NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp evidence:

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

rwp@1Corinthians:15:5 @{And that he appeared to Cephas} (\kai hoti phth Kphi\). First aorist passive indicative of the defective verb \hora\, to see. Paul means not a mere "vision," but actual appearance. John uses \ephanerth\ (John:21:14|) from \phanero\, to make manifest, of Christ's appearance to the seven by the Sea of Galilee. Peter was listed first (\prtos\) among the Apostles (Matthew:10:2|). Jesus had sent a special message to him (Mark:16:7|) after his resurrection. This special appearance to Peter is made the determining factor in the joyful faith of the disciples (Luke:24:34|), though mentioned incidentally here. Paul had told all these four facts to the Corinthians in his preaching. He gives further proof of the fact of Christ's resurrection. There are ten appearances given besides the one to Paul. Nine are in the Gospels (Mary Magdalene in John and Mark, the other women in Matthew, the two going to Emmaus in Luke, Simon Peter in Luke and I Corinthians, the ten apostles and others in Luke and John and Mark, the eleven and others in John, the seven by the sea in John, to over five hundred in Galilee in Matthew and Paul and Mark, to the apostles in Jerusalem in Luke and Mark and Acts and I Corinthians) and one in I Corinthians above (to James). It will be seen that Paul mentions only five of the ten, one, that to James, not given elsewhere. What he gives is conclusive evidence of the fact, particularly when re-enforced by his own experience (the sixth appearance mentioned by Paul). The way to prove this great fact is to start with Paul's own witness given in this undoubted Epistle. The natural way to understand Paul's adverbs of time here is chronological: {then} (\eita\), {then} (\epeita\), {then} (\epeita\), {then} (\eita\), {last of all} (\eschaton pantn\). {To the twelve} (\tois ddeka\). The technical name. Only ten were present, for Judas was dead and Thomas was absent (John:20:24|).

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

rwp@1Timothy:6:13 @{Who quickeneth all things} (\tou zogonountos ta panta\). Present active participle of \zogone\ (\zogonos\, from \zos, gen\), late word to give life, to bring forth alive, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:7:19|. See strkjv@1Samuel:2:6|. {Before Pontius Pilate} (\epi Pontiou Peilatou\). Not "in the time of," but "in the presence of." {Witnessed} (\martursantos\). Note \marture\, not \homologe\ as in verse 12|. Christ gave his evidence as a witness to the Kingdom of God. Evidently Paul knew some of the facts that appear in strkjv@John:18|.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 66 OR 67 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION MOST DOUBTFUL NEW TESTAMENT BOOK Every book in the New Testament is challenged by some one, as indeed the historicity of Jesus Christ himself is and the very existence of God. But it is true that more modern scholars deny the genuineness of II Peter than that of any single book in the canon. This is done by men like F. H. Chase, J. B. Mayor, and R. D. Strachan, who are followers of Christ as Lord and Saviour. One has to admit that the case concerning II Peter has problems of peculiar difficulty that call for careful consideration and balanced judgment. One other word needs to be said, which is that an adverse decision against the authenticity of II Peter stands by itself and does not affect the genuineness of the other books. It is easy to take an extreme position for or against it without full knowledge of all the evidence.

rwp@Info_1Thessalonians @ This Epistle is a bit sharper in tone than the First and also briefer. It has been suggested that there were two churches in Thessalonica, a Gentile Church to which First Thessalonians was sent, and a Jewish Church to which Second Thessalonians was addressed. There is no real evidence for such a gratuitous hypothesis. It assumes a difficulty about his sending a second letter to the same church that does not exist. The bearer of the first letter brought back news that made a second necessary. It was probably sent within the same year as the first. strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:1 @{Paul, etc.} (\Paulos, etc.\). This address or superscription is identical with that in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1| save that our (\hmn\) is added after {Father} (\patri\).

rwp@3John:1:12 @{Demetrius hath the witness of all men} (\Dmtrii memarturtai hupo pantn\). Perfect passive indicative of \marture\, "it has been witnessed to Demetrius (dative case) by all." We know nothing else about him, unless, as is unlikely, he be identified with Demas as a shortened form (Philemon:1:24; strkjv@Colossians:4:4; strkjv@2Timothy:4:10|), who has come back after his desertion or with the Ephesian silversmith (Acts:19:21ff.|), who may have been converted under John's ministry, which one would like to believe, though there is no evidence for it. He may indeed be the bearer of this letter from Ephesus to Gaius and may also have come under suspicion for some reason and hence John's warm commendation. {And of the truth itself} (\kai hupo auts ts altheias\). A second commendation of Demetrius. It is possible, in view of strkjv@1John:5:6| (the Spirit is the truth), that John means the Holy Spirit and not a mere personification of the truth. {Yea we also} (\kai hmeis de\). A third witness to Demetrius, that is John himself (literary plural). {Thou knowest} (\oidas\). "The words in strkjv@John:21:24| sound like an echo of this sentence" (Westcott). John knew Demetrius well in Ephesus.

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

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

rwp@Acts:10:47 @{Can any man forbid the water?} (\Mti to hudr dunatai klsai tis?\). The negative \mti\ expects the answer _No_. The evidence was indisputable that these Gentiles were converted and so were entitled to be baptized. See the similar idiom in strkjv@Luke:6:39|. Note the article with "water." Here the baptism of the Holy Spirit had preceded the baptism of water (Acts:1:5; strkjv@11:16|). "The greater had been bestowed; could the lesser be withheld?" (Knowling). {That these should not be baptized} (\tou m baptisthnai toutous\). Ablative case of the articular first aorist passive infinitive of \baptiz\ with the redundant negative after the verb of hindering (\klsai\) and the accusative of general reference (\toutous\). The redundant negative after the verb of hindering is not necessary though often used in ancient Greek and in the _Koin_ (papyri). Without it see strkjv@Matthew:19:14; strkjv@Acts:8:36| and with it see strkjv@Luke:4:42; strkjv@24:16; strkjv@Acts:14:18|. Cf. Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1061, 1094, 1171. The triple negatives here are a bit confusing to the modern mind (\mti\ in the question, \klsai\, to hinder or to cut off, \m\ with \baptisthnai\). Literally, Can any one cut off the water from the being baptized as to these? Meyer: "The water is in this animated language conceived as the element offering itself for the baptism." {As well as we} (\hs kai hmeis\). The argument was conclusive. God had spoken. Note the query of the eunuch to Philip (Acts:8:36|).

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:17:31 @{Inasmuch as} (\kathoti\). According as (\kata, hoti\). Old causal conjunction, but in N.T. only used in Luke's writings (Luke:1:7; strkjv@19:9; strkjv@Acts:2:45; strkjv@4:35; strkjv@17:31|). {Hath appointed a day} (\estsen hmeran\) First aorist active indicative of \histmi\, to place, set. God did set the day in his counsel and he will fulfil it in his own time. {Will judge} (\mellei krinein\). Rather, is going to judge, \mell\ and the present active infinitive of \krin\. Paul here quotes strkjv@Psalms:9:8| where \krinei\ occurs. {By the man whom he hath ordained} (\en andri hi hrisen\). Here he adds to the Psalm the place and function of Jesus Christ, a passage in harmony with Christ's own words in strkjv@Matthew:25|. \Hi\ (whom) is attracted from the accusative, object of \hrisen\ (first aorist active indicative of \horiz\) to the case of the antecedent \andri\. It has been said that Paul left the simple gospel in this address to the council of the Areopagus for philosophy. But did he? He skilfully caught their attention by reference to an altar to an Unknown God whom he interprets to be the Creator of all things and all men who overrules the whole world and who now commands repentance of all and has revealed his will about a day of reckoning when Jesus Christ will be Judge. He has preached the unity of God, the one and only God, has proclaimed repentance, a judgment day, Jesus as the Judge as shown by his Resurrection, great fundamental doctrines, and doubtless had much more to say when they interrupted his address. There is no room here for such a charge against Paul. He rose to a great occasion and made a masterful exposition of God's place and power in human history. {Whereof he hath given assurance} (\pistin paraschn\). Second aorist active participle of \parech\, old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of \pistis\ as conviction or ground of confidence (Hebrews:11:1|) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of \pistis\ grow out of this one from \peith\, to persuade. {In that he hath raised him from the dead} (\anastsas auton ek nekrn\). First aorist active participle of \anistmi\, causal participle, but literally, "having raised him from the dead." This Paul knew to be a fact because he himself had seen the Risen Christ. Paul has here come to the heart of his message and could now throw light on their misapprehension about "Jesus and the Resurrection" (verse 18|). Here Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the address that seemed new and strange to them.

rwp@Acts:20:10 @{Fell on him} (\epepesen auti\). Second aorist active indicative of \epipipt\ with dative case as Elijah did (1Kings:17:21|) and Elisha (2Kings:4:34|). {Embracing} (\sunperilabn\). Second aorist active participle of \sunperilamban\, old verb to embrace completely (take hold together round), but only here in the N.T. In strkjv@Ezra:5:3|. {Make ye no ado} (\m thorubeisthe\). Stop (\m\ and present middle imperative of \thorube\) making a noise (\thorubos\) as the people did on the death of Jairus's daughter (Matthew:9:23| \thoruboumenou\ and strkjv@Mark:5:38| \thorubou\) when Jesus asked \Ti thorubeisthe?\ {For his life is in him} (\h gar psuch autou en auti estin\). This language is relied on by Ramsay, Wendt, Zoeckler to show that Eutychus had not really died, but had merely swooned. Paul's language would suit that view, but it suits equally well the idea that he had just been restored to life and so is indecisive. Furneaux urges also the fact that his friends did not bring him back to the meeting till morning (verse 12|) as additional evidence that it was a case of swooning rather than of death. But this again is not conclusive as they would naturally not take him back at once. One will believe here as the facts appeal to him.

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:2:14 @{Having blotted out} (\exaleipsas\). And so "cancelled." First aorist active participle of old verb \exaleiph\, to rub out, wipe off, erase. In N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:3:19| (LXX); strkjv@Revelation:3:5; strkjv@Colossians:2:14|. Here the word explains \charisamenos\ and is simultaneous with it. Plato used it of blotting out a writing. Often MSS. were rubbed or scraped and written over again (palimpsests, like Codex C). {The bond written in ordinances that was against us} (\to kath' hmn cheirographon tois dogmasin\). The late compound \cheirographon\ (\cheir\, hand, \graph\) is very common in the papyri for a certificate of debt or bond, many of the original \cheirographa\ (handwriting, "chirography"). See Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 247. The signature made a legal debt or bond as Paul says in strkjv@Philemon:1:18f.|: "I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it." Many of the papyri examples have been "crossed out" thus X as we do today and so cancelled. One decree is described as "neither washed out nor written over" (Milligan, N. T. _Documents_, p. 16). Undoubtedly "the handwriting in decrees" (\dogmasin\, the Mosaic law, strkjv@Ephesians:2:15|) was against the Jews (Exodus:24:3; strkjv@Deuteronomy:27:14-26|) for they accepted it, but the Gentiles also gave moral assent to God's law written in their hearts (Romans:2:14f.|). Songs:Paul says "against us" (\kath' hmn\) and adds "which was contrary to us" (\ho n hupenantion hmin\) because we (neither Jew nor Gentile) could not keep it. \Hupenantios\ is an old double compound adjective (\hupo, en, antios\) set over against, only here in N.T. except strkjv@Hebrews:10:27| when it is used as a substantive. It is striking that Paul has connected the common word \cheirographon\ for bond or debt with the Cross of Christ (Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 332). {And he hath taken it out of the way} (\kai rken ek tou mesou\). Perfect active indicative of \air\, old and common verb, to lift up, to bear, to take away. The word used by the Baptist of Jesus as "the Lamb of God that bears away (\airn\) the sin of the world" (John:1:29|). The perfect tense emphasizes the permanence of the removal of the bond which has been paid and cancelled and cannot be presented again. Lightfoot argues for Christ as the subject of \rken\, but that is not necessary, though Paul does use sudden anacolutha. God has taken the bond against us "out of the midst" (\ek tou mesou\). Nailing it to the cross (\proslsas auto ti stauri\). First aorist active participle of old and common verb \proslo\, to fasten with nails to a thing (with dative \stauri\). Here alone in N.T., but in III Macc. strkjv@4:9 with the very word \stauri\. The victim was nailed to the cross as was Christ. "When Christ was crucified, God nailed the Law to His cross" (Peake). Hence the "bond" is cancelled for us. Business men today sometimes file cancelled accounts. No evidence exists that Paul alluded to such a custom here.

rwp@Info_John @ A PERSONAL WITNESS It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In strkjv@John:1:14| he plainly says that "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" (\etheasametha tn doxan autou\). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in strkjv@John:21:25| he employs the singular "I suppose" (\oimai\) in sharp dis- tinction from the plural "we know" (\oidamen\) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness (\marture, marturia\) so common in this Gospel (John:1:7,8,19; strkjv@3:11,26,33; strkjv@5:31; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@21:24|, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luke:1:1-4|). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark's Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John's Gospel claims to be the personal witness of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eye-witness in the vivid details.

rwp@John:8:13 @{Of thyself} (\peri seautou\). This technical objection was according to the rules of evidence among the rabbis. "No man can give witness for himself" (_Mishnah, Ketub_. 11. 9). Hence, they say, "not true" (\ouk althes\), not pertinent. "They were still in the region of pedantic rules and external tests." In strkjv@John:5:31| Jesus acknowledged this technical need of further witness outside of his own claims (John:19-30|) and proceeded to give it (John:32-47|) in the testimony of the Baptist, of the Father, of his works, of the Scriptures, and of Moses in particular.

rwp@John:8:14 @{Even if} (\kan\). That is \kai ean\, a condition of the third class with the present active subjunctive \martur\. Jesus means that his own witness concerning himself is true (\althes\) even if it contravenes their technical rules of evidence. He can and does tell the truth all by himself concerning himself. {For I know whence I came and whither I go} (\hoti oida pothen lthon kai pou hupag\). In this terse sentence with two indirect questions Jesus alludes to his pre-existence with the Father before his Incarnation as in strkjv@17:5| and to the return to the Father after the death and resurrection as in strkjv@13:3; strkjv@14:2f|. He again puts both ideas together in one crisp clause in strkjv@16:28| for the apostles who profess to understand him then. But here these Pharisees are blind to the words of Jesus. "But ye know not whence I come nor whither I go" (\humeis de ouk oidate pothen erchomai pou hupag\). He had spoken of his heavenly destiny (7:33|). Jesus alone knew his personal consciousness of his coming from, fellowship with, and return to the Father. Stier (_Words of the Lord Jesus_) argues that one might as well say to the sun, if claiming to be the sun, that it was night, because it bore witness of itself. The answer is the shining of the sun.

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

rwp@Luke:2:7 @{Her firstborn} (\ton prtotokon\). The expression naturally means that she afterwards had other children and we read of brothers and sisters of Jesus. There is not a particle of evidence for the notion that Mary refused to bear other children because she was the mother of the Messiah. {Wrapped in swaddling clothes} (\espargansen\). From \sparganon\, a swathing band. Only here and verse 12| in the N.T., but in Euripides, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Plutarch. Frequent in medical works. {In a manger} (\en phatni\). In a crib in a stall whether in a cave (Justin Martyr) or connected with the inn we do not know. The cattle may have been out on the hills or the donkeys used in travelling may have been feeding in this stall or another near. {In the inn} (\en ti katalumati\). A lodging-house or khan, poor enough at best, but there was not even room in this public place because of the crowds for the census. See the word also in strkjv@Luke:22:11; strkjv@Mark:14:14| with the sense of guest-room (cf. strkjv@1Kings:1:13|). It is the Hellenistic equivalent for \kataggeion\ and appears also in one papyrus. See strkjv@Exodus:4:24|. There would sometimes be an inner court, a range or arches, an open gallery round the four sides. On one side of the square, outside the wall, would be stables for the asses and camels, buffaloes and goats. Each man had to carry his own food and bedding.

rwp@Luke:3:20 @{Added} (\prosethken\). First aorist active indicative (kappa aorist). Common verb (\prostithmi\) in all Greek. In N.T. chiefly in Luke and Acts. Hippocrates used it of applying wet sponges to the head and Galen of applying a decoction of acorns. There is no evidence that Luke has a medical turn to the word here. The absence of the conjunction \hoti\ (that) before the next verb \katekleisen\ (shut up) is asyndeton. This verb literally means {shut down}, possibly with a reference to closing down the door of the dungeon, though it makes sense as a perfective use of the preposition, like our "shut up" without a strict regard to the idea of "down." It is an old and common verb, though here and strkjv@Acts:26:10| only in the N.T. See strkjv@Matthew:14:3| for further statement about the prison.

rwp@Luke:4:23 @{Doubtless} (\pants\). Adverb. Literally, at any rate, certainly, assuredly. Cf. strkjv@Acts:21:22; strkjv@28:4|. {This parable} (\tn paraboln tautn\). See discussion on ¯Matthew:13|. Here the word has a special application to a crisp proverb which involves a comparison. The word physician is the point of comparison. Luke the physician alone gives this saying of Jesus. The proverb means that the physician was expected to take his own medicine and to heal himself. The word \parabol\ in the N.T. is confined to the Synoptic Gospels except strkjv@Hebrews:9:9; strkjv@11:19|. This use for a proverb occurs also in strkjv@Luke:5:36; strkjv@6:39|. This proverb in various forms appears not only among the Jews, but in Euripides and Aeschylus among the Greeks, and in Cicero's _Letters_. Hobart quotes the same idea from Galen, and the Chinese used to demand it of their physicians. The point of the parable seems to be that the people were expecting him to make good his claim to the Messiahship by doing here in Nazareth what they had heard of his doing in Capernaum and elsewhere. "Establish your claims by direct evidence" (Easton). This same appeal (Vincent) was addressed to Christ on the Cross (Matthew:27:40,42|). There is a tone of sarcasm towards Jesus in both cases. {Heard done} (\kousamen genomena\). The use of this second aorist middle participle \genomena\ after \kousamen\ is a neat Greek idiom. It is punctiliar action in indirect discourse after this verb of sensation or emotion (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1040-42, 1122-24). {Do also here} (\poison kai hde\). Ingressive aorist active imperative. Do it here in thy own country and town and do it now. Jesus applies the proverb to himself as an interpretation of their real attitude towards himself.

rwp@Luke:6:1 @{On a sabbath} (\en sabbati\). This is the second sabbath on which Jesus is noted by Luke. The first was strkjv@Luke:4:31-41|. There was another in strkjv@John:5:1-47|. There is Western and Syrian (Byzantine) evidence for a very curious reading here which calls this sabbath "secondfirst" (\deuteroprti\). It is undoubtedly spurious, though Westcott and Hort print it in the margin. A possible explanation is that a scribe wrote "first" (\prti\) on the margin because of the sabbath miracle in strkjv@Luke:6:6-11|. Then another scribe recalled strkjv@Luke:4:31| where a sabbath is mentioned and wrote "second" (\deuteri\) also on the margin. Finally a third scribe combined the two in the word \deuteroprti\ that is not found elsewhere. If it were genuine, we should not know what it means. {Plucked} (\etillon\). Imperfect active. They were plucking as they went on through (\diaporeuesthai\). Whether wheat or barley, we do not know, not our "corn" (maize). {Did eat} (\sthion\). Imperfect again. See on ¯Matthew:12:1f.; strkjv@Mark:2:23f.| for the separate acts in supposed violence of the sabbath laws. {Rubbing them in their hands} (\pschontes tais chersin\). Only in Luke and only here in the N.T. This was one of the chief offences. "According to Rabbinical notions, it was reaping, threshing, winnowing, and preparing food all at once" (Plummer). These Pharisees were straining out gnats and swallowing camels! This verb \psch\ is a late one for \psa\, to rub.

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:11:1 @{As he was praying in a certain place} (\en ti einai auton en topi tini proseuchomenon\). Characteristically Lukan idiom: \en\ with articular periphrastic infinitive (\einai proseuchomenon\) with accusative of general reference (\auton\). {That}. Not in the Greek, asyndeton (\kai egeneto eipen\). {When he ceased} (\hs epausato\). Supply \proseuchomenos\ (praying), complementary or supplementary participle. {Teach us} (\didaxon hmas\). Jesus had taught them by precept (Matthew:6:7-15|) and example (Luke:9:29|). Somehow the example of Jesus on this occasion stirred them to fresh interest in the subject and to revival of interest in John's teachings (Luke:5:33|). Songs:Jesus gave them the substance of the Model Prayer in Matthew, but in shorter form. Some of the MSS. have one or all of the phrases in Matthew, but the oldest documents have it in the simplest form. See on ¯Matthew:6:7-15| for discussion of these details (Father, hallowed, kingdom, daily bread, forgiveness, bringing us into temptation). In strkjv@Matthew:6:11| "give" is \dos\ (second aorist active imperative second singular, a single act) while here strkjv@Luke:11:3| "give" is \didou\ (present active imperative, both from \didmi\) and means, "keep on giving." Songs:in strkjv@Luke:11:4| we have "For we ourselves also forgive" (\kai gar autoi aphiomen\), present active indicative of the late \\ verb \aphi\ while strkjv@Matthew:6:12| has "as we also forgave" (\hs kai hmeis aphkamen\), first aorist (\k\ aorist) active of \aphimi\. Songs:also where strkjv@Matthew:6:12| has "debts" (\ta opheilmata\) strkjv@Luke:11:4| has "sins" (\tas hamartias\). But the spirit of each prayer is the same. There is no evidence that Jesus meant either form to be a ritual. In both strkjv@Matthew:6:13; strkjv@Luke:11:4| \m eisenegkis\ occurs (second aorist subjunctive with \m\ in prohibition, ingressive aorist). "Bring us not" is a better translation than "lead us not." There is no such thing as God enticing one to sin (James:1:13|). Jesus urges us to pray not to be tempted as in strkjv@Luke:22:40| in Gethsemane.

rwp@Luke:12:13 @{Bid my brother} (\eipe ti adelphi mou\). This volunteer from the crowd draws attention to the multitude (verses 13-21|). He does not ask for arbitration and there is no evidence that his brother was willing for that. He wants a decision by Jesus against his brother. The law (Deuteronomy:21:17|) was two-thirds to the elder, one-third to the younger.

rwp@Luke:22:62 @{And he went out and wept bitterly} (\kai exelthn ex eklausen pikrs\). A few old Latin documents omit this verse which is genuine in strkjv@Matthew:26:75|. It may be an insertion here from there, but the evidence for the rejection is too slight. It is the ingressive aorist (\eklausen\), he burst into tears. "Bitter" is a common expression for tears in all languages and in all hearts.

rwp@Mark:2:6 @{Sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts} (\ekei kathmenoi kai dialogizomenoi en tais kardiais autn\). Another of Mark's pictures through Peter's eyes. These scribes (and Pharisees, strkjv@Luke:5:21|) were there to cause trouble, to pick flaws in the teaching and conduct of Jesus. His popularity and power had aroused their jealousy. There is no evidence that they spoke aloud the murmur in their hearts, "within themselves" (Matthew:9:3|). It was not necessary, for their looks gave them away and Jesus knew their thoughts (Matthew:9:4|) and perceived their reasoning (Luke:5:22|). {Instantly Jesus recognized it in his own spirit} (\euthus epignous ho Isous ti pneumati autou\, strkjv@Mark:2:8|). The Master at once recognizes the hostile atmosphere in the house. The debate (\dialogizomenoi\) in their hearts was written on their faces. No sound had come, but feeling did.

rwp@Mark:6:44 @{Men} (\andres\). Men as different from women as in strkjv@Matthew:14:21|. This remarkable miracle is recorded by all Four Gospels, a nature miracle that only God can work. No talk about accelerating natural processes will explain this miracle. And three eyewitnesses report it: the Logia of Matthew, the eyes of Peter in Mark, the witness of John the Beloved Disciple (Gould). The evidence is overwhelming.

rwp@Mark:14:60 @{Stood up in the midst} (\anastas eis meson\). Second aorist active participle. For greater solemnity he arose to make up by bluster the lack of evidence. The high priest stepped out into the midst as if to attack Jesus by vehement questions. See on ¯Matthew:26:59-68| for details here.

rwp@Mark:16:5 @{Entering into the tomb} (\eiselthousai eis to mnmeion\). Told also by strkjv@Luke:24:3|, though not by Matthew. {A young man} (\neaniskon\). An angel in strkjv@Matthew:28:5|, two men in strkjv@Luke:24|. These and like variations in details show the independence of the narrative and strengthen the evidence for the general fact of the resurrection. The angel sat upon the stone (Matthew:28:2|), probably at first. Mark here speaks of the young man {sitting on the right side} (\kathmenon en tois dexiois\) inside the tomb. Luke has the two men standing by them on the inside (Luke strkjv@24:4|). Possibly different aspects and stages of the incident. {Arrayed in a white robe} (\peribeblmenon stoln leukn\). Perfect passive participle with the accusative case of the thing retained (verb of clothing). strkjv@Luke:24:4| has "in dazzling apparel." {They were amazed} (\exethambthsan\). They were utterly (\ex\ in composition) amazed. strkjv@Luke:24:5| has it "affrighted." strkjv@Matthew:28:3f.| tells more of the raiment white as snow which made the watchers quake and become as dead men. But this was before the arrival of the women. Mark, like Matthew and Luke, does not mention the sudden departure of Mary Magdalene to tell Peter and John of the grave robbery as she supposed (John:20:1-10|).

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

rwp@Matthew:1:2 @{Begat} (\egennsen\). This word comes, like some of the early chapters of Genesis, with regularity through verse 16, until the birth of Jesus is reached when there is a sudden change. The word itself does not always mean immediate parentage, but merely direct descent. In verse 16| we have "Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ" (\ton Isph ton andra Marias ex hs egennth Isous ho legomenos Christos\). The article occurs here each time with the object of "begat," but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (1:6|) and Joseph the husband of Mary (1:16|) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (1:2|) and of both Phares and Zara (1:3|) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give verse 16| as above save the Ferrar Group of minuscules which are supported by the Sinaitic Syriac Version. Because of this fact Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates, deliberately prints his text "_Jacob begat Jesus_" (\Isph de egennsen Isoun\). But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:1:18-25|. Hence it is clear that "begat" here in strkjv@1:16| must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in strkjv@1:18-25|. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of _Studies in the Text of the New Testament_. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in strkjv@1:16|. The spelling of these Hebrew names in English is usually according to the Hebrew form, not the Greek. In the Greek itself the Hebrew spelling is often observed in violation of the Greek rules for the ending of words with no consonants save _n,r,s_. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails.

rwp@Matthew:6:9 @{After this manner therefore pray ye} (\houts oun proseuchesthe humeis\). "You" expressed in contrast with "the Gentiles." It should be called "The Model Prayer" rather than "The Lord's Prayer." "Thus" pray as he gives them a model. He himself did not use it as a liturgy (cf. strkjv@John:17|). There is no evidence that Jesus meant it for liturgical use by others. In strkjv@Luke:11:2-4| practically the same prayer though briefer is given at a later time by Jesus to the apostles in response to a request that he teach them how to pray. McNeile argues that the form in Luke is the original to which Matthew has made additions: "The tendency of liturgical formulas is towards enrichment rather than abbreviation." But there is no evidence whatever that Jesus designed it as a set formula. There is no real harm in a liturgical formula if one likes it, but no one sticks to just one formula in prayer. There is good and not harm in children learning and saying this noble prayer. Some people are disturbed over the words "Our Father" and say that no one has a right to call God Father who has not been "born again." But that is to say that an unconverted sinner cannot pray until he is converted, an absurd contradiction. God is the Father of all men in one sense; the recognition of Him as the Father in the full sense is the first step in coming back to him in regeneration and conversion.

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

rwp@Matthew:28:6 @{Risen from the dead} (\gerth apo tn nekrn\). {Jesus the Risen}. This is the heart of the testimony of the angel to the women. It is what Paul wishes Timothy never to forget (2Timothy:2:8|), "Jesus Christ risen from the dead" (\Isoun Christon eggermenon ek nekrn\). They were afraid and dazzled by the glory of the scene, but the angel said, "Come, see the place where the Lord lay" (\deute idete ton topon hopou ekeito ho Kurios\). Some MSS. do not have \ho Kurios\, but he is the subject of \ekeito\. His body was not there. It will not do to say that Jesus arose in spirit and appeared alive though his body remained in the tomb. The empty tomb is the first great fact confronting the women and later the men. Various theories were offered then as now. But none of them satisfy the evidence and explain the survival of faith and hope in the disciples that do not rest upon the fact of the Risen Christ whose body was no longer in the tomb.

rwp@Philippians:4:3 @{True yokefellow} (\gnsie sunzuge\). All sorts of suggestions have been made here, one that it was Lydia who is termed Paul's wife by the word \sunzuge\. Unfortunately for that view \gnsie\ is masculine vocative singular. Some have suggested it as a proper name though it is not found in the inscriptions, but the word does occur as an appellative in one. Lightfoot even proposes Epaphroditus, the bearer of the Epistle, certainly a curious turn to take to address him. After all it matters little that we do not know who the peacemaker was. {Help these women} (\sunlambanou autais\). Present middle imperative of \sunlamban\, to seize (Matthew:26:55|), to conceive (Luke:1:24|), then to take hold together with one (associative instrumental case), to help as here (Luke:5:7|). "Take hold with them." {They laboured with me} (\sunthlsan moi\). First aorist active indicative of \sunathle\ (for which see strkjv@1:27|) with associative instrumental case (\moi\). {With Clement also} (\meta kai Klmentos\). There is no evidence that he was Clement of Rome as the name is common. {In the book of life} (\en bibli zs\). The only instance of this expression in the N.T. outside of the Apocalypse (3:5; strkjv@13:8; strkjv@17:8|, etc.). Hence real Christians in spite of their bickerings.

rwp@Revelation:11:12 @{Saying} (\legouss\). Present active predicate participle of \leg\, feminine genitive agreeing with \phns\, though some MSS. have the accusative \phnn legousan\, either construction being proper after \kousan\ (they heard). There is a little evidence for \kousa\ like strkjv@12:10| (24 times in the book). Cf. strkjv@John:5:28|. {Come up hither} (\anabate hde\). Second aorist active imperative of \anabain\. The ascension of these two witnesses is in full view of their enemies, not just in the presence of a few friends as with Christ (Acts:1:9|). {They went up} (\anebsan\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain\. {In the cloud} (\en ti nepheli\). As Jesus did (Acts:1:9|) and like Elijah (2Kings:2:11|). Their triumph is openly celebrated before their enemies and is like the rapture described by Paul in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:17|.

rwp@Revelation:20:12 @{The dead, the great and the small} (\tous nekrous tous megalous kai tous mikrous\). The general resurrection of verse 13| is pictured by anticipation as already over. No living are mentioned after the battle of verses 7-10|, though some will be living when Jesus comes to judge the quick and the dead (2Timothy:4:1; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13ff.|). All classes and conditions (11:18; strkjv@13:16; strkjv@19:5,18|) John saw "standing before the throne" (\hesttas enpion tou thronou\). {Books were opened} (\biblia noichthsan\). First aorist passive of \anoig\. Like strkjv@Daniel:7:10|. The record of each human being has been kept in God's books. {Were judged} (\ekrithsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \krin\. The sentence upon each rests upon written evidence. {Another book which is the book of life} (\allo biblion ho estin ts zs\). This book has already been mentioned (3:5; strkjv@13:8; strkjv@17:8|). "It is the roll of living citizens of Jerusalem" (Swete), "the church of the first born enrolled in heaven" (Hebrews:12:23|). The books are "the vouchers for the book of life" (Alford). We are saved by grace, but character at last (according to their works) is the test as the fruit of the tree (Matthew:7:16,20; strkjv@10:32f.; strkjv@25:31-46; strkjv@John:15:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:10; strkjv@Romans:2:10; strkjv@Revelation:2:23; strkjv@20:12; strkjv@22:12|).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE AUTHOR The writer calls himself John (Revelation:1:1,4,9; strkjv@22:8|). But what John? The book can hardly be pseudonymous, though, with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas, that is the rule with apocalypses. There would have been a clearer claim than just the name. The traditional and obvious way to understand the name is the Apostle John, though Dionysius of Alexandria mentions John Mark as held by some and he himself suggests another John, like the so-called Presbyter John of Papias as quoted by Eusebius. The uncertain language of Papias has raised a deal of questioning. Swete thinks that the majority of modern critics ascribe the Apocalypse to this Presbyter John, to whom Moffatt assigns probably II and III John. Irenaeus represents the Apostle John as having lived to the time of Trajan, at least to A.D. 98. Most ancient writers agree with this extreme old age of John. Justin Martyr states expressly that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse. Irenaeus called it the work of a disciple of Jesus. In the ninth century lived Georgius Hamartolus, and a MS. of his alleges that Papias says that John the son of Zebedee was beheaded by the Jews and there is an extract in an Oxford MS. of the seventh century which alleges that Papias says John and James were put to death by the Jews. On the basis of this slim evidence some today argue that John did not live to the end of the century and so did not write any of the Johannine books. But a respectable number of modern scholars still hold to the ancient view that the Apocalypse of John is the work of the Apostle and Beloved Disciple, the son of Zebedee.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL Here scholars divide again. Many who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles accept the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, Baur, for instance. Hort, Lightfoot, and Westcott argued for the Johannine authorship on the ground that the Apocalypse was written early (time of Nero or Vespasian) when John did not know Greek so well as when the Epistles and the Gospel were written. There are numerous grammatical laxities in the Apocalypse, termed by Charles a veritable grammar of its own. They are chiefly retention of the nominative case in appositional words or phrases, particularly participles, many of them sheer Hebraisms, many of them clearly intentional (as in strkjv@Revelation:1:4|), all of them on purpose according to Milligan (_Revelation_ in Schaff's Pop. Comm.) and Heinrici (_Der Litterarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften_, p. 85). Radermacher (_Neutestamentliche Grammatik_, p. 3) calls it "the most uncultured literary production that has come down to us from antiquity," and one finds frequent parallels to the linguistic peculiarities in later illiterate papyri. J. H. Moulton (_Grammar_, Vol. II, Part I, p. 3) says: "Its grammar is perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a foreign language, its whole style that of a writer who neither knows nor cares for literary form." But we shall see that the best evidence is for a date in Domitian's reign and not much later than the Fourth Gospel. It is worth noting that in strkjv@Acts:4:13| Peter and John are both termed by the Sanhedrin \agrammatoi kai iditai\ (unlettered and unofficial men). We have seen the possibility that II Peter represents Peter's real style or at least that of a different amanuensis from Silvanus in strkjv@1Peter:5:12|. It seems clear that the Fourth Gospel underwent careful scrutiny and possibly by the elders in Ephesus (John:21:24|). If John wrote the Apocalypse while in Patmos and so away from Ephesus, it seems quite possible that here we have John's own uncorrected style more than in the Gospel and Epistles. There is also the added consideration that the excitement of the visions played a part along with a certain element of intentional variations from normal grammatical sequence. An old man's excitement would bring back his early style. There are numerous coincidences in vocabulary and style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.