CONCORD Believe



rwp@1Corinthians:8:7 @{Howbeit in all men there is not that knowledge} (\all' ouk en pasin hˆ gn“sis\). The knowledge (\hˆ gn“sis\) of which Paul is speaking. Knowledge has to overcome inheritance and environment, prejudice, fear, and many other hindrances. {Being used until now to the idol} (\tˆi sunˆtheiƒi he“s arti tou eid“lou\). Old word \sunˆtheia\ from \sunˆthˆs\ (\sun, ˆthos\), accustomed to, like Latin _consuetudo_, intimacy. In N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:39; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:16|. It is the force of habit that still grips them when they eat such meat. They eat it "as an idol sacrifice" (\h“s eid“lothuton\), though they no longer believe in idols. The idol-taint clings in their minds to this meat. {Being weak} (\asthenˆs ousa\). "It is defiled, not by the partaking of polluted food, for food cannot pollute (Mark:7:18f.; strkjv@Luke:11:41|), but by the doing of something which the unenlightened conscience does not allow" (Robertson and Plummer). For this great word \suneidˆsis\ (conscientia, knowing together, conscience) see on ¯Acts:23:1|. It is important in Paul's Epistles, Peter's First Epistle, and Hebrews. Even if unenlightened, one must act according to his conscience, a sensitive gauge to one's spiritual condition. Knowledge breaks down as a guide with the weak or unenlightened conscience. For \asthenˆs\, weak (lack of strength) see on ¯Matthew:26:41|. {Defiled} (\molunetai\). Old word \molun“\, to stain, pollute, rare in N.T. (1Timothy:3:9; strkjv@Revelation:3:4|).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:2 @{In what words I preached it unto you} (\tini logoi euˆggelisamˆn humin\). Almost certainly \tis\ (\tini logoi\, locative or instrumental, in or with) here is used like the relative \hos\ as is common in papyri (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 93f.; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 737f.). Even so it is not clear whether the clause depends on \gn“riz“\ like the other relatives, but most likely so. {If we hold it fast} (\ei katechete\). Condition of first class. Paul assumes that they are holding it fast. {Except ye believed in vain} (\ektos ei mˆ eikˆi episteusate\). For \ektos ei mˆ\ see on ¯14:5|. Condition of first class, unless in fact ye did believe to no purpose (\eikˆi\, old adverb, only in Paul in N.T.). Paul holds this peril over them in their temptation to deny the resurrection.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:14 @{Vain} (\kenon\). _Inanis_, Vulgate. Old word, empty. Both Paul's preaching and their faith are empty if Christ has not been raised. If the sceptics refuse to believe the fact of Christ's resurrection, they have nothing to stand on.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:35 @{But some one will say} (\alla erei tis\). Paul knows what the sceptics were saying. He is a master at putting the standpoint of the imaginary adversary. {How} (\p“s\). This is still the great objection to the resurrection of our bodies. Granted that Jesus rose from the dead, for the sake of argument, these sceptics refuse to believe in the possibility of our resurrection. It is the attitude of Matthew Arnold who said, "Miracles do not happen." Scientifically we know the "how" of few things. Paul has an astounding answer to this objection. Death itself is the way of resurrection as in the death of the seed for the new plant (verses 36f.|). {With what manner of body} (\poi“i s“mati\). This is the second question which makes plainer the difficulty of the first. The first body perishes. Will that body be raised? Paul treats this problem more at length (verses 38-54|) and by analogy of nature (Cf. Butler's famous _Analogy_). It is a spiritual, not a natural, body that is raised. \S“ma\ here is an organism. {Flesh} (\sarx\) is the \s“ma\ for the natural man, but there is spiritual (\pneumatikon\) \s“ma\ for the resurrection.

rwp@1John:5:13 @{I have written} (\egrapsa\). Not epistolary aorist, but refers to verses 1-12| of this Epistle as in strkjv@2:26| to the preceding verses. {That ye may know} (\hina eidˆte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second perfect active subjunctive of \oida\, to know with settled intuitive knowledge. He wishes them to have eternal life in Christ (John:20:31|) and to know that they have it, but not with flippant superficiality (2:3ff.|). {Unto you that believe on} (\tois pisteuousin eis\). Dative of the articular present active participle of \pisteu“\ and \eis\ as in verse 10|. For this use of \onoma\ (name) with \pisteu“\ see strkjv@3:23; strkjv@John:2:23|.

rwp@1Peter:1:3 @{Blessed be} (\eulogˆtos\). No copula in the Greek (\est“\, let be, or \estin\, is, or \eiˆ\, may be). The verbal adjective (from \euloge“\) occurs in the N.T. only of God, as in the LXX (Luke:1:68|). See also strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@Ephesians:1:3|. {The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\ho theos kai patˆr tou kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). This precise language in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; Ephesians:I:3|; and part of it in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:31; strkjv@Romans:15:6|. See strkjv@John:20:17| for similar language by Jesus. {Great} (\polu\). Much. {Begat us again} (\anagennˆsas hˆmƒs\). First aorist active articular (\ho\, who) participle of \anagenna“\, late, and rare word to beget again, in Aleph for _Sirach_ (_Prol_. 20), in Philo, in Hermetic writings, in N.T. only here and verse 23|. "It was probably borrowed by the New Paganism from Christianity" (Bigg). The Stoics used \anagennˆsis\ for \palingenesia\ (Titus:3:5|). If \an“then\ in strkjv@John:3:3| be taken to mean "again," the same idea of regeneration is there, and if "from above" it is the new birth, anyhow. {Unto a living hope} (\eis elpida z“san\). Peter is fond of the word "living" (present active participle of \za“\) as in strkjv@1:23; strkjv@2:4,5,24; strkjv@4:5,6|. The Pharisees cherished the hope of the resurrection (Acts:23:6|), but the resurrection of Jesus gave it proof and permanence (1Corinthians:15:14,17|). It is no longer a dead hope like dead faith (James:2:17,26|). This revival of hope was wrought "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (\dia anastase“s\). Hope rose up with Christ from the dead, though the disciples (Peter included) were slow at first to believe it.

rwp@Info_1Thessalonians @ FIRST THESSALONIANS FROM CORINTH A.D. 50 TO 51 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION We cannot say that this is Paul's first letter to a church, for in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:2| he speaks of some as palming off letters as his and in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:17| he says that he appends his own signature to every letter after dictating it to an amanuensis (Romans:16:22|). We know of one lost letter (1Corinthians:5:11|) and perhaps another (2Corinthians:2:3|). But this is the earliest one that has come down to us and it may even be the earliest New Testament book, unless the Epistle of James antedates it or even Mark's Gospel. We know, as already shown, that Paul was in Corinth and that Timothy and Silas had just arrived from Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:3:6; strkjv@Acts:18:5|). They had brought supplies from the Macedonian churches to supply Paul's need (2Corinthians:11:9|), as the church in Philippi did once and again while Paul was in Thessalonica (Phillipians:4:15f.|). Before Timothy and Silas came to Corinth Paul had to work steadily at his trade as tent-maker with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts:18:3|) and could only preach in the synagogue on sabbaths, but the rich stores from Macedonia released his hands and "Paul devoted himself to the word" (\suneicheto t“i log“i Paulos\). He gave himself wholly to preaching now. But Timothy and Silas brought news of serious trouble in the church in Thessalonica. Some of the disciples there had misunderstood Paul's preaching about the second coming of Christ and had quit work and were making a decided disturbance on the subject. Undoubtedly Paul had touched upon eschatological matters while in Thessalonica. The Jewish leaders at Thessalonica charged it against Paul and Silas to the politarchs that they had preached another king, Jesus, in place of Caesar. Paul had preached Jesus as King of the spiritual kingdom which the Jews misrepresented to the politarchs as treason against Caesar as the Sanhedrin had done to Pilate about Jesus. Clearly Paul had said also that Jesus was going to come again according to his own promise before his ascension. Some asserted that Paul said Jesus was going to come right away and drew their own inferences for idleness and fanaticism as some do today. Strange as it may seem, there are scholars today who say that Paul did believe and say that Jesus was going to come back right away. They say this in spite of strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1f.| where Paul denies having ever said it. Undoubtedly Paul hoped for the early return of Jesus as most of the early Christians did, but that is a very different thing from setting a time for his coming. It is open to us all to hope for the speedy return of Christ, but times and seasons are with God and not with us. It is not open to us to excuse our negligence and idleness as Christians because of such a hope. That hope should serve as a spur to increased activity for Christ in order to hasten his coming. Songs:Paul writes this group of Epistles to correct gross misapprehension and misrepresentation of his preaching about last things (eschatology). It is a rare preacher who has never been misunderstood or misrepresented.

rwp@1Timothy:3:16 @{Without controversy} (\homologoumen“s\). Old adverb from the participle \homologoumenos\ from \homologe“\. Here only in N.T. "Confessedly." {Great} (\mega\). See strkjv@Ephesians:5:32|. "A great mystery." {The mystery of godliness} (\to tˆs eusebeias mustˆrion\). See verse 9| "the mystery of the faith," and strkjv@2:2| for \eusebeia\. Here the phrase explains "a pillar and stay of the truth" (verse 15|). See in particular Co strkjv@1:27|. "The revealed secret of true religion, the mystery of Christianity, the Person of Christ" (Lock). {He who} (\hos\). The correct text, not \theos\ (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus (Syrian text) nor \ho\ (neuter relative, agreeing with \mustˆrion\) the reading of the Western documents. Westcott and Hort print this relative clause as a fragment of a Christian hymn (like strkjv@Ephesians:5:14|) in six strophes. That is probably correct. At any rate \hos\ (who) is correct and there is asyndeton (no connective) in the verbs. Christ, to whom \hos\ refers, is the mystery (Colossians:1:27; strkjv@2:2|). {Was manifested} (\ephaner“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \phanero“\, to manifest. Here used to describe the incarnation (\en sarki\) of Christ (an answer also to the Docetic Gnostics). The verb is used by Paul elsewhere of the incarnation (Romans:16:26; strkjv@Colossians:1:26|) as well as of the second coming (Colossians:3:4|). {Justified in the spirit} (\edikai“thˆ en pneumati\). First aorist passive indicative of \dikaio“\, to declare righteous, to vindicate. Christ was vindicated in his own spirit (Hebrews:9:14|) before men by overcoming death and rising from the dead (Romans:1:3f.|). {Seen of angels} (\“phthˆ aggelois\). First aorist passive indicative of \hora“\, to see, with either the instrumental or the dative case of angels (\aggelois\). The words were probably suggested by the appearance of Jesus (\“phthˆ\, the usual form for the resurrection appearances of Christ) of the angels at the tomb and at the ascension of Christ. See strkjv@Phillipians:2:10; strkjv@1Peter:3:22| for the appearance of Jesus to the angels in heaven at the ascension. Some would take "angels" here to be "messengers" (the women). {Preached among the nations} (\ekˆruchthˆ en ethnesin\). First aorist passive indicative of \kˆruss“\, to proclaim. The word \ethnos\ may mean "all creation" (Colossians:1:23|) and not just Gentiles as distinct from Jews. Paul had done more of this heralding of Christ among the Gentiles than any one else. It was his glory (Ephesians:3:1,8|). Cf. strkjv@2:7|. {Believed on in the world} (\episteuthˆ en kosm“i\). First aorist indicative passive again of \pisteu“\, to believe (2Thessalonians:1:10|). Cf. strkjv@1:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19|. {Received up in glory} (\anelˆmphthˆ en doxˆi\). First aorist passive again (six verbs in the same voice and tense in succession, a rhythmic arrangement like a hymn). Cf. strkjv@Romans:8:29f|. This time the verb is \analamban“\, the verb used of the ascension (Acts:1:11,22|, which see). In a wonderful way this stanza of a hymn presents the outline of the life of Christ.

rwp@1Timothy:4:3 @{Forbidding to marry} (\k“luont“n gamein\). Present active participle of common verb \k“lu“\, to hinder, genitive case agreeing with \pseudolog“n\. See strkjv@Colossians:2:16,21f.|, where Paul condemns the ascetic practices of the Gnostics. The Essenes, Therapeutae and other oriental sects forbade marriage. In strkjv@1Corinthians:7| Paul does not condemn marriage. {To abstain from meats} (\apechesthai br“mat“n\). Infinitive dependent, not on \k“luont“n\, but on the positive idea \keleuont“n\ (implied, not expressed). Ablative case of \br“mat“n\ after \apechesthai\ (present direct middle, to hold oneself away from). See strkjv@1Corinthians:8-10; strkjv@Romans:14; 15| for disputes about "meats offered to idols" and Co strkjv@1:22f.| for the Gnostic asceticism. {Which God created} (\ha ho theos ektisen\). First active indicative of \ktiz“\ (Co strkjv@1:16|). Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:10:25|. {To be received} (\eis metalˆmpsin\). "For reception." Old word, only here in N.T. {By them that believe and know} (\tois pistois kai epegn“kosi\). Dative case, "for the believers and those who (one article unites closely) have known fully" (perfect active participle of \epigin“sk“\), a Pauline use of the word (Colossians:1:6|).

rwp@2Corinthians:4:4 @{The god of this world} (\ho theos tou ai“nos toutou\). "Age," more exactly, as in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:20|. Satan is "the god of this age," a phrase nowhere else in the N.T., but Jesus uses the same idea in strkjv@John:12:31; strkjv@14:30| and Paul in strkjv@Ephesians:2:2; strkjv@6:12| and John in strkjv@1John:5:19|. Satan claimed the rule over the world in the temptations with Jesus. {Blinded} (\etuphl“sen\). First aorist active of \tuphlo“\, old verb to blind (\tuphlos\, blind). They refused to believe (\apist“n\) and so Satan got the power to blind their thoughts. That happens with wilful disbelievers. {The light} (\ton ph“tismon\). The illumination, the enlightening. Late word from \photiz“\, to give light, in Plutarch and LXX. In N.T. only in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4,6|. Accusative case of general reference here with the articular infinitive (\eis to mˆ augasai\ that should not dawn). That is, if \augasai\ is intransitive as is likely, though it is transitive in the old poets (from \augˆ\, radiance. Cf. German _Auge_=eye). If it is transitive, the idea would be "that they should not see clearly the illumination, etc."

rwp@2Peter:3:4 @{Where is the promise of his coming?} (\pou estin hˆ epaggelia tˆs parousias autou;\). This is the only sample of the questions raised by these mockers. Peter had mentioned this subject of the \parousia\ in strkjv@1:16|. Now he faces it squarely. Peter, like Paul (1Thessalonians:5:1f.; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1f.|), preached about the second coming (1:16; strkjv@Acts:3:20f.|), as Jesus himself did repeatedly (Matthew:24:34|) and as the angels promised at the Ascension (Acts:1:11|). Both Jesus and Paul (2Thessalonians:2:1f.|) were misunderstood on the subject of the time and the parables of Jesus urged readiness and forbade setting dates for his coming, though his language in strkjv@Matthew:24:34| probably led some to believe that he would certainly come while they were alive. {From the day that} (\aph' hˆs\). "From which day." See strkjv@Luke:7:45|. {Fell asleep} (\ekoimˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \koima“\, old verb, to put sleep, classic euphemism for death (John:11:11|) like our cemetery (sleeping-place). {Continue} (\diamenei\). Present active indicative of \diamen“\, to remain through (Luke:1:22|). _In statu quo_. {As they were} (\hout“s\). "Thus." {From the beginning of creation} (\ap' archˆs ktise“s\). Precisely so in strkjv@Mark:10:6|, which see.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:11 @{And for this reason God sendeth them} (\kai dia touto pempei autois ho theos\). Futuristic (prophetic) present of the time when the lawless one is revealed. Here is the definite judicial act of God (Milligan) who gives the wicked over to the evil which they have deliberately chosen (Romans:1:24,26,28|). {A working of error} (\energeian planˆs\). Terrible result of wilful rejection of the truth of God. {That they should believe a lie} (\eis to pisteusai autous t“i pseudei\). Note \eis to\ again and \t“i pseudei\ (the lie, the falsehood already described), a contemplated result. Note strkjv@Romans:1:25| "who changed the truth of God into the lie."

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:12 @{That they all might be judged} (\hina krith“sin pantes\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \krin“\, to sift, to judge, with \hina\. Ultimate purpose, almost result, of the preceding obstinate resistance to the truth and "the judicial infatuation which overtakes them" (Lightfoot), now final punishment. Condemnation is involved in the fatal choice made. These victims of the man of sin did not believe the truth and found pleasure in unrighteousness.

rwp@Acts:7:57 @{Stopped their ears} (\suneschon ta “ta aut“n\). Second aorist active of \sunech“\, to hold together. They held their ears together with their hands and affected to believe Stephen guilty of blasphemy (cf. strkjv@Matthew:26:65|). {Rushed upon him with one accord} (\h“rmˆsan homothumadon ep' auton\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \horma“\, to rush impetuously as the hogs did down the cliff when the demons entered them (Luke:8:33|). No vote was taken by the Sanhedrin. No scruple was raised about not having the right to put him to death (John:8:31|). It may have taken place after Pilate's recall and before his successor came or Pilate, if there, just connived at such an incident that did not concern Rome. At any rate it was mob violence like modern lynching that took the law into the hands of the Sanhedrin without further formalities. {Out of the city} (\ek tˆs pole“s\). To keep from defiling the place with blood. But they sought to kill Paul as soon as they got him out of the temple area (Acts:21:30f.|). {Stoned} (\elithoboloun\). Imperfect active indicative of \lithobole“\, began to stone, from \lithobolos\ (\lithos\, stone, \ball“\, to throw), late Greek verb, several times in the N.T. as strkjv@Luke:13:34|. Stoning was the Jewish punishment for blasphemy (Leviticus:24:14-16|). {The witnesses} (\hoi martures\). The false testifiers against Stephen suborned by the Pharisees (Acts:6:11,13|). These witnesses had the privilege of casting the first stones (Deuteronomy:13:10; strkjv@17:7|) against the first witness for Christ with death (_martyr_ in our modern sense of the word). {At the feet of a young man named Saul} (\para tous podas neaniou kaloumenou Saulou\). Beside (\para\) the feet. Our first introduction to the man who became the greatest of all followers of Jesus Christ. Evidently he was not one of the "witnesses" against Stephen, for he was throwing no stones at him. But evidently he was already a leader in the group of Pharisees. We know from later hints from Saul (Paul) himself that he had been a pupil of Gamaliel (Acts:22:3|). Gamaliel, as the Pharisaic leader in the Sanhedrin, was probably on hand to hear the accusations against Stephen by the Pharisees. But, if so, he does not raise his voice against this mob violence. Saul does not seem to be aware that he is going contrary to the views of his master, though pupils often go further than their teachers.

rwp@Acts:9:38 @{Delay not} (\mˆ oknˆsˆis\). Ingressive aorist active subjunctive in prohibition. Direct discourse and not indirect as late MSS. have (aorist active infinitive, \oknˆsai\). Possibly the two messengers started before Dorcas was quite dead, though we do not know. Peter had recently healed Aeneas and the disciples may have had faith enough to believe that he could raise the dead by the power of Christ. W. M. Ramsay doubts if Dorcas was really dead, but why see legends in these supernatural events?

rwp@Acts:10:43 @{Every one that believeth} (\panta ton pisteuonta\). This accusative active participle of general reference with the infinitive in indirect discourse is the usual idiom. Only \labein\ (second aorist active infinitive of \lamban“\) is not indirect statement so much as indirect command or arrangement. The prophets bear witness to Jesus Christ to this effect. It is God's plan and no race distinctions are drawn. Peter had already said the same thing at Pentecost (2:38|), but now he sees himself that Gentiles do not have to become Jews, but have only to believe in Jesus as Messiah and Judge as foretold by the prophets. It was glorious news to Cornelius and his group. {Through his name} (\dia tou onomatos autou\), not as a _title_ or magic formula (Acts:18:13|), but the power of Christ himself represented by his name.

rwp@Acts:13:12 @{Believed} (\episteusen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative. Renan considers it impossible that a Roman proconsul could be converted by a miracle. But it was the teaching about the Lord (\tou kuriou\, objective genitive) by which he was astonished (\ekplˆssomenos\, present passive participle of \ekplˆss“\, see on ¯Matthew:7:28|) or struck out as well as by the miracle. The blindness came "immediately" (\paraehrˆma\) upon the judgment pronounced by Paul. It is possible that Sergius Paulus was converted to Christ without openly identifying himself with the Christians as his baptism is not mentioned as in the case of Cornelius. But, even if he was baptized, he need not have been deposed from his proconsulship as Furneaux and Rackham argue because his office called for "official patronage of idolatrous worship." But that could have been merely perfunctory as it probably was already. He had been a disciple of the Jewish magician, Elymas Barjesus, without losing his position. Imperial persecution against Christianity had not yet begun. Furneaux even suggests that the conversion of a proconsul to Christianity at this stage would have called for mention by the Roman and Greek historians. There is the name Sergia Paullina in a Christian cemetery in Rome which shows that one of his family was a Christian later. One will believe what he wills about Sergius Paulus, but I do not see that Luke leaves him in the category of Simon Magus who "believed" (8:13|) for revenue only.

rwp@Acts:13:16 @{Paul stood up} (\anastas Paulos\). The Jewish custom was to sit while speaking (Luke:4:20|), but the Greek and Roman was to stand (Acts:17:22|). It is possible as Lewin (_Life of St. Paul_, Vol. 1, p. 141) suggests that here Paul stepped upon the platform and then took his seat as he began to speak or he may have followed the Greek and Roman custom. Paul is the leader now and the more gifted speaker (Acts:14:12|), so that he responds to the courteous invitation of the rulers. {Beckoning} (\kataseisas\). First aorist active participle of \katasei“\, old verb to shake down, a dramatic gesture for quiet and order like Peter in strkjv@12:17| and Paul on the steps of the tower of Antonia (21:40|). {And ye that fear God} (\kai hoi phoboumenoi ton theon\). Evidently large numbers of these Gentiles like Cornelius in Caesarea were present. They offered Paul a great opportunity for reaching the purely pagan Gentiles. This (verses 16-41|) is the first full report of a sermon of Paul's that Luke has preserved for us. He is now a practised preacher of the gospel that he began proclaiming at Damascus, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of promise and the Saviour of the whole world both Jew and Gentile if they will only believe on him and be saved. It is possible that Paul here based his sermon on the passages of the law and the prophets that had just been read. He uses two words from the LXX, one in verse 19| from strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:31| \etrophophorˆsen\ (as a nursing-father bare he them), the reading of many old MSS. and the one preferred by the American Committee, the other in verse 17| from strkjv@Isaiah:1:2| \hups“sen\ (exalted). At any rate it is clear that Paul spoke in Greek so that all could understand his sermon. He may have written out notes of this sermon afterwards for Luke. The keynotes of Paul's theology as found in his Epistles appear in this sermon. It is interesting to observe the steady growth of Paul's Christology as he faced the great problems of his day. Here we see Paul's gospel for the Jews and the God-fearers (Gentiles friendly to the Jews).

rwp@Acts:13:40 @{Beware therefore} (\blepete oun\). The warning is pertinent. Perhaps Paul noticed anger on the faces of some of the rabbis. {Lest there come upon you} (\mˆ epelthˆi\). Second aorist active subjunctive with the negative final conjunction \mˆ\. {In the prophets} (\en tois prophˆtais\). The quotation is from the LXX text of strkjv@Habbakkuk:1:5|. The plural here refers to the prophetic collection (Luke:24:44; strkjv@Acts:24:14|). "The Jews of Habakkuk's day had refused to believe in the impending invasion by the Chaldeans, and yet it had come" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:13:48 @{As the Gentiles heard this they were glad} (\akouonta ta ethnˆ echairon\). Present active participle of \akou“\ and imperfect active of \chair“\, linear action descriptive of the joy of the Gentiles. {Glorified the word of God} (\edoxazon ton logon tou theou\). Imperfect active again. The joy of the Gentiles increased the fury of the Jews. "The synagogue became a scene of excitement which must have been something like the original speaking with tongues" (Rackham). The joy of the Gentiles was to see how they could receive the higher blessing of Judaism without circumcision and other repellent features of Jewish ceremonialism. It was the gospel of grace and liberty from legalism that Paul had proclaimed. Whether strkjv@Galatians:4:13| describes this incident or not (the South Galatian theory), it illustrates it when Gentiles received Paul as if he were Christ Jesus himself. It was triumph with the Gentiles, but defeat with the Jews. {As many as were ordained to eternal life} (\hosoi ˆsan tetagmenoi eis z“ˆn ai“nion\). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of \tass“\, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word "ordain" is not the best translation here. "Appointed," as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an _absolutum decretum_ of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away. {Believed} (\episteusan\). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of \pisteu“\. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.

rwp@Acts:15:11 @{That we shall be saved} (\s“thˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive in indirect discourse after \pisteuomen\. More exactly, "We believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in like manner as they also." This thoroughly Pauline note shows that whatever hopes the Judaizers had about Peter were false. His doctrine of grace is as clear as a bell. He has lifted his voice against salvation by ceremony and ritualism. It was a great deliverance.

rwp@Acts:17:34 @{Clave unto him and believed} (\kollˆthentes aut“i episteusan\). First aorist passive of this strong word \kolla“\, to glue to, common in Acts (5:13; strkjv@8:29; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@10:28|) No sermon is a failure which leads a group of men (\andres\) to believe (ingressive aorist of \pisteu“\) in Jesus Christ. Many so-called great or grand sermons reap no such harvest. {Dionysius the Areopagite} (\Dionusios ho Areopagitˆs\). One of the judges of the Court of the Areopagus. That of itself was no small victory. He was one of this college of twelve judges who had helped to make Athens famous. Eusebius says that he became afterwards bishop of the Church at Athens and died a martyr. {A woman named Damaris} (\gunˆ onomati Damaris\). A woman by name Damaris. Not the wife of Dionysius as some have thought, but an aristocratic woman, not necessarily an educated courtezan as Furneaux holds. And there were "others" (\heteroi\) with them, a group strong enough to keep the fire burning in Athens. It is common to say that Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:1-5| alludes to his failure with philosophy in Athens when he failed to preach Christ crucified and he determined never to make that mistake again. On the other hand Paul determined to stick to the Cross of Christ in spite of the fact that the intellectual pride and superficial culture of Athens had prevented the largest success. As he faced Corinth with its veneer of culture and imitation of philosophy and sudden wealth he would go on with the same gospel of the Cross, the only gospel that Paul knew or preached. And it was a great thing to give the world a sermon like that preached in Athens.

rwp@Acts:19:4 @{With the baptism of repentance} (\baptisma metanoias\). Cognate accusative with \ebaptisen\ and the genitive \metanoias\ describing the baptism as marked by (case of species or genus), not as conveying, repentance just as in strkjv@Mark:1:4| and that was the work of the Holy Spirit. But John preached also the baptism of the Holy Spirit which the Messiah was to bring (Mark:1:7f.; strkjv@Matthew:3:11f.; strkjv@Luke:3:16|). If they did not know of the Holy Spirit, they had missed the point of John's baptism. {That they should believe on him that should come after him, that is on Jesus} (\eis ton erchomenon met' auton hina pisteus“sin, tout' estin eis ton Iˆsoun\). Note the emphatic prolepsis of \eis ton erchomenon met' auton\ before \hina pisteus“sin\ with which it is construed. This is John's identical phrase, "the one coming after me" as seen in strkjv@Mark:1:7; strkjv@Matthew:3:11; strkjv@Luke:3:16; strkjv@John:1:15|. It is not clear that these "disciples" believed in a Messiah, least of all in Jesus. They were wholly unprepared for the baptism of John. Paul does not mean to say that John's baptism was inadequate, but he simply explains what John really taught and so what his baptism signified.

rwp@Acts:19:9 @{But when some were hardened} (\h“s de tines esklˆrunonto\). Imperfect passive of \sklˆrun“\, causative like _hiphil_ in Hebrew, to make hard (\sklˆros\) or rough or harsh (Matthew:25:24|). In LXX and Hippocrates and Galen (in medical writings). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:9:18| and 4 times in strkjv@Hebrews:3:8,13,15; strkjv@4:7,8| quoting and referring to strkjv@Psalms:95:8| about hardening the heart like a gristle. The inevitable reaction against Paul went on even in Ephesus though slowly. {Disobedient} (\epeithoun\). Imperfect again, showing the growing disbelief and disobedience (\apeithˆs\), both ideas as in strkjv@14:2; strkjv@17:5|, first refusal to believe and then refusal to obey. Both \sklˆrun“\ and \apeithe“\ occur together, as here, in Ecclus. strkjv@30:12. {Speaking evil of the Way} (\kakologountes tˆn hodon\). Late verb from \kakologos\ (speaker of evil) for the old \kak“s leg“\. Already in strkjv@Mark:7:10; strkjv@9:39; strkjv@Matthew:15:4|. Now these Jews are aggressive opponents of Paul and seek to injure his influence with the crowd. Note "the Way" as in strkjv@9:2| for Christianity. {He departed from them} (\apostas ap' aut“n\). Second aorist active participle of \aphistˆmi\, made an "apostasy" (standing off, cleavage) as he did at Corinth (18:7|, \metabas\, making a change). {Separated the disciples} (\aph“risen tous mathˆtas\). First aorist active indicative of \aphoriz“\, old verb to mark limits (horizon) as already in strkjv@13:2|. Paul himself was a spiritual Pharisee "separated" to Christ (Romans:1:1|). The Jews regarded this withdrawal as apostasy, like separating the sheep from the goats (Matthew:25:32|). Paul now made a separate church as he had done at Thessalonica and Corinth. {In the school of Tyrannus} (\en tˆi scholˆi Turannou\). \Scholˆ\ (our school) is an old word from \schein\ (\ech“\) to hold on, leisure and then in later Greek (Plutarch, etc.) a place where there is leisure as here. Only this example in the N.T. This is the Greek notion of "school," the Jewish being that of "yoke" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:29|. The name Tyrannus (our tyrant) is a common one. It is an inscription in the Columbarium of the Empress Livia as that of a physician in the court. Furneaux suggests the possibility that a relative of this physician was lecturing on medicine in Ephesus and so as a friend of Luke, the physician, would be glad to help Paul about a place to preach. It was probably a public building or lecture hall with this name whether hired by Paul or loaned to him. The pagan sophists often spoke in such halls. The Codex Bezae adds "from the fifth hour to the tenth" as the time allotted Paul for his work in this hall, which is quite possible, from just before midday till the close of the afternoon (from before the noon meal till two hours before sunset) each day. Here Paul had great freedom and a great hearing. As the church grows there will be other places of meeting as the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (1Corinthians:16:19|).

rwp@Acts:20:10 @{Fell on him} (\epepesen aut“i\). Second aorist active indicative of \epipipt“\ with dative case as Elijah did (1Kings:17:21|) and Elisha (2Kings:4:34|). {Embracing} (\sunperilab“n\). Second aorist active participle of \sunperilamban“\, old verb to embrace completely (take hold together round), but only here in the N.T. In strkjv@Ezra:5:3|. {Make ye no ado} (\mˆ thorubeisthe\). Stop (\mˆ\ and present middle imperative of \thorube“\) making a noise (\thorubos\) as the people did on the death of Jairus's daughter (Matthew:9:23| \thoruboumenou\ and strkjv@Mark:5:38| \thorubou\) when Jesus asked \Ti thorubeisthe?\ {For his life is in him} (\hˆ gar psuchˆ autou en aut“i estin\). This language is relied on by Ramsay, Wendt, Zoeckler to show that Eutychus had not really died, but had merely swooned. Paul's language would suit that view, but it suits equally well the idea that he had just been restored to life and so is indecisive. Furneaux urges also the fact that his friends did not bring him back to the meeting till morning (verse 12|) as additional evidence that it was a case of swooning rather than of death. But this again is not conclusive as they would naturally not take him back at once. One will believe here as the facts appeal to him.

rwp@Acts:21:21 @{They have been informed concerning thee} (\katˆchˆthˆsan peri sou\). First aorist passive indicative of \katˆche“\. A word in the ancient Greek, but a few examples survive in the papyri. It means to sound (echo, from \ˆch“\, our word) down (\kata\), to resound, re-echo, to teach orally. Oriental students today (Arabs learning the Koran) often study aloud. In the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:4| which see; strkjv@Acts:18:25; strkjv@21:21; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:19; strkjv@Galatians:6:6; strkjv@Romans:2:18|. This oral teaching about Paul was done diligently by the Judaizers who had raised trouble against Peter (Acts:11:2|) and Paul (15:1,5|). They had failed in their attacks on Paul's world campaigns. Now they try to undermine him at home. In Paul's long absence from Jerusalem, since strkjv@18:22|, they have had a free hand, save what opposition James would give, and have had great success in prejudicing the Jerusalem Christians against Paul. Songs:James, in the presence of the other elders and probably at their suggestion, feels called upon to tell Paul the actual situation. {That thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses} (\hoti apostasian didaskeis apo M“use“s tous kata ta ethnˆ pantas Ioudaious\). Two accusatives with \didaskeis\ (verb of teaching) according to rule. Literally, "That thou art teaching all the Jews among (\kata\) the Gentiles (the Jews of the dispersion as in strkjv@2:9|) apostasy from Moses." That is the point, the dreadful word \apostasian\ (our apostasy), a late form (I Macc. strkjv@2:15) for the earlier \apostasis\ (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3| for \apostasia\). "In the eyes of the church at Jerusalem this was a far more serious matter than the previous question at the Conference about the status of Gentile converts" (Furneaux). Paul had brought that issue to the Jerusalem Conference because of the contention of the Judaizers. But here it is not the Judaizers, but the elders of the church with James as their spokesman on behalf of the church as a whole. They do not believe this false charge, but they wish Paul to set it straight. Paul had made his position clear in his Epistles (I Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) for all who cared to know. {Telling them not to circumcise their children} (\leg“n mˆ peritemnein autous ta tekna\). The participle \leg“n\ agrees with "thou" (Paul), the subject of \didaskeis\. This is not indirect assertion, but indirect command, hence the negative \mˆ\ instead of \ou\ with the infinitive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p.1046). The point is not that Paul stated what the Jewish Christians in the dispersion do, but that he says that they (\autous\ accusative of general reference) are not to go on circumcising (\peritemnein\, present active infinitive) their children. Paul taught the very opposite (1Corinthians:7:18|) and had Timothy circumcised (Acts:16:3|) because he was half Jew and half Greek. His own practice is stated in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:19| ("to the Jews as a Jew"). {Neither to walk after the customs} (\mˆde tois ethesin peripatein\). Locative case with infinitive \peripatein\. The charge was here enlarged to cover it all and to make Paul out an enemy of Jewish life and teachings. That same charge had been made against Stephen when young Saul (Paul) was the leader (6:14|): "Will change the customs (\ethˆ\ the very word used here) which Moses delivered unto us." It actually seemed that some of the Jews cared more for Moses than for God (Acts:6:11|). Songs:much for the charge of the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:21:22 @{What is it therefore?} (\Ti oun estin?\). See this form of question by Paul (1Corinthians:14:15,26|). What is to be done about it? Clearly James and the elders do not believe these misrepresentations of Paul's teaching, but many do. {They will certainly hear} (\pant“s akousontai\). \Pant“s\ is old adverb, by all means, altogether, wholly, certainly as here and strkjv@28:4; strkjv@Luke:4:23; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:10|. This future middle of \akou“\ is the usual form instead of \akous“\. There was no way to conceal Paul's arrival nor was it wise to do so. B C and several cursives omit \dei plˆthos sunelthein\ (The multitude must needs come together).

rwp@Acts:21:26 @{Took the men} (\paralab“n tous andras\). The very phrase used in verse 24| to Paul. {The next day} (\tˆi echomenˆi\). One of the phrases in strkjv@20:15| for the coming day. Locative case of time. {Purifying himself with them} (\sun autois hagnistheis\, first aorist passive participle of \hagniz“\). The precise language again of the recommendation in verse 24|. Paul was conforming to the letter. {Went into the temple} (\eisˆiei eis to hieron\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\ as in verse 18| which see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined the four men in their vow of separation. {Declaring} (\diaggell“n\). To the priests what day he would report the fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:11:17| (quotation from the LXX). It is not necessary to assume that the vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham). {Until the offering was offered for every one of them} (\he“s hou prosˆnechthˆ huper henos hekastou aut“n hˆ prosphora\). This use of \he“s hou\ (like \he“s\, alone) with the first aorist passive indicative \prosˆnechthˆ\ of \prospher“\, to offer, contemplates the final result (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 974f.) and is probably the statement of Luke added to Paul's announcement. He probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:20| when no principle was involved. It is charged that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these "false apostles" over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded by Paul's accusers. Songs:far as the evidence goes that thing was accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea the Judaizers cut no figure at all. The Jewish Christians do not appear in Paul's behalf, but there was no opportunity for them to do so. The explosion that came on the last day of Paul's appearance in the temple was wholly disconnected from his offerings for the four brethren and himself. It must be remembered that Paul had many kinds of enemies. The attack on him by these Jews from Asia had no connexion whatever with the slanders of the Judaizers about Paul's alleged teachings that Jewish Christians in the dispersion should depart from the Mosaic law. That slander was put to rest forever by his following the advice of James and justifies the wisdom of that advice and Paul's conduct about it.

rwp@Acts:26:27 @{I know that thou believest} (\oida hoti pisteueis\). Paul had "cornered" Agrippa by this direct challenge. As the Jew in charge of the temple he was bound to confess his faith in the prophets. But Paul had interpreted the prophets about the Messiah in a way that fell in with his claim that Jesus was the Messiah risen from the dead. To say, "Yes" would place himself in Paul's hands. To say "No" would mean that he did not believe the prophets. Agrippa had listened with the keenest interest, but he slipped out of the coils with adroitness and a touch of humour.

rwp@Acts:27:25 @{Wherefore be of good cheer} (\dio euthumeite\). God had spoken. That was enough. This old verb from \euthumos\ in the N.T. only here, verse 25; strkjv@James:5:13|. See the adjective strkjv@27:36|. {For I believe God} (\pisteu“ gar t“i the“i\). This is Paul's reason for his own good cheer and for his exhortation to confidence in spite of circumstances so untoward. Paul had doubtless prayed for his own life and for the lives of all. He was sure that he was to bear his witness in Rome.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ THE DATE Clearly it was sent at the same time with the Epistle to Philemon and the one to the Ephesians since Tychicus the bearer of the letter to Ephesus (Ephesians:6:21f.|) and the one to Colossae (Colossians:4:7f.|) was a companion of Onesimus (Colossians:4:9|) the bearer of that to Philemon (Philemon:1:10-12|). If Paul is a prisoner (Colossians:4:3; strkjv@Ephesians:6:20; strkjv@Philemon:1:9|) in Rome, as most scholars hold, and not in Ephesus as Deissmann and Duncan argue, the probable date would be A.D. 63. I still believe that Paul is in Rome when he sends out these epistles. If so, the time would be after the arrival in Rome from Jerusalem as told in strkjv@Acts:28| and before the burning of Rome by Nero in A.D. 64. If Philippians was already sent, A.D. 63 marks the last probable year for the writing of this group of letters.

rwp@Galatians:3:7 @{The same are sons of Abraham} (\houtoi huioi eisin Abraham\). "These are." This is Paul's astounding doctrine to Jews that the real sons of Abraham are those who believe as he did, "they which be of faith" (\hoi ek piste“s\), a common idiom with Paul for this idea (verse 9; strkjv@Romans:3:26; strkjv@4:16; strkjv@14:23|), those whose spiritual sonship springs out of (\ek\) faith, not out of blood. John the Baptist denounced the Pharisees and Sadducees as vipers though descendants of Abraham (Matthew:3:7; strkjv@Luke:3:7|) and Jesus termed the Pharisees children of the devil and not spiritual children of Abraham (not children of God) in strkjv@John:8:37-44|.

rwp@Galatians:4:24 @{Which things contain an allegory} (\hatina estin allˆgoroumena\). Literally, "Which things are allegorized" (periphrastic present passive indicative of \allˆgore“\). Late word (Strabo, Plutarch, Philo, Josephus, ecclesiastical writers), only here in N.T. The ancient writers used \ainittomai\ to speak in riddles. It is compounded of \allo\, another, and \agoreu“\, to speak, and so means speaking something else than what the language means, what Philo, the past-master in the use of allegory, calls the deeper spiritual sense. Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law. He puts a secondary meaning on the narrative just as he uses \tupik“s\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:11| of the narrative. We need not press unduly the difference between allegory and type, for each is used in a variety of ways. The allegory in one sense is a speaking parable like Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_, the Prodigal Son in strkjv@Luke:15|, the Good Shepherd in strkjv@John:10|. But allegory was also used by Philo and by Paul here for a secret meaning not obvious at first, one not in the mind of the writer, like our illustration which throws light on the point. Paul was familiar with this rabbinical method of exegesis (Rabbi Akiba, for instance, who found a mystical sense in every hook and crook of the Hebrew letters) and makes skilful use of that knowledge here. Christian preachers in Alexandria early fell victims to Philo's allegorical method and carried it to excess without regard to the plain sense of the narrative. That startling style of preaching survives yet to the discredit of sound preaching. Please observe that Paul says here that he is using allegory, not ordinary interpretation. It is not necessary to say that Paul intended his readers to believe that this allegory was designed by the narrative. He illustrates his point by it. {For these are} (\hautai gar eisin\). Allegorically interpreted, he means. {From Mount Sinai} (\apo orous Sinƒ\). Spoken from Mount Sinai. {Bearing} (\genn“sa\). Present active participle of \genna“\, to beget of the male (Matthew:1:1-16|), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke:1:13,57|). {Which is Hagar} (\hˆtis estin Hagar\). Allegorically interpreted.

rwp@Hebrews:11:3 @{By faith} (\pistei\). Instrumental case of \pistis\ which he now illustrates in a marvellous way. Each example as far as verse 31| is formally and with rhetorical skill introduced by \pistei\. After that only a summary is given. {We understand} (\nooumen\). Present active indicative of \noe“\, old verb (from \nous\, intellect) as in strkjv@Matthew:15:17; strkjv@Romans:1:20|. The author appeals to our knowledge of the world in which these heroes lived as an illustration of faith. Recent books by great scientists like Eddington and Jeans confirm the position here taken that a Supreme Mind is behind and before the universe. Science can only stand still in God's presence and believe like a little child. {The worlds} (\tous ai“nas\). "The ages" as in strkjv@1:2| (cf. Einstein's fourth dimension, time). Accusative case of general reference. {Have been framed} (\katˆrtisthai\). Perfect passive infinitive of \katartiz“\, to mend, to equip, to perfect (Luke:6:40|), in indirect discourse after \nooumen\. {Songs:that} (\eis to\). As a rule \eis to\ with the infinitive is final, but sometimes as here it expresses result as in strkjv@Romans:12:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003). {Hath been made} (\gegonenai\). Perfect active infinitive of \ginomai\. {What is seen} (\to blepomenon\). Present passive articular participle (accusative case of general reference) of \blep“\. {Of things which do appear} (\ek phainomen“n\). Ablative case with \ek\ (out of) of the present passive participle. The author denies the eternity of matter, a common theory then and now, and places God before the visible universe as many modern scientists now gladly do.

rwp@Info_James @ THE EPISTLE OF JAMES BEFORE A.D. 50 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR He claims to be James, and so the book is not anonymous. It is either genuine or pseudonymous. He does not claim to be the brother of the Lord Jesus, as one might expect. James the brother of John was put to death by Herod Agrippa I about A.D. 44 (Acts:12:2|). But James the brother of Jesus (Galatians:1:19|) was still alive and became a leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts:12:17|), presiding over the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts:15:13-21|) and apparently writing the message from the Conference to the Gentile churches (Acts:15:22-29|), and was still the leading elder in Jerusalem on Paul's last visit (Acts:21:18-25|). James does not claim here to be an apostle and he was not one of the twelve apostles, and the dispute about accepting it of which Eusebius spoke was about its apostolicity since James was only an apostle by implication (Galatians:1:19|) in the general sense of that term like Barnabas (Acts:14:14|), perhaps Silas and Timothy (1Thessalonians:2:7|), certainly not on a par with Paul, who claimed equality with the twelve. James, like the other brothers of Jesus, had once disbelieved his claims to be the Messiah (John:7:6f.|), but he was won by a special vision of the Risen Christ (1Corinthians:15:7|) and was in the upper room before the great pentecost (Acts:1:14|). It is plain that he had much to overcome as a zealous Jew to become a Christian, though he was not a mere cousin of Jesus or a son of Joseph by a former marriage. He was strictly the half-brother of Jesus, since Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. There is no reason to believe that he was a Nazirite. We know that he was married (1Corinthians:9:5|). He came to be called James the Just and was considered very devout. The Judaizers had counted on him to agree with them against Paul and Barnabas, but he boldly stood for Gentile freedom from the ceremonial law. The Judaizers still claimed him at Antioch and used his name wrongly to frighten Peter thereby (Galatians:2:12|). But to the end he remained the loyal friend to Paul and his gospel rightly understood (Acts:21:18-25|). Clement of Alexandria (_Hypot_. vii) says that, when he bore strong testimony to Jesus as the Son of man, they flung him down from the gable of the temple, stoned him, and beat him to death with a club. But Josephus (_Ant_. XX. ix. I) says that the Sadducees about A.D. 62 had James and some others brought before the Sanhedrin (Ananus presiding) and had them stoned as transgressors of the law. At any rate he won a martyr's crown like Stephen and James the brother of John.

rwp@Info_James @ THE PURPOSE If James is writing solely to non-Christian Jews, the purpose is to win them to Christ, and so he puts the gospel message in a way to get a hearing from the Jews. That is true, whether he has them in mind or not, though he does not do it by the suppression of the deity of Jesus Christ. In the very first verse he places him on a par with God as "the Lord Jesus Christ." In strkjv@James:2:1| he presents Jesus as the object of faith: "as you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory" (Moffatt's Translation), where Jesus is termed the Shekinah Glory of God. It is true that there is no discussion in the Epistle of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus, but there is an allusion to the murder of Jesus in strkjv@James:5:6| and the second coming in strkjv@James:5:8|. The chief aim of the Epistle is to strengthen the faith and loyalty of the Jewish Christians in the face of persecution from rich and overbearing Jews who were defrauding and oppressing them. It is a picture of early Christian life in the midst of difficult social conditions between capital and labor which also exist today. Songs:then it is a very modern message even if it is the earliest New Testament book. The glory of the New Testament lies precisely at this point in that the revelation of God in Christ meets our problems today because it did meet those of the first century A.D. Christian principles stand out clearly for our present-day living.

rwp@Info_James @ THE STYLE James assumes the doctrinal features of Christianity, but he is concerned mainly with the ethical and social aspects of the gospel that Jewish followers of Christ may square their lives with the gospel which they believe and profess. But this fact does not justify Luther in calling the Epistle of James "a veritable Epistle of straw." Luther imagined that James contradicted Paul's teaching of justification by faith. That is not true and the criticism of Luther is unjust. We shall see that, though James and Paul use the same words (faith, works, justify), they mean different things by them. It is possible that both Paul and Peter had read the Epistle of James, though by no means certain. M. Jones (_New Testament in the Twentieth Century_, p. 316) thinks that the author was familiar with Stoic philosophy. This is also possible, though he may have learned it only indirectly through the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. What is true is that the author writes in the easy and accurate _Koin‚_ Greek of a cultivated Jew (the literary _Koin‚_, not the vernacular), though not the artificial or stilted language of a professional stylist. Principal Patrick (_James the Lord's Brother_, p. 298) holds that he "had a wide knowledge of Classical Greek." This does not follow, though he does use the manner "of the Hellenistic diatribe" (Ropes, _Int. and Crit. Comm_., p. 19) so common at that time. Ropes (pp. 10-22) points out numerous parallels between James and the popular moral addresses of the period, familiar since the days of Socrates and at its height in Seneca and Epictetus. The use of an imaginary interlocutor is one instance (James:2:18f.; strkjv@5:13f.|) as is the presence of paradox (James:1:2,10; strkjv@2:5|; etc.). But the style of James is even more kin to that seen in the Jewish wisdom literature like Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, etc. It is thus both tract and Epistle, a brief Christian sermon on a high plane for a noble purpose. But it is all natural and not artificial. The metaphors are many, but brief and remind one constantly of the Master's use of them in the Sermon on the Mount. Did not Mary the mother of Jesus and James make frequent use of such homely parables? The author shows acquaintance with the LXX, but there are few Hebraisms in the language, though the style is Hebraic, as is the whole tone of the book (Hebraic and Christian). "The style is especially remarkable for constant hidden allusions to our Lord's sayings, such as we find in the first three Gospels" (Hort).

rwp@James:2:19 @{Thou believest that God is one} (\su pisteueis hoti heis theos estin\). James goes on with his reply and takes up mere creed apart from works, belief that God exists (there is one God), a fundamental doctrine, but that is not belief or trust in God. It may be mere creed. {Thou doest well} (\kal“s poieis\). That is good as far as it goes, which is not far. {The demons also believe} (\kai ta daimonia pisteuousin\). They go that far (the same verb \pisteu“\). They never doubt the fact of God's existence. {And shudder} (\kai phrissousin\). Present active indicative of \phriss“\, old onomatopoetic verb to bristle up, to shudder, only here in N.T. Like Latin _horreo_ (horror, standing of the hair on end with terror). The demons do more than believe a fact. They shudder at it.

rwp@James:5:14 @{Is any among you sick?} (\asthenei tis en humin;\). Present active indicative of \asthene“\, old verb, to be weak (without strength), often in N.T. (Matthew:10:8|). {Let him call for} (\proskalesasth“\). First aorist (ingressive) middle imperative of \proskale“\. Note change of tense (aorist) and middle (indirect) voice. Care for the sick is urged in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| ("help the sick"). Note the plural here, "elders of the church, as in strkjv@Acts:20:17; strkjv@15:6,22; strkjv@21:18; strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| (bishops). {Let them pray over him} (\proseuxasth“san ep' auton\). First aorist middle imperative of \proseuchomai\. Prayer for the sick is clearly enjoined. {Anointing him with oil} (\aleipsantes elai“i\). First aorist active participle of \aleiph“\, old verb, to anoint, and the instrumental case of \elaion\ (oil). The aorist participle can be either simultaneous or antecedent with \proseuxasth“san\ (pray). See the same use of \aleiph“ elai“i\ in strkjv@Mark:6:13|. The use of olive oil was one of the best remedial agencies known to the ancients. They used it internally and externally. Some physicians prescribe it today. It is clear both in strkjv@Mark:6:13| and here that medicinal value is attached to the use of the oil and emphasis is placed on the worth of prayer. There is nothing here of the pagan magic or of the later practice of "extreme unction" (after the eighth century). It is by no means certain that \aleiph“\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:13| means "anoint" in a ceremonial fashion rather than "rub" as it commonly does in medical treatises. Trench (N.T. Synonyms) says: "\Aleiphein\ is the mundane and profane, \chriein\ the sacred and religious, word." At bottom in James we have God and medicine, God and the doctor, and that is precisely where we are today. The best physicians believe in God and want the help of prayer.

rwp@Info_John @ THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK He tells us himself in strkjv@John:20:30f|. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: "But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in Christ.

rwp@John:1:7 @{For witness} (\eis marturian\). Old word from \marture“\ (from \martus\), both more common in John's writings than the rest of the N.T. This the purpose of the Baptist's ministry. {That he might bear witness} (\hina marturˆsˆi\). Final clause with \hina\ and aorist active subjunctive of \marture“\ to make clearer \eis marturian\. {Of the light} (\peri tou ph“tos\). "Concerning the light." The light was shining and men with blinded eyes were not seeing the light (John:1:26|), blinded by the god of this world still (2Corinthians:4:4|). John had his own eyes opened so that he saw and told what he saw. That is the mission of every preacher of Christ. But he must first have his own eyes opened. {That all might believe} (\hina pisteus“sin\). Final clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \pisteu“\, ingressive aorist "come to believe." This is one of John's great words (about 100 times), "with nine times the frequency with which it is used by the Synoptists" (Bernard). And yet \pistis\, so common in Paul, John uses only in strkjv@1John:5:4| and four times in the Apocalypse where \pisteu“\ does not occur at all. Here it is used absolutely as in strkjv@John:1:50|, etc. {Through him} (\di' autou\). As the intermediate agent in winning men to believe in Christ (the Logos) as the Light and the Life of men. This is likewise the purpose of the author of this book (21:31|). The preacher is merely the herald to point men to Christ.

rwp@John:1:29 @{On the morrow} (\tˆi epaurion\). Locative case with \hˆmˆrƒi\ (day) understood after the adverb \epaurion\. "Second day of this spiritual diary" (Bernard) from verse 19|. {Seeth Jesus coming} (\blepei ton Iˆsoun erchomenon\). Dramatic historical present indicative (\blepei\) with vivid present middle participle (\erchomenon\). Graphic picture. {Behold the Lamb of God} (\ide ho amnos tou theou\). Exclamation \ide\ like \idou\, not verb, and so nominative \amnos\. Common idiom in John (1:36; strkjv@3:26|, etc.). For "the Lamb of God" see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:7| (cf. strkjv@John:19:36|) and strkjv@1Peter:1:19|. The passage in strkjv@Isaiah:53:6f.| is directly applied to Christ by Philip in strkjv@Acts:8:32|. See also strkjv@Matthew:8:17; strkjv@1Peter:2:22f.; strkjv@Hebrews:9:28|. But the Jews did not look for a suffering Messiah (John:12:34|) nor did the disciples at first (Mark:9:32; strkjv@Luke:24:21|). But was it not possible for John, the Forerunner of the Messiah, to have a prophetic insight concerning the Messiah as the Paschal Lamb, already in strkjv@Isaiah:53|, even if the rabbis did not see it there? Symeon had it dimly (Luke:2:35|), but John more clearly. Songs:Westcott rightly. Bernard is unwilling to believe that John the Baptist had more insight on this point than current Judaism. Then why and how did he recognize Jesus as Messiah at all? Certainly the Baptist did not have to be as ignorant as the rabbis. {Which taketh away the sin of the world} (\ho air“n tˆn hamartian tou kosmou\). Note singular \hamartian\ not plural \hamartias\ (1John:3:5|) where same verb \air“\, to bear away, is used. The future work of the Lamb of God here described in present tense as in strkjv@1John:1:7| about the blood of Christ. He is the Lamb of God for the world, not just for Jews.

rwp@John:3:18 @{Is not judged} (\ou krinetai\). Present passive indicative. Trust in Christ prevents condemnation, for he takes our place and pays the penalty for sin for all who put their case in his hands (Romans:8:32f.|). The believer in Christ as Saviour does not come into judgment (John:5:24|). {Hath been judged already} (\ˆdˆ kekritai\). Perfect passive indicative of \krin“\. Judgment has already been passed on the one who refuses to believe in Christ as the Saviour sent by the Father, the man who is not willing to come to Christ for life (5:40|). {Because he hath not believed} (\hoti mˆ pepisteuken\). Perfect active indicative of \pisteu“\, has taken a permanent attitude of refusal. Here \hoti mˆ\ states the reason subjectively as the judgment of the Judge in any such case (\ho mˆ pisteu“n\ already mentioned) while in strkjv@1John:5:10| \hoti ou pepisteuken\ gives the reason objectively (\ou\ instead of \mˆ\) conceived as an actual case and no longer hypothetical. See strkjv@1:12| for \eis to onoma\ with \pisteu“\ (believing on the name) and strkjv@1:14| for \monogenous\ (only begotten) and also strkjv@3:16|.

rwp@John:4:48 @{Except ye see} (\ean mˆ idˆte\). Condition of the third class (\ean mˆ\, negative, with second aorist active subjunctive of \hora“\). Jesus is not discounting his "signs and wonders" (\sˆmeia kai terata\, both words together here only in John, though common in N.T. as in strkjv@Matthew:24:24; strkjv@Mark:13:22; strkjv@Acts:2:19,22,43; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:9; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|), though he does seem disappointed that he is in Galilee regarded as a mere miracle worker. {Ye will in no wise believe} (\ou mˆ pisteusˆte\). Strong double negative with aorist active subjunctive of \pisteu“\, picturing the stubborn refusal of people to believe in Christ without miracles.

rwp@John:5:38 @{And} (\kai\). "And yet" as in strkjv@1:10| and strkjv@5:40| below. {His word abiding in you} (\ton logon autou en humin menonta\). But God's word had come to them through the centuries by the prophets. For the phrase see strkjv@10:35; strkjv@15:3; strkjv@17:6; strkjv@1John:1:10; strkjv@2:14|. {Him ye believe not} (\tout“i humeis ou pisteuete\). "This one" (\tout“i\, dative case with \pisteuete\) in emphatic relation to preceding "he" (\ekeinos\, God). Jesus has given them God's word, but they reject both Jesus and God's word (John:14:9|).

rwp@John:5:46 @{Ye would believe me} (\episteuete an emoi\). Conclusion of condition of second class (determined as unfulfilled) with imperfect indicative in both protasis and apodosis and \an\ in apodosis. This was a home-thrust, proving that they did not really believe Moses. {For he wrote of me} (\peri gar emou ekeinos egrapsen\). strkjv@Deuteronomy:18:18f.| is quoted by Peter (Acts:3:22|) as a prophecy of Christ and also by Stephen in strkjv@Acts:7:37|. See also strkjv@John:3:14| about the brazen serpent and strkjv@8:56| about Abraham foreseeing Christ's day. Jesus does here say that Moses wrote concerning him.

rwp@John:6:14 @{Saw the sign which he did} (\idontes ha epoiˆsen sˆmeia\). "Signs" oldest MSS. have. This sign added to those already wrought (verse 2|). Cf. strkjv@2:23; strkjv@3:2|. {They said} (\elegon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to say. {Of a truth} (\alˆth“s\). Common adverb (from \alˆthˆs\) in John (7:40|). {The prophet that cometh} (\ho prophˆtˆs ho erchomenos\). There was a popular expectation about the prophet of strkjv@Deuteronomy:18:15| as being the Messiah (John:1:21; strkjv@11:27|). The phrase is peculiar to John, but the idea is in Acts (3:22; strkjv@7:37|). The people are on the tiptoe of expectation and believe that Jesus is the political Messiah of Pharisaic hope.

rwp@John:6:30 @{For a sign} (\sˆmeion\). Predicate accusative, as a sign, with \ti\ (what). As if the sign of the day before was without value. Jesus had said that they did not understand his signs (verse 26|). {That we may see, and believe thee} (\hina id“men kai pisteus“men\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of \hora“\ and the first aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of \pisteu“\, "that we may come to see and come to have faith in thee." It is hard to have patience with this superficial and almost sneering mob. {What workest thou?} (\Ti ergazˆi;\). They not simply depreciate the miracle of the day before, but set up a standard for Jesus.

rwp@John:6:36 @{That ye have seen me} (\hoti kai he“rakate me\). It is not certain that \me\ is genuine. If not, Jesus may refer to verse 26|. If genuine, some other saying is referred to that we do not have. Note \kai\ (also or even). {And yet believe not} (\kai ou pisteuete\). Use of \kai\ = and yet.

rwp@John:6:64 @{That believe not} (\hoi ou pisteuousin\). Failure to believe kills the life in the words of Jesus. {Knew from the beginning} (\ˆidei ex archˆs\). In the N.T. we have \ex archˆs\ only here and strkjv@16:4|, but \ap' archˆs\ in apparently the same sense as here in strkjv@15:27; strkjv@1John:2:7,24; strkjv@3:11| and see strkjv@Luke:1:2; strkjv@1John:1:1|. From the first Jesus distinguished between real trust in him and mere lip service (2:24; strkjv@8:31|), two senses of \pisteu“\. {Were} (\eisin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse. {And who it was that should betray him} (\kai tis estin ho parad“s“n\). Same use of \estin\ and note article and future active participle of \paradid“mi\, to hand over, to betray. John does not say here that Jesus knew that Judas would betray him when he chose him as one of the twelve, least of all that he chose him for that purpose. What he does say is that Jesus was not taken by surprise and soon saw signs of treason in Judas. The same verb is used of John's arrest in strkjv@Matthew:4:12|. Once Judas is termed traitor (\prodotˆs\) in strkjv@Luke:6:16|. Judas had gifts and was given his opportunity. He did not have to betray Jesus.

rwp@John:6:65 @{Except it be given him of the Father} (\ean mˆ ˆi dedomenon aut“i ek tou patros\). Condition of third class with \ean mˆ\ and periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive of \did“mi\. Precisely the same point as in verse 44| where we have \helkusˆi\ instead of \ˆi dedomenon\. The impulse to faith comes from God. Jesus does not expect all to believe and seems to imply that Judas did not truly believe.

rwp@John:6:69 @{We have believed} (\hˆmeis pepisteukamen\). Perfect active indicative of \pisteu“\, "We have come to believe and still believe" (verse 29|). {And know} (\kai egn“kamen\). Same tense of \gin“sk“\, "We have come to know and still know." {Thou art the Holy One of God} (\su ei ho hagios tou theou\). Bernard follows those who believe that this is John's report of the same confession given by the Synoptics (Mark:8:27f.; strkjv@Matthew:16:13-20; strkjv@Luke:9:18f.|), an utterly unjustifiable conclusion. The details are wholly different. Here in the synagogue in Capernaum, there on Mt. Hermon near Caesarea Philippi. What earthly difficulty is there in supposing that Peter could make a noble confession twice? That is to my mind a wooden conception of the apostles in their growing apprehension of Christ.

rwp@John:7:5 @{For even his brethren did not believe on him} (\oude gar hoi adelphoi autou episteuon eis auton\). Literally, "For not even were his brothers believing on him." Imperfect tense of \pisteu“\ with sad picture of the persistent refusal of the brothers of Jesus to believe in his Messianic assumptions, after the two rejections in Capernaum (Luke:4:16-31; strkjv@Mark:6:1-6; strkjv@Matthew:13:54-58|), and also after the blasphemous accusation of being in league with Beelzebub when the mother and brothers came to take Jesus home (Mark:3:31-35; strkjv@Matthew:12:46-50; strkjv@Luke:8:19-21|). The brothers here are sarcastic.

rwp@John:7:19 @{And yet} (\kai\). Clear use of \kai\ in the adversative sense of "and yet" or "but." They marvelled at Christ's "ignorance" and boasted of their own knowledge of the law of Moses. And yet they violated that law by not practising it. {Why seek ye to kill me?} (\Ti me zˆteite apokteinai;\). A sudden and startling question as an illustration of their failure to do the law of Moses. Jesus had previously known (5:39,45-47|) that the Jews really rejected the teaching of Moses while professing to believe it. On that very occasion they had sought to kill him (5:18|), the very language used here. Apparently he had not been to Jerusalem since then. He undoubtedly alludes to their conduct then and charges them with the same purpose now.

rwp@John:7:31 @{When the Christ shall come} (\ho Christos hotan elthˆi\). Proleptic position of \ho Christos\ again as in 27|, but \elthˆi\ with \hotan\ rather than \erchˆtai\, calling more attention to the consummation (whenever he does come). {Will he do?} (\mˆ poiˆsei;\). Future active indicative of \poie“\ with \mˆ\ (negative answer expected). Jesus had won a large portion of the pilgrims (\ek tou ochlou polloi\) either before this day or during this controversy. The use of \episteusan\ (ingressive aorist active) looks as if many came to believe at this point. These pilgrims had watched closely the proceedings. {Than those which} (\h“n\). One must supply the unexpressed antecedent \tout“n\ in the ablative case after \pleiona\ (more). Then the neuter plural accusative relative \ha\ (referring to \sˆmeia\ signs) is attracted to the ablative case of the pronominal antecedent \tout“n\ (now dropped out). {Hath done} (\epoiˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \poie“\, a timeless constative aorist summing up all the miracles of Jesus so far.

rwp@John:7:48 @{Hath any of the rulers believed on him?} (\Mˆ tis ek t“n archont“n episteusen eis auton;\). Negative answer sharply expected. First aorist active indicative of \pisteu“\. "Did any one of the rulers believe on him?" "What right have subordinates to have a mind of their own?" (Dods). These police were employed by the temple authorities (rulers). "Power was slipping through their fingers" (Dods) and that was the secret of their hostility to Jesus. {Or of the Pharisees} (\ˆ ek t“n Pharisai“n\). A wider circle and the most orthodox of all.

rwp@John:8:46 @{Which of you convicteth me of sin?} (\Tis ex hum“n elegchei me peri hamaritas;\). See on strkjv@3:20; strkjv@16:8| (the work of the Holy Spirit) for \elegch“\ for charge and proof. The use of \hamartia\ as in strkjv@1:29| means sin in general, not particular sins. The rhetorical question which receives no answer involves sinlessness (Hebrews:4:15|) without specifically saying so. Bernard suggests that Jesus paused after this pungent question before going on. {Why do ye not believe me?} (\Dia ti humeis ou pisteuete moi;\). This question drives home the irrationality of their hostility to Jesus. It was based on prejudice and predilection.

rwp@John:9:35 @{Finding him} (\heur“n auton\). Second aorist active participle of \heurisk“\, after search because of what he had heard (\ˆkousen\). {Dost thou believe on the Son of God?} (\Su pisteueis eis ton huion tou theou;\). Songs:A L Theta and most versions, but Aleph B D W Syr-sin read \tou anthr“pou\ (the Son of Man), almost certainly correct. In either case it is a distinct Messianic claim quite beyond the range of this man's limited knowledge, keen as he is.

rwp@John:9:36 @{And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?} (\Kai tis estin, kurie;\). The initial \kai\ (and) is common (Mark:10:26; strkjv@Luke:10:29; strkjv@18:26|). Probably by \kurie\ he means only "Sir." It usually comes at the beginning of the sentence, not at the end as here and verse 38|. {That I may believe on him} (\hina pisteus“ eis auton\). Ellipsis to be supplied before this final clause. He catches up the words of Jesus in the preceding verse, though he does not yet know who the Son of Man (or Son of God) is, but he trusts Jesus.

rwp@John:10:25 @{I told you, and you believe not} (\eipon humin kai ou pisteuete\). It was useless to say more. In strkjv@7:14-10:18| Jesus had shown that he was the Son of the Father as he had previously claimed (5:17-47|), but it was all to no purpose save to increase their rage towards him. {These bear witness of me} (\tauta marturei peri emou\). His works confirm his words as he had shown before (5:36|). They believe neither his words nor his works.

rwp@John:10:38 @{But if I do} (\ei de poi“\). Condition again of the first class, assumed as true, but with the opposite results. {Though ye believe not me} (\kan emoi mˆ pisteuˆte\). Condition now of third class, undetermined (but with prospect), "Even if you keep on (present active subjunctive of \pisteuo\) not believing me." {Believe the works} (\tois ergois pisteuete\). These stand irrefutable. The claims, character, words, and works of Jesus challenge the world today as then. {That ye may know and understand} (\hina gn“te kai gin“skˆte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the same verb \gin“sk“\ repeated in different tenses (first \gn“te\, the second ingressive aorist active subjunctive, that ye may come to know; then the present active subjunctive, "that ye may keep on knowing"). This is Christ's deepest wish about his enemies who stand with stones in their uplifted hands to fling at him. {That the Father is in me, and I in the Father} (\hoti en emoi ho patˆr kag“ en t“i patri\). Thus he repeats (verse 30|) sharply his real claim to oneness with the Father as his Son, to actual deity. It was a hopeless wish.

rwp@John:11:27 @{Yea, Lord} (\Nai, kurie\). Martha probably did not understand all that Jesus said and meant, but she did believe in the future resurrection, in eternal life for believers in Christ, in the power of Christ to raise even the dead here and now. She had heroic faith and makes now her own confession of faith in words that outrank those of Peter in strkjv@Matthew:16:16| because she makes hers with her brother dead now four days and with the hope that Jesus will raise him up now. {I have believed} (\pepisteuka\). Perfect active indicative of \pisteu“\. It is my settled and firm faith. Peter uses this same tense in strkjv@6:69|. {That thou art the Son of God} (\hoti su ei ho Christos ho huios tou theou\). The Messiah or the Christ (1:41|) was to be also "the Son of God" as the Baptist said he had found Jesus to be (1:34|), as Peter confessed on Hermon for the apostles (Matthew:16:16|), as Jesus claimed to be (John:11:41|) and confessed on oath before Caiaphas that he was (Matthew:26:63f.|), and as John stated that it was his purpose to prove in his Gospel (20:31|). But no one said it under more trying circumstances than Martha. {Even he that cometh into the world} (\ho eis ton kosmon erchomenos\). No "even" in the Greek. This was a popular way of putting the people's expectation (6:14; strkjv@Matthew:11:3|). Jesus himself spoke of his coming into the world (9:39; strkjv@16:28; strkjv@8:37|).

rwp@John:11:48 @{If we let him thus alone} (\ean aph“men auton hout“s\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \apiˆmi\. "Suppose we leave him thus alone." Suppose also that he keeps on raising the dead right here next door to Jerusalem! {All will believe on him} (\pantes pisteusousin eis auton\). Future active of \pisteu“\. The inevitable conclusion, "all" (\pantes\), not just "some" (\tines\). as now. {And the Romans will come} (\kai eleusontai hoi R“maioi\). Another inevitable result with the future middle of \erchomai\. Only if the people take Jesus as their political Messiah (6:15|) as they had once started to do. This is a curious muddle for the rulers knew that Jesus did not claim to be a political Messiah and would not be a rival to Caesar. And yet they use this fear (their own belief about the Messiah) to stir themselves to frenzy as they will use it with Pilate later. {And take away both our place and our nation} (\kai arousin hˆm“n kai ton topon kai to ethnos\). Future active of \air“\, another certain result of their inaction. Note the order here when "place" (job) is put before nation (patriotism), for all the world like modern politicians who make the fate of the country turn on their getting the jobs which they are seeking. In the course of time the Romans will come, not because of the leniency of the Sanhedrin toward Jesus, but because of the uprising against Rome led by the Zealots and they will destroy both temple and city and the Sanhedrin will lose their jobs and the nation will be scattered. Future historians will say that this fate came as punishment on the Jews for their conduct toward Jesus.

rwp@John:14:1 @{Let not your heart be troubled} (\mˆ tarassesth“ hum“n hˆ kardia\). Not here the physical organ of life (Luke:21:34|), but the seat of spiritual life (\pneuma, psuchˆ\), the centre of feeling and faith (Romans:10:10|), "the focus of the religious life" (Vincent) as in strkjv@Matthew:22:37|. See these words repeated in strkjv@14:27|. Jesus knew what it was to have a "troubled" heart (11:33; strkjv@13:31|) where \tarass“\ is used of him. Plainly the hearts of the disciples were tossed like waves in the wind by the words of Jesus in strkjv@13:38|. {Ye believe... believe also} (\pisteuete... kai pisteuete\). Songs:translated as present active indicative plural second person and present active imperative of \pisteu“\. The form is the same. Both may be indicative (ye believe... and ye believe), both may be imperative (believe... and believe or believe also), the first may be indicative (ye believe) and the second imperative (believe also), the first may be imperative (keep on believing) and the second indicative (and ye do believe, this less likely). Probably both are imperatives (Mark:11:22|), "keep on believing in God and in me."

rwp@John:16:9 @{Because they believe not on me} (\hoti ou pisteuousin eis eme\). Without this conviction by the Paraclete such men actually have a pride of intellectual superiority in refusing to believe on Jesus.

rwp@John:17:9 @{I pray} (\eg“ er“t“\). Request, not question, as in strkjv@16:23|. {Not for the world} (\ou peri tou kosmou\). Now at this point in the prayer Christ means. In verse 19| Jesus does pray for the world (for future believers) that it may believe (verse 21|). God loves the whole world (3:16|). Christ died for sinners (Romans:5:8|) and prayed for sinners (Luke:23:34|) and intercedes for sinners (1John:2:1f.; strkjv@Romans:8:34; strkjv@Hebrews:7:25|). {For those whom} (\peri h“n\). A condensed and common Greek idiom for \peri tout“n hous\ with \tout“n\ (the demonstrative antecedent) omitted and the relative \hous\ attracted from the accusative \hous\ (object of \ded“kas\) to the case (genitive) of the omitted antecedent.

rwp@John:20:8 @{Then therefore} (\tote oun\). After Peter in time and influenced by the boldness of Peter. {And he saw and believed} (\kai eiden kai episteusen\). Both aorist active indicative (second and first). Peter saw more after he entered than John did in his first glance, but John saw into the meaning of it all better than Peter. Peter had more sight, John more insight. John was the first to believe that Jesus was risen from the tomb even before he saw him. According to strkjv@Luke:24:12| Peter went away "wondering" still. The Sinaitic Syriac and 69 and 124 wrongly read here "they believed." John was evidently proud to be able to record this great moment when he believed without seeing in contrast to Thomas (20:29|). Peter and John did not see the angels.

rwp@John:20:18 @{And telleth} (\aggellousa\). Present active participle, "announcing." {I have seen the Lord} (\He“raka ton kurion\). Perfect active indicative of \hora“\. She will always carry in her heart that vision (picture) of the Risen Christ. She tells this fact before she delivers Christ's message to the brethren of Christ. {How that}. No word in the Greek, but a conjunction like \h“s\ is implied. \Hoti\ here is recitative. The disciples (brethren) did not believe Mary's story nor that of the other women (Luke:24:11; strkjv@Mark:16:11|). Paul does not mention the vision to Mary or the women in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:5-7|. But Mary Magdalene was the first one to see the Risen Lord.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Luke:1:5 @{There was} (\egeneto\). Not the usual \en\ for "was," but there arose or came into notice. With this verse the literary _Koin‚_ of verses 1 to 4 disappears. To the end of chapter 2 we have the most Hebraistic (Aramaic) passage in Luke's writings, due evidently to the use of documents or notes of oral tradition. Plummer notes a series of such documents ending with strkjv@1:80, strkjv@2:40, strkjv@2:52|. If the mother of Jesus was still alive, Luke could have seen her. She may have written in Aramaic an account of these great events. Natural reserve would keep her from telling too much and from too early publicity. Luke, as a physician, would take special interest in her birth report. The supernatural aspects disturb only those who do not admit the real Incarnation of Jesus Christ and who are unable to believe that God is superior to nature and that the coming of the Son of God to earth justifies such miraculous manifestations of divine power. Luke tells his story from the standpoint of Mary as Matthew gives his from the standpoint of Joseph. The two supplement each other. We have here the earliest documentary evidence of the origins of Christianity that has come down to us (Plummer). {Herod, King of Judea} (\Hˆr“idou basile“s tˆs Ioudaias\). This note of time locates the events before the death of Herod the Great (as he was called later), appointed King of Judea by the Roman Senate B.C. 40 at the suggestion of Octavius and Antony. He died B.C. 4. {Of the course of Abijah} (\ex ephˆmerias Abia\). Not in old Greek, but in LXX and modern Greek. Papyri have a verb derived from it, \ephˆmere“\. Daily service (Nehemiah:13:30; strkjv@1Chronicles:25:8|) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1Chronicles:23:6; strkjv@28:13|). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the eighth (1Chronicles:24:10; strkjv@2Chronicles:8:14|). Only four of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into twenty-four with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for eight days, sabbath to sabbath, twice a year. On sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of tabernacles all twenty-four courses were present. {Of the daughters of Aaron} (\ek t“n thugater“n Aar“n\). "To be a priest and married to a priest's daughter was a double distinction" (Plummer). Like a preacher married to a preacher's daughter.

rwp@Luke:8:12 @{Those by the wayside} (\hoi para tˆn hodon\). As in strkjv@Mark:4:15; strkjv@Matthew:13:19| so here the people who hear the word = the seed are discussed by metonymy. {The devil} (\ho diabolos\). The slanderer. Here strkjv@Mark:4:15| has Satan. {From their heart} (\apo tˆs kardias aut“n\). Here Mark has "in them." It is the devil's business to snatch up the seed from the heart before it sprouts and takes root. Every preacher knows how successful the devil is with his auditors. strkjv@Matthew:13:19| has it "sown in the heart." {That they may not believe and be saved} (\hina mˆ pisteusantes s“th“sin\). Peculiar to Luke. Negative purpose with aorist active participle and first aorist (ingressive) passive subjunctive. Many reasons are offered today for the failure of preachers to win souls. Here is the main one, the activity of the devil during and after the preaching of the sermon. No wonder then that the sower must have good seed and sow wisely, for even then he can only win partial success.

rwp@Luke:12:33 @{Sell that ye have} (\P“lˆsate ta huparchonta hum“n\). Not in Matthew. Did Jesus mean this literally and always? Luke has been charged with Ebionism, but Jesus does not condemn property as inherently sinful. "The attempt to keep the letter of the rule here given (Acts:2:44,45|) had disastrous effects on the church of Jerusalem, which speedily became a church of paupers, constantly in need of alms (Romans:15:25,26; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:4; strkjv@9:1|)" (Plummer). {Purses which wax not old} (\ballantia mˆ palaioumena\). Songs:already \ballantion\ in strkjv@Luke:10:4|. Late verb \palaio“\ from \palaios\, old, to make old, declare old as in strkjv@Hebrews:8:13|, is passive to become old as here and strkjv@Hebrews:1:11|. {That faileth not} (\anekleipton\). Verbal from \a\ privative and \ekleip“\, to fail. Late word in Diodorus and Plutarch. Only here in the N.T. or LXX, but in papyri. "I prefer to believe that even Luke sees in the words not a mechanical rule, but a law for the spirit" (Bruce). {Draweth near} (\eggizei\). Instead of strkjv@Matthew:6:19| "dig through and steal." {Destroyeth} (\diaphtheirei\). Instead of "doth consume" in strkjv@Matthew:6:19|.

rwp@Luke:16:23 @{In Hades} (\en t“i Hƒidˆi\). See on strkjv@Matthew:16:18| for discussion of this word. Lazarus was in Hades also for both Paradise (Abraham's bosom) and Gehenna are in the unseen world beyond the grave. {In torments} (\en basanois\). The touchstone by which gold and other metals were tested, then the rack for torturing people. Old word, but in the N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:16:28; strkjv@Matthew:4:24|. {Sees} (\horƒi\). Dramatic present indicative. The Jews believed that Gehenna and Paradise were close together. This detail in the parable does not demand that we believe it. The picture calls for it. {From afar} (\apo makrothen\). Pleonastic use of \apo\ as \makrothen\ means {from afar}.

rwp@Luke:16:28 @{That he may testify} (\hop“s diamarturˆtai\). An old verb for solemn and thorough (\dia-\) witness. The Rich Man labours under the delusion that his five brothers will believe the testimony of Lazarus as a man from the dead.

rwp@Mark:1:14 @{Jesus came into Galilee} (\ˆlthen ho Iˆsous eis tˆn Galilaian\). Here Mark begins the narrative of the active ministry of Jesus and he is followed by Matthew and Luke. Mark undoubtedly follows the preaching of Peter. But for the Fourth Gospel we should not know of the year of work in various parts of the land (Perea, Galilee, Judea, Samaria) preceding the Galilean ministry. John supplements the Synoptic Gospels at this point as often. The arrest of John had much to do with the departure of Jesus from Judea to Galilee (John:4:1-4|). {Preaching the gospel of God} (\kˆruss“n to euaggelion tou theou\). It is the subjective genitive, the gospel that comes from God. Swete observes that repentance (\metanoia\) is the keynote in the message of the Baptist as gospel (\euaggelion\) is with Jesus. But Jesus took the same line as John and proclaimed both repentance and the arrival of the kingdom of God. Mark adds to Matthew's report the words "the time is fulfilled" (\peplˆr“tai ho kairos\). It is a significant fact that John looks backward to the promise of the coming of the Messiah and signalizes the fulfilment as near at hand (perfect passive indicative). It is like Paul's fulness of time (\plˆr“ma tou chronou\) in strkjv@Galatians:4:4| and fulness of the times (\plˆr“ma ton kair“n\) in strkjv@Ephesians:1:10| when he employs the word \kairos\, opportunity or crisis as here in Mark rather than the more general term \chronos\. Mark adds here also: "and believe in the gospel" (\kai pisteuete en t“i euaggeli“i\). Both repent and believe in the gospel. Usually faith in Jesus (or God) is expected as in John strkjv@14:1|. But this crisis called for faith in the message of Jesus that the Messiah had come. He did not use here the term Messiah, for it had come to have political connotations that made its use at present unwise. But the kingdom of God had arrived with the presence of the King. It does make a difference what one believes. Belief or disbelief in the message of Jesus made a sharp cleavage in those who heard him. "Faith in the message was the first step; a creed of some kind lies at the basis of confidence in the Person of Christ, and the occurrence of the phrase \pistuete en t“i euaggeli“i\ in the oldest record of the teaching of our Lord is a valuable witness to this fact" (Swete).

rwp@Mark:3:21 @{His friends} (\hoi par' autou\). The phrase means literally "those from the side of him (Jesus)." It could mean another circle of disciples who had just arrived and who knew of the crowds and strain of the Galilean ministry who now come at this special juncture. But the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX. The fact that in verse 31| "his mother and his brothers" are expressly mentioned would indicate that they are "the friends" alluded to in verse 21|. It is a mournful spectacle to think of the mother and brothers saying, {He is beside himself} (\exestˆ\). Second aorist active indicative intransitive. The same charge was brought against Paul (Acts:26:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:13|). We say that one is out of his head. Certainly Mary did not believe that Jesus was in the power of Beelzebub as the rabbis said already. The scribes from Jerusalem are trying to discount the power and prestige of Jesus (3:22|). See on ¯Matthew:9:32-34; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@12:24| for Beelzebub and Beelzebul. Mary probably felt that Jesus was overwrought and wished to take him home out of the excitement and strain that he might get rest and proper food. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_. The brothers did not as yet believe the pretensions and claims of Jesus (John:7:5|). Herod Antipas will later consider Jesus as John the Baptist _redivivus_, the scribes treat him as under demonic possession, even the family and friends fear a disordered mind as a result of overstrain. It was a crucial moment for Jesus. His family or friends came to take him home, to lay hold of him (\kratˆsai\), forcibly if need be.

rwp@Mark:6:52 @{For they understood not} (\ou gar sunˆkan\). Explanation of their excessive amazement, viz., their failure to grasp the full significance of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, a nature miracle. Here was another, Jesus walking on the water. Their reasoning process (\kardia\ in the general sense for all the inner man) {was hardened} (\ˆn pep“r“menˆ\). See on ¯3:5| about \p“r“sis\. Today some men have such intellectual hardness or denseness that they cannot believe that God can or would work miracles, least of all nature miracles.

rwp@Mark:8:29 @{Thou art the Christ} (\Su ei ho Christos\). Mark does not give "the Son of the living God" (Matthew:16:16|) or "of God" (Luke:9:20|). The full confession is the form in Matthew. Luke's language means practically the same, while Mark's is the briefest. But the form in Mark really means the full idea. Mark omits all praise of Peter, probably because Peter had done so in his story of the incident. For criticism of the view that Matthew's narrative is due to ecclesiastical development and effort to justify ecclesiastical prerogatives, see discussion on ¯Matthew:16:16,18|. The disciples had confessed him as Messiah before. Thus strkjv@John:1:41; strkjv@4:29; strkjv@6:69; strkjv@Matthew:14:33|. But Jesus had ceased to use the word Messiah to avoid political complications and a revolutionary movement (John:6:14f.|). But did the disciples still believe in Jesus as Messiah after all the defections and oppositions seen by them? It was a serious test to which Jesus now put them.

rwp@Mark:9:25 @{A multitude came running together} (\episuntrechei ochlos\). A double compound here alone in the N.T. and not in the old Greek writers. \Epitrech“\ occurs in the papyri, but not \episuntrech“\. The double compound vividly describes the rapid gathering of the crowd to Jesus and the epileptic boy to see the outcome. {Come out of him} (\exelthe ex autou\). Jesus addresses the demon as a separate being from the boy as he often does. This makes it difficult to believe that Jesus was merely indulging popular belief in a superstition. He evidently regards the demon as the cause in this case of the boy's misfortune.

rwp@Mark:9:41 @{Because ye are Christ's} (\hoti Christou este\). Predicate genitive, belong to Christ. See strkjv@Romans:8:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:12; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:7|. That is the bond of universal brotherhood of the redeemed. It breaks over the lines of nation, race, class, sex, everything. No service is too small, even a cup of cold water, if done for Christ's sake. See on ¯Matthew:18:6f.| for discussion on stumbling-blocks for these little ones that believe on Jesus (Mark:9:42|), a loving term of all believers, not just children.

rwp@Mark:15:2 @{Art thou the King of the Jews?} (\Su ei ho basileus t“n Ioudai“n;\). This is the only one of the charges made by the Sanhedrin to Pilate (Luke:23:2|) that he notices. He does not believe this one to be true, but he has to pay attention to it or be liable to charges himself of passing over a man accused of rivalry and revolution against Caesar. strkjv@John:18:28-32| gives the interview with Jesus that convinces Pilate that he is a harmless religious fanatic. See on ¯Matthew:26:11|. {Thou sayest} (\su legeis\). An affirmation, though in strkjv@John:18:34-37| there is a second and fuller interview between Pilate and Jesus. "Here, as in the trial before the Sanhedrin, this is the one question that Jesus answers. It is the only question on which his own testimony is important and necessary" (Gould). The Jews were out on the pavement or sidewalk outside the palace while Pilate came out to them from above on the balcony (John:18:28f.|) and had his interviews with Jesus on the inside, calling Jesus thither (John:18:33|).

rwp@Mark:16:8 @{Had come upon them} (\eichen autas\). Imperfect tense, more exactly, {held them, was holding them fast}. {Trembling and astonishment} (\tromos kai ekstasis\, trembling and ecstasy), Mark has it, while strkjv@Matthew:28:8| has "with fear and great joy" which see for discussion. Clearly and naturally their emotions were mixed. {They said nothing to any one} (\oudeni ouden eipan\). This excitement was too great for ordinary conversation. strkjv@Matthew:28:8| notes that they "ran to bring his disciples word." Hushed to silence their feet had wings as they flew on. {For they were afraid} (\ephobounto gar\). Imperfect tense. The continued fear explains their continued silence. At this point Aleph and B, the two oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, stop with this verse. Three Armenian MSS. also end here. Some documents (cursive 274 and Old Latin k) have a shorter ending than the usual long one. The great mass of the documents have the long ending seen in the English versions. Some have both the long and the short endings, like L, Psi, 0112, 099, 579, two Bohairic MSS; the Harklean Syriac (long one in the text, short one in the Greek margin). One Armenian MS. (at Edschmiadzin) gives the long ending and attributes it to Ariston (possibly the Aristion of Papias). W (the Washington Codex) has an additional verse in the long ending. Songs:the facts are very complicated, but argue strongly against the genuineness of verses 9-20| of Mark 16. There is little in these verses not in strkjv@Matthew:28|. It is difficult to believe that Mark ended his Gospel with verse 8| unless he was interrupted. A leaf or column may have been torn off at the end of the papyrus roll. The loss of the ending was treated in various ways. Some documents left it alone. Some added one ending, some another, some added both. A full discussion of the facts is found in the last chapter of my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and also in my _Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_, pp. 214-16.

rwp@Mark:16:14 @{To the eleven themselves} (\autois tois hendeka\). Both terms, eleven and twelve (John:20:24|), occur after the death of Judas. There were others present on this first Sunday evening according to strkjv@Luke:24:33|. {Afterward} (\husteron\) is here alone in Mark, though common in Matthew. {Upbraided} (\“neidisen\). They were guilty of unbelief (\apistian\) and hardness of heart (\sklˆrokardian\). Doubt is not necessarily a mark of intellectual superiority. One must steer between credulity and doubt. That problem is a vital one today in all educated circles. Some of the highest men of science today are devout believers in the Risen Christ. Luke explains how the disciples were upset by the sudden appearance of Christ and were unable to believe the evidence of their own senses (Luke:24:38-43|).

rwp@Info_Matthew @ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION The passing years do not make it any plainer who actually wrote our Greek Matthew. Papias records, as quoted by Eusebius, that Matthew wrote the _Logia_ of Jesus in Hebrew (Aramaic). Is our present Matthew a translation of the Aramaic _Logia_ along with Mark and other sources as most modern scholars think? If so, was the writer the Apostle Matthew or some other disciple? There is at present no way to reach a clear decision in the light of the known facts. There is no real reason why the Apostle Matthew could not have written both the Aramaic _Logia_ and our Greek Matthew, unless one is unwilling to believe that he would make use of Mark's work on a par with his own. But Mark's book rests primarily on the preaching of Simon Peter. Scholfield has recently published _An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel_. We know quite too little of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels to say dogmatically that the Apostle Matthew was not in any real sense the author.

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heurethˆ en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.

rwp@Matthew:1:20 @{An angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream} (\aggelos kuriou kat' onar ephanˆ aut“i\). This expression (\aggelos kuriou\) is without the article in the New Testament except when, as in strkjv@1:24|, there is reference to the angel previously mentioned. Sometimes in the Old Testament Jehovah Himself is represented by this phrase. Surely Joseph needed God's help if ever man did. If Jesus was really God's Son, Joseph was entitled to know this supreme fact that he might be just to both Mary and her Child. It was in a dream, but the message was distinct and decisive for Joseph. He is called "Son of David" as had been shown by Matthew in strkjv@Matthew:1:16|. Mary is called his "wife" (\tˆn gunaika sou\). He is told "not to become afraid" (ingressive first aorist passive subjunctive in prohibition, (\mˆ phobˆthˆis\), "to take to his side" (\paralabein\, ingressive aorist active infinitive) her whom he had planned (\enthumˆthentos\, genitive absolute again, from \en\ and \thumos\) to send away with a writ of divorce. He had pondered and had planned as best he knew, but now God had called a halt and he had to decide whether he was willing to shelter Mary by marrying her and, if necessary, take upon himself whatever stigma might attach to her. Joseph was told that the child was begotten of the Holy Spirit and thus that Mary was innocent of any sin. But who would believe it now if he told it of her? Mary knew the truth and had not told him because she could not expect him to believe it.

rwp@Matthew:1:21 @{Thou shalt call his name Jesus} (\Kalesies to onoma autou Iˆsoun\). The rabbis named six whose names were given before birth: "Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and the name of the Messiah, whom may the Holy One, blessed be His name, bring in our day." The angel puts it up to Joseph as the putative father to name the child. "Jesus is the same as Joshua, a contraction of Jehoshuah (Numbers:13:16; strkjv@1Chronicles:7:27|), signifying in Hebrew, 'Jehovah is helper,' or 'Help of Jehovah'" (Broadus). Songs:Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua (Hebrews:4:8|). He is another Joshua to lead the true people of God into the Promised Land. The name itself was common enough as Josephus shows. Jehovah is Salvation as seen in Joshua for the Hebrews and in Jesus for all believers. "The meaning of the name, therefore, finds expression in the title _Saviour_ applied to our Lord (Luke:1:47; strkjv@2:11; strkjv@John:4:42|)" (Vincent). He will save (\s“sei\) his people from their sins and so be their Saviour (\S“tˆr\). He will be prophet, priest, and king, but "Saviour" sums it all up in one word. The explanation is carried out in the promise, "for he is the one who (\autos\) will save (\s“sei\ with a play on the name Jesus) his people from their sins." Paul will later explain that by the covenant people, the children of promise, God means the spiritual Israel, all who believe whether Jews or Gentiles. This wonderful word touches the very heart of the mission and message of the Messiah. Jesus himself will show that the kingdom of heaven includes all those and only those who have the reign of God in their hearts and lives. {From their sins} (\apo t“n hamarti“n aut“n\). Both sins of omission and of commission. The substantive (\hamartia\) is from the verb (\hamartanein\) and means missing the mark as with an arrow. How often the best of us fall short and fail to score. Jesus will save us away from (\apo\) as well as out of (\ex\) our sins. They will be cast into oblivion and he will cover them up out of sight.

rwp@Matthew:4:1 @{To be tempted of the devil} (\peirasthˆnai hupo tou diabolou\). Matthew locates the temptation at a definite time, "then" (\tote\) and place, "into the wilderness" (\eis tˆn erˆmon\), the same general region where John was preaching. It is not surprising that Jesus was tempted by the devil immediately after his baptism which signified the formal entrance upon the Messianic work. That is a common experience with ministers who step out into the open for Christ. The difficulty here is that Matthew says that "Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil." Mark (Mark:1:12|) puts it more strongly that the Spirit "drives" (\ekballei\) Christ into the wilderness. It was a strong impulsion by the Holy Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness to think through the full significance of the great step that he had now taken. That step opened the door for the devil and involved inevitable conflict with the slanderer (\tou diabolou\). Judas has this term applied to him (John:6:70|) as it is to men (2Timothy:3:3; strkjv@Titus:2:3|) and women (she devils, strkjv@1Timothy:3:11|) who do the work of the arch slanderer. There are those today who do not believe that a personal devil exists, but they do not offer an adequate explanation of the existence and presence of sin in the world. Certainly Jesus did not discount or deny the reality of the devil's presence. The word "tempt" here (\peiraz“\) and in strkjv@4:3| means originally to test, to try. That is its usual meaning in the ancient Greek and in the Septuagint. Bad sense of \ekpeiraz“\ in strkjv@4:7| as in strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:16|. Here it comes to mean, as often in the New Testament, to solicit to sin. The evil sense comes from its use for an evil purpose.

rwp@Matthew:8:2 @{If thou wilt} (\ean thelˆis\). The leper knew that Jesus had the power to heal him. His doubt was about his willingness. "Men more easily believe in miraculous power than in miraculous love" (Bruce). This is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined), a hopeful doubt at any rate. Jesus accepted his challenge by "I will." The command to "tell no one" was to suppress excitement and prevent hostility.

rwp@Matthew:12:24 @{The Pharisees} (\hoi de Pharisaioi\). Already (Matthew:9:32-34|) we have had in Matthew the charge that Jesus is in league with the prince of demons, though the incident may be later than this one. See on ¯10:25| about "Beelzebub." The Pharisees feel that the excited condition of the crowds and the manifest disposition to believe that Jesus is the Messiah (the Son of David) demand strenuous action on their part. They cannot deny the fact of the miracles for the blind and dumb men both saw and spoke (12:22|). Songs:in desperation they suggest that Jesus works by the power of Beelzebub the prince of the demons.

rwp@Matthew:16:16 @Peter is the spokesman now: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (\Su ei ho Christos ho huios tou theou tou z“ntos\). It was a noble confession, but not a new claim by Jesus. Peter had made it before (John:6:69|) when the multitude deserted Jesus in Capernaum. Since the early ministry (John 4) Jesus had avoided the word Messiah because of its political meaning to the people. But now Peter plainly calls Jesus the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Son of the God the living one (note the four Greek articles). This great confession of Peter means that he and the other disciples believe in Jesus as the Messiah and are still true to him in spite of the defection of the Galilean populace (John 6).

rwp@Matthew:18:10 @{Despise} (\kataphronˆsˆte\). Literally, "think down on," with the assumption of superiority. {Their angels} (\hoi aggeloi aut“n\). The Jews believed that each nation had a guardian angel (Daniel:10:13,20f.; strkjv@12:1|). The seven churches in Revelation (Revelation:1:20|) have angels, each of them, whatsoever the meaning is. Does Jesus mean to teach here that each little child or child of faith had a special angel who appears in God's presence, "see the face of my Father" (\blepousin to pros“pon tou patros mou\) in special intimacy? Or does he simply mean that the angels do take an interest in the welfare of God's people (Hebrews:1:14|)? There is comfort to us in that thought. Certainly Jesus means that the Father takes special care of his "little ones" who believe in Him. There are angels in God's presence (Luke:1:19|).

rwp@Matthew:26:50 @{Do that for which thou art come} (\eph' ho parei\). Moffatt and Goodspeed take it: "Do your errand." There has been a deal of trouble over this phrase. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 125 to 131) has proven conclusively that it is a question, \eph' ho\ in late Greek having the interrogative sense of \epi ti\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 725). The use of \eph' ho\ for "why here" occurs on a Syrian tablet of the first century A.D. 50 that it "was current coin in the language of the people" (Deissmann). Most of the early translations (Old Latin, Old Syriac) took it as a question. Songs:the Vulgate has _ad quid venisti_. In this instance the Authorized Version is correct against the Revised. Jesus exposes the pretence of Judas and shows that he does not believe in his paraded affection (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:27:42 @{He saved others; himself he cannot save} (\allous es“sen; heauton ou dunatai s“sai\). The sarcasm is true, though they do not know its full significance. If he had saved himself now, he could not have saved any one. The paradox is precisely the philosophy of life proclaimed by Jesus himself (Matthew:10:39|). {Let him now come down} (\katabat“ nun\). Now that he is a condemned criminal nailed to the Cross with the claim of being "the King of Israel" (the Jews) over his head. Their spiteful assertion that they would then believe upon Jesus (\ep' auton\) is plainly untrue. They would have shifted their ground and invented some other excuse. When Jesus wrought his greatest miracles, they wanted "a sign from heaven." These "pious scoffers" (Bruce) are like many today who make factitious and arbitrary demands of Christ whose character and power and deity are plain to all whose eyes are not blinded by the god of this world. Christ will not give new proofs to the blind in heart.

rwp@Matthew:28:17 @{But some doubted} (\hoi de edistasan\). From \dis\ (in two, divided in mind). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:14:31|. The reference is not to the eleven who were all now convinced after some doubt, but to the others present. Paul states that over five hundred were present, most of whom were still alive when he wrote (1Corinthians:15:6|). It is natural that some should hesitate to believe so great a thing at the first appearance of Jesus to them. Their very doubt makes it easier for us to believe. This was the mountain where Jesus had promised to meet them. This fact explains the large number present. Time and place were arranged beforehand. It was the climax of the various appearances and in Galilee where were so many believers. They worshipped (\prosekunˆsan\) Jesus as the women had done (28:9|). He is now their Risen Lord and Saviour.

rwp@Matthew:28:18 @{All authority} (\pƒsa exousia\). Jesus came close to them (\proselth“n\) and made this astounding claim. He spoke as one already in heaven with a world-wide outlook and with the resources of heaven at his command. His authority or power in his earthly life had been great (7:29; strkjv@11:27; strkjv@21:23f.|). Now it is boundless and includes earth and heaven. {Hath been given} (\edothˆ\) is a timeless aorist (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 836f.). It is the sublimist of all spectacles to see the Risen Christ without money or army or state charging this band of five hundred men and women with world conquest and bringing them to believe it possible and to undertake it with serious passion and power. Pentecost is still to come, but dynamic faith rules on this mountain in Galilee.

rwp@Philippians:2:6 @{Being} (\huparch“n\). Rather, "existing," present active participle of \huparch“\. In the form of God (\en morphˆi theou\). \Morphˆ\ means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. {A prize} (\harpagmon\). Predicate accusative with \hˆgˆsato\. Originally words in \-mos\ signified the act, not the result (\-ma\). The few examples of \harpagmos\ (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to \harpagma\, like \baptismos\ and \baptisma\. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery"). {To be on an equality with God} (\to einai isa theoi\). Accusative articular infinitive object of \hˆgˆsato\, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case \the“i\ after \isa\). \Isa\ is adverbial use of neuter plural with \einai\ as in strkjv@Revelation:21:16|. {Emptied himself} (\heauton eken“se\). First aorist active indicative of \keno“\, old verb from \kenos\, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a \Kenosis\ doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. "He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION They are literally many. There are those who make the book a chart of Christian and even of human history even to the end. These divide into two groups, the continuous and the synchronous. The continuous historical theory takes each vision and symbol in succession as an unfolding panorama. Under the influence of this theory there have been all sorts of fantastic identifications of men and events. The synchronous theory takes the series of sevens (seals, trumpets, bowls) as parallel with each other, each time going up to the end. But in neither case can any satisfactory program be arranged. Another historical interpretation takes it all as over and done, the preterist theory. This theory again breaks into two, one finding the fulfilment all in the Neronic period, the other in the Domitianic era. Something can be said for each view, but neither satisfies the whole picture by any means. Roman Catholic scholars have been fond of the preterist view to escape the Protestant interpretation of the second beast in chapter strkjv@Revelation:13| as papal Rome. There is still another interpretation, the futurist, which keeps the fulfilment all in the future and which can be neither proved nor disproved. There is also the purely spiritual theory which finds no historical allusion anywhere. This again can be neither proved nor disproved. One of the lines of cleavage is the millennium in chapter strkjv@Revelation:20|. Those who take the thousand years literally are either pre-millennialists who look for the second coming of Christ to be followed by a thousand years of personal reign here on earth or the postmillennialists who place the thousand years before the second coming. There are others who turn to strkjv@2Peter:3:8| and wonder if, after all, in a book of symbols this thousand years has any numerical value at all. There seems abundant evidence to believe that this apocalypse, written during the stress and storm of Domitian's persecution, was intended to cheer the persecuted Christians with a view of certain victory at last, but with no scheme of history in view.

rwp@Romans:4:11 @{The sign of circumcision} (\sˆmeion peritomˆs\). It is the genitive of apposition, circumcision being the sign. {A seal of the righteousness of the faith} (\sphragida tˆs dikaiosunˆs tˆs piste“s\). \Sphragis\ is old word for the seal placed on books (Revelation:5:1|), for a signet-ring (Revelation:7:2|), the stamp made by the seal (2Timothy:2:19|), that by which anything is confirmed (1Corinthians:9:2|) as here. The circumcision did not convey the righteousness, but only gave outward confirmation. It came by faith and "the faith which he had while in uncircumcision" (\tˆs en tˆi akrobustiƒi\), "the in the state of uncircumcision faith." Whatever parallel exists between baptism and circumcision as here stated by Paul argues for faith before baptism and for baptism as the sign and seal of the faith already had before baptism. {That he might be} (\eis to einai auton\). This idiom may be God's purpose (contemplated result) as in \eis to logisthˆnai\ below, or even actual result (so that he was) as in strkjv@1:20|. {Though they be in uncircumcision} (\di' akrobustias\). Simply, "of those who believe while in the condition of uncircumcision."

rwp@Romans:11:25 @{This mystery} (\to mustˆrion touto\). Not in the pagan sense of an esoteric doctrine for the initiated (from \mue“\, to blink, to wink), unknown secrets (2Thessalonians:2:7|), or like the mystery religions of the time, but the revealed will of God now made known to all (1Corinthians:2:1,7; strkjv@4:1|) which includes Gentiles also (Romans:16:25; strkjv@Colossians:1:26f.; strkjv@Ephesians:3:3f.|) and so far superior to man's wisdom (Colossians:2:2; strkjv@4:13; strkjv@Ephesians:3:9; strkjv@5:32; strkjv@6:19; strkjv@Matthew:13:11; strkjv@Mark:4:11|). Paul has covered every point of difficulty concerning the failure of the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah and has shown how God has overruled it for the blessing of the Gentiles with a ray of hope still held out for the Jews. "In early ecclesiastical Latin \mustˆrion\ was rendered by _sacramentum_, which in classical Latin means _the military oath_. The explanation of the word _sacrament_, which is so often founded on this etymology, is therefore mistaken, since the meaning of sacrament belongs to \mustˆrion\ and not to _sacramentum_ in the classical sense" (Vincent). {Wise in your own conceits} (\en heautois phronimoi\). "Wise in yourselves." Some MSS. read \par' heautois\ (by yourselves). Negative purpose here (\hina mˆ ˆte\), to prevent self-conceit on the part of the Gentiles who have believed. They had no merit in themselves {A hardening} (\p“r“sis\). Late word from \p“ro“\ (11:7|). Occurs in Hippocrates as a medical term, only here in N.T. save strkjv@Mark:3:5; strkjv@Ephesians:4:18|. It means obtuseness of intellectual discernment, mental dulness. {In part} (\apo merous\). Goes with the verb \gegonen\ (has happened in part). For \apo merous\, see strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14; strkjv@2:5; strkjv@Romans:15:24|; for \ana meros\, see strkjv@1Corinthians:14:27|; for \ek merous\, see strkjv@1Corinthians:12:27; strkjv@13:9|; for \kata meros\, see strkjv@Hebrews:9:5|; for \meros ti\ (adverbial accusative) partly see strkjv@1Corinthians:11:18|. Paul refuses to believe that no more Jews will be saved. {Until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in} (\achri hou to plˆr“ma t“n ethn“n eiselthˆi\). Temporal clause with \achri hou\ (until which time) and the second aorist active subjunctive of \eiserchomai\, to come in (Matthew:7:13,21|). {For fulness of the Gentiles} (\to plˆr“ma t“n ethn“n\) see on verse ¯12|, the complement of the Gentiles.

Seeker Overlay: Off On

[BookofCONCORD] [CONCORD:-1] [CONCORD:Believe] [CONCORD:1] [Discuss] Tag Believe [Audio][Presentation]
Bible:
Bible:
Book:

[pBiblx2]
Tue Jul 2 10:54:46 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020