CONCORD itself



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

rwp@1Corinthians:1:17 @{For Christ sent me not to baptize} (\ou gar apesteilen me Christos baptizein\). The negative \ou\ goes not with the infinitive, but with \apesteilen\ (from \apostell“, apostolos\, apostle). {For Christ did not send me to be a baptizer} (present active infinitive, linear action) like John the Baptist. {But to preach the gospel} (\alla euaggelizesthai\). This is Paul's idea of his mission from Christ, as Christ's apostle, to be {a gospelizer}. This led, of course, to baptism, as a result, but Paul usually had it done by others as Peter at Caesarea ordered the baptism to be done, apparently by the six brethren with him (Acts:10:48|). Paul is fond of this late Greek verb from \euaggelion\ and sometimes uses both verb and substantive as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1| "the gospel which I gospelized unto you." {Not in wisdom of words} (\ouk en sophiƒi logou\). Note \ou\, not \mˆ\ (the subjective negative), construed with \apesteilen\ rather than the infinitive. Not in wisdom of speech (singular). Preaching was Paul's forte, but it was not as a pretentious philosopher or professional rhetorician that Paul appeared before the Corinthians (1Corinthians:2:1-5|). Some who followed Apollos may have been guilty of a fancy for external show, though Apollos was not a mere performer and juggler with words. But the Alexandrian method as in Philo did run to dialectic subtleties and luxuriant rhetoric (Lightfoot). {Lest the cross of Christ should be made void} (\hina mˆ ken“thˆi ho stauros tou Christou\). Negative purpose (\hina mˆ\) with first aorist passive subjunctive, effective aorist, of \keno“\, old verb from \kenos\, to make empty. In Paul's preaching the Cross of Christ is the central theme. Hence Paul did not fall into the snare of too much emphasis on baptism nor into too little on the death of Christ. "This expression shows clearly the stress which St. Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great moral spectacle, and so the crowning point of a life of self-renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation" (Lightfoot).

rwp@1Corinthians:2:11 @{Knoweth} (\oiden, egn“ken\). Second perfect of root \id-\, to see and so know, first perfect of \gin“sk“\, to know by personal experience, has come to know and still knows. See First John for a clear distinction in the use of \oida\ and \gin“sk“\. {The spirit of man that is in him} (\to pneuma tou anthr“pou to en aut“i\). The self-consciousness of man that resides in the man or woman (generic term for mankind, \anthr“pos\). {The Spirit of God} (\to pneuma tou theou\). Note the absence of \to en aut“i\. It is not the mere self-consciousness of God, but the personal Holy Spirit in his relation to God the Father. Paul's analogy between the spirit of man and the Spirit of God does not hold clear through and he guards it at this vital point as he does elsewhere as in strkjv@Romans:8:26| and in the full Trinitarian benediction in strkjv@2Corinthians:13:13|. \Pneuma\ in itself merely means breath or wind as in strkjv@John:3:8|. To know accurately Paul's use of the word in every instance calls for an adequate knowledge of his theology, and psychology. But the point here is plain. God's Holy Spirit is amply qualified to make the revelation claimed here in verses 6-10|.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:13 @{The day} (\hˆ hˆmera\). The day of judgment as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:4| (which see), strkjv@Romans:13:12; strkjv@Hebrews:10:25|. The work (\ergon\) of each will be made manifest. There is no escape from this final testing. {It is revealed in fire} (\en puri apokaluptetai\). Apparently "the day" is the subject of the verb, not the work, not the Lord. See strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:8; strkjv@2:8|. This metaphor of fire was employed in the O.T. (Daniel:7:9f.; strkjv@Malachi:4:1|) and by John the Baptist (Matthew:3:12; strkjv@Luke:3:16f.|). It is a metaphor that must not be understood as purgatorial, but simple testing (Ellicott) as every fire tests ({the fire itself will test}, \to pur auto dokimasei\) the quality of the material used in the building, {of what sort it is} (\hopoion estin\), qualitative relative pronoun. Men today find, alas, that some of the fireproof buildings are not fireproof when the fire actually comes.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:10 @{If a man see thee which hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol's temple} (\ean gar tis idˆi [se] ton echonta gn“sin en eid“lei“i katakeimenon\). Condition of third class, a possible case. Paul draws the picture of the enlightened brother exercising his "liberty" by eating in the idol's temple. Later he will discuss the peril to the man's own soul in this phase of the matter (10:14-22|)...sacrificial banquet is in itself idolatrous...(\oikodomˆthˆsetai\, future passive indicative, will be built up) to go on and do what he still believes to be wrong, to eat things sacrificed to idols (\eis to ta eid“lothuta esthiein\). Alas, how often that has happened. Defiance is flung in the face of the unenlightened brother instead of loving consideration.

rwp@1Corinthians:13:5 @{Doth not behave itself unseemly} (\ouk aschˆmonei\). Old verb from \aschˆm“n\ (12:23|). In N.T. only here and strkjv@7:36|. Not indecent. {Seeketh not its own} (\ou zˆtei ta heautˆs\). Its own interests (10:24,33|). {Is not provoked} (\ou paroxunetai\). Old word. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:17:16| which see. Irritation or sharpness of spirit. And yet Paul felt it in Athens (exasperation) and he and Barnabas had \paroxusmos\ (paroxysm) in Antioch (15:39|). See good sense of \paroxusmos\ in strkjv@Hebrews:10:24|. {Taketh not account of evil} (\ou logizetai to kakon\). Old verb from \logos\, to count up, to take account of as in a ledger or note-book, "the evil" (\to kakon\) done to love with a view to settling the account.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:35 @{But some one will say} (\alla erei tis\). Paul knows what the sceptics were saying. He is a master at putting the standpoint of the imaginary adversary. {How} (\p“s\)...to this objection. Death itself is...(verses 36f.|). {With what manner of body} (\poi“i s“mati\). This is the second question which makes plainer the difficulty of the first. The first body perishes. Will that body be raised? Paul treats this problem more at length (verses 38-54|) and by analogy of nature (Cf. Butler's famous _Analogy_). It is a spiritual, not a natural, body that is raised. \S“ma\ here is an organism. {Flesh} (\sarx\) is the \s“ma\ for the natural man, but there is spiritual (\pneumatikon\) \s“ma\ for the resurrection.

rwp@1John:2:3 @{Hereby} (\en tout“i\). See this phrase also in strkjv@2:5; strkjv@3:16,19,24; strkjv@4:2,13; strkjv@5:2|. That is explained by the \ean\ clause, "if we keep his commandments " (\ean tˆr“men\, condition of the third class, \ean\ with present active subjunctive, "if we keep on keeping"), the clause itself in apposition with \tout“i\ (locative case). {Know we that we know him} (\ginoskomen hoti egn“kamen auton\). "Know we that we have come to know and still know him," \egn“kamen\ the perfect active indicative of \gin“sk“\. The Gnostics boasted of their superior knowledge of Christ, and John here challenges their boast by an appeal to experimental knowledge of Christ which is shown by keeping his (\autou\, Christ's) commandments, thoroughly Johannine phrase (12 times in the Gospel, 6 in this Epistle, 6 in the Apocalypse).

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:22 @{Abstain from every form of evil} (\apo pantos eidous ponˆrou apechesthe\). Present middle (direct) imperative of \ap-ech“\ (contrast with \kat-ech“\) and preposition \apo\ repeated with ablative as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:3|. Note use of \ponˆrou\ here for evil without the article, common enough idiom. \Eidos\ (from \eidon\) naturally means look or appearance as in strkjv@Luke:3:23; strkjv@9:29; strkjv@John:5:37; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:7|. But, if so taken, it is not semblance as opposed to reality (Milligan). The papyri give several examples of \eidos\...a way of showing itself even...

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

rwp@2Corinthians:2:3 @{I wrote this very thing} (\egrapsa touto auto\). Is this (and \egrapsa\ in verses 4,9,12|)...the present letter? In itself that...8:18; strkjv@9:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 854f.). If not epistolary aorist as seems improbable from the context and from strkjv@7:8-12|, to what Epistle does he refer? To strkjv@1Corinthians:5| or to a lost letter? It is possible, of course, that, when Paul decided not to come to Corinth, he sent a letter. The language that follows in verses 3,4; strkjv@7:8-12| can hardly apply to I Corinthians. {Should have sorrow} (\lupˆn sch“\). Second aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of \ech“\, should get sorrow, after \hina mˆ\ negative final particles. {From them of whom} (\aph' h“n\). Antecedent omitted, \apo tout“n aph' h“n\ (from those from whom). {I ought} (\edei me\). Imperfect for unrealized present obligation as often and like English. {Having confidence} (\pepoith“s\). Second perfect active participle of \peith“\ (1:9|).

rwp@2Corinthians:7:9 @{Now I rejoice} (\nun chair“\). Now that Titus has come and told him the good news from Corinth (2:12f.|). This was the occasion of the noble outburst in strkjv@2:12-6:10|. {Unto repentance} (\eis metanoian\). Note the sharp difference here between "sorrow" (\lupˆ\) which is merely another form of \metamelomai\ (regret, remorse) and "repentance" (\metanoia\) or change of mind and life. It is a linguistic and theological tragedy that we have to go on using "repentance" for \metanoia\. But observe that the "sorrow" has led to "repentance" and was not Itself the repentance. {After a godly sort} (\kata theon\). In God's way. "God's way as opposed to man's way and the devil's way" (Plummer). It was not mere sorrow, but a change in their attitude that counted. {That ye might suffer loss by us in nothing} (\hina en mˆdeni zˆmi“thˆte ex hum“n\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \zˆmio“\, old verb to suffer damage. See on ¯Matthew:16:26|. This was God's intention and so he overruled their sorrow to good.

rwp@2Corinthians:13:2 @{As when I was present the second time} (\h“s par“n to deuteron\). This translation assumes the second visit as already made. It is a natural way to take the Greek \h“s par“n\. But \h“s\ with \par“n\ can also mean "as if present" the second time (Authorized Version). Probably "as when" is the more natural rendering, but the other cannot be ruled entirely out in view of strkjv@1:15-23|. {If I come again} (\ean elth“ eis to palin\). Condition of third class. The use of \palin\ of itself suits the idea that Paul had not yet made the second visit as it means simply "again" or "back," but in strkjv@Matthew:26:44| we find \palin ek tritou\ (again a third time) and so it is not decisive.

rwp@2John:1:9 @{Whosoever goeth onward} (\pƒs ho proag“n\). "Every one who goes ahead. \Proag“\ literally means to go on before (Mark:11:9|). That in itself is often the thing to do, but here the bad sense comes out by the parallel clause. {And abideth not in the teaching of Christ} (\kai mˆ men“n en tˆi didachˆi tou Christou\). Not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christ which is the standard of Christian teaching as the walk of Christ is the standard for the Christian's walk (1John:2:6|). See strkjv@John:7:16; strkjv@18:19|. These Gnostics claimed to be the progressives, the advanced thinkers, and were anxious to relegate Christ to the past in their onward march. This struggle goes on always among those who approach the study of Christ. Is he a "landmark" merely or is he our goal and pattern? Progress we all desire, but progress toward Christ, not away from him. Reactionary obscurantists wish no progress toward Christ, but desire to stop and camp where they are. "True progress includes the past" (Westcott). Jesus Christ is still ahead of us all calling us to come on to him.

rwp@Info_2Peter @...II Peter stands by itself and...

rwp@2Thessalonians:1:9 @{Who} (\hoitines\). Qualitative use, such as. Vanishing in papyri though surviving in Paul (1Corinthians:3:17; strkjv@Romans:1:25; strkjv@Galatians:4:26; strkjv@Phillipians:4:3|). {Shall suffer punishment} (\dikˆn tisousin\). Future active of old verb \tin“\, to pay penalty (\dikˆn\, right, justice), here only in N.T., but \apotin“\ once also to repay strkjv@Philemon:1:19|. In the papyri \dikˆ\ is used for a case or process in law. This is the regular phrase in classic writers for paying the penalty. {Eternal destruction} (\olethron ai“nion\). Accusative case in apposition with \dikˆn\ (penalty). This phrase does not appear elsewhere in the N.T., but is in IV Macc. strkjv@10:15 \ton ai“nion tou turannou olethron\ the eternal destruction of the tyrant (Antiochus Epiphanes). Destruction (cf. strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:3|) does not mean here annihilation, but, as Paul proceeds to show, separation {from the face of the Lord} (\apo pros“pou tou kuriou\) and from the {glory of his might} (\kai apo tˆs doxˆs tˆs ischuos autou\), an eternity of woe such as befell Antiochus Epiphanes. \Ai“nios\ in itself only means age-long and papyri and inscriptions give it in the weakened sense of a Caesar's life (Milligan), but Paul means by age-long {the coming age} in contrast with {this age}, as {eternal} as the New Testament knows how to make it. See on ¯Matthew:25:46| for use of \ai“nios\ both with \z“ˆn\, life, and \kolasin\, punishment.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:6 @{That which restraineth} (\to katechon\). {And now you know} (\kai nun oidate\), says Paul in this cryptic apocalyptic passage. Unfortunately we do not know what Paul means by {that which restrains} (holds back, \katechon\), neuter here and masculine in verse 7| \ho katech“n\...capable also of manifesting itself under...(Milligan). "He is Satan's messiah, an infernal caricature of the true Messiah" (Moffatt). Warfield (_Expositor_, III, iv, pp. 30ff.) suggested that the man of lawlessness is the imperial line with its rage for deification and that the Jewish state was the restraining power. But God overrules all human history and his ultimate purpose is wrought out. {To the end that} (\eis to\). Another example of \eis to\ and the infinitive for purpose. {In his own season} (\en t“i autou kair“i\). Note \autou\ (his), not \heautou\ (his own), {revealed in his time}, in the time set him by God.

rwp@3John:1:8 @{Ought} (\opheilomen\). See for this word strkjv@1John:2:6; strkjv@3:16; strkjv@4:11|. {To welcome} (\hupolambanein\). Present active infinitive (habit of welcoming) of \hupolamban“\, old word, to take up under, to carry off (Acts:1:9|), to reply (Luke:10:30|), to suppose (Acts:2:15|), only here in N.T. in this sense of receiving hospitably or to take under one's protection like \hupodechomai\ (Luke:10:38|). {Such} (\tous toioutous\). "The such" according to the Greek idiom (1Corinthians:16:16,18|). {That we may be} (\hina gin“metha\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the present middle subjunctive of \ginomai\, "that we may keep on becoming." {Fellow-workers} (\sunergoi\). Old compound (\sun, ergon\). {With the truth} (\tˆi alˆtheiƒi\). Songs:associative instrumental case with \sun\ in \sunergoi\, but it is not certain that this is the idea, though \sunerge“\ is so used with \ergois\ in strkjv@James:2:22|. \Sunergos\ itself occurs with the genitive of the person as in \theou sunergoi\ (1Corinthians:3:9|) or with genitive of the thing \tˆs charƒs\ (1Corinthians:3:9|). Songs:then here the meaning may be either "co-workers with such brethren for the truth" (dative of advantage) or "co-workers with the truth" (associative instrumental case).

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

rwp@Acts:2:3 @{Parting asunder} (\diamerizomenai\). Present middle (or passive) participle of \diameriz“\, old verb, to cleave asunder, to cut in pieces as a butcher does meat (aorist passive in strkjv@Luke:11:17f.|). Songs:middle here would mean, parting themselves asunder or distributing themselves. The passive voice would be "being distributed." The middle is probably correct and means that "the fire-like appearance presented itself at first, as it were, in a single body, and then suddenly parted in this direction and that; so that a portion of it rested on each of those present" (Hackett). The idea is not that each tongue was cloven, but each separate tongue looked like fire, not real fire, but looking like (\h“sei\, as if) fire. The audible sign is followed by a visible one (Knowling). "Fire had always been, with the Jews, the symbol of the Divine presence (cf. strkjv@Exodus:3:2; strkjv@Deuteronomy:5:4|). No symbol could be more fitting to express the Spirit's purifying energy and refining energy" (Furneaux). The Baptist had predicted a baptizing by the Messiah in the Holy Spirit and in fire (Matthew:3:11|). {It sat} (\ekathisen\). Singular verb here, though plural \“pthˆsan\ with tongues (\gl“ssai\). A tongue that looked like fire sat upon each one.

rwp@Acts:2:11 @{Cretes and Arabians}. These two groups "seem to have been added to the list as an afterthought" (Knowling)...is an island to itself and...{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:2:27 @{In Hades} (\eis Hƒidˆn\)...is viewed as death itself "considered...(Hackett). It does not mean the place of punishment, though both heaven and the place of torment are in Hades (Luke:16:23|). "Death and Hades are strictly parallel terms: he who is dead is in Hades" (Page). The use of \eis\ here=\en\ is common enough. The Textus Receptus here reads \eis Hƒidou\ (genitive case) like the Attic idiom with \domon\ (abode) understood. "Hades" in English is not translation, but transliteration. The phrase in the Apostles' Creed, "descended into hell" is from this passage in Acts (Hades, not Gehenna). The English word "hell" is Anglo-Saxon from \helan\, to hide, and was used in the Authorized Version to translate both Hades as here and Gehenna as in strkjv@Matthew:5:22|. {Thy Holy One} (\ton hosion sou\). Peter applies these words to the Messiah. {Corruption} (\diaphthoran\). The word can mean destruction or putrefaction from \diaphtheir“\, old word, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:13:34-37|. The Hebrew word in strkjv@Psalms:16| can mean also the pit or the deep.

rwp@Acts:5:18 @{With jealousy} (\zˆlou\). Genitive case. Old word from ze“...boil, our zeal. In itself it...(Acts:13:45|). Common in the epistles. {In public ward} (\en tˆrˆsei dˆmosiƒi\). As in strkjv@4:3| only with \dˆmosiƒi\ (public) added, in the public prison, perhaps not the "common" prison, but any prison is bad enough. In verse 19| it is called "the prison" (\tˆs phulakˆs\), the guardhouse.

rwp@Acts:8:26 @{Toward the South} (\kata mesˆmbrian\). Old word from \mesos\ and \hˆmera\, midday or noon as in strkjv@Acts:22:16|, the only other example in the N.T. That may be the idea here also, though "towards the South" gets support from the use of \kata liba\ in strkjv@Acts:27:12|. {The same is desert} (\hautˆ estin erˆmos\)...through a desert. Gaza itself was...

rwp@Acts:10:47 @{Can any man forbid the water?} (\Mˆti to hud“r dunatai k“l–sai tis?\). The negative \mˆti\ expects the answer _No_. The evidence was indisputable that these Gentiles were converted and so were entitled to be baptized. See the similar idiom in strkjv@Luke:6:39|. Note the article with "water." Here the baptism of the Holy Spirit had preceded the baptism of water (Acts:1:5; strkjv@11:16|). "The greater had been bestowed; could the lesser be withheld?" (Knowling). {That these should not be baptized} (\tou mˆ baptisthˆnai toutous\). Ablative case of the articular first aorist passive infinitive of \baptiz“\ with the redundant negative after the verb of hindering (\k“l–sai\) and the accusative of general reference (\toutous\). The redundant negative after the verb of hindering is not necessary though often used in ancient Greek and in the _Koin‚_ (papyri). Without it see strkjv@Matthew:19:14; strkjv@Acts:8:36| and with it see strkjv@Luke:4:42; strkjv@24:16; strkjv@Acts:14:18|. Cf. Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1061, 1094, 1171. The triple negatives here are a bit confusing to the modern mind (\mˆti\ in the question, \k“l–sai\, to hinder or to cut off, \mˆ\ with \baptisthˆnai\)...as the element offering itself for...{As well as we} (\h“s kai hˆmeis\). The argument was conclusive. God had spoken. Note the query of the eunuch to Philip (Acts:8:36|).

rwp@Acts:11:26 @{Even for a whole year} (\kai eniauton holon\). Accusative of extent of time, probably the year A.D. 44, the year preceding the visit to Jerusalem (11:30|), the year of the famine. The preceding years with Tarsus as headquarters covered A.D. 37 to 44. {They were gathered together with the church} (\sunachthˆnai en tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\). First aorist passive infinitive of \sunag“\, old verb, probably here to meet together as in strkjv@Matthew:28:12|. In strkjv@Acts:14:27| the verb is used of gathering together the church, but here \en tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\ excludes that idea. Barnabas met together "in the church" (note first use of the word for the disciples at Antioch). This peculiar phrase accents the leadership and co-operation of Barnabas and Saul in teaching (\didaxai\, first aorist active infinitive) much people. Both infinitives are in the nominative case, the subject of \egeneto\ (it came to pass). {And that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch} (\chrˆmatisai te pr“t“s en Antiocheiƒi tous mathˆtas Christianous\). This first active infinitive \chrˆmatisai\ is also a subject of \egeneto\ and is added as a separate item by the use of \te\ rather than \kai\. For the word itself in the sense of divine command see on ¯Matthew:2:12,22; strkjv@Luke:2:26; strkjv@Acts:10:22|. Here and in strkjv@Romans:7:3| it means to be called or named (assuming a name from one's business, \chrˆma\, from \chraomai\, to use or to do business). Polybius uses it in this sense as here. \Tous mathˆtas\ (the disciples) is in the accusative of general reference with the infinitive. \Christianous\ (Christians) is simply predicate accusative. This word is made after the pattern of \Herodianus\ (Matthew:22:16|, \Her“idianoi\, followers of Herod), \Caesarianus\, a follower of Caesar (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 377, gives papyri examples of the genitive \Kaisaros\ meaning also "belonging to Caesar" like the common adjective \Caesarianus\). It is made thus like a Latin adjective, though it is a Greek word, and it refers to the Hebrew belief in a Messiah (Page). The name was evidently given to the followers of Christ by the Gentiles to distinguish them from the Jews since they were Greeks, not Grecian Jews. The Jews would not call them Christians because of their own use of \Christos\ the Messiah. The Jews termed them Galileans or Nazarenes. The followers of Christ called themselves disciples (learners), believers, brethren, saints, those of the Way. The three uses of Christian in the N.T. are from the heathen standpoint (here), strkjv@Acts:26:28| (a term of contempt in the mouth of Agrippa), and strkjv@1Peter:4:16| (persecution from the Roman government). It is a clear distinction from both Jews and Gentiles and it is not strange that it came into use first here in Antioch when the large Greek church gave occasion for it. Later Ignatius was bishop in Antioch and was given to the lions in Rome, and John Chrysostom preached here his wonderful sermons.

rwp@Acts:15:22 @{Then it seemed good} (\Tote edoxen\). First aorist active indicative of \doke“\...Eirenicon of James commended itself to...(\tois apostolois kai tois presbuterois\, article with each, dative case) probably all vocally expressed their position. {With the whole church} (\sun holei tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\). Probably by acclamation. It was a great victory. But James was a practical leader and he did not stop with speeches and a vote. {To choose men out of their company} (\eklezamenous andras ex aut“n\). Accusative case, though dative just before (\tois apostolois\, etc.), of first aorist middle participle of \ekleg“\, to select. This loose case agreement appears also in \grapsantes\ in verse 23| and in MSS. in verse 25|. It is a common thing in all Greek writers (Paul, for instance), especially in the papyri and in the Apocalypse of John. {Judas called Barsabbas} (\Ioudan ton kaloumenon Barsabban\). Not otherwise known unless he is a brother of Joseph Barsabbas of strkjv@1:23|, an early follower of Jesus. The other, Silas, is probably a shortened form of Silvanus (\Silouanos\, strkjv@1Peter:5:12|), the companion of Paul in his second mission tour (Acts:15:32,41; strkjv@16:25|). {Chief men} (\hˆgoumenous\). Leaders, leading men (participle from \hˆgeomai\, to lead).

rwp@Acts:15:28 @{To the Holy Spirit and to us} (\t“i pneumati t“i hagi“i kai hˆmin\). Dative case after \edoxen\ (third example, verses 22,25,28|). Definite claim that the church in this action had the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That fact was plain to the church from what had taken place in Caesarea and in this campaign of Paul and Barnabas (verse 8|). Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John:16:13|). Even so the church deliberated carefully before deciding. What a blessing it would be if this were always true! But even so the Judaizers are only silenced for the present, not convinced and only waiting for a better day to start over again. {No greater burden} (\mˆden pleon baros\). The restrictions named did constitute some burden (cf. strkjv@Matthew:20:12|), for the old word \baros\...weight or heaviness. Morality itself is...

rwp@Acts:16:6 @{The region of Phrygia and Galatia} (\tˆn Phrugian kai Galatikˆn ch“ran\). This is probably the correct text with one article and apparently describes one "Region" or District in The Province of Galatia which was also Phrygian (the old-ethnographic name with which compare the use of Lycaonia in strkjv@14:6|). Strictly speaking Derbe and Lystra, though in the Province of Galatia, were not Phrygian, and so Luke would here be not resumptive of the record in verses 1-5|; but a reference to the country around Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia in North Galatia is not included. This verse is hotly disputed at every point by the advocates of the North Galatian theory as represented by Chase and the South Galatian theory by Ramsay. Whatever is true in regard to the language of Luke here and in strkjv@18:23|, it is still possible for Paul in strkjv@Galatians:1:2| to use the term Galatia of the whole province of that name which could, in fact, apply to either South or North Galatia or to both. He could, of course, use it also in the ethnographic sense of the real Gauls or Celts who dwelt in North Galatia. Certainly the first tour of Paul and Barnabas was in the Province of Galatia though touching only the Regions of Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia, which province included besides the Gauls to the north. In this second tour Lycaonia has been already touched (Derbe and Lystra) and now Phrygia. The question arises why Luke here and in strkjv@18:23| adds the term "of Galatia" (\Galatikˆn\) though not in strkjv@13:14| (Pisidian Antioch) nor in strkjv@14:6| (cities of Lycaonia). Does Luke mean to use "of Galatia" in the same ethnographic sense as "of Phrygia" or does he here add the province (Galatia) to the name of the Region (Phrygia)? In itself either view is possible and it really matters very little except that the question is raised whether Paul went into the North Galatian Region on this occasion or later (18:23|). He could have done so and the Epistle be addressed to the churches of South Galatia, North Galatia, or the province as a whole. But the Greek participle \k“luthentes\ ("having been forbidden") plays a part in the argument that cannot be overlooked whether Luke means to say that Paul went north or not. This aorist passive participle of \k“lu“\, to hinder, can only express simultaneous or antecedent action, not subsequent action as Ramsay argues. No example of the so-called subsequent use of the aorist participle has ever been found in Greek as all Greek grammarians agree (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 860-63, 1112-14). The only natural meaning of \k“luthentes\ is that Paul with Silas and Timothy "passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia" because they were hindered by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia (the Province of Asia of which Ephesus was the chief city and west of Derbe and Lystra). This construction implies that the country called "the region of Phrygia and Galatia" is not in the direct line west toward Ephesus. What follows in verse 7| throws further light on the point.

rwp@Acts:16:7 @{Over against Mysia} (\kata tˆn Musian\). This was an ill-defined region rather north and west of Phrygia. The Romans finally absorbed most of it in the Province of Asia. {They assayed to go into Bithynia} (\epeirazon eis tˆn Bithunian poreuthˆnai\). Conative imperfect of \peiraz“\ and ingressive aorist passive infinitive of \poreuomai\. Now Bithynia is northeast of Mysia and north of Galatia (province). Clearly Luke means to say that Paul had, when hindered by the Holy Spirit from going west into Asia, gone north so as to come in front of Bithynia. This journey would take him directly through Phrygia and the North Galatian country (the real Gauls or Celts). This is, to my mind, the strongest argument for the North Galatian view in these verses 6,7|. The grammar and the topography bring Paul right up to Bithynia (north of the old Galatia). It is verses 6,7|...South Galatian theory. In itself the...{And the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not} (\kai ouk eiasen autous to pneuma Iˆsou\). The same Spirit who in verse 6| had forbidden going into Asia now closed the door into Bithynia. This expression occurs nowhere else, but we have the spirit of Christ (Romans:8:9|) and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:19|). \Eiasen\ is first aorist active indicative of \ea“\, old verb to allow.

rwp@Acts:16:14 @{Lydia} (\Ludia\). Her birthplace was Thyatira in Lydia. She may have been named after the land, though Lydia is a common female name (see Horace). Lydia was itself a Macedonian colony (Strabo, XIII. 4). Thyatira (note plural form like Philippi and one of the seven churches of Asia here strkjv@Revelation:2:18|) was famous for its purple dyes as old as Homer (Iliad, IV. 141) and had a guild of dyers (\hoi bapheis\) as inscriptions show. {A seller of purple} (\porphurop“lis\). A female seller of purple fabrics (\porphura, p“lis\). Late word, masculine form in an inscription. There was a great demand for this fabric as it was used on the official toga at Rome and in Roman colonies. We still use the term "royal purple." See on ¯Luke:16:19|. Evidently Lydia was a woman of some means to carry on such an important enterprise from her native city. She may have been a freed-woman, since racial names were often borne by slaves. {One that worshipped God} (\sebomenˆ ton theon\). A God-fearer or proselyte of the gate. There was a Jewish settlement in Thyatira which was especially interested in the dyeing industry. She probably became a proselyte there. Whether this was true of the other women we do not know. They may have been Jewesses or proselytes like Lydia, probably all of them employees of hers in her business. When Paul writes to the Philippians he does not mention Lydia who may have died meanwhile and who certainly was not Paul's wife. She was wealthy and probably a widow. {Heard us} (\ˆkouen\). Imperfect active of \akou“\, was listening, really listening and she kept it up, listening to each of these new and strange preachers. {Opened} (\diˆnoixen\). First aorist active indicative of \dianoig“\, old word, double compound (\dia, ana, oig“\) to open up wide or completely like a folding door (both sides, \dia\, two). Only the Lord could do that. Jesus had opened (the same verb) the mind of the disciples to understand the Scriptures (Luke:24:45|). {To give heed} (\prosechein\). To hold the mind (\ton noun\ understood), present active infinitive. She kept her mind centred on the things spoken by Paul whose words gripped her attention. She rightly perceived that Paul was the foremost one of the group. He had personal magnetism and power of intellect that the Spirit of God used to win the heart of this remarkable woman to Christ. It was worth coming to Philippi to win this fine personality to the Kingdom of God. She will be the chief spirit in this church that will give Paul more joy and co-operation than any of his churches. It is not stated that she was converted on the first Sabbath, though this may have been the case. "One solitary convert, a woman, and she already a seeker after God, and a native of that very Asia where they had been forbidden to preach" (Furneaux). But a new era had dawned for Europe and for women in the conversion of Lydia.

rwp@Acts:17:5 @{Moved with jealousy} (\zˆl“santes\). Both our English words, {zeal} and {jealousy}, are from the Greek \zˆlos\. In strkjv@13:45| the Jews (rabbis) "were filled with jealousy" (\eplˆsthˆsan zˆlou\). That is another way of saying the same thing as here. The success of Paul was entirely too great in both places to please the rabbis. Songs:here is jealousy of Jewish preachers towards Christian preachers. It is always between men or women of the same profession or group. In strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:3-10| Paul hints at some of the slanders spread against him by these rabbis (deceivers, using words of flattery as men-pleasers, after vain-glory, greed of gain, etc.). {Took unto them} (\proslabomenoi\). Second aorist middle (indirect, to themselves) participle of \proslamban“\, old and common verb. {Certain vile fellows of the rabble} (\t“n agorai“n andras tinas ponˆrous\). The \agora\ or market-place was the natural resort for those with nothing to do (Matthew:20:4|) like the court-house square today or various parks in our cities where bench-warmers flock. Plato (_Protagoras_ 347 C) calls these \agoraioi\ (common word, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@19:38|) idlers or good-for-nothing fellows. They are in every city and such "bums" are ready for any job. The church in Thessalonica caught some of these peripatetic idlers (2Thessalonians:3:10f.|) "doing nothing but doing about." Songs:the Jewish preachers gather to themselves a choice collection of these market-loungers or loafers or wharf-rats. The Romans called them _subrostrani_ (hangers round the rostrum or _subbasilicari_). {Gathering a crowd} (\ochlopoiˆsantes\). Literally, making or getting (\poie“\) a crowd (\ochlos\), a word not found elsewhere. Probably right in the \agora\ itself where the rabbis could tell men their duties and pay them in advance. Instance Hyde Park in London with all the curious gatherings every day, Sunday afternoons in particular. {Set the city on an uproar} (\ethoruboun\). Imperfect active of \thorube“\, from \thorubos\ (tumult), old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@20:10; strkjv@Matthew:9:23; strkjv@Mark:4:39|. They kept up the din, this combination of rabbis and rabble. {Assaulting the house of Jason} (\epistantes tˆi oikiƒi Iasonos\). Second aorist (ingressive) active of \ephistˆmi\, taking a stand against, rushing at, because he was Paul's host. He may have been a Gentile (Jason the name of an ancient king of Thessaly), but the Jews often used it for Joshua or Jesus (II Macc. strkjv@1:7). {They sought} (\ezˆtoun\). Imperfect active. They burst into the house and searched up and down. {Them} (\autous\). Paul and Silas. They were getting ready to have a lynching party.

rwp@Acts:17:13 @{Was proclaimed} (\katˆggelˆ\). Second aorist passive indicative of \kataggell“\, common late verb as in strkjv@Acts:16:21|. {Of Paul} (\hupo Paulou\). By Paul, of course. {Stirring up and troubling the multitudes} (\saleuontes kai tarassontes tous ochlous\). Shaking the crowds like an earthquake (4:31|) and disturbing like a tornado (17:8|)...a good account of itself later...(Acts:20:4|) with their part of the collection to Jerusalem. This quiet and noble town was in a whirl of excitement over the attacks of the Jewish emissaries from Thessalonica who probably made the same charge of treason against Paul and Silas.

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| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\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-...sensual nature which arrayed itself against...-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), it was not for trial as a criminal, but simply for examination concerning his new teaching in this university city whether it was strictly legal or not. Paul was really engaged in proselytism to turn the Athenians away from their old gods to Jesus Christ. But "the court of refined and polished Athenians was very different from the rough provincial magistrates of Philippi, and the philosophers who presented Paul to their cognizance very different from the mob of Thessalonians" (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:17:34 @{Clave unto him and believed} (\kollˆthentes aut“i episteusan\). First aorist passive of this strong word \kolla“\, to glue to, common in Acts (5:13; strkjv@8:29; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@10:28|) No sermon is a failure which leads a group of men (\andres\) to believe (ingressive aorist of \pisteu“\) in Jesus Christ. Many so-called great or grand sermons reap no such harvest. {Dionysius the Areopagite} (\Dionusios ho Areopagitˆs\)...the Areopagus. That of itself was...{A woman named Damaris} (\gunˆ onomati Damaris\). A woman by name Damaris. Not the wife of Dionysius as some have thought, but an aristocratic woman, not necessarily an educated courtezan as Furneaux holds. And there were "others" (\heteroi\) with them, a group strong enough to keep the fire burning in Athens. It is common to say that Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:1-5| alludes to his failure with philosophy in Athens when he failed to preach Christ crucified and he determined never to make that mistake again. On the other hand Paul determined to stick to the Cross of Christ in spite of the fact that the intellectual pride and superficial culture of Athens had prevented the largest success. As he faced Corinth with its veneer of culture and imitation of philosophy and sudden wealth he would go on with the same gospel of the Cross, the only gospel that Paul knew or preached. And it was a great thing to give the world a sermon like that preached in Athens.

rwp@Acts:19:31 @{Certain also of the chief officers of Asia} (\tines de kai t“n Asiarch“n\). These "Asiarchs" were ten officers elected by cities in the province who celebrated at their own cost public games and festivals (Page). Each province had such a group of men chosen, as we now know from inscriptions, to supervise the funds connected with the worship of the emperor, to preside at games and festivals even when the temple services were to gods like Artemis. Only rich men could act, but the position was eagerly sought. {Being his friends} (\ontes aut“i philoi\). Evidently the Asiarchs had a high opinion of Paul and were unwilling for him to expose his life to a wild mob during the festival of Artemis. They were at least tolerant toward Paul and his preaching. "It was an Asiarch who at Smyrna resisted the cry of the populace to throw Polycarp to the lions" (Furneaux). {Besought him} (\parekaloun auton\). Imperfect active, showing that the messengers sent had to insist over Paul's protest. "{Not to adventure himself}" (\mˆ dounai heauton\). It was a hazard, a rash adventure "to give himself" (second aorist active infinitive of \did“mi\). Just this sense of "adventure" with the idiom occurs only here in the N.T., though in Polybius V., 14, 9. But the phrase itself Paul uses of Jesus who gave himself for our sins (Galatians:1:4; strkjv@1Timothy:2:6; strkjv@Titus:2:14|). It is not the first time that friends had rescued Paul from peril (Acts:9:25,30; strkjv@17:10,14|). The theatre was no place for Paul. It meant certain death.

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

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

rwp@Acts:21:4 @{Having found} (\aneurontes\). Second aorist active participle of \aneurisk“\, to seek for, to find by searching (\ana\). There was a church here, but it was a large city and the number of members may not have been large. Probably some of those that fled from Jerusalem who came to Phoenicia (Acts:11:19|) started the work here. Paul went also through Phoenicia on the way to the Jerusalem Conference (15:3|)...Paul's indefatigible energy shows itself with...{Through the Spirit} (\dia tou pneumatos\). The Holy Spirit undoubtedly who had already told Paul that bonds and afflictions awaited him in Jerusalem (20:23|). {That he should not set foot in Jerusalem} (\mˆ epibainein eis Ierosoluma\). Indirect command with \mˆ\ and the present active infinitive, not to keep on going to Jerusalem (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1046). In spite of this warning Paul felt it his duty as before (20:22|) to go on. Evidently Paul interpreted the action of the Holy Spirit as information and warning although the disciples at Tyre gave it the form of a prohibition. Duty called louder than warning to Paul even if both were the calls of God.

rwp@Acts:23:1 @{Looking steadfastly} (\atenisas\). See on this word strkjv@1:10; strkjv@3:12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@7:55; strkjv@13:9|. Paul may have had weak eyes, but probably the earnest gaze was to see if he recognized any faces that were in the body that tried Stephen and to which he apparently once belonged. {I have lived before God} (\pepoliteumai t“i the“i\). Perfect middle indicative of \politeu“\, old verb to manage affairs of city (\polis\) or state, to be a citizen, behave as a citizen. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|. The idea of citizenship was Greek and Roman, not Jewish. "He had lived as God's citizen, as a member of God's commonwealth" (Rackham). God (\the“i\) is the dative of personal interest. As God looked at it and in his relation to God. {In all good conscience unto this day} (\pasˆi suneidˆsei agathˆi achri tautˆs tˆs hˆmeras\). This claim seems to lack tact, but for brevity's sake Paul sums up a whole speech in it. He may have said much more than Luke here reports along the line of his speech the day before, but Paul did not make this claim without consideration. It appears to contradict his confession as the chief of sinners (1Timothy:1:13-16|). But that depends on one's interpretation of "good conscience." The word \suneidˆsis\ is literally "joint-knowledge" in Greek, Latin (_conscientia_) and English "conscience" from the Latin. It is a late word from \sunoida\...Stoics, ecclesiastical writers. In itself the...(Hebrews:10:2|), or of one's own self, then consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong (Romans:2:15|) with approval or disapproval. But the conscience is not an infallible guide and acts according to the light that it has (1Corinthians:8:7,10; strkjv@1Peter:2:19|). The conscience can be contaminated (Hebrews:10:22|, evil \ponˆrƒs\). All this and more must be borne in mind in trying to understand Paul's description of his motives as a persecutor. Alleviation of his guilt comes thereby, but not removal of guilt as he himself felt (1Timothy:1:13-16|). He means to say to the Sanhedrin that he persecuted Christians as a conscientious (though mistaken) Jew (Pharisee) just as he followed his conscience in turning from Judaism to Christianity. It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no "apologies" (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. He had the consolation of a good conscience (1Peter:3:16|). The word does not occur in the Gospels and chiefly in Paul's Epistles, but we see it at work in strkjv@John:8:9| (the interpolation strkjv@7:53-8:11|).

rwp@Acts:25:16 @{It is not the custom of the Romans} (\hoti ouk estin ethos R“maiois\). If a direct quotation, \hoti\ is recitative as in Authorized Version. Canterbury Revision takes it as indirect discourse after \apekrithˆn\ (I answered), itself in a relative clause (\pros hous\) with the present tense (\estin\, is) preserved as is usual. There is a touch of disdain (Furneaux) in the tone of Festus. He may refer to a demand of the Jews before they asked that Paul be brought to Jerusalem (25:3|). At any rate there is a tone of scorn towards the Jews. {Before that the accused have} (\prin ˆ ho katˆgoroumenos echoi\). This use of the optative in this temporal clause with \prin ˆ\ instead of the subjunctive \an echˆi\ is in conformity with literary Greek and occurs only in Luke's writings in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 970). This sequence of modes is a mark of the literary style occasionally seen in Luke. It is interesting here to note the succession of dependent clauses in verses 14-16|. {The accusers face to face} (\kata pros“pon tous katˆgorous\). Same word \katˆgoros\ as in strkjv@23:30,35; strkjv@25:18|. This all sounds fair enough. {And have had opportunity to make his defence concerning the matter laid against him} (\topon te apologias laboi peri tou egklˆmatos\). Literally, "And should receive (\laboi\ optative for same reason as \echoi\ above, second aorist active of \lamban“\) opportunity for defence (objective genitive) concerning the charge" (\egklˆmatos\ in N.T. only here and strkjv@23:19| which see).

rwp@Info_Colossians @...THE OCCASION The Epistle itself gives...(Colossians:1:7-9; strkjv@4:12f.|). He is probably one of Paul's converts while in Ephesus who in behalf of Paul (Colossians:1:7|) evangelized the Lycus Valley (Colossae, Hierapolis, Laodicea) where Paul had never been himself (Colossians:2:1; strkjv@4:13-16|). Since Paul's departure for Rome, the "grievous wolves" whom he foresaw in Miletus (Acts:20:29f.|) had descended upon these churches and were playing havoc with many and leading them astray much as new cults today mislead the unwary. These men were later called Gnostics (see Ignatius) and had a subtle appeal that was not easy to withstand. The air was full of the mystery cults like the Eleusinian mysteries, Mithraism, the vogue of Isis, what not. These new teachers professed new thought with a world-view that sought to explain everything on the assumption that matter was essentially evil and that the good God could only touch evil matter by means of a series of aeons or emanations so far removed from him as to prevent contamination by God and yet with enough power to create evil matter. This jejune theory satisfied many just as today some are content to deny the existence of sin, disease, death in spite of the evidence of the senses to the contrary. In his perplexity Epaphras journeyed all the way to Rome to obtain Paul's help.

rwp@Colossians:2:12 @{Having been buried with him in baptism} (\suntaphentes aut“i en t“i baptismati\). Second aorist passive participle of \sunthapt“\, old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:6:4|, followed by associative instrumental case (\aut“i\). Thayer's Lexicon says: "For all who in the rite of baptism are plunged under the water, thereby declare that they put faith in the expiatory death of Christ for the pardon of their past sins." Yes, and for all future sins also. This word gives Paul's vivid picture of baptism as a symbolic burial with Christ and resurrection also to newness of life in him as Paul shows by the addition "wherein ye were also raised with him" (\en h“i kai sunˆgerthˆte\). "In which baptism" (\baptismati\, he means). First aorist passive indicative of \sunegeir“\, late and rare verb (Plutarch for waking up together), in LXX, in N.T. only in strkjv@Colossians:2:12; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@Ephesians:2:6|...interpretation to circumcision which itself followed...(Romans:4:10-12|). Cf. strkjv@Galatians:3:27|. Baptism gives a picture of the change already wrought in the heart "through faith" (\dia tˆs piste“s\). {In the working of God} (\tˆs energeias tou theou\). Objective genitive after \piste“s\. See strkjv@1:29| for \energeia\. God had power to raise Christ from the dead (\tou egeirantos\, first aorist active participle of \egeir“\, the fact here stated) and he has power (energy) to give us new life in Christ by faith.

rwp@Colossians:4:18 @{Of me Paul with mine own hand} (\tˆi emˆi cheiri Paulou\). More precisely, "with the hand of me Paul." The genitive \Paulou\ is in apposition with the idea in the possessive pronoun \emˆi\, which is itself in the instrumental case agreeing with \cheiri\. Songs:also strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:17; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21|. {My bonds} (\mou t“n desm“n\). Genitive case with \mnemoneuete\ (remember). The chain (\en halusei\ strkjv@Ephesians:6:20|) clanked afresh as Paul took the pen to sign the salutation. He was not likely to forget it himself

rwp@Info_Ephesians @...Duncan argue for Ephesus itself as...

rwp@Ephesians:2:21 @{Each several building} (\pƒsa oikodomˆ\). Songs:without article Aleph B D G K L. \Oikodomˆ\ is a late word from \oikos\ and \dem“\, to build for building up (edification) as in strkjv@Ephesians:4:29|...then for the building itself as...(Mark:13:1f.|). Ordinary Greek idiom here calls for "every building," not for "all the building" (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 772), though it is not perfectly clear what that means. Each believer is called a \naos theou\ (1Corinthians:3:16|). One may note the plural in strkjv@Mark:13:1| (\oikodomai\) of the various parts of the temple. Perhaps that is the idea here without precise definition of each \oikodomˆ\. But there are examples of \pƒs\ without the article where "all" is the idea as in \pƒsˆs ktise“s\ (all creation) in strkjv@Colossians:1:15|. {Fitly framed together} (\sunarmologoumenˆ\). Double compound from \sun\ and \harmologos\ (binding, \harmos\, joint and \leg“\), apparently made by Paul and in N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:4:16|. Architectural metaphor. {Into a holy temple} (\eis naon hagion\). The whole structure with all the \oikodomai\. Another metaphor for the Kingdom of God with which compare Peter's "spiritual house" (\oikos pneumatikos\) in which each is a living stone being built in (1Peter:2:5|).

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

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @...of all. The Epistle itself has...(1Thessalonians:3:1f.|) and had just returned to Paul (1Thessalonians:3:6|) which we know was in Corinth (Acts:18:5|) shortly before Gallio came as Proconsul of Achaia (Acts:18:12|). We can now feel certain from the new "acclamation" of Claudius in the inscription at Delphi recently explained by Deissmann in his _St. Paul_ that the Thessalonian Epistles were written 50 to 51 A.D. We know also that he wrote I Corinthians while in Ephesus (1Corinthians:16:8|) and before pentecost, though the precise year is not given. But he spent three years at Ephesus in round numbers (Acts:19:8,10; strkjv@20:31|) and he wrote just before he left, probably spring of A.D. 54 or 55. He wrote II Corinthians from Macedonia shortly after leaving Ephesus (2Corinthians:2:12|) ] apparently the same year. Romans was written from Corinth and sent by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:1f.|) unless strkjv@Romans:16|...that does not commend itself to...(_New Testament in the Light of Modern Research_, p. 33) accepts a modern theory that Ephesus was the place of the writing of the first prison Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) as well as I Corinthians and Galatians and dates them all between A.D. 52 and 55. But we shall find that these prison Epistles most naturally fall to Rome between A.D. 61 and 63. If the Pastoral Epistles are genuine, as I hold, they come between A.D. 65 and 68. Bartlet argues for a date before A.D. 64, accepting the view that Paul was put to death then. But it is still far more probable that Paul met his death in Rome in A.D. 68 shortly before Nero's death which was June 8, A.D. 68. It will thus be seen that the dates of several of the Epistles are fairly clear, while some remain quite uncertain. In a broad outlook they must all come between A.D. 50 and 68.

rwp@Hebrews:6:2 @The other four items are qualitative genitives with \didachˆn\ (\baptism“n, epithese“s cheir“n, anastase“s nekr“n, krimatos ai“niou\). The plural \baptism“n\ "by itself does not mean specifically Christian baptism either in this epistle (9:10|) or elsewhere (Mark:7:4|), but ablutions or immersions such as the mystery religions and the Jewish cultus required for initiates, proselytes, and worshippers in general" (Moffatt). The disciples of the Baptist had disputes with the Jews over purification (John:3:25|). See also strkjv@Acts:19:2|. "The laying on of hands" seems to us out of place in a list of elementary principles, but it was common as a sign of blessing (Matthew:19:13|), of healing (Mark:7:32|), in the choice of the Seven (Acts:6:6|), in the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (Acts:8:17f.; strkjv@19:6|), in separation for a special task (Acts:13:3|), in ordination (1Timothy:4:14; strkjv@5:22; strkjv@2Timothy:1:6|). Prayer accompanied this laying on of the hands as a symbol. The resurrection of the dead (both just and unjust, strkjv@John:5:29; strkjv@Acts:24:15|) is easily seen to be basal (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15|) as well as eternal judgment (timeless and endless).

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

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

rwp@Hebrews:9:23 @{The copies} (\ta hupodeigmata\). See strkjv@8:5| for this word, the earthly (8:4; strkjv@9:1|) tabernacle. {With these} (\toutois\). Instrumental case of \houtos\, like the rites above described (verse 19|), perhaps with some disparagement. {Themselves} (\auta\). The heavenly realities (8:2,5; strkjv@9:11f.|). {With better sacrifices} (\kreittosin thusiais\). Instrumental case again. Point of this section (9:13-10:18|). {Than these} (\para tautas\). Use of \para\ and the accusative case after a comparative as in strkjv@1:4,9|...or dedication of heaven itself by...-Victim. But the whole picture is highly mystical.

rwp@Info_James @...Jewish Christians. The book itself is...2| reveals an absence of the issues faced by Paul in strkjv@Romans:4; strkjv@Galatians:3| after the Jerusalem Conference (A.D. 49). Hence the date before that Conference has decidedly the better of the argument. Ropes in his Commentary denies the genuineness of the Epistle and locates it between A.D. 75 and 125, but Hort holds that the evidence for a late date rests "on very slight and intangible grounds." Songs:we place the book before A.D. 49. It may indeed be the earliest New Testament book.

rwp@James:1:12 @{Endureth} (\hupomenei\). Present active indicative of \hupomen“\. Cf. verse 3|. {Temptation} (\peirasmon\). Real temptation here. See verse 2| for "trials." {When he hath been approved} (\dokimos genomenos\). "Having become approved," with direct reference to \to dokimion\ in verse 3|. See also strkjv@Romans:5:4| for \dokimˆ\ (approval after test as of gold or silver). This beatitude (\makarios\) is for the one who has come out unscathed. See strkjv@1Timothy:6:9|. {The crown of life} (\ton stephanon tˆs z“ˆs\). The same phrase occurs in strkjv@Revelation:2:10|...genitive of apposition, life itself being...1Peter:5:4|. This crown is "an honourable ornament" (Ropes), with possibly no reference to the victor's crown (garland of leaves) as with Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:25; strkjv@2Timothy:4:8|, nor to the linen fillet (\diadˆma\) of royalty (Psalms:20:3|, where \stephanos\ is used like \diadˆma\, the kingly crown). \Stephanos\ has a variety of uses. Cf. the thorn chaplet on Jesus (Matthew:27:29|). {The Lord}. Not in the oldest Greek MSS., but clearly implied as the subject of \epˆggeilato\ ({he promised}, first aorist middle indicative).

rwp@James:2:17 @{If it have not works} (\ean mˆ echˆi erga\). Another condition of the third class with \ean\ and \mˆ\ and the present active subjunctive of \ech“\, "if it keep on not having works." {In itself} (\kath' heautˆn\). In and of itself (according to itself), inwardly and outwardly dead (\nekra\). Same idiom in strkjv@Acts:28:16; strkjv@Romans:14:22|. It is a dead faith.

rwp@James:2:24 @{Ye see} (\horƒte\). Present indicative active of \hora“\. Now he uses the plural again as in strkjv@2:14|. {Is justified} (\dikaioutai\). Present passive indicative of \dikaio“\, here not "is made righteous," but "is shown to be righteous." James is discussing the proof of faith, not the initial act of being set right with God (Paul's idea in strkjv@Romans:4:1-10|). {And not only by faith} (\kai ouk ek piste“s monon\). This phrase clears up the meaning of James. Faith (live faith) is what we must all have (2:18|)...only it must shew itself also...

rwp@John:1:42 @{Looked upon him} (\emblepsas aut“i\). See verse 36| for same word and form of John's eager gaze at Jesus. Luke uses this word of Jesus when Peter denied him (Luke:22:61|). {He brought him} (\ˆgagen auton\). Effective second aorist active indicative of \ago\ as if Andrew had to overcome some resistance on Simon's part. {Thou shalt be called Cephas} (\su klˆthˆsˆi Kˆphƒs\). Apparently before Simon spoke. We do not know whether Jesus had seen Simon before or not, but he at once gives him a nickname that will characterize him some day, though not yet, when he makes the noble confession (Matthew:16:17f.|), and Jesus will say, "Thou art Peter." Here the future passive indicative of \kale“\ is only prophecy. The Aramaic \Cˆphƒs\ (rock) is only applied to Simon in John except by Paul (1Corinthians:1:12; strkjv@Galatians:1:18|, etc.). But the Greek \Petros\ is used by all. In the ancient Greek \petra\ was used for the massive ledge of rock like Stone Mountain while \petros\...of the ledge, though itself large....16:17f.|, except that Jesus probably used Aramaic which would not have such a distinction.

rwp@John:2:3 @{When the wine failed} (\husterˆsantos oinou\). Genitive absolute with first aorist active participle of \hustere“\, old verb from \husteros\, late or lacking. See same use in strkjv@Mark:10:21|. A longer Western paraphrase occurs in some manuscripts. It was an embarrassing circumstance, especially to Mary, if partly due to the arrival of the seven guests. {They have no wine} (\Oinon ouk echousin\)...the fact was in itself a...(Luke:2:19,51|). The ministry of the Baptist had stirred her hopes afresh. Had she not told Jesus all that she knew before he went to the Jordan to be baptized of John? This group of disciples meant to her that Jesus had begun his Messianic work. Songs:she dares propose the miracle to him.

rwp@John:8:3 @{The scribes and the Pharisees} (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\). John does not mention "scribes," though this combination (note two articles) is common enough in the Synoptics (Luke:5:30; strkjv@6:7|, etc.). {Bring} (\agousin\). Vivid dramatic present active indicative of \ag“\...Dods calls this "in itself an...{Taken in adultery} (\epi moicheiƒi kateilemmenˆn\). Perfect passive participle of \katalamban“\, old compound to seize (Mark:9:18|), to catch, to overtake (John:12:35|), to overcome (or overtake) in strkjv@1:5|. {Having let her in the midst} (\stˆsantes autˆn en mes“i\). First aorist active (transitive) participle of \histˆmi\. Here all could see her and what Jesus did with such a case. They knew his proneness to forgive sinners.

rwp@John:10:1 @{Verily, Verily} (\Amˆn, amˆn\). Solemn prelude by repetition as in strkjv@1:51|. The words do not ever introduce a fresh topic (cf. strkjv@8:34,51,58|). Songs:in strkjv@10:7|. The Pharisees had previously assumed (Vincent) they alone were the authoritative guides of the people (9:24,29|). Songs:Jesus has a direct word for them. Songs:Jesus begins this allegory in a characteristic way. John does not use the word \parabolˆ\, but \paroimia\ (verse 6|), and it really is an allegory of the Good Shepherd and self-explanatory like that of the Prodigal Son in strkjv@Luke:15|. He first tells it in verses 1-5| and then explains and expands it in verses 7-18|. {Into the fold of the sheep} (\eis tˆn aulˆn t“n probat“n\). Originally \aulˆ\ (from \a“\, to blow) in Homer's time was just an uncovered space around the house enclosed by a wall, then a roofless enclosure in the country where flocks were herded as here and verse 16|...to mean the house itself or...(Matthew:26:3,58|, etc.). In the papyri it means the court attached to the house. {Climbeth up} (\anabain“n\). Present active participle of \anabain“\, to go up. One who goes up, not by the door, has to climb up over the wall. {Some other way} (\allachothen\). Rare word for old \allothen\, but in 4Macc. strkjv@1:7 and in a papyrus. Only here in N.T. {The same} (\ekeinos\). "That one" just described. {Is a thief and a robber} (\kleptˆs estin kai lˆistˆs\). Both old and common words (from \klept“\, to steal, \lˆizomai\, to plunder). The distinction is preserved in the N.T. as here. Judas was a \kleptˆs\ (John:12:6|), Barabbas a robber (18:40|) like the two robbers (Matthew:27:38,44|) crucified with Jesus erroneously termed thieves like "the thief on the cross" by most people. See strkjv@Mark:11:17|. Here the man jumping over the wall comes to steal and to do it by violence like a bandit. He is both thief and robber.

rwp@John:12:24 @{Except} (\ean mˆ\). Negative condition of third class (undetermined, supposable case) with second aorist active participle \pes“n\ (from \pipt“\, to fall) and the second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnˆsk“\, to die. {A grain of wheat} (\ho kokkos tou sitou\). Rather, "the grain of wheat." {By itself alone} (\autos monos\). Both predicate nominatives after \menei\. It is not necessary to think (nor likely) that Jesus has in mind the Eleusinian mysteries which became a symbol of the mystery of spring. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:36| uses the same illustration of the resurrection that Jesus does here. Jesus shows here the paradox that life comes through death. Whether the Greeks heard him or not we do not know. If so, they heard something not in Greek philosophy, the Christian ideal of sacrifice, "and this was foreign to the philosophy of Greece" (Bernard). Jesus had already spoken of himself as the bread of life (6:35-65|). {But if it die} (\ean de apothanˆi\). Parallel condition of the third class. Grains of wheat have been found in Egyptian tombs three or four thousand years old, but they are now dead. They bore no fruit.

rwp@John:14:17 @{The Spirit of truth} (\to pneuma tˆs alˆtheias\). Same phrase in strkjv@15:27; strkjv@16:13; strkjv@1John:4:6|, "a most exquisite title" (Bengel). The Holy Spirit is marked by it (genitive case), gives it, defends it (cf. strkjv@1:17|), in contrast to the spirit of error (1John:4:6|). {Whom} (\ho\). Grammatical neuter gender (\ho\) agreeing with \pneuma\ (grammatical), but rightly rendered in English by "whom" and note masculine \ekeinos\ (verse 26|). He is a person, not a mere influence. {Cannot receive} (\ou dunatai labein\). Left to itself the sinful world is helpless (1Corinthians:2:14; strkjv@Romans:8:7f.|), almost Paul's very language on this point. The world lacks spiritual insight (\ou the“rei\) and spiritual knowledge (\oude gin“skei\). It failed to recognize Jesus (1:10|) and likewise the Holy Spirit. {Ye know him} (\humeis gin“skete auto\). Emphatic position of \humeis\ (ye) in contrast with the world (15:19|), because they have seen Jesus the Revealer of the Father (verse 9|). {Abides} (\menei\). Timeless present tense. {With you} (\par' humin\). "By your side," "at home with you," not merely "with you" (\meth' hum“n\) "in the midst of you." {In you} (\en humin\). In your hearts. Songs:note \meta\ (16|), \para, en\.

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

rwp@Info_Jude:@...name. In the N.T. itself we...(John:14:22|; also called Judas of James, son or brother, strkjv@Luke:6:6|), Judas a brother of our Lord (Matthew:13:55|), Judas of Galilee (Acts:5:37|), Judas of Damascus (Acts:9:11|), Judas Barsabbas (Acts:15:22|). The author explains that he is a "slave" of Jesus Christ as James did (Jude:1:1|), and adds that he is also a brother of James. Clement of Alexandria thinks that, like James, he deprecated being called the brother of the Lord Jesus (as by Hegesippus later) as claiming too much authority. Keil identifies him with Jude:the Apostle (not Iscariot), but that is most unlikely. The Epistle is one of the disputed books of Eusebius. It was recognized in the canon in the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397). It appears in the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170).

rwp@Luke:3:19 @{Reproved} (\elegchomenos\). Present passive participle of \elegch“\, an old verb meaning in Homer to treat with contempt, then to convict (Matthew:18:15|), to expose (Ephesians:5:11|), to reprove as here. The substantive \elegchos\ means proof (Hebrews:11:1|) and \elegmos\, censure (2Timothy:3:16|). Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. V.4) shows how repulsive this marriage was to Jewish feeling. {Evil things} (\ponˆr“n\). Incorporated into the relative sentence. The word is from \ponos, pone“\...the notion of work itself as...(\ophthalmos ponˆros\ in strkjv@Mark:7:22|) was a "mischief working eye" (Vincent). In strkjv@Matthew:6:23| it is a diseased eye. Songs:Satan is "the evil one" (Matthew:5:37; strkjv@6:13|, etc.). It is a very common adjective in the N.T. as in the older Greek. {Had done} (\epoiˆsen\). Aorist active indicative, not past perfect, merely a summary constative aorist, {he did}.

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

rwp@Luke:9:61 @{And another also said} (\eipen de kai heteros\). A volunteer like the first. This third case is given by Luke alone, though the incident may also come from the same Logia as the other two. \Heteros\ does not here mean one of a "different" sort as is sometimes true of this pronoun, but merely another like \allos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 749). {But first} (\pr“ton de\). He also had something that was to come "first." {To bid farewell to them that are at my house} (\apotaxasthai tois eis ton oikon mou\). In itself that was a good thing to do. This first aorist middle infinitive is from \apotass“\, an old verb, to detach, to separate, to assign as a detachment of soldiers. In the N.T. it only appears in the middle voice with the meaning common in late writers to bid adieu, to separate oneself from others. It is used in strkjv@Acts:18:18| of Paul taking leave of the believers in Corinth. See also strkjv@Mark:6:46; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:13|. It is thus a formal function and this man meant to go home and set things in order there and then in due time to come and follow Jesus.

rwp@Luke:13:34 @{O Jerusalem, Jerusalem} (\Ierousalˆm, Ierousalˆm\). In strkjv@Matthew:23:37f.|...mention of Jerusalem. In itself it...(Luke:13:34f.; strkjv@Matthew:23:37-39|). For details see on Matthew. In Luke we have \episunaxai\ (late first aorist active infinitive) and in Matthew \episunagagein\ (second aorist active infinitive), both from \episunag“\, a double compound of late Greek (Polybius). Both have "How often would I" (\posakis ˆthelˆsa\). How often did I wish. Clearly showing that Jesus made repeated visits to Jerusalem as we know otherwise only from John's Gospel. {Even as} (\hon tropon\). Accusative of general reference and in strkjv@Matthew:23:37| also. Incorporation of antecedent into the relative clause. {Brood} (\nossian\) is in Luke while Matthew has {chickens} (\nossia\), both late forms for the older \neossia\. The adjective {desolate} (\erˆmos\) is wanting in strkjv@Luke:13:35| and is doubtful in strkjv@Matthew:23:39|.

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

rwp@Info_Mark @ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark's Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that A.D. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_. Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark's Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q (_Logia of Jesus_) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-...Luke, though the document itself has...(_The Four Gospels_) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter's own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|).

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_. The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my _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\)...to meaning the record itself as...(\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:1:43 @{Strictly charged} (\embrimˆsamenos\). Only in Mark. strkjv@Luke:5:14| has \parˆggeilen\ (commanded). Mark's word occurs also in strkjv@14:5| and in strkjv@Matthew:9:30| and strkjv@John:11:38|. See on ¯Matthew:9:30|...to face with leprosy, itself a...

rwp@Mark:2:27 @{For man} (\dia ton anthr“pon\). Mark alone has this profound saying which subordinates the sabbath to man's real welfare (mankind, observe, generic article with \anthr“pos\, class from class). Man was not made for the sabbath as the rabbis seemed to think with all their petty rules about eating an egg laid on the sabbath or looking in the glass, _et cetera_. See 2Macc. strkjv@5:19 and _Mechilta_ on strkjv@Exodus:31:13|...about institutionalism. The church itself is...

rwp@Mark:4:29 @{Is ripe} (\paradoi\, second aorist subjunctive with \hotan\)...Whenever the fruit yields itself or...{Putteth forth} (\apostellei\). Sends forth the sickle. The word for _apostle_ comes from this verb. See strkjv@John:4:38|: "I sent you forth to reap" (\ego apesteila humƒs therizein\). Sickle (\drepanon\) here by metonymy stands for the reapers who use it when the harvest stands ready for it (\parestˆken\, stands by the side, present perfect indicative).

rwp@Mark:10:32 @{And they were amazed} (\kai ethambounto\). Imperfect tense describing the feelings of the disciples as Jesus was walking on in front of them (\ˆn proag“n autous\, periphrastic imperfect active)...an unusual circumstance in itself that...{they that followed were afraid} (\hoi de akolouthountes ephobounto\) as they looked at Jesus walking ahead in solitude. The idiom (\hoi de\) may not mean that all the disciples were afraid, but only some of them. "The Lord walked in advance of the Twelve with a solemnity and a determination which foreboded danger" (Swete). Cf. strkjv@Luke:9:5|. They began to fear coming disaster as they neared Jerusalem. They read correctly the face of Jesus. {And he took again the twelve} (\kai paralab“n tous d“deka\). Matthew has "apart" from the crowds and that is what Mark also means. Note \paralab“n\, taking to his side. {And began to tell them the things that were to happen to him} (\ˆrxato autois legein ta mellonta aut“i sumbainein\). He had done it before three times already (Mark:8:31; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@9:31|). Songs:Jesus tries once more. They had failed utterly heretofore. How is it now? Luke adds (18:34|): "They understood none of these things." But Mark and Matthew show how the minds of two of the disciples were wholly occupied with plans of their own selfish ambition while Jesus was giving details of his approaching death and resurrection.

rwp@Mark:11:18 @{Sought how they might destroy him} (\ezˆtoun p“s auton apoles“sin\). Imperfect indicative, a continuous attitude and endeavour. Note deliberative subjunctive with \p“s\ retained in indirect question. Here both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes) combine in their resentment against the claims of Jesus and in the determination to kill him. Long ago the Pharisees and the Herodians had plotted for his death (Mark:3:6|). Now in Jerusalem the climax has come right in the temple. {For they feared him} (\ephobounto gar\)...right in the temple itself "all...(\pƒs ho ochlos exeplˆsseto epi tˆi didachˆi autou\). Imperfect passive. The people looked on Jesus as a hero, as the Messiah. This verse aptly describes the crisis that has now come between Christ and the Sanhedrin.

rwp@Info_Matthew ...In the Gospel itself we...(Matthew:9:9; strkjv@10:3|) though Mark (Mark:2:14|) and Luke (Luke:5:27|) call him Levi the publican. Evidently therefore he had two names like John Mark. It is significant that Jesus called this man from so disreputable a business to follow him. He was apparently not a disciple of John the Baptist. He was specially chosen by Jesus to be one of the Twelve Apostles, a business man called into the ministry as was true of the fishermen James and John, Andrew and Simon. In the lists of the Apostles he comes either seventh or eighth. There is nothing definite told about him in the Gospels apart from the circle of the Twelve after the feast which he gave to his fellow publicans in honor of Jesus.

rwp@Matthew:1:2 @{Begat} (\egennˆsen\)...sudden change. The word itself does...16| we have "Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ" (\ton I“sˆph ton andra Marias ex hˆs egennˆthˆ Iˆsous ho legomenos Christos\). The article occurs here each time with the object of "begat," but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (1:6|) and Joseph the husband of Mary (1:16|) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (1:2|) and of both Phares and Zara (1:3|) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give verse 16| as above save the Ferrar Group of minuscules which are supported by the Sinaitic Syriac Version. Because of this fact Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates, deliberately prints his text "_Jacob begat Jesus_" (\I“sˆph de egennˆsen Iˆsoun\). But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:1:18-25|. Hence it is clear that "begat" here in strkjv@1:16| must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in strkjv@1:18-25|. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of _Studies in the Text of the New Testament_. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in strkjv@1:16|...Greek. In the Greek itself the..._n,r,s_. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails.

rwp@Matthew:1:21 @{Thou shalt call his name Jesus} (\Kalesies to onoma autou Iˆsoun\). The rabbis named six whose names were given before birth: "Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and the name of the Messiah, whom may the Holy One, blessed be His name, bring in our day." The angel puts it up to Joseph as the putative father to name the child. "Jesus is the same as Joshua, a contraction of Jehoshuah (Numbers:13:16; strkjv@1Chronicles:7:27|), signifying in Hebrew, 'Jehovah is helper,' or 'Help of Jehovah'" (Broadus). Songs:Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua (Hebrews:4:8|)...Promised Land. The name itself was..._Saviour_ applied to our Lord (Luke:1:47; strkjv@2:11; strkjv@John:4:42|)" (Vincent). He will save (\s“sei\) his people from their sins and so be their Saviour (\S“tˆr\). He will be prophet, priest, and king, but "Saviour" sums it all up in one word. The explanation is carried out in the promise, "for he is the one who (\autos\) will save (\s“sei\ with a play on the name Jesus) his people from their sins." Paul will later explain that by the covenant people, the children of promise, God means the spiritual Israel, all who believe whether Jews or Gentiles. This wonderful word touches the very heart of the mission and message of the Messiah. Jesus himself will show that the kingdom of heaven includes all those and only those who have the reign of God in their hearts and lives. {From their sins} (\apo t“n hamarti“n aut“n\). Both sins of omission and of commission. The substantive (\hamartia\) is from the verb (\hamartanein\) and means missing the mark as with an arrow. How often the best of us fall short and fail to score. Jesus will save us away from (\apo\) as well as out of (\ex\) our sins. They will be cast into oblivion and he will cover them up out of sight.

rwp@Matthew:2:23 @{Should be called a Nazarene} (\Naz“raios klˆthˆsetai\). Matthew says "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets" (\dia t“n prophˆt“n\). It is the plural and no single prophecy exists which says that the Messiah was to be called a Nazarene. It may be that this term of contempt (John:1:46; strkjv@7:52|) is what is meant, and that several prophecies are to be combined like Ps. strkjv@22:6,8; strkjv@69:11,19; strkjv@Isaiah:53:2,3,4|...mere fancy. History repeats itself and...

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

rwp@Matthew:8:14 @{Lying sick of a fever} (\biblˆmenˆn kai puressousan\). Two participles, bedridden (perfect passive of \ball“\) and burning with fever (present active). How long the fever had had her we have no means of knowing, possibly a sudden and severe attack (Mark:1:30|)...fever it was. Fever itself was...(fire) like the Greek \pur\.

rwp@Matthew:9:30 @{Were opened} (\ˆne“ichthˆsan\). Triple augment (on \oi=“i, e\ and then on preposition \an = ˆn\). {Strictly charged them} (\enebrimˆthˆ autois\). A difficult word, compound of \en\ and \brimaomai\ (to be moved with anger). It is used of horses snorting (Aeschylus, _Theb_. 461), of men fretting or being angry (Daniel:11:30|). Allen notes that it occurs twice in Mark (Mark:1:43; strkjv@14:5|) when Matthew omits it. It is found only here in Matthew. John has it twice in a different sense (John:11:33| with \en heaut“i\). Here and in strkjv@Mark:1:32| it has the notion of commanding sternly, a sense unknown to ancient writers. Most manuscripts have the middle \enebrimˆsato\, but Aleph and B have the passive \enebrimˆthˆ\ which Westcott and Hort accept, but without the passive sense (cf. \apekrithˆ\)...the synoptic passages showed itself in...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:11:9 @{And much more than a prophet} (\kai perissoteron prophˆtou\). Ablative of comparison after \perissoteron\ itself comparative though meaning exceeding (surrounded by, overflowing). John had all the great qualities of the true prophet: "Vigorous moral conviction, integrity, strength of will, fearless zeal for truth and righteousness" (Bruce). And then he was the Forerunner of the Messiah (Malachi:3:1|).

rwp@Matthew:13:3 @{Many things in parables} (\polla en parabolais\). It was not the first time that Jesus had used parables, but the first time that he had spoken so many and some of such length. He will use a great many in the future as in Luke 12 to 18 and Matt. 24 and 25. The parables already mentioned in Matthew include the salt and the light (5:13-16|), the birds and the lilies (6:26-30|), the splinter and the beam in the eye (7:3-5|), the two gates (7:13f.|), the wolves in sheep's clothing (7:15|), the good and bad trees (7:17-19|), the wise and foolish builders (7:24-27|), the garment and the wineskins (9:16f.|), the children in the market places (11:16f.|). It is not certain how many he spoke on this occasion. Matthew mentions eight in this chapter (the Sower, the Tares, the Mustard Seed, the Leaven, the Hid Treasure, the Pearl of Great Price, the Net, the Householder). Mark adds the Parable of the Lamp (Mark:4:21; strkjv@Luke:8:16|), the Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mark:4:26-29|), making ten of which we know. But both Mark (Mark:4:33|) and Matthew (13:34|) imply that there were many others. "Without a parable spake he nothing unto them" (Matthew:13:34|), on this occasion, we may suppose. The word parable (\parabolˆ\ from \paraball“\, to place alongside for measurement or comparison like a yardstick) is an objective illustration for spiritual or moral truth. The word is employed in a variety of ways (a) as for sententious sayings or proverbs (Matthew:15:15; strkjv@Mark:3:23; strkjv@Luke:4:23; strkjv@5:36-39; strkjv@6:39|), for a figure or type (Heb. strkjv@9:9; strkjv@11:19|); (b) a comparison in the form of a narrative, the common use in the Synoptic Gospels like the Sower; (c) "A narrative illustration not involving a comparison" (Broadus), like the Rich Fool, the Good Samaritan, etc. "The oriental genius for picturesque speech found expression in a multitude of such utterances" (McNeile). There are parables in the Old Testament, in the Talmud, in sermons in all ages. But no one has spoken such parables as these of Jesus. They hold the mirror up to nature and, as all illustrations should do, throw light on the truth presented. The fable puts things as they are not in nature, Aesop's Fables, for instance. The parable may not be actual fact, but it could be so. It is harmony with the nature of the case. The allegory (\allˆgoria\) is a speaking parable that is self-explanatory all along like Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_. All allegories are parables, but not all parables are allegories. The Prodigal Son is an allegory, as is the story of the Vine and Branches (John:15|). John does not use the word parable, but only \paroimia\, a saying by the way (John:10:6; strkjv@16:25,29|). As a rule the parables of Jesus illustrate one main point and the details are more or less incidental, though sometimes Jesus himself explains these. When he does not do so, we should be slow to interpret the minor details. Much heresy has come from fantastic interpretations of the parables. In the case of the Parable of the Sower (13:3-8|) we have also the careful exposition of the story by Jesus (18-23|) as well as the reason for the use of parables on this occasion by Jesus (9-17|).

rwp@Matthew:13:19 @{Cometh the evil one and snatcheth away} (\erchetai ho ponˆros kai harpazei\). The birds pick up the seeds while the sower sows. The devil is busy with his job of snatching or seizing like a bandit or rogue the word of the kingdom before it has time even to sprout. How quickly after the sermon the impression is gone. "This is he" (\houtos estin\)...words as the seed itself. That...{The seed sown in his heart} (\to esparmenon en tˆi kardiƒi autou\, perfect passive participle of \speir“\, to sow) and "the man sown by the wayside" (\ho para tˆn hodon spareis\, aorist passive participle, along the wayside)...heart is not of itself responsible,...

rwp@Matthew:14:32 @{Ceased} (\ekopasen\). From \kopos\...weary or tired, exhausted itself in...(cf. strkjv@Mark:4:39|). Not a mere coincidence that the wind ceased now.

rwp@Matthew:15:2 @{The tradition of the elders} (\tˆn paradosin t“n presbuter“n\). This was the oral law, handed down by the elders of the past in _ex cathedra_ fashion and later codified in the Mishna. Handwashing before meals is not a requirement of the Old Testament. It is, we know, a good thing for sanitary reasons, but the rabbis made it a mark of righteousness for others at any rate. This item was magnified at great length in the oral teaching. The washing (\niptontai\, middle voice, note)...immersed. Then the water itself must...(John:2:6-8|). Songs:it went on _ad infinitum_. Thus a real issue is raised between Jesus and the rabbis. It was far more than a point of etiquette or of hygienics. The rabbis held it to be a mortal sin. The incident may have happened in a Pharisee's house.

rwp@Matthew:15:3 @{Ye also} (\kai h–meis\)...no great importance in itself save...(\dia tˆn paradosin h–m“n\). The accusative with \dia\...good or bad in itself. It...(the oral law) above the law of God.

rwp@Matthew:15:33 @{And the disciples say to him} (\kai legousin aut“i hoi mathˆtai\). It seems strange that they should so soon have forgotten the feeding of the five thousand (Matthew:14:13-21|), but they did. Soon Jesus will remind them of both these demonstrations of his power (16:9,10|)...is no reason in itself why...(\Trachonitis\).

rwp@Revelation:1:20 @{The mystery of the seven stars} (\to mustˆrion t“n hepta aster“n\). On the word \mustˆrion\ see on ¯Matthew:13:11; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:7; strkjv@Colossians:1:26|. Here it means the inner meaning (the secret symbol) of a symbolic vision (Swete) as in strkjv@10:7; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@17:7,9; strkjv@Daniel:2:47|. Probably the accusative absolute (Charles), "as for the mystery" (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 490, 1130), as in strkjv@Romans:8:3|. This item is picked out of the previous vision (1:16|) as needing explanation at once and as affording a clue to what follows (2:1,5|). {Which} (\hous\). Masculine accusative retained without attraction to case of \aster“n\ (genitive, \h“n\). {In my right hand} (\epi tˆs dexias mou\). Or "upon," but \en tˆi\, etc., in verse 16|. {And the seven golden candlesticks} (\kai tas hepta luchnias tas chrusƒs\). "The seven lampstands the golden," identifying the stars of verse 16| with the lampstands of verse 12|. The accusative case here is even more peculiar than the accusative absolute \mustˆrion\, since the genitive \luchni“n\ after \mustˆrion\ is what one would expect. Charles suggests that John did not revise his work. {The angels of the seven churches} (\aggeloi t“n hepta ekklˆsi“n\). Anarthrous in the predicate (angels of, etc.). "The seven churches" mentioned in strkjv@1:4,11|. Various views of \aggelos\ here exist. The simplest is the etymological meaning of the word as messenger from \aggell“\ (Matthew:11:10|) as messengers from the seven churches to Patmos or by John from Patmos to the churches (or both). Another view is that \aggelos\ is the pastor of the church, the reading \tˆn gunaika sou\ (thy wife) in strkjv@2:20| (if genuine) confirming this view. Some would even take it to be the bishop over the elders as \episcopos\ in Ignatius, but a separate \aggelos\...symbol for the church itself or...(the lampstands). Others take it to be the guardian angel of each church assuming angelic patrons to be taught in strkjv@Matthew:18:10; strkjv@Acts:12:15|. Each view is encompassed with difficulties, perhaps fewer belonging to the view that the "angel" is the pastor. {Are seven churches} (\hepta ekklˆsiai eisin\). These seven churches (1:4,11|) are themselves lampstands (1:12|) reflecting the light of Christ to the world (Matthew:5:14-16; strkjv@John:8:12|) in the midst of which Christ walks (1:13|).

rwp@Revelation:2:7 @{He that hath an ear} (\ho ech“n ous\). An individualizing note calling on each of the hearers (1:3|) to listen (2:7,11,17,28; strkjv@3:3,6,13,22|) and a reminiscence of the words of Jesus in the Synoptics (Matthew:11:15; strkjv@13:9,43; strkjv@Mark:4:9,23; strkjv@Luke:8:8; strkjv@14:35|), but not in John's Gospel. {The spirit} (\to pneuma\). The Holy Spirit as in strkjv@14:13; strkjv@22:17|. Both Christ and the Holy Spirit deliver this message. "The Spirit of Christ in the prophet is the interpreter of Christ's voice" (Swete). {To him that overcometh} (\t“i nik“nti\). Dative of the present (continuous victory) active articular participle of \nika“\, a common Johannine verb (John:16:33; strkjv@1John:2:13f; strkjv@4:4; strkjv@5:4f.; strkjv@Revelation:2:7,11,17,26; strkjv@3:5,12,21; strkjv@5:5; strkjv@12:11; strkjv@15:2; strkjv@17:14; strkjv@21:7|). Faith is dominant in Paul, victory in John, faith is victory (1John:5:4|). Songs:in each promise to these churches. {I will give} (\d“s“\). Future active of \did“mi\ as in strkjv@2:10,17,23,26,28; strkjv@3:8,21; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@11:3; strkjv@21:6|. {To eat} (\phagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \esthi“\. {Of the tree of life} (\ek tou xulou tˆs z“ˆs\). Note \ek\ with the ablative with \phagein\, like our "eat of" (from or part of). From strkjv@Genesis:2:9; strkjv@3:22|. Again in strkjv@Revelation:22:2,14| as here for immortality. This tree is now in the Garden of God. For the water of life see strkjv@21:6; strkjv@22:17| (Cf. strkjv@John:4:10,13f.|). {Which} (\ho\). The \xulon\ (tree). {In the Paradise of God} (\en t“i paradeis“i tou theou\). Persian word, for which see strkjv@Luke:23:43; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:4|...delight and finally heaven itself... (Trench), as here.

rwp@Revelation:2:14 @{There} (\ekei\). That is \par' humin\ (among you). A party in the church that resisted emperor-worship, to the death in the case of Antipas, yet were caught in the insidious wiles of the Nicolaitans which the church in Ephesus withstood. {Some that hold} (\kratountas\). "Men holding" (present active participle of \krate“\). {The teaching of Balaam} (\tˆn didachˆn Balaam\). Indeclinable substantive Balaam (Numbers:25:1-9; strkjv@31:15f.|). The point of likeness of these heretics with Balaam is here explained. {Taught Balak} (\edidasken t“i Balak\). Imperfect indicative of \didask“\, Balaam's habit, "as the prototype of all corrupt teachers" (Charles). These early Gnostics practised licentiousness as a principle since they were not under law, but under grace (Romans:6:15|). The use of the dative with \didask“\ is a colloquialism rather than a Hebraism. Two accusatives often occur with \didask“\. {To cast a stumbling-block} (\balein skandalon\). Second aorist active infinitive (accusative case after \edidasken\) of \ball“\, regular use with \skandalon\ (trap) like \tithˆmi skandalon\ in strkjv@Romans:14:13|. Balaam, as Josephus and Philo also say, showed Balak how to set a trap for the Israelites by beguiling them into the double sin of idolatry and fornication, which often went together (and do so still). {To eat things sacrificed to idols} (\phagein eid“lothuta\). Second aorist active infinitive of \esthi“\ and the verbal adjective (from \eid“lon\ and \thu“\), quoted here from strkjv@Numbers:25:1f.|, but in inverse order, repeated in other order in verse 20|. See strkjv@Acts:15:29; strkjv@21:25; strkjv@1Corinthians:8:1ff.|...to do what in itself was...

rwp@Revelation:2:16 @{Repent therefore} (\metanoˆson oun\). First aorist (tense of urgency) active imperative of \metanoe“\ with the inferential particle \oun\ (as a result of their sin). {I come} (\erchomai\). Futuristic present middle indicative, "I am coming" (imminent), as in strkjv@2:5| with \tachu\ as in strkjv@3:11; strkjv@11:14; strkjv@22:7,12,20|. As with \en tachei\ (1:1|), we do not know how soon "quickly" is meant to be understood. But it is a real threat. {Against them} (\met' aut“n\). This proposition with \poleme“\ rather than \kata\ (against) is common in the LXX, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:2:16; strkjv@12:7; strkjv@13:4; strkjv@17:14| and the verb itself nowhere else in N.T. except strkjv@James:4:2|. "An eternal roll of thunder from the throne" (Renan). "The glorified Christ is in this book a Warrior, who fights with the sharp sword of the word" (Swete). {With} (\en\). Instrumental use of \en\. For the language see strkjv@1:16; strkjv@2:12; strkjv@19:15|.

rwp@Revelation:8:7 @{Sounded} (\esalpisen\). First aorist active indicative of \salpiz“\, repeated with each angel in turn (8:8,10,12; strkjv@9:1,13; strkjv@11:15|). {Hail and fire mingled with blood} (\chalaza kai pur memigmena en haimati\). Like the plague of hail and fire in strkjv@Exodus:9:24|. The first four trumpets are very much like the plagues in Egypt, this one like a semitropical thunderstorm (Swete) with blood like the first plague (Exodus:7:17ff.; strkjv@Psalms:106:35|). The old feminine word \chalaza\ (hail) is from the verb \chala“\, to let down (Mark:2:4|), in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:8:7; strkjv@11:19; strkjv@16:21|. The perfect passive participle \memigmena\ (from \mignumi\, to mix) is neuter plural because of \pur\ (fire). {Were cast} (\eblˆthˆ\). First aorist passive singular because \chalaza\ and \pur\...plural. "The storm flung itself on...(Swete). {Was burnt up} (\katekaˆ\). Second aorist (effective) passive indicative of \katakai“\, old verb to burn down (effective use of \kata\, up, we say). Repeated here three times for dramatic effect. See strkjv@7:1-3| about the trees and strkjv@9:4| where the locusts are forbidden to injure the grass.

rwp@Revelation:10:2 @{And he had} (\kai ech“n\). This use of the participle in place of \eichen\ (imperfect) is like that in strkjv@4:7f.; strkjv@12:2; strkjv@19:12; strkjv@21:12,14|, a Semitic idiom (Charles), or as if \katabain“n\ (nominative) had preceded in place of \katabainonta\. {A little book} (\biblaridion\). A diminutive of \biblarion\ (papyri), itself a diminutive of \biblion\ (5:1|) and perhaps in contrast with it, a rare form in Hermas and strkjv@Revelation:10:2,9,10|. In strkjv@10:8| Tischendorf reads \biblidarion\, diminutive of \biblidion\ (Aristophanes) instead of \biblion\ (Westcott and Hort). The contents of this little book are found in strkjv@11:1-13|. {Open} (\ˆne“igmenon\). See strkjv@Ezekiel:2:9f|. Perfect (triple reduplication) passive participle of \anoig“\, in contrast to the closed book in strkjv@5:1|. There also we have \epi\ (upon) \tˆn dexian\ (the right hand), for it was a large roll, but here the little open roll is held in the hand (\en tˆi cheiri\), apparently the left hand (verse 5|). {He set} (\ethˆken\). First aorist active indicative of \tithˆmi\. The size of the angel is colossal, for he bestrides both land and sea. Apparently there is no special point in the right foot (\ton poda ton dexion\) being on the sea (\epi tˆs thalassˆs\) and the left (\ton eu“numon\) upon the land (\epi tˆs gˆs\). It makes a bold and graphic picture. {As a lion roareth} (\h“sper le“n mukƒtai\). Only instance of \h“sper\ in the Apocalypse, but \h“s\ in the same sense several times. Present middle indicative of \mukaomai\, an old onomatopoetic word from \mu\ or \moo\ (the sound which a cow utters), common for the lowing and bellowing of cattle, Latin _mugire_, but in Theocritus for the roaring of a lion as here, though in strkjv@1Peter:5:8| we have \“ruomai\. Homer uses \mukaomai\ for the clangour of the shield and Aristophanes for thunder. It occurs here alone in the N.T. It does not mean that what the angel said was unintelligible, only loud. Cf. strkjv@1:10; strkjv@5:2,12; strkjv@6:10; strkjv@7:2,10|, etc.

rwp@Revelation:12:1 @{A great sign} (\sˆmeion mega\). The first of the visions to be so described (13:3; strkjv@15:1|), and it is introduced by \“phthˆ\ as in strkjv@11:19; strkjv@12:3|, not by \meta tauto\ or by \eidon\ or by \eidon kai idou\ as heretofore. This "sign" is really a \teras\ (wonder), as it is so by association in strkjv@Matthew:24:24; strkjv@John:4:48; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@5:12|. The element of wonder is not in the word \sˆmeion\ as in \teras\...often in the thing itself as...21:11; strkjv@John:9:16; strkjv@Revelation:13:13ff.; strkjv@15:1; strkjv@16:14; strkjv@19:20|. {A woman} (\gunˆ\). Nominative case in apposition with \sˆmeion\. "The first 'sign in heaven' is a Woman--the earliest appearance of a female figure in the Apocalyptic vision" (Swete). {Arrayed with the sun} (\peribeblˆmenˆ ton hˆlion\). Perfect passive participle of \periball“\, with the accusative retained as so often (9 times) in the Apocalypse. Both Charles and Moffatt see mythological ideas and sources behind the bold imagery here that leave us all at sea. Swete understands the Woman to be "the church of the Old Testament" as "the Mother of whom Christ came after the flesh. But here, as everywhere in the Book, no sharp dividing line is drawn between the Church of the Old Testament and the Christian Society." Certainly she is not the Virgin Mary, as verse 17| makes clear. Beckwith takes her to be "the heavenly representative of the people of God, the _ideal_ Zion, which, so far as it is embodied in concrete realities, is represented alike by the people of the Old and the New Covenants." John may have in mind strkjv@Isaiah:7:14| (Matthew:1:23; strkjv@Luke:1:31|) as well as strkjv@Micah:4:10; strkjv@Isaiah:26:17f.; strkjv@66:7| without a definite picture of Mary. The metaphor of childbirth is common enough (John:16:21; strkjv@Galatians:4:19|). The figure is a bold one with the moon "under her feet" (\hupokat“ t“n pod“n autˆs\) and "a crown of twelve stars" (\stephanos aster“n d“deka\), a possible allusion to the twelve tribes (James:1:1; strkjv@Revelation:21:12|) or to the twelve apostles (Revelation:21:14|).

rwp@Revelation:13:6 @{For blasphemies} (\eis blasphˆmias\). "For the purpose of blasphemies." {Against God} (\pros ton theon\). "Face to face with God" in sheer defiance, like Milton's picture of Satan in _Paradise Lost_. See strkjv@Daniel:7:25; strkjv@8:10|. The aorist \ˆnoixen\ is probably constative, for he repeated the blasphemies, though the phrase (\anoig“\ to stoma, to open the mouth) is normally ingressive of the beginning of an utterance (Matthew:5:2; strkjv@Acts:8:35|). This verse explains verse 5|...their blasphemy against heaven itself... ("his tabernacle," \tˆn skˆnˆn autou\, strkjv@7:15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@21:3|) and against "them that dwell in the heaven" (\tous en t“i ouran“i skˆnountas\), the same phrase of strkjv@12:12| (either angels or the redeemed or both).

rwp@Revelation:14:20 @{Was trodden} (\epatˆthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \pate“\, to tread. The image of treading out the grapes is a familiar one in the East. Perhaps strkjv@Isaiah:63:3| is in mind. {Without the city} (\ex“then tˆs pole“s\). Ablative case with \ex“then\ (like \ex“\). This was the usual place (Hebrews:13:12|). See \ex“then\ in strkjv@11:2|. Joel (Joel:3:12|) pictures the valley of Jehoshaphat as the place of the slaughter of God's enemies. Cf. strkjv@Zechariah:14:4|. {Blood from the winepress} (\haima ek tˆs lˆnou\). Bold imagery suggested by the colour of the grapes. {Unto the bridles} (\achri t“n chalin“n\). Old word (from \chala“\ to slacken), in N.T. only here and strkjv@James:3:3|. Bold picture. {As far as a thousand and six hundred furlongs} (\apo stadi“n chili“n hexakosi“n\). A peculiar use of \apo\, for "distance from (of)" as also in strkjv@John:11:18; strkjv@21:8|, somewhat like the use of \pro\ in strkjv@John:12:1|. The distance itself covers the length of Palestine, but it is more likely that "the metaphor is worked out with the exuberance of apocalyptic symbolism" (Swete) for the whole earth.

rwp@Revelation:19:10 @{To worship him} (\proskunˆsai aut“i\). First aorist active infinitive of purpose. John either felt that the angel represented God or he was beside himself with excitement over the glorious consummation. He was tempted to worship an angel (Colossians:2:18|). {See thou do it not} (\hora mˆ\). Repeated in strkjv@22:9|. Here there is no verb after \mˆ\ (ellipse of \poiˆsˆis touto\) as in strkjv@Mark:1:44; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:15|), the aorist subjunctive of negative purpose with \mˆ\ after \hora\ (present active imperative of \hora“\), a common enough idiom. {Fellow-servant} (\sundoulos\). The angel refuses worship from John on this ground. All Christians are \sundouloi\ (fellow-servants) as Christ taught (Matthew:18:28ff.; strkjv@24:49|) and as Paul (Colossians:1:7; strkjv@4:7|) and John (Revelation:6:11|) taught. Angels are God's servants also (Hebrews:1:4-14|). For "the testimony of Jesus see strkjv@1:2,9; strkjv@6:9; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@22:4|. {Worship God} (\t“i the“i proskunˆson\). And Christ, who is the Son of God (5:13f.|). {The spirit of prophecy} (\to pneuma tˆs prophˆteias\). Explanatory use of \gar\ (for) here as in 8|...the prophetic spirit shows itself in...1:10; strkjv@Matthew:3:16; strkjv@Luke:3:21; strkjv@John:1:51; strkjv@Revelation:4:1; strkjv@10:1; strkjv@11:19; strkjv@14:17; strkjv@15:5; strkjv@18:1; strkjv@19:1,7-9|.

rwp@Revelation:21:24 @{Amidst the light thereof} (\dia tou ph“tos autˆs\). Rather "by the light thereof." From strkjv@Isaiah:60:3,11,20|. All the moral and spiritual progress of moderns is due to Christ, and the nations of earth will be represented, including "the kings" (\hoi basileis\), mentioned also in strkjv@Isaiah:60:3|, "do bring their glory into it" (\pherousin tˆn doxan aut“n eis autˆn\). Present active indicative of \pher“\...a picture of heaven itself or...22:2| in illustration. The picture is beautiful and glorious even if not realized here, but only in heaven.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ EMPEROR WORSHIP AS THE OCCASION FOR JOHN'S APOCALYPSE There is no doubt at all that the emperor cult (emperor worship)...Christian apocalypse. The book itself bears...(Nero and Domitian) who were responsible for many martyrs for Christ. But emperor worship began before Nero. Julius Caesar was worshipped in the provinces. Octavius was called Augustus (\Sebastos\, Reverend). The crazy Emperor Caius Caligula not simply claimed to be divine, but actually demanded that his statue be set up for worship in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was killed in January A.D. 41 before he could execute his dire purpose. But the madcap Nero likewise demanded worship and blamed in A.D. 64 the burning of Rome on the Christians, though guilty of it himself. He set the style for persecuting Christians, which slumbered on and burst into flames again under Domitian, who had himself commonly termed _Dominus ac Deus noster_ (Our Lord and God). The worship of the emperor did not disturb the worshippers of other gods save the Jews and the Christians, and in particular the Christians were persecuted after the burning of Rome when they were distinguished from the Jews. Up till then Christians were regarded (as by Gallio in Corinth) as a variety of Jews and so entitled to tolerance as a _religio licita_, but they had no standing in law by themselves and their refusal to worship the emperor early gave offence, as Paul indicates in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|. It was \Kurios Iˆsous\ or \Kurios Kaisar\. On this very issue Polycarp lost his life. The emperors as a rule were tolerant about it, save Nero and Domitian, who was called Nero _redivivus_, or Nero back again. Trajan in his famous letter to Pliny advised tolerance except in stubborn cases, when the Christians had to be put to death. After Nero it was a crime to be a Christian and all sorts of slanders about them were circulated. We have seen already in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3ff.|, the man of sin who sets himself above God as the object of worship. We have seen also in strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7| the term antichrist applied apparently to Gnostic heretics. One may wonder if, as Beckwith argues, in the Apocalypse the man of sin and the antichrist are united in the beast.

rwp@Romans:2:1 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). See strkjv@1:24,26| for this relative conjunction, "because of which thing." {Without excuse} (\anapologˆtos\). See on ¯1:21|. {Whosoever thou art that judgest} (\pas ho krin“n\). Literally, "every one that judgest," vocative case in apposition with \anthr“pe\. Paul begins his discussion of the failure of the Jew to attain to the God-kind of righteousness (2:1-3:20|) with a general statement applicable to all as he did (1:18|) in the discussion of the failure of the Gentiles (Lightfoot). The Gentile is readily condemned by the Jew when he sins and equally so is the Jew condemned by the Gentile in like case. \Krin“\ does not of itself mean to condemn, but to pick out, separate, approve, determine, pronounce judgment, condemn (if proper). {Another} (\ton heteron\). Literally, "the other man." The notion of two in the word, one criticizing the other. {Thou condemnest thyself} (\seauton katakrineis\). Note \kata\ here with \krin“\, to make plain the adverse judgment. {For} (\gar\). Explanatory reason for the preceding statement. The critic {practises} (\prasseis\, not single acts \poie“\, but the habit \prass“\) the same things that he condemns.

rwp@Romans:3:26 @{For the shewing} (\pros tˆn endeixin\). Repeats point of \eis endeixin\ of 25| with \pros\ instead of \eis\. {At this present season} (\en t“i nun kair“i\). "In the now crisis," in contrast with "done aforetime." {That he might himself be} (\eis to einai auton\). Purpose with \eis\ to and the infinitive \einai\ and the accusative of general reference. {Just and the justifier of} (\dikaion kai dikaiounta\). "This is the key phrase which establishes the connexion between the \dikaiosunˆ theou\ and the \dikaiosunˆ ek piste“s\" (Sanday and Headlam)...righteous is unjust by itself... (Romans:4:5|). God's mercy would not allow him to leave man to his fate. God's justice demanded some punishment for sin. The only possible way to save some was the propitiatory offering of Christ and the call for faith on man's part.

rwp@Romans:7:7 @{Is the law sin?} (\ho nomos hamartia?\). A pertinent query in view of what he had said. Some people today oppose all inhibitions and prohibitions because they stimulate violations. That is half-baked thinking. {I had not known sin} (\tˆn hamartian ouk egn“n\). Second aorist indicative of \gin“sk“\, to know. It is a conclusion of a second class condition, determined as unfulfilled. Usually \an\ is used in the conclusion to make it plain that it is second class condition instead of first class, but occasionally it is not employed when it is plain enough without as here (John:16:22,24|). See on ¯Galatians:4:15|. Songs:as to {I had not known coveting} (lust), \epithumian ouk ˆidein\...the law is not itself sin...

Seeker Overlay: Off On

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

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 2 23:22:18 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020