NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp Formal:

rwp@1Corinthians:5:1 @{Actually} (\hols\). Literally, wholly, altogether, like Latin _omnino_ and Greek \pants\ (1Corinthians:9:22|). Songs:papyri have it for "really" and also for "generally" or "everywhere" as is possible here. See also strkjv@6:7|. With a negative it has the sense of "not at all" as in strkjv@15:29; strkjv@Matthew:5:34| the only N.T. examples, though a common word. {It is reported} (\akouetai\). Present passive indicative of \akou\, to hear; so literally, it is heard. "Fornication is heard of among you." Probably the household of Chloe (1:11|) brought this sad news (Ellicott). {And such} (\kai toiaut\). Climactic qualitative pronoun showing the revolting character of this particular case of illicit sexual intercourse. \Porneia\ is sometimes used (Acts:15:20,29|) of such sin in general and not merely of the unmarried whereas \moicheia\ is technically adultery on the part of the married (Mark:7:21|). {As is not even among the Gentiles} (\htis oude en tois ethnesin\). Height of scorn. The Corinthian Christians were actually trying to win pagans to Christ and living more loosely than the Corinthian heathen among whom the very word "Corinthianize" meant to live in sexual wantonness and license. See Cicero _pro Cluentio_, v. 14. {That one of you hath his father's wife} (\hste gunaika tina tou patros echein\). "Songs:as (usual force of \hste\) for one to go on having (\echein\, present infinitive) a wife of the (his) father." It was probably a permanent union (concubine or mistress) of some kind without formal marriage like strkjv@John:4:8|. The woman probably was not the offender's mother (step-mother) and the father may have been dead or divorced. The Jewish law prescribed stoning for this crime (Leviticus:18:8; strkjv@22:11; strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:30|). But the rabbis (Rabbi Akibah) invented a subterfuge in the case of a proselyte to permit such a relation. Perhaps the Corinthians had also learned how to split hairs over moral matters in such an evil atmosphere and so to condone this crime in one of their own members. Expulsion Paul had urged in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:6| for such offenders.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:18 @{First of all} (\prton men\). There is no antithesis (\deuteron de\, secondly, or \epeita de\, in the next place) expressed. This is the primary reason for Paul's condemnation and the only one given. {When ye come together in the church} (\sunerchomenn hmn en ekklsii\). Genitive absolute. Here \ekklsia\ has the literal meaning of assembly. {Divisions} (\schismata\). Accusative of general reference with the infinitive \huparchein\ in indirect discourse. Old word for cleft, rent, from \schiz\. Example in papyri for splinter of wood. See on strkjv@1:10|. Not yet formal cleavages into two or more organizations, but partisan divisions that showed in the love-feasts and at the Lord's Supper. {Partly} (\meros ti\). Accusative of extent (to some part) like \panta\ in strkjv@10:33|. He could have said \ek merous\ as in strkjv@13:9|. The rumours of strife were so constant (I keep on hearing, \akou\).

rwp@1Corinthians:16:3 @{When I arrive} (\hotan paragenmai\). Whenever I arrive, indefinite temporal conjunction \hotan\ and second aorist middle subjunctive. {Whomsoever ye shall approve by letters} (\hous ean dokimaste di' epistoln\). Indefinite relative with \ean\ and aorist subjunctive of \dokimaz\ (to test and so approve as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:10|). "By letters" to make it formal and regular and Paul would approve their choice of messengers to go with him to Jerusalem (2Corinthians:8:20ff.|). Curiously enough no names from Corinth occur in the list in strkjv@Acts:20:4|. {To carry} (\apenegkein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \apopher\, to bear away. {Bounty} (\charin\). Gift, grace, as in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:4-7|. As a matter of fact, the messengers of the churches (\apostoloi ekklsin\ strkjv@2Corinthians:8:23|) went along with Paul to Jerusalem (Acts:20:4f.|).

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

rwp@1Timothy:4:14 @{Neglect not} (\m amelei\). Present active imperative in prohibition of \amele\, old verb, rare in N.T. (Matthew:22:5; strkjv@1Timothy:4:14; strkjv@Hebrews:2:3; strkjv@8:9|). From \amels\ (\a\ privative and \melei\, not to care). Use with genitive. {The gift that is in thee} (\tou en soi charismatos\). Late word of result from \charizomai\, in papyri (Preisigke), a regular Pauline word in N.T. (1Corinthians:1:7; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:11; strkjv@Romans:1:11|; etc.). Here it is God's gift to Timothy as in strkjv@2Timothy:1:6|. {By prophecy} (\dia prophteias\). Accompanied by prophecy (1:18|), not bestowed by prophecy. {With the laying on of the hands of the presbytery} (\meta epitheses tn cheirn tou presbuteriou\). In strkjv@Acts:13:2f.|, when Barnabas and Saul were formally set apart to the mission campaign (not then ordained as ministers, for they were already that), there was the call of the Spirit and the laying on of hands with prayer. Here again \meta\ does not express instrument or means, but merely accompaniment. In strkjv@2Timothy:1:6| Paul speaks only of his own laying on of hands, but the rest of the presbytery no doubt did so at the same time and the reference is to this incident. There is no way to tell when and where it was done, whether at Lystra when Timothy joined Paul's party or at Ephesus just before Paul left Timothy there (1:3|). \Epithesis\ (\from epitithmi\, to lay upon) is an old word, in LXX, etc. In the N.T. we find it only here, strkjv@2Timothy:1:16; strkjv@Acts:8:18; strkjv@Hebrews:6:2|, but the verb \epitithmi\ with \tas cheiras\ more frequently (Acts:6:6| of the deacons; strkjv@8:19; strkjv@13:3; strkjv@1Timothy:5:22|, etc.). \Presbuterion\ is a late word (ecclesiastical use also), first for the Jewish Sanhedrin (Luke:22:66; strkjv@Acts:22:5|), then (here only in N.T.) of Christian elders (common in Ignatius), though \presbuteros\ (elder) for preachers (bishops) is common (Acts:11:30; strkjv@15:2; strkjv@20:17|, etc.).

rwp@Acts:7:57 @{Stopped their ears} (\suneschon ta ta autn\). Second aorist active of \sunech\, to hold together. They held their ears together with their hands and affected to believe Stephen guilty of blasphemy (cf. strkjv@Matthew:26:65|). {Rushed upon him with one accord} (\hrmsan homothumadon ep' auton\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \horma\, to rush impetuously as the hogs did down the cliff when the demons entered them (Luke:8:33|). No vote was taken by the Sanhedrin. No scruple was raised about not having the right to put him to death (John:8:31|). It may have taken place after Pilate's recall and before his successor came or Pilate, if there, just connived at such an incident that did not concern Rome. At any rate it was mob violence like modern lynching that took the law into the hands of the Sanhedrin without further formalities. {Out of the city} (\ek ts poles\). To keep from defiling the place with blood. But they sought to kill Paul as soon as they got him out of the temple area (Acts:21:30f.|). {Stoned} (\elithoboloun\). Imperfect active indicative of \lithobole\, began to stone, from \lithobolos\ (\lithos\, stone, \ball\, to throw), late Greek verb, several times in the N.T. as strkjv@Luke:13:34|. Stoning was the Jewish punishment for blasphemy (Leviticus:24:14-16|). {The witnesses} (\hoi martures\). The false testifiers against Stephen suborned by the Pharisees (Acts:6:11,13|). These witnesses had the privilege of casting the first stones (Deuteronomy:13:10; strkjv@17:7|) against the first witness for Christ with death (_martyr_ in our modern sense of the word). {At the feet of a young man named Saul} (\para tous podas neaniou kaloumenou Saulou\). Beside (\para\) the feet. Our first introduction to the man who became the greatest of all followers of Jesus Christ. Evidently he was not one of the "witnesses" against Stephen, for he was throwing no stones at him. But evidently he was already a leader in the group of Pharisees. We know from later hints from Saul (Paul) himself that he had been a pupil of Gamaliel (Acts:22:3|). Gamaliel, as the Pharisaic leader in the Sanhedrin, was probably on hand to hear the accusations against Stephen by the Pharisees. But, if so, he does not raise his voice against this mob violence. Saul does not seem to be aware that he is going contrary to the views of his master, though pupils often go further than their teachers.

rwp@Acts:13:43 @{When the synagogue broke up} (\lutheiss ts sunaggs\). Genitive absolute of first aorist passive participle of \lu\. Apparently Paul and Barnabas had gone out before the synagogue was formally dismissed. {Of the devout proselytes} (\tn sebomenn proslutn\). Of the worshipping proselytes described in verses 16,25| as "those who fear God" (cf. strkjv@16:14|) employed usually of the uncircumcised Gentiles who yet attended the synagogue worship, but the word \proslutoi\ (\pros, lutos\ verbal from \erchomai\, a new-comer) means usually those who had become circumcised (proselytes of righteousness). Yet the rabbis used it also of proselytes of the gate who had not yet become circumcised, probably the idea here. In the N.T. the word occurs only in strkjv@Matthew:23:15; strkjv@Acts:2:10; strkjv@6:5; strkjv@13:43|. Many (both Jews and proselytes) followed (\kolouthsan\, ingressive aorist active indicative of \akolouthe\) Paul and Barnabas to hear more without waiting till the next Sabbath. Songs:we are to picture Paul and Barnabas speaking (\proslalountes\, late compound, in N.T. only here and strkjv@28:20|) to eager groups. {Urged} (\epeithon\). Imperfect active of \peith\, either descriptive (were persuading) or conative (were trying to persuade). Paul had great powers of persuasion (18:4; strkjv@19:8,26; strkjv@26:28; strkjv@28:23; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:11; strkjv@Galatians:1:10|). These Jews "were beginning to understand for the first time the true meaning of their national history" (Furneaux), "the grace of God" to them.

rwp@Acts:14:14 @{Having heard} (\akousantes\). Such elaborate preparation "with the multitudes" (\sun tois ochlois\) spread rumours and some who spoke Greek told Paul and Barnabas. It is possible that the priest of Jupiter may have sent a formal request that the visiting "gods" might come out to the statue by the temple gates to make it a grand occasion. They rent their garments (\diarrxantes\). First aorist active participle from \diarrgnumi\, old verb to rend in two. Like the high priest in strkjv@Matthew:26:65| as if an act of sacrilege was about to be committed. It was strange conduct for the supposed gods! {Sprang forth} (\exepdsan\). First aorist (ingressive) active indicative of \ekpda\ (note \ek\), old verb, here only in the N.T. It was all a sign of grief and horror with loud outcries (\krazontes\).

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

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

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

rwp@Acts:20:7 @{Upon the first day of the week} (\en de mii tn sabbatn\). The cardinal \mii\ used here for the ordinal \prti\ (Mark:16:9|) like the Hebrew _ehadh_ as in strkjv@Mark:16:2; strkjv@Matthew:28:1; strkjv@Luke:24:1; strkjv@John:20:1| and in harmony with the _Koin_ idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 671). Either the singular (Mark:16:9|) \sabbatou\ or the plural \sabbaton\ as here was used for the week (sabbath to sabbath). For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week though in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:2| it is implied by the collections stored on that day. In strkjv@Revelation:1:10| the Lord's day seems to be the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the grave. Worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh naturally arose in Gentile churches, though strkjv@John:20:26| seems to mean that from the very start the disciples began to meet on the first (or eighth) day. But liberty was allowed as Paul makes plain in strkjv@Romans:14:5f|. {When we were gathered together} (\sungmenn hmn\). Genitive absolute, perfect passive participle of \sunag\, to gather together, a formal meeting of the disciples. See this verb used for gatherings of disciples in strkjv@Acts:4:31; strkjv@11:26; strkjv@14:27; strkjv@15:6,30; strkjv@19:7,8; strkjv@1Corinthians:5:4|. In strkjv@Hebrews:10:25| the substantive \episunaggn\ is used for the regular gatherings which some were already neglecting. It is impossible for a church to flourish without regular meetings even if they have to meet in the catacombs as became necessary in Rome. In Russia today the Soviets are trying to break up conventicles of Baptists. They probably met on our Saturday evening, the beginning of the first day at sunset. Songs:these Christians began the day (Sunday) with worship. But, since this is a Gentile community, it is quite possible that Luke means our Sunday evening as the time when this meeting occurs, and the language in strkjv@John:20:19| "it being evening on that day the first day of the week" naturally means the evening following the day, not the evening preceding the day. {To break bread} (\klasai arton\). First aorist active infinitive of purpose of \kla\. The language naturally bears the same meaning as in strkjv@2:42|, the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper which usually followed the \Agap\. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:16|. The time came, when the \Agap\ was no longer observed, perhaps because of the abuses noted in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:20ff|. Rackham argues that the absence of the article with bread here and its presence (\ton arton\) in verse 11| shows that the \Agap\ is ] referred to in verse 7| and the Eucharist in verse 11|, but not necessarily so because \ton arton\ may merely refer to \arton\ in verse 7|. At any rate it should be noted that Paul, who conducted this service, was not a member of the church in Troas, but only a visitor. {Discoursed} (\dielegeto\). Imperfect middle because he kept on at length. {Intending} (\mell\). Being about to, on the point of. {On the morrow} (\ti epaurion\). Locative case with \hmeri\ understood after the adverb \epaurion\. If Paul spoke on our Saturday evening, he made the journey on the first day of the week (our Sunday) after sunrise. If he spoke on our Sunday evening, then he left on our Monday morning. {Prolonged his speech} (\Pareteinen ton logon\). Imperfect active (same form as aorist) of \paratein\, old verb to stretch beside or lengthwise, to prolong. Vivid picture of Paul's long sermon which went on and on till midnight (\mechri mesonuktiou\). Paul's purpose to leave early next morning seemed to justify the long discourse. Preachers usually have some excuse for the long sermon which is not always clear to the exhausted audience.

rwp@Acts:20:11 @{When he was gone up} (\anabas\). Second aorist active participle in sharp contrast to \katabas\ (went down) of verse 10|. {Had broken bread} (\klasas ton arton\). Probably the Eucharist to observe which ordinance Paul had come and tarried (verse 7|), though some scholars distinguish between what took place in verse 7| and verse 11|, needlessly so as was stated on verse 7|. {And eaten} (\kai geusamenos\). The word is used in strkjv@10:10| of eating an ordinary meal and so might apply to the \Agap\, but it suits equally for the Eucharist. The accident had interrupted Paul's sermon so that it was observed now and then Paul resumed his discourse. {And had talked with them a long while} (\eph' hikanon te homilsas\). Luke, as we have seen, is fond of \hikanos\ for periods of time, for a considerable space of time, "even till break of day" (\achri augs\). Old word for brightness, radiance like German _Auge_, English eye, only here in the N.T. Occurs in the papyri and in modern Greek for dawn. This second discourse lasted from midnight till dawn and was probably more informal (as in strkjv@10:27|) and conversational (\homilsas\, though our word homiletics comes from \homile\) than the discourse before midnight (\dialegomai\, verses 7,9|). He had much to say before he left. {Songs:he departed} (\houts exlthen\). Thus Luke sums up the result. Paul left (went forth) only after all the events narrated by the numerous preceding participles had taken place. Effective aorist active indicative \exelthen\. \Houts\ here equals \tum demum\, now at length (Acts:27:7|) as Page shows.

rwp@Acts:28:23 @{Appointed} (\taxamenoi\). First aorist middle participle of \tass\. Formal arrangement as in strkjv@Matthew:28:16| when Jesus appointed the mountain for his meeting in Galilee. {In great number} (\pleiones\). Comparative of \polus\, "more than a few." {Expounded} (\exetitheto\). Imperfect middle of \ektithmi\, to set forth, as in strkjv@11:4; strkjv@18:26|. He did it with detail and care and spent all day at it, "from morning till evening" (\apo pri hes hesperas\). In N.T. only here, strkjv@4:3| and strkjv@Luke:24:29|, though common word. {Persuading them concerning Jesus} (\peithn autous peri tou Isou\). Conative present active participle, trying to persuade. It was only about Jesus that he could make good his claim concerning the hope of Israel (verse 20|). It was Paul's great opportunity. Songs:he appealed both to Moses and to the prophets for proof as it was his custom to do.

rwp@Hebrews:1:3 @{Being} (\n\). Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of \eimi\) in contrast with \genomenos\ in verse 4| like \n\ in strkjv@John:1:1| (in contrast with \egeneto\ in strkjv@1:14|) and like \huparchn\ and \genomenos\ in strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {The effulgence of his glory} (\apaugasma ts doxs\). The word \apaugasma\, late substantive from \apaugaz\, to emit brightness (\aug, augaz\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4|), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in strkjv@John:12:45; strkjv@14:9|. "The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos" (Moffatt). The meaning "effulgence" suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (John:1:1|), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6|. {The very image of his substance} (\charaktr ts hupostases\). \Charaktr\ is an old word from \charass\, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending \=tr\) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by \charagma\ (Acts:17:29; strkjv@Revelation:13:16f.|). Menander had already used (Moffatt) \charaktr\ in the sense of our "character." The word occurs in the inscriptions for "person" as well as for "exact reproduction" of a person. The word \hupostasis\ for the being or essence of God "is a philosophical rather than a religious term" (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In strkjv@11:1| \hypostasis\ is like the "title-deed" idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4| in his controversy with Arius. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11| pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul's simpler phrase \morph theou\ (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of \Logos\ in strkjv@John:1:1-18| is parallel to strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4|. {And upholding} (\phern te\). Present active participle of \pher\ closely connected with \n\ (being) by \te\ and like strkjv@Colossians:1:17| in idea. The newer science as expounded by Eddington and Jeans is in harmony with the spiritual and personal conception of creation here presented. {By the word of his power} (\ti rmati ts dunames autou\). Instrumental case of \rma\ (word). See strkjv@11:3| for \rmati theou\ (by the word of God) as the explanation of creation like Genesis, but here \autou\ refers to God's Son as in strkjv@1:2|. {Purification of sins} (\katharismon tn hamartin\). \Katharismos\ is from \kathariz\, to cleanse (Matthew:8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14|), here only in Hebrews, but in same sense of cleansing from sins, strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Job:7:21|. Note middle participle \poisamenos\ like \heuramenos\ in strkjv@9:12|. This is the first mention of the priestly work of Christ, the keynote of this Epistle. {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). First aorist active of \kathiz\, "took his seat," a formal and dignified act. {Of the Majesty on high} (\ts megalosuns en hupslois\). Late word from \megas\, only in LXX (Deuteronomy:32:3; strkjv@2Samuel:7:23|, etc.), Aristeas, strkjv@Hebrews:1:3; strkjv@8:1; strkjv@Jude:1:25|. Christ resumed his original dignity and glory (John:17:5|). The phrase \en hupslois\ occurs in the Psalms (Psalms:93:4|), here only in N.T., elsewhere \en hupsistois\ in the highest (Matthew:21:9; strkjv@Luke:2:14|) or \en tois epouraniois\ in the heavenlies (Ephesians:1:3,20|). Jesus is here pictured as King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.

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 ainas\). "The ages" as in strkjv@1:2| (cf. Einstein's fourth dimension, time). Accusative case of general reference. {Have been framed} (\katrtisthai\). 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 phainomenn\). 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@John:1:40 @{Andrew} (\Andreas\). Explained by John as one of the two disciples of the Baptist and identified as the brother of the famous Simon Peter (cf. also strkjv@6:8; strkjv@12:22|). The more formal call of Andrew and Simon, James and John, comes later (Mark:1:16ff.; strkjv@Matthew:4:18ff.; strkjv@Luke:3:1-11|). {That heard John speak} (\tn akousantn para Ianou\). "That heard from John," a classical idiom (\para\ with ablative after \akou\) seen also in strkjv@6:45; strkjv@7:51; strkjv@8:26,40; strkjv@15:15|.

rwp@John:7:47 @{Are ye also led astray?} (\M kai humeis peplansthe;\). The Pharisees took the lead in this scornful sneer at the officers. The use of \m\ formally expects a negative answer as in strkjv@4:29|, but the Pharisees really believed it. See also strkjv@6:67|. The verb form is perfect passive indicative of \plana\, for which see verse 12| with perhaps an allusion to that phase of opinion.

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

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

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 praitrion\). 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} (\pri\). 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 m mianthsin\). Purpose clause with \hina m\ 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 phagsin 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@Info_Luke @ THE SAME AUTHOR FOR GOSPEL AND ACTS The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as "the first treatise," \ton prton logon\, (Acts:1:1|) and both are addressed to Theophilus (Luke:1:3; strkjv@Acts:1:1|). He speaks of himself in both books as "me" (\kamoi\, strkjv@Luke:1:3|) and {I made} (\epoisamn\, strkjv@Acts:1:1|). He refers to himself with others as "we" and "us" as in strkjv@Acts:16:10|, the "we" sections of Acts. The unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the author's statement. It is quite possible that the formal Introduction to the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|) was intended to apply to the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury, who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: "In my study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom." He adds: "They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author's original plan and purpose."

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

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

rwp@Luke:9:61 @{And another also said} (\eipen de kai heteros\). A volunteer like the first. This third case is given by Luke alone, though the incident may also come from the same Logia as the other two. \Heteros\ does not here mean one of a "different" sort as is sometimes true of this pronoun, but merely another like \allos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 749). {But first} (\prton de\). He also had something that was to come "first." {To bid farewell to them that are at my house} (\apotaxasthai tois eis ton oikon mou\). In itself that was a good thing to do. This first aorist middle infinitive is from \apotass\, an old verb, to detach, to separate, to assign as a detachment of soldiers. In the N.T. it only appears in the middle voice with the meaning common in late writers to bid adieu, to separate oneself from others. It is used in strkjv@Acts:18:18| of Paul taking leave of the believers in Corinth. See also strkjv@Mark:6:46; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:13|. It is thus a formal function and this man meant to go home and set things in order there and then in due time to come and follow Jesus.

rwp@Luke:14:16 @{Made} (\epoiei\). Imperfect active, was on the point of making (inchoative). {Great supper} (\deipnon\). Or dinner, a formal feast. Jesus takes up the conventional remark of the guest and by this parable shows that such an attitude was no guarantee of godliness (Bruce). This parable of the marriage of the King's son (Luke:14:15-24|) has many points of likeness to the parable of the wedding garment (Matthew:22:1-14|) and as many differences also. The occasions are very different, that in Matthew grows out of the attempt to arrest Jesus while this one is due to the pious comment of a guest at the feast and the wording is also quite different. Hence we conclude that they are distinct parables. {And he bade many} (\kai ekalesen pollous\). Aorist active, a distinct and definite act following the imperfect \epoiei\.

rwp@Luke:20:1 @{On one of the days} (\en mii tn hmern\). Luke's favourite way of indicating time. It was the last day of the temple teaching (Tuesday). strkjv@Luke:20:1-19| is to be compared with strkjv@Mark:11:27-12:12; strkjv@Matthew:21:23-46|. {There came upon him} (\epestsan\). Second aorist active indicative, ingressive aorist of \ephistmi\, old and common verb, stood up against him, with the notion of sudden appearance. These leaders (cf. strkjv@19:47|) had determined to attack Jesus on this morning, both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes), a formal delegation from the Sanhedrin.

rwp@Luke:23:2 @{Began to accuse} (\rxanto katgorein\). They went at it and kept it up. Luke mentions three, but neither of them includes their real reason nor do they mention their own condemnation of Jesus. They had indulged their hatred in doing it, but they no longer have the power of life and death. Hence they say nothing to Pilate of that. {We found} (\heuramen\). Second aorist active indicative with first aorist vowel \a\. Probably they mean that they had caught Jesus in the act of doing these things (_in flagrante delicto_) rather than discovery by formal trial. {Perverting our nation} (\diastrephonta to ethnos hmn\). Present active participle of \diastreph\, old verb to turn this way and that, distort, disturb. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:13:10|. The Sanhedrin imply that the great popularity of Jesus was seditious. {Forbidding to give tribute to Caesar}, (\kluonta phorous kaisari didonai\). Note object infinitive \didonai\ after the participle \kluonta\. Literally, hindering giving tribute to Caesar. This was a flat untruth. Their bright young students had tried desperately to get Jesus to say this very thing, but they had failed utterly (Luke:20:25|). {Saying that he himself is Christ a king} (\legonta hauton Christon basilea einai\). Note the indirect discourse here after the participle \legonta\ with the accusative (\hauton\ where \auton\ could have been used), and the infinitive. This charge is true, but not in the sense meant by them. Jesus did claim to be the Christ and the king of the kingdom of God. But the Sanhedrin wanted Pilate to think that he set himself up as a rival to Caesar. Pilate would understand little from the word "Christ," but "King" was a different matter. He was compelled to take notice of this charge else he himself would be accused to Caesar of winking at such a claim by Jesus.

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

rwp@Mark:1:44 @{For a testimony unto them} (\eis marturion autois\). Without the formal testimony of the priests the people would not receive the leper as officially clean.

rwp@Mark:2:18 @{John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting} (\san hoi mathtai Ianou kai hoi Pharisaioi nsteuontes\). The periphrastic imperfect, so common in Mark's vivid description. Probably Levi's feast happened on one of the weekly fast-days (second and fifth days of the week for the stricter Jews). Songs:there was a clash of standpoints. The disciples of John sided with the Pharisees in the Jewish ceremonial ritualistic observances. John was still a prisoner in Machaerus. John was more of an ascetic than Jesus (Matthew:18f.; strkjv@Luke:7:33-35|), but neither one pleased all the popular critics. These learners (\mathtai\) or disciples of John had missed the spirit of their leader when they here lined up with the Pharisees against Jesus. But there was no real congeniality between the formalism of the Pharisees and the asceticism of John the Baptist. The Pharisees hated John who had denounced them as broods of vipers. Here the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees (\hoi mathtai Ianou kai hoi mathtai tn Pharisain\) join in criticizing Jesus and his disciples. Later we shall see Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians, who bitterly detested each other, making com- mon cause against Jesus Christ. Songs:today we find various hostile groups combining against our Lord and Saviour. See on ¯Matthew:9:14-17| for comments. Matthew has here followed Mark closely.

rwp@Mark:10:11 @Mark does not give the exception stated in strkjv@Matthew:19:9| "except for fornication" which see for discussion, though the point is really involved in what Mark does record. Mere formal divorce does not annul actual marriage consummated by the physical union. Breaking that bond does annul it.

rwp@Mark:11:27 @{The chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders} (\hoi archiereis kai hoi grammateis kai hoi presbuteroi\). Note the article with each separate group as in strkjv@Luke:20:1| and strkjv@Matthew:21:23|. These three classes were in the Sanhedrin. Clearly a large committee of the Sanhedrin including both Sadducees and Pharisees here confront Jesus in a formal attack upon his authority for cleansing the temple and teaching in it.

rwp@Mark:12:18 @{There come unto him Sadducees} (\erchontai Saddoukaioi pros auton\). Dramatic present. The Pharisees and Herodians had had their turn after the formal committee of the Sanhedrin had been so completely routed. It was inevitable that they should feel called upon to show their intellectual superiority to these raw Pharisaic and Herodian theologians. See on ¯Matthew:22:23-33| for discussion of details. It was a good time to air their disbelief in the resurrection at the expense of the Pharisees and to score against Jesus where the Sanhedrin and then the Pharisees and Herodians had failed so ignominiously.

rwp@Mark:12:37 @{The common people heard him gladly} (\ho polus ochlos kouen autou hedes\). Literally, the much multitude (the huge crowd) was listening (imperfect tense) to him gladly. Mark alone has this item. The Sanhedrin had begun the formal attack that morning to destroy the influence of Jesus with the crowds whose hero he now was since the Triumphal Entry. It had been a colossal failure. The crowds were drawn closer to him than before.

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Betrothed to Joseph} (\Mnsteutheiss ti Isph\). Matthew proceeds to explain his statement in strkjv@1:16| which implied that Joseph, though the legal father of Jesus in the royal line, was not the actual father of Mary's Son. Betrothal with the Jews was a serious matter, not lightly entered into and not lightly broken. The man who betrothed a maiden was legally husband (Genesis:29:21; strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:23f.|) and "an informal cancelling of betrothal was impossible" (McNeile). Though they did not live together as husband and wife till actual marriage, breach of faithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punished with death. _The New Testament in Braid Scots_ actually has "mairry't till Joseph" for "betrothed to Joseph." Matthew uses the genitive absolute construction here, a very common Greek idiom.

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

rwp@Matthew:3:17 @{A voice out of the heavens} (\phn ek tn ourann\). This was the voice of the Father to the Son whom he identifies as His Son, "my beloved Son." Thus each person of the Trinity is represented (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) at this formal entrance of Jesus upon his Messianic ministry. John heard the voice, of course, and saw the dove. It was a momentous occasion for John and for Jesus and for the whole world. The words are similar to strkjv@Psalms:2:7| and the voice at the Transfiguration (Matthew:17:5|). The good pleasure of the Father is expressed by the timeless aorist (\eudoksa\).

rwp@Matthew:4:1 @{To be tempted of the devil} (\peirasthnai hupo tou diabolou\). Matthew locates the temptation at a definite time, "then" (\tote\) and place, "into the wilderness" (\eis tn ermon\), the same general region where John was preaching. It is not surprising that Jesus was tempted by the devil immediately after his baptism which signified the formal entrance upon the Messianic work. That is a common experience with ministers who step out into the open for Christ. The difficulty here is that Matthew says that "Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil." Mark (Mark:1:12|) puts it more strongly that the Spirit "drives" (\ekballei\) Christ into the wilderness. It was a strong impulsion by the Holy Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness to think through the full significance of the great step that he had now taken. That step opened the door for the devil and involved inevitable conflict with the slanderer (\tou diabolou\). Judas has this term applied to him (John:6:70|) as it is to men (2Timothy:3:3; strkjv@Titus:2:3|) and women (she devils, strkjv@1Timothy:3:11|) who do the work of the arch slanderer. There are those today who do not believe that a personal devil exists, but they do not offer an adequate explanation of the existence and presence of sin in the world. Certainly Jesus did not discount or deny the reality of the devil's presence. The word "tempt" here (\peiraz\) and in strkjv@4:3| means originally to test, to try. That is its usual meaning in the ancient Greek and in the Septuagint. Bad sense of \ekpeiraz\ in strkjv@4:7| as in strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:16|. Here it comes to mean, as often in the New Testament, to solicit to sin. The evil sense comes from its use for an evil purpose.

rwp@Matthew:21:10 @{Was stirred} (\eseisth\). Shaken as by an earthquake. "Even Jerusalem frozen with religious formalism and socially undemonstrative, was stirred with popular enthusiasm as by a mighty wind or by an earthquake" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:23:6 @{The chief place at feasts} (\tn prtoklisian en tois deipnois\). Literally, the first reclining place on the divan at the meal. The Persians, Greeks, Romans, Jews differed in their customs, but all cared for the post of honour at formal functions as is true of us today. Hostesses often solve the point by putting the name of each guest at the table. At the last passover meal the apostles had an ugly snarl over this very point of precedence (Luke:22:24; strkjv@John:13:2-11|), just two days after this exposure of the Pharisees in the presence of the apostles. {The chief seats in the synagogues} (\tas prtokathedrias en tais sunaggais\). "An insatiable hunger for prominence" (Bruce). These chief seats (Zuchermandel) were on the platform looking to the audience and with the back to the chest in which were kept the rolls of scripture. The Essenes had a different arrangement. People today pay high prices for front seats at the theatre, but at church prefer the rear seats out of a curious mock-humility. In the time of Jesus the hypocrites boldly sat up in front. Now, if they come to church at all, they take the rear seats.

rwp@Matthew:26:3 @{Then were gathered together the chief priests and elders of the people} (\Tote sunchthsan hoi archiereis kai hoi presbuteroi tou laou\). A meeting of the Sanhedrin as these two groups indicate (cf. strkjv@21:23|). {Unto the court} (\eis tn auln\). The _atrium_ or court around which the palace buildings were built. Here in this open court this informal meeting was held. Caiaphas was high priest A.D. 18 to 36. His father-in-law Annas had been high priest A.D. 6 to 15 and was still called high priest by many.

rwp@Matthew:27:1 @{Now when morning was come} (\prias de genomens\). Genitive absolute. After dawn came the Sanhedrin held a formal meeting to condemn Jesus and so ratify the illegal trial during the night (Mark:15:1; strkjv@Luke:22:66-71|). Luke gives the details of this second ratification consultation. The phrase used, {took counsel} (\sumboulion elabon\) is a Latin idiom (_consilium ceperunt_) for \sunebouleusanto\.