NT.filter - rwp plainly:

rwp@1Corinthians:8:1 @{Now concerning things sacrificed to idols} (\peri de tn eidlothutn\). Plainly the Corinthians had asked also about this problem in their letter to Paul (7:1|). This compound adjective (\eidlon\, idol, \thutos\, verbal adjective from \thu\, to sacrifice) is still found only in the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, not so far in the papyri. We have seen this problem mentioned in the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:29; strkjv@21:25|). The connection between idolatry and impurity was very close, especially in Corinth. See both topics connected in strkjv@Revelation:2:14,20|. By \eidlothuta\ was meant the portion of the flesh left over after the heathen sacrifices. The heathen called it \hierothuton\ (1Corinthians:10:28|). This leftover part "was either eaten sacrificially, or taken home for private meals, or sold in the markets" (Robertson and Plummer). What were Christians to do about eating such portions either buying in the market or eating in the home of another or at the feast to the idol? Three questions are thus involved and Paul discusses them all. There was evidently difference of opinion on the subject among the Corinthian Christians. Aspects of the matter come forward not touched on in the Jerusalem Conference to which Paul does not here allude, though he does treat it in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10|. There was the more enlightened group who acted on the basis of their superior knowledge about the non-existence of the gods represented by the idols. {Ye know that we all have knowledge} (\oidamen hoti pantes gnsin echomen\). This may be a quotation from the letter (Moffatt, _Lit. of N.T._, p. 112). Since their conversion to Christ, they know the emptiness of idol-worship. Paul admits that all Christians have this knowledge (personal experience, \gnsis\), but this problem cannot be solved by knowledge.

rwp@1Corinthians:9:5 @{Have we no right?} (\M ouk echomen exousian;\). Same idiom. {To lead about a wife that is a believer?} (\adelphn gunaika periagein;\). Old verb \periag\, intransitive in strkjv@Acts:13:11|. Two substantives in apposition, a sister a wife, a common Greek idiom. This is a plea for the support of the preacher's wife and children. Plainly Paul has no wife at this time. {And Cephas} (\kai Kphs\). Why is he singled out by name? Perhaps because of his prominence and because of the use of his name in the divisions in Corinth (1:12|). It was well known that Peter was married (Matthew:8:14|). Paul mentions James by name in strkjv@Galatians:1:19| as one of the Lord's brothers. All the other apostles were either married or had the right to be.

rwp@1Corinthians:10:21 @{Ye cannot} (\ou dunasthe\). Morally impossible to drink the Lord's cup and the cup of demons, to partake of the Lord's table and the table of demons. {Of the table of the Lord} (\trapezs Kuriou\). No articles, but definite idea. \Trapeza\ is from \tetra\ (four) and \peza\ (a foot), four-footed. Here {table} means, as often, what is on the table. See strkjv@Luke:22:30| where Jesus says "at my table" (\epi ts trapezs mou\), referring to the spiritual feast hereafter. Here the reference is plainly to the Lord's Supper (\Kuriakon deipnon\, strkjv@1Corinthians:11:20|). See allusions in O.T. to use of the table in heathen idol feasts (Isaiah:65:11; strkjv@Jeremiah:7:18; strkjv@Ezekiel:16:18f.; strkjv@23:41|). The altar of burnt-offering is called the table of the Lord in strkjv@Malachi:1:7| (Vincent).

rwp@1Corinthians:12:1 @{Now concerning spiritual gifts} (\peri de tn pneumatikn\). Clearly one of the items asked about in the letter to Paul (7:1|) and introduced precisely as the problem of meats offered to idols (8:1|). This question runs to the end of chapter 14. Plainly much trouble had arisen in Corinth in the exercise of these gifts.

rwp@1John:2:29 @{If ye know} (\ean eidte\). Third-class condition again with \ean\ and second perfect active subjunctive of \oida\. If ye know by intuitive or absolute knowledge that Christ (because of verse 28|) is righteous, then "ye know" or "know ye" (\ginskete\ either indicative or imperative) by experimental knowledge (so \ginsk\ means in contrast with \oida\). {Is begotten} (\gegenntai\). Perfect passive indicative of \genna\, stands begotten, the second birth (regeneration) of strkjv@John:3:3-8|. {Of him} (\ex autou\). Plainly "of God" in verse 9| and so apparently here in spite of \dikaios\ referring to Christ. Doing righteousness is proof of the new birth.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:16 @{With a shout} (\en keleusmati\). Note this so-called instrumental use of \en\. Old word, here only in N.T., from \keleu\, to order, command (military command). Christ will come as Conqueror. {With the voice of the archangel} (\en phni archaggelou\). Further explanation of \keleusmati\ (command). The only archangel mentioned in N.T. is Michael in strkjv@Jude:1:9|. But note absence of article with both \phni\ and \archaggelou\. The reference may be thus indefinite. {With the trump of God} (\en salpiggi theou\). Trumpet. See same figure in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:52|. {The dead in Christ shall rise first} (\hoi nekroi en Christi anastsontai prton\). {First} here refers plainly to the fact that, so far from the dead in Christ having no share in the Parousia, they will rise before those still alive are changed.

rwp@1Timothy:5:24 @{Evident} (\prodloi\). "Openly plain," "plain before all." Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:7:24|. {Going before unto judgment} (\proagousai eis krisin\). See strkjv@1:18| for \proag\. The sins are so plain that they receive instant condemnation. {And some men also they follow after} (\tisin de kai epakolouthousin\). Associative instrumental case \tisin\ with \epakolouthousin\ for which verb see verse 10|, "dog their steps" (Parry) like strkjv@1Peter:2:21|, not clearly manifest at first, but come out plainly at last. How true that is of secret sins.

rwp@2Corinthians:2:1 @{That I would not come again to you with sorrow} (\to m palin en lupi pros humas elthein\). Articular second aorist active infinitive with negative \m\ in apposition with \touto\ (this) preceding. What does Paul mean by "again" (\palin\)? Had he paid another visit besides that described in strkjv@Acts:18| which was in sorrow (\en lupi\)? Or does he mean that having had one joyful visit (that in strkjv@Acts:18|) he does not wish the second one to be in sorrow? Either interpretation is possible as the Greek stands and scholars disagree. Songs:in strkjv@12:14| "The third time I am ready to come" may refer to the proposed second visit (1:15f.|) and the present plan (a third). And so as to strkjv@13:1|. There is absolutely no way to tell clearly whether Paul had already made a second visit. If he had done so, it is a bit odd that he did not plainly say so in strkjv@1:15f.| when he is apologizing for not having made the proposed visit ("a second benefit").

rwp@2Corinthians:7:14 @{If--I have gloried} (\ei--kekauchmai\). Condition of first class. On this verb see strkjv@1Corinthians:3:21; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:12|. {I was not put to shame} (\ou katischunthn\). First aorist passive indicative of \kataischun\. Paul had assured Titus, who hesitated to go after the failure of Timothy, that the Corinthians were sound at bottom and would come round all right if handled properly. Paul's joy is equal to that of Titus. {In truth} (\en altheii\). In the sharp letter as well as in I Corinthians. He had not hesitated to speak plainly of their sins. {Our glorying before Titus} (\h kauchsis epi Titou\). The two things were not inconsistent and were not contradictory as the outcome proved.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:1 @{Now I Paul myself} (\Autos de eg Paulos\). Cf. strkjv@Galatians:5:2|. Paul now turns to the third part of the epistle in chapters 10-13| in which he vigorously defends himself against the accusations of the stubborn minority of Judaizers in Corinth. Great ministers of Christ through the ages have had to pass through fiery trials like these. Paul has shown the way for us all. He speaks of himself now plainly, but under compulsion, as is clear. It may be that at this point he took the pen from the amanuensis and wrote himself as in strkjv@Galatians:6:11|. {By the meekness and gentleness of Christ} (\dia tes prauttos kai epieikias tou Christou\). This appeal shows (Plummer) that Paul had spoken to the Corinthians about the character of Christ. Jesus claimed meekness for himself (Matthew:11:29|) and felicitated the meek (Matthew:5:5|) and he exemplified it abundantly (Luke:23:34|). See on ¯Matthew:5:15; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:21| for this great word that has worn thin with us. Plutarch combines \prauts\ with \epieikia\ as Paul does here. Matthew Arnold suggested "sweet reasonableness" for \epieikeia\ in Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch. It is in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:24:4| (\to epieikes\ in strkjv@Phillipians:4:5|). In Greek Ethics the equitable man was called \epieiks\, a man who does not press for the last farthing of his rights (Bernard). {Lowly among you} (\tapeinos en humin\). The bad use of \tapeinos\, the old use, but here alone in N.T. in that meaning. Socrates and Aristotle used it for littleness of soul. Probably Paul here is quoting one of the sneers of his traducers in Corinth about his humble conduct while with them (1Corinthians:2:23; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:6|) and his boldness (\apn tharr\) when away (1Corinthians:7:16|). "It was easy to satirize and misrepresent a depression of spirits, a humility of demeanour, which were either the direct results of some bodily affliction, or which the consciousness of this affliction had rendered habitual" (Farrar). The words stung Paul to the quick.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:2 @{To the end that} (\eis to\). One of Paul's favourite idioms for purpose, \eis to\ and the infinitive. {Ye be not quickly shaken} (\m taches saleuthnai humas\). First aorist passive infinitive of \saleu\, old verb to agitate, to cause to totter like a reed (Matthew:11:7|), the earth (Hebrews:12:26|). Usual negative \m\ and accusative of general reference \humas\ with the infinitive. {From your mind} (\apo tou noos\). Ablative case of nous, mind, reason, sober sense, "from your witte" (Wyclif), to "keep their heads." {Nor yet be troubled} (\mde throeisthai\). Old verb \throe\, to cry aloud (from \throos\, clamour, tumult), to be in a state of nervous excitement (present passive infinitive, as if it were going on), "a continued state of agitation following the definite shock received (\saleuthnai\)" (Milligan). {Either by spirit} (\mte dia pneumatos\). By ecstatic utterance (1Thessalonians:5:10|). The nervous fear that the coming was to be at once prohibited by \mde\ Paul divides into three sources by \mte, mte, mte\. No individual claim to divine revelation (the gift of prophecy) can justify the statement. {Or by word} (\mte dia logou\). Oral statement of a conversation with Paul (Lightfoot) to this effect {as from us}. An easy way to set aside Paul's first Epistle by report of a private remark from Paul. {Or by epistle as from us} (\mte di' epistols hs di' hmn\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13-5:3| Paul had plainly said that Jesus would come as a thief in the night and had shown that the dead would not be left out in the rapture. But evidently some one claimed to have a private epistle from Paul which supported the view that Jesus was coming at once, {as that the day of the Lord is now present} (\hs hoti enestken h hmera tou kuriou\). Perfect active indicative of \enistmi\, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near. Songs:"is imminent" (Lightfoot). The verb is common in the papyri. In strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22; strkjv@Romans:8:38| we have a contrast between \ta enestta\, the things present, and \ta mellonta\, the things future (to come). The use of \hs hoti\ may be disparaging here, though that is not true in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19|. In the _Koin_ it comes in the vernacular to mean simply "that" (Moulton, _Proleg_., p. 212), but that hardly seems the case in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1033). Here it means "to wit that," though "as that" or "as if" does not miss it much. Certainly it flatly denies that by conversation or by letter he had stated that the second coming was immediately at hand. "It is this misleading assertion that accounts both for the increased discouragement of the faint-hearted to encourage whom Paul writes strkjv@1:3-2:17|, and for the increased meddlesomeness of the idle brethren to warn whom Paul writes strkjv@3:1-18|" (Frame). It is enough to give one pause to note Paul's indignation over this use of his name by one of the over-zealous advocates of the view that Christ was coming at once. It is true that Paul was still alive, but, if such a "pious fraud" was so common and easily condoned as some today argue, it is difficult to explain Paul's evident anger. Moreover, Paul's words should make us hesitate to affirm that Paul definitely proclaimed the early return of Jesus. He hoped for it undoubtedly, but he did not specifically proclaim it as so many today assert and accuse him of misleading the early Christians with a false presentation.

rwp@Acts:5:32 @{We are witnesses} (\hmeis esmen martures\). As in strkjv@2:32|. {Things} (\rhmatn\). Literally, sayings, but like the Hebrew _dabhar_ for "word" it is here used for "things." {And so is the Holy Ghost} (\kai to pneuma to hagion\). The word for "is" (\estin\) is not in the Greek, but this is plainly the meaning. Peter claims the witness of the Holy Spirit to the raising of Jesus Christ, God's Son, by the Father.

rwp@Acts:7:48 @{Howbeit} (\all'\). By contrast with what Solomon did and David planned. Note emphatic position of "not" (\all' ouch\), "But not does the Most High dwell." The presence of the Most High is not confined in any building, even one so splendid as Solomon's Temple as Solomon himself foresaw and acknowledged in his prayer (1Kings:8:27; strkjv@2Chronicles:6:18|). {In houses made with hands} (\en cheiropoitois\). No word here for "houses" or "temples" in correct text (\naois\ temples in Textus Receptus). Literally, "In things made with hands" (\cheir\, hand, \poitos\, verbal adjective of \poie\). It occurs in strkjv@Mark:14:58| of the temple and of the sanctuary of Moab (Isaiah:16:12|). It occurs also in strkjv@Acts:7:24; strkjv@Hebrews:9:11,24; strkjv@Ephesians:2:11|. Common in the old Greek. {The prophet} (\ho prophts\). strkjv@Isaiah:66:1|. Isaiah taught plainly that heaven is God's throne.

rwp@Acts:8:3 @{Laid waste} (\elumaineto\). Imperfect middle of \lumainomai\, old verb (from \lum\, injury), to dishonour, defile, devastate, ruin. Only here in the N.T. Like the laying waste of a vineyard by a wild boar (Psalms:79:13|). Picturesque description of the havoc carried on by Saul now the leader in the persecution. He is victor over Stephen now who had probably worsted him in debate in the Cilician synagogue in Jerusalem. {Into every house} (\kata tous oikous\). But Luke terms it "the church" (\tn ekklsian\). Plainly not just an "assembly," but an organized body that was still "the church" when scattered in their own homes, "an unassembled assembly" according to the etymology. Words do not remain by the etymology, but travel on with usage. {Haling} (\surn\). Literally, dragging forcibly (=hauling). Present active participle of \sur\, old verb. {Men and women} (\andras kai gunaikas\). A new feature of the persecution that includes the women. They met it bravely as through all the ages since (cf. strkjv@9:2; strkjv@22:4|). This fact will be a bitter memory for Paul always. {Committed} (\paredidou\). Imperfect active of \paradidmi\, old verb, kept on handing them over to prison.

rwp@Acts:8:18 @{When Simon saw} (\Idn de ho Simn\). This participle (second aorist active of \hora\) shows plainly that those who received the gift of the Holy Spirit spoke with tongues. Simon now saw power transferred to others. Hence he was determined to get this new power. {He offered them money} (\prosnegken chrmata\). Second aorist active indicative of \prospher\. He took Peter to be like himself, a mountebank performer who would sell his tricks for enough money. Trafficking in things sacred like ecclesiastical preferments in England is called "Simony" because of this offer of Simon.

rwp@Acts:13:50 @{Urged on} (\partrunan\). First aorist (effective) active of \par-otrun\, old verb, but here alone in the N.T., to incite, to stir up. The Jews were apparently not numerous in this city as they had only one synagogue, but they had influence with people of prominence, like "the devout women of honourable estate" (\tas sebomenas gunaikas tas euschmonas\), the female proselytes of high station, a late use of an old word used about Joseph of Arimathea (Mark:15:43|). The rabbis went after these Gentile women who had embraced Judaism (cf. strkjv@Acts:17:4| in Thessalonica) as Paul had made an appeal to them. The prominence of women in public life here at Antioch is quite in accord with what we know of conditions in the cities of Asia Minor. "Thus women were appointed under the empire as magistrates, as presidents of the games, and even the Jews elected a woman as Archisynagogos, at least in one instance at Smyrna" (Knowling). In Damascus Josephus (_War_ II. 20, 21) says that a majority of the married women were proselytes. Strabo (VIII. 2) and Juvenal (VI. 542) speak of the addiction of women to the Jewish religion. {The chief men of the city} (\tous prtous ts poles\). Probably city officials (the Duumviri, the Praetors, the First Ten in the Greek Cities of the east) or other "foremost" men, not officials. The rabbis were shrewd enough to reach these men (not proselytes) through the women who were proselytes of distinction. {Stirred up a persecution} (\epgeiran digmon\). First aorist active indicative of \epegeir\, old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@14:2|. Paul seems to allude to this persecution in strkjv@2Timothy:3:11| "persecutions, sufferings, what things befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra, what persecutions I endured." Here Paul had perils from his own countrymen and perils from the Gentiles after the perils of rivers and perils of robbers on the way from Perga (2Corinthians:11:26|). He was thrice beaten with rods (\tris erhabdisthn\, strkjv@2Corinthians:11:25|) by Roman lictors in some Roman colony. If that was here, then Paul and Barnabas were publicly scourged by the lictors before they left. Probably the Jews succeeded in making the Roman officials look on Paul and Barnabas as disturbers of the public peace. Songs:"they cast them out of their borders" (\exebalon autous apo tn horin autn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ekball\, forcible expulsion plainly as public nuisances. Just a few days before they were the heroes of the city and now!

rwp@Acts:14:20 @{Stood round about him} (\kuklsantn auton\). Genitive absolute with first aorist active participle of \kuklo\, old verb from \kuklos\ (circle, cycle) to make a circle round, to encircle. The would-be murderers left and a group of disciples gathered round to see if Paul was dead or alive and, if dead, to bury him. In that group Timothy may very well have been along with Eunice and Barnabas. Timothy, a lad of about fifteen, would not soon forget that solemn scene (2Timothy:3:11|). But Paul suddenly (apparently a miraculous recovery) rose up (\anastas\) and entered the city to the surprise and joy of the disciples who were willing to brave persecution with Paul. {With Barnabas} (\sun ti Barnabi\). With the assistance of Barnabas. It was plainly unwise to continue in Lystra so that they set out on the next day (\ti epaurion\, ten times in Acts), shaken and bruised as Paul was. Derbe was some forty miles distant, near the pass to the Cilician Gates.

rwp@Acts:17:10 @{Immediately by night} (\euthes dia nuktos\). Paul's work had not been in vain in Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:1:7f.; strkjv@2:13,20|). Paul loved the church here. Two of them, Aristarchus and Secundus, will accompany him to Jerusalem (Acts:20:4|) and Aristarchus will go on with him to Rome (27:2|). Plainly Paul and Silas had been in hiding in Thessalonica and in real danger. After his departure severe persecution came to the Christians in Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:2:14; strkjv@3:1-5; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:6|). It is possible that there was an escort of Gentile converts with Paul and Silas on this night journey to Beroea which was about fifty miles southwest from Thessalonica near Pella in another district of Macedonia (Emathia). There is a modern town there of some 6,000 people. {Went} (\apiesan\). Imperfect third plural active of \apeimi\, old verb to go away, here alone in the N.T. A literary, almost Atticistic, form instead of \aplthon\. {Into the synagogue of the Jews} (\eis tn sunaggn tn Ioudain\). Paul's usual custom and he lost no time about it. Enough Jews here to have a synagogue.

rwp@Acts:17:23 @{For} (\gar\). Paul gives an illustration of their religiousness from his own experiences in their city. {The objects of your worship} (\ta sebasmata humn\). Late word from \sebazomai\, to worship. In N T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4|. The use of this word for temples, altars, statues, shows the conciliatory tone in the use of \deisidaimonesterous\ in verse 22|. {An altar} (\bmon\). Old word, only here in the N.T. and the only mention of a heathen altar in the N.T {With this inscription} (\en hi epegegrapto\). On which had been written (stood written), past perfect passive indicative of \epigraph\, old and common verb for writing on inscriptions (\epigraph\, strkjv@Luke:23:38|). {To an Unknown God} (\AGNOSTO THEO\). Dative case, dedicated to. Pausanias (I. 1, 4) says that in Athens there are "altars to gods unknown" (\bmoi then agnstn\). Epimenides in a pestilence advised the sacrifice of a sheep to the befitting god whoever he might be. If an altar was dedicated to the wrong deity, the Athenians feared the anger of the other gods. The only use in the N.T. of \agnstos\, old and common adjective (from \a\ privative and \gnstos\ verbal of \ginsk\, to know). Our word agnostic comes from it. Here it has an ambiguous meaning, but Paul uses it though to a stern Christian philosopher it may be the "confession at once of a bastard philosophy and of a bastard religion" (Hort, _Hulsean Lectures_, p. 64). Paul was quick to use this confession on the part of the Athenians of a higher power than yet known to them. Songs:he gets his theme from this evidence of a deeper religious sense in them and makes a most clever use of it with consummate skill. {In ignorance} (\agnoountes\). Present active participle of \agnoe\, old verb from same root as \agnstos\ to which Paul refers by using it. {This set I forth unto you} (\touto ego kataggell humin\). He is a \kataggeleus\ (verse 18|) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is. By this master stroke he has brushed to one side any notion of violation of Roman law or suspicion of heresy and claims their endorsement of his new gospel, a shrewd and consummate turn. He has their attention now and proceeds to describe this God left out of their list as the one true and Supreme God. The later MSS. here read \hon--touton\ (whom--this one) rather than \ho--touto\ (what--this), but the late text is plainly an effort to introduce too soon the personal nature of God which comes out clearly in verse 24|.

rwp@Acts:18:15 @{Questions} (\ztmata\). Plural, contemptuous, "a parcel of questions" (Knowling). {About words} (\peri logou\). Word, singular, talk, not deed or fact (\ergon, factum\). {And names} (\kai onomatn\). As to whether "Jesus" should also be called "Christ" or "Messiah." The Jews, Gallio knew, split hairs over words and names. {And your own law} (\kai nomou tou kath' hums\) Literally, "And law that according to you." Gallio had not been caught in the trap set for him. What they had said concerned Jewish law, not Roman law at all. {Look to it yourselves} (\opsesthe autoi\). The volitive future middle indicative of \hora\ often used (cf. strkjv@Matthew:27:4|) where an imperative could be employed (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 874). The use of \autoi\ (yourselves) turns it all over to them. {I am not minded} (\ou boulomai\). I am not willing, I do not wish. An absolute refusal to allow a religious question to be brought before a Roman civil court. This decision of Gallio does not establish Christianity in preference to Judaism. It simply means that the case was plainly that Christianity was a form of Judaism and as such was not opposed to Roman law. This decision opened the door for Paul's preaching all over the Roman Empire. Later Paul himself argues (Romans:9-11|) that in fact Christianity is the true, the spiritual Judaism.

rwp@Acts:19:30 @{And when Paul was minded to enter in unto the people} (\Paulou de boulomenou eiselthein eis ton dmon\). Genitive absolute. Plainly Paul wanted to face the howling mob, whether it was the occasion pictured in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:9| or not. "St. Paul was not the man to leave his comrades in the lurch" (Knowling). {Suffered him not} (\ouk ein auton\). Imperfect of \ea\, common verb to allow, what Gildersleeve called the negative imperfect (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 885), denoting resistance to pressure. The more Paul insisted on going the more the disciples refused to agree to it and they won.

rwp@Acts:28:7 @{To the chief man of the island} (\ti prti ts nsou\). An official title correct in Malta (Ramsay, _St. Paul_, p. 343). An inscription in Malta calls Prudens "Primate of the Maltese" (\prtos Melitain\). Here it is plainly a title and not the common use seen in strkjv@13:50; strkjv@25:2; strkjv@28:17|. {Publius} (\Poplii\). This Greek name (\praenomen\) can be derived either from \Popilius\ or \Publius\ (cf. \publicus\ for \populicus\ from \populus\). Entertained us (\exenisen hms\). Paul and his companions (Luke and Aristarchus). Was Julius included? On \xeniz\ see strkjv@Acts:10:23|. {Courteously} (\philophrons\). This old adverb from \philophrn\ (\philos, phren\, friendly mind) occurs here alone in the N.T. In a kindly or friendly manner, all the more so because of the original suspicion of Paul as a criminal.

rwp@Acts:28:13 @{We made a circuit} (\perielthontes\). Second aorist active of \perierchomai\, to go around, old verb, already in strkjv@19:13|. See also strkjv@Hebrews:11:37; strkjv@1Timothy:5:13|. But Westcott and Hort read \perielontes\ after Aleph B (from \periaire\) as in strkjv@27:40|, though here it could only mean casting loose, for which no other authority exists. At any rate the ship had to tack to reach Rhegium and was not able to make a straight course (\enthudrome\, strkjv@16:11|). {Rhegium} (\Rhgion\) is from \rhgnumi\, to break off, the place where the land breaks off, the southern entrance to the straits of Messina. {A south wind sprang up} (\epigenomenou notou\). Genitive absolute again, and for all the world like that fatal south wind in strkjv@27:13|, but with no bad results this time, though the weather was plainly treacherous at this early season. {On the second day} (\deuteraioi\). This is the classical use of the predicate adjective, "We second day men" as in strkjv@Luke:24:22; strkjv@John:11:39; strkjv@Phillipians:3:5| instead of the adverb (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 657). {To Puteoli} (\eis Potiolous\). It was 182 miles from Rhegium and would require 26 hours (Page). It was eight miles northwest from Neapolis (Naples) and the chief port of Rome, the regular harbour for the Alexandrian ships from Rome. Portions of the great mole are said to be still visible.

rwp@Colossians:2:9 @{For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily} (\hoti en auti katoikei pn to plrma ts theottos smatiks\). In this sentence, given as the reason (\hoti\, because) for the preceding claim for Christ as the measure of human knowledge Paul states the heart of his message about the Person of Christ. There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very \essence\ of God, from \theos, deitas\) and not to be confused with \theiotes\ in strkjv@Romans:1:20| (from \theios\, the {quality} of God, _divinitas_), here only in N.T. as \theiots\ only in strkjv@Romans:1:20|. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. \Theiots\ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions. Paul here asserts that "all the \plrma\ of the Godhead," not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form (\smatiks\, late and rare adverb, in Plutarch, inscription, here only in N.T.), dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity (Phillipians:2:9-11|), "the body of his glory" (\ti smati ts doxs\). The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation (John:1:1,18; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6|), during the Incarnation (John:1:14,18; strkjv@1John:1:1-3|). It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (Phillipians:2:7|). Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.

rwp@Galatians:1:10 @{Amos:I persuading?} (\peith?\). Conative present, trying to persuade like \zt areskein\ (seeking to please) where the effort is stated plainly. See strkjv@2Corinthians:5:11|. {I should not be} (\ouk an mn\). Conclusion of second class condition, determined as unfulfilled. Regular construction here (\ei\ and imperfect indicative in the condition \reskon, ouk an\ and imperfect in the conclusion). About pleasing men see on ¯1Thessalonians:2:4|. In strkjv@Colossians:3:22; Eph. strkjv@6:6| Paul uses the word "men-pleasers" (\anthrpareskoi\).

rwp@Galatians:4:4 @{The fulness of the time} (\to plrma tou chronou\). Old word from \plro\, to fill. Here the complement of the preceding time as in strkjv@Ephesians:1:10|. Some examples in the papyri in the sense of complement, to accompany. God sent forth his preexisting Son (Phillipians:2:6|) when the time for his purpose had come like the \prothesmia\ of verse 2|. {Born of a woman} (\genomenon ek gunaikos\). As all men are and so true humanity, "coming from a woman." There is, of course, no direct reference here to the Virgin Birth of Jesus, but his deity had just been affirmed by the words "his Son" (\ton huion autou\), so that both his deity and humanity are here stated as in strkjv@Romans:1:3|. Whatever view one holds about Paul's knowledge of the Virgin Birth of Christ one must admit that Paul believed in his actual personal preexistence with God (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|), not a mere existence in idea. The fact of the Virgin Birth agrees perfectly with the language here. {Born under the law} (\genomenon hupo nomon\). He not only became a man, but a Jew. The purpose (\hina\) of God thus was plainly to redeem (\exagorasi\, as in strkjv@3:13|) those under the law, and so under the curse. The further purpose (\hina\) was that we (Jew and Gentile) might receive (\apolabmen\, second aorist active subjunctive of \apolamban\), not get back (Luke:15:27|), but get from (\apo\) God the adoption (\tn huiothesian\). Late word common in the inscriptions (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 239) and occurs in the papyri also and in Diogenes Laertes, though not in LXX. Paul adopts this current term to express his idea (he alone in the N.T.) as to how God takes into his spiritual family both Jews and Gentiles who believe. See also strkjv@Romans:8:15,23; strkjv@9:4; strkjv@Ephesians:1:5|. The Vulgate uses _adoptio filiorum_. It is a metaphor like the others above, but a very expressive one.

rwp@Galatians:6:8 @{Corruption} (\phthoran\). For this old word from \phtheir\, see on ¯1Corinthians:15:42|. The precise meaning turns on the context, here plainly the physical and moral decay or rottenness that follows sins of the flesh as all men know. Nature writes in one's body the penalty of sin as every doctor knows. {Eternal life} (\zn ainion\). See on ¯Matthew:25:46| for this interesting phrase so common in the Johannine writings. Plato used \ainios\ for perpetual. See also strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:9|. It comes as nearly meaning "eternal" as the Greek can express that idea.

rwp@James:4:4 @{Ye adulteresses} (\moichalides\). \Moichoi kai\ (ye adulterers) is spurious (Syrian text only). The feminine form here is a common late word from the masculine \moichoi\. It is not clear whether the word is to be taken literally here as in strkjv@Romans:7:3|, or figuratively for all unfaithful followers of Christ (like an unfaithful bride), as in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:1f.; strkjv@Ephesians:5:24-28| (the Bride of Christ). Either view makes sense in this context, probably the literal view being more in harmony with the language of verses 2f|. In that case James may include more than Christians in his view, though Paul talks plainly to church members about unchastity (Ephesians:5:3-5|). {Enmity with God} (\echthra tou theou\). Objective genitive \theou\ with \echthra\ (predicate and so without article), old word from \echthros\, enemy (Romans:5:10|), with \eis theon\ (below and strkjv@Romans:8:7|). {Whosoever therefore would be} (\hos ean oun boulthi\). Indefinite relative clause with \hos\ and modal \ean\ and the first aorist passive (deponent) subjunctive of \boulomai\, to will (purpose). {A friend of the world} (\philos tou kosmou\). Predicate nominative with infinitive \einai\ agreeing with \hos\. See strkjv@2:23| for \philos theou\ (friend of God). {Maketh himself} (\kathistatai\). Present passive (not middle) indicative as in strkjv@3:6|, "is constituted," "is rendered." {An enemy of God} (\echthros tou theou\). Predicate nominative and anarthrous and objective genitive (\theou\).

rwp@Info_John @ A PERSONAL WITNESS It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In strkjv@John:1:14| he plainly says that "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" (\etheasametha tn doxan autou\). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in strkjv@John:21:25| he employs the singular "I suppose" (\oimai\) in sharp dis- tinction from the plural "we know" (\oidamen\) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness (\marture, marturia\) so common in this Gospel (John:1:7,8,19; strkjv@3:11,26,33; strkjv@5:31; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@21:24|, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luke:1:1-4|). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark's Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John's Gospel claims to be the personal witness of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eye-witness in the vivid details.

rwp@John:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \n\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\esknsen en hmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skno\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\sknos\ or \skn\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\hs monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogen\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogens\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plrs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plrs\ can agree with the subject of \esknsen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai altheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \altheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

rwp@John:1:18 @{No man hath seen God at any time} (\theon oudeis heraken ppote\). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of \hora\. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus:33:20; strkjv@Deuteronomy:4:12|). Paul calls God \aoratos\ (Colossians:1:15; strkjv@1Timothy:1:17|). John repeats the idea in strkjv@John:5:37; strkjv@6:46|. And yet in strkjv@14:7| Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. {The only begotten Son} (\ho monogens huios\). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after \hs monogenous para patros\ in verse 14|. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read \monogens theos\ (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to \ho monogens huios\ to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like strkjv@3:16|. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called \theos\ in verse 1|. The Incarnation is stated in verse 14|, where he is also termed \monogens\. He was that before the Incarnation. Songs:he is "God only begotten," "the Eternal Generation of the Son" of Origen's phrase. {Which is in the bosom of the Father} (\ho n eis ton kolpon tou patros\). The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like \pros ton theon\ in verse 1|. In strkjv@3:13| there is some evidence for \ho n en ti ourani\ used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father. {He} (\ekinos\). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son. {Hath declared him} (\exgsato\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \exgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke's Gospel (24:35|) and four times in Acts:(10:8; strkjv@15:12,14; strkjv@21:19|). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.

rwp@John:7:10 @{Were gone up} (\anebsan\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain\, not past perfect though the action is antecedent in fact to the following \tote aneb\. The Greek does not always draw the precise distinction between the merely punctiliar (aorist) antecedent action and the past perfect (2:9; strkjv@4:45|). {He also} (\tote autos\). As well as the brothers. {Not publicly} (\ou phaners\). Against their advice in verse 4|, using \phanerson\ (the very same word stem). {But as it were in secret} (\alla hs en krupti\). "Not with the usual caravan of pilgrims" (Bernard). Just the opposite of their advice in verse 4| with the same phrase \en phaneri\. Plainly Jesus purposely went contrary to the insincere counsel of his brothers as to the manner of his Messianic manifestation. This secrecy concerned solely the journey to Jerusalem, not his public teaching there after his arrival (7:26,28; strkjv@18:20|).

rwp@John:8:41 @{Ye do the works of your father} (\humeis poieite ta erga tou patros humn\). Who is not Abraham and not God as Jesus plainly indicates. {We were not born of fornication} (\hmeis ek porneias egennthmen\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna\. This they said as a proud boast. Jesus had admitted that they were physical (Deuteronomy:23:2|) descendants of Abraham (37|), but now denies that they are spiritual children of Abraham (like Paul in strkjv@Romans:9:7|). \Porneia\ is from \pornos\ (harlot) and that from \pernmi\, to sell, a woman who sells her body for sexual uses. It is vaguely possible that in this stern denial the Pharisees may have an indirect fling at Jesus as the bastard son of Mary (so Talmud). {We have one Father, even God} (\hena patera echomen ton theon\). No "even" in the Greek, "One Father we have, God." This in direct reply to the implication of Jesus (verse 38|) that God was not their spiritual Father.

rwp@John:10:24 @{Came round about him} (\ekuklsan auton\). Aorist active indicative of \kuklo\, old verb from \kuklos\ (cycle, circle). See strkjv@Acts:14:20| for the circle of disciples around Paul when stoned. Evidently the hostile Jews cherished the memory of the stinging rebuke given them by Jesus when here last, particularly the allegory of the Good Shepherd (10:1-19|), in which he drew so sharply their own picture. {How long dost thou hold us in suspense?} (\hes pote tn psuchn hmn aireis;\). Literally, "Until when dost thou lift up our soul?" But what do they mean by this metaphor? \Air\ is common enough to lift up the eyes (John:11:41|), the voice (Luke:17:13|), and in strkjv@Psalms:25:1; strkjv@86:4| (Josephus, _Ant_. III. ii. 3) we have "to lift up the soul." We are left to the context to judge the precise meaning. Clearly the Jews mean to imply doubt and suspense. The next remark makes it clear. {If thou art the Christ} (\ei su ei ho Christos\). Condition of first class assumed to be true for the sake of argument. {Tell us plainly} (\eipon hmin parrsii\). Conclusion with \eipon\ rather than the usual \eipe\ as if first aorist active imperative like \luson\. The point is in "plainly" (\parrsii\), adverb as in strkjv@7:13,26| which see. That is to say "I am the Christ" in so many words. See strkjv@11:14; strkjv@16:29| for the same use of \parrsii\. The demand seemed fair enough on the surface. They had made it before when here at the feast of tabernacles (8:25|). Jesus declined to use the word \Christos\ (Messiah) then as now because of the political bearing of the word in their minds. The populace in Galilee had once tried to make him king in opposition to Pilate (John:6:14f.|). When Jesus does confess on oath before Caiaphas that he is the Christ the Son of God (Mark:14:61f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:63f.|), the Sanhedrin instantly vote him guilty of blasphemy and then bring him to Pilate with the charge of claiming to be king as a rival to Caesar. Jesus knew their minds too well to be caught now.

rwp@John:11:14 @{Plainly} (\parrsii\). Adverb (see on ¯7:4|), without metaphor as in strkjv@16:29|. {Is dead} (\apethanen\). First aorist active indicative, "died."

rwp@John:12:8 @{Ye have always} (\pantote echete\). Jesus does not discredit gifts to the poor at all. But there is relativity in one's duties. {But me ye have not always} (\eme de ou pantote echete\). This is what Mary perceived with her delicate woman's intuition and what the apostles failed to understand though repeatedly and plainly told by Jesus. John does not mention the precious promise of praise for Mary preserved in strkjv@Mark:14:9; strkjv@Matthew:26:13|, but he does show her keen sympathetic insight and Christ's genuine appreciation of her noble deed. It is curiously \mal-a-propos\ surely to put alongside this incident the other incident told long before by Luke (Luke:7:35ff.|) of the sinful woman. Let Mary alone in her glorious act of love.

rwp@John:13:2 @{During supper} (\deipnou ginomenou\). Correct text, present middle participle of \ginomai\ (not \genomenou\, second aorist middle participle, "being ended") genitive absolute. Verse 4| shows plainly that the meal was still going on. {The devil having already put} (\tou diabolou d beblkotos\). Another genitive absolute without a connective (asyndeton), perfect active participle of \ball\, to cast, to put. Luke (Luke:22:3|) says that Satan entered Judas when he offered to betray Jesus. Hence John's "already" (\d\) is pertinent. John repeats his statement in verse 27|. In strkjv@John:6:70| Jesus a year ago had seen that Judas was a devil. {To betray him} (\hina paradoi auton\). Cf. strkjv@Acts:5:3|. Purpose clause with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \paradidmi\ (form in \-oi\ as in strkjv@Mark:14:10| rather than the usual \-i\ in strkjv@Luke:22:4|). Satan had an open door by now into the heart of Judas.

rwp@John:14:1 @{Let not your heart be troubled} (\m tarassesth humn h kardia\). Not here the physical organ of life (Luke:21:34|), but the seat of spiritual life (\pneuma, psuch\), the centre of feeling and faith (Romans:10:10|), "the focus of the religious life" (Vincent) as in strkjv@Matthew:22:37|. See these words repeated in strkjv@14:27|. Jesus knew what it was to have a "troubled" heart (11:33; strkjv@13:31|) where \tarass\ is used of him. Plainly the hearts of the disciples were tossed like waves in the wind by the words of Jesus in strkjv@13:38|. {Ye believe... believe also} (\pisteuete... kai pisteuete\). Songs:translated as present active indicative plural second person and present active imperative of \pisteu\. The form is the same. Both may be indicative (ye believe... and ye believe), both may be imperative (believe... and believe or believe also), the first may be indicative (ye believe) and the second imperative (believe also), the first may be imperative (keep on believing) and the second indicative (and ye do believe, this less likely). Probably both are imperatives (Mark:11:22|), "keep on believing in God and in me."

rwp@John:16:25 @{In proverbs} (\en paroimiais\). See on ¯10:6| for this word. {Shall tell} (\apaggel\). Future active of \apaggell\, to report, correct text and not \anaggel\ (verses 13,14,15|), as in strkjv@1John:1:2f|. {Plainly} (\parrsii\). See on ¯7:13| for this word.

rwp@Jude:1:16 @{Murmurers} (\goggustai\). Late onomatopoetic word for agent, from \gogguz\ (Matthew:20:11; strkjv@1Corinthians:10:10|) in the LXX (Exodus:16:8; strkjv@Numbers:11:1,14-29|). {Complainers} (\mempsimoiroi\). Rare word (Isocrates, Aristotle, Plutarch) from \memphomai\ to complain and \moira\ lot or fate. Here alone in N.T. {Lusts} (\epithumias\). As in strkjv@2Peter:3:3|. {Swelling} (\huperogka\). Songs:in strkjv@2Peter:2:18| (big words). {Showing respect of persons} (\thaumazontes prospa\). Present active participle of \thaumaz\ to admire, to wonder at. Nowhere else in N.T. with \prospa\, but a Hebraism (in strkjv@Leviticus:19:15; strkjv@Job:13:10|) like \lambanein prospon\ (Luke:20:21|) and \blepein prospon\ (Matthew:22:16|) and \prosoplempte\ (James:2:9|). Cf. strkjv@James:2:1|. {For the sake of advantage} (\pheleias charin\). To themselves. See also verse 11|. The covetousness of these Gnostic leaders is plainly shown in strkjv@2Peter:2:3,14|. For \charin\ as preposition with genitive see strkjv@Ephesians:3:1,14|.

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

rwp@Luke:2:8 @{Abiding in the field} (\agraulountes\). From \agros\, field and \aul\, court. The shepherds were making the field their court. Plutarch and Strabo use the word. {Keeping watch} (\phulassontes phulakas\). Cognate accusative. They were bivouacking by night and it was plainly mild weather. In these very pastures David had fought the lion and the bear to protect the sheep (1Samuel:17:34f.|). The plural here probably means that they watched by turns. The flock may have been meant for the temple sacrifices. There is no way to tell.

rwp@Luke:2:33 @{His father and his mother} (\ho patr autou kai h mtr\). Luke had already used "parents" in strkjv@2:27|. He by no means intends to deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus so plainly stated in strkjv@1:34-38|. He merely employs here the language of ordinary custom. The late MSS. wrongly read "and Joseph" instead of "his father." {Were marvelling} (\n thaumazontes\). The masculine gender includes the feminine when both are referred to. But \n\ is singular, not \san\, the normal imperfect plural in this periphrastic imperfect. This is due to the wide space between copula and participle. The copula \n\ agrees in number with \ho patr\ while the participle coming last agrees with both \ho pater kai h mtr\ (cf. strkjv@Matthew:17:3; strkjv@22:40|). If one wonders why they marvelled at Simeon's words after what they had heard from Gabriel, Elisabeth, and the Shepherds, he should bear in mind that every parent is astonished and pleased at the fine things others see in the child. It is a mark of unusual insight for others to see so much that is obvious to the parent. Simeon's prophecy had gone beyond the angel's outline and it was surprising that he should know anything about the child's destiny.

rwp@Luke:11:39 @{The Lord} (\ho kurios\). The Lord Jesus plainly and in the narrative portion of Luke. {Now} (\nun\). Probably refers to him. You Pharisees do now what was formerly done. {The platter} (\tou pinakos\). The dish. Old word, rendered "the charger" in strkjv@Matthew:14:8|. Another word for "platter" (\paropsis\) in strkjv@Matthew:23:25| means "side-dish." {But your inward part} (\to de esthen humn\). The part within you (Pharisees). They keep the external regulations, but their hearts are full of plunder (\harpags\, from \harpaz\, to seize) and wickedness (\ponrias\, from \ponros\, evil man). See strkjv@Matthew:23:25| for a like indictment of the Pharisees for care for the outside of the cup but neglect of what is on the inside. Both inside and outside should be clean, but the inside first.

rwp@Luke:12:49 @{I came to cast fire} (\Pur lthon balein\). Suddenly Jesus lets the volcano in his own heart burst forth. The fire was already burning. "Christ came to set the world on fire, and the conflagration had already begun" (Plummer). The very passion in Christ's heart would set his friends on fire and his foes in opposition as we have just seen (Luke:11:53f.|). It is like the saying of Jesus that he came to bring not peace, but a sword, to bring cleavage among men (Matthew:10:34-36|). {And what will I, if it is already kindled?} (\kai ti thel ei d anphth;\). It is not clear what this passage means. Probably \ti\ is be taken in the sense of "how" (\ps\). How I wish. Then \ei\ can be taken as equal to \hoti\. How I wish that it were already kindled. \Anphth\ is first aorist passive of \anapt\, to set fire to, to kindle, to make blaze. Probably Luke means the conflagration to come by his death on the Cross for he changes the figure and refers to that more plainly.

rwp@Luke:19:25 @{And they said unto him} (\kai eipan auti\). Probably the eager audience who had been listening to this wonderful parable interrupted Jesus at this point because of this sudden turn when the one pound is given to the man who has ten pounds. If so, it shows plainly how keenly they followed the story which Jesus was giving because of their excitement about the kingdom (Luke:19:11|).

rwp@Luke:23:43 @{Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise} (\Smeron met' emou esi en ti paradeisi\). However crude may have been the robber's Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (2Corinthians:12:4; strkjv@Revelation:2:7|), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven. Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting "Abraham's bosom" (Luke:16:22f.|) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it.

rwp@Luke:24:6 @{He is not here, but is risen} (\ouk estin hde, alla gerth\). Another Western non-interpolation according to Westcott and Hort. The words are genuine at any rate in strkjv@Mark:16:6; strkjv@Matthew:28:7|. {The third day rise again} (\ti triti hmeri anastnai\). See strkjv@9:22; strkjv@18:32,33| where Jesus plainly foretold this fact. And yet they had forgotten it, for it ran counter to all their ideas and hopes.

rwp@Mark:4:34 @{But privately to his disciples he expounded all things} (\kat' idian de tois idiois mathtais epeluen panta\). To his own (\idiois\) disciples in private, in distinction from the mass of the people Jesus was in the habit (imperfect tense, \epeluen\) of {disclosing}, revealing, all things (\panta\) in plain language without the parabolic form used before the crowds. This verb \epilu\ occurs in the N.T. only here and in strkjv@Acts:19:39| where the town-clerk of Ephesus says of the troubles by the mob: "It shall be settled in the regular assembly" (\en ti ennomi ekklsii epiluthsetai\). First future passive indicative from \epilu\. The word means to give additional (\epi\) loosening (\lu\), so to explain, to make plainer, clearer, even to the point of revelation. This last is the idea of the substantive in strkjv@2Peter:1:20| where even the Revised Version has it: "No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation" (\psa prophteia graphs idias epiluses ou ginetai\). Here the use of \ginetai\ (comes) with the ablative case (\epiluses\) and the explanation given in verse strkjv@2Peter:1:21| shows plainly that disclosure or revelation to the prophet is what is meant, not interpretation of what the prophet said. The prophetic impulse and message came from God through the Holy Spirit. In private the further disclosures of Jesus amounted to fresh revelations concerning the mysteries of the kingdom of God.

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

rwp@Matthew:4:9 @{All these things will I give thee} (\tauta soi panta ds\). The devil claims the rule of the world, not merely of Palestine or of the Roman Empire. "The kingdoms of the cosmos" (4:8|) were under his sway. This word for world brings out the orderly arrangement of the universe while \h oikoumen\ presents the inhabited earth. Jesus does not deny the grip of the devil on the world of men, but the condition (\ean\ and aorist subjunctive, second class undetermined with likelihood of determination), was spurned by Jesus. As Matthew has it Jesus is plainly to "fall down and worship me" (\pesn prokunsis moi\), while Luke (Luke:4:7|) puts it, "worship before me" (\enpion emou\), a less offensive demand, but one that really involved worship of the devil. The ambition of Jesus is thus appealed to at the price of recognition of the devil's primacy in the world. It was compromise that involved surrender of the Son of God to the world ruler of this darkness. "The temptation was threefold: to gain a temporal, not a spiritual, dominion; to gain it at once; and to gain it by an act of homage to the ruler of this world, which would make the self-constituted Messiah the vice-regent of the devil and not of God" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:15:12 @{Were offended} (\eskandalisthsan\). First aorist passive. "Were caused to stumble," "have taken offence" (Moffatt), "have turned against you" (Weymouth), "were shocked" (Goodspeed), "War ill-pleased" (Braid Scots). They took umbrage at the public rebuke and at such a scorpion sting in it all. It cut to the quick because it was true. It showed in the glowering countenances of the Pharisees so plainly that the disciples were uneasy. See on ¯5:29|.

rwp@Matthew:16:16 @Peter is the spokesman now: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (\Su ei ho Christos ho huios tou theou tou zntos\). It was a noble confession, but not a new claim by Jesus. Peter had made it before (John:6:69|) when the multitude deserted Jesus in Capernaum. Since the early ministry (John 4) Jesus had avoided the word Messiah because of its political meaning to the people. But now Peter plainly calls Jesus the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Son of the God the living one (note the four Greek articles). This great confession of Peter means that he and the other disciples believe in Jesus as the Messiah and are still true to him in spite of the defection of the Galilean populace (John 6).

rwp@Matthew:16:20 @{That they should tell no man} (\hina mdeni eipsin\). Why? For the very reason that he had himself avoided this claim in public. He was the Messiah (\ho Christos\), but the people would inevitably take it in a political sense. Jesus was plainly profoundly moved by Peter's great confession on behalf of the disciples. He was grateful and confident of the final outcome. But he foresaw peril to all. Peter had confessed him as the Messiah and on this rock of faith thus confessed he would build his church or kingdom. They will all have and use the keys to this greatest of all buildings, but for the present they must be silent.

rwp@Matthew:16:21 @{From that time began} (\apo tote rxato\). It was a suitable time for the disclosure of the greatest secret of his death. It is now just a little over six months before the cross. They must know it now to be ready then. The great confession of Peter made this seem an appropriate time. He will repeat the warnings (17:22f.| with mention of betrayal; strkjv@20:17-19| with the cross) which he now "began." Songs:the necessity (\dei\, must) of his suffering death at the hands of the Jerusalem ecclesiastics who have dogged his steps in Galilee is now plainly stated. Jesus added his resurrection "on the third day" (\ti triti hmeri\), not "on the fourth day," please observe. Dimly the shocked disciples grasped something of what Jesus said.

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

rwp@Matthew:24:36 @{Not even the Son} (\oude ho huios\). Probably genuine, though absent in some ancient MSS. The idea is really involved in the words "but the Father only" (\ei m ho patr monos\). It is equally clear that in this verse Jesus has in mind the time of his second coming. He had plainly stated in verse 34| that those events (destruction of Jerusalem) would take place in that generation. He now as pointedly states that no one but the Father knows the day or the hour when these things (the second coming and the end of the world) will come to pass. One may, of course, accuse Jesus of hopeless confusion or extend his confession of ignorance of the date of the second coming to the whole chain of events. Songs:McNeile: "It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Jesus as Man, expected the End, within the lifetime of his contemporaries." And that after his explicit denial that he knew anything of the kind! It is just as easy to attribute ignorance to modern scholars with their various theories as to Jesus who admits his ignorance of the date, but not of the character of the coming.

rwp@Matthew:26:64 @{Thou hast said} (\su eipas\). This is a Greek affirmative reply. Mark (Mark:14:62|) has it plainly, "I am" (\eimi\). But this is not all that Jesus said to Caiaphas. He claims that the day will come when Jesus will be the Judge and Caiaphas the culprit using the prophetic language in strkjv@Daniel:7:13| and strkjv@Psalms:109:1|. It was all that Caiaphas wanted.

rwp@Matthew:27:42 @{He saved others; himself he cannot save} (\allous essen; heauton ou dunatai ssai\). The sarcasm is true, though they do not know its full significance. If he had saved himself now, he could not have saved any one. The paradox is precisely the philosophy of life proclaimed by Jesus himself (Matthew:10:39|). {Let him now come down} (\katabat nun\). Now that he is a condemned criminal nailed to the Cross with the claim of being "the King of Israel" (the Jews) over his head. Their spiteful assertion that they would then believe upon Jesus (\ep' auton\) is plainly untrue. They would have shifted their ground and invented some other excuse. When Jesus wrought his greatest miracles, they wanted "a sign from heaven." These "pious scoffers" (Bruce) are like many today who make factitious and arbitrary demands of Christ whose character and power and deity are plain to all whose eyes are not blinded by the god of this world. Christ will not give new proofs to the blind in heart.

rwp@Philippians:2:30 @{Hazarding his life} (\paraboleusamenos ti psuchi\). First aorist middle participle of \paraboleu\ (from the adjective \parabolos\), to place beside. The old Greek writers used \paraballomai\, to expose oneself to danger. But Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 88) cites an example of \paraboleusamenos\ from an inscription at Olbia or the Black Sea of the second century A.D. where it plainly means "exposing himself to danger" as here. Lightfoot renders it here "having gambled with his life." The word \parabolani\ (riskers) was applied to the Christians who risked their lives for the dying and the dead.

rwp@Revelation:1:5 @{Who is the faithful witness} (\ho martus ho pistos\). "The witness the faithful," nominative in apposition like \prtotokos\ and \archn\ with the preceding ablative \Isou Christou\ with \apo\, a habit of John in this book (apparently on purpose) as in strkjv@2:13,20; strkjv@3:12|, etc. See this same phrase in strkjv@2:13; strkjv@3:14|. The use of \martus\ of Jesus here is probably to the witness (1:1|) in this book (22:16f.|), not to the witness of Jesus before Pilate (1Timothy:6:13|). {The first-born of the dead} (\ho prtotokos tn nekrn\). A Jewish Messianic title (Psalms:88:28|) and as in strkjv@Colossians:1:18| refers to priority in the resurrection to be followed by others. See strkjv@Luke:2:7| for the word. {The ruler of the kings of the earth} (\ho archn tn basilen ts gs\). Jesus by his resurrection won lordship over the kings of earth (17:14; strkjv@19:16|), what the devil offered him by surrender (Matthew:4:8f.|). {Unto him that loveth us} (\ti agapnti hms\). Dative of the articular present (not aorist \agapsanti\) active participle of \agapa\ in a doxology to Christ, the first of many others to God and to Christ (1:6; strkjv@4:11; strkjv@5:9,12f.; strkjv@7:10,12|, etc.). For the thought see strkjv@John:3:16|. {Loosed} (\lusanti\). First aorist active participle of \lu\ (Aleph A C), though some MSS. (P Q) read \lousanti\ (washed), a manifest correction. Note the change of tense. Christ loosed us once for all, but loves us always. {By his blood} (\en ti haimati autou\). As in strkjv@5:9|. John here as in the Gospel and Epistles states plainly and repeatedly the place of the blood of Christ in the work of redemption.

rwp@Revelation:13:11 @{Another beast} (\allo thrion\). Like the first beast (verse 1|), not a \heteron thrion\ (a different beast). {Out of the earth} (\ek ts gs\). 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 arnii\). 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 hs drakn\). 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@Romans:1:18 @{For the wrath of God is revealed} (\apokaluptetai gar org theou\). Note in Romans Paul's use of \gar\, now argumentative, now explanatory, now both as here. There is a parallel and antecedent revelation (see verse 17|) of God's wrath corresponding to the revelation of God's righteousness, this an unwritten revelation, but plainly made known. \Org\ is from \orga\, to teem, to swell. It is the temper of God towards sin, not rage, but the wrath of reason and law (Shedd). The revelation of God's righteousness in the gospel was necessary because of the failure of men to attain it without it, for God's wrath justly rested upon all both Gentiles (1:18-32|) and Jews (2:1-3:20|). {Ungodliness} (\asebeian\). Irreligion, want of reverence toward God, old word (cf. strkjv@2Timothy:2:16|). {Unrighteousness} (\adikian\). Lack (\a\ privative and \dik\) of right conduct toward men, injustice (Romans:9:14; strkjv@Luke:18:6|). This follows naturally from irreverence. The basis of ethical conduct rests on the nature of God and our attitude toward him, otherwise the law of the jungle (cf. Nietzsche, "might makes right"). {Hold down the truth} (\tn altheian katechontn\). Truth (\altheia, alths\, from \a\ privative and \lth\ or \lanthan\, to conceal) is out in the open, but wicked men, so to speak, put it in a box and sit on the lid and "hold it down in unrighteousness." Their evil deeds conceal the open truth of God from men. Cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:6f.| for this use of \katech\, to hinder.

rwp@Romans:16:23 @{Gaius my host} (\Gaios ho xenos mou\). Perhaps the same Gaius of strkjv@1Corinthians:1:14| (Acts:19:29; strkjv@20:4|), but whether the one of strkjv@3John:1:1| we do not know. \Xenos\ was a guest friend, and then either a stranger (Matthew:25:35|) or a host of strangers as here. This Gaius was plainly a man of some means as he was the host of all the church. Erastus (2Timothy:4:20|) was "the treasurer of the city" (\ho oikonomos ts poles\), one of the outstanding men of Corinth, the "steward" (house-manager) or city manager. See strkjv@Luke:12:42; strkjv@16:1|. He is probably the administrator of the city's property. {Quartus} (\Kouartos\). Latin name for fourth.