Bible:
Filter: String:

NT.filter - rwp humanity:

rwp@1Corinthians:15:45 @{Became a living soul} (\egeneto eis psuchn zsan\). Hebraistic use of \eis\ in predicate from LXX. God breathed a soul (\psuch\) into "the first man." {The last Adam became a life-giving spirit} (\ho eschatos Adam eis pneuma zopoioun\). Supply \egeneto\ (became). Christ is the crown of humanity and has power to give us the new body. In strkjv@Romans:5:12-19| Paul calls Christ the Second Adam.

rwp@1John:5:5 @{And who is he that overcometh?} (\tis estin de ho nikn?\). Not a mere rhetorical question (2:22|), but an appeal to experience and fact. Note the present active articular participle (\nikn\) like \niki\ (present active indicative in verse 4|), "the one who keeps on conquering the world." See strkjv@1Corinthians:15:57| for the same note of victory (\nikos\) through Christ. See verse 1| for \ho pisteun\ (the one who believes) as here. {Jesus is the Son of God} (\Isous estin ho huios tou theou\). As in verse 1| save that here \ho huios tou theou\ in place of \Christos\ and see both in strkjv@2:22f|. Here there is sharp antithesis between "Jesus" (humanity) and "the Son of God" (deity) united in the one personality.

rwp@2Timothy:2:8 @{Risen from the dead} (\eggermenon ek nekrn\). Perfect passive participle of \egeir\, still risen as the perfect tense shows in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:4,12-20|. Predicate accusative. "Remember Jesus Christ as risen from the dead." This is the cardinal fact about Christ that proves his claim to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Christ is central for Paul here as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {Of the seed of David} (\ek spermatos Daueid\). The humanity of Christ as in strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f|. {According to my gospel} (\kata to euaggelion mou\). Paul's very phrase in strkjv@Romans:2:16; strkjv@16:25|. Not a written gospel, but my message. See also strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:7; strkjv@Galatians:1:11; strkjv@2:2; strkjv@1Timothy:1:11|.

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

rwp@Colossians:1:20 @{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:1:22 @{Yet now} (\nuni de\). Sharpened contrast with emphatic form of \nun\, "now" being not at the present moment, but in the present order of things in the new dispensation of grace in Christ. {Hath he reconciled} (\apokatllaxen\). First aorist (effective, timeless) active indicative (a sort of parenthetical anacoluthon). Here B reads \apokatallagte\, be ye reconciled like \katallagte\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:20| while D has \apokatallagentes\. Lightfoot prefers to follow B here (the hard reading), though Westcott and Hort only put it in the margin. On the word see verse 20|. {In the body of his flesh} (\en ti smati ts sarkos autou\). See the same combination in strkjv@2:11| though in strkjv@Ephesians:2:14| only \sarki\ (flesh). Apparently Paul combines both \sma\ and \sarx\ to make plain the actual humanity of Jesus against incipient Docetic Gnostics who denied it. {Through death} (\dia tou thanatou\). The reconciliation was accomplished by means of Christ's death on the cross (verse 20|) and not just by the Incarnation (the body of his flesh) in which the death took place. {To present} (\parastsai\). First aorist active (transitive) infinitive (of purpose) of \paristmi\, old verb, to place beside in many connections. See it used of presenting Paul and the letter from Lysias to Felix (Acts:23:33|). Repeated in strkjv@Colossians:2:28|. See also strkjv@2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:14|. Paul has the same idea of his responsibility in rendering an account for those under his influence seen in strkjv@Hebrews:13:17|. See strkjv@Romans:12:1| for use of living sacrifice. {Holy} (\hagious\). Positively consecrated, separated unto God. Common in N.T. for believers. Haupt holds that all these terms have a religious and forensic sense here. {Without blemish} (\ammous\). Without spot (Phillipians:2:15|). Old word \a\ privative and \mmos\ (blemish). Common in the LXX for ceremonial purifications. {Unreproveable} (\anegkltous\). Old verbal adjective from \a\ privative and \egkale\, to call to account, to pick flaws in. These three adjectives give a marvellous picture of complete purity (positive and negative, internal and external). This is Paul's ideal when he presents the Colossians "before him" (\katenpion autou\), right down in the eye of Christ the Judge of all.

rwp@Colossians:2:6 @{As therefore ye received} (\hs oun parelabete\). Second aorist active indicative of \paralamban\ in same sense as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:1; strkjv@Phillipians:4:9| (both \manthan\ and \paralamban\) that is like \manthan\, to learn (1:7|), from Epaphras and others. {Christ Jesus the Lord} (\ton Christon Isoun ton Kurion\). This peculiar phrase occurs nowhere else by Paul. We have often \ho Christos\ (the Christ or Messiah) as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:15|, \Isous Christos\ (Jesus Christ), \Christos Isous\ (Christ Jesus), \ho Kurios Isous\ (the Lord Jesus, very often), but nowhere else \ho Christos Isous\ and \Isous ho Kurios\. Hence it is plain that Paul here meets the two forms of Gnostic heresy about the Person of Christ (the recognition of the historical Jesus in his actual humanity against the Docetic Gnostics, the identity of the Christ or Messiah with this historical Jesus against the Cerinthian Gnostics, and the acknowledgment of him as Lord). "As therefore ye received the Christ (the Messiah), Jesus the Lord." Ye were taught right. {Walk in him} (\en auti peripateite\). "Go on walking in him" (present active indicative of \peripate\). Stick to your first lessons in Christ.

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

rwp@Ephesians:2:13 @{But now} (\nuni de\). Strong contrast, as opposed to "at that time." {Afar off} (\makran\). Adverb (accusative feminine adjective with \hodon\ understood). From the \politeia\ and its hope in God. {Are made nigh} (\egenthte eggus\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\, a sort of timeless aorist. Nigh to the commonwealth of Israel in Christ. {In the blood of Christ} (\en ti haimati tou Christou\). Not a perfunctory addition, but essential (1:7|), particularly in view of the Gnostic denial of Christ's real humanity.

rwp@Galatians:4:4 @{The fulness of the time} (\to plrma tou chronou\). Old word from \plro\, to fill. Here the complement of the preceding time as in strkjv@Ephesians:1:10|. Some examples in the papyri in the sense of complement, to accompany. God sent forth his preexisting Son (Phillipians:2:6|) when the time for his purpose had come like the \prothesmia\ of verse 2|. {Born of a woman} (\genomenon ek gunaikos\). As all men are and so true humanity, "coming from a woman." There is, of course, no direct reference here to the Virgin Birth of Jesus, but his deity had just been affirmed by the words "his Son" (\ton huion autou\), so that both his deity and humanity are here stated as in strkjv@Romans:1:3|. Whatever view one holds about Paul's knowledge of the Virgin Birth of Christ one must admit that Paul believed in his actual personal preexistence with God (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|), not a mere existence in idea. The fact of the Virgin Birth agrees perfectly with the language here. {Born under the law} (\genomenon hupo nomon\). He not only became a man, but a Jew. The purpose (\hina\) of God thus was plainly to redeem (\exagorasi\, as in strkjv@3:13|) those under the law, and so under the curse. The further purpose (\hina\) was that we (Jew and Gentile) might receive (\apolabmen\, second aorist active subjunctive of \apolamban\), not get back (Luke:15:27|), but get from (\apo\) God the adoption (\tn huiothesian\). Late word common in the inscriptions (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 239) and occurs in the papyri also and in Diogenes Laertes, though not in LXX. Paul adopts this current term to express his idea (he alone in the N.T.) as to how God takes into his spiritual family both Jews and Gentiles who believe. See also strkjv@Romans:8:15,23; strkjv@9:4; strkjv@Ephesians:1:5|. The Vulgate uses _adoptio filiorum_. It is a metaphor like the others above, but a very expressive one.

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:2:5 @{For not unto angels} (\ou gar aggelois\). The author now proceeds to show (2:5-18|) that the very humanity of Jesus, the Son of Man, likewise proves his superiority to angels. {The world to come} (\tn oikoumenn tn mellousan\). The new order, the salvation just described. See a like use of \mell\ (as participle) with \stria\ (1:14|), \ain\ (6:4f.|), \agatha\ (9:11; strkjv@10:1|), \polis\ (13:14|). {Whereof we speak} (\peri hs laloumen\). The author is discussing this new order introduced by Christ which makes obsolete the old dispensation of rites and symbols. God did not put this new order in charge of angels.

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@Hebrews:2:18 @{In that} (\en hi\). Literally, "In which" (\=en touti en hi\, in that in which), a causal idea, though in strkjv@Romans:14:22| \en hi\ means "wherein." {Hath suffered} (\peponthen\). Second perfect active indicative of \pasch\, permanent part of Christ's experience. {Being tempted} (\peirastheis\). First aorist passive participle of \peiraz\. The temptation to escape the shame of the Cross was early and repeatedly presented to Christ, by Satan in the wilderness (Matthew:4:8-11|), by Peter in the spirit of Satan (Matthew:16:22f.|), in Gethsemane (Matthew:26:39|), and caused intense suffering to Jesus (Luke:22:44; strkjv@Hebrews:5:8|). {He is able} (\dunatai\). This word strikes the heart of it all. Christ's power to help is due not merely to his deity as God's Son, but also to his humanity without which he could not sympathize with us (Hebrews:4:15|). {To succour} (\bothsai\). First aorist active infinitive of the old compound verb \bothe\ (\bo\, a cry, \the\, to run), to run at a cry or call for help (Matthew:15:25|). {Them that are tempted} (\tois peirazomenois\). Dative plural of the articular participle (present passive) of \peiraz\. These Jewish Christians were daily tempted to give up Christ, to apostatize from Christianity. Jesus understands himself (\autos\) their predicament and is able to help them to be faithful.

rwp@Hebrews:4:15 @{That cannot be touched with the feeling} (\m dunamenon sunpathsai\). "Not able to sympathize with." First aorist passive infinitive of \sunpathe\, late compound verb from the late adjective \sunpathos\ (Romans:12:15|), both from \sunpasch\, to suffer with (1Corinthians:12:26; strkjv@Romans:8:17|), occurring in Aristotle and Plutarch, in N.T. only in Hebrews (here and strkjv@10:34|). {One that hath been tempted} (\pepeirasmenon\). Perfect passive participle of \peiraz\, as already shown in strkjv@2:17f|. {Without sin} (\chris hamartias\). This is the outstanding difference that must never be overlooked in considering the actual humanity of Jesus. He did not yield to sin. But more than this is true. There was no latent sin in Jesus to be stirred by temptation and no habits of sin to be overcome. But he did have "weaknesses" (\astheneiai\) common to our human nature (hunger, thirst, weariness, etc.). Satan used his strongest weapons against Jesus, did it repeatedly, and failed. Jesus remained "undefiled" (\amiantos\) in a world of sin (John:8:46|). This is our ground of hope, the sinlessness of Jesus and his real sympathy.

rwp@Hebrews:5:8 @{Though he was a Son} (\kaiper n huios\). Concessive participle with \kaiper\, regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@7:5; strkjv@12:17|. {Yet learned obedience} (\emathen hupakon\). Second aorist active indicative of \manthan\. Succinct and crisp statement of the humanity of Jesus in full harmony with strkjv@Luke:2:40,52| and with strkjv@Hebrews:2:10|. {By the things which he suffered} (\aph' hn epathen\). There is a play on the two verbs (\emathen--epathen\), paronomasia. Second aorist active indicative of \pasch\. He always did his Father's will (John:8:29|), but he grew in experience as in wisdom and stature and in the power of sympathy with us.

rwp@Hebrews:10:20 @{By the way which he dedicated for us} (\hn enekainisen hmin hodon\). This "new" (\prosphaton\, freshly killed, newly made, from \pros\ and the root of \phatos\, in the papyri, only here in N.T.) and "living" (\zsan\) Jesus opened ("dedicated") for us by his Incarnation and Death for us. Thus he fulfilled God's promise of the "New Covenant" (8:7-13|) in Jeremiah. The language is highly symbolic here and "through the veil" here is explained as meaning the flesh of Christ, his humanity, not the veil opening into heaven (6:20|). Some do take "veil" here as obscuring the deity of Christ rather than the revelation of God in the human body of Christ (John:1:18; strkjv@14:9|). At any rate because of the coming of Christ in the flesh we have the new way opened for access to God (Hebrews:2:17f.; strkjv@4:16|).

rwp@Hebrews:11:7 @{Being warned of God} (\chrmatistheis\). First aorist passive participle of \chrmatiz\, old word for oracular or divine communications as already in strkjv@8:5| (cf. strkjv@Matthew:2:12,22|, etc.). {Moved with godly fear} (\eulabth\). First aorist passive indicative of \eulabeomai\, old verb from \eulabs\ (from \eu\ and \labein\, to take hold well or carefully), to show oneself \eulabs\, to act circumspectly or with reverence, here only in N.T. (save Textus Receptus in strkjv@Acts:23:10|), often in LXX. {An ark} (\kibton\). strkjv@Genesis:6:15; strkjv@Matthew:24:38|. Shaped like a box (cf. strkjv@Hebrews:9:4|). {Through which} (\di' hs\). Through his faith as shown in building the ark. {The world} (\ton kosmon\). Sinful humanity as in verse 38|. {Heir} (\klronomos\). In strkjv@2Peter:2:5| Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness" as here "heir of righteousness." He himself believed his message about the flood. Like Enoch he walked with God (Genesis:6:9|).

rwp@Info_John @ LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as "the Elder" (\ho presbuteros\), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Peter:5:1|) he calls himself "your fellow-elder" (\ho sunpresbuteros\). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in strkjv@1John:1:1-4| and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the _aeon_ Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in strkjv@1John:2:22|. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

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

rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\h psuch mou\). The soul (\psuch\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, sson me ek ts hras tauts\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto lthon eis tn hran tautn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.

rwp@John:13:21 @{He was troubled in the spirit} (\etarachth toi pneumati\). First aorist passive indicative of \tarass\ and the locative case of \pneuma\. See already strkjv@11:33; strkjv@12:27| for this use of \tarass\ for the agitation of Christ's spirit. In strkjv@14:1,27| it is used of the disciples. Jesus was one with God (5:19|) and yet he had our real humanity (1:14|). {Testified} (\emartursen\). First aorist active indicative of \marture\, definite witness as in strkjv@4:44; strkjv@18:37|. {One of you shall betray me} (\heis ex humn paradsei me\). Future active of \paradidmi\, to betray, the word so often used of Judas. This very language occurs in strkjv@Mark:14:18; strkjv@Matthew:26:21| and the idea in strkjv@Luke:22:21|. Jesus had said a year ago that "one of you is a devil" (John:6:70|), but it made no such stir then. Now it was a bolt from the blue sky as Jesus swept his eyes around and looked at the disciples.

rwp@Luke:2:40 @{The child grew} (\uxane\). Imperfect indicative of a very ancient verb (\auxan\). This child grew and waxed strong (\ekrataiouto\, imperfect middle), a hearty vigorous little boy (\paidion\). Both verbs Luke used in strkjv@1:80| of the growth of John the Baptist as a child. Then he used also \pneumati\, in spirit. Here in addition to the bodily development Luke has "filled with wisdom" (\plroumenon sophii\). Present passive participle, showing that the process of filling with wisdom kept pace with the bodily growth. If it were only always true with others! We need not be troubled over this growth in wisdom on the part of Jesus any more than over his bodily growth. "The intellectual, moral, and spiritual growth of the Child, like the physical, was real. His was a perfect humanity developing perfectly, unimpeded by hereditary or acquired defects. It was the first instance of such a growth in history. For the first time a human infant was realizing the ideal of humanity" (Plummer). {The grace of God} (\charis theou\). In full measure.

rwp@Luke:13:32 @{That fox} (\ti alpeki tauti\). This epithet for the cunning and cowardice of Herod shows clearly that Jesus understood the real attitude and character of the man who had put John the Baptist to death and evidently wanted to get Jesus into his power in spite of his superstitious fears that he might be John the Baptist _redivivus_. The message of Jesus means that he is independent of the plots and schemes of both Herod and the Pharisees. The preacher is often put in a tight place by politicians who are quite willing to see him shorn of all real power. {Cures} (\iaseis\). Old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:4:22,30|. {I am perfected} (\teleioumai\). Present passive indicative of \teleio\, old verb from \teleios\, to bring to perfection, frequent in the N.T. Used in strkjv@Hebrews:2:10| of the Father's purpose in the humanity of Christ. Perfect humanity is a process and Jesus was passing through that, without sin, but not without temptation and suffering. It is the prophetic present with the sense of the future.

rwp@Luke:20:44 @{David therefore} (\Daueid oun\). Without \ei\ as in strkjv@Matthew:22:45|. On the basis of this definite piece of exegesis (\oun\, therefore) Jesus presses the problem (\ps\, how) for an explanation. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:110| are thus set forth, the very problems that disturbed the rabbis then and that upset many critics today.

rwp@Luke:22:70 @{Art thou the Son of God?} (\Su oun ei ho huios tou theou;\). Note how these three epithets are used as practical equivalents. They ask about "the Messiah." Jesus affirms that he is the Son of Man and will sit at the right hand of the power of God. They take this to be a claim to be the Son of God (both humanity and deity). Jesus accepts the challenge and admits that he claims to be all three (Messiah, the Son of man, the Son of God). {Ye say} (\Humeis legete\). Just a Greek idiom for "Yes" (compare "I am" in strkjv@Mark:14:62| with "Thou has said" in strkjv@Matthew:26:64|).

rwp@Mark:12:35 @{How say the scribes} (\Ps legousin hoi grammateis\). The opponents of Jesus are silenced, but he answers them and goes on teaching (\didaskn\) in the temple as before the attacks began that morning (11:27|). They no longer dare to question Jesus, but he has one to put to them "while the Pharisees were gathered together" (Matthew:22:41|). The question is not a conundrum or scriptural puzzle (Gould), but "He contents himself with pointing out a difficulty, in the solution of which lay the key to the whole problem of His person and work" (Swete). The scribes all taught that the Messiah was to be the son of David (John:7:41|). The people in the Triumphal Entry had acclaimed Jesus as the son of David (Matthew:21:9|). But the rabbis had overlooked the fact that David in strkjv@Psalms:110:1| called the Messiah his Lord also. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah are both involved in the problem. strkjv@Matthew:22:45| observes that "no one was able to answer him a word."

rwp@Mark:14:36 @{Abba, Father} (\Abba ho patr\). Both Aramaic and Greek and the article with each. This is not a case of translation, but the use of both terms as is strkjv@Galatians:4:6|, a probable memory of Paul's childhood prayers. About "the cup" see on ¯Matthew:26:39|. It is not possible to take the language of Jesus as fear that he might die before he came to the Cross. He was heard (Hebrews:5:7f.|) and helped to submit to the Father's will as he does instantly. {Not what I will} (\ou ti eg thel\). Matthew has "as" (\hs\). We see the humanity of Jesus in its fulness both in the Temptations and in Gethsemane, but without sin each time. And this was the severest of all the temptations, to draw back from the Cross. The victory over self brought surrender to the Father's will.

rwp@Matthew:22:42 @{The Christ} (\tou Christou\). The Messiah, of course, not Christ as a proper name of Jesus. Jesus here assumes that strkjv@Psalms:110| refers to the Messiah. By his pungent question about the Messiah as David's son and Lord he really touches the problem of his Person (his Deity and his Humanity). Probably the Pharisees had never faced that problem before. They were unable to answer.

rwp@Revelation:2:17 @{Of the hidden manna} (\tou manna tou kekrummenou\). "Of the manna the hidden" (perfect passive articular participle of \krupt\). The partitive genitive, the only N.T. example with \didmi\, though Q reads \to\ (accusative) here. For examples of the ablative with \apo\ and \ek\ see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 519. See strkjv@John:6:31,49| for the indeclinable word \manna\. The golden pot of manna was "laid up before God in the ark" (Exodus:16:23|). It was believed that Jeremiah hid the ark, before the destruction of Jerusalem, where it would not be discovered till Israel was restored (II Macc. strkjv@2:5ff.). Christ is the true bread from heaven (John:6:31-33, 48-51|) and that may be the idea here. Those faithful to Christ will have transcendent fellowship with him. Swete takes it to be "the life-sustaining power of the Sacred Humanity now hid with Christ in God." {A white stone} (\psphon leukn\). This old word for pebble (from \psa\, to rub) was used in courts of justice, black pebbles for condemning, white pebbles for acquitting. The only other use of the word in the N.T. is in strkjv@Acts:26:10|, where Paul speaks of "depositing his pebble" (\katnegka psphon\) or casting his vote. The white stone with one's name on it was used to admit one to entertainments and also as an amulet or charm. {A new name written} (\onoma kainon gegrammenon\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \graph\. Not the man's own name, but that of Christ (Heitmuller, _Im Namen Jsu_, p. 128-265). See strkjv@3:12| for the name of God so written on one. The man himself may be the \psphos\ on which the new name is written. "The true Christian has a charmed life" (Moffatt). {But he that receiveth it} (\ei m ho lambann\). "Except the one receiving it." See strkjv@Matthew:11:27| for like intimate and secret knowledge between the Father and the Son and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal the Father. See also strkjv@Revelation:19:12|.

rwp@Romans:1:3 @{Concerning his Son} (\peri tou huiou autou\). Just as Jesus found himself in the O.T. (Luke:24:27,46|). The deity of Christ here stated. {According to the flesh} (\kata sarka\). His real humanity alongside of his real deity. For the descent from David see strkjv@Matthew:1:1,6,20; strkjv@Luke:1:27; strkjv@John:7:42; strkjv@Acts:13:23|, etc.

rwp@Romans:1:4 @{Who was declared} (\tou horisthentos\). Articular participle (first aorist passive) of \horiz\ for which verb see on ¯Luke:22:22; strkjv@Acts:2:23|. He was the Son of God in his preincarnate state (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6|) and still so after his Incarnation (verse 3|, "of the seed of David"), but it was the Resurrection of the dead (\ex anastases nekrn\, the general resurrection implied by that of Christ) that definitely marked Jesus off as God's Son because of his claims about himself as God's Son and his prophecy that he would rise on the third day. This event (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15|) gave God's seal "with power" (\en dunamei\), "in power," declared so in power (2Corinthians:13:4|). The Resurrection of Christ is the miracle of miracles. "The resurrection only declared him to be what he truly was" (Denney). {According to the spirit of holiness} (\kata pneuma hagisuns\). Not the Holy Spirit, but a description of Christ ethically as \kata sarka\ describes him physically (Denney). \Hagisun\ is rare (1Thessalonians:3:13; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:1| in N.T.), three times in LXX, each time as the attribute of God. "The \pneuma hagisuns\, though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity or Divine Personality Resided " (Sanday and Headlam). {Jesus Christ our Lord} (\Isou Christou tou kuriou hmn\). These words gather up the total personality of Jesus (his deity and his humanity).

rwp@Romans:5:12 @{Therefore} (\dia touto\). "For this reason." What reason? Probably the argument made in verses 1-11|, assuming our justification and urging exultant joy in Christ because of the present reconciliation by Christ's death and the certainty of future final salvation by his life. {As through one man} (\hsper di' henos anthrpou\). Paul begins a comparison between the effects of Adam's sin and the effects of the redemptive work of Christ, but he does not give the second member of the comparison. Instead of that he discusses some problems about sin and death and starts over again in verse 15|. The general point is plain that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants, though he does not say how it was done whether by the natural or the federal headship of Adam. It is important to note that Paul does not say that the whole race receives the full benefit of Christ's atoning death, but only those who do. Christ is the head of all believers as Adam is the head of the race. In this sense Adam "is a figure of him that was to come." {Sin entered into the world} (\h hamartia eis ton kosmon eislthen\). Personification of sin and represented as coming from the outside into the world of humanity. Paul does not discuss the origin of evil beyond this fact. There are some today who deny the fact of sin at all and who call it merely "an error of mortal mind" (a notion) while others regard it as merely an animal inheritance devoid of ethical quality. {And so death passed unto all men} (\kai houts eis pantas anthrpous dilthen\). Note use of \dierchomai\ rather than \eiserchomai\, just before, second aorist active indicative in both instances. By "death" in strkjv@Genesis:2:17; strkjv@3:19| physical death is meant, but in verses 17,21| eternal death is Paul's idea and that lurks constantly behind physical death with Paul. {For that all sinned} (\eph' hi pantes hmarton\). Constative (summary) aorist active indicative of \hamartan\, gathering up in this one tense the history of the race (committed sin). The transmission from Adam became facts of experience. In the old Greek \eph' hi\ usually meant "on condition that," but "because" in N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 963).

rwp@Romans:9:5 @{Of whom} (\ex hn\). Fourth relative clause and here with \ex\ and the ablative. {Christ} (\ho Christos\). The Messiah. {As concerning the flesh} (\to kata sarka\). Accusative of general reference, "as to the according to the flesh." Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in strkjv@1:3f|. {Who is over all, God blessed for ever} (\ho on epi pantn theos eulogtos\). A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after \sarka\ (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See strkjv@Acts:20:28; strkjv@Titus:2:13| for Paul's use of \theos\ applied to Jesus Christ.