Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp between:


rwp@1Corinthians:12:3 @{Wherefore I give you to understand} (\dio gn“riz“ humin\). Causative idea (only in Aeschylus in old Greek) in papyri (also in sense of recognize) and N.T., from root \gn“\ in \gin“sk“\, to know. {Speaking in the Spirit of God} (\en pneumati theou lal“n\). Either sphere or instrumentality. No great distinction here between \lale“\ (utter sounds) and \leg“\ (to say). {Jesus is anathema} (\anathema Iˆsous\). On distinction between \anathema\ (curse) and \anathˆma\ (offering strkjv@Luke:21:5|) see discussion there. In LXX \anathˆma\ means a thing devoted to God without being redeemed, doomed to destruction (Leviticus:27:28f.; strkjv@Joshua:6:17; strkjv@7:12|). See strkjv@1Corinthians:16:22; strkjv@Galatians:1:8f.; strkjv@Romans:9:3|. This blasphemous language against Jesus was mainly by the Jews (Acts:13:45; strkjv@18:6|). It is even possible that Paul had once tried to make Christians say \Anathema Iˆsous\ (Acts:26:11|). {Jesus is Lord} (\Kurios Iˆsous\). The term \Kurios\, as we have seen, is common in the LXX for God. The Romans used it freely for the emperor in the emperor worship. "Most important of all is the early establishment of a polemical parallelism between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term \Kurios\, 'lord.' The new texts have here furnished quite astonishing revelations" (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 349). Inscriptions, ostraca, papyri apply the term to Roman emperors, particularly to Nero when Paul wrote this very letter (_ib._, p. 353f.): "One with 'Nero Kurios' quite in the manner of a formula (without article, like the 'Kurios Jesus' in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|." "The battle-cries of the spirits of error and of truth contending at Corinth" (Findlay). One is reminded of the demand made by Polycarp that he say \Kurios Caesar\ and how each time he replied \Kurios Iˆsous\. He paid the penalty for his loyalty with his life. Lighthearted men today can say "Lord Jesus" in a flippant or even in an irreverent way, but no Jew or Gentile then said it who did not mean it.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:26 @{Suffer with it} (\sunpaschei\). Medical term in this sense in Hippocrates and Galen. In N.T only here and strkjv@Romans:8:17| (of our suffering with Christ). One of Solon's Laws allowed retaliation by any one for another's injuries. Plato (_Republic_, V, 462) says the body politic "feels the hurt" as the whole body feels a hurt finger. {Rejoice with it} (\sunchairei\). This is fortunately true also. One may tingle with joy all over the body thanks to the wonderful nervous system and to the relation between mind and matter. See strkjv@13:6| for joy of love with truth.

rwp@1Corinthians:13:1 @{With the tongues} (\tais gl“ssais\). Instrumental case. Mentioned first because really least and because the Corinthians put undue emphasis on this gift. Plato (_Symposium_, 197) and many others have written on love, but Paul has here surpassed them all in this marvellous prose-poem. It comes like a sweet bell right between the jangling noise of the gifts in chapters 12 and 14. It is a pity to dissect this gem or to pull to pieces this fragrant rose, petal by petal. Fortunately Paul's language here calls for little comment, for it is the language of the heart. "The greatest, strongest, deepest thing Paul ever wrote" (Harnack). The condition (\ean\ and present subjunctive, \lal“ kai mˆ ech“\, though the form is identical with present indicative) is of the third class, a supposable case. {But have not love} (\agapˆn de mˆ ech“\). This is the _crux_ of the chapter. Love is the way _par excellence_ of strkjv@12:31|. It is not yet clearly certain that \agapˆ\ (a back-formation from \agapa“\) occurs before the LXX and the N.T. Plutarch used \agapˆsis\. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 198) once suspected it on an inscription in Pisidia. It is still possible that it occurs in the papyri (Prayer to Isis). See _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 75 for details. The rarity of \agapˆ\ made it easier for Christians to use this word for Christian love as opposed to \er“s\ (sexual love). See also Moffatt's Love in the N.T. (1930) for further data. The word is rare in the Gospels, but common in Paul, John, Peter, Jude. Paul does not limit \agapˆ\ at all (both toward God and man). Charity (Latin _caritas_) is wholly inadequate. "Intellect was worshipped in Greece, and power in Rome; but where did St. Paul learn the surpassing beauty of love?" (Robertson and Plummer). Whether Paul had ever seen Jesus in the flesh, he knows him in the spirit. One can substitute Jesus for love all through this panegyric. {I am become} (\gegona\). Second perfect indicative in the conclusion rather than the usual future indicative. It is put vividly, "I am already become." Sounding brass (\chalchos ˆch“n\). Old words. Brass was the earliest metal that men learned to use. Our word _echoing_ is \ˆch“n\, present active participle. Used in strkjv@Luke:21:25| of the roaring of the sea. Only two examples in N.T. {Clanging cymbal} (\kumbalon alalazon\). Cymbal old word, a hollow basin of brass. \Alalaz“\, old onomatopoetic word to ring loudly, in lament (Mark:5:38|), for any cause as here. Only two N.T. examples.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:3 @{Let no man beguile you in any wise} (\mˆ tis humas exapatˆsˆi kata mˆdena tropon\). First aorist active subjunctive of \exapata“\ (old verb to deceive, strengthened form of simple verb \apata“\) with double negative (\mˆ tis, mˆdena\) in accord with regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:11| rather than the aorist imperative which does occur sometimes in the third person as in strkjv@Mark:13:15| (\mˆ katabat“\). Paul broadens the warning to go beyond conversation and letter. He includes "tricks" of any kind. It is amazing how gullible some of the saints are when a new deceiver pulls off some stunts in religion. {For it will not be} (\hoti\). There is an ellipse here of \ouk estai\ (or \genˆsetai\) to be supplied after \hoti\. Westcott and Hort make an anacoluthon at the end of verse 4|. The meaning is clear. \Hoti\ is causal, because, but the verb is understood. The second coming not only is not "imminent," but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of verse 2|. {Except the falling away come first} (\ean mˆ elthˆi hˆ apostasia pr“ton\). Negative condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of determination and the aorist subjunctive. \Apostasia\ is the late form of \apostasis\ and is our word apostasy. Plutarch uses it of political revolt and it occurs in I Macc. strkjv@2:15 about Antiochus Epiphanes who was enforcing the apostasy from Judaism to Hellenism. In strkjv@Joshua:22:22| it occurs for rebellion against the Lord. It seems clear that the word here means a religious revolt and the use of the definite article (\hˆ\) seems to mean that Paul had spoken to the Thessalonians about it. The only other New Testament use of the word is in strkjv@Acts:21:21| where it means apostasy from Moses. It is not clear whether Paul means revolt of the Jews from God, of Gentiles from God, of Christians from God, or of the apostasy that includes all classes within and without the body of Christians. But it is to be {first} (\pr“ton\) before Christ comes again. Note this adverb when only two events are compared (cf. strkjv@Acts:1:1|). {And the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition} (\kai apokaluphthˆi ho anthr“pos tˆs anomias, ho huios tˆs ap“leias\). First aorist passive subjunctive after \ean mˆ\ and same condition as with \elthˆi\. The use of this verb \apokalupt“\, like \apokalupsin\ of the second coming in strkjv@1:7|, seems to note the superhuman character (Milligan) of the event and the same verb is repeated in verses 6,8|. The implication is that {the man of sin} is hidden somewhere who will be suddenly manifested just as false apostles pose as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:13ff.|), whether the crowning event of the apostasy or another name for the same event. Lightfoot notes the parallel between the man of sin, of whom sin is the special characteristic (genitive case, a Hebraism for the lawless one in verse 8|) and Christ. Both Christ and the adversary of Christ are revealed, there is mystery about each, both make divine claims (verse 4|). He seems to be the Antichrist of strkjv@1John:2:18|. The terrible phrase, the son of perdition, is applied to Judas in strkjv@John:17:12| (like Judas doomed to perdition), but here to the lawless one (\ho anomos\, verse 8|), who is not Satan, but some one definite person who is doing the work of Satan. Note the definite article each time.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:15 @{Songs:then} (\ara oun\). Accordingly then. The illative \ara\ is supported (Ellicott) by the collective \oun\ as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:6; strkjv@Galatians:6:10|, etc. Here is the practical conclusion from God's elective purpose in such a world crisis. {Stand fast} (\stˆkete\). Present imperative active of the late present \stˆko\ from \hestˆka\ (perfect active of \histˆmi\). See on ¯1Thessalonians:3:8|. {Hold the traditions} (\krateite tas paradoseis\). Present imperative of \krate“\, old verb, to have masterful grip on a thing, either with genitive (Mark:1:31|) or usually the accusative as here. \Paradosis\ (tradition) is an old word for what is handed over to one. Dibelius thinks that Paul reveals his Jewish training in the use of this word (Galatians:1:14|), but the word is a perfectly legitimate one for teaching whether oral, {by word} (\dia logou\), or written, {by epistle of ours} (\di' epistolˆs hˆm“n\). Paul draws here no distinction between oral tradition and written tradition as was done later. The worth of the tradition lies not in the form but in the source and the quality of the content. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23| says: "I received from the Lord what I also handed over (\pared“ka\) unto you." He praises them because ye "hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them unto you." The {tradition} may be merely that of men and so worthless and harmful in place of the word of God (Mark:7:8; strkjv@Colossians:2:6-8|). It all depends. It is easy to scoff at truth as mere tradition. But human progress in all fields is made by use of the old, found to be true, in connection with the new if found to be true. In Thessalonica the saints were already the victims of theological charlatans with their half-baked theories about the second coming of Christ and about social duties and relations. {Which ye were taught} (\has edidachthˆte\). First aorist passive indicative of \didask“\, to teach, retaining the accusative of the thing in the passive as is common with this verb like _doce“_ in Latin and teach in English.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:1 @{Finally} (\to loipon\). Accusative of general reference. Cf. \loipon\ strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:1|. {Pray} (\proseuchesthe\). Present middle, keep on praying. Note \peri\ as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:25|. {That the word of the Lord may run and be glorified} (\hina ho logos tou kuriou trechˆi kai doxazˆtai\). Usual construction of \hina\ after \proseuchomai\, sub-final use, content and purpose combined. Note present subjunctive with both verbs rather than aorist, may keep on running and being glorified, two verbs joined together nowhere else in the N.T. Paul probably derived this metaphor from the stadium as in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:24ff.; strkjv@Galatians:2:2; strkjv@Romans:9:16; strkjv@Phillipians:2:16; strkjv@2Timothy:4:7|. Lightfoot translates "may have a triumphant career." On the word of the Lord see on ¯1Thessalonians:1:8|. Paul recognizes the close relation between himself and the readers. He needs their prayers and sympathy and he rejoices in their reception of the word of the Lord already, {even as also it is with you} (\kath“s kai pros humas\). "As it does in your case" (Frame).

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:14 @{And if any one obeyeth not our word by this epistle} (\ei de tis ouch hupakouei t“i log“i hˆm“n dia tˆs epistolˆs\). Paul sums up the issue bluntly with this ultimatum. Condition of the first class, with negative \ou\, assuming it to be true. {Note that man} (\touton sˆmeiousthe\). Late verb \sˆmeio“\, from \sˆmeion\, sign, mark, token. Put a tag on that man. Here only in N.T. "The verb is regularly used for the signature to a receipt or formal notice in the papyri and the ostraca of the Imperial period" (Moulton & Milligan's _Vocabulary_). How this is to be done (by letter or in public meeting) Paul does not say. {That ye have no company with him} (\mˆ sunanamignusthai aut“i\). The MSS. are divided between the present middle infinitive as above in a command like strkjv@Romans:12:15; strkjv@Phillipians:3:16| or the present middle imperative \sunanamignusthe\ (\-ai\ and \-e\ often being pronounced alike in the _Koin‚_). The infinitive can also be explained as an indirect command. This double compound verb is late, in LXX and Plutarch, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:5:9,11|. \Aut“i\ is in associative instrumental case. {To the end that he may be ashamed} (\hina entrapˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\. Second aorist passive subjunctive of \entrep“\, to turn on, middle to turn on oneself or to put to shame, passive to be made ashamed. The idea is to have one's thoughts turned in on oneself.

rwp@2Timothy:2:5 @{If also a man contend in the games} (\ean de kai athlˆi tis\). Condition of third class with present (linear) active subjunctive of \athle“\, old and common verb (from \athlos\, a contest), only this verse in N.T., but \sunathle“\ in strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|. Note sharp distinction between \athlˆi\ (present subjunctive, engage in a contest in general) and \athlˆsˆi\ (first aorist active subjunctive, engage in a particular contest). Not "except he have contended," but simply "unless he contend" (in any given case) "lawfully" (\nomim“s\). Old adverb, agreeably to the law, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:1:8|. {Is not crowned} (\ou stephanoutai\). Present passive indicative of \stephano“\, old verb (from \stephanos\, crown), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:2:7,9|. One apodosis for two protases. The victor in the athletic contests was crowned with a garland.

rwp@3John:1:11 @{Imitate not} (\mˆ mimou\). Present middle imperative in prohibition (do not have the habit of imitating) of \mimeomai\ (from \mimos\, actor, mimic), old word, in N.T. only here, strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:7,9; strkjv@Hebrews:13:7|. {That which is evil} (\to kakon\). "The bad," as in strkjv@Romans:12:21| (neuter singular abstract). {But that which is good} (\alla to agathon\). "But the good." As in strkjv@Romans:12:21| again. Probably by the contrast between Diotrephes and Demetrius. {He that doeth good} (\ho agathopoi“n\). Articular present active participle of \agathopoie“\, late and rare verb, in contrast with \ho kakopoi“n\ (old and common verb) as in strkjv@Mark:3:4; strkjv@Luke:6:9; strkjv@1Peter:3:17|. {Is of God} (\ek tou theou estin\). As in strkjv@1John:3:9f|. {Hath not seen God} (\ouch he“raken ton theon\). As in strkjv@1John:3:6|. He does not say \ek tou diabolou\ as Jesus does in strkjv@John:8:44|, but he means it.

rwp@Info_Acts @ LUKE THE AUTHOR It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two volumes (_The Acts of the Apostles_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; _The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911). Ramsay's view may be found in Chapter I of _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_, Chapter XII of _Pauline and Other Studies_. A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_ by Dr. D. A. Hayes, in Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, and in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling, Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass, Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of _The Acts of the Apostles_, Vol. II of _The Beginnings of Christianity_, edited by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented: _The Case for the Tradition_ by C. W. Emmet, _The Case against the Tradition_ by H. Windisch. _The Internal Evidence of Acts_ is discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys _The Tradition_ (the external evidence) and draws a negative conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars. A similar position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, _The Making of Luke--Acts_ (1927). But all the same the traditional view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that Acts is a _Tendenz_ writing for the purpose of healing the breach between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came together had great influence for a while. In fact both Ramsay and Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.

rwp@Acts:1:1 @{The former treatise} (\ton men pr“ton\). Literally, the first treatise. The use of the superlative is common enough and by no means implies, though it allows, a third volume. This use of \pr“tos\ where only two are compared is seen between the Baptist and Jesus (John:1:15|), John and Peter (John:20:4|). The idiom is common in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 662, 669). The use of \men solitarium\ here, as Hackett notes, is common in Acts. It is by no means true that \men\ requires a following \de\ by contrast. The word is merely a weakened form of \mˆn\=surely, indeed. The reference is to the "first treatise" and merely emphasizes that. The use of \logos\ (word) for treatise or historical narrative is common in ancient Greek as in Herodotus 6 and 9. Plato (_Phaedo_, p. 61 B) makes a contrast between \muthos\ and \logos\. {I made} (\epoiˆsamˆn\). Aorist middle indicative, the middle being the usual construction for mental acts with \poie“\. {O Theophilus} (\O Theophile\). The interjection \O\ here as is common, though not in strkjv@Luke:1:3|. But the adjective \kratiste\ (most excellent) is wanting here. See remarks on Theophilus on ¯Luke:1:3|. Hackett thinks that he lived at Rome because of the way Acts ends. He was a man of rank. He may have defrayed the expense of publishing both Luke and Acts. Perhaps by this time Luke may have reached a less ceremonious acquaintance with Theophilus. {Which Jesus began} (\h“n ˆrxato Iˆsous\). The relative is attracted from the accusative \ha\ to the genitive \h“n\ because of the antecedent \pant“n\ (all). The language of Luke here is not merely pleonastic as Winer held. Jesus "began" "both to do and to teach" (\poiein te kai didaskein\). Note present infinitives, linear action, still going on, and the use of \te--kai\ binds together the life and teachings of Jesus, as if to say that Jesus is still carrying on from heaven the work and teaching of the disciples which he started while on earth before his ascension. The record which Luke now records is really the Acts of Jesus as much as the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. A. T. Pierson called it "The Acts of the Holy Spirit," and that is true also. The Acts, according to Luke, is a continuation of the doings and teachings of Jesus. "The following writings appear intended to give us, and do, in fact, profess to give us, that which Jesus _continued_ to do and teach after the day in which he was taken up" (Bernard, _Progress of Doctrine in the N.T._).

rwp@Acts:1:3 @{To whom also} (\hois kai\). He chose them and then also manifested himself to these very same men that they might have personal witness to give. {Shewed himself alive} (\parestˆsen heauton z“nta\). To the disciples the first Sunday evening (Mark:16:14; strkjv@Luke:24:36-43; strkjv@John:20:19-25|), the second Sunday evening (John:20:26-29|), at the Sea of Tiberias (John:21:1-23|), on the mountain in Galilee (Matthew:28:16-20; strkjv@Mark:16:15-18; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:6|), to the disciples in Jerusalem and Olivet (Luke:24:44-53; strkjv@Mark:16-19f.; strkjv@Acts:1:1-11|). Luke uses this verb \paristˆmi\ 13 times in the Acts both transitively and intransitively. It is rendered by various English words (present, furnish, provide, assist, commend). The early disciples including Paul never doubted the fact of the Resurrection, once they were convinced by personal experience. At first some doubted like Thomas (Mark:16:14; strkjv@Luke:24:41; strkjv@John:20:24f.; strkjv@Matthew:28:17|). But after that they never wavered in their testimony to their own experience with the Risen Christ, "whereof we are witnesses" Peter said (Acts:3:15|). They doubted at first, that we may believe, but at last they risked life itself in defence of this firm faith. {After his passion} (\meta to pathein auton\). Neat Greek idiom, \meta\ with the articular infinitive (second aorist active of \pasch“\) and the accusative of general reference, "after the suffering as to him." For \pathein\ used absolutely of Christ's suffering see also strkjv@Acts:17:3; strkjv@26:23|. {By many proofs} (\en pollois tekmˆriois\). Literally, "in many proofs." \Tekmˆrion\ is only here in the N.T., though an old and common word in ancient Greek and occurring in the _Koin‚_ (papyri, etc.). The verb \tekmair“\, to prove by sure signs, is from \tekmar\, a sign. Luke does not hesitate to apply the definite word "proofs" to the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ after full investigation on the part of this scientific historian. Aristotle makes a distinction between \tekmˆrion\ (proof) and \sˆmeion\ (sign) as does Galen the medical writer. {Appearing} (\optanomenos\). Present middle participle from late verb \optan“\, late _Koin‚_ verb from root \opt“\ seen in \opsomai, “phthˆn\. In LXX, papyri of second century B.C. (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 83). Only here in the N.T. For \optasia\ for vision see strkjv@Acts:26:19; strkjv@Luke:1:22; strkjv@24:23|. {By the space of forty days} (\di' hˆmer“n tesserakonta\). At intervals (\dia\, between) during the forty days, ten appearances being known to us. Jesus was not with them continually now in bodily presence. The period of forty days is given here alone. The Ascension was thus ten days before Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came. Moses was in the mount forty days (Exodus:24:18|) and Jesus fasted forty days (Matthew:4:2|). In the Gospel of Luke 24 this separation of forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension is not drawn. {The things concerning the Kingdom of God} (\ta peri tˆs basileias tou theou\). This phrase appears 33 times in Luke's Gospel, 15 times in Mark, 4 times in Matthew who elsewhere has "the kingdom of heaven," once in John, and 6 times in Acts. No essential distinction is to be drawn between the two for the Jews often used "heaven" rather than "God" to avoid using the Tetragrammaton. But it is noticeable how the word kingdom drops out of Acts. Other words like gospel (\euaggelion\) take the place of "kingdom." Jesus was fond of the word "kingdom" and Luke is fond of the idiom "the things concerning" (\ta peri\). Certainly with Jesus the term "kingdom" applies to the present and the future and covers so much that it is not strange that the disciples with their notions of a political Messianic kingdom (Acts:1:6|) were slow to comprehend the spiritual nature of the reign of God.

rwp@Acts:1:5 @{Baptized with water} (\ebaptisen hudati\) {and with the Holy Ghost} (\en pneumati baptisthˆsesthe hagi“i\). The margin has "in the Holy Ghost" (Spirit, it should be). The American Standard Version renders "in" both with "water" and "Holy Spirit" as do Goodspeed (American Translation) and Mrs. Montgomery (Centenary Translation). John's own words (Matthew:3:11|) to which Jesus apparently refers use \en\ (in) both with water and Spirit. There is a so-called instrumental use of \en\ where we in English have to say "with" (Revelation:13:10| \en machairˆi\, like \machairˆi\, strkjv@Acts:12:2|). That is to say \en\ with the locative presents the act as located in a certain instrument like a sword (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 589f.). But the instrumental case is more common without \en\ (the locative and instrumental cases having the same form). Songs:it is often a matter of indifference which idiom is used as in strkjv@John:21:8| we have \t“i ploiari“i\ (locative without \en\). They came {in} (locative case without \en\) the boat. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:31| \en hudati baptiz“n\ baptizing in water. No distinction therefore can be insisted on here between the construction \hudati\ and \en pneumati\ (both being in the locative case, one without, one with \en\). Note unusual position of the verb \baptisthˆsesthe\ (future passive indicative) between \pneumati\ and \hagi“i\. This baptism of the Holy Spirit was predicted by John (Matthew:3:11|) as the characteristic of the Messiah's work. Now the Messiah himself in his last message before his Ascension proclaims that in a few days the fulfilment of that prophecy will come to pass. The Codex Bezae adds here "which ye are about to receive" and "until the Pentecost" to verse 5|. {Not many days hence} (\ou meta pollas tautas hˆmeras\). A neat Greek idiom difficult to render smoothly into English: "Not after many days these." The litotes (not many=few) is common in Luke (Luke:7:6; strkjv@15:13; strkjv@Acts:17:27; strkjv@19:11; strkjv@20:12; strkjv@21:39; strkjv@28:14; strkjv@28:2|). The predicate use of \tautas\ (without article) is to be noted. "These" really means as a starting point, "from these" (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 702). It was ten days hence. This idiom occurs several times in Luke (Luke:24:21; strkjv@Acts:24:21|), as elsewhere (John:4:18; strkjv@2Peter:3:1|). In strkjv@Luke:2:12| the copula is easily supplied as it exists in strkjv@Luke:1:36; strkjv@2:2|.

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:2:1 @{Was now come} (\en t“i sunplˆrousthai\). Luke's favourite idiom of \en\ with the articular present infinitive passive and the accusative of general reference, "in the being fulfilled completely (perfective use of \sun-\) as to the day of Pentecost." Common verb, but only in Luke in N.T. In literal sense of filling a boat in strkjv@Luke:8:23|, about days in strkjv@Luke:9:51| as here. Whether the disciples expected the coming of the Holy Spirit on this day we do not know. Blass holds that the present tense shows that the day had not yet come. It is a Hebrew idiom (Exodus:7:25|) and Luke may mean that the day of Pentecost was not yet over, was still going on, though Hackett takes it for the interval (fifty days) between Passover and Pentecost. Apparently this day of Pentecost fell on the Jewish Sabbath (our Saturday). It was the feast of first fruits. {All together in one place} (\pantes homou epi to auto\). All together in the same place. Note \homou\ here (correct text), not \homothumadon\ as in strkjv@1:14|, and so a bit of tautology.

rwp@Acts:2:19 @{Wonders} (\terata\). Apparently akin to the verb \tˆre“\, to watch like a wonder in the sky, {miracle} (\miraculum\), marvel, portent. In the New Testament the word occurs only in the plural and only in connection with \sˆmeia\ (signs) as here and in verse 43|. But {signs} (\sˆmeia\) here is not in the LXX. See on strkjv@Matthew:11:20|. In verse 22| all three words occur together: powers, wonders, signs (\dunamesi, terasi, sˆmeiois\). {As above} (\an“\). This word is not in the LXX nor is "beneath" (\kat“\), both probably being added to make clearer the contrast between heaven and earth. {Blood and fire and vapour of smoke} (\haima kai pur kai atmida kapnou\). A chiasm as these words illustrate bloodshed and destruction by fire as signs here on earth.

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

rwp@Acts:2:45 @{Sold} (\epipraskon\). Imperfect active, a habit or custom from time to time. Old and common verb, \piprask“\. {Parted} (\diemerizon\). Imperfect again of \diameriz“\, old verb for dividing or distributing between (\dia\) people. {According as any man had need} (\kathoti an tis chreian eichen\). Regular Greek idiom for comparative clause with \an\ and imperfect indicative corresponding precisely with the three preceding imperfects (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 967).

rwp@Acts:2:46 @{With one accord in the temple} (\homothumadon en t“i hier“i\). See on ¯1:14| for \homothumadon\. They were still worshipping in the temple for no breach had yet come between Christians and Jews. Daily they were here and daily breaking bread at home (\kat' oikon\) which looks like the regular meal. {They did take their food} (\metelambanon trophˆs\). Imperfect tense again and clearly referring to the regular meals at home. Does it refer also to the possible \agapai\ or to the Lord's Supper afterwards as they had common meals "from house to house" (\kat' oikon\)? We know there were local churches in the homes where they had "worship rooms," the church in the house. At any rate it was "with singleness" (\aphelotˆti\) of heart. The word occurs only here in the N.T., though a late _Koin‚_ word (papyri). It comes from \aphelˆs\, free from rock (\phelleus\ is stony ground), smooth. The old form was \apheleia\.

rwp@Acts:3:15 @{But the Prince of life ye killed} (\ton de archˆgon tˆs z“ˆs apekteinate\). "The magnificent antithesis" (Bengel) Peter here draws between their asking for a murderer and killing the Prince (or Author) of life. Peter pictures Jesus as the source of all life as is done in strkjv@John:1:1-18; strkjv@Colossians:1:14-20; strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f|. \Archˆgos\ (\archˆ\, beginning, \ag“\, to lead) is an adjective "furnishing the first cause or occasion" in Euripides, Plato. Thence substantive, the originator, the leader, the pioneer as of Jesus both Beginner and Finisher (Hebrews:12:2|). See also strkjv@Hebrews:2:10; strkjv@Acts:5:31| where it is applied to Jesus as "Prince and Saviour." But God raised him from the dead in contrast to what they had done. {Whereof we are witnesses} (\hou hˆmeis martures esmen\). Of which fact (the resurrection) or of whom as risen, \hou\ having the same form in the genitive singular for masculine or neuter. Peter had boldly claimed that all the 120 have seen the Risen Christ. There is no denial of that claim.

rwp@Acts:3:20 @{And that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus} (\kai aposteilˆi ton prokecheirismenon humin Christon Iˆsoun\). First aorist active subjunctive with \hop“s an\ as in strkjv@15:17| and strkjv@Luke:2:35|. There is little real difference in idea between \hop“s an\ and \hina an\. There is a conditional element in all purpose clauses. The reference is naturally to the second coming of Christ as verse 21| shows. Knowling admits "that there is a spiritual presence of the enthroned Jesus which believers enjoy as a foretaste of the visible and glorious Presence of the \Parousia\." Jesus did promise to be with the disciples all the days (Matthew:28:20|), and certainly repentance with accompanying seasons of refreshing help get the world ready for the coming of the King. The word \prokecheirismenon\ (perfect passive participle of \procheiriz“\, from \procheiros\, at hand, to take into one's hands, to choose) is the correct text here, not \prokekˆrugmenon\. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:22:14; strkjv@26:16|. It is not "Jesus Christ" here nor "Christ Jesus," but "the Messiah, Jesus," identifying Jesus with the Messiah. See the Second Epiphany of Jesus foretold also in strkjv@1Timothy:6:15| and the First Epiphany described in strkjv@1Peter:1:20|.

rwp@Acts:3:25 @{Ye} (\Humeis\). Emphatic position. {The covenant which God made} (\tˆs diathˆkˆs hˆs ho theos dietheto\). Literally, "the covenant which God covenanted." \Diathˆkˆ\ and \dietheto\ (second aorist middle indicative of \diathˆmi\) are the same root. See on strkjv@Matthew:26:28|. The covenant (agreement between two, \dia, tithˆmi\) was with Abraham (Genesis:12:1-3|) and repeated at various times (Genesis:18:18; strkjv@22:18; strkjv@26:4|, etc.). In strkjv@Hebrews:9:15-18| the word is used both for covenant and will. The genitive relative \hˆs\ attracted to case of the antecedent.

rwp@Acts:4:20 @{For we cannot but speak} (\ou dunametha gar hˆmeis--mˆ lalein\). Both negatives hold here, "For we (note emphatic \hˆmeis\) are not able not to speak" (what we saw and heard). This is defiance of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities that was justified, for the temple authorities stepped in between the conscience and God. Peter and John were willing to pay the price of this defiance with their lives. This is the courage of martyrs through all the ages.

rwp@Acts:4:27 @{Both Herod and Pontios Pilate} (\Hˆr“idˆs te kai Pontius Peilatos\). Luke alone (Luke:23:12|) tells of the reconciliation between Herod and Pilate at the trial of Jesus. Songs:Peter and the rest interpret this prophecy as directly fulfilled in their conduct towards Jesus Christ. {Whom thou didst anoint} (\hon echrisas\). As in verse 26| (cf. strkjv@Luke:4:18; strkjv@Isaiah:61:1|). Inaugurated as King Messiah.

rwp@Acts:4:32 @{Of one heart and soul} (\kardia kai psuchˆ mia\). It is not possible to make sharp distinction between heart and soul here (see strkjv@Mark:12:30|), only that there was harmony in thought and affection. But the English translation is curiously unlike the Greek original. "There was one heart and soul (nominative case, not genitive as the English has it) in the multitude (\tou plˆthous\, subjective genitive) of those who believed." {Not one of them} (\oude heis\). More emphatic than \oudeis\, "not even one." {Common} (\koina\). In the use of their property, not in the possession as Luke proceeds to explain. The word \koinos\ is kin to \sun\ (together with)=\xun\ (Epic) and so \xunos=koinos\. See this word already in strkjv@2:44|. The idea of unclean (Acts:10:15|) is a later development from the original notion of common to all.

rwp@Acts:5:7 @{And it was about the space of three hours after} (\egeneto de h“s h“r“n tri“n diastˆma\). Literally "Now there came an interval (\diastˆma\, distance, space between) of about (\h“s\) three hours." {When} (\kai\). This use of \kai\ after \egeneto\ is characteristic of Luke's style in the Gospel. {Not knowing} (\mˆ eiduia\). Feminine singular of second perfect active participle of \oida\. \Mˆ\ usual negative of the participle in the _Koin‚_.

rwp@Acts:5:14 @{Were the more added} (\mƒllon prosetithento\). Rather (\mƒllon\) instead of decrease as one might expect. Imperfect passive indicative of \prostithˆmi\ common \mi\ verb, kept on being added. {Both of men and women} (\andr“n te kai gunaik“n\). The distinction between \andres\ and \gunaikes\ and to be considered in connection with \andres\ in strkjv@4:4| which see.

rwp@Acts:7:8 @{The covenant of circumcision} (\diathˆkˆn peritomˆs\). A covenant marked by (genitive) circumcision (no article) of which circumcision is the sign (Romans:4:11|) as set forth in strkjv@Genesis:17:9-14|. In the ancient Greek \diathˆkˆ\ was usually will (Latin, _testamentum_) and \sunthˆkˆ\ was used for covenant (\sun\, together, rather than \dia\, between). But the LXX and the N.T. use \diathˆkˆ\ for covenant (will in strkjv@Hebrews:9:15f.|) as Lightfoot on strkjv@Galatians:3:16| says: "The LXX translation and New Testament writers probably preferred \diathˆkˆ\ as better expressing the {free grace} of God than \sunthˆkˆ\." {And so} (\kai hout“s\). After the covenant was made and as a sign and seal of it.

rwp@Acts:7:35 @{This Moses} (\Touton ton M“usˆn\). Rhetorical repetition follows this description of Moses (five times, anaphora, besides the use here, six cases of \houtos\ here about Moses: verse 35| twice, 36,37,38,40|). Clearly Stephen means to draw a parallel between Moses and Jesus. They in Egypt {denied} (\ˆrnˆsanto\) Moses as now you the Jews denied (\ˆrnˆsasthe\, strkjv@3:13|) Jesus. Those in Egypt scouted Moses as "ruler and judge" (verses 27,35|, \archonta kai dikastˆn\) and God "hath sent" (\apestalken\, perfect active indicative, state of completion) Moses "both a ruler and a deliverer" (\archonta kai lutr“tˆn\) as Jesus was to be (Luke:1:68; strkjv@2:38; strkjv@Hebrews:9:12; strkjv@Titus:2:14|). "Ransomer" or "Redeemer" (\lutr“tˆs\) is not found elsewhere, \lutron\ (ransom), \lutro“\, to ransom, and \lutr“sis\, ransoming or redemption, are found often. In strkjv@Acts:5:31| Christ is termed "Prince and Saviour." {With the hand} (\sun cheiri\). Songs:the correct text. The Pharisees had accused Stephen of blaspheming "against Moses and God" (6:11|). Stephen here answers that slander by showing how Moses led the people out of Egypt in co-operation (\sun\) with the hand of the Angel of Jehovah.

rwp@Acts:7:38 @{In the church in the wilderness} (\en tˆi ekklˆsiƒi en tˆi erˆm“i\). Better rendered "congregation" here as in strkjv@Hebrews:2:12| (Psalms:22:22|), the people of Israel gathered at Mt. Sinai, the whole nation. Moses is here represented as receiving the law from an angel as in strkjv@Hebrews:2:2; strkjv@Galatians:3:19| (Deuteronomy:33:2|, LXX) and so was a mediator (\mesitˆs\) or middle man between the angel and the people whereas Jesus is the Mediator of a better covenant (Hebrews:8:6|). But Exodus does not speak of an angel. {Living oracles} (\logia z“nta\). A \logion\ is a little word (diminutive of \logos\). Common in the old Greek, LXX, Philo, in ecclesiastical writers for sayings of Christ, Papias (for instance) saying that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (Aramaic) "Logia of Jesus." Oxyrhynchus papyri fragments called "Logia of Jesus" are of much interest though only fragments. The Greeks used it of the "oracles" or brief sayings from Delphi. In the N.T. the word occurs only four times (Acts:7:38; strkjv@Romans:3:2; strkjv@Hebrews:5:12; strkjv@1Peter:4:11|). Here the participle \z“nta\, living, is the same used by Peter (1Peter:2:4f|.), stone (\lithos\) of Christ and Christians. The words from God to Moses are still "living" today. In strkjv@1Peter:4:11| the word is applied to one who speaks \logia theou\ (oracles of God). In strkjv@Romans:3:2| Paul refers to the substance of the law and of prophecy. In strkjv@Hebrews:5:12| the writer means the substance of the Christian religious teaching.

rwp@Acts:10:1 @{Cornelius} (\Kornˆlios\). The great Cornelian family of Rome may have had a freedman or descendant who is {centurion} (\hekaton-tarchˆs\, leader of a hundred, Latin _centurio_). See on ¯Matthew:8:5|. These Roman centurions always appear in a favourable light in the N.T. (Matthew:8:5; strkjv@Luke:7:2; strkjv@23:47; strkjv@Acts:10:1; strkjv@22:25; strkjv@27:3|). Furneaux notes the contrasts between Joppa, the oldest town in Palestine, and Caesarea, built by Herod; the Galilean fisherman lodging with a tanner and the Roman officer in the seat of governmental authority. {Of the band called the Italian} (\ek speirˆs tˆs kaloumenˆs Italikˆs\). A legion had ten cohorts or "bands" and sixty centuries. The word \speirˆs\ (note genitive in \-es\ like the Ionic instead of \-as\) is here equal to the Latin _cohors_. In the provinces were stationed cohorts of Italic citizens (volunteers) as an inscription at Carnuntum on the Danube (Ramsay) has shown (epitaph of an officer in the second Italic cohort). Once more Luke has been vindicated. The soldiers could, of course, be Roman citizens who lived in Caesarea. But the Italian cohorts were sent to any part of the empire as needed. The procurator at Caesarea would need a cohort whose loyalty he could trust, for the Jews were restless.

rwp@Acts:10:14 @{Not so, Lord} (\Mˆdam“s, kurie\). The negative \mˆdam“s\ calls for the optative \eiˆ\ (may it not be) or the imperative \est“\ (let it be). It is not \oudam“s\, a blunt refusal (I shall not do it). And yet it is more than a mild protest as Page and Furneaux argue. It is a polite refusal with a reason given. Peter recognizes the invitation to slay (\thuson\) the unclean animals as from the Lord (\kurie\) but declines it three times. {For I have never eaten anything} (\hoti oudepote ephagon pan\). Second aorist active indicative, I never did anything like this and I shall not do it now. The use of \pan\ (everything) with \oudepote\ (never) is like the Hebrew (_lo--k“l_) though a like idiom appears in the vernacular _Koin‚_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 752). {Common and unclean} (\koinon kai akatharton\). \Koinos\ from epic \xunos\ (\xun, sun\, together with) originally meant common to several (Latin _communis_) as in strkjv@Acts:2:44; strkjv@4:32; strkjv@Titus:1:4; strkjv@Jude:1:3|. The use seen here (also strkjv@Mark:7:2,5; strkjv@Romans:14:14; strkjv@Hebrews:10:29; strkjv@Revelation:21:27; strkjv@Acts:10:28; strkjv@11:8|), like Latin _vulgaris_ is unknown in ancient Greek. Here the idea is made plain by the addition of \akatharton\ (unclean), ceremonially unclean, of course. We have the same double use in our word "common." See on ¯Mark:7:18f.| where Mark adds the remarkable participle \kathariz“n\ (making all meats clean), evidently from Peter who recalls this vision. Peter had been reared from childhood to make the distinction between clean and unclean food and this new proposal even from the Lord runs against all his previous training. He did not see that some of God's plans for the Jews could be temporary. This symbol of the sheet was to show Peter ultimately that Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews. At this moment he is in spiritual and intellectual turmoil.

rwp@Acts:10:28 @{How that it is an unlawful thing} (\h“s athemiton estin\). The conjunction \h“s\ is sometimes equivalent to \hoti\ (that). The old form of \athemitos\ was \athemistos\ from \themisto\ (\themiz“, themis\, law custom) and \a\ privative. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:4:3| (Peter both times). But there is no O.T. regulation forbidding such social contact with Gentiles, though the rabbis had added it and had made it binding by custom. There is nothing more binding on the average person than social custom. On coming from the market an orthodox Jew was expected to immerse to avoid defilement (Edersheim, _Jewish Social Life_, pp. 26-28; Taylor's _Sayings of the Jewish Fathers_, pp. 15, 26, 137, second edition). See also strkjv@Acts:11:3; strkjv@Galatians:2:12|. It is that middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians:2:14|) which Jesus broke down. {One of another nation} (\allophul“i\). Dative case of an old adjective, but only here in the N.T. (\allos\, another, \phulon\, race). Both Juvenal (_Sat_. XIV. 104, 105) and Tacitus (_History_, V. 5) speak of the Jewish exclusiveness and separation from Gentiles. {And yet unto} (\kamoi\). Dative of the emphatic pronoun (note position of prominence) with \kai\ (\crasis\) meaning here "and yet" or adversative "but" as often with \kai\ which is by no means always merely the connective "and" (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1182f.). Now Peter takes back both the adjectives used in his protest to the Lord (verse 14|) "common and unclean." It is a long journey that Peter has made. He here refers to "no one" (\mˆdena\), not to "things," but that is great progress.

rwp@Acts:10:36 @{The word which he sent} (\ton logon hon apesteilen\). Many ancient MSS. (so Westcott and Hort) read merely \ton logon apesteilen\ (he sent the word). This reading avoids the anacoluthon and inverse attraction of \logon\ to the case of the relative \hon\ (which). {Preaching good tidings of peace through Jesus Christ} (\euaggelizomenos eirˆnˆn dia Iˆsou Christou\). Gospelizing peace through Jesus Christ. There is no other way to have real peace between individuals and God, between races and nations, than by Jesus Christ. Almost this very language occurs in strkjv@Ephesians:2:17| where Paul states that Jesus on the cross "preached (gospelized) peace to you who are afar off and peace to you who are near." Peter here sees what Paul will see later with great clearness. {He is Lord of all} (\houtos estin pant“n kurios\). A triumphant parenthesis that Peter throws in as the reason for his new truth. Jesus Christ is Lord of all, both Jews and Gentiles.

rwp@Acts:10:37 @{Ye know} (\humeis oidate\). Peter reminds his Gentile audience that the main facts concerning Jesus and the gospel were known to them. Note emphatic expression of \humeis\ (you). {Beginning} (\arxamenos\). The Textus Receptus has \arxamenon\ (accusative), but the nominative is given by Aleph A B C D E H and is certainly correct. But it makes a decided anacoluthon. The accusative would agree with \rhˆma\ used in the sense of message or story as told by the disciples. The nominative does not agree with anything in the sentence. The same phrase occurs in strkjv@Luke:23:5|. Here is this aorist middle participle almost used like an adverb. See a similar loose use of \arxamenos\ in the same sense by Peter in strkjv@Acts:1:22|. The baptism of John is given as the _terminus a quo_. The story began with a skip to Galilee after the baptism just like the Gospel of Mark. This first message of Peter to the Gentiles (10:37-44|) corresponds in broad outline with Mark's Gospel. Mark heard Peter preach many times and evidently planned his Gospel (the Roman Gospel) on this same model. There is in it nothing about the birth and childhood of Jesus nor about the intervening ministry supplied by John's Gospel for the period (a year) between the baptism and the Galilean Ministry. Peter here presents an objective statement of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus with proof from the Scriptures that he is the Messiah. It is a skilful presentation.

rwp@Acts:11:24 @{For} (\hoti\). Because. This is the explanation of the conduct of Barnabas. The facts were opposed to the natural prejudices of a Jew like Barnabas, but he rose above such racial narrowness. He was a really good man (\agathos\). See strkjv@Romans:5:7| for distinction between \agathos\ and \dikaios\, righteous, where \agathos\ ranks higher than \dikaios\. Besides, Barnabas was full of the Holy Spirit (like Peter) and of faith and so willing to follow the leading of God's Spirit and take some risks. This is a noble tribute paid by Luke. One wonders if Barnabas was still living when he wrote this. Certainly he was not prejudiced against Barnabas though he will follow the fortunes of Paul after the separation (15:36; 41|). {Was added unto the Lord} (\prosetethˆ t“i kuri“i\). First aorist passive indicative of \prostithˆmi\, common verb to add to. These people were added to the Lord Jesus before they were added to the church. If that were always true, what a difference it would make in our churches.

rwp@Acts:12:7 @{Stood by him} (\epestˆ\). Ingressive second aorist active indicative of \ephistˆmi\, intransitive. This very form occurs in strkjv@Luke:2:9| of the sudden appearance of the angel of the Lord to the shepherds. Page notes that this second aorist of \ephistˆmi\ occurs seven times in the Gospel of Luke, eight times in the Acts, and nowhere else in the N.T. Note also the same form \apestˆ\ (departed from, from \aphistˆmi\, stood off from) of the disappearance of the angel in verse 10|. {In the cell} (\en t“i oikˆmati\). Literally, a dwelling place or habitation (from \oike“\, to dwell, \oikos\, house), but here not the prison as a whole as in Thucydides, but the room in the prison (cell) where Peter was chained to the two guards. Old word, but only here in the N.T. {He smote Peter on the side} (\pataxas tˆn pleuran tou Petrou\). More exactly, "smote the side of Peter." Strongly enough to wake Peter up who was sound asleep and yet not rouse the two guards. It was probably between 3 A.M. and 6 A.M., hours when changes in the guards were made. {Rise up} (\anasta\). Short form (_Koin‚_) of \anastˆthi\, second aorist active imperative of \anistˆmi\, intransitive. Songs:also strkjv@Acts:9:11| (Westcott and Hort text); strkjv@Ephesians:5:14|. {Fell off} (\exepesan\). Second aorist active with \a\ ending like first aorist of \expipt“\, old verb. This miracle was necessary if Peter was to escape without rousing the two guards.

rwp@Acts:13:8 @{Withstood them} (\anthistato autois\). Imperfect middle of \anthistˆmi\, to stand against (face to face). Dative case (\autois\). He persisted in his opposition and was unwilling to lose his great prize. There may have been a public discussion between Elymas and Saul. {To turn aside} (\diastrepsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \diastreph“\, old verb to turn or twist in two, to distort, to pervert (cf. strkjv@Matthew:17:17; strkjv@Luke:23:2|).

rwp@Acts:13:9 @{But Saul, who is also called Paul} (\Saulos de, ho kai Paulos\). By this remarkably brief phrase Luke presents this epoch in the life of Saul Paul. The "also" (\kai\) does not mean that the name Paul was given now for the first time, rather than he had always had it. As a Jew and a Roman citizen, he undoubtedly had both names all the time (cf. John Mark, Symeon Niger, Barsabbas Justus). Jerome held that the name of Sergius Paulus was adopted by Saul because of his conversion at this time, but this is a wholly unlikely explanation, "an element of vulgarity impossible to St. Paul " (Farrar). Augustine thought that the meaning of the Latin _paulus_ (little) would incline Saul to adopt, "but as a proper name the word rather suggested the glories of the Aemilian family, and even to us recalls the name of another Paulus, who was 'lavish of his noble life'" (Page). Among the Jews the name Saul was naturally used up to this point, but from now on Luke employs Paul save when there is a reference to his previous life (Acts:22:7; strkjv@26:14|). His real career is work among the Gentiles and Paul is the name used by them. There is a striking similarity in sound between the Hebrew Saul and the Roman Paul. Paul was proud of his tribe of Benjamin and so of King Saul (Phillipians:3:5|). {Filled with the Holy Spirit} (\plˆstheis pneumatos hagiou\). First aorist (ingressive) passive participle of \pimplˆmi\ with the genitive case. A special influx of power to meet this emergency. Here was a cultured heathen, typical of the best in Roman life, who called forth all the powers of Paul plus the special help of the Holy Spirit to expose the wickedness of Elymas Barjesus. If one wonders why the Holy Spirit filled Paul for this emergency rather than Barnabas, when Barnabas was named first in strkjv@13:2|, he can recall the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit in his choice of agents (1Corinthians:12:4-11|) and also the special call of Paul by Christ (Acts:9:15; strkjv@26:17f.|). {Fastened his eyes} (\atenisas\). As already in strkjv@Luke:4:20; strkjv@22:56; strkjv@Acts:3:4,12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@10:4|.

rwp@Acts:13:42 @{And as they went out} (\Exiont“n de aut“n\). Genitive absolute with present active participle of \exeimi\, to go out, old verb, in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:12:42; strkjv@17:15; strkjv@20:7; strkjv@27:43|. As they (Paul and Barnabas) were going out with all the excitement and hubbub created by the sermon. {They besought} (\parekaloun\). Imperfect active, inchoative, began to beseech. The Textus Receptus inserts wrongly \ta ethnˆ\ (the Gentiles) as if the Jews were opposed to Paul from the first as some doubtless were. But both Jews and Gentiles asked for the repetition of the sermon (\lalˆthˆnai\, first aorist passive infinitive object of \parekaloun\ with accusative of general reference). {The next Sabbath} (\eis to metaxu sabbaton\). Late use (Josephus, Plutarch, etc.) of \metaxu\ (\meta\ and \xun\=\sun\) in sense of after or next instead of between (sense of \meta\ prevailing). Note use of \eis\ for "on" or "by."

rwp@Acts:13:45 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). Certainly not the proselytes of verse 43|. Probably many of the Jews that were then favourably disposed to Paul's message had reacted against him under the influence of the rabbis during the week and evidently on this Sabbath very many Gentiles ("almost the whole city," "the multitudes" \tous ochlous\) had gathered, to the disgust of the stricter Jews. Nothing is specifically stated here about the rabbis, but they were beyond doubt the instigators of, and the ringleaders in, the opposition as in Thessalonica (17:5|). No such crowds (\ochlous\) came to the synagogue when they were the speakers. {With jealousy} (\zˆlou\). Genitive case of \zˆlos\ (from \ze“\, to boil) after \eplˆsthˆsan\ (effective first aorist passive indicative of \pimplˆmi\). Envy and jealousy arise between people of the same calling (doctors towards doctors, lawyers towards lawyers, preachers towards preachers). Songs:these rabbis boiled with jealousy when they saw the crowds gathered to hear Paul and Barnabas. {Contradicted} (\antelegon\). Imperfect active of \antileg“\, old verb to speak against, to say a word in opposition to (\anti\, face to face). It was interruption of the service and open opposition in the public meeting. Paul and Barnabas were guests by courtesy and, of course, could not proceed further, when denied that privilege. {Blasphemed} (\blasphˆmountes\). Blaspheming. Songs:the correct text without the addition \antilegontes\ (repeated from \antelegon\ above). Common verb in the Gospels for saying injurious and harmful things. Doubtless these rabbis indulged in unkind personalities and made it plain that Paul and Barnabas were going beyond the limitations of pure Judaism in their contacts with Gentiles.

rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo tˆs Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmˆthˆte t“i ethei M“use“s, ou dunasthe s“thˆnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn“\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\t“i ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\s“thˆnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Acts:15:2 @{When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them} (\Genomenˆs stase“s kai zˆtˆse“s ouk oligˆs t“i Paul“i kai Barnabƒi pros autous\). Genitive absolute of second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, genitive singular agreeing with first substantive \stase“s\. Literally, "No little (litotes for much) strife and questioning coming to Paul and Barnabas (dative case) with them " (\pros autous\, face to face with them). Paul and Barnabas were not willing to see this Gentile church brow-beaten and treated as heretics by these self-appointed regulators of Christian orthodoxy from Jerusalem. The work had developed under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas and they accepted full responsibility for it and stoutly resisted these Judaizers to the point of sedition (riot, outbreak in strkjv@Luke:23:25; strkjv@Acts:19:40|) as in strkjv@23:7|. There is no evidence that the Judaizers had any supporters in the Antioch church so that they failed utterly to make any impression. Probably these Judaizers compelled Paul to think through afresh his whole gospel of grace and so they did Paul and the world a real service. If the Jews like Paul had to believe, it was plain that there was no virtue in circumcision (Galatians:2:15-21|). It is not true that the early Christians had no disagreements. They had selfish avarice with Ananias and Sapphira, murmuring over the gifts to the widows, simony in the case of Simon Magus, violent objection to work in Caesarea, and now open strife over a great doctrine (grace vs. legalism). {The brethren appointed} (\etaxan\). "The brethren" can be supplied from verse 1| and means the church in Antioch. The church clearly saw that the way to remove this deadlock between the Judaizers and Paul and Barnabas was to consult the church in Jerusalem to which the Judaizers belonged. Paul and Barnabas had won in Antioch. If they can win in Jerusalem, that will settle the matter. The Judaizers will be answered in their own church for which they are presuming to speak. The verb \etaxan\ (\tass“\, to arrange) suggests a formal appointment by the church in regular assembly. Paul (Galatians:2:2|) says that he went up by revelation (\kat' apokalupsin\), but surely that is not contradictory to the action of the church. {Certain others of them} (\tinas allous\). Certainly Titus (Galatians:2:1,3|), a Greek and probably a brother of Luke who is not mentioned in Acts. Rackham thinks that Luke was in the number. {The apostles and elders} (\tous apostolous kai presbuterous\). Note one article for both (cf. "the apostles and the brethren" in strkjv@11:1|). "Elders" now (11:30|) in full force. The apostles have evidently returned now to the city after the death of Herod Agrippa I stopped the persecution.

rwp@Acts:15:9 @{He made no distinction between us and them} (\outhen diekrinen metaxu hˆm“n te kai aut“n\). He distinguished nothing (first aorist active ind.) between (both \dia\ and \metaxu\) both (\te kai\) us and them. In the matter of faith and conversion God treated us Jews as heathen and the heathen as Jews. {Cleansing their hearts by faith} (\tˆi pistei katharisas tas kardias aut“n\). Not by works nor by ceremonies. Peter here has a thoroughly Pauline and Johannine idea of salvation for all both Jew and Greek. Cf. strkjv@10:15|.

rwp@Acts:15:14 @{Hearken unto me} (\akousate mou\). Usual appeal for attention. James was termed James the Just and was considered a representative of the Hebraic as opposed to the Hellenistic wing of the Jewish Christians (Acts:6:1|). The Judaizers had doubtless counted on him as a champion of their view and did later wrongfully make use of his name against Peter at Antioch (Galatians:2:12|). There was instant attention when James began to speak. {Symeon} (\Sume“n\). The Aramaic form of Simon as in strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. This little touch would show his affinities with the Jewish Christians (not the Judaizers). This Aramaic form is used also in strkjv@Luke:2:25,34| of the old prophet in the temple. Possibly both forms (Symeon, Aramaic, and Simon, Greek) were current in Jerusalem. {How} (\kath“s\). Strictly, "according as," here like \hos\ in indirect discourse somewhat like the epexegetic or explanatory use in strkjv@3John:1:3|. {First} (\pr“ton\). Told by Peter in verse 7|. James notes, as Peter did, that this experience of Barnabas and Paul is not the beginning of work among the Gentiles. {Did visit} (\epeskepsato\). First aorist middle indicative of \episkeptomai\, old verb to look upon, to look after, provide for. This same verb occurs in strkjv@James:1:27| and is one of various points of similarity between this speech of James in Acts and the Epistle of James as shown by Mayor in his _Commentary on James_. Somehow Luke may have obtained notes of these various addresses. {To take from the Gentiles a people for his name} (\labein ex ethn“n laon t“i onomati autou\). Bengel calls this _egregium paradoxon_, a chosen people (\laon\) out of the Gentiles (\ethn“n\). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give. This new Israel from among the Gentiles is one of Paul's great doctrines as set forth in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|. Note the use of God's "name" here for "the Israel of God" (Galatians:6:16|).

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:15:29 @{Than these necessary things} (\plˆn tout“n t“n epanagkes\). This old adverb (from \epi\ and \anagkˆ\) means on compulsion, of necessity. Here only in the N.T. For discussion of these items see on verses 20,21|. In comparison with the freedom won this "burden" is light and not to be regarded as a compromise in spite of the arguments of Lightfoot and Ramsay. It was such a concession as any converted Gentile would be glad to make even if "things strangled" be included. This "necessity" was not a matter of salvation but only for fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. The Judaizers made the law of Moses essential to salvation (15:16|). {It shall be well with you} (\eu praxete\). Ye shall fare well. A classical idiom used here effectively. The peace and concord in the fellowship of Jews and Gentiles will justify any slight concession on the part of the Gentiles. This letter is not laid down as a law, but it is the judgment of the Jerusalem Christians for the guidance of the Gentiles (16:4|) and it had a fine effect at once (15:30-35|). Trouble did come later from the Judaizers who were really hostile to the agreement in Jerusalem, but that opposition in no way discredits the worth of the work of this Conference. No sane agreement will silence perpetual and professional disturbers like these Judaizers who will seek to unsettle Paul's work in Antioch, in Corinth, in Galatia, in Jerusalem, in Rome. {Fare ye well} (\Err“sthe\). _Valete_. Perfect passive imperative of \rh“nnumi\, to make strong. Common at the close of letters. Be made strong, keep well, fare well. Here alone in the N.T. though some MSS. have it in strkjv@23:30|.

rwp@Acts:15:41 @{Went through} (\diˆrcheto\). Imperfect middle. Songs:Paul went forth on his second mission tour with heart-aches and high hopes mingled together. {Syria and Cilicia} (\tˆn Surian kai tˆn Kilikian\). He took the opposite course from the first tour, leaving Cyprus to Barnabas and Mark. Probably Paul had established these churches while in Tarsus after leaving Jerusalem (Acts:9:30; strkjv@Galatians:1:21|). Paul would go "by the Gulf of Issus through the Syrian Gates, a narrow road between steep rocks and the sea, and then inland, probably past Tarsus and over Mt. Taurus by the Cilician gates" (Page). This second tour will occupy Luke's story in Acts through strkjv@18:22|.

rwp@Acts:16:11 @{Setting sail} (\anachthentes\). Same word in strkjv@13:13| which see. {We made a straight course} (\euthudromˆsamen\). First aorist active indicative of compound verb \euthudrome“\ (in Philo) from adjective \euthudromos\ (in Strabo), running a straight course (\euthus, dromos\). In the N.T. only here and strkjv@21:1|. It is a nautical term for sailing before the wind. Luke has a true feeling for the sea. {To Samothrace} (\eis Samothrƒikˆn\). A small island in the Aegean about halfway between Troas and Neapolis. {The day following} (\tˆi epiousˆi\). Locative case of time with \hˆmerƒi\ (day) to be supplied (7:26; strkjv@20:15; strkjv@21:18; strkjv@23:11|). With adverse winds it took five days to make the run of 125 miles (20:6|). {To Neapolis} (\eis Nean Polin\). To New Town (Newton, Naples, Neapolis). The port of Philippi ten miles distant, Thracian, but reckoned as Macedonian after Vespasian.

rwp@Acts:16:12 @{To Philippi} (\eis Philippous\). The plural like \Athˆnai\ (Athens) is probably due to separate sections of the city united (Winer-Moulton, _Grammar_, p. 220). The city (ancient name Krenides or Wells) was renamed after himself by Philip, the father of Alexander the Great. It was situated about a mile east of the small stream Gangites which flows into the river Strymon some thirty miles away. In this valley the Battle of Philippi was fought B.C. 42 between the Second Triumvirate (Octavius, Antonius, Lepidus) and Brutus and Cassius. In memory of the victory Octavius made it a colony (\kol“nia\) with all the privileges of Roman citizenship, such as freedom from scourging, freedom from arrest save in extreme cases, and the right of appeal to the emperor. This Latin word occurs here alone in the N.T. Octavius planted here a colony of Roman veterans with farms attached, a military outpost and a miniature of Rome itself. The language was Latin. Here Paul is face to face with the Roman power and empire in a new sense. He was a new Alexander, come from Asia to conquer Europe for Christ, a new Caesar to build the Kingdom of Christ on the work of Alexander and Caesar. One need not think that Paul was conscious of all that was involved in destiny for the world. Philippi was on the Egnatian Way, one of the great Roman roads, that ran from here to Dyrrachium on the shores of the Adriatic, a road that linked the east with the west. {The first of the district} (\pr“tˆ tˆs meridos\). Philippi was not the first city of Macedonia nor does Luke say so. That honour belonged to Thessalonica and even Amphipolis was larger than Philippi. It is not clear whether by \meris\ Luke means a formal division of the province, though the _Koin‚_ has examples of this geographical sense (papyri). There is no article with \pr“tˆ\ and Luke may not mean to stress unduly the position of Philippi in comparison with Amphipolis. But it was certainly a leading city of this district of Macedonia. {We were tarrying} (\ˆmen diatribontes\). Periphrastic imperfect active.

rwp@Acts:16:18 @{She did} (\epoiei\). Imperfect active, kept it up for many days. The strange conduct gave Paul and the rest an unpleasant prominence in the community. {Being sore troubled} (\diaponˆtheis\). First aorist passive of \diapone“\, old verb, to work laboriously, then in passive to be "worked up," displeased, worn out. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@4:2| which see (there of the Sadducees about Peter's preaching). Paul was grieved, annoyed, indignant. He wanted no testimony from a source like this any more than he did the homage of the people of Lystra (14:14|). {That very hour} (\autˆi tˆi h“rƒi\). Locative case of time and familiar Lukan idiom in his Gospel, "at the hour itself." The cure was instantaneous. Paul, like Jesus, distinguished between the demon and the individual.

rwp@Acts:16:20 @{Unto the magistrates} (\tois stratˆgois\). Greek term (\stratos, ag“\) for leader of an army or general. But in civic life a governor. The technical name for the magistrates in a Roman colony was _duumviri_ or duumvirs, answering to consuls in Rome. \Stratˆgoi\ here is the Greek rendering of the Latin _praetores_ (praetors), a term which they preferred out of pride to the term _duumviri_. Since they represented consuls, the praetors or duumvirs were accompanied by lictors bearing rods (verse 35|). {These men} (\houtoi hoi anthr“poi\). Contemptuous use. {Being Jews} (\Ioudaioi huparchontes\). The people of Philippi, unlike those in Antioch (11:26|), did not recognize any distinction between Jews and Christians. These four men were Jews. This appeal to race prejudice would be especially pertinent then because of the recent decree of Claudius expelling Jews from Rome (18:2|). It was about A.D. 49 or 50 that Paul is in Philippi. The hatred of the Jews by the Romans is known otherwise (Cicero, _Pro Flacco_, XXVIII; Juvenal, XIV. 96-106). {Do exceedingly trouble} (\ektarassousin\). Late compound (effective use of \ek\ in composition) and only here in the N.T.

rwp@Acts:16:21 @{Customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, or to observe, being Romans} (\ethˆ ha ouk estin hˆmin paradechesthai oude poiein R“maiois ousin\). Note the sharp contrast between "being Jews" in verse 20| and "being Romans" here. This pose of patriotism is all sound and fury. It is love of money that moves these "masters" far more than zeal for Rome. As Roman citizens in a colony they make full use of all their rights of protest. Judaism was a _religio licita_ in the Roman empire, only they were not allowed to make proselytes of the Romans themselves. No Roman magistrate would pass on abstract theological questions (18:15|), but only if a breach of the peace was made (\ektarassousin hˆm“n tˆn polin\) or the formation of secret sects and organizations. Evidently both of these last points are involved by the charges of "unlawful customs" by the masters who are silent about their real ground of grievance against Paul and Silas. \Ethos\ (kin to \ˆthos\, strkjv@1Corinthians:15:33|) is from \eth“\, to be accustomed or used to a thing. The Romans granted toleration to conquered nations to follow their religious customs provided they did not try to win the Romans. But the Jews had made great headway to favour (the God-fearers) with increasing hatred also. Emperor worship had in store grave peril for both Jews and Christians. The Romans will care more for this than for the old gods and goddesses. It will combine patriotism and piety.

rwp@Acts:17:17 @{Songs:he reasoned} (\dielegeto men oun\). Accordingly therefore, with his spirit stirred by the proof of idolatry. Imperfect middle of \dialeg“\, same verb used in verse 2| which see. First he reasoned in the synagogue at the services to the Jews and the God-fearers, then daily in the agora or marketplace (southwest of the Acropolis, between it and the Areopagus and the Pnyx) to the chance-comers, "them that met him" (\pros tous paratugchanontas\). Simultaneously with the synagogue preaching at other hours Paul took his stand like Socrates before him and engaged in conversation with (\pros\) those who happened by. This old verb, \paratugchan“\, occurs here alone in the N.T. and accurately pictures the life in the agora. The listeners to Paul in the agora would be more casual than those who stop for street preaching, a Salvation Army meeting, a harangue from a box in Hyde Park. It was a slim chance either in synagogue or in agora, but Paul could not remain still with all the reeking idolatry around him. The boundaries of the agora varied, but there was always the \Poikilˆ Stoa\ (the Painted Porch), over against the Acropolis on the west. In this \Stoa\ (Porch) Zeno and other philosophers and rhetoricians held forth from time to time. Paul may have stood near this spot.

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@Galatians:3:13 @{Redeemed us} (\hˆmas exˆgorasen\). First aorist active of the compound verb \exagoraz“\ (Polybius, Plutarch, Diodorus), to buy from, to buy back, to ransom. The simple verb \agoraz“\ (1Corinthians:6:20; strkjv@7:23|) is used in an inscription for the purchase of slaves in a will (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 324). See also strkjv@Galatians:4:5; strkjv@Colossians:4:5; strkjv@Ephesians:5:16|. Christ purchased us {from the curse of the law} (\ek tˆs kataras tou nomou\). "Out from (\ek\ repeated) under (\hupo\ in verse 10|) the curse of the law." {Having become a curse for us} (\genomenos huper hˆm“n katara\). Here the graphic picture is completed. We were under (\hupo\) a curse, Christ became a curse {over} (\huper\) us and so between us and the overhanging curse which fell on him instead of on us. Thus he bought us out (\ek\) and we are free from the curse which he took on himself. This use of \huper\ for substitution is common in the papyri and in ancient Greek as in the N.T. (John:11:50; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:14f.|). {That hangeth on a tree} (\ho kremamenos epi xulou\). Quotation from strkjv@Deuteronomy:21:23| with the omission of \hupo theou\ (by God). Since Christ was not cursed by God. The allusion was to exposure of dead bodies on stakes or crosses (Joshua:10:26|). \Xulon\ means wood, not usually tree, though so in strkjv@Luke:23:31| and in later Greek. It was used of gallows, crosses, etc. See strkjv@Acts:5:30; strkjv@10:39; strkjv@1Peter:2:24|. On the present middle participle from the old verb \kremannumi\, to hang, see on ¯Matthew:18:6; strkjv@Acts:5:30|.

rwp@Galatians:3:20 @{Is not a mediator of one} (\henos ouk estin\). That is, a middleman comes in between two. The law is in the nature of a contract between God and the Jewish people with Moses as the mediator or middleman. {But God is one} (\ho de theos heis estin\). There was no middleman between God and Abraham. He made the promise directly to Abraham. Over 400 interpretations of this verse have been made!

rwp@Galatians:4:20 @{I could with} (\ˆthelon\). Imperfect active, I was wishing like Agrippa's use of \eboulomˆn\ in strkjv@Acts:25:22|, "I was just wishing. I was longing to be present with you just now (\arti\)." {To change my voice} (\allaxai tˆn ph“nˆn mou\). Paul could put his heart into his voice. The pen stands between them. He knew the power of his voice on their hearts. He had tried it before. {I am perplexed} (\aporoumai\). I am at a loss and know not what to do. \Apore“\ is from \a\ privative and \poros\, way. I am lost at this distance from you. {About you} (\en humin\). In your cases. For this use of \en\ see strkjv@2Corinthians:7:16; strkjv@Galatians:1:24|.

rwp@Galatians:4:24 @{Which things contain an allegory} (\hatina estin allˆgoroumena\). Literally, "Which things are allegorized" (periphrastic present passive indicative of \allˆgore“\). Late word (Strabo, Plutarch, Philo, Josephus, ecclesiastical writers), only here in N.T. The ancient writers used \ainittomai\ to speak in riddles. It is compounded of \allo\, another, and \agoreu“\, to speak, and so means speaking something else than what the language means, what Philo, the past-master in the use of allegory, calls the deeper spiritual sense. Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law. He puts a secondary meaning on the narrative just as he uses \tupik“s\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:11| of the narrative. We need not press unduly the difference between allegory and type, for each is used in a variety of ways. The allegory in one sense is a speaking parable like Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_, the Prodigal Son in strkjv@Luke:15|, the Good Shepherd in strkjv@John:10|. But allegory was also used by Philo and by Paul here for a secret meaning not obvious at first, one not in the mind of the writer, like our illustration which throws light on the point. Paul was familiar with this rabbinical method of exegesis (Rabbi Akiba, for instance, who found a mystical sense in every hook and crook of the Hebrew letters) and makes skilful use of that knowledge here. Christian preachers in Alexandria early fell victims to Philo's allegorical method and carried it to excess without regard to the plain sense of the narrative. That startling style of preaching survives yet to the discredit of sound preaching. Please observe that Paul says here that he is using allegory, not ordinary interpretation. It is not necessary to say that Paul intended his readers to believe that this allegory was designed by the narrative. He illustrates his point by it. {For these are} (\hautai gar eisin\). Allegorically interpreted, he means. {From Mount Sinai} (\apo orous Sinƒ\). Spoken from Mount Sinai. {Bearing} (\genn“sa\). Present active participle of \genna“\, to beget of the male (Matthew:1:1-16|), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke:1:13,57|). {Which is Hagar} (\hˆtis estin Hagar\). Allegorically interpreted.

rwp@Galatians:5:18 @{Under the law} (\hupo nomon\). Instead of "under the flesh" as one might expect. See strkjv@Galatians:3:2-6| for contrast between law and spirit. The flesh made the law weak (Rom strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:10,13|). They are one and the same in result. See same idea in strkjv@Romans:8:14|. Note present tense of \agesthe\ (if you are continually led by the Spirit). See verse 23|.

rwp@Hebrews:7:22 @{By so much also} (\kata tosouto kai\). Correlative demonstrative corresponding to \kath' hoson\ (the relative clause) in verse 20|. {The surety} (\egguos\). Vulgate _sponsor_. Old word, here only in the N.T., adjective (one pledged, betrothed), from \egguˆ\, a pledge, here used as substantive like \egguˆtˆs\, one who gives a pledge or guarantee. There may be a play on the word \eggiz“\ in verse 19|. \Eggua“\ is to give a pledge, \eggualiz“\, to put a pledge in the hollow of the hand. It is not clear whether the author means that Jesus is God's pledge to man, or man's to God, or both. He is both in fact, as the Mediator (\ho mesitˆs\, strkjv@8:6|) between God and man (Son of God and Son of man).

rwp@Hebrews:7:27 @{First} (\proteron\). Regular adverb for comparison between two, though \pr“ton\ often occurs also (John:1:41|), with \epeita\ (then) following. {For the sins} (\ton\). Only the article in the Greek with repetition of \huper\ or of \hamarti“n\. {When he offered up himself} (\heauton anenegkas\). First aorist active participle of \anapher“\, to offer up. See same idea in strkjv@9:14| where \heauton prosˆnegken\ is used. Old verb for sacrifice to place on the altar (1Peter:2:5,24|).

rwp@Hebrews:8:2 @{Minister} (\leitourgos\). See on ¯Romans:13:6; strkjv@Phillipians:2:25|. {Of the sanctuary} (\t“n hagi“n\). "Of the holy places" (\ta hagia\), without any distinction (like strkjv@9:8f.; strkjv@10:19; strkjv@13:11|) between the holy place and the most holy place as in strkjv@9:2f|. {Of the true tabernacle} (\tˆs skˆnˆs tˆs alˆthinˆs\). By way of explanation of \t“n hagi“n\. For \skˆnˆ\ see strkjv@Matthew:17:4| and \skˆnos\ (2Corinthians:5:1|), old word used here for the antitype or archetype of the tabernacle in the wilderness in which Aaron served, the ideal tabernacle in heaven of which the earthly tabernacle was a symbol and reproduced in the temple which merely copied the tabernacle. Hence it is the "genuine" tabernacle and see strkjv@John:1:9| for \alˆthinos\. {Pitched} (\epˆxen\). First aorist active indicative of \pˆgnumi\, old verb to fasten as the pegs of a tent, here only in the N.T. Cf. strkjv@Numbers:24:6|.

rwp@Hebrews:8:5 @{Serve} (\latreuousin\). Present active indicative of \latreu“\ for which verb see on ¯Matthew:4:10|. {A copy} (\hupodeigmati\). Dative case after \latreuousin\. See already on ¯John:13:15; strkjv@Hebrews:4:11| for this interesting word. {Shadow} (\skiƒi\). Dative case. Old word for which see already strkjv@Matthew:4:16; strkjv@Mark:4:32; strkjv@Colossians:2:17|. See same idea in strkjv@Hebrews:9:23|. For difference between \skia\ and \eik“n\ see strkjv@10:1|. Here "copy and shadow" form a practical hendiadys for "a shadowy out- line" (Moffatt). {Is warned of God} (\kechrˆmatistai\). Perfect passive indicative of \chrˆmatiz“\, old verb (from \chrˆma\, business) for which see on ¯Matthew:2:12,22; strkjv@Luke:2:26|. The word "God" is not used, but it is implied as in strkjv@Acts:10:22; strkjv@Hebrews:12:25|. Songs:in LXX, Josephus, and the papyri. {For saith he} (\gar phˆsi\). Argument from God's command (Exodus:25:40|). {See that thou make} (\Horƒ poiˆseis\). Common Greek idiom with present active imperative of \hora“\ and the volitive future of \poie“\ without \hina\ (asyndeton, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 949). {The pattern} (\ton tupon\). The very word used in strkjv@Exodus:25:40| and quoted also by Stephen in strkjv@Acts:7:44|. For \tupos\ see already strkjv@John:20:25; strkjv@Romans:6:17|, etc. The tabernacle was to be patterned after the heavenly model.

rwp@Hebrews:8:6 @{But now} (\nun de\). Logical use of \nun\, as the case now stands, with Jesus as high priest in heaven. {Hath he obtained} (\tetuchen\). Perfect active indicative of \tugchan“\ with the genitive, a rare and late form for \teteuchen\ (also \teteuchˆken\), old verb to hit the mark, to attain. {A ministry the more excellent} (\diaphor“teras leitourgias\). "A more excellent ministry." For the comparative of \diaphoros\ see strkjv@1:4|. This remark applies to all the five points of superiority over the Levitical priesthood. {By how much} (\hos“i\). Instrumental case of the relative \hosos\ between two comparative adjectives as in strkjv@1:4|. {The mediator} (\mesitˆs\). Late word from \mesos\ (amid) and so a middle man (arbitrator). Already in strkjv@Galatians:3:19f.| and see strkjv@1Timothy:2:5|. See strkjv@Hebrews:9:15; strkjv@12:24| for further use with \diathˆkˆ\. {Of a better covenant} (\kreittonos diathˆkˆs\). Called "new" (\kainˆs, neas\ in strkjv@9:15; strkjv@12:24|). For \diathˆkˆ\ see strkjv@Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Luke:1:72; strkjv@Galatians:3:17|, etc. This idea he will discuss in strkjv@8:7-13|. {Hath been enacted} (\nenomothetˆtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \nomothete“\ as in strkjv@7:11| which see. {Upon better promises} (\epi kreittosin epaggeliais\). Upon the basis of (\epi\). But how "better" if the earlier were also from God? This idea, alluded to in strkjv@6:12-17|, Will be developed in strkjv@10:19-12:3| with great passion and power. Thus it is seen that "better" (\kreiss“n\) is the keynote of the Epistle. At every point Christianity is better than Judaism.

rwp@Hebrews:9:7 @{Alone} (\monos\). Predicate adjective with \ho archiereus\. {Once in the year} (\hapax tou eniautou\). Once for each year (not \pote\, at any time) with genitive of time. {Not without blood} (\ou ch“ris haimatos\). According to strkjv@Leviticus:16:14f|. Not even he could enter the second tent (Holy of Holies) without blood. {The errors of the people} (\t“n tou laou agnoˆmat“n\). Late word from \agnoe“\, not to know (5:2|), only here in the N.T., but in LXX, papyri, and inscriptions where a distinction is drawn between errors (\agnoˆmata\) and crimes (\harmartˆmata\). In strkjv@Genesis:43:12| \agnoˆma\ is "an oversight." But these sins of ignorance (\agnoˆmata\) were sins and called for atonement. See strkjv@Hebrews:10:26| for wilful sinning.

rwp@Hebrews:9:9 @{Which} (\hˆtis\). "Which very thing," the first tent (\tˆs pr“tˆs skˆnˆs\, division of the tabernacle), a parenthesis and explanation. {A parable} (\parabolˆ\). Only in the Synoptic Gospels in the N.T. and strkjv@Hebrews:9:9; strkjv@11:19|. See on ¯Matthew:13:3| for the word (from \paraball“\, to place alongside). Here like \tupos\ (type or shadow of "the heavenly reality," Moffatt). {For the time now present} (\eis ton kairon ton enestˆkota\). "For the present crisis " (\kairon\, not \ai“na\, age, not \chronon\, time). Perfect active articular (repeated article) participle of \enistˆmi\ (intransitive), the age in which they lived, not the past, not the future. See strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22; strkjv@Romans:8:38| for contrast between \enest“ta\ and \mellonta\. This age of crisis, foreshadowed by the old tabernacle, pointed on to the richer fulfilment still to come. {According to which} (\kath' hˆn\). Here the relative refers to \parabolˆ\ just mentioned, not to \skˆnˆs\. See strkjv@5:1; strkjv@8:3|. {As touching the conscience} (\kata suneidˆsin\). For \suneidˆsis\ see strkjv@1Corinthians:8:10; strkjv@10:17; strkjv@Romans:2:15|. This was the real failure of animal sacrifice (10:1-4|). {Make the worshipper perfect} (\telei“sai ton latreuonta\). First aorist active infinitive (2:10|). At best it was only ritual or ceremonial purification (7:11|), that called for endless repetition (10:1-4|).

rwp@Hebrews:9:12 @{Through his own blood} (\dia tou idiou haimatos\). This is the great distinction between Christ as High Priest and all other high priests. They offer blood (verse 7|), but he offered his own blood. He is both victim and High Priest. See the same phrase in strkjv@13:12; strkjv@Acts:20:28|. {Once for all} (\ephapax\). In contrast to the repeated (annual) entrances of the Levitical high priests (9:7|). {Into the holy place} (\eis ta hagia\). Here, as in verses 8,24| heaven itself. {Having obtained} (\heuramenos\). First aorist middle (indirect) participle of \heurisk“\, simultaneous action with \eisˆlthen\, and by or of himself "as the issue of personal labour directed to this end" (Westcott). The value of Christ's offering consists in the fact that he is the Son of God as well as the Son of man, that he is sinless and so a perfect sacrifice with no need of an offering for himself, and that it is voluntary on his part (John:10:17|). \Lutr“sis\ (from \lutro“\) is a late word for the act of ransoming (cf. \lutron\, ransom), in O.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:1:68; strkjv@2:38|. But \apolutr“sis\ elsewhere (as in strkjv@Luke:21:28; strkjv@Romans:3:24; strkjv@Hebrews:9:15; strkjv@11:35|). For "eternal" (\ai“nian\, here feminine form) see strkjv@6:2|. The author now turns to discuss the better sacrifice (9:13-10:18|) already introduced.

rwp@Hebrews:10:1 @{Shadow} (\skian\). The contrast here between \skia\ (shadow, shade caused by interruption of light as by trees, strkjv@Mark:4:32|) and \eik“n\ (image or picture) is striking. Christ is the \eik“n\ of God (2Corinthians:4:4; strkjv@Colossians:1:15|). In strkjv@Colossians:2:17| Paul draws a distinction between \skia\ for the Jewish rites and ceremonies and \s“ma\ for the reality in Christ. Children are fond of shadow pictures. The law gives only a dim outline of the good things to come (9:11|). {Continually} (\eis to diˆnekes\). See this phrase also in strkjv@7:3; strkjv@9:12,14|. Nowhere else in N.T. From \diˆnegka\ (\diapher“\), to bear through. {They can} (\dunantai\). This reading leaves \ho nomos\ a _nominativus pendens_ (an anacoluthon). But many MSS. read \dunatai\ (it--the law--can). For the idea and use of \telei“sai\ see strkjv@9:9|.

rwp@Hebrews:12:8 @{If ye are without chastening} (\ei ch“ris este paideias\). Condition of first class, determined as fulfilled. Note position of \este\ (are) between the preposition \ch“ris\ and \paideias\ (ablative case). {Have been made} (\gegonasin\). Perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. {Partakers} (\metochoi\). Partners (3:14|). {Then} (\ara\). Accordingly, correspondingly. {Bastards} (\nothoi\). Old word, here only in N.T. Illegitimate.

rwp@Hebrews:12:25 @{See} (\blepete\). Earnest word as in strkjv@3:12|. Driving home the whole argument of the Epistle by this powerful contrast between Mount Zion and Mount Sinai. The consequences are dreadful to apostates now, for Zion has greater terrors than Sinai, great as those were. {That ye refuse not} (\mˆ paraitˆsˆsthe\). Negative purpose with \mˆ\ and the first aorist middle subjunctive of \paraiteomai\, the same verb used in verse 19| about the conduct of the Israelites at Sinai and also below. {Him that speaketh} (\ton lalounta\). Present active articular participle of \lale“\ as in verse 24| (Jesus speaking by his blood). {For if they did not escape} (\ei gar ekeinoi ouk exephugon\). Condition of first class with \ei\ and second aorist active indicative of \ekpheug“\, to escape. Direct reference to Sinai with use of the same verb again (\paraitˆsamenoi\, when they refused). {Him that warned} (\ton chrˆmatizonta\). That is Moses. For \chrˆmatiz“\ see strkjv@8:5; strkjv@11:7|. {Much more we} (\polu mallon hˆmeis\). Argument from the less to the greater, \polu\, adverbial accusative case. The verb has to be supplied from the condition, "We shall not escape." Our chance to escape is far less, "we who turn away (\apostrephomenoi\, middle participle, turn ourselves away from) the one from heaven (\ton ap' ouran“n\)," God speaking through his Son (1:2|).

rwp@Hebrews:13:8 @{Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yea and forever} (\Iˆsous Christos echthes kai sˆmeron ho autos kai eis tous ai“nas\). There is no copula in the Greek. Vincent insists that \estin\ be supplied between \Iˆsous\ and \Christos\, "Jesus is Christ," but it more naturally comes after \Christos\ as the Revised Version has it. The old adverb \echthes\ is rare in the N.T. (John:4:52; strkjv@Acts:7:28; strkjv@Hebrews:13:8|). Here it refers to the days of Christ's flesh (2:3; strkjv@5:7|) and to the recent work of the leaders (13:7|). "Today" (\sˆmeron\, strkjv@3:15|) is the crisis which confronts them. "Forever" (\eis tous ai“nas\) is eternity as well as the Greek can say it. Jesus Christ is eternally "the same" (1:12|) and the revelation of God in him (1:1f.|) is final and never to be superseded or supplemented (Moffatt). Hence the peril of apostasy from the only hope of man.

rwp@Hebrews:13:12 @{Wherefore Jesus also} (\dio kai Iˆsous\). The parallel is drawn between the O.T. ritual and the better sacrifice of Jesus already discussed (9:13-10:18|). The purpose of Jesus is shown (\hina hagiasˆi\, \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hagiaz“\, to sanctify), the means employed (\dia tou idiou haimatos\, by his own blood), the place of his suffering (\epathen\, as in strkjv@5:8|) is also given (\ex“ tˆs pulˆs\, outside the gate, implied in strkjv@John:19:17|) which phrase corresponds to "outside the camp" of verse 11|.

rwp@Hebrews:13:13 @{Let us therefore go forth to him} (\toinun exerch“metha pros auton\). Inferential particle (\toi, nun\), usually post-positive (Luke:20:25; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:26|) only N.T. examples. Present middle volitive subjunctive of \exerchomai\. "Let us keep on going out there to him." If a separation has to come between Judaism and Christianity, let us give up Judaism, and go out to Christ "outside the camp" and take our stand with him there on Golgotha, "bearing his reproach (\ton oneidismon autou pherontes\) as Jesus himself endured the Cross despising the shame (12:2|) and as Moses accepted "the reproach of the Messiah" (11:26|) in his day. The only decent place for the follower of Christ is beside the Cross of Christ with the reproach and the power (Romans:8:1f.|) in it. This is the great passionate plea of the whole Epistle.

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 PURPOSE If James is writing solely to non-Christian Jews, the purpose is to win them to Christ, and so he puts the gospel message in a way to get a hearing from the Jews. That is true, whether he has them in mind or not, though he does not do it by the suppression of the deity of Jesus Christ. In the very first verse he places him on a par with God as "the Lord Jesus Christ." In strkjv@James:2:1| he presents Jesus as the object of faith: "as you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory" (Moffatt's Translation), where Jesus is termed the Shekinah Glory of God. It is true that there is no discussion in the Epistle of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus, but there is an allusion to the murder of Jesus in strkjv@James:5:6| and the second coming in strkjv@James:5:8|. The chief aim of the Epistle is to strengthen the faith and loyalty of the Jewish Christians in the face of persecution from rich and overbearing Jews who were defrauding and oppressing them. It is a picture of early Christian life in the midst of difficult social conditions between capital and labor which also exist today. Songs:then it is a very modern message even if it is the earliest New Testament book. The glory of the New Testament lies precisely at this point in that the revelation of God in Christ meets our problems today because it did meet those of the first century A.D. Christian principles stand out clearly for our present-day living.

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:1:6 @{In faith} (\en pistei\). Faith here "is the fundamental religious attitude" (Ropes), belief in God's beneficent activity and personal reliance on him (Oesterley). {Nothing doubting} (\mˆden diakrinomenos\). Negative way of saying \en pistei\ (in faith), present passive participle of \diakrin“\, old verb to separate (\krin“\) between (\dia\), to discriminate as shown clearly in strkjv@Acts:11:12, strkjv@15:9|, but no example of the sense of divided against oneself has been found earlier than the N.T., though it appears in later Christian writings. It is like the use of \diamerizomai\ in strkjv@Luke:11:18| and occurs in strkjv@Matthew:21:21; strkjv@Mark:11:23; strkjv@Acts:10:20; strkjv@Romans:2:4; strkjv@4:20; strkjv@14:23|. It is a vivid picture of internal doubt. {Is like} (\eoiken\). Second perfect active indicative with the linear force alone from \eik“\ to be like. Old form, but in N.T. only here and verse 23| (a literary touch, not in LXX). {The surge of the sea} (\klud“ni thalassˆs\). Old word (from \kluz“\ to wash against) for a dashing or surging wave in contrast with \kuma\ (successive waves), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:8:24|. In associative instrumental case after \eoiken\. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:14| we have \kludoniz“\ (from \klud“n\), to toss by waves. {Driven by the wind} (\anemizomen“i\). Present passive participle (agreeing in case with \klud“ni\) of \anemiz“\, earliest known example and probably coined by James (from \anemos\), who is fond of verbs in \-iz“\ (Mayor). The old Greek used \anemo“\. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:14| Paul uses both \kludoniz“\ and \peripher“ anem“i\. It is a vivid picture of the sea whipped into white-caps by the winds. {Tossed} (\ripizomen“i\). Present passive participle also in agreement with \klud“ni\ from \ripiz“\, rare verb (Aristophanes, Plutarch, Philo) from \ripis\ (a bellows or fire-fan), here only in N.T. It is a picture of "the restless swaying to and fro of the surface of the water, blown upon by shifting breezes" (Hort), the waverer with slight rufflement.

rwp@James:4:2 @{Ye lust} (\epithumeite\). Present active indicative of \epithume“\, old word (from \epi, thumos\, yearning passion for), not necessarily evil as clearly not in strkjv@Luke:22:15| of Christ, but usually so in the N.T., as here. Coveting what a man or nation does not have is the cause of war according to James. {Ye kill and covet} (\phoneuete kai zˆloute\). Present active indicatives of \phoneu“\ (old verb from \phoneus\, murderer) and \zˆlo“\, to desire hotly to possess (1Corinthians:12:31|). It is possible (perhaps probable) that a full stop should come after \phoneuete\ (ye kill) as the result of lusting and not having. Then we have the second situation: "Ye covet and cannot obtain (\epituchein\, second aorist active infinitive of \epitugchan“\), and (as a result) ye fight and war." This punctuation makes better sense than any other and is in harmony with verse 1|. Thus also the anticlimax in \phoneuete\ and \zˆloute\ is avoided. Mayor makes the words a hendiadys, "ye murderously envy." {Ye have not, because ye ask not} (\ouk echete dia to mˆ aiteisthai humas\). James refers again to \ouk echete\ (ye do not have) in verse 2|. Such sinful lusting will not obtain. "Make the service of God your supreme end, and then your desires will be such as God can fulfil in answer to your prayer" (Ropes). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:6:31-33|. The reason here is expressed by \dia\ and the accusative of the articular present middle infinitive of \aite“\, used here of prayer to God as in strkjv@Matthew:7:7f|. \Humƒs\ (you) is the accusative of general reference. Note the middle voice here as in \aiteisthe\ in 3|. Mayor argues that the middle here, in contrast with the active, carries more the spirit of prayer, but Moulton (_Prol_., p. 160) regards the distinction between \aite“\ and \aiteomai\ often "an extinct subtlety."

rwp@John:4:37 @{For herein} (\en gar tout“i\). In this relation between the sower and the reaper. {The saying} (\ho logos\). Like strkjv@1Timothy:1:15; strkjv@3:1|, etc. Probably a proverb that is particularly true (\alˆthinos\ for which see strkjv@1:9|) in the spiritual realm. {One soweth, and another reapeth} (\allos estin ho speir“n kai allos ho theriz“n\). "One is the sower and another the reaper." It is sad when the sower misses the joy of reaping (Job:31:8|) and has only the sowing in tears (Psalms:126:5f.|). This may be the punishment for sin (Deuteronomy:28:30; strkjv@Micah:6:15|). Sometimes one reaps where he has not sown (Deuteronomy:6:11; strkjv@Joshua:24:13|). It is the prerogative of the Master to reap (Matthew:25:26f.|), but Jesus here lets the disciples share his joy.

rwp@John:4:40 @{Two days} (\duo hˆmeras\). Accusative of extent of time. They wanted to cultivate the acquaintance of Jesus. Songs:he remained in Sychar in a continuous revival, a most unexpected experience when one recalls the feeling between the Jews and the Samaritans (4:9|). The reaping went on gloriously.

rwp@John:5:19 @{The Son} (\ho huios\). The absolute use of the Son in relation to the Father admitting the charge in verse 18| and defending his equality with the Father. {Can do nothing by himself} (\ou dunatai poiein aph'heautou ouden\). True in a sense of every man, but in a much deeper sense of Christ because of the intimate relation between him and the Father. See this same point in strkjv@5:30; strkjv@7:28; strkjv@8:28; strkjv@14:10|. Jesus had already made it in strkjv@5:17|. Now he repeats and defends it. {But what he seeth the Father doing} (\an mˆ ti blepˆi ton patera poiounta\). Rather, "unless he sees the Father doing something." Negative condition (\an mˆ\=\ean mˆ\, if not, unless) of third class with present (habit) subjunctive (\blepˆi\) and present active participle (\poiounta\). It is a supreme example of a son copying the spirit and work of a father. In his work on earth the Son sees continually what the Father is doing. In healing this poor man he was doing what the Father wishes him to do. {For what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner} (\ha gar an ekeinos poiˆi tauta kai ho huios homoi“s poiei\). Indefinite relative clause with \an\ and the present active subjunctive (\poiˆi\). Note \ekeinos\, emphatic demonstrative, that one, referring to the Father. This sublime claim on the part of Jesus will exasperate his enemies still more.

rwp@John:5:47 @{His writings} (\tois ekeinou grammasin\). Dative case with \pistuete\. See strkjv@Luke:16:31| for a like argument. The authority of Moses was the greatest of all for Jews. There is a contrast also between {writings} (\grammasin\, from \graph“\, to write) and {words} (\rˆmasin\, from \eipon\). \Gramma\ may mean the mere letter as opposed to spirit (2Corinthians:3:6; strkjv@Romans:2:27,29; strkjv@7:6|), a debtor's bond (Luke:16:6f.|), letters or learning (John:7:15; strkjv@Acts:26:24|) like \agrammatoi\ for unlearned (Acts:4:13|), merely written characters (Luke:23:38; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:7; strkjv@Galatians:6:11|), official communications (Acts:28:21|), once \hiera grammata\ for the sacred writings (2Timothy:3:15|) instead of the more usual \hai hagiai graphai\. \Graphˆ\ is used also for a single passage (Mark:12:10|), but \biblion\ for a book or roll (Luke:4:17|) or \biblos\ (Luke:20:42|). Jesus clearly states the fact that Moses wrote portions of the Old Testament, what portions he does not say. See also strkjv@Luke:24:27,44| for the same idea. There was no answer from the rabbis to this conclusion of Christ. The scribes (\hoi grammateis\) made copies according to the letter (\kata to gramma\).

rwp@John:6:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). A common, but indefinite, note of time in John (3:22; strkjv@5:1; strkjv@6:1; strkjv@7:1|). The phrase does not mean immediate sequence of events. As a matter of fact, a whole year may intervene between the events of chapter 5 in Jerusalem and those in chapter 6 in Galilee. There is no sufficient reason for believing that chapter 6 originally preceded chapter 5. The feeding of the five thousand is the only event before the last visit to Jerusalem recorded in all Four Gospels (Mark:6:30-44; strkjv@Matthew:14:13-21; strkjv@Luke:9:10-17; strkjv@John:6:1-13|). The disciples have returned from the tour of Galilee and report to Jesus. It was the passover time (John:6:4|) just a year before the end. {To the other side of the Sea of Galilee} (\peran tˆs thalassˆs tˆs Galilaias\). The name given in Mark and Matthew. It is called Gennesaret in strkjv@Luke:5:1| and "Sea of Tiberias" in strkjv@John:21:1|. Here "of Tiberias" (\tˆs Tiberiados\) is added as further description. Herod Antipas A.D. 22 built Tiberias to the west of the Sea of Galilee and made it his capital. See verse 23| for this city. Luke (Luke:9:10|) explains that it was the eastern Bethsaida (Julias) to which Jesus took the disciples, not the western Bethsaida of strkjv@Mark:6:45| in Galilee.

rwp@John:6:11 @{The loaves} (\tous artous\). Those of verse 9|. {Having given thanks} (\eucharistˆsas\). The usual grace before meals (Deuteronomy:8:10|). The Synoptics use "blessed" \eulogˆsen\ (Mark:6:41; strkjv@Matthew:14:19; strkjv@Luke:9:16|). {He distributed} (\died“ken\). First aorist active indicative of \diadid“mi\, old verb to give to several (\dia\, between). {To them that were set down} (\tois anakeimenois\). Present middle participle (dative case) of \anakeimai\, old verb to recline like \anapesein\ in verse 10|. {As much as they would} (\hoson ˆthelon\). Imperfect active of \thel“\, "as much as they wished."

rwp@John:6:13 @{Twelve baskets} (\d“deka kophinous\). One for each of the apostles. What about the lad? Stout wicker baskets (coffins, Wycliff) in distinction from the soft and frail \sphurides\ used at the feeding of the four thousand (Mark:8:8; strkjv@Matthew:15:37|). Here all the Gospels (Mark:6:43; strkjv@Matthew:14:20; strkjv@Luke:9:17; strkjv@John:6:13|) use \kophinoi\. The same distinction between \kophinoi\ and \sphurides\ is preserved in the allusion to the incidents by Jesus in strkjv@Mark:8:19,20; strkjv@Matthew:16:9,10|. {Unto them that had eaten} (\tois bebr“kosin\). Articular perfect active participle (dative case) of \bibr“sk“\, old verb to eat, only here in N.T., though often in LXX.

rwp@John:6:54 @{He that eateth} (\ho tr“g“n\). Present active participle for continual or habitual eating like \pisteuete\ in verse 29|. The verb \tr“g“\ is an old one for eating fruit or vegetables and the feeding of animals. In the N.T. it occurs only in strkjv@John:6:54,56,58; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@Matthew:24:38|. Elsewhere in the Gospels always \esthi“\ or \ephagon\ (defective verb with \esthi“\). No distinction is made here between \ephagon\ (48,50,52,53,58|) and \tr“g“\ (54,56,57,58|). Some men understand Jesus here to be speaking of the Lord's Supper by prophetic forecast or rather they think that John has put into the mouth of Jesus the sacramental conception of Christianity by making participation in the bread and wine the means of securing eternal life. To me that is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ. It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus which these Jews also misunderstood. Christ uses bold imagery to picture spiritual appropriation of himself who is to give his life-blood for the life of the world (51|). It would have been hopeless confusion for these Jews if Jesus had used the symbolism of the Lord's Supper. It would be real dishonesty for John to use this discourse as a propaganda for sacramentalism. The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as he unfolds himself as the true manna.

rwp@John:6:56 @{Abideth in me and I in him} (\en emoi menei kag“ en aut“i\). Added to the phrase in 54| in the place of \echei z“ˆn ai“nion\ (has eternal life). The verb \men“\ (to abide) expresses continual mystical fellowship between Christ and the believer as in strkjv@15:4-7; strkjv@1John:2:6,27,28; strkjv@3:6,24; strkjv@4:12,16|. There is, of course, no reference to the Lord's Supper (Eucharist), but simply to mystical fellowship with Christ.

rwp@John:6:63 @{That quickeneth} (\to z“opoioun\). Articular present active participle of \z“opoie“\ for which see strkjv@5:21|. For the contrast between \pneuma\ (spirit) and \sarx\ (flesh) see already strkjv@3:6|. {The words} (\ta rˆmata\). Those in this discourse (I have just spoken, \lelalˆka\), for they are the words of God (3:34; strkjv@8:47; strkjv@17:8|). No wonder they "are spirit and are life" (\pneuma estin kai z“ˆ estin\). The breath of God and the life of God is in these words of Jesus. Never man spoke like Jesus (7:46|). There is life in his words today.

rwp@John:6:64 @{That believe not} (\hoi ou pisteuousin\). Failure to believe kills the life in the words of Jesus. {Knew from the beginning} (\ˆidei ex archˆs\). In the N.T. we have \ex archˆs\ only here and strkjv@16:4|, but \ap' archˆs\ in apparently the same sense as here in strkjv@15:27; strkjv@1John:2:7,24; strkjv@3:11| and see strkjv@Luke:1:2; strkjv@1John:1:1|. From the first Jesus distinguished between real trust in him and mere lip service (2:24; strkjv@8:31|), two senses of \pisteu“\. {Were} (\eisin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse. {And who it was that should betray him} (\kai tis estin ho parad“s“n\). Same use of \estin\ and note article and future active participle of \paradid“mi\, to hand over, to betray. John does not say here that Jesus knew that Judas would betray him when he chose him as one of the twelve, least of all that he chose him for that purpose. What he does say is that Jesus was not taken by surprise and soon saw signs of treason in Judas. The same verb is used of John's arrest in strkjv@Matthew:4:12|. Once Judas is termed traitor (\prodotˆs\) in strkjv@Luke:6:16|. Judas had gifts and was given his opportunity. He did not have to betray Jesus.

rwp@John:6:66 @{Upon this} (\ek toutou\). Same idiom in strkjv@19:12|. "Out of this saying or circumstance." Jesus drew the line of cleavage between the true and the false believers. {Went back} (\apˆlthon eis ta opis“\). Aorist (ingressive) active indicative of \aperchomai\ with \eis ta opis“\, "to the rear" (the behind things) as in strkjv@18:6|. {Walked no more with him} (\ouketi met' autou periepatoun\). Imperfect active of \peripate“\. The crisis had come. These half-hearted seekers after the loaves and fishes and political power turned abruptly from Jesus, walked out of the synagogue with a deal of bluster and were walking with Jesus no more. Jesus had completely disillusioned these hungry camp-followers who did not care for spiritual manna that consisted in intimate appropriation of the life of Jesus as God's Son.

rwp@John:7:10 @{Were gone up} (\anebˆsan\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain“\, not past perfect though the action is antecedent in fact to the following \tote anebˆ\. 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 phaner“s\). Against their advice in verse 4|, using \phaner“son\ (the very same word stem). {But as it were in secret} (\alla h“s en krupt“i\). "Not with the usual caravan of pilgrims" (Bernard). Just the opposite of their advice in verse 4| with the same phrase \en phaner“i\. 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:7:17 @{If any man willeth to do} (\ean tis thelˆi poiein\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and present active subjunctive \thelˆi\ not used as a mere auxiliary verb for the future "will do," but with full force of \thel“\, to will, to wish. See the same use of \thel“\ in strkjv@5:40| "and yet ye are not willing to come" (\kai ou thelete elthein\). {He shall know} (\gn“setai\). Future middle indicative of \gin“sk“\. Experimental knowledge from willingness to do God's will. See this same point by Jesus in strkjv@5:46; strkjv@18:37|. There must be moral harmony between man's purpose and God's will. "If there be no sympathy there can be no understanding" (Westcott). Atheists of all types have no point of contact for approach to the knowledge of Christ. This fact does not prove the non-existence of God, but simply their own isolation. They are out of tune with the Infinite. For those who love God it is also true that obedience to God's will brings richer knowledge of God. Agnostic and atheistic critics are disqualified by Jesus as witnesses to his claims. {Of God} (\ek tou theou\). Out of God as source. {From myself} (\ap' emautou\). Instead of from God.

rwp@John:7:20 @{The multitude} (\ho ochlos\). Outside of Jerusalem (the Galilean crowd as in verses 11f.|) and so unfamiliar with the effort to kill Jesus recorded in strkjv@5:18|. It is important in this chapter to distinguish clearly the several groups like the Jewish leaders (7:13,15,25,26,30,32|, etc.), the multitude from Galilee and elsewhere (10-13,20,31,40,49|), the common people of Jerusalem (25|), the Roman soldiers (45f.|). {Thou hast a devil} (\daimonion echeis\). "Demon," of course, as always in the Gospels. These pilgrims make the same charge against Jesus made long ago by the Pharisees in Jerusalem in explanation of the difference between John and Jesus (Matthew:11:18; strkjv@Luke:7:33|). It is an easy way to make a fling like that. "He is a monomaniac labouring under a hallucination that people wish to kill him" (Dods).

rwp@John:8:23 @{Ye are from beneath} (\humeis ek t“n kat“\). This language, peculiar to John, could take up the idea in Josephus that these rabbis came from Gehenna whence they will go as children of the devil (8:44|), but the use of \ek tou kosmou toutou\ ("of this world" in origin) as parallel to what we have here seems to prove that the contrast between \kat“\ and \an“\ here is between the earthly (sensual) and the heavenly as in strkjv@James:3:15-17|. See also strkjv@Colossians:3:1|. This is the only use of \kat“\ in John (except strkjv@8:6|). These proud rabbis had their origin in this world of darkness (1:9|) with all its limitations. {I am from above} (\eg“ ek t“n an“ eimi\). The contrast is complete in origin and character, already stated in strkjv@3:31|, and calculated to intensify their anger.

rwp@John:8:35 @{The bondservant} (\ho doulos\)... {the son} (\ho huios\). There is a change in the metaphor by this contrast between the positions of the son and the slave in the house. The slave has no footing or tenure and may be cast out at any moment while the son is the heir and has a permanent place. Cf. Ishmael and Isaac (Genesis:21:10|) and Paul's use of it in strkjv@Galatians:4:30|. We do not know that there is any reference here to Hagar and Ishmael. See also strkjv@Hebrews:3:5| (Numbers:12:7|) for a like contrast between Moses as servant (\therap“n\) in God's house and Christ as Son (\huios\) over God's house.

rwp@John:8:50 @{But I seek not mine own glory} (\eg“ de ou zˆt“ tˆn doxan mou\). As they did not seek the glory of God (5:44; strkjv@8:4|). {And judgeth} (\kai krin“n\). The Father judges between you and me, though the Son is the Judge of mankind (5:22|). "It is only the \doxa\ (glory) that comes from God that is worth having" (Bernard).

rwp@John:8:51 @{If a man keep my word} (\ean tis ton emon logon tˆrˆsˆi\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and constative aorist active subjunctive of \tˆre“\. Repeated in verse 52|. See verse 43| about hearing the word of Christ. Common phrase in John (8:51,52,55; strkjv@14:23,24; strkjv@15:20; strkjv@17:6; strkjv@1John:2:5|). Probably the same idea as keeping the commands of Christ (14:21|). {He shall never see death} (\thanaton ou mˆ the“rˆsˆi eis ton aiona\). Spiritual death, of course. Strong double negative \ou mˆ\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \the“re“\. The phrase "see death" is a Hebraism (Psalms:89:48|) and occurs with \idein\ (see) in strkjv@Luke:2:26; strkjv@Hebrews:11:5|. No essential difference meant between \hora“\ and \the“re“\. See strkjv@John:14:23| for the blessed fellowship the Father and the Son have with the one who keeps Christ's word.

rwp@John:8:58 @{Before Abraham was} (\prin Abraam genesthai\). Usual idiom with \prin\ in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of \ginomai\) and the accusative of general reference, "before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born." {I am} (\eg“ eimi\). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between \genesthai\ (entrance into existence of Abraham) and \eimi\ (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between \en\ in strkjv@1:1| and \egeneto\ in strkjv@1:14|. See the contrast also in strkjv@Psalms:90:2| between God (\ei\, art) and the mountains (\genˆthˆnai\). See the same use of \eimi\ in strkjv@John:6:20; strkjv@9:9; strkjv@8:24,28; strkjv@18:6|.

rwp@John:9:24 @{A second time} (\ek deuterou\). He had given the Pharisees the facts the first time (9:15|). It was really the third time (see \palin\ in strkjv@9:17|). Now it was like a joke unless the Pharisees meant to imply that his previous story was untrue. {Give glory to God} (\dos doxan t“i the“i\). Second aorist active imperative of \did“mi\ (cf. \sches, hes\). This phrase does not mean gratitude to God as in strkjv@Luke:17:18|. It is rather an adjuration to speak the truth (Joshua:7:19; strkjv@1Samuel:6:5|) as if he had not done it before. Augustine says: "_Quid est Daniel:gloriam Deo? Nega quod accepisti._" Is a sinner (\hamart“los estin\). They can no longer deny the fact of the cure since the testimony of the parents (9:19|) and now wish the man to admit that he was lying in saying that Jesus healed him. He must accept their ecclesiastical authority as proving that Jesus had nothing to do with the cure since Jesus is a sinner. They wish to decide the fact by logic and authority like all persecutors through the ages. Recall the Pharisaic distinction between \dikaios\ (righteous) and \hamart“los\ (sinner).

rwp@John:12:4 @{Judas Iscariot} (\Ioudas ho Iskari“tˆs\). See \ho Iskari“tˆs\ in strkjv@14:22|. See strkjv@6:71; strkjv@13:1| for like description of Judas save that in strkjv@6:71| the father's name is given in the genitive, \Sim“nos\ and \Iskari“tou\ (agreeing with the father), but in strkjv@13:1| \Iskari“tˆs\ agrees with \Ioudas\, not with \Sim“nos\. Clearly then both father and son were called "Iscariot" or man of Kerioth in the tribe of Judah (Joshua:15:25|). Judas is the only one of the twelve not a Galilean. {One of his disciples} (\heis t“n mathˆt“n autou\). Likewise in strkjv@6:71|, only there \ek\ is used after \heis\ as some MSS. have here. This is the shameful fact that clung to the name of Judas. {Which should betray him} (\ho mell“n auton paradidonai\). John does not say in strkjv@6:71| (\emellen paradidonai auton\) or here that Judas "was predestined to betray Jesus" as Bernard suggests. He had his own responsibility for his guilt as Jesus said (Matthew:26:24|). \Mell“\ here simply points to the act as future, not as necessary. Note the contrast between Mary and Judas. "Mary in her devotion unconsciously provides for the honour of the dead. Judas in his selfishness unconsciously brings about the death itself" (Westcott).

rwp@John:12:22 @{Andrew} (\t“i Andreƒi\). Another apostle with a Greek name and associated with Philip again (John:6:7f.|), the man who first brought his brother Simon to Jesus (1:41|). Andrew was clearly a man of wisdom for a crisis. Note the vivid dramatic presents here, {cometh} (\erchetai\), {telleth} (\legei\). What was the crisis? These Greeks wish an interview with Jesus. True Jesus had said something about "other sheep" than Jews (10:16|), but he had not explained. Philip and Andrew wrestle with the problem that will puzzle Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Acts:10:9-18|), that middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile that was only broken down by the Cross of Christ (Ephesians:2:11-22|) and that many Christians and Jews still set up between each other. Andrew has no solution for Philip and they bring the problem, but not the Greeks, to Jesus.

rwp@John:12:25 @{Loseth it} (\apolluei autˆn\). The second paradox. Present active indicative of \apollu“\. This great saying was spoken at various times as in strkjv@Mark:8:35| (Matthew:16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24|) and strkjv@Mark:10:39| (Luke:17:33|). See those passages for discussion of \psuchˆ\ (life or soul). For "he that hateth his life" (\ho mis“n tˆn psuchˆn autou\) see the sharp contrasts in Luke strkjv@14:26-35| where \mise“\ is used of father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, as well as one's own life. Clearly \mise“\ means "hate" when the issue is between Christ and the dearest things of life as happens when the choice is between martyrdom and apostasy. In that case one keeps his soul for eternal life by losing his life (\psuchˆ\, each time) here. That is the way to "guard" (\phulaxei\) life by being true to Christ. This is the second paradox to show Christ's philosophy of life.

rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\hˆ psuchˆ mou\). The soul (\psuchˆ\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass“\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip“;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, s“son me ek tˆs h“ras tautˆs\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto ˆlthon eis tˆn h“ran tautˆn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.

rwp@John:12:34 @{Out of the law} (\ek tou nomou\). That is, "out of the Scriptures" (10:34; strkjv@15:25|). {The Christ abideth forever} (\ho Christos menei eis ton ai“na\). Timeless present active indicative of \men“\, to abide, remain. Perhaps from strkjv@Psalms:89:4; strkjv@110:4; strkjv@Isaiah:9:7; strkjv@Ezekiel:37:25; strkjv@Daniel:7:14|. {How sayest thou?} (\p“s legeis su;\). In opposition to the law (Scripture). {The Son of man} (\ton huion tou anthr“pou\). Accusative case of general reference with the infinitive \hups“thˆnai\ (first aorist passive of \hupso“\ and taken in the sense of death by the cross as Jesus used it in verse 32|). Clearly the crowd understand Jesus to be "the Son of man" and take the phrase to be equivalent to "the Christ." This is the obvious way to understand the two terms in their reply, and not, as Bernard suggests, that they saw no connexion between "the Christ" (the Messiah) and "the Son of man." The use of "this" (\houtos\) in the question that follows is in contrast to verse 32|. The Messiah (the Son of man) abides forever and is not to be crucified as you say he "must" (\dei\) be.

rwp@John:13:16 @{Is not greater} (\ouk estin meiz“n\). Comparative adjective of \megas\ (greater) followed by the ablative case \kuriou\ (contrast between slave, lord) and \tou pempsantos\ (articular participle of \pemp“\, to send, with contrast with apostle, "one sent" (\apostolos\) from \apostell“\). Jesus here enforces the dignity of service. In strkjv@Luke:22:27| Jesus argues this point a bit. In strkjv@Luke:6:40| the contrast is between the pupil and the teacher, though some pupils consider themselves superior to the teacher. In strkjv@Matthew:10:24| Jesus uses both forms of the saying (pupil and slave). He clearly repeated this \logion\ often.

rwp@John:13:17 @{If ye know} (\ei oidate\). Condition of first class assumed as true, \ei\ and present (\oidate\ used as present) active indicative. {If ye do} (\ean poiˆte\). Third-class condition, \ean\ and present active subjunctive, assumed as possible, "if ye keep on doing." Both conditions with the one conclusion coming in between, "happy are ye." Just knowing does not bring happiness nor just occasional doing.

rwp@John:16:16 @{A little while} (\mikron\). The brief period now till Christ's death as in strkjv@7:33; strkjv@13:33; strkjv@14:19|. {Again a little while} (\palin mikron\). The period between the death and the resurrection of Jesus (from Friday afternoon till Sunday morning). {Ye shall see me} (\opsesthe me\). Future middle of \optomai\, the verb used in strkjv@1:51; strkjv@16:22| as here of spiritual realities (Bernard), though \the“re“\ is so used in strkjv@20:14|.

rwp@John:16:28 @{I came out from the Father} (\exˆlthon ek tou patros\). Definite act (aorist), the Incarnation, with repetition of \ek\ (out of), while in verse 27| we have \para tou patros exˆlthon\) with no practical distinction between \ek\ and \para\ in resultant idea. {Amos:come} (\elˆlutha\). Perfect active indicative of \erchomai\, as in strkjv@18:37|. The Incarnation is now a permanent fact, once only a blessed hope (11:27|). His leaving the world and going to the Father does not set aside the fact of the Incarnation. Both \aphiˆmi\ (I leave) and \poreuomai\ (I go) are futuristic present indicatives.

rwp@John:17:24 @{I will} (\thel“\). Perfect identity of his will with that of the Father in "this moment of spiritual exaltation" (Bernard), though in Gethsemane Jesus distinguishes between his human will and that of the Father (Mark:14:36|). {Where I am} (\hopou eimi eg“\). That is heaven, to be with Jesus (12:26; strkjv@13:36; strkjv@14:3; strkjv@Romans:8:17; strkjv@2Timothy:2:11f.|). {That they may behold} (\hina the“r“sin\). Another purpose clause with \hina\ and the present active subjunctive of \the“re“\, "that they may keep on beholding," the endless joy of seeing Jesus "as he is" (1John:3:2|) in heaven. {Before the foundation of the world} (\pro katabolˆs kosmou\). This same phrase in strkjv@Ephesians:1:4; strkjv@1Peter:1:20| and six other times we have \katabolˆ kosmou\ (Matthew:25:34; strkjv@Luke:11:50; strkjv@Hebrews:4:3; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Revelation:13:8; strkjv@17:8|). Here we find the same pre-incarnate consciousness of Christ seen in strkjv@17:5|.

rwp@John:18:20 @{Openly} (\parrˆsiƒi\). As already shown (7:4; strkjv@8:26; strkjv@10:24,39; strkjv@16:25,29|. See strkjv@7:4| for same contrast between \en parrˆsiƒi\ and \en krupt“i\. {I ever taught} (\eg“ pantote edidaxa\). Constative aorist active indicative. For the temple teaching see strkjv@John:2:19; strkjv@7:14,28; strkjv@8:20, strkjv@19:23; strkjv@Mark:14:49| and strkjv@John:6:59| for the synagogue teaching (often in the Synoptics). Examples of private teaching are Nicodemus (John:3|) and the woman of Samaria (John:4|). Jesus ignores the sneer at his disciples, but challenges the inquiry about his teaching as needless.

rwp@John:18:25 @{Was standing and warming himself} (\ˆn hest“s kai thermainomenos\). Two periphrastic imperfects precisely as in verse 18|, vivid renewal of the picture drawn there. John alone gives the examination of Jesus by Annas (18:19-24|) which he places between the first and the second denials by Peter. Each of the Four Gospels gives three denials, but it is not possible to make a clear parallel as probably several people joined in each time. This time there was an hour's interval (Luke:22:59|). The question and answer are almost identical with verse 17| and "put in a form which almost _suggested_ that Peter should say 'No'" (Bernard), a favourite device of the devil in making temptation attractive.

rwp@John:18:35 @{Amos:I a Jew?} (\mˆti eg“ Ioudaios eimi;\). Proud and fine scorn on Pilate's part at the idea that he had a personal interest in the question. Vehement negation implied. Cf. strkjv@4:29| for \mˆti\ in a question. The gulf between Jew and Gentile yawns wide here. {Nation} (\ethnos\ as in strkjv@11:48-52|, rather than \laos\, while both in strkjv@11:50|). For \pared“kan\ see verse 30|. {What hast thou done?} (\ti epoiˆsas;\). First aorist active indicative of \poie“\. Blunt and curt question. "What didst thou do?" "What is thy real crime?" John's picture of this private interview between Pilate and Jesus is told with graphic power.

rwp@John:19:17 @{They took} (\parelabon\). Second aorist active indicative of \paralamban“\, they took Jesus from Pilate. Cf. strkjv@1:11; strkjv@14:3|. This is after the shameful scourging between 6 A.M. and 9 A.M. when the soldiers insult Jesus _ad libitum_ (Mark:15:16-19; strkjv@Matthew:27:27-30|).

rwp@John:20:2 @{Runneth} (\trechei\). Vivid dramatic present indicative of \trech“\. John deals only with Mary Magdalene. She left the tomb at once before the rest and without seeing the angels as told in the Synoptics (Mark:16:2-8; strkjv@Matthew:28:5-8; strkjv@Luke:24:1-8|). Luke (Luke:24:9-12|) does not distinguish between the separate report of Mary Magdalene and that of the other women. {To Simon Peter} (\pros Sim“na Petron\). Full name as usual in John and back with John and the other disciples. The association of Peter and the other disciple in strkjv@John:18-21| is like that between Peter and John in strkjv@Acts:1-5|. {Loved} (\ephilei\). Imperfect of \phile“\ for which see strkjv@5:20; strkjv@11:3| and for distinction from \agapa“\ see strkjv@11:5; strkjv@13:23; strkjv@21:7,15,17|. {They have taken away} (\ˆran\). First aorist active indicative of \air“\, indefinite plural. {We know not} (\ouk oidamen\). Mary associates the other women with her in her ignorance. For \ethˆkan\ (have laid) see strkjv@19:42|. Mary fears a grave robbery. She has no idea of the resurrection of Jesus.

rwp@John:21:15 @{Lovest thou me more than these?} (\agapƒis me pleon tout“n;\). Ablative case of comparison \tout“n\ (disciples) after \pleon\. Peter had even boasted that he would stand by Christ though all men forsook him (Mark:14:29|). We do not know what passed between Jesus and Peter when Jesus first appeared to him (Luke:24:34|). But here Christ probes the inmost recesses of Peter's heart to secure the humility necessary for service. {I love thee} (\phil“ su\). Peter makes no claim here to superior love and passes by the "more than these" and does not even use Christ's word \agapa“\ for high and devoted love, but the humbler word \phile“\ for love as a friend. He insists that Christ knows this in spite of his conduct. {Feed my lambs} (\Boske ta arnia mou\). For the old word \bosk“\ (to feed as a herdsman) see strkjv@Matthew:8:33|. Present active imperative here. \Arnia\ is a diminutive of \arnos\ (lamb).

rwp@Info_Jude:@ THE RELATION TO II PETER Beyond a doubt one of these Epistles was used by the other, as one can see by comparing particularly strkjv@Jude:1:3-18| and strkjv@2Peter:2:1-18|. As already said concerning II Peter, scholars are greatly divided on this point, and in our present state of knowledge it does not seem possible to reach a solid conclusion. The probability is that not much time elapsed between them. Mayor devotes a whole chapter to the discussion of the relation between II Peter and Jude:and reaches the conclusion "that in Jude:we have the first thought, in Peter the second thought." That is my own feeling, but it is all so subjective that I have no desire to urge the point unduly. Bigg is equally positive that II Peter comes before Jude.

rwp@Info_Jude:@ SPECIAL BOOKS ON JUDE (Apart from those on II Peter or the Catholic Epistles) Chase, F. H., _Jude:in Hastings D B_ (1899). Ermoni, V., _L'epitre de Jude_ (1903, in Vigoroux, Diction- naire de la Bible). Georchin, B., _Der Brief Judas_ (1901). Kasteren, J. P., _Deuteronomy:brief uan den apostel Judas_ (1916). Maier, F., _Der Judasbrief_ (1906). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of Jude_ (in Expositor's Greek Testament, 1910). Plummer, A., _St. James and St. Jude_ (Expositor's Bible). Rampf, M. F., _Der Brief Juda_ (1854). Stier, R., _Der Brief Judas, des Bruders des Herrn_ (1850). Wandel, G., _Der Brief des Judas_ (1898). strkjv@Jude:1:1 @{Servant} (\doulos\). Precisely as James (James:1:1|), only James added \kuriou\ (Lord). {Brother of James} (\adelphos Iak“bou\). Thus Jude:identifies himself. But not the "Judas of James" (Luke:6:16; strkjv@Acts:1:13|). {To them that are called} (\tois--klˆtois\). But this translation (treating \klˆtois\ as a substantive like strkjv@Romans:1:6; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:24|) is by no means certain as two participles come in between \tois\ and \klˆtois\. \Klˆtois\ may be in the predicate position (being called), not attributive. But see strkjv@1Peter:1:1|. {Beloved in God the Father} (\en the“i patri ˆgapˆmenois\). Perfect passive participle of \agapa“\, but no precise parallel to this use of \en\ with \agapa“\. {Kept for Jesus Christ} (\Iˆsou Christ“i tetˆrˆmenois\). Perfect passive participle again with dative, unless it is the instrumental, "kept by Jesus Christ," a quite possible interpretation.

rwp@Luke:1:47 @{Hath rejoiced} (\ˆgalliasen\). This is aorist active indicative. Greek tenses do not correspond to those in English. The verb \agallia“\ is a Hellenistic word from the old Greek \agall“\. It means to exult. See the substantive \agalliasis\ in strkjv@Luke:1:14,44|. Mary is not excited like Elisabeth, but breathes a spirit of composed rapture. {My spirit} (\to pneuma mou\). One need not press unduly the difference between "soul" (\psuchˆ\) in verse 46| and "spirit" here. Bruce calls them synonyms in parallel clauses. Vincent argues that the soul is the principle of individuality while the spirit is the point of contact between God and man. It is doubtful, however, if the trichotomous theory of man (body, soul, and spirit) is to be insisted on. It is certain that we have an inner spiritual nature for which various words are used in strkjv@Mark:12:30|. Even the distinction between intellect, emotions, and will is challenged by some psychologists. {God my Saviour} (\t“i the“i t“i sotˆri mou\). Article with each substantive. God is called Saviour in the O.T. (Deuteronomy:32:15, strkjv@Psalms:24:5; strkjv@95:1|).

rwp@Luke:1:65 @{Fear} (\phobos\). Not terror, but religious awe because of contact with the supernatural as in the case of Zacharias (1:12|). Were noised abroad (\dielaleito\). Imperfect passive. Occurs in Polybius. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:6:11|. It was continuous talk back and forth between (\dia\) the people.

rwp@Luke:2:33 @{His father and his mother} (\ho patˆr autou kai hˆ mˆtˆr\). 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} (\ˆn thaumazontes\). The masculine gender includes the feminine when both are referred to. But \ˆn\ is singular, not \ˆsan\, the normal imperfect plural in this periphrastic imperfect. This is due to the wide space between copula and participle. The copula \ˆn\ agrees in number with \ho patˆr\ while the participle coming last agrees with both \ho pater kai hˆ mˆtˆr\ (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:4:2 @{Being tempted} (\peirazomenos\). Present passive participle and naturally parallel with the imperfect passive \ˆgeto\ (was led) in verse 1|. This is another instance of poor verse division which should have come at the end of the sentence. See on ¯Matthew:4:1; strkjv@Mark:1:13| for the words "tempt" and "devil." The devil challenged the Son of man though also the Son of God. It was a contest between Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, and the slanderer of men. The devil had won with Adam and Eve. He has hopes of triumph over Jesus. The story of this conflict is given only in strkjv@Matthew:4:1-11; strkjv@Luke:4:1-13|. There is a mere mention of it in strkjv@Mark:1:12f|. Songs:then here is a specimen of the Logia of Jesus (Q), a non-Markan portion of Matthew and Luke, the earliest document about Christ. The narrative could come ultimately only from Christ himself. It is noteworthy that it bears all the marks of the high conception of Jesus as the Son of God found in the Gospel of John and in Paul and Hebrews, the rest of the New Testament in fact, for Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Peter, and Jude:follow in this same strain. The point is that modern criticism has revealed the Messianic consciousness of Jesus as God's Son at his Baptism and in his Temptations at the very beginning of his ministry and in the oldest known documents about Christ (The Logia, Mark's Gospel). {He did eat nothing} (\ouk ephagen ouden\). Second aorist (constative) active indicative of the defective verb \esthi“\. Mark does not give the fast. strkjv@Matthew:4:2| has the aorist active participle \nˆsteusas\ which usually means a religious fast for purposes of devotion. That idea is not excluded by Luke's words. The entrance of Jesus upon his Messianic ministry was a fit time for this solemn and intense consecration. This mental and spiritual strain would naturally take away the appetite and there was probably nothing at hand to eat. The weakness from the absence of food gave the devil his special opportunity to tempt Jesus which he promptly seized. {When they were completed} (\suntelestheis“n aut“n\). Genitive absolute with the first aorist passive participle feminine plural because \hemer“n\ (days) is feminine. According to Luke the hunger (\epeinasen\, became hungry, ingressive aorist active indicative) came at the close of the forty days as in strkjv@Matthew:4:2|.

rwp@Luke:4:6 @{All this authority} (\tˆn exousian tautˆn hapasan\). strkjv@Matthew:4:9| has "all these things." Luke's report is more specific. {And the glory of them} (\kai tˆn doxan aut“n\). strkjv@Matthew:4:8| has this in the statement of what the devil did, not what he said. {For it hath been delivered unto me} (\hoti emoi paradedotai\). Perfect passive indicative. Satan here claims possession of world power and Jesus does not deny it. It may be due to man's sin and by God's permission. Jesus calls Satan the ruler of this world (John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|). {To whomsoever I will} (\hoi an thel“\). Present subjunctive with \an\ in an indefinite relative sentence. This audacious claim, if allowed, makes one wonder whether some of the world rulers are not, consciously or unconsciously, agents of the devil. In several American cities there has been proven a definite compact between the police and the underworld of crime. But the tone of Satan here is one of superiority to Jesus in world power. He offers him a share in it on one condition.

rwp@Luke:4:14 @{Returned} (\hupestrepsen\). Luke does not fill in the gap between the temptations in the wilderness of Judea and the Galilean Ministry. He follows the outline of Mark. It is John's Gospel alone that tells of the year of obscurity (Stalker) in various parts of the Holy Land. {In the power of the Spirit} (\en tˆi dunamei tou pneumatos\). Luke in these two verses (14,15|) gives a description of the Galilean Ministry with three marked characteristics (Plummer): the power of the spirit, rapid spread of Christ's fame, use of the Jewish synagogues. Luke often notes the power of the Holy Spirit in the work of Christ. Our word dynamite is this same word \dunamis\ (power). {A fame} (\phˆmˆ\). An old Greek word found in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:9:26|. It is from \phˆmi\, to say. Talk ran rapidly in every direction. It assumes the previous ministry as told by John.

rwp@Luke:4:26 @{Unto Zarephath} (\eis Sarepta\). The modern village Surafend on the coast road between Tyre and Sidon. {Unto a woman that was a widow} (\pros gunaika chˆran\). Literally, unto a woman a widow (like our vernacular widow woman). This is an illustration of the proverb from the life of Elijah (1Kings:17:8,9|). This woman was in the land of Sidon or Phoenicia, a heathen, where Jesus himself will go later.

rwp@Luke:5:17 @{That} (\kai\). Use of \kai\ = \hoti\ (that) like the Hebrew _wav_, though found in Greek also. {He} (\autos\). Luke sometimes has \autos\ in the nominative as unemphatic "he" as here, not "he himself." {Was teaching} (\ˆn didask“n\). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom. {Were sitting by} (\ˆsan kathˆmenoi\). Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no "by" in the Greek. {Doctors of the law} (\nomodidaskaloi\). A compound word formed after analogy of \hierodidaskalos\, but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and strkjv@Acts:5:34; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7|. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word "doctor" is Latin for "teacher." These "teachers of the law" are called elsewhere in the Gospels "scribes" (\grammateis\) as in Matthew and Mark (see on ¯Matthew:5:20; strkjv@23:34|) and strkjv@Luke:5:21; strkjv@19:47; strkjv@21:1; strkjv@22:2|. Luke also employs \nomikos\ (one skilled in the law, \nomos\) as in strkjv@10:25|. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see on ¯Matthew:3:7,20|. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the "Pharisees" were "teachers of the law" so that both terms often occur together as in verse 21| where Luke has separate articles (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in strkjv@Matthew:5:20| or no article as here in verse 17|. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law "which were come" (\hoi ˆsan elˆluthotes\, periphrastic past perfect active, {had come}). {Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem} (\ek pasˆs k“mˆs tˆs Galilaias kai Ioudaias kai Ierousalˆm\). Edersheim (_Jewish Social Life_) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use "every village." But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that strkjv@John:4:1-4| shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:23|. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life. {The power of the Lord was with him to heal} (\dunamis Kuriou ˆn eis to iƒsthai auton\). Songs:the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: "Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus)." Here \Kuriou\ refers to Jehovah. {Dunamis} (dynamite) is one of the common words for "miracles" (\dunameis\). What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion.

rwp@Luke:5:24 @{He saith unto him that was palsied} (\eipen t“i paralelumen“i\). This same parenthesis right in the midst of the words of Jesus is in strkjv@Mark:2:11; strkjv@Matthew:9:6|, conclusive proof of interrelation between these documents. The words of Jesus are quoted practically alike in all three Gospels, the same purpose also \hina eidˆte\ (second perfect active subjunctive).

rwp@Luke:5:32 @{To repentance} (\eis metanoian\). Alone in Luke not genuine in strkjv@Mark:2:17; strkjv@Matthew:9:12|. Only sinners would need a call to repentance, a change of mind and life. For the moment Jesus accepts the Pharisaic division between "righteous" and "sinners" to score them and to answer their criticism. At the other times he will show that they only pretend to be "righteous" and are "hypocrites" in reality. But Jesus has here blazed the path for all soul-winners. The self-satisfied are the hard ones to win and they often resent efforts to win them to Christ.

rwp@Luke:5:33 @{Often} (\pukna\). Only in Luke. Common word for thick, compact, often. {And make supplications} (\kai deˆseis poiountai\). Only in Luke. {But thine} (\hoi de soi\). Sharp contrast between the conduct of the disciples of Jesus and those of John and the Pharisees who here appear together as critics of Christ and his disciples (Mark:2:18; strkjv@Matthew:9:14|), though Luke does not bring that out sharply. It is probable that Levi had his reception for Jesus on one of the Jewish fast days and, if so, this would give special edge to their criticism.

rwp@Luke:5:36 @{Also a parable} (\kai parabolˆn\). There are three parables here in the answer of Jesus (the bridegroom, the patch on the garment, the wineskin). They are not called parables save here, but they are parables and Luke's language means that. {Rendeth} (\schisas\). This in Luke alone. Common verb. Used of splitting rocks (Matthew:27:51|). Our word schism comes from it. {Putteth it} (\epiballei\). Songs:Matthew:9:16| when strkjv@Mark:2:21| has \epiraptei\ (sews on). The word for "piece" or "patch" (\epiblˆma\) in all the three Gospels is from the verb \epiball“\, to clap on, and is in Plutarch, Arrian, LXX, though the verb is as old as Homer. See on Matthew and Mark for distinction between \kainos\ (fresh), \neos\ (new), and \palaios\ (old). {He will rend the new} (\kai to kainon schisei\). Future active indicative. Songs:the best MSS. {Will not agree} (\ou sumph“nˆsei\). Future active indicative. Songs:the best manuscripts again. {With the old} (\t“i palai“i\). Associative instrumental case. Instead of this phrase in Luke, strkjv@Mark:2:21; strkjv@Matthew:9:16| have "a worse rent" (\cheiron schisma\).

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:6:21 @{Now} (\nun\). Luke adds this adverb here and in the next sentence after "weep." This sharpens the contrast between present sufferings and the future blessings. {Filled} (\chortasthˆsesthe\). Future passive indicative. The same verb in strkjv@Matthew:5:6|. Originally it was used for giving fodder (\chortos\) to animals, but here it is spiritual fodder or food except in strkjv@Luke:15:16; strkjv@16:21|. Luke here omits "and thirst after righteousness." {Weep} (\klaiontes\). Audible weeping. Where strkjv@Matthew:5:4| has "mourn" (\penthountes\). {Shall laugh} (\gelasete\). Here strkjv@Matthew:5:4| has "shall be comforted." Luke's words are terse.

rwp@Luke:6:27 @{But I say unto you that hear} (\Alla humin leg“ tois akouousin\). There is a contrast in this use of \alla\ like that in strkjv@Matthew:5:44|. This is the only one of the many examples given by strkjv@Matthew:5| of the sharp antithesis between what the rabbis taught and what Jesus said. Perhaps that contrast is referred to by Luke. If necessary, \alla\ could be coordinating or paratactic conjunction as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11| rather than adversative as apparently here. See strkjv@Matthew:5:43f.| Love of enemies is in the O.T., but Jesus ennobles the word, \agapa“\, and uses it of love for one's enemies.

rwp@Matthew:10:35 @{Set at variance} (\dichasai\). Literally divide in two, \dicha\. Jesus uses strkjv@Micah:7:1-6| to describe the rottenness of the age as Micah had done. Family ties and social ties cannot stand in the way of loyalty to Christ and righteous living. {The daughter-in-law} (\numphˆn\). Literally bride, the young wife who is possibly living with the mother-in-law. It is a tragedy to see a father or mother step between the child and Christ.

rwp@Matthew:11:11 @{He that is but little} (\ho mikroteros\). The Authorized Version here has it better, "he that is least." The article with the comparative is a growing idiom in the vernacular _Koin‚_ for the superlative as in the modern Greek it is the only idiom for the superlative (Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek N.T._, p. 668). The papyri and inscriptions show the same construction. The paradox of Jesus has puzzled many. He surely means that John is greater (\meiz“n\) than all others in character, but that the least in the kingdom of heaven surpasses him in privilege. John is the end of one age, "until John" (11:14|), and the beginning of the new era. All those that come after John stand upon his shoulders. John is the mountain peak between the old and the new.

rwp@Matthew:12:30 @{He that is not with me} (\ho mˆ “n met' emou\). With these solemn words Jesus draws the line of cleavage between himself and his enemies then and now. Jesus still has his enemies who hate him and all noble words and deeds because they sting what conscience they have into fury. But we may have our choice. We either gather with (\sunag“n\) Christ or scatter (\skorpizei\) to the four winds. Christ is the magnet of the ages. He draws or drives away. "Satan is the arch-waster, Christ the collector, Saviour" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:13:22 @{Choke the word} (\sunpnigei ton logon\). We had \apepnixan\ (choked off) in strkjv@13:7|. Here it is \sunpnigei\ (choke together), historical present and singular with both subjects lumped together. "Lust for money and care go together and between them spoil many an earnest religious nature" (Bruce), "thorns" indeed. The thorns flourish and the character sickens and dies, choked to death for lack of spiritual food, air, sunshine.

rwp@Matthew:14:13 @{In a boat} (\en ploi“i\) "on foot" (\pezˆi\, some MSS. \pez“i\). Contrast between the lake and the land route.

rwp@Matthew:14:18 @{And he said} (\ho de eipen\). Here is the contrast between the helpless doubt of the disciples and the confident courage of Jesus. He used "_the_ five loaves and two fishes" which they had mentioned as a reason for doing nothing. "Bring them hither unto me." They had overlooked the power of Jesus in this emergency.

rwp@Matthew:15:2 @{The tradition of the elders} (\tˆn paradosin t“n presbuter“n\). This was the oral law, handed down by the elders of the past in _ex cathedra_ fashion and later codified in the Mishna. Handwashing before meals is not a requirement of the Old Testament. It is, we know, a good thing for sanitary reasons, but the rabbis made it a mark of righteousness for others at any rate. This item was magnified at great length in the oral teaching. The washing (\niptontai\, middle voice, note) of the hands called for minute regulations. It was commanded to wash the hands before meals, it was one's duty to do it after eating. The more rigorous did it between the courses. The hands must be immersed. Then the water itself must be "clean" and the cups or pots used must be ceremonially "clean." Vessels were kept full of clean water ready for use (John:2:6-8|). Songs:it went on _ad infinitum_. Thus a real issue is raised between Jesus and the rabbis. It was far more than a point of etiquette or of hygienics. The rabbis held it to be a mortal sin. The incident may have happened in a Pharisee's house.

rwp@Matthew:15:11 @{This defileth the man} (\touto koinoi ton anthr“pon\). This word is from \koinos\ which is used in two senses, either what is "common" to all and general like the _Koin‚_ Greek, or what is unclean and "common" either ceremonially or in reality. The ceremonial "commonness" disturbed Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Acts:10:14|). See also strkjv@Acts:21:28; strkjv@Hebrews:9:13|. One who is thus religiously common or unclean is cut off from doing his religious acts. "Defilement" was a grave issue with the rabbinical ceremonialists. Jesus appeals to the crowd here: {Hear and understand} (\akouete kai suniete\). He has a profound distinction to draw. Moral uncleanness is what makes a man common, defiles him. That is what is to be dreaded, not to be glossed over. "This goes beyond the tradition of the elders and virtually abrogates the Levitical distinctions between clean and unclean" (Bruce). One can see the pettifogging pretenders shrivel up under these withering words.

rwp@Revelation:7:17 @{In the midst} (\ana meson\). In strkjv@5:6| we have \en mes“i tou thronou\ as the position of the Lamb, and so that is apparently the sense of \ana meson\ here as in strkjv@Matthew:13:25|, though it can mean "between," as clearly so in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:5|. {Shall be their shepherd} (\paimanei autous\). "Shall shepherd them," future active of \poimain“\ (from \poimˆn\, shepherd), in strkjv@John:21:16; strkjv@Acts:20:28; strkjv@1Peter:5:2; strkjv@Revelation:2:27; strkjv@7:17; strkjv@12:5; strkjv@19:15|. Jesus is still the Good Shepherd of his sheep (John:10:11,14ff.|). Cf. strkjv@Psalms:23:1|. {Shall guide them} (\hodˆ gˆsei autous\). Future active of \hodˆge“\, old word (from \hodˆgos\, guide, strkjv@Matthew:15:14|), used of God's guidance of Israel (Exodus:15:13|), of God's guidance of individual lives (Psalms:5:9|), of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John:16:13|), of Christ's own guidance here (cf. strkjv@John:14:4; strkjv@Revelation:14:4|). {Unto fountains of waters of life} (\epi z“ˆs pˆgas hudat“n\). The language is like that in strkjv@Isaiah:49:10; strkjv@Jeremiah:2:13|. Note the order, "to life's water springs" (Swete) like the Vulgate _ad vitae fontes aquarum_, with emphasis on \z“ˆs\ (life's). For this idea see also strkjv@John:4:12,14; strkjv@7:38f.; strkjv@Revelation:21:6; strkjv@22:1,17|. No special emphasis on the plural here or in strkjv@8:10; strkjv@14:7; strkjv@16:4|. {And God shall wipe away} (\kai exaleipsei ho theos\). Repeated in strkjv@21:4| from strkjv@Isaiah:25:8|. Future active of \exaleiph“\, old compound, to wipe out (\ex\), off, away, already in strkjv@3:5| for erasing a name and in strkjv@Acts:3:19| for removing the stain (guilt) of sin. {Every tear} (\pƒn dakruon\). Old word, with other form, \dakru\, in strkjv@Luke:7:38,44|. Note repetition of \ek\ with \ophthalm“n\ (out of their eyes). "Words like these of vv. 15-17| must sound as a divine music in the ears of the persecuted. God will comfort as a mother comforts" (Baljon).

rwp@Revelation:8:3 @{Another angel} (\allos aggelos\). Not one of the seven of verse 2| and before they began to sound the trumpets. This preliminary incident of the offering of incense on the altar covers verses 3-6|. {Stood} (\estathˆ\). Ingressive first aorist passive of \histˆmi\ (intransitive), "took his place." {Over the altar} (\epi tou thusiastˆriou\). See strkjv@6:9| for the word for the burnt-offering, here apparently the altar of incense (clearly so in strkjv@Luke:1:11|; possibly also strkjv@Revelation:9:13|), but it is not clear that in apocalyptic the distinction between the two altars of the tabernacle and temple is preserved. Aleph C Q have the genitive, while A P have the accusative \epi to thusiastˆrion\. {A golden censer} (\liban“ton chrusoun\). Old word for frankincense (from \libanos\, strkjv@Matthew:2:11; strkjv@Revelation:18:13|), but here alone in N.T. and for censer, as is plain by the use of \chrusoun\ (golden) with it. Cf. strkjv@1Kings:7:50|. {Much incense} (\thumiamata polla\). See strkjv@5:8| for \thumiama\ (the aromatic substance burnt, also in strkjv@18:13|), but here for the live coals on which the incense falls. {That he should add} (\hina d“sei\). Sub-final clause (subject of \edothˆ\, was given, singular because \thumiamata\ neuter plural) with \hina\ and the future active indicative of \did“mi\, to give, instead of \d“i\, the second aorist subjunctive. {Unto the prayers} (\tais proseuchais\). Dative case. In strkjv@5:18| the \thumiamata\ are the prayers. {Upon the golden altar} (\epi to thusiastˆrion to chrusoun to\). Accusative case here, not genitive as above, and apparently the altar of incense as indicated by the word golden (Exodus:30:1ff.; strkjv@Leviticus:4:17|). Note triple article here \to\ (once before the substantive, once before the adjective, once before the adjunct "the one before the throne").

rwp@Revelation:17:5 @{Upon her forehead a name written} (\epi to met“pon autˆs onoma gegrammenon\). Roman harlots wore a label with their names on their brows (Seneca, _Rhet_. I. 2. 7; Juvenal VI. 122f.), and so here. In strkjv@19:16| Christ has a name on his garments and on his thigh, while in strkjv@14:1; strkjv@22:4| the redeemed have the name of God on their foreheads. There is undoubtedly a contrast between this woman here and the woman in chapter strkjv@Revelation:12|. {Mystery} (\mustˆrion\). Either in apposition with \onoma\ or as part of the inscription on her forehead. In either case the meaning is the same, that the name Babylon is to be interpreted mystically or spiritually (cf. \pneumatik“s\ strkjv@11:8|) for Rome. {The Mother of the Harlots and of the Abominations of the Earth} (\Hˆ Mˆtˆr t“n Porn“n kai t“n Bdelugmat“n tˆs Gˆs\). The Metropolis of the Empire is the mother of harlotry and of the world's idolatries. Charles quotes Tacitus (_Ann_. XV. 44) about Rome as the city "quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque_."

rwp@Revelation:17:11 @{Is himself also an eighth and is of the seven} (\kai autos ogdoos kai ek t“n hepta\). This is the angel's interpretation and it looks like a reference to Domitian as the eighth, who is regarded as one of the seven because he was considered a second Nero (Nero _redivivus_). For \ek t“n hepta\ see strkjv@Acts:21:8|. John may have used \ek t“n\ instead of \heis ek t“n\ to avoid absolute identity between Domitian and Nero (Beckwith). {And he goeth unto perdition} (\kai eis ap“leian hupagei\). As in verse 8|. "Domitian was assassinated (September 18, 96), after a terrible struggle with his murderers. The tyrant's end was a symbol of the end to which the Beast which he personated was hastening" (Swete). Cf. strkjv@19:11-21|.

rwp@Revelation:18:3 @{By} (\ek\). "As a result of." Some MSS. omit "of the wine" (\tou oinou\). Cf. strkjv@14:10; strkjv@16:10|. {Have fallen} (\pept“kan\). Perfect active third personal of \pipt“\ for usual \pept“kasi\. Some MSS. read \pep“kan\ (have drunk), from \pin“\ like the metaphor in strkjv@14:8,10; strkjv@16:19; strkjv@17:2|. See strkjv@17:2| for the same charge about the kings of the earth. {The merchants of the earth} (\hoi emporoi tˆs gˆs\). Old word for one on a journey for trade (from \en, poros\), like drummers, in N.T. only strkjv@Matthew:13:45; strkjv@Revelation:18:3,11,15,23|. Like \emporion\ (John:2:16|) and \emporeuomai\ (James:4:13|). {Waxed rich} (\eploutˆsan\). First ingressive aorist active indicative of \ploute“\, to be rich (cf. strkjv@3:17|). Here alone in the N.T. do we catch a glimpse of the vast traffic between east and west that made Rome rich. {Of her wantonness} (\tou strˆnous autˆs\). Late word for arrogance, luxury, here alone in N.T. See \strˆnia“\ in verses 7,9|, to live wantonly.

rwp@Revelation:18:23 @{Of a lamp} (\luchnou\). Old word (Matthew:5:15|), again in strkjv@Revelation:22:5|. {Shall shine no more at all} (\ou mˆ phanˆi\). Fifth instance in these verses of \ou mˆ\ with the aorist subjunctive, here the active of \phain“\ as in strkjv@Revelation:8:12|. It is not known whether Rome had street lights or not. {The voice of the bridegroom and of the bride} (\ph“nˆ numphiou kai numphˆs\). See strkjv@John:3:29; strkjv@Jeremiah:7:34; strkjv@16:9|. "Even the occasional flash of the torches carried by bridal processions (Matthew:25:1ff.|) is seen no more" (Swete). The sixth instance of \ou mˆ\, in verses 21-23|, occurs with \akousthˆi\ (third instance of \akousthˆi\, two in verse 22|). {Were the princes of the earth} (\ˆsan hoi megistƒnes tˆs gˆs\). For \megistƒn\ see strkjv@Revelation:6:15; strkjv@Mark:6:21|. "Thy merchants were the grandees" once, but now these merchant princes are gone. {With thy sorcery} (\en tˆi pharmakiƒi sou\). \En\ (instrumental use) and the locative case of \pharmakia\, old word (from \pharmakeu“\, to prepare drugs, from \pharmakon\, sorcery, strkjv@Revelation:9:21|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Galatians:5:20| for sorcery and magical arts. If one is puzzled over the connection between medicine and sorcery as illustrated by this word (our pharmacy), he has only to recall quackery today in medicine (patent medicines and cure-alls), witch-doctors, professional faith-healers, medicine-men in Africa. True medical science has had a hard fight to shake off chicanery and charlatanry. {Were deceived} (\eplanˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \plana“\. These charlatans always find plenty of victims. See strkjv@Mark:12:24|.

rwp@Revelation:22:2 @{In the midst of the street thereof} (\en mes“i tˆs plateias autˆs\). Connected probably with the river in verse 1|, though many connect it with verse 2|. Only one street mentioned here as in strkjv@21:21|. {On this side of the river and on that} (\tou potamou enteuthen kai ekeithen\). \Enteuthen\ occurs as a preposition in strkjv@Daniel:12:5| (Theodoret) and may be so here (post-positive), purely adverbial in strkjv@John:19:18|. {The tree of life} (\xulon z“ˆs\). For the metaphor see strkjv@Genesis:1:11f.| and strkjv@Revelation:2:7; strkjv@22:14|. \Xulon\ is used for a green tree in strkjv@Luke:23:31; strkjv@Ezekiel:47:12|. {Bearing} (\poioun\). Neuter active participle of \poie“\ (making, producing, as in strkjv@Matthew:7:17|). Some MSS. have \poi“n\ (masculine), though \xulon\ is neuter. {Twelve manner of fruits} (\karpous d“deka\). "Twelve fruits." {Yielding} (\apodidoun\). Neuter active participle of \apodid“mi\, to give back, but some MSS. have \apodidous\ (masculine) like \poi“n\. {For the healing of the nations} (\eis therapeian t“n ethn“n\). Spiritual healing, of course, as leaves (\phulla\) are often used for obtaining medicines. Here again the problem occurs whether this picture is heaven before the judgment or afterwards. Charles distinguishes sharply between the Heavenly City for the millennial reign and the New Jerusalem that descends from heaven after the judgment. Charles rearranges these chapters to suit his theory. But chronology is precarious here.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL Here scholars divide again. Many who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles accept the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, Baur, for instance. Hort, Lightfoot, and Westcott argued for the Johannine authorship on the ground that the Apocalypse was written early (time of Nero or Vespasian) when John did not know Greek so well as when the Epistles and the Gospel were written. There are numerous grammatical laxities in the Apocalypse, termed by Charles a veritable grammar of its own. They are chiefly retention of the nominative case in appositional words or phrases, particularly participles, many of them sheer Hebraisms, many of them clearly intentional (as in strkjv@Revelation:1:4|), all of them on purpose according to Milligan (_Revelation_ in Schaff's Pop. Comm.) and Heinrici (_Der Litterarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften_, p. 85). Radermacher (_Neutestamentliche Grammatik_, p. 3) calls it "the most uncultured literary production that has come down to us from antiquity," and one finds frequent parallels to the linguistic peculiarities in later illiterate papyri. J. H. Moulton (_Grammar_, Vol. II, Part I, p. 3) says: "Its grammar is perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a foreign language, its whole style that of a writer who neither knows nor cares for literary form." But we shall see that the best evidence is for a date in Domitian's reign and not much later than the Fourth Gospel. It is worth noting that in strkjv@Acts:4:13| Peter and John are both termed by the Sanhedrin \agrammatoi kai idi“tai\ (unlettered and unofficial men). We have seen the possibility that II Peter represents Peter's real style or at least that of a different amanuensis from Silvanus in strkjv@1Peter:5:12|. It seems clear that the Fourth Gospel underwent careful scrutiny and possibly by the elders in Ephesus (John:21:24|). If John wrote the Apocalypse while in Patmos and so away from Ephesus, it seems quite possible that here we have John's own uncorrected style more than in the Gospel and Epistles. There is also the added consideration that the excitement of the visions played a part along with a certain element of intentional variations from normal grammatical sequence. An old man's excitement would bring back his early style. There are numerous coincidences in vocabulary and style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE TIME AND PLACE The place is settled if we accept strkjv@Romans:16:1|. The time of the year is in the spring if we combine statements in the Acts and the Epistle. He says: "I am now going to Jerusalem ministering to the saints" (Romans:15:25|). In strkjv@Acts:20:3| we read that Paul spent three months in Corinth. In II Corinthians we have a full account of the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. The account of the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem is given in strkjv@Acts:20:3-21:17|. It was in the spring between passover at Philippi (Acts:20:6|) and pentecost in Jerusalem (20:16; strkjv@21:17|). The precise year is not quite so certain, but we may suggest A.D. 57 or 58 with reasonable confidence.

rwp@Romans:2:13 @{Not the hearers--but the doers} (\ou gar hoi akroatai--all' hoi poiˆtai\). The law was read in the synagogue, but there was no actual virtue in listening. The virtue is in doing. See a like contrast by James between "hearers" and "doers" of the gospel (James:1:22-25|). {Before God} (\para t“i the“i\). By God's side, as God looks at it. {Shall be justified} (\dikai“thˆsontai\). Future passive indicative of \dikaio“\, to declare righteous, to set right. "Shall be declared righteous." Like strkjv@James:1:22-25|.

rwp@Romans:3:6 @{For then how} (\epei p“s\). There is a suppressed condition between \epei\ and \p“s\, an idiom occurring several times in the N.T. (1Corinthians:15:29; strkjv@Romans:11:6,22|). "Since, if that were true, how."

rwp@Romans:3:7 @{Through my lie} (\en t“i em“i pseusmati\). ] Old word from \pseudomai\, to lie, only here in N.T. Paul returns to the imaginary objection in verse 5|. The MSS. differ sharply here between \ei de\ (but if) and \ei gar\ (for if). Paul "uses the first person from motives of delicacy" (Sanday and Headlam) in this supposable case for argument's sake as in strkjv@1Corinthians:4:6|. Songs:here he "transfers by a fiction" (Field) to himself the objection.

rwp@Romans:3:8 @{And why not} (\kai mˆ\). We have a tangled sentence which can be cleared up in two ways. One is (Lightfoot) to supply \genˆtai\ after \mˆ\ and repeat \ti\ (\kai ti mˆ genˆtai\, deliberative subjunctive in a question): And why should it not happen? The other way (Sanday and Headlam) is to take \mˆ\ with \poiˆs“men\ and make a long parenthesis of all in between. Even so it is confusing because \hoti\ also (recitative \hoti\) comes just before \poiˆs“men\. The parenthesis is necessary anyhow, for there are two lines of thought, one the excuse brought forward by the unbeliever, the other the accusation that Paul affirms that very excuse that we may do evil that good may come. Note the double indirect assertion (the accusative and the infinitive \hˆmƒs legein\ after \phasin\ and then the direct quotation with recitative \hoti\ after \legein\, a direct quotation dependent on the infinitive in indirect quotation. {Let us do evil that good may come} (\poiˆs“men ta kaka hina elthˆi ta agatha\). The volitive aorist subjunctive (\poiˆs“men\) and the clause of purpose (\hina\ and the aorist subjunctive \elthˆi\). It sounds almost uncanny to find this maxim of the Jesuits attributed to Paul in the first century by Jews. It was undoubtedly the accusation of Antinomianism because Paul preached justification by faith and not by works.

rwp@Romans:3:26 @{For the shewing} (\pros tˆn endeixin\). Repeats point of \eis endeixin\ of 25| with \pros\ instead of \eis\. {At this present season} (\en t“i nun kair“i\). "In the now crisis," in contrast with "done aforetime." {That he might himself be} (\eis to einai auton\). Purpose with \eis\ to and the infinitive \einai\ and the accusative of general reference. {Just and the justifier of} (\dikaion kai dikaiounta\). "This is the key phrase which establishes the connexion between the \dikaiosunˆ theou\ and the \dikaiosunˆ ek piste“s\" (Sanday and Headlam). Nowhere has Paul put the problem of God more acutely or profoundly. To pronounce the unrighteous righteous is unjust by itself (Romans:4:5|). God's mercy would not allow him to leave man to his fate. God's justice demanded some punishment for sin. The only possible way to save some was the propitiatory offering of Christ and the call for faith on man's part.

rwp@Romans:4:11 @{The sign of circumcision} (\sˆmeion peritomˆs\). It is the genitive of apposition, circumcision being the sign. {A seal of the righteousness of the faith} (\sphragida tˆs dikaiosunˆs tˆs piste“s\). \Sphragis\ is old word for the seal placed on books (Revelation:5:1|), for a signet-ring (Revelation:7:2|), the stamp made by the seal (2Timothy:2:19|), that by which anything is confirmed (1Corinthians:9:2|) as here. The circumcision did not convey the righteousness, but only gave outward confirmation. It came by faith and "the faith which he had while in uncircumcision" (\tˆs en tˆi akrobustiƒi\), "the in the state of uncircumcision faith." Whatever parallel exists between baptism and circumcision as here stated by Paul argues for faith before baptism and for baptism as the sign and seal of the faith already had before baptism. {That he might be} (\eis to einai auton\). This idiom may be God's purpose (contemplated result) as in \eis to logisthˆnai\ below, or even actual result (so that he was) as in strkjv@1:20|. {Though they be in uncircumcision} (\di' akrobustias\). Simply, "of those who believe while in the condition of uncircumcision."

rwp@Romans:4:20 @{He wavered not through unbelief} (\ou diekrithˆ tˆi apistiƒi\). First aorist passive indicative of old and common verb \diakrin“\, to separate, to distinguish between, to decide between, to desert, to dispute, to be divided in one's own mind. This last sense occurs here as in strkjv@Matthew:21:22; strkjv@Mark:11:23; strkjv@Romans:14:23; strkjv@James:1:6|. "He was not divided in his mind by unbelief" (instrumental case). {Waxed strong through faith} (\enedunam“thˆ tˆi pistei\). First aorist passive again of \endunamo“\, late word to empower, to put power in, in LXX and Paul and strkjv@Acts:9:22|.

rwp@Romans:5:7 @{Scarcely} (\molis\). Common adverb from \molos\, toil. See on strkjv@Acts:14:18|. As between \dikaios\, righteous, and \agathos\, good, Lightfoot notes "all the difference in the world" which he shows by quotations from Plato and Christian writers, a difference of sympathy mainly, the \dikaios\ man being "absolutely without sympathy" while the \agathos\ man "is beneficent and kind." {Would even dare} (\kai tolmƒi\). Present active indicative of \tolma“\, to have courage. "Even dares to." Even so in the case of the kindly sympathetic man courage is called for to make the supreme sacrifice. {Perhaps} (\tacha\). Common adverb (perhaps instrumental case) from \tachus\ (swift). Only here in N.T.

rwp@Romans:5:12 @{Therefore} (\dia touto\). "For this reason." What reason? Probably the argument made in verses 1-11|, assuming our justification and urging exultant joy in Christ because of the present reconciliation by Christ's death and the certainty of future final salvation by his life. {As through one man} (\h“sper di' henos anthr“pou\). Paul begins a comparison between the effects of Adam's sin and the effects of the redemptive work of Christ, but he does not give the second member of the comparison. Instead of that he discusses some problems about sin and death and starts over again in verse 15|. The general point is plain that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants, though he does not say how it was done whether by the natural or the federal headship of Adam. It is important to note that Paul does not say that the whole race receives the full benefit of Christ's atoning death, but only those who do. Christ is the head of all believers as Adam is the head of the race. In this sense Adam "is a figure of him that was to come." {Sin entered into the world} (\hˆ hamartia eis ton kosmon eisˆlthen\). Personification of sin and represented as coming from the outside into the world of humanity. Paul does not discuss the origin of evil beyond this fact. There are some today who deny the fact of sin at all and who call it merely "an error of mortal mind" (a notion) while others regard it as merely an animal inheritance devoid of ethical quality. {And so death passed unto all men} (\kai hout“s eis pantas anthr“pous diˆlthen\). Note use of \dierchomai\ rather than \eiserchomai\, just before, second aorist active indicative in both instances. By "death" in strkjv@Genesis:2:17; strkjv@3:19| physical death is meant, but in verses 17,21| eternal death is Paul's idea and that lurks constantly behind physical death with Paul. {For that all sinned} (\eph' h“i pantes hˆmarton\). Constative (summary) aorist active indicative of \hamartan“\, gathering up in this one tense the history of the race (committed sin). The transmission from Adam became facts of experience. In the old Greek \eph' h“i\ usually meant "on condition that," but "because" in N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 963).

rwp@Romans:5:18 @{Songs:then} (\ara oun\). Conclusion of the argument. Cf. strkjv@7:3,25; strkjv@8:12|, etc. Paul resumes the parallel between Adam and Christ begun in verse 12| and interrupted by explanation (13f.|) and contrast (15-17|). {Through one trespass} (\di' henos parapt“matos\). That of Adam. {Through one act of righteousness} (\di' henos dikai“matos\). That of Christ. The first "unto all men" (\eis pantas anthr“pous\) as in verse 12|, the second as in verse 17| "they that receive, etc."

rwp@Romans:5:20 @{Came in beside} (\pareisˆlthen\). Second aorist active indicative of double compound \pareiserchomai\, late verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Galatians:2:4| which see. See also \eisˆlthen\ in verse 12|. The Mosaic law came into this state of things, in between Adam and Christ. {That the trespass might abound} (\hina pleonasˆi to parapt“ma\). It is usual to explain \hina\ here as final, as God's ultimate purpose. Songs:Denney who refers to strkjv@Galatians:3:19ff.; strkjv@Romans:7:7f|. But Chrysostom explains \hina\ here as \ekbasis\ (result). This is a proper use of \hina\ in the _Koin‚_ as we have seen. If we take it so here, the meaning is "so that the trespass abounded" (aorist active subjunctive of \pleonas“\, late verb, see on ¯2Thessalonians:1:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:15|). This was the actual effect of the Mosaic law for the Jews, the necessary result of all prohibitions. {Did abound more exceedingly} (\hupereperisseusen\). First aorist active indicative of \huperperisseu“\. Late verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:7:4| which see. A strong word. If \pleonaz“\ is comparative (\pleon\) \perisseu“\ is superlative (Lightfoot) and then \huperperisseu“\ goes the superlative one better. See \huperpleonaz“\ in strkjv@1Timothy:1:14|. The flood of grace surpassed the flood of sin, great as that was (and is).

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:8:5 @{Do mind} (\phronousin\). Present active indicative of \phrone“\, to think, to put the mind (\phrˆn\) on. See strkjv@Matthew:16:23; strkjv@Romans:12:16|. For the contrast between \sarx\ and \pneuma\, see strkjv@Galatians:5:16-24|.

rwp@Romans:8:14 @{Sons of God} (\huioi theou\). In the full sense of this term. In verse 16| we have \tekna theou\ (children of God). Hence no great distinction can be drawn between \huios\ and \teknon\. The truth is that \huios\ is used in various ways in the New Testament. In the highest sense, not true of any one else, Jesus Christ is God's Son (8:3|). But in the widest sense all men are "the offspring" (\genos\) of God as shown in strkjv@Acts:17:28| by Paul. But in the special sense here only those are "sons of God" who are led by the Spirit of God, those born again (the second birth) both Jews and Gentiles, "the sons of Abraham" (\huioi Abraam\, strkjv@Galatians:3:7|), the children of faith.

rwp@Romans:8:35 @{Shall separate} (\ch“risei\). Future active of old verb \choriz“\ from adverb \ch“ris\ and that from \ch“ra\, space. Can any one put a distance between Christ's love and us (objective genitive)? Can any one lead Christ to cease loving us? Such things do happen between husband and wife, alas. Paul changes the figure from "who" (\tis\) to "what" (\ti\). The items mentioned will not make Christ love us less. Paul here glories in tribulations as in strkjv@5:3ff|.

rwp@Romans:9:13 @Paul quotes strkjv@Malachi:1:2f|. {But Esau I hated} (\ton de Esau emisˆsa\). This language sounds a bit harsh to us. It is possible that the word \mise“\ did not always carry the full force of what we mean by "hate." See strkjv@Matthew:6:24| where these very verbs (\mise“\ and \agapa“\) are contrasted. Songs:also in strkjv@Luke:14:26| about "hating" (\mise“\) one's father and mother if coming between one and Christ. Songs:in strkjv@John:12:25| about "hating" one's life. There is no doubt about God's preference for Jacob and rejection of Esau, but in spite of Sanday and Headlam one hesitates to read into these words here the intense hatred that has always existed between the descendants of Jacob and of Esau.

rwp@Romans:10:12 @{Distinction} (\diastolˆ\). See on this word strkjv@3:22|. Here it is followed by the ablative case \Ioudaiou te kai Hellˆnos\ (between Jew and Greek). {Lord of all} (\Kurios pant“n\). See strkjv@Galatians:3:28|. {Rich} (\plout“n\). Present active participle of \ploute“\. See strkjv@Ephesians:3:8| "the unsearchable riches of Christ."

rwp@Romans:11:3 @{They have digged down} (\kateskapsan\). First aorist active indicative of \kataskapt“\, to dig under or down. Old verb, here only in N.T. (critical text). LXX has \katheilan\ "pulled down." Paul has reversed the order of the LXX of strkjv@1Kings:19:10,14,18|. {Altars} (\thusiastˆria\). Late word (LXX, Philo, Josephus, N.T. eccl. writers) from \thusiaz“\, to sacrifice. See strkjv@Acts:17:23|. {And I am left alone} (\kag“ hupeleiphthˆn monos\). First aorist passive indicative of \hupoleip“\, old word, to leave under or behind, here only in N.T. Elijah's mood was that of utter dejection in his flight from Jezebel. {Life} (\psuchˆn\). It is not possible to draw a clear distinction between \psuchˆ\ (soul) and \pneuma\ (spirit). \Psuchˆ\ is from \psuch“\, to breathe or blow, \pneuma\ from \pne“\, to blow. Both are used for the personality and for the immortal part of man. Paul is usually dichotomous in his language, but sometimes trichotomous in a popular sense. We cannot hold Paul's terms to our modern psychological distinctions.

rwp@Romans:11:11 @{Did they stumble that they might fall?} (\mˆ eptaisan hina pes“sin?\). Negative answer expected by \mˆ\ as in verse 1|. First aorist active indicative of \ptai“\, old verb, to stumble, only here in Paul (see strkjv@James:3:2|), suggested perhaps by \skandalon\ in verse 9|. If \hina\ is final, then we must add "merely" to the idea, "merely that they might fall" or make a sharp distinction between \ptai“\, to stumble, and \pipt“\, to fall, and take \pes“sin\ as effective aorist active subjunctive to fall completely and for good. \Hina\, as we know, can be either final, sub-final, or even result. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:29; strkjv@Galatians:5:17|. Paul rejects this query in verse 11| as vehemently as he did that in verse 1|. {By their fall} (\t“i aut“n parapt“mati\). Instrumental case. For the word, a falling aside or a false step from \parapipt“\, see strkjv@5:15-20|. {Is come}. No verb in the Greek, but \ginetai\ or \gegonen\ is understood. {For to provoke them to jealousy} (\eis to parazˆl“sai\). Purpose expressed by \eis\ and the articular infinitive, first aorist active, of \parazˆlo“\, for which verb see strkjv@1Corinthians:10:22|. As an historical fact Paul turned to the Gentiles when the Jews rejected his message (Acts:13:45ff.; strkjv@28:28|, etc.). {The riches of the world} (\ploutos kosmou\). See strkjv@10:12|. {Their loss} (\to hˆttˆma aut“n\). Songs:perhaps in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:7|, but in strkjv@Isaiah:31:8| defeat is the idea. Perhaps so here. {Fulness} (\plˆr“ma\). Perhaps "completion," though the word from \plˆro“\, to fill, has a variety of senses, that with which anything is filled (1Corinthians:10:26,28|), that which is filled (Ephesians:1:23|). {How much more?} (\pos“i mallon\). Argument _a fortiori_ as in verse 24|. Verse 25| illustrates the point.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 2 21:02:28 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020