Bible:
Filter: String:

NT.filter - rwp Abbott:

rwp@Info_2Peter @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882).,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). strkjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Simn Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Symen\ as in strkjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Simn\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. strkjv@2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in strkjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \tim\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \tim\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \tim\ in strkjv@1:7,19; strkjv@2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \ti hmn\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosuni\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosun\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \stros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in strkjv@1:11| as in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|. Songs:in strkjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in strkjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in strkjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).

rwp@Info_Colossians @ SOME BOOKS ABOUT COLOSSIANS One may note commentaries by T. K. Abbott (_Int. Crit_. 1897), Gross Alexander (1910), Dargan (1887), Dibelius (1912), Ellicott (1890), Ewald (1905), Griffith-Thomas (1923), Findlay (1895), Haupt (1903), M. Jones (1923), Lightfoot (1904), Maclaren (1888), Meinertz (1917), Moule (1900), Mullins (1913), Oltramare (1891), Peake (1903), Radford (1931), A. T. Robertson (1926), Rutherford (1908), E. F. Scott (1930), Von Soden (1893), F. B. Westcott (1914), Williams (1907). strkjv@Colossians:1:1 @{Of Christ Jesus} (\Christou Isou\). This order in the later epistles shows that \Christos\ is now regarded as a proper name and not just a verbal adjective (Anointed One, Messiah). Paul describes himself because he is unknown to the Colossians, not because of attack as in strkjv@Galatians:1:1|. {Timothy} (\Timotheos\). Mentioned as in I and II Thess. when in Corinth, II Cor. when in Macedonia, Phil. and Philemon when in Rome as here.

rwp@Colossians:1:9 @{That ye may be filled with} (\hina plrthte\). First aorist (effective) passive subjunctive of \plro\, to fill full. {The knowledge of his will} (\tn epignsin tou thelmatos autou\). The accusative case is retained with this passive verb. \Epignsis\ is a _Koin_ word (Polybius, Plutarch, etc.) for additional (\epi\) or full knowledge. The word is the keynote of Paul's reply to the conceit of Gnosticism. The cure for these intellectual upstarts is not ignorance, not obscurantism, but more knowledge of the will of God. {In all spiritual wisdom and understanding} (\en pasi sophii kai sunesei pneumatiki\). Both \pasei\ (all) and \pneumatiki\ (spiritual) are to be taken with both \sophii\ and \sunesei\. In strkjv@Ephesians:1:8| Paul uses \phronsei\ (from \phrn\, intellect) rather than \sunesei\ (grasp, from \sunimi\, to send together). \Sunesis\ is the faculty of deciding in particular cases while \sophia\ gives the general principles (Abbott). Paul faces Gnosticism with full front and wishes the freest use of all one's intellectual powers in interpreting Christianity. The preacher ought to be the greatest man in the world for he has to deal with the greatest problems of life and death.

rwp@Colossians: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 \eudoksen\, 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} (\eirnopoisas\). Late and rare compound (Proverbs:10:10| and here only in N.T.) from \eirnopoios\, peacemaker (Matthew:5:9|; here only in N.T.). In strkjv@Ephesians:2:15| we have \poin eirnn\ (separate words) {making peace}. Not the masculine gender, though agreeing with the idea of Christ involved even if \plrma\ be taken as the subject of \eudoksen\, a participial anacoluthon (construction according to sense as in strkjv@2:19|). If \theos\ be taken as the subject of \eudoksen\ the participle \eirnopoisas\ 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:1:28 @{Whom} (\hon\). That is, "Christ in you, the hope of glory." {We proclaim} (\kataggellomen\). Paul, Timothy and all like-minded preachers against the Gnostic depreciation of Christ. This verb originally (Xenophon) meant to denounce, but in N.T. it means to announce (\aggell\) throughout (\kata\), to proclaim far and wide (Acts:13:5|). {Admonishing} (\nouthetountes\). Old verb from \nouthets\, admonisher (from \nous, tithmi\). See already strkjv@Acts:20:31; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12,14; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:15|, etc. Warning about practice and teaching (\didaskontes\) about doctrine. Such teaching calls for "all wisdom" {Every man} (\panta anthrpon\). Repeated three times. "In opposition to the doctrine of an intellectual exclusiveness taught by the false teachers" (Abbott). {That we may present} (\hina parastsmen\). Final use of \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \paristmi\, for which see strkjv@1:22|, the final presentation to Christ. {Perfect} (\teleion\). Spiritual adults in Christ, no longer babes in Christ (Hebrews:5:14|), mature and ripened Christians (4:22|), the full-grown man in Christ (Ephesians:4:13|). The relatively perfect (Phillipians:3:15|) will on that day of the presentation be fully developed as here (Colossians:4:12; strkjv@Ephesians:4:13|). The Gnostics used \teleios\ of the one fully initiated into their mysteries and it is quite possible that Paul here has also a sidewise reference to their use of the term.

rwp@Colossians:2:13 @{And you} (\kai humas\). Emphatic position, object of the verb \sunezopoisen\ (did he quicken) and repeated (second \hums\). You Gentiles as he explains. {Being dead through your trespasses} (\nekrous ontas tois paraptmasin\). Moral death, of course, as in strkjv@Romans:6:11; strkjv@Ephesians:2:1,5|. Correct text does not have \en\, but even so \paraptmasin\ (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 ti akroboustii ts sarkos humn\). "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} (\sunezopoisen sun auti\). First aorist active indicative of the double compound verb \sunzopoie\, to make alive (\zos, poie\) with (\sun\, repeated also with \auti\, 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 auti\ here referring to Christ. This can be true even if Christ be the subject of \rken\ in verse 14|. {Having forgiven us} (\charisamenos hmin\). 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:2:15 @{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 parrsii\). {Triumphing over them on it} (\thriambeusas autous en auti\). 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 \auti\ as referring to \cheirographon\ (bond) or even to Christ.

rwp@Colossians:2:23 @{Which things} (\hatina\). "Which very things," these ascetic regulations. {Have indeed a show of wisdom} (\estin logon men echonta sophias\). Periphrastic present indicative with \estin\ in the singular, but present indicative \echonta\ in the plural (\hatina\). \Logon sophias\ is probably "the repute of wisdom" (Abbott) like Plato and Herodotus. \Men\ (in deed) has no corresponding \de\. {In will-worship} (\en ethelothrskii\). This word occurs nowhere else and was probably coined by Paul after the pattern of \ethelodouleia\, to describe the voluntary worship of angels (see strkjv@2:18|). {And humility} (\kai tapeinophrosuni\). Clearly here the bad sense, "in mock humility." {And severity to the body} (\kai apheidii smatos\). Old word (Plato) from \apheids\, unsparing (\a\ privative, \pheidomai\, to spare). Here alone in N.T. Ascetics often practice flagellations and other hardnesses to the body. {Not of any value} (\ouk en timi tini\). \Tim\ usually means honour or price. {Against the indulgence of the flesh} (\pros plsmonn ts sarkos\). These words are sharply debated along with \tim\ just before. It is not unusual for \pros\ to be found in the sense of "against" rather than "with" or "for." See \pros\ in sense of {against} in strkjv@3:13; strkjv@Ephesians:6:11f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:6:1|. \Plsmon\ is an old word from \pimplmi\, to fill and means satiety. It occurs here only in the N.T. Peake is inclined to agree with Hort and Haupt that there is a primitive corruption here. But the translation in the Revised Version is possible and it is true that mere rules do not carry us very far in human conduct as every father or mother knows, though we must have some regulations in family and state and church. But they are not enough of themselves.

rwp@Colossians:4:10 @{Aristarchus} (\Aristarchos\). He was from Thessalonica and accompanied Paul to Jerusalem with the collection (Acts:19:29; strkjv@20:4|) and started with Paul to Rome (Acts:27:2; strkjv@Philemon:1:24|). Whether he has been with Paul all the time in Rome we do not know, but he is here now. {My fellow-prisoner} (\ho sunaichmaltos mou\). One of Paul's compounds, found elsewhere only in Lucian. Paul uses it of Epaphras in strkjv@Philemon:1:23|, but whether of actual voluntary imprisonment or of spiritual imprisonment like \sunstratites\ (fellow-soldier) in strkjv@Phillipians:2:25; strkjv@Philemon:1:2| we do not know. Abbott argues for a literal imprisonment and it is possible that some of Paul's co-workers (\sun-ergoi\) voluntarily shared imprisonment with him by turns. {Mark} (\Markos\). Once rejected by Paul for his defection in the work (Acts:15:36-39|), but now cordially commended because he had made good again. {The cousin of Barnabas} (\ho anepsios Barnab\). It was used for "nephew" very late, clearly "cousin" here and common so in the papyri. This kinship explains the interest of Barnabas in Mark (Acts:12:25; strkjv@13:5; strkjv@15:36-39|). {If he come unto you, receive him} (\ean elthi pros humas dexasthe auton\). This third class conditional sentence (\ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\) gives the substance of the commands (\entolas\) about Mark already sent, how we do not know. But Paul's commendation of Mark is hearty and unreserved as he does later in strkjv@2Timothy:4:11|. The verb \dechomai\ is the usual one for hospitable reception (Matthew:10:14; strkjv@John:4:45|) like \prosdechomai\ (Phillipians:2:29|) and \hupodechomai\ (Luke:10:38|).

rwp@Info_Ephesians @ SPECIAL BOOKS ON EPHESIANS One may note Abbott (_Int. Crit. Comm_. 1897), Gross Alexander (1910), Beet (1891), Belser (1908), Candlish (1895), Dale (_Lectures on Ephesians_), Dibelius (_Handbuch_, 1912), Eadie (1883), Ellicott (1884), Ewald (_Zahn Komm._, 2 Auf. 1910), Findlay (1892), Gore (_Practical Exposition_, 1898), Haupt (_Meyer Komm._, 8 Auf. 1902), Hitchcock (1913), Hort (_Intr_. 1895), Knabenbauer (1913), Krukenberg (1903), Lidgett (1915), Lock (1929), Lueken (1906), Martin (_New Century Bible_), McPhail (1893), McPherson (1892), Meinertz (1917), Moule (1900), Mullins (1913), Murray (1915), Oltramare (1891), Robinson (1903), Salmond (1903), E. F. Scott (_Moffatt Comm._, 1930), Stroeter (_The Glory of the Body of Christ_, 1909), Von Soden (2 Aufl. 1893), F. B. Westcott (1906), Wohlenberg (1895). strkjv@Ephesians:1:1 @{Of Christ Jesus} (\Christou Isou\). Songs:B D, though Aleph A L have \Isou Christou\. Paul is named as the author and so he is. Otherwise the Epistle is pseudepigraphic. {By the will of God} (\dia thelmatos theou\). As in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Romans:1:1|. {At Ephesus} (\en Ephesi\). In Aleph and B these words are inserted by later hands, though both MSS. give the title \Pros Ephesious\. Origen explains the words \tois hagiois tois ousin\ as meaning "the saints that are" (genuine saints), showing that his MSS. did not have the words \en Ephesi\. The explanation of the insertion of these words has already been given in the remarks on "The Destination" as one copy of the general letter that was preserved in Ephesus. It is perfectly proper to call it the Epistle to the Ephesians if we understand the facts.

rwp@Ephesians:5:33 @{Nevertheless} (\pln\). "Howbeit," not to dwell unduly (Abbott) on the matter of Christ and the church. {Do ye also severally love} (\kai humeis hoi kath' hena hekastos agapt\). An unusual idiom. The verb \agapt\ (present active imperative) agrees with \hekastos\ and so is third singular instead of \agapte\ (second plural) like \humeis\. The use of \hoi kath' hena\ after \humeis\ = " ye one by one " and then \hekastos\ takes up (individualizes) the "one" in partitive apposition and in the third person. {Let the wife see that she fear} (\h gun hina phobtai\). There is no verb in the Greek for "let see" (\blepet\). For this use of \hina\ with the subjunctive as a practical imperative without a principal verb (an elliptical imperative) see strkjv@Mark:5:23; strkjv@Matthew:20:32; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:29; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:7; strkjv@Ephesians:4:29; strkjv@5:33| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 994). "Fear" (\phobtai\, present middle subjunctive) here is "reverence."

rwp@John:18:11 @{Into the sheath} (\eis tn thkn\). Old word from \tithmi\, to put for box or sheath, only here in N.T. In strkjv@Matthew:26:52| Christ's warning is given. {The cup} (\to potrion\). Metaphor for Christ's death, used already in reply to request of James and John (Mark:10:39; strkjv@Matthew:20:22|) and in the agony in Gethsemane before Judas came (Mark:14:36; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), which is not given by John. The case of \to potrion\ is the suspended nominative for note \auto\ (it) referring to it. {Shall I not drink?} (\ou m pi;\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \pin\ with the double negative \ou m\ in a question expecting the affirmative answer. Abbott takes it as an exclamation and compares strkjv@6:37; strkjv@Mark:14:25|.

rwp@John:18:30 @{If this man were not an evil-doer} (\ei m n houtos kakon poin\). Condition (negative) of second class (periphrastic imperfect indicative), assumed to be untrue, with the usual apodosis (\an\ and aorist indicative, first aorist plural with \k\). This is a pious pose of infallibility not in the Synoptics. They then proceeded to make the charges (Luke:23:2|) as indeed John implies (18:31,33|). Some MSS. here read \kakopoios\ (malefactor) as in strkjv@1Peter:2:12,14|, with which compare Luke's \kakourgos\ (23:32f.|; so also strkjv@2Timothy:2:9|), both meaning evil-doer. Here the periphrastic present participle \poin\ with \kakon\ emphasizes the idea that Jesus was a habitual evil-doer (Abbott). It was an insolent reply to Pilate (Bernard).