διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι,
ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεὸν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ.
(John 5:18 GNT)

1. λέγω can take a double accusative: “He was calling God his own father.” BDAG has entry 4 as “to identify in a specific manner”
2. John uses λύω to describe Jesus as not merely ‘breaking’ the Sabbath; but as ‘abolishing, nullifying’ it (Again, see BDAG s.v. λύω entry 4.

There is no verb in verse 3.  ”Εὐλογητὸς (…) ὁ θεὸς…”. This means we need to supply one in our interpretation and translation of the passage. Clearly the missing verb is a form of ειμι. But there are three options (see Hoehner):

1. an indicative (ἐστί) – giving something like “God is blessed…” (NET, Hoehner, O’Brien)
2. an optative (εἴη) – “Let God be praised…” (NIV, ESV)
3. an imperative (ἔστω) – “Praise God…” (HCSB, CEB)

The NET bible has the following note to explain their decision:

There is no verb in the Greek text; either the optative (“be”) or the indicative (“is”) can be supplied. The meaning of the term [Εὐλογητὸς], the author’s intention at this point in the epistle, and the literary genre of this material must all come into play to determine which is the preferred nuance. Εὐλογητὸς as an adjective can mean either that one is praised or that one is blessed, that is, in a place of favor and benefit. The meaning “blessed” would be more naturally paired with an indicative verb here and would suggest that blessedness is an intrinsic part of God’s character. The meaning “praised” would be more naturally paired with an optative verb here and would suggest that God ought to be praised. Pauline style in the epistles generally moves from statements to obligations, expressing the reality first and then the believer’s necessary response, which would favor the indicative. However, many scholars regard Eph 1:3–14 as a berakah psalm (cf. A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians [WBC], 10–11). Rooted in the OT and Jewish worship, berakah psalms were songs of praise in which the worshiper gave praise to God; this would favor the optative (although not all scholars are agreed on this genre classification here; see H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 153–59, for discussion and an alternate conclusion). When considered as a whole, although a decision is difficult, the indicative seems to fit all the factors better. The author seems to be pointing to who God is and what he has done for believers in this section; the indicative more naturally fits that emphasis. Cf. also 2 Cor 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3.

The difference between the optative and imperative is slight. The former is a statement of what is permissible, the second is a call/change to do something. One states what can be done, the other states what should be done.

Although many EVV go for the optative (NIV, ESV) the commentators seem to prefer the indicative. O’Brien’s comment is useful:

Paul’s eulogies do not express a wish; the describe a fact,…as he proclaims that God is the source of blessing.”

Despite this, my preference is with the optative. I think the purpose behind the words that Paul writes is to call the Ephesian Christians to praise God because he has blessed them so. I believe the aim of this passage is not to convey information (that God is blessed) but rather to urge a right response to what God has done (“Praise be…”).

Most commonly the Psalm is treated as two completely unrelated halves. vv1-2 are about working/toil whereas vv3-5 are about children. The commentators will tell you that Solomon (?) just randomly stuck two wisdom saying together which have absolutely no connection with one another. This is popular interpretation of the psalm – as evidence by the amount of sermons claiming to be on Psalm 127 – but which are usually only about one half of the psalm – either about work, or about family. Psalm 127 would be a very exceptional part of scripture if it had no unity or cohesion whatsoever! Why didn’t the psalmist simple write two separate psalms?

Alternatively, some will tell you that the psalm does have unity – it is all about family. This is fine for v1a and vv3-5 – the image of building a house can be easily related to ‘building’ a family. However the image of protecting a city is not a recognisable metaphor for family life. Neither is the toil for food (v1b) nor the tranquillity of sleep (v2)

So in my thinking, I have come to the conclusion that Psalm 127 is united, it does have cohesion, but the theme is not family, rather the theme of the psalm is security. This fits well with the context (cf. Psalm 125 and the general idea of trust and security that permeates the Songs of Ascent).

So I take v1 not as talking generally about toiling (“It doesn’t matter how hard I work, if God is not in it, it is in vain.”) Rather I think more attention needs to be paid to the actual images that are used:

• building houses is primary an act of seeking security – from the elements, from attack, for my property or my family).
• guarding a city is primarily an act of security – guarding against attack from enemies.
• toiling for food could be seen as a quest for safety, provision – an idea not a million miles away from seeking security

This idea of security also relates to vv3-5 as well. Again, these verses are not just a general praise of how great it is to have children (which is how they are often treated), but more specifically, the images that are used here all relate to security.

• children are a “heritage” that is, a provision for the future, an inheritance providing stability and security
• they are like arrows for an archer – an equipped archer is protected, he is safe, he is secure
• a man with a family (esp. sons) can take them with him to the city gates (court) and ensure that he gets a fair trial from the town elders against his opponent. Once again, the children provide safety, security, well-being for their parents (true today, but even more so in ANE culture where there were no savings, pensions, ISAs, lawyers – your children provided all those services rolled into one).

So, I think the imagery and details of Psalm 127 all unite around the idea of security – and it is a security which comes only from God.

• any attempt to build a protective home is vain unless God provides the security.
• a city guarded with tanks, Rambo and Jack Bauer is not secure unless God makes it so
• the safety and provision that comes from a family is one that is only given by God.

A lack of security produces anxious toil, building, guarding etc – but for God’s special chosen people – those he loves – he provides sleep: a confident relaxation that comes from knowing that they are not solely responsible for their security – it is something which God has a hand in.

In term of application, I would say that the promises and concerns of the OT are much more physically focussed than for NT Xians. So our security is not a guarentee of not having to toil, not having opponents and not going to the courts; rather it is a security that only God promised, and he provides it for his loved ones in the death and resurrection of Christ.

In summary: Psalm 127 is not just about a general attitude of knowing that my effort is not the determining factor in the outcome. Rather the psalm is more specific and speak about our efforts to secure ourselves which are vain because it is only God who can do such.

Word classes – there are 8

• verbs
• nouns
• pronouns
• determiners – e.g. the article
• adjectives
• prepositions
• adverbs
• conjunctions – words that join clauses
• particles – words that don’t change form

Phrase types – there are 5

• verb phrase – a verb/predicate and any dependants
• noun phrase – a noun and any modifiers
• prepositional phrase – headed by a preposition
• adjective phrase – a phrase that modifies a noun
• adverb phrase – a phrase that modifies a verb

Clause elements – there are 7

• subject (S)
• verb/predicate (P)
• direct object (O_d)
• indirect object (O_i)
• subject complement (C_s)
• object complement (C_o)
• adverbial (A)

Clause patterns – there are 5

1. intransitive: S P
2. monotransitive: S P O_d
3. ditransitive: S P O_i O_d
4. copular: S P C_s
5. complex transitive: S P O_d O_c

Examples of the 5 different patterns (from the Greek teacher)

1. She (S) was breathing (P).
2. Jesus (S) healed (P) the blind man (O_d).
3. The disciples (S) had given (P) him (O_i) the loaves (O_d).
4. You (S) are (P) my friends (C_s).
5. They (S) made (P) him (O_d) king (C_o).

(I’m trying to learn the accents as well as morphology – so let me know any mistakes you spot)

Noun Paradigms

δι᾽ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα

δια + accusative (ὃν): for (causal)

δια + genitive (οὗ): through (modal)

In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God,
for whom and through whom everything exists,
should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.
(NIV2011)

(PS: Warning, more such grammar revision notes coming soon, because I’m doing some revision myself).

No other English versions do. Including the NIV84.

There’s no textual issue recorded in BHS.

Oswalt doesn’t mention any other textual issues.

Strange!

Stand up! Stand up for Jesus!
Stand in his strength alone
The arm of flesh will fail you
Ye dare not trust your own.
Put on the gospel armour,
Each piece put on with prayer;
Where duty calls or danger,
Be never wanting there.

I wanted to use the lines of Dufflield’s hymn in a recent sermon… “Put on the gospel armour, Each piece put on with prayer” but is that what the really Bible says? Those particular words certainly aren’t in the text! And does it really matter? They’re true aren’t they? Well, considering the subject Paul is discussing here I would agree with Francis Schaeffe and say it matters very much – “This is not a friendly gentleman’s discussion. It is a life and death conflict between the spiritual hosts of wickedness and those who claim the name of Christ”. Which is really what the hymn is all about!

Typically v17 reads …take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (or , in ESV) then v18 reads…

Each translation begins a new sentence at v18 (except ESV), commanding us to pray on all occasions, in the Spirit, being alert etc. But what is the purpose on the praying? There is no overt reference back to the armour of God in v14-17 except by implication ἐνπαντὶκαιρῷ, at all times. In fact the natural flow seems to point forward to πάντωντῶνἁγίων, all the saints, thus making prayer the 7th weapon of the Christians armour. So, is the participle προσευχόμενοι instrumental (as in the hymn) or yet another imperative? (Questionable! is Wallace’s comment. GGBB 652)

Put another way, what are the grammatical or syntactical connections of the participles in προσευχόμενοι (praying) andἀγρυπνοῦντες (being alert), to the rest of the text? Diagramming helps us here. The BW Leedy diagrams, show the two participle clauses of v18 are indeed linked back to two earlier imperatives. The firstστῆτε (stand) in v14 – which starts the section describing each piece of armour. The second is δέξασθε (take, receive) in v17, which refers to the helmet of salvation. Furthermore, the initial preposition of v18, δια followed by acc. should, according to BDAG, be either translated ‘through’ or, ‘because of, or, for the sake of’. Taking through as the translation of δια together with the participle connections, gives us…

¹⁴Stand therefore…having put on the armour of God…¹⁷And receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, ¹⁸through every prayer and petition, praying at all times in the Spirit, and to this end…

This is the translation Lincoln takes in WBC. So, I think George was right all along!

…δέξηται τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς παιδίον…

There are actually three possibilities here (see Green, 651 n 131 for details):

1. to receive the kingdom as a child receives the kingdom
2. to receive the kingdom as if one were a child
3. to receive the kingdom as one receives a child

1 and 2 above are virtually synonymous. They both have the same effect: the phrase relates to how a person receives the kingdom of God (which I take to mean the person of Jesus and the teaching of the gospel) in a childlike way. This interpretation is by far the most common (see Bock, Morris, Nolland).

However, the 3. above has a difference to it – and, following Green, I suggest that it makes much better sense of both immediate and wider contexts.

In this third interpretation the meaning is not receiving the kingdom in a childlike way (i.e. humility, faith etc.) but receiving the kingdom in the same was as you receive children.

This fits with the immediate context: the disciples have just stopped the children coming to Jesus, but Jesus permits them to come and he welcomes them. So in v17, Jesus draws a parallel with what he has just done and what the disciples should do.

This interpretation also fits the wider context. Back in 9:48, Jesus has said a very similar thing:

“Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.” (Luk 9:48 ESV)

Again here the focus is on how a disciple receives/welcomes children.

The meaning of Jesus’ words in 18:17 then are to do with the disciples humility against the present social climate. To associate with children was not a popular thing in 1st century Judaism. Luke has previously dealt, at great length, the contrast between social standing and gospel humility (see ch14).

So here, Jesus is telling his disciples (or whoever else is listening) that being part of the kingdom means forsaking public reputation and showing love and hospitality to those who need it. This, again, fits with the immediate context. Jesus is teaching about the necessity for humility in salvation (18:9, 14, 23-27).

At a push, one could argue that the interpretation of the ὡς here doesn’t affect the main point – the key is still humility. But the difference between the more popular and traditional interpretation and that which I have suggested above is:

1. the nature of the humility – not innocent childlike humility – but deliberate gracious humility; and
2. the way Jesus’ main point (v17) and the context (vv15-16) fit together.

Colossians seem to be somewhat peculiar. There’s a lot of astndeton, and none of the GNT paragraphs begin with δέ! Οὕν is quite frequent though.