NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp expressly:

rwp@1Corinthians:4:1 @{Ministers of Christ} (\hupretas Christou\). Paul and all ministers (\diakonous\) of the New Covenant (1Corinthians:3:5|) are under-rowers, subordinate rowers of Christ, only here in Paul's Epistles, though in the Gospels (Luke:4:20| the attendant in the synagogue) and the Acts (Acts:13:5|) of John Mark. The {so} (\houts\) gathers up the preceding argument (3:5-23|) and applies it directly by the {as} (\hs\) that follows. {Stewards of the mysteries of God} (\oikonomous mustrin theou\). The steward or house manager (\oikos\, house, \nem\, to manage, old word) was a slave (\doulos\) under his lord (\kurios\, strkjv@Luke:12:42|), but a master (Luke:16:1|) over the other slaves in the house (menservants \paidas\, maidservants \paidiskas\ strkjv@Luke:12:45|), an overseer (\epitropos\) over the rest (Matthew:20:8|). Hence the under-rower (\huprets\) of Christ has a position of great dignity as steward (\oikonomos\) of the mysteries of God. Jesus had expressly explained that the mysteries of the kingdom were open to the disciples (Matthew:13:11|). They were entrusted with the knowledge of some of God's secrets though the disciples were not such apt pupils as they claimed to be (Matthew:13:51; strkjv@16:8-12|). As stewards Paul and other ministers are entrusted with the mysteries (see on ¯1Corinthians:2:7| for this word) of God and are expected to teach them. "The church is the \oikos\ (1Timothy:3:15|), God the \oikodespots\ (Matthew:13:52|), the members the \oikeioi\ (Galatians:6:10; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19|)" (Lightfoot). Paul had a vivid sense of the dignity of this stewardship (\oikonomia\) of God given to him (Colossians:1:25; strkjv@Ephesians:1:10|). The ministry is more than a mere profession or trade. It is a calling from God for stewardship.

rwp@1John:2:7 @{Beloved} (\agaptoi\). First instance of this favourite form of address in these Epistles (3:2,21; strkjv@4:1,7; strkjv@3John:1,2,5,11|). {No new commandment} (\ouk entoln kainn\). Not novel or new in kind (\kainn\ as distinct from \neos\, new in time, for which distinction see strkjv@Luke:5:33-38|). {But an old commandment} (\all' entoln palaian\). Ancient as opposed both to \kainos\ and \neos\. The Mosaic law taught love for one's neighbours and Christ taught love even of enemies. {Which ye had} (\hn eichete\). Imperfect active, reaching back to the beginning of their Christian lives (\ap' archs\). They had heard it expressly from Jesus (John:13:34|), who, however, calls it "a new commandment."

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

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

rwp@1Timothy:1:3 @{As I exhorted} (\kaths parekalesa\). There is an ellipse of the principal clause in verse 4| ({so do I now} not being in the Greek). {To tarry} (\prosmeinai\). First aorist active infinitive of \prosmen\, old verb, attributed by Luke to Paul in strkjv@Acts:13:43|. {That thou mightest charge} (\hina paraggeilis\). Subfinal clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \paraggell\, old verb, to transmit a message along (\para\) from one to another. See strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:4,6,10|. Lock considers this idiom here an elliptical imperative like strkjv@Ephesians:4:29; strkjv@5:33|. {Certain men} (\tisin\). Dative case. Expressly vague (no names as in strkjv@1:20|), though Paul doubtless has certain persons in Ephesus in mind. {Not to teach a different doctrine} (\m heterodidaskalein\). Earliest known use of this compound like \kakodidaskalein\ of Clement of Rome. Only other N.T. example in strkjv@6:3|. Eusebius has \heterodidaskalos\. Same idea in strkjv@Galatians:1:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4; strkjv@Romans:16:17|. Perhaps coined by Paul.

rwp@1Timothy:4:1 @{Expressly} (\rts\). Late adverb, here alone in N.T., from verbal adjective \rtos\ (from root \re\). The reference is to the Holy Spirit, but whether to O.T. prophecy (Acts:1:16|) or to some Christian utterance (2Thessalonians:2:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:1ff.|) we do not know. Parry recalls the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:24:10,24|. {In later times} (\en husterois kairois\). Old adjective (Matthew:21:31|) usually as adverb, \husteron\ (Matthew:4:2|). Relative time from the prediction, now coming true (a present danger). {Some shall fall away} (\apostsontai tines\). Future middle of \aphistmi\, intransitive use, shall stand off from, to fall away, apostatize (2Corinthians:12:8|). {From the faith} (\ts pistes\). Ablative case (separation). Not creed, but faith in God through Christ. {Giving heed} (\prosechontes\). Supply \ton noun\ (the mind) as in strkjv@3:8|. {Seducing spirits} (\pneumasin planois\). Old adjective (\plan\, wandering), here active sense (deceiving). As substantive in strkjv@2Corinthians:6:8|. Probably some heathen or the worst of the Gnostics. {Doctrines of devils} (\didaskaliais daimonin\). "Teachings of \daimons\." Definite explanation of the preceding. Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20f|.

rwp@2Corinthians:6:8 @{By glory and dishonour} (\dia doxs 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 (\tim, atimia\). {By evil report and good report} (\dia dusphmias kai euphmias\). Play on the words with prefixes \dus-\ and \eu-\ and \phm\. \Dusphmia\ is a late word, only here in N.T. \Euphmia\, old and common word, only here in N.T. {As deceivers and yet true} (\hs planoi kai altheis\). Paul takes up \hs\ 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 (\plann\)" (Bernard). Such slander from one's enemies is praise.

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

rwp@Acts:9:4 @{He fell upon the earth} (\pesn epi tn gn\). 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 \gn\. In strkjv@26:14| Paul states that "we were all fallen to the earth" (\pantn katapesontn hmn eis tn gn\, genitive absolute construction). But here in verse 7| "the men that journeyed with him stood speechless" (\histkeisan 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:10:29 @{Without gainsaying} (\anantirrhts\). \A\ privative with compound adverb from \anti\ (back, in return, against) and verbal \rhtos\ (from \errhthn\, to speak). Late and rare and here only in the N.T., but the adjective in strkjv@19:36|. Without answering back. That is true after the Holy Spirit expressly told Peter to go with the messengers of Cornelius (10:19-23|). Peter's objections were made to the Lord in the vision which he did not understand. But that vision prepared him for this great step which he had now taken. He had stepped over the line of Jewish custom. {With what intent} (\tini logi\). More exactly, "for what reason" as in Plato, _Gorgias_ 512 C.

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

rwp@Colossians:2:13 @{And you} (\kai humas\). Emphatic position, object of the verb \sunezopoisen\ (did he quicken) and repeated (second \hums\). You Gentiles as he explains. {Being dead through your trespasses} (\nekrous ontas tois paraptmasin\). Moral death, of course, as in strkjv@Romans:6:11; strkjv@Ephesians:2:1,5|. Correct text does not have \en\, but even so \paraptmasin\ (from \parapipt\, to fall beside or to lapse, strkjv@Hebrews:6:6|), a lapse or misstep as in strkjv@Matthew:6:14; strkjv@Romans:5:15-18; strkjv@Galatians:6:1|, can be still in the locative, though the instrumental makes good sense also. {And the uncircumcision of your flesh} (\kai ti akroboustii ts sarkos humn\). "Dead in your trespasses and your alienation from God, of which the uncircumcision of your flesh was a symbol" (Abbott). Clearly so, "the uncircumcision" used merely in a metaphorical sense. {Did he quicken together with him} (\sunezopoisen sun auti\). First aorist active indicative of the double compound verb \sunzopoie\, to make alive (\zos, poie\) with (\sun\, repeated also with \auti\, associative instrumental), found only here and in strkjv@Ephesians:2:5|, apparently coined by Paul for this passage. Probably \theos\ (God) is the subject because expressly so stated in strkjv@Ephesians:2:4f.| and because demanded by \sun auti\ here referring to Christ. This can be true even if Christ be the subject of \rken\ in verse 14|. {Having forgiven us} (\charisamenos hmin\). First aorist middle participle of \charizomai\, common verb from \charis\ (favour, grace). Dative of the person common as in strkjv@3:13|. The act of forgiving is simultaneous with the quickening, though logically antecedent.

rwp@Colossians:2:16 @{Let no one judge you} (\m tis humas krinet\). Prohibition present active imperative third singular, forbidding the habit of passing judgment in such matters. For \krin\ see on ¯Matthew:7:1|. Paul has here in mind the ascetic regulations and practices of one wing of the Gnostics (possibly Essenic or even Pharisaic influence). He makes a plea for freedom in such matters on a par with that in strkjv@1Corinthians:8-9; strkjv@Romans:14; 15|. The Essenes went far beyond the Mosaic regulations. For the Jewish feasts see on ¯Galatians:4:10|. Josephus (_Ant_. III. 10, 1) expressly explains the "seventh day" as called "_sabbata_" (plural form as here, an effort to transliterate the Aramaic _sabbathah_).

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

rwp@John:20:27 @{Then saith he to Thomas} (\eita legei ti Thomi\). Jesus turns directly to Thomas as if he had come expressly for his sake. He reveals his knowledge of the doubt in the mind of Thomas and mentions the very tests that he had named (25|). {Be not faithless} (\m ginou apistos\). Present middle imperative of \ginomai\ in prohibition, "stop becoming disbelieving." The doubt of Thomas in the face of the witness of the others was not a proof of his superior intelligence. Sceptics usually pose as persons of unusual mentality. The medium who won Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to spiritualism has confessed that it was all humbug, but he deceived the gullible novelist. But Thomas had carried his incredulity too far. Note play on \apistos\ (disbelieving) and \pistos\ (believing).

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

rwp@Luke:2:5 @{To enrol himself with Mary} (\apograpsasthai sun Mariam\). Direct middle. "With Mary" is naturally taken with the infinitive as here. If so, that means that Mary's family register was in Bethlehem also and that she also belonged to the house of David. It is possible to connect "with Mary" far back with "went up" (\aneb\) in verse 4|, but it is unnatural to do so. There is no real reason for doubting that Mary herself was a descendant of David and that is the obvious way to understand Luke's genealogy of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:3:23-38|). The Syriac Sinaitic expressly says that both Joseph and Mary were of the house and city of David. {Betrothed} (\emnsteumenn\). Same verb as in strkjv@1:27|, but here it really means "married" or "espoused" as strkjv@Matthew:1:24f.| shows. Otherwise she could not have travelled with Joseph. {Great with child} (\enkui\). Only here in N.T. Common Greek word.

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

rwp@Mark:8:31 @{He began to teach them} (\rxato didaskein autous\). Mark is fond of this idiom, but it is not a mere rhetorical device. strkjv@Matthew:16:21| expressly says "from that time." They had to be told soon about the approaching death of Jesus. The confession of faith in Jesus indicated that it was a good time to begin. Death at the hands of the Sanhedrin (elders, chief priests, and scribes) in which Pharisees and Sadducees had about equal strength. The resurrection on the third day is mentioned, but it made no impression on their minds. This rainbow on the cloud was not seen. {After three days} (\meta treis hmeras\). strkjv@Matthew:16:21| has "the third day" (\ti triti hmeri\) in the locative case of point of time (so also strkjv@Luke:9:22|). There are some people who stickle for a strict interpretation of "after three days" which would be "on the fourth day," not "on the third day." Evidently Mark's phrase here has the same sense as that in Matthew and Luke else they are hopelessly contradictory. In popular language "after three days" can and often does mean "on the third day," but the fourth day is impossible.

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

rwp@Matthew:6:2 @{Sound not a trumpet} (\m salpisis\). Is this literal or metaphorical? No actual instance of such conduct has been found in the Jewish writings. McNeile suggests that it may refer to the blowing of trumpets in the streets on the occasion of public fasts. Vincent suggests the thirteen trumpet-shaped chests of the temple treasury to receive contributions (Luke:21:2|). But at Winona Lake one summer a missionary from India named Levering stated to me that he had seen Hindu priests do precisely this very thing to get a crowd to see their beneficences. Songs:it looks as if the rabbis could do it also. Certainly it was in keeping with their love of praise. And Jesus expressly says that "the hypocrites" (\hoi hupokritai\) do this very thing. This is an old word for actor, interpreter, one who personates another, from \hupokrinomai\ to answer in reply like the Attic \apokrinomai\. Then to pretend, to feign, to dissemble, to act the hypocrite, to wear a mask. This is the hardest word that Jesus has for any class of people and he employs it for these pious pretenders who pose as perfect. {They have received their reward} (\apechousin ton misthon autn\). This verb is common in the papyri for receiving a receipt, "they have their receipt in full," all the reward that they will get, this public notoriety. "They can sign the receipt of their reward" (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 229). Songs:_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 110f. \Apoch\ means "receipt." Songs:also in strkjv@6:5|.

rwp@Matthew:27:63 @{Sir, we remember} (\kurie, emnesthmen\). This was the next day, on our Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, the day after the Preparation (Matthew:27:62|). Ingressive aorist indicative, we have just recalled. It is objected that the Jewish rulers would know nothing of such a prediction, but in strkjv@Matthew:12:40| he expressly made it to them. Meyer scouts as unhistorical legend the whole story that Christ definitely foretold his resurrection on the third day. But that is to make legendary much of the Gospels and to limit Jesus to a mere man. The problem remains why the disciples forgot and the Jewish leaders remembered. But that is probably due on the one hand to the overwhelming grief of the disciples coupled with the blighting of all their hopes of a political Messiah in Jesus, and on the other hand to the keen nervous fear of the leaders who dreaded the power of Jesus though dead. They wanted to make sure of their victory and prevent any possible revival of this pernicious heresy. {That deceiver} (\ekeinos ho planos\) they call him, a vagabond wanderer (\planos\) with a slur in the use of {that} (\ekeinos\), a picturesque sidelight on their intense hatred of and fear of Jesus.

rwp@Romans:2:22 @{That abhorrest} (\ho bdelussomenos\). Old word to make foul, to stink, to have abhorrence for. In LXX, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:21:8|. The very word used by Jesus to express their horror of idols (\eidla\, see on ¯Acts:7:41; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:2|). See strkjv@Matthew:24:15| for "abomination." {Dost thou rob temples?} (\hierosuleis?\). Old verb from \hierosulos\ (Acts:19:37|) and that from \hieron\, temple, and \sula\, to rob. The town clerk (Acts:19:37|) said that these Jews (Paul and his companions) were "not robbers of temples," proof that the charge was sometimes made against Jews, though expressly forbidden the Jews (Josephus, _Ant_. IV. 8, 10). Paul refers to the crime of robbing idol temples in spite of the defilement of contact with idolatry.

rwp@Romans:11:17 @{Branches} (\kladn\). From \kla\, to break. {Were broken off} (\exeklasthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekkla\. Play on the word \klados\ (branch) and \ekkla\, to break off. Condition of first class, assumed as true. Some of the individual Jews (natural Israel) were broken off the stock of the tree (spiritual Israel). {And thou} (\kai su\). An individual Gentile. {Being a wild olive} (\agrielaios n\). This word, used by Aristotle, occurs in an inscription. Ramsay (_Pauline Studies_, pp. 219ff.) shows that the ancients used the wild-olive graft upon an old olive tree to reinvigorate the tree precisely as Paul uses the figure here and that both the olive tree and the graft were influenced by each other, though the wild olive graft did not produce as good olives as the original stock. But it should be noted that in verse 24| Paul expressly states that the grafting of Gentiles on to the stock of the spiritual Israel was "contrary to nature" (\para phusin\). {Wast grafted in} (\enekentrisths\). First aorist passive indicative of \enkentriz\, to cut in, to graft, used by Aristotle. Belongs "to the higher _Koin_" (literary _Koin_) according to Milligan. {Partaker} (\sunkoinnos\). Co-partner. {Fatness} (\piottos\). Old word from \pin\ (fat), only here in N.T. Note three genitives here "of the root of the fatness of the olive."