rwp - Moffatt

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:2 @{We give thanks} (\eucharistoumen\). Late denominative verb \euchariste\ from \eucharistos\ (grateful) and that from \eu\, well and \charizomai\, to show oneself kind. See \charis\ in verse 1|. "The plural implies that all three missionaries prayed together" (Moffatt). {Always} (\pantote\). Late word, rare in LXX. Songs:with \euchariste\ in strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:3; strkjv@2:13; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:4; strkjv@Ephesians:5:20; strkjv@Phillipians:1:3|. Moffatt takes it to mean "whenever Paul was at his prayers." Of course, he did not make audible prayer always, but he was always in the spirit of prayer, "a constant attitude" (Milligan), "in tune with the Infinite." {For you all} (\peri pantn humn\). Paul "encircled (\peri\, around) them all," including every one of them and the church as a whole. Distance lends enchantment to the memory of slight drawbacks. Paul is fond of this phrase "you all," particularly in Phil. (Phillipians:1:3,7|). {Making mention} (\mneian poioumenoi\). Paul uses this very idiom in Rom strkjv@1:9; strkjv@Ephesians:1:16; strkjv@Philemon:1:4|. Milligan cites a papyrus example of \mneian poioumenoi\ in prayer (B. Y. U. 652, 5). Did Paul have a prayer list of the Thessalonian disciples which he read over with Silas and Timothy? {In} here is \epi=\"in the time of our prayers." "Each time that they are engaged in prayers the writers mention the names of the converts" (Frame).

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:6 @{Nor seeking glory of men} (\oute ztountes ex anthrpn doxan\). "Upon the repudiation of covetousness follows naturally the repudiation of worldly ambition" (Milligan). See strkjv@Acts:20:19; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:5; strkjv@Ephesians:4:2|. This third disclaimer is as strong as the other two. Paul and his associates had not tried to extract praise or glory out of (\ex\) men. {Neither from you nor from others} (\oute aph' humn oute aph' alln\). He widens the negation to include those outside of the church circles and changes the preposition from \ex\ (out of) to \apo\ (from). {When we might have been burdensome, as apostles of Christ} (\dunamenoi en barei einai hs Christou apostoloi\). Westcott and Hort put this clause in verse 7|. Probably a concessive participle, {though being able to be in a position of weight} (..."men of weight" as Moffatt... suggests). Milligan suggests that Paul "plays here on the double sense of the phrase" like the Latin proverb: _Honos propter onus_. Songs:he adds, including Silas and Timothy, {as Christ's apostles}, as missionaries clearly, whether in the technical sense or not (cf. strkjv@Acts:14:4,14; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:23; strkjv@11:13; strkjv@Romans:16:7; strkjv@Phillipians:2:25; strkjv@Revelation:2:2|). They were entitled to pay as "Christ's apostles" (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:7ff.|), though they had not asked for it.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:16 @{I did not myself burden you} (\eg ou katebarsa humas\). First aorist active of late verb \katabare\, to press a burden down on one. Only here in N.T. {Crafty} (\panourgos\). Old word from \pan\, all, and \ergo\, to do anything (good or bad). Good sense is skilful, bad sense cunning. Only here in N.T. and Paul is quoting the word from his enemies. {With guile} (\doli\). Instrumental case of \dolos\...big collection for himself. Moffatt has...

rwp@2Thessalonians:1:10 @{When he shall come} (\hotan elthi\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \hotan\, future and indefinite temporal clause (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 971ff.) coincident with \en ti apokalupsei\ in verse 7|. {To be glorified} (\endoxasthnai\). First aorist passive infinitive (purpose) of \endoxaz\, late verb, in N.T. only here and verse 12|, in LXX and papyri. {In his saints} (\en tois hagiois autou\). The sphere in which Christ will find his glory at the Revelation. {And to be marvelled at} (\kai thaumasthnai\). First aorist passive infinitive (purpose), common verb \thaumaz\. {That believed} (\tois pisteusasin\). Why aorist active participle instead of present active \pisteuousin\ (that believe)? Frame thinks that Paul thus reassures those who believed his message when there (1Thessalonians:1:6ff.; strkjv@2:13f.|). The parenthetical clause, though difficult, falls in with this idea: {Because our testimony unto you was believed} (\hoti episteuth to marturion hmn eph' humas\). Moffatt calls it an anti-climax. {On that day} (\en ti hmeri ekeini\). The day of Christ's coming (2Timothy:1:12,18; strkjv@4:8|).

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:4 @{He that opposeth and exalteth himself} (\ho antikeimenos kai huperairomenos\). Like John's Antichrist this one opposes (\anti-\) Christ and exalts himself (direct middle of \huperair\, old verb to lift oneself up {above} others, only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| in N.T.), but not Satan, but an agent of Satan. This participial clause is in apposition with the two preceding phrases, the man of sin, the son of perdition. Note strkjv@1Corinthians:8:5| about one called God and strkjv@Acts:17:23| for \sebasma\ (from \sebazomai\), object of worship, late word, in N.T. only in these two passages. {Songs:that he sitteth in the temple of God} (\hste auton eis ton naon tou theou kathisai\). Another example of the infinitive with \hste\ for result. Caius Caligula had made a desperate attempt to have his statue set up for worship in the Temple in Jerusalem. This incident may lie behind Paul's language here. {Setting himself forth as God} (\apodeiknunta heauton hoti estin theos\). Present active participle (\mi\ form) of \apodeiknumi\, agreeing in case with \auton\, {showing himself that he is God}...claimed to be God. Moffatt doubts...\theos\ on one side and \Thessaloniken\ on the other. In strkjv@1John:2:18| we are told of "many antichrists" some of whom had already come. Hence it is not clear that Paul has in mind only one individual or even individuals at all rather than evil principles, for in verse 6| he speaks of \to katechon\ (that which restraineth) while in verse 7| it is \ho katechn\ (the one that restraineth). Frame argues for a combination of Belial and Antichrist as the explanation of Paul's language. But the whole subject is left by Paul in such a vague form that we can hardly hope to clear it up. It is possible that his own preaching while with them gave his readers a clue that we do not possess.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:10 @{This} (\touto\). What he proceeds to give. {If any will not work, neither let him eat} (\hoti ei tis ou thelei ergazesthai mde esthiet\). Recitative \hoti\ here not to be translated, like our modern quotation marks. Apparently a Jewish proverb based on strkjv@Genesis:3:19|...Wetstein quotes several parallels. Moffatt gives..._Chartism_: "He that will not work according to his faculty, let him perish according to his necessity." Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 314) sees Paul borrowing a piece of workshop morality. It was needed, as is plain. This is a condition of the first class (note negative \ou\) with the negative imperative in the conclusion.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE RECIPIENTS If the title is allowed to be genuine or a fair interpretation of the Epistle, then it is addressed to Jewish (Hebrew)...church somewhere. Dr. James Moffatt in..._Commentary_ (pp. xv to xvii)...LXX. For myself Dr. Moffatt's reasons...10:32-34|. The church in Jerusalem had undergone sufferings like these, but we really do not know where the church was. Apparently the author is in Italy when he writes (Hebrews:13:24|), though "they of Italy" (\hoi apo ts Italias\) can mean those who have come from Italy. These Jewish Christians may even have lived in Rome itself.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE PURPOSE The author states it repeatedly. He urges the Jewish Christians to hold fast the confession which they have made in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Their Jewish neighbours have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism. The Judaizers tried to make Jews out of Gentile Christians and to fasten Judaism upon Christianity with a purely sacramental type of religion as the result. Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ over all these imaginary \aeons\ (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy)...has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms...

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ SOME BOOKS ON HEBREWS ANDEL, _Deuteronomy:Brief aan de Hebraer_. ANDERSON, R., _The Hebrews Epistle in the Light of the Types_. AYLES, _Destination, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_. BAILEY, _Leading Ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews_. BLASS, F., _Brief an die Hebraer, Text, Angabe der Rhythmen_. BLEEK, F., _Der Hebraerbrief Erklart_. BRUCE, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_. DALE, R. W., _The Jewish Temple in the Christian Church_. DAVIDSON, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_. DELITZSCH, F., _Commentary on the Hebrews_. DIBELIUS, M., _Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes_. DODS, M., _Expositor's Greek Testament_. DU BOSE, W. P., _High Priesthood and sacrifice_. EDWARDS, T. C., _Expositor's Bible_. FARRAR, F. W., _Cambridge Greek Testament_. GOODSPEED, E. J., _Bible for Home and School_. GRIFFTH-THOMAS, W. H., _Let Us Go On_. HEIGL, _Verfalser und Addresse des Briefes an die Hebraer_. HOLLMANN, _Schriften d. N. T_. 2 Aufl.. KENDRICK, A. C., _American Commentary_. LIDGETT, J. S., _Sonship and Salvation_. LOWRIE, _An Explanation of Hebrews_. LUNEMANN, G., _Meyer Komm_.. MACFADYEN, J. F., _Through the Eternal Spirit_. MACNEILL, _The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_. MENEGOZ, E., _Lamentations:Theologie de l'epitre aux Hebreaux_. MILLIGAN, G., _The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_. MOFFATT JAMES, _Int. and Cosit. Comm_. MOULE, H. C., _Messages from the Epistle to the Hebrews_. MURRAY, ANDREW, _Devotional Commentary_. NAIRNE, A., _The Epistle of Priesthood_. NAIRNE, A., _The Alexandrian Gospel_. PEAKE, A. S., _New Century Bible_. PORTER, S. J., _The Twelve-Gemmed Crown_. RENDALL, F., _The Theology of the Hebrew Christians_. RIGGENBACH, M., _Zoeckler Komm_. 2 Aufl.. ROTHERHAM, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_. SAPHIR, A., _Exposition of Hebrews_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_. SEEBERG, A., _Der Brief an die Hebraer_. SLOT, _Deuteronomy:Letterkundige Vorm van den Brief aan de Hebraer. SODEN, VON, _Hand-Comm_.. THOLUCK, A., _Komm. zum Briefe an die Hebraer_. VAUGHAN, C. J., _Epistle to the Hebrews_. WADE, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_. WEISS, B., _Meyer-Komm_. 6 Aufl.. WEISS, B., _Der Hebraerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Bekuch- tung_. WELCH, _Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_. WESTCOTT, B. F., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (3rd ed. 1906). WICKHAM, E. C., _Westminster Comm_.. WINDISCH, H., _Handbuch zum N.T_.. WREDE, W., _Das literarisches Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs_. strkjv@Hebrews:1:1 @{God} (\ho theos\). This Epistle begins like Genesis and the Fourth Gospel with God, who is the Author of the old revelation in the prophets and of the new in his Son. Verses 1-3| are a _proemium_ (Delitzsch) or introduction to the whole Epistle. The periodic structure of the sentence (1-4|) reminds one of strkjv@Luke:1:1-4, strkjv@Romans:1:1-7, strkjv@1John:1:1-4|. The sentence could have concluded with \en huii\ in verse 2|, but by means of three relatives (\hon, di' hou, hos\) the author presents the Son as "the exact counterpart of God" (Moffatt). {Of old time} (\palai\). "Long ago" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:21|. {Having spoken} (\lalsas\). First aorist active participle of \lale\, originally chattering of birds, then used of the highest form of speech as here. {Unto the fathers} (\tois patrasin\). Dative case. The Old Testament worthies in general without "our" or "your" as in strkjv@John:6:58; strkjv@7:22; strkjv@Romans:9:5|. {In the prophets} (\en tois prophtais\). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). strkjv@Songs:4:7|. {By divers portions} (\polumers\). "In many portions." Adverb from late adjective \polumers\ (in papyri), both in _Vettius Valens_, here only in N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:22 and Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 3, 9). The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, a progressive revelation of God to men. {In divers manners} (\polutrops\). "In many ways." Adverb from old adjective \polutropos\, in Philo, only here in N.T. The two adverbs together are "a sonorous hendiadys for 'variously'" (Moffatt) as Chrysostom (\diaphors\). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.).

rwp@Hebrews:3:1 @{Holy brethren} (\adelphoi hagioi\). Only here in N.T., for \hagiois\ in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:27| only in late MSS. See strkjv@Hebrews:2:11| for same idea. First time the author makes direct appeal to the readers, though first person in strkjv@2:1|. {Partakers} (\metochoi\). See strkjv@Luke:5:7| for "partners" in the fishing, elsewhere in N.T. only in Hebrews (1:9; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@12:8|) in N.T. {Of a heavenly calling} (\klses epouraniou\). Only here in the N.T., though same idea in strkjv@9:15|. See \h an klsis\ in strkjv@Phillipians:3:14| (the upward calling). The call comes from heaven and is to heaven in its appeal. {Consider} (\katanosate\). First aorist active imperative of \katanoe\, old compound verb (\kata, nous\), to put the mind down on a thing, to fix the mind on as in strkjv@Matthew:7:3; strkjv@Luke:12:24|. {Even Jesus} (\Isoun\). No "even" in the Greek, just like the idiom in strkjv@2:9|, the human name held up with pride. {The Apostle and High Priest of our confession} (\ton apostolon kai archierea ts homologias hmn\). In descriptive apposition with \Isoun\ and note the single article \ton\. This is the only time in the N.T. that Jesus is called \apostolos\, though he often used \apostell\ of God's sending him forth as in strkjv@John:17:3| (\apesteilas\). This verb is used of Moses as sent by God (Exodus:3:10|). Moffatt notes that \apostolos\ is Ionic for \presbeuts\, "not a mere envoy, but an ambassador or representative sent with powers." The author has already termed Jesus high priest (2:17|). For \homologia\ (confession) see strkjv@2Corinthians:9:13; strkjv@1Timothy:6:12|. These Hebrew Christians had confessed Jesus as their Apostle and High Priest. They do not begin to understand what Jesus is and means if they are tempted to give him up. The word runs through Hebrews with an urgent note for fidelity (4:14; strkjv@10:23|). See \homologe\ (\homon\, same, \leg\, say), to say the same thing, to agree, to confess, to profess.

rwp@Hebrews:4:4 @{Somewhere on this wise} (\pou houts\). See strkjv@2:6| for \pou tis\ for a like indefinite allusion to an Old Testament quotation. Here it is strkjv@Genesis:2:2| (cf. strkjv@Exodus:20:11; strkjv@31:17|). Moffatt notes that Philo quotes strkjv@Genesis:2:2| with the same "literary mannerism." {Rested} (\katepausen\). First aorist active indicative of \katapau\, intransitive here, but transitive in verse 8|. It is not, of course, absolute rest from all creative activity as Jesus shows in strkjv@John:5:17|. But the seventh day of God's rest was still going on (clearly not a twenty-four hour day).

rwp@Hebrews:6:3 @{If God permit} (\eanper epitrepi ho theos\). Condition of the third class with \eanper\ (note \per\ indeed). See strkjv@1Corinthians:16:7| (\ean ho kurios epitrepsi\) and strkjv@Acts:18:21| (\tou theou thelontos\). It is not an idle form with the author. He means that he will go on with the argument and not attempt to lay again the foundation (the elements). Moffatt takes him to mean that he will teach them the elements at a later time (13:23|) if the way opens, a less probable interpretation.

rwp@Hebrews:7:1 @{This Melchizedek} (\houtos ho Melchisedek\). The one already mentioned several times with whose priesthood that of Christ is compared and which is older and of a higher type than that of Aaron. See strkjv@Genesis:14:18-20; strkjv@Psalms:110|...the author does it. Moffatt calls...1-3| "a little sermon" on strkjv@6:20|. It is "for ever" (\eis ton aina\) that he explains. Melchizedek is the only one in his line and stands alone in the record in Genesis. The interpretation is rabbinical in method, but well adapted to Jewish readers. The description is taken verbatim from Genesis except that "who met" (\ho sunantsas\) is here applied to Melchizedek from strkjv@Genesis:14:17| instead of to the King of Sodom. They both met Abraham as a matter of fact. For this verb (first aorist active participle of \sunanta\) see strkjv@Luke:9:37|. {Slaughter} (\kops\). Old word for cutting (\kopt\, to cut), here only in N.T. These kings were Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, Tidal. Amraphel is usually taken to be Khammurabi. {Priest of God Most High} (\hiereus tou theou tou hupsistou\). He is called "priest" and note \tou hupsistou\ applied to God as the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews did. It is used also of Zeus and the Maccabean priest-kings. The demons apply it to God (Mark:5:7; strkjv@Luke:8:28|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:26 @{Became us} (\hmin eprepen\). Imperfect active indicative of \prep\ as in strkjv@2:10|, only there it was applied to God while here to us. "Such" (\toioutos\) refers to the Melchizedek character of Jesus as high priest and in particular to his power to help and save (2:17f.|) as just explained in strkjv@7:24f.| Moffatt notes that "it is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody" but the adjectives that follow picture in outline the qualities of the high priest needed by us. {Holy} (\hosios\). Saintly, pious, as already noted. Cf. strkjv@Acts:2:24; strkjv@13:35|. {Guileless} (\akakos\). Without malice, innocent. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:16:18|. {Undefiled} (\amiantos\). Untainted, stainless. In the papyri. Not merely ritual purity (Leviticus:21:10-15|), but real ethical cleanness. {Separated from sinners} (\kechrismenos apo tn hamartln\). Perfect passive participle. Probably referring to Christ's exaltation (9:28|). {Made higher than the heavens} (\hupsloteros tn ourann genomenos\). "Having become higher than the heavens." Ablative case (\ourann\) after the comparative adjective (\hupsloteros\).

rwp@Hebrews:9:11 @{Having come} (\paragenomenos\). Second aorist middle participle of \paraginomai\. This is the great historic event that is the crux of history. "Christ came on the scene, and all was changed" (Moffatt). {Of the good things to come} (\tn mellontn agathn\). But B D read \genomenn\ (that are come). It is a nice question which is the true text. Both aspects are true, for Christ is High Priest of good things that have already come as well as of the glorious future of hope. Westcott prefers \genomenn\, Moffatt \mellontn\. {Through the greater and more perfect tabernacle} (\dia ts meizonos kai teleioteras skns\). Probably the instrumental use of \dia\ (2Corinthians:2:4; strkjv@Romans:2:27; strkjv@14:20|) as accompaniment, not the local idea (4:14; strkjv@10:20|). Christ as High Priest employed in his work the heavenly tabernacle (8:2|) after which the earthly was patterned (9:24|). {Not made with hands} (\ou cheiropoitou\). Old compound verbal for which see strkjv@Mark:14:58; strkjv@Acts:7:48; strkjv@17:24|. Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:8:2|. Here in the predicate position. {Not of this creation} (\ou tauts ts ktises\). Explanation of \ou chieropoitou\. For \ktisis\ see strkjv@2Corinthians:5:17; strkjv@Romans:8:19|. For the idea see strkjv@2Corinthians:4:18; strkjv@Hebrews:8:2|. This greater and more perfect tabernacle is heaven itself (9:24|).

rwp@Hebrews:13:16 @{To do good} (\ts eupoiias\). Genitive case. Late compound from \eupoios\ (\eupoie\), common in Epictetus, but here only in N.T., a doing good. {To communicate} (\koinnias\). Genitive case. See strkjv@2Corinthians:9:13|...use for contribution, beneficence. Moffatt notes...(here, strkjv@Romans:12:1f.; strkjv@James:1:27|) are all inward and ethical. {Forget not} (\m epilanthanesthe\). Prohibition with \m\ and the present middle imperative of \epilanthan\ (6:10; strkjv@13:2|). Here with the genitive case. {Is well pleased} (\euaresteitai\). Present passive indicative of \euareste\ (Hebrews:11:5|). With the associative instrumental case \thusiais\ (sacrifices).

rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_. ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_. ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_.,_Johannine Grammar_. APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_. ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_. BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_. BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_. BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_. BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl.. BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_. BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_. BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_. BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel_. BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_. CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_. CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_. CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_. CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_. CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_. D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_.,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_. DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_. DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_.,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums. DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_. DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_. EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_. EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_. FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_. GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_. GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_. GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_.,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_. GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_. GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_. GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_. GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_. GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_.. HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_. HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_. HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc.. HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_.,_The Fourth Gospel_. HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl.. HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer. HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_.. HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_. IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_.,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_. KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_. KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_. LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_. LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_. LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_. LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_. LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_. LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_. LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_. LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_. MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_. MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_. McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_. MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_. MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_. MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_. NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_. NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel. ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_. PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_. REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_. REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_. ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_. ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_. ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_. SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_. SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_. SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_. SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_. SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_. SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_. SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_. SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_. SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_. STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_. STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_. STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_.,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_. TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_. VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_. WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_. WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_. WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_. WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl..,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_. WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_. WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_.,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_. WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_. WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_. WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_. WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_. ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis. 6 Aufl.. strkjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archi\). \Arch\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in strkjv@Genesis:1:1|. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. {Was} (\n\). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (\egeneto\, became) appears in verse 14| for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in strkjv@8:58| "before Abraham came (\genesthai\) I am" (\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is from \leg\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used \spermatikos logos\ for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew _memra_ was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in strkjv@Proverbs:8:23|. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (_The Origin of the _Prologue to St. John_, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term \Logos\, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\ is applied to Christ only in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:13; strkjv@1John:1:1| "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in strkjv@John:17:5|. This term suits John's purpose better than \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (\sarx egeneto\, verse 14|) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \Pros\ with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In strkjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prospon pros prospon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gnston ts pros alllous suntheias\, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., _Vocabulary_) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, _Origin of Prologue_, p. 8) that the use of \pros\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin_, not old Attic. In strkjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos n ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos n ho logos\. That would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the predicate without it (\theos\) just as in strkjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in strkjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agap estin\ can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 767f. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

rwp@John:10:7 @{Therefore again} (\oun palin\). Jesus repeats the allegory with more detail and with more directness of application. Repeating a story is not usually an exhilarating experience. {I am the door of the sheep} (\eg eimi h thura tn probatn\). The door for the sheep by which they enter. "He is the legitimate door of access to the spiritual \aul\, the Fold of the House of Israel, the door by which a true shepherd must enter" (Bernard). He repeats it in verse 9|. This is a new idea, not in the previous story (1-5|). Moffatt follows the Sahidic in accepting \ho poimn\ here instead of \h thura\, clearly whimsical. Jesus simply changes the metaphor to make it plainer. They were doubtless puzzled by the meaning of the door in verse 1|. Once more, this metaphor should help those who insist on the literal meaning of bread as the actual body of Christ in strkjv@Mark:14:22|. Jesus is not a physical "door," but he is the only way of entrance into the Kingdom of God (14:6|).

rwp@Info_Luke @...in the Gospel as Moffatt clearly...(_Intr. to Lit. of the N.T._, p. 281). The Prologue is in literary _Koin_ and deserves comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style is versatile and is often coloured by his source. He was a great reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show. Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting Thucydides. Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics used to cite strkjv@Luke:2:1-7| as a passage containing more historical blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his various books, especially in _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_. The main feature of this proof appears also in my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_. Songs:many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still stands alone.

rwp@Mark:1:25 @{Hold thy peace} (\phimthti\). First aorist passive imperative of \phimo\. "Be quiet," Moffatt translates it. But it is a more vigorous word, "Be muzzled" like an ox. Songs:literally in strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:4, strkjv@1Corinthians:9:9; strkjv@1Timothy:5:18|. It is common in Josephus, Lucian, and the LXX. See strkjv@Matthew:22:12,34|. Gould renders it "Shut up." "Shut your mouth" would be too colloquial. Vincent suggests "gagged," but that is more the idea of \epistomazein\ in strkjv@Titus:1:11|, to stop the mouth.

rwp@Mark:1:27 @{They questioned among themselves} (\sunztein autous\). By look and word. {A new teaching} (\didach kain\). One surprise had followed another this day. The teaching was fresh (\kain\), original as the dew of the morning on the blossoms just blown. That was a novelty in that synagogue where only staid and stilted rabbinical rules had been heretofore droned out. This new teaching charmed the people, but soon will be rated as heresy by the rabbis. And it was with authority (\kat' exousian\)...authority behind it," as Moffatt has...(\kai tois pneumasin tois akathartois epitassei\). The position is equivocal and may be due to the fact that "Mark gives the incoherent and excited remarks of the crowd in this natural form" (Swete). But the most astonishing thing of all is that the demons "obey him" (\hupakouousin auti\). The people were accustomed to the use of magical formulae by the Jewish exorcists (Matthew:12:27; strkjv@Acts:19:13|), but here was something utterly different. Simon Magus could not understand how Simon Peter could do his miracles without some secret trick and even offered to buy it (Acts:8:19|).

rwp@Matthew:1:1 @{The Book} (\biblos\). There is no article in the Greek, but the following genitives make it definite. It is our word Bible that is here used, _the_ Book as Sir Walter Scott called it as he lay dying. The usual word for book is a diminutive form (\biblion\), a little book or roll such as we have in strkjv@Luke:4:17|, "The roll of the prophet Isaiah." The pieces of papyrus (\papuros\), our paper, were pasted together to make a roll of varying lengths according to one's needs. Matthew, of course, is not applying the word book to the Old Testament, probably not to his own book, but to "the genealogical table of Jesus Christ" (\biblos geneses Isou Christou\)...roll of Jesus Christ" Moffatt translates...3:23-38|. One can only give his own theory of the difference. Apparently in Matthew we have the actual genealogy of Joseph which would be the legal pedigree of Jesus according to Jewish custom. In Luke we apparently have the actual genealogy of Mary which would be the real line of Jesus which Luke naturally gives as he is writing for the Gentiles.

rwp@Matthew:1:2 @{Begat} (\egennsen\). This word comes, like some of the early chapters of Genesis, with regularity through verse 16, until the birth of Jesus is reached when there is a sudden change. The word itself does not always mean immediate parentage, but merely direct descent. In verse 16| we have "Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ" (\ton Isph ton andra Marias ex hs egennth Isous ho legomenos Christos\). The article occurs here each time with the object of "begat," but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (1:6|) and Joseph the husband of Mary (1:16|) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (1:2|) and of both Phares and Zara (1:3|) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give verse 16|...Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates,..._Jacob begat Jesus_" (\Isph de egennsen Isoun\). But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:1:18-25|. Hence it is clear that "begat" here in strkjv@1:16| must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in strkjv@1:18-25|. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of _Studies in the Text of the New Testament_. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in strkjv@1:16|. The spelling of these Hebrew names in English is usually according to the Hebrew form, not the Greek. In the Greek itself the Hebrew spelling is often observed in violation of the Greek rules for the ending of words with no consonants save _n,r,s_. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails.

rwp@Matthew:1:19 @{A Righteous Man} (\dikaios\). Or just, not benignant or merciful. The same adjective is used of Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke:1:6|) and Simeon (Luke:2:25|). "An upright man," the _Braid Scots_ has it. He had the Jewish conscientiousness for the observance of the law which would have been death by stoning (Deuteronomy:22:23|). Though Joseph was upright, he would not do that. "As a good Jew he would have shown his zeal if he had branded her with public disgrace" (McNeile). {And yet not willing} (\kai m theln\). Songs:we must understand \kai\ here, "and yet." Matthew makes a distinction here between "willing" (\theln\) and "wishing" (\eboulth\), that between purpose (\thel\) and desire (\boulomai\) a distinction not always drawn, though present here. It was not his purpose to "make her a public example" (\deigmatisai\), from the root (\deiknumi\ to show), a rare word (Colossians:2:15|). The Latin Vulgate has it _traducere_, the Old Latin _divulgare_, Wycliff _pupplische_ (publish), Tyndale _defame_, Moffatt _disgrace_, Braid Scots "Be i the mooth o' the public." The substantive (\deigmatismos\) occurs on the Rosetta Stone in the sense of "verification." There are a few instances of the verb in the papyri though the meaning is not clear (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). The compound form appears (\paradeigmatiz\) in strkjv@Hebrews:6:6| and there are earlier instances of this compound than of the uncompounded, curiously enough. But new examples of the simple verb, like the substantive, may yet be found. The papyri examples mean to furnish a sample (P Tebt. 5.75), to make trial of (P Ryl. I. 28.32). The substantive means exposure in (P Ryl. I. 28.70). At any rate it is clear that Joseph "was minded to put her away privily." He could give her a bill of divorcement (\apolusai\), the \gt\ laid down in the Mishna, without a public trial. He had to give her the writ (\gt\) and pay the fine (Deuteronomy:24:1|). Songs:he proposed to do this privately (\lathrai\) to avoid all the scandal possible. One is obliged to respect and sympathize with the motives of Joseph for he evidently loved Mary and was appalled to find her untrue to him as he supposed. It is impossible to think of Joseph as the actual father of Jesus according to the narrative of Matthew without saying that Matthew has tried by legend to cover up the illegitimate birth of Jesus. The Talmud openly charges this sin against Mary. Joseph had "a short but tragic struggle between his legal conscience and his love" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:2:2 @{For we saw his star in the east} (\eidomen gar autou ton astera en ti anatoli\)..."when it rose" as Moffatt puts...(\ti anatoli\) does sometimes mean "east" (Revelation:21:13|), though the plural is more common as in strkjv@Matthew:2:1|. In strkjv@Luke:1:78| the singular means dawn as the verb (\aneteilen\) does in strkjv@Matthew:4:16| (Septuagint). The Magi ask where is the one born king of the Jews. They claim that they had seen his star, either a miracle or a combination of bright stars or a comet. These men may have been Jewish proselytes and may have known of the Messianic hope, for even Vergil had caught a vision of it. The whole world was on tiptoe of expectancy for something. Moulton (_Journal of Theological Studies_, 1902, p. 524) "refers to the Magian belief that a star could be the _fravashi_, the counterpart or angel (cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:10|) of a great man" (McNeile). They came to worship the newly born king of the Jews. Seneca (_Epistle_ 58) tells of Magians who came to Athens with sacrifices to Plato after his death. They had their own way of concluding that the star which they had seen pointed to the birth of this Messianic king. Cicero (_Deuteronomy:Divin_. i. 47) "refers to the constellation from which, on the birthnight of Alexander, Magians foretold that the destroyer of Asia was born" (McNeile). Alford is positive that no miracle is intended by the report of the Magi or by Matthew in his narrative. But one must be allowed to say that the birth of Jesus, if really God's only Son who has become Incarnate, is the greatest of all miracles. Even the methods of astrologers need not disturb those who are sure of this fact.

rwp@Matthew:3:1 @{And in those days cometh John the Baptist} (\en de tais hmerais paraginetai Ians ho Baptists\). Here the synoptic narrative begins with the baptism of John (Mt. strkjv@3:1; strkjv@Mark:1:2; strkjv@Luke:3:1|) as given by Peter in strkjv@Acts:1:22|, "from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us" (cf. also strkjv@Acts:10:37-43|, Peter's summary to Cornelius very much like the outline of Mark's Gospel). Matthew does not indicate the date when John appeared as Luke does in ch. 3 (the fifteenth year of Tiberius's reign)...we do not know. Moffatt translates...(\paraginetai\) "came on the scene," but it is the historical present and calls for a vivid imagination on the part of the reader. There he is as he comes forward, makes his appearance. His name John means "Gift of Jehovah" (cf. German _Gotthold_) and is a shortened form of Johanan. He is described as "the Baptist," "the Baptizer" for that is the rite that distinguishes him. The Jews probably had proselyte baptism as I. Abrahams shows (_Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels_, p. 37). But this rite was meant for the Gentiles who accepted Judaism. John is treating the Jews as Gentiles in demanding baptism at their hands on the basis of repentance.

rwp@Matthew:3:6 @{And they were baptized} (\kai ebaptizonto\). It is the imperfect tense to show the repetition of the act as the crowds from Judea and the surrounding country kept going out to him (\exeporeueto\)...of folks going forth. Moffatt takes...(Bruce). It is a pity that baptism is now such a matter of controversy. Let Plummer, the great Church of England commentator on Matthew, speak here of John's baptising these people who came in throngs: "It is his office to bind them to a new life, symbolized by immersion in water." That is correct, symbolized, not caused or obtained. The word "river" is in the correct text, "river Jordan." They came "confessing their sins" (\exomologoumenoi\), probably each one confessing just before he was baptized, "making open confession" (Weymouth). Note \ex\. It was a never to be forgotten scene here in the Jordan. John was calling a nation to a new life. They came from all over Judea and even from the other side of El Ghor (the Jordan Gorge), Perea. Mark adds that finally all Jerusalem came.

rwp@Matthew:3:14 @{Would have hindered} (\diekluen\)..."tried to prevent" as Moffatt has...

rwp@Matthew:4:24 @{The report of him went forth into all Syria} (\aplthen h ako autou eis holn tn Syrian\). Rumour (\ako\) carries things almost like the wireless or radio. The Gentiles all over Syria to the north heard of what was going on in Galilee. The result was inevitable. Jesus had a moving hospital of patients from all over Galilee and Syria. "{Those that were sick}" (\tous kaks echontas\), literally "those who had it bad," cases that the doctors could not cure. "{Holden with divers diseases and torments}" (\poikilais nosois kai basanois sunechomenous\). "Held together" or "compressed" is the idea of the participle. The same word is used by Jesus in strkjv@Luke:12:50| and by Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:1:23| and of the crowd pressing on Jesus (Luke:8:45|). They brought these difficult and chronic cases (present tense of the participle here) to Jesus. Instead of "divers" say "various" (\poikilais\) like fever, leprosy, blindness. The adjective means literally many colored or variegated like flowers, paintings, jaundice, etc. Some had "torments" (\basanois\). The word originally (oriental origin) meant a touchstone, "Lydian stone" used for testing gold because pure gold rubbed on it left a peculiar mark. Then it was used for examination by torture. Sickness was often regarded as "torture." These diseases are further described "in a descending scale of violence" (McNeile)...lunatics, and paralytics" as Moffatt puts...(\daimonizomenous kai selniazomenous kai paralutikous\), people possessed by demons, lunatics or "moon-struck" because the epileptic seizures supposedly followed the phases of the moon (Bruce) as shown also in strkjv@Matthew:17:15|, paralytics (our very word). Our word "lunatic" is from the Latin _luna_ (moon) and carries the same picture as the Greek \selniazomai\ from \seln\ (moon). These diseases are called "torments."

rwp@Matthew:5:39 @{Resist not him that is evil} (\me antistnai ti ponri\). Here again it is the infinitive (second aorist active) in indirect command. But is it "the evil man" or the "evil deed"? The dative case is the same form for masculine and neuter. Weymouth puts it "not to resist a (the) wicked man," Moffatt "not to resist an injury," Goodspeed "not to resist injury." The examples will go with either view. Jesus protested when smitten on the cheek (John:18:22|). And Jesus denounced the Pharisees (Matthew:23|) and fought the devil always. The language of Jesus is bold and picturesque and is not to be pressed too literally. Paradoxes startle and make us think. We are expected to fill in the other side of the picture. One thing certainly is meant by Jesus and that is that personal revenge is taken out of our hands, and that applies to "lynch-law." Aggressive or offensive war by nations is also condemned, but not necessarily defensive war or defence against robbery and murder. Professional pacifism may be mere cowardice.

rwp@Matthew:8:17 @{Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases} (\autos tas astheneias elaben kai tas nosous ebastasen\). A quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:53:4|...in an independent manner. Moffatt translates...(_Bible Studies_, pp. 102f.) thinks that Matthew has made a free interpretation of the Hebrew, has discarded the translation of the Septuagint, and has transposed the two Hebrew verbs so that Matthew means: "He took upon himself our pains, and bore our diseases." Plummer holds that "It is impossible, and also unnecessary, to understand what the Evangelist understood by 'took ' (\elaben\) and 'bare' (\ebastasen\). It at least must mean that Christ removed their sufferings from the sufferers. He can hardly have meant that the diseases were transferred to Christ." \Bastaz\ occurs freely in the papyri with the sense of lift, carry, endure, carry away (the commonest meaning, Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_), pilfer. In strkjv@Matthew:3:11| we have the common vernacular use to take off sandals. The Attic Greek did not use it in the sense of carrying off. "This passage is the cornerstone of the faith-cure theory, which claims that the atonement of Christ includes provision for _bodily_ no less than for spiritual healing, and therefore insists on translating 'took away'" (Vincent). We have seen that the word \bastaz\ will possibly allow that meaning, but I agree with McNeile: "The passage, _as Mt. employs it_, has no bearing on the doctrine of the atonement." But Jesus does show his sympathy with us. "Christ's sympathy with the sufferers was so intense that he really felt their weaknesses and pains." In our burdens Jesus steps under the load with us and helps us to carry on.

rwp@Matthew:10:16 @{As sheep in the midst of wolves} (\hs probata en mesi lukn\). The presence of wolves on every hand was a fact then and now. Some of these very sheep (10:6|) at the end will turn out to be wolves and cry for Christ's crucifixion. The situation called for consummate wisdom and courage. The serpent was the emblem of wisdom or shrewdness, intellectual keenness (Genesis:3:1; strkjv@Psalms:58:5|), the dove of simplicity (Hosea:7:11|). It was a proverb, this combination, but one difficult of realization. Either without the other is bad (rascality or gullibility). The first clause with \arnas\ for \probata\ is in strkjv@Luke:10:3| and apparently is in a _Fragment of a Lost Gospel_ edited by Grenfell and Hunt. The combination of wariness and innocence is necessary for the protection of the sheep and the discomfiture of the wolves. For "harmless" (\akeraioi\) Moffatt and Goodspeed have "guileless," Weymouth "innocent." The word means "unmixed" (\a\ privative and \kerannumi\), "unadulterated," "simple," "unalloyed."

rwp@Matthew:10:23 @{Till the Son of man be come} (\hes elthi ho huios tou anthrpou\). Moffatt puts it "before the Son of man arrives" as if Jesus referred to this special tour of Galilee. Jesus could overtake them. Possibly so, but it is by no means clear. Some refer it to the Transfiguration, others to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, others to the Second Coming. Some hold that Matthew has put the saying in the wrong context. Others bluntly say that Jesus was mistaken, a very serious charge to make in his instructions to these preachers. The use of \hes\ with aorist subjunctive for a future event is a good Greek idiom.

rwp@Matthew:11:29 @{Take my yoke upon you and learn of me} (\arate ton zugon mou eph'humas kai mathete ap'emou\). The rabbis used yoke for school as many pupils find it now a yoke. The English word "school" is Greek for leisure (\schol\). But Jesus offers refreshment (\anapausin\) in his school and promises to make the burden light, for he is a meek and humble teacher. Humility was not a virtue among the ancients. It was ranked with servility. Jesus has made a virtue of this vice. He has glorified this attitude so that Paul urges it (Phillipians:2:3|), "in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself." In portions of Europe today people place yokes on the shoulders to make the burden easier to carry. Jesus promises that we shall find the yoke kindly and the burden lightened by his help. "Easy" is a poor translation of \chrstos\. Moffatt puts it "kindly." That is the meaning in the Septuagint for persons. We have no adjective that quite carries the notion of kind and good. The yoke of Christ is useful, good, and kindly. Cf. strkjv@Songs:1:10|.

rwp@Matthew:20:2 @{For a penny a day} (\ek dnariou tn hmeran\). See on ¯18:28|...is not adequate, "shilling" Moffatt has...\ek\ with the ablative represents the agreement (\sunphnsas\) with the workmen (\ergatn\). "The day" the Greek has it, an accusative of extent of time.

rwp@Matthew:26:37 @{He took with him} (\paralabn\). Taking along, by his side (\para-\), as a mark of special favour and privilege, instead of leaving this inner circle of three (Peter, James, and John) with the other eight. The eight would serve as a sort of outer guard to watch by the gate of the garden for the coming of Judas while the three would be able to share the agony of soul already upon Jesus so as at least to give him some human sympathy which he craved as he sought help from the Father in prayer. These three had been with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration and now they are with him in this supreme crisis. The grief of Christ was now severe. The word for {sore troubled} (\admonein\) is of doubtful etymology. There is an adjective \admos\ equal to \apodmos\ meaning "not at home," "away from home," like the German _unheimisch, unheimlich_. But whatever the etymology, the notion of intense discomfort is plain. The word \admonein\ occurs in P.Oxy. II, 298,456 of the first century A.D. where it means "excessively concerned." See strkjv@Phillipians:2:26|...uses it of Epaphroditus. Moffatt renders...\apore\ to be at a loss as to which way to go. The _Braid Scots_ has it "sair putten-aboot." Here Matthew has also "to be sorrowful" (\lupeisthai\), but Mark (Mark:14:33|) has the startling phrase {greatly amazed and sore troubled} (\ekthambeisthai kai admonein\), a "feeling of terrified surprise."

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@Revelation:12:1 @{A great sign} (\smeion mega\). The first of the visions to be so described (13:3; strkjv@15:1|), and it is introduced by \phth\ as in strkjv@11:19; strkjv@12:3|, not by \meta tauto\ or by \eidon\ or by \eidon kai idou\ as heretofore. This "sign" is really a \teras\ (wonder), as it is so by association in strkjv@Matthew:24:24; strkjv@John:4:48; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@5:12|. The element of wonder is not in the word \smeion\ as in \teras\, but often in the thing itself as in strkjv@Luke:21:11; strkjv@John:9:16; strkjv@Revelation:13:13ff.; strkjv@15:1; strkjv@16:14; strkjv@19:20|. {A woman} (\gun\). Nominative case in apposition with \smeion\. "The first 'sign in heaven' is a Woman--the earliest appearance of a female figure in the Apocalyptic vision" (Swete). {Arrayed with the sun} (\peribeblmen ton hlion\). Perfect passive participle of \periball\, with the accusative retained as so often (9 times)...Apocalypse. Both Charles and Moffatt see...17| makes clear. Beckwith takes her to be "the heavenly representative of the people of God, the _ideal_ Zion, which, so far as it is embodied in concrete realities, is represented alike by the people of the Old and the New Covenants." John may have in mind strkjv@Isaiah:7:14| (Matthew:1:23; strkjv@Luke:1:31|) as well as strkjv@Micah:4:10; strkjv@Isaiah:26:17f.; strkjv@66:7| without a definite picture of Mary. The metaphor of childbirth is common enough (John:16:21; strkjv@Galatians:4:19|). The figure is a bold one with the moon "under her feet" (\hupokat tn podn auts\) and "a crown of twelve stars" (\stephanos astern ddeka\), a possible allusion to the twelve tribes (James:1:1; strkjv@Revelation:21:12|) or to the twelve apostles (Revelation:21:14|).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE AUTHOR The writer calls himself John (Revelation:1:1,4,9; strkjv@22:8|). But what John? The book can hardly be pseudonymous, though, with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas, that is the rule with apocalypses. There would have been a clearer claim than just the name. The traditional and obvious way to understand the name is the Apostle John, though Dionysius of Alexandria mentions John Mark as held by some and he himself suggests another John, like the so-...Presbyter John, to whom Moffatt assigns...98. Most ancient writers agree with this extreme old age of John. Justin Martyr states expressly that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse. Irenaeus called it the work of a disciple of Jesus. In the ninth century lived Georgius Hamartolus, and a MS. of his alleges that Papias says that John the son of Zebedee was beheaded by the Jews and there is an extract in an Oxford MS. of the seventh century which alleges that Papias says John and James were put to death by the Jews. On the basis of this slim evidence some today argue that John did not live to the end of the century and so did not write any of the Johannine books. But a respectable number of modern scholars still hold to the ancient view that the Apocalypse of John is the work of the Apostle and Beloved Disciple, the son of Zebedee.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE DATE There are two chief theories, the Neronic, soon after Nero's death, the other in the reign of Domitian. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius as saying expressly that the Apocalypse of John was written at the close of the reign of Domitian. This testimony is concurred in by Clement of Alexandria, by Origen, by Eusebius, by Jerome. In harmony with this clear testimony the severity of the persecutions suit the later date better than the earlier one. There is, besides, in strkjv@Revelation:17:11f.| an apparent reference to the story that Nero would return again. The fifth king who is one of the seven is an eighth. There was a Nero legend, to be sure, that Nero either was not dead but was in Parthia, or would be _redivivus_...date the best supported. Moffatt considers...

CONCORD Moffatt