CONCORD matter



rwp@1Corinthians:6:1 @{Dare any of you?} (\tolmƒi tis hum“n;\). Does any one of you dare? Rhetorical question with present indicative of \tolma“\, old verb from \tolma\, daring. Bengel: _grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum_. "The word is an argument in itself" (Robertson and Plummer). Apparently Paul has an actual case in mind as in chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:5| though no name is called. {Having a matter against his neighbour} (\pragma ech“n pros ton heteron\). Forensic sense of \pragma\ (from \prass“\, to do, to exact, to extort as in strkjv@Luke:3:13|), a case, a suit (Demosthenes 1020, 26), with the other or the neighbour as in strkjv@10:24; strkjv@14:17; strkjv@Galatians:6:4; strkjv@Romans:2:1|. {Go to law} (\krinesthai\). Present middle or passive (ch. strkjv@Romans:3:4|) in the same forensic sense as \krithˆnai\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:40|. \Kritˆs\, judge, is from this verb. {Before the unrighteous} (\epi t“n adik“n\). This use of \epi\ with the genitive for "in the presence of" is idiomatic as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:14|, \epi Titou\, in the case of Titus. The Jews held that to bring a lawsuit before a court of idolaters was blasphemy against the law. But the Greeks were fond of disputatious lawsuits with each other. Probably the Greek Christians brought cases before pagan judges.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:7 @{Nay, already it is altogether a defect among you} (\ˆdˆ men oun hol“s hˆttˆma humin estin\). "Indeed therefore there is to you already (to begin with, \ˆdˆ\, before any question of courts) wholly defeat." \Hˆttˆma\ (from \hˆttaomai\) is only here, strkjv@Romans:11:12; strkjv@Isaiah:31:8| and ecclesiastical writers. See \hˆttaomai\ (from \hˆtt“n\, less) in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:13; strkjv@2Peter:2:19f.| \Nikˆ\ was victory and \hˆtta\ defeat with the Greeks. It is defeat for Christians to have lawsuits (\krimata\, usually decrees or judgments) with one another. This was proof of the failure of love and forgiveness (Colossians:3:13|). {Take wrong} (\adikeisthe\). Present middle indicative, of old verb \adike“\ (from \adikos\, not right). Better undergo wrong yourself than suffer {defeat} in the matter of love and forgiveness of a brother. {Be defrauded} (\apostereisthe\). Permissive middle again like \adikeisthe\. Allow yourselves to be robbed (old verb to deprive, to rob) rather than have a lawsuit.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:1 @{Now concerning things sacrificed to idols} (\peri de t“n eid“lothut“n\). Plainly the Corinthians had asked also about this problem in their letter to Paul (7:1|). This compound adjective (\eid“lon\, idol, \thutos\, verbal adjective from \thu“\, to sacrifice) is still found only in the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, not so far in the papyri. We have seen this problem mentioned in the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:29; strkjv@21:25|). The connection between idolatry and impurity was very close, especially in Corinth. See both topics connected in strkjv@Revelation:2:14,20|. By \eid“lothuta\ was meant the portion of the flesh left over after the heathen sacrifices. The heathen called it \hierothuton\ (1Corinthians:10:28|). This leftover part "was either eaten sacrificially, or taken home for private meals, or sold in the markets" (Robertson and Plummer)...Christians. Aspects of the matter come...2:1-10|. There was the more enlightened group who acted on the basis of their superior knowledge about the non-existence of the gods represented by the idols. {Ye know that we all have knowledge} (\oidamen hoti pantes gn“sin echomen\). This may be a quotation from the letter (Moffatt, _Lit. of N.T._, p. 112). Since their conversion to Christ, they know the emptiness of idol-worship. Paul admits that all Christians have this knowledge (personal experience, \gn“sis\), but this problem cannot be solved by knowledge.

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\)...this phase of the matter... (10:14-22|), but here he considers only the effect of such conduct on the unenlightened or weak brother. This bravado at a sacrificial banquet is in itself idolatrous as Paul will show. But our weak brother will be emboldened (\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:8:13 @{Meat} (\br“ma\). Food it should be, not flesh (\krea\). {Maketh my brother to stumble} (\skandalizei ton adelphon mou\). Late verb (LXX and N.T.) to set a trap-stick (Matthew:5:29|) or stumbling-block like \proskomma\ in verse 9| (cf. strkjv@Romans:14:13,21|). Small boys sometimes set snares for other boys, not merely for animals to see them caught. {I will eat no flesh for evermore} (\ou mˆ phag“ krea eis ton ai“na\). The strong double negative \ou mˆ\ with the second aorist subjunctive. Here Paul has {flesh} (\krea\) with direct reference to the flesh offered to idols. Old word, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:14:21|. This is Paul's principle of love (verse 2|) applied to the matter of eating meats offered to idols. Paul had rather be a vegetarian than to lead his weak brother to do what he considered sin. There are many questions of casuistry today that can only be handled wisely by Paul's ideal of love.

rwp@1Corinthians:10:25 @{In the shambles} (\en makell“i\). Only here in N.T. A transliterated Latin word _macellum_, possibly akin to \maceria\ and the Hebrew word for enclosure, though occurring in Ionic and Laconian and more frequent in the Latin. It occurs in Dio Cassius and Plutarch and in the papyri and inscriptions for "the provision market." Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 276) says: "In the Macellum at Pompeii we can imagine to ourselves the poor Christians buying their modest pound of meat in the Corinthian Macellum (1Corinthians:10:25|), with the same life-like reality with which the Diocletian maximum tariff called up the picture of the Galilean woman purchasing her five sparrows." {Asking no questions for conscience sake} (\mˆden anakrinontes dia tˆn suneidˆsin\). As to whether a particular piece of meat had been offered to idols before put in the market. Only a part was consumed in the sacrifices to heathen gods. The rest was sold in the market. Do not be over-...champions liberty in the matter as...8:4|.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:10 @{Ought} (\opheilei\). Moral obligation therefore (\dia touto\...on woman in the matter of...(\ouk opheilei\ in verse 7|) rest on the man. {To have a sign of authority} (\exousian echein\). He means \sˆmeion exousias\ (symbol of authority) by \exousian\, but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman's head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her. It is, as we see it, more a sign of subjection (\hypotagˆs\, strkjv@1Timothy:2:10|) than of authority (\exousias\). {Because of the angels} (\dia tous aggelous\). This startling phrase has caused all kinds of conjecture which may be dismissed. It is not preachers that Paul has in mind, nor evil angels who could be tempted (Genesis:6:1f.|), but angels present in worship (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:4:9; strkjv@Psalms:138:1|) who would be shocked at the conduct of the women since the angels themselves veil their faces before Jehovah (Isaiah:6:2|).

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

rwp@1Corinthians:12:24 @{Tempered the body together} (\sunekerasen to s“ma\). First aorist active indicative of \sunkerannumi\, to mix together, old word, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:4:2|. Plato used this very word of the way God compounded (\sunekerasato\)...the later Gnostics that matter is...(6:19|) in opposition to the Epicurean sensualists in Corinth. {To that part which lacked} (\t“i husteroumen“i\). It is a true instinct that gives superior honour to the unseen organs of life.

rwp@1Corinthians:16:1 @{Now concerning the collection for the saints} (\peri de tˆs logias tˆs eis tous hagious\). Paul has discussed all the problems raised by the Corinthians. Now he has on his own heart the collection for the saints in Jerusalem (see chapters strkjv@2Corinthians:8; 9|). This word \logia\ (or \-eia\) is now known to be derived from a late verb \logeu“\, to collect, recently found in papyri and inscriptions (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 143). The word \logia\ is chiefly found in papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions that tell of religious collections for a god or a temple (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105). The introduction of this topic may seem sudden, but the Corinthians were behind with their part of it. They may even have asked further about it. Paul feels no conflict between discussion of the resurrection and the collection. {Songs:also do ye} (\hout“s kai humas poiˆsate\). Paul had given orders (\dietaxa\)...like commands. As a matter of...(2Corinthians:8:10; strkjv@9:1-5|). Now do what you pledged.

rwp@1Corinthians:16:3 @{When I arrive} (\hotan paragen“mai\). Whenever I arrive, indefinite temporal conjunction \hotan\ and second aorist middle subjunctive. {Whomsoever ye shall approve by letters} (\hous ean dokimasˆte di' epistol“n\). Indefinite relative with \ean\ and aorist subjunctive of \dokimaz“\ (to test and so approve as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:10|). "By letters" to make it formal and regular and Paul would approve their choice of messengers to go with him to Jerusalem (2Corinthians:8:20ff.|). Curiously enough no names from Corinth occur in the list in strkjv@Acts:20:4|. {To carry} (\apenegkein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \apopher“\, to bear away. {Bounty} (\charin\). Gift, grace, as in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:4-7|. As a matter of fact, the messengers of the churches (\apostoloi ekklˆsi“n\ strkjv@2Corinthians:8:23|) went along with Paul to Jerusalem (Acts:20:4f.|).

rwp@1Corinthians:16:6 @{It may be} (\tuchon\). Neuter accusative of second aorist active participle of \tugchan“\ used as an adverb (in Plato and Xenophon, but nowhere else in N.T.). {Or even winter} (\ˆ kai paracheimas“\). Future active of late verb \paracheimaz“\ (\cheim“n\, winter). See on ¯Acts:27:12; strkjv@28:11; strkjv@Titus:3:12|. He did stay in Corinth for three months (Acts:20:3|), probably the coming winter. {Whithersoever I go} (\hou ean poreu“mai\)...with subjunctive. As a matter of...(Acts:20:3|).

rwp@Info_1John @...same writer. As a matter of...(Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann (_Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie_, 1882, P. 128) in a series of articles on the "Problem of the First Epistle of St. John in its Relation to the Gospel" thinks that the similarities are closer than those between Luke's Gospel and the Acts. Baur argued that this fact was explained by conscious imitation on the part of one or the other, probably by the author of the Epistle. The solution lies either in identity of authorship or in imitation. If there is identity of authorship, Holtzmann argues that the Epistle is earlier, as seems to me to be true, while Brooke holds that the Gospel is the earlier and that the First Epistle represents the more complete ideas of the author. Both Holtzmann and Brooke give a detailed comparison of likenesses between the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, syntax, style, ideas. The arguments are not conclusive as to the priority of Epistle or Gospel, but they are as to identity of authorship. One who accepts, as I do, the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel for the reasons given in Volume V of this series, does not feel called upon to prove the Johannine authorship of the three Epistles that pass under the Apostle's name. Westcott suggests that one compare strkjv@John:1:1-18| with strkjv@1John:1:1-4| to see how the same mind deals with the same ideas in different connections. "No theory of conscious imitation can reasonably explain the subtle coincidences and differences in these two short crucial passages."

rwp@1John:1:8 @{If we say} (\ean eip“men\). See verse 6|. {We have no sin} (\hamartian ouk echomen\). For this phrase see strkjv@John:9:41; strkjv@15:22,24|...the Gnostics held, since matter was...-called Christian scientists delude themselves today. {We deceive ourselves} (\heautous plan“men\). Present active indicative of \plana“\, to lead astray. We do not deceive others who know us. Negative statement again of the same idea, "the truth is not in us."

rwp@1Peter:4:14 @{If ye are reproached} (\ei oneidizesthe\). Condition of first class assumed as true with \ei\ and present passive indicative of \oneidiz“\, for which verb see strkjv@James:1:5|. {For the name of Christ} (\en onomati Christou\). "In the matter of the name of Christ." For the idea see strkjv@Matthew:5:11f.; strkjv@19:29; strkjv@Acts:5:41; strkjv@9:16; strkjv@21:13|. This is the only N.T. example of just \onoma Christou\, here used because of the use of \Christianos\ in verse 16|. For the beatitude \makarioi\ see strkjv@Matthew:5:11f|. {The Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God} (\to tˆs doxˆs kai to tou theou pneuma\). Note repetition of the article (\to\) though \pneuma\ only once. The reference is to the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Glory and of God. {Resteth upon you} (\eph' hˆmas anapauetai\). Quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:11:2|. Present middle indicative of \anapau“\, to give rest, refresh (Matthew:11:28|). "He rests upon the Christian as the Shechinah rested upon the tabernacle" (Bigg). Cf. strkjv@1:8; strkjv@Matthew:3:16|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:6 @{Nor seeking glory of men} (\oute zˆtountes ex anthr“p“n doxan\). "Upon the repudiation of covetousness follows naturally the repudiation of worldly ambition" (Milligan). See strkjv@Acts:20:19; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:5; strkjv@Ephesians:4:2|. This third disclaimer is as strong as the other two. Paul and his associates had not tried to extract praise or glory out of (\ex\) men. {Neither from you nor from others} (\oute aph' hum“n oute aph' all“n\). He widens the negation to include those outside of the church circles and changes the preposition from \ex\ (out of) to \apo\ (from). {When we might have been burdensome, as apostles of Christ} (\dunamenoi en barei einai h“s Christou apostoloi\). Westcott and Hort put this clause in verse 7|. Probably a concessive participle, {though being able to be in a position of weight} (either in matter of finance or of dignity, or a burden on your funds or "men of weight" as Moffatt suggests). Milligan suggests that Paul "plays here on the double sense of the phrase" like the Latin proverb: _Honos propter onus_. Songs:he adds, including Silas and Timothy, {as Christ's apostles}, as missionaries clearly, whether in the technical sense or not (cf. strkjv@Acts:14:4,14; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:23; strkjv@11:13; strkjv@Romans:16:7; strkjv@Phillipians:2:25; strkjv@Revelation:2:2|). They were entitled to pay as "Christ's apostles" (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:7ff.|), though they had not asked for it.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:15 @{By the word of the Lord} (\en log“i Kuriou\)...revelation on this important matter as...1Corinthians:11:23|. Jesus may have spoken on this subject though it has not been preserved to us (cf. strkjv@Mark:9:1|). {Ye that are alive} (\hˆmeis hoi z“ntes\). Paul here includes himself, but this by no means shows that Paul knew that he would be alive at the Parousia of Christ. He was alive, not dead, when he wrote. {Shall in no wise precede} (\ou mˆ phthas“men\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \phthan“\, to come before, to anticipate. This strong negative with \ou mˆ\ (double negative) and the subjunctive is the regular idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 929). Hence there was no ground for uneasiness about the dead in Christ.

rwp@2Corinthians:6:9 @{As unknown and yet well known} (\h“s agnooumenoi kai epiginoskomenoi\). "As ignored (as nonentities, obscure, without proper credentials strkjv@3:2|) and yet fully recognized (by all who really matter as in strkjv@11:6|)." {And behold, we live} (\kai idou z“men\). Cf. the hazards of his life (1:8; strkjv@4:10; strkjv@11:23|). His whole career is full of paradox).

rwp@2Corinthians:8:18 @{We have sent with him} (\sunepempsamen met' autou\). Epistolary aorist. {The brother} (\ton adelphon\). This may be, probably is, Luke who may also be the brother of Titus (see also strkjv@12:18|)...not necessary. As a matter of...{Is spread through all the churches} (\dia pas“n t“n ekklˆsi“n\). No verb in the Greek (ellipsis).

rwp@2Corinthians:13:5 @{Unless indeed ye be reprobate} (\ei mˆti adokimoi este\). Paul challenged his opposers in Corinth to try (\peirazete\) themselves, to test (\dokimazete\) themselves, whether they were "in the faith" (\en tˆi pistei\)...a much more vital matter for...(\adokimoi\, the very adjective that Paul held up before himself as a dreadful outcome to be avoided, strkjv@1Corinthians:9:27|).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorˆge“\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophˆteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.)...Peter. "This is a matter of...(Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai idi“tai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ ANACHRONISMS It used to be said that it was impossible for II Peter to have been written in the first century, because it had the atmosphere of the second. But one fact is strongly against that argument. In strkjv@2Peter:3:8| occurs the quotation of strkjv@Psalms:90:4|...the second. As a matter of...(Bigg).

rwp@2Peter:2:22 @{It has happened} (\sumbebˆken\). Perfect active indicative of \sumbain“\, for which see strkjv@1Peter:4:12|. {According to the true proverb} (\to tˆs alˆthous paroimias\). "The word (\to\ used absolutely, the matter of, as in strkjv@Matthew:21:21; strkjv@James:4:14|) of the true proverb" (\paroimia\ a wayside saying, for which see strkjv@John:10:6; strkjv@16:25,29|). The first proverb here given comes from strkjv@Proverbs:26:11|. \Exerama\ is a late and rare word (here only in N.T., in Diosc. and Eustath.) from \exera“\, to vomit. {The sow that had washed} (\h–s lousamenˆ\). \H–s\, old word for hog, here only in N.T. Participle first aorist direct middle of \lou“\ shows that it is feminine (anarthrous). This second proverb does not occur in the O.T., probably from a Gentile source because about the habit of hogs. Epictetus and other writers moralize on the habit of hogs, having once bathed in a filthy mud-hole, to delight in it. {To wallowing} (\eis kulismon\). "To rolling." Late and rare word (from \kuli“\, strkjv@Mark:9:20|), here only in N.T. {In the mire} (\borborou\). Objective genitive, old word for dung, mire, here only in N.T. J. Rendel Harris (_Story of Ahikar_, p. LXVII) tells of a story about a hog that went to the bath with people of quality, but on coming out saw a stinking drain and went and rolled himself in it.

rwp@Info_Acts @ LUKE THE AUTHOR It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two volumes (_The Acts of the Apostles_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; _The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911). Ramsay's view may be found in Chapter I of _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_, Chapter XII of _Pauline and Other Studies_...good summary of the matter appears..._The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_ by Dr. D. A. Hayes, in Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, and in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling, Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass, Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of _The Acts of the Apostles_, Vol. II of _The Beginnings of Christianity_, edited by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented: _The Case for the Tradition_ by C. W. Emmet, _The Case against the Tradition_ by H. Windisch. _The Internal Evidence of Acts_ is discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys _The Tradition_ (the external evidence) and draws a negative conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars. A similar position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, _The Making of Luke--Acts_. But all the same the traditional view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that Acts is a _Tendenz_ writing for the purpose of healing the breach between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came together had great influence for a while. In fact both Ramsay and Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.

rwp@Acts:1:5 @{Baptized with water} (\ebaptisen hudati\) {and with the Holy Ghost} (\en pneumati baptisthˆsesthe hagi“i\). The margin has "in the Holy Ghost" (Spirit, it should be). The American Standard Version renders "in" both with "water" and "Holy Spirit" as do Goodspeed (American Translation) and Mrs. Montgomery (Centenary Translation). John's own words (Matthew:3:11|) to which Jesus apparently refers use \en\ (in) both with water and Spirit. There is a so-called instrumental use of \en\ where we in English have to say "with" (Revelation:13:10| \en machairˆi\, like \machairˆi\, strkjv@Acts:12:2|). That is to say \en\ with the locative presents the act as located in a certain instrument like a sword (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 589f.). But the instrumental case is more common without \en\ (the locative and instrumental cases having the same form)...Songs:it is often a matter of...21:8| we have \t“i ploiari“i\ (locative without \en\). They came {in} (locative case without \en\) the boat. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:31| \en hudati baptiz“n\ baptizing in water. No distinction therefore can be insisted on here between the construction \hudati\ and \en pneumati\ (both being in the locative case, one without, one with \en\). Note unusual position of the verb \baptisthˆsesthe\ (future passive indicative) between \pneumati\ and \hagi“i\. This baptism of the Holy Spirit was predicted by John (Matthew:3:11|) as the characteristic of the Messiah's work. Now the Messiah himself in his last message before his Ascension proclaims that in a few days the fulfilment of that prophecy will come to pass. The Codex Bezae adds here "which ye are about to receive" and "until the Pentecost" to verse 5|. {Not many days hence} (\ou meta pollas tautas hˆmeras\). A neat Greek idiom difficult to render smoothly into English: "Not after many days these." The litotes (not many=few) is common in Luke (Luke:7:6; strkjv@15:13; strkjv@Acts:17:27; strkjv@19:11; strkjv@20:12; strkjv@21:39; strkjv@28:14; strkjv@28:2|). The predicate use of \tautas\ (without article) is to be noted. "These" really means as a starting point, "from these" (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 702). It was ten days hence. This idiom occurs several times in Luke (Luke:24:21; strkjv@Acts:24:21|), as elsewhere (John:4:18; strkjv@2Peter:3:1|). In strkjv@Luke:2:12| the copula is easily supplied as it exists in strkjv@Luke:1:36; strkjv@2:2|.

rwp@Acts:1:6 @{They therefore} (\hoi men oun\). Demonstrative use of \hoi\ with \men oun\ without any corresponding \de\ just as in strkjv@1:1| \men\ occurs alone. The combination \men oun\ is common in Acts (27 times). Cf. strkjv@Luke:3:18|. The \oun\ is resumptive and refers to the introductory verses (1:1-5|), which served to connect the Acts with the preceding Gospel. The narrative now begins. {Asked} (\ˆr“t“n\). Imperfect active, repeatedly asked before Jesus answered. {Lord} (\kurie\). Here not in the sense of "sir" (Matthew:21:30|), but to Jesus as Lord and Master as often in Acts (19:5,10|, etc.) and in prayer to Jesus (7:59|). {Dost thou restore} (\ei apokathistaneis\). The use of \ei\ in an indirect question is common. We have already seen its use in direct questions (Matthew:12:10; strkjv@Luke:13:23| which see for discussion), possibly in imitation of the Hebrew (frequent in the LXX) or as a partial condition without conclusion. See also strkjv@Acts:7:1; strkjv@19:2; strkjv@21:37; strkjv@22:25|. The form of the verb \apokathistan“\ is late (also \apokathista“\) omega form for the old and common \apokathistˆmi\...former state. As a matter of...(John:14-16|) and the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts:1:4f.|).

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

rwp@Acts:6:11 @{Then they suborned men} (\tote hupebalon andras\). Second aorist active indicative of \hupoball“\, old verb, but here only in the N.T., to put under like a carpet, to bring men under one's control by suggestion or by money. One recalls the plight of Caiaphas in the trial of Jesus when he sought false witnesses. _Subornaverunt_. They put these men forward in an underhand way for fraud. {Blasphemous words against Moses and God} (\blasphˆma eis M“usˆn kai ton theon\). The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death. See strkjv@Matthew:12:31| for discussion of the word \blasphˆmia, blasphˆme“, blasphˆmos\, all in the N.T. from \blapt“\, to harm, and \phˆmˆ\, speech, harmful speech, or \blax\, stupid, and \phˆmˆ\...the people in the matter of...

rwp@Acts:7:16 @{They were carried over unto Shechem} (\metetethˆsan eis Suchem\). First aorist passive of \metatithˆmi\, only here in the N.T. in this sense of changing places. Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis:50:13|). The O.T. does not say where the sons of Jacob were buried save that Joseph was buried in Shechem (Joshua:24:32|). Possibly only "our fathers" without Jacob is the subject of "were carried." {Which Abraham bought} (\h“i “nˆsato Abraam\)...substituted for "Abraham," the matter is..._a priori_, that the word producing the error escaped from some early copyist as that so glaring an error was committed by Stephen" (Hackett). At any rate Abraham bought a burying-place, the cave of Machpelah, from Ephron the Hittite at Hebron (Genesis:23:16|), while Jacob bought a field from the sons of Hamor at Shechem (Genesis:33:19; strkjv@Joshua:24:32|). Abraham had built an altar at Shechem when he entered Canaan (Genesis:12:6f.|). It is possible, of course, that Abraham also bought the ground on which the altar stood. {In Shechem} (\en Suchem\). This is the reading of Aleph B C instead of the Textus Receptus \tou Suchem\ which makes it "Hamar the father of Sichem." "In Shechem" is the true reading.

rwp@Acts:13:28 @{Though they found no cause of death} (\mˆdemian aitian thanatou heurontes\)...the participle. As a matter of...(Matthew:26:65; strkjv@27:24; strkjv@Luke:23:22|). At this time no Gospel had probably been written, but Paul knew that Jesus was innocent. He uses this same idiom about his own innocence (Acts:28:18|). {That he should be slain} (\anairethˆnai auton\). First aorist passive infinitive, the accusative case, the direct object of \ˆitˆsanto\ (first aorist middle indicative, asked as a favour to themselves).

rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo tˆs Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|)...the Lord on a matter that...-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmˆthˆte t“i ethei M“use“s, ou dunasthe s“thˆnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn“\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\t“i ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\s“thˆnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Acts:15:7 @{When there had been much questioning} (\pollˆs zˆtˆse“s genomenˆs\). Genitive absolute with second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\. Evidently the Judaizers were given full opportunity to air all their grievances and objections. They were allowed plenty of time and there was no effort to shut off debate or to rush anything through the meeting. {Peter rose up} (\anastas Petros\). The wonder was that he had waited so long. Probably Paul asked him to do so. He was the usual spokesman for the apostles and his activities in Jerusalem were well-known. In particular his experience at Caesarea (Acts:10|) had caused trouble here in Jerusalem from this very same party of the circumcism (Acts:11:1-18|). It was fitting that Peter should speak. This is the last time that Peter appears in the Acts. {A good while ago} (\aph' hˆmer“n archai“n\). From ancient days. The adjective \archaios\ is from \archˆ\...actual age is a matter of...(Acts:21:16|) is termed "an ancient disciple." It was probably a dozen years since God "made choice" (\exelexato\) to speak by Peter's mouth to Cornelius and the other Gentiles in Caesarea. His point is that what Paul and Barnabas have reported is nothing new. The Judaizers made objection then as they are doing now.

rwp@Acts:15:9 @{He made no distinction between us and them} (\outhen diekrinen metaxu hˆm“n te kai aut“n\). He distinguished nothing (first aorist active ind.) between (both \dia\ and \metaxu\) both (\te kai\)...and them. In the matter of...{Cleansing their hearts by faith} (\tˆi pistei katharisas tas kardias aut“n\). Not by works nor by ceremonies. Peter here has a thoroughly Pauline and Johannine idea of salvation for all both Jew and Greek. Cf. strkjv@10:15|.

rwp@Acts:15:20 @{But that we write unto them} (\alla episteilai autois\). By way of contrast (\alla\). First aorist active infinitive of \epistell“\, old verb to send to one (message, letter, etc.). Our word \epistle\ (\epistolˆ\ as in verse 30|) comes from this verb. In the N.T. only here, He strkjv@13:22|, and possibly strkjv@Acts:21:25|. {That they abstain from} (\tou apechesthai\). The genitive of the articular infinitive of purpose, present middle (direct) of \apech“\, old verb, to hold oneself back from. The best old MSS. do not have \apo\, but the ablative is clear enough in what follows. James agrees with Peter in his support of Paul and Barnabas in their contention for Gentile freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial law. The restrictions named by James affect the moral code that applies to all (idolatry, fornication, murder). Idolatry, fornication and murder were the outstanding sins of paganism then and now (Revelation:22:15|). Harnack argues ably against the genuineness of the word \pniktou\ (strangled) which is absent from D Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian. It is a nice point, though the best MSS. have it in accord with strkjv@Leviticus:17:10-16|. The problem is whether the words were added because "blood" was understood as not "murder," but a reference to the Mosaic regulation or whether it was omitted to remove the ceremonial aspect and make it all moral and ethical. The Western text omits the word also in verse 29|. But with the word retained here and in verse 29| the solution of James is not a compromise, though there is a wise concession to Jewish feeling. {Pollutions of idols} (\alisgˆmat“n\). From \alisge“\ only in the LXX and this substantive nowhere else. The word refers to idolatrous practices (pollutions) and things sacrificed to idols (\eid“luth“n\) in verse 29|, not to sacrificial meat sold in the market (1Corinthians:10:27|), a matter not referred to here. Cf. strkjv@Leviticus:17:1-9|. All the four items in the position of James (accepting \pniktou\) are mentioned in strkjv@Leviticus:17,18|.

rwp@Acts:15:29 @{Than these necessary things} (\plˆn tout“n t“n epanagkes\). This old adverb (from \epi\ and \anagkˆ\) means on compulsion, of necessity. Here only in the N.T. For discussion of these items see on verses 20,21|..."necessity" was not a matter of...(15:16|). {It shall be well with you} (\eu praxete\). Ye shall fare well. A classical idiom used here effectively. The peace and concord in the fellowship of Jews and Gentiles will justify any slight concession on the part of the Gentiles. This letter is not laid down as a law, but it is the judgment of the Jerusalem Christians for the guidance of the Gentiles (16:4|) and it had a fine effect at once (15:30-35|). Trouble did come later from the Judaizers who were really hostile to the agreement in Jerusalem, but that opposition in no way discredits the worth of the work of this Conference. No sane agreement will silence perpetual and professional disturbers like these Judaizers who will seek to unsettle Paul's work in Antioch, in Corinth, in Galatia, in Jerusalem, in Rome. {Fare ye well} (\Err“sthe\). _Valete_. Perfect passive imperative of \rh“nnumi\, to make strong. Common at the close of letters. Be made strong, keep well, fare well. Here alone in the N.T. though some MSS. have it in strkjv@23:30|.

rwp@Acts:15:35 @{Tarried} (\dietribon\). Imperfect active of \diatrib“\, old verb to pass time, seen already in strkjv@12:19; strkjv@14:3,28|. {With many others also} (\meta kai heter“n poll“n\). A time of general revival and naturally so after the victory at Jerusalem. It is at this point that it is probable that the sad incident took place told by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:2:11-21|. Peter came up to see how things were going in Antioch after Paul's victory in Jerusalem. At first Peter mingled freely with the Greek Christians without the compunctions shown at Caesarea and for which he had to answer in Jerusalem (Acts:11:1-18|)...of social customs, a matter not...

rwp@Acts:16:28 @{Do thyself no harm} (\mˆden praxˆis seaut“i kakon\). The usual construction (\mˆ\ and the aorist subjunctive) for a prohibition not to {begin} to do a thing. The older Greek would probably have used \poiˆsˆis\ here. The later Greek does not always preserve the old distinction between \poie“\, to do a thing, and \prass“\, to practice, though \prassete\ keeps it in strkjv@Phillipians:4:9| and \poie“\ is rightly used in strkjv@Luke:3:10-14|. As a matter of fact \prass“\ does not occur in Matthew or in Mark, only twice in John, six times in Luke's Gospel, thirteen in Acts, and elsewhere by Paul. {Sprang in} (\eisepˆdˆsen\). First aorist active of \eispˆda“\, old verb, but here only in the N.T. Cf. \ekpˆda“\ in strkjv@14:14|. The jailor was at the outer door and he wanted lights to see what was inside in the inner prison.

rwp@Acts:16:31 @{To be saved} (\hina s“th“\). Final clause with \hina\ and first aorist passive subjunctive. What did he mean by "saved"? Certainly more than escape from peril about the prisoners or because of the earthquake, though these had their influences on him. Cf. way of salvation in verse 17|. {Believe on the Lord Jesus} (\Pisteuson epi ton kurion Iˆsoun\). This is what Peter told Cornelius (10:43|)...the heart of the matter for...

rwp@Acts:16:36 @{Now therefore} (\nun oun\). Note both particles (time and inference)...It was a simple matter to...

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

rwp@Acts:17:24 @{The God that made the world} (\Hosea:theos ho poiˆsas ton kosmon\). Not a god for this and a god for that like the 30,000 gods of the Athenians, but the one God who made the Universe (\kosmos\ on the old Greek sense of orderly arrangement of the whole universe). {And all things therein} (\kai panta ta en aut“i\). All the details in the universe were created by this one God. Paul is using the words of strkjv@Isaiah:42:5|...The Epicureans held that matter was...{Being Lord of heaven and earth} (\ouranou kai gˆs huparch“n kurios\). \Kurios\ here owner, absolute possessor of both heaven and earth (Isaiah:45:7|), not of just parts. {Dwelleth not in temples made with hands} (\ouken cheiropoiˆtois naois katoikei\). The old adjective \cheiropoiˆtos\ (\cheir, poie“\) already in Stephen's speech (7:48|). No doubt Paul pointed to the wonderful Parthenon, supposed to be the home of Athene as Stephen denied that God dwelt alone in the temple in Jerusalem.

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

rwp@Acts:19:38 @{Have a matter against any one} (\echousin pros tina logon\). For this use of \ech“ logon\ with \pros\ see strkjv@Matthew:5:32; strkjv@Colossians:3:13|. The town-clerk names Demetrius and the craftsmen (\technitai\) as the parties responsible for the riot. {The courts are open} (\agoraioi agontai\). Supply \hˆmerai\ (days), court days are kept, or \sunodoi\, court-meetings are now going on, Vulgate _conventus forenses aguntur_. Old adjective from \agora\ (forum) marketplace where trials were held. Cf. strkjv@Acts:17:4|. There were regular court days whether they were in session then or not. {And there are proconsuls} (\kai anthupatoi eisin\). Asia was a senatorial province and so had proconsuls (general phrase) though only one at a time, "a rhetorical plural" (Lightfoot). Page quotes from an inscription of the age of Trajan on an aqueduct at Ephesus in which some of Luke's very words occur (\ne“koros, anthupatos, grammateus, dˆmos\). {Let them accuse one another} (\egkaleit“san allˆlois\). Present active imperative of \egkale“\ (\en, kale“\), old verb to call in one's case, to bring a charge against, with the dative. Luke uses the verb six times in Acts for judicial proceedings (19:38,40; strkjv@23:28,29; strkjv@26:2,7|). The town-...mob violence in a matter where...-called lynch-law proceedings in lands today where Christianity is supposed to prevail.

rwp@Acts:19:39 @{Anything about other matters} (\ti peraiter“\). Most MSS. here have \ti peri heter“n\, but B b Vulgate read \ti peraiter“\ as in Plato's \Phaedo\. Several papyri examples of it also. It is comparative \peraiteros\ of \pera\, beyond. Note also \epi\ in \epizˆteite\. Charges of illegal conduct (Page)...pass resolutions about the matter exciting...(\en t“i ennom“i ekklˆsiƒi\). "In the lawful assembly," not by a mob like this. Wood (_Ephesus_) quotes an inscription there with this very phrase "at every lawful assembly" (\kata pƒsan ennomon ekklˆsian\). The Roman officials alone could give the sanction for calling such a lawful or regular assembly. The verb \epilu“\ is an old one, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:4:34| (which see) where Jesus privately opened or disclosed the parables to the disciples. The papyri give examples of the verb in financial transactions as well as of the metaphorical sense. The solution will come in the lawful assembly, not in a riot like this. See also strkjv@2Peter:1:20| where the substantive \epilusis\ occurs for disclosure or revelation (prophecy).

rwp@Acts:20:4 @{Accompanied him} (\suneipeto aut“i\). Imperfect of \sunepomai\, old and common verb, but only here in the N.T. The singular is used agreeing with the first name mentioned \S“patros\ and to be supplied with each of the others. Textus Receptus adds here "into Asia" (\achri tˆs Asias\, as far as Asia), but the best documents (Aleph B Vulg. Sah Boh)...have it. As a matter of...(Acts:21:29|) and Aristarchus as far as Rome (27:2; strkjv@Colossians:4:10|), The phrase could apply only to Sopatros. It is not clear though probable that Luke means to say that these seven brethren, delegates of the various churches (2Corinthians:8:19-23|) started from Corinth with Paul. Luke notes the fact that they accompanied Paul, but the party may really have been made up at Philippi where Luke himself joined Paul, the rest of the party having gone on to Troas (20:5f.|). These were from Roman provinces that shared in the collection (Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, Achaia). In this list three were from Macedonia, Sopater of Beroea, Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica; two from Galatia, Gaius of Derbe and Timothy of Lystra; two from Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. It is a bit curious that none are named from Achaia. Had Corinth failed after all (2Corinthians:8; 9|) to raise its share of the collection after such eager pledging? Rackham suggests that they may have turned their part over directly to Paul. Luke joined Paul in Philippi and could have handled the money from Achaia. It was an important event and Paul took the utmost pains to remove any opportunity for scandal in the handling of the funds.

rwp@Acts:21:21 @{They have been informed concerning thee} (\katˆchˆthˆsan peri sou\). First aorist passive indicative of \katˆche“\. A word in the ancient Greek, but a few examples survive in the papyri. It means to sound (echo, from \ˆch“\, our word) down (\kata\), to resound, re-echo, to teach orally. Oriental students today (Arabs learning the Koran) often study aloud. In the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:4| which see; strkjv@Acts:18:25; strkjv@21:21; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:19; strkjv@Galatians:6:6; strkjv@Romans:2:18|. This oral teaching about Paul was done diligently by the Judaizers who had raised trouble against Peter (Acts:11:2|) and Paul (15:1,5|). They had failed in their attacks on Paul's world campaigns. Now they try to undermine him at home. In Paul's long absence from Jerusalem, since strkjv@18:22|, they have had a free hand, save what opposition James would give, and have had great success in prejudicing the Jerusalem Christians against Paul. Songs:James, in the presence of the other elders and probably at their suggestion, feels called upon to tell Paul the actual situation. {That thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses} (\hoti apostasian didaskeis apo M“use“s tous kata ta ethnˆ pantas Ioudaious\). Two accusatives with \didaskeis\ (verb of teaching) according to rule. Literally, "That thou art teaching all the Jews among (\kata\) the Gentiles (the Jews of the dispersion as in strkjv@2:9|) apostasy from Moses." That is the point, the dreadful word \apostasian\ (our apostasy), a late form (I Macc. strkjv@2:15) for the earlier \apostasis\ (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3| for \apostasia\)...a far more serious matter than...(Furneaux). Paul had brought that issue to the Jerusalem Conference because of the contention of the Judaizers. But here it is not the Judaizers, but the elders of the church with James as their spokesman on behalf of the church as a whole. They do not believe this false charge, but they wish Paul to set it straight. Paul had made his position clear in his Epistles (I Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) for all who cared to know. {Telling them not to circumcise their children} (\leg“n mˆ peritemnein autous ta tekna\). The participle \leg“n\ agrees with "thou" (Paul), the subject of \didaskeis\. This is not indirect assertion, but indirect command, hence the negative \mˆ\ instead of \ou\ with the infinitive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p.1046). The point is not that Paul stated what the Jewish Christians in the dispersion do, but that he says that they (\autous\ accusative of general reference) are not to go on circumcising (\peritemnein\, present active infinitive) their children. Paul taught the very opposite (1Corinthians:7:18|) and had Timothy circumcised (Acts:16:3|) because he was half Jew and half Greek. His own practice is stated in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:19| ("to the Jews as a Jew"). {Neither to walk after the customs} (\mˆde tois ethesin peripatein\). Locative case with infinitive \peripatein\. The charge was here enlarged to cover it all and to make Paul out an enemy of Jewish life and teachings. That same charge had been made against Stephen when young Saul (Paul) was the leader (6:14|): "Will change the customs (\ethˆ\ the very word used here) which Moses delivered unto us." It actually seemed that some of the Jews cared more for Moses than for God (Acts:6:11|). Songs:much for the charge of the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:21:23 @{Do therefore this} (\touto oun poiˆson\)...could set the whole matter straight....{We have} (\eisin hˆmin\). "There are to us" (dative of possession as in strkjv@18:10|). Apparently members of the Jerusalem church. {Which have a vow on them} (\euchˆn echontes aph'\-- or \eph' heaut“n\). Apparently a temporary Nazarite vow like that in strkjv@Numbers:6:1-21| and its completion was marked by several offerings in the temple, the shaving of the head (Numbers:6:13-15|). Either Paul or Aquila had such a vow on leaving Cenchreae (Acts:18:18|). "It was considered a work of piety to relieve needy Jews from the expenses connected with this vow, as Paul does here" (Page). The reading \aph' heaut“n\ would mean that they had taken the vow voluntarily or of themselves (Luke:12:57; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:5|), while \eph' heaut“n\ means that the vow lies on them still.

rwp@Acts:21:37 @{May I say something unto thee?} (\Ei exestin moi eipein ti pros se?\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. The calm self-control of Paul in the presence of this mob is amazing. His courteous request to Lysias was in Greek to the chiliarch's amazement. {Dost thou know Greek?} (\Hellˆnisti gin“skeis?\). Old Greek adverb in \-i\ from \Hellˆniz“\, meaning "in Greek." "Do you know it in Greek?" In the N.T. only here and strkjv@John:19:20|. {Art thou not then the Egyptian?} (\Ouk ara su ei ho Aiguptios?\). Expects the answer _Yes_ and \ara\ argues the matter (therefore). The well-known (\ho\) Egyptian who had given the Romans so much trouble. {Stirred up to sedition} (\anastat“sas\). First aorist active participle of \anastato“\, a late verb from \anastatos\, outcast, and so to unsettle, to stir up, to excite, once known only in LXX and strkjv@Acts:17:6| (which see); strkjv@21:38; strkjv@Galatians:5:12|, but now found in several papyri examples with precisely this sense to upset. {Of the Assassins} (\t“n sikari“n\). Latin word _sicarius_, one who carried a short sword \sica\ under his cloak, a cutthroat. Josephus uses this very word for bands of robbers under this Egyptian (_War_ II. 17,6 and 13,5; _Ant_. XX. 8,10). Josephus says that there were 30,000 who gathered on the Mount of Olives to see the walls of Jerusalem fall down and not merely 4,000 as Lysias does here. But Lysias may refer to the group that were armed thus (banditti) the core of the mob of 30,000. Lysias at once saw by Paul's knowledge of Greek that he was not the famous Egyptian who led the Assassins and escaped himself when Felix attacked and slew the most of them.

rwp@Acts:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \gin“sk“\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg“ Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisai“n\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastase“s nekr“n krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|...Sadducees was precisely this matter of...(Page)...the Sanhedrin. As a matter of...(Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.

rwp@Acts:23:34 @{When he had read it} (\anagnous\). Second aorist active participle of \anagin“sk“\, to know again, to read. {Of what province he was} (\ek poias eparcheias estin\). Tense of \estin\ (is) retained in indirect question. \Poias\ is strictly "of what kind of" province, whether senatorial or imperial. Cilicia, like Judea, was under the control of the propraetor of Syria (imperial province)...unless it was a matter of...

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

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. {...his defence concerning the matter laid...} (\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 it as being due to the arrival of Epaphras from Colossae (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-...power to create evil matter. This...

rwp@Colossians:1:17 @{Before all things} (\pro pant“n\). \Pro\ with the ablative case. This phrase makes Paul's meaning plain. The precedence of Christ in time and the preeminence as Creator are both stated sharply. See the claim of Jesus to eternal timeless existence in strkjv@John:8:58; strkjv@17:5|. See also strkjv@Revelation:23:13| where Christ calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning (\archˆ\) and the End (\telos\). Paul states it also in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {Consist} (\sunestˆken\). Perfect active indicative (intransitive) of \sunistˆmi\, old verb, to place together and here to cohere, to hold together. The word repeats the statements in verse 16|, especially that in the form \ektistai\...The Gnostic philosophy that matter is...

rwp@Colossians:3:2 @{Set your mind on} (\phroneite\)...thinking about." It does matter what...{Not on the things that are upon the earth} (\mˆ ta epi tˆs gˆs\). Paul does not mean that we should never think the things upon the earth, but that these should not be our aim, our goal, our master. The Christian has to keep his feet upon the earth, but his head in the heavens. He must be heavenly-minded here on earth and so help to make earth like heaven.

rwp@Info_Ephesians @ THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS FROM ROME A.D. 63 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There are some problems of a special nature that confront us about the so-...given. Songs:far as subject matter and...

rwp@Ephesians:5:33 @{Nevertheless} (\plˆn\). "Howbeit," not to dwell unduly (Abbott) on the matter of Christ and the church. {Do ye also severally love} (\kai humeis hoi kath' hena hekastos agapƒt“\). An unusual idiom. The verb \agapƒt“\ (present active imperative) agrees with \hekastos\ and so is third singular instead of \agapƒte\ (second plural) like \humeis\. The use of \hoi kath' hena\ after \humeis\ = " ye one by one " and then \hekastos\ takes up (individualizes) the "one" in partitive apposition and in the third person. {Let the wife see that she fear} (\hˆ gunˆ hina phobˆtai\). There is no verb in the Greek for "let see" (\blepet“\). For this use of \hina\ with the subjunctive as a practical imperative without a principal verb (an elliptical imperative) see strkjv@Mark:5:23; strkjv@Matthew:20:32; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:29; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:7; strkjv@Ephesians:4:29; strkjv@5:33| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 994). "Fear" (\phobˆtai\, present middle subjunctive) here is "reverence."

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ GENERAL EPISTLES BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION NOT A HAPPY TITLE There are various explanations of the term catholic (\katholikai epistolai\) as applied to this group of seven short letters by four writers (one by James, two by Peter, one by Jude, three by John). The Latin for \katholikos\ is _generalis_, though the Vulgate terms these letters _Catholicae_. The meaning is not orthodox as opposed to heretical or canonical, though they are sometimes termed \Epistolae canonicae\. As a matter of fact five of the seven (all but First Peter and First John) Eusebius placed among the "disputed" (\antilegomena\) books of the New Testament. "A canonical book is primarily one which has been measured and tested, and secondarily that which is itself a measure or standard" (Alfred Plummer). Canon is from \kan“n\ (cane) and is like a yardstick cut to the right measure and then used as a measure. Some see in the term \katholikos\ the idea that these Epistles are meant for both Jews and Gentiles, but the Epistle of James seems addressed to Jewish Christians. There were two other chief groups of New Testament writings in the old Greek manuscripts (the Gospels and Acts, then the Epistles of Paul). This group of seven Epistles and the Apocalypse constitute the remainder of the New Testament. The usual interpretation of the term \katholikos\ 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-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64, this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_. Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII)...and with the subject matter also....

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ THE EPISTLES OF PAUL BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION IMPORTANCE OF PAUL'S WORK It is impossible to put too much emphasis on the life and work of Paul as the great interpreter of Christ. He has been misunderstood in modern times as he was during his career. Some accuse him of perverting the pure gospel of Christ about the Kingdom of God into a theological and ecclesiastical system. He has been accused of rabbinizing the gospel by carrying over his Pharisaism, while others denounce him for Hellenizing the gospel with Greek philosophy and the Greek mystery-religions. But out of all the welter of attacks Paul's Epistles stand as the marvellous expression of his own conception of Christ and the application of the gospel to the life of the Christians in the Graeco-...It does not greatly matter for..._Life and Epistles of St. Paul_ still has value. Sir W. M. Ramsay has a small library on Paul and his Epistles. Stalker's masterful little book on Paul still grips men as does the work of Sabatier. Deissmann's _St. Paul _ continues to throw light on the great Apostle to the Gentiles. Those who wish my own view at greater length will find them in my various books on Paul (_Epochs in the Life of Paul_, _Paul the Interpreter of Christ_, etc.).

rwp@Galatians:2:12 @{For before that certain came from James} (\pro tou gar elthein tinas apo Iak“bou\). The reason (\gar\) for Paul's condemnation of Peter. Articular infinitive in the genitive after \pro\ with the accusative of general reference (\tinas\), "for before the coming as to some from James." Does Paul mean to say that these "certain" ones had been sent by James to Antioch to inspect the conduct of Peter and the other Jewish brethren? Some scholars think so. No doubt these brethren let the idea get out that they were emissaries "from James." But that idea is inconsistent with the position of James as president of the conference and the author of the resolution securing liberty to the Gentile Christians. No doubt these brethren threatened Peter to tell James and the church about his conduct and they reminded Peter of his previous arraignment before the Jerusalem Church on this very charge (Acts:11:1-18|)...did not discuss the matter of...(Acts:11:1ff.|). {He did eat with the Gentiles} (\meta t“n ethn“n sunˆsthien\). It was his habit (imperfect tense). {He drew back} (\hupestellen\). Imperfect tense, inchoative action, "he began to draw himself (\heauton\) back." Old word \hupostell“\. See middle voice to dissemble (Acts:20:20,27|), to shrink (Hebrews:10:38|). {Separated himself} (\aph“rizen heauton\). Inchoative imperfect again, "began to separate himself" just like a Pharisee (see on ¯1:15|) and as if afraid of the Judaizers in the Jerusalem Church, perhaps half afraid that James might not endorse what he had been doing. {Fearing them that were of the circumcision} (\phoboumenos tous ek peritomˆs\). This was the real reason for Peter's cowardice. See strkjv@Acts:11:2| for "\hoi ek peritomˆs\" (they of the circumcision), the very phrase here. It was not that Peter had changed his views from the Jerusalem resolutions. It was pure fear of trouble to himself as in the denials at the trial of Christ.

rwp@Galatians:2:14 @{But when I saw} (\All' hote eidon\). Paul did see and saw it in time to speak. {That they walked not uprightly} (\hoti orthopodousin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse, "they are not walking straight." \Orthopode“\ (\orthos\, straight, \pous\, foot). Found only here and in later ecclesiastical writers, though \orthopodes bainontes\ does occur. {According to the truth of the gospel} (\pros tˆn alˆtheian tou euaggeliou\). Just as in strkjv@2:5|. Paul brought them to face (\pros\) that. {I said unto Cephas before them all} (\eipon t“i Kˆphƒi emprosthen pant“n\). {Being a Jew} (\Ioudaios huparch“n\, though being a Jew)...private quarrel, but a matter of...{As do the Gentiles} (\ethnik“s\). Late adverb, here only in N.T. Like Gentiles. {As do the Jews} (\Ioudaik“s\). Only here in N.T., but in Josephus. {To live as do the Jews} (\Iouda‹zein\). Late verb, only here in the N.T. From \Ioudaios\, Jew. Really Paul charges Peter with trying to compel (conative present, \anagkazeis\) the Gentiles to live all like Jews, to Judaize the Gentile Christians, the very point at issue in the Jerusalem Conference when Peter so loyally supported Paul. It was a bold thrust that allowed no reply. But Paul won Peter back and Barnabas also. If II Peter is genuine, as is still possible, he shows it in strkjv@2Peter:3:15|. Paul and Barnabas remained friends (Acts:15:39f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6|), though they soon separated over John Mark.

rwp@Galatians:4:18 @{...sought in a good matter...} (\zˆlousthai en kal“i\)...only in an evil matter that...(\ou kalos\). {When I am present} (\en t“i pareinai me\). "In the being present as to me."

rwp@Hebrews:4:13 @{That is not manifest} (\aphanˆs\). Old adjective (\a\ privative and \phain“\, to show), here only in the N.T. God's microscope can lay bare the smallest microbe of doubt and sin. {Naked} (\gumna\). Both soul and body are naked to the eye of God. {Laid open} (\tetrachˆlismena\). Perfect passive participle of \trachˆliz“\, late verb to bend back the neck (\trachˆlos\, strkjv@Matthew:18:6|) as the surgeon does for operating, here only in N.T. See strkjv@Romans:16:4| for the peril of risking one's neck (\trachˆlon hupotithenai\). God's eyes see all the facts in our inmost hearts. There are no mental reservations from God. {With whom we have to do} (\pros hon hˆmin ho logos\). "With whom the matter or account for us is." There is a slight play here on \logos\ of verse 12|. Surely every servant of Christ today needs to gaze into this revealing mirror and be honest with himself and God.

rwp@Hebrews:7:1 @{This Melchizedek} (\houtos ho Melchisedek\). The one already mentioned several times with whose priesthood that of Christ is compared and which is older and of a higher type than that of Aaron. See strkjv@Genesis:14:18-20; strkjv@Psalms:110| for the only account of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is a daring thing to put Melchizedek above Aaron, but the author does it. Moffatt calls verses 1-3| "a little sermon" on strkjv@6:20|. It is "for ever" (\eis ton ai“na\) that he explains. Melchizedek is the only one in his line and stands alone in the record in Genesis. The interpretation is rabbinical in method, but well adapted to Jewish readers. The description is taken verbatim from Genesis except that "who met" (\ho sunantˆsas\) is here applied to Melchizedek from strkjv@Genesis:14:17|...met Abraham as a matter of...(first aorist active participle of \sunanta“\) see strkjv@Luke:9:37|. {Slaughter} (\kopˆs\). Old word for cutting (\kopt“\, to cut), here only in N.T. These kings were Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, Tidal. Amraphel is usually taken to be Khammurabi. {Priest of God Most High} (\hiereus tou theou tou hupsistou\). He is called "priest" and note \tou hupsistou\ applied to God as the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews did. It is used also of Zeus and the Maccabean priest-kings. The demons apply it to God (Mark:5:7; strkjv@Luke:8:28|).

rwp@Hebrews:8:1 @{In the things which we are saying} (\epi tois legomenois\). Locative case of the articular present passive participle of \leg“\ after \epi\ as in strkjv@Luke:5:5; strkjv@Hebrews:11:4|, "in the matter of the things being discussed." {The chief point} (\kephalaion\). Neuter singular of the adjective \kephalaios\ (from \kephalˆ\, head), belonging to the head. Vulgate _capitulum_...common sense, the main matter... (even so without the article as in Thucydides), "the pith" (Coverdale), common in the papyri as in Greek literature. The word also occurs in the sense of the sum total or a sum of money (Acts:22:28|) as in Plutarch, Josephus, and also in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). {Such an high priest} (\toiouton archierea\). As the one described in chapters strkjv@4:16-7:28| and in particular strkjv@7:26| (\toioutos\) strkjv@7:27,28|. But the discussion of the priestly work of Jesus continues through strkjv@12:3|. \Toioutos\ is both retrospective and prospective. Here we have a summary of the five points of superiority of Jesus as high priest (8:1-6|). He is himself a better priest than Aaron (\toioutos\ in strkjv@8:1| such as shown in strkjv@4:16-7:28|); he works in a better sanctuary (8:2,5|); he offers a better sacrifice (8:3f.|); he is mediator of a better covenant (8:6|); his work rests on better promises (8:6|); hence he has obtained a better ministry as a whole (8:6|). In this resum‚ (\kephelaion\) the author gives the pith (\kephalaion\) of his argument, curiously enough with both senses of \kephalaion\ (pith, summary) pertinent. He will discuss the four points remaining thus: the better covenant, strkjv@8:7-13|. The better sanctuary, strkjv@9:1-12|. The better sacrifice, strkjv@9:13-10:18|. The better promises, strkjv@10:19-12:3|. One point (the better high priest, like Melchizedek) has already been discussed (4:16-7:28|). {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). Repetition of strkjv@1:3| with \tou thronou\ (the throne) added. This phrase prepares the way for the next point.

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\...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:11:6 @{Impossible} (\adunaton\). Strong word as in strkjv@6:4,18|. See strkjv@Romans:8:8| for same idea with \aresai\ (\aresk“\, strkjv@Galatians:1:10|). {Must believe} (\pisteusai dei\). Moral necessity to have faith (trust, \pisteu“\). This is true in business also (banks, for instance). {That he is} (\hoti estin\)...of God is a matter of...(Romans:1:19ff.|) Songs:that men are left without excuse. {He is a rewarder} (\misthapodotˆs ginetai\). Rather, "becomes a rewarder" (present middle indicative of \ginomai\, not of \eimi\). Only N.T. example of \misthapodotˆs\, late and rare double compound (one papyrus example, from \misthos\ (reward) and \apodid“mi\ (to pay back) like \misthapodosia\ (10:35; strkjv@11:26|). {Seek after} (\ekzˆtousin\). That seek out God.

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

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

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

rwp@John:1:32 @{Bare witness} (\emarturˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \marture“\. Another specimen of John's witness to the Messiah (1:7,15,19,29,35,36|). {I have beheld} (\tetheamai\). Perfect middle indicative of \theaomai\, the realization of the promise of the sign (verse 33|)...the Messiah. As a matter of...(Matthew:3:14ff.|). But this sight of the Spirit descending as a dove upon Jesus at his baptism (Mark:1:10; strkjv@Matthew:3:16; strkjv@Luke:3:22|) became permanent proof to him. John's allusion assumes the Synoptic record. The Semites regarded the dove as a symbol of the Spirit.

rwp@John:2:20 @{Forty and six years was this temple in building} (\Tesserakonta kai hex etesin oikodomˆthˆ ho naos houtos\). "Within forty and six years (associative instrumental case) was built (first aorist passive indicative, constative or summary use of the aorist, of \oikodome“\, without augment)...this temple." As a matter of...{And wilt thou?} (\kai su;\). An evident sneer in the use of \su\ (thou, an unknown upstart from Galilee, of the peasant class, not one of the Sanhedrin, not one of the ecclesiastics or even architects).

rwp@John:3:11 @{We speak that we do know} (\ho oidamen laloumen\). Jesus simply claims knowledge of what he has tried to make plain to the famous Rabbi without success. John uses \lale“\ some 60 times, half of them by Jesus, very little distinction existing between the use of \lale“\ and \leg“\ in John. Originally \lale“\ referred to the chatter of birds. Note John's frequent use of \amˆn amˆn\ and \leg“\ (double emphasis). {And bear witness of that we have seen} (\kai ho he“rakamen marturoumen\). The same use of neuter singular relative \ho\ as before. Perfect active indicative of \hora“\. He is not a dreamer, guesser, or speculator. He is bearing witness from personal knowledge, strange as this may seem to Nicodemus. {And ye receive not our witness} (\kai tˆn marturian hˆm“n ou lambanete\)...the tragedy of the matter as...(1:11,26|) and as will continue to be true even today. Jesus probably associates here with himself ("we") those who have personal experience of grace and so are qualified as witnesses. Note the plural in strkjv@1John:1:1f|. Bernard thinks that John has here read into the words of Jesus the convictions of a later age, a serious charge to make.

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

rwp@John:4:23 @{And now is} (\kai nun estin\). See this same phrase in strkjv@5:25|. This item could not be added in verse 21| for local worship was not abolished, but spiritual independence of place was called for at once. Songs:contrast strkjv@5:25,28; strkjv@16:25,32|. {The true worshippers} (\hoi alˆthinoi proskunˆtai\). See strkjv@1:9| for \alˆthinos\ (genuine). \Proskunˆtˆs\ is a late word from \proskune“\, to bow the knee, to worship, occurs here only in N.T., but is found in one pre-Christian inscription (Deissmann, _Light_, etc., p. 101) and in one of the 3rd century A.D. (Moulton & Milligan, _Vocabulary_). {In spirit and truth} (\en pneumati kai alˆtheiƒi\). This is what matters, not where, but how (in reality, in the spirit of man, the highest part of man, and so in truth). All this is according to the Holy Spirit (Romans:8:5|) who is the Spirit of truth (John:16:13|). Here Jesus has said the final word on worship, one needed today. {Seeketh} (\zˆtei\). The Father has revealed himself in the Son who is the truth (John:14:6,9|). It does matter whether we have a true conception of God whom we worship. {To be his worshippers} (\tous proskunountas auton\). Rather, "seeks such as those who worship him" (predicate accusative articular participle in apposition with \toioutous\ (such). John pictures the Father as seeking worshippers, a doctrine running all through the Gospel (3:16; strkjv@6:44; strkjv@15:16; strkjv@1John:4:10|).

rwp@John:5:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). John is fond of this vague phrase (3:22; strkjv@6:1|). He does not mean that this incident follows immediately. He is supplementing the Synoptic Gospels and does not attempt a full story of the work of Jesus. Some scholars needlessly put chapter 5 after chapter 6 because in chapter 6 Jesus is in Galilee as at the end of chapter 4. But surely it is not incongruous to think of Jesus making a visit to Jerusalem before the events in chapter 6 which undoubtedly come within a year of the end (6:4|). {A feast of the Jews} (\heortˆ t“n Ioudai“n\). Some manuscripts have the article (\hˆ\)...the passover. As a matter of...(2:13,23; strkjv@6:4: strkjv@12:1|). {Went up} (\anebˆ\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain“\. It was up towards Jerusalem from every direction save from Hebron.

rwp@John:6:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). A common, but indefinite, note of time in John (3:22; strkjv@5:1; strkjv@6:1; strkjv@7:1|)...of events. As a matter of...5 in Jerusalem and those in chapter 6 in Galilee. There is no sufficient reason for believing that chapter 6 originally preceded chapter 5. The feeding of the five thousand is the only event before the last visit to Jerusalem recorded in all Four Gospels (Mark:6:30-44; strkjv@Matthew:14:13-21; strkjv@Luke:9:10-17; strkjv@John:6:1-13|). The disciples have returned from the tour of Galilee and report to Jesus. It was the passover time (John:6:4|) just a year before the end. {To the other side of the Sea of Galilee} (\peran tˆs thalassˆs tˆs Galilaias\). The name given in Mark and Matthew. It is called Gennesaret in strkjv@Luke:5:1| and "Sea of Tiberias" in strkjv@John:21:1|. Here "of Tiberias" (\tˆs Tiberiados\) is added as further description. Herod Antipas A.D. 22 built Tiberias to the west of the Sea of Galilee and made it his capital. See verse 23| for this city. Luke (Luke:9:10|) explains that it was the eastern Bethsaida (Julias) to which Jesus took the disciples, not the western Bethsaida of strkjv@Mark:6:45| in Galilee.

rwp@John:6:5 @{Lifting up his eyes} (\eparas tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active participle of \epair“\. See the same phrase in strkjv@4:35| where it is also followed by \theaomai\; strkjv@11:41; strkjv@17:1; strkjv@Luke:6:20|. Here it is particularly expressive as Jesus looked down from the mountain on the approaching multitude. {Cometh unto him} (\erchetai pros auton\). Present middle indicative, "is coming to him." The same \ochlos polus\ (here \polus ochlos\) of verse 2| that had followed Jesus around the head of the lake. {Whence are we to buy?} (\Pothen agoras“men;\). Deliberative subjunctive (aorist active). John passes by the earlier teaching and healing of the Synoptics (Mark:6:34f.; strkjv@Matthew:14:14f.; strkjv@Luke:9:11f.|) till mid-...Jesus takes up the matter of...(from the other Bethsaida, strkjv@1:44|) whereas in the Synoptics the disciples raise the problem with Jesus. Songs:the disciples raise the problem in the feeding of the four thousand (Mark:8:4; strkjv@Matthew:15:33|). See strkjv@Numbers:11:13-22| (about Moses) and strkjv@2Kings:4:42f|. (about Elisha). {Bread} (\artous\). "Loaves" (plural) as in strkjv@Matthew:4:3|. {That these may eat} (\hina phag“sin houtoi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \esthi“\ (defective verb).

rwp@John:7:6 @{My time is not yet come} (\ho kairos ho emos oup“ parestin\). Only use with verse 8| of \kairos\ in this Gospel, elsewhere \chronos\ (John:5:6|) or more often \h“ra\ (2:4|) "the predestined hour" (Bernard). Here \kairos\ is the fitting or proper occasion for Christ's manifesting himself publicly to the authorities as Messiah as in verse 8|. At the feast of tabernacles Jesus did make such public claims (7:29,33; strkjv@8:12,28,38,42,58|). \Parestin\ is present active indicative of \pareimi\...precise day was a matter of...

rwp@John:7:52 @{Art thou also of Galilee?} (\Mˆ kai su ek tˆs Galilaias ei;\). Formally negative answer expected by \mˆ\, but really they mean to imply that Nicodemus from local feeling or prejudice has lined himself up with this Galilean mob (\ochlos\) of sympathizers with Jesus and is like Jesus himself a Galilean. "These aristocrats of Jerusalem had a scornful contempt for the rural Galileans" (Bernard). {That out of Galilee ariseth no prophet} (\hoti ek tˆs Galilaias prophˆtˆs ouk egeiretai\). As a matter of fact Jonah, Hosea, Nahum, possibly also Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were from Galilee. It was simply the rage of the Sanhedrin against Jesus regardless of the facts. Westcott suggests that they may have reference to the future, but that is a mere excuse for them.

rwp@John:9:14 @{Now it was the sabbath} (\ˆn de sabbaton\). Literally, "Now it was a sabbath" (no article)...a far more important matter than...

rwp@John:18:1 @{With} (\sun\). See strkjv@12:2| for another example of \sun\ in John (common in Paul). The usual \meta\ reappears in verse 2|. {Over} (\peran\). "Beyond," preposition with the ablative as in strkjv@6:22,25|. {Brook} (\cheimarrou\). Old word, flowing (\roos, re“\) in winter (\cheima\), only here in N.T. {Kidron} (\ton Kedr“n\). Literally, "of the Cedars," "Brook of the Cedars." Only here in N.T. strkjv@Songs:2Samuel:15:23|. Textus Receptus like Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 1, 5) has the singular \tou Kedr“n\ (indeclinable). As a matter of fact it was always dry save after a heavy rain. {A garden} (\kˆpos\). Old word, in N.T. only here, verse 26; strkjv@19:41| (Joseph's); strkjv@Luke:13:19|. John, like Luke, does not give the name Gethsemane (only in strkjv@Mark:14:32; strkjv@Matthew:26:36|). The brook of the cedars had many unhallowed associations (1Kings:2:37; strkjv@15:13; strkjv@2Kings:23:4ff.; strkjv@2Chronicles:29:16; strkjv@Jeremiah:31:40|).

rwp@John:18:12 @{The chief captain} (\ho chiliarchos\). They actually had the Roman commander of the cohort along (cf. strkjv@Acts:21:31|), not mentioned before. {Seized} (\sunelabon\). Second aorist active of \sullamban“\, old verb to grasp together, to arrest (technical word) in the Synoptics in this context (Mark:14:48; strkjv@Matthew:26:55|), here alone in John. {Bound} (\edˆsan\). First aorist active indicative of \de“\...to bind. As a matter of...{To Annas first} (\pros Annan pr“ton\). Ex-high priest and father-in-law (\pentheros\, old word, only here in N.T.) of Caiaphas the actual high priest. Then Jesus was subjected to a preliminary and superfluous inquiry by Annas (given only by John) while the Sanhedrin were gathering before Caiaphas. Bernard curiously thinks that the night trial actually took place here before Annas and only the early morning ratification was before Caiaphas. Songs:he calmly says that "Matthew inserts the name _Caiaphas_ at this point (the night trial) in which he seems to have been mistaken." But why "mistaken"? {That year} (\tou eniautou ekeinou\). Genitive of time.

rwp@John:21:23 @{That that disciple should not die} (\hoti ho mathˆtˆs ekeinos ouk apothnˆskei\) (present active indicative)...anxious to set this matter right....

rwp@Luke:1:1 @{Forasmuch as} (\epeidˆper\). Here alone in the N.T., though common in literary Attic. Appears in the papyri. A triple compound (\epei\ = since, \dˆ\ = admittedly true, \per\ = intensive particle to emphasize importance). {Many} (\polloi\). How many no one knows, but certainly more than two or three. We know that Luke used the Logia of Jesus written by Matthew in Aramaic (Papias) and Mark's Gospel. Undoubtedly he had other written sources. {Have taken in hand} (\epecheirˆsan\). A literal translation of \epicheire“\ (from \cheir\, hand and \epi\, upon). Both Hippocrates and Galen use this word in their introduction to their medical works. Here only in the N.T., though a common literary word. Common in the papyri for undertaking with no idea of failure or blame. Luke does not mean to cast reflection on those who preceded him. The apocryphal gospels were all much later and are not in his mind. Luke had secured fuller information and planned a book on a larger scale and did surpass them with the result that they all perished save Mark's Gospel and what Matthew and Luke possess of the Logia of Jesus. There was still room for Luke's book. That motive influences every author and thus progress is made. {To draw up, a narrative} (\anataxasthai diˆgˆsin\). Ingressive aorist middle infinitive. This verb \anataxasthai\ has been found only in Plutarch's _Moral_. 968 CD about an elephant "rehearsing" by moonlight certain tricks it had been taught (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). That was from memory going regularly through the thing again. But the idea in the word is plain enough. The word is composed of \tass“\, a common verb for arranging things in proper order and \ana\...in orderly fashion various matters about...(\taxis\), topical or chronological rather than to isolated narratives" (Bruce). "They had produced something more than mere notes or anecdotes" (Plummer). \Diˆgˆsis\ means leading or carrying a thing through, not a mere incident. Galen applies this word some seventy-five times to the writing of Hippocrates. {Which have been fulfilled} (\t“n peplˆr“phorˆmen“n\). Perfect passive participle from \plˆrophore“\ and that from \plˆrˆs\ (full) and \pher“\ (to bring)...matter or a financial matter in...(_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 86f.) gives examples from the papyri and inscriptions for completing a task or being convinced or satisfied in mind. The same ambiguity occurs here. When used of persons in the N.T. the meaning is to be convinced, or fully persuaded (Romans:4:21; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|). When used of things it has the notion of completing or finishing (2Timothy:4:5,17|). Luke is here speaking of "matters" (\pragmat“n\)...may refer to the matters connected...2:2| we have "fulness of understanding" (\tˆs plˆrophorias tˆs sunese“s\). In modern Greek the verb means to inform. The careful language of Luke here really pays a tribute to those who had preceded him in their narratives concerning Christ.

rwp@Luke:2:14 @{Among men in whom he is well pleased} (\en anthr“pois eudokias\). The Textus Receptus (Authorized Version also has \eudokia\, but the genitive \eudokias\ is undoubtedly correct, supported by the oldest and best uncials. (Aleph, A B D W). C has a lacuna here. Plummer justly notes how in this angelic hymn Glory and Peace correspond, in the highest and on earth, to God and among men of goodwill. It would be possible to connect "on earth" with "the highest" and also to have a triple division. There has been much objection raised to the genitive \eudokias\...better sense. As a matter of...\eudokia\ we have already had in strkjv@Matthew:11:26|. It does not occur in the ancient Greek. The word is confined to Jewish and Christian writings, though the papyri furnish instances of \eudokˆsis\. Wycliff has it "to men of goodwill."

rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Iˆsous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin‚_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\ˆn h“sei et“n triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\“n huios h“s enomizeto I“sˆph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son)...Jesus through Mary, the matter is...(\h“s enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

rwp@Luke:4:7 @{Wilt worship before me} (\proskunˆsˆis en“pion emou\). strkjv@Matthew:4:9|...though in Luke the matter is...(\ean\ and the subjunctive). Luke has it "thou therefore if" (\su oun ean\), in a very emphatic and subtle way. It is the ingressive aorist (\proskunˆsˆis\), just bow the knee once up here in my presence. The temptation was for Jesus to admit Satan's authority by this act of prostration (fall down and worship), a recognition of authority rather than of personal merit. {It shall all be thine} (\estai sou pƒsa\). Satan offers to turn over all the keys of world power to Jesus. It was a tremendous grand-stand play, but Jesus saw at once that in that case he would be the agent of Satan in the rule of the world by bargain and graft instead of the Son of God by nature and world ruler by conquest over Satan. The heart of Satan's program is here laid bare. Jesus here rejected the Jewish idea of the Messiah as an earthly ruler merely. "He rejects Satan as an ally, and thereby has him as an implacable enemy" (Plummer.)

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) or they may have had separate sources. Luke's first beatitude corresponds with Matthew's first, but he does not have "in spirit" after "poor." Does Luke represent Jesus as saying that poverty itself is a blessing? It can be made so. Or does Luke represent Jesus as meaning what is in Matthew, poverty of spirit? {The kingdom of God} (\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|...the heart of the matter is...

rwp@Luke:6:24 @{But woe unto you that are rich} (\Plˆn ouai humin tois plousiois\). Sharp contrast (\plˆn\). As a matter of fact the rich Pharisees and Sadducees were the chief opposers of Christ as of the early disciples later (James:5:1-6|). {Ye have received} (\apechete\). Receipt in full \apech“\ means as the papyri show. {Consolation} (\paraklˆsin\). From \parakale“\, to call to one's side, to encourage, to help, to cheer.

rwp@Luke:8:18 @{How ye hear} (\p“s akouete\). The manner of hearing. strkjv@Mark:4:24| has "what ye hear" (\ti akouete\), the matter that is heard. Both are supremely important. Some things should not be heard at all. Some that are heard should be forgotten. Others should be treasured and practised. {For whosoever hath} (\Hosea:an gar echˆi\). Present active subjunctive of the common verb \ech“\ which may mean "keep on having" or "acquiring." See on ¯Mark:4:25| for discussion. {Thinketh he hath} (\dokei echein\), or {seems to acquire or to hold}. Losses in business illustrate this saying as when we see their riches take wings and fly away. Songs:it is with hearing and heeding. Self-deception is a common complaint.

rwp@Luke:10:21 @{In that same hour} (\en autˆi tˆi h“rƒi\). Literally, "at the hour itself," almost a demonstrative use of \autos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 686) and in Luke alone in the N.T. (2:38; strkjv@10:21; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@20:19|). strkjv@Matthew:11:25| uses the demonstrative here, "at that time" (\en ekein“i t“i kair“i\). {Rejoiced in the Holy Spirit} (\ˆgalliasato t“i pneumati t“i hagi“i\). First aorist middle of the late verb \agallia“\ for \agall“\, to exult. Always in the middle in the N.T. save strkjv@Luke:1:47| in Mary's _Magnificat_. This holy joy of Jesus was directly due to the Holy Spirit. It is joy in the work of his followers, their victories over Satan, and is akin to the joy felt by Jesus in strkjv@John:4:32-38| when the vision of the harvest of the world stirred his heart. The rest of this verse is precisely like strkjv@Matthew:11:25f.|, a peculiarly Johannine passage in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, and so from Q (the Logia of Jesus)...human intellect is a matter for...(Plummer).

rwp@Luke:11:5 @{At midnight} (\mesonuktiou\). Genitive of time. {And say to him} (\kai eipˆi aut“i\). This is the deliberative subjunctive, but it is preceded by two future indicatives that are deliberative also (\hexei, poreusetai\). {Lend me} (\chrˆson moi\). First aorist active imperative second singular. Lend me {now}. From \kichrˆmi\...to lend as a matter of...\daneiz“\, to lend on interest as a business. Only here in the N.T.

rwp@Luke:13:27 @{I know not whence ye are} (\ouk oida pothen este\)...blunt statement cuts the matter short...8:9| as in strkjv@Matthew:7:23|, there as in the LXX, here with \pantes ergatai adikias\, there with \hoi ergazomenoi tˆn anomian\. But \apostˆte\ (second aorist active imperative) here, and there \apoch“reite\ (present active imperative).

rwp@Luke:15:17 @{But when he came to himself} (\eis heauton de elth“n\)...from home. As a matter of...(_Christian Element in Plato_) as thinking of redemption as coming to oneself. {Hired servants} (\misthioi\). A late word from \misthos\ (hire). In the N.T. only in this chapter. The use of "many" here suggests a wealthy and luxurious home. {Have bread enough and to spare} (\perisseuontai art“n\). Old verb from \perissos\ and that from \peri\ (around). Present passive here, "are surrounded by loaves" like a flood. {I perish} (\eg“ de lim“i h“de apollumai\). Every word here counts: While I on the other hand am here perishing with hunger. It is the linear present middle of \apollumi\. Note \eg“\ expressed and \de\ of contrast.

rwp@Luke:19:12 @{To take to himself a kingdom} (\labein heaut“i basileian\). Second aorist active infinitive of \lamban“\ with the dative reflexive \heaut“i\...and it was a matter of...

rwp@Luke:19:29 @{Unto Bethphage and Bethany} (\eis Bˆthphagˆ kai Bˆthania\). Both indeclinable forms of the Hebrew or Aramaic names. In strkjv@Mark:11:1| "Bethany" is inflected regularly, which see. {Of Olives} (\Elai“n\). As in strkjv@Mark:11:1; strkjv@Matthew:21:1|, though some editors take it to be, not the genitive plural of \elaia\ (olive tree)...it is just a matter of...(circumflex or acute) Olivet is correct in strkjv@Acts:1:12|. See on ¯Matthew:21:1ff.; strkjv@Mark:11:1ff.| for details.

rwp@Mark:2:17 @{The righteous} (\dikaious\)...righteous, though, as a matter of...(Matthew:23|) Jesus shows that the Pharisees were extortionate and devoured widows' houses and wore a cloak of pride and hypocritical respectability. The words "unto repentance" (\eis metanoian\) are not genuine in Mark, but are in strkjv@Luke:5:32|. Jesus called men to new spiritual life and away from sin and so to repentance. But this claim stopped their mouths against what Jesus was doing. The well or the strong (\ischuontes\) are not those who need the physician in an epidemic.

rwp@Mark:9:4 @{Elijah with Moses} (\Eleias sun M“usei\)...Elijah." Both, as a matter of...9:5|.

rwp@Mark:9:33 @{In the house} (\en tˆi oikiƒi\). Probably Peter's house in Capernaum which was the home of Jesus when in the city. {What were ye reasoning in the way?} (\Ti en tˆi hod“i dielogiszethe;\). Imperfect tense. They had been disputing (verse 34|), not about the coming death of the Master, but about the relative rank of each of them in the political kingdom which they were expecting him to establish. Jesus had suspected the truth about them and they had apparently kept it up in the house. See on ¯Matthew:18:1|...then he pushed the matter further...

rwp@Mark:12:26 @{In the place concerning the Bush} (\epi tou batou\). This technical use of \epi\...good Greek, in the matter of,...\Batos\ is masculine here, feminine in strkjv@Luke:20:37|. The reference is to strkjv@Exodus:3:3-6| (in the book of Moses, \en tˆi bibl“i\).

rwp@Mark:14:58 @{Made with hands} (\cheiropoiˆton\). In Mark alone. An old Greek word. The negative form \acheiropoiˆton\ here occurs elsewhere only in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:1; strkjv@Colossians:2:11|. In strkjv@Hebrews:9:11| the negative \ou\ is used with the positive form. It is possible that a real \logion\ of Jesus underlies the perversion of it here. Mark and Matthew do not quote the witnesses precisely alike. Perhaps they quoted Jesus differently and therein is shown part of the disagreement, for Mark adds verse 59| (not in Matthew). "And not even so did their witness agree together," repeating the point of verse 57|...that Jesus, as a matter of...2:19|, when he referred not to the temple in Jerusalem, but to the temple of his body, though no one understood it at the time.

rwp@Mark:15:45 @{Granted the corpse} (\ed“rˆsato to pt“ma\)...the burial. As a matter of...\pt“ma\ (_cadaver_, corpse) is applied to the body (\s“ma\) of Jesus, the term used in strkjv@Matthew:27:59; strkjv@Luke:23:53; strkjv@John:19:40|).

rwp@Info_Matthew @...the date becomes a matter of...50 to 60, then Matthew's book may be between 60 and 70, though many would place it between 70 and 80. It is not certain whether Luke wrote after Matthew or not, though that is quite possible. There is no definite use of Matthew by Luke that has been shown. One guess is as good as another and each decides by his own predilections. My own guess is that A.D. 60 is as good as any.

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{The birth of Jesus Christ} (\tou [Iˆsou] Christou hˆ genesis\)...birth as the important matter after...1:16|. It is not certain whether "Jesus" is here a part of the text as it is absent in the old Syriac and the Old Latin while the Washington Codex has only "Christ." The Vatican Codex has "Christ Jesus." But it is plain that the story of the birth of Jesus Christ is to be told briefly as follows, "on this wise" (\hout“s\), the usual Greek idiom. The oldest and best manuscripts have the same word genealogy (\genesis\) used in strkjv@1:1|, not the word for birth (begotten) as in strkjv@1:16| (\gennˆsis\). "It is in fact the word Genesis. The evangelist is about to describe, not the genesis of the heaven and the earth, but the genesis of Him who made the heaven and the earth, and who will yet make a new heaven and a new earth" (Morison).

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heurethˆ en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-...difficult step in the matter of...1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.

rwp@Matthew:3:4 @{Now John himself} (\autos de ho I“anˆs\). Matthew thus introduces the man himself and draws a vivid sketch of his dress (note \eichen\, imperfect tense)...It was probably a matter of...(2Kings:1:8|), rough sackcloth woven from the hair of camels. Plummer holds that "John consciously took Elijah as a model."

rwp@Matthew:3:6 @{And they were baptized} (\kai ebaptizonto\). It is the imperfect tense to show the repetition of the act as the crowds from Judea and the surrounding country kept going out to him (\exeporeueto\), imperfect again, a regular stream of folks going forth. Moffatt takes it as causative middle, "got baptized," which is possible. "The movement of course was gradual. It began on a small scale and steadily grew till it reached colossal proportions" (Bruce)...is now such a matter of...(\exomologoumenoi\), probably each one confessing just before he was baptized, "making open confession" (Weymouth). Note \ex\. It was a never to be forgotten scene here in the Jordan. John was calling a nation to a new life. They came from all over Judea and even from the other side of El Ghor (the Jordan Gorge), Perea. Mark adds that finally all Jerusalem came.

rwp@Matthew:5:11 @{Falsely, for my sake} (\pseudomenoi heneken emou\)...is immaterial. What does matter is...(\misthos\) in heaven. No prize awaits one there who deserves all the evil said of him and done to him here.

rwp@Matthew:5:32 @{Saving for the cause of fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\)...means "except for a matter of...(Weymouth), "except unfaithfulness" (Goodspeed), and is equivalent to \mˆ epi porneiƒi\ in strkjv@Matthew:19:9|. McNeile denies that Jesus made this exception because Mark and Luke do not give it. He claims that the early Christians made the exception to meet a pressing need, but one fails to see the force of this charge against Matthew's report of the words of Jesus. It looks like criticism to meet modern needs.

rwp@Matthew:8:32 @{Rushed down the steep} (\h“rmˆsen kata tou krˆmnou\). Down from the cliff (ablative case)...influence of mind on matter is...-lore and legend, but plain enough if we take Jesus to be really Lord and Saviour. The incidental destruction of the hogs need not trouble us when we are so familiar with nature's tragedies which we cannot comprehend.

rwp@Matthew:9:6 @{That ye may know} (\hina eidˆte\). Jesus accepts the challenge in the thoughts of the scribes and performs the miracle of healing the paralytic, who so far only had his sins forgiven, to prove his Messianic power on earth to forgive sins even as God does. The word \exousia\...had both as a matter of...9:8|. {Then saith he to the sick of the palsy} (\tote legei t“i paralutik“i\). These words of course, were not spoken by Jesus. Curiously enough Matthew interjects them right in the midst of the sayings of Jesus in reply to the scorn of the scribes. Still more remarkable is the fact that Mark (Mark:2:10|) has precisely the same words in the same place save that Matthew has added \tote\, of which he is fond, to what Mark already had. Mark, as we know, largely reports Peter's words and sees with Peter's eyes. Luke has the same idea in the same place without the vivid historical present \legei (eipen t“i paralelumen“i)\ with the participle in place of the adjective. This is one of the many proofs that both Matthew and Luke made use of Mark's Gospel each in his own way. {Take up thy bed} (\ƒron sou tˆn klinˆn\). Pack up at once (aorist active imperative) the rolled-up pallet.

rwp@Matthew:11:7 @{As these went their way} (\tout“n poreuomen“n\)...away. Is it a matter of...(Plummer). {A reed shaken by the wind} (\kalamon hupo anemou saleuomenon\). Latin _calamus_. Used of the reeds that grew in plenty in the Jordan Valley where John preached, of a staff made of a reed (Matthew:27:29|), as a measuring rod (Revelation:11:1|), of a writer's pen (3John:1:13|). The reeds by the Jordan bent with the wind, but not so John.

rwp@Matthew:13:21 @{Yet hath he not root in himself} (\ouk echei de rhizan en heaut“i\). Cf. strkjv@Colossians:2:7| and strkjv@Ephesians:3:18| \erriz“memoi\. Stability like a tree. Here the man has a mushroom growth and "endureth for a while" (\proskairos\), temporary, quick to sprout, quick to stumble (\skandalizetai\)...the root of the matter in...

rwp@Matthew:15:3 @{Ye also} (\kai h–meis\)...treats it as a matter of...(\dia tˆn paradosin h–m“n\). The accusative with \dia\ means that, not "by means of." Tradition is not good or bad in itself. It is merely what is handed on from one to another. Custom tended to make these traditions binding like law. The Talmud is a monument of their struggle with tradition. There could be no compromise on this subject and Jesus accepts the issue. He stands for real righteousness and spiritual freedom, not for bondage to mere ceremonialism and tradition. The rabbis placed tradition (the oral law) above the law of God.

rwp@Matthew:15:15 @{Declare unto us the parable} (\phrason h–min tˆn parabolˆn\). Explain the parable (pithy saying) in verse 11|, not in verse 14|. As a matter of fact, the disciples had been upset by Christ's powerful exposure of the "Corban" duplicity and the words about "defilement" in verse 11|.

rwp@Matthew:17:25 @{Jesus spake first to him} (\proephthasen auton ho Iˆsous leg“n\). Here only in the N.T. One example in a papyrus B.C. 161 (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). The old idiomatic use of \phthan“\ with the participle survives in this example of \prophthan“\ in strkjv@Matthew:17:25|, meaning to anticipate, to get before one in doing a thing. The _Koin‚_ uses the infinitive thus with \phthan“\ which has come to mean simply to arrive. Here the anticipation is made plain by the use of \pro-\. See Robertson's _Grammar_, p. 1120. The "prevent" of the Authorized Version was the original idea of _praevenire_...obliged to take the matter up...{Toll or tribute} (\telˆ ˆ kˆnson\). Customs or wares collected by the publicans (like \phoros\, strkjv@Romans:13:7|) and also the capitation tax on persons, indirect and direct taxation. \Kˆnsos\ is the Latin _census_, a registration for the purpose of the appraisement of property like \hˆ apographˆ\ in strkjv@Luke:2:2; strkjv@Acts:5:37|. By this parable Jesus as the Son of God claims exemption from the temple tax as the temple of his Father just as royal families do not pay taxes, but get tribute from the foreigners or aliens, subjects in reality.

rwp@Matthew:20:20 @{Then} (\tote\). Surely an inopportune time for such a request just after the pointed prediction of Christ's crucifixion. Perhaps their minds had been preoccupied with the words of Jesus (19:28|) about their sitting on twelve thrones taking them in a literal sense. The mother of James and John, probably Salome, possibly a sister of the Master's mother (John:19:25|), apparently prompted her two sons because of the family relationship and now speaks for them. {Asking a certain thing} (\aitousa ti\). "Asking something," "plotting perhaps when their Master was predicting" (Bruce)...forward as a small matter was...(19:28|).

rwp@Matthew:21:21 @{Doubt not} (\mˆ diakrithˆte\). First aorist passive subjunctive, second-class condition. To be divided in mind, to waver, to doubt, the opposite of "faith" (\pistin\), trust, confidence. {What is done to the fig tree} (\to tˆs sukˆs\)...as if a slight matter in...{this mountain} (\t“i orei tout“i\). Removing a mountain is a bigger task than blighting a fig tree. "The cursing of the fig-tree has always been regarded as of symbolic import, the tree being in Christ's mind an emblem of the Jewish people, with a great show of religion and no fruit of real godliness. This hypothesis is very credible" (Bruce). Plummer follows Zahn in referring it to the Holy City. Certainly "this mountain" is a parable and one already reported in strkjv@Matthew:17:20| (cf. sycamine tree in Lk strkjv@17:6|). Cf. strkjv@Zechariah:17:4|.

rwp@Matthew:26:5 @{A tumult} (\thorubos\)...were arguing that the matter must...(\dol“i\) as they would trap a wild beast.

rwp@Matthew:26:26 @{And blessed and brake it} (\eulogˆsas eklasen\). Special "Grace" in the middle of the passover meal, "as they were eating," for the institution of the Supper. Jesus broke one of the passover wafers or cakes that each might have a piece, not as a symbol of the breaking of his body as the Textus Receptus has it in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:24|. The correct text there has only to \huper hum“n\ without \kl“menon\. As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not "broken" (John:19:33|) as John expressly states. {This is my body} (\touto estin to s“ma mou\). The bread as a symbol _represents_ the body of Jesus offered for us, "a beautifully simple, pathetic, and poetic symbol of his death" (Bruce). But some have made it "run into fetish worship" (Bruce). Jesus, of course, does not mean that the bread actually becomes his body and is to be worshipped. The purpose of the memorial is to remind us of his death for our sins.

rwp@Revelation:5:1 @{In the right hand} (\epi tˆn dexian\). "Upon the right hand" (\epi\, not \en\), the open palm. Anthropomorphic language drawn from strkjv@Ezekiel:2:9f|. {A book} (\biblion\). Diminutive of \biblos\, but no longer so used, \biblaridion\ occurring instead (10:2|). {Written} (\gegrammenon\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \graph“\. {Within and on the back} (\es“then kai opisthen\). "Within and behind." Description of a roll like that in strkjv@Luke:4:17|...was so full of matter that...(\opisthen\), and so was an \opisthographon\ like that in strkjv@Ezekiel:2:10|. There are many allegorical interpretations of this fact which are all beside the point. {Sealed} (\katesphragismenon\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \katasphragiz“\, old compound (perfective use of \kata\), to seal up (down), here only in N.T. {With seven seals} (\sphragisin hepta\). Instrumental case of \sphragis\, old word used in various senses, proof or authentication (1Corinthians:9:2; strkjv@Romans:4:11|), signet-ring (Revelation:7:2|), impression made by the seal (Revelation:9:4; strkjv@2Timothy:2:19|), the seal on books closing the book (Revelation:5:1,2,5,9; strkjv@6:1,3,5,7,9,12; strkjv@8:1|). "A will in Roman law bore the seven seals of the seven witnesses" (Charles). But this sealed book of doom calls for no witnesses beyond God's own will. Alford sees in the number seven merely the completeness of God's purposes.

rwp@Revelation:20:11 @{A great white throne} (\thronon megan leukon\). Here \megan\ (great) is added to the throne pictures in strkjv@4:4; strkjv@20:4|. The scene is prepared for the last judgment often mentioned in the N.T. (Matthew:25:31-46; strkjv@Romans:14:10; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:10|). "The absolute purity of this Supreme Court is symbolized by the colour of the Throne" (Swete) as in strkjv@Daniel:7:9; strkjv@Psalms:9:1; strkjv@97:2|. The name of God is not mentioned, but the Almighty Father sits upon the throne (4:2f.,9; strkjv@5:1,7,13; strkjv@6:16; strkjv@7:10,15; strkjv@19:4; strkjv@21:5|), and the Son sits there with him (Hebrews:1:3|) and works with the Father (John:5:19-21; strkjv@10:30; strkjv@Matthew:25:31ff.; strkjv@Acts:17:31; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:10; strkjv@2Timothy:4:1|). {From whose face the earth and the heaven fled away} (\hou apo pros“pou ephugen hˆ ge kai ho ouranos\). Second aorist (prophetic) active of \pheug“\. See strkjv@16:20|. The non-eternity of matter is a common teaching in the O.T. (Psalms:97:5; strkjv@102:27; strkjv@Isaiah:51:6|) as in the N.T. (Mark:13:31; strkjv@2Peter:3:10|). {Was found} (\heurethˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \heurisk“\. All is now spiritual. Even scientists today are speaking of the non-eternity of the universe.

rwp@Revelation:21:8 @{Their part shall be} (\to meros aut“n\). In contrast to the state of the blessed (verses 3-7|) the state of "those who have disfranchised themselves from the Kingdom of God" (Charles) is given. They are with Satan and the two beasts, and are the same with those not in the book of life (20:15|) in the lake of fire and brimstone (19:20; strkjv@20:10,14f.|), that is the second death (2:11; strkjv@20:6,14|). See also strkjv@14:10|. There are eight epithets here used which apply to various sections of this direful list of the doomed and the damned, all in the dative (case of personal interest). {For the fearful} (\tois deilois\). Old word (from \deid“\, to fear) for the cowardly, who recanted under persecution, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Matthew:8:26; strkjv@Mark:4:40|. {Unbelieving} (\apistois\). "Faithless," "untrustworthy," in contrast with Christ "\ho pistos\" (1:5|). Cf. strkjv@2:10,13; strkjv@3:14; strkjv@17:14|. Disloyalty is close kin to cowardice. {Abominable} (\ebdelugmenois\). Perfect passive participle of \bdeluss“\, old verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:2:22|, common in LXX, to pollute (Exodus:5:21|). Those who have become defiled by the impurities of emperor-worship (7:4f.; strkjv@21:27; strkjv@Romans:2:22; strkjv@Titus:1:16|). {Murderers} (\phoneusin\). As a matter of course and all too common always (Mark:7:21; strkjv@Romans:1:29; strkjv@Revelation:9:21|). {Fornicators} (\pornois\). Again all too common always, then and now (1Corinthians:5:10; strkjv@1Timothy:1:9f.|). These two crimes often go together. {Sorcerers} (\pharmakois\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@22:15|. Closely connected with idolatry and magic (9:21; strkjv@13:13f.|). {Idolaters} (\eid“lolatrais\). See strkjv@1Corinthians:5:10f.; strkjv@10:7; strkjv@Ephesians:5:5; strkjv@Revelation:22:15|. With a powerful grip on men's lives then and now. {All liars} (\pasi tois pseudesin\). Repeated in strkjv@22:15| and stigmatized often (2:2; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@21:8,27; strkjv@22:15|). Not a "light" sin.

rwp@Revelation:21:14 @{Had} (\ech“n\). Masculine present active participle of \ech“\ instead of \echon\ (neuter like to \teichos\), and the participle occurs independently as if a principal verb (\eichen\) as often in this book. {Twelve foundations} (\themelious d“deka\). Foundation stones, old adjective (from \thema\, from \tithˆmi\), here as in strkjv@1Corinthians:3:11ff.; strkjv@2Timothy:2:19|, with \lithous\ (stones understood), though often neuter substantive to \themelion\ (Luke:6:48f.; strkjv@Acts:16:26|). See strkjv@Isaiah:28:16; strkjv@Hebrews:11:10|. Twelve because of the twelve apostles as foundation stones (Ephesians:2:20|). {On them} (\ep' aut“n\). On the twelve foundation stones. {Names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb} (\onomata t“n d“deka apostol“n tou arniou\). Jesus had spoken of twelve thrones for the apostles (Matthew:19:28|); names of all twelve are here written, not just that of Peter, as some would argue from strkjv@Matthew:16:18|. As a matter of fact, Christ is the corner stone or \akrog“niaion\ (1Peter:2:6; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:10; strkjv@Ephesians:2:20|), though rejected by the Sanhedrin (Matthew:21:42ff.|). One may wonder if the name of Judas is on that stone or that of Matthias.

rwp@Revelation:21:16 @{Lieth foursquare} (\tetrag“nos keitai\). Present middle indicative of \keimai\. The predicate adjective is from \tetra\ (Aeolic for \tessares\ four) and \g“nos\ (\g“nia\ corner, strkjv@Matthew:6:5|) here only in N.T. As in strkjv@Ezekiel:48:16,20|. It is a tetragon or quadrilateral quadrangle (21:12f.|). {The length thereof is as great as the breadth} (\to mˆkos autˆs hoson to platos\). It is rectangular, both walls and city within. Babylon, according to Herodotus, was a square, each side being 120 stadia. Diodorus Siculus says that Nineveh was also foursquare. {With the reed} (\t“i kalam“i\). Instrumental case (cf. verse 15| for \kalamos\) and for \metre“\ (aorist active indicative here) {Twelve thousand furlongs} (\epi stadi“n d“deka chiliad“n\). This use of the genitive \stadi“n\ with \epi\ is probably correct (reading of Aleph P), though A Q have \stadious\ (more usual, but confusing here with \chiliad“n\). Thucydides and Xenophon use \epi\ with the genitive in a like idiom (in the matter of). It is not clear whether the 1500 miles (12,000 furlongs) is the measurement of each of the four sides or the sum total. Some of the rabbis argued that the walls of the New Jerusalem of Ezekiel would reach to Damascus and the height would be 1500 miles high. {Equal} (\isa\). That is, it is a perfect cube like the Holy of Holies in Solomon's temple (1Kings:6:19f.|). This same measurement (\platos, mˆkos, hupsos\) is applied to Christ's love in strkjv@Ephesians:3:18|, with \bathos\ (depth) added. It is useless to try to reduce the measurements or to put literal interpretations upon this highly wrought symbolic language. Surely the meaning is that heaven will be large enough for all, as Jesus said (John:14:1ff.|) without insisting on the materialistic measurement of a gorgeous apartment house full of inside rooms.

rwp@Romans:8:34 @{Shall condemn} (\katakrin“n\). Can be either present active participle (condemns) or the future (shall condemn)...true ones for that matter for...(1John:2:1|), "who is at the right hand of God" (\hos estin en dexiƒi tou theou\) "who also maketh intercession for us" (\hos kai entugchanei huper hˆm“n\). Our Advocate paid the debt for our sins with his blood. The score is settled. We are free (8:1|).

Seeker Overlay: Off On

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

[pBiblx2]
Mon Jun 3 01:45:39 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020