Bible:
Filter: String:

NONE.filter - rwp question:


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:1:20 @{Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?} (\Pou sophos; pou grammateus; pou sunzˆtˆtˆs tou ai“nos toutou;\). Paul makes use of strkjv@Isaiah:33:18| without exact quotation. The sudden retreat of Sennacherib with the annihilation of his officers. "On the tablet of Shalmaneser in the Assyrian Gallery of the British Museum there is a surprisingly exact picture of the scene described by Isaiah" (Robertson and Plummer). Note the absence of the Greek article in each of these rhetorical questions though the idea is clearly definite. Probably \sophos\ refers to the Greek philosopher, \grammateus\ to the Jewish scribe and \sunzˆtˆtˆs\ suits both the Greek and the Jewish disputant and doubter (Acts:6:9; strkjv@9:29; strkjv@17:18; strkjv@28:29|). There is a note of triumph in these questions. The word \sunzˆtˆtˆs\ occurs here alone in the N.T. and elsewhere only in Ignatius, Eph. 18 quoting this passage, but the papyri give the verb \sunzˆte“\ for disputing (questioning together). {Hath not God made foolish?} (\ouchi em“ranen ho theos;\). Strong negative form with aorist active indicative difficult of precise translation, "Did not God make foolish?" The old verb \m“rain“\ from \m“ros\, foolish, was to be foolish, to act foolish, then to prove one foolish as here or to make foolish as in strkjv@Romans:1:22|. In strkjv@Matthew:5:13; strkjv@Luke:14:34| it is used of salt that is tasteless. {World} (\kosmou\). Synonymous with \ai“n\ (age), orderly arrangement, then the non-Christian cosmos.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:7 @{Maketh thee to differ} (\se diakrinei\). Distinguishes thee, separates thee. \Diakrin“\ means to sift or separate between (\dia\) as in strkjv@Acts:15:9| (which see) where \metaxu\ is added to make it plainer. All self-conceit rests on the notion of superiority of gifts and graces as if they were self-bestowed or self-acquired. {Which thou didst not receive} (\ho ouk elabes\). "Another home-thrust" (Robertson and Plummer). Pride of intellect, of blood, of race, of country, of religion, is thus shut out. {Dost thou glory} (\kauchasai\). The original second person singular middle ending \-sai\ is here preserved with variable vowel contraction, \kauchaesai=kauchasai\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 341). Paul is fond of this old and bold verb for boasting. {As if thou hadst not received it} (\h“s mˆ lab“n\). This neat participial clause (second aorist active of \lamban“\) with \h“s\ (assumption) and negative \mˆ\ punctures effectually the inflated bag of false pride. What pungent questions Paul has asked. Robertson and Plummer say of Augustine, "Ten years before the challenge of Pelagius, the study of St. Paul's writings, and especially of this verse and of strkjv@Romans:9:16|, had crystallized in his mind the distinctively Augustinian doctrines of man's total depravity, of irresistible grace, and of absolute predestination." Human responsibility does exist beyond a doubt, but there is no foundation for pride and conceit.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:8 @{Already are ye filled?} (\ˆdˆ kekoresmenoi este?\). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, of \korennumi\, old Greek verb to satiate, to satisfy. The only other example in N.T. is strkjv@Acts:27:38| which see. Paul may refer to strkjv@Deuteronomy:31:20; strkjv@32:15|. But it is keen irony, even sarcasm. Westcott and Hort make it a question and the rest of the sentence also. {Already ye are become rich} (\ˆdˆ eploutˆsate\). Note change to ingressive aorist indicative of \ploute“\, old verb to be rich (cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9|). "The aorists, used instead of perfects, imply indecent haste" (Lightfoot). "They have got a private millennium of their own" (Robertson & Plummer) with all the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom (Luke:22:29f.; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:12; strkjv@2Timothy:2:12|). {Ye have reigned without us} (\ch“ris hˆm“n ebasileusate\). Withering sarcasm. Ye became kings without our company. Some think that Paul as in strkjv@3:21| is purposely employing Stoic phraseology though with his own meanings. If so, it is hardly consciously done. Paul was certainly familiar with much of the literature of his time, but it did not shape his ideas. {I would that ye did reign} (\kai ophelon ge ebasileusate\). More exactly, "And would at least that ye had come to reign (or become kings)." It is an unfulfilled wish about the past expressed by \ophelon\ and the aorist indicative instead of \ei gar\ and the aorist indicative (the ancient idiom). See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003, for the construction with particle \ophelon\ (an unaugmented second aorist form). {That we also might reign with you} (\hina kai hˆmeis humin sunbasileus“men\). Ironical contrast to \ch“ris hˆm“n ebasileusate\, just before. Associative instrumental case of \humin\ after \sun-\.

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:5:9 @{I wrote unto you in my epistle} (\egrapsa humin en tˆi epistolˆi\). Not the epistolary aorist, but a reference to an epistle to the Corinthians earlier than this one (our First Corinthians), one not preserved to us. What a "find" it would be if a bundle of papyri in Egypt should give it back to us? {To have no company with fornicators} (\mˆ sunanamignusthai pornois\). Present middle infinitive with \mˆ\ in an indirect command of a late double compound verb used in the papyri to mix up with (\sun-ana-mignusthai\, a \mi\ verb). It is in the N.T. only here and verse 11; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:14| which see. It is used here with the associative instrumental case (\pornois\, from \pera“, pernˆmi\, to sell, men and women who sell their bodies for lust). It is a pertinent question today how far modern views try to put a veneer over the vice in men and women.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:6:3 @{How much more, things that pertain to this life?} (\Mˆti ge bi“tika;\). The question expects the answer no and \ge\ adds sharp point to Paul's surprised tone, "Need I so much as say?" It can be understood also as ellipsis, "let me not say" (\mˆtige leg“\), not to say. \Bi“tika\ occurs first in Aristotle, but is common afterwards. In the papyri it is used of business matters. It is from \bios\ (manner of life in contrast to \z“ˆ\, life principle).

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

rwp@1Corinthians:6:13 @{But God shall bring to nought both it and them} (\ho de theos kai tautˆn kai tauta katargˆsei\). Another proverb about the adaptation of the belly (\koilia\) and food (\br“mata\, not just flesh), which had apparently been used by some in Corinth to justify sexual license (fornication and adultery). These Gentiles mixed up matters not alike at all (questions of food and sensuality). " We have traces of this gross moral confusion in the circumstances which dictated the Apostolic Letter (Acts:15:23-29|), where things wholly diverse are combined, as directions about meats to be avoided and a prohibition of fornication" (Lightfoot). Both the belly (\tautˆn\) and the foods (\tauta\) God will bring to an end by death and change. {But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body} (\to de s“ma ou tˆi porneiƒi alla t“i kuri“i, kai ho kurios t“i s“mati\). Paul here boldly shows the fallacy in the parallel about appetite of the belly for food. The human body has a higher mission than the mere gratification of sensual appetite. Sex is of God for the propagation of the race, not for prostitution. Paul had already stated that God dwells in us as the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit (3:16f.|). This higher function of the body he here puts forward against the debased Greek philosophy of the time which ignored completely Paul's idea, "the body for the Lord and the Lord for the body" (dative of personal interest in both cases). "The Lord Jesus and \porneia\ contested for the bodies of Christian men; loyal to him they must renounce _that_, yielding to _that_ they renounce him" (Findlay).

rwp@1Corinthians:7:1 @{Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote} (\peri de h“n egrapsate\). An ellipsis of \peri tout“n\, the antecedent of \peri h“n\, is easily supplied as in papyri. The church had written Paul a letter in which a number of specific problems about marriage were raised. He answers them _seriatim_. The questions must be clearly before one in order intelligently to interpret Paul's replies. The first is whether a single life is wrong. Paul pointedly says that it is not wrong, but good (\kalon\). One will get a one-sided view of Paul's teaching on marriage unless he keeps a proper perspective. One of the marks of certain heretics will be forbidding to marry (1Timothy:4:3|). Paul uses marriage as a metaphor of our relation to Christ (2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@Romans:7:4; strkjv@Ephesians:5:28-33|). Paul is not here opposing marriage. He is only arguing that celibacy may be good in certain limitations. The genitive case with \haptesthai\ (touch) is the usual construction.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:2 @{Because of fornications} (\dia tas porneias\). This is not the only reason for marriage, but it is a true one. The main purpose of marriage is children. Mutual love is another. The family is the basis of all civilization. Paul does not give a low view of marriage, but is merely answering questions put to him about life in Corinth.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:6 @{By way of permission} (\kata sungn“mˆn\). Old word for pardon, concession, indulgence. _Secundum indulgentiam_ (Vulgate). Only here in N.T., though in the papyri for pardon. The word means "knowing together," understanding, agreement, and so concession. {Not of commandment} (\ou kat' epitagˆn\). Late word (in papyri) from \epitass“\, old word to enjoin. Paul has not commanded people to marry. He has left it an open question.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:8 @{To the unmarried and to the widows} (\tois agamois kai tais chˆrais\). It is possible that by "the unmarried" (masculine plural) the apostle means only men since widows are added and since virgins receive special treatment later (verse 25|) and in verse 32| \ho agamos\ is the unmarried man. It is hardly likely that Paul means only widowers and widows and means to call himself a widower by \h“s kag“\ (even as I). After discussing marital relations in verses 2-7| he returns to the original question in verse 1| and repeats his own personal preference as in verse 7|. He does not say that it is _better_ to be unmarried, but only that it is _good_ (\kalon\ as in verse 1|) for them to remain unmarried. \Agamos\ is an old word and in N.T. occurs only in this passage. In verses 11, 34| it is used of women where the old Greeks would have used \anandros\, without a husband.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:14 @{Is sanctified in the wife} (\hˆgiastai en tˆi gunaiki\). Perfect passive indicative of \hagiaz“\, to set apart, to hallow, to sanctify. Paul does not, of course, mean that the unbelieving husband is saved by the faith of the believing wife, though Hodge actually so interprets him. Clearly he only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce. If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set aside. This is so simple that one wonders at the ability of men to get confused over Paul's language. {Else were your children unclean} (\epei ara ta tekna akatharta\). The common ellipse of the condition with \epei\: "since, accordingly, if it is otherwise, your children are illegitimate (\akatharta\)." If the relations of the parents be holy, the child's birth must be holy also (not illegitimate). "He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not \hagios\ till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism" (Robertson and Plummer).

rwp@1Corinthians:7:17 @{Only} (\ei mˆ\). This use of \ei mˆ\ as an elliptical condition is very common (7:5; strkjv@Galatians:1:7,19; strkjv@Romans:14:14|), "except that" like \plˆn\. Paul gives a general principle as a limitation to what he has just said in verse 15|. "It states the general principle which determines these questions about marriage, and this is afterwards illustrated by the cases of circumcision and slavery" (Robertson and Plummer). He has said that there is to be no compulsory slavery between the believer and the disbeliever (the Christian and the pagan). But on the other hand there is to be no reckless abuse of this liberty, no license. {As the Lord hath distributed to each man} (\hekast“i h“s memeriken ho kurios\). Perfect active indicative of \meriz“\, old verb from \meros\, apart. Each has his lot from the Lord Jesus, has his call from God. He is not to seek a rupture of the marriage relation if the unbeliever does not ask for it. {And so ordain I} (\kai hout“s diatassomai\). Military term, old word, to arrange in all the churches (distributed, \dia-\). Paul is conscious of authoritative leadership as the apostle of Christ to the Gentiles.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:32 @{Free from cares} (\amerimnous\). Old compound adjective (\a\ privative and \merimna\, anxiety). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:28:14| which see. {The things of the Lord} (\ta tou Kuriou\). The ideal state (so as to the widow and the virgin in verse 33|), but even the unmarried do let the cares of the world choke the word (Mark:4:19|). {How he may please the Lord} (\p“s aresˆi t“i Kuri“i\). Deliberative subjunctive with \p“s\ retained in an indirect question. Dative case of \Kuri“i\. Same construction in verse 33| with \p“s aresˆi tˆi gunaiki\ (his wife) and in 34| \p“s aresˆi t“i andri\ (her husband).

rwp@1Corinthians:7:36 @{That he behaveth himself unseemly} (\aschˆmonein\). Old verb, here only in N.T., from \aschˆm“n\ (1Corinthians:12:23|), from \a\ privative and \schˆma\. Occurs in the papyri. Infinitive in indirect discourse after \nomizei\ (thinks) with \ei\ (condition of first class, assumed as true). {If she be past the flower of her age} (\ean ˆi huperakmos\). Old word, only here in N.T., from \huper\ (over) and \akmˆ\ (prime or bloom of life), past the bloom of youth, _superadultus_ (Vulgate). Compound adjective with feminine form like masculine. Apparently the Corinthians had asked Paul about the duty of a father towards his daughter old enough to marry. {If need so requireth} (\kai hout“s opheilei ginesthai\). "And it ought to happen." Paul has discussed the problem of marriage for virgins on the grounds of expediency. Now he faces the question where the daughter wishes to marry and there is no serious objection to it. The father is advised to consent. Roman and Greek fathers had the control of the marriage of their daughters. "My marriage is my father's care; it is not for me to decide about that" (Hermione in Euripides' _Andromache_, 987). {Let them marry} (\gameit“san\). Present active plural imperative (long form).

rwp@1Corinthians:7:38 @{Doeth well} (\kal“s poiei\). Songs:Paul commends the father who gives his daughter in marriage (\gamizei\). This verb \gamiz“\ has not been found outside the N.T. See on ¯Matthew:22:30|. {Shall do better} (\kreisson poiˆsei\). In view of the present distress (7:26|) and the shortened time (7:29|). And yet, when all is said, Paul leaves the whole problem of getting married an open question to be settled by each individual case.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:8:13 @{Meat} (\br“ma\). Food it should be, not flesh (\krea\). {Maketh my brother to stumble} (\skandalizei ton adelphon mou\). Late verb (LXX and N.T.) to set a trap-stick (Matthew:5:29|) or stumbling-block like \proskomma\ in verse 9| (cf. strkjv@Romans:14:13,21|). Small boys sometimes set snares for other boys, not merely for animals to see them caught. {I will eat no flesh for evermore} (\ou mˆ phag“ krea eis ton ai“na\). The strong double negative \ou mˆ\ with the second aorist subjunctive. Here Paul has {flesh} (\krea\) with direct reference to the flesh offered to idols. Old word, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:14:21|. This is Paul's principle of love (verse 2|) applied to the matter of eating meats offered to idols. Paul had rather be a vegetarian than to lead his weak brother to do what he considered sin. There are many questions of casuistry today that can only be handled wisely by Paul's ideal of love.

rwp@1Corinthians:9:1 @{Amos:I not free?} (\Ouk eimi eleutheros;\). Free as a Christian from Mosaic ceremonialism (cf. strkjv@9:19|) as much as any Christian and yet he adapts his moral independence to the principle of considerate love in strkjv@8:13|. {Amos:I not an apostle?} (\ouk eimi apostolos;\). He has the exceptional privileges as an apostle to support from the churches and yet he foregoes these. {Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?} (\ouchi Iˆsoun ton Kurion hˆm“n heoraka;\). Proof (15:8; strkjv@Acts:9:17,27; strkjv@18:9; strkjv@22:14,17f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:1ff.|) that he has the qualification of an apostle (Acts:1:22|) though not one of the twelve. Note strong form of the negative \ouchi\ here. All these questions expect an affirmative answer. The perfect active \heoraka\ from \hora“\, to see, does not here have double reduplication as in strkjv@John:1:18|.

rwp@1Corinthians:Note @\mˆ melei\ expects the negative answer, impersonal verb with dative and genitive cases (\theoi\, God, \bo“n\, oxen). {Altogether} (\pant“s\). But here probably with the notion of doubtless or assuredly. The editors differ in the verse divisions here. The Canterbury Version puts both these questions in verse 10|, the American Standard the first in verse 9|, the second in verse 10|.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:11:14 @{Nature itself} (\hˆ phusis autˆ\). He reenforces the appeal to custom by the appeal to nature in a question that expects the affirmative answer (\oude\). \Phusis\, from old verb \phu“\, to produce, like our word nature (Latin _natura_), is difficult to define. Here it means native sense of propriety (cf. strkjv@Romans:2:14|) in addition to mere custom, but one that rests on the objective difference in the constitution of things.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:22 @{What? Have ye not houses?} (\Mˆ gar oikias ouk echete;\) The double negative (\mˆ--ouk\) in the single question is like the idiom in strkjv@9:4f.| which see. \Mˆ\ expects a negative answer while \ouk\ negatives the verb \echete\. "For do you fail to have houses?" Paul is not approving gluttony and drunkenness but only expressing horror at their sacrilege (despising, \kataphroneite\) of the church of God. {That have not} (\tous mˆ echontas\). Not those without houses, but those who have nothing, "the have-nots" (Findlay) like strkjv@2Corinthians:8:12|, in contrast with \hoi echontes\ "the haves" (the men of property). {What shall I say to you?} (\ti eip“ humin;\) Deliberative subjunctive that well expresses Paul's bewilderment.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:1 @{Now concerning spiritual gifts} (\peri de t“n pneumatik“n\). Clearly one of the items asked about in the letter to Paul (7:1|) and introduced precisely as the problem of meats offered to idols (8:1|). This question runs to the end of chapter 14. Plainly much trouble had arisen in Corinth in the exercise of these gifts.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:31 @{The greater gifts} (\ta charismata ta meizona\). Paul unhesitatingly ranks some spiritual gifts above others. \Zˆlo“\ here has good sense, not that of envy as in strkjv@Acts:7:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:13:4|. {And a still more excellent way} (\kai eti kath' huperbolˆn hodon\). In order to gain the greater gifts. "I show you a way _par excellence_," beyond all comparison (superlative idea in this adjunct, not comparative), like \kath' huperbolˆn eis huperbolˆn\ (2Corinthians:4:17|). \Huperbolˆ\ is old word from \huperball“\, to throw beyond, to surpass, to excel (2Corinthians:3:10; strkjv@Ephesians:1:19|). "I show you a supremely excellent way." Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13| is this way, the way of love already laid down in strkjv@8:1| concerning the question of meats offered to idols (cf. strkjv@1John:4:7|). Poor division of chapters here. This verse belongs with chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13|.

rwp@1Corinthians:14:34 @{Keep silence in the churches} (\en tais ekklˆsiais sigat“san\). The same verb used about the disorders caused by speakers in tongues (verse 28|) and prophets (30|). For some reason some of the women were creating disturbance in the public worship by their dress (11:2-16|) and now by their speech. There is no doubt at all as to Paul's meaning here. In church the women are not allowed to speak (\lalein\) nor even to ask questions. They are to do that {at home} (\en oik“i\). He calls it a shame (\aischron\) as in strkjv@11:6| (cf. strkjv@Ephesians:5:12; strkjv@Titus:1:11|). Certainly women are still in subjection (\hupotassesth“san\) to their husbands (or ought to be). But somehow modern Christians have concluded that Paul's commands on this subject, even strkjv@1Timothy:2:12|, were meant for specific conditions that do not apply wholly now. Women do most of the teaching in our Sunday schools today. It is not easy to draw the line. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. It seems clear that we need to be patient with each other as we try to understand Paul's real meaning here.

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:15:35 @{But some one will say} (\alla erei tis\). Paul knows what the sceptics were saying. He is a master at putting the standpoint of the imaginary adversary. {How} (\p“s\). This is still the great objection to the resurrection of our bodies. Granted that Jesus rose from the dead, for the sake of argument, these sceptics refuse to believe in the possibility of our resurrection. It is the attitude of Matthew Arnold who said, "Miracles do not happen." Scientifically we know the "how" of few things. Paul has an astounding answer to this objection. Death itself is the way of resurrection as in the death of the seed for the new plant (verses 36f.|). {With what manner of body} (\poi“i s“mati\). This is the second question which makes plainer the difficulty of the first. The first body perishes. Will that body be raised? Paul treats this problem more at length (verses 38-54|) and by analogy of nature (Cf. Butler's famous _Analogy_). It is a spiritual, not a natural, body that is raised. \S“ma\ here is an organism. {Flesh} (\sarx\) is the \s“ma\ for the natural man, but there is spiritual (\pneumatikon\) \s“ma\ for the resurrection.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:36 @{Thou foolish one} (\aphr“n\). Old word (\a\ privative, \phrˆn\), lack of sense. It is a severe term and justified by the implication "that the objector plumes himself on his acuteness" (Robertson and Plummer). Proleptic position of \su\ (thou) sharpens the point. Sceptics (agnostics) pose as unusually intellectual (the intelligentsia), but the pose does not make one intelligent. {Except it die} (\ean mˆ apothanˆi\). Condition of third class, possibility assumed. This is the answer to the "how" question. In plant life death precedes life, death of the seed and then the new plant.

rwp@1John:2:22 @{The liar} (\ho pseustˆs\). The liar (with the article) _par excellence_. Rhetorical question to sharpen the point made already about lying in strkjv@1:6,10; strkjv@2:4,21|. See strkjv@5:5| for a like rhetorical question. {But} (\ei mˆ\). Except, if not. {That denieth that Jesus is the Christ} (\ho arnoumenos hoti Iˆsous ouk estin ho Christos\). Common Greek idiom for \ouk\ to appear after \arneomai\ like redundant \mˆ\ in strkjv@Luke:20:27; strkjv@Hebrews:12:19|. The old Latin retains _non_ here as old English did (Shakespeare, _Comedy of Errors_ IV. ii. 7, "He denied you had in him no right"). The Cerinthian Gnostics denied the identity of the man Jesus and Christ (an \aeon\, they held) like the modern Jesus or Christ controversy. {This is the antichrist} (\houtos estin ho antichristos\). The one just mentioned, Cerinthus himself in particular. {Even he that denieth the Father and the Son} (\ho arnoumenos ton patera kai ton huion\). This is the inevitable logic of such a rejection of the Son of God. Jesus had himself said this very same thing (John:5:23f.|).

rwp@1John:3:17 @{Whoso hath} (\hos an echˆi\). Indefinite relative clause with modal \an\ with \hos\ and the present active subjunctive of \ech“\. {The world's goods} (\ton bion tou kosmou\). "The living or livelihood (not \z“ˆ\, the principle of life, and see strkjv@2:16| for \bios\) of the world" (not in the sense of evil or wicked, but simply this mundane sphere). {Beholdeth} (\the“rei\). Present active subjunctive of \the“re“\, like \echei\ just before. {In need} (\chreian echonta\). "Having need" (present active predicate participle of \ech“\, agreeing with \adelphon\). See the vivid picture of a like case in strkjv@James:2:15f|. {Shutteth up} (\kleisˆi\). First aorist (effective) active subjunctive of \klei“\, to close like the door, changed on purpose from present tense to aorist (graphic slamming the door of his compassion, \splagchna\, common in LXX and N.T. for the nobler viscera, the seat of the emotions, as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:11; strkjv@Colossians:3:12|). Only here in John. {How} (\p“s\). Rhetorical question like that in strkjv@James:2:16| (what is the use?). It is practical, not speculative, that counts in the hour of need.

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:5:16 @{If any man see} (\ean tis idˆi\). Third-class condition with \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \eidon\ (\hora“\). {Sinning a sin} (\hamartanonta hamartian\). Present active predicate (supplementary) participle agreeing with \adelphon\ and with cognate accusative \hamartian\. {Not unto death} (\mˆ pros thanaton\). Repeated again with \hamartanousin\ and in contrast with \hamartia pros thanaton\ (sin unto death). Most sins are not mortal sins, but clearly John conceives of a sin that is deadly enough to be called "unto death." This distinction is common in the rabbinic writings and in strkjv@Numbers:18:22| the LXX has \labein hamartian thanatˆphoron\ "to incur a death-bearing sin" as many crimes then and now bear the death penalty. There is a distinction in strkjv@Hebrews:10:26| between sinning wilfully after full knowledge and sins of ignorance (Hebrews:5:2|). Jesus spoke of the unpardonable sin (Mark:3:29; strkjv@Matthew:12:32; strkjv@Luke:12:10|), which was attributing to the devil the manifest work of the Holy Spirit. It is possible that John has this idea in mind when he applies it to those who reject Jesus Christ as God's Son and set themselves up as antichrists. {Concerning this} (\peri ekeinˆs\). This sin unto death. {That he should make request} (\hina er“tˆsˆi\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with the first aorist active subjunctive of \er“ta“\, used here as in strkjv@John:17:15,20| (and often) for request rather than for question. John does not forbid praying for such cases; he simply does not command prayer for them. He leaves them to God.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE DATE This question is tied up with that of the genuineness of the Epistle, the time of Peter's death, the use of Paul's Epistles, the persecution referred to in the Epistle. Assuming the genuineness of the Epistle and the death of Peter about A.D. 67 or 68 and the persecution to be not that under Domitian or Trajan, but under Nero, the date can be assumed to be about A.D. 65.

rwp@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:4:18 @{And if the righteous is scarcely saved} (\kai ei ho dikaios molis s“zetai\). First-class condition again with \ei\ and present passive indicative of \s“z“\. Quotation from strkjv@Proverbs:11:31|. See strkjv@3:12,14; strkjv@Matthew:5:20|. But the Christian is not saved by his own righteousness (Phillipians:3:9; strkjv@Revelation:7:14|). For \molis\ see strkjv@Acts:14:18| and for \asebˆs\ (ungodly, without reverence) see strkjv@Romans:4:5; strkjv@2Peter:2:5|. {Will appear} (\phaneitai\). Future middle of \phain“\, to show. For the question see strkjv@Mark:10:24-26|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:9 @{They themselves} (\autoi\). The men of Macedonia, voluntarily. {Report} (\apaggellousin\). Linear present active indicative, keep on reporting. {What manner of entering in} (\hopoian eisodon\). What sort of entrance, qualitative relative in an indirect question. {We had} (\eschomen\). Second aorist active (ingressive) indicative of the common verb \ech“\. {And how} (\kai p“s\). Here the interrogative adverb \p“s\ in this part of the indirect question. This part about "them" (you) as the first part about Paul. The verb \epistreph“\ is an old verb for turning and is common in the Acts for Gentiles turning to God, as here from idols, though not by Paul again in this sense. In strkjv@Galatians:4:9| Paul uses it for turning to the weak and beggarly elements of Judaism. {From idols} (\apo t“n eidol“n\). Old word from \eidos\ (figure) for image or likeness and then for the image of a heathen god (our _idol_). Common in the LXX in this sense. In strkjv@Acts:14:15| Paul at Lystra urged the people {to turn from these vain things to the living God} (\apo tout“n t“n matai“n epistrephein epi theon z“nta\), using the same verb \epistrephein\. Here also Paul has a like idea, {to serve a living and true God} (\douleuein the“i z“nti kai alˆthin“i\). No article, it is true, but should be translated "the living and true God" (cf. strkjv@Acts:14:15|). Not "dead" like the idols from which they turned, but alive and genuine (\alˆthinos\, not \alˆthˆs\).

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:5 @{That I might know} (\eis to gn“nai\). Paul's common idiom (verse 2|), \eis to\ and the infinitive of purpose (second aorist ingressive active of \gin“sk“\, come to know). {Lest by any means the tempter had tempted you} (\mˆ p“s epeirasen humƒs ho peiraz“n\). Findlay takes this as a question with negative answer, but most likely negative final clause with \mˆ p“s\ about a past action with aorist indicative according to the classic idiom as in strkjv@Galatians:2:2| (\mˆ p“s--edramon\) and strkjv@Galatians:4:11| after verb of fearing (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 988). It is a fear that the thing may turn out to be so about the past. {Should be} (\genˆtai\). Here the usual construction appears (aorist subjunctive with \mˆ p“s\) about the future.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:1 @{Finally} (\loipon\). Accusative of general reference of \loipos\, as for the rest. It does not mean actual conclusion, but merely a colloquial expression pointing towards the end (Milligan) as in strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@2Timothy:4:8|. Songs:\to loipon\ in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:1; strkjv@4:8|. {We beseech} (\er“t“men\). Not "question" as in ancient Greek, but as often in N.T. (1Thessalonians:5:12; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1; strkjv@Phillipians:4:3|) and also in papyri to make urgent request of one. {How ye ought} (\to p“s dei humƒs\). Literally, explanatory articular indirect question (\to p“s\) after \parelabˆte\ according to common classic idiom in Luke (Luke:1:62; strkjv@22:2,4,23,24|) and Paul (Romans:8:26|). {That ye abound} (\hina perisseuˆte\). Loose construction of the \hina\ clause with present subjunctive after two subordinate clauses with \kath“s\ (as, even as) to be connected with "beseech and exhort." {More and more} (\mallon\). Simply {more}, but added to same idea in \perisseuˆte\. See also verse 11|.

rwp@1Timothy:1:4 @{To give heed} (\prosechein\). With \noun\ understood. Old and common idiom in N.T. especially in Luke and Acts (Acts:8:10ff.|). Not in Paul's earlier Epistles. strkjv@1Timothy:3:8; strkjv@4:1,13; strkjv@Titus:1:14|. {To fables} (\muthois\). Dative case of old word for speech, narrative, story, fiction, falsehood. In N.T. only strkjv@2Peter:1:16; strkjv@1Timothy:1:4; strkjv@4:7; strkjv@Titus:1:14; strkjv@2Timothy:4:4|. {Genealogies} (\genealogiais\). Dative of old word, in LXX, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:9|. {Endless} (\aperantois\). Old verbal compound (from \a\ privative and \perain“\, to go through), in LXX, only here in N.T. Excellent examples there for old words used only in the Pastorals because of the subject matter, describing the Gnostic emphasis on aeons. {Questionings} (\ekzˆtˆseis\). "Seekings out." Late and rare compound from \ekzˆte“\ (itself _Koin‚_ word, strkjv@Romans:3:11| from LXX and in papyri). Here only in N.T. Simplex \zˆtˆsis\ in strkjv@Acts:15:2; strkjv@1Timothy:6:4; strkjv@Titus:3:9; strkjv@2Timothy:2:23|. {A dispensation} (\oikonomian\). Pauline word (1Corinthians:9:17; strkjv@Colossians:1:25; strkjv@Ephesians:1:9; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@1Timothy:1:4|), strkjv@Luke:16:2-4| only other N.T. examples. {In faith} (\en pistei\). Pauline use of \pistis\.

rwp@1Timothy:1:5 @{The end} (\to telos\). See strkjv@Romans:6:21; strkjv@10:4| for \telos\ (the good aimed at, reached, result, end). {Love} (\agapˆ\). Not "questionings." strkjv@Romans:13:9|. "Three conditions for the growth of love" (Parry): "Out of a pure heart" (\ek katharas kardias\, O.T. conception), "and a good conscience" (\kai suneidˆse“s agathˆs\, for which see strkjv@Romans:2:25|), "and faith unfeigned" (\kai piste“s anupokritou\, late compound verbal in strkjv@2Corinthians:6:6; strkjv@Romans:12:9|).

rwp@1Timothy:1:7 @{Teachers of the law} (\nomodidaskaloi\). Compound only in N.T. (here, strkjv@Luke:5:17; strkjv@Acts:5:34|) and ecclesiastical writers. {Though they understand} (\noountes\). Concessive participle of \noe“\, old verb (Ephesians:3:4,20|). {Neither what} (\mˆte ha\). Relative \ha\ (which things). {Nor whereof} (\mˆte peri tin“n\). Here the interrogative \tin“n\ used in sense of relative \h“n\. It may be regarded as the use of an indirect question for variety (Parry). {They confidently affirm} (\diabebaiountai\). Present middle indicative of the common _Koin‚_ compound, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:8|.

rwp@1Timothy:3:5 @{If a man knoweth not} (\ei tis ouk oiden\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. {How to rule} (\prostˆnai\). Second aorist active infinitive of same verb \proistˆmi\ and with \oiden\ means "know how to rule," not "know that he rules." {How} (\p“s\). Rhetorical question expecting negative answer. {Shall he take care of} (\epimelˆsetai\). Future middle of \epimeleomai\, old compound (\epi\, direction of care towards) verb, in LXX, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:10:34f|. {The church of God} (\ekklˆsias theou\). Anarthrous as in verse 15|, elsewhere with article (1Corinthians:10:32; strkjv@15:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Galatians:1:13|). The local church described as belonging to God. No one in N.T. but Paul (Acts:20:28|) so describes the church. This verse is a parenthesis in the characteristics of the bishop.

rwp@1Timothy:3:15 @{But if I tarry long} (\ean de bradun“\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive of \bradun“\, old verb, to be slow (usually intransitive), from \bradus\ (slow, dull, strkjv@Luke:24:25|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Peter:3:9|. {That thou mayest know} (\hina eidˆis\). Final clause with \hina\ and second perfect active subjunctive of \oida\, to know. {How men ought} (\p“s dei\). "How it is necessary for thee" (supply \se\ more naturally than \tina\, any one). Indirect question. {To behave themselves} (\anastrephesthai\). Present middle (direct) infinitive of \anastreph“\, old verb, to turn up and down. See strkjv@2Corinthians:1:12; strkjv@Ephesians:2:3|. {In the house of God} (\en oik“i theou\). Probably here "household of God," that is "the family of God" rather than "the house (or temple) of God." Christians as yet had no separate houses of worship and \oikos\ commonly means "household." Christians are the \naos\ (sanctuary) of God (1Corinthians:3:16f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:16|), and Paul calls them \oikeioi tou theou\ (Ephesians:2:19|) "members of God's family." It is conduct as members of God's family (\oikos\) that Paul has in mind. {Which} (\hˆtis\). "Which very house of God," agreeing (feminine) with the predicate word \ekklˆsia\ (church). {The church of the living God} (\ekklˆsia theou z“ntos\). Probably here the general church or kingdom as in Colossians and Ephesians, though the local church in verse 5|. {The pillar and ground of the truth} (\stulos kai hedrai“ma tˆs alˆtheias\). Paul changes the metaphor again as he often does. Those words are in apposition to \ekklˆsia\ and \oikos\. On \stulos\, old word for pillar, see strkjv@Galatians:2:9; strkjv@Revelation:3:12| (only other N.T. examples). \Hedrai“ma\, late and rare word (from \hedraio“\, to make stable) occurs here first and only in ecclesiastical writers later. Probably it means stay or support rather than foundation or ground. See Co strkjv@1:23; strkjv@2Timothy:2:19| for similar idea. See also strkjv@Matthew:16:18f|.

rwp@1Timothy:5:18 @{Thou shalt not muzzle} (\ou phim“seis\). Prohibition by \ou\ and future (volitive) indicative of \phimo“\ (from \phimos\, muzzle), old word, quoted also in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:9| as here from strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:4|, and for the same purpose, to show the preacher's right to pay for his work. See strkjv@1Corinthians:9:9| for \alo“nta\ ({when he treadeth out the corn}). {The labourer is worthy of his hire} (\axios ho ergatˆs tou misthou autou\). These words occur in precisely this form in strkjv@Luke:10:7|. It appears also in strkjv@Matthew:10:10| with \tˆs trophˆs\ (food) instead of \tou misthou\. In strkjv@1Corinthians:9:14| Paul has the sense of it and says: "so also the Lord ordained," clearly meaning that Jesus had so said. It only remains to tell whether Paul here is quoting an unwritten saying of Jesus as he did in strkjv@Acts:20:35| or even the Gospel of Luke or Q (the Logia of Jesus). There is no way to decide this question. If Luke wrote his Gospel before A.D. 62 as is quite possible and Acts by A.D. 63, he could refer to the Gospel. It is not clear whether Scripture is here meant to apply to this quotation from the Lord Jesus. For \ergatˆs\ (labourer) see strkjv@Phillipians:3:2|.

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:1:17 @{Did I shew fickleness?} (\mˆti ara tˆi elaphriƒi?\). An indignant negative answer is called for by \mˆti\. The instrumental case of \elaphriƒi\ is regular after \echrˆsamˆn\ from \chraomai\, to use. \Elaphria\ is a late word for levity from the old adjective, \elaphros\, light, agile (2Corinthians:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:11:30|). Here only in N.T. {Purpose} (\bouleuomai\). Paul raises the question of fickleness about any of his plans. {Yea yea} (\Nai nai\) {--nay nay} (\ou ou\). See a similar repetition in strkjv@Matthew:5:37|. It is plain in strkjv@James:5:12| where "the yea" is "yea" and "the nay" is "nay." That seems to be Paul's meaning here, "that the Yea may be yea and the Nay may be nay."

rwp@2Corinthians:2:16 @{From death unto death} (\ek thanatou eis thanaton\). From one evil condition to another. Some people are actually hardened by preaching. {And who is sufficient for these things?} (\kai pros tauta tis hikanos?\). Rhetorical question. In himself no one is. But some one has to preach Christ and Paul proceeds to show that he is sufficient. {For we are not as the many} (\ou gar esmen h“s hoi polloi\). A bold thing to say, but necessary and only from God (3:6|).

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

rwp@2Peter:3:4 @{Where is the promise of his coming?} (\pou estin hˆ epaggelia tˆs parousias autou;\). This is the only sample of the questions raised by these mockers. Peter had mentioned this subject of the \parousia\ in strkjv@1:16|. Now he faces it squarely. Peter, like Paul (1Thessalonians:5:1f.; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1f.|), preached about the second coming (1:16; strkjv@Acts:3:20f.|), as Jesus himself did repeatedly (Matthew:24:34|) and as the angels promised at the Ascension (Acts:1:11|). Both Jesus and Paul (2Thessalonians:2:1f.|) were misunderstood on the subject of the time and the parables of Jesus urged readiness and forbade setting dates for his coming, though his language in strkjv@Matthew:24:34| probably led some to believe that he would certainly come while they were alive. {From the day that} (\aph' hˆs\). "From which day." See strkjv@Luke:7:45|. {Fell asleep} (\ekoimˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \koima“\, old verb, to put sleep, classic euphemism for death (John:11:11|) like our cemetery (sleeping-place). {Continue} (\diamenei\). Present active indicative of \diamen“\, to remain through (Luke:1:22|). _In statu quo_. {As they were} (\hout“s\). "Thus." {From the beginning of creation} (\ap' archˆs ktise“s\). Precisely so in strkjv@Mark:10:6|, which see.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:5 @{When I was yet with you} (\eti “n pros humas\). The present participle takes the time of the verb \elegon\ (imperfect active), {I used to tell you these things}. Songs:Paul recalls their memory of his words and leaves us without the clue to his idea. We know that one of the charges against him was that Jesus was another king, a rival to Caesar (Acts:17:7|). That leads one to wonder how far Paul went when there in contrasting the kingdom of the world of which Rome was ruler and the kingdom of God of which Christ is king. Frame notes Paul's abrupt question here "with an unfinished sentence behind him" (verses 3f.|), even "with a trace of impatience."

rwp@2Timothy:1:12 @{These things} (\tauta\). His imprisonment in Rome. {Yet I am not ashamed} (\all' ouk epaischunomai\). Plain reference to the exhortation to Timothy in verse 8|. {Him whom I have believed} (\h“i pepisteuka\). Dative case of the relative (\h“i\) with the perfect active of \pisteu“\, the antecedent to the relative not expressed. It is not an indirect question. Paul knows Jesus Christ whom he has trusted. {I am persuaded} (\pepeismai\). See verse 5|. {To guard} (\phulaxai\). First aorist active infinitive of \phulass“\, the very word used in strkjv@1Timothy:6:20| with \parathˆkˆn\ as here, to guard against robbery or any loss. {That which I have committed unto him} (\tˆn parathˆkˆn mou\). Literally, "my deposit," as in a bank, the bank of heaven which no burglar can break (Matthew:6:19f.|). See this word also in verse 14|. Some MSS. have the more common \parakatathˆkˆ\ (a sort of double deposit, \para\, beside, down, \kata\). {Against that day} (\eis ekeinˆn tˆn hˆmeran\). The day of Christ's second coming. See also strkjv@1:18; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:10|, and often in the Gospels. Elsewhere, the day of the Lord (1Thessalonians:5:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14|), the day of Christ or Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:6,10; strkjv@2:16|), the day (1Thessalonians:5:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:13; strkjv@Romans:13:12|), the day of redemption (Ephesians:4:20|), the day of judgment (Romans:2:5,16|).

rwp@2Timothy:2:25 @{Correcting} (\paideuonta\). See strkjv@Titus:2:12|. "Schooling" (Parry). {Oppose themselves} (\antidiatithemenous\). Present middle (direct) participle of \antidiatithˆmi\, late double compound (Diodorus, Philo) to place oneself in opposition, here only in N.T. {If peradventure God may give} (\mˆ pote d“iˆ ho theos\). Here Westcott and Hort read the late form of the second aorist active optative of \did“mi\ for the usual \doiˆ\ as they do in strkjv@1:18|. But there it is a wish for the future and so regular, while here the optative with \mˆ pote\ in a sort of indirect question is used with a primary tense \dei\ (present) and parallel with an undoubted subjunctive \ananˆps“sin\, while in strkjv@Luke:3:15| \mˆ pote eie\ is with a secondary tense. Examples of such an optative do occur in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 989) so that we cannot go as far as Moulton does and say that we "must" read the subjunctive \d“ˆi\ here (_Prolegomena_, pp. 55, 193). {Repentance} (\metanoian\). "Change of mind" (2Corinthians:7:10; strkjv@Romans:2:4|). {Unto the knowledge of the truth} (\eis epign“sin alˆtheias\). Paul's word "full knowledge" (Co strkjv@1:9|).

rwp@2Timothy:3:14 @{But abide thou} (\su de mene\). Emphatic contrast (\su de\), "But thou." Present active imperative of \men“\, common verb, to remain. {In the things which} (\en hois\). The antecedent to \hois\ is not expressed ("in which things") and the relative is attracted from \ha\ accusative with \emathes\ (didst learn, second aorist active indicative of \manthan“\) to the case of the unexpressed antecedent (locative with \en\). {Hast been assured of} (\epist“thˆs\). First aorist passive indicative of \pisto“\, old verb (from \pistos\, faithful), to make reliable, only here in N.T. {Knowing from whom} (\eid“s para tin“n\). Second perfect active participle of \oida\. Note \tin“n\ (ablative case after \para\ in an indirect question). The list included the O.T. prophets, Paul, Eunice, Lois. There ought to be moral authority in such personages.

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

rwp@Acts:4:21 @{When they had further threatened them} (\prosapeilˆsamenoi\). The "further" is in "pros" (in addition), {Finding nothing how they might punish them} (\mˆden heuriskontes to p“s kolas“ntai autous\). Note the article "to" before \p“s\ (how), "the how." Aorist middle deliberative subjunctive \kolas“ntai\ in indirect question after \p“s\ from \kolaz“\, to lop (\kolos\, lopped), to curb, to prune, to correct, to punish. Old verb, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Peter:2:9|. {Glorified God} (\edoxazon ton theon\). Imperfect active, kept on glorifying God while the Sanhedrin were threatening Peter and John. It was to laugh at the helplessness of the Sanhedrin.

rwp@Acts:5:8 @{For so much} (\tosoutou\). Genitive of price. Perhaps Peter pointed to the pile of money at the feet of the apostles (verse 2|). The use of \ei\ in direct questions appears in Luke (Luke:13:23; strkjv@22:49|) as in the LXX like the Hebrew _im_ and in strkjv@Acts:1:6; strkjv@19:2|, etc.

rwp@Acts:5:24 @{They were much perplexed} (\diˆporoun\). Imperfect active of \diapore“\ old verb by Luke only in the N.T. See already on strkjv@Acts:2:12|. They continued puzzled. {Whereunto this would grow} (\ti an genoito touto\). More exactly, {As to what this would become}. Second aorist middle optative of \ginomai\ with \an\, the conclusion of a condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of determination), the unexpressed condition being "if the thing should be allowed to go on." The indirect question simply retains the optative with \an\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1021, 1044). If they had only known how this grain of mustard seed would grow into the greatest tree on earth and how dwarfed the tree of Judaism would be beside it!

rwp@Acts:6:9 @{The synagogue of the Libertines} (\ek tˆs sunag“gˆs tˆs legomenˆs Libertin“n\). The Libertines (Latin _libertinus_, a freedman or the son of a freedman) were Jews, once slaves of Rome (perhaps descendants of the Jews taken to Rome as captives by Pompey), now set free and settled in Jerusalem and numerous enough to have a synagogue of their own. Schuerer calls a Talmudic myth the statement that there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. There were many, no doubt, but how many no one knows. These places of worship and study were in all the cities of the later times where there were Jews enough to maintain one. Apparently Luke here speaks of five such synagogues in Jerusalem (that of the Libertines, of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, of Cilicia, and of Asia). There probably were enough Hellenists in Jerusalem to have five such synagogues. But the language of Luke is not clear on this point. He may make only two groups instead of five since he uses the article \t“n\ twice (once before \Libertin“n kai Kurˆnai“n kai Alexandre“n\, again before \apo Kilikias kai Asias\). He also changes from the genitive plural to \apo\ before Cilicia and Asia. But, leaving the number of the synagogues unsettled whether five or two, it is certain that in each one where Stephen appeared as a Hellenist preaching Jesus as the Messiah he met opposition. Certain of them "arose" (\anestˆsan\) "stood up" after they had stood all that they could from Stephen, "disputing with Stephen" (\sunzˆtountes t“i Stephan“i\). Present active participle of \sunzˆte“\, to question together as the two on the way to Emmaus did (Luke:24:15|). Such interruptions were common with Jews. They give a skilled speaker great opportunity for reply if he is quick in repartee. Evidently Stephen was fully equipped for the emergency. One of their synagogues had men from Cilicia in it, making it practically certain that young Saul of Tarsus, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, was present and tried his wits with Stephen. His ignominious defeat may be one explanation of his zest in the stoning of Stephen (Acts:8:1|).

rwp@Acts:7:1 @{Are these things so?} (\ei tauta hout“s echei\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. Songs:he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts:13:16ff.|) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse 51|) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "Songs:Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:9:5 @{Lord} (\kurie\). It is open to question if \kurie\ should not here be translated "Sir" as in strkjv@16:30| and in strkjv@Matthew:21:29,30; strkjv@John:5:7; strkjv@12:21; strkjv@20:15|; and should be so in strkjv@John:9:36|. It is hardly likely that at this stage Saul recognized Jesus as Lord, though he does so greet him in strkjv@22:10| "What shall I do, Lord?" Saul may have recognized the vision as from God as Cornelius says "Lord" in strkjv@10:4|. Saul surrendered instantly as Thomas did (John:20:28|) and as little Samuel (1Samuel:3:9|). This surrender of the will to Christ was the conversion of Saul. He saw a real Person, the Risen Christ, to whom he surrendered his life. On this point he never wavered for a moment to the end.

rwp@Acts:9:6 @The best MSS. do not have "trembling and astonished," and "What wilt thou have me to do, Lord?" The Textus Receptus put these words in here without the authority of a Greek codex. See strkjv@22:10| above for the genuine text. {It shall be told thee} (\lalˆthˆsetai\). Future passive indicative of \lale“\. It is hardly likely that Luke records all that Jesus said to Saul, but more was to come on his arrival in Damascus. Saul had received all that he could bear just now (John:16:12|). {What} (\hoti\). Rare in _Koin‚_ use of this indefinite neuter relative in an indirect question, the only example in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 731). Human agents like Ananias can finish what Jesus by supernatural manifestation has here begun in Saul.

rwp@Acts:10:17 @{Was much perplexed in himself} (\en heaut“i diˆporei\). Imperfect active of \diapore“\, intensive compound (\dia\, thoroughly, and \a\ privative and \poros\, way), to be completely at a loss to know what road to take. Old verb, but in N.T. only in Luke and Acts. Page notes that Luke is singularly fond of verbs compounded with \dia\. See on ¯Luke:9:7| and strkjv@Acts:2:12|. When out of the ecstasy he was more puzzled than ever. {Might be} (\an eiˆ\). Optative with \an\ in indirect question simply retained from the direct (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1021, 1044). See strkjv@Acts:17:18|, for the direct and strkjv@Luke:1:62| for the indirect (\an theloi\ both times). It is the conclusion of a fourth class condition. {Having made inquiry} (\dier“tˆsantes\). First aorist active participle of \dier“ta“\, another compound of \dia\, to ask one after another, to ask through, old verb, but only here in the N.T. It took diligent inquiry to find the obscure house of Simon the tanner. {Stood before the gate} (\epestˆsan epi ton pul“na\). Second aorist active indicative of \ephistˆmi\, intransitive. Note repetition of \epi\. The messengers stopped right at the folding gates of the passage (\pul“na\) which led from the street to the inner court or house.

rwp@Acts:10:18 @{Called} (\ph“nˆsantes\). In a loud voice that those inside the house might hear. {Asked} (\epunthanonto\). Imperfect middle of \punthanomai\, old verb to make inquiry especially with an indirect question as here. Kept on inquiring. Westcott and Hort follow B C here and read \eputhonto\ (second aorist middle, effective aorist). Either makes sense, though the imperfect is more picturesque. {Were lodging} (\xenizetai\). Present middle indicative retained in indirect question. See on verse ¯6| for the verb.

rwp@Acts:10:20 @{But} (\alla\). Songs:usually, though it is open to question whether \alla\ is adversative here and not rather, "Now then." {Get thee down} (\katabˆthi\). Second aorist active imperative, at once. {Go} (\poreuou\). Present middle imperative, go on. {Nothing doubting} (\mˆden diakrinomenos\). Another compound of \dia\, old and common verb for a divided mind (\dia\ like \duo\, two). Note usual negative of the present middle participle, the subjective \mˆden\. The notion of wavering (James:1:6|) is common with this verb in the middle voice. In strkjv@Acts:11:12| the aorist active (\mˆden diakrinanta\) is used perhaps with the idea of conduct towards others rather than his own internal doubt as here (Page). {For I} (\hoti eg“\). The Holy Spirit assumes responsibility for the messengers from Cornelius and thus connects their mission with the vision which was still troubling Peter. Peter had heard his name called by the man (verse 19|).

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

rwp@Acts:11:17 @{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:12:18 @{As soon as it was day} (\Genomenˆs hˆmeras\). Genitive absolute, day having come. {No small stir} (\tarachos ouk oligos\). Litotes (\ouk oligos\), occurs eight times in the Acts as in strkjv@15:2|, and nowhere else in the N.T. \Tarachos\ (stir) is an old word from \tarass“\, to agitate. In the N.T only here and strkjv@19:23|. Probably all sixteen soldiers were agitated over this remarkable escape. They were responsible for the prisoner with their lives (cf. strkjv@Acts:16:27; strkjv@27:42|). Furneaux suggests that Manaen, the king's foster-brother and a Christian (13:1|), was the "angel" who rescued Peter from the prison. That is not the way that Peter looked at it. {What was become of Peter} (\ti ara ho Petros egeneto\). An indirect question with the aorist indicative retained. \Ara\ adds a syllogism (therefore) to the problem as in strkjv@Luke:1:66|. The use of the neuter \ti\ (as in strkjv@Acts:13:25|) is different from \tis\, though nominative like \Petros\, literally, "what then Peter had become," "what had happened to Peter" (in one idiom). See the same idiom in strkjv@John:21:21| (\houtos de ti\). {But this one what} (verb \genˆsetai\ not used).

rwp@Acts:12:19 @{He examined} (\anakrinas\). First aorist active participle of \anakrin“\, old verb to sift up and down, to question thoroughly, in a forensic sense (Luke:23:14; strkjv@Acts:4:9; strkjv@12:19; strkjv@28:18|). {That they should be put to death} (\apachthˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive (indirect command) of \apag“\, old verb to lead away, especially to execution as in strkjv@Matthew:27:31|. Here it is used absolutely. This was the ordinary Roman routine and not a proof of special cruelty on the part of Herod Agrippa. {Tarried} (\dietriben\). Imperfect active. Herod Agrippa made his home in Jerusalem, but he went to Caesarea to the public games in honour of Emperor Claudius.

rwp@Acts:13:10 @{Of all guile} (\pantos dolou\). From \del“\, to catch with bait, old word, already seen in strkjv@Matthew:26:4; strkjv@Mark:7:22; strkjv@14:1|. Paul denounces Elymas as a trickster. {All villainy} (\pƒsˆs rhƒidiourgias\). Late compound from \rhƒidiourgos\ (\rhƒidios\, easy, facile, \ergon\, deed, one who does a thing adroitly and with ease). Songs:levity in Xenophon and unscrupulousness in Polybius, Plutarch, and the papyri. Only here in the N.T., though the kindred word \rhƒidiourgˆma\ occurs in strkjv@Acts:18:14|. With deadly accuracy Paul pictured this slick rascal. {Thou son of the devil} (\huie diabolou\). Damning phrase like that used by Jesus of the Pharisees in strkjv@John:8:44|, a slanderer like the \diabolos\. This use of son (\huios\) for characteristic occurs in strkjv@Acts:3:25; strkjv@4:36|, a common Hebrew idiom, and may be used purposely by Paul in contrast with the name Barjesus (son of Jesus) that Elymas bore (13:6|). {Enemy of all righteousness} (\echthre pƒsˆs dikaiosunˆs\). Personal enemy to all justice, sums up all the rest. Note triple use of "all" (\pantos, pƒsˆs, pƒsˆs\), total depravity in every sense. {Wilt thou not cease?} (\ou pausˆi\). An impatient rhetorical question, almost volitive in force (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 874). Note \ou\, not \mˆ\, {To pervert} (\diastreph“n\). Present active participle describing the actual work of Elymas as a perverter or distorter (see verse 8|). More exactly, Wilt thou not cease perverting? {The right ways of the Lord} (\tas hodous tou kuriou tas eutheias\). The ways of the Lord the straight ones as opposed to the crooked ways of men (Isaiah:40:4; strkjv@42:16; strkjv@Luke:3:5|). The task of John the Baptist as of all prophets and preachers is to make crooked paths straight and to get men to walk in them. This false prophet was making even the Lord's straight ways crooked. Elymas has many successors.

rwp@Acts:13:25 @{As John was fulfilling his course} (\h“s eplˆrou I“anˆs ton dromon\). Imperfect active of \plˆro“\, describing his vivid ministry without defining the precise period when John asked the question. Paul uses this word \dromos\ (course) of his own race (Acts:20:24; strkjv@2Timothy:4:7|). {What suppose ye that I am?} (\Ti eme huponoeite einai?\) Note \ti\ (neuter), not \tina\ (masculine), {what} not {who}, character, not identity. It is indirect discourse (the infinitive \einai\ and the accusative of general reference). {Huponoe“} (\hupo, noe“\) is to think secretly, to suspect, to conjecture. {I am not he} (\ouk eimi eg“\). These precise words are not given in the Gospels, but the idea is the same as the disclaimers by the Baptist in strkjv@John:1:19-27| (cf. also strkjv@Matthew:3:11; strkjv@Mark:1:7; strkjv@Luke:3:16|). Paul had a true grasp of the message of the Baptist. He uses the very form \l–sai\ (first aorist active infinitive of \lu“\) found in strkjv@Mark:1:7; strkjv@Luke:3:16| and the word for shoes (\hupodˆma\, singular) in all three. His quotation is remarkably true to the words in the Synoptic Gospels. How did Paul get hold of the words of the Baptist so clearly?

rwp@Acts:15:2 @{When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them} (\Genomenˆs stase“s kai zˆtˆse“s ouk oligˆs t“i Paul“i kai Barnabƒi pros autous\). Genitive absolute of second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, genitive singular agreeing with first substantive \stase“s\. Literally, "No little (litotes for much) strife and questioning coming to Paul and Barnabas (dative case) with them " (\pros autous\, face to face with them). Paul and Barnabas were not willing to see this Gentile church brow-beaten and treated as heretics by these self-appointed regulators of Christian orthodoxy from Jerusalem. The work had developed under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas and they accepted full responsibility for it and stoutly resisted these Judaizers to the point of sedition (riot, outbreak in strkjv@Luke:23:25; strkjv@Acts:19:40|) as in strkjv@23:7|. There is no evidence that the Judaizers had any supporters in the Antioch church so that they failed utterly to make any impression. Probably these Judaizers compelled Paul to think through afresh his whole gospel of grace and so they did Paul and the world a real service. If the Jews like Paul had to believe, it was plain that there was no virtue in circumcision (Galatians:2:15-21|). It is not true that the early Christians had no disagreements. They had selfish avarice with Ananias and Sapphira, murmuring over the gifts to the widows, simony in the case of Simon Magus, violent objection to work in Caesarea, and now open strife over a great doctrine (grace vs. legalism). {The brethren appointed} (\etaxan\). "The brethren" can be supplied from verse 1| and means the church in Antioch. The church clearly saw that the way to remove this deadlock between the Judaizers and Paul and Barnabas was to consult the church in Jerusalem to which the Judaizers belonged. Paul and Barnabas had won in Antioch. If they can win in Jerusalem, that will settle the matter. The Judaizers will be answered in their own church for which they are presuming to speak. The verb \etaxan\ (\tass“\, to arrange) suggests a formal appointment by the church in regular assembly. Paul (Galatians:2:2|) says that he went up by revelation (\kat' apokalupsin\), but surely that is not contradictory to the action of the church. {Certain others of them} (\tinas allous\). Certainly Titus (Galatians:2:1,3|), a Greek and probably a brother of Luke who is not mentioned in Acts. Rackham thinks that Luke was in the number. {The apostles and elders} (\tous apostolous kai presbuterous\). Note one article for both (cf. "the apostles and the brethren" in strkjv@11:1|). "Elders" now (11:30|) in full force. The apostles have evidently returned now to the city after the death of Herod Agrippa I stopped the persecution.

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

rwp@Acts:15:36 @{Let us return now and visit the brethren} (\epistrepsantes de episkeps“metha tous adelphous\). Paul takes the initiative as the leader, all the more so if the rebuke to Peter and Barnabas in strkjv@Galatians:2:11-21| had already taken place. Paul is anxious, like a true missionary, to go back to the fields where he has planted the gospel. He uses the hortatory subjunctive (\episkeps“metha\) for the proposal (see on ¯15:14| for this verb). Note the repeated \epi\ (\epi-strepsantes\ and \episkeps“metha\). There is special point in the use of \dˆ\ (shortened form of \ˆdˆ\), now at this juncture of affairs (cf. strkjv@13:2|). {How they fare} (\p“s echousin\). Indirect question, "how they have it." The precariousness of the life of new converts in pagan lands is shown in all of Paul's Epistles (Furneaux). Songs:he wanted to go city by city (\kata polin pƒsan\).

rwp@Acts:16:3 @{Him would Paul have to go forth with him} (\touton ˆthelˆsen ho Paulos sun aut“i exelthein\). This one (note emphatic position) Paul wanted (first aorist active indicative of \thel“\ with temporal augment as if from \ethel“\ the old form). Here was a gifted young man who was both Jew and Greek. {He took and circumcised him} (\lab“n perietemen auton\). Any one could perform this rite. Paul had stoutly resisted circumcision in the case of Titus, a pure Greek (Galatians:2:3,5|), because the whole principle of Gentile liberty was at stake. But Timothy was both Jew and Greek and would continually give offence to the Jews with no advantage to the cause of Gentile freedom. Songs:here for the sake of expediency, "because of the Jews" (\dia tous Ioudaious\), Paul voluntarily removed this stumbling-block to the ministry of Timothy. Otherwise Timothy could not have been allowed to preach ln the synagogues. _Idem non est semper idem_. But Timothy's case was not the case of Titus. Here it was a question of efficient service, not an essential of salvation. Hovey notes that Timothy was circumcised because of Jewish unbelievers, not because of Jewish believers. {Was a Greek} (\Hellˆn hupˆrchen\). Imperfect active in indirect assertion where ordinarily the present \huparchei\ would be retained, possibly indicating that his father was no longer living.

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:16:21 @{Customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, or to observe, being Romans} (\ethˆ ha ouk estin hˆmin paradechesthai oude poiein R“maiois ousin\). Note the sharp contrast between "being Jews" in verse 20| and "being Romans" here. This pose of patriotism is all sound and fury. It is love of money that moves these "masters" far more than zeal for Rome. As Roman citizens in a colony they make full use of all their rights of protest. Judaism was a _religio licita_ in the Roman empire, only they were not allowed to make proselytes of the Romans themselves. No Roman magistrate would pass on abstract theological questions (18:15|), but only if a breach of the peace was made (\ektarassousin hˆm“n tˆn polin\) or the formation of secret sects and organizations. Evidently both of these last points are involved by the charges of "unlawful customs" by the masters who are silent about their real ground of grievance against Paul and Silas. \Ethos\ (kin to \ˆthos\, strkjv@1Corinthians:15:33|) is from \eth“\, to be accustomed or used to a thing. The Romans granted toleration to conquered nations to follow their religious customs provided they did not try to win the Romans. But the Jews had made great headway to favour (the God-fearers) with increasing hatred also. Emperor worship had in store grave peril for both Jews and Christians. The Romans will care more for this than for the old gods and goddesses. It will combine patriotism and piety.

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:17:2 @{As his custom was} (\kata to ei“thos t“i Paul“i\). The same construction in strkjv@Luke:4:16| about Jesus in Nazareth (\kata to ei“thos aut“i\) with the second perfect active participle neuter singular from \eth“\. Paul's habit was to go to the Jewish synagogue to use the Jews and the God-fearers as a springboard for his work among the Gentiles. {For three Sabbaths} (\epi sabbata tria\). Probably the reference is to the first three Sabbaths when Paul had a free hand in the synagogue as at first in Antioch in Pisidia. Luke does not say that Paul was in Thessalonica only three weeks. He may have spoken there also during the week, though the Sabbath was the great day. Paul makes it plain, as Furneaux shows, that he was in Thessalonica a much longer period than three weeks. The rest of the time he spoke, of course, outside of the synagogue. Paul implies an extended stay by his language in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:8|. The church consisted mainly of Gentile converts (2Thessalonians:3:4,7,8|) and seems to have been well organized (1Thessalonians:5:12|). He received help while there several times from Philippi (Phillipians:4:16|) and even so worked night and day to support himself (1Thessalonians:2:9|). His preaching was misunderstood there in spite of careful instruction concerning the second coming of Christ (1Thessalonians:4:13-5:5; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1-12|). {Reasoned} (\dielexato\). First aorist middle indicative of \dialegomai\, old verb in the active to select, distinguish, then to revolve in the mind, to converse (interchange of ideas), then to teach in the Socratic ("dialectic") method of question and answer (cf. \dielegeto\ in verse 17|), then simply to discourse, but always with the idea of intellectual stimulus. With these Jews and God-fearers Paul appealed to the Scriptures as text and basis (\apo\) of his ideas.

rwp@Acts:17:11 @{More noble than those} (\eugenesteroi t“n\). Comparative form of \eugenˆs\, old and common adjective, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26|. Followed by ablative case \t“n\ as often after the comparative. {With all readiness of mind} (\meta pƒsˆs prothumias\). Old word from \prothumos\ (\pro, thumos\) and means eagerness, rushing forward. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:8:11-19; strkjv@9:2|. In Thessalonica many of the Jews out of pride and prejudice refused to listen. Here the Jews joyfully welcomed the two Jewish visitors. {Examining the Scriptures daily} (\kath' hˆmeran anakrinontes tas graphas\). Paul expounded the Scriptures daily as in Thessalonica, but the Beroeans, instead of resenting his new interpretation, examined (\anakrin“\ means to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal processes as in strkjv@Acts:4:9; strkjv@12:19|, etc.) the Scriptures for themselves. In Scotland people have the Bible open on the preacher as he expounds the passage, a fine habit worth imitating. {Whether these things were so} (\ei echoi tauta hout“s\). Literally, "if these things had it thus." The present optative in the indirect question represents an original present indicative as in strkjv@Luke:1:29| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1043f.). This use of \ei\ with the optative may be looked at as the condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of determination) as in strkjv@Acts:17:27; strkjv@20:16; strkjv@24:19; strkjv@27:12| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). The Beroeans were eagerly interested in the new message of Paul and Silas but they wanted to see it for themselves. What a noble attitude. Paul's preaching made Bible students of them. The duty of private interpretation is thus made plain (Hovey).

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:17:33 @{Thus Paul went out from among them} (\hout“s ho Paulos exˆlthen ek mesou aut“n\). No further questions, no effort to arrest him, no further ridicule. He walked out never to return to Athens. Had he failed?

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:18:20 @{When they asked him} (\er“t“nt“n aut“n\). Genitive absolute of present participle of \er“ta“\, old verb to ask a question, common in _Koin‚_ to make a request as here. {He consented not} (\ouk epeneusen\). First aorist active indicative of \epineu“\, old verb to express approval by a nod, only here in the N.T.

rwp@Acts:19:2 @{Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?} (\ei pneuma hagion elabete pisteusantes?\). This use of \Pi\ in a direct question occurs in strkjv@1:6|, is not according to the old Greek idiom, but is common in the LXX and the N.T. as in strkjv@Luke:13:23| which see (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 916). Apparently Paul was suspicious of the looks or conduct of these professed disciples. The first aorist active participle \pisteusantes\ is simultaneous with the second aorist active indicative \elabete\ and refers to the same event. {Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was} (\All' oude ei pneuma hagion estin ˆkousamen\). The reply of these ignorant disciples is amazing. They probably refer to the time of their baptism and mean that, when baptized, they did not hear whether (\ei\ in indirect question) the Holy Spirit was (\estin\ retained as in strkjv@John:7:39|). Plain proof that they knew John's message poorly.

rwp@Acts:20:20 @{How that I shrank not} (\h“s ouden hupesteilamen\). Still indirect discourse (question) after \epistasthe\ (ye know) with \h“s\ like \p“s\ in verse 18|. First aorist middle of \hupostell“\, old verb to draw under or back. It was so used of drawing back or down sails on a ship and, as Paul had so recently been on the sea, that may be the metaphor here. But it is not necessarily so as the direct middle here makes good sense and is frequent, to withdraw oneself, to cower, to shrink, to conceal, to dissemble as in strkjv@Habbakkuk:2:4| (Hebrews:10:38|). Demosthenes so used it to shrink from declaring out of fear for others. This open candour of Paul is supported by his Epistles (1Thessalonians:2:4,11; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:2; strkjv@Galatians:1:10|). {From declaring unto you} (\tou mˆ anaggeilai humin\). Ablative case of the articular first aorist active infinitive of \anaggell“\ with the redundant negative after verbs of hindering, etc. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1094). {Anything that was profitable} (\t“n sumpheront“n\). Partitive genitive after \ouden\ of the articular present active participle of \sumpher“\, to bear together, be profitable. {Publicly} (\dˆmosiƒi\, adverb) {and from house to house} (\kai kat' oikous\). By (according to) houses. It is worth noting that this greatest of preachers preached from house to house and did not make his visits merely social calls. He was doing kingdom business all the while as in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (1Corinthians:16:19|).

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

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

rwp@Acts:21:22 @{What is it therefore?} (\Ti oun estin?\). See this form of question by Paul (1Corinthians:14:15,26|). What is to be done about it? Clearly James and the elders do not believe these misrepresentations of Paul's teaching, but many do. {They will certainly hear} (\pant“s akousontai\). \Pant“s\ is old adverb, by all means, altogether, wholly, certainly as here and strkjv@28:4; strkjv@Luke:4:23; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:10|. This future middle of \akou“\ is the usual form instead of \akous“\. There was no way to conceal Paul's arrival nor was it wise to do so. B C and several cursives omit \dei plˆthos sunelthein\ (The multitude must needs come together).

rwp@Acts:21:26 @{Took the men} (\paralab“n tous andras\). The very phrase used in verse 24| to Paul. {The next day} (\tˆi echomenˆi\). One of the phrases in strkjv@20:15| for the coming day. Locative case of time. {Purifying himself with them} (\sun autois hagnistheis\, first aorist passive participle of \hagniz“\). The precise language again of the recommendation in verse 24|. Paul was conforming to the letter. {Went into the temple} (\eisˆiei eis to hieron\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\ as in verse 18| which see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined the four men in their vow of separation. {Declaring} (\diaggell“n\). To the priests what day he would report the fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:11:17| (quotation from the LXX). It is not necessary to assume that the vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham). {Until the offering was offered for every one of them} (\he“s hou prosˆnechthˆ huper henos hekastou aut“n hˆ prosphora\). This use of \he“s hou\ (like \he“s\, alone) with the first aorist passive indicative \prosˆnechthˆ\ of \prospher“\, to offer, contemplates the final result (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 974f.) and is probably the statement of Luke added to Paul's announcement. He probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:20| when no principle was involved. It is charged that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these "false apostles" over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded by Paul's accusers. Songs:far as the evidence goes that thing was accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea the Judaizers cut no figure at all. The Jewish Christians do not appear in Paul's behalf, but there was no opportunity for them to do so. The explosion that came on the last day of Paul's appearance in the temple was wholly disconnected from his offerings for the four brethren and himself. It must be remembered that Paul had many kinds of enemies. The attack on him by these Jews from Asia had no connexion whatever with the slanders of the Judaizers about Paul's alleged teachings that Jewish Christians in the dispersion should depart from the Mosaic law. That slander was put to rest forever by his following the advice of James and justifies the wisdom of that advice and Paul's conduct about it.

rwp@Acts:21:33 @{Came near} (\eggisas\). First aorist active participle of \eggiz“\, to draw near, _Koin‚_ verb from \eggus\, near, and common in the N.T. {Laid hold on him} (\epelabeto antou\). See same verb in verse 30|. {To be bound} (\dethˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \de“\ (see verse 11|). {With two chains} (\halusesi dusi\). Instrumental case of \halusis\, old word from \a\ privative and \lu“\ (not loosing, i.e. chaining). With two chains as a violent and seditious person, probably leader of a band of assassins (verse 38|). See on ¯Mark:5:4|. {Inquired} (\epunthaneto\). Imperfect middle of \punthanomai\, old and common verb used mainly by Luke in the N.T. Lysias repeated his inquiries. {Who he was} (\tis eiˆ\). Present active optative of \eimi\ changed from \estin\ (present indicative) in the indirect question, a change not obligatory after a past tense, but often done in the older Greek, rare in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1043f.). {And what he had done} (\kai ti estin pepoiˆk“s\). Periphrastic perfect active indicative of \poie“\ here retained, not changed to the optative as is true of \eiˆ\ from \estin\ in the same indirect question, illustrating well the freedom about it.

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

rwp@Acts:22:7 @{I fell} (\epesa\). Second aorist active indicative with \-a\ rather than \epeson\, the usual form of \pipt“\. {Unto the ground} (\eis to edaphos\). Old word, here alone in N.T. Songs:the verb \edaphiz“\, is in strkjv@Luke:19:44| alone in the N.T. {A voice saying} (\ph“nˆs legousˆs\). Genitive after \ˆkousa\, though in strkjv@26:14| the accusative is used after \ˆkousa\, as in strkjv@22:14| after \akousai\, either being allowable. See on ¯9:7| for discussion of the difference in case. Saul's name repeated each time (9:4; strkjv@22:7; strkjv@26:14|). Same question also in each report: "Why persecuted thou me?" (\Ti me di“keis?\). These piercing words stuck in Paul's mind.

rwp@Acts:22:25 @{When they had tied him up} (\hos proeteinan auton\). First aorist active indicative of \protein“\, old verb to stretch forward, only here in the N.T. Literally, "When they stretched him forward." {With the thongs} (\tois himasin\). If the instrumental case of \himas\, old word for strap or thong (for sandals as strkjv@Mark:1:7|, or for binding criminals as here), then Paul was bent forward and tied by the thongs to a post in front to expose his back the better to the scourges. But \tois himasin\ may be dative case and then it would mean "for the lashes." In either case it is a dreadful scene of terrorizing by the chiliarch. {Unto the centurion that stood by} (\pros ton hest“ta hekatontarchon\). He was simply carrying out the orders of the chiliarch (cf. strkjv@Matthew:27:54|). Why had not Paul made protest before this? {Is it lawful?} (\ei exestin?\). This use of \ei\ in indirect questions we have had before (1:6|). {A Roman and uncondemned} (\Romaion kai akatakriton\). Just as in strkjv@16:37| which see. Blass says of Paul's question: _Interrogatio subironica est confidentiae plena_.

rwp@Acts:22:30 @{To know the certainty} (\gn“nai to asphales\). Same idiom in strkjv@21:34| which see. {Wherefore he was accused} (\to ti kategoreitai\). Epexegetical after to \asphales\. Note article (accusative case) with the indirect question here as in strkjv@Luke:22:1,23,24| (which see), a neat idiom in the Greek. {Commanded} (\ekeleusen\). Songs:the Sanhedrin had to meet, but in the Tower of Antonia, for he brought Paul down (\katagag“n\, second aorist active participle of \katag“\). {Set him} (\estˆsen\). First aorist active (transitive) indicative of \histˆmi\, not the intransitive second aorist \estˆ\. Lysias is determined to find out the truth about Paul, more puzzled than ever by the important discovery that he has a Roman citizen on his hands in this strange prisoner.

rwp@Acts:23:3 @{Thou whited wall} (\toiche kekoniamene\). Perfect passive participle of \konia“\ (from \konia\, dust or lime). The same word used in strkjv@Matthew:23:27| for "whited sepulchres" (\taphoi kekoniamenoi\) which see. It is a picturesque way of calling Ananias a hypocrite, undoubtedly true, but not a particularly tactful thing for a prisoner to say to his judge, not to say Jewish high priest. Besides, Paul had hurled back at him the word \tuptein\ (smite) in his command, putting it first in the sentence (\tuptein se mellei ho theos\) in strong emphasis. Clearly Paul felt that he, not Ananias, was living as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. {And sittest thou to judge me?} (\Kai su kathˆi krin“n me?\) Literally, "And thou (being what thou art) art sitting (\kathˆi\, second person singular middle of \kathˆmai\, late form for \kathˆsai\, the uncontracted form) judging me." Cf. strkjv@Luke:22:30|. \Kai su\ at the beginning of a question expresses indignation. {Contrary to the law} (\paranom“n\). Present active participle of \paranome“\, old verb to act contrary to the law, here alone in the N.T., "acting contrary to the law."

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:23:29 @{Concerning questions of their law} (\peri zˆtˆmata tou nomou aut“n\). The very distinction drawn by Gallio in Corinth (Acts:18:14f.|). On the word see on strkjv@15:2|. {But to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds} (\mˆden de axion thanatou ˆ desm“n echonta enklˆma\). Literally, "having no accusation (or crime) worthy of death or of bonds." This phrase here only in the N.T. \Egklˆma\ is old word for accusation or crime from \egkale“\ used in verse 28| and in the N.T. only here and strkjv@25:16|. Lysias thus expresses the opinion that Paul ought to be set free and the lenient treatment that Paul received in Caesarea and Rome (first imprisonment) is probably due to this report of Lysias. Every Roman magistrate before whom Paul appears declares him innocent (Gallio, Lysias, Felix, Festus).

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

rwp@Acts:24:21 @{Except it be} (\e\). Literally, "than," but after interrogative \ti = ti allo\ "what else than." {For this one voice} (\peri mias tautˆs ph“nˆs\). The normal Greek idiom with the attributive use of \houtos\ calls for the article before \mias\, though some inscriptions show it as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 702). {That} (\hˆs\). Genitive of the relative attracted to the case of the antecedent {ph“nˆs}. {I cried} (\ekekraxa\). Reduplicated aorist as is usual with this verb in the LXX (Judges:3:15|). Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 348. {Touching} (\peri\). Concerning (around, about). {I am called in question} (\krinomai\). As in strkjv@23:6|. {Before you} (\eph' hum“n\). Same idiom as in verses 19,20|.

rwp@Acts:25:20 @{Being perplexed} (\aporoumenos\). Present middle participle of the common verb \apore“\ (\a\ privative and \poros\ way), to be in doubt which way to turn, already in strkjv@Mark:6:20| which see and strkjv@Luke:24:4|. The Textus Receptus has \eis\ after here, but critical text has only the accusative which this verb allows (Mark:6:20|) as in Thucydides and Plato. {How to inquire concerning these things} (\tˆn peri tout“n zˆtˆsin\). Literally, "as to the inquiry concerning these things." This is not the reason given by Luke in verse 9| (wanting to curry favour with the Jews), but doubtless this motive also actuated Festus as both could be true. {Whether he would go to Jerusalem} (\ei bouloito poreuesthai eis Ierosoluma\). Optative in indirect question after \elegon\ (asked or said) imperfect active, though the present indicative could have been retained with change of person: "Dost thou wish, etc.," (\ei boulˆi\, etc.). See Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1031, 1044. This is the question put to Paul in verse 9| though \theleis\ is there used.

rwp@Acts:25:26 @{No certain thing} (\asphales ti--ou\). Nothing definite or reliable (\a\ privative, \sphall“\, to trip). All the charges of the Sanhedrin slipped away or were tripped up by Paul. Festus confesses that he had nothing left and thereby convicts himself of gross insincerity in his proposal to Paul in verse 9| about going up to Jerusalem. By his own statement he should have set Paul free. The various details here bear the marks of the eyewitness. Luke was surely present and witnessed this grand spectacle with Paul as chief performer. {Unto my lord} (\t“i kuri“i\). Augustus (Octavius) and Tiberius refused the title of \kurios\ (lord) as too much like _rex_ (king) and like master and slave, but the servility of the subjects gave it to the other emperors who accepted it (Nero among them). Antoninus Pius put it on his coins. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105) gives an ostracon dated Aug. 4, A.D. 63 with the words "in the year nine of Nero the lord" (\enatou Ner“nos tou kuriou\). Deissmann (_op. cit._, pp. 349ff.) runs a most interesting parallel "between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term \kurios\, lord" in ostraca, papyri, inscriptions. Beyond a doubt Paul has all this fully in mind when he says in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| that "no one is able to say \Kurios Iˆsous\ except in the Holy Spirit" (cf. also strkjv@Phillipians:2:11|). The Christians claimed this word for Christ and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say " Lord Caesar" and insisted on saying "Lord Jesus" when it meant his certain death. {Before you} (\eph' hum“n\). The whole company. In no sense a new trial, but an examination in the presence of these prominent men to secure data and to furnish entertainment and pleasure to Agrippa (verse 22|). {Especially before thee} (\malista epi sou\). Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as verse 22| shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul's case. {After examination had} (\tˆs anakrise“s genomenˆs\). Genitive absolute, "the examination having taken place." \Anakrisis\ from \anakrin“\ (cf. strkjv@12:19; strkjv@24:8; strkjv@28:18|) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. {That I may have somewhat to write} (\hop“s sch“ ti graps“\). Ingressive aorist subjunctive \sch“\ (may get) with \hop“s\ (final particle like \hina\). \Ti graps“\ in indirect question after \sch“\ is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a "trial," but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament.

rwp@Acts:26:3 @{Especially because thou art expert} (\malista gn“stˆn onta se\). Or like the margin, "because thou art especially expert," according as \malista\ is construed. \Gn“stˆn\ is from \gin“sk“\ and means a knower, expert, connoisseur. Plutarch uses it and Deissmann (_Light_, etc., p. 367) restores it in a papyrus. Agrippa had the care of the temple, the appointment of the high priest, and the care of the sacred vestments. But the accusative \onta se\ gives trouble here coming so soon after \sou\ (genitive with \epi\). Some MSS. insert \epistamenos\ or \eid“s\ (knowing) but neither is genuine. Page takes it as "governed by the sense of thinking or considering." Knowling considers it an anacoluthon. Buttmann held it to be an accusative absolute after the old Greek idiom. \Tuchon\ is such an instance though used as an adverb (1Corinthians:16:6|). It is possible that one exists in strkjv@Ephesians:1:18|. See other examples discussed in Robertson's _Grammar_, pp. 490f. {Customs and questions} (\eth“n te kai zˆtˆmat“n\). Both _consuetudinum in practicis_ and _quaestionum in theoreticis_ (Bengel). Agrippa was qualified to give Paul an understanding and a sympathetic hearing. Paul understands perfectly the grand-stand play of the whole performance, but he refused to be silent and chose to use this opportunity, slim as it seemed, to get a fresh hearing for his own case and to present the claims of Christ to this influential man. His address is a masterpiece of noble apologetic. {Patiently} (\makrothum“s\). Adverb from \makrothumos\. Only here in the N.T., though \makrothumia\ occurs several times. Vulgate has _longanimiter_. Long spirit, endurance, opposite of impatience. Songs:Paul takes his time.

rwp@Acts:26:8 @{Incredible with you} (\apiston par' humin\). This old word \apiston\ (\a\ privative and \pistos\) means either unfaithful (Luke:12:46|), unbelieving (John:20:27|), or unbelievable as here). Paul turns suddenly from Agrippa to the audience (\par' humin\, plural), most of whom were probably Gentiles and scouted the doctrine of the resurrection as at Athens (17:32|). {If God doth raise the dead} (\ei ho theos nekrous egeirei\). Condition of the first class assuming that God does raise dead people. Only God can do it. This rhetorical question needs no answer, though the narrative resumed in verse 9| does it in a way.

rwp@Acts:27:39 @{They knew not} (\ouk epegin“skon\). Imperfect active of \epigin“sk“\, to recognize. Probably conative, tried to recognize and could not (Conybeare and Howson). The island was well-known (28:1|, \epegn“men\), but St. Paul's Bay where the wreck took place was some distance from the main harbour (Valetta) of Melita (Malta). {They perceived} (\katenooun\). Imperfect active of \katanoe“\, gradually perceived after some effort as in strkjv@11:16|. This beach seemed their only hope. {They took counsel} (\ebouleuonto\). Imperfect middle showing the process of deliberation and doubt. The bay "having a beach" (\echonta aigialon\) is a phrase found in Xenophon's _Anabasis_ VI. 4, 4. {Whether they could drive} (\ei dunainto eks“sai\). This use of the optative with \ei\ in questions of this sort (implied indirect) is a neat Greek idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). B C Bohairic read \eks“sai\ (first aorist active infinitive of \eks“z“\), to save out (so Westcott and Hort), instead of \ex“sai\ (from \ex“the“\, to push out, as Textus Receptus).

rwp@ after 'chresai' to make the question outside the parenthesis. (changed)

rwp@====== Unresolved questions of integrity (unchanged) =============

rwp@Ephesians:1:17 @{The Father of glory} (\ho patˆr tˆs doxˆs\). The God characterized by glory (the Shekinah, strkjv@Hebrews:9:5|) as in strkjv@Acts:7:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:2:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@James:2:1|. {That--may give} (\hina--d“iˆ\). In strkjv@Colossians:1:9| \hina\ is preceded by \aitoumenoi\, but here the sub-final use depends on the general idea asking in the sentence. The form \d“iˆ\ is a late _Koin‚_ optative (second aorist active) for the usual \doiˆ\. It occurs also in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:16; strkjv@Romans:15:5; strkjv@2Timothy:1:16,18| in the text of Westcott and Hort. Here B 63 read \d“i\ (like strkjv@John:15:16|) second aorist active subjunctive, the form naturally looked for after a primary tense (\pauomai\). This use of the volitive optative with \hina\ after a primary tense is rare, but not unknown in ancient Greek. {A spirit of wisdom and revelation} (\pneuma sophias kai apokalupse“s\). The Revised Version does not refer this use of \pneuma\ to the Holy Spirit (cf. strkjv@Galatians:6:1; strkjv@Romans:8:15|), but it is open to question if it is possible to obtain this wisdom and revelation apart from the Holy Spirit. {In the knowledge of him} (\en epign“sei autou\). In the full knowledge of Christ as in Colossians.

rwp@Ephesians:1:18 @{Having the eyes of your heart enlightened} (\peph“tismenous tous ophthalmous tˆs kardias hum“n\). A beautiful figure, the heart regarded as having eyes looking out toward Christ. But the grammar is difficult. There are three possible interpretations. One is an anacoluthon, the case of \peph“tismenous\ being changed from the dative \humin\ (to you) to the accusative because of the following infinitive like \eklexamenous\ (Acts:15:22|) after \apostolois\. Another way of explaining it is to regard it as a tertiary predicate of \d“iˆ\, a loose expansion of \pneuma\. The third way is to regard the construction as the accusative absolute, a rare idiom possible in strkjv@Acts:26:3; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:3; strkjv@1Timothy:2:6|. In this case, the participle merely agrees with \tous ophthalmous\, not with \humin\, "the eyes of your heart having been enlightened." Otherwise \tous ophthalmous\ is the accusative retained after the passive participle. {That ye may know} (\eis to eidenai\). Final use of \eis to\ and the infinitive (second perfect of \oida\) as in verse 12|. Note three indirect questions after \eidenai\ (what the hope \tis hˆ elpis\, what the riches \tis ho ploutos\, and what the surpassing greatness \kai ti to huperballon megethos\). When the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of the heart, one will be able to see all these great truths. {In the saints} (\en tois hagiois\). Our riches is in God, God's is in his saints.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ THE REASON FOR HIS EPISTLES In a real sense Paul's Epistles are tracts for the times, not for the age in general, but to meet real emergencies. He wrote to a particular church or group of churches or persons to meet immediate needs brought to his attention by messengers or letters. Dr. Deissmann contends strongly for the idea of calling Paul's Epistles "letters" rather than "Epistles." He gives a studied literary character to "epistles" as more or less artificial and written for the public eye rather than for definite effect. Four of Paul's Epistles are personal (those to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy) beyond a doubt, but in these which can properly be termed personal letters there are the principles of the gospel applied to personal, social, and ecclesiastical problems in such a pungent fashion that they possess permanent value. In the earliest group of Paul's Epistles, he reminds the Thessalonians of the official character of the Epistle which was meant for the church as a whole (1Thessalonians:5:27|). He says also: "But if any one does not obey our word by the epistle, mark this one, not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame" (2Thessalonians:3:14|). He calls attention to his signature as proof of the genuineness of every epistle (2Thessalonians:3:17|). He gave directions for the public reading of his epistles (Colossians:4:16|). He regarded them as the expression of God's will through the life of the churches and he put his whole heart into them. Two great controversies stirred Paul's life. That with the Judaizers called forth the great doctrinal group (I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans). That with the Gnostics occasioned the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians (Laodiceans) and this controversy ran on into the Pastoral Epistles. Each Epistle had its particular occasion which will be pointed out in due season. But even in the short ones like Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians Paul deals with the sublimest of all themes, the Person of Christ, with a masterfulness never equalled elsewhere. Even in I Corinthians, which deals so largely with church problems in Corinth, two great chapters rise to the heights of real eloquence (Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13| on Love and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15| on the Resurrection). Romans, the greatest of his Epistles, has the fullest discussion of Paul's gospel of grace and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:8| has a sweep of imagination and a grasp of faith unsurpassed. Hence, while denying to Paul the artificial rules of the rhetoricians attributed to him by Blass, I cannot agree that Paul's church Epistles are mere incidental letters. It is not a question whether Paul was writing for posterity or for the present emergency. He wrote for the present emergency in the most effective possible way. He brought the whole gospel message to bear upon the varied and pressing problems of the early Christians in the power of the Holy Spirit with the eloquence of a mind all ablaze with the truth and with a heart that yearned for their souls for Christ. They are not literary epistles, but they are more than personal letters. They are thunderbolts of passion and power that struck centre and that strike fire now for all who will take the trouble to come to them for the mind of Christ that is here.

rwp@Galatians:3:19 @{What then is the law?} (\ti oun ho nomos?\). Or, why then the law? A pertinent question if the Abrahamic promise antedates it and holds on afterwards. {It was added because of transgressions} (\t“n parabase“n charin prosetethˆ\). First aorist passive of \prostithˆmi\, old verb to add to. It is only in apparent contradiction to verses 15ff.|, because in Paul's mind the law is no part of the covenant, but a thing apart "in no way modifying its provisions" (Burton). \Charin\ is the adverbial accusative of \charis\ which was used as a preposition with the genitive as early as Homer, in favour of, for the sake of. Except in strkjv@1John:3:12| it is post-positive in the N.T. as in ancient Greek. It may be causal (Luke:7:47; strkjv@1John:3:12|) or telic (Titus:1:5,11; strkjv@Jude:1:16|). It is probably also telic here, not in order to create transgressions, but rather "to make transgressions palpable" (Ellicott), "thereby pronouncing them to be from that time forward transgressions of the law" (Rendall). \Parabasis\, from \parabain“\, is in this sense a late word (Plutarch on), originally a slight deviation, then a wilful disregarding of known regulations or prohibitions as in strkjv@Romans:2:23|. {Till the seed should come} (\achris an elthˆi to sperma\). Future time with \achris an\ and aorist subjunctive (usual construction). Christ he means by \to sperma\ as in verse 16|. {The promise hath been made} (\epˆggeltai\). Probably impersonal perfect passive rather than middle of \epaggellomai\ as in II Macc. strkjv@4:27. {Ordained through angels} (\diatageis di' aggel“n\). Second aorist passive participle of \diatass“\ (see on ¯Matthew:11:1|). About angels and the giving of the law see on strkjv@Deuteronomy:33:2| (LXX); strkjv@Acts:7:38,52; strkjv@Hebrews:2:2|; Josephus (_Ant_. XV. 5. 3). {By the hand of a mediator} (\en cheiri mesitou\). \En cheiri\ is a manifest Aramaism or Hebraism and only here in the N.T. It is common in the LXX. \Mesitˆs\, from \mesos\ is middle or midst, is a late word (Polybius, Diodorus, Philo, Josephus) and common in the papyri in legal transactions for arbiter, surety, etc. Here of Moses, but also of Christ (1Timothy:2:5; strkjv@Hebrews:8:6; strkjv@9:15; strkjv@12:24|).

rwp@Galatians:3:21 @{Against the promises} (\kata t“n epaggeli“n\). A pertinent question again. Far from it (\mˆ genoito\). {Which could make alive} (\ho dunamenos z“opoiˆsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \z“opoie“\, late compound (\z“os\, alive, \poie“\, to make) verb for which see strkjv@1Corinthians:15:22|. Spiritual life, he means, here and hereafter. {Verily} (\ont“s\). "Really" (cf. strkjv@Mark:11:32; strkjv@Luke:24:34|). Condition and conclusion (\an ˆn\) of second class, determined as unfulfilled. He had already said that Christ died to no purpose in that case (2:21|).

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:4:9 @{Now that ye have come to know God} (\nun de gnontes\). Fine example of the ingressive second aorist active participle of \gin“sk“\, come to know by experience through faith in Christ. {Rather to be known of God} (\mallon de gn“sthentes hupo theou\). First aorist passive participle of the same verb. He quickly turns it round to the standpoint of God's elective grace reaching them (verse 6|). {How} (\p“s\). "A question full of wonder" (Bengel). See strkjv@1:6|. {Turn ye back again?} (\epistrephete palin?\). Present active indicative, "Are ye turning again?" See \metatithesthe\ in strkjv@1:6|. {The weak and beggarly rudiments} (\ta asthenˆ kai pt“cha stoicheia\). The same \stoicheia\ in verse 3| from which they had been delivered, "weak and beggarly," still in their utter impotence from the Pharisaic legalism and the philosophical and religious legalism and the philosophical and religious quests of the heathen as shown by Angus's _The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World_. These were eagerly pursued by many, but they were shadows when caught. It is pitiful today to see some men and women leave Christ for will o' the wisps of false philosophy. {Over again} (\palin an“then\). Old word, from above (\an“\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:51|, from the first (Luke:1:3|), then "over again" as here, back to where they were before (in slavery to rites and rules).

rwp@Hebrews:2:3 @{How shall we escape?} (\p“s hˆmeis ekpheuxometha;\). Rhetorical question with future middle indicative of \ekpheug“\ and conclusion of the condition. {If we neglect} (\amelˆsantes\). First aorist active participle of \amele“\, "having neglected." {Songs:great salvation} (\tˆlikautˆs s“tˆrias\). Ablative case after \amelˆsantes\. Correlative pronoun of age, but used of size in the N.T. (James:3:4; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:10|). {Which} (\hˆtis\). "Which very salvation," before described, now summarized. {Having at the first been spoken} (\archˆn labousa laleisthai\). Literally, "having received a beginning to be spoken," "having begun to be spoken," a common literary _Koin‚_ idiom (Polybius, etc.). {Through the Lord} (\dia tou kuriou\). The Lord Jesus who is superior to angels. Jesus was God's full revelation and he is the source of this new and superior revelation. {Was confirmed} (\ebebai“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \bebaio“\, from \bebaios\ (stable), old verb as in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:6|. {By them that heard} (\hupo t“n akousant“n\). Ablative case with \hupo\ of the articular first aorist active participle of \akou“\. Those who heard the Lord Jesus. Only one generation between Jesus and the writer. Paul (Galatians:1:11|) got his message directly from Christ.

rwp@Hebrews:3:16 @{Who} (\Tines\). Clearly interrogative, not indefinite (some). {Did provoke} (\parepikranan\). First aorist active indicative of \parapikrin“\, apparently coined by the LXX like \parapikrasmos\ (verse 15|) to which it points, exasperating the anger of God. {Nay, did not all} (\all' ou pantes\). "A favourite device of the diatribe style" (Moffatt), answering one rhetorical question with another (Luke:17:8|) as in verses 17,18|, There was a faithful minority mentioned by Paul (1Corinthians:10:7f.|).

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

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:10:35 @{Cast not away therefore your boldness} (\mˆ apobalˆte oun tˆn parrˆsian hum“n\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \apoball“\. Old verb to throw away from one as worthless, only twice in the N.T., here in a figurative sense and strkjv@Mark:10:50| in a literal sense (garment by Bartimaeus). The Jewish Christians in question were in peril of a panic and of stampeding away from Christ. Recall \katech“men\ in verse 23|.

rwp@Hebrews:11:8 @{Not knowing whither he went} (\mˆ epistamenos pou erchetai\). Usual negative \mˆ\ with a participle (present middle from \epistamai\, old and common verb to put the mind on). Present middle indicative (\erchetai\) preserved in the indirect question after the secondary tense \exˆlthen\ (went out) from which \epistamenos\ gets its time. Abraham is a sublime and graphic example of faith. He did not even know where the land was that he was going to receive "as an inheritance" (\eis klˆronomian\).

rwp@James:2:4 @{Are ye not divided in your own mind?} (\ou diekrithˆte en heautois;\). First aorist (gnomic) passive indicative of \diakrin“\, to separate, conclusion of the third-class condition (future) in a rhetorical question in the gnomic aorist (as if past) with ou expecting an affirmative answer. For this idiom (gnomic aorist) in a conclusion of the third-class condition see strkjv@1Corinthians:7:28|. "Were ye not divided in (among) yourselves?" Cf. strkjv@1:6; strkjv@Matthew:21:21|. {Judges with evil thoughts} (\kritai dialogism“n ponˆr“n\). Descriptive genitive as in strkjv@1:25|. \Dialogismos\ is an old word for reasoning (Romans:1:21|). Reasoning is not necessarily evil, but see strkjv@Matthew:15:19| (\ponˆroi\) and strkjv@Mark:7:21| (\kakoi\) for evil reasonings, and strkjv@1Timothy:2:8| without an adjective. See strkjv@James:1:8; strkjv@4:8| for \dipsuchos\. They are guilty of partiality (a divided mind) as between the two strangers.

rwp@James:2:14 @{What doth it profit?} (\ti ophelos;\). Rhetorical question, almost of impatience. Old word from \ophell“\, to increase, in N.T. only here, verse 16; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:32|. "\Ti ophelos\ was a common expression in the vivacious style of a moral diatribe" (Ropes). {If a man say} (\ean legˆi tis\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive of \leg“\, "if one keep on saying." {He hath faith} (\pistin echein\). Infinitive in indirect assertion after \legˆi\. {But have not works} (\erga de mˆ echˆi\). Third-class condition continued, "but keeps on not having (\mˆ\ and present active subjunctive \echˆi\) works." It is the spurious claim to faith that James here condemns. {Can that faith save him?} (\mˆ dunatai hˆ pistis s“sai auton;\). Negative answer expected (\mˆ\). Effective aorist active infinitive \s“sai\ (from \s“z“\). The article \hˆ\ here is almost demonstrative in force as it is in origin, referring to the claim of faith without works just made.

rwp@James:2:18 @{Yea, a man will say} (\all' erei tis\). Future active of \eipon\. But \all'\ here is almost certainly adversative (But some one will say), not confirmatory. James introduces an imaginary objector who speaks one sentence: "Thou hast faith and I have works" (\Su pistin echeis kag“ erga ech“\). Then James answers this objector. The objector can be regarded as asking a short question: "Hast thou faith?" In that case James replies: "I have works also." {Show me thy faith apart from thy works} (\deixon moi tˆn pistin sou ch“ris t“n erg“n\). This is the reply of James to the objector. First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, tense of urgency. The point lies in \ch“ris\, which means not "without," but "apart from," as in strkjv@Hebrews:11:6| (with the ablative case), "the works that properly belong to it and should characterise it" (Hort). James challenges the objector to do this. {And I by my works will shew thee my faith} (\kag“ soi deix“ ek t“n erg“n mou tˆn pistin\). It is not faith _or_ works, but proof of real faith (live faith _vs_. dead faith). The mere profession of faith with no works or profession of faith shown to be alive by works. This is the alternative clearly stated. Note \pistin\ (faith) in both cases. James is not here discussing "works" (ceremonial works) as a means of salvation as Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:4|, but works as proof of faith.

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

rwp@James:2:22 @{Thou seest} (\blepeis\). Obvious enough with any eyes to see. This may be a question, seest thou? {Wrought with} (\sunˆrgei\). Imperfect active of \sunerge“\, old verb for which see strkjv@Romans:8:28|. Followed by associative-instrumental case \ergois\. Faith cooperated with the deed of offering up Isaac. {Was made perfect} (\etelei“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \teleio“\, to carry to the end, to complete like love in strkjv@1John:4:18|. See strkjv@James:1:4| for \teleion ergon\.

rwp@James:3:1 @{Be not many teachers} (\mˆ polloi didaskaloi ginesthe\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and present middle imperative of \ginomai\. "Stop becoming many teachers" (so many of you). There is thus a clear complaint that too many of the Jewish Christians were attempting to teach what they did not clearly comprehend. There was a call for wise teachers (verses 13f.|), not for foolish ones. This soon became an acute question, as one can see in I Cor. 12 to 14. They were not all teachers (1Corinthians:12:28f.; strkjv@14:26|). The teacher is here treated as the wise man (3:13-18|) as he ought to be. The rabbi was the teacher (Matthew:23:7f.; strkjv@John:1:38; strkjv@3:10; strkjv@20:16|). Teachers occupied an honourable position among the Christians (Ephesians:4:11; strkjv@Acts:13:1|). James counts himself a teacher (we shall receive, strkjv@3:1|) and this discussion is linked on with strkjv@1:19-27|. Teachers are necessary, but incompetent and unworthy ones do much harm. {Heavier judgment} (\meizon krima\). "Greater sentence." See strkjv@Mark:12:40; strkjv@Luke:20:47| for \perrisoteron krima\ (the sentence from the judge, strkjv@Romans:13:2|). The reason is obvious. The pretence of knowledge adds to the teacher's responsibility and condemnation.

rwp@James:3:5 @{A little member} (\mikron melos\). \Melos\ is old and common word for members of the human body (1Corinthians:12:12, etc.; strkjv@Romans:6:13|, etc.). {Boasteth great things} (\megala auchei\). Present active indicative of \auche“\, old verb, here only in N.T. The best MSS. here separate \megala\ from \auche“\, though \megalauche“\ does occur in Aeschylus, Plato, etc. \Megala\ is in contrast with \mikron\. {How much--how small} (\hˆlikon--hˆlikˆn\). The same relative form for two indirect questions together, "What-sized fire kindles what-sized forest?" For double interrogatives see strkjv@Mark:15:24|. The verb \anaptei\ is present active indicative of \anapt“\, to set fire to, to kindle (Luke:12:49|, only other N.T. example except some MSS. in strkjv@Acts:28:2|). \Hulˆn\ is accusative case, object of \anaptei\, and occurs here only in N.T., though old word for forest, wood. Forest fires were common in ancient times as now, and were usually caused by small sparks carelessly thrown.

rwp@James:3:11 @{The fountain} (\hˆ pˆgˆ\). Old word for spring (John:4:14|). {Opening} (\opˆs\). Old word for fissure in the earth, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:11:38| (caves). {Send forth} (\bruei\). Present active indicative of \bru“\, old verb, to bubble up, to gush forth, here only in N.T. The use of \mˆti\ shows that a negative answer is expected in this rhetorical question. {The sweet and the bitter} (\to gluku kai to pikron\). Cognate accusatives with \bruei\. Separate articles to distinguish sharply the two things. The neuter singular articular adjective is a common way of presenting a quality. \Glukus\ is an old adjective (in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:10:9f.|), the opposite of \pikron\ (from old root, to cut, to prick), in N.T. only here and verse 14| (sharp, harsh).

rwp@James:4:12 @{One only} (\heis\). No "only" in the Greek, but \heis\ here excludes all others but God. {The lawgiver} (\ho nomothetˆs\). Old compound (from \nomos, tithˆmi\), only here in N.T. In strkjv@Psalms:9:20|. Cf. \nomothete“\ in strkjv@Hebrews:7:11; strkjv@8:6|. {To save} (\s“sai\, first aorist active infinitive of \s“z“\) {and to destroy} (\kai apolesai\, first aorist active infinitive of \apollumi\ to destroy). Cf. the picture of God's power in strkjv@Matthew:10:28|, a common idea in the O.T. (Deuteronomy:32:39; strkjv@1Samuel:2:16; strkjv@2Kings:5:7|). {But who art thou?} (\su de tis ei;\). Proleptic and emphatic position of \su\ (thou) in this rhetorical question as in strkjv@Romans:9:20; strkjv@14:4|. {Thy neighbour} (\ton plˆsion\). "The neighbour" as in strkjv@James:2:8|.

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

rwp@James:5:6 @{Ye have condemned} (\katedikasate\). First aorist active indicative of \katadikaz“\, old verb (from \katadikˆ\, condemnation, strkjv@Acts:25:15|). The rich controlled the courts of justice. {Ye have killed the righteous one} (\ephoneusate ton dikaion\). First aorist active indicative of \phoneu“\ (2:11; strkjv@4:2|). "The righteous one" (\t“n dikaion\) is the generic use of the singular with article for the class. There is probably no direct reference to one individual, though it does picture well the death of Christ and also the coming death of James himself, who was called the Just (Eus. _H.E_. ii. 23). Stephen (Acts:7:52|) directly accuses the Sanhedrin with being betrayers and murderers (\prodotai kai phoneis\) of the righteous one (\tou dikaiou\). {He doth not resist you} (\ouk antitassetai humin\). It is possible to treat this as a question. Present middle indicative of \antitass“\, for which see strkjv@James:4:6|. Without a question the unresisting end of the victim (\ton dikaion\) is pictured. With a question (\ouk\, expecting an affirmative answer) God or Lord is the subject, with the final judgment in view. There is no way to decide definitely.

rwp@Info_John @ JOHN'S PORTRAIT OF CHRIST No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: "And the Word was God" (John:1:1|) and in the correct text of strkjv@John:1:18|, "God only begotten" (\theos monogenˆs\). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: "This is the Son of God" (John:1:34|). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (John:5:18|) and the claim of Christ himself (John:5:20-23; strkjv@6:48; strkjv@8:12,58; strkjv@11:25; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|) with the full and frank conviction of the author in strkjv@John:20:31|. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term \theos\ applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_ (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ's crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly (_Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah_, 1900; _St. John's Portrait of Christ_, 1910).

rwp@John:1:19 @{And this is the witness of John} (\kai hautˆ estin hˆ marturia tou I“anou\). He had twice already alluded to it (verses 7f., 15|) and now he proceeds to give it as the most important item to add after the Prologue. Just as the author assumes the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, so he assumes the Synoptic accounts of the baptism of Jesus by John, but adds various details of great interest and value between the baptism and the Galilean ministry, filling out thus our knowledge of this first year of the Lord's ministry in various parts of Palestine. The story in John proceeds along the same lines as in the Synoptics. There is increasing unfolding of Christ to the disciples with increasing hostility on the part of the Jews till the final consummation in Jerusalem. {When the Jews sent unto him} (\hote apesteilan pros auton hoi Ioudaioi\). John, writing in Ephesus near the close of the first century long after the destruction of Jerusalem, constantly uses the phrase "the Jews" as descriptive of the people as distinct from the Gentile world and from the followers of Christ (at first Jews also). Often he uses it of the Jewish leaders and rulers in particular who soon took a hostile attitude toward both John and Jesus. Here it is the Jews from Jerusalem who sent (\apesteilan\, first aorist active indicative of \apostell“\). {Priests and Levites} (\hiereis kai Leueitas\). Sadducees these were. Down below in verse 24| the author explains that it was the Pharisees who sent the Sadducees. The Synoptics throw a flood of light on this circumstance, for in strkjv@Matthew:3:7| we are told that the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees "offspring of vipers" (Luke:3:7|). Popular interest in John grew till people were wondering "in their hearts concerning John whether haply he were the Christ" (Luke:3:15|). Songs:the Sanhedrin finally sent a committee to John to get his own view of himself, but the Pharisees saw to it that Sadducees were sent. {To ask him} (\hina er“tˆs“sin auton\). Final \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \er“ta“\, old verb to ask a question as here and often in the _Koin‚_ to ask for something (John:14:16|) like \aite“\. {Who art thou?} (\su tis ei;\). Direct question preserved and note proleptic position of \su\, "Thou, who art thou?" The committee from the Sanhedrin put the question sharply up to John to define his claims concerning the Messiah.

rwp@John:1:20 @{And he confessed} (\kai h“mologˆsen\). The continued paratactic use of \kai\ (and) and the first aorist active indicative of \homologe“\, old verb from \homologos\ (\homon, leg“\, to say the same thing), to confess, in the Synoptics (Matthew:10:32|) as here. {And denied not} (\kai ouk ˆrnˆsato\). Negative statement of same thing in Johannine fashion, first aorist middle indicative of \arneomai\, another Synoptic and Pauline word (Matthew:10:33; strkjv@2Timothy:2:12|). He did not contradict or refuse to say who he was. {And he confessed} (\kai h“mologˆsen\). Thoroughly Johannine again in the paratactic repetition. {I am not the Christ} (\Eg“ ouk eimi ho Christos\). Direct quotation again with recitative \hoti\ before it like our modern quotation marks. "I am not the Messiah," he means by \ho Christos\ (the Anointed One). Evidently it was not a new question as Luke had already shown (Luke:3:15|).

rwp@John:1:21 @{And they asked him} (\kai ˆr“tˆsan auton\). Here the paratactic \kai\ is like the transitional \oun\ (then). {What then?} (\Ti oun;\). Argumentative \oun\ like Paul's \ti oun\ in strkjv@Romans:6:15|. _Quid ergo?_ {Art thou Elijah?} (\Su Elias ei;\). The next inevitable question since Elijah had been understood to be the forerunner of the Messiah from strkjv@Malachi:4:5|. In strkjv@Mark:9:11f.| Jesus will identify John with the Elijah of Malachi's prophecy. Why then does John here flatly deny it? Because the expectation was that Elijah would return in person. This John denies. Jesus only asserts that John was Elijah in spirit. Elijah in person they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration. {He saith} (\legei\). Vivid dramatic present. {I am not} (\ouk eimi\). Short and blunt denial. {Art thou the prophet?} (\ho prophˆtˆs ei su;\). "The prophet art thou?" This question followed naturally the previous denials. Moses (Deuteronomy:18:15|) had spoken of a prophet like unto himself. Christians interpreted this prophet to be the Messiah (Acts:3:22; strkjv@7:37|), but the Jews thought him another forerunner of the Messiah (John:7:40|). It is not clear in strkjv@John:6:15| whether the people identified the expected prophet with the Messiah, though apparently so. Even the Baptist later became puzzled in prison whether Jesus himself was the true Messiah or just one of the forerunners (Luke:7:19|). People wondered about Jesus himself whether he was the Messiah or just one of the looked for prophets (Mark:8:28; strkjv@Matthew:16:14|). {And he answered} (\kai apekrithˆ\). First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense of voice gone) indicative of \apokrinomai\, to give a decision from myself, to reply. {No} (\Ou\). Shortest possible denial.

rwp@John:1:22 @{They said therefore} (\eipan oun\). Second aorist active indicative of defective verb \eipon\ with \a\ instead of usual \o\. Note \oun\, inferential here as in verse 21| though often merely transitional in John. {Who art thou?} (\Tis ei;\). Same question as at first (verse 19|), but briefer. {That we give answer} (\hina apokrisin d“men\). Final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \did“mi\ with \apokrisin\ from \apokrinomai\, above, old substantive as in strkjv@Luke:2:47|. {To those that sent} (\tois pempsasin\). Dative case plural of the articular participle first aorist active of \pemp“\. {What sayest thou of thyself?} (\Ti legeis peri seautou;\). This time they opened wide the door without giving any hint at all.

rwp@John:1:39 @{Come and ye shall see} (\erchesthe kai opsesthe\). Polite invitation and definite promise (future middle indicative \opsesthe\ from \hora“\, correct text, not imperative \idete\). {Where he abode} (\pou menei\). Indirect question preserving the present active indicative after secondary tense (\eidan\, saw) according to regular Greek idiom. Same verb \men“\ as in 38|. {With him} (\par' aut“i\). "By his side," "beside him." {That day} (\tˆn hˆmeran ekeinˆn\). Accusative of extent of time, all during that day. {About the tenth hour} (\h“ra h“s dekatˆ\). Roman time and so ten o'clock in the morning. John in Ephesus at the close of the century naturally uses Roman time. See strkjv@20:19| "evening on that day," clearly Roman time. Thus also strkjv@John:19:14| (sixth hour, morning) and strkjv@Mark:15:25| (third hour, nine A.M.) suit. To his latest day John never forgot the hour when first he met Jesus.

rwp@John:1:46 @{Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?} (\Ek Nazaret dunatai ti agathon einai;\). Literally, "Out of Nazareth can anything good be." There is a tinge of scorn in the question as if Nazareth (note position at beginning of sentence) had a bad name. Town rivalry may account to some extent for it since Cana (home of Nathanael) was near Nazareth. Clearly he had never heard of Jesus. The best thing in all the world came out of Nazareth, but Philip does not argue the point. A saying had arisen that no prophet comes out of Galilee (John:7:52|), untrue like many such sayings. {Come and see} (\erchou kai ide\). Present middle imperative (come on) and second active imperative (and see at once). Philip followed the method of Jesus with Andrew and John (verse 39|), probably without knowing it. Wise is the one who knows how to deal with the sceptic.

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:2:18 @{What sign shewest thou unto us?} (\Ti sˆmeion deiknueis hˆmin;\). They may have heard of the "sign" at Cana or not, but they have rallied a bit on the outside of the temple area and demand proof for his Messianic assumption of authority over the temple worship. These traders had paid the Sadducees and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin for the concession as traffickers which they enjoyed. They were within their technical rights in this question.

rwp@John:2:25 @{And because he needed not} (\kai hoti chreian eichen\). Imperfect active, "and because he did not have need." {That any one should bear witness concerning man} (\hina tis marturˆsˆi peri tou anthr“pou\). Non-final use of \hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \marture“\ and the generic article (\peri tou anthr“pou\) concerning mankind as in the next clause also. {For he himself knew} (\autos gar egin“sken\). Imperfect active, "for he himself kept on knowing" as he did from the start. {What was in man} (\ti ˆn en t“i anthr“p“i\). Indirect question with \estin\ of the direct changed to the imperfect \ˆn\, a rare idiom in the _Koin‚_. This supernatural knowledge of man is a mark of deity. Some men of genius can read men better than others, but not in the sense meant here.

rwp@John:3:4 @Being old (\ger“n “n\). Nicodemus was probably familiar with the notion of re-birth for proselytes to Judaism for the Gentiles, but not with the idea that a Jew had to be reborn. But "this stupid misunderstanding" (Bernard) of the meaning of Jesus is precisely what John represents Nicodemus as making. How "old" Nicodemus was we do not know, but surely too old to be the young ruler of strkjv@Luke:18:18| as Bacon holds. The blunder of Nicodemus is emphasized by the second question with the \mˆ\ expecting the negative answer. The use of \deuteron\ adds to the grotesqueness of his blunder. The learned Pharisee is as jejune in spiritual insight as the veriest tyro. This is not an unheard of phenomenon.

rwp@John:3:6 @{That which is born} (\to gegennˆmenon\). Perfect passive articular participle. The sharp contrast between flesh (\sarx\) and Spirit (\pneuma\), drawn already in strkjv@1:13|, serves to remind Nicodemus of the crudity of his question in strkjv@3:4| about a second physical birth.

rwp@John:3:25 @{A questioning} (\zˆtˆsis\). Old word from \zˆte“\. See strkjv@Acts:15:2| for the word where also \zˆtˆma\ (question) occurs. \Zˆtˆsis\ (process of inquiry) means a meticulous dispute (1Timothy:6:4|). {With a Jew} (\meta Ioudaiou\). Songs:correct text, not \Ioudai“n\ (Jews). Probably some Jew resented John's baptism of Jesus as implying impurity or that they were like Gentiles (cf. proselyte baptism). {About purifying} (\peri katharismou\). See strkjv@2:6| for the word. The committee from the Sanhedrin had challenged John's right to baptize (1:25|). The Jews had various kinds of baptisms or dippings (Hebrews:6:2|), "baptisms of cups and pots and brazen vessels" (Mark:6:4|). The disciples of John came to him with the dispute (the first known baptismal controversy, on the meaning of the ceremony) and with a complaint.

rwp@John:4:14 @{That I shall give him} (\hou eg“ d“s“ aut“i\). Relative \hou\ attracted to the case (genitive) of the antecedent (\hudatos\). Future active indicative of \did“mi\. {Shall never thirst} (\ou mˆ dipsˆsei eis ton aiona\). The double negative \ou mˆ\ is used with either the future indicative as here or the aorist subjunctive, the strongest possible negative. See both constructions (\ou mˆ peinasˆi\ and \ou me dipsˆsei\) in strkjv@John:6:35|. Jesus has not answered the woman's question save by the necessary implication here that he is superior to Jacob. {A well of water springing up unto eternal life} (\pˆgˆ hudatos hallomenou eis z“ˆn ai“nion\). "Spring (or fountain) of water leaping (bubbling up) unto life eternal." Present middle participle of \hallomai\, old verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:3:8; strkjv@14:10|. The woman's curiosity is keenly excited about this new kind of water.

rwp@John:4:29 @{All things that ever I did} (\panta ha epoiˆsa\). {Ha}, not \hosa\ (as many as), no "ever" in the Greek. But a guilty conscience (verse 18f.|) led her to exaggerate a bit. {Can this be the Christ?} (\mˆti houtos estin ho Christos;\). She is already convinced herself (verses 26f.|), but she puts the question in a hesitant form to avoid arousing opposition. With a woman's intuition she avoided \ouk\ and uses \mˆti\. She does not take sides, but piques their curiosity.

rwp@John:4:31 @{In the meanwhile} (\en t“i metaxu\). Supply \kairoi\ or \chronoi\. See \to metaxu Sabbaton\, "the next Sabbath" (Acts:13:42|) and \en t“i metaxu\ (Luke:8:1|). \Metaxu\ means between. {Prayed him} (\ˆr“t“n auton\). Imperfect active, "kept beseeching him." For this late (_Koin‚_) use of \er“ta“\, to beseech, instead of the usual sense to question see also verses 40,47|. Their concern for the comfort of Jesus overcame their surprise about the woman.

rwp@John:5:6 @{Knew that he had been a long time} (\gnous hoti polun ˆdˆ chronon echei\). How Jesus "knew" (\gnous\, second aorist active participle of \gin“sk“\) we are not told, whether supernatural knowledge (2:24f.|) or observation or overhearing people's comments. In \ˆdˆ echei\ we have a progressive present active indicative, "he has already been having much time" (\chronon\, accusative of extent of time). {Wouldest thou be made whole?} (\Theleis hugiˆs genesthai;\). "Dost thou wish to become whole?" Predicate nominative \hugiˆs\ with \genesthai\ (second aorist middle infinitive). It was a pertinent and sympathetic question.

rwp@John:5:13 @{He that was healed} (\ho iatheis\). First aorist passive articular participle of \iaomai\ (John's usual word). {Who it was} (\tis estin\). Present tense preserved in indirect question. {Had conveyed himself away} (\exeneusen\). First aorist active indicative of \ekne“\, old verb to swim out, to slip out, or from \ekneu“\, to turn out, to turn the head to one side (to one side with which compare \eneneuon\, they nodded, strkjv@Luke:1:62|). Either of these verbs can explain the form here. The aorist tense simply states an antecedent action without being a pastperfect. {A multitude being in the place} (\ochlou ontos en t“i top“i\). Genitive absolute and the reason for Christ's departure.

rwp@John:6:6 @{To prove him} (\peiraz“n auton\). Present active participle of \peiraz“\, testing him, not here in bad sense of tempting as so often (Matthew:4:1|). {What he would do} (\ti ˆmellen poiein\). Indirect question with change of tense to imperfect. As in strkjv@2:25| so here John explains why Jesus put the question to Philip.

rwp@John:6:28 @{What must we do?} (\Ti poi“men;\). Present active deliberative subjunctive of \poie“\, "What are we to do as a habit?" For the aorist subjunctive (\poiˆs“men\) in a like question for a single act see strkjv@Luke:3:10|. For the present indicative (\poioumen\) of inquiry concerning actual conduct see strkjv@John:11:47| (what are we doing?). {That we may work the works of God} (\hina ergaz“metha ta erga tou theou\). Final clause with \hina\ and the present middle subjunctive, "that we may go on working the works of God." There may have been an element of vague sincerity in this question in spite of their supercilious attitude.

rwp@John:6:67 @{Would ye also go away?} (\Mˆ kai humeis thelete hupagein;\). Jesus puts it with the negative answer (\mˆ\) expected. See strkjv@21:5| where Jesus also uses \mˆ\ in a question. Judas must have shown some sympathy with the disappointed and disappearing crowds. But he kept still. There was possibly restlessness on the part of the other apostles.

rwp@John:7:19 @{And yet} (\kai\). Clear use of \kai\ in the adversative sense of "and yet" or "but." They marvelled at Christ's "ignorance" and boasted of their own knowledge of the law of Moses. And yet they violated that law by not practising it. {Why seek ye to kill me?} (\Ti me zˆteite apokteinai;\). A sudden and startling question as an illustration of their failure to do the law of Moses. Jesus had previously known (5:39,45-47|) that the Jews really rejected the teaching of Moses while professing to believe it. On that very occasion they had sought to kill him (5:18|), the very language used here. Apparently he had not been to Jerusalem since then. He undoubtedly alludes to their conduct then and charges them with the same purpose now.

rwp@John:7:26 @{They say nothing unto him} (\ouden autoi legousin\). But only make sneering comments about him (7:16|) in spite of his speaking "openly" (\parrˆsiƒi\, for which word see strkjv@7:13; strkjv@18:20|) before all. lt was sarcasm about the leaders, though an element of surprise on the part of "these shrewd townsmen" (Bernard) may have existed also. {Can it be that the rulers indeed know} (\mˆ pote alˆth“s egn“sin hoi archontes\). Negative answer expected by \mˆ pote\ and yet there is ridicule of the rulers in the form of the question. See a like use of \mˆ pote\ in strkjv@Luke:3:15|, though nowhere else in John. \Egn“san\ (second aorist ingressive active indicative of \gin“sk“\) may refer to the examination of Jesus by these rulers in strkjv@5:19ff.| and means, "Did they come to know or find out" (and so hold now)? {That this is the Christ} (\hoti houtos estin ho Christos\). The Messiah of Jewish hope.

rwp@John:7:35 @{Among themselves} (\pros heautous\). These Jewish leaders of verse 32| talk among themselves about what Jesus said in a spirit of contempt (this man or fellow, \houtos\). {That} (\hoti\). Almost result like \hoti\ in strkjv@Matthew:8:27|. {Will he go?} (\mˆ mellei poreuesthai;\). Negative answer expected in an ironical question, "Is he about to go?" {Unto the Dispersion among the Greeks} (\eis tˆn diasporan t“n Hellˆn“n\). Objective genitive \t“n Hellˆn“n\ (of the Greeks) translated here "among," because it is the Dispersion of Jews among the Greeks. \Diaspora\ is from \diaspeir“\, to scatter apart (Acts:8:1,4|). It occurs in Plutarch and is common in the LXX, in the N.T. only here, strkjv@James:1:1; strkjv@1Peter:1:1|. There were millions of these scattered Jews. {And teach the Greeks} (\kai didaskein tous Hellˆnas\). Confessing his failure to teach the Jews in Palestine, "thus ignorantly anticipating the course Christianity took; what seemed unlikely and impossible to them became actual" (Dods).

rwp@John:7:38 @{He that believeth on me} (\ho pisteu“n eis eme\). Nominative absolute as is not uncommon. {The scripture} (\hˆ graphˆ\). No precise passage can be quoted, though similar idea in several (Isaiah:55:1; strkjv@58:11; strkjv@Zechariah:13:1; strkjv@14:8; strkjv@Ezekiel:47:1; strkjv@Joel:3:18|). Chrysostom confines it to strkjv@Isaiah:28:16| by punctuation (only the nominative absolute as the Scripture). {Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water} (\potamoi ek tˆs koilias autou reusousin hudatos z“ntos\). Some ancient Western writers connect \pinet“\ of verse 37| with \ho pisteu“n\ in verse 38|. By this arrangement \autou\ (his) with \koilias\ is made to refer to Christ, not to the believer. Burney argues that \koilia\ is a mistranslation of the Aramaic (fountain, not belly) and that the reference is to strkjv@Ezekiel:47:1|. C.C. Torrey refers to strkjv@Zechariah:14:8|. But the Eastern writers refer \autou\ (his) to the believer who not only quenches in Christ his own thirst, but becomes a source of new streams for others (John:4:14|). It is a difficult question and Westcott finally changed his view and held \autou\ to refer to Christ. \Reusousin\ is future active indicative of \re“\, old verb, to flow, here only in the N.T.

rwp@John:7:45 @{Why did ye not bring him?} (\Dia ti ouk ˆgagete auton;\). Second aorist active indicative of \ag“\. Indignant outburst of the Sanhedrin (both Sadducees and Pharisees) at the failure of the (\tous\, note article here referring to verse 32|) temple police to arrest Jesus. "Apparently they were sitting in expectation of immediately questioning him" (Dods). They were stunned at this outcome.

rwp@John:7:51 @{Doth our law judge a man?} (\mˆ ho nomos hˆm“n krinei ton anthr“pon;\). Negative answer expected and "the man," not "a man." These exponents of the law (verse 49|) were really violating the law of criminal procedure (Exodus:23:1; strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:16|). Probably Nicodemus knew that his protest was useless, but he could at least show his colours and score the point of justice in Christ's behalf. {Except it first hear from himself} (\ean mˆ akousˆi pr“ton par' autou\). Third-class negative condition with \ean mˆ\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \akou“\. That is common justice in all law, to hear a man's side of the case ("from him," \par' autou\). {And know what he doeth} (\kai gn“i ti poiei\). Continuation of the same condition with second aorist active subjunctive of \gin“sk“\ with indirect question and present active indicative (\ti poiei\). There was no legal answer to the point of Nicodemus.

rwp@John:8:7 @{When they continued asking} (\h“s epemenon er“t“ntes\). Imperfect active indicative of \epimen“\ (waiting in addition or still, \epi\, old verb) with supplementary active participle of \er“ta“\, to question. See same construction in strkjv@Acts:12:16| The verb \epimen“\ does not occur in John. They saw that Jesus seemed embarrassed, but did not know that it was as much because of "the brazen hardness of the prosecutors" as because of the shame of the deed. {He lifted himself up} (\anekupsen\). First aorist active indicative of \anakupt“\, the opposite of \katakupt“\, to bend down (verse 8|) or of \kat“ kupt“\ (verse 6|). {He that is without sin} (\ho anamartˆtos\). Verbal adjective (\an\ privative and \hamartˆtos\ from \hamartan“\), old word, either one who has not sinned as here and strkjv@Deuteronomy:29:19| or one who cannot sin, not in the N.T. {Among you} (\hum“n\). Objective genitive. {First cast} (\pr“tos balet“\). The nominative \pr“tos\ means first before others, be the first to cast, not cast before he does something else. See strkjv@20:4|. The verb is second aorist imperative of \ball“\, old verb to fling or cast. Jesus thus picks out the executioner in the case.

rwp@John:8:14 @{Even if} (\kan\). That is \kai ean\, a condition of the third class with the present active subjunctive \martur“\. Jesus means that his own witness concerning himself is true (\alˆthes\) even if it contravenes their technical rules of evidence. He can and does tell the truth all by himself concerning himself. {For I know whence I came and whither I go} (\hoti oida pothen ˆlthon kai pou hupag“\). In this terse sentence with two indirect questions Jesus alludes to his pre-existence with the Father before his Incarnation as in strkjv@17:5| and to the return to the Father after the death and resurrection as in strkjv@13:3; strkjv@14:2f|. He again puts both ideas together in one crisp clause in strkjv@16:28| for the apostles who profess to understand him then. But here these Pharisees are blind to the words of Jesus. "But ye know not whence I come nor whither I go" (\humeis de ouk oidate pothen erchomai ˆ pou hupag“\). He had spoken of his heavenly destiny (7:33|). Jesus alone knew his personal consciousness of his coming from, fellowship with, and return to the Father. Stier (_Words of the Lord Jesus_) argues that one might as well say to the sun, if claiming to be the sun, that it was night, because it bore witness of itself. The answer is the shining of the sun.

rwp@John:8:19 @{Where is thy Father?} (\pou estin ho patˆr sou;\). "The testimony of an unseen and unheard witness would not satisfy them" (Vincent). Bernard understands the Pharisees to see that Jesus claims God the Father as his second witness and so ask "where," not "who" he is. Augustine has it: _Patrem Christi carnaliter acceperunt_, Christ's human father, as if the Pharisees were "misled perhaps by the Lord's use of \anthr“pon\ (verse 17|)" (Dods). Cyril even took it to be a coarse allusion to the birth of Jesus as a bastard according to the Talmud. Perhaps the Pharisees used the question with _double entendre_, even with all three ideas dancing in their hostile minds. {Ye would know my Father also} (\kai ton patera mou an ˆideite\). Conclusion of second-class condition determined as unfulfilled with \an\ and second perfect active of \oida\ used as imperfect in both condition and conclusion. See this same point made to Philip in strkjv@14:9|. In strkjv@14:7| Jesus will use \gin“sk“\ in the condition and \oida\ in the conclusion. The ignorance of the Pharisees about Jesus proves it and is due to their ignorance of the Father. See this point more fully stated in strkjv@5:36-38| when Jesus had his previous controversy in Jerusalem. In strkjv@7:28| Jesus said that they knew his home in Nazareth, but he denied then that they knew the Father who sent him. Jesus will again on this occasion (8:55|) deny their knowledge of the Father. Later he will deny their knowledge of the Father and of the Son (16:3|). The Pharisees are silenced for the moment.

rwp@John:8:25 @{Who art thou?} (\Su tis ei;\). Proleptic use of \su\ before \tis\, "Thou, who art thou?" Cf. strkjv@1:19|. He had virtually claimed to be the Messiah and on a par with God as in strkjv@5:15|. They wish to pin him down and to charge him with blasphemy. {Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning} (\tˆn archˆn hoti kai lal“ humin\). A difficult sentence. It is not clear whether it is an affirmation or a question. The Latin and Syriac versions treat it as affirmative. Westcott and Hort follow Meyer and take it as interrogative. The Greek fathers take it as an exclamation. It seems clear that the adverbial accusative \tˆn archˆn\ cannot mean "from the beginning" like \ap' archˆs\ (15:27|) or \ex archˆs\ (16:4|). The LXX has \tˆn archˆn\ for "at the beginning" or "at the first" (Genesis:43:20|). There are examples in Greek, chiefly negative, where \tˆn archˆn\ means "at all," "essentially," "primarily." Vincent and Bernard so take it here, "Primarily what I am telling you." Jesus avoids the term Messiah with its political connotations. He stands by his high claims already made.

rwp@John:8:46 @{Which of you convicteth me of sin?} (\Tis ex hum“n elegchei me peri hamaritas;\). See on strkjv@3:20; strkjv@16:8| (the work of the Holy Spirit) for \elegch“\ for charge and proof. The use of \hamartia\ as in strkjv@1:29| means sin in general, not particular sins. The rhetorical question which receives no answer involves sinlessness (Hebrews:4:15|) without specifically saying so. Bernard suggests that Jesus paused after this pungent question before going on. {Why do ye not believe me?} (\Dia ti humeis ou pisteuete moi;\). This question drives home the irrationality of their hostility to Jesus. It was based on prejudice and predilection.

rwp@John:8:53 @{Art thou greater than our father Abraham?} (\Mˆ su meiz“n ei tou patros hˆm“n Abraam;\). Negative answer expected by \mˆ\ with ablative case of comparison in \patros\ after \meiz“n\. The question was designed to put Jesus in a difficult position, for Abraham and the prophets all "died." They do not see that Jesus uses death in a different sense. {Whom makest thou thyself?} (\tina seauton poieis;\). \Seauton\ is predicate accusative with \poieis\. They suspect that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy as they charged in strkjv@5:18| in making himself equal with God. Later they will make it specifically (10:33; strkjv@19:7|). They set a trap for Jesus for this purpose.

rwp@John: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:9:12 @{Where is he?} (\Pou estin ekeinos;\). The very question of strkjv@7:11|.

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:9:19 @{Is this your son who ye say was born blind? how doth he now see?} (\Houtos estin ho huios hum“n, hon humeis lˆgete hoti tuphlos egennˆthˆ; p“s oun blepei arti;\). It was shrewdly put with three questions in one in order to confuse the parents if possible and give the hostile Pharisees a handle.

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:9:21 @{But how he now seeth we know not} (\p“s de nun blepei ouk oidamen\). Concerning the third question they profess ignorance both as to the "how" (\p“s\) and the "who" (\tis\). {Opened} (\ˆnoixen\). First aorist active indicative with single augment of \anoig“\, same form as \ˆne“ixen\ (triple augment) in verse 17|. They were not witnesses of the cure and had the story only from the son as the Pharisees had. {He is of age} (\hˆlikian echei\). "He has maturity of age." He is an adult. A regular classical phrase in Plato, etc. The parents were wholly right and within their rights.

rwp@John:10:6 @{This parable} (\tautˆn tˆn paroimian\). Old word for proverb from \para\ (beside) and \oimos\, way, a wayside saying or saying by the way. As a proverb in N.T. in strkjv@2Peter:2:22| (quotation from strkjv@Proverbs:26:11|), as a symbolic or figurative saying in strkjv@John:16:25,29|, as an allegory in strkjv@John:10:6|. Nowhere else in the N.T. Curiously enough in the N.T. \parabolˆ\ occurs only in the Synoptics outside of strkjv@Hebrews:9:9; strkjv@11:19|. Both are in the LXX. \Parabolˆ\ is used as a proverb (Luke:4:23|) just as \paroimia\ is in strkjv@2Peter:2:22|. Here clearly \paroimia\ means an allegory which is one form of the parable. Songs:there you are. Jesus spoke this \paroimia\ to the Pharisees, "but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them" (\ekeinoi de ouk egn“san tina ˆn ha elalei autois\). Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\ and note \ˆn\ in indirect question as in strkjv@2:25| and both the interrogative \tina\ and the relative \ha\. "Spake" (imperfect \elalei\) should be "Was speaking or had been speaking."

rwp@John:10:21 @{Of one possessed with a demon} (\daimonizomenou\). Genitive of present passive participle of \daimoniz“\. They had heard demoniacs talk, but not like this. {Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?} (\mˆ daimonion dunatai tuphlon ophthalmous anoixai;\). Negative answer expected. Demons would more likely put out eyes, not open them. It was an unanswerable question.

rwp@John:10:36 @{Of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world} (\hon ho patˆr hˆgiasen kai apesteilen eis ton kosmon\). Another relative clause with the antecedent (\touton\, it would be, object of \legete\) unexpressed. Every word counts heavily here in contrast with the mere judges of strkjv@Psalms:82:6|. {Thou blasphemest} (\hoti blasphˆmeis\). Recitative \hoti\ again before direct quotation. {Because I said} (\hoti eipon\). Causal use of \hoti\ and regular form \eipon\ (cf. \eipa\ in verse 34|). {I am the Son of God} (\huios tou theou eimi\). Direct quotation again after \eipon\. This Jesus had implied long before as in strkjv@2:16| (my Father) and had said in strkjv@5:18-30| (the Father, the Son), in strkjv@9:35| in some MSS., and virtually in strkjv@10:30|. They will make this charge against Jesus before Pilate (19:7|). Jesus does not use the article here with \huios\, perhaps (Westcott) fixing attention on the character of Son rather than on the person as in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2|. There is no answer to this question with its arguments.

rwp@John:11:34 @{Where have ye laid him?} (\Pou tetheikate auton;\). Perfect active indicative of \tithˆmi\. A simple question for information. The only other like it in John is in strkjv@6:6| where it is expressly stated that Jesus knew what he was going to do. Songs:it was here, only he politely asked for direction to the tomb of Lazarus. The people invite him to come and see, the very language used by Philip to Nathanael (1:46|). It was a natural and polite reply as they would show Jesus the way, but they had no idea of his purpose.

rwp@John:11:56 @{They sought therefore for Jesus} (\ezˆtoun oun ton Iˆsoun\). Imperfect active of \zˆte“\ and common \oun\ of which John is so fond. They were seeking Jesus six months before at the feast of tabernacles (7:11|), but now they really mean to kill him. {As they stood in the temple} (\en t“i hier“i hestˆkotes\). Perfect active participle (intransitive) of \histˆmi\, a graphic picture of the various groups of leaders in Jerusalem and from other lands, "the knots of people in the Temple precincts" (Bernard). They had done this at the tabernacles (7:11-13|), but now there is new excitement due to the recent raising of Lazarus and to the public order for the arrest of Jesus. {That he will not come to the feast?} (\hoti ou mˆ elthˆi eis tˆn heortˆn;\). The form of the question (indirect discourse after \dokeite\) assumes strongly that Jesus will not (\ou mˆ\, double negative with second aorist active \elthˆi\ from \erchomai\) dare to come this time for the reason given in verse 57|.

rwp@John:11:57 @{The chief priests and the Pharisees} (\hoi archiereis kai hoi Pharisaioi\). The Sanhedrin. {Had given commandment} (\ded“keisan entolas\). Past perfect active of \did“mi\. {That he should shew it} (\hina mˆnusˆi\). Sub-final \hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \mˆnu“\, old verb to disclose, to report formally (Acts:23:30|). {If any man knew} (\ean tis gn“i\). Third-class condition with \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \gin“sk“\. {Where he was} (\pou estin\). Indirect question with interrogative adverb and present indicative \estin\ retained like \gn“i\ and \mˆnusˆi\ after the secondary tense \ded“keisan\. {That they might take him} (\hop“s pias“sin auton\). Purpose clause with \hop“s\ instead of \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \piaz“\ so often used before (7:44|, etc.).

rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\hˆ psuchˆ mou\). The soul (\psuchˆ\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass“\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip“;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, s“son me ek tˆs h“ras tautˆs\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto ˆlthon eis tˆn h“ran tautˆn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.

rwp@John:12:33 @{Signifying} (\sˆmain“n\). Present active participle of \semain“\, old verb to give a sign (\sˆmeion\) as in strkjv@Acts:25:27|, and the whole phrase repeated in strkjv@18:32| and nearly so in strkjv@21:19|. The indirect question here and in strkjv@18:32| has the imperfect \emellen\ with present infinitive rather than the usual present \mellei\ retained while in strkjv@21:19| the future indicative \doxasei\ occurs according to rule. The point in \poi“i\ (qualitative relative in the instrumental case with \thanat“i\) is the Cross (lifted up) as the kind of death before Christ.

rwp@John:12:34 @{Out of the law} (\ek tou nomou\). That is, "out of the Scriptures" (10:34; strkjv@15:25|). {The Christ abideth forever} (\ho Christos menei eis ton ai“na\). Timeless present active indicative of \men“\, to abide, remain. Perhaps from strkjv@Psalms:89:4; strkjv@110:4; strkjv@Isaiah:9:7; strkjv@Ezekiel:37:25; strkjv@Daniel:7:14|. {How sayest thou?} (\p“s legeis su;\). In opposition to the law (Scripture). {The Son of man} (\ton huion tou anthr“pou\). Accusative case of general reference with the infinitive \hups“thˆnai\ (first aorist passive of \hupso“\ and taken in the sense of death by the cross as Jesus used it in verse 32|). Clearly the crowd understand Jesus to be "the Son of man" and take the phrase to be equivalent to "the Christ." This is the obvious way to understand the two terms in their reply, and not, as Bernard suggests, that they saw no connexion between "the Christ" (the Messiah) and "the Son of man." The use of "this" (\houtos\) in the question that follows is in contrast to verse 32|. The Messiah (the Son of man) abides forever and is not to be crucified as you say he "must" (\dei\) be.

rwp@John:12:49 @{He hath given} (\ded“ken\). Perfect active indicative. Christ has permanent commission. {What I should say and what I should speak} (\ti eip“ kai ti lalˆs“\). Indirect question retaining the deliberative subjunctive (second aorist active \eip“\, first aorist active \lalˆs“\). Meyer and Westcott take \eip“\ to refer to the content and \lalˆs“\ more to the varying manner of delivery. Possibly so.

rwp@John:13:12 @{Sat down again} (\anepesen palin\). Second aorist active indicative of \anapipt“\, old compound verb to fall back, to lie down, to recline. \Palin\ (again) can be taken either with \anepesen\, as here, or with \eipen\ (he said again). {Know ye what I have done to you?} (\gin“skete ti pepoiˆka humin;\). "Do ye understand the meaning of my act?" Perfect active indicative of \poie“\ with dative case (\humin\). It was a searching question, particularly to Simon Peter and Judas.

rwp@John:13:18 @{Not of you all} (\ou peri pant“n\). As in verse 11|, he here refers to Judas whose treachery is no surprise to Jesus (6:64,70|). {Whom I have chosen} (\tinas exelexamˆn\). Indirect question, unless \tinas\ is here used as a relative like \hous\. The first aorist middle indicative of \ekleg“\ is the same form used in strkjv@6:70|. Jesus refers to the choice (Luke:6:13| \eklexamenos\, this very word again) of the twelve from among the large group of disciples. \That the scripture might be fulfilled\ (\all' hina hˆ graphˆ plˆr“thˆi\). See the same clause in strkjv@17:12|. Purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \plˆro“\. This treachery of Judas was according to the eternal counsels of God (12:4|), but none the less Judas is responsible for his guilt. For a like elliptical clause see strkjv@9:3; strkjv@15:25|. The quotation is from the Hebrew of strkjv@Psalms:41:9|. {He that eateth} (\ho tr“g“n\). Present active participle of old verb to gnaw, to chew, to eat, in N.T. only in John (6:54,56,57,58; strkjv@13:18|) and strkjv@Matthew:26:38|. LXX has here \ho esthi“n\. {Lifted up his heel against me} (\epˆren ep' eme tˆn pternan autou\). First aorist active indicative of \epair“\. \Pterna\, old word for heel, only here in N.T. The metaphor is that of kicking with the heel or tripping with the heel like a wrestler. It was a gross breach of hospitality to eat bread with any one and then turn against him so. The Arabs hold to it yet.

rwp@John:13:22 @{Looked one on another} (\eblepon eis allˆlous\). Inchoative imperfect of \blep“\, "began to glance at one another in bewilderment (doubting, \aporoumenoi\, present passive participle of \apore“\, to be at a loss, to lose one's way, \a\ privative and \poros\, way). They recalled their strife about precedence and Judas betrayed nothing. {Concerning whom he spake} (\peri tinos legei\). Indirect question retaining present active indicative \legei\. See same note in ¯Mark:14:19; strkjv@Matthew:26:22; strkjv@Luke:22:23|.

rwp@John:13:24 @{Beckoneth} (\neuei\). Old verb to nod, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:24:10|. They were all looking in surprise at each other. {Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh} (\eipe tis estin peri hou legei\). Second aorist active imperative with indirect question (\tis\) and relative clause (\peri hou\). Peter was cautious, but could not contain his curiosity. John in front of Jesus was in a favourable position to have a whispered word with him. {Breast} (\stˆthos\). As in strkjv@21:20; strkjv@Luke:18:13| in place of \kolpon\ (verse 23|). This is the moment represented in Leonardo da Vinci's "Last Supper," only he shows the figures like the monks for whom he painted it.

rwp@John:14:16 @{And I will pray the Father} (\kag“ er“tˆs“ ton patera\). \Er“ta“\ for prayer, not question (the old use), also in strkjv@16:23| (prayer to Jesus in same sense as \aite“\), 26| (by Jesus as here); strkjv@17:9| (by Jesus), "make request of." {Another Comforter} (\allon paraklˆton\). Another of like kind (\allon\, not \heteron\), besides Jesus who becomes our Paraclete, Helper, Advocate, with the Father (1John:2:1|, Cf. strkjv@Romans:8:26f.|). This old word (Demosthenes), from \parakale“\, was used for legal assistant, pleader, advocate, one who pleads another's cause (Josephus, Philo, in illiterate papyrus), in N.T. only in John's writings, though the idea of it is in strkjv@Romans:8:26-34|. Cf. Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 336. Songs:the Christian has Christ as his Paraclete with the Father, the Holy Spirit as the Father's Paraclete with us (John:14:16,26; strkjv@15:26; strkjv@16:7; strkjv@1John:2:1|). {For ever} (\eis ton ai“na\). This the purpose (\hina\) in view and thus Jesus is to be with his people here forever (Matthew:28:20|). See strkjv@4:14| for the idiom.

rwp@John:16:18 @{We know not what he saith} (\ouk oidamen ti lalei\). The questions to Jesus cease and the disciples frankly confess to each other their own ignorance.

rwp@John:16:23 @{Ye shall ask me nothing} (\eme ouk er“tˆsete\). Either in the sense of question (original meaning of \er“ta“\) as in verses 19,30| since he will be gone or in the sense of request or favours (like \aite“\ in this verse) as in strkjv@14:16; strkjv@Acts:3:2|. In verse 26| both \aite“\ and \er“ta“\ occur in this sense. Either view makes sense here. {If ye shall ask} (\an ti aitˆsˆte\). Third-class condition, \an\ like \ean\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \aite“\. Note ¯14:26| for "in my name."

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:17:9 @{I pray} (\eg“ er“t“\). Request, not question, as in strkjv@16:23|. {Not for the world} (\ou peri tou kosmou\). Now at this point in the prayer Christ means. In verse 19| Jesus does pray for the world (for future believers) that it may believe (verse 21|). God loves the whole world (3:16|). Christ died for sinners (Romans:5:8|) and prayed for sinners (Luke:23:34|) and intercedes for sinners (1John:2:1f.; strkjv@Romans:8:34; strkjv@Hebrews:7:25|). {For those whom} (\peri h“n\). A condensed and common Greek idiom for \peri tout“n hous\ with \tout“n\ (the demonstrative antecedent) omitted and the relative \hous\ attracted from the accusative \hous\ (object of \ded“kas\) to the case (genitive) of the omitted antecedent.

rwp@John:18:7 @{Again} (\palin\). The repeated question receives the same answer. The soldiers and officers know who it is, but are still overawed.

rwp@John:18:11 @{Into the sheath} (\eis tˆn thˆkˆn\). Old word from \tithˆmi\, to put for box or sheath, only here in N.T. In strkjv@Matthew:26:52| Christ's warning is given. {The cup} (\to potˆrion\). Metaphor for Christ's death, used already in reply to request of James and John (Mark:10:39; strkjv@Matthew:20:22|) and in the agony in Gethsemane before Judas came (Mark:14:36; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), which is not given by John. The case of \to potˆrion\ is the suspended nominative for note \auto\ (it) referring to it. {Shall I not drink?} (\ou mˆ pi“;\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \pin“\ with the double negative \ou mˆ\ in a question expecting the affirmative answer. Abbott takes it as an exclamation and compares strkjv@6:37; strkjv@Mark:14:25|.

rwp@John:18:19 @{Asked} (\ˆr“tˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \er“ta“\, to question, usual meaning. This was Annas making a preliminary examination of Jesus probably to see on what terms Jesus made disciples whether as a mere rabbi or as Messiah.

rwp@John:18:23 @{If I have spoken evil} (\ei kak“s elalˆsa\). Condition of first class (assumed to be true), with \ei\ and aorist active indicative. Jesus had not spoken evilly towards Annas, though he did not here turn the other cheek, one may note. For the sake of argument, Jesus puts it as if he did speak evilly. Then prove it, that is all. {Bear witness of the evil} (\marturˆson peri tou kakou\). First aorist active imperative of \marture“\, to testify. This is the conclusion (apodosis). Jesus is clearly entitled to proof of such a charge if there is any. {But if well} (\ei de kal“s\). Supply the same verb \elalˆsa\. The same condition, but with a challenging question as the apodosis. {Smitest} (\dereis\). Old verb \der“\, to flay, to skin, to beat, as in strkjv@Matthew:21:35; strkjv@Luke:22:63; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:20| (of an insulting blow in the face as here).

rwp@John:18:25 @{Was standing and warming himself} (\ˆn hest“s kai thermainomenos\). Two periphrastic imperfects precisely as in verse 18|, vivid renewal of the picture drawn there. John alone gives the examination of Jesus by Annas (18:19-24|) which he places between the first and the second denials by Peter. Each of the Four Gospels gives three denials, but it is not possible to make a clear parallel as probably several people joined in each time. This time there was an hour's interval (Luke:22:59|). The question and answer are almost identical with verse 17| and "put in a form which almost _suggested_ that Peter should say 'No'" (Bernard), a favourite device of the devil in making temptation attractive.

rwp@John:18:32 @{By what manner of death} (\poi“i thanat“i\). Instrumental case of the qualitative interrogative \poios\ in an indirect question, the very idiom used in strkjv@John:12:32| concerning the Cross and here treated as prophecy (Scripture) with \hina plˆr“thˆi\ like the saying of Jesus in verse 9| which see.

rwp@John:18:33 @{Again} (\palin\). Back into the palace where Pilate was before. {Called} (\eph“nˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \ph“ne“\. Jesus was already inside the court (verse 28|). Pilate now summoned him to his presence since he saw that he had to handle the case. The charge that Jesus claimed to be a king compelled him to do so (Luke:23:2|). {Art thou the King of the Jews?} (\su ei ho basileus t“n Ioudai“n;\). This was the vital problem and each of the Gospels has the question (Mark:15:2; strkjv@Matthew:27:1; strkjv@Luke:23:3; strkjv@John:18:33|), though Luke alone (23:2|) gives the specific accusation. {Thou} (\su\). Emphatic. Jesus did claim to be the spiritual king of Israel as Nathanael said (John:1:49|) and as the ecstatic crowd hailed him on the Triumphal Entry (John:12:13|), but the Sanhedrin wish Pilate to understand this in a civil sense as a rival of Caesar as some of the Jews wanted Jesus to be (John:6:15|) and as the Pharisees expected the Messiah to be.

rwp@John:18:35 @{Amos:I a Jew?} (\mˆti eg“ Ioudaios eimi;\). Proud and fine scorn on Pilate's part at the idea that he had a personal interest in the question. Vehement negation implied. Cf. strkjv@4:29| for \mˆti\ in a question. The gulf between Jew and Gentile yawns wide here. {Nation} (\ethnos\ as in strkjv@11:48-52|, rather than \laos\, while both in strkjv@11:50|). For \pared“kan\ see verse 30|. {What hast thou done?} (\ti epoiˆsas;\). First aorist active indicative of \poie“\. Blunt and curt question. "What didst thou do?" "What is thy real crime?" John's picture of this private interview between Pilate and Jesus is told with graphic power.

rwp@John:18:38 @{What is truth?} (\ti estin alˆtheia;\). This famous sneer of Pilate reveals his own ignorance of truth, as he stood before Incarnate Truth (John:14:6|). _Quid est veritas?_ The answer in Latin is _Vir est qui adest_ as has been succinctly said by the use of the same letters. Pilate turned with indifference from his own great question and rendered his verdict: "I find no crime in him" (\eg“ oudemian heurisk“ en aut“i aitian\). For this use of \aitia\ see strkjv@Matthew:27:37; strkjv@Mark:15:26|. Pilate therefore should have set Jesus free at once.

rwp@John:18:39 @{A custom} (\sunˆtheia\). Old word for intimacy, intercourse, from \sunˆthˆs\ (\sun, ˆthos\), in N.T. only here, strkjv@1Corinthians:8:7; strkjv@11:16|. This custom, alluded to in strkjv@Mark:15:6; strkjv@Matthew:27:15|, is termed necessity (\anagkˆ\) in strkjv@Luke:23:17| (late MSS., not in older MSS.). All the Gospels use the verb \apolu“\ (release, set free). Then \hina apolus“\ is a subject clause (\hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive) in apposition with \sunˆtheia\. {Will ye therefore that I release?} (\boulesthe oun apolus“;\). Without the usual \hina\ before \apolus“\, asyndeton, as in strkjv@Mark:10:36|, to be explained either as parataxis or two questions (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 430) or as mere omission of \hina\ (_ibid_., p. 994). There is contempt and irony in Pilate's use of the phrase "the king of the Jews."

rwp@John:19:9 @{Whence art thou?} (\pothen ei su;\). Pilate knew that Jesus was from Galilee (Luke:23:6f.|). He is really alarmed. See a like question by the Jews in strkjv@8:25|. {Gave him no answer} (\apokrisin ouk ed“ken aut“i\). See same idiom in strkjv@1:22|. \Apokrisis\ (old word from \apokrinomai\) occurs also in strkjv@Luke:2:47; strkjv@20:26|. The silence of Jesus, like that before Caiaphas (Mark:14:61; strkjv@Matthew:26:63|) and Herod (Luke:23:9|), irritates the dignity of Pilate in spite of his fears.

rwp@John:20:15 @{Sir} (\Kurie\). Clearly not "Lord" here, for she thought him to be "the gardener" (\ho kˆpouros\), old word (\kˆpos, ouros\), keeper of the garden, only here in the N.T. {If thou hast borne him hence} (\ei su ebastasos auton\). Condition of the first class. Note emphasis on \su\ (thou). A new idea struck Mary as mistaken as the other one. Jesus had repeated the question of the angels, but she did not recognize him. {And I} (\kag“\). Emphasis and crasis.

rwp@John:21:17 @{Lovest thou me?} (\phileis me;\). This time Jesus picks up the word \phile“\ used by Peter and challenges that. These two words are often interchanged in the N.T., but here the distinction is preserved. Peter was cut to the heart (\elupˆthˆ\, first aorist passive of \lupe“\, to grieve) because Jesus challenges this very verb, and no doubt the third question vividly reminds him of the three denials in the early morning by the fire. He repeats his love for Jesus with the plea: "Thou knowest all things." {Feed my sheep} (\boske ta probatia\). Many MSS. both here and in verse 16| read \probata\ (sheep) instead of \probatia\ (little sheep or lambs).

rwp@Luke:1:62 @{Made signs} (\eneneuon\). Imperfect tense, repeated action as usual when making signs. In strkjv@1:22| the verb used of Zacharias is \dianeu“n\. {What he would have him called} (\to ti an theloi kaleisthai auto\). Note article \to\ with the indirect question, accusative of general reference. The optative with \an\ is here because it was used in the direct question (cf. strkjv@Acts:17:18|), and is simply retained in the indirect. {What would he wish him to be called?} ({if he could speak}), a conclusion of the fourth-class condition.

rwp@Luke:2:46 @{After three days} (\meta hˆmeras treis\). One day out, one day back, and on the third day finding him. {In the temple} (\en t“i hier“i\). Probably on the terrace where members of the Sanhedrin gave public instruction on sabbaths and feast-days, so probably while the feast was still going on. The rabbis probably sat on benches in a circle. The listeners on the ground, among whom was Jesus the boy in a rapture of interest. {Both hearing them and asking them questions} (\kai akouonta aut“n kai eper“t“nta autous\). Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts:22:3|). Picture this eager boy alive with interest. It was his one opportunity in a theological school outside of the synagogue to hear the great rabbis expound the problems of life. This was the most unusual of all children, to be sure, in intellectual grasp and power. But it is a mistake to think that children of twelve do not think profoundly concerning the issues of life. What father or mother has ever been able to answer a child's questions?

rwp@Luke:2:47 @{Were amazed} (\existanto\). Imperfect indicative middle, descriptive of their continued and repeated astonishment. Common verb \existˆmi\ meaning that they stood out of themselves as if their eyes were bulging out. The boy had a holy thirst for knowledge (Plummer), and he used a boy's way of learning. {At his understanding} (\epi tˆi sunesei\). Based on (\epi\), the grasp and comprehension from \suniˆmi\, comparing and combining things. Cf. strkjv@Mark:12:33|. {His answers} (\tais apokrisesin autou\). It is not difficult to ask hard questions, but this boy had astounding answers to their questions, revealing his amazing intellectual and spiritual growth.

rwp@Luke:3:15 @{Were in expectation} (\prosdok“ntos\). Genitive absolute of this striking verb already seen in strkjv@1:21|. {Reasoned} (\dialogizomen“n\). Genitive absolute again. John's preaching about the Messiah and the kingdom of God stirred the people deeply and set them to wondering. {Whether haply he were the Christ} (\mˆpote autos eiˆ ho Christos\). Optative \eiˆ\ in indirect question changed from the indicative in the direct (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1031). John wrought no miracles and was not in David's line and yet he moved people so mightily that they began to suspect that he himself (\autos\) was the Messiah. The Sanhedrin will one day send a formal committee to ask him this direct question (John:1:19|).

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:4:36 @{Amazement came} (\egeneto thambos\). Mark has \ethambˆthˆsan\. {They spake together one with another} (\sunelaloun pros allˆlous\). Imperfect indicative active and the reciprocal pronoun. Mark has simply the infinitive \sunzˆtein\ (question). {For} (\hoti\). We have here an ambiguous \hoti\ as in strkjv@1:45|, which can be either the relative "that" or the casual \hoti\ "because" or "for," as the Revised Version has it. Either makes good sense. Luke adds here \dunamei\ (with power) to Mark's "authority" (\exousian\). {And they come out} (\exerchontai\). Songs:Luke where Mark has "and they obey him" (\kai upakouousin aut“i\).

rwp@Luke:5:19 @{By what way they might bring him in} (\poias eis enegk“sin auton\). Deliberative subjunctive of the direct question retained in the indirect. {The housetop} (\to d“ma\). Very old word. The flat roof of Jewish houses was usually reached by outside stairway. Cf. strkjv@Acts:10:9| where Peter went for meditation. {Through the tiles} (\dia t“n keram“n\). Common and old word for the tile roof. strkjv@Mark:2:4| speaks of digging a hole in this tile roof. {Let him down} (\kathˆkan auton\). First aorist (k aorist) effective active of \kathiˆmi\, common verb. strkjv@Mark:2:4| has historical present \chal“si\, the verb used by Jesus to Peter and in Peter's reply (Luke:5:4f.|). {With his couch} (\sun t“i klinidi“i\). Also in verse 24|. Diminutive of \klinˆ\ (verse 18|) occurring in Plutarch and _Koin‚_ writers. strkjv@Mark:2:4| has \krabatton\ (pallet). It doubtless was a pallet on which the paralytic lay. {Into the midst before Jesus} (\eis to meson emprosthen tou Iˆsou\). The four friends had succeeded, probably each holding a rope to a corner of the pallet. It was a moment of triumph over difficulties and surprise to all in the house (Peter's apparently, strkjv@Mark:2:1|).

rwp@Luke:6:9 @{I ask you} (\eper“t“ humƒs\). They had questions in their hearts about Jesus. He now asks in addition (\ep'\) an open question that brings the whole issue into the open. {A life} (\psuchˆn\). Songs:the Revised Version. The rabbis had a rule: _Periculum vitae pellit sabbatum_. But it had to be a Jew whose life was in peril on the sabbath. The words of Jesus cut to the quick. {Or to destroy it} (\ˆ apolesai\). On this very day these Pharisees were plotting to destroy Jesus (verse 7|).

rwp@Luke:6:11 @{They were filled with madness} (\eplˆsthˆsan anoias\) First aorist passive (effective) with genitive: In strkjv@5:26| we saw the people filled with fear. Here is rage that is kin to insanity, for \anoias\ is lack of sense (\a\ privative and \nous\, mind). An old word, but only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:9| in the N.T. {Communed} (\dielaloun\), imperfect active, picturing their excited counsellings with one another. strkjv@Mark:3:6| notes that they bolted out of the synagogue and outside plotted even with the Herodians how to destroy Jesus, strange co-conspirators these against the common enemy. {What they might do to Jesus} (\ti an poiˆsaien Iˆsou\). Luke puts it in a less damaging way than strkjv@Mark:3:6; strkjv@Matthew:12:14|. This aorist optative with \an\ is the deliberative question like that in strkjv@Acts:17:18| retained in the indirect form here. Perhaps Luke means, not that they were undecided about killing Jesus, but only as to the best way of doing it. Already nearly two years before the end we see the set determination to destroy Jesus. We see it here in Galilee. We have already seen it at the feast in Jerusalem (John:5:18|) where "the Jews sought the more to kill him." John and the Synoptics are in perfect agreement as to the Pharisaic attitude toward Jesus.

rwp@Luke:6:19 @{Sought to touch him} (\ezˆtoun haptesthai autou\). Imperfect active. One can see the surging, eager crowd pressing up to Jesus. Probably some of them felt that there was a sort of virtue or magic in touching his garments like the poor woman in strkjv@Luke:8:43f|. (Mark:5:23; strkjv@Matthew:9:21|). {For power came forth from him} (\hoti dunamis par' autou exˆrcheto\). Imperfect middle, {power was coming out from him}. This is the reason for the continual approach to Jesus. {And healed them all} (\kai iƒto pantas\). Imperfect middle again. Was healing all, kept on healing all. The preacher today who is not a vehicle of power from Christ to men may well question why that is true. Undoubtedly the failure to get a blessing is one reason why many people stop going to church. One may turn to Paul's tremendous words in strkjv@Phillipians:4:13|: "I have strength for all things in him who keeps on pouring power into me" (\panta ischu“ en t“i endunamounti me\). It was at a time of surpassing dynamic spiritual energy when Jesus delivered this greatest of all sermons so far as they are reported to us. The very air was electric with spiritual power. There are such times as all preachers know.

rwp@Luke:6:39 @{Also a parable} (\kai parabolˆn\). Plummer thinks that the second half of the sermon begins here as indicated by Luke's insertion of "And he spake (\eipen de\) at this point. Luke has the word parable some fifteen times both for crisp proverbs and for the longer narrative comparisons. This is the only use of the term parable concerning the metaphors in the Sermon on the Mount. But in both Matthew and Luke's report of the discourse there are some sixteen possible applications of the word. Two come right together: The blind leading the blind, the mote and the beam. Matthew gives the parabolic proverb of the blind leading the blind later (Matthew:15:14|). Jesus repeated these sayings on various occasions as every teacher does his characteristic ideas. Songs:Luke strkjv@6:40; strkjv@Matthew:10:24|, strkjv@Luke:6:45; strkjv@Matthew:12:34f.| {Can} (\Mˆti dunatai\). The use of \mˆti\ in the question shows that a negative answer is expected. {Guide} (\hodˆgein\). Common verb from \hodˆgos\ (guide) and this from \hodos\ (way) and \hˆgeomai\, to lead or guide. {Shall they not both fall?} (\ouchi amphoteroi empesountai;\). \Ouchi\, a sharpened negative from \ouk\, in a question expecting the answer Yes. Future middle indicative of the common verb \empipt“\. {Into a pit} (\eis bothunon\). Late word for older \bothros\.

rwp@Luke:6:44 @{Is known} (\gin“sketai\). The fruit of each tree reveals its actual character. It is the final test. This sentence is not in strkjv@Matthew:7:17-20|, but the same idea is in the repeated saying (Matthew:7:16,20|): "By their fruits ye shall know them," where the verb {epign“sesthe} means full knowledge. The question in strkjv@Matthew:7:16| is put here in positive declarative form. The verb is in the plural for "men" or "people," \sullegousin\. See on ¯Matthew:7:16|. {Bramble bush} (\batou\). Old word, quoted from the LXX in strkjv@Mark:12:26; strkjv@Luke:20:37| (from strkjv@Exodus:3:6|) about the burning bush that Moses saw, and by Stephen (Acts:7:30,35|) referring to the same incident. Nowhere else in the N.T. "Galen has a chapter on its medicinal uses, and the medical writings abound in prescriptions of which it is an ingredient" (Vincent). {Gather} (\trug“sin\). A verb common in Greek writers for gathering ripe fruit. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:14:18f|. {Grapes} (\staphulˆn\). Cluster of grapes.

rwp@Luke:7:3 @{Sent unto him elders of the Jews} (\apesteilen pros auton presbouterous t“n Ioudai“n\). strkjv@Matthew:8:5| says "the centurion came unto him." For discussion of this famous case of apparent discrepancy see discussion on Matthew. One possible solution is that Luke tells the story as it happened with the details, whereas Matthew simply presents a summary statement without the details. What one does through another he does himself. {Asking him} (\er“t“n auton\). Present active participle, masculine singular nominative, of the verb \er“ta“\ common for asking a question as in the old Greek (Luke:22:68|). But more frequently in the N.T. the verb has the idea of making a request as here. This is not a Hebraism or an Aramaism, but is a common meaning of the verb in the papyri (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 168). It is to be noted here that Luke represents the centurion himself as "asking" through the elders of the Jews (leading citizens). In strkjv@Matthew:8:6| the verb is \parakal“n\ (beseeching). {That he would come and save} (\hop“s elth“n dias“sˆi\). \Hina\ is the more common final or sub-final (as here) conjunction, but \hop“s\ still occurs. \Dias“sˆi\ is effective aorist active subjunctive, to bring safe through as in a storm (Acts:28:1,4|). Common word.

rwp@Luke:7:24 @{When the messengers of John were departed} (\apelthont“n t“n aggel“n I“anou\). Genitive absolute of aorist active participle. strkjv@Matthew:11:7| has the present middle participle \poreuomen“n\, suggesting that Jesus began his eulogy of John as soon as the messengers (angels, Luke calls them) were on their way. The vivid questions about the people's interest in John are precisely alike in both Matthew and Luke.

rwp@Luke:7:31 @{And to what are they like?} (\kai tini eisin homoioi;\). This second question is not in strkjv@Matthew:11:16|. It sharpens the point. The case of \tini\ is associative instrumental after \homoioi\. See discussion of details in Matthew.

rwp@Luke:7:36 @{That he would eat with him} (\hina phagˆi met' autou\). Second aorist active subjunctive. The use of \hina\ after \er“ta“\ (see also strkjv@Luke:16:27|) is on the border between the pure object clause and the indirect question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1046) and the pure final clause. Luke has two other instances of Pharisees who invited Jesus to meals (11:37; strkjv@14:1|) and he alone gives them. This is the Gospel of Hospitality (Ragg). Jesus would dine with a Pharisee or with a publican (Luke:5:29; strkjv@Mark:2:15; strkjv@Matthew:9:10|) and even invited himself to be the guest of Zaccheus (Luke:9:5|). This Pharisee was not as hostile as the leaders in Jerusalem. It is not necessary to think this Pharisee had any sinister motive in his invitation though he was not overly friendly (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:8:9 @{Asked} (\epˆr“t“n\). Imperfect of \eper“ta“\ (\epi\ and \er“ta“\) where strkjv@Mark:4:10| has \ˆr“t“n\ (uncompounded imperfect), both the tense and the use of \epi\ indicate eager and repeated questions on the part of the disciples, perhaps dimly perceiving a possible reflection on their own growth. {What this parable might be} (\tis hautˆ eiˆ hˆ parabolˆ\). A mistranslation, What this parable was (or meant). The optative \eiˆ\ is merely due to indirect discourse, changing the indicative \estin\ (is) of the direct question to the optative \eiˆ\ of the indirect, a change entirely with the writer or speaker and without any change of meaning (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1043f.).

rwp@Luke:9:41 @{How long shall I be with you and bear with you?} (\he“s pote esomai pros humƒs kai anexomai hum“n;\). Here the two questions of strkjv@Mark:9:19| (only one in strkjv@Matthew:17:17|) are combined in one sentence. {Bear with} (\anexomai\, direct middle future) is, hold myself from you (ablative case \hum“n\). {Faithless} (\apistos\) is disbelieving and perverse (\diestrammenˆ\, perfect passive participle of \diastreph“\), is twisted, turned, or torn in two.

rwp@Luke:9:46 @{A reasoning} (\dialogismos\). A dispute. The word is from \dialogizomai\, the verb used in strkjv@Mark:9:33| about this incident. In Luke this dispute follows immediately after the words of Jesus about his death. They were afraid to ask Jesus about that subject, but strkjv@Matthew:18:1| states that they came to Jesus to settle it. {Which of them should be greatest} (\to tis an eiˆ meiz“n aut“n\). Note the article with the indirect question, the clause being in the accusative of general reference. The optative with \an\ is here because it was so in the direct question (potential optative with \an\ retained in the indirect). But Luke makes it plain that it was not an abstract problem about greatness in the kingdom of heaven as they put it to Jesus (Matthew:18:1|), but a personal problem in their own group. Rivalries and jealousies had already come and now sharp words. By and by James and John will be bold enough to ask for the first places for themselves in this political kingdom which they expect (Mark:10:35; strkjv@Matthew:20:20|). It is a sad spectacle.

rwp@Luke:9:54 @{Saw this} (\idontes\). Second aorist active participle of \hora“\. Saw the messengers returning. {We bid} (\theleis eip“men\). Deliberative subjunctive \eip“men\ after \theleis\ without \hina\, probably two questions, Dost thou wish? Shall we bid? Perhaps the recent appearance of Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration reminded James and John of the incident in strkjv@2Kings:1:10-12|. Some MSS. add here "as Elijah did." The language of the LXX is quoted by James and John, these fiery Sons of Thunder. Note the two aorist active infinitives (\katabˆnai, anal“sai\, the first ingressive, the second effective).

rwp@Luke:9:57 @{A certain man} (\tis\). strkjv@Matthew:8:19| calls him "a scribe." strkjv@Luke:9:57-60; strkjv@Matthew:8:19-22|, but not in Mark and so from Q or the Logia. {Wherever you go} (\hopou ean aperchˆi\) is the present middle subjunctive with the indefinite relative adverb \ean\, common Greek idiom. See on Matthew for "holes," "nests," "Son of man." The idiom "where to lay his head" (\pou tˆn kephalˆn klinˆi\) is the same in both, the deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question. "Jesus knows the measure of the scribe's enthusiasm" (Plummer). The wandering life of Jesus explains this statement.

rwp@Luke:10:25 @{And tempted him} (\ekpeiraz“n auton\). Present active participle, conative idea, trying to tempt him. There is no "and" in the Greek. He "stood up (\anestˆ\, ingressive second aorist active) trying to tempt him." \Peiraz“\ is a late form of \peira“\ and \ekpeiraz“\ apparently only in the LXX, and N.T. (quoted by Jesus from strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:16| in strkjv@Matthew:4:7; strkjv@Luke:4:12| against Satan). Here and strkjv@1Corinthians:10:9|. The spirit of this lawyer was evil. He wanted to entrap Jesus if possible. {What shall I do to inherit eternal life?} (\Ti poiˆsas z“ˆn ai“niou klˆronomˆs“;\). Literally, "By doing what shall I inherit eternal life?" Note the emphasis on "doing" (\poiˆsas\). The form of his question shows a wrong idea as to how to get it. {Eternal life} (\z“ˆn ai“nion\) is endless life as in John's Gospel (John:16:9; strkjv@18:18,30|) and in strkjv@Matthew:25:46|, which see.

rwp@Luke:10:27 @{And he answering} (\ho de apokritheis\). First aorist participle, no longer passive in idea. The lawyer's answer is first from the _Shema_ (Deuteronomy:6:3; strkjv@11:13|) which was written on the phylacteries. The second part is from strkjv@Leviticus:19:18| and shows that the lawyer knew the law. At a later time Jesus himself in the temple gives a like summary of the law to a lawyer (Mark:12:28-34; strkjv@Matthew:22:34-40|) who wanted to catch Jesus by his question. There is no difficulty in the two incidents. God is to be loved with all of man's four powers (heart, soul, strength, mind) here as in strkjv@Mark:12:30|.

rwp@Luke:10:29 @{Desiring to justify himself} (\thel“n dikai“sai heauton\). The lawyer saw at once that he had convicted himself of asking a question that he already knew. In his embarrassment he asks another question to show that he did have some point at first: {And who is my neighbour?} (\kai tis estin mou plˆsion;\). The Jews split hairs over this question and excluded from "neighbour" Gentiles and especially Samaritans. Songs:here was his loop-hole. A neighbour is a nigh dweller to one, but the Jews made racial exceptions as many, alas, do today. The word \plˆsion\ here is an adverb (neuter of the adjective \plˆsios\) meaning \ho plˆsion “n\ (the one who is near), but \“n\ was usually not expressed and the adverb is here used as if a substantive.

rwp@Luke:11:11 @{Of which of you that is a father} (\tina de ex hum“n ton patera\). There is a decided anacoluthon here. The MSS. differ a great deal. The text of Westcott and Hort makes \ton patera\ (the father) in apposition with \tina\ (of whom) and in the accusative the object of \aitˆsei\ (shall ask) which has also another accusative (both person and thing) "a loaf." Songs:far so good. But the rest of the sentence is, {will ye give him a stone?} (\mˆ lithon epid“sei aut“i;\). \Mˆ\ shows that the answer No is expected, but the trouble is that the interrogative \tina\ in the first clause is in the accusative the object of \aitˆsei\ while here the same man (he) is the subject of \epid“sei\. It is a very awkward piece of Greek and yet it is intelligible. Some of the old MSS. do not have the part about "loaf" and "stone," but only the two remaining parts about "fish" and "serpent," "egg" and "scorpion." The same difficult construction is carried over into these questions also.

rwp@Luke:11:35 @{Whether not} (\mˆ\). This use of \mˆ\ in an indirect question is good Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1045). It is a pitiful situation if the very light is darkness. This happens when the eye of the soul is too diseased to see the light of Christ.

rwp@Luke:11:37 @{Now as he spake} (\en de t“i lalˆsai\). Luke's common idiom, \en\ with the articular infinitive (aorist active infinitive) but it does not mean "after he had spoken" as Plummer argues, but simply "in the speaking," no time in the aorist infinitive. See strkjv@3:21| for similar use of aorist infinitive with \en\. {Asketh} (\er“tƒi\). Present active indicative, dramatic present. Request, not question. {To dine} (\hop“s aristˆsˆi\). Note \hop“s\ rather than the common \hina\. Aorist active subjunctive rather than present, for a single meal. The verb is from \ariston\ (breakfast). See distinction between \ariston\ and \deipnon\ (dinner or supper) in strkjv@Luke:14:12|. It is the morning meal (breakfast or lunch) after the return from morning prayers in the synagogue (Matthew:22:4|), not the very early meal called \akratisma\. The verb is, however, used for the early meal on the seashore in strkjv@John:21:12,15|. {With him} (\par' aut“i\). By his side. {Sat down to meat} (\anepesen\). Second aorist active indicative of \anapipt“\, old verb, to recline, to fall back on the sofa or lounge. No word here for "to meat."

rwp@Luke:11:53 @{From thence} (\k'akeithen\). Out of the Pharisee's house. What became of the breakfast we are not told, but the rage of both Pharisees and lawyers knew no bounds. {To press upon him} (\enechein\). An old Greek verb to hold in, to be enraged at, to have it in for one. It is the same verb used of the relentless hatred of Herodias for John the Baptist (Mark:6:19|). {To provoke him to speak} (\apostomatizein\). From \apo\ and \stoma\ (mouth). Plato uses it of repeating to a pupil for him to recite from memory, then to recite by heart (Plutarch). Here (alone in the N.T.) the verb means to ply with questions, to entice to answers, to catechize. {Of many things} (\peri pleion“n\). "Concerning more (comparative) things." They were stung to the quick by these woes which laid bare their hollow hypocrisy.

rwp@Luke:12:5 @{Whom ye shall fear} (\tina phobˆthˆte\). First aorist passive subjunctive deliberative retained in the indirect question. \Tina\ is the accusative, the direct object of this transitive passive verb (note \apo\ in verse 4|). {Fear him who} (\phobˆthˆte ton\). First aorist passive imperative, differing from the preceding form only in the accent and governing the accusative also. {After he hath killed} (\meta to apokteinai\). Preposition \meta\ with the articular infinitive. Literally, "After the killing" (first aorist active infinitive of the common verb \apoktein“\, to kill. {Into hell} (\eis tˆn geennan\). See on ¯Matthew:5:22|. Gehenna is a transliteration of _Ge-Hinnom_, Valley of Hinnon where the children were thrown on to the red-hot arms of Molech. Josiah (2Kings:23:10|) abolished these abominations and then it was a place for all kinds of refuse which burned ceaselessly and became a symbol of punishment in the other world. {This one fear} (\touton phobˆthˆte\). As above.

rwp@Luke:12:11 @{Be not anxious} (\mˆ merimnˆsˆte\). First aorist active subjunctive with \mˆ\ in prohibition. Do not become anxious. See a similar command to the Twelve on their Galilean tour (Matthew:10:19f.|) and in the great discourse on the Mount of Olives at the end (Mark:13:11; strkjv@Luke:21:14f.|), given twice by Luke as we see. {How or what ye shall answer} (\p“s ˆ ti apologˆsˆsthe\). Indirect question and retaining the deliberative subjunctive \apologˆsˆsthe\ and also \eipˆte\ (say).

rwp@Luke:12:22 @{Unto his disciples} (\pros tous mathˆtas autou\). Songs:Jesus turns from the crowd to the disciples (verses 22-40|, when Peter interrupts the discourse). From here to the end of the chapter Luke gives material that appears in Matthew, but not in one connection as here. In Matthew part of it is in the charge to the Twelve on their tour in Galilee, part in the eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives. None of it is in Mark. Hence Q or the Logia seems to be the source of it. The question recurs again whether Jesus repeated on other occasions what is given here or whether Luke has here put together separate discourses as Matthew is held by many to have done in the Sermon on the Mount. We have no way of deciding these points. We can only say again that Jesus would naturally repeat his favourite sayings like other popular preachers and teachers. Songs:Luke:12:22-31| corresponds to strkjv@Matthew:6:25-33|, which see for detailed discussion. The parable of the rich fool was spoken to the crowd, but this exhortation to freedom from care (22-31|) is to the disciples. Songs:the language in strkjv@Luke:12:22| is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:6:25|. See there for \mˆ merimnƒte\ (stop being anxious) and the deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question (\phagˆte, endusˆsthe\). Songs:verse 23| here is the same in strkjv@Matthew:6:25| except that there it is a question with \ouch\ expecting the affirmative answer, whereas here it is given as a reason (\gar\, for) for the preceding command.

rwp@Luke:12:24 @{The ravens} (\tous korakas\). Nowhere else in the N.T. The name includes the whole crow group of birds (rooks and jackdaws). Like the vultures they are scavengers. strkjv@Matthew:6:26| has simply "the birds" (\ta peteina\). {Storechamber} (tameion). Not in strkjv@Matthew:6:26|. Means secret chamber in strkjv@Luke:12:3|. {Of how much more} (\pos“i mƒllon\). strkjv@Matthew:6:26| has question, \ouch mƒllon\.

rwp@Luke:12:29 @{Seek not ye} (\humeis mˆ zˆteite\). Note emphatic position of "ye" (\humeis\). Stop seeking (\mˆ\ and present imperative active). strkjv@Matthew:6:31| has: "Do not become anxious" (\mˆ merimnˆsˆte\), \mˆ\ and ingressive subjunctive occur as direct questions (What are we to eat? What are we to drink? What are we to put on?) whereas here they are in the indirect form as in verse 22| save that the problem of clothing is not here mentioned: {Neither be ye of doubtful mind} (\kai mˆ mete“rizesthe\). \Mˆ\ and present passive imperative (stop being anxious) of \mete“riz“\. An old verb from \mete“ros\ in midair, high (our meteor), to lift up on high, then to lift oneself up with hopes (false sometimes), to be buoyed up, to be tossed like a ship at sea, to be anxious, to be in doubt as in late writers (Polybius, Josephus). This last meaning is probably true here. In the LXX and Philo, but here only in the N.T.

rwp@Luke:12:36 @{When he shall return from the marriage feast} (\pote analusˆi ek t“n gam“n\). The interrogative conjunction \pote\ and the deliberative aorist subjunctive retained in the indirect question. The verb \analu“\, very common Greek verb, but only twice in the N.T. (here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:23|). The figure is breaking up a camp or loosening the mooring of a ship, to depart. Perhaps here the figure is from the standpoint of the wedding feast (plural as used of a single wedding feast in strkjv@Luke:14:8|), departing from there. See on ¯Matthew:22:2|. {When he cometh and knocketh} (\elthontos kai krousantos\). Genitive absolute of the aorist active participle without \autou\ and in spite of \autoi\ (dative) being used after \anoix“sin\ (first aorist active subjunctive of \anoig“\).

rwp@Luke:12:41 @{Peter said} (\Eipen de ho Petros\). This whole paragraph from verse 22-40| had been addressed directly to the disciples. Hence it is not surprising to find Peter putting in a question. This incident confirms also the impression that Luke is giving actual historical data in the environment of these discourses. He is certain that the Twelve are meant, but he desires to know if others are included, for he had spoken to the multitude in verses 13-21|. Recall strkjv@Mark:13:37|. This interruption is somewhat like that on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke:9:33|) and is characteristic of Peter. Was it the magnificent promise in verse 37| that stirred Peter's impulsiveness? It is certainly more than a literary device of Luke. Peter's question draws out a parabolic reply by Jesus (42-48|).

rwp@Luke:12:42 @{Who then} (\tis ara\). Jesus introduces this parable of the wise steward (42-48|) by a rhetorical question that answers itself. Peter is this wise steward, each of the Twelve is, anyone is who acts thus. {The faithful and wise steward} (\ho pistos oikonomos ho phronimos\). The faithful steward, the wise one. A steward is house manager (\oikos, nem“\, to manage). Each man is a steward in his own responsibilities. {Household} (\therapeias\). Literally, service from \therapeu“\. medical service as in strkjv@Luke:9:11|, by metonymy household (a body of those domestics who serve). {Their portion of food} (\to sitometrion\). Late word from \sitometre“\ (Genesis:47:12|) for the Attic \ton siton metre“\, to measure the food, the rations. Here only in the N.T. or anywhere else till Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 158) found it in an Egyptian papyrus and then an inscription in Lycia (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 104).

rwp@Luke:13:20 @{Whereunto shall I liken?} (\Tini homoi“s“;\). This question alone in Luke here as in verse 18|. But the parable is precisely like that in strkjv@Matthew:13:33|, which see for details.

rwp@Luke:13:24 @{Strive} (\ag“nizesthe\). Jesus makes short shrift of the question. He includes others (present middle plural of \ag“nizomai\, common verb, our agonize). Originally it was to contend for a prize in the games. The kindred word \ag“nia\ occurs of Christ's struggle in Gethsemane (Luke:22:44|). The narrow gate appears also in strkjv@Matthew:7:13|, only there it is an outside gate (\pulˆs\) while here it is the entrance to the house, "the narrow door" (\thuras\).

rwp@Luke:14:3 @{Answering} (\apokritheis\). First aorist passive participle without the passive meaning. Jesus answered the thoughts of those mentioned in verse 1|. Here "lawyers and Pharisees" are treated as one class with one article (\tous\) whereas in strkjv@7:30| they are treated as two classes with separate articles. {Or not} (\ˆ ou\). The dilemma forestalled any question by them. {They held their peace} (\hˆsuchasan\). Ingressive aorist active of old verb \hˆsuchaz“\. They became silent, more so than before.

rwp@Luke:14:5 @{An ass or an ox} (\onos ˆ bous\). But Westcott and Hort \huios ˆ bous\ ({a son or an ox}). The manuscripts are much divided between \huios\ (son) and \onos\ (ass) which in the abbreviated uncials looked much alike (TC, OC) and were much alike. The sentence in the Greek reads literally thus: Whose ox or ass of you shall fall (\peseitai\, future middle of \pipto\) into a well and he (the man) will not straightway draw him up (\anaspasei\, future active of \anaspa“\) on the sabbath day? The very form of the question is a powerful argument and puts the lawyers and the Pharisees hopelessly on the defensive.

rwp@Luke:14:32 @{Or else} (\ei de mˆge\). Same idiom in strkjv@5:36|. Luke is fond of this formula. {An ambassage} (\presbeian\). Old and common word for the office of ambassador, composed of old men (\presbeis\) like Japanese Elder Statesmen who are supposed to possess wisdom. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:14|. {Asketh conditions of peace} (\er“tƒi pros eirˆnˆn\). The use of \er“ta“\ in this sense of beg or petition is common in the papyri and _Koin‚_ generally. The original use of asking a question survives also. The text is uncertain concerning \pros eirˆnˆn\ which means with \er“ta“\, to ask negotiations for peace. In B we have \eis\ instead of \pros\ like verse 28|. Most MSS. have \ta\ before \pros\ or \eis\, but not in Aleph and B. It is possible that the \ta\ was omitted because of preceding \tai\ (\homoeoteleuton\), but the sense is the same. See strkjv@Romans:14:19| \ta tˆs eirˆnˆs\, the things of peace, which concern or look towards peace, the preliminaries of peace.

rwp@Luke:15:26 @{Servants} (\paid“n\). Not \douloi\ (bondslaves) as in verse 22|. The Greeks often used \pais\ for servant like the Latin _puer_. It could be either a hired servant (\misthios\, verse 17|) or slave (\doulos\). {He inquired} (\epunthaneto\). Imperfect middle, inquired repeatedly and eagerly. {What these things might be} (\ti an eiˆ tauta\). Not "poor" Greek as Easton holds, but simply the form of the direct question retained in the indirect. See the direct form as the apodosis of a condition of the fourth class in strkjv@Acts:17:18|. In strkjv@Acts:10:17| we have the construction with \an eiˆ\ of the direct retained in the indirect question. Songs:also in strkjv@Luke:1:62|: See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1044.

rwp@Luke:17:4 @{Seven times in a day} (\heptakis tˆs hˆmeras\). Seven times within the day. On another occasion Peter's question (Matthew:18:21|) brought Christ's answer "seventy times seven" (verse 22|), which see. Seven times during the day would be hard enough for the same offender.

rwp@Luke:17:8 @{And will not rather say} (\all' ouk erei\). {But will not say?} \Ouk\ in a question expects the affirmative answer. {Gird thyself} (\periz“samenos\). Direct middle first aorist participle of \periz“nnumi\, to gird around. {Till I have eaten and drunken} (\he“s phag“ kai pi“\). More exactly, till I eat and drink. The second aorist subjunctives are not future perfects in any sense, simply punctiliar action, effective aorist. {Thou shalt eat and drink} (\phagesai kai piesai\). Future middle indicative second person singular, the uncontracted forms \-esai\ as often in the _Koin‚_. These futures are from the aorist stems \ephagon\ and \epion\ without _sigma_.

rwp@Luke:18:7 @{And he is longsuffering} (\makrothumei\). This present active indicative comes in awkwardly after the aorist subjunctive \poiˆsˆi\ after \ou mˆ\, but this part of the question is positive. Probably \kai\ here means "and yet" as so often (John:9:30; strkjv@16:32|, etc.). God delays taking vengeance on behalf of his people, not through indifference, but through patient forbearance.

rwp@Luke:18:8 @{Howbeit} (\plˆn\). It is not clear whether this sentence is also a question or a positive statement. There is no way to decide. Either will make sense though not quite the same sense. The use of \ƒra\ before \heurˆsei\ seems to indicate a question expecting a negative answer as in strkjv@Acts:8:30; strkjv@Romans:14:19|. But here \ƒra\ comes in the middle of the sentence instead of near the beginning, an unusual position for either inferential \ƒra\ or interrogative \ƒra\. On the whole the interrogative \ƒra\ is probably correct, meaning to question if the Son will find a persistence of faith like that of the widow.

rwp@Luke:18:18 @{Ruler} (\arch“n\). Not in strkjv@Mark:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:19:16|. {What shall I do to inherit?} (\Ti poiˆsas klˆronomˆs“;\). "By doing what shall I inherit?" Aorist active participle and future active indicative. Precisely the same question is asked by the lawyer in strkjv@Luke:10:25|. This young man probably thought that by some one act he could obtain eternal life. He was ready to make a large expenditure for it. {Good} (\agathon\). See on ¯Mark:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:19:16| for discussion of this adjective for absolute goodness. Plummer observes that no Jewish rabbi was called "good" in direct address. The question of Jesus will show whether it was merely fulsome flattery on the part of the young man or whether he really put Jesus on a par with God. He must at any rate define his attitude towards Christ.

rwp@Luke:19:22 @{Thou knewest} (\ˆideis\). Second past perfect of \hora“\, to see, used as imperfect of \oida\, to know. Either it must be taken as a question as Westcott and Hort do or be understood as sarcasm as the Revised Version has it. The words of the wicked (\ponˆros\) slave are turned to his own condemnation.

rwp@Luke:19:23 @{Then wherefore} (\kai dia ti\). Note this inferential use of \kai-\ in that case. {Into the bank} (\epi trapezan\). Literally, {upon a table}. This old word \trapeza\, from \tetrapeza\ (\tetra\, four, \pous\, foot). It means then any table (Mark:7:28|), food on the table (Acts:16:34|), feast or banquet (Romans:11:9|), table of the money-changers (John:2:15; strkjv@Mark:11:15; strkjv@Matthew:21:12|), or bank as here. Our word bank is from Old English _bench_. {With interest} (\sun tok“i\). Not usury, but proper and legal interest. Old word from \tikt“\, to bring forth. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:25:27|. {Should have required it} (\an auto epraxa\). Conclusion of second-class condition the condition or apodosis being implied in the participle "coming" (\elth“n\), and the previous question. On this technical use of \prass“\ (\epraxa\) see strkjv@Luke:3:13|.

rwp@Luke:19:48 @{They could not find} (\ouch hˆuriskon\). Imperfect active. They kept on not finding. {What they might do} (\to ti poiˆs“sin\). First aorist active deliberative subjunctive in a direct question retained in the indirect. Note the article \to\ (neuter accusative) with the question. {Hung upon him} (\exekremeto autou\). Imperfect middle of \ekkremamai\, an old verb (\mi\ form) to hang from, here only in the N.T. The form is an \omega\ form from \ekkremomai\, a constant tendency to the \omega\ form in the _Koin‚_. It pictures the whole nation (save the leaders in verse 47|) hanging upon the words of Jesus as if in suspense in mid-air, rapt attention that angered these same leaders. Tyndale renders it "stuck by him."

rwp@Luke:20:2 @{Tell us} (\eipon hˆmin\). Luke adds these words to what Mark and Matthew have. Second aorist active imperative for the old form \eipe\ and with ending \-on\ of the first aorist active. Westcott and Hort punctuate the rest of the sentence as an indirect question after \eipon\, but the Revised Version puts a semicolon after "us" and retains the direct question. The Greek manuscripts have no punctuation.

rwp@Luke:20:3 @{Question} (\logon\). Literally, word. Songs:in strkjv@Mark:11:29; strkjv@Matthew:21:24|.

rwp@Luke:22:2 @{Sought} (\ezˆtoun\). Imperfect active of \zˆte“\, were seeking, conative imperfect. {How they might put him to death} (\to p“s anel“sin auton\). Second aorist active deliberative subjunctive (retained in indirect question) of \anaire“\, to take up, to make away with, to slay. Common in Old Greek. Luke uses it so here and in strkjv@23:32| and eighteen times in the Acts, a favourite word with him. Note the accusative neuter singular article \to\ with the whole clause, "as to the how, etc." {For they feared} (\ephobounto gar\). Imperfect middle describing the delay of the "how." The triumphal entry and the temple speeches of Jesus had revealed his tremendous power with the people, especially the crowds from Galilee at the feast. They were afraid to go on with their plan to kill him at the feast.

rwp@Luke:22:4 @{Went away} (\apelth“n\). Second aorist active participle of \aperchomai\. He went off under the impulse of Satan and after the indignation over the rebuke of Jesus at the feast in Simon's house (John:12:4-6|). {Captains} (\stratˆgois\). Leaders of the temple guards (Acts:4:1|), the full title, "captains of the temple," occurs in verse 52|. {How he might deliver him unto them} (\to p“s autois parad“i auton\). The same construction as in verse 2|, the article \to\ with the indirect question and deliberative subjunctive second aorist active (\parad“i\).

rwp@Luke:22:9 @{Where wilt thou that we make ready?} (\Pou theleis hetoimas“men;\). Deliberative first aorist active subjunctive without \hina\ after \theleis\, perhaps originally two separate questions.

rwp@Luke:22:23 @{Which of them it was} (\to tis ara eiˆ ex aut“n\). Note the article \to\ with the indirect question as in verses 2,4|. The optative \eiˆ\ here is changed from the present active indicative \estin\, though it was not always done, for see \dokei\ in verse 24| where the present indicative is retained. They all had their hands on the table. Whose hand was it?

rwp@Luke:22:49 @{What would follow} (\to esomenon\). Article and the future middle participle of \eimi\, to be. {Shall we smite with a sword?} (\ei pataxomen en machairˆi;\). Note \ei\ in a direct question like the Hebrew. Luke alone gives this question. Instrumental use of \en\. They had the two swords already mentioned (22:38|).

rwp@Luke:23:3 @{Thou sayest} (\su legeis\). A real affirmative as in strkjv@22:70|. The Gospels all give Pilate's question about Jesus asking of the Jews in precisely the same words (Mark:15:2; strkjv@Matthew:27:11; strkjv@Luke:23:3; strkjv@John:18:33|).

rwp@Luke:23:9 @{He questioned} (\epˆr“tƒ\). Imperfect active, kept on questioning. {In many words} (\en logois hikanois\). Same use of \hikanos\ as in verse 8|.

rwp@Luke:23:39 @{Railed} (\eblasphˆmei\). Imperfect active, implying that he kept it up. His question formally calls for an affirmative answer (\ouchi\), but the ridicule is in his own answer: "Save thyself and us." It was on a level with an effort to break prison. Luke alone gives this incident (39-43|), though strkjv@Mark:15:32; strkjv@Matthew:27:44| allude to it.

rwp@Luke:24:15 @{While they communed and questioned together} (\en t“i homilein autous kai sunzˆtein\). Same idiom as in verse 14|, which see. Note \sunzˆtein\; each questioned the other. {Jesus himself} (\autos Iˆsous\). In actual person. {Went with them} (\suneporeueto autois\). Imperfect middle, was going along with them.

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:1:27 @{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:3:4 @{But they held their peace} (\hoi de esi“p“n\). Imperfect tense. In sullen silence and helplessness before the merciless questions of Jesus as the poor man stood there before them all. Jesus by his pitiless alternatives between doing good (\agathopoie“\, late Greek word in LXX and N.T.) and doing evil (\kakopoie“\, ancient Greek word), to this man, for instance, {to save a life or to kill} (\psuchˆn s“sai ˆ apokteinai\), as in this case. It was a terrible exposure.

rwp@Mark:3:23 @{In parables} (\en parabolais\). In crisp pungent thrusts that exposed the inconsistencies of the scribes and Pharisees. See on ¯Matthew:13| for discussion of the word {parable} (\parabolˆ\, placing beside for comparison). These short parabolic quips concern Satan's casting out (\ekballei\, the very word used of casting out demons) Satan (rhetorical question), a kingdom divided (\meristhˆi\, for a mere portion) against itself, a house divided (\meristhˆi\) against itself, two conditions of the third class undetermined, but with prospect of determination.

rwp@Mark:4:13 @{Know ye not this parable?} (\ouk oidate tˆn parabolˆn tauten;\). They had asked Jesus his reasons for using parables. This question implies surprise at their dulness though initiated into the secret of God's Kingdom. Incapacity to comprehend this parable of the sower raises doubt about all the others on this day and at all times.

rwp@Mark:4:30 @{How shall we liken?} (\P“s homoi“s“men?\) Deliberative first aorist subjunctive. This question alone in Mark. Songs:with the other question: {In what parable shall we set it forth?} (\en tini autˆn parabolˆi th“men;\). Deliberative second aorist subjunctive. The graphic question draws the interest of the hearers (_we_) by fine tact. strkjv@Luke:13:18f.| retains the double question which strkjv@Matthew:13:31f.| does not have, though he has it in a very different context, probably an illustration of Christ's favourite sayings often repeated to different audiences as is true of all teachers and preachers.

rwp@Mark:5:13 @{And he gave them leave} (\kai epetrepsen autois\). These words present the crucial difficulty for interpreters as to why Jesus allowed the demons to enter the hogs and destroy them instead of sending them back to the abyss. Certainly it was better for hogs to perish than men, but this loss of property raises a difficulty of its own akin to the problem of tornadoes and earthquakes. The question of one man containing so many demons is difficult also, but not much more so than how one demon can dwell in a man and make his home there. One is reminded of the man out of whom a demon was cast, but the demon came back with seven other demons and took possession. Gould thinks that this man with a legion of demons merely makes a historical exaggeration. "I feel as if I were possessed by a thousand devils." That is too easy an explanation. See on ¯Matthew:8:32| for "rushed down the steep." {They were choked} (\epnigonto\). Imperfect tense picturing graphically the disappearance of pig after pig in the sea. strkjv@Luke:8:33| has \apegnigˆ\, {choked off}, constative second aorist passive indicative, treated as a whole, strkjv@Matthew:8:32| merely has "perished" (\apethanon\; died).

rwp@Mark:5:33 @{Fearing and trembling, knowing} (\phobˆtheisa kai tremousa, eiduia\). These participles vividly portray this woman who had tried to hide in the crowd. She had heard Christ's question and felt his gaze. She had to come and confess, for something "has happened" (\gegonen\, second perfect active indicative, still true) to her. {Fell down before him} (\prosepesen aut“i\). That was the only proper attitude now. {All the truth} (\pƒsan tˆn alˆtheian\). Secrecy was no longer possible. She told "the pitiful tale of chronic misery" (Bruce).

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:6:36 @{Into the country and villages round about} (\eis tous kukl“i agrous kai k“mas\). The fields (\agrous\) were the scattered farms (Latin, _villae_). The villages (\k“mas\) may have included Bethsaida Julias not far away (Luke:9:10|). The other Bethsaida was on the Western side of the lake (Mark:6:45|). {Somewhat to eat} (\ti phag“sin\). Literally, {what to eat}, {what they were to eat}. Deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question.

rwp@Mark:7:19 @{Making all meats clean} (\kathariz“n panta ta br“mata\). This anacoluthon can be understood by repeating {he says} (\legei\) from verse 18|. The masculine participle agrees with Jesus, the speaker. The words do not come from Jesus, but are added by Mark. Peter reports this item to Mark, probably with a vivid recollection of his own experience on the housetop in Joppa when in the vision Peter declined three times the Lord's invitation to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts:10:14-16|). It was a riddle to Peter as late as that day. "Christ asserts that _Levitical_ uncleanness, such as eating with unwashed hands, is of small importance compared with _moral_ uncleanness" (Vincent). The two chief words in both incidents, here and in Acts, are {defile} (\koino“\) and {cleanse} (\kathariz“\). "What God cleansed do not thou treat as defiled" (Acts:10:15|). It was a revolutionary declaration by Jesus and Peter was slow to understand it even after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus was amply justified in his astonished question: {Perceive ye not?} (\ou noeite;\). They were making little use of their intelligence in trying to comprehend the efforts of Jesus to give them a new and true spiritual insight.

rwp@Mark:7:26 @{A Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by race} (\Hellˆnis, Surophoinikissa t“i genei\). "A Greek in religion, a Syrian in tongue, a Phoenician in race" (Bruce), from Euthymius Zigabenus. She was not a Phoenician of Carthage. {She besought} (\ˆr“ta\). Imperfect tense. She kept at it. This verb, as in late Greek, is here used for a request, not a mere question. Abundant examples in the papyri in this sense.

rwp@Mark:8:1 @{Had nothing to eat} (\mˆ echont“n ti phag“sin\). Genitive absolute and plural because \ochlou\ a collective substantive. Not having what to eat (deliberative subjunctive retained in indirect question). The repetition of a nature miracle of feeding four thousand in Decapolis disturbs some modern critics who cannot imagine how Jesus could or would perform another miracle elsewhere so similar to the feeding of the five thousand up near Bethsaida Julias. But both Mark and Matthew give both miracles, distinguish the words for baskets (\kophinos, sphuris\), and both make Jesus later refer to both incidents and use these two words with the same distinction (Mark:8:19f.; strkjv@Matthew:16:9f.|). Surely it is easier to conceive that Jesus wrought two such miracles than to hold that Mark and Matthew have made such a jumble of the whole business.

rwp@Mark:8:11 @{And the Pharisees came forth} (\kai exˆlthon hoi Pharisaioi\). At once they met Jesus and opened a controversy. strkjv@Matthew:16:1| adds "and Sadducees," the first time these two parties appear together against Jesus. See discussion on ¯Matthew:16:1|. The Pharisees and Herodians had already joined hands against Jesus in the sabbath controversy (Mark:3:6|). They {began to question with him} (\ˆrxanto sunzˆtein aut“i\). Dispute, not mere inquiry, associative instrumental case of \autoi\. They began at once and kept it up (present infinitive).

rwp@Mark:8:17 @Mark here (vv. 17-20|) gives six keen questions of Jesus while strkjv@Matthew:16:8-11| gives as four that really include the six of Mark running some together. The questions reveal the disappointment of Jesus at the intellectual dulness of his pupils. The questions concern the intellect (\noeite\, from \nous, suniete\, comprehend), the heart in a {hardened state} (\pep“r“menˆn\, perfect passive predicate participle as in strkjv@Mark:6:52|, which see), the eyes, the ears, the memory of both the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand here sharply distinguished even to the two kinds of baskets (\kophinous, sphurid“n\). The disciples did recall the number of baskets left over in each instance, twelve and seven. Jesus "administers a sharp rebuke for their preoccupation with mere temporalities, as if there were nothing higher to be thought of _than bread_" (Bruce). "For the time the Twelve are way-side hearers, with hearts like a beaten path, into which the higher truths cannot sink so as to germinate" (Bruce).

rwp@Mark:9:1 @{Till they see the kingdom of God come with power} (\he“s an id“sin tˆn basileian tou theou elˆluthuian en dunamei\). In strkjv@8:38| Jesus clearly is speaking of the second coming. To what is he referring in strkjv@9:1|? One is reminded of strkjv@Mark:13:32; strkjv@Matthew:24:36| where Jesus expressly denies that anyone save the Father himself (not even the Son) knows the day or the hour. Does he contradict that here? It may be observed that Luke has only "see the kingdom of God," while Matthew has "see the Son of man coming" (\erchomenon\, present participle, a process). Mark has "see the kingdom of God come" (\elˆluthuian\, perfect active participle, already come) and adds "with power." Certainly the second coming did not take place while some of those standing there still lived. Did Jesus mean that? The very next incident in the Synoptic Gospels is the Transfiguration on Mount Hermon. Does not Jesus have that in mind here? The language will apply also to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the great Day of Pentecost. Some see in it a reference to the destruction of the temple. It is at least open to question whether the Master is speaking of the same event in strkjv@Mark:8:38; strkjv@9:1|.

rwp@Mark:9:6 @{For he wist not what to answer} (\ou gar ˆidei ti apokrithˆi\). Deliberative subjunctive retained in indirect question. But why did Peter say anything? Luke says that he spoke, "not knowing what he said," as an excuse for the inappropriateness of his remarks. Perhaps Peter felt embarrassed at having been asleep (Luke:9:32|) and the feast of tabernacles or booths (\skˆnai\) was near. See on ¯Matthew:17:4|. Peter and the others apparently had not heard the talk of Moses and Elijah with Jesus about his decease (\exodon\, exodus, departure) and little knew the special comfort that Jesus had found in this understanding of the great approaching tragedy concerning which Peter had shown absolute stupidity (Mark:8:32f.|) so recently. See on ¯Matthew:17:5| about the overshadowing and the voice.

rwp@Mark:9:10 @{They kept the saying} (\ton logon ekratˆsan\) to themselves as Jesus had directed, but {questioning among themselves} (\pros heautous sunzˆtountes\). Now they notice his allusion to rising from the dead which had escaped them before (Mark:8:31|).

rwp@Mark:9:14 @{And scribes questioning with them} (\kai grammateis sunzˆtountes pros autous\). Mark alone gives this item. He is much fuller on this incident (9:14-29|) than either Matthew (Matthew:17:14-20|) or Luke (Luke:9:37-43|). It was just like the professional scribes to take keen interest in the failure of the nine disciples to cure this poor boy. They gleefully nagged and quizzed them. Jesus and the three find them at it when they arrive in the plain.

rwp@Mark:9:16 @{What question ye with them?} (\Ti sunzˆteite pros autous;\). Jesus had noticed the embarrassment of the nine and at once takes hold of the situation.

rwp@Mark:10:13 @{They brought} (\prosepheron\). Imperfect active tense, implying repetition. Songs:also strkjv@Luke:18:15|, though strkjv@Matthew:19:13| has the constative aorist passive (\prosˆnechthˆsan\). "This incident follows with singular fitness after the Lord's assertion of the sanctity of married life" (Swete). These children (\paidia\, Mark and Matthew; \brephˆ\ in Luke) were of various ages. They were brought to Jesus for his blessing and prayers (Matthew). The mothers had reverence for Jesus and wanted him to touch (\hapsˆtai\) them. There was, of course, no question of baptism or salvation involved, but a most natural thing to do.

rwp@Mark:11:13 @{If haply he might find anything thereon} (\ei ara ti heurˆsei en autˆi\). This use of \ei\ and the future indicative for purpose (to see if, a sort of indirect question) as in strkjv@Acts:8:22; strkjv@17:27|. Jesus was hungry as if he had had no food on the night before after the excitement and strain of the Triumphal Entry. The early figs in Palestine do not get ripe before May or June, the later crop in August. It was not the season of figs, Mark notes. But this precocious tree in a sheltered spot had put out leaves as a sign of fruit. It had promise without performance.

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

rwp@Mark:11:28 @{By what authority} (\en poiƒi exousiƒi\). This question in all three Gospels was a perfectly legitimate one. See on ¯Matthew:21:23-27| for discussion. Note present subjunctive here (\hina tauta poiˆis\), that you keep on doing these things.

rwp@Mark:12:14 @{Shall we give or shall we not give?} (\d“men ˆ mˆ d“men;\). Mark alone repeats the question in this sharp form. The deliberative subjunctive, aorist tense active voice. For the discussion of the palaver and flattery of this group of theological students see on ¯Matthew:22:16-22|.

rwp@Mark:12:24 @{Is it not for this cause that ye err?} (\Ou dia touto planƒsthe;\). Mark puts it as a question with \ou\ expecting the affirmative answer. Matthew puts it as a positive assertion: "Ye are." \Planaomai\ is to wander astray (cf. our word _planet_, wandering stars, \asteres planˆtai\, strkjv@Jude:1:13|) like the Latin _errare_ (our _error_, err). {That ye know not the scriptures} (\mˆ eidotes tas graphas\). The Sadducees posed as men of superior intelligence and knowledge in opposition to the traditionalists among the Pharisees with their oral law. And yet on this very point they were ignorant of the Scriptures. How much error today is due to this same ignorance among the educated! {Nor the power of God} (\mˆde tˆn dunamin tou theou\). The two kinds of ignorance generally go together (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15:34|).

rwp@Mark:12:28 @{Heard them questioning together} (\akousas aut“n sunzˆtount“n\). The victory of Christ over the Sadducees pleased the Pharisees who now had come back with mixed emotions over the new turn of things (Matthew:22:34|). strkjv@Luke:20:39| represents one of the scribes as commending Jesus for his skilful reply to the Sadducees. Mark here puts this scribe in a favourable light, "knowing that he had answered them well" (\eid“s hoti kal“s apekrithˆ autois\). "Them" here means the Sadducees. But strkjv@Matthew:22:35| says that this lawyer (\nomikos\) was "tempting" (\peiraz“n\) by his question. "A few, among whom was the scribe, were constrained to admire, even if they were willing to criticize, the Rabbi who though not himself a Pharisee, surpassed the Pharisees as a champion of the truth." That is a just picture of this lawyer. {The first of all} (\pr“tˆ pant“n\). First in rank and importance. strkjv@Matthew:22:36| has "great" (\megalˆ\). See discussion there. Probably Jesus spoke in Aramaic. "First" and "great" in Greek do not differ essentially here. Mark quotes strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:4f.| as it stands in the LXX and also strkjv@Leviticus:19:18|. strkjv@Matthew:22:40| adds the summary: "On these two commandments hangeth (\krematai\) the whole law and the prophets."

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:13:4 @{Tell us, when shall these things be?} (\Eipon hˆmin pote tauta estai;\). The Revised Version punctuates it as a direct question, but Westcott and Hort as an indirect inquiry. They asked about the {when} (\pote\) and the {what sign} (\ti sˆmeion\). strkjv@Matthew:24:3| includes "the sign of thy coming and the end of the world," showing that these tragic events are brought before Jesus by the disciples. See discussion of the interpretation of this discourse on ¯Matthew:24:3|. This chapter in Mark is often called "The Little Apocalypse" with the notion that a Jewish apocalypse has been here adapted by Mark and attributed to Jesus. Many of the theories attribute grave error to Jesus or to the Gospels on this subject. The view adopted in the discussion in Matthew is the one suggested here, that Jesus blended in one picture his death, the destruction of Jerusalem within that generation, the second coming and end of the world typified by the destruction of the city. The lines between these topics are not sharply drawn in the report and it is not possible for us to separate the topics clearly. This great discourse is the longest preserved in Mark and may be due to Peter. Mark may have given it in order "to forewarn and forearm" (Bruce) the readers against the coming catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem. Both Matthew (Matthew:24|) and Luke (Luke:21:5-36|) follow the general line of Mark 13 though strkjv@Matthew:24:43-25:46| presents new material (parables).

rwp@Mark:14:40 @{Very heavy} (\katabarunomenoi\). Perfective use of \kata-\ with the participle. Matthew has the simple verb. Mark's word is only here in the N.T. and is rare in Greek writers. Mark has the vivid present passive participle, while Matthew has the perfect passive \bebarˆmenoi\. {And they wist not what to answer him} (\kai ouk ˆideisan ti apokrith“sin aut“i\). Deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question. Alone in Mark and reminds one of the like embarrassment of these same three disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark:9:6|). On both occasions weakness of the flesh prevented their real sympathy with Jesus in his highest and deepest experiences. "Both their shame and their drowsiness would make them dumb" (Gould).

rwp@Mark:14:60 @{Stood up in the midst} (\anastas eis meson\). Second aorist active participle. For greater solemnity he arose to make up by bluster the lack of evidence. The high priest stepped out into the midst as if to attack Jesus by vehement questions. See on ¯Matthew:26:59-68| for details here.

rwp@Mark:14:68 @{I neither know nor understand} (\oute oida oute epistamai\). This denial is fuller in Mark, briefest in John. {What thou sayest} (\su ti legeis\). Can be understood as a direct question. Note position of {thou} (\su\), proleptical. {Into the porch} (\eis to proaulion\). Only here in the New Testament. Plato uses it of a prelude on a flute. It occurs also in the plural for preparations the day before the wedding. Here it means the vestibule to the court. strkjv@Matthew:26:71| has \pul“na\, a common word for gate or front porch. {And the cock crew} (\kai alekt“r eph“nˆsen\). Omitted by Aleph B L Sinaitic Syriac. It is genuine in verse 72| where "the second time" (\ek deuterou\) occurs also. It is possible that because of verse 72| it crept into verse 68|. Mark alone alludes to the cock crowing twice, originally (Mark:14:30|), and twice in verse 72|, besides verse 68| which is hardly genuine.

rwp@Mark:14:69 @{To them that stood by} (\tois parest“sin\). This talk about Peter was overheard by him. "This fellow (\houtos\) is one of them." Songs:in verse 70| the talk is directly to Peter as in strkjv@Matthew:26:73|, but in strkjv@Luke:22:59| it is about him. Soon the bystanders (\hoi parest“tes\) will join in the accusation to Peter (verse 70; strkjv@Matthew:26:73|), with the specially pungent question in strkjv@John:18:26| which was the climax. See on ¯Matthew:26:69-75| for discussion of similar details.

rwp@Mark:15:2 @{Art thou the King of the Jews?} (\Su ei ho basileus t“n Ioudai“n;\). This is the only one of the charges made by the Sanhedrin to Pilate (Luke:23:2|) that he notices. He does not believe this one to be true, but he has to pay attention to it or be liable to charges himself of passing over a man accused of rivalry and revolution against Caesar. strkjv@John:18:28-32| gives the interview with Jesus that convinces Pilate that he is a harmless religious fanatic. See on ¯Matthew:26:11|. {Thou sayest} (\su legeis\). An affirmation, though in strkjv@John:18:34-37| there is a second and fuller interview between Pilate and Jesus. "Here, as in the trial before the Sanhedrin, this is the one question that Jesus answers. It is the only question on which his own testimony is important and necessary" (Gould). The Jews were out on the pavement or sidewalk outside the palace while Pilate came out to them from above on the balcony (John:18:28f.|) and had his interviews with Jesus on the inside, calling Jesus thither (John:18:33|).

rwp@Mark:15:24 @{What each should take} (\tis ti ƒrˆi\). Only in Mark. Note double interrogative, Who What? The verb \arˆi\ is first aorist active deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question. The details in strkjv@Mark:15:24-32| are followed closely by strkjv@Matthew:27:35-44|. See there for discussion of details.

rwp@Mark:15:44 @{If he were already dead} (\ei ˆdˆ tethnˆken\). Perfect active indicative with \ei\ after a verb of wondering, a classical idiom, a kind of indirect question just as we say "I wonder if." Usually death by crucifixion was lingering. This item is only in Mark. {Whether he had been any while dead} (\ei palai apethanen\). B D read \ˆdˆ\ (already) again here instead of \palai\ (a long time). Mark does not tell the request of the Jews to Pilate that the legs of the three might be broken (John:19:31-37|). Pilate wanted to make sure that Jesus was actually dead by official report.

rwp@Matthew:2:3 @{He was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him} (\etarachthˆ kai pƒsa Ierosoluma met' autou\). Those familiar with the story of Herod the Great in Josephus can well understand the meaning of these words. Herod in his rage over his family rivalries and jealousies put to death the two sons of Mariamne (Aristobulus and Alexander), Mariamne herself, and Antipater, another son and once his heir, besides the brother and mother of Mariamne (Aristobulus, Alexandra) and her grandfather John Hyrcanus. He had made will after will and was now in a fatal illness and fury over the question of the Magi. He showed his excitement and the whole city was upset because the people knew only too well what he could do when in a rage over the disturbance of his plans. "The foreigner and usurper feared a rival, and the tyrant feared the rival would be welcome" (Bruce). Herod was a hated Idumaean.

rwp@Matthew:2:4 @{He inquired of them where the Christ should be born} (\epunthaneto par' aut“n pou ho Christos gennƒtai\). The prophetic present (\gennƒtai\) is given, the very words of Herod retained by Matthew's report. The imperfect tense (epunthaneto) suggests that Herod inquired repeatedly, probably of one and another of the leaders gathered together, both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes). McNeile doubts, like Holtzmann, if Herod actually called together all the Sanhedrin and probably "he could easily ask the question of a single scribe," because he had begun his reign with a massacre of the Sanhedrin (Josephus, _Ant_. XIV. ix. 4). But that was thirty years ago and Herod was desperately in earnest to learn what the Jews really expected about the coming of "the Messiah." Still Herod probably got together not the Sanhedrin since "elders" are not mentioned, but leaders among the chief priests and scribes, not a formal meeting but a free assembly for conference. He had evidently heard of this expected king and he would swallow plenty of pride to be able to compass the defeat of these hopes.

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

rwp@Matthew:7:22 @{Did we not prophesy in thy name?} (\ou t“i s“i onomati eprophˆteusamen;\). The use of \ou\ in the question expects the affirmative answer. They claim to have prophesied (preached) in Christ's name and to have done many miracles. But Jesus will tear off the sheepskin and lay bare the ravening wolf. "I never knew you" (\oudepote egn“n h–mƒs\). "I was never acquainted with you" (experimental knowledge). Success, as the world counts it, is not a criterion of one's knowledge of Christ and relation to him. "I will profess unto them" (\homologˆs“ autois\), the very word used of profession of Christ before men (Matthew:10:32|). This word Jesus will use for public and open announcement of their doom.

rwp@Matthew:8:7 @{I will come and heal him} (\eg“ elth“n therapeus“ auton\). Future indicative, not deliberative subjunctive in question (McNeile). The word here for heal (\therapeus“\) means first to serve, give medical attention, then cure, restore to health. The centurion uses the more definite word for healing (\iathˆsetai\ strkjv@8:8|) as Matthew does in strkjv@8:13| (\iathˆ\). Luke (Luke:9:11|), like a physician, says that Jesus healed (\iato\) those in need of treatment (\therapeias\), but the distinction is not always observed. In strkjv@Acts:28:8| Luke uses \iasato\ of the miraculous healings in Malta by Paul while he employs \etherapeuonto\ (Acts:28:9|) apparently of the practice of Luke the physician (so W. M. Ramsay). Matthew represents the centurion himself as speaking to Jesus while Luke has it that two committees from the centurion brought the messages, apparently a more detailed narrative. What one does through others he does himself as Pilate "scourged Jesus" (had him scourged).

rwp@Matthew:12:10 @{Is it lawful?} (\ei exestin\). The use of \ei\ in direct questions is really elliptical and seems an imitation of the Hebrew (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 916). See also strkjv@Matthew:19:3|. It is not translated in English.

rwp@Matthew:12:12 @{How much then is a man} (\pos“i oun diapherei anthr“pos\). Another of Christ's pregnant questions that goes to the roots of things, an _a fortiori_ argument. "By how much does a human being differ from a sheep? That is the question which Christian civilization has not even yet adequately answered" (Bruce). The poor pettifogging Pharisees are left in the pit.

rwp@Matthew:12:23 @{Is this the Son of David?} (\mˆti houtos estin ho huios Daueid?\). The form of the question expects the answer "no," but they put it so because of the Pharisaic hostility towards Jesus. The multitudes "were amazed" or "stood out of themselves" (\existanto\), imperfect tense, vividly portraying the situation. They were almost beside themselves with excitement.

rwp@Matthew:12:25 @{Knowing their thoughts} (\eid“s de tas enthumˆseis aut“n\). What they were revolving in their minds. They now find out what a powerful opponent Jesus is. By parables, by a series of conditions (first class), by sarcasm, by rhetorical question, by merciless logic, he lays bare their hollow insincerity and the futility of their arguments. Satan does not cast out Satan. Note timeless aorist passive \emeristhˆ\ in 26|, \ephthasen\ in 28| (simple sense of arriving as in strkjv@Phillipians:3:16| from \phthan“\). Christ is engaged in deathless conflict with Satan the strong man (29|). "Goods" (\skeuˆ\) means house-gear, house furniture, or equipment as in strkjv@Luke:17:36| and strkjv@Acts:27:17|, the tackling of the ship.

rwp@Matthew:13:10 @{Why speakest thou unto them in parables?} (\dia ti en parabolais laleis autois\). Already the disciples are puzzled over the meaning of this parable and the reason for giving them to the people. Songs:they "came up" closer to Jesus and asked him. Jesus was used to questions and surpassed all teachers in his replies.

rwp@Matthew:15:32 @{Three days} (\hˆmerai treis\). A parenthetic nominative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 460). {What to eat} (\ti phag“sin\). Indirect question with the deliberative subjunctive retained. In the feeding of the five thousand Jesus took compassion on the people and healed their sick (14:14|). Here the hunger of the multitude moves him to compassion (\splagchnizomai\, in both instances). Songs:he is unwilling (\ou thel“\) to send them away hungry. {Faint} (\ekluth“sin\). Unloosed, (\eklu“\) exhausted.

rwp@Matthew:16:8 @Jesus asks four pungent questions about the intellectual dulness, refers to the feeding of the five thousand and uses the word \kophinous\ (14:20|) for it and \sphuridas\ for the four thousand (15:37|), and repeats his warning (16:11|). Every teacher understands this strain upon the patience of this Teacher of teachers.

rwp@Matthew:16:13 @{Caesarea Philippi} (\Kaisarias tˆs Philippou\). Up on a spur of Mt. Hermon under the rule of Herod Philip. {He asked} (\ˆr“tƒ\). Began to question, inchoative imperfect tense. He was giving them a test or examination. The first was for the opinion of men about the Son of Man.

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

rwp@Matthew:16:19 @{The Keys of the kingdom} (\tas kleidas tˆs basileias\). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18|. In strkjv@Revelation:1:18; strkjv@3:7| Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (\oikonomos\) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew:18:1|) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21|) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (\dˆsˆis\) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (\lusˆis\) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (\estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon\), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (18:18|). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John:20:23|), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, _primus inter pares_, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.

rwp@Matthew:17:24 @{They that received the half-shekel} (\hoi ta didrachma lambanontes\). This temple tax amounted to an Attic drachma or the Jewish half-shekel, about one-third of a dollar. Every Jewish man twenty years of age and over was expected to pay it for the maintenance of the temple. But it was not a compulsory tax like that collected by the publicans for the government. "The tax was like a voluntary church-rate; no one could be compelled to pay" (Plummer). The same Greek word occurs in two Egyptian papyri of the first century A.D. for the receipt for the tax for the temple of Suchus (Milligan and Moulton's _Vocabulary_). This tax for the Jerusalem temple was due in the month Adar (our March) and it was now nearly six months overdue. But Jesus and the Twelve had been out of Galilee most of this time. Hence the question of the tax-collectors. The payment had to be made in the Jewish coin, half-shekel. Hence the money-changers did a thriving business in charging a small premium for the Jewish coin, amounting to some forty-five thousand dollars a year, it is estimated. It is significant that they approached Peter rather than Jesus, perhaps not wishing to embarrass "Your Teacher," "a roundabout hint that the tax was overdue" (Bruce). Evidently Jesus had been in the habit of paying it (Peter's).

rwp@Matthew:18:1 @{Who then is greatest} (\tis ara meiz“n estin\). The \ara\ seems to point back to the tax-collection incident when Jesus had claimed exemption for them all as "sons" of the Father. But it was not a new dispute, for jealousy had been growing in their hearts. The wonderful words of Jesus to Peter on Mount Hermon (Matthew:16:17-19|) had evidently made Peter feel a fresh sense of leadership on the basis of which he had dared even to rebuke Jesus for speaking of his death (16:22|). And then Peter was one of the three (James and John also) taken with the Master up on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter on that occasion had spoken up promptly. And just now the tax-collectors had singled out Peter as the one who seemed to represent the group. Mark (Mark:9:33|) represents Jesus as asking them about their dispute on the way into the house, perhaps just after their question in strkjv@Matthew:18:1|. Jesus had noticed the wrangling. It will break out again and again (Matthew:20:20-28; strkjv@Luke:22:24|). Plainly the primacy of Peter was not yet admitted by the others. The use of the comparative \meiz“n\ (so \ho meiz“n\ in verse 4|) rather than the superlative \megistos\ is quite in accord with the _Koin‚_ idiom where the comparative is displacing the superlative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 667ff.). But it is a sad discovery to find the disciples chiefly concerned about their own places (offices) in the political kingdom which they were expecting.

rwp@Matthew:18:21 @{Until seven times?} (\he“s heptakis?\) Peter thought that he was generous as the Jewish rule was three times (Amos:1:6|). His question goes back to verse 15|. "Against me" is genuine here. "The man who asks such a question does not really know what forgiveness means" (Plummer).

rwp@Matthew:18:35 @{From your hearts} (\apo t“n kardi“n h–m“n\). No sham or lip pardon, and as often as needed. This is Christ's full reply to Peter's question in strkjv@18:21|. This parable of the unmerciful servant is surely needed today.

rwp@Matthew:19:3 @{Pharisees tempting him} (\Pharisaioi peirazontes auton\). They "could not ask a question of Jesus without sinister motives" (Bruce). See strkjv@4:1| for the word (\peiraz“\). {For every cause} (\kata pasan aitian\). This clause is an allusion to the dispute between the two theological schools over the meaning of strkjv@Deuteronomy:24:1|. The school of Shammai took the strict and unpopular view of divorce for unchastity alone while the school of Hillel took the liberal and popular view of easy divorce for any passing whim if the husband saw a prettier woman (modern enough surely) or burnt his biscuits for breakfast. It was a pretty dilemma and meant to do Jesus harm with the people. There is no real trouble about the use of \kata\ here in the sense of \propter\ or because of (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 509).

rwp@Matthew:19:20 @{What lack I yet?} (\ti eti huster“?\) Here is a psychological paradox. He claims to have kept all these commandments and yet he was not satisfied. He had an uneasy conscience and Jesus called him to something that he did not have. He thought of goodness as quantitative (a series of acts) and not qualitative (of the nature of God). Did his question reveal proud complacency or pathetic despair? A bit of both most likely.

rwp@Matthew:19:27 @{What then shall we have?} (\ti ara estai hˆmin?\) A pathetic question of hopeless lack of comprehension.

rwp@Matthew:21:24 @{One question} (\logon hena\). Literally "one word" or "a word." The answer to Christ's word will give the answer to their query. The only human ecclesiastical authority that Jesus had came from John.

rwp@Matthew:22:42 @{The Christ} (\tou Christou\). The Messiah, of course, not Christ as a proper name of Jesus. Jesus here assumes that strkjv@Psalms:110| refers to the Messiah. By his pungent question about the Messiah as David's son and Lord he really touches the problem of his Person (his Deity and his Humanity). Probably the Pharisees had never faced that problem before. They were unable to answer.

rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathˆmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ai“nos\) or consummation of the age. In a painting the artist by skilful perspective may give on the same surface the inside of a room, the fields outside the window, and the sky far beyond. Certainly in this discourse Jesus blends in apocalyptic language the background of his death on the cross, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, his own second coming and the end of the world. He now touches one, now the other. It is not easy for us to separate clearly the various items. It is enough if we get the picture as a whole as it is here drawn with its lessons of warning to be ready for his coming and the end. The destruction of Jerusalem came as he foretold. There are some who would date the Synoptic Gospels after A.D. 70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).

rwp@Matthew:24:30 @{The sign of the Son of Man in heaven} (\to sˆmeion tou huiou tou anthr“pou en ouran“i\). Many theories have been suggested like the cross in the sky, etc. Bruce sees a reference to strkjv@Daniel:7:13| "one like the Son of man" and holds that Christ himself is the sign in question (the genitive of apposition). This is certainly possible. It is confirmed by the rest of the verse: "They shall see the Son of man coming." See strkjv@Matthew:16:27; strkjv@26:64|. The Jews had repeatedly asked for such a sign (Broadus) as in strkjv@Matthew:12:38; strkjv@16:1; strkjv@John:2:18|.

rwp@Matthew:25:26 @{Thou wicked and slothful servant} (\ponˆre doule kai oknˆre\). From \ponos\ (work, annoyance, disturbance, evil) and \okne“\ (to be slow, "poky," slothful). Westcott and Hort make a question out of this reply to the end of verse 26|. It is sarcasm.

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

rwp@Matthew:26:22 @{Is it I, Lord?} (\mˆti eg“ eimi, Kurie;\). The negative expects the answer No and was natural for all save Judas. But he had to bluff it out by the same form of question (verse 25|). The answer of Jesus, {Thou hast said} (\su eipas\), means Yes.

rwp@Matthew:26:50 @{Do that for which thou art come} (\eph' ho parei\). Moffatt and Goodspeed take it: "Do your errand." There has been a deal of trouble over this phrase. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 125 to 131) has proven conclusively that it is a question, \eph' ho\ in late Greek having the interrogative sense of \epi ti\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 725). The use of \eph' ho\ for "why here" occurs on a Syrian tablet of the first century A.D. 50 that it "was current coin in the language of the people" (Deissmann). Most of the early translations (Old Latin, Old Syriac) took it as a question. Songs:the Vulgate has _ad quid venisti_. In this instance the Authorized Version is correct against the Revised. Jesus exposes the pretence of Judas and shows that he does not believe in his paraded affection (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:27:14 @{And he gave him no answer, not even to one word} (\kai ouk apekrithˆ aut“i pros oude hen rhˆma\). Jesus refused to answer the charges of the Jews (verse 12|). Now he continued silent under the direct question of Pilate. The Greek is very precise besides the double negative. "He did not reply to him up to not even one word." This silent dignity amazed Pilate and yet he was strangely impressed.

rwp@Matthew:27:17 @{Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ?} (\Barabbƒn ˆ Iˆsoun ton legomenon Christon;\). Pilate was catching at straws or seeking any loophole to escape condemning a harmless lunatic or exponent of a superstitious cult such as he deemed Jesus to be, certainly in no political sense a rival of Caesar. The Jews interpreted "Christ" for Pilate to be a claim to be King of the Jews in opposition to Caesar, "a most unprincipled proceeding" (Bruce). Songs:he bethought him of the time-honoured custom at the passover of releasing to the people "a prisoner whom they wished" (\desmion hon ˆthelon\). No parallel case has been found, but Josephus mentions the custom (_Ant_. xx. 9,3). Barabbas was for some reason a popular hero, a notable (\episˆmon\), if not notorious, prisoner, leader of an insurrection or revolution (Mark:15:7|) probably against Rome, and so guilty of the very crime that they tried to fasten on Jesus who only claimed to be king in the spiritual sense of the spiritual kingdom. Songs:Pilate unwittingly pitted against each other two prisoners who represented the antagonistic forces of all time. It is an elliptical structure in the question, "whom do you wish that I release?" (\tina thelete apolus“;\), either two questions in one (asyndeton) or the ellipse of \hina\ before \apolus“\. See the same idiom in verse 21|. But Pilate's question tested the Jews as well as himself. It tests all men today. Some manuscripts add the name Jesus to Barabbas and that makes it all the sharper. Jesus Barabbas or Jesus Christ?

rwp@Matthew:27:20 @{Persuaded} (\epeisan\). The chief priests (Sadducees) and elders (Pharisees) saw the peril of the situation and took no chances. While Pilate wavered in pressing the question, they used all their arts to get the people to "ask for themselves" (\aitˆs“ntai\, indirect middle ingressive aorist subjunctive) and to choose Barabbas and not Jesus.

rwp@Philippians:2:14 @{Without murmurings} (\ch“ris goggusm“n\). See on strkjv@Acts:6:1| for this late onomatopoetic word from \gogguz“\, to mutter, to grumble. {Disputings} (\dialogism“n\). Or questionings as in strkjv@Luke:24:38|. The grumblings led to disputes.

rwp@Revelation:2:13 @{Where} (\pou--hopou\). \Pou\ is interrogative adverb used here in an indirect question as in strkjv@John:1:39|. \Hopou\ is relative adverb referring to \pou\. Satan's throne (\ho thronos tou Satanƒ\). Satan not simply resided in Pergamum, but his "throne" or seat of power of king or judge (Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:1:32,52|). The symbol of Asklepios was the serpent as it is of Satan (12:9; strkjv@20:2|). There was, besides, a great throne altar to Zeus cut on the Acropolis rock, symbol of "rampant paganism" (Swete) and the new Caesar-worship with the recent martyrdom of Antipas made Pergamum indeed a very throne of Satan. {Holdest fast my name} (\krateis to onoma sou\). Present active indicative of \krate“\, "dost keep on holding," as in strkjv@2:25, strkjv@3:11|. This church refused to say \Kurios Kaisar\ (_Martyrd. Polyc_. 8f.) and continued to say \Kurios Iˆsous\ (1Corinthians:12:3|). They stood true against the emperor-worship. {Didst not deny} (\ouk ˆrnˆs“\). First aorist middle second person singular of \arneomai\. Reference to a specific incident not known to us. {My faith} (\tˆn pistin mou\). Objective genitive, "thy faith in me." {Of Antipas} (\Antipas\). Indeclinable in this form. It is possible that \Antipa\ (genitive) was really written, though unimportant as the nominative follows in apposition. Nothing is really known of this early martyr in Pergamum before the writing of the Apocalypse. One legend is that he was burnt to death in a brazen bull. Other martyrs followed him at Pergamum (Agathonice, Attalus, Carpus, Polybus). {My witness} (\ho martus mou\). Nominative in apposition with a genitive as in strkjv@1:5| (with ablative), common solecism in the Apocalypse. "Witness" as Jesus had said they should be (Acts:1:8|) and Stephen was (Acts:22:20|) and others were (Revelation:17:6|). The word later (by third century) took on the modern meaning of martyr. {My faithful one} (\ho pistos mou\). Nominative also, with \mou\ also. Jesus gives Antipas his own title (Swete) as in strkjv@1:5; strkjv@3:14|. Faithful unto death. {Was killed} (\apektanthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \apoktein“\, this passive form common in the Apocalypse (?2:13; strkjv@6:11; strkjv@5:9,13; strkjv@13:10,15; 18, 20; strkjv@19:21?). {Among you} (\par humin\). By your side. Proof of the throne of Satan, "where Satan dwells" (\hopou ho Satanƒs katoikei\), repeated for emphasis.

rwp@Revelation:3:3 @{Remember} (\mnˆmoneue\). "Keep in mind," as in strkjv@2:5|. {Therefore} (\oun\). Resumptive and coordinating as in strkjv@1:19; strkjv@2:5|. {Thou hast received} (\eilˆphas\). Perfect active indicative of \lamban“\, "as a permanent deposit" (Vincent). {Didst hear} (\ˆkousas\). First aorist active indicative, the act of hearing at the time. {And keep it} (\kai tˆrei\). Present active imperative of \tˆre“\, "hold on to what thou hast." {And repent} (\kai metanoˆson\). First aorist active imperative of \metanoe“\, "Turn at once." {If therefore thou shalt not watch} (\ean oun mˆ grˆgorˆsˆis\). Condition of third class with \ean mˆ\ and the first aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of \grˆgore“\, "if then thou do not wake up." {I will come} (\hˆx“\). Certainly future active here, though probably aorist subjunctive in strkjv@2:25|. {As a thief} (\h“s kleptˆs\). As Jesus had already said (Matthew:24:43; strkjv@Luke:12:39|), as Paul had said (1Thessalonians:5:2|), as Peter had said (2Peter:3:10|), as Jesus will say again (Revelation:16:15|). {Thou shalt not know} (\ou mˆ gn“is\). Strong double negative \ou mˆ\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \gin“sk“\, though some MSS. have the future middle indicative \gn“sˆi\. {What hour} (\poian h“ran\). A rare classical idiom (accusative) surviving in the _Koin‚_ rather than the genitive of time, somewhat like strkjv@John:4:52; strkjv@Acts:20:16| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 470f.). Indirect question with \poian\.

rwp@Revelation:6:10 @{How long} (\he“s pote\). "Until when." Cf. strkjv@Matthew:7:17; strkjv@John:10:24|. {O Master} (\ho despotˆs\). Nominative articular form, but used as vocative (\despota\) as in strkjv@4:11| (John:20:28|). On \despotˆs\ (correlative of \doulos\) see strkjv@Luke:2:29|. Here (alone in the Apocalypse) it is applied to God as in strkjv@Luke:2:29; strkjv@Acts:4:24|, but to Christ in strkjv@Jude:1:4; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. {The holy and true} (\ho hagios kai alˆthinos\). See strkjv@3:7| for these attributes of God. {Avenge our blood on them that dwell upon the earth} (\ekdikeis to haima hˆm“n ek t“n katoikount“n epi tˆs gˆs\). This same idiom in strkjv@19:2| and see it also in strkjv@Luke:18:7f.|, "a passage which goes far to answer many questions in theodicy" (Swete). We find \ekdike“\, late compound, used with \ek\ as here in strkjv@Deuteronomy:18:19; strkjv@1Samuel:24:13|, but with \apo\ in strkjv@Luke:18:3|. For \epi tˆs gˆs\ (upon the earth) see strkjv@3:10|.

rwp@Revelation:6:17 @{The great day} (\hˆ hˆmera hˆ megalˆ\). The phrase occurs in the O.T. prophets (Joel:2:11,31; strkjv@Zephaniah:1:14|. Cf. strkjv@Jude:1:6|) and is here combined with "of their wrath" (\tˆs orgˆs aut“n\) as in strkjv@Zephaniah:1:15,18; strkjv@2:3; Rom strkjv@2:5|. "Their" (\aut“n\) means the wrath of God and of the Lamb put here on an equality as in strkjv@1:17f., strkjv@22:3,13; strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:11; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:16|. Beckwith holds that this language about the great day having come "is the mistaken cry of men in terror caused by the portents which are bursting upon them." There is something, to be sure, to be said for this view which denies that John commits himself to the position that this is the end of the ages. {And who is able to stand?} (\kai tis dunatai stathˆnai?\). Very much like the words in strkjv@Nahum:1:6; strkjv@Malachi:3:2|. First aorist passive infinitive of \histˆmi\. It is a rhetorical question, apparently by the frightened crowds of verse 15|. Swete observes that the only possible answer to that cry is the command of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:21:36|: "Keep awake on every occasion, praying that ye may get strength to stand (\stathˆnai\, the very form) before the Son of Man."

rwp@Revelation:7:13 @{Answered} (\apekrithˆ\). First aorist passive (deponent) of \apokrinomai\ with \leg“n\ (saying), a common (only here in the Apocalypse) Hebrew redundancy in the Gospels (Mark:9:5|). An elder intervenes, though no question has been asked to interpret the vision (Swete). {These} (\houtoi\). Prophetic predicate nominative put before \tines eisin\ (who are they). Note article repeated with \stolas\ pointing to verse 9|, and accusative also retained after \peribeblˆmenoi\ as there. Both "who" and "whence" as in strkjv@Joshua:9:8|.

rwp@Revelation:10:6 @{Sware} (\“mosen\). First aorist indicative of \omnu“\ to swear. {By him that liveth} (\en t“i z“nti\). This use of \en\ after \omnu“\ instead of the usual accusative (James:5:12|) is like the Hebrew (Matthew:5:34,36|). "The living one for ages of ages" is a common phrase in the Apocalypse for God as eternally existing (1:18; strkjv@4:9,10; strkjv@15:7|). This oath proves that this angel is not Christ. {Who created} (\hos ektisen\). First aorist active indicative of \ktiz“\, a reference to God's creative activity as seen in strkjv@Genesis:1:1ff.; strkjv@Exodus:20:11; strkjv@Isaiah:37:16; strkjv@42:5; strkjv@Psalms:33:6; strkjv@145:6|, etc. {That there shall be time no longer} (\hoti chronos ouketi estai\). Future indicative indirect discourse with \hoti\. But this does not mean that \chronos\ (time), Einstein's "fourth dimension" (added to length, breadth, height), will cease to exist, but only that there will be no more delay in the fulfillment of the seventh trumpet (verse 7|), in answer to the question, "How long?" (6:10|).

rwp@Revelation:15:4 @{Who shall not fear?} (\tis ou mˆ phobˆthˆi;\). Rhetorical question with \ou mˆ\ (double negative) and first aorist passive subjunctive of \phobeomai\ future passive in strkjv@Jeremiah:10:7|). {And glorify} (\kai doxasei\). Change here to the future indicative instead of the aorist subjunctive, as often. Cf. strkjv@Psalms:86:9|. {Thou only art holy} (\monos hosios\). Both predicate adjectives, "Thou art alone holy." God alone is perfectly holy (16:5|). {Shall come} (\hˆxousin\). Future active of \hˆk“\. {And worship} (\kai proskunˆsousin\). Future active of \proskune“\. Both from strkjv@Psalms:86:9|. {Have been made manifest} (\ephaner“thˆsan\). Prophetic first aorist passive indicative of \phanero“\. This martyr's song has the ring of great poetry.

rwp@Revelation:20:6 @{Blessed and holy} (\makarios kai hagios\). A fifth beatitude (1:3; strkjv@14:13; strkjv@16:15; strkjv@19:9|) already and two more to come (22:7,14|, seven in all). Here \hagios\ is added to the usual \makarios\. The second death (\ho deuteros thanatos\). The spiritual death of strkjv@2:11; strkjv@20:14; strkjv@21:8| in contrast to the first or physical death. This language raises a question about the interpretation of the first and the second resurrections, whether both are of the body or one of the spirit. There seems no way to reach a solid conception about it. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:23| there is no mention of the resurrection of any save "those of Christ" (\hoi tou Christou\), though the end follows (verse 24|). However, Paul elsewhere (Acts:24:15|) speaks of the resurrection of the just and of the unjust as if one event. {Priests of God and of Christ} (\hiereis tou theou kai tou Christou\). As in strkjv@1:6; strkjv@5:10; strkjv@22:3,5|. {Shall reign with him} (\basileusousin met' autou\). As promised in the same passages. The servants of God are to be priests with Christ and to reign with him (Matthew:19:28|). In strkjv@5:10| \epi tˆs gˆs\ (upon earth) occurs, but this item does not appear here. "No hint is given as to where this service is to be rendered and this royalty to be exercised" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:21:27 @{There shall in no wise enter into it} (\ou mˆ eiselthˆi eis autˆn\). Double negative again with the second aorist active subjunctive of \eiserchomai\ with \eis\ repeated. Like strkjv@Isaiah:52:1; strkjv@Ezekiel:44:9|. {Anything unclean} (\pƒn koinon\). Common use of \pƒn\ with negative like \ouden\, and the use of \koinos\ for defiled or profane as in strkjv@Mark:7:2; strkjv@Acts:10:14|, not just what is common to all (Titus:1:4|). {Or he that} (\kai ho\). "And he that." {Maketh an abomination and a lie} (\poi“n bdelugma kai pseudos\). Like Babylon (17:4| which see for \bdelugma\) and strkjv@21:8| for those in the lake of fire and brimstone, and strkjv@22:15| for "every one loving and doing a lie." These recurrent glimpses of pagan life on earth and of hell in contrast to heaven in this picture raise the question already mentioned whether John is just running parallel pictures of heaven and hell after the judgment or whether, as Charles says: "The unclean and the abominable and the liars are still on earth, but, though the gates are open day and night, they cannot enter." In apocalyptic writing literalism and chronology cannot be insisted on as in ordinary books. The series of panoramas continue to the end. {But only they which are written} (\ei mˆ hoi gegrammenoi\). "Except those written." For "the book of life" see strkjv@3:5; strkjv@13:8; strkjv@20:15|. Cf. strkjv@Daniel:12:1|.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE AUTHOR The writer calls himself John (Revelation:1:1,4,9; strkjv@22:8|). But what John? The book can hardly be pseudonymous, though, with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas, that is the rule with apocalypses. There would have been a clearer claim than just the name. The traditional and obvious way to understand the name is the Apostle John, though Dionysius of Alexandria mentions John Mark as held by some and he himself suggests another John, like the so-called Presbyter John of Papias as quoted by Eusebius. The uncertain language of Papias has raised a deal of questioning. Swete thinks that the majority of modern critics ascribe the Apocalypse to this Presbyter John, to whom Moffatt assigns probably II and III John. Irenaeus represents the Apostle John as having lived to the time of Trajan, at least to A.D. 98. Most ancient writers agree with this extreme old age of John. Justin Martyr states expressly that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse. Irenaeus called it the work of a disciple of Jesus. In the ninth century lived Georgius Hamartolus, and a MS. of his alleges that Papias says that John the son of Zebedee was beheaded by the Jews and there is an extract in an Oxford MS. of the seventh century which alleges that Papias says John and James were put to death by the Jews. On the basis of this slim evidence some today argue that John did not live to the end of the century and so did not write any of the Johannine books. But a respectable number of modern scholars still hold to the ancient view that the Apocalypse of John is the work of the Apostle and Beloved Disciple, the son of Zebedee.

rwp@Romans:1:10 @{If by any means now at length} (\ei p“s ˆdˆ pote\). A condition of the first class in the form of an indirect question (aim) or elliptical condition like strkjv@Acts:27:12| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1024). Note the four particles together to express Paul's feelings of emotion that now at length somehow it may really come true. {I may be prospered} (\euod“thˆsomai\). First future passive indicative of \euodo“\ for which verb see on ¯1Corinthians:16:2|. {By the will of God} (\en t“i thelˆmati tou theou\). Paul's way lay "in" God's will.

rwp@Romans:3:1 @{What advantage then hath the Jew?} (\ti oun to perisson tou Ioudaiou?\). Literally, "What then is the overplus of the Jew?" What does the Jew have over and above the Gentile? It is a pertinent question after the stinging indictment of the Jew in chapter 2. {The profit} (\hˆ “phelia\). The help. Old word, only here in N.T. See strkjv@Mark:8:36| for \“phelei\, the verb to profit.

rwp@Romans:3:5 @{What shall we say?} (\ti eroumen?\). Rhetorical question, common with Paul as he surveys the argument. {Commendeth} (\sunistˆsin\). This common verb \sunistˆmi\, to send together, occurs in the N.T. in two senses, either to introduce, to commend (2Corinthians:3:1; strkjv@4:2|) or to prove, to establish (2Corinthians:7:11; strkjv@Galatians:2:18; strkjv@Romans:5:8|). Either makes good sense here. {Who visiteth the wrath} (\ho epipher“n tˆn orgˆn\). "Who brings on the wrath," "the inflicter of the anger" (Vaughan). {I speak as a man} (\kata anthr“pon\). See strkjv@Galatians:3:15| for same phrase. As if to say, "pardon me for this line of argument." Tholuck says that the rabbis often used \kata anthr“pon\ and \ti eroumen\. Paul had not forgotten his rabbinical training.

rwp@Romans:3:8 @{And why not} (\kai mˆ\). We have a tangled sentence which can be cleared up in two ways. One is (Lightfoot) to supply \genˆtai\ after \mˆ\ and repeat \ti\ (\kai ti mˆ genˆtai\, deliberative subjunctive in a question): And why should it not happen? The other way (Sanday and Headlam) is to take \mˆ\ with \poiˆs“men\ and make a long parenthesis of all in between. Even so it is confusing because \hoti\ also (recitative \hoti\) comes just before \poiˆs“men\. The parenthesis is necessary anyhow, for there are two lines of thought, one the excuse brought forward by the unbeliever, the other the accusation that Paul affirms that very excuse that we may do evil that good may come. Note the double indirect assertion (the accusative and the infinitive \hˆmƒs legein\ after \phasin\ and then the direct quotation with recitative \hoti\ after \legein\, a direct quotation dependent on the infinitive in indirect quotation. {Let us do evil that good may come} (\poiˆs“men ta kaka hina elthˆi ta agatha\). The volitive aorist subjunctive (\poiˆs“men\) and the clause of purpose (\hina\ and the aorist subjunctive \elthˆi\). It sounds almost uncanny to find this maxim of the Jesuits attributed to Paul in the first century by Jews. It was undoubtedly the accusation of Antinomianism because Paul preached justification by faith and not by works.

rwp@Romans:4:1 @{What then shall we say?} (\ti oun eroumen?\). Paul is fond of this rhetorical question (4:1; strkjv@6:1; strkjv@7:7; strkjv@8:31; strkjv@9:14,30|). {Forefather} (\propatora\). Old word, only here in N.T. Accusative case in apposition with \Abraam\ (accusative of general reference with the infinitive). {Hath found} (\heurˆkenai\). Westcott and Hort put \heurˆkenai\ in the margin because B omits it, a needless precaution. It is the perfect active infinitive of \heurisk“\ in indirect discourse after \eroumen\. The MSS. differ in the position of \kata sarka\.

rwp@Romans:6:1 @{What shall we say then?} (\ti oun eroumen?\). "A debater's phrase" (Morison). Yes, and an echo of the rabbinical method of question and answer, but also an expression of exultant victory of grace versus sin. But Paul sees the possible perversion of this glorious grace. {Shall we continue in sin?} (\epimen“men tˆi hamartiƒi?\). Present active deliberative subjunctive of \epimen“\, old verb to tarry as in Ephesus (1Corinthians:16:8|) with locative case. The practice of sin as a habit (present tense) is here raised. {That grace may abound} (\hina hˆ charis pteonasˆi\). Final clause with ingressive aorist subjunctive, to set free the superfluity of grace alluded to like putting money in circulation. Horrible thought (\mˆ genoito\) and yet Paul faced it. There are occasionally so-called pietists who actually think that God's pardon gives them liberty to sin without penalty (cf. the sale of indulgences that stirred Martin Luther).

rwp@Romans:6:2 @{Died to sin} (\apethanomen tˆi hamartiƒi\). Second aorist active of \apothnˆsk“\ and the dative case. When we surrendered to Christ and took him as Lord and Saviour. Qualitative relative (\hoitines\, we the very ones who). {How} (\p“s\). Rhetorical question.

rwp@Romans:6:21 @{What fruit then had ye at that time?} (\tina oun karpon eichete tote?\). Imperfect active, used to have. A pertinent question. Ashes in their hands now. They are ashamed now of the memory of them. The end of them is death.

rwp@Romans:8:26 @{Helpeth our infirmity} (\sunantilambanetai tˆi astheneiƒi hˆm“n\). Present middle indicative of \sunantilambanomai\, late and striking double compound (Diodorus, LXX, Josephus, frequent in inscriptions, Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 87), to lend a hand together with, at the same time with one. Only twice in N.T., here and strkjv@Luke:10:40| in Martha's plea for Mary's help. Here beautifully Paul pictures the Holy Spirit taking hold at our side at the very time of our weakness (associative instrumental case) and before too late. {How to pray} (\to ti proseux“metha\). Articular clause object of \oidamen\ (we know) and indirect question with the deliberative aorist middle subjunctive \proseux“metha\, retained in the indirect question. {As we ought} (\katho dei\). "As it is necessary." How true this is of all of us in our praying. {Maketh intercession} (\huperentugchanei\). Present active indicative of late double compound, found only here and in later ecclesiastical writers, but \entugchan“\ occurs in verse 27| (a common verb). It is a picturesque word of rescue by one who "happens on" (\entugchanei\) one who is in trouble and "in his behalf" (\huper\) pleads "with unuttered groanings" (instrumental case) or with "sighs that baffle words" (Denney). This is work of our Helper, the Spirit himself.

rwp@Romans:9:20 @{Nay, but, O man, who art thou?} (\O anthr“pe, men oun ge su tis ei?\). "O man, but surely thou who art thou?" Unusual and emphatic order of the words, prolepsis of \su\ (thou) before \tis\ (who) and \men oun ge\ (triple particle, \men\, indeed, \oun\, therefore, \ge\, at least) at the beginning of clause as in strkjv@Romans:10:18; strkjv@Phillipians:3:8| contrary to ancient idiom, but so in papyri. {That repliest} (\ho antapokrinomenos\). Present middle articular participle of double compound verb \antapokrinomai\, to answer to one's face (\anti-\) late and vivid combination, also in strkjv@Luke:14:6|, nowhere else in N.T., but in LXX. {The thing formed} (\to plasma\). Old word (Plato, Aristophanes) from \plass“\, to mould, as with clay or wax, from which the aorist active participle used here (\t“i plasanti\) comes. Paul quotes these words from strkjv@Isaiah:29:16| verbatim. It is a familiar idea in the Old Testament, the absolute power of God as Creator like the potter's use of clay (Isaiah:44:8; strkjv@45:8-10; strkjv@Jeremiah:18:6|). \Mˆ\ expects a negative answer. {Why didst thou make me thus?} (\ti me epoiˆsas hout“s?\). The original words in Isaiah dealt with the nation, but Paul applies them to individuals. This question does not raise the problem of the origin of sin for the objector does not blame God for that but why God has used us as he has, made some vessels out of the clay for this purpose, some for that. Observe "thus" (\hout“s\). The potter takes the clay as he finds it, but uses it as he wishes.

rwp@Romans:9:21 @{Or hath not the potter a right over the clay?} (\ˆ ouk echei exousian ho kerameus tou pˆlou?\). This question, expecting an affirmative answer, is Paul's reply to the previous one, "Why didst thou make me thus?" \Pˆlos\, old word for clay, is mud or wet clay in strkjv@John:9:6,11,14f|. The old word for potter (\kerameus\) in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:27:7,10|. {Lump} (\phuramatos\). Late word from \phura“\, to mix (clay, dough, etc.). {One part} (\ho men\) {--another} (\ho de\). Regular idiom for contrast (\men--de\) with the old demonstrative \ho\ (this), "this vessel (\skeuos\, old word as in strkjv@Mark:11:16|) for honour, that for dishonour." Paul thus claims clearly God's sovereign right (\exousian\, power, right, authority, from \exesti\) to use men (already sinners) for his own purpose.

rwp@Romans:16:1 @{I commend} (\sunistˆmi\). The regular word for letters of commendation as in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:1| (\sustatik“n epistol“n\). See also strkjv@Romans:3:5|. Songs:here verses 1,2| constitute Paul's recommendation of Phoebe, the bearer of the Epistle. Nothing else is known of her, though her name (\Phoibˆ\) means bright or radiant. {Sister} (\adelphˆn\). In Christ, not in the flesh. {Who is a servant of the church} (\ousan diakonon tˆs ekklˆsias\). The etymology of \diakonos\ we have had repeatedly. The only question here is whether it is used in a general sense or in a technical sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:1; strkjv@1Timothy:3:8-13|. In favour of the technical sense of "deacon" or "deaconess" is the addition of "\tˆs ekklˆsias\" (of the church). In some sense Phoebe was a servant or minister of the church in Cenchreae. Besides, right in the midst of the discussion in strkjv@1Timothy:3:8-13| Paul has a discussion of \gunaikas\ (verse 11|) either as women as deaconesses or as the wives of deacons (less likely though possible). The _Apostolic Constitutions_ has numerous allusions to deaconesses. The strict separation of the sexes made something like deaconesses necessary for baptism, visiting the women, etc. Cenchreae, as the eastern port of Corinth, called for much service of this kind. Whether the deaconesses were a separate organization on a par with the deacons we do not know nor whether they were the widows alluded to in strkjv@1Timothy:5:9f|.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sat Jun 29 23:16:42 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020