Bible:
Filter: String:

NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp fourth:


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:1:13 @{Is Christ divided?} (\memeristai ho Christos;\). Perfect passive indicative, Does Christ stand divided? It is not certain, though probable, that this is interrogative like the following clauses. Hofmann calls the assertory form a "rhetorical impossibility." The absence of \mˆ\ here merely allows an affirmative answer which is true. The fourth or Christ party claimed to possess Christ in a sense not true of the others. Perhaps the leaders of this Christ party with their arrogant assumptions of superiority are the false apostles, ministers of Satan posing as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:12-15|). {Was Paul crucified for you?} (\Mˆ Paulos estaur“thˆ huper hum“n;\). An indignant "No" is demanded by \mˆ\. Paul shows his tact by employing himself as the illustration, rather than Apollos or Cephas. Probably \huper\, over, in behalf of, rather than \peri\ (concerning, around) is genuine, though either makes good sense here. In the _Koin‚_ \huper\ encroaches on \peri\ as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1|. {Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?} (\eis to onoma Paulou ebaptisthˆte;\). It is unnecessary to say {into} for \eis\ rather than {in} since \eis\ is the same preposition originally as \en\ and both are used with \baptiz“\ as in strkjv@Acts:8:16; strkjv@10:48| with no difference in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). Paul evidently knows the idea in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| and scouts the notion of being put on a par with Christ or the Trinity. He is no rival of Christ. This use of \onoma\ for the person is not only in the LXX, but the papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions give numerous examples of the name of the king or the god for the power and authority of the king or god (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 146ff., 196ff.; _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 121).

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:14:10 @{It may be} (\ei tuchoi\). Condition of fourth class (\ei\ and aorist optative of \tugchan“\), if it should happen. Common enough idiom. Cf. \tuchon\ in strkjv@16:6|. {Without signification} (\aph“non\). Old adjective (\a\ privative and \ph“nˆ\). Without the faculty of speech (12:2; strkjv@Acts:8:32; strkjv@2Peter:2:16|).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:37 @{Not the body which shall be} (\ou to s“ma to genˆsomenon\). Articular future participle of \ginomai\, literally, "not the body that will become." The new {body} (\s“ma\) is not yet in existence, but only the seed (\kokkos\, grain, old word, as in strkjv@Matthew:13:31|). {It may chance} (\ei tuchoi\). Fourth class condition as in strkjv@14:10| which see. Paul is rich in metaphors here, though usually not so (Howson, _Metaphors of St. Paul_). Paul was a city man. We sow seeds, not plants (bodies). The butterfly comes out of the dying worm.

rwp@1Peter:3:14 @{But and if ye should suffer} (\all' ei kai paschoite\). "But if ye should also (or even) suffer." Condition of the fourth class with \ei\ and the optative (undetermined with less likelihood), a rare condition in the vernacular _Koin‚_, since the optative was a dying mode. If matters, in spite of the prophetic note of victory in verse 13|, should come to actual suffering "for righteousness' sake" (\dia dikaiosunˆn\) as in strkjv@Matthew:5:10| (\heneken\, not \dia\), then "blessed" (\makarioi\, the very word of Jesus there which see, a word meaning "happy," not \eulogˆtoi\) "are ye" (not in the Greek). If the conclusion were expressed regularly, it would be \eiˆte an\ (ye would be), not \este\ (ye are). It is interesting to note the third-class condition in verse 13| just before the fourth-class one in verse 14|. {Fear not their fear} (\ton phobon aut“n mˆ phobˆthˆte\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and the first aorist (ingressive) passive subjunctive of \phobeomai\, to fear, and the cognate accusative \phobon\ (fear, terror). "Do not fear their threats" (Bigg). Quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:8:12f|. {Neither be troubled} (\mˆde taraxthˆte\). Prohibition with \mˆde\ and the first aorist (ingressive) subjunctive of \tarass“\, to disturb (Matthew:2:6; strkjv@John:12:27|). Part of the same quotation. Cf. strkjv@3:6|.

rwp@1Peter:3:17 @{Better} (\kreitton\). Comparative of \kratus\ as in strkjv@2Peter:2:21; strkjv@Hebrews:1:4|. Patient endurance not only silences calumny (verse 16|), is Christlike (verse 18|), but it has a value of its own (verse 17|). {If the will of God should so will} (\ei theloi to thelˆma tou theou\). Condition of the fourth class again (\ei--theloi\) with \ei\ and the optative. For a like pleonasm see strkjv@John:7:17|. {For well-doing than for evil-doing} (\agathopoiountas ˆ kakopoiountas\). Accusative plural agreeing with \humƒs\ understood (accusative of general reference with the infinitive \paschein\ (to suffer) of the participles from \agathopoie“\ (see strkjv@2:15|) and \kakopoie“\ (Mark:3:4|, and see strkjv@1Peter:2:14| for \kakopoios\).

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@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:10:10 @{They say} (\phasin\). Reading of B old Latin Vulgate, but Westcott and Hort prefer \phˆsin\ (says one, the leader). This charge Paul quotes directly. {Weighty and strong} (\bareiai kai ischurai\). These adjectives can be uncomplimentary and mean "severe and violent" instead of "impressive and vigorous." The adjectives bear either sense. {His bodily presence} (\hˆ parousia tou s“matos\). This certainly is uncomplimentary. "The presence of his body." It seems clear that Paul did not have a commanding appearance like that of Barnabas (Acts:14:12|). He had some physical defect of the eyes (Galatians:4:14|) and a thorn in the flesh (2Corinthians:12:7|). In the second century _Acts of Paul and Thecla_ he is pictured as small, short, bow-legged, with eye-brows knit together, and an aquiline nose. A forgery of the fourth century in the name of Lucian describes Paul as "the bald-headed, hook-nosed Galilean." However that may be, his accusers sneered at his personal appearance as "weak" (\asthenˆs\). {His speech of no account} (\ho logos exouthenˆmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \exouthene“\, to treat as nothing (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:28|). The Corinthians (some of them) cared more for the brilliant eloquence of Apollos and did not find Paul a trained rhetorician (1Corinthians:1:17; strkjv@2:1,4; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:6|). He made different impressions on different people. "Seldom has any one been at once so ardently hated and so passionately loved as St. Paul" (Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 70). "At one time he seemed like a man, and at another he seemed like an angel" (_Acts of Paul and Thecla_). He spoke like a god at Lystra (Acts:14:8-12|), but Eutychus went to sleep on him (Acts:20:9|). Evidently Paul winced under this biting criticism of his looks and speech.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:32 @{The governor under Aretas} (\ho ethnarchˆs Hareta\). How it came to pass that Damascus, ruled by the Romans after B.C. 65, came at this time to be under the rule of Aretas, fourth of the name, King of the Nabatheans (II Macc. strkjv@5:8), we do not know. There is an absence of Roman coins in Damascus from A.D. 34 to 62. It is suggested (Plummer) that Caligula, to mark his dislike for Antipas, gave Damascus to Aretas (enemy of Antipas). {Guarded} (\ephrourei\). Imperfect active of \phroure“\, old verb (from \phrouros\, a guard) to guard by posting sentries. In strkjv@Acts:9:24| we read that the Jews kept watch to seize Paul, but there is no conflict as they cooperated with the guard set by Aretas at their request. {To seize} (\piasai\). Doric first aorist active infinitive of \piez“\ (Luke:6:38|) for which see on ¯Acts:3:7|.

rwp@Info_2John @ SECOND JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is little to add to what was said about the First Epistle except that here the author terms himself "the elder" (\ho presbuteros\) and writes to "the elect lady" (\eklektˆi kuriƒi\). There is dispute about both of these titles. Some hold that it is the mythical "presbyter John" of whom Papias may speak, if so understood, but whose very existence is disproved by Dom Chapman in _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Peter the apostle (1Peter:1:1|) calls himself "fellow-elder" (\sunpresbuteros\) with the other elders (1Peter:5:1|). The word referred originally to age (Luke:15:25|), then to rank or office as in the Sanhedrin (Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Acts:6:12|) and in the Christian churches (Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@1Timothy:5:17,19|) as here also. A few even deny that the author is the same as in the First Epistle of John, but just an imitator. But the bulk of modern scholarly opinion agrees that the same man wrote all three Epistles and the Fourth Gospel (the Beloved Disciple, and many still say the Apostle John) whatever is true of the Apocalypse. There is no way of deciding whether "the elect lady" is a woman or a church. The obvious way of taking it is to a woman of distinction in one of the churches, as is true of "the co-elect lady in Babylon" (1Peter:5:13|), Peter's wife, who travelled with him (1Corinthians:9:5|). Some even take \kuria\ to be the name of the lady (Cyria). Some also take it to be "Eklecta the lady." Dr. Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 31) holds that Pergamum is the church to which the letter was sent. The same commentaries treat I, II, and III John as a rule, though Poggel has a book on II, III John (1896) and Bresky (1906) has _Das Verhaltnis des Zweiten Johannesbriefes zum dritten_. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has an interesting article in _The Expositor_ of London for March, 1901, on "The Problem of the Address to the Second Epistle of John," in which he argues from papyri examples that \kuria\ here means "my dear" or "my lady." But Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 26) argues that "the qualifying adjunct 'elect' lifts us into the region of Christian calling and dignity." It is not certain that II John was written after I John, though probable. Origen rejected it and the Peshitta Syriac does not have II and III John. strkjv@2John:1:1 @{And her children} (\kai tois teknois autˆs\). As with \eklektˆ kuria\, so here \tekna\ may be understood either literally as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:4|, or spiritually, as in strkjv@Galatians:4:19,25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. For the spiritual sense in \teknia\ see strkjv@1John:2:1,12|. {Whom} (\hous\). Masculine accusative plural, though \teknois\ is neuter plural (dative), construction according to sense, not according to grammatical gender, "embracing the mother and the children of both sexes" (Vincent). See thus \hous\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:19|. {I} (\Eg“\). Though \ho presbuteros\ is third person, he passes at once after the Greek idiom to the first and there is also special emphasis here in the use of \agap“\ with the addition of \en alˆtheiƒi\ (in truth, in the highest sphere, as in strkjv@John:17:19; strkjv@3John:1:1|) and \ouk eg“ monos\ (not I only, "not I alone"). Brooke argues that this language is unsuitable if to a single family and not to a church. But Paul employs this very phrase in sending greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans:16:4|). {That know} (\hoi egn“kotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \gin“sk“\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@Info_2Peter @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882).,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). strkjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Sim“n Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Syme“n\ as in strkjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Sim“n\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. strkjv@2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan“\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in strkjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \timˆ\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \timˆ\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \timˆ\ in strkjv@1:7,19; strkjv@2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hˆmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \tˆi hˆm“n\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosunˆi\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosunˆ\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \s“tˆros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in strkjv@1:11| as in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|. Songs:in strkjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patˆr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in strkjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in strkjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).

rwp@Acts:8:31 @{How can I, except some one shall guide me?} (\P“s gar an dunaimˆn ean me tis hodˆgˆsei me?\). This is a mixed condition, the conclusion coming first belongs to the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of being determined) with \an\ and the optative, but the condition (\ean\, instead of the usual \ei\, and the future indicative) is of the first class (determined or fulfilled. Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1022), a common enough phenomenon in the _Koin‚_. The eunuch felt the need of some one to guide (\hodˆge“\ from \hodˆgos\, guide, and that from \hodos\, way, and \hegeomai\, to lead).

rwp@Acts:10:9 @{On the morrow} (\tˆi epaurion\). Locative case of article with the compound adverb (\hˆmerƒi\ day being understood), the second day after leaving Caesarea, 28 miles from Joppa. The third day (the next morrow, verse 23|) they start back home and the fourth day (on the morrow again, verse 24|) they reach Caesarea. {As they} (\ekein“n\). The party of three from Caesarea. Genitive absolute with present participle \hodoiporount“n\ (journeying) and \eggizont“n\ (drew nigh). {The housetop} (\to d“ma\). Old word and in Gospels (Luke:3:19|, etc.), but only here in Acts. From \dem“\, to build, and so any part of the building (hall, dining room, and then roof). The roof was nearly flat with walls around and so was a good place for meditation and prayer and naps.

rwp@Acts:10:30 @{Four days ago} (\apo tetartˆs hˆmeras\). From the fourth day, reckoning backwards from this day. {I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer} (\ˆmˆn tˆn enatˆn proseuchomenos\). Periphrastic middle imperfect and accusative of extension of time (all the ninth hour).

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

rwp@Acts:17:27 @{That they should seek God} (\Zˆtein ton theon\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose again. Seek him, not turn away from him as the nations had done (Romans:1:18-32|). {If haply they might feel after him} (\ei ara ge psˆlaphˆseian auton\). First aorist active (Aeolic form) optative of \psˆlapha“\, old verb from \psa“\, to touch. Songs:used by the Risen Jesus in his challenge to the disciples (Luke:24:39|), by the Apostle John of his personal contact with Jesus (1John:1:1|), of the contact with Mount Sinai (Hebrews:12:18|). Here it pictures the blind groping of the darkened heathen mind after God to "find him" (\heuroien\, second aorist active optative) whom they had lost. One knows what it is in a darkened room to feel along the walls for the door (Deuteronomy:28:29; strkjv@Job:5:14; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@Isaiah:59:10|). Helen Keller, when told of God, said that she knew of him already, groping in the dark after him. The optative here with \ei\ is due to the condition of the fourth class (undetermined, but with vague hope of being determined) with aim also present (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). Note also \ara ge\ the inferential particle \ara\ with the delicate intensive particle \ge\. {Though he is not far from each one of us} (\kai ge ou makran apo henos hekastou hˆm“n huparchonta\). More exactly with B L (\kai ge\ instead of \kaitoi\ or \kaitoi ge\), "and yet being not far from each one of us," a direct statement rather than a concessive one. The participle \huparchonta\ agrees with \auton\ and the negative \ou\ rather than the usual \me\ with the participle makes an emphatic negative. Note also the intensive particle \ge\.

rwp@Acts:18:22 @{He went up and saluted the church} (\anabas kai aspasamenos tˆn ekklˆsian\). The language could refer to the church in Caesarea where Paul had just landed, except for several things. The going up (\anabas\, second aorist active participle of \anabain“\) is the common way of speaking of going to Jerusalem which was up from every direction save from Hebron. It was the capital of Palestine as people in England today speaking of going up to London. Besides "he went down to Antioch" (\katebˆ eis Antiocheian\, second aorist active indicative of \katabain“\) which language suits better leaving Jerusalem than Caesarea. Moreover, there was no special reason for this trip to Caesarea, but to Jerusalem it was different. Here Paul saluted the church in the fourth of his five visits after his conversion (9:26; strkjv@11:30; strkjv@15:4; strkjv@18:22; strkjv@21:17|). The apostles may or may not have been in the city, but Paul had friends in Jerusalem now. Apparently he did not tarry long, but returned to Antioch to make a report of his second mission tour as he had done at the close of the first when he and Barnabas came back (14:26-28|). He had started on this tour with Silas and had picked up Timothy and Luke, but came back alone. He had a great story to tell.

rwp@Acts:20:16 @{For Paul had determined} (\kekrikei gar ho Paulos\). Past perfect active (correct text) of \krin“\ and not the aorist \ekrine\. Either Paul controlled the ship or the captain was willing to oblige him. {To sail past Ephesus} (\parapleusai tˆn Epheson\). First aorist active infinitive of \paraple“\, old verb to sail beside, only here in the N.T. {That he might not have} (\hop“s mˆ genˆtai aut“i\). Final clause (negative) with aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ and dative "that it might not happen to him." {To spend time} (\chronotribˆsai\). First aorist active of the late compound verb \chronotribe“\ (\chronos\, time, \trib“\, to spend), only here in the N.T. The verb \trib“\, to rub, to wear out by rubbing, lends itself to the idea of wasting time. It was only a year ago that Paul had left Ephesus in haste after the riot. It was not expedient to go back so soon if he meant to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost. Paul clearly felt (Romans:15|) that the presentation of this collection at Pentecost to the Jewish Christians would have a wholesome influence as it had done once before (Acts:11:30|). {He was hastening} (\espeuden\). Imperfect active of \speud“\, old verb to hasten as in strkjv@Luke:2:16; strkjv@19:56|. {If it were possible for him} (\ei dunaton eiˆ aut“i\). Condition of the fourth class (optative mode), if it should be possible for him. The form is a remote possibility. It was only some thirty days till Pentecost. {The day of Pentecost} (\tˆn hˆmeran tˆs pentˆkostˆs\). Note the accusative case. Paul wanted to be there for the whole day. See strkjv@Acts:2:1| for this very phrase.

rwp@Acts:24:19 @{But certain Jews from Asia} (\tines de apo tˆs Alias Ioudaioi\). No verb appears in the Greek for these words. Perhaps he meant to say that "certain Jews from Asia charged me with doing these things." Instead of saying that, Paul stops to explain that they are not here, a thoroughly Pauline anacoluthon (2Corinthians:7:5|) as in strkjv@26:9|. "The passage as it stands is instinct with life, and seems to exhibit the abruptness so characteristic of the Pauline Epistles" (Page). {Who ought to have been here before thee} (\hous edei epi sou pareinai\). This use of \epi\ with genitive of the person is common. The imperfect indicative with verbs of necessity and obligation to express failure to live up to it is common in Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 919-21). "The accusers who were present had not witnessed the alleged offence: those who could have given evidence at first-hand were not present" (Furneaux). There was no case in a Roman court. These Asiatic Jews are never heard of after the riot, though they almost succeeded in killing Paul then. {If they had aught against me} (\ei ti echoien pros eme\). A condition of the fourth class or undetermined with less likelihood of being determined (\ei\ with the optative, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). This is a "mixed condition" (_op.cit._, p. 1022) with a conclusion of the second class.

rwp@Acts:26:29 @{I would to God} (\euxaimˆn an t“i the“i\). Conclusion of fourth-class condition (optative with \an\), undetermined with less likelihood, the so-called potential optative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). Polite and courteous wish (first aorist middle optative of \euchomai\). {Whether with little or with much} (\kai en mikr“i kai en megal“i\). Literally, "both in little and in great," or "both with little and with great pains" or "both in some measure and in great measure." Paul takes kindly the sarcasm of Agrippa. {Such as I am} (\toioutous hopoios kai eg“ eimi\). Accusative \toioutous\ with the infinitive \genesthai\. Paul uses these two qualitative pronouns instead of repeating the word "Christian." {Except these bonds} (\parektos t“n desm“n tout“n\). Ablative case with \parektos\ (late preposition for the old \parek\). Paul lifts his right manacled hand with exquisite grace and good feeling.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ THE FOURTH GROUP THE PASTORAL EPISTLES FIRST TIMOTHY TITUS SECOND TIMOTHY A.D. 65 TO 68 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION It is necessary to discuss introductory matters concerning the three because they are common to them all. It is true that some modern scholars admit as Pauline the personal passages in strkjv@2Timothy:1:15-18; strkjv@4:9-22| while they deny the genuineness of the rest. But that criticism falls by its own weight since precisely the same stylistic characteristics appear in these admitted passages as in the rest and no earthly reason can be advanced for Paul's writing mere scraps or for the omission of the other portions and the preservation of these by a second century forger.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64, this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_ (1921). Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII) notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the amanuensis for the Pastorals.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION UNSETTLED PROBLEMS Probably no book in the New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and pleads for us now.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ SOME BOOKS ON HEBREWS ANDEL, _Deuteronomy:Brief aan de Hebraer_ (1906). ANDERSON, R., _The Hebrews Epistle in the Light of the Types_ (1911). AYLES, _Destination, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). BAILEY, _Leading Ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1907). BLASS, F., _Brief an die Hebraer, Text, Angabe der Rhythmen_ (1903). BLEEK, F., _Der Hebraerbrief Erklart_ (1840). BRUCE, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). DALE, R. W., _The Jewish Temple in the Christian Church_ (1865). DAVIDSON, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1882). DELITZSCH, F., _Commentary on the Hebrews_ (1857). DIBELIUS, M., _Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes_ (1910). DODS, M., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). DU BOSE, W. P., _High Priesthood and sacrifice_ (1908). EDWARDS, T. C., _Expositor's Bible_ (1888). FARRAR, F. W., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). GOODSPEED, E. J., _Bible for Home and School_ (1908). GRIFFTH-THOMAS, W. H., _Let Us Go On_ (1923). HEIGL, _Verfalser und Addresse des Briefes an die Hebraer_ (1905). HOLLMANN, _Schriften d. N. T_. 2 Aufl. (1907). KENDRICK, A. C., _American Commentary_ (1890). LIDGETT, J. S., _Sonship and Salvation_ (1921). LOWRIE, _An Explanation of Hebrews_ (1921). LUNEMANN, G., _Meyer Komm_. (1882). MACFADYEN, J. F., _Through the Eternal Spirit_ (1925). MACNEILL, _The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1914). MENEGOZ, E., _Lamentations:Theologie de l'epitre aux Hebreaux_ (1894). MILLIGAN, G., _The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). MOFFATT JAMES, _Int. and Cosit. Comm_. (1924) MOULE, H. C., _Messages from the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1909). MURRAY, ANDREW, _Devotional Commentary_. NAIRNE, A., _The Epistle of Priesthood_ (1913). NAIRNE, A., _The Alexandrian Gospel_ (1917). PEAKE, A. S., _New Century Bible_ (1904). PORTER, S. J., _The Twelve-Gemmed Crown_ (1913). RENDALL, F., _The Theology of the Hebrew Christians_ (1886). RIGGENBACH, M., _Zoeckler Komm_. 2 Aufl. (1913). ROTHERHAM, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1906). SAPHIR, A., _Exposition of Hebrews_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1922). SEEBERG, A., _Der Brief an die Hebraer_ (1912). SLOT, _Deuteronomy:Letterkundige Vorm van den Brief aan de Hebraer (1912). SODEN, VON, _Hand-Comm_. (1899). THOLUCK, A., _Komm. zum Briefe an die Hebraer_. VAUGHAN, C. J., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WADE, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1923). WEISS, B., _Meyer-Komm_. 6 Aufl. (1902). WEISS, B., _Der Hebraerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Bekuch- tung_ (1910). WELCH, _Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WESTCOTT, B. F., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (3rd ed. 1906). WICKHAM, E. C., _Westminster Comm_. (1910). WINDISCH, H., _Handbuch zum N.T_. (1913). WREDE, W., _Das literarisches Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs_ (1906). strkjv@Hebrews:1:1 @{God} (\ho theos\). This Epistle begins like Genesis and the Fourth Gospel with God, who is the Author of the old revelation in the prophets and of the new in his Son. Verses 1-3| are a _proemium_ (Delitzsch) or introduction to the whole Epistle. The periodic structure of the sentence (1-4|) reminds one of strkjv@Luke:1:1-4, strkjv@Romans:1:1-7, strkjv@1John:1:1-4|. The sentence could have concluded with \en hui“i\ in verse 2|, but by means of three relatives (\hon, di' hou, hos\) the author presents the Son as "the exact counterpart of God" (Moffatt). {Of old time} (\palai\). "Long ago" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:21|. {Having spoken} (\lalˆsas\). First aorist active participle of \lale“\, originally chattering of birds, then used of the highest form of speech as here. {Unto the fathers} (\tois patrasin\). Dative case. The Old Testament worthies in general without "our" or "your" as in strkjv@John:6:58; strkjv@7:22; strkjv@Romans:9:5|. {In the prophets} (\en tois prophˆtais\). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). strkjv@Songs:4:7|. {By divers portions} (\polumer“s\). "In many portions." Adverb from late adjective \polumerˆs\ (in papyri), both in _Vettius Valens_, here only in N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:22 and Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 3, 9). The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, a progressive revelation of God to men. {In divers manners} (\polutrop“s\). "In many ways." Adverb from old adjective \polutropos\, in Philo, only here in N.T. The two adverbs together are "a sonorous hendiadys for 'variously'" (Moffatt) as Chrysostom (\diaphor“s\). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.).

rwp@Hebrews:11:3 @{By faith} (\pistei\). Instrumental case of \pistis\ which he now illustrates in a marvellous way. Each example as far as verse 31| is formally and with rhetorical skill introduced by \pistei\. After that only a summary is given. {We understand} (\nooumen\). Present active indicative of \noe“\, old verb (from \nous\, intellect) as in strkjv@Matthew:15:17; strkjv@Romans:1:20|. The author appeals to our knowledge of the world in which these heroes lived as an illustration of faith. Recent books by great scientists like Eddington and Jeans confirm the position here taken that a Supreme Mind is behind and before the universe. Science can only stand still in God's presence and believe like a little child. {The worlds} (\tous ai“nas\). "The ages" as in strkjv@1:2| (cf. Einstein's fourth dimension, time). Accusative case of general reference. {Have been framed} (\katˆrtisthai\). Perfect passive infinitive of \katartiz“\, to mend, to equip, to perfect (Luke:6:40|), in indirect discourse after \nooumen\. {Songs:that} (\eis to\). As a rule \eis to\ with the infinitive is final, but sometimes as here it expresses result as in strkjv@Romans:12:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003). {Hath been made} (\gegonenai\). Perfect active infinitive of \ginomai\. {What is seen} (\to blepomenon\). Present passive articular participle (accusative case of general reference) of \blep“\. {Of things which do appear} (\ek phainomen“n\). Ablative case with \ek\ (out of) of the present passive participle. The author denies the eternity of matter, a common theory then and now, and places God before the visible universe as many modern scientists now gladly do.

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

rwp@Info_John @ THE FOURTH GOSPEL BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION GREATEST OF BOOKS The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel over all the books of the world. If Luke's Gospel is the most beautiful, John's Gospel is supreme in its height and depth and reach of thought. The picture of Christ here given is the one that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. It is not possible for a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be indifferent to modern critical views concerning the authorship and historical value of this Holy of Holies of the New Testament. Here we find _The Heart of Christ_ (E. H. Sears), especially in chapters strkjv@John:14-17|. If Jesus did not do or say these things, it is small consolation to be told that the book at least has symbolic and artistic value for the believer. The language of the Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are not able to sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity challenge and charm us as we linger over it.

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

rwp@Info_John @ ONLY ONE JOHN OF EPHESUS It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa A.D. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase "the Elder John " (\ho presbuteros I“annˆs\) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by "the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. "Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord's Life" (Bousset, _Die Offenbarumg des Joh._, p. 38, translation of Nolloth, _The Fourth Evangelist_, p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.

rwp@Info_John @ EARLY AND CLEAR WITNESS TO THE APOSTLE JOHN Ignatius (_ad Philad_. vii. 1) about A.D. 110 says of the Spirit that "he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to strkjv@John:3:8|. Polycarp (_ad Phil_. S 7) quotes strkjv@1John:4:2,3|. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell "of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his _Diatessaron_ out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch (_Ad Autol_. ii. 22) calls John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about A.D. 180. The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has stronger external evidence.

rwp@Info_John @ THE USE OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (John:2:23; strkjv@6:4|) and another (John:5:1|) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord's public ministry ("the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John:1:19-4:45|). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John:1:1-18|) relates the Incarnation to God's eternal purpose as in strkjv@Colossians:1:14-20| and strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-3| and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time (\Logos\ -- Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

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

rwp@Info_John @ HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his _Diatessaron_, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter strkjv@John:11| which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in strkjv@Matthew:23|, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter strkjv@John:21| with that in strkjv@Luke:5|, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter strkjv@John:12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in strkjv@Luke:7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter strkjv@John:1| is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910).

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

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

rwp@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:1:43 @{On the morrow} (\tˆi epaurion\). The fourth of the days from verse 19|. {He findeth Philip} (\heuriskei Philippon\). Vivid dramatic present as in 41|, though \ˆthelˆsen\ (was minded, wished) is aorist active indicative. Apparently not an accidental finding, possibly due to the efforts of Andrew and Peter. Both Andrew and Philip have Greek names. {Follow me} (\akolouthei moi\). Present active imperative, a direct challenge to Philip. Often Jesus uses this verb to win disciples (Mark:2:14; strkjv@Matthew:8:22; strkjv@9:21; strkjv@19:21; strkjv@Luke:9:59; strkjv@John:21:19|). Already Jesus had four personal followers (Andrew and Simon, John and James). He has begun his work.

rwp@John:2:1 @{The third day} (\tˆi hˆmerƒi tˆi tritˆi\). "On the day the third" (locative case), from the start to Galilee when Philip was found (1:43|), seven days since strkjv@1:19|. {There was a marriage} (\gamos egeneto\). "A wedding (or marriage festival) took place." See on ¯Matthew:22:8|. {In Cana of Galilee} (\en Kana tˆs Galilaias\). This town, the home of Nathanael (21:2|), is only mentioned again in strkjv@4:46| as the home of the nobleman. There was a Cana in Coele-Syria. It is usually located at _Kefr Kenna_ (3 1/2 miles from Nazareth), though _Ain Kana_ and _Khirbet Kana_ are also possible. Bernard thinks that it was probably on Wednesday afternoon the fourth day of the week (usual day for marriage of virgins), when the party of Jesus arrived. {And the mother of Jesus was there} (\kai ˆn hˆ mˆtˆr tou Iˆsou ekei\). When they arrived. John does not mention her name, probably because already well known in the Synoptics. Probably Joseph was already dead. Mary may have been kin to the family where the wedding took place, an intimate friend clearly.

rwp@John:2:4 @{Woman} (\gunai\). Vocative case of \gunˆ\, and with no idea of censure as is plain from its use by Jesus in strkjv@19:26|. But the use of \gunai\ instead of \mˆter\ (Mother) does show her she can no longer exercise maternal authority and not at all in his Messianic work. That is always a difficult lesson for mothers and fathers to learn, when to let go. {What have I to do with thee?} (\Ti emoi kai soi;\). There are a number of examples of this ethical dative in the LXX (Judges:11:12; strkjv@2Samuel:16:10; strkjv@1Kings:17:18; strkjv@2Kings:3:13; strkjv@2Chronicles:35:21|) and in the N.T. (Mark:1:24; strkjv@5:7; strkjv@Matthew:8:29; strkjv@27:19; strkjv@Luke:8:28|). Some divergence of thought is usually indicated. Literally the phrase means, "What is it to me and to thee?" In this instance F.C. Burkitt (_Journal of Theol. Studies_, July, 1912) interprets it to mean, "What is it to us?" That is certainly possible and suits the next clause also. {Mine hour is not yet come} (\oup“ hˆkei hˆ h“ra mou\). This phrase marks a crisis whenever it occurs, especially of his death (7:30; strkjv@8:20; strkjv@12:23; strkjv@13:1; strkjv@17:1|). Here apparently it means the hour for public manifestation of the Messiahship, though a narrower sense would be for Christ's intervention about the failure of the wine. The Fourth Gospel is written on the plane of eternity (W. M. Ramsay) and that standpoint exists here in this first sign of the Messiah.

rwp@John:5:43 @{In my Father's name} (\en t“i onomati tou patros mou\). Seven times Jesus in John speaks of the "Name" of the Father (5:43; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@12:28; strkjv@17:6,11,12,26|). See strkjv@1:12| for use of \onoma\ (Luke:1:49|). {And ye receive me not} (\kai ou lambanete me\). "And yet ye do not receive me," as in verse 40|, "the Gospel of the Rejection" (1:11; strkjv@3:11,32; strkjv@12:37|) often applied to the Fourth Gospel. {If another come} (\ean allos elthˆi\). Condition of third class (\ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\). Note \allos\, not \heteros\, like \allon Iˆsoun\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4|. Similar prophecies occur in strkjv@Mark:13:6,22| (Matthew:24:5,24|), all general in character like Antichrist in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:8-12|. There is no occasion for a reference to any individual like Barcochba (about A.D. 134) as Pfleiderer and Schmiedel hold. These Messianic upstarts all come "in their own name" and always find a following. {Him ye will receive} (\ekeinon lˆmpsesthe\). "That one," whoever he is, as Jesus said. Future active indicative of \lamban“\. Credulous about the false Messiahs, incredulous about Christ.

rwp@John:6:8 @{One of} (\heis ek\). Songs:in strkjv@12:4|; strkjv@13:23; strkjv@Mark:13:1| without \ek\. {Simon Peter's brother} (\ho adelphos Sim“nos Petrou\). Songs:described in strkjv@1:40|. The great distinction of Andrew was precisely this that he brought Simon to Christ. Philip and Andrew appear together again in strkjv@12:20-22|, but in the Synoptics he is distinguished only in strkjv@Mark:13:3|. In the Muratorian Fragment Andrew received the revelation for John to write the Fourth Gospel.

rwp@John:13:14 @{If I then} (\ei oun eg“\). Argumentative sense of \oun\ (therefore). Condition of first class, assumed to be true, with first aorist active indicative of \nipt“\, "If I, being what I am, washed your feet" (as I did). {Ye also ought} (\kai humeis opheilete\). The obligation rests on you _a fortiori_. Present active indicative of the old verb \opheil“\, to owe a debt (Matthew:18:30|). The mutual obligation is to do this or any other needed service. The widows who washed the saints' feet in strkjv@1Timothy:5:10| did it "as an incident-of their hospitable ministrations" (Bernard). Up to 1731 the Lord High Almoner in England washed the feet of poor saints (_pedilavium_) on Thursday before Easter, a custom that arose in the fourth century, and one still practised by the Pope of Rome.

rwp@John:14:22 @{Not Iscariot} (\ouch ho Iskari“tˆs\). Judas Iscariot had gone (13:30|), but John is anxious to make it clear that this Judas (common name, two apostles also named James) was not the infamous traitor. He is also called Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus (Mark:3:17; strkjv@Matthew:10:3|) and the brother (or son) of James (6:15; strkjv@Acts:1:13|). This is the fourth interruption of the talk of Jesus (by Peter, strkjv@13:36|; by Thomas, strkjv@14:5|; by Philip, strkjv@14:8|; by Judas, strkjv@14:22|). {And not to the world} (\kai ouchi t“i kosm“i\). Judas caught at the word \emphaniz“\ in verse 21| as perhaps a Messianic theophany visible to all the world as at the judgment (5:27f.|). He seems to suspect a change of plan on the part of Jesus (\ti gegonen hoti\=how has it happened that).

rwp@John:18:15 @{Followed} (\ˆkolouthei\). Imperfect active of \akolouthe“\, "was following," picturesque and vivid tense, with associative instrumental case \t“i Iˆsou\. {Another disciple} (\allos mathˆtˆs\). Correct text without article \ho\ (genuine in verse 16|). Peter's companion was the Beloved Disciple, the author of the book (John:21:24|). {Was known unto the high priest} (\ˆn gn“stos t“i archierei\). Verbal adjective from \gin“sk“\, to know (Acts:1:19|) with dative case. How well known the word does not say, not necessarily a personal friend, well enough known for the portress to admit John. "The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants' hall" (Sanday, _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_, p. 101). {Entered in with Jesus} (\suneisˆlthen t“i Iˆsou\). Second aorist active indicative of the double compound \suneiserchomai\, old verb, in N.T. here and strkjv@6:22|. With associative instrumental case. {Into the court} (\eis tˆn aulˆn\). It is not clear that this word ever means the palace itself instead of the courtyard (uncovered enclosure) as always in the papyri (very common). Clearly courtyard in strkjv@Mark:14:66| (Matthew:26:69; strkjv@Luke:22:55|). Apparently Annas had rooms in the official residence of Caiaphas.

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

rwp@Jude:1:11 @{Woe to them} (\ouai autois\). Interjection with the dative as is common in the Gospels (Matthew:11:21|). {Went} (\eporeuthˆsan\). First aorist passive (deponent) indicative of \poreuomai\. {In the way of Cain} (\tˆi hod“i tou Kain\). Locative case \hod“i\. Cain is Jude's fourth example. Not in II Peter, but in strkjv@Hebrews:11:4; strkjv@1John:3:11f|. From strkjv@Genesis:4:7|. {Ran riotously} (\exechuthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekche“\, to pour out, "they were poured out," vigorous metaphor for excessive indulgence. But it is used also of God's love for us (Romans:5:5|). {In the error of Balaam} (\tˆi planˆi tou Balaam\). The fifth example in Jude. In II Peter also (2Peter:2:15|). Either locative case (in) or instrumental (by). \Planˆ\ (in Peter also) is the common word for such wandering (Matthew:24:4ff.|, etc.). {Perished} (\ap“lonto\). Second aorist middle (intransitive) of \apollumi\. {In the gainsaying of Korah} (\tˆi antilogiƒi tou Kore\). Again either locative or instrumental. The word \antilogia\ is originally answering back (Hebrews:6:16|), but it may be by act also (Romans:10:21|) as here. This is the sixth example in Jude, not in II Peter.

rwp@Info_Luke @ A SKETCH OF LUKE His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of \Lukios\ and \Lukanos\. Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title \Kata Lukanon\. Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born. That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. Songs:this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a "we" passage after strkjv@Acts:11:27| which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether one of Paul's converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.

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

rwp@Luke:9:22 @{Rejected} (\apodokimasthˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \apodokimaz“\, to reject after trial. {The third day} (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi\). Locative case of time as in strkjv@Matthew:16:21|. Here in the parallel passage strkjv@Mark:8:31| has "after three days" (\meta treis hˆmeras\) in precisely the same sense. That is to say, "after three days" is just a free way of saying "on the third day" and cannot mean "on the fourth day" if taken too literally. For discussion of this plain prediction of the death of Christ with various details see discussion on strkjv@Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Mark:8:31|. It was a melancholy outlook that depressed the disciples as Mark and Matthew show in the protest of Peter and his rebuke.

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

rwp@Luke:16:14 @{Who were lovers of money} (\philarguroi huparchontes\). Literally, being lovers of money. \Philarguroi\ is an old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:2|. It is from \philos\ and \arguros\. {Heard} (\ˆkouon\). Imperfect active, were listening (all the while Jesus was talking to the disciples (verses 1-13|). {And they scoffed at him} (\kai exemuktˆrizon\). Imperfect active again of \ekmuktˆriz“\. LXX where late writers use simple verb. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:23:35|. It means to turn out or up the nose at one, to sneer, to scoff. The Romans had a phrase, _naso adunco suspendere_, to hang on the hooked nose (the subject of ridicule). These money-loving Pharisees were quick to see that the words of Jesus about the wise use of money applied to them. They had stood without comment the three parables aimed directly at them (the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son). But now they do not remain quiet while they hear the fourth parable spoken to the disciples. No words were apparently spoken, but their eyes, noses, faces were eloquent with a fine disdain.

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

rwp@Mark:3:14 @{He appointed twelve} (\epoiˆsen d“deka\). This was a second selection out of those invited to the hills and after the night of prayer and after day came (Luke:6:13|). Why he chose twelve we are not told, probably because there were twelve tribes in Israel. It was a good round number at any rate. They were to be princes in the new Israel (cf. strkjv@Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30; strkjv@Revelation:21:14,15|). Luke (Luke:6:13-16|) also gives the list of the twelve at this point while Matthew (Matthew:10:1-4|) postpones giving the names till they are sent out in Galilee. There is a fourth list in strkjv@Acts:1:13|. See discussion of the names of the apostles on ¯Matthew:10:1-4| and pp. 271-3 of my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_. The three groups of four begin alike (Simon, Philip, James). There are some difficulties. {Whom he also named apostles} (\hous kai apostolous “nomasen\). Margin of Revised Version, the text of Westcott and Hort after Aleph, B, C, etc. Genuine in strkjv@Luke:6:13| and probably so here. The meaning is that Jesus himself gave the name apostle or missionary (\apostell“\, to send) to this group of twelve. The word is applied in the New Testament to others besides as delegates or messengers of churches (2Corinthians:8:23; strkjv@Phillipians:2:25|), and messenger (John:13:16|). It is applied also to Paul on a par with the twelve (Galatians:1:1,11f.|, etc.) and also to Barnabas (Acts:14:14|), and perhaps also to Timothy and Silas (1Timothy:2:6f.|). Two purposes of Jesus are mentioned by Mark in the choice of these twelve, {that they might be with him} (\hina “sin met' autou\), {and that he might send them forth} (\kai hina apostellˆi autous\). They were not ready to be sent forth till they had been with Jesus for some time. This is one of the chief tasks of Christ to train this group of men. See Bruce's _The Training of the Twelve_. The very word \apostolos\ is from \apostell“\. There were two purposes in sending them forth expressed by two infinitives, one to preach (\kˆrussein\, from \kˆrux\, herald), the other to have power to cast out demons (\echein exousian ekballein ta daimonia\). This double ministry of preaching and healing was to mark their work. The two things are, however, different, and one does not necessarily involve the other.

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

rwp@Mark:8:31 @{He began to teach them} (\ˆrxato 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 hˆmeras\). strkjv@Matthew:16:21| has "the third day" (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi\) 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:11:12 @{On the morrow} (\tˆi epaurion\). strkjv@Matthew:21:18| has "early" (\pr“i\), often of the fourth watch before six A.M. This was Monday morning. The Triumphal Entry had taken place on our Sunday, the first day of the week.

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

rwp@Revelation:1:9 @{I John} (\Eg“ I“anˆs\). strkjv@Songs:22:8|. In apocalyptic literature the personality of the writer is always prominent to guarantee the visions (Daniel:8:1; strkjv@10:2|). {Partaker with you} (\sunkoin“nos\). See already strkjv@1Corinthians:9:23|. "Co-partner with you" (Romans:11:17|). One article with \adelphos\ and \sunkoin“nos\ unifying the picture. The absence of \apostolos\ here does not show that he is not an apostle, but merely his self-effacement, as in the Fourth Gospel, and still more his oneness with his readers. Songs:there is only one article (\tˆi\) with \thlipsei\ (tribulation), \basileiƒi\ (kingdom), \hupomonˆi\ (patience), ideas running all through the book. Both the tribulation (see strkjv@Matthew:13:21| for \thlipsis\) and the kingdom (see strkjv@Matthew:3:2| for \basileia\) were present realities and called for patience (\hupomonˆ\ being "the spiritual alchemy" according to Charles for those in the kingdom, for which see strkjv@Luke:8:15; strkjv@James:5:7|). All this is possible only "in Jesus" (\en Iˆsou\), a phrase on a par with Paul's common \en Christ“i\ (in Christ), repeated in strkjv@14:13|. Cf. strkjv@3:20; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:5|. {Was} (\egenomˆn\). Rather, "I came to be," second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\. {In the isle that is called Patmos} (\en tˆi nˆs“i tˆi kaloumenˆi Patm“i\). Patmos is a rocky sparsely settled island some ten miles long and half that wide, one of the Sporades group in the Aegean Sea, south of Miletus. The present condition of the island is well described by W. E. Geil in _The Isle That Is Called Patmos_ (1905). Here John saw the visions described in the book, apparently written while still a prisoner there in exile. {For the word of God and the testimony of Jesus} (\dia ton logon tou theou kai tˆn marturian Iˆsou\). The reason for (\dia\ and the accusative) John's presence in Patmos, naturally as a result of persecution already alluded to, not for the purpose of preaching there or of receiving the visions. See verse 2| for the phrase.

rwp@Revelation:19:9 @{Write} (\Grapson\). First aorist active imperative of \graph“\ as in strkjv@1:11; strkjv@14:13|. The speaker may be the angel guide of strkjv@17:1|. {It is another beatitude} (\makarioi\, Blessed) like that in strkjv@14:13| (fourth of the seven in the book). {They which are bidden} (\hoi keklˆmenoi\). Articular perfect passive participle of \kale“\, like strkjv@Matthew:22:3; strkjv@Luke:14:17|. Cf. strkjv@Revelation:17:14|. This beatitude reminds us of that in strkjv@Luke:14:15|. (Cf. strkjv@Matthew:8:11; strkjv@26:29|.) {These are true words of God} (\Houtoi hoi logoi alˆthinoi tou theou eisin\). Undoubtedly, but one should bear in mind that apocalyptic symbolism "has its own methods and laws of interpretation, and by these the student must be guided" (Swete).

rwp@Romans:9:3 @{I could wish} (\ˆuchomˆn\). Idiomatic imperfect, "I was on the point of wishing." We can see that \euchomai\ (I do wish) would be wrong to say. \An ˆuchomˆn\ would mean that he does not wish (conclusion of second class condition). \An ˆuchomˆn\ would be conclusion of fourth class condition and too remote. He is shut up to the imperfect indicative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 886). {Anathema} (\anathema\). See for this word as distinct from \anathˆma\ (offering) strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3; strkjv@Galatians:1:8f.| {I myself} (\autos eg“\). Nominative with the infinitive \einai\ and agreeing with subject of \ˆuchomˆn\. {According to the flesh} (\kata sarka\). As distinguished from Paul's Christian brethren.

rwp@Romans:9:5 @{Of whom} (\ex h“n\). Fourth relative clause and here with \ex\ and the ablative. {Christ} (\ho Christos\). The Messiah. {As concerning the flesh} (\to kata sarka\). Accusative of general reference, "as to the according to the flesh." Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in strkjv@1:3f|. {Who is over all, God blessed for ever} (\ho on epi pant“n theos eulogˆtos\). A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after \sarka\ (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See strkjv@Acts:20:28; strkjv@Titus:2:13| for Paul's use of \theos\ applied to Jesus Christ.

rwp@Romans:16:23 @{Gaius my host} (\Gaios ho xenos mou\). Perhaps the same Gaius of strkjv@1Corinthians:1:14| (Acts:19:29; strkjv@20:4|), but whether the one of strkjv@3John:1:1| we do not know. \Xenos\ was a guest friend, and then either a stranger (Matthew:25:35|) or a host of strangers as here. This Gaius was plainly a man of some means as he was the host of all the church. Erastus (2Timothy:4:20|) was "the treasurer of the city" (\ho oikonomos tˆs pole“s\), one of the outstanding men of Corinth, the "steward" (house-manager) or city manager. See strkjv@Luke:12:42; strkjv@16:1|. He is probably the administrator of the city's property. {Quartus} (\Kouartos\). Latin name for fourth.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Mon Jul 1 15:48:47 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020