rwp - Reign

rwp@1Corinthians:4:8 @{Already are ye filled?} (\d kekoresmenoi este?\). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, of \korennumi\, old Greek verb to satiate, to satisfy. The only other example in N.T. is strkjv@Acts:27:38| which see. Paul may refer to strkjv@Deuteronomy:31:20; strkjv@32:15|. But it is keen irony, even sarcasm. Westcott and Hort make it a question and the rest of the sentence also. {Already ye are become rich} (\d eploutsate\). Note change to ingressive aorist indicative of \ploute\, old verb to be rich (cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9|). "The aorists, used instead of perfects, imply indecent haste" (Lightfoot). "They have got a private millennium of their own" (Robertson & Plummer) with all the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom (Luke:22:29f.; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:12; strkjv@2Timothy:2:12|). {Ye have reigned without us} (\chris hmn ebasileusate\). Withering sarcasm. Ye became kings without our company. Some think that Paul as in strkjv@3:21| is purposely employing Stoic phraseology though with his own meanings. If so, it is hardly consciously done. Paul was certainly familiar with much of the literature of his time, but it did not shape his ideas. {I would that ye did reign} (\kai ophelon ge ebasileusate\). More exactly, "And would at least that ye had come to reign (or become kings)." It is an unfulfilled wish about the past expressed by \ophelon\ and the aorist indicative instead of \ei gar\ and the aorist indicative (the ancient idiom). See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003, for the construction with particle \ophelon\ (an unaugmented second aorist form). {That we also might reign with you} (\hina kai hmeis humin sunbasileusmen\). Ironical contrast to \chris hmn ebasileusate\, just before. Associative instrumental case of \humin\ after \sun-\.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE PERSECUTION PICTURED IN THE EPISTLE Peter himself knew what persecution was at the hands of the Sanhedrin and of Herod Agrippa I (both church and state). If First Peter was written A.D. 65, there was time enough for the persecution of Nero in Rome in A.D. 64 to spread to Asia Minor. The province easily imitated the capital city. Paul's life in the Acts and his Epistles abundantly show how early persecution arose in Asia Minor. The Apocalypse, written during the reign of Domitian, shows that persecution from the state had been on hand long before and was an old burden. We know too little of the history of Christianity in Asia Minor from A.D. 60 to 70 to deny that the fiery trials and suffering as a Christian (1Peter:4:16|) can be true of this period. Songs:we locate the persecution at this time as an echo from Rome.

rwp@2Corinthians:2:9 @{That I might know the proof of you} (\hina gn tn dokimn humn\). Ingressive second aorist active subjunctive, come to know. \Dokim\ is proof by testing. Late word from \dokimos\ and is in Dioscorides, medical writer in reign of Hadrian. Earliest use in Paul and only in him in N.T. (2Corinthians:2:9; strkjv@8:2; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@13:3; strkjv@Romans:5:4; strkjv@Phillipians:2:22|). {Obedient} (\hupkooi\). Old word from \hupakou\, to give ear. In N.T. only in Paul (2Corinthians:2:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:8; strkjv@Acts:7:39|).

rwp@2Peter:1:11 @{Thus} (\houts\). As shown in verse 10|. {Shall be supplied} (\epichorgthsetai\). Future passive of \epichorge\, for which see verse 5|. You supply the virtues above and God will supply the entrance (\h eisodos\, old word already in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:9|, etc.). {Richly} (\plousis\). See strkjv@Colossians:3:16| for this adverb. {Into the eternal kingdom} (\eis tn ainion basileian\). The believer's inheritance of strkjv@1Peter:1:4| is here termed kingdom, but "eternal" (\ainion\ feminine same as masculine). Curiously again in the Stratonicea inscription we find \ts ainiou archs\ (of the eternal rule) applied to "the lords of Rome." But this is the spiritual reign of God in men's hearts here on earth (1Peter:2:9|) and in heaven. {Of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou kuriou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\). For which idiom see on ¯1:1|.

rwp@2Timothy:2:11 @{Faithful is the saying} (\pistos ho logos\). The saying which follows here though it can refer to the preceding as in strkjv@1Timothy:4:9|. See strkjv@1Timothy:1:15|. It is possible that from here to the end of 13| we have the fragment of an early hymn. There are four conditions in these verses (11-13|), all of the first class, assumed to be true. Parallels to the ideas here expressed are found in strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:5; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:3; strkjv@Romans:6:3-8; strkjv@Colossians:3:1-4|. Note the compounds with \sun\ (\sunapethanomen\, {we died with}, from \sunapothnesko\ as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:3|; \sunzsomen\, {we shall live with}, from \sunza\ as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:3|; \sumbasileusomen\, {we shall reign with}, from \sumbasileu\ as in strkjv@1Corinthians:4:8|). For \hupomenomen\ (we endure) see strkjv@1Corinthians:13:7| and for \apistoumen\ (we are faithless) see strkjv@Romans:3:3|. The verb \arneomai\, to deny (\arnsometha\, we shall deny, \arnsetai\, he will deny, \arnsasthai\, deny, first aorist middle infinitive) is an old word, common in the Gospels in the sayings of Jesus (Matthew:10:33; strkjv@Luke:12:9|), used of Peter (Mark:14:70|), and is common in the Pastorals (1Timothy:5:8; strkjv@Titus:2:12; strkjv@2Timothy:3:5|). Here in verse 13| it has the notion of proving false to oneself, a thing that Christ "cannot" (\ou dunatai\) do.

rwp@Acts:1:3 @{To whom also} (\hois kai\). He chose them and then also manifested himself to these very same men that they might have personal witness to give. {Shewed himself alive} (\parestsen heauton znta\). To the disciples the first Sunday evening (Mark:16:14; strkjv@Luke:24:36-43; strkjv@John:20:19-25|), the second Sunday evening (John:20:26-29|), at the Sea of Tiberias (John:21:1-23|), on the mountain in Galilee (Matthew:28:16-20; strkjv@Mark:16:15-18; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:6|), to the disciples in Jerusalem and Olivet (Luke:24:44-53; strkjv@Mark:16-19f.; strkjv@Acts:1:1-11|). Luke uses this verb \paristmi\ 13 times in the Acts both transitively and intransitively. It is rendered by various English words (present, furnish, provide, assist, commend). The early disciples including Paul never doubted the fact of the Resurrection, once they were convinced by personal experience. At first some doubted like Thomas (Mark:16:14; strkjv@Luke:24:41; strkjv@John:20:24f.; strkjv@Matthew:28:17|). But after that they never wavered in their testimony to their own experience with the Risen Christ, "whereof we are witnesses" Peter said (Acts:3:15|). They doubted at first, that we may believe, but at last they risked life itself in defence of this firm faith. {After his passion} (\meta to pathein auton\). Neat Greek idiom, \meta\ with the articular infinitive (second aorist active of \pasch\) and the accusative of general reference, "after the suffering as to him." For \pathein\ used absolutely of Christ's suffering see also strkjv@Acts:17:3; strkjv@26:23|. {By many proofs} (\en pollois tekmriois\). Literally, "in many proofs." \Tekmrion\ is only here in the N.T., though an old and common word in ancient Greek and occurring in the _Koin_ (papyri, etc.). The verb \tekmair\, to prove by sure signs, is from \tekmar\, a sign. Luke does not hesitate to apply the definite word "proofs" to the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ after full investigation on the part of this scientific historian. Aristotle makes a distinction between \tekmrion\ (proof) and \smeion\ (sign) as does Galen the medical writer. {Appearing} (\optanomenos\). Present middle participle from late verb \optan\, late _Koin_ verb from root \opt\ seen in \opsomai, phthn\. In LXX, papyri of second century B.C. (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 83). Only here in the N.T. For \optasia\ for vision see strkjv@Acts:26:19; strkjv@Luke:1:22; strkjv@24:23|. {By the space of forty days} (\di' hmern tesserakonta\). At intervals (\dia\, between) during the forty days, ten appearances being known to us. Jesus was not with them continually now in bodily presence. The period of forty days is given here alone. The Ascension was thus ten days before Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came. Moses was in the mount forty days (Exodus:24:18|) and Jesus fasted forty days (Matthew:4:2|). In the Gospel of Luke 24 this separation of forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension is not drawn. {The things concerning the Kingdom of God} (\ta peri ts basileias tou theou\). This phrase appears 33 times in Luke's Gospel, 15 times in Mark, 4 times in Matthew who elsewhere has "the kingdom of heaven," once in John, and 6 times in Acts. No essential distinction is to be drawn between the two for the Jews often used "heaven" rather than "God" to avoid using the Tetragrammaton. But it is noticeable how the word kingdom drops out of Acts. Other words like gospel (\euaggelion\) take the place of "kingdom." Jesus was fond of the word "kingdom" and Luke is fond of the idiom "the things concerning" (\ta peri\). Certainly with Jesus the term "kingdom" applies to the present and the future and covers so much that it is not strange that the disciples with their notions of a political Messianic kingdom (Acts:1:6|) were slow to comprehend the spiritual nature of the reign of God.

rwp@Acts:5:36 @{Theudas} (\Theudas\). Luke represents Gamaliel here about A.D. 35 as speaking of a man who led a revolt before that of Judas the Galilean in connection with the enrolment under Quirinius (Cyrenius) in A.D. 6. But Josephus (_Ant_. XX. 5, 1) tells of a Theudas who led a similar insurrection in the reign of Claudius about A.D. 44 or 45. Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. 1, 6; XX. 5, 2; _War_ ii. 8, 1 and 17, 8) also describes Judas the Galilean or Gaulonite and places him about A.D. 6. It is not certain that Josephus and Luke (Gamaliel) refer to the same Theudas as the name is an abbreviation of Theodosus, a common name. "Josephus gives an account of four men named Simon who followed each other within forty years, and of three named Judas within ten years, who were all instigators of rebellion" (Hackett). If the same Theudas is meant, then either Josephus or Luke (Gamaliel) has the wrong historical order. In that case one will credit Luke or Josephus according to his estimate of the two as reliable historians. {To be somebody} (\einai tina\). Indirect assertion with the infinitive and the accusative of general reference (\heauton\) and \tina\, predicate accusative. \Tina\ could be "anybody" or "somebody" according to context, clearly "somebody" of importance here. {Joined themselves} (\proseklith\). Correct text and not \prosekollth\ (Textus Receptus). First aorist passive indicative of \prosklin\, old verb to lean towards, to incline towards. Here only in the N.T. {Was slain} (\anireth\). First aorist passive of \anaire\ (cf. verse 33|). {Obeyed} (\epeithonto\). Imperfect middle, kept on obeying. {Were dispersed} (\dieluthsan\). First aorist passive indicative (effective aorist) of \dialu\, old verb to dissolve, to go to pieces. Here only in the N.T.

rwp@Acts:11:28 @{Signified} (\esmainen\). Imperfect active in Westcott and Hort, but aorist active \esmnen\ in the margin. The verb is an old one from \sma\ (\smeion\) a sign (cf. the symbolic sign in strkjv@21:11|). Here Agabus (also in strkjv@21:10|) does predict a famine through the Holy Spirit. {Should be} (\mellein esesthai\). \Mell\ occurs either with the present infinitive (16:27|), the aorist infinitive (12:6|), or the future as here and strkjv@24:15; strkjv@27:10|. {Over all the world} (\eph' holn tn oikoumenn\). Over all the inhabited earth (\gn\, understood). Probably a common hyperbole for the Roman empire as in strkjv@Luke:2:1|. Josephus (_Ant_. VIII. 13, 4) appears to restrict it to Palestine. {In the days of Claudius} (\epi Klaudiou\). He was Roman Emperor A.D. 41-44. The Roman writers (Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Tacitus) all tell of dearths (_assiduae sterilitates_) during the brief reign of Claudius who was preceded by Caligula and followed by Nero.

rwp@Acts:17:7 @{Whom Jason hath received} (\hous hupodedektai Iasn\). Present perfect middle indicative of \hupodechomai\, to entertain, old verb, but in N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:10:38; strkjv@19:6; strkjv@Acts:17:7; strkjv@James:2:25|. This is Jason's crime and he is the prisoner before the politarchs. {These all} (\houtoi pantes\). Jason, the "brethren" of verse 6|, Paul and Silas, and all Christians everywhere. {Contrary} (\apenanti\). Late compound preposition (\apo, en, anti\) found in Polybius, LXX, here only in the N.T. {The decrees of Caesar} (\tn dogmatn Kaisaros\). This was a charge of treason and was a sure way to get a conviction. Probably the Julian _Leges Majestatis_ are in mind rather than the definite decree of Claudius about the Jews (Acts:18:2|). {Saying that there is another king, one Jesus} (\Basilea heteron legontes einai Isoun\). Note the very order of the words in the Greek indirect discourse with the accusative and infinitive after \legontes\. \Basilea heteron\ comes first, a different king, another emperor than Caesar. This was the very charge that the smart student of the Pharisees and Herodians had tried to catch Jesus on (Mark:12:14|). The Sanhedrin made it anyhow against Jesus to Pilate (Luke:23:2|) and Pilate had to notice it. "Although the emperors never ventured to assume the title _rex_ at Rome, in the Eastern provinces they were regularly termed _basileus_" (Page). The Jews here, as before Pilate (John:19:15|), renounce their dearest hope of a Messianic king. It is plain that Paul had preached about Jesus as the Messiah, King of the Kingdom of God over against the Roman Empire, a spiritual kingdom, to be sure, but the Jews here turn his language to his hurt as they did with Jesus. As a matter of fact Paul's preaching about the kingdom and the second coming of Christ was gravely misunderstood by the Christians at Thessalonica after his departure (1Thessalonians:4:13-5:4; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2|). The Jews were quick to seize upon his language about Jesus Christ to his own injury. Clearly here in Thessalonica Paul had faced the power of the Roman Empire in a new way and pictured over against it the grandeur of the reign of Christ.

rwp@Info_John @ BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Revelation:1:4,9; strkjv@22:8|), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. Songs:one ventures to call attention to the statement in strkjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai iditai\ (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan's _Greek Papyri_, for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

rwp@Luke:6:20 @{And he lifted up his eyes} (\kai autos eparas tous opthalmous autou\). First aorist active participle from \epair\. Note also Luke's favourite use of \kai autos\ in beginning a paragraph. Vivid detail alone in Luke. Jesus looked the vast audience full in the face. strkjv@Matthew:5:2| mentions that "he opened his mouth and taught them" (began to teach them, inchoative imperfect, \edidasken\). He spoke out so that the great crowd could hear. Some preachers do not open their mouths and do not look up at the people, but down at the manuscript and drawl along while the people lose interest and even go to sleep or slip out. {Ye poor} (\hoi ptchoi\). {The poor}, but "yours" (\humetera\) justifies the translation "ye." Luke's report is direct address in all the four beatitudes and four woes given by him. It is useless to speculate why Luke gives only four of the eight beatitudes in Matthew or why Matthew does not give the four woes in Luke. One can only say that neither professes to give a complete report of the sermon. There is no evidence to show that either saw the report of the other. They may have used a common source like Q (the Logia of Jesus) or they may have had separate sources. Luke's first beatitude corresponds with Matthew's first, but he does not have "in spirit" after "poor." Does Luke represent Jesus as saying that poverty itself is a blessing? It can be made so. Or does Luke represent Jesus as meaning what is in Matthew, poverty of spirit? {The kingdom of God} (\h basileia tou theou\). strkjv@Matthew:5:3| has "the kingdom of heaven" which occurs alone in Matthew though he also has the one here in Luke with no practical difference. The rabbis usually said "the kingdom of heaven." They used it of the political Messianic kingdom when Judaism of the Pharisaic sort would triumph over the world. The idea of Jesus is in the sharpest contrast to that conception here and always. See on ¯Matthew:3:2| for discussion of the meaning of the word "kingdom." It is the favourite word of Jesus for the rule of God in the heart here and now. It is both present and future and will reach a glorious consummation. Some of the sayings of Christ have apocalyptic and eschatological figures, but the heart of the matter is here in the spiritual reality of the reign of God in the hearts of those who serve him. The kingdom parables expand and enlarge upon various phases of this inward life and growth.

rwp@Mark:13:7 @{Must needs come to pass} (\dei genesthai\). Already there were outbreaks against the Jews in Alexandria, at Seleucia with the slaughter of more than fifty thousand, at Jamnia, and elsewhere. Caligula, Claudius, Nero will threaten war before it finally comes with the destruction of the city and temple by Titus in A.D. 70. Vincent notes that between this prophecy by Jesus in A.D. 30 (or 29) and the destruction of Jerusalem there was an earthquake in Crete (A.D. 46 or 47), at Rome (A.D. 51), at Apamaia in Phrygia (A.D. 60), at Campania (A.D. 63). He notes also four famines during the reign of Claudius A.D. 41-54. One of them was in Judea in A.D. 44 and is alluded to in strkjv@Acts:11:28|. Tacitus (_Annals_ xvi. 10-13) describes the hurricanes and storms in Campania in A.D. 65.

rwp@Matthew:1:21 @{Thou shalt call his name Jesus} (\Kalesies to onoma autou Isoun\). 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 (\ssei\) his people from their sins and so be their Saviour (\Str\). 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 (\ssei\ 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 tn hamartin autn\). 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:2:4 @{He inquired of them where the Christ should be born} (\epunthaneto par' autn pou ho Christos genntai\). The prophetic present (\genntai\) is given, the very words of Herod retained by Matthew's report. The imperfect tense (epunthaneto) suggests that Herod inquired repeatedly, probably of one and another of the leaders gathered together, both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes). McNeile doubts, like Holtzmann, if Herod actually called together all the Sanhedrin and probably "he could easily ask the question of a single scribe," because he had begun his reign with a massacre of the Sanhedrin (Josephus, _Ant_. XIV. ix. 4). But that was thirty years ago and Herod was desperately in earnest to learn what the Jews really expected about the coming of "the Messiah." Still Herod probably got together not the Sanhedrin since "elders" are not mentioned, but leaders among the chief priests and scribes, not a formal meeting but a free assembly for conference. He had evidently heard of this expected king and he would swallow plenty of pride to be able to compass the defeat of these hopes.

rwp@Matthew:3:2 @{For the kingdom of heaven is at hand} (\ggiken gar h Basileia tn ourann\). Note the position of the verb and the present perfect tense. It was a startling word that John thundered over the hills and it re-echoed throughout the land. The Old Testament prophets had said that it would come some day in God's own time. John proclaims as the herald of the new day that it has come, has drawn near. How near he does not say, but he evidently means very near, so near that one could see the signs and the proof. The words "the kingdom of heaven" he does not explain. The other Gospels use "the kingdom of God" as Matthew does a few times, but he has "the kingdom of heaven" over thirty times. He means "the reign of God," not the political or ecclesiastical organization which the Pharisees expected. His words would be understood differently by different groups as is always true of popular preachers. The current Jewish apocalypses had numerous eschatological ideas connected with the kingdom of heaven. It is not clear what sympathy John had with these eschatological features. He employs vivid language at times, but we do not have to confine John's intellectual and theological horizon to that of the rabbis of his day. He has been an original student of the Old Testament in his wilderness environment without any necessary contact with the Essenes who dwelt there. His voice is a new one that strikes terror to the perfunctory theologians of the temple and of the synagogue. It is the fashion of some critics to deny to John any conception of the spiritual content of his words, a wholly gratuitous criticism.

rwp@Matthew:5:3 @{Blessed} (\makarioi\). The English word "blessed" is more exactly represented by the Greek verbal \eulogtoi\ as in strkjv@Luke:1:68| of God by Zacharias, or the perfect passive participle \eulogmenos\ as in strkjv@Luke:1:42| of Mary by Elizabeth and in strkjv@Matthew:21:9|. Both forms come from \euloge\, to speak well of (\eu, logos\). The Greek word here (\makarioi\) is an adjective that means "happy" which in English etymology goes back to hap, chance, good-luck as seen in our words haply, hapless, happily, happiness. "Blessedness is, of course, an infinitely higher and better thing than mere happiness" (Weymouth). English has thus ennobled "blessed" to a higher rank than "happy." But "happy" is what Jesus said and the _Braid Scots New Testament_ dares to say "Happy" each time here as does the _Improved Edition of the American Bible Union Version_. The Greek word is as old as Homer and Pindar and was used of the Greek gods and also of men, but largely of outward prosperity. Then it is applied to the dead who died in the Lord as in strkjv@Revelation:14:13|. Already in the Old Testament the Septuagint uses it of moral quality. "Shaking itself loose from all thoughts of outward good, it becomes the express symbol of a happiness identified with pure character. Behind it lies the clear cognition of sin as the fountain-head of all misery, and of holiness as the final and effectual cure for every woe. For knowledge as the basis of virtue, and therefore of happiness, it substitutes faith and love" (Vincent). Jesus takes this word "happy" and puts it in this rich environment. "This is one of the words which have been transformed and ennobled by New Testament use; by association, as in the Beatitudes, with unusual conditions, accounted by the world miserable, or with rare and difficult" (Bruce). It is a pity that we have not kept the word "happy" to the high and holy plane where Jesus placed it. "If you know these things, happy (\makarioi\) are you if you do them" (John:13:17|). "Happy (\makarioi\) are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John:20:29|). And Paul applies this adjective to God, "according to the gospel of the glory of the happy (\makariou\) God" (1Timothy:1:11|. Cf. also strkjv@Titus:2:13|). The term "Beatitudes" (Latin _beatus_) comes close to the meaning of Christ here by \makarioi\. It will repay one to make a careful study of all the "beatitudes" in the New Testament where this word is employed. It occurs nine times here (3-11|), though the beatitudes in verses 10 and 11 are very much alike. The copula is not expressed in either of these nine beatitudes. In each case a reason is given for the beatitude, "for" (\hoti\), that shows the spiritual quality involved. Some of the phrases employed by Jesus here occur in the Psalms, some even in the Talmud (itself later than the New Testament, though of separate origin). That is of small moment. "The originality of Jesus lies in putting the due value on these thoughts, collecting them, and making them as prominent as the Ten Commandments. No greater service can be rendered to mankind than to rescue from obscurity neglected moral commonplaces " (Bruce). Jesus repeated his sayings many times as all great teachers and preachers do, but this sermon has unity, progress, and consummation. It does not contain all that Jesus taught by any means, but it stands out as the greatest single sermon of all time, in its penetration, pungency, and power. {The poor in spirit} (\hoi ptchoi ti pneumati\). Luke has only "the poor," but he means the same by it as this form in Matthew, "the pious in Israel, for the most part poor, whom the worldly rich despised and persecuted" (McNeile). The word used here (\ptchoi\) is applied to the beggar Lazarus in strkjv@Luke:16:20,22| and suggests spiritual destitution (from \ptss\ to crouch, to cower). The other word \pens\ is from \penomai\, to work for one's daily bread and so means one who works for his living. The word \ptchos\ is more frequent in the New Testament and implies deeper poverty than \pens\. "The kingdom of heaven" here means the reign of God in the heart and life. This is the _summum bonum_ and is what matters most.

rwp@Revelation:20:4 @{And they sat upon them} (\kai ekathisan ep' autous\). First aorist active indicative of \kathiz\. Another period here apparently synchronous (verse 7|) with the confinement of Satan in the abyss. No subject is given for this plural verb. Apparently Christ and the Apostles (Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30|) and some of the saints (1Corinthians:6:3|), martyrs some hold. {Judgment was given unto them} (\krima edoth autois\). First aorist passive of \didmi\. Picture of the heavenly court of assizes. {The souls} (\tas psuchas\). Accusative after \eidon\ at the beginning of the verse. {Of them that had been beheaded} (\tn pepelekismenn\). Genitive of the articular perfect passive participle of \pelekiz\, old word (from \pelekus\ an axe, the traditional instrument for execution in republican Rome, but later supplanted by the sword), to cut off with an axe, here only in N.T. See strkjv@6:9; strkjv@18:24; strkjv@19:2| for previous mention of these martyrs for the witness of Jesus (1:9; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@19:10|). Others also besides martyrs shared in Christ's victory, those who refused to worship the beast or wear his mark as in strkjv@13:15; strkjv@14:9ff.; strkjv@16:2; strkjv@19:20|. {And they lived} (\kai ezsan\). First aorist active indicative of \za\. If the ingressive aorist, it means "came to life" or "lived again" as in strkjv@2:8| and so as to verse 5|. If it is the constative aorist here and in verse 5|, then it could mean increased spiritual life. See strkjv@John:5:21-29| for the double sense of life and death (now literal, now spiritual) precisely as we have the second death in strkjv@Revelation:2:11; strkjv@20:6,14|. {And reigned with Christ} (\kai ebasileusan meta tou Christou\). Same use of the first aorist active indicative of \basileu\, but more clearly constative. Beckwith and Swete take this to apply solely to the martyrs, the martyrs' reign with Christ.

rwp@Revelation:20:6 @{Blessed and holy} (\makarios kai hagios\). A fifth beatitude (1:3; strkjv@14:13; strkjv@16:15; strkjv@19:9|) already and two more to come (22:7,14|, seven in all). Here \hagios\ is added to the usual \makarios\. The second death (\ho deuteros thanatos\). The spiritual death of strkjv@2:11; strkjv@20:14; strkjv@21:8| in contrast to the first or physical death. This language raises a question about the interpretation of the first and the second resurrections, whether both are of the body or one of the spirit. There seems no way to reach a solid conception about it. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:23| there is no mention of the resurrection of any save "those of Christ" (\hoi tou Christou\), though the end follows (verse 24|). However, Paul elsewhere (Acts:24:15|) speaks of the resurrection of the just and of the unjust as if one event. {Priests of God and of Christ} (\hiereis tou theou kai tou Christou\). As in strkjv@1:6; strkjv@5:10; strkjv@22:3,5|. {Shall reign with him} (\basileusousin met' autou\). As promised in the same passages. The servants of God are to be priests with Christ and to reign with him (Matthew:19:28|). In strkjv@5:10| \epi ts gs\ (upon earth) occurs, but this item does not appear here. "No hint is given as to where this service is to be rendered and this royalty to be exercised" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:20:8 @{To deceive the nations} (\plansai ta ethn\). First aorist active infinitive of purpose of \plana\, Satan's chief task (chapters 12 to 18, in particular strkjv@12:9; strkjv@13:14; strkjv@19:20; strkjv@20:3,10|). {Which are in the four corners of the earth} (\ta en tais tessarsi gniais ts gs\). Clearly the reign with Christ, if on earth, was not shared in by all on earth, for Satan finds a large and ready following on his release. See strkjv@7:1| (Isaiah:11:12|) for "the four corners of the earth." {Gog and Magog} (\ton Gg kai Magg\). Accusative in explanatory apposition with \ta ethn\ (the nations). Magog is first mentioned in strkjv@Genesis:10:2|. The reference here seems to be strkjv@Ezekiel:38:2|, where both are mentioned. Josephus (_Ant_. I. 6. 1) identifies Magog with the Scythians, with Gog as their prince. In the rabbinical writings Gog and Magog appear as the enemies of the Messiah. Some early Christian writers thought of the Goths and Huns, but Augustine refuses to narrow the imagery and sees only the final protest of the world against Christianity. {To gather them together to the war} (\sunagagein autous eis ton polemon\). Second aorist active infinitive of purpose of \sunag\, a congenial task for Satan after his confinement. See strkjv@16:14| for this very phrase and also strkjv@17:14; strkjv@19:19|. {Of whom} (\hn--autn\). Pleonasm or redundant pronoun as in strkjv@3:8| and often (of whom--of them). {As the sand of the sea} (\hs h ammos ts thalasss\). Already in strkjv@12:18|. Clearly then the millennium, whatever it is, does not mean a period when Satan has no following on earth, for this vast host rallies at once to his standard.

rwp@Revelation:22:2 @{In the midst of the street thereof} (\en mesi ts plateias auts\). Connected probably with the river in verse 1|, though many connect it with verse 2|. Only one street mentioned here as in strkjv@21:21|. {On this side of the river and on that} (\tou potamou enteuthen kai ekeithen\). \Enteuthen\ occurs as a preposition in strkjv@Daniel:12:5| (Theodoret) and may be so here (post-positive), purely adverbial in strkjv@John:19:18|. {The tree of life} (\xulon zs\). For the metaphor see strkjv@Genesis:1:11f.| and strkjv@Revelation:2:7; strkjv@22:14|. \Xulon\ is used for a green tree in strkjv@Luke:23:31; strkjv@Ezekiel:47:12|. {Bearing} (\poioun\). Neuter active participle of \poie\ (making, producing, as in strkjv@Matthew:7:17|). Some MSS. have \poin\ (masculine), though \xulon\ is neuter. {Twelve manner of fruits} (\karpous ddeka\). "Twelve fruits." {Yielding} (\apodidoun\). Neuter active participle of \apodidmi\, to give back, but some MSS. have \apodidous\ (masculine) like \poin\. {For the healing of the nations} (\eis therapeian tn ethnn\). Spiritual healing, of course, as leaves (\phulla\) are often used for obtaining medicines. Here again the problem occurs whether this picture is heaven before the judgment or afterwards. Charles distinguishes sharply between the Heavenly City for the millennial reign and the New Jerusalem that descends from heaven after the judgment. Charles rearranges these chapters to suit his theory. But chronology is precarious here.

rwp@Revelation:22:5 @{Shall be night no more} (\nux ouk estai eti\). As in strkjv@21:25|. {They need} (\echousin chreian\). Present active indicative, "They have need," though A has \hexousin\ (shall have), future like \estai\. Here again there is repetition of part of strkjv@21:23|, but for the purpose of showing the delightsomeness of the New Jerusalem with no need of lamp or sun (change to \phs\ with \hliou\ instead of \phtos\, "they have no light of sun"). {Shall give them light} (\phtisei\). Future active of \phtiz\, while aorist \ephtisen\ in strkjv@21:23|. {They shall reign} (\basileusousin\). Future active of \basileu\. Reign eternally in contrast with the limited millennial reign of strkjv@20:4,6|. This glorious eternal reign with Christ occurs repeatedly in the book (1:6; strkjv@3:21; strkjv@5:10|) as in strkjv@Luke:22:30|. Christ's Kingdom is spiritual (John:18:36f.|). "The visions of the Apocalypse are now ended; they have reached their climax in the New Jerusalem" (Swete). Now John gives the parting utterances of some of the speakers, and it is not always clear who is speaking.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL Here scholars divide again. Many who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles accept the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, Baur, for instance. Hort, Lightfoot, and Westcott argued for the Johannine authorship on the ground that the Apocalypse was written early (time of Nero or Vespasian) when John did not know Greek so well as when the Epistles and the Gospel were written. There are numerous grammatical laxities in the Apocalypse, termed by Charles a veritable grammar of its own. They are chiefly retention of the nominative case in appositional words or phrases, particularly participles, many of them sheer Hebraisms, many of them clearly intentional (as in strkjv@Revelation:1:4|), all of them on purpose according to Milligan (_Revelation_ in Schaff's Pop. Comm.) and Heinrici (_Der Litterarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften_, p. 85). Radermacher (_Neutestamentliche Grammatik_, p. 3) calls it "the most uncultured literary production that has come down to us from antiquity," and one finds frequent parallels to the linguistic peculiarities in later illiterate papyri. J. H. Moulton (_Grammar_, Vol. II, Part I, p. 3) says: "Its grammar is perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a foreign language, its whole style that of a writer who neither knows nor cares for literary form." But we shall see that the best evidence is for a date in Domitian's reign and not much later than the Fourth Gospel. It is worth noting that in strkjv@Acts:4:13| Peter and John are both termed by the Sanhedrin \agrammatoi kai iditai\ (unlettered and unofficial men). We have seen the possibility that II Peter represents Peter's real style or at least that of a different amanuensis from Silvanus in strkjv@1Peter:5:12|. It seems clear that the Fourth Gospel underwent careful scrutiny and possibly by the elders in Ephesus (John:21:24|). If John wrote the Apocalypse while in Patmos and so away from Ephesus, it seems quite possible that here we have John's own uncorrected style more than in the Gospel and Epistles. There is also the added consideration that the excitement of the visions played a part along with a certain element of intentional variations from normal grammatical sequence. An old man's excitement would bring back his early style. There are numerous coincidences in vocabulary and style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE Repeated efforts have been made to show that the Apocalypse of John is not the work of one man, but a series of Jewish and Christian apocalypses pieced together in a more or less bungling fashion. Spitta argued for this in 1889. Vischer was followed by Harnack in the view there was a Jewish apocalypse worked over by a Christian. Gunkel (_Creation and Chaos_, 1895) argued for a secret apocalyptic tradition of Babylonian origin. In 1904 J. Weiss carried on the argument for sources behind the Apocalypse. Many of the Jewish apocalypses do show composite authorship. There was a current eschatology which may have been drawn on without its being a written source. It is in chapter strkjv@Revelation:12| where the supposed Jewish source is urged more vigorously about the woman, the dragon, and the man child. There are no differences in language (vocabulary or grammar) that argue for varied sources. The author may indeed make use of events in the reign of Nero as well as in the reign of Domitian, but the essential unity of the book has stood the test of the keenest criticism.

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_ after death. Juvenal termed Domitian "a bald Nero" and others called Domitian "a second Nero." But in spite of all this Hort, Lightfoot, Sanday, Westcott have argued strongly for the Neronic era. Peake is willing to admit allusions to the Neronic period as Swete is also, but both consider the Domitianic date the best supported. Moffatt considers any earlier date than Domitian "almost impossible."

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:5:17 @{Much more} (\polli mallon\). Argument _a fortiori_ again. Condition of first class assumed to be true. Note balanced words in the contrast (transgression \paraptmati\, grace \charitos\; death \thanatos\, life \zi\; the one or {Adam} \tou henos\, the one {Jesus Christ}; reign \basileu\ in both).

rwp@Romans:6:12 @{Reign} (\basileuet\). Present active imperative, "let not sin continue to reign" as it did once (5:12|). {Mortal} (\thntoi\). Verbal adjective from \thnsk\, subject to death. The reign of sin is over with you. Self-indulgence is inconsistent with trust in the vicarious atonement. {That ye should obey} (\eis to hupakouein\). With a view to obeying.

rwp@Romans:14:17 @{The kingdom of God} (\h basileia tou theou\). Not the future kingdom of eschatology, but the present spiritual kingdom, the reign of God in the heart, of which Jesus spoke so often. See strkjv@1Corinthians:4:21|. Paul scores heavily here, for it is not found in externals like food and drink, but in spiritual qualities and graces.

CONCORD Reign