CONCORD Westcott



rwp@Info @...Greek. The text of Westcott and...

rwp@1Corinthians:4:8 @{Already are ye filled?} (\ˆdˆ 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|...keen irony, even sarcasm. Westcott and...{Already ye are become rich} (\ˆdˆ eploutˆsate\). 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} (\ch“ris hˆm“n 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 hˆmeis humin sunbasileus“men\). Ironical contrast to \ch“ris hˆm“n ebasileusate\, just before. Associative instrumental case of \humin\ after \sun-\.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:34 @{And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin} (\kai memeristai kai hˆ gunˆ kai hˆ parthenos\)...uncertain, almost hopelessly so. Westcott and...\kai memeristai\ in verse 33| and begin a new sentence with \kai hˆ gunˆ\ and add \hˆ agamos\ after \hˆ gunˆ\, meaning "the widow and the virgin each is anxious for the things of the Lord" like the unmarried man (\ho agamos\, bachelor or widow) in verse 32|. Possibly so, but the MSS. vary greatly at every point. At any rate Paul's point is that the married woman is more disposed to care for the things of the world. But, alas, how many unmarried women (virgins and widows) are after the things of the world today and lead a fast and giddy life.

rwp@1Corinthians:10:3 @{The same spiritual meat} (\to auto pneumatikon br“ma\). Westcott and Hort needlessly bracket to \auto\. \Br“ma\ is food, not just flesh. The reference is to the manna (Exodus:16:13ff.|) which is termed "spiritual" by reason of its supernatural character. Jesus called himself the true bread from heaven (John:6:35|) which the manna typified.

rwp@1Corinthians:13:3 @{Bestow to feed} (\Ps“mis“\). First aorist active subjunctive of \ps“miz“\, to feed, to nourish, from \ps“mos\, morsel or bit, and so to feed, by putting a morsel into the mouth like infant (or bird). Old word, but only here in N.T. {To be burned} (\hina kauthˆs“mai\). First future passive subjunctive (Textus Receptus), but D \kauthˆsomai\ (future passive indicative of \kai“\, old word to burn). There were even some who courted martyrdom in later years (time of Diocletian). This Byzantine future subjunctive does not occur in the old MSS. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 876). Aleph A B here read \kauchˆs“mai\, first aorist middle subjunctive of \kauchaomai\ (so Westcott and Hort), "that I may glory." This is correct. {It profiteth me nothing} (\ouden “pheloumai\). Literally, I am helped nothing. \Ouden\ in the accusative case retained with passive verb. See two accusatives with \“phele“\ in strkjv@14:6|. Verb is old and from \ophelos\ (profit).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:49 @{We shall also bear} (\phoresomen kai\). Old MSS. (so Westcott and Hort) read \phores“men kai\. Volitive aorist active subjunctive, Let us also bear. Ellicott strongly opposes the subjunctive. It may be merely the failure of scribes to distinguish between long o and short o. Paul hardly means to say that our attaining the resurrection body depends on our own efforts! A late frequentative form of \pher“\.

rwp@Info_1John @ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL There are few scholars who deny that the Epistles of John and the Fourth Gospel are by the same writer. As a matter of fact "in the whole of the First Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel" (Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann (_Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie_, 1882, P. 128)...under the Apostle's name. Westcott suggests...1:1-18| with strkjv@1John:1:1-4| to see how the same mind deals with the same ideas in different connections. "No theory of conscious imitation can reasonably explain the subtle coincidences and differences in these two short crucial passages."

rwp@Info_1John @ GNOSTICISM The Epistle is not a polemic primarily, but a letter for the edification of the readers in the truth and the life in Christ. And yet the errors of the Gnostics are constantly before John's mind. The leaders had gone out from among the true Christians, but there was an atmosphere of sympathy that constituted a subtle danger. There are only two passages (1John:2:18f.; strkjv@4:1-6|) in which the false teachers are specifically denounced, but "this unethical intellectualism" (Robert Law) with its dash of Greek culture and Oriental mysticism and licentiousness gave a curious attraction for many who did not know how to think clearly. John, like Paul in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles, foresaw this dire peril to Christianity. In the second century it gave pure Christianity a gigantic struggle. "The great Gnostics were the first Christian philosophers" (Robert Law, _The Tests of Life_, p. 27) and threatened to undermine the Gospel message by "deifying the devil" (ib., p. 31) along with dethroning Christ. There were two kinds of Gnostics, both agreeing in the essential evil of matter. Both had trouble with the Person of Christ. The Docetic Gnostics denied the actual humanity of Christ, the Cerinthian Gnostics distinguished between the man Jesus and the \aeon\ Christ that came on him at his baptism and left him on the Cross. Some practised asceticism, some licentiousness. John opposes both classes in his Epistles. They claimed superior knowledge (\gn“sis\) and so were called Gnostics (\Gn“stikoi\). Nine times John gives tests for knowing the truth and uses the verb \gin“sk“\ (know) each time (1John:2:3,5; strkjv@3:16,19,24; strkjv@4:2,6,13; strkjv@5:2|)...Gnosticism shows its head. Westcott thinks...

rwp@1John:2:10 @{Abideth} (\menei\). Present active indicative, continues in the light and so does not interrupt the light by hating his brother. {Occasion of stumbling} (\skandalon\). See on ¯Matthew:13:41; strkjv@16:23| for this interesting word. It is a stumbling block or trap either in the way of others (its usual sense), as in strkjv@Matthew:18:7|, or in one's own way, as is true of \proskopt“\ in strkjv@John:11:9| and in verse 11| here. But, as Westcott argues, John may very well have the usual meaning here and the other in verse 11|.

rwp@1John:2:18 @{It is the last hour} (\eschatˆ h“ra estin\). This phrase only here in N.T., though John often uses \h“ra\ for a crisis (John:2:4; strkjv@4:21,23; strkjv@5:25,28|, etc.). It is anarthrous here and marks the character of the "hour." John has seven times "the last day" in the Gospel. Certainly in verse 28| John makes it plain that the \parousia\ might come in the life of those then living, but it is not clear that here he definitely asserts it as a fact. It was his hope beyond a doubt. We are left in doubt about this "last hour" whether it covers a period, a series, or the final climax of all just at hand. {As ye heard} (\kath“s ˆkousate\). First aorist active indicative of \akou“\. {Antichrist cometh} (\antichristos erchetai\). "Is coming." Present futuristic or prophetic middle indicative retained in indirect assertion. Songs:Jesus taught (Mark:13:6,22; strkjv@Matthew:24:5,15,24|) and so Paul taught (Acts:20:30; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3|). These false Christs (Matthew:24:24; strkjv@Mark:13:22|) are necessarily antichrists, for there can be only one. \Anti\ can mean substitution or opposition, but both ideas are identical in the word \antichristos\ (in N.T. only here, strkjv@2:22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7|). Westcott rightly observes that John's use of the word is determined by the Christian conception, not by the Jewish apocalypses. {Have there arisen} (\gegonasin\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. {Many antichrists} (\antichristoi polloi\). Not just one, but the exponents of the Gnostic teaching are really antichrists, just as some modern deceivers deserve this title. {Whereby} (\hothen\). By the fact that these many antichrists have come.

rwp@1John:4:17 @{Herein} (\en tout“i\). It is not clear whether the \hina\ clause (sub-final use) is in apposition with \en tout“i\ as in strkjv@John:15:8| or the \hoti\ clause (because) with the \hina\...parenthesis. Either makes sense. Westcott argues...{With us} (\meth' hˆm“n\). Construed with the verb \tetelei“tai\ (is perfected). In contrast to \en hˆmin\ (verses 12,16|), emphasising cooperation. "God works with man" (Westcott). For boldness (\parrˆsian\) in the day of judgment (only here with both articles, but often with no articles as in strkjv@2Peter:2:9|) see strkjv@2:28|. {As he is} (\kath“s ekeinos estin\). That is Christ as in strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:3,5,7,16|. Same tense (present) as in strkjv@3:7|. "Love is a heavenly visitant" (David Smith). We are in this world to manifest Christ.

rwp@1John:5:9 @{If we receive} (\ei lambanomen\). Condition of first class with \ei\ and the present active indicative, assumed as true. The conditions for a legally valid witness are laid down in strkjv@Deuteronomy:19:15| (cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:16; strkjv@John:8:17f.; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:1|). {Greater} (\meiz“n\). Comparative of \megas\, because God is always true. {For} (\hoti\). Songs:it applies to this case. {That} (\hoti\). Thus taken in the declarative sense (the fact that) as in strkjv@John:3:19|, though it can be causal (because) or indefinite relative with \memarturˆken\ (what he hath testified, perfect active indicative of \marture“\, as in strkjv@John:1:32; strkjv@4:44|, etc.), a harsh construction here because of \marturia\, though some MSS. do read \hen\ to agree with it (cf. verse 10|). See \hoti ean\ in strkjv@3:20| for that idiom. Westcott notes the Trinity in verses 6-9|: the Son comes, the Spirit witnesses, the Father has witnessed.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:3 @{Remembering} (\mnˆmoneuontes\). Present active participle of old verb from adjective \mnˆm“n\ (mindful) and so to call to mind, to be mindful of, used either with the accusative as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| or the genitive as here. {Without ceasing} (\adialeipt“s\). Double compound adverb of the _Koin‚_ (Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo, papyri) from the verbal adjective \a-dia-leiptos\ (\a\ privative and \dia-leip“\, to leave off). In the N.T. alone by Paul and always connected with prayer. Milligan prefers to connect this adverb (amphibolous in position) with the preceding participle \poioumenoi\ rather than with \mnˆmoneuontes\...as Revised Version and Westcott and...{Your work of faith} (\hum“n tou ergou tˆs piste“s\). Note article with both \ergou\ and \piste“s\ (correlation of the article, both abstract substantives). \Ergou\ is genitive case the object of \mnˆmoneuontes\ as is common with verbs of emotion (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 508f.), though the accusative \kopon\ occurs in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| according to common Greek idiom allowing either case. \Ergou\ is the general term for work or business, employment, task. Note two genitives with \ergou\. \Hum“n\ is the usual possessive genitive, {your work}, while \tˆs piste“s\ is the descriptive genitive, marked by, characterized by, faith, "the activity that faith inspires" (Frame). It is interesting to note this sharp conjunction of these two words by Paul. We are justified by faith, but faith produces works (Romans:6-8|) as the Baptist taught and as Jesus taught and as James does in strkjv@James:2|. {Labour of love} (\tou kopou tˆs agapˆs\). Note article with both substantives. Here again \tou kopou\ is the genitive the object of \mnˆmoneuontes\ while \tˆs agapˆs\ is the descriptive genitive characterizing the "labour" or "toil" more exactly. \Kopos\ is from \kopt“\, to cut, to lash, to beat the bread, to toil. In strkjv@Revelation:14:13| the distinction is drawn between \kopou\ (toil) from which the saints rest and \erga\ (works, activities) which follow with them into heaven. Songs:here it is the labour that love prompts, assuming gladly the toil. \Agapˆ\ is one of the great words of the N.T. (Milligan) and no certain example has yet been found in the early papyri or the inscriptions. It occurs in the Septuagint in the higher sense as with the sensuous associations. The Epistle of Aristeas calls love (\agapˆ\) God's gift and Philo uses \agapˆ\ in describing love for God. "When Christianity first began to think and speak in Greek, it took up \agapˆ\ and its group of terms more freely, investing them with the new glow with which the N.T. writings make us familiar, a content which is invariably religious" (Moffatt, _Love in the New Testament_, p. 40). The New Testament never uses the word \er“s\ (lust). {Patience of hope} (\tˆs hupomonˆs tˆs elpidos\). Note the two articles again and the descriptive genitive \tˆs elpidos\. It is patience marked by hope, "the endurance inspired by hope" (Frame), yes, and sustained by hope in spite of delays and set-backs. \Hupomonˆ\ is an old word (\hupo, men“\, to remain under), but it "has come like \agapˆ\ to be closely associated with a distinctively Christian virtue" (Milligan). The same order as here (\ergou, kopos, hupomonˆ\) appears in strkjv@Revelation:2:2| and Lightfoot considers it" an ascending scale as practical proofs of self-sacrifice." The church in Thessalonica was not old, but already they were called upon to exercise the sanctifying grace of hope (Denney). {In our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tou Kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). The objective genitive with \elpidos\ (hope) and so translated by "in" here (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 499f.). Jesus is the object of this hope, the hope of his second coming which is still open to us. Note "Lord Jesus Christ" as in verse 1|. {Before our God and Father} (\emprosthen tou theou kai patros hˆm“n\). The one article with both substantives precisely as in strkjv@Galatians:1:4|, not "before God and our Father," both article and possessive genitive going with both substantives as in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11; strkjv@Titus:2:13| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 785f.). The phrase is probably connected with \elpidos\. \Emprosthen\ in the N.T. occurs only of place, but it is common in the papyri of time. The picture here is the day of judgment when all shall appear before God.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:6 @{Nor seeking glory of men} (\oute zˆtountes ex anthr“p“n 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' hum“n oute aph' all“n\). 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 h“s 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} (either in matter of finance or of dignity, or a burden on your funds or "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@1Thessalonians:5:3 @{When they are saying} (\hotan leg“sin\). Present active subjunctive picturing these false prophets of {peace and safety} like strkjv@Ezekiel:13:10| (Peace, and there is no peace). \Asphaleia\ only in N.T. in strkjv@Luke:1:4| (which see); strkjv@Acts:5:23| and here. {Sudden destruction} (\aiphnidios olethros\). \Olethros\ old word from \ollumi\, to destroy. See also strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:9|. \Aiphnidios\, old adjective akin to \aphn“\ and in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:34| where Westcott and Hort spell it \ephnidios\. {Cometh upon them} (\autois epistatai\). Unaspirated form instead of the usual \ephistatai\ (present middle indicative) from \ephistˆmi\ perhaps due to confusion with \epistamai\. {As travail upon a woman with child} (\h“sper hˆ “din tˆi en gastri echousˆi\). Earlier form \“dis\ for birth-pang used also by Jesus (Mark:13:8; strkjv@Matthew:24:8|). Technical phrase for pregnancy, {to the one who has it in belly} (cf. strkjv@Matthew:1:18| of Mary). {They shall in no wise escape} (\ou mˆ ekphug“sin\). Strong negative like that in strkjv@4:15| \ou mˆ\ (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive.

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

rwp@2Corinthians:1:15 @{Confidence} (\pepoithˆsei\). This late word (LXX Philo, Josephus) is condemned by the Atticists, but Paul uses it a half dozen times (3:4| also). {I was minded to come} (\eboulomˆn elthein\). Imperfect, I was wishing to come, picturing his former state of mind. {Before unto you} (\proteron pros humas\). This was his former plan (\proteron\) while in Ephesus to go to Achaia directly from Ephesus. This he confesses in verse 16| "and by you to pass into Macedonia." {That ye might have a second benefit} (\hina deuteran charin schˆte\). Or second "joy" if we accept \charan\ with Westcott and Hort. This would be a real second blessing (or joy) if they should have two visits from Paul.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:10 @{They say} (\phasin\)...old Latin Vulgate, but Westcott and...\phˆsin\ (says one, the leader). This charge Paul quotes directly. {Weighty and strong} (\bareiai kai ischurai\). These adjectives can be uncomplimentary and mean "severe and violent" instead of "impressive and vigorous." The adjectives bear either sense. {His bodily presence} (\hˆ parousia tou s“matos\). This certainly is uncomplimentary. "The presence of his body." It seems clear that Paul did not have a commanding appearance like that of Barnabas (Acts:14:12|). He had some physical defect of the eyes (Galatians:4:14|) and a thorn in the flesh (2Corinthians:12:7|). In the second century _Acts of Paul and Thecla_ he is pictured as small, short, bow-legged, with eye-brows knit together, and an aquiline nose. A forgery of the fourth century in the name of Lucian describes Paul as "the bald-headed, hook-nosed Galilean." However that may be, his accusers sneered at his personal appearance as "weak" (\asthenˆs\). {His speech of no account} (\ho logos exouthenˆmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \exouthene“\, to treat as nothing (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:28|). The Corinthians (some of them) cared more for the brilliant eloquence of Apollos and did not find Paul a trained rhetorician (1Corinthians:1:17; strkjv@2:1,4; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:6|). He made different impressions on different people. "Seldom has any one been at once so ardently hated and so passionately loved as St. Paul" (Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 70). "At one time he seemed like a man, and at another he seemed like an angel" (_Acts of Paul and Thecla_). He spoke like a god at Lystra (Acts:14:8-12|), but Eutychus went to sleep on him (Acts:20:9|). Evidently Paul winced under this biting criticism of his looks and speech.

rwp@2Peter:2:6 @{Turning into ashes} (\tephr“sas\). First aorist participle of \tephro“\, late word from \tephra\, ashes (in Dio Cassius of an eruption of Vesuvius, Philo), here alone in N.T. {The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah} (\poleis Sodom“n kai Gomorrƒs\). Genitive of apposition after \poleis\ (cities), though it makes sense as possessive genitive, for strkjv@Jude:1:7| speaks of the cities around these two. The third example, the cities of the plain. See strkjv@Genesis:19:24f|. {Condemned them} (\katekrinen\). First aorist active indicative of \katakrin“\, still part of the protasis with \ei\. {With an overthrow} (\katastrophˆi\). Instrumental case or even dative like \thanat“i\ with \katakrin“\ in strkjv@Matthew:20:18|. But Westcott and Hort reject the word here because not in B C Coptic. {Having made them} (\tetheik“s\). Perfect active participle of \tithˆmi\. {An example} (\hupodeigma\). For which see strkjv@James:5:10; strkjv@John:13:15|. Cf. strkjv@1Peter:2:21|. {Unto those that should live ungodly} (\mellont“n asebesin\). Rather, "unto ungodly men of things about to be" (see strkjv@Hebrews:11:20| for this use of \mellont“n\). But Aleph A C K L read \asebein\ (present active infinitive) with \mellont“n\=\asebˆsont“n\ (future active participle of \asebe“\), from which we have our translation.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:3 @{Let no man beguile you in any wise} (\mˆ tis humas exapatˆsˆi kata mˆdena tropon\). First aorist active subjunctive of \exapata“\ (old verb to deceive, strengthened form of simple verb \apata“\) with double negative (\mˆ tis, mˆdena\) in accord with regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:11| rather than the aorist imperative which does occur sometimes in the third person as in strkjv@Mark:13:15| (\mˆ katabat“\). Paul broadens the warning to go beyond conversation and letter. He includes "tricks" of any kind. It is amazing how gullible some of the saints are when a new deceiver pulls off some stunts in religion. {For it will not be} (\hoti\). There is an ellipse here of \ouk estai\ (or \genˆsetai\) to be supplied after \hoti\. Westcott and Hort make an anacoluthon at the end of verse 4|. The meaning is clear. \Hoti\ is causal, because, but the verb is understood. The second coming not only is not "imminent," but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of verse 2|. {Except the falling away come first} (\ean mˆ elthˆi hˆ apostasia pr“ton\). Negative condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of determination and the aorist subjunctive. \Apostasia\ is the late form of \apostasis\ and is our word apostasy. Plutarch uses it of political revolt and it occurs in I Macc. strkjv@2:15 about Antiochus Epiphanes who was enforcing the apostasy from Judaism to Hellenism. In strkjv@Joshua:22:22| it occurs for rebellion against the Lord. It seems clear that the word here means a religious revolt and the use of the definite article (\hˆ\) seems to mean that Paul had spoken to the Thessalonians about it. The only other New Testament use of the word is in strkjv@Acts:21:21| where it means apostasy from Moses. It is not clear whether Paul means revolt of the Jews from God, of Gentiles from God, of Christians from God, or of the apostasy that includes all classes within and without the body of Christians. But it is to be {first} (\pr“ton\) before Christ comes again. Note this adverb when only two events are compared (cf. strkjv@Acts:1:1|). {And the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition} (\kai apokaluphthˆi ho anthr“pos tˆs anomias, ho huios tˆs ap“leias\). First aorist passive subjunctive after \ean mˆ\ and same condition as with \elthˆi\. The use of this verb \apokalupt“\, like \apokalupsin\ of the second coming in strkjv@1:7|, seems to note the superhuman character (Milligan) of the event and the same verb is repeated in verses 6,8|. The implication is that {the man of sin} is hidden somewhere who will be suddenly manifested just as false apostles pose as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:13ff.|), whether the crowning event of the apostasy or another name for the same event. Lightfoot notes the parallel between the man of sin, of whom sin is the special characteristic (genitive case, a Hebraism for the lawless one in verse 8|) and Christ. Both Christ and the adversary of Christ are revealed, there is mystery about each, both make divine claims (verse 4|). He seems to be the Antichrist of strkjv@1John:2:18|. The terrible phrase, the son of perdition, is applied to Judas in strkjv@John:17:12| (like Judas doomed to perdition), but here to the lawless one (\ho anomos\, verse 8|), who is not Satan, but some one definite person who is doing the work of Satan. Note the definite article each time.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:6 @{Now we command you} (\paraggellomen de humin\). Paul puts into practice the confidence expressed on their obedience to his commands in verse 4|. {In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ} (\en onomati tou kuriou Iˆsou Christou\). {Name} (\onoma\) here for authority of Jesus Christ with which compare {through the Lord Jesus} (\dia tou kuriou Iˆsou\) in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:2|. For a full discussion of the phrase see the monograph of W. Heitmuller, _Im Namen Jesu_. Paul wishes his readers to realize the responsibility on them for their obedience to his command. {That ye withdraw yourselves} (\stellesthai humas\). Present middle (direct) infinitive of \stell“\, old verb to place, arrange, make compact or shorten as sails, to move oneself from or to withdraw oneself from (with \apo\ and the ablative). In strkjv@2Corinthians:8:20| the middle voice (\stellomenoi\) means taking care. {From every brother that walketh disorderly} (\apo pantos adelphou atakt“s peripatountos\). He calls him "brother" still. The adverb \atakt“s\ is common in Plato and is here and verse 11| alone in the N.T., though the adjective \ataktos\, equally common in Plato we had in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| which see. Military term, out of ranks. {And not after the tradition} (\kai mˆ kata tˆn paradosin\). See on ¯2:15| for \paradosin\. {Which they received of us} (\hˆn parelabosan par hˆm“n\). Westcott and Hort put this form of the verb (second aorist indicative third person plural of \paralamban“\, the \-osan\ form instead of \-on\, with slight support from the papyri, but in the LXX and the Boeotian dialect, Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 335f.) in the margin with \parelabete\ (ye received) in the text. There are five different readings of the verb here, the others being \parelabon, parelabe, elabosan\.

rwp@2Timothy:2:14 @{That they strive not about words} (\mˆ logomachein\). Word apparently coined by Paul from \logomachia\ (1Timothy:6:4| which see), a back formation in that case. A mere war of words displeases Paul. (Titus:3:9|). {Useful} (\chrˆsimon\). Late and rare word from \chraomai\, here only in N.T. {To the subverting} (\epi katastrophˆi\). Old word (from \katastreph“\, to turn down or over), here only in N.T. (except strkjv@2Peter:2:6|...some MSS., not in Westcott and...)." Because of the overthrow" (result \epi\, not aim), useless for this reason. Such war of words merely upsets the hearers.

rwp@2Timothy:2:25 @{Correcting} (\paideuonta\). See strkjv@Titus:2:12|. "Schooling" (Parry). {Oppose themselves} (\antidiatithemenous\). Present middle (direct) participle of \antidiatithˆmi\, late double compound (Diodorus, Philo) to place oneself in opposition, here only in N.T. {If peradventure God may give} (\mˆ pote d“iˆ ho theos\). Here Westcott and Hort read the late form of the second aorist active optative of \did“mi\ for the usual \doiˆ\ as they do in strkjv@1:18|. But there it is a wish for the future and so regular, while here the optative with \mˆ pote\ in a sort of indirect question is used with a primary tense \dei\ (present) and parallel with an undoubted subjunctive \ananˆps“sin\, while in strkjv@Luke:3:15| \mˆ pote eie\ is with a secondary tense. Examples of such an optative do occur in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 989) so that we cannot go as far as Moulton does and say that we "must" read the subjunctive \d“ˆi\ here (_Prolegomena_, pp. 55, 193). {Repentance} (\metanoian\). "Change of mind" (2Corinthians:7:10; strkjv@Romans:2:4|). {Unto the knowledge of the truth} (\eis epign“sin alˆtheias\). Paul's word "full knowledge" (Co strkjv@1:9|).

rwp@3John:1:9 @{I wrote somewhat unto the church} (\egrapsa ti tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\). A few MSS. add \an\ to indicate that he had not written (conclusion of second-class condition), clearly spurious. Not epistolary aorist nor a reference to II John as Findlay holds, but an allusion to a brief letter of commendation (Acts:18:27; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:1; strkjv@Colossians:4:10|) sent along with the brethren in verses 5-7|...some other itinerant brethren. Westcott wrongly...\ti\ is never used of anything important in the N.T. (Acts:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:6:3|), and hence that this lost letter was unimportant. It may have been brief and a mere introduction. \Diotrephes\ (\Dios\ and \treph“\, nourished by Zeus). This ambitious leader and sympathiser with the Gnostics would probably prevent the letter referred to being read to the church, whether it was II John condemning the Gnostics or another letter commending Demetrius and John's missionaries. Hence he sends Gaius this personal letter warning against Diotrephes. {Who loveth to have the preeminence among them} (\ho philopr“teu“n aut“n\). Present active articular participle of a late verb, so far found only here and in ecclesiastical writers (the example cited by Blass being an error, Deissmann, _Light_ etc., p. 76), from \philopr“tos\, fond of being first (Plutarch), and made like \philopone“\ (papyri), to be fond of toil. This ambition of Diotrephes does not prove that he was a bishop over elders, as was true in the second century (as Ignatius shows). He may have been an elder (bishop) or deacon, but clearly desired to rule the whole church. Some forty years ago I wrote an article on Diotrephes for a denominational paper. The editor told me that twenty-five deacons stopped the paper to show their resentment against being personally attacked in the paper. {Receiveth us not} (\ouk epidechetai hˆmƒs\). Present active indicative of this old compound, in N.T. only here and verse 10|. Diotrephes refused to accept John's authority or those who sided with him, John's missionaries or delegates (cf. strkjv@Matthew:10:40|).

rwp@Acts:2:17 @{In the last days} (\en tais eschatais hˆmerais\). Joel does not have precisely these words, but he defines "those days" as being "the day of the Lord" (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:2:2; strkjv@Micah:4:1|). {I will pour forth} (\ekche“\). Future active indicative of \ekche“\. This future like \edomai\ and \piomai\ is without tense sign, probably like the present in the futuristic sense (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 354). Westcott and Hort put a different accent on the future, but the old Greek had no accent. The old Greek had \ekcheus“\. This verb means to pour out. {Of my Spirit} (\apo tou pneumatos\). This use of \apo\ (of) is either because of the variety in the manifestations of the Spirit (1Corinthians:12|) or because the Spirit in his entirety remains with God (Holtzmann, Wendt). But the Hebrew has it: "I will pour out my Spirit" without the partitive idea in the LXX. {And your daughters} (\kai hai thugateres h–m“n\). Anna is called a prophetess in strkjv@Luke:2:36| and the daughters of Philip prophesy (Acts:21:9|) and verse 18| (handmaidens). See also strkjv@1Corinthians:11:5| (\prophˆtousa\). {Visions} (\horaseis\). Late word for the more common \horama\, both from \hora“\, to see. In strkjv@Revelation:4:3| it means appearance, but in strkjv@Revelation:9:17| as here an ecstatic revelation or vision. {Dream dreams} (\enupniois enupniasthˆsontai\). Shall dream with (instrumental case) dreams. First future passive of \enupniaz“\ from \enupnios\ (\en\ and \hupnos\, in sleep), a common late word. Only here in the N.T. (this from Joel as all these verses 17-21| are) and strkjv@Jude:1:8|. {Yea and} (\kai ge\). Intensive particle \ge\ added to \kai\ (and), an emphatic addition (=Hebrew _vegam_). {Servants} (\doulous\), {handmaidens} (\doulas\). Slaves, actual slaves of men. The humblest classes will receive the Spirit of God (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26-31|). But the word "prophesy" here is not in the LXX (or the Hebrew).

rwp@Acts:9:40 @{Put them all forth} (\ekbal“n ex“ pantas\). Second aorist (effective) active participle of \ekball“\, a rather strong word, perhaps with some difficulty. Cf. strkjv@Mark:5:40| which incident Peter may have recalled. The words are not genuine in strkjv@Luke:8:54|. Peter's praying alone reminds one of Elijah (1Kings:17:20|) and the widow's son and Elisha for the Shunammite's son (2Kings:4:33|). {Tabitha, arise} (\Tabeitha, anastˆthi\). With sublime faith like \Taleitha koum\ of Jesus in strkjv@Mark:5:41|. {She sat up} (\anekathisen\). Effective aorist active indicative of \anakathiz“\. Often in medical writers, only here in the N.T. and strkjv@Luke:7:15| where Westcott and Hort have in the margin the uncompounded form \ekathisen\. Vivid picture.

rwp@Acts:10:18 @{Called} (\ph“nˆsantes\). In a loud voice that those inside the house might hear. {Asked} (\epunthanonto\). Imperfect middle of \punthanomai\...here. Kept on inquiring. Westcott and...\eputhonto\ (second aorist middle, effective aorist). Either makes sense, though the imperfect is more picturesque. {Were lodging} (\xenizetai\). Present middle indicative retained in indirect question. See on verse ¯6| for the verb.

rwp@Acts:10:36 @{The word which he sent} (\ton logon hon apesteilen\). Many ancient MSS. (so Westcott and Hort) read merely \ton logon apesteilen\ (he sent the word). This reading avoids the anacoluthon and inverse attraction of \logon\ to the case of the relative \hon\ (which). {Preaching good tidings of peace through Jesus Christ} (\euaggelizomenos eirˆnˆn dia Iˆsou Christou\). Gospelizing peace through Jesus Christ. There is no other way to have real peace between individuals and God, between races and nations, than by Jesus Christ. Almost this very language occurs in strkjv@Ephesians:2:17| where Paul states that Jesus on the cross "preached (gospelized) peace to you who are afar off and peace to you who are near." Peter here sees what Paul will see later with great clearness. {He is Lord of all} (\houtos estin pant“n kurios\). A triumphant parenthesis that Peter throws in as the reason for his new truth. Jesus Christ is Lord of all, both Jews and Gentiles.

rwp@Acts:11:3 @{Thou wentest in} (\eisˆlthes\). Direct form, but Westcott and Hort have it \eisˆlthen\ (he went in), indirect form. Songs:with \sunephages\ (didst eat) and \sunephagen\ (did eat). The direct is more vivid. {Men uncircumcised} (\andras akrobustian echontas\). "Men having uncircumcision." It is a contemptuous expression. They did not object to Peter's preaching to the Gentiles, but to his going into the house of Cornelius and eating with them, violating his supposed obligations as a Jew (Hackett). It was the same complaint in principle that the Pharisees had made against Jesus when he ate with publicans and sinners (Luke:15:12|). The Jews had not merely the Mosaic regulations about clean and unclean food, but also the fact that at a Gentile table some of the meat may have been an idol sacrifice. And Peter himself had similar scruples when the vision came to him at Joppa and when he entered the house of Cornelius in Caesarea strkjv@10:28|). Peter had been led beyond the circumcision party.

rwp@Acts:11:28 @{Signified} (\esˆmainen\). Imperfect active in Westcott and Hort, but aorist active \esˆmƒnen\ in the margin. The verb is an old one from \sˆma\ (\sˆmeion\) 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' holˆn tˆn oikoumenˆn\). Over all the inhabited earth (\gˆn\, 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:12:25 @{From Jerusalem} (\ex Ierousalˆm\). Probably correct text, though D has \apo\. Westcott and Hort follow Aleph B in reading \eis\ (to) Jerusalem, an impossible reading contradicted by strkjv@11:29f.; strkjv@13:1|. The ministration (\diakonian\) referred to is that in strkjv@11:29f.| which may have taken place, in point of time, after the death of Herod. {Taking with them} (\sunparalabontes\). Taking along (\para\) with (\sun\) them, John Mark from Jerusalem (12:12|) to Antioch (13:1|). The aorist participle does not express subsequent action as Rackham here argues (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 861-863).

rwp@Acts:13:18 @{Suffered he their manners} (\etropophorˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \tropophore“\, late word from \tropos\, manner, and \pher“\...D and accepted by Westcott and...\etrophophorˆsen\ from \trophophore“\ (\trophos\, a nurse, and \pher“\,) late word (II Macc. strkjv@7:27), probably correct word here and strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:31|.

rwp@Acts:13:33 @{Hath fulfilled} (\ekpeplˆr“ken\). Hath filled out (\ek\). {Unto our children} (\tois teknois hˆm“n\). The MSS. vary greatly here about \hˆm“n\ (our), some have \aut“n\, some \aut“n hˆmin\. Westcott and Hort consider these readings "a primitive error" for \hˆmin\ (to us) taken with \anastˆsas Iˆsoun\ (having for us raised up Jesus). This raising up (from \anistˆmi\, set up) as in strkjv@3:22; strkjv@7:37| refers not to resurrection (verse 34|), but to the sending of Jesus (two raisings up). {In the second psalm} (\en t“i psalm“i t“i deuter“i\). strkjv@Psalms:2:7|. D has \pr“t“i\ because the first psalm was often counted as merely introductory.

rwp@Acts:15:34 @{But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there} (\edoxe de Silƒi epimeinai autou\)...in the text of Westcott and...40|. But the "some days" of verse 36| afforded abundant time for him to return from Jerusalem. He and Judas went first to Jerusalem to make a report of their mission.

rwp@Acts:19:40 @{For indeed we are in danger to be accused concerning this day's riot} (\kai gar kinduneuomen egkaleisthai stase“s peri tˆs sˆmeron\)...uncertain. The text of Westcott and...\Kinduneuomen\, from \kindunos\, danger, peril. Old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:8:23; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:30|. {There being no cause for it} (\mˆdenos aitiou huparchontos\). Genitive absolute with \aitios\, common adjective (cf. \aitia\, cause) though in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:5:9; strkjv@Luke:23:4,14,22|. {And as touching it} (\peri hou\). "Concerning which." But what? No clear antecedent, only the general idea. {Give an account of this concourse} (\apodounai logon peri tˆs sustrophˆs tautˆs\). _Rationem reddere_. They will have to explain matters to the proconsul. \Sustrophˆ\ (from \sun\, together, \streph“\, to turn) is a late word for a conspiracy (Acts:23:12|) and a disorderly riot as here (Polybius). In strkjv@Acts:28:12| \sustreph“\ is used of gathering up a bundle of sticks and of men combining in strkjv@Matthew:17:22|. Seneca says that there was nothing on which the Romans looked with such jealousy as a tumultuous meeting.

rwp@Acts:27:37 @{Two hundred three-score and sixteen souls} (\diakosiai hebdomˆkonta hex\). The Vatican Manuscript (B) has \h“s\ in place of \diakosiai\ (two hundred) which Westcott and Hort put in the margin. But Alford is probably correct in suggesting that the scribe of B wrote \h“s\ by repeating the omega in \ploi“i\ with \s\ = 200 (Greek numeral). If the number 276 seems large, it is to be remembered that we do not know the size of the ship. Josephus (_Life_, 3) says that there were 600 on the ship that took him to Italy. The grain ships were of considerable size. The number included sailors, soldiers, and prisoners. A muster or roll call may have been made.

rwp@Acts:27:39 @{They knew not} (\ouk epegin“skon\). Imperfect active of \epigin“sk“\, to recognize. Probably conative, tried to recognize and could not (Conybeare and Howson). The island was well-known (28:1|, \epegn“men\), but St. Paul's Bay where the wreck took place was some distance from the main harbour (Valetta) of Melita (Malta). {They perceived} (\katenooun\). Imperfect active of \katanoe“\, gradually perceived after some effort as in strkjv@11:16|. This beach seemed their only hope. {They took counsel} (\ebouleuonto\). Imperfect middle showing the process of deliberation and doubt. The bay "having a beach" (\echonta aigialon\) is a phrase found in Xenophon's _Anabasis_ VI. 4, 4. {Whether they could drive} (\ei dunainto eks“sai\). This use of the optative with \ei\ in questions of this sort (implied indirect) is a neat Greek idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). B C Bohairic read \eks“sai\ (first aorist active infinitive of \eks“z“\), to save out (so Westcott and Hort), instead of \ex“sai\ (from \ex“the“\, to push out, as Textus Receptus).

rwp@Acts:28:1 @{Then we knew} (\tote epegn“men\). Second aorist (ingressive) active indicative of \epigin“sk“\. Then we recognized. See strkjv@27:39|. {Was called} (\kaleitai\). Present passive indicative retained in indirect discourse. {Melita} (\Melitˆ\). Not \Miletenˆ\...in the text of Westcott and...(verse 11|), and the mention of Syracuse as the next stop after leaving (verse 12|).

rwp@Acts:28:13 @{We made a circuit} (\perielthontes\). Second aorist active of \perierchomai\, to go around, old verb, already in strkjv@19:13|. See also strkjv@Hebrews:11:37; strkjv@1Timothy:5:13|. But Westcott and Hort read \perielontes\ after Aleph B (from \periaire“\) as in strkjv@27:40|, though here it could only mean casting loose, for which no other authority exists. At any rate the ship had to tack to reach Rhegium and was not able to make a straight course (\enthudrome“\, strkjv@16:11|). {Rhegium} (\Rhˆgion\) is from \rhˆgnumi\, to break off, the place where the land breaks off, the southern entrance to the straits of Messina. {A south wind sprang up} (\epigenomenou notou\). Genitive absolute again, and for all the world like that fatal south wind in strkjv@27:13|, but with no bad results this time, though the weather was plainly treacherous at this early season. {On the second day} (\deuteraioi\). This is the classical use of the predicate adjective, "We second day men" as in strkjv@Luke:24:22; strkjv@John:11:39; strkjv@Phillipians:3:5| instead of the adverb (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 657). {To Puteoli} (\eis Potiolous\). It was 182 miles from Rhegium and would require 26 hours (Page). It was eight miles northwest from Neapolis (Naples) and the chief port of Rome, the regular harbour for the Alexandrian ships from Rome. Portions of the great mole are said to be still visible.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ SOME BOOKS ABOUT COLOSSIANS One may note commentaries by T. K. Abbott (_Int. Crit_. 1897), Gross Alexander, Dargan, Dibelius, Ellicott, Ewald, Griffith-Thomas, Findlay, Haupt, M. Jones, Lightfoot, Maclaren, Meinertz, Moule, Mullins, Oltramare, Peake, Radford, A. T. Robertson, Rutherford, E. F. Scott, Von Soden, F. B. Westcott, Williams. strkjv@Colossians:1:1 @{Of Christ Jesus} (\Christou Iˆsou\). This order in the later epistles shows that \Christos\ is now regarded as a proper name and not just a verbal adjective (Anointed One, Messiah). Paul describes himself because he is unknown to the Colossians, not because of attack as in strkjv@Galatians:1:1|. {Timothy} (\Timotheos\). Mentioned as in I and II Thess. when in Corinth, II Cor. when in Macedonia, Phil. and Philemon when in Rome as here.

rwp@Colossians:1:22 @{Yet now} (\nuni de\). Sharpened contrast with emphatic form of \nun\, "now" being not at the present moment, but in the present order of things in the new dispensation of grace in Christ. {Hath he reconciled} (\apokatˆllaxen\). First aorist (effective, timeless) active indicative (a sort of parenthetical anacoluthon). Here B reads \apokatallagˆte\, be ye reconciled like \katallagˆte\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:20| while D has \apokatallagentes\. Lightfoot prefers to follow B here (the hard reading), though Westcott and Hort only put it in the margin. On the word see verse 20|. {In the body of his flesh} (\en t“i s“mati tˆs sarkos autou\). See the same combination in strkjv@2:11| though in strkjv@Ephesians:2:14| only \sarki\ (flesh). Apparently Paul combines both \s“ma\ and \sarx\ to make plain the actual humanity of Jesus against incipient Docetic Gnostics who denied it. {Through death} (\dia tou thanatou\). The reconciliation was accomplished by means of Christ's death on the cross (verse 20|) and not just by the Incarnation (the body of his flesh) in which the death took place. {To present} (\parastˆsai\). First aorist active (transitive) infinitive (of purpose) of \paristˆmi\, old verb, to place beside in many connections. See it used of presenting Paul and the letter from Lysias to Felix (Acts:23:33|). Repeated in strkjv@Colossians:2:28|. See also strkjv@2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:14|. Paul has the same idea of his responsibility in rendering an account for those under his influence seen in strkjv@Hebrews:13:17|. See strkjv@Romans:12:1| for use of living sacrifice. {Holy} (\hagious\). Positively consecrated, separated unto God. Common in N.T. for believers. Haupt holds that all these terms have a religious and forensic sense here. {Without blemish} (\am“mous\). Without spot (Phillipians:2:15|). Old word \a\ privative and \m“mos\ (blemish). Common in the LXX for ceremonial purifications. {Unreproveable} (\anegklˆtous\). Old verbal adjective from \a\ privative and \egkale“\, to call to account, to pick flaws in. These three adjectives give a marvellous picture of complete purity (positive and negative, internal and external). This is Paul's ideal when he presents the Colossians "before him" (\katen“pion autou\), right down in the eye of Christ the Judge of all.

rwp@Colossians:2:2 @{May be comforted} (\paraklˆth“sin\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \parakale“\ (for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3-7|) in final clause with \hina\. {Being knit together} (\sunbibasthentes\). First aorist passive participle of \sunbibaz“\, old verb, causal of \bain“\, to make go together, to coalesce in argument (Acts:16:10|), in spiritual growth (Colossians:2:19|), in love as here. Love is the \sundesmos\ (3:14|) that binds all together. {Unto all riches} (\eis pan ploutos\). Probably some distinction intended between \en\ (in love as the sphere) and \eis\ (unto as the goal). {Of the full assurance of understanding} (\tˆs plˆrophorias tˆs sunese“s\). On \plˆrophoria\, see strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:5|. From \plˆrophore“\ (see strkjv@Luke:1:1|) and only in N.T. (1Thessalonians:1:5; strkjv@Colossians:2:2; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|), Clement of Rome (_Cor_. 42) and one papyrus example. Paul desires the full use of the intellect in grasping the great mystery of Christ and it calls for the full and balanced exercise of all one's mental powers. {That they may know} (\eis epign“sin\). "Unto full knowledge." This use of \epign“sis\ (full, additional knowledge) is Paul's reply to the Gnostics with the limited and perverted \gn“sis\ (knowledge). {The mystery of God, even Christ} (\tou mustˆriou tou theou, Christou\)...here, but this is Westcott and...(objective) with \epign“sin\ and \Christou\ in apposition. Christ is "the mystery of God," but no longer hidden, but manifested (1:26|) and meant for us to know to the fulness of our capacity.

rwp@Info_Ephesians @ SPECIAL BOOKS ON EPHESIANS One may note Abbott (_Int. Crit. Comm_. 1897), Gross Alexander, Beet, Belser, Candlish, Dale (_Lectures on Ephesians_), Dibelius (_Handbuch_, 1912), Eadie, Ellicott, Ewald (_Zahn Komm._, 2 Auf. 1910), Findlay, Gore (_Practical Exposition_, 1898), Haupt (_Meyer Komm._, 8 Auf. 1902), Hitchcock, Hort (_Intr_. 1895), Knabenbauer, Krukenberg, Lidgett, Lock, Lueken, Martin (_New Century Bible_), McPhail, McPherson, Meinertz, Moule, Mullins, Murray, Oltramare, Robinson, Salmond, E. F. Scott (_Moffatt Comm._, 1930), Stroeter (_The Glory of the Body of Christ_, 1909), Von Soden (2 Aufl. 1893), F. B. Westcott, Wohlenberg. strkjv@Ephesians:1:1 @{Of Christ Jesus} (\Christou Iˆsou\). Songs:B D, though Aleph A L have \Iˆsou Christou\. Paul is named as the author and so he is. Otherwise the Epistle is pseudepigraphic. {By the will of God} (\dia thelˆmatos theou\). As in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Romans:1:1|. {At Ephesus} (\en Ephes“i\). In Aleph and B these words are inserted by later hands, though both MSS. give the title \Pros Ephesious\. Origen explains the words \tois hagiois tois ousin\ as meaning "the saints that are" (genuine saints), showing that his MSS. did not have the words \en Ephes“i\. The explanation of the insertion of these words has already been given in the remarks on "The Destination" as one copy of the general letter that was preserved in Ephesus. It is perfectly proper to call it the Epistle to the Ephesians if we understand the facts.

rwp@Ephesians:1:17 @{The Father of glory} (\ho patˆr tˆs doxˆs\). The God characterized by glory (the Shekinah, strkjv@Hebrews:9:5|) as in strkjv@Acts:7:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:2:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@James:2:1|. {That--may give} (\hina--d“iˆ\). In strkjv@Colossians:1:9| \hina\ is preceded by \aitoumenoi\, but here the sub-final use depends on the general idea asking in the sentence. The form \d“iˆ\ is a late _Koin‚_ optative (second aorist active) for the usual \doiˆ\. It occurs also in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:16; strkjv@Romans:15:5; strkjv@2Timothy:1:16,18|...in the text of Westcott and...63 read \d“i\ (like strkjv@John:15:16|) second aorist active subjunctive, the form naturally looked for after a primary tense (\pauomai\). This use of the volitive optative with \hina\ after a primary tense is rare, but not unknown in ancient Greek. {A spirit of wisdom and revelation} (\pneuma sophias kai apokalupse“s\). The Revised Version does not refer this use of \pneuma\ to the Holy Spirit (cf. strkjv@Galatians:6:1; strkjv@Romans:8:15|), but it is open to question if it is possible to obtain this wisdom and revelation apart from the Holy Spirit. {In the knowledge of him} (\en epign“sei autou\). In the full knowledge of Christ as in Colossians.

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @...after the Acts, and Westcott and...(as the last accepted and the least known of the four authors). It is possible that the order of James, Peter, and John (omitting Jude) represented a sort of chronological precedence in some minds. It is possible also that no importance is to be attached to this order. Certainly John wrote last and after the destruction of Jerusalem, while the others come before that great event if they are genuine, as I believe, though there are difficulties of a serious nature concerning II Peter. James may be very early. If so, these seven Epistles are scattered all the way from A.D. 45 to 90. They have no connection with one another save in the case of the Epistles of Peter and Jude.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ The study of Paul's Epistles in the order of their writing is the best possible way of seeing his own growth as a theologian and interpreter of Christ. Sabatier long ago laid emphasis on this point in his book _The Apostle Paul_ as did Matheson in _The Spiritual Development of Paul_...usual Greek text of Westcott and...(the last just before his death). We know something of Paul's early preaching how he laid emphasis on the Messiahship of Jesus proven by his resurrection, Paul himself having seen the Risen Christ (Acts:9:22|). This conviction and experience lay at the foundation of all his work and he never faltered concerning it (Acts:17:3). In the earliest sermon of which we have a full report Paul proclaims justification by faith in Christ with forgiveness of sins (Acts:13:38f.|), blessings not obtained by the law of Moses. In the unfolding life of Paul he grappled with great problems of Jewish rabbinism and Greek philosophy and mystery-religions and Paul himself grew in stature as he courageously and victoriously faced Judaizer and Gnostic. There are scholars who claim that Paul surrendered to the appeal of Gnostic sacramentarianism and so went back on his great doctrine of justification by faith, not by works. It will be shown at the proper time that this view misinterprets Paul's attitude. The events given by Luke in the Acts fit in with the self-revelation of Paul in his own Epistles as we read them. Each one of the four groups of Epistles has a slightly different style and vocabulary as is natural when one comes to think of it. The same thing is true of the plays of Shakespeare and the poems of Milton. Style is the man, Buffon says. Yes, but style is also a function of the subject. Particularly is this true of vocabulary which has to vary with the different topics treated. But style in the same man varies with different ages. Ripened old age mellows the exuberance of youth and the passionate vehemence of manhood. We shall see Paul himself in his Epistles, letting himself go in various ways and in different moods. But in all the changing phases of his life and work there is the same masterful man who glories in being the slave of Jesus Christ and the Apostle to the Gentiles. The passion of Paul is Christ and one can feel the throb of the heart of the chief of sinners who became the chief of saints in all his Epistles. There is the Pauline glow and glory in them all.

rwp@Galatians:2:6 @{Somewhat} (\ti\). Something, not somebody. Paul refers to the Big Three (Cephas, James, and John). He seems a bit embarrassed in the reference. He means no disrespect, but he asserts his independence sharply in a tangled sentence with two parentheses (dashes in Westcott and Hort). {Whatsoever they were} (\hopoioi pote ˆsan\). Literally, "What sort they once were." {Hopoioi} is a qualitative word (1Thessalonians:1:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:13; strkjv@James:1:24|). Lightfoot thinks that these three leaders were the ones who suggested the compromise about Titus. That is a possible, but not the natural, interpretation of this involved sentence. The use of \de\ (but) in verse 6| seems to make a contrast between the three leaders and the pleaders for compromise in verses 4f|. {They, I say, imparted nothing to me} (\emoi gar ouden prosanethento\). He starts over again after the two parentheses and drops the construction \apo t“n dokount“n\ and changes the construction (anacoluthon) to \hoi dokountes\ (nominative case), the men of reputation and influences whom he names in verses 8f|. See the same verb in strkjv@1:16|. They added nothing in the conference to me. The compromisers tried to win them, but they finally came over to my view. Paul won his point, when he persuaded Peter, James, and John to agree with him and Barnabas in their contention for freedom for the Gentile Christians from the bondage of the Mosaic ceremonial law.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @...modern scholars differ widely. Westcott places...64 and 67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written strkjv@Hebrews:10:1f.|: "Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in strkjv@Hebrews:8:13| "nigh to vanishing away" (\eggus aphanismou\) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in strkjv@Hebrews:13:23| as being "set free" (\apolelumenon\) raises an inquiry concerning Paul's last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Timothy:4:11-13|). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero's own death (June 8, A.D. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 A.D. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

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} (\t“n mellont“n agath“n\). But B D read \genomen“n\ (that are come)...glorious future of hope. Westcott prefers...\genomen“n\, Moffatt \mellont“n\. {Through the greater and more perfect tabernacle} (\dia tˆs meizonos kai teleioteras skˆnˆs\). 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 cheiropoiˆtou\). 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 tautˆs tˆs ktise“s\). Explanation of \ou chieropoiˆtou\. 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@James:4:14 @{Whereas ye know not} (\hoitines ouk epistasthe\). The longer relative \hostis\ defines here more precisely (like Latin _qui_) \hoi legontes\ (ye who say) of verse 13| in a causal sense, as in strkjv@Acts:10:47|, "who indeed do not know" (present middle indicative of \epistamai\). {What shall be on the morrow} (\tˆs aurion\). Supply \hˆmeras\ (day) after \aurion\. This is the reading of B (Westcott) "on the morrow" (genitive of time), but Aleph K L cursives have \to tˆs aurion\ ("the matter of tomorrow"), while A P cursives have \ta tˆs aurion\ ("the things of tomorrow"). The sense is practically the same, though \to tˆs aurion\ is likely correct. {What is your life?} (\poia hˆ z“ˆ hum“n\). Thus Westcott and Hort punctuate it as an indirect question, not direct. \Poia\ is a qualitative interrogative (of what character). {As vapour} (\atmis\). This is the answer. Old word for mist (like \atmos\, from which our "atmosphere"), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:2:19| with \kapnou\ (vapour of smoke (from strkjv@Joel:2:30|). {For a little time} (\pros oligon\). See same phrase in strkjv@1Timothy:4:8|, \pros kairon\ in strkjv@Luke:8:13|, \pros h“ran\ in strkjv@John:5:35|. {That appeareth and then vanisheth away} (\phainomenˆ epeita kai aphanizomenˆ\). Present middle participles agreeing with \atmis\, "appearing, then also disappearing," with play on the two verbs (\phainomai, aphaniz“\ as in strkjv@Matthew:6:19|, from \aphanˆs\ hidden strkjv@Hebrews:4:13|) with the same root \phan\ (\phain“, a-phan-ˆs\).

rwp@James:5:3 @{Are rusted} (\kati“tai\). Perfect passive indicative (singular for \chrusos\ and \arguros\ are grouped as one) of \katio“\, late verb (from \ios\, rust) with perfective sense of \kata\, to rust through (down to the bottom), found only here, Sir. strkjv@12:11, Epictetus (_Diss_. 4, 6, 14). {Rust} (\ios\). Poison in strkjv@James:3:8; strkjv@Romans:3:13| (only N.T. examples of old word). Silver does corrode and gold will tarnish. Dioscorides (V.91) tells about gold being rusted by chemicals. Modern chemists can even transmute metals as the alchemists claimed. {For a testimony} (\eis marturion\). Common idiom as in strkjv@Matthew:8:4| (use of \eis\ with accusative in predicate). {Against you} (\humin\). Dative of disadvantage as in strkjv@Mark:6:11| (\eis marturion autois\) where in the parallel passage (Luke:9:5|) we have \eis marturion ep' autous\. "To you" will make sense, as in strkjv@Matthew:8:4; strkjv@10:18|, but "against" is the idea here as in strkjv@Luke:21:13|. {Shall eat} (\phagetai\). Future middle (late form from \ephagon\) of defective verb \esthi“\, to eat. {Your flesh} (\tas sarkas\). The plural is used for the fleshy parts of the body like pieces of flesh (Revelation:17:16; strkjv@19:18,21|). Rust eats like a canker, like cancer in the body. {As fire} (\h“s pur\). Editors differ here whether to connect this phrase with \phagetai\, just before (as Mayor)...with the following, as Westcott and...(Matthew:25:41; strkjv@Mark:9:44|). This interpretation makes a more vivid picture for \ethˆsaurisate\ (ye have laid up, first aorist active indicative of \thˆsauriz“\, strkjv@Matthew:6:19| and see strkjv@Proverbs:16:27|), but it is more natural to take it with \phagetai\.

rwp@James:5:20 @{Let him know} (\gin“sket“\). Present active imperative third person singular of \gin“sk“\, but Westcott and Hort read \gin“skete\ (know ye) after B. In either case it is the conclusion of the condition in verse 19|. {He which converteth} (\ho epistrepsas\). First aorist active articular participle of \epistreph“\ of verse 19|. {From the error} (\ek planˆs\). "Out of the wandering" of verse 19| (\planˆ\, from which \plana“\ is made). See strkjv@1John:4:6| for contrast between "truth" and "error." {A soul from death} (\psuchˆn ek thanatou\). The soul of the sinner (\hamart“lon\) won back to Christ, not the soul of the man winning him. A few MSS. have \autou\ added (his soul), which leaves it ambiguous, but \autou\ is not genuine. It is ultimate and final salvation here meant by the future (\s“sei\). {Shall cover a multitude of sins} (\kalupsei plˆthos hamarti“n\). Future active of \kalupt“\, old verb, to hide, to veil. But whose sins (those of the converter or the converted)? The Roman Catholics (also Mayor and Ropes) take it of the sins of the converter, who thus saves himself by saving others. The language here will allow that, but not New Testament teaching in general. It is apparently a proverbial saying which Resch considers one of the unwritten sayings of Christ (Clem. Al. _Paed_. iii. 12). It occurs also in strkjv@1Peter:4:8|, where it clearly means the sins of others covered by love as a veil thrown over them. The saying appears also in strkjv@Proverbs:10:12|: "Hatred stirs up strife, but love hides all transgressions"--that is "love refuses to see faults" (Mayor admits). That is undoubtedly the meaning in strkjv@1Peter:4:8; strkjv@James:5:20|.

rwp@Info_John @ LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as "the Elder" (\ho presbuteros\), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Peter:5:1|) he calls himself "your fellow-elder" (\ho sunpresbuteros\). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in strkjv@1John:1:1-4| and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the _aeon_ Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in strkjv@1John:2:22|...bath with him. As Westcott shows,...

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|)...the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained...(_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 idi“tai\ (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@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 archˆi\). \Archˆ\ 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} (\ˆn\). 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" (\paraklˆton echomen pros ton patera\). See \pros“pon pros pros“pon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gn“ston tˆs pros allˆlous sunˆtheias\, "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 ˆn ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos ˆn 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 agapˆ 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:1:3 @{All things} (\panta\). The philosophical phrase was \ta panta\ (the all things) as we have it in strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. In verse 10| John uses \ho kosmos\ (the orderly universe) for the whole. {Were made} (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of \ˆn\ in verses 1,2|. All things "came into being." Creation is thus presented as a becoming (\ginomai\) in contrast with being (\eimi\). {By him} (\di' autou\). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews:1:2|) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians:1:16|). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6|, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (\ex hou\) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (\di' hou\). {Without him} (\ch“ris autou\). Old adverbial preposition with the ablative as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:14|, "apart from." John adds the negative statement for completion, another note of his style as in strkjv@John:1:20; strkjv@1John:1:5|. Thus John excludes two heresies (Bernard) that matter is eternal and that angels or aeons had a share in creation. {Not anything} (\oude hen\). "Not even one thing." Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (\ho gegonen\)...a new one as Westcott and...\ginomai\. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with \ho gegonen\. The early uncials had no punctuation.

rwp@John:1:6 @{There came a man} (\egeneto anthr“pos\). Definite event in the long darkness, same verb in verse 3|. {Sent} (\apestalmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \apostell“\, to send. {From God} (\para theou\). From the side of (\para\) God (ablative case \theou\). {Whose name} (\onoma aut“i\). "Name to him," nominative parenthetic and dative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 460). {John} (\I“anˆs\). One \n\ in Westcott and Hort. In the giving of the name see strkjv@Luke:1:59-63|, Hellenized form of Jonathan, Joanan (Gift of God), used always of the Baptist in this Gospel which never mentions the name of John son of Zebedee (the sons of Zebedee once, strkjv@21:2|).

rwp@John:1:12 @{As many as received him} (\hosoi elabon auton\). Effective aorist active indicative of \lamban“\ "as many as did receive him," in contrast with \hoi idioi\ just before, exceptional action on the part of the disciples and other believers. {To them} (\autois\). Dative case explanatory of the relative clause preceding, an anacoluthon common in John 27 times as against 21 in the Synoptists. This is a common Aramaic idiom and is urged by Burney (_Aramaic Origin_, etc., p. 64) for his theory of an Aramaic original of the Fourth Gospel. {The right} (\exousian\). In strkjv@5:27| \ed“ken\ (first aorist active indicative of \did“mi\) \exousian\ means authority but includes power (\dunamis\). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right. {To become} (\genesthai\). Second aorist middle of \ginomai\, to become what they were not before. {Children of God} (\tekna theou\). In the full spiritual sense, not as mere offspring of God true of all men (Acts:17:28|). Paul's phrase \huioi theou\ (Gal strkjv@3:26|) for believers, used also by Jesus of the pure in heart (Matthew:5:9|), does not occur in John's Gospel (but in strkjv@Revelation:21:7|). It is possible that John prefers \ta tekna tou theou\ for the spiritual children of God whether Jew or Gentile (John:11:52|) because of the community of nature (\teknon\ from root \tek-\, to beget)...But one cannot follow Westcott in...\huioi\ since Jesus uses \huioi theou\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:9|. Clearly the idea of regeneration is involved here as in strkjv@John:3:3|. {Even to them that believe} (\tois pisteuousin\). No "even" in the Greek, merely explanatory apposition with \autois\, dative case of the articular present active participle of \pisteu“\. {On his name} (\eis to onoma\). Bernard notes \pisteu“ eis\ 35 times in John, to put trust in or on. See also strkjv@2:23; strkjv@3:38| for \pisteu“ eis to onoma autou\. This common use of \onoma\ for the person is an Aramaism, but it occurs also in the vernacular papyri and \eis to onoma\ is particularly common in the payment of debts (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). See strkjv@Acts:1:15| for \onomata\ for persons.

rwp@John:1:15 @{Beareth witness} (\marturei\). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. strkjv@1:17f.|). See strkjv@1:32,34|...is a parenthesis in Westcott and...14|. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos. {Crieth} (\kekragen\). Second perfect active indicative of \kraz“\, old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years. {This was} (\houtos ˆn\). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in strkjv@Acts:3:10| where we should prefer "is" (\estin\). Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things." {Of whom I said} (\hon eipon\). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have \ho eip“n\ "the one who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ. {After me} (\opis“ mou\). See also strkjv@1:27|. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One" (\ho erchomenos\) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:3:11| \ho opis“ mou erchomenos\ (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:7|). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. {Is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking. {Before me} (\emprosthen mou\). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, \ho ischuroteros mou\ "the one mightier than I" (Mark:1:7|) and \ischuroteros mou\ "mightier than I" (Matthew:3:11|). In strkjv@John:3:28| \emprosthen ekeinou\ (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (John:3:25-30|). {For he was before me} (\hoti pr“tos mou ˆn\). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\ˆn imperfect\) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after" John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. \Pr“tos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular _Koin‚_. Songs:the Beloved Disciple came first (\pr“tos\) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4|). Songs:also \pr“ton hum“n\ in strkjv@15:18| means "before you" as if it were \proteron hum“n\. Verse 30| repeats these words almost exactly.

rwp@John:2:8 @{Draw out now} (\Antlˆsate nun\). First aorist active imperative of \antle“\, from \ho antlos\, bilge water, or the hold where the bilge water settles (so in Homer). The verb occurs in strkjv@John:4:7,15|...from the well, and Westcott so...-jars now full of water. Apparently the water was still water when it came out of the jars (verse 9|), but was changed to wine before reaching the guests. The water in the jars remained water. {Unto the ruler of the feast} (\t“i architriklin“i\). Dative case. The \triklinos\ was a room (\oikos\) with three couches (\klinˆ\) for the feast. The \architriklinos\ was originally the superintendent of the dining-room who arranged the couches and tasted the food, not the toast-master (\sumposiarchˆs\). {And they bare it} (\hoi de ˆnegkan\). Second aorist active indicative of \pher“\. Apparently not knowing at first that they bore wine.

rwp@John:2:17 @{Remembered} (\emnˆsthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \mimnˆsk“\...to remind, "were reminded." Westcott notes...{That it is written} (\hoti gegrammenon estin\). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of \graph“\ retained in indirect discourse (assertion). {The zeal of thine house} (\ho zˆlos tou oikou sou\). Objective genitive. "The zeal for thy house." {Shall eat me up} (\kataphagetai me\). Future middle indicative of \katesthi“\, defective verb, to eat down ("up" we say), perfective use of \kata-\. This future \phagomai\ is from the second aorist \ephagon\. It is a quotation from strkjv@Psalms:69:9|, frequently quoted in the N.T.

rwp@John:3:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one." {By night} (\nuktos\). Genitive of time. That he came at all is remarkable, not because there was any danger as was true at a later period, but because of his own prominence. He wished to avoid comment by other members of the Sanhedrin and others. Jesus had already provoked the opposition of the ecclesiastics by his assumption of Messianic authority over the temple. There is no ground for assigning this incident to a later period, for it suits perfectly here. Jesus was already in the public eye (2:23|) and the interest of Nicodemus was real and yet he wished to be cautious. {Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). See on ¯1:38|. Technically Jesus was not an acknowledged Rabbi of the schools, but Nicodemus does recognize him as such and calls him "My Master" just as Andrew and John did (1:38|). It was a long step for Nicodemus as a Pharisee to take, for the Pharisees had closely scrutinized the credentials of the Baptist in strkjv@1:19-24| (Milligan and Moulton's _Comm_.). {We know} (\oidamen\). Second perfect indicative first person plural. He seems to speak for others of his class as the blind man does in strkjv@9:31|. Westcott thinks that Nicodemus has been influenced partly by the report of the commission sent to the Baptist (1:19-27|). {Thou art a teacher come from God} (\apo theou elˆluthas didaskalos\). "Thou hast come from God as a teacher." Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\ and predicative nominative \didaskalos\. This is the explanation of Nicodemus for coming to Jesus, obscure Galilean peasant as he seemed, evidence that satisfied one of the leaders in Pharisaism. {Can do} (\dunatai poiein\). "Can go on doing" (present active infinitive of \poie“\ and so linear). {These signs that thou doest} (\tauta ta sˆmeia ha su poieis\). Those mentioned in strkjv@2:23| that convinced so many in the crowd and that now appeal to the scholar. Note \su\ (thou) as quite out of the ordinary. The scorn of Jesus by the rulers held many back to the end (John:12:42|), but Nicodemus dares to feel his way. {Except God be with him} (\ean mˆ ˆi ho theos met' autou\). Condition of the third class, presented as a probability, not as a definite fact. He wanted to know more of the teaching accredited thus by God. Jesus went about doing good because God was with him, Peter says (Acts:10:38|).

rwp@John:3:12 @{If I told} (\ei eipon\). Condition of the first class, assumed to be true. {Earthly things} (\ta epigeia\). Things upon the earth like \ta epi tˆs gˆs\ (Colossians:3:2|), not things of an earthly nature or worldly or sinful. The work of the kingdom of God including the new birth which Nicodemus did not understand belongs to \ta epigeia\. {If I tell you heavenly things} (\ean eip“ humin ta epourania\). Condition of the third class, undetermined. What will Nicodemus do in that case? By \ta epourania\ Jesus means the things that take place in heaven like the deep secrets of the purpose of God in the matter of redemption such as the necessity of the lifting up of Christ as shown in verse 14|. Both Godet and Westcott note that the two types of teaching here pointed out by Jesus (the earthly, the heavenly) correspond in general to the difference between the Synoptics (the earthly) and the Fourth Gospel (the heavenly), a difference noted here in the Fourth Gospel as shown by Jesus himself. Hence the one should not be pitted against the other. There are specimens of the heavenly in the Synoptics as in strkjv@Matthew:11:25ff.; strkjv@Luke:10:18ff|.

rwp@John:3:32 @{What he hath seen and heard} (\ho he“raken kai ˆkousen\)...active indicative, because, as Westcott shows,...{No man} (\oudeis\). There were crowds coming to Jesus, but they do not really accept him as Saviour and Lord (1:11; strkjv@2:24|). It is superficial as time will show. But "no one" is not to be pressed too far, for it is the rhetorical use.

rwp@John:7:38 @{He that believeth on me} (\ho pisteu“n eis eme\). Nominative absolute as is not uncommon. {The scripture} (\hˆ graphˆ\). No precise passage can be quoted, though similar idea in several (Isaiah:55:1; strkjv@58:11; strkjv@Zechariah:13:1; strkjv@14:8; strkjv@Ezekiel:47:1; strkjv@Joel:3:18|). Chrysostom confines it to strkjv@Isaiah:28:16| by punctuation (only the nominative absolute as the Scripture). {Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water} (\potamoi ek tˆs koilias autou reusousin hudatos z“ntos\). Some ancient Western writers connect \pinet“\ of verse 37| with \ho pisteu“n\ in verse 38|. By this arrangement \autou\ (his) with \koilias\ is made to refer to Christ, not to the believer. Burney argues that \koilia\ is a mistranslation of the Aramaic (fountain, not belly) and that the reference is to strkjv@Ezekiel:47:1|. C.C. Torrey refers to strkjv@Zechariah:14:8|. But the Eastern writers refer \autou\ (his) to the believer who not only quenches in Christ his own thirst, but becomes a source of new streams for others (John:4:14|)...a difficult question and Westcott finally...\autou\ to refer to Christ. \Reusousin\ is future active indicative of \re“\, old verb, to flow, here only in the N.T.

rwp@John:7:52 @{Art thou also of Galilee?} (\Mˆ kai su ek tˆs Galilaias ei;\). Formally negative answer expected by \mˆ\, but really they mean to imply that Nicodemus from local feeling or prejudice has lined himself up with this Galilean mob (\ochlos\) of sympathizers with Jesus and is like Jesus himself a Galilean. "These aristocrats of Jerusalem had a scornful contempt for the rural Galileans" (Bernard). {That out of Galilee ariseth no prophet} (\hoti ek tˆs Galilaias prophˆtˆs ouk egeiretai\)...regardless of the facts. Westcott suggests...

rwp@John:7:53 @This verse and through strkjv@8:12| (the passage concerning the woman taken in adultery) is certainly not a genuine part of John's Gospel. The oldest and best MSS. (Aleph A B C L W)...the passage in brackets. Westcott and...{They went} (\eporeuthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \poreuomai\ used as a deponent verb without passive idea. In this context the verb has to refer to the Sanhedrin with a rather pointless contrast to Jesus.

rwp@John:8:25 @{Who art thou?} (\Su tis ei;\). Proleptic use of \su\ before \tis\, "Thou, who art thou?" Cf. strkjv@1:19|. He had virtually claimed to be the Messiah and on a par with God as in strkjv@5:15|. They wish to pin him down and to charge him with blasphemy. {Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning} (\tˆn archˆn hoti kai lal“ humin\)...treat it as affirmative. Westcott and...\tˆn archˆn\ cannot mean "from the beginning" like \ap' archˆs\ (15:27|) or \ex archˆs\ (16:4|). The LXX has \tˆn archˆn\ for "at the beginning" or "at the first" (Genesis:43:20|). There are examples in Greek, chiefly negative, where \tˆn archˆn\ means "at all," "essentially," "primarily." Vincent and Bernard so take it here, "Primarily what I am telling you." Jesus avoids the term Messiah with its political connotations. He stands by his high claims already made.

rwp@John:8:39 @{Our father is Abraham} (\ho patˆr hˆm“n Abraam estin\). They saw the implication and tried to counter it by repeating their claim in verse 33| which was true so far as physical descent went as Jesus had admitted (verse 37|). {If ye were} (\ei este\). Strictly, "if ye are" as ye claim, a condition of the first class assumed to be true. {Ye would do} (\epoieite an\). Read by C L N and a corrector of Aleph while W omits \an\. This makes a mixed condition (protasis of the first class, apodosis of the second. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1022). But B reads \poieite\ like the Sin. Syriac which has to be treated as imperative (so Westcott and Hort).

rwp@John:8:44 @{Ye are of your father the devil} (\humeis ek tou patros tou diabolou\). Certainly they can "understand" (\gin“skete\ in 43|) this "talk" (\lalian\) though they will be greatly angered. But they had to hear it (\akouein\ in 43|). It was like a bombshell in spite of the preliminary preparation. {Your will to do} (\thelete poiein\). Present active indicative of \thel“\ and present active infinitive, "Ye wish to go on doing." This same idea Jesus presents in strkjv@Matthew:13:38| (the sons of the evil one, the devil) and strkjv@23:15| (twofold more a son of Gehenna than you). See also strkjv@1John:3:8| for "of the devil" (\ek tou diabolou\) for the one who persists in sinning. In strkjv@Revelation:12:9| the devil is one who leads all the world astray. The Gnostic view that Jesus means "the father of the devil" is grotesque. Jesus does not, of course, here deny that the Jews, like all men, are children of God the Creator, like Paul's offspring of God for all men in strkjv@Acts:17:28|. What he denies to these Pharisees is that they are spiritual children of God who do his will. They do the lusts and will of the devil. The Baptist had denied this same spiritual fatherhood to the merely physical descendants of Abraham (Matthew:3:9|). He even called them "broods of vipers" as Jesus did later (Matthew:12:34|). {A murderer} (\anthr“poktonos\). Old and rare word (Euripides) from \anthr“pos\, man, and \ktein“\, to kill. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1John:3:15|. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus and so like their father the devil. {Stood not in the truth} (\en tˆi alˆtheiƒi ouk estˆken\). Since \ouk\, not \ouch\, is genuine, the form of the verb is \esteken\ the imperfect of the late present stem \stˆk“\ (Mark:11:25|) from the perfect active \hestˆka\ (intransitive) of \histˆmi\, to place. {No truth in him} (\ouk estin alˆtheia en aut“i\). Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. {When he speaketh a lie} (\hotan lalˆi to pseudos\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the present active subjunctive of \lale“\. But note the article \to\: "Whenever he speaks the lie," as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence "he speaks out of his own" (\ek t“n idi“n lalei\) like a fountain bubbling up (cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:34|). {For he is a liar} (\hoti pseustˆs estin\). Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood (\pseudos\). See strkjv@1John:1:10; strkjv@Romans:3:4|. Common word in John because of the emphasis on \alˆtheia\ (truth). {And the father thereof} (\kai ho patˆr autou\). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. {Autou}...either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes...(the devil) is a liar," making "one," not the devil, the subject of "whenever he speaks," a very doubtful expression.

rwp@John:9:1 @{As he passed by} (\parag“n\). Present active participle of \parag“\, old verb to go along, by, or past (Matthew:20:30|). Only example in this Gospel, but in strkjv@1John:2:8,17|...feast of dedication as Westcott argues....(10:22|). {From his birth} (\ek genetˆs\). Ablative case with \ek\ of old word from \gen“, ginomai\. Here alone in N.T., but the phrase \tuphlos ek genetˆs\ is common in Greek writers. Probably a well-known character with his stand as a beggar (verse 5|).

rwp@John:10:22 @{And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem} (\egeneto de ta enkainia en tois Ierosolumois\). But Westcott and Hort read \tote\ (then) instead of \de\ (and) on the authority of B L W 33 and some versions. This is probably correct: "At that time came the feast of dedication in Jerusalem." \Tote\ does not mean that the preceding events followed immediately after the incidents in strkjv@10:1-21|. Bernard brings chapter 9 up to this date (possibly also chapter 8) and rearranges chapter 10 in a purely arbitrary way. There is no real reason for this arrangement. Clearly there is a considerable lapse between the events in strkjv@10:22-39| and strkjv@10:1-21|, possibly nearly three months (from just after tabernacles strkjv@7:37| to dedication strkjv@10:22|). The Pharisees greet his return with the same desire to catch him. This feast of dedication, celebrated for eight days about the middle of our December, was instituted by Judas Maccabeus B.C. 164 in commemoration of the cleansing of the temple from the defilements of pagan worship by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Macc. strkjv@4:59). The word \enkainia\ (\en\, \kainos\, new) occurs here only in the N.T. It was not one of the great feasts and could be observed elsewhere without coming to Jerusalem. Jesus had apparently spent the time between tabernacles and dedication in Judea (Luke:10:1-13:21|). {Winter} (\cheim“n\). Old word from \cheima\ (\che“\, to pour, rain, or from \chi“n\, snow). See strkjv@Matthew:24:20|.

rwp@John:11:30 @{Now Jesus was not yet come into the town} (\oup“ de elˆluthei ho Iˆsous eis tˆn k“mˆn\). Explanatory parenthesis with past perfect as in verse 19|. Martha had her interview while he was still coming (verse 20|) and left him (went off, \apˆlthen\, verse 28|)...we do not know. Westcott says,...

rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoiˆsan oun aut“i deipnon ekei\). Here again \oun\ is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark:14:3-9|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6-13|) just two days (Mark:14:1|) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9|) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1|)...to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes...12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11|), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19|), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a|), and with two summary judgements (36b-50|). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke:7:36-50|). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. {And Martha served} (\kai hˆ Martha diˆkonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone“\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\pollˆn diakonian\, \diakonein\ as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6|) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke:7:36|), but Simon the leper (Mark:14:3; strkjv@Matthew:26:6|) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. {That sat at meat} (\t“n anakeimen“n\). "That lay back," reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after \ek\) of the common verb \anakeimai\. Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John:12:9|). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.

rwp@John:12:9 @{The common people} (\ho ochlos polus\). This is the right reading with the article \ho\, literally, "the people much or in large numbers." One is reminded of the French idiom. Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 284) gives a few rare examples of the idiom \ho anˆr agathos\. Westcott suggests that \ochlos polus\ came to be regarded as a compound noun. This is the usual order in the N.T. rather than \polus ochlos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 774). Mark (Mark:12:37|) has \ho polus ochlos\. Moulton (_Proleg_., p. 84) terms \ho ochlos polus\ here and in verse 12| "a curious misplacement of the article." John's use of \ochlos\ is usually the common crowd as "riff-raff." {That he was} (\hoti estin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse after the secondary tense (\egn“\, second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\). These "Jews" are not all hostile to Jesus as in strkjv@5:10; strkjv@6:41|, etc., but included some who were friendly (verse 11|). {But that they might see Lazarus also} (\all' hina kai ton Lazaron id“sin\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \hora“\. Motive enough to gather a great crowd, to see one raised from the dead (cf. verse 1| for the same phrase, "whom he had raised from the dead"). Some of the very witnesses of the raising of Lazarus will bear witness later (verse 17|). It was a tense situation.

rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\hˆ psuchˆ mou\). The soul (\psuchˆ\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass“\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip“;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, s“son me ek tˆs h“ras tautˆs\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|)...be a question also. Westcott draws...\ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto ˆlthon eis tˆn h“ran tautˆn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.

rwp@John:12:32 @{And I, if I be lifted from the earth} (\kag“ an hups“th“ ek tˆs gˆs\). Note proleptic position of \eg“\ (I). Condition of third class (undetermined with prospect) with \an\ (=\ean\ here) with first aorist passive subjunctive of \hupso“\, the verb used in strkjv@3:14| of the brazen serpent and of the Cross of Christ as here and also in strkjv@8:28|. Westcott again presses \ek\ instead of \apo\ to make it refer to the ascension rather than to the Cross, a wrong interpretation surely. {Will draw all men unto myself} (\pantas helkus“ pros emauton\). Future active of \helku“\, late form of \helk“\, to draw, to attract. Jesus had already used this verb of the Father's drawing power (6:44|). The magnetism of the Cross is now known of all men, however little they understand the mystery of the Cross. By "all men" (\pantas\) Jesus does not mean every individual man, for some, as Simeon said (Luke:2:34|) are repelled by Christ, but this is the way that Greeks (verse 22|) can and will come to Christ, by the way of the Cross, the only way to the Father (14:6|).

rwp@John:12:49 @{He hath given} (\ded“ken\). Perfect active indicative. Christ has permanent commission. {What I should say and what I should speak} (\ti eip“ kai ti lalˆs“\). Indirect question retaining the deliberative subjunctive (second aorist active \eip“\, first aorist active \lalˆs“\). Meyer and Westcott take \eip“\ to refer to the content and \lalˆs“\ more to the varying manner of delivery. Possibly so.

rwp@John:17:3 @{Should know} (\gin“sk“sin\). Present active subjunctive with \hina\ (subject clause), "should keep on knowing." {Even Jesus Christ} (\Iˆsoun Christon\). See strkjv@1:17|...create difficulty, unless, as Westcott suggests,...\Christon\ be regarded as a predicate accusative, "Jesus as the Christ" (Messiah). Otherwise the words would seem to be John's parenthetical interpretation of the idea of Jesus. Lucke thinks that the solemnity of this occasion explains Jesus referring to himself in the third person. The knowledge of "the only true God" is through Jesus Christ (14:6-9|).

rwp@John:17:25 @{O righteous Father} (\Patˆr dikaie\). Nominative form with \patˆr\ used as vocative (cf. strkjv@John:20:28|), but vocative form \dikaie\. Then the righteousness of God is appealed to like God's holiness in verse 11|. {The world} (\kai ho kosmos\). The translations usually slur over the \kai\...as untranslatable in English. Westcott suggests...\kai\ is almost concessive like "though" and \de\=yet: "though the world did not know thee, yet I knew thee, and these knew thee." See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1182 for \kai--de--kai\ and various other uses of \kai\ in John's Gospel.

rwp@John:20:5 @{Stooping and looking in} (\parakupsas\). Originally to stoop and look, but in the LXX (Genesis:26:8; strkjv@Judges:5:28; strkjv@1Kings:6:4|, etc.) and the papyri rather just to peep in and so Field (_Ot. Norv_.) urges here. See also verse 11; strkjv@Luke:24:12| (the verse bracketed by Westcott and Hort). For \othonia\ (linen cloth) see strkjv@John:19:40|. {Lying} (\keimena\). Present middle participle of \keimai\, predicative accusative. John notices this fact at once. If the body had been removed, these clothes would have gone also. John's timid nature made him pause (yet, \mentoi\, however).

rwp@John:20:12 @{Beholdeth} (\the“rei\). Vivid historical present again as in verses 6,14|...seen the two angels. Westcott suggests...16:5| (a young man in a white robe), strkjv@Matthew:28:5| (the angel), strkjv@Luke:24:4| (two men in dazzling apparel). For other angels in John's Gospel see strkjv@1:41; strkjv@12:29; strkjv@20:12|. {Had lain} (\ekeito\). Imperfect in progressive sense, "had been lying," though not there now.

rwp@Luke:5:39 @{The old is good} (\Hosea:palaios chrˆstos estin\). Songs:the best MSS. rather that \chrˆstoteros\, comparative (better). Westcott and Hort wrongly bracket the whole verse, though occurring in Aleph, B C L and most of the old documents. It is absent in D and some of the old Latin MSS. It is the philosophy of the obscurantist, that is here pictured by Christ. "The prejudiced person will not even try the new, or admit that it has any merits. He knows that the old is pleasant, and suits him; and that is enough; he is not going to change" (Plummer). This is Christ's picture of the reactionary Pharisees.

rwp@Luke:6:1 @{On a sabbath} (\en sabbat“i\). This is the second sabbath on which Jesus is noted by Luke. The first was strkjv@Luke:4:31-41|. There was another in strkjv@John:5:1-47|. There is Western and Syrian (Byzantine) evidence for a very curious reading here which calls this sabbath "secondfirst" (\deuteropr“t“i\)...is undoubtedly spurious, though Westcott and...(\pr“t“i\) on the margin because of the sabbath miracle in strkjv@Luke:6:6-11|. Then another scribe recalled strkjv@Luke:4:31| where a sabbath is mentioned and wrote "second" (\deuter“i\) also on the margin. Finally a third scribe combined the two in the word \deuteropr“t“i\ that is not found elsewhere. If it were genuine, we should not know what it means. {Plucked} (\etillon\). Imperfect active. They were plucking as they went on through (\diaporeuesthai\). Whether wheat or barley, we do not know, not our "corn" (maize). {Did eat} (\ˆsthion\). Imperfect again. See on ¯Matthew:12:1f.; strkjv@Mark:2:23f.| for the separate acts in supposed violence of the sabbath laws. {Rubbing them in their hands} (\ps“chontes tais chersin\). Only in Luke and only here in the N.T. This was one of the chief offences. "According to Rabbinical notions, it was reaping, threshing, winnowing, and preparing food all at once" (Plummer). These Pharisees were straining out gnats and swallowing camels! This verb \ps“ch“\ is a late one for \psa“\, to rub.

rwp@Luke:6:13 @{When it was day} (\hote egeneto hˆmera\). When day came, after the long night of prayer. {He chose from them twelve} (\eklexamenos ap' aut“n d“deka\). The same root (\leg\) was used for picking out, selecting and then for saying. There was a large group of "disciples" or "learners" whom he "called" to him (\proseph“nˆsen\), and from among whom he chose (of himself, and for himself, indirect middle voice (\eklexamenos\). It was a crisis in the work of Christ. Jesus assumed full responsibility even for the choice of Judas who was not forced upon Jesus by the rest of the Twelve. "You did not choose me, but I chose you," (John:15:16|) where Jesus uses \exelexasthe\ and \exelexamˆn\ as here by Luke. {Whom also he named apostles} (\hous kai apostolous “nomasen\). Songs:then Jesus gave the twelve chosen disciples this appellation. Aleph and B have these same words in strkjv@Mark:3:14|...of the Harclean Syriac. Westcott and...3:14|, but it remains doubtful whether they were not brought into Mark from strkjv@Luke:6:13| where they are undoubtedly genuine. See strkjv@Matthew:10:2| where the connection with sending them out by twos in the third tour of Galilee. The word is derived from \apostell“\, to send (Latin, _mitto_) and apostle is missionary, one sent. Jesus applies the term to himself (\apesteilas\, strkjv@John:17:3|) as does strkjv@Hebrews:3:1|. The word is applied to others, like Barnabas, besides these twelve including the Apostle Paul who is on a par with them in rank and authority, and even to mere messengers of the churches (2Corinthians:8:23|). But these twelve apostles stand apart from all others in that they were all chosen at once by Jesus himself "that they might be with him" (Mark:3:14|), to be trained by Jesus himself and to interpret him and his message to the world. In the nature of the case they could have no successors as they had to be personal witnesses to the life and resurrection of Jesus (Acts:1:22|). The selection of Matthias to succeed Judas cannot be called a mistake, but it automatically ceased. For discussion of the names and groups in the list see discussion on ¯Matthew:10:1-4; strkjv@Mark:3:14-19|.

rwp@Luke:6:35 @{But} (\plˆn\). Plain adversative like \plˆn\ in verse 24|. Never despairing (\mˆden apelpizontes\). \Mˆden\...is the reading of Westcott and...\mˆdena\ is translated "despairing of no man." The Authorized Version has it "hoping for nothing again," a meaning for \apelpiz“\ with no parallel elsewhere. Field (_Otium Nor._ iii. 40) insists that all the same the context demands this meaning because of \apelpizein\ in verse 34|, but the correct reading there is \elpizein\, not \apelpizein\. Here Field's argument falls to the ground. The word occurs in Polybius, Diodorus, LXX with the sense of despairing and that is the meaning here. D and Old Latin documents have _nihil desperantes_, but the Vulgate has _nihil inde sperantes_ (hoping for nothing thence) and this false rendering has wrought great havoc in Europe. "On the strength of it Popes and councils have repeatedly condemned the taking of any interest whatever for loans. As loans could not be had without interest, and Christians were forbidden to take it, money lending passed into the hands of the Jews, and added greatly to the unnatural detestation in which Jews were held" (Plummer). By "never despairing" or "giving up nothing in despair" Jesus means that we are not to despair about getting the money back. We are to help the apparently hopeless cases. Medical writers use the word for desperate or hopeless cases. {Sons of the Most High} (\huoi Hupsistou\). In strkjv@1:32| Jesus is called "Son of the Highest" and here all real children or sons of God (Luke:20:36|) are so termed. See also strkjv@1:35,76| for the use of "the Highest" of God. He means the same thing that we see in strkjv@Matthew:5:45,48| by "your Father." {Toward the unthankful and evil} (\epi tous acharistous kai ponˆrous\). God the Father is kind towards the unkind and wicked. Note the one article with both adjectives.

rwp@Luke:7:2 @{Centurion's servant} (\Hekatontarchou tinos doulos\). Slave of a certain centurion (Latin word \centurio\, commander of a century or hundred). strkjv@Mark:15:39,44| has the Latin word in Greek letters, \kenturi“n\. The centurion commanded a company which varied from fifty to a hundred. Each cohort had six centuries. Each legion had ten cohorts or bands (Acts:10:1|). The centurions mentioned in the N.T. all seem to be fine men as Polybius states that the best men in the army had this position. See also strkjv@Luke:23:47|. The Greek has two forms of the word, both from \hekaton\, hundred, and \arch“\, to rule, and they appear to be used interchangeably. Songs:we have \hekatontarchos\; here, the form is \-archos\, and \hekatontarchˆs\, the form is \-archˆs\ in verse 6|. The manuscripts differ about it in almost every instance. The \-archos\...form is accepted by Westcott and...7:2| and the accusative singular in strkjv@Acts:22:25|. See like variation between them in strkjv@Matthew:8:5,8| (\-archos\) and strkjv@Matthew:8:13| (\archˆi\). Songs:also \-archon\ (Acts:22:25|) and \-archˆs\ (Acts:22:26|). {Dear to him} (\aut“i entimos\). Held in honour, prized, precious, dear (Luke:14:8; strkjv@1Peter:2:4; strkjv@Phillipians:2:29|), common Greek word. Even though a slave he was dear to him. {Was sick} (\kak“s ech“n\). Having it bad. Common idiom. See already strkjv@Matthew:4:24; strkjv@8:16; strkjv@Mark:2:17; strkjv@Luke:5:31|, etc. strkjv@Matthew:8:6| notes that the slave was a paralytic. {And at the point of death} (\ˆmellen teleutƒin\). Imperfect active of \mell“\ (note double augment \ˆ\) which is used either with the present infinitive as here, the aorist (Revelation:3:16|), or even the future because of the future idea in \mell“\ (Acts:11:28; strkjv@24:15|). He was about to die.

rwp@Luke:7:19 @{Calling unto him} (\proskalesamenos\). First aorist middle (indirect) participle. {Two} (\duo tinas\). Certain two. Not in strkjv@Matthew:11:2|. {Saying} (\leg“n\). John saying by the two messengers. The message is given precisely alike in strkjv@Matthew:11:3|, which see. In both we have \heteron\ for "another," either a second or a different kind. In verse 20| Westcott and Hort read \allon\ in the text, \heteron\ in the margin. \Prosdok“men\, may be present indicative or present subjunctive (deliberative), the same contract form (\ao= “, a“ “\).

rwp@Luke:8:43 @{Had spent all her living upon physicians} (\eis iatrous prosanal“sasa holon ton bion\). First aorist active participle of an old verb \prosanalisk“\...in the N.T. But Westcott and...5:26| certainly is not in Luke: "had suffered many things of many physicians." Probably both are not genuine in Luke who takes care of the physicians by the simple statement that it was a chronic case: {could not be healed of any} (\ouk ischusen ap' oudenos therapeuthˆnai\). He omitted also what Mark has: "and was nothing bettered but rather grew worse."

rwp@Luke:9:18 @{As he was praying} (\en t“i einai auton proseuchomenon\). Common Lukan idiom of \en\ with the articular infinitive for a temporal clause, only here Luke has the periphrastic infinitive (\einai proseuchomenon\) as also in strkjv@11:1|. This item about Christ's praying alone in Luke. {Alone} (\kata monas\). In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:4:10|. Perhaps \ch“ras\ (places) is to be supplied with \monas\ (lonely places). {Were with him} (\sunˆsan aut“i\). This seems like a contradiction unless "alone" is to be taken with \sunˆsan\. Westcott and Hort put \sunˆntˆsan\ in the margin. This would mean that as Jesus was praying alone, the disciples fell in with him. At any rate he was praying apart from them.

rwp@Luke:9:52 @{Sent messengers} (\apesteilen aggelous\). As a precaution since he was going to Jerusalem through Samaria. The Samaritans did not object when people went north from Jerusalem through their country. He was repudiating Mount Gerizim by going by it to Jerusalem. This was an unusual precaution by Jesus and we do not know who the messengers ({angels}) were. {To make ready for him} (\h“s hetoimasai aut“i\). \H“s\ is correct here, not \h“ste\. The only examples of the final use of \h“s\ with the infinitive in the N.T. are this one and strkjv@Hebrews:7:9| (absolute use). In Acts strkjv@20:24| Westcott and Hort read \h“s telei“s“\ and put \h“s telei“sai\ in the margin (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1091).

rwp@Luke:10:41 @{Art anxious} (\merimnƒis\). An old verb for worry and anxiety from \meriz“\ (\meris\, part) to be divided, distracted. Jesus had warned against this in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew:6:25,28,31,34|. See also strkjv@Luke:12:11,22,26|). {And troubled} (\kai thorubazˆi\). From \thorubazomai\, a verb found nowhere else so far. Many MSS. here have the usual form \turbazˆi\, from \turbaz“\. Apparently from \thorubos\, a common enough word for tumult. Martha had both inward anxiety and outward agitation. {But one thing is needful} (\henos de estin chreia\). This is the reading of A C and may be correct. A few manuscripts have: "There is need of few things." Aleph B L (and Westcott and Hort) have: "There is need of few things or one," which seems like a conflate reading though the readings are all old. See Robertson, _Introduction to Textual Criticism of the N.T._, p. 190. Jesus seems to say to Martha that only one dish was really necessary for the meal instead of the "many" about which she was so anxious.

rwp@Luke:11:11 @{Of which of you that is a father} (\tina de ex hum“n ton patera\)...deal. The text of Westcott and...\ton patera\ (the father) in apposition with \tina\ (of whom) and in the accusative the object of \aitˆsei\ (shall ask) which has also another accusative (both person and thing) "a loaf." Songs:far so good. But the rest of the sentence is, {will ye give him a stone?} (\mˆ lithon epid“sei aut“i;\). \Mˆ\ shows that the answer No is expected, but the trouble is that the interrogative \tina\ in the first clause is in the accusative the object of \aitˆsei\ while here the same man (he) is the subject of \epid“sei\. It is a very awkward piece of Greek and yet it is intelligible. Some of the old MSS. do not have the part about "loaf" and "stone," but only the two remaining parts about "fish" and "serpent," "egg" and "scorpion." The same difficult construction is carried over into these questions also.

rwp@Luke:11:46 @{Grievous to be borne} (\dusbastakta\). A late word in LXX and Plutarch (\dus\ and \bastaz“\)...alone in text of Westcott and...23:4| where we have "heavy burdens" (\phortia barea\). In Gal strkjv@6:2| we have \barˆ\ with a distinction drawn. Here we have \phortizete\ (here only in the N.T. and strkjv@Matthew:11:28|) for "lade," \phortia\ as cognate accusative and then \phortiois\ (dative after \ou prospsauete\, touch not). It is a fierce indictment of scribes (lawyers) for their pettifogging interpretations of the written law in their oral teaching (later written down as _Mishna_ and then as _Gemarah_), a terrible load which these lawyers did not pretend to carry themselves, not even "with one of their fingers" to "touch" (\prospsau“\, old verb but only here in the N.T.), touch with the view to remove. strkjv@Matthew:23:4| has \kinˆsai\, to move. A physician would understand the meaning of \prospau“\ for feeling gently a sore spot or the pulse.

rwp@Luke:11:50 @{That... may be required} (\hina... ekzˆtˆthˆi\). Divinely ordered sequence, first aorist passive subjunctive of \ekzˆte“\, a late and rare verb outside of LXX and N.T., requiring as a debt the blood of the prophets. {Which was shed} (\to ekkechumenon\). Perfect passive participle of \ekche“\ and \ekchunn“\ (...in the margin of Westcott and...\ekchunnomenon\, present passive participle). If the present passive is accepted, it means the blood which is perpetually shed from time to time. {From the foundation of the world} (\apo katabolˆs kosmou\). See also strkjv@Matthew:25:34; strkjv@John:17:24; strkjv@Ephesians:1:4|, etc. It is a bold metaphor for the purpose of God.

rwp@Luke:12:21 @{Not rich toward God} (\mˆ eis theon plout“n\). The only wealth that matters and that lasts. Cf. strkjv@16:9; strkjv@Matthew:6:19f|...not have this verse. Westcott and...

rwp@Luke:13:5 @{Except ye repent} (\ean mˆ metanoˆsˆte\). First aorist active subjunctive, immediate repentance in contrast to continued repentance, \metanoˆte\ in verse 3|, though Westcott and Hort put \metanoˆte\ in the margin here. The interpretation of accidents is a difficult matter, but the moral pointed out by Jesus is obvious.

rwp@Luke:13:25 @{When once} (\aph' hou an\). Possibly to be connected without break with the preceding verse (so Westcott and Hort), though Bruce argues for two parables here, the former (verse 24|) about being in earnest, while this one (verses 25-30|) about not being too late. The two points are here undoubtedly. It is an awkward construction, \aph' hou = apo toutou hote\ with \an\ and the aorist subjunctive (\egerthˆi\ and \apokleisˆi\). See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 978. {Hath shut to} (\apokleisˆi\), first aorist active subjunctive of \apoklei“\, old verb, but only here in the N.T. Note effective aorist tense and perfective use of \apo\, slammed the door fast. {And ye begin} (\kai arxˆsthe\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \archomai\ with \aph' hou an\ like \egerthˆi\ and \apokleisˆi\. {To stand} (\hestanai\). Second perfect active infinitive of \histˆmi\, intransitive tense {and to knock} (\kai krouein\). Present active infinitive, to keep on knocking. {Open to us} (\anoixon hˆmin\). First aorist active imperative, at once and urgent. {He shall say} (\erei\). Future active of \eipon\ (defective verb). This is probably the apodosis of the \aph' hou\ clause.

rwp@Luke:13:26 @{Shall ye begin} (\arxesthe\). Future middle, though Westcott and Hort put \arxˆsthe\ (aorist middle subjunctive of \archomai\) and in that case a continuation of the \aph' hou\ construction. It is a difficult passage and the copyists had trouble with it. {In thy presence} (\en“pion sou\). As guests or hosts or neighbours some claim, or the master of the house. It is grotesque to claim credit because Christ taught in their streets, but they are hard run for excuses and claims.

rwp@Luke:13:28 @{There} (\ekei\). Out there, outside the house whence they are driven. {When ye shall see} (\hotan opsˆsthe\). First aorist middle subjunctive (of a late aorist \“psamˆn\) of \hora“\, though \opsesthe\ (future middle) in margin of Westcott and Hort, unless we admit here a "future" subjunctive like Byzantine Greek (after Latin). {And yourselves cast forth without} (\humƒs de ekballomenous ex“\). Present passive participle, continuous action, "you being cast out" with the door shut. See on ¯Matthew:8:11f.| for this same picture.

rwp@Luke:14:5 @{An ass or an ox} (\onos ˆ bous\). But Westcott and Hort \huios ˆ bous\ ({a son or an ox}). The manuscripts are much divided between \huios\ (son) and \onos\ (ass) which in the abbreviated uncials looked much alike (TC, OC) and were much alike. The sentence in the Greek reads literally thus: Whose ox or ass of you shall fall (\peseitai\, future middle of \pipto\) into a well and he (the man) will not straightway draw him up (\anaspasei\, future active of \anaspa“\) on the sabbath day? The very form of the question is a powerful argument and puts the lawyers and the Pharisees hopelessly on the defensive.

rwp@Luke:15:16 @{He would fain have been filled} (\epethumei chortasthˆnai\). Literally, he was desiring (longing) to be filled. Imperfect indicative and first aorist passive infinitive. \Chortasthˆnai\ is from \chortaz“\ and that from \chortos\ (grass)...grass or with anything. Westcott and...\gemisai tˆn koilian autou\ in the margin (the Textus Receptus). {With the husks} (\ek t“n kerati“n\). The word occurs here alone in the N.T. and is a diminutive of \keras\ (horn) and so means little horn. It is used in various senses, but here refers to the pods of the carob tree or locust tree still common in Palestine and around the Mediterannean, so called from the shape of the pods like little horns, _Bockshornbaum_ in German or goat's-horn tree. The gelatinous substance inside has a sweetish taste and is used for feeding swine and even for food by the lower classes. It is sometimes called Saint John's Bread from the notion that the Baptist ate it in the wilderness. {No man gave unto him} (\oudeis edidou aut“i\). Imperfect active. Continued refusal of anyone to allow him even the food of the hogs.

rwp@Luke:15:29 @{Do I serve thee} (\douleu“ soi\). Progressive present tense of this old verb from \doulos\ (slave) which the elder son uses to picture his virtual slavery in staying at home and perhaps with longings to follow the younger son (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 879). {Transgressed} (\parˆlthon\). Second aorist active indicative of \parerchomai\, to pass by. Not even once (aorist) in contrast with so many years of service (linear present). {A kid} (\eriphon\). Some MSS. have \eriphion\...little kid. Songs:margin of Westcott and...25:32|, the only other N.T. passage where the word occurs. {That I might make merry} (\hina euphranth“\). Final clause, first aorist passive subjunctive of the same verb used in verses 23,25|.

rwp@Luke:16:12 @{That which is your own} (\to h–meteron\). But Westcott and Hort read \to hˆmeteron\ (our own) because of B L Origen. The difference is due to itacism in the pronunciation of \h–-\ and \hˆ\ alike (long \i\). But the point in the passage calls for "yours" as correct. Earthly wealth is ours as a loan, a trust, withdrawn at any moment. It belongs to another (\en t“i allotri“i\). If you did not prove faithful in this, who will give you what is really yours forever? Compare "rich toward God" (Luke:12:21|).

rwp@Luke:17:2 @{It were well for him} (\lusitelei aut“i\). An old word, but only here in the N.T., from \lusitelˆs\ and this from \lu“\, to pay, and \ta telˆ\, the taxes. Songs:it pays the taxes, it returns expenses, it is profitable. Literally here, "It is profitable for him" (dative case, \aut“i\). Matthew has \sumpherei\ (it is advantageous, bears together for). {If a millstone were hanged} (\ei lithos mulikos perikeitai\). Literally, "if a millstone is hanged." Present passive indicative from \perikeimai\ (to lie or be placed around). It is used as a perfect passive of \peritithˆmi\. Songs:it is a first-class condition, determined as fulfilled, not second-class as the English translations imply. \Mulikos\ is simply a stone (\lithos\)...in the text of Westcott and...9:42| which is like strkjv@Matthew:18:6| \mulos onikos\ where the upper millstone is turned by an ass, which see. {Were thrown} (\erriptai\). Perfect passive indicative from \rhipt“\, old verb. Literally, is thrown or has been thrown or cast or hurled. Mark has \beblˆtai\ and Matthew \katapontisthˆi\, which see, all three verbs vivid and expressive. Rather than (\ˆ\). The comparative is not here expressed before \ˆ\ as one would expect. It is implied in \lusitelei\. See the same idiom in strkjv@Luke:15:7|.

rwp@Luke:17:12 @{Which stood afar off} (\hoi anestˆsan porr“then\). The margin of Westcott and Hort reads simply \estˆsan\. The compound read by B means "rose up," but they stood at a distance (Leviticus:13:45f.|). The first healing of a leper (5:12-16|) like this is given by Luke only.

rwp@Luke:17:23 @{Go not away nor follow after them} (\mˆ apelthˆte mˆde di“xˆte\). Westcott and Hort bracket \apelthˆte mˆde\. Note aorist subjunctive with \mˆ\ in prohibition, ingressive aorist. Do not rush after those who set times and places for the second advent. The Messiah was already present in the first advent (verse 21|) though the Pharisees did not know it.

rwp@Luke:18:30 @{Shall not receive} (\ouchi mˆ labˆi\). Very strong double negative with aorist active subjunctive of \lamban“\. {Manifold more} (\pollaplasiona\). Late Greek word, here alone in the N.T. save strkjv@Matthew:19:29| where Westcott and Hort have it though many MSS. there read \hekatonplasiona\ (a hundredfold) as in strkjv@Mark:10:30|.

rwp@Luke:18:36 @{Inquired} (\epunthaneto\). Imperfect middle. Repeatedly inquired as he heard the tramp of the passing crowd going by (\diaporeuomenou\). {What this meant} (\Ti eiˆ touto\). Literally, What it was. Without \an\ the optative is due to indirect discourse, changed from \estin\. With \an\ (margin of Westcott and Hort) the potential optative of the direct discourse is simply retained.

rwp@Luke:19:13 @{Trade ye herewith till I come} (\pragmateusasthe en h“i erchomai\). First aorist middle imperative of \pragmateuomai\, an old verb from \prƒgma\...only in the N.T. Westcott and...\pragmateusasthai\, first aorist middle infinitive (\-ai\ and \-e\ were pronounced alike). The infinitive makes it indirect discourse, the imperative direct. {While I am coming} is what \en h“i erchomai\ really means.

rwp@Luke:19:22 @{Thou knewest} (\ˆideis\). Second past perfect of \hora“\, to see, used as imperfect of \oida\...as a question as Westcott and...(\ponˆros\) slave are turned to his own condemnation.

rwp@Luke:20:2 @{Tell us} (\eipon hˆmin\). Luke adds these words to what Mark and Matthew have. Second aorist active imperative for the old form \eipe\ and with ending \-on\...the first aorist active. Westcott and...\eipon\, but the Revised Version puts a semicolon after "us" and retains the direct question. The Greek manuscripts have no punctuation.

rwp@Luke:22:20 @{After the supper} (\meta to deipnˆsai\). Preposition \meta\ and the accusative articular infinitive. The textual situation here is confusing, chiefly because of the two cups (verses 17,20|). Some of the documents omit the latter part of verse 19| and all of verse 20|. It is possible, of course, that this part crept into the text of Luke from strkjv@1Corinthians:11:24f|. But, if this part is omitted, Luke would then have the order reversed, the cup before the bread. Songs:there are difficulties whichever turn one takes here with Luke's text whether one cup or two cups. {The New Covenant} (\he kainˆ diathˆkˆ\). See on ¯Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Mark:14:24| for "covenant." Westcott and Hort reject "new" there, but accept it here and in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:25|. See on ¯Luke:5:38| for difference between \kainˆ\ and \nea\. "The ratification of a covenant was commonly associated with the shedding of blood; and what was written in blood was believed to be indelible" (Plummer). {Poured out} (\ekchunnomenon\). Same word in strkjv@Mark:14:24; strkjv@Matthew:26:28| translated "shed." Late form present passive participle of \ekchunn“\ of \ekche“\, to pour out.

rwp@Luke:22:30 @{And ye shall sit} (\kathˆsesthe\). But Westcott and Hort read in the text \kathˆsthe\ (present middle subjunctive with \hina\). The picture seems to be that given in strkjv@Matthew:19:28| when Jesus replied to Peter's inquiry. It is not clear how literally this imagery is to be taken. But there is the promise of honour for the loyal among these in the end.

rwp@Luke:23:16 @{Chastise} (\paideusas\). First aorist active participle of \paideu“\, to train a child (\pais\), and then, as a part of the training, punishment. Our English word chasten is from the Latin _castus_, pure, chaste, and means to purify (cf. strkjv@Hebrews:12:6f.|). Perhaps Pilate may have split a hair over the word as Wycliff puts it: "I shall deliver him amended." But, if Jesus was innocent, Pilate had no doubt to "chastise" him to satisfy a mob. Verse 17| is omitted by Westcott and Hort as from strkjv@Mark:15:6; strkjv@Matthew:27:15|.

rwp@Luke:23:42 @{In thy kingdom} (\eis tˆn basileian sou\, text of Westcott and Hort or \en tei basileiƒi sou\, margin). Probably no difference in sense is to be found, for \eis\ and \en\ are essentially the same preposition. He refers to the Messianic rule of Jesus and begs that Jesus will remember him. It is not clear whether he hopes for immediate blessing or only at the judgment.

rwp@Luke:24:3 @{Of the Lord Jesus} (\tou kuriou Iˆsou\)...have these words and Westcott and...-interpolations. There are numerous instances of this shorter Western text in this chapter. For a discussion of the subject see my _Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_, pp. 225-237. This precise combination (the Lord Jesus) is common in the Acts, but nowhere else in the Gospels.

rwp@Luke:24:6 @{He is not here, but is risen} (\ouk estin h“de, alla ˆgerthˆ\). Another Western non-interpolation according to Westcott and Hort. The words are genuine at any rate in strkjv@Mark:16:6; strkjv@Matthew:28:7|. {The third day rise again} (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi anastˆnai\). See strkjv@9:22; strkjv@18:32,33| where Jesus plainly foretold this fact. And yet they had forgotten it, for it ran counter to all their ideas and hopes.

rwp@Luke:24:40 @Another Western non-interpolation according to Westcott and Hort. It is genuine in strkjv@John:20:20|.

rwp@Luke:24:52 @{Worshipped him} (\proskunˆsantes auton\)...we have one of Westcott and...-interpolations that may be genuine or not. {With great joy} (\meta charas megalˆs\). Now that the Ascension has come they are no longer in despair. Joy becomes the note of victory as it is today. No other note can win victories for Christ. The bells rang in heaven to greet the return of Jesus there, but he set the carillon of joy to ringing on earth in human hearts in all lands and for all time.

rwp@Mark:2:4 @{Come nigh} (\proseggisai\). But Westcott and Hort read \prosenegkai\, to bring to, after Aleph, B, L, 33, 63 (cf. strkjv@John:5:18|). {They uncovered the roof} (\apestegasan tˆn stegˆn\). They unroofed the roof (note paronomasia in the Greek and cognate accusative). The only instance of this verb in the N.T. A rare word in late Greek, no papyrus example given in Moulton and Milligan _Vocabulary_. They climbed up a stairway on the outside or ladder to the flat tile roof and dug out or broke up (\exoruxantes\) the tiles (the roof). There were thus tiles (\dia t“n keram“n\, strkjv@Luke:5:19|) of laths and plaster and even slabs of stone stuck in for strength that had to be dug out. It is not clear where Jesus was (\hopou ˆn\), either downstairs, (Holtzmann) or upstairs (Lightfoot), or in the quadrangle (_atrium_ or _compluvium_, if the house had one). "A composition of mortar, tar, ashes and sand is spread upon the roofs, and rolled hard, and grass grows in the crevices. On the houses of the poor in the country the grass grows more freely, and goats may be seen on the roofs cropping it" (Vincent). {They let down the bed} (\chal“si ton krabatton\), historical present again, aorist tense in strkjv@Luke:5:19| (\kathˆkan\). The verb means to lower from a higher place as from a boat. Probably the four men had a rope fastened to each corner of the pallet or poor man's bed (\krabatton\, Latin _grabatus_. Songs:one of Mark's Latin words). Matthew (Matthew:9:2|) has \klinˆ\, general term for bed. Luke has \klinidion\ (little bed or couch). Mark's word is common in the papyri and is spelled also \krabbatos\, sometimes \krabatos\, while W, Codex Washingtonius, has it \krabbaton\.

rwp@Mark:2:22 @{But new wine into fresh wineskins} (\alla oinon neon eis askous kainous\). Westcott and Hort bracket this clause as a Western non-interpolation though omitted only in D and some old Latin MSS. It is genuine in strkjv@Luke:5:38| and may be so here.

rwp@Mark:3:14 @{He appointed twelve} (\epoiˆsen d“deka\). This was a second selection out of those invited to the hills and after the night of prayer and after day came (Luke:6:13|). Why he chose twelve we are not told, probably because there were twelve tribes in Israel. It was a good round number at any rate. They were to be princes in the new Israel (cf. strkjv@Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30; strkjv@Revelation:21:14,15|). Luke (Luke:6:13-16|) also gives the list of the twelve at this point while Matthew (Matthew:10:1-4|) postpones giving the names till they are sent out in Galilee. There is a fourth list in strkjv@Acts:1:13|. See discussion of the names of the apostles on ¯Matthew:10:1-4| and pp. 271-3 of my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_. The three groups of four begin alike (Simon, Philip, James). There are some difficulties. {Whom he also named apostles} (\hous kai apostolous “nomasen\)...Version, the text of Westcott and...6:13| and probably so here. The meaning is that Jesus himself gave the name apostle or missionary (\apostell“\, to send) to this group of twelve. The word is applied in the New Testament to others besides as delegates or messengers of churches (2Corinthians:8:23; strkjv@Phillipians:2:25|), and messenger (John:13:16|). It is applied also to Paul on a par with the twelve (Galatians:1:1,11f.|, etc.) and also to Barnabas (Acts:14:14|), and perhaps also to Timothy and Silas (1Timothy:2:6f.|). Two purposes of Jesus are mentioned by Mark in the choice of these twelve, {that they might be with him} (\hina “sin met' autou\), {and that he might send them forth} (\kai hina apostellˆi autous\). They were not ready to be sent forth till they had been with Jesus for some time. This is one of the chief tasks of Christ to train this group of men. See Bruce's _The Training of the Twelve_. The very word \apostolos\ is from \apostell“\. There were two purposes in sending them forth expressed by two infinitives, one to preach (\kˆrussein\, from \kˆrux\, herald), the other to have power to cast out demons (\echein exousian ekballein ta daimonia\). This double ministry of preaching and healing was to mark their work. The two things are, however, different, and one does not necessarily involve the other.

rwp@Mark:4:21 @{Not to be put on the stand?} (\ouch hina epi tˆn luchnian tethˆi;\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \tithˆmi\ with \hina\ (purpose). The lamp in the one-room house was a familiar object along with the bushel, the bed, the lampstand. Note article with each. \Mˆti\ in the Greek expects the answer no. It is a curious instance of early textual corruption that both Aleph and B, the two oldest and best documents, have \hupo tˆn luchnian\ (under the lampstand) instead of \epi tˆn luchnian\...shipwreck of the sense. Westcott and...(\modion\) would put it out besides giving no light. Songs:as to the bed or table-couch (\klinˆn\) if it was raised above the floor and liable to be set on fire.

rwp@Mark:6:6 @{And he marvelled because of their unbelief} (\kai ethaumasen dia tˆn apistian aut“n\). Aorist tense, but Westcott and Hort put the imperfect in the margin. Jesus had divine knowledge and accurate insight into the human heart, but he had human limitations in certain things that are not clear to us. He marvelled at the faith of the Roman centurion where one would not expect faith (Matthew:8:10; strkjv@Luke:7:9|). Here he marvels at the lack of faith where he had a right to expect it, not merely among the Jews, but in his own home town, among his kinspeople, even in his own home. One may excuse Mary, the mother of Jesus, from this unbelief, puzzled, as she probably was, by his recent conduct (Mark:3:21,31|). There is no proof that she ever lost faith in her wonderful Son. {He went round about the villages teaching} (\periˆgen tƒs k“mas kukl“i didask“n\). A good illustration of the frequent poor verse division. An entirely new paragraph begins with these words, the third tour of Galilee. They should certainly be placed with verse 7|. The Revised Version would be justified if it had done nothing else than give us paragraphs according to the sense and connection. "Jesus resumes the role of a wandering preacher in Galilee" (Bruce). Imperfect tense, \periˆgen\.

rwp@Mark:6:9 @{Shod with sandals} (\hupodedemenous sandalia\). Perfect passive participle in the accusative case as if with the infinitive \poreuesthai\ or \poreuthˆnai\, (to go). Note the aorist infinitive middle, \endusasthai\ (text of Westcott and Hort), but \endusˆsthe\ (aorist middle subjunctive) in the margin. Change from indirect to direct discourse common enough, not necessarily due to "disjointed notes on which the Evangelist depended" (Swete). strkjv@Matthew:10:10| has "nor shoes" (\mˆde hupodˆmata\), possibly preserving the distinction between "shoes" and "sandals" (worn by women in Greece and by men in the east, especially in travelling). But here again extra shoes may be the prohibition. See on ¯Matthew:10:10| for this. {Two coats} (\duo chit“nas\). Two was a sign of comparative wealth (Swete). The mention of "two" here in all three Gospels probably helps us to understand that the same thing applies to shoes and staff. "In general, these directions are against luxury in equipment, and also against their providing themselves with what they could procure from the hospitality of others" (Gould).

rwp@Mark:7:4 @{From the marketplace} (\ap' agoras\). Ceremonial defilement was inevitable in the mixing with men in public. This \agora\ from \ageir“\ to collect or gather, was a public forum in every town where the people gathered like the courthouse square in American towns. The disciples were already ceremonially defiled. {Wash themselves} (\baptis“ntai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \baptiz“\, dip or immerse. Westcott and Hort put \rantis“ntai\ in the text translated "sprinkle themselves" in the margin of the Revised Version, because Aleph, B, and some of the best cursives have it. Gould terms \rantis“ntai\ "a manifest emendation," to get rid of the difficulty of dipping or bathing the whole body. Meyer says: "The statement proceeds by way of climax: before eating they wash the hands always. When they come from market they take a bath before eating." This is not the place to enter into any controversy about the meaning of \baptiz“\, to dip, \rantiz“\, to sprinkle, and \ecche“\, to pour, all used in the New Testament. The words have their distinctive meanings here as elsewhere. Some scribes felt a difficulty about the use of \baptis“ntai\ here. The Western and Syrian classes of manuscripts add "and couches" (\kai klin“n\) at the end of the sentence. Swete considers the immersions of beds (\baptismous klin“n\) "an incongruous combination." But Gould says: "Edersheim shows that the Jewish ordinance required immersions, \baptismous\, of these vessels." We must let the Jewish scrupulosity stand for itself, though "and couches" is not supported by Aleph, B L D Bohairic, probably not genuine.

rwp@Mark:8:25 @{He looked steadfastly} (\dieblepsen\). He saw thoroughly now, effective aorist (\dieblepsen\), he was completely restored (\apekatestˆ\, second aorist, double compound and double augment), and kept on seeing (\eneblepen\, imperfect, continued action) all things clearly or at a distance (\tˆlaug“s\, common Greek word from \tˆle\, afar, and \augˆ\, radiance, far-shining). Some manuscripts (margin in Westcott and Hort) read \dˆlaug“s\, from \dˆlos\, plain, and \augˆ\, radiance.

rwp@Mark:10:22 @{But his countenance fell} (\ho de stugnasas\). In the LXX and Polybius once and in strkjv@Matthew:16:3| (passage bracketed by Westcott and Hort). The verb is from \stugnos\, sombre, gloomy, like a lowering cloud. See on ¯Matthew:19:22| for discussion of "sorrowful" (\lupoumenos\).

rwp@Mark:10:24 @{Were amazed} (\ethambounto\). Imperfect passive. A look of blank astonishment was on their faces at this statement of Jesus. They in common with other Jews regarded wealth as a token of God's special favour. {Children} (\tekna\). Here alone to the Twelve and this tender note is due to their growing perplexity. {For them that trust in riches} (\tous pepoithotas epi tois chrˆmasin\)...one Old Latin manuscript. Westcott and...

rwp@Mark:11:26 @...verse is omitted by Westcott and...

rwp@Mark:12:36 @{The footstool} (\hupopodion\). Westcott and Hort read \hupokat“\ (under) after Aleph B D L.

rwp@Mark:13:4 @{Tell us, when shall these things be?} (\Eipon hˆmin pote tauta estai;\)...a direct question, but Westcott and...{when} (\pote\) and the {what sign} (\ti sˆmeion\). strkjv@Matthew:24:3| includes "the sign of thy coming and the end of the world," showing that these tragic events are brought before Jesus by the disciples. See discussion of the interpretation of this discourse on ¯Matthew:24:3|. This chapter in Mark is often called "The Little Apocalypse" with the notion that a Jewish apocalypse has been here adapted by Mark and attributed to Jesus. Many of the theories attribute grave error to Jesus or to the Gospels on this subject. The view adopted in the discussion in Matthew is the one suggested here, that Jesus blended in one picture his death, the destruction of Jerusalem within that generation, the second coming and end of the world typified by the destruction of the city. The lines between these topics are not sharply drawn in the report and it is not possible for us to separate the topics clearly. This great discourse is the longest preserved in Mark and may be due to Peter. Mark may have given it in order "to forewarn and forearm" (Bruce) the readers against the coming catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem. Both Matthew (Matthew:24|) and Luke (Luke:21:5-36|) follow the general line of Mark 13 though strkjv@Matthew:24:43-25:46| presents new material (parables).

rwp@Mark:15:1 @{In the morning} (\pr“i\). The ratification meeting after day. See on ¯Matthew:26:1-5| for details. {Held a consultation} (\sumboulion poiˆsantes\). Songs:text of Westcott and Hort (Vulgate _consilium facientes_), though they give \hetoimasantes\ in the margin. The late and rare word \sumboulion\ is like the Latin _consilium_. If \hetoimasantes\ is the correct text, the idea would be rather to prepare a concerted plan of action (Gould). But their action was illegal on the night before and they felt the need of this ratification after dawn which is described in strkjv@Luke:22:66-71|, who does not give the illegal night trial. {Bound Jesus} (\dˆsantes ton Iˆsoun\). He was bound on his arrest (John:18:12|) when brought before Annas who sent him on bound to Caiaphas (John:18:24|) and now he is bound again as he is sent to Pilate (Mark:15:1; strkjv@Matthew:27:2|). It is implied that he was unbound while before Annas and then before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.

rwp@Mark:16:17 @{They shall speak with new tongues} (\gl“ssais lalˆsousin [kainais]\). Westcott and Hort put \kainais\ (new) in the margin. Casting out demons we have seen in the ministry of Jesus. Speaking with tongues comes in the apostolic era (Acts:2:3f.; strkjv@10:46; strkjv@19:6; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28; 14|).

rwp@Mark:16:20 @{The Lord working with them} (\tou kuriou sunergountos\). Genitive absolute. This participle not in Gospels elsewhere nor is \bebaiountos\ nor the compound \epakolouthount“n\, all in Paul's Epistles. \Pantacho–\ once in Luke. Westcott and Hort give the alternative ending found in L: "And they announced briefly to Peter and those around him all the things enjoined. And after these things Jesus himself also sent forth through them from the east even unto the west the holy and incorruptible proclamation of the eternal salvation."

rwp@Matthew:9:30 @{Were opened} (\ˆne“ichthˆsan\). Triple augment (on \oi=“i, e\ and then on preposition \an = ˆn\). {Strictly charged them} (\enebrimˆthˆ autois\). A difficult word, compound of \en\ and \brimaomai\ (to be moved with anger). It is used of horses snorting (Aeschylus, _Theb_. 461), of men fretting or being angry (Daniel:11:30|). Allen notes that it occurs twice in Mark (Mark:1:43; strkjv@14:5|) when Matthew omits it. It is found only here in Matthew. John has it twice in a different sense (John:11:33| with \en heaut“i\). Here and in strkjv@Mark:1:32| it has the notion of commanding sternly, a sense unknown to ancient writers. Most manuscripts have the middle \enebrimˆsato\, but Aleph and B have the passive \enebrimˆthˆ\ which Westcott and Hort accept, but without the passive sense (cf. \apekrithˆ\). "The word describes rather a rush of deep feeling which in the synoptic passages showed itself in a vehement injunctive and in strkjv@John:11:33| in look and manner" (McNeile). Bruce translates Euthymius Zigabenus on strkjv@Mark:1:32|: "Looked severely, contracting His eyebrows, and shaking His head at them as they are wont to do who wish to make sure that secrets will be kept." "See to it, let no one know it" (\horate, mˆdeis gin“sket“\). Note elliptical change of persons and number in the two imperatives.

rwp@Matthew:12:47 @...this verse as do Westcott and...3:32; strkjv@Luke:8:20|. It was probably copied into Matthew from Mark or Luke.

rwp@Matthew:16:2 @{Fair weather} (\eudia\). An old poetic word from \eu\ and \Zeus\ as the ruler of the air and giver of fair weather. Songs:men today say "when the sky is red at sunset." It occurs on the Rosetta Stone and in a fourth century A.D. Oxyr. papyrus for "calm weather" that made it impossible to sail the boat. Aleph and B and some other MSS. omit verses 2 and 3. W omits part of verse 2. These verses are similar to strkjv@Luke:12:54-56|...McNeile rejects them here. Westcott and...

rwp@Matthew:18:12 @{Leave the ninety and nine} (\aphˆsei ta enenˆkonta ennea epi ta orˆ kai poreutheis zˆtei to plan“menon?\)...is the text of Westcott and...(change to present tense) the wandering one?" On the high pastures where the sheep graze at will one has wandered afield. See this parable later in strkjv@Luke:15:4-7|. Our word "planet" is from \planaomai\, wandering (moving) stars they were called as opposed to fixed stars. But now we know that no stars are fixed. They are all moving and rapidly.

rwp@Matthew:18:14 @{The will of your Father} (\thelˆma emprosthen\). Observe that Westcott and Hort read \mou\ here rather than \h–m“n\ after B Sahidic Coptic. Either makes good sense, though "your" carries on the picture of God's care for "each one of these little ones" (\hen t“n mikr“n tout“n\) among God's children. The use of \emprosthen\ with \thelˆma\ is a Hebraism like \emprosthen sou\ in strkjv@11:25| with \eudokia\, "before the face" of God.

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\)...the marginal reading in Westcott and...(\poiei autˆn moicheuthˆnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenˆn gamˆsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|...the short one in Westcott and...(\mˆ epi porneiƒi\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha“ or moicheu“\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Matthew:19:29 @{A hundredfold} (\hekatonplasiona\). But Westcott and Hort read \pollaplasiona\, manifold. Eternal life is the real reward.

rwp@Matthew:22:10 @{The wedding} (\ho gamos\). But Westcott and Hort rightly read here \ho numph“n\, marriage dining hall. The same word in strkjv@9:15| means the bridechamber.

rwp@Matthew:23:13 @{Hypocrites} (\hupokritai\). This terrible word of Jesus appears first from him in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew:6:2,5,16; strkjv@7:5|), then in strkjv@15:7| and strkjv@22:18|. Here it appears "with terrific iteration" (Bruce) save in the third of the seven woes (23:13,15,23,25,27,29|). The verb in the active (\hupokrin“\) meant to separate slowly or slightly subject to gradual inquiry. Then the middle was to make answer, to take up a part on the stage, to act a part. It was an easy step to mean to feign, to pretend, to wear a masque, to act the hypocrite, to play a part. This hardest word from the lips of Jesus falls on those who were the religious leaders of the Jews (Scribes and Pharisees), who had justified this thunderbolt of wrath by their conduct toward Jesus and their treatment of things high and holy. The _Textus Receptus has eight woes, adding verse 14| which the Revised Version places in the margin (called verse 13| by Westcott and Hort and rejected on the authority of Aleph B D as a manifest gloss from strkjv@Mark:12:40| and strkjv@Luke:20:47|). The MSS. that insert it put it either before 13 or after 13. Plummer cites these seven woes as another example of Matthew's fondness for the number seven, more fancy than fact for Matthew's Gospel is not the Apocalypse of John. These are all illustrations of Pharisaic saying and not doing (Allen). {Ye shut the kingdom of heaven} (\kleiete tˆn basileian t“n ouran“n\). In strkjv@Luke:11:52| the lawyers are accused of keeping the door to the house of knowledge locked and with flinging away the keys so as to keep themselves and the people in ignorance. These custodians of the kingdom by their teaching obscured the way to life. It is a tragedy to think how preachers and teachers of the kingdom of God may block the door for those who try to enter in (\tous eiserchomenous\, conative present middle participle). {Against} (\emprosthen\). Literally, before. These door-keepers of the kingdom slam it shut in men's faces and they themselves are on the outside where they will remain. They hide the key to keep others from going in.

rwp@Matthew:24:32 @{Putteth forth its leaves} (\ta phulla ekphuˆi\)...active subjunctive according to Westcott and...\ekphuˆi\ (last syllable), it is second aorist passive subjunctive (Erasmus).

rwp@Matthew:25:16 @{Straightway} (\euthe“s\). Beginning of verse 16, not the end of verse 15|. The business temper of this slave is shown by his promptness. {With them} (\en autois\). Instrumental use of \en\. He worked (\ˆrgasato\), did business, traded with them. "The virgins wait, the servants work" (Vincent). {Made} (\epoiˆsen\). But Westcott and Hort read \ekerdˆsen\, gained, as in verse 17|. \Kerdos\ means interest. This gain was a hundred per cent.

rwp@Matthew:25:26 @{Thou wicked and slothful servant} (\ponˆre doule kai oknˆre\). From \ponos\ (work, annoyance, disturbance, evil) and \okne“\ (to be slow, "poky," slothful). Westcott and Hort make a question out of this reply to the end of verse 26|. It is sarcasm.

rwp@Revelation:12:10 @{A great voice saying} (\ph“nˆn megalˆn legousan\). Accusative after \ˆkousa\ in this phrase as in strkjv@5:11; strkjv@10:4; strkjv@14:2; strkjv@18:4|, but the genitive \ph“nˆs legousˆs\ in strkjv@11:12; strkjv@14:13|. We are not told whence this voice or song comes, possibly from one of the twenty-four elders (Swete) or some other heavenly beings (11:15|) who can sympathize with human beings (19:10|), the martyrs in heaven (Charles). {Now is come} (\arti egeneto\). \Arti\ (John:13:33|) shows how recent the downfall of Satan here proleptically pictured as behind us in time (aorist tense \egeneto\). {The salvation} (\hˆ s“tˆria\). Here "the victory" as in strkjv@7:10; strkjv@19:1|. {The power} (\hˆ dunamis\). Gods power over the dragon (cf. strkjv@7:12; strkjv@11:17; strkjv@19:1|). {The kingdom} (\hˆ basileia\). "The empire of God" as in strkjv@11:15|. {The authority of his Christ} (\hˆ exousia tou Christou autou\). Which Christ received from the Father (Matthew:28:18; strkjv@John:17:2|). See strkjv@11:15| (Psalms:2:2|) for "his Anointed." {The accuser} (\ho katˆg“r\). The regular form, \katˆgoros\, occurs in strkjv@John:8:10; strkjv@Acts:23:30,35; strkjv@25:16,18| and in many MSS. here in strkjv@Revelation:12:10|, but A reads \katˆg“r\, which Westcott and Hort accept. It was once considered a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew word, but Deissmann (_Light_, etc., p. 93f.) quotes it from a vernacular magical papyrus of the fourth century A.D. with no sign of Jewish or Christian influence, just as \diak“n\ appears as a vernacular form of \diakonos\. Only here is the word applied to Satan in the N.T. In late Judaism Satan is the accuser, and Michael the defender, of the faithful. {Of our brethren} (\t“n adelph“n hˆm“n\). The saints still on earth battling with Satan and his devices. {Which accuseth them} (\ho katˆgor“n autous\). Articular present active participle of \katˆgore“\, old verb, to accuse, usually with the genitive of the person (John:5:45|), but here with the accusative. This is the devil's constant occupation (Job:1:6f.|). {Day and night} (\hˆmeras kai nuktos\). Genitive of time. "By day and by night."

rwp@Info_Revelation @...instance. Hort, Lightfoot, and Westcott argued...(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 idi“tai\ (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 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_...this Hort, Lightfoot, Sanday, Westcott have...

rwp@Romans:3:3 @{For what if?} (\ti gar ei?\). But Westcott and Hort print it, \Ti gar? ei\. See strkjv@Phillipians:1:18| for this exclamatory use of \ti gar\ (for how? How stands the case?). {Some were without faith} (\ˆpistˆsan\). First aorist active indicative of \apiste“\, old verb, to disbelieve. This is the common N.T. meaning (Luke:24:11,41; strkjv@Acts:28:24; strkjv@Romans:4:20|). Some of them "disbelieved," these "depositaries and guardians of revelation" (Denney). But the word also means to be unfaithful to one's trust and Lightfoot argues for that idea here and in strkjv@2Timothy:2:13|. The Revised Version renders it "faithless" there. Either makes sense here and both ideas are true of some of the Jews, especially concerning the Messianic promises and Jesus. {The faithfulness of God} (\tˆn pistin tou theou\). Undoubtedly \pistis\ has this sense here and not "faith." God has been faithful (2Timothy:2:13|) whether the Jews (some of them) were simply disbelievers or untrue to their trust. Paul can use the words in two senses in verse 3|, but there is no real objection to taking \ˆpistˆsan, apistian, pistin\, all to refer to faithfulness rather than just faith.

rwp@Romans:3:12 @{They are together become unprofitable} (\hama ˆchre“thˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \achreo“\. Late word in Polybius and Cilician inscription of first century A.D. Some MSS. read \ˆchrei“thˆsan\ from \achreios\, useless (\a\ privative and \chreios\, useful) as in strkjv@Luke:17:10; strkjv@Matthew:25:30|, but Westcott and Hort print as above from the rarer spelling \achreos\. Only here in N.T. The Hebrew word means to go bad, become sour like milk (Lightfoot). {No, not so much as one} (\ouk estin he“s henos\). "There is not up to one."

rwp@Romans:3:28 @{We reckon therefore} (\logizometha oun\). Present middle indicative. Westcott and Hort read \gar\ instead of \oun\. "My fixed opinion" is. The accusative and infinitive construction occurs after \logizometha\ here. On this verb \logizomai\, see strkjv@2:3; strkjv@4:3f.; strkjv@8:18; strkjv@14:14|. Paul restates verses 21f|.

rwp@Romans:4:1 @{What then shall we say?} (\ti oun eroumen?\). Paul is fond of this rhetorical question (4:1; strkjv@6:1; strkjv@7:7; strkjv@8:31; strkjv@9:14,30|). {Forefather} (\propatora\). Old word, only here in N.T. Accusative case in apposition with \Abraam\ (accusative of general reference with the infinitive). {Hath found} (\heurˆkenai\). Westcott and Hort put \heurˆkenai\ in the margin because B omits it, a needless precaution. It is the perfect active infinitive of \heurisk“\ in indirect discourse after \eroumen\. The MSS. differ in the position of \kata sarka\.

rwp@Romans:4:8 @{To whom} (\h“i\). But the best MSS. read \hou\...the LXX and so Westcott and...{Will not reckon} (\ou mˆ logisˆtai\). Strong negation by double negative and aorist middle subjunctive.

rwp@Romans:5:6 @{For} (\eti gar\). Songs:most documents, but B reads \ei ge\ which Westcott and Hort use in place of \gar\. {While we were yet weak} (\ont“n hˆm“n asthen“n eti\). Genitive absolute. The second \eti\ (yet) here probably gave rise to the confusion of text over \eti gar\ above. {In due season} (\kata kairon\). Christ came into the world at the proper time, the fulness of the time (Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Ephesians:1:10; strkjv@Titus:1:3|). {I or the ungodly} (\huper aseb“n\). In behalf, instead of. See about \huper\ on strkjv@Galatians:3:13| and also verse 7| here.

rwp@Titus:2:10 @{Not purloining} (\mˆ nosphizomenous\). Present middle participle of \nosphiz“\, old verb (from \nosphi\, apart), in middle to set apart for oneself, to embezzle, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:5:2f|. {Fidelity} (\pistin\). See strkjv@Galatians:5:22; strkjv@1Timothy:5:12| for \pistis\ in the sense of faithfulness. Nowhere else in the N.T. do we have \agathˆ\ with \pistis\ as here, but an Oxyr. papyrus (iii. 494, 9) has this very phrase (\pƒsan pistin endeiknumenˆi\). Westcott and Hort put \agapˆn\ in the margin. See strkjv@3:2|. {That they may adorn} (\hina kosm“sin\). Final clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive. See strkjv@1Timothy:2:9| for \kosme“\. Paul shows slaves how they may "adorn" the teaching of God.

rwp@Titus:2:13 @{Looking for} (\prosdechomenoi\). Present middle participle of \prosdechomai\, old verb, the one used of Simeon (Luke:2:25|) and others (Luke:2:38|) who were looking for the Messiah. {The blessed hope and appearing of the glory} (\tˆn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tˆs doxˆs\). The word \epiphaneia\ (used by the Greeks of the appearance of the gods, from \epiphanˆs, epiphain“\) occurs in strkjv@2Timothy:1:10| of the Incarnation of Christ, the first Epiphany (like the verb \epephanˆ\, strkjv@Titus:2:11|), but here of the second Epiphany of Christ or the second coming as in strkjv@1Timothy:6:14; strkjv@2Timothy:4:1,8|. In strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:8| both \epiphaneia\ and \parousia\ (the usual word) occur together of the second coming. {Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou megalou theou kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\). This is the necessary meaning of the one article with \theou\ and \s“tˆros\ just as in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11|. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read \Christou Iˆsou\.

Seeker Overlay: Off On

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

[pBiblx2]
Sat Jun 29 23:41:42 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020