NT.filter - rwp brood:

rwp@John:4:1 @{When therefore} (\Hs oun\). Reference to strkjv@3:22f|. the work of the Baptist and the jealousy of his disciples. \Oun\ is very common in John's Gospel in such transitions. {The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). Songs:the best manuscripts (Neutral Alexandrian), though the Western class has \ho Isous\. Mark usually has \ho Isous\ and Luke often \ho Kurios\. In the narrative portion of John we have usually \ho Isous\, but \ho Kurios\ in five passages (4:1; strkjv@6:23; strkjv@11:2; strkjv@20:20; strkjv@21:12|). There is no reason why John should not apply \ho Kurios\ to Jesus in the narrative sections as well as Luke. Bernard argues that these are "explanatory glosses," not in the first draft of the Gospel. But why? When John wrote his Gospel he certainly held Jesus to be \Kurios\ (Lord) as Luke did earlier when he wrote both Gospel and Acts This is hypercriticism. {Knew} (\egn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. The Pharisees knew this obvious fact. It was easy for Jesus to know the attitude of the Pharisees about it (2:24|). Already the Pharisees are suspicious of Jesus. {How that} (\hoti\). Declarative \hoti\ (indirect assertion). {Was making and baptizing more disciples than John} (\pleionas mathtas poiei kai baptizei Ians\). Present active indicative in both verbs retained in indirect discourse. Recall the tremendous success of John's early ministry (Mark:1:5; strkjv@Matthew:3:5; strkjv@Luke:3:7,15|) in order to see the significance of this statement that Jesus had forged ahead of him in popular favour. Already the Pharisees had turned violently against John who had called them broods of vipers. It is most likely that they drew John out about the marriage of Herod Antipas and got him involved directly with the tetrarch so as to have him cast into prison (Luke:3:19f.|). Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. v. 2) gives a public reason for this act of Herod Antipas, the fear that John would "raise a rebellion," probably the public reason for his private vengeance as given by Luke. Apparently John was cast into prison, though recently still free (John:3:24|), before Jesus left for Galilee. The Pharisees, with John out of the way, turn to Jesus with envy and hate.

rwp@John:8:44 @{Ye are of your father the devil} (\humeis ek tou patros tou diabolou\). Certainly they can "understand" (\ginskete\ in 43|) this "talk" (\lalian\) though they will be greatly angered. But they had to hear it (\akouein\ in 43|). It was like a bombshell in spite of the preliminary preparation. {Your will to do} (\thelete poiein\). Present active indicative of \thel\ and present active infinitive, "Ye wish to go on doing." This same idea Jesus presents in strkjv@Matthew:13:38| (the sons of the evil one, the devil) and strkjv@23:15| (twofold more a son of Gehenna than you). See also strkjv@1John:3:8| for "of the devil" (\ek tou diabolou\) for the one who persists in sinning. In strkjv@Revelation:12:9| the devil is one who leads all the world astray. The Gnostic view that Jesus means "the father of the devil" is grotesque. Jesus does not, of course, here deny that the Jews, like all men, are children of God the Creator, like Paul's offspring of God for all men in strkjv@Acts:17:28|. What he denies to these Pharisees is that they are spiritual children of God who do his will. They do the lusts and will of the devil. The Baptist had denied this same spiritual fatherhood to the merely physical descendants of Abraham (Matthew:3:9|). He even called them "broods of vipers" as Jesus did later (Matthew:12:34|). {A murderer} (\anthrpoktonos\). Old and rare word (Euripides) from \anthrpos\, man, and \ktein\, to kill. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1John:3:15|. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus and so like their father the devil. {Stood not in the truth} (\en ti altheii ouk estken\). Since \ouk\, not \ouch\, is genuine, the form of the verb is \esteken\ the imperfect of the late present stem \stk\ (Mark:11:25|) from the perfect active \hestka\ (intransitive) of \histmi\, to place. {No truth in him} (\ouk estin altheia en auti\). Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. {When he speaketh a lie} (\hotan lali to pseudos\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the present active subjunctive of \lale\. But note the article \to\: "Whenever he speaks the lie," as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence "he speaks out of his own" (\ek tn idin lalei\) like a fountain bubbling up (cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:34|). {For he is a liar} (\hoti pseusts estin\). Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood (\pseudos\). See strkjv@1John:1:10; strkjv@Romans:3:4|. Common word in John because of the emphasis on \altheia\ (truth). {And the father thereof} (\kai ho patr autou\). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. {Autou} in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, "because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar," making "one," not the devil, the subject of "whenever he speaks," a very doubtful expression.

rwp@Luke:2:19 @{Kept} (\sunetrei\). Imperfect active. She kept on keeping together (\sun-\) all these things. They were meat and drink to her. She was not astonished, but filled with holy awe. The verb occurs from Aristotle on. She could not forget. But did not Mary keep also a Baby Book? And may not Luke have seen it? {Pondering} (\sunballousa\). An old Greek word. Placing together for comparison. Mary would go over each detail in the words of Gabriel and of the shepherds and compare the sayings with the facts so far developed and brood over it all with a mother's high hopes and joy.

rwp@Luke:2:50 @{They understood not} (\ou sunkan\). First aorist active indicative (one of the k aorists). Even Mary with all her previous preparation and brooding was not equal to the dawning of the Messianic consciousness in her boy. "My Father is God," Jesus had virtually said, "and I must be in His house." Bruce observes that a new era has come when Jesus calls God "Father," not \Despotes\. "Even we do not yet fully understand" (Bruce) what Jesus the boy here said.

rwp@Luke:13:34 @{O Jerusalem, Jerusalem} (\Ierousalm, Ierousalm\). In strkjv@Matthew:23:37f.| Jesus utters a similar lament over Jerusalem. The connection suits both there and here, but Plummer considers it "rather a violent hypothesis" to suppose that Jesus spoke these words twice. It is possible, of course, though not like Luke's usual method, that he put the words here because of the mention of Jerusalem. In itself it is not easy to see why Jesus could not have made the lament both here and in Jerusalem. The language of the apostrophe is almost identical in both places (Luke:13:34f.; strkjv@Matthew:23:37-39|). For details see on Matthew. In Luke we have \episunaxai\ (late first aorist active infinitive) and in Matthew \episunagagein\ (second aorist active infinitive), both from \episunag\, a double compound of late Greek (Polybius). Both have "How often would I" (\posakis thelsa\). How often did I wish. Clearly showing that Jesus made repeated visits to Jerusalem as we know otherwise only from John's Gospel. {Even as} (\hon tropon\). Accusative of general reference and in strkjv@Matthew:23:37| also. Incorporation of antecedent into the relative clause. {Brood} (\nossian\) is in Luke while Matthew has {chickens} (\nossia\), both late forms for the older \neossia\. The adjective {desolate} (\ermos\) is wanting in strkjv@Luke:13:35| and is doubtful in strkjv@Matthew:23:39|.

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@Matthew:3:7 @{The Pharisees and Sadducees} (\tn Pharisain kai Saddoukain\). These two rival parties do not often unite in common action, but do again in strkjv@Matthew:16:1|. "Here a strong attraction, there a strong repulsion, made them for the moment forget their differences" (McNeile). John saw these rival ecclesiastics "coming for baptism" (\erchomenous epi to baptisma\). Alford speaks of "the Pharisees representing hypocritical superstition; the Sadducees carnal unbelief." One cannot properly understand the theological atmosphere of Palestine at this time without an adequate knowledge of both Pharisees and Sadducees. The books are numerous besides articles in the Bible dictionaries. I have pictured the Pharisees in my first (1916) Stone Lectures, _The Pharisees and Jesus_. John clearly grasped the significance of this movement on the part of the Pharisees and Sadducees who had followed the crowds to the Jordan. He had welcomed the multitudes, but right in the presence of the crowds he exposes the hypocrisy of the ecclesiastics. {Ye offspring of vipers} (\gennmata echidnn\). Jesus (Matthew:12:34; strkjv@23:33|) will use the same language to the Pharisees. Broods of snakes were often seen by John in the rocks and when a fire broke out they would scurry (\phugein\) to their holes for safety. "The coming wrath" was not just for Gentiles as the Jews supposed, but for all who were not prepared for the kingdom of heaven (1Thessalonians:1:10|). No doubt the Pharisees and Sadducees winced under the sting of this powerful indictment.

rwp@Matthew:28:9 @{Jesus met them} (\Isous hupntsen autais\). Came suddenly face to face (\anta, hupo\) with them as they brooded over the message of the angel and the fact of the empty tomb (associative instrumental, \autais\). Cf. strkjv@8:34; strkjv@24:1-6|. Probably the lost portion of Mark's Gospel contained the story of this meeting with Jesus which changed their fears into joy and peace. His greeting was the ordinary "Hail" (\chairete\). They fell at his feet and held them in reverence while they worshipped him. Jesus allowed this act of worship though he forbade eager handling of his body by Mary Magdalene (John:20:17|). It was a great moment of faith and cheer.