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence "he speaks out of his own" (\ek t“n idi“n lalei\) like a fountain bubbling up (cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:34|). {For he is a liar} (\hoti pseustˆs estin\). Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood (\pseudos\). See strkjv@1John:1:10; strkjv@Romans:3:4|. Common word in John because of the emphasis on \alˆtheia\ (truth). {And the father thereof} (\kai ho patˆr autou\). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. {Autou} in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, "because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar," making "one," not the devil, the subject of "whenever he speaks," a very doubtful expression.

rwp@John:11:50 @{That it is expedient for you} (\hoti sumpherei humin\). Indirect discourse with present active indicative of \sumpher“\ used with the \hina\ clause as subject. It means to bear together, to be profitable, with the dative case as here (\humin\, for you). It is to your interest and that is what they cared most for. {That one man die} (\hina heis anthr“pos apothanˆi\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnˆsk“\ as subject clause with \sumpherei\. See strkjv@16:7; strkjv@18:7| for the same construction. {For the people} (\huper tou laou\). \Huper\ simply means _over_, but can be in behalf of as often, and in proper context the resultant idea is "instead of" as the succeeding clause shows and as is clearly so in strkjv@Galatians:3:13| of the death of Christ and naturally so in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:14f.; strkjv@Romans:5:6|. In the papyri \huper\ is the usual preposition used of one who writes a letter for one unable to write. {And that the whole nation perish not} (\kai mˆ holon to ethnos apolˆtai\). Continuation of the \hina\ construction with \mˆ\ and the second aorist subjunctive of \apollumi\. What Caiaphas has in mind is the giving of Jesus to death to keep the nation from perishing at the hands of the Romans. Politicians are often willing to make a sacrifice of the other fellow.

rwp@Info_Jude:@ THE RELATION TO II PETER Beyond a doubt one of these Epistles was used by the other, as one can see by comparing particularly strkjv@Jude:1:3-18| and strkjv@2Peter:2:1-18|. As already said concerning II Peter, scholars are greatly divided on this point, and in our present state of knowledge it does not seem possible to reach a solid conclusion. The probability is that not much time elapsed between them. Mayor devotes a whole chapter to the discussion of the relation between II Peter and Jude:and reaches the conclusion "that in Jude:we have the first thought, in Peter the second thought." That is my own feeling, but it is all so subjective that I have no desire to urge the point unduly. Bigg is equally positive that II Peter comes before Jude.

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 @ 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:1:3 @{It seemed good to me also} (\edoxe kamoi\). A natural conclusion and justification of Luke's decision to write his narrative. They had ample reason to draw up their narratives. Luke has more reason to do so because of his fuller knowledge and wider scope. {Having traced the course of all things} (\parˆkolouthˆkoti pƒsin\). The perfect active participle of a common verb of the ancient Greek. Literally it means to follow along a thing in mind, to trace carefully. Both meanings occur abundantly in the ancient Greek. Cadbury (Appendix C to _Beginnings of Christianity_, Vol. II, pp. 489ff.) objects to the translation "having traced" here as implying research which the word does not here mean. Milligan (_Vocabulary_) is somewhat impressed by this argument. See my discussion of the point in Chapter XVI of _Studies in the Text of the N.T._ (The Implications in Luke's Preface) where the point is made that Luke here claims fulness of knowledge before he began to write his book. He had the traditions of the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word and the narratives previously drawn up. Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had _mentally_ followed along by the side of these events. Galen used this verb for the investigation of symptoms. Luke got himself ready to write before he began by full and accurate knowledge of the subject. \Akrib“s\ (accurately) means going into minute details, from \akron\, the topmost point. And he did it {from the first} (\an“then\). He seems to refer to the matters in Chapters strkjv@1:5-2:52|, the Gospel of the Infancy. {In order} (\kathexˆs\). Chronological order in the main following Mark's general outline. But in strkjv@9:51-18:10| the order is often topical. He has made careful investigation and his work deserves serious consideration. {Most excellent Theophilus} (\kratiste Theophile\). The name means god-lover or god-beloved. He may have been a believer already. He was probably a Gentile. Ramsay holds that "most excellent" was a title like "Your Excellency" and shows that he held office, perhaps a Knight. Songs:of Felix (Acts:23:26|) and Festus (Acts:26:25|). The adjective does not occur in the dedication in strkjv@Acts:1:1|.

rwp@Luke:1:9 @{His lot was} (\elache\). Literally, {he obtained the lot}. Second aorist active indicative of \lagchan“\, to obtain by lot, a very old verb from Homer on. It is used either with the genitive as here, or the accusative as in strkjv@Acts:1:17; strkjv@2Peter:1:1|. Papyri show examples with the accusative. It was only once in a lifetime that a priest obtained the lot of going (\eiselth“n\, here nominative aorist active participle agreeing with the subject of \elache\) into the sanctuary (\ton naon\, not \to hieron\, the outer courts) and burning incense on the golden altar. "It was the great moment of Zacharias's life, and his heart was no doubt alert for the supernatural" (Ragg). The fortunate lot was "a white stone" to which strkjv@Revelation:2:17| may refer. {Burn incense} (\tou thumiasai\). Here only in the N.T. Occurs on inscriptions. Hobart finds it used by medical writers for fumigating herbs. "Ascending the steps to the Holy Place, the priests spread the coals on the golden altar, and arranged the incense, and the chief operating priest was then left alone within the Holy Place to await the signal of the president to burn the incense. It was probably at this time that the angel appeared to Zacharias" (Vincent).

rwp@Luke:2:14 @{Among men in whom he is well pleased} (\en anthr“pois eudokias\). The Textus Receptus (Authorized Version also has \eudokia\, but the genitive \eudokias\ is undoubtedly correct, supported by the oldest and best uncials. (Aleph, A B D W). C has a lacuna here. Plummer justly notes how in this angelic hymn Glory and Peace correspond, in the highest and on earth, to God and among men of goodwill. It would be possible to connect "on earth" with "the highest" and also to have a triple division. There has been much objection raised to the genitive \eudokias\, the correct text. But it makes perfectly good sense and better sense. As a matter of fact real peace on earth exists only among those who are the subjects of God's goodwill, who are characterized by goodwill toward God and man. This word \eudokia\ we have already had in strkjv@Matthew:11:26|. It does not occur in the ancient Greek. The word is confined to Jewish and Christian writings, though the papyri furnish instances of \eudokˆsis\. Wycliff has it "to men of goodwill."

rwp@Luke:2:28 @{Then he} (\kai autos\). \Kai\ as in strkjv@2:21|. \Autos\, emphatic subject, he after the parents. {Arms} (\agkalas\). Old Greek word, here only in the N.T. It means the curve or inner angle of the arm.

rwp@Luke:2:51 @{He was subject unto them} (\ˆn hupotassomenos autois\). Periphrastic imperfect passive. He continued subject unto them, this wondrous boy who really knew more than parents and rabbis, this gentle, obedient, affectionate boy. The next eighteen years at Nazareth (Luke:3:23|) he remained growing into manhood and becoming the carpenter of Nazareth (Mark:6:3|) in succession to Joseph (Matthew:13:55|) who is mentioned here for the last time. Who can tell the wistful days when Jesus waited at Nazareth for the Father to call him to his Messianic task? {Kept} (\dietˆrei\). Imperfect active. Ancient Greek word (\diatˆre“\), but only here and strkjv@Acts:15:29| in the N.T. though in strkjv@Genesis:37:11|. She kept thoroughly (\dia\) all these recent sayings (or things, \rhˆmata\). In strkjv@2:19| \sunetˆrei\ is the word used of Mary after the shepherds left. These she kept pondering and comparing all the things. Surely she has a full heart now. Could she foresee how destiny would take Jesus out beyond her mother's reach?

rwp@Luke:3:21 @{When all the people were baptised} (\en t“i baptisthˆnai hapanta ton laon\). The use of the articular aorist infinitive here with \en\ bothers some grammarians and commentators. There is no element of time in the aorist infinitive. It is simply punctiliar action, literally "in the being baptized as to all the people." Luke does not say that all the people were baptized before Jesus came or were baptized at the same time. It is merely a general statement that Jesus was baptized in connexion with or at the time of the baptizing of the people as a whole. {Jesus also having been baptized} (\kai Iˆsou baptisthentos\). Genitive absolute construction, first aorist passive participle. In Luke's sentence the baptism of Jesus is merely introductory to the descent of the Holy Spirit and the voice of the Father. For the narrative of the baptism see strkjv@Mark:1:9; strkjv@Matthew:3:13-16|. {And praying} (\kai proseuchomenou\). Alone in Luke who so often mentions the praying of Jesus. Present participle and so naturally meaning that the heaven was opened while Jesus was praying though not necessarily in answer to his prayer. {The heaven was opened} (\ane“ichthˆnai ton ouranon\). First aorist passive infinitive with double augment, whereas the infinitive is not supposed to have any augment. The regular form would be \anoichthˆnai\ as in D (Codex Bezae). Songs:the augment appears in the future indicative \kateaxei\ (Matthew:12:20|) and the second aorist passive subjunctive \kateag“sin\ (John:19:31|). Such unusual forms appear in the _Koin‚_. This infinitive here with the accusative of general reference is the subject of \egeneto\ (it came to pass). strkjv@Matthew:3:16| uses the same verb, but strkjv@Mark:1:10| has \schizomenous\, rent asunder.

rwp@Luke:4:3 @{The Son of God} (\huios tou theou\). No article as in strkjv@Matthew:4:3|. Songs:refers to the relationship as Son of God rather than to the office of Messiah. Manifest reference to the words of the Father in strkjv@Luke:3:22|. Condition of the first class as in Matthew. The devil assumes that Jesus is Son of God. {This stone} (\t“i lith“i tout“i\). Perhaps pointing to a particular round stone that looked in shape and size like a loaf of bread. Stanley (_Sinai and Palestine_, p. 154) on Mt. Carmel found crystallizations of stones called "Elijah's melons." The hunger of Jesus opened the way for the diabolic suggestion designed to inspire doubt in Jesus toward his Father. Matthew has "these stones." {Bread} (\artos\). Better "loaf." For discussion of this first temptation see on ¯Matthew:4:3f|. Jesus felt the force of each of the temptations without yielding at all to the sin involved. See discussion on Matthew also for reality of the devil and the objective and subjective elements in the temptations. Jesus quotes strkjv@Deuteronomy:8:3| in reply to the devil.

rwp@Luke:8:11 @{Is this} (\estin de hautˆ\). Means this. Jesus now proceeds to interpret his own parable. {The seed is the word of God} (\ho sporos estin ho logos tou theou\). The article with both subject and predicate as here means that they are interchangeable and can be turned round: The word of God is the seed. The phrase "the word of God" does not appear in Matthew and only once in Mark (Mark:7:13|) and John (John:10:35|), but four times in Luke (5:1; strkjv@8:11,21; strkjv@11:28|) and twelve times in Acts. In strkjv@Mark:4:14| we have only "the word." In strkjv@Mark:3:31| we have "the will of God," and in strkjv@Matthew:12:46| "the will of my Father" where strkjv@Luke:8:21| has "the word of God." This seems to show that Luke has the subjective genitive here and means the word that comes from God.

rwp@Luke:9:31 @{There talked with him} (\sunelaloun aut“i\). Imperfect active, were talking with him. {Who appeared in glory} (\hoi ophthentes en doxˆi\). First aorist passive participle of \hora“\. This item peculiar to Luke. Compare verse 26|. {Spake of his decease} (\elegon tˆn exodon\). Imperfect active, were talking about his \exodus\ (departure from earth to heaven) very much like our English word "decease" (Latin _decessus_, a going away). The glorious light graphically revealed Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus about the very subject concerning which Peter had dared to rebuke Jesus for mentioning (Mark:8:32; strkjv@Matthew:16:22|). This very word \exodus\ (way out) in the sense of death occurs in strkjv@2Peter:1:15| and is followed by a brief description of the Transfiguration glory. Other words for death (\thanatos\) in the N.T. are \ekbasis\, going out as departure (Hebrews:13:7|), \aphixis\, departing (Acts:20:29|), \analusis\, loosening anchor (2Timothy:4:6|) and \analusai\ (Phillipians:1:23|). {To accomplish} (\plˆroun\). To fulfil. Moses had led the Exodus from Egypt. Jesus will accomplish the exodus of God's people into the Promised Land on high. See on Mark and Matthew for discussion of significance of the appearance of Moses and Elijah as representatives of law and prophecy and with a peculiar death. The purpose of the Transfiguration was to strengthen the heart of Jesus as he was praying long about his approaching death and to give these chosen three disciples a glimpse of his glory for the hour of darkness coming. No one on earth understood the heart of Jesus and so Moses and Elijah came. The poor disciples utterly failed to grasp the significance of it all.

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:9:49 @{And John answered} (\apokritheis de I“anˆs\). As if John wanted to change the subject after the embarrassment of the rebuke for their dispute concerning greatness (Luke:9:46-48|). {Master} (\epistata\). Only in Luke in the N.T. as already four times (5:5; strkjv@8:24,45; strkjv@9:33|). {We forbade him} (\ek“luomen auton\). Conative imperfect as in strkjv@Mark:9:38|, We tried to hinder him. {Because he followeth not with us} (\hoti ouk akolouthei meth hˆm“n\). Present tense preserved for vividness where Mark has imperfect {ˆkolouthei}. Note also here "with us" (\meth' hˆm“n\) where Mark has associative instrumental \hˆmin\. It is a pitiful specimen of partisan narrowness and pride even in the Beloved Disciple, one of the Sons of Thunder. The man was doing the Master's work in the Master's name and with the Master's power, but did not run with the group of the Twelve.

rwp@Luke:10:17 @{Returned with joy} (\hupestrepsan meta charas\). They had profited by the directions of Jesus. Joy overflows their faces and their words. {Even the demons} (\kai ta daimonia\). This was a real test. The Twelve had been expressly endowed with this power when they were sent out (Luke:9:1|), but the Seventy were only told to heal the sick (10:9|). It was better than they expected. The Gospel worked wonders and they were happy. The demons were merely one sign of the conflict between Christ and Satan. Every preacher has to grapple with demons in his work. {Are subject} (\hupotassetai\). Present passive indicative (repetition).

rwp@Luke:11:1 @{As he was praying in a certain place} (\en t“i einai auton en top“i tini proseuchomenon\). Characteristically Lukan idiom: \en\ with articular periphrastic infinitive (\einai proseuchomenon\) with accusative of general reference (\auton\). {That}. Not in the Greek, asyndeton (\kai egeneto eipen\). {When he ceased} (\h“s epausato\). Supply \proseuchomenos\ (praying), complementary or supplementary participle. {Teach us} (\didaxon hˆmas\). Jesus had taught them by precept (Matthew:6:7-15|) and example (Luke:9:29|). Somehow the example of Jesus on this occasion stirred them to fresh interest in the subject and to revival of interest in John's teachings (Luke:5:33|). Songs:Jesus gave them the substance of the Model Prayer in Matthew, but in shorter form. Some of the MSS. have one or all of the phrases in Matthew, but the oldest documents have it in the simplest form. See on ¯Matthew:6:7-15| for discussion of these details (Father, hallowed, kingdom, daily bread, forgiveness, bringing us into temptation). In strkjv@Matthew:6:11| "give" is \dos\ (second aorist active imperative second singular, a single act) while here strkjv@Luke:11:3| "give" is \didou\ (present active imperative, both from \did“mi\) and means, "keep on giving." Songs:in strkjv@Luke:11:4| we have "For we ourselves also forgive" (\kai gar autoi aphiomen\), present active indicative of the late \“\ verb \aphi“\ while strkjv@Matthew:6:12| has "as we also forgave" (\h“s kai hˆmeis aphˆkamen\), first aorist (\k\ aorist) active of \aphiˆmi\. Songs:also where strkjv@Matthew:6:12| has "debts" (\ta opheilˆmata\) strkjv@Luke:11:4| has "sins" (\tas hamartias\). But the spirit of each prayer is the same. There is no evidence that Jesus meant either form to be a ritual. In both strkjv@Matthew:6:13; strkjv@Luke:11:4| \mˆ eisenegkˆis\ occurs (second aorist subjunctive with \mˆ\ in prohibition, ingressive aorist). "Bring us not" is a better translation than "lead us not." There is no such thing as God enticing one to sin (James:1:13|). Jesus urges us to pray not to be tempted as in strkjv@Luke:22:40| in Gethsemane.

rwp@Luke:11:11 @{Of which of you that is a father} (\tina de ex hum“n ton patera\). There is a decided anacoluthon here. The MSS. differ a great deal. The text of Westcott and Hort makes \ton patera\ (the father) in apposition with \tina\ (of whom) and in the accusative the object of \aitˆsei\ (shall ask) which has also another accusative (both person and thing) "a loaf." Songs:far so good. But the rest of the sentence is, {will ye give him a stone?} (\mˆ lithon epid“sei aut“i;\). \Mˆ\ shows that the answer No is expected, but the trouble is that the interrogative \tina\ in the first clause is in the accusative the object of \aitˆsei\ while here the same man (he) is the subject of \epid“sei\. It is a very awkward piece of Greek and yet it is intelligible. Some of the old MSS. do not have the part about "loaf" and "stone," but only the two remaining parts about "fish" and "serpent," "egg" and "scorpion." The same difficult construction is carried over into these questions also.

rwp@Luke:12:26 @{Not able to do even that which is least} (\oude elachiston dunasthe\). Negative \oude\ in the condition of the first class. Elative superlative, very small. This verse not in Matthew and omitted in D. Verse 27| as in strkjv@Matthew:6:28|, save that the verbs for toil and spin are plural in Matthew and singular here (neuter plural subject, \ta krina\).

rwp@Luke:13:7 @{The vinedresser} (\ton ampelourgon\). Old word, but here only in the N.T., from \ampelos\, vine, and \ergon\, work. {These three years I come} (\tria etˆ aph' hou erchomai\). Literally, "three years since (from which time) I come." These three years, of course, have nothing to do with the three years of Christ's public ministry. The three years are counted from the time when the fig tree would normally be expected to bear, not from the time of planting. The Jewish nation is meant by this parable of the barren fig tree. In the withering of the barren fig tree later at Jerusalem we see parable changed to object lesson or fact (Mark:11:12-14; strkjv@Matthew:21:18f.|). {Cut it down} (\ekkopson\). "Cut it out," the Greek has it, out of the vineyard, perfective use of \ek\ with the effective aorist active imperative of \kopt“\, where we prefer "down." {Why?} (\hina ti\). Ellipsis here of \genˆtai\ of which \ti\ is subject (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 739,916). {Also} (\kai\). Besides bearing no fruit. {Doth cumber the ground} (\tˆn gˆn katargei\). Makes the ground completely idle, of no use (\kata, arge“\, from \argos\, \a\ privative and \ergon\, work). Late verb, here only in the N.T. except in Paul's Epistles.

rwp@Luke:16:14 @{Who were lovers of money} (\philarguroi huparchontes\). Literally, being lovers of money. \Philarguroi\ is an old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:2|. It is from \philos\ and \arguros\. {Heard} (\ˆkouon\). Imperfect active, were listening (all the while Jesus was talking to the disciples (verses 1-13|). {And they scoffed at him} (\kai exemuktˆrizon\). Imperfect active again of \ekmuktˆriz“\. LXX where late writers use simple verb. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:23:35|. It means to turn out or up the nose at one, to sneer, to scoff. The Romans had a phrase, _naso adunco suspendere_, to hang on the hooked nose (the subject of ridicule). These money-loving Pharisees were quick to see that the words of Jesus about the wise use of money applied to them. They had stood without comment the three parables aimed directly at them (the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son). But now they do not remain quiet while they hear the fourth parable spoken to the disciples. No words were apparently spoken, but their eyes, noses, faces were eloquent with a fine disdain.

rwp@Luke:19:42 @{If thou hadst known} (\ei egn“s\). Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\. Second-class condition, determined as unfulfilled. {Even thou} (\kai su\). Emphatic position of the subject. {But now} (\nun de\). Aposiopesis. The conclusion is not expressed and the sudden breaking off and change of structure is most impressive. {They are hid} (\ekrubˆ\). Second aorist passive indicative of \krupt“\, common verb, to hide.

rwp@Luke:22:19 @{Which is given for you} (\to huper hum“n didomenon\). Some MSS. omit these verses though probably genuine. The correct text in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:24| has "which is for you," not "which is broken for you." It is curious to find the word "broken" here preserved and justified so often, even by Easton in his commentary on Luke, p. 320. {In remembrance of me} (\eis tˆn emˆn anamnˆsin\). Objective use of the possessive pronoun \emˆn\, not the subjective. {This do} (\touto poieite\). Present active indicative, repetition, keep on doing this.

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@Luke:24:3 @{Of the Lord Jesus} (\tou kuriou Iˆsou\). The Western family of documents does not have these words and Westcott and Hort bracket them as Western non-interpolations. There are numerous instances of this shorter Western text in this chapter. For a discussion of the subject see my _Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_, pp. 225-237. This precise combination (the Lord Jesus) is common in the Acts, but nowhere else in the Gospels.

rwp@Mark:1:14 @{Jesus came into Galilee} (\ˆlthen ho Iˆsous eis tˆn Galilaian\). Here Mark begins the narrative of the active ministry of Jesus and he is followed by Matthew and Luke. Mark undoubtedly follows the preaching of Peter. But for the Fourth Gospel we should not know of the year of work in various parts of the land (Perea, Galilee, Judea, Samaria) preceding the Galilean ministry. John supplements the Synoptic Gospels at this point as often. The arrest of John had much to do with the departure of Jesus from Judea to Galilee (John:4:1-4|). {Preaching the gospel of God} (\kˆruss“n to euaggelion tou theou\). It is the subjective genitive, the gospel that comes from God. Swete observes that repentance (\metanoia\) is the keynote in the message of the Baptist as gospel (\euaggelion\) is with Jesus. But Jesus took the same line as John and proclaimed both repentance and the arrival of the kingdom of God. Mark adds to Matthew's report the words "the time is fulfilled" (\peplˆr“tai ho kairos\). It is a significant fact that John looks backward to the promise of the coming of the Messiah and signalizes the fulfilment as near at hand (perfect passive indicative). It is like Paul's fulness of time (\plˆr“ma tou chronou\) in strkjv@Galatians:4:4| and fulness of the times (\plˆr“ma ton kair“n\) in strkjv@Ephesians:1:10| when he employs the word \kairos\, opportunity or crisis as here in Mark rather than the more general term \chronos\. Mark adds here also: "and believe in the gospel" (\kai pisteuete en t“i euaggeli“i\). Both repent and believe in the gospel. Usually faith in Jesus (or God) is expected as in John strkjv@14:1|. But this crisis called for faith in the message of Jesus that the Messiah had come. He did not use here the term Messiah, for it had come to have political connotations that made its use at present unwise. But the kingdom of God had arrived with the presence of the King. It does make a difference what one believes. Belief or disbelief in the message of Jesus made a sharp cleavage in those who heard him. "Faith in the message was the first step; a creed of some kind lies at the basis of confidence in the Person of Christ, and the occurrence of the phrase \pistuete en t“i euaggeli“i\ in the oldest record of the teaching of our Lord is a valuable witness to this fact" (Swete).

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:9:32 @{But they understood not the saying} (\hoi de ˆgnooun to rhˆma\). An old word. Chiefly in Paul's Epistles in the N.T. Imperfect tense. They continued not to understand. They were agnostics on the subject of the death and resurrection even after the Transfiguration experience. As they came down from the mountain they were puzzled again over the Master's allusion to his resurrection (Mark:9:10|). strkjv@Matthew:17:23| notes that "they were exceeding sorry" to hear Jesus talk this way again, but Mark adds that they "were afraid to ask him" (\ephobounto auton eper“tˆsai\). Continued to be afraid (imperfect tense), perhaps with a bitter memory of the term "Satan" hurled at Peter when he protested the other time when Jesus spoke of his death (Mark:8:33; strkjv@Matthew:16:23|). strkjv@Luke:9:45| explains that "it was concealed from them," probably partly by their own preconceived ideas and prejudices.

rwp@Mark:9:38 @{Because he followed not us} (\hoti ouk ˆkolouthei hˆmin\). Note vivid imperfect tense again. John evidently thought to change the subject from the constraint and embarrassment caused by their dispute. Songs:he told about a case of extra zeal on his part expecting praise from Jesus. Perhaps what Jesus had just said in verse 37| raised a doubt in John's mind as to the propriety of his excessive narrowness. One needs to know the difference between loyalty to Jesus and stickling over one's own narrow prejudices.

rwp@Mark:10:2 @{Tempting him} (\peirazontes\). As soon as Jesus appears in Galilee the Pharisees attack him again (cf. strkjv@7:5; strkjv@8:11|). Gould thinks that this is a test, not a temptation. The word means either (see on ¯Matthew:4:1|), but their motive was evil. They had once involved the Baptist with Herod Antipas and Herodias on this subject. They may have some such hopes about Jesus, or their purpose may have been to see if Jesus will be stricter than Moses taught. They knew that he had already spoken in Galilee on the subject (Matthew:5:31f.|).

rwp@Mark:13:4 @{Tell us, when shall these things be?} (\Eipon hˆmin pote tauta estai;\). The Revised Version punctuates it as a direct question, but Westcott and Hort as an indirect inquiry. They asked about the {when} (\pote\) and the {what sign} (\ti sˆmeion\). strkjv@Matthew:24:3| includes "the sign of thy coming and the end of the world," showing that these tragic events are brought before Jesus by the disciples. See discussion of the interpretation of this discourse on ¯Matthew:24:3|. This chapter in Mark is often called "The Little Apocalypse" with the notion that a Jewish apocalypse has been here adapted by Mark and attributed to Jesus. Many of the theories attribute grave error to Jesus or to the Gospels on this subject. The view adopted in the discussion in Matthew is the one suggested here, that Jesus blended in one picture his death, the destruction of Jerusalem within that generation, the second coming and end of the world typified by the destruction of the city. The lines between these topics are not sharply drawn in the report and it is not possible for us to separate the topics clearly. This great discourse is the longest preserved in Mark and may be due to Peter. Mark may have given it in order "to forewarn and forearm" (Bruce) the readers against the coming catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem. Both Matthew (Matthew:24|) and Luke (Luke:21:5-36|) follow the general line of Mark 13 though strkjv@Matthew:24:43-25:46| presents new material (parables).

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:4:8 @{And showeth him} (\kai deiknusin aut“i\). This wonderful panorama had to be partially mental and imaginative, since the devil caused to pass in review "all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them." But this fact does not prove that all phases of the temptations were subjective without any objective presence of the devil. Both could be true. Here again we have the vivid historical present (\deiknusin\). The devil now has Christ upon a very high mountain whether the traditional Quarantania or not. It was from Nebo's summit that Moses caught the vision of the land of Canaan (Deuteronomy:34:1-3|). Luke (Luke:4:5|) says that the whole panorama was "in a moment of time" and clearly psychological and instantaneous.

rwp@Matthew:6:13 @{And bring us not into temptation} (\kai mˆ eisenegkˆis eis peirasmon\). "Bring" or "lead" bothers many people. It seems to present God as an active agent in subjecting us to temptation, a thing specifically denied in strkjv@James:1:13|. The word here translated "temptation" (\peirasmon\) means originally "trial" or "test" as in strkjv@James:1:2| and Vincent so takes it here. _Braid Scots_ has it: "And lat us no be siftit." But God does test or sift us, though he does not tempt us to evil. No one understood temptation so well as Jesus for the devil tempted him by every avenue of approach to all kinds of sin, but without success. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus will say to Peter, James, and John: "Pray that ye enter not into temptation" (Luke:22:40|). That is the idea here. Here we have a "Permissive imperative" as grammarians term it. The idea is then: "Do not allow us to be led into temptation." There is a way out (1Corinthians:10:13|), but it is a terrible risk.

rwp@Matthew:8:29 @{Thou Son of God} (\huie tou theou\). The recognition of Jesus by the demons is surprising. The whole subject of demonology is difficult. Some hold that it is merely the ancient way of describing disease. But that does not explain the situation here. Jesus is represented as treating the demons as real existences separate from the human personality. Missionaries in China today claim that they have seen demons cast out. The devil knew Jesus clearly and it is not strange that Jesus was recognized by the devil's agents. They know that there is nothing in common between them and the Son of God (\hˆmin kai soi\, ethical dative) and they fear torment "before the time" (\pro kairou\). Usually \ta daimonia\ is the word in the New Testament for demons, but in strkjv@8:31| we have \hoi daimones\ (the only example in the N.T.). \Daimonion\ is a diminutive of \daim“n\. In Homer \daim“n\ is used synonymously with \theos\ and \thea\. Hesiod employed \daim“n\ of men of the golden age as tutelary deities. Homer has the adjective \daimonios\ usually in an evil sense. Empedocles considered the demons both bad and good. They were thus used to relieve the gods and goddesses of much rascality. Grote (_History of Greece_) notes that the Christians were thus by pagan usage justified in calling idolatry the worship of demons. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20f.; strkjv@1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@16:13f|. In the Gospels demons are the same as unclean spirits (Mark:5:12,15; strkjv@3:22,30; strkjv@Luke:4:33|). The demons are disturbers (Vincent) of the whole life of man (Mark:5:2f.; strkjv@7:25; strkjv@Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|).

rwp@Matthew:12:9 @{Lord of the Sabbath} (\kurios tou sabbatou\). This claim that he as the Son of Man is master of the Sabbath and so above the Pharisaic regulations angered them extremely. By the phrase "the Son of man" here Jesus involves the claim of Messiahship, but as the Representative Man he affirms his solidarity with mankind, "standing for the human interest" (Bruce) on this subject.

rwp@Matthew:13:22 @{Choke the word} (\sunpnigei ton logon\). We had \apepnixan\ (choked off) in strkjv@13:7|. Here it is \sunpnigei\ (choke together), historical present and singular with both subjects lumped together. "Lust for money and care go together and between them spoil many an earnest religious nature" (Bruce), "thorns" indeed. The thorns flourish and the character sickens and dies, choked to death for lack of spiritual food, air, sunshine.

rwp@Matthew:13:38 @{The field is the world} (\ho de agros estin ho kosmos\). The article with both "field" and "world" in Greek means that subject and predicate are coextensive and so interchangeable. It is extremely important to understand that both the good seed and the darnel (tares) are sown in the world, not in the Kingdom, not in the church. The separation comes at the consummation of the age (\sunteleia ai“nos\, 39|), the harvest time. They all grow together in the field (the world).

rwp@Matthew:15:3 @{Ye also} (\kai h–meis\). Jesus admits that the disciples had transgressed the rabbinical traditions. Jesus treats it as a matter of no great importance in itself save as they had put the tradition of the elders in the place of the commandment of God. When the two clashed, as was often the case, the rabbis transgress the commandment of God "because of your tradition" (\dia tˆn paradosin h–m“n\). The accusative with \dia\ means that, not "by means of." Tradition is not good or bad in itself. It is merely what is handed on from one to another. Custom tended to make these traditions binding like law. The Talmud is a monument of their struggle with tradition. There could be no compromise on this subject and Jesus accepts the issue. He stands for real righteousness and spiritual freedom, not for bondage to mere ceremonialism and tradition. The rabbis placed tradition (the oral law) above the law of God.

rwp@Matthew:17:25 @{Jesus spake first to him} (\proephthasen auton ho Iˆsous leg“n\). Here only in the N.T. One example in a papyrus B.C. 161 (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). The old idiomatic use of \phthan“\ with the participle survives in this example of \prophthan“\ in strkjv@Matthew:17:25|, meaning to anticipate, to get before one in doing a thing. The _Koin‚_ uses the infinitive thus with \phthan“\ which has come to mean simply to arrive. Here the anticipation is made plain by the use of \pro-\. See Robertson's _Grammar_, p. 1120. The "prevent" of the Authorized Version was the original idea of _praevenire_, to go before, to anticipate. Peter felt obliged to take the matter up with Jesus. But the Master had observed what was going on and spoke to Peter first. {Toll or tribute} (\telˆ ˆ kˆnson\). Customs or wares collected by the publicans (like \phoros\, strkjv@Romans:13:7|) and also the capitation tax on persons, indirect and direct taxation. \Kˆnsos\ is the Latin _census_, a registration for the purpose of the appraisement of property like \hˆ apographˆ\ in strkjv@Luke:2:2; strkjv@Acts:5:37|. By this parable Jesus as the Son of God claims exemption from the temple tax as the temple of his Father just as royal families do not pay taxes, but get tribute from the foreigners or aliens, subjects in reality.

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autˆn moicheuthˆnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenˆn gamˆsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\mˆ epi porneiƒi\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha“ or moicheu“\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Matthew:22:12 @{Not having a wedding-garment} (\mˆ ech“n enduma gamou\). \Mˆ\ is in the _Koin‚_ the usual negative with participles unless special emphasis on the negative is desired as in \ouk endedumenon\. There is a subtle distinction between \mˆ\ and \ou\ like our subjective and objective notions. Some hold that the wedding-garment here is a portion of a lost parable separate from that of the Wedding Feast, but there is no evidence for that idea. Wunsche does report a parable by a rabbi of a king who set no time for his feast and the guests arrived, some properly dressed waiting at the door; others in their working clothes did not wait, but went off to work and, when the summons suddenly came, they had no time to dress properly and were made to stand and watch while the others partook of the feast.

rwp@Matthew:23:13 @{Hypocrites} (\hupokritai\). This terrible word of Jesus appears first from him in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew:6:2,5,16; strkjv@7:5|), then in strkjv@15:7| and strkjv@22:18|. Here it appears "with terrific iteration" (Bruce) save in the third of the seven woes (23:13,15,23,25,27,29|). The verb in the active (\hupokrin“\) meant to separate slowly or slightly subject to gradual inquiry. Then the middle was to make answer, to take up a part on the stage, to act a part. It was an easy step to mean to feign, to pretend, to wear a masque, to act the hypocrite, to play a part. This hardest word from the lips of Jesus falls on those who were the religious leaders of the Jews (Scribes and Pharisees), who had justified this thunderbolt of wrath by their conduct toward Jesus and their treatment of things high and holy. The _Textus Receptus has eight woes, adding verse 14| which the Revised Version places in the margin (called verse 13| by Westcott and Hort and rejected on the authority of Aleph B D as a manifest gloss from strkjv@Mark:12:40| and strkjv@Luke:20:47|). The MSS. that insert it put it either before 13 or after 13. Plummer cites these seven woes as another example of Matthew's fondness for the number seven, more fancy than fact for Matthew's Gospel is not the Apocalypse of John. These are all illustrations of Pharisaic saying and not doing (Allen). {Ye shut the kingdom of heaven} (\kleiete tˆn basileian t“n ouran“n\). In strkjv@Luke:11:52| the lawyers are accused of keeping the door to the house of knowledge locked and with flinging away the keys so as to keep themselves and the people in ignorance. These custodians of the kingdom by their teaching obscured the way to life. It is a tragedy to think how preachers and teachers of the kingdom of God may block the door for those who try to enter in (\tous eiserchomenous\, conative present middle participle). {Against} (\emprosthen\). Literally, before. These door-keepers of the kingdom slam it shut in men's faces and they themselves are on the outside where they will remain. They hide the key to keep others from going in.

rwp@Matthew:27:25 @{His blood be upon us and upon our children} (\to haima autou kai epi ta tekna hˆm“n\). These solemn words do show a consciousness that the Jewish people recognized their guilt and were even proud of it. But Pilate could not wash away his own guilt that easily. The water did not wash away the blood of Jesus from his hands any more than Lady Macbeth could wash away the blood-stains from her lily-white hands. One legend tells that in storms on Mt. Pilatus in Switzerland his ghost comes out and still washes his hands in the storm-clouds. There was guilt enough for Judas, for Caiaphas and for all the Sanhedrin both Sadducees and Pharisees, for the Jewish people as a whole (\pas ho laos\), and for Pilate. At bottom the sins of all of us nailed Jesus to the Cross. This language is no excuse for race hatred today, but it helps explain the sensitiveness between Jew and Christians on this subject. And Jews today approach the subject of the Cross with a certain amount of prejudice.

rwp@Matthew:28:6 @{Risen from the dead} (\ˆgerthˆ apo t“n nekr“n\). {Jesus the Risen}. This is the heart of the testimony of the angel to the women. It is what Paul wishes Timothy never to forget (2Timothy:2:8|), "Jesus Christ risen from the dead" (\Iˆsoun Christon egˆgermenon ek nekr“n\). They were afraid and dazzled by the glory of the scene, but the angel said, "Come, see the place where the Lord lay" (\deute idete ton topon hopou ekeito ho Kurios\). Some MSS. do not have \ho Kurios\, but he is the subject of \ekeito\. His body was not there. It will not do to say that Jesus arose in spirit and appeared alive though his body remained in the tomb. The empty tomb is the first great fact confronting the women and later the men. Various theories were offered then as now. But none of them satisfy the evidence and explain the survival of faith and hope in the disciples that do not rest upon the fact of the Risen Christ whose body was no longer in the tomb.

rwp@Matthew:28:19 @{All the nations} (\panta ta ethnˆ\). Not just the Jews scattered among the Gentiles, but the Gentiles themselves in every land. And not by making Jews of them, though this point is not made plain here. It will take time for the disciples to grow into this _Magna Charta_ of the missionary propaganda. But here is the world program of the Risen Christ and it should not be forgotten by those who seek to foreshorten it all by saying that Jesus expected his second coming to be very soon, even within the lifetime of those who heard. He did promise to come, but he has never named the date. Meanwhile we are to be ready for his coming at any time and to look for it joyfully. But we are to leave that to the Father and push on the campaign for world conquest. This program includes making disciples or learners (\mathˆteusate\) such as they were themselves. That means evangelism in the fullest sense and not merely revival meetings. Baptism in (\eis\, not _into_) the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in the name of the Trinity. Objection is raised to this language in the mouth of Jesus as too theological and as not a genuine part of the Gospel of Matthew for the same reason. See strkjv@Matthew:11:27|, where Jesus speaks of the Father and the Son as here. But it is all to no purpose. There is a chapter devoted to this subject in my _The Christ of the Logia_ in which the genuineness of these words is proven. The name of Jesus is the essential part of it as is shown in the Acts. Trine immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of name (\onoma\) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority. For the use of \eis\ with \onoma\ in the sense here employed, not meaning _into_, see strkjv@Matthew:10:41f.| (cf. also strkjv@12:41|).

rwp@Philippians:1:21 @{For to me} (\emoi gar\). Fine example of the ethical dative. Paul gives his own view of living. {To live is Christ} (\to zˆin Christos\). No copula (\estin\), but \to zˆin\ (the act of living present active infinitive) is the subject as is shown by the article \to\. Living is coextensive with Christ. {Gain} (\kerdos\). Old word for any gain or profit, interest on money (so in papyri). In N.T. only here, strkjv@Phillipians:3:7; strkjv@Titus:1:11|. {To die} (\to apothanein\, second aorist active infinitive, single act) is to cash in both principal and interest and so to have more of Christ than when living. Songs:Paul faces death with independence and calm courage.

rwp@Philippians:3:9 @{Be found in him} (\heureth“ en aut“i\). First aorist (effective) passive subjunctive with \hina\ of \heurisk“\. At death (2Corinthians:5:3|) or when Christ comes. Cf. strkjv@2:8; strkjv@Galatians:2:17|. {Through faith in Christ} (\dia piste“s Christou\). The objective genitive \Christou\, not subjective, as in strkjv@Galatians:2:16,20; strkjv@Romans:3:22|. Explained further by \epi tˆi pistei\ (on the basis of faith) as in strkjv@Acts:3:16|.

rwp@Philippians:3:21 @{Shall fashion anew} (\metaschˆmatisei\). Future active indicative of \metaschˆmatiz“\ for which see strkjv@1Corinthians:4:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13ff|. {Conformed to} (\summorphon\). For which (\sun, morphˆ\) see strkjv@Romans:8:29|, only N.T. examples. With associative instrumental case. The body of our state of humiliation will be made suitable to associate with the body of Christ's glory (1Corinthians:15:54f.|). {According to the working} (\kata tˆn energeian\). "According to the energy." If any one doubts the power of Christ to do this transformation, Paul replies that he has power "even to subject all things unto himself."

rwp@Revelation:1:1 @{The Revelation} (\apokalupsis\). Late and rare word outside of N.T. (once in Plutarch and so in the vernacular _Koin‚_), only once in the Gospels (Luke:2:32|), but in LXX and common in the Epistles (2Thessalonians:1:7|), though only here in this book besides the title, from \apokalupt“\, old verb, to uncover, to unveil. In the Epistles \apokalupsis\ is used for insight into truth (Ephesians:1:17|) or for the revelation of God or Christ at the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:1:7; strkjv@1Peter:1:7|). It is interesting to compare \apokalupsis\ with \epiphaneia\ (2Thessalonians:2:8|) and \phaner“sis\ (1Corinthians:12:7|). The precise meaning here turns on the genitive following. {Of Jesus Christ} (\Iˆsou Christou\). Hort takes it as objective genitive (revelation about Jesus Christ), but Swete rightly argues for the subjective genitive because of the next clause. {Gave him} (\ed“ken autoi\). It is the Son who received the revelation from the Father, as is usual (John:5:20f.,26|, etc.). {To shew} (\deixai\). First aorist active infinitive of \deiknumi\, purpose of God in giving the revelation to Christ. {Unto his servants} (\tois doulois autou\). Believers in general and not just to officials. Dative case. God's servants (or Christ's). {Must shortly come to pass} (\dei genesthai en tachei\). Second aorist middle infinitive of \ginomai\ with \dei\. See this same adjunct (\en tachei\) in strkjv@Luke:18:8; strkjv@Romans:16:20; strkjv@Revelation:22:6|. It is a relative term to be judged in the light of strkjv@2Peter:3:8| according to God's clock, not ours. And yet undoubtedly the hopes of the early Christians looked for a speedy return of the Lord Jesus. This vivid panorama must be read in the light of that glorious hope and of the blazing fires of persecution from Rome. {Sent and signified} (\esˆmanen aposteilas\). "Having sent (first aorist active participle of \apostell“\, strkjv@Matthew:10:16| and again in strkjv@Revelation:22:6| of God sending his angel) signified" (first aorist active indicative of \sˆmain“\, from \sˆma\, sign or token, for which see strkjv@John:12:33; strkjv@Acts:11:28|). See strkjv@12:1| for \sˆmeion\, though \sˆmain“\ (only here in the Apocalypse) suits admirably the symbolic character of the book. {By his angel} (\dia tou aggelou autou\). Christ's angel as Christ is the subject of the verb \esˆmanen\, as in strkjv@22:16 Christ sends his angel, though in strkjv@22:6| God sends. {Unto his servant John} (\t“i doul“i autou I“anei\). Dative case. John gives his name here, though not in Gospel or Epistles, because "prophecy requires the guarantee of the individual who is inspired to utter it" (Milligan). "The genesis of the Apocalypse has now been traced from its origin in the Mind of God to the moment when it reached its human interpreter" (Swete). "Jesus is the medium of all revelation" (Moffatt).

rwp@Revelation:1:2 @{Bare witness} (\emarturˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \marture“\, which, along with \martus\ and \marturia\, is common in all the Johannine books (cf. strkjv@22:18,20|), usually with \peri\ or \hoti\, but with cognate accusative as here in strkjv@22:16,20; strkjv@1John:5:10|. Epistolary aorist here, referring to this book. {The word of God} (\ton logon tou theou\). Subjective genitive, given by God. The prophetic word as in strkjv@1:9; strkjv@6:9; strkjv@20:4|, not the personal Word as in strkjv@19:14|. {The testimony of Jesus Christ} (\tˆn marturian Iˆsou Christou\). Subjective genitive again, borne witness to by Jesus Christ. {Even of all the things that he saw} (\hosa eiden\). Relative clause in apposition with \logon\ and \marturian\.

rwp@Revelation:3:7 @{In Philadelphia} (\en Philadelphiƒi\). Some twenty-eight miles south-east of Sardis, in Lydia, subject to earthquakes, rebuilt by Tiberius after the great earthquake of A.D. 17, for a time called in coins Neo-Caesarea, in wine-growing district with Bacchus (Dionysos) as the chief deity, on fine Roman roads and of commercial importance, though not a large city, called by Ramsay (_op. cit._, p. 392) "the Missionary City" to promote the spread of the Graeco-Roman civilization and then of Christianity, later offering stubborn resistance to the Turks (1379-90 A.D.) and now called Ala-Sheher (reddish city, Charles, from the red hills behind it). The chief opposition to the faithful little church is from the Jews (cf. strkjv@Romans:9-11|). There are some 1,000 Christians there today. {The holy, he that is true} (\ho hagios, ho alˆthinos\). Separate articles (four in all) for each item in this description. "The holy, the genuine." Asyndeton in the Greek. Latin Vulgate, _Sanctus et Verus_. \Hosea:hagios\ is ascribed to God in strkjv@4:8; strkjv@6:10| (both \hagios\ and \alˆthinos\ as here), but to Christ in strkjv@Mark:1:24; strkjv@Luke:4:34; strkjv@John:6:69; strkjv@Acts:4:27,30; strkjv@1John:2:20|, a recognized title of the Messiah as the consecrated one set apart. Swete notes that \alˆthinos\ is _verus_ as distinguished from _verax_ (\alˆthˆs\). Songs:it is applied to God in strkjv@6:10| and to Christ in strkjv@3:14; strkjv@19:11| as in strkjv@John:1:9; strkjv@6:32; strkjv@15:1|. {He that hath the key of David} (\ho ech“n tˆn klein Daueid\). This epithet comes from strkjv@Isaiah:22:22|, where Eliakim as the chief steward of the royal household holds the keys of power. Christ as the Messiah (Revelation:5:5; strkjv@22:16|) has exclusive power in heaven, on earth, and in Hades (Matthew:16:19; strkjv@28:18; strkjv@Romans:14:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:9f.; strkjv@Revelation:1:18|). Christ has power to admit and exclude of his own will (Matthew:25:10f.; strkjv@Ephesians:1:22; strkjv@Revelation:3:21; strkjv@19:11-16; strkjv@20:4; strkjv@22:16|). {And none shall shut} (\kai oudeis kleisei\). Charles calls the structure Hebrew (future active indicative of \klei“\), and not Greek because it does not correspond to the present articular participle just before \ho anoig“n\ (the one opening), but it occurs often in this book as in the very next clause, "and none openeth" (\kai oudeis anoigei\) over against \klei“n\ (present active participle, opening) though here some MSS. read \kleiei\ (present active indicative, open).

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

rwp@Revelation:6:4 @{A red horse} (\hippos purros\). Old adjective from \pur\ (fire), flame-coloured, blood-red (2Kings:3:22|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@12:3|, like strkjv@Zechariah:1:8; strkjv@6:2| (roan horse). {To take peace from the earth} (\labein tˆn eirˆnˆn ek tˆs gˆs\). Second aorist active infinitive of \lamban“\, and here the nominative case, the subject of \edothˆ\ (see verse 2|), "to take peace out of the earth." Alas, how many red horses have been ridden through the ages. {And that they should slay one another} (\kai hina allˆlous sphaxousin\). Epexegetical explanatory purpose clause with \hina\ and the future active of \sphaz“\ (5:6|) instead of the more usual subjunctive (verse 2|). Cf. Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 998f. This is what war does to perfection, makes cannon fodder (cf. strkjv@John:14:27|) of men. {A great sword} (\machaira megalˆ\). \Machaira\ may be a knife carried in a sheath at the girdle (John:18:10|) or a long sword in battle as here. \Romphaia\, also a large sword, is the only other word for sword in the N.T. (Revelation:1:16; strkjv@2:12,16; strkjv@6:8; strkjv@19:15,21|).

rwp@Revelation:7:2 @{Ascend} (\anabainonta\). Present active participle of \anabain“\, "ascending," "going up," picturing the process. {From the sun-rising} (\apo anatolˆs hˆliou\). Same phrase in strkjv@16:12|. From the east, though why is not told. Swete suggests it is because Palestine is east of Patmos. The plural \apo anatol“n\ occurs in strkjv@Matthew:2:1| without \hˆliou\ (sun). {The seal of the living God} (\sphragida theou z“ntos\). Here the signet ring, like that used by an Oriental monarch, to give validity to the official documents. The use of \z“ntos\ with \theou\ accents the eternal life of God (1:18; strkjv@10:6; strkjv@15:7|) as opposed to the ephemeral pagan gods. {To whom it was given} (\hois edothˆ autois\). For \edothˆ\ see on ¯6:2,4|, etc. The repetition of \autois\ in addition to \hois\ (both dative) is a redundant Hebraism (in vernacular _Koin‚_ to some extent) often in the Apocalypse (3:8|). The angels are here identified with the winds as the angels of the churches with the churches (1:20|). {To hurt} (\adikˆsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \adike“\, subject of \edothˆ\, common use of \adike“\ in this sense of to hurt in the Apocalypse (2:11; strkjv@6:6| already), in strkjv@Luke:10:19| also. The injury is to come by letting loose the winds, not by withholding them.

rwp@Revelation:9:4 @{It was said} (\errethˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \eipon\. {That they should not hurt} (\hina mˆ adikˆsousin\). Sub-final (object clause subject of \errethˆ\) with \hina mˆ\ and the future active of \adike“\ as in strkjv@3:9; strkjv@8:3|. Vegetation had been hurt sufficiently by the hail (8:7|). {But only such men as} (\ei mˆ tous anthr“pous hoitines\). "Except (elliptical use of \ei mˆ\, if not, unless) the men who (the very ones who)." For this use of \hostis\ see strkjv@1:7; strkjv@2:24; strkjv@20:4|. {The seal of God upon their foreheads} (\tˆn sphragida tou theou epi t“n met“p“n\). Provided for in strkjv@7:3ff|. "As Israel in Egypt escaped the plagues which punished their neighbours, so the new Israel is exempted from the attack of the locusts of the Abyss" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:9:5 @{That they should not kill them} (\hina mˆ apoktein“sin autous\). Sub-final object clause (subject of \edothˆ\) with \hina mˆ\ and the subjunctive of \apoktein“\ either present (continued action) or aorist (constative, form the same), the usual construction with \hina\. The locusts are charged to injure men, but not to kill them. {But that they should be tormented} (\all' hina basanisthˆsontai\). Sub-final clause again with \hina\, but this time with the first future passive indicative (like strkjv@3:9; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@13:12|) of \basaniz“\, old verb, to test metals (from \basanos\, strkjv@Matthew:4:24|) by touchstone, then to torture like strkjv@Matthew:8:29|, further in strkjv@Revelation:11:10; strkjv@12:2; strkjv@14:10; strkjv@20:10|. {Five months} (\mˆnas pente\). Accusative of extent of time. The actual locust is born in the spring and dies at the end of summer (about five months). {Torment} (\basanismos\). Late word for torture, from \basaniz“\, in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:9:5; strkjv@14:11; strkjv@18:7,10,15|. The wound of the scorpion was not usually fatal, though exceedingly painful. {When it striketh a man} (\hotan paisˆi anthr“pon\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \pai“\ (Matthew:26:51|), old verb, to smite, "whenever it smites a man."

rwp@Revelation:9:17 @{And thus I saw in the vision} (\kai hout“s eidon en tˆi horasei\). Nowhere else does John allude to his own vision, though often in Dan. (Daniel:7:2; strkjv@8:2,15; strkjv@9:21|). {Having} (\echontas\). Accusative masculine plural of \ech“\, probably referring to the riders (\tous kathˆmenous ep' aut“n\) rather than to the horses (\tous hippous\). {Breastplates as of fire and of hyacinth and of brimstone} (\th“rakas purinous kai huakinthinous kai thei“deis\). There is no \h“s\ (as) in the Greek, but that is the idea of these three adjectives which are only metaphors. \Purinos\ is an old adjective (from \pur\, fire), here only in N.T. \Huakinthos\ is also an old word (from \huakinthos\, hyacinth, then of a sapphire stone strkjv@Revelation:21:20|), of a red color bordering on black, here only in the N.T. \Thei“dˆs\ is a late word (from \theion\, brimstone), sulphurous, here only in N.T. {As the heads of lions} (\h“s kephalai leont“n\). This of the horses, war-horses as always in the Bible except in strkjv@Isaiah:28:28|. These horses likewise have "fire and smoke and brimstone" (\theion\, brimstone, is old word, in N.T. only in Rev. and strkjv@Luke:17:29|) proceeding (\ekporeuetai\, singular because it comes first and the subjects afterwards) out of their mouths. Both rider and horse are terrible.

rwp@Revelation:11:6 @{To shut the heaven} (\kleisai ton ouranon\). First aorist active infinitive of \klei“\. As Elijah did by prayer (1Kings:17:1; strkjv@Luke:4:25; strkjv@James:5:17|). {That it rain not} (\hina mˆ huetos brechˆi\). Sub-final use of \hina mˆ\ with the present active subjunctive of \brech“\, old verb to rain (Matthew:5:45|), here with \huetos\ as subject. {During the days} (\tas hˆmeras\). Accusative of extent of time. In strkjv@Luke:4:25; strkjv@James:5:17| the period of the drouth in Elijah's time was three and a half years, just the period here. {Of their prophecy} (\tˆs prophˆteias aut“n\). Not here the gift of prophecy (1Corinthians:12:10|) or a particular prophecy or collection of prophecies (Revelation:1:3; strkjv@22:7f.|), but "the execution of the prophetic office" (Swete). {Over the waters} (\epi t“n hudat“n\). "Upon the waters." As Moses had (Exodus:7:20|). {Into blood} (\eis haima\). As already stated in strkjv@8:8| about the third trumpet and now again here. {To smite} (\pataxai\). First aorist active infinitive of \patass“\, used here with \exousian echousin\ (they have power), as is \strephein\ (to turn). {With every plague} (\en pasˆi plˆgˆi\). In strkjv@1Kings:4:8|, but with reference to the plagues in Egypt. {As often as they shall desire} (\hosakis ean thelˆs“sin\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hosakis\ and modal \ean\ (= \an\) and the first aorist active subjunctive of \thel“\, "as often as they will."

rwp@Revelation:13:5 @{There was given to him} (\edothˆ aut“i\). First aorist passive indicative of \did“mi\, to give, as in next line and verse 7|. Perhaps a reference to \ed“ken\ (he gave) in verse 4|, where the dragon (Satan) gave the beast his power. The ultimate source of power is God, but the reference seems to be Satan here. {Speaking great things and blasphemies} (\laloun megala kai blasphˆmias\). Present active participle of \lale“\, agreeing with \stoma\ (nominative neuter singular and subject of \edothˆ\). The words are like Daniel's description of the Little Horn (7:8,20,25|) and like the description of Antiochus Epiphanes (I Macc. strkjv@1:24). Cf. strkjv@2Peter:2:11|. {To continue} (\poiˆsai\). First aorist active infinitive (epexegetic use) of \poie“\, either in the sense of working (signs), as in strkjv@Daniel:8:12-14|, with the accusative of duration of time (\mˆnas\ months), or more likely in the sense of doing time, with \mˆnas\ as the direct object as in strkjv@Matthew:20:12; strkjv@Acts:20:3; strkjv@James:4:13|.

rwp@Revelation:16:14 @{Spirits of devils} (\pneumata daimoni“n\). "Spirits of demons." Explanation of the simile \h“s batrachoi\. See strkjv@1Timothy:4:1| about "deceiving spirits and teachings of demons." {Working signs} (\poiounta sˆmeia\). "Doing signs" (present active participle of \poie“\). The Egyptian magicians wrought "signs" (tricks), as did Simon Magus and later Apollonius of Tyana. Houdini claimed that he could reproduce every trick of the spiritualistic mediums. {Which go forth} (\ha ekporeuetai\). Singular verb with neuter plural (collective) subject. {Unto the kings} (\epi tous basileis\). The three evil spirits (dragon and the two beasts) spur on the kings of the whole world to a real world war. "There have been times when nations have been seized by a passion for war which the historian can but imperfectly explain" (Swete). {To gather them together} (\sunagagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \sunag“\, to express purpose (that of the unclean spirits). {Unto the war of the great day of God, the Almighty} (\eis ton polemon tˆs hˆmeras tˆs megalˆs tou theou tou pantokratoros\). Some take this to be war between nations, like strkjv@Mark:13:8|, but it is more likely war against God (Psalms:2:2|) and probably the battle pictured in strkjv@17:14; strkjv@19:19|. Cf. strkjv@2Peter:3:12|, "the day of God," his reckoning with the nations. See strkjv@Joel:2:11; strkjv@3:4|. Paul uses "that day" for the day of the Lord Jesus (the Parousia) as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:10; strkjv@2:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:1:6; strkjv@2:16; strkjv@2Timothy:1:12,18; strkjv@4:8|.

rwp@Revelation:19:8 @{That she should array herself} (\hina peribalˆtai\). Sub-final object clause subject of \edothˆ\ (was given to her) with \hina\ and the second aorist middle (direct) of \periball“\ to fling around. This bridal dress is a gift from Christ. This form, \edothˆ\ (it was given), occurs some 20 times in this book. {In fine linen, bright and pure} (\bussinon lampron katharon\). See strkjv@19:14| for the same raiment on those accompanying "The Word of God" and for the seven angels in strkjv@15:6|. See by contrast the garments of the harlot (17:4; strkjv@18:16|). For \bussinon\ see strkjv@18:16|. {The righteous acts of the saints} (\ta dikai“mata t“n hagi“n\). This is the explanation (\gar\) of the bridal dress and explains why there is work for the Bride as well as for Christ (Phillipians:2:12f.|). See strkjv@15:4| for \dikai“ma\ (also strkjv@Romans:5:18|).

rwp@Revelation:20:4 @{And they sat upon them} (\kai ekathisan ep' autous\). First aorist active indicative of \kathiz“\. Another period here apparently synchronous (verse 7|) with the confinement of Satan in the abyss. No subject is given for this plural verb. Apparently Christ and the Apostles (Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30|) and some of the saints (1Corinthians:6:3|), martyrs some hold. {Judgment was given unto them} (\krima edothˆ autois\). First aorist passive of \did“mi\. Picture of the heavenly court of assizes. {The souls} (\tas psuchas\). Accusative after \eidon\ at the beginning of the verse. {Of them that had been beheaded} (\t“n pepelekismen“n\). Genitive of the articular perfect passive participle of \pelekiz“\, old word (from \pelekus\ an axe, the traditional instrument for execution in republican Rome, but later supplanted by the sword), to cut off with an axe, here only in N.T. See strkjv@6:9; strkjv@18:24; strkjv@19:2| for previous mention of these martyrs for the witness of Jesus (1:9; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@19:10|). Others also besides martyrs shared in Christ's victory, those who refused to worship the beast or wear his mark as in strkjv@13:15; strkjv@14:9ff.; strkjv@16:2; strkjv@19:20|. {And they lived} (\kai ezˆsan\). First aorist active indicative of \za“\. If the ingressive aorist, it means "came to life" or "lived again" as in strkjv@2:8| and so as to verse 5|. If it is the constative aorist here and in verse 5|, then it could mean increased spiritual life. See strkjv@John:5:21-29| for the double sense of life and death (now literal, now spiritual) precisely as we have the second death in strkjv@Revelation:2:11; strkjv@20:6,14|. {And reigned with Christ} (\kai ebasileusan meta tou Christou\). Same use of the first aorist active indicative of \basileu“\, but more clearly constative. Beckwith and Swete take this to apply solely to the martyrs, the martyrs' reign with Christ.

rwp@Romans:1:5 @{Unto obedience of faith} (\eis hupakoˆn piste“s\). Subjective genitive as in strkjv@16:26|, the obedience which springs from faith (the act of assent or surrender).

rwp@Romans:1:17 @{For therein} (\gar en aut“i\). In the gospel (verse 16|) of which Paul is not ashamed. {A righteousness of God} (\dikaiosunˆ 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 piste“s 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: \s“tˆrian\ (salvation), \euaggelion\ (gospel), \apokaluptetai\ (is revealed), \dikaiosunˆ 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 \dikaiosunˆ\ here for it controls the thought throughout the Epistle. Jesus set up a higher standard of righteousness (\dikaiosunˆ\) 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 \dikˆ\, 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|), \dikai“ma\, that which is deemed \dikaios\ (sentence or ordinance as in strkjv@1:32; strkjv@2:26; strkjv@8:4|), \dikai“sis\, the act of declaring \dikaios\ (only twice in N.T., strkjv@4:25; strkjv@5:18|). \Dikaiosunˆ\ 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:3:22 @{Even} (\de\). Not adversative here. It defines here. {Through faith in Jesus Christ} (\dia piste“s [Iˆsou] Christou\). Intermediate agency (\dia\) is faith and objective genitive, "in Jesus Christ," not subjective "of Jesus Christ," in spite of Haussleiter's contention for that idea. The objective nature of faith in Christ is shown in strkjv@Galatians:2:16| by the addition \eis Christon Iˆsoun episteusamen\ (we believed in Christ), by \tˆs eis Christon piste“s hum“n\ (of your faith in Christ) in strkjv@Colossians:2:5|, by \en pistei tˆi en Christ“i Iˆsou\ (in faith that in Christ Jesus) in strkjv@1Timothy:3:13|, as well as here by the added words "unto all them that believe" (\eis pantas tous pisteuontas\) in Jesus, Paul means. {Distinction} (\diastolˆ\). See on ¯1Corinthians:14:7| for the difference of sounds in musical instruments. Also in strkjv@Romans:10:12|. The Jew was first in privilege as in penalty (2:9f.|), but justification or setting right with God is offered to both on the same terms.

rwp@Romans:6:12 @{Reign} (\basileuet“\). Present active imperative, "let not sin continue to reign" as it did once (5:12|). {Mortal} (\thnˆtoi\). Verbal adjective from \thnˆsk“\, subject to death. The reign of sin is over with you. Self-indulgence is inconsistent with trust in the vicarious atonement. {That ye should obey} (\eis to hupakouein\). With a view to obeying.

rwp@Romans:7:2 @{The wife that hath a husband} (\hˆ hupandros gunˆ\). Late word, under (in subjection to) a husband. Here only in N.T. {Is bound} (\dedetai\). Perfect passive indicative, stands bound. {By law} (\nom“i\). Instrumental case. {To the husband while he liveth} (\t“i z“nti andri\). "To the living husband," literally. {But if the husband die} (\ean de apothanˆi ho anˆr\). Third class condition, a supposable case (\ean\ and the second aorist active subjunctive). {She is discharged} (\katˆrgˆtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \katarge“\, to make void. She stands free from the law of the husband. Cf. strkjv@6:6|.

rwp@Romans:7:5 @{In the flesh} (\en tˆi sarki\). Same sense as in strkjv@6:19| and strkjv@7:18,25|. The "flesh" is not inherently sinful, but is subject to sin. It is what Paul means by being "under the law." He uses \sarx\ in a good many senses. {Sinful passions} (\ta pathˆmata t“n hamarti“n\). "Passions of sins" or marked by sins. {Wrought} (\energeito\). Imperfect middle of \energe“\, "were active." {To bring forth fruit unto death} (\eis to karpophorˆsai t“i thanat“i\). Purpose clause again. Vivid picture of the seeds of sin working for death.

rwp@Romans:8:7 @{Is not subject} (\ouch hupotassetai\). Present passive indicative of \hupotass“\, late verb, military term for subjection to orders. Present tense here means continued insubordination. {Neither indeed can it be} (\oude gar dunatai\). "For it is not even able to do otherwise." This helpless state of the unregenerate man Paul has shown above apart from Christ. Hope lies in Christ (7:25|) and the Spirit of life (8:2|).

rwp@Romans:8:20 @{Was subjected} (\hupetagˆ\). Second aorist passive indicative of \hupatass“\ (cf. verse 7|). {To vanity} (\tˆi mataiotˆti\). Dative case. Rare and late word, common in LXX. From \mataios\, empty, vain. strkjv@Ephesians:4:17; strkjv@2Peter:2:18|. {Not of its own will} (\ouch hekousa\). Common adjective, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:27|. It was due to the effect of man's sin. {But by reason of him} (\alla dia ton\). Because of God. {In hope that} (\eph' helpidi hoti\). Note the form \helpidi\ rather than the usual \elpidi\ and so \eph'\. \Hoti\ can be causal "because" instead of declarative "that."

rwp@Romans:8:28 @{All things work together} (\panta sunergei\). A B have \ho theos\ as the subject of \sunergei\ (old verb, see on ¯1Corinthians:16:16; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:1|). That is the idea anyhow. It is God who makes "all things work together" in our lives "for good" (\eis agathon\), ultimate good. {According to his purpose} (\kata prothesin\). Old word, seen already in strkjv@Acts:27:13| and for "shewbread" in strkjv@Matthew:12:4|. The verb \protithˆmi\ Paul uses in strkjv@3:24| for God's purpose. Paul accepts fully human free agency but behind it all and through it all runs God's sovereignty as here and on its gracious side (9:11; strkjv@3:11; strkjv@2Timothy:1:9|).

rwp@Romans:9:3 @{I could wish} (\ˆuchomˆn\). Idiomatic imperfect, "I was on the point of wishing." We can see that \euchomai\ (I do wish) would be wrong to say. \An ˆuchomˆn\ would mean that he does not wish (conclusion of second class condition). \An ˆuchomˆn\ would be conclusion of fourth class condition and too remote. He is shut up to the imperfect indicative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 886). {Anathema} (\anathema\). See for this word as distinct from \anathˆma\ (offering) strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3; strkjv@Galatians:1:8f.| {I myself} (\autos eg“\). Nominative with the infinitive \einai\ and agreeing with subject of \ˆuchomˆn\. {According to the flesh} (\kata sarka\). As distinguished from Paul's Christian brethren.

rwp@Romans:10:3 @{Being ignorant of God's righteousness} (\agnoountes tˆn tou theou dikaiosunˆn\). A blunt thing to say, but true as Paul has shown in strkjv@2:1-3:20|. They did not understand the God-kind of righteousness by faith (1:17|). They misconceived it (2:4|). {They did not subject themselves} (\ouch hupetagˆsan\). Second aorist passive indicative of \hupotass“\, common _Koin‚_ verb, to put oneself under orders, to obey, here the passive in sense of the middle (James:4:7|) like \apekrithˆn\, I answered.

rwp@Romans:12:6 @{Differing} (\diaphora\). Old adjective from \diapher“\, to differ, to vary. Songs:Hebrews:9:10|. {According to the proportion of our faith} (\kata tˆn analogian tˆs piste“s\). The same use of \pistis\ (faith) as in verse 3| "the measure of faith." Old word. \analogia\ (our word "analogy") from \analogos\ (analogous, conformable, proportional). Here alone in N.T. The verb \prophˆteu“men\ (present active volitive subjunctive, let us prophesy) must be supplied with which \echontes\ agrees. The context calls for the subjective meaning of "faith" rather than the objective and outward standard though \pistis\ does occur in that sense (Galatians:1:23; strkjv@3:23|).

rwp@Romans:12:7 @{Let us give ourselves}. There is no verb in the Greek. We must supply \d“men heautous\ or some such phrase. {Or he that teacheth} (\eite ho didask“n\). Here the construction changes and no longer do we have the accusative case like \diakonian\ (general word for Christian service of all kinds including ministers and deacons) as the object of \echontes\, but the nominative articular participle. A new verb must be supplied of which \ho didask“n\ is the subject as with the succeeding participles through verse 8|. Perhaps in each instance the verb is to be repeated from the participle like \didasket“\ here (let him teach) or a general term \poieit“\ (let him do it) can be used for all of them as seems necessary before "with liberality" in verse 8| (\en haplotˆti\, in simplicity, for which word, see strkjv@Matthew:6:22; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:2; strkjv@9:11,13|). {He that ruleth} (\ho proistamenos\). "The one standing in front" for which see strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12|. {With diligence} (\en spoudˆi\). "In haste" as if in earnest (Mark:6:25; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11f., strkjv@8:8,16|), from \speud“\, to hasten. Again verse 11|. {With cheerfulness} (\en hilarotˆti\). Late word, only here in N.T., from \hilaros\ (2Corinthians:9:7|) cheerful, hilarious.

rwp@Romans:13:7 @{Dues} (\opheilas\). Debts, from \opheil“\, to owe. Often so in the papyri, though not in Greek authors. In N.T. only here, strkjv@Matthew:18:32; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:3|. Paying debts needs emphasis today, even for ministers. {To whom tribute is due} (\t“i ton phoron\). We must supply a participle with the article \t“i\ like \apaitounti\ ("to the one asking tribute"). Songs:with the other words (to whom custom, \t“i to telos apaitounti\; to whom fear, \t“i ton phobon apaitounti\; to whom honour, \t“i tˆn timˆn apaitounti\). \Phoros\ is the tribute paid to a subject nation (Luke:20:22|), while \telos\ is tax for support of civil government (Matthew:17:25|).

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@Romans:14:21 @{Not to eat} (\to mˆ phagein\). "The not eating." Articular infinitive (second aorist active of \esthi“\) and subject of \kalon estin\ (copula, understood). {Flesh} (\kreas\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:8:13|. {To drink} (\pein\). Shortened form for \piein\ (second aorist active infinitive of \pin“\). {Whereby} (\en h“i\). "On which thy brother stumbleth" (\proskoptei\).

rwp@Romans:14:23 @{He that doubteth} (\ho diakrinomenos\). Present middle participle of \diakrin“\, to judge between (\dia\), to hesitate. See strkjv@James:1:6f.| for this same picture of the double-minded man. Cf. strkjv@Romans:4:20; strkjv@Mark:11:23|. {Is condemned} (\katakekritai\). Perfect passive indicative of \katakrin“\ (note \kata-\), "stands condemned." {If he eat} (\ean phagˆi\). Third class condition, \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive. If in spite of his doubt, he eat. {Whatsoever is not of faith is sin} (\pan ho ouk ek piste“s hamartia estin\). {Faith} (\pistis\) here is subjective, one's strong conviction in the light of his relation to Christ and his enlightened conscience. To go against this combination is sin beyond a doubt. Some MSS. (A L etc.) put the doxology here which most place in strkjv@16:25-27|. But they all give chapters 15 and 16. Some have supposed that the Epistle originally ended here, but that is pure speculation. Some even suggest two editions of the Epistle. But chapter 15 goes right on with the topic discussed in chapter 14.

rwp@Romans:15:21 @{As it is written} (\kath“s gegraptai\). From strkjv@Isaiah:52:15|. Paul finds an illustration of his word about his own ambition in the words of Isaiah. Fritzsche actually argues that Paul understood Isaiah to be predicting his (Paul's) ministry! Some scholars have argued against the genuineness of verses 9-21| on wholly subjective and insufficient grounds.

rwp@Titus:1:11 @{Whose mouths must be stopped} (\hous dei epistomizein\). Literally, "whom it is necessary to silence by stopping the mouth." Present active infinitive \epistomizein\, old and common verb (\epi\, \stoma\, mouth), here only in N.T. To stop the mouth either with bridle or muzzle or gag. {Overthrow} (\anatrepousin\). Old and common verb, to turn up, to overturn. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2Timothy:2:18|. In papyri to upset a family by perversion of one member. {Things which they ought not} (\ha mˆ dei\). Note subjective negative \mˆ\ with indefinite relative and indicative mode. {For filthy lucre's sake} (\aischrou kerdous charin\). The Cretans are given a bad reputation for itinerating prophets for profit by Polybius, Livy, Plutarch. Paul's warnings in strkjv@1Timothy:3:3,8; strkjv@6:5| reveal it as "a besetting temptation of the professional teacher" (Parry). See verse 7| above. Disgraceful gain, made in shameful ways.

rwp@Titus:2:5 @{Workers at home} (\oikourgous\). Songs:the oldest MSS. (from \oikos, ergou\) instead of \oikourous\, keepers at home (from \koiso, ouros\, keeper). Rare word, found in Soranus, a medical writer, Field says. Cf. strkjv@1Timothy:5:13|. "Keepers at home" are usually "workers at home." {Kind} (\agathas\). See strkjv@Romans:5:7|. See strkjv@Colossians:3:18; strkjv@Ephesians:5:22| for the same use of \hupotassomai\, to be in subjection. Note \idiois\ (their own). See strkjv@1Timothy:6:1| for the same negative purpose clause (\hina mˆ blasphˆmˆtai\).

rwp@Titus:3:1 @{To be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient} (\archais exousiais hupotassesthai peitharchein\). Remarkable double asyndeton, no \kai\ (and) between the two substantives or the two verbs. \Peitharchein\ (to obey), old verb (from \peithomai, archˆ\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:27:21|. {To be ready unto every good work} (\pros pan ergon agathon hetoimous einai\). Pauline phrase (2Corinthians:9:8; strkjv@2Timothy:2:21; strkjv@3:17|), here adjective \hetoimos\ (2Corinthians:9:5|), there verb.

rwp@Titus:3:5 @{Done} (not in the Greek, only the article \t“n\), "not as a result of works those in righteousness which we did." Same idea as in strkjv@Romans:3:20f|. {According to his mercy he saved us} (\kata to autou eleos es“sen\). See strkjv@Psalms:109:26; strkjv@1Peter:1:3; strkjv@Ephesians:2:4|. Effective aorist active indicative of \s“z“\. {Through the washing of regeneration} (\dia loutrou palingenesias\). Late and common word with the Stoics (Dibelius) and in the Mystery-religions (Angus), also in the papyri and Philo. Only twice in the N.T. (Matthew:19:28| with which compare \apokatastasia\ in strkjv@Acts:3:21|, and here in personal sense of new birth). For \loutron\, see strkjv@Ephesians:5:26|, here as there the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism, but, as in strkjv@Romans:6:3-6|, the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it. {And renewing of the Holy Spirit} (\kai anakain“se“s pneumatos hagiou\). "And renewal by the Holy Spirit" (subjective genitive). For the late word \anakain“sis\, see strkjv@Romans:12:2|. Here, as often, Paul has put the objective symbol before the reality. The Holy Spirit does the renewing, man submits to the baptism after the new birth to picture it forth to men.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Mon Jun 3 00:47:22 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020