NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp difference:

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 \m\ 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?} (\M Paulos estaurth huper humn;\). An indignant "No" is demanded by \m\. 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 ebaptisthte;\). 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:5:3 @{For I verily} (\eg men gar\). Emphatic statement of Paul's own attitude of indignation, \eg\ in contrast with \humeis\. He justifies his demand for the expulsion of the man. {Being absent} (\apn\) Although absent (concessive participle) and so of \parn\ though present. Each with locative case (\ti smati, ti pneumati\). {Have already judged} (\d kekrika\). Perfect active indicative of \krin\. I have already decided or judged, as though present (\hs parn\). Paul felt compelled to reach a conclusion about the case and in a sentence of much difficulty seems to conceive an imaginary church court where the culprit has been tried and condemned. There are various ways of punctuating the clauses in this sentence in verses 3-5|. It is not merely Paul's individual judgment. The genitive absolute clause in verse 4|, {ye being gathered together} (\sunachthentn humn\, first aorist passive participle of \sunag\, in regular assembly) {and my spirit} (\kai tou emou pneumatos\) with the assembly (he means) {and meeting in the name of our Lord Jesus} (\en ti onomati tou Kuriou [hmn] Isou\) with the power of the Lord Jesus (\sun ti dunamei tou Kuriou hmn Isou\), though this clause can be taken with the infinitive to deliver (\paradounai\). It makes good syntax and sense taken either way. The chief difference is that, if taken with "gathered together" (\sunachthentn\) Paul assumes less apostolic prerogative to himself. But he did have such power and used it against Elymas (Acts:13:8ff.|) as Peter did against Ananias and Sapphira (Acts:5:1ff.|).

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

rwp@1Corinthians:7:28 @{But and if thou marry} (\ean de kai gamsis\). Condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of being determined, with the ingressive first aorist (late form) active subjunctive with \ean\: "But if thou also commit matrimony or get married," in spite of Paul's advice to the contrary. {Thou hast not sinned} (\ouch hmartes\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan\, to sin, to miss a mark. Here either Paul uses the timeless (gnomic) aorist indicative or by a swift transition he changes the standpoint (proleptic) in the conclusion from the future (in the condition) to the past. Such mixed conditions are common (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1020, 1023). Precisely the same construction occurs with the case of the virgin (\parthenos\) except that the old form of the first aorist subjunctive (\gmi\) occurs in place of the late \gamsi\ above. The MSS. interchange both examples. There is no special point in the difference in the forms. {Shall have tribulation in the flesh} (\thlipsin ti sarki hexousin\). Emphatic position of \thlipsin\ (pressure). See strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| \skolops ti sarki\ (thorn in the flesh). {And I would spare you} (\eg de humn pheidomai\). Possibly conative present middle indicative, I am trying to spare you like \agei\ in strkjv@Romans:2:4| and \dikaiousthe\ in strkjv@Galatians:5:4|.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:34 @{And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin} (\kai memeristai kai h gun kai h parthenos\). But the text here is very uncertain, almost hopelessly so. Westcott and Hort put \kai memeristai\ in verse 33| and begin a new sentence with \kai h gun\ and add \h agamos\ after \h gun\, meaning "the widow and the virgin each is anxious for the things of the Lord" like the unmarried man (\ho agamos\, bachelor or widow) in verse 32|. Possibly so, but the MSS. vary greatly at every point. At any rate Paul's point is that the married woman is more disposed to care for the things of the world. But, alas, how many unmarried women (virgins and widows) are after the things of the world today and lead a fast and giddy life.

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

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

rwp@1Corinthians:15:40 @{Celestial} (\epourania\). Old word, from \epi\, upon, \ouranos\, heaven, existing in heaven. Paul now rises higher in the range of his argument, above the merely {terrestrial} (\epigeia\, upon earth, \epi, ge\) bodies. He has shown differences in the bodies here on earth in plants and in the animal kingdom and now he indicates like differences to be seen in the heavens above us. {Is one} (\hetera men\) {--is another} (\hetera de\). Antithesis that admits glory for bodies on earth and bodies in the heavens. Experience does not argue against a glory for the spiritual body (Phillipians:3:21|).

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

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:19 @{Quench not the spirit} (\to pneuma m sbennute\). \M\ with the present imperative means to stop doing it or not to have the habit of doing it. It is a bold figure. Some of them were trying to put out the fire of the Holy Spirit, probably the special gifts of the Holy Spirit as verse 20| means. But even so the exercise of these special gifts (1Corinthians:12-14; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:2-4; strkjv@Romans:12:6-9|) was to be decently (\euschmons\, strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:12|) and in order (\kata taxin\, strkjv@1Corinthians:14:40|) and for edification (\pros oikodomn\, strkjv@1Corinthians:14:26|). Today, as then, there are two extremes about spiritual gifts (cold indifference or wild excess). It is not hard to put out the fire of spiritual fervor and power.

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

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorge\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai iditai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

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

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

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

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

rwp@Colossians:2:3 @{In whom} (\en hi\). This locative form can refer to \mustriou\ or to \Christou\. It really makes no difference in sense since Christ is the mystery of God. {All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge} (\pantes hoi thsauroi ts sophias kai gnses\). See on ¯Matthew:2:11; strkjv@6:19-21| for this old word, our thesaurus, for coffer, storehouse, treasure. Paul confronts these pretentious intellectuals (Gnostics) with the bold claim that Christ sums up all wisdom and knowledge. These treasures are hidden (\apokruphoi\, old adjective from \apokrupt\, to hide away, strkjv@Mark:4:22|) whether the Gnostics have discovered them or not. They are there (in Christ) as every believer knows by fresh and repeated discovery.

rwp@Colossians:3:6 @{Cometh the wrath of God} (\erchetai h org tou theou\). Paul does not regard these sins of the flesh as matters of indifference, far otherwise. Many old MSS. do not have "upon the sons of disobedience," genuine words in strkjv@Ephesians:5:6|.

rwp@Info_Ephesians @ THE CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE The same Gnostic heresy is met as in Colossians, but with this difference. In Colossians the emphasis is on the Dignity of Christ as the Head of the Church, while in Ephesians chief stress is placed upon the Dignity of the Church as the Body of Christ the Head. Paul has written nothing more profound than chapters strkjv@Ephesians:1-3| of Ephesians. Stalker termed them the profoundest thing ever written. He sounds the depths of truth and reaches the heights. Since Ephesians covers the same ground so largely as Colossians, only the words in Ephesians that differ or are additional will call for discussion.

rwp@Ephesians:5:23 @{For the husband is the head of the wife} (\hoti anr estin kephal ts gunaikos\). "For a husband is head of the (his) wife." No article with \anr\ or \kephal\. {As Christ also is the head of the church} (\hs kai ho Christos kephal ts ekklsias\). No article with \kephal\, "as also Christ is head of the church." This is the comparison, but with a tremendous difference which Paul hastens to add either in an appositional clause or as a separate sentence. {Himself the saviour of the body} (\autos str tou smatos\). He means the church as the body of which Christ is head and Saviour.

rwp@Ephesians:5:24 @{But} (\alla\). Perhaps, "nevertheless," in spite of the difference just noted. Once again the verb \hupotass\ has to be supplied in the principal clause before \tois andrasin\ either as indicative (\hupotassontai\) or as imperative (\hupotassesthsan\).

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

rwp@Galatians:3:28 @{There can be neither} (\ouk eni\). Not a shortened form of \enesti\, but the old lengthened form of \en\ with recessive accent. Songs:\ouk eni\ means "there is not" rather than "there cannot be," a statement of a fact rather than a possibility, as Burton rightly shows against Lightfoot. {One man} (\heis\). No word for "man" in the Greek, and yet \heis\ is masculine, not neuter \hen\. "One moral personality" (Vincent). The point is that "in Christ Jesus" race or national distinctions ("neither Jew nor Greek") do not exist, class differences ("neither bond nor free," no proletarianism and no capitalism) vanish, sex rivalry ("no male and female") disappears. This radical statement marks out the path along which Christianity was to come in the sphere (\en\) and spirit and power of Christ. Candour compels one to confess that this goal has not yet been fully attained. But we are on the road and there is no hope on any way than on "the Jesus Road."

rwp@Galatians:4:24 @{Which things contain an allegory} (\hatina estin allgoroumena\). Literally, "Which things are allegorized" (periphrastic present passive indicative of \allgore\). Late word (Strabo, Plutarch, Philo, Josephus, ecclesiastical writers), only here in N.T. The ancient writers used \ainittomai\ to speak in riddles. It is compounded of \allo\, another, and \agoreu\, to speak, and so means speaking something else than what the language means, what Philo, the past-master in the use of allegory, calls the deeper spiritual sense. Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law. He puts a secondary meaning on the narrative just as he uses \tupiks\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:11| of the narrative. We need not press unduly the difference between allegory and type, for each is used in a variety of ways. The allegory in one sense is a speaking parable like Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_, the Prodigal Son in strkjv@Luke:15|, the Good Shepherd in strkjv@John:10|. But allegory was also used by Philo and by Paul here for a secret meaning not obvious at first, one not in the mind of the writer, like our illustration which throws light on the point. Paul was familiar with this rabbinical method of exegesis (Rabbi Akiba, for instance, who found a mystical sense in every hook and crook of the Hebrew letters) and makes skilful use of that knowledge here. Christian preachers in Alexandria early fell victims to Philo's allegorical method and carried it to excess without regard to the plain sense of the narrative. That startling style of preaching survives yet to the discredit of sound preaching. Please observe that Paul says here that he is using allegory, not ordinary interpretation. It is not necessary to say that Paul intended his readers to believe that this allegory was designed by the narrative. He illustrates his point by it. {For these are} (\hautai gar eisin\). Allegorically interpreted, he means. {From Mount Sinai} (\apo orous Sin\). Spoken from Mount Sinai. {Bearing} (\gennsa\). Present active participle of \genna\, to beget of the male (Matthew:1:1-16|), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke:1:13,57|). {Which is Hagar} (\htis estin Hagar\). Allegorically interpreted.

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

rwp@Hebrews:4:15 @{That cannot be touched with the feeling} (\m dunamenon sunpathsai\). "Not able to sympathize with." First aorist passive infinitive of \sunpathe\, late compound verb from the late adjective \sunpathos\ (Romans:12:15|), both from \sunpasch\, to suffer with (1Corinthians:12:26; strkjv@Romans:8:17|), occurring in Aristotle and Plutarch, in N.T. only in Hebrews (here and strkjv@10:34|). {One that hath been tempted} (\pepeirasmenon\). Perfect passive participle of \peiraz\, as already shown in strkjv@2:17f|. {Without sin} (\chris hamartias\). This is the outstanding difference that must never be overlooked in considering the actual humanity of Jesus. He did not yield to sin. But more than this is true. There was no latent sin in Jesus to be stirred by temptation and no habits of sin to be overcome. But he did have "weaknesses" (\astheneiai\) common to our human nature (hunger, thirst, weariness, etc.). Satan used his strongest weapons against Jesus, did it repeatedly, and failed. Jesus remained "undefiled" (\amiantos\) in a world of sin (John:8:46|). This is our ground of hope, the sinlessness of Jesus and his real sympathy.

rwp@Hebrews:6:9 @{But we are persuaded} (\pepeismetha de\). Perfect passive indicative of \peith\, literary plural. Note Paul's use of \pepeismai\ in strkjv@2Timothy:1:12|. {Better things} (\ta kreissona\). "The better things" than those pictures in strkjv@6:4-8|. {That accompany salvation} (\echomena strias\). "Things holding on to salvation" (Mark:1:38|), a common Greek phrase \echomena\, present middle participle of \ech\. {Though we thus speak} (\ei kai houts laloumen\). Concessive condition of the first class. Explanatory, not apologetic, of his plain talk. {Not unrighteous to forget} (\ou gar adikos epilathesthai\). Second aorist middle infinitive of \epilanthan\ with genitive case (\ergou\, work, \agaps\, love). But even God cannot remember what they did not do. {In that ye ministered and still do minister} (\diakonsantes kai diakonountes\). First aorist active and present active participle of the one verb \diakone\, the sole difference being the tense (single act _aorist_, repeated acts _present_).

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

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

rwp@Info_John @ BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Revelation:1:4,9; strkjv@22:8|), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. Songs:one ventures to call attention to the statement in strkjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai iditai\ (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:1:23 @{He said} (\eph\). Common imperfect active (or second aorist active) of \phmi\, to say, old defective verb. {I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness} (\Eg phn bontos en ti ermi\). For his answer John quotes strkjv@Isaiah:40:3|. The Synoptics (Mark:1:3; strkjv@Matthew:3:3; strkjv@Luke:3:4|) quote this language from Isaiah as descriptive of John, but do not say that he also applied it to himself. There is no reason to think that he did not do so. John also refers to Isaiah as the author of the words and also of the message, "{Make straight the way of the Lord}" (\Euthunate tn hodon tou kuriou\). By this language (\euthun\ in N.T. only here and strkjv@James:3:4|, first aorist active imperative here) John identifies himself to the committee as the forerunner of the Messiah. The early writers note the differences between the use of \Logos\ (Word) for the Messiah and \phn\ (Voice) for John.

rwp@John:3:12 @{If I told} (\ei eipon\). Condition of the first class, assumed to be true. {Earthly things} (\ta epigeia\). Things upon the earth like \ta epi ts gs\ (Colossians:3:2|), not things of an earthly nature or worldly or sinful. The work of the kingdom of God including the new birth which Nicodemus did not understand belongs to \ta epigeia\. {If I tell you heavenly things} (\ean eip humin ta epourania\). Condition of the third class, undetermined. What will Nicodemus do in that case? By \ta epourania\ Jesus means the things that take place in heaven like the deep secrets of the purpose of God in the matter of redemption such as the necessity of the lifting up of Christ as shown in verse 14|. Both Godet and Westcott note that the two types of teaching here pointed out by Jesus (the earthly, the heavenly) correspond in general to the difference between the Synoptics (the earthly) and the Fourth Gospel (the heavenly), a difference noted here in the Fourth Gospel as shown by Jesus himself. Hence the one should not be pitted against the other. There are specimens of the heavenly in the Synoptics as in strkjv@Matthew:11:25ff.; strkjv@Luke:10:18ff|.

rwp@John:3:17 @{For God sent not the Son} (\ou gar apesteilen ho theos ton huion\). Explanation (\gar\) of God's sending the Son into the world. First aorist active indicative of \apostell\. John uses both \apostell\ from which comes \apostolos\ (3:34; strkjv@5:36,38|, etc.) and \pemp\ (4:34; strkjv@5:23,24,30|, etc.) for God's sending the Son and \pemp\ more frequently, but with no real difference in meaning. All the Gospels use \ho huios\ in the absolute sense in contrast with the Father (Mark:13:32; strkjv@Matthew:11:27; strkjv@Luke:10:22|). {To judge} (\hina krini\). Final clause with \hina\ and the present (or aorist) active subjunctive of \krin\. The Messiah does judge the world as Jesus taught (Matthew:25:31f.; strkjv@John:5:27|), but this was not the primary or the only purpose of his coming. See on ¯Matthew:7:1| for \krin\, to pick out, select, approve, condemn, used so often and in so many varying contexts in the N.T. {But that the world should be saved through him} (\all hina sthi ho kosmos di' autou\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \sz\, the common verb to save (from \ss\, safe and sound), from which \str\ (Saviour) comes (the Saviour of the world, strkjv@4:42; strkjv@1John:4:14|) and \stria\ (salvation, strkjv@4:22| here only in John). The verb \sz\ is often used for physical health (Mark:5:28|), but here of the spiritual salvation as in strkjv@5:34|.

rwp@John:4:13 @{Every one that drinketh} (\pas ho pinn\). Present active articular participle with \pas\, parallel to the indefinite relative with the second aorist active subjunctive (\hos an pii\) in verse 14|. With this difference in the tenses used (\pinn\, keep on drinking, \pii\, once for all). Note \ek\ and the ablative both times, out of the water. Jesus pointed to the well ("this water").

rwp@John:7:6 @{My time is not yet come} (\ho kairos ho emos oup parestin\). Only use with verse 8| of \kairos\ in this Gospel, elsewhere \chronos\ (John:5:6|) or more often \hra\ (2:4|) "the predestined hour" (Bernard). Here \kairos\ is the fitting or proper occasion for Christ's manifesting himself publicly to the authorities as Messiah as in verse 8|. At the feast of tabernacles Jesus did make such public claims (7:29,33; strkjv@8:12,28,38,42,58|). \Parestin\ is present active indicative of \pareimi\, old compound, to be by, to be present. The brothers of Jesus had the regular Jewish obligation to go up to the feast, but the precise day was a matter of indifference to them.

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

rwp@John:8:51 @{If a man keep my word} (\ean tis ton emon logon trsi\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and constative aorist active subjunctive of \tre\. Repeated in verse 52|. See verse 43| about hearing the word of Christ. Common phrase in John (8:51,52,55; strkjv@14:23,24; strkjv@15:20; strkjv@17:6; strkjv@1John:2:5|). Probably the same idea as keeping the commands of Christ (14:21|). {He shall never see death} (\thanaton ou m thersi eis ton aiona\). Spiritual death, of course. Strong double negative \ou m\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \there\. The phrase "see death" is a Hebraism (Psalms:89:48|) and occurs with \idein\ (see) in strkjv@Luke:2:26; strkjv@Hebrews:11:5|. No essential difference meant between \hora\ and \there\. See strkjv@John:14:23| for the blessed fellowship the Father and the Son have with the one who keeps Christ's word.

rwp@John:15:21 @{Unto you} (\eis humas\). Like the dative \humin\ (Textus Receptus) as in the papyri and modern Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 594). {For my name's sake} (\dia to onoma mou\). See verse 20|. See this same warning and language in strkjv@Matthew:10:22; strkjv@Mark:13:13; strkjv@Matthew:24:9; strkjv@Luke:21:17|). There is little difference in meaning from \heneken mou\ (Mark:13:9; strkjv@Luke:21:12|). Loyalty to the name of Christ will bring persecution as they will soon know (Acts:5:41; strkjv@Phillipians:1:29; strkjv@1Peter:4:14|). About the world's ignorance of God see strkjv@Luke:23:34; strkjv@Acts:3:17; strkjv@John:16:3|.

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

rwp@John:21:2 @{There were together} (\san homou\). These seven (Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others). We know that the sons of Zebedee were James and John (Matthew:4:21|), mentioned by name nowhere in John's Gospel, apparently because John is the author. We do not know who the "two others of his disciples" were, possibly Andrew and Philip. It seems to me to be crass criticism in spite of Harnack and Bernard to identify the incident here with that in strkjv@Luke:5:1-11|. There are a few points of similarity, but the differences are too great for such identification even with a hypothetical common source.

rwp@Jude:1:18 @{How that} (\hoti\). Declarative \hoti\ as in verse 5|. See discussion of strkjv@2Peter:3:3| for differences, no \en empaigmoni\ here and no \tn asebein\ there.

rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Isous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\n hsei etn triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\n huios hs enomizeto Isph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\hs enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

rwp@Luke:6:20 @{And he lifted up his eyes} (\kai autos eparas tous opthalmous autou\). First aorist active participle from \epair\. Note also Luke's favourite use of \kai autos\ in beginning a paragraph. Vivid detail alone in Luke. Jesus looked the vast audience full in the face. strkjv@Matthew:5:2| mentions that "he opened his mouth and taught them" (began to teach them, inchoative imperfect, \edidasken\). He spoke out so that the great crowd could hear. Some preachers do not open their mouths and do not look up at the people, but down at the manuscript and drawl along while the people lose interest and even go to sleep or slip out. {Ye poor} (\hoi ptchoi\). {The poor}, but "yours" (\humetera\) justifies the translation "ye." Luke's report is direct address in all the four beatitudes and four woes given by him. It is useless to speculate why Luke gives only four of the eight beatitudes in Matthew or why Matthew does not give the four woes in Luke. One can only say that neither professes to give a complete report of the sermon. There is no evidence to show that either saw the report of the other. They may have used a common source like Q (the Logia of Jesus) or they may have had separate sources. Luke's first beatitude corresponds with Matthew's first, but he does not have "in spirit" after "poor." Does Luke represent Jesus as saying that poverty itself is a blessing? It can be made so. Or does Luke represent Jesus as meaning what is in Matthew, poverty of spirit? {The kingdom of God} (\h basileia tou theou\). strkjv@Matthew:5:3| has "the kingdom of heaven" which occurs alone in Matthew though he also has the one here in Luke with no practical difference. The rabbis usually said "the kingdom of heaven." They used it of the political Messianic kingdom when Judaism of the Pharisaic sort would triumph over the world. The idea of Jesus is in the sharpest contrast to that conception here and always. See on ¯Matthew:3:2| for discussion of the meaning of the word "kingdom." It is the favourite word of Jesus for the rule of God in the heart here and now. It is both present and future and will reach a glorious consummation. Some of the sayings of Christ have apocalyptic and eschatological figures, but the heart of the matter is here in the spiritual reality of the reign of God in the hearts of those who serve him. The kingdom parables expand and enlarge upon various phases of this inward life and growth.

rwp@Luke:12:19 @{Laid up for many years} (\keimena eis et polla\). Not in D and some other Latin MSS. The man's apostrophe to his "soul" (\psuch\) is thoroughly Epicurean, for his soul feeds on his goods. The asyndeton here (take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry) shows his eagerness. Note difference in tenses (\anapauou\, keep on resting, \phage\, eat at once, \pie\, drink thy fill, \euphrainou\, keep on being merry), first and last presents, the other two aorists.

rwp@Luke:12:54 @{To the multitudes also} (\kai tois ochlois\). After the strong and stirring words just before with flash and force Jesus turns finally in this series of discourses to the multitudes again as in verse 15|. There are similar sayings to these verses 54-59| in strkjv@Matthew:16:1f; strkjv@5:25f|. There is a good deal of difference in phraseology whether that is due to difference of source or different use of the same source (Q or Logia) we do not know. Not all the old MSS. give strkjv@Matthew:16:2,3|. In Matthew the Pharisees and Sadducees were asking for a sign from heaven as they often did. These signs of the weather, "a shower" (\ombros\, strkjv@Luke:12:54|) due to clouds in the west, "a hot wave" (\kausn\, verse 55) due to a south wind (\noton\) blowing, "fair weather" (\eudia\, strkjv@Matthew:16:2|) when the sky is red, are appealed to today. They have a more or less general application due to atmospheric and climatic conditions.

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:14:26 @{Hateth not} (\ou misei\). An old and very strong verb \mise\, to hate, detest. The orientals use strong language where cooler spirits would speak of preference or indifference. But even so Jesus does not here mean that one must hate his father or mother of necessity or as such, for strkjv@Matthew:15:4| proves the opposite. It is only where the element of choice comes in (cf. strkjv@Matthew:6:24|) as it sometimes does, when father or mother opposes Christ. Then one must not hesitate. The language here is more sharply put than in strkjv@Matthew:10:37|. The \ou\ here coalesces with the verb \misei\ in this conditional clause of the first class determined as fulfilled. It is the language of exaggerated contrast, it is true, but it must not be watered down till the point is gone. In mentioning "and wife" Jesus has really made a comment on the excuse given in verse 20| (I married a wife and so I am not able to come). {And his own life also} (\eti te kai tn psuchn heautou\). Note \te kai\, both--and. "The \te\ (B L) binds all the particulars into one bundle of _renuncianda_" (Bruce). Note this same triple group of conjunctions (\eti te kai\) in strkjv@Acts:21:28|, "And moreover also," "even going as far as his own life." Martyrdom should be an ever-present possibility to the Christian, not to be courted, but not to be shunned. Love for Christ takes precedence "over even the elemental instinct of self-preservation" (Ragg).

rwp@Luke:16:12 @{That which is your own} (\to hmeteron\). But Westcott and Hort read \to hmeteron\ (our own) because of B L Origen. The difference is due to itacism in the pronunciation of \h-\ and \h\ alike (long \i\). But the point in the passage calls for "yours" as correct. Earthly wealth is ours as a loan, a trust, withdrawn at any moment. It belongs to another (\en ti allotrii\). If you did not prove faithful in this, who will give you what is really yours forever? Compare "rich toward God" (Luke:12:21|).

rwp@Luke:17:31 @{Let him not go down} (\m katabat\). Second aorist active imperative of \katabain\ with \m\ in a prohibition in the third person singular. The usual idiom here would be \m\ and the aorist subjunctive. See strkjv@Mark:13:15f.; strkjv@Matthew:24:17f.| when these words occur in the great eschatological discussion concerning flight before the destruction of Jerusalem. Here the application is "absolute indifference to all worldly interests as the attitude of readiness for the Son of Man" (Plummer).

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

rwp@Luke:18:37 @{Passeth by} (\parerchetai\). Present middle indicative retained in indirect discourse as \paragei\ is in strkjv@Matthew:20:30|. No reason for differences of English tenses in the two passages (was passing by, passeth by).

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

rwp@Mark:1:14 @{Jesus came into Galilee} (\lthen ho Isous eis tn 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} (\krussn 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" (\peplrtai 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 (\plrma tou chronou\) in strkjv@Galatians:4:4| and fulness of the times (\plrma ton kairn\) 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 ti euaggelii\). 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 ti euaggelii\ in the oldest record of the teaching of our Lord is a valuable witness to this fact" (Swete).

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

rwp@Mark:4:11 @{Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God} (\Humin to mustrion dedotai ts basileias tou theou\). See on ¯Matthew:13:11| for word \mustrion\. Here (Mark:4:11; strkjv@Matthew:13:11; strkjv@Luke:8:10|) alone in the Gospels, but in Paul 21 times and in the Revelation 4 times. It is frequent in Daniel and O.T. Apocrypha. Matthew and Luke use it here in the plural. Matthew and Luke add the word {to know} (\gnnai\), but Mark's presentation covers a wider range than growing knowledge, the permanent possession of the mystery even before they understand it. The secret is no longer hidden from the initiated. Discipleship means initiation into the secret of God's kingdom and it will come gradually to these men. {But unto them that are without} (\ekeinois de tois ex\). Peculiar to Mark, those outside our circle, the uninitiated, the hostile group like the scribes and Pharisees, who were charging Jesus with being in league with Beelzebub. strkjv@Luke:8:10| has "to the rest" (\tois loipois\), strkjv@Matthew:13:11| simply "to them" (\ekeinois\). Without the key the parables are hard to understand, for parables veil the truth of the kingdom being stated in terms of another realm. Without a spiritual truth and insight they are unintelligible and are often today perverted. The parables are thus a condemnation on the wilfully blind and hostile, while a guide and blessing to the enlightened. {That} (\hina\). Mark has the construction of the Hebrew "lest" of strkjv@Isaiah:6:9f|. with the subjunctive and so strkjv@Luke:8:10|, while strkjv@Matthew:13:13| uses causal \hoti\ with the indicative following the LXX. See on ¯Matthew:13:13| for the so-called causal use of \hina\. Gould on strkjv@Mark:4:12| has an intelligent discussion of the differences between Matthew and Mark and Luke. He argues that Mark here probably "preserves the original form of Jesus' saying." God ironically commands Isaiah to harden the hearts of the people. If the notion of purpose is preserved in the use of \hina\ in Mark and Luke, there is probably some irony also in the sad words of Jesus. If \hina\ is given the causative use of \hoti\ in Matthew, the difficulty disappears. What is certain is that the use of parables on this occasion was a penalty for judicial blindness on those who will not see.

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

rwp@Mark:13:34 @{Commanded also the porter to watch} (\kai ti thurri eneteilato hina grgori\). The porter or door-keeper (\thurros\), as well as all the rest, to keep a watch (present subjunctive, \grgori\). This Parable of the Porter is only in Mark. Our ignorance of the time of the Master's return is an argument not for indifference nor for fanaticism, but for alertness and eager readiness for his coming.

rwp@Matthew:1:1 @{The Book} (\biblos\). There is no article in the Greek, but the following genitives make it definite. It is our word Bible that is here used, _the_ Book as Sir Walter Scott called it as he lay dying. The usual word for book is a diminutive form (\biblion\), a little book or roll such as we have in strkjv@Luke:4:17|, "The roll of the prophet Isaiah." The pieces of papyrus (\papuros\), our paper, were pasted together to make a roll of varying lengths according to one's needs. Matthew, of course, is not applying the word book to the Old Testament, probably not to his own book, but to "the genealogical table of Jesus Christ" (\biblos geneses Isou Christou\), "the birth roll of Jesus Christ" Moffatt translates it. We have no means of knowing where the writer obtained the data for this genealogy. It differs radically from that in strkjv@Luke:3:23-38|. One can only give his own theory of the difference. Apparently in Matthew we have the actual genealogy of Joseph which would be the legal pedigree of Jesus according to Jewish custom. In Luke we apparently have the actual genealogy of Mary which would be the real line of Jesus which Luke naturally gives as he is writing for the Gentiles.

rwp@Matthew:3:7 @{The Pharisees and Sadducees} (\tn Pharisain kai Saddoukain\). These two rival parties do not often unite in common action, but do again in strkjv@Matthew:16:1|. "Here a strong attraction, there a strong repulsion, made them for the moment forget their differences" (McNeile). John saw these rival ecclesiastics "coming for baptism" (\erchomenous epi to baptisma\). Alford speaks of "the Pharisees representing hypocritical superstition; the Sadducees carnal unbelief." One cannot properly understand the theological atmosphere of Palestine at this time without an adequate knowledge of both Pharisees and Sadducees. The books are numerous besides articles in the Bible dictionaries. I have pictured the Pharisees in my first (1916) Stone Lectures, _The Pharisees and Jesus_. John clearly grasped the significance of this movement on the part of the Pharisees and Sadducees who had followed the crowds to the Jordan. He had welcomed the multitudes, but right in the presence of the crowds he exposes the hypocrisy of the ecclesiastics. {Ye offspring of vipers} (\gennmata echidnn\). Jesus (Matthew:12:34; strkjv@23:33|) will use the same language to the Pharisees. Broods of snakes were often seen by John in the rocks and when a fire broke out they would scurry (\phugein\) to their holes for safety. "The coming wrath" was not just for Gentiles as the Jews supposed, but for all who were not prepared for the kingdom of heaven (1Thessalonians:1:10|). No doubt the Pharisees and Sadducees winced under the sting of this powerful indictment.

rwp@Matthew:11:17 @{Children sitting in the market places} (\paidiois kathmenois en tais agorais\). This parable of the children playing in the market place is given also in strkjv@Luke:7:31f|. Had Jesus as a child in Nazareth not played games with the children? He had certainly watched them often since. The interest of Christ in children was keen. He has really created the modern child's world out of the indifference of the past. They would not play wedding or funeral in a peevish fret. These metaphors in the Gospels are vivid to those with eyes to see. The \agora\ was originally the assembly, then the forum or public square where the people gathered for trade or for talk as in Athens (Acts:17:17|) and in many modern towns. Songs:the Roman Forum. The oriental bazaars today are held in streets rather than public squares. Even today with all the automobiles children play in the streets. In English the word "cheap" (Cheapside) meant only barter and price, not cheap in our sense. The word for mourn (\ekopsasthe\) means to beat the heart, direct middle, after the fashion of eastern funeral lamentations.

rwp@Matthew:18:22 @{Until seventy times seven} (\hes hebdomkontakis hepta\). It is not clear whether this idiom means seventy-seven or as the Revised Version has it (490 times). If \heptakis\ were written it would clearly be 490 times. The same ambiguity is seen in strkjv@Genesis:4:24|, the LXX text by omitting \kai\. In the _Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs, Benj._ vii. 4, it is used in the sense of seventy times seven. But it really makes little difference because Jesus clearly means unlimited forgiveness in either case. "The unlimited revenge of primitive man has given place to the unlimited forgiveness of Christians" (McNeile).

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

rwp@Matthew:25:5 @{They all slumbered and slept} (\enustaxan psai kai ekatheudon\). They dropped off to sleep, nodded (ingressive aorist) and then went on sleeping (imperfect, linear action), a vivid picture drawn by the difference in the two tenses. Many a preacher has seen this happen while he is preaching.

rwp@Philippians:2:7 @{The form of a servant} (\morphn doulou\). He took the characteristic attributes (\morphn\ as in verse 6|) of a slave. His humanity was as real as his deity. {In the likeness of men} (\en homoimati anthrpn\). It was a likeness, but a real likeness (Kennedy), no mere phantom humanity as the Docetic Gnostics held. Note the difference in tense between \huparchn\ (eternal existence in the \morph\ of God) and \genomenos\ (second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, becoming, definite entrance in time upon his humanity).

rwp@Revelation:14:5 @{Was found no lie} (\ouch heureth pseudos\). First aorist passive indicative of \heurisk\. In strkjv@1Peter:2:23| this passage (Isaiah:53:9|) is quoted with \dolos\ (deceit, guile) instead of \pseudos\ (lie), but the difference is not great. {Without blemish} (\ammoi\). Alpha privative and \mmos\ (blemish, spot). As Christ the Paschal Lamb is (1Peter:1:19; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14|), so the followers of the Lamb are to be in the end (Phillipians:2:15|).

rwp@Romans:3:22 @{Even} (\de\). Not adversative here. It defines here. {Through faith in Jesus Christ} (\dia pistes [Isou] Christou\). Intermediate agency (\dia\) is faith and objective genitive, "in Jesus Christ," not subjective "of Jesus Christ," in spite of Haussleiter's contention for that idea. The objective nature of faith in Christ is shown in strkjv@Galatians:2:16| by the addition \eis Christon Isoun episteusamen\ (we believed in Christ), by \ts eis Christon pistes humn\ (of your faith in Christ) in strkjv@Colossians:2:5|, by \en pistei ti en Christi Isou\ (in faith that in Christ Jesus) in strkjv@1Timothy:3:13|, as well as here by the added words "unto all them that believe" (\eis pantas tous pisteuontas\) in Jesus, Paul means. {Distinction} (\diastol\). See on ¯1Corinthians:14:7| for the difference of sounds in musical instruments. Also in strkjv@Romans:10:12|. The Jew was first in privilege as in penalty (2:9f.|), but justification or setting right with God is offered to both on the same terms.

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