CONCORD clearly



rwp@Info_1Corinthians @ The occasion of the Epistle is made plain by numerous allusions personal and otherwise. Paul had arrived in Ephesus from Antioch shortly after the departure of Apollos for Corinth with letters of commendation from Priscilla and Aquila (Acts:18:28-19:1|). It is not clear how long Apollos remained in Corinth, but he is back in Ephesus when Paul writes the letter and he has declined Paul's request to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|)...over Apollos and Paul, clearly the...(1Corinthians:1:10-12|). Even Cephas nominally was drawn into it, though there is no evidence that Peter himself had come to Corinth. Paul had sent Timothy over to Corinth to put an end to the factions (1Corinthians:4:17|), though he was uneasy over the outcome (1Corinthians:16:10f.|). This disturbance was enough of itself to call forth a letter from Paul. But it was by no means the whole story. Paul had already written a letter, now lost to us, concerning a peculiarly disgusting case of incest in the membership (1Corinthians:5:9|). They were having lawsuits with one another before heathen judges. Members of the church had written Paul a letter about marriage whether any or all should marry (1Corinthians:7:1|). They were troubled also whether it was right to eat meat that had been offered to idols in the heathen temples (1Corinthians:8:1|). Spiritual gifts of an unusual nature were manifested in Corinth and these were the occasion of a deal of trouble (1Corinthians:12:1|). The doctrine of the resurrection gave much trouble in Corinth (1Corinthians:15:12|). Paul was interested in the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Corinthians:16:1|) and in their share in it. The church in Corinth had sent a committee (Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus) to Paul in Ephesus. He hopes to come himself after passing through Macedonia (1Corinthians:16:5f.|). It is possible that he had made a short visit before this letter (2Corinthians:13:1|), though not certain as he may have intended to go one time without going as he certainly once changed his plans on the subject (2Corinthians:1:15-22|). Whether Titus took the letter on his visit or it was sent on after the return of Timothy is not perfectly clear. Probably Timothy returned to Ephesus from Corinth shortly after the epistle was sent on, possibly by the committee who returned to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:17|), for Timothy and Erastus were sent on from Ephesus to Macedonia before the outbreak at the hands of Demetrius (Acts:19:22|). Apparently Timothy had not fully succeeded in reconciling the factions in Corinth for Paul dispatched Titus who was to meet him at Troas as he went on to Macedonia. Paul's hurried departure from Ephesus (Acts:20:1|) took him to Troas before Titus arrived and Paul's impatience there brought him to Macedonia where he did meet Titus on his return from Corinth (2Corinthians:2:12f.|).

rwp@Info_1Corinthians @ It is clear therefore that Paul wrote what we call I Corinthians in a disturbed state of mind. He had founded the church there, had spent two years there (Acts:18|), and took pardonable pride in his work there as a wise architect (1Corinthians:3:10|) for he had built the church on Christ as the foundation. He was anxious that his work should abide. It is plain that the disturbances in the church in Corinth were fomented from without by the Judaizers whom Paul had defeated at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:1-35; strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10|). They were overwhelmed there, but renewed their attacks in Antioch (Galatians:2:11-21|). Henceforth throughout the second mission tour they are a disturbing element in Galatia, in Corinth, in Jerusalem. While Paul is winning the Gentiles in the Roman Empire to Christ, these Judaizers are trying to win Paul's converts to Judaism. Nowhere do we see the conflict at so white a heat as in Corinth. Paul finally will expose them with withering sarcasm (2Corinthians:10-13|) as Jesus did the Pharisees in strkjv@Matthew:23| on that last day in the temple. Factional strife, immorality, perverted ideas about marriage, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection, these complicated problems are a vivid picture of church life in our cities today. The discussion of them shows Paul's manysidedness and also the powerful grasp that he has upon the realities of the gospel. Questions of casuistry are faced fairly and serious ethical issues are met squarely. But along with the treatment of these vexed matters Paul sings the noblest song of the ages on love (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13|) and writes the classic discussion on the resurrection (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15|). If one knows clearly and fully the Corinthian Epistles and Paul's dealings with Corinth, he has an understanding of a large section of his life and ministry. No church caused him more anxiety than did Corinth (2Corinthians:11:28|).

rwp@1Corinthians:1:14 @{I thank God} (\eucharist“ t“i the“i\). See verse 4|, though uncertain if \t“i the“i\ is genuine here. {Save Crispus and Gaius} (\ei mˆ Krispon kai Gaion\). Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth before his conversion (Acts:18:8|), a Roman cognomen, and Gaius a Roman praenomen, probably the host of Paul and of the whole church in Corinth (Romans:16:23|), possibly though not clearly the hospitable Gaius of strkjv@3John:1:5,6|. The prominence and importance of these two may explain why Paul baptized them.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:16 @{Also the household of Stephanas} (\kai ton Stephanƒ oikon\). Mentioned as an afterthought. Robertson and Plummer suggest that Paul's amanuensis reminded him of this case. Paul calls him a first-fruit of Achaia (1Corinthians:16:15|) and so earlier than Crispus and he was one of the three who came to Paul from Corinth (16:17|), clearly a family that justified Paul's personal attention about baptism. {Besides} (\loipon\). Accusative of general reference, "as for anything else." Added to make clear that he is not meaning to omit any one who deserves mention. See also strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:2; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@2Timothy:4:8|. Ellicott insists on a sharp distinction from \to loipon\ "as for the rest" (2Thessalonians:3:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:1; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@Ephesians:6:10|). Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ (Romans:6:2-6|), but he clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:17 @{For Christ sent me not to baptize} (\ou gar apesteilen me Christos baptizein\). The negative \ou\ goes not with the infinitive, but with \apesteilen\ (from \apostell“, apostolos\, apostle). {For Christ did not send me to be a baptizer} (present active infinitive, linear action) like John the Baptist. {But to preach the gospel} (\alla euaggelizesthai\). This is Paul's idea of his mission from Christ, as Christ's apostle, to be {a gospelizer}. This led, of course, to baptism, as a result, but Paul usually had it done by others as Peter at Caesarea ordered the baptism to be done, apparently by the six brethren with him (Acts:10:48|). Paul is fond of this late Greek verb from \euaggelion\ and sometimes uses both verb and substantive as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1| "the gospel which I gospelized unto you." {Not in wisdom of words} (\ouk en sophiƒi logou\). Note \ou\, not \mˆ\ (the subjective negative), construed with \apesteilen\ rather than the infinitive. Not in wisdom of speech (singular). Preaching was Paul's forte, but it was not as a pretentious philosopher or professional rhetorician that Paul appeared before the Corinthians (1Corinthians:2:1-5|). Some who followed Apollos may have been guilty of a fancy for external show, though Apollos was not a mere performer and juggler with words. But the Alexandrian method as in Philo did run to dialectic subtleties and luxuriant rhetoric (Lightfoot). {Lest the cross of Christ should be made void} (\hina mˆ ken“thˆi ho stauros tou Christou\). Negative purpose (\hina mˆ\) with first aorist passive subjunctive, effective aorist, of \keno“\, old verb from \kenos\...Christ. "This expression shows clearly the...-renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation" (Lightfoot).

rwp@1Corinthians:1:20 @{Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?} (\Pou sophos; pou grammateus; pou sunzˆtˆtˆs tou ai“nos toutou;\). Paul makes use of strkjv@Isaiah:33:18| without exact quotation. The sudden retreat of Sennacherib with the annihilation of his officers. "On the tablet of Shalmaneser in the Assyrian Gallery of the British Museum there is a surprisingly exact picture of the scene described by Isaiah" (Robertson and Plummer)...though the idea is clearly definite....\sophos\ refers to the Greek philosopher, \grammateus\ to the Jewish scribe and \sunzˆtˆtˆs\ suits both the Greek and the Jewish disputant and doubter (Acts:6:9; strkjv@9:29; strkjv@17:18; strkjv@28:29|). There is a note of triumph in these questions. The word \sunzˆtˆtˆs\ occurs here alone in the N.T. and elsewhere only in Ignatius, Eph. 18 quoting this passage, but the papyri give the verb \sunzˆte“\ for disputing (questioning together). {Hath not God made foolish?} (\ouchi em“ranen ho theos;\). Strong negative form with aorist active indicative difficult of precise translation, "Did not God make foolish?" The old verb \m“rain“\ from \m“ros\, foolish, was to be foolish, to act foolish, then to prove one foolish as here or to make foolish as in strkjv@Romans:1:22|. In strkjv@Matthew:5:13; strkjv@Luke:14:34| it is used of salt that is tasteless. {World} (\kosmou\). Synonymous with \ai“n\ (age), orderly arrangement, then the non-Christian cosmos.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:30 @{Of him} (\ex autou\). Out of God. He chose you. {In Christ Jesus} (\en Christ“i Iˆsou\). In the sphere of Christ Jesus the choice was made. This is God's wisdom. {Who was made unto us wisdom from God} (\hos egenˆthˆ sophia hˆmin apo theou\). Note \egenˆthˆ\, became (first aorist passive and indicative), not \ˆn\, was, the Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection. Christ is the wisdom of God (Co strkjv@2:2f.|) "both righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (\dikaiosunˆ te kai hagiasmos kai apolutr“sis\), as is made plain by the use of \te--kai--kai\. The three words (\dikaiosunˆ, hagiasmos, apolutr“sis\) are thus shown to be an epexegesis of \sophia\ (Lightfoot). All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ Jesus. We are made righteous, holy, and redeemed in Christ Jesus. Redemption comes here last for emphasis though the foundation of the other two. In strkjv@Romans:1:17| we see clearly Paul's idea of the God kind of righteousness (\dikaiosunˆ\) in Christ. In strkjv@Romans:3:24| we have Paul's conception of redemption (\apolutr“sis\, setting free as a ransomed slave) in Christ. In strkjv@Romans:6:19| we have Paul's notion of holiness or sanctification (\hagiasmos\) in Christ. These great theological terms will call for full discussion in Romans, but they must not be overlooked here. See also strkjv@Acts:10:35; strkjv@24:25; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:3-7; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:2|.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:12 @{But we} (\hˆmeis de\). We Christians like {us} (\hˆmin\) in verse 10| of the revelation, but particularly Paul and the other apostles. {Received} (\elabomen\). Second aorist active indicative of \lamban“\ and so a definite event, though the constative aorist may include various stages. {Not the spirit of the world} (\ou to pneuma tou kosmou\). Probably a reference to the wisdom of this age in verse 6|. See also strkjv@Romans:8:4,6,7; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:4| (\the pneuma heteron\). {But the spirit which is of God} (\alla to pneuma to ek theou\). Rather, "from God" (\ek\), which proceeds from God. {That we might know} (\hina eid“men\). Second perfect subjunctive with \hina\ to express purpose. Here is a distinct claim of the Holy Spirit for understanding (Illumination) the Revelation received. It is not a senseless rhapsody or secret mystery, but God expects us to understand "the things that are freely given us by God" (\ta hupo tou theou charisthenta hˆmin\). First aorist passive neuter plural articular participle of \charizomai\...of men to understand clearly God's...

rwp@1Corinthians:2:13 @{Which things also we speak} (\ha kai laloumen\). This onomatopoetic verb \lale“\ (from \la-la\), to utter sounds. In the papyri the word calls more attention to the form of utterance while \leg“\ refers more to the substance. But \lale“\ in the N.T. as here is used of the highest and holiest speech. Undoubtedly Paul employs the word purposely for the utterance of the revelation which he has understood. That is to say, there is revelation (verse 10|), illumination (verse 12|), and inspiration (verse 13|). Paul claims therefore the help of the Holy Spirit for the reception of the revelation, for the understanding of it, for the expression of it. Paul claimed this authority for his preaching (1Thessalonians:4:2|) and for his epistles (2Thessalonians:3:14|). {Not in words which man's wisdom teacheth} (\ouk en didaktois anthr“pinˆs sophias logois\). Literally, "not in words taught by human wisdom." The verbal adjective \didaktois\ (from \didask“\, to teach) is here passive in idea and is followed by the ablative case of origin or source as in strkjv@John:6:45|, \esontai pantes didaktoi theou\ (from strkjv@Isaiah:54:13|), "They shall all be taught by God." The ablative in Greek, as is well known, has the same form as the genitive, though quite different in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). Songs:then Paul claims the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance (\laloumen\) of the words, "which the Spirit teacheth (\en didaktois pneumatos\), "in words taught by the Spirit" (ablative \pneumatos\ as above). Clearly Paul means that the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance of the revelation extends to the words. No theory of inspiration is here stated, but it is not _mere_ human wisdom. Paul's own Epistles bear eloquent witness to the lofty claim here made. They remain today after nearly nineteen centuries throbbing with the power of the Spirit of God, dynamic with life for the problems of today as when Paul wrote them for the needs of the believers in his time, the greatest epistles of all time, surcharged with the energy of God. {Comparing spiritual things with spiritual} (\pneumatikois pneumatika sunkrinontes\). Each of these words is in dispute. The verb \sunkrin“\, originally meant to combine, to join together fitly. In the LXX it means to interpret dreams (Genesis:40:8,22; strkjv@41:12|) possibly by comparison. In the later Greek it may mean to compare as in strkjv@2Corinthians:10:12|. In the papyri Moulton and Milligan (_Vocabulary_) give it only for "decide," probably after comparing. But "comparing," in spite of the translations, does not suit well here. Songs:it is best to follow the original meaning to combine as do Lightfoot and Ellicott. But what gender is \pneumatikois\? Is it masculine or neuter like \pneumatika\? If masculine, the idea would be "interpreting (like LXX) spiritual truths to spiritual persons" or "matching spiritual truths with spiritual persons." This is a possible rendering and makes good sense in harmony with verse 14|. If \pneumatikois\ be taken as neuter plural (associative instrumental case after \sun\ in \sunkrinontes\), the idea most naturally would be, "combining spiritual ideas (\pneumatika\) with spiritual words" (\pneumatikois\). This again makes good sense in harmony with the first part of verse 13|. On the whole this is the most natural way to take it, though various other possibilities exist.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:11 @{Other foundation} (\themelion allon\). The gender of the adjective is here masculine as is shown by \allon\. If neuter, it would be \allo\. It is masculine because Paul has Christ in mind. It is not here \heteron\ a different kind of gospel (\heteron euaggelion\, strkjv@Galatians:1:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4|) which is not another (\allo\, strkjv@Galatians:1:7|) in reality. But another Jesus (2Corinthians:11:4|, \allon Iˆsoun\) is a reflection on the one Lord Jesus. Hence there is no room on the platform with Jesus for another Saviour, whether Buddha, Mahomet, Dowie, Eddy, or what not. Jesus Christ is the one foundation and it is gratuitous impudence for another to assume the role of Foundation. {Than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus} (\para ton keimenon, hos estin Iˆsous Christos\). Literally, "alongside (\para\) the one laid (\keimenon\)," already laid (present middle participle of \keimai\, used here as often as the perfect passive of \tithˆmi\ in place of \tetheimenon\). Paul scouts the suggestion that one even in the interest of so-called "new thought" will dare to lay beside Jesus another foundation for religion. And yet I have seen an article by a professor in a theological seminary in which he advocates regarding Jesus as a landmark, not as a goal, not as a foundation. Clearly Paul means that on this one true foundation, Jesus Christ, one must build only what is in full harmony with the Foundation which is Jesus Christ. If one accuses Paul of narrowness, it can be replied that the architect has to be narrow in the sense of building here and not there. A broad foundation will be too thin and unstable for a solid and abiding structure. It can be said also that Paul is here merely repeating the claim of Jesus himself on this very subject when he quoted strkjv@Psalms:118:22f.| to the members of the Sanhedrin who challenged his authority (Mark:11:10f.; strkjv@Matthew:21:42-45; strkjv@Luke:20:17f.|). Apostles and prophets go into this temple of God, but Christ Jesus is the chief corner stone (\akrog“naios\, strkjv@Ephesians:2:20|). All believers are living stones in this temple (1Peter:2:5|). But there is only one foundation possible.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:15 @{Shall be burned} (\katakaˆsetai\). First-class condition again, assumed as true. Second future (late form) passive indicative of \katakai“\, to burn down, old verb. Note perfective use of preposition \kata\, shall be burned down. We usually say "burned up," and that is true also, burned up in smoke. {He shall suffer loss} (\zˆmi“thˆsetai\). First future passive indicative of \zˆmi“\, old verb from \zˆmia\ (damage, loss), to suffer loss. In strkjv@Matthew:16:26; strkjv@Mark:8:36; strkjv@Luke:9:25| the loss is stated to be the man's soul (\psuchˆn\) or eternal life. But here there is no such total loss as that. The man's work (\ergon\) is burned up (sermons, lectures, books, teaching, all dry as dust). {But he himself shall be saved} (\autos de s“thˆsetai\). Eternal salvation, but not by purgatory. His work is burned up completely and hopelessly, but he himself escapes destruction because he is really a saved man a real believer in Christ. {Yet so as through fire} (\hout“s de h“s dia puros\). Clearly Paul means with his work burned down (verse 15|). It is the tragedy of a fruitless life, of a minister who built so poorly on the true foundation that his work went up in smoke. His sermons were empty froth or windy words without edifying or building power. They left no mark in the lives of the hearers. It is the picture of a wasted life. The one who enters heaven by grace, as we all do who are saved, yet who brings no sheaves with him. There is no garnered grain the result of his labours in the harvest field. There are no souls in heaven as the result of his toil for Christ, no enrichment of character, no growth in grace.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:6 @{I have in a figure transferred} (\meteschˆmatisa\). First aorist active (not perfect) indicative of \meta-schˆmatiz“\, used by Plato and Aristotle for changing the form of a thing (from \meta\, after, and \schˆma\, form or habit, like Latin _habitus_ from \ech“\ and so different from \morphˆ\ as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:12:2|). For the idea of refashioning see Field, _Notes_, p. 169f. and Preisigke, _Fachworter_). Both Greek and Latin writers (Quintilian, Martial) used \schˆma\ for a rhetorical artifice. Paul's use of the word (in Paul only in N.T.) appears also further in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13-15| where the word occurs three times, twice of the false apostles posing and passing as apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness, and once of Satan as an angel of light, twice with \eis\ and once with \h“s\. In strkjv@Phillipians:3:21|...But here it is clearly the...(\dia humas\). {That in us ye may learn} (\hina en hˆmin mathˆte\). Final clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \manthan“\, to learn. As an object lesson in our cases (\en hˆmin\). It is no more true of Paul and Apollos than of other ministers, but the wrangles in Corinth started about them. Songs:Paul boldly puts himself and Apollos to the fore in the discussion of the principles involved. {Not to go beyond the things which are written} (\to Mˆ huper ha gegraptai\). It is difficult to reproduce the Greek idiom in English. The article \to\ is in the accusative case as the object of the verb \mathˆte\ (learn) and points at the words "\Mˆ huper ha gegraptai\," apparently a proverb or rule, and elliptical in form with no principal verb expressed with \mˆ\, whether "think" (Auth.) or "go" (Revised). There was a constant tendency to smooth out Paul's ellipses as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26,31|. Lightfoot thinks that Paul may have in mind O.T. passages quoted in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:19,31; strkjv@3:19,20|. {That ye be not puffed up} (\hina mˆ phusiousthe\). Sub-final use of \hina\ (second use in this sentence) with notion of result. It is not certain whether \phusiousthe\ (late verb form like \phusia“, phusa“\, to blow up, to inflate, to puff up), used only by Paul in the N.T., is present indicative with \hina\ like \zˆloute\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:17| (cf. \hina gin“skomen\ in strkjv@1John:5:20|) or the present subjunctive by irregular contraction (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 203, 342f.), probably the present indicative. \Phusio“\ is from \phusis\ (nature) and so meant to make natural, but it is used by Paul just like \phusa“\ or \phusia“\ (from \phusa\, a pair of bellows), a vivid picture of self-conceit. {One for the one against the other} (\heis huper tou henos kata tou heterou\). This is the precise idea of this idiom of partitive apposition. This is the rule with partisans. They are "for" (\huper\) the one and "against" (\kata\, down on, the genitive case) the other (\tou heterou\, not merely another or a second, but the different sort, \heterodox\).

rwp@1Corinthians:6:20 @{For ye were bought with a price} (\ˆgorasthˆte gar timˆs\). First aorist passive indicative of \agoraz“\, old verb to buy in the marketplace (\agora\). With genitive of price. Paul does not here state the price as Peter does in strkjv@1Peter:1:19| (the blood of Christ) and as Jesus does in strkjv@Matthew:20:28| (his life a ransom). The Corinthians understood his meaning. {Glorify God therefore in your body} (\doxasate dˆ ton theon en t“i s“mati hum“n\). Passionate conclusion to his powerful argument against sexual uncleanness. \Dˆ\ is a shortened form of \ˆdˆ\ and is an urgent inferential particle. See on ¯Luke:2:15|...late MSS. and are clearly not...-square for the dignity of the body as the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit united to the Lord Jesus.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:1 @{Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote} (\peri de h“n egrapsate\). An ellipsis of \peri tout“n\, the antecedent of \peri h“n\, is easily supplied as in papyri. The church had written Paul a letter in which a number of specific problems about marriage were raised. He answers them _seriatim_...The questions must be clearly before...(\kalon\). One will get a one-sided view of Paul's teaching on marriage unless he keeps a proper perspective. One of the marks of certain heretics will be forbidding to marry (1Timothy:4:3|). Paul uses marriage as a metaphor of our relation to Christ (2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@Romans:7:4; strkjv@Ephesians:5:28-33|). Paul is not here opposing marriage. He is only arguing that celibacy may be good in certain limitations. The genitive case with \haptesthai\ (touch) is the usual construction.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:4 @{The wife} (\hˆ gunˆ\)...sexes in marriage is clearly presented...(Hebrews:13:4|). "In wedlock separate ownership of the person ceases" (Robertson and Plummer).

rwp@1Corinthians:7:7 @{Yet I would} (\thel“ de\). "But I wish." Followed by accusative and infinitive (\anthr“pous einai\). This is Paul's personal preference under present conditions (7:26|). {Even as I myself} (\h“s kai emauton\). This clearly means that Paul was not then married and it is confirmed by strkjv@9:5|. Whether he had been married and was now a widower turns on the interpretation of strkjv@Acts:26:10| "I cast my vote." If this is taken literally (the obvious way to take it) as a member of the Sanhedrin, Paul was married at that time. There is no way to decide. {His own gift from God} (\idion charisma ek theou\). Songs:each must decide for himself. See on ¯1:7| for \charisma\, a late word from \charizomai\.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:14 @{Is sanctified in the wife} (\hˆgiastai en tˆi gunaiki\). Perfect passive indicative of \hagiaz“\, to set apart, to hallow, to sanctify. Paul does not, of course, mean that the unbelieving husband is saved by the faith of the believing wife, though Hodge actually so interprets him. Clearly he only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce. If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set aside. This is so simple that one wonders at the ability of men to get confused over Paul's language. {Else were your children unclean} (\epei ara ta tekna akatharta\). The common ellipse of the condition with \epei\: "since, accordingly, if it is otherwise, your children are illegitimate (\akatharta\)." If the relations of the parents be holy, the child's birth must be holy also (not illegitimate). "He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not \hagios\ till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism" (Robertson and Plummer).

rwp@1Corinthians:7:23 @{Ye were bought with a price} (\timˆs ˆgorasthˆte\). See on ¯6:20| for this very phrase, here repeated. Both classes (slaves and freemen) were purchased by the blood of Christ. {Become not bondservants of men} (\mˆ ginesthe douloi anthr“p“n\). Present middle imperative of \ginomai\ with negative \mˆ\...of men. Paul here clearly defines...

rwp@1Corinthians:11:1 @{Imitators of me} (\mimˆtai mou\)...considerate love as so clearly shown...1Corinthians:8-10| and in so far as (\kath“s\) Paul is himself an imitator of Christ. The preacher is a leader and is bound to set an example or pattern (\tupos\) for others (Titus:2:7|). This verse clearly belongs to the preceding chapter and not to chapter 11.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:6 @{Let her also be shorn} (\kai keirasth“\). Aorist middle imperative of \keir“\, to shear (as sheep). Let her cut her hair close. A single act by the woman. {If it is a shame} (\ei de aischron\). Condition of first class assumed to be true. \Aischron\ is old adjective from \aischos\, bareness, disgrace. Clearly Paul uses such strong language because of the effect on a woman's reputation in Corinth by such conduct that proclaimed her a lewd woman. Social custom varied in the world then as now, but there was no alternative in Corinth. {To be shorn or shaven} (\to keirasthai kai xurasthai\). Articular infinitives subject of copula \estin\ understood, \keirasthai\ first aorist middle, \xurasthai\ present middle. Note change in tense. {Let her be veiled} (\katakaluptesth“\). Present middle imperative of old compound \kata-kalupt“\, here alone in N.T. Let her cover up herself with the veil (down, \kata\, the Greek says, the veil hanging down from the head).

rwp@1Corinthians:11:24 @{When he had given thanks} (\eucharistˆsas\). First aorist active participle of \euchariste“\ from which word our word Eucharist comes, common late verb (see on ¯1:14|). {Which is for you} (\to huper hum“n\). \Kl“menon\ (broken) of the Textus Receptus (King James Version) is clearly not genuine. Luke (Luke:22:19|) has \didomenon\ (given) which is the real idea here. As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not broken (John:19:36|). The bread was broken, but not the body of Jesus. {In remembrance of me} (\eis tˆn emˆn anamnˆsin\). The objective use of the possessive pronoun \emˆn\. Not my remembrance of you, but your remembrance of me. \Anamnˆsis\, from \anamimnˆsk“\, to remind or to recall, is an old word, but only here in N.T. save strkjv@Luke:22:19| which see.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:1 @{Now concerning spiritual gifts} (\peri de t“n pneumatik“n\). Clearly one of the items asked about in the letter to Paul (7:1|) and introduced precisely as the problem of meats offered to idols (8:1|). This question runs to the end of chapter 14. Plainly much trouble had arisen in Corinth in the exercise of these gifts.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:10 @{Workings of miracles} (\energˆmata duname“n\). Workings of powers. Cf. \energ“n dunameis\ in strkjv@Galatians:3:5; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4| where all three words are used (\sˆmeia\, signs, \terata\, wonders, \dunameis\, powers). Some of the miracles were not healings as the blindness on Elymas the sorcerer. {Prophecy} (\prophˆteia\). Late word from \prophˆtˆs\ and \prophˆmi\, to speak forth. Common in papyri. This gift Paul will praise most (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:14|). Not always prediction, but a speaking forth of God's message under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. {Discernings of spirits} (\diakriseis pneumat“n\). \Diakrisis\ is old word from \diakrin“\ (see strkjv@11:29|) and in N.T. only here; strkjv@Romans:14:1; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14|. A most needed gift to tell whether the gifts were really of the Holy Spirit and supernatural (cf. so-called "gifts" today) or merely strange though natural or even diabolical (1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@1John:4:1f.|). {Divers kinds of tongues} (\genˆ gl“ss“n\). No word for "divers" in the Greek. There has arisen a great deal of confusion concerning the gift of tongues as found in Corinth. They prided themselves chiefly on this gift which had become a source of confusion and disorder. There were varieties (kinds, \genˆ\) in this gift, but the gift was essentially an ecstatic utterance of highly wrought emotion that edified the speaker (14:4|) and was intelligible to God (14:2,28|). It was not always true that the speaker in tongues could make clear what he had said to those who did not know the tongue (14:13|)...Holy Spirit which was clearly for...¯Acts:2:13-21; strkjv@10:44-46; strkjv@19:6|. {The interpretation of tongues} (\hermˆneia gl“ss“n\). Old word, here only and strkjv@14:26| in N.T., from \hermˆneu“\ from \Hermˆs\ (the god of speech). Cf. on \diermˆneu“\ in strkjv@Luke:24:27; strkjv@Acts:9:36|. In case there was no one present who understood the particular tongue it required a special gift of the Spirit to some one to interpret it if any one was to receive benefit from it.

rwp@1Corinthians:13:1 @{With the tongues} (\tais gl“ssais\). Instrumental case. Mentioned first because really least and because the Corinthians put undue emphasis on this gift. Plato (_Symposium_, 197) and many others have written on love, but Paul has here surpassed them all in this marvellous prose-poem. It comes like a sweet bell right between the jangling noise of the gifts in chapters 12 and 14. It is a pity to dissect this gem or to pull to pieces this fragrant rose, petal by petal. Fortunately Paul's language here calls for little comment, for it is the language of the heart. "The greatest, strongest, deepest thing Paul ever wrote" (Harnack). The condition (\ean\ and present subjunctive, \lal“ kai mˆ ech“\, though the form is identical with present indicative) is of the third class, a supposable case. {But have not love} (\agapˆn de mˆ ech“\). This is the _crux_ of the chapter. Love is the way _par excellence_ of strkjv@12:31|...It is not yet clearly certain...\agapˆ\ (a back-formation from \agapa“\) occurs before the LXX and the N.T. Plutarch used \agapˆsis\. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 198) once suspected it on an inscription in Pisidia. It is still possible that it occurs in the papyri (Prayer to Isis). See _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 75 for details. The rarity of \agapˆ\ made it easier for Christians to use this word for Christian love as opposed to \er“s\ (sexual love). See also Moffatt's Love in the N.T. for further data. The word is rare in the Gospels, but common in Paul, John, Peter, Jude. Paul does not limit \agapˆ\ at all (both toward God and man). Charity (Latin _caritas_) is wholly inadequate. "Intellect was worshipped in Greece, and power in Rome; but where did St. Paul learn the surpassing beauty of love?" (Robertson and Plummer). Whether Paul had ever seen Jesus in the flesh, he knows him in the spirit. One can substitute Jesus for love all through this panegyric. {I am become} (\gegona\). Second perfect indicative in the conclusion rather than the usual future indicative. It is put vividly, "I am already become." Sounding brass (\chalchos ˆch“n\). Old words. Brass was the earliest metal that men learned to use. Our word _echoing_ is \ˆch“n\, present active participle. Used in strkjv@Luke:21:25| of the roaring of the sea. Only two examples in N.T. {Clanging cymbal} (\kumbalon alalazon\). Cymbal old word, a hollow basin of brass. \Alalaz“\, old onomatopoetic word to ring loudly, in lament (Mark:5:38|), for any cause as here. Only two N.T. examples.

rwp@Info_1John @...nothing. The Epistle was clearly sent...(cf. the Seven Churches in Revelation).

rwp@1John:4:1 @{Beloved} (\agapˆtoi\). Three times in this chapter (1,7,11|) we have this tender address on love. {Believe not every spirit} (\mˆ panti pneumati pisteuete\)...believing," as some were clearly carried...{Prove the spirits} (\dokimazete ta pneumata\). Put them to the acid test of truth as the metallurgist does his metals. If it stands the test like a coin, it is acceptable (\dokimos\, strkjv@2Corinthians:10:18|), otherwise it is rejected (\adokimos\, strkjv@1Corinthians:9:27; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:5-7|). {Many false prophets} (\polloi pseudoprophˆtai\). Jesus had warned people against them (Matthew:7:15|), even when they as false Christs work portents (Matthew:24:11,24; strkjv@Mark:13:22|). It is an old story (Luke:6:26|) and recurs again and again (Acts:13:6; strkjv@Revelation:16:13; strkjv@19:20; strkjv@20:10|) along with false teachers (2Peter:2:1|). {Are gone out} (\exelˆluthasin\). Perfect active indicative of \exerchomai\. Cf. aorist in strkjv@2:19|. They are abroad always.

rwp@1John:4:3 @{Confesseth not} (\mˆ homologei\). Indefinite relative clause with the subjective negative \mˆ\ rather than the usual objective negative \ou\ (verse 6|). It is seen also in strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Titus:1:11|, a survival of the literary construction (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 171). The Vulgate (along with Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine) reads _solvit_ (\luei\) instead of \mˆ homologei\, which means "separates Jesus," apparently an allusion to the Cerinthian heresy (distinction between Jesus and Christ) as the clause before refers to the Docetic heresy. Many MSS. have here also \en sarki elˆluthota\ repeated from preceding clause, but not A B Vg Cop. and not genuine. {The spirit of the antichrist} (\to tou antichristou\). \Pneuma\ (spirit) not expressed, but clearly implied by the neuter singular article to. It is a repetition of the point about antichrists made in strkjv@2:18-25|. {Whereof} (\ho\). Accusative of person (grammatical neuter referring to \pneuma\) with \akou“\ along with accusative of the thing (\hoti erchetai\, as in strkjv@2:18|, futuristic present middle indicative). Here the perfect active indicative (\akˆkoate\), while in strkjv@2:18| the aorist (\ˆkousate\). {And now already} (\kai nun ˆdˆ\). As in strkjv@2:18| also (many have come). "The prophecy had found fulfilment before the Church had looked for it" (Westcott). It is often so. For \ˆdˆ\ see strkjv@John:4:35; strkjv@9:27|.

rwp@1John:5:10 @{Believeth on} (\pisteu“n eis\). John draws a distinction between "not believing God" (\mˆ pisteu“n t“i the“i\) in next clause, the testimony of God about his Son, and surrender to and reliance on the Son as here (\eis\ and the accusative)...the same distinction less clearly drawn...6:30f|. See also \eis tˆn marturian\ after \pepisteuken\ in this same verse and strkjv@John:2:23|. {In him} (\en haut“i\). "In himself," though the evidence is not decisive between \haut“i\ and \aut“i\. {Hath made} (\pepoiˆken\). Perfect active indicative of \poie“\ like \memarturˆken\ and \pepisteuken\, permanent state. {A liar} (\pseustˆn\). As in strkjv@1:10|, which see. {Because he hath not believed} (\hoti ou pepisteuken\). Actual negative reason with negative \ou\, not the subjective reason as in strkjv@John:3:18|, where we have \hoti mˆ pepisteuken\). The subjective negative is regular with \ho mˆ pisteu“n\. Relative clause here repeats close of verse 9|.

rwp@1John:5:16 @{If any man see} (\ean tis idˆi\). Third-class condition with \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \eidon\ (\hora“\). {Sinning a sin} (\hamartanonta hamartian\). Present active predicate (supplementary) participle agreeing with \adelphon\ and with cognate accusative \hamartian\. {Not unto death} (\mˆ pros thanaton\). Repeated again with \hamartanousin\ and in contrast with \hamartia pros thanaton\ (sin unto death)...not mortal sins, but clearly John...18:22| the LXX has \labein hamartian thanatˆphoron\ "to incur a death-bearing sin" as many crimes then and now bear the death penalty. There is a distinction in strkjv@Hebrews:10:26| between sinning wilfully after full knowledge and sins of ignorance (Hebrews:5:2|). Jesus spoke of the unpardonable sin (Mark:3:29; strkjv@Matthew:12:32; strkjv@Luke:12:10|), which was attributing to the devil the manifest work of the Holy Spirit. It is possible that John has this idea in mind when he applies it to those who reject Jesus Christ as God's Son and set themselves up as antichrists. {Concerning this} (\peri ekeinˆs\). This sin unto death. {That he should make request} (\hina er“tˆsˆi\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with the first aorist active subjunctive of \er“ta“\, used here as in strkjv@John:17:15,20| (and often) for request rather than for question. John does not forbid praying for such cases; he simply does not command prayer for them. He leaves them to God.

rwp@1John:5:20 @{Is come} (\hˆkei\). Present active indicative, but the root has a perfect sense, "has come." See \exˆlthon kai hˆk“\ in strkjv@John:8:42|. {An understanding} (\dianoian\). Here alone in John's writings, but in Paul (Ephesians:4:18|) and Peter (1Peter:1:13|). John does not use \gn“sis\ (knowledge) and \nous\ (mind) only in strkjv@Revelation:13:18; strkjv@17:9|. {That we know} (\hina gin“skomen\). Result clause with \hina\ and the present active indicative, as is common with \hina\ and the future indicative (John:7:3|). It is possible that here \o\ was pronounced \“\ as a subjunctive, but many old MSS. have \hina gin“skousin\ (plainly indicative) in strkjv@John:17:3|, and in many other places in the N.T. the present indicative with \hina\ occurs as a variant reading as in strkjv@John:5:20|. {Him that is true} (\ton alˆthinon\). That is, God. Cf. strkjv@1:8|. {In him that is true} (\en t“i alˆthin“i\). In God in contrast with the world "in the evil one" (verse 19|). See strkjv@John:17:3|. {Even in his Son Jesus Christ} (\en t“i hui“i autou Iˆsou Christ“i\). The \autou\ refers clearly to \en t“i alˆthin“i\ (God). Hence this clause is not in apposition with the preceding, but an explanation as to how we are "in the True One" by being "in his Son Jesus Christ." {This} (\houtos\). Grammatically \houtos\ may refer to Jesus Christ or to "the True One." It is a bit tautological to refer it to God, but that is probably correct, God in Christ, at any rate. God is eternal life (John:5:26|) and he gives it to us through Christ.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 65 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR The Epistle is not anonymous, but claims to be written by "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1Peter:1:1|), that is Cephas (Simon Peter). If this is not true, then the book is pseudonymous by a late writer who assumed Peter's name, as in the so-called Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc. "There is no book in the New Testament which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation, though Irenaeus is the first to quote it by name" (Bigg). Eusebius (_H.E_. iii. 25.2) places it among the acknowledged books, those accepted with no doubt at all. We here assume that Simon Peter wrote this Epistle or at any rate dictated it by an amanuensis, as Paul did in Romans (Romans:16:22|). Bigg suggests Silvanus (Silas) as the amanuensis or interpreter (1Peter:5:12|), the obvious meaning of the language (\dia\, through). He may also have been the bearer of the Epistle. It happens that we know more of Peter's life than of any of the twelve apostles because of his prominence in the Gospels and in the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. In the _Student's Chronological New Testament_ I have given a full list of the passages in the Gospels where Peter appears with any clearness and the material is rich and abundant. The account in Acts is briefer, though Peter is the outstanding man in the first five chapters during his career in Jerusalem. After the conversion of Saul he begins to work outside of Jerusalem and after escaping death at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts:12:3ff.|) he left for a while, but is back in Jerusalem at the Conference called by Paul and Barnabas (Acts:15:6-14; Gal strkjv@2:1-10|). After that we have no more about him in Acts, though he reappears in Antioch and is rebuked by Paul for cowardice because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-21). He travelled for the Gospel among the Jews of the Dispersion (Galatians:2:9|) with his wife (1Corinthians:9:5|), and went to Asia Minor (1Peter:1:1|) and as far as Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|). Besides Silvanus he had John Mark with him also (1Peter:5:13|), who was said by the early Christian writers to have been Peter's "interpreter" in his preaching, since Peter was not expert in the Greek (Acts:4:13|)...not able to follow clearly the...67 or 68, but some think that he was executed in Rome in A.D. 64.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE READERS Peter writes "to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1Peter:1:1|). These five Roman provinces are naturally given from the standpoint of Babylon. In Galatia and Asia Paul had labored, though not all over these provinces. At any rate, there is no reason to wonder that Peter should himself work in the same regions where Paul had been. In a general way Paul and Peter had agreed on separate spheres of activity, Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews (Galatians:21:7ff.|)...of Gentiles. Peter has clearly Paul's...(1Peter:2:4-10|)

rwp@1Peter:1:2 @{According to} (\kata\). Probably to be connected with \eklektois\ rather than with \apostolos\ in spite of a rather loose arrangement of words and the absence of articles in verses 1,2|. {The foreknowledge} (\progn“sin\). Late substantive (Plutarch, Lucian, papyri) from \progin“sk“\ (1:20|), to know beforehand, only twice in N.T. (here and strkjv@Acts:2:23| in Peter's sermon). In this Epistle Peter often uses substantives rather than verbs (cf. strkjv@Romans:8:29|). {Of God the Father} (\theou patros\). Anarthous again and genitive case. See \patˆr\ applied to God also in strkjv@1:3,17| as often by Paul (Romans:1:7|, etc.). Peter here presents the Trinity (God the Father, the Spirit, Jesus Christ). {In sanctification of the Spirit} (\en hagiasm“i pneumatos\). Clearly the Holy Spirit, though anarthrous like \theou patros\. Late word from \hagiaz“\, to render holy (\hagios\), to consecrate, as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:7|. The subjective genitive here, sanctification wrought by the Spirit as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:13| (where the Trinity mentioned as here). {Unto obedience} (\eis hupakoˆn\). Obedience (from \hupakou“\, to hear under, to hearken) to the Lord Jesus as in strkjv@1:22| "to the truth," result of "the sanctification." {And sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ} (\rantismon haimatos Iˆsou Christou\). Late substantive from \rantiz“\, to sprinkle (Hebrews:9:13|), a word used in the LXX of the sacrifices (Numbers:19:9,13,20|, etc.), but not in any non-biblical source so far as known, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:12:24| (of the sprinkling of blood). Reference to the death of Christ on the Cross and to the ratification of the New Covenant by the blood of Christ as given in strkjv@Hebrews:9:19f.; strkjv@12:24| with allusion to strkjv@Exodus:24:3-8|. Paul does not mention this ritual use of the blood of Christ, but Jesus does (Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Mark:14:24|). Hence it is not surprising to find the use of it by Peter and the author of Hebrews. Hort suggests that Peter may also have an ulterior reference to the blood of the martyrs as in strkjv@Revelation:7:14f.; strkjv@12:11|, but only as illustration of what Jesus did for us, not as having any value. The whole Epistle is a commentary upon \progn“sis theou, hagiasmos pneumatos, haima Christou\ (Bigg). Peter is not ashamed of the blood of Christ. {Be multiplied} (\plˆthuntheiˆ\). First aorist passive optative (volitive) of \plˆthun“\, old verb (from \plˆthus\, fulness), in a wish. Songs:in strkjv@2Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|, but nowhere else in N.T. salutations. Grace and peace (\charis kai eirˆnˆ\) occur together in strkjv@2Peter:1:2|, in strkjv@2John:1:2| (with \eleos\), and in all Paul's Epistles (with \eleos\ added in I and II Timothy).

rwp@1Peter:1:6 @{Wherein} (\en h“i\). This translation refers the relative \h“i\ to \kair“i\, but it is possible to see a reference to \Christou\ (verse 3|) or to \theou\ (verse 5|) or even to the entire content of verses 3-5|. Either makes sense, though possibly \kair“i\ is correct. {Ye greatly rejoice} (\agalliƒsthe\). Present middle indicative (rather than imperative) of \agalliaomai\, late verb from \agallomai\, to rejoice, only in LXX, N.T., and ecclesiastical literature as in strkjv@Matthew:5:12|. {Now for a little while} (\oligon arti\). Accusative case of time (\oligon\) probably as in strkjv@Mark:6:31|, though it can be used of space (to a small extent) as in strkjv@Luke:5:3|. {If need be} (\ei deon\). Present active neuter singular participle of \dei\ (it is necessary). Some MSS. have \estin\ after \deon\ (periphrastic construction). Condition of first class. {Though ye have been put to grief} (\lupˆthentes\). First aorist passive participle (concessive circumstantial use) of \lupe“\, to make sorrowful (from \lupˆ\, sorrow), old and common verb. See strkjv@2Corinthians:6:10|. {In manifold temptations} (\en poikilois peirasmois\). Just the phrase in strkjv@James:1:2|...see for discussion. "Trials" clearly right...\poikilos\ (varied).

rwp@1Peter:1:11 @{Searching} (\eraun“ntes\). Present active participle of \erauna“\, late form for older \ereuna“\ (both in the papyri), uncompounded verb (John:7:52|), the compound occurring in verse 10| above. {What time or what manner of time} (\eis tina ˆ poion kairon\). Proper sense of \poios\ (qualitative interrogative) kept here as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:35, strkjv@Romans:3:27|, though it is losing its distinctive sense from \tis\ (Acts:23:34|). The prophets knew what they prophesied, but not at what time the Messianic prophecies would be fulfilled. {The Spirit of Christ which was in them} (\to en autois pneuma Christou\). Peter definitely asserts here that the Spirit of Jesus Christ (the Messiah) was in the Old Testament prophets, the Holy Spirit called the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God (Romans:8:9|), who spoke to the prophets as he would speak to the apostles (John:16:14|). {Did point unto} (\edˆlou\). Imperfect active of \dˆlo“\...though they did not clearly perceive...{When it testified beforehand} (\promarturomenon\). Present middle participle of \promarturomai\, a late compound unknown elsewhere save in a writer of the fourteenth century (Theodorus Mech.) and now in a papyrus of the eighth. It is neuter here because \pneuma\ is neuter, but this grammatical gender should not be retained as "it" in English, but should be rendered "he" (and so as to strkjv@Acts:8:15|). Here we have predictive prophecy concerning the Messiah, though some modern critics fail to find predictions of the Messiah in the Old Testament. {The sufferings of Christ} (\ta eis Christon pathˆmata\). "The sufferings for (destined for) Christ" like the use of \eis\ in verse 10| (\eis humas\ for you). {The glories that should follow them} (\tas meta tauta doxas\). "The after these things (sufferings) glories." The plural of \doxa\ is rare, but occurs in strkjv@Exodus:15:11; strkjv@Hosea:9:11|. The glories of Christ followed the sufferings as in strkjv@4:13; strkjv@5:1,6|.

rwp@1Peter:1:19 @{But with precious blood} (\alla timi“i haimati\). Instrumental case of \haima\ after \elutr“thˆte\ (repeated from verse 18|). Peter here applies the old adjective \timios\ (from \timˆ\, of Christ in strkjv@1Peter:2:7|) to Christ as in strkjv@1:7| \polutimoteron\ to testing of faith. The blood of anyone is "precious" (costly), far above gold or silver, but that of Jesus immeasurably more so. {As of a lamb} (\h“s amnou\). This word occurs in strkjv@Leviticus:12:8; strkjv@Numbers:15:11; strkjv@Deuteronomy:14:4| of the lamb prescribed for the passover sacrifice (Exodus:12:5|). John the Baptist applies it to Jesus (John:1:29,36|). It occurs also in strkjv@Acts:8:32| quoted from strkjv@Isaiah:53:7f|. Undoubtedly both the Baptist and Peter have this passage in mind. Elsewhere in the N.T. \arnion\ is used of Christ (Revelation:5:6,12|)...Paschal Lamb. Peter sees clearly that...{Without blemish} (\am“mou\). Without (alpha privative) spot (\m“mos\) as the paschal lamb had to be (Leviticus:22:21|). Songs:Hebrews:9:14|. {Without spot} (\aspilou\). Without (alpha privative) stain (\spilos\ spot) as in strkjv@James:1:27; strkjv@2Peter:3:14; strkjv@1Peter:6:14|. {Even the blood of Christ} (\Christou\). Genitive case with \haimati\, but in unusual position for emphasis and clearness with the participles following.

rwp@1Peter:2:5 @{Ye also as living stones} (\kai autoi h“s lithoi z“ntes\). Peter applies the metaphor about Christ as the living stone to the readers, "ye yourselves also." {Are built up a spiritual house} (\oikodomeisthe oikos pneumatikos\). Present passive indicative second person plural of \oikodome“\, the very verb used by Jesus to Peter in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| (\oikodomˆs“\) of building his church on the rock. If the metaphor of a house of living stones seems "violent" (Vincent), it should be remembered that Jesus employed the figure of a house of believers. Peter just carried it a bit farther and Paul uses a temple for believers in one place (1Corinthians:3:16|) and for the kingdom of God in general (Ephesians:2:22|), as does the author of Hebrews (Hebrews:3:6|). This "spiritual house" includes believers in the five Roman provinces of strkjv@1:1| and shows clearly how Peter understood the metaphor of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| to be not a local church, but the church general (the kingdom of Christ). {To be a holy priesthood} (\eis hierateuma hagion\). Late word (from \hierateu“\, to serve as priest, strkjv@Luke:1:8| alone in N.T.), in LXX (Exodus:19:6|), in N.T. only here and verse 9|, either the office of priest (Hort) or an order or body of priests. At any rate, Peter has the same idea of Rev strkjv@1:6| (\hiereis\, priests) that all believers are priests (Hebrews:4:16|) and can approach God directly. {To offer up} (\anenegkai\). First aorist active infinitive (of purpose here) of \anapher“\, the usual word for offering sacrifices (Hebrews:7:27|). Only these are "spiritual" (\pneumatikas\) as pictured also in strkjv@Hebrews:13:15f|. {Acceptable} (\euprosdektous\). Late (Plutarch) double compound verbal adjective (\eu, pros, dechomai\) as in strkjv@2Corinthians:6:2|.

rwp@1Peter:5:2 @{Tend} (\poimanate\). First aorist active imperative of \poimain“\, old verb, from \poimˆn\ (shepherd) as in strkjv@Luke:17:7|. Jesus used this very word to Peter in the interview by the Sea of Galilee (John:21:16|) and Peter doubtless has this fact in mind here. Paul used the word to the elders at Miletus (Acts:20:28|). See strkjv@2:25| for the metaphor. {Flock} (\poimnion\). Old word, likewise from \poimˆn\, contraction of \poimenion\ (Luke:12:32|). {Exercising the oversight} (\episkopountes\). Present active participle of \episkope“\, old word (in strkjv@Hebrews:12:15| alone in N.T.), omitted here by Aleph B. {Not by constraint} (\mˆ anagkast“s\). Negative \mˆ\ because of the imperative. Old adverb from verbal adjective \anagkastos\, here alone in N.T. {But willingly} (\alla hekousi“s\). By contrast. Old adverb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:10:26|. {Nor yet for filthy lucre} (\mˆde aischrokerd“s\). A compound adverb not found elsewhere, but the old adjective \aischrokerdˆs\ is in strkjv@1Timothy:3:8; strkjv@Titus:1:7|. See also strkjv@Titus:1:11| "for the sake of filthy lucre" (\aischrou kerdous charin\). Clearly the elders received stipends, else there could be no such temptation. {But of a ready mind} (\alla prothum“s\). Old adverb from \prothumos\ (Matthew:26:41|), here only in N.T.

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

rwp@Info_1Thessalonians @ There are excellent commentaries on the Thessalonian Epistles. On the Greek text one may note those by Dibelius, _Handbuch zum N.T. Zweite Auflage_; Dobschutz, _Meyer-Kommentar_; Ellicott, _Crit. and Grammat. Comm._; Findlay, _Cambridge Gk. Test._; Frame, _Intern. Critical Comm._; Lightfoot, _Notes on Epistles of Paul_; Mayer, _Die Thessalonischerbriefe_; Milligan, _St. Paul's Epistles to the Thess._; Moffatt, _Expos. Gk. Test._; Plummer, _First Thess._, _Second Thess._; Wohlenberg, _Zahn-Komm. 2 aufl._. On the English text note those by Adeney, _New Century Bible_; Denney, _Expos. Bible_; Findlay, _Cambridge Bible_; Hutchinson, _Lectures on I & II Thess._. strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1 @{Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy} (\Paulos kai Silouanos kai Timotheos\). Nominative absolute as customary in letters. Paul associates with himself Silvanus (Silas of Acts, spelled \Silbanos\ in D and the papyri), a Jew and Roman citizen, and Timothy, son of Jewish mother and Greek father, one of Paul's converts at Lystra on the first tour. They had both been with Paul at Thessalonica, though Timothy is not mentioned by Luke in Acts in Macedonia till Beroea (Acts:17:14f.|). Timothy had joined Paul in Athens (1Thessalonians:3:1f.|), had been sent back to Thessalonica, and with Silas had rejoined Paul in Corinth (1Thessalonians:3:5; strkjv@Acts:18:5, strkjv@2Corinthians:1:19|). Silas is the elder and is mentioned first, but neither is in any sense the author of the Epistle any more than Sosthenes is co-author of I Corinthians or Timothy of II Corinthians, though Paul may sometimes have them in mind when he uses "we" in the Epistle. Paul does not here call himself "apostle" as in the later Epistles, perhaps because his position has not been so vigorously attacked as it was later. Ellicott sees in the absence of the word here a mark of the affectionate relations existing between Paul and the Thessalonians. {Unto the church of the Thessalonians} (\tˆi ekklˆsiƒi Thessalonike“n\). The dative case in address. Note absence of the article with \Thessalonike“n\ because a proper name and so definite without it. This is the common use of \ekklˆsia\ for a local body (church). The word originally meant "assembly" as in strkjv@Acts:19:39|, but it came to mean an organization for worship whether assembled or unassembled (cf. strkjv@Acts:8:3|). The only superscription in the oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph B A) is \Pros Thessalonikeis A\ ({To the Thessalonians First}). But probably Paul wrote no superscription and certainly he would not write A to it before he had written II Thessalonians (B). His signature at the close was the proof of genuineness (2Thessalonians:3:17|) against all spurious claimants (2Thessalonians:2:2|). Unfortunately the brittle papyrus on which he wrote easily perished outside of the sand heaps and tombs of Egypt or the lava covered ruins of Herculaneum. What a treasure that autograph would be! {In God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ} (\en the“i patri kai kuri“i Jˆsou Christ“i\). This church is grounded in (\en\, with the locative case) and exists in the sphere and power of {God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ}. No article in the Greek, for both \the“i patri\ and \kuri“i Jˆsou Christ“i\ are treated as proper names. In the very beginning of this first Epistle of Paul we meet his Christology. He at once uses the full title, "Lord Jesus Christ," with all the theological content of each word. The name "Jesus" (Saviour, strkjv@Matthew:1:21|) he knew, as the "Jesus of history," the personal name of the Man of Galilee, whom he had once persecuted (Acts:9:5|), but whom he at once, after his conversion, proclaimed to be "the Messiah," (\ho Christos\, strkjv@Acts:9:22|). This position Paul never changed. In the great sermon at Antioch in Pisidia which Luke has preserved (Acts:13:23|) Paul proved that God fulfilled his promise to Israel by raising up "Jesus as Saviour" (\s“tˆra Iˆsoun\). Now Paul follows the Christian custom by adding \Christos\ (verbal from \chri“\, to anoint) as a proper name to Jesus (Jesus Christ) as later he will often say "Christ Jesus" (Colossians:1:1|). And he dares also to apply \kurios\ (Lord) to "Jesus Christ," the word appropriated by Claudius (_Dominus_, \Kurios\) and other emperors in the emperor-worship, and also common in the Septuagint for God as in strkjv@Psalms:32:1f.| (quoted by Paul in strkjv@Romans:4:8|). Paul uses \Kurios\ of God (1Corinthians:3:5|) or of Jesus Christ as here. In fact, he more frequently applies it to Christ when not quoting the Old Testament as in strkjv@Romans:4:8|. And here he places "the Lord Jesus Christ" in the same category and on the same plane with "God the father." There will be growth in Paul's Christology and he will never attain all the knowledge of Christ for which he longs (Phillipians:3:10-12|), but it is patent that here in his first Epistle there is no "reduced Christ" for Paul. He took Jesus as "Lord" when he surrendered to Jesus on the Damascus Road: "And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said to me" (Acts:22:10|)...understand Paul without seeing clearly this...{Grace to you and peace} (\charis humin kai eirˆnˆ\). These words, common in Paul's Epistles, bear "the stamp of Paul's experience" (Milligan). They are not commonplace salutations, but the old words "deepened and spiritualised" (Frame). The infinitive (\chairein\) so common in the papyri letters and seen in the New Testament also (Acts:15:23; strkjv@23:26; strkjv@James:1:1|) here gives place to \charis\, one of the great words of the New Testament (cf. strkjv@John:1:16f.|) and particularly of the Pauline Epistles. Perhaps no one word carries more meaning for Paul's messages than this word \charis\ (from \chair“\, rejoice) from which \charizomai\ comes. {Peace} (\eirˆnˆ\) is more than the Hebrew _shal“m_ so common in salutations. One recalls the "peace" that Christ leaves to us (John:14:27|) and the peace of God that passes all understanding (Phillipians:4:7|). This introduction is brief, but rich and gracious and pitches the letter at once on a high plane.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:7 @{But we were gentle in the midst of you} (\alla egenˆthˆmen nˆpioi en mes“i hum“n\). Note \egenˆthˆmen\ (became), not \ˆmetha\ (were). This rendering follows \ˆpioi\ instead of \nˆpioi\ (Aleph B D C Vulg. Boh.) which is clearly correct, though Dibelius, Moffatt, Ellicott, Weiss prefer \ˆpioi\ as making better sense. Dibelius terms \nˆpioi\ _unmoglich_ (impossible), but surely that is too strong. Paul is fond of the word \nˆpioi\ (babes). Lightfoot admits that he here works the metaphor to the limit in his passion, but does not mar it as Ellicott holds. {As when a nurse cherishes her own children} (\h“s ean trophos thalpˆi ta heautˆs tekna\). This comparative clause with \h“s ean\ (Mark:4:26; strkjv@Galatians:6:10| without \ean\ or \an\) and the subjunctive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 968) has a sudden change of the metaphor, as is common with Paul (1Timothy:5:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:13ff.|) from {babes} to {nurse} (\trophos\), old word, here only in the N.T., from \treph“\, to nourish, \trophˆ\, nourishment. It is really the mother-nurse "who suckles and nurses her own children" (Lightfoot), a use found in Sophocles, and a picture of Paul's tender affection for the Thessalonians. \Thalp“\ is an old word to keep warm, to cherish with tender love, to foster. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:5:29|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:8 @{Even so, being affectionately desirous of you} (\hout“s omeiromenoi hum“n\). Clearly the correct text rather than \himeiromenoi\ from \himeir“\, old verb to long for. But the verb \homeiromai\ (Westcott and Hort _om_., smooth breathing) occurs nowhere else except MSS. in strkjv@Job:3:21; strkjv@Psalms:62:2| (Symmachus) and the Lycaonian sepulchral inscription (4th cent. A.D.) about the sorrowing parents \homeiromenoi peri paidos\, {greatly desiring their son} (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). Moulton suggests that it comes from a root \smer\, remember, and that \o-\ is a derelict preposition \o\ like \o-duromai, o-kell“, “-keanos\. Wohlenberg (Zahn, _Kommentar_) calls the word "a term of endearment," "derived from the language of the nursery" (Milligan). {We were well pleased} (\ˆudokoumen\). Imperfect active of \eudoke“\, common verb in later Greek and in N.T. (see on strkjv@Matthew:3:17|), picturing Paul's idea of their attitude while in Thessalonica. Paul often has it with the infinitive as here. {To impart} (\metadounai\). Second aorist active infinitive of \metadid“mi\, old verb to share with (see on strkjv@Luke:3:11|). Possible zeugma with {souls} (\psuchas\), though Lightfoot renders "lives." Paul and his associates held nothing back. {Because ye were become very dear to us} (\dioti agapˆtoi hˆmin egenˆthˆte\). Note \dioti\ (double cause, \dia, hoti\, for that), use of \ginomai\ again for become, and dative \hˆmin\ with verbal \agapˆtoi\, beloved and so dear. A beautiful picture of the growth of Paul's affection for them as should be true with every pastor.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:8 @{Therefore} (\toigaroun\). This old triple compound particle (\toi, gar, oun\) is in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:12:1|. Paul applies the logic of the case. {He that rejecteth} (\ho athet“n\). This late verb (Polybius and LXX) is from \a-thetos\ (\a\ privative and verbal of \tithˆmi\, to proscribe a thing, to annul it. {But God} (\alla ton theon\). Paul sees this clearly and modern atheists see it also. In order to justify their licentiousness they do not hesitate to set aside God.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:27 @{I adjure you by the Lord} (\enorkiz“ humas ton Kurion\). Late compound for old \horkiz“\ (Mark:5:7|), to put one on oath, with two accusatives (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 483f.). Occurs in inscriptions. {That this epistle be read unto all the brethren} (\anagn“sthˆnai tˆn epistolˆn pasin tois adelphois\). First aorist passive infinitive of \anagin“sk“\ with accusative of general reference in an indirect command. Clearly Paul wrote for the church as a whole and wished the epistles read aloud at a public meeting. In this first epistle we see the importance that he attaches to his epistles.

rwp@1Timothy:5:14 @{I desire} (\boulomai\). See strkjv@2:8|. {The younger widows} (\ne“teras\)...widows, though that is clearly the...\Ne“teras\ is accusative of general reference with \gamein\ (to marry) the object (present infinitive active) of \boulomai\. {Bear children} (\teknogonein\). A compound verb here only in N.T. and nowhere else save in Anthol. See \teknogonia\ in strkjv@2:15|. {Rule the household} (\oikodespotein\). Late verb from \oikodespotˆs\ (Mark:14:14|), twice in the papyri, only here in N.T. Note that the wife is here put as ruler of the household, proper recognition of her influence, "new and improved position" (Liddon). {Occasion} (\aphormˆn\). Old word (\apo, hormˆ\), a base to rush from, Pauline use in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:12; strkjv@11:12; strkjv@Galatians:5:13|. {To the adversary} (\t“i antikeimen“i\). Dative case of the articular participle of \antikeimai\, a Pauline idiom (Phillipians:1:28|). {Reviling} (\loidorias\). Old word (from \loidore“\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:3:9|. Genitive case with \charin\.

rwp@1Timothy:5:18 @{Thou shalt not muzzle} (\ou phim“seis\). Prohibition by \ou\ and future (volitive) indicative of \phimo“\ (from \phimos\, muzzle), old word, quoted also in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:9| as here from strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:4|, and for the same purpose, to show the preacher's right to pay for his work. See strkjv@1Corinthians:9:9| for \alo“nta\ ({when he treadeth out the corn}). {The labourer is worthy of his hire} (\axios ho ergatˆs tou misthou autou\). These words occur in precisely this form in strkjv@Luke:10:7|. It appears also in strkjv@Matthew:10:10| with \tˆs trophˆs\ (food) instead of \tou misthou\. In strkjv@1Corinthians:9:14|...also the Lord ordained," clearly meaning...20:35| or even the Gospel of Luke or Q (the Logia of Jesus). There is no way to decide this question. If Luke wrote his Gospel before A.D. 62 as is quite possible and Acts by A.D. 63, he could refer to the Gospel. It is not clear whether Scripture is here meant to apply to this quotation from the Lord Jesus. For \ergatˆs\ (labourer) see strkjv@Phillipians:3:2|.

rwp@1Timothy:5:23 @{Be no longer a drinker of water} (\mˆketi hudropotei\). Present active imperative (prohibition) of \hudropote“\, old verb (from \hudropotˆs\, water drinker, \hud“r, pin“\), here only in N.T. Not complete asceticism, but only the need of some wine urged in Timothy's peculiar physical condition (a sort of medical prescription for this case). {But use a little wine} (\alla ain“i olig“i chr“\). Present middle imperative of \chraomai\ with instrumental case. The emphasis is on \olig“i\ (a little). {For thy stomach's sake} (\dia ton stomachon\). Old word from \stoma\ (mouth). In Homer throat, opening of the stomach (Aristotle), stomach in Plutarch. Here only in N.T. Our word "stomach." {Thine often infirmities} (\tas puknas sou astheneias\). \Puknos\ is old word, dense, frequent. In N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:5:33; strkjv@Acts:24:26|. \Astheneias\ = weaknesses, lack of strength (Romans:8:26|). Timothy was clearly a semi-invalid.

rwp@1Timothy:5:24 @{Evident} (\prodˆloi\). "Openly plain," "plain before all." Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:7:24|. {Going before unto judgment} (\proagousai eis krisin\). See strkjv@1:18| for \proag“\. The sins are so plain that they receive instant condemnation. {And some men also they follow after} (\tisin de kai epakolouthousin\). Associative instrumental case \tisin\ with \epakolouthousin\ for which verb see verse 10|, "dog their steps" (Parry) like strkjv@1Peter:2:21|, not clearly manifest at first, but come out plainly at last. How true that is of secret sins.

rwp@1Timothy:5:25 @{Such as are otherwise} (\ta all“s echonta\). "Those (deeds, \erga\)...is good deeds not clearly manifest....{Cannot be hid} (\krubˆnai ou dunantai\). Second aorist passive infinitive of \krupt“\. There is comfort here for modest preachers and other believers whose good deeds are not known and not blazoned forth. They will come out in the end. See strkjv@Matthew:5:14-16|.

rwp@1Timothy:6:15 @{In its own times} (\kairois idiois\). Locative case. May be "in his own times." See strkjv@2:6|. Clearly not for us to figure out. {Who is the blessed and only Potentate} (\ho makarios kai monos dunastˆs\). "The happy and alone Potentate." \Dunastˆs\, old word, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:1:52; strkjv@Acts:8:27| (the Eunuch). See strkjv@1:11| for \makarios\. {The King of kings} (\ho basileus t“n basileuont“n\). "The King of those who rule as kings." Oriental title. Songs:with "Lord of lords." See strkjv@Revelation:10:16|.

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ The occasion of the Epistle is made plain by numerous allusions personal and otherwise. Paul had arrived in Ephesus from Antioch shortly after the departure of Apollos for Corinth with letters of commendation from Priscilla and Aquila (Acts:18:28-19:1|). It is not clear how long Apollos remained in Corinth, but he is back in Ephesus when Paul writes the letter and he has declined Paul's request to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|)...over Apollos and Paul, clearly the...(1Corinthians:1:10-12|). Even Cephas nominally was drawn into it, though there is no evidence that Peter himself had come to Corinth. Paul had sent Timothy over to Corinth to put an end to the factions (1Corinthians:4:17|), though he was uneasy over the outcome (1Corinthians:16:10f.|). This disturbance was enough of itself to call forth a letter from Paul. But it was by no means the whole story. Paul had already written a letter, now lost to us, concerning a peculiarly disgusting case of incest in the membership (1Corinthians:5:9|). They were having lawsuits with one another before heathen judges. Members of the church had written Paul a letter about marriage whether any or all should marry (1Corinthians:7:1|). They were troubled also whether it was right to eat meat that had been offered to idols in the heathen temples (1Corinthians:8:1|). Spiritual gifts of an unusual nature were manifested in Corinth and these were the occasion of a deal of trouble (1Corinthians:12:1|). The doctrine of the resurrection gave much trouble in Corinth (1Corinthians:15:12|). Paul was interested in the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Corinthians:16:1|) and in their share in it. The church in Corinth had sent a committee (Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus) to Paul in Ephesus. He hopes to come himself after passing through Macedonia (1Corinthians:16:5f.|). It is possible that he had made a short visit before this letter (2Corinthians:13:1|), though not certain as he may have intended to go one time without going as he certainly once changed his plans on the subject (2Corinthians:1:15-22|). Whether Titus took the letter on his visit or it was sent on after the return of Timothy is not perfectly clear. Probably Timothy returned to Ephesus from Corinth shortly after the epistle was sent on, possibly by the committee who returned to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:17|), for Timothy and Erastus were sent on from Ephesus to Macedonia before the outbreak at the hands of Demetrius (Acts:19:22|). Apparently Timothy had not fully succeeded in reconciling the factions in Corinth for Paul dispatched Titus who was to meet him at Troas as he went on to Macedonia. Paul's hurried departure from Ephesus (Acts:20:1|) took him to Troas before Titus arrived and Paul's impatience there brought him to Macedonia where he did meet Titus on his return from Corinth (2Corinthians:2:12f.|).

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ It is clear therefore that Paul wrote what we call I Corinthians in a disturbed state of mind. He had founded the church there, had spent two years there (Acts:18|), and took pardonable pride in his work there as a wise architect (1Corinthians:3:10|) for he had built the church on Christ as the foundation. He was anxious that his work should abide. It is plain that the disturbances in the church in Corinth were fomented from without by the Judaizers whom Paul had defeated at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:1-35; strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10|). They were overwhelmed there, but renewed their attacks in Antioch (Galatians:2:11-21|). Henceforth throughout the second mission tour they are a disturbing element in Galatia, in Corinth, in Jerusalem. While Paul is winning the Gentiles in the Roman Empire to Christ, these Judaizers are trying to win Paul's converts to Judaism. Nowhere do we see the conflict at so white a heat as in Corinth. Paul finally will expose them with withering sarcasm (2Corinthians:10-13|) as Jesus did the Pharisees in strkjv@Matthew:23| on that last day in the temple. Factional strife, immorality, perverted ideas about marriage, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection, these complicated problems are a vivid picture of church life in our cities today. The discussion of them shows Paul's manysidedness and also the powerful grasp that he has upon the realities of the gospel. Questions of casuistry are faced fairly and serious ethical issues are met squarely. But along with the treatment of these vexed matters Paul sings the noblest song of the ages on love (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13|) and writes the classic discussion on the resurrection (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15|). If one knows clearly and fully the Corinthian Epistles and Paul's dealings with Corinth, he has an understanding of a large section of his life and ministry. No church caused him more anxiety than did Corinth (2Corinthians:11:28|).

rwp@2Corinthians:2:1 @{That I would not come again to you with sorrow} (\to mˆ palin en lupˆi pros humas elthein\). Articular second aorist active infinitive with negative \mˆ\ in apposition with \touto\ (this) preceding. What does Paul mean by "again" (\palin\)? Had he paid another visit besides that described in strkjv@Acts:18| which was in sorrow (\en lupˆi\)? Or does he mean that having had one joyful visit (that in strkjv@Acts:18|) he does not wish the second one to be in sorrow? Either interpretation is possible as the Greek stands and scholars disagree. Songs:in strkjv@12:14| "The third time I am ready to come" may refer to the proposed second visit (1:15f.|) and the present plan (a third). And so as to strkjv@13:1|...no way to tell clearly whether...1:15f.| when he is apologizing for not having made the proposed visit ("a second benefit").

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

rwp@2Corinthians:8:12 @{Is there} (\prokeitai\). Lies before one. Old word. {Acceptable} (\euprosdektos\). See on ¯6:2|. {According as a man hath} (\katho ean echˆi\). Indefinite comparative clause with \ean\ and present subjunctive \echei\. Clearly God does not expect us to give what we do not have. {Not according as he hath not} (\ou katho ouk echei\). Note present indicative rather than subjunctive because a specific case is presented. See strkjv@9:7; strkjv@Mark:12:43|.

rwp@2Peter:1:16 @{We did not follow} (\ouk exakolouthˆsantes\). First aorist active participle of \exakolouthe“\, late compound verb, to follow out (Polybius, Plutarch, LXX, papyri, inscriptions as of death following for any Gentile in the temple violating the barrier), with emphatic negative \ouk\, "not having followed." See also strkjv@2:2| for this verb. {Cunningly devised fables} (\sesophismenois muthois\). Associative instrumental case of \muthos\ (old term for word, narrative, story, fiction, fable, falsehood). In N.T. only here and the Pastoral Epistles (1Timothy:1:4|, etc.). Perfect passive participle of \sophiz“\, old word (from \sophos\), only twice in N.T., in causative sense to make wise (2Timothy:3:15|), to play the sophist, to invent cleverly (here) and so also in the old writers and in the papyri. Some of the false teachers apparently taught that the Gospel miracles were only allegories and not facts (Bigg). Cf. strkjv@2:3| for "feigned words." {When we made known unto you} (\egn“risamen humin\). First aorist active indicative of \gn“riz“\, to make known unto you. Possibly by Peter himself. {The power and coming} (\tˆn dunamin kai parousian\). These words can refer (Chase) to the Incarnation, just as is true of \epiphaneia\ in strkjv@2Timothy:1:10| (second coming in strkjv@1Timothy:6:14|), and is true of \parousia\ (2Corinthians:7:6| of Titus). But elsewhere in the N.T. \parousia\ (technical term in the papyri for the coming of a king or other high dignitary), when used of Christ, refers to his second coming (2Peter:3:4,12|). {But we were eye-witnesses} (\all' epoptai genˆthentes\). First aorist passive participle of \ginomai\, "but having become eye-witnesses." \Epoptai\, old word (from \epopt“\ like \epopteu“\ in strkjv@1Peter:2:12; strkjv@3:2|), used of those who attained the third or highest degree of initiates in the Eleusinian mysteries (common in the inscriptions). Cf. \autoptˆs\ in strkjv@Luke:1:2|. {Of his majesty} (\tˆs ekeinou megaleiotˆtos\). Late and rare word (LXX and papyri) from \megaleios\ (Acts:2:11|), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:9:43| (of God); strkjv@Acts:19:27| (of Artemis). Peter clearly felt that he and James and John were lifted to the highest stage of initiation at the Transfiguration of Christ. Emphatic \ekeinou\ as in strkjv@2Timothy:2:26|.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:7 @{For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work} (\to gar mustˆrion ˆdˆ energeitai tˆs anomias\). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:13| for \energeitai\. The genitive \tˆs anomias\ (lawlessness) describes \to mustˆrion\ (note emphatic position of both). This mystery (\mustˆrion\ secret, from \mustˆs\, an initiate, \mue“\, to wink or blink) means here the secret purpose of lawlessness already at work, the only instance of this usage in the N.T. where it is used of the kingdom of God (Matthew:13:11|), of God (1Corinthians:2:1|) and God's will (Ephesians:1:9|), of Christ (Ephesians:3:4|), of the gospel (Ephesians:6:9|), of faith (1Timothy:3:9|), of godliness (1Timothy:3:16|), of the seven stars (Revelation:1:20|), of the woman (Revelation:17:7|)...then we shall understand clearly what...{Until he be taken out of the way} (\he“s ek mesou genˆtai\). Usual construction with \he“s\ for the future (aorist middle subjunctive, \genˆtai\). Note absence of \an\ as often in N.T. and the \Koin‚\. Paul uses \he“s\ only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:4:5|. When the obstacle is removed then the mystery of lawlessness will be revealed in plain outline.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:3 @{But the Lord is faithful} (\pistos de estin ho kurios\). {But faithful is the Lord} (correct rendition), with a play (paronomasia) on \pistis\ by \pistos\ as in strkjv@Romans:3:3| we have a word-play on \apiste“\ and \apistia\. The Lord can be counted on, however perverse men may be. {From the evil one} (\apo tou ponˆrou\). Apparently a reminiscence of the Lord's Prayer in strkjv@Matthew:6:13| \rusai hˆmas apo tou ponˆrou\. But here as there it is not certain whether \tou ponˆrou\ is neuter (evil) like to \ponˆron\ in strkjv@Romans:12:9| or masculine (the evil one). But we have \ho ponˆros\ (the evil one) in strkjv@1John:5:18| and \tou ponˆrou\ is clearly masculine in strkjv@Ephesians:6:16|. If masculine here, as is probable, is it "the Evil One" (Ellicott) or merely the evil man like those mentioned in verse 2|? Perhaps Paul has in mind the representative of Satan, the man of sin, pictured in strkjv@2:1-12|, by the phrase here without trying to be too definite.

rwp@2Timothy:4:10 @{Forsook me} (\me egkateleipen\). Imperfect (MSS. also have aorist, \egkatelipen\) active of the old double compound verb \egkataleip“\, for which see strkjv@Romans:9:29|. Clearly in contrast to verse 9| and in the sense of strkjv@1Timothy:6:17|, wilful desertion. Only mentioned elsewhere in strkjv@Colossians:4:14|. {Crescens} (\Krˆskˆs\). No other mention of him. {Titus to Dalmatia} (\Titos eis Dalmatian\). Titus had been asked to rejoin Paul in Nicopolis where he was to winter, probably the winter previous to this one (Titus:3:12|). He came and has been with Paul.

rwp@2Timothy:4:17 @{But the Lord stood by me} (\ho de kurios moi parestˆ\). Second aorist active of \paristˆmi\ (intransitive use), "took his stand by my side." See strkjv@Romans:16:2|. Clearly Jesus appeared to Paul now at this crisis and climax as he had done so many times before. {Strengthened me} (\enedunam“sen me\). "Poured power into me." See strkjv@Phillipians:4:13|. {That through me the message might be fully proclaimed} (\hina di' emou to kˆrugma plˆrophorˆthˆi\). Final clause with \hina\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \plˆrophore“\ (see verse 5|). Either to the rulers in Rome now or, if the first imprisonment, by his release and going to Spain. {And that all the Gentiles might hear} (\kai akous“sin panta ta ethnˆ\). Continuation of the purpose with the aorist active subjunctive of \akou“\. {I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion} (\erusthˆn ek stomatos leontos\). First aorist passive indicative of \ruomai\ (1Thessalonians:1:10|). A proverb, but not certain what the application is whether to Nero or to Satan (1Thessalonians:2:18|) or to the lion in the arena where Paul could not be sent because a Roman citizen.

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| or to some other itinerant brethren. Westcott wrongly thinks that \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@Info_Acts @ THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTS It is not easy to say in a word precisely the object of Luke in writing this book. It is not the Acts of all the apostles. Outside of Peter and John little is told of any of them after chapter 3. And all the acts of Peter and John are not given for Peter disappears from the narrative after chapter 15, though he has been the central figure through chapter 11. Paul is not one of the twelve apostles, but Luke follows Paul's career mainly after chapter 8. Stephen and Barnabas come in also. Still (_St. Paul on Trial_, 1923)...this idea, but it clearly does...

rwp@Acts:2:20 @{Shall be turned} (\metastraphˆsetai\). Second future passive of \metastreph“\, common verb, but only three times in the N.T. (Acts:2:20| from Joel; strkjv@James:4:9; strkjv@Galatians:1:7|). These are the "wonders" or portents of verse 19|. It is worth noting that Peter interprets these "portents" as fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, though no such change of the sun into darkness or of the moon into blood is recorded. Clearly Peter does not interpret the symbolism of Joel in literal terms. This method of Peter may be of some service in the Book of Revelation where so many apocalyptic symbols occur as well as in the great Eschatological Discourse of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:24,25|. In strkjv@Matthew:24:6,29| Jesus had spoken of wars on earth and wonders in heaven. {Before the day of the Lord come, that great and notable day} (\prin elthein hˆmeran kuriou tˆn megalˆn kai epiphanˆ\). The use of \prin\ with the infinitive and the accusative of general reference is a regular Greek idiom. The use of the adjectives with the article is also good Greek, though the article is not here repeated as in strkjv@1:25|. The Day of the Lord is a definite conception without the article. {Notable} (\epiphanˆ\) is the same root as epiphany (\epiphaneia\) used of the Second Coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:8; strkjv@1Timothy:6:14; strkjv@2Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Titus:2:13|). It translates here the Hebrew word for "terrible." In the Epistles the Day of the Lord is applied (Knowling) to the Coming of Christ for judgment (1Thessalonians:5:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:1:10|).

rwp@Acts:2:39 @{The promise} (\hˆ epaggelia\). The promise made by Jesus (1:4|) and foretold by Joel (verse 18|). {To you} (\humin\). You Jews. To your descendants, sons and daughters of verse 17|. {To all that are afar off} (\pƒsin tois eis makran\. The horizon widens and includes the Gentiles. Those "afar off" from the Jews were the heathen (Isaiah:49:1; strkjv@57:19; strkjv@Ephesians:2:13,17|). The rabbis so used it. {Shall call} (\an proskalesˆtai\). First aorist middle subjunctive with \an\...may be doubted how clearly Peter...

rwp@Acts:2:40 @{With many other words} (\heterois logois pleiosin\). Instrumental case. Not necessarily "different" (\heterois\)...is also brought out clearly by...\pleiosin\ ("more," not "many"), more than these given by Luke. {He testified} (\diemarturato\). First aorist middle of \diamarturomai\, old verb, to make solemn attestation or call to witness (perfective use of \dia\), while \marture“\ is to bear witness. Page insists that here it should be translated "protested solemnly" to the Jews as it seems to mean in strkjv@Luke:16:28; strkjv@Acts:20:23; strkjv@1Timothy:5:21; strkjv@2Timothy:2:14; strkjv@4:1|. {And exhorted} (\kai parekalei\). Imperfect active, kept on exhorting. {Save yourselves} (\s“thˆte\). First aorist passive of \s“z“\. Literally, Be ye saved. {Crooked} (\skolias\). Old word, opposite of \orthos\, straight. _Pravus_ the opposite of _rectus_, a perversity for turning off from the truth. Cf. strkjv@Luke:9:41; strkjv@Phillipians:2:15|.

rwp@Acts:2:46 @{With one accord in the temple} (\homothumadon en t“i hier“i\). See on ¯1:14| for \homothumadon\. They were still worshipping in the temple for no breach had yet come between Christians and Jews. Daily they were here and daily breaking bread at home (\kat' oikon\) which looks like the regular meal. {They did take their food} (\metelambanon trophˆs\)...Imperfect tense again and clearly referring...\agapai\ or to the Lord's Supper afterwards as they had common meals "from house to house" (\kat' oikon\)? We know there were local churches in the homes where they had "worship rooms," the church in the house. At any rate it was "with singleness" (\aphelotˆti\) of heart. The word occurs only here in the N.T., though a late _Koin‚_ word (papyri). It comes from \aphelˆs\, free from rock (\phelleus\ is stony ground), smooth. The old form was \apheleia\.

rwp@Acts:2:47 @{Having favor} (\echontes charin\). Cf. strkjv@Luke:2:52| of the Boy Jesus. {Added} (\prosetithei\). Imperfect active, kept on adding. If the Lord only always "added" those who join our churches. Note verse 41| where same verb is used of the 3,000. {To them} (\epi to auto\). Literally, "together." Why not leave it so? "To the church" (\tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\) is not genuine. Codex Bezae has "in the church." {Those that were being saved} (\tous s“zomenous\). Present passive participle. Probably for repetition like the imperfect \prosetithei\. Better translate it "those saved from time to time." It was a continuous revival, day by day. \S“z“\ like \s“tˆria\ is used for "save" in three senses (beginning, process, conclusion)...but here repetition is clearly the...

rwp@Acts:5:31 @{Exalt} (\ups“sen\) In contrast to their murder of Christ as in strkjv@2:23f|. Peter repeats his charges with increased boldness. {With his right hand} (\tˆi dexiƒi autou\). Songs:instrumental case, or at his right hand (locative case), or even "to his right hand" (dative case) as in strkjv@2:33|. {Prince and Saviour} (\archˆgon kai s“tˆra\). See on ¯3:15|. Clearly "Prince" here. {To give} (\tou dounai\). Genitive of articular infinitive (second aorist active of \did“mi\) of purpose.

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

rwp@Acts:5:40 @{To him they agreed} (\epeisthˆsan aut“i\). First aorist passive indicative of \peith“\, to persuade, the passive to be persuaded by, to listen to, to obey. Gamaliel's shrewd advice scored as against the Sadducaic contention (verse 17|). {Not to speak} (\mˆ lalein\). The Sanhedrin repeated the prohibition of strkjv@4:18| which the apostles had steadily refused to obey. The Sanhedrin stood by their guns, but refused to shoot. It was a "draw" with Gamaliel as tactical victor over the Sadducees. Clearly now the disciples were set free because only the Sadducees had become enraged while the Pharisees held aloof.

rwp@Acts:7:35 @{This Moses} (\Touton ton M“usˆn\). Rhetorical repetition follows this description of Moses (five times, anaphora, besides the use here, six cases of \houtos\ here about Moses: verse 35| twice, 36,37,38,40|). Clearly Stephen means to draw a parallel between Moses and Jesus. They in Egypt {denied} (\ˆrnˆsanto\) Moses as now you the Jews denied (\ˆrnˆsasthe\, strkjv@3:13|) Jesus. Those in Egypt scouted Moses as "ruler and judge" (verses 27,35|, \archonta kai dikastˆn\) and God "hath sent" (\apestalken\, perfect active indicative, state of completion) Moses "both a ruler and a deliverer" (\archonta kai lutr“tˆn\) as Jesus was to be (Luke:1:68; strkjv@2:38; strkjv@Hebrews:9:12; strkjv@Titus:2:14|). "Ransomer" or "Redeemer" (\lutr“tˆs\) is not found elsewhere, \lutron\ (ransom), \lutro“\, to ransom, and \lutr“sis\, ransoming or redemption, are found often. In strkjv@Acts:5:31| Christ is termed "Prince and Saviour." {With the hand} (\sun cheiri\). Songs:the correct text. The Pharisees had accused Stephen of blaspheming "against Moses and God" (6:11|). Stephen here answers that slander by showing how Moses led the people out of Egypt in co-operation (\sun\) with the hand of the Angel of Jehovah.

rwp@Acts:8:9 @{Simon} (\Sim“n\). One of the common names (Josephus, _Ant_. XX. 7, 2) and a number of messianic pretenders had this name. A large number of traditions in the second and third centuries gathered round this man and Baur actually proposed that the Simon of the Clementine Homilies is really the apostle Paul though Paul triumphed over the powers of magic repeatedly (Acts:13:6-12; strkjv@19:11-19|), "a perfect absurdity" (Spitta, _Apostelgeschichte_, p. 149). One of the legends is that this Simon Magus of Acts is the father of heresy and went to Rome and was worshipped as a god (so Justin Martyr). But a stone found in the Tiber A.D. 1574 has an inscription to _Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum_ which is (Page) clearly to Hercules, Sancus being a Sabine name for Hercules. This Simon in Samaria is simply one of the many magicians of the time before the later gnosticism had gained a foothold. "In his person Christianity was for the first time confronted with superstition and religious imposture, of which the ancient world was at this period full" (Furneaux). {Which beforetime used sorcery} (\proupˆrchen mageu“n\). An ancient idiom (periphrastic), the present active participle \mageu“n\ with the imperfect active verb from \prouparch“\, the idiom only here and strkjv@Luke:23:12| in the N.T. Literally "Simon was existing previously practising magic." This old verb \mageu“\ is from \magos\ (a \magus\, seer, prophet, false prophet, sorcerer) and occurs here alone in the N.T. {Amazed} (existan“n). Present active participle of the verb \existan“\, later form of \existˆmi\, to throw out of position, displace, upset, astonish, chiefly in the Gospels in the N.T. Same construction as \mageu“n\. {Some great one} (\tina megan\). Predicate accusative of general reference (infinitive in indirect discourse). It is amazing how gullible people are in the presence of a manifest impostor like Simon. The Magi were the priestly order in the Median and Persian empires and were supposed to have been founded by Zoroaster. The word \magoi\ (magi) has a good sense in strkjv@Matthew:2:1|, but here and in strkjv@Acts:13:6| it has the bad sense like our "magic."

rwp@Acts:8:24 @{Pray ye for me} (\Deˆthˆte humeis huper emou\). Emphasis on \humeis\ (you)...avert it. Peter had clearly diagnosed...{Which} (\h“n\). Genitive by attraction of the accusative relative \ha\ to case of the unexpressed antecedent \tout“n\ (of those things), a common Greek idiom.

rwp@Acts:10:2 @{Devout} (\eusebˆs\). Old word from \eu\ (well) and \sebomai\ (to worship, to reverence), but rare in the N.T. (Acts:10:2,7; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|). It might refer to a worshipful pagan (Acts:17:23|, \sebasmata\, objects of worship), but connected with "one that feared God" (\phoboumenos ton theon\) Luke describes "a God-fearing proselyte" as in strkjv@10:22,35|. This is his usual term for the Gentile seekers after God (13:16, 26;17:4,17|, etc.), who had come into the worship of the synagogue without circumcision, and were not strictly proselytes, though some call such men "proselytes of the gate" (cf. strkjv@Acts:13:43|); but clearly Cornelius and his family were still regarded as outside the pale of Judaism (10:28,34; strkjv@11:1,8; strkjv@15:7|). They had seats in the synagogue, but were not Jews. {Gave much alms} (\poi“n eleemosunas pollas\). Doing many alms (the very phrase in strkjv@Matthew:6:2|), a characteristic mark of Jewish piety and from a Gentile to the Jewish people. {Prayed} (\deomenos\). Begging of God. Almsgiving and prayer were two of the cardinal points with the Jews (Jesus adds fasting in his picture of the Pharisee in strkjv@Matthew:6:1-18|).

rwp@Acts:10:12 @{Were} (\hupˆrchen\). Imperfect of \huparch“\ in sense of \ˆn\, to exist, be. Fish are not mentioned, perhaps because the sheet had no water, though they were clean and unclean also (Leviticus:11:9; strkjv@Deuteronomy:14:9|). {All manner of} (\panta\). Literally, all, but clearly all varieties, not all individuals. Both clean and unclean animals are in the sheet.

rwp@Acts:11:14 @{Whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house} (\en hois s“thˆsˆi su kai pƒs ho oikos sou\). Future passive indicative of \s“z“\, to save. Clearly Cornelius was unsaved in spite of his interest in Jewish worship. Clearly also the household of Cornelius would likewise be won to Christ by the words of Simon Peter. This is household conversion before the household baptism (10:48; strkjv@11:17|).

rwp@Acts:11:16 @{I remembered} (\emnˆsthˆn\). First aorist passive indicative of the common verb \mimnˆsk“\, to remind. Peter recalls the very words of Jesus as reported in strkjv@Acts:1:5|. Peter now understands this saying of Jesus as he had not done before. That is a common experience with us all as new experiences of grace open richer veins in God's truth (John:12:16|). Peter clearly sees that the water baptism is merely the symbol or picture of the spiritual baptism in the heart.

rwp@Acts:11:19 @{They therefore that were scattered abroad} (\hoi men oun diasparentes\). Precisely the same words used in strkjv@8:4| about those scattered by Saul (which see) and a direct reference to it is made by the next words, "upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen" (\apo tˆs thlipse“s tˆs genomenˆs epi Stephan“i\). As a result of (\apo\), in the case of (\epi\) Stephen. From that event Luke followed Saul through his conversion and back to Jerusalem and to Tarsus. Then he showed the activity of Peter outside of Jerusalem as a result of the cessation of the persecution from the conversion of Saul with the Gentile Pentecost in Caesarea and the outcome in Jerusalem. Now Luke starts over again from the same persecution by Saul and runs a new line of events up to Antioch parallel to the other, probably partly following. {Except to Jews only} (\ei mˆ monon Ioudaiois\). Clearly these disciples did not know anything about the events in Caesarea and at first their flight preceded that time. But it was a wonderful episode, the eager and loyal preaching of the fleeing disciples. The culmination in Antioch was probably after the report of Peter about Caesarea. This Antioch by the Orontes was founded 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator and was one of five cities so named by the Seleucides. It became the metropolis of Syria though the Arabs held Damascus first. Antioch ranked next to Rome and Alexandria in size, wealth, power, and vice. There were many Jews in the cosmopolitan population of half a million. It was destined to supplant Jerusalem as the centre of Christian activity.

rwp@Acts:11:21 @{The hand of the Lord was with them} (\ˆn cheir kuriou met' aut“n\). This O.T. phrase (Exodus:9:3; strkjv@Isaiah:59:1|) is used by Luke (Luke:1:66; strkjv@Acts:4:28,30; strkjv@13:11|). It was proof of God's approval of their course in preaching the Lord Jesus to Greeks. {Turned unto the Lord} (\epestrepsen epi ton kurion\). First aorist active indicative of \epistreph“\, common verb to turn. The usual expression for Gentiles turning to the true God (14:15; strkjv@15:3,19; strkjv@26:18,20; strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:9|). Here "Lord" refers to "the Lord Jesus" as in verse 20|...the hand of Jehovah, clearly showing...

rwp@Acts:13:1 @{In the church that was there} (\kata tˆn ousan ekklˆsian\). Possibly distributed throughout the church (note "in the church" strkjv@11:26|). Now a strong organization there. Luke here begins the second part of Acts with Antioch as the centre of operations, no longer Jerusalem. Paul is now the central figure instead of Peter. Jerusalem had hesitated too long to carry out the command of Jesus to take the gospel to the whole world. That glory will now belong to Antioch. {Prophets and teachers} (\prophˆtai kai didaskaloi\). All prophets were teachers, but not all teachers were prophets who were for-speakers of God, sometimes fore-speakers like Agabus in strkjv@11:28|. The double use of \te\ here makes three prophets (Barnabas, Symeon, Lucius) and two teachers (Manaen and Saul). Barnabas heads the list (11:22|) and Saul comes last. Symeon Niger may be the Simon of Cyrene who carried the Saviour's cross. Lucius of Cyrene was probably one of the original evangelists (11:20|). The name is one of the forms of Luke, but it is certainly not Luke the Physician. Manaen shows how the gospel was reaching some of the higher classes (home of Herod Antipas). {Foster-brother} (\suntrophos\). Old word for nourished with or brought up with one _collactaneus_ (Vulgate). These are clearly the outstanding men in the great Greek church in Antioch.

rwp@Acts:13:3 @{When they had fasted} (\nˆsteusantes\). Either finishing the same fast in verse 2| or another one (Hackett), but clearly a voluntary fast. {Laid their hands upon them} (\epithentes tas cheiras autois\). Second aorist active participle of \epitithˆmi\. Not ordination to the ministry, but a solemn consecration to the great missionary task to which the Holy Spirit had called them. Whether the whole church took part in this ceremony is not clear, though in strkjv@15:40| "the brethren" did commend Paul and Silas. Perhaps some of them here acted for the whole church, all of whom approved the enterprise. But Paul makes it plain in strkjv@Phillipians:4:15| that the church in Antioch did not make financial contribution to the campaign, but only goodwill. But that was more than the church at Jerusalem would have done as a whole since Peter had been arraigned there for his activities in Caesarea (Acts:11:1-18|). Clearly Barnabas and Saul had to finance the tour themselves. It was Philippi that first gave money to Paul's campaigns. There were still heathen enough in Antioch, but the church approved the going of Barnabas and Saul, their very best.

rwp@Acts:13:47 @{For so hath the Lord commanded us} (\hout“s gar entetaltai hˆmin ho kurios\). Perfect middle indicative of \entell“\, poetic (Pindar) and late verb to enjoin (1:2|). The command of the Lord Paul finds in strkjv@Isaiah:49:6| quoted by Simeon also (Luke:2:32|)...could now see more clearly the...(\ethn“n\, objective genitive), "a light for revelation to the Gentiles" (\ph“s eis apokalupsin ethn“n\, strkjv@Luke:2:32|). Songs:Paul is carrying out the will of God in turning to the Gentiles. He will still appeal to the Jews elsewhere as they allow him to do so, but not here. {That thou shouldest be} (\tou einai se\). Genitive articular infinitive of purpose with the accusative of general reference. This is all according to God's fixed purpose (\tetheika\, perfect active indicative of \tithˆmi\). {Unto the uttermost part of the earth} (\he“s eschatou tˆs gˆs\). Unto the last portion (genitive neuter, not feminine) of the earth. It is a long time from Paul to now, not to say from Isaiah to now, and not yet has the gospel been carried to half of the people of earth. God's people are slow in carrying out God's plans for salvation.

rwp@Acts:14:9 @{The same} (\houtos\). Just "this one." {Heard} (\ˆkouen\). Imperfect active, was listening to Paul speaking (\lalountos\). Either at the gate or in the market place (17:17|) Paul was preaching to such as would listen or could understand his Greek (_Koin‚_). Ramsay (_St. Paul the Traveller_, pp. 114, 116) thinks that the cripple was a proselyte. At any rate he may have heard of the miracles wrought at Iconium (verse 3|) and Paul may have spoken of the work of healing wrought by Jesus. This man was "no mendicant pretender," for his history was known from his birth. {Fastening his eyes upon him} (\atenisas aut“i\). Just as in strkjv@13:9| of Paul and strkjv@1:10| which see. Paul saw a new hope in the man's eyes and face. {He had faith} (\echei pistin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse. {To be made whole} (\tou s“thˆnai\). Genitive of articular first aorist passive infinitive (purpose and result combined) of \s“z“\...also to save. Here clearly to...7:50| (cf. strkjv@Acts:3:16; strkjv@4:10|).

rwp@Acts:14:12 @{They called} (\ekaloun\). Inchoative imperfect began to call. {Barnabas, Jupiter} (\ton Barnaban Dia\). Because Barnabas was the older and the more imposing in appearance. Paul admits that he was not impressive in looks (2Corinthians:10:10|). {And Paul, Mercury} (\ton de Paulon Hermˆn\). Mercury (\Hermˆs\) was the messenger of the gods, and the spokesman of Zeus. \Hermˆs\ was of beautiful appearance and eloquent in speech, the inventor of speech in legend. Our word hermeneutics or science of interpretation comes from this word (Hebrews:7:2; strkjv@John:1:38|). {Because he was the chief speaker} (\epeidˆ autos ˆn ho hˆgoumenos tou logou\). Paul was clearly "the leader of the talk." Songs:it seemed a clear case to the natives. If preachers always knew what people really think of them! Whether Paul was alluding to his experience in Lystra or not in strkjv@Galatians:4:14|, certainly they did receive him as an angel of God, as if "Mercury" in reality.

rwp@Acts:15:2 @{When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them} (\Genomenˆs stase“s kai zˆtˆse“s ouk oligˆs t“i Paul“i kai Barnabƒi pros autous\). Genitive absolute of second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, genitive singular agreeing with first substantive \stase“s\. Literally, "No little (litotes for much) strife and questioning coming to Paul and Barnabas (dative case) with them " (\pros autous\, face to face with them). Paul and Barnabas were not willing to see this Gentile church brow-beaten and treated as heretics by these self-appointed regulators of Christian orthodoxy from Jerusalem. The work had developed under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas and they accepted full responsibility for it and stoutly resisted these Judaizers to the point of sedition (riot, outbreak in strkjv@Luke:23:25; strkjv@Acts:19:40|) as in strkjv@23:7|. There is no evidence that the Judaizers had any supporters in the Antioch church so that they failed utterly to make any impression. Probably these Judaizers compelled Paul to think through afresh his whole gospel of grace and so they did Paul and the world a real service. If the Jews like Paul had to believe, it was plain that there was no virtue in circumcision (Galatians:2:15-21|). It is not true that the early Christians had no disagreements. They had selfish avarice with Ananias and Sapphira, murmuring over the gifts to the widows, simony in the case of Simon Magus, violent objection to work in Caesarea, and now open strife over a great doctrine (grace vs. legalism). {The brethren appointed} (\etaxan\). "The brethren" can be supplied from verse 1|...in Antioch. The church clearly saw...\etaxan\ (\tass“\, to arrange) suggests a formal appointment by the church in regular assembly. Paul (Galatians:2:2|) says that he went up by revelation (\kat' apokalupsin\), but surely that is not contradictory to the action of the church. {Certain others of them} (\tinas allous\). Certainly Titus (Galatians:2:1,3|), a Greek and probably a brother of Luke who is not mentioned in Acts. Rackham thinks that Luke was in the number. {The apostles and elders} (\tous apostolous kai presbuterous\). Note one article for both (cf. "the apostles and the brethren" in strkjv@11:1|). "Elders" now (11:30|) in full force. The apostles have evidently returned now to the city after the death of Herod Agrippa I stopped the persecution.

rwp@Acts:15:10 @{Why tempt ye God?} (\ti peirazete ton theon;\). By implying that God had made a mistake this time, though right about Cornelius. It is a home-thrust. They were refusing to follow the guidance of God like the Israelites at Massah and Meribah (Exodus:17:7; strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:10:9|). {That ye should put} (\epitheinai\). Second aorist active infinitive of \epitithˆmi\, epexegetic, explaining the tempting. {A yoke upon the neck} (\zugon epi ton trachˆlon\). Familiar image of oxen with yokes upon the necks. Paul's very image for the yoke of bondage of the Mosaic law in strkjv@Galatians:5:1|. It had probably been used in the private interview. Cf. the words of Jesus about the Pharisees (Matthew:23:4|) and how easy and light his own yoke is (Matthew:11:30|). {Were able to bear} (\ischusamen bastasai\). Neither our fathers nor we had strength (\ischu“\)...but he has seen clearly by...

rwp@Acts:15:18 @{From the beginning of the world} (\ap' ai“nos\). Or, "from of old." James adds these words, perhaps with a reminiscence of strkjv@Isaiah:45:21|. His point is that this purpose of God, as set forth in Amos, is an old one. God has an Israel outside of and beyond the Jewish race, whom he will make his true "Israel" and so there is no occasion for surprise in the story of God's dealings with the Gentiles as told by Barnabas and Paul. God's eternal purpose of grace includes all who call upon his name in every land and people (Isaiah:2:1; strkjv@Micah:4:1|). This larger and richer purpose and plan of God was one of the mysteries which Paul will unfold in the future (Romans:16:25; strkjv@Ephesians:3:9|). James sees it clearly now. God is making it known (\poi“n tauta gn“sta\), if they will only be willing to see and understand. It was a great deliverance that James had made and it exerted a profound influence on the assembly.

rwp@Acts:15:25 @{It seemed good unto us} (\edoxen hˆmin\). See statement by Luke in verse 22|, and now this definite decision is in the epistle itself. It is repeated in verse 28|. {Having come to one accord} (\genomenois homothumadon\). On this adverb, common in Acts, see on ¯1:14|. But \genomenois\ clearly means that the final unity was the result of the Conference (private and public talks). The Judaizers are here brushed to one side as the defeated disturbers that they really were who had lacked the courage to vote against the majority. {To choose out men and send them} (\eklexamenois andras pempsai\ A B L, though Aleph C D read \eklexamenous\ as in verse 22|). Precisely the same idiom as in verse 22|, "having chosen out to send." {With our beloved Barnabas and Paul} (\sun tois agapˆtois hˆm“n Barnabƒi kai Paul“i\). The verbal adjective \agapˆtois\ (common in the N.T.) definitely sets the seal of warm approval on Barnabas and Paul. Paul (Galatians:2:9|) confirms this by his statement concerning the right hand of fellowship given.

rwp@Acts:15:31 @{When they had read it} (\anagnontes\). Second aorist active participle of \anagin“sk“\. Public reading, of course, to the church. {They rejoiced} (\echarˆsan\). Second aorist (ingressive) passive indicative of \chair“\...into exultant joy showing clearly that...{For the consolation} (\epi tˆi paraklˆsei\). The encouragement, the cheer in the letter. See \parekalesan\ in verse 32|. Consolation and exhortation run into one another in this word.

rwp@Acts:15:34 @{But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there} (\edoxe de Silƒi epimeinai autou\)...Vulgate, etc. It is clearly an...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:16:7 @{Over against Mysia} (\kata tˆn Musian\). This was an ill-defined region rather north and west of Phrygia. The Romans finally absorbed most of it in the Province of Asia. {They assayed to go into Bithynia} (\epeirazon eis tˆn Bithunian poreuthˆnai\). Conative imperfect of \peiraz“\ and ingressive aorist passive infinitive of \poreuomai\. Now Bithynia is northeast of Mysia and north of Galatia (province). Clearly Luke means to say that Paul had, when hindered by the Holy Spirit from going west into Asia, gone north so as to come in front of Bithynia. This journey would take him directly through Phrygia and the North Galatian country (the real Gauls or Celts). This is, to my mind, the strongest argument for the North Galatian view in these verses 6,7|. The grammar and the topography bring Paul right up to Bithynia (north of the old Galatia). It is verses 6,7| that make me pause before accepting the plausible arguments of Ramsay for the South Galatian theory. In itself the problem is nothing like so important or so determinative as he makes it. But shall we smash Luke's grammar to pieces to bolster up a theory of criticism? {And the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not} (\kai ouk eiasen autous to pneuma Iˆsou\). The same Spirit who in verse 6| had forbidden going into Asia now closed the door into Bithynia. This expression occurs nowhere else, but we have the spirit of Christ (Romans:8:9|) and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:19|). \Eiasen\ is first aorist active indicative of \ea“\, old verb to allow.

rwp@Acts:16:15 @{And when she was baptized} (\h“s de ebaptisthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \baptiz“\. The river Gangites was handy for the ordinance and she had now been converted and was ready to make this public declaration of her faith in Jesus Christ. {And her household} (\kai ho oikos autˆs\). Who constituted her "household"? The term \oikos\, originally means the building as below, "into my house" and then it includes the inmates of a house. There is nothing here to show whether Lydia's "household" went beyond "the women" employed by her who like her had heard the preaching of Paul and had believed. "Possibly Euodia and Syntyche and the other women, strkjv@Phillipians:4:2,3|, may have been included in the family of Lydia, who may have employed many slaves and freed women in her trade" (Knowling). "This statement cannot be claimed as any argument for infant baptism, since the Greek word may mean her servants or her work-people" (Furneaux). In the household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the jailor, Crispus) one sees "infants" or not according to his predilections or preferences. {If ye have judged me} (\ei kekrikate me\). Condition of the first class, assumed to be true (\ei\ and the indicative, here perfect active of \krin“\). She had confessed her faith and submitted to baptism as proof that she was "faithful to the Lord" (\pistˆn t“i kuri“i\), believing on the Lord. "If she was fit for that, surely she was fit to be their hostess" (Furneaux)...and his party had clearly no...{And she constrained us} (\kai parebiasato hˆmas\). Effective first aorist middle of \parabiazomai\, late word, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:24:29|. Some moral force (\bia\) or hospitable persuasion was required (cf. strkjv@1Samuel:28:23|), but Lydia had her way as women usually do. Songs:he accepted Lydia's hospitality in Philippi, though he worked for his own living in Thessalonica (2Thessalonians:3:8|) and elsewhere (2Corinthians:11:9|). Songs:far only women have been won to Christ in Philippi. The use of "us" shows that Luke was not a householder in Philippi.

rwp@Acts:16:37 @{Unto them} (\pros autous\). The lictors by the jailor. The reply of Paul is a marvel of brevity and energy, almost every word has a separate indictment showing the utter illegality of the whole proceeding. {They have beaten us} (\deirantes hˆmas\). First aorist active participle of \der“\, old verb to flay, to skin, to smite. The _Lex Valeria_ B.C. 509 and the _Lex Poscia_ B.C. 248 made it a crime to inflict blows on a Roman citizen. Cicero says, "To fetter a Roman citizen was a crime, to scourge him a scandal, to slay him--parricide." Claudius had "deprived the city of Rhodes of its freedom for having crucified some citizen of Rome" (Rackham). {Publicly} (\dˆmosiƒi\). This added insult to injury. Common adverb (\hod“i\) supplied with adjective, associative instrumental case, opposed to \idiƒi\ or \kat' oikous\, strkjv@Acts:20:20|) {Uncondemned} (\akatakritous\). This same verbal adjective from \kata-krin“\ with \a\ privative is used by Paul in strkjv@22:25| and nowhere else in the N.T. Rare in late Greek like \akatagn“stos\, but in late _Koin‚_ (papyri, inscriptions). The meaning is clearly "without being tried." Paul and Silas were not given a chance to make a defence. They were sentenced unheard (25:16|). Even slaves in Roman law had a right to be heard. {Men that are Romans} (\anthr“pous Romaious huparchontas\). The praetors did not know, of course, that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens any more than Lysias knew it in strkjv@Acts:22:27|. Paul's claim is not challenged in either instance. It was a capital offence to make a false claim to Roman citizenship. {Have cast us into prison} (\ebalan eis phulakˆn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ball“\, old verb, with first aorist ending as often in the _Koin‚_ (\-an\, not \-on\). This was the climax, treating them as criminals. {And now privily} (\kai nun lathrƒi\). Paul balances their recent conduct with the former. {Nay verily, but} (\ou gar, alla\). No indeed! It is the use of \gar\ so common in answers (\ge+ara\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:23|. \Alla\ gives the sharp alternative. {Themselves} (\autoi\). As a public acknowledgment that they had wronged and mistreated Paul and Silas. Let them come themselves and lead us out (\exagaget“san\, third person plural second aorist active imperative of \exag“\). It was a bitter pill to the proud praetors.

rwp@Acts:17:4 @{Some of them} (\tines ex aut“n\). That is of the Jews who were evidently largely afraid of the rabbis. Still "some" were persuaded (\epeisthˆsan\, effective first aorist passive indicative) and "consorted with" (\proseklˆr“thˆsan\). This latter verb is also first aorist passive indicative of \prosklˆro“\, a common verb in late Greek (Plutarch, Lucian), but only here in the N.T., from \pros\ and \klˆros\, to assign by lot. Songs:then this small group of Jews were given Paul and Silas by God's grace. {And of the devout Greeks a great multitude} (\t“n te sebomen“n Hellˆn“n plˆthos polu\). These "God-fearers" among the Gentiles were less under the control of the jealous rabbis and so responded more readily to Paul's appeal. In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:9| Paul expressly says that they had "turned to God from idols," proof that this church was mainly Gentile (cf. also strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:14|). {And of the chief women not a few} (\gunaik“n te t“n pr“t“n ouk oligai\). Literally, "And of women the first not a few." That is, a large number of women of the very first rank in the city, probably devout women also like the men just before and like those in strkjv@13:50|...the industrial element was clearly large...(1Thessalonians:4:11|). In strkjv@2Corinthians:8:2| Paul speaks of the deep poverty of the Macedonian churches, but with Philippi mainly in mind. Ramsay thinks that Paul won many of the heathen not affiliated at all with the synagogue. Certain it is that we must allow a considerable interval of time between verses 4,5| to understand what Paul says in his Thessalonian Epistles.

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

rwp@Acts:17:23 @{For} (\gar\). Paul gives an illustration of their religiousness from his own experiences in their city. {The objects of your worship} (\ta sebasmata hum“n\). Late word from \sebazomai\, to worship. In N T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4|. The use of this word for temples, altars, statues, shows the conciliatory tone in the use of \deisidaimonesterous\ in verse 22|. {An altar} (\b“mon\). Old word, only here in the N.T. and the only mention of a heathen altar in the N.T {With this inscription} (\en h“i epegegrapto\). On which had been written (stood written), past perfect passive indicative of \epigraph“\, old and common verb for writing on inscriptions (\epigraphˆ\, strkjv@Luke:23:38|). {To an Unknown God} (\AGNOSTO THEO\). Dative case, dedicated to. Pausanias (I. 1, 4) says that in Athens there are "altars to gods unknown" (\b“moi the“n agn“st“n\). Epimenides in a pestilence advised the sacrifice of a sheep to the befitting god whoever he might be. If an altar was dedicated to the wrong deity, the Athenians feared the anger of the other gods. The only use in the N.T. of \agn“stos\, old and common adjective (from \a\ privative and \gn“stos\ verbal of \gin“sk“\, to know). Our word agnostic comes from it. Here it has an ambiguous meaning, but Paul uses it though to a stern Christian philosopher it may be the "confession at once of a bastard philosophy and of a bastard religion" (Hort, _Hulsean Lectures_, p. 64). Paul was quick to use this confession on the part of the Athenians of a higher power than yet known to them. Songs:he gets his theme from this evidence of a deeper religious sense in them and makes a most clever use of it with consummate skill. {In ignorance} (\agnoountes\). Present active participle of \agnoe“\, old verb from same root as \agn“stos\ to which Paul refers by using it. {This set I forth unto you} (\touto ego kataggell“ humin\). He is a \kataggeleus\ (verse 18|) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is. By this master stroke he has brushed to one side any notion of violation of Roman law or suspicion of heresy and claims their endorsement of his new gospel, a shrewd and consummate turn. He has their attention now and proceeds to describe this God left out of their list as the one true and Supreme God. The later MSS. here read \hon--touton\ (whom--this one) rather than \ho--touto\ (what--this)...God which comes out clearly in...24|.

rwp@Acts:18:9 @{Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace} (\Mˆ phobou, alla lalei kai mˆ si“pˆsˆis\). Literally, "stop being afraid (\mˆ\ with present middle imperative of \phobe“\), but go on speaking (present active imperative of \lale“\) and do not become silent (\mˆ\ and first aorist active of \si“pa“\, ingressive aorist)...Thessalonica, Beroea. He had clearly moments...2Thessalonians:3:2| (written at this time) we catch Paul's dejection of spirits. He was like Elijah (1Kings:19:4|) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah:15:15ff.|).

rwp@Acts:19:34 @{When they perceived} (\epignontes\)...to know fully and clearly... (\epi-\), second aorist (ingressive) active participle of \epigin“sk“\. The masculine plural is left as nominative absolute or \pendens\ without a verb. The rioters saw at once that Alexander was (\estin\, present tense retained in indirect assertion) a Jew by his features. {An with one voice cried out} (\ph“nˆ egeneto mia ek pant“n krazont“n\). Anacoluthon or construction according to sense. Literally, "one voice arose from all crying." \Krazont“n\ agrees in case (ablative) with \pant“n\, but Aleph A have \krazontes\. This loose construction is not uncommon (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 436f.). Now at last the crowd became unanimous (one voice) at the sight of a hated Jew about to defend their attacks on the worship of Artemis. The unanimity lasted "about the space of two hours" (\hosei epi h“ras duo\), "as if for two hours." Their creed centred in this prolonged yell: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians" with which the disturbance started (verse 28|).

rwp@Acts:20:9 @{Sat} (\kathezomenos\). Sitting (present middle participle describing his posture). {In the window} (\epi tˆs thuridos\). Old word diminutive from \thura\, door, a little door. Latticed window (no glass) opened because of the heat from the lamps and the crowd. Our window was once spelt _windore_ (Hudibras), perhaps from the wrong idea that it was derived from _wind_ and _door_. Eutychus (a common slave name) was sitting on (\epi\) the window sill. Ahaziah "fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber" (2Kings:1:2|). In the N.T. \thuris\ only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:11:33| (\dia thuridos\) through which Paul was let down through the wall in Damascus. {Borne down with deep sleep} (\katapheromenos hupn“i bathei\). Present passive participle of \katapher“\, to bear down, and followed by instrumental case (\hupn“i\). Describes the gradual process of going into deep sleep. Great medical writers use \bathus\ with \hupnos\ as we do today (deep sleep). D here has \basei\ (heavy) for \bathei\ (deep). {As Paul discoursed yet longer} (\dialegomenou tou Paulou epi pleion\). Genitive absolute of present middle participle of \dialegomai\ (cf. verse 7|). with \epi pleion\. Eutychus struggled bravely to keep awake, vainly hoping that Paul would finish. But he went on "for more." {Being born down by his sleep} (\katenechtheis apo tou hupnou\). First aorist (effective) passive showing the final result of the process described by \katapheromenos\, finally overcome as a result of (\apo\) the (note article \tou\) sleep (ablative case). These four participles (\kathezomenos, katapheromenos, dialegomenou, katenechtheis\)...connectives, but are distinguished clearly by...\katapheromenos\ and the aorist \katenechtheis\ of the same verb is marked. {Fell down} (\epesen kat“\). Effective aorist active indicative of \pipt“\ with the adverb \kat“\, though \katapipt“\ (compound verb) could have been used (Acts:26:14; strkjv@28:6|). Hobart (_Medical Language of St. Luke_) thinks that Luke shows a physician's interest in the causes of the drowsiness of Eutychus (the heat, the crowd, the smell of the lamps, the late hour, the long discourse). Cf. strkjv@Luke:22:45|. {From the third story} (\apo tou tristegou\). From \treis\ (three) and \stegˆ\ (roof), adjective \tristegos\ having three roofs. {Was taken up dead} (\ˆrthˆ nekros\). First aorist passive indicative of \air“\. Luke does not say \h“s\ (as) or \h“sei\ (Mark:9:26| as if). The people considered him dead and Luke the physician seems to agree with that view.

rwp@Acts:20:15 @{We came over against Chios} (\katˆntˆsamen antikrus Chiou\). Luke uses this _Koin‚_ verb several times (16:1; strkjv@18:19|), meaning to come right down in front of and the notion of \anta\ is made plainer by \antikrus\, face to face with, common "improper" preposition only here in the N.T. They probably lay off the coast (anchoring) during the night instead of putting into the harbour. The Island of Chios is about eight miles from the mainland. {The next day} (\tˆi heterƒi\). The third day in reality from Assos (the fourth from Troas), in contrast with \tˆi epiousˆi\ just before for Chios. {We touched at Samos} (\parebalomen eis Samon\). Second aorist active of \paraball“\, to throw alongside, to cross over, to put in by. Songs:Thucydides III. 32. Only here in the N.T. though in Textus Receptus in strkjv@Mark:4:30|. The word parable (\parabolˆ\) is from this verb. The Textus Receptus adds here \kai meinantes en Trogulli“i\ (and remaining at Trogyllium), but clearly not genuine. In passing from Chios to Samos they sailed past Ephesus to save time for Pentecost in Jerusalem (verse 16|), if in control of the ship, or because the captain allowed Paul to have his way. The island of Samos is still further down the coast below Chios. It is not stated whether a stop was made here or not. {The day after} (\tˆi echomenˆi\). The day holding itself next to the one before. Note Luke's three terms in this verse (\tˆi epiousˆi, tˆi heterƒi, tˆi echomenˆi\). This would be the fourth from Assos. {To Miletus} (\eis Milˆton\). About 28 miles south of Ephesus and now the site is several miles from the sea due to the silt from the Maeander. This city, once the chief city of the Ionian Greeks, was now quite eclipsed by Ephesus.

rwp@Acts:20:16 @{For Paul had determined} (\kekrikei gar ho Paulos\). Past perfect active (correct text) of \krin“\ and not the aorist \ekrine\. Either Paul controlled the ship or the captain was willing to oblige him. {To sail past Ephesus} (\parapleusai tˆn Epheson\). First aorist active infinitive of \paraple“\, old verb to sail beside, only here in the N.T. {That he might not have} (\hop“s mˆ genˆtai aut“i\). Final clause (negative) with aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ and dative "that it might not happen to him." {To spend time} (\chronotribˆsai\). First aorist active of the late compound verb \chronotribe“\ (\chronos\, time, \trib“\, to spend), only here in the N.T. The verb \trib“\...Jerusalem by Pentecost. Paul clearly felt...(Romans:15|) that the presentation of this collection at Pentecost to the Jewish Christians would have a wholesome influence as it had done once before (Acts:11:30|). {He was hastening} (\espeuden\). Imperfect active of \speud“\, old verb to hasten as in strkjv@Luke:2:16; strkjv@19:56|. {If it were possible for him} (\ei dunaton eiˆ aut“i\). Condition of the fourth class (optative mode), if it should be possible for him. The form is a remote possibility. It was only some thirty days till Pentecost. {The day of Pentecost} (\tˆn hˆmeran tˆs pentˆkostˆs\). Note the accusative case. Paul wanted to be there for the whole day. See strkjv@Acts:2:1| for this very phrase.

rwp@Acts:20:30 @{From among your own selves} (\ex hum“n aut“n\). In sheep's clothing just as Jesus had foretold. The outcome fully justified Paul's apprehensions as we see in Colossians, Ephesians, I and II Timothy, Revelation. False philosophy, immorality, asceticism will lead some astray (Colossians:2:8,18; strkjv@Ephesians:4:14; strkjv@5:6|). John will picture "antichrists" who went out from us because they were not of us (1John:2:18f.|). There is a false optimism that is complacently blind as well as a despondent pessimism that gives up the fight. {Perverse things} (\diestrammena\). Perfect passive participle of \diastreph“\, old verb to turn aside, twist, distort as in strkjv@Acts:13:8,10|. {To draw away} (\tou apospƒin\). Articular genitive present active participle of purpose from \apospa“\, old verb used to draw the sword (Matthew:26:51|), to separate (Luke:22:41; strkjv@Acts:21:1|)...enabled him to judge clearly of...

rwp@Acts:21:18 @{The day following} (\tˆi epiousˆi\). As in strkjv@20:15| which see. {Went in} (\eisˆiei\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\, old classic verb used only four times in the N.T. (Acts:3:3; strkjv@21:18,26; strkjv@Hebrews:9:6|), a mark of the literary style rather than the colloquial _Koin‚_ use of \eiserchomai\. Together with us to James (\sun hˆmin pros Iak“bon\). Songs:then Luke is present. The next use of "we" is in strkjv@27:1| when they leave Caesarea for Rome, but it is not likely that Luke was away from Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The reports of what was done and said in both places is so full and minute that it seems reasonable that Luke got first hand information here whatever his motive was for so full an account of these legal proceedings to be discussed later. There are many details that read like an eye witness's story (21:30,35,40; strkjv@22:2,3; strkjv@23:12|, etc.). It was probably the house of James (\pros\ and \para\ so used often). {And all the elders were present} (\pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi\). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in chapter 15. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours. The whole church was not called together probably because of the known prejudice against Paul created by the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:21:20 @{Glorified} (\edoxazon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to glorify God, though without special praise of Paul. {How many thousands} (\posai muriades\). Old word for ten thousand (Acts:19:19|) and then an indefinite number like our "myriads" (this very word) as strkjv@Luke:12:1; strkjv@Acts:21:20; strkjv@Jude:1:14; strkjv@Revelation:5:11; strkjv@9:16|. But it is a surprising statement even with allowable hyperbole, but one may recall strkjv@Acts:4:4| (number of the men--not women--about five thousand); strkjv@5:14| (multitudes both of men and women); strkjv@6:7|. There were undoubtedly a great many thousands of believers in Jerusalem and all Jewish Christians, some, alas, Judaizers (Acts:11:2; strkjv@15:1,5|). This list may include the Christians from neighbouring towns in Palestine and even some from foreign countries here at the Feast of Pentecost, for it is probable that Paul arrived in time for it as he had hoped. But we do not have to count the hostile Jews from Asia (verse 27|) who were clearly not Christians at all. {All zealous for the law} (\pantes zˆl“tai tou nomou\). Zealots (substantive) rather than zealous (adjective) with objective genitive (\tou nomou\). The word zealot is from \zˆlo“\, to burn with zeal, to boil. The Greek used \zˆl“tˆs\ for an imitator or admirer. There was a party of Zealots (developed from the Pharisees), a group of what would be called "hot-heads," who brought on the war with Rome. One of this party, Simon Zelotes (Acts:1:13|), was in the number of the twelve apostles. It is important to understand the issues in Jerusalem. It was settled at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|) that the Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be imposed upon Gentile Christians. Paul won freedom for them, but it was not said that it was wrong for Jewish Christians to go on observing it if they wished. We have seen Paul observing the passover in Philippi (Acts:20:6|) and planning to reach Jerusalem for Pentecost (20:16|). The Judaizers rankled under Paul's victory and power in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles and gave him great trouble in Galatia and Corinth. They were busy against him in Jerusalem also and it was to undo the harm done by them in Jerusalem that Paul gathered the great collection from the Gentile Christians and brought it with him and the delegates from the churches. Clearly then Paul had real ground for his apprehension of trouble in Jerusalem while still in Corinth (Romans:15:25|) when he asked for the prayers of the Roman Christians (verses 30-32|). The repeated warnings along the way were amply justified.

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

rwp@Acts:21:24 @{These take} (\toutous paralab“n\). Second aorist active participle of \paralamban“\. Taking these alone. {Purify thyself with them} (\hagnisthˆti sun autois\). First aorist passive imperative of \hagniz“\, old verb to purify, to make pure (\hagnos\). See the active voice in strkjv@James:4:8; strkjv@1Peter:1:22; strkjv@1John:3:3|. It is possible to see the full passive force here, "Be purified." But a number of aorist passives in the _Koin‚_ supplant the aorist middle forms and preserve the force of the middle (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 819). That is possible here. Hence, "Purify thyself" is allowable. The word occurs in strkjv@Numbers:6:1| for taking the Nazarite vow. The point is that Paul takes the vow with them. Note \hagnismou\ in verse 26|. {Be at charges for them} (\dapanˆson ep' autois\). First aorist active imperative of old verb \dapana“\, to incur expense, expend. Spend (money) upon (\ep'\) them. Ramsay (_St. Paul the Traveller_, etc., p. 310) argues that Paul had use of considerable money at this period, perhaps from his father's estate. The charges for five men would be considerable. "A poor man would not have been treated with the respect paid him at Caesarea, on the voyage, and at Rome" (Furneaux). {That they may shave their heads} (\hina xurˆsontai tˆn kephalˆn\). Note \tˆn kephalˆn\, the head (singular). Future middle indicative of \xura“\, late form for the old \xure“\, to shave, middle to shave oneself or (causative) to get oneself shaved. This use of \hina\ with the future indicative is like the classic \hop“s\ with the future indicative and is common in the N.T. as in the _Koin‚_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 984). {And all shall know} (\kai gn“sontai\). This future middle indicative of \gin“sk“\ (cf. \akousontai\ in verse 22|) may be independent of \hina\ or dependent on it like \xurˆsontai\, though some MSS. (H L P) have \gn“sin\ (second aorist subjunctive, clearly dependent on \hina\). {Of which} (\h“n\). Genitive plural of the relative \ha\ (accusative) object of the perfect passive verb \katˆchˆntai\ (cf. verse 21| \katˆchˆthˆsan\) attracted into the case of the omitted antecedent \tout“n\. The instruction still in effect. {But that thou thyself walkest orderly} (\alla stoicheis kai autos\). \Stoicheis\ is an old verb to go in a row (from \stoichos\, row, rank, series), to walk in a line or by rule. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Galatians:5:25; strkjv@Romans:4:12; strkjv@Phillipians:3:16|. The rule is the law and Paul was not a sidestepper. The idea of the verb is made plain by the participle \phulass“n ton nomon\ (keeping or observing the law).

rwp@Acts:22:9 @{But they heard not the voice} (\tˆn de ph“nˆn ouk ˆkousan\). The accusative here may be used rather than the genitive as in verse 7| to indicate that those with Paul did not understand what they heard (9:7|) just as they beheld the light (22:9|), but did not see Jesus (9:7|). The difference in cases allows this distinction, though it is not always observed as just noticed about strkjv@22:14; strkjv@26:14|. The verb \akou“\ is used in the sense of understand (Mark:4:33; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:2|). It is one of the evidences of the genuineness of this report of Paul's speech that Luke did not try to smooth out apparent discrepancies in details between the words of Paul and his own record already in ch. 9. The Textus Receptus adds in this verse: "And they became afraid" (\kai emphoboi egenonto\). Clearly not genuine.

rwp@Acts:23:3 @{Thou whited wall} (\toiche kekoniamene\). Perfect passive participle of \konia“\ (from \konia\, dust or lime). The same word used in strkjv@Matthew:23:27| for "whited sepulchres" (\taphoi kekoniamenoi\) which see. It is a picturesque way of calling Ananias a hypocrite, undoubtedly true, but not a particularly tactful thing for a prisoner to say to his judge, not to say Jewish high priest. Besides, Paul had hurled back at him the word \tuptein\ (smite) in his command, putting it first in the sentence (\tuptein se mellei ho theos\) in strong emphasis. Clearly Paul felt that he, not Ananias, was living as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. {And sittest thou to judge me?} (\Kai su kathˆi krin“n me?\) Literally, "And thou (being what thou art) art sitting (\kathˆi\, second person singular middle of \kathˆmai\, late form for \kathˆsai\, the uncontracted form) judging me." Cf. strkjv@Luke:22:30|. \Kai su\ at the beginning of a question expresses indignation. {Contrary to the law} (\paranom“n\). Present active participle of \paranome“\, old verb to act contrary to the law, here alone in the N.T., "acting contrary to the law."

rwp@Acts:23:11 @{The night following} (\tˆi epiousˆi nukti\). Locative case, on the next (following) night. {The Lord} (\ho kurios\). Jesus. Paul never needed Jesus more than now. On a previous occasion the whole church prayed for Peter's release (12:5|), but Paul clearly had no such grip on the church as that, though he had been kindly welcomed (21:18|). In every crisis Jesus appears to him (cf. strkjv@Acts:18:9|). It looked dark for Paul till Jesus spoke. Once before in Jerusalem Jesus spoke words of cheer (22:18|). Then he was told to leave Jerusalem. Now he is to have "cheer" or "courage" (\tharsei\). Jesus used this very word to others (Matthew:9:2,22; strkjv@Mark:10:49|). It is a brave word. {Thou hast testified} (\diemartur“\). First aorist middle indicative second person singular of \diamarturomai\, strong word (see on ¯22:18|). {Must thou} (\se dei\). That is the needed word and on this Paul leans. His hopes (19:21|) of going to Rome will not be in vain. He can bide Christ's time now. And Jesus has approved his witness in Jerusalem.

rwp@Acts:23:20 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). As if the whole nation was in the conspiracy and so in verse 12|...to the Zealots, but clearly they...{Have agreed} (\sunethento\). Second aorist middle indicative of \suntithˆmi\, old verb to join together, to agree. Already this form in strkjv@Luke:22:5| which see. See also strkjv@John:9:22; strkjv@Acts:24:9|. {To bring down} (\hop“s katagagˆis\). Very words of the conspirators in verse 15| as if the young man overheard. Second aorist active subjunctive of \katag“\ with \hop“s\ in final clause, still used, but nothing like so common as \hina\ though again in verse 23| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 985). {As though thou wouldest inquire} (\h“s mell“n punthanesthai\). Just as in verse 15| except that here \mell“n\ refers to Lysias instead of to the conspirators as in verse 15|. The singular is used by the youth out of deference to the authority of Lysias and so modifies a bit the scheming of the conspirators, not "absurd" as Page holds.

rwp@Acts:24:7 @This whole verse with some words at the end of verse 6| and the beginning of verse 8| in the Textus Receptus ("And would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee") is absent from Aleph A B H L P 61 (many other cursives) Sahidic Bohairic. It is beyond doubt a later addition to the incomplete report of the speech of Tertullus. As the Revised Version stands, verse 8| connects with verse 6|...the added words is clearly to...21|. Furneaux holds them to be genuine and omitted because contradictory to strkjv@Acts:21|. More likely they are a clumsy attempt to complete the speech of Tertullus.

rwp@Acts:25:4 @{Howbeit} (\men oun\). No antithesis expressed, though Page considers \de\ in verse 6| to be one. They probably argued that it was easier for one man (Paul)...there. But Festus was clearly suspicious...(verse 6|) and was wholly within his rights to insist that they make their charges in Caesarea where he held court. {Was kept in charge} (\tˆreisthai\). Present passive infinitive of \tˆre“\ in indirect assertion. \Hoti\ with finite verb is more common after \apokrinomai\, but the infinitive with the accusative of general reference is proper as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1036). {Shortly} (\en tachei\). In quickness, in speed. Old and common usage, seen already in strkjv@Luke:18:8; strkjv@Acts:12:7; strkjv@22:18|. Festus is clearly within his rights again since his stay in Caesarea had been so brief. He did go down in "eight or ten days" (verse 6|). Luke did not consider the matter important enough to be precise.

rwp@Acts:27:9 @{Where much time was spent} (\Hikanou chronou diagenomenou\). Genitive absolute again with second aorist middle participle of \diaginomai\, to come in between (\dia\). "Considerable time intervening," since they became weatherbound in this harbour, though some take it since they left Caesarea. {And the voyage was now dangerous} (\kai ontos ˆdˆ episphalous\). Genitive absolute, "and the voyage being already (\ˆdˆ\=Latin _jam_) dangerous" (old word from \epi\ and \sphall“\, to trip, to fall, and so prone to fall, here only in N.T.). {Because the Fast was now already gone by} (\dia to kai tˆn nˆsteian ˆdˆ parelˆluthenai\). Accusative (after \dia\) of the articular infinitive perfect active of \parerchomai\, to pass by, with the accusative of general reference (\nˆsteian\, the great day of atonement of the Jews, strkjv@Leviticus:16:29ff.|) occurring about the end of September. The ancients considered navigation on the Mediterranean unsafe from early October till the middle of March. In A.D. 59 the Fast occurred on Oct. 5. There is nothing strange in Luke using this Jewish note of time as in strkjv@20:6| though a Gentile Christian. Paul did it also (1Corinthians:16:8|). It is no proof that Luke was a Jewish proselyte. We do not know precisely when the party left Caesarea (possibly in August), but in ample time to arrive in Rome before October if conditions had been more favourable. But the contrary winds had made the voyage very slow and difficult all the way (verse 7|) besides the long delay here in this harbour of Fair Havens. {Paul admonished them} (\parˆinˆi ho Paulos\). Imperfect active of \paraine“\, old word to exhort from \para\ and \aine“\, to praise (3:8|), only here and verse 22| in N.T. It is remarkable that a prisoner like Paul should venture to give advice at all and to keep on doing it (imperfect tense inchoative, began to admonish and kept on at it). Paul had clearly won the respect of the centurion and officers and also felt it to be his duty to give this unasked for warning. {I perceive} (\the“r“\). Old word from \the“ros\, a spectator. See strkjv@Luke:10:18|. Paul does not here claim prophecy, but he had plenty of experience with three shipwrecks already (2Corinthians:11:25|) to justify his apprehension. {Will be} (\mellein esesthai\). Infinitive in indirect assertion followed by future infinitive after \mellein\ in spite of \hoti\ which would naturally call for present indicative \mellei\, an anacoluthon due to the long sentence (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 478). {With injury} (\meta hubre“s\). An old word from \huper\ (above, upper, like our "uppishness") and so pride, insult, personal injury, the legal word for personal assault (Page). Josephus (_Ant_. III. 6, 4) uses it of the injury of the elements. {Loss} (\zˆmian\). Old word, opposite of \kerdos\, gain or profit (Phillipians:3:7f.|). Nowhere else in N.T. {Lading} (\phortiou\). Diminutive of \phortos\ (from \pher“\, to bear) only in form. Common word, but in N.T. only here in literal sense, as metaphor in strkjv@Matthew:11:30; strkjv@23:4; strkjv@Luke:11:46; strkjv@Galatians:6:5|. {But also of our lives} (\alla kai t“n psuch“n\). Common use of \psuchˆ\ for life, originally "breath of life" (Acts:20:10|), and also "soul" (14:2|). Fortunately no lives were lost, though all else was. But this outcome was due to the special mercy of God for the sake of Paul (verse 24|), not to the wisdom of the officers in rejecting Paul's advice. Paul begins now to occupy the leading role in this marvellous voyage.

rwp@Acts:27:16 @{Running under the lee of} (\hupodramontes\). Second aorist active participle of \hupotrech“\. Same use of \hupo\ as in \hupepleusamen\ (verses 4,8|) for "under the lee", under the protection of. \Nˆsion\ is diminutive of \nˆsos\, a small island. The MSS. vary between Cauda (B) and Clauda (Aleph). {To secure the boat} (\perikrateis genesthai tˆs skaphˆs\). "To become masters (\perikrateis\ from \peri\ and \kratos\, power over, found in Susannah and ecclesiastical writers, and here only in N.T.) of the boat ("dug out," like Indian boats, literally, from \skapt“\, to dig, old word, here only in N.T. and verses 30,32|). The smooth water behind the little island enabled them to do this. {When they had hoisted it up} (\hˆn ƒrantes\). "Which (the little boat) having hoisted up (\arantes\, verse 13|)." Even so it was "with difficulty" (\molis\). Perhaps the little boat was waterlogged. {Used helps} (\boˆtheiais echr“nto\). Imperfect middle of \chraomai\ with instrumental case. The "helps" were ropes or chains, no doubt. {Under-girding the ship} (\hupoz“nnuntes to ploion\). Present active participle of \hupoz“nnumi\. Old verb, here only in N.T. Probably cables (\hupoz“mata\) or ropes were used under the hull of the ship laterally or even longitudinally, tightly secured on deck. This "frapping" was more necessary for ancient vessels because of the heavy mast. The little island made it possible to do this also. {Lest we be cast upon the Syrtis} (\mˆ eis tˆn Surtin ekpes“sin\). Final clause after verb of fearing (\phoboumenoi\) with \mˆ\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \ekpipt“\, old verb to fall out or off, to be cast away. Songs:here and verses 26,29|, a classical use of the verb for a ship driven out of its course on to shoals or rocks (Page who cites Xenophon, _Anab_. VII. 5, 12)...Carthage and Cyrenaica, this clearly being...(\surtis\, from \sur“\). The wind would drive the ship right into this peril if something were not done. {They lowered the gear} (\chalasantes to skeuos\). First aorist active participle of \chala“\ (cf. strkjv@Luke:5:4| for lowering the nets). \Skeuos\ means vessel or gear. They slackened or reduced sail, especially the mainsail, but leaving enough to keep the ship's head as close to the wind as was practicable. {Songs:were driven} (\hout“s epheronto\). Imperfect passive indicative again as in verse 15| with the addition of \hout“s\ (thus). The ship was now fixed as near to the wind (E N E) as possible (seven points). That would enable the ship to go actually W by N and so avoid the quicksands. J. Smith has shown that, a day being lost around Cauda, the ship going 36 miles in 24 hours in 13 days would make 468 miles. The Island of Malta (Melita) is precisely in that direction (W by N) from Cauda and is 480 miles. Page sees a difficulty about this explanation of the steady drift of the ship in the word \diapheromenon\ in verse 27|, but that was at the end of the drifting and the varied winds could have come then and not before. The whole narrative as explained carefully in Smith's _Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_ is a masterpiece of precise and accurate scholarship. A resume of his results appears in my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Acts:28:14 @{Where we found brethren} (\hou heurontes adelphous\). Possibly from Alexandria, but, as Blass observes, it is no more strange to find "brethren" in Christ in Puteoli when Paul arrives than in Rome. There was a large Jewish quarter. {Seven days} (\hˆmeras hepta\)...still a prisoner, but clearly Julius...130 miles by land from Puteoli to Rome over one of the great Roman roads. {And so we came to Rome} (\kai hout“s eis tˆn Romˆn ˆlthamen\). Songs:at last. Luke is exultant as Page observes: _Paulus Romae captivus: triumphus unicus_. It is the climax of the book of Acts (19:21; strkjv@23:11|), but not the close of Paul's career. Page rightly remarks that a new paragraph should begin with verse 15|, for brethren came from Rome and this part of the journey is touched with the flavour of that incident. The great event is that Paul reached Rome, but not as he had once hoped (Romans:15:22-29|).

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

rwp@Colossians:1:7 @{Of Epaphras} (\apo Epaphrƒ\). "From Epaphras" who is the source of their knowledge of Christ. {On our behalf} (\huper hˆm“n\). Clearly correct (Aleph A B D) and not \huper hum“n\ (on your behalf). In a true sense Epaphras was Paul's messenger to Colossae.

rwp@Colossians:1:20 @{Through him} (\di' autou\). As the sufficient and chosen agent in the work of reconciliation (\apokatallaxai\, first aorist active infinitive of \apokatallass“\, further addition to \eudokˆsen\, was pleased). This double compound (\apo, kata\ with \allass“\) occurs only here, verse 22; strkjv@Ephesians:2:16|, and nowhere else so far as known. Paul's usual word for "reconcile" is \katallass“\ (2Corinthians:5:18-20; strkjv@Romans:5:10|), though \diallass“\ (Matthew:5:24|) is more common in Attic. The addition of \apo\ here is clearly for the idea of complete reconciliation. See on ¯2Corinthians:5:18-20| for discussion of \katallass“\, Paul's great word. The use of \ta panta\ (the all things, the universe) as if the universe were somehow out of harmony reminds us of the mystical passage in strkjv@Romans:8:19-23| which see for discussion. Sin somehow has put the universe out of joint. Christ will set it right. {Unto himself} (\eis auton\). Unto God, though \auton\ is not reflexive unless written \hauton\. {Having made peace} (\eirˆnopoiˆsas\). Late and rare compound (Proverbs:10:10| and here only in N.T.) from \eirˆnopoios\, peacemaker (Matthew:5:9|; here only in N.T.). In strkjv@Ephesians:2:15| we have \poi“n eirˆnˆn\ (separate words) {making peace}. Not the masculine gender, though agreeing with the idea of Christ involved even if \plˆr“ma\ be taken as the subject of \eudokˆsen\, a participial anacoluthon (construction according to sense as in strkjv@2:19|). If \theos\ be taken as the subject of \eudokˆsen\ the participle \eirˆnopoiˆsas\ refers to Christ, not to \theos\ (God). {Through the blood of his cross} (\dia tou haimatos tou staurou autou\)...of Jesus and as clearly stating..._causa medians_ (Ellicott) of the work of reconciliation to be the Cross of Christ, a doctrine needed today. {Or things in the heavens} (\eite ta en tois ouranois\). Much needless trouble has been made over this phrase as if things in heaven were not exactly right. It is rather a hypothetical statement like verse 16| not put in categorical form (Abbott), _universitas rerum_ (Ellicott).

rwp@Colossians:2:13 @{And you} (\kai humas\). Emphatic position, object of the verb \sunez“opoiˆsen\ (did he quicken) and repeated (second \humƒs\). You Gentiles as he explains. {Being dead through your trespasses} (\nekrous ontas tois parapt“masin\). Moral death, of course, as in strkjv@Romans:6:11; strkjv@Ephesians:2:1,5|. Correct text does not have \en\, but even so \parapt“masin\ (from \parapipt“\, to fall beside or to lapse, strkjv@Hebrews:6:6|), a lapse or misstep as in strkjv@Matthew:6:14; strkjv@Romans:5:15-18; strkjv@Galatians:6:1|, can be still in the locative, though the instrumental makes good sense also. {And the uncircumcision of your flesh} (\kai tˆi akroboustiƒi tˆs sarkos hum“n\). "Dead in your trespasses and your alienation from God, of which the uncircumcision of your flesh was a symbol" (Abbott). Clearly so, "the uncircumcision" used merely in a metaphorical sense. {Did he quicken together with him} (\sunez“opoiˆsen sun aut“i\). First aorist active indicative of the double compound verb \sunz“opoie“\, to make alive (\z“os, poie“\) with (\sun\, repeated also with \aut“i\, associative instrumental), found only here and in strkjv@Ephesians:2:5|, apparently coined by Paul for this passage. Probably \theos\ (God) is the subject because expressly so stated in strkjv@Ephesians:2:4f.| and because demanded by \sun aut“i\ here referring to Christ. This can be true even if Christ be the subject of \ˆrken\ in verse 14|. {Having forgiven us} (\charisamenos hˆmin\). First aorist middle participle of \charizomai\, common verb from \charis\ (favour, grace). Dative of the person common as in strkjv@3:13|. The act of forgiving is simultaneous with the quickening, though logically antecedent.

rwp@Colossians:2:23 @{Which things} (\hatina\). "Which very things," these ascetic regulations. {Have indeed a show of wisdom} (\estin logon men echonta sophias\). Periphrastic present indicative with \estin\ in the singular, but present indicative \echonta\ in the plural (\hatina\). \Logon sophias\ is probably "the repute of wisdom" (Abbott) like Plato and Herodotus. \Men\ (in deed) has no corresponding \de\. {In will-worship} (\en ethelothrˆskiƒi\). This word occurs nowhere else and was probably coined by Paul after the pattern of \ethelodouleia\, to describe the voluntary worship of angels (see strkjv@2:18|). {And humility} (\kai tapeinophrosunˆi\). Clearly here the bad sense, "in mock humility." {And severity to the body} (\kai apheidiƒi s“matos\). Old word (Plato) from \apheidˆs\, unsparing (\a\ privative, \pheidomai\, to spare). Here alone in N.T. Ascetics often practice flagellations and other hardnesses to the body. {Not of any value} (\ouk en timˆi tini\). \Timˆ\ usually means honour or price. {Against the indulgence of the flesh} (\pros plˆsmonˆn tˆs sarkos\). These words are sharply debated along with \timˆ\ just before. It is not unusual for \pros\ to be found in the sense of "against" rather than "with" or "for." See \pros\ in sense of {against} in strkjv@3:13; strkjv@Ephesians:6:11f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:6:1|. \Plˆsmonˆ\ is an old word from \pimplˆmi\, to fill and means satiety. It occurs here only in the N.T. Peake is inclined to agree with Hort and Haupt that there is a primitive corruption here. But the translation in the Revised Version is possible and it is true that mere rules do not carry us very far in human conduct as every father or mother knows, though we must have some regulations in family and state and church. But they are not enough of themselves.

rwp@Colossians:4:10 @{Aristarchus} (\Aristarchos\). He was from Thessalonica and accompanied Paul to Jerusalem with the collection (Acts:19:29; strkjv@20:4|) and started with Paul to Rome (Acts:27:2; strkjv@Philemon:1:24|). Whether he has been with Paul all the time in Rome we do not know, but he is here now. {My fellow-prisoner} (\ho sunaichmal“tos mou\). One of Paul's compounds, found elsewhere only in Lucian. Paul uses it of Epaphras in strkjv@Philemon:1:23|, but whether of actual voluntary imprisonment or of spiritual imprisonment like \sunstrati“tes\ (fellow-soldier) in strkjv@Phillipians:2:25; strkjv@Philemon:1:2| we do not know. Abbott argues for a literal imprisonment and it is possible that some of Paul's co-workers (\sun-ergoi\) voluntarily shared imprisonment with him by turns. {Mark} (\Markos\). Once rejected by Paul for his defection in the work (Acts:15:36-39|), but now cordially commended because he had made good again. {The cousin of Barnabas} (\ho anepsios Barnabƒ\)...for "nephew" very late, clearly "cousin"...(Acts:12:25; strkjv@13:5; strkjv@15:36-39|). {If he come unto you, receive him} (\ean elthˆi pros humas dexasthe auton\). This third class conditional sentence (\ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\) gives the substance of the commands (\entolas\) about Mark already sent, how we do not know. But Paul's commendation of Mark is hearty and unreserved as he does later in strkjv@2Timothy:4:11|. The verb \dechomai\ is the usual one for hospitable reception (Matthew:10:14; strkjv@John:4:45|) like \prosdechomai\ (Phillipians:2:29|) and \hupodechomai\ (Luke:10:38|).

rwp@Colossians:4:17 @{Take heed} (\blepe\). Keep an eye on. {Thou hast received in the Lord} (\parelabes en Kuri“i\). Second aorist active indicative of \paralamban“\, the verb used by Paul of getting his message from the Lord (1Corinthians:15:3|). Clearly Archippus had a call "in the Lord" as every preacher should have. {That thou fulfil it} (\hina autˆn plˆrois\). Present active subjunctive of \plˆro“\, "that thou keep on filling it full." It is a life-time job.

rwp@Info_Ephesians @...the same time, but clearly Colossians...

rwp@Ephesians:1:3 @{Blessed} (\eulogˆtos\). Verbal of \euloge“\, common in the LXX for Hebrew _baruk_ (Vulgate _benedictus_) and applied usually to God, sometimes to men (Genesis:24:31|), but in N.T. always to God (Luke:1:68|), while \eulogˆmenos\ (perfect passive participle) is applied to men (Luke:1:42|). "While \eulogˆmenos\ points to an isolated act or acts, \eulogˆtos\ describes the intrinsic character" (Lightfoot). Instead of the usual \eucharistoumen\ (Colossians:1:3|) Paul here uses \eulogˆtos\, elsewhere only in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3| in opening, though in a doxology in strkjv@Romans:1:25; strkjv@9:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:31|. The copula here is probably \estin\ (is), though either \est“\ (imperative) or \eiˆ\ (optative as wish) will make sense. {The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\ho theos kai patˆr tou Kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). \Kai\ is genuine here, though not in strkjv@Colossians:1:3|. The one article (\ho\) with \theos kai patˆr\ links them together as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3; strkjv@3:11,13; strkjv@Galatians:1:4|. See also the one article in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11|. In strkjv@Ephesians:1:17| we have \ho theos tou Kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\, and the words of Jesus in strkjv@John:20:17|. {Who hath blessed us} (\ho eulogˆsas humƒs\). First aorist active participle of \euloge“\, the same word, antecedent action to the doxology (\eulogˆtos\). {With} (\en\). So-called instrumental use of \en\ though {in} is clear. {Every spiritual blessing} (\pasˆi eulogiƒi pneumatikˆi\). Third use of the root \eulog\ (verbal, verb, substantive). Paul lovingly plays with the idea. The believer is a citizen of heaven and the spiritual blessings count for most to him. {In the heavenly places in Christ} (\en tois epouraniois en Christ“i\). In four other places in Eph. (1:20; strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:10; strkjv@6:12|). This precise phrase (with \en\)...N.T. and has a clearly local...1:20; strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:10|, doubtful in strkjv@6:12|, but probably so here. In strkjv@2:6| the believer is conceived as already seated with Christ. Heaven is the real abode of the citizen of Christ's kingdom (Phillipians:3:20|) who is a stranger on earth (Phillipians:1:27; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19|). The word \epouranios\ (heavenly) occurs in various passages in the N.T. in contrast with \ta epigeia\ (the earthly) as in strkjv@John:3:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:40,48,49; strkjv@Phillipians:2:10|, with \patris\ (country) in strkjv@Hebrews:11:16|, with \klˆsis\ (calling) in strkjv@Hebrews:3:1|, with \d“rea\ (gift) in strkjv@Hebrews:6:4|, with \basileia\ (kingdom) in strkjv@2Timothy:4:18|.

rwp@Ephesians:1:7 @{In whom} (\en h“i\). Just like strkjv@Colossians:1:14| with \parapt“mat“n\ (trespasses) in place of \hamarti“n\ (sins) and with the addition of \dia tou haimatos autou\ (through his blood) as in strkjv@Colossians:1:20|. Clearly Paul makes the blood of Christ the cost of redemption, the ransom money (\lutron\, strkjv@Matthew:20:28; strkjv@Mark:10:45|; \antilutron\, strkjv@1Timothy:2:6|). See strkjv@Colossians:1:9|.

rwp@Ephesians:2:3 @{We also all} (\kai hˆmeis pantes\). We Jews. {Once lived} (\anestraphˆmen pote\). Second aorist passive indicative of \anastreph“\, old verb, to turn back and forth, to live (2Corinthians:1:12|). Cf. \pote periepatˆsate\, of the Gentiles in verse 2|. {The desires} (\ta thelˆmata\). Late and rare word except in LXX and N.T., from \thel“\, to will, to wish. Plural here "the wishes," "the wills" of the flesh like \tais epithumiais tˆs sarkos\ just before. Gentiles had no monopoly of such sinful impulses. {Of the mind} (\t“n dianoi“n\). Plural again, "of the thoughts or purposes." {Were by nature children of wrath} (\ˆmetha tekna phusei orgˆs\). This is the proper order of these words which have been the occasion of much controversy. There is no article with \tekna\. Paul is insisting that Jews as well as Gentiles ("even as the rest") are the objects of God's wrath (\orgˆs\) because of their lives of sin. See strkjv@Romans:2:1-3:20| for the full discussion of this to Jews unpalatable truth. The use of \phusei\ (associative instrumental case of manner) is but the application of Paul's use of "all" (\pantes\) as shown also in strkjv@Romans:3:20; strkjv@5:12|. See \phusei\ of Gentiles in strkjv@Romans:2:14|...age of responsibility is clearly involved...5:13f|.

rwp@Ephesians:3:12 @{In confidence} (\en pepoithˆsei\). Late and rare word from \pepoitha\. See strkjv@2Corinthians:1:15|. {Through our faith in him} (\dia tˆs piste“s autou\). Clearly objective genitive \autou\ (in him).

rwp@Ephesians:4:28 @{Steal no more} (\mˆketi kleptet“\). Clearly here, cease stealing (present active imperative with \mˆketi\). {The thing that is good} (\to agathon\). "The good thing" opposed to his stealing and "with his hands" (\tais chersin\, instrumental case) that did the stealing. See strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:10|. Even unemployment is no excuse for stealing. {To give} (\metadidonai\). Present active infinitive of \metadid“mi\, to share with one.

rwp@Ephesians:5:32 @{This mystery is great} (\to mustˆrion touto mega estin\). For the word "mystery" see strkjv@1:9|. Clearly Paul means to say that the comparison of marriage to the union of Christ and the church is the mystery. He makes that plain by the next words. {But I speak} (\eg“ de leg“\). "Now I mean." Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:7:29; strkjv@15:50|. {In regard of Christ and of the church} (\eis Christon kai [eis] tˆn ekklˆsian\). "With reference to Christ and the church." That is all that \eis\ here means.

rwp@Ephesians:6:12 @{Our wrestling is not} (\ouk estin hˆmin hˆ palˆ\). "To us the wrestling is not." \Palˆ\ is an old word from \pall“\, to throw, to swing (from Homer to the papyri, though here only in N.T.), a contest between two till one hurls the other down and holds him down (\katech“\). Note \pros\ again (five times) in sense of "against," face to face conflict to the finish. {The world-rulers of this darkness} (\tous kosmokratoras tou skotous toutou\). This phrase occurs here alone. In strkjv@John:14:30| Satan is called "the ruler of this world" (\ho arch“n tou kosmou toutou\). In strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4| he is termed "the god of this age" (\ho theos tou ai“nos toutou\). The word \kosmokrat“r\ is found in the Orphic Hymns of Satan, in Gnostic writings of the devil, in rabbinical writings (transliterated) of the angel of death, in inscriptions of the Emperor Caracalla. These "world-rulers" are limited to "this darkness" here on earth. {The spiritual hosts of wickedness} (\ta pneumatika tˆs ponˆrias\). No word for "hosts" in the Greek. Probably simply, "the spiritual things (or elements) of wickedness." \Ponˆria\ (from \ponˆros\) is depravity (Matthew:22:18; strkjv@1Corinthians:5:8|). {In the heavenly places} (\en tois epouraniois\). Clearly so here. Our "wrestling" is with foes of evil natural and supernatural. We sorely need "the panoply of God" (furnished by God).

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ GENERAL EPISTLES BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION NOT A HAPPY TITLE There are various explanations of the term catholic (\katholikai epistolai\) as applied to this group of seven short letters by four writers (one by James, two by Peter, one by Jude, three by John). The Latin for \katholikos\ is _generalis_, though the Vulgate terms these letters _Catholicae_. The meaning is not orthodox as opposed to heretical or canonical, though they are sometimes termed \Epistolae canonicae\. As a matter of fact five of the seven (all but First Peter and First John) Eusebius placed among the "disputed" (\antilegomena\) books of the New Testament. "A canonical book is primarily one which has been measured and tested, and secondarily that which is itself a measure or standard" (Alfred Plummer). Canon is from \kan“n\ (cane) and is like a yardstick cut to the right measure and then used as a measure. Some see in the term \katholikos\ the idea that these Epistles are meant for both Jews and Gentiles, but the Epistle of James seems addressed to Jewish Christians. There were two other chief groups of New Testament writings in the old Greek manuscripts (the Gospels and Acts, then the Epistles of Paul). This group of seven Epistles and the Apocalypse constitute the remainder of the New Testament. The usual interpretation of the term \katholikos\...their distribution. This is clearly true...1Peter:1:1|, where seven Roman provinces are mentioned. The language of strkjv@2Peter:3:1| bears the same idea. Apparently the Epistle of Jude:is general also as is I John. But II John is addressed to "an elect lady" (verse strkjv@2John:1:1|) and III John to Gaius (verse strkjv@3John:1:1|), both of them individuals, and therefore in no sense are these two brief letters general or catholic. The earliest instance of the word \katholikos\ is in an inscription (B.C. 6) with the meaning "general" (\tˆi katholikˆi mou prothesei\, my general purpose). It was common after that. The earliest example of it in Christian literature is in Ignatius' Epistle to the Church of Smyrna (VIII) where he has "the catholic church" (\hˆ katholikˆ ekklˆsia\), "the general church," not a local body. Clement of Alexandria (_Strom_. IV. xv) applies this adjective to the letter sent to the Gentile Christians "in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" from the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:23|).

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64, this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_. Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII)...yet the same style clearly runs...

rwp@Galatians:2:13 @{Dissembled likewise with him} (\sunupekrithˆsan aut“i kai\). First aorist passive indicative of the double compound verb \sunupokrinomai\, a late word often in Polybius, only here in N.T. One example in Polybius means to pretend to act a part with. That idea here would help the case of the rest of the Jews, but does not accord with Paul's presentation. {Insomuch that even Barnabas} (\h“ste kai Barnabas\). Actual result expressed by \h“ste\ and the indicative and \kai\ clearly means "even." {Was carried away with their dissimulation} (\sunapˆchthˆ aut“n tˆi hupokrisei\). First aorist passive indicative of \sunapag“\, old verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Peter:3:17|. \Hupokrisei\ is in the instrumental case and can only mean hypocrisy in the bad sense (Matthew:23:28|), not merely acting a part. It was a solemn moment when Paul saw the Jerusalem victory vanish and even Barnabas desert him as they followed the timid cowardice of Peter. It was _Paulus contra mundum_ in the cause of spiritual freedom in Christ.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE STYLE It is called an epistle and so it is, but of a peculiar kind. In fact, as has been said, it begins like a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and concludes like a letter. It is, in fact, more like a literary composition than any other New Testament book as Deissmann shows: "It points to the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its more definitely artistic, more literary language (corresponding to its more theological subject matter), constituted an epoch in the history of the new religion. Christianity is beginning to lay hands on the instruments of culture; the literary and theological period has begun" (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 70f.). But Blass (_Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa_, 1905)...and rhetoric. He is clearly wrong...(Thayer), but with many "parenthetical involutions" (Westcott) and with less of "the impetuous eloquence of Paul." The eleventh chapter reveals a studied style and as a whole the Epistle belongs to the literary _Koin‚_ rather than to the vernacular. Moulton (_Cambridge Biblical Essays_, p. 483) thinks that the author did not know Hebrew but follows the Septuagint throughout in his abundant use of the Old Testament.

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

rwp@Hebrews:1:3 @{Being} (\“n\). Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of \eimi\) in contrast with \genomenos\ in verse 4| like \ˆn\ in strkjv@John:1:1| (in contrast with \egeneto\ in strkjv@1:14|) and like \huparch“n\ and \genomenos\ in strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {The effulgence of his glory} (\apaugasma tˆs doxˆs\). The word \apaugasma\, late substantive from \apaugaz“\, to emit brightness (\augˆ, augaz“\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4|), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in strkjv@John:12:45; strkjv@14:9|. "The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos" (Moffatt). The meaning "effulgence" suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (John:1:1|), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6|. {The very image of his substance} (\charaktˆr tˆs hupostase“s\). \Charaktˆr\ is an old word from \charass“\, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending \=tˆr\)...exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed...\charagma\ (Acts:17:29; strkjv@Revelation:13:16f.|). Menander had already used (Moffatt) \charaktˆr\ in the sense of our "character." The word occurs in the inscriptions for "person" as well as for "exact reproduction" of a person. The word \hupostasis\ for the being or essence of God "is a philosophical rather than a religious term" (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In strkjv@11:1| \hypostasis\ is like the "title-deed" idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4| in his controversy with Arius. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11| pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul's simpler phrase \morphˆ theou\ (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of \Logos\ in strkjv@John:1:1-18| is parallel to strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4|. {And upholding} (\pher“n te\). Present active participle of \pher“\ closely connected with \“n\ (being) by \te\ and like strkjv@Colossians:1:17| in idea. The newer science as expounded by Eddington and Jeans is in harmony with the spiritual and personal conception of creation here presented. {By the word of his power} (\t“i rˆmati tˆs duname“s autou\). Instrumental case of \rˆma\ (word). See strkjv@11:3| for \rˆmati theou\ (by the word of God) as the explanation of creation like Genesis, but here \autou\ refers to God's Son as in strkjv@1:2|. {Purification of sins} (\katharismon t“n hamarti“n\). \Katharismos\ is from \kathariz“\, to cleanse (Matthew:8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14|), here only in Hebrews, but in same sense of cleansing from sins, strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Job:7:21|. Note middle participle \poiˆsamenos\ like \heuramenos\ in strkjv@9:12|. This is the first mention of the priestly work of Christ, the keynote of this Epistle. {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). First aorist active of \kathiz“\, "took his seat," a formal and dignified act. {Of the Majesty on high} (\tˆs megalosunˆs en hupsˆlois\). Late word from \megas\, only in LXX (Deuteronomy:32:3; strkjv@2Samuel:7:23|, etc.), Aristeas, strkjv@Hebrews:1:3; strkjv@8:1; strkjv@Jude:1:25|. Christ resumed his original dignity and glory (John:17:5|). The phrase \en hupsˆlois\ occurs in the Psalms (Psalms:93:4|), here only in N.T., elsewhere \en hupsistois\ in the highest (Matthew:21:9; strkjv@Luke:2:14|) or \en tois epouraniois\ in the heavenlies (Ephesians:1:3,20|). Jesus is here pictured as King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.

rwp@Hebrews:2:14 @{Are sharers in flesh and blood} (\kekoin“nˆken haimatos kai sarkos\). The best MSS. read "blood and flesh." The verb is perfect active indicative of \koin“ne“\, old verb with the regular genitive, elsewhere in the N.T. with the locative (Romans:12:13|) or with \en\ or \eis\. "The children have become partners (\koin“noi\) in blood and flesh." {Partook} (\metesche\). Second aorist active indicative of \metech“\, to have with, a practical synonym for \koin“ne“\ and with the genitive also (\t“n aut“n\). That he might bring to nought (\hina katargˆsˆi\)...Purpose of the incarnation clearly stated...\hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \katarge“\, old word to render idle or ineffective (from \kata, argos\), causative verb (25 times in Paul), once in Luke (Luke:13:7|), once in Hebrews (here). "By means of death" (his own death) Christ broke the power (\kratos\) of the devil over death (paradoxical as it seems), certainly in men's fear of death and in some unexplained way Satan had sway over the realm of death (Zechariah:3:5f.|). Note the explanatory \tout' estin\ (that is) with the accusative after it as before it. In strkjv@Revelation:12:7| Satan is identified with the serpent in Eden, though it is not done in the Old Testament. See strkjv@Romans:5:12; strkjv@John:8:44; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11; strkjv@1John:3:12|. Death is the devil's realm, for he is the author of sin. "Death as death is no part of the divine order" (Westcott).

rwp@Hebrews:3:6 @{Whose house are we} (\hou oikos esmen hˆmeis\). We Christians (Jew and Gentile) looked at as a whole, not as a local organization. {If we hold fast} (\ean katasch“men\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and second aorist (effective) active subjunctive of \katech“\. This note of contingency and doubt runs all through the Epistle. We are God's house if we do not play the traitor and desert. {Boldness} (\parrˆsian\) {and glorying} (\kai kauchˆma\) some had lost. The author makes no effort to reconcile this warning with God's elective purpose. He is not exhorting God, but these wavering Christians. All these are Pauline words. B does not have \mechri telous bebaian\ (firm unto the end), but it is clearly genuine in verse 14|. He pleads for intelligent confidence.

rwp@Hebrews:3:16 @{Who} (\Tines\). Clearly interrogative, not indefinite (some). {Did provoke} (\parepikranan\). First aorist active indicative of \parapikrin“\, apparently coined by the LXX like \parapikrasmos\ (verse 15|) to which it points, exasperating the anger of God. {Nay, did not all} (\all' ou pantes\). "A favourite device of the diatribe style" (Moffatt), answering one rhetorical question with another (Luke:17:8|) as in verses 17,18|, There was a faithful minority mentioned by Paul (1Corinthians:10:7f.|).

rwp@Hebrews:5:5 @{Songs:Christ also} (\hout“s kai ho Christos\). Just as with Aaron. Jesus had divine appointment as high priest also. {To be made} (\genˆthˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \ginomai\. {High priest} (\archierea\). Predicate accusative agreeing with \heauton\ (himself) object of \edoxasen\. {But he that spake unto him} (\all' ho lalˆsas pros auton\). Ellipsis of \edoxasen\ to be supplied from preceding clause. God did glorify Jesus in appointing him priest as we see in strkjv@Psalms:2:7| quoted already as Messianic (Hebrews:1:5|). Jesus himself repeatedly claimed that the Father sent him on his mission to the world (John:5:30,43; strkjv@8:54; strkjv@17:5|, etc.). Bruce holds that Christ's priesthood is co-eval with his Sonship. Davidson thinks it is merely suitable because he is Son. Clearly the Father nominated (Dods) the Son to the Messianic priesthood (John:3:16|).

rwp@Hebrews:8:7 @{That first covenant} (\hˆ pr“tˆ ekeinˆ\). The word \diathˆkˆ\ (covenant)...is not expressed, but clearly meant...\pr“tˆ\. {Faultless} (\amemptos\). Old compound adjective for which see strkjv@Luke:1:6; strkjv@Phillipians:2:15|. The condition is second class and assumes that the old covenant was not "blameless," apparently a serious charge which he hastens to explain. {For a second} (\deuteras\). Objective genitive with \diathˆkˆs\ understood. The conclusion with \an\ and the imperfect passive indicative (\ezˆteito\) is clearly a second-class condition. See a like argument in strkjv@7:11|.

rwp@Hebrews:9:10 @{Only with meats and drinks and divers washings} (\monon epi br“masin kai pomasin kai diaphorois baptismois\). The parenthesis of the Revised Version here is unnecessary. The use of \epi\ here with the locative case is regular, "in the matter of" (Luke:12:52; strkjv@John:12:16; strkjv@Acts:21:24|). What ritual value these Levitical sacrifices had was confined to minute regulations about diet and ceremonial cleansing (clean and unclean). For "divers" (\diaphorois\, late adjective, in N.T. only in strkjv@Hebrews:1:4; strkjv@8:6; strkjv@9:10; strkjv@Romans:12:6|) say "different" or "various." \Baptismois\ is, of course, the Jewish ceremonial immersions (cf. strkjv@Mark:7:4; strkjv@Exodus:29:4; strkjv@Leviticus:11:25,28f.; strkjv@Numbers:8:7; strkjv@Revelation:6:2|). {Carnal ordinances} (\dikai“masin sarkos\). But the correct text is undoubtedly simply \dikai“mata sarkos\ (nominative case), in apposition with \d“ra te kai thusiai\ (gifts and sacrifices). See strkjv@9:1| for \dikai“mata\. {Imposed} (\epikeimena\). Present middle or passive participle of \epikeimai\, old verb to lie upon (be laid upon). Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:9:16|. {Until a time of reformation} (\mechri kairou diorth“se“s\). Definite statement of the temporary nature of the Levitical system already stated in strkjv@7:10-17; strkjv@8:13| and argued clearly by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3:15-22|. \Diorth“sis\ is a late word, here alone in N.T. (from \diortho“\, to set right or straight), used by Hippocrates for making straight misshapen limbs like \anortho“\ in strkjv@Hebrews:12:12|. Here for reformation like \diorth“ma\ (reform) in strkjv@Acts:24:2f|. Christianity itself is the great Reformation of the current Judaism (Pharisaism) and the spiritual Judaism foreshadowed by the old Abrahamic promise (see strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9|).

rwp@Hebrews:12:18 @{Ye are not come} (\ou proselˆluthate\). Perfect active indicative of \proserchomai\. There is no word here in the Greek for "a mount" like \orei\ in verses 20,22| (and strkjv@Exodus:19:12f.; strkjv@Deuteronomy:4:11|), but it is clearly understood since the dative participles agree with it unless they be taken as descriptive of \puri\ ("a palpable and kindled fire " when \puri\ would be the dative case after \proselˆluthate\). {That might be touched} (\psˆlaph“men“i\). Present passive participle (dative case) of \psˆlapha“\, old verb to handle, to touch (Luke:24:39|). {That burned with fire} (\kekaumen“i puri\). Perfect passive participle of \kai“\, old verb to burn, with instrumental case \puri\ (fire), unless the other view (above) is correct.

rwp@Info_James @ THE DATE If the Epistle is genuine and James was put to death about A.D. 62, it was clearly written before that date. There are two theories about it, one placing it about A.D. 48, the other about A.D. 58. To my mind the arguments of Mayor for the early date are conclusive. There is no allusion to Gentile Christians, as would be natural after A.D. 50. If written after A.D. 70, the tone would likely be different, with some allusion to that dreadful calamity. The sins condemned are those characteristic of early Jewish Christians. The book itself is more like the Sermon on the Mount than the Epistles. The discussion of faith and works in chapter strkjv@James:2| reveals an absence of the issues faced by Paul in strkjv@Romans:4; strkjv@Galatians:3| after the Jerusalem Conference (A.D. 49). Hence the date before that Conference has decidedly the better of the argument. Ropes in his Commentary denies the genuineness of the Epistle and locates it between A.D. 75 and 125, but Hort holds that the evidence for a late date rests "on very slight and intangible grounds." Songs:we place the book before A.D. 49. It may indeed be the earliest New Testament book.

rwp@Info_James @ THE READERS The author addresses himself "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" (Jam strkjv@1:1|). Clearly, then, he is not writing to Gentiles, unless he includes the spiritual children of Abraham in the term \Diaspora\ as Paul does for believers (Galatians:3:29; strkjv@Romans:9:6f.|). The word \diaspora\ occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in strkjv@John:7:35; strkjv@1Peter:1:1|. It apparently has the spiritual significance in strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, but in strkjv@John:7:35| the usual meaning of Jews scattered over the world. The use here of "the twelve tribes" makes the literal sense probable here. Clearly also James knew nothing of any "lost" tribes, for the Jews of the Dispersion were a blend of all the twelve tribes. It is probable also that James is addressing chiefly the Eastern Dispersion in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia as Peter writes to five provinces in the Western Dispersion in Asia Minor. It is possible that James has in mind Christian and non-Christian Jews, not wholly non-Christian Jews as some hold. He may have in mind merely Christian Jews outside of Palestine, of whom there were already many scattered since the great pentecost. The use of synagogue as a place of worship (James:2:2|) like church (James:5:14|) argues somewhat for this view. He presents the Mosaic law as still binding (James:2:9-11; strkjv@4:11|). As the leading elder of the great church in Jerusalem and as a devout Jew and half-brother of Jesus, the message of James had a special appeal to these widely scattered Jewish Christians.

rwp@Info_James @ THE PURPOSE If James is writing solely to non-Christian Jews, the purpose is to win them to Christ, and so he puts the gospel message in a way to get a hearing from the Jews. That is true, whether he has them in mind or not, though he does not do it by the suppression of the deity of Jesus Christ. In the very first verse he places him on a par with God as "the Lord Jesus Christ." In strkjv@James:2:1| he presents Jesus as the object of faith: "as you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory" (Moffatt's Translation), where Jesus is termed the Shekinah Glory of God. It is true that there is no discussion in the Epistle of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus, but there is an allusion to the murder of Jesus in strkjv@James:5:6| and the second coming in strkjv@James:5:8|...Christian principles stand out clearly for...-day living.

rwp@James:1:2 @{Count it} (\hˆgˆsasthe\). First aorist middle imperative of \hˆgeomai\, old verb to consider. Do it now and once for all. {All joy} (\pƒsan charan\). "Whole joy," " unmixed joy," as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:29|. Not just "some joy" along with much grief. {When} (\hotan\). "Whenever," indefinite temporal conjunction. {Ye fall into} (\peripesˆte\). Second aorist active subjunctive (with the indefinite \hotan\) from \peripipt“\, literally to fall around (into the midst of), to fall among as in strkjv@Luke:10:30| \lˆistais periepesen\ (he fell among robbers). Only other N.T. example of this old compound is in strkjv@Acts:27:41|. Thucydides uses it of falling into affliction. It is the picture of being surrounded (\peri\) by trials. {Manifold temptations} (\peirasmois poikilois\). Associative instrumental case. The English word temptation is Latin and originally meant trials whether good or bad, but the evil sense has monopolized the word in our modern English, though we still say "attempt." The word \peirasmos\ (from \peiraz“\, late form for the old \peira“\ as in strkjv@Acts:26:21|, both in good sense as in strkjv@John:6:6|, and in bad sense as in strkjv@Matthew:16:1|) does not occur outside of the LXX and the N.T. except in Dioscorides (A.D. 100?)...on diseases. "Trials" is clearly the...12| (clearly in \peiraz“\ in verse 13|) and so in strkjv@Hebrews:3:8|. Trials rightly faced are harmless, but wrongly met become temptations to evil. The adjective \poikilos\ (manifold) is as old as Homer and means variegated, many coloured as in strkjv@Matthew:4:24; strkjv@2Timothy:3:6; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|. In strkjv@1Peter:1:6| we have this same phrase. It is a bold demand that James here makes.

rwp@James:1:3 @{Knowing} (\gin“skontes\). Present active participle of \gin“sk“\ (experimental knowledge, the only way of getting this view of "trials" as "all joy"). {The proof} (\to dokimion\). Now known (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 259ff.) from the papyri examples of \dokimios\ as an adjective in the same sense (good gold, standard gold) as \dokimos\ proved or tested (James:1:12|). The use of \to dokimion\ (neuter article with neuter single adjective) here and in strkjv@1Peter:1:7|, clearly means "the genuine element in your faith," not "crucible" nor "proving." Your faith like gold stands the test of fire and is approved as standard. James here, as in verse 6; strkjv@2:1; strkjv@5:15|, regards faith (\pistis\) like Paul "as the very foundation of religion" (Mayor). {Worketh} (\katergazetai\). Present (durative) middle indicative of the compound verb with the perfective sense of \kata\ as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:12|, which see. {Patience} (\hupomonˆn\). Old and common word for remaining under (\hupomen“\), "staying power" (Ropes), as in strkjv@Colossians:1:11|.

rwp@James:1:6 @{In faith} (\en pistei\). Faith here "is the fundamental religious attitude" (Ropes), belief in God's beneficent activity and personal reliance on him (Oesterley). {Nothing doubting} (\mˆden diakrinomenos\). Negative way of saying \en pistei\ (in faith), present passive participle of \diakrin“\, old verb to separate (\krin“\) between (\dia\)...to discriminate as shown clearly in...11:12, strkjv@15:9|, but no example of the sense of divided against oneself has been found earlier than the N.T., though it appears in later Christian writings. It is like the use of \diamerizomai\ in strkjv@Luke:11:18| and occurs in strkjv@Matthew:21:21; strkjv@Mark:11:23; strkjv@Acts:10:20; strkjv@Romans:2:4; strkjv@4:20; strkjv@14:23|. It is a vivid picture of internal doubt. {Is like} (\eoiken\). Second perfect active indicative with the linear force alone from \eik“\ to be like. Old form, but in N.T. only here and verse 23| (a literary touch, not in LXX). {The surge of the sea} (\klud“ni thalassˆs\). Old word (from \kluz“\ to wash against) for a dashing or surging wave in contrast with \kuma\ (successive waves), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:8:24|. In associative instrumental case after \eoiken\. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:14| we have \kludoniz“\ (from \klud“n\), to toss by waves. {Driven by the wind} (\anemizomen“i\). Present passive participle (agreeing in case with \klud“ni\) of \anemiz“\, earliest known example and probably coined by James (from \anemos\), who is fond of verbs in \-iz“\ (Mayor). The old Greek used \anemo“\. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:14| Paul uses both \kludoniz“\ and \peripher“ anem“i\. It is a vivid picture of the sea whipped into white-caps by the winds. {Tossed} (\ripizomen“i\). Present passive participle also in agreement with \klud“ni\ from \ripiz“\, rare verb (Aristophanes, Plutarch, Philo) from \ripis\ (a bellows or fire-fan), here only in N.T. It is a picture of "the restless swaying to and fro of the surface of the water, blown upon by shifting breezes" (Hort), the waverer with slight rufflement.

rwp@James:1:12 @{Endureth} (\hupomenei\). Present active indicative of \hupomen“\. Cf. verse 3|. {Temptation} (\peirasmon\). Real temptation here. See verse 2| for "trials." {When he hath been approved} (\dokimos genomenos\). "Having become approved," with direct reference to \to dokimion\ in verse 3|. See also strkjv@Romans:5:4| for \dokimˆ\ (approval after test as of gold or silver). This beatitude (\makarios\) is for the one who has come out unscathed. See strkjv@1Timothy:6:9|. {The crown of life} (\ton stephanon tˆs z“ˆs\). The same phrase occurs in strkjv@Revelation:2:10|. It is the genitive of apposition, life itself being the crown as in strkjv@1Peter:5:4|. This crown is "an honourable ornament" (Ropes), with possibly no reference to the victor's crown (garland of leaves) as with Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:25; strkjv@2Timothy:4:8|, nor to the linen fillet (\diadˆma\) of royalty (Psalms:20:3|, where \stephanos\ is used like \diadˆma\, the kingly crown). \Stephanos\ has a variety of uses. Cf. the thorn chaplet on Jesus (Matthew:27:29|). {The Lord}...oldest Greek MSS., but clearly implied...\epˆggeilato\ ({he promised}, first aorist middle indicative).

rwp@James:2:1 @{My brethren} (\adelphoi mou\). Transition to a new topic as in strkjv@1:19; strkjv@2:5,14; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@5:7|. {Hold not} (\mˆ echete\). Present active imperative of \ech“\ with negative \mˆ\, exhortation to stop holding or not to have the habit of holding in the fashion condemned. {The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tˆn pistin tou kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). Clearly objective genitive, not subjective (faith of), but "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," like \echete pistin theou\ (Mark:11:22|), "have faith in God." See the same objective genitive with \pistis\ in strkjv@Acts:3:6; strkjv@Galatians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:3:22; strkjv@Revelation:14:12|. Note also the same combination as in strkjv@1:1| "our Lord Jesus Christ" (there on a par with God). {The Lord of Glory} (\tˆs doxˆs\). Simply "the Glory." No word for "Lord" (\kuriou\) in the Greek text. \Tˆs doxˆs\ clearly in apposition with \tou kuriou Iˆsou Christou\. James thus terms "our Lord Jesus Christ" the Shekinah Glory of God. See strkjv@Hebrews:9:5| for "the cherubim of Glory." Other New Testament passages where Jesus is pictured as the Glory are strkjv@Romans:9:4; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3|. Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {With respect of persons} (\en pros“polˆmpsiais\). A Christian word, like \pros“polˆmptˆs\ (Acts:10:34|) and \pros“polˆmpteite\ (James:2:9|), not in LXX or any previous Greek, but made from \pros“pon lambanein\ (Luke:20:21; strkjv@Galatians:2:6|), which is \a\ Hebrew idiom for _panim nasa_, "to lift up the face on a person," to be favorable and so partial to him. See \pros“polˆmpsia\ in this sense of partiality (respect of persons) in strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@Colossians:3:25; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9| (nowhere else in N.T.). Do not show partiality.

rwp@James:2:2 @{For} (\gar\). An illustration of the prohibition. {If there come in} (\ean eiselthˆi\). Condition of third class (supposable case) with \ean\ and second (ingressive) aorist active subjunctive of \eiserchomai\. {Into your synagogue} (\eis sunag“gˆn hum“n\). The common word for the gathering of Jews for worship (Luke:12:11|) and particularly for the building where they met (Luke:4:15,20,28|, etc.)...probable meaning as it clearly is...10:25| (\tˆn episunag“gˆn heaut“n\), where the longer compound occurs. It may seem a bit odd for a Christian church (\ekklˆsia\) to be termed \sunag“gˆ\, but James is writing to Jewish Christians and this is another incidental argument for the early date. Epiphanius (_Haer_. XXX. 18) states that the Ebionites call their church \sunag“gˆ\, not \ekklˆsia\. In the fourth century an inscription has \sunag“gˆ\ for the meeting-house of certain Christians. {A man with a gold ring} (\anˆr chrusodaktulios\). "A gold-fingered man," "wearing a gold ring." The word occurs nowhere else, but Lucian has \chrusocheir\ (gold-handed) and Epictetus has \chrusous daktulious\ (golden seal-rings). "Hannibal, after the battle of Cannae, sent as a great trophy to Carthage, three bushels of gold-rings from the fingers of Roman knights slain in battle" (Vincent). {In fine clothing} (\en esthˆti lamprƒi\). "In bright (brilliant) clothing" as in strkjv@Luke:23:11; strkjv@Acts:10:30; strkjv@Revelation:18:41|. In contrast with "vile clothing" (\en ruparƒi esthˆti\), "new glossy clothes and old shabby clothes" (Hort). \Ruparos\ (late word from \rupos\, filth, strkjv@1Peter:3:21|) means filthy, dirty. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:22:11| (filthy). {Poor man} (\pt“chos\). Beggarly mendicant (Matthew:19:21|), the opposite of \plousios\ (rich).

rwp@James:2:18 @{Yea, a man will say} (\all' erei tis\). Future active of \eipon\. But \all'\ here is almost certainly adversative (But some one will say), not confirmatory. James introduces an imaginary objector who speaks one sentence: "Thou hast faith and I have works" (\Su pistin echeis kag“ erga ech“\). Then James answers this objector. The objector can be regarded as asking a short question: "Hast thou faith?" In that case James replies: "I have works also." {Show me thy faith apart from thy works} (\deixon moi tˆn pistin sou ch“ris t“n erg“n\). This is the reply of James to the objector. First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, tense of urgency. The point lies in \ch“ris\, which means not "without," but "apart from," as in strkjv@Hebrews:11:6| (with the ablative case), "the works that properly belong to it and should characterise it" (Hort). James challenges the objector to do this. {And I by my works will shew thee my faith} (\kag“ soi deix“ ek t“n erg“n mou tˆn pistin\). It is not faith _or_ works, but proof of real faith (live faith _vs_. dead faith)...This is the alternative clearly stated....\pistin\ (faith) in both cases. James is not here discussing "works" (ceremonial works) as a means of salvation as Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:4|, but works as proof of faith.

rwp@James:3:1 @{Be not many teachers} (\mˆ polloi didaskaloi ginesthe\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and present middle imperative of \ginomai\. "Stop becoming many teachers" (so many of you)...what they did not clearly comprehend....(verses 13f.|), not for foolish ones. This soon became an acute question, as one can see in I Cor. 12 to 14. They were not all teachers (1Corinthians:12:28f.; strkjv@14:26|). The teacher is here treated as the wise man (3:13-18|) as he ought to be. The rabbi was the teacher (Matthew:23:7f.; strkjv@John:1:38; strkjv@3:10; strkjv@20:16|). Teachers occupied an honourable position among the Christians (Ephesians:4:11; strkjv@Acts:13:1|). James counts himself a teacher (we shall receive, strkjv@3:1|) and this discussion is linked on with strkjv@1:19-27|. Teachers are necessary, but incompetent and unworthy ones do much harm. {Heavier judgment} (\meizon krima\). "Greater sentence." See strkjv@Mark:12:40; strkjv@Luke:20:47| for \perrisoteron krima\ (the sentence from the judge, strkjv@Romans:13:2|). The reason is obvious. The pretence of knowledge adds to the teacher's responsibility and condemnation.

rwp@James:3:6 @{The tongue is a fire} (\hˆ gl“ssa pur\). Songs:necessarily since there is no article with \pur\ (apparently same word as German _feuer_, Latin _purus_, English _pure, fire_). This metaphor of fire is applied to the tongue in strkjv@Proverbs:16:27; strkjv@26:18-22|; Sirach strkjv@28:22. {The world of iniquity} (\ho kosmos tˆs adikias\). A difficult phrase, impossible to understand according to Ropes as it stands. If the comma is put after \pur\ instead of after \adikias\, then the phrase may be the predicate with \kathistatai\ (present passive indicative of \kathistˆmi\, "is constituted," or the present middle "presents itself"). Even so, \kosmos\ remains a difficulty, whether it means the "ornament" (1Peter:3:3|) or "evil world" (James:1:27|) or just "world" in the sense of widespread power for evil. The genitive \adikias\ is probably descriptive (or qualitative). Clearly James means to say that the tongue can play havoc in the members of the human body. {Which defileth the whole body} (\hˆ spilousa holon to s“ma\). Present active participle of \spilo“\ late _Koin‚_, verb, to stain from \spilos\ (spot, also late word, in N.T. only in strkjv@Ephesians:5:27; strkjv@2Peter:2:13|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Judges:1:23|. Cf. strkjv@1:27| \aspilon\ (unspotted). {Setteth on fire} (\phlogizousa\). Present active participle of \phlogiz“\, old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from \phlox\ (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See \anaptei\ (verse 5|). {The wheel of nature} (\ton trochon genese“s\). Old word for wheel (from \trech“\, to run), only here in N.T. "One of the hardest passages in the Bible" (Hort). To what does \trochon\ refer? For \genese“s\ see strkjv@1:23| apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests "the wheel of birth" (cf. strkjv@Matthew:1:1,18|). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or \kuklos\, cycle, in place of \trochos\), but either in a physiological or a philosophical sense. James may have caught the metaphor from the current use, but certainly he has no such Orphic or Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, "the unending round of death and rebirth" (Ropes). The wheel of life may be considered either in motion or standing still, though setting on fire implies motion. There is no reference to the zodiac. {And is set on fire by hell} (\kai phlogizomenˆ hupo gehennˆs\). Present passive participle of \phlogiz“\, giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with \gehenna\ see strkjv@Matthew:5:22|.

rwp@James:3:17 @{First pure} (\pr“ton men hagnˆ\). First in rank and time. \Hagnos\ is from the same root as \hagios\ (holy), old adjective, pure from fault, not half-good and half-bad, like that above. {Then peaceable} (\epeita eirˆnikˆ\). Old adjective from \eirˆnˆ\ (peace), loving peace here, bringing peace in strkjv@Hebrews:12:11| (only N.T. examples). But clearly great as peace is, purity (righteousness) comes before peace and peace at any price is not worth the having. Hence Jesus spurned the devil's peace of surrender. {Gentle} (\epieikˆs\). Old adjective (from \eikos\, reasonable, fair), equitable (Phillipians:4:5; strkjv@1Peter:2:18|)...English word renders it clearly.... {Easy to be entreated} (\eupeithˆs\). Old adjective (\eu, peithomai\), compliant, approachable. Only here in N.T. {Mercy} (\eleous\). Practical help (2:13,16|). {Good fruits} (\karp“n agath“n\). \Kaloi karpoi\ in strkjv@Matthew:7:17f|. Good deeds the fruit of righteousness (Phillipians:1:11|). {Without variance} (\adiakritos\). Late verbal adjective (from alpha privative and \diakrin“\, to distinguish). "Unhesitating," not doubting (\diakrinomenos\) like the man in strkjv@1:6|. Here only in N.T. This wisdom does not put a premium on doubt. {Without hypocrisy} (\anupokritos\). Late and rare verbal adjective (alpha privative and \hupokrin“\). Not hypocritical, sincere, unfeigned (Romans:12:9|).

rwp@James:4:2 @{Ye lust} (\epithumeite\). Present active indicative of \epithume“\, old word (from \epi, thumos\, yearning passion for)...not necessarily evil as clearly not...22:15| of Christ, but usually so in the N.T., as here. Coveting what a man or nation does not have is the cause of war according to James. {Ye kill and covet} (\phoneuete kai zˆloute\). Present active indicatives of \phoneu“\ (old verb from \phoneus\, murderer) and \zˆlo“\, to desire hotly to possess (1Corinthians:12:31|). It is possible (perhaps probable) that a full stop should come after \phoneuete\ (ye kill) as the result of lusting and not having. Then we have the second situation: "Ye covet and cannot obtain (\epituchein\, second aorist active infinitive of \epitugchan“\), and (as a result) ye fight and war." This punctuation makes better sense than any other and is in harmony with verse 1|. Thus also the anticlimax in \phoneuete\ and \zˆloute\ is avoided. Mayor makes the words a hendiadys, "ye murderously envy." {Ye have not, because ye ask not} (\ouk echete dia to mˆ aiteisthai humas\). James refers again to \ouk echete\ (ye do not have) in verse 2|. Such sinful lusting will not obtain. "Make the service of God your supreme end, and then your desires will be such as God can fulfil in answer to your prayer" (Ropes). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:6:31-33|. The reason here is expressed by \dia\ and the accusative of the articular present middle infinitive of \aite“\, used here of prayer to God as in strkjv@Matthew:7:7f|. \Humƒs\ (you) is the accusative of general reference. Note the middle voice here as in \aiteisthe\ in 3|. Mayor argues that the middle here, in contrast with the active, carries more the spirit of prayer, but Moulton (_Prol_., p. 160) regards the distinction between \aite“\ and \aiteomai\ often "an extinct subtlety."

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

rwp@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 @ HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his _Diatessaron_, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter strkjv@John:11| which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in strkjv@Matthew:23|...he revealed himself more clearly. Some...21| with that in strkjv@Luke:5|, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter strkjv@John:12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in strkjv@Luke:7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter strkjv@John:1| is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_.

rwp@Info_John @...style throughout. There are clearly three...1:1-18|, the Body of the Book, strkjv@John:1:19-20:31|, the Epilogue, strkjv@John:21|. But there is no evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter. This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but here again there is no proof and no real reason for the supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped at strkjv@John:20:31| and then added strkjv@John:21| before sending the book forth after his friends added strkjv@John:21:24| as their endorsement of the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there. Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands even if that be true.

rwp@Info_John @ JOHN'S PORTRAIT OF CHRIST No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: "And the Word was God" (John:1:1|) and in the correct text of strkjv@John:1:18|, "God only begotten" (\theos monogenˆs\). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: "This is the Son of God" (John:1:34|). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (John:5:18|) and the claim of Christ himself (John:5:20-23; strkjv@6:48; strkjv@8:12,58; strkjv@11:25; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|) with the full and frank conviction of the author in strkjv@John:20:31|. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term \theos\ applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_. The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ's crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-...George Matheson, sees this clearly... (_Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah_, 1900; _St. John's Portrait of Christ_, 1910).

rwp@John:1:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one," the Logos of verse 1|, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John's style. He links together into one phrase two of the ideas already stated separately, "in the beginning he was with God," "afterwards in time he came to be with man" (Marcus Dods). Thus John clearly states of the Logos Pre-existence before Incarnation, Personality, Deity.

rwp@John:1:4 @{In him was life} (\en aut“i z“ˆ ˆn\). That which has come into being (verse 3|) in the Logos was life. The power that creates and sustains life in the universe is the Logos. This is what Paul means by the perfect passive verb \ektistai\ (stands created) in strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. This is also the claim of Jesus to Martha (John:11:25|). This is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:1:3| "bearing (upholding) the all things by the word of his power." Once this language might have been termed unscientific, but not so now after the spiritual interpretation of the physical world by Eddington and Jeans. Usually in John \z“ˆ\ means spiritual life, but here the term is unlimited and includes all life; only it is not \bios\ (manner of life), but the very principle or essence of life. That is spiritual behind the physical and to this great scientists today agree. It is also personal intelligence and power. Some of the western documents have \estin\ here instead of \ˆn\ to bring out clearly the timelessness of this phrase of the work of the \Logos\. {And the life was the light of men} (\kai hˆ z“ˆ ˆn to ph“s t“n anthr“p“n\). Here the article with both \z“ˆ\ and \ph“s\ makes them interchangeable. "The light was the life of men" is also true. That statement is curiously like the view of some physicists who find in electricity (both light and power) the nearest equivalent to life in its ultimate physical form. Later Jesus will call himself the light of the world (John:8:12|). John is fond of these words life and light in Gospel, Epistles, Revelation. He here combines them to picture his conception of the Pre-incarnate Logos in his relation to the race. He was and is the Life of men (\t“n anthr“pon\, generic use of the article) and the Light of men. John asserts this relation of the Logos to the race of men in particular before the Incarnation.

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 insisting on "adoption" as Paul's reason for the use of \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:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \ˆn\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|...he wishes, since John clearly had...2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\eskˆn“sen en hˆmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skˆno“\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\skˆnos\ or \skˆnˆ\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tˆn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\h“s monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogenˆ\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patˆr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogenˆs\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plˆrˆs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plˆrˆs\ can agree with the subject of \eskˆn“sen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai alˆtheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \alˆtheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

rwp@John:1:39 @{Come and ye shall see} (\erchesthe kai opsesthe\). Polite invitation and definite promise (future middle indicative \opsesthe\ from \hora“\, correct text, not imperative \idete\). {Where he abode} (\pou menei\). Indirect question preserving the present active indicative after secondary tense (\eidan\, saw) according to regular Greek idiom. Same verb \men“\ as in 38|. {With him} (\par' aut“i\). "By his side," "beside him." {That day} (\tˆn hˆmeran ekeinˆn\). Accusative of extent of time, all during that day. {About the tenth hour} (\h“ra h“s dekatˆ\). Roman time and so ten o'clock in the morning. John in Ephesus at the close of the century naturally uses Roman time. See strkjv@20:19|..."evening on that day," clearly Roman...19:14| (sixth hour, morning) and strkjv@Mark:15:25| (third hour, nine A.M.) suit. To his latest day John never forgot the hour when first he met Jesus.

rwp@John:1:46 @{Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?} (\Ek Nazaret dunatai ti agathon einai;\). Literally, "Out of Nazareth can anything good be." There is a tinge of scorn in the question as if Nazareth (note position at beginning of sentence) had a bad name. Town rivalry may account to some extent for it since Cana (home of Nathanael) was near Nazareth. Clearly he had never heard of Jesus. The best thing in all the world came out of Nazareth, but Philip does not argue the point. A saying had arisen that no prophet comes out of Galilee (John:7:52|), untrue like many such sayings. {Come and see} (\erchou kai ide\). Present middle imperative (come on) and second active imperative (and see at once). Philip followed the method of Jesus with Andrew and John (verse 39|), probably without knowing it. Wise is the one who knows how to deal with the sceptic.

rwp@John:2:22 @{When therefore he was raised from the dead} (\Hote oun ˆgerthˆ ek nekr“n\). First aorist passive indicative of \egeir“\, to raise up. And not at first then, but only slowly after the disciples themselves were convinced. Then "they believed the Scripture" (\episteusan tˆi graphˆi\). They "believed" again. Dative case \graphˆi\. Probably strkjv@Psalms:16:10| is meant (Acts:2:31; strkjv@13:35|). {And the word which Jesus had said} (\kai t“i log“i hon eipen\). Dative case \log“i\ also, but \hon\ (relative) is not attracted to the dative. Clearly then John interprets Jesus to have a parabolic reference to his death and resurrection by his language in strkjv@2:19|. There are those who bluntly say that John was mistaken. I prefer to say that these scholars are mistaken. Even Bernard considers it "hardly possible" that John interprets Jesus rightly in strkjv@1:21|...wished to be understood clearly at...(Mark:14:58|), "I can destroy" (Matthew:26:61|), neither of which he said.

rwp@John:3:7 @{Marvel not} (\mˆ thaumasˆis\). "Do not begin to wonder" (ingressive first aorist active subjunctive with \mˆ\), as clearly Nicodemus had done. In John the word \thaumaz“\ usually means "unintelligent wonder" (Bernard). {Ye must be born anew} (\dei humas gennˆthˆnai an“then\). Jesus repeats the point in verse 3| (\dei\ and the infinitive instead of \ean mˆ\ and the subjunctive) with \an“then\ (from above) only and not \ex hudatos\.

rwp@John:3:23 @{John was also baptizing} (\ˆn de kai ho I“anˆs baptiz“n\). Periphrastic imperfect picturing the continued activity of the Baptist simultaneous with the growing work of Jesus. There was no real rivalry except in people's minds. {In Aenon near to Salim} (\en Ain“n eggus tou Saleim\). It is not clearly known where this place was. Eusebius locates it in the Jordan valley south of Beisan west of the river where are many springs (fountains, eyes). There is a place called Salim east of Shechem in Samaria with a village called 'Aimen, but with no water there. There may have been water there then, of course. {Because there was much water there} (\hoti hudata polla ˆn ekei\). "Because many waters were there." Not for drinking, but for baptizing. "Therefore even in summer baptism by immersion could be continued" (Marcus Dods). {And they came, and were baptized} (\kai pareginonto kai ebaptizonto\). Imperfects both, one middle and the other passive, graphically picturing the long procession of pilgrims who came to John confessing their sins and receiving baptism at his hands.

rwp@John:3:26 @{Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). Greeting John just like Jesus (1:38; strkjv@3:2|). {Beyond Jordan} (\peran tou Iordanou\). Evident reference to John's witness to Jesus told in strkjv@1:29-34|. {To whom thou hast borne witness} (\h“i su memarturˆkas\). Note avoidance of calling the name of Jesus. Perfect active indicative of \marture“\ so common in John (1:7|, etc.)...disciples of John are clearly jealous...{The same baptizeth} (\houtos baptizei\). "This one is baptizing." Not personally (4:2|), as John did, but through his six disciples. {And all men come to him} (\kai pantes erchontai pros auton\). Linear present middle indicative, "are coming." The sight of the growing crowds with Jesus and the dwindling crowds with John stirred John's followers to keenest jealousy. What a life-like picture of ministerial jealousy in all ages.

rwp@John:4:16 @{Go, call thy husband} (\Hupage ph“nˆson sou ton andra\). Two imperatives (present active, first aorist active)...the conversation preserved, but clearly Jesus...

rwp@John:4:24 @{God is a Spirit} (\pneuma ho theos\). More precisely, "God is Spirit" as "God is Light" (1John:1:5|), "God is Love" (1John:4:8|). In neither case can we read Spirit is God, Light is God, Love is God. The non-corporeality of God is clearly stated and the personality of God also. All this is put in three words for the first time. {Must} (\dei\). Here is the real necessity (\dei\), not the one used by the woman about the right place of worship (verse 20|).

rwp@John:4:39 @{Because of the saying of the woman who testified} (\dia ton logon tˆs gunaikos marturousˆs\)...She bore her witness clearly and...

rwp@John:4:42 @{Not because of thy speaking} (\ouketi dia tˆn sˆn lalian\). "No longer because of thy talk," good and effective as that was. \Lalia\ (cf. \lale“\) is talk, talkativeness, mode of speech, one's vernacular, used by Jesus of his own speech (John:8:43|). {We have heard} (\akˆkoamen\). Perfect active indicative of \akou“\, their abiding experience. {For ourselves} (\autoi\). Just "ourselves." {The Saviour of the world} (\ho s“tˆr tou kosmou\). See strkjv@Matthew:1:21| for s“sei used of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term \s“tˆr\ to Jesus again in strkjv@1John:4:14|. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (verse 22|). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (verse 26|) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews. Sanday thinks that probably John puts this epithet of Saviour in the mouth of the Samaritans, but adds: "At the same time it is possible that such an epithet might be employed by them merely as synonymous with Messiah." But why "merely"? Was it not natural for these Samaritans who took Jesus as their "Saviour," Jew as he was, to enlarge the idea to the whole world? Bernard has this amazing statement on strkjv@John:4:42|: "That in the first century Messiah was given the title s“tˆr is not proven." The use of "saviour and god" for Ptolemy in the third century B.C. is well known. "The ample materials collected by Magie show that the full title of honour, Saviour of the world, with which St. John adorns the Master, was bestowed with sundry variations in the Greek expression on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, and other Emperors in inscriptions in the Hellenistic East" (Deissmann, _Light_, etc., p. 364). Perhaps Bernard means that the Jews did not call Messiah Saviour. But what of it? The Romans so termed their emperors and the New Testament so calls Christ (Luke:2:11; strkjv@John:4:42; strkjv@Acts:5:31; strkjv@3:23; strkjv@Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23; strkjv@Titus:1:4; strkjv@2:13; strkjv@3:6; strkjv@2Timothy:1:10; strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11; strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|). All these are writings of the first century A.D. The Samaritan villagers rise to the conception that he was the Saviour of the world.

rwp@John:5:39 @{Ye search} (\eraunƒte\). Proper spelling as the papyri show rather than \ereunƒte\, the old form (from \ereuna\, search) as in strkjv@7:52|. The form here can be either present active indicative second person plural or the present active imperative second person plural. Only the context can decide. Either makes sense here, but the reason given "because ye think" (\hoti humeis dokeite\, clearly indicative), supports the indicative rather than the imperative. Besides, Jesus is arguing on the basis of their use of "the Scriptures" (\tas graphas\). The plural with the article refers to the well-known collection in the Old Testament (Matthew:21:42; strkjv@Luke:24:27|). Elsewhere in John the singular refers to a particular passage (2:22; strkjv@7:38; strkjv@10:35|). {In them ye have eternal life} (\en autais z“ˆn ai“nion echein\). Indirect assertion after \dokeite\ without "ye" expressed either as nominative (\humeis\) or accusative (\humas\). Bernard holds that in John \doke“\ always indicates a mistaken opinion (5:45; strkjv@11:13,31; strkjv@13:29; strkjv@16:20; strkjv@20:15|). Certainly the rabbis did make a mechanical use of the letter of Scripture as a means of salvation. {These are they} (\ekeinai eisin hai\). The true value of the Scriptures is in their witness to Christ (of me, \peri emou\). Luke (24:27,45|) gives this same claim of Jesus, and yet some critics fail to find the Messiah in the Old Testament. But Jesus did.

rwp@John:5:47 @{His writings} (\tois ekeinou grammasin\). Dative case with \pistuete\. See strkjv@Luke:16:31| for a like argument. The authority of Moses was the greatest of all for Jews. There is a contrast also between {writings} (\grammasin\, from \graph“\, to write) and {words} (\rˆmasin\, from \eipon\). \Gramma\ may mean the mere letter as opposed to spirit (2Corinthians:3:6; strkjv@Romans:2:27,29; strkjv@7:6|), a debtor's bond (Luke:16:6f.|), letters or learning (John:7:15; strkjv@Acts:26:24|) like \agrammatoi\ for unlearned (Acts:4:13|), merely written characters (Luke:23:38; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:7; strkjv@Galatians:6:11|), official communications (Acts:28:21|), once \hiera grammata\ for the sacred writings (2Timothy:3:15|) instead of the more usual \hai hagiai graphai\. \Graphˆ\ is used also for a single passage (Mark:12:10|), but \biblion\ for a book or roll (Luke:4:17|) or \biblos\ (Luke:20:42|). Jesus clearly states the fact that Moses wrote portions of the Old Testament, what portions he does not say. See also strkjv@Luke:24:27,44| for the same idea. There was no answer from the rabbis to this conclusion of Christ. The scribes (\hoi grammateis\) made copies according to the letter (\kata to gramma\).

rwp@John:6:15 @{Perceiving} (\gnous\). Second aorist active participle of \gin“sk“\. It was not hard for Christ to read the mind of this excited mob. {They were about} (\mellousin\). Present active indicative of \mell“\. Probably the leaders were already starting. {Take him by force} (\harpazein\). Present active infinitive of \harpaz“\, old verb for violent seizing (Matthew:11:12; strkjv@13:19|). There was a movement to start a revolution against Roman rule in Palestine by proclaiming Jesus King and driving away Pilate. {To make him king} (\hina poiˆs“sin basilea\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \poie“\ with \basilea\ as predicate accusative. It was a crisis that called for quick action. {Himself alone} (\autos monos\). At first he had the disciples with him (verse 3|). But he sent them hurriedly by boat to the western side (Mark:6:45f.; strkjv@Matthew:14:22f.|) because clearly the apostles were sympathetic with the revolutionary impulse of the crowd. Then Jesus sent the multitudes away also and went up into the mountain alone. He was alone in every sense, for no one but the Father understood him at this stage, not even his own disciples. He went up to pray (Mark:6:46; strkjv@Matthew:14:23|).

rwp@John:6:24 @{When the multitude therefore saw} (\hote oun eiden ho ochlos\). Resumption and clarification of the complicated statements of verse 22|. {That Jesus was not there} (\hoti Iˆsous ouk estin ekei\). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. They still did not understand how Jesus had crossed over, but they acted on the basis of the plain fact. {They themselves got into} (\enebˆsan autoi eis\). Second aorist active indicative of \embain“\ followed by \eis\ (both \en\ and \eis\ together as often in N.T.). {Seeking Jesus} (\zˆtountes ton Iˆsoun\). Present active participle of \zˆte“\. They had a double motive apart from the curiosity explained in verse 22|. They had clearly not given up the impulse of the evening before to make Jesus king (6:15|) and they had hopes of still another bountiful repast at the hands of Jesus as he said (6:26|).

rwp@John:7:3 @{His brethren} (\hoi adelphoi autou\). "His brothers" (half-brothers actually), who "were not believing on him" (\oude episteuon eis auton\) as stated in verse 5|. They were hostile to the Messianic assumptions of Jesus, a natural attitude as one can well see, though at first they were friendly (2:12|). {Depart hence} (\metabˆthi enteuthen\). Second aorist active imperative of \metabain“\, to pass to another place (5:24; strkjv@13:1|). It was impertinence on their part. {That thy disciples also may behold} (\hina kai hoi mathˆtai sou the“rˆsousin\). Final clause with \hina\ and the future active indicative of \the“re“\. Jesus had many disciples in Judea at the start (2:23; strkjv@4:1|) and had left it because of the jealousy of the Pharisees over his success (4:3|). The brothers may have heard of the great defection in the synagogue in Capernaum (6:66|)...but the advice is clearly ironical....{Which thou doest} (\ha poieis\). To what works they refer by this language we do not know. But Jesus had been away from Galilee for some months and from Judea for a year and a half. Perhaps the brothers of Jesus may actually have been eager to rush Jesus into the hostile atmosphere of Jerusalem again.

rwp@John:7:11 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). The hostile leaders in Jerusalem, not the Galilean crowds (7:12|) nor the populace in Jerusalem (7:25|). {Sought} (\ezˆtoun\). Imperfect active of \zˆte“\, "were seeking," picture of the attitude of the Jewish leaders toward Jesus who had not yet appeared in public at the feast. In fact he had avoided Jerusalem since the collision in chapter 5. The leaders clearly wished to attack him. {Where is he?} (\pou estin ekeinos;\). "Where is that one? (emphatic use of \ekeinos\ as in strkjv@1:8; strkjv@9:12|). Jesus had been at two feasts during his ministry (passover in strkjv@2:12ff.|; possibly another passover in strkjv@5:1|), but he had avoided the preceding passover (6:4; strkjv@7:1|). The leaders in Jerusalem had kept in touch with Christ's work in Galilee. They anticipate a crisis in Jerusalem.

rwp@John:7:20 @{The multitude} (\ho ochlos\). Outside of Jerusalem (the Galilean crowd as in verses 11f.|) and so unfamiliar with the effort to kill Jesus recorded in strkjv@5:18|...this chapter to distinguish clearly the...(7:13,15,25,26,30,32|, etc.), the multitude from Galilee and elsewhere (10-13,20,31,40,49|), the common people of Jerusalem (25|), the Roman soldiers (45f.|). {Thou hast a devil} (\daimonion echeis\). "Demon," of course, as always in the Gospels. These pilgrims make the same charge against Jesus made long ago by the Pharisees in Jerusalem in explanation of the difference between John and Jesus (Matthew:11:18; strkjv@Luke:7:33|). It is an easy way to make a fling like that. "He is a monomaniac labouring under a hallucination that people wish to kill him" (Dods).

rwp@John:7:25 @{Some therefore of them of Jerusalem} (\oun tines ek t“n Ierosolumeit“n\). The people of the city in contrast to the multitude of pilgrims at the feast. They form a separate group. The word is made from \Ierosoluma\ and occurs in Josephus and IV Maccabees. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:1:5|. These Jerusalem people knew better than the pilgrims the designs of the rulers (Vincent). {Is not this?} (\ouch houtos estin;\). Expecting affirmative answer. Clearly they were not as familiar with the appearance of Jesus as the Galilean multitude (Dods). {They seek} (\zˆtousin\). The plural refers to the group of leaders already present (7:15|) to whom the Jerusalem crowd probably pointed. They knew of their threats to kill Jesus (5:18|).

rwp@John:7:27 @{Howbeit} (\alla\). Clearly adversative here. {This man} (\touton\). Possibly contemptuous use of \houtos\ as may be true in 25,26|. {Whence he is} (\pothen estin\). The Galilean Jews knew the family of Jesus (6:42|), but they knew Jesus only as from Nazareth, not as born in Bethlehem (verse 42|). {When the Christ cometh} (\ho Christos hotan erchˆtai\). Prolepsis of \ho Christos\ and indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the present middle subjunctive \erchˆtai\ rather than the more usual second aorist active \elthˆi\ as in verse 31|, a trifle more picturesque. This is a piece of popular theology. "Three things come wholly unexpected--Messiah, a godsend, and a scorpion" (_Sanhedrin_ 97a). The rulers knew the birthplace to be Bethlehem (7:42; strkjv@Matthew:2:5f.|), but some even expected the Messiah to drop suddenly from the skies as Satan proposed to Jesus to fall down from the pinnacle of the temple. The Jews generally expected a sudden emergence of the Messiah from concealment with an anointing by Elijah (_Apoc. of Bar_. XXIX. 3; 2Esdr. strkjv@7:28; strkjv@13:32; Justin Martyr, _Tryph_. 110).

rwp@John:8:11 @{No man, Lord} (\Oudeis, Kurie\). "No one, Sir." She makes no excuse for her sin. Does she recognize Jesus as "Lord"? {Neither do I condemn thee} (\Oude eg“ se katakrin“\). Jesus does not condone her sin. See strkjv@8:15| for "I do not judge (condemn) any one." But he does give the poor woman another chance. {Henceforth sin no more} (\apo tou nun mˆketi hamartane\). See also strkjv@5:14| where this same language is used to the impotent man. It literally means (prohibition with present active imperative)...heart and life. Jesus clearly felt...

rwp@John:8:16 @{Yea and if I judge} (\kai ean krin“ de eg“\). "And even if I pass judgment." Condition of third class again. {True} (alˆthinˆ). See strkjv@1:9| for \alˆthinos\, genuine, soundly based (cf. \dikaia\ in strkjv@5:30|), "satisfying our perfect conception" (Westcott), not merely true (\alˆthes\) in the particular facts (verse 14|). {For I am not alone} (\hoti monos ouk eimi\). Jesus now takes up the technical criticism in verse 13| after justifying his right to speak concerning himself. {But I and the Father that sent me} (\all eg“ kai ho pempsas me patˆr\). See strkjv@16:32| for a like statement about the Father being with Christ. It is not certain that \patˆr\ is genuine here (omitted by Aleph D, but in B L W)...but the Father is clearly meant...7:18,33|. Jesus gives the Father as the second witness.

rwp@John:8:18 @{The Father} (\ho patˆr\). Clearly genuine here. Songs:these are the two witnesses that Jesus presents to the Pharisees in defence of his claim to be the Light of the World (verse 12|).

rwp@John:8:28 @{When ye have lifted up the Son of man} (\hotan hups“sˆte ton huion tou anthr“pou\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ (\hote + an\) and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hupso“\, to lift up (_Koin‚_ verb from \hupsos\, height), used several times in John of the Cross of Christ (3:14; strkjv@8:28; strkjv@12:32,34|). It is unnecessary to render the aorist subjunctive as if a future perfect, simply "whenever ye lift up" (actually lift up, ingressive aorist). In strkjv@Acts:2:33| the verb is used of the Ascension. {Shall ye know} (\gn“sesthe\). Future (ingressive aoristic) middle of \gin“sk“\. _Cognoscetis ex re quod nunc ex verbo non creditis_ (Bengel). But the knowledge from the facts like the fall of Jerusalem will come too late and will not bring a change of heart. The Holy Spirit will convict them concerning judgment (16:8|). For {I am} (\eg“ eimi\) see on verse ¯24|. {As the Father taught me} (\Kath“s edidasken me ho patˆr\). This claim Jesus repeats (see verse 26|) and clearly makes on his arrival at the feast (7:16f.|). This fact marks Jesus off from the rabbis.

rwp@John:8:34 @{Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin} (\pas ho poi“n tˆn hamartian doulos estin [tˆs hamartias]\). The Western class omits \tˆs hamartias\ (sin), but that is the idea anyhow. Note the use of \poi“n\ (present active participle, continuous habit or practice), not \poiˆsas\ (aorist active participle for single act), precisely as in strkjv@1John:3:4-8|. Note also strkjv@3:21| for \ho poi“n tˆn alˆtheian\ (the one who practises the truth). Sin, like the worst narcotic, is habit forming. Hence the problem today for criminologists for paroled or pardoned criminals nearly always go back to crime, sink again into sin, the slaves of sin. Xenophon has this notion of the slavery of sin (_Memor_. IV. 5. 3). Songs:Paul clearly in strkjv@Romans:6:17,20| "slaves of sin" (\douloi tˆs hamartias\).

rwp@John:9:5 @{When I am in the world} (\hotan en t“i kosm“i “\). Indefinite relative clause with \hotan\ and present active subjunctive \“\, "whenever I am in the world." The Latin Vulgate renders here \hotan\ by _quamdiu_ so long as or while as if it were \he“s\. But clearly Jesus here refers to the historic Incarnation (17:11|) and to any previous visitations in the time of the patriarchs, prophets, etc. Jesus as God's Son is always the Light of the World (1:4,10; strkjv@8:12|), but here the reference is limited to his manifestation "in the world." {I am the light of the world} (\ph“s eimi tou kosmou\). The absence of the definite article (\to ph“s\ in strkjv@8:12|) is to be noted (Westcott). Literally, "I am light to the world, whenever I am in the world." "The display of the character varies with the occasion" (Westcott).

rwp@John:9:20 @{We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind} (\Oidamen hoti houtos estin ho huios hˆm“n kai hoti tuphlos egennˆthˆ\)...questions the parents answer clearly and...(verse 18|). Songs:these Pharisees made a failure here.

rwp@John:9:27 @{I told you even now} (\eipon humin ˆdˆ\). In verses 15,17,25|. {Would ye also become his disciples?} (\Mˆ kai humeis thelete autou mathˆtai genesthai;\). Negative answer formally expected, but the keenest irony in this gibe. Clearly the healed man knew from the use of "also" (\kai\) that Jesus had some "disciples" (\mathˆtai\, predicate nominative with the infinitive \genesthai\) and that the Pharisees knew that fact. "Do ye also (like the Galilean mob) wish, etc." See strkjv@7:45-52|. It cut to the bone.

rwp@John:10:6 @{This parable} (\tautˆn tˆn paroimian\). Old word for proverb from \para\ (beside) and \oimos\, way, a wayside saying or saying by the way. As a proverb in N.T. in strkjv@2Peter:2:22| (quotation from strkjv@Proverbs:26:11|), as a symbolic or figurative saying in strkjv@John:16:25,29|, as an allegory in strkjv@John:10:6|. Nowhere else in the N.T. Curiously enough in the N.T. \parabolˆ\ occurs only in the Synoptics outside of strkjv@Hebrews:9:9; strkjv@11:19|. Both are in the LXX. \Parabolˆ\ is used as a proverb (Luke:4:23|) just as \paroimia\ is in strkjv@2Peter:2:22|. Here clearly \paroimia\ means an allegory which is one form of the parable. Songs:there you are. Jesus spoke this \paroimia\ to the Pharisees, "but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them" (\ekeinoi de ouk egn“san tina ˆn ha elalei autois\). Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\ and note \ˆn\ in indirect question as in strkjv@2:25| and both the interrogative \tina\ and the relative \ha\. "Spake" (imperfect \elalei\) should be "Was speaking or had been speaking."

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

rwp@John:10:16 @{Other sheep} (\alla probata\). Sheep, not goats, but "not of this fold" (\ek tˆs aulˆs tautˆs\). See verse 1| for \aulˆ\. Clearly "his flock is not confined to those enclosed in the Jewish fold, whether in Palestine or elsewhere" (Westcott). Christ's horizon takes in all men of all races and times (John:11:52; strkjv@12:32|). The world mission of Christ for all nations is no new idea with him (Matthew:8:11; strkjv@Luke:13:28|). God loved the world and gave his Son for the race (\John strkjv@3:16\), {Them also I must bring} (\kakeina dei me agagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \ag“\ with \dei\ expressing the moral urgency of Christ's passion for God's people in all lands and ages. Missions in Christ's mind takes in the whole world. This is according to prophecy (Isaiah:42:6; strkjv@49:6; strkjv@56:8|) for the Messiah is to be a Light also to the Gentiles. It was typified by the brazen serpent (John:3:14|). Christ died for every man. The Pharisees doubtless listened in amazement and even the disciples with slow comprehension. {And they shall hear my voice} (\kai tˆs ph“nˆs mou akousontai\). Future middle indicative of \akou“\ with the genitive \ph“nˆs\. These words read like a transcript from the Acts and the Epistles of Paul (Romans:9-11| in particular). See especially Paul's words in strkjv@Acts:28:28|. Present-day Christianity is here foretold. Only do we really listen to the voice of the Shepherd as we should? Jesus means that the Gentiles will hearken if the Jews turn away from him. {And they shall become one flock, one shepherd} (\kai genˆsontai mia poimnˆ, heis poimˆn\). Future middle indicative of \ginomai\, plural, not singular \genˆsetai\ as some MSS. have it. All (Jews and Gentiles) will form one flock under one Shepherd. Note the distinction here by Jesus between \poimnˆ\ (old word, contraction of \poimenˆ\ from \poimˆn\, shepherd), as in strkjv@Matthew:26:31|, and \aulˆ\ (fold) just before. There may be many folds of the one flock. Jerome in his Vulgate confused this distinction, but he is wrong. His use of _ovile_ for both \aulˆ\ and \pomnion\ has helped Roman Catholic assumptions. Christ's use of "flock" (\poimnˆ\) here is just another metaphor for kingdom (\basileia\) in strkjv@Matthew:8:11| where the children of the kingdom come from all climes and nations. See also the various metaphors in strkjv@Ephesians:2| for this same idea. There is only the one Great Shepherd of the sheep (Hebrews:13:20|), Jesus Christ our Lord.

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:10:24 @{Came round about him} (\ekukl“san auton\). Aorist active indicative of \kuklo“\, old verb from \kuklos\ (cycle, circle). See strkjv@Acts:14:20| for the circle of disciples around Paul when stoned. Evidently the hostile Jews cherished the memory of the stinging rebuke given them by Jesus when here last, particularly the allegory of the Good Shepherd (10:1-19|), in which he drew so sharply their own picture. {How long dost thou hold us in suspense?} (\he“s pote tˆn psuchˆn hˆm“n aireis;\). Literally, "Until when dost thou lift up our soul?" But what do they mean by this metaphor? \Air“\ is common enough to lift up the eyes (John:11:41|), the voice (Luke:17:13|), and in strkjv@Psalms:25:1; strkjv@86:4| (Josephus, _Ant_. III. ii. 3) we have "to lift up the soul." We are left to the context to judge the precise meaning. Clearly the Jews mean to imply doubt and suspense. The next remark makes it clear. {If thou art the Christ} (\ei su ei ho Christos\). Condition of first class assumed to be true for the sake of argument. {Tell us plainly} (\eipon hˆmin parrˆsiƒi\). Conclusion with \eipon\ rather than the usual \eipe\ as if first aorist active imperative like \luson\. The point is in "plainly" (\parrˆsiƒi\), adverb as in strkjv@7:13,26| which see. That is to say "I am the Christ" in so many words. See strkjv@11:14; strkjv@16:29| for the same use of \parrˆsiƒi\. The demand seemed fair enough on the surface. They had made it before when here at the feast of tabernacles (8:25|). Jesus declined to use the word \Christos\ (Messiah) then as now because of the political bearing of the word in their minds. The populace in Galilee had once tried to make him king in opposition to Pilate (John:6:14f.|). When Jesus does confess on oath before Caiaphas that he is the Christ the Son of God (Mark:14:61f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:63f.|), the Sanhedrin instantly vote him guilty of blasphemy and then bring him to Pilate with the charge of claiming to be king as a rival to Caesar. Jesus knew their minds too well to be caught now.

rwp@John:11:16 @{Didymus} (\Didumos\). The word means twin. Clearly Thomas had a twin brother or sister. Applied two other times to him (20:24; strkjv@21:2|). The Aramaic word for Thomas means Twin and Didymus is just the Greek equivalent of Thomas. He may even in Greek circles have been called Didymus. {His fellow disciples} (\tois sunmathˆtais\). Dative case and article use like "his." Only use of \sunmathˆtes\ in the N.T., rare word (in Plato). {Us also} (\kai hˆmeis\). As well as Jesus, since he is bent on going. {That we may die with him} (\hina apothan“men met' autou\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnˆsk“\. Die with Jesus, Thomas means. Lazarus is already dead and they will kill Jesus (verse 8|). Pessimistic courage surely.

rwp@John:11:21 @{Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died} (\Kurie, ei ˆs h“de ouk an apethanen ho adelphos mou\). Condition of the second class with \ei\ and the imperfect \ˆs\ (no aorist of \eimi\, to be) in the condition and \an\ with the second aorist active indicative of \apothnˆsk“\. Mary (verse 32|) uses these identical words to Jesus. Clearly they had said so to each other with wistful longing if not with a bit of reproach for his delay. But they used \ˆs\, not \ˆlthes\ or \egenou\. But busy, practical Martha comes to the point.

rwp@John:11:37 @{Could not this man} (\ouk edunato houtos\). Imperfect middle of \dunamai\. They do not say \dunatai\ (can, present middle indicative). But clearly the opening of the blind man's eyes (chapter 9) had made a lasting impression on some of these Jews, for it was done three months ago. {Have caused that this man also should not die} (\poiˆsai hina kai houtos mˆ apothanˆi\). First aorist active infinitive of \poie“\ with \hina\, like the Latin _facere ut_ (sub-final use, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 985), with the second aorist active subjunctive \apothanˆi\ and negative \mˆ\. These Jews share the view expressed by Martha (verse 21|) and Mary (verse 32|) that Jesus could have {prevented} the death of Lazarus.

rwp@John:11:40 @{Said I not unto thee?} (\Ouk eipon soi;\). Jesus pointedly reminds Martha of his promise to raise Lazarus (verses 25f.|). {That if thou believedst} (\hoti ean pisteusˆis\). Indirect discourse with \ean\ and the first aorist active subjunctive (condition of third class) retained after the secondary tense \eipon\. He had not said this very phrase, \ean pisteusˆis\, to Martha, but he did say to her: \Pisteueis touto\; (Believest thou this?). He meant to test Martha as to her faith already hinted at (verse 22|) on this very point. Jesus had also spoken of increase of faith on the part of the disciples (verse 15|). {Thou shouldest see the glory of God} (\opsˆi tˆn doxan tou theou\). Future middle indicative of the old defective verb \hora“\ retained in the conclusion of this condition in indirect discourse. Jesus means the glory of God as shown in the resurrection of Lazarus as he had already said to the disciples (verse 4|) and as he meant Martha to understand (verse 25|) and may in fact have said to her (...of the conversation is clearly... abridged). Hence Bernard's difficulty in seeing how Martha could understand the words of Jesus about the resurrection of Lazarus here and now seems fanciful and far-fetched.

rwp@John:11:41 @{Songs:they took away the stone} (\ˆran oun ton lithon\). First aorist active indicative of \air“\, but without the explanatory gloss of the Textus Receptus "from the place where the dead was laid" (not genuine). {I thank thee that thou heardest me} (\eucharist“ soi hoti ˆkousas mou\). See strkjv@6:11| for \euchariste“\. Clearly Jesus had prayed to the Father concerning the raising of Lazarus. He has the answer before he acts. "No pomp of incantation, no wrestling in prayer even; but simple words of thanksgiving, as if already Lazarus was restored" (Dods). Jesus well knew the issues involved on this occasion. If he failed, his own claims to be the Son of God (the Messiah), would be hopelessly discredited with all. If he succeeded, the rulers would be so embittered as to compass his own death.

rwp@John:11:50 @{That it is expedient for you} (\hoti sumpherei humin\). Indirect discourse with present active indicative of \sumpher“\ used with the \hina\ clause as subject. It means to bear together, to be profitable, with the dative case as here (\humin\, for you). It is to your interest and that is what they cared most for. {That one man die} (\hina heis anthr“pos apothanˆi\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnˆsk“\ as subject clause with \sumpherei\. See strkjv@16:7; strkjv@18:7| for the same construction. {For the people} (\huper tou laou\). \Huper\ simply means _over_...shows and as is clearly so...3:13| of the death of Christ and naturally so in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:14f.; strkjv@Romans:5:6|. In the papyri \huper\ is the usual preposition used of one who writes a letter for one unable to write. {And that the whole nation perish not} (\kai mˆ holon to ethnos apolˆtai\). Continuation of the \hina\ construction with \mˆ\ and the second aorist subjunctive of \apollumi\. What Caiaphas has in mind is the giving of Jesus to death to keep the nation from perishing at the hands of the Romans. Politicians are often willing to make a sacrifice of the other fellow.

rwp@John:11:54 @{Therefore walked no more openly} (\oun ouketi parrˆsiƒi periepatei\). Imperfect active of \peripate“\...walk around. Jesus saw clearly that...{Into the country near to the wilderness} (\eis tˆn ch“ran eggus tˆs erˆmou\). It was now in Jerusalem as it had become once in Galilee (7:1|) because of the plots of the hostile Jews. The hill country northeast of Jerusalem was thinly populated. {Into a city called Ephraim} (\eis Ephraim legomenˆn polin\). \Polis\ here means no more than town or village (\k“mˆ\). The place is not certainly known, not mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. Josephus mentions (_War_, IV. ix. 9) a small fort near Bethel in the hill country and in strkjv@2Chronicles:13:19| Ephron is named in connexion with Bethel. Up here Jesus would at least be free for the moment from the machinations of the Sanhedrin while he faced the coming catastrophe at the passover. He is not far from the mount of temptation where the devil showed and offered him the kingdoms of the world for the bending of the knee before him. Is it mere fancy to imagine that the devil came to see Jesus again here at this juncture with a reminder of his previous offer and of the present plight of the Son of God with the religious leaders conspiring his death? At any rate Jesus has the fellowship of his disciples this time (\meta t“n mathˆt“n\). But what were they thinking?

rwp@John:12:4 @{Judas Iscariot} (\Ioudas ho Iskari“tˆs\). See \ho Iskari“tˆs\ in strkjv@14:22|. See strkjv@6:71; strkjv@13:1| for like description of Judas save that in strkjv@6:71| the father's name is given in the genitive, \Sim“nos\ and \Iskari“tou\ (agreeing with the father), but in strkjv@13:1| \Iskari“tˆs\ agrees with \Ioudas\, not with \Sim“nos\. Clearly then both father and son were called "Iscariot" or man of Kerioth in the tribe of Judah (Joshua:15:25|). Judas is the only one of the twelve not a Galilean. {One of his disciples} (\heis t“n mathˆt“n autou\). Likewise in strkjv@6:71|, only there \ek\ is used after \heis\ as some MSS. have here. This is the shameful fact that clung to the name of Judas. {Which should betray him} (\ho mell“n auton paradidonai\). John does not say in strkjv@6:71| (\emellen paradidonai auton\) or here that Judas "was predestined to betray Jesus" as Bernard suggests. He had his own responsibility for his guilt as Jesus said (Matthew:26:24|). \Mell“\ here simply points to the act as future, not as necessary. Note the contrast between Mary and Judas. "Mary in her devotion unconsciously provides for the honour of the dead. Judas in his selfishness unconsciously brings about the death itself" (Westcott).

rwp@John:12:5 @{Sold} (\eprathˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \piprask“\, old verb to sell (Matthew:13:46|). {For three hundred pence} (\triakosi“n dˆnari“n\). Genitive of price. Same item in strkjv@Mark:14:5|, while in strkjv@Matthew:26:9| it is simply "for much" (\pollou\). But all three have "given to the poor" (\edothˆ pt“chois\). First aorist passive indicative of \did“mi\ with dative case \pt“chois\ (note absence of the article, poor people), real beggars, mendicants (Matthew:19:21; strkjv@Luke:14:13|). But only John singles out Judas as the one who made the protest against this waste of money while Mark says that "some" had indignation and Matthew has it that "the disciples" had indignation. Clearly Judas was the spokesman for the group who chimed in and agreed with his protest. The amount here spent by Mary (ten guineas) would equal a day labourer's wages for a year (Dods).

rwp@John:12:6 @{Not because he cared for the poor} (\ouch hoti peri t“n pt“ch“n emelen aut“i\). Literally, "not because it was a care to him concerning the poor" (impersonal imperfect of \melei\, it was a care). John often makes explanatory comments of this kind as in strkjv@2:21f.; strkjv@7:22,39|. {But because he was a thief} (\alle hoti kleptˆs ˆn\). Clearly the disciples did not know then that Judas was a petty thief. That knowledge came later after he took the bribe of thirty pieces of silver for betraying Jesus (Matthew:26:15|), for the disciples did not suspect Judas of treachery (13:28f.|), let alone small peculations. There is no reason for thinking that John is unfair to Judas. "Temptation commonly comes through that for which we are naturally fitted" (Westcott). In this case Judas himself was "the poor beggar" who wanted this money. {And having the bag took away what was put therein} (\kai to gl“ssokomon ech“n ta ballomena ebastazen\). This is the correct text. This compound for the earlier \gl“ssokomeion\ (from \gl“ssa\, tongue, and \kome“\, to tend) was originally a receptacle for the tongues or mouth-pieces of wind instruments. The shorter form is already in the Doric inscriptions and is common in the papyri for "money-box" as here. It occurs also in Josephus, Plutarch, etc. In N.T. only here and strkjv@13:29| in same sense about Judas. \Ballomena\ is present passive participle (repeatedly put in) of \ball“\, to cast or fling. The imperfect active (custom) of \bastaz“\, old verb to pick up (John:10:31|), to carry (19:17|), but here and strkjv@20:15| with the sense to bear away as in Polybius, Josephus, Diogenes Laertes, and often so in the papyri.

rwp@John:12:18 @{The multitude} (\ho ochlos\). The multitude of verse 13|, not the crowd just mentioned that had been with Jesus at the raising of Lazarus. There were two crowds (one following Jesus, one meeting Jesus as here). {Went and met him} (\hupˆntˆsen aut“i\). First aorist active indicative of \hupanta“\, old compound verb (\hupo, anta“\) to go to meet, with associative instrumental case \aut“i\. Cf. strkjv@John:4:51|. {That he had done this sign} (\touto auton pepoiˆkenai to sˆmeion\). Perfect active infinitive in indirect discourse after \ˆkousan\ (first aorist active indicative of \akou“\, to hear) (instead of a \hoti\ clause) with the accusative of general reference \auton\ (as to him) and another accusative (\sˆmeion\, sign) the object of the infinitive. Clearly there was much talk about the raising of Lazarus as the final proof that Jesus in truth is the Messiah of Jewish hope.

rwp@John:12:22 @{Andrew} (\t“i Andreƒi\). Another apostle with a Greek name and associated with Philip again (John:6:7f.|), the man who first brought his brother Simon to Jesus (1:41|). Andrew was clearly a man of wisdom for a crisis. Note the vivid dramatic presents here, {cometh} (\erchetai\), {telleth} (\legei\). What was the crisis? These Greeks wish an interview with Jesus. True Jesus had said something about "other sheep" than Jews (10:16|), but he had not explained. Philip and Andrew wrestle with the problem that will puzzle Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Acts:10:9-18|), that middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile that was only broken down by the Cross of Christ (Ephesians:2:11-22|) and that many Christians and Jews still set up between each other. Andrew has no solution for Philip and they bring the problem, but not the Greeks, to Jesus.

rwp@John:12:25 @{Loseth it} (\apolluei autˆn\). The second paradox. Present active indicative of \apollu“\. This great saying was spoken at various times as in strkjv@Mark:8:35| (Matthew:16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24|) and strkjv@Mark:10:39| (Luke:17:33|). See those passages for discussion of \psuchˆ\ (life or soul). For "he that hateth his life" (\ho mis“n tˆn psuchˆn autou\) see the sharp contrasts in Luke strkjv@14:26-35| where \mise“\ is used of father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, as well as one's own life. Clearly \mise“\ means "hate" when the issue is between Christ and the dearest things of life as happens when the choice is between martyrdom and apostasy. In that case one keeps his soul for eternal life by losing his life (\psuchˆ\, each time) here. That is the way to "guard" (\phulaxei\) life by being true to Christ. This is the second paradox to show Christ's philosophy of life.

rwp@John:12:34 @{Out of the law} (\ek tou nomou\). That is, "out of the Scriptures" (10:34; strkjv@15:25|). {The Christ abideth forever} (\ho Christos menei eis ton ai“na\). Timeless present active indicative of \men“\, to abide, remain. Perhaps from strkjv@Psalms:89:4; strkjv@110:4; strkjv@Isaiah:9:7; strkjv@Ezekiel:37:25; strkjv@Daniel:7:14|. {How sayest thou?} (\p“s legeis su;\). In opposition to the law (Scripture). {The Son of man} (\ton huion tou anthr“pou\). Accusative case of general reference with the infinitive \hups“thˆnai\ (first aorist passive of \hupso“\ and taken in the sense of death by the cross as Jesus used it in verse 32|). Clearly the crowd understand Jesus to be "the Son of man" and take the phrase to be equivalent to "the Christ." This is the obvious way to understand the two terms in their reply, and not, as Bernard suggests, that they saw no connexion between "the Christ" (the Messiah) and "the Son of man." The use of "this" (\houtos\) in the question that follows is in contrast to verse 32|. The Messiah (the Son of man) abides forever and is not to be crucified as you say he "must" (\dei\) be.

rwp@John:13:16 @{Is not greater} (\ouk estin meiz“n\). Comparative adjective of \megas\ (greater) followed by the ablative case \kuriou\ (contrast between slave, lord) and \tou pempsantos\ (articular participle of \pemp“\, to send, with contrast with apostle, "one sent" (\apostolos\) from \apostell“\). Jesus here enforces the dignity of service. In strkjv@Luke:22:27| Jesus argues this point a bit. In strkjv@Luke:6:40| the contrast is between the pupil and the teacher, though some pupils consider themselves superior to the teacher. In strkjv@Matthew:10:24| Jesus uses both forms of the saying (pupil and slave). He clearly repeated this \logion\ often.

rwp@John:14:10 @{Believest thou not?} (\ou pisteueis;\). Jesus had a right to expect greater faith from these men than from the blind man (9:35|) or Martha (11:27|). His words in strkjv@14:1| are clearly needed. This oneness with the Father Jesus had already stated (10:38|) as shown by his "words" (\rˆmata\) and his "works" (\erga\). Cf. strkjv@3:34; strkjv@5:19; strkjv@6:62|.

rwp@John:17:5 @{With thine own self} (\para seaut“i\). "By the side of thyself." Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. strkjv@1:1|) enjoyed before the Incarnation (John:1:14|). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (\para soi\, with thee) "which I had" (\hˆi eichon\, imperfect active of \ech“\, I used to have, with attraction of case of \hˆn\ to \hˆi\ because of \doxˆi\), "before the world was" (\pro tou ton kosmon einai\), "before the being as to the world" (cf. verse 24|). It is small wonder that those who deny or reject the deity of Jesus Christ have trouble with the Johannine authorship of this book and with the genuineness of these words. But even Harnack admits that the words here and in verse 24| are "undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke" (_What Is Christianity_, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:2:5-11|).

rwp@John:18:15 @{Followed} (\ˆkolouthei\). Imperfect active of \akolouthe“\, "was following," picturesque and vivid tense, with associative instrumental case \t“i Iˆsou\. {Another disciple} (\allos mathˆtˆs\). Correct text without article \ho\ (genuine in verse 16|). Peter's companion was the Beloved Disciple, the author of the book (John:21:24|). {Was known unto the high priest} (\ˆn gn“stos t“i archierei\). Verbal adjective from \gin“sk“\, to know (Acts:1:19|) with dative case. How well known the word does not say, not necessarily a personal friend, well enough known for the portress to admit John. "The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants' hall" (Sanday, _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_, p. 101). {Entered in with Jesus} (\suneisˆlthen t“i Iˆsou\). Second aorist active indicative of the double compound \suneiserchomai\, old verb, in N.T. here and strkjv@6:22|. With associative instrumental case. {Into the court} (\eis tˆn aulˆn\). It is not clear that this word ever means the palace itself instead of the courtyard (uncovered enclosure) as always in the papyri (very common). Clearly courtyard in strkjv@Mark:14:66| (Matthew:26:69; strkjv@Luke:22:55|). Apparently Annas had rooms in the official residence of Caiaphas.

rwp@John:18:23 @{If I have spoken evil} (\ei kak“s elalˆsa\). Condition of first class (assumed to be true), with \ei\ and aorist active indicative. Jesus had not spoken evilly towards Annas, though he did not here turn the other cheek, one may note. For the sake of argument, Jesus puts it as if he did speak evilly. Then prove it, that is all. {Bear witness of the evil} (\marturˆson peri tou kakou\). First aorist active imperative of \marture“\, to testify. This is the conclusion (apodosis). Jesus is clearly entitled to proof of such a charge if there is any. {But if well} (\ei de kal“s\). Supply the same verb \elalˆsa\. The same condition, but with a challenging question as the apodosis. {Smitest} (\dereis\). Old verb \der“\, to flay, to skin, to beat, as in strkjv@Matthew:21:35; strkjv@Luke:22:63; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:20| (of an insulting blow in the face as here).

rwp@John:18:37 @{Art thou a king then?} (\oukoun basileus ei su;\). Compound of \ouk\ and \oun\ and is clearly ironical expecting an affirmative answer, only here in the N.T., and in LXX only in A text in strkjv@2Kings:5:23|. {Thou sayest that} (\su legeis hoti\). In strkjv@Matthew:27:11; strkjv@Mark:15:2; strkjv@Luke:23:3|, \su legeis\ clearly means "yes," as \su eipas\ (thou saidst) does in strkjv@Matthew:26:64| (= "I am," \eg“ eimi\, in strkjv@Mark:41:62|). Hence here \hoti\ had best be taken to mean "because": "Yes, because I am a king." {Have I been born} (\eg“ gegennˆmai\). Perfect passive indicative of \genna“\. The Incarnation was for this purpose. Note repetition of \eis touto\ (for this purpose), explained by \hina marturˆs“ tˆi alˆtheiƒi\ (that I may bear witness to the truth), \hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \marture“\. Paul (1Timothy:6:13|) alludes to this good confession when Christ bore witness (\marturˆsantos\) before Pilate. Jesus bore such witness always (John:3:11,32; strkjv@7:7; strkjv@8:14; strkjv@Revelation:1:5|).

rwp@John:19:5 @{Wearing} (\phor“n\). Present active participle of \phore“\, an early frequentative of \pher“\, denoting a continual wearing, though not true here (only temporary). Jesus bore the mockery with kingly dignity as part of the shame of the Cross (Hebrews:12:2|). {Behold, the man} (\Idou ho anthr“pos\). _Ecce Homo!_...to the mob was clearly intended...

rwp@John:19:25 @{Were standing by the cross of Jesus} (\histˆkeisan para t“i staur“i tou Iˆsou\). Perfect of \histˆmi\, to place, used as imperfect (intransitive) with \para\ (beside) and the locative case. Vivid contrast this to the rude gambling of the soldiers. This group of four (or three) women interests us more. Matt. (Matthew:27:55f.|) spoke of women beholding from afar and names three (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee). Mark also (Mark:15:40|) names three (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome). They have clearly drawn near the Cross by now. John alone mentions the mother of Jesus in the group. It is not clear whether the sister of the mother of Jesus is Salome the mother of the sons of Zebedee or the wife of Clopas. If so, two sisters have the name Mary and James and John are cousins of Jesus. The point cannot be settled with our present knowledge.

rwp@John:20:13 @{I do not know} (\ouk oida\). Singular here, not plural as in verse 2|, because clearly Mary is alone here. But the problem is the same. She did not see Peter and John at the tomb.

rwp@John:20:15 @{Sir} (\Kurie\). Clearly not "Lord" here, for she thought him to be "the gardener" (\ho kˆpouros\), old word (\kˆpos, ouros\), keeper of the garden, only here in the N.T. {If thou hast borne him hence} (\ei su ebastasos auton\). Condition of the first class. Note emphasis on \su\ (thou). A new idea struck Mary as mistaken as the other one. Jesus had repeated the question of the angels, but she did not recognize him. {And I} (\kag“\). Emphasis and crasis.

rwp@John:20:16 @{Mary} (\Mariam\). Aramaic form in Aleph B W, though \Maria\ in strkjv@19:25|. Clearly the old familiar tone of Jesus was in the pronunciation of her name. {Rabboni} (\Rabbounei\). Aramaic again for \Didaskale\ (Teacher), "my Teacher." In N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:10:51| though practically the same as \Rabbi\. See strkjv@11:28| for "the Teacher" (Rabbi). These two simple words tell the great fact that Christ is risen and Mary has seen him. One says little in really great moments.

rwp@John:20:25 @{We have seen the Lord} (\he“rakamen ton kurion\). The very language in the plural that Mary Magdalene had used (20:18|) when no one believed her. {Except I shall see} (\ean mˆ id“\). Negative condition of third class with \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive and so as to \bal“\ (from \ball“\) "and put." {The print} (\ton tupon\). The mark or stamp made by the nails, here the original idea. Various terms as in strkjv@Acts:7:44; strkjv@1Timothy:4:12|. Finally our "type" as in strkjv@Romans:5:14|. Clearly the disciples had told Thomas that they had seen the \tupon\ of the nails in his hands and the spear in his side. {I will not believe} (\ou mˆ pisteus“\). Strong refusal with \ou mˆ\ (doubtful negative) and first aorist active subjunctive (or future indicative).

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

rwp@Luke:1:22 @{Perceived} (\epegn“san\). Second aorist indicative. Clearly knew because he was not able to pronounce the benediction from the steps (Numbers:6:24-26|). {Continued making signs} (\ˆn dianeu“n\). Periphrastic imperfect again. He nodded and beckoned back and forth (\dia\, between). Further proof of a vision that caused his dumbness.

rwp@Luke:1:32 @{The Son of the Most High} (\huios Hupsistou\). There is no article in the Greek, but the use of Most High in verse 35| clearly of God as here. In strkjv@Luke:6:35| we find "sons of the Most High" (\huioi Hupsistou\) so that we cannot insist on deity here, though that is possible. The language of strkjv@2Samuel:7:14; strkjv@Isaiah:9:7| is combined here.

rwp@Luke:1:73 @{The oath which he sware} (\horkon hon “mosen\). Antecedent attracted to case of the relative. The oath appears in strkjv@Genesis:22:16-18|...is not certain how clearly he...

rwp@Luke:2:32 @{Revelation to the Gentiles} (\apokalupsin ethn“n\). Objective genitive. The Messiah is to be light (\ph“s\) for the Gentiles in darkness (1:70|) and glory (\doxa\) for Israel (cf. strkjv@Romans:9:1-5; strkjv@Isaiah:49:6|). The word \ethnos\ originally meant just a crowd or company, then a race or nation, then the nations other than Israel (the people, \ho laos\) or the people of God. The word Gentile is Latin from _gens_, a tribe or nation. But the world-...the Messiah comes out clearly in...

rwp@Luke:4:8 @{Thou shalt worship} (\proskunˆseis\). Satan used this verb to Jesus who turns it against him by the quotation from strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:13|. Jesus clearly perceived that one could not worship both Satan and God. He had to choose whom he would serve. Luke does not give the words, "Get thee hence, Satan" (Matthew:4:10|), for he has another temptation to narrate.

rwp@Luke:4:40 @{When the sun was setting} (\dunontos tou hˆliou\). Genitive absolute and present participle (\dun“\, late form of \du“\) picturing the sunset scene. Even strkjv@Mark:1:32| has here the aorist indicative \edusen\ (punctiliar active). It was not only cooler, but it was the end of the sabbath when it was not regarded as work (Vincent) to carry a sick person (John:5:10|). And also by now the news of the cure of the demoniac of Peter's mother-in-law had spread all over the town. {Had} (\eichon\). Imperfect tense including all the chronic cases. {With divers diseases} (\nosois poikilais\). Instrumental case. For "divers" say "many coloured" or "variegated." See on ¯Matthew:4:24; strkjv@Mark:1:34|. {Brought} (\ˆgagon\). Constative summary second aorist active indicative like strkjv@Matthew:8:16|, \prosenegkan\, where strkjv@Mark:1:32| has the imperfect \epheron\, brought one after another. {He laid his hands on every one of them and healed them} (\ho de heni hekast“i aut“n tas cheiras epititheis etherapeuen autous\). Note the present active participle \epititheis\ and the imperfect active \etherapeuen\, picturing the healing one by one with the tender touch upon each one. Luke alone gives this graphic detail which was more than a mere ceremonial laying on of hands. Clearly the cures of Jesus reached the physical, mental, and spiritual planes of human nature. He is Lord of life and acted here as Master of each case as it came.

rwp@Luke:8:28 @{Fell down} (\prosepesen\). Second aorist active of \prospipt“\, to fall forward, towards, prostrate before one as here. Common verb. strkjv@Mark:5:6| has \prosekunˆsen\ (worshipped). {The Most High God} (\tou theou tou hupsistou\). Uncertain whether \tou theou\...But "the Most High" clearly means...(Luke:1:32,35,36; strkjv@6:35|). The phrase is common among heathen (Numbers:24:16; strkjv@Micah:6:6; strkjv@Isaiah:14:14|). The demoniac may have been a Gentile, but it is the demon here speaking. See on ¯Mark:2:7; strkjv@Matthew:8:29| for the Greek idiom (\ti emoi kai soi\). "What have I to do with thee?" See there also for "Torment me not."

rwp@Luke:10:38 @{Now as they went on their way} (\ˆn de t“i poreuesthai autous\). Luke's favourite temporal clause again as in verse 35|. {Received him into her house} (\hupedexato auton eis tˆn oikian\). Aorist middle indicative of \hupodechomai\, an old verb to welcome as a guest (in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:6; strkjv@Acts:17:7; strkjv@James:2:25|). Martha is clearly the mistress of the home and is probably the elder sister. There is no evidence that she was the wife of Simon the leper (John:12:1f.|). It is curious that in an old cemetery at Bethany the names of Martha, Eleazar, and Simon have been found.

rwp@Luke:12:46 @{Shall cut him asunder} (\dichotomˆsei\). An old and somewhat rare word from \dichotomos\ and that from \dicha\ and \temn“\, to cut, to cut in two. Used literally here. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:24:51|. {With the unfaithful} (\meta t“n apist“n\). Not here "the unbelieving" though that is a common meaning of \apistos\ (\a\ privative and \pistos\, from \peith“\), but the unreliable, the untrustworthy. Here strkjv@Matthew:24:51| has "with the hypocrites," the same point. The parallel with strkjv@Matthew:24:43-51| ends here. strkjv@Matthew:24:51| adds the saying about the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. Clearly there Luke places the parable of the wise steward in this context while Matthew has it in the great eschatological discourse. Once again we must either think that Jesus repeated the parable or that one of the writers has misplaced it. Luke alone preserves what he gives in verses 47,48|.

rwp@Luke:13:4 @{The tower in Siloam} (\ho purgos en Sil“am\)...sites have been more clearly located...(only in Luke) of his own accord to illustrate still further the responsibility of his hearers. Jesus makes use of public events in both these incidents to teach spiritual lessons. He gives the "moral" to the massacre of the Galilean pilgrims and the "moral" of the catastrophe at Siloam. {Offenders} (\opheiletai\). Literally, {debtors}, not sinners as in verse 2| and as the Authorized Version renders here. See strkjv@7:41; strkjv@11:4; strkjv@Matthew:6:12; strkjv@18:24-34|.

rwp@Luke:13:32 @{That fox} (\tˆi al“peki tautˆi\)...cowardice of Herod shows clearly that..._redivivus_. The message of Jesus means that he is independent of the plots and schemes of both Herod and the Pharisees. The preacher is often put in a tight place by politicians who are quite willing to see him shorn of all real power. {Cures} (\iaseis\). Old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:4:22,30|. {I am perfected} (\teleioumai\). Present passive indicative of \teleio“\, old verb from \teleios\, to bring to perfection, frequent in the N.T. Used in strkjv@Hebrews:2:10| of the Father's purpose in the humanity of Christ. Perfect humanity is a process and Jesus was passing through that, without sin, but not without temptation and suffering. It is the prophetic present with the sense of the future.

rwp@Luke:13:34 @{O Jerusalem, Jerusalem} (\Ierousalˆm, Ierousalˆm\). In strkjv@Matthew:23:37f.| Jesus utters a similar lament over Jerusalem. The connection suits both there and here, but Plummer considers it "rather a violent hypothesis" to suppose that Jesus spoke these words twice. It is possible, of course, though not like Luke's usual method, that he put the words here because of the mention of Jerusalem. In itself it is not easy to see why Jesus could not have made the lament both here and in Jerusalem. The language of the apostrophe is almost identical in both places (Luke:13:34f.; strkjv@Matthew:23:37-39|). For details see on Matthew. In Luke we have \episunaxai\ (late first aorist active infinitive) and in Matthew \episunagagein\ (second aorist active infinitive), both from \episunag“\, a double compound of late Greek (Polybius). Both have "How often would I" (\posakis ˆthelˆsa\). How often did I wish. Clearly showing that Jesus made repeated visits to Jerusalem as we know otherwise only from John's Gospel. {Even as} (\hon tropon\). Accusative of general reference and in strkjv@Matthew:23:37| also. Incorporation of antecedent into the relative clause. {Brood} (\nossian\) is in Luke while Matthew has {chickens} (\nossia\), both late forms for the older \neossia\. The adjective {desolate} (\erˆmos\) is wanting in strkjv@Luke:13:35| and is doubtful in strkjv@Matthew:23:39|.

rwp@Luke:16:16 @{Entereth violently into it} (\eis autˆn biazetai\). A corresponding saying occurs in strkjv@Matthew:11:12| in a very different context. In both the verb \biazetai\, occurs also, but nowhere else in the N.T. It is present middle here and can be middle or passive in Matthew, which see. It is rare in late prose. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 258) cites an inscription where \biazomai\...absolutely. Here the meaning clearly is...

rwp@Luke:16:27 @{That you send him} (\hina pempsˆis auton\). As if he had not had a fair warning and opportunity. The Roman Catholics probably justify prayer to saints from this petition from the Rich Man to Abraham, but both are in Hades (the other world)...But heavenly recognition is clearly assumed....(_Purg_. iii, 114).

rwp@Luke:18:27 @{The impossible with men possible with God} (\ta adunata para anthr“pois dunata para t“i the“i\). Paradoxical, but true. Take your stand "beside" (\para\) God and the impossible becomes possible. Clearly then Jesus meant the humanly impossible by the parabolic proverb about the camel going through the needle's eye. God can break the grip of gold on a man's life, but even Jesus failed with this young ruler.

rwp@Luke:20:42 @{For David himself} (\autos gar Daueid\)...This language of Jesus clearly means...110|. The inspiration of this Psalm is expressly stated in strkjv@Mark:12:36; strkjv@Matthew:22:43| (which see) and the Messianic character of the Psalm in all three Synoptics who all quote the LXX practically alike. Modern criticism that denies the Davidic authorship of this Psalm has to say either that Jesus was ignorant of the fact about it or that he declined to disturb the current acceptation of the Davidic authorship. Certainly modern scholars are not agreed on the authorship of strkjv@Psalms:110|. Meanwhile one can certainly be excused for accepting the natural implication of the words of Jesus here, "David himself." {In the book of the Psalms} (\en bibl“i Psalm“n\). Compare strkjv@3:4| "in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet."

rwp@Luke:21:27 @{And then shall they see} (\kai tote opsontai\). As much as to say that it will be not till then. Clearly the promise of the second coming of the Son of man in glory here (Mark:13:26f.; strkjv@Matthew:24:30f.|) is pictured as not one certain of immediate realization. The time element is left purposely vague.

rwp@Luke:21:32 @{This generation} (\hˆ genea hautˆ\). Naturally people then living. {Shall not pass away} (\ou mˆ parelthˆi\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \parerchomai\. Strongest possible negative with \ou mˆ\. {Till all things be accomplished} (\he“s an panta genˆtai\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ with \he“s\...eschatological discourse to tell clearly when...

rwp@Luke:22:7 @{The day of unleavened bread came} (\ˆlthen hˆ hˆmera t“n azum“n\). The day itself came, not simply was drawing nigh (verse 1|). {Must be sacrificed} (\edei thuesthai\). This was Nisan 14 which began at sunset. Luke is a Gentile and this fact must be borne in mind. The lamb must be slain by the head of the family (Exodus:12:6|). The controversy about the day when Christ ate the last passover meal has already been discussed (Matthew:26:17; strkjv@Mark:14:12|). The Synoptics clearly present this as a fact. Jesus was then crucified on Friday at the passover or Thursday (our time) at the regular hour 6 P.M. (beginning of Friday). The five passages in John (13:1f.; strkjv@13:27; strkjv@18:28; strkjv@19:14; strkjv@19:31|) rightly interpreted teach the same thing as shown in my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_ (pp.279-284).

rwp@Luke:22:28 @{In my temptations} (\en tois peirasmois mou\). Probably "trials" is better here as in strkjv@James:1:2| though temptations clearly in strkjv@James:1:13ff|. This is the tragedy of the situation when Jesus is facing the Cross with the traitor at the table and the rest chiefly concerned about their own primacy and dignity.

rwp@Luke:22:38 @{Lord, behold, here are two swords} (\kurie idou machairai h“de duo\). They took his words literally. And before this very night is over Peter will use one of these very swords to try to cut off the head of Malchus only to be sternly rebuked by Jesus (Mark:14:47; strkjv@Matthew:26:51f.; strkjv@Luke:22:50f.; strkjv@John:18:10f.|). Then Jesus will say: "For all that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew:26:52|). Clearly Jesus did not mean his language even about the sword to be pressed too literally. Songs:he said: "It is enough" (\Hikanon estin\). It is with sad irony and sorrow that Jesus thus dismisses the subject. They were in no humour now to understand the various sides of this complicated problem. Every preacher and teacher understands this mood, not of impatience, but of closing the subject for the present.

rwp@Luke:24:39 @{Myself} (\autos\). Jesus is patient with his proof. They were convinced before he came into the room, but that psychological shock had unnerved them all. {Handle} (\psˆlaphˆsate\). This very word is used in strkjv@1John:1:1| as proof of the actual human body of Jesus. It is an old verb for touching with the hand. {Flesh and bones} (\sarka kai ostea\)...who denied it. But clearly we...

rwp@Mark:4:2 @{He taught them} (\edidasken autous\). Imperfect tense describing it as going on. {In parables} (\en parabolais\). As in strkjv@3:23|, only here more extended parables. See on ¯Matthew:13| for discussion concerning Christ's use of parables. Eight are given there, one (the Lamp both in strkjv@Mark:4:21| and strkjv@Luke:8:16| (both Sower and the Lamp in Luke), one alone in strkjv@Mark:4:26-29| (seed growing of itself) not in Matthew or Luke, ten on this occasion. Only four are mentioned in strkjv@Mark:4:1-34| (The Sower, the Lamp, the Seed Growing of Itself, the Mustard Seed). But Mark adds (4:34|)...he not unto them," clearly meaning...(Matthew:13:34|) makes the same statement. Manifestly, therefore, Jesus spoke many parables on this day and all theories of exegesis or dispensations on the basis of the number of these kingdom parables are quite beside the mark. In beginning Jesus said: {Hearken} (\Akouete\). It is significant that even Jesus had to ask people to listen when he spoke. See also verse 9|.

rwp@Mark:4:14 @{The sower soweth the word} (\ho speir“n ton logon speirei\). Not put thus clearly and simply in strkjv@Matthew:13:19| or strkjv@Luke:8:11|.

rwp@Mark:4:31 @{When it is sown} (\hotan sparˆi\). Second aorist passive subjunctive of \speir“\. Alone in Mark and repeated in verse 32|. {Less than all the seeds} (\mikroteron pant“n t“n spermat“n\)...Hyperbole, of course, but clearly meaning...

rwp@Mark:6:8 @{Save a staff only} (\ei mˆ rabdon monon\)...meaning of Jesus more clearly than...10:10| (nor staff) and strkjv@Luke:9:3| (neither staff). This discrepancy has given trouble to commentators. Grotius suggests no second staff for Matthew and Luke. Swete considers that Matthew and Luke report "an early exaggeration of the sternness of the command." "Without even a staff is the _ne plus ultra_ of austere simplicity, and self-denial. Men who carry out the spirit of these precepts will not labour in vain" (Bruce).

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:9:1 @{Till they see the kingdom of God come with power} (\he“s an id“sin tˆn basileian tou theou elˆluthuian en dunamei\). In strkjv@8:38| Jesus clearly is speaking of the second coming. To what is he referring in strkjv@9:1|? One is reminded of strkjv@Mark:13:32; strkjv@Matthew:24:36| where Jesus expressly denies that anyone save the Father himself (not even the Son) knows the day or the hour. Does he contradict that here? It may be observed that Luke has only "see the kingdom of God," while Matthew has "see the Son of man coming" (\erchomenon\, present participle, a process). Mark has "see the kingdom of God come" (\elˆluthuian\, perfect active participle, already come) and adds "with power." Certainly the second coming did not take place while some of those standing there still lived. Did Jesus mean that? The very next incident in the Synoptic Gospels is the Transfiguration on Mount Hermon. Does not Jesus have that in mind here? The language will apply also to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the great Day of Pentecost. Some see in it a reference to the destruction of the temple. It is at least open to question whether the Master is speaking of the same event in strkjv@Mark:8:38; strkjv@9:1|.

rwp@Mark:9:29 @{Save by prayer} (\ei mˆ en proseuchˆi\). The addition of "and of fasting" does not appear in the two best Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B). It is clearly a late addition to help explain the failure. But it is needless and also untrue. Prayer is what the nine had failed to use. They were powerless because they were prayerless. Their self-complacency spelled defeat. strkjv@Matthew:17:20| has "because of your little faith" (\oligopistian\). That is true also. They had too much faith in themselves, too little in Christ. "They had trusted to the semi-magical power with which they thought themselves invested" (Swete). "Spirits of such malignity were quick to discern the lack of moral power and would yield to no other" (_ibid_.).

rwp@Mark:11:27 @{The chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders} (\hoi archiereis kai hoi grammateis kai hoi presbuteroi\). Note the article with each separate group as in strkjv@Luke:20:1| and strkjv@Matthew:21:23|. These three classes were in the Sanhedrin. Clearly a large committee of the Sanhedrin including both Sadducees and Pharisees here confront Jesus in a formal attack upon his authority for cleansing the temple and teaching in it.

rwp@Mark:11:31 @{If we say} (\ean eip“men\). Third-...horns of the dilemma clearly and...

rwp@Mark:14:33 @{Greatly amazed and sore troubled} (\ekthambeisthai kai adˆmonein\). strkjv@Matthew:26:37| has "sorrowful and sore troubled." See on Matt. about \adˆmonein\. Mark alone uses \exthambeisthai\ (here and in strkjv@9:15|). There is a papyrus example given by Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_. The verb \thambe“\ occurs in strkjv@Mark:10:32|...Passion, when it came clearly into...(Swete). "He learned from what he suffered," (Hebrews:5:8|) and this new experience enriched the human soul of Jesus.

rwp@Mark:14:65 @{Cover his face} (\perikaluptein autou to pros“pon\). Put a veil around his face. Not in Matthew, but in strkjv@Luke:22:64| where Revised Version translates \perikalupsantes\ by "blind-folded." All three Gospels give the jeering demand of the Sanhedrin: "Prophesy" (\prophˆteuson\), meaning, as Matthew and Luke add, thereby telling who struck him while he was blindfolded. Mark adds "the officers" (same as in verse 54|) of the Sanhedrin, Roman lictors or sergeants-at-arms who had arrested Jesus in Gethsemane and who still held Jesus (\hoi sunechontes auton\, strkjv@Luke:22:63|). strkjv@Matthew:26:67|...treatment of Jesus without clearly indicating...{With blows of their hands} (\rapismasin\). The verb \rapiz“\ in strkjv@Matthew:26:67| originally meant to smite with a rod. In late writers it comes to mean to slap the face with the palm of the hands. The same thing is true of the substantive \rapisma\ used here. A papyrus of the sixth century A.D. uses it in the sense of a scar on the face as the result of a blow. It is in the instrumental case here. "They caught him with blows," Swete suggests for the unusual \elabon\ in this sense. "With rods" is, of course, possible as the lictors carried rods. At any rate it was a gross indignity.

rwp@Mark:14:67 @{Warming himself} (\thermainomenon\). Mark mentions this fact about Peter twice (14:54,67|) as does John (John:18:18,25|)...quite difficult to relate clearly the...{The Nazarene} (\tou Nazarˆnou\). In strkjv@Matthew:26:69| it is "the Galilean." A number were probably speaking, one saying one thing, another another.

rwp@Mark:16:3 @{Who shall roll us away the stone?} (\Tis apokulisei hˆmin ton lithon;\). Alone in Mark. The opposite of \proskuli“\ in strkjv@15:46|. In verse 4| {rolled back} (\anekekulistai\, perfect passive indicative) occurs also. Both verbs occur in _Koin‚_ writers and in the papyri. Clearly the women have no hope of the resurrection of Jesus for they were raising the problem (\elegon\, imperfect) as they walked along.

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

rwp@Mark:16:9 @{When he had risen early on the first day of the week} (\anastas pr“i pr“tˆi sabbatou\). It is probable that this note of time goes with "risen" (\anastas\), though it makes good sense with "appeared" (\ephanˆ\)...here, though he is clearly the...\mia\ in verse 2|, but \pr“tˆ\ in strkjv@14:12| and the plural \sabbat“n\ in verse 2|, though the singular here. {First} (\pr“ton\). Definite statement that Jesus {appeared} (\ephanˆ\) to Mary Magdalene first of all. The verb \ephanˆ\ (second aorist passive of \phain“\) is here alone of the Risen Christ (cf. \Eleias ephanˆ\, strkjv@Luke:9:8|), the usual verb being \“phthˆ\ (Luke:24:34; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:5ff.|). {From whom} (\par' hˆs\). Only instance of \para\ with the casting out of demons, \ek\ being usual (1:25,26; strkjv@5:8; strkjv@7:26,29; strkjv@9:25|). \Ekbeblˆkei\ is past perfect indicative without augment. This description of Mary Magdalene is like that in strkjv@Luke:8:2| and seems strange in Mark at this point, described as a new character here, though mentioned by Mark three times just before (15:40,47; strkjv@16:1|). The appearance to Mary Magdalene is given in full by strkjv@John:20:11-18|.

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

rwp@Matthew:3:7 @{The Pharisees and Sadducees} (\t“n Pharisai“n kai Saddoukai“n\). These two rival parties do not often unite in common action, but do again in strkjv@Matthew:16:1|. "Here a strong attraction, there a strong repulsion, made them for the moment forget their differences" (McNeile). John saw these rival ecclesiastics "coming for baptism" (\erchomenous epi to baptisma\). Alford speaks of "the Pharisees representing hypocritical superstition; the Sadducees carnal unbelief." One cannot properly understand the theological atmosphere of Palestine at this time without an adequate knowledge of both Pharisees and Sadducees. The books are numerous besides articles in the Bible dictionaries. I have pictured the Pharisees in my first Stone Lectures, _The Pharisees and Jesus_. John clearly grasped the significance of this movement on the part of the Pharisees and Sadducees who had followed the crowds to the Jordan. He had welcomed the multitudes, but right in the presence of the crowds he exposes the hypocrisy of the ecclesiastics. {Ye offspring of vipers} (\gennˆmata echidn“n\). Jesus (Matthew:12:34; strkjv@23:33|) will use the same language to the Pharisees. Broods of snakes were often seen by John in the rocks and when a fire broke out they would scurry (\phugein\) to their holes for safety. "The coming wrath" was not just for Gentiles as the Jews supposed, but for all who were not prepared for the kingdom of heaven (1Thessalonians:1:10|). No doubt the Pharisees and Sadducees winced under the sting of this powerful indictment.

rwp@Matthew:4:8 @{And showeth him} (\kai deiknusin aut“i\). This wonderful panorama had to be partially mental and imaginative, since the devil caused to pass in review "all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them." But this fact does not prove that all phases of the temptations were subjective without any objective presence of the devil. Both could be true. Here again we have the vivid historical present (\deiknusin\). The devil now has Christ upon a very high mountain whether the traditional Quarantania or not. It was from Nebo's summit that Moses caught the vision of the land of Canaan (Deuteronomy:34:1-3|). Luke (Luke:4:5|)...moment of time" and clearly psychological...

rwp@Matthew:6:11 @{Our daily bread} (\ton arton hˆm“n ton epiousion\). This adjective "daily" (\epiousion\) coming after "Give us this day" (\dos hˆmŒn sˆmeron\) has given expositors a great deal of trouble. The effort has been made to derive it from \epi\ and \“n\ (\ousa\). It clearly comes from \epi\ and \i“n\ (\epi\ and \eimi\) like \tˆi epiousˆi\ ("on the coming day," "the next day," strkjv@Acts:16:12|). But the adjective \epiousios\ is rare and Origen said it was made by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke to reproduce the idea of an Aramaic original. Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_ say: "The papyri have as yet shed no clear light upon this difficult word (Matthew:6:11; strkjv@Luke:11:3|), which was in all probability a new coinage by the author of the Greek Q to render his Aramaic Original" (this in 1919). Deissmann claims that only about fifty purely New Testament or "Christian" words can be admitted out of the more than 5,000 used. "But when a word is not recognizable at sight as a Jewish or Christian new formation, we must consider it as an ordinary Greek word until the contrary is proved. \Epiousios\ has all the appearance of a word that originated in trade and traffic of the everyday life of the people (cf. my hints in _Neutestamentliche Studien Georg Heinrici dargebracht_, Leipzig, 1914, pp. 118f.). The opinion here expressed has been confirmed by A. Debrunner's discovery (_Theol. Lit. Ztg_. 1925, Col. 119) of \epiousios\ in an ancient housekeeping book" (_Light from the Ancient East_, New ed. 1927, p. 78 and note 1). Songs:then it is not a word coined by the Evangelist or by Q to express an Aramaic original. The word occurs also in three late MSS. after 2Macc. strkjv@1:8, \tous epiousious\ after \tous artous\. The meaning, in view of the kindred participle (\epiousˆi\) in strkjv@Acts:16:12|, seems to be "for the coming day," a daily prayer for the needs of the next day as every housekeeper understands like the housekeeping book discovered by Debrunner.

rwp@Matthew:6:22 @{Single} (\haplous\). Used of a marriage contract when the husband is to repay the dowry "pure and simple" (\tˆn phernˆn haplˆn\), if she is set free; but in case he does not do so promptly, he is to add interest also (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_, etc.). There are various other instances of such usage. Here and in strkjv@Luke:11:34| the eye is called "single" in a moral sense. The word means "without folds" like a piece of cloth unfolded, _simplex_ in Latin. Bruce considers this parable of the eye difficult. "The figure and the ethical meaning seem to be mixed up, moral attributes ascribed to the physical eye which with them still gives light to the body. This confusion may be due to the fact that the eye, besides being the organ of vision, is the seat of expression, revealing inward dispositions." The "evil" eye (\ponˆros\) may be diseased and is used of stinginess in the LXX and so \haplous\ may refer to liberality as Hatch argues (_Essays in Biblical Greek_, p. 80)...are healthy we see clearly and...(without astigmatism). If the eyes are diseased (bad, evil), they may even be cross-eyed or cock-eyed. We see double and confuse our vision. We keep one eye on the hoarded treasures of earth and roll the other proudly up to heaven. Seeing double is double-mindedness as is shown in verse 24|.

rwp@Matthew:7:5 @{Shalt thou see clearly} (\diablepseis\). Only here and strkjv@Luke:6:42| and strkjv@Mark:8:25| in the New Testament. Look through, penetrate in contrast to \blepeis\, to gaze at, in verse 3|...and you will see clearly how...(\ekbalein\) of his eye.

rwp@Matthew:8:29 @{Thou Son of God} (\huie tou theou\)...The devil knew Jesus clearly and...(\hˆmin kai soi\, ethical dative) and they fear torment "before the time" (\pro kairou\). Usually \ta daimonia\ is the word in the New Testament for demons, but in strkjv@8:31| we have \hoi daimones\ (the only example in the N.T.). \Daimonion\ is a diminutive of \daim“n\. In Homer \daim“n\ is used synonymously with \theos\ and \thea\. Hesiod employed \daim“n\ of men of the golden age as tutelary deities. Homer has the adjective \daimonios\ usually in an evil sense. Empedocles considered the demons both bad and good. They were thus used to relieve the gods and goddesses of much rascality. Grote (_History of Greece_) notes that the Christians were thus by pagan usage justified in calling idolatry the worship of demons. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20f.; strkjv@1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@16:13f|. In the Gospels demons are the same as unclean spirits (Mark:5:12,15; strkjv@3:22,30; strkjv@Luke:4:33|). The demons are disturbers (Vincent) of the whole life of man (Mark:5:2f.; strkjv@7:25; strkjv@Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|).

rwp@Matthew:16:19 @{The Keys of the kingdom} (\tas kleidas tˆs basileias\). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18|. In strkjv@Revelation:1:18; strkjv@3:7| Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (\oikonomos\) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew:18:1|) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21|) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (\dˆsˆis\) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (\lusˆis\) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (\estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon\), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (18:18|). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John:20:23|), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, _primus inter pares_, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.

rwp@Matthew:16:23 @{But he turned} (\ho de strapheis\). Second aorist passive participle, quick ingressive action, away from Peter in revulsion, and toward the other disciples (Mark:8:33| has \epistrapheis\ and \id“n tous mathˆtas autou\). {Get thee behind me, Satan} (\Hupage opis“ mou, Satanƒ\). Just before Peter played the part of a rock in the noble confession and was given a place of leadership. Now he is playing the part of Satan and is ordered to the rear. Peter was tempting Jesus not to go on to the cross as Satan had done in the wilderness. "None are more formidable instruments of temptation than well-meaning friends, who care more for our comfort than for our character" (Bruce). "In Peter the banished Satan had once more returned" (Plummer). {A stumbling-block unto me} (\skandalon ei emou\). Objective genitive. Peter was acting as Satan's catspaw, in ignorance, surely, but none the less really. He had set a trap for Christ that would undo all his mission to earth. "Thou art not, as before, a noble block, lying in its right position as a massive foundation stone. On the contrary, thou art like a stone quite out of its proper place, and lying right across the road in which I must go--lying as a stone of stumbling" (Morison). {Thou mindest not} (\ou phroneis\). "Your outlook is not God's, but man's" (Moffatt). You do not think God's thoughts. Clearly the consciousness of the coming cross is not a new idea with Jesus. We do not know when he first foresaw this outcome any more than we know when first the Messianic consciousness appeared in Jesus. He had the glimmerings of it as a boy of twelve, when he spoke of "My Father's house." He knows now that he must die on the cross.

rwp@Matthew:18:22 @{Until seventy times seven} (\he“s hebdomˆkontakis hepta\). It is not clear whether this idiom means seventy-seven or as the Revised Version has it (490 times). If \heptakis\...were written it would clearly be...490 times. The same ambiguity is seen in strkjv@Genesis:4:24|, the LXX text by omitting \kai\. In the _Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs, Benj._...little difference because Jesus clearly means...(McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:19:10 @{The disciples say unto him} (\legousin aut“i hoi mathˆtai\). "Christ's doctrine on marriage not only separated Him \toto caelo\ from Pharisaic opinions of all shades, but was too high even for the Twelve" (Bruce). {The case} (\hˆ aitia\). The word may refer to the use in verse 3| "for every cause." It may have a vague idea here = \res\...condition. But the point clearly is...(\ou sumpherei gamˆsai\) if such a strict view is held. If the bond is so tight a man had best not commit matrimony. It is a bit unusual to have \anthr“pos\ and \gunˆ\ contrasted rather than \anˆr\ and \gunˆ\.

rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathˆmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ai“nos\)...for us to separate clearly the...70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).

rwp@Matthew:24:31 @{With a great sound of a trumpet} (\meta salpiggos ph“nˆs megalˆs\). Some MSS. omit (\ph“nˆs\) "sound." The trumpet was the signal employed to call the hosts of Israel to march as to war and is common in prophetic imagery (Isaiah:27:13|). Cf. the seventh angel (Revelation:11:15|). Clearly "the coming of the son of man is not to be identified with the judgment of Jerusalem but rather forms its preternatural background" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:26:36 @{Gethsemane} (\Gethsˆmanei\). The word means oil-press in the Hebrew, or olive vat. The place (\ch“rion\) was an enclosed plot or estate, "garden," or orchard (\kˆpos\). It is called _villa_ in the Vulgate according to strkjv@John:18:1|. It was beyond the torrent Kedron at the foot of the Mount of Olives about three-fourths of a mile from the eastern walls of Jerusalem. There are now eight old olive trees still standing in this enclosure. One cannot say that they are the very trees near which Jesus had his Agony, but they are very old. "They will remain so long as their already protracted life is spared, the most venerable of their race on the surface of the earth. Their guarded trunks and scanty foliage will always be regarded as the most affecting of the sacred memorials in or about Jerusalem" (Stanley, _Sinai and Palestine_). {Here} (\autou\), {Yonder} (\ekei\). Jesus clearly pointed to the place where he would pray. Literally "there."

rwp@Matthew:26:54 @{Must be} (\dei\). Jesus sees clearly his destiny now that he has won the victory in Gethsemane.

rwp@Matthew:26:63 @{Held his peace} (\esi“pa\). Kept silent, imperfect tense. Jesus refused to answer the bluster of Caiaphas. {I adjure thee by the living God} (\exorkiz“ se kata tou theou tou z“ntos\)...answer under solemn oath, clearly showing...

rwp@Matthew:26:73 @{They that stood by} (\hoi hest“tes\). The talk about Peter continued. Luke (Luke:22:59|) states that the little while was about an hour. The bystanders came up to Peter and bluntly assert that he was "of a truth" (\alˆth“s\) one of the followers of Jesus for his speech betrayed him. Even the Revised Version retains "bewrayeth," quaint old English for "betrayeth." The Greek has it simply "makes thee evident" (\dˆlon se poiei\). His dialect (\lalia\) clearly revealed that he was a Galilean. The Galileans had difficulty with the gutterals and Peter's second denial had exposed him to the tormenting raillery of the loungers who continued to nag him.

rwp@Matthew:27:45 @{From the sixth hour} (\apo hektˆs h“ras\). Curiously enough McNeile takes this to mean the trial before Pilate (John:18:14|). But clearly John uses Roman time, writing at the close of the century when Jewish time was no longer in vogue. It was six o'clock in the morning Roman time when the trial occurred before Pilate. The crucifixion began at the third hour (Mark:15:25|) Jewish time or nine A.M. The darkness began at noon, the sixth hour Jewish time and lasted till 3 P.M. Roman time, the ninth hour Jewish time (Mark:15:33; strkjv@Matthew:27:45; strkjv@Luke:23:44|). The dense darkness for three hours could not be an eclipse of the sun and Luke (Luke:23:45|) does not so say, only "the sun's light failing." Darkness sometimes precedes earthquakes and one came at this time or dense masses of clouds may have obscured the sun's light. One need not be disturbed if nature showed its sympathy with the tragedy of the dying of the Creator on the Cross (Romans:8:22|), groaning and travailing until now.

rwp@Matthew:28:1 @{Now late on the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week} (\opse de sabbat“n, tˆi epiph“skousˆi eis mian sabbat“n\)...according to Jewish days clearly means...(\theorˆsai ton taphon\). They had seen the place of burial on Friday afternoon (Mark:15:47; strkjv@Matthew:27:61; strkjv@Luke:23:55|). They had rested on the sabbath after preparing spices and ointments for the body of Jesus (Luke:23:56|), a sabbath of unutterable sorrow and woe. They will buy other spices after sundown when the new day has dawned and the sabbath is over (Mark:16:1|). Both Matthew here and Luke (Luke:23:54|) use dawn (\epiph“sk“\) for the dawning of the twenty-four hour-day at sunset, not of the dawning of the twelve-hour day at sunrise. The Aramaic used the verb for dawn in both senses. The so-called Gospel of Peter has \epiph“sk“\...at this point, but clearly Mark...

rwp@Matthew:28:2 @{There was a great earthquake} (\seismos egeneto megas\). Clearly not the earthquake of strkjv@27:51|. The precise time of this earthquake is not given. It was before sunrise on the first day of the week when the women made the next visit. Matthew alone relates the coming of the angel of the Lord who rolled away the stone and was sitting upon it (\apekulise ton lithon kai ekathˆto epan“ autou\). If one is querulous about these supernatural phenomena, he should reflect that the Resurrection of Jesus is one of the great supernatural events of all time. Cornelius … Lapide dares to say: "The earth, which trembled with sorrow at the Death of Christ as it were leaped for joy at His Resurrection." The Angel of the Lord announced the Incarnation of the Son of God and also His Resurrection from the grave. There are apparent inconsistencies in the various narratives of the Resurrection and the appearances of the Risen Christ. We do not know enough of the details to be able to reconcile them. But the very variations strengthen the independent witness to the essential fact that Jesus rose from the grave. Let each writer give his own account in his own way. The stone was rolled away not to let the Lord out, but to let the women in to prove the fact of the empty tomb (McNeile).

rwp@Philippians:1:18 @{What then?} (\ti gar?\). Sharp problem put up to Paul by the conduct of the Judaizers. {Only that} (\plˆn hoti\). Same idiom in strkjv@Acts:20:23|. \Plˆn\ is adverb \pleon\ (more besides). As a preposition \plˆn\ means "except." This essential thing Paul sees in spite of all their envy and selfishness that Christ is preached. {Whether in pretence} (\eite prophasei\). Either from \prophain“\, to shew forth, or \prophˆmi\, to speak forth, the ostensible presentation often untrue. See strkjv@Acts:27:30|. Paul sees clearly through the pious pretence of these Judaizers and rejoices that people get some knowledge of Christ. Some Christ is better than no Christ. {Yea, and will rejoice} (\alla kai charˆsomai\). Note affirmative, not adversative, use of \alla\. Volitive use of the future (second future passive) indicative (\charˆsomai\) of \chair“\. Paul is determined to rejoice in spite of the efforts of the Judaizers to prod him to anger.

rwp@Philippians:2:9 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). Because of which act of voluntary and supreme humility. {Highly exalted} (\huperups“se\). First aorist indicative of \huperupso“\ (\huper\ and \hupsos\) late and rare word (LXX and Byzantine). Here only in N.T. Because of Christ's voluntary humiliation God lifted him above or beyond (\huper\) the state of glory which he enjoyed before the Incarnation. What glory did Christ have after the Ascension that he did not have before in heaven? What did he take back to heaven that he did not bring? Clearly his humanity. He returned to heaven the Son of Man as well as the Son of God. {The name which is above every name} (\to onoma to huper pan onoma\). What name is that? Apparently and naturally the name {Jesus}, which is given in verse 10|. Some think it is "Jesus Christ," some "Lord," some the ineffable name Jehovah, some merely dignity and honour.

rwp@Revelation:5:6 @{And I saw} (\kai eidon\). Stirred by the words of the elder in verse 5| (\idou\, behold). "I beheld." {In the midst} (\en mes“i\). See strkjv@4:6| for this idiom. It is not quite clear where the Lamb was standing in the vision, whether close to the throne or in the space between the throne and the elders (perhaps implied by "came" in verse 7|, but nearness to the throne is implied by strkjv@14:1; strkjv@Acts:7:56; strkjv@Hebrews:10:11|). {A Lamb} (\arnion\). Elsewhere in the N.T. \ho amnos\ is used of Christ (John:1:29,36; Acts strkjv@8:32; strkjv@1Peter:1:19| like strkjv@Isaiah:53:7|), but in the Apocalypse \to arnion\ occurs for the Crucified Christ 29 times in twelve chapters. {Standing} (\hestˆkos\). Second perfect active (intransitive of \histˆmi\) neuter accusative singular (grammatical gender like \arnion\), though some MSS. read \hestˆk“s\ (natural gender masculine and nominative in spite of \eidon\ construction according to sense). {As though it had been slain} (\h“s esphagmenon\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \sphaz“\, old word, in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:5:6,9,12; strkjv@6:4,9; strkjv@13:3; strkjv@18:24; strkjv@1John:3:12|. \H“s\ (as if) is used because the Lamb is now alive, but (in appearance) with the marks of the sacrifice. The Christ as the Lamb is both sacrifice and Priest (Hebrews:9:12f.; strkjv@10:11|). {Having} (\ech“n\). Construction according to sense again with masculine nominative participle instead of \echonta\ (masculine accusative singular) or \echon\ (neuter accusative singular). Seven horns (\keras\) is a common symbol in the O.T. for strength and kingly power (1Samuel:2:10; strkjv@1Kings:22:11; strkjv@Psalms:112:9; strkjv@Daniel:7:7,20ff.|) and often in Rev. (Revelation:12:3; strkjv@13:1; strkjv@17:3,12|). Fulness of power (the All-powerful one) is symbolized by seven. {Seven eyes} (\ophthalmous hepta\). Like strkjv@Zechariah:3:9; strkjv@4:10| and denotes here, as there, omniscience. Here they are identified with the seven Spirits of Christ, while in strkjv@1:4|...the seven Spirits are clearly the...(3:1|), and blaze like torches (4:5|), like the eyes of Christ (1:14|). The Holy Spirit is both Spirit of God and of Christ (Romans:8:9|). {Sent forth} (\apestalmenoi\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \apostell“\, masculine plural (agreeing with \hoi\ and \ophthalmous\ in gender), but some MSS. have \apestalmena\ agreeing with the nearer \pneumata\.

rwp@Revelation:7:17 @{In the midst} (\ana meson\). In strkjv@5:6| we have \en mes“i tou thronou\ as the position of the Lamb, and so that is apparently the sense of \ana meson\ here as in strkjv@Matthew:13:25|...can mean "between," as clearly so...1Corinthians:6:5|. {Shall be their shepherd} (\paimanei autous\). "Shall shepherd them," future active of \poimain“\ (from \poimˆn\, shepherd), in strkjv@John:21:16; strkjv@Acts:20:28; strkjv@1Peter:5:2; strkjv@Revelation:2:27; strkjv@7:17; strkjv@12:5; strkjv@19:15|. Jesus is still the Good Shepherd of his sheep (John:10:11,14ff.|). Cf. strkjv@Psalms:23:1|. {Shall guide them} (\hodˆ gˆsei autous\). Future active of \hodˆge“\, old word (from \hodˆgos\, guide, strkjv@Matthew:15:14|), used of God's guidance of Israel (Exodus:15:13|), of God's guidance of individual lives (Psalms:5:9|), of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John:16:13|), of Christ's own guidance here (cf. strkjv@John:14:4; strkjv@Revelation:14:4|). {Unto fountains of waters of life} (\epi z“ˆs pˆgas hudat“n\). The language is like that in strkjv@Isaiah:49:10; strkjv@Jeremiah:2:13|. Note the order, "to life's water springs" (Swete) like the Vulgate _ad vitae fontes aquarum_, with emphasis on \z“ˆs\ (life's). For this idea see also strkjv@John:4:12,14; strkjv@7:38f.; strkjv@Revelation:21:6; strkjv@22:1,17|. No special emphasis on the plural here or in strkjv@8:10; strkjv@14:7; strkjv@16:4|. {And God shall wipe away} (\kai exaleipsei ho theos\). Repeated in strkjv@21:4| from strkjv@Isaiah:25:8|. Future active of \exaleiph“\, old compound, to wipe out (\ex\), off, away, already in strkjv@3:5| for erasing a name and in strkjv@Acts:3:19| for removing the stain (guilt) of sin. {Every tear} (\pƒn dakruon\). Old word, with other form, \dakru\, in strkjv@Luke:7:38,44|. Note repetition of \ek\ with \ophthalm“n\ (out of their eyes). "Words like these of vv. 15-17| must sound as a divine music in the ears of the persecuted. God will comfort as a mother comforts" (Baljon).

rwp@Revelation:9:13 @{A voice} (\ph“nˆn mian\). For \mian\ as indefinite article see strkjv@8:13|. Accusative case here after \ˆkousa\, though genitive in strkjv@8:13|, a distinction between sound and sense sometimes exists (Acts:9:7; strkjv@22:9|)...as the words are clearly heard...{From} (\ek\). "Out of the horns." Note triple use of the genitive article here as of the accusative article with this identical phrase in strkjv@8:3| ("the altar the golden the one before the throne").

rwp@Revelation:11:8 @{Their dead bodies lie} (\to pt“ma aut“n\). Old word from \pipt“\ (to fall), a fall, especially of bodies slain in battle, a corpse, a carcase (Matthew:14:12|), here the singular (some MSS. \pt“mata\, plural) as belonging to each of the \aut“n\ (their) like \stomatos aut“n\ (their mouth) in verse 5|. Songs:also in verse 9|. No word in the Greek for "lie." {In} (\epi\). "Upon," as in verse 6|, with genitive (\tˆs plateias\), the broad way (\hodou\ understood), from \platus\ (broad) as in strkjv@Matthew:6:5|, old word (Revelation:21:21; strkjv@22:2|). {Of the great city} (\tˆs pole“s tˆs megalˆs\). Clearly Jerusalem in view of the closing clause (\hopou--estaur“thˆ\), though not here called "the holy city" as in verse 2|, and though elsewhere in the Apocalypse Babylon (Rome) is so described (14:8; strkjv@16:19; strkjv@17:5; strkjv@18:2,10,16,18,19,21|). {Which} (\hˆtis\). Which very city, not "whichever." {Spiritually} (\pneumatik“s\). This late adverb from \pneumatikos\ (spiritual) occurs in the N.T. only twice, in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:14| for the help of the Holy Spirit in interpreting God's message and here in a hidden or mystical (allegorical sense). For this use of \pneumatikos\ see strkjv@1Corinthians:10:3f|. Judah is called Sodom in strkjv@Isaiah:1:9f.; strkjv@Ezekiel:16:46,55|. See also strkjv@Matthew:10:15; strkjv@11:23|. Egypt is not applied to Israel in the O.T., but is "an obvious symbol of oppression and slavery" (Swete). {Where also their Lord was crucified} (\hopou kai ho kurios aut“n estaur“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \stauro“\, to crucify, a reference to the fact of Christ's crucifixion in Jerusalem. This item is one of the sins of Jerusalem and the disciple is not greater than the Master (John:15:20|).

rwp@Revelation:11:11 @{After the} (\meta tas\ etc.). The article \tas\ (the) points back to strkjv@11:9|. {The breath of life from God} (\pneuma z“ˆs ek tou theou\). This phrase (\pneuma z“ˆs\) occurs in strkjv@Genesis:6:17; strkjv@7:15,22|...but here there is clearly an...37:5,10| (also strkjv@2Kings:13:21|), where the dead bones lived again. {Entered into them} (\eisˆlthen en autois\). Second aorist active indicative of \eiserchomai\ with \en\ rather than \eis\ after it (cf. strkjv@Luke:9:46|). The prophecy has here become fact (change from future \pempsousin\ to aorist \eisˆlthen\). {They stood upon their feet} (\estˆsan epi tous podas aut“n\). Ingressive second aorist active indicative of \histˆmi\ (intransitive). Reference to strkjv@Ezekiel:37:10|, but with the accusative in place of genitive there after \epi\ as in strkjv@2Kings:13:21|. {Fell upon} (\epepesen epi\). Second aorist active indicative of \epipipt“\ with repetition of \epi\. The same prophetic use of the aorist as in \eisˆlthen\ and \estˆsan\. {Beheld} (\the“rountas\). Present active articular participle of \the“re“\. "The spectators were panic-stricken" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:13:3 @{And I saw} (\kai\). No verb (\eidon\)...the old MSS., but clearly understood...2|. {As though it had been smitten} (\h“s esphagmenˆn\). Perfect passive participle of \sphaz“\, as in strkjv@5:6|, accusative singular agreeing with \mian\ (one of the heads), object of \eidon\ understood, "as though slain" (so the word means in seven other instances in the book). There is a reference to the death and new life of the Lamb in strkjv@5:6|. {And his death-stroke was healed} (\kai hˆ plˆgˆ autou etherapeuthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \therapeu“\. "The stroke of death" (that led to death). Apparently refers to the death of Nero in June 68 A.D. by his own hand. But after his death pretenders arose claiming to be Nero _redivivus_ even as late as 89 (Tacitus, _Hist_. i. 78, ii. 8, etc.). John seems to regard Domitian as Nero over again in the persecutions carried on by him. The distinction is not always preserved between the beast (Roman Empire) and the seven heads (emperors), but in strkjv@17:10| the beast survives the loss of five heads. Here it is the death-stroke of one head, while in verses 12,14| the beast himself receives a mortal wound. {Wondered after the beast} (\ethaumasthˆ opis“ tou thˆriou\). First aorist passive (deponent) indicative of \thaumaz“\, to wonder at, to admire, as in strkjv@17:8|. For this pregnant use of \opis“\ see strkjv@John:12:9; strkjv@Acts:5:37; strkjv@20:30; strkjv@1Timothy:5:15|. "All the earth wondered at and followed after the beast," that is Antichrist as represented by Domitian as Nero _redivivus_. But Charles champions the view that Caligula, not Nero, is the head that received the death-stroke and recovered and set up statues of himself for worship, even trying to do it in Jerusalem.

rwp@Revelation:13:12 @{He exerciseth} (\poiei\). Present active dramatic present of \poie“\. In his sight (\en“pion autou\). In the eye of the first beast who gets his authority from the dragon (13:2|). The second beast carries on the succession of authority from the dragon and the first beast. It has been a common Protestant interpretation since the Reformation of Luther to see in the first beast Pagan Rome and in the second beast Papal Rome. There is undoubted verisimilitude in this interpretation, but it is more than doubtful if any such view comes within the horizon of the imagery here. Ramsay takes the first beast to be the power of imperial Rome and the second beast to be the provincial power which imitated Rome in the persecutions. {To worship the first beast} (\hina proskunˆsousin to thˆrion to pr“ton\). Sub-final clause with \hina\ after \poiei\ seen in strkjv@John:11:37; strkjv@Colossians:4:16; strkjv@Revelation:3:9|, usually with the subjunctive, but here with the future indicative as in strkjv@3:9|. Note the accusative after \proskune“\ as in verse 8|. Here the death-stroke of one of the heads (verse 3|) is ascribed to the beast. Clearly the delegated authority of the provincial priests of the emperor-worship is rigorously enforced, if this is the correct interpretation.

rwp@Revelation:19:20 @{Was taken} (\epiasthˆ\). First aorist (prophetic) passive indicative of the Doric \piaz“\ (Attic \piez“\). Cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:8|. {The false prophet} (\ho pseudoprophˆtˆs\). Possibly the second beast of strkjv@13:11-17; strkjv@16:13; strkjv@20:10|. Charles takes him to be "the priesthood of the Imperial cult, which practised all kinds of magic and imposture to beguile men to worship the Beast." {That wrought the signs in his sight} (\ho poiesas ta sˆmeia en“pion autou\). As in strkjv@13:14|. {Wherewith} (\en hois\). "In which" signs. {He deceived} (\eplanˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \plana“\. He was only able to deceive "them that had received" (\tous labontas\, articular second aorist active participle of \lamban“\, "those receiving") "the mark of the beast" (13:16; strkjv@14:9ff.; strkjv@16:2; strkjv@20:4|) "and them that worshipped his image" (\tous proskunountas tˆi eikoni autou\) as in strkjv@13:15|. {They twain} (\hoi duo\). "The two." {Were cast} (\eblˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive Indicative of \ball“\. They fall together as they fought together. "The day that sees the end of a false statecraft will see also that of a false priestcraft" (Swete). {Alive} (\z“ntes\). Present active participle of \za“\, predicative nominative, "living." {Into the lake of fire} (\eis tˆn limnˆn tou puros\). Genitive \puros\ describes this \limnˆn\ (lake, cf. strkjv@Luke:5:1|) as it does \gehenna\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:22|. See also strkjv@20:10; strkjv@21:8|. It is a different figure from the "abyss" in strkjv@9:1ff; strkjv@20:1ff|. This is the final abode of Satan, the beast, the false prophet, and wicked men. {That burneth with brimstone} (\tˆs kaiomenˆs en thei“i\). Note the genitive here in place of the accusative \limnˆn\, perhaps because of the intervening genitive \puros\ (neuter, not feminine). The agreement is regular in strkjv@21:8|. For \en thei“i\ (with brimstone) see strkjv@14:10; strkjv@20:10; strkjv@21:8|...fact of hell is clearly taught...4; 5; 21; 22| is to be so understood. Both fall short of the reality.

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

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

rwp@Revelation:21:23 @{To shine upon it} (\hina phain“sin autˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the present active subjunctive of \phain“\, to keep on shining. Light is always a problem in our cities. See strkjv@Isaiah:60:19ff|. {Did lighten it} (\eph“tisen autˆn\). First aorist active indicative of \ph“tiz“\, to illumine, old verb from \ph“s\ (Luke:11:36|). If the sun and moon did shine, they would give no added light in the presence of the Shekinah Glory of God. See verse 11| for "the glory of God." Cf. strkjv@18:1; strkjv@21:3|. "Their splendour is simply put to shame by the glory of God Himself" (Charles). {And the lamp thereof is the Lamb} (\kai ho luchnos autˆs to arnion\). Charles takes \ho luchnos\ as predicate, "and the Lamb is the lamp thereof." Bousset thinks that John means to compare Christ to the moon the lesser light (Genesis:1:16|), but that contrast is not necessary. Swete sees Christ as the one lamp for all in contrast with the many \luchniai\ of the churches on earth (1:12,20|)..."No words could more clearly demonstrate...(Swete).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL Here scholars divide again. Many who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles accept the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, Baur, for instance. Hort, Lightfoot, and Westcott argued for the Johannine authorship on the ground that the Apocalypse was written early (time of Nero or Vespasian)...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@Romans:1:7 @{In Rome} (\en R“mˆi\). One late uncial (G of tenth century) and a cursive omit these words here and one or two other late MSS. omit \en R“mˆi\ in verse 15|. This possibly proves the Epistle was circulated as a circular to a limited extent, but the evidence is late and slight and by no means shows that this was the case in the first century. It is not comparable with the absence of \en Ephes“i\ in strkjv@Ephesians:1:1| from Aleph and B (the two oldest and best MSS.). {Beloved of God} (\agapˆtois theou\). Ablative case of \theou\ after the verbal adjective like \didaktoi theou\ (taught of God) in strkjv@John:6:45| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). {From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ} (\apo theou patros hˆm“n kai kuriou Iˆsou Christou\). "St. Paul, if not formally enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which cannot really be distinguished from it" (Sanday and Headlam). Paul's theology is clearly seen in the terms used in verses 1-7|.

rwp@Romans:1:20 @{The invisible things of him} (\ta aorata autou\). Another verbal adjective (\a\ privative and \hora“\, to see), old word, either unseen or invisible as here and elsewhere in N.T. (Colossians:1:15f.|, etc.). The attributes of God's nature defined here as "his everlasting power and divinity" (\hˆ te aidios autou dunamis kai theiotˆs\). \Aidios\ is for \aeidios\ from \aei\ (always), old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Jude:1:6|, common in Philo (\z“ˆ aidios\), elsewhere \ai“nios\. \Theiotˆs\ is from \theios\ (from \theos\) quality of \theos\ and corresponds more to Latin _divinitas_ from _divus_, divine. In strkjv@Colossians:2:9| Paul uses \theotˆs\ (Latin _deitas_ from _deus_) {deity}, both old words and nowhere else in the N.T. \Theotˆs\ is Divine Personality, \theiotˆs\, Divine Nature and properties (Sanday and Headlam). {Since the creation of the world} (\apo ktise“s kosmou\). He means by God and unto God as antecedent to and superior to the world (cf. strkjv@Colossians:1:15f|. about Christ). {Are clearly seen} (\kathoratai\). Present passive indicative of \kathora“\ (perfective use of \kata-\), old word, only here in N.T., with direct reference to \aorata\. {Being perceived} (\nooumena\). Present passive participle of \noe“\, to use the \nous\ (intellect). {That they may be without excuse} (\eis to einai autous anapologˆtous\). More likely, "so that they are without excuse." The use of \eis to\ and the infinitive (with accusative of general reference) for result like \h“ste\ is reasonably clear in the N.T. (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 219; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003). \Anapologˆtous\ is another verbal with \an\ from \apologeomai\. Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:2:1| ("inexcusable" here).

rwp@Romans:4:25 @{For our justification} (\dia tˆn dikai“sin hˆm“n\). The first clause (\paredothˆ dia ta parapt“mata\) is from strkjv@Isaiah:53:12|. The first \dia\ with \parapt“mata\ is probably retrospective, though it will make sense as prospective (to make atonement for our transgressions). The second \dia\ is quite clearly prospective with a view to our justification. Paul does not mean to separate the resurrection from the death of Christ in the work of atonement, but simply to show that the resurrection is at one with the death on the Cross in proof of Christ's claims.

rwp@Romans:5:14 @{Even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression} (\kai epi tous mˆ hamartˆsantas epi t“i homoi“mati tˆs parabase“s Adam\)...on till Moses, showing clearly that...{A figure} (\tupos\). See on ¯Acts:7:43; strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:7; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:10:6| for this word. Adam is a type of Christ in holding a relation to those affected by the headship in each case, but the parallel is not precise as Paul shows.

rwp@Romans:9:21 @{Or hath not the potter a right over the clay?} (\ˆ ouk echei exousian ho kerameus tou pˆlou?\). This question, expecting an affirmative answer, is Paul's reply to the previous one, "Why didst thou make me thus?" \Pˆlos\, old word for clay, is mud or wet clay in strkjv@John:9:6,11,14f|. The old word for potter (\kerameus\) in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:27:7,10|. {Lump} (\phuramatos\). Late word from \phura“\, to mix (clay, dough, etc.). {One part} (\ho men\) {--another} (\ho de\). Regular idiom for contrast (\men--de\) with the old demonstrative \ho\ (this), "this vessel (\skeuos\, old word as in strkjv@Mark:11:16|)...dishonour." Paul thus claims clearly God's...(\exousian\, power, right, authority, from \exesti\) to use men (already sinners) for his own purpose.

rwp@Romans:10:1 @{Desire} (\eudokia\). No papyri examples of this word, though \eudokˆsis\ occurs, only in LXX and N.T., but no example for "desire" unless this is one, though the verb \eudoke“\ is common in Polybius, Diodorus, Dion, Hal. It means will, pleasure, satisfaction (Matthew:11:26; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:11; strkjv@Phillipians:1:15; strkjv@2:13; strkjv@Ephesians:1:5,9|). {Supplication} (\deˆsis\). Late word from \deomai\, to want, to beg, to pray. In the papyri. See strkjv@Luke:1:13|. It is noteworthy that, immediately after the discussion of the rejection of Christ by the Jews, Paul prays so earnestly for the Jews "that they may be saved" (\eis s“tˆrian\), literally "unto salvation." Clearly Paul did not feel that the case was hopeless for them in spite of their conduct. Bengel says: _Non orasset Paul si absolute reprobati essent_ (Paul would not have prayed if they had been absolutely reprobate). Paul leaves God's problem to him and pours out his prayer for the Jews in accordance with his strong words in strkjv@9:1-5|.

Seeker Overlay: Off On

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

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 2 21:07:22 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020