Bible:
Filter: String:

NONE.filter - rwp fact:


rwp@Info @ There is no doubt of the need of a new series of volumes today in the light of the new knowledge. Many ministers have urged me to undertake such a task and finally I have agreed to do it at the solicitation of my publishers. The readers of these volumes (six are planned) are expected to be primarily those who know no Greek or comparatively little and yet who are anxious to get fresh help from the study of words and phrases in the New Testament, men who do not have access to the technical books required, like Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary of the New Testament_. The critical student will appreciate the more delicate distinctions in words. But it is a sad fact that many ministers, laymen, and women, who took courses in Greek at college, university, or seminary, have allowed the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches to choke off the Greek that they once knew. Some, strangely enough, have done it even in the supposed interest of the very gospel whose vivid messages they have thus allowed to grow dim and faint. If some of these vast numbers can have their interest in the Greek New Testament revived, these volumes will be worth while. Some may be incited, as many have been by my volume, _The Minister and His Greek New Testament_, to begin the study of the Greek New Testament under the guidance of a book like Davis's _Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament_. Others who are without a turn for Greek or without any opportunity to start the study will be able to follow the drift of the remarks and be able to use it all to profit in sermons, in Sunday school lessons, or for private edification.

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

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

rwp@1Corinthians:1:2 @{The church of God} (\tˆi ekklˆsiƒi tou theou\). Belonging to God, not to any individual or faction, as this genitive case shows. In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1| Paul wrote "the church of the Thessalonians in God" (\en the“i\), but "the churches of God" in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:14|. See same idiom in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32; strkjv@11:16,22; strkjv@15:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Galatians:1:13|, etc. {Which is in Corinth} (\tˆi ousˆi en Korinth“i\). See on strkjv@Acts:13:1| for idiom. It is God's church even in Corinth, "_laetum et ingens paradoxon_" (Bengel). This city, destroyed by Mummius B.C. 146, had been restored by Julius Caesar a hundred years later, B.C. 44, and now after another hundred years has become very rich and very corrupt. The very word "to Corinthianize" meant to practise vile immoralities in the worship of Aphrodite (Venus). It was located on the narrow Isthmus of the Peloponnesus with two harbours (Lechaeum and Cenchreae). It had schools of rhetoric and philosophy and made a flashy imitation of the real culture of Athens. See strkjv@Acts:18| for the story of Paul's work here and now the later developments and divisions in this church will give Paul grave concern as is shown in detail in I and II Corinthians. All the problems of a modern city church come to the front in Corinth. They call for all the wisdom and statesmanship in Paul. {That are sanctified} (\hˆgiasmenois\). Perfect passive participle of \hagiaz“\, late form for \hagiz“\, so far found only in the Greek Bible and in ecclesiastical writers. It means to make or to declare \hagion\ (from \hagos\, awe, reverence, and this from \haz“\, to venerate). It is significant that Paul uses this word concerning the {called saints} or {called to be saints} (\klˆtois hagiois\) in Corinth. Cf. \klˆtos apostolos\ in strkjv@1:1|. It is because they are sanctified {in Christ Jesus} (\en Christ“i Iˆsou\). He is the sphere in which this act of consecration takes place. Note plural, construction according to sense, because \ekklˆsia\ is a collective substantive. {With all that call upon} (\sun pƒsin tois epikaloumenois\). Associative instrumental case with \sun\ rather than \kai\ (and), making a close connection with "saints" just before and so giving the Corinthian Christians a picture of their close unity with the brotherhood everywhere through the common bond of faith. This phrase occurs in the LXX (Genesis:12:8; strkjv@Zechariah:13:9|) and is applied to Christ as to Jehovah (2Thessalonians:1:7,9,12; strkjv@Phillipians:2:9,10|). Paul heard Stephen pray to Christ as Lord (Acts:7:59|). Here "with a plain and direct reference to the Divinity of our Lord" (Ellicott). {Their Lord and ours} (\aut“n kai hˆm“n\). This is the interpretation of the Greek commentators and is the correct one, an afterthought and expansion (\epanorth“sis\) of the previous "our," showing the universality of Christ.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:10 @{Now I beseech you} (\parakal“ de humas\). Old and common verb, over 100 times in N.T., to call to one's side. Corresponds here to \eucharist“\, {I thank}, in verse 4|. Direct appeal after the thanksgiving. {Through the name} (\dia tou onomatos\). Genitive, not accusative (cause or reason), as the medium or instrument of the appeal (2Corinthians:10:1; strkjv@Romans:12:1; strkjv@15:30|). {That} (\hina\). Purport (sub-final) rather than direct purpose, common idiom in _Koin‚_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp.991-4) like strkjv@Matthew:14:36|. Used here with \legˆte, ˆi, ˆte katˆrtismenoi\, though expressed only once. {All speak} (\legˆte pantes\). Present active subjunctive, that ye all keep on speaking. With the divisions in mind. An idiom from Greek political life (Lightfoot). This touch of the classical writers argues for Paul's acquaintance with Greek culture. {There be no divisions among you} (\mˆ ˆi en humin schismata\). Present subjunctive, that divisions may not continue to be (they already had them). Negative statement of preceding idea. \Schisma\ is from \schiz“\, old word to split or rend, and so means a rent (Matthew:9:16; strkjv@Mark:2:21|). Papyri use it for a splinter of wood and for ploughing. Here we have the earliest instance of its use in a moral sense of division, dissension, see also strkjv@1Corinthians:11:18| where a less complete change than \haireseis\; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@John:7:43| (discord); strkjv@9:16; strkjv@10:19|. "Here, faction, for which the classical word is \stasis\: division within the Christian community" (Vincent). These divisions were over the preachers (1:12-4:21|), immorality (5:1-13|), going to law before the heathen (6:1-11|), marriage (7:1-40|), meats offered to idols (1Corinthians:8-10|), conduct of women in church (11:1-16|), the Lord's Supper (11:17-34|), spiritual gifts (1Corinthians:12-14|), the resurrection (1Corinthians:15|). {But that ye be perfected together} (\ˆte de katˆrtismenoi\). Periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive. See this verb in strkjv@Matthew:4:21| (Mark:1:19|) for mending torn nets and in moral sense already in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:10|. Galen uses it for a surgeon's mending a joint and Herodotus for composing factions. See strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@Galatians:6:1|. {Mind} (\noi\), {judgment} (\gn“mˆi\). "Of these words \nous\ denotes the frame or state of mind, \gn“mˆ\ the judgment, opinion or sentiment, which is the outcome of \nous\" (Lightfoot).

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

rwp@1Corinthians:2:14 @{Now the natural man} (\psuchikos de anthr“pos\). Note absence of article here, "A natural man" (an unregenerate man). Paul does not employ modern psychological terms and he exercises variety in his use of all the terms here present as \pneuma\ and \pneumatikos, psuchˆ\ and \psuchikos, sarx\ and \sarkinos\ and \sarkikos\. A helpful discussion of the various uses of these words in the New Testament is given by Burton in his _New Testament Word Studies_, pp. 62-68, and in his {Spirit, Soul, and Flesh}. The papyri furnish so many examples of \sarx, pneuma\, and \psuchˆ\ that Moulton and Milligan make no attempt at an exhaustive treatment, but give a few miscellaneous examples to illustrate the varied uses that parallel the New Testament. \Psuchikos\ is a qualitative adjective from \psuchˆ\ (breath of life like \anima\, life, soul). Here the Vulgate renders it by _animalis_ and the German by _sinnlich_, the original sense of animal life as in strkjv@Jude:1:19; strkjv@James:3:15|. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:44,46| there is the same contrast between \psuchikos\ and \pneumatikos\ as here. The \psuchikos\ man is the unregenerate man while the \pneumatikos\ man is the renewed man, born again of the Spirit of God. {Receiveth not} (\ou dechetai\). Does not accept, rejects, refuses to accept. In strkjv@Romans:8:7| Paul definitely states the inability (\oude gar dunatai\) of the mind of the flesh to receive the things of the Spirit untouched by the Holy Spirit. Certainly the initiative comes from God whose Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the things of the Spirit of God. They are no longer "foolishness" (\m“ria\) to us as was once the case (1:23|). Today one notes certain of the _intelligentsia_ who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance. {He cannot know them} (\ou dunatai gn“nai\). He is not able to get a knowledge (ingressive second aorist active infinitive of \gin“sk“\). His helpless condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part, though such an one usually poses as a paragon of wisdom and commiserates the deluded followers of Christ. {They are spiritually judged} (\pneumatik“s anakrinetai\). Paul and Luke are fond of this verb, though nowhere else in the N.T. Paul uses it only in I Corinthians. The word means a sifting process to get at the truth by investigation as of a judge. In strkjv@Acts:17:11| the Beroeans scrutinized the Scriptures. These \psuchikoi\ men are incapable of rendering a decision for they are unable to recognize the facts. They judge by the \psuchˆ\ (mere animal nature) rather than by the \pneuma\ (the renewed spirit).

rwp@1Corinthians:3:5 @{What then?} (\ti oun;\). He does not say \tis\ (who), but \ti\ (what), neuter singular interrogative pronoun. {Ministers} (\diakonoi\). Not leaders of parties or sects, but merely servants through whom ye believed. The etymology of the word Thayer gives as \dia\ and \konis\ "raising dust by hastening." In the Gospels it is the servant (Matthew:20:26|) or waiter (John:2:5|). Paul so describes himself as a minister (Colossians:1:23,25|). The technical sense of deacon comes later (Phillipians:1:1; strkjv@1Timothy:3:8,12|). {As the Lord gave to him} (\h“s ho Kurios ed“ken\). Hence no minister of the Lord like Apollos and Paul has any basis for pride or conceit nor should be made the occasion for faction and strife. This idea Paul enlarges upon through chapters strkjv@1Corinthians:3; 4| and it is made plain in chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:12|.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:7 @{Songs:then neither--neither--but} (\H“ste oute--oute--all'\). Paul applies his logic relentlessly to the facts. He had asked {what} (\ti\) is Apollos or Paul (verse 5|). The answer is here. {Neither is anything} (\ti\) {the one who plants nor the one who waters}. God is the whole and we are not anything.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:10 @{As a wise masterbuilder} (\h“s sophos architekt“n\). Paul does not shirk his share in the work at Corinth with all the sad outcome there. He absolves Apollos from responsibility for the divisions. He denies that he himself is to blame. In doing so he has to praise himself because the Judaizers who fomented the trouble at Corinth had directly blamed Paul. It is not always wise for a preacher to defend himself against attack, but it is sometimes necessary. Factions in the church were now a fact and Paul went to the bottom of the matter. God gave Paul the grace to do what he did. This is the only New Testament example of the old and common word \architekt“n\, our architect. \Tekt“n\ is from \tikt“\, to beget, and means a begetter, then a worker in wood or stone, a carpenter or mason (Matthew:13:55; strkjv@Mark:6:3|). \Archi-\ is an old inseparable prefix like \archaggelos\ (archangel), \archepiscopos\ (archbishop), \archiereus\ (chiefpriest). \Architekt“n\ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions in an even wider sense than our use of architect, sometimes of the chief engineers. But Paul means to claim primacy as pastor of the church in Corinth as is true of every pastor who is the architect of the whole church life and work. All the workmen (\tektones\, carpenters) work under the direction of the architect (Plato, _Statesman_, 259). "As a wise architect I laid a foundation" (\themelion ethˆka\). Much depends on the wisdom of the architect in laying the foundation. This is the technical phrase (Luke:6:48; strkjv@14:29|), a cognate accusative for \themelion\. The substantive \themelion\ is from the same root \the\ as \ethˆka\ (\ti-thˆmi\). We cannot neatly reproduce the idiom in English. "I placed a placing" does only moderately well. Paul refers directly to the events described by Luke in strkjv@Acts:18:1-18|. The aorist \ethˆka\ is the correct text, not the perfect \tetheika\. {Another buildeth thereon} (\allos epoikodomei\). Note the preposition \epi\ with the verb each time (10,11,12,14|). The successor to Paul did not have to lay a new foundation, but only to go on building on that already laid. It is a pity when the new pastor has to dig up the foundation and start all over again as if an earthquake had come. {Take heed how he buildeth thereon} (\blepet“ p“s epoikodomei\). The carpenters have need of caution how they carry out the plans of the original architect. Successive architects of great cathedrals carry on through centuries the original design. The result becomes the wonder of succeeding generations. There is no room for individual caprice in the superstructure.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:17 @{Destroyeth} (\phtheirei\). The outward temple is merely the symbol of God's presence, the Shechinah (the Glory). God makes his home in the hearts of his people or the church in any given place like Corinth. It is a terrible thing to tear down ruthlessly a church or temple of God like an earthquake that shatters a building in ruins. This old verb \phtheir“\ means to corrupt, to deprave, to destroy. It is a gross sin to be a church-wrecker. There are actually a few preachers who leave behind them ruin like a tornado in their path. {Him shall God destroy} (\phtherei touton ho theos\). There is a solemn repetition of the same verb in the future active indicative. The condition is the first class and is assumed to be true. Then the punishment is certain and equally effective. The church-wrecker God will wreck. What does Paul mean by "will destroy"? Does he mean punishment here or hereafter? May it not be both? Certainly he does not mean annihilation of the man's soul, though it may well include eternal punishment. There is warning enough here to make every pastor pause before he tears a church to pieces in order to vindicate himself. {Holy} (\hagios\). Hence deserves reverential treatment. It is not the building or house of which Paul speaks as "the sanctuary of God" (\ton naon tou theou\), but the spiritual organization or organism of God's people in whom God dwells, "which temple ye are" (\hoitines este humeis\). The qualitative relative pronoun \hoitines\ is plural to agree with \humeis\ (ye) and refers to the holy temple just mentioned. The Corinthians themselves in their angry disputes had forgotten their holy heritage and calling, though this failing was no excuse for the ringleaders who had led them on. In strkjv@6:19| Paul reminds the Corinthians again that the body is the temple (\naos\, sanctuary) of the Holy Spirit, which fact they had forgotten in their immoralities.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:4 @{For I know nothing against myself} (\ouden gar emaut“i sunoida\). Not a statement of fact, but an hypothesis to show the unreliability of mere complacent self-satisfaction. Note the use of \sunoida\ (second perfect active indicative with dative (disadvantage) of the reflexive pronoun) for guilty knowledge against oneself (cf. strkjv@Acts:5:2; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@14:6|). {Yet} (\all'\). Adversative use of \alla\. {Amos:I not hereby justified} (\ouk en tout“i dedikai“mai\). Perfect passive indicative of state of completion. Failure to be conscious of one's own sins does not mean that one is innocent. Most prisoners plead "not guilty." Who is the judge of the steward of the mysteries of God? It is the Lord "that judgeth me" (\ho anakrin“n me\). Probably, who examines me and then passes on my fidelity (\pistos\ in verse 2|).

rwp@1Corinthians:4:12 @{We toil} (\kopi“men\). Common late verb for weariness in toil (Luke:5:5|), {working with our own hands} (\ergazomenoi tais idiais chersin\) instrumental case \chersin\ and not simply for himself but also for Aquila and Priscilla as he explains in strkjv@Acts:20:34|. This personal touch gives colour to the outline. Paul alludes to this fact often (1Thessalonians:2:9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:7|). "Greeks despised manual labour; St. Paul glories in it" (Robertson and Plummer). Cf. Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 317. {Being reviled we bless} (\loidoroumenoi eulogoumen\). Almost the language of Peter about Jesus (1Peter:2:23|) in harmony with the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:5:44; strkjv@Luke:6:27|. {Being persecuted we endure} (\di“komenoi anechometha\). We hold back and do not retaliate. Turn to Paul's other picture of his experiences in the vivid contrasts in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:7-10; strkjv@6:3-10| for an interpretation of his language here.

rwp@1Corinthians:5:2 @{And ye are puffed up} (\kai humeis pephusi“menoi este\). Emphatic position of \humeis\ (you). It may be understood as a question. Perfect passive periphrastic indicative of the same verb \phusio“\ used already of the partisans in Corinth (4:6,19,20|). Those of the same faction with this scoundrel justified his rascality. {Did not rather mourn} (\kai ouchi mallon epenthˆsate\). Possibly question also and note strong negative form \ouchi\, which favours it. The very least that they could have done (\mallon\ rather than be puffed up) was to mourn for shame (\penthe“\, old verb for lamentation) as if for one dead. {That he might be taken away} (\hina arthˆi\). The sub-final use of \hina\ of desired result (1:15|) so common in the _Koin‚_. First aorist passive subjunctive of \air“\, to lift up, to carry off. Decent self-respect should have compelled the instant expulsion of the man instead of pride in his rascality.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:11 @{Through thy knowledge} (\en tˆi sˆi gn“sei\). Literally, in thy knowledge. Surely a poor use to put one's superior knowledge. {Perisheth} (\apollutai\). Present middle indicative of the common verb \apollumi\, to destroy. Ruin follows in the wake of such daredevil knowledge. {For whose sake Christ died} (\di' hon Christos apethanen\). Just as much as for the enlightened brother with his selfish pride. The accusative (\hon\) with \di'\ gives the reason, not the agent as with the genitive in strkjv@8:6| (\di' hou\). The appeal to the death (\apethanen\, second aorist active indicative of \apothnˆsk“\) of Christ is the central fact that clinches Paul's argument.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:12 @{Wounding their conscience} (\tuptontes aut“n tˆn suneidˆsin\). Old verb \tupt“\, to smite with fist, staff, whip. The conscience is sensitive to a blow like that, a slap in the face. {Ye sin against Christ} (\eis Christon hamartanete\). That fact they were overlooking. Jesus had said to Saul that he was persecuting him when he persecuted his disciples (Acts:9:5|). One may wonder if Paul knew the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:25:40|, "ye did it unto me."

rwp@1Corinthians:9:6 @{Have we not a right to forbear working?} (\ouk echomen exousian mˆ ergazesthai;\). By \ˆ\ (or) Paul puts the other side about Barnabas (the only allusion since the dispute in strkjv@Acts:15:39|, but in good spirit) and himself. Perhaps (Hofmann) Paul has in mind the fact that in the first great mission tour (Acts:13; 14|), Barnabas and Paul received no help from the church in Antioch, but were left to work their way along at their own charges. It was not till the Philippian Church took hold that Paul had financial aid (Phillipians:4:15|). Here both negatives have their full force. Literally, Do we not have (\ouk echomen\, expecting the affirmative reply) the right not (\mˆ\, negative of the infinitive \ergazesthai\) to do manual labour (usual meaning of \ergazomai\ as in strkjv@4:12|)?" There was no more compulsion on Paul and Barnabas to support themselves than upon the other workers for Christ. They renounced no rights in being voluntarily independent.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:19 @{Must be} (\dei einai\). Since moral conditions are so bad among you (cf. chapters 1 to 6). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:7|. {Heresies} (\haireseis\). The schisms naturally become {factions} or {parties}. Cf. strifes (\erides\) in strkjv@1:11|. See on ¯Acts:15:5| for \haireseis\, a choosing, taking sides, holding views of one party, heresy (our word). "Heresy is theoretical schism, schism practical heresy." Cf. strkjv@Titus:3:10; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. In Paul only here and strkjv@Galatians:5:20|. {That} (\hina\). God's purpose in these factions makes {the proved ones} (\hoi dokimoi\) become {manifest} (\phaneroi\). "These \haireseis\ are a magnet attracting unsound and unsettled minds" (Findlay). It has always been so. Instance so-called Christian Science, Russellism, New Thought, etc., today.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:12:11 @{Worketh} (\energei\). The same word that was used in verse 6| of God. {Severally} (\idiƒi\). Separately. {Even as he will} (\kath“s bouletai\). Hence there is no occasion for conceit, pride, or faction (4:7|).

rwp@1Corinthians:12:15 @{If the foot shall say} (\ean eipˆi ho pous\). Condition of third class (\ean\ and second aorist subjunctive \eipˆi\). In case the foot say. {I am not of the body} (\ouk eimi ek tou s“matos\). I am independent of the body, not dependent on the body. {It is not therefore not of the body} (\ou para touto ouk estin ek tou s“matos\). Thinking or saying so does not change the fact. \Para touto\ here means "alongside of this" (cf. IV Macc. strkjv@10:19) and so "because of," a rare use (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 616). The two negatives (\ou--ouk\) do not here destroy one another. Each retains its full force.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:2 @{In what words I preached it unto you} (\tini logoi euˆggelisamˆn humin\). Almost certainly \tis\ (\tini logoi\, locative or instrumental, in or with) here is used like the relative \hos\ as is common in papyri (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 93f.; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 737f.). Even so it is not clear whether the clause depends on \gn“riz“\ like the other relatives, but most likely so. {If we hold it fast} (\ei katechete\). Condition of first class. Paul assumes that they are holding it fast. {Except ye believed in vain} (\ektos ei mˆ eikˆi episteusate\). For \ektos ei mˆ\ see on ¯14:5|. Condition of first class, unless in fact ye did believe to no purpose (\eikˆi\, old adverb, only in Paul in N.T.). Paul holds this peril over them in their temptation to deny the resurrection.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:3 @{First of all} (\en pr“tois\). Among first things. _In primis_. Not to time, but to importance. {Which I also received} (\ho kai parelabon\). Direct revelation claimed as about the institution of the Lord's Supper (11:23|) and same verbs used (\pared“ka, parelabon\). Four items given by Paul in explaining "the gospel" which Paul preached. Stanley calls it (verses 1-11|) the creed of the early disciples, but "rather a sample of the exact form of the apostle's early teaching, than a profession of faith on the part of converts" (Vincent). The four items are presented by four verbs (died, \apethanen\, was buried, \etaphˆ\, hath been raised, \egˆgertai\, appeared, \“phthˆ\). {Christ died} (\Christos apethanen\). Historical fact and crucial event. {For our sins} (\huper t“n hamarti“n hˆm“n\). \Huper\ means literally over, in behalf, even instead of (Galatians:3:13|), where used of persons. But here much in the sense of \peri\ (Galatians:1:14|) as is common in _Koin‚_. In strkjv@1Peter:3:18| we have \peri hamarti“n, huper adik“n\. {According to the Scriptures} (\kata tas graphas\). As Jesus showed (Luke:22:37; strkjv@24:25|) and as Peter pointed out (Acts:2:25-27; strkjv@3:35|) and as Paul had done (Acts:13:24f.; strkjv@17:3|). Cf. strkjv@Romans:1:2ff|.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:4 @{And that he was buried} (\kai hoti etaphˆ\). Note \hoti\ repeated before each of the four verbs as a separate item. Second aorist passive indicative of \thapt“\, old verb, to bury. This item is an important detail as the Gospels show. {And that he hath been raised} (\kai hoti egˆgertai\). Perfect passive indicative, not \ˆgerthˆ\ like {rose} of the King James' Version. There is reason for this sudden change of tense. Paul wishes to emphasize the permanence of the resurrection of Jesus. He is still risen. {On the third day} (\tˆi hˆmerƒi tˆi tritˆi\). Locative case of time. Whether Paul had seen either of the Gospels we do not know, but this item is closely identified with the fact of Christ's resurrection. We have it in Peter's speech (Acts:10:40|) and Jesus points it out as part of prophecy (Luke:24:46|). The other expression occasionally found "after three days" (Mark:10:34|) is merely free vernacular for the same idea and not even strkjv@Matthew:12:40| disturbs it. See on ¯Luke:24:1| for record of the empty tomb on the first day of the week (the third day).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:5 @{And that he appeared to Cephas} (\kai hoti “phthˆ Kˆphƒi\). First aorist passive indicative of the defective verb \hora“\, to see. Paul means not a mere "vision," but actual appearance. John uses \ephaner“thˆ\ (John:21:14|) from \phanero“\, to make manifest, of Christ's appearance to the seven by the Sea of Galilee. Peter was listed first (\pr“tos\) among the Apostles (Matthew:10:2|). Jesus had sent a special message to him (Mark:16:7|) after his resurrection. This special appearance to Peter is made the determining factor in the joyful faith of the disciples (Luke:24:34|), though mentioned incidentally here. Paul had told all these four facts to the Corinthians in his preaching. He gives further proof of the fact of Christ's resurrection. There are ten appearances given besides the one to Paul. Nine are in the Gospels (Mary Magdalene in John and Mark, the other women in Matthew, the two going to Emmaus in Luke, Simon Peter in Luke and I Corinthians, the ten apostles and others in Luke and John and Mark, the eleven and others in John, the seven by the sea in John, to over five hundred in Galilee in Matthew and Paul and Mark, to the apostles in Jerusalem in Luke and Mark and Acts and I Corinthians) and one in I Corinthians above (to James). It will be seen that Paul mentions only five of the ten, one, that to James, not given elsewhere. What he gives is conclusive evidence of the fact, particularly when re-enforced by his own experience (the sixth appearance mentioned by Paul). The way to prove this great fact is to start with Paul's own witness given in this undoubted Epistle. The natural way to understand Paul's adverbs of time here is chronological: {then} (\eita\), {then} (\epeita\), {then} (\epeita\), {then} (\eita\), {last of all} (\eschaton pant“n\). {To the twelve} (\tois d“deka\). The technical name. Only ten were present, for Judas was dead and Thomas was absent (John:20:24|).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:6 @{To above five hundred brethren at once} (\epan“ pentakosiois adelphois ephapax\). \Epan“\ here is just an adverb with no effect on the case. As a preposition with the ablative see strkjv@Matthew:5:14|. This incident is the one described in strkjv@Matthew:28:16| the prearranged meeting on the mountain in Galilee. The strength of this witness lies in the fact that the majority (\hoi pleious\) of them were still living when Paul wrote this Epistle, say spring of A.D. 54 or 55, not over 25 years after Christ's resurrection.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:7 @{To James} (\Iak“b“i\). The brother of the Lord. This fact explains the presence of the brothers of Jesus in the upper room (Acts:1:14|). {To all the apostles} (\tois apostolois pasin\). The Ascension of Christ from Olivet.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:9 @{The least} (\ho elachistos\). True superlative, not elative. Explanation of the strong word \ektr“ma\ just used. See strkjv@Ephesians:3:8| where he calls himself "less than the least of all saints" and strkjv@1Timothy:1:15| the "chief" (\pr“tos\) of sinners. Yet under attack from the Judaizers Paul stood up for his rank as equal to any apostle (2Corinthians:11:5f.,23|). {Because I persecuted the church of God} (\edi“xa tˆn ekklˆsian tou theou\). There were times when this terrible fact confronted Paul like a nightmare. Who does not understand this mood of contrition?

rwp@1Corinthians:15:10 @{What I am} (\ho eimi\). Not, {who} (\hos\), but {what} (\ho\), neuter singular. His actual character and attainments. All "by the grace of God" (\chariti theou\). {I laboured more abundantly than they all} (\perissoteron aut“n pant“n ekopiasa\). This is sober fact as shown by the Acts and Paul's Epistles. He had tremendous energy and used it. Genius is work, Carlyle said. Take Paul as a specimen.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:12 @{Is preached} (\kˆrussetai\). Personal use of the verb, Christ is preached. {How say some among you?} (\p“s legousin en humin tines?\). The question springs naturally from the proof of the fact of the resurrection of Christ (verses 1-11|) and the continual preaching which Paul here assumes by condition of the first class (\ei--kˆrussetai\). There were sceptics in Corinth, possibly in the church, who denied the resurrection of dead people just as some men today deny that miracles happen or ever did happen. Paul's answer is the resurrection of Christ as a fact. It all turns on this fact.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:14 @{Vain} (\kenon\). _Inanis_, Vulgate. Old word, empty. Both Paul's preaching and their faith are empty if Christ has not been raised. If the sceptics refuse to believe the fact of Christ's resurrection, they have nothing to stand on.

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\) to the churches of Galatia and now gives them like commands. As a matter of fact, they had promised a long time before this (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\). Indefinite local clause with subjunctive. As a matter of fact, Paul had to flee from a conspiracy in Corinth (Acts:20:3|).

rwp@Info_1John @ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL There are few scholars who deny that the Epistles of John and the Fourth Gospel are by the same writer. As a matter of fact "in the whole of the First Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel" (Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann (_Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie_, 1882, P. 128) in a series of articles on the "Problem of the First Epistle of St. John in its Relation to the Gospel" thinks that the similarities are closer than those between Luke's Gospel and the Acts. Baur argued that this fact was explained by conscious imitation on the part of one or the other, probably by the author of the Epistle. The solution lies either in identity of authorship or in imitation. If there is identity of authorship, Holtzmann argues that the Epistle is earlier, as seems to me to be true, while Brooke holds that the Gospel is the earlier and that the First Epistle represents the more complete ideas of the author. Both Holtzmann and Brooke give a detailed comparison of likenesses between the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, syntax, style, ideas. The arguments are not conclusive as to the priority of Epistle or Gospel, but they are as to identity of authorship. One who accepts, as I do, the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel for the reasons given in Volume V of this series, does not feel called upon to prove the Johannine authorship of the three Epistles that pass under the Apostle's name. Westcott suggests that one compare strkjv@John:1:1-18| with strkjv@1John:1:1-4| 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:2:18 @{It is the last hour} (\eschatˆ h“ra estin\). This phrase only here in N.T., though John often uses \h“ra\ for a crisis (John:2:4; strkjv@4:21,23; strkjv@5:25,28|, etc.). It is anarthrous here and marks the character of the "hour." John has seven times "the last day" in the Gospel. Certainly in verse 28| John makes it plain that the \parousia\ might come in the life of those then living, but it is not clear that here he definitely asserts it as a fact. It was his hope beyond a doubt. We are left in doubt about this "last hour" whether it covers a period, a series, or the final climax of all just at hand. {As ye heard} (\kath“s ˆkousate\). First aorist active indicative of \akou“\. {Antichrist cometh} (\antichristos erchetai\). "Is coming." Present futuristic or prophetic middle indicative retained in indirect assertion. Songs:Jesus taught (Mark:13:6,22; strkjv@Matthew:24:5,15,24|) and so Paul taught (Acts:20:30; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3|). These false Christs (Matthew:24:24; strkjv@Mark:13:22|) are necessarily antichrists, for there can be only one. \Anti\ can mean substitution or opposition, but both ideas are identical in the word \antichristos\ (in N.T. only here, strkjv@2:22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7|). Westcott rightly observes that John's use of the word is determined by the Christian conception, not by the Jewish apocalypses. {Have there arisen} (\gegonasin\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. {Many antichrists} (\antichristoi polloi\). Not just one, but the exponents of the Gnostic teaching are really antichrists, just as some modern deceivers deserve this title. {Whereby} (\hothen\). By the fact that these many antichrists have come.

rwp@1John:4:13 @{Hereby know we} (\en tout“i gin“skomen\). The Christian's consciousness of the fact of God dwelling in him is due to the Spirit of God whom God has given (\ded“ken\, perfect active indicative here, though the aorist \ed“ken\ in strkjv@3:24|). This gift of God is proof of our fellowship with God.

rwp@1John:5:2 @{Hereby} (\en tout“i\). John's usual phrase for the test of the sincerity of our love. "The love of God and the love of the brethren do in fact include each the other" (Westcott). Each is a test of the other. Songs:put strkjv@3:14| with strkjv@5:2|. {When} (\hotan\). "Whenever" indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the present active subjunctive (the same form \agap“men\ as the indicative with \hoti\ (that) just before, "whenever we keep on loving God." {And do} (\kai poi“men\) "and whenever we keep on doing (present active subjunctive of \poie“\) his commandments." See strkjv@1:6| for "doing the truth."

rwp@1John:5:5 @{And who is he that overcometh?} (\tis estin de ho nik“n?\). Not a mere rhetorical question (2:22|), but an appeal to experience and fact. Note the present active articular participle (\nik“n\) like \nikƒi\ (present active indicative in verse 4|), "the one who keeps on conquering the world." See strkjv@1Corinthians:15:57| for the same note of victory (\nikos\) through Christ. See verse 1| for \ho pisteu“n\ (the one who believes) as here. {Jesus is the Son of God} (\Iˆsous estin ho huios tou theou\). As in verse 1| save that here \ho huios tou theou\ in place of \Christos\ and see both in strkjv@2:22f|. Here there is sharp antithesis between "Jesus" (humanity) and "the Son of God" (deity) united in the one personality.

rwp@1John:5:6 @{This} (\houtos\). Jesus the Son of God (verse 5|). {He that came} (\ho elth“n\). Second aorist active articular participle of \erchomai\, referring to the Incarnation as a definite historic event, the preexistent Son of God "sent from heaven to do God's will" (Brooke). {By water and blood} (\di' hudatos kai haimatos\). Accompanied by (\dia\ used with the genitive both as instrument and accompaniment, as in strkjv@Galatians:5:13|) water (as at the baptism) and blood (as on the Cross). These two incidents in the Incarnation are singled out because at the baptism Jesus was formally set apart to his Messianic work by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon him and by the Father's audible witness, and because at the Cross his work reached its culmination ("It is finished," Jesus said). There are other theories that do not accord with the language and the facts. It is true that at the Cross both water and blood came out of the side of Jesus when pierced by the soldier, as John bore witness (John:19:34|), a complete refutation of the Docetic denial of an actual human body for Jesus and of the Cerinthian distinction between Jesus and Christ. There is thus a threefold witness to the fact of the Incarnation, but he repeats the twofold witness before giving the third. The repetition of both preposition (\en\ this time rather than \dia\) and the article (\t“i\ locative case) argues for two separate events with particular emphasis on the blood ("not only" \ouk monon\, "but" \all'\) which the Gnostics made light of or even denied. {It is the Spirit that beareth witness} (\to pneuma estin to marturoun\). Present active articular participle of \marture“\ with article with both subject and predicate, and so interchangeable as in strkjv@3:4|. The Holy Spirit is the third and the chief witness at the baptism of Jesus and all through his ministry. {Because} (\hoti\). Or declarative "that." Either makes sense. In strkjv@John:15:26| Jesus spoke of "the Spirit of truth" (whose characteristic is truth). Here John identifies the Spirit with truth as Jesus said of himself (John:14:6|) without denying personality for the Holy Spirit.

rwp@1John:5:7 @{For there are three who bear witness} (\hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes\). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: \en t“i ouran“i ho patˆr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tˆi gˆi\ (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8|. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.

rwp@1John:5:9 @{If we receive} (\ei lambanomen\). Condition of first class with \ei\ and the present active indicative, assumed as true. The conditions for a legally valid witness are laid down in strkjv@Deuteronomy:19:15| (cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:16; strkjv@John:8:17f.; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:1|). {Greater} (\meiz“n\). Comparative of \megas\, because God is always true. {For} (\hoti\). Songs:it applies to this case. {That} (\hoti\). Thus taken in the declarative sense (the fact that) as in strkjv@John:3:19|, though it can be causal (because) or indefinite relative with \memarturˆken\ (what he hath testified, perfect active indicative of \marture“\, as in strkjv@John:1:32; strkjv@4:44|, etc.), a harsh construction here because of \marturia\, though some MSS. do read \hen\ to agree with it (cf. verse 10|). See \hoti ean\ in strkjv@3:20| for that idiom. Westcott notes the Trinity in verses 6-9|: the Son comes, the Spirit witnesses, the Father has witnessed.

rwp@1John:5:11 @{That God gave} (\hoti ed“ken ho theos\). Declarative \hoti\ in apposition with \marturia\ as in verse 14; strkjv@John:3:19|. Note aorist active indicative \ed“ken\ (from \did“mi\) as in strkjv@3:23f.|, the great historic fact of the Incarnation (John:3:16|), but the perfect \ded“ken\ in strkjv@1John:3:1| to emphasize the abiding presence of God's love. {Eternal life} (\z“ˆn ai“nion\). Anarthrous emphasizing quality, but with the article in strkjv@1:2|. {In his Son} (\en t“i hui“i autou\). This life and the witness also. This is why Jesus who is life (John:14:6|) came to give us abundant life (John:10:10|).

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE USE OF PAUL'S EPISTLES There are two extremes about the relation of Peter to Paul. One is that of violent antithesis, with Peter and Paul opposing one another by exaggerating and prolonging Paul's denunciation of Peter's cowardice in Antioch (Galatians:2:11-21|) and making Peter also the exponent of a Jewish type of Christianity (practically a Judaizing type). This view of Baur once had quite a following, but it has nearly disappeared. Under its influence Acts and Peter's Epistles were considered not genuine, but documents designed to patch up the disagreement between Peter and Paul. The other extreme is to deny any Pauline influence on Peter or of Peter on Paul. Paul was friendly to Peter (Galatians:1:18|), but was independent of his ecclesiastical authority (Galatians:2:1-10|) and Peter championed Paul's cause in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-13|). Peter was certainly not a Judaizer (Acts:11:1-18|), in spite of his temporary defection in Antioch. Undoubtedly Peter was won back to cordial relations with Paul if any confidence can be placed in strkjv@2Peter:3:15f|. There is no reason for doubting that Peter was familiar with some of Paul's Epistles as there indicated. There is some indication of Peter's use of Romans and Ephesians in this Epistle. It is not always conclusive to find the same words and even ideas which are not formally quoted, because there was a Christian vocabulary and a body of doctrinal ideas in common though with personal variations in expression. Peter may have read James, but not the Pastoral Epistles. There are points of contact with Hebrews which Von Soden considers sufficiently accounted for by the fact that Peter and the author of Hebrews were contemporaries.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE STYLE AND VOCABULARY Like Peter's discourses in the Acts, the Epistle is mainly hortatory, with a minimum of argument and little of the closely knit reasoning seen in Romans. There is frequent use of the LXX and the Greek is decent _Koin‚_ with little of the uncouth Aramaic of the Galilean (Matthew:26:73|), or of the vernacular _Koin‚_ as seen in the papyri or in II Peter (Acts:4:13|). This fact may be accounted for by the help of Silvanus as amanuensis. There are sixty-two words in the Greek of the Epistle not occurring elsewhere in the N.T. There is verbal iteration as in II Peter. "One idea haunts the whole Epistle; to the author, as to the patriarch Jacob, life is a pilgrimage; it is essentially an old man's view" (Bigg). But it is an old man who has lived long with Christ. Peter has learned the lesson of humility and patience from Jesus his Lord.

rwp@1Peter:2:13 @{Be subject to} (\hupotagˆte\). Second aorist passive imperative second person plural of \hupotass“\, to subject to, as in strkjv@3:22|. {Every ordinance of man} (\pasˆi anthr“pinˆi ktisei\). Dative case of old and common word \ktisis\ (from \ktiz“\, to create, to found), act of creation (Romans:1:20|), a creature or creation (Romans:1:25|), all creation (Colossians:1:15|), an institution as here (in Pindar so). For \anthr“pinos\ (human) see strkjv@James:3:7|. Peter here approves no special kind of government, but he supports law and order as Paul does (Romans:13:1-8|) unless it steps in between God and man (Acts:4:20|). {For the Lord's sake} (\dia ton kurion\). For Jesus' sake. That is reason enough for the Christian not to be an anarchist (Matthew:22:21|). The heathen were keen to charge the Christians with any crime after Nero set the fashion. "It should not be forgotten that, in spite of the fine language of the philosophers, the really popular religions in Greece and Rome were forms of devil-worship, intimately blended with magic in all its grades" (Bigg). {As supreme} (\h“s huperechonti\). Dative singular of present active participle of \huperech“\, old verb (intransitive), to stand out above (to have it over), as in strkjv@Romans:13:1|. It is not the divine right of kings, but the fact of the king as the outstanding ruler.

rwp@1Peter:2:16 @{As free} (\h“s eleutheroi\). Note nominative again connected with \hupotagˆte\ in verse 13|, not with \phimoin\ in verse 14| (a parenthesis in fact). For this ethical sense of \eleutheros\ see strkjv@Galatians:4:26|. {And not using your freedom} (\kai mˆ echontes tˆn eleutherian\). "And not holding your liberty" (present active participle of \ech“\, with usual negative \mˆ\ with participle. {For a cloke of wickedness} (\h“s epikalumma tˆs kakias\). \Epikalumma\ (from \epikalupt“\ strkjv@Romans:4:7|) is a rare word (Aristotle, LXX) for veil, here only in N.T. and in figurative sense for pretext to do wickedness under, a thing, alas, that sometimes happens. {But as bondservants of God} (\all' h“s theou douloi\). Paul's proud title. There is no such thing as absolute freedom (personal freedom), for that is anarchy. Cf. strkjv@Romans:6:22| "enslaved to God."

rwp@1Peter:2:21 @{For hereunto were ye called} (\eis touto gar eklˆthˆte\). First aorist indicative of \kale“\, to call. They were called to suffer without flinching (Hort), if need be. {Because} (\hoti\). The fact that Christ suffered (\epathen\) lifts their suffering to a new plane. {Leaving you an example} (\humin hupolimpan“n hupogrammon\). Present active participle of the late Ionic verb \hupolimpan“\ (in the papyri) for the common \hupoleip“\, to leave behind (under), here only in N.T. \Hupogrammos\ is also a late and rare word (from \hupograph“\, to write under), a writing-copy for one to imitate, in II Macc. strkjv@2:28; Philo, Clement of Rome, here only in N.T. Clement of Alex. (_Strom_. V. 8. 49) uses it of the copy-head at the top of a child's exercise book for the child to imitate, including all the letters of the alphabet. The papyri give many examples of \hupographˆ\ and \hupograph“\ in the sense of copying a letter. {That ye should follow his steps} (\hina epakolouthˆsˆte tois ichnesin autou\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \epakolouthe“\, old verb, to follow closely upon, with the associative-instrumental (1Timothy:5:10,24|) or the locative here. \Ichnos\ is old word (from \hik“\, to go), tracks, footprints, in N.T. only here, strkjv@2Corinthians:12:18; strkjv@Romans:4:12|. Peter does not mean that Christ suffered only as an example (1:18|), but he did leave us his example for our copying (1John:2:6|).

rwp@1Peter:3:21 @{Which also} (\ho kai\). Water just mentioned. {After a true likeness} (\antitupon\). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah's deliverance by water. For \baptisma\ see on ¯Matthew:3:7|. For \antitupon\ see on ¯Hebrews:9:24| (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (\antitupa\) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (\tupon\ strkjv@Hebrews:8:5|) for the earthly. Songs:here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah's family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over-fanciful. {Doth now save you} (\humas nun s“zei\). Simplex verb (\s“z“\, not the compound \dias“z“\). The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in strkjv@Romans:6:2-6|), not actual as Peter hastens to explain. {Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh} (\ou sarkos apothesis rupou\). \Apothesis\ is old word from \apotithˆmi\ (2:1|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Peter:1:14|. \Rupou\ (genitive of \rupos\) is old word (cf. \ruparos\, filthy, in strkjv@James:2:2; strkjv@Revelation:22:11|), here only in N.T. (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:3:3; strkjv@4:4|). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Hebrews:9:13f.|). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin. {But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God} (\alla suneidˆse“s agathˆs eper“tˆma eis theon\). Old word from \eper“ta“\ (to question as in strkjv@Mark:9:32; strkjv@Matthew:16:1|), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senate's approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether \eis theon\ (toward God) be taken with \eper“tˆma\ or \suneidˆse“s\. {Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ} (\di' anastase“s Iˆsou Christou\). For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Romans:6:2-6|). See strkjv@1:3| for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus.

rwp@1Peter:4:1 @{For as much then as Christ suffered in the flesh} (\Christou oun pathontos sarki\). Genitive absolute with second aorist active participle of \pasch“\, to suffer, and the locative case of \sarx\ (flesh). The \oun\ (then, therefore) draws and applies the main lesson of strkjv@3:18-22|, the fact that Christ suffered for us. {Arm ye yourselves also} (\kai humeis hoplisasthe\). Direct middle first aorist imperative of \hopliz“\, old verb from \hoplon\ (weapon, strkjv@John:18:3|), in metaphorical sense, here only in N.T. {With the same mind} (\tˆn autˆn ennoian\). Accusative of the thing (content), \ennoian\, old word (from \en, nous\), putting in mind, thinking, will, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. "Here again _Christus Patiens_ is our \hupogrammos\" (Bigg). {For} (\hoti\). Reason for the exhortation. {Hath ceased from sin} (\pepautai hamartias\). Perfect middle indicative of \pau“\ to make cease and the ablative singular \hamartias\, but B reads the dative plural \hamartiais\ (cf. strkjv@Romans:6:1f.|). Temptation has lost its appeal and power with such a man.

rwp@1Peter:4:11 @{If any man speaketh} (\ei tis lalei\). Condition of first class, assumed as a fact. {Speaking as it were oracles of God} (\h“s logia theou\). No predicate in this conclusion of the condition. For \logia theou\ see strkjv@Acts:7:38| (Mosaic law); strkjv@Romans:3:2| (the Old Testament); strkjv@Hebrews:5:12| (the substance of Christian teaching), here of the utterances of God through Christian teachers. \Logion\ (old word) is a diminutive of \logos\ (speech, word). It can be construed here as nominative or as accusative. The verb has to be supplied. {If any one ministereth} (\ei tis diakonei\). First-class condition again. See strkjv@Acts:6:2-4| for the twofold division of service involved here. {Which God supplieth} (\hˆs chorˆgei ho theos\). Ablative case (\hˆs\) of the relative attracted from the accusative \hˆn\, object of \chorˆgei\ (present active indicative of \chorˆge“\, old verb, to supply from \chorˆgos\, chorus leader, in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:9:10|). Peter has the compound \epichorˆge“\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:5,11|. God is the supplier of strength. {That God may be glorified} (\hina doxazˆtai ho theos\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the present passive subjunctive of \doxaz“\. See strkjv@John:15:8|. {Whose is} (\h“i estin\). "To whom (dative) is," that is to Jesus Christ the immediate antecedent, but in strkjv@Romans:16:27; strkjv@Jude:1:25| the doxology is to God through Christ. For other doxologies see strkjv@1Peter:5:11; strkjv@2Peter:3:18; strkjv@Galatians:1:5; strkjv@Romans:9:5; strkjv@11:36; strkjv@Phillipians:4:20; strkjv@Ephesians:3:21; strkjv@1Timothy:1:17; strkjv@6:16; strkjv@2Timothy:4:18; strkjv@Hebrews:13:21; strkjv@Revelation:1:6; strkjv@5:13; strkjv@7:12|. The others addressed to Christ are strkjv@2Peter:3:18; strkjv@2Timothy:4:18; strkjv@Revelation:1:6|.

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

rwp@1Peter:5:12 @{By Silvanus} (\dia Silouanou\). Probably this postscript (12-14|) is in Peter's own handwriting, as Paul did (2Thessalonians:3:17f.; strkjv@Galatians:6:11-18|). If so, Silvanus (Silas) was the amanuensis and the bearer of the Epistle. {As I account him} (\h“s logizomai\). Peter uses Paul's phrase (1Corinthians:4:1; strkjv@Romans:8:18|) in giving approval to Paul's former companion (Acts:15:40|). {I have written} (\egrapsa\). Epistolary aorist applying to this Epistle as in strkjv@1Corinthians:5:11| (not strkjv@1Corinthians:5:9|); strkjv@1Corinthians:9:15; strkjv@Galatians:6:11; strkjv@Romans:15:15; strkjv@Philemon:1:19,21|. {Briefly} (\di' olig“n\). "By few words," as Peter looked at it, certainly not a long letter in fact. Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:13:22|. {Testifying} (\epimartur“n\). Present active participle of \epimarture“\, to bear witness to, old compound, here alone in N.T., though the double compound \sunepimarture“\ in strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|. {That this is the true grace of God} (\tautˆn einai alˆthˆ charin tou theou\). Infinitive \einai\ in indirect assertion and accusative of general reference (\tautˆn\) and predicate accusative \charin\. Peter includes the whole of the Epistle by God's grace (1:10|) and obedience to the truth (John:1:17; Gal strkjv@2:5; strkjv@Colossians:1:6|). {Stand ye fast therein} (\eis hˆn stˆte\). "In which (grace) take your stand" (ingressive aorist active imperative of \histˆmi\).

rwp@1Peter:5:13 @{She that is in Babylon, elect together with you} (\hˆ en Babul“ni suneklektˆ\). Either actual Babylon or, as most likely, mystical Babylon (Rome) as in the Apocalypse. If Peter is in Rome about A.D. 65, there is every reason why he should not make that fact plain to the world at large and least of all to Nero. It is also uncertain whether \hˆ suneklektˆ\ (found here alone), "the co-elect woman," means Peter's wife (1Corinthians:9:5|) or the church in "Babylon." The natural way to take it is for Peter's wife. Cf. \eklektˆi kuriƒi\ in strkjv@2John:1:1| (also verse strkjv@2John:1:13|). {Mark my son} (\Markos ho huios mou\). Songs:this fact agrees with the numerous statements by the early Christian writers that Mark, after leaving Barnabas, became Peter's "interpreter" and under his influence wrote his Gospel. We know that Mark was with Paul in Rome some years before this time (Colossians:4:10|).

rwp@Info_1Thessalonians @ There are excellent commentaries on the Thessalonian Epistles. On the Greek text one may note those by Dibelius, _Handbuch zum N.T. Zweite Auflage_ (1925); Dobschutz, _Meyer-Kommentar_ (1909); Ellicott, _Crit. and Grammat. Comm._ (1884); Findlay, _Cambridge Gk. Test._ (1904); Frame, _Intern. Critical Comm._ (1912); Lightfoot, _Notes on Epistles of Paul_ (1895); Mayer, _Die Thessalonischerbriefe_ (1908); Milligan, _St. Paul's Epistles to the Thess._ (1908); Moffatt, _Expos. Gk. Test._ (1910); Plummer, _First Thess._ (1908), _Second Thess._ (1908); Wohlenberg, _Zahn-Komm. 2 aufl._ (1908). On the English text note those by Adeney, _New Century Bible_ (1907); Denney, _Expos. Bible_ (1892); Findlay, _Cambridge Bible_ (1891); Hutchinson, _Lectures on I & II Thess._ (1883). strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1 @{Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy} (\Paulos kai Silouanos kai Timotheos\). Nominative absolute as customary in letters. Paul associates with himself Silvanus (Silas of Acts, spelled \Silbanos\ in D and the papyri), a Jew and Roman citizen, and Timothy, son of Jewish mother and Greek father, one of Paul's converts at Lystra on the first tour. They had both been with Paul at Thessalonica, though Timothy is not mentioned by Luke in Acts in Macedonia till Beroea (Acts:17:14f.|). Timothy had joined Paul in Athens (1Thessalonians:3:1f.|), had been sent back to Thessalonica, and with Silas had rejoined Paul in Corinth (1Thessalonians:3:5; strkjv@Acts:18:5, strkjv@2Corinthians:1:19|). Silas is the elder and is mentioned first, but neither is in any sense the author of the Epistle any more than Sosthenes is co-author of I Corinthians or Timothy of II Corinthians, though Paul may sometimes have them in mind when he uses "we" in the Epistle. Paul does not here call himself "apostle" as in the later Epistles, perhaps because his position has not been so vigorously attacked as it was later. Ellicott sees in the absence of the word here a mark of the affectionate relations existing between Paul and the Thessalonians. {Unto the church of the Thessalonians} (\tˆi ekklˆsiƒi Thessalonike“n\). The dative case in address. Note absence of the article with \Thessalonike“n\ because a proper name and so definite without it. This is the common use of \ekklˆsia\ for a local body (church). The word originally meant "assembly" as in strkjv@Acts:19:39|, but it came to mean an organization for worship whether assembled or unassembled (cf. strkjv@Acts:8:3|). The only superscription in the oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph B A) is \Pros Thessalonikeis A\ ({To the Thessalonians First}). But probably Paul wrote no superscription and certainly he would not write A to it before he had written II Thessalonians (B). His signature at the close was the proof of genuineness (2Thessalonians:3:17|) against all spurious claimants (2Thessalonians:2:2|). Unfortunately the brittle papyrus on which he wrote easily perished outside of the sand heaps and tombs of Egypt or the lava covered ruins of Herculaneum. What a treasure that autograph would be! {In God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ} (\en the“i patri kai kuri“i Jˆsou Christ“i\). This church is grounded in (\en\, with the locative case) and exists in the sphere and power of {God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ}. No article in the Greek, for both \the“i patri\ and \kuri“i Jˆsou Christ“i\ are treated as proper names. In the very beginning of this first Epistle of Paul we meet his Christology. He at once uses the full title, "Lord Jesus Christ," with all the theological content of each word. The name "Jesus" (Saviour, strkjv@Matthew:1:21|) he knew, as the "Jesus of history," the personal name of the Man of Galilee, whom he had once persecuted (Acts:9:5|), but whom he at once, after his conversion, proclaimed to be "the Messiah," (\ho Christos\, strkjv@Acts:9:22|). This position Paul never changed. In the great sermon at Antioch in Pisidia which Luke has preserved (Acts:13:23|) Paul proved that God fulfilled his promise to Israel by raising up "Jesus as Saviour" (\s“tˆra Iˆsoun\). Now Paul follows the Christian custom by adding \Christos\ (verbal from \chri“\, to anoint) as a proper name to Jesus (Jesus Christ) as later he will often say "Christ Jesus" (Colossians:1:1|). And he dares also to apply \kurios\ (Lord) to "Jesus Christ," the word appropriated by Claudius (_Dominus_, \Kurios\) and other emperors in the emperor-worship, and also common in the Septuagint for God as in strkjv@Psalms:32:1f.| (quoted by Paul in strkjv@Romans:4:8|). Paul uses \Kurios\ of God (1Corinthians:3:5|) or of Jesus Christ as here. In fact, he more frequently applies it to Christ when not quoting the Old Testament as in strkjv@Romans:4:8|. And here he places "the Lord Jesus Christ" in the same category and on the same plane with "God the father." There will be growth in Paul's Christology and he will never attain all the knowledge of Christ for which he longs (Phillipians:3:10-12|), but it is patent that here in his first Epistle there is no "reduced Christ" for Paul. He took Jesus as "Lord" when he surrendered to Jesus on the Damascus Road: "And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said to me" (Acts:22:10|). It is impossible to understand Paul without seeing clearly this first and final stand for the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul did not get this view of Jesus from current views of Mithra or of Isis or any other alien faith. The Risen Christ became at once for Paul the Lord of his life. {Grace to you and peace} (\charis humin kai eirˆnˆ\). These words, common in Paul's Epistles, bear "the stamp of Paul's experience" (Milligan). They are not commonplace salutations, but the old words "deepened and spiritualised" (Frame). The infinitive (\chairein\) so common in the papyri letters and seen in the New Testament also (Acts:15:23; strkjv@23:26; strkjv@James:1:1|) here gives place to \charis\, one of the great words of the New Testament (cf. strkjv@John:1:16f.|) and particularly of the Pauline Epistles. Perhaps no one word carries more meaning for Paul's messages than this word \charis\ (from \chair“\, rejoice) from which \charizomai\ comes. {Peace} (\eirˆnˆ\) is more than the Hebrew _shal“m_ so common in salutations. One recalls the "peace" that Christ leaves to us (John:14:27|) and the peace of God that passes all understanding (Phillipians:4:7|). This introduction is brief, but rich and gracious and pitches the letter at once on a high plane.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:6 @{Imitators of us and of the Lord} (\mimˆtai hˆm“n kai tou kuriou\). \Mimˆtˆs\ (\-tˆs\ expresses the agent) is from \mimeomai\, to imitate and that from \mimos\ (\mimic\, actor). Old word, more than "followers," in the N.T. only six times (1Thessalonians:1:6; strkjv@2:14; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:16; strkjv@11:1; strkjv@Ephesians:5:1; strkjv@Hebrews:6:12|). Again Paul uses \ginomai\, to become, not \eimi\, to be. It is a daring thing to expect people to "imitate" the preacher, but Paul adds "and of the Lord," for he only expected or desired "imitation" as he himself imitated the Lord Jesus, as he expressly says in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:1|. The peril of it all is that people so easily and so readily imitate the preacher when he does not imitate the Lord. The fact of the "election" of the Thessalonians was shown by the character of the message given them and by this sincere acceptance of it (Lightfoot). {Having received the word} (\dexamenoi ton logon\). First aorist middle participle of \dechomai\, probably simultaneous action (receiving), not antecedent. {In much affliction} (\en thlipsei pollˆi\). Late word, pressure. Tribulation (Latin _tribulum_) from \thlib“\, to press hard on. Christianity has glorified this word. It occurs in some Christian papyrus letters in this same sense. Runs all through the N.T. (2Thessalonians:1:4; strkjv@Romans:5:3|). Paul had his share of them (Colossians:1:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:4|) and so he understands how to sympathize with the Thessalonians (1Thessalonians:3:3f.|). They suffered after Paul left Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:2:14|). {With joy of the Holy Spirit} (\meta charas pneumatos hagiou\). The Holy Spirit gives the joy in the midst of the tribulations as Paul learned (Romans:5:3|). "This paradox of experience" (Moffatt) shines along the pathway of martyrs and saints of Christ.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:10 @{To wait for his Son from heaven} (\anamenein ton huion autou ek t“n ouran“n\). Present infinitive, like \douleuein\, and so linear, to keep on waiting for. The hope of the second coming of Christ was real and powerful with Paul as it should be with us. It was subject to abuse then as now as Paul will have to show in this very letter. He alludes to this hope at the close of each chapter in this Epistle. {Whom he raised from the dead} (\hon ˆgeiren ek [t“n] nekr“n\). Paul gloried in the fact of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead of which fact he was himself a personal witness. This fact is the foundation stone for all his theology and it comes out in this first chapter. {Jesus which delivereth us from the wrath to come} (\Iˆsoun ton ruomenon hˆmƒs ek tˆs orgˆs tˆs erchomenˆs\). It is the historic, crucified, risen, and ascended Jesus Christ, God's Son, who delivers from the coming wrath. He is our Saviour (Matthew:1:21|) true to his name Jesus. He is our Rescuer (Romans:11:26|, \ho ruomenos\, from strkjv@Isaiah:59:20|). It is eschatological language, this coming wrath of God for sin (1Thessalonians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:3:5; strkjv@5:9; strkjv@9:22; strkjv@13:5|). It was Paul's allusion to the day of judgment with Jesus as Judge whom God had raised from the dead that made the Athenians mock and leave him (Acts:17:31f.|). But Paul did not change his belief or his preaching because of the conduct of the Athenians. He is certain that God's wrath in due time will punish sin. Surely this is a needed lesson for our day. It was coming then and it is coming now.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:16 @{With a shout} (\en keleusmati\). Note this so-called instrumental use of \en\. Old word, here only in N.T., from \keleu“\, to order, command (military command). Christ will come as Conqueror. {With the voice of the archangel} (\en ph“nˆi archaggelou\). Further explanation of \keleusmati\ (command). The only archangel mentioned in N.T. is Michael in strkjv@Jude:1:9|. But note absence of article with both \ph“nˆi\ and \archaggelou\. The reference may be thus indefinite. {With the trump of God} (\en salpiggi theou\). Trumpet. See same figure in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:52|. {The dead in Christ shall rise first} (\hoi nekroi en Christ“i anastˆsontai pr“ton\). {First} here refers plainly to the fact that, so far from the dead in Christ having no share in the Parousia, they will rise before those still alive are changed.

rwp@Info_1Timothy @ FIRST TIMOTHY PROBABLY A.D. 65 FROM MACEDONIA BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION Assuming the Pauline authorship the facts shape up after this fashion. Paul had been in Ephesus (1Timothy:1:3|) after his arrival from Rome, which was certainly before the burning of Rome in A.D. 64. He had left Timothy in charge of the work in Ephesus and has gone on into Macedonia (1Timothy:1:3|), possibly to Philippi as he had hoped (Phillipians:2:24|). He wishes to help Timothy meet the problems of doctrine (against the Gnostics), discipline, and church training which are increasingly urgent. There are personal touches of a natural kind about Timothy's own growth and leadership. There are wise words here from the greatest of all preachers to a young minister whom Paul loved. strkjv@1Timothy:1:1 @{According to the commandment} (\kat' epitagˆn\). A late _Koin‚_ word (Polybius, Diodorus), but a Pauline word also in N.T. This very idiom ("by way of command") in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:8; strkjv@Romans:16:26; strkjv@1Timothy:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:3|. Paul means to say that he is an apostle under orders. {Of God our Saviour} (\theou s“tˆros hˆm“n\). Genitive case with \epitagˆn\. In the LXX \s“tˆr\ (old word from \s“z“\ for agent in saving, applied to deities, princes, kings, etc.) occurs 20 times, all but two to God. The Romans called the emperor "Saviour God." In the N.T. the designation of God as Saviour is peculiar to strkjv@Luke:1:47; strkjv@Jude:1:25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:3; strkjv@2:3; strkjv@4:10; strkjv@Titus:1:3; strkjv@2:10; strkjv@3:4|. In the other Epistles Paul uses it of Christ (Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23|) as in strkjv@2Timothy:1:10|. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" as in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. {Our hope} (\tˆs elpidos hˆm“n\). Like strkjv@Colossians:1:27|. More than the author and object of hope, "its very substance and foundation" (Ellicott).

rwp@1Timothy:6:10 @{The love of money} (\hˆ philarguria\). Vulgate, _avaritia_. Common word (from \philarguros\, strkjv@2Timothy:3:12|, and that from \philos, arguros\), only here in N.T. Refers to verse 9| (\boulomenoi ploutein\). {A root of all kinds of evil} (\riza pant“n t“n kak“n\). A root (\riza\). Old word, common in literal (Matthew:3:10|) and metaphorical sense (Romans:11:11-18|). Field (_Ot. Norv_.) argues for "the root" as the idea of this predicate without saying that it is the only root. Undoubtedly a proverb that Paul here quotes, attributed to Bion and to Democritus (\tˆn philargurian einai mˆtropolin pant“n t“n kak“n\), where "metropolis" takes the place of "root." Surely men today need no proof of the fact that men and women will commit any sin or crime for money. {Reaching after} (\oregomenoi\). Present middle participle of \oreg“\ (see strkjv@3:1|) with genitive \hˆs\ (which). {Have been led astray} (\apeplanˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \apoplana“\, old compound verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:13:22|. {Have pierced themselves through} (\heautous periepeiran\). First aorist active (with reflexive pronoun) of late compound \peripeir“\, only here in N.T. Perfective use of \peri\ (around, completely to pierce). {With many sorrows} (\odunais pollais\). Instrumental case of \odunˆ\ (consuming, eating grief). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:9:2|.

rwp@1Timothy:6:13 @{Who quickeneth all things} (\tou z“ogonountos ta panta\). Present active participle of \z“ogone“\ (\z“ogonos\, from \z“os, gen“\), late word to give life, to bring forth alive, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:7:19|. See strkjv@1Samuel:2:6|. {Before Pontius Pilate} (\epi Pontiou Peilatou\). Not "in the time of," but "in the presence of." {Witnessed} (\marturˆsantos\). Note \marture“\, not \homologe“\ as in verse 12|. Christ gave his evidence as a witness to the Kingdom of God. Evidently Paul knew some of the facts that appear in strkjv@John:18|.

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

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

rwp@2Corinthians:2:14 @{But thanks be unto God} (\t“i de the“i charis\). Sudden outburst of gratitude in contrast to the previous dejection in Troas. Surely a new paragraph should begin here. In point of fact Paul makes a long digression from here to strkjv@6:10| on the subject of the Glory of the Christian Ministry as Bachmann points out in his _Kommentar_ (p. 124), only he runs it from strkjv@2:12-7:1| (_Aus der Tiefe in die Hohe_, Out of the Depths to the Heights). We can be grateful for this emotional outburst, Paul's rebound of joy on meeting Titus in Macedonia, for it has given the world the finest exposition of all sides of the Christian ministry in existence, one that reveals the wealth of Paul's nature and his mature grasp of the great things in service for Christ. See my _The Glory of the Ministry (An Exposition of II Cor. strkjv@2:12-6:10_). {Always} (\pantote\). The sense of present triumph has blotted out the gloom at Troas. {Leadeth in triumph} (\thriambeuonti\). Late common _Koin‚_ word from \thriambos\ (Latin _triumphus_, a hymn sung in festal processions to Bacchus). Verbs in \-eu“\ (like \mathˆteu“\, to make disciples) may be causative, but no example of \thriambeu“\ has been found with this meaning. It is always to lead in triumph, in papyri sometimes to make a show of. Picture here is of Paul as captive in God's triumphal procession. {The savour} (\tˆn osmˆn\). In a Roman triumph garlands of flowers scattered sweet odour and incense bearers dispensed perfumes. The knowledge of God is here the aroma which Paul had scattered like an incense bearer.

rwp@2Corinthians:3:15 @{Whensoever Moses is read} (\hˆnika an anagin“skˆtai M“usˆs\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hˆnika\ an and the present passive subjunctive. {A veil lieth upon their heart} (\epi tˆn kardian aut“n keitai\). Vivid and distressing picture, a fact that caused Paul agony of heart (Romans:9:1-5|). With wilful blindness the rabbis set aside the word of God by their tradition in the time of Jesus (Mark:7:8f.|).

rwp@2Corinthians:5:12 @{As giving you occasion of glorying} (\aphormˆn didontes humin kauchˆmatos\). An old Greek word (\apo, hormˆ\, onset, rush), a base of operations, material with which to glory, as we say "a tip" only much more. {That ye may have wherewith to answer} (\hina echˆte pros\). Literally, "That ye may have something against (for facing those, etc.)." Paul wishes his champions in Corinth to know the facts. {In appearance, and not in heart} (\en pros“p“i kai mˆ en kardiƒi\). He means the Judaizers who were braggarts about their orthodox Judaism.

rwp@2Corinthians:5:14 @{The love of Christ} (\hˆ agapˆ tou Christou\). Subjective genitive, Christ's love for Paul as shown by verse 15|. {Constraineth us} (\sunechei hˆmas\). Old and common verb, to hold together, to press the ears together (Acts:7:57|), to press on every side (Luke:8:45|), to hold fast (Luke:22:63|), to hold oneself to (Acts:18:5|), to be pressed (passive, strkjv@Luke:12:50; strkjv@Phillipians:1:23|). Songs:here Paul's conception of Christ's love for him holds him together to his task whatever men think or say. {Judging this} (\krinantas touto\). Having reached this conclusion, ever since his conversion (Galatians:1:17f.|). {One died for all} (\heis huper pant“n apethanen\). This is the central tenet in Paul's theology and Christology. \Huper\ (over) here is used in the sense of substitution as in strkjv@John:11:50; strkjv@Galatians:3:13|, death in behalf so that the rest will not have to die. This use of \huper\ is common in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 631). In fact, \huper\ in this sense is more usual in Greek than \anti, pro\ or any other preposition. {Therefore all died} (\ara hoi pantes apethanon\). Logical conclusion (\ara\, corresponding), the one died for the all and so the all died when he did, all the spiritual death possible for those for whom Christ died. This is Paul's gospel, clear-cut, our hope today.

rwp@2Corinthians:5:21 @{Him who knew no sin} (\ton mˆ gnonta hamartian\). Definite claim by Paul that Jesus did not commit sin, had no personal acquaintance (\mˆ gnonta\, second aorist active participle of \gin“sk“\) with it. Jesus made this claim for himself (John:8:46|). This statement occurs also in strkjv@1Peter:2:22; strkjv@Hebrews:4:15; strkjv@7:26; strkjv@1John:3:5|. Christ was and is "a moral miracle" (Bernard) and so more than mere man. {He made to be sin} (\hamartian epoiˆsen\). The words "to be" are not in the Greek. "Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin." But he knew the contradiction of sinners (Hebrews:12:3|). We may not dare to probe too far into the mystery of Christ's suffering on the Cross, but this fact throws some light on the tragic cry of Jesus just before he died: "My God, My God, why didst thou forsake me?" (Matthew:27:46|). {That we might become} (\hina hˆmeis gen“metha\). Note "become." This is God's purpose (\hina\) in what he did and in what Christ did. Thus alone can we obtain God's righteousness (Romans:1:17|).

rwp@2Corinthians:7:8 @{Though} (\ei kai\). If also. Paul treats it as a fact. {With my epistle} (\en tˆi epistolˆi\). 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 metemelomˆn\). 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 \blep“n\. {For a season} (\pros h“ran\). Cf. strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:17|. It was only "for an hour."

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|) according to a common Greek idiom where the article is used as "his." But this idiom is not necessary. As a matter of fact, we do not know who this brother is. {Is spread through all the churches} (\dia pas“n t“n ekklˆsi“n\). No verb in the Greek (ellipsis).

rwp@2Corinthians:9:12 @{Service} (\leitourgias\). Old word from \le“s\ (people, \laos\), \leitos\ like \dˆmosios\, public, and \ergon\, work. Songs:public service either in worship to God (Luke:1:23|) or benefaction to others (2Corinthians:9:12; strkjv@Phillipians:2:30|). Our word liturgy is this word. {Filleth up} (\estin prosanaplˆrousa\). Present active periphrastic indicative of double compound verb \prosanaplˆro“\, _Koin‚_ word, here and strkjv@11:9| only in N.T., to fill up by adding to. The Corinthians simply added to the total from others. {Unto God} (\t“i the“i\). Dative case and with a certain suddenness as at close of verse 11|, really a parenthesis between in the somewhat tangled sentence.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:7 @{Ye look} (\Blepete\). Either indicative or imperative. Either makes sense but the indicative the best sense. {Before your face} (\kata pros“pon\). They ought to look below the surface. If it is imperative, they should see the facts. {That he is Christ's} (\Christou einai\). Predicate genitive in indirect discourse).

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 (\t“n planont“n humƒs\) 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} (\exˆlthan\, 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 mˆ homologountes\). "The ones not confessing" (\mˆ\ regular negative with the participle). The articular participle describes the deceivers (\planoi\). {That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh} (\Iˆsoun 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 \elˆluthota\ (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|, to bring out sharply each separate phrase, though one individual is referred to. The one _par excellence_ in popular expectation (1John:2:22|), though many in reality (1John:2:18; strkjv@3John:1:7|).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ CLAIMS PETRINE AUTHORSHIP Not only so, but in fuller form than strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, for the writer terms himself "Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon (Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in strkjv@Acts:15:14|) is the real name (John:1:42|) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas, the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the fact remains that II Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and orthodox teaching.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF PETER The writer makes use of his own contact with Jesus, especially at the Transfiguration of Christ (Mark:9:2-8; strkjv@Matthew:17:1-8; strkjv@Luke:9:28-36|). This fact has been used against the genuineness of the Epistle on the plea that the writer is too anxious, anyhow, to show that he is Symeon Peter (2Peter:1:1|). But Bigg rightly replies that, if he had only given his name with no personal contacts with Jesus, the name would be called "a forged addition." It is possible also that the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration may have been suggested by Peter's use of \exodos\ for his own death (2Peter:1:15|), the very word used by Luke (Luke:9:31|) as the topic of discussion between Jesus and Moses and Elijah. There is also in strkjv@2Peter:1:13| the use of "tent" (\skˆnoma\) for the life in the body, like Peter's use of "tents" (\skˆnas\) to Jesus at that very time (Mark:9:5; strkjv@Matthew:17:4; strkjv@Luke:9:33|). In strkjv@2Peter:1:14| Peter also refers to the plain words of Jesus about his coming death (John:21:18f.|). In strkjv@2Peter:1:15| Peter speaks of his own plan for preserving the knowledge of Jesus when he is gone (possibly by Mark's Gospel). All this is in perfect keeping with Peter's own nature.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorˆge“\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophˆteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ 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 @ HE ACCEPTS PAUL'S EPISTLES AS SCRIPTURE This fact (2Peter:3:15f.|) has been used as conclusive proof by Baur and his school that Peter could not have written the Epistle after the stern rebuke from Paul at Antioch (Galatians:2:11f.|). But this argument ignores one element in Peter's impulsive nature and that is his coming back as he did with Jesus. Paul after that event in Antioch spoke kindly of Peter (1Corinthians:9:5|). Neither Peter nor Paul cherished a personal grudge where the Master's work was involved. It is also objected that Peter would not have put Paul's Epistles on the level with the O.T. and call them by implication "Scripture." But Paul claimed the help of the Holy Spirit in his writings and Peter knew the marks of the Holy Spirit's power. Besides, in calling Paul's Epistles Scripture he may not have meant to place them exactly on a par with the Old Testament.

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| about the thousand years without any chiliastic turn at all, a thing sure to happen in the second century after chiliasm had come to have such a swing. Peter's use of it suits the first century, not the second. As a matter of fact, the false teachers described in II Peter suit the first century precisely if one recalls Paul's troubles with the Judaizers in Galatia and Corinth and with the Gnostics in Colossae and Ephesus. "Every feature in the description of the false teachers and mockers is to be found in the apostolic age" (Bigg).

rwp@2Peter:1:15 @Peter may also have had an intimation by vision of his approaching death (cf. the legend _Domine quo vadis_) as Paul often did (Acts:16:9; strkjv@18:9; strkjv@21:11; strkjv@23:11; strkjv@27:23|). {At every time} (\hekastote\). As need arises, old adverb, here alone in N.T. {After my decease} (\meta tˆn emˆn exodon\). For \exodos\ meaning death see strkjv@Luke:9:31|, and for departure from Egypt (way out, \ex, hodos\) see strkjv@Hebrews:11:22|, the only other N.T. examples. Here again Peter was present on the Transfiguration mount when the talk was about the "exodus" of Jesus from earth. {That ye may be able} (\echein humas\). Literally, "that ye may have it," the same idiom with \ech“\ and the infinitive in strkjv@Mark:14:8; strkjv@Matthew:18:25|. It is the object-infinitive after \spoudas“\ (I will give diligence, for which see verse 10|). {To call these things to remembrance} (\tˆn tout“n mnˆmˆn poieisthai\). Present middle infinitive of \poie“\ (as in verse 10|). \Mnˆmˆ\ is an old word (from \mnaomai\), here alone in N.T. This idiom, like the Latin _mentionem facere_, is common in the old writers (papyri also both for "mention" and "remembrance"), here only in N.T., but in strkjv@Romans:1:20| we have \mneian poioumai\ (I make mention). Either sense suits here. It is possible, as Irenaeus (iii. I. I) thought, that Peter had in mind Mark's Gospel, which would help them after Peter was gone. Mark's Gospel was probably already written at Peter's suggestion, but Peter may have that fact in mind here.

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

rwp@2Thessalonians:1:12 @{That} (\hop“s\). Rare with Paul compared with \hina\ (1Corinthians:1:29; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:14|). Perhaps here for variety (dependent on \hina\ clause in verse 11|). {The name} (\to onoma\). The Old Testament (LXX) uses \onoma\ embodying the revealed character of Jehovah. Songs:here the {Name} of our Lord Jesus means the Messiahship and Lordship of Jesus. The common Greek idiom of \onoma\ for title or dignity as in the papyri (Milligan) is not quite this idiom. The papyri also give examples of \onoma\ for person as in O.T. and strkjv@Acts:1:15| (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 196ff.). {In you, and ye in him} (\en humin, kai humeis en aut“i\). This reciprocal glorying is Pauline, but it is also like Christ's figure of the vine and the branches in strkjv@John:15:1-11|. {According to the grace} (\kata tˆn charin\). Not merely standard, but also aim (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 609). {Of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hˆm“n kai kuriou Iˆsou Christou\). Here strict syntax requires, since there is only one article with \theou\ and \kuriou\ that one person be meant, Jesus Christ, as is certainly true in strkjv@Titus:2:13; strkjv@2Peter:1:1| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p.786). This otherwise conclusive syntactical argument, admitted by Schmiedel, is weakened a bit by the fact that \Kurios\ is often employed as a proper name without the article, a thing not true of \s“tˆr\ in strkjv@Titus:2:13; strkjv@2Peter:1:1|. Songs:in strkjv@Ephesians:5:5| \en tˆi basileiƒi tou Christou kai theou\ the natural meaning is {in the Kingdom of Christ and God} regarded as one, but here again \theos\, like \Kurios\, often occurs as a proper name without the article. Songs:it has to be admitted that here Paul may mean "according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ," though he may also mean "according to the grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ."

rwp@2Timothy:2:8 @{Risen from the dead} (\egˆgermenon ek nekr“n\). Perfect passive participle of \egeir“\, still risen as the perfect tense shows in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:4,12-20|. Predicate accusative. "Remember Jesus Christ as risen from the dead." This is the cardinal fact about Christ that proves his claim to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Christ is central for Paul here as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {Of the seed of David} (\ek spermatos Daueid\). The humanity of Christ as in strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f|. {According to my gospel} (\kata to euaggelion mou\). Paul's very phrase in strkjv@Romans:2:16; strkjv@16:25|. Not a written gospel, but my message. See also strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:7; strkjv@Galatians:1:11; strkjv@2:2; strkjv@1Timothy:1:11|.

rwp@2Timothy:2:9 @{Wherein} (\en h“i\). In my gospel. {I suffer hardship} (\kakopath“\). "I suffer evil." Old compound (\kakon, pasch“\), elsewhere in N.T., strkjv@4:5; strkjv@James:5:13|. {Unto bonds} (\mechri desm“n\). "Up to bonds." A common experience with Paul (2Corinthians:11:23; strkjv@Phillipians:1:7,13,14; strkjv@Colossians:4:18|). {As a malefactor} (\h“s kakourgos\), old compound (\kakon, erg“\, doer of evil), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:23:32ff.| (of the robbers). One of the charges made against Paul. {Is not bound} (\ou dedetai\). Perfect passive indicative of \de“\, to bind. Old verb. See strkjv@1Corinthians:7:27,39; strkjv@Romans:7:2|. I am bound with a chain, but no fetters are on the word of God (Pauline phrase; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:13; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:36; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:17; strkjv@Phillipians:1:14; strkjv@Titus:2:5|).

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_. A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of _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_ (1927). 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@Info_Acts @ THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL ALSO The author of the Acts expressly states that he wrote "the first treatise (\ton pr“ton logon\) concerning all things, O Theophilus, that Jesus began both to do and to teach until which day he gave command through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen and was received up" (Acts:1:1f.|). There is no room for dispute that the reference is directly to the Gospel according to Luke as we have it now. Like the Gospel the book is dedicated to Theophilus. And, what is even more important, the same style appears in both Gospel and Acts. This fact Harnack has shown with great pains and conclusiveness. There is the same interest in medical matters and even Cadbury, who denies by implication the Lukan authorship, admits identity of authorship for both books.

rwp@Info_Acts @ SOURCES OF THE ACTS Beyond a doubt Luke employed a variety of sources for this great history as he did for the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|). In fact, Cadbury argues that this Prologue was meant to apply to the Acts also as Volume II whether he intended to write a third volume or not. Certainly we are entitled to say that Luke used the same historical method for Acts. Some of these sources are easy to see. Luke had his own personal experience for the "we" sections. Then he had the benefit of Paul's own notes or suggestions for all that portion where Paul figures from chapters 8 to 28, since Luke was apparently with Paul in Rome when he finished the Book. This would include Paul's sermons and addresses which Luke gives unless one wishes to say, as some do, that Luke followed the style of Thucydides and composed the kind of addresses that he thought Paul would make. I see no evidence of that for each address differs from the others and suits precisely the occasion when it was delivered. The ancients frequently employed shorthand and Paul may have preserved notes of his addresses. Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University, argues in his _Composition and Date of Acts_ (1916) that Luke used an Aramaic document for the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. There is an Aramaic element in certain portions of these chapters, but nothing like so pronounced as in Luke 1 and 2 after strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. It cannot be said that Torrey has made out his case for such a single document. Luke may have had several such documents besides access to others familiar with the early days of the work in Jerusalem. There was Simon Peter whom Paul visited for two weeks in Jerusalem (Galatians:1:18|) besides other points of contact with him in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts:15| and strkjv@Galatians:2|). There was also Barnabas who was early Paul's friend (Acts:9:27|) and who knew the beginnings as few did (Acts:4:36f.|). Besides many others it is to be observed that Paul with Luke made a special visit to Caesarea where he spent a week with the gifted Philip and his daughters with the gift of prophecy (Acts:21:8f.|). But with all the inevitable variety of sources for the information needed to cover the wide field of the Book of Acts the same mind has manifestly worked through it and it is the same style all through that appears in the "we" sections where the writer is confessedly a companion of Paul. No other companion of Paul carries this claim for the authorship and no other was a physician and no author has the external evidence from early writers.

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.|) alludes to a Galilean revolt not mentioned by Josephus and Josephus records three revolts under Pilate not referred to by Luke. A comparison of the accounts of the death of Agrippa I in strkjv@Acts: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 \pr“ton\ (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:1:1 @{The former treatise} (\ton men pr“ton\). Literally, the first treatise. The use of the superlative is common enough and by no means implies, though it allows, a third volume. This use of \pr“tos\ where only two are compared is seen between the Baptist and Jesus (John:1:15|), John and Peter (John:20:4|). The idiom is common in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 662, 669). The use of \men solitarium\ here, as Hackett notes, is common in Acts. It is by no means true that \men\ requires a following \de\ by contrast. The word is merely a weakened form of \mˆn\=surely, indeed. The reference is to the "first treatise" and merely emphasizes that. The use of \logos\ (word) for treatise or historical narrative is common in ancient Greek as in Herodotus 6 and 9. Plato (_Phaedo_, p. 61 B) makes a contrast between \muthos\ and \logos\. {I made} (\epoiˆsamˆn\). Aorist middle indicative, the middle being the usual construction for mental acts with \poie“\. {O Theophilus} (\O Theophile\). The interjection \O\ here as is common, though not in strkjv@Luke:1:3|. But the adjective \kratiste\ (most excellent) is wanting here. See remarks on Theophilus on ¯Luke:1:3|. Hackett thinks that he lived at Rome because of the way Acts ends. He was a man of rank. He may have defrayed the expense of publishing both Luke and Acts. Perhaps by this time Luke may have reached a less ceremonious acquaintance with Theophilus. {Which Jesus began} (\h“n ˆrxato Iˆsous\). The relative is attracted from the accusative \ha\ to the genitive \h“n\ because of the antecedent \pant“n\ (all). The language of Luke here is not merely pleonastic as Winer held. Jesus "began" "both to do and to teach" (\poiein te kai didaskein\). Note present infinitives, linear action, still going on, and the use of \te--kai\ binds together the life and teachings of Jesus, as if to say that Jesus is still carrying on from heaven the work and teaching of the disciples which he started while on earth before his ascension. The record which Luke now records is really the Acts of Jesus as much as the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. A. T. Pierson called it "The Acts of the Holy Spirit," and that is true also. The Acts, according to Luke, is a continuation of the doings and teachings of Jesus. "The following writings appear intended to give us, and do, in fact, profess to give us, that which Jesus _continued_ to do and teach after the day in which he was taken up" (Bernard, _Progress of Doctrine in the N.T._).

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

rwp@Acts: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\, double compound, to restore to its former state. As a matter of fact the Messianic kingdom for which they are asking is a political kingdom that would throw off the hated Roman yoke. It is a futuristic present and they are uneasy that Jesus may yet fail to fulfil their hopes. Surely here is proof that the eleven apostles needed the promise of the Father before they began to spread the message of the Risen Christ. They still yearn for a political kingdom for Israel even after faith and hope have come back. They need the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit (John:14-16|) and the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts:1:4f.|).

rwp@Acts:1:9 @{As they were looking} (\blepont“n aut“n\). Genitive absolute. The present participle accents the fact that they were looking directly at Jesus. {He was taken up} (epˆrthˆ). First aorist passive indicative of \epair“\, old and common verb meaning to lift up. In strkjv@Luke:24:51| we have "he was borne up" (\anephereto\) and in strkjv@Acts:1:2, strkjv@1:11; strkjv@1Timothy:3:6| "was received up" (\anelˆmpthˆ\). {Received} (\hupelaben\). Second aorist active indicative of \hupolamban“\, literally here "took under him." He seemed to be supported by the cloud. "In glory" Paul adds in strkjv@1Timothy:3:16|. {Out of their sight} (\apo t“n ophthalm“n aut“n\). From their eyes (\apo\ with ablative case).

rwp@Acts:1:11 @{Who also} (\hoi kai\). Common use of \kai\ pleonastic to show that the two events were parallel. This is the simplest way from Homer on to narrate two parallel events. {Why?} (\ti\). Jesus had told them of his coming Ascension (John:6:62; strkjv@20:17|) so that they should have been prepared. {This Jesus} (\houtos ho Iˆsous\). _Qui vobis fuit eritque semper Jesus, id est, Salvator_ (Corn. a Lapide). The personal name assures them that Jesus will always be in heaven a personal friend and divine Saviour (Knowling). {Songs:in like manner} (\hout“s hon tropon\). Same idea twice. "Songs:in which manner" (incorporation of antecedent and accusative of general reference). The fact of his second coming and the manner of it also described by this emphatic repetition.

rwp@Acts:2:4 @{With other tongues} (\heterais gl“ssais\). Other than their native tongues. Each one began to speak in a language that he had not acquired and yet it was a real language and understood by those from various lands familiar with them. It was not jargon, but intelligible language. Jesus had said that the gospel was to go to all the nations and here the various tongues of earth were spoken. One might conclude that this was the way in which the message was to be carried to the nations, but future developments disprove it. This is a third miracle (the sound, the tongues like fire, the untaught languages). There is no blinking the fact that Luke so pictures them. One need not be surprised if this occasion marks the fulfilment of the Promise of the Father. But one is not to confound these miraculous signs with the Holy Spirit. They are merely proof that he has come to carry on the work of his dispensation. The gift of tongues came also on the house of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts:10:44-47; strkjv@11:15-17|), the disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts:19:6|), the disciples at Corinth (1Corinthians:14:1-33|). It is possible that the gift appeared also at Samaria (Acts:8:18|). But it was not a general or a permanent gift. Paul explains in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:22| that "tongues" were a sign to unbelievers and were not to be exercised unless one was present who understood them and could translate them. This restriction disposes at once of the modern so-called tongues which are nothing but jargon and hysteria. It so happened that here on this occasion at Pentecost there were Jews from all parts of the world, so that some one would understand one tongue and some another without an interpreter such as was needed at Corinth. The experience is identical in all four instances and they are not for edification or instruction, but for adoration and wonder and worship. {As the Spirit gave them utterance} (\kath“s to pneuma edidou apophtheggesthai autois\). This is precisely what Paul claims in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:10,28|, but all the same without an interpreter the gift was not to be exercised (1Corinthians:14:6-19|). Paul had the gift of tongues, but refused to exercise it except as it would be understood. Note the imperfect tense here (\edidou\). Perhaps they did not all speak at once, but one after another. \Apophtheggesthai\ is a late verb (LXX of prophesying, papyri). Lucian uses it of the ring of a vessel when it strikes a reef. It is used of eager, elevated, impassioned utterance. In the N.T. only here, verse 14; strkjv@26:25|. \Apophthegm\ is from this verb.

rwp@Acts:2:23 @{Him} (\touton\). "This one," resumptive and emphatic object of "did crucify and slay." {Being delivered up} (\ekdoton\). Verbal adjective from \ekdid“mi\, to give out or over. Old word, but here only in the N.T. Delivered up by Judas, Peter means. {By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God} (\tˆi h“rismenˆi boulˆi kai progn“sˆi tou theou\). Instrumental case. Note both purpose (\boulˆ\) and foreknowledge (\progn“sis\) of God and "determined" (\h“rismenˆ\, perfect passive participle, state of completion). God had willed the death of Jesus (John:3:16|) and the death of Judas (Acts:1:16|), but that fact did not absolve Judas from his responsibility and guilt (Luke:22:22|). He acted as a free moral agent. {By the hand} (\dia cheiros\). Luke is fond of these figures (hand, face, etc.) very much like the Hebrew though the vernacular of all languages uses them. {Lawless men} (\anom“n\). Men without law, who recognize no law for their conduct, like men in high and low stations today who defy the laws of God and man. Old word, very common in the LXX. {Ye did crucify} (\prospˆxantes\). First aorist active participle of \prospˆgnumi\, rare compound word in Dio Cassius and here only in the N.T. One must supply \t“i staur“i\ and so it means "fastened to the cross," a graphic picture like Paul's "nailed to the cross" (\prosˆl“sas t“i staur“i\) in strkjv@Colossians:2:14|. {Did slay} (\aneilate\). Second aorist active indicative with first aorist vowel \a\ instead of \o\ as is common in the _Koin‚_. This verb \anaire“\, to take up, is often used for kill as in strkjv@Acts:12:2|. Note Peter's boldness now under the power of the Holy Spirit. He charges the people to their faces with the death of Christ.

rwp@Acts:2:24 @{God raised up} (\ho theos anestˆsen\). _Est hoc summum orationis_ (Blass). Apparently this is the first public proclamation to others than believers of the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. "At a time it was still possible to test the statement, to examine witnesses, to expose fraud, the Apostle openly proclaimed the Resurrection as a fact, needing no evidence, but known to his hearers" (Furneaux). {The pangs of death} (\tas “dinas tou thanatou\). Codex Bezae has "Hades" instead of death. The LXX has \“dinas thanatou\ in strkjv@Psalms:18:4|, but the Hebrew original means "snares" or "traps" or "cords" of death where sheol and death are personified as hunters laying snares for prey. How Peter or Luke came to use the old Greek word \“dinas\ (birth pangs) we do not know. Early Christian writers interpreted the Resurrection of Christ as a birth out of death. "Loosing" (\lusas\) suits better the notion of "snares" held a prisoner by death, but birth pangs do bring deliverance to the mother also. {Because} (\kathoti\). This old conjunction (\kata, hoti\) occurs in the N.T. only in Luke's writings. {That he should be holden} (\krateisthai auton\). Infinitive present passive with accusative of general reference and subject of \ˆn adunaton\. The figure goes with "loosed" (\lusas\) above.

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

rwp@Acts:2:29 @{I may say} (\exon eipein\). Supply \estin\ before \exon\, periphrastic present indicative of \exeimi\, to allow, permit. The Authorized Version has "Let me speak," supplying \esto\ present imperative. {Freely} (\meta parrˆsias\). Telling it all (\pan, rhˆsia\ from \eipon\, to speak), with fulness, with boldness. Luke is fond of the phrase (as in strkjv@4:13|). It is a new start for Simon Peter, full of boldness and courage. {The patriarch} (\tou patriarchou\). Transliteration of the word, from \patria\, family, and \arch“\, to rule, the founder of a family. Late word in LXX. Used of Abraham (Hebrews:7:4|), of the twelve sons of Jacob as founders of the several tribes (Acts:7:8|), and here of David as head of the family from whom the Messiah comes. {Was buried} (\etaphˆ\). Second aorist passive indicative of \thapt“\. His tomb was on Mt. Zion where most of the kings were buried. The tomb was said to have fallen into ruins in the time of the Emperor Hadrian. Josephus (_Ant_. XVI. 7, 1) attributes most of the misfortunes of Herod's family to the fact that he tried to rifle the tomb of David.

rwp@Acts:2:32 @{This Jesus} (\touton ton Iˆsoun\). Many of the name "Jesus," but he means the one already called "the Nazarene" (verse 22|) and foretold as the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:16| and raised from the dead by God in proof that he is the Messiah (2:24,32|), "this Jesus whom ye crucified" (verse 36|). Other terms used of him in the Acts are the Messiah, verse 31|, the one whom God "anointed" (Acts:10:38|), as in strkjv@John:1:41|, Jesus Christ (9:34|). In strkjv@2:36| God made this Jesus Messiah, in strkjv@3:20| the Messiah Jesus, in strkjv@17:3| Jesus is the Messiah, in strkjv@18:5| the Messiah is Jesus, in strkjv@24:24| Christ Jesus. {Whereof} (\hou\). Or "of whom." Either makes sense and both are true. Peter claims the whole 120 as personal witnesses to the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead and they are all present as Peter calls them to witness on the point. In Galilee over 500 had seen the Risen Christ at one time (1Corinthians:15:6|) most of whom were still living when Paul wrote. Thus the direct evidence for the resurrection of Jesus piles up in cumulative force.

rwp@Acts:2:38 @{Repent ye} (\metanoˆsate\). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You _crucified_ this Jesus. Now _crown_ him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. {And be baptized every one of you} (\kai baptisthˆt“ hekastos h–m“n\). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (\en t“i onomati Iˆsou Christou\). In accordance with the command of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| (\eis to onoma\). No distinction is to be insisted on between \eis to onoma\ and \en t“i onomati\ with \baptiz“\ since \eis\ and \en\ are really the same word in origin. In strkjv@Acts:10:48| \en t“i onomati Iˆsou Christou\ occurs, but \eis\ to \onoma\ in strkjv@8:16; strkjv@19:5|. The use of \onoma\ means in the name or with the authority of one as \eis onoma prophˆtou\ (Matthew:10:41|) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in strkjv@Matthew:28:19|, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on ¯Matthew:28:19| for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). {Unto the remission of your sins} (\eis aphesin t“n hamarti“n h–m“n\). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of \eis\ does exist as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:7| \eis doxan hˆm“n\ (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of \eis\ for aim or purpose. It is seen in strkjv@Matthew:10:41| in three examples \eis onoma prophˆtou, dikaiou, mathˆtou\ where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in strkjv@Matthew:12:41| about the preaching of Jonah (\eis to kˆrugma I“na\). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the _Koin‚_ generally (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. Songs:I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. {The gift of the Holy Ghost} (\tˆn d“rean tou hagiou pneumatos\). The gift consists (Acts:8:17|) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

rwp@Acts:3:15 @{But the Prince of life ye killed} (\ton de archˆgon tˆs z“ˆs apekteinate\). "The magnificent antithesis" (Bengel) Peter here draws between their asking for a murderer and killing the Prince (or Author) of life. Peter pictures Jesus as the source of all life as is done in strkjv@John:1:1-18; strkjv@Colossians:1:14-20; strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f|. \Archˆgos\ (\archˆ\, beginning, \ag“\, to lead) is an adjective "furnishing the first cause or occasion" in Euripides, Plato. Thence substantive, the originator, the leader, the pioneer as of Jesus both Beginner and Finisher (Hebrews:12:2|). See also strkjv@Hebrews:2:10; strkjv@Acts:5:31| where it is applied to Jesus as "Prince and Saviour." But God raised him from the dead in contrast to what they had done. {Whereof we are witnesses} (\hou hˆmeis martures esmen\). Of which fact (the resurrection) or of whom as risen, \hou\ having the same form in the genitive singular for masculine or neuter. Peter had boldly claimed that all the 120 have seen the Risen Christ. There is no denial of that claim.

rwp@Acts:4:9 @{Concerning a good deed done to an impotent man} (\epi euergesiƒi anthr“pou asthenous\). Objective genitive. Note \euergesia\ (old word, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:6:2|), as a benefactor, not a malefactor. Skilful turn made by Peter. {Is made whole} (\ses“stai\). Perfect passive indicative of \s“z“\, stands whole.

rwp@Acts:4:36 @{Barnabas} (\Barnabas\). His name was Joseph (correct text, and not Jesus) and he is mentioned as one illustration of those in verse 34| who selling brought the money. The apostles gave him the nickname Barnabas by which later he was known because of this noble deed. This fact argues that all did not actually sell, but were ready to do so if needed. Possibly Joseph had a larger estate than some others also. The meaning of the nickname is given by Luke as "son of consolation or exhortation" (\huios paraklˆse“s\). Doubtless his gifts as a preacher lay along this same line. Rackham thinks that the apostles gave him this name when he was recognized as a prophet. In strkjv@Acts:11:23| the very word \parekalei\ (exhorted) is used of Barnabas up at Antioch. He is the type of preacher described by Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:3|. Encouragement is the chief idea in \paraklˆsis\ though exhortation, comfort, consolation are used to render it (Acts:9:31; strkjv@13:15; strkjv@15:31|). See also strkjv@16:9; strkjv@20:12|. It is not necessary to think that the apostles coined the name Barnabas for Joseph which originally may have come from \Barnebous\ (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 308-10), son of Nebo, or even the Hebrew _Bar Nebi_ (son of a prophet). But, whatever the origin, the popular use is given by Luke. He was even called apostle along with Paul (Acts:14:14|) in the broad sense of that word.

rwp@Acts:5:17 @{Which is the sect of the Sadducees} (\hˆ ousa hairesis t“n Saddoukai“n\). Literally, "the existing sect of the Sadducees" or "the sect which is of the Sadducees," \hˆ\ being the article, not the relative. \Hairesis\ means a choosing, from \haireomai\, to take for oneself, to choose, then an opinion chosen or tenet (possibly strkjv@2Peter:2:1|), then parties or factions (Gal strkjv@5:20; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:19|; possibly strkjv@2Peter:2:1|). It is applied here to the Sadducees; to the Pharisees in strkjv@Acts:15:5; strkjv@26:5|; to the Christians in strkjv@24:5-14; strkjv@28:22|. Already Luke has stated that the Sadducees started the persecution of Peter and John (Acts:4:1f.|). Now it is extended to "the apostles" as a whole since Christianity has spread more rapidly in Jerusalem than before it began.

rwp@Acts:7:13 @{At the second time} (\en t“i deuter“i\). This expression only here in the N.T. This second visit is recorded in strkjv@Genesis:45:1ff|. {Became manifest} (\phaneron egeneto\). In strkjv@Genesis:41:12| the fact that Joseph was a Hebrew had been incidentally mentioned to Pharaoh, but now it was made clear to him.

rwp@Acts:8:3 @{Laid waste} (\elumaineto\). Imperfect middle of \lumainomai\, old verb (from \lumˆ\, injury), to dishonour, defile, devastate, ruin. Only here in the N.T. Like the laying waste of a vineyard by a wild boar (Psalms:79:13|). Picturesque description of the havoc carried on by Saul now the leader in the persecution. He is victor over Stephen now who had probably worsted him in debate in the Cilician synagogue in Jerusalem. {Into every house} (\kata tous oikous\). But Luke terms it "the church" (\tˆn ekklˆsian\). Plainly not just an "assembly," but an organized body that was still "the church" when scattered in their own homes, "an unassembled assembly" according to the etymology. Words do not remain by the etymology, but travel on with usage. {Haling} (\sur“n\). Literally, dragging forcibly (=hauling). Present active participle of \sur“\, old verb. {Men and women} (\andras kai gunaikas\). A new feature of the persecution that includes the women. They met it bravely as through all the ages since (cf. strkjv@9:2; strkjv@22:4|). This fact will be a bitter memory for Paul always. {Committed} (\paredidou\). Imperfect active of \paradid“mi\, old verb, kept on handing them over to prison.

rwp@Acts:9:2 @{Asked} (\ˆitˆsato\). First aorist middle indicative, the indirect middle, asked for himself (as a favour to himself). Felten notes that "Saul as a Pharisee makes request of a Sadducee" (the high priest) either Caiaphas if before A.D. 35, but if in 36 Jonathan, son of Caiaphas or if in 37 Theophilus, another son of Caiaphas. {Letters} (\epistolas\). Julius Ceasar and Augustus had granted the high priest and Sanhedrin jurisdiction over Jews in foreign cities, but this central ecclesiastical authority was not always recognized in every local community outside of Judea. Paul says that he received his authority to go to Damascus from the priests (Acts strkjv@26:10|) and "the estate of the elders" (22:5|), that is the Sanhedrin. {To Damascus} (\eis Damaskon\). As if no disciples of importance (outside the apostles in Jerusalem) were left in Judea. Damascus at this time may have been under the rule of Aretas of Arabia (tributary to Rome) as it certainly was a couple of years later when Saul escaped in a basket (2Corinthians:11:32|). This old city is the most enduring in the history of the world (Knowling). It is some 150 miles Northeast from Jerusalem and watered by the river Abana from Anti-Lebanon. Here the Jews were strong in numbers (10,000 butchered by Nero later) and here some disciples had found refuge from Saul's persecution in Judea and still worshipped in the synagogues. Paul's language in strkjv@Acts:26:11| seems to mean that Damascus is merely one of other "foreign cities" to which he carried the persecution. {If he found} (\ean heurˆi\). Third class condition with aorist subjunctive retained after secondary tense (asked). {The Way} (\tˆs hodou\). A common method in the Acts for describing Christianity as the Way of life, absolutely as also in strkjv@19:9,23; strkjv@22:4; strkjv@24:14,22| or the way of salvation (16:17|) or the way of the Lord (18:25|). It is a Jewish definition of life as in strkjv@Isaiah:40:3| "the way of the Lord," strkjv@Psalms:1:6| "the way of the righteous," "the way of the wicked." Jesus called himself "the way" (John:14:6|), the only way to the Father. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas presents the Two Ways. The North American Indians call Christianity the Jesus Road. {That he might bring them bound} (\hop“s dedemenous agagˆi\). Final clause with \hop“s\ (less common than \hina\) and aorist (effective) subjunctive (\agagˆi\, reduplicated aorist of \ag“\, common verb) and perfect passive participle (\dedemenous\) of \de“\, in a state of sheer helplessness like his other victims both men and women. Three times (8:3; strkjv@9:2; strkjv@22:4|) this fact of persecuting women is mentioned as a special blot in Paul's cruelty (the third time by Paul himself) and one of the items in his being chief of sinners (1Timothy:1:15|).

rwp@Acts:9:3 @{As he journeyed} (\en t“i poreuesthai\). Luke's common idiom for a temporal clause (in the journeying), \en\ with the locative articular middle infinitive. {Drew nigh} (\eggizein\). Present active infinitive, was drawing nigh. {Shone round about him} (\auton periˆstrapsen\). First aorist (ingressive) active indicative of \periastrapt“\, late compound verb common in LXX and Byzantine writers, here and strkjv@22:6| alone in the N.T. "A light from heaven suddenly flashed around him." It was like a flash of lightning. Paul uses the same verb in strkjv@22:5|, but in strkjv@26:13| he employs \perilampsan\ (shining around). There are numerous variations in the historical narrative of Saul's conversion in strkjv@9:3-18| and Luke's report of Paul's two addresses, one on the steps of the Tower of Antonia facing the murderous mob (22:6-16|), the other before Festus and Agrippa (26:12-20|). A great deal of capital has been made of these variations to the discredit of Luke as a writer as if he should have made Paul's two speeches conform at every point with his own narrative. This objection has no weight except for those who hold that Luke composed Paul's speeches freely as some Greek writers used to do. But, if Luke had notes of Paul's speeches or help from Paul himself, he naturally preserved the form of the two addresses without trying to make them agree with each other in all details or with his own narrative in chapter 9. Luke evidently attached great importance to the story of Saul's conversion as the turning point not simply in the career of the man, but an epoch in the history of apostolic Christianity. In broad outline and in all essentials the three accounts agree and testify to the truthfulness of the account of the conversion of Saul. It is impossible to overestimate the worth to the student of Christianity of this event from every angle because we have in Paul's Epistles his own emphasis on the actual appearance of Jesus to him as the fact that changed his whole life (1Corinthians:15:8; strkjv@Galatians:1:16f.|). The variations that appear in the three accounts do not mar the story, when rightly understood, as we shall see. Here, for instance, Luke simply mentions "a light from heaven," while in strkjv@22:6| Paul calls it "a great (\hikanon\) light" "about noon" and in strkjv@26:13| "above the brightness of the sun," as it would have to be "at midday" with the sun shining.

rwp@Acts:9:10 @{Ananias} (\Hananias\). Name common enough (cf. strkjv@5:1| for another Ananias) and means "Jehovah is gracious." _Nomen et omen_ (Knowling). This Ananias had the respect of both Jews and Christians in Damascus (22:12|). {In a vision} (\en horamati\). Zeller and others scout the idea of the historicity of this vision as supernatural. Even Furneaux holds that "it is a characteristic of the Jewish Christian sources to point out the Providential ordering of events by the literary device of a vision," as "in the early chapters of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels." He is content with this "beautiful expression of the belief" with no interest in the actual facts. But that is plain illusion, not to say delusion, and makes both Paul and Luke deceived by the story of Ananias (9:10-18; strkjv@22:12-16,26|). One MS. of the old Latin Version does omit the vision to Ananias and that is basis enough for those who deny the supernatural aspects of Christianity.

rwp@Acts:9:20 @{He proclaimed Jesus} (\ekˆrussen ton Iˆsoun\). Imperfect indicative, inchoative, began to preach. Jesus, not Christ, is the correct text here. He did this first preaching in the Jewish synagogues, a habit of his life when possible, and following the example of Jesus. {That he is the Son of God} (\hoti houtos estin ho huios tou theou\). This is Paul's platform as a Christian preacher, one that he always occupied to the very end. It was a complete reversal of his previous position. Jesus had turned him completely around. It is the conclusion that Saul now drew from the vision of the Risen Christ and the message through Ananias. By "the Son of God" Saul means the Messiah of promise and hope, the Messianic sense of the Baptist (John:1:34|) and of Nathanael (John:1:49|) for Saul is now proclaiming his faith in Jesus in the very synagogues where he had meant to arrest those who professed their faith in him. Peter laid emphasis on the Resurrection of Jesus as a glorious fact and proclaimed Jesus as Lord and Christ. Paul boldly calls Jesus the Son of God with full acknowledgment of his deity from the very start. Thomas had come to this place slowly (John:20:28|). Saul begins with this truth and never leaves it. With this faith he can shake the world. There is no power in any other preaching.

rwp@Acts:9:27 @{Took him} (\epilabomenos\). Second aorist middle (indirect) participle of \epilamban“\, common verb to lay hold of. Barnabas saw the situation and took Saul to himself and listened to his story and believed it. It is to the credit of Barnabas that he had the insight and the courage to stand by Saul at the crucial moment in his life when the evidence seemed to be against him. It is a pleasing hypothesis that this influential disciple from Cyprus had gone to the University of Tarsus where he met Saul. If so, he would know more of him than those who only knew his record as a persecutor of Christians. That fact Barnabas knew also, but he was convinced that Jesus had changed the heart of Saul and he used his great influence (Acts:4:36; strkjv@11:22|) to win the favour of the apostles, Peter in particular (Galatians:1:19|) and James the half-brother of Jesus. The other apostles were probably out of the city as Paul says that he did not see them. {To the apostles} (\pros tous apostolous\). Both Barnabas and James are termed apostles in the general sense, though not belonging to the twelve, as Paul did not, though himself later a real apostle. Songs:Barnabas introduced Saul to Peter and vouched for his story, declared it fully (\diˆgˆsato\, in detail) including Saul's vision of Jesus (\eiden ton kurion\) as the vital thing and Christ's message to Saul (\elalˆsen aut“i\) and Saul's bold preaching (\ˆparrˆsiasato\, first aorist middle indicative of \parrˆsiaz“\ from \pan--rˆsia\ telling it all as in strkjv@Acts:2:29|). Peter was convinced and Saul was his guest for two weeks (Galatians:1:18|) with delightful fellowship (\historˆsai\). He had really come to Jerusalem mainly "to visit" (to see) Peter, but not to receive a commission from him. He had that from the Lord (Galatians:1:1f.|). Both Peter and James could tell Saul of their special experiences with the Risen Christ. Furneaux thinks that Peter was himself staying at the home of Mary the mother of John Mark (Acts:12:12|) who was a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians:4:10|). This is quite possible. At any rate Saul is now taken into the inner circle of the disciples in Jerusalem.

rwp@Acts:10:35 @{Acceptable to him} (\dektos aut“i\). Verbal adjective from \dechomai\. _Acceptabilis_. That is to say, a Gentile would not have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Evidently Peter had not before perceived this fact. On the great Day of Pentecost when he spoke of the promise "to all those afar off" (2:39|) Peter understood that they must first become Jews and then Christians. The new idea that now makes a revolution in Peter's outlook is precisely this that Christ can and will save Gentiles like this Cornelius group without their becoming Jews at all.

rwp@Acts:10:37 @{Ye know} (\humeis oidate\). Peter reminds his Gentile audience that the main facts concerning Jesus and the gospel were known to them. Note emphatic expression of \humeis\ (you). {Beginning} (\arxamenos\). The Textus Receptus has \arxamenon\ (accusative), but the nominative is given by Aleph A B C D E H and is certainly correct. But it makes a decided anacoluthon. The accusative would agree with \rhˆma\ used in the sense of message or story as told by the disciples. The nominative does not agree with anything in the sentence. The same phrase occurs in strkjv@Luke:23:5|. Here is this aorist middle participle almost used like an adverb. See a similar loose use of \arxamenos\ in the same sense by Peter in strkjv@Acts:1:22|. The baptism of John is given as the _terminus a quo_. The story began with a skip to Galilee after the baptism just like the Gospel of Mark. This first message of Peter to the Gentiles (10:37-44|) corresponds in broad outline with Mark's Gospel. Mark heard Peter preach many times and evidently planned his Gospel (the Roman Gospel) on this same model. There is in it nothing about the birth and childhood of Jesus nor about the intervening ministry supplied by John's Gospel for the period (a year) between the baptism and the Galilean Ministry. Peter here presents an objective statement of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus with proof from the Scriptures that he is the Messiah. It is a skilful presentation.

rwp@Acts:10:38 @{Jesus of Nazareth} (\Iˆsoun 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} (\diˆlthen euerget“n\). Beautiful description of Jesus. Summary (constative) aorist active of \dierehomai\, to go through (\dia\) or from place to place. The present active participle \euerget“n\ is from the old verb \euergete“\ (\eu\, well, \ergon\, work) and occurs only here in the N.T. The substantive \euergetˆs\ (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 i“menos\). 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 ˆn 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:11:3 @{Thou wentest in} (\eisˆlthes\). Direct form, but Westcott and Hort have it \eisˆlthen\ (he went in), indirect form. Songs:with \sunephages\ (didst eat) and \sunephagen\ (did eat). The direct is more vivid. {Men uncircumcised} (\andras akrobustian echontas\). "Men having uncircumcision." It is a contemptuous expression. They did not object to Peter's preaching to the Gentiles, but to his going into the house of Cornelius and eating with them, violating his supposed obligations as a Jew (Hackett). It was the same complaint in principle that the Pharisees had made against Jesus when he ate with publicans and sinners (Luke:15:12|). The Jews had not merely the Mosaic regulations about clean and unclean food, but also the fact that at a Gentile table some of the meat may have been an idol sacrifice. And Peter himself had similar scruples when the vision came to him at Joppa and when he entered the house of Cornelius in Caesarea strkjv@10:28|). Peter had been led beyond the circumcision party.

rwp@Acts:11:17 @{The like gift} (\tˆn isˆn d“rean\). The equal gift, equal in quality, rank, or measure. Common word. {When we believed} (\pisteusasin\). First aorist active participle of \pisteu“\ in the dative case. It agrees both with \hˆmin\ (unto us) and with \autois\ (unto them), "having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ." Both classes (Gentiles and Jews) trusted in Christ, and both received the Holy Spirit. {Who was I} (\eg“ tis ˆmˆn\). Note order, "_I_, who was I." "{That I could withstand God}" (\dunatos k“l–sai ton theon\). Literally, "able to withstand or hinder God." It is a rhetorical question, really two questions. Who was I? Was I able to hinder God? Peter's statement of the facts made an unanswerable defence. And yet Peter (Galatians:2:11|) will later in Antioch play the coward before emissaries from Jerusalem on this very point of eating with Gentile Christians.

rwp@Acts:11:18 @{Held their peace} (\hˆsuchasan\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \hˆsuchaz“\, old verb to be quiet, to keep quiet. The wrangling (verse 2|) ceased. The critics even "glorified God" (\edoxasan\, ingressive aorist again). {Then to the Gentiles also} (\Ara kai tois ethnesin\). \Ergo\ as in strkjv@Luke:11:20,48| and like \ara oun\ in strkjv@Romans:5:18|. In ancient Greek inferential \ara\ cannot come at the beginning of a clause as here. It was reluctant acquiescence in the undoubted fact that God had "granted repentance unto life" to these Gentiles in Caesarea, but the circumcision party undoubtedly looked on it as an exceptional case and not to be regarded as a precedent to follow with other Gentiles. Peter will see in this incident (Acts:15:8|) the same principle for which Paul contends at the Jerusalem Conference. Furneaux suggests that this conduct of Peter in Caesarea, though grudgingly acquiesced in after his skilful defence, decreased his influence in Jerusalem where he had been leader and helped open the way for the leadership of James the Lord's brother.

rwp@Acts:11:24 @{For} (\hoti\). Because. This is the explanation of the conduct of Barnabas. The facts were opposed to the natural prejudices of a Jew like Barnabas, but he rose above such racial narrowness. He was a really good man (\agathos\). See strkjv@Romans:5:7| for distinction between \agathos\ and \dikaios\, righteous, where \agathos\ ranks higher than \dikaios\. Besides, Barnabas was full of the Holy Spirit (like Peter) and of faith and so willing to follow the leading of God's Spirit and take some risks. This is a noble tribute paid by Luke. One wonders if Barnabas was still living when he wrote this. Certainly he was not prejudiced against Barnabas though he will follow the fortunes of Paul after the separation (15:36; 41|). {Was added unto the Lord} (\prosetethˆ t“i kuri“i\). First aorist passive indicative of \prostithˆmi\, common verb to add to. These people were added to the Lord Jesus before they were added to the church. If that were always true, what a difference it would make in our churches.

rwp@Acts:11:25 @{To seek for Saul} (\anazˆtˆsai Saulon\). First aorist (effective) active infinitive of purpose. \Anazˆte“\ is a common verb since Plato, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:2:44,45|, to seek up and down (\ana\), back and forth, to hunt up, to make a thorough search till success comes. It is plain from strkjv@Galatians:1:21| that Saul had not been idle in Cilicia. Tarsus was not very far from Antioch. Barnabas probably knew that Saul was a vessel of choice (Acts:9:15|) by Christ for the work among the Gentiles. He knew, of course, of Saul's work with the Hellenists in Jerusalem (9:29|) and echoes of his work in Cilicia and Syria had probably come to him. Songs:to Tarsus he goes when he saw the need for help. "He had none of the littleness which cannot bear the presence of a possible rival" (Furneaux). Barnabas knew his own limitations and knew where the man of destiny for this crisis was, the man who already had the seal of God upon him. The hour and the man met when Barnabas brought Saul to Antioch. The door was open and the man was ready, far more ready than when Jesus called him on the road to Damascus. The years in Cilicia and Syria were not wasted for they had not been idle. If we only knew the facts, it is probable that Saul also had been preaching to Hellenes as well as to Hellenists. Jesus had definitely called him to work among the Gentiles (9:15|). In his own way he had come to the same place that Peter reached in Caesarea and that Barnabas now holds in Antioch. God always has a man prepared for a great emergency in the kingdom. The call of Barnabas was simply the repetition of the call of Christ. Songs:Saul came.

rwp@Acts:12:9 @{Wist not} (\ouk ˆidei\). Past perfect of \oida\ used as imperfect, did not know. {Followed} (\ˆkolouthei\). Imperfect active, kept on following as the angel had directed (verse 8|). That it was true (\hoti alˆthes estin\). Indirect assertion and so present tense retained. Note "true" (\alˆthes\) in the sense of reality or actuality. {Which was done} (\to ginomenon\). Present middle participle, that which was happening. {Thought he saw a vision} (\edokei horama blepein\). Imperfect active, kept on thinking, puzzled as he was. \Blepein\ is the infinitive in indirect assertion without the pronoun (he) expressed which could be either nominative in apposition with the subject as in strkjv@Romans:1:22| or accusative of general reference as in strkjv@Acts:5:36; strkjv@8:9| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1036-40). Peter had had a vision in Joppa (10:10|) which Luke describes as an "ecstasy," but here is objective fact, at least Luke thought so and makes that distinction. Peter will soon know whether he is still in the cell or not as we find out that a dream is only a dream when we wake up.

rwp@Acts:12:12 @{When he had considered} (\sunid“n\). Second aorist active participle of \suneidon\ (for the defective verb \sunora“\), to see together, to grasp as a whole, old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@14:6|, save the perfect indicative \sunoida\ (1Corinthians:4:4|) and participle (Acts:5:2|). It is the word from which \suneidˆsis\ (conscience) comes (Romans:2:15|). Peter's mind worked rapidly and he decided what to do. He took in his situation clearly. {To the house of Mary} (\epi tˆn oikian tˆs Marias\). Another Mary (the others were Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, Mary wife of Cleopas, Mary the mother of James and Joses). She may have been a widow and was possessed of some means since her house was large enough to hold the large group of disciples there. Barnabas, cousin of John Mark her son (Colossians:4:10|), was also a man of property or had been (Acts:4:36f.|). It is probable that the disciples had been in the habit of meeting in her house, a fact known to Peter and he was evidently fond of John Mark whom he afterwards calls "my son" (1Peter:5:13|) and whom he had met here. The upper room of strkjv@Acts:1:13| may have been in Mary's house and Mark may have been the man bearing a pitcher of water (Luke:22:10|) and the young man who fled in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark:14:51f.|). There was a gate and portress here as in the house of the highpriest (John:18:16|). Peter knew where to go and even at this early hour hoped to find some of the disciples. Mary is one of the many mothers who have become famous by reason of their sons, though she was undoubtedly a woman of high character herself. {Were gathered together and were praying} (\ˆsan sunˆthroismenoi kai proseuchomenoi\). Note difference in the tenses, one periphrastic past perfect passive (\sunathroiz“\ old verb, in the N.T. here only and strkjv@19:25| and the uncompounded \throiz“\ in strkjv@Luke:24:33|) and the periphrastic imperfect. The praying apparently had been going on all night and a large number (many, \hikanoi\) of the disciples were there. One recalls the time when they had gathered to pray (4:31|) after Peter had told the disciples of the threats of the Sanhedrin (4:23|). God had rescued Peter then. Would he let him be put to death now as James had been?

rwp@Acts:13:28 @{Though they found no cause of death} (\mˆdemian aitian thanatou heurontes\). Second aorist active with usual negative of the participle. As a matter of fact the Sanhedrin did charge Jesus with blasphemy, but could not prove it (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:13:30 @{But God raised him from the dead} (\ho de theos ˆgeiren ek nekr“n\). This crucial fact Paul puts sharply as he always did.

rwp@Acts:13:31 @{Was seen for many days} (\“phthˆ epi hˆmeras pleious\). The common verb (first aorist passive indicative of \hora“\, to see) for the appearance of the Risen Christ, the one used by Paul of his own vision of Christ (1Corinthians:15:8|), which is not reported by Luke here. For more days (than a few), the language means, forty in all (1:3|). {Of them that came up with him} (\tois sunanabƒsin aut“i\). Dative (after \“phthˆ\) articular participle (second aorist active of \sunanabain“\) with associative instrumental case (\aut“i\), the very men who knew him best and who could not be easily deceived about the reality of his resurrection. But this fact rules Paul out on this point, for he had not fellowshipped with Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem. {Who are now his witnesses} (\hoitines nun eisin martures autou\). The very point that Peter used to clinch his argument with such powerful effect (2:32; strkjv@3:15|).

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

rwp@Acts:14:4 @{But the multitude of the city was divided} (\eschisthˆ de to plˆthos tˆs pole“s\). First aorist passive indicative of \schiz“\, old verb to split, to make a schism or factions as Sadducees and Pharisees (23:7|). This division was within the Gentile populace. Part held (\hoi men ˆsan\), literally "some were with the Jews" (\sun tois Ioudaiois\), part with the apostles (\hoi de sun tois apostolois\). Common demonstrative of contrast (\hoi men, hoi de\, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 694). The Jewish leaders made some impression on the Gentiles as at Antioch in Pisidia and later at Thessalonica (17:4f.|). This is the first time in the Acts that Paul and Barnabas are termed "apostles" (see also verse 14|). Elsewhere in the Acts the word is restricted to the twelve. Certainly Luke does not here employ it in that technical sense. To have followed Jesus in his ministry and to have seen the Risen Christ was essential to the technical use (1:22f.|). Whether Barnabas had seen the Risen Christ we do not know, but certainly Paul had (1Corinthians:9:1f.; strkjv@15:8|). Paul claimed to be an apostle on a par with the twelve (Galatians:1:1,16-18|). The word originally means simply one sent (John:13:16|) like messengers of the churches with the collection (2Corinthians:8:23|). The Jews used it of those sent from Jerusalem to collect the temple tribute. Paul applies the word to James the Lord's brother (Galatians:1:19|), to Epaphroditus (Phillipians:2:25|) as the messenger of the church in Philippi, to Silvanus and Timothy (1Thessalonians:2:6; strkjv@Acts:18:5|), apparently to Apollos (1Corinthians:4:9|), and to Andronicus and Junias (Romans:16:6f.|). He even calls the Judaizers "false apostles" (2Corinthians:11:13|).

rwp@Acts:15:12 @{Kept silence} (\esigˆsen\). Ingressive first aorist active of \siga“\, old verb, to hold one's peace. All the multitude became silent after Peter's speech and because of it. {Hearkened} (\ˆkouon\). Imperfect active of \akou“\, descriptive of the rapt attention, were listening. {Unto Barnabas and Paul} (\Barnaba kai Paulou\). Note placing Barnabas before Paul as in verse 25|, possibly because in Jerusalem Barnabas was still better known than Paul. {Rehearsing} (\exˆgoumen“n\). Present middle participle of \exˆgeomai\, old verb, to go through or lead out a narrative of events as in strkjv@Luke:24:35; strkjv@Acts:10:8| which see. Three times (14:27; strkjv@15:4,12|) Paul is described as telling the facts about their mission work, facts more eloquent than argument (Page). One of the crying needs in the churches is fuller knowledge of the facts of mission work and progress with enough detail to give life and interest. The signs and wonders which God had wrought among the Gentiles set the seal of approval on the work done through (\dia\) Barnabas and Paul. This had been Peter's argument about Cornelius (11:17|). This same verb (\exˆgˆsato\) is used by James in verse 14| referring to Peter's speech.

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

rwp@Acts:15:34 @{But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there} (\edoxe de Silƒi epimeinai autou\). This verse is not in the Revised Version or in the text of Westcott and Hort, being absent from Aleph A B Vulgate, etc. It is clearly an addition to help explain the fact that Silas is back in Antioch in verse 40|. But the "some days" of verse 36| afforded abundant time for him to return from Jerusalem. He and Judas went first to Jerusalem to make a report of their mission.

rwp@Acts:15:39 @{A sharp contention} (\paroxusmos\). Our very word paroxysm in English. Old word though only twice in the N.T. (here and strkjv@Hebrews:10:24|), from \paroxun“\, to sharpen (\para, oxus\) as of a blade and of the spirit (Acts:17:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:13:5|). This "son of consolation" loses his temper in a dispute over his cousin and Paul uses sharp words towards his benefactor and friend. It is often so that the little irritations of life give occasion to violent explosions. If the incident in strkjv@Galatians:2:11-21| had already taken place, there was a sore place already that could be easily rubbed. And if Mark also joined with Peter and Barnabas on that occasion, Paul had fresh ground for irritation about him. But there is no way to settle differences about men and we can only agree to disagree as Paul and Barnabas did. {Songs:that they parted asunder from one another} (\h“ste apoch“risthˆnai autous ap' allˆl“n\). Actual result here stated by \h“ste\ and the first aorist passive infinitive of \apoch“riz“\, old verb to sever, to separate, here only and strkjv@Revelation:6:4| in the N.T. The accusative of general reference (\autous\) is normal. For construction with \h“ste\ see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 999f. {And Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus} (\ton te Barnaban paralabonta ton Markon ekpleusai eis Kupron\). Second infinitival clause \ekpleusai\ after \h“ste\ connected by \te\. The same participle is used here minus \sun, paralabonta\ (second aorist active). Barnabas and Mark sailed out (\ekpleusai\ from \ekple“\) from the harbour of Antioch. This is the last glimpse that Luke gives us of Barnabas, one of the noblest figures in the New Testament. Paul has a kindly reference to him in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6|. No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One's judgment may go with Paul, but one's heart goes with Barnabas. And Mark made good with Barnabas, with Peter (1Peter:5:13|) and finally with Paul (Colossians:4:10; strkjv@2Timothy:4:11|). See my little book on John Mark (_Making Good in the Ministry_). Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times.

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

rwp@Acts:16:28 @{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:16:39 @{They feared} (\ephobˆthˆsan\). This is the explanation. They became frightened for their own lives when they saw what they had done to Roman citizens. {They asked} (\ˆr“t“n\). Imperfect active of \er“ta“\. They kept on begging them to leave for fear of further trouble. The colonists in Philippi would turn against the praetors if they learned the facts, proud as they were of being citizens. This verb in the _Koin‚_ is often used as here to make a request and not just to ask a question.

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

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

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

rwp@Acts:17:31 @{Inasmuch as} (\kathoti\). According as (\kata, hoti\). Old causal conjunction, but in N.T. only used in Luke's writings (Luke:1:7; strkjv@19:9; strkjv@Acts:2:45; strkjv@4:35; strkjv@17:31|). {Hath appointed a day} (\estˆsen hˆmeran\) First aorist active indicative of \histˆmi\, to place, set. God did set the day in his counsel and he will fulfil it in his own time. {Will judge} (\mellei krinein\). Rather, is going to judge, \mell“\ and the present active infinitive of \krin“\. Paul here quotes strkjv@Psalms:9:8| where \krinei\ occurs. {By the man whom he hath ordained} (\en andri h“i h“risen\). Here he adds to the Psalm the place and function of Jesus Christ, a passage in harmony with Christ's own words in strkjv@Matthew:25|. \H“i\ (whom) is attracted from the accusative, object of \h“risen\ (first aorist active indicative of \horiz“\) to the case of the antecedent \andri\. It has been said that Paul left the simple gospel in this address to the council of the Areopagus for philosophy. But did he? He skilfully caught their attention by reference to an altar to an Unknown God whom he interprets to be the Creator of all things and all men who overrules the whole world and who now commands repentance of all and has revealed his will about a day of reckoning when Jesus Christ will be Judge. He has preached the unity of God, the one and only God, has proclaimed repentance, a judgment day, Jesus as the Judge as shown by his Resurrection, great fundamental doctrines, and doubtless had much more to say when they interrupted his address. There is no room here for such a charge against Paul. He rose to a great occasion and made a masterful exposition of God's place and power in human history. {Whereof he hath given assurance} (\pistin parasch“n\). Second aorist active participle of \parech“\, old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of \pistis\ as conviction or ground of confidence (Hebrews:11:1|) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of \pistis\ grow out of this one from \peith“\, to persuade. {In that he hath raised him from the dead} (\anastˆsas auton ek nekr“n\). First aorist active participle of \anistˆmi\, causal participle, but literally, "having raised him from the dead." This Paul knew to be a fact because he himself had seen the Risen Christ. Paul has here come to the heart of his message and could now throw light on their misapprehension about "Jesus and the Resurrection" (verse 18|). Here Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the address that seemed new and strange to them.

rwp@Acts:17:32 @{The resurrection of the dead} (\anastasin nekr“n\). Rather, "a resurrection of dead men." No article with either word. The Greeks believed that the souls of men lived on, but they had no conception of resurrection of the body. They had listened with respect till Paul spoke of the actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead as a fact, when they did not care to hear more. {Some mocked} (\hoi men echleuazon\). Imperfect active of \chleuaz“\, a common verb (from \chleuˆ\, jesting, mockery). Only here in the N.T. though late MSS. have it in strkjv@2:13| (best MSS. \diachleuaz“\). Probably inchoative here, began to mock. In contempt at Paul's statement they declined to listen further to "this babbler" (verse 18|) who had now lost what he had gained with this group of hearers (probably the light and flippant Epicureans). {But others} (\hoi de\). A more polite group like those who had invited him to speak (verse 19|). They were unconvinced, but had better manners and so were in favour of an adjournment. This was done, though it is not clear whether it was a serious postponement or a courteous refusal to hear Paul further (probably this). It was a virtual dismissal of the matter. " It is a sad story--the noblest of ancient cities and the noblest man of history--and he never cared to look on it again" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:17:34 @{Clave unto him and believed} (\kollˆthentes aut“i episteusan\). First aorist passive of this strong word \kolla“\, to glue to, common in Acts (5:13; strkjv@8:29; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@10:28|) No sermon is a failure which leads a group of men (\andres\) to believe (ingressive aorist of \pisteu“\) in Jesus Christ. Many so-called great or grand sermons reap no such harvest. {Dionysius the Areopagite} (\Dionusios ho Areopagitˆs\). One of the judges of the Court of the Areopagus. That of itself was no small victory. He was one of this college of twelve judges who had helped to make Athens famous. Eusebius says that he became afterwards bishop of the Church at Athens and died a martyr. {A woman named Damaris} (\gunˆ onomati Damaris\). A woman by name Damaris. Not the wife of Dionysius as some have thought, but an aristocratic woman, not necessarily an educated courtezan as Furneaux holds. And there were "others" (\heteroi\) with them, a group strong enough to keep the fire burning in Athens. It is common to say that Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:1-5| alludes to his failure with philosophy in Athens when he failed to preach Christ crucified and he determined never to make that mistake again. On the other hand Paul determined to stick to the Cross of Christ in spite of the fact that the intellectual pride and superficial culture of Athens had prevented the largest success. As he faced Corinth with its veneer of culture and imitation of philosophy and sudden wealth he would go on with the same gospel of the Cross, the only gospel that Paul knew or preached. And it was a great thing to give the world a sermon like that preached in Athens.

rwp@Acts:18:15 @{Questions} (\zˆtˆmata\). Plural, contemptuous, "a parcel of questions" (Knowling). {About words} (\peri logou\). Word, singular, talk, not deed or fact (\ergon, factum\). {And names} (\kai onomat“n\). As to whether "Jesus" should also be called "Christ" or "Messiah." The Jews, Gallio knew, split hairs over words and names. {And your own law} (\kai nomou tou kath' humƒs\) Literally, "And law that according to you." Gallio had not been caught in the trap set for him. What they had said concerned Jewish law, not Roman law at all. {Look to it yourselves} (\opsesthe autoi\). The volitive future middle indicative of \hora“\ often used (cf. strkjv@Matthew:27:4|) where an imperative could be employed (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 874). The use of \autoi\ (yourselves) turns it all over to them. {I am not minded} (\ou boulomai\). I am not willing, I do not wish. An absolute refusal to allow a religious question to be brought before a Roman civil court. This decision of Gallio does not establish Christianity in preference to Judaism. It simply means that the case was plainly that Christianity was a form of Judaism and as such was not opposed to Roman law. This decision opened the door for Paul's preaching all over the Roman Empire. Later Paul himself argues (Romans:9-11|) that in fact Christianity is the true, the spiritual Judaism.

rwp@Acts:19:26 @{At Ephesus} (\Ephesou\). Genitive of place as also with \Asias\ (Asia). Cf. Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 494f. {This Paul} (\ho Paulos houtos\). Contemptuous use of \houtos\. {Hath turned away} (\metestˆsen\). Changed, transposed. First aorist active indicative, did change. Tribute to Paul's powers as a preacher borne out by Luke's record in strkjv@19:10|. There may be an element of exaggeration on the part of Demetrius to incite the workmen to action, for the worship of Artemis was their wealth. Paul had cut the nerve of their business. There had long been a Jewish colony in Ephesus, but their protest against idolatry was as nothing compared with Paul's preaching (Furneaux). {Which are made with hands} (\hoi dia cheir“n ginomenoi\). Note the present tense, made from time to time. No doubt Paul had put the point sharply as in Athens (Acts:17:29|). Isaiah (Isaiah:44:9-17|) had pictured graphically the absurdity of worshipping stocks and stones, flatly forbidden by the Old Testament (Exodus:20:4; strkjv@Psalms:135:15-18|). The people identified their gods with the images of them and Demetrius reflects that point of view. He was jealous of the brand of gods turned out by his factory. The artisans would stand by him on this point. It was a reflection on their work.

rwp@Acts:19:41 @{Dismissed the assembly} (\apelusen tˆn ekklˆsian\). The town-clerk thus gave a semblance of law and order to the mob by formally dismissing them, this much to protect them against the charge to which they were liable. This vivid, graphic picture given by Luke has all the earmarks of historical accuracy. Paul does not describe the incidents in his letters, was not in the theatre in fact, but Luke evidently obtained the details from one who was there. Aristarchus, we know, was with Luke in Caesarea and in Rome and could have supplied all the data necessary. Certainly both Gaius and Aristarchus were lively witnesses of these events since their own lives were involved.

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) do not have it. As a matter of fact, Trophimus went as far as Jerusalem (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:20:10 @{Fell on him} (\epepesen aut“i\). Second aorist active indicative of \epipipt“\ with dative case as Elijah did (1Kings:17:21|) and Elisha (2Kings:4:34|). {Embracing} (\sunperilab“n\). Second aorist active participle of \sunperilamban“\, old verb to embrace completely (take hold together round), but only here in the N.T. In strkjv@Ezra:5:3|. {Make ye no ado} (\mˆ thorubeisthe\). Stop (\mˆ\ and present middle imperative of \thorube“\) making a noise (\thorubos\) as the people did on the death of Jairus's daughter (Matthew:9:23| \thoruboumenou\ and strkjv@Mark:5:38| \thorubou\) when Jesus asked \Ti thorubeisthe?\ {For his life is in him} (\hˆ gar psuchˆ autou en aut“i estin\). This language is relied on by Ramsay, Wendt, Zoeckler to show that Eutychus had not really died, but had merely swooned. Paul's language would suit that view, but it suits equally well the idea that he had just been restored to life and so is indecisive. Furneaux urges also the fact that his friends did not bring him back to the meeting till morning (verse 12|) as additional evidence that it was a case of swooning rather than of death. But this again is not conclusive as they would naturally not take him back at once. One will believe here as the facts appeal to him.

rwp@Acts:20:19 @[After what manner I was with you} (\p“s meth' h–m“n egenomˆn\). 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} (\douleu“n t“i kuri“i\). 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 pasˆs tapeinophrosunˆs\). 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} (\dakru“n\). 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} (\peirasm“n t“n sumbant“n 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 t“n Ioudai“n\). Like the plot (\epiboulˆ\) against him in Corinth (20:3|) as well as the earlier trial before Gallio and the attacks in Thessalonica. In strkjv@Acts:19:9| Luke shows the hostile attitude of the Jews in Ephesus that drove Paul out of the synagogue to the school of Tyrannus. He does not describe in detail these "plots" which may easily be imagined from Paul's own letters and may be even referred to in strkjv@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:20:24 @{But I hold not my life of any account} (\all' oudenos logou poioumai tˆn psuchˆn\). Neat Greek idiom, accusative \psuchˆn\ and genitive \logou\ and then Paul adds "dear unto myself" (\timian emaut“i\) in apposition with \psuchˆn\ (really a combination of two constructions). {Songs:that I may accomplish my course} (\h“s telei“s“ dromon mou\). Rather, "In order that" (purpose, not result). Aleph and B read \telei“s“\ here (first aorist active subjunctive) rather than \telei“sai\ (first aorist active infinitive). It is the lone instance in the N.T. of \h“s\ as a final particle (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 987). Paul in strkjv@Acts:13:25| in his sermon at Antioch in Pisidia described John as fulfilling his course and in strkjv@2Timothy:4:7| he will say: "I have finished my course" (\ton dromon teteleka\). He will run the race to the end. {Which I received from the Lord Jesus} (\hˆn elabon para tou kuriou Iˆsou\). Of that fact he never had a doubt and it was a proud boast (Gal strkjv@1:1; strkjv@Romans:11:13|). {The gospel of the grace of God} (\to euaggelion tˆs charitos tou theou\). To Paul the gospel consisted in the grace of God. See this word "grace" (\charis\) in Romans and his other Epistles.

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

rwp@Acts:21:16 @{Certain of the disciples} (\t“n mathˆt“n\). The genitive here occurs with \tines\ understood as often in the Greek idiom, the partitive genitive used as nominative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 502). {Bringing} (\agontes\). Nominative plural participle agreeing with \tines\ understood, not with case of \mathˆt“n\. {One Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should lodge} (\par h“i xenisth“men Mnas“ni tini Kupri“i archai“i mathˆtˆi\). A thoroughly idiomatic Greek idiom, incorporation and attraction of the antecedent into the relative clause (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 718). \Mnas“ni\ is really the object of \agontes\ or the accusative with \para\ or \pros\ understood and should be accusative, but it is placed in the clause after the relative and in the same locative case with the relative \h“i\ (due to \par'\, beside, with). Then the rest agrees in case with \Mnas“ni\. He was originally from Cyprus, but now in Caesarea. The Codex Bezae adds \eis tina k“mˆn\ (to a certain village) and makes it mean that they were to lodge with Mnason at his home there about halfway to Jerusalem. This may be true. The use of the subjunctive \xenisth“men\ (first aorist passive of \xeniz“\, to entertain strangers as in strkjv@Acts:10:6,23,32| already) may be volitive of purpose with the relative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 955, 989). The use of \archai“i\ for "early" may refer to the fact that he was one of the original disciples at Pentecost as Peter in strkjv@15:7| uses \hˆmer“n archai“n\ (early days) to refer to his experience at Ceasarea in strkjv@Acts:10|. "As the number of the first disciples lessened, the next generation accorded a sort of honour to the survivors" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:21:29 @{For} (\gar\). Luke adds the reason for the wild charges made against Paul. {They had before seen} (\ˆsan proe“rakotes\). Periphrastic past perfect of \proora“\, old verb to see before, whether time or place. Only twice in the N.T., here and strkjv@Acts:2:25| quoted from strkjv@Psalms:15:8|. Note the double reduplication in \-e“-\ as in Attic (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 364). {With him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian} (\Trophimon ton Ephesion en tˆi polei sun aut“i\). The Jews from Asia (Ephesus) knew Trophimus by sight as well as Paul. One day they saw both of them together (\sun\) in the city. That was a fact. They had just seized Paul in the temple (\hieron\). That was another fact. {They supposed} (\enomizon\). Imperfect active of \nomiz“\, common to think or suppose. Perfectly harmless word, but they did, as so many people do, put their supposed inference on the same basis with the facts. They did not see Trophimus with Paul now in the temple, nor had they ever seen him there. They simply argued that, if Paul was willing to be seen down street with a Greek Christian, he would not hesitate to bring him (therefore, did bring him, \eisˆgagen\ as in verse 28|) into the temple, that is into the court of Israel and therefore both Paul and Trophimus were entitled to death, especially Paul who had brought him in (if he had) and, besides, they now had Paul. This is the way of the mob-mind in all ages. Many an innocent man has been rushed to his death by the fury of a lynching party.

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

rwp@Acts:22:4 @{And I} (\hos\). {I who}, literally. {This Way} (\tautˆn tˆn hodon\). The very term used for Christianity by Luke concerning Paul's persecution (9:2|), which see. Here it "avoids any irritating name for the Christian body" (Furneaux) by using this Jewish terminology. {Unto the death} (\achri thanatou\). Unto death, actual death of many as strkjv@26:10| shows. {Both men and women} (\andras te kai gunaikas\). Paul felt ashamed of this fact and it was undoubtedly in his mind when he pictured his former state as "a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious (1Timothy:1:13|), the first of sinners" (1Timothy:1:15|). But it showed the lengths to which Paul went in his zeal for Judaism.

rwp@Acts:22:11 @{I could not see} (\ouk eneblepon\). Imperfect active of \emblep“\, I was not seeing, same fact stated in strkjv@9:8|. Here the reason as "for the glory of that light" (\apo tˆs doxˆs tou ph“tos ekeinou\). {Being led by the hand} (\cheirag“goumenos\). Present passive participle of \cheirag“ge“\, the same verb used in strkjv@9:8| (\cheirag“gountes\) which see. Late verb, in the N.T. only in these two places. In LXX.

rwp@Acts:23:2 @{Ananias} (\Hananias\). Not the one in strkjv@Luke:3:2; strkjv@John:18:13; strkjv@Acts:4:7|, but the son of Nebedaeus, nominated high priest by Herod, King of Chalcis, A.D. 48 and till A.D. 59. He was called to Rome A.D. 52 to answer "a charge of rapine and cruelty made against him by the Samaritans, but honourably acquitted" (Page). Though high priest, he was a man of bad character. {Them that stood by him} (\tois parest“sin aut“i\). Dative case of second perfect participle of \paristˆmi\, to place, and intransitive. See the same form in verse 4| (\parest“tes\). {To smite him on the mouth} (\tuptein autou to stoma\). See on ¯12:45; strkjv@18:17|. Cf. the treatment of Jesus (John:18:22|). Ananias was provoked by Paul's self-assertion while on trial before his judges. "The act was illegal and peculiarly offensive to a Jew at the hands of a Jew" (Knowling). More self-control might have served Paul better. Smiting the mouth or cheek is a peculiarly irritating offence and one not uncommon among the Jews and this fact gives point to the command of Jesus to turn the other check (Luke:6:29| where \tupt“\ is also used).

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|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (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:23:27 @{Was seized} (\sullˆmphthenta\). First aorist passive participle of \sullamban“\. {Rescued him having learned that he was a Roman} (\exeilamen math“n hoti Romaios estin\). Wendt, Zoeckler, and Furneaux try to defend this record of two facts by Lysias in the wrong order from being an actual lie as Bengel rightly says. Lysias did rescue Paul and he did learn that he was a Roman, but in this order. He did not first learn that he was a Roman and then rescue him as his letter states. The use of the aorist participle (\math“n\ from \manthan“\) after the principal verb \exeilamen\ (second aorist middle of \exaire“\, to take out to oneself, to rescue) can be either simultaneous action or antecedent. There is in Greek no such idiom as the aorist participle of subsequent action (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1112-14). Lysias simply reversed the order of the facts and omitted the order for scourging Paul to put himself in proper light with Felix his superior officer and actually poses as the protector of a fellow Roman citizen.

rwp@Acts:26:1 @{Thou art permitted} (\epitrepetai soi\). Literally, It is permitted thee. As if Agrippa were master of ceremonies instead of Festus. Agrippa as a king and guest presides at the grand display while Festus has simply introduced Paul. {For thyself} (\huper seautou\). Some MSS. have \peri\ (concerning). Paul is allowed to speak in his own behalf. No charges are made against him. In fact, Festus has admitted that he has no real proof of any charges. {Stretched forth his hand} (\ekteinas tˆn cheira\). Dramatic oratorical gesture (not for silence as in strkjv@12:17; strkjv@13:16|) with the chain still upon it (verse 29|) linking him to the guard. First aorist active participle of \ektein“\, to stretch out. {Made his defence} (\apelogeito\). Inchoative imperfect of \apologeomai\ (middle), "began to make his defence." This is the fullest of all Paul's defences. He has no word of censure of his enemies or of resentment, but seizes the opportunity to preach Christ to such a distinguished company which he does with "singular dignity" (Furneaux). He is now bearing the name of Christ "before kings" (Acts:9:15|). In general Paul follows the line of argument of the speech on the stairs (chapter strkjv@Acts:22|).

rwp@Acts:28:17 @{Those that were the chief of the Jews} (\tous ontas t“n Ioudai“n pr“tous\). This use of \pr“tos\ for the leading men of a city or among the Jews we have already had in strkjv@13:50; strkjv@25:2; strkjv@Luke:19:47|. Literally, "Those that were first among the Jews." The position of the participle \ontas\ between the article and the adjective \pr“tous\ is regular (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 777). {When they were come together} (\sunelthont“n aut“n\). Genitive absolute again. Paul could not go to the synagogue, as his custom was, being a bound prisoner. Songs:he invited the Jewish leaders to come to his lodging and hear his explanation of his presence in Rome as a prisoner with an appeal to Caesar. He is anxious that they may understand that this appeal was forced upon him by Festus following Felix and lot because he has come to make an attack on the Jewish people. He was sure that false reports had come to Rome. These non-Christian Jews accepted Paul's invitation. {Nothing against} (\ouden enantion\). Adjective here as in strkjv@26:9|, not preposition as in strkjv@7:10; strkjv@8:32|. From \en\ and \antios\ (\anti\), face to face. Concessive participle \poiˆsas\ as in verse 4| (\dias“thenta\) which see. {Yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans} (\desmios ex Ierosolum“n paredothˆn eis tas cheiras t“n Romai“n\). This condensed statement does not explain how he "was delivered," for in fact the Jews were trying to kill him when Lysias rescued him from the mob (22:27-36|). The Jews were responsible for his being in the hands of the Romans, though they had hoped to kill him first.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE Epaphras did not come in vain, for Paul was tremendously stirred by the peril to Christianity from the Gnostics (\hoi gn“stikoi\, the knowing ones). He had won his fight for freedom in Christ against the Judaizers who tried to fasten Jewish sacramentarianism upon spiritual Christianity. Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke“\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. Songs:then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God. One cannot understand Colossians without some knowledge of Gnosticism such as may be obtained in such books as Angus's _The Mystery-Religions and Christianity_, Glover's _The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire_, Kennedy's St. _Paul and the Mystery-Religions_, Lightfoot's _Commentary on Colossians_.

rwp@Colossians:2:10 @{Ye are made full} (\este peplˆr“menoi\). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of \plˆro“\, but only one predicate, not two. Christ is our fulness of which we all partake (John:1:16; strkjv@Ephesians:1:23|) and our goal is to be made full of God in Christ (Ephesians:3:19|). "In Christ they find the satisfaction of every spiritual want" (Peake). {The head} (\hˆ kaphalˆ\). There is no other place for Christ. He is first (1:18|) in time and in rank. All rule and authority comes after Christ whether angels, aeons, kings, what not.

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

rwp@Info_Ephesians @ SPECIAL BOOKS ON EPHESIANS One may note Abbott (_Int. Crit. Comm_. 1897), Gross Alexander (1910), Beet (1891), Belser (1908), Candlish (1895), Dale (_Lectures on Ephesians_), Dibelius (_Handbuch_, 1912), Eadie (1883), Ellicott (1884), Ewald (_Zahn Komm._, 2 Auf. 1910), Findlay (1892), Gore (_Practical Exposition_, 1898), Haupt (_Meyer Komm._, 8 Auf. 1902), Hitchcock (1913), Hort (_Intr_. 1895), Knabenbauer (1913), Krukenberg (1903), Lidgett (1915), Lock (1929), Lueken (1906), Martin (_New Century Bible_), McPhail (1893), McPherson (1892), Meinertz (1917), Moule (1900), Mullins (1913), Murray (1915), Oltramare (1891), Robinson (1903), Salmond (1903), E. F. Scott (_Moffatt Comm._, 1930), Stroeter (_The Glory of the Body of Christ_, 1909), Von Soden (2 Aufl. 1893), F. B. Westcott (1906), Wohlenberg (1895). strkjv@Ephesians:1:1 @{Of Christ Jesus} (\Christou Iˆsou\). Songs:B D, though Aleph A L have \Iˆsou Christou\. Paul is named as the author and so he is. Otherwise the Epistle is pseudepigraphic. {By the will of God} (\dia thelˆmatos theou\). As in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Romans:1:1|. {At Ephesus} (\en Ephes“i\). In Aleph and B these words are inserted by later hands, though both MSS. give the title \Pros Ephesious\. Origen explains the words \tois hagiois tois ousin\ as meaning "the saints that are" (genuine saints), showing that his MSS. did not have the words \en Ephes“i\. The explanation of the insertion of these words has already been given in the remarks on "The Destination" as one copy of the general letter that was preserved in Ephesus. It is perfectly proper to call it the Epistle to the Ephesians if we understand the facts.

rwp@Ephesians:1:23 @{Which} (\hˆtis\). "Which in fact is," explanatory use of \hˆtis\ rather than \hˆ\. {The fulness of him that filleth all in all} (\to plˆr“ma tou ta panta en pƒsin plˆroumenou\). This is probably the correct translation of a much disputed phrase. This view takes \plˆr“ma\ in the passive sense (that which is filled, as is usual, strkjv@Colossians:1:19|) and \plˆroumenou\ as present middle participle, not passive. All things are summed up in Christ (1:10|), who is the \plˆr“ma\ of God (Colossians:1:19|), and in particular does Christ fill the church universal as his body. Hence we see in Ephesians the Dignity of the Body of Christ which is ultimately to be filled with the fulness (\plˆr“ma\) of God (3:19|) when it grows up into the fulness (\plˆr“ma\) of Christ (4:13,16|).

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_ (1921). 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:1:8 @{If we} (\ean hˆmeis\). Condition of third class (\ean\ and aorist middle subjunctive \euaggelisˆtai\). Suppose I (literary plural) should turn renegade and preach "other than" (\par' ho\), "contrary to that which we preached." Preachers have turned away from Christ, alas, and preached "humanism" or some other new-fangled notion. The Jews termed Paul a renegade for leaving Judaism for Christianity. But it was before Paul had seen Christ that he clung to the law. Paul is dogmatic and positive here, for he knows that he is standing upon solid ground, the fact of Christ dying for us and rising again. He had seen the Risen Jesus Christ. No angel can change Paul now. {Let him be anathema} (\anathema est“\). See on ¯1Corinthians:12:3| for this word.

rwp@Galatians:1:12 @{Nor was I taught it} (\oute edidachthˆn\). He did not receive it "from man" (\para anthr“p“n\, which shuts out both \apo\ and \dia\ of verse 1|), whether Peter or any other apostle, nor was he taught it in the school of Gamaliel in Jerusalem or at the University of Tarsus. He "received" his gospel in one way, "through revelation of Jesus Christ" (\di' apokalupse“s Iˆsou Christou\). He used \parelabon\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:3| about the reception of his message from Christ. It is not necessary to say that he had only one (because of the aorist active \parelabon\, from \paralamban“\, for it can very well be constative aorist) revelation (unveiling) from Christ. In fact, we know that he had numerous visions of Christ and in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23| he expressly says concerning the origin of the Lord's Supper: "I received (\parelabon\, again) from the Lord." The Lord Jesus revealed his will to Paul.

rwp@Galatians:1:13 @{My manner of life} (\tˆn emˆn anastrophˆn\). Late word in this sense from Polybius on from \anastrephomai\. In the older writers it meant literally "return" or "turning back." See strkjv@1Peter:1:15|. It is absent in this sense in the papyri though the verb is common. {In the Jews' religion} (\en t“i Ioudaism“i\). "In Judaism." The word in N.T. only here and next verse, already in II Macc. strkjv@2:21; strkjv@8:1; strkjv@14:38; IV Macc. strkjv@4:26. In these passages it means the Jewish religion as opposed to the Hellenism that the Syrian Kings were imposing upon the Jews. Songs:later Justin Martyr (386 D) will use \Christianismos\ for Christianity. Both words are made from verbs in \-iz“\. {Beyond measure} (\kath' huperbolˆn\). "According to excess" (throwing beyond, \huperbolˆ\). {I persecuted} (\edi“kon\). Imperfect active, "I used to persecute" (see strkjv@Acts:7-9| for the facts). {Made havock of it} (\eporthoun autˆn\). Customary action again, imperfect of old verb \porthe“\, to lay waste, to sack. In N.T. only here, verse 23|, and strkjv@Acts:9:31| (used by Christians in Damascus of Saul after his conversion of his former conduct, the very word of Paul here). Paul heard them use it of him and it stuck in his mind.

rwp@Galatians:2:10 @{Only} (\monon\). One item was emphasized. {We should remember} (\mnˆmoneu“men\). Present active subjunctive, "that we should keep on remembering." {Which very thing} (\ho--auto touto\). Repetition of relative and demonstrative, tautology, "which this very thing." In fact Barnabas and Saul had done it before (Acts:11:30|). It was complete victory for Paul and Barnabas. Paul passes by the second public meeting and the letters to Antioch (Acts:15:6-29|) and passes on to Peter's conduct in Antioch.

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|). As a matter of fact the Jerusalem Conference did not discuss the matter of social relations between Jews and Gentiles though that was the charge made against Peter (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:3:26 @{For ye are all sons of God} (\pantes gar huioi theou este\). Both Jews and Gentiles (3:14|) and in the same way "through faith in Christ Jesus" (\dia tˆs piste“s en Christ“i Iˆsou\). There is no other way to become "sons of God" in the full ethical and spiritual sense that Paul means, not mere physical descendants of Abraham, but "sons of Abraham," "those by faith" (verse 7|). The Jews are called by Jesus "the sons of the Kingdom" (Matthew:8:12|) in privilege, but not in fact. God is the Father of all men as Creator, but the spiritual Father only of those who by faith in Christ Jesus receive "adoption" (\huiothesia\) into his family (verse 5; strkjv@Romans:8:15,23|). Those led by the Spirit are sons of God (Romans:8:14|).

rwp@Galatians:3:28 @{There can be neither} (\ouk eni\). Not a shortened form of \enesti\, but the old lengthened form of \en\ with recessive accent. Songs:\ouk eni\ means "there is not" rather than "there cannot be," a statement of a fact rather than a possibility, as Burton rightly shows against Lightfoot. {One man} (\heis\). No word for "man" in the Greek, and yet \heis\ is masculine, not neuter \hen\. "One moral personality" (Vincent). The point is that "in Christ Jesus" race or national distinctions ("neither Jew nor Greek") do not exist, class differences ("neither bond nor free," no proletarianism and no capitalism) vanish, sex rivalry ("no male and female") disappears. This radical statement marks out the path along which Christianity was to come in the sphere (\en\) and spirit and power of Christ. Candour compels one to confess that this goal has not yet been fully attained. But we are on the road and there is no hope on any way than on "the Jesus Road."

rwp@Galatians:4:4 @{The fulness of the time} (\to plˆr“ma tou chronou\). Old word from \plˆro“\, to fill. Here the complement of the preceding time as in strkjv@Ephesians:1:10|. Some examples in the papyri in the sense of complement, to accompany. God sent forth his preexisting Son (Phillipians:2:6|) when the time for his purpose had come like the \prothesmia\ of verse 2|. {Born of a woman} (\genomenon ek gunaikos\). As all men are and so true humanity, "coming from a woman." There is, of course, no direct reference here to the Virgin Birth of Jesus, but his deity had just been affirmed by the words "his Son" (\ton huion autou\), so that both his deity and humanity are here stated as in strkjv@Romans:1:3|. Whatever view one holds about Paul's knowledge of the Virgin Birth of Christ one must admit that Paul believed in his actual personal preexistence with God (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|), not a mere existence in idea. The fact of the Virgin Birth agrees perfectly with the language here. {Born under the law} (\genomenon hupo nomon\). He not only became a man, but a Jew. The purpose (\hina\) of God thus was plainly to redeem (\exagorasˆi\, as in strkjv@3:13|) those under the law, and so under the curse. The further purpose (\hina\) was that we (Jew and Gentile) might receive (\apolab“men\, second aorist active subjunctive of \apolamban“\), not get back (Luke:15:27|), but get from (\apo\) God the adoption (\tˆn huiothesian\). Late word common in the inscriptions (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 239) and occurs in the papyri also and in Diogenes Laertes, though not in LXX. Paul adopts this current term to express his idea (he alone in the N.T.) as to how God takes into his spiritual family both Jews and Gentiles who believe. See also strkjv@Romans:8:15,23; strkjv@9:4; strkjv@Ephesians:1:5|. The Vulgate uses _adoptio filiorum_. It is a metaphor like the others above, but a very expressive one.

rwp@Galatians:4:6 @{Because ye are sons} (\hoti este huioi\). This is the reason for sending forth the Son (4:4| and here). We were "sons" in God's elective purpose and love. \Hoti\ is causal (1Corinthians:12:15; strkjv@Romans:9:7|). {The Spirit of his Son} (\to pneuma tou huioi autou\). The Holy Spirit, called the Spirit of Christ (Romans:8:9f.|), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:19|). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (John:15:26|). {Crying, Abba, Father} (\krazon Abba ho patˆr\). The participle agrees with \pneuma\ neuter (grammatical gender), not neuter in fact. An old, though rare in present as here, onomatopoetic word to croak as a raven (Theophrastus, like Poe's _The Raven_), any inarticulate cry like "the unuttered groanings" of strkjv@Romans:8:26| which God understands. This cry comes from the Spirit of Christ in our hearts. \Abba\ is the Aramaic word for father with the article and \ho patˆr\ translates it. The articular form occurs in the vocative as in strkjv@John:20:28|. It is possible that the repetition here and in strkjv@Romans:8:15| may be "a sort of affectionate fondness for the very term that Jesus himself used" (Burton) in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark:14:36|). The rabbis preserve similar parallels. Most of the Jews knew both Greek and Aramaic. But there remains the question why Jesus used both in his prayer. Was it not natural for both words to come to him in his hour of agony as in his childhood? The same thing may be true here in Paul's case.

rwp@Galatians:4:13 @{Because of an infirmity of the flesh} (\di' astheneian tˆs sarkos\). All that we can get from this statement is the fact that Paul's preaching to the Galatians "the first time" or "the former time" (\to proteron\, adverbial accusative) was due to sickness of some kind whether it was eye trouble (4:15|) which was a trial to them or to the thorn in the flesh (2Corinthians:12:7|) we do not know. It can be interpreted as applying to North Galatia or to South Galatia if he had an attack of malaria on coming up from Perga. But the narrative in strkjv@Acts:13; 14| does not read as if Paul had planned to pass by Pisidia and by Lycaonia but for the attack of illness. The Galatians understood the allusion for Paul says "Ye know" (\oidate\).

rwp@Galatians:4:27 @{Which is our mother} (\hˆtis estin mˆtˆr hˆm“n\). The mother of us Christians, apply the allegory of Hagar and Sarah to us. The Jerusalem above is the picture of the Kingdom of God. Paul illustrates the allegory by quoting strkjv@Isaiah:54:1|, a song of triumph looking for deliverance from a foreign yoke. {Rejoice} (\euphranthˆti\). First aorist passive imperative of \euphrain“\. {Break forth} (\rˆxon\). First aorist active imperative of \rˆgnumi\, to rend, to burst asunder. Supply \euphrosunˆn\ (joy) as in strkjv@Isaiah:49:13|. {The desolate} (\tˆs erˆmou\). The prophet refers to Sarah's prolonged barrenness and Paul uses this fact as a figure for the progress and glory of Christianity (the new Jerusalem of freedom) in contrast with the old Jerusalem of bondage (the current Judaism). His thought has moved rapidly, but he does not lose his line.

rwp@Galatians:5:19 @{Manifest} (\phanera\). Opposed to "hidden" (\krupta\). Ancient writers were fond of lists of vices and virtues. Cf. Stalker's sermons on _The Seven Cardinal Virtues_ and _The Seven Deadly Sins_. There are more than seven in this deadly list in verses 19-21|. He makes the two lists in explanation of the conflict in verse 17| to emphasize the command in verses 13f|. There are four groups in Paul's list of manifest vices: (I) Sensual sins like fornication (\porneia\, prostitution, harlotry), uncleanness (\akatharsia\, moral impurity), lasciviousness (\aselgeia\, wantonness), sexual vice of all kinds prevailed in heathenism. (2) Idolatry (\eid“latreia\, worship of idols) and witchcraft (\pharmakeia\ from \pharmakon\, a drug, the ministering of drugs), but the sorcerers monopolized the word for a while in their magical arts and used it in connection with idolatry. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:18:23|. See strkjv@Acts:19:19| \perierga\, curious arts. (3) Personal relations expressed by eight words, all old words, sins of the spirit, like enmities (\exthrai\, personal animosities), strife (\eris\, rivalry, discord), jealousies (\zˆlos\ or \zˆloi\, MSS. vary, our very word), wraths (\thumoi\, stirring emotions, then explosions), factions (\eritheiai\, from \erithos\, day labourer for hire, worker in wool, party spirit), divisions (\dichostasiai\, splits in two, \dicha\ and \stasis\), heresies (\haireseis\, the very word, but really choosings from \haireomai\, preferences), envyings (\phthonoi\, feelings of ill-will). Surely a lively list. (4) {Drunkenness} (\methai\, old word and plural, drunken excesses, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:34; strkjv@Romans:13:13|), revellings (\k“moi\, old word also for drinking parties like those in honour of Bacchus, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:13:13; strkjv@1Peter:4:3|). {And such like} (\kai ta homoia toutois\). And the things like these (associative instrumental \toutois\ after \homoia\, like). It is not meant to be exhaustive, but it is representative.

rwp@Galatians:5:21 @{Forewarn} (\proleg“\) {--did forewarn} (\proeipon\). Paul repeats his warning given while with them. He did his duty then. Gentile churches were peculiarly subject to these sins. But who is not in danger from them? {Practise} (\prassontes\). \Prass“\ is the verb for habitual practice (our very word, in fact), not \poie“\ for occasional doing. The {habit} of these sins is proof that one is not in the Kingdom of God and will not inherit it.

rwp@Galatians:6:7 @{Be not deceived} (\mˆ planƒsthe\). Present passive imperative with \mˆ\, "stop being led astray" (\plana“\, common verb to wander, to lead astray as in strkjv@Matthew:24:4f.|). {God is not mocked} (\ou muktˆrizetai\). This rare verb (common in LXX) occurs in Lysias. It comes from \muktˆr\ (nose) and means to turn the nose up at one. That is done towards God, but never without punishment, Paul means to say. In particular, he means "an evasion of his laws which men think to accomplish, but, in fact, cannot" (Burton). {Whatsoever a man soweth} (\ho ean speirˆi anthr“pos\). Indefinite relative clause with \ean\ and the active subjunctive (either aorist or present, form same here). One of the most frequent of ancient proverbs (Job:4:8|; Arist., _Rhet_. iii. 3). Already in strkjv@2Corinthians:9:6|. Same point in strkjv@Matthew:7:16; strkjv@Mark:4:26f|. {That} (\touto\). That very thing, not something different. {Reap} (\therisei\). See on ¯Matthew:6:26| for this old verb.

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

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE AUTHOR Origen bluntly wrote: "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul's while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in strkjv@Hebrews:11:32| (\me diˆgoumenon\) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply \Pros Hebraious\ as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

rwp@Hebrews:1:14 @{Ministering spirits} (\leitourgika pneumata\). Thayer says that \leitourgikos\ was not found in profane authors, but it occurs in the papyri for "work tax" (money in place of service) and for religious service also. The word is made from \leitourgia\ (Luke:1:23; strkjv@Hebrews:8:6; strkjv@9:21|). {Sent forth} (\apostellomena\). Present passive participle of \apostell“\, sent forth repeatedly, from time to time as occasion requires. {For the sake of} (\dia\). With the accusative, the usual causal meaning of \dia\. {That shall inherit} (\tous mellontas klˆronomein\). "That are going to inherit," common idiom of \mell“\ (present active participle) with the infinitive (present active here), "destined to inherit" (Matthew:11:14|). {Salvation} (\s“tˆrian\). Here used of the final salvation in its consummation. Only here in the N.T. do we have "inherent salvation," but see strkjv@6:12; strkjv@12:17|. We do not have here the doctrine of special guardian angels for each of us, but simply the fact that angels are used for our good. "And if so, may we not be aided, inspired, guided by a cloud of witnesses--not witnesses only, but helpers, agents like ourselves of the immanent God?" (Sir Oliver Lodge, _The Hibbert Journal_, Jan., 1903, p. 223).

rwp@Hebrews:4:10 @{As God did from his} (\h“sper apo t“n idi“n ho theos\). It is not cessation of work, but rather of the weariness and pain in toil. The writer pictures salvation as God's rest which man is to share and God will have perfect satisfaction when man is in harmony with him (Dods).

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:5:6 @{In another place} (\en heter“i\). That is strkjv@Psalms:110:4|. It is this crucial passage by which the author will prove the superiority of Jesus to Aaron as high priest. Only the word priest (\hiereus\) occurs here which the author uses as synonymous with high priest (\archiereus\). The point lies in the meaning of the phrase "After the order of Melchizedek" (\kata tˆn taxin Melchisedek\). But at this point the only thing pressed is the fact of the divine appointment of Jesus as priest. He returns to this point (5:10-7:28|).

rwp@Hebrews:6:20 @{As a forerunner} (\prodromos\). Old word used for a spy, a scout, only here in N.T. Jesus has shown us the way, has gone on ahead, and is the surety (\egguos\, strkjv@Hebrews:7:22|) and guarantor of our own entrance later. In point of fact, our anchor of hope with its two chains of God's promise and oath has laid hold of Jesus within the veil. It will hold fast. All we need to do is to be true to him as he is to us. {A high priest for ever} (\archiereus eis ton ai“na\). There he functions as our great high priest, better than Aaron for he is "after the order of Melchizedek," the point that now calls for elucidation (5:10f.|).

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| instead of to the King of Sodom. They both met Abraham as a matter of fact. For this verb (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:7:3 @{Without father, without mother, without genealogy} (\apat“r, amˆt“r, agenealogˆtos\). Alliteration like strkjv@Romans:1:30|, the first two old words, the third coined by the author (found nowhere else) and meaning simply "devoid of any genealogy." The argument is that from silence, made much of by Philo, but not to be pressed. The record in Genesis tells nothing of any genealogy. Melchizedek stands alone. He is not to be understood as a miraculous being without birth or death. Melchizedek has been made more mysterious than he is by reading into this interpretation what is not there. {Made like} (\aph“moi“menos\). Perfect passive participle of \aphomoio“\, old verb, to produce a facsimile or copy, only here in N.T. The likeness is in the picture drawn in Genesis, not in the man himself. Such artificial interpretation does not amount to proof, but only serves as a parallel or illustration. {Unto the Son of God} (\t“i hui“i tou theou\). Associative instrumental case of \huios\. {Abideth a priest} (\menei hiereus\). According to the record in Genesis, the only one in his line just as Jesus stands alone, but with the difference that Jesus continues priest in fact in heaven. {Continually} (\eis to diˆnekes\). Old phrase (for the continuity) like \eis ton ai“na\, in N.T. only in Hebrews (7:3; strkjv@10:1,14,21|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:22 @{By so much also} (\kata tosouto kai\). Correlative demonstrative corresponding to \kath' hoson\ (the relative clause) in verse 20|. {The surety} (\egguos\). Vulgate _sponsor_. Old word, here only in the N.T., adjective (one pledged, betrothed), from \egguˆ\, a pledge, here used as substantive like \egguˆtˆs\, one who gives a pledge or guarantee. There may be a play on the word \eggiz“\ in verse 19|. \Eggua“\ is to give a pledge, \eggualiz“\, to put a pledge in the hollow of the hand. It is not clear whether the author means that Jesus is God's pledge to man, or man's to God, or both. He is both in fact, as the Mediator (\ho mesitˆs\, strkjv@8:6|) between God and man (Son of God and Son of man).

rwp@Hebrews:8:10 @{This} (\hautˆ\). The "new" one of verse 8|. {That I will make} (\hˆn diathˆsomai\). Future middle of \diatithˆmi\, "that I will covenant," cognate accusative (\hˆn\), using the same root in the verb as in \diathˆkˆ\. {I will put} (\didous\). "Giving," present active participle of \did“mi\, to give. {Into their mind} (\eis tˆn dianoian aut“n\). Their intellect, their moral understanding, all the intellect as in Aristotle (Colossians:1:21; strkjv@Ephesians:4:18|). {On their heart} (\epi kardias aut“n\). Either genitive singular or accusative plural. \Kardia\ is the seat of man's personal life (Westcott), the two terms covering the whole of man's inward nature. {A god} (\eis theon\). Note the Hebraistic use of \eis\ in the predicate instead of the usual nominative \theos\ as in "a people" (\eis laon\). This was the ideal of the old covenant (Exodus:6:7|), now at last to be a fact.

rwp@Hebrews:9:12 @{Through his own blood} (\dia tou idiou haimatos\). This is the great distinction between Christ as High Priest and all other high priests. They offer blood (verse 7|), but he offered his own blood. He is both victim and High Priest. See the same phrase in strkjv@13:12; strkjv@Acts:20:28|. {Once for all} (\ephapax\). In contrast to the repeated (annual) entrances of the Levitical high priests (9:7|). {Into the holy place} (\eis ta hagia\). Here, as in verses 8,24| heaven itself. {Having obtained} (\heuramenos\). First aorist middle (indirect) participle of \heurisk“\, simultaneous action with \eisˆlthen\, and by or of himself "as the issue of personal labour directed to this end" (Westcott). The value of Christ's offering consists in the fact that he is the Son of God as well as the Son of man, that he is sinless and so a perfect sacrifice with no need of an offering for himself, and that it is voluntary on his part (John:10:17|). \Lutr“sis\ (from \lutro“\) is a late word for the act of ransoming (cf. \lutron\, ransom), in O.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:1:68; strkjv@2:38|. But \apolutr“sis\ elsewhere (as in strkjv@Luke:21:28; strkjv@Romans:3:24; strkjv@Hebrews:9:15; strkjv@11:35|). For "eternal" (\ai“nian\, here feminine form) see strkjv@6:2|. The author now turns to discuss the better sacrifice (9:13-10:18|) already introduced.

rwp@Hebrews:9:16 @{A testament} (\diathˆkˆ\). The same word occurs for covenant (verse 15|) and will (verse 16|). This double sense of the word is played upon also by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3:15f|. We say today "The New Testament" (_Novum Testamentum_) rather than " The New Covenant." Both terms are pertinent. {That made it} (\tou diathemenou\). Genitive of the articular second aorist middle participle of \diatithˆmi\ from which \diathˆkˆ\ comes. The notion of will here falls in with \klˆronomia\ (inheritance, strkjv@1Peter:1:4|) as well as with \thanatos\ (death). {Of force} (\bebaia\). Stable, firm as in strkjv@3:6,14|. {Where there hath been death} (\epi nekrois\). "In the case of dead people." A will is only operative then. {For doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?} (\epei mˆ pote ischuei hote zˆi ho diathemenos;\). This is a possible punctuation with \mˆ pote\ in a question (John:7:26|). Without the question mark, it is a positive statement of fact. Aleph and D read \tote\ (then) instead of \pote\. The use of \mˆ\ in a causal sentence is allowable (John:3:18|, \hoti mˆ\).

rwp@Hebrews:12:24 @{To Jesus} (\Iˆsou\). This great fact is not to be overlooked (Phillipians:2:10f.|). He is there as Lord and Saviour and still "Jesus." {The mediator of a new covenant} (\diathˆkˆs neas mesitˆi\). As already shown (7:22; strkjv@8:6,8,9,10; strkjv@9:15|) and now gloriously consummated. {To the blood of sprinkling} (\haimati rantismou\). As in strkjv@9:19-28|. {Than Abel} (\para ton Abel\). Accusative as in strkjv@1:4|. {Better} (\kreitton\). Comparative of \kalos\. Abel's blood still speaks (11:4|), but it is as nothing compared to that of Jesus.

rwp@Hebrews:13:22 @{Bear with} (\anechesthe\). Present middle imperative (some MSS. have \anechesthai\, infinitive) of \anech“\ with the ablative, "hold yourselves back from" as in strkjv@Colossians:3:13|. {The word of exhortation} (\tou logou tˆs paraklˆse“s\). His description of the entire Epistle. It certainly is that, a powerful appeal in fact. {I have written} (\epesteila\). First aorist active indicative (epistolary aorist) of \epistell“\, old word to send a letter (\epistolˆ\) as in strkjv@Acts:15:20|. {In few words} (\dia brache“n\). Common Greek idiom, here only in N.T. (from \brachus\, brief, short). Cf. \di' olig“n egrapsa\ in strkjv@1Peter:5:12|.

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

rwp@James:1:17 @{Gift} (\dosis\) {--boon} (\d“rˆma\). Both old substantives from the same original verb (\did“mi\), to give. \Dosis\ is the act of giving (ending \-sis\), but sometimes by metonymy for the thing given like \ktisis\ for \ktisma\ (Colossians:1:15|). But \d“rˆma\ (from \d“re“\, from \d“ron\ a gift) only means a gift, a benefaction (Romans:5:16|). The contrast here argues for "giving" as the idea in \dosis\. Curiously enough there is a perfect hexameter line here: \pƒsa do / sis aga / thˆ kai / pƒn d“ / rˆma te / leion\. Such accidental rhythm occurs occasionally in many writers. Ropes (like Ewald and Mayor) argues for a quotation from an unknown source because of the poetical word \d“rˆma\, but that is not conclusive. {From above} (\an“then\). That is, from heaven. Cf. strkjv@John:3:31; strkjv@19:11|. {Coming down} (\katabainon\). Present active neuter singular participle of \katabain“\ agreeing with \d“rˆma\, expanding and explaining \an“then\ (from above). {From the Father of lights} (\apo tou patros t“n ph“t“n\). "Of the lights" (the heavenly bodies). For this use of \patˆr\ see strkjv@Job:38:28| (Father of rain); strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17|. God is the Author of light and lights. {With whom} (\par' h“i\). For \para\ (beside) with locative sense for standpoint of God see \para t“i the“i\ (Mark:10:27; strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@9:14; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9|. {Can be no} (\ouk eni\). This old idiom (also in strkjv@Galatians:3:28; strkjv@Colossians:3:11|) may be merely the original form of \en\ with recessive accent (Winer, Mayor) or a shortened form of \enesti\. The use of \eni en\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:5| argues for this view, as does the use of \eine\ (\einai\) in Modern Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 313). {Variation} (\parallagˆ\). Old word from \parallass“\, to make things alternate, here only in N.T. In Aristeas in sense of alternate stones in pavements. Dio Cassius has \parallaxis\ without reference to the modern astronomical parallax, though James here is comparing God (Father of the lights) to the sun (Malachi:4:2|), which does have periodic variations. {Shadow that is cast by turning} (\tropˆs aposkiasma\). \Tropˆ\ is an old word for "turning" (from \trep“\ to turn), here only in N.T. \Aposkiasma\ is a late and rare word (\aposkiasmos\ in Plutarch) from \aposkiaz“\ (\apo, skia\) a shade cast by one object on another. It is not clear what the precise metaphor is, whether the shadow thrown on the dial (\aposkiaz“\ in Plato) or the borrowed light of the moon lost to us as it goes behind the earth. In fact, the text is by no means certain, for Aleph B papyrus of fourth century actually read \hˆ tropˆs aposkiasmatos\ (the variation of the turning of the shadow). Ropes argues strongly for this reading, and rather convincingly. At any rate there is no such periodic variation in God like that we see in the heavenly bodies.

rwp@James:2:19 @{Thou believest that God is one} (\su pisteueis hoti heis theos estin\). James goes on with his reply and takes up mere creed apart from works, belief that God exists (there is one God), a fundamental doctrine, but that is not belief or trust in God. It may be mere creed. {Thou doest well} (\kal“s poieis\). That is good as far as it goes, which is not far. {The demons also believe} (\kai ta daimonia pisteuousin\). They go that far (the same verb \pisteu“\). They never doubt the fact of God's existence. {And shudder} (\kai phrissousin\). Present active indicative of \phriss“\, old onomatopoetic verb to bristle up, to shudder, only here in N.T. Like Latin _horreo_ (horror, standing of the hair on end with terror). The demons do more than believe a fact. They shudder at it.

rwp@James:3:14 @{Bitter jealousy} (\zˆlon pikron\). \Zˆlos\ occurs in N.T. in good sense (John:2:17|) and bad sense (Acts:5:17|). Pride of knowledge is evil (1Corinthians:8:1|) and leaves a bitter taste. See "root of bitterness" in strkjv@Hebrews:12:14| (cf. strkjv@Ephesians:4:31|). This is a condition of the first class. {Faction} (\erithian\). Late word, from \erithos\ (hireling, from \eritheu“\ to spin wool), a pushing forward for personal ends, partisanship, as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:16|. {In your heart} (\en tˆi kardiƒi hum“n\). The real fountain (\pˆgˆ\, verse 11|). {Glory not} (\mˆ katakauchƒsthe\). Present middle imperative of \katakauchaomai\, for which see strkjv@2:13|. Wisdom is essential for the teacher. Boasting arrogance disproves the possession of wisdom. {Lie not against the truth} (\pseudesthe kata tˆs alˆtheias\). Present middle imperative of \pseudomai\, old verb, to play false, with \mˆ\ carried over. Lying against the truth is futile. By your conduct do not belie the truth which you teach; a solemn and needed lesson. Cf. strkjv@Romans:1:18f., strkjv@2:18,20|.

rwp@Info_John @ THE BELOVED DISCIPLE The book claims to be written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John:21:20|) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: "This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (John:21:24|). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with strkjv@John:20:31|, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in strkjv@John:21:24| is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922).

rwp@Info_John @ WITH A HOME IN JERUSALEM It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus "to his own home" (\eis ta idia\, strkjv@John:19:27|) from the Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest (John:18:15f.|). Delff (_Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_, 1890) argues that this fact shows that the Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin (John:7:45-52; strkjv@11:47-53; strkjv@12:10ff.|). But at once we are confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (John:13:23|). Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John:21:1ff.|) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the "Beloved Disciple" (John:21:20|).

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

rwp@Info_John @ LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as "the Elder" (\ho presbuteros\), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Peter:5:1|) he calls himself "your fellow-elder" (\ho sunpresbuteros\). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in strkjv@1John:1:1-4| and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the _aeon_ Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in strkjv@1John:2:22|. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

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

rwp@Info_John @ THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK He tells us himself in strkjv@John:20:30f|. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: "But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in Christ.

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

rwp@John:1:15 @{Beareth witness} (\marturei\). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. strkjv@1:17f.|). See strkjv@1:32,34| for historical examples of John's witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort's text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of verse 14|. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos. {Crieth} (\kekragen\). Second perfect active indicative of \kraz“\, old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years. {This was} (\houtos ˆn\). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in strkjv@Acts:3:10| where we should prefer "is" (\estin\). Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things." {Of whom I said} (\hon eipon\). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have \ho eip“n\ "the one who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ. {After me} (\opis“ mou\). See also strkjv@1:27|. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One" (\ho erchomenos\) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:3:11| \ho opis“ mou erchomenos\ (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:7|). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. {Is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking. {Before me} (\emprosthen mou\). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, \ho ischuroteros mou\ "the one mightier than I" (Mark:1:7|) and \ischuroteros mou\ "mightier than I" (Matthew:3:11|). In strkjv@John:3:28| \emprosthen ekeinou\ (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (John:3:25-30|). {For he was before me} (\hoti pr“tos mou ˆn\). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\ˆn imperfect\) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after" John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. \Pr“tos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular _Koin‚_. Songs:the Beloved Disciple came first (\pr“tos\) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4|). Songs:also \pr“ton hum“n\ in strkjv@15:18| means "before you" as if it were \proteron hum“n\. Verse 30| repeats these words almost exactly.

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|) by which he should recognize the Messiah. As a matter of fact, we know that he so recognized Jesus as Messiah when he came for baptism before the Holy Spirit came (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:2:3 @{When the wine failed} (\husterˆsantos oinou\). Genitive absolute with first aorist active participle of \hustere“\, old verb from \husteros\, late or lacking. See same use in strkjv@Mark:10:21|. A longer Western paraphrase occurs in some manuscripts. It was an embarrassing circumstance, especially to Mary, if partly due to the arrival of the seven guests. {They have no wine} (\Oinon ouk echousin\). The statement of the fact was in itself a hint and a request. But why made by the mother of Jesus and why to Jesus? She would not, of course, make it to the host. Mary feels some kind of responsibility and exercises some kind of authority for reasons not known to us. Mary had treasured in her heart the wonders connected with the birth of Jesus (Luke:2:19,51|). The ministry of the Baptist had stirred her hopes afresh. Had she not told Jesus all that she knew before he went to the Jordan to be baptized of John? This group of disciples meant to her that Jesus had begun his Messianic work. Songs:she dares propose the miracle to him.

rwp@John:2:6 @{Waterpots} (\hudriai\). Old word from \hud“r\ (water) and used in papyri for pots or pans for holding money or bread as well as water. These stone (\lithinai\ as in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:3|) jars full of water were kept handy ({set there}, \keimenai\, present middle participle of \keimai\) at a feast for ceremonial cleansing of the hands (2Kings:3:11; strkjv@Mark:7:3|), "after the Jews' manner of purifying" (\kata ton katharismon t“n Ioudai“n\). See strkjv@Mark:1:44; strkjv@Luke:2:22| for the word \katharismos\ (from \kathariz“\) which fact also raised a controversy with disciples of John because of his baptizing (John:3:25|). {Containing} (\ch“rousai\). Present active participle feminine plural of \ch“re“\, old verb from \ch“ros\, place, space, having space or room for. {Two or three firkins apiece} (\ana metrˆtas duo ˆ treis\). The word \metrˆtˆs\, from \metre“\, to measure, simply means "measurer," an amphora for measuring liquids (in Demosthenes, Aristotle, Polybius), the Hebrew _bath_ (2Chronicles:4:5|), here only in N.T., about 8 1/2 English gallons. Each \hudria\ thus held about 20 gallons. This common distributive use of \ana\ occurs here only in this Gospel, but is in strkjv@Revelation:4:8|. In strkjv@John:4:28| a much smaller \hudria\ was used for carrying water.

rwp@John:2:9 @{Tasted} (\egeusato\). First aorist middle indicative of \geuomai\. As it was his function to do. {The water now become wine} (\to hud“r oinon gegenˆmenon\). Accusative case, though the genitive also occurs with \geuomai\. Perfect passive participle of \ginomai\ and \oinon\, predicative accusative. The tablemaster knew nothing of the miracle, "whence it was" (\pothen estin\, indirect question retaining present indicative). The servants knew the source of the water, but not the power that made the wine. {Calleth the bridegroom} (\ph“nei ton numphion\). As apparently responsible for the supply of the wine ({thou hast kept} \tetˆrˆkas\). See strkjv@Matthew:9:15| for \numphios\. When men have drunk freely (\hotan methusth“sin\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \methusk“\. The verb does not mean that these guests are now drunk, but that this is a common custom to put "the worse" (\ton elass“\, the less, the inferior) wine last. It is real wine that is meant by \oinos\ here. Unlike the Baptist Jesus mingled in the social life of the time, was even abused for it (Matthew:11:19; strkjv@Luke:7:34|). But this fact does not mean that today Jesus would approve the modern liquor trade with its damnable influences. The law of love expounded by Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:8-10| and in strkjv@Romans:14,15| teaches modern Christians to be willing gladly to give up what they see causes so many to stumble into sin.

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 fact, it was not yet finished, so distrustful had the Jews been of Herod. {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:3:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one." {By night} (\nuktos\). Genitive of time. That he came at all is remarkable, not because there was any danger as was true at a later period, but because of his own prominence. He wished to avoid comment by other members of the Sanhedrin and others. Jesus had already provoked the opposition of the ecclesiastics by his assumption of Messianic authority over the temple. There is no ground for assigning this incident to a later period, for it suits perfectly here. Jesus was already in the public eye (2:23|) and the interest of Nicodemus was real and yet he wished to be cautious. {Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). See on ¯1:38|. Technically Jesus was not an acknowledged Rabbi of the schools, but Nicodemus does recognize him as such and calls him "My Master" just as Andrew and John did (1:38|). It was a long step for Nicodemus as a Pharisee to take, for the Pharisees had closely scrutinized the credentials of the Baptist in strkjv@1:19-24| (Milligan and Moulton's _Comm_.). {We know} (\oidamen\). Second perfect indicative first person plural. He seems to speak for others of his class as the blind man does in strkjv@9:31|. Westcott thinks that Nicodemus has been influenced partly by the report of the commission sent to the Baptist (1:19-27|). {Thou art a teacher come from God} (\apo theou elˆluthas didaskalos\). "Thou hast come from God as a teacher." Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\ and predicative nominative \didaskalos\. This is the explanation of Nicodemus for coming to Jesus, obscure Galilean peasant as he seemed, evidence that satisfied one of the leaders in Pharisaism. {Can do} (\dunatai poiein\). "Can go on doing" (present active infinitive of \poie“\ and so linear). {These signs that thou doest} (\tauta ta sˆmeia ha su poieis\). Those mentioned in strkjv@2:23| that convinced so many in the crowd and that now appeal to the scholar. Note \su\ (thou) as quite out of the ordinary. The scorn of Jesus by the rulers held many back to the end (John:12:42|), but Nicodemus dares to feel his way. {Except God be with him} (\ean mˆ ˆi ho theos met' autou\). Condition of the third class, presented as a probability, not as a definite fact. He wanted to know more of the teaching accredited thus by God. Jesus went about doing good because God was with him, Peter says (Acts:10:38|).

rwp@John:3:14 @{Moses lifted up the serpent} (\M“usˆs hups“sen ton ophin\). Reference to strkjv@Numbers:21:7ff.| where Moses set the brazen serpent upon the standard that those who believed might look and live. Jesus draws a vivid parallel between the act of Moses and the Cross on which he himself (the Son of man) "must" (\dei\, one of the heavenly things) "be lifted up" (\hups“thˆnai\, first aorist passive infinitive of \hupso“\, a word not used about the brazen serpent). In John \hupso“\ always refers to the Cross (8:28; strkjv@12:32,34|), though to the Ascension in Acts (Acts:2:33; strkjv@5:31|). Jesus is complimenting the standing and intelligence of Nicodemus as "the teacher of Israel" by telling him this great truth and fact that lies at the basis of the work of the kingdom of God (the atoning death of Christ on the Cross).

rwp@John:4:1 @{When therefore} (\H“s oun\). Reference to strkjv@3:22f|. the work of the Baptist and the jealousy of his disciples. \Oun\ is very common in John's Gospel in such transitions. {The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). Songs:the best manuscripts (Neutral Alexandrian), though the Western class has \ho Iˆsous\. Mark usually has \ho Iˆsous\ and Luke often \ho Kurios\. In the narrative portion of John we have usually \ho Iˆsous\, but \ho Kurios\ in five passages (4:1; strkjv@6:23; strkjv@11:2; strkjv@20:20; strkjv@21:12|). There is no reason why John should not apply \ho Kurios\ to Jesus in the narrative sections as well as Luke. Bernard argues that these are "explanatory glosses," not in the first draft of the Gospel. But why? When John wrote his Gospel he certainly held Jesus to be \Kurios\ (Lord) as Luke did earlier when he wrote both Gospel and Acts This is hypercriticism. {Knew} (\egn“\). Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\. The Pharisees knew this obvious fact. It was easy for Jesus to know the attitude of the Pharisees about it (2:24|). Already the Pharisees are suspicious of Jesus. {How that} (\hoti\). Declarative \hoti\ (indirect assertion). {Was making and baptizing more disciples than John} (\pleionas mathˆtas poiei kai baptizei ˆ I“anˆs\). Present active indicative in both verbs retained in indirect discourse. Recall the tremendous success of John's early ministry (Mark:1:5; strkjv@Matthew:3:5; strkjv@Luke:3:7,15|) in order to see the significance of this statement that Jesus had forged ahead of him in popular favour. Already the Pharisees had turned violently against John who had called them broods of vipers. It is most likely that they drew John out about the marriage of Herod Antipas and got him involved directly with the tetrarch so as to have him cast into prison (Luke:3:19f.|). Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. v. 2) gives a public reason for this act of Herod Antipas, the fear that John would "raise a rebellion," probably the public reason for his private vengeance as given by Luke. Apparently John was cast into prison, though recently still free (John:3:24|), before Jesus left for Galilee. The Pharisees, with John out of the way, turn to Jesus with envy and hate.

rwp@John:4:22 @{That which ye know not} (\ho ouk oidate\). Cf. strkjv@Acts:17:23|. "You know whom to worship, but you do not know him" (Westcott). The Samaritans rejected the prophets and the Psalms and so cut themselves off from the fuller knowledge of God. {We} (\hˆmeis\). We Jews. Jesus is a Jew as he fully recognizes (Matthew:15:24|). {That which we know} (\ho oidamen\). Neuter singular relative as before. The Jews, as the chosen people, had fuller revelations of God (Psalms:147:19f.; strkjv@Romans:9:3-5|). But even so the Jews as a whole failed to recognize God in Christ (1:11,26; strkjv@7:28|). {For salvation is from the Jews} (\hoti hˆ s“tˆria ek t“n Ioudai“n estin\). "The salvation," the Messianic salvation which had long been the hope and guiding star of the chosen people (Luke:1:69,71,77; strkjv@Acts:13:26,47|). It was for the whole world (John:3:17|), but it comes "out of" (\ek\) the Jews. This tremendous fact should never be forgotten, however unworthy the Jews may have proved of their privilege. The Messiah, God's Son, was a Jew.

rwp@John:4:35 @{Say not ye?} (\Ouch humeis legete;\). It is not possible to tell whether Jesus is alluding to a rural proverb of which nothing is known about there being four months from seedtime to harvest (a longer time than four months in fact) or whether he means that it was then actually four months to harvest. In the latter sense, since harvest began about the middle of April, it would be December when Jesus spoke. {There are yet four months} (\eti tetramˆnos estin\). The use of \eti\ (yet) and the fact that the space between seedtime and harvest is longer than four months (\tetra\, Aeolic for \tessara\, and \mˆn\, month) argue against the proverb idea. {And then cometh the harvest} (\kai ho therismos erchetai\). "And the harvest (\therismos\, from \theriz“\, rare in Greek writers) comes." The possible Iambic verse here is purely accidental as in strkjv@5:14|. {Lift up your eyes} (\eparate tous ophthalmous hum“n\). First aorist active imperative of \epair“\. Deliberate looking as in strkjv@John:6:5| where \theaomai\ also is used as here. {Fields} (\ch“ras\). Cultivated or ploughed ground as in strkjv@Luke:21:21|. {White} (\leukai\). Ripened grain like grey hair (Matthew:5:36|). {Already unto harvest} (\pros therismon ˆdˆ\). Probably \ˆdˆ\ (already) goes with verse 36|. The Samaritans could already be seen approaching and they were the field "white for harvest." This is the meaning of Christ's parable. If it is the spring of the year and Christ can point to the ripened grain, the parable is all the plainer, but it is not dependent on this detail. Recall the parable of the sower in strkjv@Matthew:13|.

rwp@John:4:51 @{As he was now going down} (\ˆdˆ autou katabainontos\). Genitive absolute in-spite of the fact that \aut“i\ (associative instrumental case with \hupˆntˆsan\ aorist active indicative of \hupanta“\) is near. {That his son lived} (\hoti ho pais autou zˆi\). Present active indicative preserved in indirect discourse (cf. the words of Jesus in verse 50|). Note \pais\ here (only example in John), \huios\ in 50|, \paidion\ (diminutive of tenderness) in 49|.

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 feast" which would naturally mean the passover. As a matter of fact there is no way of telling what feast it was which Jesus here attended. Even if it was not the passover, there may well be another passover not mentioned besides the three named by John (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:5:15 @{Went away and told} (\apˆlthen kai eipen\). Both aorist active indicatives. Instead of giving heed to the warning of Jesus about his own sins he went off and told the Jews that now he knew who the man was who had commanded him to take up his bed on the Sabbath Day, to clear himself with the ecclesiastics and escape a possible stoning. {That it was Jesus} (\hoti Iˆsous estin\). Present indicative preserved in indirect discourse. The man was either ungrateful and wilfully betrayed Jesus or he was incompetent and did not know that he was bringing trouble on his benefactor. In either case one has small respect for him.

rwp@John:5:17 @{Answered} (\apekrinato\). Regular aorist middle indicative of \apokrinomai\, in John here only and verse 19|, elsewhere \apekrithˆ\ as in verse 11|. {My Father} (\ho pater mou\). Not "our Father," claim to peculiar relation to the Father. {Worketh even until now} (\he“s arti ergazetai\). Linear present middle indicative, "keeps on working until now" without a break on the Sabbath. Philo points out this fact of the continuous activity of God. Justin Martyr, Origen and others note this fact about God. He made the Sabbath for man's blessing, but cannot observe it himself. {And I work} (\kag“ ergazomai\). Jesus puts himself on a par with God's activity and thus justifies his healing on the Sabbath.

rwp@John:5:26 @{In himself} (\en heaut“i\). The Living God possesses life wholly in himself and so he has bestowed this power of life to the Son as already stated in the Prologue of the Logos (1:3|). For "gave" (\ed“ken\, timeless aorist active indicative) see also strkjv@3:35; strkjv@17:2,24|. The particles "as" (\h“sper\) and "so" (\hout“s\) mark here the fact, not the degree (Westcott).

rwp@John:5:33 @{Ye have sent} (\humeis apestalkate\). Emphatic use of \humeis\ (ye) and perfect active indicative of \apostell“\, official and permanent fact and so the witness of the Baptist has to be recognized as trustworthy by the Sanhedrin. The reference is to the committee in strkjv@1:19-28|. {He hath borne witness} (\memarturˆken\). Perfect active indicative of \marture“\ showing the permanent and abiding value of John's testimony to Christ as in strkjv@1:34; strkjv@3:26; strkjv@5:37|. Songs:also strkjv@19:35| of the testimony concerning Christ's death. This was the purpose of the Baptist's mission (1:7|).

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

rwp@John:6:1 @{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|). The phrase does not mean immediate sequence of events. As a matter of fact, a whole year may intervene between the events of chapter 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:6:24 @{When the multitude therefore saw} (\hote oun eiden ho ochlos\). Resumption and clarification of the complicated statements of verse 22|. {That Jesus was not there} (\hoti Iˆsous ouk estin ekei\). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. They still did not understand how Jesus had crossed over, but they acted on the basis of the plain fact. {They themselves got into} (\enebˆsan autoi eis\). Second aorist active indicative of \embain“\ followed by \eis\ (both \en\ and \eis\ together as often in N.T.). {Seeking Jesus} (\zˆtountes ton Iˆsoun\). Present active participle of \zˆte“\. They had a double motive apart from the curiosity explained in verse 22|. They had clearly not given up the impulse of the evening before to make Jesus king (6:15|) and they had hopes of still another bountiful repast at the hands of Jesus as he said (6:26|).

rwp@John:6:29 @{The work of God that ye believe} (\to ergon tou theou hina pisteuˆte\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3| Paul speaks of "your work of faith" (\hum“n tou ergou tˆs piste“s\). Songs:here Jesus terms belief in him as the work of God. These Jews were thinking of various deeds of the Pharisaic type and rules. Jesus turns their minds to the central fact. "This simple formula contains the complete solution of the relation of faith and works" (Westcott). Note the present active subjunctive \pisteuˆte\, "that ye may keep on believing." {On him whom he hath sent} (\eis hon apesteilen ekeinos\). The pronominal antecedent (\eis touton hon\) is omitted and the preposition \eis\ is retained with the relative \hon\ really the direct object of \apesteilen\ (sent). Note \ekeinos\ for God (emphatic he).

rwp@John:6:51 @{The living bread} (\ho artos ho z“n\). "The bread the living." Repetition of the claim in 35,41,48|, but with a slight change from \z“ˆs\ to \z“n\ (present active participle of \za“\). It is alive and can give life. See strkjv@4:10| for living water. In strkjv@Revelation:1:17| Jesus calls himself the Living One (\ho z“n\). {For ever} (\eis ton ai“na\). Eternally like \ai“nion\ with \z“ˆn\ in 47|. {I shall give} (\eg“ d“s“\). Emphasis on \eg“\ (I). Superior so to Moses. {Is my flesh} (\hˆ sarx mou estin\). See on ¯1:14| for \sarx\ the Incarnation. This new idea creates far more difficulty to the hearers who cannot grasp Christ's idea of self-sacrifice. {For the life of the world} (\huper tˆs tou kosmou z“ˆs\). Over, in behalf of, \huper\ means, and in some connexions instead of as in strkjv@11:50|. See strkjv@1:30| for the Baptist's picture of Christ as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. See also strkjv@3:17; strkjv@4:42; strkjv@1John:3:16; strkjv@Matthew:20:28; strkjv@Galatians:3:13; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:14f.; strkjv@Romans:5:8|. Jesus has here presented to this Galilean multitude the central fact of his atoning death for the spiritual life of the world.

rwp@John:7:10 @{Were gone up} (\anebˆsan\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain“\, not past perfect though the action is antecedent in fact to the following \tote anebˆ\. The Greek does not always draw the precise distinction between the merely punctiliar (aorist) antecedent action and the past perfect (2:9; strkjv@4:45|). {He also} (\tote autos\). As well as the brothers. {Not publicly} (\ou phaner“s\). Against their advice in verse 4|, using \phaner“son\ (the very same word stem). {But as it were in secret} (\alla h“s en krupt“i\). "Not with the usual caravan of pilgrims" (Bernard). Just the opposite of their advice in verse 4| with the same phrase \en phaner“i\. Plainly Jesus purposely went contrary to the insincere counsel of his brothers as to the manner of his Messianic manifestation. This secrecy concerned solely the journey to Jerusalem, not his public teaching there after his arrival (7:26,28; strkjv@18:20|).

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

rwp@John:7:17 @{If any man willeth to do} (\ean tis thelˆi poiein\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and present active subjunctive \thelˆi\ not used as a mere auxiliary verb for the future "will do," but with full force of \thel“\, to will, to wish. See the same use of \thel“\ in strkjv@5:40| "and yet ye are not willing to come" (\kai ou thelete elthein\). {He shall know} (\gn“setai\). Future middle indicative of \gin“sk“\. Experimental knowledge from willingness to do God's will. See this same point by Jesus in strkjv@5:46; strkjv@18:37|. There must be moral harmony between man's purpose and God's will. "If there be no sympathy there can be no understanding" (Westcott). Atheists of all types have no point of contact for approach to the knowledge of Christ. This fact does not prove the non-existence of God, but simply their own isolation. They are out of tune with the Infinite. For those who love God it is also true that obedience to God's will brings richer knowledge of God. Agnostic and atheistic critics are disqualified by Jesus as witnesses to his claims. {Of God} (\ek tou theou\). Out of God as source. {From myself} (\ap' emautou\). Instead of from God.

rwp@John:7:41 @{This is the Christ} (\houtos estin ho Christos\). These went further and dared to call Jesus the Messiah and not merely the prophet who might not be the Messiah. They said it openly. {What} (\gar\). These denied that Jesus was the Messiah and gave as their reason (\gar\, for) the fact that he came from Galilee. The use of \mˆ\ expects a negative answer.

rwp@John:7:42 @{The scripture} (\hˆ graphˆ\). The reference is to strkjv@Micah:5:2|, the very passage quoted by the chief priests and scribes in response to Herod's inquiry (Matthew:2:6|). This ignorance of the fact that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem belongs to the Jews, not to John the author of the Gospel.

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

rwp@John:8:17 @{Yea and in your law} (\kai en t“i nom“i de t“i humeter“i\). Same use of \kai--de\ as in verse 16|. They claimed possession of the law (7:49|) and so Jesus takes this turn in answer to the charge of single witness in verse 13|. He will use similar language (your law) in strkjv@10:34| in an _argumentum ad hominem_ as here in controversy with the Jews. In strkjv@15:24| to the apostles Jesus even says "in their law" in speaking of the hostile Jews plotting his death. He does not mean in either case to separate himself wholly from the Jews and the law, though in Matthew 5 he does show the superiority of his teaching to that of the law. For the Mosaic regulation about two witnesses see strkjv@Deuteronomy:17:6; strkjv@19:15|. This combined witness of two is not true just because they agree, unless true in fact separately. But if they disagree, the testimony falls to the ground. In this case the Father confirms the witness of the Son as Jesus had already shown (5:37|).

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

rwp@John:9:2 @{Who did sin?} (\tis hˆmarten;\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan“\. See strkjv@Acts:3:2; strkjv@14:8| for two examples of lameness from birth. Blindness is common in the Orient and Jesus healed many cases (cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23; strkjv@10:46|) and mentions this fact as one of the marks of the Messiah in the message to the Baptist (Matthew:11:5|). This is the only example of congenital blindness healed. It is not clear that the disciples expected Jesus to heal this case. They are puzzled by the Jewish notion that sickness was a penalty for sin. The Book of Job:had shown that this was not always the case and Jesus shows it also (Luke:13:1-5|). If this man was guilty, it was due to prenatal sin on his part, a curious notion surely. The other alternative charged it upon his parents. That is sometimes true (Exodus:20:5|, etc.), but by no means always. The rabbinical casuists loved to split hairs on this problem. Ezekiel (Ezekiel:18:20|) says: "The soul that sinneth it shall die" (individual responsibility for sin committed). There is something in heredity, but not everything. {That he should be born blind} (\hina tuphlos gennˆthˆi\). Probably consecutive (or sub-final) use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \genna“\.

rwp@John:9:6 @{He spat on the ground} (\eptusen chamai\). First aorist active indicative of the old verb \ptu“\ for which see strkjv@Mark:7:33|. \Chamai\ is an old adverb either in the dative or locative (sense suits locative), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:6|. Jesus was not asked to cure this man. The curative effects of saliva are held in many places. The Jews held saliva efficacious for eye-trouble, but it was forbidden on the Sabbath. "That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in the application of the clay is contradicted by the fact that in other cases of blindness He did not use it" (Dods). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23|. Why he here accommodated himself to current belief we do not know unless it was to encourage the man to believe. {He made clay} (\epoiˆsen pˆlon\). Only use of \pˆlos\, old word for clay, in N.T. in this chapter and strkjv@Romans:9:21|. The kneading of the clay and spittle added another offence against the Sabbath rules of the rabbis. {Anointed his eyes with the clay} (\epechrisen autou ton pˆlon epi tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active indicative of \epichri“\, old verb, to spread on, anoint, here only and verse 11| in N.T. "He spread the clay upon his eyes." B C read \epethˆken\ (first aorist active indicative of \epitithˆmi\, to put on).

rwp@John:9:10 @{How then were thine eyes opened?} (\P“s oun ˆne“ichthˆsan sou hoi ophthalmoi;\). Natural and logical (\oun\) question. First aorist passive indicative (triple augment) of \anoig“\. These neighbours admit the fact and want the manner ("how") of the cure made clear.

rwp@John:9:14 @{Now it was the sabbath} (\ˆn de sabbaton\). Literally, "Now it was a sabbath" (no article). To the Pharisees this fact was a far more important matter than whether or how the thing was done. See Volumes I and II for discussions of the minute Sabbath regulations of the rabbis.

rwp@John:9:15 @{Again} (\palin\). Besides the questioning of the neighbours (verses 8,9|). {Therefore} (\oun\). Since he has been brought to the Pharisees who must make a show of wisdom. {Also asked him} (\ˆr“t“n auton kai\). Inchoative imperfect active of \er“ta“\, "began also to question him." {How he received his sight} (\p“s aneblepsen\). No denial as yet of the fact, only interest in the "how." {He put} (\epethˆken\). Genuine here, but see verse 6|. {And lo see} (\kai blep“\). That is the overwhelming fact.

rwp@John:9:17 @{Unto the blind man again} (\t“i tuphl“i palin\). The doctors disagree and they ask the patient whose story they had already heard (verse 15|). {In that he opened thine eyes} (\hoti ˆne“ixen sou tous ophthalmous\). Causal use of \hoti\ and triple augment in the first aorist active indicative of \anoig“\. They offer the excuse that the man's experience particularly qualified him to explain the "how," overlooking the fact he had already told his story and also trying to conceal their own hopeless division of opinion. {He is a prophet} (\prophˆtˆs estin\). The man will go that far anyhow.

rwp@John:9:18 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). Probably the incredulous and hostile section of the Pharisees in verse 16| (cf. strkjv@5:10|). {Did not believe} (\ouk episteusan\). The facts told by the man, "that he had been blind and had received his sight" (\hoti ˆn tuphlos kai aneblepsen\), conflicted with their theological views of God and the Sabbath. Songs:they refused belief "until they called the parents" (\he“s hotou eph“nˆsan tous goneis\). Usual construction of \he“s hotou\ ( = until which time, like \he“s\ alone) with aorist active indicative of \ph“ne“\, old verb from \ph“nˆ\ (voice, sound). They called out loud for his parents to throw light on this grave problem to cover up their own stupidity.

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

rwp@John:9:24 @{A second time} (\ek deuterou\). He had given the Pharisees the facts the first time (9:15|). It was really the third time (see \palin\ in strkjv@9:17|). Now it was like a joke unless the Pharisees meant to imply that his previous story was untrue. {Give glory to God} (\dos doxan t“i the“i\). Second aorist active imperative of \did“mi\ (cf. \sches, hes\). This phrase does not mean gratitude to God as in strkjv@Luke:17:18|. It is rather an adjuration to speak the truth (Joshua:7:19; strkjv@1Samuel:6:5|) as if he had not done it before. Augustine says: "_Quid est Daniel:gloriam Deo? Nega quod accepisti._" Is a sinner (\hamart“los estin\). They can no longer deny the fact of the cure since the testimony of the parents (9:19|) and now wish the man to admit that he was lying in saying that Jesus healed him. He must accept their ecclesiastical authority as proving that Jesus had nothing to do with the cure since Jesus is a sinner. They wish to decide the fact by logic and authority like all persecutors through the ages. Recall the Pharisaic distinction between \dikaios\ (righteous) and \hamart“los\ (sinner).

rwp@John:9:25 @{One thing I know} (\hen oida\). This man is keen and quick and refuses to fall into the trap set for him. He passes by their quibbling about Jesus being a "sinner" (\hamart“los\) and clings to the one fact of his own experience. {Whereas I was blind, now I see} (\tuphlos “n arti blep“\). Literally, "Being blind I now see." The present active participle \“n\ of \eimi\ by implication in contrast with \arti\ (just now, at this moment) points to previous and so past time. It must be borne in mind that the man did not at this stage know who Jesus was and so had not yet taken him as Saviour (9:36-38|).

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

rwp@John:9:30 @{Why, herein is the marvel} (\en tout“i gar to thaumaston estin\). This use of \gar\ (\ge + ara\, accordingly indeed) to bring out an affirmation from the previous words is common enough. "Why in this very point is the wonder" (\thaumaston\, old verbal adjective from \thaumaz“\ as in strkjv@Matthew:21:42|). The man is angry now and quick in his insight and reply. You confess your ignorance of whence he is, ye who know everything, "and yet (adversative use of \kai\ again) he opened my eyes" (\kai ˆnoixen mou tous ophthalmous\). That stubborn fact stands.

rwp@John:9:32 @{Since the world began} (\ek tou ai“nos\). Literally, "from the age," "from of old." Elsewhere in the N.T. we have \apo tou ai“nos\ or \ap 'ai“nos\ (Luke:1:70; strkjv@Acts:3:31; strkjv@15:18|) as is common in the LXX. {Of a man born blind} (\tuphlou gegennˆmenou\). Perfect passive participle of \genna“\. This is the chief point and the man will not let it be overlooked, almost rubs it in, in fact. It was congenital blindness.

rwp@John:9:39 @{For judgement} (\eis krima\). The Father had sent the Son for this purpose (3:17|). This world (\kosmos\) is not the home of Jesus. The \krima\ (judgement), a word nowhere else in John, is the result of the \krisis\ (sifting) from \krin“\, to separate. The Father has turned over this process of sifting (\krisis\) to the Son (5:22|). He is engaged in that very work by this miracle. {They which see not} (\hoi mˆ blepontes\). The spiritually blind as well as the physically blind (Luke:4:18; strkjv@Isaiah:42:18|). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive \blep“sin\ (may keep on seeing). This man now sees physically and spiritually. {And that they which see may become blind} (\kai hoi blepontes tuphloi gen“ntai\). Another part of God's purpose, seen in strkjv@Matthew:11:25; strkjv@Luke:10:21|, is the curse on those who blaspheme and reject the Son. Note ingressive aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ and predicate nominative. \Hoi blepontes\ are those who profess to see like these Pharisees, but are really blind. Blind guides they were (Matthew:23:16|). Complacent satisfaction with their dim light.

rwp@John:10:17 @{For this reason} (\dia touto\). Points to the following \hoti\ clause. The Father's love for the Son is drawn out (John:3:16|) by the voluntary offering of the Son for the sin of the world (Romans:5:8|). Hence the greater exaltation (Phillipians:2:9|). Jesus does for us what any good shepherd does (10:11|) as he has already said (10:15|). The value of the atoning death of Christ lies in the fact that he is the Son of God, the Son of Man, free of sin, and that he makes the offering voluntarily (Hebrews:9:14|). {That I may take it again} (\hina palin lab“ autˆn\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \lamban“\. He looked beyond his death on the Cross to the resurrection. "The purpose of the Passion was not merely to exhibit his unselfish love; it was in order that He might resume His life, now enriched with quickening power as never before" (Bernard). The Father raised Jesus from the dead (Acts:2:32|). There is spontaneity in the surrender to death and in the taking life back again (Dods).

rwp@John:10:26 @{Because ye are not of my sheep} (\hoti ek t“n probat“n mou\). This had been the point in the allegory of the Good Shepherd. In fact, they were the children of the devil in spirit and conduct (8:43|), pious ecclesiastics though they seemed, veritable wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew:7:15|).

rwp@John:10:33 @{For a good work we stone thee not} (\peri kalou ergou ou lithazomen\). "Concerning a good deed we are not stoning thee." Flat denial that the healing of the blind man on the Sabbath had led them to this attempt (8:59|) in spite of the facts. {But for blasphemy} (\alla peri blasphˆmias\). See strkjv@Acts:26:7| where \peri\ with the genitive is also used with \egkaloumai\ for the charge against Paul. This is the only example in John of the word \blasphˆmia\ (cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:31|). {And because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God} (\kai hoti su anthr“pos “n poieis seauton theon\). In strkjv@5:18| they stated the charge more accurately: "He called God his own Father, making himself equal with God." That is, he made himself the Son of God. This he did beyond a doubt. But was it blasphemy? Only if he was not the Son of God. The penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Leviticus:24:16; strkjv@1Kings:21:10,13|).

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

rwp@John:11:47 @{Gathered a council} (\sunˆgagon sunedrion\). Second aorist active indicative of \sunag“\ and \sunedrion\, the regular word for the Sanhedrin (Matthew:5:22|, etc.), only here in John. Here a sitting or session of the Sanhedrin. Both chief priests (Sadducees) and Pharisees (mentioned no more in John after strkjv@7:57| save strkjv@12:19,42|) combine in the call (cf. strkjv@7:32|). From now on the chief priests (Sadducees) take the lead in the attacks on Jesus, though loyally supported by their opponents (the Pharisees). {And said} (\kai elegon\). Imperfect active of \leg“\, perhaps inchoative, "began to say." {What do we?} (\Ti poioumen;\). Present active (linear) indicative of \poie“\. Literally, "What are we doing?" {Doeth} (\poiei\). Better, "is doing" (present, linear action). He is active and we are idle. There is no mention of the raising of Lazarus as a fact, but it is evidently inoluded in the "many signs."

rwp@John:11:55 @{Was near} (\ˆn eggus\). See strkjv@2:13| for the same phrase. This last passover was the time of destiny for Jesus. {Before the passover to purify themselves} (\pro tou pascha hina hagnis“sin heautous\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hagniz“\, old verb from \hagnos\ (pure), ceremonial purification here, of course. All this took time. These came "from the country" (\ek tˆs ch“ras\), from all over Palestine, from all parts of the world, in fact. John shifts the scene to Jerusalem just before the passover with no record of the way that Jesus came to Jerusalem from Ephraim. The Synoptic Gospels tell this last journey up through Samaria into Galilee to join the great caravan that crossed over into Perea and came down on the eastern side of the Jordan opposite Jericho and then marched up the mountain road to Bethany and Bethphage just beside Jerusalem. This story is found in strkjv@Luke:17:11-19:28; strkjv@Mark:10:1-52; strkjv@Matthew:19:1-20:34|. John simply assumes the Synoptic narrative and gives the picture of things in and around Jerusalem just before the passover (11:56,57|).

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

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

rwp@John:16:28 @{I came out from the Father} (\exˆlthon ek tou patros\). Definite act (aorist), the Incarnation, with repetition of \ek\ (out of), while in verse 27| we have \para tou patros exˆlthon\) with no practical distinction between \ek\ and \para\ in resultant idea. {Amos:come} (\elˆlutha\). Perfect active indicative of \erchomai\, as in strkjv@18:37|. The Incarnation is now a permanent fact, once only a blessed hope (11:27|). His leaving the world and going to the Father does not set aside the fact of the Incarnation. Both \aphiˆmi\ (I leave) and \poreuomai\ (I go) are futuristic present indicatives.

rwp@John:16:30 @{Now know we} (\nun oidamen\). They had failed to understand the plain words of Jesus about going to the Father heretofore (16:5|), but Jesus read their very thoughts (16:19f.|) and this fact seemed to open their minds to grasp his idea. {Should ask} (\er“tƒi\). Present active subjunctive with \hina\ in original sense of asking a question. {By this} (\en tout“i\). In Christ's supernatural insight into their very hearts. {From God} (\apo theou\). Compare \para tou patros\ (verse 27|) and \ek tou patros\ (verse 28|), \apo, ek, para\ all with the ablative of source or origin.

rwp@John:17:8 @{The words} (\ta rˆmata\). Plural, each word of God, as in strkjv@3:34|, and of Christ (5:47; strkjv@6:63,68|), while the singular (\ton logon sou\) in verses 6,14| views God's message as a whole. {Knew} (\egn“san\). Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\ like \elabon\ in contrast with \egn“kan\ (perfect) in verse 7|. They definitely "received and recognized truly" (\alˆth“s\). There was comfort to Christ in this fact. {They believed} (\episteusan\). Another aorist parallel with \elabon\ and \egn“san\. The disciples believed in Christ's mission from the Father (John:6:69; strkjv@Matthew:16:16|). Note \apesteilas\ here as in verse 3|. Christ is God's {Apostle} to man (Hebrews:3:1|). This statement, like a solemn refrain (\Thou didst send me\), occurs five times in this prayer (verses 8,18,21,23,25|).

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:18:22 @{When he had said this} (\tauta autou eipontos\). Genitive absolute of second aorist active participle of \eipon\, to say. {Standing by} (\parestˆk“s\). Perfect active (intransitive) participle of \paristˆmi\ (transitive), to place beside. One of the temple police who felt his importance as protector of Annas. {Struck Jesus with his hand} (\ed“ken rapisma t“i Iˆsou\). Late word \rapisma\ is from \rapiz“\, to smite with a rod or with the palm of the hand (Matthew:26:67|). It occurs only three times in the N.T. (Mark:14:65; strkjv@John:18:22; strkjv@19:3|), in each of which it is uncertain whether the blow is with a rod or with the palm of the hand (probably this, a most insulting act). The papyri throw no real light on it. "He gave Jesus a slap in the face." Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:11:20|. {So} (\hout“s\). As Jesus had done in verse 21|, a dignified protest in fact by Jesus.

rwp@John:18:28 @{They lead} (\agousin\). Dramatic historical present of \ag“\, plural "they" for the Sanhedrists (Luke:23:1|). John gives no details of the trial before the Sanhedrin (only the fact, strkjv@John:18:24,28|) when Caiaphas presided, either the informal meeting at night (Mark:14:53,55-65; strkjv@Matthew:26:57,59-68; strkjv@Luke:22:54,63-65|) or the formal ratification meeting after dawn (Mark:15:1; strkjv@Matthew:27:1; strkjv@Luke:22:66-71|), but he gives much new material of the trial before Pilate (18:28-38|). {Into the palace} (\eis to prait“rion\). For the history and meaning of this interesting Latin word, _praetorium_, see on ¯Matthew:27:27; strkjv@Acts:23:35; strkjv@Phillipians:1:13|. Here it is probably the magnificent palace in Jerusalem built by Herod the Great for himself and occupied by the Roman Procurator (governor) when in the city. There was also one in Caesarea (Acts:23:35|). Herod's palace in Jerusalem was on the Hill of Zion in the western part of the upper city. There is something to be said for the Castle of Antonia, north of the temple area, as the location of Pilate's residence in Jerusalem. {Early} (\pr“i\). Technically the fourth watch (3 A.M. to 6 A.M.). There were two violations of Jewish legal procedure (holding the trial for a capital case at night, passing condemnation on the same day of the trial). Besides, the Sanhedrin no longer had the power of death. A Roman court could meet any time after sunrise. John (19:14|) says it was "about the sixth hour" when Pilate condemned Jesus. {That they might not be defiled} (\hina mˆ mianth“sin\). Purpose clause with \hina mˆ\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \miain“\, to stain, to defile. For Jewish scruples about entering the house of a Gentile see strkjv@Acts:10:28; strkjv@11:3|. {But might eat the passover} (\alla phag“sin to pascha\). Second aorist active subjunctive of the defective verb \esthi“\, to eat. This phrase may mean to eat the passover meal as in strkjv@Matthew:27:17| (Mark:14:12,14; strkjv@Luke:22:11,15|), but it does not have to mean that. In strkjv@2Chronicles:30:22| we read: "And they did eat the festival seven days" when the paschal festival is meant, not the paschal lamb or the paschal supper. There are eight other examples of \pascha\ in John's Gospel and in all of them the feast is meant, not the supper. If we follow John's use of the word, it is the feast here, not the meal of strkjv@John:13:2| which was the regular passover meal. This interpretation keeps John in harmony with the Synoptics.

rwp@John:18:30 @{If this man were not an evil-doer} (\ei mˆ ˆn houtos kakon poi“n\). Condition (negative) of second class (periphrastic imperfect indicative), assumed to be untrue, with the usual apodosis (\an\ and aorist indicative, first aorist plural with \k\). This is a pious pose of infallibility not in the Synoptics. They then proceeded to make the charges (Luke:23:2|) as indeed John implies (18:31,33|). Some MSS. here read \kakopoios\ (malefactor) as in strkjv@1Peter:2:12,14|, with which compare Luke's \kakourgos\ (23:32f.|; so also strkjv@2Timothy:2:9|), both meaning evil-doer. Here the periphrastic present participle \poi“n\ with \kakon\ emphasizes the idea that Jesus was a habitual evil-doer (Abbott). It was an insolent reply to Pilate (Bernard).

rwp@John:19:18 @{They crucified} (\estaur“san\). The soldiers just as in strkjv@Acts:22:24f.|; the scourging of Paul was to be done by the soldiers. {And Jesus in the midst} (\meson de ton Iˆsoun\). Predicate adjective \meson\. A robber (\lˆistˆs\, not a thief, \kleptˆs\) was on each side of Jesus (Mark:15:27; strkjv@Matthew:27:38|) like Barabbas (John:18:40|) and probably members of his band, malefactors (\kakourgoi\) Luke terms them (Luke:23:32|).

rwp@John:19:34 @{With a spear} (\logchˆi\). Instrumental case of this old word, here only in the N.T. {Pierced his side} (\autou tˆn pleuran enuxen\). First aorist active indicative of \nuss“\, old word to pierce, here only in N.T., and \pleuran\ (side), another old word, occurs in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:20:20,25,27|. {Blood and water} (\haima kai hud“r\). Dr. W. Stroud (_Physical Cause of the Death of Christ_) argues that this fact proves that the spear pierced the left side of Jesus near the heart and that Jesus had died literally of a broken heart since blood was mixed with water.

rwp@John:19:35 @{He that hath seen} (\ho he“rak“s\). Perfect active articular participle of \hora“\. John the Apostle was there and saw this fact (still sees it, in fact). This personal witness disproves the theory of the Docetic Gnostics that Jesus did not have a real human body. {He knoweth} (\ekeinos oiden\). That is John does like strkjv@9:37|. It is possible that \ekeinos\ may be a solemn appeal to God as in strkjv@1:33| or Christ as in strkjv@1John:3:5|. Bernard argues that the final editor is distinguishing the Beloved Disciple from himself and is endorsing him. But the example of Josephus (_War_. III. 7, 16) is against this use of \ekeinos\. John is rather referring to himself as still alive.

rwp@John:20:5 @{Stooping and looking in} (\parakupsas\). Originally to stoop and look, but in the LXX (Genesis:26:8; strkjv@Judges:5:28; strkjv@1Kings:6:4|, etc.) and the papyri rather just to peep in and so Field (_Ot. Norv_.) urges here. See also verse 11; strkjv@Luke:24:12| (the verse bracketed by Westcott and Hort). For \othonia\ (linen cloth) see strkjv@John:19:40|. {Lying} (\keimena\). Present middle participle of \keimai\, predicative accusative. John notices this fact at once. If the body had been removed, these clothes would have gone also. John's timid nature made him pause (yet, \mentoi\, however).

rwp@John:20:9 @{For} (\gar\). Explanatory use of \gar\. {The Scripture} (\tˆn graphˆn\). Probably strkjv@Psalms:16:10|. Jesus had repeatedly foretold his resurrection, but that was all forgotten in the great sorrow on their hearts. Only the chief priests and Pharisees recalled the words of Jesus (Matthew:27:62ff.|). {Must} (\dei\). For this use of \dei\ concerning Christ's death and resurrection see strkjv@Mark:8:31; strkjv@Matthew:26:54; strkjv@Luke:9:22; strkjv@17:25; strkjv@22:37; strkjv@24:7,26,44; strkjv@John:3:14; strkjv@12:34; strkjv@Acts:1:16|. Jesus had put emphasis on both the fact and the necessity of his resurrection which the disciples slowly perceived.

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

rwp@John:20:18 @{And telleth} (\aggellousa\). Present active participle, "announcing." {I have seen the Lord} (\He“raka ton kurion\). Perfect active indicative of \hora“\. She will always carry in her heart that vision (picture) of the Risen Christ. She tells this fact before she delivers Christ's message to the brethren of Christ. {How that}. No word in the Greek, but a conjunction like \h“s\ is implied. \Hoti\ here is recitative. The disciples (brethren) did not believe Mary's story nor that of the other women (Luke:24:11; strkjv@Mark:16:11|). Paul does not mention the vision to Mary or the women in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:5-7|. But Mary Magdalene was the first one to see the Risen Lord.

rwp@Jude:1:9 @{Michael the archangel} (\ho Michael ho archaggelos\). Michael is mentioned also in strkjv@Daniel:10:13,21; strkjv@12:1; strkjv@Revelation:12:7|. \Archaggelos\ in N.T. occurs only here and strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:16|, but in strkjv@Daniel:10:13,20; strkjv@12:1|. {Contending with the devil} (\t“i diabol“i diakrinomenos\). Present middle participle of \diakrin“\, to separate, to strive with as in strkjv@Acts:11:2|. Dative case \diabol“i\. {When he disputed} (\hote dielegeto\). Imperfect middle of \dialegomai\ as in strkjv@Mark:9:34|. {Concerning the body of Moses} (\peri tou M“use“s s“matos\). Some refer this to strkjv@Zechariah:3:1|, others to a rabbinical comment on strkjv@Deuteronomy:34:6|. There is a similar reference to traditions in strkjv@Acts:7:22; strkjv@Galatians:3:19; strkjv@Hebrews:2:2; strkjv@2Timothy:3:8|. But this explanation hardly meets the facts. {Durst not bring} (\ouk etolmˆsen epenegkein\). "Did not dare (first aorist active indicative of \tolma“\), to bring against him" (second aorist active infinitive of \epipher“\). {A railing accusation} (\krisin blasphˆmias\). "Charge of blasphemy" where strkjv@2Peter:2:11| has "\blasphˆmon krisin\." Peter also has \para kuri“i\ (with the Lord), not in Jude. {The Lord rebuke thee} (\epitimˆsai soi kurios\). First aorist active optative of \epitima“\, a wish about the future. These words occur in strkjv@Zechariah:3:1-10| where the angel of the Lord replies to the charges of Satan. Clement of Alex. (_Adumb. in Ep. Judae_) says that Jude:quoted here the _Assumption of Moses_, one of the apocryphal books. Origen says the same thing. Mayor thinks that the author of the _Assumption of Moses_ took these words from Zechariah and put them in the mouth of the Archangel Michael. There is a Latin version of the _Assumption_. Some date it as early as B.C. 2, others after A.D. 44.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION OF PAUL A PHYSICIAN The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his _Medical Language of St. Luke_ proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_ have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his _Style and Literary Method of Luke_ denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke "the beloved physician" (\ho iatros ho agapˆtos\, strkjv@Colossians:4:14|), "my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Acts:28:8-10|) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who "came and were healed (\etherapeuonto\) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing (\iasato\), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician's interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark's apparent discredit of physicians (Mark:5:26|) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luke:8:43|).

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Luke:1:35 @{Shall overshadow thee} (\episkiasei\). A figure of a cloud coming upon her. Common in ancient Greek in the sense of obscuring and with accusative as of Peter's shadow in strkjv@Acts:5:15|. But we have seen it used of the shining bright cloud at the Transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew:17:5; strkjv@Mark:9:7; strkjv@Luke:9:34|). Here it is like the Shekinah glory which suggests it (Exodus:40:38|) where the cloud of glory represents the presence and power of God. {Holy, the Son of God} (\Hagion huios theou\). Here again the absence of the article makes it possible for it to mean "Son of God." See strkjv@Matthew:5:9|. But this title, like the Son of Man (\Hosea:huios tou anthr“pou\) was a recognized designation of the Messiah. Jesus did not often call himself Son of God (Matthew:27:43|), but it is assumed in his frequent use of the Father, the Son (Matthew:11:27; strkjv@Luke:10:21; strkjv@John:5:19ff.|). It is the title used by the Father at the baptism (Luke:3:22|) and on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke:9:35|). The wonder of Mary would increase at these words. The Miraculous Conception or Virgin Birth of Jesus is thus plainly set forth in Luke as in Matthew. The fact that Luke was a physician gives added interest to his report.

rwp@Luke:2:2 @{The first enrolment} (\apographˆ pr“tˆ\). A definite allusion by Luke to a series of censuses instituted by Augustus, the second of which is mentioned by him in strkjv@Acts:5:37|. This second one is described by Josephus and it was supposed by some that Luke confused the two. But Ramsay has shown that a periodical fourteen-year census in Egypt is given in dated papyri back to A.D. 20. The one in strkjv@Acts:5:37| would then be A.D. 6. This is in the time of Augustus. The first would then be B.C. 8 in Egypt. If it was delayed a couple of years in Palestine by Herod the Great for obvious reasons, that would make the birth of Christ about B.C. 6 which agrees with the other known data {When Quirinius} (\Kurˆniou\). Genitive absolute. Here again Luke has been attacked on the ground that Quirinius was only governor of Syria once and that was A.D. 6 as shown by Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. I.I). But Ramsay has proven by inscriptions that Quirinius was twice in Syria and that Luke is correct here also. See summary of the facts in my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, pp. 118-29.

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\, the correct text. But it makes perfectly good sense and better sense. As a matter of fact real peace on earth exists only among those who are the subjects of God's goodwill, who are characterized by goodwill toward God and man. This word \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:2:19 @{Kept} (\sunetˆrei\). Imperfect active. She kept on keeping together (\sun-\) all these things. They were meat and drink to her. She was not astonished, but filled with holy awe. The verb occurs from Aristotle on. She could not forget. But did not Mary keep also a Baby Book? And may not Luke have seen it? {Pondering} (\sunballousa\). An old Greek word. Placing together for comparison. Mary would go over each detail in the words of Gabriel and of the shepherds and compare the sayings with the facts so far developed and brood over it all with a mother's high hopes and joy.

rwp@Luke:3:22 @{Descended} (\katabˆnai\). Same construction as the preceding infinitive. {The Holy Ghost} (\to pneuma to hagion\). The Holy Spirit. strkjv@Mark:1:10| has merely the Spirit (\to pneuma\) while strkjv@Matthew:3:16| has the Spirit of God (\pneuma theou\). {In a bodily form} (\s“matik“i eidei\). Alone in Luke who has also "as a dove" (\h“s peristeran\) like Matthew and Mark. This probably means that the Baptist saw the vision that looked like a dove. Nothing is gained by denying the fact or possibility of the vision that looked like a dove. God manifests his power as he will. The symbolism of the dove for the Holy Spirit is intelligible. We are not to understand that this was the beginning of the Incarnation of Christ as the Cerinthian Gnostics held. But this fresh influx of the Holy Spirit may have deepened the Messianic consciousness of Jesus and certainly revealed him to the Baptist as God's Son. {And a voice came out of heaven} (\kai ph“nˆn ex ouranou genesthai\). Same construction of infinitive with accusative of general reference. The voice of the Father to the Son is given here as in strkjv@Mark:1:11|, which see, and strkjv@Matthew:3:17| for discussion of the variation there. The Trinity here manifest themselves at the baptism of Jesus which constitutes the formal entrance of Jesus upon his Messianic ministry. He enters upon it with the Father's blessing and approval and with the power of the Holy Spirit upon him. The deity of Christ here appears in plain form in the Synoptic Gospels. The consciousness of Christ is as clear on this point here as in the Gospel of John where the Baptist describes him after his baptism as the Son of God (John:1:34|).

rwp@Luke:4:2 @{Being tempted} (\peirazomenos\). Present passive participle and naturally parallel with the imperfect passive \ˆgeto\ (was led) in verse 1|. This is another instance of poor verse division which should have come at the end of the sentence. See on ¯Matthew:4:1; strkjv@Mark:1:13| for the words "tempt" and "devil." The devil challenged the Son of man though also the Son of God. It was a contest between Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, and the slanderer of men. The devil had won with Adam and Eve. He has hopes of triumph over Jesus. The story of this conflict is given only in strkjv@Matthew:4:1-11; strkjv@Luke:4:1-13|. There is a mere mention of it in strkjv@Mark:1:12f|. Songs:then here is a specimen of the Logia of Jesus (Q), a non-Markan portion of Matthew and Luke, the earliest document about Christ. The narrative could come ultimately only from Christ himself. It is noteworthy that it bears all the marks of the high conception of Jesus as the Son of God found in the Gospel of John and in Paul and Hebrews, the rest of the New Testament in fact, for Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Peter, and Jude:follow in this same strain. The point is that modern criticism has revealed the Messianic consciousness of Jesus as God's Son at his Baptism and in his Temptations at the very beginning of his ministry and in the oldest known documents about Christ (The Logia, Mark's Gospel). {He did eat nothing} (\ouk ephagen ouden\). Second aorist (constative) active indicative of the defective verb \esthi“\. Mark does not give the fast. strkjv@Matthew:4:2| has the aorist active participle \nˆsteusas\ which usually means a religious fast for purposes of devotion. That idea is not excluded by Luke's words. The entrance of Jesus upon his Messianic ministry was a fit time for this solemn and intense consecration. This mental and spiritual strain would naturally take away the appetite and there was probably nothing at hand to eat. The weakness from the absence of food gave the devil his special opportunity to tempt Jesus which he promptly seized. {When they were completed} (\suntelestheis“n aut“n\). Genitive absolute with the first aorist passive participle feminine plural because \hemer“n\ (days) is feminine. According to Luke the hunger (\epeinasen\, became hungry, ingressive aorist active indicative) came at the close of the forty days as in strkjv@Matthew:4:2|.

rwp@Luke:4:5 @{The world} (\tˆs oikoumenˆs\). The inhabited world. In strkjv@Matthew:4:8| it is \tou kosmou\. {In a moment of time} (\en stigmˆi chronou\). Only in Luke and the word \stigmˆ\ nowhere else in the N.T. (from \stiz“\, to prick, or puncture), a point or dot. In Demosthenes, Aristotle, Plutarch. Like our "second" of time or tick of the clock. This panorama of all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them in a moment of time was mental, a great feat of the imagination (a mental satanic "movie" performance), but this fact in no way discredits the idea of the actual visible appearance of Satan also. This second temptation in Luke is the third in Matthew's order. Luke's order is geographical (wilderness, mountain, Jerusalem). Matthew's is climacteric (hunger, nervous dread, ambition). There is a climax in Luke's order also (sense, man, God). There is no way to tell the actual order.

rwp@Luke:4:16 @{Where he had been brought up} (\hou ˆn tethrammenos\). Past perfect passive periphrastic indicative, a state of completion in past time, from \treph“\, a common Greek verb. This visit is before that recorded in strkjv@Mark:6:1-6; strkjv@Matthew:13:54-58| which was just before the third tour of Galilee. Here Jesus comes back after a year of public ministry elsewhere and with a wide reputation (Luke:4:15|). Luke may have in mind strkjv@2:51|, but for some time now Nazareth had not been his home and that fact may be implied by the past perfect tense. {As his custom was} (\kata to ei“thos aut“i\). Second perfect active neuter singular participle of an old \eth“\ (Homer), to be accustomed. Literally according to what was customary to him (\aut“i\, dative case). This is one of the flashlights on the early life of Jesus. He had the habit of going to public worship in the synagogue as a boy, a habit that he kept up when a grown man. If the child does not form the habit of going to church, the man is almost certain not to have it. We have already had in Matthew and Mark frequent instances of the word synagogue which played such a large part in Jewish life after the restoration from Babylon. {Stood up} (\anestˆ\). Second aorist active indicative and intransitive. Very common verb. It was the custom for the reader to stand except when the Book of Esther was read at the feast of Purim when he might sit. It is not here stated that Jesus had been in the habit of standing up to read here or elsewhere. It was his habit to go to the synagogue for worship. Since he entered upon his Messianic work his habit was to teach in the synagogues (Luke:4:15|). This was apparently the first time that he had done so in Nazareth. He may have been asked to read as Paul was in Antioch in Pisidia (Acts:13:15|). The ruler of the synagogue for that day may have invited Jesus to read and speak because of his now great reputation as a teacher. Jesus could have stood up voluntarily and appropriately because of his interest in his home town. {To read} (\anagn“nai\). Second aorist active infinitive of \anagin“sk“\, to recognize again the written characters and so to read and then to read aloud. It appears first in Pindar in the sense of read and always so in the N.T. This public reading aloud with occasional comments may explain the parenthesis in strkjv@Matthew:24:15| (Let him that readeth understand).

rwp@Luke:4:19 @{The acceptable year of the Lord} (\eniauton Kuriou dekton\). He does not mean that his ministry is to be only one year in length as Clement of Alexandria and Origen argued. That is to turn figures into fact. The Messianic age has come, Jesus means to say. On the first day of the year of Jubilee the priests with sound of trumpet proclaimed the blessings of that year (Leviticus:25:8-17|). This great passage justly pictures Christ's conception of his mission and message.

rwp@Luke:4:22 @{Bare him witness} (\emarturoun\). Imperfect active, perhaps inchoative. They all began to bear witness that the rumours were not exaggerations (4:14|) as they had supposed, but had foundation in fact if this discourse or its start was a fair sample of his teaching. The verb \marture“\ is a very old and common one. It is frequent in Acts, Paul's Epistles, and the Johannine books. The substantive \martur\ is seen in our English \martyr\, one who witnesses even by his death to his faith in Christ. {And wondered} (\kai ethaumazon\). Imperfect active also, perhaps inchoative also. They began to marvel as he proceeded with his address. This verb is an old one and common in the Gospels for the attitude of the people towards Jesus. {At the words of grace} (\epi tois logois tˆs charitos\). See on ¯Luke:1:30; strkjv@2:52| for this wonderful word \charis\ so full of meaning and so often in the N.T. The genitive case (case of genus or kind) here means that the words that came out of the mouth of Jesus in a steady stream (present tense, \ekporeuomenois\) were marked by fascination and charm. They were "winning words" as the context makes plain, though they were also "gracious" in the Pauline sense of "grace." There is no necessary antithesis in the ideas of graceful and gracious in these words of Jesus. {Is not this Joseph's son?} (\Ouchi huios estin I“sˆph houtos;\). Witness and wonder gave way to bewilderment as they began to explain to themselves the situation. The use of \ouchi\ intensive form of \ouk\ in a question expects the answer "yes." Jesus passed in Nazareth as the son of Joseph as Luke presents him in strkjv@3:23|. He does not stop here to correct this misconception because the truth has been already amply presented in strkjv@1:28-38; strkjv@2:49|. This popular conception of Jesus as the son of Joseph appears also in strkjv@John:1:45|. The puzzle of the people was due to their previous knowledge of Jesus as the carpenter (Mark:6:3|; the carpenter's son, strkjv@Matthew:13:55|). For him now to appear as the Messiah in Nazareth where he had lived and laboured as the carpenter was a phenomenon impossible to credit on sober reflection. Songs:the mood of wonder and praise quickly turned with whispers and nods and even scowls to doubt and hostility, a rapid and radical transformation of emotion in the audience.

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:7:38 @{Standing behind at his feet} (\stƒsa opis“ para tous podas autou\). Second aorist active participle from \histˆmi\ and intransitive, first aorist \estˆsa\ being transitive. The guest removed his sandals before the meal and he reclined on the left side with the feet outward. She was standing beside (\para\) his feet {weeping} (\klaiousa\). She was drawn irresistibly by gratitude to Jesus and is overcome with emotion before she can use the ointment; her tears (\tois dakrusin\, instrumental case of \dakru\) take the place of the ointment. {Wiped them with the hair of her head} (\tais thrixin tˆs kephalˆs autˆs exemassen\). Inchoative imperfect of an old verb \ekmass“\, to rub out or off, began to wipe off, an act of impulse evidently and of embarrassment. "Among the Jews it was a shameful thing for a woman to let down her hair in public; but she makes this sacrifice" (Plummer). Songs:Mary of Bethany wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair (John:12:3|) with a similar sacrifice out of her great love for Jesus. This fact is relied on by some to prove that Mary of Bethany had been a woman of bad character, surely an utter failure to recognize Mary's motive and act. {Kissed} (\katephilei\). Imperfect active of \kataphile“\, to kiss repeatedly (force of \kata\), and accented by the tense of continued action here. The word in the N.T. occurs here, of the prodigal's father (15:20|), of the kiss of Judas (Mark:14:45; strkjv@Matthew:26:49|), of the Ephesian elders (Acts:20:37|). " Kissing the feet was a common mark of deep reverence, especially to leading rabbis" (Plummer). {Anointed them with the ointment} (\ˆleiphen t“i mur“i\). Imperfect active again of \aleiph“\, a very common verb. \Chri“\ has a more religious sense. The anointing came after the burst of emotional excitement.

rwp@Luke:7:39 @{This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous, this fellow. {If he were a (the) prophet} (\ei ˆn [ho] prophˆtˆs\). Condition of the second class, determined as unfulfilled. The Pharisee assumes that Jesus is not a prophet (or the prophet, reading of B, that he claims to be). A Greek condition puts the thing from the standpoint of the speaker or writer. It does not deal with the actual facts, but only with the statement about the facts. {Would have perceived} (\egin“sken an\). Wrong translation, would now perceive or know (which he assumes that Jesus does not do). The protasis is false and the conclusion also. He is wrong in both. The conclusion (apodosis), like the condition, deals here with the present situation and so both use the imperfect indicative (\an\ in the conclusion, a mere device for making it plain that it is not a condition of the first class). {Who and what manner of woman} (\tis kai potapˆ hˆ gunˆ\). She was notorious in person and character.

rwp@Luke:8:2 @{Which had been healed} (\hai ˆsan tetherapeumenai\). Periphrastic past perfect passive, suggesting that the healing had taken place some time before this tour. These women all had personal grounds of gratitude to Jesus. {From whom seven devils (demons) had gone out} (\aph' hˆs daimonia hepta exelˆluthei\). Past perfect active third singular for the \daimonia\ are neuter plural. This first mention of Mary Magdalene describes her special cause of gratitude. This fact is stated also in strkjv@Mark:16:9| in the disputed close of the Gospel. The presence of seven demons in one person indicates special malignity (Mark:5:9|). See strkjv@Matthew:17:45| for the parable of the demon who came back with seven other demons worse than the first. It is not known where Magdala was, whence Mary came.

rwp@Luke:8:3 @{Joanna} (\I“ana\). Her husband \Chuzƒ\, steward (\epitropou\) of Herod, is held by some to be the nobleman (\basilikos\) of strkjv@John:4:46-53| who believed and all his house. At any rate Christ had a follower from the household of Herod Antipas who had such curiosity to see and hear him. One may recall also Manaen (Acts:13:1|), Herod's foster brother. Joanna is mentioned again with Mary Magdalene in strkjv@Luke:24:10|. {Who ministered unto them} (\haitines diˆkonoun autois\). Imperfect active of \diakone“\, common verb, but note augment as if from \dia\ and \akone“\, but from \diakonos\ and that from \dia\ and \konis\ (dust). The very fact that Jesus now had twelve men going with him called for help from others and the women of means responded to the demand. {Of their substance} (\ek t“n huparchont“n autais\). From the things belonging to them. This is the first woman's missionary society for the support of missionaries of the Gospel. They had difficulties in their way, but they overcame these, so great was their gratitude and zeal.

rwp@Luke:9:60 @{Leave the dead to bury their own dead} (\aphes tous nekrous thapsai tous heaut“n nekrous\). This paradox occurs so in strkjv@Matthew:8:22|. The explanation is that the spiritually dead can bury the literally dead. For such a quick change in the use of the same words see strkjv@John:5:21-29| (spiritual resurrection from sin in strkjv@John:5:21-27|, bodily resurrection from the grave, strkjv@John:5:28,29|) and strkjv@John:11:25f|. The harshness of this proverb to the scribe probably is due to the fact that he was manifestly using his aged father as an excuse for not giving Christ active service. {But go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God} (\su de apelth“n diaggelle tˆn basileian tou theou\). The scribe's duty is put sharply (\But do thou, su de\). Christ called him to preach, and he was using pious phrases about his father as a pretext. Many a preacher has had to face a similar delicate problem of duty to father, mother, brothers, sisters and the call to preach. This was a clear case. Jesus will help any man called to preach to see his duty. Certainly Jesus does not advocate renunciation of family duties on the part of preachers.

rwp@Luke:10:26 @{How readest thou?} (\p“s anagin“skeis;\). As a lawyer it was his business to know the facts in the law and the proper interpretation of the law. See on ¯Luke:7:30| about \nomikos\ (lawyer). The rabbis had a formula, "What readest thou?"

rwp@Luke:11:15 @{Dumb} (\k“phon\). See on ¯Matthew:9:32|. {By Beelzebub} (\en Beezeboul\). Blasphemous accusation here in Judea as in Galilee (Mark:3:22; strkjv@Matthew:12:24,27|). See on Matthew for discussion of the form of this name and the various items in the sin against the Holy Spirit involved in the charge. It was useless to deny the fact of the miracles. Songs:they were explained as wrought by Satan himself, a most absurd explanation.

rwp@Luke:11:19 @{And if I by Beelzebub} (\ei de eg“ en Beezeboul\). Also a condition of the first class, determined as fulfilled. A Greek condition deals only with the _statement_, not with the actual facts. For sake of argument, Jesus here assumes that he casts out demons by Beelzebub. The conclusion is a _reductio ad absurdum_. The Jewish exorcists practiced incantations against demons (Acts:19:13|).

rwp@Luke:13:2 @{Sinners above all} (\hamart“loi para pantas\). \Para\ means "beside," placed beside all the Galileans, and so beyond or above (with the accusative). {Have suffered} (\peponthasin\). Second perfect active indicative third plural from \pasch“\, common verb, to experience, suffer. The tense notes that it is "an irrevocable fact" (Bruce).

rwp@Luke:13:7 @{The vinedresser} (\ton ampelourgon\). Old word, but here only in the N.T., from \ampelos\, vine, and \ergon\, work. {These three years I come} (\tria etˆ aph' hou erchomai\). Literally, "three years since (from which time) I come." These three years, of course, have nothing to do with the three years of Christ's public ministry. The three years are counted from the time when the fig tree would normally be expected to bear, not from the time of planting. The Jewish nation is meant by this parable of the barren fig tree. In the withering of the barren fig tree later at Jerusalem we see parable changed to object lesson or fact (Mark:11:12-14; strkjv@Matthew:21:18f.|). {Cut it down} (\ekkopson\). "Cut it out," the Greek has it, out of the vineyard, perfective use of \ek\ with the effective aorist active imperative of \kopt“\, where we prefer "down." {Why?} (\hina ti\). Ellipsis here of \genˆtai\ of which \ti\ is subject (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 739,916). {Also} (\kai\). Besides bearing no fruit. {Doth cumber the ground} (\tˆn gˆn katargei\). Makes the ground completely idle, of no use (\kata, arge“\, from \argos\, \a\ privative and \ergon\, work). Late verb, here only in the N.T. except in Paul's Epistles.

rwp@Luke:15:17 @{But when he came to himself} (\eis heauton de elth“n\). As if he had been far from himself as he was from home. As a matter of fact he had been away, out of his head, and now began to see things as they really were. Plato is quoted by Ackerman (_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:15:19 @{No longer worthy} (\ouketi axios\). Confession of the facts. He sees his own pitiful plight and is humble. {As one} (\h“s hena\). The hired servants in his father's house are high above him now.

rwp@Luke:16:9 @{By the mammon of unrighteousness} (\ek tou mam“nƒ tˆs adikias\). By the use of what is so often evil (money). In strkjv@Matthew:6:24| mammon is set over against God as in strkjv@Luke:16:13| below. Jesus knows the evil power in money, but servants of God have to use it for the kingdom of God. They should use it discreetly and it is proper to make friends by the use of it. {When it shall fail} (\hotan eklipˆi\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \hotan\, future time. The mammon is sure to fail. {That they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles} (\hina dex“ntai humas eis tas ai“nious skˆnas\). This is the purpose of Christ in giving the advice about their making friends by the use of money. The purpose is that those who have been blessed and helped by the money may give a welcome to their benefactors when they reach heaven. There is no thought here of purchasing an entrance into heaven by the use of money. That idea is wholly foreign to the context. These friends will give a hearty welcome when one gives him mammon here. The wise way to lay up treasure in heaven is to use one's money for God here on earth. That will give a cash account there of joyful welcome, not of purchased entrance.

rwp@Luke:16:22 @{Was borne} (\apenechthˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive from \apopher“\, a common compound defective verb. The accusative case of general reference (\auton\) is common with the infinitive in such clauses after \egeneto\, like indirect discourse. It is his soul, of course, that was so borne by the angels, not his body. {Into Abraham's bosom} (\eis ton holpon Abraam\). To be in Abraham's bosom is to the Jew to be in Paradise. In strkjv@John:1:18| the Logos is in the bosom of the Father. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in heaven and welcome those who come (Matthew:8:11|; 4Macc. strkjv@14:17). The beloved disciple reclined on the bosom of Jesus at the last passover (John:13:23|) and this fact indicates special favour. Songs:the welcome to Lazarus was unusual. {Was buried} (\etaphˆ\). Second aorist (effective) passive of the common verb \thapt“\. Apparently in contrast with the angelic visitation to the beggar.

rwp@Luke:16:31 @{Neither will they be persuaded} (\oud' peisthˆsontai\). First future passive of \peith“\. Gressmann calls attention to the fact that Jesus is saying this in the conclusion of the parable. It is a sharp discouragement against efforts today to communicate with the dead. "Saul was not led to repentance when he saw Samuel at Endor nor were the Pharisees when they saw Lazarus come forth from the tomb. The Pharisees tried to put Lazarus to death and to explain away the resurrection of Jesus" (Plummer). Alford comments on the curious fact that Lazarus was the name of the one who did rise from the dead but whose return from the dead "was the immediate exciting cause of their (Pharisees) crowning act of unbelief."

rwp@Luke:17:10 @{Unprofitable} (\achreioi\). The Syriac Sinaitic omits "unprofitable." The word is common in Greek literature, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:25:30| where it means "useless" (\a\ privative and \chreios\ from \chraomai\, to use). The slave who only does what he is commanded by his master to do has gained no merit or credit. "In point of fact it is not commands, but demands we have to deal with, arising out of special emergencies" (Bruce). The slavish spirit gains no promotion in business life or in the kingdom of God.

rwp@Luke:18:10 @{Stood} (\statheis\). First aorist passive participle of \histˆmi\. Struck an attitude ostentatiously where he could be seen. Standing was the common Jewish posture in prayer (Matthew:6:5; strkjv@Mark:11:25|). {Prayed thus} (\tauta prosˆucheto\). Imperfect middle, was praying these things (given following). {With himself} (\pros heauton\). A soliloquy with his own soul, a complacent recital of his own virtues for his own self-satisfaction, not fellowship with God, though he addresses God. {I thank thee} (\eucharist“ soi\). But his gratitude to God is for his own virtues, not for God's mercies to him. One of the rabbis offers a prayer like this of gratitude that he was in a class by himself because he was a Jew and not a Gentile, because he was a Pharisee and not of the _am-haaretz_ or common people, because he was a man and not a woman. {Extortioners} (\harpages\). An old word, \harpax\ from same root as \harpaz“\, to plunder. An adjective of only one gender, used of robbers and plunderers, grafters, like the publicans (Luke:3:13|), whether wolves (Matthew:7:15|) or men (1Corinthians:5:19f.|). The Pharisee cites the crimes of which he is not guilty. {Or even} (\ˆ kai\). As the climax of iniquity (Bruce), he points to "this publican." Zaccheus will admit robbery (Luke:19:8|). {God} (\ho theos\). Nominative form with the article as common with the vocative use of \theos\ (so verse 13; strkjv@John:20:28|).

rwp@Luke:19:30 @{Whereon no man ever yet sat} (\eph' hon oudeis p“pote anthr“p“n ekathisen\). Plummer holds that this fact indicated to the disciples a royal progress into the city of a piece with the Virgin Birth of Jesus and the burial in a new tomb.

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

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

rwp@Luke:22:22 @{As it hath been determined} (\kata to h“rismenon\). Perfect passive participle of \horiz“\, to limit or define, mark off the border, our "horizon." But this fact does not absolve Judas of his guilt as the "woe" here makes plain.

rwp@Luke:22:25 @{Have lordship over} (\kurieuousin\). From \kurios\. Common verb, to lord it over. {Benefactors} (\euergetai\). From \eu\ and \ergon\. Doer of good. Old word. Here only in the N.T. Latin Benefactor is exact equivalent.

rwp@Luke:23:19 @{Insurrection} (\stasin\). An old word for sedition, standing off, the very charge made against Jesus (and untrue). If Jesus had raised insurrection against Caesar, these accusers would have rallied to his standard. {And for murder} (\kai phonon\). They cared nought for this. In fact, the murderer was counted a hero like bandits and gangsters today with some sentimentalists. {Was cast} (\ˆn blˆtheis\). Periphrastic aorist passive indicative of \ball“\, a quite unusual form.

rwp@Luke:23:32 @{Were led} (ˆgonto). Imperfect passive of \ag“\, were being led. {Malefactors} (\kakourgoi\). Evil (\kakon\), doers (work, \ergon\). Old word, but in the N.T. only in this passage (32,33,39|) and strkjv@2Timothy:2:9|. Luke does not call them "robbers" like strkjv@Mark:15:27; strkjv@Matthew:27:38,44|. {To be put to death} (\anairethˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \anaire“\, old verb, to take up, to take away, to kill.

rwp@Luke:23:55 @{Had come with him} (\ˆsan sunelˆluthuiai\). Periphrastic past perfect active of \sunerchomai\. {Followed after} (\katakolouthˆsasai\). Aorist active participle of \katakolouthe“\, an old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:16:17|. It is possible that they followed after Joseph and Nicodemus so that they "beheld the tomb," (\etheasanto to mnˆmeion\), and also "how his body was laid" (\h“s etethˆ to s“ma autou\). First aorist passive indicative of \tithˆmi\. They may in fact, have witnessed the silent burial from a distance. The Syriac Sinaitic and the Syriac Curetonian give it thus: "and the women, who came with Him from Galilee went to the sepulchre in their footsteps, and saw the body when they had brought it in there." At any rate the women saw "that" and "how" the body of Jesus was laid in this new tomb of Joseph in the rocks.

rwp@Luke:24:6 @{He is not here, but is risen} (\ouk estin h“de, alla ˆgerthˆ\). Another Western non-interpolation according to Westcott and Hort. The words are genuine at any rate in strkjv@Mark:16:6; strkjv@Matthew:28:7|. {The third day rise again} (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi anastˆnai\). See strkjv@9:22; strkjv@18:32,33| where Jesus plainly foretold this fact. And yet they had forgotten it, for it ran counter to all their ideas and hopes.

rwp@Info_Mark @ This Gospel is the briefest of the four, but is fullest of striking details that apparently came from Peter's discourses which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds (Mark:6:38|), two thousand hogs (Mark:5:13|), looking round about (Mark:3:5,34|). Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases than the others, like _Boanerges_ (Mark:3:17|), _Talitha cumi_ (Mark:5:41|), _Korban_ (Mark:7:11|), _Ephphatha_ (Mark:7:34|), _Abba_ (Mark:14:36|). The Greek is distinctly vernacular _Koin‚_ like one-eyed (\monophthalmon\, strkjv@Mark:9:47|) as one would expect from both Peter and Mark. There are also more Latin phrases and idioms like _centurio_ (Mark:15:39|), _quadrans_ (Mark:12:42|), _flagellare_ (Mark:15:15|), _speculator_ (Mark:6:27|), _census_ (Mark:12:14|), _sextarius_ (Mark:7:4|), _praetorium_ (Mark:15:6|), than in the other Gospels, so much so that C. H. Turner raises the question whether Mark wrote first in Latin, or at any rate in Rome. There are some who hold that Mark wrote first in Aramaic, but the facts are sufficiently accounted for by the fact of Peter's preaching and the activity in Rome. Some even think that he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and read the manuscript. B.W. Bacon holds that this Gospel has a distinct Pauline flavour and may have had several recensions. The Ur-Marcus theory does not have strong support now. Mark was once a co-worker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga. Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work. When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced and commends him heartily to the Colossians (Colossians:4:10|) In the end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along with him to Paul in Rome, for he has found him useful for ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul would have no more of him. This tribute to Mark by Paul throws credit upon both of them as is shown in my _Making Good in the Ministry_. The character of the Gospel of Mark is determined largely by the scope of Peter's preaching as we see it in strkjv@Acts:10:36-42|, covering the period in outline from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing about the birth of the Baptist or of Jesus. This peculiarity of Mark's Gospel cannot be used against the narratives of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, since Mark tells nothing whatever about his birth at all.

rwp@Mark:1:14 @{Jesus came into Galilee} (\ˆlthen ho Iˆsous eis tˆn Galilaian\). Here Mark begins the narrative of the active ministry of Jesus and he is followed by Matthew and Luke. Mark undoubtedly follows the preaching of Peter. But for the Fourth Gospel we should not know of the year of work in various parts of the land (Perea, Galilee, Judea, Samaria) preceding the Galilean ministry. John supplements the Synoptic Gospels at this point as often. The arrest of John had much to do with the departure of Jesus from Judea to Galilee (John:4:1-4|). {Preaching the gospel of God} (\kˆruss“n to euaggelion tou theou\). It is the subjective genitive, the gospel that comes from God. Swete observes that repentance (\metanoia\) is the keynote in the message of the Baptist as gospel (\euaggelion\) is with Jesus. But Jesus took the same line as John and proclaimed both repentance and the arrival of the kingdom of God. Mark adds to Matthew's report the words "the time is fulfilled" (\peplˆr“tai ho kairos\). It is a significant fact that John looks backward to the promise of the coming of the Messiah and signalizes the fulfilment as near at hand (perfect passive indicative). It is like Paul's fulness of time (\plˆr“ma tou chronou\) in strkjv@Galatians:4:4| and fulness of the times (\plˆr“ma ton kair“n\) in strkjv@Ephesians:1:10| when he employs the word \kairos\, opportunity or crisis as here in Mark rather than the more general term \chronos\. Mark adds here also: "and believe in the gospel" (\kai pisteuete en t“i euaggeli“i\). Both repent and believe in the gospel. Usually faith in Jesus (or God) is expected as in John strkjv@14:1|. But this crisis called for faith in the message of Jesus that the Messiah had come. He did not use here the term Messiah, for it had come to have political connotations that made its use at present unwise. But the kingdom of God had arrived with the presence of the King. It does make a difference what one believes. Belief or disbelief in the message of Jesus made a sharp cleavage in those who heard him. "Faith in the message was the first step; a creed of some kind lies at the basis of confidence in the Person of Christ, and the occurrence of the phrase \pistuete en t“i euaggeli“i\ in the oldest record of the teaching of our Lord is a valuable witness to this fact" (Swete).

rwp@Mark:1:26 @{Tearing him} (\sparaxan auton\). Margin, {convulsing him} like a spasm. Medical writers use the word for the rotating of the stomach. strkjv@Luke:4:35| adds "when the demon had thrown him down in the midst." Mark mentions the "loud voice" (\phonˆi megalˆi\), a screech, in fact. It was a moment of intense excitement.

rwp@Mark:1:27 @{They questioned among themselves} (\sunzˆtein autous\). By look and word. {A new teaching} (\didachˆ kainˆ\). One surprise had followed another this day. The teaching was fresh (\kainˆ\), original as the dew of the morning on the blossoms just blown. That was a novelty in that synagogue where only staid and stilted rabbinical rules had been heretofore droned out. This new teaching charmed the people, but soon will be rated as heresy by the rabbis. And it was with authority (\kat' exousian\). It is not certain whether the phrase is to be taken with "new teaching," "It's new teaching with authority behind it," as Moffatt has it, or with the verb; "with authority commandeth even the unclean spirits" (\kai tois pneumasin tois akathartois epitassei\). The position is equivocal and may be due to the fact that "Mark gives the incoherent and excited remarks of the crowd in this natural form" (Swete). But the most astonishing thing of all is that the demons "obey him" (\hupakouousin aut“i\). The people were accustomed to the use of magical formulae by the Jewish exorcists (Matthew:12:27; strkjv@Acts:19:13|), but here was something utterly different. Simon Magus could not understand how Simon Peter could do his miracles without some secret trick and even offered to buy it (Acts:8:19|).

rwp@Mark:2:10 @{That ye may know} (\hina eidˆte\). The scribes could have said either of the alternatives in verse 9| with equal futility. Jesus could say either with equal effectiveness. In fact Jesus chose the harder first, the forgiveness which they could not see. Songs:he now performs the miracle of healing which all could see, that all could know that (the Son of Man, Christ's favourite designation of himself, a claim to be the Messiah in terms that could not be easily attacked) he really had the authority and power (\exousian\) to forgive sins. He has the right and power here on earth to forgive sins, here and now without waiting for the day of judgment. {He saith to the sick of the palsy} (\legei\). This remarkable parenthesis in the middle of the sentence occurs also in strkjv@Matthew:9:6| and strkjv@Luke:5:24|, proof that both Matthew and Luke followed Mark's narrative. It is inconceivable that all three writers should independently have injected the same parenthesis at the same place.

rwp@Mark:2:17 @{The righteous} (\dikaious\). Jesus for the sake of argument accepts the claim of the Pharisees to be righteous, though, as a matter of fact, they fell very far short of it. Elsewhere (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:3:21 @{His friends} (\hoi par' autou\). The phrase means literally "those from the side of him (Jesus)." It could mean another circle of disciples who had just arrived and who knew of the crowds and strain of the Galilean ministry who now come at this special juncture. But the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX. The fact that in verse 31| "his mother and his brothers" are expressly mentioned would indicate that they are "the friends" alluded to in verse 21|. It is a mournful spectacle to think of the mother and brothers saying, {He is beside himself} (\exestˆ\). Second aorist active indicative intransitive. The same charge was brought against Paul (Acts:26:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:13|). We say that one is out of his head. Certainly Mary did not believe that Jesus was in the power of Beelzebub as the rabbis said already. The scribes from Jerusalem are trying to discount the power and prestige of Jesus (3:22|). See on ¯Matthew:9:32-34; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@12:24| for Beelzebub and Beelzebul. Mary probably felt that Jesus was overwrought and wished to take him home out of the excitement and strain that he might get rest and proper food. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_. The brothers did not as yet believe the pretensions and claims of Jesus (John:7:5|). Herod Antipas will later consider Jesus as John the Baptist _redivivus_, the scribes treat him as under demonic possession, even the family and friends fear a disordered mind as a result of overstrain. It was a crucial moment for Jesus. His family or friends came to take him home, to lay hold of him (\kratˆsai\), forcibly if need be.

rwp@Mark:4:28 @{Of herself} (\automatˆ\). Automatically, we say. The secret of growth is in the seed, not in the soil nor in the weather nor in the cultivating. These all help, but the seed spontaneously works according to its own nature. The word \automatˆ\ is from \autos\ (self) and \memaa\ desire eagerly from obsolete \ma“\. Common word in all Greek history. Only one other example in N.T., in strkjv@Acts:12:10| when the city gate opens to Peter of its own accord. "The mind is adapted to the truth, as the eye to the light" (Gould). Songs:we sow the seed, God's kingdom truth, and the soil (the soul) is ready for the seed. The Holy Spirit works on the heart and uses the seed sown and makes it germinate and grow, "first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear" (\pr“ton chorton, eiten stachun, eiten plˆrˆ siton en t“i stachui\). This is the law and order of nature and also of grace in the kingdom of God. Hence it is worth while to preach and teach. "This single fact creates the confidence shown by Jesus in the ultimate establishment of his kingdom in spite of the obstacles which obstruct its progress" (Gould).

rwp@Mark:5:41 @{Talitha cumi}. These precious Aramaic words, spoken by Jesus to the child, Peter heard and remembered so that Mark gives them to us. Mark interprets the simple words into Greek for those who did not know Aramaic (\to korasion, egeire\), that is, {Damsel, arise}. Mark uses the diminutive \korasi“n\, a little girl, from \korˆ\, girl. _Braid Scots_ has it: "Lassie, wauken." strkjv@Luke:8:5-9| has it \Hˆ pais, egeire\, {Maiden, arise}. All three Gospels mention the fact that Jesus took her by the hand, a touch of life (\kratˆsas tˆs cheiros\), giving confidence and help.

rwp@Mark:6:24 @{What shall I ask?} (\Ti aitˆs“mai;\). The fact that she went and spoke to her mother proves that she had not been told beforehand what to ask. strkjv@Matthew:14:8| does not necessarily mean that, but he simply condenses the account. The girl's question implies by the middle voice that she is thinking of something for herself. She was no doubt unprepared for her mother's ghastly reply.

rwp@Mark:6:38 @{Go and see} (\hupagete idete\). John says that Jesus asked Philip to find out what food they had (John:6:5f.|) probably after the disciples had suggested that Jesus send the crowd away as night was coming on (Mark:6:35f.|). On this protest to his command that they feed the crowds (Mark:6:37; strkjv@Matthew:14:16; strkjv@Luke:9:13|) Jesus said "Go see" how many loaves you can get hold of. Then Andrew reports the fact of the lad with five barley loaves and two fishes (John:6:8f.|). They had suggested before that two hundred pennyworth (\dˆnari“n diakosi“n\. See on ¯Matthew:18:28|) was wholly inadequate and even that (some thirty-five dollars) was probably all that or even more than they had with them. John's Gospel alone tells of the lad with his lunch which his mother had given him.

rwp@Mark:8:23 @{Brought him out of the village} (\exˆnegken auton ex“ tˆs k“mˆs\). It had been a village, but Philip had enlarged it and made it a town or city (\polis\), though still called a village (verses 23,26|). As in the case of the deaf and dumb demoniac given also alone by Mark (Mark:7:31-37|), so here Jesus observes the utmost secrecy in performing the miracle for reasons not given by Mark. It was the season of retirement and Jesus is making the fourth withdrawal from Galilee. That fact may explain it. The various touches here are of interest also. Jesus led him out by the hand, put spittle on his eyes (using the poetical and _Koin‚_ papyri word \ommata\ instead of the usual \opthalmous\), and laid his hands upon him, perhaps all this to help the man's faith.

rwp@Mark:9:4 @{Elijah with Moses} (\Eleias sun M“usei\). Matthew and Luke have "Moses and Elijah." Both, as a matter of fact were prophets and both dealt with law. Both had mysterious deaths. The other order in strkjv@Mark:9:5|.

rwp@Mark:10:32 @{And they were amazed} (\kai ethambounto\). Imperfect tense describing the feelings of the disciples as Jesus was walking on in front of them (\ˆn proag“n autous\, periphrastic imperfect active), an unusual circumstance in itself that seemed to bode no good as they went on through Perea towards Jerusalem. In fact, {they that followed were afraid} (\hoi de akolouthountes ephobounto\) as they looked at Jesus walking ahead in solitude. The idiom (\hoi de\) may not mean that all the disciples were afraid, but only some of them. "The Lord walked in advance of the Twelve with a solemnity and a determination which foreboded danger" (Swete). Cf. strkjv@Luke:9:5|. They began to fear coming disaster as they neared Jerusalem. They read correctly the face of Jesus. {And he took again the twelve} (\kai paralab“n tous d“deka\). Matthew has "apart" from the crowds and that is what Mark also means. Note \paralab“n\, taking to his side. {And began to tell them the things that were to happen to him} (\ˆrxato autois legein ta mellonta aut“i sumbainein\). He had done it before three times already (Mark:8:31; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@9:31|). Songs:Jesus tries once more. They had failed utterly heretofore. How is it now? Luke adds (18:34|): "They understood none of these things." But Mark and Matthew show how the minds of two of the disciples were wholly occupied with plans of their own selfish ambition while Jesus was giving details of his approaching death and resurrection.

rwp@Mark:12:35 @{How say the scribes} (\P“s legousin hoi grammateis\). The opponents of Jesus are silenced, but he answers them and goes on teaching (\didask“n\) in the temple as before the attacks began that morning (11:27|). They no longer dare to question Jesus, but he has one to put to them "while the Pharisees were gathered together" (Matthew:22:41|). The question is not a conundrum or scriptural puzzle (Gould), but "He contents himself with pointing out a difficulty, in the solution of which lay the key to the whole problem of His person and work" (Swete). The scribes all taught that the Messiah was to be the son of David (John:7:41|). The people in the Triumphal Entry had acclaimed Jesus as the son of David (Matthew:21:9|). But the rabbis had overlooked the fact that David in strkjv@Psalms:110:1| called the Messiah his Lord also. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah are both involved in the problem. strkjv@Matthew:22:45| observes that "no one was able to answer him a word."

rwp@Mark:13:1 @{Master, behold, what manner of stones and what manner of buildings} (\didaskale, ide potapoi lithoi kai potapai oikodomai\). strkjv@Matthew:24:1| and strkjv@Luke:21:5| tell of the fact of the comment, but Mark alone gives the precise words. Perhaps Peter himself (Swete) was the one who sought thus by a pleasant platitude to divert the Teacher's attention from the serious topics of recent hours in the temple. It was not a new observation, but the merest commonplace might serve at this crisis. Josephus (_Ant_. xv. II, 3) speaks of the great size of these stones and the beauty of the buildings. Some of these stones at the southeastern and southwestern angles survive today and measure from twenty to forty feet long and weigh a hundred tons. Jesus had, of course, often observed them.

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|. 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@Mark:14:67 @{Warming himself} (\thermainomenon\). Mark mentions this fact about Peter twice (14:54,67|) as does John (John:18:18,25|). He was twice beside the fire. It is quite difficult to relate clearly the three denials as told in the Four Gospels. Each time several may have joined in, both maids and men. {The Nazarene} (\tou Nazarˆnou\). In strkjv@Matthew:26:69| it is "the Galilean." A number were probably speaking, one saying one thing, another another.

rwp@Mark:15:45 @{Granted the corpse} (\ed“rˆsato to pt“ma\). This official information was necessary before the burial. As a matter of fact Pilate was probably glad to turn the body over to Joseph else the body would go to the potter's field. This is the only instance when \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@Mark:16:2 @{When the sun was risen} (\anateilantos tou hˆliou\). Genitive absolute, aorist participle, though some manuscripts read \anatellontos\, present participle. strkjv@Luke:24:1| has it "at early dawn" (\orthrou batheos\) and strkjv@John:20:1| "while it was yet dark." It was some two miles from Bethany to the tomb. Mark himself gives both notes of time, "very early" (\lian pr“i\), "when the sun was risen." Probably they started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb. All three mention that it was on the first day of the week, our Sunday morning when the women arrive. The body of Jesus was buried late on Friday before the sabbath (our Saturday) which began at sunset. This is made clear as a bell by strkjv@Luke:23:54| "and the sabbath drew on." The women rested on the sabbath (Luke strkjv@23:56|). This visit of the women was in the early morning of our Sunday, the first day of the week. Some people are greatly disturbed over the fact that Jesus did not remain in the grave full seventy-two hours. But he repeatedly said that he would rise on the third day and that is precisely what happened. He was buried on Friday afternoon. He was risen on Sunday morning. If he had really remained in the tomb full three days and then had risen after that, it would have been on the fourth day, not on the third day. The occasional phrase "after three days" is merely a vernacular idiom common in all languages and not meant to be exact and precise like "on the third day." We can readily understand "after three days" in the sense of "on the third day." It is impossible to understand "on the third day" to be "on the fourth day." See my _Harmony of the Gospels_, pp. 289-91.

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

rwp@Mark:16:6 @{Be not amazed} (\mˆ ekthambeisthe\). The angel noted their amazement (verse 5|) and urges the cessation of it using this very word. {The Nazarene} (\ton Nazarˆnon\). Only in Mark, to identify "Jesus" to the women. {The crucified one} (\ton estaur“menon\). This also in strkjv@Matthew:28:5|. This description of his shame has become his crown of glory, for Paul (Gal strkjv@6:14|), and for all who look to the Crucified and Risen Christ as Saviour and Lord. He is risen (\ˆgerthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative, the simple fact. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:4| Paul uses the perfect passive indicative \egˆgertai\ to emphasize the permanent state that Jesus remains risen. {Behold the place} (\ide ho topos\). Here \ide\ is used as an interjection with no effect on the case (nominative). In strkjv@Matthew:28:6| \idete\ is the verb with the accusative. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 302.

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

rwp@Mark:16:19 @{Was received up into heaven} (\anelˆmpthˆ eis ton ouranon\). First aorist passive indicative. Luke gives the fact of the Ascension twice in Gospel (Luke:24:50f.|) and strkjv@Acts:1:9-11|. The Ascension in Mark took place after Jesus spoke to the disciples, not in Galilee (16:15-18|), nor on the first or second Sunday evening in Jerusalem. We should not know when it took place nor where but for Luke who locates it on Olivet (Luke:24:50|) at the close of the forty days (Acts:1:3|) and so after the return from Galilee (Matthew:28:16|). {Sat down at the right hand of God} (\ekathisen ek dexi“n tou theou\). Swete notes that the author "passes beyond the field of history into that of theology," an early and most cherished belief (Acts:7:55f.; strkjv@Romans:8:34; strkjv@Ephesians:1:20; strkjv@Colossians:3:1; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3; strkjv@8:1; strkjv@10:12; strkjv@12:2; strkjv@1Peter:3:22; strkjv@Revelation:3:21|).

rwp@Info_Matthew @ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION The passing years do not make it any plainer who actually wrote our Greek Matthew. Papias records, as quoted by Eusebius, that Matthew wrote the _Logia_ of Jesus in Hebrew (Aramaic). Is our present Matthew a translation of the Aramaic _Logia_ along with Mark and other sources as most modern scholars think? If so, was the writer the Apostle Matthew or some other disciple? There is at present no way to reach a clear decision in the light of the known facts. There is no real reason why the Apostle Matthew could not have written both the Aramaic _Logia_ and our Greek Matthew, unless one is unwilling to believe that he would make use of Mark's work on a par with his own. But Mark's book rests primarily on the preaching of Simon Peter. Scholfield has recently (1927) published _An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel_. We know quite too little of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels to say dogmatically that the Apostle Matthew was not in any real sense the author.

rwp@Matthew:1:1 @{The Son of David, the son of Abraham} (\huiou Daueid huiou Abraam\). Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. Songs:Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son (\bˆn\) for the quality or character, but here the idea is descent. Christians are called sons of God because Christ has bestowed this dignity upon us (Romans:8:14; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Galatians:3:26; strkjv@4:5-7|). Verse 1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17|. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (2-6|), David to Babylon Removal (6-11|), Jechoniah to Jesus (12-16|). The removal to Babylon (\metoikesias Babul“nos\) occurs at the end of verse 11|, the beginning of verse 12|, and twice in the resume in verse 17|. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then verse 17| makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list.

rwp@Matthew:1:2 @{Begat} (\egennˆsen\). This word comes, like some of the early chapters of Genesis, with regularity through verse 16, until the birth of Jesus is reached when there is a sudden change. The word itself does not always mean immediate parentage, but merely direct descent. In verse 16| we have "Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ" (\ton I“sˆph ton andra Marias ex hˆs egennˆthˆ Iˆsous ho legomenos Christos\). The article occurs here each time with the object of "begat," but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (1:6|) and Joseph the husband of Mary (1:16|) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (1:2|) and of both Phares and Zara (1:3|) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give verse 16| as above save the Ferrar Group of minuscules which are supported by the Sinaitic Syriac Version. Because of this fact Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates, deliberately prints his text "_Jacob begat Jesus_" (\I“sˆph de egennˆsen Iˆsoun\). But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:1:18-25|. Hence it is clear that "begat" here in strkjv@1:16| must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in strkjv@1:18-25|. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of _Studies in the Text of the New Testament_. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in strkjv@1:16|. The spelling of these Hebrew names in English is usually according to the Hebrew form, not the Greek. In the Greek itself the Hebrew spelling is often observed in violation of the Greek rules for the ending of words with no consonants save _n,r,s_. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails.

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{The birth of Jesus Christ} (\tou [Iˆsou] Christou hˆ genesis\). In the Greek Jesus Christ comes before birth as the important matter after strkjv@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-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.

rwp@Matthew:1:20 @{An angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream} (\aggelos kuriou kat' onar ephanˆ aut“i\). This expression (\aggelos kuriou\) is without the article in the New Testament except when, as in strkjv@1:24|, there is reference to the angel previously mentioned. Sometimes in the Old Testament Jehovah Himself is represented by this phrase. Surely Joseph needed God's help if ever man did. If Jesus was really God's Son, Joseph was entitled to know this supreme fact that he might be just to both Mary and her Child. It was in a dream, but the message was distinct and decisive for Joseph. He is called "Son of David" as had been shown by Matthew in strkjv@Matthew:1:16|. Mary is called his "wife" (\tˆn gunaika sou\). He is told "not to become afraid" (ingressive first aorist passive subjunctive in prohibition, (\mˆ phobˆthˆis\), "to take to his side" (\paralabein\, ingressive aorist active infinitive) her whom he had planned (\enthumˆthentos\, genitive absolute again, from \en\ and \thumos\) to send away with a writ of divorce. He had pondered and had planned as best he knew, but now God had called a halt and he had to decide whether he was willing to shelter Mary by marrying her and, if necessary, take upon himself whatever stigma might attach to her. Joseph was told that the child was begotten of the Holy Spirit and thus that Mary was innocent of any sin. But who would believe it now if he told it of her? Mary knew the truth and had not told him because she could not expect him to believe it.

rwp@Matthew:1:22 @{That it may be fulfilled} (\hina plˆr“thˆi\). Alford says that "it is impossible to interpret \hina\ in any other sense than in order that." That was the old notion, but modern grammarians recognize the non-final use of this particle in the _Koin‚_ and even the consecutive like the Latin _ut_. Some even argue for a causal use. If the context called for result, one need not hesitate to say so as in strkjv@Mark:11:28; strkjv@John:9:36; strkjv@1John:1:9; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@13:13|. See discussion in my _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research_, pp. 997-9. All the same it is purpose here, God's purpose, Matthew reports the angel as saying, spoken "by (\hupo\, immediate agent) the Lord through (\dia\, intermediate agent) the prophet." {"All this has happened"} (\touto de holon gegonen\, present perfect indicative), stands on record as historical fact. But the Virgin Birth of Jesus is not due to this interpretation of strkjv@Isaiah:7:14|. It is not necessary to maintain (Broadus) that Isaiah himself saw anything more in his prophecy than that a woman then a virgin, would bear a son and that in the course of a few years Ahaz would be delivered from the king of Syria and Israel by the coming of the Assyrians. This historical illustration finds its richest fulfilment in the birth of Jesus from Mary. "Words of themselves are empty. They are useful only as vessels to convey things from mind to mind" (Morison). The Hebrew word for young woman is translated by virgin (\parthenos\), but it is not necessary to conclude that Isaiah himself contemplated the supernatural birth of Jesus. We do not have to say that the idea of the Virgin Birth of Jesus came from Jewish sources. Certainly it did not come from the pagan myths so foreign to this environment, atmosphere and spirit. It is far simpler to admit the supernatural fact than try to explain the invention of the idea as a myth to justify the deification of Jesus. The birth, life, and death of Jesus throw a flood of light on the Old Testament narrative and prophecies for the early Christians. In Matthew and John in particular we often see "that the events of Christ's life were divinely ordered for the express purpose of fulfilling the Old Testament" (McNeile). See strkjv@Matthew:2:15,23; strkjv@4:14-17; strkjv@8:17; strkjv@12:17-21; strkjv@13:25; strkjv@21:4f.; strkjv@John:12:38f.; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@19:24,28,36f|.

rwp@Matthew:2:1 @{Now when Jesus was born} (\tou de Iˆsou gennˆthentos\). The fact of the birth of Jesus is stated by the genitive absolute construction (first aorist passive participle of the same verb \genna“\ used twice already of the birth of Jesus, strkjv@1:16,20|, and used in the genealogy, strkjv@1:2-16|). Matthew does not propose to give biographic details of the supernatural birth of Jesus, wonderful as it was and disbelieved as it is by some today who actually deny that Jesus was born at all or ever lived, men who talk of the Jesus Myth, the Christ Myth, etc. "The main purpose is to show the reception given by the world to the new-born Messianic King. Homage from afar, hostility at home; foreshadowing the fortunes of the new faith: reception by the Gentiles, rejection by the Jews" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:2:2 @{For we saw his star in the east} (\eidomen gar autou ton astera en tˆi anatolˆi\). This does not mean that they saw the star which was in the east. That would make them go east to follow it instead of west from the east. The words "in the east" are probably to be taken with "we saw" i.e. we were in the east when we saw it, or still more probably "we saw his star at its rising" or "when it rose" as Moffatt puts it. The singular form here (\tˆi anatolˆi\) does sometimes mean "east" (Revelation:21:13|), though the plural is more common as in strkjv@Matthew:2:1|. In strkjv@Luke:1:78| the singular means dawn as the verb (\aneteilen\) does in strkjv@Matthew:4:16| (Septuagint). The Magi ask where is the one born king of the Jews. They claim that they had seen his star, either a miracle or a combination of bright stars or a comet. These men may have been Jewish proselytes and may have known of the Messianic hope, for even Vergil had caught a vision of it. The whole world was on tiptoe of expectancy for something. Moulton (_Journal of Theological Studies_, 1902, p. 524) "refers to the Magian belief that a star could be the _fravashi_, the counterpart or angel (cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:10|) of a great man" (McNeile). They came to worship the newly born king of the Jews. Seneca (_Epistle_ 58) tells of Magians who came to Athens with sacrifices to Plato after his death. They had their own way of concluding that the star which they had seen pointed to the birth of this Messianic king. Cicero (_Deuteronomy:Divin_. i. 47) "refers to the constellation from which, on the birthnight of Alexander, Magians foretold that the destroyer of Asia was born" (McNeile). Alford is positive that no miracle is intended by the report of the Magi or by Matthew in his narrative. But one must be allowed to say that the birth of Jesus, if really God's only Son who has become Incarnate, is the greatest of all miracles. Even the methods of astrologers need not disturb those who are sure of this fact.

rwp@Matthew:2:16 @{Slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem} (\aneilen pantas tous paidas tous en Bˆthleem\). The flight of Joseph was justified, for Herod was violently enraged (\ethum“thˆ lian\) that he had been mocked by the Magi, deluded in fact (\enepaichthˆ\). Vulgate _illusus esset_. Herod did not know, of course, how old the child was, but he took no chances and included all the little boys (\tous paidas\, masculine article) in Bethlehem two years old and under, perhaps fifteen or twenty. It is no surprise that Josephus makes no note of this small item in Herod's chamber of horrors. It was another fulfilment of the prophecy in strkjv@Jeremiah:31:15|. The quotation (2:18|) seems to be from the Septuagint. It was originally written of the Babylonian captivity but it has a striking illustration in this case also. Macrobius (_Sat_. II. iv. II) notes that Augustus said that it was better to be Herod's sow (\hus\) than his son (\huios\), for the sow had a better chance of life.

rwp@Matthew:2:20 @{For they are dead} (\tethnˆkasin\). Only Herod had sought to kill the young child, but it is a general statement of a particular fact as is common with people who say: "They say." The idiom may be suggested by strkjv@Exodus:4:19|: "For all are dead that sought thy life."

rwp@Matthew:2:23 @{Should be called a Nazarene} (\Naz“raios klˆthˆsetai\). Matthew says "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets" (\dia t“n prophˆt“n\). It is the plural and no single prophecy exists which says that the Messiah was to be called a Nazarene. It may be that this term of contempt (John:1:46; strkjv@7:52|) is what is meant, and that several prophecies are to be combined like Ps. strkjv@22:6,8; strkjv@69:11,19; strkjv@Isaiah:53:2,3,4|. The name Nazareth means a shoot or branch, but it is by no means certain that Matthew has this in mind. It is best to confess that we do not know. See Broadus on Matthew for the various theories. But, despised as Nazareth was at that time, Jesus has exalted its fame. The lowly Nazarene he was at first, but it is our glory to be the followers of the Nazarene. Bruce says that "in this case, therefore, we certainly know that the historic fact suggested the prophetic reference, instead of the prophecy creating the history." The parallels drawn by Matthew between the history of Israel and the birth and infancy of Jesus are not mere fancy. History repeats itself and writers of history find frequent parallels. Surely Matthew is not beyond the bounds of reason or of fact in illustrating in his own way the birth and infancy of Jesus by the Providence of God in the history of Israel.

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

rwp@Matthew:5:5 @{The meek} (\hoi praeis\). Wycliff has it "Blessed be mild men." The ancients used the word for outward conduct and towards men. They did not rank it as a virtue anyhow. It was a mild equanimity that was sometimes negative and sometimes positively kind. But Jesus lifted the word to a nobility never attained before. In fact, the Beatitudes assume a new heart, for the natural man does not find in happiness the qualities mentioned here by Christ. The English word "meek" has largely lost the fine blend of spiritual poise and strength meant by the Master. He calls himself "meek and lowly in heart" (Matthew:11:29|) and Moses is also called meek. It is the gentleness of strength, not mere effeminacy. By "the earth" (\tˆn gˆn\) Jesus seems to mean the Land of Promise (Psalms:37:11|) though Bruce thinks that it is the whole earth. Can it be the solid earth as opposed to the sea or the air?

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

rwp@Matthew: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\ may mean either power or authority. He had both as a matter of fact. Note same word in strkjv@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:10:16 @{As sheep in the midst of wolves} (\h“s probata en mes“i luk“n\). The presence of wolves on every hand was a fact then and now. Some of these very sheep (10:6|) at the end will turn out to be wolves and cry for Christ's crucifixion. The situation called for consummate wisdom and courage. The serpent was the emblem of wisdom or shrewdness, intellectual keenness (Genesis:3:1; strkjv@Psalms:58:5|), the dove of simplicity (Hosea:7:11|). It was a proverb, this combination, but one difficult of realization. Either without the other is bad (rascality or gullibility). The first clause with \arnas\ for \probata\ is in strkjv@Luke:10:3| and apparently is in a _Fragment of a Lost Gospel_ edited by Grenfell and Hunt. The combination of wariness and innocence is necessary for the protection of the sheep and the discomfiture of the wolves. For "harmless" (\akeraioi\) Moffatt and Goodspeed have "guileless," Weymouth "innocent." The word means "unmixed" (\a\ privative and \kerannumi\), "unadulterated," "simple," "unalloyed."

rwp@Matthew:11:25 @{At that season Jesus answered and said} (\en ekein“i t“i kair“i apokritheis eipen\). Spoke to his Father in audible voice. The time and place we do not know. But here we catch a glimpse of Jesus in one of his moods of worship. "It is usual to call this golden utterance a prayer, but it is at once prayer, praise, and self-communing in a devout spirit" (Bruce). Critics are disturbed because this passage from the Logia of Jesus or Q of Synoptic criticism (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|) is so manifestly Johannine in spirit and very language, "the Father" (\ho patˆr\), "the son" (\ho huios\), whereas the Fourth Gospel was not written till the close of the first century and the Logia was written before the Synoptic Gospels. The only satisfying explanation lies in the fact that Jesus did have this strain of teaching that is preserved in John's Gospel. Here he is in precisely the same mood of elevated communion with the Father that we have reflected in John 14 to 17. Even Harnack is disposed to accept this Logion as a genuine saying of Jesus. The word "thank" (\homologoumai\) is better rendered "praise" (Moffatt). Jesus praises the Father "not that the \sophoi\ were ignorant, but that the \nˆpioi\ knew" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:12:24 @{The Pharisees} (\hoi de Pharisaioi\). Already (Matthew:9:32-34|) we have had in Matthew the charge that Jesus is in league with the prince of demons, though the incident may be later than this one. See on ¯10:25| about "Beelzebub." The Pharisees feel that the excited condition of the crowds and the manifest disposition to believe that Jesus is the Messiah (the Son of David) demand strenuous action on their part. They cannot deny the fact of the miracles for the blind and dumb men both saw and spoke (12:22|). Songs:in desperation they suggest that Jesus works by the power of Beelzebub the prince of the demons.

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

rwp@Matthew:14:3 @{For the sake of Herodias} (\dia Hˆr“idiada\). The death of John had taken place some time before. The Greek aorists here (\edˆsen, apetheto\) are not used for past perfects. The Greek aorist simply narrates the event without drawing distinctions in past time. This Herodias was the unlawful wife of Herod Antipas. She was herself a descendant of Herod the Great and had married Herod Philip of Rome, not Philip the Tetrarch. She had divorced him in order to marry Herod Antipas after he had divorced his wife, the daughter of Aretas King of Arabia. It was a nasty mess equal to any of our modern divorces. Her first husband was still alive and marriage with a sister-in-law was forbidden to Jews (Leviticus:18:16|). Because of her Herod Antipas had put John in the prison at Machaerus. The bare fact has been mentioned in strkjv@Matthew:4:12| without the name of the place. See strkjv@11:2| also for the discouragement of John \en t“i desm“tˆri“i\ (place of bondage), here \en tˆi phulakˆi\ (the guard-house). Josephus (_Ant_. xviii. 5.2) tells us that Machaerus is the name of the prison. On a high hill an impregnable fortress had been built. Tristram (_Land of Moab_) says that there are now remains of "two dungeons, one of them deep and its sides scarcely broken in" with "small holes still visible in the masonry where staples of wood and iron had once been fixed. One of these must surely have been the prison-house of John the Baptist." "On this high ridge Herod the Great built an extensive and beautiful palace" (Broadus). "The windows commanded a wide and grand prospect, including the Dead Sea, the course of the Jordan, and Jerusalem" (Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus_).

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:16:18 @{And I also say unto thee} (\k'ag“ de soi leg“\). "The emphasis is not on 'Thou art Peter' over against 'Thou art the Christ,' but on \Kag“\: 'The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another" (McNeile). Jesus calls Peter here by the name that he had said he would have (John:1:42|). Peter (\Petros\) is simply the Greek word for Cephas (Aramaic). Then it was prophecy, now it is fact. In verse 17| Jesus addresses him as "Simon Bar-Jonah," his full patronymic (Aramaic) name. But Jesus has a purpose now in using his nickname "Peter" which he had himself given him. Jesus makes a remarkable play on Peter's name, a pun in fact, that has caused volumes of controversy and endless theological strife. {On this rock} (\epi tautˆi tˆi petrƒi\) Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in strkjv@7:24| on which the wise man built his house. \Petros\ is usually a smaller detachment of the massive ledge. But too much must not be made of this point since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to Peter which draws no such distinction (\Kˆphƒ\). What did Jesus mean by this word-play?

rwp@Matthew:18:8 @In verses 8| and 9| we have one of the dualities or doublets in Matthew (5:29-30|). Jesus repeated his pungent sayings many times. Instead of \eis geennan\ (5:29|) we have \eis to pur to ai“nion\ and at the end of verse 9| \tou puros\ is added to \tˆn geennan\. This is the first use in Matthew of \ai“nios\. We have it again in strkjv@19:16,29| with \zoˆ\, in strkjv@25:41| with \pur\, in strkjv@25:46| with \kolasin\ and \zoˆn\. The word means ageless, without beginning or end as of God (Romans:16:26|), without beginning as in strkjv@Romans:16:25|, without end as here and often. The effort to make it mean "\aeonian\" fire will make it mean "\aeonian\" life also. If the punishment is limited, _ipso facto_ the life is shortened. In verse 9| also \monophthalmon\ occurs. It is an Ionic compound in Herodotus that is condemned by the Atticists, but it is revived in the vernacular _Koin‚_. Literally one-eyed. Here only and strkjv@Mark:9:47| in the New Testament.

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autˆn moicheuthˆnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenˆn gamˆsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\mˆ epi porneiƒi\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha“ or moicheu“\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Matthew:23:13 @{Hypocrites} (\hupokritai\). This terrible word of Jesus appears first from him in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew:6:2,5,16; strkjv@7:5|), then in strkjv@15:7| and strkjv@22:18|. Here it appears "with terrific iteration" (Bruce) save in the third of the seven woes (23:13,15,23,25,27,29|). The verb in the active (\hupokrin“\) meant to separate slowly or slightly subject to gradual inquiry. Then the middle was to make answer, to take up a part on the stage, to act a part. It was an easy step to mean to feign, to pretend, to wear a masque, to act the hypocrite, to play a part. This hardest word from the lips of Jesus falls on those who were the religious leaders of the Jews (Scribes and Pharisees), who had justified this thunderbolt of wrath by their conduct toward Jesus and their treatment of things high and holy. The _Textus Receptus has eight woes, adding verse 14| which the Revised Version places in the margin (called verse 13| by Westcott and Hort and rejected on the authority of Aleph B D as a manifest gloss from strkjv@Mark:12:40| and strkjv@Luke:20:47|). The MSS. that insert it put it either before 13 or after 13. Plummer cites these seven woes as another example of Matthew's fondness for the number seven, more fancy than fact for Matthew's Gospel is not the Apocalypse of John. These are all illustrations of Pharisaic saying and not doing (Allen). {Ye shut the kingdom of heaven} (\kleiete tˆn basileian t“n ouran“n\). In strkjv@Luke:11:52| the lawyers are accused of keeping the door to the house of knowledge locked and with flinging away the keys so as to keep themselves and the people in ignorance. These custodians of the kingdom by their teaching obscured the way to life. It is a tragedy to think how preachers and teachers of the kingdom of God may block the door for those who try to enter in (\tous eiserchomenous\, conative present middle participle). {Against} (\emprosthen\). Literally, before. These door-keepers of the kingdom slam it shut in men's faces and they themselves are on the outside where they will remain. They hide the key to keep others from going in.

rwp@Matthew:25:24 @{That had received the one talent} (\ho to talenton eilˆph“s\). Note the perfect active participle to emphasize the fact that he still had it. In verse 20| we have \ho--lab“n\ (aorist active participle). {I knew thee} (\egn“n se\). Second aorist active indicative. Experimental knowledge (\gin“sk“\) and proleptical use of \se\. {A hard man} (\sklˆros\). Harsh, stern, rough man, worse than \austˆros\ in strkjv@Luke:19:21|, grasping and ungenerous. {Where thou didst not scatter} (\hothen ou dieskorpisas\). But this scattering was the chaff from which wheat was winnowed, not the scattering of seed.

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@Matthew:26:75 @{Peter remembered} (\emnˆsthˆ ho Petros\). A small thing, but _magna circumstantia_ (Bengel). In a flash of lightning rapidity he recalled the words of Jesus a few hours before (Matthew:26:34|) which he had then scouted with the proud boast that "even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee" (26:35|). And now this triple denial was a fact. There is no extenuation for the base denials of Peter. He had incurred the dread penalty involved in the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:10:33| of denial by Jesus before the Father in heaven. But Peter's revulsion of feeling was as sudden as his sin. {He went out and wept bitterly} (\exelth“n ex“ eklausen pikr“s\). Luke adds that the Lord turned and looked upon Peter (Luke:22:61|). That look brought Peter back to his senses. He could not stay where he now was with the revilers of Jesus. He did not feel worthy or able to go openly into the hall where Jesus was. Songs:outside he went with a broken heart. The constative aorist here does not emphasize as Mark's imperfect does (Mark:14:72|, \eklaien\) the continued weeping that was now Peter's only consolation. The tears were bitter, all the more so by reason of that look of understanding pity that Jesus gave him. One of the tragedies of the Cross is the bleeding heart of Peter. Judas was a total wreck and Peter was a near derelict. Satan had sifted them all as wheat, but Jesus had prayed specially for Peter (Luke:22:31f.|). Will Satan show Peter to be all chaff as Judas was?

rwp@Matthew:27:37 @{His accusation} (\tˆn aitian autou\). The title (\titlos\, strkjv@John:19:19|) or placard of the crime (the inscription, \he epigraphˆ\) which was carried before the victim or hung around his neck as he walked to execution was now placed above (\ep' an“\) the head of Jesus on the projecting piece (\crux immurus\). This inscription gave the name and home, {Jesus of Nazareth}, and the charge on which he was convicted, {the King of the Jews} and the identification, {This is}. The four reports all give the charge and vary in the others. The inscription in full was: This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews. The three languages are mentioned only by John (John:19:20|), Latin for law, Hebrew (Aramaic) for the Jews, Greek for everybody. The accusation (charge, cause, \aitia\) correctly told the facts of the condemnation.

rwp@Matthew:27:41 @{The chief priests mocking} (\hoi archiereis empaizontes\). The Sanhedrin in fact, for "the scribes and elders" are included. The word for mocking (\empaizontes, en,\ and \paiz“\, from \pais\, child) means acting like silly children who love to guy one another. These grave and reverend seniors had already given vent to their glee at the condemnation of Jesus by themselves (Matthew:26:67f.|).

rwp@Matthew:27:42 @{He saved others; himself he cannot save} (\allous es“sen; heauton ou dunatai s“sai\). The sarcasm is true, though they do not know its full significance. If he had saved himself now, he could not have saved any one. The paradox is precisely the philosophy of life proclaimed by Jesus himself (Matthew:10:39|). {Let him now come down} (\katabat“ nun\). Now that he is a condemned criminal nailed to the Cross with the claim of being "the King of Israel" (the Jews) over his head. Their spiteful assertion that they would then believe upon Jesus (\ep' auton\) is plainly untrue. They would have shifted their ground and invented some other excuse. When Jesus wrought his greatest miracles, they wanted "a sign from heaven." These "pious scoffers" (Bruce) are like many today who make factitious and arbitrary demands of Christ whose character and power and deity are plain to all whose eyes are not blinded by the god of this world. Christ will not give new proofs to the blind in heart.

rwp@Matthew:27:51 @{Was rent} (\eschisthˆ\). Both Mark (Mark:15:38|) and Luke (Luke:23:45|) mention also this fact. Matthew connects it with the earthquake, "the earth did quake" (\hˆ gˆ eseisthˆ\). Josephus (_War_ VI. 299) tells of a quaking in the temple before the destruction and the Talmud tells of a quaking forty years before the destruction of the temple. Allen suggests that "a cleavage in the masonry of the porch, which rent the outer veil and left the Holy Place open to view, would account for the language of the Gospels, of Josephus, and of the Talmud." This veil was a most elaborately woven fabric of seventy-two twisted plaits of twenty-four threads each and the veil was sixty feet long and thirty wide. The rending of the veil signified the removal of the separation between God and the people (Gould).

rwp@Matthew:27:66 @{Sealing the stone, the guard being with them} (\sphragisantˆs ton lithon meta tˆs koust“dias\). Probably by a cord stretched across the stone and sealed at each end as in strkjv@Daniel:6:17|. The sealing was done in the presence of the Roman guard who were left in charge to protect this stamp of Roman authority and power. They did their best to prevent theft and the resurrection (Bruce), but they overreached themselves and provided additional witness to the fact of the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus (Plummer).

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

rwp@Matthew:28:6 @{Risen from the dead} (\ˆgerthˆ apo t“n nekr“n\). {Jesus the Risen}. This is the heart of the testimony of the angel to the women. It is what Paul wishes Timothy never to forget (2Timothy:2:8|), "Jesus Christ risen from the dead" (\Iˆsoun Christon egˆgermenon ek nekr“n\). They were afraid and dazzled by the glory of the scene, but the angel said, "Come, see the place where the Lord lay" (\deute idete ton topon hopou ekeito ho Kurios\). Some MSS. do not have \ho Kurios\, but he is the subject of \ekeito\. His body was not there. It will not do to say that Jesus arose in spirit and appeared alive though his body remained in the tomb. The empty tomb is the first great fact confronting the women and later the men. Various theories were offered then as now. But none of them satisfy the evidence and explain the survival of faith and hope in the disciples that do not rest upon the fact of the Risen Christ whose body was no longer in the tomb.

rwp@Matthew:28:9 @{Jesus met them} (\Iˆsous hupˆntˆsen autais\). Came suddenly face to face (\anta“, hupo\) with them as they brooded over the message of the angel and the fact of the empty tomb (associative instrumental, \autais\). Cf. strkjv@8:34; strkjv@24:1-6|. Probably the lost portion of Mark's Gospel contained the story of this meeting with Jesus which changed their fears into joy and peace. His greeting was the ordinary "Hail" (\chairete\). They fell at his feet and held them in reverence while they worshipped him. Jesus allowed this act of worship though he forbade eager handling of his body by Mary Magdalene (John:20:17|). It was a great moment of faith and cheer.

rwp@Matthew:28:12 @{They gave large money} (\arguria hikana ed“kan\). The use of the plural for pieces of silver (\arguria\) is common. The papyri have many instances of \hikana\ for considerable (from \hikan“\, to reach to, attain to). These pious Sanhedrists knew full well the power of bribes. They make a contract with the Roman soldiers to tell a lie about the resurrection of Jesus as they paid Judas money to betray him. They show not the slightest tendency to be convinced by the facts though one had risen from the dead.

rwp@Matthew:28:17 @{But some doubted} (\hoi de edistasan\). From \dis\ (in two, divided in mind). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:14:31|. The reference is not to the eleven who were all now convinced after some doubt, but to the others present. Paul states that over five hundred were present, most of whom were still alive when he wrote (1Corinthians:15:6|). It is natural that some should hesitate to believe so great a thing at the first appearance of Jesus to them. Their very doubt makes it easier for us to believe. This was the mountain where Jesus had promised to meet them. This fact explains the large number present. Time and place were arranged beforehand. It was the climax of the various appearances and in Galilee where were so many believers. They worshipped (\prosekunˆsan\) Jesus as the women had done (28:9|). He is now their Risen Lord and Saviour.

rwp@Matthew:28:20 @{I am with you} (\eg“ meta hum“n\). This is the amazing and blessed promise. He is to be with the disciples when he is gone, with all the disciples, with all knowledge, with all power, with them all the days (all sorts of days, weakness, sorrows, joy, power), till the consummation of the age (\he“s tˆs sunteleias tou ai“nos\). That goal is in the future and unknown to the disciples. This blessed hope is not designed as a sedative to an inactive mind and complacent conscience, but an incentive to the fullest endeavor to press on to the farthest limits of the world that all the nations may know Christ and the power of his Risen Life. Songs:Matthew's Gospel closes in a blaze of glory. Christ is conqueror in prospect and in fact. Christian history from that eventful experience on the Mountain in Galilee has been the fulfilment of that promise in as far as we allow God's power to work in us for the winning of the world to Christ, the Risen, all powerful Redeemer, who is with his people all the time. Jesus employs the prophetic present here (\eimi\, I am). He is with us all the days till he comes in glory.

rwp@Info_Philipians @ EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS FROM ROME ABOUT A.D. 61 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is something to be said for the idea that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Philippians while a prisoner in Ephesus if he ever was a prisoner there. All that can be said for that view has been presented by Professor George S. Duncan in _St. Paul's Ephesian Ministry_ (1930). But, when all is considered carefully in the light of the facts in the Acts and the Epistles, the best that one can say is that a possible case is made out with many difficulties remaining unexplained. The argument is more ingenious than convincing. It is not possible here to review the arguments _pro_ and _con_ that convince me that Paul was in Rome when he wrote this letter to Philippi. It is not clear whether it was written before the three that went together (Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) or afterwards. Probably there was no great difference in time, but there was time for Epaphroditus to come to Rome, to fall sick, for the news to reach Philippi and for Epaphroditus to hear of their concern about him. The church in Philippi was Paul's joy and pride and they had helped him before as they did this time.

rwp@Philippians:1:17 @{Of faction} (\ex eritheias\). Out of partisanship. From \eritheu“\, to spin wool, and that from \erithos\, a hireling. The papyri examples suit the idea of selfish ambition (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). See strkjv@2Corinthians:12:20; strkjv@Galatians:5:20|. {Not sincerely} (\ouch hagn“s\). "Not purely," that is with mixed and impure motives. {To raise up affliction for my bonds} (\thlipsin egeirein tois desmois mou\). Now that Paul is down they jump on him in mean and nagging ways. Dative case in \desmois\. "To make my chains gall me" (Lightfoot).

rwp@Revelation:2:2 @{I know} (\oida\). Rather than \gin“sk“\ and so "emphasizes better the absolute clearness of mental vision which photographs all the facts of life as they pass" (Swete). Songs:also in strkjv@2:9,13,19; strkjv@3:1,8,15|. For the distinction see strkjv@John:21:17|, "where the universal knowledge passes into the field of special observation." {Works} (\erga\). The whole life and conduct as in strkjv@John:6:29|. {And thy toil and patience} (\kai ton kopon kai tˆn hupomonˆn sou\). "Both thy toil and patience," in explanation of \erga\, and see strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3|, where all three words (\ergon, kopos, hupomonˆ\) occur together as here. See strkjv@14:13| for sharp distinction between \erga\ (activities) and \kopoi\ (toils, with weariness). Endurance (\hupomonˆ\) in hard toil (\kopos\). {And that} (\kai hoti\). Further explanation of \kopos\ (hard toil). {Not able} (\ou dunˆi\). This _Koin‚_ form for the Attic \dunasai\ (second person singular indicative middle) occurs also in strkjv@Mark:9:22; strkjv@Luke:16:2|. {Bear} (\bastasai\). First aorist active infinitive of \bastaz“\, for which verb see strkjv@John:10:31; strkjv@12:6; strkjv@Galatians:6:2|. These evil men were indeed a heavy burden. {And didst try} (\kai epeirasas\). First aorist active indicative of \peiraz“\, to test, a reference to a recent crisis when these Nicolaitans (verse 6|) were condemned. The present tenses (\dunˆi, echeis\) indicate the continuance of this attitude. Cf. strkjv@1John:4:1|. {Which call themselves apostles} (\tous legontas heautous apostolous\). Perhaps itinerant missionaries of these Nicolaitans who posed as equal to or even superior to the original apostles, like the Judaizers so described by Paul (2Corinthians:11:5,13; strkjv@12:11|). Paul had foretold such false teachers (Gnostics), grievous wolves, in strkjv@Acts:20:29|; in sheep's clothing, Jesus had said (Matthew:7:15|). {And they are not} (\kai ouk eisin\). A parenthesis in Johannine style (John:2:9; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@1John:3:1|) for \kai ouk ontas\ to correspond to \legontas\. {And didst find} (\kai heures\). Second aorist active indicative of \heurisk“\. Dropping back to the regular structure parallel with \epeirasas\. {False} (\pseudeis\). Predicate accusative plural of \pseudˆs\, self-deceived deceivers as in strkjv@21:8|.

rwp@Revelation:3:14 @{In Laodicea} (\en Laodikiƒi\). Forty miles south-east of Philadelphia and some forty miles east of Ephesus, the last of the seven churches addressed with special messages, on the river Lycus on the border of Phrygia, near Colossae and Hierapolis, recipient of two letters by Paul (Colossians:4:16|), on the great trade-route from Ephesus to the east and seat of large manufacturing and banking operations (especially of woollen carpets and clothing, Ramsay, _Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia_, p. 40ff.), centre of the worship of Asklepios and seat of a medical school and also of a provincial court where Cicero lived and wrote many of his letters, home of many Jews, called by Ramsay (_op. cit._, p. 413) "the City of Compromise," the church here founded apparently by Epaphras (Colossians:1:7; strkjv@4:12f.|), now a deserted ruin, one of six cities with this name (meaning justice of the people). No praise is bestowed on this church, but only blame for its lukewarmness. {The Amen} (\ho Amˆn\). Personal (masculine article) name here alone, though in strkjv@Isaiah:65:16| we have "the God of Amen" understood in the LXX as "the God of truth" (\ton theon ton alˆthinon\). Here applied to Christ. See strkjv@1:5| for \ho martus ho pistos\ (the faithful witness) and strkjv@3:7| for \ho alˆthinos\ (the genuine), "whose testimony never falls short of the truth" (Swete). {The beginning of the creation of God} (\hˆ archˆ tˆs ktise“s tou theou\). Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works (Colossians:1:15,18|, a passage probably known to the Laodiceans, strkjv@John:1:3; strkjv@Hebrews:1:2|, as is made clear by strkjv@1:18; strkjv@2:8; strkjv@3:21; strkjv@5:13|).

rwp@Revelation:4:11 @{Our Lord and our God} (\ho kurios kai ho theos hˆm“n\). The nominative form here used as vocative as in strkjv@John:20:28| and often. {To receive} (\labein\). Epexegetic second aorist active infinitive of \lamban“\ with \axios\ (worthy). {The glory} (\tˆn doxan\). The article referring to \doxan\ in verse 9| and so with \tˆn timˆn\ (the honour), though \tˆn dunamin\ (the power) is not in verse 9|, but is the power due to be ascribed to God. {Thou didst create} (\su ektisas\). Emphasis on \su\ (thou), first aorist active indicative of \ktiz“\, the verb used about the act of creation by Paul in strkjv@Colossians:1:16| (\ektisthˆ, ektistai\), constative aorist giving a summary picture of the whole (not as a process). {Because of thy will} (\dia to thelˆma sou\). Reason for creation of the universe as in strkjv@Hebrews:2:10| (\di' hon\). {They were} (\ˆsan\). Imperfect tense with a cursory glance at the universe as a fact, possibly a potential existence in God's purpose in the eternal past before the actual creation in time. {And were created} (\kai ektisthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of the same verb, \ktiz“\, just used and in the plural, while Paul (Colossians:1:16|) uses the singular \ektisthˆ\. See strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6|. God's will wrought through the Logos (Christ).

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|, not a codex as some scholars think. Usually these papyrus rolls were written only on the inside, but this one was so full of matter that it was written also on the back side (\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:5:5 @{One of the elders} (\heis ek t“n presbuter“n\). "One from among the elders" of strkjv@4:4,10| (\ek\ with the ablative 8 times in the Apocalypse, 12 in the Fourth Gospel, 10 in rest of the N.T., in place of the mere partitive genitive). No particular reason for one elder as the agent over another (7:13|). {Saith} (\legei\). Dramatic vivid present. {Weep not} (\mˆ klaie\). "Cease weeping" (prohibition with \mˆ\ and the present active imperative of \klai“\. {The Lion} (\ho le“n\). Satan is called a lion by Peter (1Peter:5:8|), but the metaphor belongs to Jesus also. Judah is called a lion in the blessing of Jacob (Genesis:49:9|) and Jesus as the greatest of the tribe of Judah, "the Root of David" (\hˆ riza Daueid\, strkjv@Isaiah:11:1,10|) or the Branch from this root (the Messiah). {Hath overcome} (\enikˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \nika“\, "did overcome," coming first in the sentence as "the great historical fact of the victory of the Christ" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:8:2 @{Stand} (\hestˆkasin\). Perfect active of \histˆmi\ (intransitive). Another "hebdomad" so frequent in the Apocalypse. The article (the seven angels) seems to point to seven well-known angels. In Enoch strkjv@20:7 the names of seven archangels are given (Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, Remiel) and "angels of the Presence" is an idea like that in strkjv@Isaiah:63:9|. We do not know precisely what is John's idea here. {Seven trumpets} (\hepta salpigges\). We see trumpets assigned to angels in strkjv@Matthew:24:31; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:52; strkjv@Revelation:4:1,4|. See also the use of trumpets in strkjv@Joshua:6:13; strkjv@Joel:2:1|. These seven trumpets are soon to break the half hour of silence. Thus the seven trumpets grow out of the opening of the seventh seal, however that fact is to be interpreted.

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

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

rwp@Revelation:11:15 @{There followed} (\egenonto\). "There came to pass." There was silence in heaven upon the opening of the seventh seal (8:1|), but here "great voices." Perhaps the great voices are the \z“a\ of strkjv@4:6ff.; strkjv@5:8|. {Saying} (\legontes\). Construction according to sense; \legontes\, masculine participle (not \legousai\), though \ph“nai\, feminine. John understood what was said. {Is become} (\egeneto\). "Did become," prophetic use of the aorist participle, already a fact. See \egeneto\ in strkjv@Luke:19:9|. {The kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ} (\tou kuriou hˆm“n kai tou Christou autou\). Repeat \hˆ basileia\ from the preceding. God the Father is meant here by \kuriou\ (Lord), as \autou\ (his) shows. This is the certain and glorious outcome of the age-long struggle against Satan, who wields the kingdom of the world which he offered to Christ on the mountain for one act of worship. But Jesus scorned partnership with Satan in the rule of the world, and chose war, war up to the hilt and to the end. Now the climax has come with Christ as Conqueror of the kingdom of this world for his Father. This is the crowning lesson of the Apocalypse. {He shall reign} (\basileusei\). Future active of \basileu“\. God shall reign, but the rule of God and of Christ is one as the kingdom is one (1Corinthians:15:27|). Jesus is the Lord's Anointed (Luke:2:26; strkjv@9:20|).

rwp@Revelation:13:4 @{They worshipped the dragon} (\prosekunˆsan t“i drakonti\). First aorist active indicative of \proskune“\, with dative case \drakonti\ (from \drak“n\). They really worshipped Satan (the dragon) when "they worshipped the beast" (\prosekunˆsan t“i thˆri“i\) or any one of the heads (like Caligula, Nero, Domitian) of the beast. The beast is merely the tool of the devil for worship. Recall the fact that the devil even proposed that Jesus worship him. Emperor-worship, like all idolatry, was devil-worship. The same thing is true today about self-worship (humanism or any other form of it). {Who is like unto the beast?} (\tis homoios t“i thˆri“i;\). Associative-instrumental case after \homoios\. An echo, perhaps parody, of like language about God in strkjv@Exodus:15:11; strkjv@Psalms:35:10; strkjv@113:5|. "The worship of such a monster as Nero was indeed a travesty of the worship of God" (Swete). {And who is able to war with him?} (\kai tis dunatai polemˆsai met' autou;\). Worship of the devil and the devil's agent is justified purely on the ground of brute force. It is the doctrine of Nietzsche that might makes right.

rwp@Revelation:19:2 @{For} (\hoti\). Because. The reason for God's judgments is given in strkjv@15:3; strkjv@16:7|. The doom of Babylon seen in strkjv@14:7| is now realized. {For} (\hoti\). Second use of \hoti\, explaining the first. {He hath judged} (\ekrinen\). First aorist (prophetic and climacteric, effective) active indicative of \krin“\. {Which} (\hˆtis\). The very one which. {Did corrupt} (\ephtheiren\). This is the terrible fact. First aorist active indicative of \phtheir“\. Cf. strkjv@11:18; strkjv@14:8; strkjv@17:2; strkjv@18:3|. {And he hath avenged} (\kai exedikˆsen\). God has exacted vengeance for the blood of his servants from (\ek\) her. Prophetic aorist again of \ekdike“\ with accusative and \ek\ with ablative as in strkjv@6:10|.

rwp@Revelation:19:15 @{A sharp sword} (\romphaia oxeia\). As in strkjv@1:16; strkjv@2:12,15|. {That he should smite} (\hina pataxˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \patass“\, old verb already in strkjv@11:6| and like strkjv@Isaiah:11:4|, a figure here for forensic and judicial condemnation. {And he shall rule them} (\kai autos poimanei\). Emphatic use of \autos\ twice (he himself). Future active of \poimain“\, to shepherd as in strkjv@2:27; strkjv@12:5| "with a rod of iron" (\en rabd“i sidˆrƒi\) as there. See strkjv@1Peter:2:25; strkjv@Hebrews:13:20| for Christ as Shepherd. {And he treadeth} (\kai autos patei\). Change to present tense of \pate“\, to tread (here transitive), with solemn repetition of \kai autos\. {The winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God} (\tˆn lˆnon tou oinou tou thumou tˆs orgˆs tou theou tou pantokratoros\). Literally, "the winepress of the wine of the wrath of the anger of God the Almighty" (four genitives dependent on one another and on \lˆnon\). These images are here combined from strkjv@14:8,10,19f.; strkjv@16:19|. The fact is already in strkjv@19:13| after strkjv@Isaiah:63:1ff|.

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

rwp@Revelation:21:3 @{The tabernacle of God is with men} (\hˆ skˆnˆ tou theou meta t“n anthr“p“n\). It is one of the angels of the Presence (16:17; strkjv@19:5|) speaking. {And he shall dwell with them} (\kai skˆn“sei met' aut“n\). Future active of \skˆno“\, already in strkjv@7:15| from strkjv@Ezekiel:37:27; strkjv@Zechariah:2:10; strkjv@8:8| and used of the Incarnate Christ on earth by John (John:1:14|), now a blessed reality of the Father. The metaphor stands for the Shekinah Glory of God in the old tabernacle (7:15; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@15:5|), the true tabernacle of which it was a picture (Hebrews:8:2; strkjv@9:11|). God is now Immanuel in fact, as was true of Christ (Matthew:1:23|).

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:21:18 @{The building of the wall} (\hˆ end“mˆsis tou teichous\). Or \endomˆsis\, elsewhere so far only in Josephus (_Ant_. XV. 9. 6, a mole or breakwater) and in an inscription (_Syll_. 583 31), apparently from \endome“\, to build in, and so the fact of building in. The wall had jasper (verse 11|) built into it. {Was pure gold} (\chrusion katharon\). No copula \ˆn\ (was) expressed. The city shone like a mass of gold in contrast with the jasper lustre of the wall. {Pure glass} (\hual“i kathar“i\). Associative instrumental case after \homoion\. \Hualos\ (apparently from \huei\, it rains, and so raindrop) in N.T. only strkjv@Revelation:21:18,21|.

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

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE VISIONS No theory of authorship, sources, or date should ignore the fact that the author claims to have had a series of visions in Patmos. It does not follow that he wrote them down at once and without reflection, but it seems hardly congruous to think that he waited till he had returned from exile in Patmos to Ephesus before writing them out. In fact, there is a note of sustained excitement all through the book, combined with high literary skill in the structure of the book in spite of the numerous grammatical lapses. The series of sevens bear a relation to one another, but more in the fashion of a kaleidoscope than of a chronological panorama. And yet there is progress and power in the arrangement and the total effect. There is constant use of Old Testament language and imagery, almost a mosaic, but without a single formal quotation. There is constant repetition of words and phrases in true Johannine style. Each of the messages to the seven churches picks out a metaphor in the first picture of Christ in chapter I and there are frequent other allusions to the language in this picture. In fact there is genuine artistic skill in the structure of the book, in spite of the deflections from ordinary linguistic standards. In the visions and all through the book there is constant use of symbols, as is the fashion in apocalypses like the beasts, the scorpions, the horses, etc. These symbols probably were understood by the first readers of the book, though the key to them is lost to us. Even the numbers in the book (3 1/2, 7, 3, 4, 12, 24, 1000) cannot be pressed, though some do so. Even Harnack called the Apocalypse the plainest book in the New Testament, by using Harnack's key for the symbols.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION They are literally many. There are those who make the book a chart of Christian and even of human history even to the end. These divide into two groups, the continuous and the synchronous. The continuous historical theory takes each vision and symbol in succession as an unfolding panorama. Under the influence of this theory there have been all sorts of fantastic identifications of men and events. The synchronous theory takes the series of sevens (seals, trumpets, bowls) as parallel with each other, each time going up to the end. But in neither case can any satisfactory program be arranged. Another historical interpretation takes it all as over and done, the preterist theory. This theory again breaks into two, one finding the fulfilment all in the Neronic period, the other in the Domitianic era. Something can be said for each view, but neither satisfies the whole picture by any means. Roman Catholic scholars have been fond of the preterist view to escape the Protestant interpretation of the second beast in chapter strkjv@Revelation:13| as papal Rome. There is still another interpretation, the futurist, which keeps the fulfilment all in the future and which can be neither proved nor disproved. There is also the purely spiritual theory which finds no historical allusion anywhere. This again can be neither proved nor disproved. One of the lines of cleavage is the millennium in chapter strkjv@Revelation:20|. Those who take the thousand years literally are either pre-millennialists who look for the second coming of Christ to be followed by a thousand years of personal reign here on earth or the postmillennialists who place the thousand years before the second coming. There are others who turn to strkjv@2Peter:3:8| and wonder if, after all, in a book of symbols this thousand years has any numerical value at all. There seems abundant evidence to believe that this apocalypse, written during the stress and storm of Domitian's persecution, was intended to cheer the persecuted Christians with a view of certain victory at last, but with no scheme of history in view.

rwp@Romans:2:4 @{Or despiseth thou?} (\ˆ kataphroneis?\). Another alternative, that of scorn of God's kindness (\chrˆstotˆtos\, strkjv@2Corinthians:6:6|) and forbearance (\anochˆs\, old word, holding back from \anech“\, only here in N.T.) and longsuffering (\makrothumias\, late word for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:6:4,6|). \Kataphrone“\ is old verb to think down on (\kata, phrone“\) as in strkjv@Matthew:6:24; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:22|. This upstart Jew actually thinks down on God. And then "the riches" (\tou ploutou\) of all that comes from God. {Leadeth thee to repentance} (\eis metanoian se agei\). The very kindness (\to chrˆston\, the kindly quality) of God is trying to lead (conative present \agei\) thee to a right-about face, a change of mind and attitude (\metanoian\) instead of a complacent self-satisfaction and pride of race and privilege.

rwp@Romans:2:6 @{Who will render} (\hos apod“sei\). Paul quotes strkjv@Proverbs:24:12| as in strkjv@2Timothy:4:14|. See also strkjv@Matthew:16:27; strkjv@Revelation:22:12|. The rendering will be in accord with the facts.

rwp@Romans:2:8 @{But unto them that are factious and obey not the truth but obey unrighteousness} (\tois de ex eritheias kai apeithousin tˆi alˆtheiƒi peithomenois de adikiƒi\). The other side with \de\ and the articular present participles in the dative again, only with \ex eritheias\, there is no participle \ousin\. But the construction changes and the substantives that follow are not the object of \apod“sei\ like \z“ˆn ain“nion\ above, but are in the nominative as if with \esontai\ (shall be) understood (anger and wrath, both \orgˆ\ and \thumos\, tribulation and anguish, again a pair \thlipsis kai stenoch“ria\ on which see strkjv@2Corinthians:5:4; strkjv@12:10|).

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

rwp@Romans:4:24 @{Him that raised up Jesus} (\ton egeiranta Iˆsoun\). First aorist active articular participle of \egeir“\, to raise up. The fact of the Resurrection of Jesus is central in Paul's gospel (1Corinthians:15:4ff.|).

rwp@Romans:5:12 @{Therefore} (\dia touto\). "For this reason." What reason? Probably the argument made in verses 1-11|, assuming our justification and urging exultant joy in Christ because of the present reconciliation by Christ's death and the certainty of future final salvation by his life. {As through one man} (\h“sper di' henos anthr“pou\). Paul begins a comparison between the effects of Adam's sin and the effects of the redemptive work of Christ, but he does not give the second member of the comparison. Instead of that he discusses some problems about sin and death and starts over again in verse 15|. The general point is plain that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants, though he does not say how it was done whether by the natural or the federal headship of Adam. It is important to note that Paul does not say that the whole race receives the full benefit of Christ's atoning death, but only those who do. Christ is the head of all believers as Adam is the head of the race. In this sense Adam "is a figure of him that was to come." {Sin entered into the world} (\hˆ hamartia eis ton kosmon eisˆlthen\). Personification of sin and represented as coming from the outside into the world of humanity. Paul does not discuss the origin of evil beyond this fact. There are some today who deny the fact of sin at all and who call it merely "an error of mortal mind" (a notion) while others regard it as merely an animal inheritance devoid of ethical quality. {And so death passed unto all men} (\kai hout“s eis pantas anthr“pous diˆlthen\). Note use of \dierchomai\ rather than \eiserchomai\, just before, second aorist active indicative in both instances. By "death" in strkjv@Genesis:2:17; strkjv@3:19| physical death is meant, but in verses 17,21| eternal death is Paul's idea and that lurks constantly behind physical death with Paul. {For that all sinned} (\eph' h“i pantes hˆmarton\). Constative (summary) aorist active indicative of \hamartan“\, gathering up in this one tense the history of the race (committed sin). The transmission from Adam became facts of experience. In the old Greek \eph' h“i\ usually meant "on condition that," but "because" in N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 963).

rwp@Romans:7:3 @{While the husband liveth} (\z“ntos tou andros\). Genitive absolute of present active participle of \za“\. {She shall be called} (\chrˆmatisei\). Future active indicative of \chrˆmatiz“\, old verb, to receive a name as in strkjv@Acts:11:26|, from \chrˆma\, business, from \chraomai\, to use, then to give an oracle, etc. {An adulteress} (\moichalis\). Late word, in Plutarch, LXX. See on ¯Matthew:12:39|. {If she be joined} (\ean genˆtai\). Third class condition, "if she come to." {Songs:that she is no adulteress} (\tou mˆ einai autˆn moichalida\). It is a fact that \tou\ and the infinitive is used for result as we saw in strkjv@1:24|. Conceived result may explain the idiom here.

rwp@Romans:8:9 @{Not in the flesh} (\ouk en sarki\). Not sold under sin (7:14|) any more. {But in the spirit} (\alla en pneumati\). Probably, "in the Holy Spirit." It is not Pantheism or Buddhism that Paul here teaches, but the mystical union of the believer with Christ in the Holy Spirit. {If so be that} (\eiper\). "If as is the fact" (cf. strkjv@3:30|). {The Spirit of Christ} (\pneuma Christou\). The same as "the Spirit of God" just before. See also strkjv@Phillipians:1:19; strkjv@1Peter:1:11|. Incidental argument for the Deity of Christ and probably the meaning of strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18| "the Spirit of the Lord." Condition of first class, assumed as true.

rwp@Romans:8:39 @{To separate us} (\hˆmƒs ch“risai\). Aorist active infinitive of \choriz“\ (same verb as in 35|). God's love is victor over all possible foes, "God's love that is in Christ Jesus." Paul has reached the mountain top. He has really completed his great argument concerning the God-kind of righteousness save for its bearing on some special problems. The first of these concerns the fact that the Jews (God's chosen people) have so largely rejected the gospel (chapters 9-11|).

rwp@Romans:9:24 @{But also from the Gentiles} (\alla kai ex ethn“n\). Paul had already alluded to this fact in strkjv@9:6f.| (cf. strkjv@Galatians:3:7-9|). Now he proceeds to prove it from the Old Testament.

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

rwp@Romans:10:6 @{Saith thus} (\hout“s legei\). Paul personifies "the from faith righteousness" (\hˆ ek piste“s dikaiosunˆ\). A free reproduction from strkjv@Deuteronomy:30:11-14|. Paul takes various phrases from the LXX and uses them for "his inspired conviction and experiences of the gospel" (Denney). He does not quote Moses as saying this or meaning this. {Say not in thy heart} (\mˆ eipˆis en tˆi kardiƒi sou\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \mˆ\ like strkjv@Deuteronomy:8:17|. To say in the heart is to think (Matthew:3:9|). {That is, to bring Christ down} (\tout' estin Christon katagagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of the common verb \katag“\, to bring or lead down. It is dependent on the preceding verb \anabˆsetai\ (shall ascend). \Tout' estin\ (that is) is what is called _Midrash_ or interpretation as in strkjv@9:8|. It occurs three times here (verses 6-8|). Paul applies the words of Moses to Christ. There is no need for one to go to heaven to bring Christ down to earth. The Incarnation is already a glorious fact. Today some men scout the idea of the Deity and Incarnation of Christ.

rwp@Romans:10:8 @{But what saith it?} (\alla ti legei?\). That is "the from faith righteousness." {The word of faith} (\to rˆma tˆs piste“s\). The gospel message concerning faith (objective genitive). Only here. In contrast to the law. {Which we preach} (\ho kˆrussomen\). The living voice brings home to every one the faith kind of righteousness. Paul seizes upon the words of Moses with the orator's instinct and with rhetorical skill (Sanday and Headlam) applies them to the facts about the gospel message about the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ.

rwp@Romans:11:11 @{Did they stumble that they might fall?} (\mˆ eptaisan hina pes“sin?\). Negative answer expected by \mˆ\ as in verse 1|. First aorist active indicative of \ptai“\, old verb, to stumble, only here in Paul (see strkjv@James:3:2|), suggested perhaps by \skandalon\ in verse 9|. If \hina\ is final, then we must add "merely" to the idea, "merely that they might fall" or make a sharp distinction between \ptai“\, to stumble, and \pipt“\, to fall, and take \pes“sin\ as effective aorist active subjunctive to fall completely and for good. \Hina\, as we know, can be either final, sub-final, or even result. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:29; strkjv@Galatians:5:17|. Paul rejects this query in verse 11| as vehemently as he did that in verse 1|. {By their fall} (\t“i aut“n parapt“mati\). Instrumental case. For the word, a falling aside or a false step from \parapipt“\, see strkjv@5:15-20|. {Is come}. No verb in the Greek, but \ginetai\ or \gegonen\ is understood. {For to provoke them to jealousy} (\eis to parazˆl“sai\). Purpose expressed by \eis\ and the articular infinitive, first aorist active, of \parazˆlo“\, for which verb see strkjv@1Corinthians:10:22|. As an historical fact Paul turned to the Gentiles when the Jews rejected his message (Acts:13:45ff.; strkjv@28:28|, etc.). {The riches of the world} (\ploutos kosmou\). See strkjv@10:12|. {Their loss} (\to hˆttˆma aut“n\). Songs:perhaps in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:7|, but in strkjv@Isaiah:31:8| defeat is the idea. Perhaps so here. {Fulness} (\plˆr“ma\). Perhaps "completion," though the word from \plˆro“\, to fill, has a variety of senses, that with which anything is filled (1Corinthians:10:26,28|), that which is filled (Ephesians:1:23|). {How much more?} (\pos“i mallon\). Argument _a fortiori_ as in verse 24|. Verse 25| illustrates the point.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Mon Jun 3 01:00:34 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020