Basic HTML Version
The first part, ending in ‘n,’ signifies “Lord”; as to the second part, the Fathers
regarded it as a past tense, “has come.” Modern expositors take it as equivalent to a
present, “cometh,” or future, “will come.” Certain Aramaic scholars regard the last part
as consisting of
, and regard the phrase as an ejaculation, “Our Lord, come,” or “O
Lord, come.” The character of the context, however, indicates that the apostle is making a
statement rather than expressing a desire or uttering a prayer.
As to the reason why it was used, most probably it was a current ejaculation among
early Christians, as embodying the consummation of their desires.
“At first the title
"
or
"
, used in speaking to and of Christ was no more
than the respectful designation of the Teacher on the part of the disciples.” After His
resurrection they used the title of or to Him as applied to God, “but it must here be
remembered that the Aramaic-speaking Jews did not, save exceptionally, designate God
as ‘Lord’; so that in the ‘Hebraist’ section of the Jewish Christians the expression ‘our
Lord’ (
"
) was used in reference to Christ only” (Dalman,
C
7
1 $
).¶
MARBLE
(
1$ $
, 3139) primarily denoted any “glistering stone” (from
, “to glisten”); hence, “marble,” Rev. 18:12.¶
MARINERS
$
(
"
, 3492), “a seaman, mariner, sailor” (from
$
, “a ship,” Eng.,
“nautical”), is translated “sailors” in Acts 27:27, 30,
RV
(
KJV
, “shipmen”); in Rev. 18:17,
RV
, “mariners” (
KJV
, “sailors”).¶
MARK (Noun)
1.
(
1$
, 5480) denotes “a stamp, impress,” translated “mark” in Rev.
13:16, 17, etc. See
GRAVEN
.
2.
(
&
, 4742) denotes “a tattooed mark” or “a mark burnt in, a brand”
(akin to
, “to prick”), translated “marks” in Gal. 6:17.¶ “It is probable that the apostle
refers to the physical sufferings he had endured since he began to proclaim Jesus as
Messiah and Lord [e.g., at Lystra and Philippi]. It is probable, too, that this reference to
his scars was intended to set off the insistence of the Judaizers upon a body-mark which
cost them nothing. Over against the circumcision they demanded as a proof of obedience
to the law he set the indelible tokens, sustained in his own body, of his loyalty to the Lord
Jesus. As to the origin of the figure, it was indeed customary for a master to brand his
slaves, but this language does not suggest that the apostle had been branded by His
Master. Soldiers and criminals also were branded on occasion; but to neither of these is
the case of Paul as here described analogous. The religious devotee branded himself with
the peculiar mark of the god whose cult he affected; so was Paul branded with the marks
of his devotion to the Lord Jesus. It is true such markings were forbidden by the law, Lev.
19:28, but then Paul had not inflicted these on himself
“The marks of Jesus cannot be taken to be the marks which the Lord bears in His
body in consequence of the Crucifixion; they were different in character.”*
* From
Notes on Galatians,
by Hogg and Vine, p. 344.