NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp standpoint:

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

rwp@2Thessalonians:1:6 @{If so be that it is a righteous thing with God} (\eiper dikaion para thei\). Condition of first class, determined as fulfilled, assumed as true, but with \eiper\ (if on the whole, provided that) as in strkjv@Romans:8:9,17|, and with no copula expressed. A righteous thing "with God" means by the side of God (\para thei\) and so from God's standpoint. This is as near to the idea of absolute right as it is possible to attain. Note the phrase in verse 5|. {To recompense affliction to them that afflict you} (\antapodounai tois thlibousin hms thlipsin\). Second aorist active infinitive of double compound \ant-apodidmi\, old verb, either in good sense as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:9| or in bad sense as here. Paul is certain of this principle, though he puts it conditionally.

rwp@Acts:2:38 @{Repent ye} (\metanosate\). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You _crucified_ this Jesus. Now _crown_ him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. {And be baptized every one of you} (\kai baptistht hekastos hmn\). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (\en ti onomati Isou Christou\). In accordance with the command of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| (\eis to onoma\). No distinction is to be insisted on between \eis to onoma\ and \en ti onomati\ with \baptiz\ since \eis\ and \en\ are really the same word in origin. In strkjv@Acts:10:48| \en ti onomati Isou Christou\ occurs, but \eis\ to \onoma\ in strkjv@8:16; strkjv@19:5|. The use of \onoma\ means in the name or with the authority of one as \eis onoma prophtou\ (Matthew:10:41|) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in strkjv@Matthew:28:19|, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on ¯Matthew:28:19| for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). {Unto the remission of your sins} (\eis aphesin tn hamartin hmn\). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of \eis\ does exist as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:7| \eis doxan hmn\ (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of \eis\ for aim or purpose. It is seen in strkjv@Matthew:10:41| in three examples \eis onoma prophtou, dikaiou, mathtou\ where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in strkjv@Matthew:12:41| about the preaching of Jonah (\eis to krugma Ina\). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the _Koin_ generally (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. Songs:I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. {The gift of the Holy Ghost} (\tn drean tou hagiou pneumatos\). The gift consists (Acts:8:17|) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

rwp@Acts:10:34 @{Opened his mouth} (\anoixas to stoma\). Solemn formula for beginning his address (8:35; strkjv@18:14; strkjv@Matthew:5:2; strkjv@13:35|). But also good elocution for the speaker. {I perceive} (\katalambanomai\). Aoristic present middle of \katalamban\, to take hold of, the middle noting mental action, to lay hold with the mind (Acts:4:13; strkjv@10:34; strkjv@25:25; strkjv@Ephesians:3:18|). It had been a difficult thing for Peter to grasp, but now "of a truth" (\ep' altheias\) the light has cleared away the fogs. It was not until Peter had crossed the threshold of the house of Cornelius in the new environment and standpoint that he sees this new and great truth. {Respecter of persons} (\prospolmpts\). This compound occurs only here and in Chrysostom. It is composed of \prospon\ face or person (\pros\ and \ops\, before the eye or face) and \lamban\. The abstract form \prospolmpsia\ occurs in strkjv@James:2:1| (also strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9; strkjv@Colossians:3:25|) and the verb \prospolempte\ in strkjv@James:2:9|. The separate phrase (\lambanein prospon\) occurs in strkjv@Luke:20:21; strkjv@Galatians:2:6|. The phrase was already in the LXX (Deuteronomy:10:17; strkjv@2Chronicles:19:7; strkjv@Psalms:82:6|). Luke has simply combined the two words into one compound one. The idea is to pay regard to one's looks or circumstances rather than to his intrinsic character. The Jews had come to feel that they were the favourites of God and actually sons of the kingdom of heaven because they were descendants of Abraham. John the Baptist rebuked them for this fallacy.

rwp@Acts:11:26 @{Even for a whole year} (\kai eniauton holon\). Accusative of extent of time, probably the year A.D. 44, the year preceding the visit to Jerusalem (11:30|), the year of the famine. The preceding years with Tarsus as headquarters covered A.D. 37 (39) to 44. {They were gathered together with the church} (\sunachthnai en ti ekklsii\). First aorist passive infinitive of \sunag\, old verb, probably here to meet together as in strkjv@Matthew:28:12|. In strkjv@Acts:14:27| the verb is used of gathering together the church, but here \en ti ekklsii\ excludes that idea. Barnabas met together "in the church" (note first use of the word for the disciples at Antioch). This peculiar phrase accents the leadership and co-operation of Barnabas and Saul in teaching (\didaxai\, first aorist active infinitive) much people. Both infinitives are in the nominative case, the subject of \egeneto\ (it came to pass). {And that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch} (\chrmatisai te prts en Antiocheii tous mathtas Christianous\). This first active infinitive \chrmatisai\ is also a subject of \egeneto\ and is added as a separate item by the use of \te\ rather than \kai\. For the word itself in the sense of divine command see on ¯Matthew:2:12,22; strkjv@Luke:2:26; strkjv@Acts:10:22|. Here and in strkjv@Romans:7:3| it means to be called or named (assuming a name from one's business, \chrma\, from \chraomai\, to use or to do business). Polybius uses it in this sense as here. \Tous mathtas\ (the disciples) is in the accusative of general reference with the infinitive. \Christianous\ (Christians) is simply predicate accusative. This word is made after the pattern of \Herodianus\ (Matthew:22:16|, \Heridianoi\, followers of Herod), \Caesarianus\, a follower of Caesar (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 377, gives papyri examples of the genitive \Kaisaros\ meaning also "belonging to Caesar" like the common adjective \Caesarianus\). It is made thus like a Latin adjective, though it is a Greek word, and it refers to the Hebrew belief in a Messiah (Page). The name was evidently given to the followers of Christ by the Gentiles to distinguish them from the Jews since they were Greeks, not Grecian Jews. The Jews would not call them Christians because of their own use of \Christos\ the Messiah. The Jews termed them Galileans or Nazarenes. The followers of Christ called themselves disciples (learners), believers, brethren, saints, those of the Way. The three uses of Christian in the N.T. are from the heathen standpoint (here), strkjv@Acts:26:28| (a term of contempt in the mouth of Agrippa), and strkjv@1Peter:4:16| (persecution from the Roman government). It is a clear distinction from both Jews and Gentiles and it is not strange that it came into use first here in Antioch when the large Greek church gave occasion for it. Later Ignatius was bishop in Antioch and was given to the lions in Rome, and John Chrysostom preached here his wonderful sermons.

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@Galatians:4:9 @{Now that ye have come to know God} (\nun de gnontes\). Fine example of the ingressive second aorist active participle of \ginsk\, come to know by experience through faith in Christ. {Rather to be known of God} (\mallon de gnsthentes hupo theou\). First aorist passive participle of the same verb. He quickly turns it round to the standpoint of God's elective grace reaching them (verse 6|). {How} (\ps\). "A question full of wonder" (Bengel). See strkjv@1:6|. {Turn ye back again?} (\epistrephete palin?\). Present active indicative, "Are ye turning again?" See \metatithesthe\ in strkjv@1:6|. {The weak and beggarly rudiments} (\ta asthen kai ptcha stoicheia\). The same \stoicheia\ in verse 3| from which they had been delivered, "weak and beggarly," still in their utter impotence from the Pharisaic legalism and the philosophical and religious legalism and the philosophical and religious quests of the heathen as shown by Angus's _The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World_. These were eagerly pursued by many, but they were shadows when caught. It is pitiful today to see some men and women leave Christ for will o' the wisps of false philosophy. {Over again} (\palin anthen\). Old word, from above (\an\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:51|, from the first (Luke:1:3|), then "over again" as here, back to where they were before (in slavery to rites and rules).

rwp@James:1:27 @{Pure religion and undefiled} (\thrskeia kathara kai amiantos\). Numerous examples in papyri and inscriptions of \thrskeia\ for ritual and reverential worship in the Roman Empire (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_; Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 251). As Hort shows, this is not a definition of religion or religious worship, but only a pertinent illustration of the right spirit of religion which leads to such acts. {Before our God and Father} (\para ti thei kai patri\). By the side of (\para\) and so from God's standpoint (Mark:10:27|). \Amiantos\ (compound verbal adjective, alpha privative, \miain\ to defile), puts in negative form (cf. strkjv@1:4,6|) the idea in \kathara\ (pure, clean). This (\haut\). Feminine demonstrative pronoun in the predicate agreeing with \thrskeia\. {To visit} (\episkeptesthai\). Epexegetic (explaining \haut\) present middle infinitive of \episkeptomai\, common verb to go to see, to inspect, present tense for habit of going to see. See strkjv@Matthew:25:36,43| for visiting the sick. {The fatherless and widows} (\orphanous kai chras\). "The natural objects of charity in the community" (Ropes). \Orphanos\ is old word for bereft of father or mother or both. In N.T. only here and strkjv@John:14:18|. Note order (orphans before widows). {Unspotted} (\aspilon\). Old adjective (alpha privative and \spilos\, spot), spotless. This the more important of the two illustrations and the hardest to execute. {To keep} (\trein\). Present active infinitive, "to keep on keeping oneself un-specked from the world" (a world, \kosmos\, full of dirt and slime that bespatters the best of men).

rwp@James:3:13 @{Who} (\Tis\). Rhetorical interrogative like strkjv@Luke:11:11|. Common in Paul and characteristic of the diatribe. James here returns to the standpoint of verse 1| about many teachers. Speech and wisdom are both liable to abuse (1Corinthians:1:5,17; strkjv@2:1-3:20|). {Wise and understanding} (\sophos kai epistmn\). \Sophos\ is used for the practical teacher (verse 1|), \epistmn\ (old word from \epistamai\, here only in N.T.) for an expert, a skilled and scientific person with a tone of superiority. In strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:13,15; strkjv@4:6|, the two terms are practically synonyms. {Let him shew} (\deixat\). First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, old verb to show. As about faith in strkjv@2:18|. Emphatic position of this verb. {By his good life} (\ek ts kals anastrophs\). For this literary _Koin_ word from \anastrephomai\ (walk, conduct) see strkjv@Galatians:1:13|. Actions speak louder than words even in the case of the professional wise man. Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:15|. {In meekness of wisdom} (\en prautti sophias\). As in strkjv@1:21| of the listener, so here of the teacher. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:5:5; strkjv@11:29| and Zac strkjv@9:9| of King Messiah quoted in strkjv@Matthew:21:5|. Startling combination.

rwp@John:2:4 @{Woman} (\gunai\). Vocative case of \gun\, and with no idea of censure as is plain from its use by Jesus in strkjv@19:26|. But the use of \gunai\ instead of \mter\ (Mother) does show her she can no longer exercise maternal authority and not at all in his Messianic work. That is always a difficult lesson for mothers and fathers to learn, when to let go. {What have I to do with thee?} (\Ti emoi kai soi;\). There are a number of examples of this ethical dative in the LXX (Judges:11:12; strkjv@2Samuel:16:10; strkjv@1Kings:17:18; strkjv@2Kings:3:13; strkjv@2Chronicles:35:21|) and in the N.T. (Mark:1:24; strkjv@5:7; strkjv@Matthew:8:29; strkjv@27:19; strkjv@Luke:8:28|). Some divergence of thought is usually indicated. Literally the phrase means, "What is it to me and to thee?" In this instance F.C. Burkitt (_Journal of Theol. Studies_, July, 1912) interprets it to mean, "What is it to us?" That is certainly possible and suits the next clause also. {Mine hour is not yet come} (\oup hkei h hra mou\). This phrase marks a crisis whenever it occurs, especially of his death (7:30; strkjv@8:20; strkjv@12:23; strkjv@13:1; strkjv@17:1|). Here apparently it means the hour for public manifestation of the Messiahship, though a narrower sense would be for Christ's intervention about the failure of the wine. The Fourth Gospel is written on the plane of eternity (W. M. Ramsay) and that standpoint exists here in this first sign of the Messiah.

rwp@John:15:25 @{But this cometh to pass} (\all'\). Ellipsis in the Greek (no verb), as in strkjv@9:3; strkjv@13:18|. {In their law} (\en ti nomi autn\). Cf. strkjv@8:17; strkjv@10:34| for this standpoint. "Law" (\nomos\) here is for the whole of Scripture as in strkjv@12:34|. The allusion is to strkjv@Psalms:69:4| (or strkjv@Psalms:35:19|). The hatred of the Jews toward Jesus the promised Messiah (1:11|) is "part of the mysterious purpose of God" (Bernard) as shown by \hina plrthi\ (first aorist passive subjunctive of \plro\, to fulfil). {Without a cause} (\drean\). Adverbial accusative of \drea\ from \didmi\, gratuitously, then unnecessarily or _gratis_ (in two _Koin_ tablets, Nageli) as here and strkjv@Galatians:2:21|.

rwp@Luke:12:36 @{When he shall return from the marriage feast} (\pote analusi ek tn gamn\). The interrogative conjunction \pote\ and the deliberative aorist subjunctive retained in the indirect question. The verb \analu\, very common Greek verb, but only twice in the N.T. (here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:23|). The figure is breaking up a camp or loosening the mooring of a ship, to depart. Perhaps here the figure is from the standpoint of the wedding feast (plural as used of a single wedding feast in strkjv@Luke:14:8|), departing from there. See on ¯Matthew:22:2|. {When he cometh and knocketh} (\elthontos kai krousantos\). Genitive absolute of the aorist active participle without \autou\ and in spite of \autoi\ (dative) being used after \anoixsin\ (first aorist active subjunctive of \anoig\).

rwp@Luke:15:2 @{Both... and} (\te... kai\). United in the complaint. {Murmured} (\diegogguzon\). Imperfect active of \diagogguz\, late Greek compound in the LXX and Byzantine writers. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:7|. The force of \dia\ here is probably between or among themselves. It spread (imperfect tense) whenever these two classes came in contact with Jesus. As the publicans and the sinners were drawing near to Jesus just in that proportion the Pharisees and the scribes increased their murmurings. The social breach is here an open yawning chasm. {This man} (\houtos\). A contemptuous sneer in the use of the pronoun. They spoke out openly and probably pointed at Jesus. {Receiveth} (\prosdechetai\). Present middle indicative of the common verb \prosdechomai\. In strkjv@12:36| we had it for expecting, here it is to give access to oneself, to welcome like \hupedexato\ of Martha's welcome to Jesus (Luke:10:38|). The charge here is that this is the habit of Jesus. He shows no sense of social superiority to these outcasts (like the Hindu "untouchables" in India). {And eateth with them} (\kai sunesthiei autois\). Associative instrumental case (\autois\) after \sun-\ in composition. This is an old charge (Luke:5:30|) and a much more serious breach from the standpoint of the Pharisees. The implication is that Jesus prefers these outcasts to the respectable classes (the Pharisees and the scribes) because he is like them in character and tastes, even with the harlots. There was a sting in the charge that he was the "friend" (\philos\) of publicans and sinners (Luke:7:34|).

rwp@Mark:2:16 @{The scribes of the Pharisees} (\hoi grammateis tn Pharisain\). This is the correct text. Cf. "their scribes" in strkjv@Luke:5:30|. Matthew gave a great reception (\dochn\, strkjv@Luke:5:29|) in his house (Mark:2:15|). These publicans and sinners not simply accepted Levi's invitation, but they imitated his example "and were following Jesus" (\kai kolouthoun auti\). It was a motly crew from the standpoint of these young theologues, scribes of the Pharisees, who were on hand, being invited to pick flaws if they could. It was probably in the long hall of the house where the scribes stood and ridiculed Jesus and the disciples, unless they stood outside, feeling too pious to go into the house of a publican. It was an offence for a Jew to eat with Gentiles as even many of the early Jewish Christians felt (Acts:11:3|) and publicans and sinners were regarded like Gentiles (1Corinthians:5:11|).

rwp@Mark:2:18 @{John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting} (\san hoi mathtai Ianou kai hoi Pharisaioi nsteuontes\). The periphrastic imperfect, so common in Mark's vivid description. Probably Levi's feast happened on one of the weekly fast-days (second and fifth days of the week for the stricter Jews). Songs:there was a clash of standpoints. The disciples of John sided with the Pharisees in the Jewish ceremonial ritualistic observances. John was still a prisoner in Machaerus. John was more of an ascetic than Jesus (Matthew:18f.; strkjv@Luke:7:33-35|), but neither one pleased all the popular critics. These learners (\mathtai\) or disciples of John had missed the spirit of their leader when they here lined up with the Pharisees against Jesus. But there was no real congeniality between the formalism of the Pharisees and the asceticism of John the Baptist. The Pharisees hated John who had denounced them as broods of vipers. Here the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees (\hoi mathtai Ianou kai hoi mathtai tn Pharisain\) join in criticizing Jesus and his disciples. Later we shall see Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians, who bitterly detested each other, making com- mon cause against Jesus Christ. Songs:today we find various hostile groups combining against our Lord and Saviour. See on ¯Matthew:9:14-17| for comments. Matthew has here followed Mark closely.

rwp@Info_Matthew @ There are ten parables in Matthew not in the other Gospels: The Tares, the Hid Treasure, the Net, the Pearl of Great Price, the Unmerciful Servant, the Labourers in the Vineyard, the Two Sons, the Marriage of the King's Son, the Ten Virgins, the Talents. The only miracles in Matthew alone are the Two Blind Men, the Coin in the Mouth of the Fish. But Matthew gives the narrative of the Birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph while Luke tells that wonderful story from the standpoint of Mary. There are details of the Death and Resurrection given by Matthew alone.

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heureth en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.

rwp@Matthew:22:13 @{Was speechless} (\epsimth\). Was muzzled, dumb from confusion and embarrassment. It is used of the ox (1Timothy:5:18|). {The outer darkness} (\to skotos to exteron\). See strkjv@Matthew:8:12|. All the blacker from the standpoint of the brilliantly lighted banquet hall. {There shall be} (\ekei estai\). Out there in the outer darkness.