rwp - referred

rwp@Info_1Peter @...Paul's Epistles, the persecution referred to...67 or 68 and the persecution to be not that under Domitian or Trajan, but under Nero, the date can be assumed to be about A.D. 65.

rwp@1Timothy:1:15 @{Faithful is the saying} (\pistos ho logos\). Five times in the Pastorals (1Timothy:1:15; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@4:9; strkjv@Titus:3:8; strkjv@2Timothy:2:11|). It will pay to note carefully \pistis, pisteu, pistos\. Same use of \pistos\ (trustworthy) applied to \logos\ in strkjv@Titus:1:9; strkjv@Revelation:21:5; strkjv@22:6|. Here and probably in strkjv@2Timothy:2:11|...saying seems to be referred to,...(\hoti\) of a current saying quite like the Johannine type of teaching. This very phrase (Christ coming into the world) occurs in strkjv@John:9:37; strkjv@11:27; strkjv@16:28; strkjv@18:37|. Paul, of course, had no access to the Johannine writings, but such "sayings" were current among the disciples. There is no formal quotation, but "the whole phrase implies a knowledge of Synoptic and Johannine language" (Lock) as in strkjv@Luke:5:32; strkjv@John:12:47|. {Acceptation} (\apodochs\). Genitive case with \axios\ (worthy of). Late word (Polybius, Diod., Jos.) in N.T. only here and strkjv@4:9|. {Chief} (\prtos\). Not \n\ (I was), but \eimi\ (I am). "It is not easy to think of any one but St. Paul as penning these words" (White). In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:9| he had called himself "the least of the apostles" (\elachistos tn apostoln\). In strkjv@Ephesians:3:8| he refers to himself as "the less than the least of all saints" (\ti elachistoteri pantn hagin\). On occasion Paul would defend himself as on a par with the twelve apostles (Galatians:2:6-10|) and superior to the Judaizers (2Corinthians:11:5f.; strkjv@12:11|). It is not mock humility here, but sincere appreciation of the sins of his life (cf. strkjv@Romans:7:24|) as a persecutor of the church of God (Galatians:1:13|), of men and even women (Acts:22:4f.; strkjv@26:11|). He had sad memories of those days.

rwp@2Corinthians:7:8 @{Though} (\ei kai\). If also. Paul treats it as a fact. {With my epistle} (\en ti epistoli\). The one referred to in strkjv@2:3f|. {I do not regret it} (\ou metamelomai\). This verb really means "repent" (be sorry again) which meaning we have transferred to \metanoe\, to change one's mind (not to be sorry at all). See strkjv@Matthew:21:30; strkjv@27:3| for the verb \metamelomai\, to be sorry, to regret as here. Paul is now glad that he made them sorry. {Though I did regret} (\ei kai metemelomn\). Imperfect indicative in the concessive clause. I was in a regretful mood at first. {For I see} (\blep gar\). A parenthetical explanation of his present joy in their sorrow. B D do not have \gar\. The Latin Vulgate has _videns_ (seeing) for \blepn\. {For a season} (\pros hran\). Cf. strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:17|. It was only "for an hour."

rwp@Info_2John @ SECOND JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is little to add to what was said about the First Epistle except that here the author terms himself "the elder" (\ho presbuteros\) and writes to "the elect lady" (\eklekti kurii\). There is dispute about both of these titles. Some hold that it is the mythical "presbyter John" of whom Papias may speak, if so understood, but whose very existence is disproved by Dom Chapman in _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_. Peter the apostle (1Peter:1:1|) calls himself "fellow-elder" (\sunpresbuteros\) with the other elders (1Peter:5:1|). The word referred originally to age (Luke:15:25|), then to rank or office as in the Sanhedrin (Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Acts:6:12|) and in the Christian churches (Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@1Timothy:5:17,19|) as here also. A few even deny that the author is the same as in the First Epistle of John, but just an imitator. But the bulk of modern scholarly opinion agrees that the same man wrote all three Epistles and the Fourth Gospel (the Beloved Disciple, and many still say the Apostle John) whatever is true of the Apocalypse. There is no way of deciding whether "the elect lady" is a woman or a church. The obvious way of taking it is to a woman of distinction in one of the churches, as is true of "the co-elect lady in Babylon" (1Peter:5:13|), Peter's wife, who travelled with him (1Corinthians:9:5|). Some even take \kuria\ to be the name of the lady (Cyria). Some also take it to be "Eklecta the lady." Dr. Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 31) holds that Pergamum is the church to which the letter was sent. The same commentaries treat I, II, and III John as a rule, though Poggel has a book on II, III John and Bresky has _Das Verhaltnis des Zweiten Johannesbriefes zum dritten_. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has an interesting article in _The Expositor_ of London for March, 1901, on "The Problem of the Address to the Second Epistle of John," in which he argues from papyri examples that \kuria\ here means "my dear" or "my lady." But Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 26) argues that "the qualifying adjunct 'elect' lifts us into the region of Christian calling and dignity." It is not certain that II John was written after I John, though probable. Origen rejected it and the Peshitta Syriac does not have II and III John. strkjv@2John:1:1 @{And her children} (\kai tois teknois auts\). As with \eklekt kuria\, so here \tekna\ may be understood either literally as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:4|, or spiritually, as in strkjv@Galatians:4:19,25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. For the spiritual sense in \teknia\ see strkjv@1John:2:1,12|. {Whom} (\hous\). Masculine accusative plural, though \teknois\ is neuter plural (dative), construction according to sense, not according to grammatical gender, "embracing the mother and the children of both sexes" (Vincent). See thus \hous\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:19|. {I} (\Eg\). Though \ho presbuteros\ is third person, he passes at once after the Greek idiom to the first and there is also special emphasis here in the use of \agap\ with the addition of \en altheii\ (in truth, in the highest sphere, as in strkjv@John:17:19; strkjv@3John:1:1|) and \ouk eg monos\ (not I only, "not I alone"). Brooke argues that this language is unsuitable if to a single family and not to a church. But Paul employs this very phrase in sending greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans:16:4|). {That know} (\hoi egnkotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \ginsk\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@2John:1:7 @{Deceivers} (\planoi\). Late adjective (Diodorus, Josephus) meaning wandering, roving (1Timothy:4:1|). As a substantive in N.T. of Jesus (Matthew:27:63|), of Paul (2Corinthians:6:8|), and here. See the verb (\tn planontn hums\) in strkjv@1John:2:26| of the Gnostic deceivers as here and also of Jesus (John:7:12|). Cf. strkjv@1John:1:8|. {Are gone forth} (\exlthan\, alpha ending). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\, perhaps an allusion to the crisis when they left the churches (1John:2:19|, same form). {Even they that confess not} (\hoi m homologountes\). "The ones not confessing" (\m\ regular negative with the participle). The articular participle describes the deceivers (\planoi\). {That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh} (\Isoun Christon erchomenon en sarki\). "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of \erchomai\ treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In strkjv@1John:4:2| we have \elluthota\ (perfect active participle) in this same construction with \homologe\, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ. {This} (\houtos\). See strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@5:6,20|. {The deceiver and the antichrist} (\ho planos kai ho antichristos\). Article with each word, as in strkjv@Revelation:1:17|...though one individual is referred to...._par excellence_ in popular expectation (1John:2:22|), though many in reality (1John:2:18; strkjv@3John:1:7|).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE READERS The author says that this is his second Epistle to them (2Peter:3:1|), and that means that he is writing to the saints in the five Roman provinces in Asia Minor to whom the first Epistle was sent (1Peter:1:1|)...and that the Epistle referred to...2Peter:3:1| has been lost. He holds that II Peter was addressed to the church in Corinth. He considers the readers to be Jews while I Peter was addressed to Gentiles. But "there is nothing in II Peter to differentiate its first readers from those of I Peter" (Bigg).

rwp@2Peter:1:18 @{This voice} (\tautn tn phnn\). The one referred to in verse 17|. {We heard} (\kousamen\). First aorist active indicative of \akou\, a definite experience of Peter. {Brought} (\enechtheisan\). "Borne" as in verse 17|. {When we were with him} (\sun auti ontes\). Present active participle of \eimi\, "being with him." {In the holy mount} (\en ti hagii orei\). Made holy by the majestic glory. See strkjv@Ezekiel:28:14| for "holy mount of God," there Sinai, this one probably one of the lower slopes of Hermon. Peter's account is independent of the Synoptic narrative, but agrees with it in all essentials.

rwp@2Timothy:4:13 @{The cloke} (\tn phelonn\). More common form \pheilon\. By metathesis for \phainol\, Latin _paenula_, though which language transliterated the word into the other is not known. The meaning is also uncertain, though probably "cloke" as there are so many papyri examples in that sense (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). Milligan (N.T. _Documents_, p. 20) had previously urged "book wrap" as probable but he changed his mind and rightly so. {With Carpus} (\para Karpi\). "Beside Carpus," at his house. Not mentioned elsewhere. Probably a visit to Troas after Paul's return from Crete. {The books} (\ta biblia\). Probably papyrus rolls. One can only guess what rolls the old preacher longs to have with him, probably copies of Old Testament books, possibly copies of his own letters, and other books used and loved. The old preacher can be happy with his books. {Especially the parchments} (\malista tas membranas\). Latin _membrana_. The dressed skins were first made at Pergamum and so termed "parchments." These in particular would likely be copies of Old Testament books, parchment being more expensive than papyrus, possibly even copies of Christ's sayings (Luke:1:1-4|). We recall that in strkjv@Acts:26:24| Festus referred to Paul's learning (\ta grammata\). He would not waste his time in prison.

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

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE DATE There are three views about the date of the Acts. Baur and his Tubingen School held the second century to be the date of this late pamphlet as they termed it after the fashion of the Clementine Homilies. But that view is now practically abandoned save by the few who still strangely oppose the Lukan authorship. Probably the majority of those who accept the Lukan authorship place it in the latter part of the first century for two reasons. One is that the Gospel according to Luke is dated by them after the destruction of Jerusalem because of the prophecy by Jesus of the encompassing of the city by armies. Predictive prophecy that would be and so it is considered a prophecy _post eventum_. The other reason is the alleged use of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus by Luke. Josephus finished this work A.D. 93 so that, if Luke did use it, he must have written the Acts after that date. Usually this argument is made to show that Luke could not have written it at all, but some hold that he may have lived to an age that would allow it. But it cannot be assumed that Luke used Josephus because of his mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. They differ so widely (Acts:5:36f|. and Josephus, _Ant_. XX. v, 1, 2) that Von Dobschutz (_Dictionary of the Apostolic Church_, art. Josephus) argues that the two accounts are entirely independent of each other. Songs:Luke (Luke:13:1f.|)...revolts under Pilate not referred to...12:20-23| and _Ant_. XIX. viii, 2 redounds to the credit of Luke. The Josephus phase of the argument may be brushed to one side. The third view, held by Harnack and adopted here, is that Luke wrote the Acts while with Paul in Rome and finished the book before Paul's release, that is by A.D. 63. This is the obvious and natural way to take the language of Luke at the close of Acts. Events had gone no farther and so he ends the narrative right there. It is argued against this that Luke contemplated a third volume and for this reason closed with the arrival of Paul in Rome. But the use of \prton\ (first) in strkjv@Acts:1:1| is a common _Koin_ idiom and does not imply three volumes any more than first and second stories with us means that the house has three. Of course this date for the Acts puts the date of the Gospel further back either in Caesarea (57 to 59) or in Rome (60 to 62). And that means that Mark's Gospel is still earlier since Luke used it for his Gospel and the Logia (Q) earlier still. But all these dates are probable in the light of all the known facts.

rwp@Acts:1:8 @{Power} (\dunamin\). Not the "power" about which they were concerned (political organization and equipments for empire on the order of Rome). Their very question was ample proof of their need of this new "power" (\dunamin\), to enable them (from \dunamai\, to be able), to grapple with the spread of the gospel in the world. {When the Holy Ghost is come upon you} (\epelthontos tou hagiou pneumatos eph' humas\). Genitive absolute and is simultaneous in time with the preceding verb "shall receive" (\lmpsesthe\)...of the Holy Spirit referred to...5|. {My witnesses} (\mou martures\). Correct text. "Royal words of magnificent and Divine assurance" (Furneaux). Our word martyrs is this word \martures\. In strkjv@Luke:24:48| Jesus calls the disciples "witnesses to these things" (\martures toutn\, objective genitive). In strkjv@Acts:1:22| an apostle has to be a "witness to the Resurrection" of Christ and in strkjv@10:39| to the life and work of Jesus. Hence there could be no "apostles" in this sense after the first generation. But here the apostles are called "my witnesses." "His by a direct personal relationship" (Knowling). The expanding sphere of their witness when the Holy Spirit comes upon them is "unto the uttermost part of the earth" (\hes eschatou ts gs\). Once they had been commanded to avoid Samaria (Matthew:10:5|), but now it is included in the world program as already outlined on the mountain in Galilee (Matthew:28:19; strkjv@Mark:16:15|). Jesus is on Olivet as he points to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the uttermost (last, \eschatou\) part of the earth. The program still beckons us on to world conquest for Christ. "The Acts themselves form the best commentary on these words, and the words themselves might be given as the best summary of the Acts" (Page). The events follow this outline (Jerusalem till the end of chapter 7, with the martyrdom of Stephen, the scattering of the saints through Judea and Samaria in chapter 8, the conversion of Saul, chapter 9, the spread of the gospel to Romans in Caesarea by Peter (chapter 10), to Greeks in Antioch (chapter 11), finally Paul's world tours and arrest and arrival in Rome (chapters 11 to 28).

rwp@Acts:1:18 @{Now this man} (\Houtos men oun\). Note \men oun\ again without a corresponding \de\ as in strkjv@1:6|. Verses 18,19| are a long parenthesis of Luke by way of explanation of the fate of Judas. In verse 20|...scripture to which he referred in...16|. {Obtained} (\ektsato\). First aorist middle indicative of \ktaomai\, to acquire, only in the middle, to get for oneself. With the covenant money for the betrayal, acquired it indirectly apparently according to strkjv@Matthew:26:14-16; strkjv@27:3-8| which see. {Falling headlong} (\prns genomenos\). Attic form usually \prans\. The word means, not "headlong," but "flat on the face" as opposed to \huptios\ on the back (Hackett). Hackett observes that the place suits admirably the idea that Judas hung himself (Matthew:27:5|) and, the rope breaking, fell flat on his face and {burst asunder in the midst} (\elaksen mesos\). First aorist active indicative of \lask\ old verb (here only in the N.T.), to clang, to crack, to crash, like a falling tree. Aristophanes uses it of crashing bones. \Mesos\ is predicate nominative referring to Judas. {Gushed out} (\exechuth\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekche\, to pour out.

rwp@Acts:2:42 @{They continued steadfastly} (\san proskarturountes\). Periphrastic active imperfect of \proskarture\ as in strkjv@Acts:1:14| (same participle in verse 46|). {Fellowship} (\koinnii\). Old word from \koinnos\ (partner, sharer in common interest) and this from \koinos\ what is common to all. This partnership involves participation in, as the blood of Christ (Phillipians:2:1|) or co-operation in the work of the gospel (Phillipians:1:5|) or contribution for those in need (2Corinthians:8:4; strkjv@9:13|). Hence there is wide diversity of opinion concerning the precise meaning of \koinnia\ in this verse. It may refer to the distribution of funds in verse 44| or to the oneness of spirit in the community of believers or to the Lord's Supper (as in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:16|) in the sense of communion or to the fellowship in the common meals or \agapae\ (love-feasts). {The breaking of bread} (\ti klasei tou artou\). The word \klasis\ is an old word, but used only by Luke in the N.T. (Luke:24:35; strkjv@Acts:2:42|), though the verb \kla\ occurs in other parts of the N.T. as in verse 46|. The problem here is whether Luke refers to the ordinary meal as in strkjv@Luke:24:35| or to the Lord's Supper. The same verb \kla\ is used of breaking bread at the ordinary meal (Luke:24:30|) or the Lord's Supper (Luke:22:19|). It is generally supposed that the early disciples attached so much significance to the breaking of bread at the ordinary meals, more than our saying grace, that they followed the meal with the Lord's Supper at first, a combination called \agapai\ or love-feasts. "There can be no doubt that the Eucharist at this period was preceded uniformly by a common repast, as was the case when the ordinance was instituted" (Hackett). This led to some abuses as in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:20|...possible that what is referred to...\ti klasei tou artou\ as='The Holy Communion' is to pervert the plain meaning of words, and to mar the picture of family life, which the text places before us as the ideal of the early believers" (Page). But in strkjv@Acts:20:7| they seem to have come together especially for the observance of the Lord's Supper. Perhaps there is no way to settle the point conclusively here. {The prayers} (\tais proseuchais\). Services where they prayed as in strkjv@1:14|, in the temple (Acts:3:1|), in their homes (4:23|).

rwp@Acts:5:28 @{We straitly charged} (\Paraggelii parggeilamen\). Like the Hebrew idiom (common in the LXX), though found in Greek, with charging (instrumental case) we charged (cf. same idiom in strkjv@Luke:22:15|)...cognate accusative. The command referred to...4:17,18| and the refusal of Peter and John in strkjv@4:20|. {To bring upon us} (\epagagein eph' hms\). Note repetition of \epi\. Second aorist active infinitive of \epag\, old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Peter:2:1,5|. The Sanhedrin gladly took the blood of Christ on their heads and their children to Pilate (Matthew:27:25|). Paul tried to save the Jews (Acts:18:6; strkjv@22:20|). "{This man}" (\tou anthrpou toutou\). Contemptuous slur and refusal to call the name of Jesus as in the Talmud later.

rwp@Acts:10:38 @{Jesus of Nazareth} (\Isoun ton apo Nazareth\). Jesus the one from Nazareth, the article before the city identifying him clearly. The accusative case is here by \prolepsis\, Jesus being expressed for emphasis before the verb "anointed" and the pronoun repeated pleonastically after it. "Jesus transfers the mind from the gospel-history to the personal subject of it" (Hackett). {God anointed him} (\echrisen, auton, ho theos\). First aorist active of the verb \chri\, to anoint, from which the verbal \Christos\ is formed (Acts:2:36|). The precise event referred to by Peter could be the Incarnation (Luke:1:35f.|), the Baptism (Luke:3:22|), the Ministry at Nazareth (Luke:4:14|). Why not to the life and work of Jesus as a whole? {Went about doing good} (\dilthen euergetn\). Beautiful description of Jesus. Summary (constative) aorist active of \dierehomai\, to go through (\dia\) or from place to place. The present active participle \euergetn\ is from the old verb \euergete\ (\eu\, well, \ergon\, work) and occurs only here in the N.T. The substantive \euergets\ (benefactor) was often applied to kings like Ptolemy Euergetes and that is the sense in strkjv@Luke:22:25| the only N.T. example. But the term applies to Jesus far more than to Ptolemy or any earthly king (Cornelius a Lapide). {And healing} (\kai imenos\). And in particular healing. Luke does not exclude other diseases (cf. strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|), but he lays special emphasis on demoniacal possession (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:23|). {That were oppressed} (\tous katadunasteuomenous\). Present passive articular participle of \katadunasteu\. A late verb in LXX and papyri. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@James:2:6| (best MSS.). One of the compounds of \kata\ made transitive. The reality of the devil (the slanderer, \diabolos\) is recognized by Peter. {For God was with him} (\hoti ho theos n met' autou\). Surely this reason does not reveal "a low Christology" as some charge. Peter had used the same language in strkjv@Acts:7:9| and earlier in strkjv@Luke:1:28,66| as Nicodemus does in strkjv@John:3:2|.

rwp@Acts:11:2 @{They that were of the circumcision} (\hoi ek peritoms\). Literally, those of circumcision (on the side of circumcision, of the circumcision party). The phrase in strkjv@10:46| is confined to the six brethren with Peter in Caesarea (11:12|). That can hardly be the meaning here for it would mean that they were the ones who brought the charge against Peter though Hort takes this view. All the disciples in Jerusalem were Jews so that it can hardly mean the whole body. In strkjv@Galatians:2:12| the phrase has the narrower sense of the Judaizing or Pharisaic wing of the disciples (Acts:15:5|) who made circumcision necessary for all Gentile converts. Probably here by anticipation Luke so describes the beginning of that great controversy. The objectors probably did not know of Peter's vision at Joppa, but only of the revolutionary conduct of Peter in Caesarea. These extremists who spoke probably had abundant sympathy in their protest. The apostles are mentioned in verse 1|, but are not referred to in verse 2|. Apparently they are in contrast with the circumcision party in the church. {Contended} (\diekrinonto\). Imperfect middle of the common verb \diakrin\, to {separate}. Here to separate oneself apart (\dia\), to take sides against, to make a cleavage (\dia\, two, in two) as in strkjv@Jude:1:9|. Songs:Peter is at once put on the defensive as the contention went on. It is plain that Peter was not regarded as any kind of pope or overlord.

rwp@Acts:12:25 @{From Jerusalem} (\ex Ierousalm\). Probably correct text, though D has \apo\. Westcott and Hort follow Aleph B in reading \eis\ (to) Jerusalem, an impossible reading contradicted by strkjv@11:29f.; strkjv@13:1|. The ministration (\diakonian\) referred to is that in strkjv@11:29f.| which may have taken place, in point of time, after the death of Herod. {Taking with them} (\sunparalabontes\). Taking along (\para\) with (\sun\) them, John Mark from Jerusalem (12:12|) to Antioch (13:1|). The aorist participle does not express subsequent action as Rackham here argues (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 861-863).

rwp@Acts:15:4 @{Were received} (\paredechthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \paradechomai\...first public meeting is referred to...2:2| "I set before them (\autois\) the gospel, etc."

rwp@Acts:15:17 @{That the residue of men may seek after the Lord} (\hops an ekztssin hoi kataloipoi tn anthrpn ton kurion\). The use of \hops\ with the subjunctive (effective aorist active) to express purpose is common enough and note \an\ for an additional tone of uncertainty. On the rarity of \an\ with \hops\ in the _Koin_ see Robertson, _Grammar_...Here the Gentiles are referred to....(\panta ta ethn\). Another item of similarity between this speech and the Epistle of James is in the phrase "my name is called" (\epikekltai to onoma mou\) and strkjv@James:2:7|. The purpose of God, though future, is expressed by this perfect passive indicative \epikekltai\ from \epi-kale\, to call on. It is a Jewish way of speaking of those who worship God.

rwp@Acts:15:19 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). "Because of which," this plain purpose of God as shown by Amos and Isaiah. {My judgment is} (\eg krin\). Note expression of \eg\. {I give my judgment}. (\Ego censeo\). James sums up the case as President of the Conference in a masterly fashion and with that consummate wisdom for which he is noted. It amounts to a resolution for the adoption by the assembly as happened (verse 33|). {That we trouble not} (\m parenochlein\). Present active infinitive with \m\ in an indirect command (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1046) of \parenochle\, a common late verb, occurring here alone in the N.T. This double compound (\para, en\) is from the old compound \enochle\ (\en\ and \ochlos\, crowd, annoyance) seen in strkjv@Luke:6:18; strkjv@Hebrews:12:15|, and means to cause trouble beside (\para\)...very kind of people referred to...

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\ (\epistol\ 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} (\alisgmatn\). From \alisge\ only in the LXX and this substantive nowhere else. The word refers to idolatrous practices (pollutions) and things sacrificed to idols (\eidluthn\) 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:20:7 @{Upon the first day of the week} (\en de mii tn sabbatn\). The cardinal \mii\ used here for the ordinal \prti\ (Mark:16:9|) like the Hebrew _ehadh_ as in strkjv@Mark:16:2; strkjv@Matthew:28:1; strkjv@Luke:24:1; strkjv@John:20:1| and in harmony with the _Koin_ idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 671). Either the singular (Mark:16:9|) \sabbatou\ or the plural \sabbaton\ as here was used for the week (sabbath to sabbath). For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week though in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:2| it is implied by the collections stored on that day. In strkjv@Revelation:1:10| the Lord's day seems to be the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the grave. Worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh naturally arose in Gentile churches, though strkjv@John:20:26| seems to mean that from the very start the disciples began to meet on the first (or eighth) day. But liberty was allowed as Paul makes plain in strkjv@Romans:14:5f|. {When we were gathered together} (\sungmenn hmn\). Genitive absolute, perfect passive participle of \sunag\, to gather together, a formal meeting of the disciples. See this verb used for gatherings of disciples in strkjv@Acts:4:31; strkjv@11:26; strkjv@14:27; strkjv@15:6,30; strkjv@19:7,8; strkjv@1Corinthians:5:4|. In strkjv@Hebrews:10:25| the substantive \episunaggn\ is used for the regular gatherings which some were already neglecting. It is impossible for a church to flourish without regular meetings even if they have to meet in the catacombs as became necessary in Rome. In Russia today the Soviets are trying to break up conventicles of Baptists. They probably met on our Saturday evening, the beginning of the first day at sunset. Songs:these Christians began the day (Sunday) with worship. But, since this is a Gentile community, it is quite possible that Luke means our Sunday evening as the time when this meeting occurs, and the language in strkjv@John:20:19| "it being evening on that day the first day of the week" naturally means the evening following the day, not the evening preceding the day. {To break bread} (\klasai arton\). First aorist active infinitive of purpose of \kla\. The language naturally bears the same meaning as in strkjv@2:42|, the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper which usually followed the \Agap\. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:16|. The time came, when the \Agap\ was no longer observed, perhaps because of the abuses noted in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:20ff|. Rackham argues that the absence of the article with bread here and its presence (\ton arton\) in verse 11| shows that the \Agap\ is ] referred to in verse 7| and the Eucharist in verse 11|, but not necessarily so because \ton arton\ may merely refer to \arton\ in verse 7|. At any rate it should be noted that Paul, who conducted this service, was not a member of the church in Troas, but only a visitor. {Discoursed} (\dielegeto\). Imperfect middle because he kept on at length. {Intending} (\mell\). Being about to, on the point of. {On the morrow} (\ti epaurion\). Locative case with \hmeri\ understood after the adverb \epaurion\. If Paul spoke on our Saturday evening, he made the journey on the first day of the week (our Sunday) after sunrise. If he spoke on our Sunday evening, then he left on our Monday morning. {Prolonged his speech} (\Pareteinen ton logon\). Imperfect active (same form as aorist) of \paratein\, old verb to stretch beside or lengthwise, to prolong. Vivid picture of Paul's long sermon which went on and on till midnight (\mechri mesonuktiou\). Paul's purpose to leave early next morning seemed to justify the long discourse. Preachers usually have some excuse for the long sermon which is not always clear to the exhausted audience.

rwp@Acts:20:19 @[After what manner I was with you} (\ps meth' hmn egenomn\). Literally, "How I came (from Asia and so was) with you." Cf. strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:5; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1-10| where Paul likewise dares to refer boldly to his life while with them "all the time" (\ton panta chronon\). Accusative of duration of time. Songs:far as we know, Paul stuck to Ephesus the whole period. He had devoted himself consecratedly to the task in Ephesus. Each pastor is bishop of his field and has a golden opportunity to work it for Christ. One of the saddest things about the present situation is the restlessness of preachers to go elsewhere instead of devoting themselves wholly to the task where they are. 19|. {Serving the Lord} (\douleun ti kurii\). It was Paul's glory to be the \doulos\ (bond-slave) as in strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Phillipians:1:1|. Paul alone, save Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:6:24; strkjv@Luke:16:13|, uses \douleu\ six times for serving God (Page). {With all lowliness of mind} (\meta pass tapeinophrosuns\). Lightfoot notes that heathen writers use this word for a grovelling, abject state of mind, but Paul follows Christ in using it for humility, humble-mindedness that should mark every Christian and in particular the preacher. {With tears} (\dakrun\). Construed with \meta\. Paul was a man of the deepest emotion along with his high intellectuality. He mentions his tears again in verse 31|, tears of sorrow and of anxiety. He refers to his tears in writing the sharp letter to the church in Corinth (2Corinthians:2:4|) and in denouncing the sensual apostates in strkjv@Phillipians:3:18|. Adolphe Monod has a wonderful sermon on the tears of Paul. Consider also the tears of Jesus. {Trials which befell me} (\peirasmn tn sumbantn moi\). Construed also with \meta\. Second aorist active participle of \sunbain\, to walk with, to go with, to come together, to happen, to befall. Very common in this sense in the old Greek (cf. strkjv@Acts:3:10|). {By the plots of the Jews} (\en tais epiboulais tn Ioudain\). Like the plot (\epiboul\) against him in Corinth (20:3|) as well as the earlier trial before Gallio and the attacks in Thessalonica. In strkjv@Acts:19:9|...and may be even referred to...1Corinthians:4:10; strkjv@15:30ff.; strkjv@16:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:4-10; strkjv@7:5; strkjv@11:23|. In fact, one has only to dwell on the allusions in strkjv@2Corinthians:11| to picture what Paul's life was in Ephesus during these three years. Luke gives in strkjv@Acts:19| the outbreak of Demetrius, but Paul had already fought with "wild-beasts" there.

rwp@Acts:21:19 @{He rehearsed} (\exgeito\). Imperfect middle of \exgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Songs:Paul is pictured as taking his time for he had a great story to tell of what had happened since they saw him last. {One by one} (\kath' hena hekaston\). According to each one (item) and the adverbial phrase used as an accusative after the verb \exgeito\ as Demosthenes does, though it could be like \kath' hena hekastos\ in strkjv@Ephesians:5:33|. {Which} (\hn\). Genitive attracted from \ha\ (accusative) into the case of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\. {God had wrought} (\epoisen ho theos\). Summary constative aorist active indicative that gathers up all that God did and he takes pains to give God the glory. It is possible that at this formal meeting Paul observed an absence of warmth and enthusiasm in contrast with the welcome accorded by his friends the day before (verse 17|). Furneaux thinks that Paul was coldly received on this day in spite of the generous offering brought from the Gentile Christians. "It looks as though his misgiving as to its reception (Romans:15:31|) was confirmed. Nor do we hear that the Christians of Jerusalem later put in so much as a word on his behalf with either the Jewish or the Roman authorities, or expressed any sympathy with him during his long imprisonment at Caesarea" (Furneaux)...is that the Judaizers referred to...

rwp@Acts:26:24 @{As he thus made his defence} (\tauta autou apologoumenou\). Genitive absolute again with present middle participle. Paul was still speaking when Festus interrupted him in great excitement. {With a loud voice} (\megali ti phni\). Associative instrumental case showing manner (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 530) and the predicate use of the adjective, "with the voice loud" (elevated). {Thou art mad} (\maini\). Old verb for raving. See also strkjv@John:10:20; strkjv@Acts:12:15; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:23|. The enthusiasm of Paul was too much for Festus and then he had spoken of visions and resurrection from the dead (verse 8|). "Thou art going mad" (linear present), Festus means. {Thy much learning doth turn thee to madness} (\ta polla se grammata eis manian peritrepei\). "Is turning thee round." Old verb \peritrep\, but only here in N.T. Festus thought that Paul's "much learning" (="many letters," cf. strkjv@John:7:15| of Jesus)...to which he had referred was...(wheels in his head) and he was going mad right before them all. The old word \mania\ (our mania, frenzy, cf. maniac) occurs here only in N.T. Note unusual position of \se\ between \polla\ and \grammata\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 418, 420)

rwp@Colossians:2:15 @{Having put off from himself} (\apekdusamenos\). Only here and strkjv@3:9| and one MS. of Josephus (\apekdus\). Both \apodu\ and \ekdu\...Is God or Christ referred to...\apekdusamenos\? What is meant by "the principalities and the powers" (\tas archas kai tas exousias\)? Modern scholars differ radically and no full discussion can be attempted here as one finds in Lightfoot, Haupt, Abbott, Peake. On the whole I am inclined to look on God as still the subject and the powers to be angels such as the Gnostics worshipped and the verb to mean "despoil" (American Standard Version) rather than "having put off from himself." In the Cross of Christ God showed his power openly without aid or help of angels. {He made a show of them} (\edeigmatisen\). First aorist active indicative of \deigmatiz\, late and rare verb from \deigma\ (Jude:1:7|), an example, and so to make an example of. Frequent in the papyri though later than \paradeigmatiz\ and in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:1:19| of Joseph's conduct toward Mary. No idea of disgrace is necessarily involved in the word. The publicity is made plain by "openly" (\en parrsii\). {Triumphing over them on it} (\thriambeusas autous en auti\). On the Cross the triumph was won. This late, though common verb in _Koin_ writers (\ekthriambeu\ in the papyri) occurs only twice in the N.T., once "to lead in triumph" (2Corinthians:2:14|), here to celebrate a triumph (the usual sense). It is derived from \thriambos\, a hymn sung in festal procession and is kin to the Latin _triumphus_ (our triumph), a triumphal procession of victorious Roman generals. God won a complete triumph over all the angelic agencies (\autous\, masculine regarded as personal agencies). Lightfoot adds, applying \thriambeusas\ to Christ: "The convict's gibbet is the victor's car." It is possible, of course, to take \auti\ as referring to \cheirographon\ (bond) or even to Christ.

rwp@ referred to this way (without chapter). But strkjv@Jude:1:1 does not

rwp@Ephesians:4:4 @{One body} (\hen sma\). One mystical body of Christ (the spiritual church or kingdom, cf. strkjv@1:23; strkjv@2:16|). {One Spirit} (\hen pneuma\). One Holy Spirit, grammatical neuter gender (not to be referred to by "it," but by "he"). {In one hope} (\en mii elpidi\). The same hope as a result of their calling for both Jew and Greek as shown in chapter 2|.

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) notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the amanuensis for the Pastorals.

rwp@Galatians:3:16 @{But as of one} (\all' hs eph' henos\). But as in the case of one. {Which is Christ} (\hos estin Christos\). Masculine relative agreeing with \Christos\ though \sperma\ is neuter. But the promise to Abraham uses \sperma\ as a collective substantive and applies to all believers (both Jews and Gentiles) as Paul has shown in verses 7-14|...that Christ is specifically referred to...13:15| or strkjv@17:7f|.

rwp@John:3:5 @{Of water and the Spirit} (\ex hudatos kai pneumatos\). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah. Why does Jesus add \ex hudatos\ here? In verse 3| we have "\anthen\" (from above) which is repeated in verse 7|, while in verse 8| we have only \ek tou pneumatos\ (of the Spirit)...One view makes baptism, referred to...\ex hudatos\ (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus (3,5,7|)? Calvin makes water and Spirit refer to the one act (the cleansing work of the Spirit). Some insist on the language in verse 6| as meaning the birth of the flesh coming in a sac of water in contrast to the birth of the Spirit. One wonders after all what was the precise purpose of Jesus with Nicodemus, the Pharisaic ceremonialist, who had failed to grasp the idea of spiritual birth which is a commonplace to us. By using water (the symbol before the thing signified) first and adding Spirit, he may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit. That is to say the mention of "water" here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism. Bernard holds that the words \hudatos kai\ (water and) do not belong to the words of Jesus, but "are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation." Here Jesus uses \eiselthein\ (enter) instead of \idein\ (see) of verse 3|, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom).

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 \amn amn\ and \leg\ (double emphasis). {And bear witness of that we have seen} (\kai ho herakamen 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 tn marturian hmn ou lambanete\). This is the tragedy of the matter as John has shown (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:6:36 @{That ye have seen me} (\hoti kai herakate me\). It is not certain that \me\ is genuine. If not, Jesus may refer to verse 26|...some other saying is referred to...\kai\ (also or even). {And yet believe not} (\kai ou pisteuete\). Use of \kai\ = and yet.

rwp@John:8:56 @{Rejoiced} (\galliasato\). First aorist middle indicative of \agalliaomai\, a word of Hellenistic coinage from \agallomai\, to rejoice. {To see} (\hina idi\). Sub-final use of \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \hora\...joy of Abraham is referred to...11:13| (saluting, \aspasamenoi\, the promises from afar). There was a Jewish tradition that Abraham saw the whole history of his descendants in the vision of strkjv@Genesis:15:6f.|, but that is not necessary here. He did look for and welcome the Messianic time, "my day" (\tn hmeran tn emn\). "He saw it, and was glad" (\eiden kai echar\). Second aorist active indicative of \hora\ and second aorist passive indicative of \chair\. Ye see it and are angry!

rwp@John:17:12 @{I kept} (\etroun\). Imperfect active of \tre\, "I continued to keep." {I guarded} (\ephulaxa\). First aorist (constative) active of \phulass\. Christ was the sentinel (\phulax\, strkjv@Acts:5:23|) for them. Is he our sentinel now? {But the son of perdition} (\ei m ho huios ts apleias\). The very phrase for antichrist (2Thessalonians:2:3|). Note play on \apleto\, perished (second aorist middle indicative of \apollumi\). It means the son marked by final loss, not annihilation, but meeting one's destiny (Acts:2:25|). A sad and terrible exception (Mark:14:21|). {The scripture} (\h graph\). It is not clear whether this is John's own comment or the word of Jesus. Not in strkjv@18:9|. The Scripture referred to is probably strkjv@Psalms:41:9| quoted in strkjv@13:18| with the same formula \hina plrthi\ which see there.

rwp@John:20:30 @{Many other signs} (\polla alla smeia\)...the Synoptic Gospels or referred to...(2:23; strkjv@4:45; strkjv@12:37|). {Are not written} (\ouk estin gegrammena\). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of \graph\, do not stand written, are not described "in this book." John has made a selection of the vast number wrought by Jesus "in the presence of the disciples" (\enpion tn mathtn\), common idiom in Luke, not in Mark and Matthew, and by John elsewhere only in strkjv@1John:3:22|. John's book is written with a purpose which he states.

rwp@Luke:1:67 @{Prophesied} (\eprophteusen\). Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This _Benedictus_ (\Eulogtos\, {Blessed}) of Zacharias (68-79|)...may be what is referred to...64| "he began to speak blessing God" (\eulogn\). Nearly every phrase here is found in the O.T. (Psalms and Prophets). He, like Mary, was full of the Holy Spirit and had caught the Messianic message in its highest meaning.

rwp@Luke:1:68 @{Hath visited} (\epeskepsato\). An old Greek word with a Hebraic colouring to look into with a view to help. The papyri have plenty of examples of the verb in the sense of inspecting, examining. {Redemption} (\lutrsin\) here originally referred to political redemption, but with a moral and spiritual basis (verses 75,77|).

rwp@Luke:2:33 @{His father and his mother} (\ho patr autou kai h mtr\). Luke had already used "parents" in strkjv@2:27|. He by no means intends to deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus so plainly stated in strkjv@1:34-38|. He merely employs here the language of ordinary custom. The late MSS. wrongly read "and Joseph" instead of "his father." {Were marvelling} (\n thaumazontes\)...feminine when both are referred to....\n\ is singular, not \san\, the normal imperfect plural in this periphrastic imperfect. This is due to the wide space between copula and participle. The copula \n\ agrees in number with \ho patr\ while the participle coming last agrees with both \ho pater kai h mtr\ (cf. strkjv@Matthew:17:3; strkjv@22:40|). If one wonders why they marvelled at Simeon's words after what they had heard from Gabriel, Elisabeth, and the Shepherds, he should bear in mind that every parent is astonished and pleased at the fine things others see in the child. It is a mark of unusual insight for others to see so much that is obvious to the parent. Simeon's prophecy had gone beyond the angel's outline and it was surprising that he should know anything about the child's destiny.

rwp@Luke:3:1 @{Now in the fifteenth year} (\en etei de pentekaidekati\). Tiberius Caesar was ruler in the provinces two years before Augustus Caesar died. Luke makes a six-fold attempt here to indicate the time when John the Baptist began his ministry. John revived the function of the prophet (\Ecce Homo\, p. 2|) and it was a momentous event after centuries of prophetic silence. Luke begins with the Roman Emperor, then mentions Pontius Pilate Procurator of Judea, Herod Antipas Tetrarch of Galilee (and Perea), Philip, Tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene (all with the genitive absolute construction) and concludes with the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (son-in-law and successor of Annas). The ancients did not have our modern system of chronology, the names of rulers as here being the common way. Objection has been made to the mention of Lysanias here because Josephus (_Ant_. XXVII. I) tells of a Lysanias who was King of Abila up to B.C. 36 as the one referred to by Luke with the wrong date. But an inscription has been found on the site of Abilene with mention of "Lysanias the tetrarch" and at the time to which Luke refers (see my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, pp. 167f.). Songs:Luke is vindicated again by the rocks.

rwp@Luke:6:27 @{But I say unto you that hear} (\Alla humin leg tois akouousin\). There is a contrast in this use of \alla\ like that in strkjv@Matthew:5:44|. This is the only one of the many examples given by strkjv@Matthew:5|...Perhaps that contrast is referred to...\alla\ could be coordinating or paratactic conjunction as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11| rather than adversative as apparently here. See strkjv@Matthew:5:43f.| Love of enemies is in the O.T., but Jesus ennobles the word, \agapa\, and uses it of love for one's enemies.

rwp@Luke:9:27 @{Till they see} (\hes an idsin\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \hes\ and \an\ referring to the future, an idiomatic construction. Songs:in strkjv@Mark:9:1; strkjv@Matthew:16:28|. In all three passages "shall not taste of death" (\ou m geusntai thanatou\, double negative with aorist middle subjunctive)...how to die. Jesus referred to...(Mark:14:36; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|). Mark speaks of the kingdom of God as "come" (\elluthuian\, second perfect active participle). Matthew as "coming" (\erchomenon\) referring to the Son of man, while Luke has neither form. See Matthew and Mark for discussion of the theories of interpretation of this difficult passage. The Transfiguration follows in a week and may be the first fulfilment in the mind of Jesus. It may also symbolically point to the second coming.

rwp@Luke:18:14 @{This man} (\houtos\). This despised publican referred to contemptuously in verse 11| as "this" (\houtos\) publican. {Rather than the other} (\par' ekeinon\). In comparison with (placed beside) that one. A neat Greek idiom after the perfect passive participle \dedikaiomenos\. {For} (\hoti\). This moral maxim Christ had already used in strkjv@14:11|. Plummer pertinently asks: "Why is it assumed that Jesus did not repeat his sayings?"

rwp@Mark:14:58 @{Made with hands} (\cheiropoiton\). In Mark alone. An old Greek word. The negative form \acheiropoiton\ 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|. Swete observes that Jesus, as a matter of fact, did do what he is quoted as saying in Mark: "He said what the event has proved to be true; His death destroyed the old order, and His resurrection created the new." But these witnesses did not mean that by what they said. The only saying of Jesus at all like this preserved to us is that in strkjv@John: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@Matthew:10:23 @{Till the Son of man be come} (\hes elthi ho huios tou anthrpou\)...arrives" as if Jesus referred to...\hes\ with aorist subjunctive for a future event is a good Greek idiom.

rwp@Matthew:26:17 @{To eat the passover} (\phagein to pascha\). There were two feasts rolled into one, the passover feast and the feast of unleavened bread. Either name was employed. Here the passover meal is meant, though in strkjv@John:18:28|...the passover feast is referred to...(the last supper) had already been observed. There is a famous controversy on the apparent disagreement between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel on the date of this last passover meal. My view is that the five passages in John (John:13:1f.,27; strkjv@18:28; strkjv@19:14,31|) rightly interpreted agree with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew:26:17,20; strkjv@Mark:14:12,17; strkjv@Luke:22:7,14|) that Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time about 6 P.M. beginning of 15 Nisan. The passover lamb was slain on the afternoon of 14 Nisan and the meal eaten at sunset the beginning of 15 Nisan. According to this view Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time and died on the cross the afternoon of 15 Nisan. See my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_, pp.279-284. The question of the disciples here assumes that they are to observe the regular passover meal. Note the deliberative subjunctive (\hetoimasmen\) after \theleis\ with \hina\. For the asyndeton see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 935.

rwp@Matthew:26:61 @{I am able to destroy the temple of God} (\dunamai katalusai ton naon tou theou\). What he had said (John:2:19|) referred to the temple of his body which they were to destroy (and did) and which he would raise again in three days as he did. It was a pitiful perversion of what Jesus had said and even so the two witnesses disagreed in their misrepresentation (Mark:14:59|).

rwp@Matthew:27:9 @{By Jeremiah the prophet} (\dia Ieremiou\). This quotation comes mainly from strkjv@Zechariah:11:13| though not in exact language. In strkjv@Jeremiah:18:18| the prophet tells of a visit to a potter's house and in strkjv@Jeremiah:32:6ff.| of the purchase of a field. It is in Zechariah that the thirty pieces of silver are mentioned. Many theories are offered for the combination of Zechariah and Jeremiah and attributing it all to Jeremiah as in strkjv@Mark:1:2f.|...Isaiah and Malachi is referred wholly...(27:10|) "the field of the potter" (\eis ton agron tou kerames\) for "the potter the house of the Lord" in strkjv@Zechariah:11:13|. That makes it more parallel with the language of strkjv@Matthew:27:7|.

rwp@Revelation:1:15 @{Burnished brass} (\chalkolibani\). Associative-instrumental case after \homoioi\. This word has so far been found nowhere else save here and strkjv@2:18|. Suidas defines it as an \lecktron\ (amber) or a compound of copper and gold and silver (_aurichalcum_ in the Latin Vulgate). It is in reality an unknown metal. {As if it had been refined} (\hs pepuromens\). Perfect passive participle of \puro\, old verb, to set on fire, to glow, as in strkjv@Ephesians:6:16; strkjv@Revelation:3:18|. The feminine gender shows that \h chalkolibanos\ is referred to with \ts chalkolibanou\ understood, for it does not agree in case with the associative-instrumental \chalkolibani\ just before. Some would call it a slip for \pepuromeni\ as Aleph, and some cursives have it (taking \chalkolibani\ to be neuter, not feminine). But P Q read \pepurmenoi\ (masculine plural), a correction, making it agree in number and gender with \podes\ (feet). {In a furnace} (\en kamini\). Old word, in N.T. also strkjv@9:2; strkjv@Matthew:13:42,50|. {As the voice of many waters} (\hs phn hudatn polln\). Songs:the voice of God in the Hebrew (not the LXX) of strkjv@Ezekiel:43:2|. Repeated in strkjv@14:2; strkjv@19:6|.

CONCORD referred