NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp represents:

rwp@2Corinthians:5:20 @{We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ} (\huper Christou oun presbeuomen\). Old word from \presbus\, an old man, first to be an old man, then to be an ambassador (here and strkjv@Ephesians:6:20| with \en halusi\ in a chain added), common in both senses in the Greek. "The proper term in the Greek East for the Emperor's Legate" (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 374), in inscriptions and papyri. Songs:Paul has a natural pride in using this dignified term for himself and all ministers. The ambassador has to be _persona grata_ with both countries (the one that he represents and the one to which he goes). Paul was Christ's _Legate_ to act in his behalf and in his stead. {As though God were intreating by us} (\hs tou theou parakalountos di' hmn\). Genitive absolute with \hs\ used with the participle as often to give the reason (apparent or real). Here God speaks through Christ's Legate. {Be ye reconciled to God} (\katallagte ti thei\). Second aorist passive imperative of \katallass\ and used with the dative case. "Get reconciled to God," and do it now. This is the ambassador's message as he bears it to men from God.

rwp@Galatians:4:29 @{Persecuted} (\ediken\). Imperfect active of \dik\, to pursue, to persecute. strkjv@Genesis:21:9| has in Hebrew "laughing," but the LXX has "mocking." The Jewish tradition represents Ishmael as shooting arrows at Isaac. {Songs:now} (\houtos kai nun\) the Jews were persecuting Paul and all Christians (1Thessalonians:2:15f.|).

rwp@Hebrews:2:13 @{I will put my trust in him} (\Eg esomai pepoiths ep' auti\). A rare periphrastic (intransitive) future perfect of \peith\, a quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:8:17|. The author represents the Messiah as putting his trust in God as other men do (cf. strkjv@Hebrews:12:2|). Certainly Jesus did this constantly. The third quotation (\kai palin\, And again) is from strkjv@Isaiah:8:18| (the next verse), but the Messiah shows himself closely linked with the children (\paidia\) of God, the sons (\huioi\) of verse 10|.

rwp@Luke:1:35 @{Shall overshadow thee} (\episkiasei\). A figure of a cloud coming upon her. Common in ancient Greek in the sense of obscuring and with accusative as of Peter's shadow in strkjv@Acts:5:15|. But we have seen it used of the shining bright cloud at the Transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew:17:5; strkjv@Mark:9:7; strkjv@Luke:9:34|). Here it is like the Shekinah glory which suggests it (Exodus:40:38|) where the cloud of glory represents the presence and power of God. {Holy, the Son of God} (\Hagion huios theou\). Here again the absence of the article makes it possible for it to mean "Son of God." See strkjv@Matthew:5:9|. But this title, like the Son of Man (\Hosea:huios tou anthrpou\) was a recognized designation of the Messiah. Jesus did not often call himself Son of God (Matthew:27:43|), but it is assumed in his frequent use of the Father, the Son (Matthew:11:27; strkjv@Luke:10:21; strkjv@John:5:19ff.|). It is the title used by the Father at the baptism (Luke:3:22|) and on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke:9:35|). The wonder of Mary would increase at these words. The Miraculous Conception or Virgin Birth of Jesus is thus plainly set forth in Luke as in Matthew. The fact that Luke was a physician gives added interest to his report.

rwp@Luke:7:3 @{Sent unto him elders of the Jews} (\apesteilen pros auton presbouterous tn Ioudain\). strkjv@Matthew:8:5| says "the centurion came unto him." For discussion of this famous case of apparent discrepancy see discussion on Matthew. One possible solution is that Luke tells the story as it happened with the details, whereas Matthew simply presents a summary statement without the details. What one does through another he does himself. {Asking him} (\ertn auton\). Present active participle, masculine singular nominative, of the verb \erta\ common for asking a question as in the old Greek (Luke:22:68|). But more frequently in the N.T. the verb has the idea of making a request as here. This is not a Hebraism or an Aramaism, but is a common meaning of the verb in the papyri (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 168). It is to be noted here that Luke represents the centurion himself as "asking" through the elders of the Jews (leading citizens). In strkjv@Matthew:8:6| the verb is \parakaln\ (beseeching). {That he would come and save} (\hops elthn diassi\). \Hina\ is the more common final or sub-final (as here) conjunction, but \hops\ still occurs. \Diassi\ is effective aorist active subjunctive, to bring safe through as in a storm (Acts:28:1,4|). Common word.

rwp@Luke:7:7 @{Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee} (\dio oude emauton xisa pros se elthein\). Not in Matthew because he represents the centurion as coming to Jesus. {Speak the word} (\eipe logi\). As in strkjv@Matthew:8:8|. Second aorist active imperative with instrumental case, speak with a word. {My servant shall be healed} (\iatht ho pais mou\). Imperative first aorist passive, let be healed. \Pais\ literally means "boy," an affectionate term for the "slave," \doulos\ (verse 2|), who was "dear" to him.

rwp@Luke:23:48 @{Certainly} (\onts\). Really, old adverb from the participle \on\ from \eimi\, to be. Used also in strkjv@24:34| of the resurrection of Jesus. {A righteous man} (\dikaios\). strkjv@Mark:15:39| (Matthew:27:54|) which see, represents the centurion as saying \theou huios\ (God's Son) which may mean to him little more than "righteous man." {That came together} (\sunparagenomenoi\). Double compound (\sun\, together, \para\, along), that came along together. {To this sight} (\epi tn therian tautn\). This spectacle (\therian\ from \there\, verse 35|). {Returned} (\hupestrephon\). Imperfect active of \hupostreph\. See them slowly wending their way back to the city from this Tragedy of the Ages which they had witnessed in awe.

rwp@Mark:7:17 @{When he was entered into the house from the multitude} (\hote eislthen eis oikon apo tou ochlou\). This detail in Mark alone, probably in Peter's house in Capernaum. To the crowd Jesus spoke the parable of corban, but the disciples want it interpreted (cf. strkjv@4:10ff.,33ff.|). strkjv@Matthew:15:15| represents Peter as the spokesman as was usually the case.

rwp@Mark:10:21 @{Looking upon him loved him} (\emblepsas auti gapsen\). Mark alone mentions this glance of affection, ingressive aorist participle and verb. Jesus fell in love with this charming youth. {One thing thou lackest} (\Hen se husterei\). strkjv@Luke:18:22| has it: "One thing thou lackest yet" (\Eti hen soi leipei\). Possibly two translations of the same Aramaic phrase. strkjv@Matthew:19:20| represents the youth as asking "What lack I yet?" (\Ti eti huster;\). The answer of Jesus meets that inquiry after more than mere outward obedience to laws and regulations. The verb \huster\ is from the adjective \husteros\ (behind) and means to be too late, to come short, to fail of, to lack. It is used either with the accusative, as here, or with the ablative as in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:5|, or the dative as in Textus Receptus here, \soi\.

rwp@Mark:12:28 @{Heard them questioning together} (\akousas autn sunztountn\). The victory of Christ over the Sadducees pleased the Pharisees who now had come back with mixed emotions over the new turn of things (Matthew:22:34|). strkjv@Luke:20:39| represents one of the scribes as commending Jesus for his skilful reply to the Sadducees. Mark here puts this scribe in a favourable light, "knowing that he had answered them well" (\eids hoti kals apekrith autois\). "Them" here means the Sadducees. But strkjv@Matthew:22:35| says that this lawyer (\nomikos\) was "tempting" (\peirazn\) by his question. "A few, among whom was the scribe, were constrained to admire, even if they were willing to criticize, the Rabbi who though not himself a Pharisee, surpassed the Pharisees as a champion of the truth." That is a just picture of this lawyer. {The first of all} (\prt pantn\). First in rank and importance. strkjv@Matthew:22:36| has "great" (\megal\). See discussion there. Probably Jesus spoke in Aramaic. "First" and "great" in Greek do not differ essentially here. Mark quotes strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:4f.| as it stands in the LXX and also strkjv@Leviticus:19:18|. strkjv@Matthew:22:40| adds the summary: "On these two commandments hangeth (\krematai\) the whole law and the prophets."

rwp@Matthew:8:7 @{I will come and heal him} (\eg elthn therapeus auton\). Future indicative, not deliberative subjunctive in question (McNeile). The word here for heal (\therapeus\) means first to serve, give medical attention, then cure, restore to health. The centurion uses the more definite word for healing (\iathsetai\ strkjv@8:8|) as Matthew does in strkjv@8:13| (\iath\). Luke (Luke:9:11|), like a physician, says that Jesus healed (\iato\) those in need of treatment (\therapeias\), but the distinction is not always observed. In strkjv@Acts:28:8| Luke uses \iasato\ of the miraculous healings in Malta by Paul while he employs \etherapeuonto\ (Acts:28:9|) apparently of the practice of Luke the physician (so W. M. Ramsay). Matthew represents the centurion himself as speaking to Jesus while Luke has it that two committees from the centurion brought the messages, apparently a more detailed narrative. What one does through others he does himself as Pilate "scourged Jesus" (had him scourged).

rwp@Matthew:18:1 @{Who then is greatest} (\tis ara meizn estin\). The \ara\ seems to point back to the tax-collection incident when Jesus had claimed exemption for them all as "sons" of the Father. But it was not a new dispute, for jealousy had been growing in their hearts. The wonderful words of Jesus to Peter on Mount Hermon (Matthew:16:17-19|) had evidently made Peter feel a fresh sense of leadership on the basis of which he had dared even to rebuke Jesus for speaking of his death (16:22|). And then Peter was one of the three (James and John also) taken with the Master up on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter on that occasion had spoken up promptly. And just now the tax-collectors had singled out Peter as the one who seemed to represent the group. Mark (Mark:9:33|) represents Jesus as asking them about their dispute on the way into the house, perhaps just after their question in strkjv@Matthew:18:1|. Jesus had noticed the wrangling. It will break out again and again (Matthew:20:20-28; strkjv@Luke:22:24|). Plainly the primacy of Peter was not yet admitted by the others. The use of the comparative \meizn\ (so \ho meizn\ in verse 4|) rather than the superlative \megistos\ is quite in accord with the _Koin_ idiom where the comparative is displacing the superlative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 667ff.). But it is a sad discovery to find the disciples chiefly concerned about their own places (offices) in the political kingdom which they were expecting.

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autn moicheuthnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenn gamsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\m epi porneii\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha or moicheu\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Matthew:20:2 @{For a penny a day} (\ek dnariou tn hmeran\). See on ¯18:28|. "Penny" is not adequate, "shilling" Moffatt has it. The \ek\ with the ablative represents the agreement (\sunphnsas\) with the workmen (\ergatn\). "The day" the Greek has it, an accusative of extent of time.

rwp@Matthew:21:25 @{The baptism of John} (\to baptisma to Ianou\). This represents his relation to Jesus who was baptized by him. At once the ecclesiastical leaders find themselves in a dilemma created by their challenge of Christ. {They reasoned with themselves} (\dielogizonto\). Picturesque imperfect tense describing their hopeless quandary.

rwp@Matthew:23:10 @{Masters} (\kathgtai\). This word occurs here only in the N.T. It is found in the papyri for teacher (Latin, _doctor_). It is the modern Greek word for professor. "While \didaskalos\ represents \Rab\, \kathgtes\ stands for the more honourable \Rabban, -bn\" (McNeile). Dalman (_Words of Jesus_, p. 340) suggests that the same Aramaic word may be translated by either \didaskalos\ or \kathgtes\. {The Christ} (\ho Christos\). The use of these words here by Jesus like "Jesus Christ" in his Prayer (John:17:3|) is held by some to show that they were added by the evangelist to what Jesus actually said, since the Master would not have so described himself. But he commended Peter for calling him "the Christ the Son of the living God" (Matthew:16:16f.|). We must not empty the consciousness of Jesus too much.

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@Revelation:6:6 @{As it were a voice} (\hs phnn\). "This use of \hs\, giving a certain vagueness or mysteriousness to a phrase, is one of the characteristics of the writer's style, e.g., strkjv@8:1; strkjv@14:3; strkjv@19:1,6|" (Beckwith). This voice comes from the midst of the four living creatures, "the protest of nature against the horrors of famine" (Swete). {A measure} (\choinix\). Old word for less than a quart with us, here only in N.T. {Of wheat} (\sitou\). Old word for wheat, a number of times in N.T., in Rev. only here and strkjv@18:13|. This was enough wheat to keep a man of moderate appetite alive for a day. {For a penny} (\dnariou\). Genitive of price, the wages of a day laborer (Matthew:20:2|), about eighteen cents in our money today. {Of barley} (\krithn\). Old word \krith\, usually in plural as here. Barley was the food of the poor and it was cheaper even in the famine and it took more of it to support life. Here the proportion is three to one (cf. strkjv@2Kings:7:18|). The proclamation forbids famine prices for food (solid and liquid). {Hurt thou not} (\m adiksis\). Prohibition with \m\ and the ingressive first aorist active subjunctive of \adike\. See strkjv@7:3; strkjv@9:4| for \adike\ for injury to vegetable life. "The prohibition is addressed to the nameless rider who represents Dearth" (Swete). Wheat and barley, oil and the vine, were the staple foods in Palestine and Asia Minor.

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.