CONCORDANCE:String = controversy
rwp@1Peter:3:18 @{Because Christ also died} (\hoti kai Christos apethanen\). Songs:the best MSS.; later ones \epathen\ (suffered). The example of Christ should stir us to patient endurance. {For sins} (\peri hamartin\). "Concerning sins" (not his, but ours, 1:18|). \Peri\ (around, concerning) with \hamartias\ in the regular phrase for the sin offering (Leviticus:5:7; 6:30|), though \huper hamartias\ does occur (Ezekiel:43:25|). Songs:in the N.T. we find both \peri hamartin\ (Hebrews:5:3|) and \huper hamartin\ (Hebrews:5:1|). {Once} (\hapax\). Once for all (Hebrews:9:28|), not once upon a time (\pote\). {The righteous for the unrighteous} (\dikaios huper adikn\). Literally, "just for unjust" (no articles). See kjv@1Peter:2:19| for the sinlessness of Christ as the one perfect offering for sin. This is what gives Christ's blood value. He has no sin himself. Some men today fail to perceive this point. {That he might bring us to God} (\hina hms prosagagi ti thei\). Purpose clause with \hina\, with second aorist active subjunctive of \prosag\ and the dative case \ti thei\. The MSS. vary between \hms\ (us) and \hums\ (you). The verb \prosag\ means to lead or bring to (Matthew:18:24|), to approach God (cf. \prosaggn\ in kjv@Ephesians:2:18|), to present us to God on the basis of his atoning death for us, which has opened the way (Romans:3:25; kjv@Hebrews:10:19f|.) {Being put to death in the flesh} (\thanattheis men sarki\). First aorist passive participle of \thanato\, old verb (from \thanatos\ death), to put to death. \Sarki\ is locative case of \sarx\. {But quickened in the spirit} (\zopoitheis de pneumati\). First aorist passive participle of \zopoie\ rare (Aristotle) verb (from \zopoios\ making alive), to make alive. The participles are not antecedent to \apethanen\, but simultaneous with it. There is no such construction as the participle of subsequent action. The spirit of Christ did not die when his flesh did, but "was endued with new and greater powers of life" (Thayer). See kjv@1Corinthians:15:22| for the use of the verb for the resurrection of the body. But the use of the word \pneumati\ (locative case) in contrast with \sarki\ starts Peter's mind off in a long comparison by way of illustration that runs from verses 19-22|...verses have caused more controversy than ...
rwp@Acts:2:38 @{Repent ye} (\metanosate\). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You _crucified_ this Jesus. Now _crown_ him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. {And be baptized every one of you} (\kai baptistht hekastos hmn\). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (\en ti onomati Isou Christou\). In accordance with the command of Jesus in kjv@Matthew:28:19| (\eis to onoma\). No distinction is to be insisted on between \eis to onoma\ and \en ti onomati\ with \baptiz\ since \eis\ and \en\ are really the same word in origin. In kjv@Acts:10:48| \en ti onomati Isou Christou\ occurs, but \eis\ to \onoma\ in 8:16; 19:5|. The use of \onoma\ means in the name or with the authority of one as \eis onoma prophtou\ (Matthew:10:41|) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in kjv@Matthew:28:19|, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on ¯Matthew:28:19| for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). {Unto the remission of your sins} (\eis aphesin tn hamartin hmn\)...the subject of endless controversy as ...\eis\ does exist as in kjv@1Corinthians:2:7| \eis doxan hmn\ (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of \eis\ for aim or purpose. It is seen in kjv@Matthew:10:41| in three examples \eis onoma prophtou, dikaiou, mathtou\ where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in kjv@Matthew:12:41| about the preaching of Jonah (\eis to krugma Ina\). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the _Koin_ generally (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. Songs:I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. {The gift of the Holy Ghost} (\tn drean tou hagiou pneumatos\). The gift consists (Acts:8:17|) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).
rwp@Acts:9:22 @{Increased the more} (\mllon enedunamouto\). Imperfect passive indicative of \endunamo\, to receive power (late verb)...grew. Saul's recantation stirred controversy and ...4:13; kjv@1Timothy:1:12; kjv@2Timothy:2:1; 4:17; kjv@Romans:4:20|. Christ, the dynamo of spiritual energy, was now pouring power (Acts:1:8|) into Paul who is already filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts:9:17|). {Confounded} (\sunechunnen\). Imperfect active indicative of \sunchunn\ (late form of \sunche\, to pour together, commingle, make confusion. The more Saul preached, the more the Jews were confused. {Proving} (\sunbibazn\). Present active participle of \sunbibaz\, old verb to make go together, to coalesce, to knit together. It is the very word that Luke will use in 16:10| of the conclusion reached at Troas concerning the vision of Paul. Here Saul took the various items in the life of Jesus of Nazareth and found in them the proof that he was in reality "the Messiah" (\ho Christos\). This method of argument Paul continued to use with the Jews (Acts:17:3|). It was irresistible argument and spread consternation among the Jews. It was the most powerful piece of artillery in the Jewish camp that was suddenly turned round upon them. It is probable that at this juncture Saul went into Arabia for several years (Galatians:1:12-24|). Luke makes no mention of this important event, but he leaves ample room for it at this point.
rwp@Acts:15:35 @{Tarried} (\dietribon\). Imperfect active of \diatrib\, old verb to pass time, seen already in 12:19; 14:3,28|. {With many others also} (\meta kai hetern polln\). A time of general revival and naturally so after the victory at Jerusalem. It is at this point that it is probable that the sad incident took place told by Paul in kjv@Galatians:2:11-21|. Peter came up to see how things were going in Antioch after Paul's victory in Jerusalem. At first Peter mingled freely with the Greek Christians without the compunctions shown at Caesarea and for which he had to answer in Jerusalem (Acts:11:1-18|)...chance to reopen the controversy on ...
rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ THE REASON FOR HIS EPISTLES In a real sense Paul's Epistles are tracts for the times, not for the age in general, but to meet real emergencies. He wrote to a particular church or group of churches or persons to meet immediate needs brought to his attention by messengers or letters. Dr. Deissmann contends strongly for the idea of calling Paul's Epistles "letters" rather than "Epistles." He gives a studied literary character to "epistles" as more or less artificial and written for the public eye rather than for definite effect. Four of Paul's Epistles are personal (those to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy) beyond a doubt, but in these which can properly be termed personal letters there are the principles of the gospel applied to personal, social, and ecclesiastical problems in such a pungent fashion that they possess permanent value. In the earliest group of Paul's Epistles, he reminds the Thessalonians of the official character of the Epistle which was meant for the church as a whole (1Thessalonians:5:27|). He says also: "But if any one does not obey our word by the epistle, mark this one, not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame" (2Thessalonians:3:14|). He calls attention to his signature as proof of the genuineness of every epistle (2Thessalonians:3:17|). He gave directions for the public reading of his epistles (Colossians:4:16|). He regarded them as the expression of God's will through the life of the churches and he put his whole heart into them. Two great controversies stirred Paul's life. That with the Judaizers called forth the great doctrinal group (I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans). That with the Gnostics occasioned the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians (Laodiceans) and this controversy ran on into the Pastoral Epistles. Each Epistle had its particular occasion which will be pointed out in due season. But even in the short ones like Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians Paul deals with the sublimest of all themes, the Person of Christ, with a masterfulness never equalled elsewhere. Even in I Corinthians, which deals so largely with church problems in Corinth, two great chapters rise to the heights of real eloquence (Chapter kjv@1Corinthians:13| on Love and Chapter kjv@1Corinthians:15| on the Resurrection). Romans, the greatest of his Epistles, has the fullest discussion of Paul's gospel of grace and Chapter kjv@1Corinthians:8| has a sweep of imagination and a grasp of faith unsurpassed. Hence, while denying to Paul the artificial rules of the rhetoricians attributed to him by Blass, I cannot agree that Paul's church Epistles are mere incidental letters. It is not a question whether Paul was writing for posterity or for the present emergency. He wrote for the present emergency in the most effective possible way. He brought the whole gospel message to bear upon the varied and pressing problems of the early Christians in the power of the Holy Spirit with the eloquence of a mind all ablaze with the truth and with a heart that yearned for their souls for Christ. They are not literary epistles, but they are more than personal letters. They are thunderbolts of passion and power that struck centre and that strike fire now for all who will take the trouble to come to them for the mind of Christ that is here.
rwp@Galatians:2:15 @{Not sinners of the Gentiles} (\ouk ex ethnn hamartloi\). The Jews regarded all Gentiles as "sinners" in contrast with themselves (cf. kjv@Matthew:26:45| "sinners" and kjv@Luke:18:32| "Gentiles"). It is not clear whether verses 15-21|...the light of the controversy with ...
rwp@Hebrews:1:3 @{Being} (\n\). Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of \eimi\) in contrast with \genomenos\ in verse 4| like \n\ in kjv@John:1:1| (in contrast with \egeneto\ in 1:14|) and like \huparchn\ and \genomenos\ in kjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {The effulgence of his glory} (\apaugasma ts doxs\). The word \apaugasma\, late substantive from \apaugaz\, to emit brightness (\aug, augaz\ in kjv@2Corinthians:4:4|), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom 7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in kjv@John:12:45; 14:9|. "The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos" (Moffatt). The meaning "effulgence" suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (John:1:1|), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in kjv@2Corinthians:4:6|. {The very image of his substance} (\charaktr ts hupostases\). \Charaktr\ is an old word from \charass\, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending \=tr\) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by \charagma\ (Acts:17:29; kjv@Revelation:13:16f.|). Menander had already used (Moffatt) \charaktr\ in the sense of our "character." The word occurs in the inscriptions for "person" as well as for "exact reproduction" of a person. The word \hupostasis\ for the being or essence of God "is a philosophical rather than a religious term" (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In 11:1| \hypostasis\ is like the "title-deed" idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used kjv@Hebrews:1:1-4| in his controversy with Arius. Paul in kjv@Phillipians:2:5-11| pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul's simpler phrase \morph theou\ (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of \Logos\ in kjv@John:1:1-18| is parallel to kjv@Hebrews:1:1-4|. {And upholding} (\phern te\). Present active participle of \pher\ closely connected with \n\ (being) by \te\ and like kjv@Colossians:1:17| in idea. The newer science as expounded by Eddington and Jeans is in harmony with the spiritual and personal conception of creation here presented. {By the word of his power} (\ti rmati ts dunames autou\). Instrumental case of \rma\ (word). See 11:3| for \rmati theou\ (by the word of God) as the explanation of creation like Genesis, but here \autou\ refers to God's Son as in 1:2|. {Purification of sins} (\katharismon tn hamartin\). \Katharismos\ is from \kathariz\, to cleanse (Matthew:8:3; kjv@Hebrews:9:14|), here only in Hebrews, but in same sense of cleansing from sins, kjv@2Peter:1:9; kjv@Job:7:21|. Note middle participle \poisamenos\ like \heuramenos\ in 9:12|. This is the first mention of the priestly work of Christ, the keynote of this Epistle. {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). First aorist active of \kathiz\, "took his seat," a formal and dignified act. {Of the Majesty on high} (\ts megalosuns en hupslois\). Late word from \megas\, only in LXX (Deuteronomy:32:3; kjv@2Samuel:7:23|, etc.), Aristeas, kjv@Hebrews:1:3; 8:1; kjv@Jude:1:25|. Christ resumed his original dignity and glory (John:17:5|). The phrase \en hupslois\ occurs in the Psalms (Psalms:93:4|), here only in N.T., elsewhere \en hupsistois\ in the highest (Matthew:21:9; kjv@Luke:2:14|) or \en tois epouraniois\ in the heavenlies (Ephesians:1:3,20|). Jesus is here pictured as King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.
rwp@John:2:6 @{Waterpots} (\hudriai\). Old word from \hudr\ (water) and used in papyri for pots or pans for holding money or bread as well as water. These stone (\lithinai\ as in kjv@2Corinthians:3:3|) jars full of water were kept handy ({set there}, \keimenai\, present middle participle of \keimai\) at a feast for ceremonial cleansing of the hands (2Kings:3:11; kjv@Mark:7:3|), "after the Jews' manner of purifying" (\kata ton katharismon tn Ioudain\). See kjv@Mark:1:44; kjv@Luke:2:22| for the word \katharismos\ (from \kathariz\)...fact also raised a controversy with ...(John:3:25|). {Containing} (\chrousai\). Present active participle feminine plural of \chre\, old verb from \chros\, place, space, having space or room for. {Two or three firkins apiece} (\ana metrtas duo treis\). The word \metrts\, from \metre\, to measure, simply means "measurer," an amphora for measuring liquids (in Demosthenes, Aristotle, Polybius), the Hebrew _bath_ (2Chronicles:4:5|), here only in N.T., about 8 1/2 English gallons. Each \hudria\ thus held about 20 gallons. This common distributive use of \ana\ occurs here only in this Gospel, but is in kjv@Revelation:4:8|. In kjv@John:4:28| a much smaller \hudria\ was used for carrying water.
rwp@John:5:9 @{Took up his bed and walked} (\re ton krabatton autou kai periepatei\). The same distinction in tenses in the same verbs preserved, punctiliar action in \re\ (first aorist active of \air\, took it up at once) and linear act (imperfect active of \peripate\, went on walking). {The sabbath on that day} (\sabbaton en ekeini ti hmeri\). The first of the violations of the Sabbath rules of the Jews by Jesus in Jerusalem that led to so much bitterness (cf. 9:14,16|). This controversy will spread to Galilee on Christ's return there (Mark:2:23-3:6; kjv@Matthew:12:1-14; kjv@Luke:6:1-11|).
rwp@John:7:28 @{And I am not come of myself} (\kai ap' emautou ouk ellutha\). \Kai\ here="and yet." Jesus repeats the claim of verse 17| and also in 5:30; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10|. {Whom ye know not} (\hon humeis ouk oidate\)...Jesus passes by a controversy over ...8:19,55|.
rwp@John:7:29 @{I know him} (\eg oida auton\). In contrast to the ignorance of these people. See the same words in 8:55| and the same claim in 17:25; kjv@Matthew:11:27; kjv@Luke:10:22| (the Johannine aerolite)...through the chapters of controversy with ...(Bernard). Jesus is the Interpreter of God to men (John:1:18|). {And he sent me} (\kakeinos me apesteilen\). First aorist active indicative of \apostell\, the very verb used of Jesus when he sent forth the twelve (Matthew:10:5|) and used by Jesus again of himself in kjv@John:17:3|. He is the Father's Apostle to men.
rwp@John:8:17 @{Yea and in your law} (\kai en ti nomi de ti humeteri\). Same use of \kai--de\ as in verse 16|. They claimed possession of the law (7:49|) and so Jesus takes this turn in answer to the charge of single witness in verse 13|. He will use similar language (your law) in 10:34| in an _argumentum ad hominem_ as here in controversy with the Jews. In 15:24| to the apostles Jesus even says "in their law" in speaking of the hostile Jews plotting his death. He does not mean in either case to separate himself wholly from the Jews and the law, though in Matthew 5 he does show the superiority of his teaching to that of the law. For the Mosaic regulation about two witnesses see kjv@Deuteronomy:17:6; 19:15|. This combined witness of two is not true just because they agree, unless true in fact separately. But if they disagree, the testimony falls to the ground. In this case the Father confirms the witness of the Son as Jesus had already shown (5:37|).
rwp@John:8:19 @{Where is thy Father?} (\pou estin ho patr sou;\). "The testimony of an unseen and unheard witness would not satisfy them" (Vincent). Bernard understands the Pharisees to see that Jesus claims God the Father as his second witness and so ask "where," not "who" he is. Augustine has it: _Patrem Christi carnaliter acceperunt_, Christ's human father, as if the Pharisees were "misled perhaps by the Lord's use of \anthrpon\ (verse 17|)" (Dods). Cyril even took it to be a coarse allusion to the birth of Jesus as a bastard according to the Talmud. Perhaps the Pharisees used the question with _double entendre_, even with all three ideas dancing in their hostile minds. {Ye would know my Father also} (\kai ton patera mou an ideite\). Conclusion of second-class condition determined as unfulfilled with \an\ and second perfect active of \oida\ used as imperfect in both condition and conclusion. See this same point made to Philip in 14:9|. In 14:7| Jesus will use \ginsk\ in the condition and \oida\ in the conclusion. The ignorance of the Pharisees about Jesus proves it and is due to their ignorance of the Father. See this point more fully stated in 5:36-38|...Jesus had his previous controversy in ...7:28| Jesus said that they knew his home in Nazareth, but he denied then that they knew the Father who sent him. Jesus will again on this occasion (8:55|) deny their knowledge of the Father. Later he will deny their knowledge of the Father and of the Son (16:3|). The Pharisees are silenced for the moment.
rwp@Info_Luke @ THE AUTHOR OF ACTS A COMPANION OF PAUL The proof of this position belongs to the treatment of Acts, but a word is needed here. The use of "we" and "us" in kjv@Acts:16:10 and from kjv@Acts:20:6| to the end of chapter kjv@Acts:28| shows it beyond controversy if the same man wrote the "we" sections and the rest of the Acts. This proof Harnack has produced with painstaking detail in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_ and in his volume _The Acts of the Apostles_ and in his _Luke the Physician_.
rwp@Luke:20:41 @{How say they?} (\Ps legousin;\)...feeble contribution to the controversy which ...(Mark:12:28-34; kjv@Matthew:27:34-40|). Luke does not give this incident which makes it plain that by "they say" (\legousin\) Jesus refers to the Pharisees (rabbis, lawyers), carrying on the discussion and turning the tables on them while the Pharisees are still gathered together (Matthew:22:41|). The construction with \legousin\ is the usual infinitive and the accusative in indirect discourse. By "the Christ" (\ton Christon\) "the Messiah" is meant.
rwp@Luke:22:7 @{The day of unleavened bread came} (\lthen h hmera tn azumn\). The day itself came, not simply was drawing nigh (verse 1|). {Must be sacrificed} (\edei thuesthai\). This was Nisan 14 which began at sunset. Luke is a Gentile and this fact must be borne in mind. The lamb must be slain by the head of the family (Exodus:12:6|). The controversy about the day when Christ ate the last passover meal has already been discussed (Matthew:26:17; kjv@Mark:14:12|). The Synoptics clearly present this as a fact. Jesus was then crucified on Friday at the passover or Thursday (our time) at the regular hour 6 P.M. (beginning of Friday). The five passages in John (13:1f.; 13:27; 18:28; 19:14; 19:31|) rightly interpreted teach the same thing as shown in my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_ (pp.279-284).
rwp@Mark:1:22 @{They were astonished} (\exeplssonto\). Pictorial imperfect as in kjv@Luke:4:32| describing the amazement of the audience, "meaning strictly to strike a person out of his senses by some strong feeling, such as fear, wonder, or even joy" (Gould). {And not as their scribes} (\kai ouch hs hoi grammateis\). kjv@Luke:4:32| has only "with authority" (\en exousii\). Mark has it "as having authority" (\hs echn exousian\). He struck a note not found by the rabbi. They quoted other rabbis and felt their function to be expounders of the traditions which they made a millstone around the necks of the people. By so doing they set aside the word and will of God by their traditions and petty legalism (Mark:7:9,13|). They were casuists and made false interpretations to prove their punctilious points of external etiquette to the utter neglect of the spiritual reality. The people noticed at once that here was a personality who got his power (authority) direct from God, not from the current scribes. "Mark omits much, and is in many ways a meagre Gospel, but it makes a distinctive contribution to the evangelic history _in showing by a few realistic touches_ (this one of them) _the remarkable personality of Jesus_" (Bruce). See on kjv@Matthew:7:29|...language occurs. The chief controversy in ...
rwp@Mark:3:2 @{They watched} (\paretroun\). Imperfect tense, were watching on the side (or sly). Luke uses the middle voice, \paretrounto\, to accent their personal interest in the proceedings. It was the sabbath day and in the synagogue and they were there ready to catch him in the act if he should dare to violate their rules as he had done in the wheat fields on the previous sabbath. Probably the same Pharisees are present now as then. {That they might accuse him} (\hina katgorssin autou\). Songs:Matthew:12:10|. Luke has it "that they might find how to accuse him" (\hina heursin katgorein autou\)...accuse him. The sabbath controversy offered ...
rwp@Mark:7:4 @{From the marketplace} (\ap' agoras\). Ceremonial defilement was inevitable in the mixing with men in public. This \agora\ from \ageir\ to collect or gather, was a public forum in every town where the people gathered like the courthouse square in American towns. The disciples were already ceremonially defiled. {Wash themselves} (\baptisntai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \baptiz\, dip or immerse. Westcott and Hort put \rantisntai\ in the text translated "sprinkle themselves" in the margin of the Revised Version, because Aleph, B, and some of the best cursives have it. Gould terms \rantisntai\...to enter into any controversy about ...\baptiz\, to dip, \rantiz\, to sprinkle, and \ecche\, to pour, all used in the New Testament. The words have their distinctive meanings here as elsewhere. Some scribes felt a difficulty about the use of \baptisntai\ here. The Western and Syrian classes of manuscripts add "and couches" (\kai klinn\) at the end of the sentence. Swete considers the immersions of beds (\baptismous klinn\) "an incongruous combination." But Gould says: "Edersheim shows that the Jewish ordinance required immersions, \baptismous\, of these vessels." We must let the Jewish scrupulosity stand for itself, though "and couches" is not supported by Aleph, B L D Bohairic, probably not genuine.
rwp@Mark:8:11 @{And the Pharisees came forth} (\kai exlthon hoi Pharisaioi\)...Jesus and opened a controversy.... kjv@Matthew:16:1| adds "and Sadducees," the first time these two parties appear together against Jesus. See discussion on ¯Matthew:16:1|...Jesus in the sabbath controversy... (Mark:3:6|). They {began to question with him} (\rxanto sunztein auti\). Dispute, not mere inquiry, associative instrumental case of \autoi\. They began at once and kept it up (present infinitive).
rwp@Matthew:16:18 @{And I also say unto thee} (\k'ag de soi leg\). "The emphasis is not on 'Thou art Peter' over against 'Thou art the Christ,' but on \Kag\: 'The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another" (McNeile). Jesus calls Peter here by the name that he had said he would have (John:1:42|). Peter (\Petros\) is simply the Greek word for Cephas (Aramaic). Then it was prophecy, now it is fact. In verse 17| Jesus addresses him as "Simon Bar-Jonah," his full patronymic (Aramaic)...has caused volumes of controversy and ...{On this rock} (\epi tauti ti petri\) Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in 7:24| on which the wise man built his house. \Petros\ is usually a smaller detachment of the massive ledge. But too much must not be made of this point since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to Peter which draws no such distinction (\Kph\). What did Jesus mean by this word-play?
rwp@Matthew:16:18 @{I will build my church} (\oikodoms mou tn ekklsian\). It is the figure of a building and he uses the word \ekklsian\ which occurs in the New Testament usually of a local organization, but sometimes in a more general sense. What is the sense here in which Jesus uses it? The word originally meant "assembly" (Acts:19:39|), but it came to be applied to an "unassembled assembly" as in kjv@Acts:8:3| for the Christians persecuted by Saul from house to house. "And the name for the new Israel, \ekklsia\, in His mouth is not an anachronism. It is an old familiar name for the congregation of Israel found in Deut. (Deuteronomy:18:26; 23:2|) and Psalms (Psalms:22:36|), both books well known to Jesus" (Bruce). It is interesting to observe that in kjv@Psalms:89| most of the important words employed by Jesus on this occasion occur in the LXX text. Songs:\oikodoms\ in kjv@Psalms:89:5|; \ekklsia\ in kjv@Psalms:89:6|; \katischu\ in kjv@Psalms:89:22|; \Christos\ in kjv@Psalms:89:39,52|; \hids\ in kjv@Psalms:89:49| (\ek cheiros hidou\). If one is puzzled over the use of "building" with the word \ekklsia\ it will be helpful to turn to kjv@1Peter:2:5|. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is here speaking, writing to the Christians in the five Roman provinces in Asia (1Peter:1:1|), says: "You are built a spiritual house" (\oikodomeisthe oikos pneumatikos\). It is difficult to resist the impression that Peter recalls the words of Jesus to him on this memorable occasion. Further on (1Peter:2:9|)...holy nation, showing beyond controversy that ...16:18|. It is a great spiritual house, Christ's Israel, not the Jewish nation, which he describes. What is the rock on which Christ will build his vast temple? Not on Peter alone or mainly or primarily. Peter by his confession was furnished with the illustration for the rock on which His church will rest. It is the same kind of faith that Peter has just confessed. The perpetuity of this church general is guaranteed.
rwp@Matthew:26:17 @{To eat the passover} (\phagein to pascha\). There were two feasts rolled into one, the passover feast and the feast of unleavened bread. Either name was employed. Here the passover meal is meant, though in kjv@John:18:28| it is probable that the passover feast is referred to as the passover meal (the last supper)...There is a famous controversy on ...(John:13:1f.,27; 18:28; 19:14,31|) rightly interpreted agree with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew:26:17,20; kjv@Mark:14:12,17; kjv@Luke:22:7,14|) that Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time about 6 P.M. beginning of 15 Nisan. The passover lamb was slain on the afternoon of 14 Nisan and the meal eaten at sunset the beginning of 15 Nisan. According to this view Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time and died on the cross the afternoon of 15 Nisan. See my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_, pp.279-284. The question of the disciples here assumes that they are to observe the regular passover meal. Note the deliberative subjunctive (\hetoimasmen\) after \theleis\ with \hina\. For the asyndeton see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 935.
rwp@Info_Philipians @ Meanwhile he tells the Philippians about the difficulties and triumphs in Rome. The Judaizers have followed Paul here and there is an echo in chapters kjv@Phillipians:1; 3| of their opposition. But Paul rises to full stature in the great Christological passages in chapters kjv@Phillipians:2; 3|...the way for the controversy with ...
rwp@Philippians:2:6 @{Being} (\huparchn\). Rather, "existing," present active participle of \huparch\. In the form of God (\en morphi theou\). \Morph\ means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. {A prize} (\harpagmon\). Predicate accusative with \hgsato\. Originally words in \-mos\ signified the act, not the result (\-ma\). The few examples of \harpagmos\ (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to \harpagma\, like \baptismos\ and \baptisma\. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery"). {To be on an equality with God} (\to einai isa theoi\). Accusative articular infinitive object of \hgsato\, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case \thei\ after \isa\). \Isa\ is adverbial use of neuter plural with \einai\ as in kjv@Revelation:21:16|. {Emptied himself} (\heauton ekense\). First aorist active indicative of \keno\, old verb from \kenos\...has arisen a great controversy on ...\Kenosis\ doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. "He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot).
rwp@Philippians:3:3 @{For we} (\hmeis gar\). We believers in Christ, the children of Abraham by faith, whether Jew or Gentile, the spiritual circumcision in contrast to the merely physical (Romans:2:25-29; kjv@Colossians:2:11; kjv@Ephesians:2:11|). See kjv@Galatians:5:12| for \apotemnein\ (to cut off) in sense of mutilation also. {By the Spirit of God} (\pneumati theou\). Instrumental case, though the dative case as the object of \latreu\ makes good sense also (worshipping the Spirit of God) or even the locative (worshipping in the Spirit of God). {No} (\ouk\). Actual condition rather than \m\ with the participle. {In the flesh} (\en sarki\)...Technical term in Paul's controversy with ...(2Corinthians:11:18; Gal 6:13f.|). External privileges beyond mere flesh.
rwp@Revelation:2:14 @{There} (\ekei\). That is \par' humin\ (among you). A party in the church that resisted emperor-worship, to the death in the case of Antipas, yet were caught in the insidious wiles of the Nicolaitans which the church in Ephesus withstood. {Some that hold} (\kratountas\). "Men holding" (present active participle of \krate\). {The teaching of Balaam} (\tn didachn Balaam\). Indeclinable substantive Balaam (Numbers:25:1-9; 31:15f.|). The point of likeness of these heretics with Balaam is here explained. {Taught Balak} (\edidasken ti Balak\). Imperfect indicative of \didask\, Balaam's habit, "as the prototype of all corrupt teachers" (Charles). These early Gnostics practised licentiousness as a principle since they were not under law, but under grace (Romans:6:15|). The use of the dative with \didask\ is a colloquialism rather than a Hebraism. Two accusatives often occur with \didask\. {To cast a stumbling-block} (\balein skandalon\). Second aorist active infinitive (accusative case after \edidasken\) of \ball\, regular use with \skandalon\ (trap) like \tithmi skandalon\ in kjv@Romans:14:13|. Balaam, as Josephus and Philo also say, showed Balak how to set a trap for the Israelites by beguiling them into the double sin of idolatry and fornication, which often went together (and do so still). {To eat things sacrificed to idols} (\phagein eidlothuta\). Second aorist active infinitive of \esthi\ and the verbal adjective (from \eidlon\ and \thu\), quoted here from kjv@Numbers:25:1f.|, but in inverse order, repeated in other order in verse 20|. See kjv@Acts:15:29; 21:25; kjv@1Corinthians:8:1ff.| for the controversy over the temptation to Gentile Christians to do what in itself was harmless, but which led to evil if it led to participation in the pagan feasts. Perhaps both ideas are involved here. Balaam taught Balak how to lead the Israelites into sin in both ways.
rwp@Info_Romans @ THE PURPOSE Paul tells this himself. He had long cherished a desire to come to Rome (Acts:19:21|) and had often made his plans to do so (Romans:1:13|) which were interrupted (Romans:15:22|), but now he definitely plans to go from Jerusalem, after taking the contribution there (Romans:15:26|), to Rome and then on to Spain (Romans:15:24,28|). Meanwhile he sends this Epistle that the Romans may know what Paul's gospel really is (Romans:1:15; 2:16|)...raised by the Judaizing controversy as ...(Romans:1:17|) of both Gentile (Romans:1:18-32|) and Jew (Romans:2:1-3:20|) and only to be obtained by faith in Christ who by his atoning death (justification) has made it possible (Romans:3:21-5:21|). This new life of faith in Christ should lead to holiness of life (sanctification, chapters kjv@Romans:6-8|). This is Paul's gospel and the remaining chapters deal with corollaries growing out of the doctrine of grace as applied to practical matters. It is a cause for gratitude that Paul did write out so full a statement of his message. He had a message for the whole world and was anxious to win the Roman Empire to Christ. It was important that he go to Rome for it was the centre of the world's life. Nowhere does Paul's Christian statesmanship show to better advantage than in this greatest of his Epistles. It is not a book of formal theology though Paul is the greatest of theologians. Here Paul is seen in the plenitude of his powers with all the wealth of his knowledge of Christ and his rich experience in mission work. The church in Rome is plainly composed of both Jews and Greeks, though who started the work there we have no way of knowing. Paul's ambition was to preach where no one else had been (Romans:15:20|), but he has no hesitation in going on to Rome.
rwp@Romans:6:4 @{We were buried therefore with him by means of baptism unto death} (\sunetaphmen oun auti dia tou baptismatos eis ton thanaton\). Second aorist passive indicative of \sunthapt\, old verb to bury together with, in N.T. only here and kjv@Colossians:2:12|. With associative instrumental case (\auti\) and "by means of baptism unto death" as in verse 3|. {In newness of life} (\en kainotti zs\). The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin (verse 1|), forwards to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave (F. B. Meyer)...been so blurred by controversy that ...
rwp@Romans:7:15 @{I know not} (\ou ginsk\). "I do not recognize" in its true nature. My spiritual perceptions are dulled, blinded by sin (2Corinthians:4:4|). The dual life pictured here by Paul finds an echo in us all, the struggle after the highest in us ("what I really wish," \ho thel\, to practise it steadily, \prass\) and the slipping into doing (\poi\) "what I really hate" (\ho mis\)...is a deal of controversy as ...14| seem to turn the scale for the pre-conversion period. "It is the unregenerate man's experience, surviving at least in memory into regenerate days, and read with regenerate eyes" (Denney).