This verse is obviously a title, but is it a title of the whole Gospel, a title for the prologue (chs1-2), or a title for the genealogy that follows ( Matthew 1:1-17)? Probably it refers to the genealogy. There is no other ancient Near Eastern book-length document extant that uses the expression biblos geneseos (book or record of the generation) as its title. [1] While the noun genesis (birth) occurs again in Matthew 1:18, there it introduces the birth narrative of Jesus. In the Septuagint the same phrase, biblos geneseos, occurs in Genesis 2:4; Genesis 5:1 where in each case a narrative follows it, as here. Genealogies are quite common in the Old Testament, of course, and the presence of one here introduces a Jewish flavor to Matthew"s Gospel immediately. [source][source][source]
"Each use of the formula [2] introduces a new stage in the development of God"s purpose in the propagation of the Seed through which He planned to effect redemption." [3][source]
The last Old Testament messianic use of this phrase is in Ruth 4:18, where the genealogy ends with David. Matthew reviewed David"s genealogy and extended it to Jesus. [source][source][source]
"The plan which God inaugurated in the creation of man is to be completed by the Man, Christ Jesus." [4][source]
This is the genealogy of Jesus Christ. The name Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua , and it means "Yahweh is salvation" (yehoshua, the long form) or "Yahweh saves" (Yeshua, the short form). The two major Joshuas in the Old Testament both anticipated Jesus Christ by providing salvation (cf. Hebrews 3-4; Zechariah 6:11-13). [source][source][source]
"Jesus" occurs no fewer than150 times in Matthew , but human characters never use it when addressing Jesus Himself in this book. Matthew evidently reserved the use of this name for himself to establish the closest possible association between himself as the narrator and Jesus so his point of view might coincide with that of Jesus. [5][source]
The name Christ is the rough equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah" or "Anointed One." In the Old Testament it refers generally to people anointed for a special purpose including priests, kings, the patriarchs (metaphorically), and even the pagan king Cyrus. It came to have particular reference to the King whom God would provide from David"s line who would rule over Israel and the nations eventually (cf. 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Psalm 2:2; Psalm 105:15; et al.). The early Christians believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ of the Old Testament. Because they used both names together, "Christ" became a virtual name for Jesus, a titulary (title turned name). Paul, for example, used it this way frequently in his writings. [source][source][source]
Matthew introduced Jesus Christ as the descendant of David and Abraham. Why did he select these two ancestors for special mention, and why did he name David before Abraham?[source]
Abraham and David are important because God gave each of them a covenant. God vowed that He would unconditionally provide seed, land, and blessing to Abraham and his descendants ( Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 12:7; Genesis 15; et al.). Abraham would not only receive blessing from God, but he would also be a source of blessing to the whole world. God"s covenant with David guaranteed that his descendants would rule over the kingdom of Israel forever. The house or dynasty of David would always have the right to rule, symbolized by the throne ( 2 Samuel 7:12-16). Thus Matthew"s reference to these two men should remind the reader of God"s promises regarding a King who would rule over Israel and the universal blessing that He would bring (cf. Isaiah 11:1). [6][source]
"What is emphasized is the fact that the Messiah has His historical roots in Abraham and that He has come as a Davidic king in response to the promises to the patriarchs." [2][source]
"He is the Son of Abraham both because it is in him that the entire history of Israel, which had its beginning in Abraham, attains its goal ( Matthew 1:17) and because he is the one through whom God will extend to the nations his blessing of salvation ( Matthew 8:11; Matthew 28:18-20).... [source][source][source]
"Just as the title "Son of Abraham" characterizes Jesus as the one in whom the Gentiles will find blessing, so the title "Son of David" characterizes Jesus as the One in whom Israel will find blessing." [8][source]
The non-chronological order of David and then Abraham indicates that Matthew had more in mind than a simple chronological list of Jesus" ancestors. As the Gospel unfolds, it becomes clear that the Jews needed to accept Jesus as the promised Son of David before He would bring the blessings promised to Abraham (cf. Matthew 9:27; Matthew 12:23; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:30-31; Matthew 21:9; Matthew 21:15; Matthew 22:42; Matthew 22:45). Jesus presented Himself to the Jews first. When they rejected Him, He turned to the Gentiles. Yet He explained that their rejection was only temporary. When He returns, the Jews will acknowledge Him as their Messiah, and then He will rule on the earth and bless all humankind (cf. Zechariah 12:10-14; Zechariah 14:4; Zechariah 14:9-11; Romans 11:26). [source][source][source]
"Christ came with all the reality of the kingdom promised to David"s Son. But if He were refused as the Son of David, still, as the Son of Abraham, there was blessing not merely for the Jew, but for the Gentile. He is indeed the Messiah; but if Israel will not have Him, God will during their unbelief bring the nations to taste of His mercy." [9][source]
"By this brief superscription Matthew discloses the theme of his book. Jesus is the One who shall consummate God"s program." [10][source]
"First He is Sovereign, then Savior [11]." [12][source]
"This introduction clearly demonstrates that Matthew"s purpose in writing the gospel is to provide adequate proof for the investigator that the claims of Christ to be King and Saviour are justified. For this reason, the gospel of Matthew was considered by the early church one of the most important books of the New Testament and was given more prominence than the other three gospels." [13][source]
The Old Testament prophets predicted that the Messiah would be born of a woman ( Genesis 3:15), of the seed of Abraham ( Genesis 22:18), through the tribe of Judah ( Genesis 49:10), and of the family of David ( 2 Samuel 7:12-13). Jesus qualified in every respect. [source][source][source]
Context Summary
Matthew 1:1-17 - The Line By Which Messiah Came
The enumeration of our Lord's ancestors, with its threefold division into fourteen generations and evident gaps, was probably so arranged to aid the memory. Notice that, in unison with the general purpose of the writer, the line is traced to Abraham through David the king. Of course we know that Joseph was only the reputed father of Jesus, Matthew 1:18; but in any case this genealogy conformed to Hebrew usage and explained how the birth took place in David's city.
In this list of names the patriarchs, Gentiles, women of doubtful character, good men and bad men, the wise, the illustrious, the unknown-all supply important links. It is as though to teach us that in the Son of man there is a blending of all classes, that He might be the representative and helper of all. Each of us may find some point of contact in this genealogy. Jesus Christ belongs to our race. He knew what was in man by that subtle and intimate knowledge which comes of kinship. In Him, therefore, is neither Jew nor Greek exclusively, but all are one in Him. [source]
Chapter Summary: Matthew 1
1The genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph 18He is miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit by the Virgin Mary 19The angel satisfies the doubts of Joseph, 21and declares the names and office of Jesus; 25Jesus is born
Greek Commentary for Matthew 1:1
The Book [βιβλος] There is no article in the Greek, but the following genitives make it definite. It is our word Bible that is here used, the Book as Sir Walter Scott called it as he lay dying. The usual word for book is a diminutive form (βιβλιον biblion), a little book or roll such as we have in Luke 4:17, “The roll of the prophet Isaiah.” The pieces of papyrus (παπυρος papuros), our paper, were pasted together to make a roll of varying lengths according to one‘s needs. Matthew, of course, is not applying the word book to the Old Testament, probably not to his own book, but to “the genealogical table of Jesus Christ” (βιβλος γενεσεως Ιησου Χριστου biblos geneseōs Iēsou Christou), “the birth roll of Jesus Christ” Moffatt translates it. We have no means of knowing where the writer obtained the data for this genealogy. It differs radically from that in Luke 3:23-38. One can only give his own theory of the difference. Apparently in Matthew we have the actual genealogy of Joseph which would be the legal pedigree of Jesus according to Jewish custom. In Luke we apparently have the actual genealogy of Mary which would be the real line of Jesus which Luke naturally gives as he is writing for the Gentiles. [source]
Jesus Christ [] . Both words are used. The first is the name It was used often in the Septuagint as an adjective like “the anointed priest” (1 Kings 2:10) and then as a substantive to translate the Hebrew word “Messiah” So Andrew said to Simon: “We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, Christ” (John 1:41). In the Gospels it is sometimes “the Anointed One,” “the Messiah,” but finally just a proper name as here, Jesus Christ. Paul in his later Epistles usually has it “Christ Jesus.”The Son of David, the son of Abraham (υιου Δαυειδ υιου Αβρααμ huiou Daueid huiou Abraam). Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. So Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son (βην bēn) for the quality or character, but here the idea is descent. Christians are called sons of God because Christ has bestowed this dignity upon us (Romans 8:14; Romans 9:26; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 4:5-7). Matthew 1:1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (Matthew 1:2-6), David to Babylon Removal (Matthew 1:6-11), Jechoniah to Jesus (Matthew 1:12-16). The removal to Babylon (μετοικεσιας αβυλωνος metoikesias Babulōnos) occurs at the end of Matthew 1:11, the beginning of Matthew 1:12, and twice in the resume in Matthew 1:17. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then Matthew 1:17 makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list. [source]
The Son of David, the son of Abraham [υιου Δαυειδ υιου Αβρααμ] Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. So Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son Matthew 1:1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (Matthew 1:2-6), David to Babylon Removal (Matthew 1:6-11), Jechoniah to Jesus (Matthew 1:12-16). The removal to Babylon (μετοικεσιας αβυλωνος metoikesias Babulōnos) occurs at the end of Matthew 1:11, the beginning of Matthew 1:12, and twice in the resume in Matthew 1:17. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then Matthew 1:17 makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list. [source]
The Son [υἱός] The word τέκνον (child ) is often used interchangeably with υἱός (son )but is never applied to Christ. (For τέκνον , see on 1 John 3:1.) While in τέκνον there is commonly implied the passive or dependent relation of the children to the parents, υἱός fixes the thought on the person himself rather than on the dependence upon his parents. It suggests individuality rather than descent; or, if descent, mainly to bring out the fact that the son was worthy of his parent. Hence the word marks the filial relation as carrying with it privilege, dignity, and freedom, and is, therefore, the only appropriate term to express Christ's sonship. (See John 1:18; John 3:16; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:13,Colossians 1:15.) Through Christ the dignity of sons is bestowed on believers, so that the same word is appropriate to Christians, sons of God. (See Romans 8:14; Romans 9:26; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 4:5,Galatians 4:6,Galatians 4:7.) [source]
Christ [Χριστός] Properly an adjective, not a noun, and meaning anointed ( Χρίω , to anoint). It is a translation of the Hebrew Messiah, the king and spiritual ruler from David's race, promised under that name in the Old Testament (Psalm 2:2; Daniel 9:25,Daniel 9:26). Hence Andrew says to Simon, “We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, Christ (John 1:41; compare Acts 4:27; Acts 10:38; Acts 19:28). To us “Christ “has become a proper name, and is therefore written without the definite article; but, in the body of the gospel narratives, since the identity of Jesus with the promised Messiah is still in question with the people, the article is habitually used, and the name should therefore be translated “the Christ.” After the resurrection, when the recognition of Jesus as Messiah has become general, we find the word beginning to be used as a proper name, with or without the article. In this passage it omits the article, because it occurs in the heading of the chapter, and expresses the evangelist's own faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Anointing was applied to kings (1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1), to prophets (1 Kings 19:16), and to priests (Exodus 29:29; Exodus 40:15; Leviticus 16:32) at their inauguration. “The Lord's anointed” was a common title of the king (1 Samuel 12:3,1 Samuel 12:5; 2 Samuel 1:14,2 Samuel 1:16). Prophets are called “Messiahs,” or anointed ones (1 Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:15). Cyrus is also called “the Lord's Anointed,” because called to the throne to deliver the Jews out of captivity (Isaiah 45:1). Hence the word” Christ” was representative of our Lord, who united in himself the offices of king, prophet, and priest. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
It is interesting to see how anointing attaches to our Lord in other and minor particulars. Anointing was an act of hospitality and a sign of festivity and cheerfulness. Jesus was anointed by the woman when a guest in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and rebuked his host for omitting this mark of respect toward hint (Luke 7:35,Luke 7:46). In the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:8,Hebrews 1:9), the words of the Messianic psalm (Psalm 45:7) are applied to Jesus, “God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”-DIVIDER-
Anointing was practised upon the sick (Mark 6:13; Luke 10:34:; James 5:14). Jesus, “the Great Physician,” is described by Isaiah (Isaiah 61:1,Isaiah 61:2; compare Luke 4:18) as anointed by God to bind up the broken-hearted, and to give the mournful the oil of joy for mourning. He himself anointed the eyes of the blind man (John 9:6,John 9:11); and the twelve, in his name, “anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” (Mark 6:13). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
Anointing was practised upon the dead. Of her who brake the alabaster upon his head at Bethany, Jesus said, “She hath anointed my body aforehand for the burying” (Mark 14:8; see, also, Luke 23:56). [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Matthew 1:1
Matthew 16:15Thou art the Christ [] Compare on Matthew 1:1. Note the emphatic and definite force of the article in Peter's confession, and also the emphatic position of the pronoun ( οὺ , thou ): “Thou art the anointed, the Son of the God, the living.” [source]
Matthew 1:6David the king [τὸν Δαυεὶδ τὸν βασιλέα , “ the David, the king”)] Both words are thus emphasized:the David from whom Christ, if he were the Messiah, must have descended; the king with whom the Messiah's genealogy entered upon the kingly dignity. In this genealogy, where the generations are divided symmetrically into three sets of fourteen, the evangelist seems to connect the last of each set with a critical epoch in the history of Israel: the first reaching from the origin of the race to the commencement of the monarchy (“David the king ”)the second, from the commencement of the monarchy to the captivity in Babylon; the third and last, from the captivity to the coming of “the Christ.” The same emphatic or demonstrative use of the article occurs with the name of Joseph (Matthew 1:16), marking his peculiar relation to Jesus as the husband of Mary: the Joseph, the husband of Mary. [source]
Matthew 1:18The birth of Jesus Christ [του Ιησου Χριστου η γενεσις] In the Greek Jesus Christ comes before birth as the important matter after Matthew 1:16. It is not certain whether “Jesus” is here a part of the text as it is absent in the old Syriac and the Old Latin while the Washington Codex has only “Christ.” The Vatican Codex has “Christ Jesus.” But it is plain that the story of the birth of Jesus Christ is to be told briefly as follows, “on this wise” “It is in fact the word Genesis. The evangelist is about to describe, not the genesis of the heaven and the earth, but the genesis of Him who made the heaven and the earth, and who will yet make a new heaven and a new earth” (Morison). [source]
Matthew 19:6Bill [βιβλιον] A little βιβλος biblos (see note on Matthew 1:1), a scroll or document (papyrus or parchment). This was some protection to the divorced wife and a restriction on laxity. [source]
Matthew 1:1Jesus Christ [] . Both words are used. The first is the name It was used often in the Septuagint as an adjective like “the anointed priest” (1 Kings 2:10) and then as a substantive to translate the Hebrew word “Messiah” So Andrew said to Simon: “We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, Christ” (John 1:41). In the Gospels it is sometimes “the Anointed One,” “the Messiah,” but finally just a proper name as here, Jesus Christ. Paul in his later Epistles usually has it “Christ Jesus.”The Son of David, the son of Abraham (υιου Δαυειδ υιου Αβρααμ huiou Daueid huiou Abraam). Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. So Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son (βην bēn) for the quality or character, but here the idea is descent. Christians are called sons of God because Christ has bestowed this dignity upon us (Romans 8:14; Romans 9:26; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 4:5-7). Matthew 1:1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (Matthew 1:2-6), David to Babylon Removal (Matthew 1:6-11), Jechoniah to Jesus (Matthew 1:12-16). The removal to Babylon (μετοικεσιας αβυλωνος metoikesias Babulōnos) occurs at the end of Matthew 1:11, the beginning of Matthew 1:12, and twice in the resume in Matthew 1:17. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then Matthew 1:17 makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list. [source]
Matthew 1:1The Son of David, the son of Abraham [υιου Δαυειδ υιου Αβρααμ] Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. So Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son Matthew 1:1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (Matthew 1:2-6), David to Babylon Removal (Matthew 1:6-11), Jechoniah to Jesus (Matthew 1:12-16). The removal to Babylon (μετοικεσιας αβυλωνος metoikesias Babulōnos) occurs at the end of Matthew 1:11, the beginning of Matthew 1:12, and twice in the resume in Matthew 1:17. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then Matthew 1:17 makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list. [source]
Matthew 1:2Begat [εγεννησεν] This word comes, like some of the early chapters of Genesis, with regularity through Matthew 1:16, until the birth of Jesus is reached when there is a sudden change. The word itself does not always mean immediate parentage, but merely direct descent. In Matthew 1:16 we have “Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ” The article occurs here each time with the object of “begat,” but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (Matthew 1:6) and Joseph the husband of Mary (Matthew 1:16) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (Matthew 1:2) and of both Phares and Zara (Matthew 1:3) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give Matthew 1:16 as above save the Ferrar Group of minuscules which are supported by the Sinaitic Syriac Version. Because of this fact Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates, deliberately prints his text “Jacob begat Jesus ” But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:18-25. Hence it is clear that “begat” here in Matthew 1:16 must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in Matthew 1:18-25. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of Studies in the Text of the New Testament. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in Matthew 1:16. The spelling of these Hebrew names in English is usually according to the Hebrew form, not the Greek. In the Greek itself the Hebrew spelling is often observed in violation of the Greek rules for the ending of words with no consonants save n, r, s. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails. [source]
Matthew 2:1Now when Jesus was born [του δε Ιησου γεννητεντος] The fact of the birth of Jesus is stated by the genitive absolute construction (first aorist passive participle of the same verb γενναω gennaō used twice already of the birth of Jesus, Matthew 1:16,Matthew 1:20, and used in the genealogy, Matthew 1:2-16). Matthew does not propose to give biographic details of the supernatural birth of Jesus, wonderful as it was and disbelieved as it is by some today who actually deny that Jesus was born at all or ever lived, men who talk of the Jesus Myth, the Christ Myth, etc. “The main purpose is to show the reception given by the world to the new-born Messianic King. Homage from afar, hostility at home; foreshadowing the fortunes of the new faith: reception by the Gentiles, rejection by the Jews” (Bruce). [source]
Matthew 1:18Betrothed to Joseph [ευρετη εν γαστρι εχουσα] Matthew proceeds to explain his statement in Matthew 1:16 which implied that Joseph, though the legal father of Jesus in the royal line, was not the actual father of Mary‘s Son. Betrothal with the Jews was a serious matter, not lightly entered into and not lightly broken. The man who betrothed a maiden was legally husband (Genesis 29:21; Deuteronomy 22:23.) and “an informal cancelling of betrothal was impossible” (McNeile). Though they did not live together as husband and wife till actual marriage, breach of faithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punished with death. The New Testament in Braid Scots actually has “mairry‘t till Joseph” for “betrothed to Joseph.” Matthew uses the genitive absolute construction here, a very common Greek idiom.Of the Holy Ghost (ek pneumatos hagiou). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She “was found with child” (heurethē en gastri echousa). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philemon 2:5-11; and involved in Colossians 1:15-19) and by John (John 1:14; John 17:5). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though John 1:14 seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world‘s Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God‘s will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. John 3:16 is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us. [source]
Luke 9:23Will come after [θέλει] Not the future tense of the verb come, but the present of the verb to will: wills to come. See on Matthew 1:19; and Mark 8:34. Rev., properly, would come. [source]
Luke 9:20The Christ of God [] Each evangelist gives Peter's confession differently. Matthew, The Christ, the Son of the living God. Mark, The Christ. See on Matthew 16:15. On Christ, see on Matthew 1:1. [source]
Luke 10:29Willing [θέλων] Rev., desiring. See on Matthew 1:19. I think this is stronger than desiring; rather, determined. [source]
Luke 2:11Christ the Lord [σωτηρ] This combination occurs nowhere else in the N.T. and it is not clear what it really means. Luke is very fond of Χριστος Κυριος Kurios (Lord) where the other Gospels have Jesus. It may mean “Christ the Lord,” “Anointed Lord,” “Messiah, Lord,” “The Messiah, the Lord,” “An Anointed One, a Lord,” or “Lord Messiah.” It occurs once in the lxx (Lamentations 4:20) and is in Ps. of Sol. 17:36. Ragg suggests that our phrase “the Lord Jesus Christ” is really involved in “A Saviour (Jesus) which is Christ the Lord.” See note on Matthew 1:1 for Christ and note on Matthew 21:3 for Lord. [source]
Luke 2:26Before [πριν η] Classic Greek idiom after a negative to have subjunctive as here (only example in the N.T.) or the optative after past tense as in Acts 25:16 (subjunctive changed to optative in indirect discourse). Elsewhere in the N.T. the infinitive follows πριν prin as in Matthew 1:18. [source]
Luke 7:32And ye did not weep [και ουκ εκλαυσατε] Here Matthew 1:17 has “and ye did not mourn (or beat your breast, ουκ εκοπσαστε ouk ekopsasthe). They all did it at funerals. These children would not play wedding or funeral. [source]
Luke 2:11Saviour [τικτω] This great word is common in Luke and Paul and seldom elsewhere in the N.T. (Bruce). The people under Rome‘s rule came to call the emperor “Saviour” and Christians took the word and used it of Christ. See inscriptions (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 344).Christ the Lord (σωτηρ Christos Kurios). This combination occurs nowhere else in the N.T. and it is not clear what it really means. Luke is very fond of Χριστος Κυριος Kurios (Lord) where the other Gospels have Jesus. It may mean “Christ the Lord,” “Anointed Lord,” “Messiah, Lord,” “The Messiah, the Lord,” “An Anointed One, a Lord,” or “Lord Messiah.” It occurs once in the lxx (Lamentations 4:20) and is in Ps. of Sol. 17:36. Ragg suggests that our phrase “the Lord Jesus Christ” is really involved in “A Saviour (Jesus) which is Christ the Lord.” See note on Matthew 1:1 for Christ and note on Matthew 21:3 for Lord. [source]
Luke 3:23When he began to teach [αρχομενος] The words “to teach” are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version “began to be about thirty years of age,” is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies “to teach” Tyndale has it right “Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne.” Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God‘s prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more.Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus, see notes on Matthew 1:1-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to “Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). Matthew employs the word “begot” each time, while Luke has the article του tou repeating υιου huiou (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that “Jacob begat Joseph” while Luke calls “Joseph the son of Heli.” There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase “as was supposed” His own narrative in Luke 1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, υιος huios must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses “begat” for descent, so does Luke employ “son” in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Matthew 1:16,Matthew 1:18-25 that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds “the Son of God” after Adam (Luke 3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception. [source]
Luke 3:23Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli [ων υιος ως ενομιζετο Ιωσηπ του ελει] For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus, see notes on Matthew 1:1-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to “Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). Matthew employs the word “begot” each time, while Luke has the article του tou repeating υιου huiou (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that “Jacob begat Joseph” while Luke calls “Joseph the son of Heli.” There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase “as was supposed” His own narrative in Luke 1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, υιος huios must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses “begat” for descent, so does Luke employ “son” in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Matthew 1:16,Matthew 1:18-25 that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds “the Son of God” after Adam (Luke 3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception. [source]
John 7:35The dispersed among the Gentiles [τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν Ἑλλήνων] Literally, the dispersion of the Greeks. The Jews who remained in foreign lands after the return from the Captivity were called by two names: 1. The Captivity, which was expressed in Greek by three words, viz., ἀποικία , a settlement far from home, which does not occur in the New Testament; μετοικεσία , change of abode, which is found in Matthew 1:11,Matthew 1:12,Matthew 1:17, and always of the carrying into Babylon; αἰχμαλωσία , a taking at the point of the spear; Ephesians 4:8; Revelation 13:10. 2. The Dispersion ( διασπορά ). See on 1 Peter 1:1; see on James 1:1. The first name marks their relation to their own land; the second to the strange lands. [source]
John 5:6Wilt thou [θέλεις] Not merely, do you wish, but are you in earnest? See on Matthew 1:19. Jesus appeals to the energy of his will. Not improbably he had fallen into apathy through his long sickness. Compare Acts 3:4; John 7:17. [source]
John 3:8Where it listeth [ὅπου θέλει] On the verb θέλω , to will or determine, see on Matthew 1:19. Listeth is old English for pleasure or willeth, from the Anglo-Saxon lust, meaning pleasure. Chaucer has the forms leste, lust, and list.“Strong was the wyn, and wel to drynke us leste (pleased ).”“Canterbury Tales,” 752.“Love if thee lust.”“Canterbury Tales,” 1185.“She walketh up and down wher as hire list (wherever she pleases ).”“Canterbury Tales,” 1054.“A wretch by fear, not force, like Hannibal, Drives back our troops, and conquers as she lists.”-DIVIDER-
Shakespeare, “Henry VI.,” Pt. I., i., v., 22. Hence listless is devoid of desire. The statement of Jesus is not meant to be scientifically precise, but is rather thrown into a poetic mold, akin to the familiar expression “free as the wind.” Compare 1 Corinthians 12:11; and for the more prosaic description of the course of the wind, see Ecclesiastes 1:6. [source]
John 1:43Would go forth [ἠθέλησεν ἐξελθεῖν] Rev., better, was minded to go. On the construction see on Matthew 20:14. On the verb to be minded, see on Matthew 1:19. [source]
John 1:20I am not the Christ [] According to the proper reading, ἐγὼ , I, stands first in the Baptist's statement, the ὅτι having the force merely of quotation marks. It is emphatic: “I am not the Christ, though the Christ is here.” Some were questioning whether John was the Christ (Luke 3:15; Acts 13:25). Note the frequent occurrence of the emphatic I: John 1:23,John 1:26,John 1:27,John 1:30,John 1:31,John 1:33,John 1:34. On the Christ, see on Matthew 1:1. [source]
John 1:30A man [ἀνὴρ] Three words are used in the New Testament for man: ἄῤῥην , or ἄρσην , ἀνήρ , and ἄνθρωπος . Ἄρσην marks merely the sexual distinction, male (Romans 1:27; Revelation 12:5,Revelation 12:13). Ἁνήρ denotes the man as distinguished from the woman, as male or as a husband (Acts 8:12; Matthew 1:16), or from a boy (Matthew 14:21). Also man as endowed with courage, intelligence, strength, and other noble attributes (1 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 4:13; James 3:2). Ἄνθρωπος is generic, without distinction of sex, a human being (John 16:21), though often used in connections which indicate or imply sex, as Matthew 19:10; Matthew 10:35. Used of mankind (Matthew 4:4), or of the people (Matthew 5:13,Matthew 5:16; Matthew 6:5,Matthew 6:18; John 6:10). Of man as distinguished from animals or plants (Matthew 4:19; 2 Peter 2:16), and from God, Christ as divine and angels (Matthew 10:32; John 10:33; Luke 2:15). With the notion of weakness leading to sin, and with a contemptuous sense (1 Corinthians 2:5; 1 Peter 4:2; John 5:12; Romans 9:20). The more honorable and noble sense thus attaches to ἀνήρ rather than to ἄνθρωπος . Thus Herodotus says that when the Medes charged the Greeks, they fell in vast numbers, so that it was manifest to Xerxes that he had many men combatants ( ἄνθρωποι ) but few warriors ( ἄνθρωποι ) vii., 210. So Homer: “O friends, be men ( ἀνέρες ), and take on a stout heart” (“Iliad,” v., 529). Ἁνήρ is therefore used here of Jesus by the Baptist with a sense of dignity. Compare ἄνθρωπος , in John 1:6, where the word implies no disparagement, but is simply indefinite. In John ἀνήρ has mostly the sense of husband (John 4:16-18). See John 6:10. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
[source]
John 1:14And the Word became flesh [και ο λογος σαρχ εγενετο] See John 1:3 for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than ην ēn of John 1:1. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive σαρχ 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 Matthew 1:16-25; 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 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 4:4; Romans 1:3; Romans 8:3; Philemon 2:7.; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 2:14. “To explain the exact significance of εγενετο 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 First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of σκηνοω skēnoō old verb, to pitch one‘s tent or tabernacle First aorist middle indicative of τεαομαι theaomai (from τεα thea spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory John employs τεαομαι theaomai again in John 1:32 (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and John 1:38 of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. So also John 4:35; John 11:45; 1 John 1:1.; 1 John 4:12,1 John 4:14. 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 Strictly, “as of an only born from a father,” since there is no article with μονογενους monogenous or with πατρος patros In John 3:16; 1 John 4:9 we have τον μονογενη ton monogenē referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of πατηρ patēr of God in relation to the Logos. Μονογενης Monogenēs (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in John 1:18) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children 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. John 8:54; John 14:9; John 17:5. Full Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with δοχαν doxan (or genitive with μονογενους monogenous) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, Grammar, p. 275). As nominative πληρης plērēs can agree with the subject of εσκηνωσεν eskēnōsen Of grace and truth Curiously this great word χαρις charis (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John‘s Gospel save in John 1:14,John 1:16,John 1:17, though αλητεια alētheia (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 John 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. [source]
John 1:41He findeth first [ευρισκει ουτος πρωτον] “This one finds (vivid dramatic present) first” Προτων Protōn (adverb supported by Aleph A B fam. 13) means that Andrew sought “his own brother Simon” Bernard thinks that this is the true reading as it allows more time for Andrew to bring Simon to Jesus. Probably πρωτον prōton is correct, but even so John likely brought also his brother James after Andrew‘s example. We have found the Messiah First aorist active indicative of ευρισκω heuriskō Andrew and John had made the greatest discovery of the ages, far beyond gold or diamond mines. The Baptist had told about him. “We have seen him.” Which is Same explanatory neuter relative as in John 1:38, “which word is.” This Aramaic title Messiah is preserved in the N.T. only here and John 4:25, elsewhere translated into Χριστος Christos Anointed One, from χριω chriō to anoint. See note on Matthew 1:1 for discussion. [source]
Acts 26:23That Christ should suffer [εἰ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστὸς] Rather, if or whether the Messiah is liable to suffering. He expresses himself in a problematic form, because it was the point of debate among the Jews whether a suffering Messiah was to be believed in. They believed in a triumphant Messiah, and the doctrine of his sufferings was an obstacle to their receiving him as Messiah. Note the article, “the Christ,” and see on Matthew 1:1. [source]
Romans 1:17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed [δικαιοσύνη γὰρ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται] Rev., more correctly, therein is revealed a righteousness of God. The absence of the article denotes that a peculiar kind of righteousness is meant. This statement contains the subject of the epistle: Righteousness is by faith. The subject is not stated formally nor independently, but as a proof that the Gospel is a power, etc. This word δικαιοσύνη righteousnessand its kindred words δίκαιος righteousand δικαιόω tomake righteous, play so important a part in this epistle that it is desirable to fix their meaning as accurately as possible. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
Classical Usage. In the Greek classics there appears an eternal, divine, unwritten principle of right, dwelling in the human consciousness, shaping both the physical and the moral ordering of the world, and personified as Themis ( Θέμις ). This word is used as a common noun in the phrase θέμις ἐστὶ itis right (fundamentally and eternally), like the Latin fas est. Thus Homer, of Penelope mourning for Ulysses, θέμις ἐστὶ γυναικός itis the sacred obligation of the wife (founded in her natural relation to her husband, ordained of heaven) to mourn (“Odyssey,” 14,130). So Antigone appeals to the unwritten law against the barbarity of refusing burial to her brother.“Nor did I deem thy edicts strong enough,That thou, a mortal man, shouldst overpass The unwritten laws of God that know not change.”Sophocles, “Antigone,” 453-455.See, also, “Odyssey,” 14,91; Aristophanes, “Clouds,” 140; “Antigone,” 880. This divine ordering requires that men should be shown or pointed to that which is according to it - a definite circle of duties and obligations which constitute right ( δίκη ). Thus what is δίκαιος righteousis properly the expression of the eternal Themis. While δίκη and θέμις are not to be distinguished as human and divine, δίκη has a more distinctively human, personal character, and comes into sharper definition. It introduces the distinction between absolute right and power. It imposes the recognition of a moral principle over against an absolutely constraining natural force. The conception of δίκη is strongly moral. Δίκαιος is right; δικαιοσύνη is rightness as characterizing the entire being of man. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
There is a religious background to the pagan conception. In the Homeric poems morality stands in a relation, loose and undeveloped indeed, but none the less real, to religion. This appears in the use of the oath in compacts; in the fear of the wrath of heaven for omission of sacrifices; in regarding refusal of hospitality as an offense against Zeus, the patron of strangers and suppliants. Certain tribes which are fierce and uncivilized are nevertheless described as δίκαιοι righteous“The characteristic stand-point of the Homeric ethics is that the spheres of law, of morals, and of religion are by no means separate, but lie side by side in undeveloped unity.” (Nagelsbach). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
In later Greek literature this conception advances, in some instances, far toward the christian ideal; as in the fourth book of Plato's “Laws,” where he asserts that God holds in His hand the beginning, middle, and end of all things; that justice always follows Him, and punishes those who fall short of His laws. Those who would be dear to God must be like Him. Without holiness no man is accepted of God. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
Nevertheless, however clearly the religious background and sanction of morality may be recognized, it is apparent that the basis of right is found, very largely, in established social usage. The word ethics points first to what is established by custom. While with Mr. Grote we must admit the peculiar emphasis on the individual in the Homeric poems, we cannot help observing a certain influence of social sentiment on morals. While there are cases like the suitors, Paris and Helen, where public opinion imposes no moral check, there are others where the force of public opinion is clearly visible, such as Penelope and Nausicaa. The Homeric view of homicide reveals no relation between moral sentiment and divine enactment. Murder is a breach of social law, a private and civil wrong, entailing no loss of character. Its penalty is a satisfaction to the feelings of friends, or a compensation for lost services. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
Later, we find this social aspect of morality even more strongly emphasized. “The city becomes the central and paramount source of obligation. The great, impersonal authority called 'the Laws' stands out separately, both as guide and sanction, distinct from religious duty or private sympathy” (Grote). Socrates is charged with impiety because he does not believe in the gods of the state, and Socrates himself agrees that that man does right who obeys what the citizens have agreed should be done, and who refrains from what they forbid. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
The social basis of righteousness also appears in the frequent contrast between δίκη and βία , right and force. A violation of right is that which forces its way over the social sanction. The social conception of δίκαιος is not lost, even when the idea is so apprehended as to border on the christian love of one's neighbor. There is a wrong toward the gods, but every wrong is not in itself such. The inner, personal relation to deity, the absolute and constraining appeal of divine character and law to conscience, the view of duty as one's right, and of personal right as something to be surrendered to the paramount claim of love - all these elements which distinguish the christian conception of righteousness - are thus in sharp contrast with a righteousness dictated by social claims which limit the individual desire or preference, but which leave untouched the tenacity of personal right, and place obligation behind legitimacy. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
It is desirable that the classical usage of these terms should be understood, in order to throw into sharper relief the Biblical usage, according to which God is the absolute and final standard of right, and every wrong is a sin against God (Psalm 51:4). Each man stands in direct and primary relation to the holy God as He is by the law of His own nature. Righteousness is union with God in character. To the Greek mind of the legendary age such a conception is both strange and essentially impossible, since the Greek divinity is only the Greek man exaggerated in his virtues and vices alike. According to the christian ideal, righteousness is character, and the norm of character is likeness to God. This idea includes all the social aspects of right. Love and duty toward God involve love and duty to the neighbor. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
Here must be noted a peculiar usage of δίκαιος righteousand δικαιοσύνη righteousnessin the Septuagint. They are at times interchanged with ἐλεημοσύνη mercyand ἔλεος kindnessThe Hebrew chesed kindness, though usually rendered by ἔλεος , is nine times translated by δικαιοσύνη righteousnessand once by δίκαιος righteousThe Hebrew tsedakah usually rendered by δικαιοσύνη , is nine times translated by ἐλεημοσύνη mercyand three times by ἔλεος kindnessCompare the Heb. and Sept. at Deuteronomy 6:25; Deuteronomy 24:13(15); Genesis 19:19; Genesis 24:27. This usage throws light on the reading δικαιοσύνην , Rev., righteousness (kindness? ), instead of ἐλεημοσύνην mercyA.V., alms, Matthew 6:1. Mr. Hatch (“Essays in Biblical Greek”) says that the meaning kindness is so clear in this passage that scribes, who were unaware of its existence, altered the text. He also thinks that this meaning gives a better sense than any other to Matthew 1:19“Joseph, being a kindly ( δίκαιος , A.V., just ) man.”-DIVIDER-
1. In the New Testament δίκαιος is used both of God and of Christ. Of God, 1 John 1:9; John 17:25; Revelation 16:5; Romans 3:26. Of Christ, 1 John 2:1; 1 John 3:7; Acts 3:14; Acts 7:52; Acts 22:14. In these passages the word characterizes God and Christ either in their essential quality or in their action; either as righteous according to the eternal norm of divine holiness (John 17:25; 1 John 3:7; Romans 3:26), or as holiness passes into righteous dealing with men (1 John 1:9). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
2. Δίκαιος is used of men, denoting their normal relation to the will and judgment of God. Hence it means virtuous, upright, pure in life, correct in thinking and feeling. It stands opposed to ἀνομία lawlessness ἁμαρτία sin ἀκαθαρσία impuritya contrast wanting in classical usage, where the conception of sin is vague. See Romans 6:13,Romans 6:16,Romans 6:18,Romans 6:20; Romans 8:10; 2 Corinthians 6:7,2 Corinthians 6:14; Ephesians 5:9; Ephesians 6:14; Philemon 1:11; James 3:18. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
Where δικαιοσύνη righteousnessis joined with ὁσιότης holiness(Luke 1:75; Ephesians 4:24), it denotes right conduct toward men, as holiness denotes piety toward God. It appears in the wider sense of answering to the demands of God in general, Matthew 13:17; Matthew 10:41; Matthew 23:29; Acts 10:22,Acts 10:35; and in the narrower sense of perfectly answering the divine demands, guiltless. So of Christ, Acts 3:14; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:1. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
3. It is found in the classical sense of it is right, Philemon 1:7, or that which is right, Colossians 4:1. This, however, is included within the Christian conception. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
Δικαιοσύνη righteousnessis therefore that which fulfills the claims of δίκη right“It is the state commanded by God and standing the test of His judgment; the character and acts of a man approved of Him, in virtue of which the man corresponds with Him and His will as His ideal and standard” (Cremer). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
The medium of this righteousness is faith. Faith is said to be counted or reckoned for righteousness; i.e., righteousness is ascribed to it or recognized in it. Romans 4:3,Romans 4:6,Romans 4:9,Romans 4:22; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
In this verse the righteousness revealed in the Gospel is described as a righteousness of God. This does not mean righteousness as an attribute of God, as in Romans 3:5; but righteousness as bestowed on man by God. The state of the justified man is due to God. The righteousness which becomes his is that which God declares to be righteousness and ascribes to him. Righteousness thus expresses the relation of being right into which God puts the man who believes. See further, on justified, Romans 2:13.Is revealed ( ἀποκαλύπτεται )Emphasizing the peculiar sense in which “righteousness” is used here. Righteousness as an attribute of God was revealed before the Gospel. Righteousness in this sense is a matter of special revelation through the Gospel. The present tense describes the Gospel in its continuous proclamation: is being revealed.From faith to faith ( ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν )Rev., by faith unto faith. According to the A.V. the idea is that of progress in faith itself; either from Old to New Testament faith, or, in the individual, from a lower to a higher degree of faith; and this idea, I think, must be held here, although it is true that it is introduced secondarily, since Paul is dealing principally with the truth that righteousness is by faith. We may rightly say that the revealed righteousness of God is unto faith, in the sense of with a view to produce faith; but we may also say that faith is a progressive principle; that the aim of God's justifying righteousness is life, and that the just lives by his faith (Galatians 2:20), and enters into “more abundant” life with the development of his faith. Compare 2 Corinthians 2:16; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Romans 6:19; and the phrase, justification of life, Romans 5:18.sa40 [source]
1 Corinthians 1:13Is Christ divided? [μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός] Some of the best expositors render as an assertion. Christ has been divided by your controversies. He is broken up into different party Christs. This gives a perfectly good and forcible sense, and is favored by the absence of the interrogative particle μὴ , which introduces the next clause. Divided: so portioned up that one party may claim Him more than another. Christ has the article. See on Matthew 1:1. [source]
Galatians 4:9Ye desire [θέλετε] It was more than a mere desire. They were bent on putting themselves again into bondage. See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
Galatians 4:24For these are [αυται γαρ εισιν] Allegorically interpreted, he means. From Mount Sinai (απο ορους Σινα apo orous Sinā). Spoken from Mount Sinai. Bearing Present active participle of γενναω gennaō to beget of the male (Matthew 1:1-16), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke 1:13,Luke 1:57). Which is Hagar (ητις εστιν αγαρ hētis estin Hagar). Allegorically interpreted. [source]
Galatians 4:24Bearing [γεννωσα] Present active participle of γενναω gennaō to beget of the male (Matthew 1:1-16), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke 1:13,Luke 1:57). Which is Hagar (ητις εστιν αγαρ hētis estin Hagar). Allegorically interpreted. [source]
Ephesians 1:12Who first trusted [τοὺς προηλπικότας] In apposition with we (should be). So Rev., we who had, etc., trusted, more properly hoped; and first trusted is ambiguous. We refers to Jewish Christians, and the verb describes their messianic hope before ( πρό ) the advent of Christ. Hence Rev., correctly, we who had (have) before hoped. In Christ should be “in the Christ,” as the subject of messianic expectation and not as Jesus, for whom Christ had passed into a proper name. It is equivalent to in the Messiah. See on Matthew 1:1. [source]
Colossians 2:15He made a show of them [ἐδειγμάτισεν] Only here and Matthew 1:19, see note. The compound παραδειγματίζω toexpose to public infamy, is found Hebrews 6:6; and δεῖγμα examplein Judges 1:7. The word is unknown to classical Greek. The meaning here is to make a display of, exhibit. He showed them as subordinate and subject to Christ. Compare especially Hebrews 1:1-14throughout, where many points of contact with the first two chapters of this epistle will be found. [source]
Colossians 2:15He made a show of them [εδειγματισεν] First aorist active indicative of δειγματιζω deigmatizō late and rare verb from δειγμα deigma (Judges 1:7), an example, and so to make an example of. Frequent in the papyri though later than παραδειγματιζω paradeigmatizō and in N.T. only here and Matthew 1:19 of Joseph‘s conduct toward Mary. No idea of disgrace is necessarily involved in the word. The publicity is made plain by “openly” Triumphing over them on it (τριαμβευσας αυτους εν αυτωι thriambeusas autous en autōi). On the Cross the triumph was won. This late, though common verb in Koiné{[28928]}š writers (εκτριαμβευω ekthriambeuō in the papyri) occurs only twice in the N.T., once “to lead in triumph” (2 Corinthians 2:14), here to celebrate a triumph (the usual sense). It is derived from τριαμβος thriambos a hymn sung in festal procession and is kin to the Latin triumphus (our triumph), a triumphal procession of victorious Roman generals. God won a complete triumph over all the angelic agencies (αυτους autous masculine regarded as personal agencies). Lightfoot adds, applying τριαμβευσας thriambeusas to Christ: “The convict‘s gibbet is the victor‘s car.” It is possible, of course, to take αυτωι autōi as referring to χειρογραπον cheirographon (bond) or even to Christ. [source]
1 Thessalonians 5:3Sudden destruction [αιπνιδιος ολετρος] Ολετρος Olethros old word from ολλυμι ollumi to destroy. See also 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Αιπνιδιος Aiphnidios old adjective akin to απνω aphnō and in N.T. only here and Luke 21:34 where Westcott and Hort spell it επνιδιος ephnidios Cometh upon them (αυτοις επισταται autois epistatai). Unaspirated form instead of the usual επισταται ephistatai (present middle indicative) from επιστημι ephistēmi perhaps due to confusion with επισταμαι epistamai As travail upon a woman with child Earlier form ωδις ōdis for birth-pang used also by Jesus (Mark 13:8; Matthew 24:8). Technical phrase for pregnancy, to the one who has it in belly (cf. Matthew 1:18 of Mary). They shall in no wise escape (ου μη εκπυγωσιν ou mē ekphugōsin). Strong negative like that in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ου μη ou mē (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive. [source]
1 Thessalonians 5:3As travail upon a woman with child [ωσπερ η ωδιν τηι εν γαστρι εχουσηι] Earlier form ωδις ōdis for birth-pang used also by Jesus (Mark 13:8; Matthew 24:8). Technical phrase for pregnancy, to the one who has it in belly (cf. Matthew 1:18 of Mary). They shall in no wise escape (ου μη εκπυγωσιν ou mē ekphugōsin). Strong negative like that in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ου μη ou mē (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive. [source]
1 Thessalonians 5:3to the one who has it in belly [cf. Matthew 1:18 of Mary)] (cf. Matthew 1:18 of Mary). They shall in no wise escape (ου μη εκπυγωσιν ou mē ekphugōsin). Strong negative like that in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ου μη ou mē (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive. [source]
1 Timothy 5:11They will marry [γαμεῖν θέλουσιν] Better, they are bent on marrying, or determined to marry. The strong expression wax wanton makes it probable that θέλειν expresses more than a desire, as Rev. See on Matthew 1:19. Γαμεῖν tomarry, in the active voice, of the wife, as everywhere in N.T. except 1 Corinthians 7:39. [source]
Hebrews 1:9Hath anointed [ἔχρισεν] See on Christ, Matthew 1:1. The ideas of the royal and the festive unction are combined. The thought includes the royal anointing and the fullness of blessing and festivity which attend the enthronement. [source]
Hebrews 6:6Put him to an open shame [παραδειγματίζοντας] N.T.oRarely in lxx. Comp. Numbers 25:4, hang them up. From παρὰ beside δεικνύναι toshow or point out. To put something alongside of a thing by way of commending it to imitation or avoidance. To make an example of; thence to expose to public disgrace. Δεῖγμα exampleonly Judges 1:7. Δειγματίζειν tomake a public show or example, Matthew 1:19; Colossians 2:15. See additional note at the end of this chapter. Additional Note on Hebrews 6:4-6.The passage has created much discussion and much distress, as appearing to teach the impossibility of restoration after a moral and spiritual lapse. It is to be observed: (1) That the case stated is that of persons who once knew, loved, and believed Christian truth, and who experienced the saving, animating, and enlightening energy of the Holy Spirit, and who lapsed into indifference and unbelief. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(2) The questions whether it is possible for those who have once experienced the power of the gospel to fall away and be lost, and whether, supposing a lapse possible, those who fall away can ever be restored by repentance - do not belong here. The possibility of a fall is clearly assumed. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(3) The sin in the case supposed is the relinquishment of the spiritual gifts and powers accompanying faith in Christ, and rejecting Christ himself. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(4) The significance of this sin lies in the mental and spiritual condition which it betrays. It is the recoil of conviction from Christ and the adoption of the contrary conviction. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(5) The writer does not touch the question of the possibility of God's renewing such to repentance. He merely puts his own hypothetical case, and says that, in the nature of such a case, the ordinary considerations and means which are applied to induce men to embrace the gospel no longer appeal to the subjects supposed. He contemplates nothing beyond such agencies, and asserts that these are powerless because the man has brought himself into a condition where they can no longer exert any power. Whether God will ever reclaim by ways of his own is a point which is not even touched. Destruction of the faculty of spiritual discernment is the natural outcome of deliberate and persistent sin, and the instrument of its punishment. Note, “renew unto repentance.” God promises pardon on penitence, but not penitence on sin. See a powerful passage in Coleridge's Moral and Religious Aphorisms, Amer. ed., Vol. I., p. 191.sa180 [source]
Hebrews 6:6It is impossible to renew them again [αδυνατον παλιν ανακαινιζειν] The αδυνατον adunaton (impossible) comes first in Hebrews 6:4 without εστιν estin (is) and there is no “them” in the Greek. There are three other instances of αδυνατον adunaton in Hebrews (Hebrews 6:18; Hebrews 10:4; Hebrews 11:6). The present active infinitive of ανακαινιζω anakainizō (late verb, ανα καινος ana class="normal greek">ανακαινοω kainos here only in the N.T., but αδυνατον anakainoō 2 Corinthians 4:16; Colossians 3:10) with αναστραυρουντας εαυτοις adunaton bluntly denies the possibility of renewal for apostates from Christ (cf. 3:12-4:2). It is a terrible picture and cannot be toned down. The one ray of light comes in Hebrews 6:8-12, not here. Seeing they crucify to themselves afresh (τους παραπεσοντας anastraurountas heautois). Present active participle (accusative plural agreeing with ανασταυροω tous ανα parapesontas) of και παραδειγματιζοντας anastauroō the usual verb for crucify in the old Greek so that παραδειγματιζω ana - here does not mean “again” or “afresh,” but “up,” sursum, not rursum (Vulgate). This is the reason why renewal for such apostates is impossible. They crucify Christ. And put him to an open shame (παραδειγμα kai paradeigmatizontas). Present active participle of δειγματισαι paradeigmatizō late verb from paradeigma (example), to make an example of, and in bad sense to expose to disgrace. Simplex verb deigmatisai in this sense in Matthew 1:19. [source]
James 3:6The course of nature [τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως] A very obscure passage. Τροχός , (only here in New Testament), from τρέχω , to run, applies generally to anything round or circular which runs or rolls, as a wheel or sphere. Hence, often a wheel. Used of the circuit of fortifications and of circles or zones of land or sea. From the radical sense, to run, comes the meaning course, as the course of the sun; and from this a place for running, a race-course. Γενέσεως rendered nature, means origin, beginning, birth, manner of birth, production, and is used by Plato for the creation, or the sum of created things. It also means a race, and a generation or age. In the New Testament it occurs but twice outside of this epistle, viz., at Matthew 1:1, “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ,” where the meaning is origin or birth; the birth-book of Jesus Christ. The other passage is Matthew 1:18, according to the best texts, also meaning birth. In James 1:23, as we have seen, πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως , is the face of his birth. We may then safely translate τροχός by wheel; and as birth is the meaning of γένεσις in every New-Testament passage where it occurs, we may give it the preference here and render the wheel of birth - i.e., the wheel which is set in motion at birth and runs on to the close of life. It is thus a figurative description of human life. So Anacreon:“The chariot-wheel, like life, runs rolling round,”Tertullian says: “The whole revolving wheel of existence bears witness to the resurrection of the dead.” The Rev., which gives nature, puts birth in margin. This revolving wheel is kindled by the tongue, and rolls on in destructive blaze. The image is justified by the fact. The tongue works the chief mischief, kindles the most baleful fires in the course of life. [source]
James 1:23His natural face [γενεσις] “The face of his birth” (origin, lineage, nativity). For this use of εν εσοπτρωι genesis see James 3:6; Matthew 1:1,Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:13.In a mirror (εισ οπτω en esoptrōi). Old word (from κατοπτριζομαι eisoptō) in N.T. only here and 1 Corinthians 13:12. The mirrors of the ancients were not of glass, but of polished metal (of silver or usually of copper and tin). See katoptrizomai in 2 Corinthians 3:18. [source]
James 3:6The world of iniquity [ο κοσμος της αδικιας] A difficult phrase, impossible to understand according to Ropes as it stands. If the comma is put after πυρ pur instead of after αδικιας adikias then the phrase may be the predicate with κατισταται kathistatai (present passive indicative of κατιστημι kathistēmi “is constituted,” or the present middle “presents itself”). Even so, κοσμος kosmos remains a difficulty, whether it means the “ornament” (1 Peter 3:3) or “evil world” (James 1:27) or just “world” in the sense of widespread power for evil. The genitive αδικιας 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 (η σπιλουσα ολον το σωμα hē spilousa holon to sōma). Present active participle of σπιλοω spiloō late Koiné, verb, to stain from σπιλος spilos (spot, also late word, in N.T. only in Ephesians 5:27; 2 Peter 2:13), in N.T. only here and Judges 1:23. Cf. James 1:27 ασπιλον aspilon (unspotted).Setteth on fire Present active participle of πλογιζω phlogizō old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from πλοχ phlox (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See αναπτει anaptei (James 3:5).The wheel of nature (τον τροχον γενεσεως ton trochon geneseōs). Old word for wheel (from τρεχω trechō to run), only here in N.T. “One of the hardest passages in the Bible” (Hort). To what does τροχον trochon refer? For γενεσεως geneseōs see note on James 1:23 apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests “the wheel of birth” (cf. Matthew 1:1,Matthew 1:18). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or κυκλος kuklos cycle, in place of τροχος 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 Present passive participle of πλογιζω phlogizō giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with γεεννα gehenna see Matthew 5:22. [source]
James 3:6Setteth on fire [πλογιζουσα] Present active participle of πλογιζω phlogizō old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from πλοχ phlox (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See αναπτει anaptei (James 3:5).The wheel of nature (τον τροχον γενεσεως ton trochon geneseōs). Old word for wheel (from τρεχω trechō to run), only here in N.T. “One of the hardest passages in the Bible” (Hort). To what does τροχον trochon refer? For γενεσεως geneseōs see note on James 1:23 apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests “the wheel of birth” (cf. Matthew 1:1,Matthew 1:18). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or κυκλος kuklos cycle, in place of τροχος 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 Present passive participle of πλογιζω phlogizō giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with γεεννα gehenna see Matthew 5:22. [source]
James 3:6The wheel of nature [τον τροχον γενεσεως] Old word for wheel (from τρεχω trechō to run), only here in N.T. “One of the hardest passages in the Bible” (Hort). To what does τροχον trochon refer? For γενεσεως geneseōs see note on James 1:23 apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests “the wheel of birth” (cf. Matthew 1:1,Matthew 1:18). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or κυκλος kuklos cycle, in place of τροχος 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. [source]
1 John 2:20An unction [χρίσμα] The word means that with which the anointing is performed - the unguent or ointment. In the New Testament only here and 1 John 2:27. Rev., an anointing. The root of this word and of Χριστός , Christ, is the same. See on Matthew 1:1. The anointing is from the Anointed. [source]
Greek Commentary for Matthew 1:1
There is no article in the Greek, but the following genitives make it definite. It is our word Bible that is here used, the Book as Sir Walter Scott called it as he lay dying. The usual word for book is a diminutive form (βιβλιον biblion), a little book or roll such as we have in Luke 4:17, “The roll of the prophet Isaiah.” The pieces of papyrus (παπυρος papuros), our paper, were pasted together to make a roll of varying lengths according to one‘s needs. Matthew, of course, is not applying the word book to the Old Testament, probably not to his own book, but to “the genealogical table of Jesus Christ” (βιβλος γενεσεως Ιησου Χριστου biblos geneseōs Iēsou Christou), “the birth roll of Jesus Christ” Moffatt translates it. We have no means of knowing where the writer obtained the data for this genealogy. It differs radically from that in Luke 3:23-38. One can only give his own theory of the difference. Apparently in Matthew we have the actual genealogy of Joseph which would be the legal pedigree of Jesus according to Jewish custom. In Luke we apparently have the actual genealogy of Mary which would be the real line of Jesus which Luke naturally gives as he is writing for the Gentiles. [source]
. Both words are used. The first is the name It was used often in the Septuagint as an adjective like “the anointed priest” (1 Kings 2:10) and then as a substantive to translate the Hebrew word “Messiah” So Andrew said to Simon: “We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, Christ” (John 1:41). In the Gospels it is sometimes “the Anointed One,” “the Messiah,” but finally just a proper name as here, Jesus Christ. Paul in his later Epistles usually has it “Christ Jesus.”The Son of David, the son of Abraham (υιου Δαυειδ υιου Αβρααμ huiou Daueid huiou Abraam). Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. So Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son (βην bēn) for the quality or character, but here the idea is descent. Christians are called sons of God because Christ has bestowed this dignity upon us (Romans 8:14; Romans 9:26; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 4:5-7). Matthew 1:1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (Matthew 1:2-6), David to Babylon Removal (Matthew 1:6-11), Jechoniah to Jesus (Matthew 1:12-16). The removal to Babylon (μετοικεσιας αβυλωνος metoikesias Babulōnos) occurs at the end of Matthew 1:11, the beginning of Matthew 1:12, and twice in the resume in Matthew 1:17. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then Matthew 1:17 makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list. [source]
Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. So Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son Matthew 1:1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (Matthew 1:2-6), David to Babylon Removal (Matthew 1:6-11), Jechoniah to Jesus (Matthew 1:12-16). The removal to Babylon (μετοικεσιας αβυλωνος metoikesias Babulōnos) occurs at the end of Matthew 1:11, the beginning of Matthew 1:12, and twice in the resume in Matthew 1:17. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then Matthew 1:17 makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list. [source]
The word τέκνον (child ) is often used interchangeably with υἱός (son )but is never applied to Christ. (For τέκνον , see on 1 John 3:1.) While in τέκνον there is commonly implied the passive or dependent relation of the children to the parents, υἱός fixes the thought on the person himself rather than on the dependence upon his parents. It suggests individuality rather than descent; or, if descent, mainly to bring out the fact that the son was worthy of his parent. Hence the word marks the filial relation as carrying with it privilege, dignity, and freedom, and is, therefore, the only appropriate term to express Christ's sonship. (See John 1:18; John 3:16; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:13, Colossians 1:15.) Through Christ the dignity of sons is bestowed on believers, so that the same word is appropriate to Christians, sons of God. (See Romans 8:14; Romans 9:26; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 4:5, Galatians 4:6, Galatians 4:7.) [source]
Properly an adjective, not a noun, and meaning anointed ( Χρίω , to anoint). It is a translation of the Hebrew Messiah, the king and spiritual ruler from David's race, promised under that name in the Old Testament (Psalm 2:2; Daniel 9:25, Daniel 9:26). Hence Andrew says to Simon, “We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, Christ (John 1:41; compare Acts 4:27; Acts 10:38; Acts 19:28). To us “Christ “has become a proper name, and is therefore written without the definite article; but, in the body of the gospel narratives, since the identity of Jesus with the promised Messiah is still in question with the people, the article is habitually used, and the name should therefore be translated “the Christ.” After the resurrection, when the recognition of Jesus as Messiah has become general, we find the word beginning to be used as a proper name, with or without the article. In this passage it omits the article, because it occurs in the heading of the chapter, and expresses the evangelist's own faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Anointing was applied to kings (1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1), to prophets (1 Kings 19:16), and to priests (Exodus 29:29; Exodus 40:15; Leviticus 16:32) at their inauguration. “The Lord's anointed” was a common title of the king (1 Samuel 12:3, 1 Samuel 12:5; 2 Samuel 1:14, 2 Samuel 1:16). Prophets are called “Messiahs,” or anointed ones (1 Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:15). Cyrus is also called “the Lord's Anointed,” because called to the throne to deliver the Jews out of captivity (Isaiah 45:1). Hence the word” Christ” was representative of our Lord, who united in himself the offices of king, prophet, and priest. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- It is interesting to see how anointing attaches to our Lord in other and minor particulars. Anointing was an act of hospitality and a sign of festivity and cheerfulness. Jesus was anointed by the woman when a guest in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and rebuked his host for omitting this mark of respect toward hint (Luke 7:35, Luke 7:46). In the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:8, Hebrews 1:9), the words of the Messianic psalm (Psalm 45:7) are applied to Jesus, “God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”-DIVIDER- Anointing was practised upon the sick (Mark 6:13; Luke 10:34:; James 5:14). Jesus, “the Great Physician,” is described by Isaiah (Isaiah 61:1, Isaiah 61:2; compare Luke 4:18) as anointed by God to bind up the broken-hearted, and to give the mournful the oil of joy for mourning. He himself anointed the eyes of the blind man (John 9:6, John 9:11); and the twelve, in his name, “anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” (Mark 6:13). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Anointing was practised upon the dead. Of her who brake the alabaster upon his head at Bethany, Jesus said, “She hath anointed my body aforehand for the burying” (Mark 14:8; see, also, Luke 23:56). [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Matthew 1:1
Compare on Matthew 1:1. Note the emphatic and definite force of the article in Peter's confession, and also the emphatic position of the pronoun ( οὺ , thou ): “Thou art the anointed, the Son of the God, the living.” [source]
Both words are thus emphasized:the David from whom Christ, if he were the Messiah, must have descended; the king with whom the Messiah's genealogy entered upon the kingly dignity. In this genealogy, where the generations are divided symmetrically into three sets of fourteen, the evangelist seems to connect the last of each set with a critical epoch in the history of Israel: the first reaching from the origin of the race to the commencement of the monarchy (“David the king ”)the second, from the commencement of the monarchy to the captivity in Babylon; the third and last, from the captivity to the coming of “the Christ.” The same emphatic or demonstrative use of the article occurs with the name of Joseph (Matthew 1:16), marking his peculiar relation to Jesus as the husband of Mary: the Joseph, the husband of Mary. [source]
In the Greek Jesus Christ comes before birth as the important matter after Matthew 1:16. It is not certain whether “Jesus” is here a part of the text as it is absent in the old Syriac and the Old Latin while the Washington Codex has only “Christ.” The Vatican Codex has “Christ Jesus.” But it is plain that the story of the birth of Jesus Christ is to be told briefly as follows, “on this wise” “It is in fact the word Genesis. The evangelist is about to describe, not the genesis of the heaven and the earth, but the genesis of Him who made the heaven and the earth, and who will yet make a new heaven and a new earth” (Morison). [source]
A little βιβλος biblos (see note on Matthew 1:1), a scroll or document (papyrus or parchment). This was some protection to the divorced wife and a restriction on laxity. [source]
. Both words are used. The first is the name It was used often in the Septuagint as an adjective like “the anointed priest” (1 Kings 2:10) and then as a substantive to translate the Hebrew word “Messiah” So Andrew said to Simon: “We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, Christ” (John 1:41). In the Gospels it is sometimes “the Anointed One,” “the Messiah,” but finally just a proper name as here, Jesus Christ. Paul in his later Epistles usually has it “Christ Jesus.”The Son of David, the son of Abraham (υιου Δαυειδ υιου Αβρααμ huiou Daueid huiou Abraam). Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. So Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son (βην bēn) for the quality or character, but here the idea is descent. Christians are called sons of God because Christ has bestowed this dignity upon us (Romans 8:14; Romans 9:26; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 4:5-7). Matthew 1:1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (Matthew 1:2-6), David to Babylon Removal (Matthew 1:6-11), Jechoniah to Jesus (Matthew 1:12-16). The removal to Babylon (μετοικεσιας αβυλωνος metoikesias Babulōnos) occurs at the end of Matthew 1:11, the beginning of Matthew 1:12, and twice in the resume in Matthew 1:17. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then Matthew 1:17 makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list. [source]
Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. So Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son Matthew 1:1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (Matthew 1:2-6), David to Babylon Removal (Matthew 1:6-11), Jechoniah to Jesus (Matthew 1:12-16). The removal to Babylon (μετοικεσιας αβυλωνος metoikesias Babulōnos) occurs at the end of Matthew 1:11, the beginning of Matthew 1:12, and twice in the resume in Matthew 1:17. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then Matthew 1:17 makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list. [source]
This word comes, like some of the early chapters of Genesis, with regularity through Matthew 1:16, until the birth of Jesus is reached when there is a sudden change. The word itself does not always mean immediate parentage, but merely direct descent. In Matthew 1:16 we have “Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ” The article occurs here each time with the object of “begat,” but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (Matthew 1:6) and Joseph the husband of Mary (Matthew 1:16) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (Matthew 1:2) and of both Phares and Zara (Matthew 1:3) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give Matthew 1:16 as above save the Ferrar Group of minuscules which are supported by the Sinaitic Syriac Version. Because of this fact Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates, deliberately prints his text “Jacob begat Jesus ” But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:18-25. Hence it is clear that “begat” here in Matthew 1:16 must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in Matthew 1:18-25. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of Studies in the Text of the New Testament. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in Matthew 1:16. The spelling of these Hebrew names in English is usually according to the Hebrew form, not the Greek. In the Greek itself the Hebrew spelling is often observed in violation of the Greek rules for the ending of words with no consonants save n, r, s. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails. [source]
The fact of the birth of Jesus is stated by the genitive absolute construction (first aorist passive participle of the same verb γενναω gennaō used twice already of the birth of Jesus, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:20, and used in the genealogy, Matthew 1:2-16). Matthew does not propose to give biographic details of the supernatural birth of Jesus, wonderful as it was and disbelieved as it is by some today who actually deny that Jesus was born at all or ever lived, men who talk of the Jesus Myth, the Christ Myth, etc. “The main purpose is to show the reception given by the world to the new-born Messianic King. Homage from afar, hostility at home; foreshadowing the fortunes of the new faith: reception by the Gentiles, rejection by the Jews” (Bruce). [source]
Matthew proceeds to explain his statement in Matthew 1:16 which implied that Joseph, though the legal father of Jesus in the royal line, was not the actual father of Mary‘s Son. Betrothal with the Jews was a serious matter, not lightly entered into and not lightly broken. The man who betrothed a maiden was legally husband (Genesis 29:21; Deuteronomy 22:23.) and “an informal cancelling of betrothal was impossible” (McNeile). Though they did not live together as husband and wife till actual marriage, breach of faithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punished with death. The New Testament in Braid Scots actually has “mairry‘t till Joseph” for “betrothed to Joseph.” Matthew uses the genitive absolute construction here, a very common Greek idiom.Of the Holy Ghost (ek pneumatos hagiou). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She “was found with child” (heurethē en gastri echousa). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philemon 2:5-11; and involved in Colossians 1:15-19) and by John (John 1:14; John 17:5). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though John 1:14 seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world‘s Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God‘s will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. John 3:16 is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us. [source]
Rev., would. See on Matthew 1:19. It is more than is wishful. [source]
See on Matthew 1:1. Referring to the confession before the high-priest (Mark 14:62). [source]
See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
Not the future tense of the verb come, but the present of the verb to will: wills to come. See on Matthew 1:19; and Mark 8:34. Rev., properly, would come. [source]
Each evangelist gives Peter's confession differently. Matthew, The Christ, the Son of the living God. Mark, The Christ. See on Matthew 16:15. On Christ, see on Matthew 1:1. [source]
See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
See on Christ, Matthew 1:1. [source]
Note the article, the Christ, and see on Matthew 1:1. [source]
Not merely betrothed. See Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25; also see on Matthew 1:18. [source]
Lit., child. See on Matthew 1:1. [source]
See on Matthew 1:1. [source]
Rev., desiring. See on Matthew 1:19. I think this is stronger than desiring; rather, determined. [source]
This combination occurs nowhere else in the N.T. and it is not clear what it really means. Luke is very fond of Χριστος Κυριος Kurios (Lord) where the other Gospels have Jesus. It may mean “Christ the Lord,” “Anointed Lord,” “Messiah, Lord,” “The Messiah, the Lord,” “An Anointed One, a Lord,” or “Lord Messiah.” It occurs once in the lxx (Lamentations 4:20) and is in Ps. of Sol. 17:36. Ragg suggests that our phrase “the Lord Jesus Christ” is really involved in “A Saviour (Jesus) which is Christ the Lord.” See note on Matthew 1:1 for Christ and note on Matthew 21:3 for Lord. [source]
Classic Greek idiom after a negative to have subjunctive as here (only example in the N.T.) or the optative after past tense as in Acts 25:16 (subjunctive changed to optative in indirect discourse). Elsewhere in the N.T. the infinitive follows πριν prin as in Matthew 1:18. [source]
Here Matthew 1:17 has “and ye did not mourn (or beat your breast, ουκ εκοπσαστε ouk ekopsasthe). They all did it at funerals. These children would not play wedding or funeral. [source]
This great word is common in Luke and Paul and seldom elsewhere in the N.T. (Bruce). The people under Rome‘s rule came to call the emperor “Saviour” and Christians took the word and used it of Christ. See inscriptions (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 344).Christ the Lord (σωτηρ Christos Kurios). This combination occurs nowhere else in the N.T. and it is not clear what it really means. Luke is very fond of Χριστος Κυριος Kurios (Lord) where the other Gospels have Jesus. It may mean “Christ the Lord,” “Anointed Lord,” “Messiah, Lord,” “The Messiah, the Lord,” “An Anointed One, a Lord,” or “Lord Messiah.” It occurs once in the lxx (Lamentations 4:20) and is in Ps. of Sol. 17:36. Ragg suggests that our phrase “the Lord Jesus Christ” is really involved in “A Saviour (Jesus) which is Christ the Lord.” See note on Matthew 1:1 for Christ and note on Matthew 21:3 for Lord. [source]
The words “to teach” are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version “began to be about thirty years of age,” is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies “to teach” Tyndale has it right “Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne.” Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God‘s prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more.Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus, see notes on Matthew 1:1-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to “Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). Matthew employs the word “begot” each time, while Luke has the article του tou repeating υιου huiou (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that “Jacob begat Joseph” while Luke calls “Joseph the son of Heli.” There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase “as was supposed” His own narrative in Luke 1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, υιος huios must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses “begat” for descent, so does Luke employ “son” in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:18-25 that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds “the Son of God” after Adam (Luke 3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception. [source]
For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus, see notes on Matthew 1:1-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to “Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). Matthew employs the word “begot” each time, while Luke has the article του tou repeating υιου huiou (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that “Jacob begat Joseph” while Luke calls “Joseph the son of Heli.” There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase “as was supposed” His own narrative in Luke 1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, υιος huios must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses “begat” for descent, so does Luke employ “son” in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:18-25 that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds “the Son of God” after Adam (Luke 3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception. [source]
Literally, the dispersion of the Greeks. The Jews who remained in foreign lands after the return from the Captivity were called by two names: 1. The Captivity, which was expressed in Greek by three words, viz., ἀποικία , a settlement far from home, which does not occur in the New Testament; μετοικεσία , change of abode, which is found in Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:17, and always of the carrying into Babylon; αἰχμαλωσία , a taking at the point of the spear; Ephesians 4:8; Revelation 13:10. 2. The Dispersion ( διασπορά ). See on 1 Peter 1:1; see on James 1:1. The first name marks their relation to their own land; the second to the strange lands. [source]
Not merely, do you wish, but are you in earnest? See on Matthew 1:19. Jesus appeals to the energy of his will. Not improbably he had fallen into apathy through his long sickness. Compare Acts 3:4; John 7:17. [source]
Indicating stubborn determination. See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
On the verb θέλω , to will or determine, see on Matthew 1:19. Listeth is old English for pleasure or willeth, from the Anglo-Saxon lust, meaning pleasure. Chaucer has the forms leste, lust, and list.“Strong was the wyn, and wel to drynke us leste (pleased ).”“Canterbury Tales,” 752.“Love if thee lust.”“Canterbury Tales,” 1185.“She walketh up and down wher as hire list (wherever she pleases ).”“Canterbury Tales,” 1054.“A wretch by fear, not force, like Hannibal, Drives back our troops, and conquers as she lists.”-DIVIDER- Shakespeare, “Henry VI.,” Pt. I., i., v., 22. Hence listless is devoid of desire. The statement of Jesus is not meant to be scientifically precise, but is rather thrown into a poetic mold, akin to the familiar expression “free as the wind.” Compare 1 Corinthians 12:11; and for the more prosaic description of the course of the wind, see Ecclesiastes 1:6. [source]
See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
Rev., better, was minded to go. On the construction see on Matthew 20:14. On the verb to be minded, see on Matthew 1:19. [source]
See on Matthew 1:1. [source]
According to the proper reading, ἐγὼ , I, stands first in the Baptist's statement, the ὅτι having the force merely of quotation marks. It is emphatic: “I am not the Christ, though the Christ is here.” Some were questioning whether John was the Christ (Luke 3:15; Acts 13:25). Note the frequent occurrence of the emphatic I: John 1:23, John 1:26, John 1:27, John 1:30, John 1:31, John 1:33, John 1:34. On the Christ, see on Matthew 1:1. [source]
Three words are used in the New Testament for man: ἄῤῥην , or ἄρσην , ἀνήρ , and ἄνθρωπος . Ἄρσην marks merely the sexual distinction, male (Romans 1:27; Revelation 12:5, Revelation 12:13). Ἁνήρ denotes the man as distinguished from the woman, as male or as a husband (Acts 8:12; Matthew 1:16), or from a boy (Matthew 14:21). Also man as endowed with courage, intelligence, strength, and other noble attributes (1 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 4:13; James 3:2). Ἄνθρωπος is generic, without distinction of sex, a human being (John 16:21), though often used in connections which indicate or imply sex, as Matthew 19:10; Matthew 10:35. Used of mankind (Matthew 4:4), or of the people (Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:16; Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:18; John 6:10). Of man as distinguished from animals or plants (Matthew 4:19; 2 Peter 2:16), and from God, Christ as divine and angels (Matthew 10:32; John 10:33; Luke 2:15). With the notion of weakness leading to sin, and with a contemptuous sense (1 Corinthians 2:5; 1 Peter 4:2; John 5:12; Romans 9:20). The more honorable and noble sense thus attaches to ἀνήρ rather than to ἄνθρωπος . Thus Herodotus says that when the Medes charged the Greeks, they fell in vast numbers, so that it was manifest to Xerxes that he had many men combatants ( ἄνθρωποι ) but few warriors ( ἄνθρωποι ) vii., 210. So Homer: “O friends, be men ( ἀνέρες ), and take on a stout heart” (“Iliad,” v., 529). Ἁνήρ is therefore used here of Jesus by the Baptist with a sense of dignity. Compare ἄνθρωπος , in John 1:6, where the word implies no disparagement, but is simply indefinite. In John ἀνήρ has mostly the sense of husband (John 4:16-18). See John 6:10. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- [source]
See John 1:3 for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than ην ēn of John 1:1. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive σαρχ 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 Matthew 1:16-25; 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 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 4:4; Romans 1:3; Romans 8:3; Philemon 2:7.; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 2:14. “To explain the exact significance of εγενετο 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 First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of σκηνοω skēnoō old verb, to pitch one‘s tent or tabernacle First aorist middle indicative of τεαομαι theaomai (from τεα thea spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory John employs τεαομαι theaomai again in John 1:32 (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and John 1:38 of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. So also John 4:35; John 11:45; 1 John 1:1.; 1 John 4:12, 1 John 4:14. 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 Strictly, “as of an only born from a father,” since there is no article with μονογενους monogenous or with πατρος patros In John 3:16; 1 John 4:9 we have τον μονογενη ton monogenē referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of πατηρ patēr of God in relation to the Logos. Μονογενης Monogenēs (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in John 1:18) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children 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. John 8:54; John 14:9; John 17:5. Full Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with δοχαν doxan (or genitive with μονογενους monogenous) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, Grammar, p. 275). As nominative πληρης plērēs can agree with the subject of εσκηνωσεν eskēnōsen Of grace and truth Curiously this great word χαρις charis (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John‘s Gospel save in John 1:14, John 1:16, John 1:17, though αλητεια alētheia (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 John 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. [source]
“This one finds (vivid dramatic present) first” Προτων Protōn (adverb supported by Aleph A B fam. 13) means that Andrew sought “his own brother Simon” Bernard thinks that this is the true reading as it allows more time for Andrew to bring Simon to Jesus. Probably πρωτον prōton is correct, but even so John likely brought also his brother James after Andrew‘s example. We have found the Messiah First aorist active indicative of ευρισκω heuriskō Andrew and John had made the greatest discovery of the ages, far beyond gold or diamond mines. The Baptist had told about him. “We have seen him.” Which is Same explanatory neuter relative as in John 1:38, “which word is.” This Aramaic title Messiah is preserved in the N.T. only here and John 4:25, elsewhere translated into Χριστος Christos Anointed One, from χριω chriō to anoint. See note on Matthew 1:1 for discussion. [source]
Note the article, “the Christ,” and see on Matthew 1:1. [source]
See on Christ, Matthew 1:1. [source]
Better, as Rev., tookcounsel. See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
Rather, if or whether the Messiah is liable to suffering. He expresses himself in a problematic form, because it was the point of debate among the Jews whether a suffering Messiah was to be believed in. They believed in a triumphant Messiah, and the doctrine of his sufferings was an obstacle to their receiving him as Messiah. Note the article, “the Christ,” and see on Matthew 1:1. [source]
See on Christ, Matthew 1:1. [source]
In a decretory sense. See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
See on Matthew 1:19. Rather desire than will in the sense of full determination, as is shown by I consent (Romans 7:16), and I delight in (Romans 7:22). [source]
Rev., more correctly, therein is revealed a righteousness of God. The absence of the article denotes that a peculiar kind of righteousness is meant. This statement contains the subject of the epistle: Righteousness is by faith. The subject is not stated formally nor independently, but as a proof that the Gospel is a power, etc. This word δικαιοσύνη righteousnessand its kindred words δίκαιος righteousand δικαιόω tomake righteous, play so important a part in this epistle that it is desirable to fix their meaning as accurately as possible. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Classical Usage. In the Greek classics there appears an eternal, divine, unwritten principle of right, dwelling in the human consciousness, shaping both the physical and the moral ordering of the world, and personified as Themis ( Θέμις ). This word is used as a common noun in the phrase θέμις ἐστὶ itis right (fundamentally and eternally), like the Latin fas est. Thus Homer, of Penelope mourning for Ulysses, θέμις ἐστὶ γυναικός itis the sacred obligation of the wife (founded in her natural relation to her husband, ordained of heaven) to mourn (“Odyssey,” 14,130). So Antigone appeals to the unwritten law against the barbarity of refusing burial to her brother.“Nor did I deem thy edicts strong enough,That thou, a mortal man, shouldst overpass The unwritten laws of God that know not change.”Sophocles, “Antigone,” 453-455.See, also, “Odyssey,” 14,91; Aristophanes, “Clouds,” 140; “Antigone,” 880. This divine ordering requires that men should be shown or pointed to that which is according to it - a definite circle of duties and obligations which constitute right ( δίκη ). Thus what is δίκαιος righteousis properly the expression of the eternal Themis. While δίκη and θέμις are not to be distinguished as human and divine, δίκη has a more distinctively human, personal character, and comes into sharper definition. It introduces the distinction between absolute right and power. It imposes the recognition of a moral principle over against an absolutely constraining natural force. The conception of δίκη is strongly moral. Δίκαιος is right; δικαιοσύνη is rightness as characterizing the entire being of man. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- There is a religious background to the pagan conception. In the Homeric poems morality stands in a relation, loose and undeveloped indeed, but none the less real, to religion. This appears in the use of the oath in compacts; in the fear of the wrath of heaven for omission of sacrifices; in regarding refusal of hospitality as an offense against Zeus, the patron of strangers and suppliants. Certain tribes which are fierce and uncivilized are nevertheless described as δίκαιοι righteous“The characteristic stand-point of the Homeric ethics is that the spheres of law, of morals, and of religion are by no means separate, but lie side by side in undeveloped unity.” (Nagelsbach). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In later Greek literature this conception advances, in some instances, far toward the christian ideal; as in the fourth book of Plato's “Laws,” where he asserts that God holds in His hand the beginning, middle, and end of all things; that justice always follows Him, and punishes those who fall short of His laws. Those who would be dear to God must be like Him. Without holiness no man is accepted of God. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Nevertheless, however clearly the religious background and sanction of morality may be recognized, it is apparent that the basis of right is found, very largely, in established social usage. The word ethics points first to what is established by custom. While with Mr. Grote we must admit the peculiar emphasis on the individual in the Homeric poems, we cannot help observing a certain influence of social sentiment on morals. While there are cases like the suitors, Paris and Helen, where public opinion imposes no moral check, there are others where the force of public opinion is clearly visible, such as Penelope and Nausicaa. The Homeric view of homicide reveals no relation between moral sentiment and divine enactment. Murder is a breach of social law, a private and civil wrong, entailing no loss of character. Its penalty is a satisfaction to the feelings of friends, or a compensation for lost services. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Later, we find this social aspect of morality even more strongly emphasized. “The city becomes the central and paramount source of obligation. The great, impersonal authority called 'the Laws' stands out separately, both as guide and sanction, distinct from religious duty or private sympathy” (Grote). Socrates is charged with impiety because he does not believe in the gods of the state, and Socrates himself agrees that that man does right who obeys what the citizens have agreed should be done, and who refrains from what they forbid. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The social basis of righteousness also appears in the frequent contrast between δίκη and βία , right and force. A violation of right is that which forces its way over the social sanction. The social conception of δίκαιος is not lost, even when the idea is so apprehended as to border on the christian love of one's neighbor. There is a wrong toward the gods, but every wrong is not in itself such. The inner, personal relation to deity, the absolute and constraining appeal of divine character and law to conscience, the view of duty as one's right, and of personal right as something to be surrendered to the paramount claim of love - all these elements which distinguish the christian conception of righteousness - are thus in sharp contrast with a righteousness dictated by social claims which limit the individual desire or preference, but which leave untouched the tenacity of personal right, and place obligation behind legitimacy. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- It is desirable that the classical usage of these terms should be understood, in order to throw into sharper relief the Biblical usage, according to which God is the absolute and final standard of right, and every wrong is a sin against God (Psalm 51:4). Each man stands in direct and primary relation to the holy God as He is by the law of His own nature. Righteousness is union with God in character. To the Greek mind of the legendary age such a conception is both strange and essentially impossible, since the Greek divinity is only the Greek man exaggerated in his virtues and vices alike. According to the christian ideal, righteousness is character, and the norm of character is likeness to God. This idea includes all the social aspects of right. Love and duty toward God involve love and duty to the neighbor. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Here must be noted a peculiar usage of δίκαιος righteousand δικαιοσύνη righteousnessin the Septuagint. They are at times interchanged with ἐλεημοσύνη mercyand ἔλεος kindnessThe Hebrew chesed kindness, though usually rendered by ἔλεος , is nine times translated by δικαιοσύνη righteousnessand once by δίκαιος righteousThe Hebrew tsedakah usually rendered by δικαιοσύνη , is nine times translated by ἐλεημοσύνη mercyand three times by ἔλεος kindnessCompare the Heb. and Sept. at Deuteronomy 6:25; Deuteronomy 24:13(15); Genesis 19:19; Genesis 24:27. This usage throws light on the reading δικαιοσύνην , Rev., righteousness (kindness? ), instead of ἐλεημοσύνην mercyA.V., alms, Matthew 6:1. Mr. Hatch (“Essays in Biblical Greek”) says that the meaning kindness is so clear in this passage that scribes, who were unaware of its existence, altered the text. He also thinks that this meaning gives a better sense than any other to Matthew 1:19“Joseph, being a kindly ( δίκαιος , A.V., just ) man.”-DIVIDER- 1. In the New Testament δίκαιος is used both of God and of Christ. Of God, 1 John 1:9; John 17:25; Revelation 16:5; Romans 3:26. Of Christ, 1 John 2:1; 1 John 3:7; Acts 3:14; Acts 7:52; Acts 22:14. In these passages the word characterizes God and Christ either in their essential quality or in their action; either as righteous according to the eternal norm of divine holiness (John 17:25; 1 John 3:7; Romans 3:26), or as holiness passes into righteous dealing with men (1 John 1:9). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- 2. Δίκαιος is used of men, denoting their normal relation to the will and judgment of God. Hence it means virtuous, upright, pure in life, correct in thinking and feeling. It stands opposed to ἀνομία lawlessness ἁμαρτία sin ἀκαθαρσία impuritya contrast wanting in classical usage, where the conception of sin is vague. See Romans 6:13, Romans 6:16, Romans 6:18, Romans 6:20; Romans 8:10; 2 Corinthians 6:7, 2 Corinthians 6:14; Ephesians 5:9; Ephesians 6:14; Philemon 1:11; James 3:18. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Where δικαιοσύνη righteousnessis joined with ὁσιότης holiness(Luke 1:75; Ephesians 4:24), it denotes right conduct toward men, as holiness denotes piety toward God. It appears in the wider sense of answering to the demands of God in general, Matthew 13:17; Matthew 10:41; Matthew 23:29; Acts 10:22, Acts 10:35; and in the narrower sense of perfectly answering the divine demands, guiltless. So of Christ, Acts 3:14; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:1. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- 3. It is found in the classical sense of it is right, Philemon 1:7, or that which is right, Colossians 4:1. This, however, is included within the Christian conception. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Δικαιοσύνη righteousnessis therefore that which fulfills the claims of δίκη right“It is the state commanded by God and standing the test of His judgment; the character and acts of a man approved of Him, in virtue of which the man corresponds with Him and His will as His ideal and standard” (Cremer). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The medium of this righteousness is faith. Faith is said to be counted or reckoned for righteousness; i.e., righteousness is ascribed to it or recognized in it. Romans 4:3, Romans 4:6, Romans 4:9, Romans 4:22; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In this verse the righteousness revealed in the Gospel is described as a righteousness of God. This does not mean righteousness as an attribute of God, as in Romans 3:5; but righteousness as bestowed on man by God. The state of the justified man is due to God. The righteousness which becomes his is that which God declares to be righteousness and ascribes to him. Righteousness thus expresses the relation of being right into which God puts the man who believes. See further, on justified, Romans 2:13.Is revealed ( ἀποκαλύπτεται )Emphasizing the peculiar sense in which “righteousness” is used here. Righteousness as an attribute of God was revealed before the Gospel. Righteousness in this sense is a matter of special revelation through the Gospel. The present tense describes the Gospel in its continuous proclamation: is being revealed.From faith to faith ( ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν )Rev., by faith unto faith. According to the A.V. the idea is that of progress in faith itself; either from Old to New Testament faith, or, in the individual, from a lower to a higher degree of faith; and this idea, I think, must be held here, although it is true that it is introduced secondarily, since Paul is dealing principally with the truth that righteousness is by faith. We may rightly say that the revealed righteousness of God is unto faith, in the sense of with a view to produce faith; but we may also say that faith is a progressive principle; that the aim of God's justifying righteousness is life, and that the just lives by his faith (Galatians 2:20), and enters into “more abundant” life with the development of his faith. Compare 2 Corinthians 2:16; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Romans 6:19; and the phrase, justification of life, Romans 5:18.sa40 [source]
His real humanity alongside of his real deity. For the descent from David see Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:27; John 7:42; Acts 13:23, etc. [source]
Some of the best expositors render as an assertion. Christ has been divided by your controversies. He is broken up into different party Christs. This gives a perfectly good and forcible sense, and is favored by the absence of the interrogative particle μὴ , which introduces the next clause. Divided: so portioned up that one party may claim Him more than another. Christ has the article. See on Matthew 1:1. [source]
It was more than a mere desire. They were bent on putting themselves again into bondage. See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
Allegorically interpreted, he means. From Mount Sinai (απο ορους Σινα apo orous Sinā). Spoken from Mount Sinai. Bearing Present active participle of γενναω gennaō to beget of the male (Matthew 1:1-16), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke 1:13, Luke 1:57). Which is Hagar (ητις εστιν αγαρ hētis estin Hagar). Allegorically interpreted. [source]
Present active participle of γενναω gennaō to beget of the male (Matthew 1:1-16), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke 1:13, Luke 1:57). Which is Hagar (ητις εστιν αγαρ hētis estin Hagar). Allegorically interpreted. [source]
In apposition with we (should be). So Rev., we who had, etc., trusted, more properly hoped; and first trusted is ambiguous. We refers to Jewish Christians, and the verb describes their messianic hope before ( πρό ) the advent of Christ. Hence Rev., correctly, we who had (have) before hoped. In Christ should be “in the Christ,” as the subject of messianic expectation and not as Jesus, for whom Christ had passed into a proper name. It is equivalent to in the Messiah. See on Matthew 1:1. [source]
Only here and Matthew 1:19, see note. The compound παραδειγματίζω toexpose to public infamy, is found Hebrews 6:6; and δεῖγμα examplein Judges 1:7. The word is unknown to classical Greek. The meaning here is to make a display of, exhibit. He showed them as subordinate and subject to Christ. Compare especially Hebrews 1:1-14throughout, where many points of contact with the first two chapters of this epistle will be found. [source]
First aorist active indicative of δειγματιζω deigmatizō late and rare verb from δειγμα deigma (Judges 1:7), an example, and so to make an example of. Frequent in the papyri though later than παραδειγματιζω paradeigmatizō and in N.T. only here and Matthew 1:19 of Joseph‘s conduct toward Mary. No idea of disgrace is necessarily involved in the word. The publicity is made plain by “openly” Triumphing over them on it (τριαμβευσας αυτους εν αυτωι thriambeusas autous en autōi). On the Cross the triumph was won. This late, though common verb in Koiné{[28928]}š writers (εκτριαμβευω ekthriambeuō in the papyri) occurs only twice in the N.T., once “to lead in triumph” (2 Corinthians 2:14), here to celebrate a triumph (the usual sense). It is derived from τριαμβος thriambos a hymn sung in festal procession and is kin to the Latin triumphus (our triumph), a triumphal procession of victorious Roman generals. God won a complete triumph over all the angelic agencies (αυτους autous masculine regarded as personal agencies). Lightfoot adds, applying τριαμβευσας thriambeusas to Christ: “The convict‘s gibbet is the victor‘s car.” It is possible, of course, to take αυτωι autōi as referring to χειρογραπον cheirographon (bond) or even to Christ. [source]
Implying more than a mere inclination or desire. It was our will to come. See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
Ολετρος Olethros old word from ολλυμι ollumi to destroy. See also 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Αιπνιδιος Aiphnidios old adjective akin to απνω aphnō and in N.T. only here and Luke 21:34 where Westcott and Hort spell it επνιδιος ephnidios Cometh upon them (αυτοις επισταται autois epistatai). Unaspirated form instead of the usual επισταται ephistatai (present middle indicative) from επιστημι ephistēmi perhaps due to confusion with επισταμαι epistamai As travail upon a woman with child Earlier form ωδις ōdis for birth-pang used also by Jesus (Mark 13:8; Matthew 24:8). Technical phrase for pregnancy, to the one who has it in belly (cf. Matthew 1:18 of Mary). They shall in no wise escape (ου μη εκπυγωσιν ou mē ekphugōsin). Strong negative like that in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ου μη ou mē (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive. [source]
Earlier form ωδις ōdis for birth-pang used also by Jesus (Mark 13:8; Matthew 24:8). Technical phrase for pregnancy, to the one who has it in belly (cf. Matthew 1:18 of Mary). They shall in no wise escape (ου μη εκπυγωσιν ou mē ekphugōsin). Strong negative like that in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ου μη ou mē (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive. [source]
(cf. Matthew 1:18 of Mary). They shall in no wise escape (ου μη εκπυγωσιν ou mē ekphugōsin). Strong negative like that in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ου μη ou mē (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive. [source]
Better, they are bent on marrying, or determined to marry. The strong expression wax wanton makes it probable that θέλειν expresses more than a desire, as Rev. See on Matthew 1:19. Γαμεῖν tomarry, in the active voice, of the wife, as everywhere in N.T. except 1 Corinthians 7:39. [source]
Better, I desire. See on Matthew 1:19, and comp. Philemon 1:12. Paul's word is θέλω Iwill. See Romans 16:19; 1 Corinthians 7:32; 1 Corinthians 10:20; 1 Corinthians 14:5, 1 Corinthians 14:19, etc. [source]
Rend. being minded. See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
See on Christ, Matthew 1:1. The ideas of the royal and the festive unction are combined. The thought includes the royal anointing and the fullness of blessing and festivity which attend the enthronement. [source]
N.T.oRarely in lxx. Comp. Numbers 25:4, hang them up. From παρὰ beside δεικνύναι toshow or point out. To put something alongside of a thing by way of commending it to imitation or avoidance. To make an example of; thence to expose to public disgrace. Δεῖγμα exampleonly Judges 1:7. Δειγματίζειν tomake a public show or example, Matthew 1:19; Colossians 2:15. See additional note at the end of this chapter. Additional Note on Hebrews 6:4-6.The passage has created much discussion and much distress, as appearing to teach the impossibility of restoration after a moral and spiritual lapse. It is to be observed: (1) That the case stated is that of persons who once knew, loved, and believed Christian truth, and who experienced the saving, animating, and enlightening energy of the Holy Spirit, and who lapsed into indifference and unbelief. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (2) The questions whether it is possible for those who have once experienced the power of the gospel to fall away and be lost, and whether, supposing a lapse possible, those who fall away can ever be restored by repentance - do not belong here. The possibility of a fall is clearly assumed. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (3) The sin in the case supposed is the relinquishment of the spiritual gifts and powers accompanying faith in Christ, and rejecting Christ himself. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (4) The significance of this sin lies in the mental and spiritual condition which it betrays. It is the recoil of conviction from Christ and the adoption of the contrary conviction. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (5) The writer does not touch the question of the possibility of God's renewing such to repentance. He merely puts his own hypothetical case, and says that, in the nature of such a case, the ordinary considerations and means which are applied to induce men to embrace the gospel no longer appeal to the subjects supposed. He contemplates nothing beyond such agencies, and asserts that these are powerless because the man has brought himself into a condition where they can no longer exert any power. Whether God will ever reclaim by ways of his own is a point which is not even touched. Destruction of the faculty of spiritual discernment is the natural outcome of deliberate and persistent sin, and the instrument of its punishment. Note, “renew unto repentance.” God promises pardon on penitence, but not penitence on sin. See a powerful passage in Coleridge's Moral and Religious Aphorisms, Amer. ed., Vol. I., p. 191.sa180 [source]
The αδυνατον adunaton (impossible) comes first in Hebrews 6:4 without εστιν estin (is) and there is no “them” in the Greek. There are three other instances of αδυνατον adunaton in Hebrews (Hebrews 6:18; Hebrews 10:4; Hebrews 11:6). The present active infinitive of ανακαινιζω anakainizō (late verb, ανα καινος ana class="normal greek">ανακαινοω kainos here only in the N.T., but αδυνατον anakainoō 2 Corinthians 4:16; Colossians 3:10) with αναστραυρουντας εαυτοις adunaton bluntly denies the possibility of renewal for apostates from Christ (cf. 3:12-4:2). It is a terrible picture and cannot be toned down. The one ray of light comes in Hebrews 6:8-12, not here. Seeing they crucify to themselves afresh (τους παραπεσοντας anastraurountas heautois). Present active participle (accusative plural agreeing with ανασταυροω tous ανα parapesontas) of και παραδειγματιζοντας anastauroō the usual verb for crucify in the old Greek so that παραδειγματιζω ana - here does not mean “again” or “afresh,” but “up,” sursum, not rursum (Vulgate). This is the reason why renewal for such apostates is impossible. They crucify Christ. And put him to an open shame (παραδειγμα kai paradeigmatizontas). Present active participle of δειγματισαι paradeigmatizō late verb from paradeigma (example), to make an example of, and in bad sense to expose to disgrace. Simplex verb deigmatisai in this sense in Matthew 1:19. [source]
A very obscure passage. Τροχός , (only here in New Testament), from τρέχω , to run, applies generally to anything round or circular which runs or rolls, as a wheel or sphere. Hence, often a wheel. Used of the circuit of fortifications and of circles or zones of land or sea. From the radical sense, to run, comes the meaning course, as the course of the sun; and from this a place for running, a race-course. Γενέσεως rendered nature, means origin, beginning, birth, manner of birth, production, and is used by Plato for the creation, or the sum of created things. It also means a race, and a generation or age. In the New Testament it occurs but twice outside of this epistle, viz., at Matthew 1:1, “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ,” where the meaning is origin or birth; the birth-book of Jesus Christ. The other passage is Matthew 1:18, according to the best texts, also meaning birth. In James 1:23, as we have seen, πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως , is the face of his birth. We may then safely translate τροχός by wheel; and as birth is the meaning of γένεσις in every New-Testament passage where it occurs, we may give it the preference here and render the wheel of birth - i.e., the wheel which is set in motion at birth and runs on to the close of life. It is thus a figurative description of human life. So Anacreon:“The chariot-wheel, like life, runs rolling round,”Tertullian says: “The whole revolving wheel of existence bears witness to the resurrection of the dead.” The Rev., which gives nature, puts birth in margin. This revolving wheel is kindled by the tongue, and rolls on in destructive blaze. The image is justified by the fact. The tongue works the chief mischief, kindles the most baleful fires in the course of life. [source]
“The face of his birth” (origin, lineage, nativity). For this use of εν εσοπτρωι genesis see James 3:6; Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:13.In a mirror (εισ οπτω en esoptrōi). Old word (from κατοπτριζομαι eisoptō) in N.T. only here and 1 Corinthians 13:12. The mirrors of the ancients were not of glass, but of polished metal (of silver or usually of copper and tin). See katoptrizomai in 2 Corinthians 3:18. [source]
A difficult phrase, impossible to understand according to Ropes as it stands. If the comma is put after πυρ pur instead of after αδικιας adikias then the phrase may be the predicate with κατισταται kathistatai (present passive indicative of κατιστημι kathistēmi “is constituted,” or the present middle “presents itself”). Even so, κοσμος kosmos remains a difficulty, whether it means the “ornament” (1 Peter 3:3) or “evil world” (James 1:27) or just “world” in the sense of widespread power for evil. The genitive αδικιας 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 (η σπιλουσα ολον το σωμα hē spilousa holon to sōma). Present active participle of σπιλοω spiloō late Koiné, verb, to stain from σπιλος spilos (spot, also late word, in N.T. only in Ephesians 5:27; 2 Peter 2:13), in N.T. only here and Judges 1:23. Cf. James 1:27 ασπιλον aspilon (unspotted).Setteth on fire Present active participle of πλογιζω phlogizō old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from πλοχ phlox (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See αναπτει anaptei (James 3:5).The wheel of nature (τον τροχον γενεσεως ton trochon geneseōs). Old word for wheel (from τρεχω trechō to run), only here in N.T. “One of the hardest passages in the Bible” (Hort). To what does τροχον trochon refer? For γενεσεως geneseōs see note on James 1:23 apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests “the wheel of birth” (cf. Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:18). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or κυκλος kuklos cycle, in place of τροχος 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 Present passive participle of πλογιζω phlogizō giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with γεεννα gehenna see Matthew 5:22. [source]
Present active participle of πλογιζω phlogizō old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from πλοχ phlox (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See αναπτει anaptei (James 3:5).The wheel of nature (τον τροχον γενεσεως ton trochon geneseōs). Old word for wheel (from τρεχω trechō to run), only here in N.T. “One of the hardest passages in the Bible” (Hort). To what does τροχον trochon refer? For γενεσεως geneseōs see note on James 1:23 apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests “the wheel of birth” (cf. Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:18). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or κυκλος kuklos cycle, in place of τροχος 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 Present passive participle of πλογιζω phlogizō giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with γεεννα gehenna see Matthew 5:22. [source]
Old word for wheel (from τρεχω trechō to run), only here in N.T. “One of the hardest passages in the Bible” (Hort). To what does τροχον trochon refer? For γενεσεως geneseōs see note on James 1:23 apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests “the wheel of birth” (cf. Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:18). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or κυκλος kuklos cycle, in place of τροχος 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. [source]
Desire, inclination. See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
See on Matthew 1:1, and see on 1 John 1:7. [source]
The word means that with which the anointing is performed - the unguent or ointment. In the New Testament only here and 1 John 2:27. Rev., an anointing. The root of this word and of Χριστός , Christ, is the same. See on Matthew 1:1. The anointing is from the Anointed. [source]
See on Matthew 1:19. [source]
Perhaps εστιν estin to be supplied or the participle used as a finite verb as in Revelation 10:2. This is the technical idiom for pregnancy as in Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:23, etc. [source]