Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-LAW.filter - rwp Abraham:


rwp@1John:3:10 @{In this} (\en tout“i\). As already shown. A life of sin is proof that one is a child of the devil and not of God. This is the line of cleavage that is obvious to all. See strkjv@John:8:33-39| for the claim of the Pharisees to be the children of Abraham, whereas their conduct showed them to be children of the devil. This is not a popular note with an age that wishes to remove all distinctions between Christians and the world. {Doeth not righteousness} (\ho mˆ poi“n dikaiosunˆn\). Habit (linear present participle) again of not doing righteousness, as in verse 7| of doing it. Cf. \poiei\ and \mˆ poi“n\ (doing and not doing) in strkjv@Matthew:7:24,26|. {Neither} (\kai\). Literally, "and," but with the ellipsis of \ouk estin ek tou theou\ (is not of God). The addition here of this one item about not loving (\mˆ agap“n\) one's brother is like Paul's summary in strkjv@Romans:13:9|, a striking illustration of the general principle just laid down and in accord with strkjv@2:9-11|.

rwp@1Peter:3:6 @{As Sarah} (\h“s Sarra\). {Obeyed Abraham} (\hupˆkouen t“i Abraam\). Imperfect active of \hupakou“\, "used to obey" (with dative). {Calling him lord} (\kurion auton kalousa\). Present active participle of \kale“\. See Gen strkjv@18:12|. {Whose children ye now are} (\hˆs egenˆthˆte tekna\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\, "whose children ye became." {If ye do well} (\agathopoiousai\). Present active feminine plural participle of \agathopoie“\ (2:15|), "doing good." {And are not put in fear by any terror} (\kai mˆ phoboumenai mˆdemian ptoˆsin\). Free quotation from strkjv@Proverbs:3:25|, "and not fearing any terror" (cognate accusative of \ptoˆsis\, after \phoboumenai\, present middle participle, late and rare word from \ptoe“\, to terrify, as in strkjv@Luke:21:9|, here only in N.T.). Perhaps Peter regards Sarah's falsehood as the yielding to a sudden terror (Hart). Hannah could also be named along with Sarah. The women somehow do not organize "daughters of Sarah" societies.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:16 @{Forbidding us} (\k“luont“n hˆmƒs\). Explanatory participle of the idea in \enanti“n\. They show their hostility to Paul at every turn. Right here in Corinth, where Paul is when he writes, they had already shown venomous hostility toward Paul as Luke makes plain (Acts:18:6ff.|). They not simply oppose his work among the Jews, but also to the Gentiles (\ethnesi\, nations outside of the Abrahamic covenant as they understood it). {That they may be saved} (\hina s“th“sin\). Final use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \s“z“\ old verb to save. It was the only hope of the Gentiles, Christ alone and not the mystery-religions offered any real hope. {To fill up their sins alway} (\eis to anaplˆr“sai aut“n tas hamartias pantote\). Another example of \eis to\ and the infinitive as in verse 12|. It may either be God's conceived plan to allow the Jews to go on and fill up (\anaplˆr“sai\, note \ana\, fill up full, old verb) or it may be the natural result from the continual (\pantote\) sins of the Jews. {Is come} (\ephthasen\). First aorist (timeless aorist) active indicative of \phthan“\ which no longer means to come before as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:15| where alone in the N.T. it retains the old idea of coming before. Some MSS. have the perfect active \ephthaken\, prophetic perfect of realization already. Frame translates it: "But the wrath has come upon them at last." This is the most likely meaning of \eis telos\. Paul vividly foresees and foretells the final outcome of this attitude of hate on the part of the Jews. _Tristis exitus_, Bengel calls it. Paul speaks out of a sad experience.

rwp@1Timothy:6:11 @{O man of God} (\“ anthr“pe theou\). In N.T. only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:17|, there general and here personal appeal to Timothy. Cf. strkjv@Deuteronomy:33:1; strkjv@1Samuel:2:27|. {Flee} (\pheuge\), {follow after} (\di“ke\). Vivid verbs in present active imperative. The preacher can not afford to parley with such temptations. {Meekness} (\praupathian\). Late compound from \praupathˆs\, in Philo about Abraham, here only in N.T.

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

rwp@Acts:7:3 @{Which I shall shew thee} (\hˆn an soi deix“\). Indefinite relative clause with \an\ and the aorist active subjunctive (same form in first person singular as the future active indicative). Abraham followed on as God led him.

rwp@Acts:7:4 @{When his father was dead} (\meta to apothanein auton\). \Meta\ with the accusative of the articular infinitive and the accusative of general reference (\auton\), regular Greek idiom. In strkjv@Genesis:11:32| it is stated that Terah died at Haran at the age of 205. There are various explanations of the discrepancy, but no one that seems certain. It is possible (Hackett, Felten) that Abraham is mentioned first in strkjv@Genesis:11:26| because he became the most prominent and was really younger than Haran his brother who died before the first migration who was really sixty years older than Abraham. According to this view Terah was 130 years old at the birth of Abraham, leaving Abraham 75 at the death of Terah (205). {Wherein ye now dwell} (\eis hˆn humeis nun katoikeite\). Note \eis\ in the sense of \en\ as often. Note also emphatic use of \humeis\ (ye) and now (\nun\).

rwp@Acts:7:5 @{Not so much as to set his foot on} (\oude bˆma podos\). From strkjv@Deuteronomy:2:5|. Old word from \bain“\, to go, to step. "Stepping of a foot," only instance of this original meaning in the N.T. From this it comes to mean a platform reached by steps, official seat of a judge (Matthew:27:19|). The field purchased by Abraham (Genesis:23:9-17|) was not a gift from God. {Promised} (\epˆggeilato\). First aorist middle indicative of \epaggell“\, common verb. See strkjv@Genesis:12:7; strkjv@17:8; strkjv@48:4| for this promise. Songs:God appeared again to Abraham in a strange land. {In possession} (\eis kataschesin\). Late word, in LXX, and in N.T. only here and verse 45|. From \katech“\, to hold back, then to hold fast (or down), to possess. It was fulfilled in the descendants of Abraham. {When as yet he had no child} (\ouk ontos aut“i teknou\). Genitive absolute with negative \ouk\ rather than \mˆ\ to emphasize actual absence of a child. He had only the promise of God about the land and the child.

rwp@Acts:7:16 @{They were carried over unto Shechem} (\metetethˆsan eis Suchem\). First aorist passive of \metatithˆmi\, only here in the N.T. in this sense of changing places. Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis:50:13|). The O.T. does not say where the sons of Jacob were buried save that Joseph was buried in Shechem (Joshua:24:32|). Possibly only "our fathers" without Jacob is the subject of "were carried." {Which Abraham bought} (\h“i “nˆsato Abraam\). Hackett is sure that our present text is wrong. Hort notes some sixty "primitive errors" in the critical text of the N.T. It is possible that this is also one. If "Jacob" is substituted for "Abraham," the matter is cleared up. "It is quite as likely, judging _a priori_, that the word producing the error escaped from some early copyist as that so glaring an error was committed by Stephen" (Hackett). At any rate Abraham bought a burying-place, the cave of Machpelah, from Ephron the Hittite at Hebron (Genesis:23:16|), while Jacob bought a field from the sons of Hamor at Shechem (Genesis:33:19; strkjv@Joshua:24:32|). Abraham had built an altar at Shechem when he entered Canaan (Genesis:12:6f.|). It is possible, of course, that Abraham also bought the ground on which the altar stood. {In Shechem} (\en Suchem\). This is the reading of Aleph B C instead of the Textus Receptus \tou Suchem\ which makes it "Hamar the father of Sichem." "In Shechem" is the true reading.

rwp@Acts:26:6 @{And now} (\kai nun\). Sharp comparison between his youth and the present. {To be judged for the hope} (\ep' elpidi--krinomenos\). The hope of the resurrection and of the promised Messiah (13:32|). Page calls verses 6-8| a parenthesis in the course of Paul's argument by which he shows that his life in Christ is a real development of the best in Pharisaism. He does resume his narrative in verse 9|, but verses 6-8| are the core of his defence already presented in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11| where he proves that the children of faith are the real seed of Abraham.

rwp@Colossians:2:12 @{Having been buried with him in baptism} (\suntaphentes aut“i en t“i baptismati\). Second aorist passive participle of \sunthapt“\, old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:6:4|, followed by associative instrumental case (\aut“i\). Thayer's Lexicon says: "For all who in the rite of baptism are plunged under the water, thereby declare that they put faith in the expiatory death of Christ for the pardon of their past sins." Yes, and for all future sins also. This word gives Paul's vivid picture of baptism as a symbolic burial with Christ and resurrection also to newness of life in him as Paul shows by the addition "wherein ye were also raised with him" (\en h“i kai sunˆgerthˆte\). "In which baptism" (\baptismati\, he means). First aorist passive indicative of \sunegeir“\, late and rare verb (Plutarch for waking up together), in LXX, in N.T. only in strkjv@Colossians:2:12; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@Ephesians:2:6|. In the symbol of baptism the resurrection to new life in Christ is pictured with an allusion to Christ's own resurrection and to our final resurrection. Paul does not mean to say that the new life in Christ is caused or created by the act of baptism. That is grossly to misunderstand him. The Gnostics and the Judaizers were sacramentalists, but not so Paul the champion of spiritual Christianity. He has just given the spiritual interpretation to circumcision which itself followed Abraham's faith (Romans:4:10-12|). Cf. strkjv@Galatians:3:27|. Baptism gives a picture of the change already wrought in the heart "through faith" (\dia tˆs piste“s\). {In the working of God} (\tˆs energeias tou theou\). Objective genitive after \piste“s\. See strkjv@1:29| for \energeia\. God had power to raise Christ from the dead (\tou egeirantos\, first aorist active participle of \egeir“\, the fact here stated) and he has power (energy) to give us new life in Christ by faith.

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

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

rwp@Galatians:3:7 @{The same are sons of Abraham} (\houtoi huioi eisin Abraham\). "These are." This is Paul's astounding doctrine to Jews that the real sons of Abraham are those who believe as he did, "they which be of faith" (\hoi ek piste“s\), a common idiom with Paul for this idea (verse 9; strkjv@Romans:3:26; strkjv@4:16; strkjv@14:23|), those whose spiritual sonship springs out of (\ek\) faith, not out of blood. John the Baptist denounced the Pharisees and Sadducees as vipers though descendants of Abraham (Matthew:3:7; strkjv@Luke:3:7|) and Jesus termed the Pharisees children of the devil and not spiritual children of Abraham (not children of God) in strkjv@John:8:37-44|.

rwp@Galatians:3:8 @{Foreseeing} (\proidousa\). Second aorist active participle of \proora“\. The Scripture is here personified. Alone in this sense of "sight," but common with \legei\ or \eipen\ (says, said) and really in verse 22| "hath shut up" (\sunekleisen\). {Would justify} (\dikaioi\). Present active indicative, "does justify." {Preached the gospel beforehand} (\proeuˆggelisato\). First aorist middle indicative of \proeuaggelizomai\ with augment on \a\ though both \pro\ and \eu\ before it in composition. Only instance in N.T. It occurs in Philo. and Schol. Soph. This Scripture announced beforehand the gospel on this point of justification by faith. He quotes the promise to Abraham in strkjv@Genesis:12:3; strkjv@18:18|, putting \panta ta ethnˆ\ (all the nations) in strkjv@18:18| for \pƒsai hai phulai\ (all the tribes) of the earth. It is a crucial passage for Paul's point, showing that the promise to Abraham included all the nations of the earth. The verb \eneuloge“\ (future passive here) occurs in the LXX and here only in N.T. (not strkjv@Acts:3:25| in correct text). {In thee} (\en soi\). "As their spiritual progenitor" (Lightfoot).

rwp@Galatians:3:16 @{But as of one} (\all' h“s eph' henos\). But as in the case of one. {Which is Christ} (\hos estin Christos\). Masculine relative agreeing with \Christos\ though \sperma\ is neuter. But the promise to Abraham uses \sperma\ as a collective substantive and applies to all believers (both Jews and Gentiles) as Paul has shown in verses 7-14|, and as of course he knew full well Here Paul uses a rabbinical refinement which is yet intelligible. The people of Israel were a type of the Messiah and he gathers up the promise in its special application to Christ. He does not say that Christ is specifically referred to in strkjv@Genesis:13:15| or strkjv@17:7f|.

rwp@Galatians:3:18 @{The inheritance} (\hˆ klˆronomia\). Old word from \klˆronomos\, heir (\kleros\, lot, \nemomai\, to distribute). See on ¯Matthew:21:38; strkjv@Acts:7:5|. This came to Israel by the promise to Abraham, not by the Mosaic law. Songs:with us, Paul argues. {Hath granted} (\kecharistai\). Perfect middle indicative of \charizomai\. It still holds good after the law came.

rwp@Galatians:3:19 @{What then is the law?} (\ti oun ho nomos?\). Or, why then the law? A pertinent question if the Abrahamic promise antedates it and holds on afterwards. {It was added because of transgressions} (\t“n parabase“n charin prosetethˆ\). First aorist passive of \prostithˆmi\, old verb to add to. It is only in apparent contradiction to verses 15ff.|, because in Paul's mind the law is no part of the covenant, but a thing apart "in no way modifying its provisions" (Burton). \Charin\ is the adverbial accusative of \charis\ which was used as a preposition with the genitive as early as Homer, in favour of, for the sake of. Except in strkjv@1John:3:12| it is post-positive in the N.T. as in ancient Greek. It may be causal (Luke:7:47; strkjv@1John:3:12|) or telic (Titus:1:5,11; strkjv@Jude:1:16|). It is probably also telic here, not in order to create transgressions, but rather "to make transgressions palpable" (Ellicott), "thereby pronouncing them to be from that time forward transgressions of the law" (Rendall). \Parabasis\, from \parabain“\, is in this sense a late word (Plutarch on), originally a slight deviation, then a wilful disregarding of known regulations or prohibitions as in strkjv@Romans:2:23|. {Till the seed should come} (\achris an elthˆi to sperma\). Future time with \achris an\ and aorist subjunctive (usual construction). Christ he means by \to sperma\ as in verse 16|. {The promise hath been made} (\epˆggeltai\). Probably impersonal perfect passive rather than middle of \epaggellomai\ as in II Macc. strkjv@4:27. {Ordained through angels} (\diatageis di' aggel“n\). Second aorist passive participle of \diatass“\ (see on ¯Matthew:11:1|). About angels and the giving of the law see on strkjv@Deuteronomy:33:2| (LXX); strkjv@Acts:7:38,52; strkjv@Hebrews:2:2|; Josephus (_Ant_. XV. 5. 3). {By the hand of a mediator} (\en cheiri mesitou\). \En cheiri\ is a manifest Aramaism or Hebraism and only here in the N.T. It is common in the LXX. \Mesitˆs\, from \mesos\ is middle or midst, is a late word (Polybius, Diodorus, Philo, Josephus) and common in the papyri in legal transactions for arbiter, surety, etc. Here of Moses, but also of Christ (1Timothy:2:5; strkjv@Hebrews:8:6; strkjv@9:15; strkjv@12:24|).

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

rwp@Galatians: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:3:29 @{If ye are Christ's} (\ei de humeis Christou\). This is the test, not the accident of blood, pride of race or nation, habiliments or environment of dress or family, whether man or woman. Thus one comes to belong to the seed of Abraham and to be an heir according to promise.

rwp@Galatians:4:25 @{This Hagar} (\to Hagar\). Neuter article and so referring to the word Hagar (not to the woman, \hˆ\ Hagar) as applied to the mountain. There is great variety in the MSS. here. The Arabians are descendants of Abraham and Hagar (her name meaning wanderer or fugitive). {Answereth to} (\suntoichei\). Late word in Polybius for keeping step in line (military term) and in papyri in figurative sense as here. Lightfoot refers to the Pythagorean parallels of opposing principles (\sunstoichiai\) as shown here by Paul (Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, the old covenant and the new covenant, the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem). That is true, and there is a correlative correspondence as the line is carried on.

rwp@Galatians:4:30 @{Cast out} (\ekbale\). Second aorist active imperative of \ekball“\. Quotation from strkjv@Genesis:21:10| (Sarah to Abraham) and confirmed in strkjv@21:12| by God's command to Abraham. Paul gives allegorical warning thus to the persecuting Jews and Judaizers. {Shall not inherit} (\ou mˆ klˆronomˆsei\). Strong negative (\ou mˆ\ and future indicative). "The law and the gospel cannot co-exist. The law must disappear before the gospel" (Lightfoot). See strkjv@3:18,29| for the word "inherit."

rwp@Galatians:4:31 @{But of the freewoman} (\alla tˆs eleutheras\). We are children of Abraham by faith (3:7|).

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

rwp@Hebrews:2:16 @{Verily} (\de pou\). "Now in some way," only here in N.T. {Doth he take hold} (\epilambanetai\). Present middle indicative and means to lay hold of, to help, like \boˆthˆsai\ in verse 18|. {The seed of Abraham} (\spermatos Abraham\). The spiritual Israel (Galatians:3:29|), children of faith (Romans:9:7|).

rwp@Hebrews:6:14 @{Surely} (\ei mˆn\). By itacism for \ˆ mˆn\ (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 205). The quotation is from strkjv@Genesis:22:16f|. (the promise renewed to Abraham with an oath after offering of Isaac). {Blessing} (\eulog“n\). Hebraism (present active participle) for the Hebrew infinitive absolute and so with \plˆthun“n\ (multiplying).

rwp@Hebrews:6:15 @{Having patiently endured} (\makrothumˆsas\). First aorist active participle of \makrothumos\ (\makros, thumos\, long spirit) illustrating \makrothumia\ of verse 12|. {He obtained} (\epetuchen\). Second aorist (effective) active indicative of \epetugchan“\, old verb with genitive. God was true to his word and Abraham was faithful.

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:7:2 @{A tenth} (\dekatˆn\). It was common to offer a tenth of the spoils to the gods. Songs:Abraham recognized Melchizedek as a priest of God. {Divided} (\emerisen\). First aorist active of \meriz“\, from \meros\ (portion), to separate into parts. From this point till near the end of verse 3| (the Son of God) is a long parenthesis with \houtos\ of verse 1| as the subject of \menei\ (abideth) as the Revised Version punctuates it. Philo had made popular the kind of exegesis used here. The author gives in Greek the meaning of the Hebrew words Melchizedek (King of righteousness, cf. strkjv@1:8|) and Salem (peace).

rwp@Hebrews:7:4 @{How great} (\pˆlikos\). Geometrical magnitude in contrast to arithmetical (\posos\), here only in N.T., "how distinguished." He received tithes from Abraham (verses 4-6a|) and he blessed Abraham (6b-7|) and even Levi is included (verses 8-10|). {Out of the chief spoils} (\ek t“n akrothini“n\). Old word from \akros\, top, and \this\, a heap (the top of the pile). {Patriarch} (\patriarchˆs\). LXX word (\patria\, tribe, \arch“\, to rule) transferred to N.T. (Acts:2:29|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:6 @{He whose genealogy is not counted} (\ho mˆ genealogoumenos\). Articular participle with negative \mˆ\ (usual with participles) of the old verb \genealoge“\ trace ancestry (cf. verse 3|) {Hath taken tithes} (\dedekat“ken\). Perfect active indicative of \dekato“\, standing on record in Genesis. {Hath blessed} (\eulogˆken\). Perfect active indicative of \euloge“\, likewise standing on record. Note the frequent perfect tenses in Hebrews. {Him that hath the promises} (\ton echonta tas epaggelias\). Cf. strkjv@6:12,13-15| for allusion to the repeated promises to Abraham (Genesis:12:3,7; strkjv@13:14; strkjv@15:5; strkjv@17:5; strkjv@22:16-18|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:10 @{In the loins of his father} (\en tˆi osphui tou patros\). Levi was not yet born. The reference is to Abraham, the forefather (\patros\) of Levi. This is a rabbinical imaginative refinement appealing to Jews.

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

rwp@Hebrews:11:8 @{Not knowing whither he went} (\mˆ epistamenos pou erchetai\). Usual negative \mˆ\ with a participle (present middle from \epistamai\, old and common verb to put the mind on). Present middle indicative (\erchetai\) preserved in the indirect question after the secondary tense \exˆlthen\ (went out) from which \epistamenos\ gets its time. Abraham is a sublime and graphic example of faith. He did not even know where the land was that he was going to receive "as an inheritance" (\eis klˆronomian\).

rwp@Hebrews:11:9 @{Became a sojourner} (\par“ikˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \paroike“\, old verb to dwell (\oike“\) beside (\para\), common in LXX, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:24:18|. Called \paroikon\ (sojourner) in strkjv@Acts:7:6|. {In the land of promise} (\eis gˆn tˆs epaggelias\). Literally, "land of the promise." The promise made by God to him (Genesis:12:7; strkjv@13:15; strkjv@17:8|). {As in a land not his own} (\h“s allotrian\). For \allotrios\ (belonging to another) see strkjv@9:25; strkjv@11:34|. {The heirs with him of the same promise} (\t“n sunklˆromen“n tˆs epaggelias tˆs autˆs\). Late double compound (\sun, klˆros, nemomai\), found in Philo, inscriptions and papyri, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Romans:8:17; strkjv@Ephesians:3:6; strkjv@1Peter:3:7|. "Co-heirs" with Abraham.

rwp@Hebrews:11:13 @{In faith} (\kata pistin\). Here a break in the routine \pistei\ (by faith), "according to faith," either for literary variety "or to suggest \pistis\ as the sphere and standard of their characters" (Moffatt). {These all} (\houtoi pantes\). Those in verses 9-12| (Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob). {Not having the promises} (\mˆ komisamenoi tas epaggelias\). First aorist middle participle of \komiz“\, to obtain, as in strkjv@10:36; strkjv@11:39|. And yet the author mentions Abraham (6:15|) as having obtained the promise. He received the promise of the Messiah, but did not live to see the Messiah come as we have done. It is in this sense that we have "better promises." {Greeted them} (\aspasamenoi\). First aorist middle participle of \aspazomai\, to salute (Matthew:5:47|). Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day in the dim distance (John:8:56|). {Strangers} (\zenoi\). Foreigners. "To reside abroad carried with it a certain stigma" (Moffatt). But they "confessed" it (Genesis:23:4; strkjv@47:9|). {Pilgrims} (\parepidˆmoi\). Late double compound (\para, epi, dˆmos\), a sojourner from another land, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:1:1; strkjv@2:11|.

rwp@Hebrews:11:17 @{Being tried} (\peirazomenos\). Present passive participle of \peiraz“\. The test was still going on. {Offered up} (\prosenˆnochen\). Perfect active indicative of \prospher“\, the verb so often used in this Epistle. The act was already consummated so far as Abraham was concerned when it was interrupted and it stands on record about him. See strkjv@Genesis:22:1-18|. {He that had gladly received the promises} (\ho tas epaggelias anadexamenos\). \Anadechomai\ is old verb to welcome, to entertain, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:28:7|. It seemed the death of his hopes. {Was offering up} (\prosepheren\). It is the imperfect of an interrupted action like \ekaloun\ in strkjv@Luke:1:59|.

rwp@Hebrews:11:18 @{To whom it was said} (\pros elalˆthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \lale“\ (Genesis:21:12|). God's very words were in the heart of Abraham now about Isaac "his only son" (\ton monogenˆ\. Cf. strkjv@Luke:7:12|).

rwp@Hebrews:11:19 @{Accounting} (\logisamenos\). First aorist middle participle of \logizomai\. Abraham had God's clear command that contravened God's previous promise. This was his solution of his difficult situation. {God is able} (\dunatai ho theos\). God had given him Isaac in his old age. God can raise him from the dead. It was Abraham's duty to obey God. {In a parable} (\en parabolˆi\). See already strkjv@9:9| for \parabolˆ\. Because of (\hothen\, whence) Abraham's superb faith Isaac was spared and so he received him back (\ekomisato\) as almost from the dead. This is the test that Abraham stood of which James speaks (James:2:23|).

rwp@Hebrews:13:1 @{Brotherly love} (\philadelphia\). Late word from \philadelphos\ (1Peter:3:8|). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:9|. It is always in order in a church. {To show love unto strangers} (\tˆs philoxenias\). Old word for hospitality, from \philoxenos\ (1Timothy:3:2|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:12:3|. In genitive case with \epilanthanesthe\ (present middle imperative, cf. strkjv@Hebrews:6:10|). {Have entertained angels unawares} (\elathon xenisantes aggelous\). Second aorist active indicative of \lanthan“\, old verb to escape notice and first aorist active participle of \xeniz“\, old verb to entertain a guest (\xenos\, stranger), according to a classic idiom seen with \lanthan“, tugchan“, phthan“\, by which the chief idea is expressed by the participle (supplementary participle), here meaning, "some escaped notice when entertaining angels." The reference is to strkjv@Genesis:18; 19| (Abraham and Sarah did this very thing).

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

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

rwp@James:2:24 @{Ye see} (\horƒte\). Present indicative active of \hora“\. Now he uses the plural again as in strkjv@2:14|. {Is justified} (\dikaioutai\). Present passive indicative of \dikaio“\, here not "is made righteous," but "is shown to be righteous." James is discussing the proof of faith, not the initial act of being set right with God (Paul's idea in strkjv@Romans:4:1-10|). {And not only by faith} (\kai ouk ek piste“s monon\). This phrase clears up the meaning of James. Faith (live faith) is what we must all have (2:18|), only it must shew itself also in deeds as Abraham's did.

rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1880). ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_ (1891). ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_ (1935).,_Johannine Grammar_ (1906). APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_ (1915). ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_ (1910). BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_ (1898). BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_ (1907). BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl. (1925). BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_ (1905). BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_ (1922). BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_ (1902). BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel_ (1928). BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_ (1904). CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_ (1927). CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_ (1925). CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_ (1912). D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_ (1908).,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_ (1911). DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1909). DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_ (1890).,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums (1890). DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1897). DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1904). EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_ (1888). EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_ (1890). FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_ (1904). GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_ (1915). GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922). GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_ (1910).,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1924). GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_ (1920). GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_ (1910). GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_ (1902). GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_. (1911). HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_ (1917). HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_ (1917). HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc. (1913). HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_ (1919).,_The Fourth Gospel_ (1923). HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl. (1908). HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer (1908). HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_. (1885). HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_ (1931). IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_ (1906).,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_ (1909). KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_ (1905). LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_ (1914). LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_ (1910). LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_ (1908). LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1903). LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_ (1899). LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_ (1931). MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_ (1923). MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_ (1906). McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_ (1930). MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_ (1923). MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_ (1915). MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_ (1925). NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_ (1925). NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel (1927). ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1911). PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1913). REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1901). REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_ (1906). ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_ (1916). ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_ (1929). ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_ (1925). SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_ (1905). SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_ (1903). SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_ (1908). SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_ (1906). SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_ (1909). SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_ (1916). SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_ (1926). SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_ (1915). SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_ (1910). STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_ (1914). STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_ (1898). STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_ (1917).,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_ (1925). TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_ (1931). VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_ (1917). WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_ (1890). WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_ (1916). WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl. (1902).,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_ (1911). WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_ (1908). WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_ (1911).,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_ (1911). WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_ (1888). WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_ (1927). WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_ (1911). WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_ (1903). ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis (1908). 6 Aufl. (1921). strkjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archˆi\). \Archˆ\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in strkjv@Genesis:1:1|. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. {Was} (\ˆn\). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (\egeneto\, became) appears in verse 14| for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in strkjv@8:58| "before Abraham came (\genesthai\) I am" (\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is from \leg“\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used \spermatikos logos\ for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew _memra_ was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in strkjv@Proverbs:8:23|. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (_The Origin of the _Prologue to St. John_, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term \Logos\, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\ is applied to Christ only in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:13; strkjv@1John:1:1| "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in strkjv@John:17:5|. This term suits John's purpose better than \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (\sarx egeneto\, verse 14|) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \Pros\ with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In strkjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklˆton echomen pros ton patera\). See \pros“pon pros pros“pon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gn“ston tˆs pros allˆlous sunˆtheias\, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., _Vocabulary_) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, _Origin of Prologue_, p. 8) that the use of \pros\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin‚_, not old Attic. In strkjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos ˆn ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos ˆn ho logos\. That would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the predicate without it (\theos\) just as in strkjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in strkjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agapˆ estin\ can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 767f. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

rwp@John:1:25 @{Why then baptizest thou?} (\Ti oun baptizeis;\). In view of his repeated denials (three here mentioned). {If thou art not} (\ei su ouk ei\). Condition of first class. They did not interpret his claim to be "the voice" to be important enough to justify the ordinance of baptism. Abrahams (_Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels_) shows that proselyte baptism was probably practised before John's time, but its use by John was treating the Jews as if they were themselves Gentiles.

rwp@John:4:20 @{In this mountain} (\en t“i orei tout“i\). Jacob's Well is at the foot of Mount Gerizim toward which she pointed. Sanballat erected a temple on this mountain which was destroyed by John Hyrcanus B.C. 129. Abraham (Genesis:12:7|) and Jacob (Genesis:33:20|) set up altars at Shechem. On Gerizim were proclaimed the blessings recorded in strkjv@Deuteronomy:28|. The Samaritan Pentateuch records an altar set up on Gerizim that is on Ebal (over 200 feet higher than Gerizim) in the Hebrew (Deuteronomy:27:4|). The Samaritans held that Abraham offered up Isaac on Gerizim. The Samaritans kept up this worship on this mountain and a handful do it still. {And ye say} (\kai humeis legete\). Emphasis on \humeis\ (ye). Ye Jews. {Ought to worship} (\proskunein dei\). "Must worship," as of necessity (\dei\). The woman felt that by raising this theological wrangle she would turn the attention of Jesus away from herself and perhaps get some light on the famous controversy. \Proskune“\ in John is always worship, not just respect.

rwp@John:5:46 @{Ye would believe me} (\episteuete an emoi\). Conclusion of condition of second class (determined as unfulfilled) with imperfect indicative in both protasis and apodosis and \an\ in apodosis. This was a home-thrust, proving that they did not really believe Moses. {For he wrote of me} (\peri gar emou ekeinos egrapsen\). strkjv@Deuteronomy:18:18f.| is quoted by Peter (Acts:3:22|) as a prophecy of Christ and also by Stephen in strkjv@Acts:7:37|. See also strkjv@John:3:14| about the brazen serpent and strkjv@8:56| about Abraham foreseeing Christ's day. Jesus does here say that Moses wrote concerning him.

rwp@John:8:33 @{We be Abraham's seed} (\Sperma Abraam esmen\). "We are Abraham's seed," the proudest boast of the Jews, of Sarah the freewoman and not of Hagar the bondwoman (Galatians:4:22f.|). Yes, but the Jews came to rely solely on mere physical descent (Matthew:3:9|) and so God made Gentiles the spiritual children of Abraham by faith (Matthew:3:7; Rom. strkjv@9:6f.|). {And have never yet been in bondage to any man} (\kai oudeni dedouleukamen p“pote\). Perfect active indicative of \douleu“\, to be slaves. This was a palpable untruth uttered in the heat of controversy. At that very moment the Jews wore the Roman yoke as they had worn that of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Alexander, the Ptolemies, the Syrian (Seleucid) kings. They had liberty for a while under the Maccabees. "These poor believers soon come to the end of their faith" (Stier). But even so they had completely missed the point in the words of Jesus about freedom by truth.

rwp@John:8:39 @{Our father is Abraham} (\ho patˆr hˆm“n Abraam estin\). They saw the implication and tried to counter it by repeating their claim in verse 33| which was true so far as physical descent went as Jesus had admitted (verse 37|). {If ye were} (\ei este\). Strictly, "if ye are" as ye claim, a condition of the first class assumed to be true. {Ye would do} (\epoieite an\). Read by C L N and a corrector of Aleph while W omits \an\. This makes a mixed condition (protasis of the first class, apodosis of the second. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1022). But B reads \poieite\ like the Sin. Syriac which has to be treated as imperative (so Westcott and Hort).

rwp@John:8:40 @{But now} (\nun de\). Clear statement that they are not doing "the works of Abraham" in seeking to kill him. See this use of \nun de\ after a condition of second class without \an\ in strkjv@John:16:22,24|. {This did not Abraham} (\touto Abraam ouk epoiˆsen\). Blunt and pointed of their unlikeness to Abraham. {A man that hath told you the truth} (\anthr“pon hos ten alˆtheian humin lelalˆka\). \Anthr“pon\ (here=person, one) is accusative case in apposition with {me} (\me\) just before. The perfect active indicative \lelalˆka\ from \lale“\ is in the first person singular because the relative \hos\ has the person of \me\, an idiom not retained in the English {that hath} (that have or who have) though it is retained in the English of strkjv@1Corinthians:15:9| "that am" for \hos eimi\. {Which I heard from God} (\hˆn ˆkousa para tou theou\). Here we have "I" in the English. "God" here is equal to "My Father" in verse 38|. The only crime of Jesus is telling the truth directly from God.

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

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

rwp@John:8:52 @{Now we know} (\nun egn“kamen\). Perfect active indicative of \gin“sk“\, state of completion, "Now since such talk we have come to certain knowledge that thou hast a demon" (verse 48|). {Is dead} (\apethanen\). Second aorist active indicative of \apothnˆsk“\. "Abraham died." {And thou sayest} (\kai su legeis\). Adversative use of \kai\, "and yet." Emphatic position of \su\ (thou). Same condition quoted as in verse 51|. {He shall never taste of death} (\ou me geusˆtai thanatou eis ton aiona\). Same emphatic negative with subjunctive as in verse 51|, but \geusˆtai\ (first aorist middle subjunctive of \geu“\ with genitive case \thanatou\ (death). Another Hebraism for dying like \the“rˆsˆi\ (see) in verse 51|. Used in strkjv@Hebrews:2:9| of the death of Jesus and in Synoptics (Matthew:16:28; strkjv@Mark:9:1; strkjv@Luke:9:27|). It occurs in the Talmud, but not in the O.T. The Pharisees thus did not misquote Jesus, though they misunderstood him.

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

rwp@John:8:56 @{Rejoiced} (\ˆgalliasato\). First aorist middle indicative of \agalliaomai\, a word of Hellenistic coinage from \agallomai\, to rejoice. {To see} (\hina idˆi\). Sub-final use of \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \hora“\. This joy of Abraham is referred to in strkjv@Hebrews:11:13| (saluting, \aspasamenoi\, the promises from afar). There was a Jewish tradition that Abraham saw the whole history of his descendants in the vision of strkjv@Genesis:15:6f.|, but that is not necessary here. He did look for and welcome the Messianic time, "my day" (\tˆn hˆmeran tˆn emˆn\). "He saw it, and was glad" (\eiden kai echarˆ\). Second aorist active indicative of \hora“\ and second aorist passive indicative of \chair“\. Ye see it and are angry!

rwp@John:8:57 @{Thou art not yet fifty years old} (\pentˆkonta eti oup“ echeis\). Literally, "Thou hast not yet fifty years." Not meaning that Jesus was near that age at all. It was the crisis of completed manhood (Numbers:4:3|) and a round number. Jesus was about thirty to thirty-three. {And hast thou seen Abraham?} (\Kai Abraam he“rakas;\). Songs:A C D and B W Theta have \he“rakes\, both second person singular of the perfect active indicative of \hora“\. But Aleph, Sin-syr., Coptic versions (accepted by Bernard) have \kai Abraam he“rake se?\ "Has Abraam seen thee?" Either makes sense here.

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

rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Iˆsous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin‚_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\ˆn h“sei et“n triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\“n huios h“s enomizeto I“sˆph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\h“s enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

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

rwp@Luke:13:16 @{Daughter of Abraham} (\thugatera Abraam\). Triple argument, human being and not an ox or ass, woman, daughter of Abraham (Jewess), besides being old and ill. {Ought not} (\ouk edei\). Imperfect active. Of necessity. Jesus simply had to heal her even if on the sabbath. {Whom Sƒtan bound} (\hˆn edˆsen ho Satanas\). Definite statement that her disease was due to Satan.

rwp@Luke:16:22 @{Was borne} (\apenechthˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive from \apopher“\, a common compound defective verb. The accusative case of general reference (\auton\) is common with the infinitive in such clauses after \egeneto\, like indirect discourse. It is his soul, of course, that was so borne by the angels, not his body. {Into Abraham's bosom} (\eis ton holpon Abraam\). To be in Abraham's bosom is to the Jew to be in Paradise. In strkjv@John:1:18| the Logos is in the bosom of the Father. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in heaven and welcome those who come (Matthew:8:11|; 4Macc. strkjv@14:17). The beloved disciple reclined on the bosom of Jesus at the last passover (John:13:23|) and this fact indicates special favour. Songs:the welcome to Lazarus was unusual. {Was buried} (\etaphˆ\). Second aorist (effective) passive of the common verb \thapt“\. Apparently in contrast with the angelic visitation to the beggar.

rwp@Luke:16:23 @{In Hades} (\en t“i Hƒidˆi\). See on strkjv@Matthew:16:18| for discussion of this word. Lazarus was in Hades also for both Paradise (Abraham's bosom) and Gehenna are in the unseen world beyond the grave. {In torments} (\en basanois\). The touchstone by which gold and other metals were tested, then the rack for torturing people. Old word, but in the N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:16:28; strkjv@Matthew:4:24|. {Sees} (\horƒi\). Dramatic present indicative. The Jews believed that Gehenna and Paradise were close together. This detail in the parable does not demand that we believe it. The picture calls for it. {From afar} (\apo makrothen\). Pleonastic use of \apo\ as \makrothen\ means {from afar}.

rwp@Luke:16:27 @{That you send him} (\hina pempsˆis auton\). As if he had not had a fair warning and opportunity. The Roman Catholics probably justify prayer to saints from this petition from the Rich Man to Abraham, but both are in Hades (the other world). It is to be observed besides, that Abraham makes no effort to communicate with the five brothers. But heavenly recognition is clearly assumed. Dante has a famous description of his visit to the damned (_Purg_. iii, 114).

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

rwp@Matthew:1:1 @{The Son of David, the son of Abraham} (\huiou Daueid huiou Abraam\). Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. Songs:Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son (\bˆn\) for the quality or character, but here the idea is descent. Christians are called sons of God because Christ has bestowed this dignity upon us (Romans:8:14; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Galatians:3:26; strkjv@4:5-7|). Verse 1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17|. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (2-6|), David to Babylon Removal (6-11|), Jechoniah to Jesus (12-16|). The removal to Babylon (\metoikesias Babul“nos\) occurs at the end of verse 11|, the beginning of verse 12|, and twice in the resume in verse 17|. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then verse 17| makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list.

rwp@Matthew:1:2 @{Begat} (\egennˆsen\). This word comes, like some of the early chapters of Genesis, with regularity through verse 16, until the birth of Jesus is reached when there is a sudden change. The word itself does not always mean immediate parentage, but merely direct descent. In verse 16| we have "Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ" (\ton I“sˆph ton andra Marias ex hˆs egennˆthˆ Iˆsous ho legomenos Christos\). The article occurs here each time with the object of "begat," but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (1:6|) and Joseph the husband of Mary (1:16|) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (1:2|) and of both Phares and Zara (1:3|) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give verse 16| as above save the Ferrar Group of minuscules which are supported by the Sinaitic Syriac Version. Because of this fact Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates, deliberately prints his text "_Jacob begat Jesus_" (\I“sˆph de egennˆsen Iˆsoun\). But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:1:18-25|. Hence it is clear that "begat" here in strkjv@1:16| must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in strkjv@1:18-25|. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of _Studies in the Text of the New Testament_. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in strkjv@1:16|. The spelling of these Hebrew names in English is usually according to the Hebrew form, not the Greek. In the Greek itself the Hebrew spelling is often observed in violation of the Greek rules for the ending of words with no consonants save _n,r,s_. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails.

rwp@Matthew:3:1 @{And in those days cometh John the Baptist} (\en de tais hˆmerais paraginetai I“anˆs ho Baptistˆs\). Here the synoptic narrative begins with the baptism of John (Mt. strkjv@3:1; strkjv@Mark:1:2; strkjv@Luke:3:1|) as given by Peter in strkjv@Acts:1:22|, "from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us" (cf. also strkjv@Acts:10:37-43|, Peter's summary to Cornelius very much like the outline of Mark's Gospel). Matthew does not indicate the date when John appeared as Luke does in ch. 3 (the fifteenth year of Tiberius's reign). It was some thirty years after the birth of John, precisely how long after the return of Joseph and Mary to Nazareth we do not know. Moffatt translates the verb (\paraginetai\) "came on the scene," but it is the historical present and calls for a vivid imagination on the part of the reader. There he is as he comes forward, makes his appearance. His name John means "Gift of Jehovah" (cf. German _Gotthold_) and is a shortened form of Johanan. He is described as "the Baptist," "the Baptizer" for that is the rite that distinguishes him. The Jews probably had proselyte baptism as I. Abrahams shows (_Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels_, p. 37). But this rite was meant for the Gentiles who accepted Judaism. John is treating the Jews as Gentiles in demanding baptism at their hands on the basis of repentance.

rwp@Matthew:3:9 @{And think not to say within yourselves} (\kai mˆ doxˆte legein en heautois\). John touched the tender spot, their ecclesiastical pride. They felt that the "merits of the fathers," especially of Abraham, were enough for all Israelites. At once John made clear that, reformer as he was, a breach existed between him and the religious leaders of the time. {Of these stones} (\ek t“n lith“n tout“n\). "Pointing, as he spoke to the pebbles on the beach of the Jordan" (Vincent).

rwp@Matthew:8:12 @{The sons of the kingdom} (\hoi huioi tˆs basileias\). A favourite Hebrew idiom like "son of hell" (Matthew:23:15|), "sons of this age" (Luke:16:8|). The Jews felt that they had a natural right to the privileges of the kingdom because of descent from Abraham (Matthew:3:9|). But mere natural birth did not bring spiritual sonship as the Baptist had taught before Jesus did.

rwp@Matthew:16:18 @{The gates of Hades} (\pulai hƒidou\) {shall not prevail against it} (\ou katischusousin autˆs\). Each word here creates difficulty. Hades is technically the unseen world, the Hebrew Sheol, the land of the departed, that is death. Paul uses \thanate\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:55| in quoting strkjv@Hosea:13:14| for \hƒidˆ\. It is not common in the papyri, but it is common on tombstones in Asia Minor, "doubtless a survival of its use in the old Greek religion" (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). The ancient pagans divided Hades (\a\ privative and \idein\, to see, abode of the unseen) into Elysium and Tartarus as the Jews put both Abraham's bosom and Gehenna in Sheol or Hades (cf. strkjv@Luke:16:25|). Christ was in Hades (Acts:2:27,31|), not in Gehenna. We have here the figure of two buildings, the Church of Christ on the Rock, the House of Death (Hades). "In the Old Testament the 'gates of Hades' (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isaiah:38:10|; Wisd. strkjv@16:3; 3Macc. strkjv@5:51) than death," McNeile claims. See also strkjv@Psalms:9:13; strkjv@107:18; strkjv@Job:38:17| (\pulai thanatou pul“roi hƒidou\). It is not the picture of Hades _attacking_ Christ's church, but of death's possible victory over the church. "The \ekklˆsia\ is built upon the Messiahship of her master, and death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her by keeping Him imprisoned. It was a mysterious truth, which He will soon tell them in plain words (verse 21|); it is echoed in strkjv@Acts:2:24,31|" (McNeile). Christ's church will prevail and survive because He will burst the gates of Hades and come forth conqueror. He will ever live and be the guarantor of the perpetuity of His people or church. The verb \katischu“\ (literally have strength against, \ischu“\ from \ischus\ and \kat-\) occurs also in strkjv@Luke:21:36; strkjv@23:23|. It appears in the ancient Greek, the LXX, and in the papyri with the accusative and is used in the modern Greek with the sense of gaining the mastery over. The wealth of imagery in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The \ekklˆsia\ which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. _Sublime Porte_ used to be the title of Turkish power in Constantinople.

rwp@Philippians:3:3 @{For we} (\hˆmeis gar\). We believers in Christ, the children of Abraham by faith, whether Jew or Gentile, the spiritual circumcision in contrast to the merely physical (Romans:2:25-29; strkjv@Colossians:2:11; strkjv@Ephesians:2:11|). See strkjv@Galatians:5:12| for \apotemnein\ (to cut off) in sense of mutilation also. {By the Spirit of God} (\pneumati theou\). Instrumental case, though the dative case as the object of \latreu“\ makes good sense also (worshipping the Spirit of God) or even the locative (worshipping in the Spirit of God). {No} (\ouk\). Actual condition rather than \mˆ\ with the participle. {In the flesh} (\en sarki\). Technical term in Paul's controversy with the Judaizers (2Corinthians:11:18; Gal strkjv@6:13f.|). External privileges beyond mere flesh.

rwp@Revelation:1:6 @{And he made} (\kai epoiˆsen\). Change from the participle construction, which would be \kai poiˆsanti\ (first aorist active of \poie“\) like \lusanti\ just before, a Hebraism Charles calls it, but certainly an anacoluthon of which John is very fond, as in strkjv@1:18; strkjv@2:2,9,20; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@7:14; strkjv@14:2f.; strkjv@15:3|. {Kingdom} (\basileian\). Songs:correctly Aleph A C, not \basileis\ (P cursives). Perhaps a reminiscence of strkjv@Exodus:19:6|, a kingdom of priests. In strkjv@5:10| we have again "a kingdom and priests." The idea here is that Christians are the true spiritual Israel in God's promise to Abraham as explained by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9|. {To be priests} (\hiereis\). In apposition with \basileian\, but with \kai\ (and) in strkjv@5:10|. Each member of this true kingdom is a priest unto God, with direct access to him at all times. {Unto his God and Father} (\t“i the“i kai patri autou\). Dative case and \autou\ (Christ) applies to both \the“i\ and \patri\. Jesus spoke of the Father as his God (Matthew:27:46; strkjv@John:20:17|) and Paul uses like language (Ephesians:1:17|), as does Peter (1Peter:1:3|). {To him} (\aut“i\). Another doxology to Christ. "The adoration of Christ which vibrates in this doxology is one of the most impressive features of the book" (Moffatt). Like doxologies to Christ appear in strkjv@5:13; strkjv@7:10; strkjv@1Peter:4:11; strkjv@2Peter:3:18; strkjv@2Timothy:4:18; He strkjv@13:21|. These same words (\hˆ doxa kai to kratos\) in strkjv@1Peter:4:11|, only \hˆ doxa\ in strkjv@2Peter:3:18; strkjv@2Timothy:4:18|, but with several others in strkjv@Revelation:5:13; strkjv@7:10|.

rwp@Revelation:21:7 @{He that overcometh} (\ho nik“n\). Recalls the promises at the close of each of the Seven Letters in chapters 2 and 3. {Shall inherit} (\klˆronomˆsei\). Future active of \klˆronome“\, word with great history (Mark:10:17; strkjv@1Peter:1:4; strkjv@Galatians:4:7; strkjv@Romans:8:17|), here interpreted for the benefit of these who share in Christ's victory. {I will be his God} (\Esomai aut“i theos\). Repeated Old Testament promise (first to Abraham, strkjv@Genesis:17:7f.|). Cf. strkjv@Revelation:21:3|. {He shall be my son} (\autos estai moi huios\). Made first of Solomon (2Samuel:7:14|) and applied to David later in strkjv@Psalms:89:26f|.

rwp@Romans:3:31 @{Nay, we establish the law} (\alla nomon histanomen\). Present indicative active of late verb \histan“\ from \histˆmi\. This Paul hinted at in verse 21|. How he will show in chapter 4 how Abraham himself is an example of faith and in his life illustrates the very point just made. Besides, apart from Christ and the help of the Holy Spirit no one can keep God's law. The Mosaic law is only workable by faith in Christ.

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:4:9 @{Is this blessing then pronounced?} (\ho makarismos oun houtos?\). "Is this felicitation then?" There is no verb in the Greek. Paul now proceeds to show that Abraham was said in strkjv@Genesis:15:6| to be set right with God by faith _before_ he was circumcised.

rwp@Romans:4:14 @{Be heirs} (\klˆronomoi\). No predicate in the Greek (\eisin\). See on ¯Galatians:4:1|. If legalists are heirs of the Messianic promise to Abraham (condition of first class, assumed as true for argument's sake), the faith is emptied of all meaning (\keken“tai\, perfect passive indicative of \keno“\) and the promise to Abraham is made permanently idle (\katˆrgˆtai\).

rwp@Romans:4:17 @{A father of many nations} (\patera poll“n ethn“n\). Quotation from strkjv@Genesis:17:5|. Only true in the sense of spiritual children as already explained, father of believers in God. {Before him whom he believed even God} (\katenanti hou episteusen theou\). Incorporation of antecedent into the relative clause and attraction of the relative \h“i\ into \hou\. See strkjv@Mark:11:2| for \katenanti\, "right in front of." {Calleth the things that are not as though they were} (\kalountos ta mˆ onta h“s onta\). "Summons the non-existing as existing." Abraham's body was old and decrepit. God rejuvenated him and Sarah (Hebrews:11:19|).

rwp@Romans:4:19 @{Without being weakened in faith} (\mˆ asthenˆsas tˆi pistei\). "Not becoming weak in faith." Ingressive first aorist active participle with negative \mˆ\. {Now as good as dead} (\ˆdˆ nenekr“menon\). Perfect passive participle of \nekro“\, "now already dead." B omits \ˆdˆ\. He was, he knew, too old to become father of a child. {About} (\pou\). The addition of \pou\ (somewhere, about) "qualifies the exactness of the preceding numeral" (Vaughan). The first promise of a son to Abraham and Sarah came (Genesis:15:3f.|) before the birth of Ishmael (86 when Ishmael was born). The second promise came when Abraham was 99 years old (Genesis:17:1|), calling himself 100 (Genesis:17:17|).

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

rwp@Romans:9:6 @{But it is not as though} (\ouch hoion de hoti\). Supply \estin\ after \ouch\: "But it is not such as that," an old idiom, here alone in N.T. {Hath come to nought} (\ekpept“ken\). Perfect active indicative of \ekpipt“\, old verb, to fall out. {For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel} (\ou gar pantes hoi ex Israˆl houtoi Israˆl\). "For not all those out of Israel (the literal Jewish nation), these are Israel (the spiritual Israel)." This startling paradox is not a new idea with Paul. He had already shown (Galatians:3:7-9|) that those of faith are the true sons of Abraham. He has amplified that idea also in strkjv@Romans:4|. Songs:he is not making a clever dodge here to escape a difficulty. He now shows how this was the original purpose of God to include only those who believed. {Seed of Abraham} (\sperma Abraam\). Physical descent here, but spiritual seed by promise in verse 8|. He quotes strkjv@Genesis:21:12f|.

rwp@Romans:9:8 @{The children of the promise} (\ta tekna tˆs epaggelias\). Not through Ishmael, but through Isaac. Only the children of the promise are "children of God" (\tekna tou theou\) in the full sense. He is not speaking of Christians here, but simply showing that the privileges of the Jews were not due to their physical descent from Abraham. Cf. strkjv@Luke:3:8|.

rwp@Romans:11:16 @{First fruit} (\aparchˆ\). See on ¯1Corinthians:15:20,23|. The metaphor is from strkjv@Numbers:15:19f|. The LXX has \aparchˆn phuramatos\, first of the dough as a heave offering. {The lump} (\to phurama\). From which the first fruit came. See on ¯9:21|. Apparently the patriarchs are the first fruit. {The root} (\hˆ riza\). Perhaps Abraham singly here. The metaphor is changed, but the idea is the same. Israel is looked on as a tree. But one must recall and keep in mind the double sense of Israel in strkjv@9:6f|. (the natural and the spiritual).

rwp@Romans:15:9 @{And that the Gentiles might praise} (\ta de ethnˆ doxasai\). Coordinate with \bebai“sai\ and \eis to\, to be repeated with \ta ethnˆ\, the accusative of general reference and \ton theon\ the object of \doxasai\. Thus the Gentiles were called through the promise to the Jews in the covenant with Abraham (4:11f.,16f.|). Salvation is of the Jews. Paul proves his position by a chain of quotations from the O.T., the one in verse 9| from strkjv@Psalms:18:50|. For \exomologe“\, see strkjv@14:10|. {I will sing} (\psal“\). Future active of \psall“\, for which verb see on strkjv@1Corinthians:14:15|.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 2 21:45:36 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020