As the word occurs in but two passages in the N.T., and is rendered once "return" and

once "depart," it will be seen that it would be just as logical to say that the rendering of

the first passage should conform to the second, as vice versa. Phil. 1: 23 renders analuõ

"depart," Luke 12: 26 "return." Those who advocate the teaching that analuõ means

"the return of the Lord" in Phil. 1: 23 turn to Luke 12: 36 to support their argument.

It is not established beyond all controversy that "return" is the true meaning of

Luke 12: 36.  J.N.D. renders the passage, "whenever He may leave the wedding."

Rotherham gives the somewhat strange rendering "he may break up out of the marriage

feast."  This somewhat strange rendering will not be so strange to some who are

acquainted with the schoolboy's idea of "breaking up" for the holidays. Here lies the

secret of the various renderings. There is no doubt whatever that analuõ means exactly

the same as our English derived word "analyse"--to break up into its elements. The

secondary meaning "to return" is somewhat parallel to the schoolboy's "break up." It

came to have this meaning from the way  it  was used for loosing the cables of

ships, in order to sail from a port (see Odyss 9: 178, 11: 636, 12: 145, 15: 547).

Luke 12: 36 speaks of the "coming" of the Lord as something subsequent to the

"returning." It is perfectly true that they will not open the door when He departs from the

wedding, but when He arrives. Scripture clearly differentiates between the "departing" or

"returning" from the feast, and the subsequent "coming" and "knocking." So far as

light upon Phil. 1: 23 is concerned, Luke 12: 36 gives no warrant for departing from the

elementary meaning of analuõ.  The references in the LXX are equally indecisive.

Sometimes the passage speaks of "returning," as Luke 12: 36, once the pure meaning

"resolve into its elements" as melting ice.

Let the reader pause for a moment and ask whether a word which primarily means to

"resolve a thing into its elements," and so return to its original state, is a fitting word to

use for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.  In what way will it be an

"analysis?" In what way will it be "a return," in the sense of analysis?" Surely there

must be indubitable evidence for such a rendering before it can be accepted, and that

evidence is not only not found, but is practically denied by the context of Phil. 1: 23

when truly presented, and by the larger context of II Timothy to which we now turn.

It would add considerable weight to our argument if we were to show the close

parallel that exists between Philippians and II Timothy, an aspect of truth which we

hope to point out in a subsequent number. Two passages only will suffice at present.

In Phil. 1: 23 we read that the Apostle desired analuõ, and in Phil. 2: 17 that even

should his ministry involve his being poured out as a drink offering (spendomai) he

would rejoice. In II Timothy 4: 6 the Apostle says, "I am already being poured out as a