Bible:
Filter: String:

NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp between:


rwp@Info_1Corinthians @ Some good commentaries on I Corinthians are the following: On the Greek Bachmann in the _Zahn Kommentar_, Edwards, Ellicott, Findlay (Expositor's Greek Testament), Godet, Goudge, Lietzmann (_Handbuch zum N.T._), Lightfoot (chs. 1-7), Parry, Robertson and Plummer (_Int. Crit._), Stanley, J. Weiss (_Meyer Kommentar_); on the English Dods (_Exp. Bible_), McFadyen, Parry, Ramsay, Rendall, F. W. Robertson, Walker (_Reader's Comm._). strkjv@1Corinthians:1:1 @{Called to be an apostle} (\klˆtos apostolos\). Verbal adjective \klˆtos\ from \kale“\, without \einai\, to be. Literally, {a called apostle} (Romans:1:1|), not so-called, but one whose apostleship is due not to himself or to men (Galatians:1:1|), but to God, {through the will of God} (\dia thelˆmatos tou theou\). The intermediate (\dia, duo\, two) agent between Paul's not being Christ's apostle and becoming one was God's will (\thelˆma\, something willed of God), God's command (1Timothy:1:1|). Paul knows that he is not one of the twelve apostles, but he is on a par with them because, like them, he is chosen by God. He is an apostle of Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus (MSS. vary here, later epistles usually Christ Jesus). The refusal of the Judaizers to recognize Paul as equal to the twelve made him the more careful to claim his position. Bengel sees here Paul's denial of mere human authority in his position and also of personal merit: _Namque mentione Dei excluditur auctoramentum humanum, mentione Voluntatis Dei, meritum Pauli_. {Our brother} (\ho adelphos\). Literally, the brother, but regular Greek idiom for our brother. This Sosthenes, now with Paul in Ephesus, is probably the same Sosthenes who received the beating meant for Paul in Corinth (Acts:18:17|). If so, the beating did him good for he is now a follower of Christ. He is in no sense a co-author of the Epistle, but merely associated with Paul because they knew him in Corinth. He may have been compelled by the Jews to leave Corinth when he, a ruler of the synagogue, became a Christian. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1| for the mention of Silas and Timothy in the salutation. Sosthenes could have been Paul's amanuensis for this letter, but there is no proof of it.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:2:6 @{Among the perfect} (\en tois teleiois\). Paul is not here drawing a distinction between exoteric and esoteric wisdom as the Gnostics did for their initiates, but simply to the necessary difference in teaching for babes (3:1|) and adults or grown men (common use of \teleios\ for relative perfection, for adults, as is in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:20; strkjv@Phillipians:3:15; strkjv@Ephesians:4:13; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14|). Some were simply old babes and unable in spite of their years to digest solid spiritual food, "the ample teaching as to the Person of Christ and the eternal purpose of God. Such 'wisdom' we have in the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians especially, and in a less degree in the Epistle to the Romans. This 'wisdom' is discerned in the Gospel of John, as compared with the other Evangelists" (Lightfoot). These imperfect disciples Paul wishes to develop into spiritual maturity. {Of this world} (\tou ai“nos toutou\). This age, more exactly, as in strkjv@1:20|. This wisdom does not belong to the passing age of fleeting things, but to the enduring and eternal (Ellicott). {Which are coming to naught} (\t“n katargoumen“n\). See on ¯1:28|. Present passive participle genitive plural of \katarge“\. The gradual nullification of these "rulers" before the final and certain triumph of the power of Christ in his kingdom.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:8 @{Knoweth} (\egn“ken\). Has known, has discerned, perfect active indicative of \gin“sk“\. They have shown amazing ignorance of God's wisdom. {For had they known it} (\ei gar egn“san\). Condition of the second class, determined as unfulfilled, with aorist active indicative in both condition (\egn“san\) and conclusion with \an\ (\ouk an estaur“san\). Peter in the great sermon at Pentecost commented on the "ignorance" (\kata agnoian\) of the Jews in crucifying Christ (Acts:3:17|) as the only hope for repentance on their part (Acts:3:19|). {The Lord of glory} (\ton Kurion tˆs doxˆs\). Genitive case \doxˆs\, means characterized by glory, "bringing out the contrast between the indignity of the Cross (Hebrews:12:2|) and the majesty of the Victim (Luke:22:69; strkjv@23:43|)" (Robertson and Plummer). See strkjv@James:2:1; strkjv@Acts:7:2; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17; strkjv@Hebrews:9:5|.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:10 @{But unto us God revealed them} (\hˆmin gar apekalupsen ho theos\). Songs:with \gar\ B 37 Sah Cop read instead of \de\ of Aleph A C D. "\De\ is superficially easier; \gar\ intrinsically better" (Findlay). Paul explains why this is no longer hidden, "for God revealed unto us" the wonders of grace pictured in verse 9|. We do not have to wait for heaven to see them. Hence we can utter those things hidden from the eye, the ear, the heart of man. This revelation (\apekalupsen\, first aorist active indicative) took place, at "the entry of the Gospel into the world," not "when we were admitted into the Church, when we were baptized" as Lightfoot interprets it. {Through the Spirit} (\dia tou pneumatos\). The Holy Spirit is the agent of this definite revelation of grace, a revelation with a definite beginning or advent (constative aorist), an unveiling by the Spirit where "human ability and research would not have sufficed" (Robertson and Plummer), "according to the revelation of the mystery" (Romans:16:25|), "the revelation given to Christians as an event that began a new epoch in the world's history" (Edwards). {Searcheth all things} (\panta eraunƒi\). This is the usual form from A.D. 1 on rather than the old \ereuna“\. The word occurs (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) for a professional searcher's report and \eraunˆtai\, searchers for customs officials. "The Spirit is the organ of understanding between man and God" (Findlay). Songs:in strkjv@Romans:8:27| we have this very verb \erauna“\ again of God's searching our hearts. The Holy Spirit not merely investigates us, but he searches "even the deep things of God" (\kai ta bathˆ tou theou\). _Profunda Dei_ (Vulgate). Cf. "the deep things of Satan" (Revelation:2:24|) and Paul's language in strkjv@Romans:11:33| "Oh the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God." Paul's point is simply that the Holy Spirit fully comprehends the depth of God's nature and his plans of grace and so is fully competent to make the revelation here claimed.

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

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

rwp@1Corinthians: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:6:5 @{I say this to move you to shame} (\pros entropˆn humin leg“\). Old word \entropˆ\ from \entrep“\, to turn in (1Corinthians:4:14| which see). In N.T. only here and strkjv@15:34|. {One wise man} (\sophos\). From sarcasm to pathos Paul turns. {Does there not exist} (\eni\, short form for \enesti\)? With double negative \ouk--oudeis\, expecting the answer yes. Surely {one} such man exists in the church. {Who} (\hos\). Almost consecutive in idea, of such wisdom that he will be able. {To decide between his brethren} (\diakrinai ana meson tou adelphou autou\). \Krinai\ is to judge or decide (first aorist active infinitive of \krin“\ and \dia\ (two) carries on the idea of between. Then \ana meson\ makes it still plainer, in the midst as {arbitrator} between brother and brother like \ana meson emou kai sou\ (Genesis:23:15|). It is even so a condensed expression with part of it unexpressed (\ana meson kai tou adelphou autou\) between brother and his brother. The use of \adelphos\ has a sharp reflection on them for their going to heathen judges to settle disputes between brothers in Christ.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:18 @{Flee} (\pheugete\). Present imperative. Have the habit of fleeing without delay or parley. Note abruptness of the asyndeton with no connectives. Fornication violates Christ's rights in our bodies (verses 13-17|) and also ruins the body itself. {Without the body} (\ektos tou s“matos\). Even gluttony and drunkenness and the use of dope are sins wrought on the body, not "within the body" (\entos tou s“matos\) in the same sense as fornication. Perhaps the dominant idea of Paul is that fornication, as already shown, breaks the mystic bond between the body and Christ and hence the fornicator (\ho porneu“n\) {sins against his own body} (\eis to idion s“ma hamartanei\) in a sense not true of other dreadful sins. The fornicator takes his body which belongs to Christ and unites it with a harlot. In fornication the body is the instrument of sin and becomes the subject of the damage wrought. In another sense fornication brings on one's own body the two most terrible bodily diseases that are still incurable (gonorrhea and syphilis) that curse one's own body and transmit the curse to the third and fourth generation. Apart from the high view given here by Paul of the relation of the body to the Lord no possible father or mother has the right to lay the hand of such terrible diseases and disaster on their children and children's children. The moral and physical rottenness wrought by immorality defy one's imagination.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:19 @{Your body is a temple} (\to s“ma hum“n naos estin\). A sanctuary as in strkjv@3:16| which see. Our spirits dwell in our bodies and the Holy Spirit dwells in our spirits. Some of the Gnostics split hairs between the sins of the body and fellowship with God in the spirit. Paul will have none of this subterfuge. One's body is the very shrine for the Holy Spirit. In Corinth was the temple to Aphrodite in which fornication was regarded as consecration instead of desecration. Prostitutes were there as priestesses of Aphrodite, to help men worship the goddess by fornication. {Ye are not your own} (\ouk este heaut“n\). Predicate genitive. Ye do not belong to yourselves, even if you could commit fornication without personal contamination or self-violation. Christianity makes unchastity dishonour in both sexes. There is no double standard of morality. Paul's plea here is primarily to men to be clean as members of Christ's body.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:11 @{But and if she depart} (\ean de kai ch“risthˆi\). Third class condition, undetermined. If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she get separated (ingressive passive subjunctive), {let her remain unmarried} (\menet“ agamos\). Paul here makes no allowance for remarriage of the innocent party as Jesus does by implication. {Or else be reconciled to her husband} (\ˆ t“i andri katallagˆt“\). Second aorist (ingressive) passive imperative of \katallass“\, old compound verb to exchange coins as of equal value, to reconcile. One of Paul's great words for reconciliation with God (2Corinthians:5:18-20; strkjv@Romans:5:10|). \Diallass“\ (Matthew:5:24| which see) was more common in the older Greek, but \katallass“\ in the later. The difference in idea is very slight, \dia-\ accents notion of exchange, \kat-\ the perfective idea (complete reconciliation). Dative of personal interest is the case of \andri\. This sentence is a parenthesis between the two infinitives \ch“risthˆnai\ and \aphienai\ (both indirect commands after \paraggell“\). {And that the husband leave not his wife} (\kai andra mˆ aphienai\). This is also part of the Lord's command (Mark:10:11|). \Apolu“\ occurs in Mark of the husband's act and \aphienai\ here, both meaning to send away. Bengel actually stresses the difference between \ch“risthˆnai\ of the woman as like _separatur_ in Latin and calls the wife "pars ignobilior" and the husband "nobilior." I doubt if Paul would stand for that extreme.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:15 @{Is not under bondage} (\ou dedoul“tai\). Perfect passive indicative of \doulo“\, to enslave, has been enslaved, does not remain a slave. The believing husband or wife is not at liberty to separate, unless the disbeliever or pagan insists on it. Wilful desertion of the unbeliever sets the other free, a case not contemplated in Christ's words in strkjv@Matthew:5:32; strkjv@19:9|. Luther argued that the Christian partner, thus released, may marry again. But that is by no means clear, unless the unbeliever marries first. {But God hath called us in peace} (\en de eirˆnˆi keklˆken hˆmas\ or \humas\). Perfect active indicative of \kale“\, permanent call in the sphere or atmosphere of peace. He does not desire enslavement in the marriage relation between the believer and the unbeliever.

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:7:34 @{And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin} (\kai memeristai kai hˆ gunˆ kai hˆ parthenos\). But the text here is very uncertain, almost hopelessly so. Westcott and Hort put \kai memeristai\ in verse 33| and begin a new sentence with \kai hˆ gunˆ\ and add \hˆ agamos\ after \hˆ gunˆ\, meaning "the widow and the virgin each is anxious for the things of the Lord" like the unmarried man (\ho agamos\, bachelor or widow) in verse 32|. Possibly so, but the MSS. vary greatly at every point. At any rate Paul's point is that the married woman is more disposed to care for the things of the world. But, alas, how many unmarried women (virgins and widows) are after the things of the world today and lead a fast and giddy life.

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:10:8 @{Neither let us commit fornication} (\mˆde porneu“men\). More exactly, And let us cease practicing fornication as some were already doing (1Corinthians:6:11; strkjv@7:2|). The connection between idolatry and fornication was very close (see Jowett, _Epistles of Paul_, II, p. 70) and see about Baal-Peor (Numbers:25:1-9|). It was terribly true of Corinth where prostitution was part of the worship of Aphrodite. {In one day} (\miƒi hˆmerƒi\). An item that adds to horror of the plague in strkjv@Numbers:25:9| where the total number is 24,000 instead of 23,000 as here for one day.

rwp@1Corinthians:10:29 @{For why is my liberty judged by another conscience?} (\hina ti gar hˆ eleutheria mou krinetai hupo allˆs suneidˆse“s;\). Supply \genˆtai\ (deliberative subjunctive) after \ti\. Paul deftly puts himself in the place of the strong brother at such a banquet who is expected to conform his conscience to that of the weak brother who makes the point about a particular piece of meat. It is an abridgment of one's personal liberty in the interest of the weak brother. Two individualities clash. The only reason is love which builds up (8:2| and all of chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13|). There is this eternal collision between the forces of progress and reaction. If they work together, they must consider the welfare of each other.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:2 @{Hold fast the traditions} (\tas paradoseis katechete\). Hold down as in strkjv@15:2|. \Paradosis\ (tradition) from \paradid“mi\ (\pared“ka\, first aorist active indicative) is an old word and merely something handed on from one to another. The thing handed on may be bad as in strkjv@Matthew:15:2f.| (which see) and contrary to the will of God (Mark:7:8f.|) or it may be wholly good as here. There is a constant conflict between the new and the old in science, medicine, law, theology. The obscurantist rejects all the new and holds to the old both true and untrue. New truth must rest upon old truth and is in harmony with it.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:21 @{Taketh before} (\prolambanei\). Before others. Old verb to take before others. It was conduct like this that led to the complete separation between the Love-feast and the Lord's Supper. It was not even a common meal together (\koinon deipnon\), not to say a Lord's \deipnon\. It was a mere {grab-game}. {This one is hungry} (\hos de peinƒi\). Demonstrative \hos\. Nothing is left for him at the love-feast. {Another is drunken} (\hos de methuei\). Such disgusting conduct was considered shameful in heathen club suppers. "Hungry poor meeting intoxicated rich, at what was supposed to be a supper of the Lord" (Robertson and Plummer). On \methu“\, to be drunk, see on ¯Matthew:24:49; strkjv@Acts:2:15|.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:3 @{Wherefore I give you to understand} (\dio gn“riz“ humin\). Causative idea (only in Aeschylus in old Greek) in papyri (also in sense of recognize) and N.T., from root \gn“\ in \gin“sk“\, to know. {Speaking in the Spirit of God} (\en pneumati theou lal“n\). Either sphere or instrumentality. No great distinction here between \lale“\ (utter sounds) and \leg“\ (to say). {Jesus is anathema} (\anathema Iˆsous\). On distinction between \anathema\ (curse) and \anathˆma\ (offering strkjv@Luke:21:5|) see discussion there. In LXX \anathˆma\ means a thing devoted to God without being redeemed, doomed to destruction (Leviticus:27:28f.; strkjv@Joshua:6:17; strkjv@7:12|). See strkjv@1Corinthians:16:22; strkjv@Galatians:1:8f.; strkjv@Romans:9:3|. This blasphemous language against Jesus was mainly by the Jews (Acts:13:45; strkjv@18:6|). It is even possible that Paul had once tried to make Christians say \Anathema Iˆsous\ (Acts:26:11|). {Jesus is Lord} (\Kurios Iˆsous\). The term \Kurios\, as we have seen, is common in the LXX for God. The Romans used it freely for the emperor in the emperor worship. "Most important of all is the early establishment of a polemical parallelism between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term \Kurios\, 'lord.' The new texts have here furnished quite astonishing revelations" (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 349). Inscriptions, ostraca, papyri apply the term to Roman emperors, particularly to Nero when Paul wrote this very letter (_ib._, p. 353f.): "One with 'Nero Kurios' quite in the manner of a formula (without article, like the 'Kurios Jesus' in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|." "The battle-cries of the spirits of error and of truth contending at Corinth" (Findlay). One is reminded of the demand made by Polycarp that he say \Kurios Caesar\ and how each time he replied \Kurios Iˆsous\. He paid the penalty for his loyalty with his life. Lighthearted men today can say "Lord Jesus" in a flippant or even in an irreverent way, but no Jew or Gentile then said it who did not mean it.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:26 @{Suffer with it} (\sunpaschei\). Medical term in this sense in Hippocrates and Galen. In N.T only here and strkjv@Romans:8:17| (of our suffering with Christ). One of Solon's Laws allowed retaliation by any one for another's injuries. Plato (_Republic_, V, 462) says the body politic "feels the hurt" as the whole body feels a hurt finger. {Rejoice with it} (\sunchairei\). This is fortunately true also. One may tingle with joy all over the body thanks to the wonderful nervous system and to the relation between mind and matter. See strkjv@13:6| for joy of love with truth.

rwp@1Corinthians:13:1 @{With the tongues} (\tais gl“ssais\). Instrumental case. Mentioned first because really least and because the Corinthians put undue emphasis on this gift. Plato (_Symposium_, 197) and many others have written on love, but Paul has here surpassed them all in this marvellous prose-poem. It comes like a sweet bell right between the jangling noise of the gifts in chapters 12 and 14. It is a pity to dissect this gem or to pull to pieces this fragrant rose, petal by petal. Fortunately Paul's language here calls for little comment, for it is the language of the heart. "The greatest, strongest, deepest thing Paul ever wrote" (Harnack). The condition (\ean\ and present subjunctive, \lal“ kai mˆ ech“\, though the form is identical with present indicative) is of the third class, a supposable case. {But have not love} (\agapˆn de mˆ ech“\). This is the _crux_ of the chapter. Love is the way _par excellence_ of strkjv@12:31|. It is not yet clearly certain that \agapˆ\ (a back-formation from \agapa“\) occurs before the LXX and the N.T. Plutarch used \agapˆsis\. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 198) once suspected it on an inscription in Pisidia. It is still possible that it occurs in the papyri (Prayer to Isis). See _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 75 for details. The rarity of \agapˆ\ made it easier for Christians to use this word for Christian love as opposed to \er“s\ (sexual love). See also Moffatt's Love in the N.T. (1930) for further data. The word is rare in the Gospels, but common in Paul, John, Peter, Jude. Paul does not limit \agapˆ\ at all (both toward God and man). Charity (Latin _caritas_) is wholly inadequate. "Intellect was worshipped in Greece, and power in Rome; but where did St. Paul learn the surpassing beauty of love?" (Robertson and Plummer). Whether Paul had ever seen Jesus in the flesh, he knows him in the spirit. One can substitute Jesus for love all through this panegyric. {I am become} (\gegona\). Second perfect indicative in the conclusion rather than the usual future indicative. It is put vividly, "I am already become." Sounding brass (\chalchos ˆch“n\). Old words. Brass was the earliest metal that men learned to use. Our word _echoing_ is \ˆch“n\, present active participle. Used in strkjv@Luke:21:25| of the roaring of the sea. Only two examples in N.T. {Clanging cymbal} (\kumbalon alalazon\). Cymbal old word, a hollow basin of brass. \Alalaz“\, old onomatopoetic word to ring loudly, in lament (Mark:5:38|), for any cause as here. Only two N.T. examples.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:47 @{Earthly} (\cho‹kos\). Late rare word, from \chous\, dust. {The second man from heaven} (\ho deuteros anthr“pos ex ouranou\). Christ had a human (\psuchikon\) body, of course, but Paul makes the contrast between the first man in his natural body and the Second Man in his risen body. Paul saw Jesus after his resurrection and he appeared to him "from heaven." He will come again from heaven.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:49 @{We shall also bear} (\phoresomen kai\). Old MSS. (so Westcott and Hort) read \phores“men kai\. Volitive aorist active subjunctive, Let us also bear. Ellicott strongly opposes the subjunctive. It may be merely the failure of scribes to distinguish between long o and short o. Paul hardly means to say that our attaining the resurrection body depends on our own efforts! A late frequentative form of \pher“\.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:16:20 @{With a holy kiss} (\en philˆmati hagi“i\). In the synagogue men kissed men and women kissed women. This was the Christian custom at a later date and apparently so here. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:26; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:12; strkjv@Romans:3:8; strkjv@1Peter:5:14|. It seems never to have been promiscuous between the sexes.

rwp@1John:2:9 @{And hateth his brother} (\kai ton adelphon autou mis“n\). Sharp contrast between the love just described and hate. The only way to walk in the light (1:7|) is to have fellowship with God who is light (1:3,5|). Songs:the claim to be in the light is nullified by hating a brother. {Even until now} (\he“s arti\). Up till this moment. In spite of the increasing light and his own boast he is in the dark.

rwp@1John:3:10 @{In this} (\en tout“i\). As already shown. A life of sin is proof that one is a child of the devil and not of God. This is the line of cleavage that is obvious to all. See strkjv@John:8:33-39| for the claim of the Pharisees to be the children of Abraham, whereas their conduct showed them to be children of the devil. This is not a popular note with an age that wishes to remove all distinctions between Christians and the world. {Doeth not righteousness} (\ho mˆ poi“n dikaiosunˆn\). Habit (linear present participle) again of not doing righteousness, as in verse 7| of doing it. Cf. \poiei\ and \mˆ poi“n\ (doing and not doing) in strkjv@Matthew:7:24,26|. {Neither} (\kai\). Literally, "and," but with the ellipsis of \ouk estin ek tou theou\ (is not of God). The addition here of this one item about not loving (\mˆ agap“n\) one's brother is like Paul's summary in strkjv@Romans:13:9|, a striking illustration of the general principle just laid down and in accord with strkjv@2:9-11|.

rwp@1John:4:3 @{Confesseth not} (\mˆ homologei\). Indefinite relative clause with the subjective negative \mˆ\ rather than the usual objective negative \ou\ (verse 6|). It is seen also in strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Titus:1:11|, a survival of the literary construction (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 171). The Vulgate (along with Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine) reads _solvit_ (\luei\) instead of \mˆ homologei\, which means "separates Jesus," apparently an allusion to the Cerinthian heresy (distinction between Jesus and Christ) as the clause before refers to the Docetic heresy. Many MSS. have here also \en sarki elˆluthota\ repeated from preceding clause, but not A B Vg Cop. and not genuine. {The spirit of the antichrist} (\to tou antichristou\). \Pneuma\ (spirit) not expressed, but clearly implied by the neuter singular article to. It is a repetition of the point about antichrists made in strkjv@2:18-25|. {Whereof} (\ho\). Accusative of person (grammatical neuter referring to \pneuma\) with \akou“\ along with accusative of the thing (\hoti erchetai\, as in strkjv@2:18|, futuristic present middle indicative). Here the perfect active indicative (\akˆkoate\), while in strkjv@2:18| the aorist (\ˆkousate\). {And now already} (\kai nun ˆdˆ\). As in strkjv@2:18| also (many have come). "The prophecy had found fulfilment before the Church had looked for it" (Westcott). It is often so. For \ˆdˆ\ see strkjv@John:4:35; strkjv@9:27|.

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

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

rwp@1John:5:10 @{Believeth on} (\pisteu“n eis\). John draws a distinction between "not believing God" (\mˆ pisteu“n t“i the“i\) in next clause, the testimony of God about his Son, and surrender to and reliance on the Son as here (\eis\ and the accusative). See the same distinction less clearly drawn in strkjv@John:6:30f|. See also \eis tˆn marturian\ after \pepisteuken\ in this same verse and strkjv@John:2:23|. {In him} (\en haut“i\). "In himself," though the evidence is not decisive between \haut“i\ and \aut“i\. {Hath made} (\pepoiˆken\). Perfect active indicative of \poie“\ like \memarturˆken\ and \pepisteuken\, permanent state. {A liar} (\pseustˆn\). As in strkjv@1:10|, which see. {Because he hath not believed} (\hoti ou pepisteuken\). Actual negative reason with negative \ou\, not the subjective reason as in strkjv@John:3:18|, where we have \hoti mˆ pepisteuken\). The subjective negative is regular with \ho mˆ pisteu“n\. Relative clause here repeats close of verse 9|.

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

rwp@Info_1Peter @ SOME BOOKS Alford, H., Vol. IV. 1 of his _Greek Testament_ (1870). Baldwin, _The Fisherman of Galilee_ (1923). Barnes, _St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb on the Vatican Hill_. Beck, J. T., _Erklarung der Briefe Petri_ (1895). Bennett, W. H., _New-Century Bible_ (1901). Bigg, C., _Intern. Crit. Comm_. (1901). Birks, _Studies in the Life and Character of St. Peter_ (1887). Blenkin, _The First Ep. General of St. Peter_ (1915). Camerlinck, _Commentarius in epistolas catholicas_ (1909). Cooke and Lumby, _Speaker's Comm_. (1881). Couard, _Commentaire_ (1895). Couard, _Simon Petrus der Apostel des Herrn_. Davidson, _St. Peter and His Training_. Elert, _Die Religiositat des Petrus_ (1911). Erbes, _Die Todestage der Apostels Paulus and Petrus_ (1899). Foakes-Jackson, F. J., _Peter Prince of Apostles_ (1927). Foster, Ora D., _The Literary Relations of the First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Fouard, C., _St. Peter and the First Years of Christianity_ (1892). Gallagher, M., _Was the Apostle Peter Ever at Rome?_ (1894). Goutard, _Essai critique et historique sur la prem. e'pitre de S. Pierre_ (1905). Green, S. G., _The Apostle Peter: His Life and Letters_ (1880). Guignebert, _Lamentations:Primaute' de Pierre et la Venue de Pierre a Rome_ (1909). Gunkel, H., _Die Schriften d. N.T_. 3 Aufl. (1917). Hart, J. H. A., _Expos. Greek Test_. (1910). Henriott, _Saint Pierre_ (1891). Hort, F. J. A., _The First Epistle of St. Peter strkjv@1:1-2:17_ (1898). Howson, J., _Horae Petrinae_ (1883). Jenkins, R. C., _The Apostle Peter. Claims of Catholics_ (1875). Johnstone, _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1888). Kasteren, Van, _Deuteronomy:Eerste Brief Van d. Ap. Petrus_ (1911). Keil, C. F., _Comm. uber die Briefe des Petrus und Juda_ (1883). Knopf, R., _Die Briefe Petri und Juda_ (1912). Kogel, J., _Die Gedankenheit des Ersten Briefes Petri_ (1902). Kuhl, E., _Die Briefe Petri und Judae_ (Meyer Komm., 6 Aufl., 1897). Lietzmann, _Petrus and Paulus in Rom_. Lumby, J. R., _Expositor's Bible_ (1893). Masterman, J. H. B., _Epistles of St. Peter_ (1900). McInnis, J.M., _Simon Peter Fisherman and Philosopher_ (1928). Meyer, F. B., _Peter: Fisherman, Disciple, Apostle_ (1920). Moffatt, James, _Moffatt Comm. on N.T._ (1930). Monneir, J., _Lamentations:premiere e'pitre de l'apotre Pierre_ (1900). Perdelwitz, _Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des ersten Petrusbriefes_ (1911). Plumptre, _Cambridge Bible_ (1879). Reagan, _The Preaching of Peter, the Beginning of Christian Apologetics_ (1922). Robinson, C. G., _Simon Peter: His Life and Times_ (1889). Ross, J. M. E., _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Salmond, A. D. F., _Schaff's Comm_. (1883). Scharfe, _Die petrinische Stromung der neut. Literatur_ (1893). Schmid, _Petrus in Rome_ (1879). Seeley, _The Life and Writings of St. Peter_. Soden, Von, H., _Hand-Komm_. (3 Aufl., 1899). Taylor, W. M., _Peter the Apostle_ (1876). Thomas, W. H., Griffith, _The Apostle Peter_ (2nd ed., 1905). Thompson, _Life-Work of Peter the Apostle_. Upham, _Simon Peter Shepherd_ (1910). Usteri, J. M., _Wiss. und prakt. Komm. uber den I Petrus- brief_ (1887). Volter, D., _Der I Petrusbrief_ (1906). Weiss, B., _Die erste Petrusbrief und die Kritik_ (1906). _Der petrinische Lehrbegriff_ (1855). Williams, N. M., _American Comm_. Windisch, H., _Die Katholische Briefe. Handbuch zum N.T._ (2 Aufl., 1930). Wohlenberg, G., _Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief_. (Zahn Komm., 2 Aufl., 1915.) strkjv@1Peter:1:1 @{Peter} (\Petros\). Greek form for the Aramaic (Chaldaic) \Cˆphƒs\, the nickname given Simon by Jesus when he first saw him (John:1:42|) and reaffirmed in the Greek form on his great confession (Matthew:16:18|), with an allusion to \petra\, another form for a rock, ledge, or cliff. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have both \Sim“n\ and \Petros\. Paul in his Epistles always terms himself Paul, not Saul. Songs:Peter uses this name, not Cephas or Simon, because he is writing to Christians scattered over Asia Minor. The nominative absolute occurs here as in strkjv@James:1:1|, but without \chairein\ as there, the usual form of greeting in letters (Acts:23:26|) so common in the papyri. {An apostle of Jesus Christ} (\apostolos Iˆsou Christou\). This is his official title, but in strkjv@2Peter:1:1| \doulos\ is added, which occurs alone in strkjv@James:1:1|. In II and III John we have only \ho presbuteros\ (the elder), as Peter terms himself \sunpresbuteros\ in strkjv@1Peter:5:1|. Paul's usage varies greatly: only the names in I and II Thessalonians, the title \apostolos\ added and defended in Galatians and Romans as also in I and II Corinthians and Colossians and Ephesians and II Timothy with "by the will of God" added, and in I Timothy with the addition of "according to the command of God." In Philippians Paul has only "\doulos\ (slave) \Christou Iˆsou\," like James and Jude. In Romans and Titus Paul has both \doulos\ and \apostolos\, like II Peter, while in Philemon he uses only \desmios\ (prisoner) \Iˆsou Christou\. {To the elect} (\eklektois\). Without article (with the article in strkjv@Matthew:24:22,24,31|) and dative case, "to elect persons" (viewed as a group). Bigg takes \eklektois\ (old, but rare verbal adjective from \ekleg“\, to pick out, to select) as an adjective describing the next word, "to elect sojourners." That is possible and is like \genos eklekton\ in strkjv@2:9|. See the distinction between \klˆtoi\ (called) and \eklektoi\ (chosen) in strkjv@Matthew:22:14|. {Who are sojourners} (\parepidˆmois\). Late double compound adjective (\para, epidˆmountes\, strkjv@Acts:2:10|, to sojourn by the side of natives), strangers sojourning for a while in a particular place. Songs:in Polybius, papyri, in LXX only twice (Genesis:23:4|; 38 or 39 12), in N.T. only here, strkjv@2:11; strkjv@Hebrews:11:13|. The picture in the metaphor here is that heaven is our native country and we are only temporary sojourners here on earth. {Of the Dispersion} (\diasporƒs\). See strkjv@John:7:35| for literal sense of the word for scattered (from \diaspeir“\, to scatter abroad, strkjv@Acts:8:1|) Jews outside of Palestine, and strkjv@James:1:1| for the sense here to Jewish Christians, including Gentile Christians (only N T. examples). Note absence of the article, though a definite conception (of the Dispersion). The Christian is a pilgrim on his way to the homeland. These five Roman provinces include what we call Asia Minor north and west of the Taurus mountain range (Hort). Hort suggests that the order here suggests that Silvanus (bearer of the Epistle) was to land in Pontus from the Euxine Sea, proceed through Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, to Bithynia, where he would re-embark for Rome. This, he holds, explains the separation of Pontus and Bithynia, though the same province. Only Galatia and Asia are mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. as having Christian converts, but the N.T. by no means gives a full account of the spread of the Gospel, as can be judged from strkjv@Colossians:1:6,23|.

rwp@1Peter:1:12 @{To whom} (\hois\). Dative plural of the relative pronoun. To the prophets who were seeking to understand. Bigg observes that "the connexion between study and inspiration is a great mystery." Surely, but that is no argument for ignorance or obscurantism. We do the best that we can and only skirt the shore of knowledge, as Newton said. {It was revealed} (\apekaluphthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \apokalupt“\, old verb, to reveal, to unveil. Here is revelation about the revelation already received, revelation after research. {Did they minister} (\diˆkonoun\). Imperfect active of \diakone“\, old verb, to minister, "were they ministering." {Have been announced} (\anˆggelˆ\). Second aorist passive indicative of {anaggell“}, to report, to bring back tidings (John:4:25|). {Through them} (\dia t“n\). Intermediate agent (\dia\), "the gospelizers" (\t“n euaggelisamen“n\, articular first aorist middle participle of \euaggeliz“\, to preach the gospel). {By the Holy Ghost} (\pneumati hagi“i\). Instrumental case of the personal agent, "by the Holy Spirit" (without article). {Sent forth from heaven} (\apostalenti\). Second aorist passive participle of \apostell“\ in instrumental case agreeing with \pneumati hagi“i\ (the Spirit of Christ of verse 11|. {Desire} (\epithumousin\). Eagerly desire (present active indicative of \epithume“\, to long for). {To look into} (\parakupsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \parakupt“\, old compound to peer into as in strkjv@Luke:24:12; strkjv@John:20:5,11; strkjv@James:1:25|, which see. For the interest of angels in the Incarnation see strkjv@Luke:2:13f|.

rwp@1Peter:1:14 @{As children of obedience} (\h“s tekna hupakoˆs\). A common Hebraism (descriptive genitive frequent in LXX and N.T., like \huioi tˆs apeitheias\, children of disobedience, in strkjv@Ephesians:2:2|) suggested by \hupakoˆn\ in verse 2|, "children marked by obedience." {Not fashioning yourselves} (\mˆ sunschˆmatizomenoi\). Usual negative \mˆ\ with the participle (present direct middle of \sunschˆmatiz“\, a rare (Aristotle, Plutarch) compound (\sun, schˆmatiz“\, from \schˆma\ from \ech“\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:12:2| (the outward pattern in contrast with the inward change \metamorpho“\). See strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.| for contrast between \schˆma\ (pattern) and \morphˆ\ (form). {According to your former lusts} (\tais proteron epithumiais\). Associative instrumental case after \sunschˆmatizomenoi\ and the bad sense of \epithumia\ as in strkjv@4:2; strkjv@2Peter:1:4; strkjv@James:1:14f|. {In the time of your ignorance} (\en tˆi agnoiƒi hum“n\). "In your ignorance," but in attributive position before "lusts." \Agnoia\ (from \agnoe“\, to be ignorant) is old word, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:3:17; strkjv@17:30; strkjv@Ephesians:4:18|.

rwp@1Peter:2:4 @{Unto whom} (\pros hon\). The Lord, carrying on the imagery and language of the Psalm. {Coming} (\proserchomenoi\). Present middle participle masculine plural of \proserchomai\ (\proselthate\ in the Psalm) agreeing with the subject of \oikodomeisthe\. {A living stone} (\lithon z“nta\). Accusative case in apposition with \hon\ (whom, the Lord Christ). There is apparent an intentional contradiction between "living" and "stone." Cf. "living hope" in strkjv@1:3| and "living word" in strkjv@1:23|. {Rejected indeed of men} (\hupo anthr“p“n men apodedokimasmenon\). Perfect passive participle of \apodokimaz“\, old verb to repudiate after test (Luke:9:22|), in the accusative case agreeing with \lithon\. {But with God} (\para de the“i\). "By the side of God," as he looks at it, in contrast with the rejection "by men" (\hupo anthr“p“n\). {Elect} (\eklekton\). From strkjv@Isaiah:28:6| as in \entimon\ (precious, for which see strkjv@Luke:7:2|) rather than \dokimon\ (proved) expected after \apodedokimasmenon\ as meaning far more in God's sight, "a pre-eminence of position with" (Hort).

rwp@1Peter:2:8 @{And} (\kai\). Peter now quotes strkjv@Isaiah:8:14| and gives a new turn to the previous quotation. To the disbelieving, Christ was indeed "a stone of stumbling (\lithos proskommatos\) and rock of offence (\petra skandalou\)," quoted also by Paul in strkjv@Romans:9:32f.|, which see for discussion. \Proskomma\ (from \proskopt“\, to cut against) is an obstacle against which one strikes by accident, while \skandalon\ is a trap set to trip one, but both make one fall. Too much distinction need not be made between \lithos\ (a loose stone in the path) and \petra\ (a ledge rising out of the ground). {For they} (\hoi\). Causal use of the relative pronoun. {Stumble at the word, being disobedient} (\proskoptousin t“i log“i apeithountes\). Present active indicative of \proskopt“\ with dative case, \log“i\, and present active participle of \apeithe“\ (cf. \apistousin\ in strkjv@2:7|) as in strkjv@3:1|. \T“i log“i\ can be construed with \apeithountes\ (stumble, being disobedient to the word). {Whereunto also they were appointed} (\eis ho kai etethˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \tithˆmi\. See this idiom in strkjv@1Timothy:2:7|. "Their disobedience is not ordained, the penalty of their disobedience is" (Bigg). They rebelled against God and paid the penalty.

rwp@1Peter:2:11 @{As sojourners and pilgrims} (\h“s paroikous kai parepidˆmous\). This combination from the LXX (Genesis:33:4; strkjv@Psalms:39:13|). See strkjv@1:1| for \parepidˆmos\ and strkjv@1:17| for \paroikia\ and strkjv@Ephesians:2:19| for \paroikos\ (only there and here in N.T., Christians whose fatherland is heaven). {To abstain from} (\apechesthai\). Present middle (direct) infinitive of \apech“\, old verb, to hold back from (1Thessalonians:4:3|). In indirect command (to keep on abstaining from) after \parakal“\ (I beseech). With the ablative case \t“n sarkik“n epithumi“n\, the grosser sins of the flesh (for \sarkikos\ see strkjv@1Corinthians:3:3|) like the list in strkjv@4:3|. {Which} (\haitines\). "Which very ones." Like Latin _quippe qui_. {War against the soul} (\strateuontai kata tˆs psuchˆs\). Present middle indicative of \strateu“\, to carry on a campaign (James:4:1|). See this struggle between the flesh and the spirit vividly pictured by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:5:16-24|.

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

rwp@1Peter:3:18 @{Because Christ also died} (\hoti kai Christos apethanen\). Songs:the best MSS.; later ones \epathen\ (suffered). The example of Christ should stir us to patient endurance. {For sins} (\peri hamarti“n\). "Concerning sins" (not his, but ours, strkjv@1:18|). \Peri\ (around, concerning) with \hamartias\ in the regular phrase for the sin offering (Leviticus:5:7; strkjv@6:30|), though \huper hamartias\ does occur (Ezekiel:43:25|). Songs:in the N.T. we find both \peri hamarti“n\ (Hebrews:5:3|) and \huper hamarti“n\ (Hebrews:5:1|). {Once} (\hapax\). Once for all (Hebrews:9:28|), not once upon a time (\pote\). {The righteous for the unrighteous} (\dikaios huper adik“n\). Literally, "just for unjust" (no articles). See strkjv@1Peter:2:19| for the sinlessness of Christ as the one perfect offering for sin. This is what gives Christ's blood value. He has no sin himself. Some men today fail to perceive this point. {That he might bring us to God} (\hina hˆmƒs prosagagˆi t“i the“i\). Purpose clause with \hina\, with second aorist active subjunctive of \prosag“\ and the dative case \t“i the“i\. The MSS. vary between \hˆmƒs\ (us) and \humƒs\ (you). The verb \prosag“\ means to lead or bring to (Matthew:18:24|), to approach God (cf. \prosag“gˆn\ in strkjv@Ephesians:2:18|), to present us to God on the basis of his atoning death for us, which has opened the way (Romans:3:25; strkjv@Hebrews:10:19f|.) {Being put to death in the flesh} (\thanat“theis men sarki\). First aorist passive participle of \thanato“\, old verb (from \thanatos\ death), to put to death. \Sarki\ is locative case of \sarx\. {But quickened in the spirit} (\z“opoiˆtheis de pneumati\). First aorist passive participle of \z“opoie“\ rare (Aristotle) verb (from \z“opoios\ making alive), to make alive. The participles are not antecedent to \apethanen\, but simultaneous with it. There is no such construction as the participle of subsequent action. The spirit of Christ did not die when his flesh did, but "was endued with new and greater powers of life" (Thayer). See strkjv@1Corinthians:15:22| for the use of the verb for the resurrection of the body. But the use of the word \pneumati\ (locative case) in contrast with \sarki\ starts Peter's mind off in a long comparison by way of illustration that runs from verses 19-22|. The following verses have caused more controversy than anything in the Epistle.

rwp@1Peter:3:19 @{In which also} (\en h“i kai\). That is, in spirit (relative referring to \pneumati\). But, a number of modern scholars have followed Griesbach's conjecture that the original text was either \N“e kai\ (Noah also), or \En“ch kai\ (Enoch also), or \en h“i kai En“ch\ (in which Enoch also) which an early scribe misunderstood or omitted \En“ch kai\ in copying (\homoioteleuton\). It is allowed in Stier and Theile's _Polyglott_. It is advocated by J. Cramer in 1891, by J. Rendel Harris in _The Expositor_ (1901), and _Sidelights on N.T. Research_ (p. 208), by Nestle in 1902, by Moffatt's New Translation of the New Testament. Windisch rejects it as inconsistent with the context. There is no manuscript for the conjecture, though it would relieve the difficulty greatly. Luther admits that he does not know what Peter means. Bigg has no doubt that the event recorded took place between Christ's death and his resurrection and holds that Peter is alluding to Christ's _Descensus ad Inferos_ in strkjv@Acts:2:27| (with which he compares strkjv@Matthew:27:52f.; strkjv@Luke:23:34; strkjv@Ephesians:4:9|). With this Windisch agrees. But Wohlenberg holds that Peter means that Christ in his preexistent state preached to those who rejected the preaching of Noah who are now in prison. Augustine held that Christ was in Noah when he preached. Bigg argues strongly that Christ during the time between his death and resurrection preached to those who once heard Noah (but are now in prison) and offered them another chance and not mere condemnation. If so, why did Jesus confine his preaching to this one group? Songs:the theories run on about this passage. One can only say that it is a slim hope for those who neglect or reject Christ in this life to gamble with a possible second chance after death which rests on very precarious exegesis of a most difficult passage in Peter's Epistle. Accepting the text as we have, what can we make of it? {He went and preached} (\poreutheis ekˆruxen\). First aorist passive (deponent) participle of \poreuomai\ and first aorist active indicative of \kˆruss“\, the verb commonly used of the preaching of Jesus. Naturally the words mean personal action by Christ "in spirit" as illustration of his "quickening" (verse 18|) whether done before his death or afterwards. It is interesting to observe that, just as the relative \en h“i\ here tells something suggested by the word \pneumati\ (in spirit) just before, so in verse 21| the relative \ho\ (which) tells another illustration of the words \di' hudatos\ (by water) just before. Peter jumps from the flood in Noah's time to baptism in Peter's time, just as he jumped backwards from Christ's time to Noah's time. He easily goes off at a word. What does he mean here by the story that illustrates Christ's quickening in spirit? {Unto the spirits in prison} (\tois en phulakˆi pneumasin\). The language is plain enough except that it does not make it clear whether Jesus did the preaching to spirits in prison at the time or to people whose spirits are now in prison, the point of doubt already discussed. The metaphorical use of \en phulakˆi\ can be illustrated by strkjv@2Peter:2:4; strkjv@Jude:1:6; strkjv@Revelation:20:7| (the final abode of the lost). See strkjv@Hebrews:12:23| for the use of \pneumata\ for disembodied spirits.

rwp@1Peter:4:6 @{Was the gospel preached} (\euˆggelisthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \euaggeliz“\. Impersonal use. {Even to the dead} (\kai nekrois\). Does Peter here mean preached to men after they are dead or to men once alive but dead now or when the judgment comes? There are those (Augustine, Luther, etc.) who take "dead" here in the spiritual sense (dead in trespasses and sins as in strkjv@Colossians:2:13; strkjv@Ephesians:2:1|), but consider it "impossible" for Peter to use the same word in two senses so close together; but Jesus did it in the same sentence, as in the case of \psuchˆ\ (life) in strkjv@Matthew:16:25|. Bigg takes it to mean that all men who did not hear the gospel message in this life will hear it in the next before the final judgment. {That they might be judged} (\hina krith“sin men\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \krin“\, to judge, whereas \z“sin de\ (by contrast) is the present active subjunctive of \za“\, to live. There is contrast also between \kata anthr“pous\ (according to men) and \kata theon\ (according to God).

rwp@1Peter:5:5 @{Be subject} (\hopotagˆte\). Second aorist passive imperative of \hupotass“\. {Unto the elder} (\presbuterois\). Dative case. Here the antithesis between younger and elder shows that the word refers to age, not to office as in strkjv@5:1|. See a like change in meaning in strkjv@1Timothy:5:1,17|. {All} (\pantes\). All ages, sexes, classes. {Gird yourselves with humility} (\tˆn tapeinophrosunˆn egkomb“sasthe\). First aorist middle imperative of \egkomboomai\, late and rare verb (in Apollodorus, fourth cent. B.C.), here only in N.T., from \en\ and \kombos\ (knot, like the knot of a girdle). \Egkomb“ma\ was the white scarf or apron of slaves. It is quite probable that Peter here is thinking of what Jesus did (John:13:4ff.|) when he girded himself with a towel and taught the disciples, Peter in particular (John:13:9ff.|), the lesson of humility (John:13:15|). Peter had at last learned the lesson (John:21:15-19|). {The proud} (\huperˆphanois\). Dative plural of \huperˆphanos\ (James:4:6; strkjv@Romans:1:30|) after \antitassetai\ (present middle indicative of \antitass“\ as in strkjv@James:4:6| (quoted there as here from strkjv@Proverbs:3:34|).

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

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:3 @{Remembering} (\mnˆmoneuontes\). Present active participle of old verb from adjective \mnˆm“n\ (mindful) and so to call to mind, to be mindful of, used either with the accusative as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| or the genitive as here. {Without ceasing} (\adialeipt“s\). Double compound adverb of the _Koin‚_ (Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo, papyri) from the verbal adjective \a-dia-leiptos\ (\a\ privative and \dia-leip“\, to leave off). In the N.T. alone by Paul and always connected with prayer. Milligan prefers to connect this adverb (amphibolous in position) with the preceding participle \poioumenoi\ rather than with \mnˆmoneuontes\ as Revised Version and Westcott and Hort rightly do. {Your work of faith} (\hum“n tou ergou tˆs piste“s\). Note article with both \ergou\ and \piste“s\ (correlation of the article, both abstract substantives). \Ergou\ is genitive case the object of \mnˆmoneuontes\ as is common with verbs of emotion (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 508f.), though the accusative \kopon\ occurs in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| according to common Greek idiom allowing either case. \Ergou\ is the general term for work or business, employment, task. Note two genitives with \ergou\. \Hum“n\ is the usual possessive genitive, {your work}, while \tˆs piste“s\ is the descriptive genitive, marked by, characterized by, faith, "the activity that faith inspires" (Frame). It is interesting to note this sharp conjunction of these two words by Paul. We are justified by faith, but faith produces works (Romans:6-8|) as the Baptist taught and as Jesus taught and as James does in strkjv@James:2|. {Labour of love} (\tou kopou tˆs agapˆs\). Note article with both substantives. Here again \tou kopou\ is the genitive the object of \mnˆmoneuontes\ while \tˆs agapˆs\ is the descriptive genitive characterizing the "labour" or "toil" more exactly. \Kopos\ is from \kopt“\, to cut, to lash, to beat the bread, to toil. In strkjv@Revelation:14:13| the distinction is drawn between \kopou\ (toil) from which the saints rest and \erga\ (works, activities) which follow with them into heaven. Songs:here it is the labour that love prompts, assuming gladly the toil. \Agapˆ\ is one of the great words of the N.T. (Milligan) and no certain example has yet been found in the early papyri or the inscriptions. It occurs in the Septuagint in the higher sense as with the sensuous associations. The Epistle of Aristeas calls love (\agapˆ\) God's gift and Philo uses \agapˆ\ in describing love for God. "When Christianity first began to think and speak in Greek, it took up \agapˆ\ and its group of terms more freely, investing them with the new glow with which the N.T. writings make us familiar, a content which is invariably religious" (Moffatt, _Love in the New Testament_, p. 40). The New Testament never uses the word \er“s\ (lust). {Patience of hope} (\tˆs hupomonˆs tˆs elpidos\). Note the two articles again and the descriptive genitive \tˆs elpidos\. It is patience marked by hope, "the endurance inspired by hope" (Frame), yes, and sustained by hope in spite of delays and set-backs. \Hupomonˆ\ is an old word (\hupo, men“\, to remain under), but it "has come like \agapˆ\ to be closely associated with a distinctively Christian virtue" (Milligan). The same order as here (\ergou, kopos, hupomonˆ\) appears in strkjv@Revelation:2:2| and Lightfoot considers it" an ascending scale as practical proofs of self-sacrifice." The church in Thessalonica was not old, but already they were called upon to exercise the sanctifying grace of hope (Denney). {In our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tou Kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). The objective genitive with \elpidos\ (hope) and so translated by "in" here (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 499f.). Jesus is the object of this hope, the hope of his second coming which is still open to us. Note "Lord Jesus Christ" as in verse 1|. {Before our God and Father} (\emprosthen tou theou kai patros hˆm“n\). The one article with both substantives precisely as in strkjv@Galatians:1:4|, not "before God and our Father," both article and possessive genitive going with both substantives as in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11; strkjv@Titus:2:13| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 785f.). The phrase is probably connected with \elpidos\. \Emprosthen\ in the N.T. occurs only of place, but it is common in the papyri of time. The picture here is the day of judgment when all shall appear before God.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:5 @{How that} (\hoti\). It is not certain whether \hoti\ here means "because" (\quia\) as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:2:14; strkjv@Romans:8:27| or declarative \hoti\ "how that," knowing the circumstances of your election (Lightfoot) or explanatory, as in strkjv@Acts:16:3; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:3f.; strkjv@Romans:13:11|. {Our gospel} (\to euaggelion hˆm“n\). The gospel (see on ¯Matthew:4:23; strkjv@Mark:1:1,15| for \euaggelion\) which we preach, Paul's phrase also in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:3; strkjv@Romans:2:16; strkjv@16:25; strkjv@2Timothy:2:8|. Paul had a definite, clear-cut message of grace that he preached everywhere including Thessalonica. This message is to be interpreted in the light of Paul's own sermons in Acts and Epistles, not by reading backward into them the later perversions of Gnostics and sacramentarians. This very word was later applied to the books about Jesus, but Paul is not so using the term here or anywhere else. In its origin Paul's gospel is of God (1Thessalonians:2:2,8,9|), in its substance it is Christ's (3:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:8|), and Paul is only the bearer of it (1Thessalonians:2:4,9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14|) as Milligan points out. Paul and his associates have been entrusted with this gospel (1Thessalonians:2:4|) and preach it (Galatians:2:2|). Elsewhere Paul calls it God's gospel (2Corinthians:11:7; strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@15:16|) or Christs (1Corinthians:9:12; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@10:14; strkjv@Galatians:1:7; strkjv@Romans:15:19; strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|). In both instances it is the subjective genitive. {Came unto you} (\egenˆthˆ eis humƒs\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\ in practically same sense as \egeneto\ (second aorist middle indicative as in the late Greek generally). Songs:also \eis humƒs\ like the _Koin‚_ is little more than the dative \humin\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 594). {Not only--but also} (\ouk--monon, alla kai\). Sharp contrast, negatively and positively. The contrast between \logos\ (word) and \dunamis\ (power) is seen also in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:4; strkjv@4:20|. Paul does not refer to miracles by \dunamis\. {In the Holy Spirit and much assurance} (\en pneumati hagi“i kai plˆrophoriƒi pollˆi\). Preposition \en\ repeated with \log“i, dunamei\, but only once here thus uniting closely {Holy Spirit} and {much assurance}. No article with either word. The word \plˆrophoriƒi\ is not found in ancient Greek or the LXX. It appears once in Clement of Rome and one broken papyrus example. For the verb \plˆrophore“\ see on ¯Luke:1:1|. The substantive in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:2; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|. It means the full confidence which comes from the Holy Spirit. {Even as ye know} (\kath“s oidate\). Paul appeals to the Thessalonians themselves as witnesses to the character of his preaching and life among them. {What manner of men we showed ourselves toward you} (\hoioi egenˆthˆmen humin\). Literally, {What sort of men we became to you}. Qualitative relative \hoioi\ and dative \humin\ and first aorist passive indicative \egenˆthˆmen\, (not \ˆmetha\, we were). An epexegetical comment with {for your sake} (\di' humƒs\) added. It was all in their interest and for their advantage, however it may have seemed otherwise at the time.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:8 @{From you hath sounded forth} (\aph' hum“n exˆchˆtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \exˆche“\, late compound verb (\ex, ˆchos, ˆch“, ˆchˆ\, our echo) to sound out of a trumpet or of thunder, to reverberate like our echo. Nowhere else in the N.T. Songs:"from you" as a sounding board or radio transmitting station (to use a modern figure). It marks forcibly "both the clear and the persuasive nature of the \logos tou Kuriou\" (Ellicott). This phrase, the word of the Lord, may be subjective with the Lord as its author or objective with the Lord as the object. It is both. It is a graphic picture with a pardonable touch of hyperbole (Moffatt) for Thessalonica was a great commercial and political centre for disseminating the news of salvation (on the Egnation Way). {But in every place} (\all' en panti top“i\). In contrast to Macedonia and Achaia. The sentence would naturally stop here, but Paul is dictating rapidly and earnestly and goes on. {Your faith to God-ward} (\hˆ pistis hum“n hˆ pros ton theon\). Literally, {the faith of you that toward the God}. The repeated article makes clear that their faith is now directed toward the true God and not toward the idols from which they had turned (verse 10|). {Is gone forth} (\exelˆluthen\). Second perfect active indicative of old verb \exerchomai\, to go out, state of completion like \exˆchˆtai\ above. {Songs:that we need not to speak anything} (\h“ste mˆ chreian echein hˆmƒs lalein ti\). \H“ste\ with the infinitive for actual result as in verse 7|. No vital distinction between \lalein\ (originally to chatter as of birds) and \legein\, both being used in the _Koin‚_ for speaking and preaching (in the N.T.).

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:3 @{Exhortation} (\paraklˆsis\). Persuasive discourse, calling to one's side, for admonition, encouragement, or comfort. {Not of error} (\ouk ek planˆs\). This word is same as \plana“\, to lead astray (2Timothy:3:13|) like Latin _errare_. Passive idea of {error} here rather than deceit. That is seen in {nor in guile} (\oude en dol“i\) from \del“\, to catch with bait. Paul is keenly sensitive against charges against the correctness of his message and the purity of his life. {Nor of uncleanness} (\oude ex akatharsias\). "This disclaimer, startling as it may seem, was not unneeded amidst the impurities consecrated by the religions of the day" (Lightfoot). There was no necessary connection in the popular mind between religion and morals. The ecstatic initiations in some of the popular religions were grossly sensual.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:14 @{Imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea} (\mimˆtai t“n ekklˆsi“n tou theou t“n ous“n en tˆi Ioudaiƒi\). On \mimˆtai\ see on ¯1:5|. "This passage, implying an affectionate admiration of the Jewish churches on the part of St. Paul, and thus entirely bearing out the impression produced by the narrative in the Acts, is entirely subversive of the theory maintained by some and based on a misconception of strkjv@Galatians:2|, and by the fiction of the Pseudo-Clementines, of the feud existing between St. Paul and the Twelve" (Lightfoot). {In Christ Jesus} (\en Christ“i Iˆsou\). It takes this to make a _Christian_ church of God. Note order here {Christ Jesus} as compared with {Jesus Christ} in strkjv@1:1,3|. {Ye also--even as they} (\kai humeis--kai autoi\). Note \kai\ twice (correlative use of \kai\). {Countrymen} (\sumphulet“n\). Fellow-countrymen or tribesmen. Late word that refers primarily to Gentiles who no doubt joined the Jews in Thessalonica who instigated the attacks on Paul and Silas so that it "was taken up by the native population, without whose co-operation it would have been powerless" (Lightfoot). {Own} (\idi“n\) here has apparently a weakened force. Note \hupo\ here with the ablative both with \sumphulet“n\ and \Ioudai“n\ after the intransitive \epathete\ (suffered). The persecution of the Christians by the Jews in Judea was known everywhere.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:15 @{Who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets} (\t“n kai ton Kurion apokteinant“n Iˆsoun kai tous prophˆtas\). First aorist active participle of \apoktein“\. Vivid justification of his praise of the churches in Judea. The Jews killed the prophets before the Lord Jesus who reminded them of their guilt (Matthew:23:29|). Paul, as Peter (Acts:2:23|), lays the guilt of the death of Christ on the Jews. {And drove us out} (\kai hˆmƒs ekdi“xant“n\). An old verb to drive out or banish, to chase out as if a wild beast. Only here in N.T. It is Paul's vivid description of the scene told in strkjv@Acts:17:5ff.| when the rabbis and the hoodlums from the agora chased him out of Thessalonica by the help of the politarchs. {Please not God} (\The“i mˆ areskont“n\). The rabbis and Jews thought that they were pleasing God by so doing as Paul did when he ravaged the young church in Jerusalem. But Paul knows better now. {And are contrary to all men} (\kai pasin anthr“pois enanti“n\). Dative case with the adjective \enanti“n\ (old and common word, face to face, opposite). It seems like a bitter word about Paul's countrymen whom he really loved (Romans:9:1-5; strkjv@10:1-6|), but Paul knew only too well the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile as he shows in strkjv@Ephesians:2| and which only the Cross of Christ can break down. Tacitus (_Hist_. V. 5) says that the Jews are _adversus omnes alios hostile odium_.

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:12 @{The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). The Lord Jesus. Paul prays to Christ. {Make you to increase} (\humas pleonasai\). First aorist active optative (wish for future) of \pleonaz“\, late verb from \pleon\ (more), {to superabound}. {And abound} (\perisseusai\). First aorist active optative (wish for future) of \perisseu“\ from \perissos\, old verb, to be over (common in N.T.). It is hard to see much difference between the two verbs.

rwp@1Timothy:1:10 @{For abusers of themselves with men} (\arsenokoitais\). Late compound for sodomites. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:6:9|. {Men-stealers} (\andrapodistais\). Old word from \andrapodiz“\ (from \anˆr\, man, \pous\, foot, to catch by the foot), to enslave. Songs:enslavers, whether kidnappers (men-stealers) of free men or stealers of the slaves of other men. Songs:slave-dealers. By the use of this word Paul deals a blow at the slave-trade (cf. Philemon). {Liars} (\pseustais\). Old word, see strkjv@Romans:3:4|. {False swearers} (\epiorkois\). Old word (\epi, orkos\, oath). Perjurers. Only here in N.T. For similar lists, see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:11; strkjv@6:9f.; strkjv@Galatians:5:19f.; strkjv@Romans:1:28f.; strkjv@13:13; strkjv@Colossians:3:5; strkjv@Ephesians:5:5; strkjv@2Timothy:3:2f|. {The sound doctrine} (\tˆi hugiainousˆi didaskaliƒi\). Dative case after \antikeitai\, for which verb see strkjv@Galatians:5:17| for the conflict between the Spirit and the flesh. "The healthful (\hugiain“\, old word for being well, as strkjv@Luke:5:31; strkjv@3John:1:2|, in figurative sense in N.T. only in the Pastorals) teaching." See strkjv@Titus:1:9; strkjv@2Timothy:4:3|.

rwp@1Timothy:2:5 @{One God} (\heis theos\). Regular Pauline argument for a universal gospel (Galatians:3:20; strkjv@Romans:3:30; strkjv@Ephesians:4:6|). {One mediator} (\heis mesitˆs\). Late word (Polybius, Philo) from \mesos\ (middle), a middle man. In N.T. only here, strkjv@Galatians:3:20; strkjv@Hebrews:8:6; strkjv@9:15; strkjv@12:24|. {Between God and men} (\theou kai anthr“p“n\). Ablative case (though objective genitive may explain it) after \mesitˆs\ (notion of separation) as in strkjv@Romans:10:12; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14|. {Himself man} (\anthr“pos\). No "himself" (\autos\) in the Greek.

rwp@1Timothy:3:8 @{Deacons} (\diakonous\). Accusative case of general reference like the preceding with \dei einai\ understood. Technical sense of the word here as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| which see (two classes of church officers, bishops or elders, deacons). {Grave} (\semnous\). See strkjv@Phillipians:4:8|. Repeated in verse 11; strkjv@Titus:2:2|. {Not double-tongued} (\mˆ dilogous\). Rare word (\dis, leg“\) saying same thing twice. Xenophon has \diloge“\ and \dilogia\. In Pollux, but LXX has \digl“ssos\ (double-tongued, Latin _bilinguis_). Only here in N.T. One placed between two persons and saying one thing to one, another to the other. Like Bunyan's Parson "Mr. Two-Tongues." {Not given to much wine} (\mˆ oin“i poll“i prosechontas\). "Not holding the mind (\ton noun\ understood as usual with \prosech“\, strkjv@1Timothy:1:4|) on much wine" (\oin“i\, dative case). That attitude leads to over-indulgence. {Not greedy of filthy lucre} (\mˆ aischrokerdeis\). Old word from \aischros\ (Ephesians:5:12|) and \kerdos\ (Phillipians:1:21|). "Making small gains in mean ways" (Parry). Not genuine in verse 3|. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:1:7| (of bishops).

rwp@2Corinthians:1:13 @{Than what ye read} (\all' ˆ ha anagin“skete\). Note comparative conjunction \ˆ\ (than) after \all'\ and that after \alla\ (other things, same word in reality), "other than." Read in Greek (\anagin“sk“\) is knowing again, recognizing. See on ¯Acts:8:30|. {Or even acknowledge} (\ˆ kai epigin“skete\). Paul is fond of such a play on words (\anagin“skete, epigin“skete\) or paronomasia. Does he mean "read between the lines," as we say, by the use of \epi\ (additional knowledge)? {Unto the end} (\he“s telous\). The report of Titus showed that the majority now at last understood Paul. He hopes that it will last (1Corinthians:1:8|).

rwp@2Corinthians:6:8 @{By glory and dishonour} (\dia doxˆs kai atimias\). Here \dia\ is no longer instrument, but state or condition. \Doxa\ here is glory. See strkjv@Romans:9:21; strkjv@2Timothy:2:20| for contrast between honour and dishonour (\timˆ, atimia\). {By evil report and good report} (\dia dusphˆmias kai euphˆmias\). Play on the words with prefixes \dus-\ and \eu-\ and \phˆmˆ\. \Dusphˆmia\ is a late word, only here in N.T. \Euphˆmia\, old and common word, only here in N.T. {As deceivers and yet true} (\h“s planoi kai alˆtheis\). Paul takes up \h“s\ now in place of \dia\ which succeeded \en\. Note use of \kai\ in sense of "and yet" (adversative). \Planos\ is late word (Diodorus, Josephus) for wandering, vagabond, impostor (cf. \plana“\, to lead astray, used of Christ, strkjv@John:7:12|). In N.T. only here; strkjv@Matthew:27:63| (of Christ by Pharisees); strkjv@2John:1:7|. "In the Clementines St. Paul is expressly described by his adversaries as \planos\ and as disseminating deceit (\planˆn\)" (Bernard). Such slander from one's enemies is praise.

rwp@2Corinthians:6:10 @{Always rejoicing} (\aei chairontes\). Even in sorrow (11:9; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:16; strkjv@Romans:5:3-5; strkjv@9:2; strkjv@Phillipians:2:18,27; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@4:4,15|). {Yet making many rich} (\pollous de ploutizontes\). Old word from \ploutos\ (wealth), to enrich. Spiritual riches Paul has in mind as in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:5| (cf. strkjv@Matthew:5:37|). {As having nothing and yet possessing all things} (\h“s mˆden echontes kai panta katechontes\). Contrast between \mˆden\ (nothing) and \panta\ (all things, cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22|) and \ech“\ (to have) and \katech“\ (to hold down, to hold fast). Play on words (simple and compound) as in strkjv@3:2; strkjv@4:8|. Climax of Paul's panegyric on the Christian ministry. He now resumes the thread of the story broken off in strkjv@2:14|.

rwp@2Corinthians:6:15 @{Concord} (\sumph“nˆsis\). Symphony. Late word from \sumph“ne“\, only here and ecclesiastical writers, though \sumph“nˆma\ in the papyri. {Belial} (\Belial\). Transliteration of Hebrew word for worthlessness and applied to Satan (_Book of Jubilees_ 1.20) as here. Paul graphically sums up the contrast between Christ and Belial (Satan), the heads of the contending forces of good and evil. {Portion} (\meris\). The fourth of the words. Here by "unbeliever" (\apistou\) Paul means "disbeliever," not just an unconverted man who yet approves Christ.

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

rwp@2Corinthians:7:10 @{For godly sorrow} (\hˆ gar kata theon lupˆ\). "For the sorrow according to God" (God's ideal, verse 9|). {Worketh repentance unto salvation a repentance without regret} (\metanoian eis s“tˆrian ametamelˆton ergazetai\). This clause alone should have prevented the confusion between mere "sorrow" (\lupˆ\) as indicated in \metamelomai\, to regret (to be sorry again) and "change of mind and life" as shown by \metanoian\ (\metanoe“\) and wrongly translated "repentance." The sorrow according to God does work this "change of mind and life" unto salvation, a change "not to be regretted" (\ametamelˆton\, an old verbal adjective of \metamelomai\ and \a\ privative, but here alone in N.T.). It agrees with \metanoian\, not \s“tˆrian\. {But the sorrow of the world} (\hˆ de tou kosmou lupˆ\). In contrast, the kind of sorrow that the world has, grief "for failure, not for sin" (Bernard), for the results as seen in Cain, Esau (his tears!), and Judas (remorse, \metemelˆthˆ\). Works out (perfective use of \kat-\) death in the end.

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

rwp@2Peter:1:3 @{Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us} (\h“s hˆmin tˆs theias duname“s autou ded“rˆmenˆs\). Genitive absolute with the causal particle \h“s\ and the perfect middle participle of \d“re“\, old verb, to bestow (\d“rea\, gift), usually middle as here, in N.T. elsewhere only strkjv@Mark:15:45|. \Autou\ refers to Christ, who has "divine power" (\tˆs theias duname“s\), since he is \theos\ (1:1|). \Theios\ (from \theos\) is an old adjective in N.T. here and verse 4| only, except strkjv@Acts:17:29|, where Paul uses \to theion\ for deity, thus adapting his language to his audience as the papyri and inscriptions show. The use of \theios\ with an imperial connotation is very common in the papyri and the inscriptions. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 360-368) has shown the singular linguistic likeness between strkjv@2Peter:1:3-11| and a remarkable inscription of the inhabitants of Stratonicea in Caria to Zeus Panhemerios and Hecate dated A.D. 22 (in full in C I H ii No. 2715 a b). One of the likenesses is the use of \tˆs theias duname“s\. Peter may have read this inscription (cf. Paul in Athens) or he may have used "the familiar forms and formulae of religious emotion" (Deissmann), "the official liturgical language of Asia Minor." Peter is fond of \dunamis\ in this Epistle, and the \dunamis\ of Christ "is the sword which St. Peter holds over the head of the False Teachers" (Bigg). {All things that pertain unto life and godliness} (\panta ta pros z“ˆn kai eusebeian\). "All the things for life and godliness." The new life in Christ who is the mystery of godliness (1Timothy:3:16|). \Eusebeia\ with its cognates (\eusebˆs, euseb“s, eusebe“\) occurs only in this Epistle, Acts, and the Pastoral Epistles (from \eu\, well, and \sebomai\, to worship). {Of him that called us} (\tou kalesantos\). Genitive of the articular first aorist active participle of \kale“\. Christ called Peter and all other Christians. {By his own glory and virtue} (\dia doxˆs kai aretˆs\). Songs:B K L, but Aleph A C P read \idiƒi doxˆi kai aretˆi\ (either instrumental case "by" or dative "to"). Peter is fond of \idios\ (own, strkjv@1Peter:3:1,5; strkjv@2Peter:2:16,22|, etc.). "Glory" here is the manifestation of the Divine Character in Christ. For \aretˆ\ see on ¯1Peter:2:9| and strkjv@Phillipians:4:8; strkjv@2Peter:1:5|.

rwp@2Peter:2:4 @{For if God spared not} (\ei gar ho theos ouk epheisato\). First instance (\gar\) of certain doom, that of the fallen angels. Condition of the first class precisely like that in strkjv@Romans:11:21| save that here the normal apodosis (\hum“n ou pheisetai\) is not expressed as there, but is simply implied in verse 9| by \oiden kurios ruesthai\ (the Lord knows how to deliver) after the parenthesis in verse 8|. {Angels when they sinned} (\aggel“n hamartˆsant“n\). Genitive case after \epheisato\ (first aorist middle indicative of \pheidomai\) and anarthrous (so more emphatic, even angels), first aorist active participle of \hamartan“\, "having sinned." {Cast them down to hell} (\tartar“sas\). First aorist active participle of \tartaro“\, late word (from \tartaros\, old word in Homer, Pindar, LXX strkjv@Job:40:15; strkjv@41:23|, Philo, inscriptions, the dark and doleful abode of the wicked dead like the Gehenna of the Jews), found here alone save in a scholion on Homer. \Tartaros\ occurs in Enoch strkjv@20:2 as the place of punishment of the fallen angels, while Gehenna is for apostate Jews. {Committed} (\pared“ken\). First aorist active indicative of \paradid“mi\, the very form solemnly used by Paul in strkjv@Romans:1:21,26,28|. {To pits of darkness} (\seirois zophou\). \Zophos\ (kin to \gnophos, nephos\) is an old word, blackness, gloom of the nether world in Homer, in N.T. only here, verse 17; strkjv@Jude:1:13; strkjv@Hebrews:12:18|. The MSS. vary between \seirais\ (\seira\, chain or rope) and \seirois\ (\seiros\, old word for pit, underground granary). \Seirois\ is right (Aleph A B C), dative case of destination. {To be reserved unto judgment} (\eis krisin tˆroumenous\). Present (linear action) passive participle of \tˆre“\. "Kept for judgment." Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:4|. Aleph A have \kolazomenous tˆrein\ as in verse 9|. Note \krisis\ (act of judgment).

rwp@2Thessalonians:1:2 @{From God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ} (\apo theou patros kai Kuriou Iˆsou Christou\). These words are not genuine in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1|, but are here and they appear in all the other Pauline Epistles. Note absence of article both after \en\ and \apo\, though both God and Lord Jesus Christ are definite. In both cases Jesus Christ is put on a par with God, though not identical. See on ¯1Thessalonians:1:1| for discussion of words, but note difference between \en\, in the sphere of, by the power of, and \apo\, from, as the fountain head and source of grace and peace.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:1 @{Touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\huper tˆs parousias tou Kuriou (hˆm“n) Iˆsou Christou\). For \er“t“men\, to beseech, see on ¯1Thessalonians:4:1; strkjv@4:12|. \Huper\ originally meant over, in behalf of, instead of, but here it is used like \peri\, around, concerning as in strkjv@1:4; strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:2; strkjv@5:10|, common in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 632). For the distinction between \Parousia, Epiphaneia\ (Epiphany), and \Apokalupsis\ (Revelation) as applied to the Second Coming of Christ see Milligan on _Thessalonian Epistles_, pp. 145-151, in the light of the papyri. \Parousia\ lays emphasis on the {presence} of the Lord with his people, \epiphaneia\ on his {manifestation} of the power and love of God, \apokalupsis\ on the {revelation} of God's purpose and plan in the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus. {And our gathering together unto him} (\kai hˆm“n episunag“gˆs ep' auton\). A late word found only in II Macc. strkjv@2:7; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1; strkjv@Hebrews:10:25| till Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 103) found it on a stele in the island of Syme, off Caria, meaning "collection." Paul is referring to the rapture, mentioned in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:15-17|, and the being forever with the Lord thereafter. Cf. also strkjv@Matthew:24:31; strkjv@Mark:13:27|.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:2 @{To the end that} (\eis to\). One of Paul's favourite idioms for purpose, \eis to\ and the infinitive. {Ye be not quickly shaken} (\mˆ tache“s saleuthˆnai humas\). First aorist passive infinitive of \saleu“\, old verb to agitate, to cause to totter like a reed (Matthew:11:7|), the earth (Hebrews:12:26|). Usual negative \mˆ\ and accusative of general reference \humas\ with the infinitive. {From your mind} (\apo tou noos\). Ablative case of nous, mind, reason, sober sense, "from your witte" (Wyclif), to "keep their heads." {Nor yet be troubled} (\mˆde throeisthai\). Old verb \throe“\, to cry aloud (from \throos\, clamour, tumult), to be in a state of nervous excitement (present passive infinitive, as if it were going on), "a continued state of agitation following the definite shock received (\saleuthˆnai\)" (Milligan). {Either by spirit} (\mˆte dia pneumatos\). By ecstatic utterance (1Thessalonians:5:10|). The nervous fear that the coming was to be at once prohibited by \mˆde\ Paul divides into three sources by \mˆte, mˆte, mˆte\. No individual claim to divine revelation (the gift of prophecy) can justify the statement. {Or by word} (\mˆte dia logou\). Oral statement of a conversation with Paul (Lightfoot) to this effect {as from us}. An easy way to set aside Paul's first Epistle by report of a private remark from Paul. {Or by epistle as from us} (\mˆte di' epistolˆs h“s di' hˆm“n\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13-5:3| Paul had plainly said that Jesus would come as a thief in the night and had shown that the dead would not be left out in the rapture. But evidently some one claimed to have a private epistle from Paul which supported the view that Jesus was coming at once, {as that the day of the Lord is now present} (\h“s hoti enestˆken hˆ hˆmera tou kuriou\). Perfect active indicative of \enistˆmi\, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near. Songs:"is imminent" (Lightfoot). The verb is common in the papyri. In strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22; strkjv@Romans:8:38| we have a contrast between \ta enest“ta\, the things present, and \ta mellonta\, the things future (to come). The use of \h“s hoti\ may be disparaging here, though that is not true in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19|. In the _Koin‚_ it comes in the vernacular to mean simply "that" (Moulton, _Proleg_., p. 212), but that hardly seems the case in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1033). Here it means "to wit that," though "as that" or "as if" does not miss it much. Certainly it flatly denies that by conversation or by letter he had stated that the second coming was immediately at hand. "It is this misleading assertion that accounts both for the increased discouragement of the faint-hearted to encourage whom Paul writes strkjv@1:3-2:17|, and for the increased meddlesomeness of the idle brethren to warn whom Paul writes strkjv@3:1-18|" (Frame). It is enough to give one pause to note Paul's indignation over this use of his name by one of the over-zealous advocates of the view that Christ was coming at once. It is true that Paul was still alive, but, if such a "pious fraud" was so common and easily condoned as some today argue, it is difficult to explain Paul's evident anger. Moreover, Paul's words should make us hesitate to affirm that Paul definitely proclaimed the early return of Jesus. He hoped for it undoubtedly, but he did not specifically proclaim it as so many today assert and accuse him of misleading the early Christians with a false presentation.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:3 @{Let no man beguile you in any wise} (\mˆ tis humas exapatˆsˆi kata mˆdena tropon\). First aorist active subjunctive of \exapata“\ (old verb to deceive, strengthened form of simple verb \apata“\) with double negative (\mˆ tis, mˆdena\) in accord with regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:11| rather than the aorist imperative which does occur sometimes in the third person as in strkjv@Mark:13:15| (\mˆ katabat“\). Paul broadens the warning to go beyond conversation and letter. He includes "tricks" of any kind. It is amazing how gullible some of the saints are when a new deceiver pulls off some stunts in religion. {For it will not be} (\hoti\). There is an ellipse here of \ouk estai\ (or \genˆsetai\) to be supplied after \hoti\. Westcott and Hort make an anacoluthon at the end of verse 4|. The meaning is clear. \Hoti\ is causal, because, but the verb is understood. The second coming not only is not "imminent," but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of verse 2|. {Except the falling away come first} (\ean mˆ elthˆi hˆ apostasia pr“ton\). Negative condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of determination and the aorist subjunctive. \Apostasia\ is the late form of \apostasis\ and is our word apostasy. Plutarch uses it of political revolt and it occurs in I Macc. strkjv@2:15 about Antiochus Epiphanes who was enforcing the apostasy from Judaism to Hellenism. In strkjv@Joshua:22:22| it occurs for rebellion against the Lord. It seems clear that the word here means a religious revolt and the use of the definite article (\hˆ\) seems to mean that Paul had spoken to the Thessalonians about it. The only other New Testament use of the word is in strkjv@Acts:21:21| where it means apostasy from Moses. It is not clear whether Paul means revolt of the Jews from God, of Gentiles from God, of Christians from God, or of the apostasy that includes all classes within and without the body of Christians. But it is to be {first} (\pr“ton\) before Christ comes again. Note this adverb when only two events are compared (cf. strkjv@Acts:1:1|). {And the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition} (\kai apokaluphthˆi ho anthr“pos tˆs anomias, ho huios tˆs ap“leias\). First aorist passive subjunctive after \ean mˆ\ and same condition as with \elthˆi\. The use of this verb \apokalupt“\, like \apokalupsin\ of the second coming in strkjv@1:7|, seems to note the superhuman character (Milligan) of the event and the same verb is repeated in verses 6,8|. The implication is that {the man of sin} is hidden somewhere who will be suddenly manifested just as false apostles pose as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:13ff.|), whether the crowning event of the apostasy or another name for the same event. Lightfoot notes the parallel between the man of sin, of whom sin is the special characteristic (genitive case, a Hebraism for the lawless one in verse 8|) and Christ. Both Christ and the adversary of Christ are revealed, there is mystery about each, both make divine claims (verse 4|). He seems to be the Antichrist of strkjv@1John:2:18|. The terrible phrase, the son of perdition, is applied to Judas in strkjv@John:17:12| (like Judas doomed to perdition), but here to the lawless one (\ho anomos\, verse 8|), who is not Satan, but some one definite person who is doing the work of Satan. Note the definite article each time.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:15 @{Songs:then} (\ara oun\). Accordingly then. The illative \ara\ is supported (Ellicott) by the collective \oun\ as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:6; strkjv@Galatians:6:10|, etc. Here is the practical conclusion from God's elective purpose in such a world crisis. {Stand fast} (\stˆkete\). Present imperative active of the late present \stˆko\ from \hestˆka\ (perfect active of \histˆmi\). See on ¯1Thessalonians:3:8|. {Hold the traditions} (\krateite tas paradoseis\). Present imperative of \krate“\, old verb, to have masterful grip on a thing, either with genitive (Mark:1:31|) or usually the accusative as here. \Paradosis\ (tradition) is an old word for what is handed over to one. Dibelius thinks that Paul reveals his Jewish training in the use of this word (Galatians:1:14|), but the word is a perfectly legitimate one for teaching whether oral, {by word} (\dia logou\), or written, {by epistle of ours} (\di' epistolˆs hˆm“n\). Paul draws here no distinction between oral tradition and written tradition as was done later. The worth of the tradition lies not in the form but in the source and the quality of the content. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23| says: "I received from the Lord what I also handed over (\pared“ka\) unto you." He praises them because ye "hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them unto you." The {tradition} may be merely that of men and so worthless and harmful in place of the word of God (Mark:7:8; strkjv@Colossians:2:6-8|). It all depends. It is easy to scoff at truth as mere tradition. But human progress in all fields is made by use of the old, found to be true, in connection with the new if found to be true. In Thessalonica the saints were already the victims of theological charlatans with their half-baked theories about the second coming of Christ and about social duties and relations. {Which ye were taught} (\has edidachthˆte\). First aorist passive indicative of \didask“\, to teach, retaining the accusative of the thing in the passive as is common with this verb like _doce“_ in Latin and teach in English.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:1 @{Finally} (\to loipon\). Accusative of general reference. Cf. \loipon\ strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:1|. {Pray} (\proseuchesthe\). Present middle, keep on praying. Note \peri\ as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:25|. {That the word of the Lord may run and be glorified} (\hina ho logos tou kuriou trechˆi kai doxazˆtai\). Usual construction of \hina\ after \proseuchomai\, sub-final use, content and purpose combined. Note present subjunctive with both verbs rather than aorist, may keep on running and being glorified, two verbs joined together nowhere else in the N.T. Paul probably derived this metaphor from the stadium as in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:24ff.; strkjv@Galatians:2:2; strkjv@Romans:9:16; strkjv@Phillipians:2:16; strkjv@2Timothy:4:7|. Lightfoot translates "may have a triumphant career." On the word of the Lord see on ¯1Thessalonians:1:8|. Paul recognizes the close relation between himself and the readers. He needs their prayers and sympathy and he rejoices in their reception of the word of the Lord already, {even as also it is with you} (\kath“s kai pros humas\). "As it does in your case" (Frame).

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:14 @{And if any one obeyeth not our word by this epistle} (\ei de tis ouch hupakouei t“i log“i hˆm“n dia tˆs epistolˆs\). Paul sums up the issue bluntly with this ultimatum. Condition of the first class, with negative \ou\, assuming it to be true. {Note that man} (\touton sˆmeiousthe\). Late verb \sˆmeio“\, from \sˆmeion\, sign, mark, token. Put a tag on that man. Here only in N.T. "The verb is regularly used for the signature to a receipt or formal notice in the papyri and the ostraca of the Imperial period" (Moulton & Milligan's _Vocabulary_). How this is to be done (by letter or in public meeting) Paul does not say. {That ye have no company with him} (\mˆ sunanamignusthai aut“i\). The MSS. are divided between the present middle infinitive as above in a command like strkjv@Romans:12:15; strkjv@Phillipians:3:16| or the present middle imperative \sunanamignusthe\ (\-ai\ and \-e\ often being pronounced alike in the _Koin‚_). The infinitive can also be explained as an indirect command. This double compound verb is late, in LXX and Plutarch, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:5:9,11|. \Aut“i\ is in associative instrumental case. {To the end that he may be ashamed} (\hina entrapˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\. Second aorist passive subjunctive of \entrep“\, to turn on, middle to turn on oneself or to put to shame, passive to be made ashamed. The idea is to have one's thoughts turned in on oneself.

rwp@2Timothy:2:5 @{If also a man contend in the games} (\ean de kai athlˆi tis\). Condition of third class with present (linear) active subjunctive of \athle“\, old and common verb (from \athlos\, a contest), only this verse in N.T., but \sunathle“\ in strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|. Note sharp distinction between \athlˆi\ (present subjunctive, engage in a contest in general) and \athlˆsˆi\ (first aorist active subjunctive, engage in a particular contest). Not "except he have contended," but simply "unless he contend" (in any given case) "lawfully" (\nomim“s\). Old adverb, agreeably to the law, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:1:8|. {Is not crowned} (\ou stephanoutai\). Present passive indicative of \stephano“\, old verb (from \stephanos\, crown), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:2:7,9|. One apodosis for two protases. The victor in the athletic contests was crowned with a garland.

rwp@3John:1:11 @{Imitate not} (\mˆ mimou\). Present middle imperative in prohibition (do not have the habit of imitating) of \mimeomai\ (from \mimos\, actor, mimic), old word, in N.T. only here, strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:7,9; strkjv@Hebrews:13:7|. {That which is evil} (\to kakon\). "The bad," as in strkjv@Romans:12:21| (neuter singular abstract). {But that which is good} (\alla to agathon\). "But the good." As in strkjv@Romans:12:21| again. Probably by the contrast between Diotrephes and Demetrius. {He that doeth good} (\ho agathopoi“n\). Articular present active participle of \agathopoie“\, late and rare verb, in contrast with \ho kakopoi“n\ (old and common verb) as in strkjv@Mark:3:4; strkjv@Luke:6:9; strkjv@1Peter:3:17|. {Is of God} (\ek tou theou estin\). As in strkjv@1John:3:9f|. {Hath not seen God} (\ouch he“raken ton theon\). As in strkjv@1John:3:6|. He does not say \ek tou diabolou\ as Jesus does in strkjv@John:8:44|, but he means it.

rwp@Info_Acts @ LUKE THE AUTHOR It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two volumes (_The Acts of the Apostles_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; _The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911). Ramsay's view may be found in Chapter I of _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_, Chapter XII of _Pauline and Other Studies_. A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_ by Dr. D. A. Hayes, in Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, and in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling, Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass, Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of _The Acts of the Apostles_, Vol. II of _The Beginnings of Christianity_, edited by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented: _The Case for the Tradition_ by C. W. Emmet, _The Case against the Tradition_ by H. Windisch. _The Internal Evidence of Acts_ is discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys _The Tradition_ (the external evidence) and draws a negative conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars. A similar position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, _The Making of Luke--Acts_ (1927). But all the same the traditional view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that Acts is a _Tendenz_ writing for the purpose of healing the breach between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came together had great influence for a while. In fact both Ramsay and Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.

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

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

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

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

rwp@Acts:2:45 @{Sold} (\epipraskon\). Imperfect active, a habit or custom from time to time. Old and common verb, \piprask“\. {Parted} (\diemerizon\). Imperfect again of \diameriz“\, old verb for dividing or distributing between (\dia\) people. {According as any man had need} (\kathoti an tis chreian eichen\). Regular Greek idiom for comparative clause with \an\ and imperfect indicative corresponding precisely with the three preceding imperfects (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 967).

rwp@Acts:2:46 @{With one accord in the temple} (\homothumadon en t“i hier“i\). See on ¯1:14| for \homothumadon\. They were still worshipping in the temple for no breach had yet come between Christians and Jews. Daily they were here and daily breaking bread at home (\kat' oikon\) which looks like the regular meal. {They did take their food} (\metelambanon trophˆs\). Imperfect tense again and clearly referring to the regular meals at home. Does it refer also to the possible \agapai\ or to the Lord's Supper afterwards as they had common meals "from house to house" (\kat' oikon\)? We know there were local churches in the homes where they had "worship rooms," the church in the house. At any rate it was "with singleness" (\aphelotˆti\) of heart. The word occurs only here in the N.T., though a late _Koin‚_ word (papyri). It comes from \aphelˆs\, free from rock (\phelleus\ is stony ground), smooth. The old form was \apheleia\.

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

rwp@Acts:3:20 @{And that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus} (\kai aposteilˆi ton prokecheirismenon humin Christon Iˆsoun\). First aorist active subjunctive with \hop“s an\ as in strkjv@15:17| and strkjv@Luke:2:35|. There is little real difference in idea between \hop“s an\ and \hina an\. There is a conditional element in all purpose clauses. The reference is naturally to the second coming of Christ as verse 21| shows. Knowling admits "that there is a spiritual presence of the enthroned Jesus which believers enjoy as a foretaste of the visible and glorious Presence of the \Parousia\." Jesus did promise to be with the disciples all the days (Matthew:28:20|), and certainly repentance with accompanying seasons of refreshing help get the world ready for the coming of the King. The word \prokecheirismenon\ (perfect passive participle of \procheiriz“\, from \procheiros\, at hand, to take into one's hands, to choose) is the correct text here, not \prokekˆrugmenon\. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:22:14; strkjv@26:16|. It is not "Jesus Christ" here nor "Christ Jesus," but "the Messiah, Jesus," identifying Jesus with the Messiah. See the Second Epiphany of Jesus foretold also in strkjv@1Timothy:6:15| and the First Epiphany described in strkjv@1Peter:1:20|.

rwp@Acts:7:8 @{The covenant of circumcision} (\diathˆkˆn peritomˆs\). A covenant marked by (genitive) circumcision (no article) of which circumcision is the sign (Romans:4:11|) as set forth in strkjv@Genesis:17:9-14|. In the ancient Greek \diathˆkˆ\ was usually will (Latin, _testamentum_) and \sunthˆkˆ\ was used for covenant (\sun\, together, rather than \dia\, between). But the LXX and the N.T. use \diathˆkˆ\ for covenant (will in strkjv@Hebrews:9:15f.|) as Lightfoot on strkjv@Galatians:3:16| says: "The LXX translation and New Testament writers probably preferred \diathˆkˆ\ as better expressing the {free grace} of God than \sunthˆkˆ\." {And so} (\kai hout“s\). After the covenant was made and as a sign and seal of it.

rwp@Acts:7:35 @{This Moses} (\Touton ton M“usˆn\). Rhetorical repetition follows this description of Moses (five times, anaphora, besides the use here, six cases of \houtos\ here about Moses: verse 35| twice, 36,37,38,40|). Clearly Stephen means to draw a parallel between Moses and Jesus. They in Egypt {denied} (\ˆrnˆsanto\) Moses as now you the Jews denied (\ˆrnˆsasthe\, strkjv@3:13|) Jesus. Those in Egypt scouted Moses as "ruler and judge" (verses 27,35|, \archonta kai dikastˆn\) and God "hath sent" (\apestalken\, perfect active indicative, state of completion) Moses "both a ruler and a deliverer" (\archonta kai lutr“tˆn\) as Jesus was to be (Luke:1:68; strkjv@2:38; strkjv@Hebrews:9:12; strkjv@Titus:2:14|). "Ransomer" or "Redeemer" (\lutr“tˆs\) is not found elsewhere, \lutron\ (ransom), \lutro“\, to ransom, and \lutr“sis\, ransoming or redemption, are found often. In strkjv@Acts:5:31| Christ is termed "Prince and Saviour." {With the hand} (\sun cheiri\). Songs:the correct text. The Pharisees had accused Stephen of blaspheming "against Moses and God" (6:11|). Stephen here answers that slander by showing how Moses led the people out of Egypt in co-operation (\sun\) with the hand of the Angel of Jehovah.

rwp@Acts:7:38 @{In the church in the wilderness} (\en tˆi ekklˆsiƒi en tˆi erˆm“i\). Better rendered "congregation" here as in strkjv@Hebrews:2:12| (Psalms:22:22|), the people of Israel gathered at Mt. Sinai, the whole nation. Moses is here represented as receiving the law from an angel as in strkjv@Hebrews:2:2; strkjv@Galatians:3:19| (Deuteronomy:33:2|, LXX) and so was a mediator (\mesitˆs\) or middle man between the angel and the people whereas Jesus is the Mediator of a better covenant (Hebrews:8:6|). But Exodus does not speak of an angel. {Living oracles} (\logia z“nta\). A \logion\ is a little word (diminutive of \logos\). Common in the old Greek, LXX, Philo, in ecclesiastical writers for sayings of Christ, Papias (for instance) saying that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (Aramaic) "Logia of Jesus." Oxyrhynchus papyri fragments called "Logia of Jesus" are of much interest though only fragments. The Greeks used it of the "oracles" or brief sayings from Delphi. In the N.T. the word occurs only four times (Acts:7:38; strkjv@Romans:3:2; strkjv@Hebrews:5:12; strkjv@1Peter:4:11|). Here the participle \z“nta\, living, is the same used by Peter (1Peter:2:4f|.), stone (\lithos\) of Christ and Christians. The words from God to Moses are still "living" today. In strkjv@1Peter:4:11| the word is applied to one who speaks \logia theou\ (oracles of God). In strkjv@Romans:3:2| Paul refers to the substance of the law and of prophecy. In strkjv@Hebrews:5:12| the writer means the substance of the Christian religious teaching.

rwp@Acts:9:1 @{Yet} (\eti\). As if some time elapsed between the death of Stephen as is naturally implied by the progressive persecution described in strkjv@8:3|. The zeal of Saul the persecutor increased with success. {Breathing threatening and slaughter} (\enpne“n apeilˆs kai phonou\). Present active participle of old and common verb. Not "breathing out," but "breathing in" (inhaling) as in Aeschylus and Plato or "breathing on" (from Homer on). The partitive genitive of \apeilˆs\ and \phonou\ means that threatening and slaughter had come to be the very breath that Saul breathed, like a warhorse who sniffed the smell of battle. He breathed on the remaining disciples the murder that he had already breathed in from the death of the others. He exhaled what he inhaled. Jacob had said that "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf" (Genesis:49:27|). This greatest son of Benjamin was fulfilling this prophecy (Furneaux). The taste of blood in the death of Stephen was pleasing to young Saul (8:1|) and now he revelled in the slaughter of the saints both men and women. In strkjv@26:11| Luke quotes Paul as saying that he was "exceedingly mad against them."

rwp@Acts:9:4 @{He fell upon the earth} (\pes“n epi tˆn gˆn\). Second aorist active participle. Songs:in strkjv@22:7| Paul says: "I fell unto the ground" (\epesa eis to edaphos\) using an old word rather than the common \gˆn\. In strkjv@26:14| Paul states that "we were all fallen to the earth" (\pant“n katapesont“n hˆm“n eis tˆn gˆn\, genitive absolute construction). But here in verse 7| "the men that journeyed with him stood speechless" (\histˆkeisan eneoi\). But surely the points of time are different. In strkjv@26:14| Paul refers to the first appearance of the vision when all fell to the earth. Here in verse 7| Luke refers to what occurred after the vision when both Saul and the men had risen from the ground. {Saul, Saul} (\Saoul, Saoul\). The Hebrew form occurs also in strkjv@22:7; strkjv@26:14| where it is expressly stated that the voice was in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue as also in strkjv@9:17| (Ananias). Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 316) terms this use of \Saoul\ "the historian's sense of liturgical rhythm." For the repetition of names by Jesus note strkjv@Luke:10:41| (Martha, Martha), strkjv@Luke:22:31| (Simon, Simon). {Me} (\me\). In persecuting the disciples, Saul was persecuting Jesus, as the words of Jesus in verse 5| made plain. Christ had already spoken of the mystic union between himself and his followers (Matthew:10:40; strkjv@25:40,45; strkjv@John:15:1-5|). The proverb (Pindar) that Jesus quotes to Saul about kicking against the goad is genuine in strkjv@26:14|, but not here.

rwp@Acts:9:7 @{That journeyed with him} (\hoi sunodeuontes aut“i\). Not in the older Greek, but in the _Koin‚_, with the associative instrumental. {Speechless} (\eneoi\). Mute. Only here in N.T., though old word. {Hearing the voice, but beholding no man} (\akouontes men tˆs ph“nˆs, mˆdena de the“rountes\). Two present active participles in contrast (\men, de\). In strkjv@22:9| Paul says that the men "beheld the light" (\to men ph“s etheasanto\), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, "but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me" (\tˆn de ph“nˆn ouk ˆkousan tou lalountos moi\). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in strkjv@9:7| it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the "light" and "no one") a distinction between the "sound" (original sense of \ph“nˆ\ as in strkjv@John:3:8|) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that \akou“\ is used either with the accusative (the extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of \ph“nˆ\. They heard the sound (9:7|), but did not understand the words (22:9|). However, this distinction in case with \akou“\, though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in strkjv@John:3:8| where \ph“nˆn\ undoubtedly means "sound" the accusative occurs as Luke uses \ˆkousen ph“nˆn\ about Saul in strkjv@Acts:9:4|. Besides in strkjv@22:7| Paul uses \ˆkousa ph“nˆs\ about himself, but \ˆkousa ph“nˆn\ about himself in strkjv@76:14|, interchangeably.

rwp@Acts:9:11 @{To the street} (\epi tˆn rhumˆn\). See on ¯Luke:14:21|. A run way (from \rhe“\, to run) between the houses. Songs:were the narrow lanes or alleys called streets and finally in later Greek the word is applied to streets even when broad. {Straight} (\eutheian\). Most of the city lanes were crooked like the streets of Boston (old cow-paths, people say), but this one still runs "in a direct line from the eastern to the western gate of the city" (Vincent). Since the ancients usually rebuilt on the same sites, it is probable that the line of the street of that name today is the same, though the actual level has been much raised. Hence the identification of the house of Ananias and the house of Judas are very precarious.

rwp@Acts:9:23 @{When many days were fulfilled} (\H“s eplˆrounto hˆmerai hikanai\). Imperfect passive indicative of \plˆro“\, old and common verb, were in process of being fulfilled. How "many" (considerable, \hikanai\, common word for a long period) Luke does not say nor does he say that Saul spent all of this period in Damascus, as we know from strkjv@Galatians:1:16-18| was not the case. Paul there states definitely that he went away from Damascus to Arabia and returned there before going back to Jerusalem and that the whole period was about "three years" which need not mean three full years, but at least portions of three. Most of the three years was probably spent in Arabia because of the two explosions in Damascus (before his departure and on his return) and because he was unknown in Jerusalem as a Christian on his arrival there. It cannot be argued from the frequent lacunae in the Acts that Luke tells all that was true or that he knew. He had his own methods and aims as every historian has. We are at perfect liberty to supplement the narrative in the Acts with items from Paul's Epistles. Songs:we must assume the return of Saul from Arabia at this juncture, between verses 22,23|, when Saul resumed his preaching in the Jewish synagogues with renewed energy and grasp after the period of mature reflection and readjustment in Arabia. {Took counsel together} (\sunebouleusanto\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \sunbouleu“\, old and common verb for counselling (\bouleu“\) together (\sun\). Things had reached a climax. It was worse than before he left for Arabia. Paul was now seeing the fulfilment of the prophecy of Jesus about him (9:16|). {To kill him} (\anelein auton\). Second aorist (effective) active infinitive of \anaire“\, to take up, to make away with, to kill (Luke:23:32; strkjv@Acts:12:1|, etc.). The infinitive expresses purpose here as is done in verse 24| by \hop“s\ and the aorist active subjunctive of the same verb (\anel“sin\). Saul now knew what Stephen had suffered at his hands as his own life was in peril in the Jewish quarter of Damascus. It was a picture of his old self. He may even have been scourged here (2Corinthians:11:24|).

rwp@Acts:10:1 @{Cornelius} (\Kornˆlios\). The great Cornelian family of Rome may have had a freedman or descendant who is {centurion} (\hekaton-tarchˆs\, leader of a hundred, Latin _centurio_). See on ¯Matthew:8:5|. These Roman centurions always appear in a favourable light in the N.T. (Matthew:8:5; strkjv@Luke:7:2; strkjv@23:47; strkjv@Acts:10:1; strkjv@22:25; strkjv@27:3|). Furneaux notes the contrasts between Joppa, the oldest town in Palestine, and Caesarea, built by Herod; the Galilean fisherman lodging with a tanner and the Roman officer in the seat of governmental authority. {Of the band called the Italian} (\ek speirˆs tˆs kaloumenˆs Italikˆs\). A legion had ten cohorts or "bands" and sixty centuries. The word \speirˆs\ (note genitive in \-es\ like the Ionic instead of \-as\) is here equal to the Latin _cohors_. In the provinces were stationed cohorts of Italic citizens (volunteers) as an inscription at Carnuntum on the Danube (Ramsay) has shown (epitaph of an officer in the second Italic cohort). Once more Luke has been vindicated. The soldiers could, of course, be Roman citizens who lived in Caesarea. But the Italian cohorts were sent to any part of the empire as needed. The procurator at Caesarea would need a cohort whose loyalty he could trust, for the Jews were restless.

rwp@Acts:10:14 @{Not so, Lord} (\Mˆdam“s, kurie\). The negative \mˆdam“s\ calls for the optative \eiˆ\ (may it not be) or the imperative \est“\ (let it be). It is not \oudam“s\, a blunt refusal (I shall not do it). And yet it is more than a mild protest as Page and Furneaux argue. It is a polite refusal with a reason given. Peter recognizes the invitation to slay (\thuson\) the unclean animals as from the Lord (\kurie\) but declines it three times. {For I have never eaten anything} (\hoti oudepote ephagon pan\). Second aorist active indicative, I never did anything like this and I shall not do it now. The use of \pan\ (everything) with \oudepote\ (never) is like the Hebrew (_lo--k“l_) though a like idiom appears in the vernacular _Koin‚_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 752). {Common and unclean} (\koinon kai akatharton\). \Koinos\ from epic \xunos\ (\xun, sun\, together with) originally meant common to several (Latin _communis_) as in strkjv@Acts:2:44; strkjv@4:32; strkjv@Titus:1:4; strkjv@Jude:1:3|. The use seen here (also strkjv@Mark:7:2,5; strkjv@Romans:14:14; strkjv@Hebrews:10:29; strkjv@Revelation:21:27; strkjv@Acts:10:28; strkjv@11:8|), like Latin _vulgaris_ is unknown in ancient Greek. Here the idea is made plain by the addition of \akatharton\ (unclean), ceremonially unclean, of course. We have the same double use in our word "common." See on ¯Mark:7:18f.| where Mark adds the remarkable participle \kathariz“n\ (making all meats clean), evidently from Peter who recalls this vision. Peter had been reared from childhood to make the distinction between clean and unclean food and this new proposal even from the Lord runs against all his previous training. He did not see that some of God's plans for the Jews could be temporary. This symbol of the sheet was to show Peter ultimately that Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews. At this moment he is in spiritual and intellectual turmoil.

rwp@Acts:10:28 @{How that it is an unlawful thing} (\h“s athemiton estin\). The conjunction \h“s\ is sometimes equivalent to \hoti\ (that). The old form of \athemitos\ was \athemistos\ from \themisto\ (\themiz“, themis\, law custom) and \a\ privative. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:4:3| (Peter both times). But there is no O.T. regulation forbidding such social contact with Gentiles, though the rabbis had added it and had made it binding by custom. There is nothing more binding on the average person than social custom. On coming from the market an orthodox Jew was expected to immerse to avoid defilement (Edersheim, _Jewish Social Life_, pp. 26-28; Taylor's _Sayings of the Jewish Fathers_, pp. 15, 26, 137, second edition). See also strkjv@Acts:11:3; strkjv@Galatians:2:12|. It is that middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians:2:14|) which Jesus broke down. {One of another nation} (\allophul“i\). Dative case of an old adjective, but only here in the N.T. (\allos\, another, \phulon\, race). Both Juvenal (_Sat_. XIV. 104, 105) and Tacitus (_History_, V. 5) speak of the Jewish exclusiveness and separation from Gentiles. {And yet unto} (\kamoi\). Dative of the emphatic pronoun (note position of prominence) with \kai\ (\crasis\) meaning here "and yet" or adversative "but" as often with \kai\ which is by no means always merely the connective "and" (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1182f.). Now Peter takes back both the adjectives used in his protest to the Lord (verse 14|) "common and unclean." It is a long journey that Peter has made. He here refers to "no one" (\mˆdena\), not to "things," but that is great progress.

rwp@Acts:10:36 @{The word which he sent} (\ton logon hon apesteilen\). Many ancient MSS. (so Westcott and Hort) read merely \ton logon apesteilen\ (he sent the word). This reading avoids the anacoluthon and inverse attraction of \logon\ to the case of the relative \hon\ (which). {Preaching good tidings of peace through Jesus Christ} (\euaggelizomenos eirˆnˆn dia Iˆsou Christou\). Gospelizing peace through Jesus Christ. There is no other way to have real peace between individuals and God, between races and nations, than by Jesus Christ. Almost this very language occurs in strkjv@Ephesians:2:17| where Paul states that Jesus on the cross "preached (gospelized) peace to you who are afar off and peace to you who are near." Peter here sees what Paul will see later with great clearness. {He is Lord of all} (\houtos estin pant“n kurios\). A triumphant parenthesis that Peter throws in as the reason for his new truth. Jesus Christ is Lord of all, both Jews and Gentiles.

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

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

rwp@Acts:12:7 @{Stood by him} (\epestˆ\). Ingressive second aorist active indicative of \ephistˆmi\, intransitive. This very form occurs in strkjv@Luke:2:9| of the sudden appearance of the angel of the Lord to the shepherds. Page notes that this second aorist of \ephistˆmi\ occurs seven times in the Gospel of Luke, eight times in the Acts, and nowhere else in the N.T. Note also the same form \apestˆ\ (departed from, from \aphistˆmi\, stood off from) of the disappearance of the angel in verse 10|. {In the cell} (\en t“i oikˆmati\). Literally, a dwelling place or habitation (from \oike“\, to dwell, \oikos\, house), but here not the prison as a whole as in Thucydides, but the room in the prison (cell) where Peter was chained to the two guards. Old word, but only here in the N.T. {He smote Peter on the side} (\pataxas tˆn pleuran tou Petrou\). More exactly, "smote the side of Peter." Strongly enough to wake Peter up who was sound asleep and yet not rouse the two guards. It was probably between 3 A.M. and 6 A.M., hours when changes in the guards were made. {Rise up} (\anasta\). Short form (_Koin‚_) of \anastˆthi\, second aorist active imperative of \anistˆmi\, intransitive. Songs:also strkjv@Acts:9:11| (Westcott and Hort text); strkjv@Ephesians:5:14|. {Fell off} (\exepesan\). Second aorist active with \a\ ending like first aorist of \expipt“\, old verb. This miracle was necessary if Peter was to escape without rousing the two guards.

rwp@Acts:13:8 @{Withstood them} (\anthistato autois\). Imperfect middle of \anthistˆmi\, to stand against (face to face). Dative case (\autois\). He persisted in his opposition and was unwilling to lose his great prize. There may have been a public discussion between Elymas and Saul. {To turn aside} (\diastrepsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \diastreph“\, old verb to turn or twist in two, to distort, to pervert (cf. strkjv@Matthew:17:17; strkjv@Luke:23:2|).

rwp@Acts:13:9 @{But Saul, who is also called Paul} (\Saulos de, ho kai Paulos\). By this remarkably brief phrase Luke presents this epoch in the life of Saul Paul. The "also" (\kai\) does not mean that the name Paul was given now for the first time, rather than he had always had it. As a Jew and a Roman citizen, he undoubtedly had both names all the time (cf. John Mark, Symeon Niger, Barsabbas Justus). Jerome held that the name of Sergius Paulus was adopted by Saul because of his conversion at this time, but this is a wholly unlikely explanation, "an element of vulgarity impossible to St. Paul " (Farrar). Augustine thought that the meaning of the Latin _paulus_ (little) would incline Saul to adopt, "but as a proper name the word rather suggested the glories of the Aemilian family, and even to us recalls the name of another Paulus, who was 'lavish of his noble life'" (Page). Among the Jews the name Saul was naturally used up to this point, but from now on Luke employs Paul save when there is a reference to his previous life (Acts:22:7; strkjv@26:14|). His real career is work among the Gentiles and Paul is the name used by them. There is a striking similarity in sound between the Hebrew Saul and the Roman Paul. Paul was proud of his tribe of Benjamin and so of King Saul (Phillipians:3:5|). {Filled with the Holy Spirit} (\plˆstheis pneumatos hagiou\). First aorist (ingressive) passive participle of \pimplˆmi\ with the genitive case. A special influx of power to meet this emergency. Here was a cultured heathen, typical of the best in Roman life, who called forth all the powers of Paul plus the special help of the Holy Spirit to expose the wickedness of Elymas Barjesus. If one wonders why the Holy Spirit filled Paul for this emergency rather than Barnabas, when Barnabas was named first in strkjv@13:2|, he can recall the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit in his choice of agents (1Corinthians:12:4-11|) and also the special call of Paul by Christ (Acts:9:15; strkjv@26:17f.|). {Fastened his eyes} (\atenisas\). As already in strkjv@Luke:4:20; strkjv@22:56; strkjv@Acts:3:4,12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@10:4|.

rwp@Acts:13:42 @{And as they went out} (\Exiont“n de aut“n\). Genitive absolute with present active participle of \exeimi\, to go out, old verb, in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:12:42; strkjv@17:15; strkjv@20:7; strkjv@27:43|. As they (Paul and Barnabas) were going out with all the excitement and hubbub created by the sermon. {They besought} (\parekaloun\). Imperfect active, inchoative, began to beseech. The Textus Receptus inserts wrongly \ta ethnˆ\ (the Gentiles) as if the Jews were opposed to Paul from the first as some doubtless were. But both Jews and Gentiles asked for the repetition of the sermon (\lalˆthˆnai\, first aorist passive infinitive object of \parekaloun\ with accusative of general reference). {The next Sabbath} (\eis to metaxu sabbaton\). Late use (Josephus, Plutarch, etc.) of \metaxu\ (\meta\ and \xun\=\sun\) in sense of after or next instead of between (sense of \meta\ prevailing). Note use of \eis\ for "on" or "by."

rwp@Acts:13:45 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). Certainly not the proselytes of verse 43|. Probably many of the Jews that were then favourably disposed to Paul's message had reacted against him under the influence of the rabbis during the week and evidently on this Sabbath very many Gentiles ("almost the whole city," "the multitudes" \tous ochlous\) had gathered, to the disgust of the stricter Jews. Nothing is specifically stated here about the rabbis, but they were beyond doubt the instigators of, and the ringleaders in, the opposition as in Thessalonica (17:5|). No such crowds (\ochlous\) came to the synagogue when they were the speakers. {With jealousy} (\zˆlou\). Genitive case of \zˆlos\ (from \ze“\, to boil) after \eplˆsthˆsan\ (effective first aorist passive indicative of \pimplˆmi\). Envy and jealousy arise between people of the same calling (doctors towards doctors, lawyers towards lawyers, preachers towards preachers). Songs:these rabbis boiled with jealousy when they saw the crowds gathered to hear Paul and Barnabas. {Contradicted} (\antelegon\). Imperfect active of \antileg“\, old verb to speak against, to say a word in opposition to (\anti\, face to face). It was interruption of the service and open opposition in the public meeting. Paul and Barnabas were guests by courtesy and, of course, could not proceed further, when denied that privilege. {Blasphemed} (\blasphˆmountes\). Blaspheming. Songs:the correct text without the addition \antilegontes\ (repeated from \antelegon\ above). Common verb in the Gospels for saying injurious and harmful things. Doubtless these rabbis indulged in unkind personalities and made it plain that Paul and Barnabas were going beyond the limitations of pure Judaism in their contacts with Gentiles.

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

rwp@Acts:15:2 @{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:15:9 @{He made no distinction between us and them} (\outhen diekrinen metaxu hˆm“n te kai aut“n\). He distinguished nothing (first aorist active ind.) between (both \dia\ and \metaxu\) both (\te kai\) us and them. In the matter of faith and conversion God treated us Jews as heathen and the heathen as Jews. {Cleansing their hearts by faith} (\tˆi pistei katharisas tas kardias aut“n\). Not by works nor by ceremonies. Peter here has a thoroughly Pauline and Johannine idea of salvation for all both Jew and Greek. Cf. strkjv@10:15|.

rwp@Acts:15:14 @{Hearken unto me} (\akousate mou\). Usual appeal for attention. James was termed James the Just and was considered a representative of the Hebraic as opposed to the Hellenistic wing of the Jewish Christians (Acts:6:1|). The Judaizers had doubtless counted on him as a champion of their view and did later wrongfully make use of his name against Peter at Antioch (Galatians:2:12|). There was instant attention when James began to speak. {Symeon} (\Sume“n\). The Aramaic form of Simon as in strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. This little touch would show his affinities with the Jewish Christians (not the Judaizers). This Aramaic form is used also in strkjv@Luke:2:25,34| of the old prophet in the temple. Possibly both forms (Symeon, Aramaic, and Simon, Greek) were current in Jerusalem. {How} (\kath“s\). Strictly, "according as," here like \hos\ in indirect discourse somewhat like the epexegetic or explanatory use in strkjv@3John:1:3|. {First} (\pr“ton\). Told by Peter in verse 7|. James notes, as Peter did, that this experience of Barnabas and Paul is not the beginning of work among the Gentiles. {Did visit} (\epeskepsato\). First aorist middle indicative of \episkeptomai\, old verb to look upon, to look after, provide for. This same verb occurs in strkjv@James:1:27| and is one of various points of similarity between this speech of James in Acts and the Epistle of James as shown by Mayor in his _Commentary on James_. Somehow Luke may have obtained notes of these various addresses. {To take from the Gentiles a people for his name} (\labein ex ethn“n laon t“i onomati autou\). Bengel calls this _egregium paradoxon_, a chosen people (\laon\) out of the Gentiles (\ethn“n\). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give. This new Israel from among the Gentiles is one of Paul's great doctrines as set forth in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|. Note the use of God's "name" here for "the Israel of God" (Galatians:6:16|).

rwp@Acts:15:17 @{That the residue of men may seek after the Lord} (\hop“s an ekzˆtˆs“sin hoi kataloipoi t“n anthr“p“n ton kurion\). The use of \hop“s\ with the subjunctive (effective aorist active) to express purpose is common enough and note \an\ for an additional tone of uncertainty. On the rarity of \an\ with \hop“s\ in the _Koin‚_ see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 986. Here the Gentiles are referred to. The Hebrew text is quite different, "that they may possess the remnant of Edom." Certainly the LXX suits best the point that James is making. But the closing words of this verse point definitely to the Gentiles both in the Hebrew and the LXX, "all the Gentiles" (\panta ta ethnˆ\). Another item of similarity between this speech and the Epistle of James is in the phrase "my name is called" (\epikeklˆtai to onoma mou\) and strkjv@James:2:7|. The purpose of God, though future, is expressed by this perfect passive indicative \epikeklˆtai\ from \epi-kale“\, to call on. It is a Jewish way of speaking of those who worship God.

rwp@Acts:16:11 @{Setting sail} (\anachthentes\). Same word in strkjv@13:13| which see. {We made a straight course} (\euthudromˆsamen\). First aorist active indicative of compound verb \euthudrome“\ (in Philo) from adjective \euthudromos\ (in Strabo), running a straight course (\euthus, dromos\). In the N.T. only here and strkjv@21:1|. It is a nautical term for sailing before the wind. Luke has a true feeling for the sea. {To Samothrace} (\eis Samothrƒikˆn\). A small island in the Aegean about halfway between Troas and Neapolis. {The day following} (\tˆi epiousˆi\). Locative case of time with \hˆmerƒi\ (day) to be supplied (7:26; strkjv@20:15; strkjv@21:18; strkjv@23:11|). With adverse winds it took five days to make the run of 125 miles (20:6|). {To Neapolis} (\eis Nean Polin\). To New Town (Newton, Naples, Neapolis). The port of Philippi ten miles distant, Thracian, but reckoned as Macedonian after Vespasian.

rwp@Acts:16:12 @{To Philippi} (\eis Philippous\). The plural like \Athˆnai\ (Athens) is probably due to separate sections of the city united (Winer-Moulton, _Grammar_, p. 220). The city (ancient name Krenides or Wells) was renamed after himself by Philip, the father of Alexander the Great. It was situated about a mile east of the small stream Gangites which flows into the river Strymon some thirty miles away. In this valley the Battle of Philippi was fought B.C. 42 between the Second Triumvirate (Octavius, Antonius, Lepidus) and Brutus and Cassius. In memory of the victory Octavius made it a colony (\kol“nia\) with all the privileges of Roman citizenship, such as freedom from scourging, freedom from arrest save in extreme cases, and the right of appeal to the emperor. This Latin word occurs here alone in the N.T. Octavius planted here a colony of Roman veterans with farms attached, a military outpost and a miniature of Rome itself. The language was Latin. Here Paul is face to face with the Roman power and empire in a new sense. He was a new Alexander, come from Asia to conquer Europe for Christ, a new Caesar to build the Kingdom of Christ on the work of Alexander and Caesar. One need not think that Paul was conscious of all that was involved in destiny for the world. Philippi was on the Egnatian Way, one of the great Roman roads, that ran from here to Dyrrachium on the shores of the Adriatic, a road that linked the east with the west. {The first of the district} (\pr“tˆ tˆs meridos\). Philippi was not the first city of Macedonia nor does Luke say so. That honour belonged to Thessalonica and even Amphipolis was larger than Philippi. It is not clear whether by \meris\ Luke means a formal division of the province, though the _Koin‚_ has examples of this geographical sense (papyri). There is no article with \pr“tˆ\ and Luke may not mean to stress unduly the position of Philippi in comparison with Amphipolis. But it was certainly a leading city of this district of Macedonia. {We were tarrying} (\ˆmen diatribontes\). Periphrastic imperfect active.

rwp@Acts:17:17 @{Songs:he reasoned} (\dielegeto men oun\). Accordingly therefore, with his spirit stirred by the proof of idolatry. Imperfect middle of \dialeg“\, same verb used in verse 2| which see. First he reasoned in the synagogue at the services to the Jews and the God-fearers, then daily in the agora or marketplace (southwest of the Acropolis, between it and the Areopagus and the Pnyx) to the chance-comers, "them that met him" (\pros tous paratugchanontas\). Simultaneously with the synagogue preaching at other hours Paul took his stand like Socrates before him and engaged in conversation with (\pros\) those who happened by. This old verb, \paratugchan“\, occurs here alone in the N.T. and accurately pictures the life in the agora. The listeners to Paul in the agora would be more casual than those who stop for street preaching, a Salvation Army meeting, a harangue from a box in Hyde Park. It was a slim chance either in synagogue or in agora, but Paul could not remain still with all the reeking idolatry around him. The boundaries of the agora varied, but there was always the \Poikilˆ Stoa\ (the Painted Porch), over against the Acropolis on the west. In this \Stoa\ (Porch) Zeno and other philosophers and rhetoricians held forth from time to time. Paul may have stood near this spot.

rwp@Acts:17:26 @{And he made of one} (\epoiˆsen te ex henos\). The word \haimatos\ (blood) is absent from Aleph A B and is a later explanatory addition. What Paul affirms is the unity of the human race with a common origin and with God as the Creator. This view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan (the Jews were \laos\, the Gentiles \ethnˆ\). The cosmopolitanism of Paul here rises above Jew and Greek and claims the one God as the Creator of the one race of men. The Athenians themselves claimed to be \antochthonous\ (indigenous) and a special creation. Zeno and Seneca did teach a kind of cosmopolitanism (really pantheism) far different from the personal God of Paul. It was Rome, not Greece, that carried out the moral ideas of Zeno. Man is part of the universe (verse 24|) and God created (\epoiˆsen\) man as he created (\poiˆsas\) the all. {For to dwell} (\katoikein\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose, so as to dwell. {Having determined} (\horisas\). First aorist active participle of \horiz“\, old verb to make a horizon as already in strkjv@19:42| which see. Paul here touches God's Providence. God has revealed himself in history as in creation. His hand appears in the history of all men as well as in that of the Chosen People of Israel. {Appointed seasons} (\prostetagmenous kairous\). Not the weather as in strkjv@14:17|, but "the times of the Gentiles" (\kairoi ethn“n\) of which Jesus spoke (Luke:21:24|). The perfect passive participle of \prostass“\, old verb to enjoin, emphasizes God's control of human history without any denial of human free agency as was involved in the Stoic Fate (\Heirmarmenˆ\). {Bounds} (\horothesias\). Limits? Same idea in strkjv@Job:12:23|. Nations rise and fall, but it is not blind chance or hard fate. Thus there is an interplay between God's will and man's activities, difficult as it is for us to see with our shortened vision.

rwp@Acts:18:1 @{To Corinth} (\eis Korinthon\). Mummius had captured and destroyed Corinth B.C. 146. It was restored by Julius Caesar B.C. 46 as a boom town and made a colony. It was now the capital of the province of Achaia and the chief commercial city of Greece with a cosmopolitan population. It was only fifty miles from Athens. The summit of Acrocorinthus was 1,800 feet high and the ports of Cenchreae and Lechaeum and the Isthmus across which ships were hauled gave it command of the trade routes between Asia and Rome. The temple of Aphrodite on the Acrocorinthus had a thousand consecrated prostitutes and the very name to Corinthianize meant immorality. Not the Parthenon with Athene faced Paul in Corinth, but a worse situation. Naturally many Jews were in such a mart of trade. Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea, Athens, all had brought anxiety to Paul. What could he expect in licentious Corinth?

rwp@Acts:18:7 @{Titus Justus} (\Titou Ioustou\). Songs:Aleph E Vulgate, while B has \Titiau Ioustou\, while most MSS. have only \Ioustou\. Evidently a Roman citizen and not Titus, brother of Luke, of strkjv@Galatians:2:1|. We had Barsabbas Justus (Acts:1:23|) and Paul speaks of Jesus Justus (Co strkjv@4:11|). The Titii were a famous family of potters in Corinth. This Roman was a God-fearer whose house "joined hard to the synagogue" (\ˆn sunomorousa tˆi sunag“gˆi\). Periphrastic imperfect active of \sunomore“\, a late (Byzantine) word, here only in the N.T., followed by the associative instrumental case, from \sunomoros\ (\sun\, \homoros\ from \homos\, joint, and \horos\, boundary) having joint boundaries, right next to. Whether Paul chose this location for his work because it was next to the synagogue, we do not know, but it caught the attendants at the synagogue worship. In Ephesus when Paul had to leave the synagogue he went to the school house of Tyrannus (19:9f.|). The lines are being drawn between the Christians and the Jews, drawn by the Jews themselves.

rwp@Acts:19:21 @{Purposed in the spirit} (\etheto en t“i pneumati\). Second aorist middle indicative for mental action and "spirit" expressed also. A new stage in Paul's career begins here, a new division of the Acts. {Passed through} (\dielth“n\). Word (\dierchomai\) used ten times in Acts (cf. strkjv@19:1|) of missionary journeys (Ramsay). {Macedonia and Achaia} (\tˆn Makedonian kai Achaian\). This was the way that he actually went, but originally he had planned to go to Achaia (Corinth) and then to Macedonia, as he says in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:15f.|, but he had now changed that purpose, perhaps because of the bad news from Corinth. Already when he wrote I Corinthians he proposed to go first to Macedonia (1Corinthians:16:5-7|). He even hoped to spend the winter in Corinth "if the Lord permit" and to remain in Ephesus till Pentecost, neither of which things he did. {I must also see Rome} (\dei me kai R“mˆn idein\). This section of Acts begins with Rome in the horizon of Paul's plans and the book closes with Paul in Rome (Rackham). Here he feels the necessity of going as in strkjv@Romans:1:15| he feels himself "debtor" to all including "those in Rome" (Romans:1:16|). Paul had long desired to go to Rome (Rom strkjv@1:10|), but had been frequently hindered (Romans:1:13|), but he has definitely set his face to go to Rome and on to Spain (Romans:15:23-29|). Paley calls sharp attention to this parallel between strkjv@Acts:19:21| and strkjv@Romans:1:10-15; strkjv@15:23-29|. Rome had a fascination for Paul as the home of Aquila and Priscilla and numerous other friends (Romans:16|), but chiefly as the capital of the Roman Empire and a necessary goal in Paul's ambition to win it to Jesus Christ. His great work in Asia had stirred afresh in him the desire to do his part for Rome. He wrote to Rome from Corinth not long after this and in Jerusalem Jesus in vision will confirm the necessity (\dei\) that Paul see Rome (Acts strkjv@23:11|).

rwp@Acts:21:2 @{Having found a ship} (\heurontes ploion\). Paul had used a small coasting vessel (probably hired) that anchored each night at Cos, Rhodes, Patara. He was still some four hundred miles from Jerusalem. But at Patara Paul caught a large vessel (a merchantman) that could sail across the open sea. {Crossing over unto Phoenicia} (\diaper“n eis Phoinikˆn\). Neuter singular accusative (agreeing with \ploion\) present active participle of \diapera“\, old verb to go between (\dia\) and so across to Tyre. {We went aboard} (\epibantes\). Second aorist active participle of \epibain“\.

rwp@Acts:21:30 @{All the city was shaken} (\ekinˆthˆ hˆ polis holˆ\). First aorist passive of \kine“\, common verb for violent motion and emotion. See also strkjv@24:5| where the word is used by Tertullus of Paul as the stirrer up of riots! {The people ran together} (\egeneto sundromˆ tou laou\). Rather, There came a running together (\sun-dromˆ\ from \sun-trech“\) of the people. The cry spread like wildfire over the city and there was a pell-mell scramble or rush to get to the place of the disturbance. {They laid hold on Paul} (\epilabomenoi tou Paulou\). Second aorist middle participle of \epilambanomai\ with the genitive (cf. \epebalan\ in verse 27|). {Dragged} (\heilkon\). Imperfect active of \helk“\ (and also \helku“\), old verb to drag or draw. Imperfect tense vividly pictures the act as going on. They were saving the temple by dragging Paul outside. Curiously enough both \epilabomenoi\ and \heilkusan\ occur in strkjv@16:19| about the arrest of Paul and Silas in Philippi. {Straightway the doors were shut} (\euthe“s ekleisthˆsan hai thurai\). With a bang and at once. First aorist (effective) passive of \klei“\. The doors between the inner court and the court of the Gentiles. But this was only the beginning, the preparation for the real work of the mob. They did not wish to defile the holy place with blood. The doors were shut by the Levites.

rwp@Acts:22:9 @{But they heard not the voice} (\tˆn de ph“nˆn ouk ˆkousan\). The accusative here may be used rather than the genitive as in verse 7| to indicate that those with Paul did not understand what they heard (9:7|) just as they beheld the light (22:9|), but did not see Jesus (9:7|). The difference in cases allows this distinction, though it is not always observed as just noticed about strkjv@22:14; strkjv@26:14|. The verb \akou“\ is used in the sense of understand (Mark:4:33; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:2|). It is one of the evidences of the genuineness of this report of Paul's speech that Luke did not try to smooth out apparent discrepancies in details between the words of Paul and his own record already in ch. 9. The Textus Receptus adds in this verse: "And they became afraid" (\kai emphoboi egenonto\). Clearly not genuine.

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

rwp@Acts: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:23:8 @{There is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit} (\mˆ einai anastasin mˆte aggelon mˆte pneuma\). Infinitive with negative \mˆ\ in indirect assertion. These points constitute the chief doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. {Both} (\amphotera\). Here used though three items of belief are mentioned as in strkjv@19:16| where the seven sons of Sceva are thus described. This idiom is common enough in papyri and Byzantine Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 745).

rwp@Acts:23:9 @{Strove} (\diemachonto\). Imperfect middle of \diamachomai\, old Attic verb, to fight it out (between, back and forth, fiercely). Here only in the N.T. It was a lively scrap and Luke pictures it as going on. The Pharisees definitely take Paul's side. {And what if a spirit hath spoken to him or an angel?} (\ei de pneuma elalˆsen aut“i ˆ aggelos?\). This is aposiopesis, not uncommon in the N.T., as in strkjv@Luke:13:9; strkjv@John:6:62| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1203). See one also in strkjv@Exodus:32:32|.

rwp@Acts:23:14 @{Came to the chief priests and the elders} (\proselthontes tois archiereusin kai tois presbuterois\). The Sanhedrin, just as Judas did (Luke:22:4|). {With a great curse} (\anathemati\). This use of the same word as the verb repeated in the instrumental case is in imitation of the Hebrew absolute infinitive and common in the LXX, the very idiom and words of strkjv@Deuteronomy:13:15; strkjv@20:17|, an example of translation Greek, though found in other languages (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 531). See on ¯Luke:21:5| for the distinction between \anathema\ and \anathˆma\. Jesus had foretold: "Whoso killeth you will think that he doeth God service" (John:16:2|).

rwp@Acts:25:13 @{When certain days were passed} (\Hˆmer“n diagenomenon\). Genitive absolute of \diaginomai\, to come between, "days intervening." {Agrippa the King} (\Agrippas ho basileus\). Agrippa II son of Agrippa I of strkjv@Acts:12:20-23|. On the death of Herod King of Chalcis A.D. 48, Claudius A.D. 50 gave this Herod Agrippa II the throne of Chalcis so that Luke is correct in calling him king, though he is not king of Judea. But he was also given by Claudius the government of the temple and the right of appointing the high priest. Later he was given also the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias. He was the last Jewish king in Palestine, though not king of Judea. He angered the Jews by building his palace so as to overlook the temple and by frequent changes in the high priesthood. He made his capital at Caesarea Philippi which he called Neronias in honour of Nero. Titus visited it after the fall of Jerusalem. {Bernice} (\Bernikˆ\). He was her brother and yet she lived with him in shameful intimacy in spite of her marriage to her uncle Herod King of Chalcis and to Polemon King of Cilicia whom she left. Schuerer calls her both a Jewish bigot and a wanton. She afterwards became the mistress of Titus. {Arrived at Caesarea} (\katˆntˆsan eis Kaisarian\). Came down (first aorist active of \katanta“\) to Caesarea from Jerusalem. {And saluted Festus} (\aspasamenoi ton Phˆston\). The Textus Receptus has \aspasomenoi\ the future participle, but the correct text is the aorist middle participle \aspasamenoi\ which cannot possibly mean subsequent action as given in the Canterbury Revision "and saluted." It can only mean contemporaneous (simultaneous) action "saluting" or antecedent action like the margin "having saluted." But antecedent action is not possible here, so that simultaneous action is the only alternative. It is to be noted that the salutation synchronized with the arrival in Caesarea (note \kata\, down, the effective aorist tense), not with the departure from Jerusalem, nor with the whole journey. Rightly understood the aorist participle here gives no trouble at all (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 861-3).

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:26:6 @{And now} (\kai nun\). Sharp comparison between his youth and the present. {To be judged for the hope} (\ep' elpidi--krinomenos\). The hope of the resurrection and of the promised Messiah (13:32|). Page calls verses 6-8| a parenthesis in the course of Paul's argument by which he shows that his life in Christ is a real development of the best in Pharisaism. He does resume his narrative in verse 9|, but verses 6-8| are the core of his defence already presented in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11| where he proves that the children of faith are the real seed of Abraham.

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

rwp@Acts:27:4 @{We sailed under the lee of Cyprus} (\hupepleusamen tˆn Kupron\). First aorist active indicative of \hupople“\, to sail under. Cyprus was thus on the left between the ship and the wind from the northwest, under the protection of Cyprus. {Because the winds were contrary} (\dia to tous anemous einai enantious\). The articular infinitive after \dia\ and the accusative of general reference (\anemous\) with predicate accusative (\enantious\, facing them, in their very teeth if they went that way). The Etesian winds were blowing from the northwest so that they could not cut straight across from Sidon to Patara with Cyprus on the right. They must run behind Cyprus and hug the shore of Cilicia and Pamphylia.

rwp@Acts:27:9 @{Where much time was spent} (\Hikanou chronou diagenomenou\). Genitive absolute again with second aorist middle participle of \diaginomai\, to come in between (\dia\). "Considerable time intervening," since they became weatherbound in this harbour, though some take it since they left Caesarea. {And the voyage was now dangerous} (\kai ontos ˆdˆ episphalous\). Genitive absolute, "and the voyage being already (\ˆdˆ\=Latin _jam_) dangerous" (old word from \epi\ and \sphall“\, to trip, to fall, and so prone to fall, here only in N.T.). {Because the Fast was now already gone by} (\dia to kai tˆn nˆsteian ˆdˆ parelˆluthenai\). Accusative (after \dia\) of the articular infinitive perfect active of \parerchomai\, to pass by, with the accusative of general reference (\nˆsteian\, the great day of atonement of the Jews, strkjv@Leviticus:16:29ff.|) occurring about the end of September. The ancients considered navigation on the Mediterranean unsafe from early October till the middle of March. In A.D. 59 the Fast occurred on Oct. 5. There is nothing strange in Luke using this Jewish note of time as in strkjv@20:6| though a Gentile Christian. Paul did it also (1Corinthians:16:8|). It is no proof that Luke was a Jewish proselyte. We do not know precisely when the party left Caesarea (possibly in August), but in ample time to arrive in Rome before October if conditions had been more favourable. But the contrary winds had made the voyage very slow and difficult all the way (verse 7|) besides the long delay here in this harbour of Fair Havens. {Paul admonished them} (\parˆinˆi ho Paulos\). Imperfect active of \paraine“\, old word to exhort from \para\ and \aine“\, to praise (3:8|), only here and verse 22| in N.T. It is remarkable that a prisoner like Paul should venture to give advice at all and to keep on doing it (imperfect tense inchoative, began to admonish and kept on at it). Paul had clearly won the respect of the centurion and officers and also felt it to be his duty to give this unasked for warning. {I perceive} (\the“r“\). Old word from \the“ros\, a spectator. See strkjv@Luke:10:18|. Paul does not here claim prophecy, but he had plenty of experience with three shipwrecks already (2Corinthians:11:25|) to justify his apprehension. {Will be} (\mellein esesthai\). Infinitive in indirect assertion followed by future infinitive after \mellein\ in spite of \hoti\ which would naturally call for present indicative \mellei\, an anacoluthon due to the long sentence (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 478). {With injury} (\meta hubre“s\). An old word from \huper\ (above, upper, like our "uppishness") and so pride, insult, personal injury, the legal word for personal assault (Page). Josephus (_Ant_. III. 6, 4) uses it of the injury of the elements. {Loss} (\zˆmian\). Old word, opposite of \kerdos\, gain or profit (Phillipians:3:7f.|). Nowhere else in N.T. {Lading} (\phortiou\). Diminutive of \phortos\ (from \pher“\, to bear) only in form. Common word, but in N.T. only here in literal sense, as metaphor in strkjv@Matthew:11:30; strkjv@23:4; strkjv@Luke:11:46; strkjv@Galatians:6:5|. {But also of our lives} (\alla kai t“n psuch“n\). Common use of \psuchˆ\ for life, originally "breath of life" (Acts:20:10|), and also "soul" (14:2|). Fortunately no lives were lost, though all else was. But this outcome was due to the special mercy of God for the sake of Paul (verse 24|), not to the wisdom of the officers in rejecting Paul's advice. Paul begins now to occupy the leading role in this marvellous voyage.

rwp@Acts:27:27 @{As we were driven to and fro} (\diapheromen“n hˆm“n\). Genitive absolute with present passive participle of \diapher“\, old verb to bear different ways (\dia=duo\, two), this way and that. Continued to be tossed to and fro in the rough seas. It would seem so to those on board. It does not necessarily mean that the wind had changed. The fourteenth night is reckoned from the time they left Fair Havens. {In the sea of Adria} (\en t“i Hadriƒi\). Not the Adriatic Sea as we now call the sea between Italy and the mainland of Illyricum, but all the lower Mediterranean between Italy and Greece. Luke's usage is like that of Strabo. {Surmised} (\hupenooun\). Imperfect active indicative of \huponoe“\, inchoative, began to suspect. {That they were drawing near to some country} (\prosagein tina autois ch“ran\). Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect assertion. \Prosag“\ is here used intransitively and Luke writes from the sailor's standpoint that a certain land was drawing near to them (\autois\, dative). The sailors heard the sound of breakers and grew uneasy.

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

rwp@Acts:28:22 @{But we desire} (\axioumen de\). Old verb \axio“\, to deem worthy, to think right or proper as in strkjv@15:38| which see. They think it only fair to hear Paul's side of his case. {Concerning this sect} (\peri tˆs hairese“s tautˆs\). Paul had identified Christianity with Judaism (verse 20|) in its Messianic hope. The language seems to imply that the number of Christians in Rome was comparatively small and mainly Gentile. If the edict of Claudius for the expulsion of the Jews from Rome (Acts:18:2|) was due to disturbance over Christ (\Chrˆstus\), then even in Rome the Jews had special reason for hostility towards Christians. {Everywhere spoken against} (\pantachou antilegetai\). Cf. verse 19|. The line of cleavage between Jew and Christian was now sharply drawn everywhere.

rwp@Colossians:1:3 @{God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\t“i the“i patri tou kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). Correct text without \kai\ (and) as in strkjv@3:17|, though usually "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@11:31; strkjv@Romans:15:6; strkjv@1Peter:1:3; strkjv@Revelation:1:6|). In verse 2| we have the only instance in the opening benediction of an epistle when the name of "Jesus Christ" is not joined with "God our Father." {Always} (\pantote\). Amphibolous position between \eucharistoumen\ (we give thanks) and \proseuchomenoi\ (praying). Can go with either.

rwp@Colossians:1:18 @{The head of the body} (\hˆ kephalˆ tou s“matos\). Jesus is first also in the spiritual realm as he is in nature (verses 18-20|). Paul is fond of the metaphor of the body (\s“ma\) for believers of which body Christ is the head (\kephalˆ\) as seen already in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:3; strkjv@12:12,27; strkjv@Romans:12:5|. See further strkjv@Colossians:1:24: strkjv@2:19; strkjv@Ephesians:1:22f.; strkjv@4:2,15; strkjv@5:30|. {The church} (\tˆs ekklˆsias\) Genitive case in explanatory apposition with \tou s“matos\. This is the general sense of \ekklˆsia\, not of a local body, assembly, or organization. Here the contrast is between the realm of nature (\ta panta\) in verses 15-17| and the realm of spirit or grace in verses 18-20|. A like general sense of \ekklˆsia\ occurs in strkjv@Ephesians:1:22f.; strkjv@5:24-32; strkjv@Hebrews:12:23|. In strkjv@Ephesians:2:11-22| Paul uses various figures for the kingdom of Christ (commonwealth \politeia\, verse 12|, one new man \eis hena kainon anthr“pon\, verse 15|, one body \en heni s“mati\, verse 16|, family of God \oikeioi tou theou\, verse 19|, building or temple \oikodomˆ\ and \naos\, verses 20-22|). {Who} (\hos\). Causal use of the relative, "in that he is." {The beginning} (\hˆ archˆ\). It is uncertain if the article (\hˆ\) is genuine. It is absolute without it. Christ has priority in time and in power. See strkjv@Revelation:3:14| for his relation as \archˆ\ to creation and strkjv@1Corinthians:15:20,23| for \aparchˆ\ used of Christ and the resurrection and strkjv@Acts:3:14| for \archˆgos\ used of him as the author of life and strkjv@Hebrews:2:10| of Jesus and salvation and strkjv@Hebrews:12-2| of Jesus as the pioneer of faith. {That in all things he might have the preeminence} (\hina genˆtai en pƒsin autos pr“teu“n\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\, "that he himself in all things (material and spiritual) may come to (\genˆtai\, not \ˆi\, be) hold the first place" (\pr“teu“n\, present active participle of \pr“teu“\, old verb, to hold the first place, here only in the N.T.). Christ is first with Paul in time and in rank. See strkjv@Revelation:1:5| for this same use of \pr“totokos\ with \t“n nekr“n\ (the dead).

rwp@Colossians:2:9 @{For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily} (\hoti en aut“i katoikei pƒn to plˆr“ma tˆs theotˆtos s“matik“s\). In this sentence, given as the reason (\hoti\, because) for the preceding claim for Christ as the measure of human knowledge Paul states the heart of his message about the Person of Christ. There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very \essence\ of God, from \theos, deitas\) and not to be confused with \theiotes\ in strkjv@Romans:1:20| (from \theios\, the {quality} of God, _divinitas_), here only in N.T. as \theiotˆs\ only in strkjv@Romans:1:20|. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. \Theiotˆs\ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions. Paul here asserts that "all the \plˆr“ma\ of the Godhead," not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form (\s“matik“s\, late and rare adverb, in Plutarch, inscription, here only in N.T.), dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity (Phillipians:2:9-11|), "the body of his glory" (\t“i s“mati tˆs doxˆs\). The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation (John:1:1,18; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6|), during the Incarnation (John:1:14,18; strkjv@1John:1:1-3|). It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (Phillipians:2:7|). Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.

rwp@Colossians:3:12 @{Put on therefore} (\endusasthe oun\). First aorist middle imperative of \endun“\ (verse 10|). He explains and applies (\oun\ therefore) the figure of "the new man" as "the new garment." {As God's elect} (\h“s eklektoi tou theou\). Same phrase in strkjv@Romans:8:33; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. In the Gospels a distinction exists between \klˆtos\ and \eklektos\ (Matthew:24:22,24,31|), but no distinction appears in Paul's writings. Here further described as "holy and beloved" (\hagioi kai ˆgapˆmenoi\). The items in the new clothing for the new man in Christ Paul now gives in contrast with what was put off (3:8|). The garments include a heart of compassion (\splagchna oiktirmou\, the nobler _viscera_ as the seat of emotion as in strkjv@Luke:1:78; strkjv@Phillipians:1:8|), kindness (\chrˆstotˆta\, as in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|), humility (\tapeinophrosunˆn\, in the good sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:3|), meekness (\prautˆta\, in strkjv@Galatians:5:23| and in strkjv@Ephesians:4:2| also with \tapeinophrosunˆ\), long-suffering (\makrothumian\, in strkjv@Galatians:5:22; strkjv@Colossians:1:11; strkjv@James:5:10|).

rwp@Ephesians:2:15 @{Having abolished} (\katargˆsas\). First aorist active participle of \katarge“\, to make null and void. {The enmity} (\tˆn echthran\). But it is very doubtful if \tˆn echthran\ (old word from \echthros\, hostile, strkjv@Luke:23:12|) is the object of \katargˆsas\. It looks as if it is in apposition with to \mesotoichon\ and so the further object of \lusas\. The enmity between Jew and Gentile was the middle wall of partition. And then it must be decided whether "in his flesh" (\en tˆi sarki autou\) should be taken with \lusas\ and refer especially to the Cross (Colossians:1:22|) or be taken with \katargˆsas\. Either makes sense, but better sense with \lusas\. Certainly "the law of commandments in ordinances (\ton nomon t“n entol“n en dogmasin\) is governed by \katargˆsas\. {That he might create} (\hina ktisˆi\). Final clause with first aorist active subjunctive of \ktiz“\. {The twain} (\tous duo\). The two men (masculine here, neuter in verse 14|), Jew and Gentile. {One new man} (\eis hena kainon anthr“pon\). Into one fresh man (Colossians:3:9-11|) "in himself" (\en haut“i\). Thus alone is it possible. {Making peace} (\poi“n eirˆnˆn\). Thus alone can it be done. Christ is the peace-maker between men, nations, races, classes.

rwp@Ephesians:2:16 @{And might reconcile} (\kai apokatallaxˆi\). Final clause with \hina\ understood of first aorist active subjunctive of \apokatallass“\ for which see strkjv@Colossians:1:20,22|. {Them both} (\tous amphoterous\). "The both," "the two" (\tous duo\), Jew and Gentile. {In one body} (\en heni s“mati\). The "one new man" of verse 15| of which Christ is Head (1:23|), the spiritual church. Paul piles up metaphors to express his idea of the Kingdom of God with Christ as King (the church, the body, the commonwealth of Israel, oneness, one new man in Christ, fellow-citizens, the family of God, the temple of God). {Thereby} (\en aut“i\). On the Cross where he slew the enmity (repeated here) between Jew and Gentile.

rwp@Ephesians:6:12 @{Our wrestling is not} (\ouk estin hˆmin hˆ palˆ\). "To us the wrestling is not." \Palˆ\ is an old word from \pall“\, to throw, to swing (from Homer to the papyri, though here only in N.T.), a contest between two till one hurls the other down and holds him down (\katech“\). Note \pros\ again (five times) in sense of "against," face to face conflict to the finish. {The world-rulers of this darkness} (\tous kosmokratoras tou skotous toutou\). This phrase occurs here alone. In strkjv@John:14:30| Satan is called "the ruler of this world" (\ho arch“n tou kosmou toutou\). In strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4| he is termed "the god of this age" (\ho theos tou ai“nos toutou\). The word \kosmokrat“r\ is found in the Orphic Hymns of Satan, in Gnostic writings of the devil, in rabbinical writings (transliterated) of the angel of death, in inscriptions of the Emperor Caracalla. These "world-rulers" are limited to "this darkness" here on earth. {The spiritual hosts of wickedness} (\ta pneumatika tˆs ponˆrias\). No word for "hosts" in the Greek. Probably simply, "the spiritual things (or elements) of wickedness." \Ponˆria\ (from \ponˆros\) is depravity (Matthew:22:18; strkjv@1Corinthians:5:8|). {In the heavenly places} (\en tois epouraniois\). Clearly so here. Our "wrestling" is with foes of evil natural and supernatural. We sorely need "the panoply of God" (furnished by God).

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ IMPORTANCE OF THE GENERAL EPISTLES Without them we should be deprived of much concerning three outstanding personalities in early Christianity. We should know much less of "James, and Cephas, and John, they who were reputed to be pillars" (Galatians:2:9|). We should know less also of the Judaic (not Judaizing) form of Christianity seen in the Epistles of James and Jude:in contrast with, though not opposed to, the Pauline type. In Peter's Epistles we see, indeed, a mediating position without compromise of principle, for Peter in the Jerusalem Conference loyally supported Paul and Barnabas even if he did flicker for a moment later in Antioch. In the Johannine Epistles we see the great Eagle soar as in his Gospel in calm serenity in spite of conflict with the Gnostics who struck at the very life of Christianity itself. "The only opposition which remains worthy of a Christian's consideration is that between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate, God and the world, Christ and Antichrist, life and death" (Plummer). Songs:we can be grateful for the preservation of these little Epistles which reveal differences in the development of the great Christian leaders and the adaptation of the gospel message to changing world conditions then and now. Info_Epistles-Pastorial

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ DATES OF HIS EPISTLES Unfortunately there is not complete agreement among scholars as to the dates of some of Paul's Epistles. Baur denied the Pauline authorship of all the Epistles save I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans. Today some deny that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, though admitting the others. Some admit Pauline fragments even in the Pastoral Epistles, but more about this when these Epistles are reached. There is more doubt about the date of Galatians than any of the others. Lightfoot put it just before Romans, while Ramsay now makes it the earliest of all. The Epistle itself has no notes of place or time. The Epistles to the Thessalonians were written from Corinth after Timothy had been sent from Athens by Paul to Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:3:1f.|) and had just returned to Paul (1Thessalonians:3:6|) which we know was in Corinth (Acts:18:5|) shortly before Gallio came as Proconsul of Achaia (Acts:18:12|). We can now feel certain from the new "acclamation" of Claudius in the inscription at Delphi recently explained by Deissmann in his _St. Paul_ that the Thessalonian Epistles were written 50 to 51 A.D. We know also that he wrote I Corinthians while in Ephesus (1Corinthians:16:8|) and before pentecost, though the precise year is not given. But he spent three years at Ephesus in round numbers (Acts:19:8,10; strkjv@20:31|) and he wrote just before he left, probably spring of A.D. 54 or 55. He wrote II Corinthians from Macedonia shortly after leaving Ephesus (2Corinthians:2:12|) ] apparently the same year. Romans was written from Corinth and sent by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:1f.|) unless strkjv@Romans:16| be considered a separate Epistle to Ephesus as some hold, a view that does not commend itself to me. Deissmann (_New Testament in the Light of Modern Research_, p. 33) accepts a modern theory that Ephesus was the place of the writing of the first prison Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) as well as I Corinthians and Galatians and dates them all between A.D. 52 and 55. But we shall find that these prison Epistles most naturally fall to Rome between A.D. 61 and 63. If the Pastoral Epistles are genuine, as I hold, they come between A.D. 65 and 68. Bartlet argues for a date before A.D. 64, accepting the view that Paul was put to death then. But it is still far more probable that Paul met his death in Rome in A.D. 68 shortly before Nero's death which was June 8, A.D. 68. It will thus be seen that the dates of several of the Epistles are fairly clear, while some remain quite uncertain. In a broad outlook they must all come between A.D. 50 and 68.

rwp@Galatians:1:6 @{Ye are so quickly removing} (\hout“s tache“s metatithesthe\). The present middle indicative of \metatithˆmi\, to change places, to transfer. "You are transferring yourselves" and doing it "so quickly" either from the time of their conversion or most likely from the time when the Judaizers came and tempted them. Songs:easily some of them are falling victims to these perverters of the gospel. That is a continuous amazement (\thaumaz“\) to Paul and to men today that so many are so silly and so gullible to modern as to ancient charlatans. {Unto a different gospel} (\eis heteron euaggelion\). See on ¯2Corinthians:11:4| for distinction between \allo\ and \heteron\ as here. It is not here or there a mere difference in emphasis or spirit as in ¯Phillipians:1:18| so long as Christ is preached. These men as in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4| preach "another Jesus" and a "different gospel" and so have fallen away from grace and have done away with Christ (Galatians:5:4|). Hence the vehemence of Paul's words.

rwp@Galatians:1:17 @{Before me} (\pro emou\). The Jerusalem apostles were genuine apostles, but so is Paul. His call did not come from them nor did he receive confirmation by them. {Into Arabia} (\eis Arabian\). This visit to Arabia has to come between the two visits to Damascus which are not distinguished in strkjv@Acts:9:22f|. In verse 23| Luke does speak of "considerable days" and so we must place the visit to Arabia between verses 22,23|.

rwp@Galatians:2:1 @{Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again} (\epeita dia dekatessar“n et“n palin anebˆn\) This use of \dia\ for interval between is common enough. Paul is not giving a recital of his visits to Jerusalem, but of his points of contact with the apostles in Jerusalem. As already observed, he here refers to the Jerusalem Conference given by Luke in strkjv@Acts:15| when Paul and Barnabas were endorsed by the apostles and elders and the church over the protest of the Judaizers who had attacked them in Antioch (Acts:15:1f.|). But Paul passes by another visit to Jerusalem, that in strkjv@Acts:11:30| when Barnabas and Saul brought alms from Antioch to Jerusalem and delivered them to "the elders" with no mention of the apostles who were probably out of the city since the events in strkjv@Acts:12| apparently preceded that visit and Peter had left for another place (Acts:12:17|). Paul here gives the inside view of this private conference in Jerusalem that came in between the two public meetings (Acts:15:4,6-29|). {With Barnabas} (\meta Barnabƒ\). As in strkjv@Acts:15:2|. {Taking Titus also with me} (\sunparalab“n kai Titon\). Second aorist active participle of \sunparalamban“\ the very verb used in strkjv@Acts:15:37f.| of the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas about Mark. Titus is not mentioned in Acts 15 nor anywhere else in Acts for some reason, possibly because he was Luke's own brother. But his very presence was a challenge to the Judaizers, since he was a Greek Christian.

rwp@Galatians:2:6 @{Somewhat} (\ti\). Something, not somebody. Paul refers to the Big Three (Cephas, James, and John). He seems a bit embarrassed in the reference. He means no disrespect, but he asserts his independence sharply in a tangled sentence with two parentheses (dashes in Westcott and Hort). {Whatsoever they were} (\hopoioi pote ˆsan\). Literally, "What sort they once were." {Hopoioi} is a qualitative word (1Thessalonians:1:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:13; strkjv@James:1:24|). Lightfoot thinks that these three leaders were the ones who suggested the compromise about Titus. That is a possible, but not the natural, interpretation of this involved sentence. The use of \de\ (but) in verse 6| seems to make a contrast between the three leaders and the pleaders for compromise in verses 4f|. {They, I say, imparted nothing to me} (\emoi gar ouden prosanethento\). He starts over again after the two parentheses and drops the construction \apo t“n dokount“n\ and changes the construction (anacoluthon) to \hoi dokountes\ (nominative case), the men of reputation and influences whom he names in verses 8f|. See the same verb in strkjv@1:16|. They added nothing in the conference to me. The compromisers tried to win them, but they finally came over to my view. Paul won his point, when he persuaded Peter, James, and John to agree with him and Barnabas in their contention for freedom for the Gentile Christians from the bondage of the Mosaic ceremonial law.

rwp@Galatians:2:7 @{But contrariwise} (\alla tounantion\). But on the contrary (accusative of general reference, \to enantion\). Songs:far from the three championing the cause of the Judaizers as some hoped or even the position of the compromisers in verses 4f.|, they came boldly to Paul's side after hearing the case argued in the private conference. This is the obvious interpretation rather than the view that Peter, James, and John first proposed the circumcision of Titus and afterwards surrendered to Paul's bold stand. {When they saw} (\idontes\). After seeing, after they heard our side of the matter. {That I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision} (\hoti pepisteumai to euaggelion tˆs akrobustias\). Perfect passive indicative of \pisteu“\, to intrust, which retains the accusative of the thing (\to euaggelion\) in the passive voice. This clear-cut agreement between the leaders "denotes a distinction of sphere, and not a difference of type" (Lightfoot). Both divisions in the work preach the same "gospel" (not like strkjv@1:6f.|, the Judaizers). It seems hardly fair to the Three to suggest that they at first championed the cause of the Judaizers in the face of Paul's strong language in verse 5|.

rwp@Galatians:3:3 @{Are ye now perfected in the flesh?} (\nun sarki epiteleisthe?\). Rather middle voice as in strkjv@1Peter:5:9|, finishing of yourselves. There is a double contrast, between \enarxamenoi\ (having begun) and \epiteleisthe\ (finishing) as in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:6; strkjv@Phillipians:1:6|, and also between "Spirit" (\pneumati\) and flesh (\sarki\). There is keen irony in this thrust.

rwp@Galatians:3:13 @{Redeemed us} (\hˆmas exˆgorasen\). First aorist active of the compound verb \exagoraz“\ (Polybius, Plutarch, Diodorus), to buy from, to buy back, to ransom. The simple verb \agoraz“\ (1Corinthians:6:20; strkjv@7:23|) is used in an inscription for the purchase of slaves in a will (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 324). See also strkjv@Galatians:4:5; strkjv@Colossians:4:5; strkjv@Ephesians:5:16|. Christ purchased us {from the curse of the law} (\ek tˆs kataras tou nomou\). "Out from (\ek\ repeated) under (\hupo\ in verse 10|) the curse of the law." {Having become a curse for us} (\genomenos huper hˆm“n katara\). Here the graphic picture is completed. We were under (\hupo\) a curse, Christ became a curse {over} (\huper\) us and so between us and the overhanging curse which fell on him instead of on us. Thus he bought us out (\ek\) and we are free from the curse which he took on himself. This use of \huper\ for substitution is common in the papyri and in ancient Greek as in the N.T. (John:11:50; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:14f.|). {That hangeth on a tree} (\ho kremamenos epi xulou\). Quotation from strkjv@Deuteronomy:21:23| with the omission of \hupo theou\ (by God). Since Christ was not cursed by God. The allusion was to exposure of dead bodies on stakes or crosses (Joshua:10:26|). \Xulon\ means wood, not usually tree, though so in strkjv@Luke:23:31| and in later Greek. It was used of gallows, crosses, etc. See strkjv@Acts:5:30; strkjv@10:39; strkjv@1Peter:2:24|. On the present middle participle from the old verb \kremannumi\, to hang, see on ¯Matthew:18:6; strkjv@Acts:5:30|.

rwp@Galatians:3:20 @{Is not a mediator of one} (\henos ouk estin\). That is, a middleman comes in between two. The law is in the nature of a contract between God and the Jewish people with Moses as the mediator or middleman. {But God is one} (\ho de theos heis estin\). There was no middleman between God and Abraham. He made the promise directly to Abraham. Over 400 interpretations of this verse have been made!

rwp@Galatians:5:18 @{Under the law} (\hupo nomon\). Instead of "under the flesh" as one might expect. See strkjv@Galatians:3:2-6| for contrast between law and spirit. The flesh made the law weak (Rom strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:10,13|). They are one and the same in result. See same idea in strkjv@Romans:8:14|. Note present tense of \agesthe\ (if you are continually led by the Spirit). See verse 23|.

rwp@Galatians:6:11 @{With how large letters} (\pˆlikois grammasin\). Paul now takes the pen from the amanuensis (cf. strkjv@Romans:16:22|) and writes the rest of the Epistle (verses 11-18|) himself instead of the mere farewell greeting (2Thessalonians:3:17; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21; strkjv@Colossians:4:18|). But what does he mean by "with how large letters"? Certainly not "how large a letter." It has been suggested that he employed large letters because of defective eyesight or because he could only write ill-formed letters because of his poor handwriting (like the print letters of children) or because he wished to call particular attention to this closing paragraph by placarding it in big letters (Ramsay). This latter is the most likely reason. Deissmann, (_St. Paul_, p. 51) argues that artisans write clumsy letters, yes, and scholars also. Milligan (_Documents_, p. 24; _Vocabulary_, etc.) suggests the contrast seen in papyri often between the neat hand of the scribe and the big sprawling hand of the signature. {I have written} (\egrapsa\). Epistolary aorist. {With mine own hand} (\tˆi emˆi cheiri\). Instrumental case as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21|.

rwp@Hebrews:1:5 @{Unto which} (\Tini\). "To which individual angel." As a class angels are called sons of God (Elohim) (Psalms:29:1|), but no single angel is called God's Son like the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:2:7|. Dods takes "have I begotten thee" (\gegennˆka se\, perfect active indicative of \genna“\) to refer to the resurrection and ascension while others refer it to the incarnation. {And again} (\kai palin\). This quotation is from strkjv@2Samuel:7:14|. Note the use of \eis\ in the predicate with the sense of "as" like the Hebrew (LXX idiom), not preserved in the English. See strkjv@Matthew:19:5; strkjv@Luke:2:34|. Like Old English "to" or "for." See strkjv@2Corinthians:6:18; strkjv@Revelation:21:7| for the same passage applied to relation between God and Christians while here it is treated as Messianic.

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:2:10 @{It became him} (\eprepen aut“i\). Imperfect active of \prep“\, old verb to stand out, to be becoming or seemly. Here it is impersonal with \telei“sai\ as subject, though personal in strkjv@Hebrews:7:26|. \Aut“i\ (him) is in the dative case and refers to God, not to Christ as is made plain by \ton archˆgon\ (author). One has only to recall strkjv@John:3:16| to get the idea here. The voluntary humiliation or incarnation of Christ the Son a little lower than the angels was a seemly thing to God the Father as the writer now shows in a great passage (2:10-18|) worthy to go beside strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {For whom} (\di' hon\). Referring to \aut“i\ (God) as the reason (cause) for the universe (\ta panta\). {Through whom} (\di' hou\). With the genitive \dia\ expresses the agent by whom the universe came into existence, a direct repudiation of the Gnostic view of intermediate agencies (aeons) between God and the creation of the universe. Paul puts it succinctly in strkjv@Romans:11:36| by his \ex autou kai di' autou kai eis auton ta panta\. The universe comes out of God, by means of God, for God. This writer has already said that God used his Son as the Agent (\di' hou\) in creation (1:2|), a doctrine in harmony with strkjv@Colossians:1:15f.| (\en aut“i, di' autou eis auton\) and strkjv@John:1:3|. {In bringing} (\agagonta\). Second aorist active participle of \ag“\ in the accusative case in spite of the dative \aut“i\ just before to which it refers. {The author} (\ton archˆgon\). Old compound word (\archˆ\ and \ag“\) one leading off, leader or prince as in strkjv@Acts:5:31|, one blazing the way, a pioneer (Dods) in faith (Hebrews:12:2|), author (Acts:3:15|). Either sense suits here, though author best (verse 9|). Jesus is the author of salvation, the leader of the sons of God, the Elder Brother of us all (Romans:8:29|). {To make perfect} (\telei“sai\). First aorist active infinitive of \teleio“\ (from \teleios\). If one recoils at the idea of God making Christ perfect, he should bear in mind that it is the humanity of Jesus that is under discussion. The writer does not say that Jesus was sinful (see the opposite in strkjv@4:15|), but simply that "by means of sufferings" God perfected his Son in his human life and death for his task as Redeemer and Saviour. One cannot know human life without living it. There was no moral imperfection in Jesus, but he lived his human life in order to be able to be a sympathizing and effective leader in the work of salvation.

rwp@Hebrews:3:5 @{And Moses} (\kai M“usˆs men\). "Now Moses indeed on his part" (\men\ contrasted with \de\). {In} (\en\). Moses was in "God's house" "as a servant" (\h“s therap“n\). Old word, in LXX, only here in N.T. and quoted from strkjv@Numbers:12:7f|. Kin to the verb \therapeu“\, to serve, to heal, and \therapeia\, service (Luke:9:11|) and a group of servants (Luke:12:42|). {For a testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken} (\eis marturion t“n lalˆthˆsomen“n\). Objective genitive of the articular future passive participle of \lale“\. It is not certain what it means whether the "testimony" (\marturion\) is to Moses or to God and whether it points on to Christ. In strkjv@9:9| see \parabolˆ\ applied to the old dispensation as a symbol pointing to Christ and Christianity. {But Christ} (\Christos de\). In contrast with Moses (\men\ in verse 5|). {As a son} (\h“s huios\). Instead of a \therap“n\ (servant). {Over his house} (\epi ton oikon autou\). The difference between \epi\ and \en\ added to that between \huios\ and \therap“n\. It is very neat and quite conclusive, especially when we recall the high place occupied by Moses in Jewish thought. In strkjv@Acts:7:11| the Jews accused Stephen of speaking "blasphemous words against Moses and God" (putting Moses on a par with God).

rwp@Hebrews:4:7 @{He again defineth a certain day} (\palin tina horizei hˆmeran\). Present active indicative of \horiz“\, old verb to set a limit (\horos\, horizon) as in strkjv@Acts:17:26; strkjv@Romans:1:4|. {In David} (\en Daueid\). Attributing the Psalm to David or in the Psalter at any rate. {Hath been before said} (\proeirˆtai\). Perfect passive indicative referring to the quotation in strkjv@3:7,15|. {After so long a time} (\meta tosouton chronon\). The time between Joshua and David.

rwp@Hebrews:5:14 @{For full-grown men} (\telei“n\). Predicate genitive. The word is for adults, relative perfection (\teleioi\) in contrast with babes as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:6; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@13:11; strkjv@Phillipians:3:15; strkjv@Ephesians:4:4|, not absolute perfection (Matthew:5:48|). {Their senses} (\ta aisthˆtˆria\). The organs of perception (Stoic term for sense organs) from \aisthanomai\ (Luke:9:45|), in Plato, Galen, Hippocrates, here only in N.T. {Exercised} (\gegumnasmena\). Perfect passive participle of \gumnaz“\, to exercise (naked, \gumnos\). Galen uses \aisthˆtˆria gegumnasmena\ together after \ech“\ as we have here. For this predicate use of the participle with \ech“\ see strkjv@Luke:13:6; strkjv@14:19f|. "By reason of use" one gains such skill. {To discern} (\pros diakrisin\). "For deciding between" (from \diakrin“\), old word with ablative \kalou te kai kakou\ (between good and evil). See strkjv@1Corinthians:12:1; Rom strkjv@14:1|.

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

rwp@Hebrews:7:27 @{First} (\proteron\). Regular adverb for comparison between two, though \pr“ton\ often occurs also (John:1:41|), with \epeita\ (then) following. {For the sins} (\ton\). Only the article in the Greek with repetition of \huper\ or of \hamarti“n\. {When he offered up himself} (\heauton anenegkas\). First aorist active participle of \anapher“\, to offer up. See same idea in strkjv@9:14| where \heauton prosˆnegken\ is used. Old verb for sacrifice to place on the altar (1Peter:2:5,24|).

rwp@Hebrews:8:2 @{Minister} (\leitourgos\). See on ¯Romans:13:6; strkjv@Phillipians:2:25|. {Of the sanctuary} (\t“n hagi“n\). "Of the holy places" (\ta hagia\), without any distinction (like strkjv@9:8f.; strkjv@10:19; strkjv@13:11|) between the holy place and the most holy place as in strkjv@9:2f|. {Of the true tabernacle} (\tˆs skˆnˆs tˆs alˆthinˆs\). By way of explanation of \t“n hagi“n\. For \skˆnˆ\ see strkjv@Matthew:17:4| and \skˆnos\ (2Corinthians:5:1|), old word used here for the antitype or archetype of the tabernacle in the wilderness in which Aaron served, the ideal tabernacle in heaven of which the earthly tabernacle was a symbol and reproduced in the temple which merely copied the tabernacle. Hence it is the "genuine" tabernacle and see strkjv@John:1:9| for \alˆthinos\. {Pitched} (\epˆxen\). First aorist active indicative of \pˆgnumi\, old verb to fasten as the pegs of a tent, here only in the N.T. Cf. strkjv@Numbers:24:6|.

rwp@Hebrews:8:5 @{Serve} (\latreuousin\). Present active indicative of \latreu“\ for which verb see on ¯Matthew:4:10|. {A copy} (\hupodeigmati\). Dative case after \latreuousin\. See already on ¯John:13:15; strkjv@Hebrews:4:11| for this interesting word. {Shadow} (\skiƒi\). Dative case. Old word for which see already strkjv@Matthew:4:16; strkjv@Mark:4:32; strkjv@Colossians:2:17|. See same idea in strkjv@Hebrews:9:23|. For difference between \skia\ and \eik“n\ see strkjv@10:1|. Here "copy and shadow" form a practical hendiadys for "a shadowy out- line" (Moffatt). {Is warned of God} (\kechrˆmatistai\). Perfect passive indicative of \chrˆmatiz“\, old verb (from \chrˆma\, business) for which see on ¯Matthew:2:12,22; strkjv@Luke:2:26|. The word "God" is not used, but it is implied as in strkjv@Acts:10:22; strkjv@Hebrews:12:25|. Songs:in LXX, Josephus, and the papyri. {For saith he} (\gar phˆsi\). Argument from God's command (Exodus:25:40|). {See that thou make} (\Horƒ poiˆseis\). Common Greek idiom with present active imperative of \hora“\ and the volitive future of \poie“\ without \hina\ (asyndeton, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 949). {The pattern} (\ton tupon\). The very word used in strkjv@Exodus:25:40| and quoted also by Stephen in strkjv@Acts:7:44|. For \tupos\ see already strkjv@John:20:25; strkjv@Romans:6:17|, etc. The tabernacle was to be patterned after the heavenly model.

rwp@Hebrews:8:6 @{But now} (\nun de\). Logical use of \nun\, as the case now stands, with Jesus as high priest in heaven. {Hath he obtained} (\tetuchen\). Perfect active indicative of \tugchan“\ with the genitive, a rare and late form for \teteuchen\ (also \teteuchˆken\), old verb to hit the mark, to attain. {A ministry the more excellent} (\diaphor“teras leitourgias\). "A more excellent ministry." For the comparative of \diaphoros\ see strkjv@1:4|. This remark applies to all the five points of superiority over the Levitical priesthood. {By how much} (\hos“i\). Instrumental case of the relative \hosos\ between two comparative adjectives as in strkjv@1:4|. {The mediator} (\mesitˆs\). Late word from \mesos\ (amid) and so a middle man (arbitrator). Already in strkjv@Galatians:3:19f.| and see strkjv@1Timothy:2:5|. See strkjv@Hebrews:9:15; strkjv@12:24| for further use with \diathˆkˆ\. {Of a better covenant} (\kreittonos diathˆkˆs\). Called "new" (\kainˆs, neas\ in strkjv@9:15; strkjv@12:24|). For \diathˆkˆ\ see strkjv@Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Luke:1:72; strkjv@Galatians:3:17|, etc. This idea he will discuss in strkjv@8:7-13|. {Hath been enacted} (\nenomothetˆtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \nomothete“\ as in strkjv@7:11| which see. {Upon better promises} (\epi kreittosin epaggeliais\). Upon the basis of (\epi\). But how "better" if the earlier were also from God? This idea, alluded to in strkjv@6:12-17|, Will be developed in strkjv@10:19-12:3| with great passion and power. Thus it is seen that "better" (\kreiss“n\) is the keynote of the Epistle. At every point Christianity is better than Judaism.

rwp@Hebrews:9:7 @{Alone} (\monos\). Predicate adjective with \ho archiereus\. {Once in the year} (\hapax tou eniautou\). Once for each year (not \pote\, at any time) with genitive of time. {Not without blood} (\ou ch“ris haimatos\). According to strkjv@Leviticus:16:14f|. Not even he could enter the second tent (Holy of Holies) without blood. {The errors of the people} (\t“n tou laou agnoˆmat“n\). Late word from \agnoe“\, not to know (5:2|), only here in the N.T., but in LXX, papyri, and inscriptions where a distinction is drawn between errors (\agnoˆmata\) and crimes (\harmartˆmata\). In strkjv@Genesis:43:12| \agnoˆma\ is "an oversight." But these sins of ignorance (\agnoˆmata\) were sins and called for atonement. See strkjv@Hebrews:10:26| for wilful sinning.

rwp@Hebrews:9:9 @{Which} (\hˆtis\). "Which very thing," the first tent (\tˆs pr“tˆs skˆnˆs\, division of the tabernacle), a parenthesis and explanation. {A parable} (\parabolˆ\). Only in the Synoptic Gospels in the N.T. and strkjv@Hebrews:9:9; strkjv@11:19|. See on ¯Matthew:13:3| for the word (from \paraball“\, to place alongside). Here like \tupos\ (type or shadow of "the heavenly reality," Moffatt). {For the time now present} (\eis ton kairon ton enestˆkota\). "For the present crisis " (\kairon\, not \ai“na\, age, not \chronon\, time). Perfect active articular (repeated article) participle of \enistˆmi\ (intransitive), the age in which they lived, not the past, not the future. See strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22; strkjv@Romans:8:38| for contrast between \enest“ta\ and \mellonta\. This age of crisis, foreshadowed by the old tabernacle, pointed on to the richer fulfilment still to come. {According to which} (\kath' hˆn\). Here the relative refers to \parabolˆ\ just mentioned, not to \skˆnˆs\. See strkjv@5:1; strkjv@8:3|. {As touching the conscience} (\kata suneidˆsin\). For \suneidˆsis\ see strkjv@1Corinthians:8:10; strkjv@10:17; strkjv@Romans:2:15|. This was the real failure of animal sacrifice (10:1-4|). {Make the worshipper perfect} (\telei“sai ton latreuonta\). First aorist active infinitive (2:10|). At best it was only ritual or ceremonial purification (7:11|), that called for endless repetition (10:1-4|).

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

rwp@Hebrews:13:8 @{Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yea and forever} (\Iˆsous Christos echthes kai sˆmeron ho autos kai eis tous ai“nas\). There is no copula in the Greek. Vincent insists that \estin\ be supplied between \Iˆsous\ and \Christos\, "Jesus is Christ," but it more naturally comes after \Christos\ as the Revised Version has it. The old adverb \echthes\ is rare in the N.T. (John:4:52; strkjv@Acts:7:28; strkjv@Hebrews:13:8|). Here it refers to the days of Christ's flesh (2:3; strkjv@5:7|) and to the recent work of the leaders (13:7|). "Today" (\sˆmeron\, strkjv@3:15|) is the crisis which confronts them. "Forever" (\eis tous ai“nas\) is eternity as well as the Greek can say it. Jesus Christ is eternally "the same" (1:12|) and the revelation of God in him (1:1f.|) is final and never to be superseded or supplemented (Moffatt). Hence the peril of apostasy from the only hope of man.

rwp@Hebrews:13:12 @{Wherefore Jesus also} (\dio kai Iˆsous\). The parallel is drawn between the O.T. ritual and the better sacrifice of Jesus already discussed (9:13-10:18|). The purpose of Jesus is shown (\hina hagiasˆi\, \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hagiaz“\, to sanctify), the means employed (\dia tou idiou haimatos\, by his own blood), the place of his suffering (\epathen\, as in strkjv@5:8|) is also given (\ex“ tˆs pulˆs\, outside the gate, implied in strkjv@John:19:17|) which phrase corresponds to "outside the camp" of verse 11|.

rwp@Hebrews:13:13 @{Let us therefore go forth to him} (\toinun exerch“metha pros auton\). Inferential particle (\toi, nun\), usually post-positive (Luke:20:25; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:26|) only N.T. examples. Present middle volitive subjunctive of \exerchomai\. "Let us keep on going out there to him." If a separation has to come between Judaism and Christianity, let us give up Judaism, and go out to Christ "outside the camp" and take our stand with him there on Golgotha, "bearing his reproach (\ton oneidismon autou pherontes\) as Jesus himself endured the Cross despising the shame (12:2|) and as Moses accepted "the reproach of the Messiah" (11:26|) in his day. The only decent place for the follower of Christ is beside the Cross of Christ with the reproach and the power (Romans:8:1f.|) in it. This is the great passionate plea of the whole Epistle.

rwp@Info_James @ THE DATE If the Epistle is genuine and James was put to death about A.D. 62, it was clearly written before that date. There are two theories about it, one placing it about A.D. 48, the other about A.D. 58. To my mind the arguments of Mayor for the early date are conclusive. There is no allusion to Gentile Christians, as would be natural after A.D. 50. If written after A.D. 70, the tone would likely be different, with some allusion to that dreadful calamity. The sins condemned are those characteristic of early Jewish Christians. The book itself is more like the Sermon on the Mount than the Epistles. The discussion of faith and works in chapter strkjv@James:2| reveals an absence of the issues faced by Paul in strkjv@Romans:4; strkjv@Galatians:3| after the Jerusalem Conference (A.D. 49). Hence the date before that Conference has decidedly the better of the argument. Ropes in his Commentary denies the genuineness of the Epistle and locates it between A.D. 75 and 125, but Hort holds that the evidence for a late date rests "on very slight and intangible grounds." Songs:we place the book before A.D. 49. It may indeed be the earliest New Testament book.

rwp@Info_James @ THE PURPOSE If James is writing solely to non-Christian Jews, the purpose is to win them to Christ, and so he puts the gospel message in a way to get a hearing from the Jews. That is true, whether he has them in mind or not, though he does not do it by the suppression of the deity of Jesus Christ. In the very first verse he places him on a par with God as "the Lord Jesus Christ." In strkjv@James:2:1| he presents Jesus as the object of faith: "as you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory" (Moffatt's Translation), where Jesus is termed the Shekinah Glory of God. It is true that there is no discussion in the Epistle of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus, but there is an allusion to the murder of Jesus in strkjv@James:5:6| and the second coming in strkjv@James:5:8|. The chief aim of the Epistle is to strengthen the faith and loyalty of the Jewish Christians in the face of persecution from rich and overbearing Jews who were defrauding and oppressing them. It is a picture of early Christian life in the midst of difficult social conditions between capital and labor which also exist today. Songs:then it is a very modern message even if it is the earliest New Testament book. The glory of the New Testament lies precisely at this point in that the revelation of God in Christ meets our problems today because it did meet those of the first century A.D. Christian principles stand out clearly for our present-day living.

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

rwp@James:1:6 @{In faith} (\en pistei\). Faith here "is the fundamental religious attitude" (Ropes), belief in God's beneficent activity and personal reliance on him (Oesterley). {Nothing doubting} (\mˆden diakrinomenos\). Negative way of saying \en pistei\ (in faith), present passive participle of \diakrin“\, old verb to separate (\krin“\) between (\dia\), to discriminate as shown clearly in strkjv@Acts:11:12, strkjv@15:9|, but no example of the sense of divided against oneself has been found earlier than the N.T., though it appears in later Christian writings. It is like the use of \diamerizomai\ in strkjv@Luke:11:18| and occurs in strkjv@Matthew:21:21; strkjv@Mark:11:23; strkjv@Acts:10:20; strkjv@Romans:2:4; strkjv@4:20; strkjv@14:23|. It is a vivid picture of internal doubt. {Is like} (\eoiken\). Second perfect active indicative with the linear force alone from \eik“\ to be like. Old form, but in N.T. only here and verse 23| (a literary touch, not in LXX). {The surge of the sea} (\klud“ni thalassˆs\). Old word (from \kluz“\ to wash against) for a dashing or surging wave in contrast with \kuma\ (successive waves), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:8:24|. In associative instrumental case after \eoiken\. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:14| we have \kludoniz“\ (from \klud“n\), to toss by waves. {Driven by the wind} (\anemizomen“i\). Present passive participle (agreeing in case with \klud“ni\) of \anemiz“\, earliest known example and probably coined by James (from \anemos\), who is fond of verbs in \-iz“\ (Mayor). The old Greek used \anemo“\. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:14| Paul uses both \kludoniz“\ and \peripher“ anem“i\. It is a vivid picture of the sea whipped into white-caps by the winds. {Tossed} (\ripizomen“i\). Present passive participle also in agreement with \klud“ni\ from \ripiz“\, rare verb (Aristophanes, Plutarch, Philo) from \ripis\ (a bellows or fire-fan), here only in N.T. It is a picture of "the restless swaying to and fro of the surface of the water, blown upon by shifting breezes" (Hort), the waverer with slight rufflement.

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:2:21 @{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:4:2 @{Ye lust} (\epithumeite\). Present active indicative of \epithume“\, old word (from \epi, thumos\, yearning passion for), not necessarily evil as clearly not in strkjv@Luke:22:15| of Christ, but usually so in the N.T., as here. Coveting what a man or nation does not have is the cause of war according to James. {Ye kill and covet} (\phoneuete kai zˆloute\). Present active indicatives of \phoneu“\ (old verb from \phoneus\, murderer) and \zˆlo“\, to desire hotly to possess (1Corinthians:12:31|). It is possible (perhaps probable) that a full stop should come after \phoneuete\ (ye kill) as the result of lusting and not having. Then we have the second situation: "Ye covet and cannot obtain (\epituchein\, second aorist active infinitive of \epitugchan“\), and (as a result) ye fight and war." This punctuation makes better sense than any other and is in harmony with verse 1|. Thus also the anticlimax in \phoneuete\ and \zˆloute\ is avoided. Mayor makes the words a hendiadys, "ye murderously envy." {Ye have not, because ye ask not} (\ouk echete dia to mˆ aiteisthai humas\). James refers again to \ouk echete\ (ye do not have) in verse 2|. Such sinful lusting will not obtain. "Make the service of God your supreme end, and then your desires will be such as God can fulfil in answer to your prayer" (Ropes). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:6:31-33|. The reason here is expressed by \dia\ and the accusative of the articular present middle infinitive of \aite“\, used here of prayer to God as in strkjv@Matthew:7:7f|. \Humƒs\ (you) is the accusative of general reference. Note the middle voice here as in \aiteisthe\ in 3|. Mayor argues that the middle here, in contrast with the active, carries more the spirit of prayer, but Moulton (_Prol_., p. 160) regards the distinction between \aite“\ and \aiteomai\ often "an extinct subtlety."

rwp@James:5:20 @{Let him know} (\gin“sket“\). Present active imperative third person singular of \gin“sk“\, but Westcott and Hort read \gin“skete\ (know ye) after B. In either case it is the conclusion of the condition in verse 19|. {He which converteth} (\ho epistrepsas\). First aorist active articular participle of \epistreph“\ of verse 19|. {From the error} (\ek planˆs\). "Out of the wandering" of verse 19| (\planˆ\, from which \plana“\ is made). See strkjv@1John:4:6| for contrast between "truth" and "error." {A soul from death} (\psuchˆn ek thanatou\). The soul of the sinner (\hamart“lon\) won back to Christ, not the soul of the man winning him. A few MSS. have \autou\ added (his soul), which leaves it ambiguous, but \autou\ is not genuine. It is ultimate and final salvation here meant by the future (\s“sei\). {Shall cover a multitude of sins} (\kalupsei plˆthos hamarti“n\). Future active of \kalupt“\, old verb, to hide, to veil. But whose sins (those of the converter or the converted)? The Roman Catholics (also Mayor and Ropes) take it of the sins of the converter, who thus saves himself by saving others. The language here will allow that, but not New Testament teaching in general. It is apparently a proverbial saying which Resch considers one of the unwritten sayings of Christ (Clem. Al. _Paed_. iii. 12). It occurs also in strkjv@1Peter:4:8|, where it clearly means the sins of others covered by love as a veil thrown over them. The saying appears also in strkjv@Proverbs:10:12|: "Hatred stirs up strife, but love hides all transgressions"--that is "love refuses to see faults" (Mayor admits). That is undoubtedly the meaning in strkjv@1Peter:4:8; strkjv@James:5:20|.

rwp@Info_John @ THE SAME STYLE IN THE DISCOURSES It is further objected that there is no difference in style between the discourses of Jesus in John's Gospel and his own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, strkjv@John:3:16-21|. Does the discourse of Jesus end with verse 15,16, or 21? Songs:in strkjv@John:12:44-50|. Does John give here a resume of Christ's teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ as in chapters 4,6,7,8,9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures including that of John's Gospel for the whole view of Christ.

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

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

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

rwp@John:1:19 @{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:1:23 @{He said} (\ephˆ\). Common imperfect active (or second aorist active) of \phˆmi\, to say, old defective verb. {I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness} (\Eg“ ph“nˆ bo“ntos en tˆi erˆm“i\). For his answer John quotes strkjv@Isaiah:40:3|. The Synoptics (Mark:1:3; strkjv@Matthew:3:3; strkjv@Luke:3:4|) quote this language from Isaiah as descriptive of John, but do not say that he also applied it to himself. There is no reason to think that he did not do so. John also refers to Isaiah as the author of the words and also of the message, "{Make straight the way of the Lord}" (\Euthunate tˆn hodon tou kuriou\). By this language (\euthun“\ in N.T. only here and strkjv@James:3:4|, first aorist active imperative here) John identifies himself to the committee as the forerunner of the Messiah. The early writers note the differences between the use of \Logos\ (Word) for the Messiah and \ph“nˆ\ (Voice) for John.

rwp@John:1:33 @{He said} (\ekeinos eipen\). Explicit and emphatic pronoun as in verse 8|, referring to God as the one who sent John (verse 6|). {With the Holy Spirit} (\en pneumati hagi“i\). "In the Holy Spirit." Here again one needs the background of the Synoptics for the contrast between John's baptism in water (John:1:26|) and that of the Messiah in the Holy Spirit (Mark:1:8; strkjv@Matthew:3:11; strkjv@Luke:3:16|).

rwp@John:1:51 @{Verily, Verily} (\Amˆn, amˆn\). Hebrew word transliterated into Greek and then into English, our "amen." John always repeats it, not singly as in the Synoptics, and only in the words of Jesus, an illustration of Christ's authoritative manner of speaking as shown also by \leg“ humin\ (I say unto you). Note plural \humin\ though \aut“i\ just before is singular (to him). Jesus addresses thus others besides Nathanael. {The heaven opened} (\ton ouranon ane“igota\). Second perfect active participle of \anoig“\ with double reduplication, standing open. The words remind one of what took place at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew:3:16; strkjv@Luke:3:21|), but the immediate reference is to the opened heaven as the symbol of free intercourse between God and man (Isaiah:64:1|) and as it was later illustrated in the death of Stephen (Acts:7:56|). There is a quotation from strkjv@Genesis:28:12f.|, Jacob's vision at Bethel. That was a dream to Jacob, but Christ is himself the bond of fellowship between heaven and earth, between God and man, for Jesus is both "the Son of God" as Nathanael said and "the Son of Man" (\epi ton huion tou anthr“pou\) as Jesus here calls himself. God and man meet in Christ. He is the true Jacob's Ladder. "I am the Way," Jesus will say. He is more than King of Israel, he is the Son of Man (the race). Songs:quickly has this Gospel brought out in the witness of the Baptist, the faith of the first disciples, the claims of Jesus Christ, the fully developed picture of the Logos who is both God and man, moving among men and winning them to his service. At the close of the ministry Christ will tell Caiaphas that he will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven (Mark:14:62|). Here at the start Jesus is conscious of the final culmination and in apocalyptic eschatological language that we do not fully understand he sets forth the dignity and majesty of his Person.

rwp@John:2:11 @{This beginning of his signs did Jesus} (\tautˆn epoiˆsen archˆn t“n sˆmei“n ho Iˆsous\). Rather, "this Jesus did as a beginning of his signs," for there is no article between \tautˆn\ and \archˆn\. "We have now passed from the 'witness' of the Baptist to the 'witness' of the works of Jesus" (Bernard). This is John's favourite word "signs" rather than wonders (\terata\) or powers (\dunameis\) for the works (\erga\) of Jesus. \Sˆmeion\ is an old word from \sˆmain“\, to give a sign (12:33|). He selects eight in his Gospel by which to prove the deity of Christ (20:30|) of which this is the first. {Manifested his glory} (\ephaner“sen tˆn doxan autou\). First aorist (effective) active indicative of \phanero“\, that glory of which John spoke in strkjv@1:14|. {Believed on him} (\episteusan eis auton\). First aorist active indicative of \pisteu“\, to believe, to put trust in, so common in John. These six disciples (learners) had already believed in Jesus as the Messiah (1:35-51|). Now their faith was greatly strengthened. Songs:it will be all through this Gospel. Jesus will increasingly reveal himself while the disciples will grow in knowledge and trust and the Jews will become increasingly hostile till the culmination.

rwp@John:3:16 @{For so} (\hout“s gar\). This use of \gar\ is quite in John's style in introducing his comments (2:25; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@5:13|, etc.). This "Little Gospel" as it is often called, this "comfortable word" (the Anglican Liturgy), while not a quotation from Jesus is a just and marvellous interpretation of the mission and message of our Lord. In verses 16-21| John recapitulates in summary fashion the teaching of Jesus to Nicodemus. {Loved} (\ˆgapˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \agapa“\, the noble word so common in the Gospels for the highest form of love, used here as often in John (14:23; strkjv@17:23; strkjv@1John:3:1; strkjv@4:10|) of God's love for man (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:5:8; strkjv@Ephesians:2:4|). In strkjv@21:15| John presents a distinction between \agapa“\ and \phile“\. \Agapa“\ is used also for love of men for men (13:34|), for Jesus (8:42|), for God (1John:4:10|). {The world} (\ton kosmon\). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. This universal aspect of God's love appears also in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19; strkjv@Romans:5:8|. {That he gave} (\h“ste ed“ken\). The usual classical construction with \h“ste\ and the indicative (first aorist active) practical result, the only example in the N.T. save that in strkjv@Galatians:2:13|. Elsewhere \h“ste\ with the infinitive occurs for actual result (Matthew:13:32|) as well as purpose (Matthew:10:1|), though even this is rare. {His only begotten Son} (\ton huion ton monogenˆ\). "The Son the only begotten." For this word see on ¯1:14,18; strkjv@3:18|. The rest of the sentence, the purpose clause with \hina-echˆi\ precisely reproduces the close of strkjv@3:15| save that \eis auton\ takes the place of \en aut“i\ (see strkjv@1:12|) and goes certainly with \pisteu“n\ (not with \echˆi\ as \en aut“i\ in verse 15|) and the added clause "should not perish but" (\mˆ apolˆtai alla\, second aorist middle subjunctive, intransitive, of \apollumi\, to destroy). The same contrast between "perish" and "eternal life" (for this world and the next) appears also in strkjv@10:28|. On "perish" see also strkjv@17:12|.

rwp@John:3:20 @{That doeth ill} (\ho phaula prass“n\). The word \phaulos\ means first worthless and then wicked (usually so in N.T.) and both senses occur in the papyri. In strkjv@5:29| see contrast between \agatha poie“\ (doing good things) and \phaula prass“\ (practising evil things). {Hateth the light} (\misei to ph“s\). Hence talks against it, ridicules Christ, Christianity, churches, preachers, etc. Does it in talk, magazines, books, in a supercilious tone of sheer ignorance. {Cometh not to the light} (\ouk erchetai pros to ph“s\). The light hurts his eyes, reveals his own wickedness, makes him thoroughly uncomfortable. Hence he does not read the Bible, he does not come to church, he does not pray. He goes on in deeper darkness. {Lest his works should be reproved} (\hina mˆ elegchthˆi ta erga autou\). Negative final clause (\hina mˆ\) with first aorist passive subjunctive of \elegch“\, old word to correct a fault, to reprove, to convict. See also strkjv@8:46; strkjv@16:8|. To escape this unpleasant process the evil man cuts out Christ.

rwp@John:3:22 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). Transition after the interview with Nicodemus. For the phrase see strkjv@5:1; strkjv@6:1; strkjv@7:1|. {Into the land of Judea} (\eis tˆn Ioudaian gˆn\). Into the country districts outside of Jerusalem. The only example of this phrase in the N.T., but "the region of Judea" (\hˆ Ioudaia ch“ra\) in strkjv@Mark:1:5|. {He tarried} (\dietriben\). Descriptive imperfect active of \diatrib“\, old verb to rub between or hard, to spend time (Acts:14:3|). {Baptized} (\ebaptizen\). Imperfect active of \baptiz“\. "He was baptizing." The six disciples were with him and in strkjv@4:2| John explains that Jesus did the baptizing through the disciples.

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

rwp@John:4:36 @{Already he that reapeth receiveth wages} (\ˆdˆ ho theriz“n misthon lambanei\). The spiritual harvester can gather his harvest without waiting four months. Jesus is reaping a harvest right now by the conversion of this woman. The labourer is worthy of his hire (Luke:10:7; strkjv@2Timothy:2:6|). John does not use \misthos\ (reward) again, but \karpos\ (15:2-16|), "fruit for life eternal" (cf. strkjv@4:14|). {That he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together} (\hina ho speir“n homou chairˆi kai ho theriz“n\). Final use of \hina\ with present active subjunctive of \chair“\, to rejoice, in the singular with \ho speir“n\ (the sower) and to be repeated with \ho theriz“n\ (the reaper). The adverb \homou\ (together) elsewhere in N.T. only strkjv@20:4; strkjv@21:2; strkjv@Acts:2:1|. Usually considerable time passes between the sowing and the reaping as in verse 35|. Amos (Amos:9:13|) spoke of the time when "the ploughman shall overtake the reaper" and that has happened here with the joy of the harvest time (Isaiah:9:3|). Jesus the Sower and the disciples as the reapers are here rejoicing simultaneously.

rwp@John:4:37 @{For herein} (\en gar tout“i\). In this relation between the sower and the reaper. {The saying} (\ho logos\). Like strkjv@1Timothy:1:15; strkjv@3:1|, etc. Probably a proverb that is particularly true (\alˆthinos\ for which see strkjv@1:9|) in the spiritual realm. {One soweth, and another reapeth} (\allos estin ho speir“n kai allos ho theriz“n\). "One is the sower and another the reaper." It is sad when the sower misses the joy of reaping (Job:31:8|) and has only the sowing in tears (Psalms:126:5f.|). This may be the punishment for sin (Deuteronomy:28:30; strkjv@Micah:6:15|). Sometimes one reaps where he has not sown (Deuteronomy:6:11; strkjv@Joshua:24:13|). It is the prerogative of the Master to reap (Matthew:25:26f.|), but Jesus here lets the disciples share his joy.

rwp@John:4:40 @{Two days} (\duo hˆmeras\). Accusative of extent of time. They wanted to cultivate the acquaintance of Jesus. Songs:he remained in Sychar in a continuous revival, a most unexpected experience when one recalls the feeling between the Jews and the Samaritans (4:9|). The reaping went on gloriously.

rwp@John:5:19 @{The Son} (\ho huios\). The absolute use of the Son in relation to the Father admitting the charge in verse 18| and defending his equality with the Father. {Can do nothing by himself} (\ou dunatai poiein aph'heautou ouden\). True in a sense of every man, but in a much deeper sense of Christ because of the intimate relation between him and the Father. See this same point in strkjv@5:30; strkjv@7:28; strkjv@8:28; strkjv@14:10|. Jesus had already made it in strkjv@5:17|. Now he repeats and defends it. {But what he seeth the Father doing} (\an mˆ ti blepˆi ton patera poiounta\). Rather, "unless he sees the Father doing something." Negative condition (\an mˆ\=\ean mˆ\, if not, unless) of third class with present (habit) subjunctive (\blepˆi\) and present active participle (\poiounta\). It is a supreme example of a son copying the spirit and work of a father. In his work on earth the Son sees continually what the Father is doing. In healing this poor man he was doing what the Father wishes him to do. {For what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner} (\ha gar an ekeinos poiˆi tauta kai ho huios homoi“s poiei\). Indefinite relative clause with \an\ and the present active subjunctive (\poiˆi\). Note \ekeinos\, emphatic demonstrative, that one, referring to the Father. This sublime claim on the part of Jesus will exasperate his enemies still more.

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

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

rwp@John:6:56 @{Abideth in me and I in him} (\en emoi menei kag“ en aut“i\). Added to the phrase in 54| in the place of \echei z“ˆn ai“nion\ (has eternal life). The verb \men“\ (to abide) expresses continual mystical fellowship between Christ and the believer as in strkjv@15:4-7; strkjv@1John:2:6,27,28; strkjv@3:6,24; strkjv@4:12,16|. There is, of course, no reference to the Lord's Supper (Eucharist), but simply to mystical fellowship with Christ.

rwp@John:6:63 @{That quickeneth} (\to z“opoioun\). Articular present active participle of \z“opoie“\ for which see strkjv@5:21|. For the contrast between \pneuma\ (spirit) and \sarx\ (flesh) see already strkjv@3:6|. {The words} (\ta rˆmata\). Those in this discourse (I have just spoken, \lelalˆka\), for they are the words of God (3:34; strkjv@8:47; strkjv@17:8|). No wonder they "are spirit and are life" (\pneuma estin kai z“ˆ estin\). The breath of God and the life of God is in these words of Jesus. Never man spoke like Jesus (7:46|). There is life in his words today.

rwp@John:6:64 @{That believe not} (\hoi ou pisteuousin\). Failure to believe kills the life in the words of Jesus. {Knew from the beginning} (\ˆidei ex archˆs\). In the N.T. we have \ex archˆs\ only here and strkjv@16:4|, but \ap' archˆs\ in apparently the same sense as here in strkjv@15:27; strkjv@1John:2:7,24; strkjv@3:11| and see strkjv@Luke:1:2; strkjv@1John:1:1|. From the first Jesus distinguished between real trust in him and mere lip service (2:24; strkjv@8:31|), two senses of \pisteu“\. {Were} (\eisin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse. {And who it was that should betray him} (\kai tis estin ho parad“s“n\). Same use of \estin\ and note article and future active participle of \paradid“mi\, to hand over, to betray. John does not say here that Jesus knew that Judas would betray him when he chose him as one of the twelve, least of all that he chose him for that purpose. What he does say is that Jesus was not taken by surprise and soon saw signs of treason in Judas. The same verb is used of John's arrest in strkjv@Matthew:4:12|. Once Judas is termed traitor (\prodotˆs\) in strkjv@Luke:6:16|. Judas had gifts and was given his opportunity. He did not have to betray Jesus.

rwp@John:6:66 @{Upon this} (\ek toutou\). Same idiom in strkjv@19:12|. "Out of this saying or circumstance." Jesus drew the line of cleavage between the true and the false believers. {Went back} (\apˆlthon eis ta opis“\). Aorist (ingressive) active indicative of \aperchomai\ with \eis ta opis“\, "to the rear" (the behind things) as in strkjv@18:6|. {Walked no more with him} (\ouketi met' autou periepatoun\). Imperfect active of \peripate“\. The crisis had come. These half-hearted seekers after the loaves and fishes and political power turned abruptly from Jesus, walked out of the synagogue with a deal of bluster and were walking with Jesus no more. Jesus had completely disillusioned these hungry camp-followers who did not care for spiritual manna that consisted in intimate appropriation of the life of Jesus as God's Son.

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

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

rwp@John:7:20 @{The multitude} (\ho ochlos\). Outside of Jerusalem (the Galilean crowd as in verses 11f.|) and so unfamiliar with the effort to kill Jesus recorded in strkjv@5:18|. It is important in this chapter to distinguish clearly the several groups like the Jewish leaders (7:13,15,25,26,30,32|, etc.), the multitude from Galilee and elsewhere (10-13,20,31,40,49|), the common people of Jerusalem (25|), the Roman soldiers (45f.|). {Thou hast a devil} (\daimonion echeis\). "Demon," of course, as always in the Gospels. These pilgrims make the same charge against Jesus made long ago by the Pharisees in Jerusalem in explanation of the difference between John and Jesus (Matthew:11:18; strkjv@Luke:7:33|). It is an easy way to make a fling like that. "He is a monomaniac labouring under a hallucination that people wish to kill him" (Dods).

rwp@John:8:23 @{Ye are from beneath} (\humeis ek t“n kat“\). This language, peculiar to John, could take up the idea in Josephus that these rabbis came from Gehenna whence they will go as children of the devil (8:44|), but the use of \ek tou kosmou toutou\ ("of this world" in origin) as parallel to what we have here seems to prove that the contrast between \kat“\ and \an“\ here is between the earthly (sensual) and the heavenly as in strkjv@James:3:15-17|. See also strkjv@Colossians:3:1|. This is the only use of \kat“\ in John (except strkjv@8:6|). These proud rabbis had their origin in this world of darkness (1:9|) with all its limitations. {I am from above} (\eg“ ek t“n an“ eimi\). The contrast is complete in origin and character, already stated in strkjv@3:31|, and calculated to intensify their anger.

rwp@John:8:35 @{The bondservant} (\ho doulos\)... {the son} (\ho huios\). There is a change in the metaphor by this contrast between the positions of the son and the slave in the house. The slave has no footing or tenure and may be cast out at any moment while the son is the heir and has a permanent place. Cf. Ishmael and Isaac (Genesis:21:10|) and Paul's use of it in strkjv@Galatians:4:30|. We do not know that there is any reference here to Hagar and Ishmael. See also strkjv@Hebrews:3:5| (Numbers:12:7|) for a like contrast between Moses as servant (\therap“n\) in God's house and Christ as Son (\huios\) over God's house.

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

rwp@John:10:2 @{The shepherd of the sheep} (\poimˆn estin t“n probat“n\). No article with \poimˆn\, "a shepherd to the sheep." He comes in by the door with the sheep whom he leads. Old word is \poimˆn\, root meaning to protect. Jesus applies it to himself in verse 16| and implies it here. It is used of Christ in strkjv@1Peter:2:25; strkjv@Hebrews:13:20|. Paul applies it to ministers in strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|. Jesus uses the verb \poimain“\, to shepherd, to Peter (John:21:16|) and Peter uses it to other preachers (1Peter:5:2|) and Paul uses it for bishops (elders) in strkjv@Acts:20:28|. Our word pastor is simply Latin for shepherd. Christ is drawing a sharp contrast after the conduct of the Pharisees towards the blind man between himself and them.

rwp@John:10:12 @{He that is a hireling} (\ho misth“tos\). Old word from \mistho“\, to hire (Matthew:20:1|) from \misthos\ (hire, wages, strkjv@Luke:10:7|), in N.T. only in this passage. Literally, "the hireling and not being a shepherd" (\ho misth“tos kai ouk “n poimˆn\). Note \ouk\ with the participle \“n\ to emphasize the certainty that he is not a shepherd in contrast with \mˆ eiserchomenos\ in verse 1| (conceived case). See same contrast in strkjv@1Peter:1:8| between \ouk idontes\ and \mˆ hor“ntes\. The hireling here is not necessarily the thief and robber of verses 1,8|. He may conceivably be a nominal shepherd (pastor) of the flock who serves only for the money, a sin against which Peter warned the shepherds of the flock "not for shameful gain" (1Peter:5:2|). {Whose own} (\hou idia\). Every true shepherd considers the sheep in his care "his own" (\idia\) even if he does not actually "own" them. The mere "hireling" does not feel so. {Beholdeth} (\the“rei\). Vivid dramatic present, active indicative of \the“re“\, a graphic picture. {The wolf coming} (\ton lukon erchomenon\). Present middle predicate participle of \erchomai\. {Leaveth the sheep, and fleeth} (\aphiˆsin ta probata kai pheugei\). Graphic present actives again of \aphiˆmi\ and \pheug“\. The cowardly hireling cares naught for the sheep, but only for his own skin. The wolf was the chief peril to sheep in Palestine. See strkjv@Matthew:10:6| where Jesus says: "Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves." {And the wolf snatcheth them and scattereth them} (\kai ho lukos harpazei kai skorpizei\). Vivid parenthesis in the midst of the picture of the conduct of the hireling. Bold verbs these. For the old verb \harpaz“\ see strkjv@John:6:15; strkjv@Matthew:11:12|, and for \skorpiz“\, late word (Plutarch) for the Attic \skedannumi\, see strkjv@Matthew:12:30|. It occurs in the vision of Ezekiel (Ezekiel:34:5|) where because of the careless shepherds "the sheep became meat to all the beasts of the field, and were scattered." Jesus uses \harpaz“\ in strkjv@10:29| where no one is able "to snatch" one out of the Father's hand.

rwp@John:10:15 @{And I know the Father} (\kag“ gin“sk“ ton patera\). Hence he is qualified to reveal the Father (1:18|). The comparison of the mutually reciprocal knowledge between the Father and the Son illustrates what he has just said, though it stands above all else (Matthew:11:27; strkjv@Luke:10:22; strkjv@John:17:21-26|). We cannot claim such perfect knowledge of the Good Shepherd as exists between the Father and the Son and yet the real sheep do know the Shepherd's voice and do love to follow his leadership here and now in spite of thieves, robbers, wolves, hirelings. {And I lay down my life for the sheep} (\kai tˆn psuchˆn mou tithˆmi huper t“n probat“n\). This he had said in verse 11|, but he repeats it now for clearness. This he does not just as an example for the sheep and for under-shepherds, but primarily to save the sheep from the wolves, the thieves and robbers.

rwp@John:10:16 @{Other sheep} (\alla probata\). Sheep, not goats, but "not of this fold" (\ek tˆs aulˆs tautˆs\). See verse 1| for \aulˆ\. Clearly "his flock is not confined to those enclosed in the Jewish fold, whether in Palestine or elsewhere" (Westcott). Christ's horizon takes in all men of all races and times (John:11:52; strkjv@12:32|). The world mission of Christ for all nations is no new idea with him (Matthew:8:11; strkjv@Luke:13:28|). God loved the world and gave his Son for the race (\John strkjv@3:16\), {Them also I must bring} (\kakeina dei me agagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \ag“\ with \dei\ expressing the moral urgency of Christ's passion for God's people in all lands and ages. Missions in Christ's mind takes in the whole world. This is according to prophecy (Isaiah:42:6; strkjv@49:6; strkjv@56:8|) for the Messiah is to be a Light also to the Gentiles. It was typified by the brazen serpent (John:3:14|). Christ died for every man. The Pharisees doubtless listened in amazement and even the disciples with slow comprehension. {And they shall hear my voice} (\kai tˆs ph“nˆs mou akousontai\). Future middle indicative of \akou“\ with the genitive \ph“nˆs\. These words read like a transcript from the Acts and the Epistles of Paul (Romans:9-11| in particular). See especially Paul's words in strkjv@Acts:28:28|. Present-day Christianity is here foretold. Only do we really listen to the voice of the Shepherd as we should? Jesus means that the Gentiles will hearken if the Jews turn away from him. {And they shall become one flock, one shepherd} (\kai genˆsontai mia poimnˆ, heis poimˆn\). Future middle indicative of \ginomai\, plural, not singular \genˆsetai\ as some MSS. have it. All (Jews and Gentiles) will form one flock under one Shepherd. Note the distinction here by Jesus between \poimnˆ\ (old word, contraction of \poimenˆ\ from \poimˆn\, shepherd), as in strkjv@Matthew:26:31|, and \aulˆ\ (fold) just before. There may be many folds of the one flock. Jerome in his Vulgate confused this distinction, but he is wrong. His use of _ovile_ for both \aulˆ\ and \pomnion\ has helped Roman Catholic assumptions. Christ's use of "flock" (\poimnˆ\) here is just another metaphor for kingdom (\basileia\) in strkjv@Matthew:8:11| where the children of the kingdom come from all climes and nations. See also the various metaphors in strkjv@Ephesians:2| for this same idea. There is only the one Great Shepherd of the sheep (Hebrews:13:20|), Jesus Christ our Lord.

rwp@John:10:22 @{And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem} (\egeneto de ta enkainia en tois Ierosolumois\). But Westcott and Hort read \tote\ (then) instead of \de\ (and) on the authority of B L W 33 and some versions. This is probably correct: "At that time came the feast of dedication in Jerusalem." \Tote\ does not mean that the preceding events followed immediately after the incidents in strkjv@10:1-21|. Bernard brings chapter 9 up to this date (possibly also chapter 8) and rearranges chapter 10 in a purely arbitrary way. There is no real reason for this arrangement. Clearly there is a considerable lapse between the events in strkjv@10:22-39| and strkjv@10:1-21|, possibly nearly three months (from just after tabernacles strkjv@7:37| to dedication strkjv@10:22|). The Pharisees greet his return with the same desire to catch him. This feast of dedication, celebrated for eight days about the middle of our December, was instituted by Judas Maccabeus B.C. 164 in commemoration of the cleansing of the temple from the defilements of pagan worship by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Macc. strkjv@4:59). The word \enkainia\ (\en\, \kainos\, new) occurs here only in the N.T. It was not one of the great feasts and could be observed elsewhere without coming to Jerusalem. Jesus had apparently spent the time between tabernacles and dedication in Judea (Luke:10:1-13:21|). {Winter} (\cheim“n\). Old word from \cheima\ (\che“\, to pour, rain, or from \chi“n\, snow). See strkjv@Matthew:24:20|.

rwp@John:10:30 @{One} (\hen\). Neuter, not masculine (\heis\). Not one person (cf. \heis\ in strkjv@Galatians:3:28|), but one essence or nature. By the plural \sumus\ (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by \unum\ Arius. Songs:Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John:5:18|). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30|). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21|). Note \hen\ used in strkjv@1Corinthians:3:3| of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in strkjv@17:11,23| of the hoped for unity of Christ's disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ's claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.

rwp@John:11:1 @{Was sick} (\ˆn asthen“n\). Periphrastic imperfect active of \asthene“\, old verb (from \asthenˆs\, \a\ privative, and \sthenos\, strength). {Lazarus} (\Lazaros\). See on ¯Luke:16:20| for the name of another man in the parable, a shortened form of Eleazer, only other N.T. use, but in Josephus and rabbinical writings. No connexion between this Lazarus and the one in the parable. {Of Bethany} (\apo Bˆthanias\). Use of \apo\ as in strkjv@1:44| Philip of Bethsaida and strkjv@1:45| Joseph of Nazareth. This Bethany is about two miles (11:18|) east of Jerusalem on the south-east slope of Olivet and is now called El Azariyeh, from the name Lazarus. Jesus is still apparently at the other Bethany beyond Jordan (10:40|). It is doubtful if a distinction is meant here by \apo\ and \ek\ between Bethany as the residence and some other village (\ek tˆs k“mˆs\) as the birthplace of Lazarus and the sisters. {Of Mary and Martha} (\Marias kai Marthas\). Note \Marthas\, not \Marthˆs\ for the genitive. Elsewhere (John:11:19; strkjv@Luke:10:38|) Martha comes first as the mistress and hostess. The two sisters are named for further identification of Lazarus. Martha was apparently the elder sister (11:5,19; strkjv@Luke:10:38f.|). "The identification of Mary with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture supported by no direct evidence, and opposed to the general tenor of the Gospels" (Westcott).

rwp@John:11:9 @{In the day} (\tˆs hˆmeras\). Genitive of time, within the day, the twelve-hour day in contrast with night. The words of Jesus here illustrate what he had said in strkjv@9:4|. It is not blind fatalism that Jesus proclaims, but the opposite of cowardice. He has full confidence in the Father s purpose about his "hour" which has not yet come. Jesus has courage to face his enemies again to do the Father's will about Lazarus. {If a man walk in the day} (\ean tis peripatˆi en tˆi hˆmerƒi\). Condition of the third class, a conceived case and it applies to Jesus who walks in the full glare of noonday. See strkjv@8:12| for the contrast between walking in the light and in the dark. {He stumbleth not} (\ou proskoptei\). He does not cut (or bump) against this or that obstacle, for he can see. \Kopt“\ is to cut and pros, against.

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

rwp@John:13:16 @{Is not greater} (\ouk estin meiz“n\). Comparative adjective of \megas\ (greater) followed by the ablative case \kuriou\ (contrast between slave, lord) and \tou pempsantos\ (articular participle of \pemp“\, to send, with contrast with apostle, "one sent" (\apostolos\) from \apostell“\). Jesus here enforces the dignity of service. In strkjv@Luke:22:27| Jesus argues this point a bit. In strkjv@Luke:6:40| the contrast is between the pupil and the teacher, though some pupils consider themselves superior to the teacher. In strkjv@Matthew:10:24| Jesus uses both forms of the saying (pupil and slave). He clearly repeated this \logion\ often.

rwp@John:13:17 @{If ye know} (\ei oidate\). Condition of first class assumed as true, \ei\ and present (\oidate\ used as present) active indicative. {If ye do} (\ean poiˆte\). Third-class condition, \ean\ and present active subjunctive, assumed as possible, "if ye keep on doing." Both conditions with the one conclusion coming in between, "happy are ye." Just knowing does not bring happiness nor just occasional doing.

rwp@John:16:16 @{A little while} (\mikron\). The brief period now till Christ's death as in strkjv@7:33; strkjv@13:33; strkjv@14:19|. {Again a little while} (\palin mikron\). The period between the death and the resurrection of Jesus (from Friday afternoon till Sunday morning). {Ye shall see me} (\opsesthe me\). Future middle of \optomai\, the verb used in strkjv@1:51; strkjv@16:22| as here of spiritual realities (Bernard), though \the“re“\ is so used in strkjv@20:14|.

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

rwp@John:17:24 @{I will} (\thel“\). Perfect identity of his will with that of the Father in "this moment of spiritual exaltation" (Bernard), though in Gethsemane Jesus distinguishes between his human will and that of the Father (Mark:14:36|). {Where I am} (\hopou eimi eg“\). That is heaven, to be with Jesus (12:26; strkjv@13:36; strkjv@14:3; strkjv@Romans:8:17; strkjv@2Timothy:2:11f.|). {That they may behold} (\hina the“r“sin\). Another purpose clause with \hina\ and the present active subjunctive of \the“re“\, "that they may keep on beholding," the endless joy of seeing Jesus "as he is" (1John:3:2|) in heaven. {Before the foundation of the world} (\pro katabolˆs kosmou\). This same phrase in strkjv@Ephesians:1:4; strkjv@1Peter:1:20| and six other times we have \katabolˆ kosmou\ (Matthew:25:34; strkjv@Luke:11:50; strkjv@Hebrews:4:3; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Revelation:13:8; strkjv@17:8|). Here we find the same pre-incarnate consciousness of Christ seen in strkjv@17:5|.

rwp@John:18:20 @{Openly} (\parrˆsiƒi\). As already shown (7:4; strkjv@8:26; strkjv@10:24,39; strkjv@16:25,29|. See strkjv@7:4| for same contrast between \en parrˆsiƒi\ and \en krupt“i\. {I ever taught} (\eg“ pantote edidaxa\). Constative aorist active indicative. For the temple teaching see strkjv@John:2:19; strkjv@7:14,28; strkjv@8:20, strkjv@19:23; strkjv@Mark:14:49| and strkjv@John:6:59| for the synagogue teaching (often in the Synoptics). Examples of private teaching are Nicodemus (John:3|) and the woman of Samaria (John:4|). Jesus ignores the sneer at his disciples, but challenges the inquiry about his teaching as needless.

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:18:35 @{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:19:17 @{They took} (\parelabon\). Second aorist active indicative of \paralamban“\, they took Jesus from Pilate. Cf. strkjv@1:11; strkjv@14:3|. This is after the shameful scourging between 6 A.M. and 9 A.M. when the soldiers insult Jesus _ad libitum_ (Mark:15:16-19; strkjv@Matthew:27:27-30|).

rwp@John:21:15 @{Lovest thou me more than these?} (\agapƒis me pleon tout“n;\). Ablative case of comparison \tout“n\ (disciples) after \pleon\. Peter had even boasted that he would stand by Christ though all men forsook him (Mark:14:29|). We do not know what passed between Jesus and Peter when Jesus first appeared to him (Luke:24:34|). But here Christ probes the inmost recesses of Peter's heart to secure the humility necessary for service. {I love thee} (\phil“ su\). Peter makes no claim here to superior love and passes by the "more than these" and does not even use Christ's word \agapa“\ for high and devoted love, but the humbler word \phile“\ for love as a friend. He insists that Christ knows this in spite of his conduct. {Feed my lambs} (\Boske ta arnia mou\). For the old word \bosk“\ (to feed as a herdsman) see strkjv@Matthew:8:33|. Present active imperative here. \Arnia\ is a diminutive of \arnos\ (lamb).

rwp@Info_Jude:@ THE RELATION TO II PETER Beyond a doubt one of these Epistles was used by the other, as one can see by comparing particularly strkjv@Jude:1:3-18| and strkjv@2Peter:2:1-18|. As already said concerning II Peter, scholars are greatly divided on this point, and in our present state of knowledge it does not seem possible to reach a solid conclusion. The probability is that not much time elapsed between them. Mayor devotes a whole chapter to the discussion of the relation between II Peter and Jude:and reaches the conclusion "that in Jude:we have the first thought, in Peter the second thought." That is my own feeling, but it is all so subjective that I have no desire to urge the point unduly. Bigg is equally positive that II Peter comes before Jude.

rwp@Info_Jude:@ SPECIAL BOOKS ON JUDE (Apart from those on II Peter or the Catholic Epistles) Chase, F. H., _Jude:in Hastings D B_ (1899). Ermoni, V., _L'epitre de Jude_ (1903, in Vigoroux, Diction- naire de la Bible). Georchin, B., _Der Brief Judas_ (1901). Kasteren, J. P., _Deuteronomy:brief uan den apostel Judas_ (1916). Maier, F., _Der Judasbrief_ (1906). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of Jude_ (in Expositor's Greek Testament, 1910). Plummer, A., _St. James and St. Jude_ (Expositor's Bible). Rampf, M. F., _Der Brief Juda_ (1854). Stier, R., _Der Brief Judas, des Bruders des Herrn_ (1850). Wandel, G., _Der Brief des Judas_ (1898). strkjv@Jude:1:1 @{Servant} (\doulos\). Precisely as James (James:1:1|), only James added \kuriou\ (Lord). {Brother of James} (\adelphos Iak“bou\). Thus Jude:identifies himself. But not the "Judas of James" (Luke:6:16; strkjv@Acts:1:13|). {To them that are called} (\tois--klˆtois\). But this translation (treating \klˆtois\ as a substantive like strkjv@Romans:1:6; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:24|) is by no means certain as two participles come in between \tois\ and \klˆtois\. \Klˆtois\ may be in the predicate position (being called), not attributive. But see strkjv@1Peter:1:1|. {Beloved in God the Father} (\en the“i patri ˆgapˆmenois\). Perfect passive participle of \agapa“\, but no precise parallel to this use of \en\ with \agapa“\. {Kept for Jesus Christ} (\Iˆsou Christ“i tetˆrˆmenois\). Perfect passive participle again with dative, unless it is the instrumental, "kept by Jesus Christ," a quite possible interpretation.

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

rwp@Luke:1:47 @{Hath rejoiced} (\ˆgalliasen\). This is aorist active indicative. Greek tenses do not correspond to those in English. The verb \agallia“\ is a Hellenistic word from the old Greek \agall“\. It means to exult. See the substantive \agalliasis\ in strkjv@Luke:1:14,44|. Mary is not excited like Elisabeth, but breathes a spirit of composed rapture. {My spirit} (\to pneuma mou\). One need not press unduly the difference between "soul" (\psuchˆ\) in verse 46| and "spirit" here. Bruce calls them synonyms in parallel clauses. Vincent argues that the soul is the principle of individuality while the spirit is the point of contact between God and man. It is doubtful, however, if the trichotomous theory of man (body, soul, and spirit) is to be insisted on. It is certain that we have an inner spiritual nature for which various words are used in strkjv@Mark:12:30|. Even the distinction between intellect, emotions, and will is challenged by some psychologists. {God my Saviour} (\t“i the“i t“i sotˆri mou\). Article with each substantive. God is called Saviour in the O.T. (Deuteronomy:32:15, strkjv@Psalms:24:5; strkjv@95:1|).

rwp@Luke:1:65 @{Fear} (\phobos\). Not terror, but religious awe because of contact with the supernatural as in the case of Zacharias (1:12|). Were noised abroad (\dielaleito\). Imperfect passive. Occurs in Polybius. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:6:11|. It was continuous talk back and forth between (\dia\) the people.

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

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

rwp@Luke:4:6 @{All this authority} (\tˆn exousian tautˆn hapasan\). strkjv@Matthew:4:9| has "all these things." Luke's report is more specific. {And the glory of them} (\kai tˆn doxan aut“n\). strkjv@Matthew:4:8| has this in the statement of what the devil did, not what he said. {For it hath been delivered unto me} (\hoti emoi paradedotai\). Perfect passive indicative. Satan here claims possession of world power and Jesus does not deny it. It may be due to man's sin and by God's permission. Jesus calls Satan the ruler of this world (John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|). {To whomsoever I will} (\hoi an thel“\). Present subjunctive with \an\ in an indefinite relative sentence. This audacious claim, if allowed, makes one wonder whether some of the world rulers are not, consciously or unconsciously, agents of the devil. In several American cities there has been proven a definite compact between the police and the underworld of crime. But the tone of Satan here is one of superiority to Jesus in world power. He offers him a share in it on one condition.

rwp@Luke:4:14 @{Returned} (\hupestrepsen\). Luke does not fill in the gap between the temptations in the wilderness of Judea and the Galilean Ministry. He follows the outline of Mark. It is John's Gospel alone that tells of the year of obscurity (Stalker) in various parts of the Holy Land. {In the power of the Spirit} (\en tˆi dunamei tou pneumatos\). Luke in these two verses (14,15|) gives a description of the Galilean Ministry with three marked characteristics (Plummer): the power of the spirit, rapid spread of Christ's fame, use of the Jewish synagogues. Luke often notes the power of the Holy Spirit in the work of Christ. Our word dynamite is this same word \dunamis\ (power). {A fame} (\phˆmˆ\). An old Greek word found in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:9:26|. It is from \phˆmi\, to say. Talk ran rapidly in every direction. It assumes the previous ministry as told by John.

rwp@Luke:4:26 @{Unto Zarephath} (\eis Sarepta\). The modern village Surafend on the coast road between Tyre and Sidon. {Unto a woman that was a widow} (\pros gunaika chˆran\). Literally, unto a woman a widow (like our vernacular widow woman). This is an illustration of the proverb from the life of Elijah (1Kings:17:8,9|). This woman was in the land of Sidon or Phoenicia, a heathen, where Jesus himself will go later.

rwp@Luke:5:17 @{That} (\kai\). Use of \kai\ = \hoti\ (that) like the Hebrew _wav_, though found in Greek also. {He} (\autos\). Luke sometimes has \autos\ in the nominative as unemphatic "he" as here, not "he himself." {Was teaching} (\ˆn didask“n\). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom. {Were sitting by} (\ˆsan kathˆmenoi\). Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no "by" in the Greek. {Doctors of the law} (\nomodidaskaloi\). A compound word formed after analogy of \hierodidaskalos\, but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and strkjv@Acts:5:34; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7|. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word "doctor" is Latin for "teacher." These "teachers of the law" are called elsewhere in the Gospels "scribes" (\grammateis\) as in Matthew and Mark (see on ¯Matthew:5:20; strkjv@23:34|) and strkjv@Luke:5:21; strkjv@19:47; strkjv@21:1; strkjv@22:2|. Luke also employs \nomikos\ (one skilled in the law, \nomos\) as in strkjv@10:25|. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see on ¯Matthew:3:7,20|. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the "Pharisees" were "teachers of the law" so that both terms often occur together as in verse 21| where Luke has separate articles (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in strkjv@Matthew:5:20| or no article as here in verse 17|. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law "which were come" (\hoi ˆsan elˆluthotes\, periphrastic past perfect active, {had come}). {Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem} (\ek pasˆs k“mˆs tˆs Galilaias kai Ioudaias kai Ierousalˆm\). Edersheim (_Jewish Social Life_) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use "every village." But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that strkjv@John:4:1-4| shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:23|. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life. {The power of the Lord was with him to heal} (\dunamis Kuriou ˆn eis to iƒsthai auton\). Songs:the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: "Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus)." Here \Kuriou\ refers to Jehovah. {Dunamis} (dynamite) is one of the common words for "miracles" (\dunameis\). What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion.

rwp@Luke:5:24 @{He saith unto him that was palsied} (\eipen t“i paralelumen“i\). This same parenthesis right in the midst of the words of Jesus is in strkjv@Mark:2:11; strkjv@Matthew:9:6|, conclusive proof of interrelation between these documents. The words of Jesus are quoted practically alike in all three Gospels, the same purpose also \hina eidˆte\ (second perfect active subjunctive).

rwp@Luke:5:32 @{To repentance} (\eis metanoian\). Alone in Luke not genuine in strkjv@Mark:2:17; strkjv@Matthew:9:12|. Only sinners would need a call to repentance, a change of mind and life. For the moment Jesus accepts the Pharisaic division between "righteous" and "sinners" to score them and to answer their criticism. At the other times he will show that they only pretend to be "righteous" and are "hypocrites" in reality. But Jesus has here blazed the path for all soul-winners. The self-satisfied are the hard ones to win and they often resent efforts to win them to Christ.

rwp@Luke:5:33 @{Often} (\pukna\). Only in Luke. Common word for thick, compact, often. {And make supplications} (\kai deˆseis poiountai\). Only in Luke. {But thine} (\hoi de soi\). Sharp contrast between the conduct of the disciples of Jesus and those of John and the Pharisees who here appear together as critics of Christ and his disciples (Mark:2:18; strkjv@Matthew:9:14|), though Luke does not bring that out sharply. It is probable that Levi had his reception for Jesus on one of the Jewish fast days and, if so, this would give special edge to their criticism.

rwp@Luke:5:36 @{Also a parable} (\kai parabolˆn\). There are three parables here in the answer of Jesus (the bridegroom, the patch on the garment, the wineskin). They are not called parables save here, but they are parables and Luke's language means that. {Rendeth} (\schisas\). This in Luke alone. Common verb. Used of splitting rocks (Matthew:27:51|). Our word schism comes from it. {Putteth it} (\epiballei\). Songs:Matthew:9:16| when strkjv@Mark:2:21| has \epiraptei\ (sews on). The word for "piece" or "patch" (\epiblˆma\) in all the three Gospels is from the verb \epiball“\, to clap on, and is in Plutarch, Arrian, LXX, though the verb is as old as Homer. See on Matthew and Mark for distinction between \kainos\ (fresh), \neos\ (new), and \palaios\ (old). {He will rend the new} (\kai to kainon schisei\). Future active indicative. Songs:the best MSS. {Will not agree} (\ou sumph“nˆsei\). Future active indicative. Songs:the best manuscripts again. {With the old} (\t“i palai“i\). Associative instrumental case. Instead of this phrase in Luke, strkjv@Mark:2:21; strkjv@Matthew:9:16| have "a worse rent" (\cheiron schisma\).

rwp@Luke:6:17 @{He came down with them} (\katabas met' aut“n\). Second aorist active participle of \katabain“\, common verb. This was the night of prayer up in the mountain (Mark:31:3; strkjv@Luke:6:12|) and the choice of the Twelve next morning. The going up into the mountain of strkjv@Matthew:5:1| may simply be a summary statement with no mention of what Luke has explained or may be a reference to the elevation, where he "sat down" (Matthew:5:1|), above the plain or "level place" (\epi topou pedinou\) on the mountain side where Jesus "stood" or "stopped" (\estˆ\). It may be a level place towards the foot of the mountain. He stopped his descent at this level place and then found a slight elevation on the mountain side and began to speak. There is not the slightest reason for making Matthew locate this sermon on the mountain and Luke in the valley as if the places, audiences, and topics were different. For the unity of the sermon see discussion on ¯Matthew:5:1f|. The reports in Matthew and Luke begin alike, cover the same general ground and end alike. The report in Matthew is longer chiefly because in Chapter 5, he gives the argument showing the contrast between Christ's conception of righteousness and that of the Jewish rabbis. Undoubtedly, Jesus repeated many of the crisp sayings here at other times as in Luke 12, but it is quite gratuitous to argue that Matthew and Luke have made up this sermon out of isolated sayings of Christ at various times. Both Matthew and Luke give too much that is local of place and audience for that idea. strkjv@Matthew:5:1| speaks of "the multitudes" and "his disciples." strkjv@Luke:6:17| notes "a great multitude of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon." They agree in the presence of disciples and crowds besides the disciples from whom the twelve apostles were chosen. It is important to note how already people were coming from "the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon" "to hear him and to be healed (\iathˆnai\, first aorist passive of \iaomai\) of their diseases."

rwp@Luke:6:21 @{Now} (\nun\). Luke adds this adverb here and in the next sentence after "weep." This sharpens the contrast between present sufferings and the future blessings. {Filled} (\chortasthˆsesthe\). Future passive indicative. The same verb in strkjv@Matthew:5:6|. Originally it was used for giving fodder (\chortos\) to animals, but here it is spiritual fodder or food except in strkjv@Luke:15:16; strkjv@16:21|. Luke here omits "and thirst after righteousness." {Weep} (\klaiontes\). Audible weeping. Where strkjv@Matthew:5:4| has "mourn" (\penthountes\). {Shall laugh} (\gelasete\). Here strkjv@Matthew:5:4| has "shall be comforted." Luke's words are terse.

rwp@Luke:9:3 @{Neither staff} (\mˆte rabdon\). For the apparent contradiction between these words (Matthew:10:10|) and strkjv@Mark:6:8| see discussion there. For \pˆran\ (wallet) see also on ¯Mark:6:8| (Matthew:10:10|) for this and other details here.

rwp@Luke:9:28 @{About eight days} (\h“sei hˆmerai okt“\). A _nominativus pendens_ without connexion or construction. strkjv@Mark:9:2| (Matthew:17:1|) has "after six days" which agrees with the general statement. {Into the mountain} (\eis to oros\). Probably Mount Hermon because we know that Jesus was near Caesarea Philippi when Peter made the confession (Mark:8:27; strkjv@Matthew:16:13|). Hermon is still the glory of Palestine from whose heights one can view the whole of the land. It was a fit place for the Transfiguration. {To pray} (\proseuxasthai\). Peculiar to Luke who so often mentions Christ's habit of prayer (cf. strkjv@3:21|). See also verse 29| "as he was praying" (\en t“i proseuchesthai\, one of Luke's favourite idioms). {His countenance was altered} (\egeneto to eidos tou pros“pou autou heteron\). Literally, "the appearance of his face became different." strkjv@Matthew:17:2| says that "his face did shine as the sun." Luke does not use the word "transfigured" (\metemorph“thˆ\) in strkjv@Mark:9:2; strkjv@Matthew:17:2|. He may have avoided this word because of the pagan associations with this word as Ovid's \Metamorphoses\. {And his raiment became white and dazzling} (\kai ho himatismos autou leukos exastrapt“n\). Literally, {And his raiment white radiant}. There is no _and_ between "white" and "dazzling." The participle \exastrapt“n\ is from the compound verb meaning to flash (\astrapt“\) out or forth (\ex\). The simple verb is common for lightning flashes and bolts, but the compound in the LXX and here alone in the N.T. See strkjv@Mark:9:3| "exceeding white" and strkjv@Matthew:17:2| "white as the light."

rwp@Luke:10:17 @{Returned with joy} (\hupestrepsan meta charas\). They had profited by the directions of Jesus. Joy overflows their faces and their words. {Even the demons} (\kai ta daimonia\). This was a real test. The Twelve had been expressly endowed with this power when they were sent out (Luke:9:1|), but the Seventy were only told to heal the sick (10:9|). It was better than they expected. The Gospel worked wonders and they were happy. The demons were merely one sign of the conflict between Christ and Satan. Every preacher has to grapple with demons in his work. {Are subject} (\hupotassetai\). Present passive indicative (repetition).

rwp@Luke:10:22 @{Knoweth who the Son is} (\gin“skei tis estin ho huios\). Knows by experience, \gin“skei\. Here strkjv@Matthew:11:27| has \epigin“skei\ (fully knows) and simply \ton huion\ (the Son) instead of the "who" (\tis\) clause. Songs:also in "who the Father is" (\tis estin ho pater\). But the same use and contrast of "the Father," "the Son." in both Matthew and Luke, "an aerolite from the Johannean heaven" (Hase). No sane criticism can get rid of this Johannine bit in these Gospels written long before the Fourth Gospel was composed. We are dealing here with the oldest known document about Christ (the Logia) and the picture is that drawn in the Fourth Gospel (see my _The Christ of the Logia_). It is idle to try to whittle away by fantastic exegesis the high claims made by Jesus in this passage. It is an ecstatic prayer in the presence of the Seventy under the rapture of the Holy Spirit on terms of perfect equality and understanding between the Father and the Son in the tone of the priestly prayer in strkjv@John:17|. We are justified in saying that this prayer of supreme Fellowship with the Father in contemplation of final victory over Satan gives us a glimpse of the prayers with the Father when the Son spent whole nights on the mountain alone with the Father. Here is the Messianic consciousness in complete control and with perfect confidence in the outcome. Here as in strkjv@Matthew:11:27| by the use of {willeth to reveal him} (\boulˆtai apokalupsai\). The Son claims the power to reveal the Father "to whomsoever he wills" (\h“i an boulˆtai\, indefinite relative and present subjunctive of \boulomai\, to will, not the future indicative). This is divine sovereignty most assuredly. Human free agency is also true, but it is full divine sovereignty in salvation that is here claimed along with possession (\paredothˆ\, timeless aorist passive indicative) of all power from the Father. Let that supreme claim stand.

rwp@Luke:11:14 @{When} (\tou daimoniou exelthontos\). Genitive absolute ana asyndeton between \kai egeneto\ and \elalˆsen\ as often in Luke (no \hoti\ or \kai\).

rwp@Luke:11:32 @{At the preaching of Jonah} (\eis to kˆrugma I“na\). Note this use of \eis\ as in strkjv@Matthew:10:41; strkjv@12:41|. Luke inserts the words about the Queen of the South (31|) in between the discussion of Jonah (verses 29f., 32|). Both \Solom“nos\ (31|) and \I“nƒ\ (verse 32|) are in the ablative case after the comparative \pleion\ (more, {something more}).

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:11:38 @{That he had not first washed before dinner} (\hoti ou pr“ton ebaptisthˆ pro tou aristou\). The verb is first aorist passive indicative of \baptiz“\, to dip or to immerse. Here it is applied to the hands. It was the Jewish custom to dip the hands in water before eating and often between courses for ceremonial purification. In Galilee the Pharisees and scribes had sharply criticized the disciples for eating with unwashed hands (Mark:7:1-23; strkjv@Matthew:15:1-20|) when Jesus had defended their liberty and had opposed making a necessity of such a custom (tradition) in opposition to the command of God. Apparently Jesus on this occasion had himself reclined at the breakfast (not dinner) without this ceremonial dipping of the hands in water. The Greek has "first before" (\pr“ton pro\), a tautology not preserved in the translation.

rwp@Luke:11:51 @{From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah} (\apo haimatos Abel he“s haimatos Zachariou\). The blood of Abel is the first shed in the Old Testament (Genesis:4:10|), that of Zacharias the last in the O.T. canon which ended with Chronicles (2Chronicles:24:22|). Chronologically the murder of Uriah by Jehoiakim was later (Jeremiah:26:23|), but this climax is from Genesis to II Chronicles (the last book in the canon). See on ¯Matthew:23:35| for discussion of Zachariah as "the son of Barachiah" rather than "the son of Jehoiada." {Between the altar and the sanctuary} (\metaxu tou thusiastˆriou kai tou oikou\). Literally, between the altar and the house (Matthew:23:35| has temple, \naou\).

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:14:12 @{A dinner or a supper} (\ariston ˆ deipnon\). More exactly, a breakfast or a dinner with distinction between them as already shown. This is a parable for the host as one had just been given for the guests, though Luke does not term this a parable. {Call not} (\mˆ ph“nei\). \Mˆ\ and the present imperative active, prohibiting the habit of inviting only friends. It is the _exclusive_ invitation of such guests that Jesus condemns. There is a striking parallel to this in Plato's _Phaedrus_ 233. {Recompense} (\antapodoma\). In the form of a return invitation. Like \anti\ in "bid thee again" (\antikales“sin\).

rwp@Luke:14:20 @{I cannot come} (\ou dunamai elthein\). Less polite than the others but a more plausible pretence if he wanted to make it so. The law excused a newly married man from war (Deuteronomy:24:5|), "but not from social courtesy" (Ragg). The new wife would probably have been glad to go with him to the feast if asked. But see strkjv@1Corinthians:7:33|. There is here as often a sharp difference between the excuses offered and the reasons behind them.

rwp@Luke:15:2 @{Both... and} (\te... kai\). United in the complaint. {Murmured} (\diegogguzon\). Imperfect active of \diagogguz“\, late Greek compound in the LXX and Byzantine writers. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:7|. The force of \dia\ here is probably between or among themselves. It spread (imperfect tense) whenever these two classes came in contact with Jesus. As the publicans and the sinners were drawing near to Jesus just in that proportion the Pharisees and the scribes increased their murmurings. The social breach is here an open yawning chasm. {This man} (\houtos\). A contemptuous sneer in the use of the pronoun. They spoke out openly and probably pointed at Jesus. {Receiveth} (\prosdechetai\). Present middle indicative of the common verb \prosdechomai\. In strkjv@12:36| we had it for expecting, here it is to give access to oneself, to welcome like \hupedexato\ of Martha's welcome to Jesus (Luke:10:38|). The charge here is that this is the habit of Jesus. He shows no sense of social superiority to these outcasts (like the Hindu "untouchables" in India). {And eateth with them} (\kai sunesthiei autois\). Associative instrumental case (\autois\) after \sun-\ in composition. This is an old charge (Luke:5:30|) and a much more serious breach from the standpoint of the Pharisees. The implication is that Jesus prefers these outcasts to the respectable classes (the Pharisees and the scribes) because he is like them in character and tastes, even with the harlots. There was a sting in the charge that he was the "friend" (\philos\) of publicans and sinners (Luke:7:34|).

rwp@Luke:16:6 @{Measures} (\batous\). Transliterated word for Hebrew _bath_, between eight and nine gallons. Here alone in the N.T. Not the same word as \batos\ ({bush}) in strkjv@Luke:6:44|. {Thy bond} (\sou ta grammata\). Thy writings, thy contracts, thy note. {Quickly} (\tache“s\). It was a secret arrangement and speed was essential.

rwp@Luke:17:28 @Note the same sharp contrast between the imperfects here ({ate} \ˆsthion\, {drank} \epinon\, {bought} \ˆgorazon\, {sold} \ep“loun\, {planted} \ephuteuon\, {builded} \“ikodomoun\) and the aorists in verse 29| ({went out} \exˆlthen\, {rained} \ebrexen\, {destroyed} \ap“lesen\).

rwp@Luke:18:12 @{Twice in the week} (\dis tou sabbatou\). One fast a year was required by the law (Leviticus:16:29; strkjv@Numbers:29:7|). The Pharisees added others, twice a week between passover and pentecost, and between tabernacles and dedication of the temple. {I get} (\kt“mai\). Present middle indicative, not perfect middle \kektˆmai\ (I possess). He gave a tithe of his income, not of his property.

rwp@Luke:18:35 @{Unto Jericho} (\eis Iereich“\). See on ¯Matthew:20:29; strkjv@Mark:10:46|, for discussion of the two Jerichos in Mark and Matt. (the old and the new as here). {Begging} (\epait“n\). Asking for something. He probably was by the wayside between the old Jericho and the new Roman Jericho. Mark gives his name Bartimaeus (10:46|). strkjv@Matthew:20:30| mentions two.

rwp@Luke:20:5 @{They reasoned with themselves} (\sunelogisanto\). First aorist middle of \sullogizomai\, to bring together accounts, an old word, only here in the N.T. Mark and Matthew have \dielogizonto\ (imperfect middle of \dialogizomai\, a kindred verb, to reckon between one another, confer). This form (\dielogizonto\) in verse 14| below. {If we shall say} (\ean eip“men\). Third-class condition with second aorist active subjunctive. Suppose we say! Songs:in verse 6|.

rwp@Luke:22:20 @{After the supper} (\meta to deipnˆsai\). Preposition \meta\ and the accusative articular infinitive. The textual situation here is confusing, chiefly because of the two cups (verses 17,20|). Some of the documents omit the latter part of verse 19| and all of verse 20|. It is possible, of course, that this part crept into the text of Luke from strkjv@1Corinthians:11:24f|. But, if this part is omitted, Luke would then have the order reversed, the cup before the bread. Songs:there are difficulties whichever turn one takes here with Luke's text whether one cup or two cups. {The New Covenant} (\he kainˆ diathˆkˆ\). See on ¯Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Mark:14:24| for "covenant." Westcott and Hort reject "new" there, but accept it here and in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:25|. See on ¯Luke:5:38| for difference between \kainˆ\ and \nea\. "The ratification of a covenant was commonly associated with the shedding of blood; and what was written in blood was believed to be indelible" (Plummer). {Poured out} (\ekchunnomenon\). Same word in strkjv@Mark:14:24; strkjv@Matthew:26:28| translated "shed." Late form present passive participle of \ekchunn“\ of \ekche“\, to pour out.

rwp@Luke:23:12 @{For before they were at enmity between themselves} (\proupˆrchon gar en echthrƒi ontes pros heautous\). A periphrastic imperfect of the double compound \prouperch“\, an old verb, to exist (\huparch“\) previously (\pro-\), here alone in the N.T., with \ontes\ (participle of \eimi\) added.

rwp@Luke:23:33 @{The skull} (\to kranion\). Probably because it looked like a skull. See on ¯Matthew:27:33; strkjv@Mark:15:22|. {There they crucified him} (\ekei estaur“san\). There between the two robbers and on the very cross on which Barabbas, the leader of the robber band, was to have been crucified. {One} (\hon men\), {the other} (\hon de\). Common idiom of contrast with this old demonstrative \hos\ and \men\ and \de\.

rwp@Mark:1:9 @{In the Jordan} (\eis ton Iordanˆn\). Songs:in verse 10|, \ek tou hudatos\, out of the water, after the baptism into the Jordan. Mark is as fond of "straightway" (\euthus\) as Matthew is of "then" (\tote\). {Rent asunder} (\schizomenous\). Split like a garment, present passive participle. Jesus saw the heavens parting as he came up out of the water, a more vivid picture than the "opened" in strkjv@Matthew:3:16| and strkjv@Luke:3:21|. Evidently the Baptist saw all this and the Holy Spirit coming down upon Jesus as a dove because he later mentions it (John:1:32|). The Cerinthian Gnostics took the dove to mean the heavenly _aeon Christ_ that here descended upon the man Jesus and remained with him till the Cross when it left him, a sort of forecast of the modern distinction between the Jesus of history and the theological Christ.

rwp@Mark:1:23 @{With an unclean spirit} (\en pneumati akathart“i\). This use of \en\ "with" is common in the Septuagint like the Hebrew _be_, but it occurs also in the papyri. It is the same idiom as "in Christ," "in the Lord" so common with Paul. In English we speak of our being in love, in drink, in his cups, etc. The unclean spirit was in the man and the man in the unclean spirit, a man in the power of the unclean spirit. Luke has "having," the usual construction. See on ¯Matthew:22:43|. Unclean spirit is used as synonymous with {demon} (\daimonion\). It is the idea of estrangement from God (Zechariah:13:2|). The whole subject of demonology is difficult, but no more so than the problem of the devil. Jesus distinguishes between the man and the unclean spirit. Usually physical or mental disease accompanied the possession by demons. One wonders today if the degenerates and confirmed criminals so common now are not under the power of demons. The only cure for confirmed criminals seems to be conversion (a new heart).

rwp@Mark:1:24 @{What have we to do with thee?} (\ti hˆmin kai soi?\) The same idiom in strkjv@Matthew:8:29|. Ethical dative. Nothing in common between the demon and Jesus. Note "we." The man speaks for the demon and himself, double personality. The recognition of Jesus by the demons may surprise us since the rabbis (the ecclesiastics) failed to do so. They call Jesus "The Holy One of God" (\ho hagios tou theou\). Hence the demon feared that Jesus was come to destroy him and the man in his power. In strkjv@Matthew:8:29| the demon calls Jesus "Son of God." Later the disciples will call Jesus "The Holy One of God" (John:6:69|). The demon cried out aloud (\anekraxen\, late first aorist form, \anekragen\, common second aorist) so that all heard the strange testimony to Jesus. The man says "I know" (\oida\), correct text, some manuscripts "we know" (\oidamen\), including the demon.

rwp@Mark:2:1 @{Again into Capernaum after some days} (\palin eis Kapharnaoum di' hˆmer“n\). After the first tour of Galilee when Jesus is back in the city which is now the headquarters for the work in Galilee. The phrase \di' hˆmer“n\ means days coming in between (\dia, duo\, two) the departure and return. {In the house} (\en oik“i\). More exactly, {at home}, in the home of Peter, now the home of Jesus. Another picture directly from Peter's discourse. Some of the manuscripts have here \eis oikon\, illustrating the practical identity in meaning of \en\ and \eis\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 591-6). {It was noised} (\ˆkousthˆ\). It was heard (first aorist, passive indicative from \akou“\, to hear). People spread the rumour, "He is at home, he is indoors."

rwp@Mark:2:18 @{John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting} (\ˆsan hoi mathˆtai I“anou kai hoi Pharisaioi nˆsteuontes\). The periphrastic imperfect, so common in Mark's vivid description. Probably Levi's feast happened on one of the weekly fast-days (second and fifth days of the week for the stricter Jews). Songs:there was a clash of standpoints. The disciples of John sided with the Pharisees in the Jewish ceremonial ritualistic observances. John was still a prisoner in Machaerus. John was more of an ascetic than Jesus (Matthew:18f.; strkjv@Luke:7:33-35|), but neither one pleased all the popular critics. These learners (\mathˆtai\) or disciples of John had missed the spirit of their leader when they here lined up with the Pharisees against Jesus. But there was no real congeniality between the formalism of the Pharisees and the asceticism of John the Baptist. The Pharisees hated John who had denounced them as broods of vipers. Here the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees (\hoi mathˆtai I“anou kai hoi mathˆtai t“n Pharisai“n\) join in criticizing Jesus and his disciples. Later we shall see Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians, who bitterly detested each other, making com- mon cause against Jesus Christ. Songs:today we find various hostile groups combining against our Lord and Saviour. See on ¯Matthew:9:14-17| for comments. Matthew has here followed Mark closely.

rwp@Mark:2:26 @{The house of God} (\ton oikon tou theou\). The tent or tabernacle at Nob, not the temple in Jerusalem built by Solomon. {When Abiathar was high priest} (\epi Abiathar archiere“s\). Neat Greek idiom, in the time of Abiathar as high priest. There was confusion in the Massoretic text and in the LXX about the difference between Ahimelech (Abimelech) and Abiathar (2Samuel:8:17|), Ahimelech's son and successor (1Samuel:21:2; strkjv@22:20|). Apparently Ahimelech, not Abiathar was high priest at this time. It is possible that both father and son bore both names (1Samuel:22:20; strkjv@2Samuel:8:17; strkjv@1Chronicles:18:16|), Abiathar mentioned though both involved. \Epi\ may so mean in the passage about Abiathar. Or we may leave it unexplained. They had the most elaborate rules for the preparation of the shewbread (\tous artous tˆs prothese“s\), the loaves of presentation, the loaves of the face or presence of God. It was renewed on the commencement of the sabbath and the old bread deposited on the golden table in the porch of the Sanctuary. This old bread was eaten by the priests as they came and went. This is what David ate.

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:6:9 @{Shod with sandals} (\hupodedemenous sandalia\). Perfect passive participle in the accusative case as if with the infinitive \poreuesthai\ or \poreuthˆnai\, (to go). Note the aorist infinitive middle, \endusasthai\ (text of Westcott and Hort), but \endusˆsthe\ (aorist middle subjunctive) in the margin. Change from indirect to direct discourse common enough, not necessarily due to "disjointed notes on which the Evangelist depended" (Swete). strkjv@Matthew:10:10| has "nor shoes" (\mˆde hupodˆmata\), possibly preserving the distinction between "shoes" and "sandals" (worn by women in Greece and by men in the east, especially in travelling). But here again extra shoes may be the prohibition. See on ¯Matthew:10:10| for this. {Two coats} (\duo chit“nas\). Two was a sign of comparative wealth (Swete). The mention of "two" here in all three Gospels probably helps us to understand that the same thing applies to shoes and staff. "In general, these directions are against luxury in equipment, and also against their providing themselves with what they could procure from the hospitality of others" (Gould).

rwp@Mark:6:20 @{Feared John} (\ephobeito ton I“anˆn\). Imperfect tense, continual state of fear. He feared John and also Herodias. Between the two Herod vacillated. He knew him to be righteous and holy (\dikaion kai hagion\) and so innocent of any wrong. Songs:he {kept him safe} (\sunetˆrei\). Imperfect tense again. Late Greek verb. From the plots and schemes of Herodias. She was another Jezebel towards John and with Herod. {Much perplexed} (\polla ˆporei\). This the correct text not \polla epoiei\, did many things. Imperfect tense again. {He heard him gladly} (\hˆde“s ˆkouen\). Imperfect tense again. This is the way that Herod really felt when he could slip away from the meshes of Herodias. These interviews with the Baptist down in the prison at Machaerus during his occasional visits there braced "his jaded mind as with a whiff of fresh air" (Swete). But then he saw Herodias again and he was at his wits' end (\ˆporei\, lose one's way, \a\ privative and \poros\, way), for he knew that he had to live with Herodias with whom he was hopelessly entangled.

rwp@Mark:9:38 @{Because he followed not us} (\hoti ouk ˆkolouthei hˆmin\). Note vivid imperfect tense again. John evidently thought to change the subject from the constraint and embarrassment caused by their dispute. Songs:he told about a case of extra zeal on his part expecting praise from Jesus. Perhaps what Jesus had just said in verse 37| raised a doubt in John's mind as to the propriety of his excessive narrowness. One needs to know the difference between loyalty to Jesus and stickling over one's own narrow prejudices.

rwp@Mark:10:1 @{Into the border of Judea and beyond Jordan} (\eis ta horia tˆs Ioudaias kai peran tou Iordanou\). See on ¯Matthew:19:1| for discussion of this curious expression. Matthew adds "from Galilee" and strkjv@Luke:17:11| says that Jesus "was passing through the midst of Samaria and Galilee" after leaving Ephraim (John:11:54|). A great deal has intervened between the events at the close of Mark 9 and those in the beginning of Mark 10. For these events see strkjv@Matthew:18; strkjv@John:7-11; strkjv@Luke:9:57-18:14| (one-third of Luke's Gospel comes in here). It was a little over six months to the end at the close of Mark 9. It is just a few weeks now in Mark 10. Jesus has begun his last journey to Jerusalem going north through Samaria, Galilee, across the Jordan into Perea, and back into Judea near Jericho to go up with the passover pilgrims from Galilee. {Multitudes} (\ochloi\). Caravans and caravans journeying to Jerusalem. Many of them are followers of Jesus from Galilee or at least kindly disposed towards him. They go together (\sunporeuontai\) with Jesus. Note dramatic historical present. {As he was wont} (\h“s ei“thei\). Second past perfect used like an imperfect from \ei“tha\, second perfect active. Jesus {was teaching} (\edidasken\, imperfect, no longer present tense) this moving caravan.

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: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:13:7 @{Must needs come to pass} (\dei genesthai\). Already there were outbreaks against the Jews in Alexandria, at Seleucia with the slaughter of more than fifty thousand, at Jamnia, and elsewhere. Caligula, Claudius, Nero will threaten war before it finally comes with the destruction of the city and temple by Titus in A.D. 70. Vincent notes that between this prophecy by Jesus in A.D. 30 (or 29) and the destruction of Jerusalem there was an earthquake in Crete (A.D. 46 or 47), at Rome (A.D. 51), at Apamaia in Phrygia (A.D. 60), at Campania (A.D. 63). He notes also four famines during the reign of Claudius A.D. 41-54. One of them was in Judea in A.D. 44 and is alluded to in strkjv@Acts:11:28|. Tacitus (_Annals_ xvi. 10-13) describes the hurricanes and storms in Campania in A.D. 65.

rwp@Mark:14:48 @{Against a robber} (\epi lˆistˆn\). Highway robbers like Barabbas were common and were often regarded as heroes. Jesus will be crucified between two robbers in the very place that Barabbas would have occupied.

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:15:9 @{The King of the Jews} (\ton basilea t“n Ioudai“n\). That phrase from this charge sharpened the contrast between Jesus and Barabbas which is bluntly put in strkjv@Matthew:27:17| "Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ." See discussion there.

rwp@Mark:16:1 @{When the sabbath was past} (\diagenomenou tou sabbatou\). Genitive absolute, the sabbath having come in between, and now over. For this sense of the verb (common from Demosthenes on) see strkjv@Acts:25:13; strkjv@27:9|. It was therefore after sunset. {Bought spices} (\ˆgorasan ar“mata\). As Nicodemus did on the day of the burial (John:19:40|). Gould denies that the Jews were familiar with the embalming process of Egypt, but at any rate it was to be a reverential anointing (\hina aleips“sin\) of the body of Jesus with spices. They could buy them after sundown. Salome in the group again as in strkjv@Mark:15:40|. See on ¯Matthew:28:1| for discussion of "late on the sabbath day" and the visit of the women to the tomb before sundown. They had returned from the tomb after the watching late Friday afternoon and had prepared spices (Luke:23:56|). Now they secured a fresh supply.

rwp@Mark:16:14 @{To the eleven themselves} (\autois tois hendeka\). Both terms, eleven and twelve (John:20:24|), occur after the death of Judas. There were others present on this first Sunday evening according to strkjv@Luke:24:33|. {Afterward} (\husteron\) is here alone in Mark, though common in Matthew. {Upbraided} (\“neidisen\). They were guilty of unbelief (\apistian\) and hardness of heart (\sklˆrokardian\). Doubt is not necessarily a mark of intellectual superiority. One must steer between credulity and doubt. That problem is a vital one today in all educated circles. Some of the highest men of science today are devout believers in the Risen Christ. Luke explains how the disciples were upset by the sudden appearance of Christ and were unable to believe the evidence of their own senses (Luke:24:38-43|).

rwp@Matthew:1:19 @{A Righteous Man} (\dikaios\). Or just, not benignant or merciful. The same adjective is used of Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke:1:6|) and Simeon (Luke:2:25|). "An upright man," the _Braid Scots_ has it. He had the Jewish conscientiousness for the observance of the law which would have been death by stoning (Deuteronomy:22:23|). Though Joseph was upright, he would not do that. "As a good Jew he would have shown his zeal if he had branded her with public disgrace" (McNeile). {And yet not willing} (\kai mˆ thel“n\). Songs:we must understand \kai\ here, "and yet." Matthew makes a distinction here between "willing" (\thel“n\) and "wishing" (\eboulˆthˆ\), that between purpose (\thel“\) and desire (\boulomai\) a distinction not always drawn, though present here. It was not his purpose to "make her a public example" (\deigmatisai\), from the root (\deiknumi\ to show), a rare word (Colossians:2:15|). The Latin Vulgate has it _traducere_, the Old Latin _divulgare_, Wycliff _pupplische_ (publish), Tyndale _defame_, Moffatt _disgrace_, Braid Scots "Be i the mooth o' the public." The substantive (\deigmatismos\) occurs on the Rosetta Stone in the sense of "verification." There are a few instances of the verb in the papyri though the meaning is not clear (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). The compound form appears (\paradeigmatiz“\) in strkjv@Hebrews:6:6| and there are earlier instances of this compound than of the uncompounded, curiously enough. But new examples of the simple verb, like the substantive, may yet be found. The papyri examples mean to furnish a sample (P Tebt. 5.75), to make trial of (P Ryl. I. 28.32). The substantive means exposure in (P Ryl. I. 28.70). At any rate it is clear that Joseph "was minded to put her away privily." He could give her a bill of divorcement (\apolusai\), the \gˆt\ laid down in the Mishna, without a public trial. He had to give her the writ (\gˆt\) and pay the fine (Deuteronomy:24:1|). Songs:he proposed to do this privately (\lathrai\) to avoid all the scandal possible. One is obliged to respect and sympathize with the motives of Joseph for he evidently loved Mary and was appalled to find her untrue to him as he supposed. It is impossible to think of Joseph as the actual father of Jesus according to the narrative of Matthew without saying that Matthew has tried by legend to cover up the illegitimate birth of Jesus. The Talmud openly charges this sin against Mary. Joseph had "a short but tragic struggle between his legal conscience and his love" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:5:43 @{And hate thine enemy} (\kai misˆseis\). This phrase is not in strkjv@Leviticus:19:18|, but is a rabbinical inference which Jesus repudiates bluntly. The Talmud says nothing of love to enemies. Paul in strkjv@Romans:12:20| quotes strkjv@Proverbs:25:22| to prove that we ought to treat our enemies kindly. Jesus taught us to pray for our enemies and did it himself even when he hung upon the cross. Our word "neighbour" is "nigh-bor," one who is nigh or near like the Greek word \plˆsion\ here. But proximity often means strife and not love. Those who have adjoining farms or homes may be positively hostile in spirit. The Jews came to look on members of the same tribe as neighbours as even Jews everywhere. But they hated the Samaritans who were half Jews and lived between Judea and Galilee. Jesus taught men how to act as neighbours by the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke:10:29ff.|).

rwp@Matthew:7:13 @{By the narrow gate} (\dia tˆs stenˆs pulˆs\). The Authorized Version "at the strait gate" misled those who did not distinguish between "strait" and "straight." The figure of the Two Ways had a wide circulation in Jewish and Christian writings (cf. strkjv@Deuteronomy:30:19; strkjv@Jeremiah:21:8; strkjv@Psalms:1|). See the _Didache_ i-vi; Barnabas xviii-xx. "The narrow gate" is repeated in verse 14| and {straitened the way} (\tethlimmenˆ hˆ hodos\) added. The way is "compressed," narrowed as in a defile between high rocks, a tight place like \stenoch“ria\ in strkjv@Romans:8:35|. "The way that leads to life involves straits and afflictions" (McNeile). Vincent quotes the _Pinax_ or _Tablet_ of Cebes, a contemporary of Socrates: "Seest thou not, then, a little door, and a way before the door, which is not much crowded, but very few travel it? This is the way that leadeth unto true culture." "The broad way" (\euruch“ros\) is in every city, town, village, with the glaring white lights that lure to destruction.

rwp@Matthew:7:21 @{Not--but} (\ou--all'\). Sharp contrast between the mere talker and the doer of God's will.

rwp@Matthew:8:29 @{Thou Son of God} (\huie tou theou\). The recognition of Jesus by the demons is surprising. The whole subject of demonology is difficult. Some hold that it is merely the ancient way of describing disease. But that does not explain the situation here. Jesus is represented as treating the demons as real existences separate from the human personality. Missionaries in China today claim that they have seen demons cast out. The devil knew Jesus clearly and it is not strange that Jesus was recognized by the devil's agents. They know that there is nothing in common between them and the Son of God (\hˆmin kai soi\, ethical dative) and they fear torment "before the time" (\pro kairou\). Usually \ta daimonia\ is the word in the New Testament for demons, but in strkjv@8:31| we have \hoi daimones\ (the only example in the N.T.). \Daimonion\ is a diminutive of \daim“n\. In Homer \daim“n\ is used synonymously with \theos\ and \thea\. Hesiod employed \daim“n\ of men of the golden age as tutelary deities. Homer has the adjective \daimonios\ usually in an evil sense. Empedocles considered the demons both bad and good. They were thus used to relieve the gods and goddesses of much rascality. Grote (_History of Greece_) notes that the Christians were thus by pagan usage justified in calling idolatry the worship of demons. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20f.; strkjv@1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@16:13f|. In the Gospels demons are the same as unclean spirits (Mark:5:12,15; strkjv@3:22,30; strkjv@Luke:4:33|). The demons are disturbers (Vincent) of the whole life of man (Mark:5:2f.; strkjv@7:25; strkjv@Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|).

rwp@Matthew:13:22 @{Choke the word} (\sunpnigei ton logon\). We had \apepnixan\ (choked off) in strkjv@13:7|. Here it is \sunpnigei\ (choke together), historical present and singular with both subjects lumped together. "Lust for money and care go together and between them spoil many an earnest religious nature" (Bruce), "thorns" indeed. The thorns flourish and the character sickens and dies, choked to death for lack of spiritual food, air, sunshine.

rwp@Matthew:20:15 @{Is thine eye evil?} (\ho ophthalmos sou ponˆros estin?\) See on ¯6:22-24| about the evil eye and the good eye. The complainer had a grudging eye while the householder has a liberal or generous eye. See strkjv@Romans:5:7| for a distinction between \dikaios\ and \agathos\.

rwp@Matthew:20:29 @{From Jericho} (\apo Iereich“\). Songs:Mark:10:46|. But Luke (Luke:18:35|) places the incident as they were drawing near to Jericho (\eis Iereich“\). It is probable that Mark and Matthew refer to the old Jericho, the ruins of which have been discovered, while Luke alludes to the new Roman Jericho. The two blind men were apparently between the two towns. Mark (Mark:10:46|) and Luke (Luke:18:35|) mention only one blind man, Bartimaeus (Mark). In Kentucky there are two towns about a half mile apart both called Pleasureville (one Old Pleasureville, the other New Pleasureville).

rwp@Matthew:21:19 @{A fig tree} (\sukˆn mian\). "A single fig tree" (Margin of Rev. Version). But \heis\ was often used = \tis\ or like our indefinite article. See strkjv@Matthew:8:10; strkjv@26:69|. The Greek has strictly no indefinite article as the Latin has no definite article. {Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever} (\ou mˆketi sou karpos genˆtai eis ton ai“na\). Strictly speaking this is a prediction, not a prohibition or wish as in strkjv@Mark:11:14| (optative \phagoi\). "On you no fruit shall ever grow again" (Weymouth). The double negative \ou mˆ\ with the aorist subjunctive (or future indicative) is the strongest kind of negative prediction. It sometimes amounts to a prohibition like \ou\ and the future indicative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 926f.). The early figs start in spring before the leaves and develop after the leaves. The main fig crop was early autumn (Mark:11:14|). There should have been figs on the tree with the crop of leaves. It was a vivid object lesson. Matthew does not distinguish between the two mornings as Mark does (Mark:11:13,20|), but says "immediately" (\parachrˆma\) twice (21:19,20|). This word is really \para to chrˆma\ like our "on the spot" (Thayer). It occurs in the papyri in monetary transactions for immediate cash payment.

rwp@Matthew:21:29 @{I will not} (\ou thel“\). Songs:many old manuscripts, though the Vatican manuscript (B) has the order of the two sons reversed. Logically the "I, sir" (\eg“, kurie\) suits better for the second son (verse 30|) with a reference to the blunt refusal of the first. Songs:also the manuscripts differ in verse 31| between the first (\ho pr“tos\) and the last (\ho husteros\ or \eschatos\). But the one who actually did the will of the father is the one who {repented and went} (\metamelˆtheis apˆlthen\). This word really means "repent," to be sorry afterwards, and must be sharply distinguished from the word \metanoe“\ used 34 times in the N.T. as in strkjv@Matthew:3:2| and \metanoia\ used 24 times as in strkjv@Matthew:3:8|. The verb \metamelomai\ occurs in the N.T. only five times (Matthew:21:29,32; strkjv@27:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:8; strkjv@Hebrews:7:21| from strkjv@Psalms:109:4|). Paul distinguishes sharply between mere sorrow and the act "repentance" which he calls \metanoian\ (2Corinthians:7:9|). In the case of Judas (Matthew:27:3|) it was mere remorse. Here the boy got sorry for his stubborn refusal to obey his father and went and obeyed. Godly sorrow leads to repentance (\metanoian\), but mere sorrow is not repentance.

rwp@Matthew:22:2 @{A marriage feast} (\gamous\). The plural, as here (2,3,4,9|), is very common in the papyri for the wedding festivities (the several acts of feasting) which lasted for days, seven in strkjv@Judges:14:17|. The very phrase here, \gamous poiein\, occurs in the Doric of Thera about B.C. 200. The singular \gamos\ is common in the papyri for the wedding contract, but Field (_Notes_, p. 16) sees no difference between the singular here in strkjv@22:8| and the plural (see also strkjv@Genesis:29:22; strkjv@Esther:9:22|; Macc. strkjv@10:58).

rwp@Matthew:22:12 @{Not having a wedding-garment} (\mˆ ech“n enduma gamou\). \Mˆ\ is in the _Koin‚_ the usual negative with participles unless special emphasis on the negative is desired as in \ouk endedumenon\. There is a subtle distinction between \mˆ\ and \ou\ like our subjective and objective notions. Some hold that the wedding-garment here is a portion of a lost parable separate from that of the Wedding Feast, but there is no evidence for that idea. Wunsche does report a parable by a rabbi of a king who set no time for his feast and the guests arrived, some properly dressed waiting at the door; others in their working clothes did not wait, but went off to work and, when the summons suddenly came, they had no time to dress properly and were made to stand and watch while the others partook of the feast.

rwp@Matthew:22:14 @{For many are called, but few chosen} (\polloi gar eisin klˆtoi oligoi de eklektoi\). This crisp saying of Christ occurs in various connections. He evidently repeated many of his sayings many times as every teacher does. There is a distinction between the called (\klˆtoi\) and the chosen (\eklektoi\) called out from the called.

rwp@Matthew:23:5 @{To be seen of men} (\pros to theathˆnai tois anthr“pois\). See strkjv@6:1| where this same idiom occurs. Ostentation regulates the conduct of the rabbis. {Phylacteries} (\phulaktˆria\). An adjective from \phulaktˆr, phulass“\ (to guard). Songs:a fortified place, station for garrison, then a safeguard, protecting charm or amulet. The rabbis wore \tephillin\ or prayer-fillets, small leather cases with four strips of parchment on which were written the words of strkjv@Exodus:13:1-10,11-16; strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:4-9; strkjv@11:13-21|. They took literally the words about "a sign unto thy hand," "a memorial between thine eyes," and "frontlets." "That for the head was to consist of a box with four compartments, each containing a slip of parchment inscribed with one of the four passages. Each of these strips was to be tied up with a well-washed hair from a calf's tail; lest, if tied with wool or thread, any fungoid growth should ever pollute them. The phylactery of the arm was to contain a single slip, with the same four passages written in four columns of seven lines each. The black leather straps by which they were fastened were wound seven times round the arm and three times round the hand. They were reverenced by the rabbis as highly as the scriptures, and, like them, might be rescued from the flames on a sabbath. They profanely imagined that God wore the _tephillin_" (Vincent). It is small wonder that Jesus ridiculed such minute concern for pretentious externalism and literalism. These _tephillin_ "are still worn at the present day on the forehead and left arm by Jews at the daily Morning Prayer" (McNeile). "The size of the phylacteries indexed the measure of zeal, and the wearing of large ones was apt to take the place of obedience" (Bruce). Hence they made them "broad." The superstitious would wear them as mere charms to ward off evil. {Enlarge the borders} (\megalunousin ta kraspeda\). In strkjv@9:20| we see that Jesus, like the Jews generally, wore a tassel or tuft, hem or border, a fringe on the outer garment according to strkjv@Numbers:15:38|. Here again the Jewish rabbi had minute rules about the number of the fringes and the knots (see on ¯9:20|). They made a virtue of the size of the fringes also. "Such things were useful as reminders; they were fatal when they were regarded as charms" (Plummer).

rwp@Matthew:23:16 @{Ye blind guides} (\hodˆgoi tuphloi\). Note omission of "Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" with this third woe. In strkjv@15:14| Jesus had already called the Pharisees "blind guides" (leaders). They split hairs about oaths, as Jesus had explained in strkjv@5:33-37|, between the temple and the gold of the temple. {He is a debtor} (\opheilei\). He owes his oath, is bound by his oath. A.V., {is guilty}, is old English, obsolete sense of guilt as fine or payment.

rwp@Matthew:26:55 @{As against a robber} (\h“s epi lˆistˆn\). As a robber, not as a thief, but a robber hiding from justice. He will be crucified between two robbers and on the very cross planned for their leader, Barabbas. They have come with no warrant for any crime, but with an armed force to seize Jesus as if a highway robber. Jesus reminds them that he used to sit (imperfect, \ekathezomˆn\) in the temple and teach. But he sees God's purpose in it all for the prophets had foretold his "cup." The desertion of Jesus by the disciples followed this rebuke of the effort of Peter. Jesus had surrendered. Songs:they fled.

rwp@Matthew:27:25 @{His blood be upon us and upon our children} (\to haima autou kai epi ta tekna hˆm“n\). These solemn words do show a consciousness that the Jewish people recognized their guilt and were even proud of it. But Pilate could not wash away his own guilt that easily. The water did not wash away the blood of Jesus from his hands any more than Lady Macbeth could wash away the blood-stains from her lily-white hands. One legend tells that in storms on Mt. Pilatus in Switzerland his ghost comes out and still washes his hands in the storm-clouds. There was guilt enough for Judas, for Caiaphas and for all the Sanhedrin both Sadducees and Pharisees, for the Jewish people as a whole (\pas ho laos\), and for Pilate. At bottom the sins of all of us nailed Jesus to the Cross. This language is no excuse for race hatred today, but it helps explain the sensitiveness between Jew and Christians on this subject. And Jews today approach the subject of the Cross with a certain amount of prejudice.

rwp@Matthew:27:28 @{A scarlet robe} (\chlamuda kokkinˆn\). A kind of short cloak worn by soldiers, military officers, magistrates, kings, emperors (2Macc. strkjv@12:35; Josephus, _Ant_. V. 1,10), a soldier's _sagum_ or scarf. Carr (_Cambridge Gk. Test._) suggests that it may have been a worn-out scarf of Pilate's. The scarlet colour (\kokkinˆn\) was a dye derived from the female insect (\kermes\) which gathered on the \ilex coccifera\ found in Palestine. These dried clusters of insects look like berries and form the famous dye. The word occurs in Plutarch, Epictetus, Herodas, and late papyri besides the Septuagint and New Testament. Mark (Mark:15:17|) has "purple" (\porphuran\). There are various shades of purple and scarlet and it is not easy to distinguish these colours or tints. The manuscripts vary here between "stripped" (\ekdusantes\) and "clothed" (\endusantes\). He had been stripped for the scourging. If "clothed" is correct, the soldiers added the scarlet (purple) mantle. Herodotus (iii. 139) relates that Darius richly rewarded a Samian exile for a rare scarlet robe which he obtained from him. This scarlet mantle on Jesus was mock imitation of the royal purple.

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

rwp@Philippians:1:10 @{Songs:that ye may} (\eis to humas\). Either purpose or result (\eis to\ plus infinitive as in strkjv@Romans:1:11,20; strkjv@3:26|, etc.). {Approve the things that are excellent} (\dokimazein ta diapheronta\). Originally, "test the things that differ." Cf. same idiom in strkjv@Romans:2:28|. The verb was used for assaying metals. Either sense suits this context, but the first step is to distinguish between good and evil and that is not always easy in our complex civilization. {Sincere} (\eilikrineis\). Old word of uncertain origin from \krin“\, to judge, by \heilˆ\ (sunlight) or to sift by rapid rolling (\eilos\). At any rate it means pure, unsullied. {Void of offence} (\aproskopoi\). Alpha privative \pros\ and \kopt“\, to cut, "not stumbled against" (not causing others to stumble) or if active "not stumbling against." Passive sense probably, not active as in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32|. Common in the papyri, though not in ancient Greek writers.

rwp@Philippians:3:19 @{Whose god is the belly} (\hou to theos hˆ koilia\). The comic poet Eupolis uses the rare word \Koiliodaim“n\ for one who makes a god of his belly and Seneca speaks of one who _abdomini servit_. Sensuality in food, drink, sex then as now mastered some men. These men posed as Christians and gloried in their shame. {Who mind earthly things} (\hoi ta epigeia phronountes\). Anacoluthon. The nominative does not refer to \polloi\ at the beginning, but with the accusative \tous echthrous\ in between. See strkjv@Mark:12:40|.

rwp@Philippians:3:20 @{Our citizenship} (\hˆm“n to politeuma\). Old word from \piliteu“\ (Phillipians:1:27|), but only here in N.T. The inscriptions use it either for citizenship or for commonwealth. Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship and found it a protection. The Philippians were also proud of their Roman citizenship. But Christians are citizens of a kingdom not of this world (John:18:36|). Milligan (_Vocabulary_) doubts if commentators are entitled to translate it here: "We are a colony of heaven," because such a translation reverses the relation between the colony and the mother city. But certainly here Paul's heart is in heaven. {We wait for} (\apekdechometha\). Rare and late double compound (perfective use of prepositions like wait out) which vividly pictures Paul's eagerness for the second coming of Christ as the normal attitude of the Christian colonist whose home is heaven.

rwp@Philippians:4:2 @{Euodia} (\Euodian\). This name means literally "prosperous journey" (\eu, hodos\). It occurs in the inscriptions. {Syntyche} (\Suntuchˆn\). From \suntugchan“\, to meet with and so "pleasant acquaintance" or "good-luck." Occurs in the inscriptions and identified with Lydia by some. Klopper suggests that each of these rival women had church assemblies in their homes, one a Jewish-Christian church, the other a Gentile-Christian church. Vincent doubts the great influence of women in Macedonia held by Lightfoot who also suggests that these two were ladies of rank or perhaps deaconesses of the church in Philippi. Schinz suggests that in such a pure church even slight bickerings would make a real disturbance. "It may have been accidental friction between two energetic Christian women" (Kennedy).

rwp@Revelation:3:12 @{He that overcometh} (\ho nik“n\). Nominative absolute as in strkjv@2:26|, resumed by the accusative \auton\ (him). {A pillar} (\stulon\). Old word for column, in N.T. only here, strkjv@10:1; strkjv@Galatians:2:9; strkjv@1Timothy:3:15|. Metaphorical and personal use with a double significance of being firmly fixed and giving stability to the building. Philadelphia was a city of earthquakes. "Temple" (\naos\) here is also metaphorical (7:15|), as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:15| for the people of God. In strkjv@21:22| we read that there is no temple in the heavenly Jerusalem (21:10-22:5|) descending as the new Jerusalem with God himself as the temple, though the metaphorical temple is mentioned in strkjv@7:15|. {He shall go out thence no more} (\ex“ ou mˆ elthˆi\). Strong double negative \ou mˆ\ with the second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\. The subject is \ho nik“n\ (the one overcoming). "Fixity of character is at last achieved" (Charles). He, like the \stulos\ (pillar), remains in place. {Upon him} (\ep' auton\). Upon \ho nik“n\ (the victor), not upon the pillar (\stulos\). He receives this triple name (of God, of the city of God, of Christ) on his forehead (14:1; strkjv@7:3; strkjv@17:5; strkjv@22:4|) just as the high-priest wore the name of Jehovah upon his forehead (Exodus:28:36,38|), the new name (2:17|), without any magical or talismanic power, but as proof of ownership by God, as a citizen of the New Jerusalem, with the new symbol of the glorious personality of Christ (Revelation:19:12|), in contrast with the mark of the beast on others (13:17; strkjv@14:17|). For citizenship in God's city see strkjv@Galatians:4:26; strkjv@Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Hebrews:11:10; strkjv@12:22; strkjv@13:14|. {The new Jerusalem} (\tˆs kainˆs Ierousalˆm\). Not \neas\ (young), but \kainˆs\ (fresh). See also strkjv@21:2,10| and already strkjv@Galatians:4:26; strkjv@Hebrews:12:22|. Charles distinguishes between the Jerusalem before the final judgment and this new Jerusalem after that event. Perhaps so! In the Apocalypse always this form \Ierousalˆm\ (3:12; strkjv@21:2,10|), but in John's Gospel \Hierosoluma\ (1:19|, etc.). {Which cometh down} (\hˆ katabainousa\). Nominative case in apposition with the preceding genitive \pole“s\ as in strkjv@1:5; strkjv@2:20|, etc. {Mine own new name} (\to onoma mou to kainon\). For which see strkjv@2:17; strkjv@19:12,16|. Christ himself will receive a new name along with all else in the future world (Gressmann).

rwp@Revelation:5:6 @{And I saw} (\kai eidon\). Stirred by the words of the elder in verse 5| (\idou\, behold). "I beheld." {In the midst} (\en mes“i\). See strkjv@4:6| for this idiom. It is not quite clear where the Lamb was standing in the vision, whether close to the throne or in the space between the throne and the elders (perhaps implied by "came" in verse 7|, but nearness to the throne is implied by strkjv@14:1; strkjv@Acts:7:56; strkjv@Hebrews:10:11|). {A Lamb} (\arnion\). Elsewhere in the N.T. \ho amnos\ is used of Christ (John:1:29,36; Acts strkjv@8:32; strkjv@1Peter:1:19| like strkjv@Isaiah:53:7|), but in the Apocalypse \to arnion\ occurs for the Crucified Christ 29 times in twelve chapters. {Standing} (\hestˆkos\). Second perfect active (intransitive of \histˆmi\) neuter accusative singular (grammatical gender like \arnion\), though some MSS. read \hestˆk“s\ (natural gender masculine and nominative in spite of \eidon\ construction according to sense). {As though it had been slain} (\h“s esphagmenon\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \sphaz“\, old word, in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:5:6,9,12; strkjv@6:4,9; strkjv@13:3; strkjv@18:24; strkjv@1John:3:12|. \H“s\ (as if) is used because the Lamb is now alive, but (in appearance) with the marks of the sacrifice. The Christ as the Lamb is both sacrifice and Priest (Hebrews:9:12f.; strkjv@10:11|). {Having} (\ech“n\). Construction according to sense again with masculine nominative participle instead of \echonta\ (masculine accusative singular) or \echon\ (neuter accusative singular). Seven horns (\keras\) is a common symbol in the O.T. for strength and kingly power (1Samuel:2:10; strkjv@1Kings:22:11; strkjv@Psalms:112:9; strkjv@Daniel:7:7,20ff.|) and often in Rev. (Revelation:12:3; strkjv@13:1; strkjv@17:3,12|). Fulness of power (the All-powerful one) is symbolized by seven. {Seven eyes} (\ophthalmous hepta\). Like strkjv@Zechariah:3:9; strkjv@4:10| and denotes here, as there, omniscience. Here they are identified with the seven Spirits of Christ, while in strkjv@1:4| the seven Spirits are clearly the Holy Spirit of God (3:1|), and blaze like torches (4:5|), like the eyes of Christ (1:14|). The Holy Spirit is both Spirit of God and of Christ (Romans:8:9|). {Sent forth} (\apestalmenoi\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \apostell“\, masculine plural (agreeing with \hoi\ and \ophthalmous\ in gender), but some MSS. have \apestalmena\ agreeing with the nearer \pneumata\.

rwp@Revelation:9:7 @{The shapes} (\ta homoi“mata\). Old word from \homoio“\, to make like (from \homoios\, like), likeness, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Romans:5:14; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7|, "the likenesses were like" (\homoia\). \Homoi“ma\ is "midway between \morphˆ\ and \schˆma\" (Lightfoot). {Unto horses} (\hippois\). Associative-instrumental case, as is the rule with \homoios\ (1:15; strkjv@2:18; strkjv@4:6ff.; strkjv@9:10,19; strkjv@11:1; strkjv@13:2,11|), but with the accusative in strkjv@1:13; strkjv@14:14|. Songs:also \homoioi chrus“i\ (like gold) in this same verse. {Prepared for war} (\hˆtoimasmenois eis polemon\). Perfect passive participle of \hetoimaz“\. This imagery of war-horses is like that in strkjv@Joel:2:4f|. "The likeness of a locust to a horse, especially to a horse equipped with armour, is so striking that the insect is named in German _Heupferd_ (hay horse), and in Italian _cavalett_ a little horse" (Vincent). {As it were crowns} (\hos stephanoi\). Not actual crowns, but what looked like crowns of gold, as conquerors, as indeed they were (4:4; strkjv@6:2; strkjv@12:1; strkjv@14:14|). These locusts of the abyss have another peculiar feature. {As men's faces} (\h“s pros“pa anthr“p“n\). Human-looking faces in these demonic locusts to give added terror, "suggesting the intelligence and capacity of man" (Swete). Vincent actually sees "a distinct resemblance to the human countenance in the face of the locust."

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE TIME AND PLACE The place is settled if we accept strkjv@Romans:16:1|. The time of the year is in the spring if we combine statements in the Acts and the Epistle. He says: "I am now going to Jerusalem ministering to the saints" (Romans:15:25|). In strkjv@Acts:20:3| we read that Paul spent three months in Corinth. In II Corinthians we have a full account of the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. The account of the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem is given in strkjv@Acts:20:3-21:17|. It was in the spring between passover at Philippi (Acts:20:6|) and pentecost in Jerusalem (20:16; strkjv@21:17|). The precise year is not quite so certain, but we may suggest A.D. 57 or 58 with reasonable confidence.

rwp@Romans:2:13 @{Not the hearers--but the doers} (\ou gar hoi akroatai--all' hoi poiˆtai\). The law was read in the synagogue, but there was no actual virtue in listening. The virtue is in doing. See a like contrast by James between "hearers" and "doers" of the gospel (James:1:22-25|). {Before God} (\para t“i the“i\). By God's side, as God looks at it. {Shall be justified} (\dikai“thˆsontai\). Future passive indicative of \dikaio“\, to declare righteous, to set right. "Shall be declared righteous." Like strkjv@James:1:22-25|.

rwp@Romans:3:6 @{For then how} (\epei p“s\). There is a suppressed condition between \epei\ and \p“s\, an idiom occurring several times in the N.T. (1Corinthians:15:29; strkjv@Romans:11:6,22|). "Since, if that were true, how."

rwp@Romans:3:7 @{Through my lie} (\en t“i em“i pseusmati\). ] Old word from \pseudomai\, to lie, only here in N.T. Paul returns to the imaginary objection in verse 5|. The MSS. differ sharply here between \ei de\ (but if) and \ei gar\ (for if). Paul "uses the first person from motives of delicacy" (Sanday and Headlam) in this supposable case for argument's sake as in strkjv@1Corinthians:4:6|. Songs:here he "transfers by a fiction" (Field) to himself the objection.

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

rwp@Romans:4:11 @{The sign of circumcision} (\sˆmeion peritomˆs\). It is the genitive of apposition, circumcision being the sign. {A seal of the righteousness of the faith} (\sphragida tˆs dikaiosunˆs tˆs piste“s\). \Sphragis\ is old word for the seal placed on books (Revelation:5:1|), for a signet-ring (Revelation:7:2|), the stamp made by the seal (2Timothy:2:19|), that by which anything is confirmed (1Corinthians:9:2|) as here. The circumcision did not convey the righteousness, but only gave outward confirmation. It came by faith and "the faith which he had while in uncircumcision" (\tˆs en tˆi akrobustiƒi\), "the in the state of uncircumcision faith." Whatever parallel exists between baptism and circumcision as here stated by Paul argues for faith before baptism and for baptism as the sign and seal of the faith already had before baptism. {That he might be} (\eis to einai auton\). This idiom may be God's purpose (contemplated result) as in \eis to logisthˆnai\ below, or even actual result (so that he was) as in strkjv@1:20|. {Though they be in uncircumcision} (\di' akrobustias\). Simply, "of those who believe while in the condition of uncircumcision."

rwp@Romans:4:20 @{He wavered not through unbelief} (\ou diekrithˆ tˆi apistiƒi\). First aorist passive indicative of old and common verb \diakrin“\, to separate, to distinguish between, to decide between, to desert, to dispute, to be divided in one's own mind. This last sense occurs here as in strkjv@Matthew:21:22; strkjv@Mark:11:23; strkjv@Romans:14:23; strkjv@James:1:6|. "He was not divided in his mind by unbelief" (instrumental case). {Waxed strong through faith} (\enedunam“thˆ tˆi pistei\). First aorist passive again of \endunamo“\, late word to empower, to put power in, in LXX and Paul and strkjv@Acts:9:22|.

rwp@Romans:5:7 @{Scarcely} (\molis\). Common adverb from \molos\, toil. See on strkjv@Acts:14:18|. As between \dikaios\, righteous, and \agathos\, good, Lightfoot notes "all the difference in the world" which he shows by quotations from Plato and Christian writers, a difference of sympathy mainly, the \dikaios\ man being "absolutely without sympathy" while the \agathos\ man "is beneficent and kind." {Would even dare} (\kai tolmƒi\). Present active indicative of \tolma“\, to have courage. "Even dares to." Even so in the case of the kindly sympathetic man courage is called for to make the supreme sacrifice. {Perhaps} (\tacha\). Common adverb (perhaps instrumental case) from \tachus\ (swift). Only here in N.T.

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

rwp@Romans:5:18 @{Songs:then} (\ara oun\). Conclusion of the argument. Cf. strkjv@7:3,25; strkjv@8:12|, etc. Paul resumes the parallel between Adam and Christ begun in verse 12| and interrupted by explanation (13f.|) and contrast (15-17|). {Through one trespass} (\di' henos parapt“matos\). That of Adam. {Through one act of righteousness} (\di' henos dikai“matos\). That of Christ. The first "unto all men" (\eis pantas anthr“pous\) as in verse 12|, the second as in verse 17| "they that receive, etc."

rwp@Romans:5:20 @{Came in beside} (\pareisˆlthen\). Second aorist active indicative of double compound \pareiserchomai\, late verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Galatians:2:4| which see. See also \eisˆlthen\ in verse 12|. The Mosaic law came into this state of things, in between Adam and Christ. {That the trespass might abound} (\hina pleonasˆi to parapt“ma\). It is usual to explain \hina\ here as final, as God's ultimate purpose. Songs:Denney who refers to strkjv@Galatians:3:19ff.; strkjv@Romans:7:7f|. But Chrysostom explains \hina\ here as \ekbasis\ (result). This is a proper use of \hina\ in the _Koin‚_ as we have seen. If we take it so here, the meaning is "so that the trespass abounded" (aorist active subjunctive of \pleonas“\, late verb, see on ¯2Thessalonians:1:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:15|). This was the actual effect of the Mosaic law for the Jews, the necessary result of all prohibitions. {Did abound more exceedingly} (\hupereperisseusen\). First aorist active indicative of \huperperisseu“\. Late verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:7:4| which see. A strong word. If \pleonaz“\ is comparative (\pleon\) \perisseu“\ is superlative (Lightfoot) and then \huperperisseu“\ goes the superlative one better. See \huperpleonaz“\ in strkjv@1Timothy:1:14|. The flood of grace surpassed the flood of sin, great as that was (and is).

rwp@Romans:7:23 @{A different law} (\heteron nomon\). For the distinction between \heteros\ and \allos\, see strkjv@Galatians:1:6f|. {Warring against} (\antistrateuomenon\). Rare verb (_Xenophon_) to carry on a campaign against. Only here in N.T. {The law of my mind} (\t“i nom“i tou noos\). The reflective intelligence Paul means by \noos\, "the inward man" of verse 22|. It is this higher self that agrees that the law of God is good (12,16,22|). {Bringing me into captivity} (\aichmal“tizonta\). See on this late and vivid verb for capture and slavery strkjv@Luke:21:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:5|. Surely it is a tragic picture drawn by Paul with this outcome, "sold under sin" (14|), "captivity to the law of sin" (23|). The ancient writers (Plato, Ovid, Seneca, Epictetus) describe the same dual struggle in man between his conscience and his deeds.

rwp@Romans:8:5 @{Do mind} (\phronousin\). Present active indicative of \phrone“\, to think, to put the mind (\phrˆn\) on. See strkjv@Matthew:16:23; strkjv@Romans:12:16|. For the contrast between \sarx\ and \pneuma\, see strkjv@Galatians:5:16-24|.

rwp@Romans:8:14 @{Sons of God} (\huioi theou\). In the full sense of this term. In verse 16| we have \tekna theou\ (children of God). Hence no great distinction can be drawn between \huios\ and \teknon\. The truth is that \huios\ is used in various ways in the New Testament. In the highest sense, not true of any one else, Jesus Christ is God's Son (8:3|). But in the widest sense all men are "the offspring" (\genos\) of God as shown in strkjv@Acts:17:28| by Paul. But in the special sense here only those are "sons of God" who are led by the Spirit of God, those born again (the second birth) both Jews and Gentiles, "the sons of Abraham" (\huioi Abraam\, strkjv@Galatians:3:7|), the children of faith.

rwp@Romans:8:35 @{Shall separate} (\ch“risei\). Future active of old verb \choriz“\ from adverb \ch“ris\ and that from \ch“ra\, space. Can any one put a distance between Christ's love and us (objective genitive)? Can any one lead Christ to cease loving us? Such things do happen between husband and wife, alas. Paul changes the figure from "who" (\tis\) to "what" (\ti\). The items mentioned will not make Christ love us less. Paul here glories in tribulations as in strkjv@5:3ff|.

rwp@Romans:9:13 @Paul quotes strkjv@Malachi:1:2f|. {But Esau I hated} (\ton de Esau emisˆsa\). This language sounds a bit harsh to us. It is possible that the word \mise“\ did not always carry the full force of what we mean by "hate." See strkjv@Matthew:6:24| where these very verbs (\mise“\ and \agapa“\) are contrasted. Songs:also in strkjv@Luke:14:26| about "hating" (\mise“\) one's father and mother if coming between one and Christ. Songs:in strkjv@John:12:25| about "hating" one's life. There is no doubt about God's preference for Jacob and rejection of Esau, but in spite of Sanday and Headlam one hesitates to read into these words here the intense hatred that has always existed between the descendants of Jacob and of Esau.

rwp@Romans:10:12 @{Distinction} (\diastolˆ\). See on this word strkjv@3:22|. Here it is followed by the ablative case \Ioudaiou te kai Hellˆnos\ (between Jew and Greek). {Lord of all} (\Kurios pant“n\). See strkjv@Galatians:3:28|. {Rich} (\plout“n\). Present active participle of \ploute“\. See strkjv@Ephesians:3:8| "the unsearchable riches of Christ."

rwp@Romans:11:3 @{They have digged down} (\kateskapsan\). First aorist active indicative of \kataskapt“\, to dig under or down. Old verb, here only in N.T. (critical text). LXX has \katheilan\ "pulled down." Paul has reversed the order of the LXX of strkjv@1Kings:19:10,14,18|. {Altars} (\thusiastˆria\). Late word (LXX, Philo, Josephus, N.T. eccl. writers) from \thusiaz“\, to sacrifice. See strkjv@Acts:17:23|. {And I am left alone} (\kag“ hupeleiphthˆn monos\). First aorist passive indicative of \hupoleip“\, old word, to leave under or behind, here only in N.T. Elijah's mood was that of utter dejection in his flight from Jezebel. {Life} (\psuchˆn\). It is not possible to draw a clear distinction between \psuchˆ\ (soul) and \pneuma\ (spirit). \Psuchˆ\ is from \psuch“\, to breathe or blow, \pneuma\ from \pne“\, to blow. Both are used for the personality and for the immortal part of man. Paul is usually dichotomous in his language, but sometimes trichotomous in a popular sense. We cannot hold Paul's terms to our modern psychological distinctions.

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

rwp@Romans:12:2 @{Be not fashioned} (\mˆ sunschˆmatizesthe\). Present passive imperative with \mˆ\, stop being fashioned or do not have the habit of being fashioned. Late Greek verb \suschˆmatiz“\, to conform to another's pattern (1Corinthians:7:31; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.|). In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:1:14|. {According to this world} (\t“i ai“ni tout“i\). Associative instrumental case. Do not take this age as your fashion plate. {Be ye transformed} (\metamorphousthe\). Present passive imperative of \metamorpho“\, another late verb, to transfigure as in strkjv@Matthew:17:2| (Mark:9:2|); strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18|, which see. On the distinction between \schˆma\ and \morphˆ\, see strkjv@Phillipians:2:7|. There must be a radical change in the inner man for one to live rightly in this evil age, "by the renewing of your mind" (\tˆi anakain“sei tou noos\). Instrumental case. The new birth, the new mind, the new (\kainos\) man. {That ye may prove} (\eis to dokimazein\). Infinitive of purpose with \eis to\, "to test" what is God's will, "the good and acceptable and perfect" (\to agathon kai euareston kai teleion\).

rwp@Romans:12:19 @{Avenge not} (\mˆ ekdikountes\). Independent participle again of late verb \ekdike“\ from \ekdikos\, exacting justice (13:4|). See already strkjv@Luke:18:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:6|. {But give place unto wrath} (\alla dote topon tˆi orgˆi\). Second aorist active imperative of \did“mi\, to give. "Give room for the (note article as in strkjv@5:9; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:16|) wrath" of God instead of taking vengeance in your own hands. See strkjv@Ephesians:4:27| for \didote topon\. Paul quotes strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:35| (the Hebrew rather than the LXX). Songs:have strkjv@Hebrews:10:30| and the Targum of Onkelos, but the relation between them and Paul we cannot tell. Socrates and Epictetus condemned personal vindictiveness as Paul does here. {I will recompense} (\antapod“s“\). Future active of the double compound verb quoted also in strkjv@11:35|.

rwp@Romans:13:8 @{Save to love one another} (\ei mˆ to allˆlous agapƒin\). "Except the loving one another." This articular infinitive is in the accusative case the object of \opheilete\ and partitive apposition with \mˆden\ (nothing). This debt can never be paid off, but we should keep the interest paid up. {His neighbour} (\ton heteron\). "The other man," "the second man." "Just as in the relations of man and God \pistis\ has been substituted for \nomos\, so between man and man \agapˆ\ takes the place of definite legal relations" (Sanday and Headlam). See strkjv@Matthew:22:37-40| for the words of Jesus on this subject. Love is the only solution of our social relations and national problems.

rwp@Romans:13:11 @{And this} (\kai touto\). Either nominative absolute or accusative of general reference, a common idiom for "and that too" (1Corinthians:6:6,8|, etc.). {Knowing} (\eidotes\). Second perfect active participle, nominative plural without a principal verb. Either we must supply a verb like \poiˆs“men\ (let us do it) or \poiˆsate\ (do ye do it) or treat it as an independent participle as in strkjv@12:10f|. {The season} (\ton kairon\). The critical period, not \chronos\ (time in general). {High time} (\h“ra\). Like our the "hour" has come, etc. MSS. vary between \hˆmas\ (us) and \humƒs\ (you), accusative of general reference with \egerthˆnai\ (first aorist passive infinitive of \egeir“\, to awake, to wake up), "to be waked up out of sleep" (\ex hupnou\). {Nearer to us} (\egguteron hˆm“n\). Probably so, though \hˆm“n\ can be taken equally well with \hˆ s“tˆria\ (our salvation is nearer). Final salvation, Paul means, whether it comes by the second coming of Christ as they all hoped or by death. It is true of us all.

rwp@Romans:13:12 @{Is far spent} (\proekopsen\). First aorist active indicative of \prokopt“\, to cut forward, to advance, old word for making progress. See strkjv@Luke:2:52; strkjv@Galatians:1:14; strkjv@2Timothy:2:16; strkjv@3:9|. {Is at hand} (\ˆggiken\). Perfect active indicative, "has drawn nigh." Vivid picture for day-break. {Let us therefore cast off} (\apoth“metha oun\). Aorist middle subjunctive (volitive) of \apotithˆmi\, to put off from oneself "the works of darkness" (\ta erga tou skotous\) as we do our night-clothes. {Let us put on} (\endus“metha\). Aorist middle subjunctive (volitive) of \endu“\, to put on. For this same contrast between putting off (\apotithˆmi\ and \apekdu“\) and putting on (\endu“\) see strkjv@Colossians:3:8-12|. {The armour of light} (\ta hopla tou photos\). The weapons of light, that belong to the light (to the day time). For the metaphor of the Christian armour see strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:7; strkjv@Romans:6:13; strkjv@Ephesians:6:13ff|.

rwp@Romans:14:1 @{Him that is weak} (\ton asthenounta\). See on ¯1Corinthians:8:7-12; strkjv@9:22; strkjv@Romans:4:19|. {Receive ye} (\proslambanesthe\). Present middle imperative (indirect), "take to yourselves." {Yet not to doubtful disputations} (\mˆ eis diakriseis dialogism“n\). "Not for decisions of opinions." Note \dia\ (between, two or \duo\) in both words. Discriminations between doubts or hesitations. For \diakrisis\, see strkjv@1Corinthians:12:10; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14| (only N.T. examples). For \dialogismos\ see strkjv@Luke:2:35; strkjv@24:38; strkjv@Phillipians:2:14|. The "strong" brother is not called upon to settle all the scruples of the "weak" brother. But each takes it on himself to do it.

rwp@Romans:14:23 @{He that doubteth} (\ho diakrinomenos\). Present middle participle of \diakrin“\, to judge between (\dia\), to hesitate. See strkjv@James:1:6f.| for this same picture of the double-minded man. Cf. strkjv@Romans:4:20; strkjv@Mark:11:23|. {Is condemned} (\katakekritai\). Perfect passive indicative of \katakrin“\ (note \kata-\), "stands condemned." {If he eat} (\ean phagˆi\). Third class condition, \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive. If in spite of his doubt, he eat. {Whatsoever is not of faith is sin} (\pan ho ouk ek piste“s hamartia estin\). {Faith} (\pistis\) here is subjective, one's strong conviction in the light of his relation to Christ and his enlightened conscience. To go against this combination is sin beyond a doubt. Some MSS. (A L etc.) put the doxology here which most place in strkjv@16:25-27|. But they all give chapters 15 and 16. Some have supposed that the Epistle originally ended here, but that is pure speculation. Some even suggest two editions of the Epistle. But chapter 15 goes right on with the topic discussed in chapter 14.

rwp@Titus:3:1 @{To be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient} (\archais exousiais hupotassesthai peitharchein\). Remarkable double asyndeton, no \kai\ (and) between the two substantives or the two verbs. \Peitharchein\ (to obey), old verb (from \peithomai, archˆ\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:27:21|. {To be ready unto every good work} (\pros pan ergon agathon hetoimous einai\). Pauline phrase (2Corinthians:9:8; strkjv@2Timothy:2:21; strkjv@3:17|), here adjective \hetoimos\ (2Corinthians:9:5|), there verb.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Wed Jun 12 16:18:44 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020