CONCORD different



rwp@1Corinthians:1:12 @{Now this I mean} (\leg“ de touto\). Explanatory use of \leg“\. Each has his party leader. \Apoll“\ is genitive of \Apoll“s\ (Acts:18:24|), probably abbreviation of \Apoll“nius\ as seen in Codex Bezae for strkjv@Acts:18:24|. See on Acts for discussion of this "eloquent Alexandrian" (Ellicott), whose philosophical and oratorical preaching was in contrast "with the studied plainness" of Paul (1Corinthians:2:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:10|). People naturally have different tastes about styles of preaching and that is well, but Apollos refused to be a party to this strife and soon returned to Ephesus and refused to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). \Cˆphƒ\ is the genitive of \Cˆphƒs\, the Aramaic name given Simon by Jesus (John:1:42|), \Petros\ in Greek. Except in strkjv@Galatians:2:7,8| Paul calls him Cephas. He had already taken his stand with Paul in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-11; strkjv@Galatians:2:7-10|). Paul had to rebuke him at Antioch for his timidity because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-14|), but, in spite of Baur's theory, there is no evidence of a schism in doctrine between Paul and Peter. If strkjv@2Peter:3:15f.| be accepted as genuine, as I do, there is proof of cordial relations between them and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:5| points in the same direction. But there is no evidence that Peter himself visited Corinth. Judaizers came and pitted Peter against Paul to the Corinthian Church on the basis of Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch. These Judaizers made bitter personal attacks on Paul in return for their defeat at the Jerusalem Conference. Songs:a third faction was formed by the use of Peter's name as the really orthodox wing of the church, the gospel of the circumcision. {And I of Christ} (\eg“ de Christou\). Still a fourth faction in recoil from the partisan use of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, with "a spiritually proud utterance" (Ellicott) that assumes a relation to Christ not true of the others. "Those who used this cry arrogated the common watchword as their _peculium_" (Findlay). This partisan use of the name of Christ may have been made in the name of unity against the other three factions, but it merely added another party to those existing. In scouting the names of the other leaders they lowered the name and rank of Christ to their level.

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|)...the genitive, though quite different in...(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: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| the word is used for the change in the body of our humiliation to the body of glory. But here it is clearly the rhetorical figure for a veiled allusion to Paul and Apollos "for your sakes" (\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\...a second, but the different sort,...\heterodox\).

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|)...when people who spoke different languages...¯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:12:12 @{Songs:also is Christ} (\hout“s kai ho Christos\). One would naturally expect Paul here to say \hout“s kai to s“ma tou Christou\ (so also is the body of Christ). He will later call Christ the Head of the Body the Church as in strkjv@Colossians:1:18,24; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23,30|. Aristotle had used \s“ma\...and functions like the different members...

rwp@1Corinthians:12:13 @{Were we all baptized into one body} (\hˆmeis pantes eis hen s“ma ebaptisthˆmen\). First aorist passive indicative of \baptiz“\...each of them of different races,...(Galatians:3:27; strkjv@Romans:6:2ff.|). {And were all made to drink of one Spirit} (\kai pantes hen pneuma epotisthˆmen\). First aorist passive indicative of \potiz“\, old verb, to give to drink. The accusative \hen pneuma\ is retained in the passive as often with verbs that in the active take two accusatives. The reference is to a definite act in the past, probably to the inward experience of the Holy Spirit symbolized by the act of baptism.

rwp@1Corinthians:13:12 @{In a mirror} (\di' esoptrou\). By means of a mirror (\esoptron\, from \opt“\, old word, in papyri). Ancient mirrors were of polished metal, not glass, those in Corinth being famous. {Darkly} (\en ainigmati\). Literally, in an enigma. Old word from \ainissomai\...mirror would be very different from...(Robertson and Plummer). {Face to face} (\pros“pon pros pros“pon\). Note triple use of \pros\ which means facing one as in strkjv@John:1:1|. \Pros“pon\ is old word from \pros\ and \ops\, eye, face. {Shall I know} (\epign“somai\). I shall fully (\epi-\) know. Future middle indicative as \gin“sk“\ (I know) is present active and \epegn“sthˆn\ (I was fully known) is first aorist passive (all three voices).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:39 @{The same flesh} (\hˆ autˆ sarx\)...is shown in the different kingdoms,...{Of beasts} (\ktˆn“n\). Old word, from \ktaomai\, to possess, and so property. See strkjv@Luke:10:34|. {Of birds} (\ptˆn“n\). Old word from \petomai\, to fly, winged, flying. Only here in N.T.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:42 @{Songs:is the resurrection of the dead} (\hout“s kai hˆ anastasis t“n nekr“n\). Paul now applies his illustrations to his argument to prove the kind of body we shall have after the resurrection. He does it by a series of marvellous contrasts that gather all his points. The earthly and the risen beings differ in duration, value, power (Wendt). {It is sown} (\speiretai\). In death, like the seed (37|). {In incorruption} (\en aphtharsiƒi\). Late word from \a\ privative and \phtheir“\, to corrupt. In LXX, Plutarch, Philo, late papyrus of a Gnostic gospel, and quotation from Epicurus. Vulgate _incorruptio_...but it is a different body...

rwp@Info_1John @ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL There are few scholars who deny that the Epistles of John and the Fourth Gospel are by the same writer. As a matter of fact "in the whole of the First Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel" (Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann (_Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie_, 1882, P. 128) in a series of articles on the "Problem of the First Epistle of St. John in its Relation to the Gospel" thinks that the similarities are closer than those between Luke's Gospel and the Acts. Baur argued that this fact was explained by conscious imitation on the part of one or the other, probably by the author of the Epistle. The solution lies either in identity of authorship or in imitation. If there is identity of authorship, Holtzmann argues that the Epistle is earlier, as seems to me to be true, while Brooke holds that the Gospel is the earlier and that the First Epistle represents the more complete ideas of the author. Both Holtzmann and Brooke give a detailed comparison of likenesses between the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, syntax, style, ideas. The arguments are not conclusive as to the priority of Epistle or Gospel, but they are as to identity of authorship. One who accepts, as I do, the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel for the reasons given in Volume V of this series, does not feel called upon to prove the Johannine authorship of the three Epistles that pass under the Apostle's name. Westcott suggests that one compare strkjv@John:1:1-18| with strkjv@1John:1:1-4|...the same ideas in different connections....

rwp@1John:2:19 @{From us} (\ex hˆm“n\) {--of us} (\ex hˆm“n\). The same idiom, \ex\ and the ablative case (\hˆm“n\), but in different senses to correspond with \exˆlthan\ (they went out from our membership) and \ouk ˆsan\ (they were not of us in spirit and life). For \ex\ in the sense of origin see strkjv@John:17:15|, for \ex\ in the sense of likeness, strkjv@John:17:14|. {For if they had been of us} (\ei gar ex hˆm“n ˆsan\). Condition of second class with \ei\ and imperfect tense (no aorist for \eimi\). {They would have continued} (\memenˆkeisan an\). Past perfect of \men“\, to remain, without augment, with \an\ in apodosis of second-class condition. {With us} (\meth' hˆm“n\). In fellowship, for which see \meta\ in strkjv@1:3|. They had lost the inner fellowship and then apparently voluntarily broke the outward. {But they went} (\all'\). Ellipsis of the verb \exˆlthan\ above, a common habit (ellipse) in John s Gospel (1:8; strkjv@9:3; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@15:25|). {That they might be made manifest} (\hina phaner“th“sin\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \phanero“\, for which verb see strkjv@John:21:1; strkjv@Colossians:3:4|. See strkjv@2Corinthians:3:3| for the personal construction with \hoti\ as here. {They all are not} (\ouk eisin pantes\). Not just some, but all, as in strkjv@2:21; strkjv@3:5|. These antichrists are thus revealed in their true light.

rwp@1John:4:18 @{Fear} (\phobos\). Like a bond-slave (Romans:8:15|), not the reverence of a son (\eulabeia\, strkjv@Hebrews:5:7f.|) or the obedience to a father (\en phob“i\, strkjv@1Peter:1:17|). This kind of dread is the opposite of \parrˆsia\ (boldness). {Perfect love} (\hˆ teleia agapˆ\). There is such a thing, perfect because it has been perfected (verses 12,17|). Cf. strkjv@James:1:4|. {Casteth out fear} (\ex“ ballei ton phobon\). "Drives fear out" so that it does not exist in real love. See \ekball“ ex“\ in strkjv@John:6:37; strkjv@9:34f.; strkjv@12:31; strkjv@15:6| to turn out-of-doors, a powerful metaphor. Perfect love harbours no suspicion and no dread (1Corinthians:13|). {Hath punishment} (\kolasin echei\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:25:46|. \Tim“ria\ has only the idea of penalty, \kolasis\ has also that of discipline, while \paideia\ has that of chastisement (Hebrews:12:7|). The one who still dreads (\phoboumenos\) has not been made perfect in love (\ou tetelei“tai\). Bengel graphically describes different types of men: "sine timore et amore; cum timore sine amore; cum timore et amore; sine timore cum amore."

rwp@1John:5:18 @{We know} (\oidamen\). As in strkjv@3:2,14; strkjv@5:15,19,20|. He has "ye know" in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:5,15|. {Sinneth not} (\ouch hamartanei\). Lineal present active indicative, "does not keep on sinning," as he has already shown in strkjv@3:4-10|. {He that was begotten of God} (\ho gennˆtheis ek tou theou\). First aorist passive articular participle referring to Christ, if the reading of A B is correct (\tˆrei auton\, not \tˆrei heauton\). It is Christ who keeps the one begotten of God (\gegennˆmenos ek tou theou\ as in strkjv@3:9| and so different from \ho gennˆtheis\ here). It is a difficult phrase, but this is probably the idea. Jesus (John:18:37|) uses \gegennˆmai\ of himself and uses also \tˆre“\ of keeping the disciples (John:17:12,15; strkjv@Revelation:3:10|). {The evil one} (\ho ponˆros\). Masculine and personal as in strkjv@2:13|, not neuter, and probably Satan as in strkjv@Matthew:6:13|, not just any evil man. {Touchest him not} (\ouch haptetai autou\). Present middle indicative of \hapt“\, elsewhere in John only strkjv@John:20:17|. It means to lay hold of or to grasp rather than a mere superficial touch (\thiggan“\, both in strkjv@Colossians:2:21|). Here the idea is to touch to harm. The devil cannot snatch such a man from Christ (John:6:38f.|).

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.|...that is a very different thing...(eschatology). It is a rare preacher who has never been misunderstood or misrepresented.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:12 @{Them that labour among you} (\tous kopi“ntas en humin\). Old word for toil even if weary. {And are over you in the Lord} (\kai proistamenous hum“n en Kuri“i\). Same article with this participle. Literally, those who stand in front of you, your leaders in the Lord, the presbyters or bishops and deacons. Get acquainted with them and follow them. {And admonish you} (\kai nouthetountas humas\). Old verb from \nouthetˆs\ and this from \nous\ (mind) and \tithˆmi\...connects all three participles, different functions...

rwp@1Timothy:1:3 @{As I exhorted} (\kath“s parekalesa\). There is an ellipse of the principal clause in verse 4| ({so do I now} not being in the Greek). {To tarry} (\prosmeinai\). First aorist active infinitive of \prosmen“\, old verb, attributed by Luke to Paul in strkjv@Acts:13:43|. {That thou mightest charge} (\hina paraggeilˆis\). Subfinal clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \paraggell“\, old verb, to transmit a message along (\para\) from one to another. See strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:4,6,10|. Lock considers this idiom here an elliptical imperative like strkjv@Ephesians:4:29; strkjv@5:33|. {Certain men} (\tisin\). Dative case. Expressly vague (no names as in strkjv@1:20|), though Paul doubtless has certain persons in Ephesus in mind. {Not to teach a different doctrine} (\mˆ heterodidaskalein\). Earliest known use of this compound like \kakodidaskalein\ of Clement of Rome. Only other N.T. example in strkjv@6:3|. Eusebius has \heterodidaskalos\. Same idea in strkjv@Galatians:1:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4; strkjv@Romans:16:17|. Perhaps coined by Paul.

rwp@1Timothy:6:3 @{Teacheth a different doctrine} (\heterodidaskalei\). See strkjv@1:3| for this verb, present active indicative here in condition of first class. {Consenteth not} (\mˆ proserchetai\). Also condition of first class with \mˆ\ instead of \ou\. \Proserchomai\ (old verb, to come to, to approach, with dative) is common enough in N.T. (Hebrews:4:16; strkjv@7:25|, etc.), but in the metaphorical sense of coming to one's ideas, assenting to, here only in N.T., but is so used in Philo and Irenaeus (Ellicott). {Sound words} (\hugiainousin logois\). See strkjv@1:10| for \hugiain“\. {The words of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tois tou kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). Either subjective genitive (the words from the Lord Jesus, a collection of his sayings in Lock's opinion like strkjv@5:18; strkjv@Acts:20:35|, at least in the Spirit of Jesus as strkjv@Acts:16:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23|) or objective genitive about Jesus like strkjv@2Timothy:1:8; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:18|. {According to godliness} (\kata eusebeian\). Promoting (designed for) godliness as in strkjv@Titus:1:1|.

rwp@2Corinthians:6:14 @{Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers} (\mˆ ginesthe heterozugountes apistois\). No other example of this verb has yet been found, though the adjective from which it is apparently formed, \heterozugos\ (yoked with a different yoke) occurs in strkjv@Leviticus:19:19|...union of beasts of different kinds....22:10| we read: "Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together." Literally, "Stop becoming (\mˆ ginesthe\ present imperative, not \mˆ genˆsthe\ aorist subj.) unequally yoked with unconverted heathen (unbelievers)." Some were already guilty. Marriage is certainly included, but other unions may be in mind. Cf. strkjv@Ephesians:5:7|. Paul gives as the reason (\gar\) for this prohibition five words in questions to distinguish the contrasts. {Fellowship} (\metochˆ\). Sharing with and followed by associative instrumental case of \dikaiosunˆi\ (righteousness) and iniquity (\anomiƒi\). A pertinent challenge today when church members wink at violations of laws of the land and laws of God. {Communion} (\koin“nia\). Partnership to light (\ph“ti\ dative case) with (\pros\), facing darkness.

rwp@2Corinthians:9:4 @{If there come with me any of Macedonia and find you unprepared} (\ean elth“sin sun emoi Makedones kai heur“sin humas aparaskeuastous\). Condition of third class (undetermined, but stated as a lively possibility) with \ean\ and the second aorist active subjunctive (\elth“sin, heur“sin\), a bold and daring challenge. \Aparaskeuastos\ is a late and rare verbal adjective from \paraskeuaz“\ with \a\ privative, only here in the N.T. {Lest by any means we should be put to shame} (\mˆ p“s kataischunth“men hˆmeis\). Negative purpose with first aorist passive subjunctive of \kataischun“\ (see on ¯7:14|) in the literary plural. {That we say not, ye} (\hina mˆ leg“men humeis\). A delicate syntactical turn for what he really has in mind. He does wish that they become ashamed of not paying their pledges. {Confidence} (\hupostasei\). This word, common from Aristotle on, comes from \huphistˆmi\, to place under. It always has the notion of substratum or foundation as here; strkjv@11:17; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3|. The papyri give numerous examples (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) of the word for "property" in various aspects. Songs:in strkjv@Hebrews:11:1| "faith is the title-...LXX it represents fifteen different Hebrew...

rwp@2Corinthians:10:3 @{In the flesh} (\en sarki\)...that is a very different thing...\kata sarka\ according to the standards of the flesh as his enemies charged. It is easy enough to make insinuations. {We war} (\strateuometha\). Literary plural again after \logizomai\ in verse 2|. Old word to lead an army (\stratos\). In N.T. only in the middle as here. Paul admits that he fights, but only the devil and his agents even if wearing the livery of heaven. Paul knew the Roman army well. He knows how to use the military metaphor.

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

rwp@2Corinthians:11:4 @{Another Jesus} (\allon Iˆsoun\). Not necessarily a different Jesus, but any other "Jesus" is a rival and so wrong. That would deny the identity. {A different spirit} (\pneuma heteron\). This is the obvious meaning of \heteron\ in distinction from \allon\ as seen in strkjv@Acts:4:12; strkjv@Galatians:1:6f|. But this distinction in nature or kind is not always to be insisted on. {A different gospel} (\euaggelion heteron\). Similar use of \heteron\. {Ye do well to bear with him} (\kal“s anechesthe\). Ironical turn again. "Well do you hold yourselves back from him" (the coming one, whoever he is). Some MSS. have the imperfect \aneichesthe\ (did bear with).

rwp@2Corinthians:11:28 @{Besides those things that are without} (\ch“ris t“n parektos\). Probably, "apart from those things beside these just mentioned." Surely no man ever found glory in such a peck of troubles as Paul has here recounted. His list should shame us all today who are disposed to find fault with our lot. {That which presseth upon me daily} (\hˆ epistasis moi hˆ kath' hˆmeran\). For this vivid word \epistasis\ see strkjv@Acts:24:12|, the only other place in the N.T. where it occurs. It is like the rush of a mob upon Paul. {Anxiety for all the churches} (\hˆ merimna pas“n t“n ekklˆsi“n\). Objective genitive after \merimna\ (distractions in different directions, from \meriz“\) for which word see on ¯Matthew:13:22|. Paul had the shepherd heart. As apostle to the Gentiles he had founded most of these churches.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorˆge“\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophˆteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\...is that Peter employed different amanuenses....(1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai idi“tai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE RESEMBLANCE TO THE EPISTLE OF JUDE This is undoubted, particularly between Jude:and the second chapter of II Peter. Kuhl argues that strkjv@2Peter:2:1-3:2| is an interpolation, though the same style runs through out the Epistle. "The theory of interpolation is always a last and desperate expedient" (Bigg). In II Peter 2 we have the fallen angels, the flood, the cities of the plain with Lot, Balaam. In Jude:we have Israel in the wilderness, the fallen angels, the cities of the plain (with no mention of Lot, Cain, Balaam, Korah)...and argued differently by different writers....(just before) II Peter, though it is only a feeling and not a conviction.

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

rwp@2Timothy:4:14 @{Alexander the coppersmith} (\Alexandros ho chalkeus\). Old word, only here in N.T., for metal-worker (copper, iron, gold, etc.). Possibly the one in strkjv@1:20|, but not the one in strkjv@Acts:19:33f.| unless he afterwards became a Christian. {Did me much evil} (\moi kaka enedeixato\). Evidently he had some personal dislike towards Paul and possibly also he was a Gnostic. {Will render} (\apod“sei\). Future active of the same verb used in verse 8|...but with a very different atmosphere....

rwp@Acts:1:19 @{Language} (\dialekt“i\)...the Greek, but a different language,...2:6; strkjv@21:40|. \Dialektos\ is from \dialegomai\, to converse, to speak between two (\dia\). {Akeldama} (\Hakeldamach\). This Aramaic word Peter explains as "the field of blood." Two traditions are preserved: one in strkjv@Matthew:27:7| which explains that the priests purchased this potter's field with the money which Judas flung down as the price of the blood of Jesus. The other in Acts describes it as the field of blood because Judas poured out his blood there. Hackett and Knowling argue that both views can be true. "The ill-omened name could be used with a double emphasis" (Hackett).

rwp@Acts:2:11 @{Cretes and Arabians}. These two groups "seem to have been added to the list as an afterthought" (Knowling)...of Jews spoke a different language,...{We do hear them speaking} (\akouomen lalount“n aut“n\). Genitive case \aut“n\ with \akou“\ the participle \lalount“n\ agreeing with \aut“n\, a sort of participial idiom of indirect discourse (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1040ff.). {The mighty works} (\ta megaleia\). Old adjective for magnificent. In LXX, but only here (not genuine in strkjv@Luke:1:49|) in the N.T. Cf. strkjv@2Peter:1:16| for \megaleiotˆs\ (majesty).

rwp@Acts:2:17 @{In the last days} (\en tais eschatais hˆmerais\). Joel does not have precisely these words, but he defines "those days" as being "the day of the Lord" (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:2:2; strkjv@Micah:4:1|). {I will pour forth} (\ekche“\). Future active indicative of \ekche“\. This future like \edomai\ and \piomai\ is without tense sign, probably like the present in the futuristic sense (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 354)...and Hort put a different accent...\ekcheus“\. This verb means to pour out. {Of my Spirit} (\apo tou pneumatos\). This use of \apo\ (of) is either because of the variety in the manifestations of the Spirit (1Corinthians:12|) or because the Spirit in his entirety remains with God (Holtzmann, Wendt). But the Hebrew has it: "I will pour out my Spirit" without the partitive idea in the LXX. {And your daughters} (\kai hai thugateres h–m“n\). Anna is called a prophetess in strkjv@Luke:2:36| and the daughters of Philip prophesy (Acts:21:9|) and verse 18| (handmaidens). See also strkjv@1Corinthians:11:5| (\prophˆtousa\). {Visions} (\horaseis\). Late word for the more common \horama\, both from \hora“\, to see. In strkjv@Revelation:4:3| it means appearance, but in strkjv@Revelation:9:17| as here an ecstatic revelation or vision. {Dream dreams} (\enupniois enupniasthˆsontai\). Shall dream with (instrumental case) dreams. First future passive of \enupniaz“\ from \enupnios\ (\en\ and \hupnos\, in sleep), a common late word. Only here in the N.T. (this from Joel as all these verses 17-21| are) and strkjv@Jude:1:8|. {Yea and} (\kai ge\). Intensive particle \ge\ added to \kai\ (and), an emphatic addition (=Hebrew _vegam_). {Servants} (\doulous\), {handmaidens} (\doulas\). Slaves, actual slaves of men. The humblest classes will receive the Spirit of God (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26-31|). But the word "prophesy" here is not in the LXX (or the Hebrew).

rwp@Acts:2:33 @{By the right hand of God} (\tˆi dexiƒi tou theou\). This translation makes it the instrumental case. The margin has it "at" instead of "by," that is the locative case. And it will make sense in the true dative case, "to the right hand of God." These three cases came to have the same form in Greek. strkjv@Romans:8:24| furnishes another illustration of like ambiguity (\tˆi elpidi\), saved by hope, in hope, or for hope. Usually it is quite easy to tell the case when the form is identical. {Exalted} (\hups“theis\). First aorist passive participle of \hupso“\, to lift up. Here both the literal and tropical sense occurs. Cf. strkjv@John:12:32|. {The promise of the Holy Spirit} (\tˆn epaggelian tou pneumatos tou hagiou\). The promise mentioned in strkjv@1:4| and now come true, consisting in the Holy Spirit "from the Father" (\para tou patros\), sent by the Father and by the Son (John:15:26; strkjv@16:7|). See also strkjv@Galatians:3:14|. {He hath poured forth} (\execheen\). Aorist active indicative of \ekche“\ the verb used by Joel and quoted by Peter already in verses 17,18|. Jesus has fulfilled his promise. {This which ye see and hear} (\touto ho humeis kai blepete kai akouete\)...each of them, the different languages...120. "The proof was before their eyes in this new energy from heaven" (Furneaux), a culminating demonstration that Jesus was the Messiah.

rwp@Acts:7:18 @{Another king} (\basileus heteros\). A different kind of king also, probably a king of the new dynasty after the shepherd kings had been expelled from Egypt. {Who knew not Joseph} (\hos ouk ˆidei ton I“sˆph\). Second past perfect of \oida\ used like an imperfect. Joseph's history and services meant nothing to the new king. "The previous dynasty had been that of the Hyksos: the new king was Ahmes who drove out the Hyksos" (Knobel).

rwp@Acts:10:10 @{Hungry} (\prospeinos\) Only instance of the word known, a \hapax legomenon\. Probably "very hungry" (\pros\=besides, in addition). {Desired} (\ˆthelen\). Imperfect active. Was longing to eat. It was about twelve o'clock noon and Peter may even have smelt the savory dishes, "while they made ready" (\paraskeuazont“n\). "The natural and the supernatural border closely on one another, with no definable limits" (Furneaux). {He fell into a trance} (\egeneto ep' auton ekstasis\). More exactly, "An ecstasy came upon him," in which trance he passed out of himself (\ekstasis\, from \existˆmi\) and from which one came to himself (12:11|). Cf. also strkjv@11:5; strkjv@22:17|. It is thus different from a vision (\horama\) as in verse 3|.

rwp@Acts:11:8 @{Came into my mouth} (\eisˆlthen eis to stoma mou\). Instead of \ephagon\ (I ate) in strkjv@10:14|. Different phrase for the same idea.

rwp@Acts:12:18 @{As soon as it was day} (\Genomenˆs hˆmeras\). Genitive absolute, day having come. {No small stir} (\tarachos ouk oligos\). Litotes (\ouk oligos\), occurs eight times in the Acts as in strkjv@15:2|, and nowhere else in the N.T. \Tarachos\ (stir) is an old word from \tarass“\, to agitate. In the N.T only here and strkjv@19:23|. Probably all sixteen soldiers were agitated over this remarkable escape. They were responsible for the prisoner with their lives (cf. strkjv@Acts:16:27; strkjv@27:42|). Furneaux suggests that Manaen, the king's foster-brother and a Christian (13:1|), was the "angel" who rescued Peter from the prison. That is not the way that Peter looked at it. {What was become of Peter} (\ti ara ho Petros egeneto\). An indirect question with the aorist indicative retained. \Ara\ adds a syllogism (therefore) to the problem as in strkjv@Luke:1:66|. The use of the neuter \ti\ (as in strkjv@Acts:13:25|) is different from \tis\, though nominative like \Petros\, literally, "what then Peter had become," "what had happened to Peter" (in one idiom). See the same idiom in strkjv@John:21:21| (\houtos de ti\). {But this one what} (verb \genˆsetai\ not used).

rwp@Acts:13:49 @{Was spread abroad} (\diephereto\). Imperfect passive of \diapher“\, to carry in different directions (\dia\). By the recent converts as well as by Paul and Barnabas. This would seem to indicate a stay of some months with active work among the Gentiles that bore rich fruit. {Throughout all the region} (\di' holˆs tˆs ch“ras\). Antioch in Pisidia as a Roman colony would be the natural centre of a Roman _Regio_, an important element in Roman imperial administration. There were probably other _Regiones_ in South Galatia (Ramsay, _St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen_, pp. 102-12).

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:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai t“n Epikouri“n kai St“ik“n philosoph“n suneballon aut“i\). Imperfect active of \sunball“\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15|...but they were very different in...(\Gn“thi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg“\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zen“n daimoni“n dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei S“kratˆs, kaina daimonia eispher“n\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Iˆsoun kai tˆn anastasin euˆggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz“\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@Acts:17:19 @{And they took hold of him} (\epilabomenoi de autou\). Second aorist middle participle of \epilamban“\, old verb, but in the N.T. only in the middle, here with the genitive \autou\ to lay hold of, but with no necessary sense of violence (Acts:9:27; strkjv@23:27; strkjv@Mark:8:23|), unless the idea is that Paul was to be tried before the Court of Areopagus for the crime of bringing in strange gods. But the day for that had passed in Athens. Even so it is not clear whether "{unto the Areopagus} (\epi ton Areion Pagon\") means the Hill of Mars (west of the Acropolis, north of the agora and reached by a flight of steps in the rock) or the court itself which met elsewhere as well as on the hills, usually in fact in the Stoa Basilica opening on the agora and near to the place where the dispute had gone on. Raphael's cartoon with Paul standing on Mars Hill has made us all familiar with the common view, but it is quite uncertain if it is true. There was not room on the summit for a large gathering. If Paul was brought before the Court of Areopagus (commonly called the Areopagus as here)...to their cognizance very different from...(Rackham). It was all very polite. {May we know?} (\Dunametha gn“nai\). Can we come to know (ingressive second aorist active infinitive). {This new teaching} (\hˆ kainˆ hautˆ didachˆ\). On the position of \hautˆ\ see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 700f. The question was prompted by courtesy, sarcasm, or irony. Evidently no definite charge was laid against Paul.

rwp@Acts:17:26 @{And he made of one} (\epoiˆsen te ex henos\). The word \haimatos\ (blood) is absent from Aleph A B and is a later explanatory addition. What Paul affirms is the unity of the human race with a common origin and with God as the Creator. This view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan (the Jews were \laos\, the Gentiles \ethnˆ\). The cosmopolitanism of Paul here rises above Jew and Greek and claims the one God as the Creator of the one race of men. The Athenians themselves claimed to be \antochthonous\ (indigenous) and a special creation. Zeno and Seneca did teach a kind of cosmopolitanism (really pantheism) far different from the personal God of Paul. It was Rome, not Greece, that carried out the moral ideas of Zeno. Man is part of the universe (verse 24|) and God created (\epoiˆsen\) man as he created (\poiˆsas\) the all. {For to dwell} (\katoikein\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose, so as to dwell. {Having determined} (\horisas\). First aorist active participle of \horiz“\, old verb to make a horizon as already in strkjv@19:42| which see. Paul here touches God's Providence. God has revealed himself in history as in creation. His hand appears in the history of all men as well as in that of the Chosen People of Israel. {Appointed seasons} (\prostetagmenous kairous\). Not the weather as in strkjv@14:17|, but "the times of the Gentiles" (\kairoi ethn“n\) of which Jesus spoke (Luke:21:24|). The perfect passive participle of \prostass“\, old verb to enjoin, emphasizes God's control of human history without any denial of human free agency as was involved in the Stoic Fate (\Heirmarmenˆ\). {Bounds} (\horothesias\). Limits? Same idea in strkjv@Job:12:23|. Nations rise and fall, but it is not blind chance or hard fate. Thus there is an interplay between God's will and man's activities, difficult as it is for us to see with our shortened vision.

rwp@Acts:18:12 @{When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia} (\Galli“nos de anthupatou ontos tˆs Achaias\). Genitive absolute of present participle \ontos\. Brother of Seneca the Stoic (Nero's tutor) and uncle of Lucan the author of the \Pharsalia\. His original name was M. Annaeus Novatus till he was adopted by Gallio the rhetorician. The family was Spanish. Gallio was a man of culture and refinement and may have been chosen proconsul of Achaia for this reason. Statius calls him "_dulcis Gallio_." Seneca says of him: _Nemo enim mortalium uni tam dulcis quam hic omnibus_ (No one of mortals is so pleasant to one person as he is to all). Luke alone among writers says that he was proconsul, but Seneca speaks of his being in Achaia where he caught fever, a corroboration of Luke. But now a whitish grey limestone inscription from the Hagios Elias quarries near Delphi (a letter of Claudius to Delphi) has been found which definitely names Gallio as proconsul of Achaia (\authupatos tˆs Achaias\). The province of Achaia after various shifts (first senatorial, then imperial) back and forth with Macedonia, in A.D. 44 Claudius gave back to the Senate with proconsul as the title of the governor. It is amazing how Luke is confirmed whenever a new discovery is made. The discovery of this inscription has thrown light also on the date of Paul's work in Corinth as it says that Gallio came in the 26th acclamation of Claudius as Emperor in A.D. 51, that would definitely fix the time of Paul in Corinth as A.D. 50 and 51 (or 51 and 52). Deissmann has a full and able discussion of the whole matter in Appendix I to his _St. Paul_. {Rose up} (\katepestˆsan\). Second aorist active of \kat-eph-istˆmi\, intransitive, to take a stand against, a double compound verb found nowhere else. They took a stand (\estˆsan\) against (\kata\, down on, \epi\, upon), they made a dash or rush at Paul as if they would stand it no longer. {Before the judgment seat} (\epi to bˆma\). See on ¯12:21|. The proconsul was sitting in the basilica in the forum or agora. The Jews had probably heard of his reputation for moderation and sought to make an impression as they had on the praetors of Philippi by their rush (\sunepestˆ\, strkjv@16:22|). The new proconsul was a good chance also (25:2|). Songs:for the second time Paul faces a Roman proconsul (Sergius Paulus, strkjv@13:7|) though under very different circumstances.

rwp@Acts:19:11 @{Special miracles} (\dunameis ou tas tuchousas\). "Powers not the ones that happen by chance," "not the ordinary ones," litotes for "the extraordinary." All "miracles" or "powers" (\dunameis\) are supernatural and out of the ordinary, but here God regularly wrought (\epoiei\), imperfect active)...the disciples and completely different from...(also strkjv@28:2|), but it occurs in the classical Greek and in the _Koin‚_ as in III Macc. strkjv@3:7 and in papyri and inscriptions (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 255). In Samaria Philip wrought miracles to deliver the people from the influence of Simon Magus. Here in Ephesus exorcists and other magicians had built an enormous vogue of a false spiritualism and Paul faces unseen forces of evil. His tremendous success led some people to superstitious practices thinking that there was power in Paul's person.

rwp@Acts:19:35 @{The town-clerk} (\ho grammateus\). Ephesus was a free city and elected its own officers and the recorder or secretary was the chief magistrate of the city, though the proconsul of the province of Asia resided there. This officer is not a mere secretary of another officer or like the copyists and students of the law among the Jews, but the most influential person in Ephesus who drafted decrees with the aid of the \stratˆgoi\...precise function varied in different cities....{Had quieted the multitude} (\katasteilas ton ochlon\). First aorist active participle of \katastell“\, to send down, arrange dress (Euripides), lower (Plutarch), restrain (papyrus example), only twice in the N.T. (here and verse 36|, be quiet), but in LXX and Josephus. He evidently took the rostrum and his very presence as the city's chief officer had a quieting effect on the billowy turmoil and a semblance of order came. He waited, however, till the hubbub had nearly exhausted itself (two hours) and did not speak till there was a chance to be heard. {Saith} (\phˆsin\). Historical present for vividness. {How that}. Merely participle \ousan\ and accusative \polin\ in indirect discourse, no conjunction at all (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1040ff.), common idiom after \gin“sk“\, to know. {Temple-keeper} (\ne“koron\). Old word from \ne“s\ (\naos)\, temple, and \kore“\, to sweep. Warden, verger, cleaner of the temple, a sacristan. Songs:in Xenophon and Plato. Inscriptions so describe Ephesus as \ne“koron tˆs Artemidos\ as Luke has it here and also applied to the imperial _cultus_ which finally had several such temples in Ephesus. Other cities claimed the same honour of being \ne“koros\, but it was the peculiar boast of Ephesus because of the great temple of Artemis. A coin of A.D. 65 describes Ephesus as \ne“koros\. There are papyri examples of the term applied to individuals, one to Priene as \ne“koros\ of the temple in Ephesus (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). {And of the image which fell down from Jupiter} (\kai tou diopetous\). Supply \agalma\ (image), "the from heaven-fallen image." From Zeus (\Dios\) and \pet“\ (\pipt“, pipet“\), to fall. Zeus (Jupiter) was considered lord of the sky or heaven and that is the idea in \diopetous\ here. The legend about a statue fallen from heaven occurs concerning the statue of Artemis at Tauris, Minerva at Athens, etc. Thus the recorder soothed the vanity (Rackham) of the crowd by appeal to the world-wide fame of Ephesus as sacristan of Artemis and of her heaven-fallen image.

rwp@Acts:20:35 @{I gave you an example} (\hupedeixa\). First aorist active indicative of \hupodeiknumi\, old verb to show under one's eyes, to give object lesson, by deed as well as by word (Luke:6:47|). \Hupodeigma\ means example (John:13:15; strkjv@James:5:10|). Songs:Paul appeals to his example in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:17|. \Panta\ is accusative plural of general reference (in all things). {Songs:labouring ye ought to help} (\hout“s kopi“ntas dei antilambanesthai\). So, as I did. Necessity (\dei\). Toiling (\kopi“ntas\) not just for ourselves, but to help (\antilambanesthai\), to take hold yourselves (middle voice) at the other end (\anti\). This verb common in the old Greek, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:54; strkjv@Acts:20:35; strkjv@1Timothy:6:2|. This noble plea to help the weak is the very spirit of Christ (1Thessalonians:5:14; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28; strkjv@Romans:5:6; strkjv@14:1|). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| \antechesthe t“n asthenount“n\ we have Paul's very idea again. Every Community Chest appeal today re-echoes Paul's plea. {He himself said} (\autos eipen\). Not in the Gospels, one of the sayings of Jesus in current use that Paul had received and treasured. Various other _Agrapha_ of Jesus have been preserved in ancient writers and some in recently discovered papyri which may be genuine or not. We are grateful that Paul treasured this one. This Beatitude (on \makarion\ see on strkjv@Matthew:5:3-11|) is illustrated by the whole life of Jesus with the Cross as the culmination. Aristotle (Eth. IV. I) has a saying somewhat like this, but assigns the feeling of superiority as the reason (Page), an utterly different idea from that here. This quotation raises the question of how much Paul personally knew of the life and sayings of Jesus.

rwp@Acts:21:8 @{On the morrow} (\tˆi epaurion\). Another and the more common way of expressing this idea of "next day" besides the three in strkjv@20:15| and the one in strkjv@21:1|. {Unto Caesarea} (\eis Kaisarian\). Apparently by land as the voyage (\ploun\) ended at Ptolemais (verse 7|). Caesarea is the political capital of Judea under the Romans where the procurators lived and a city of importance, built by Herod the Great and named in honour of Augustus. It had a magnificent harbour built Most of the inhabitants were Greeks. This is the third time that we have seen Paul in Caesarea, on his journey from Jerusalem to Tarsus (Acts:9:30|), on his return from Antioch at the close of the second mission tour (18:22|) and now. The best MSS. omit \hoi peri Paulou\ (we that were of Paul's company) a phrase like that in strkjv@13:13|. {Into the house of Philip the evangelist} (\eis ton oikon Philippou tou euaggelistou\). Second in the list of the seven (6:5|) after Stephen and that fact mentioned here. By this title he is distinguished from "Philip the apostle," one of the twelve. His evangelistic work followed the death of Stephen (Acts:8|) in Samaria, Philistia, with his home in Caesarea. The word "evangelizing" (\euˆggelizeto\) was used of him in strkjv@8:40|. The earliest of the three N.T. examples of the word "evangelist" (Acts:21:8; strkjv@Ephesians:4:11; strkjv@2Timothy:4:5|). Apparently a word used to describe one who told the gospel story as Philip did and may have been used of him first of all as John was termed "the baptizer" (\ho baptiz“n\, strkjv@Mark:1:4|), then "the Baptist" (\ho baptistˆs\, strkjv@Matthew:3:1|). It is found on an inscription in one of the Greek islands of uncertain date and was used in ecclesiastical writers of later times on the Four Gospels as we do. As used here the meaning is a travelling missionary who "gospelized" communities. This is probably Paul's idea in strkjv@2Timothy:4:5|. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|...them today. Men have different gifts...{We abode with him}" (\emeinamen par' aut“i\). Constative aorist active indicative. \Par aut“i\ (by his side) is a neat idiom for "at his house." What a joyful time Paul had in conversation with Philip. He could learn from him much of value about the early days of the gospel in Jerusalem. And Luke could, and probably did, take notes from Philip and his daughters about the beginnings of Christian history. It is generally supposed that the "we" sections of Acts represent a travel document by Luke (notes made by him as he journeyed from Troas to Rome). Those who deny the Lukan authorship of the whole book usually admit this. Songs:we may suppose that Luke is already gathering data for future use. If so, these were precious days for him.

rwp@Acts:22:1 @{Brethren and fathers} (\Andres adelphoi kai pateres\) Men, brethren, and fathers. The very language used by Stephen (7:2|) when arraigned before the Sanhedrin with Paul then present. Now Paul faces a Jewish mob on the same charges brought against Stephen. These words are those of courtesy and dignity (_amoris et honoris nomina_, Page). These men were Paul's brother Jews and were (many of them) official representatives of the people (Sanhedrists, priests, rabbis). Paul's purpose is conciliatory, he employs "his ready tact" (Rackham). {The defence which I now make unto you} (\mou tˆs pros humas nuni apologias\). Literally, My defence to you at this time. \Nuni\ is a sharpened form (by \-i\) of \nun\ (now), just now. The term \apologia\ (apology) is not our use of the word for apologizing for an offence, but the original sense of defence for his conduct, his life. It is an old word from \apologeomai\, to talk oneself off a charge, to make defence. It occurs also in strkjv@Acts:25:16| and then also in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11; strkjv@Phillipians:1:7,16; strkjv@2Timothy:4:16; strkjv@1Peter:3:15|. Paul uses it again in strkjv@Acts:25:16| as here about his defence against the charges made by the Jews from Asia. He is suspected of being a renegade from the Mosaic law and charged with specific acts connected with the alleged profanation of the temple. Songs:Paul speaks in Aramaic and recites the actual facts connected with his change from Judaism to Christianity. The facts make the strongest argument. He first recounts the well-known story of his zeal for Judaism in the persecution of the Christians and shows why the change came. Then he gives a summary of his work among the Gentiles and why he came to Jerusalem this time. He answers the charge of enmity to the people and the law and of desecration of the temple. It is a speech of great skill and force, delivered under remarkable conditions. The one in chapter strkjv@Acts:26|...but for a slightly different purpose...9|. Luke has not been careful to make every detail correspond, though there is essential agreement in all three.

rwp@Acts:24:1 @{And with an Orator, one Tertullus} (\kai rhˆtoros Tertullou tinos\). A deputation of elders along with the high priest Ananias, not the whole Sanhedrin, but no hint of the forty conspirators or of the Asian Jews. The Sanhedrin had become divided so that now it is probably Ananias (mortally offended) and the Sadducees who take the lead in the prosecution of Paul. It is not clear whether after five days is from Paul's departure from Jerusalem or his arrival in Caesarea. If he spent nine days in Jerusalem, then the five days would be counted from then (verse 11|). The employment of a Roman lawyer (Latin _orator_) was necessary since the Jews were not familiar with Roman legal procedure and it was the custom in the provinces (Cicero _pro Cael_. 30). The speech was probably in Latin which Paul may have understood also. \Rhˆt“r\ is a common old Greek word meaning a forensic orator or advocate but here only in the N.T. The Latin _rhetor_...of rhetoric, a very different thing....(Romans:16:22|). {Informed} (\enephanisan\). Same verb as in strkjv@23:15,22|, somewhat like our modern "indictment," certainly accusations "against Paul" (\kata tou Paulou\). They were down on Paul and the hired barrister was prosecuting attorney. For the legal form see _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Vol. II., p. 162, line 19.

rwp@Acts:27:1 @{That we should sail} (\tou apoplein hˆmas\). This genitive articular infinitive with \ekrithˆ\ like the LXX construction translating the Hebrew infinitive construct is awkward in Greek. Several similar examples in strkjv@Luke:17:1; strkjv@Acts:10:25; strkjv@20:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1068). Luke alone uses this old verb in N.T. He uses nine compounds of \ple“\, to sail. Note the reappearance of "we" in the narrative. It is possible, of course, that Luke was not with Paul during the series of trials at Caesarea, or at least, not all the time. But it is natural for Luke to use "we" again because he and Aristarchus are travelling with Paul. In Caesarea Paul was the centre of the action all the time whether Luke was present or not. The great detail and minute accuracy of Luke's account of this voyage and shipwreck throw more light upon ancient seafaring than everything else put together. Smith's _Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_ is still a classic on the subject. Though so accurate in his use of sea terms, yet Luke writes like a landsman, not like a sailor. Besides, the character of Paul is here revealed in a remarkable fashion. {They delivered} (\paredidoun\). Imperfect active \“mega\ form rather than the old \-mi\ form \paredidosan\ as in strkjv@4:33|, from \paradid“mi\. Perhaps the imperfect notes the continuance of the handing over. {Certain other prisoners} (\tinas heterous desm“tas\). Bound (\desm“tas\) like Paul, but not necessarily appellants to Caesar, perhaps some of them condemned criminals to amuse the Roman populace in the gladiatorial shows, most likely pagans though \heterous\...not have to mean different kind...{Of the Augustan band} (\speirˆs Sebastˆs\). Note Ionic genitive \speirˆs\, not \speiras\. See on ¯Matthew:27:1; strkjv@Acts:10:1|. \Cohortis Augustae\. We do not really know why this cohort is called "Augustan." It may be that it is part of the imperial commissariat (_frumentarii_) since Julius assumes chief authority in the grain ship (verse 11|). These legionary centurions when in Rome were called _peregrini_ (foreigners) because their work was chiefly in the provinces. This man Julius may have been one of them.

rwp@Acts:27:27 @{As we were driven to and fro} (\diapheromen“n hˆm“n\). Genitive absolute with present passive participle of \diapher“\...old verb to bear different ways...(\dia=duo\, two), this way and that. Continued to be tossed to and fro in the rough seas. It would seem so to those on board. It does not necessarily mean that the wind had changed. The fourteenth night is reckoned from the time they left Fair Havens. {In the sea of Adria} (\en t“i Hadriƒi\). Not the Adriatic Sea as we now call the sea between Italy and the mainland of Illyricum, but all the lower Mediterranean between Italy and Greece. Luke's usage is like that of Strabo. {Surmised} (\hupenooun\). Imperfect active indicative of \huponoe“\, inchoative, began to suspect. {That they were drawing near to some country} (\prosagein tina autois ch“ran\). Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect assertion. \Prosag“\ is here used intransitively and Luke writes from the sailor's standpoint that a certain land was drawing near to them (\autois\, dative). The sailors heard the sound of breakers and grew uneasy.

rwp@... the refs to different chapters....2:14 does not fit into anything here,

rwp@ refs to different verses. changed to strkjv@1:2,14.

rwp@Ephesians:3:3 @{By revelation} (\kata apokalupsin\). Not essentially different from \di' apokalupse“s\ (Gal strkjv@1:12|). This was Paul's qualification for preaching "the mystery" (\to mustˆrion\. See strkjv@1:9|). {As I wrote afore} (\kath“s proegrapsa\). First aorist active indicative of \prograph“\ as in strkjv@Romans:15:4|, not picture forth as strkjv@Galatians:3:1|. But when and where? Epistolary aorist for this Epistle? That is possible. A previous and lost Epistle as in strkjv@1Corinthians:5:9|? That also is abstractly possible. To the preceding discussion of the Gentiles? Possible and also probable. {In few words} (\en olig“i\). Not = \pro oligou\, shortly before, but as in strkjv@Acts:26:28| "in brief space or time" = \sunton“s\ (Acts:24:4|), "briefly."

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

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ The study of Paul's Epistles in the order of their writing is the best possible way of seeing his own growth as a theologian and interpreter of Christ. Sabatier long ago laid emphasis on this point in his book _The Apostle Paul_ as did Matheson in _The Spiritual Development of Paul_. It is a tragedy to have to read Paul's Epistles as printed in the usual Greek text of Westcott and Hort and the English translations, beginning with Romans and ending with Philemon. In the manuscripts that give Paul's Epistles Romans comes first as the largest and most important, but Titus and Philemon come after II Timothy (the last just before his death). We know something of Paul's early preaching how he laid emphasis on the Messiahship of Jesus proven by his resurrection, Paul himself having seen the Risen Christ (Acts:9:22|). This conviction and experience lay at the foundation of all his work and he never faltered concerning it (Acts:17:3). In the earliest sermon of which we have a full report Paul proclaims justification by faith in Christ with forgiveness of sins (Acts:13:38f.|), blessings not obtained by the law of Moses. In the unfolding life of Paul he grappled with great problems of Jewish rabbinism and Greek philosophy and mystery-religions and Paul himself grew in stature as he courageously and victoriously faced Judaizer and Gnostic. There are scholars who claim that Paul surrendered to the appeal of Gnostic sacramentarianism and so went back on his great doctrine of justification by faith, not by works. It will be shown at the proper time that this view misinterprets Paul's attitude. The events given by Luke in the Acts fit in with the self-...various ways and in different moods....

rwp@Galatians:1:6 @{Ye are so quickly removing} (\hout“s tache“s metatithesthe\). The present middle indicative of \metatithˆmi\, to change places, to transfer. "You are transferring yourselves" and doing it "so quickly" either from the time of their conversion or most likely from the time when the Judaizers came and tempted them. Songs:easily some of them are falling victims to these perverters of the gospel. That is a continuous amazement (\thaumaz“\) to Paul and to men today that so many are so silly and so gullible to modern as to ancient charlatans. {Unto a different gospel} (\eis heteron euaggelion\). See on ¯2Corinthians:11:4| for distinction between \allo\ and \heteron\ as here. It is not here or there a mere difference in emphasis or spirit as in ¯Phillipians:1:18| so long as Christ is preached. These men as in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4| preach "another Jesus" and a "different gospel" and so have fallen away from grace and have done away with Christ (Galatians:5:4|). Hence the vehemence of Paul's words.

rwp@Galatians:1:7 @{Which is not another} (\ho ouk estin allo\). It is no "gospel" (good news) at all, but a yoke of bondage to the law and the abolition of grace. There is but one gospel and that is of grace, not works. The relative \ho\ (which) refers to \heteron euaggelion\ (a different gospel) "taken as a single term and designating the erroneous teachings of the Judaizers" (Burton). {Only} (\ei mˆ\). Literally, "except," that is, "Except in this sense," "in that it is an attempt to pervert the one true gospel" (Lightfoot). {Who disturb you} (\hoi tarassontes\). The disturbers. This very verb \tarass“\ is used in strkjv@Acts:17:8| of the Jews in Thessalonica who "disturbed" the politarchs and the people about Paul. {Would pervert} (\thelontes metastrepsai\). "Wish to turn about," change completely as in strkjv@Acts:2:20; strkjv@James:4:9|. The very existence of the gospel of Christ was at stake.

rwp@Galatians:3:1 @{Who did bewitch you?} (\tis humas ebaskanen?\). Somebody "fascinated" you. Some aggressive Judaizer (5:7|), some one man (or woman). First aorist active indicative of \baskain“\, old word kin to \phask“\ (\bask“\), to speak, then to bring evil on one by feigned praise or the evil eye (hoodoo), to lead astray by evil arts. Only here in the N.T. This popular belief in the evil eye is old (Deuteronomy:28:54|) and persistent. The papyri give several examples of the adjective \abaskanta\, the adverb \abaskant“s\ (unharmed by the evil eye), the substantive \baskania\ (witchcraft). {Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified} (\hois kat' ophthalmous Iˆsous Christos proegraphˆ estaur“menos\). Literally, "to whom before your very eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed as crucified." Second aorist passive indicative of \prograph“\, old verb to write beforehand, to set forth by public proclamation, to placard, to post up. This last idea is found in several papyri (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) as in the case of a father who posted a proclamation that he would no longer be responsible for his son's debts. \Graph“\ was sometimes used in the sense of painting, but no example of \prograph“\...a rendering not very different from...\Estaur“menos\ is perfect passive participle of \stauro“\, the common verb to crucify (from \stauros\, stake, cross), to put on the cross (Matthew:20:19|), same form as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:2|.

rwp@Galatians:3:6 @{It was reckoned unto him for righteousness} (\elogisthˆ eis dikaiosunˆn\). First aorist passive indicative of \logizomai\. See on ¯1Corinthians:13:5| for this old word. He quotes strkjv@Genesis:15:6| and uses it at length in strkjv@Romans:4:3ff.| to prove that the faith of Abraham was reckoned "for" (\eis\, good _Koin‚_ idiom though more common in LXX because of the Hebrew) righteousness before he was circumcised. James (James:2:23|) quotes the same passage as proof of Abraham's obedience to God in offering up Isaac (beginning to offer him)...and James are discussing different episodes...

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

rwp@Hebrews:7:11 @{Perfection} (\telei“sis\). Abstract substantive of \teleio“\. More the act than the quality or state (\teleiotˆs\, strkjv@6:1|). The condition is of the second class, "if there were perfection, etc." The Levitical priesthood failed to give men "a perfectly adequate relation to God" (Moffatt). {Priesthood} (\hierosunˆs\). Old word, in N.T. only here, verses 12,24|. Cf. \hieretia\ in verse 5|. The adjective \Leueitikˆ\ occurs in Philo. {Received the law} (\nenomothetˆtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \nomothete“\, old compound to enact law (\nomos, tithˆmi\), to furnish with law (as here), only other N.T. example in strkjv@8:6|. {What further need was there?} (\tis eti chreia;\). No copula expressed, but it would normally be \ˆn an\, not just \ˆn\: "What need still would there be?" {Another priest} (\heteron hierea\). Of a different line (\heteron\), not just one more (\allon\). Accusative of general reference with the infinitive \anistasthai\ (present middle of \anistˆmi\ intransitive). {And not to be reckoned} (\kai ou legesthai\). The negative \ou\ belongs rather to the descriptive clause than just to the infinitive.

rwp@Hebrews:7:13 @{Belongeth to another tribe} (\phulˆs heteras meteschˆken\). See strkjv@2:14| for \metech“\...active indicative here. A different... (\heteras\) tribe. {Hath given attendance at} (\proseschˆken\). Perfect active indicative (watch perfects in Hebrews, not "for" aorists) of \prosech“\, old verb, here with either \noun\ (mind) or self (\heauton\) understood with dative case (\t“i thusiastˆri“i\, the altar, for which word see strkjv@Matthew:5:23; strkjv@Luke:1:11|).

rwp@Hebrews:11:21 @{Leaning upon the top of his staff} (\epi to akron tˆs rabdou autou\). From strkjv@Genesis:47:31|...allows either meaning with different vowel...

rwp@Hebrews:12:5 @{Ye have forgotten} (\eklelˆsthe\). Perfect middle indicative of \eklanthan“\, to cause to forget, old verb, here only in the N.T. with genitive case as usual. {Reasoneth with you} (\humin dialegetai\). Present middle indicative of \dialegomai\...old verb to ponder different... (\dia-\) things, to converse, with dative. Cf. strkjv@Acts:19:8f|. The quotation is from strkjv@Proverbs:3:11f|. {Regard not lightly} (\mˆ olig“rei\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and the present active imperative of \olig“re“\, old verb from \olig“ros\ and this from \oligos\ (little) and \h“ra\ (hour), old verb, here only in N.T. {Chastening} (\paideias\). Old word from \paideu“\, to train a child (\pais\), instruction (2Timothy:3:16|), which naturally includes correction and punishment as here. See also strkjv@Ephesians:6:4|. {Nor faint} (\mˆde ekluou\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and present passive imperative of \eklu“\ (see verse 3|).

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

rwp@James:2:11 @{He that said} (\ho eip“n\) {--said also} (\eipen kai\). The unity of the law lies in the Lawgiver who spoke both prohibitions (\mˆ\ and the aorist active subjunctive in each one, \moicheusˆis, phoneusˆis\). The order here is that of B in strkjv@Exodus:20| (Luke:18:20; strkjv@Romans:13:9|), but not in strkjv@Matthew:5:21,27| (with \ou\ and future indicative). {Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest} (\ei de ou moicheueis, phoneueis de\). Condition of first class with \ou\ (not \mˆ\) because of the contrast with \de\, whereas \ei mˆ\...would mean "unless," a different idea....\ou\ in strkjv@1:23|. {A transgressor of the law} (\parabatˆs nomou\) as in verse 9|. Murder springs out of anger (Matthew:5:21-26|). People free from fleshly sins have often "made their condemnation of fleshly sins an excuse for indulgence towards spiritual sins" (Hort).

rwp@James:2:21 @{Justified by works} (\ex erg“n edikai“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \dikaio“\ (see Galatians and Romans for this verb, to declare righteous, to set right) in a question with \ouk\ expecting an affirmative answer. This is the phrase that is often held to be flatly opposed to Paul's statement in strkjv@Romans:4:1-5|, where Paul pointedly says that it was the faith of Abraham (Romans:4:9|) that was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, not his works. But Paul is talking about the faith of Abraham before his circumcision (4:10|) as the basis of his being set right with God, which faith is symbolized in the circumcision. James makes plain his meaning also. {In that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar} (\anenegkas Isaak ton huion autou epi to thusiastˆrion\)...they are talking of different acts....(\anenegkas\ second aorist--with first aorist ending--active participle of \anapher“\) of Isaac on the altar (Genesis:22:16f.|) as _proof_ of the faith that Abraham already had. Paul discusses Abraham's faith as the basis of his justification, that and not his circumcision. There is no contradiction at all between James and Paul. Neither is answering the other. Paul may or may not have seen the Epistle of James, who stood by him loyally in the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|).

rwp@James:2:23 @{Was fulfilled} (\eplˆr“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \plˆro“\, the usual verb for fulfilling Scripture. Songs:James quotes strkjv@Genesis:15:6| as proving his point in verse 21| that Abraham had works with his faith, the very same passage that Paul quotes in strkjv@Romans:4:3|...each to illustrate a different point....{And he was called the friend of God} (\kai philos theou eklˆthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \kalˆo\. Not a part of the Scripture quoted. Philo calls Abraham the friend of God and see _Jubilees_ strkjv@19:9; strkjv@30:20. The Arabs today speak of Abraham as God's friend. It was evidently a common description before James used it, as in strkjv@Isaiah:41:8; strkjv@2Chronicles:20:7|.

rwp@James:3:7 @{Kind} (\phusis\). Old word from \phu“\, order of nature (Romans:1:26|), here of all animals and man, in strkjv@2Peter:1:4| of God and redeemed men. {Of beasts} (\thˆri“n\). Old word diminutive from \thˆr\ and so "little beasts" originally, then wild animals in general (Mark:1:13|), or quadrupeds as here. These four classes of animals come from strkjv@Genesis:9:2f|. {Birds} (\petein“n\). Old word for flying animals (from \petomai\, to word from \herp“\, to crawl (Latin _serpo_), hence serpents. {Things in the sea} (\enali“n\). Old adjective (\en, hals\, sea, salt) in the sea, here only in N.T. The four groups are put in two pairs here by the use of \te kai\...second two. See a different classification...10:12; strkjv@11:6|. {Is tamed} (\damazetai\). Present passive indicative of \damaz“\, old verb kin to Latin _dominus_ and English tame, in N.T. only in this passage and strkjv@Mark:5:4|. The present tense gives the general picture of the continuous process through the ages of man's lordship over the animals as stated in strkjv@Genesis:1:28|. {Hath been tamed} (\dedamastai\). Perfect passive indicative of the same verb, repeated to present the state of conquest in some cases (domestic animals, for instance). {By mankind} (\tˆi phusei tˆi anthr“pinˆi\). Instrumental case with repeated article and repetition also of \phusis\, "by the nature the human." For \anthr“pinos\ see strkjv@Acts:17:25|.

rwp@James:5:12 @{Above all things} (\pro pant“n\). No connection with what immediately precedes. Probably an allusion to the words of Jesus (Matthew:5:34-37|). It is not out of place here. See the same phrase in strkjv@1Peter:4:8|. Robinson (_Ephesians_, p. 279) cites like examples from the papyri at the close of letters. Here it means "But especially" (Ropes). {Swear not} (\mˆ omnuete\). Prohibition of the habit (or to quit doing it if guilty) with \mˆ\ and the present active imperative of \omnu“\. The various oaths (profanity) forbidden (\mˆte\, thrice) are in the accusative case after \omnuete\, according to rule (\ouranon, gˆn, horkon\). The Jews were wont to split hairs in their use of profanity, and by avoiding God's name imagine that they were not really guilty of this sin, just as professing Christians today use "pious oaths" which violate the prohibition of Jesus. {Let be} (\ˆt“\). Imperative active third singular of \eimi\, late form (1Corinthians:16:22|) for \est“\. "Your yea be yea" (and no more). A different form from that in strkjv@Matthew:5:37|. {That ye fall not under judgment} (\hina mˆ hupo krisin pesˆte\). Negative purpose with \hina mˆ\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \pipt“\, to fall. See \hina mˆ krithˆte\ in verse 9|. \Krisis\ (from \krin“\) is the act of judging rather than the judgment rendered (\krima\ strkjv@James:3:1|).

rwp@Info_John @ A DIFFERENT STYLE OF TEACHING Songs:different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon's _Memorabilia_ and of Plato's _Dialogues_. There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters strkjv@John:7-11|. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|). The use of "the Father" and "the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

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

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

rwp@John:4:9 @{The Samaritan woman} (\hˆ gunˆ hˆ Samareitis\). Different idiom from that in 7|, "the woman the Samaritan." The Samaritans were a mixture by intermarriage of the Jews left in the land (2Chronicles:30:6,10; strkjv@34:9|) with colonists from Babylon and other regions sent by Shalmaneser. They had had a temple of their own on Mt. Gerizim and still worshipped there. {Thou being a Jew} (\su Ioudaios “n\). Race antipathy was all the keener because the Samaritans were half Jews. {Drink} (\pein\). Same infinitive form as in 7| and the object of \aiteis\ (askest). {Of me} (\par' emou\). "From me," ablative case with \para\. {For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans} (\ou gar sunchr“ntai Ioudaioi Samareitais\). Explanatory (\gar\) parenthesis of the woman's astonishment. Associative instrumental case with \sunchr“ntai\ (present middle indicative of \sunchraomai\, compound in literary _Koin‚_, here only in N.T.). The woman's astonishment is ironical according to Bernard. At any rate the disciples had to buy food in a Samaritan village and they were travelling through Samaria. Perhaps she was surprised that Jesus would drink out of her waterpot. The Western class omit this explanatory parenthesis of the author.

rwp@John:7:12 @{Much murmuring} (\goggusmos polus\). This Ionic onomatopoetic word is from \gogguz“\ for which verb see strkjv@6:41,61; strkjv@7:32|, for secret displeasure (Acts:6:1|) or querulous discontent (Phillipians:2:14|). {Among the multitudes} (\en tois ochlois\)...only in John. These different groups...(6:66|). {A good man} (\agathos\). Pure in motive. See strkjv@Mark:10:17f.; strkjv@Romans:5:7| (absolute sense of God). Superior to \dikaios\. Jesus had champions in these scattered groups in the temple courts. {Not so, but he leadeth the multitude astray} (\ou, alla planƒi ton ochlon\). Sharp clash in the crowd. Present active indicative of \plana“\, to go astray (Matthew:18:12f.|), like our "planets," to lead others astray (Matthew:24:4,5,11|, etc.). In the end the rulers will call Jesus "that deceiver" (\ekeinos ho planos\, strkjv@Matthew:27:63|). The Jewish leaders have a following among the crowds as is seen (7:31f.|).

rwp@John:8:22 @{Will he kill himself?} (\mˆti apoktenei heauton;\). Negative answer formally expected, but there is a manifest sneer in the query. "The mockery in these words is alike subtle and bitter" (Vincent). It was a different group of Jews in strkjv@7:31| who cynically suggested that he was going to work among the Greeks in the Dispersion. Here they infer that Jesus refers to the next world. They suggest the depths of Gehenna for him as the abode of suicides (Josephus, _War_ III. viii. 5). Of course the rabbis could not join Jesus there! Edersheim argues against this view.

rwp@John:8:53 @{Art thou greater than our father Abraham?} (\Mˆ su meiz“n ei tou patros hˆm“n Abraam;\). Negative answer expected by \mˆ\ with ablative case of comparison in \patros\ after \meiz“n\...uses death in a different sense....{Whom makest thou thyself?} (\tina seauton poieis;\). \Seauton\ is predicate accusative with \poieis\. They suspect that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy as they charged in strkjv@5:18| in making himself equal with God. Later they will make it specifically (10:33; strkjv@19:7|). They set a trap for Jesus for this purpose.

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

rwp@John:11:2 @{And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair} (\ˆn de Mariam hˆ aleipsasa ton kurion mur“i kai ekmaxasa tous podas autou tais thrixin autˆs\). This description is added to make plainer who Mary is "whose brother Lazarus was sick" (\hˆs ho adelphos Lazaros ˆsthenei\). There is an evident proleptic allusion to the incident described by John in strkjv@12:1-8| just after chapter 11. As John looks back from the end of the century it was all behind him, though the anointing (\hˆ aleipsasa\, first aorist active articular participle of \aleiph“\, old verb for which see strkjv@Mark:6:13|) took place after the events in chapter 11. The aorist participle is timeless and merely pictures the punctiliar act. The same remark applies to \ekmaxasa\, old verb \ekmass“\, to wipe off or away (Isaiah:12:3; strkjv@13:5; strkjv@Luke:7:38,44|). Note the Aramaic form \Mariam\ as usual in John, but \Marias\ in verse 1|. When John wrote, it was as Jesus had foretold (Matthew:26:13|), for the fame of Mary of Bethany rested on the incident of the anointing of Jesus. The effort to link Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene and then both names with the sinful woman of strkjv@Luke:7:36-50| is gratuitous and to my mind grotesque and cruel to the memory of both Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene. Bernard may be taken as a specimen: "The conclusion is inevitable that John (or his editor) regarded Mary of Bethany as the same person who is described by Luke as \hamart“los\." This critical and artistic heresy has already been discussed in Vol. II on Luke's Gospel. Suffice it here to say that Luke introduces Mary Magdalene as an entirely new character in strkjv@8:2| and that the details in strkjv@Luke:7:36-50; strkjv@John:12:1-8|...similar act for utterly different purposes?...

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

rwp@John:15:14 @{If ye do} (\ean poiˆte\). Condition of third class with \ean\...spasmodic obedience. Just a different way...10|. Obedience to Christ's commands is a prerequisite to discipleship and fellowship (spiritual friendship with Christ). He repeats it in the Great Commission (Matthew:28:20|, \eneteilamˆn\, I commanded) with the very word used here (\entellomai\, I command).

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-...Luke's Gospel which is different from...9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

rwp@Luke:1:2 @{Even as} (\kath“s\). This particle was condemned by the Atticists though occurring occasionally from Aristotle on. It is in the papyri. Luke asserts that the previous narratives had their sound basis. {Delivered unto us} (\pared“san hˆmin\). Second aorist active indicative of \paradid“mi\. Luke received this tradition along with those who are mentioned above (the many). That is he was not one of the "eyewitnesses." He was a secondary, not a primary, witness of the events. Tradition has come to have a meaning of unreliability with us, but that is not the idea here. Luke means to say that the handing down was dependable, not mere wives' fables. Those who drew up the narratives had as sources of knowledge those who handed down the data. Here we have both written and oral sources. Luke had access to both kinds. {Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word} (\hoi ap' archˆs autoptai kai hupˆretai genomenoi tou logou\). "Who" is better than "which" for the article here. The word for {eyewitnesses} (\autoptai\) is an old Greek word and appears in the papyri also. It means seeing with one's own eyes. It occurs here only in the N.T. We have the very word in the medical term _autopsy_...word. It is a different word...\epoptai\ (eyewitness) in strkjv@2Peter:1:16|, a word used of those who beheld heavenly mysteries. The word for "ministers" (\hupˆretai\), under rowers or servants we have had already in strkjv@Matthew:5:25; strkjv@26:58; strkjv@Mark:14:54,65|, which see. We shall see it again in strkjv@Luke:4:20| of the attendant in the synagogue. In the sense of a preacher of the gospel as here, it occurs also in strkjv@Acts:26:16|. Here "the word" means the gospel message, as in strkjv@Acts:6:4; strkjv@8:4|, etc. {From the beginning} apparently refers to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as was true of the apostles (Acts:1:22|) and of the early apostolic preaching (Acts:10:37-43|). The Gospel of Mark follows this plan. The Gospel of Luke goes behind this in chapters 1 and 2 as does Matthew in chapters 1 and 2. But Luke is not here referring to himself. The matters about the childhood of Jesus Christ would not form part of the traditional preaching for obvious reasons.

rwp@Luke:1:29 @{Cast in her mind} (\dielogizeto\). Imperfect indicative. Note aorist \dietarachthˆ\...verb for reckoning up different reasons....

rwp@Luke:1:48 @{The low estate} (\tˆn tapein“sin\). The bride of a carpenter and yet to be the mother of the Messiah. Literal sense here as in strkjv@1:52|. {Shall call me blessed} (\makariousin me\). So-called Attic future of an old verb, to felicitate. Elisabeth had already given her a beatitude (\makaria\, strkjv@1:45|). Another occurs in strkjv@11:27|...this is a very different thing...(Mariolatry) by Roman Catholics. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_.

rwp@Luke:3:11 @{Coats} (\chit“nas\). The inner and less necessary undergarment. The outer indispensable \himation\...Note the specific and different message...

rwp@Luke:3:18 @{Many other exhortations} (\polla men oun kai hetera\). Literally, many and different things did John \evangelize\, \euaggelizeto\, to the people. Luke has given a bare sample of the wonderful messages of the Baptist. Few as his words preserved are they give a definite and powerful conception of his preaching.

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

rwp@Luke:8:16 @{When he hath lighted a lamp} (\luchnon hapsas\). It is a portable lamp (\luchnon\) that one lights (\hapsas\ aorist active participle of \hapt“\, to kindle, fasten to, light). {With a vessel} (\skeuei\, instrumental case of \skeuos\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:21| has the more definite figure "under the bushel" as has strkjv@Matthew:5:15|. {Under the bed} (\hupokat“ klinˆs\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:21| has the regular \hupo tˆn klinˆn\ instead of the late compound \hupokat“\. Ragg notes that Matthew distributes the sayings of Jesus given here by strkjv@Luke:8:16-18; strkjv@Mark:4:21-25| concerning the parable of the lamp and gives them in three separate places (Matthew:5:15; strkjv@10:26; strkjv@13:12|)...different occasions and in different groupings...¯Mark:4:21| for further discussion of the lamp and stand. {May see the light} (\Blep“sin to ph“s\). In strkjv@Matthew:5:16| Jesus has it "may see your good works." The purpose of light is to let one see something else, not the light. Note present subjunctive (\blep“sin\), linear action "Jesus had kindled a light within them. They must not hide it, but must see that it spreads to others" (Plummer). The parable of the lamp throws light on the parable of the sower.

rwp@Luke:10:7 @{In that same house} (\en autˆi tˆi oikiƒi\). Literally, in the house itself, not "in the same house" (\en tˆi autˆi oikiƒi\), a different construction. A free rendering of the common Lukan idiom is, "in that very house." {Eating} (\esthontes\). An old poetic verb \esth“\ for \esthi“\ that survives in late Greek. {Such things as they give} (\ta par' aut“n\). "The things from them." {For the labourer is worthy of his hire} (\axios gar ho ergatˆs tou misthou autou\). In strkjv@Matthew:10:10| we have \tˆs trophˆs autou\ (his food). strkjv@1Timothy:5:18| has this saying quoted as scripture. That is not impossible if Luke wrote by A.D. 62. Paul there however may quote only strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:4| as scripture and get this quotation either from strkjv@Luke:10:7| or from a proverbial saying of Jesus. It is certainly not a real objection against the Pauline authorship of First Timothy. {Go not from house to house} (\mˆ metabainete ex oikias eis oikian\). As a habit, \mˆ\ and the present imperative, and so avoid waste of time with such rounds of invitations as would come.

rwp@Luke:11:8 @{Though} (\ei kai\). \Kai ei\...be "Even if," a different idea....{Because he is his friend} (\dia to einai philon autou\). \Dia\ and the accusative articular infinitive with accusative of general reference, a causal clause="because of the being a friend of his." {Yet because of his importunity} (\dia ge tˆn anaidian autou\). From \anaidˆs\, shameless, and that from \a\ privative and \aid“s\, shame, shamelessness, impudence. An old word, but here alone in the N.T. Examples in the papyri. The use of \ge\ here, one of the intensive particles, is to be noted. It sharpens the contrast to "though" by "yet." As examples of importunate prayer Vincent notes Abraham in behalf of Sodom (Genesis:18:23-33|) and the Syro-Phoenician woman in behalf of her daughter (Matthew:15:22-28|).

rwp@Luke:12:6 @{Is forgotten} (\estin epilelˆsmenon\). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of \epilanthanomai\, common verb to forget. See strkjv@Matthew:10:29| for a different construction.

rwp@Luke:12:10 @{But unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit} (\t“i de eis to hagion pneuma blasphˆmˆsanti\). This unpardonable sin is given by strkjv@Mark:3:28f.; strkjv@Matthew:12:31f.| immediately after the charge that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub. Luke here separates it from the same charge made in Judea (11:15-20|)...Luke apparently finds a different environment...\eis\ here in the sense of "against."

rwp@Luke:12:54 @{To the multitudes also} (\kai tois ochlois\). After the strong and stirring words just before with flash and force Jesus turns finally in this series of discourses to the multitudes again as in verse 15|. There are similar sayings to these verses 54-59| in strkjv@Matthew:16:1f; strkjv@5:25f|...difference of source or different use...(Q or Logia) we do not know. Not all the old MSS. give strkjv@Matthew:16:2,3|. In Matthew the Pharisees and Sadducees were asking for a sign from heaven as they often did. These signs of the weather, "a shower" (\ombros\, strkjv@Luke:12:54|) due to clouds in the west, "a hot wave" (\kaus“n\, verse 55) due to a south wind (\noton\) blowing, "fair weather" (\eudia\, strkjv@Matthew:16:2|) when the sky is red, are appealed to today. They have a more or less general application due to atmospheric and climatic conditions.

rwp@Luke:13:19 @{A grain of mustard seed} (\kokk“i sinape“s\). Either the _sinapis nigra_ or the _salvadora persica_, both of which have small seeds and grow to twelve feet at times. The Jews had a proverb: "Small as a mustard seed." Given by strkjv@Mark:4:30-32; strkjv@Matthew:13:31f.| in the first great group of parables, but just the sort to be repeated. {Cast into his own garden} (\ebalen eis kˆpon heautou\). Different from "earth" (Mark) or "field" (Matthew.)" \Kˆpos\, old word for garden, only here in the N.T. and strkjv@John:19:1,26; strkjv@19:41|. {Became a tree} (\egeneto eis dendron\). Common Hebraism, very frequent in LXX, only in Luke in the N.T., but does appear in _Koin‚_ though rare in papyri; this use of \eis\ after words like _ginomai_. It is a translation Hebraism in Luke. {Lodged} (\kateskˆn“sen\). Mark and Matthew have \kataskˆnoin\ infinitive of the same verb, to make tent (or nest).

rwp@Luke:13:29 @{Shall sit down} (\anaklithˆsontai\)...will be saved in different ways,...

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\ is reflexive middle and used absolutely. Here the meaning clearly is that everyone forces his way into the kingdom of God, a plea for moral enthusiasm and spiritual passion and energy that some today affect to despise.

rwp@Luke:19:4 @{Ran on before} (\prodram“n eis to emprosthen\). Second aorist active participle of \protrech“\ (defective verb). "Before" occurs twice (\pro-\ and \eis to emprosthen\). {Into a sycamore tree} (\epi sukomorean\). From \sukon\, fig, and \moron\, mulberry. The fig-mulberry and quite a different tree from the sycamine tree in strkjv@17:6|, which see. It bore a poor fruit which poor people ate (Amos:7:14|). It was a wide open tree with low branches so that Zacchaeus could easily climb into it. {That way} (\ekeinˆs\). Feminine for \hodos\ (way) is understood. Genitive case with \di\ in composition (\dierchesthai\) or as an adverbial use.

rwp@Luke:22:41 @{About a stone's throw} (\h“sei lithou bolˆn\). Accusative of extent of space. Luke does not tell of leaving eight disciples by the entrance to Gethsemane nor about taking Peter, James, and John further in with him. {Kneeled down} (\theis ta gonata\). Second aorist active participle from \tithˆmi\. strkjv@Mark:14:35| says "fell on the ground" and strkjv@Matthew:26:39|...could be true at different moments....{Prayed} (\prosˆucheto\). Imperfect middle, was praying, kept on praying.

rwp@Luke:23:2 @{Began to accuse} (\ˆrxanto katˆgorein\). They went at it and kept it up. Luke mentions three, but neither of them includes their real reason nor do they mention their own condemnation of Jesus. They had indulged their hatred in doing it, but they no longer have the power of life and death. Hence they say nothing to Pilate of that. {We found} (\heuramen\). Second aorist active indicative with first aorist vowel \a\. Probably they mean that they had caught Jesus in the act of doing these things (_in flagrante delicto_) rather than discovery by formal trial. {Perverting our nation} (\diastrephonta to ethnos hˆm“n\). Present active participle of \diastreph“\, old verb to turn this way and that, distort, disturb. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:13:10|. The Sanhedrin imply that the great popularity of Jesus was seditious. {Forbidding to give tribute to Caesar}, (\k“luonta phorous kaisari didonai\). Note object infinitive \didonai\ after the participle \k“luonta\. Literally, hindering giving tribute to Caesar. This was a flat untruth. Their bright young students had tried desperately to get Jesus to say this very thing, but they had failed utterly (Luke:20:25|). {Saying that he himself is Christ a king} (\legonta hauton Christon basilea einai\). Note the indirect discourse here after the participle \legonta\ with the accusative (\hauton\ where \auton\ could have been used)...but "King" was a different matter....

rwp@Luke:23:11 @{Set him at nought} (\exouthenˆsas\). First aorist active participle from \exouthene“\, to count as nothing, to treat with utter contempt, as zero. {Arraying him in gorgeous apparel} (\peribal“n esthˆta lampran\). Second aorist active participle of \periball“\, to fling around one. \Lampran\ is brilliant, shining as in strkjv@James:2:2|, so different from the modest dress of the Master. This was part of the shame.

rwp@Luke:23:36 @{Mocked} (\enepaixan\)...Aorist tense here and different verb...

rwp@Info_Mark @ The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, strkjv@Mark:16:9-20|, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as strkjv@Mark:16:9-20| is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_...Paul. There is a different shading..._Harmony of the Gospels_ I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark's Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter's eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men's bodies and saving men's souls. strkjv@Mark:1:1 @{The beginning} (\archˆ\). There is no article in the Greek. It is possible that the phrase served as a heading or title for the paragraph about the ministry of the Baptist or as the superscription for the whole Gospel (Bruce) placed either by Mark or a scribe. And then the Gospel of Jesus Christ means the Message about Jesus Christ (objective genitive). The word Gospel here (\euaggelion\)...each writer has a different starting...(\archˆ\). Mark, as the earliest form of the evangelic tradition, begins with the work of the Baptist, Matthew with the ancestry and birth of the Messiah, Luke with the birth of the Baptist, John with the Preincarnate Logos, Paul with the foundation of each of the churches (Phillipians:4:15|). {The Son of God} (\Huiou theou\). Aleph 28, 255 omit these words, but B, D, L, have them and the great mass of the manuscripts have \huiou tou theou\. If this is a heading added to what Mark wrote, the heading may have existed early in two forms, one with, one without "Son of God." If Mark wrote the words, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness since he uses the phrase elsewhere.

rwp@Mark:1:16 @{And passing along by the Sea of Galilee} (\kai parag“n para tˆn thalassan tˆs Galilaias\). Mark uses \para\ (along, beside) twice and makes the picture realistic. He catches this glimpse of Christ in action. Casting a {net} (\amphiballontas\). Literally casting on both sides, now on one side, now on the other. Matthew (Matthew:4:18|) has a different phrase which see. There are two papyri examples of the verb \amphiball“\, one verb absolutely for fishing as here, the other with the accusative. It is fishing with a net, making a cast, a haul. These four disciples were fishermen (\halieis\) and were {partners} (\metochoi\) as Luke states (Luke:5:7|).

rwp@Mark:4:30 @{How shall we liken?} (\P“s homoi“s“men?\) Deliberative first aorist subjunctive. This question alone in Mark. Songs:with the other question: {In what parable shall we set it forth?} (\en tini autˆn parabolˆi th“men;\). Deliberative second aorist subjunctive. The graphic question draws the interest of the hearers (_we_) by fine tact. strkjv@Luke:13:18f.| retains the double question which strkjv@Matthew:13:31f.|...sayings often repeated to different audiences...

rwp@Mark:4:32 @{Groweth up} (\anabainei\). strkjv@Matthew:13:32| {When it is grown} (\hotan auxˆthˆi\). {Under the shadow thereof} (\hupo tˆn skian autou\). A different picture from Matthew's {in the branches thereof} (\en tois kladois autou\). But both use \kataskˆnoin\, to tent or camp down, make nests in the branches in the shade or hop on the ground under the shade just like a covey of birds. In strkjv@Matthew:8:20| the birds have nests (\kataskˆn“seis\). The use of the mustard seed for smallness seems to have been proverbial and Jesus employs it elsewhere (Matthew:17:20; strkjv@Luke:17:6|).

rwp@Mark:5:2 @{Out of the boat} (\ek tou ploiou\). Straightway (\euthus\) Mark says, using the genitive absolute (\exelthontos autou\) and then repeating \aut“i\ associative instrumental after \apˆntˆsen\. The demoniac greeted Jesus at once. Mark and strkjv@Luke:9:27|...the Gospels has a different phrase....(\en pneumati akathart“i\), strkjv@Matthew:8:28| "two possessed with demons" (\duo daimonizomenoi\), strkjv@Luke:8:27| "one having demons" (\tis ech“n daimonia\). Mark has many touches about this miracle not retained in Matthew and Luke. See on ¯Matthew:8:28|.

rwp@Mark:6:7 @{By two and two} (\duo duo\). This repetition of the numeral instead of the use of \ana duo\ or \kata duo\ is usually called a Hebraism. The Hebrew does have this idiom, but it appears in Aeschylus and Sophocles, in the vernacular _Koin‚_ (Oxyrhynchus Papyri No. 121), in Byzantine Greek, and in modern Greek (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 122f.). Mark preserves the vernacular _Koin‚_...cover Galilee in six different directions....(\ˆrxato autous apostellein\). Aorist tense and present infinitive. This may refer simply to this particular occasion in Mark's picturesque way. But the imperfect tense \edidou\ means he kept on giving them all through the tour, a continuous power (authority) over unclean spirits singled out by Mark as representing "all manner of diseases and all manner of sickness" (Matthew:10:1|), "to cure diseases" (\iasthai\, strkjv@Luke:9:1|), healing power. They were to preach and to heal (Luke:9:1; strkjv@Matthew:10:7|). Mark does not mention preaching as a definite part of the commission to the twelve on this their first preaching tour, but he does state that they did preach (6:12|). They were to be missioners or missionaries (\apostellein\) in harmony with their office (\apostoloi\).

rwp@Mark:6:44 @{Men} (\andres\). Men as different from women as in strkjv@Matthew:14:21|. This remarkable miracle is recorded by all Four Gospels, a nature miracle that only God can work. No talk about accelerating natural processes will explain this miracle. And three eyewitnesses report it: the Logia of Matthew, the eyes of Peter in Mark, the witness of John the Beloved Disciple (Gould). The evidence is overwhelming.

rwp@Mark:14:3 @{As he sat at meat} (\katakeimenou autou\). strkjv@Matthew:26:7| uses \anakeimenou\, both words meaning reclining (leaning down or up or back) and in the genitive absolute. See on ¯Matthew:26:6|...that this is a different incident...7:36-50|. See on ¯Matthew:26:6-13| for discussion of details. {Spikenard} (\nardou pistikˆs\). This use of \pistikos\ with \nardos\ occurs only here and in strkjv@John:12:3|. The adjective is common enough in the older Greek and appears in the papyri also in the sense of genuine, unadulterated, and that is probably the idea here. The word spikenard is from the Vulgate _nardi spicati_, probably from the Old Latin _nardi pistici_. {Brake} (\suntripsousa\). Only in Mark. She probably broke the narrow neck of the vase holding the ointment.

rwp@Mark:14:72 @{Called to mind} (\anemnˆsthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative. strkjv@Matthew:26:75| has the uncompounded verb \emnˆsthˆ\ while strkjv@Luke:22:61| has another compound \hupemnˆsthˆ\, was reminded. {When he thought thereon} (\epibal“n\). Second aorist active participle of \epiball“\. It is used absolutely here, though there is a reference to \to rhˆma\ above, the word of Jesus, and the idiom involves \ton noun\ so that the meaning is to put the mind upon something. In strkjv@Luke:15:12|...absolute use with a different sense....(_Prolegomena_, p. 131) quotes a Ptolemaic papyrus Tb P 50 where \epibal“n\ probably means "set to," put his mind on. {Wept} (\eklaien\). Inchoative imperfect, began to weep. strkjv@Matthew:26:75| has the ingressive aorist \eklausen\, burst into tears.

rwp@Mark:16:5 @{Entering into the tomb} (\eiselthousai eis to mnˆmeion\). Told also by strkjv@Luke:24:3|, though not by Matthew. {A young man} (\neaniskon\). An angel in strkjv@Matthew:28:5|, two men in strkjv@Luke:24|. These and like variations in details show the independence of the narrative and strengthen the evidence for the general fact of the resurrection. The angel sat upon the stone (Matthew:28:2|), probably at first. Mark here speaks of the young man {sitting on the right side} (\kathˆmenon en tois dexiois\) inside the tomb. Luke has the two men standing by them on the inside (Luke strkjv@24:4|). Possibly different aspects and stages of the incident. {Arrayed in a white robe} (\peribeblˆmenon stolˆn leukˆn\). Perfect passive participle with the accusative case of the thing retained (verb of clothing). strkjv@Luke:24:4| has "in dazzling apparel." {They were amazed} (\exethambˆthˆsan\). They were utterly (\ex\ in composition) amazed. strkjv@Luke:24:5| has it "affrighted." strkjv@Matthew:28:3f.| tells more of the raiment white as snow which made the watchers quake and become as dead men. But this was before the arrival of the women. Mark, like Matthew and Luke, does not mention the sudden departure of Mary Magdalene to tell Peter and John of the grave robbery as she supposed (John:20:1-10|).

rwp@Matthew:3:2 @{For the kingdom of heaven is at hand} (\ˆggiken gar hˆ Basileia t“n ouran“n\). Note the position of the verb and the present perfect tense. It was a startling word that John thundered over the hills and it re-...be understood differently by different groups...

rwp@Matthew:6:25 @Vincent quotes Bacon (Henry VII): "Harris, an alderman of London, was put in trouble and died with thought and anguish." But words change with time and now this passage is actually quoted (Lightfoot) "as an objection to the moral teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, on the ground that it encouraged, nay, commanded, a reckless neglect of the future." We have narrowed the word to mere planning without any notion of anxiety which is in the Greek word. The verb \merimna“\ is from \meris, meriz“\, because care or anxiety distracts and divides. It occurs in Christ's rebuke to Martha for her excessive solicitude about something to eat (Luke:10:41|). The notion of proper care and forethought appears in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:32; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@Phillipians:2:20|. It is here the present imperative with the negative, a command not to have the habit of petulant worry about food and clothing, a source of anxiety to many housewives, a word for women especially as the command not to worship mammon may be called a word for men. The command can mean that they must stop such worry if already indulging in it. In verse 31| Jesus repeats the prohibition with the ingressive aorist subjunctive: "Do not become anxious," "Do not grow anxious." Here the direct question with the deliberative subjunctive occurs with each verb (\phag“men, pi“men, peribal“metha\). This deliberative subjunctive of the direct question is retained in the indirect question employed in verse 25|. A different verb for clothing occurs, both in the indirect middle (\peribal“metha\, fling round ourselves in 31|, \endusˆsthe\, put on yourselves in 25|).

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

rwp@Matthew:11:12 @{Suffereth violence} (\biazetai\). This verb occurs only here and in strkjv@Luke:16:16| in the N.T. It seems to be middle in Luke and Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 258) quotes an inscription "where \biazomai\ is without doubt reflexive and absolute" as in strkjv@Luke:16:16|. But there are numerous papyri examples where it is passive (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_, etc.) so that "there seems little that promises decisive help for the difficult Logion of strkjv@Matthew:11:12; strkjv@Luke:16:16|." Songs:then in strkjv@Matthew:11:12|...makes sense, though a different sense....(\biastai harpazousin autˆn\) or seize it like a conquered city. The middle voice may mean "experiences violence" or "forces its way" like a rushing mighty wind (so Zahn holds). These difficult words of Jesus mean that the preaching of John "had led to a violent and impetuous thronging to gather round Jesus and his disciples" (Hort, _Judaistic Christianity_, p. 26).

rwp@Matthew:11:19 @{Wisdom is justified by her works} (\edikai“thˆ apo t“n erg“n autˆs\). A timeless aorist passive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 836f.). The word "justified" means "set right" Luke (Luke:7:35|)...wisdom has planned the different conduct...(verse 16|) is childish, not childlike, and full of whimsical inconsistencies in their faultfinding. They exaggerate in each case. John did not have a demon and Jesus was not a glutton or a winebibber. "And, worse than either, for \philos\ is used in a sinister sense and implies that Jesus was the comrade of the worst characters, and like them in conduct. A malicious nickname at first, it is now a name of honour: the sinner's lover" (Bruce). Cf. strkjv@Luke:15:2|. The plan of God is justified by results.

rwp@Matthew:13:7 @{The thorns grew up} (\anebˆsan hai akanthai\). Not "sprang up" as in verse 5|, for a different verb occurs meaning "came up" out of the ground, the seeds of the thorns being already in the soil, "upon the thorns" (\epi tas akanthas\) rather than "among the thorns." But the thorns got a quick start as weeds somehow do and "choked them" (\apepnixan auta\, effective aorist of \apopnig“\), "choked them off" literally. Luke (Luke:8:33|) uses it of the hogs in the water. Who has not seen vegetables and flowers and corn made yellow by thorns and weeds till they sicken and die?

rwp@Matthew:16:14 @{And they said} (\hoi de eipan\). They were ready to respond for they knew that popular opinion was divided on that point (14:1f.|). They give four different opinions. It is always a risky thing for a pastor to ask for people's opinions of him. But Jesus was not much concerned by their answers to this question. He knew by now that the Pharisees and Sadducees were bitterly hostile to him. The masses were only superficially following him and they looked for a political Messiah and had vague ideas about him. How much did the disciples understand and how far have they come in their development of faith? Are they still loyal?

rwp@Matthew:19:22 @{Went away sorrowful} (\apˆlthen lupoumenos\)...in the power of different sins....

rwp@Matthew:21:41 @{He will miserably destroy those miserable men} (\kakous kak“s apolesei autous\). The paronomasia or assonance is very clear. A common idiom in literary Greek. "He will put the wretches to a wretched death" (Weymouth). {Which} (\hoitines\)...very ones of a different character....

rwp@Matthew:23:6 @{The chief place at feasts} (\tˆn pr“toklisian en tois deipnois\). Literally, the first reclining place on the divan at the meal. The Persians, Greeks, Romans, Jews differed in their customs, but all cared for the post of honour at formal functions as is true of us today. Hostesses often solve the point by putting the name of each guest at the table. At the last passover meal the apostles had an ugly snarl over this very point of precedence (Luke:22:24; strkjv@John:13:2-11|), just two days after this exposure of the Pharisees in the presence of the apostles. {The chief seats in the synagogues} (\tas pr“tokathedrias en tais sunag“gais\). "An insatiable hunger for prominence" (Bruce). These chief seats (Zuchermandel)...The Essenes had a different arrangement....-humility. In the time of Jesus the hypocrites boldly sat up in front. Now, if they come to church at all, they take the rear seats.

rwp@Matthew:24:24 @{Great signs and wonders} (\sˆmeia megala kai terata\). Two of the three words so often used in the N.T. about the works (\erga\) of Jesus, the other being \dunameis\ (powers). They often occur together of the same work (John:4:48; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@4:30; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:12; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|). \Teras\ is a wonder or prodigy, \dunamis\, a mighty work or power, \sˆmeion\, a sign of God's purpose. Miracle (\miraculum\)...looked at from these different angles....{if possible} (\ei dunaton\), lead astray the very elect. The implication is that it is not possible. People become excited and are misled and are unable to judge of results. Often it is _post hoc, sed non propter hoc_. Patent-medicine men make full use of the credulity of people along this line as do spiritualistic mediums. Sleight-of-hand men can deceive the unwary.

rwp@Philippians:3:2 @{Beware} (\blepete\)...for urgency and with different epithet...{The dogs} (\tous kunas\). The Jews so termed the Gentiles which Jesus uses in a playful mood (\kunariois\, little dogs) to the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew:15:26|). Paul here turns the phrase on the Judaizers themselves. {The evil workers} (\tous kakous ergatas\). He had already called the Judaizers "deceitful workers" (\ergatai dolioi\) in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13|. {The concision} (\tˆn katatomˆn\). Late word for incision, mutilation (in contrast with \peritomˆ\, circumcision). In Symmachus and an inscription. The verb \katatemn“\ is used in the LXX only of mutilations (Leviticus:21:5; strkjv@1Kings:18:28|).

rwp@Revelation:4:3 @{To look upon} (\horasei\). Locative case of \horasis\, old word (from \hora“\, to see) for appearance (in appearance) as in strkjv@Ezekiel:1:5,26|. {Like a jasper stone} (\homoios iaspidi\). Associative-instrumental case of \iaspis\, old word (Persian)...used for stones of different colors,...(21:11,18f.|, possibly here, only N.T. examples), one a red or yellow stone (Isaiah:54:12|). Some even take it for the diamond. Certainly not our cheap modern jasper. {A sardius} (\sardi“i\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@21:20|. The carnelian or other red stone, derived from Sardis (Pliny). {Rainbow} (\iris\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@10:1|. From strkjv@Ezekiel:1:28|. {An emerald} (\smaragdin“i\). Adjective (from \smaragdos\, strkjv@Revelation:21:19|), of emerald (supply \lith“i\), in associative instrumental case after \homoios\. John sees no form for God (Exodus:24:10|), but only the brilliant flashing gems. "In the vision the flashing lustre of the \iaspis\ and the fiery red of the \sard\ are relieved by the halo (\iris\) of emerald which encircled the Throne" (Swete). A complete circle.

rwp@Revelation:4:7 @{Like a lion} (\homoion leonti\). Associative-instrumental case again. In Ezekiel:(1:6,10|) each \z“on\...here each has a different face....(Swete). But it is not necessary to try to find a symbolism in each face here like the early baseless identification with the Four Evangelists (the lion for Mark, the man for Matthew, the calf for Luke, the eagle for John). \Moschos\ is first a sprout, then the young of animals, then a calf (bullock or heifer) as in strkjv@Luke:15:23, 27,30|, or a full-grown ox (Ezekiel:1:10|). {Had} (\ech“n\). Masculine singular (some MSS. \echon\ neuter singular agreeing with \z“on\) present active participle of \ech“\, changing the construction with the \triton z“on\ almost like a finite verb as in verse 8|. {A face as of a man} (\pros“pon h“s anthr“pou\). Shows that the likeness in each instance extended only to the face. {Like an eagle flying} (\homoion aet“i petomen“i\). Present middle participle of \petomai\, to fly, old verb, in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:4:7; strkjv@8:13; strkjv@12:14; strkjv@14:6; strkjv@19:17|. The \aetos\ in strkjv@Matthew:24:28; strkjv@Luke:17:37| may be a form of vulture going after carrion, but not in strkjv@Revelation:8:13; strkjv@12:14|.

rwp@Revelation:8:5 @{Taketh} (\eilˆphen\). Vivid dramatic perfect active indicative of \lamban“\ as in strkjv@5:7|, "has taken." The angel had apparently ]aid aside the censer. Hardly merely the pleonastic use of \lamban“\ (John:19:23|). John pictures the scene for us. {Filled} (\egemisen\). He drops back to the narrative use of the first aorist active indicative of \gemiz“\. {With the fire} (\ek tou puros\), live coals from the altar (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:6:6|). {Cast} (\ebalen\). Second aorist active indicative of \ball“\. See strkjv@Genesis:19:24| (Sodom); strkjv@Ezekiel:10:2| and Christ's bold metaphor in strkjv@Luke:12:49|. See this use of \ball“\ also in strkjv@Revelation:8:7; strkjv@12:4,9,13; strkjv@14:19|. {Followed} (\egenonto\). Came to pass naturally after the casting of fire on the earth. Same three elements in strkjv@4:5|, but in different order (lightnings, voices, thunders), lightning naturally preceding thunder as some MSS. have it here. Perhaps \ph“nai\, the voices of the storm (wind, etc.).

rwp@Revelation:8:12 @{Was smitten} (\eplˆgˆ\). Second aorist passive indicative of \plˆss“\, old verb (like \plˆgˆ\ plague), here only in N.T. {That should be darkened} (\hina skotisthˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \skotiz“\, from \skotos\ (darkness) as in strkjv@Matthew:24:29|, but \skoto“\ in strkjv@Revelation:9:2|. {And the day should not shine} (\kai hˆ hˆmera mˆ phanˆi\). Negative purpose clause with \hina mˆ\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \phain“\, to shed light upon, as in strkjv@18:23|, not the second aorist passive subjunctive \phanˆi\ with different accent. The eclipse here is only partial and is kin to the ninth Egyptian plague (Exodus:10:21|).

rwp@Revelation:9:6 @{Men} (\hoi anthr“poi\). Generic use of the article (men as a class). {Shall not find it} (\ou mˆ heurˆsousin auton\). Strong double negative \ou mˆ\ with the future active indicative according to Aleph Q, but \heur“sin\ (second aorist active subjunctive) according to A P (either construction regular). The idea here is found in strkjv@Job:3:21; strkjv@Jeremiah:8:3|. "Such a death as they desire, a death which will end their sufferings, is impossible; physical death is no remedy for the \basanismos\ of an evil conscience" (Swete). {They shall desire to die} (\epithumˆsousin apothanein\). Future active of \epithume“\, a climax to \zˆtˆsousin\ (they shall seek), to desire vehemently. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:1:23|...with Christ, a very different feeling...{Fleeth} (\pheugei\). Vivid futuristic present active indicative of \pheug“\. Even death does not come to their relief.

rwp@Revelation:13:11 @{Another beast} (\allo thˆrion\). Like the first beast (verse 1|), not a \heteron thˆrion\ (a different beast). {Out of the earth} (\ek tˆs gˆs\). Not "out of the sea" as the first (verse 1|), perhaps locating him in Asia Minor without world-wide scope, but plainly the agent of the first beast and so of the dragon. {He had} (\eichen\). Imperfect active of \ech“\. Only two horns (not ten like the first, verse 1|). {Like unto a lamb} (\homoia arni“i\). Usual construction. Only the two horns of a young lamb and without the ferocity of the other beast, but "he spake as a dragon" (\elalei h“s drak“n\). Gunkel and Charles confess their inability to make anything out of this item. But Swete thinks that he had the roar of a dragon with all the looks of a lamb (weakness and innocence). Cf. the wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew:7:15|).

rwp@Revelation:19:7 @{Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad} (\chair“men kai agalli“men\). Present active subjunctive (volitive) of \chair“\ and \agallia“\ (elsewhere in N.T. in the middle except strkjv@Luke:1:47; strkjv@1Peter:1:8|). For both verbs together see strkjv@Matthew:5:12|. {Let us give} (\d“men\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \did“mi\, but A reads \d“somen\ (future active) and P \d“s“men\. If the future indicative is read, the tone is changed from exhortation to declaration (we shall give glory unto him). {The marriage of the Lamb} (\ho gamos tou arniou\). In the O.T. God is the Bridegroom of Israel (Hosea:2:16; strkjv@Isaiah:54:6; strkjv@Ezekiel:16:7ff.|). In the N.T. Christ is the Bridegroom of the Kingdom (the universal spiritual church as seen by Paul, strkjv@2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@Ephesians:5:25ff.|, and by John in strkjv@Revelation:3:20; strkjv@19:7,9; strkjv@21:2,9; strkjv@22:17|. In the Gospels Christ appears as the Bridegroom (Mark:2:19f.; strkjv@Matthew:9:15; strkjv@Luke:5:34f.; strkjv@John:3:29|). The figure of \gamos\ occurs in strkjv@Matthew:22:2-14|. Three metaphors of women appear in the Apocalypse (the Mother in chapter strkjv@Revelation:12|, the Harlot in strkjv@Revelation:17-19|, and the Bride of Christ here to the end)...the Church under two different aspects...(Swete). {Is come} (\ˆlthen\). Prophetic aorist, come at last. {Made herself ready} (\hˆtoimasen heautˆn\). First aorist active indicative of \hetoimaz“\ and the reflexive pronoun. See strkjv@22:2| for \hˆtoimasmenˆn h“s numphˆn\ (prepared as a bride). There is something for her to do (1John:3:3; strkjv@Jude:1:21; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:1|), but the chief preparation is the act of Christ (Ephesians:5:25ff.|).

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|. The fact of hell is clearly taught here, but the imagery is not to be taken literally any more than that of heaven in chapters strkjv@Revelation:4; 5; 21; 22| is to be so understood. Both fall short of the reality.

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

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS SPRING OF A.D. 57 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:2|) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul's long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Romans:16:3-5|) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D)...in different forms to different churches...(Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Corinthians:1:20|, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul's remarks about going to Rome (Romans:1:9-16|) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added strkjv@Romans:16:25-27| some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves strkjv@Romans:15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.

rwp@Romans:4:2 @{The Scripture} (\hˆ graphˆ\). strkjv@Genesis:15:6|. {Was justified by works} (\ex erg“n edikai“thˆ\). Condition of first class, assumed as true for the sake of argument, though untrue in fact. The rabbis had a doctrine of the merits of Abraham who had a superfluity of credits to pass on to the Jews (Luke:3:8|). {But not towards God} (\all' ou pros theon\)...to God was a different matter...._there_ no ground of boasting at all.

rwp@Romans:5:19 @Here again we have "the one" (\tou henos\) with both Adam and Christ, but "disobedience" (\parakoˆs\, for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:10:6|) contrasted with "obedience" (\hupakoˆs\), the same verb \kathistˆmi\, old verb, to set down, to render, to constitute (\katestathˆsan\, first aorist passive indicative, \katastathˆsontai\, future passive), and "the many" (\hoi polloi\) in both cases (but with different meaning as with "all men" above).

rwp@Romans:6:13 @{Neither present} (\mˆde paristanete\). Present active imperative in prohibition of \paristan“\, late form of \paristˆmi\, to place beside. Stop presenting your members or do not have the habit of doing so, "do not go on putting your members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness." {Instruments} (\hopla\). Old word for tools of any kind for shop or war (John:18:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:7; strkjv@10:4; strkjv@Romans:13:12|). Possibly here figure of two armies arrayed against each other (Galatians:5:16-24|), and see \hopla dikaiosunˆs\ below. The two sets of \hopla\ clash. {But present yourselves unto God} (\alla parastˆsate heautous t“i the“i\). First aorist active imperative of \paristˆmi\, same verb, but different tense, do it now and completely. Our "members" (\melˆ\) should be at the call of God "as alive from the dead."

rwp@Romans:7:23 @{A different law} (\heteron nomon\). For the distinction between \heteros\ and \allos\, see strkjv@Galatians:1:6f|. {Warring against} (\antistrateuomenon\). Rare verb (_Xenophon_) to carry on a campaign against. Only here in N.T. {The law of my mind} (\t“i nom“i tou noos\). The reflective intelligence Paul means by \noos\, "the inward man" of verse 22|. It is this higher self that agrees that the law of God is good (12,16,22|). {Bringing me into captivity} (\aichmal“tizonta\). See on this late and vivid verb for capture and slavery strkjv@Luke:21:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:5|. Surely it is a tragic picture drawn by Paul with this outcome, "sold under sin" (14|), "captivity to the law of sin" (23|). The ancient writers (Plato, Ovid, Seneca, Epictetus) describe the same dual struggle in man between his conscience and his deeds.

rwp@Romans:13:9 @{For this} (\to gar\). For the article (\to\) pointing to a sentence see strkjv@8:26|, here to the quotation. The order of the commandments here is like that in strkjv@Luke:18:20; strkjv@James:2:11| and in B for strkjv@Deuteronomy:5|, but different from that of the Hebrew in strkjv@Exodus:20; strkjv@Deuteronomy:5|. The use of \ou\ with the volitive future in prohibitions in place of \mˆ\ and the imperative or subjunctive is a regular Greek idiom. {And if there be any other} (\kai ei tis hetera\). Paul does not attempt to give them all. {It is summed up} (\anakephalaioutai\). Present passive indicative of \anakephalaio“\, late literary word or "rhetorical term" (\ana, kephalaion\, head or chief as in strkjv@Hebrews:8:1|). Not in the papyri, but \kephalaion\, quite common for sum or summary. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:1:10|. {Namely} (\en t“i\). See \to gar\ at the beginning of the verse, though omitted by B F. The quotation is from strkjv@Leviticus:19:18|. Quoted in strkjv@Matthew:5:43; strkjv@22:39; strkjv@Mark:12:31; strkjv@Luke:10:27; strkjv@Galatians:5:14; strkjv@James:2:8| it is called \basilikos nomos\ (royal law). {Thy neighbour} (\ton plˆsion sou\). \Plˆsion\ is an adverb and with the article it means "the one near thee." See on ¯Matthew:5:43|.

rwp@Romans:15:20 @{Yea} (\hout“s de\). "And so," introducing a limitation to the preceding statement. {Making it my aim} (\philotimoumenon\). Present middle participle (accusative case agreeing with \me\) of \philotimeomai\, old verb, to be fond of honour (\philos, timˆ\). In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:9|...word in itself, quite different in...{ambition} (\ambio\, to go on both sides to carry one's point). {Not where} (\ouch hopou\). Paul was a pioneer preacher pushing on to new fields after the manner of Daniel Boone in Kentucky. {That I might now build upon another man's foundation} (\hina mˆ ep' allotrion themelion oikodom“\). For \allotrios\ (not \allos\) see strkjv@14:4|. For \themelion\, see strkjv@Luke:6:48f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:11|. This noble ambition of Paul's is not within the range of some ministers who can only build on another's foundation as Apollos did in Corinth. But the pioneer preacher and missionary has a dignity and glory all his own.

Seeker Overlay: Off On

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

[pBiblx2]
Sat Jun 29 23:04:27 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020