NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp misu:

rwp@1Peter:3:19 @{In which also} (\en hi kai\). That is, in spirit (relative referring to \pneumati\). But, a number of modern scholars have followed Griesbach's conjecture that the original text was either \Ne kai\ (Noah also), or \Ench kai\ (Enoch also), or \en hi kai Ench\ (in which Enoch also) which an early scribe misunderstood or omitted \Ench kai\ in copying (\homoioteleuton\). It is allowed in Stier and Theile's _Polyglott_. It is advocated by J. Cramer in 1891, by J. Rendel Harris in _The Expositor_ (1901), and _Sidelights on N.T. Research_ (p. 208), by Nestle in 1902, by Moffatt's New Translation of the New Testament. Windisch rejects it as inconsistent with the context. There is no manuscript for the conjecture, though it would relieve the difficulty greatly. Luther admits that he does not know what Peter means. Bigg has no doubt that the event recorded took place between Christ's death and his resurrection and holds that Peter is alluding to Christ's _Descensus ad Inferos_ in strkjv@Acts:2:27| (with which he compares strkjv@Matthew:27:52f.; strkjv@Luke:23:34; strkjv@Ephesians:4:9|). With this Windisch agrees. But Wohlenberg holds that Peter means that Christ in his preexistent state preached to those who rejected the preaching of Noah who are now in prison. Augustine held that Christ was in Noah when he preached. Bigg argues strongly that Christ during the time between his death and resurrection preached to those who once heard Noah (but are now in prison) and offered them another chance and not mere condemnation. If so, why did Jesus confine his preaching to this one group? Songs:the theories run on about this passage. One can only say that it is a slim hope for those who neglect or reject Christ in this life to gamble with a possible second chance after death which rests on very precarious exegesis of a most difficult passage in Peter's Epistle. Accepting the text as we have, what can we make of it? {He went and preached} (\poreutheis ekruxen\). First aorist passive (deponent) participle of \poreuomai\ and first aorist active indicative of \kruss\, the verb commonly used of the preaching of Jesus. Naturally the words mean personal action by Christ "in spirit" as illustration of his "quickening" (verse 18|) whether done before his death or afterwards. It is interesting to observe that, just as the relative \en hi\ here tells something suggested by the word \pneumati\ (in spirit) just before, so in verse 21| the relative \ho\ (which) tells another illustration of the words \di' hudatos\ (by water) just before. Peter jumps from the flood in Noah's time to baptism in Peter's time, just as he jumped backwards from Christ's time to Noah's time. He easily goes off at a word. What does he mean here by the story that illustrates Christ's quickening in spirit? {Unto the spirits in prison} (\tois en phulaki pneumasin\). The language is plain enough except that it does not make it clear whether Jesus did the preaching to spirits in prison at the time or to people whose spirits are now in prison, the point of doubt already discussed. The metaphorical use of \en phulaki\ can be illustrated by strkjv@2Peter:2:4; strkjv@Jude:1:6; strkjv@Revelation:20:7| (the final abode of the lost). See strkjv@Hebrews:12:23| for the use of \pneumata\ for disembodied spirits.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:9 @{Travail} (\mochthon\). Old word for difficult labour, harder than \kopos\ (toil). In the N.T. only here, strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:27|. Note accusative case here though genitive with \mnmoneu\ in strkjv@1:3|. {Night and day} (\nuktos kai hmeras\). Genitive case, both by day and by night, perhaps beginning before dawn and working after dark. Songs:in strkjv@3:10|. {That we might not burden any of you} (\pros to m epibarsai tina humn\). Use of \pros\ with the articular infinitive to express purpose (only four times by Paul). The verb \epibare\ is late, but in the papyri and inscriptions for laying a burden (\baros\) on (\epi-\) one. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:5|. Paul boasted of his financial independence where he was misunderstood as in Thessalonica and Corinth (2Corinthians:9-12|), though he vindicated his right to remuneration. {We preached} (\ekruxamen\). {We heralded} (from \krux\, herald) to you, common verb for preach.

rwp@2Peter:3:4 @{Where is the promise of his coming?} (\pou estin h epaggelia ts parousias autou;\). This is the only sample of the questions raised by these mockers. Peter had mentioned this subject of the \parousia\ in strkjv@1:16|. Now he faces it squarely. Peter, like Paul (1Thessalonians:5:1f.; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1f.|), preached about the second coming (1:16; strkjv@Acts:3:20f.|), as Jesus himself did repeatedly (Matthew:24:34|) and as the angels promised at the Ascension (Acts:1:11|). Both Jesus and Paul (2Thessalonians:2:1f.|) were misunderstood on the subject of the time and the parables of Jesus urged readiness and forbade setting dates for his coming, though his language in strkjv@Matthew:24:34| probably led some to believe that he would certainly come while they were alive. {From the day that} (\aph' hs\). "From which day." See strkjv@Luke:7:45|. {Fell asleep} (\ekoimthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \koima\, old verb, to put sleep, classic euphemism for death (John:11:11|) like our cemetery (sleeping-place). {Continue} (\diamenei\). Present active indicative of \diamen\, to remain through (Luke:1:22|). _In statu quo_. {As they were} (\houts\). "Thus." {From the beginning of creation} (\ap' archs ktises\). Precisely so in strkjv@Mark:10:6|, which see.

rwp@2Peter:3:16 @{As also in all his epistles} (\hs kai en pasais epistolais\). We do not know to how many Peter here refers. There is no difficulty in supposing that Peter "received every one of St. Paul's Epistles within a month or two of its publication" (Bigg). And yet Peter does not here assert the formation of a canon of Paul's Epistles. {Speaking in them of these things} (\laln en autais peri toutn\). Present active participle of \lale\. That is to say, Paul also wrote about the second coming of Christ, as is obviously true. {Hard to be understood} (\dusnota\). Late verbal from \dus\ and \noe\ (in Aristotle, Lucian, Diog. Laert.), here only in N.T. We know that the Thessalonians persisted in misrepresenting Paul on this very subject of the second coming as Hymenaeus and Philetus did about the resurrection (2Timothy:2:17|) and Spitta holds that Paul's teaching about grace was twisted to mean moral laxity like strkjv@Galatians:3:10; strkjv@Romans:3:20,28; strkjv@5:20| (with which cf. strkjv@6:1| as a case in point), etc. Peter does not say that he himself did not understand Paul on the subject of faith and freedom. {Unlearned} (\amatheis\). Old word (alpha privative and \manthan\ to learn), ignorant, here only in N.T. {Unsteadfast} (\astriktoi\). See on ¯2:14|. {Wrest} (\streblousin\). Present active indicative of \streblo\, old verb (from \streblos\ twisted, \streph\, to turn), here only in N.T. {The other scriptures} (\tas loipas graphas\). There is no doubt that the apostles claimed to speak by the help of the Holy Spirit (1Thessalonians:5:27; strkjv@Colossians:4:16|) just as the prophets of old did (2Peter:1:20f.|). Note \loipas\ (rest) here rather than \allas\ (other). Peter thus puts Paul's Epistles on the same plane with the O.T., which was also misused (Matthew:5:21-44; strkjv@15:3-6; strkjv@19:3-10|).

rwp@2Peter:3:17 @{Knowing these things beforehand} (\proginskontes\). Present active participle of \proginsk\ as in strkjv@1Peter:1:20|. Cf. \prton ginsk\ (1:20; strkjv@3:1|). Hence they are without excuse for misunderstanding Peter or Paul on this subject. {Beware} (\phulassesthe\). Present middle imperative of \phulass\, common verb, to guard. {Lest} (\hina m\). Negative purpose, "that not." {Being carried away} (\sunapachthentes\). First aorist passive participle of \sunapag\, old verb double compound, to carry away together with, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Galatians:2:13|. {With the error} (\ti plani\). Instrumental case, "by the error" (the wandering). {Of the wicked} (\tn athesmn\). See on strkjv@2:7|. {Ye fall from} (\ekpeste\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \hina m\ of \ekpipt\, old verb, to fall out of, with the ablative here (\strigmou\, steadfastness, late word from \striz\, here alone in N.T.) as in strkjv@Galatians:5:4| (\ts charitos exepesate\, ye fell out of grace).

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:9 @{Not because we have not the right} (\ouch hoti ouk echomen exousian\). Paul is sensitive on his {right} to receive adequate support (1Thessalonians:2:6; 1 Co strkjv@9:4| where he uses the same word \exousian\ in the long defence of this {right}, strkjv@1Corinthians:9:1-27|). Songs:he here puts in this limitation to avoid misapprehension. He did allow churches to help him where he would not be misunderstood (2Corinthians:11:7-11; strkjv@Phillipians:4:45f.|). Paul uses \ouch hoti\ elsewhere to avoid misunderstanding (2Corinthians:1:24; strkjv@3:5; strkjv@Phillipians:4:17|). {But to make ourselves an ensample unto you} (\all' hina heautous tupon dmen humin\). Literally, {but that we might give ourselves a type to you}. Purpose with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \didmi\. On \tupon\ see on ¯1Thessalonians:1:7|.

rwp@3John:1:7 @{For the sake of the Name} (\huper tou onomatos\). The name of Jesus. See strkjv@Acts:5:4; strkjv@Romans:1:5| for \huper tou onomatos\ and strkjv@James:2:7| for the absolute use of "the name" as in strkjv@1Peter:4:16|. "This name is in essence the sum of the Christian creed" (Westcott) as in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3; strkjv@Romans:10:9|. It is like the absolute use of "the Way" (Acts:9:2; strkjv@19:9,23; strkjv@24:22|). {Taking nothing} (\mden lambanontes\). Present active participle with the usual negative with participles (1John:2:4|). {Of the Gentiles} (\apo tn ethnikn\). Instead of the usual \ethnn\ (Luke:2:32|), late adjective for what is peculiar to a people (\ethnos\) and then for the people themselves (Polybius, Diodorus, not in LXX), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Matthew:5:47; strkjv@6:7; strkjv@18:17|. Like our heathen, pagan. John is anxious that Christian missionaries receive nothing from the heathen, as our missionaries have to watch against the charge of being after money. There were many travelling lecturers out for money. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:9| defends the right of preachers to pay, but refuses himself to accept it from Corinth because it would be misunderstood (cf. strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:6ff.; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:16ff. strkjv@12:16ff.|). Note \apo\ here as in collecting taxes (Matthew:17:25|) rather than \para\, which may be suggestive.

rwp@Acts:9:31 @{Songs:the church} (\H men oun ekklsia\). The singular \ekklsia\ is undoubtedly the true reading here (all the great documents have it so). By this time there were churches scattered over Judea, Galilee, and Samaria (Galatians:1:22|), but Luke either regards the disciples in Palestine as still members of the one great church in Jerusalem (instance already the work of Philip in Samaria and soon of Peter in Joppa and Caesarea) or he employs the term \ekklsia\ in a geographical or collective sense covering all of Palestine. The strictly local sense we have seen already in strkjv@8:1,3| (and strkjv@Matthew:18:17|) and the general spiritual sense in strkjv@Matthew:16:18|. But in strkjv@Acts:8:3| it is plain that the term is applied to the organization of Jerusalem Christians even when scattered in their homes. The use of \men oun\ (so) is Luke's common way of gathering up the connection. The obvious meaning is that the persecution ceased because the persecutor had been converted. The wolf no longer ravined the sheep. It is true also that the effort of Caligula A.D. 39 to set up his image in the temple in Jerusalem for the Jews to worship greatly excited the Jews and gave them troubles of their own (Josephus, _Ant_. XVIII. 8, 2-9). {Had peace} (\eichen eirnn\). Imperfect active. Kept on having peace, enjoying peace, because the persecution had ceased. Many of the disciples came back to Jerusalem and the apostles began to make preaching tours out from the city. This idiom (\ech eirnn\) occurs again in strkjv@Romans:5:1| (\eirnn echmen\, present active subjunctive) where it has been grievously misunderstood. There it is an exhortation to keep on enjoying the peace with God already made, not to make peace with God which would be \eirnn schmen\ (ingressive aorist subjunctive). {Edified} (\oikodomoumen\). Present passive participle, linear action also. One result of the enjoyment of peace after the persecution was the continued edification (Latin word _aedificatio_ for building up a house), a favourite figure with Paul (1Corinthians:14; strkjv@Ephesians:3|) and scattered throughout the N.T., old Greek verb. In strkjv@1Peter:2:5| Peter speaks of "the spiritual house" throughout the five Roman provinces being "built up" (cf. strkjv@Matthew:16:18|). {In the comfort of the Holy Spirit} (\ti paraklsei tou hagiou pneumatos\). Either locative ({in}) or instrumental case ({by}). The Holy Spirit had been promised by Jesus as "another Paraclete" and now this is shown to be true. The only instance in Acts of the use of \paraklsis\ with the Holy Spirit. The word, of course, means calling to one's side (\parakale\) either for advice or for consolation. {Was multiplied} (\eplthuneto\). Imperfect middle passive. The multiplication of the disciples kept pace with the peace, the edification, the walking in the fear of the Lord, the comfort of the Holy Spirit. The blood of the martyrs was already becoming the seed of the church. Stephen had not borne his witness in vain.

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

rwp@John:5:18 @{Sought the more} (\mallon eztoun\). Imperfect active of \zte\, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (\auton apokteinai\, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in strkjv@7:1,19,25; strkjv@8:37,40|. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. {Not only brake the Sabbath} (\ou monon elue to sabbaton\). Imperfect active of \lu\. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. \Lu\ means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of \lu\ in this sense like \luein ta penth\ (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. {But also called God his own Father} (\alla kai patera idion elege ton theon\). "His own" (\idion\) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See strkjv@Romans:8:32| for \ho idios huios\, "his own Son." {Making himself equal with God} (\ison heauton poin ti thei\). \Isos\ is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means {equal}. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ \isa thei\, "equal to God" (plural \isa\, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be \isos thei\ because in strkjv@John:14:28| he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in strkjv@14:7| that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in strkjv@10:33; strkjv@19:7|. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47|).

rwp@John:6:54 @{He that eateth} (\ho trgn\). Present active participle for continual or habitual eating like \pisteuete\ in verse 29|. The verb \trg\ is an old one for eating fruit or vegetables and the feeding of animals. In the N.T. it occurs only in strkjv@John:6:54,56,58; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@Matthew:24:38|. Elsewhere in the Gospels always \esthi\ or \ephagon\ (defective verb with \esthi\). No distinction is made here between \ephagon\ (48,50,52,53,58|) and \trg\ (54,56,57,58|). Some men understand Jesus here to be speaking of the Lord's Supper by prophetic forecast or rather they think that John has put into the mouth of Jesus the sacramental conception of Christianity by making participation in the bread and wine the means of securing eternal life. To me that is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ. It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus which these Jews also misunderstood. Christ uses bold imagery to picture spiritual appropriation of himself who is to give his life-blood for the life of the world (51|). It would have been hopeless confusion for these Jews if Jesus had used the symbolism of the Lord's Supper. It would be real dishonesty for John to use this discourse as a propaganda for sacramentalism. The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as he unfolds himself as the true manna.

rwp@John:8:29 @{Is with me} (\met' emou estin\). The Incarnation brought separation from the Father in one sense, but in essence there is complete harmony and fellowship as he had already said (8:16|) and will expand in strkjv@17:21-26|. {He hath not left me alone} (\ouk aphken me monon\). First aorist active indicative of \aphimi\. "He did not leave me alone." However much the crowds and the disciples misunderstood or left Jesus, the Father always comforted and understood him (Mark:6:46; strkjv@Matthew:14:23; strkjv@John:6:15|). {That are pleasing to him} (\ta aresta auti\). This old verbal adjective, from \aresk\, to please, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:6:2; strkjv@12:3; strkjv@1John:3:32|. The joy of Jesus was in doing the will of the Father who sent him (4:34|).

rwp@John:8:52 @{Now we know} (\nun egnkamen\). Perfect active indicative of \ginsk\, state of completion, "Now since such talk we have come to certain knowledge that thou hast a demon" (verse 48|). {Is dead} (\apethanen\). Second aorist active indicative of \apothnsk\. "Abraham died." {And thou sayest} (\kai su legeis\). Adversative use of \kai\, "and yet." Emphatic position of \su\ (thou). Same condition quoted as in verse 51|. {He shall never taste of death} (\ou me geustai thanatou eis ton aiona\). Same emphatic negative with subjunctive as in verse 51|, but \geustai\ (first aorist middle subjunctive of \geu\ with genitive case \thanatou\ (death). Another Hebraism for dying like \thersi\ (see) in verse 51|. Used in strkjv@Hebrews:2:9| of the death of Jesus and in Synoptics (Matthew:16:28; strkjv@Mark:9:1; strkjv@Luke:9:27|). It occurs in the Talmud, but not in the O.T. The Pharisees thus did not misquote Jesus, though they misunderstood him.

rwp@John:11:13 @{Had spoken} (\eirkei\). Past perfect of \eipon\ (\er\). The disciples had misunderstood Christ's metaphor for death. {That he spake} (\hoti legei\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse after the secondary tense (\edoxan\). {Of taking rest in sleep} (\peri ts koimses tou hupou\). Only use of \koimsis\ (from \koima\) in the N.T., but it also was used of death (Sirach strkjv@46:19). \Hupnou\ (in sleep) is objective genitive of \hupnos\ (sleep, strkjv@Matthew:1:24|).

rwp@Luke:22:36 @{Buy a sword} (\agorasat machairan\). This is for defence clearly. The reference is to the special mission in Galilee (Luke:9:1-6; strkjv@Mark:6:6-13; strkjv@Matthew:9:35-11:1|). They are to expect persecution and bitter hostility (John:15:18-21|). Jesus does not mean that his disciples are to repel force by force, but that they are to be ready to defend his cause against attack. Changed conditions bring changed needs. This language can be misunderstood as it was then.

rwp@Mark:5:19 @{Go to thy house unto thy friends} (\Hupage eis ton oikon sou pros tous sous\). "To thy own folks" rather than "thy friends." Certainly no people needed the message about Christ more than these people who were begging Jesus to leave. Jesus had greatly blessed this man and so gave him the hardest task of all, to go home and witness there for Christ. In Galilee Jesus had several times forbidden the healed to tell what he had done for them because of the undue excitement and misunderstanding. But here it was different. There was no danger of too much enthusiasm for Christ in this environment.

rwp@Mark:15:35 @{He calleth Elijah} (\Eleian phnei\). They misunderstood the \Eli\ or \Elei\ (my God) for Elijah.

rwp@Matthew:14:19 @{To sit down on the grass} (\anaklithnai epi tou chortou\). "Recline," of course, the word means, first aorist passive infinitive. A beautiful picture in the afternoon sun on the grass on the mountain side that sloped westward. The orderly arrangement (Mark) made it easy to count them and to feed them. Jesus stood where all could see him "break" (\klasas\) the thin Jewish cakes of bread and give to the disciples and they to the multitudes. This is a nature miracle that some men find it hard to believe, but it is recorded by all four Gospels and the only one told by all four. It was impossible for the crowds to misunderstand and to be deceived. If Jesus is in reality Lord of the universe as John tells us (John:1:1-18|) and Paul holds (Colossians:1:15-20|), why should we balk at this miracle? He who created the universe surely has power to go on creating what he wills to do.

rwp@Matthew:14:23 @{Into the mountain} (\eis to oros\). After the dismissal of the crowd Jesus went up alone into the mountain on the eastern side of the lake to pray as he often did go to the mountains to pray. If ever he needed the Father's sympathy, it was now. The masses were wild with enthusiasm and the disciples wholly misunderstood him. The Father alone could offer help now.

rwp@Matthew:26:52 @{Put up again thy sword} (\apostrepson tn machairan sou\). Turn back thy sword into its place. It was a stern rebuke for Peter who had misunderstood the teaching of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:22:38| as well as in strkjv@Matthew:5:39| (cf. strkjv@John:18:36|). The reason given by Jesus has had innumerable illustrations in human history. The sword calls for the sword. Offensive war is here given flat condemnation. The Paris Pact of 1928 (the Kellogg Treaty) is certainly in harmony with the mind of Christ. The will to peace is the first step towards peace, the outlawing of war. Our American cities are often ruled by gangsters who kill each other off.

rwp@Matthew:27:33 @{Golgotha} (\Golgotha\). Chaldaic or Aramaic _Gulgatha_, Hebrew _Gulgoleth_, place of a skull-shaped mount, not place of skulls. Latin Vulgate _Calvariae locus_, hence our Calvary. Tyndale misunderstood it as a place of dead men's skulls. Calvary or Golgotha is not the traditional place of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, but a place outside of the city, probably what is now called Gordon's Calvary, a hill north of the city wall which from the Mount of Olives looks like a skull, the rock-hewn tombs resembling eyes in one of which Jesus may have been buried.

rwp@Matthew:27:49 @{Whether Elijah cometh to save him} (\ei erchetai Eleias ssn auton\). The excuse had a pious sound as they misunderstood the words of Jesus in his outcry of soul anguish. We have here one of the rare instances (\ssn\) of the future participle to express purpose in the N.T. though a common Greek idiom. Some ancient MSS. add here what is genuine in strkjv@John:19:34|, but what makes complete wreck of the context for in verse 50| Jesus cried with a loud voice and was not yet dead in verse 49|. It was a crass mechanical copying by some scribe from strkjv@John:19:34|. See full discussion in my _Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N.T._

rwp@Matthew:28:1 @{Now late on the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week} (\opse de sabbatn, ti epiphskousi eis mian sabbatn\). This careful chronological statement according to Jewish days clearly means that before the sabbath was over, that is before six P.M., this visit by the women was made "to see the sepulchre" (\theorsai ton taphon\). They had seen the place of burial on Friday afternoon (Mark:15:47; strkjv@Matthew:27:61; strkjv@Luke:23:55|). They had rested on the sabbath after preparing spices and ointments for the body of Jesus (Luke:23:56|), a sabbath of unutterable sorrow and woe. They will buy other spices after sundown when the new day has dawned and the sabbath is over (Mark:16:1|). Both Matthew here and Luke (Luke:23:54|) use dawn (\epiphsk\) for the dawning of the twenty-four hour-day at sunset, not of the dawning of the twelve-hour day at sunrise. The Aramaic used the verb for dawn in both senses. The so-called Gospel of Peter has \epiphsk\ in the same sense as Matthew and Luke as does a late papyrus. Apparently the Jewish sense of "dawn" is here expressed by this Greek verb. Allen thinks that Matthew misunderstands Mark at this point, but clearly Mark is speaking of sunrise and Matthew of sunset. Why allow only one visit for the anxious women?

rwp@Revelation:11:9 @{Men from among} (\ek tn\ etc.). No word for "men" (\anthrpoi\ or \polloi\) before \ek tn\, but it is implied (partitive use of \ek\) as in strkjv@2:10| and often. See also strkjv@5:9; strkjv@7:9| for this enumeration of races and nations. {Do look upon} (\blepousin\). Present (vivid dramatic) active indicative of \blep\. {Three days and a half} (\hmeras treis kai hmisu\). Accusative of extent of time. \Hmisu\ is neuter singular though \hmeras\ (days) is feminine as in strkjv@Mark:6:23; strkjv@Revelation:12:14|. The days of the gloating over the dead bodies are as many as the years of the prophesying by the witnesses (11:3|), but there is no necessary correspondence (day for a year). This delight of the spectators "is represented as at once fiendish and childish" (Swete). {Suffer not} (\ouk aphiousin\). Present active indicative of \aphi\, late form for \aphimi\, as in strkjv@Mark:1:34| (cf. \apheis\ in strkjv@Revelation:2:20|). This use of \aphimi\ with the infinitive is here alone in the Apocalypse, though common elsewhere (John:11:44,48; strkjv@12:7; strkjv@18:8|). {Their dead bodies} (\ta ptmata autn\). "Their corpses," plural here, though singular just before and in verse 8|. {To be laid in a tomb} (\tethnai eis mnma\). First aorist passive of \tithmi\, to place. \Mnma\ (old word from \mimnsk\, to remind) is a memorial, a monument, a sepulchre, a tomb (Mark:5:3|). "In a country where burial regularly took place on the day of death the time of exposure and indignity would be regarded long" (Beckwith). See Tobit strkjv@1:18ff.

rwp@Revelation:12:14 @{There were given} (\edothsan\). As in strkjv@8:2; strkjv@9:1,3|. {The two wings of the great eagle} (\hai duo pteruges tou aetou tou megalou\). Not the eagle of strkjv@8:13|, but the generic use of the article. Every eagle had two wings. Probably here, as in strkjv@Matthew:24:28|, the griffon or vulture rather than the true eagle is pictured. For the eagle in the O.T. see strkjv@Exodus:19:4; strkjv@Isaiah:40:31; strkjv@Job:9:26; strkjv@Proverbs:24:54|. {That she might fly} (\hina pettai\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present middle subjunctive of \petomai\, old verb, to fly, in N.T. only in the Apocalypse (4:7; strkjv@8:13; strkjv@12:14; strkjv@14:6; strkjv@19:17|). Resumption of the details in verse 6| (which see) about the "wilderness," her "place," the redundant \ekei\ with \hopou\, the "time and times, and half a time" (\kairon kai kairous kai hmisu\), 1260 days, but with \trephetai\ (present passive indicative) instead of \trephsin\ (general plural of the present active subjunctive), and with the addition of "from the face of the serpent" (\apo prospou tou ophes\), because the serpent rules the earth for that period. "To the end of the present order the Church dwells in the wilderness" (Swete), and yet we must carry on for Christ.