Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp fact:


rwp@1Corinthians:12:11 @{Worketh} (\energei\). The same word that was used in verse 6| of God. {Severally} (\idiƒi\). Separately. {Even as he will} (\kath“s bouletai\). Hence there is no occasion for conceit, pride, or faction (4:7|).

rwp@1Corinthians:12:15 @{If the foot shall say} (\ean eipˆi ho pous\). Condition of third class (\ean\ and second aorist subjunctive \eipˆi\). In case the foot say. {I am not of the body} (\ouk eimi ek tou s“matos\). I am independent of the body, not dependent on the body. {It is not therefore not of the body} (\ou para touto ouk estin ek tou s“matos\). Thinking or saying so does not change the fact. \Para touto\ here means "alongside of this" (cf. IV Macc. strkjv@10:19) and so "because of," a rare use (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 616). The two negatives (\ou--ouk\) do not here destroy one another. Each retains its full force.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:2 @{In what words I preached it unto you} (\tini logoi euˆggelisamˆn humin\). Almost certainly \tis\ (\tini logoi\, locative or instrumental, in or with) here is used like the relative \hos\ as is common in papyri (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 93f.; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 737f.). Even so it is not clear whether the clause depends on \gn“riz“\ like the other relatives, but most likely so. {If we hold it fast} (\ei katechete\). Condition of first class. Paul assumes that they are holding it fast. {Except ye believed in vain} (\ektos ei mˆ eikˆi episteusate\). For \ektos ei mˆ\ see on ¯14:5|. Condition of first class, unless in fact ye did believe to no purpose (\eikˆi\, old adverb, only in Paul in N.T.). Paul holds this peril over them in their temptation to deny the resurrection.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:3 @{First of all} (\en pr“tois\). Among first things. _In primis_. Not to time, but to importance. {Which I also received} (\ho kai parelabon\). Direct revelation claimed as about the institution of the Lord's Supper (11:23|) and same verbs used (\pared“ka, parelabon\). Four items given by Paul in explaining "the gospel" which Paul preached. Stanley calls it (verses 1-11|) the creed of the early disciples, but "rather a sample of the exact form of the apostle's early teaching, than a profession of faith on the part of converts" (Vincent). The four items are presented by four verbs (died, \apethanen\, was buried, \etaphˆ\, hath been raised, \egˆgertai\, appeared, \“phthˆ\). {Christ died} (\Christos apethanen\). Historical fact and crucial event. {For our sins} (\huper t“n hamarti“n hˆm“n\). \Huper\ means literally over, in behalf, even instead of (Galatians:3:13|), where used of persons. But here much in the sense of \peri\ (Galatians:1:14|) as is common in _Koin‚_. In strkjv@1Peter:3:18| we have \peri hamarti“n, huper adik“n\. {According to the Scriptures} (\kata tas graphas\). As Jesus showed (Luke:22:37; strkjv@24:25|) and as Peter pointed out (Acts:2:25-27; strkjv@3:35|) and as Paul had done (Acts:13:24f.; strkjv@17:3|). Cf. strkjv@Romans:1:2ff|.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:4 @{And that he was buried} (\kai hoti etaphˆ\). Note \hoti\ repeated before each of the four verbs as a separate item. Second aorist passive indicative of \thapt“\, old verb, to bury. This item is an important detail as the Gospels show. {And that he hath been raised} (\kai hoti egˆgertai\). Perfect passive indicative, not \ˆgerthˆ\ like {rose} of the King James' Version. There is reason for this sudden change of tense. Paul wishes to emphasize the permanence of the resurrection of Jesus. He is still risen. {On the third day} (\tˆi hˆmerƒi tˆi tritˆi\). Locative case of time. Whether Paul had seen either of the Gospels we do not know, but this item is closely identified with the fact of Christ's resurrection. We have it in Peter's speech (Acts:10:40|) and Jesus points it out as part of prophecy (Luke:24:46|). The other expression occasionally found "after three days" (Mark:10:34|) is merely free vernacular for the same idea and not even strkjv@Matthew:12:40| disturbs it. See on ¯Luke:24:1| for record of the empty tomb on the first day of the week (the third day).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:5 @{And that he appeared to Cephas} (\kai hoti “phthˆ Kˆphƒi\). First aorist passive indicative of the defective verb \hora“\, to see. Paul means not a mere "vision," but actual appearance. John uses \ephaner“thˆ\ (John:21:14|) from \phanero“\, to make manifest, of Christ's appearance to the seven by the Sea of Galilee. Peter was listed first (\pr“tos\) among the Apostles (Matthew:10:2|). Jesus had sent a special message to him (Mark:16:7|) after his resurrection. This special appearance to Peter is made the determining factor in the joyful faith of the disciples (Luke:24:34|), though mentioned incidentally here. Paul had told all these four facts to the Corinthians in his preaching. He gives further proof of the fact of Christ's resurrection. There are ten appearances given besides the one to Paul. Nine are in the Gospels (Mary Magdalene in John and Mark, the other women in Matthew, the two going to Emmaus in Luke, Simon Peter in Luke and I Corinthians, the ten apostles and others in Luke and John and Mark, the eleven and others in John, the seven by the sea in John, to over five hundred in Galilee in Matthew and Paul and Mark, to the apostles in Jerusalem in Luke and Mark and Acts and I Corinthians) and one in I Corinthians above (to James). It will be seen that Paul mentions only five of the ten, one, that to James, not given elsewhere. What he gives is conclusive evidence of the fact, particularly when re-enforced by his own experience (the sixth appearance mentioned by Paul). The way to prove this great fact is to start with Paul's own witness given in this undoubted Epistle. The natural way to understand Paul's adverbs of time here is chronological: {then} (\eita\), {then} (\epeita\), {then} (\epeita\), {then} (\eita\), {last of all} (\eschaton pant“n\). {To the twelve} (\tois d“deka\). The technical name. Only ten were present, for Judas was dead and Thomas was absent (John:20:24|).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:6 @{To above five hundred brethren at once} (\epan“ pentakosiois adelphois ephapax\). \Epan“\ here is just an adverb with no effect on the case. As a preposition with the ablative see strkjv@Matthew:5:14|. This incident is the one described in strkjv@Matthew:28:16| the prearranged meeting on the mountain in Galilee. The strength of this witness lies in the fact that the majority (\hoi pleious\) of them were still living when Paul wrote this Epistle, say spring of A.D. 54 or 55, not over 25 years after Christ's resurrection.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:7 @{To James} (\Iak“b“i\). The brother of the Lord. This fact explains the presence of the brothers of Jesus in the upper room (Acts:1:14|). {To all the apostles} (\tois apostolois pasin\). The Ascension of Christ from Olivet.

rwp@2Timothy:2:8 @{Risen from the dead} (\egˆgermenon ek nekr“n\). Perfect passive participle of \egeir“\, still risen as the perfect tense shows in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:4,12-20|. Predicate accusative. "Remember Jesus Christ as risen from the dead." This is the cardinal fact about Christ that proves his claim to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Christ is central for Paul here as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {Of the seed of David} (\ek spermatos Daueid\). The humanity of Christ as in strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f|. {According to my gospel} (\kata to euaggelion mou\). Paul's very phrase in strkjv@Romans:2:16; strkjv@16:25|. Not a written gospel, but my message. See also strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:7; strkjv@Galatians:1:11; strkjv@2:2; strkjv@1Timothy:1:11|.

rwp@2Timothy:2:9 @{Wherein} (\en h“i\). In my gospel. {I suffer hardship} (\kakopath“\). "I suffer evil." Old compound (\kakon, pasch“\), elsewhere in N.T., strkjv@4:5; strkjv@James:5:13|. {Unto bonds} (\mechri desm“n\). "Up to bonds." A common experience with Paul (2Corinthians:11:23; strkjv@Phillipians:1:7,13,14; strkjv@Colossians:4:18|). {As a malefactor} (\h“s kakourgos\), old compound (\kakon, erg“\, doer of evil), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:23:32ff.| (of the robbers). One of the charges made against Paul. {Is not bound} (\ou dedetai\). Perfect passive indicative of \de“\, to bind. Old verb. See strkjv@1Corinthians:7:27,39; strkjv@Romans:7:2|. I am bound with a chain, but no fetters are on the word of God (Pauline phrase; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:13; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:36; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:17; strkjv@Phillipians:1:14; strkjv@Titus:2:5|).

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@Info_Acts @ THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL ALSO The author of the Acts expressly states that he wrote "the first treatise (\ton pr“ton logon\) concerning all things, O Theophilus, that Jesus began both to do and to teach until which day he gave command through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen and was received up" (Acts:1:1f.|). There is no room for dispute that the reference is directly to the Gospel according to Luke as we have it now. Like the Gospel the book is dedicated to Theophilus. And, what is even more important, the same style appears in both Gospel and Acts. This fact Harnack has shown with great pains and conclusiveness. There is the same interest in medical matters and even Cadbury, who denies by implication the Lukan authorship, admits identity of authorship for both books.

rwp@Info_Acts @ SOURCES OF THE ACTS Beyond a doubt Luke employed a variety of sources for this great history as he did for the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|). In fact, Cadbury argues that this Prologue was meant to apply to the Acts also as Volume II whether he intended to write a third volume or not. Certainly we are entitled to say that Luke used the same historical method for Acts. Some of these sources are easy to see. Luke had his own personal experience for the "we" sections. Then he had the benefit of Paul's own notes or suggestions for all that portion where Paul figures from chapters 8 to 28, since Luke was apparently with Paul in Rome when he finished the Book. This would include Paul's sermons and addresses which Luke gives unless one wishes to say, as some do, that Luke followed the style of Thucydides and composed the kind of addresses that he thought Paul would make. I see no evidence of that for each address differs from the others and suits precisely the occasion when it was delivered. The ancients frequently employed shorthand and Paul may have preserved notes of his addresses. Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University, argues in his _Composition and Date of Acts_ (1916) that Luke used an Aramaic document for the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. There is an Aramaic element in certain portions of these chapters, but nothing like so pronounced as in Luke 1 and 2 after strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. It cannot be said that Torrey has made out his case for such a single document. Luke may have had several such documents besides access to others familiar with the early days of the work in Jerusalem. There was Simon Peter whom Paul visited for two weeks in Jerusalem (Galatians:1:18|) besides other points of contact with him in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts:15| and strkjv@Galatians:2|). There was also Barnabas who was early Paul's friend (Acts:9:27|) and who knew the beginnings as few did (Acts:4:36f.|). Besides many others it is to be observed that Paul with Luke made a special visit to Caesarea where he spent a week with the gifted Philip and his daughters with the gift of prophecy (Acts:21:8f.|). But with all the inevitable variety of sources for the information needed to cover the wide field of the Book of Acts the same mind has manifestly worked through it and it is the same style all through that appears in the "we" sections where the writer is confessedly a companion of Paul. No other companion of Paul carries this claim for the authorship and no other was a physician and no author has the external evidence from early writers.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE DATE There are three views about the date of the Acts. Baur and his Tubingen School held the second century to be the date of this late pamphlet as they termed it after the fashion of the Clementine Homilies. But that view is now practically abandoned save by the few who still strangely oppose the Lukan authorship. Probably the majority of those who accept the Lukan authorship place it in the latter part of the first century for two reasons. One is that the Gospel according to Luke is dated by them after the destruction of Jerusalem because of the prophecy by Jesus of the encompassing of the city by armies. Predictive prophecy that would be and so it is considered a prophecy _post eventum_. The other reason is the alleged use of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus by Luke. Josephus finished this work A.D. 93 so that, if Luke did use it, he must have written the Acts after that date. Usually this argument is made to show that Luke could not have written it at all, but some hold that he may have lived to an age that would allow it. But it cannot be assumed that Luke used Josephus because of his mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. They differ so widely (Acts:5:36f|. and Josephus, _Ant_. XX. v, 1, 2) that Von Dobschutz (_Dictionary of the Apostolic Church_, art. Josephus) argues that the two accounts are entirely independent of each other. Songs:Luke (Luke:13:1f.|) alludes to a Galilean revolt not mentioned by Josephus and Josephus records three revolts under Pilate not referred to by Luke. A comparison of the accounts of the death of Agrippa I in strkjv@Acts:12:20-23| and _Ant_. XIX. viii, 2 redounds to the credit of Luke. The Josephus phase of the argument may be brushed to one side. The third view, held by Harnack and adopted here, is that Luke wrote the Acts while with Paul in Rome and finished the book before Paul's release, that is by A.D. 63. This is the obvious and natural way to take the language of Luke at the close of Acts. Events had gone no farther and so he ends the narrative right there. It is argued against this that Luke contemplated a third volume and for this reason closed with the arrival of Paul in Rome. But the use of \pr“ton\ (first) in strkjv@Acts:1:1| is a common _Koin‚_ idiom and does not imply three volumes any more than first and second stories with us means that the house has three. Of course this date for the Acts puts the date of the Gospel further back either in Caesarea (57 to 59) or in Rome (60 to 62). And that means that Mark's Gospel is still earlier since Luke used it for his Gospel and the Logia (Q) earlier still. But all these dates are probable in the light of all the known facts.

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:1:6 @{They therefore} (\hoi men oun\). Demonstrative use of \hoi\ with \men oun\ without any corresponding \de\ just as in strkjv@1:1| \men\ occurs alone. The combination \men oun\ is common in Acts (27 times). Cf. strkjv@Luke:3:18|. The \oun\ is resumptive and refers to the introductory verses (1:1-5|), which served to connect the Acts with the preceding Gospel. The narrative now begins. {Asked} (\ˆr“t“n\). Imperfect active, repeatedly asked before Jesus answered. {Lord} (\kurie\). Here not in the sense of "sir" (Matthew:21:30|), but to Jesus as Lord and Master as often in Acts (19:5,10|, etc.) and in prayer to Jesus (7:59|). {Dost thou restore} (\ei apokathistaneis\). The use of \ei\ in an indirect question is common. We have already seen its use in direct questions (Matthew:12:10; strkjv@Luke:13:23| which see for discussion), possibly in imitation of the Hebrew (frequent in the LXX) or as a partial condition without conclusion. See also strkjv@Acts:7:1; strkjv@19:2; strkjv@21:37; strkjv@22:25|. The form of the verb \apokathistan“\ is late (also \apokathista“\) omega form for the old and common \apokathistˆmi\, double compound, to restore to its former state. As a matter of fact the Messianic kingdom for which they are asking is a political kingdom that would throw off the hated Roman yoke. It is a futuristic present and they are uneasy that Jesus may yet fail to fulfil their hopes. Surely here is proof that the eleven apostles needed the promise of the Father before they began to spread the message of the Risen Christ. They still yearn for a political kingdom for Israel even after faith and hope have come back. They need the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit (John:14-16|) and the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts:1:4f.|).

rwp@Acts:1:9 @{As they were looking} (\blepont“n aut“n\). Genitive absolute. The present participle accents the fact that they were looking directly at Jesus. {He was taken up} (epˆrthˆ). First aorist passive indicative of \epair“\, old and common verb meaning to lift up. In strkjv@Luke:24:51| we have "he was borne up" (\anephereto\) and in strkjv@Acts:1:2, strkjv@1:11; strkjv@1Timothy:3:6| "was received up" (\anelˆmpthˆ\). {Received} (\hupelaben\). Second aorist active indicative of \hupolamban“\, literally here "took under him." He seemed to be supported by the cloud. "In glory" Paul adds in strkjv@1Timothy:3:16|. {Out of their sight} (\apo t“n ophthalm“n aut“n\). From their eyes (\apo\ with ablative case).

rwp@Acts:1:11 @{Who also} (\hoi kai\). Common use of \kai\ pleonastic to show that the two events were parallel. This is the simplest way from Homer on to narrate two parallel events. {Why?} (\ti\). Jesus had told them of his coming Ascension (John:6:62; strkjv@20:17|) so that they should have been prepared. {This Jesus} (\houtos ho Iˆsous\). _Qui vobis fuit eritque semper Jesus, id est, Salvator_ (Corn. a Lapide). The personal name assures them that Jesus will always be in heaven a personal friend and divine Saviour (Knowling). {Songs:in like manner} (\hout“s hon tropon\). Same idea twice. "Songs:in which manner" (incorporation of antecedent and accusative of general reference). The fact of his second coming and the manner of it also described by this emphatic repetition.

rwp@Acts:2:4 @{With other tongues} (\heterais gl“ssais\). Other than their native tongues. Each one began to speak in a language that he had not acquired and yet it was a real language and understood by those from various lands familiar with them. It was not jargon, but intelligible language. Jesus had said that the gospel was to go to all the nations and here the various tongues of earth were spoken. One might conclude that this was the way in which the message was to be carried to the nations, but future developments disprove it. This is a third miracle (the sound, the tongues like fire, the untaught languages). There is no blinking the fact that Luke so pictures them. One need not be surprised if this occasion marks the fulfilment of the Promise of the Father. But one is not to confound these miraculous signs with the Holy Spirit. They are merely proof that he has come to carry on the work of his dispensation. The gift of tongues came also on the house of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts:10:44-47; strkjv@11:15-17|), the disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts:19:6|), the disciples at Corinth (1Corinthians:14:1-33|). It is possible that the gift appeared also at Samaria (Acts:8:18|). But it was not a general or a permanent gift. Paul explains in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:22| that "tongues" were a sign to unbelievers and were not to be exercised unless one was present who understood them and could translate them. This restriction disposes at once of the modern so-called tongues which are nothing but jargon and hysteria. It so happened that here on this occasion at Pentecost there were Jews from all parts of the world, so that some one would understand one tongue and some another without an interpreter such as was needed at Corinth. The experience is identical in all four instances and they are not for edification or instruction, but for adoration and wonder and worship. {As the Spirit gave them utterance} (\kath“s to pneuma edidou apophtheggesthai autois\). This is precisely what Paul claims in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:10,28|, but all the same without an interpreter the gift was not to be exercised (1Corinthians:14:6-19|). Paul had the gift of tongues, but refused to exercise it except as it would be understood. Note the imperfect tense here (\edidou\). Perhaps they did not all speak at once, but one after another. \Apophtheggesthai\ is a late verb (LXX of prophesying, papyri). Lucian uses it of the ring of a vessel when it strikes a reef. It is used of eager, elevated, impassioned utterance. In the N.T. only here, verse 14; strkjv@26:25|. \Apophthegm\ is from this verb.

rwp@Acts:2:23 @{Him} (\touton\). "This one," resumptive and emphatic object of "did crucify and slay." {Being delivered up} (\ekdoton\). Verbal adjective from \ekdid“mi\, to give out or over. Old word, but here only in the N.T. Delivered up by Judas, Peter means. {By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God} (\tˆi h“rismenˆi boulˆi kai progn“sˆi tou theou\). Instrumental case. Note both purpose (\boulˆ\) and foreknowledge (\progn“sis\) of God and "determined" (\h“rismenˆ\, perfect passive participle, state of completion). God had willed the death of Jesus (John:3:16|) and the death of Judas (Acts:1:16|), but that fact did not absolve Judas from his responsibility and guilt (Luke:22:22|). He acted as a free moral agent. {By the hand} (\dia cheiros\). Luke is fond of these figures (hand, face, etc.) very much like the Hebrew though the vernacular of all languages uses them. {Lawless men} (\anom“n\). Men without law, who recognize no law for their conduct, like men in high and low stations today who defy the laws of God and man. Old word, very common in the LXX. {Ye did crucify} (\prospˆxantes\). First aorist active participle of \prospˆgnumi\, rare compound word in Dio Cassius and here only in the N.T. One must supply \t“i staur“i\ and so it means "fastened to the cross," a graphic picture like Paul's "nailed to the cross" (\prosˆl“sas t“i staur“i\) in strkjv@Colossians:2:14|. {Did slay} (\aneilate\). Second aorist active indicative with first aorist vowel \a\ instead of \o\ as is common in the _Koin‚_. This verb \anaire“\, to take up, is often used for kill as in strkjv@Acts:12:2|. Note Peter's boldness now under the power of the Holy Spirit. He charges the people to their faces with the death of Christ.

rwp@Acts:2:24 @{God raised up} (\ho theos anestˆsen\). _Est hoc summum orationis_ (Blass). Apparently this is the first public proclamation to others than believers of the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. "At a time it was still possible to test the statement, to examine witnesses, to expose fraud, the Apostle openly proclaimed the Resurrection as a fact, needing no evidence, but known to his hearers" (Furneaux). {The pangs of death} (\tas “dinas tou thanatou\). Codex Bezae has "Hades" instead of death. The LXX has \“dinas thanatou\ in strkjv@Psalms:18:4|, but the Hebrew original means "snares" or "traps" or "cords" of death where sheol and death are personified as hunters laying snares for prey. How Peter or Luke came to use the old Greek word \“dinas\ (birth pangs) we do not know. Early Christian writers interpreted the Resurrection of Christ as a birth out of death. "Loosing" (\lusas\) suits better the notion of "snares" held a prisoner by death, but birth pangs do bring deliverance to the mother also. {Because} (\kathoti\). This old conjunction (\kata, hoti\) occurs in the N.T. only in Luke's writings. {That he should be holden} (\krateisthai auton\). Infinitive present passive with accusative of general reference and subject of \ˆn adunaton\. The figure goes with "loosed" (\lusas\) above.

rwp@Acts:2:27 @{In Hades} (\eis Hƒidˆn\). Hades is the unseen world, Hebrew Sheol, but here it is viewed as death itself "considered as a rapacious destroyer" (Hackett). It does not mean the place of punishment, though both heaven and the place of torment are in Hades (Luke:16:23|). "Death and Hades are strictly parallel terms: he who is dead is in Hades" (Page). The use of \eis\ here=\en\ is common enough. The Textus Receptus here reads \eis Hƒidou\ (genitive case) like the Attic idiom with \domon\ (abode) understood. "Hades" in English is not translation, but transliteration. The phrase in the Apostles' Creed, "descended into hell" is from this passage in Acts (Hades, not Gehenna). The English word "hell" is Anglo-Saxon from \helan\, to hide, and was used in the Authorized Version to translate both Hades as here and Gehenna as in strkjv@Matthew:5:22|. {Thy Holy One} (\ton hosion sou\). Peter applies these words to the Messiah. {Corruption} (\diaphthoran\). The word can mean destruction or putrefaction from \diaphtheir“\, old word, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:13:34-37|. The Hebrew word in strkjv@Psalms:16| can mean also the pit or the deep.

rwp@Acts:2:29 @{I may say} (\exon eipein\). Supply \estin\ before \exon\, periphrastic present indicative of \exeimi\, to allow, permit. The Authorized Version has "Let me speak," supplying \esto\ present imperative. {Freely} (\meta parrˆsias\). Telling it all (\pan, rhˆsia\ from \eipon\, to speak), with fulness, with boldness. Luke is fond of the phrase (as in strkjv@4:13|). It is a new start for Simon Peter, full of boldness and courage. {The patriarch} (\tou patriarchou\). Transliteration of the word, from \patria\, family, and \arch“\, to rule, the founder of a family. Late word in LXX. Used of Abraham (Hebrews:7:4|), of the twelve sons of Jacob as founders of the several tribes (Acts:7:8|), and here of David as head of the family from whom the Messiah comes. {Was buried} (\etaphˆ\). Second aorist passive indicative of \thapt“\. His tomb was on Mt. Zion where most of the kings were buried. The tomb was said to have fallen into ruins in the time of the Emperor Hadrian. Josephus (_Ant_. XVI. 7, 1) attributes most of the misfortunes of Herod's family to the fact that he tried to rifle the tomb of David.

rwp@Acts:2:32 @{This Jesus} (\touton ton Iˆsoun\). Many of the name "Jesus," but he means the one already called "the Nazarene" (verse 22|) and foretold as the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:16| and raised from the dead by God in proof that he is the Messiah (2:24,32|), "this Jesus whom ye crucified" (verse 36|). Other terms used of him in the Acts are the Messiah, verse 31|, the one whom God "anointed" (Acts:10:38|), as in strkjv@John:1:41|, Jesus Christ (9:34|). In strkjv@2:36| God made this Jesus Messiah, in strkjv@3:20| the Messiah Jesus, in strkjv@17:3| Jesus is the Messiah, in strkjv@18:5| the Messiah is Jesus, in strkjv@24:24| Christ Jesus. {Whereof} (\hou\). Or "of whom." Either makes sense and both are true. Peter claims the whole 120 as personal witnesses to the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead and they are all present as Peter calls them to witness on the point. In Galilee over 500 had seen the Risen Christ at one time (1Corinthians:15:6|) most of whom were still living when Paul wrote. Thus the direct evidence for the resurrection of Jesus piles up in cumulative force.

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: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:4:9 @{Concerning a good deed done to an impotent man} (\epi euergesiƒi anthr“pou asthenous\). Objective genitive. Note \euergesia\ (old word, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:6:2|), as a benefactor, not a malefactor. Skilful turn made by Peter. {Is made whole} (\ses“stai\). Perfect passive indicative of \s“z“\, stands whole.

rwp@Acts:4:36 @{Barnabas} (\Barnabas\). His name was Joseph (correct text, and not Jesus) and he is mentioned as one illustration of those in verse 34| who selling brought the money. The apostles gave him the nickname Barnabas by which later he was known because of this noble deed. This fact argues that all did not actually sell, but were ready to do so if needed. Possibly Joseph had a larger estate than some others also. The meaning of the nickname is given by Luke as "son of consolation or exhortation" (\huios paraklˆse“s\). Doubtless his gifts as a preacher lay along this same line. Rackham thinks that the apostles gave him this name when he was recognized as a prophet. In strkjv@Acts:11:23| the very word \parekalei\ (exhorted) is used of Barnabas up at Antioch. He is the type of preacher described by Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:3|. Encouragement is the chief idea in \paraklˆsis\ though exhortation, comfort, consolation are used to render it (Acts:9:31; strkjv@13:15; strkjv@15:31|). See also strkjv@16:9; strkjv@20:12|. It is not necessary to think that the apostles coined the name Barnabas for Joseph which originally may have come from \Barnebous\ (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 308-10), son of Nebo, or even the Hebrew _Bar Nebi_ (son of a prophet). But, whatever the origin, the popular use is given by Luke. He was even called apostle along with Paul (Acts:14:14|) in the broad sense of that word.

rwp@Acts:5:17 @{Which is the sect of the Sadducees} (\hˆ ousa hairesis t“n Saddoukai“n\). Literally, "the existing sect of the Sadducees" or "the sect which is of the Sadducees," \hˆ\ being the article, not the relative. \Hairesis\ means a choosing, from \haireomai\, to take for oneself, to choose, then an opinion chosen or tenet (possibly strkjv@2Peter:2:1|), then parties or factions (Gal strkjv@5:20; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:19|; possibly strkjv@2Peter:2:1|). It is applied here to the Sadducees; to the Pharisees in strkjv@Acts:15:5; strkjv@26:5|; to the Christians in strkjv@24:5-14; strkjv@28:22|. Already Luke has stated that the Sadducees started the persecution of Peter and John (Acts:4:1f.|). Now it is extended to "the apostles" as a whole since Christianity has spread more rapidly in Jerusalem than before it began.

rwp@Acts:7:13 @{At the second time} (\en t“i deuter“i\). This expression only here in the N.T. This second visit is recorded in strkjv@Genesis:45:1ff|. {Became manifest} (\phaneron egeneto\). In strkjv@Genesis:41:12| the fact that Joseph was a Hebrew had been incidentally mentioned to Pharaoh, but now it was made clear to him.

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

rwp@Acts:9:27 @{Took him} (\epilabomenos\). Second aorist middle (indirect) participle of \epilamban“\, common verb to lay hold of. Barnabas saw the situation and took Saul to himself and listened to his story and believed it. It is to the credit of Barnabas that he had the insight and the courage to stand by Saul at the crucial moment in his life when the evidence seemed to be against him. It is a pleasing hypothesis that this influential disciple from Cyprus had gone to the University of Tarsus where he met Saul. If so, he would know more of him than those who only knew his record as a persecutor of Christians. That fact Barnabas knew also, but he was convinced that Jesus had changed the heart of Saul and he used his great influence (Acts:4:36; strkjv@11:22|) to win the favour of the apostles, Peter in particular (Galatians:1:19|) and James the half-brother of Jesus. The other apostles were probably out of the city as Paul says that he did not see them. {To the apostles} (\pros tous apostolous\). Both Barnabas and James are termed apostles in the general sense, though not belonging to the twelve, as Paul did not, though himself later a real apostle. Songs:Barnabas introduced Saul to Peter and vouched for his story, declared it fully (\diˆgˆsato\, in detail) including Saul's vision of Jesus (\eiden ton kurion\) as the vital thing and Christ's message to Saul (\elalˆsen aut“i\) and Saul's bold preaching (\ˆparrˆsiasato\, first aorist middle indicative of \parrˆsiaz“\ from \pan--rˆsia\ telling it all as in strkjv@Acts:2:29|). Peter was convinced and Saul was his guest for two weeks (Galatians:1:18|) with delightful fellowship (\historˆsai\). He had really come to Jerusalem mainly "to visit" (to see) Peter, but not to receive a commission from him. He had that from the Lord (Galatians:1:1f.|). Both Peter and James could tell Saul of their special experiences with the Risen Christ. Furneaux thinks that Peter was himself staying at the home of Mary the mother of John Mark (Acts:12:12|) who was a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians:4:10|). This is quite possible. At any rate Saul is now taken into the inner circle of the disciples in Jerusalem.

rwp@Acts:10:35 @{Acceptable to him} (\dektos aut“i\). Verbal adjective from \dechomai\. _Acceptabilis_. That is to say, a Gentile would not have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Evidently Peter had not before perceived this fact. On the great Day of Pentecost when he spoke of the promise "to all those afar off" (2:39|) Peter understood that they must first become Jews and then Christians. The new idea that now makes a revolution in Peter's outlook is precisely this that Christ can and will save Gentiles like this Cornelius group without their becoming Jews at all.

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:10:38 @{Jesus of Nazareth} (\Iˆsoun ton apo Nazareth\). Jesus the one from Nazareth, the article before the city identifying him clearly. The accusative case is here by \prolepsis\, Jesus being expressed for emphasis before the verb "anointed" and the pronoun repeated pleonastically after it. "Jesus transfers the mind from the gospel-history to the personal subject of it" (Hackett). {God anointed him} (\echrisen, auton, ho theos\). First aorist active of the verb \chri“\, to anoint, from which the verbal \Christos\ is formed (Acts:2:36|). The precise event referred to by Peter could be the Incarnation (Luke:1:35f.|), the Baptism (Luke:3:22|), the Ministry at Nazareth (Luke:4:14|). Why not to the life and work of Jesus as a whole? {Went about doing good} (\diˆlthen euerget“n\). Beautiful description of Jesus. Summary (constative) aorist active of \dierehomai\, to go through (\dia\) or from place to place. The present active participle \euerget“n\ is from the old verb \euergete“\ (\eu\, well, \ergon\, work) and occurs only here in the N.T. The substantive \euergetˆs\ (benefactor) was often applied to kings like Ptolemy Euergetes and that is the sense in strkjv@Luke:22:25| the only N.T. example. But the term applies to Jesus far more than to Ptolemy or any earthly king (Cornelius a Lapide). {And healing} (\kai i“menos\). And in particular healing. Luke does not exclude other diseases (cf. strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|), but he lays special emphasis on demoniacal possession (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:23|). {That were oppressed} (\tous katadunasteuomenous\). Present passive articular participle of \katadunasteu“\. A late verb in LXX and papyri. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@James:2:6| (best MSS.). One of the compounds of \kata\ made transitive. The reality of the devil (the slanderer, \diabolos\) is recognized by Peter. {For God was with him} (\hoti ho theos ˆn met' autou\). Surely this reason does not reveal "a low Christology" as some charge. Peter had used the same language in strkjv@Acts:7:9| and earlier in strkjv@Luke:1:28,66| as Nicodemus does in strkjv@John:3:2|.

rwp@Acts:11:3 @{Thou wentest in} (\eisˆlthes\). Direct form, but Westcott and Hort have it \eisˆlthen\ (he went in), indirect form. Songs:with \sunephages\ (didst eat) and \sunephagen\ (did eat). The direct is more vivid. {Men uncircumcised} (\andras akrobustian echontas\). "Men having uncircumcision." It is a contemptuous expression. They did not object to Peter's preaching to the Gentiles, but to his going into the house of Cornelius and eating with them, violating his supposed obligations as a Jew (Hackett). It was the same complaint in principle that the Pharisees had made against Jesus when he ate with publicans and sinners (Luke:15:12|). The Jews had not merely the Mosaic regulations about clean and unclean food, but also the fact that at a Gentile table some of the meat may have been an idol sacrifice. And Peter himself had similar scruples when the vision came to him at Joppa and when he entered the house of Cornelius in Caesarea strkjv@10:28|). Peter had been led beyond the circumcision party.

rwp@Acts:11:17 @{The like gift} (\tˆn isˆn d“rean\). The equal gift, equal in quality, rank, or measure. Common word. {When we believed} (\pisteusasin\). First aorist active participle of \pisteu“\ in the dative case. It agrees both with \hˆmin\ (unto us) and with \autois\ (unto them), "having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ." Both classes (Gentiles and Jews) trusted in Christ, and both received the Holy Spirit. {Who was I} (\eg“ tis ˆmˆn\). Note order, "_I_, who was I." "{That I could withstand God}" (\dunatos k“l–sai ton theon\). Literally, "able to withstand or hinder God." It is a rhetorical question, really two questions. Who was I? Was I able to hinder God? Peter's statement of the facts made an unanswerable defence. And yet Peter (Galatians:2:11|) will later in Antioch play the coward before emissaries from Jerusalem on this very point of eating with Gentile Christians.

rwp@Acts:11:18 @{Held their peace} (\hˆsuchasan\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \hˆsuchaz“\, old verb to be quiet, to keep quiet. The wrangling (verse 2|) ceased. The critics even "glorified God" (\edoxasan\, ingressive aorist again). {Then to the Gentiles also} (\Ara kai tois ethnesin\). \Ergo\ as in strkjv@Luke:11:20,48| and like \ara oun\ in strkjv@Romans:5:18|. In ancient Greek inferential \ara\ cannot come at the beginning of a clause as here. It was reluctant acquiescence in the undoubted fact that God had "granted repentance unto life" to these Gentiles in Caesarea, but the circumcision party undoubtedly looked on it as an exceptional case and not to be regarded as a precedent to follow with other Gentiles. Peter will see in this incident (Acts:15:8|) the same principle for which Paul contends at the Jerusalem Conference. Furneaux suggests that this conduct of Peter in Caesarea, though grudgingly acquiesced in after his skilful defence, decreased his influence in Jerusalem where he had been leader and helped open the way for the leadership of James the Lord's brother.

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:11:25 @{To seek for Saul} (\anazˆtˆsai Saulon\). First aorist (effective) active infinitive of purpose. \Anazˆte“\ is a common verb since Plato, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:2:44,45|, to seek up and down (\ana\), back and forth, to hunt up, to make a thorough search till success comes. It is plain from strkjv@Galatians:1:21| that Saul had not been idle in Cilicia. Tarsus was not very far from Antioch. Barnabas probably knew that Saul was a vessel of choice (Acts:9:15|) by Christ for the work among the Gentiles. He knew, of course, of Saul's work with the Hellenists in Jerusalem (9:29|) and echoes of his work in Cilicia and Syria had probably come to him. Songs:to Tarsus he goes when he saw the need for help. "He had none of the littleness which cannot bear the presence of a possible rival" (Furneaux). Barnabas knew his own limitations and knew where the man of destiny for this crisis was, the man who already had the seal of God upon him. The hour and the man met when Barnabas brought Saul to Antioch. The door was open and the man was ready, far more ready than when Jesus called him on the road to Damascus. The years in Cilicia and Syria were not wasted for they had not been idle. If we only knew the facts, it is probable that Saul also had been preaching to Hellenes as well as to Hellenists. Jesus had definitely called him to work among the Gentiles (9:15|). In his own way he had come to the same place that Peter reached in Caesarea and that Barnabas now holds in Antioch. God always has a man prepared for a great emergency in the kingdom. The call of Barnabas was simply the repetition of the call of Christ. Songs:Saul came.

rwp@Acts:12:9 @{Wist not} (\ouk ˆidei\). Past perfect of \oida\ used as imperfect, did not know. {Followed} (\ˆkolouthei\). Imperfect active, kept on following as the angel had directed (verse 8|). That it was true (\hoti alˆthes estin\). Indirect assertion and so present tense retained. Note "true" (\alˆthes\) in the sense of reality or actuality. {Which was done} (\to ginomenon\). Present middle participle, that which was happening. {Thought he saw a vision} (\edokei horama blepein\). Imperfect active, kept on thinking, puzzled as he was. \Blepein\ is the infinitive in indirect assertion without the pronoun (he) expressed which could be either nominative in apposition with the subject as in strkjv@Romans:1:22| or accusative of general reference as in strkjv@Acts:5:36; strkjv@8:9| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1036-40). Peter had had a vision in Joppa (10:10|) which Luke describes as an "ecstasy," but here is objective fact, at least Luke thought so and makes that distinction. Peter will soon know whether he is still in the cell or not as we find out that a dream is only a dream when we wake up.

rwp@Acts:12:12 @{When he had considered} (\sunid“n\). Second aorist active participle of \suneidon\ (for the defective verb \sunora“\), to see together, to grasp as a whole, old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@14:6|, save the perfect indicative \sunoida\ (1Corinthians:4:4|) and participle (Acts:5:2|). It is the word from which \suneidˆsis\ (conscience) comes (Romans:2:15|). Peter's mind worked rapidly and he decided what to do. He took in his situation clearly. {To the house of Mary} (\epi tˆn oikian tˆs Marias\). Another Mary (the others were Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, Mary wife of Cleopas, Mary the mother of James and Joses). She may have been a widow and was possessed of some means since her house was large enough to hold the large group of disciples there. Barnabas, cousin of John Mark her son (Colossians:4:10|), was also a man of property or had been (Acts:4:36f.|). It is probable that the disciples had been in the habit of meeting in her house, a fact known to Peter and he was evidently fond of John Mark whom he afterwards calls "my son" (1Peter:5:13|) and whom he had met here. The upper room of strkjv@Acts:1:13| may have been in Mary's house and Mark may have been the man bearing a pitcher of water (Luke:22:10|) and the young man who fled in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark:14:51f.|). There was a gate and portress here as in the house of the highpriest (John:18:16|). Peter knew where to go and even at this early hour hoped to find some of the disciples. Mary is one of the many mothers who have become famous by reason of their sons, though she was undoubtedly a woman of high character herself. {Were gathered together and were praying} (\ˆsan sunˆthroismenoi kai proseuchomenoi\). Note difference in the tenses, one periphrastic past perfect passive (\sunathroiz“\ old verb, in the N.T. here only and strkjv@19:25| and the uncompounded \throiz“\ in strkjv@Luke:24:33|) and the periphrastic imperfect. The praying apparently had been going on all night and a large number (many, \hikanoi\) of the disciples were there. One recalls the time when they had gathered to pray (4:31|) after Peter had told the disciples of the threats of the Sanhedrin (4:23|). God had rescued Peter then. Would he let him be put to death now as James had been?

rwp@Acts:13:28 @{Though they found no cause of death} (\mˆdemian aitian thanatou heurontes\). Second aorist active with usual negative of the participle. As a matter of fact the Sanhedrin did charge Jesus with blasphemy, but could not prove it (Matthew:26:65; strkjv@27:24; strkjv@Luke:23:22|). At this time no Gospel had probably been written, but Paul knew that Jesus was innocent. He uses this same idiom about his own innocence (Acts:28:18|). {That he should be slain} (\anairethˆnai auton\). First aorist passive infinitive, the accusative case, the direct object of \ˆitˆsanto\ (first aorist middle indicative, asked as a favour to themselves).

rwp@Acts:13:30 @{But God raised him from the dead} (\ho de theos ˆgeiren ek nekr“n\). This crucial fact Paul puts sharply as he always did.

rwp@Acts:13:31 @{Was seen for many days} (\“phthˆ epi hˆmeras pleious\). The common verb (first aorist passive indicative of \hora“\, to see) for the appearance of the Risen Christ, the one used by Paul of his own vision of Christ (1Corinthians:15:8|), which is not reported by Luke here. For more days (than a few), the language means, forty in all (1:3|). {Of them that came up with him} (\tois sunanabƒsin aut“i\). Dative (after \“phthˆ\) articular participle (second aorist active of \sunanabain“\) with associative instrumental case (\aut“i\), the very men who knew him best and who could not be easily deceived about the reality of his resurrection. But this fact rules Paul out on this point, for he had not fellowshipped with Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem. {Who are now his witnesses} (\hoitines nun eisin martures autou\). The very point that Peter used to clinch his argument with such powerful effect (2:32; strkjv@3:15|).

rwp@Acts:13:47 @{For so hath the Lord commanded us} (\hout“s gar entetaltai hˆmin ho kurios\). Perfect middle indicative of \entell“\, poetic (Pindar) and late verb to enjoin (1:2|). The command of the Lord Paul finds in strkjv@Isaiah:49:6| quoted by Simeon also (Luke:2:32|). The conviction of Paul's mind was now made clear by the fact of the rejection by the Jews. He could now see more clearly the words of the prophet about the Gentiles: The Messiah is declared by God in Isaiah to be "a light to the Gentiles" (\ethn“n\, objective genitive), "a light for revelation to the Gentiles" (\ph“s eis apokalupsin ethn“n\, strkjv@Luke:2:32|). Songs:Paul is carrying out the will of God in turning to the Gentiles. He will still appeal to the Jews elsewhere as they allow him to do so, but not here. {That thou shouldest be} (\tou einai se\). Genitive articular infinitive of purpose with the accusative of general reference. This is all according to God's fixed purpose (\tetheika\, perfect active indicative of \tithˆmi\). {Unto the uttermost part of the earth} (\he“s eschatou tˆs gˆs\). Unto the last portion (genitive neuter, not feminine) of the earth. It is a long time from Paul to now, not to say from Isaiah to now, and not yet has the gospel been carried to half of the people of earth. God's people are slow in carrying out God's plans for salvation.

rwp@Acts:14:4 @{But the multitude of the city was divided} (\eschisthˆ de to plˆthos tˆs pole“s\). First aorist passive indicative of \schiz“\, old verb to split, to make a schism or factions as Sadducees and Pharisees (23:7|). This division was within the Gentile populace. Part held (\hoi men ˆsan\), literally "some were with the Jews" (\sun tois Ioudaiois\), part with the apostles (\hoi de sun tois apostolois\). Common demonstrative of contrast (\hoi men, hoi de\, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 694). The Jewish leaders made some impression on the Gentiles as at Antioch in Pisidia and later at Thessalonica (17:4f.|). This is the first time in the Acts that Paul and Barnabas are termed "apostles" (see also verse 14|). Elsewhere in the Acts the word is restricted to the twelve. Certainly Luke does not here employ it in that technical sense. To have followed Jesus in his ministry and to have seen the Risen Christ was essential to the technical use (1:22f.|). Whether Barnabas had seen the Risen Christ we do not know, but certainly Paul had (1Corinthians:9:1f.; strkjv@15:8|). Paul claimed to be an apostle on a par with the twelve (Galatians:1:1,16-18|). The word originally means simply one sent (John:13:16|) like messengers of the churches with the collection (2Corinthians:8:23|). The Jews used it of those sent from Jerusalem to collect the temple tribute. Paul applies the word to James the Lord's brother (Galatians:1:19|), to Epaphroditus (Phillipians:2:25|) as the messenger of the church in Philippi, to Silvanus and Timothy (1Thessalonians:2:6; strkjv@Acts:18:5|), apparently to Apollos (1Corinthians:4:9|), and to Andronicus and Junias (Romans:16:6f.|). He even calls the Judaizers "false apostles" (2Corinthians:11:13|).

rwp@Acts:15:12 @{Kept silence} (\esigˆsen\). Ingressive first aorist active of \siga“\, old verb, to hold one's peace. All the multitude became silent after Peter's speech and because of it. {Hearkened} (\ˆkouon\). Imperfect active of \akou“\, descriptive of the rapt attention, were listening. {Unto Barnabas and Paul} (\Barnaba kai Paulou\). Note placing Barnabas before Paul as in verse 25|, possibly because in Jerusalem Barnabas was still better known than Paul. {Rehearsing} (\exˆgoumen“n\). Present middle participle of \exˆgeomai\, old verb, to go through or lead out a narrative of events as in strkjv@Luke:24:35; strkjv@Acts:10:8| which see. Three times (14:27; strkjv@15:4,12|) Paul is described as telling the facts about their mission work, facts more eloquent than argument (Page). One of the crying needs in the churches is fuller knowledge of the facts of mission work and progress with enough detail to give life and interest. The signs and wonders which God had wrought among the Gentiles set the seal of approval on the work done through (\dia\) Barnabas and Paul. This had been Peter's argument about Cornelius (11:17|). This same verb (\exˆgˆsato\) is used by James in verse 14| referring to Peter's speech.

rwp@Acts:15:28 @{To the Holy Spirit and to us} (\t“i pneumati t“i hagi“i kai hˆmin\). Dative case after \edoxen\ (third example, verses 22,25,28|). Definite claim that the church in this action had the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That fact was plain to the church from what had taken place in Caesarea and in this campaign of Paul and Barnabas (verse 8|). Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John:16:13|). Even so the church deliberated carefully before deciding. What a blessing it would be if this were always true! But even so the Judaizers are only silenced for the present, not convinced and only waiting for a better day to start over again. {No greater burden} (\mˆden pleon baros\). The restrictions named did constitute some burden (cf. strkjv@Matthew:20:12|), for the old word \baros\ means weight or heaviness. Morality itself is a restraint upon one's impulses as is all law a prohibition against license.

rwp@Acts:15:34 @{But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there} (\edoxe de Silƒi epimeinai autou\). This verse is not in the Revised Version or in the text of Westcott and Hort, being absent from Aleph A B Vulgate, etc. It is clearly an addition to help explain the fact that Silas is back in Antioch in verse 40|. But the "some days" of verse 36| afforded abundant time for him to return from Jerusalem. He and Judas went first to Jerusalem to make a report of their mission.

rwp@Acts:15:39 @{A sharp contention} (\paroxusmos\). Our very word paroxysm in English. Old word though only twice in the N.T. (here and strkjv@Hebrews:10:24|), from \paroxun“\, to sharpen (\para, oxus\) as of a blade and of the spirit (Acts:17:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:13:5|). This "son of consolation" loses his temper in a dispute over his cousin and Paul uses sharp words towards his benefactor and friend. It is often so that the little irritations of life give occasion to violent explosions. If the incident in strkjv@Galatians:2:11-21| had already taken place, there was a sore place already that could be easily rubbed. And if Mark also joined with Peter and Barnabas on that occasion, Paul had fresh ground for irritation about him. But there is no way to settle differences about men and we can only agree to disagree as Paul and Barnabas did. {Songs:that they parted asunder from one another} (\h“ste apoch“risthˆnai autous ap' allˆl“n\). Actual result here stated by \h“ste\ and the first aorist passive infinitive of \apoch“riz“\, old verb to sever, to separate, here only and strkjv@Revelation:6:4| in the N.T. The accusative of general reference (\autous\) is normal. For construction with \h“ste\ see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 999f. {And Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus} (\ton te Barnaban paralabonta ton Markon ekpleusai eis Kupron\). Second infinitival clause \ekpleusai\ after \h“ste\ connected by \te\. The same participle is used here minus \sun, paralabonta\ (second aorist active). Barnabas and Mark sailed out (\ekpleusai\ from \ekple“\) from the harbour of Antioch. This is the last glimpse that Luke gives us of Barnabas, one of the noblest figures in the New Testament. Paul has a kindly reference to him in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6|. No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One's judgment may go with Paul, but one's heart goes with Barnabas. And Mark made good with Barnabas, with Peter (1Peter:5:13|) and finally with Paul (Colossians:4:10; strkjv@2Timothy:4:11|). See my little book on John Mark (_Making Good in the Ministry_). Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times.

rwp@Acts:16:6 @{The region of Phrygia and Galatia} (\tˆn Phrugian kai Galatikˆn ch“ran\). This is probably the correct text with one article and apparently describes one "Region" or District in The Province of Galatia which was also Phrygian (the old-ethnographic name with which compare the use of Lycaonia in strkjv@14:6|). Strictly speaking Derbe and Lystra, though in the Province of Galatia, were not Phrygian, and so Luke would here be not resumptive of the record in verses 1-5|; but a reference to the country around Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia in North Galatia is not included. This verse is hotly disputed at every point by the advocates of the North Galatian theory as represented by Chase and the South Galatian theory by Ramsay. Whatever is true in regard to the language of Luke here and in strkjv@18:23|, it is still possible for Paul in strkjv@Galatians:1:2| to use the term Galatia of the whole province of that name which could, in fact, apply to either South or North Galatia or to both. He could, of course, use it also in the ethnographic sense of the real Gauls or Celts who dwelt in North Galatia. Certainly the first tour of Paul and Barnabas was in the Province of Galatia though touching only the Regions of Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia, which province included besides the Gauls to the north. In this second tour Lycaonia has been already touched (Derbe and Lystra) and now Phrygia. The question arises why Luke here and in strkjv@18:23| adds the term "of Galatia" (\Galatikˆn\) though not in strkjv@13:14| (Pisidian Antioch) nor in strkjv@14:6| (cities of Lycaonia). Does Luke mean to use "of Galatia" in the same ethnographic sense as "of Phrygia" or does he here add the province (Galatia) to the name of the Region (Phrygia)? In itself either view is possible and it really matters very little except that the question is raised whether Paul went into the North Galatian Region on this occasion or later (18:23|). He could have done so and the Epistle be addressed to the churches of South Galatia, North Galatia, or the province as a whole. But the Greek participle \k“luthentes\ ("having been forbidden") plays a part in the argument that cannot be overlooked whether Luke means to say that Paul went north or not. This aorist passive participle of \k“lu“\, to hinder, can only express simultaneous or antecedent action, not subsequent action as Ramsay argues. No example of the so-called subsequent use of the aorist participle has ever been found in Greek as all Greek grammarians agree (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 860-63, 1112-14). The only natural meaning of \k“luthentes\ is that Paul with Silas and Timothy "passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia" because they were hindered by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia (the Province of Asia of which Ephesus was the chief city and west of Derbe and Lystra). This construction implies that the country called "the region of Phrygia and Galatia" is not in the direct line west toward Ephesus. What follows in verse 7| throws further light on the point.

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai t“n Epikouri“n kai St“ik“n philosoph“n suneballon aut“i\). Imperfect active of \sunball“\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gn“thi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg“\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zen“n daimoni“n dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei S“kratˆs, kaina daimonia eispher“n\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Iˆsoun kai tˆn anastasin euˆggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz“\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

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

rwp@Galatians:3:26 @{For ye are all sons of God} (\pantes gar huioi theou este\). Both Jews and Gentiles (3:14|) and in the same way "through faith in Christ Jesus" (\dia tˆs piste“s en Christ“i Iˆsou\). There is no other way to become "sons of God" in the full ethical and spiritual sense that Paul means, not mere physical descendants of Abraham, but "sons of Abraham," "those by faith" (verse 7|). The Jews are called by Jesus "the sons of the Kingdom" (Matthew:8:12|) in privilege, but not in fact. God is the Father of all men as Creator, but the spiritual Father only of those who by faith in Christ Jesus receive "adoption" (\huiothesia\) into his family (verse 5; strkjv@Romans:8:15,23|). Those led by the Spirit are sons of God (Romans:8:14|).

rwp@Galatians:3:28 @{There can be neither} (\ouk eni\). Not a shortened form of \enesti\, but the old lengthened form of \en\ with recessive accent. Songs:\ouk eni\ means "there is not" rather than "there cannot be," a statement of a fact rather than a possibility, as Burton rightly shows against Lightfoot. {One man} (\heis\). No word for "man" in the Greek, and yet \heis\ is masculine, not neuter \hen\. "One moral personality" (Vincent). The point is that "in Christ Jesus" race or national distinctions ("neither Jew nor Greek") do not exist, class differences ("neither bond nor free," no proletarianism and no capitalism) vanish, sex rivalry ("no male and female") disappears. This radical statement marks out the path along which Christianity was to come in the sphere (\en\) and spirit and power of Christ. Candour compels one to confess that this goal has not yet been fully attained. But we are on the road and there is no hope on any way than on "the Jesus Road."

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

rwp@Galatians:4:6 @{Because ye are sons} (\hoti este huioi\). This is the reason for sending forth the Son (4:4| and here). We were "sons" in God's elective purpose and love. \Hoti\ is causal (1Corinthians:12:15; strkjv@Romans:9:7|). {The Spirit of his Son} (\to pneuma tou huioi autou\). The Holy Spirit, called the Spirit of Christ (Romans:8:9f.|), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:19|). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (John:15:26|). {Crying, Abba, Father} (\krazon Abba ho patˆr\). The participle agrees with \pneuma\ neuter (grammatical gender), not neuter in fact. An old, though rare in present as here, onomatopoetic word to croak as a raven (Theophrastus, like Poe's _The Raven_), any inarticulate cry like "the unuttered groanings" of strkjv@Romans:8:26| which God understands. This cry comes from the Spirit of Christ in our hearts. \Abba\ is the Aramaic word for father with the article and \ho patˆr\ translates it. The articular form occurs in the vocative as in strkjv@John:20:28|. It is possible that the repetition here and in strkjv@Romans:8:15| may be "a sort of affectionate fondness for the very term that Jesus himself used" (Burton) in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark:14:36|). The rabbis preserve similar parallels. Most of the Jews knew both Greek and Aramaic. But there remains the question why Jesus used both in his prayer. Was it not natural for both words to come to him in his hour of agony as in his childhood? The same thing may be true here in Paul's case.

rwp@Galatians:4:13 @{Because of an infirmity of the flesh} (\di' astheneian tˆs sarkos\). All that we can get from this statement is the fact that Paul's preaching to the Galatians "the first time" or "the former time" (\to proteron\, adverbial accusative) was due to sickness of some kind whether it was eye trouble (4:15|) which was a trial to them or to the thorn in the flesh (2Corinthians:12:7|) we do not know. It can be interpreted as applying to North Galatia or to South Galatia if he had an attack of malaria on coming up from Perga. But the narrative in strkjv@Acts:13; 14| does not read as if Paul had planned to pass by Pisidia and by Lycaonia but for the attack of illness. The Galatians understood the allusion for Paul says "Ye know" (\oidate\).

rwp@Galatians:4:27 @{Which is our mother} (\hˆtis estin mˆtˆr hˆm“n\). The mother of us Christians, apply the allegory of Hagar and Sarah to us. The Jerusalem above is the picture of the Kingdom of God. Paul illustrates the allegory by quoting strkjv@Isaiah:54:1|, a song of triumph looking for deliverance from a foreign yoke. {Rejoice} (\euphranthˆti\). First aorist passive imperative of \euphrain“\. {Break forth} (\rˆxon\). First aorist active imperative of \rˆgnumi\, to rend, to burst asunder. Supply \euphrosunˆn\ (joy) as in strkjv@Isaiah:49:13|. {The desolate} (\tˆs erˆmou\). The prophet refers to Sarah's prolonged barrenness and Paul uses this fact as a figure for the progress and glory of Christianity (the new Jerusalem of freedom) in contrast with the old Jerusalem of bondage (the current Judaism). His thought has moved rapidly, but he does not lose his line.

rwp@Galatians:5:19 @{Manifest} (\phanera\). Opposed to "hidden" (\krupta\). Ancient writers were fond of lists of vices and virtues. Cf. Stalker's sermons on _The Seven Cardinal Virtues_ and _The Seven Deadly Sins_. There are more than seven in this deadly list in verses 19-21|. He makes the two lists in explanation of the conflict in verse 17| to emphasize the command in verses 13f|. There are four groups in Paul's list of manifest vices: (I) Sensual sins like fornication (\porneia\, prostitution, harlotry), uncleanness (\akatharsia\, moral impurity), lasciviousness (\aselgeia\, wantonness), sexual vice of all kinds prevailed in heathenism. (2) Idolatry (\eid“latreia\, worship of idols) and witchcraft (\pharmakeia\ from \pharmakon\, a drug, the ministering of drugs), but the sorcerers monopolized the word for a while in their magical arts and used it in connection with idolatry. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:18:23|. See strkjv@Acts:19:19| \perierga\, curious arts. (3) Personal relations expressed by eight words, all old words, sins of the spirit, like enmities (\exthrai\, personal animosities), strife (\eris\, rivalry, discord), jealousies (\zˆlos\ or \zˆloi\, MSS. vary, our very word), wraths (\thumoi\, stirring emotions, then explosions), factions (\eritheiai\, from \erithos\, day labourer for hire, worker in wool, party spirit), divisions (\dichostasiai\, splits in two, \dicha\ and \stasis\), heresies (\haireseis\, the very word, but really choosings from \haireomai\, preferences), envyings (\phthonoi\, feelings of ill-will). Surely a lively list. (4) {Drunkenness} (\methai\, old word and plural, drunken excesses, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:34; strkjv@Romans:13:13|), revellings (\k“moi\, old word also for drinking parties like those in honour of Bacchus, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:13:13; strkjv@1Peter:4:3|). {And such like} (\kai ta homoia toutois\). And the things like these (associative instrumental \toutois\ after \homoia\, like). It is not meant to be exhaustive, but it is representative.

rwp@Galatians:5:21 @{Forewarn} (\proleg“\) {--did forewarn} (\proeipon\). Paul repeats his warning given while with them. He did his duty then. Gentile churches were peculiarly subject to these sins. But who is not in danger from them? {Practise} (\prassontes\). \Prass“\ is the verb for habitual practice (our very word, in fact), not \poie“\ for occasional doing. The {habit} of these sins is proof that one is not in the Kingdom of God and will not inherit it.

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

rwp@Hebrews:6:20 @{As a forerunner} (\prodromos\). Old word used for a spy, a scout, only here in N.T. Jesus has shown us the way, has gone on ahead, and is the surety (\egguos\, strkjv@Hebrews:7:22|) and guarantor of our own entrance later. In point of fact, our anchor of hope with its two chains of God's promise and oath has laid hold of Jesus within the veil. It will hold fast. All we need to do is to be true to him as he is to us. {A high priest for ever} (\archiereus eis ton ai“na\). There he functions as our great high priest, better than Aaron for he is "after the order of Melchizedek," the point that now calls for elucidation (5:10f.|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:1 @{This Melchizedek} (\houtos ho Melchisedek\). The one already mentioned several times with whose priesthood that of Christ is compared and which is older and of a higher type than that of Aaron. See strkjv@Genesis:14:18-20; strkjv@Psalms:110| for the only account of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is a daring thing to put Melchizedek above Aaron, but the author does it. Moffatt calls verses 1-3| "a little sermon" on strkjv@6:20|. It is "for ever" (\eis ton ai“na\) that he explains. Melchizedek is the only one in his line and stands alone in the record in Genesis. The interpretation is rabbinical in method, but well adapted to Jewish readers. The description is taken verbatim from Genesis except that "who met" (\ho sunantˆsas\) is here applied to Melchizedek from strkjv@Genesis:14:17| instead of to the King of Sodom. They both met Abraham as a matter of fact. For this verb (first aorist active participle of \sunanta“\) see strkjv@Luke:9:37|. {Slaughter} (\kopˆs\). Old word for cutting (\kopt“\, to cut), here only in N.T. These kings were Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, Tidal. Amraphel is usually taken to be Khammurabi. {Priest of God Most High} (\hiereus tou theou tou hupsistou\). He is called "priest" and note \tou hupsistou\ applied to God as the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews did. It is used also of Zeus and the Maccabean priest-kings. The demons apply it to God (Mark:5:7; strkjv@Luke:8:28|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:3 @{Without father, without mother, without genealogy} (\apat“r, amˆt“r, agenealogˆtos\). Alliteration like strkjv@Romans:1:30|, the first two old words, the third coined by the author (found nowhere else) and meaning simply "devoid of any genealogy." The argument is that from silence, made much of by Philo, but not to be pressed. The record in Genesis tells nothing of any genealogy. Melchizedek stands alone. He is not to be understood as a miraculous being without birth or death. Melchizedek has been made more mysterious than he is by reading into this interpretation what is not there. {Made like} (\aph“moi“menos\). Perfect passive participle of \aphomoio“\, old verb, to produce a facsimile or copy, only here in N.T. The likeness is in the picture drawn in Genesis, not in the man himself. Such artificial interpretation does not amount to proof, but only serves as a parallel or illustration. {Unto the Son of God} (\t“i hui“i tou theou\). Associative instrumental case of \huios\. {Abideth a priest} (\menei hiereus\). According to the record in Genesis, the only one in his line just as Jesus stands alone, but with the difference that Jesus continues priest in fact in heaven. {Continually} (\eis to diˆnekes\). Old phrase (for the continuity) like \eis ton ai“na\, in N.T. only in Hebrews (7:3; strkjv@10:1,14,21|).

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:8:10 @{This} (\hautˆ\). The "new" one of verse 8|. {That I will make} (\hˆn diathˆsomai\). Future middle of \diatithˆmi\, "that I will covenant," cognate accusative (\hˆn\), using the same root in the verb as in \diathˆkˆ\. {I will put} (\didous\). "Giving," present active participle of \did“mi\, to give. {Into their mind} (\eis tˆn dianoian aut“n\). Their intellect, their moral understanding, all the intellect as in Aristotle (Colossians:1:21; strkjv@Ephesians:4:18|). {On their heart} (\epi kardias aut“n\). Either genitive singular or accusative plural. \Kardia\ is the seat of man's personal life (Westcott), the two terms covering the whole of man's inward nature. {A god} (\eis theon\). Note the Hebraistic use of \eis\ in the predicate instead of the usual nominative \theos\ as in "a people" (\eis laon\). This was the ideal of the old covenant (Exodus:6:7|), now at last to be a fact.

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:9:16 @{A testament} (\diathˆkˆ\). The same word occurs for covenant (verse 15|) and will (verse 16|). This double sense of the word is played upon also by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3:15f|. We say today "The New Testament" (_Novum Testamentum_) rather than " The New Covenant." Both terms are pertinent. {That made it} (\tou diathemenou\). Genitive of the articular second aorist middle participle of \diatithˆmi\ from which \diathˆkˆ\ comes. The notion of will here falls in with \klˆronomia\ (inheritance, strkjv@1Peter:1:4|) as well as with \thanatos\ (death). {Of force} (\bebaia\). Stable, firm as in strkjv@3:6,14|. {Where there hath been death} (\epi nekrois\). "In the case of dead people." A will is only operative then. {For doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?} (\epei mˆ pote ischuei hote zˆi ho diathemenos;\). This is a possible punctuation with \mˆ pote\ in a question (John:7:26|). Without the question mark, it is a positive statement of fact. Aleph and D read \tote\ (then) instead of \pote\. The use of \mˆ\ in a causal sentence is allowable (John:3:18|, \hoti mˆ\).

rwp@Hebrews:12:24 @{To Jesus} (\Iˆsou\). This great fact is not to be overlooked (Phillipians:2:10f.|). He is there as Lord and Saviour and still "Jesus." {The mediator of a new covenant} (\diathˆkˆs neas mesitˆi\). As already shown (7:22; strkjv@8:6,8,9,10; strkjv@9:15|) and now gloriously consummated. {To the blood of sprinkling} (\haimati rantismou\). As in strkjv@9:19-28|. {Than Abel} (\para ton Abel\). Accusative as in strkjv@1:4|. {Better} (\kreitton\). Comparative of \kalos\. Abel's blood still speaks (11:4|), but it is as nothing compared to that of Jesus.

rwp@Hebrews:13:22 @{Bear with} (\anechesthe\). Present middle imperative (some MSS. have \anechesthai\, infinitive) of \anech“\ with the ablative, "hold yourselves back from" as in strkjv@Colossians:3:13|. {The word of exhortation} (\tou logou tˆs paraklˆse“s\). His description of the entire Epistle. It certainly is that, a powerful appeal in fact. {I have written} (\epesteila\). First aorist active indicative (epistolary aorist) of \epistell“\, old word to send a letter (\epistolˆ\) as in strkjv@Acts:15:20|. {In few words} (\dia brache“n\). Common Greek idiom, here only in N.T. (from \brachus\, brief, short). Cf. \di' olig“n egrapsa\ in strkjv@1Peter:5:12|.

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:3:14 @{Bitter jealousy} (\zˆlon pikron\). \Zˆlos\ occurs in N.T. in good sense (John:2:17|) and bad sense (Acts:5:17|). Pride of knowledge is evil (1Corinthians:8:1|) and leaves a bitter taste. See "root of bitterness" in strkjv@Hebrews:12:14| (cf. strkjv@Ephesians:4:31|). This is a condition of the first class. {Faction} (\erithian\). Late word, from \erithos\ (hireling, from \eritheu“\ to spin wool), a pushing forward for personal ends, partisanship, as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:16|. {In your heart} (\en tˆi kardiƒi hum“n\). The real fountain (\pˆgˆ\, verse 11|). {Glory not} (\mˆ katakauchƒsthe\). Present middle imperative of \katakauchaomai\, for which see strkjv@2:13|. Wisdom is essential for the teacher. Boasting arrogance disproves the possession of wisdom. {Lie not against the truth} (\pseudesthe kata tˆs alˆtheias\). Present middle imperative of \pseudomai\, old verb, to play false, with \mˆ\ carried over. Lying against the truth is futile. By your conduct do not belie the truth which you teach; a solemn and needed lesson. Cf. strkjv@Romans:1:18f., strkjv@2:18,20|.

rwp@John:4:51 @{As he was now going down} (\ˆdˆ autou katabainontos\). Genitive absolute in-spite of the fact that \aut“i\ (associative instrumental case with \hupˆntˆsan\ aorist active indicative of \hupanta“\) is near. {That his son lived} (\hoti ho pais autou zˆi\). Present active indicative preserved in indirect discourse (cf. the words of Jesus in verse 50|). Note \pais\ here (only example in John), \huios\ in 50|, \paidion\ (diminutive of tenderness) in 49|.

rwp@John:5:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). John is fond of this vague phrase (3:22; strkjv@6:1|). He does not mean that this incident follows immediately. He is supplementing the Synoptic Gospels and does not attempt a full story of the work of Jesus. Some scholars needlessly put chapter 5 after chapter 6 because in chapter 6 Jesus is in Galilee as at the end of chapter 4. But surely it is not incongruous to think of Jesus making a visit to Jerusalem before the events in chapter 6 which undoubtedly come within a year of the end (6:4|). {A feast of the Jews} (\heortˆ t“n Ioudai“n\). Some manuscripts have the article (\hˆ\) "the feast" which would naturally mean the passover. As a matter of fact there is no way of telling what feast it was which Jesus here attended. Even if it was not the passover, there may well be another passover not mentioned besides the three named by John (2:13,23; strkjv@6:4: strkjv@12:1|). {Went up} (\anebˆ\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain“\. It was up towards Jerusalem from every direction save from Hebron.

rwp@John:5:15 @{Went away and told} (\apˆlthen kai eipen\). Both aorist active indicatives. Instead of giving heed to the warning of Jesus about his own sins he went off and told the Jews that now he knew who the man was who had commanded him to take up his bed on the Sabbath Day, to clear himself with the ecclesiastics and escape a possible stoning. {That it was Jesus} (\hoti Iˆsous estin\). Present indicative preserved in indirect discourse. The man was either ungrateful and wilfully betrayed Jesus or he was incompetent and did not know that he was bringing trouble on his benefactor. In either case one has small respect for him.

rwp@John:5:17 @{Answered} (\apekrinato\). Regular aorist middle indicative of \apokrinomai\, in John here only and verse 19|, elsewhere \apekrithˆ\ as in verse 11|. {My Father} (\ho pater mou\). Not "our Father," claim to peculiar relation to the Father. {Worketh even until now} (\he“s arti ergazetai\). Linear present middle indicative, "keeps on working until now" without a break on the Sabbath. Philo points out this fact of the continuous activity of God. Justin Martyr, Origen and others note this fact about God. He made the Sabbath for man's blessing, but cannot observe it himself. {And I work} (\kag“ ergazomai\). Jesus puts himself on a par with God's activity and thus justifies his healing on the Sabbath.

rwp@John:5:26 @{In himself} (\en heaut“i\). The Living God possesses life wholly in himself and so he has bestowed this power of life to the Son as already stated in the Prologue of the Logos (1:3|). For "gave" (\ed“ken\, timeless aorist active indicative) see also strkjv@3:35; strkjv@17:2,24|. The particles "as" (\h“sper\) and "so" (\hout“s\) mark here the fact, not the degree (Westcott).

rwp@John:5:33 @{Ye have sent} (\humeis apestalkate\). Emphatic use of \humeis\ (ye) and perfect active indicative of \apostell“\, official and permanent fact and so the witness of the Baptist has to be recognized as trustworthy by the Sanhedrin. The reference is to the committee in strkjv@1:19-28|. {He hath borne witness} (\memarturˆken\). Perfect active indicative of \marture“\ showing the permanent and abiding value of John's testimony to Christ as in strkjv@1:34; strkjv@3:26; strkjv@5:37|. Songs:also strkjv@19:35| of the testimony concerning Christ's death. This was the purpose of the Baptist's mission (1:7|).

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:6:24 @{When the multitude therefore saw} (\hote oun eiden ho ochlos\). Resumption and clarification of the complicated statements of verse 22|. {That Jesus was not there} (\hoti Iˆsous ouk estin ekei\). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. They still did not understand how Jesus had crossed over, but they acted on the basis of the plain fact. {They themselves got into} (\enebˆsan autoi eis\). Second aorist active indicative of \embain“\ followed by \eis\ (both \en\ and \eis\ together as often in N.T.). {Seeking Jesus} (\zˆtountes ton Iˆsoun\). Present active participle of \zˆte“\. They had a double motive apart from the curiosity explained in verse 22|. They had clearly not given up the impulse of the evening before to make Jesus king (6:15|) and they had hopes of still another bountiful repast at the hands of Jesus as he said (6:26|).

rwp@John:6:29 @{The work of God that ye believe} (\to ergon tou theou hina pisteuˆte\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3| Paul speaks of "your work of faith" (\hum“n tou ergou tˆs piste“s\). Songs:here Jesus terms belief in him as the work of God. These Jews were thinking of various deeds of the Pharisaic type and rules. Jesus turns their minds to the central fact. "This simple formula contains the complete solution of the relation of faith and works" (Westcott). Note the present active subjunctive \pisteuˆte\, "that ye may keep on believing." {On him whom he hath sent} (\eis hon apesteilen ekeinos\). The pronominal antecedent (\eis touton hon\) is omitted and the preposition \eis\ is retained with the relative \hon\ really the direct object of \apesteilen\ (sent). Note \ekeinos\ for God (emphatic he).

rwp@John:6:51 @{The living bread} (\ho artos ho z“n\). "The bread the living." Repetition of the claim in 35,41,48|, but with a slight change from \z“ˆs\ to \z“n\ (present active participle of \za“\). It is alive and can give life. See strkjv@4:10| for living water. In strkjv@Revelation:1:17| Jesus calls himself the Living One (\ho z“n\). {For ever} (\eis ton ai“na\). Eternally like \ai“nion\ with \z“ˆn\ in 47|. {I shall give} (\eg“ d“s“\). Emphasis on \eg“\ (I). Superior so to Moses. {Is my flesh} (\hˆ sarx mou estin\). See on ¯1:14| for \sarx\ the Incarnation. This new idea creates far more difficulty to the hearers who cannot grasp Christ's idea of self-sacrifice. {For the life of the world} (\huper tˆs tou kosmou z“ˆs\). Over, in behalf of, \huper\ means, and in some connexions instead of as in strkjv@11:50|. See strkjv@1:30| for the Baptist's picture of Christ as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. See also strkjv@3:17; strkjv@4:42; strkjv@1John:3:16; strkjv@Matthew:20:28; strkjv@Galatians:3:13; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:14f.; strkjv@Romans:5:8|. Jesus has here presented to this Galilean multitude the central fact of his atoning death for the spiritual life of the world.

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:7:11 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). The hostile leaders in Jerusalem, not the Galilean crowds (7:12|) nor the populace in Jerusalem (7:25|). {Sought} (\ezˆtoun\). Imperfect active of \zˆte“\, "were seeking," picture of the attitude of the Jewish leaders toward Jesus who had not yet appeared in public at the feast. In fact he had avoided Jerusalem since the collision in chapter 5. The leaders clearly wished to attack him. {Where is he?} (\pou estin ekeinos;\). "Where is that one? (emphatic use of \ekeinos\ as in strkjv@1:8; strkjv@9:12|). Jesus had been at two feasts during his ministry (passover in strkjv@2:12ff.|; possibly another passover in strkjv@5:1|), but he had avoided the preceding passover (6:4; strkjv@7:1|). The leaders in Jerusalem had kept in touch with Christ's work in Galilee. They anticipate a crisis in Jerusalem.

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:7:41 @{This is the Christ} (\houtos estin ho Christos\). These went further and dared to call Jesus the Messiah and not merely the prophet who might not be the Messiah. They said it openly. {What} (\gar\). These denied that Jesus was the Messiah and gave as their reason (\gar\, for) the fact that he came from Galilee. The use of \mˆ\ expects a negative answer.

rwp@John:7:42 @{The scripture} (\hˆ graphˆ\). The reference is to strkjv@Micah:5:2|, the very passage quoted by the chief priests and scribes in response to Herod's inquiry (Matthew:2:6|). This ignorance of the fact that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem belongs to the Jews, not to John the author of the Gospel.

rwp@John:7:52 @{Art thou also of Galilee?} (\Mˆ kai su ek tˆs Galilaias ei;\). Formally negative answer expected by \mˆ\, but really they mean to imply that Nicodemus from local feeling or prejudice has lined himself up with this Galilean mob (\ochlos\) of sympathizers with Jesus and is like Jesus himself a Galilean. "These aristocrats of Jerusalem had a scornful contempt for the rural Galileans" (Bernard). {That out of Galilee ariseth no prophet} (\hoti ek tˆs Galilaias prophˆtˆs ouk egeiretai\). As a matter of fact Jonah, Hosea, Nahum, possibly also Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were from Galilee. It was simply the rage of the Sanhedrin against Jesus regardless of the facts. Westcott suggests that they may have reference to the future, but that is a mere excuse for them.

rwp@John:8:16 @{Yea and if I judge} (\kai ean krin“ de eg“\). "And even if I pass judgment." Condition of third class again. {True} (alˆthinˆ). See strkjv@1:9| for \alˆthinos\, genuine, soundly based (cf. \dikaia\ in strkjv@5:30|), "satisfying our perfect conception" (Westcott), not merely true (\alˆthes\) in the particular facts (verse 14|). {For I am not alone} (\hoti monos ouk eimi\). Jesus now takes up the technical criticism in verse 13| after justifying his right to speak concerning himself. {But I and the Father that sent me} (\all eg“ kai ho pempsas me patˆr\). See strkjv@16:32| for a like statement about the Father being with Christ. It is not certain that \patˆr\ is genuine here (omitted by Aleph D, but in B L W), but the Father is clearly meant as in strkjv@7:18,33|. Jesus gives the Father as the second witness.

rwp@John:8:17 @{Yea and in your law} (\kai en t“i nom“i de t“i humeter“i\). Same use of \kai--de\ as in verse 16|. They claimed possession of the law (7:49|) and so Jesus takes this turn in answer to the charge of single witness in verse 13|. He will use similar language (your law) in strkjv@10:34| in an _argumentum ad hominem_ as here in controversy with the Jews. In strkjv@15:24| to the apostles Jesus even says "in their law" in speaking of the hostile Jews plotting his death. He does not mean in either case to separate himself wholly from the Jews and the law, though in Matthew 5 he does show the superiority of his teaching to that of the law. For the Mosaic regulation about two witnesses see strkjv@Deuteronomy:17:6; strkjv@19:15|. This combined witness of two is not true just because they agree, unless true in fact separately. But if they disagree, the testimony falls to the ground. In this case the Father confirms the witness of the Son as Jesus had already shown (5:37|).

rwp@John:8:28 @{When ye have lifted up the Son of man} (\hotan hups“sˆte ton huion tou anthr“pou\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ (\hote + an\) and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hupso“\, to lift up (_Koin‚_ verb from \hupsos\, height), used several times in John of the Cross of Christ (3:14; strkjv@8:28; strkjv@12:32,34|). It is unnecessary to render the aorist subjunctive as if a future perfect, simply "whenever ye lift up" (actually lift up, ingressive aorist). In strkjv@Acts:2:33| the verb is used of the Ascension. {Shall ye know} (\gn“sesthe\). Future (ingressive aoristic) middle of \gin“sk“\. _Cognoscetis ex re quod nunc ex verbo non creditis_ (Bengel). But the knowledge from the facts like the fall of Jerusalem will come too late and will not bring a change of heart. The Holy Spirit will convict them concerning judgment (16:8|). For {I am} (\eg“ eimi\) see on verse ¯24|. {As the Father taught me} (\Kath“s edidasken me ho patˆr\). This claim Jesus repeats (see verse 26|) and clearly makes on his arrival at the feast (7:16f.|). This fact marks Jesus off from the rabbis.

rwp@John:9:2 @{Who did sin?} (\tis hˆmarten;\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan“\. See strkjv@Acts:3:2; strkjv@14:8| for two examples of lameness from birth. Blindness is common in the Orient and Jesus healed many cases (cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23; strkjv@10:46|) and mentions this fact as one of the marks of the Messiah in the message to the Baptist (Matthew:11:5|). This is the only example of congenital blindness healed. It is not clear that the disciples expected Jesus to heal this case. They are puzzled by the Jewish notion that sickness was a penalty for sin. The Book of Job:had shown that this was not always the case and Jesus shows it also (Luke:13:1-5|). If this man was guilty, it was due to prenatal sin on his part, a curious notion surely. The other alternative charged it upon his parents. That is sometimes true (Exodus:20:5|, etc.), but by no means always. The rabbinical casuists loved to split hairs on this problem. Ezekiel (Ezekiel:18:20|) says: "The soul that sinneth it shall die" (individual responsibility for sin committed). There is something in heredity, but not everything. {That he should be born blind} (\hina tuphlos gennˆthˆi\). Probably consecutive (or sub-final) use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \genna“\.

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:9:25 @{One thing I know} (\hen oida\). This man is keen and quick and refuses to fall into the trap set for him. He passes by their quibbling about Jesus being a "sinner" (\hamart“los\) and clings to the one fact of his own experience. {Whereas I was blind, now I see} (\tuphlos “n arti blep“\). Literally, "Being blind I now see." The present active participle \“n\ of \eimi\ by implication in contrast with \arti\ (just now, at this moment) points to previous and so past time. It must be borne in mind that the man did not at this stage know who Jesus was and so had not yet taken him as Saviour (9:36-38|).

rwp@John:9:27 @{I told you even now} (\eipon humin ˆdˆ\). In verses 15,17,25|. {Would ye also become his disciples?} (\Mˆ kai humeis thelete autou mathˆtai genesthai;\). Negative answer formally expected, but the keenest irony in this gibe. Clearly the healed man knew from the use of "also" (\kai\) that Jesus had some "disciples" (\mathˆtai\, predicate nominative with the infinitive \genesthai\) and that the Pharisees knew that fact. "Do ye also (like the Galilean mob) wish, etc." See strkjv@7:45-52|. It cut to the bone.

rwp@John:9:30 @{Why, herein is the marvel} (\en tout“i gar to thaumaston estin\). This use of \gar\ (\ge + ara\, accordingly indeed) to bring out an affirmation from the previous words is common enough. "Why in this very point is the wonder" (\thaumaston\, old verbal adjective from \thaumaz“\ as in strkjv@Matthew:21:42|). The man is angry now and quick in his insight and reply. You confess your ignorance of whence he is, ye who know everything, "and yet (adversative use of \kai\ again) he opened my eyes" (\kai ˆnoixen mou tous ophthalmous\). That stubborn fact stands.

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: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:16:30 @{Now know we} (\nun oidamen\). They had failed to understand the plain words of Jesus about going to the Father heretofore (16:5|), but Jesus read their very thoughts (16:19f.|) and this fact seemed to open their minds to grasp his idea. {Should ask} (\er“tƒi\). Present active subjunctive with \hina\ in original sense of asking a question. {By this} (\en tout“i\). In Christ's supernatural insight into their very hearts. {From God} (\apo theou\). Compare \para tou patros\ (verse 27|) and \ek tou patros\ (verse 28|), \apo, ek, para\ all with the ablative of source or origin.

rwp@John:17:8 @{The words} (\ta rˆmata\). Plural, each word of God, as in strkjv@3:34|, and of Christ (5:47; strkjv@6:63,68|), while the singular (\ton logon sou\) in verses 6,14| views God's message as a whole. {Knew} (\egn“san\). Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\ like \elabon\ in contrast with \egn“kan\ (perfect) in verse 7|. They definitely "received and recognized truly" (\alˆth“s\). There was comfort to Christ in this fact. {They believed} (\episteusan\). Another aorist parallel with \elabon\ and \egn“san\. The disciples believed in Christ's mission from the Father (John:6:69; strkjv@Matthew:16:16|). Note \apesteilas\ here as in verse 3|. Christ is God's {Apostle} to man (Hebrews:3:1|). This statement, like a solemn refrain (\Thou didst send me\), occurs five times in this prayer (verses 8,18,21,23,25|).

rwp@John:18:1 @{With} (\sun\). See strkjv@12:2| for another example of \sun\ in John (common in Paul). The usual \meta\ reappears in verse 2|. {Over} (\peran\). "Beyond," preposition with the ablative as in strkjv@6:22,25|. {Brook} (\cheimarrou\). Old word, flowing (\roos, re“\) in winter (\cheima\), only here in N.T. {Kidron} (\ton Kedr“n\). Literally, "of the Cedars," "Brook of the Cedars." Only here in N.T. strkjv@Songs:2Samuel:15:23|. Textus Receptus like Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 1, 5) has the singular \tou Kedr“n\ (indeclinable). As a matter of fact it was always dry save after a heavy rain. {A garden} (\kˆpos\). Old word, in N.T. only here, verse 26; strkjv@19:41| (Joseph's); strkjv@Luke:13:19|. John, like Luke, does not give the name Gethsemane (only in strkjv@Mark:14:32; strkjv@Matthew:26:36|). The brook of the cedars had many unhallowed associations (1Kings:2:37; strkjv@15:13; strkjv@2Kings:23:4ff.; strkjv@2Chronicles:29:16; strkjv@Jeremiah:31:40|).

rwp@John:18:22 @{When he had said this} (\tauta autou eipontos\). Genitive absolute of second aorist active participle of \eipon\, to say. {Standing by} (\parestˆk“s\). Perfect active (intransitive) participle of \paristˆmi\ (transitive), to place beside. One of the temple police who felt his importance as protector of Annas. {Struck Jesus with his hand} (\ed“ken rapisma t“i Iˆsou\). Late word \rapisma\ is from \rapiz“\, to smite with a rod or with the palm of the hand (Matthew:26:67|). It occurs only three times in the N.T. (Mark:14:65; strkjv@John:18:22; strkjv@19:3|), in each of which it is uncertain whether the blow is with a rod or with the palm of the hand (probably this, a most insulting act). The papyri throw no real light on it. "He gave Jesus a slap in the face." Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:11:20|. {So} (\hout“s\). As Jesus had done in verse 21|, a dignified protest in fact by Jesus.

rwp@John:18:28 @{They lead} (\agousin\). Dramatic historical present of \ag“\, plural "they" for the Sanhedrists (Luke:23:1|). John gives no details of the trial before the Sanhedrin (only the fact, strkjv@John:18:24,28|) when Caiaphas presided, either the informal meeting at night (Mark:14:53,55-65; strkjv@Matthew:26:57,59-68; strkjv@Luke:22:54,63-65|) or the formal ratification meeting after dawn (Mark:15:1; strkjv@Matthew:27:1; strkjv@Luke:22:66-71|), but he gives much new material of the trial before Pilate (18:28-38|). {Into the palace} (\eis to prait“rion\). For the history and meaning of this interesting Latin word, _praetorium_, see on ¯Matthew:27:27; strkjv@Acts:23:35; strkjv@Phillipians:1:13|. Here it is probably the magnificent palace in Jerusalem built by Herod the Great for himself and occupied by the Roman Procurator (governor) when in the city. There was also one in Caesarea (Acts:23:35|). Herod's palace in Jerusalem was on the Hill of Zion in the western part of the upper city. There is something to be said for the Castle of Antonia, north of the temple area, as the location of Pilate's residence in Jerusalem. {Early} (\pr“i\). Technically the fourth watch (3 A.M. to 6 A.M.). There were two violations of Jewish legal procedure (holding the trial for a capital case at night, passing condemnation on the same day of the trial). Besides, the Sanhedrin no longer had the power of death. A Roman court could meet any time after sunrise. John (19:14|) says it was "about the sixth hour" when Pilate condemned Jesus. {That they might not be defiled} (\hina mˆ mianth“sin\). Purpose clause with \hina mˆ\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \miain“\, to stain, to defile. For Jewish scruples about entering the house of a Gentile see strkjv@Acts:10:28; strkjv@11:3|. {But might eat the passover} (\alla phag“sin to pascha\). Second aorist active subjunctive of the defective verb \esthi“\, to eat. This phrase may mean to eat the passover meal as in strkjv@Matthew:27:17| (Mark:14:12,14; strkjv@Luke:22:11,15|), but it does not have to mean that. In strkjv@2Chronicles:30:22| we read: "And they did eat the festival seven days" when the paschal festival is meant, not the paschal lamb or the paschal supper. There are eight other examples of \pascha\ in John's Gospel and in all of them the feast is meant, not the supper. If we follow John's use of the word, it is the feast here, not the meal of strkjv@John:13:2| which was the regular passover meal. This interpretation keeps John in harmony with the Synoptics.

rwp@John:18:30 @{If this man were not an evil-doer} (\ei mˆ ˆn houtos kakon poi“n\). Condition (negative) of second class (periphrastic imperfect indicative), assumed to be untrue, with the usual apodosis (\an\ and aorist indicative, first aorist plural with \k\). This is a pious pose of infallibility not in the Synoptics. They then proceeded to make the charges (Luke:23:2|) as indeed John implies (18:31,33|). Some MSS. here read \kakopoios\ (malefactor) as in strkjv@1Peter:2:12,14|, with which compare Luke's \kakourgos\ (23:32f.|; so also strkjv@2Timothy:2:9|), both meaning evil-doer. Here the periphrastic present participle \poi“n\ with \kakon\ emphasizes the idea that Jesus was a habitual evil-doer (Abbott). It was an insolent reply to Pilate (Bernard).

rwp@John:19:18 @{They crucified} (\estaur“san\). The soldiers just as in strkjv@Acts:22:24f.|; the scourging of Paul was to be done by the soldiers. {And Jesus in the midst} (\meson de ton Iˆsoun\). Predicate adjective \meson\. A robber (\lˆistˆs\, not a thief, \kleptˆs\) was on each side of Jesus (Mark:15:27; strkjv@Matthew:27:38|) like Barabbas (John:18:40|) and probably members of his band, malefactors (\kakourgoi\) Luke terms them (Luke:23:32|).

rwp@John:19:34 @{With a spear} (\logchˆi\). Instrumental case of this old word, here only in the N.T. {Pierced his side} (\autou tˆn pleuran enuxen\). First aorist active indicative of \nuss“\, old word to pierce, here only in N.T., and \pleuran\ (side), another old word, occurs in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:20:20,25,27|. {Blood and water} (\haima kai hud“r\). Dr. W. Stroud (_Physical Cause of the Death of Christ_) argues that this fact proves that the spear pierced the left side of Jesus near the heart and that Jesus had died literally of a broken heart since blood was mixed with water.

rwp@John:19:35 @{He that hath seen} (\ho he“rak“s\). Perfect active articular participle of \hora“\. John the Apostle was there and saw this fact (still sees it, in fact). This personal witness disproves the theory of the Docetic Gnostics that Jesus did not have a real human body. {He knoweth} (\ekeinos oiden\). That is John does like strkjv@9:37|. It is possible that \ekeinos\ may be a solemn appeal to God as in strkjv@1:33| or Christ as in strkjv@1John:3:5|. Bernard argues that the final editor is distinguishing the Beloved Disciple from himself and is endorsing him. But the example of Josephus (_War_. III. 7, 16) is against this use of \ekeinos\. John is rather referring to himself as still alive.

rwp@John:20:5 @{Stooping and looking in} (\parakupsas\). Originally to stoop and look, but in the LXX (Genesis:26:8; strkjv@Judges:5:28; strkjv@1Kings:6:4|, etc.) and the papyri rather just to peep in and so Field (_Ot. Norv_.) urges here. See also verse 11; strkjv@Luke:24:12| (the verse bracketed by Westcott and Hort). For \othonia\ (linen cloth) see strkjv@John:19:40|. {Lying} (\keimena\). Present middle participle of \keimai\, predicative accusative. John notices this fact at once. If the body had been removed, these clothes would have gone also. John's timid nature made him pause (yet, \mentoi\, however).

rwp@John:20:9 @{For} (\gar\). Explanatory use of \gar\. {The Scripture} (\tˆn graphˆn\). Probably strkjv@Psalms:16:10|. Jesus had repeatedly foretold his resurrection, but that was all forgotten in the great sorrow on their hearts. Only the chief priests and Pharisees recalled the words of Jesus (Matthew:27:62ff.|). {Must} (\dei\). For this use of \dei\ concerning Christ's death and resurrection see strkjv@Mark:8:31; strkjv@Matthew:26:54; strkjv@Luke:9:22; strkjv@17:25; strkjv@22:37; strkjv@24:7,26,44; strkjv@John:3:14; strkjv@12:34; strkjv@Acts:1:16|. Jesus had put emphasis on both the fact and the necessity of his resurrection which the disciples slowly perceived.

rwp@John:20:16 @{Mary} (\Mariam\). Aramaic form in Aleph B W, though \Maria\ in strkjv@19:25|. Clearly the old familiar tone of Jesus was in the pronunciation of her name. {Rabboni} (\Rabbounei\). Aramaic again for \Didaskale\ (Teacher), "my Teacher." In N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:10:51| though practically the same as \Rabbi\. See strkjv@11:28| for "the Teacher" (Rabbi). These two simple words tell the great fact that Christ is risen and Mary has seen him. One says little in really great moments.

rwp@John:20:18 @{And telleth} (\aggellousa\). Present active participle, "announcing." {I have seen the Lord} (\He“raka ton kurion\). Perfect active indicative of \hora“\. She will always carry in her heart that vision (picture) of the Risen Christ. She tells this fact before she delivers Christ's message to the brethren of Christ. {How that}. No word in the Greek, but a conjunction like \h“s\ is implied. \Hoti\ here is recitative. The disciples (brethren) did not believe Mary's story nor that of the other women (Luke:24:11; strkjv@Mark:16:11|). Paul does not mention the vision to Mary or the women in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:5-7|. But Mary Magdalene was the first one to see the Risen Lord.

rwp@Jude:1:9 @{Michael the archangel} (\ho Michael ho archaggelos\). Michael is mentioned also in strkjv@Daniel:10:13,21; strkjv@12:1; strkjv@Revelation:12:7|. \Archaggelos\ in N.T. occurs only here and strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:16|, but in strkjv@Daniel:10:13,20; strkjv@12:1|. {Contending with the devil} (\t“i diabol“i diakrinomenos\). Present middle participle of \diakrin“\, to separate, to strive with as in strkjv@Acts:11:2|. Dative case \diabol“i\. {When he disputed} (\hote dielegeto\). Imperfect middle of \dialegomai\ as in strkjv@Mark:9:34|. {Concerning the body of Moses} (\peri tou M“use“s s“matos\). Some refer this to strkjv@Zechariah:3:1|, others to a rabbinical comment on strkjv@Deuteronomy:34:6|. There is a similar reference to traditions in strkjv@Acts:7:22; strkjv@Galatians:3:19; strkjv@Hebrews:2:2; strkjv@2Timothy:3:8|. But this explanation hardly meets the facts. {Durst not bring} (\ouk etolmˆsen epenegkein\). "Did not dare (first aorist active indicative of \tolma“\), to bring against him" (second aorist active infinitive of \epipher“\). {A railing accusation} (\krisin blasphˆmias\). "Charge of blasphemy" where strkjv@2Peter:2:11| has "\blasphˆmon krisin\." Peter also has \para kuri“i\ (with the Lord), not in Jude. {The Lord rebuke thee} (\epitimˆsai soi kurios\). First aorist active optative of \epitima“\, a wish about the future. These words occur in strkjv@Zechariah:3:1-10| where the angel of the Lord replies to the charges of Satan. Clement of Alex. (_Adumb. in Ep. Judae_) says that Jude:quoted here the _Assumption of Moses_, one of the apocryphal books. Origen says the same thing. Mayor thinks that the author of the _Assumption of Moses_ took these words from Zechariah and put them in the mouth of the Archangel Michael. There is a Latin version of the _Assumption_. Some date it as early as B.C. 2, others after A.D. 44.

rwp@Luke:2:2 @{The first enrolment} (\apographˆ pr“tˆ\). A definite allusion by Luke to a series of censuses instituted by Augustus, the second of which is mentioned by him in strkjv@Acts:5:37|. This second one is described by Josephus and it was supposed by some that Luke confused the two. But Ramsay has shown that a periodical fourteen-year census in Egypt is given in dated papyri back to A.D. 20. The one in strkjv@Acts:5:37| would then be A.D. 6. This is in the time of Augustus. The first would then be B.C. 8 in Egypt. If it was delayed a couple of years in Palestine by Herod the Great for obvious reasons, that would make the birth of Christ about B.C. 6 which agrees with the other known data {When Quirinius} (\Kurˆniou\). Genitive absolute. Here again Luke has been attacked on the ground that Quirinius was only governor of Syria once and that was A.D. 6 as shown by Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. I.I). But Ramsay has proven by inscriptions that Quirinius was twice in Syria and that Luke is correct here also. See summary of the facts in my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, pp. 118-29.

rwp@Luke:2:14 @{Among men in whom he is well pleased} (\en anthr“pois eudokias\). The Textus Receptus (Authorized Version also has \eudokia\, but the genitive \eudokias\ is undoubtedly correct, supported by the oldest and best uncials. (Aleph, A B D W). C has a lacuna here. Plummer justly notes how in this angelic hymn Glory and Peace correspond, in the highest and on earth, to God and among men of goodwill. It would be possible to connect "on earth" with "the highest" and also to have a triple division. There has been much objection raised to the genitive \eudokias\, the correct text. But it makes perfectly good sense and better sense. As a matter of fact real peace on earth exists only among those who are the subjects of God's goodwill, who are characterized by goodwill toward God and man. This word \eudokia\ we have already had in strkjv@Matthew:11:26|. It does not occur in the ancient Greek. The word is confined to Jewish and Christian writings, though the papyri furnish instances of \eudokˆsis\. Wycliff has it "to men of goodwill."

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

rwp@Luke:3:22 @{Descended} (\katabˆnai\). Same construction as the preceding infinitive. {The Holy Ghost} (\to pneuma to hagion\). The Holy Spirit. strkjv@Mark:1:10| has merely the Spirit (\to pneuma\) while strkjv@Matthew:3:16| has the Spirit of God (\pneuma theou\). {In a bodily form} (\s“matik“i eidei\). Alone in Luke who has also "as a dove" (\h“s peristeran\) like Matthew and Mark. This probably means that the Baptist saw the vision that looked like a dove. Nothing is gained by denying the fact or possibility of the vision that looked like a dove. God manifests his power as he will. The symbolism of the dove for the Holy Spirit is intelligible. We are not to understand that this was the beginning of the Incarnation of Christ as the Cerinthian Gnostics held. But this fresh influx of the Holy Spirit may have deepened the Messianic consciousness of Jesus and certainly revealed him to the Baptist as God's Son. {And a voice came out of heaven} (\kai ph“nˆn ex ouranou genesthai\). Same construction of infinitive with accusative of general reference. The voice of the Father to the Son is given here as in strkjv@Mark:1:11|, which see, and strkjv@Matthew:3:17| for discussion of the variation there. The Trinity here manifest themselves at the baptism of Jesus which constitutes the formal entrance of Jesus upon his Messianic ministry. He enters upon it with the Father's blessing and approval and with the power of the Holy Spirit upon him. The deity of Christ here appears in plain form in the Synoptic Gospels. The consciousness of Christ is as clear on this point here as in the Gospel of John where the Baptist describes him after his baptism as the Son of God (John:1:34|).

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:4:5 @{The world} (\tˆs oikoumenˆs\). The inhabited world. In strkjv@Matthew:4:8| it is \tou kosmou\. {In a moment of time} (\en stigmˆi chronou\). Only in Luke and the word \stigmˆ\ nowhere else in the N.T. (from \stiz“\, to prick, or puncture), a point or dot. In Demosthenes, Aristotle, Plutarch. Like our "second" of time or tick of the clock. This panorama of all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them in a moment of time was mental, a great feat of the imagination (a mental satanic "movie" performance), but this fact in no way discredits the idea of the actual visible appearance of Satan also. This second temptation in Luke is the third in Matthew's order. Luke's order is geographical (wilderness, mountain, Jerusalem). Matthew's is climacteric (hunger, nervous dread, ambition). There is a climax in Luke's order also (sense, man, God). There is no way to tell the actual order.

rwp@Luke:4:16 @{Where he had been brought up} (\hou ˆn tethrammenos\). Past perfect passive periphrastic indicative, a state of completion in past time, from \treph“\, a common Greek verb. This visit is before that recorded in strkjv@Mark:6:1-6; strkjv@Matthew:13:54-58| which was just before the third tour of Galilee. Here Jesus comes back after a year of public ministry elsewhere and with a wide reputation (Luke:4:15|). Luke may have in mind strkjv@2:51|, but for some time now Nazareth had not been his home and that fact may be implied by the past perfect tense. {As his custom was} (\kata to ei“thos aut“i\). Second perfect active neuter singular participle of an old \eth“\ (Homer), to be accustomed. Literally according to what was customary to him (\aut“i\, dative case). This is one of the flashlights on the early life of Jesus. He had the habit of going to public worship in the synagogue as a boy, a habit that he kept up when a grown man. If the child does not form the habit of going to church, the man is almost certain not to have it. We have already had in Matthew and Mark frequent instances of the word synagogue which played such a large part in Jewish life after the restoration from Babylon. {Stood up} (\anestˆ\). Second aorist active indicative and intransitive. Very common verb. It was the custom for the reader to stand except when the Book of Esther was read at the feast of Purim when he might sit. It is not here stated that Jesus had been in the habit of standing up to read here or elsewhere. It was his habit to go to the synagogue for worship. Since he entered upon his Messianic work his habit was to teach in the synagogues (Luke:4:15|). This was apparently the first time that he had done so in Nazareth. He may have been asked to read as Paul was in Antioch in Pisidia (Acts:13:15|). The ruler of the synagogue for that day may have invited Jesus to read and speak because of his now great reputation as a teacher. Jesus could have stood up voluntarily and appropriately because of his interest in his home town. {To read} (\anagn“nai\). Second aorist active infinitive of \anagin“sk“\, to recognize again the written characters and so to read and then to read aloud. It appears first in Pindar in the sense of read and always so in the N.T. This public reading aloud with occasional comments may explain the parenthesis in strkjv@Matthew:24:15| (Let him that readeth understand).

rwp@Luke:4:19 @{The acceptable year of the Lord} (\eniauton Kuriou dekton\). He does not mean that his ministry is to be only one year in length as Clement of Alexandria and Origen argued. That is to turn figures into fact. The Messianic age has come, Jesus means to say. On the first day of the year of Jubilee the priests with sound of trumpet proclaimed the blessings of that year (Leviticus:25:8-17|). This great passage justly pictures Christ's conception of his mission and message.

rwp@Luke:4:22 @{Bare him witness} (\emarturoun\). Imperfect active, perhaps inchoative. They all began to bear witness that the rumours were not exaggerations (4:14|) as they had supposed, but had foundation in fact if this discourse or its start was a fair sample of his teaching. The verb \marture“\ is a very old and common one. It is frequent in Acts, Paul's Epistles, and the Johannine books. The substantive \martur\ is seen in our English \martyr\, one who witnesses even by his death to his faith in Christ. {And wondered} (\kai ethaumazon\). Imperfect active also, perhaps inchoative also. They began to marvel as he proceeded with his address. This verb is an old one and common in the Gospels for the attitude of the people towards Jesus. {At the words of grace} (\epi tois logois tˆs charitos\). See on ¯Luke:1:30; strkjv@2:52| for this wonderful word \charis\ so full of meaning and so often in the N.T. The genitive case (case of genus or kind) here means that the words that came out of the mouth of Jesus in a steady stream (present tense, \ekporeuomenois\) were marked by fascination and charm. They were "winning words" as the context makes plain, though they were also "gracious" in the Pauline sense of "grace." There is no necessary antithesis in the ideas of graceful and gracious in these words of Jesus. {Is not this Joseph's son?} (\Ouchi huios estin I“sˆph houtos;\). Witness and wonder gave way to bewilderment as they began to explain to themselves the situation. The use of \ouchi\ intensive form of \ouk\ in a question expects the answer "yes." Jesus passed in Nazareth as the son of Joseph as Luke presents him in strkjv@3:23|. He does not stop here to correct this misconception because the truth has been already amply presented in strkjv@1:28-38; strkjv@2:49|. This popular conception of Jesus as the son of Joseph appears also in strkjv@John:1:45|. The puzzle of the people was due to their previous knowledge of Jesus as the carpenter (Mark:6:3|; the carpenter's son, strkjv@Matthew:13:55|). For him now to appear as the Messiah in Nazareth where he had lived and laboured as the carpenter was a phenomenon impossible to credit on sober reflection. Songs:the mood of wonder and praise quickly turned with whispers and nods and even scowls to doubt and hostility, a rapid and radical transformation of emotion in the audience.

rwp@Luke:6:24 @{But woe unto you that are rich} (\Plˆn ouai humin tois plousiois\). Sharp contrast (\plˆn\). As a matter of fact the rich Pharisees and Sadducees were the chief opposers of Christ as of the early disciples later (James:5:1-6|). {Ye have received} (\apechete\). Receipt in full \apech“\ means as the papyri show. {Consolation} (\paraklˆsin\). From \parakale“\, to call to one's side, to encourage, to help, to cheer.

rwp@Matthew:10:16 @{As sheep in the midst of wolves} (\h“s probata en mes“i luk“n\). The presence of wolves on every hand was a fact then and now. Some of these very sheep (10:6|) at the end will turn out to be wolves and cry for Christ's crucifixion. The situation called for consummate wisdom and courage. The serpent was the emblem of wisdom or shrewdness, intellectual keenness (Genesis:3:1; strkjv@Psalms:58:5|), the dove of simplicity (Hosea:7:11|). It was a proverb, this combination, but one difficult of realization. Either without the other is bad (rascality or gullibility). The first clause with \arnas\ for \probata\ is in strkjv@Luke:10:3| and apparently is in a _Fragment of a Lost Gospel_ edited by Grenfell and Hunt. The combination of wariness and innocence is necessary for the protection of the sheep and the discomfiture of the wolves. For "harmless" (\akeraioi\) Moffatt and Goodspeed have "guileless," Weymouth "innocent." The word means "unmixed" (\a\ privative and \kerannumi\), "unadulterated," "simple," "unalloyed."

rwp@Matthew:11:25 @{At that season Jesus answered and said} (\en ekein“i t“i kair“i apokritheis eipen\). Spoke to his Father in audible voice. The time and place we do not know. But here we catch a glimpse of Jesus in one of his moods of worship. "It is usual to call this golden utterance a prayer, but it is at once prayer, praise, and self-communing in a devout spirit" (Bruce). Critics are disturbed because this passage from the Logia of Jesus or Q of Synoptic criticism (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|) is so manifestly Johannine in spirit and very language, "the Father" (\ho patˆr\), "the son" (\ho huios\), whereas the Fourth Gospel was not written till the close of the first century and the Logia was written before the Synoptic Gospels. The only satisfying explanation lies in the fact that Jesus did have this strain of teaching that is preserved in John's Gospel. Here he is in precisely the same mood of elevated communion with the Father that we have reflected in John 14 to 17. Even Harnack is disposed to accept this Logion as a genuine saying of Jesus. The word "thank" (\homologoumai\) is better rendered "praise" (Moffatt). Jesus praises the Father "not that the \sophoi\ were ignorant, but that the \nˆpioi\ knew" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:12:24 @{The Pharisees} (\hoi de Pharisaioi\). Already (Matthew:9:32-34|) we have had in Matthew the charge that Jesus is in league with the prince of demons, though the incident may be later than this one. See on ¯10:25| about "Beelzebub." The Pharisees feel that the excited condition of the crowds and the manifest disposition to believe that Jesus is the Messiah (the Son of David) demand strenuous action on their part. They cannot deny the fact of the miracles for the blind and dumb men both saw and spoke (12:22|). Songs:in desperation they suggest that Jesus works by the power of Beelzebub the prince of the demons.

rwp@Matthew:13:3 @{Many things in parables} (\polla en parabolais\). It was not the first time that Jesus had used parables, but the first time that he had spoken so many and some of such length. He will use a great many in the future as in Luke 12 to 18 and Matt. 24 and 25. The parables already mentioned in Matthew include the salt and the light (5:13-16|), the birds and the lilies (6:26-30|), the splinter and the beam in the eye (7:3-5|), the two gates (7:13f.|), the wolves in sheep's clothing (7:15|), the good and bad trees (7:17-19|), the wise and foolish builders (7:24-27|), the garment and the wineskins (9:16f.|), the children in the market places (11:16f.|). It is not certain how many he spoke on this occasion. Matthew mentions eight in this chapter (the Sower, the Tares, the Mustard Seed, the Leaven, the Hid Treasure, the Pearl of Great Price, the Net, the Householder). Mark adds the Parable of the Lamp (Mark:4:21; strkjv@Luke:8:16|), the Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mark:4:26-29|), making ten of which we know. But both Mark (Mark:4:33|) and Matthew (13:34|) imply that there were many others. "Without a parable spake he nothing unto them" (Matthew:13:34|), on this occasion, we may suppose. The word parable (\parabolˆ\ from \paraball“\, to place alongside for measurement or comparison like a yardstick) is an objective illustration for spiritual or moral truth. The word is employed in a variety of ways (a) as for sententious sayings or proverbs (Matthew:15:15; strkjv@Mark:3:23; strkjv@Luke:4:23; strkjv@5:36-39; strkjv@6:39|), for a figure or type (Heb. strkjv@9:9; strkjv@11:19|); (b) a comparison in the form of a narrative, the common use in the Synoptic Gospels like the Sower; (c) "A narrative illustration not involving a comparison" (Broadus), like the Rich Fool, the Good Samaritan, etc. "The oriental genius for picturesque speech found expression in a multitude of such utterances" (McNeile). There are parables in the Old Testament, in the Talmud, in sermons in all ages. But no one has spoken such parables as these of Jesus. They hold the mirror up to nature and, as all illustrations should do, throw light on the truth presented. The fable puts things as they are not in nature, Aesop's Fables, for instance. The parable may not be actual fact, but it could be so. It is harmony with the nature of the case. The allegory (\allˆgoria\) is a speaking parable that is self-explanatory all along like Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_. All allegories are parables, but not all parables are allegories. The Prodigal Son is an allegory, as is the story of the Vine and Branches (John:15|). John does not use the word parable, but only \paroimia\, a saying by the way (John:10:6; strkjv@16:25,29|). As a rule the parables of Jesus illustrate one main point and the details are more or less incidental, though sometimes Jesus himself explains these. When he does not do so, we should be slow to interpret the minor details. Much heresy has come from fantastic interpretations of the parables. In the case of the Parable of the Sower (13:3-8|) we have also the careful exposition of the story by Jesus (18-23|) as well as the reason for the use of parables on this occasion by Jesus (9-17|).

rwp@Matthew:14:3 @{For the sake of Herodias} (\dia Hˆr“idiada\). The death of John had taken place some time before. The Greek aorists here (\edˆsen, apetheto\) are not used for past perfects. The Greek aorist simply narrates the event without drawing distinctions in past time. This Herodias was the unlawful wife of Herod Antipas. She was herself a descendant of Herod the Great and had married Herod Philip of Rome, not Philip the Tetrarch. She had divorced him in order to marry Herod Antipas after he had divorced his wife, the daughter of Aretas King of Arabia. It was a nasty mess equal to any of our modern divorces. Her first husband was still alive and marriage with a sister-in-law was forbidden to Jews (Leviticus:18:16|). Because of her Herod Antipas had put John in the prison at Machaerus. The bare fact has been mentioned in strkjv@Matthew:4:12| without the name of the place. See strkjv@11:2| also for the discouragement of John \en t“i desm“tˆri“i\ (place of bondage), here \en tˆi phulakˆi\ (the guard-house). Josephus (_Ant_. xviii. 5.2) tells us that Machaerus is the name of the prison. On a high hill an impregnable fortress had been built. Tristram (_Land of Moab_) says that there are now remains of "two dungeons, one of them deep and its sides scarcely broken in" with "small holes still visible in the masonry where staples of wood and iron had once been fixed. One of these must surely have been the prison-house of John the Baptist." "On this high ridge Herod the Great built an extensive and beautiful palace" (Broadus). "The windows commanded a wide and grand prospect, including the Dead Sea, the course of the Jordan, and Jerusalem" (Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus_).

rwp@Matthew:15:15 @{Declare unto us the parable} (\phrason h–min tˆn parabolˆn\). Explain the parable (pithy saying) in verse 11|, not in verse 14|. As a matter of fact, the disciples had been upset by Christ's powerful exposure of the "Corban" duplicity and the words about "defilement" in verse 11|.

rwp@Matthew:16:18 @{And I also say unto thee} (\k'ag“ de soi leg“\). "The emphasis is not on 'Thou art Peter' over against 'Thou art the Christ,' but on \Kag“\: 'The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another" (McNeile). Jesus calls Peter here by the name that he had said he would have (John:1:42|). Peter (\Petros\) is simply the Greek word for Cephas (Aramaic). Then it was prophecy, now it is fact. In verse 17| Jesus addresses him as "Simon Bar-Jonah," his full patronymic (Aramaic) name. But Jesus has a purpose now in using his nickname "Peter" which he had himself given him. Jesus makes a remarkable play on Peter's name, a pun in fact, that has caused volumes of controversy and endless theological strife. {On this rock} (\epi tautˆi tˆi petrƒi\) Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in strkjv@7:24| on which the wise man built his house. \Petros\ is usually a smaller detachment of the massive ledge. But too much must not be made of this point since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to Peter which draws no such distinction (\Kˆphƒ\). What did Jesus mean by this word-play?

rwp@Revelation:8:2 @{Stand} (\hestˆkasin\). Perfect active of \histˆmi\ (intransitive). Another "hebdomad" so frequent in the Apocalypse. The article (the seven angels) seems to point to seven well-known angels. In Enoch strkjv@20:7 the names of seven archangels are given (Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, Remiel) and "angels of the Presence" is an idea like that in strkjv@Isaiah:63:9|. We do not know precisely what is John's idea here. {Seven trumpets} (\hepta salpigges\). We see trumpets assigned to angels in strkjv@Matthew:24:31; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:52; strkjv@Revelation:4:1,4|. See also the use of trumpets in strkjv@Joshua:6:13; strkjv@Joel:2:1|. These seven trumpets are soon to break the half hour of silence. Thus the seven trumpets grow out of the opening of the seventh seal, however that fact is to be interpreted.

rwp@Revelation:19:2 @{For} (\hoti\). Because. The reason for God's judgments is given in strkjv@15:3; strkjv@16:7|. The doom of Babylon seen in strkjv@14:7| is now realized. {For} (\hoti\). Second use of \hoti\, explaining the first. {He hath judged} (\ekrinen\). First aorist (prophetic and climacteric, effective) active indicative of \krin“\. {Which} (\hˆtis\). The very one which. {Did corrupt} (\ephtheiren\). This is the terrible fact. First aorist active indicative of \phtheir“\. Cf. strkjv@11:18; strkjv@14:8; strkjv@17:2; strkjv@18:3|. {And he hath avenged} (\kai exedikˆsen\). God has exacted vengeance for the blood of his servants from (\ek\) her. Prophetic aorist again of \ekdike“\ with accusative and \ek\ with ablative as in strkjv@6:10|.

rwp@Revelation:19:15 @{A sharp sword} (\romphaia oxeia\). As in strkjv@1:16; strkjv@2:12,15|. {That he should smite} (\hina pataxˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \patass“\, old verb already in strkjv@11:6| and like strkjv@Isaiah:11:4|, a figure here for forensic and judicial condemnation. {And he shall rule them} (\kai autos poimanei\). Emphatic use of \autos\ twice (he himself). Future active of \poimain“\, to shepherd as in strkjv@2:27; strkjv@12:5| "with a rod of iron" (\en rabd“i sidˆrƒi\) as there. See strkjv@1Peter:2:25; strkjv@Hebrews:13:20| for Christ as Shepherd. {And he treadeth} (\kai autos patei\). Change to present tense of \pate“\, to tread (here transitive), with solemn repetition of \kai autos\. {The winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God} (\tˆn lˆnon tou oinou tou thumou tˆs orgˆs tou theou tou pantokratoros\). Literally, "the winepress of the wine of the wrath of the anger of God the Almighty" (four genitives dependent on one another and on \lˆnon\). These images are here combined from strkjv@14:8,10,19f.; strkjv@16:19|. The fact is already in strkjv@19:13| after strkjv@Isaiah:63:1ff|.

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

rwp@Revelation:21:3 @{The tabernacle of God is with men} (\hˆ skˆnˆ tou theou meta t“n anthr“p“n\). It is one of the angels of the Presence (16:17; strkjv@19:5|) speaking. {And he shall dwell with them} (\kai skˆn“sei met' aut“n\). Future active of \skˆno“\, already in strkjv@7:15| from strkjv@Ezekiel:37:27; strkjv@Zechariah:2:10; strkjv@8:8| and used of the Incarnate Christ on earth by John (John:1:14|), now a blessed reality of the Father. The metaphor stands for the Shekinah Glory of God in the old tabernacle (7:15; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@15:5|), the true tabernacle of which it was a picture (Hebrews:8:2; strkjv@9:11|). God is now Immanuel in fact, as was true of Christ (Matthew:1:23|).

rwp@Revelation:21:14 @{Had} (\ech“n\). Masculine present active participle of \ech“\ instead of \echon\ (neuter like to \teichos\), and the participle occurs independently as if a principal verb (\eichen\) as often in this book. {Twelve foundations} (\themelious d“deka\). Foundation stones, old adjective (from \thema\, from \tithˆmi\), here as in strkjv@1Corinthians:3:11ff.; strkjv@2Timothy:2:19|, with \lithous\ (stones understood), though often neuter substantive to \themelion\ (Luke:6:48f.; strkjv@Acts:16:26|). See strkjv@Isaiah:28:16; strkjv@Hebrews:11:10|. Twelve because of the twelve apostles as foundation stones (Ephesians:2:20|). {On them} (\ep' aut“n\). On the twelve foundation stones. {Names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb} (\onomata t“n d“deka apostol“n tou arniou\). Jesus had spoken of twelve thrones for the apostles (Matthew:19:28|); names of all twelve are here written, not just that of Peter, as some would argue from strkjv@Matthew:16:18|. As a matter of fact, Christ is the corner stone or \akrog“niaion\ (1Peter:2:6; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:10; strkjv@Ephesians:2:20|), though rejected by the Sanhedrin (Matthew:21:42ff.|). One may wonder if the name of Judas is on that stone or that of Matthias.

rwp@Revelation:21:18 @{The building of the wall} (\hˆ end“mˆsis tou teichous\). Or \endomˆsis\, elsewhere so far only in Josephus (_Ant_. XV. 9. 6, a mole or breakwater) and in an inscription (_Syll_. 583 31), apparently from \endome“\, to build in, and so the fact of building in. The wall had jasper (verse 11|) built into it. {Was pure gold} (\chrusion katharon\). No copula \ˆn\ (was) expressed. The city shone like a mass of gold in contrast with the jasper lustre of the wall. {Pure glass} (\hual“i kathar“i\). Associative instrumental case after \homoion\. \Hualos\ (apparently from \huei\, it rains, and so raindrop) in N.T. only strkjv@Revelation:21:18,21|.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ EMPEROR WORSHIP AS THE OCCASION FOR JOHN'S APOCALYPSE There is no doubt at all that the emperor cult (emperor worship) played a main part in the persecution of the Christians that was the occasion for this great Christian apocalypse. The book itself bears ample witness to this fact, if the two beasts refer to the Roman power as the agent of Satan. It is not possible to single out each individual emperor in the graphic picture. Most would take the dragon to be Satan and the first and the second beasts to be the imperial and provincial Roman power. The Roman emperors posed as gods and did the work of Satan. In particular there were two persecuting emperors (Nero and Domitian) who were responsible for many martyrs for Christ. But emperor worship began before Nero. Julius Caesar was worshipped in the provinces. Octavius was called Augustus (\Sebastos\, Reverend). The crazy Emperor Caius Caligula not simply claimed to be divine, but actually demanded that his statue be set up for worship in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was killed in January A.D. 41 before he could execute his dire purpose. But the madcap Nero likewise demanded worship and blamed in A.D. 64 the burning of Rome on the Christians, though guilty of it himself. He set the style for persecuting Christians, which slumbered on and burst into flames again under Domitian, who had himself commonly termed _Dominus ac Deus noster_ (Our Lord and God). The worship of the emperor did not disturb the worshippers of other gods save the Jews and the Christians, and in particular the Christians were persecuted after the burning of Rome when they were distinguished from the Jews. Up till then Christians were regarded (as by Gallio in Corinth) as a variety of Jews and so entitled to tolerance as a _religio licita_, but they had no standing in law by themselves and their refusal to worship the emperor early gave offence, as Paul indicates in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|. It was \Kurios Iˆsous\ or \Kurios Kaisar\. On this very issue Polycarp lost his life. The emperors as a rule were tolerant about it, save Nero and Domitian, who was called Nero _redivivus_, or Nero back again. Trajan in his famous letter to Pliny advised tolerance except in stubborn cases, when the Christians had to be put to death. After Nero it was a crime to be a Christian and all sorts of slanders about them were circulated. We have seen already in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3ff.|, the man of sin who sets himself above God as the object of worship. We have seen also in strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7| the term antichrist applied apparently to Gnostic heretics. One may wonder if, as Beckwith argues, in the Apocalypse the man of sin and the antichrist are united in the beast.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE VISIONS No theory of authorship, sources, or date should ignore the fact that the author claims to have had a series of visions in Patmos. It does not follow that he wrote them down at once and without reflection, but it seems hardly congruous to think that he waited till he had returned from exile in Patmos to Ephesus before writing them out. In fact, there is a note of sustained excitement all through the book, combined with high literary skill in the structure of the book in spite of the numerous grammatical lapses. The series of sevens bear a relation to one another, but more in the fashion of a kaleidoscope than of a chronological panorama. And yet there is progress and power in the arrangement and the total effect. There is constant use of Old Testament language and imagery, almost a mosaic, but without a single formal quotation. There is constant repetition of words and phrases in true Johannine style. Each of the messages to the seven churches picks out a metaphor in the first picture of Christ in chapter I and there are frequent other allusions to the language in this picture. In fact there is genuine artistic skill in the structure of the book, in spite of the deflections from ordinary linguistic standards. In the visions and all through the book there is constant use of symbols, as is the fashion in apocalypses like the beasts, the scorpions, the horses, etc. These symbols probably were understood by the first readers of the book, though the key to them is lost to us. Even the numbers in the book (3 1/2, 7, 3, 4, 12, 24, 1000) cannot be pressed, though some do so. Even Harnack called the Apocalypse the plainest book in the New Testament, by using Harnack's key for the symbols.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION They are literally many. There are those who make the book a chart of Christian and even of human history even to the end. These divide into two groups, the continuous and the synchronous. The continuous historical theory takes each vision and symbol in succession as an unfolding panorama. Under the influence of this theory there have been all sorts of fantastic identifications of men and events. The synchronous theory takes the series of sevens (seals, trumpets, bowls) as parallel with each other, each time going up to the end. But in neither case can any satisfactory program be arranged. Another historical interpretation takes it all as over and done, the preterist theory. This theory again breaks into two, one finding the fulfilment all in the Neronic period, the other in the Domitianic era. Something can be said for each view, but neither satisfies the whole picture by any means. Roman Catholic scholars have been fond of the preterist view to escape the Protestant interpretation of the second beast in chapter strkjv@Revelation:13| as papal Rome. There is still another interpretation, the futurist, which keeps the fulfilment all in the future and which can be neither proved nor disproved. There is also the purely spiritual theory which finds no historical allusion anywhere. This again can be neither proved nor disproved. One of the lines of cleavage is the millennium in chapter strkjv@Revelation:20|. Those who take the thousand years literally are either pre-millennialists who look for the second coming of Christ to be followed by a thousand years of personal reign here on earth or the postmillennialists who place the thousand years before the second coming. There are others who turn to strkjv@2Peter:3:8| and wonder if, after all, in a book of symbols this thousand years has any numerical value at all. There seems abundant evidence to believe that this apocalypse, written during the stress and storm of Domitian's persecution, was intended to cheer the persecuted Christians with a view of certain victory at last, but with no scheme of history in view.

rwp@Romans:2:4 @{Or despiseth thou?} (\ˆ kataphroneis?\). Another alternative, that of scorn of God's kindness (\chrˆstotˆtos\, strkjv@2Corinthians:6:6|) and forbearance (\anochˆs\, old word, holding back from \anech“\, only here in N.T.) and longsuffering (\makrothumias\, late word for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:6:4,6|). \Kataphrone“\ is old verb to think down on (\kata, phrone“\) as in strkjv@Matthew:6:24; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:22|. This upstart Jew actually thinks down on God. And then "the riches" (\tou ploutou\) of all that comes from God. {Leadeth thee to repentance} (\eis metanoian se agei\). The very kindness (\to chrˆston\, the kindly quality) of God is trying to lead (conative present \agei\) thee to a right-about face, a change of mind and attitude (\metanoian\) instead of a complacent self-satisfaction and pride of race and privilege.

rwp@Romans:2:6 @{Who will render} (\hos apod“sei\). Paul quotes strkjv@Proverbs:24:12| as in strkjv@2Timothy:4:14|. See also strkjv@Matthew:16:27; strkjv@Revelation:22:12|. The rendering will be in accord with the facts.

rwp@Romans:2:8 @{But unto them that are factious and obey not the truth but obey unrighteousness} (\tois de ex eritheias kai apeithousin tˆi alˆtheiƒi peithomenois de adikiƒi\). The other side with \de\ and the articular present participles in the dative again, only with \ex eritheias\, there is no participle \ousin\. But the construction changes and the substantives that follow are not the object of \apod“sei\ like \z“ˆn ain“nion\ above, but are in the nominative as if with \esontai\ (shall be) understood (anger and wrath, both \orgˆ\ and \thumos\, tribulation and anguish, again a pair \thlipsis kai stenoch“ria\ on which see strkjv@2Corinthians:5:4; strkjv@12:10|).

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

rwp@Romans:4:24 @{Him that raised up Jesus} (\ton egeiranta Iˆsoun\). First aorist active articular participle of \egeir“\, to raise up. The fact of the Resurrection of Jesus is central in Paul's gospel (1Corinthians:15:4ff.|).

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:7:3 @{While the husband liveth} (\z“ntos tou andros\). Genitive absolute of present active participle of \za“\. {She shall be called} (\chrˆmatisei\). Future active indicative of \chrˆmatiz“\, old verb, to receive a name as in strkjv@Acts:11:26|, from \chrˆma\, business, from \chraomai\, to use, then to give an oracle, etc. {An adulteress} (\moichalis\). Late word, in Plutarch, LXX. See on ¯Matthew:12:39|. {If she be joined} (\ean genˆtai\). Third class condition, "if she come to." {Songs:that she is no adulteress} (\tou mˆ einai autˆn moichalida\). It is a fact that \tou\ and the infinitive is used for result as we saw in strkjv@1:24|. Conceived result may explain the idiom here.

rwp@Romans:8:9 @{Not in the flesh} (\ouk en sarki\). Not sold under sin (7:14|) any more. {But in the spirit} (\alla en pneumati\). Probably, "in the Holy Spirit." It is not Pantheism or Buddhism that Paul here teaches, but the mystical union of the believer with Christ in the Holy Spirit. {If so be that} (\eiper\). "If as is the fact" (cf. strkjv@3:30|). {The Spirit of Christ} (\pneuma Christou\). The same as "the Spirit of God" just before. See also strkjv@Phillipians:1:19; strkjv@1Peter:1:11|. Incidental argument for the Deity of Christ and probably the meaning of strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18| "the Spirit of the Lord." Condition of first class, assumed as true.

rwp@Romans:8:39 @{To separate us} (\hˆmƒs ch“risai\). Aorist active infinitive of \choriz“\ (same verb as in 35|). God's love is victor over all possible foes, "God's love that is in Christ Jesus." Paul has reached the mountain top. He has really completed his great argument concerning the God-kind of righteousness save for its bearing on some special problems. The first of these concerns the fact that the Jews (God's chosen people) have so largely rejected the gospel (chapters 9-11|).

rwp@Romans:9:24 @{But also from the Gentiles} (\alla kai ex ethn“n\). Paul had already alluded to this fact in strkjv@9:6f.| (cf. strkjv@Galatians:3:7-9|). Now he proceeds to prove it from the Old Testament.

rwp@Romans:10:1 @{Desire} (\eudokia\). No papyri examples of this word, though \eudokˆsis\ occurs, only in LXX and N.T., but no example for "desire" unless this is one, though the verb \eudoke“\ is common in Polybius, Diodorus, Dion, Hal. It means will, pleasure, satisfaction (Matthew:11:26; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:11; strkjv@Phillipians:1:15; strkjv@2:13; strkjv@Ephesians:1:5,9|). {Supplication} (\deˆsis\). Late word from \deomai\, to want, to beg, to pray. In the papyri. See strkjv@Luke:1:13|. It is noteworthy that, immediately after the discussion of the rejection of Christ by the Jews, Paul prays so earnestly for the Jews "that they may be saved" (\eis s“tˆrian\), literally "unto salvation." Clearly Paul did not feel that the case was hopeless for them in spite of their conduct. Bengel says: _Non orasset Paul si absolute reprobati essent_ (Paul would not have prayed if they had been absolutely reprobate). Paul leaves God's problem to him and pours out his prayer for the Jews in accordance with his strong words in strkjv@9:1-5|.

rwp@Romans:10:6 @{Saith thus} (\hout“s legei\). Paul personifies "the from faith righteousness" (\hˆ ek piste“s dikaiosunˆ\). A free reproduction from strkjv@Deuteronomy:30:11-14|. Paul takes various phrases from the LXX and uses them for "his inspired conviction and experiences of the gospel" (Denney). He does not quote Moses as saying this or meaning this. {Say not in thy heart} (\mˆ eipˆis en tˆi kardiƒi sou\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \mˆ\ like strkjv@Deuteronomy:8:17|. To say in the heart is to think (Matthew:3:9|). {That is, to bring Christ down} (\tout' estin Christon katagagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of the common verb \katag“\, to bring or lead down. It is dependent on the preceding verb \anabˆsetai\ (shall ascend). \Tout' estin\ (that is) is what is called _Midrash_ or interpretation as in strkjv@9:8|. It occurs three times here (verses 6-8|). Paul applies the words of Moses to Christ. There is no need for one to go to heaven to bring Christ down to earth. The Incarnation is already a glorious fact. Today some men scout the idea of the Deity and Incarnation of Christ.

rwp@Romans:10:8 @{But what saith it?} (\alla ti legei?\). That is "the from faith righteousness." {The word of faith} (\to rˆma tˆs piste“s\). The gospel message concerning faith (objective genitive). Only here. In contrast to the law. {Which we preach} (\ho kˆrussomen\). The living voice brings home to every one the faith kind of righteousness. Paul seizes upon the words of Moses with the orator's instinct and with rhetorical skill (Sanday and Headlam) applies them to the facts about the gospel message about the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ.

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]
Mon Jun 3 03:21:26 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020