NT.filter - rwp doctrine:
rwp@
1Corinthians:1:12 @{Now this I mean} (\leg de touto\). Explanatory use of \leg\. Each has his party leader. \Apoll\ is genitive of \Apolls\ (Acts:18:24|), probably abbreviation of \Apollnius\ as seen in Codex Bezae for strkjv@Acts:18:24|. See on Acts for discussion of this "eloquent Alexandrian" (Ellicott), whose philosophical and oratorical preaching was in contrast "with the studied plainness" of Paul (1Corinthians:2:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:10|). People naturally have different tastes about styles of preaching and that is well, but Apollos refused to be a party to this strife and soon returned to Ephesus and refused to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). \Cph\ is the genitive of \Cphs\, the Aramaic name given Simon by Jesus (John:1:42|), \Petros\ in Greek. Except in strkjv@Galatians:2:7,8| Paul calls him Cephas. He had already taken his stand with Paul in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-11; strkjv@Galatians:2:7-10|). Paul had to rebuke him at Antioch for his timidity because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-14|), but, in spite of Baur's theory, there is no evidence of a schism in doctrine between Paul and Peter. If strkjv@2Peter:3:15f.| be accepted as genuine, as I do, there is proof of cordial relations between them and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:5| points in the same direction. But there is no evidence that Peter himself visited Corinth. Judaizers came and pitted Peter against Paul to the Corinthian Church on the basis of Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch. These Judaizers made bitter personal attacks on Paul in return for their defeat at the Jerusalem Conference. Songs:a third faction was formed by the use of Peter's name as the really orthodox wing of the church, the gospel of the circumcision. {And I of Christ} (\eg de Christou\). Still a fourth faction in recoil from the partisan use of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, with "a spiritually proud utterance" (Ellicott) that assumes a relation to Christ not true of the others. "Those who used this cry arrogated the common watchword as their _peculium_" (Findlay). This partisan use of the name of Christ may have been made in the name of unity against the other three factions, but it merely added another party to those existing. In scouting the names of the other leaders they lowered the name and rank of Christ to their level.
rwp@1Corinthians:2:1 @{Not with excellency of speech or of wisdom} (\ou kath' huperochn logou sophias\). \Huperoch\ is an old word from the verb \huperech\ (Phillipians:4:7|) and means preeminence, rising above. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:2:2| of magistrates. It occurs in inscriptions of Pergamum for persons of position (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 255). Here it means excess or superfluity, "not in excellence of rhetorical display or of philosophical subtlety" (Lightfoot). {The mystery of God} (\to mustrion tou theou\). Songs:Aleph A C Copt. like strkjv@2:7|, but B D L P read \marturion\ like strkjv@1:6|. Probably {mystery} is correct. Christ crucified is the mystery of God (Colossians:2:2|). Paul did not hesitate to appropriate this word in common use among the mystery religions, but he puts into it his ideas, not those in current use. It is an old word from \mue\, to close, to shut, to initiate (Phillipians:4:12|). This mystery was once hidden from the ages (Colossians:1:26|), but is now made plain in Christ (1Corinthians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:16:25f.|). The papyri give many illustrations of the use of the word for secret doctrines known only to the initiated (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_).
rwp@1Corinthians:2:9 @{But as it is written} (\alla kaths 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 \kousan\ (heard), but as the subject (nominative) with \aneb\ (entered, second aorist active indicative of \anabain\, to go up). {Whatsoever} (\hosa\). A climax to the preceding relative clause (Findlay). {Prepared} (\htoimasen\). 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:4:7 @{Maketh thee to differ} (\se diakrinei\). Distinguishes thee, separates thee. \Diakrin\ means to sift or separate between (\dia\) as in strkjv@Acts:15:9| (which see) where \metaxu\ is added to make it plainer. All self-conceit rests on the notion of superiority of gifts and graces as if they were self-bestowed or self-acquired. {Which thou didst not receive} (\ho ouk elabes\). "Another home-thrust" (Robertson and Plummer). Pride of intellect, of blood, of race, of country, of religion, is thus shut out. {Dost thou glory} (\kauchasai\). The original second person singular middle ending \-sai\ is here preserved with variable vowel contraction, \kauchaesai=kauchasai\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 341). Paul is fond of this old and bold verb for boasting. {As if thou hadst not received it} (\hs m labn\). This neat participial clause (second aorist active of \lamban\) with \hs\ (assumption) and negative \m\ punctures effectually the inflated bag of false pride. What pungent questions Paul has asked. Robertson and Plummer say of Augustine, "Ten years before the challenge of Pelagius, the study of St. Paul's writings, and especially of this verse and of strkjv@Romans:9:16|, had crystallized in his mind the distinctively Augustinian doctrines of man's total depravity, of irresistible grace, and of absolute predestination." Human responsibility does exist beyond a doubt, but there is no foundation for pride and conceit.
rwp@1John:5:7 @{For there are three who bear witness} (\hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes\). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: \en ti ourani ho patr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en ti gi\ (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8|. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.
rwp@Info_1Timothy @ FIRST TIMOTHY PROBABLY A.D. 65 FROM MACEDONIA BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION Assuming the Pauline authorship the facts shape up after this fashion. Paul had been in Ephesus (1Timothy:1:3|) after his arrival from Rome, which was certainly before the burning of Rome in A.D. 64. He had left Timothy in charge of the work in Ephesus and has gone on into Macedonia (1Timothy:1:3|), possibly to Philippi as he had hoped (Phillipians:2:24|). He wishes to help Timothy meet the problems of doctrine (against the Gnostics), discipline, and church training which are increasingly urgent. There are personal touches of a natural kind about Timothy's own growth and leadership. There are wise words here from the greatest of all preachers to a young minister whom Paul loved. strkjv@1Timothy:1:1 @{According to the commandment} (\kat' epitagn\). A late _Koin_ word (Polybius, Diodorus), but a Pauline word also in N.T. This very idiom ("by way of command") in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:8; strkjv@Romans:16:26; strkjv@1Timothy:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:3|. Paul means to say that he is an apostle under orders. {Of God our Saviour} (\theou stros hmn\). Genitive case with \epitagn\. In the LXX \str\ (old word from \sz\ for agent in saving, applied to deities, princes, kings, etc.) occurs 20 times, all but two to God. The Romans called the emperor "Saviour God." In the N.T. the designation of God as Saviour is peculiar to strkjv@Luke:1:47; strkjv@Jude:1:25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:3; strkjv@2:3; strkjv@4:10; strkjv@Titus:1:3; strkjv@2:10; strkjv@3:4|. In the other Epistles Paul uses it of Christ (Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23|) as in strkjv@2Timothy:1:10|. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" as in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. {Our hope} (\ts elpidos hmn\). Like strkjv@Colossians:1:27|. More than the author and object of hope, "its very substance and foundation" (Ellicott).
rwp@1Timothy:1:3 @{As I exhorted} (\kaths parekalesa\). There is an ellipse of the principal clause in verse 4| ({so do I now} not being in the Greek). {To tarry} (\prosmeinai\). First aorist active infinitive of \prosmen\, old verb, attributed by Luke to Paul in strkjv@Acts:13:43|. {That thou mightest charge} (\hina paraggeilis\). Subfinal clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \paraggell\, old verb, to transmit a message along (\para\) from one to another. See strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:4,6,10|. Lock considers this idiom here an elliptical imperative like strkjv@Ephesians:4:29; strkjv@5:33|. {Certain men} (\tisin\). Dative case. Expressly vague (no names as in strkjv@1:20|), though Paul doubtless has certain persons in Ephesus in mind. {Not to teach a different doctrine} (\m heterodidaskalein\). Earliest known use of this compound like \kakodidaskalein\ of Clement of Rome. Only other N.T. example in strkjv@6:3|. Eusebius has \heterodidaskalos\. Same idea in strkjv@Galatians:1:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4; strkjv@Romans:16:17|. Perhaps coined by Paul.
rwp@1Timothy:1:10 @{For abusers of themselves with men} (\arsenokoitais\). Late compound for sodomites. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:6:9|. {Men-stealers} (\andrapodistais\). Old word from \andrapodiz\ (from \anr\, man, \pous\, foot, to catch by the foot), to enslave. Songs:enslavers, whether kidnappers (men-stealers) of free men or stealers of the slaves of other men. Songs:slave-dealers. By the use of this word Paul deals a blow at the slave-trade (cf. Philemon). {Liars} (\pseustais\). Old word, see strkjv@Romans:3:4|. {False swearers} (\epiorkois\). Old word (\epi, orkos\, oath). Perjurers. Only here in N.T. For similar lists, see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:11; strkjv@6:9f.; strkjv@Galatians:5:19f.; strkjv@Romans:1:28f.; strkjv@13:13; strkjv@Colossians:3:5; strkjv@Ephesians:5:5; strkjv@2Timothy:3:2f|. {The sound doctrine} (\ti hugiainousi didaskalii\). Dative case after \antikeitai\, for which verb see strkjv@Galatians:5:17| for the conflict between the Spirit and the flesh. "The healthful (\hugiain\, old word for being well, as strkjv@Luke:5:31; strkjv@3John:1:2|, in figurative sense in N.T. only in the Pastorals) teaching." See strkjv@Titus:1:9; strkjv@2Timothy:4:3|.
rwp@1Timothy:4:1 @{Expressly} (\rts\). Late adverb, here alone in N.T., from verbal adjective \rtos\ (from root \re\). The reference is to the Holy Spirit, but whether to O.T. prophecy (Acts:1:16|) or to some Christian utterance (2Thessalonians:2:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:1ff.|) we do not know. Parry recalls the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:24:10,24|. {In later times} (\en husterois kairois\). Old adjective (Matthew:21:31|) usually as adverb, \husteron\ (Matthew:4:2|). Relative time from the prediction, now coming true (a present danger). {Some shall fall away} (\apostsontai tines\). Future middle of \aphistmi\, intransitive use, shall stand off from, to fall away, apostatize (2Corinthians:12:8|). {From the faith} (\ts pistes\). Ablative case (separation). Not creed, but faith in God through Christ. {Giving heed} (\prosechontes\). Supply \ton noun\ (the mind) as in strkjv@3:8|. {Seducing spirits} (\pneumasin planois\). Old adjective (\plan\, wandering), here active sense (deceiving). As substantive in strkjv@2Corinthians:6:8|. Probably some heathen or the worst of the Gnostics. {Doctrines of devils} (\didaskaliais daimonin\). "Teachings of \daimons\." Definite explanation of the preceding. Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20f|.
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} (\m proserchetai\). Also condition of first class with \m\ 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 hmn Isou 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:5:15 @{Should no longer live unto themselves} (\hina mketi heautois zsin\). The high doctrine of Christ's atoning death carries a correspondingly high obligation on the part of those who live because of him. Selfishness is ruled out by our duty to live "unto him who for their sakes died and rose again."
rwp@2Corinthians:7:2 @{Open your hearts to us} (\chrsate hmas\). Old verb (from \chros\, place), to leave a space, to make a space for, and transitive here as in strkjv@Matthew:19:11|. He wishes no further \stenochria\, tightness of heart, in them (6:12|). "Make room for us in your hearts." He makes this plea to all, even the stubborn minority. {We wronged no man} (\oudena diksamen\). A thing that every preacher ought to be able to say. Cf. strkjv@4:2; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@Acts:20:26f|. {We corrupted no man} (\oudena ephtheiramen\). We ruined no one. "It may refer to money, or morals, or doctrine" (Plummer). He is answering the Judaizers. {We took advantage of no man} (\oudena epleonektsamen\). That charge was made in Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:4:6|) which see for this late verb and also on ¯2Corinthians:2:11|. He got the best of (note \pleon\ more in the root) no one in any evil way.
rwp@Acts:1:1 @{The former treatise} (\ton men prton\). Literally, the first treatise. The use of the superlative is common enough and by no means implies, though it allows, a third volume. This use of \prtos\ where only two are compared is seen between the Baptist and Jesus (John:1:15|), John and Peter (John:20:4|). The idiom is common in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 662, 669). The use of \men solitarium\ here, as Hackett notes, is common in Acts. It is by no means true that \men\ requires a following \de\ by contrast. The word is merely a weakened form of \mn\=surely, indeed. The reference is to the "first treatise" and merely emphasizes that. The use of \logos\ (word) for treatise or historical narrative is common in ancient Greek as in Herodotus 6 and 9. Plato (_Phaedo_, p. 61 B) makes a contrast between \muthos\ and \logos\. {I made} (\epoisamn\). Aorist middle indicative, the middle being the usual construction for mental acts with \poie\. {O Theophilus} (\O Theophile\). The interjection \O\ here as is common, though not in strkjv@Luke:1:3|. But the adjective \kratiste\ (most excellent) is wanting here. See remarks on Theophilus on ¯Luke:1:3|. Hackett thinks that he lived at Rome because of the way Acts ends. He was a man of rank. He may have defrayed the expense of publishing both Luke and Acts. Perhaps by this time Luke may have reached a less ceremonious acquaintance with Theophilus. {Which Jesus began} (\hn rxato Isous\). The relative is attracted from the accusative \ha\ to the genitive \hn\ because of the antecedent \pantn\ (all). The language of Luke here is not merely pleonastic as Winer held. Jesus "began" "both to do and to teach" (\poiein te kai didaskein\). Note present infinitives, linear action, still going on, and the use of \te--kai\ binds together the life and teachings of Jesus, as if to say that Jesus is still carrying on from heaven the work and teaching of the disciples which he started while on earth before his ascension. The record which Luke now records is really the Acts of Jesus as much as the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. A. T. Pierson called it "The Acts of the Holy Spirit," and that is true also. The Acts, according to Luke, is a continuation of the doings and teachings of Jesus. "The following writings appear intended to give us, and do, in fact, profess to give us, that which Jesus _continued_ to do and teach after the day in which he was taken up" (Bernard, _Progress of Doctrine in the N.T._).
rwp@Acts:7:31 @{The sight} (\to horama\). Used of visions in the N.T. as in strkjv@Matthew:17:9|. {As he drew near} (\proserchomenou autou\). Genitive absolute with present middle participle of \proserchomai\. {A voice of the Lord} (\phn kuriou\). Here the angel of Jehovah of verse 30| is termed Jehovah himself. Jesus makes powerful use of these words in his reply to the Sadducees in defence of the doctrine of the resurrection and the future life (Mark:12:26; strkjv@Matthew:22:32; strkjv@Luke:20:37f.|) that God here describes himself as the God of the living. {Trembled} (\entromos genomenos\). Literally, becoming tremulous or terrified. The adjective \entromos\ (\en, tromos\ from \trem\, to tremble, to quake) occurs in Plutarch and the LXX. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:16:29|. {Durst not} (\ouk etolma\). Imperfect active, was not daring, negative conative imperfect.
rwp@Acts:8:10 @{That power of God which is called Great} (\h Dunamis tou theou h kaloumen Megal\). Apparently here already the oriental doctrine of emanations or aeons so rampant in the second century. This "power" was considered a spark of God himself and Jerome (in strkjv@Matthew:24|) quotes Simon (Page) as saying: _Ego sum sermo Dei,... ego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei_. Simon claimed to _impersonate God_.
rwp@Acts:13:39 @{And by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses} (\kai apo pantn hn ouk dunthte en nomi Muses dikaiothnai en touti ps ho pisteun dikaioutai\). This is a characteristic Greek sentence with the principal clause at the end and Pauline to the core. A literal rendering as to the order would be: "And from all the things from (\apo\ not repeated in the Greek, but understood, the ablative case being repeated) which ye were not able to be justified in this one every one who believes is justified." The climax is at the close and gives us the heart of Paul's teaching about Christ. "We have here the germ of all that is most characteristic in Paul's later teaching. It is the argument of the Epistle to Galatians and Romans in a sentence" (Furneaux). The failure of the Mosaic law to bring the kind of righteousness that God demands is stated. This is made possible in and by (\en\) Christ alone. Paul's favourite words occur here, \pisteu\, believe, with which \pistis\, faith, is allied, \dikaio\, to set right with God on the basis of faith. In strkjv@Romans:6:7| Paul uses \apo\ also after \dikaio\. These are key words (\pisteu\ and \dikaio\) in Paul's theology and call for prolonged and careful study if one is to grasp the Pauline teaching. \Dikaio\ primarily means to make righteous, to declare righteous like \axio\, to deem worthy (\axios\). But in the end Paul holds that real righteousness will come (Romans:6-8|) to those whom God treats as righteous (Romans:3-5|) though both Gentile and Jew fall short without Christ (Romans:1-3|). This is the doctrine of grace that will prove a stumbling block to the Jews with their ceremonial works and foolishness to the Greeks with their abstract philosophical ethics (1Corinthians:1:23-25|). It is a new and strange doctrine to the people of Antioch.
rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.
rwp@Acts:15:2 @{When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them} (\Genomens stases kai ztses ouk oligs ti Pauli kai Barnabi pros autous\). Genitive absolute of second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, genitive singular agreeing with first substantive \stases\. Literally, "No little (litotes for much) strife and questioning coming to Paul and Barnabas (dative case) with them " (\pros autous\, face to face with them). Paul and Barnabas were not willing to see this Gentile church brow-beaten and treated as heretics by these self-appointed regulators of Christian orthodoxy from Jerusalem. The work had developed under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas and they accepted full responsibility for it and stoutly resisted these Judaizers to the point of sedition (riot, outbreak in strkjv@Luke:23:25; strkjv@Acts:19:40|) as in strkjv@23:7|. There is no evidence that the Judaizers had any supporters in the Antioch church so that they failed utterly to make any impression. Probably these Judaizers compelled Paul to think through afresh his whole gospel of grace and so they did Paul and the world a real service. If the Jews like Paul had to believe, it was plain that there was no virtue in circumcision (Galatians:2:15-21|). It is not true that the early Christians had no disagreements. They had selfish avarice with Ananias and Sapphira, murmuring over the gifts to the widows, simony in the case of Simon Magus, violent objection to work in Caesarea, and now open strife over a great doctrine (grace vs. legalism). {The brethren appointed} (\etaxan\). "The brethren" can be supplied from verse 1| and means the church in Antioch. The church clearly saw that the way to remove this deadlock between the Judaizers and Paul and Barnabas was to consult the church in Jerusalem to which the Judaizers belonged. Paul and Barnabas had won in Antioch. If they can win in Jerusalem, that will settle the matter. The Judaizers will be answered in their own church for which they are presuming to speak. The verb \etaxan\ (\tass\, to arrange) suggests a formal appointment by the church in regular assembly. Paul (Galatians:2:2|) says that he went up by revelation (\kat' apokalupsin\), but surely that is not contradictory to the action of the church. {Certain others of them} (\tinas allous\). Certainly Titus (Galatians:2:1,3|), a Greek and probably a brother of Luke who is not mentioned in Acts. Rackham thinks that Luke was in the number. {The apostles and elders} (\tous apostolous kai presbuterous\). Note one article for both (cf. "the apostles and the brethren" in strkjv@11:1|). "Elders" now (11:30|) in full force. The apostles have evidently returned now to the city after the death of Herod Agrippa I stopped the persecution.
rwp@Acts:15:11 @{That we shall be saved} (\sthnai\). First aorist passive infinitive in indirect discourse after \pisteuomen\. More exactly, "We believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in like manner as they also." This thoroughly Pauline note shows that whatever hopes the Judaizers had about Peter were false. His doctrine of grace is as clear as a bell. He has lifted his voice against salvation by ceremony and ritualism. It was a great deliverance.
rwp@Acts:15:14 @{Hearken unto me} (\akousate mou\). Usual appeal for attention. James was termed James the Just and was considered a representative of the Hebraic as opposed to the Hellenistic wing of the Jewish Christians (Acts:6:1|). The Judaizers had doubtless counted on him as a champion of their view and did later wrongfully make use of his name against Peter at Antioch (Galatians:2:12|). There was instant attention when James began to speak. {Symeon} (\Sumen\). The Aramaic form of Simon as in strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. This little touch would show his affinities with the Jewish Christians (not the Judaizers). This Aramaic form is used also in strkjv@Luke:2:25,34| of the old prophet in the temple. Possibly both forms (Symeon, Aramaic, and Simon, Greek) were current in Jerusalem. {How} (\kaths\). Strictly, "according as," here like \hos\ in indirect discourse somewhat like the epexegetic or explanatory use in strkjv@3John:1:3|. {First} (\prton\). Told by Peter in verse 7|. James notes, as Peter did, that this experience of Barnabas and Paul is not the beginning of work among the Gentiles. {Did visit} (\epeskepsato\). First aorist middle indicative of \episkeptomai\, old verb to look upon, to look after, provide for. This same verb occurs in strkjv@James:1:27| and is one of various points of similarity between this speech of James in Acts and the Epistle of James as shown by Mayor in his _Commentary on James_. Somehow Luke may have obtained notes of these various addresses. {To take from the Gentiles a people for his name} (\labein ex ethnn laon ti onomati autou\). Bengel calls this _egregium paradoxon_, a chosen people (\laon\) out of the Gentiles (\ethnn\). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give. This new Israel from among the Gentiles is one of Paul's great doctrines as set forth in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|. Note the use of God's "name" here for "the Israel of God" (Galatians:6:16|).
rwp@Acts:17:3 @{Opening and alleging} (\dianoign 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} (\anastnai ek nekrn\). This second aorist active infinitive \anastnai\ 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 Isous\). 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:17:25 @{As though he needed anything} (\prosdeomenos tinos\). Present middle participle of \prosdeomai\, to want besides, old verb, but here only in the N.T. This was strange doctrine for the people thought that the gods needed their offerings for full happiness. This self-sufficiency of God was taught by Philo and Lucretius, but Paul shows that the Epicurean missed it by putting God, if existing at all, outside the universe. {Seeing he himself giveth to all} (\autos didous pasin\). This Supreme Personal God is the source of life, breath, and everything. Paul here rises above all Greek philosophers.
rwp@Acts:17:31 @{Inasmuch as} (\kathoti\). According as (\kata, hoti\). Old causal conjunction, but in N.T. only used in Luke's writings (Luke:1:7; strkjv@19:9; strkjv@Acts:2:45; strkjv@4:35; strkjv@17:31|). {Hath appointed a day} (\estsen hmeran\) First aorist active indicative of \histmi\, to place, set. God did set the day in his counsel and he will fulfil it in his own time. {Will judge} (\mellei krinein\). Rather, is going to judge, \mell\ and the present active infinitive of \krin\. Paul here quotes strkjv@Psalms:9:8| where \krinei\ occurs. {By the man whom he hath ordained} (\en andri hi hrisen\). Here he adds to the Psalm the place and function of Jesus Christ, a passage in harmony with Christ's own words in strkjv@Matthew:25|. \Hi\ (whom) is attracted from the accusative, object of \hrisen\ (first aorist active indicative of \horiz\) to the case of the antecedent \andri\. It has been said that Paul left the simple gospel in this address to the council of the Areopagus for philosophy. But did he? He skilfully caught their attention by reference to an altar to an Unknown God whom he interprets to be the Creator of all things and all men who overrules the whole world and who now commands repentance of all and has revealed his will about a day of reckoning when Jesus Christ will be Judge. He has preached the unity of God, the one and only God, has proclaimed repentance, a judgment day, Jesus as the Judge as shown by his Resurrection, great fundamental doctrines, and doubtless had much more to say when they interrupted his address. There is no room here for such a charge against Paul. He rose to a great occasion and made a masterful exposition of God's place and power in human history. {Whereof he hath given assurance} (\pistin paraschn\). Second aorist active participle of \parech\, old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of \pistis\ as conviction or ground of confidence (Hebrews:11:1|) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of \pistis\ grow out of this one from \peith\, to persuade. {In that he hath raised him from the dead} (\anastsas auton ek nekrn\). First aorist active participle of \anistmi\, causal participle, but literally, "having raised him from the dead." This Paul knew to be a fact because he himself had seen the Risen Christ. Paul has here come to the heart of his message and could now throw light on their misapprehension about "Jesus and the Resurrection" (verse 18|). Here Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the address that seemed new and strange to them.
rwp@Acts:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \ginsk\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisain\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastases nekrn krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.
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@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:3:7 @{The same are sons of Abraham} (\houtoi huioi eisin Abraham\). "These are." This is Paul's astounding doctrine to Jews that the real sons of Abraham are those who believe as he did, "they which be of faith" (\hoi ek pistes\), a common idiom with Paul for this idea (verse 9; strkjv@Romans:3:26; strkjv@4:16; strkjv@14:23|), those whose spiritual sonship springs out of (\ek\) faith, not out of blood. John the Baptist denounced the Pharisees and Sadducees as vipers though descendants of Abraham (Matthew:3:7; strkjv@Luke:3:7|) and Jesus termed the Pharisees children of the devil and not spiritual children of Abraham (not children of God) in strkjv@John:8:37-44|.
rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE PICTURE OF CHRIST At once we are challenged by the bold stand taken by the author concerning the Person of Christ as superior to the prophets of the Old Testament because he is the Son of God through whom God has spoken in the new dispensation (Hebrews:1:1-3|), this Son who is God's Agent in the work of creation and of grace as we see it stated in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11; strkjv@Colossians:1:13-20; strkjv@John:1:1-18|. This high doctrine of Jesus as God's Son with the glory and stamp of God's nature is never lowered, for as God's Son he is superior to angels (Hebrews:1:4-2:4|), though the humanity of Jesus is recognized as one proof of the glory of Jesus (Hebrews:2:5-18|). Jesus is shown to be superior to Moses as God's Son over God's house (Hebrews:3:1-4:13|), But the chief portion of the Epistle is devoted to the superiority of Jesus Christ as priest to the work of Aaron and the whole Levitical line (Hebrews:4:14-12:3|). Here the author with consummate skill, though with rabbinical refinements at times, shows that Jesus is like Melchizedek and so superior to Aaron (Hebrews:4:14-7:28|), works under a better covenant of grace (Hebrews:8:1-13|), works in a better sanctuary which is in heaven (Hebrews:9:1-12|), offers a better sacrifice which is his own blood (Hebrews:9:13-10:18|), and gives us better promises for the fulfilment of his task (Hebrews:10:19-12:3|). Hence this Epistle deserves to be called the Epistle of the Priesthood of Christ. Songs:W. P. Du Bose calls his exposition of the book, _High Priesthood and Sacrifice_ (1908). This conception of Christ as our Priest who offered himself on the Cross and as our Advocate with the Father runs all through the New Testament (Mark:10:46; strkjv@Matthew:20:28; strkjv@John:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Romans:8:32; strkjv@1Peter:1:18f.; strkjv@1John:2:1f.; strkjv@Revelation:5:9|, etc.). But it is in Hebrews that we have the full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as our Priest and Redeemer. The Glory of Jesus runs through the whole book.
rwp@Hebrews:1:14 @{Ministering spirits} (\leitourgika pneumata\). Thayer says that \leitourgikos\ was not found in profane authors, but it occurs in the papyri for "work tax" (money in place of service) and for religious service also. The word is made from \leitourgia\ (Luke:1:23; strkjv@Hebrews:8:6; strkjv@9:21|). {Sent forth} (\apostellomena\). Present passive participle of \apostell\, sent forth repeatedly, from time to time as occasion requires. {For the sake of} (\dia\). With the accusative, the usual causal meaning of \dia\. {That shall inherit} (\tous mellontas klronomein\). "That are going to inherit," common idiom of \mell\ (present active participle) with the infinitive (present active here), "destined to inherit" (Matthew:11:14|). {Salvation} (\strian\). Here used of the final salvation in its consummation. Only here in the N.T. do we have "inherent salvation," but see strkjv@6:12; strkjv@12:17|. We do not have here the doctrine of special guardian angels for each of us, but simply the fact that angels are used for our good. "And if so, may we not be aided, inspired, guided by a cloud of witnesses--not witnesses only, but helpers, agents like ourselves of the immanent God?" (Sir Oliver Lodge, _The Hibbert Journal_, Jan., 1903, p. 223).
rwp@Hebrews:2:9 @{Even Jesus} (\Isoun\). We do not see man triumphant, but we do see Jesus, for the author is not ashamed of his human name, realizing man's destiny, "the very one who has been made a little lower than the angels" (\ton brachu ti par' aggelous lattmenon\), quoting and applying the language of the Psalm in verse 7| to Jesus (with article \ton\ and the perfect passive participle of \elatta\). But this is not all. Death has defeated man, but Jesus has conquered death. {Because of the suffering of death} (\dia to pathma tou thanatou\). The causal sense of \dia\ with the accusative as in strkjv@1:14|. Jesus in his humanity was put lower than the angels "for a little while" (\brachu ti\). Because of the suffering of death we see (\blepomen\) Jesus crowned (\estephanmenon\, perfect passive participle of \stephano\ from verse 7|), crowned already "with glory and honour" as Paul shows in strkjv@Phillipians:2:9-11| (more highly exalted, \huperupssen\) "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." There is more glory to come to Jesus surely, but he is already at God's right hand (1:3|). {That by the grace of God he should taste death for every man} (\hops chariti theou huper pantos geustai thanatou\). This purpose clause (\hops\ instead of the more usual \hina\) is pregnant with meaning. The author interprets and applies the language of the Psalm to Jesus and here puts Christ's death in behalf of (\huper\), and so instead of, every man as the motive for his incarnation and death on the Cross. The phrase to taste death (\geuomai thanatou\) occurs in the Gospels (Matthew:16:28; strkjv@Mark:9:1; strkjv@Luke:9:27; strkjv@John:8:52|), though not in the ancient Greek. It means to see death (Hebrews:11:5|), "a bitter experience, not a rapid sip" (Moffatt). His death was in behalf of every one (not everything as the early Greek theologians took it). The death of Christ (Andrew Fuller) was sufficient for all, efficient for some. It is all "by the grace (\chariti\, instrumental case) of God," a thoroughly Pauline idea. Curiously enough some MSS. read \chris theou\ (apart from God) in place of \chariti theou\, Nestorian doctrine whatever the origin.
rwp@Hebrews:2:10 @{It became him} (\eprepen auti\). Imperfect active of \prep\, old verb to stand out, to be becoming or seemly. Here it is impersonal with \teleisai\ as subject, though personal in strkjv@Hebrews:7:26|. \Auti\ (him) is in the dative case and refers to God, not to Christ as is made plain by \ton archgon\ (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 \auti\ (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 auti, 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 \auti\ just before to which it refers. {The author} (\ton archgon\). Old compound word (\arch\ 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} (\teleisai\). 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@James:2:19 @{Thou believest that God is one} (\su pisteueis hoti heis theos estin\). James goes on with his reply and takes up mere creed apart from works, belief that God exists (there is one God), a fundamental doctrine, but that is not belief or trust in God. It may be mere creed. {Thou doest well} (\kals poieis\). That is good as far as it goes, which is not far. {The demons also believe} (\kai ta daimonia pisteuousin\). They go that far (the same verb \pisteu\). They never doubt the fact of God's existence. {And shudder} (\kai phrissousin\). Present active indicative of \phriss\, old onomatopoetic verb to bristle up, to shudder, only here in N.T. Like Latin _horreo_ (horror, standing of the hair on end with terror). The demons do more than believe a fact. They shudder at it.
rwp@James:3:6 @{The tongue is a fire} (\h glssa pur\). Songs:necessarily since there is no article with \pur\ (apparently same word as German _feuer_, Latin _purus_, English _pure, fire_). This metaphor of fire is applied to the tongue in strkjv@Proverbs:16:27; strkjv@26:18-22|; Sirach strkjv@28:22. {The world of iniquity} (\ho kosmos ts adikias\). A difficult phrase, impossible to understand according to Ropes as it stands. If the comma is put after \pur\ instead of after \adikias\, then the phrase may be the predicate with \kathistatai\ (present passive indicative of \kathistmi\, "is constituted," or the present middle "presents itself"). Even so, \kosmos\ remains a difficulty, whether it means the "ornament" (1Peter:3:3|) or "evil world" (James:1:27|) or just "world" in the sense of widespread power for evil. The genitive \adikias\ is probably descriptive (or qualitative). Clearly James means to say that the tongue can play havoc in the members of the human body. {Which defileth the whole body} (\h spilousa holon to sma\). Present active participle of \spilo\ late _Koin_, verb, to stain from \spilos\ (spot, also late word, in N.T. only in strkjv@Ephesians:5:27; strkjv@2Peter:2:13|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Judges:1:23|. Cf. strkjv@1:27| \aspilon\ (unspotted). {Setteth on fire} (\phlogizousa\). Present active participle of \phlogiz\, old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from \phlox\ (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See \anaptei\ (verse 5|). {The wheel of nature} (\ton trochon geneses\). Old word for wheel (from \trech\, to run), only here in N.T. "One of the hardest passages in the Bible" (Hort). To what does \trochon\ refer? For \geneses\ see strkjv@1:23| apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests "the wheel of birth" (cf. strkjv@Matthew:1:1,18|). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or \kuklos\, cycle, in place of \trochos\), but either in a physiological or a philosophical sense. James may have caught the metaphor from the current use, but certainly he has no such Orphic or Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, "the unending round of death and rebirth" (Ropes). The wheel of life may be considered either in motion or standing still, though setting on fire implies motion. There is no reference to the zodiac. {And is set on fire by hell} (\kai phlogizomen hupo gehenns\). Present passive participle of \phlogiz\, giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with \gehenna\ see strkjv@Matthew:5:22|.
rwp@John:4:23 @{And now is} (\kai nun estin\). See this same phrase in strkjv@5:25|. This item could not be added in verse 21| for local worship was not abolished, but spiritual independence of place was called for at once. Songs:contrast strkjv@5:25,28; strkjv@16:25,32|. {The true worshippers} (\hoi althinoi proskuntai\). See strkjv@1:9| for \althinos\ (genuine). \Proskunts\ is a late word from \proskune\, to bow the knee, to worship, occurs here only in N.T., but is found in one pre-Christian inscription (Deissmann, _Light_, etc., p. 101) and in one of the 3rd century A.D. (Moulton & Milligan, _Vocabulary_). {In spirit and truth} (\en pneumati kai altheii\). This is what matters, not where, but how (in reality, in the spirit of man, the highest part of man, and so in truth). All this is according to the Holy Spirit (Romans:8:5|) who is the Spirit of truth (John:16:13|). Here Jesus has said the final word on worship, one needed today. {Seeketh} (\ztei\). The Father has revealed himself in the Son who is the truth (John:14:6,9|). It does matter whether we have a true conception of God whom we worship. {To be his worshippers} (\tous proskunountas auton\). Rather, "seeks such as those who worship him" (predicate accusative articular participle in apposition with \toioutous\ (such). John pictures the Father as seeking worshippers, a doctrine running all through the Gospel (3:16; strkjv@6:44; strkjv@15:16; strkjv@1John:4:10|).
rwp@John:6:44 @{Except the Father draw him} (\ean m helkusi auton\). Negative condition of third class with \ean m\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \helku\, older form \helk\, to drag like a net (John:21:6|), or sword (18:10|), or men (Acts:16:19|), to draw by moral power (12:32|), as in strkjv@Jeremiah:31:3|. \Sur\, the other word to drag (Acts:8:3; strkjv@14:19|) is not used of Christ's drawing power. The same point is repeated in verse 65|. The approach of the soul to God is initiated by God, the other side of verse 37|. See strkjv@Romans:8:7| for the same doctrine and use of \oude dunatai\ like \oudeis dunatai\ here.
rwp@John:11:25 @{I am the resurrection and the life} (\Eg eimi h anastasis kai h z\). This reply is startling enough. They are not mere doctrines about future events, but present realities in Jesus himself. "The Resurrection is one manifestation of the Life: it is involved in the Life" (Westcott). Note the article with both \anastasis\ and \z\. Jesus had taught the future resurrection often (6:39|), but here he means more, even that Lazarus is now alive. {Though he die} (\kan apothani\). "Even if he die," condition (concession) of third class with \kai ean\ (\kan\) and the second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnsk\ (physical death, he means). {Yet shall he live} (\zsetai\). Future middle of \za\ (spiritual life, of course).
rwp@John:19:11 @{Thou wouldest have} (\ouk eiches\). Imperfect active indicative without \an\, but apodosis of second-class condition as in strkjv@15:22,24|. {Except it were given thee} (\ei m n dedomenon\). Periphrastic past perfect indicative of \didmi\ (a permanent possession). {From above} (\anthen\). From God (cf. strkjv@3:3|), the same doctrine of government stated by Paul in strkjv@Romans:13:1f|. Pilate did not get his "authority" from the Sanhedrin, but from Caesar. Jesus makes God the source of all real "authority." {Hath greater sin} (\meizona hamartian echei\). The same idiom in strkjv@9:41|. Caiaphas has his authority from God also and has used Pilate for his own base end.
rwp@Mark:16:16 @{And is baptized} (\kai baptistheis\). The omission of {baptized} with "disbelieveth" would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on disbelief, not on baptism. Songs:salvation rests on belief. Baptism is merely the picture of the new life not the means of securing it. Songs:serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark.
rwp@Mark:16:18 @{They shall take up serpents} (\opheis arousin\). Jesus had said something like this in strkjv@Luke:10:19| and Paul was unharmed by the serpent in Malta (Acts:28:3f.|). {If they drink any deadly thing} (\k'an thanasimon ti pisin\). This is the only N.T. instance of the old Greek word \thanasimos\ (deadly). strkjv@James:3:8| has \thanatphoros\, deathbearing. Bruce considers these verses in Mark "a great lapse from the high level of Matthew's version of the farewell words of Jesus" and holds that "taking up venomous serpents and drinking deadly poison seem to introduce us into the twilight of apocryphal story." The great doubt concerning the genuineness of these verses (fairly conclusive proof against them in my opinion) renders it unwise to take these verses as the foundation for doctrine or practice unless supported by other and genuine portions of the N.T.
rwp@Matthew:5:19 @{Shall do and teach} (\poisi kai didaxi\). Jesus puts practice before preaching. The teacher must apply the doctrine to himself before he is qualified to teach others. The scribes and Pharisees were men who "say and do not" (Matthew:23:3|), who preach but do not perform. This is Christ's test of greatness.
rwp@Matthew:8:17 @{Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases} (\autos tas astheneias elaben kai tas nosous ebastasen\). A quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:53:4|. It is not clear in what sense Matthew applies the words in Isaiah whether in the precise sense of the Hebrew or in an independent manner. Moffatt translates it: "He took away our sicknesses, and bore the burden of our diseases." Goodspeed puts it: "He took our sickness and carried away our diseases." Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 102f.) thinks that Matthew has made a free interpretation of the Hebrew, has discarded the translation of the Septuagint, and has transposed the two Hebrew verbs so that Matthew means: "He took upon himself our pains, and bore our diseases." Plummer holds that "It is impossible, and also unnecessary, to understand what the Evangelist understood by 'took ' (\elaben\) and 'bare' (\ebastasen\). It at least must mean that Christ removed their sufferings from the sufferers. He can hardly have meant that the diseases were transferred to Christ." \Bastaz\ occurs freely in the papyri with the sense of lift, carry, endure, carry away (the commonest meaning, Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_), pilfer. In strkjv@Matthew:3:11| we have the common vernacular use to take off sandals. The Attic Greek did not use it in the sense of carrying off. "This passage is the cornerstone of the faith-cure theory, which claims that the atonement of Christ includes provision for _bodily_ no less than for spiritual healing, and therefore insists on translating 'took away'" (Vincent). We have seen that the word \bastaz\ will possibly allow that meaning, but I agree with McNeile: "The passage, _as Mt. employs it_, has no bearing on the doctrine of the atonement." But Jesus does show his sympathy with us. "Christ's sympathy with the sufferers was so intense that he really felt their weaknesses and pains." In our burdens Jesus steps under the load with us and helps us to carry on.
rwp@Matthew:15:7 @{Well did Isaiah prophesy of you} (\kals eprophteusen peri hmn Esaias\). There is sarcasm in this pointed application of Isaiah's words (Isaiah:29:13|) to these rabbis. He "beautifully pictured" them. The portrait was to the very life, "teaching as their doctrines the commandments of men." They were indeed far from God if they imagined that God would be pleased with such gifts at the expense of duty to one's parents.
rwp@Matthew:19:6 @{What therefore God hath joined together} (\ho oun ho theos sunezeuxen\). Note "what," not "whom." The marriage relation God has made. "The creation of sex, and the high doctrine as to the cohesion it produces between man and woman, laid down in Gen., interdict separation" (Bruce). The word for "joined together" means "yoked together," a common verb for marriage in ancient Greek. It is the timeless aorist indicative (\sunezeuxen\), true always. {Bill} (\biblion\). A little \biblos\ (see on ¯1:1|), a scroll or document (papyrus or parchment). This was some protection to the divorced wife and a restriction on laxity.
rwp@Matthew:19:10 @{The disciples say unto him} (\legousin auti hoi mathtai\). "Christ's doctrine on marriage not only separated Him \toto caelo\ from Pharisaic opinions of all shades, but was too high even for the Twelve" (Bruce). {The case} (\h aitia\). The word may refer to the use in verse 3| "for every cause." It may have a vague idea here = \res\, condition. But the point clearly is that "it is not expedient to marry" (\ou sumpherei gamsai\) if such a strict view is held. If the bond is so tight a man had best not commit matrimony. It is a bit unusual to have \anthrpos\ and \gun\ contrasted rather than \anr\ and \gun\.
rwp@Philippians:2:6 @{Being} (\huparchn\). Rather, "existing," present active participle of \huparch\. In the form of God (\en morphi theou\). \Morph\ means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. {A prize} (\harpagmon\). Predicate accusative with \hgsato\. Originally words in \-mos\ signified the act, not the result (\-ma\). The few examples of \harpagmos\ (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to \harpagma\, like \baptismos\ and \baptisma\. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery"). {To be on an equality with God} (\to einai isa theoi\). Accusative articular infinitive object of \hgsato\, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case \thei\ after \isa\). \Isa\ is adverbial use of neuter plural with \einai\ as in strkjv@Revelation:21:16|. {Emptied himself} (\heauton ekense\). First aorist active indicative of \keno\, old verb from \kenos\, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a \Kenosis\ doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. "He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot).
rwp@Philippians:3:5 @{Thinketh to have confidence} (\dokei pepoithenai\). Second perfect active infinitive. Old idiom, "seems to himself to have confidence." Later idiom like strkjv@Matthew:3:9| "think not to say" and strkjv@1Corinthians:11:16|, "thinks that he has ground of confidence in himself." {I yet more} (\eg mallon\). "I have more ground for boasting than he" and Paul proceeds to prove it in the rest of verses 5,6|. {Circumcised the eighth day} (\peritomi oktameros\). "In circumcision (locative case) an eighth day man." Use of the ordinal with persons like \tetartaios\ (John:11:39|). Ishmaelites were circumcised in the thirteenth year, proselytes from Gentiles in mature age, Jews on the eighth day (Luke:2:21|). {Of the stock of Israel} (\ek genous Isral\). Of the original stock, not a proselyte. {Benjamin} (\Beniamin\). Son of the right hand (that is, left-handed), son of Rachel. The first King, Saul (Paul's own Hebrew name) was from this little tribe. The battle cry of Israel was "After thee, O Benjamin" (Judges:5:14|). {A Hebrew of the Hebrews} (\Ebraios ex Ebrain\). Of Hebrew parents who retained the characteristic qualities in language and custom as distinct from the Hellenistic Jews (Acts:6:1|). Paul was from Tarsus and knew Greek as well as Aramaic (Acts:21:40; strkjv@22:2|) and Hebrew, but he had not become Hellenized. {A Pharisee} (\Pharisaios\). In distinction from the Sadducees (Galatians:1:14|) and he continued a Pharisee in many essential matters like the doctrine of the resurrection (Acts:23:6|). Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:11:22|.
rwp@Romans:1:7 @{In Rome} (\en Rmi\). One late uncial (G of tenth century) and a cursive omit these words here and one or two other late MSS. omit \en Rmi\ in verse 15|. This possibly proves the Epistle was circulated as a circular to a limited extent, but the evidence is late and slight and by no means shows that this was the case in the first century. It is not comparable with the absence of \en Ephesi\ in strkjv@Ephesians:1:1| from Aleph and B (the two oldest and best MSS.). {Beloved of God} (\agaptois theou\). Ablative case of \theou\ after the verbal adjective like \didaktoi theou\ (taught of God) in strkjv@John:6:45| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). {From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ} (\apo theou patros hmn kai kuriou Isou Christou\). "St. Paul, if not formally enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which cannot really be distinguished from it" (Sanday and Headlam). Paul's theology is clearly seen in the terms used in verses 1-7|.
rwp@Romans:4:2 @{The Scripture} (\h graph\). strkjv@Genesis:15:6|. {Was justified by works} (\ex ergn edikaith\). Condition of first class, assumed as true for the sake of argument, though untrue in fact. The rabbis had a doctrine of the merits of Abraham who had a superfluity of credits to pass on to the Jews (Luke:3:8|). {But not towards God} (\all' ou pros theon\). Abraham deserved all the respect from men that came to him, but his relation to God was a different matter. He had _there_ no ground of boasting at all.
rwp@Romans:6:17 @{Whereas ye were} (\te\). Imperfect but no "whereas" in the Greek. Paul is not grateful that they were once slaves of sin, but only that, though they once were, they turned from that state. {To that form of doctrine whereunto ye were delivered} (\eis hon paredothte tupon didachs\). Incorporation of the antecedent (\tupon didachs\) into the relative clause: "to which form of doctrine ye were delivered." See on ¯5:14| for \tupon\. It is hardly proper to take "form" here to refer to Paul's gospel (2:16|), possibly an allusion to the symbolism of baptism which was the outward sign of the separation.
rwp@Romans:11:25 @{This mystery} (\to mustrion touto\). Not in the pagan sense of an esoteric doctrine for the initiated (from \mue\, to blink, to wink), unknown secrets (2Thessalonians:2:7|), or like the mystery religions of the time, but the revealed will of God now made known to all (1Corinthians:2:1,7; strkjv@4:1|) which includes Gentiles also (Romans:16:25; strkjv@Colossians:1:26f.; strkjv@Ephesians:3:3f.|) and so far superior to man's wisdom (Colossians:2:2; strkjv@4:13; strkjv@Ephesians:3:9; strkjv@5:32; strkjv@6:19; strkjv@Matthew:13:11; strkjv@Mark:4:11|). Paul has covered every point of difficulty concerning the failure of the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah and has shown how God has overruled it for the blessing of the Gentiles with a ray of hope still held out for the Jews. "In early ecclesiastical Latin \mustrion\ was rendered by _sacramentum_, which in classical Latin means _the military oath_. The explanation of the word _sacrament_, which is so often founded on this etymology, is therefore mistaken, since the meaning of sacrament belongs to \mustrion\ and not to _sacramentum_ in the classical sense" (Vincent). {Wise in your own conceits} (\en heautois phronimoi\). "Wise in yourselves." Some MSS. read \par' heautois\ (by yourselves). Negative purpose here (\hina m te\), to prevent self-conceit on the part of the Gentiles who have believed. They had no merit in themselves {A hardening} (\prsis\). Late word from \pro\ (11:7|). Occurs in Hippocrates as a medical term, only here in N.T. save strkjv@Mark:3:5; strkjv@Ephesians:4:18|. It means obtuseness of intellectual discernment, mental dulness. {In part} (\apo merous\). Goes with the verb \gegonen\ (has happened in part). For \apo merous\, see strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14; strkjv@2:5; strkjv@Romans:15:24|; for \ana meros\, see strkjv@1Corinthians:14:27|; for \ek merous\, see strkjv@1Corinthians:12:27; strkjv@13:9|; for \kata meros\, see strkjv@Hebrews:9:5|; for \meros ti\ (adverbial accusative) partly see strkjv@1Corinthians:11:18|. Paul refuses to believe that no more Jews will be saved. {Until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in} (\achri hou to plrma tn ethnn eiselthi\). Temporal clause with \achri hou\ (until which time) and the second aorist active subjunctive of \eiserchomai\, to come in (Matthew:7:13,21|). {For fulness of the Gentiles} (\to plrma tn ethnn\) see on verse ¯12|, the complement of the Gentiles.
rwp@Titus:2:14 @{Who gave himself for us} (\hos edken heauton huper hmn\). Paul's great doctrine (Galatians:1:4; strkjv@2:20; strkjv@1Timothy:2:6|). {That he might redeem us} (\hina lutrstai\). Final clause, \hina\ and the aorist middle subjunctive of \lutro\, old verb from \lutron\ (ransom), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:24:21; strkjv@1Peter:1:18|. {Purify to himself} (\katharisi heauti\). Final clause with first aorist active subjunctive of \kathariz\, for which verb see strkjv@Ephesians:5:26|. {Lawlessness} (\anomias\). See strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3|. {A people for his own possession} (\laon periousion\). A late word (from \perieimi\, to be over and above, in papyri as well as \periousia\), only in LXX and here, apparently made by the LXX, one's possession, and so God's chosen people. See strkjv@1Peter:2:9| (\laos eis peripoisin\). {Zealous of good works} (\zltn kaln ergn\). "A zealot for good works." Substantive for which see strkjv@1Corinthians:14:12; strkjv@Galatians:1:14|. Objective genitive \ergn\.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}