Bible Commentaries

1 Corinthians 15:22 — 22 .] (2) In that He is (and here the fact of His being the Lord of Life and Righteousness, and the second and spiritual Head of our nature, is assumed) to us the bringer-in of LIFE, as Adam was the bringer-in of DEATH. ἐν τῷ Ἀδ ., ἐν τῷ χριστῷ

2 Corinthians 1:3-11 — himself with his readers in a position of religious feeling and principle far above all discord and dissension. But I cannot agree with this. His purpose shews so plainly through the whole latter part of the chapter, that it is only consistent with 2Co 1:12-24 to find it beginning to be introduced here also. I believe that Chrys. has given the right account: ἐλύπει λίαν αὐτοὺς κ . ἐθορύβει τὸ μὴ παραγενέσθαι ἐκεῖ τὸν ἀπόστολον , καὶ ταῦτα ἐπαγγειλάμενον , ἀλλὰ τὸν ἅπαντα ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ ἀναλῶσαι χρόνον

2 Corinthians 3:6 — 6.] Who also (= ‘qui idem;’ so Eur. Bacch. 572, ταῦτα καὶ καθύβρισ ʼ αὐτόν , ‘hæc eadem illi exprobravi.’ See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. p. 132) enabled us as ministers of the (or, as Stanley, “a:” but not necessarily from the omission of the art.: cf. Hebrews 12:24 , καὶ

2 Corinthians 5:19 — 19. ] how that (the ὡς imports that the proposition following it, introduced by ὅτι , is matter of indirect reference. So Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 14, εἰπὼν τῷ φάρακι ὡς ὅτι ὀκνοίη μὴ ὁ Τισσαφ . κ . τ . λ ., and argum. Isocr. Busir. p. 520 (cited by Winer, edn. 6, § 65. 9), κατηγόρουν αὐτοῦ , ὡς ὅτι καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρει ) God in Christ was reconciling the world to Himself ( ἦν καταλλάσσων

2 Corinthians 5:9-10 — from objection ‘ whether we live till His coming, or we die :’ because no sufficient account is given of the present participles. Of all renderings, Meyer’s is in this place the most absurd, misled as he is by his interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:8 . He would make ἐνδημοῦντες and ἐκδ . here merely literal , the similitude being dropped: ‘ whether at home, or on travel .’ But, all else aside, can he tell us where Paul’s home was , subsequently to Acts 9:0 ?

Galatians 3:27 — 27 .] For (substantiates and explains the assertion of Galatians 3:26 ; see below) as many of you as were baptized into (see Rom 6:3 and notes) Christ, put on Christ (at that time, compare the aorists in Acts 19:2 ; not “ have been baptized

Galatians 4:26 — 26 .] But (opposes to the last sentence, not to μία μέν , Galatians 4:24 , which, as Meyer observes, is left without an apodosis, the reader supplying that the other covenant is Sara, &c.) the Jerusalem above (i.e. the heavenly Jerusalem = Ἱερ . ἐπουράνιος

Galatians 5:16 — a spiritual manner ,’ Peile, nor will ἡ ἐνοικοῦσα χάρις give the force of πνεῦμα (Thdrt.): it is (as in Gal 5:5 ) the Holy Spirit of God : this will be clear on comparing with our Galatians 5:16-18 , the more expanded parallel passage, Rom 7:22 to Romans 8:11 . The history of the verbal usage is, that πνεῦμα , as χριστός and θεός , came to be used as a proper name: so that the supposed distinction between τὸ πν . as the objective (the Holy Ghost), and πν . as the subjective (man’s spirit),

Philippians 1:6 — 6. ὁ ἐναρξ . ] He who has begun in you a good work , viz. God: cf. ch. Philippians 2:13 . Wakefield, perversely enough, renders, ‘ he among you who has begun , &c.’ By ‘ a good work ,’ he refers his confidence to the general character of God as the doer and finisher of good: the one good work in his mind

Philippians 3:1 — evidently put here emphatically, with direct reference to the warning which follows let your joy (your boast) be in the Lord . And this same exhortation, χαίρειν , is in fact the groundtone of the whole Epistle. See ch. Philippians 1:18 ; Philippians 1:25 ; Philippians 2:17 ; Philippians 4:4 , where the πάλιν ἐρῶ seems to refer back again to this saying. So that there is no difficulty in imagining that the Apostle may mean χαίρετε by the τὰ αὐτά . The word ἀσφαλές is no objection to this: because

Colossians 1:7 — 7 .] as (scil, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ‘in which truth’) ye learnt from Epaphras (mentioned again ch. Col 4:12 as of Colossæ, and Philemon 1:23 , as then a fellow-prisoner with the Apostle. The name may be (hardly as Conyb., is ) identical with Epaphroditus. A person of this latter name is mentioned, Philippians 2:25 , as sent by St. Paul to the church at

Colossians 4:13 — .] πόνος , an unusual word in the N. T., hence the var. readd., is usual in the toil of conflict in war, thus answering to ἀγωνιζόμ . above: so Herod. vi. 114, ἐν τούτῳ τῷ πόνῳ ὁ πολέμαρχος Καλλίμαχος διαφθείρεται : similarly viii. 89. Plato, Phædr. 247 b, ἔνθα δὴ πόνος τε κ . ἀγὼν ἔσχατος ψυχῇ πρόκειται : Demosth. 637. 18, εἰ δ ʼ ἐκεῖνος ἀσθενέστερος ἦν τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς νίκης ἐνεγκεῖν πόνον . On account of this mention of Laodicea and Hierapolis, some have thought that Epaphras was the founder of the

1 Thessalonians 4:10 — see below) to their mistaken anticipations of the immediate coming of the Lord.) It would seem as if, notwithstanding their liberality to those without, there were some defect of quiet diligence and harmony within, which prompted this exhortation: see 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12 . Thdrt. assigns another reason for it: οὐκ ἐναντία τοῖς προῤῥηθεῖσιν ἐπαίνοις ἡ παραίνεσις . συνέβαινε γὰρ τοὺς μὲν φιλοτίμως χορηγεῖν τοῖς δεομένοις τὴν χρείαν , τοὺς δὲ διὰ τὴν τούτων φιλοτιμίαν ἀμελεῖν τῆς ἐργασίας · εἰκότως

1 Thessalonians 4:9 — being to the sin last spoken of. φιλαδελφία (reff.) here refers more immediately (cf. ποιεῖτε αὐτό below) to deeds of kindness by way of relief to poor brethren. οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ] This is a not unusual touch of delicate rhetoric with St. Paul (cf. 2 Corinthians 9:1 ; Philemon 1:19 ; ch. 1Th 5:1 ). It conveys tacit but gentle reproof. The knowledge and the practice already exist: but the latter is not quite in proportion to the former. τῷ εἰπεῖν , οὐ χρεία ἐστί , μεῖζον ἐποίησεν ἢ εἰ εἶπεν . Chrys.

Hebrews 10:21 — 21 .] and (‘having:’ τὸ ἔχοντες ἀπὸ κοινοῦ , Œc.) a great Priest (i. e. a great High Priest; but here his Priesthood, not his High-priesthood, is more brought into prominence. Do not suppose that μέγας ἱερεύς imports ‘High Priest,’

Hebrews 12:20 — 20 .] for they could not bear that which was commanded (Œc. and Thl. take this as an independent sentence, said of the general fearful character of the commands: τουτέστι τὸ διαλαλούμενον παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἠδύναντο τοῖς ὠσὶ στέγειν ὡς φοβερόν . And so

Hebrews 6:15 — κληρονόμος τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν . That there is here no inconsistency with ch. Hebrews 11:39 , see shewn there. ἐπιτυγχάνω is always used of the actual getting in possession: ὁλκάδος ἀναγομένης ἐπέτυχον , Thuc. iii. 3: εἰ ἀγαθοῦ ὠνητοῦ ἐπιτύχοιμι , Xen. Œc. 2. 3: ἵππου ἐπιτυχὼν ἀγαθοῦ , ib. 12. 20: al. in Bleek. And the above is the explanation, I believe, of every expositor ancient and modern, except Schulz and Bleek. Ebrard indeed varies thus far, as to understand ἐπέτυχεν of Abraham’s final and

Hebrews 7:15 — 15 .] And it (viz. the change of the law; the proposition of Hebrews 7:12 .: so Œc., οὐ μόνον ἔνθεν δῆλόν ἐστιν , ὅτι ἐνηλλάγη ἥ τε λατρεία καὶ ἡ διαθήκη … ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνου περισσῶς δῆλόν ἐστιν … καὶ ἐκ τούτου κατάδηλός ἐστιν ἥ τε ἐναλλαγὴ καὶ ἡ μετάθεσις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης . Chrys. takes ‘ it ’ to mean

James 3:2 — 2 .] For (see above: this supplies the ellipsis) oftentimes (adverbial: see reff. and Winer, § 54. 1) we all (without exception: ἅπαντες is a stronger form than πάντες , being originally contracted from ἅμα πάντες ) offend ( πταίω , cognate with

1 Peter 2:20 — 20 .] For (proof of the foregoing by assuming (interrogatively) the refutation of the contrary) what kind of ( was fur ein , Wies. But the qualitative force of ποῖος in an interrogation of this kind must not be pressed; it is of the slightest tinge