*WHOEVER
*Our mission is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ absolutely free. We do not want donation. We only want you to know the truth in Christ Jesus.
BY WILLIE WONG
Whoever, according to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary means whatever person; no matter who; of course it includes you.
Gen 9:6. “Whoever sheds human blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made mankind.”
God institutes capital punishment. Those who oppose death penalty oppose God. Some European nations pretend to be humanitarian by abolishing death penalty. When penalty does not fit the crimes, crimes run rampant and criminals flourish and multiply.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
6. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, &c.] In the first clause of this verse the principle is laid down, that murder is to be punished with death. Blood for blood and life for life is to be the penalty (cf. Genesis 9:5). The sanctity of human life is thus protected by Divine sanction. The custom of blood-revenge (cf. Genesis 4:10-15), which has entered so largely into the social conditions of Semitic life, whether civilized or barbarous, is here stated in its simplest terms. The murderer’s life is “required.”
The sentence reads like a line of poetry, Shôphêk dăm hâ-âdâm Bâ-âdâm dâmô yis-shâphêk. LXX seems to have misread bâ-âdâm (= “by man”), rendering ἀντὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ = “for his blood” (? b’ dâmô): while in the Latin it is omitted altogether.
for in the image of God, &c.] This clause contains the foundation-principle for the tremendous sentence just promulgated. Man is different from the animals. God made him expressly “in His own image” (see note on Genesis 1:27). Violence done to human personality constitutes an outrage against the Divine. Man is to discern in his neighbour “the image of God,” and to honour it as the symbol of Divine origin and human brotherhood. As that “image” is not physical (for God is spirit), nor moral (for man is sinful), it must denote man’s higher nature, expressed by his self-consciousness, freedom of will, reason, affection, &c.
The prohibitions of blood eating and of murder form two of the so-called “commandments of Noah” which were held by the Rabbis of the Jewish synagogue to have been Divinely imposed upon mankind before the days of Abraham; and were, therefore, in theory required from Gentiles living among the Israelites and from Gentiles who attached themselves to the Jewish community.”
The “commandments of Noah” are seven—the prohibitions of (1) disobedience, (2) idolatry, (3) blasphemy, (4) adultery, (5) theft, (6) murder, and (7) the eating of blood.”
“Exo 19:12, “But you shall set boundaries for the people all around, saying, ‘Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall certainly be put to death.”
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(12) Thou shalt set bounds.—Here was another formal and mechanical direction, having for its object to deepen and intensify the lesson of God’s unapproachable majesty and holiness. Moses was required to “set bounds to the people,” i.e., to make a substantial fence between the camp and the base of Sinai, which should prevent both animals and men from coming in contact with the mountain. Modern travellers generally observe how abruptly the rocky precipice of Ras Sufsafeh rises from the plain in front of it, so that in many places it is quite possible to stand on the plain and yet touch the mountain. The idea that a line of natural mounds now to be seen near the base of Sinai represents the “bounds” of Moses (Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 43) is unsatisfactory, since the “bounds” of Moses were most certainly artificial ones. It is, however, possible that his “bounds” may have followed the line of the natural barrier.
That ye go not up into the mount.—Unless it had been forbidden, there might have seemed to be no reason why pious Israelites might not have ascended the height, to draw near to God in prayer. It is a praiseworthy feeling which breathes in the words, “Nearer, my God, to thee;” but the nation was not fit for close approach.”
Exo 22:19, “Whoever has sexual intercourse with an animal must be put to death.”
Verse 19. - Law against unnatural crime. The abomination here mentioned is said to have prevailed in Egypt, and even to have formed part of the Egyptian religion (Herod. 2:46; Strab. 17. p. 802; Clem. A1. Cohort. ad Gentes, p. 9; etc.). Though regarded by the Greeks and Romans as disgusting and contemptible, it does not seem to have been made a crime by any of their legislators. It was, however, condemned by the Gentoo laws and by the laws of Menu (11:17). Exodus 22:19.”
Exo 31:14,”Terefore you are to keep the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it must be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.”
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(13) Every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.—This is a new enactment, and must be regarded in conjunction with the new dignity attached to Sabbath observance by its having become the special covenant sign between God and His people. The Sabbath-breaker now threw himself out of covenant with God, and not only so, but did what in him lay to throw the whole people out of covenant. His guilt was therefore great, and the assignment to it of the death-penalty is in no way surprising; rather, it is in accordance with the general spirit of the code (see Exodus 21:16-17; Exodus 21:29; Exodus 22:18-20, &c.). When the occasion arose, there was no hesitation in carrying the law out (Numbers 15:32-35).
Cut off.—Or, separated, set apart from. His act at once cast him out from the number of God’s people, made him an outlaw, ipso facto excommunicated him.”
Exo 32:26, “Moses then stood at the gate of the camp, and said, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me!” And all the sons of Levi gathered together to him.”
The tribe of Levi, Moses' own tribe, now distinguished itself by immediately returning to its allegiance and obeying the call to fight on the side of Yahweh. We need not doubt that the 3,000 who were slain were those who persisted in resisting Moses. The spirit of the narrative forbids us to conceive that the act of the Levites was anything like an indiscriminate massacre. An amnesty had first been offered to all by the words: "Who is on the Lord's side?" Those who were forward to draw the sword were directed not to spare their closest relations or friends; but this must plainly have been with an understood qualification as regards the conduct of those who were to be slain. Had it not been so, they who were on the Lord's side would have had to destroy each other. We need not stumble at the bold, simple way in which the statement is made.”
Exo 32:33, “However, the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will wipe him out of My book.”
Verse 33. - Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Beyond a doubt, it is the general teaching of Scripture that vicarious punishment will not be accepted. "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son - the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20). Man "cannot deliver his brother, or make agreement with God for him; for it cost more to redeem their souls, so that he must let that alone for ever "(Psalm 49:7, 8). One only atonement is accepted - that of him who is at once man and God - who has, himself, no sin - and can therefore lake the punishment of others. Exodus 32:33.”
Exo 35:5, “Take from among you a contribution to the LORD; whoever is of a willing heart is to bring it as the LORD'S contribution: gold, silver, and bronze.”
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
35:4-19 The tabernacle was to be dedicated to the honor of God, and used in his service; and therefore what was brought for it, was an offering to the Lord. The rule is, Whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring. All that were skillful must work. God dispenses his gifts; and as every man hath received, so he must minister, 1Pe 4:10. Those that were rich, must bring in materials to work on; those that were skillful, must serve the tabernacle with their skill: as they needed one another, so the tabernacle needed them both, 1Co 12:7-21.”
Lev 15:19, “When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge
in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual
impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.”
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(19) And if a woman have an issue.—Having legislated for cases in connection with man—as well as for one case in which both the husband and the wife are concerned, the Law now lays down directions for two cases affecting the woman.
And her issue in her flesh be blood.—Better, if her issue, &c. This clause defines the preceding one, stating more minutely what the issue consists of and proceeds from.
She shall be put apart seven days.—Though as a rule the discharge ceases after three or four days, yet, as in the first stage after childbirth, the period of uncleanness is extended to seven days to include exceptional cases. (See Leviticus 12:2.) To fully appreciate the merciful provisions of the laws here enacted, it is necessary to bear in mind not only the gross superstitions which obtained among the ancients about women in this condition, but the cruel treatment to which wives and daughters were subjected, and in some countries both in the Old and New Worlds still are subjected. It was believed that if a woman in this condition sat under a tree, all its fruit fell off; at her approach the edge of a tool became blunted, and copper utensils contracted a fetid smell, and meat got sour, and a thousand other things. Hence the Parsees not only isolated her from the rest of the family, but forbade her speaking to any one, and those who took food to her in her seclusion had to put it at some distance from her. The Zabii purified with fire every place which she trod. Even if the wind which came from the quarter where she was blew upon any one, he became polluted. To this day the in Issing, the Calmucks, and many others, have special houses for them outside each town and village; and at the River La Plata they are sewn into hammocks, with only a small aperture for the mouth, till they are well again. To restrain the Jews from sharing these superstitions, and from resorting to any of these inhuman acts, as well as for sanitary purposes, the Lawgiver ordained these benign and necessary rules.
Whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean.—Like other unclean persons, she defiled by being touched. Though not expressed here, it is implied that he who contracted this defilement had both to wash his garments and bathe his body as usual.”
Lev 17:14, “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is
identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.'”
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(14) For it is the life of all flesh . . . —Better, for the soul of all flesh is its blood, in, or through, its soul, that is, the sacredness of the blood arises from the fact that it contains the vital principle of all animal life. Or this clause may be rendered, for the life of all flesh is its blood in, or during, its life, that is, the life of all creatures consists in its blood; but only as long as the blood contains this life, for when it is dried up, or coagulated, the life has passed away from it.
For the life of all flesh.—Better, for the soul of all flesh (see Leviticus 17:11), that is, even of those wild animals which, in contradistinction to the sacrificial quadrupeds, must not be offered upon the altar, the blood constitutes the vital principle.”
Jas 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole Law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all.” Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
10. in one point] The noun, as the italics shew, is not in the Greek, but the English is a satisfactory rendering. Guided by what follows we might perhaps say “in one commandment.”
he is guilty of all] Better, he has become guilty, i. e. liable to condemnation under an indictment which includes all the particular commandments included in the great Law. This seems at first of the nature of an ethical paradox, but practically it states a deep moral truth. If we wilfully transgress one commandment we shew that in principle we sit loose to all. It is but accident, or fear, or the absence of temptation, that prevents our transgressing them also. Actual transgression in one case involves potential transgression in all. A saying of Rabbi Jochanan is recorded in the Talmud (Sabbath, fol. 70) identical with this in its terms, and including in its range what were classed as the 39 precepts of Moses. St James was urging upon devout Jews, whether they believed in Christ or no, the highest ethical teaching of their own schools. It is probable enough, that the Pharisees who misrepresented the teaching of St James in the Church of Antioch, laid stress on these words as including circumcision and the ceremonial Law, as well as the precepts which were moral and eternal (Acts 15:1; Acts 15:5; Acts 15:24). See Introduction, ch. 3.”
Jas 4:4, “You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an
enemy of God.”
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
4. Ye adulterers and adulteresses …] The better MSS. give ye adulteresses only. The use of the feminine alone in this connexion, where the persons referred to are primarily men, is at first startling. It has a partial parallel in our Lord’s words “an evil and adulterous generation” (Matthew 12:39), but it finds its best explanation in the thought, not without its bearing on what follows, that the soul’s unfaithfulness towards God is like that of a wife towards her husband. It is as though St James said “Ye adulterous souls.” There is, it may be, in the use of such a term, a touch of indignant scorn not unlike that in Homer, Ἀχαιΐδες, οὐκετ' Ἀχαιοί. “Women, not men of Achæa” (Il. ii. 235), or Virgil’s “O vere Phrygiæ, neque enim Phryges” (Æn. ix. 617). In this subserviency to pleasures, St James sees that which, though united with crimes of violence, is yet essentially effeminate.
the friendship of the world is enmity with God?] Once more we have a distinct echo from the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13). Here, also, as in chap. James 1:8, stress is laid on the fact that the neutrality of a divided allegiance is impossible. In that warfare, therefore, we must choose our side. We take it, even if we think that we do not choose it.
whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world …] Literally, Whosoever wishes to be a friend. The inference is not a mere repetition, but lays stress on the fact that the mere wish and inclination to be on one side involves, ipso facto, antagonism to the other.”
1Pe 4:11, “Whoever speaks is to do so as one who is speaking actual Words of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs
the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
Verse 11. - If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. St. Peter proceeds to give examples of the proper use of gifts. One of those gifts is utterance. The apostle means all Christian utterance, whether public in the Church, or private in Christian conversation or ministrations to the sick. The second clause may be also rendered, as in the Revised Version, "speaking as it were oracles of God." It is more natural to supply the participle" speaking" than "let him speak," after the analogy of διακονοῦντες ("ministering") in ver. 10. For the word λόγια, oracles, see Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2; also Hebrews 5:12, in which last place the Scriptures of the New Testament seem to be intended. The apostle's meaning may be either that the Christian teacher was to speak as do the oracles of God, that is, the Scriptures, or (and the absence of the article rather favors this view) that he was so to yield himself to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that his teaching should be the teaching of God; he was to seek no praise or reward for himself, but only the glory of God. Those who with single-hearted zeal seek God's glory do speak as it were oracles of God, for he speaketh by them (camp. Mark 13:11). If any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth. Again it is better to supply the participle "ministering." Whatever a man's gifts may be, he must minister them for the good of the whole Church (see ver. 9; also Romans 12. S; 1 Corinthians 12:28). And this he must do as of the strength which God supplieth; the strength is not his - God giveth it. The verb χορηγεῖ, rendered "giveth," is used in classical Greek first of supplying the expenses of a chorus, then of liberal giving generally; it occurs in 2 Corinthians 9:10. The compound, ἐπιχορηγεῖν, is more common; St. Peter has it in the Second Epistle (1. 5, 11). That God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ. The glory of God should be the one end of all Christian work. The Lord himself had said so in the sermon on the mount, in words doubtless well remembered by the apostle (Matthew 5:16; camp. 1 Corinthians 10:31). To whom be praise and dominion forever and ever. Amen; rather, as in the Revised Version, whose is the glory and dominion for the ages of ages. It is thought by some that St. Peter is here quoting from some ancient form of prayer; the use of the "Amen," and the resemblance to Revelation 1:6 and Rev 5:13, seem to favor this supposition. It is uncertain whether this doxology is addressed to God the Father or to the Lord Jesus Christ; the order of the words is in favor of the latter view, and the doxology closely resembles that in Revelation 1:6. 1 Peter 4:11.”
1Jo 2:5, “but whoever follows His Word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:”
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
5. The statement in 1 John 2:3 is still further emphasized by taking the opposite of 1 John 2:4; but with this we do not return to 1 John 2:3, but have an expansion of it.
His word] A wider expression than ‘His commandments’, covering the sum total of the revelation of God’s will: comp. 1 John 2:14. Thus Christ says, ‘He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me’ (John 14:21).
verily] Or, truly, or, of a truth. S. John uses this word (ἀληθῶς) about 8 times; and in the rest of N. T. it occurs about 8 times: see on 1 John 1:6. It must not be confounded with the ‘verily’ (ἀμήν) in our Lord’s discourses. Here it stands first for emphasis; verily in him: comp. John 8:31.
is the love of God perfected] Or, the love of God hath been perfected. We need both renderings in order to bring out the full force of the Greek, which means ‘has been made perfect and remains so’. Obedience, not feeling, is the test of perfect love. This declaration shews that it is quite wrong to make ‘we know Him’ in 1 John 2:3 and ‘I know Him’ in 1 John 2:4 a Hebraism for ‘love Him’. Even if ‘know’ is ever used in the sense of ‘love’, which may be doubted, S. John would hardly in the same sentence use ‘know’ in two totally different senses (1 John 2:3). S. John’s mention of love here shews that when he means ‘love’ he writes ‘love’ and not ‘know’. He declares that true knowledge involves love, but they are not identical, any more than convex and concave. ‘The love of God’ here means ‘the love of man to God’: this is the common usage in this Epistle (1 John 2:15, 1 John 3:17, 1 John 4:12, 1 John 5:3). Only once is the genitive subjective and means ‘the love of God for man’; and there the context makes this quite clear (1 John 4:9). ‘Love,’ both verb and substantive, is one of S. John’s favourite words. His Gospel is the Gospel of Love and his Epistle the Epistle of Love. ‘To perfect’ is also much more common in his writings than elsewhere in N. T., excepting the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially in the passive voice (1 John 4:12; 1 John 4:17-18; John 17:23; John 19:28). S. John is here speaking, as often in this Epistle, of an ideal state of things. No Christian’s love to God is perfect: but the more perfect his knowledge, the more perfect his obedience and his love.
hereby we know] Or, Herein we come to know: it is the same phrase as in 1 John 2:3, and should probably, as there, be taken with what follows, rather than with what precedes. It belongs to 1 John 2:6 more than to 1 John 2:5, and is parallel to 1 John 1:6.”
1Jo 2:23, “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father - That is, has no just views of the Father, and has no evidence of his friendship. It is only by the Son of God that the Father is made known to people, Matthew 11:27; Hebrews 1:2-3, and it is only through him that we can become reconciled to God, and obtain evidence of His favor. See the notes at John 5:23.
But he that acknowledges the Son, hath the Father also - This passage, in the common version of the New Testament, is printed in italics, as if it were not in the original, but was supplied by the translators. It is true that it is not found in all the manuscripts and versions; but it is found in a large number of manuscripts, and in the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Aethiopic, the Coptic, the Armenian, and the Arabic versions, and in the critical editions of Griesbach, Tittmann, and Hahn. It is probable, therefore, that it should be regarded as a genuine portion of the sacred text. It is much in the style of John, and though not necessary to complete the sense, yet it well suits the connection. As it was true that if one denied the Son of God he could have no pretensions to any proper acquaintance with the Father, so it seemed to follow that if anyone had any proper knowledge of the Son of God, and made a suitable confession of him, he had evidence that he was acquainted with the Father. Compare John 17:3; Romans 10:9. Though, therefore, this passage was wanting in many of the manuscripts consulted by the translators of the Bible, and though in printing it in the manner in which they have they showed the great caution with which they acted in admitting anything doubtful into their translation, yet the passage should be restored to the text, and be regarded as a genuine portion of the Word of God. The great truth can never be too clearly stated, or too often inculcated, that it is only by a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ that we can have any true acquaintance with God. and that all who have just views of the Savior are in fact acquainted with the true God, and are heirs of eternal life.”
1Jo 3:17, “But whoever has worldly goods and sees his brother or sister in need, and closes his
heart against him, how does the love of God remain in him?”
But whoso hath this world's good - Has property - called "this world's good," or a good pertaining to this world, because it is of value to us only as it meets our wants this side of the grave; and perhaps also because it is sought supremely by the people of the world. The general meaning of this verse, in connection with the previous verse, is, that if we ought to be willing to lay down our lives for others, we ought to be willing to make those comparatively smaller sacrifices which are necessary to relieve them in their distresses; and that if we are unwilling to do this, we can have no evidence that the love of God dwells in us.
And seeth his brother have need - Need of food, of raiment, of shelter; or sick, and poor, and unable to provide for his own wants and those of his family.
And shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him - The bowels, or "upper viscera," embracing the heart, and the region of the chest generally, are in the Scriptures represented as the seat of mercy, piety, and compassion, because when the mind feels compassion it is that part which is affected. Compare the notes at Isaiah 16:11.
How dwelleth the love of God in him? - How can a man love God who does not love those who bear his image? See the notes at 1 John 4:20. On the general sentiment here, see the notes at James 2:14-16. The meaning is plain, that we cannot have evidence of piety unless we are ready to do good to others, especially to our Christian brethren. See the Matthew 25:45 note; Galatians 6:10 note.”
1Jo 4:15, “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God.”
This tells you the difference between Christianity and other religions.
1 John 4:15-17. Whosoever shall — From a principle of loving faith, openly confess — In the face of all opposition and danger, maintaining this profession with resolution and zeal, and acting in conformity to it; that Jesus is the Son of God — The Christ, the Saviour of the world; God abideth in him, and he in God — There is a blessed union between God and his soul, so that it is, in the language of Scripture, the habitation of God; who, as it were, lives and walks in him, Ephesians 2:22; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:18. And we have known and believed — By the influence of the same Spirit; the love that God hath to us — And hath manifested, not only by giving his Son to die for us, (1 John 4:9-10,) but by making us his children in and through his Son, 1 John 3:1. God is love — The apostle repeats what he had declared 1 John 4:8, where see the note; and he that abideth in love — Namely, in love to God, his people, and all mankind; abideth in God, and God in him — His union and communion with God are hereby continued and increased. Herein — Or hereby, that is, by the continuance of this communion with God; is our love made perfect — We are brought to love him with all our hearts, and our neighbour as ourselves; that we may have — That is, so that we shall have; boldness in the day of judgment — When all the stout-hearted shall tremble; because as he, Christ, is, so are we — Who are fathers in Christ; in this world — Even while we live on earth, so far as the imperfections of this mortal life, to which we are here confined, will admit.”
1Jo 5:4, “For whoever has been born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith.”
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
4. Reason why keeping even the difficult commandment of loving others rather than oneself is not a grievous burden. It is the world and its ways which makes the Divine commands grievous, and the new birth involved in faith gives us a new unworldly nature and a strength which conquers the world.
For whatsoever is born of God] Or, Because whatsoever is begotten of God: see on 1 John 5:1. The collective neuter, ‘whatsoever’, gives the principle a wide sweep by stating it in its most abstract form: comp. John 6:37; John 17:2. Moreover, whereas the masculine would make the victorious person prominent, the neuter emphasizes rather the victorious power. It is not the man, but his birth from God, which conquers. In 1 John 5:1 we had the masculine and in 1 John 5:18 return to the masculine again. In all three cases we have the perfect, not the aorist, participle. It is not the mere fact of having received the Divine birth that is insisted on, but the permanent results of the birth. Comp. John 3:6; John 3:8, where we have the same tense and a similar change from neuter to masculine.
this is the victory that overcometh] Better, the victory that overcame the world is this (see on 1 John 1:5): aorist, of a victory won once for all. Faith, which is ‘the proof of things not seen’ (Hebrews 11:1) which ‘are eternal’ (2 Corinthians 4:18), has conquered the world which is visible and ‘is passing away’ (1 John 2:17). Faith is both the victory and the victor. Under the influence of the Vulgate’s vincit, Wiclif, Luther, Tyndale and many others all have the present tense here. In the faith which has won a decisive victory the believer goes on conquering. ‘Victory’ (νίκη) occurs nowhere else in N.T.”
Rom 10:11, “For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER
BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME.”
Verses 11, 12. - For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed (see above, on Romans 9:33). For there is no difference (rather, distinction) between the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord of all, being rich unto all that call upon him. Here, in ver. 12, the apostle comments on the text from Isaiah, so as to show the universality of its application (see previous note). It is (he would say) in itself applicable to Jew and Gentile alike, and it must needs be so, since the one God is the same to all that call upon him, even as the Prophet Joel also testified. The thought thus expressed was one deeply fixed in St. Paul's mind. He elsewhere speaks Of the very unity of God as implying of necessity that he is the same alike to Jews and Gentiles (see above, on Romans 3:29). Romans 10:11.”
Rom 13:2, “Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed
the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”
Verses 2-5. - Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they which withstand shall receive to themselves condemnation (i.e. really God's, operating through the human "power;" not meaning damnation in the common sense of the word). For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. It is the theory of the laws of all civilized governments to uphold justice, and only to punish what is wrong; and in the main they do so. The principles of the Roman law were just, and Paul himself found protection from its officers and tribunals, whose fairness he had, and had reason to have, more confidence in than in the tender mercy of either Gentile or Jewish zealots (cf. Acts 19:35, seq.; 21:31, seq.; 22:30; 24:10; 25:10, 11; 26:30, seq.). As has been observed already, the Neronian persecutions had not yet begun. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain (though "the sword" might possibly be understood as only the familiar symbol of power, yet the mention of it may be taken to imply the apostle's recognition of the legitimacy of capital punishment, such as he also expressed distinctly, Acts 25:11): for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wrath here expresses the familiar idea of the Divine wrath against evil-doing, for the execution of which, in the sphere of human law, the magistrate is the appointed instrument (see note on Romans 12:19). Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. Not only for fear of penal consequences, but because it is your duty, whatever might ensue, to submit to the ordinance of God. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:13, submission to every ordinance of man is enjoined "for the Lord's sake (διὰ τὸν Κύριον)." Romans 13:2.”
1Co 11:27, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or
drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.”
Verse 27. - And drink this cup. This ought to be rendered, or drink this cup. It seems to be one of the extremely few instances in which the translators of our Authorized Version were led by bias into unfaithful rendering. They may have persuaded themselves that the apostle must have meant "and;" but their duty as translators was to translate what he said, not what they supposed him to have meant. What he meant was that it was possible to partake in a wrong spirit either of the bread or the cup. King James's translators thought that, by rendering the word or, they might seem to favour communion in one kind only. St. Paul's meaning was that a man might Lake either element of the sacrament unworthily. Unworthily. We are all "unworthy" - " unworthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under Christ's table;" yet not one of us need eat or drink unworthily, that is, in a careless, irreverent, defiant spirit. Guilty of. He draws on himself the penalty due to "crucifying to himself the Son of God afresh," by "putting him to an open shame." 1 Corinthians 11:27.”
Col 3:13, “bearing with one another, and forgiving
each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so must you do also.”
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
13. forbearing one another] “in love,” adds Ephesians 4:2. The life of Christian patience has beneath it the living secret of love, the effect and reflection of the love of Christ.
forgiving one another] Lit., “forgiving yourselves,” as in Ephesians 4:32, where see note in this Series. The A.V. is obviously true to grammatical usage.—It is implied that there would be occasions for forbearance and forgiveness, even in this happy and holy community.
a quarrel] “a querel,” Wyclif; querelam, Latin Versions.—“A quarrel,” derived through French from Latin, means properly (as here) a complaint (so R.V. here), a charge. Our modern use of the word would imply a wrangle (“it takes two to make a quarrel”). But the case supposed is where A has not done right by B, and B responds by forgiving A, in Christ, and thus avoiding a wrangle.—For a practical illustration of the precept, see e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:7.
against any] We say, “a quarrel with any,” because we now use the word “quarrel” in the lowered sense of a wrangle.
even as Christ forgave] R.V. “even as the Lord forgave.” The reading thus rendered has important but not (as it seems to us) decisive support from mss. &c. Its reference meanwhile is probably still to Christ; but under the special character of the heavenly Master. (Cp. Matthew 18:27, quoted by Lightfoot, who reads “the Lord” here.)—See the parallel, Ephesians 4:32. There the Father is the Divine Forgiver; here probably the Son. The Two are One; and the Son, while the Father’s Channel of forgiveness, is also the infinitely free and gracious Giver of it. Cp. Acts 5:31.—Observe the deeply practical use of the assurance of pardon.”
Deu 22:5, “A woman shall not wear a man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.”
Verse 5. - The divinely instituted distinction between the sexes was to be sacredly observed, and, in order to this, the dress and ether things appropriate to the one were not to be used by the other. That which pertaineth unto a man; literally, the apparatus (כְּלִי) of a man, including, not dress merely, but implements, tools, weapons, and utensils. This is an ethical regulation in the interests of morality. There is no reference, as some have supposed, to the wearing of masks for the purpose of disguise, or to the practice of the priests at heathen festivals of wearing masks of their gods. Whatever tends to obliterate the distinction between the sexes tends to licentiousness; and that the one sex should assume the dress of the other has always been regarded as unnatural and indecent (comp. Seneca, 'Epist.,' 122, "Nonne videntur contra naturam vivere qui commutant cum feminis vestem;" and Juvenal, 'Sat.,' 6:252 -
"Quem praestare potest muller galeata pudorem
Quae fugit a sexu?") Such a change of vesture is here declared to be an abomination to the Lord, because of its tendency to immorality. Deuteronomy 22:5.”
Ezr 7:26,“And whoever does not comply with the Law of your God and the law of the king, judgment is to be executed upon him strictly, whether for death or for banishment, or for confiscation of property or for imprisonment.”
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
26. Penalty for Contumacy.
whosoever will not do] i.e. whoever of the Israelite race or of those that had attached themselves to the Jewish religion.
speedily] R.V. with all diligence.
death … banishment … confiscation … imprisonment] The king hands over to Ezra plenary powers of punishment.
banishment] R.V. marg. Aram. rooting out. LXX. παιδεία. Vulg. ‘exilium’. ‘Banishment’ is probably the meaning of the word, coming as it does between ‘death’ and ‘confiscation’. Some explain it of ‘excommunication’ or separation ‘from the congregation’.
It is not to be supposed that Ezra’s commission superseded the official governors of the satrapy. Rather his powers (1) to appoint judges (2) to instruct, (3) to inflict penalties, were given him to secure the strengthening of the religious organization based on the Law, which it was his object to make permanent and universal for his countrymen.”
Psa 101:5, “Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, him I will destroy; I will not endure one who has a haughty look and an arrogant heart.”
Verse 5. - Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I out off. (On the heinousness of slander, see Psalm 15:3; Psalm 31:13; Psalm 50:20, etc.) It is probably not meant that the slanderer will be put to death, but only that he will be banished, at any rate from the court, and, so far as possible, put down. Him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer. "Lofty looks" and a "proud heart" are again conjoined in Proverbs 21:4, Solomon showing that he paid attention to his father's lessons. David himself disclaims both in Psalm 131:1. Psalm 101:5.”
Mat 5:22, “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,' shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery Hell.”
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
5:21-26 The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. All rash anger is heart murder. By our brother, here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much below us, for we are all made of one blood. Raca, is a scornful word, and comes from pride: Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred. Malicious slanders and censures are poison that kills secretly and slowly. Christ told them that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be called into judgment for them. We ought carefully to preserve Christian love and peace with all our brethren; and if at any time there is a quarrel, we should confess our fault, humble ourselves to our brother, making or offering satisfaction for wrong done in word or deed: and we should do this quickly; because, till this is done, we are unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances. And when we are preparing for any religious exercises, it is good for us to make that an occasion of serious reflection and self-examination. What is here said is very applicable to our being reconciled to God through Christ. While we are alive, we are in the way to his judgement-seat; after death, it will be too late. When we consider the importance of the case, and the uncertainty of life, how needful it is to seek peace with God, without delay!”
Mat 5:39, “But I say to you, do not show opposition
against an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other toward him also.”
Verse 39. - But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee, etc. The first clause comes here only; the second is found also in Luke 6:29 (for the principle, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:7). We may notice that, while our Lord most perfectly observed the spirit of this command, he did not slavishly follow the letter of it (cf. John 18:22, 23). Nor did St. Paul (cf. Acts 16:35ff; Acts 22:25; 23:3; 25:9,10). We must remember that, while he clothes his teaching with the form of concrete examples, these are only parabolic representations of principles eternal in themselves, but in practice to be modified according to each separate occasion. "This offering of the other cheek may be done outwardly; but only inwardly can it be always right" (Trench, 'Sermon on the Mount'). We must further remember the distinction brought out here by Luther between what the Christian has to do as a Christian, and what he has to do as, perhaps an official, member of the state. The Lord leaves to the state its own jurisdiction (Matthew 22:21: vide Meyer). That ye resist not; Revised Version, resist not, thus avoiding all possibility of the English reader taking the words as a statement of fact. Evil. So the Revised Version margin; but Revised Version, him that is evil (cf. ver. 37; Matthew 6:13, note). The masculine here, in the sense of the wicked man who does the wrong, is clearly preferable; Wickliffe, "a yuel man." (For a very careful defence of Chrysostom's opinion that even here τῷ πονηρῷ refers to the devil and not to man. see Chase, 'The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church'). Shall smite; Revised Version, smiteth, The right reading gives the more vivid present. Ῥαπίζω comes in the New Testament here and Matthew 26:67 only. It is properly used of a stroke with a rod. (For "smiting on the cheeks," cf. the curious rendering of Hosea 11:4 in the LXX; cf. also Isaiah 50:6.) Thee on thy right. Matthew only. Although it is more natural that the left cheek would be hit first (Meyer), the right is named, since it is in common parle, nee held to be the worthier (cf. ver. 29). Cheek. Σιαγών, though properly jaw, is here equivalent to" cheek," as certainly in Song of Solomon 1:10; Song of Solomon 5:13. Turn. The action seen; Luke's "offer" regards the mental condition necessary for the action. Matthew 5:39.”
Mat 5:41, “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”
An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles.
The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger, he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.
A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See John 18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life.
Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the "coat," or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves. Over this was commonly worn an upper garment, here called "cloak," or mantle. It was made commonly nearly square, of different sizes, 5 or 6 cubits long and as many broad, and was wrapped around the body, and was thrown off when labor was performed. If, said Christ, an adversary wished to obtain, at law, one of these garments, rather than contend with him let him have the other also. A reference to various articles of apparel occurs frequently in the New Testament, and it is desirable to have a correct view of the ancient mode of dress. in order to a proper understanding of the Bible. The Asiatic modes of dress are nearly the same from age to age, and hence it is not difficult to illustrate the passages where such a reference occurs. The ordinary dress consisted of the inner garment, the outer garment, the girdle (belt), and the sandals. In regard to the sandals, see the notes at Matthew 3:11.
In the girdle (belt) was the place of the pouch Matthew 10:9, and to it the sword and dirk were commonly attached. Compare 2 Samuel 20:8. In modern times the pistols are also fastened to the belt. It is the usual place for the handkerchief, smoking materials, inkhorn, and, in general, the implements of one's profession. The belt served to confine the loose-flowing robe or outer garment to the body. It held the garment when it was tucked up, as it was usually in walking or in labor. Hence, "to gird up the loins" became a significant figurative expression, denoting readiness for service, activity, labor, and watchfulness; and "to loosen the loins" denoted the giving way to repose and indolence, 2 Kings 4:29; Job 38:3; Isaiah 5:27; Luke 12:35; John 21:7.
Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile - The word translated "shall compel" is of Persian origin. Post-offices were then unknown. In order that the royal commands might be delivered with safety and despatch in different parts of the empire, Cyrus stationed horsemen at proper intervals on all the great public highways. One of those delivered the message to another, and intelligence was thus rapidly and safely communicated. These heralds were permitted to compel any person, or to press any horse, boat, ship, or other vehicle that they might need for the quick transmission of the king's commandments. It was to this custom that our Saviour refers. Rather, says he, than resist a public authority requiring your attendance and aid for a certain distance, go peaceably twice the distance.
A mile - A Roman mile was 1,000 paces.
Twain - Two.”
Act 2:21, “And it shall come to pass that whoever
calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
This is the Gospel.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible. And it shall come to pass,.... Even at that time, when these signs shall appear, and the destruction is hastening on, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord; shall believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with the heart, and shall confess him with the mouth, and shall worship him in Spirit and in truth, and submit to all his ordinances and commands; for invocation of the Lord includes the whole of worship, internal and external: shall be saved; or delivered from that temporal destruction which came upon the Jews, as the Christians were by removing from Jerusalem to Pella, as they were directed (u); and shall be saved with a spiritual and everlasting salvation by Jesus Christ; see Gill on Romans 10:13.”
If you repent of your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus as your God and Savior, you shall be saved.
Whatever it is in the world, China has by itself “something” that can become the sole superpower in the world, to become the most spectacular modernized nation on earth. If that “something” is wasted by undeveloped, corrupt, insolvent, unproductive, violent, useless countries and peoples, China will never have a second chance again! This message must reach decision makers of China before it is Too Late!
Global media should ignore self-inflicted Shortage, Conflict, Civil War, Rebellion, Defrauded Democracy, Phony Election, Crisis, Displacement, Hunger, Outbreak, Violence, Inflation, etc. It is of utmost stupidity to throw away precious resources to Black Holes. International community should not help those useless and worthless countries and peoples.
It is wrong education to instill youngsters with athletic value before they receive solid moral and academic values. The supreme educational values are moral and academic values which are good for life.