Bible:
Filter: String:

NT.filter - rwp different:


rwp@1Corinthians:1:12 @{Now this I mean} (\leg“ de touto\). Explanatory use of \leg“\. Each has his party leader. \Apoll“\ is genitive of \Apoll“s\ (Acts:18:24|), probably abbreviation of \Apoll“nius\ as seen in Codex Bezae for strkjv@Acts:18:24|. See on Acts for discussion of this "eloquent Alexandrian" (Ellicott), whose philosophical and oratorical preaching was in contrast "with the studied plainness" of Paul (1Corinthians:2:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:10|). People naturally have different tastes about styles of preaching and that is well, but Apollos refused to be a party to this strife and soon returned to Ephesus and refused to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). \Cˆphƒ\ is the genitive of \Cˆphƒs\, the Aramaic name given Simon by Jesus (John:1:42|), \Petros\ in Greek. Except in strkjv@Galatians:2:7,8| Paul calls him Cephas. He had already taken his stand with Paul in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-11; strkjv@Galatians:2:7-10|). Paul had to rebuke him at Antioch for his timidity because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-14|), but, in spite of Baur's theory, there is no evidence of a schism in doctrine between Paul and Peter. If strkjv@2Peter:3:15f.| be accepted as genuine, as I do, there is proof of cordial relations between them and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:5| points in the same direction. But there is no evidence that Peter himself visited Corinth. Judaizers came and pitted Peter against Paul to the Corinthian Church on the basis of Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch. These Judaizers made bitter personal attacks on Paul in return for their defeat at the Jerusalem Conference. Songs:a third faction was formed by the use of Peter's name as the really orthodox wing of the church, the gospel of the circumcision. {And I of Christ} (\eg“ de Christou\). Still a fourth faction in recoil from the partisan use of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, with "a spiritually proud utterance" (Ellicott) that assumes a relation to Christ not true of the others. "Those who used this cry arrogated the common watchword as their _peculium_" (Findlay). This partisan use of the name of Christ may have been made in the name of unity against the other three factions, but it merely added another party to those existing. In scouting the names of the other leaders they lowered the name and rank of Christ to their level.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:11 @{Other foundation} (\themelion allon\). The gender of the adjective is here masculine as is shown by \allon\. If neuter, it would be \allo\. It is masculine because Paul has Christ in mind. It is not here \heteron\ a different kind of gospel (\heteron euaggelion\, strkjv@Galatians:1:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4|) which is not another (\allo\, strkjv@Galatians:1:7|) in reality. But another Jesus (2Corinthians:11:4|, \allon Iˆsoun\) is a reflection on the one Lord Jesus. Hence there is no room on the platform with Jesus for another Saviour, whether Buddha, Mahomet, Dowie, Eddy, or what not. Jesus Christ is the one foundation and it is gratuitous impudence for another to assume the role of Foundation. {Than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus} (\para ton keimenon, hos estin Iˆsous Christos\). Literally, "alongside (\para\) the one laid (\keimenon\)," already laid (present middle participle of \keimai\, used here as often as the perfect passive of \tithˆmi\ in place of \tetheimenon\). Paul scouts the suggestion that one even in the interest of so-called "new thought" will dare to lay beside Jesus another foundation for religion. And yet I have seen an article by a professor in a theological seminary in which he advocates regarding Jesus as a landmark, not as a goal, not as a foundation. Clearly Paul means that on this one true foundation, Jesus Christ, one must build only what is in full harmony with the Foundation which is Jesus Christ. If one accuses Paul of narrowness, it can be replied that the architect has to be narrow in the sense of building here and not there. A broad foundation will be too thin and unstable for a solid and abiding structure. It can be said also that Paul is here merely repeating the claim of Jesus himself on this very subject when he quoted strkjv@Psalms:118:22f.| to the members of the Sanhedrin who challenged his authority (Mark:11:10f.; strkjv@Matthew:21:42-45; strkjv@Luke:20:17f.|). Apostles and prophets go into this temple of God, but Christ Jesus is the chief corner stone (\akrog“naios\, strkjv@Ephesians:2:20|). All believers are living stones in this temple (1Peter:2:5|). But there is only one foundation possible.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:12 @{Gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble} (\chrusion, argurion, lithous timious, xula, chorton, kalamˆn\). The durable materials are three (gold, silver, marble or precious stones), perishable materials (pieces of wood, hay, stubble), "of a palace on the one hand, of a mud hut on the other" (Lightfoot). Gold was freely used by the ancients in their palaces. Their marble and granite pillars are still the wonder and despair of modern men. The wooden huts had hay (\chortos\, grass, as in strkjv@Mark:6:39|) and stubble (\kalamˆ\, old word for stubble after the grain is cut, here alone in the N.T., though in LXX as strkjv@Exodus:5:12|) which were employed to hold the wood pieces together and to thatch the roof. It is not made clear whether Paul's metaphor refers to the persons as in God's building in verse 9| or to the character of the teaching as in verse 13|. Probably both ideas are involved, for look at the penalty on shoddy work (verse 15|) and shoddy men (verse 17|). The teaching may not always be vicious and harmful. It may only be indifferent and worthless. A co-worker with God in this great temple should put in his very best effort.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:6 @{I have in a figure transferred} (\meteschˆmatisa\). First aorist active (not perfect) indicative of \meta-schˆmatiz“\, used by Plato and Aristotle for changing the form of a thing (from \meta\, after, and \schˆma\, form or habit, like Latin _habitus_ from \ech“\ and so different from \morphˆ\ as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:12:2|). For the idea of refashioning see Field, _Notes_, p. 169f. and Preisigke, _Fachworter_). Both Greek and Latin writers (Quintilian, Martial) used \schˆma\ for a rhetorical artifice. Paul's use of the word (in Paul only in N.T.) appears also further in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13-15| where the word occurs three times, twice of the false apostles posing and passing as apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness, and once of Satan as an angel of light, twice with \eis\ and once with \h“s\. In strkjv@Phillipians:3:21| the word is used for the change in the body of our humiliation to the body of glory. But here it is clearly the rhetorical figure for a veiled allusion to Paul and Apollos "for your sakes" (\dia humas\). {That in us ye may learn} (\hina en hˆmin mathˆte\). Final clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \manthan“\, to learn. As an object lesson in our cases (\en hˆmin\). It is no more true of Paul and Apollos than of other ministers, but the wrangles in Corinth started about them. Songs:Paul boldly puts himself and Apollos to the fore in the discussion of the principles involved. {Not to go beyond the things which are written} (\to Mˆ huper ha gegraptai\). It is difficult to reproduce the Greek idiom in English. The article \to\ is in the accusative case as the object of the verb \mathˆte\ (learn) and points at the words "\Mˆ huper ha gegraptai\," apparently a proverb or rule, and elliptical in form with no principal verb expressed with \mˆ\, whether "think" (Auth.) or "go" (Revised). There was a constant tendency to smooth out Paul's ellipses as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26,31|. Lightfoot thinks that Paul may have in mind O.T. passages quoted in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:19,31; strkjv@3:19,20|. {That ye be not puffed up} (\hina mˆ phusiousthe\). Sub-final use of \hina\ (second use in this sentence) with notion of result. It is not certain whether \phusiousthe\ (late verb form like \phusia“, phusa“\, to blow up, to inflate, to puff up), used only by Paul in the N.T., is present indicative with \hina\ like \zˆloute\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:17| (cf. \hina gin“skomen\ in strkjv@1John:5:20|) or the present subjunctive by irregular contraction (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 203, 342f.), probably the present indicative. \Phusio“\ is from \phusis\ (nature) and so meant to make natural, but it is used by Paul just like \phusa“\ or \phusia“\ (from \phusa\, a pair of bellows), a vivid picture of self-conceit. {One for the one against the other} (\heis huper tou henos kata tou heterou\). This is the precise idea of this idiom of partitive apposition. This is the rule with partisans. They are "for" (\huper\) the one and "against" (\kata\, down on, the genitive case) the other (\tou heterou\, not merely another or a second, but the different sort, \heterodox\).

rwp@1Corinthians:12:10 @{Workings of miracles} (\energˆmata duname“n\). Workings of powers. Cf. \energ“n dunameis\ in strkjv@Galatians:3:5; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4| where all three words are used (\sˆmeia\, signs, \terata\, wonders, \dunameis\, powers). Some of the miracles were not healings as the blindness on Elymas the sorcerer. {Prophecy} (\prophˆteia\). Late word from \prophˆtˆs\ and \prophˆmi\, to speak forth. Common in papyri. This gift Paul will praise most (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:14|). Not always prediction, but a speaking forth of God's message under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. {Discernings of spirits} (\diakriseis pneumat“n\). \Diakrisis\ is old word from \diakrin“\ (see strkjv@11:29|) and in N.T. only here; strkjv@Romans:14:1; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14|. A most needed gift to tell whether the gifts were really of the Holy Spirit and supernatural (cf. so-called "gifts" today) or merely strange though natural or even diabolical (1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@1John:4:1f.|). {Divers kinds of tongues} (\genˆ gl“ss“n\). No word for "divers" in the Greek. There has arisen a great deal of confusion concerning the gift of tongues as found in Corinth. They prided themselves chiefly on this gift which had become a source of confusion and disorder. There were varieties (kinds, \genˆ\) in this gift, but the gift was essentially an ecstatic utterance of highly wrought emotion that edified the speaker (14:4|) and was intelligible to God (14:2,28|). It was not always true that the speaker in tongues could make clear what he had said to those who did not know the tongue (14:13|): It was not mere gibberish or jargon like the modern "tongues," but in a real language that could be understood by one familiar with that tongue as was seen on the great Day of Pentecost when people who spoke different languages were present. In Corinth, where no such variety of people existed, it required an interpreter to explain the tongue to those who knew it not. Hence Paul placed this gift lowest of all. It created wonder, but did little real good. This is the error of the Irvingites and others who have tried to reproduce this early gift of the Holy Spirit which was clearly for a special emergency and which was not designed to help spread the gospel among men. See on ¯Acts:2:13-21; strkjv@10:44-46; strkjv@19:6|. {The interpretation of tongues} (\hermˆneia gl“ss“n\). Old word, here only and strkjv@14:26| in N.T., from \hermˆneu“\ from \Hermˆs\ (the god of speech). Cf. on \diermˆneu“\ in strkjv@Luke:24:27; strkjv@Acts:9:36|. In case there was no one present who understood the particular tongue it required a special gift of the Spirit to some one to interpret it if any one was to receive benefit from it.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:12 @{Songs:also is Christ} (\hout“s kai ho Christos\). One would naturally expect Paul here to say \hout“s kai to s“ma tou Christou\ (so also is the body of Christ). He will later call Christ the Head of the Body the Church as in strkjv@Colossians:1:18,24; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23,30|. Aristotle had used \s“ma\ of the state as the body politic. What Paul here means is Christ as the Head of the Church has a body composed of the members who have varied gifts and functions like the different members of the human body. They are all vitally connected with the Head of the body and with each other. This idea he now elaborates in a remarkable manner.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:13 @{Were we all baptized into one body} (\hˆmeis pantes eis hen s“ma ebaptisthˆmen\). First aorist passive indicative of \baptiz“\ and so a reference to a definite past event with each of them of different races, nations, classes, when each of them put on the outward badge of service to Christ, the symbol of the inward changes already wrought in them by the Holy Spirit (Galatians:3:27; strkjv@Romans:6:2ff.|). {And were all made to drink of one Spirit} (\kai pantes hen pneuma epotisthˆmen\). First aorist passive indicative of \potiz“\, old verb, to give to drink. The accusative \hen pneuma\ is retained in the passive as often with verbs that in the active take two accusatives. The reference is to a definite act in the past, probably to the inward experience of the Holy Spirit symbolized by the act of baptism.

rwp@1Corinthians:13:12 @{In a mirror} (\di' esoptrou\). By means of a mirror (\esoptron\, from \opt“\, old word, in papyri). Ancient mirrors were of polished metal, not glass, those in Corinth being famous. {Darkly} (\en ainigmati\). Literally, in an enigma. Old word from \ainissomai\, to express obscurely. This is true of all ancient mirrors. Here only in N.T., but often in LXX. "To see a friend's face in a cheap mirror would be very different from looking at the friend" (Robertson and Plummer). {Face to face} (\pros“pon pros pros“pon\). Note triple use of \pros\ which means facing one as in strkjv@John:1:1|. \Pros“pon\ is old word from \pros\ and \ops\, eye, face. {Shall I know} (\epign“somai\). I shall fully (\epi-\) know. Future middle indicative as \gin“sk“\ (I know) is present active and \epegn“sthˆn\ (I was fully known) is first aorist passive (all three voices).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:39 @{The same flesh} (\hˆ autˆ sarx\). Paul takes up animal life to show the great variety there is as in the plant kingdom. Even if evolution should prove to be true, Paul's argument remains valid. Variety exists along with kinship. Progress is shown in the different kingdoms, progress that even argues for a spiritual body after the body of flesh is lost. {Of beasts} (\ktˆn“n\). Old word, from \ktaomai\, to possess, and so property. See strkjv@Luke:10:34|. {Of birds} (\ptˆn“n\). Old word from \petomai\, to fly, winged, flying. Only here in N.T.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:42 @{Songs:is the resurrection of the dead} (\hout“s kai hˆ anastasis t“n nekr“n\). Paul now applies his illustrations to his argument to prove the kind of body we shall have after the resurrection. He does it by a series of marvellous contrasts that gather all his points. The earthly and the risen beings differ in duration, value, power (Wendt). {It is sown} (\speiretai\). In death, like the seed (37|). {In incorruption} (\en aphtharsiƒi\). Late word from \a\ privative and \phtheir“\, to corrupt. In LXX, Plutarch, Philo, late papyrus of a Gnostic gospel, and quotation from Epicurus. Vulgate _incorruptio_. The resurrection body has undergone a complete change as compared with the body of flesh like the plant from the seed. It is related to it, but it is a different body of glory.

rwp@1John:2:19 @{From us} (\ex hˆm“n\) {--of us} (\ex hˆm“n\). The same idiom, \ex\ and the ablative case (\hˆm“n\), but in different senses to correspond with \exˆlthan\ (they went out from our membership) and \ouk ˆsan\ (they were not of us in spirit and life). For \ex\ in the sense of origin see strkjv@John:17:15|, for \ex\ in the sense of likeness, strkjv@John:17:14|. {For if they had been of us} (\ei gar ex hˆm“n ˆsan\). Condition of second class with \ei\ and imperfect tense (no aorist for \eimi\). {They would have continued} (\memenˆkeisan an\). Past perfect of \men“\, to remain, without augment, with \an\ in apodosis of second-class condition. {With us} (\meth' hˆm“n\). In fellowship, for which see \meta\ in strkjv@1:3|. They had lost the inner fellowship and then apparently voluntarily broke the outward. {But they went} (\all'\). Ellipsis of the verb \exˆlthan\ above, a common habit (ellipse) in John s Gospel (1:8; strkjv@9:3; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@15:25|). {That they might be made manifest} (\hina phaner“th“sin\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \phanero“\, for which verb see strkjv@John:21:1; strkjv@Colossians:3:4|. See strkjv@2Corinthians:3:3| for the personal construction with \hoti\ as here. {They all are not} (\ouk eisin pantes\). Not just some, but all, as in strkjv@2:21; strkjv@3:5|. These antichrists are thus revealed in their true light.

rwp@1John:4:18 @{Fear} (\phobos\). Like a bond-slave (Romans:8:15|), not the reverence of a son (\eulabeia\, strkjv@Hebrews:5:7f.|) or the obedience to a father (\en phob“i\, strkjv@1Peter:1:17|). This kind of dread is the opposite of \parrˆsia\ (boldness). {Perfect love} (\hˆ teleia agapˆ\). There is such a thing, perfect because it has been perfected (verses 12,17|). Cf. strkjv@James:1:4|. {Casteth out fear} (\ex“ ballei ton phobon\). "Drives fear out" so that it does not exist in real love. See \ekball“ ex“\ in strkjv@John:6:37; strkjv@9:34f.; strkjv@12:31; strkjv@15:6| to turn out-of-doors, a powerful metaphor. Perfect love harbours no suspicion and no dread (1Corinthians:13|). {Hath punishment} (\kolasin echei\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:25:46|. \Tim“ria\ has only the idea of penalty, \kolasis\ has also that of discipline, while \paideia\ has that of chastisement (Hebrews:12:7|). The one who still dreads (\phoboumenos\) has not been made perfect in love (\ou tetelei“tai\). Bengel graphically describes different types of men: "sine timore et amore; cum timore sine amore; cum timore et amore; sine timore cum amore."

rwp@1John:5:18 @{We know} (\oidamen\). As in strkjv@3:2,14; strkjv@5:15,19,20|. He has "ye know" in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:5,15|. {Sinneth not} (\ouch hamartanei\). Lineal present active indicative, "does not keep on sinning," as he has already shown in strkjv@3:4-10|. {He that was begotten of God} (\ho gennˆtheis ek tou theou\). First aorist passive articular participle referring to Christ, if the reading of A B is correct (\tˆrei auton\, not \tˆrei heauton\). It is Christ who keeps the one begotten of God (\gegennˆmenos ek tou theou\ as in strkjv@3:9| and so different from \ho gennˆtheis\ here). It is a difficult phrase, but this is probably the idea. Jesus (John:18:37|) uses \gegennˆmai\ of himself and uses also \tˆre“\ of keeping the disciples (John:17:12,15; strkjv@Revelation:3:10|). {The evil one} (\ho ponˆros\). Masculine and personal as in strkjv@2:13|, not neuter, and probably Satan as in strkjv@Matthew:6:13|, not just any evil man. {Touchest him not} (\ouch haptetai autou\). Present middle indicative of \hapt“\, elsewhere in John only strkjv@John:20:17|. It means to lay hold of or to grasp rather than a mere superficial touch (\thiggan“\, both in strkjv@Colossians:2:21|). Here the idea is to touch to harm. The devil cannot snatch such a man from Christ (John:6:38f.|).

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:12 @{Them that labour among you} (\tous kopi“ntas en humin\). Old word for toil even if weary. {And are over you in the Lord} (\kai proistamenous hum“n en Kuri“i\). Same article with this participle. Literally, those who stand in front of you, your leaders in the Lord, the presbyters or bishops and deacons. Get acquainted with them and follow them. {And admonish you} (\kai nouthetountas humas\). Old verb from \nouthetˆs\ and this from \nous\ (mind) and \tithˆmi\, to put. Putting sense into the heads of people. A thankless, but a necessary, task. The same article connects all three participles, different functions of the same leaders in the church.

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

rwp@1Timothy:6:3 @{Teacheth a different doctrine} (\heterodidaskalei\). See strkjv@1:3| for this verb, present active indicative here in condition of first class. {Consenteth not} (\mˆ proserchetai\). Also condition of first class with \mˆ\ instead of \ou\. \Proserchomai\ (old verb, to come to, to approach, with dative) is common enough in N.T. (Hebrews:4:16; strkjv@7:25|, etc.), but in the metaphorical sense of coming to one's ideas, assenting to, here only in N.T., but is so used in Philo and Irenaeus (Ellicott). {Sound words} (\hugiainousin logois\). See strkjv@1:10| for \hugiain“\. {The words of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tois tou kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). Either subjective genitive (the words from the Lord Jesus, a collection of his sayings in Lock's opinion like strkjv@5:18; strkjv@Acts:20:35|, at least in the Spirit of Jesus as strkjv@Acts:16:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23|) or objective genitive about Jesus like strkjv@2Timothy:1:8; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:18|. {According to godliness} (\kata eusebeian\). Promoting (designed for) godliness as in strkjv@Titus:1:1|.

rwp@2Corinthians:6:14 @{Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers} (\mˆ ginesthe heterozugountes apistois\). No other example of this verb has yet been found, though the adjective from which it is apparently formed, \heterozugos\ (yoked with a different yoke) occurs in strkjv@Leviticus:19:19| of the union of beasts of different kinds. In strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:10| we read: "Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together." Literally, "Stop becoming (\mˆ ginesthe\ present imperative, not \mˆ genˆsthe\ aorist subj.) unequally yoked with unconverted heathen (unbelievers)." Some were already guilty. Marriage is certainly included, but other unions may be in mind. Cf. strkjv@Ephesians:5:7|. Paul gives as the reason (\gar\) for this prohibition five words in questions to distinguish the contrasts. {Fellowship} (\metochˆ\). Sharing with and followed by associative instrumental case of \dikaiosunˆi\ (righteousness) and iniquity (\anomiƒi\). A pertinent challenge today when church members wink at violations of laws of the land and laws of God. {Communion} (\koin“nia\). Partnership to light (\ph“ti\ dative case) with (\pros\), facing darkness.

rwp@2Corinthians:9:4 @{If there come with me any of Macedonia and find you unprepared} (\ean elth“sin sun emoi Makedones kai heur“sin humas aparaskeuastous\). Condition of third class (undetermined, but stated as a lively possibility) with \ean\ and the second aorist active subjunctive (\elth“sin, heur“sin\), a bold and daring challenge. \Aparaskeuastos\ is a late and rare verbal adjective from \paraskeuaz“\ with \a\ privative, only here in the N.T. {Lest by any means we should be put to shame} (\mˆ p“s kataischunth“men hˆmeis\). Negative purpose with first aorist passive subjunctive of \kataischun“\ (see on ¯7:14|) in the literary plural. {That we say not, ye} (\hina mˆ leg“men humeis\). A delicate syntactical turn for what he really has in mind. He does wish that they become ashamed of not paying their pledges. {Confidence} (\hupostasei\). This word, common from Aristotle on, comes from \huphistˆmi\, to place under. It always has the notion of substratum or foundation as here; strkjv@11:17; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3|. The papyri give numerous examples (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) of the word for "property" in various aspects. Songs:in strkjv@Hebrews:11:1| "faith is the title-deed of things hoped for." In the LXX it represents fifteen different Hebrew words.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:3 @{In the flesh} (\en sarki\). But that is a very different thing from walking \kata sarka\ according to the standards of the flesh as his enemies charged. It is easy enough to make insinuations. {We war} (\strateuometha\). Literary plural again after \logizomai\ in verse 2|. Old word to lead an army (\stratos\). In N.T. only in the middle as here. Paul admits that he fights, but only the devil and his agents even if wearing the livery of heaven. Paul knew the Roman army well. He knows how to use the military metaphor.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:10 @{They say} (\phasin\). Reading of B old Latin Vulgate, but Westcott and Hort prefer \phˆsin\ (says one, the leader). This charge Paul quotes directly. {Weighty and strong} (\bareiai kai ischurai\). These adjectives can be uncomplimentary and mean "severe and violent" instead of "impressive and vigorous." The adjectives bear either sense. {His bodily presence} (\hˆ parousia tou s“matos\). This certainly is uncomplimentary. "The presence of his body." It seems clear that Paul did not have a commanding appearance like that of Barnabas (Acts:14:12|). He had some physical defect of the eyes (Galatians:4:14|) and a thorn in the flesh (2Corinthians:12:7|). In the second century _Acts of Paul and Thecla_ he is pictured as small, short, bow-legged, with eye-brows knit together, and an aquiline nose. A forgery of the fourth century in the name of Lucian describes Paul as "the bald-headed, hook-nosed Galilean." However that may be, his accusers sneered at his personal appearance as "weak" (\asthenˆs\). {His speech of no account} (\ho logos exouthenˆmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \exouthene“\, to treat as nothing (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:28|). The Corinthians (some of them) cared more for the brilliant eloquence of Apollos and did not find Paul a trained rhetorician (1Corinthians:1:17; strkjv@2:1,4; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:6|). He made different impressions on different people. "Seldom has any one been at once so ardently hated and so passionately loved as St. Paul" (Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 70). "At one time he seemed like a man, and at another he seemed like an angel" (_Acts of Paul and Thecla_). He spoke like a god at Lystra (Acts:14:8-12|), but Eutychus went to sleep on him (Acts:20:9|). Evidently Paul winced under this biting criticism of his looks and speech.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:28 @{Besides those things that are without} (\ch“ris t“n parektos\). Probably, "apart from those things beside these just mentioned." Surely no man ever found glory in such a peck of troubles as Paul has here recounted. His list should shame us all today who are disposed to find fault with our lot. {That which presseth upon me daily} (\hˆ epistasis moi hˆ kath' hˆmeran\). For this vivid word \epistasis\ see strkjv@Acts:24:12|, the only other place in the N.T. where it occurs. It is like the rush of a mob upon Paul. {Anxiety for all the churches} (\hˆ merimna pas“n t“n ekklˆsi“n\). Objective genitive after \merimna\ (distractions in different directions, from \meriz“\) for which word see on ¯Matthew:13:22|. Paul had the shepherd heart. As apostle to the Gentiles he had founded most of these churches.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorˆge“\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophˆteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai idi“tai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE RESEMBLANCE TO THE EPISTLE OF JUDE This is undoubted, particularly between Jude:and the second chapter of II Peter. Kuhl argues that strkjv@2Peter:2:1-3:2| is an interpolation, though the same style runs through out the Epistle. "The theory of interpolation is always a last and desperate expedient" (Bigg). In II Peter 2 we have the fallen angels, the flood, the cities of the plain with Lot, Balaam. In Jude:we have Israel in the wilderness, the fallen angels, the cities of the plain (with no mention of Lot, Cain, Balaam, Korah). Jude:mentions the dispute between Michael and Satan, quotes Enoch by name. There is rather more freshness in Jude:than in II Peter, though II Peter is more intelligible. Evidently one had the other before him, besides other material. Which is the earlier? There is no way to decide this point clearly. Every point is looked at differently and argued differently by different writers. My own feeling is that Jude:was before (just before) II Peter, though it is only a feeling and not a conviction.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE READERS The author says that this is his second Epistle to them (2Peter:3:1|), and that means that he is writing to the saints in the five Roman provinces in Asia Minor to whom the first Epistle was sent (1Peter:1:1|). Spitta and Zahn deny this on the ground that the two Epistles do not discuss the same subjects, surely a flimsy objection. Zahn even holds that II Peter precedes I Peter and that the Epistle referred to in strkjv@2Peter:3:1| has been lost. He holds that II Peter was addressed to the church in Corinth. He considers the readers to be Jews while I Peter was addressed to Gentiles. But "there is nothing in II Peter to differentiate its first readers from those of I Peter" (Bigg).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882).,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). strkjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Sim“n Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Syme“n\ as in strkjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Sim“n\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. strkjv@2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan“\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in strkjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \timˆ\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \timˆ\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \timˆ\ in strkjv@1:7,19; strkjv@2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hˆmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \tˆi hˆm“n\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosunˆi\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosunˆ\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \s“tˆros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in strkjv@1:11| as in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|. Songs:in strkjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patˆr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in strkjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in strkjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:6 @{Now we command you} (\paraggellomen de humin\). Paul puts into practice the confidence expressed on their obedience to his commands in verse 4|. {In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ} (\en onomati tou kuriou Iˆsou Christou\). {Name} (\onoma\) here for authority of Jesus Christ with which compare {through the Lord Jesus} (\dia tou kuriou Iˆsou\) in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:2|. For a full discussion of the phrase see the monograph of W. Heitmuller, _Im Namen Jesu_. Paul wishes his readers to realize the responsibility on them for their obedience to his command. {That ye withdraw yourselves} (\stellesthai humas\). Present middle (direct) infinitive of \stell“\, old verb to place, arrange, make compact or shorten as sails, to move oneself from or to withdraw oneself from (with \apo\ and the ablative). In strkjv@2Corinthians:8:20| the middle voice (\stellomenoi\) means taking care. {From every brother that walketh disorderly} (\apo pantos adelphou atakt“s peripatountos\). He calls him "brother" still. The adverb \atakt“s\ is common in Plato and is here and verse 11| alone in the N.T., though the adjective \ataktos\, equally common in Plato we had in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| which see. Military term, out of ranks. {And not after the tradition} (\kai mˆ kata tˆn paradosin\). See on ¯2:15| for \paradosin\. {Which they received of us} (\hˆn parelabosan par hˆm“n\). Westcott and Hort put this form of the verb (second aorist indicative third person plural of \paralamban“\, the \-osan\ form instead of \-on\, with slight support from the papyri, but in the LXX and the Boeotian dialect, Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 335f.) in the margin with \parelabete\ (ye received) in the text. There are five different readings of the verb here, the others being \parelabon, parelabe, elabosan\.

rwp@2Timothy:2:2 @{From me} (\par' emou\). As in strkjv@1:13|. Paul was Timothy's chief teacher of Christ. {Among many witnesses} (\dia poll“n martur“n\). Plutarch has \dia\ in this sense and Field (_Ot. Norv._) suggests that it is a legal phrase "supported by many witnesses." Not mere spectators, but testifiers. See Paul's use of \dia\ strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:2; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:4; strkjv@Romans:2:27; strkjv@14:20|. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1-8| gives many witnesses of the resurrection of Christ. {Commit thou} (\parathou\). Second aorist middle imperative of \paratithˆmi\ (1Timothy:1:18|) to deposit, same metaphor as \parathˆkˆ\ in strkjv@1:12,14|. "Deposit thou." {Faithful} (\pistois\). "Trustworthy," "reliable," as in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12| of Paul himself. {Able} (\hikanoi\). Capable, qualified, as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:16; strkjv@3:5|. {Others also} (\kai heterous\). Not necessarily "different," but "others in addition." This is the way to pass on the torch of the light of the knowledge of God in Christ. Paul taught Timothy who will teach others who will teach still others, an endless chain of teacher-training and gospel propaganda.

rwp@Acts:1:19 @{Language} (\dialekt“i\). Not a dialect of the Greek, but a different language, the Aramaic. Songs:also in strkjv@2:6; strkjv@21:40|. \Dialektos\ is from \dialegomai\, to converse, to speak between two (\dia\). {Akeldama} (\Hakeldamach\). This Aramaic word Peter explains as "the field of blood." Two traditions are preserved: one in strkjv@Matthew:27:7| which explains that the priests purchased this potter's field with the money which Judas flung down as the price of the blood of Jesus. The other in Acts describes it as the field of blood because Judas poured out his blood there. Hackett and Knowling argue that both views can be true. "The ill-omened name could be used with a double emphasis" (Hackett).

rwp@Acts:2:11 @{Cretes and Arabians}. These two groups "seem to have been added to the list as an afterthought" (Knowling). Crete is an island to itself and Arabia was separate also though near Judea and full of Jews. The point is not that each one of these groups of Jews spoke a different language, but that wherever there was a local tongue they heard men speaking in it. {We do hear them speaking} (\akouomen lalount“n aut“n\). Genitive case \aut“n\ with \akou“\ the participle \lalount“n\ agreeing with \aut“n\, a sort of participial idiom of indirect discourse (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1040ff.). {The mighty works} (\ta megaleia\). Old adjective for magnificent. In LXX, but only here (not genuine in strkjv@Luke:1:49|) in the N.T. Cf. strkjv@2Peter:1:16| for \megaleiotˆs\ (majesty).

rwp@Acts:2:17 @{In the last days} (\en tais eschatais hˆmerais\). Joel does not have precisely these words, but he defines "those days" as being "the day of the Lord" (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:2:2; strkjv@Micah:4:1|). {I will pour forth} (\ekche“\). Future active indicative of \ekche“\. This future like \edomai\ and \piomai\ is without tense sign, probably like the present in the futuristic sense (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 354). Westcott and Hort put a different accent on the future, but the old Greek had no accent. The old Greek had \ekcheus“\. This verb means to pour out. {Of my Spirit} (\apo tou pneumatos\). This use of \apo\ (of) is either because of the variety in the manifestations of the Spirit (1Corinthians:12|) or because the Spirit in his entirety remains with God (Holtzmann, Wendt). But the Hebrew has it: "I will pour out my Spirit" without the partitive idea in the LXX. {And your daughters} (\kai hai thugateres h–m“n\). Anna is called a prophetess in strkjv@Luke:2:36| and the daughters of Philip prophesy (Acts:21:9|) and verse 18| (handmaidens). See also strkjv@1Corinthians:11:5| (\prophˆtousa\). {Visions} (\horaseis\). Late word for the more common \horama\, both from \hora“\, to see. In strkjv@Revelation:4:3| it means appearance, but in strkjv@Revelation:9:17| as here an ecstatic revelation or vision. {Dream dreams} (\enupniois enupniasthˆsontai\). Shall dream with (instrumental case) dreams. First future passive of \enupniaz“\ from \enupnios\ (\en\ and \hupnos\, in sleep), a common late word. Only here in the N.T. (this from Joel as all these verses 17-21| are) and strkjv@Jude:1:8|. {Yea and} (\kai ge\). Intensive particle \ge\ added to \kai\ (and), an emphatic addition (=Hebrew _vegam_). {Servants} (\doulous\), {handmaidens} (\doulas\). Slaves, actual slaves of men. The humblest classes will receive the Spirit of God (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26-31|). But the word "prophesy" here is not in the LXX (or the Hebrew).

rwp@Acts:2:33 @{By the right hand of God} (\tˆi dexiƒi tou theou\). This translation makes it the instrumental case. The margin has it "at" instead of "by," that is the locative case. And it will make sense in the true dative case, "to the right hand of God." These three cases came to have the same form in Greek. strkjv@Romans:8:24| furnishes another illustration of like ambiguity (\tˆi elpidi\), saved by hope, in hope, or for hope. Usually it is quite easy to tell the case when the form is identical. {Exalted} (\hups“theis\). First aorist passive participle of \hupso“\, to lift up. Here both the literal and tropical sense occurs. Cf. strkjv@John:12:32|. {The promise of the Holy Spirit} (\tˆn epaggelian tou pneumatos tou hagiou\). The promise mentioned in strkjv@1:4| and now come true, consisting in the Holy Spirit "from the Father" (\para tou patros\), sent by the Father and by the Son (John:15:26; strkjv@16:7|). See also strkjv@Galatians:3:14|. {He hath poured forth} (\execheen\). Aorist active indicative of \ekche“\ the verb used by Joel and quoted by Peter already in verses 17,18|. Jesus has fulfilled his promise. {This which ye see and hear} (\touto ho humeis kai blepete kai akouete\). This includes the sound like the rushing wind, the tongues like fire on each of them, the different languages spoken by the 120. "The proof was before their eyes in this new energy from heaven" (Furneaux), a culminating demonstration that Jesus was the Messiah.

rwp@Acts:2:40 @{With many other words} (\heterois logois pleiosin\). Instrumental case. Not necessarily "different" (\heterois\), but "further," showing that Luke does not pretend to give all that Peter said. This idea is also brought out clearly by \pleiosin\ ("more," not "many"), more than these given by Luke. {He testified} (\diemarturato\). First aorist middle of \diamarturomai\, old verb, to make solemn attestation or call to witness (perfective use of \dia\), while \marture“\ is to bear witness. Page insists that here it should be translated "protested solemnly" to the Jews as it seems to mean in strkjv@Luke:16:28; strkjv@Acts:20:23; strkjv@1Timothy:5:21; strkjv@2Timothy:2:14; strkjv@4:1|. {And exhorted} (\kai parekalei\). Imperfect active, kept on exhorting. {Save yourselves} (\s“thˆte\). First aorist passive of \s“z“\. Literally, Be ye saved. {Crooked} (\skolias\). Old word, opposite of \orthos\, straight. _Pravus_ the opposite of _rectus_, a perversity for turning off from the truth. Cf. strkjv@Luke:9:41; strkjv@Phillipians:2:15|.

rwp@Acts:7:18 @{Another king} (\basileus heteros\). A different kind of king also, probably a king of the new dynasty after the shepherd kings had been expelled from Egypt. {Who knew not Joseph} (\hos ouk ˆidei ton I“sˆph\). Second past perfect of \oida\ used like an imperfect. Joseph's history and services meant nothing to the new king. "The previous dynasty had been that of the Hyksos: the new king was Ahmes who drove out the Hyksos" (Knobel).

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

rwp@Acts:10:10 @{Hungry} (\prospeinos\) Only instance of the word known, a \hapax legomenon\. Probably "very hungry" (\pros\=besides, in addition). {Desired} (\ˆthelen\). Imperfect active. Was longing to eat. It was about twelve o'clock noon and Peter may even have smelt the savory dishes, "while they made ready" (\paraskeuazont“n\). "The natural and the supernatural border closely on one another, with no definable limits" (Furneaux). {He fell into a trance} (\egeneto ep' auton ekstasis\). More exactly, "An ecstasy came upon him," in which trance he passed out of himself (\ekstasis\, from \existˆmi\) and from which one came to himself (12:11|). Cf. also strkjv@11:5; strkjv@22:17|. It is thus different from a vision (\horama\) as in verse 3|.

rwp@Acts:11:1 @{In Judea} (\kata tˆn Ioudaian\). Throughout Judea (probably all Palestine), distributive use of \kata\. The news from Casearea spread like wildfire among the Jewish Christians. The case of the Samaritans was different, for they were half Jews, though disliked. But here were real Romans even if with Jewish affinities. {Had received} (\edexanto\). First aorist middle indicative. The English idiom requires "had" received, the Greek has simply "received."

rwp@Acts:11:8 @{Came into my mouth} (\eisˆlthen eis to stoma mou\). Instead of \ephagon\ (I ate) in strkjv@10:14|. Different phrase for the same idea.

rwp@Acts:12:18 @{As soon as it was day} (\Genomenˆs hˆmeras\). Genitive absolute, day having come. {No small stir} (\tarachos ouk oligos\). Litotes (\ouk oligos\), occurs eight times in the Acts as in strkjv@15:2|, and nowhere else in the N.T. \Tarachos\ (stir) is an old word from \tarass“\, to agitate. In the N.T only here and strkjv@19:23|. Probably all sixteen soldiers were agitated over this remarkable escape. They were responsible for the prisoner with their lives (cf. strkjv@Acts:16:27; strkjv@27:42|). Furneaux suggests that Manaen, the king's foster-brother and a Christian (13:1|), was the "angel" who rescued Peter from the prison. That is not the way that Peter looked at it. {What was become of Peter} (\ti ara ho Petros egeneto\). An indirect question with the aorist indicative retained. \Ara\ adds a syllogism (therefore) to the problem as in strkjv@Luke:1:66|. The use of the neuter \ti\ (as in strkjv@Acts:13:25|) is different from \tis\, though nominative like \Petros\, literally, "what then Peter had become," "what had happened to Peter" (in one idiom). See the same idiom in strkjv@John:21:21| (\houtos de ti\). {But this one what} (verb \genˆsetai\ not used).

rwp@Acts:13:49 @{Was spread abroad} (\diephereto\). Imperfect passive of \diapher“\, to carry in different directions (\dia\). By the recent converts as well as by Paul and Barnabas. This would seem to indicate a stay of some months with active work among the Gentiles that bore rich fruit. {Throughout all the region} (\di' holˆs tˆs ch“ras\). Antioch in Pisidia as a Roman colony would be the natural centre of a Roman _Regio_, an important element in Roman imperial administration. There were probably other _Regiones_ in South Galatia (Ramsay, _St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen_, pp. 102-12).

rwp@Acts:15:17 @{That the residue of men may seek after the Lord} (\hop“s an ekzˆtˆs“sin hoi kataloipoi t“n anthr“p“n ton kurion\). The use of \hop“s\ with the subjunctive (effective aorist active) to express purpose is common enough and note \an\ for an additional tone of uncertainty. On the rarity of \an\ with \hop“s\ in the _Koin‚_ see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 986. Here the Gentiles are referred to. The Hebrew text is quite different, "that they may possess the remnant of Edom." Certainly the LXX suits best the point that James is making. But the closing words of this verse point definitely to the Gentiles both in the Hebrew and the LXX, "all the Gentiles" (\panta ta ethnˆ\). Another item of similarity between this speech and the Epistle of James is in the phrase "my name is called" (\epikeklˆtai to onoma mou\) and strkjv@James:2:7|. The purpose of God, though future, is expressed by this perfect passive indicative \epikeklˆtai\ from \epi-kale“\, to call on. It is a Jewish way of speaking of those who worship God.

rwp@Acts:17:7 @{Whom Jason hath received} (\hous hupodedektai Ias“n\). Present perfect middle indicative of \hupodechomai\, to entertain, old verb, but in N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:10:38; strkjv@19:6; strkjv@Acts:17:7; strkjv@James:2:25|. This is Jason's crime and he is the prisoner before the politarchs. {These all} (\houtoi pantes\). Jason, the "brethren" of verse 6|, Paul and Silas, and all Christians everywhere. {Contrary} (\apenanti\). Late compound preposition (\apo, en, anti\) found in Polybius, LXX, here only in the N.T. {The decrees of Caesar} (\t“n dogmat“n Kaisaros\). This was a charge of treason and was a sure way to get a conviction. Probably the Julian _Leges Majestatis_ are in mind rather than the definite decree of Claudius about the Jews (Acts:18:2|). {Saying that there is another king, one Jesus} (\Basilea heteron legontes einai Iˆsoun\). Note the very order of the words in the Greek indirect discourse with the accusative and infinitive after \legontes\. \Basilea heteron\ comes first, a different king, another emperor than Caesar. This was the very charge that the smart student of the Pharisees and Herodians had tried to catch Jesus on (Mark:12:14|). The Sanhedrin made it anyhow against Jesus to Pilate (Luke:23:2|) and Pilate had to notice it. "Although the emperors never ventured to assume the title _rex_ at Rome, in the Eastern provinces they were regularly termed _basileus_" (Page). The Jews here, as before Pilate (John:19:15|), renounce their dearest hope of a Messianic king. It is plain that Paul had preached about Jesus as the Messiah, King of the Kingdom of God over against the Roman Empire, a spiritual kingdom, to be sure, but the Jews here turn his language to his hurt as they did with Jesus. As a matter of fact Paul's preaching about the kingdom and the second coming of Christ was gravely misunderstood by the Christians at Thessalonica after his departure (1Thessalonians:4:13-5:4; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2|). The Jews were quick to seize upon his language about Jesus Christ to his own injury. Clearly here in Thessalonica Paul had faced the power of the Roman Empire in a new way and pictured over against it the grandeur of the reign of Christ.

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai t“n Epikouri“n kai St“ik“n philosoph“n suneballon aut“i\). 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 (\Gn“thi 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} (\zen“n daimoni“n 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 S“kratˆs, kaina daimonia eispher“n\, 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 Iˆsoun kai tˆn anastasin euˆggelizato\). 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@Acts:17:19 @{And they took hold of him} (\epilabomenoi de autou\). Second aorist middle participle of \epilamban“\, old verb, but in the N.T. only in the middle, here with the genitive \autou\ to lay hold of, but with no necessary sense of violence (Acts:9:27; strkjv@23:27; strkjv@Mark:8:23|), unless the idea is that Paul was to be tried before the Court of Areopagus for the crime of bringing in strange gods. But the day for that had passed in Athens. Even so it is not clear whether "{unto the Areopagus} (\epi ton Areion Pagon\") means the Hill of Mars (west of the Acropolis, north of the agora and reached by a flight of steps in the rock) or the court itself which met elsewhere as well as on the hills, usually in fact in the Stoa Basilica opening on the agora and near to the place where the dispute had gone on. Raphael's cartoon with Paul standing on Mars Hill has made us all familiar with the common view, but it is quite uncertain if it is true. There was not room on the summit for a large gathering. If Paul was brought before the Court of Areopagus (commonly called the Areopagus as here), it was not for trial as a criminal, but simply for examination concerning his new teaching in this university city whether it was strictly legal or not. Paul was really engaged in proselytism to turn the Athenians away from their old gods to Jesus Christ. But "the court of refined and polished Athenians was very different from the rough provincial magistrates of Philippi, and the philosophers who presented Paul to their cognizance very different from the mob of Thessalonians" (Rackham). It was all very polite. {May we know?} (\Dunametha gn“nai\). Can we come to know (ingressive second aorist active infinitive). {This new teaching} (\hˆ kainˆ hautˆ didachˆ\). On the position of \hautˆ\ see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 700f. The question was prompted by courtesy, sarcasm, or irony. Evidently no definite charge was laid against Paul.

rwp@Acts:17:26 @{And he made of one} (\epoiˆsen te ex henos\). The word \haimatos\ (blood) is absent from Aleph A B and is a later explanatory addition. What Paul affirms is the unity of the human race with a common origin and with God as the Creator. This view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan (the Jews were \laos\, the Gentiles \ethnˆ\). The cosmopolitanism of Paul here rises above Jew and Greek and claims the one God as the Creator of the one race of men. The Athenians themselves claimed to be \antochthonous\ (indigenous) and a special creation. Zeno and Seneca did teach a kind of cosmopolitanism (really pantheism) far different from the personal God of Paul. It was Rome, not Greece, that carried out the moral ideas of Zeno. Man is part of the universe (verse 24|) and God created (\epoiˆsen\) man as he created (\poiˆsas\) the all. {For to dwell} (\katoikein\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose, so as to dwell. {Having determined} (\horisas\). First aorist active participle of \horiz“\, old verb to make a horizon as already in strkjv@19:42| which see. Paul here touches God's Providence. God has revealed himself in history as in creation. His hand appears in the history of all men as well as in that of the Chosen People of Israel. {Appointed seasons} (\prostetagmenous kairous\). Not the weather as in strkjv@14:17|, but "the times of the Gentiles" (\kairoi ethn“n\) of which Jesus spoke (Luke:21:24|). The perfect passive participle of \prostass“\, old verb to enjoin, emphasizes God's control of human history without any denial of human free agency as was involved in the Stoic Fate (\Heirmarmenˆ\). {Bounds} (\horothesias\). Limits? Same idea in strkjv@Job:12:23|. Nations rise and fall, but it is not blind chance or hard fate. Thus there is an interplay between God's will and man's activities, difficult as it is for us to see with our shortened vision.

rwp@Acts:18:12 @{When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia} (\Galli“nos de anthupatou ontos tˆs Achaias\). Genitive absolute of present participle \ontos\. Brother of Seneca the Stoic (Nero's tutor) and uncle of Lucan the author of the \Pharsalia\. His original name was M. Annaeus Novatus till he was adopted by Gallio the rhetorician. The family was Spanish. Gallio was a man of culture and refinement and may have been chosen proconsul of Achaia for this reason. Statius calls him "_dulcis Gallio_." Seneca says of him: _Nemo enim mortalium uni tam dulcis quam hic omnibus_ (No one of mortals is so pleasant to one person as he is to all). Luke alone among writers says that he was proconsul, but Seneca speaks of his being in Achaia where he caught fever, a corroboration of Luke. But now a whitish grey limestone inscription from the Hagios Elias quarries near Delphi (a letter of Claudius to Delphi) has been found which definitely names Gallio as proconsul of Achaia (\authupatos tˆs Achaias\). The province of Achaia after various shifts (first senatorial, then imperial) back and forth with Macedonia, in A.D. 44 Claudius gave back to the Senate with proconsul as the title of the governor. It is amazing how Luke is confirmed whenever a new discovery is made. The discovery of this inscription has thrown light also on the date of Paul's work in Corinth as it says that Gallio came in the 26th acclamation of Claudius as Emperor in A.D. 51, that would definitely fix the time of Paul in Corinth as A.D. 50 and 51 (or 51 and 52). Deissmann has a full and able discussion of the whole matter in Appendix I to his _St. Paul_. {Rose up} (\katepestˆsan\). Second aorist active of \kat-eph-istˆmi\, intransitive, to take a stand against, a double compound verb found nowhere else. They took a stand (\estˆsan\) against (\kata\, down on, \epi\, upon), they made a dash or rush at Paul as if they would stand it no longer. {Before the judgment seat} (\epi to bˆma\). See on ¯12:21|. The proconsul was sitting in the basilica in the forum or agora. The Jews had probably heard of his reputation for moderation and sought to make an impression as they had on the praetors of Philippi by their rush (\sunepestˆ\, strkjv@16:22|). The new proconsul was a good chance also (25:2|). Songs:for the second time Paul faces a Roman proconsul (Sergius Paulus, strkjv@13:7|) though under very different circumstances.

rwp@Acts:18:17 @{They all laid hold on Sosthenes} (\epilabomenoi pantes S“sthenˆn\). See strkjv@16:19; strkjv@17:19| for the same form. Here is violent hostile reaction against their leader who had failed so miserably. {Beat him} (\etupton\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to beat him, even if they could not beat Paul. Sosthenes succeeded Crispus (verse 8|) when he went over to Paul. The beating did Sosthenes good for he too finally is a Christian (1Corinthians:1:1|), a co-worker with Paul whom he had sought to persecute. {And Gallio cared for none of these things} (\kai ouden tout“n t“i Galli“ni emelen\). Literally, "no one of these things was a care to Gallio." The usually impersonal verb (\melei, emelen\, imperfect active) here has the nominative as in strkjv@Luke:10:40|. These words have been often misunderstood as a description of Gallio's lack of interest in Christianity, a religious indifferentist. But that is quite beside the mark. Gallio looked the other way with a blind eye while Sosthenes got the beating which he richly deserved. That was a small detail for the police court, not for the proconsul's concern. Gallio shows up well in Luke's narrative as a clear headed judge who would not be led astray by Jewish subterfuges and with the courage to dismiss a mob.

rwp@Acts:18:22 @{He went up and saluted the church} (\anabas kai aspasamenos tˆn ekklˆsian\). The language could refer to the church in Caesarea where Paul had just landed, except for several things. The going up (\anabas\, second aorist active participle of \anabain“\) is the common way of speaking of going to Jerusalem which was up from every direction save from Hebron. It was the capital of Palestine as people in England today speaking of going up to London. Besides "he went down to Antioch" (\katebˆ eis Antiocheian\, second aorist active indicative of \katabain“\) which language suits better leaving Jerusalem than Caesarea. Moreover, there was no special reason for this trip to Caesarea, but to Jerusalem it was different. Here Paul saluted the church in the fourth of his five visits after his conversion (9:26; strkjv@11:30; strkjv@15:4; strkjv@18:22; strkjv@21:17|). The apostles may or may not have been in the city, but Paul had friends in Jerusalem now. Apparently he did not tarry long, but returned to Antioch to make a report of his second mission tour as he had done at the close of the first when he and Barnabas came back (14:26-28|). He had started on this tour with Silas and had picked up Timothy and Luke, but came back alone. He had a great story to tell.

rwp@Acts:19:35 @{The town-clerk} (\ho grammateus\). Ephesus was a free city and elected its own officers and the recorder or secretary was the chief magistrate of the city, though the proconsul of the province of Asia resided there. This officer is not a mere secretary of another officer or like the copyists and students of the law among the Jews, but the most influential person in Ephesus who drafted decrees with the aid of the \stratˆgoi\, had charge of the city's money, was the power in control of the assembly, and communicated directly with the proconsul. Inscriptions at Ephesus give frequently this very title for their chief officer and the papyri have it also. The precise function varied in different cities. His name appeared on the coin at Ephesus issued in his year of office. {Had quieted the multitude} (\katasteilas ton ochlon\). First aorist active participle of \katastell“\, to send down, arrange dress (Euripides), lower (Plutarch), restrain (papyrus example), only twice in the N.T. (here and verse 36|, be quiet), but in LXX and Josephus. He evidently took the rostrum and his very presence as the city's chief officer had a quieting effect on the billowy turmoil and a semblance of order came. He waited, however, till the hubbub had nearly exhausted itself (two hours) and did not speak till there was a chance to be heard. {Saith} (\phˆsin\). Historical present for vividness. {How that}. Merely participle \ousan\ and accusative \polin\ in indirect discourse, no conjunction at all (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1040ff.), common idiom after \gin“sk“\, to know. {Temple-keeper} (\ne“koron\). Old word from \ne“s\ (\naos)\, temple, and \kore“\, to sweep. Warden, verger, cleaner of the temple, a sacristan. Songs:in Xenophon and Plato. Inscriptions so describe Ephesus as \ne“koron tˆs Artemidos\ as Luke has it here and also applied to the imperial _cultus_ which finally had several such temples in Ephesus. Other cities claimed the same honour of being \ne“koros\, but it was the peculiar boast of Ephesus because of the great temple of Artemis. A coin of A.D. 65 describes Ephesus as \ne“koros\. There are papyri examples of the term applied to individuals, one to Priene as \ne“koros\ of the temple in Ephesus (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). {And of the image which fell down from Jupiter} (\kai tou diopetous\). Supply \agalma\ (image), "the from heaven-fallen image." From Zeus (\Dios\) and \pet“\ (\pipt“, pipet“\), to fall. Zeus (Jupiter) was considered lord of the sky or heaven and that is the idea in \diopetous\ here. The legend about a statue fallen from heaven occurs concerning the statue of Artemis at Tauris, Minerva at Athens, etc. Thus the recorder soothed the vanity (Rackham) of the crowd by appeal to the world-wide fame of Ephesus as sacristan of Artemis and of her heaven-fallen image.

rwp@Acts:20:35 @{I gave you an example} (\hupedeixa\). First aorist active indicative of \hupodeiknumi\, old verb to show under one's eyes, to give object lesson, by deed as well as by word (Luke:6:47|). \Hupodeigma\ means example (John:13:15; strkjv@James:5:10|). Songs:Paul appeals to his example in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:17|. \Panta\ is accusative plural of general reference (in all things). {Songs:labouring ye ought to help} (\hout“s kopi“ntas dei antilambanesthai\). So, as I did. Necessity (\dei\). Toiling (\kopi“ntas\) not just for ourselves, but to help (\antilambanesthai\), to take hold yourselves (middle voice) at the other end (\anti\). This verb common in the old Greek, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:54; strkjv@Acts:20:35; strkjv@1Timothy:6:2|. This noble plea to help the weak is the very spirit of Christ (1Thessalonians:5:14; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28; strkjv@Romans:5:6; strkjv@14:1|). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| \antechesthe t“n asthenount“n\ we have Paul's very idea again. Every Community Chest appeal today re-echoes Paul's plea. {He himself said} (\autos eipen\). Not in the Gospels, one of the sayings of Jesus in current use that Paul had received and treasured. Various other _Agrapha_ of Jesus have been preserved in ancient writers and some in recently discovered papyri which may be genuine or not. We are grateful that Paul treasured this one. This Beatitude (on \makarion\ see on strkjv@Matthew:5:3-11|) is illustrated by the whole life of Jesus with the Cross as the culmination. Aristotle (Eth. IV. I) has a saying somewhat like this, but assigns the feeling of superiority as the reason (Page), an utterly different idea from that here. This quotation raises the question of how much Paul personally knew of the life and sayings of Jesus.

rwp@Acts:21:8 @{On the morrow} (\tˆi epaurion\). Another and the more common way of expressing this idea of "next day" besides the three in strkjv@20:15| and the one in strkjv@21:1|. {Unto Caesarea} (\eis Kaisarian\). Apparently by land as the voyage (\ploun\) ended at Ptolemais (verse 7|). Caesarea is the political capital of Judea under the Romans where the procurators lived and a city of importance, built by Herod the Great and named in honour of Augustus. It had a magnificent harbour built Most of the inhabitants were Greeks. This is the third time that we have seen Paul in Caesarea, on his journey from Jerusalem to Tarsus (Acts:9:30|), on his return from Antioch at the close of the second mission tour (18:22|) and now. The best MSS. omit \hoi peri Paulou\ (we that were of Paul's company) a phrase like that in strkjv@13:13|. {Into the house of Philip the evangelist} (\eis ton oikon Philippou tou euaggelistou\). Second in the list of the seven (6:5|) after Stephen and that fact mentioned here. By this title he is distinguished from "Philip the apostle," one of the twelve. His evangelistic work followed the death of Stephen (Acts:8|) in Samaria, Philistia, with his home in Caesarea. The word "evangelizing" (\euˆggelizeto\) was used of him in strkjv@8:40|. The earliest of the three N.T. examples of the word "evangelist" (Acts:21:8; strkjv@Ephesians:4:11; strkjv@2Timothy:4:5|). Apparently a word used to describe one who told the gospel story as Philip did and may have been used of him first of all as John was termed "the baptizer" (\ho baptiz“n\, strkjv@Mark:1:4|), then "the Baptist" (\ho baptistˆs\, strkjv@Matthew:3:1|). It is found on an inscription in one of the Greek islands of uncertain date and was used in ecclesiastical writers of later times on the Four Gospels as we do. As used here the meaning is a travelling missionary who "gospelized" communities. This is probably Paul's idea in strkjv@2Timothy:4:5|. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:11| the word seems to describe a special class of ministers just as we have them today. Men have different gifts and Philip had this of evangelizing as Paul was doing who is the chief evangelist. The ideal minister today combines the gifts of evangelist, herald, teacher, shepherd. "{We abode with him}" (\emeinamen par' aut“i\). Constative aorist active indicative. \Par aut“i\ (by his side) is a neat idiom for "at his house." What a joyful time Paul had in conversation with Philip. He could learn from him much of value about the early days of the gospel in Jerusalem. And Luke could, and probably did, take notes from Philip and his daughters about the beginnings of Christian history. It is generally supposed that the "we" sections of Acts represent a travel document by Luke (notes made by him as he journeyed from Troas to Rome). Those who deny the Lukan authorship of the whole book usually admit this. Songs:we may suppose that Luke is already gathering data for future use. If so, these were precious days for him.

rwp@Acts:24:1 @{And with an Orator, one Tertullus} (\kai rhˆtoros Tertullou tinos\). A deputation of elders along with the high priest Ananias, not the whole Sanhedrin, but no hint of the forty conspirators or of the Asian Jews. The Sanhedrin had become divided so that now it is probably Ananias (mortally offended) and the Sadducees who take the lead in the prosecution of Paul. It is not clear whether after five days is from Paul's departure from Jerusalem or his arrival in Caesarea. If he spent nine days in Jerusalem, then the five days would be counted from then (verse 11|). The employment of a Roman lawyer (Latin _orator_) was necessary since the Jews were not familiar with Roman legal procedure and it was the custom in the provinces (Cicero _pro Cael_. 30). The speech was probably in Latin which Paul may have understood also. \Rhˆt“r\ is a common old Greek word meaning a forensic orator or advocate but here only in the N.T. The Latin _rhetor_ was a teacher of rhetoric, a very different thing. Tertullus is a diminutive of Tertius (Romans:16:22|). {Informed} (\enephanisan\). Same verb as in strkjv@23:15,22|, somewhat like our modern "indictment," certainly accusations "against Paul" (\kata tou Paulou\). They were down on Paul and the hired barrister was prosecuting attorney. For the legal form see _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Vol. II., p. 162, line 19.

rwp@Acts:27:1 @{That we should sail} (\tou apoplein hˆmas\). This genitive articular infinitive with \ekrithˆ\ like the LXX construction translating the Hebrew infinitive construct is awkward in Greek. Several similar examples in strkjv@Luke:17:1; strkjv@Acts:10:25; strkjv@20:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1068). Luke alone uses this old verb in N.T. He uses nine compounds of \ple“\, to sail. Note the reappearance of "we" in the narrative. It is possible, of course, that Luke was not with Paul during the series of trials at Caesarea, or at least, not all the time. But it is natural for Luke to use "we" again because he and Aristarchus are travelling with Paul. In Caesarea Paul was the centre of the action all the time whether Luke was present or not. The great detail and minute accuracy of Luke's account of this voyage and shipwreck throw more light upon ancient seafaring than everything else put together. Smith's _Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_ is still a classic on the subject. Though so accurate in his use of sea terms, yet Luke writes like a landsman, not like a sailor. Besides, the character of Paul is here revealed in a remarkable fashion. {They delivered} (\paredidoun\). Imperfect active \“mega\ form rather than the old \-mi\ form \paredidosan\ as in strkjv@4:33|, from \paradid“mi\. Perhaps the imperfect notes the continuance of the handing over. {Certain other prisoners} (\tinas heterous desm“tas\). Bound (\desm“tas\) like Paul, but not necessarily appellants to Caesar, perhaps some of them condemned criminals to amuse the Roman populace in the gladiatorial shows, most likely pagans though \heterous\ does not have to mean different kind of prisoners from Paul. {Of the Augustan band} (\speirˆs Sebastˆs\). Note Ionic genitive \speirˆs\, not \speiras\. See on ¯Matthew:27:1; strkjv@Acts:10:1|. \Cohortis Augustae\. We do not really know why this cohort is called "Augustan." It may be that it is part of the imperial commissariat (_frumentarii_) since Julius assumes chief authority in the grain ship (verse 11|). These legionary centurions when in Rome were called _peregrini_ (foreigners) because their work was chiefly in the provinces. This man Julius may have been one of them.

rwp@Acts:27:27 @{As we were driven to and fro} (\diapheromen“n hˆm“n\). Genitive absolute with present passive participle of \diapher“\, old verb to bear different ways (\dia=duo\, two), this way and that. Continued to be tossed to and fro in the rough seas. It would seem so to those on board. It does not necessarily mean that the wind had changed. The fourteenth night is reckoned from the time they left Fair Havens. {In the sea of Adria} (\en t“i Hadriƒi\). Not the Adriatic Sea as we now call the sea between Italy and the mainland of Illyricum, but all the lower Mediterranean between Italy and Greece. Luke's usage is like that of Strabo. {Surmised} (\hupenooun\). Imperfect active indicative of \huponoe“\, inchoative, began to suspect. {That they were drawing near to some country} (\prosagein tina autois ch“ran\). Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect assertion. \Prosag“\ is here used intransitively and Luke writes from the sailor's standpoint that a certain land was drawing near to them (\autois\, dative). The sailors heard the sound of breakers and grew uneasy.

rwp@ the refs to different chapters. strkjv@2:14 does not fit into anything here,

rwp@ refs to different verses. changed to strkjv@1:2,14.

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ ORDER AND DATES The oldest Greek manuscripts give these General Epistles immediately after the Acts, and Westcott and Hort so print them in their Greek New Testament. But the English Versions follow the Textus Receptus and put them just before the Apocalypse. The order of the seven letters varies greatly in the different manuscripts, though usually James comes first and Jude:last (as the last accepted and the least known of the four authors). It is possible that the order of James, Peter, and John (omitting Jude) represented a sort of chronological precedence in some minds. It is possible also that no importance is to be attached to this order. Certainly John wrote last and after the destruction of Jerusalem, while the others come before that great event if they are genuine, as I believe, though there are difficulties of a serious nature concerning II Peter. James may be very early. If so, these seven Epistles are scattered all the way from A.D. 45 to 90. They have no connection with one another save in the case of the Epistles of Peter and Jude.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ The study of Paul's Epistles in the order of their writing is the best possible way of seeing his own growth as a theologian and interpreter of Christ. Sabatier long ago laid emphasis on this point in his book _The Apostle Paul_ as did Matheson in _The Spiritual Development of Paul_. It is a tragedy to have to read Paul's Epistles as printed in the usual Greek text of Westcott and Hort and the English translations, beginning with Romans and ending with Philemon. In the manuscripts that give Paul's Epistles Romans comes first as the largest and most important, but Titus and Philemon come after II Timothy (the last just before his death). We know something of Paul's early preaching how he laid emphasis on the Messiahship of Jesus proven by his resurrection, Paul himself having seen the Risen Christ (Acts:9:22|). This conviction and experience lay at the foundation of all his work and he never faltered concerning it (Acts:17:3). In the earliest sermon of which we have a full report Paul proclaims justification by faith in Christ with forgiveness of sins (Acts:13:38f.|), blessings not obtained by the law of Moses. In the unfolding life of Paul he grappled with great problems of Jewish rabbinism and Greek philosophy and mystery-religions and Paul himself grew in stature as he courageously and victoriously faced Judaizer and Gnostic. There are scholars who claim that Paul surrendered to the appeal of Gnostic sacramentarianism and so went back on his great doctrine of justification by faith, not by works. It will be shown at the proper time that this view misinterprets Paul's attitude. The events given by Luke in the Acts fit in with the self-revelation of Paul in his own Epistles as we read them. Each one of the four groups of Epistles has a slightly different style and vocabulary as is natural when one comes to think of it. The same thing is true of the plays of Shakespeare and the poems of Milton. Style is the man, Buffon says. Yes, but style is also a function of the subject. Particularly is this true of vocabulary which has to vary with the different topics treated. But style in the same man varies with different ages. Ripened old age mellows the exuberance of youth and the passionate vehemence of manhood. We shall see Paul himself in his Epistles, letting himself go in various ways and in different moods. But in all the changing phases of his life and work there is the same masterful man who glories in being the slave of Jesus Christ and the Apostle to the Gentiles. The passion of Paul is Christ and one can feel the throb of the heart of the chief of sinners who became the chief of saints in all his Epistles. There is the Pauline glow and glory in them all.

rwp@Galatians:1:6 @{Ye are so quickly removing} (\hout“s tache“s metatithesthe\). The present middle indicative of \metatithˆmi\, to change places, to transfer. "You are transferring yourselves" and doing it "so quickly" either from the time of their conversion or most likely from the time when the Judaizers came and tempted them. Songs:easily some of them are falling victims to these perverters of the gospel. That is a continuous amazement (\thaumaz“\) to Paul and to men today that so many are so silly and so gullible to modern as to ancient charlatans. {Unto a different gospel} (\eis heteron euaggelion\). See on ¯2Corinthians:11:4| for distinction between \allo\ and \heteron\ as here. It is not here or there a mere difference in emphasis or spirit as in ¯Phillipians:1:18| so long as Christ is preached. These men as in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4| preach "another Jesus" and a "different gospel" and so have fallen away from grace and have done away with Christ (Galatians:5:4|). Hence the vehemence of Paul's words.

rwp@Galatians:1:7 @{Which is not another} (\ho ouk estin allo\). It is no "gospel" (good news) at all, but a yoke of bondage to the law and the abolition of grace. There is but one gospel and that is of grace, not works. The relative \ho\ (which) refers to \heteron euaggelion\ (a different gospel) "taken as a single term and designating the erroneous teachings of the Judaizers" (Burton). {Only} (\ei mˆ\). Literally, "except," that is, "Except in this sense," "in that it is an attempt to pervert the one true gospel" (Lightfoot). {Who disturb you} (\hoi tarassontes\). The disturbers. This very verb \tarass“\ is used in strkjv@Acts:17:8| of the Jews in Thessalonica who "disturbed" the politarchs and the people about Paul. {Would pervert} (\thelontes metastrepsai\). "Wish to turn about," change completely as in strkjv@Acts:2:20; strkjv@James:4:9|. The very existence of the gospel of Christ was at stake.

rwp@Galatians:2:5 @{No, not for an hour} (\oude pros h“ran\). Pointed denial that he and Barnabas yielded at all "in the way of subjection" (\tˆi hupotagˆi\, in the subjection demanded of them). The compromisers pleaded for the circumcision of Titus "because of the false brethren" in order to have peace. The old verb \eik“\, to yield, occurs here alone in the N.T. See strkjv@2Corinthians:9:13| for \hupotagˆ\. {The truth of the gospel} (\hˆ alˆtheia tou euaggeliou\). It was a grave crisis to call for such language. The whole problem of Gentile Christianity was involved in the case of Titus, whether Christianity was to be merely a modified brand of legalistic Judaism or a spiritual religion, the true Judaism (the children of Abraham by faith). The case of Timothy later was utterly different, for he had a Jewish mother and a Greek father. Titus was pure Greek.

rwp@Galatians:3:1 @{Who did bewitch you?} (\tis humas ebaskanen?\). Somebody "fascinated" you. Some aggressive Judaizer (5:7|), some one man (or woman). First aorist active indicative of \baskain“\, old word kin to \phask“\ (\bask“\), to speak, then to bring evil on one by feigned praise or the evil eye (hoodoo), to lead astray by evil arts. Only here in the N.T. This popular belief in the evil eye is old (Deuteronomy:28:54|) and persistent. The papyri give several examples of the adjective \abaskanta\, the adverb \abaskant“s\ (unharmed by the evil eye), the substantive \baskania\ (witchcraft). {Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified} (\hois kat' ophthalmous Iˆsous Christos proegraphˆ estaur“menos\). Literally, "to whom before your very eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed as crucified." Second aorist passive indicative of \prograph“\, old verb to write beforehand, to set forth by public proclamation, to placard, to post up. This last idea is found in several papyri (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) as in the case of a father who posted a proclamation that he would no longer be responsible for his son's debts. \Graph“\ was sometimes used in the sense of painting, but no example of \prograph“\ with this meaning has been found unless this is one. With that idea it would be to portray, to picture forth, a rendering not very different from placarding. The foolish Galatians were without excuse when they fell under the spell of the Judaizer. \Estaur“menos\ is perfect passive participle of \stauro“\, the common verb to crucify (from \stauros\, stake, cross), to put on the cross (Matthew:20:19|), same form as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:2|.

rwp@Galatians:3:6 @{It was reckoned unto him for righteousness} (\elogisthˆ eis dikaiosunˆn\). First aorist passive indicative of \logizomai\. See on ¯1Corinthians:13:5| for this old word. He quotes strkjv@Genesis:15:6| and uses it at length in strkjv@Romans:4:3ff.| to prove that the faith of Abraham was reckoned "for" (\eis\, good _Koin‚_ idiom though more common in LXX because of the Hebrew) righteousness before he was circumcised. James (James:2:23|) quotes the same passage as proof of Abraham's obedience to God in offering up Isaac (beginning to offer him). Paul and James are discussing different episodes in the life of Abraham. Both are correct.

rwp@Galatians:6:7 @{Be not deceived} (\mˆ planƒsthe\). Present passive imperative with \mˆ\, "stop being led astray" (\plana“\, common verb to wander, to lead astray as in strkjv@Matthew:24:4f.|). {God is not mocked} (\ou muktˆrizetai\). This rare verb (common in LXX) occurs in Lysias. It comes from \muktˆr\ (nose) and means to turn the nose up at one. That is done towards God, but never without punishment, Paul means to say. In particular, he means "an evasion of his laws which men think to accomplish, but, in fact, cannot" (Burton). {Whatsoever a man soweth} (\ho ean speirˆi anthr“pos\). Indefinite relative clause with \ean\ and the active subjunctive (either aorist or present, form same here). One of the most frequent of ancient proverbs (Job:4:8|; Arist., _Rhet_. iii. 3). Already in strkjv@2Corinthians:9:6|. Same point in strkjv@Matthew:7:16; strkjv@Mark:4:26f|. {That} (\touto\). That very thing, not something different. {Reap} (\therisei\). See on ¯Matthew:6:26| for this old verb.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ SOME BOOKS ON HEBREWS ANDEL, _Deuteronomy:Brief aan de Hebraer_ (1906). ANDERSON, R., _The Hebrews Epistle in the Light of the Types_ (1911). AYLES, _Destination, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). BAILEY, _Leading Ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1907). BLASS, F., _Brief an die Hebraer, Text, Angabe der Rhythmen_ (1903). BLEEK, F., _Der Hebraerbrief Erklart_ (1840). BRUCE, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). DALE, R. W., _The Jewish Temple in the Christian Church_ (1865). DAVIDSON, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1882). DELITZSCH, F., _Commentary on the Hebrews_ (1857). DIBELIUS, M., _Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes_ (1910). DODS, M., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). DU BOSE, W. P., _High Priesthood and sacrifice_ (1908). EDWARDS, T. C., _Expositor's Bible_ (1888). FARRAR, F. W., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). GOODSPEED, E. J., _Bible for Home and School_ (1908). GRIFFTH-THOMAS, W. H., _Let Us Go On_ (1923). HEIGL, _Verfalser und Addresse des Briefes an die Hebraer_ (1905). HOLLMANN, _Schriften d. N. T_. 2 Aufl. (1907). KENDRICK, A. C., _American Commentary_ (1890). LIDGETT, J. S., _Sonship and Salvation_ (1921). LOWRIE, _An Explanation of Hebrews_ (1921). LUNEMANN, G., _Meyer Komm_. (1882). MACFADYEN, J. F., _Through the Eternal Spirit_ (1925). MACNEILL, _The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1914). MENEGOZ, E., _Lamentations:Theologie de l'epitre aux Hebreaux_ (1894). MILLIGAN, G., _The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). MOFFATT JAMES, _Int. and Cosit. Comm_. (1924) MOULE, H. C., _Messages from the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1909). MURRAY, ANDREW, _Devotional Commentary_. NAIRNE, A., _The Epistle of Priesthood_ (1913). NAIRNE, A., _The Alexandrian Gospel_ (1917). PEAKE, A. S., _New Century Bible_ (1904). PORTER, S. J., _The Twelve-Gemmed Crown_ (1913). RENDALL, F., _The Theology of the Hebrew Christians_ (1886). RIGGENBACH, M., _Zoeckler Komm_. 2 Aufl. (1913). ROTHERHAM, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1906). SAPHIR, A., _Exposition of Hebrews_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1922). SEEBERG, A., _Der Brief an die Hebraer_ (1912). SLOT, _Deuteronomy:Letterkundige Vorm van den Brief aan de Hebraer (1912). SODEN, VON, _Hand-Comm_. (1899). THOLUCK, A., _Komm. zum Briefe an die Hebraer_. VAUGHAN, C. J., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WADE, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1923). WEISS, B., _Meyer-Komm_. 6 Aufl. (1902). WEISS, B., _Der Hebraerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Bekuch- tung_ (1910). WELCH, _Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WESTCOTT, B. F., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (3rd ed. 1906). WICKHAM, E. C., _Westminster Comm_. (1910). WINDISCH, H., _Handbuch zum N.T_. (1913). WREDE, W., _Das literarisches Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs_ (1906). strkjv@Hebrews:1:1 @{God} (\ho theos\). This Epistle begins like Genesis and the Fourth Gospel with God, who is the Author of the old revelation in the prophets and of the new in his Son. Verses 1-3| are a _proemium_ (Delitzsch) or introduction to the whole Epistle. The periodic structure of the sentence (1-4|) reminds one of strkjv@Luke:1:1-4, strkjv@Romans:1:1-7, strkjv@1John:1:1-4|. The sentence could have concluded with \en hui“i\ in verse 2|, but by means of three relatives (\hon, di' hou, hos\) the author presents the Son as "the exact counterpart of God" (Moffatt). {Of old time} (\palai\). "Long ago" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:21|. {Having spoken} (\lalˆsas\). First aorist active participle of \lale“\, originally chattering of birds, then used of the highest form of speech as here. {Unto the fathers} (\tois patrasin\). Dative case. The Old Testament worthies in general without "our" or "your" as in strkjv@John:6:58; strkjv@7:22; strkjv@Romans:9:5|. {In the prophets} (\en tois prophˆtais\). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). strkjv@Songs:4:7|. {By divers portions} (\polumer“s\). "In many portions." Adverb from late adjective \polumerˆs\ (in papyri), both in _Vettius Valens_, here only in N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:22 and Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 3, 9). The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, a progressive revelation of God to men. {In divers manners} (\polutrop“s\). "In many ways." Adverb from old adjective \polutropos\, in Philo, only here in N.T. The two adverbs together are "a sonorous hendiadys for 'variously'" (Moffatt) as Chrysostom (\diaphor“s\). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.).

rwp@Hebrews:7:11 @{Perfection} (\telei“sis\). Abstract substantive of \teleio“\. More the act than the quality or state (\teleiotˆs\, strkjv@6:1|). The condition is of the second class, "if there were perfection, etc." The Levitical priesthood failed to give men "a perfectly adequate relation to God" (Moffatt). {Priesthood} (\hierosunˆs\). Old word, in N.T. only here, verses 12,24|. Cf. \hieretia\ in verse 5|. The adjective \Leueitikˆ\ occurs in Philo. {Received the law} (\nenomothetˆtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \nomothete“\, old compound to enact law (\nomos, tithˆmi\), to furnish with law (as here), only other N.T. example in strkjv@8:6|. {What further need was there?} (\tis eti chreia;\). No copula expressed, but it would normally be \ˆn an\, not just \ˆn\: "What need still would there be?" {Another priest} (\heteron hierea\). Of a different line (\heteron\), not just one more (\allon\). Accusative of general reference with the infinitive \anistasthai\ (present middle of \anistˆmi\ intransitive). {And not to be reckoned} (\kai ou legesthai\). The negative \ou\ belongs rather to the descriptive clause than just to the infinitive.

rwp@Hebrews:7:13 @{Belongeth to another tribe} (\phulˆs heteras meteschˆken\). See strkjv@2:14| for \metech“\, perfect active indicative here. A different (\heteras\) tribe. {Hath given attendance at} (\proseschˆken\). Perfect active indicative (watch perfects in Hebrews, not "for" aorists) of \prosech“\, old verb, here with either \noun\ (mind) or self (\heauton\) understood with dative case (\t“i thusiastˆri“i\, the altar, for which word see strkjv@Matthew:5:23; strkjv@Luke:1:11|).

rwp@Hebrews:9:10 @{Only with meats and drinks and divers washings} (\monon epi br“masin kai pomasin kai diaphorois baptismois\). The parenthesis of the Revised Version here is unnecessary. The use of \epi\ here with the locative case is regular, "in the matter of" (Luke:12:52; strkjv@John:12:16; strkjv@Acts:21:24|). What ritual value these Levitical sacrifices had was confined to minute regulations about diet and ceremonial cleansing (clean and unclean). For "divers" (\diaphorois\, late adjective, in N.T. only in strkjv@Hebrews:1:4; strkjv@8:6; strkjv@9:10; strkjv@Romans:12:6|) say "different" or "various." \Baptismois\ is, of course, the Jewish ceremonial immersions (cf. strkjv@Mark:7:4; strkjv@Exodus:29:4; strkjv@Leviticus:11:25,28f.; strkjv@Numbers:8:7; strkjv@Revelation:6:2|). {Carnal ordinances} (\dikai“masin sarkos\). But the correct text is undoubtedly simply \dikai“mata sarkos\ (nominative case), in apposition with \d“ra te kai thusiai\ (gifts and sacrifices). See strkjv@9:1| for \dikai“mata\. {Imposed} (\epikeimena\). Present middle or passive participle of \epikeimai\, old verb to lie upon (be laid upon). Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:9:16|. {Until a time of reformation} (\mechri kairou diorth“se“s\). Definite statement of the temporary nature of the Levitical system already stated in strkjv@7:10-17; strkjv@8:13| and argued clearly by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3:15-22|. \Diorth“sis\ is a late word, here alone in N.T. (from \diortho“\, to set right or straight), used by Hippocrates for making straight misshapen limbs like \anortho“\ in strkjv@Hebrews:12:12|. Here for reformation like \diorth“ma\ (reform) in strkjv@Acts:24:2f|. Christianity itself is the great Reformation of the current Judaism (Pharisaism) and the spiritual Judaism foreshadowed by the old Abrahamic promise (see strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9|).

rwp@Hebrews:11:21 @{Leaning upon the top of his staff} (\epi to akron tˆs rabdou autou\). From strkjv@Genesis:47:31|, but no word for "leaning." The quotation is from the LXX, the Hebrew having "the head of the bed," but the Hebrew word allows either meaning with different vowel points.

rwp@Hebrews:12:5 @{Ye have forgotten} (\eklelˆsthe\). Perfect middle indicative of \eklanthan“\, to cause to forget, old verb, here only in the N.T. with genitive case as usual. {Reasoneth with you} (\humin dialegetai\). Present middle indicative of \dialegomai\, old verb to ponder different (\dia-\) things, to converse, with dative. Cf. strkjv@Acts:19:8f|. The quotation is from strkjv@Proverbs:3:11f|. {Regard not lightly} (\mˆ olig“rei\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and the present active imperative of \olig“re“\, old verb from \olig“ros\ and this from \oligos\ (little) and \h“ra\ (hour), old verb, here only in N.T. {Chastening} (\paideias\). Old word from \paideu“\, to train a child (\pais\), instruction (2Timothy:3:16|), which naturally includes correction and punishment as here. See also strkjv@Ephesians:6:4|. {Nor faint} (\mˆde ekluou\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and present passive imperative of \eklu“\ (see verse 3|).

rwp@Info_James @ THE DATE If the Epistle is genuine and James was put to death about A.D. 62, it was clearly written before that date. There are two theories about it, one placing it about A.D. 48, the other about A.D. 58. To my mind the arguments of Mayor for the early date are conclusive. There is no allusion to Gentile Christians, as would be natural after A.D. 50. If written after A.D. 70, the tone would likely be different, with some allusion to that dreadful calamity. The sins condemned are those characteristic of early Jewish Christians. The book itself is more like the Sermon on the Mount than the Epistles. The discussion of faith and works in chapter strkjv@James:2| reveals an absence of the issues faced by Paul in strkjv@Romans:4; strkjv@Galatians:3| after the Jerusalem Conference (A.D. 49). Hence the date before that Conference has decidedly the better of the argument. Ropes in his Commentary denies the genuineness of the Epistle and locates it between A.D. 75 and 125, but Hort holds that the evidence for a late date rests "on very slight and intangible grounds." Songs:we place the book before A.D. 49. It may indeed be the earliest New Testament book.

rwp@Info_James @ THE STYLE James assumes the doctrinal features of Christianity, but he is concerned mainly with the ethical and social aspects of the gospel that Jewish followers of Christ may square their lives with the gospel which they believe and profess. But this fact does not justify Luther in calling the Epistle of James "a veritable Epistle of straw." Luther imagined that James contradicted Paul's teaching of justification by faith. That is not true and the criticism of Luther is unjust. We shall see that, though James and Paul use the same words (faith, works, justify), they mean different things by them. It is possible that both Paul and Peter had read the Epistle of James, though by no means certain. M. Jones (_New Testament in the Twentieth Century_, p. 316) thinks that the author was familiar with Stoic philosophy. This is also possible, though he may have learned it only indirectly through the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. What is true is that the author writes in the easy and accurate _Koin‚_ Greek of a cultivated Jew (the literary _Koin‚_, not the vernacular), though not the artificial or stilted language of a professional stylist. Principal Patrick (_James the Lord's Brother_, p. 298) holds that he "had a wide knowledge of Classical Greek." This does not follow, though he does use the manner "of the Hellenistic diatribe" (Ropes, _Int. and Crit. Comm_., p. 19) so common at that time. Ropes (pp. 10-22) points out numerous parallels between James and the popular moral addresses of the period, familiar since the days of Socrates and at its height in Seneca and Epictetus. The use of an imaginary interlocutor is one instance (James:2:18f.; strkjv@5:13f.|) as is the presence of paradox (James:1:2,10; strkjv@2:5|; etc.). But the style of James is even more kin to that seen in the Jewish wisdom literature like Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, etc. It is thus both tract and Epistle, a brief Christian sermon on a high plane for a noble purpose. But it is all natural and not artificial. The metaphors are many, but brief and remind one constantly of the Master's use of them in the Sermon on the Mount. Did not Mary the mother of Jesus and James make frequent use of such homely parables? The author shows acquaintance with the LXX, but there are few Hebraisms in the language, though the style is Hebraic, as is the whole tone of the book (Hebraic and Christian). "The style is especially remarkable for constant hidden allusions to our Lord's sayings, such as we find in the first three Gospels" (Hort).

rwp@James:2:11 @{He that said} (\ho eip“n\) {--said also} (\eipen kai\). The unity of the law lies in the Lawgiver who spoke both prohibitions (\mˆ\ and the aorist active subjunctive in each one, \moicheusˆis, phoneusˆis\). The order here is that of B in strkjv@Exodus:20| (Luke:18:20; strkjv@Romans:13:9|), but not in strkjv@Matthew:5:21,27| (with \ou\ and future indicative). {Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest} (\ei de ou moicheueis, phoneueis de\). Condition of first class with \ou\ (not \mˆ\) because of the contrast with \de\, whereas \ei mˆ\ would mean "unless," a different idea. Songs:\ou\ in strkjv@1:23|. {A transgressor of the law} (\parabatˆs nomou\) as in verse 9|. Murder springs out of anger (Matthew:5:21-26|). People free from fleshly sins have often "made their condemnation of fleshly sins an excuse for indulgence towards spiritual sins" (Hort).

rwp@James:2:21 @{Justified by works} (\ex erg“n edikai“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \dikaio“\ (see Galatians and Romans for this verb, to declare righteous, to set right) in a question with \ouk\ expecting an affirmative answer. This is the phrase that is often held to be flatly opposed to Paul's statement in strkjv@Romans:4:1-5|, where Paul pointedly says that it was the faith of Abraham (Romans:4:9|) that was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, not his works. But Paul is talking about the faith of Abraham before his circumcision (4:10|) as the basis of his being set right with God, which faith is symbolized in the circumcision. James makes plain his meaning also. {In that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar} (\anenegkas Isaak ton huion autou epi to thusiastˆrion\). They use the same words, but they are talking of different acts. James points to the offering (\anenegkas\ second aorist--with first aorist ending--active participle of \anapher“\) of Isaac on the altar (Genesis:22:16f.|) as _proof_ of the faith that Abraham already had. Paul discusses Abraham's faith as the basis of his justification, that and not his circumcision. There is no contradiction at all between James and Paul. Neither is answering the other. Paul may or may not have seen the Epistle of James, who stood by him loyally in the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|).

rwp@James:2:23 @{Was fulfilled} (\eplˆr“thˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \plˆro“\, the usual verb for fulfilling Scripture. Songs:James quotes strkjv@Genesis:15:6| as proving his point in verse 21| that Abraham had works with his faith, the very same passage that Paul quotes in strkjv@Romans:4:3| to show that Abraham's faith preceded his circumcision and was the basis of his justification. And both James and Paul are right, each to illustrate a different point. {And he was called the friend of God} (\kai philos theou eklˆthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \kalˆo\. Not a part of the Scripture quoted. Philo calls Abraham the friend of God and see _Jubilees_ strkjv@19:9; strkjv@30:20. The Arabs today speak of Abraham as God's friend. It was evidently a common description before James used it, as in strkjv@Isaiah:41:8; strkjv@2Chronicles:20:7|.

rwp@James:3:7 @{Kind} (\phusis\). Old word from \phu“\, order of nature (Romans:1:26|), here of all animals and man, in strkjv@2Peter:1:4| of God and redeemed men. {Of beasts} (\thˆri“n\). Old word diminutive from \thˆr\ and so "little beasts" originally, then wild animals in general (Mark:1:13|), or quadrupeds as here. These four classes of animals come from strkjv@Genesis:9:2f|. {Birds} (\petein“n\). Old word for flying animals (from \petomai\, to word from \herp“\, to crawl (Latin _serpo_), hence serpents. {Things in the sea} (\enali“n\). Old adjective (\en, hals\, sea, salt) in the sea, here only in N.T. The four groups are put in two pairs here by the use of \te kai\ with the first two and the second two. See a different classification in strkjv@Acts:10:12; strkjv@11:6|. {Is tamed} (\damazetai\). Present passive indicative of \damaz“\, old verb kin to Latin _dominus_ and English tame, in N.T. only in this passage and strkjv@Mark:5:4|. The present tense gives the general picture of the continuous process through the ages of man's lordship over the animals as stated in strkjv@Genesis:1:28|. {Hath been tamed} (\dedamastai\). Perfect passive indicative of the same verb, repeated to present the state of conquest in some cases (domestic animals, for instance). {By mankind} (\tˆi phusei tˆi anthr“pinˆi\). Instrumental case with repeated article and repetition also of \phusis\, "by the nature the human." For \anthr“pinos\ see strkjv@Acts:17:25|.

rwp@James:5:12 @{Above all things} (\pro pant“n\). No connection with what immediately precedes. Probably an allusion to the words of Jesus (Matthew:5:34-37|). It is not out of place here. See the same phrase in strkjv@1Peter:4:8|. Robinson (_Ephesians_, p. 279) cites like examples from the papyri at the close of letters. Here it means "But especially" (Ropes). {Swear not} (\mˆ omnuete\). Prohibition of the habit (or to quit doing it if guilty) with \mˆ\ and the present active imperative of \omnu“\. The various oaths (profanity) forbidden (\mˆte\, thrice) are in the accusative case after \omnuete\, according to rule (\ouranon, gˆn, horkon\). The Jews were wont to split hairs in their use of profanity, and by avoiding God's name imagine that they were not really guilty of this sin, just as professing Christians today use "pious oaths" which violate the prohibition of Jesus. {Let be} (\ˆt“\). Imperative active third singular of \eimi\, late form (1Corinthians:16:22|) for \est“\. "Your yea be yea" (and no more). A different form from that in strkjv@Matthew:5:37|. {That ye fall not under judgment} (\hina mˆ hupo krisin pesˆte\). Negative purpose with \hina mˆ\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \pipt“\, to fall. See \hina mˆ krithˆte\ in verse 9|. \Krisis\ (from \krin“\) is the act of judging rather than the judgment rendered (\krima\ strkjv@James:3:1|).

rwp@Info_John @ THE FOURTH GOSPEL BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION GREATEST OF BOOKS The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel over all the books of the world. If Luke's Gospel is the most beautiful, John's Gospel is supreme in its height and depth and reach of thought. The picture of Christ here given is the one that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. It is not possible for a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be indifferent to modern critical views concerning the authorship and historical value of this Holy of Holies of the New Testament. Here we find _The Heart of Christ_ (E. H. Sears), especially in chapters strkjv@John:14-17|. If Jesus did not do or say these things, it is small consolation to be told that the book at least has symbolic and artistic value for the believer. The language of the Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are not able to sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity challenge and charm us as we linger over it.

rwp@Info_John @ A DIFFERENT STYLE OF TEACHING Songs:different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon's _Memorabilia_ and of Plato's _Dialogues_. There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters strkjv@John:7-11|. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|). The use of "the Father" and "the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

rwp@Info_John @ BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Revelation:1:4,9; strkjv@22:8|), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. Songs:one ventures to call attention to the statement in strkjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai idi“tai\ (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan's _Greek Papyri_, for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

rwp@John:4:9 @{The Samaritan woman} (\hˆ gunˆ hˆ Samareitis\). Different idiom from that in 7|, "the woman the Samaritan." The Samaritans were a mixture by intermarriage of the Jews left in the land (2Chronicles:30:6,10; strkjv@34:9|) with colonists from Babylon and other regions sent by Shalmaneser. They had had a temple of their own on Mt. Gerizim and still worshipped there. {Thou being a Jew} (\su Ioudaios “n\). Race antipathy was all the keener because the Samaritans were half Jews. {Drink} (\pein\). Same infinitive form as in 7| and the object of \aiteis\ (askest). {Of me} (\par' emou\). "From me," ablative case with \para\. {For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans} (\ou gar sunchr“ntai Ioudaioi Samareitais\). Explanatory (\gar\) parenthesis of the woman's astonishment. Associative instrumental case with \sunchr“ntai\ (present middle indicative of \sunchraomai\, compound in literary _Koin‚_, here only in N.T.). The woman's astonishment is ironical according to Bernard. At any rate the disciples had to buy food in a Samaritan village and they were travelling through Samaria. Perhaps she was surprised that Jesus would drink out of her waterpot. The Western class omit this explanatory parenthesis of the author.

rwp@John:6:69 @{We have believed} (\hˆmeis pepisteukamen\). Perfect active indicative of \pisteu“\, "We have come to believe and still believe" (verse 29|). {And know} (\kai egn“kamen\). Same tense of \gin“sk“\, "We have come to know and still know." {Thou art the Holy One of God} (\su ei ho hagios tou theou\). Bernard follows those who believe that this is John's report of the same confession given by the Synoptics (Mark:8:27f.; strkjv@Matthew:16:13-20; strkjv@Luke:9:18f.|), an utterly unjustifiable conclusion. The details are wholly different. Here in the synagogue in Capernaum, there on Mt. Hermon near Caesarea Philippi. What earthly difficulty is there in supposing that Peter could make a noble confession twice? That is to my mind a wooden conception of the apostles in their growing apprehension of Christ.

rwp@John:7:12 @{Much murmuring} (\goggusmos polus\). This Ionic onomatopoetic word is from \gogguz“\ for which verb see strkjv@6:41,61; strkjv@7:32|, for secret displeasure (Acts:6:1|) or querulous discontent (Phillipians:2:14|). {Among the multitudes} (\en tois ochlois\). "The multitudes" literally, plural here only in John. These different groups were visitors from Galilee and elsewhere and were divided in their opinion of Jesus as the Galileans had already become (6:66|). {A good man} (\agathos\). Pure in motive. See strkjv@Mark:10:17f.; strkjv@Romans:5:7| (absolute sense of God). Superior to \dikaios\. Jesus had champions in these scattered groups in the temple courts. {Not so, but he leadeth the multitude astray} (\ou, alla planƒi ton ochlon\). Sharp clash in the crowd. Present active indicative of \plana“\, to go astray (Matthew:18:12f.|), like our "planets," to lead others astray (Matthew:24:4,5,11|, etc.). In the end the rulers will call Jesus "that deceiver" (\ekeinos ho planos\, strkjv@Matthew:27:63|). The Jewish leaders have a following among the crowds as is seen (7:31f.|).

rwp@John:8:22 @{Will he kill himself?} (\mˆti apoktenei heauton;\). Negative answer formally expected, but there is a manifest sneer in the query. "The mockery in these words is alike subtle and bitter" (Vincent). It was a different group of Jews in strkjv@7:31| who cynically suggested that he was going to work among the Greeks in the Dispersion. Here they infer that Jesus refers to the next world. They suggest the depths of Gehenna for him as the abode of suicides (Josephus, _War_ III. viii. 5). Of course the rabbis could not join Jesus there! Edersheim argues against this view.

rwp@John:8:53 @{Art thou greater than our father Abraham?} (\Mˆ su meiz“n ei tou patros hˆm“n Abraam;\). Negative answer expected by \mˆ\ with ablative case of comparison in \patros\ after \meiz“n\. The question was designed to put Jesus in a difficult position, for Abraham and the prophets all "died." They do not see that Jesus uses death in a different sense. {Whom makest thou thyself?} (\tina seauton poieis;\). \Seauton\ is predicate accusative with \poieis\. They suspect that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy as they charged in strkjv@5:18| in making himself equal with God. Later they will make it specifically (10:33; strkjv@19:7|). They set a trap for Jesus for this purpose.

rwp@John:10:38 @{But if I do} (\ei de poi“\). Condition again of the first class, assumed as true, but with the opposite results. {Though ye believe not me} (\kan emoi mˆ pisteuˆte\). Condition now of third class, undetermined (but with prospect), "Even if you keep on (present active subjunctive of \pisteuo\) not believing me." {Believe the works} (\tois ergois pisteuete\). These stand irrefutable. The claims, character, words, and works of Jesus challenge the world today as then. {That ye may know and understand} (\hina gn“te kai gin“skˆte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the same verb \gin“sk“\ repeated in different tenses (first \gn“te\, the second ingressive aorist active subjunctive, that ye may come to know; then the present active subjunctive, "that ye may keep on knowing"). This is Christ's deepest wish about his enemies who stand with stones in their uplifted hands to fling at him. {That the Father is in me, and I in the Father} (\hoti en emoi ho patˆr kag“ en t“i patri\). Thus he repeats (verse 30|) sharply his real claim to oneness with the Father as his Son, to actual deity. It was a hopeless wish.

rwp@John:11:2 @{And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair} (\ˆn de Mariam hˆ aleipsasa ton kurion mur“i kai ekmaxasa tous podas autou tais thrixin autˆs\). This description is added to make plainer who Mary is "whose brother Lazarus was sick" (\hˆs ho adelphos Lazaros ˆsthenei\). There is an evident proleptic allusion to the incident described by John in strkjv@12:1-8| just after chapter 11. As John looks back from the end of the century it was all behind him, though the anointing (\hˆ aleipsasa\, first aorist active articular participle of \aleiph“\, old verb for which see strkjv@Mark:6:13|) took place after the events in chapter 11. The aorist participle is timeless and merely pictures the punctiliar act. The same remark applies to \ekmaxasa\, old verb \ekmass“\, to wipe off or away (Isaiah:12:3; strkjv@13:5; strkjv@Luke:7:38,44|). Note the Aramaic form \Mariam\ as usual in John, but \Marias\ in verse 1|. When John wrote, it was as Jesus had foretold (Matthew:26:13|), for the fame of Mary of Bethany rested on the incident of the anointing of Jesus. The effort to link Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene and then both names with the sinful woman of strkjv@Luke:7:36-50| is gratuitous and to my mind grotesque and cruel to the memory of both Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene. Bernard may be taken as a specimen: "The conclusion is inevitable that John (or his editor) regarded Mary of Bethany as the same person who is described by Luke as \hamart“los\." This critical and artistic heresy has already been discussed in Vol. II on Luke's Gospel. Suffice it here to say that Luke introduces Mary Magdalene as an entirely new character in strkjv@8:2| and that the details in strkjv@Luke:7:36-50; strkjv@John:12:1-8| have only superficial resemblances and serious disagreements. John is not here alluding to Luke's record, but preparing for his own in chapter 12. What earthly difficulty is there in two different women under wholly different circumstances doing a similar act for utterly different purposes?

rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoiˆsan oun aut“i deipnon ekei\). Here again \oun\ is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark:14:3-9|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6-13|) just two days (Mark:14:1|) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9|) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1|). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John "is here more probably accurate." It all turns on John's purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11|), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19|), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a|), and with two summary judgements (36b-50|). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke:7:36-50|). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. {And Martha served} (\kai hˆ Martha diˆkonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone“\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\pollˆn diakonian\, \diakonein\ as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6|) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke:7:36|), but Simon the leper (Mark:14:3; strkjv@Matthew:26:6|) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. {That sat at meat} (\t“n anakeimen“n\). "That lay back," reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after \ek\) of the common verb \anakeimai\. Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John:12:9|). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.

rwp@John:15:14 @{If ye do} (\ean poiˆte\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive, "if ye keep on doing," not just spasmodic obedience. Just a different way of saying what is in verse 10|. Obedience to Christ's commands is a prerequisite to discipleship and fellowship (spiritual friendship with Christ). He repeats it in the Great Commission (Matthew:28:20|, \eneteilamˆn\, I commanded) with the very word used here (\entellomai\, I command).

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

rwp@Luke:1:2 @{Even as} (\kath“s\). This particle was condemned by the Atticists though occurring occasionally from Aristotle on. It is in the papyri. Luke asserts that the previous narratives had their sound basis. {Delivered unto us} (\pared“san hˆmin\). Second aorist active indicative of \paradid“mi\. Luke received this tradition along with those who are mentioned above (the many). That is he was not one of the "eyewitnesses." He was a secondary, not a primary, witness of the events. Tradition has come to have a meaning of unreliability with us, but that is not the idea here. Luke means to say that the handing down was dependable, not mere wives' fables. Those who drew up the narratives had as sources of knowledge those who handed down the data. Here we have both written and oral sources. Luke had access to both kinds. {Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word} (\hoi ap' archˆs autoptai kai hupˆretai genomenoi tou logou\). "Who" is better than "which" for the article here. The word for {eyewitnesses} (\autoptai\) is an old Greek word and appears in the papyri also. It means seeing with one's own eyes. It occurs here only in the N.T. We have the very word in the medical term _autopsy_. Greek medical writers often had the word. It is a different word from \epoptai\ (eyewitness) in strkjv@2Peter:1:16|, a word used of those who beheld heavenly mysteries. The word for "ministers" (\hupˆretai\), under rowers or servants we have had already in strkjv@Matthew:5:25; strkjv@26:58; strkjv@Mark:14:54,65|, which see. We shall see it again in strkjv@Luke:4:20| of the attendant in the synagogue. In the sense of a preacher of the gospel as here, it occurs also in strkjv@Acts:26:16|. Here "the word" means the gospel message, as in strkjv@Acts:6:4; strkjv@8:4|, etc. {From the beginning} apparently refers to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as was true of the apostles (Acts:1:22|) and of the early apostolic preaching (Acts:10:37-43|). The Gospel of Mark follows this plan. The Gospel of Luke goes behind this in chapters 1 and 2 as does Matthew in chapters 1 and 2. But Luke is not here referring to himself. The matters about the childhood of Jesus Christ would not form part of the traditional preaching for obvious reasons.

rwp@Luke:1:48 @{The low estate} (\tˆn tapein“sin\). The bride of a carpenter and yet to be the mother of the Messiah. Literal sense here as in strkjv@1:52|. {Shall call me blessed} (\makariousin me\). So-called Attic future of an old verb, to felicitate. Elisabeth had already given her a beatitude (\makaria\, strkjv@1:45|). Another occurs in strkjv@11:27|. But this is a very different thing from the worship of Mary (Mariolatry) by Roman Catholics. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_.

rwp@Luke:3:11 @{Coats} (\chit“nas\). The inner and less necessary undergarment. The outer indispensable \himation\ is not mentioned. Note the specific and different message to each class. John puts his finger on the weaknesses of the people right before him.

rwp@Luke:3:18 @{Many other exhortations} (\polla men oun kai hetera\). Literally, many and different things did John \evangelize\, \euaggelizeto\, to the people. Luke has given a bare sample of the wonderful messages of the Baptist. Few as his words preserved are they give a definite and powerful conception of his preaching.

rwp@Luke:6:17 @{He came down with them} (\katabas met' aut“n\). Second aorist active participle of \katabain“\, common verb. This was the night of prayer up in the mountain (Mark:31:3; strkjv@Luke:6:12|) and the choice of the Twelve next morning. The going up into the mountain of strkjv@Matthew:5:1| may simply be a summary statement with no mention of what Luke has explained or may be a reference to the elevation, where he "sat down" (Matthew:5:1|), above the plain or "level place" (\epi topou pedinou\) on the mountain side where Jesus "stood" or "stopped" (\estˆ\). It may be a level place towards the foot of the mountain. He stopped his descent at this level place and then found a slight elevation on the mountain side and began to speak. There is not the slightest reason for making Matthew locate this sermon on the mountain and Luke in the valley as if the places, audiences, and topics were different. For the unity of the sermon see discussion on ¯Matthew:5:1f|. The reports in Matthew and Luke begin alike, cover the same general ground and end alike. The report in Matthew is longer chiefly because in Chapter 5, he gives the argument showing the contrast between Christ's conception of righteousness and that of the Jewish rabbis. Undoubtedly, Jesus repeated many of the crisp sayings here at other times as in Luke 12, but it is quite gratuitous to argue that Matthew and Luke have made up this sermon out of isolated sayings of Christ at various times. Both Matthew and Luke give too much that is local of place and audience for that idea. strkjv@Matthew:5:1| speaks of "the multitudes" and "his disciples." strkjv@Luke:6:17| notes "a great multitude of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon." They agree in the presence of disciples and crowds besides the disciples from whom the twelve apostles were chosen. It is important to note how already people were coming from "the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon" "to hear him and to be healed (\iathˆnai\, first aorist passive of \iaomai\) of their diseases."

rwp@Luke:7:19 @{Calling unto him} (\proskalesamenos\). First aorist middle (indirect) participle. {Two} (\duo tinas\). Certain two. Not in strkjv@Matthew:11:2|. {Saying} (\leg“n\). John saying by the two messengers. The message is given precisely alike in strkjv@Matthew:11:3|, which see. In both we have \heteron\ for "another," either a second or a different kind. In verse 20| Westcott and Hort read \allon\ in the text, \heteron\ in the margin. \Prosdok“men\, may be present indicative or present subjunctive (deliberative), the same contract form (\ao= “, a“ “\).

rwp@Luke:8:16 @{When he hath lighted a lamp} (\luchnon hapsas\). It is a portable lamp (\luchnon\) that one lights (\hapsas\ aorist active participle of \hapt“\, to kindle, fasten to, light). {With a vessel} (\skeuei\, instrumental case of \skeuos\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:21| has the more definite figure "under the bushel" as has strkjv@Matthew:5:15|. {Under the bed} (\hupokat“ klinˆs\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:21| has the regular \hupo tˆn klinˆn\ instead of the late compound \hupokat“\. Ragg notes that Matthew distributes the sayings of Jesus given here by strkjv@Luke:8:16-18; strkjv@Mark:4:21-25| concerning the parable of the lamp and gives them in three separate places (Matthew:5:15; strkjv@10:26; strkjv@13:12|). That is true, but it does not follow that Mark and Luke have bunched together separate sayings or that Matthew has scattered sayings delivered only on one occasion. One of the slowest lessons for some critics to learn is that Jesus repeated favourite sayings on different occasions and in different groupings just as every popular preacher and teacher does today. See on ¯Mark:4:21| for further discussion of the lamp and stand. {May see the light} (\Blep“sin to ph“s\). In strkjv@Matthew:5:16| Jesus has it "may see your good works." The purpose of light is to let one see something else, not the light. Note present subjunctive (\blep“sin\), linear action "Jesus had kindled a light within them. They must not hide it, but must see that it spreads to others" (Plummer). The parable of the lamp throws light on the parable of the sower.

rwp@Luke:9:28 @{About eight days} (\h“sei hˆmerai okt“\). A _nominativus pendens_ without connexion or construction. strkjv@Mark:9:2| (Matthew:17:1|) has "after six days" which agrees with the general statement. {Into the mountain} (\eis to oros\). Probably Mount Hermon because we know that Jesus was near Caesarea Philippi when Peter made the confession (Mark:8:27; strkjv@Matthew:16:13|). Hermon is still the glory of Palestine from whose heights one can view the whole of the land. It was a fit place for the Transfiguration. {To pray} (\proseuxasthai\). Peculiar to Luke who so often mentions Christ's habit of prayer (cf. strkjv@3:21|). See also verse 29| "as he was praying" (\en t“i proseuchesthai\, one of Luke's favourite idioms). {His countenance was altered} (\egeneto to eidos tou pros“pou autou heteron\). Literally, "the appearance of his face became different." strkjv@Matthew:17:2| says that "his face did shine as the sun." Luke does not use the word "transfigured" (\metemorph“thˆ\) in strkjv@Mark:9:2; strkjv@Matthew:17:2|. He may have avoided this word because of the pagan associations with this word as Ovid's \Metamorphoses\. {And his raiment became white and dazzling} (\kai ho himatismos autou leukos exastrapt“n\). Literally, {And his raiment white radiant}. There is no _and_ between "white" and "dazzling." The participle \exastrapt“n\ is from the compound verb meaning to flash (\astrapt“\) out or forth (\ex\). The simple verb is common for lightning flashes and bolts, but the compound in the LXX and here alone in the N.T. See strkjv@Mark:9:3| "exceeding white" and strkjv@Matthew:17:2| "white as the light."

rwp@Luke:9:61 @{And another also said} (\eipen de kai heteros\). A volunteer like the first. This third case is given by Luke alone, though the incident may also come from the same Logia as the other two. \Heteros\ does not here mean one of a "different" sort as is sometimes true of this pronoun, but merely another like \allos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 749). {But first} (\pr“ton de\). He also had something that was to come "first." {To bid farewell to them that are at my house} (\apotaxasthai tois eis ton oikon mou\). In itself that was a good thing to do. This first aorist middle infinitive is from \apotass“\, an old verb, to detach, to separate, to assign as a detachment of soldiers. In the N.T. it only appears in the middle voice with the meaning common in late writers to bid adieu, to separate oneself from others. It is used in strkjv@Acts:18:18| of Paul taking leave of the believers in Corinth. See also strkjv@Mark:6:46; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:13|. It is thus a formal function and this man meant to go home and set things in order there and then in due time to come and follow Jesus.

rwp@Luke:10:7 @{In that same house} (\en autˆi tˆi oikiƒi\). Literally, in the house itself, not "in the same house" (\en tˆi autˆi oikiƒi\), a different construction. A free rendering of the common Lukan idiom is, "in that very house." {Eating} (\esthontes\). An old poetic verb \esth“\ for \esthi“\ that survives in late Greek. {Such things as they give} (\ta par' aut“n\). "The things from them." {For the labourer is worthy of his hire} (\axios gar ho ergatˆs tou misthou autou\). In strkjv@Matthew:10:10| we have \tˆs trophˆs autou\ (his food). strkjv@1Timothy:5:18| has this saying quoted as scripture. That is not impossible if Luke wrote by A.D. 62. Paul there however may quote only strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:4| as scripture and get this quotation either from strkjv@Luke:10:7| or from a proverbial saying of Jesus. It is certainly not a real objection against the Pauline authorship of First Timothy. {Go not from house to house} (\mˆ metabainete ex oikias eis oikian\). As a habit, \mˆ\ and the present imperative, and so avoid waste of time with such rounds of invitations as would come.

rwp@Luke:11:8 @{Though} (\ei kai\). \Kai ei\ would be "Even if," a different idea. {Because he is his friend} (\dia to einai philon autou\). \Dia\ and the accusative articular infinitive with accusative of general reference, a causal clause="because of the being a friend of his." {Yet because of his importunity} (\dia ge tˆn anaidian autou\). From \anaidˆs\, shameless, and that from \a\ privative and \aid“s\, shame, shamelessness, impudence. An old word, but here alone in the N.T. Examples in the papyri. The use of \ge\ here, one of the intensive particles, is to be noted. It sharpens the contrast to "though" by "yet." As examples of importunate prayer Vincent notes Abraham in behalf of Sodom (Genesis:18:23-33|) and the Syro-Phoenician woman in behalf of her daughter (Matthew:15:22-28|).

rwp@Luke:12:6 @{Is forgotten} (\estin epilelˆsmenon\). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of \epilanthanomai\, common verb to forget. See strkjv@Matthew:10:29| for a different construction.

rwp@Luke:12:10 @{But unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit} (\t“i de eis to hagion pneuma blasphˆmˆsanti\). This unpardonable sin is given by strkjv@Mark:3:28f.; strkjv@Matthew:12:31f.| immediately after the charge that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub. Luke here separates it from the same charge made in Judea (11:15-20|). As frequently said, there is no sound reason for saying that Jesus only spoke his memorable sayings once. Luke apparently finds a different environment here. Note the use of \eis\ here in the sense of "against."

rwp@Luke:12:54 @{To the multitudes also} (\kai tois ochlois\). After the strong and stirring words just before with flash and force Jesus turns finally in this series of discourses to the multitudes again as in verse 15|. There are similar sayings to these verses 54-59| in strkjv@Matthew:16:1f; strkjv@5:25f|. There is a good deal of difference in phraseology whether that is due to difference of source or different use of the same source (Q or Logia) we do not know. Not all the old MSS. give strkjv@Matthew:16:2,3|. In Matthew the Pharisees and Sadducees were asking for a sign from heaven as they often did. These signs of the weather, "a shower" (\ombros\, strkjv@Luke:12:54|) due to clouds in the west, "a hot wave" (\kaus“n\, verse 55) due to a south wind (\noton\) blowing, "fair weather" (\eudia\, strkjv@Matthew:16:2|) when the sky is red, are appealed to today. They have a more or less general application due to atmospheric and climatic conditions.

rwp@Luke:13:19 @{A grain of mustard seed} (\kokk“i sinape“s\). Either the _sinapis nigra_ or the _salvadora persica_, both of which have small seeds and grow to twelve feet at times. The Jews had a proverb: "Small as a mustard seed." Given by strkjv@Mark:4:30-32; strkjv@Matthew:13:31f.| in the first great group of parables, but just the sort to be repeated. {Cast into his own garden} (\ebalen eis kˆpon heautou\). Different from "earth" (Mark) or "field" (Matthew.)" \Kˆpos\, old word for garden, only here in the N.T. and strkjv@John:19:1,26; strkjv@19:41|. {Became a tree} (\egeneto eis dendron\). Common Hebraism, very frequent in LXX, only in Luke in the N.T., but does appear in _Koin‚_ though rare in papyri; this use of \eis\ after words like _ginomai_. It is a translation Hebraism in Luke. {Lodged} (\kateskˆn“sen\). Mark and Matthew have \kataskˆnoin\ infinitive of the same verb, to make tent (or nest).

rwp@Luke:13:29 @{Shall sit down} (\anaklithˆsontai\). Future passive indicative third plural. Recline, of course, is the figure of this heavenly banquet. Jesus does not mean that these will be saved in different ways, but only that many will come from all the four quarters of the earth.

rwp@Luke:14:16 @{Made} (\epoiei\). Imperfect active, was on the point of making (inchoative). {Great supper} (\deipnon\). Or dinner, a formal feast. Jesus takes up the conventional remark of the guest and by this parable shows that such an attitude was no guarantee of godliness (Bruce). This parable of the marriage of the King's son (Luke:14:15-24|) has many points of likeness to the parable of the wedding garment (Matthew:22:1-14|) and as many differences also. The occasions are very different, that in Matthew grows out of the attempt to arrest Jesus while this one is due to the pious comment of a guest at the feast and the wording is also quite different. Hence we conclude that they are distinct parables. {And he bade many} (\kai ekalesen pollous\). Aorist active, a distinct and definite act following the imperfect \epoiei\.

rwp@Luke:16:16 @{Entereth violently into it} (\eis autˆn biazetai\). A corresponding saying occurs in strkjv@Matthew:11:12| in a very different context. In both the verb \biazetai\, occurs also, but nowhere else in the N.T. It is present middle here and can be middle or passive in Matthew, which see. It is rare in late prose. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 258) cites an inscription where \biazomai\ is reflexive middle and used absolutely. Here the meaning clearly is that everyone forces his way into the kingdom of God, a plea for moral enthusiasm and spiritual passion and energy that some today affect to despise.

rwp@Luke:19:4 @{Ran on before} (\prodram“n eis to emprosthen\). Second aorist active participle of \protrech“\ (defective verb). "Before" occurs twice (\pro-\ and \eis to emprosthen\). {Into a sycamore tree} (\epi sukomorean\). From \sukon\, fig, and \moron\, mulberry. The fig-mulberry and quite a different tree from the sycamine tree in strkjv@17:6|, which see. It bore a poor fruit which poor people ate (Amos:7:14|). It was a wide open tree with low branches so that Zacchaeus could easily climb into it. {That way} (\ekeinˆs\). Feminine for \hodos\ (way) is understood. Genitive case with \di\ in composition (\dierchesthai\) or as an adverbial use.

rwp@Luke:22:41 @{About a stone's throw} (\h“sei lithou bolˆn\). Accusative of extent of space. Luke does not tell of leaving eight disciples by the entrance to Gethsemane nor about taking Peter, James, and John further in with him. {Kneeled down} (\theis ta gonata\). Second aorist active participle from \tithˆmi\. strkjv@Mark:14:35| says "fell on the ground" and strkjv@Matthew:26:39| "fell on his face." All could be true at different moments. {Prayed} (\prosˆucheto\). Imperfect middle, was praying, kept on praying.

rwp@Luke:23:2 @{Began to accuse} (\ˆrxanto katˆgorein\). They went at it and kept it up. Luke mentions three, but neither of them includes their real reason nor do they mention their own condemnation of Jesus. They had indulged their hatred in doing it, but they no longer have the power of life and death. Hence they say nothing to Pilate of that. {We found} (\heuramen\). Second aorist active indicative with first aorist vowel \a\. Probably they mean that they had caught Jesus in the act of doing these things (_in flagrante delicto_) rather than discovery by formal trial. {Perverting our nation} (\diastrephonta to ethnos hˆm“n\). Present active participle of \diastreph“\, old verb to turn this way and that, distort, disturb. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:13:10|. The Sanhedrin imply that the great popularity of Jesus was seditious. {Forbidding to give tribute to Caesar}, (\k“luonta phorous kaisari didonai\). Note object infinitive \didonai\ after the participle \k“luonta\. Literally, hindering giving tribute to Caesar. This was a flat untruth. Their bright young students had tried desperately to get Jesus to say this very thing, but they had failed utterly (Luke:20:25|). {Saying that he himself is Christ a king} (\legonta hauton Christon basilea einai\). Note the indirect discourse here after the participle \legonta\ with the accusative (\hauton\ where \auton\ could have been used), and the infinitive. This charge is true, but not in the sense meant by them. Jesus did claim to be the Christ and the king of the kingdom of God. But the Sanhedrin wanted Pilate to think that he set himself up as a rival to Caesar. Pilate would understand little from the word "Christ," but "King" was a different matter. He was compelled to take notice of this charge else he himself would be accused to Caesar of winking at such a claim by Jesus.

rwp@Luke:23:11 @{Set him at nought} (\exouthenˆsas\). First aorist active participle from \exouthene“\, to count as nothing, to treat with utter contempt, as zero. {Arraying him in gorgeous apparel} (\peribal“n esthˆta lampran\). Second aorist active participle of \periball“\, to fling around one. \Lampran\ is brilliant, shining as in strkjv@James:2:2|, so different from the modest dress of the Master. This was part of the shame.

rwp@Luke:23:36 @{Mocked} (\enepaixan\). Even the soldiers yielded to the spell and acted like boys in their jeers. Aorist tense here and different verb also from that used of the rulers. They were not so bitter and persistent.

rwp@Mark:1:16 @{And passing along by the Sea of Galilee} (\kai parag“n para tˆn thalassan tˆs Galilaias\). Mark uses \para\ (along, beside) twice and makes the picture realistic. He catches this glimpse of Christ in action. Casting a {net} (\amphiballontas\). Literally casting on both sides, now on one side, now on the other. Matthew (Matthew:4:18|) has a different phrase which see. There are two papyri examples of the verb \amphiball“\, one verb absolutely for fishing as here, the other with the accusative. It is fishing with a net, making a cast, a haul. These four disciples were fishermen (\halieis\) and were {partners} (\metochoi\) as Luke states (Luke:5:7|).

rwp@Mark:1:27 @{They questioned among themselves} (\sunzˆtein autous\). By look and word. {A new teaching} (\didachˆ kainˆ\). One surprise had followed another this day. The teaching was fresh (\kainˆ\), original as the dew of the morning on the blossoms just blown. That was a novelty in that synagogue where only staid and stilted rabbinical rules had been heretofore droned out. This new teaching charmed the people, but soon will be rated as heresy by the rabbis. And it was with authority (\kat' exousian\). It is not certain whether the phrase is to be taken with "new teaching," "It's new teaching with authority behind it," as Moffatt has it, or with the verb; "with authority commandeth even the unclean spirits" (\kai tois pneumasin tois akathartois epitassei\). The position is equivocal and may be due to the fact that "Mark gives the incoherent and excited remarks of the crowd in this natural form" (Swete). But the most astonishing thing of all is that the demons "obey him" (\hupakouousin aut“i\). The people were accustomed to the use of magical formulae by the Jewish exorcists (Matthew:12:27; strkjv@Acts:19:13|), but here was something utterly different. Simon Magus could not understand how Simon Peter could do his miracles without some secret trick and even offered to buy it (Acts:8:19|).

rwp@Mark:3:14 @{He appointed twelve} (\epoiˆsen d“deka\). This was a second selection out of those invited to the hills and after the night of prayer and after day came (Luke:6:13|). Why he chose twelve we are not told, probably because there were twelve tribes in Israel. It was a good round number at any rate. They were to be princes in the new Israel (cf. strkjv@Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30; strkjv@Revelation:21:14,15|). Luke (Luke:6:13-16|) also gives the list of the twelve at this point while Matthew (Matthew:10:1-4|) postpones giving the names till they are sent out in Galilee. There is a fourth list in strkjv@Acts:1:13|. See discussion of the names of the apostles on ¯Matthew:10:1-4| and pp. 271-3 of my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_. The three groups of four begin alike (Simon, Philip, James). There are some difficulties. {Whom he also named apostles} (\hous kai apostolous “nomasen\). Margin of Revised Version, the text of Westcott and Hort after Aleph, B, C, etc. Genuine in strkjv@Luke:6:13| and probably so here. The meaning is that Jesus himself gave the name apostle or missionary (\apostell“\, to send) to this group of twelve. The word is applied in the New Testament to others besides as delegates or messengers of churches (2Corinthians:8:23; strkjv@Phillipians:2:25|), and messenger (John:13:16|). It is applied also to Paul on a par with the twelve (Galatians:1:1,11f.|, etc.) and also to Barnabas (Acts:14:14|), and perhaps also to Timothy and Silas (1Timothy:2:6f.|). Two purposes of Jesus are mentioned by Mark in the choice of these twelve, {that they might be with him} (\hina “sin met' autou\), {and that he might send them forth} (\kai hina apostellˆi autous\). They were not ready to be sent forth till they had been with Jesus for some time. This is one of the chief tasks of Christ to train this group of men. See Bruce's _The Training of the Twelve_. The very word \apostolos\ is from \apostell“\. There were two purposes in sending them forth expressed by two infinitives, one to preach (\kˆrussein\, from \kˆrux\, herald), the other to have power to cast out demons (\echein exousian ekballein ta daimonia\). This double ministry of preaching and healing was to mark their work. The two things are, however, different, and one does not necessarily involve the other.

rwp@Mark:4:30 @{How shall we liken?} (\P“s homoi“s“men?\) Deliberative first aorist subjunctive. This question alone in Mark. Songs:with the other question: {In what parable shall we set it forth?} (\en tini autˆn parabolˆi th“men;\). Deliberative second aorist subjunctive. The graphic question draws the interest of the hearers (_we_) by fine tact. strkjv@Luke:13:18f.| retains the double question which strkjv@Matthew:13:31f.| does not have, though he has it in a very different context, probably an illustration of Christ's favourite sayings often repeated to different audiences as is true of all teachers and preachers.

rwp@Mark:4:32 @{Groweth up} (\anabainei\). strkjv@Matthew:13:32| {When it is grown} (\hotan auxˆthˆi\). {Under the shadow thereof} (\hupo tˆn skian autou\). A different picture from Matthew's {in the branches thereof} (\en tois kladois autou\). But both use \kataskˆnoin\, to tent or camp down, make nests in the branches in the shade or hop on the ground under the shade just like a covey of birds. In strkjv@Matthew:8:20| the birds have nests (\kataskˆn“seis\). The use of the mustard seed for smallness seems to have been proverbial and Jesus employs it elsewhere (Matthew:17:20; strkjv@Luke:17:6|).

rwp@Mark:5:2 @{Out of the boat} (\ek tou ploiou\). Straightway (\euthus\) Mark says, using the genitive absolute (\exelthontos autou\) and then repeating \aut“i\ associative instrumental after \apˆntˆsen\. The demoniac greeted Jesus at once. Mark and strkjv@Luke:9:27| mention only one man while Matthew notes two demoniacs, perhaps one more violent than the other. Each of the Gospels has a different phrase. Mark has "a man with an unclean spirit" (\en pneumati akathart“i\), strkjv@Matthew:8:28| "two possessed with demons" (\duo daimonizomenoi\), strkjv@Luke:8:27| "one having demons" (\tis ech“n daimonia\). Mark has many touches about this miracle not retained in Matthew and Luke. See on ¯Matthew:8:28|.

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:6:7 @{By two and two} (\duo duo\). This repetition of the numeral instead of the use of \ana duo\ or \kata duo\ is usually called a Hebraism. The Hebrew does have this idiom, but it appears in Aeschylus and Sophocles, in the vernacular _Koin‚_ (Oxyrhynchus Papyri No. 121), in Byzantine Greek, and in modern Greek (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 122f.). Mark preserves the vernacular _Koin‚_ better than the other Gospels and this detail suits his vivid style. The six pairs of apostles could thus cover Galilee in six different directions. Mark notes that he "began to send them forth" (\ˆrxato autous apostellein\). Aorist tense and present infinitive. This may refer simply to this particular occasion in Mark's picturesque way. But the imperfect tense \edidou\ means he kept on giving them all through the tour, a continuous power (authority) over unclean spirits singled out by Mark as representing "all manner of diseases and all manner of sickness" (Matthew:10:1|), "to cure diseases" (\iasthai\, strkjv@Luke:9:1|), healing power. They were to preach and to heal (Luke:9:1; strkjv@Matthew:10:7|). Mark does not mention preaching as a definite part of the commission to the twelve on this their first preaching tour, but he does state that they did preach (6:12|). They were to be missioners or missionaries (\apostellein\) in harmony with their office (\apostoloi\).

rwp@Mark:6:44 @{Men} (\andres\). Men as different from women as in strkjv@Matthew:14:21|. This remarkable miracle is recorded by all Four Gospels, a nature miracle that only God can work. No talk about accelerating natural processes will explain this miracle. And three eyewitnesses report it: the Logia of Matthew, the eyes of Peter in Mark, the witness of John the Beloved Disciple (Gould). The evidence is overwhelming.

rwp@Mark:14:3 @{As he sat at meat} (\katakeimenou autou\). strkjv@Matthew:26:7| uses \anakeimenou\, both words meaning reclining (leaning down or up or back) and in the genitive absolute. See on ¯Matthew:26:6| in proof that this is a different incident from that recorded in strkjv@Luke:7:36-50|. See on ¯Matthew:26:6-13| for discussion of details. {Spikenard} (\nardou pistikˆs\). This use of \pistikos\ with \nardos\ occurs only here and in strkjv@John:12:3|. The adjective is common enough in the older Greek and appears in the papyri also in the sense of genuine, unadulterated, and that is probably the idea here. The word spikenard is from the Vulgate _nardi spicati_, probably from the Old Latin _nardi pistici_. {Brake} (\suntripsousa\). Only in Mark. She probably broke the narrow neck of the vase holding the ointment.

rwp@Mark:14:58 @{Made with hands} (\cheiropoiˆton\). In Mark alone. An old Greek word. The negative form \acheiropoiˆton\ here occurs elsewhere only in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:1; strkjv@Colossians:2:11|. In strkjv@Hebrews:9:11| the negative \ou\ is used with the positive form. It is possible that a real \logion\ of Jesus underlies the perversion of it here. Mark and Matthew do not quote the witnesses precisely alike. Perhaps they quoted Jesus differently and therein is shown part of the disagreement, for Mark adds verse 59| (not in Matthew). "And not even so did their witness agree together," repeating the point of verse 57|. Swete observes that Jesus, as a matter of fact, did do what he is quoted as saying in Mark: "He said what the event has proved to be true; His death destroyed the old order, and His resurrection created the new." But these witnesses did not mean that by what they said. The only saying of Jesus at all like this preserved to us is that in strkjv@John:2:19|, when he referred not to the temple in Jerusalem, but to the temple of his body, though no one understood it at the time.

rwp@Mark:14:72 @{Called to mind} (\anemnˆsthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative. strkjv@Matthew:26:75| has the uncompounded verb \emnˆsthˆ\ while strkjv@Luke:22:61| has another compound \hupemnˆsthˆ\, was reminded. {When he thought thereon} (\epibal“n\). Second aorist active participle of \epiball“\. It is used absolutely here, though there is a reference to \to rhˆma\ above, the word of Jesus, and the idiom involves \ton noun\ so that the meaning is to put the mind upon something. In strkjv@Luke:15:12| there is another absolute use with a different sense. Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 131) quotes a Ptolemaic papyrus Tb P 50 where \epibal“n\ probably means "set to," put his mind on. {Wept} (\eklaien\). Inchoative imperfect, began to weep. strkjv@Matthew:26:75| has the ingressive aorist \eklausen\, burst into tears.

rwp@Mark:16:5 @{Entering into the tomb} (\eiselthousai eis to mnˆmeion\). Told also by strkjv@Luke:24:3|, though not by Matthew. {A young man} (\neaniskon\). An angel in strkjv@Matthew:28:5|, two men in strkjv@Luke:24|. These and like variations in details show the independence of the narrative and strengthen the evidence for the general fact of the resurrection. The angel sat upon the stone (Matthew:28:2|), probably at first. Mark here speaks of the young man {sitting on the right side} (\kathˆmenon en tois dexiois\) inside the tomb. Luke has the two men standing by them on the inside (Luke strkjv@24:4|). Possibly different aspects and stages of the incident. {Arrayed in a white robe} (\peribeblˆmenon stolˆn leukˆn\). Perfect passive participle with the accusative case of the thing retained (verb of clothing). strkjv@Luke:24:4| has "in dazzling apparel." {They were amazed} (\exethambˆthˆsan\). They were utterly (\ex\ in composition) amazed. strkjv@Luke:24:5| has it "affrighted." strkjv@Matthew:28:3f.| tells more of the raiment white as snow which made the watchers quake and become as dead men. But this was before the arrival of the women. Mark, like Matthew and Luke, does not mention the sudden departure of Mary Magdalene to tell Peter and John of the grave robbery as she supposed (John:20:1-10|).

rwp@Matthew:3:2 @{For the kingdom of heaven is at hand} (\ˆggiken gar hˆ Basileia t“n ouran“n\). Note the position of the verb and the present perfect tense. It was a startling word that John thundered over the hills and it re-echoed throughout the land. The Old Testament prophets had said that it would come some day in God's own time. John proclaims as the herald of the new day that it has come, has drawn near. How near he does not say, but he evidently means very near, so near that one could see the signs and the proof. The words "the kingdom of heaven" he does not explain. The other Gospels use "the kingdom of God" as Matthew does a few times, but he has "the kingdom of heaven" over thirty times. He means "the reign of God," not the political or ecclesiastical organization which the Pharisees expected. His words would be understood differently by different groups as is always true of popular preachers. The current Jewish apocalypses had numerous eschatological ideas connected with the kingdom of heaven. It is not clear what sympathy John had with these eschatological features. He employs vivid language at times, but we do not have to confine John's intellectual and theological horizon to that of the rabbis of his day. He has been an original student of the Old Testament in his wilderness environment without any necessary contact with the Essenes who dwelt there. His voice is a new one that strikes terror to the perfunctory theologians of the temple and of the synagogue. It is the fashion of some critics to deny to John any conception of the spiritual content of his words, a wholly gratuitous criticism.

rwp@Matthew:6:25 @Vincent quotes Bacon (Henry VII): "Harris, an alderman of London, was put in trouble and died with thought and anguish." But words change with time and now this passage is actually quoted (Lightfoot) "as an objection to the moral teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, on the ground that it encouraged, nay, commanded, a reckless neglect of the future." We have narrowed the word to mere planning without any notion of anxiety which is in the Greek word. The verb \merimna“\ is from \meris, meriz“\, because care or anxiety distracts and divides. It occurs in Christ's rebuke to Martha for her excessive solicitude about something to eat (Luke:10:41|). The notion of proper care and forethought appears in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:32; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@Phillipians:2:20|. It is here the present imperative with the negative, a command not to have the habit of petulant worry about food and clothing, a source of anxiety to many housewives, a word for women especially as the command not to worship mammon may be called a word for men. The command can mean that they must stop such worry if already indulging in it. In verse 31| Jesus repeats the prohibition with the ingressive aorist subjunctive: "Do not become anxious," "Do not grow anxious." Here the direct question with the deliberative subjunctive occurs with each verb (\phag“men, pi“men, peribal“metha\). This deliberative subjunctive of the direct question is retained in the indirect question employed in verse 25|. A different verb for clothing occurs, both in the indirect middle (\peribal“metha\, fling round ourselves in 31|, \endusˆsthe\, put on yourselves in 25|).

rwp@Matthew:9:30 @{Were opened} (\ˆne“ichthˆsan\). Triple augment (on \oi=“i, e\ and then on preposition \an = ˆn\). {Strictly charged them} (\enebrimˆthˆ autois\). A difficult word, compound of \en\ and \brimaomai\ (to be moved with anger). It is used of horses snorting (Aeschylus, _Theb_. 461), of men fretting or being angry (Daniel:11:30|). Allen notes that it occurs twice in Mark (Mark:1:43; strkjv@14:5|) when Matthew omits it. It is found only here in Matthew. John has it twice in a different sense (John:11:33| with \en heaut“i\). Here and in strkjv@Mark:1:32| it has the notion of commanding sternly, a sense unknown to ancient writers. Most manuscripts have the middle \enebrimˆsato\, but Aleph and B have the passive \enebrimˆthˆ\ which Westcott and Hort accept, but without the passive sense (cf. \apekrithˆ\). "The word describes rather a rush of deep feeling which in the synoptic passages showed itself in a vehement injunctive and in strkjv@John:11:33| in look and manner" (McNeile). Bruce translates Euthymius Zigabenus on strkjv@Mark:1:32|: "Looked severely, contracting His eyebrows, and shaking His head at them as they are wont to do who wish to make sure that secrets will be kept." "See to it, let no one know it" (\horate, mˆdeis gin“sket“\). Note elliptical change of persons and number in the two imperatives.

rwp@Matthew:11:12 @{Suffereth violence} (\biazetai\). This verb occurs only here and in strkjv@Luke:16:16| in the N.T. It seems to be middle in Luke and Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 258) quotes an inscription "where \biazomai\ is without doubt reflexive and absolute" as in strkjv@Luke:16:16|. But there are numerous papyri examples where it is passive (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_, etc.) so that "there seems little that promises decisive help for the difficult Logion of strkjv@Matthew:11:12; strkjv@Luke:16:16|." Songs:then in strkjv@Matthew:11:12| the form can be either middle or passive and either makes sense, though a different sense. The passive idea is that the kingdom is forced, is stormed, is taken by men of violence like "men of violence take it by force" (\biastai harpazousin autˆn\) or seize it like a conquered city. The middle voice may mean "experiences violence" or "forces its way" like a rushing mighty wind (so Zahn holds). These difficult words of Jesus mean that the preaching of John "had led to a violent and impetuous thronging to gather round Jesus and his disciples" (Hort, _Judaistic Christianity_, p. 26).

rwp@Matthew:11:19 @{Wisdom is justified by her works} (\edikai“thˆ apo t“n erg“n autˆs\). A timeless aorist passive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 836f.). The word "justified" means "set right" Luke (Luke:7:35|) has "by all her children" as some MSS. have here to make Matthew like Luke. These words are difficult, but understandable. God's wisdom has planned the different conduct of both John and Jesus. He does not wish all to be just alike in everything. "This generation" (verse 16|) is childish, not childlike, and full of whimsical inconsistencies in their faultfinding. They exaggerate in each case. John did not have a demon and Jesus was not a glutton or a winebibber. "And, worse than either, for \philos\ is used in a sinister sense and implies that Jesus was the comrade of the worst characters, and like them in conduct. A malicious nickname at first, it is now a name of honour: the sinner's lover" (Bruce). Cf. strkjv@Luke:15:2|. The plan of God is justified by results.

rwp@Matthew:13:7 @{The thorns grew up} (\anebˆsan hai akanthai\). Not "sprang up" as in verse 5|, for a different verb occurs meaning "came up" out of the ground, the seeds of the thorns being already in the soil, "upon the thorns" (\epi tas akanthas\) rather than "among the thorns." But the thorns got a quick start as weeds somehow do and "choked them" (\apepnixan auta\, effective aorist of \apopnig“\), "choked them off" literally. Luke (Luke:8:33|) uses it of the hogs in the water. Who has not seen vegetables and flowers and corn made yellow by thorns and weeds till they sicken and die?

rwp@Matthew:16:14 @{And they said} (\hoi de eipan\). They were ready to respond for they knew that popular opinion was divided on that point (14:1f.|). They give four different opinions. It is always a risky thing for a pastor to ask for people's opinions of him. But Jesus was not much concerned by their answers to this question. He knew by now that the Pharisees and Sadducees were bitterly hostile to him. The masses were only superficially following him and they looked for a political Messiah and had vague ideas about him. How much did the disciples understand and how far have they come in their development of faith? Are they still loyal?

rwp@Matthew:19:22 @{Went away sorrowful} (\apˆlthen lupoumenos\). "Went away grieved." He felt that Jesus had asked too much of him. He worshipped money more than God when put to the test. Does Jesus demand this same test of every one? Not unless he is in the grip of money. Different persons are in the power of different sins. One sin is enough to keep one away from Christ.

rwp@Matthew:21:41 @{He will miserably destroy those miserable men} (\kakous kak“s apolesei autous\). The paronomasia or assonance is very clear. A common idiom in literary Greek. "He will put the wretches to a wretched death" (Weymouth). {Which} (\hoitines\). Who, which very ones of a different character.

rwp@Matthew:23:6 @{The chief place at feasts} (\tˆn pr“toklisian en tois deipnois\). Literally, the first reclining place on the divan at the meal. The Persians, Greeks, Romans, Jews differed in their customs, but all cared for the post of honour at formal functions as is true of us today. Hostesses often solve the point by putting the name of each guest at the table. At the last passover meal the apostles had an ugly snarl over this very point of precedence (Luke:22:24; strkjv@John:13:2-11|), just two days after this exposure of the Pharisees in the presence of the apostles. {The chief seats in the synagogues} (\tas pr“tokathedrias en tais sunag“gais\). "An insatiable hunger for prominence" (Bruce). These chief seats (Zuchermandel) were on the platform looking to the audience and with the back to the chest in which were kept the rolls of scripture. The Essenes had a different arrangement. People today pay high prices for front seats at the theatre, but at church prefer the rear seats out of a curious mock-humility. In the time of Jesus the hypocrites boldly sat up in front. Now, if they come to church at all, they take the rear seats.

rwp@Matthew:24:24 @{Great signs and wonders} (\sˆmeia megala kai terata\). Two of the three words so often used in the N.T. about the works (\erga\) of Jesus, the other being \dunameis\ (powers). They often occur together of the same work (John:4:48; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@4:30; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:12; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|). \Teras\ is a wonder or prodigy, \dunamis\, a mighty work or power, \sˆmeion\, a sign of God's purpose. Miracle (\miraculum\) presents only the notion of wonder or portent. The same deed can be looked at from these different angles. But the point to note here is that mere "signs and wonders" do not of themselves prove the power of God. These charlatans will be so skilful that they will, {if possible} (\ei dunaton\), lead astray the very elect. The implication is that it is not possible. People become excited and are misled and are unable to judge of results. Often it is _post hoc, sed non propter hoc_. Patent-medicine men make full use of the credulity of people along this line as do spiritualistic mediums. Sleight-of-hand men can deceive the unwary.

rwp@Matthew:24:37 @{The days of Noah} (\hai hˆmerai tou N“e\). Jesus had used this same imagery before to the Pharisees (Luke:17:26-30|). In Noah's day there was plenty of warning, but utter unpreparedness. Most people are either indifferent about the second coming or have fanciful schemes or programs about it. Few are really eager and expectant and leave to God the time and the plans.

rwp@Matthew:26:6 @{In the house of Simon the leper} (\en oikiƒi Sim“nos tou leprou\). Evidently a man who had been healed of his leprosy by Jesus who gave the feast in honour of Jesus. All sorts of fantastic theories have arisen about it. Some even identify this Simon with the one in strkjv@Luke:7:36ff.|, but Simon was a very common name and the details are very different. Some hold that it was Martha's house because she served (John:12:2|) and that Simon was either the father or husband of Martha, but Martha loved to serve and that proves nothing. Some identify Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman in strkjv@Luke:7| and even with Mary Magdalene, both gratuitous and groundless propositions. For the proof that Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, and the sinful woman of strkjv@Luke:7| are all distinct see my _Some Minor Characters in the New Testament_. John (John:12:1|) apparently locates the feast six days before the passover, while Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (26:6|) seem to place it on the Tuesday evening (Jewish Wednesday) just two days before the passover meal. It is possible that John anticipates the date and notes the feast at Bethany at this time because he does not refer to Bethany again. If not, the order of Mark must be followed. According to the order of Mark and Matthew, this feast took place at the very time that the Sanhedrin was plotting about the death of Jesus (Mark:14:1f.|).

rwp@Philippians:3:2 @{Beware} (\blepete\). Three times for urgency and with different epithet for the Judaizers each time. {The dogs} (\tous kunas\). The Jews so termed the Gentiles which Jesus uses in a playful mood (\kunariois\, little dogs) to the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew:15:26|). Paul here turns the phrase on the Judaizers themselves. {The evil workers} (\tous kakous ergatas\). He had already called the Judaizers "deceitful workers" (\ergatai dolioi\) in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13|. {The concision} (\tˆn katatomˆn\). Late word for incision, mutilation (in contrast with \peritomˆ\, circumcision). In Symmachus and an inscription. The verb \katatemn“\ is used in the LXX only of mutilations (Leviticus:21:5; strkjv@1Kings:18:28|).

rwp@Revelation:4:3 @{To look upon} (\horasei\). Locative case of \horasis\, old word (from \hora“\, to see) for appearance (in appearance) as in strkjv@Ezekiel:1:5,26|. {Like a jasper stone} (\homoios iaspidi\). Associative-instrumental case of \iaspis\, old word (Persian), used for stones of different colors, one opaque like opal, one translucent (21:11,18f.|, possibly here, only N.T. examples), one a red or yellow stone (Isaiah:54:12|). Some even take it for the diamond. Certainly not our cheap modern jasper. {A sardius} (\sardi“i\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@21:20|. The carnelian or other red stone, derived from Sardis (Pliny). {Rainbow} (\iris\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@10:1|. From strkjv@Ezekiel:1:28|. {An emerald} (\smaragdin“i\). Adjective (from \smaragdos\, strkjv@Revelation:21:19|), of emerald (supply \lith“i\), in associative instrumental case after \homoios\. John sees no form for God (Exodus:24:10|), but only the brilliant flashing gems. "In the vision the flashing lustre of the \iaspis\ and the fiery red of the \sard\ are relieved by the halo (\iris\) of emerald which encircled the Throne" (Swete). A complete circle.

rwp@Revelation:4:7 @{Like a lion} (\homoion leonti\). Associative-instrumental case again. In Ezekiel:(1:6,10|) each \z“on\ has four faces, but here each has a different face. "The four forms represent whatever is noblest, strongest, wisest, and swiftest in nature" (Swete). But it is not necessary to try to find a symbolism in each face here like the early baseless identification with the Four Evangelists (the lion for Mark, the man for Matthew, the calf for Luke, the eagle for John). \Moschos\ is first a sprout, then the young of animals, then a calf (bullock or heifer) as in strkjv@Luke:15:23, 27,30|, or a full-grown ox (Ezekiel:1:10|). {Had} (\ech“n\). Masculine singular (some MSS. \echon\ neuter singular agreeing with \z“on\) present active participle of \ech“\, changing the construction with the \triton z“on\ almost like a finite verb as in verse 8|. {A face as of a man} (\pros“pon h“s anthr“pou\). Shows that the likeness in each instance extended only to the face. {Like an eagle flying} (\homoion aet“i petomen“i\). Present middle participle of \petomai\, to fly, old verb, in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:4:7; strkjv@8:13; strkjv@12:14; strkjv@14:6; strkjv@19:17|. The \aetos\ in strkjv@Matthew:24:28; strkjv@Luke:17:37| may be a form of vulture going after carrion, but not in strkjv@Revelation:8:13; strkjv@12:14|.

rwp@Revelation:8:12 @{Was smitten} (\eplˆgˆ\). Second aorist passive indicative of \plˆss“\, old verb (like \plˆgˆ\ plague), here only in N.T. {That should be darkened} (\hina skotisthˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \skotiz“\, from \skotos\ (darkness) as in strkjv@Matthew:24:29|, but \skoto“\ in strkjv@Revelation:9:2|. {And the day should not shine} (\kai hˆ hˆmera mˆ phanˆi\). Negative purpose clause with \hina mˆ\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \phain“\, to shed light upon, as in strkjv@18:23|, not the second aorist passive subjunctive \phanˆi\ with different accent. The eclipse here is only partial and is kin to the ninth Egyptian plague (Exodus:10:21|).

rwp@Revelation:9:6 @{Men} (\hoi anthr“poi\). Generic use of the article (men as a class). {Shall not find it} (\ou mˆ heurˆsousin auton\). Strong double negative \ou mˆ\ with the future active indicative according to Aleph Q, but \heur“sin\ (second aorist active subjunctive) according to A P (either construction regular). The idea here is found in strkjv@Job:3:21; strkjv@Jeremiah:8:3|. "Such a death as they desire, a death which will end their sufferings, is impossible; physical death is no remedy for the \basanismos\ of an evil conscience" (Swete). {They shall desire to die} (\epithumˆsousin apothanein\). Future active of \epithume“\, a climax to \zˆtˆsousin\ (they shall seek), to desire vehemently. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:1:23| shows a preference for death if his work is done, in order to be with Christ, a very different feeling from what we have here. {Fleeth} (\pheugei\). Vivid futuristic present active indicative of \pheug“\. Even death does not come to their relief.

rwp@Revelation:13:11 @{Another beast} (\allo thˆrion\). Like the first beast (verse 1|), not a \heteron thˆrion\ (a different beast). {Out of the earth} (\ek tˆs gˆs\). Not "out of the sea" as the first (verse 1|), perhaps locating him in Asia Minor without world-wide scope, but plainly the agent of the first beast and so of the dragon. {He had} (\eichen\). Imperfect active of \ech“\. Only two horns (not ten like the first, verse 1|). {Like unto a lamb} (\homoia arni“i\). Usual construction. Only the two horns of a young lamb and without the ferocity of the other beast, but "he spake as a dragon" (\elalei h“s drak“n\). Gunkel and Charles confess their inability to make anything out of this item. But Swete thinks that he had the roar of a dragon with all the looks of a lamb (weakness and innocence). Cf. the wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew:7:15|).

rwp@Revelation:19:7 @{Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad} (\chair“men kai agalli“men\). Present active subjunctive (volitive) of \chair“\ and \agallia“\ (elsewhere in N.T. in the middle except strkjv@Luke:1:47; strkjv@1Peter:1:8|). For both verbs together see strkjv@Matthew:5:12|. {Let us give} (\d“men\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \did“mi\, but A reads \d“somen\ (future active) and P \d“s“men\. If the future indicative is read, the tone is changed from exhortation to declaration (we shall give glory unto him). {The marriage of the Lamb} (\ho gamos tou arniou\). In the O.T. God is the Bridegroom of Israel (Hosea:2:16; strkjv@Isaiah:54:6; strkjv@Ezekiel:16:7ff.|). In the N.T. Christ is the Bridegroom of the Kingdom (the universal spiritual church as seen by Paul, strkjv@2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@Ephesians:5:25ff.|, and by John in strkjv@Revelation:3:20; strkjv@19:7,9; strkjv@21:2,9; strkjv@22:17|. In the Gospels Christ appears as the Bridegroom (Mark:2:19f.; strkjv@Matthew:9:15; strkjv@Luke:5:34f.; strkjv@John:3:29|). The figure of \gamos\ occurs in strkjv@Matthew:22:2-14|. Three metaphors of women appear in the Apocalypse (the Mother in chapter strkjv@Revelation:12|, the Harlot in strkjv@Revelation:17-19|, and the Bride of Christ here to the end). "The first and third present the Church under two different aspects of her life, while the second answers to her great rival and enemy" (Swete). {Is come} (\ˆlthen\). Prophetic aorist, come at last. {Made herself ready} (\hˆtoimasen heautˆn\). First aorist active indicative of \hetoimaz“\ and the reflexive pronoun. See strkjv@22:2| for \hˆtoimasmenˆn h“s numphˆn\ (prepared as a bride). There is something for her to do (1John:3:3; strkjv@Jude:1:21; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:1|), but the chief preparation is the act of Christ (Ephesians:5:25ff.|).

rwp@Revelation:19:11 @{The heaven opened} (\ton ouranon ˆne“igmenon\). Perfect passive participle (triple reduplication) of \anoig“\. Accusative case after \eidon\. Songs:Ezekiel (1:1|) begins his prophecy. See also the baptism of Jesus (Matthew:3:16; strkjv@Luke:3:21|, but \schizomenous\ in strkjv@Mark:1:10|). Jesus predicted the opened heavens to Nathanael (John:1:51|). In strkjv@Revelation:4:1| a door is opened in heaven, the sanctuary is opened (11:19; strkjv@15:5|), angels come out of heaven (10:1; strkjv@14:17; strkjv@18:1|), and sounds come from heaven (19:1|). {Behold, a white horse} (\idou hippos leukos\). Nominative case because of \idou\, not \eidon\. Cf. strkjv@6:2| for \hippos leukos\. The emblem of victory in both cases, but the riders are very different. Here it is the Messiah who is the Warrior, as is made plain by "Faithful and True" (\pistos kai alˆthinos\), epithets already applied to Christ (1:5; strkjv@3:7,14|). Cf. also strkjv@22:6|. {In righteousness he doth judge and make war} (\en dikaiosunˆi krinei kai polemei\). See strkjv@Isaiah:11:3ff|. The Messiah is both Judge and Warrior, but he does both in righteousness (15:3; strkjv@16:5,7; strkjv@19:2|). He passes judgment on the beast (antichrist) and makes war on him. Satan had offered Christ a victory of compromise which was rejected.

rwp@Revelation:19:20 @{Was taken} (\epiasthˆ\). First aorist (prophetic) passive indicative of the Doric \piaz“\ (Attic \piez“\). Cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:8|. {The false prophet} (\ho pseudoprophˆtˆs\). Possibly the second beast of strkjv@13:11-17; strkjv@16:13; strkjv@20:10|. Charles takes him to be "the priesthood of the Imperial cult, which practised all kinds of magic and imposture to beguile men to worship the Beast." {That wrought the signs in his sight} (\ho poiesas ta sˆmeia en“pion autou\). As in strkjv@13:14|. {Wherewith} (\en hois\). "In which" signs. {He deceived} (\eplanˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \plana“\. He was only able to deceive "them that had received" (\tous labontas\, articular second aorist active participle of \lamban“\, "those receiving") "the mark of the beast" (13:16; strkjv@14:9ff.; strkjv@16:2; strkjv@20:4|) "and them that worshipped his image" (\tous proskunountas tˆi eikoni autou\) as in strkjv@13:15|. {They twain} (\hoi duo\). "The two." {Were cast} (\eblˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive Indicative of \ball“\. They fall together as they fought together. "The day that sees the end of a false statecraft will see also that of a false priestcraft" (Swete). {Alive} (\z“ntes\). Present active participle of \za“\, predicative nominative, "living." {Into the lake of fire} (\eis tˆn limnˆn tou puros\). Genitive \puros\ describes this \limnˆn\ (lake, cf. strkjv@Luke:5:1|) as it does \gehenna\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:22|. See also strkjv@20:10; strkjv@21:8|. It is a different figure from the "abyss" in strkjv@9:1ff; strkjv@20:1ff|. This is the final abode of Satan, the beast, the false prophet, and wicked men. {That burneth with brimstone} (\tˆs kaiomenˆs en thei“i\). Note the genitive here in place of the accusative \limnˆn\, perhaps because of the intervening genitive \puros\ (neuter, not feminine). The agreement is regular in strkjv@21:8|. For \en thei“i\ (with brimstone) see strkjv@14:10; strkjv@20:10; strkjv@21:8|. The fact of hell is clearly taught here, but the imagery is not to be taken literally any more than that of heaven in chapters strkjv@Revelation:4; 5; 21; 22| is to be so understood. Both fall short of the reality.

rwp@Romans:4:2 @{The Scripture} (\hˆ graphˆ\). strkjv@Genesis:15:6|. {Was justified by works} (\ex erg“n edikai“thˆ\). Condition of first class, assumed as true for the sake of argument, though untrue in fact. The rabbis had a doctrine of the merits of Abraham who had a superfluity of credits to pass on to the Jews (Luke:3:8|). {But not towards God} (\all' ou pros theon\). Abraham deserved all the respect from men that came to him, but his relation to God was a different matter. He had _there_ no ground of boasting at all.

rwp@Romans:5:19 @Here again we have "the one" (\tou henos\) with both Adam and Christ, but "disobedience" (\parakoˆs\, for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:10:6|) contrasted with "obedience" (\hupakoˆs\), the same verb \kathistˆmi\, old verb, to set down, to render, to constitute (\katestathˆsan\, first aorist passive indicative, \katastathˆsontai\, future passive), and "the many" (\hoi polloi\) in both cases (but with different meaning as with "all men" above).

rwp@Romans:6:13 @{Neither present} (\mˆde paristanete\). Present active imperative in prohibition of \paristan“\, late form of \paristˆmi\, to place beside. Stop presenting your members or do not have the habit of doing so, "do not go on putting your members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness." {Instruments} (\hopla\). Old word for tools of any kind for shop or war (John:18:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:7; strkjv@10:4; strkjv@Romans:13:12|). Possibly here figure of two armies arrayed against each other (Galatians:5:16-24|), and see \hopla dikaiosunˆs\ below. The two sets of \hopla\ clash. {But present yourselves unto God} (\alla parastˆsate heautous t“i the“i\). First aorist active imperative of \paristˆmi\, same verb, but different tense, do it now and completely. Our "members" (\melˆ\) should be at the call of God "as alive from the dead."

rwp@Romans:7:23 @{A different law} (\heteron nomon\). For the distinction between \heteros\ and \allos\, see strkjv@Galatians:1:6f|. {Warring against} (\antistrateuomenon\). Rare verb (_Xenophon_) to carry on a campaign against. Only here in N.T. {The law of my mind} (\t“i nom“i tou noos\). The reflective intelligence Paul means by \noos\, "the inward man" of verse 22|. It is this higher self that agrees that the law of God is good (12,16,22|). {Bringing me into captivity} (\aichmal“tizonta\). See on this late and vivid verb for capture and slavery strkjv@Luke:21:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:5|. Surely it is a tragic picture drawn by Paul with this outcome, "sold under sin" (14|), "captivity to the law of sin" (23|). The ancient writers (Plato, Ovid, Seneca, Epictetus) describe the same dual struggle in man between his conscience and his deeds.

rwp@Romans:13:9 @{For this} (\to gar\). For the article (\to\) pointing to a sentence see strkjv@8:26|, here to the quotation. The order of the commandments here is like that in strkjv@Luke:18:20; strkjv@James:2:11| and in B for strkjv@Deuteronomy:5|, but different from that of the Hebrew in strkjv@Exodus:20; strkjv@Deuteronomy:5|. The use of \ou\ with the volitive future in prohibitions in place of \mˆ\ and the imperative or subjunctive is a regular Greek idiom. {And if there be any other} (\kai ei tis hetera\). Paul does not attempt to give them all. {It is summed up} (\anakephalaioutai\). Present passive indicative of \anakephalaio“\, late literary word or "rhetorical term" (\ana, kephalaion\, head or chief as in strkjv@Hebrews:8:1|). Not in the papyri, but \kephalaion\, quite common for sum or summary. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:1:10|. {Namely} (\en t“i\). See \to gar\ at the beginning of the verse, though omitted by B F. The quotation is from strkjv@Leviticus:19:18|. Quoted in strkjv@Matthew:5:43; strkjv@22:39; strkjv@Mark:12:31; strkjv@Luke:10:27; strkjv@Galatians:5:14; strkjv@James:2:8| it is called \basilikos nomos\ (royal law). {Thy neighbour} (\ton plˆsion sou\). \Plˆsion\ is an adverb and with the article it means "the one near thee." See on ¯Matthew:5:43|.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sat Jun 29 23:35:09 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020