NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp expressly:

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

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

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

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

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

rwp@2Corinthians:6:8 @{By glory and dishonour} (\dia doxs kai atimias\). Here \dia\ is no longer instrument, but state or condition. \Doxa\ here is glory. See strkjv@Romans:9:21; strkjv@2Timothy:2:20| for contrast between honour and dishonour (\tim, atimia\). {By evil report and good report} (\dia dusphmias kai euphmias\). Play on the words with prefixes \dus-\ and \eu-\ and \phm\. \Dusphmia\ is a late word, only here in N.T. \Euphmia\, old and common word, only here in N.T. {As deceivers and yet true} (\hs planoi kai altheis\). Paul takes up \hs\ now in place of \dia\ which succeeded \en\. Note use of \kai\ in sense of "and yet" (adversative). \Planos\ is late word (Diodorus, Josephus) for wandering, vagabond, impostor (cf. \plana\, to lead astray, used of Christ, strkjv@John:7:12|). In N.T. only here; strkjv@Matthew:27:63| (of Christ by Pharisees); strkjv@2John:1:7|. "In the Clementines St. Paul is expressly described by his adversaries as \planos\ and as disseminating deceit (\plann\)" (Bernard). Such slander from one's enemies is praise.

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

rwp@Acts:4:4 @{Men} (\andrn\). Strictly, men and not women, for \anthrpos\ is the term for both men and women. But in strkjv@Luke:11:31| \andres\ seems to include both men and women and that is possible here, though by no means certain, for see strkjv@Matthew:14:21| where the women and children are expressly excepted.

rwp@Acts:9:4 @{He fell upon the earth} (\pesn epi tn gn\). Second aorist active participle. Songs:in strkjv@22:7| Paul says: "I fell unto the ground" (\epesa eis to edaphos\) using an old word rather than the common \gn\. In strkjv@26:14| Paul states that "we were all fallen to the earth" (\pantn katapesontn hmn eis tn gn\, genitive absolute construction). But here in verse 7| "the men that journeyed with him stood speechless" (\histkeisan eneoi\). But surely the points of time are different. In strkjv@26:14| Paul refers to the first appearance of the vision when all fell to the earth. Here in verse 7| Luke refers to what occurred after the vision when both Saul and the men had risen from the ground. {Saul, Saul} (\Saoul, Saoul\). The Hebrew form occurs also in strkjv@22:7; strkjv@26:14| where it is expressly stated that the voice was in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue as also in strkjv@9:17| (Ananias). Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 316) terms this use of \Saoul\ "the historian's sense of liturgical rhythm." For the repetition of names by Jesus note strkjv@Luke:10:41| (Martha, Martha), strkjv@Luke:22:31| (Simon, Simon). {Me} (\me\). In persecuting the disciples, Saul was persecuting Jesus, as the words of Jesus in verse 5| made plain. Christ had already spoken of the mystic union between himself and his followers (Matthew:10:40; strkjv@25:40,45; strkjv@John:15:1-5|). The proverb (Pindar) that Jesus quotes to Saul about kicking against the goad is genuine in strkjv@26:14|, but not here.

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

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

rwp@John:1:13 @{Which were born} (\hoi egennthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna\, to beget, "who were begotten." By spiritual generation (of God, \ek theou\), not by physical (\ex haimatn\, plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; \ek thelmatos sarkos\, from sexual desire; \ek thelmatos andros\, from the will of the male). But _b_ of the old Latin reads _qui natus est_ and makes it refer to Christ and so expressly teach the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Likewise Irenaeus reads _qui natus est_ as does Tertullian who argues that _qui nati sunt_ (\hoi egennthsan\) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass (_Philology of the Gospels_, p. 234) opposes this reading, but all the old Greek uncials read \hoi egennthsan\ and it must be accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in verse 14|, but it is not stated in verse 13|.

rwp@John:6:10 @{Sit down} (\anapesein\). Literally, "fall back," lie down, recline. Second aorist active infinitive of \anapipt\. {Much grass} (\chortos polus\). Old word for pasture, green grass (Mark:6:39|) or hay (1Corinthians:3:12|). It was spring (John:6:4|) and plenty of green grass on the hillside. {The men} (\hoi andres\). Word for men as distinct from women, expressly stated in strkjv@Matthew:14:21|. {In number} (\ton arithmon\). Adverbial accusative (of general reference). {About} (\hos\). General estimate, though they were arranged in orderly groups by hundreds and fifties, "in ranks" like "garden beds" (\prasiai\, strkjv@Mark:6:40|).

rwp@John:11:34 @{Where have ye laid him?} (\Pou tetheikate auton;\). Perfect active indicative of \tithmi\. A simple question for information. The only other like it in John is in strkjv@6:6| where it is expressly stated that Jesus knew what he was going to do. Songs:it was here, only he politely asked for direction to the tomb of Lazarus. The people invite him to come and see, the very language used by Philip to Nathanael (1:46|). It was a natural and polite reply as they would show Jesus the way, but they had no idea of his purpose.

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

rwp@Luke:10:17 @{Returned with joy} (\hupestrepsan meta charas\). They had profited by the directions of Jesus. Joy overflows their faces and their words. {Even the demons} (\kai ta daimonia\). This was a real test. The Twelve had been expressly endowed with this power when they were sent out (Luke:9:1|), but the Seventy were only told to heal the sick (10:9|). It was better than they expected. The Gospel worked wonders and they were happy. The demons were merely one sign of the conflict between Christ and Satan. Every preacher has to grapple with demons in his work. {Are subject} (\hupotassetai\). Present passive indicative (repetition).

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

rwp@Mark:3:21 @{His friends} (\hoi par' autou\). The phrase means literally "those from the side of him (Jesus)." It could mean another circle of disciples who had just arrived and who knew of the crowds and strain of the Galilean ministry who now come at this special juncture. But the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX. The fact that in verse 31| "his mother and his brothers" are expressly mentioned would indicate that they are "the friends" alluded to in verse 21|. It is a mournful spectacle to think of the mother and brothers saying, {He is beside himself} (\exest\). Second aorist active indicative intransitive. The same charge was brought against Paul (Acts:26:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:13|). We say that one is out of his head. Certainly Mary did not believe that Jesus was in the power of Beelzebub as the rabbis said already. The scribes from Jerusalem are trying to discount the power and prestige of Jesus (3:22|). See on ¯Matthew:9:32-34; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@12:24| for Beelzebub and Beelzebul. Mary probably felt that Jesus was overwrought and wished to take him home out of the excitement and strain that he might get rest and proper food. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_. The brothers did not as yet believe the pretensions and claims of Jesus (John:7:5|). Herod Antipas will later consider Jesus as John the Baptist _redivivus_, the scribes treat him as under demonic possession, even the family and friends fear a disordered mind as a result of overstrain. It was a crucial moment for Jesus. His family or friends came to take him home, to lay hold of him (\kratsai\), forcibly if need be.

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

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

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

rwp@Matthew:19:1 @{He departed} (\metren\). Literally, to lift up, change something to another place. Transitive in the LXX and in a Cilician rock inscription. Intransitive in strkjv@13:53| and here, the only N.T. instances. Absence of \hoti\ or \kai\ after \kai egeneto\, one of the clear Hebraisms in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1042f.). This verse is a sort of formula in Matthew at the close of important groups of \logia\ as in strkjv@7:28; strkjv@11:1; strkjv@13:53|. {The borders of Judea beyond Jordan} (\eis ta horia ts Ioudaias peran tou Iordanou\). This is a curious expression. It apparently means that Jesus left Galilee to go to Judea by way of Perea as the Galileans often did to avoid Samaria. Luke (Luke:17:11|) expressly says that he passed through Samaria and Galilee when he left Ephraim in Northern Judea (John:11:54|). He was not afraid to pass through the edge of Galilee and down the Jordan Valley in Perea on this last journey to Jerusalem. McNeile is needlessly opposed to the trans-Jordanic or Perean aspect of this phase of Christ's work.

rwp@Matthew:26:26 @{And blessed and brake it} (\eulogsas eklasen\). Special "Grace" in the middle of the passover meal, "as they were eating," for the institution of the Supper. Jesus broke one of the passover wafers or cakes that each might have a piece, not as a symbol of the breaking of his body as the Textus Receptus has it in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:24|. The correct text there has only to \huper humn\ without \klmenon\. As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not "broken" (John:19:33|) as John expressly states. {This is my body} (\touto estin to sma mou\). The bread as a symbol _represents_ the body of Jesus offered for us, "a beautifully simple, pathetic, and poetic symbol of his death" (Bruce). But some have made it "run into fetish worship" (Bruce). Jesus, of course, does not mean that the bread actually becomes his body and is to be worshipped. The purpose of the memorial is to remind us of his death for our sins.

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

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