King James Bible Adam Clarke Bible Commentary Martin Luther's Writings Wesley's Sermons and Commentary Neurosemantics Audio / Video Bible Evolution Cruncher Creation Science Vincent New Testament Word Studies KJV Audio Bible Family videogames Christian author Godrules.NET Main Page Add to Favorites Godrules.NET Main Page




Bad Advertisement?

News & Reviews:
  • World News
  • Movie Reviews
  • Book Search

    Are you a Christian?

    Online Store:
  • Your Own eBook/eBay Business
  • Visit Our eBay Store

    Automated eBook Business



  • PARALLEL HISTORY BIBLE - 2 Corinthians 13:7


    CHAPTERS: 2 Corinthians 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13     

    VERSES: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

    TEXT: BIB   |   AUDIO: MISLR - MISC - DAVIS - FOCHT   |   VIDEO: BIB


    ENGLISH - HISTORY - INTERNATIONAL - FACEBOOK - GR FORUMS - GODRULES ON YOUTUBE

    HELPS: KJS - KJV - ASV - DBY - DOU - WBS - YLT - HEB - BBE - WEB - NAS - SEV - TSK - CRK - WES - MHC - GILL - JFB

    LXX- Greek Septuagint - 2 Corinthians 13:7

    ευχομαι 2172 5736 δε 1161 προς 4314 τον 3588 θεον 2316 μη 3361 ποιησαι 4160 5658 υμας 5209 κακον 2556 μηδεν 3367 ουχ 3756 ινα 2443 ημεις 2249 δοκιμοι 1384 φανωμεν 5316 5652 αλλ 235 ινα 2443 υμεις 5210 το 3588 καλον 2570 ποιητε 4160 5725 ημεις 2249 δε 1161 ως 5613 αδοκιμοι 96 ωμεν 5600 5753

    Douay Rheims Bible

    Now we pray God, that you may do no evil, not that we may appear approved, but that you may do that which is good, and that we may be as reprobates.

    King James Bible - 2 Corinthians 13:7

    Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.

    World English Bible

    Now I pray to God that you do no evil; not that we may appear approved, but that you may do that which is honorable, though we are as reprobate.

    Early Church Father Links

    Npnf-105 v.ii.iii Pg 141, Npnf-105 xv.iii.xxvi Pg 5, Npnf-105 xx.vi Pg 3, Npnf-105 xx.vi Pg 4, Npnf-105 xx.xiii Pg 8, Npnf-111 vi.iii Pg 51, Npnf-111 vii.xviii Pg 64, Npnf-112 v.xxix Pg 16, Npnf-112 v.xxix Pg 40

    World Wide Bible Resources


    2Corinthians 13:7

    Early Christian Commentary - (A.D. 100 - A.D. 325)

    Anf-02 vi.iv.i.xi Pg 19.1


    Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xv Pg 27
    1 Thess. v. 23. For a like application of this passage, see also our author’s treatise, De Resurrect. Carnis, cap. xlvii. [Elucidation I.]

    Now he has here propounded the soul and the body as two several and distinct things.5917

    5917 It is remarkable that our author quotes this text of the three principles, in defence only of two of them. But he was strongly opposed to the idea of any absolute division between the soul and the spirit. A distinction between these united parts, he might, under limitations, have admitted; but all idea of an actual separation and division he opposed and denied. See his De Anima, cap. x. St. Augustine more fully still maintained a similar opinion. See also his De Anima, iv. 32. Bp. Ellicott, in his interesting sermon On the Threefold Nature of Man, has given these references, and also a sketch of patristic opinion of this subject. The early fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alex., Origen, as well as Didymus of Alex., Gregory Nyssen., and Basil, held distinctly the threefold nature. Our own divines, as is natural, are also divided in views. Bp. Bull, Hammond, and Jackson hold the trichotomy, as a triple nature is called; others, like Bp. Butler, deny the possibility of dividing our immaterial nature into two parts.  This variation of opinion seems to have still representatives among our most recent commentators: while Dean Alford holds the triplicity of our nature literally with St. Paul, Archdeacon Wordsworth seems to agree with Bp. Butler in regarding soul and spirit as component parts of one principle. See also Bp. Ellicott’s Destiny of the Creature, sermon v. and notes.

    For although the soul has a kind of body of a quality of its own,5918

    5918 On this paradox, that souls are corporeal, see his treatise De Anima, v., and following chapters (Oehler).  [See also cap. x. supra.]

    just as the spirit has, yet as the soul and the body are distinctly named, the soul has its own peculiar appellation, not requiring the common designation of body.  This is left for “the flesh,” which having no proper name (in this passage), necessarily makes use of the common designation. Indeed, I see no other substance in man, after spirit and soul, to which the term body can be applied except “the flesh.” This, therefore, I understand to be meant by the word “body”—as often as the latter is not specifically named. Much more do I so understand it in the present passage, where the flesh5919

    5919 Quæ = caro.

    is expressly called by the name “body.”


    Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xxii Pg 5
    Dr. Holmes, in the learned note which follows, affords me a valuable addition to my scanty remarks on this subject in former volumes. See (Vol. I. pp. 387, 532,) references to the great work of Professor Delitzsch, in notes on Irenæus. In Vol. II. p. 102, I have also mentioned M. Heard’s work, on the Tripartite Nature of Man. With reference to the disagreement of the learned on this great matter, let me ask is it not less real than apparent? The dichotomy to which Tertullian objected, and the trichotomy which Dr. Holmes makes a name of “the triple nature,” are terms which rather suggest a process of “dividing asunder of soul and spirit,” and which involve an ambiguity that confuses the inquiry. Now, while the gravest objections may be imagined, or even demonstrated, against a process which seems to destroy the unity and individuality of a Man, does not every theologian accept the analytical formula of the apostle and recognize the bodily, the animal and the spiritual in the life of man? If so is there not fundamental agreement as to 1 Thess. v. 23, and difference only, relatively, as to functions and processes, or as to the way in which truth on these three points ought to be stated?  On this subject there are good remarks in the Speaker’s Commentary on the text aforesaid, but the exhaustive work of Delitzsch deserves study.


    Anf-03 v.viii.xlvii Pg 21
    1 Thess. v. 23.

    Here you have the entire substance of man destined to salvation, and that at no other time than at the coming of the Lord, which is the key of the resurrection.7621

    7621 [Note Tertullian’s summary of the text, in harmony with the Tripartite philosophy of humanity.]



    Anf-03 v.viii.lvii Pg 8
    1 Thess. iv. 13–; 17 and v. 23.

    So that for the great future there need be no fear of blemished or defective bodies.  Integrity, whether the result of preservation or restoration, will be able to lose nothing more, after the time that it has given back to it whatever it had lost. Now, when you contend that the flesh will still have to undergo the same sufferings, if the same flesh be said to have to rise again, you rashly set up nature against her Lord, and impiously contrast her law against His grace; as if it were not permitted the Lord God both to change nature, and to preserve her, without subjection to a law. How is it, then, that we read, “With men these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible;”7726

    7726


    Npnf-201 iii.vii.xxiii Pg 16


    Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 13

    VERSE 	(7) - 

    :9 1Ch 4:10 Mt 6:13 Joh 17:15 Php 1:9-11 1Th 5:23 2Ti 4:18


    PARALLEL VERSE BIBLE

    God Rules.NET