Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-LAW.filter - rwp itself:


rwp@1Corinthians:1:17 @{For Christ sent me not to baptize} (\ou gar apesteilen me Christos baptizein\). The negative \ou\ goes not with the infinitive, but with \apesteilen\ (from \apostell“, apostolos\, apostle). {For Christ did not send me to be a baptizer} (present active infinitive, linear action) like John the Baptist. {But to preach the gospel} (\alla euaggelizesthai\). This is Paul's idea of his mission from Christ, as Christ's apostle, to be {a gospelizer}. This led, of course, to baptism, as a result, but Paul usually had it done by others as Peter at Caesarea ordered the baptism to be done, apparently by the six brethren with him (Acts:10:48|). Paul is fond of this late Greek verb from \euaggelion\ and sometimes uses both verb and substantive as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1| "the gospel which I gospelized unto you." {Not in wisdom of words} (\ouk en sophiƒi logou\). Note \ou\, not \mˆ\ (the subjective negative), construed with \apesteilen\ rather than the infinitive. Not in wisdom of speech (singular). Preaching was Paul's forte, but it was not as a pretentious philosopher or professional rhetorician that Paul appeared before the Corinthians (1Corinthians:2:1-5|). Some who followed Apollos may have been guilty of a fancy for external show, though Apollos was not a mere performer and juggler with words. But the Alexandrian method as in Philo did run to dialectic subtleties and luxuriant rhetoric (Lightfoot). {Lest the cross of Christ should be made void} (\hina mˆ ken“thˆi ho stauros tou Christou\). Negative purpose (\hina mˆ\) with first aorist passive subjunctive, effective aorist, of \keno“\, old verb from \kenos\, to make empty. In Paul's preaching the Cross of Christ is the central theme. Hence Paul did not fall into the snare of too much emphasis on baptism nor into too little on the death of Christ. "This expression shows clearly the stress which St. Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great moral spectacle, and so the crowning point of a life of self-renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation" (Lightfoot).

rwp@1Corinthians:2:11 @{Knoweth} (\oiden, egn“ken\). Second perfect of root \id-\, to see and so know, first perfect of \gin“sk“\, to know by personal experience, has come to know and still knows. See First John for a clear distinction in the use of \oida\ and \gin“sk“\. {The spirit of man that is in him} (\to pneuma tou anthr“pou to en aut“i\). The self-consciousness of man that resides in the man or woman (generic term for mankind, \anthr“pos\). {The Spirit of God} (\to pneuma tou theou\). Note the absence of \to en aut“i\. It is not the mere self-consciousness of God, but the personal Holy Spirit in his relation to God the Father. Paul's analogy between the spirit of man and the Spirit of God does not hold clear through and he guards it at this vital point as he does elsewhere as in strkjv@Romans:8:26| and in the full Trinitarian benediction in strkjv@2Corinthians:13:13|. \Pneuma\ in itself merely means breath or wind as in strkjv@John:3:8|. To know accurately Paul's use of the word in every instance calls for an adequate knowledge of his theology, and psychology. But the point here is plain. God's Holy Spirit is amply qualified to make the revelation claimed here in verses 6-10|.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:13 @{The day} (\hˆ hˆmera\). The day of judgment as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:4| (which see), strkjv@Romans:13:12; strkjv@Hebrews:10:25|. The work (\ergon\) of each will be made manifest. There is no escape from this final testing. {It is revealed in fire} (\en puri apokaluptetai\). Apparently "the day" is the subject of the verb, not the work, not the Lord. See strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:8; strkjv@2:8|. This metaphor of fire was employed in the O.T. (Daniel:7:9f.; strkjv@Malachi:4:1|) and by John the Baptist (Matthew:3:12; strkjv@Luke:3:16f.|). It is a metaphor that must not be understood as purgatorial, but simple testing (Ellicott) as every fire tests ({the fire itself will test}, \to pur auto dokimasei\) the quality of the material used in the building, {of what sort it is} (\hopoion estin\), qualitative relative pronoun. Men today find, alas, that some of the fireproof buildings are not fireproof when the fire actually comes.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:16 @{Ye are a temple of God} (\naos theou este\). Literally, a sanctuary (\naos\, not \hieron\, the sacred enclosure, but the holy place and the most holy place) of God. The same picture of building as in verse 9| (\oikodomˆ\), only here the sanctuary itself. {Dwelleth in you} (\en humin oikei\). The Spirit of God makes his home (\oikei\) in us, not in temples made with hands (Acts:7:48; strkjv@17:24|).

rwp@1Corinthians:6:1 @{Dare any of you?} (\tolmƒi tis hum“n;\). Does any one of you dare? Rhetorical question with present indicative of \tolma“\, old verb from \tolma\, daring. Bengel: _grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum_. "The word is an argument in itself" (Robertson and Plummer). Apparently Paul has an actual case in mind as in chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:5| though no name is called. {Having a matter against his neighbour} (\pragma ech“n pros ton heteron\). Forensic sense of \pragma\ (from \prass“\, to do, to exact, to extort as in strkjv@Luke:3:13|), a case, a suit (Demosthenes 1020, 26), with the other or the neighbour as in strkjv@10:24; strkjv@14:17; strkjv@Galatians:6:4; strkjv@Romans:2:1|. {Go to law} (\krinesthai\). Present middle or passive (ch. strkjv@Romans:3:4|) in the same forensic sense as \krithˆnai\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:40|. \Kritˆs\, judge, is from this verb. {Before the unrighteous} (\epi t“n adik“n\). This use of \epi\ with the genitive for "in the presence of" is idiomatic as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:14|, \epi Titou\, in the case of Titus. The Jews held that to bring a lawsuit before a court of idolaters was blasphemy against the law. But the Greeks were fond of disputatious lawsuits with each other. Probably the Greek Christians brought cases before pagan judges.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:12 @{Lawful} (\exestin\). Apparently this proverb may have been used by Paul in Corinth (repeated in strkjv@10:23|), but not in the sense now used by Paul's opponents. The "all things" do not include such matters as those condemned in chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:5; strkjv@6:1-11|. Paul limits the proverb to things not immoral, things not wrong _per se_. But even here liberty is not license. {But not all things are expedient} (\all' ou panta sumpherei\). Old word \sumpherei\, bears together for good and so worthwhile. Many things, harmless in themselves in the abstract, do harm to others in the concrete. We live in a world of social relations that circumscribe personal rights and liberties. {But I will not be brought under the power of any} (\all ouk eg“ exousiasthˆsomai hupo tinos\). Perhaps a conscious play on the verb \exestin\ for \exousiaz“\ is from \exousia\ and that from \exestin\. Verb from Aristotle on, though not common (Dion. of Hal., LXX and inscriptions). In N.T. only here, strkjv@7:4; strkjv@Luke:22:25|. Paul is determined not to be a slave to anything harmless in itself. He will maintain his self-control. He gives a wholesome hint to those who talk so much about personal liberty.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:18 @{Flee} (\pheugete\). Present imperative. Have the habit of fleeing without delay or parley. Note abruptness of the asyndeton with no connectives. Fornication violates Christ's rights in our bodies (verses 13-17|) and also ruins the body itself. {Without the body} (\ektos tou s“matos\). Even gluttony and drunkenness and the use of dope are sins wrought on the body, not "within the body" (\entos tou s“matos\) in the same sense as fornication. Perhaps the dominant idea of Paul is that fornication, as already shown, breaks the mystic bond between the body and Christ and hence the fornicator (\ho porneu“n\) {sins against his own body} (\eis to idion s“ma hamartanei\) in a sense not true of other dreadful sins. The fornicator takes his body which belongs to Christ and unites it with a harlot. In fornication the body is the instrument of sin and becomes the subject of the damage wrought. In another sense fornication brings on one's own body the two most terrible bodily diseases that are still incurable (gonorrhea and syphilis) that curse one's own body and transmit the curse to the third and fourth generation. Apart from the high view given here by Paul of the relation of the body to the Lord no possible father or mother has the right to lay the hand of such terrible diseases and disaster on their children and children's children. The moral and physical rottenness wrought by immorality defy one's imagination.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:10 @{If a man see thee which hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol's temple} (\ean gar tis idˆi [se] ton echonta gn“sin en eid“lei“i katakeimenon\). Condition of third class, a possible case. Paul draws the picture of the enlightened brother exercising his "liberty" by eating in the idol's temple. Later he will discuss the peril to the man's own soul in this phase of the matter (10:14-22|), but here he considers only the effect of such conduct on the unenlightened or weak brother. This bravado at a sacrificial banquet is in itself idolatrous as Paul will show. But our weak brother will be emboldened (\oikodomˆthˆsetai\, future passive indicative, will be built up) to go on and do what he still believes to be wrong, to eat things sacrificed to idols (\eis to ta eid“lothuta esthiein\). Alas, how often that has happened. Defiance is flung in the face of the unenlightened brother instead of loving consideration.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:14 @{Nature itself} (\hˆ phusis autˆ\). He reenforces the appeal to custom by the appeal to nature in a question that expects the affirmative answer (\oude\). \Phusis\, from old verb \phu“\, to produce, like our word nature (Latin _natura_), is difficult to define. Here it means native sense of propriety (cf. strkjv@Romans:2:14|) in addition to mere custom, but one that rests on the objective difference in the constitution of things.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:35 @{But some one will say} (\alla erei tis\). Paul knows what the sceptics were saying. He is a master at putting the standpoint of the imaginary adversary. {How} (\p“s\). This is still the great objection to the resurrection of our bodies. Granted that Jesus rose from the dead, for the sake of argument, these sceptics refuse to believe in the possibility of our resurrection. It is the attitude of Matthew Arnold who said, "Miracles do not happen." Scientifically we know the "how" of few things. Paul has an astounding answer to this objection. Death itself is the way of resurrection as in the death of the seed for the new plant (verses 36f.|). {With what manner of body} (\poi“i s“mati\). This is the second question which makes plainer the difficulty of the first. The first body perishes. Will that body be raised? Paul treats this problem more at length (verses 38-54|) and by analogy of nature (Cf. Butler's famous _Analogy_). It is a spiritual, not a natural, body that is raised. \S“ma\ here is an organism. {Flesh} (\sarx\) is the \s“ma\ for the natural man, but there is spiritual (\pneumatikon\) \s“ma\ for the resurrection.

rwp@1John:2:3 @{Hereby} (\en tout“i\). See this phrase also in strkjv@2:5; strkjv@3:16,19,24; strkjv@4:2,13; strkjv@5:2|. That is explained by the \ean\ clause, "if we keep his commandments " (\ean tˆr“men\, condition of the third class, \ean\ with present active subjunctive, "if we keep on keeping"), the clause itself in apposition with \tout“i\ (locative case). {Know we that we know him} (\ginoskomen hoti egn“kamen auton\). "Know we that we have come to know and still know him," \egn“kamen\ the perfect active indicative of \gin“sk“\. The Gnostics boasted of their superior knowledge of Christ, and John here challenges their boast by an appeal to experimental knowledge of Christ which is shown by keeping his (\autou\, Christ's) commandments, thoroughly Johannine phrase (12 times in the Gospel, 6 in this Epistle, 6 in the Apocalypse).

rwp@1John:4:7 @{Of God} (\ek tou theou\). Even human love comes from God, "a reflection of something in the Divine nature itself" (Brooke). John repeats the old commandment of strkjv@2:7f|. Persistence in loving (present tense \agap“men\ indicative and \agap“n\ participle) is proof that one "has been begotten of God" (\ek tou theou gegennˆtai\ as in strkjv@2:29|) and is acquainted with God. Otherwise mere claim to loving God accompanied by hating one's brother is a lie (2:9-11|).

rwp@1Peter:2:19 @{For this is acceptable} (\touto gar charis\). "For this thing (neuter singular \touto\, obedience to crooked masters) is grace" (\charis\ is feminine, here "thanks" as in strkjv@Romans:7:25|). "Acceptable" calls for \euprosdekton\ (2:5|), which is not the text here. {If a man endureth griefs} (\ei huopherei tis lupas\). Condition of first class with \ei\ and present active indicative of \hupopher“\, old verb, to bear up under, in N.T. only here, strkjv@1Corinthians:10:13; strkjv@2Timothy:3:11|. Note plural of \lupˆ\ (grief). {For conscience toward God} (\dia suneidˆsin theou\). Suffering is not a blessing in and of itself, but, if one's duty to God is involved (Acts:4:20|), then one can meet it with gladness of heart. \Theou\ (God) is objective genitive. For \suneidˆsis\ (conscience) see on ¯Acts:23:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:8:7|. It occurs again in strkjv@1Peter:3:16|. {Suffering wrongfully} (\pasch“n adik“s\). Present active participle of \pasch“\ and the common adverb \adik“s\, unjustly, here alone in N.T. This is the whole point, made clear already by Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:5:10-12|, where Jesus has also "falsely" (\pseudomenoi\). See also strkjv@Luke:6:32-34|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:13 @{We would not have} (\ou thelomen\). We do not wish. {You ignorant} (\humas agnoein\). Old word, not to know (\a\ privative, \gno-\, root of \gin“sk“\). No advantage in ignorance of itself. {Concerning them that fall asleep} (\peri t“n koim“men“n\). Present passive (or middle) participle (Aleph B) rather than the perfect passive \kekoimˆmen“n\ of many later MSS. From old \koima“\, to put to sleep. Present tense gives idea of repetition, from time to time fall asleep. Greeks and Romans used this figure of sleep for death as Jesus does (John:11:11|) and N.T. generally (cf. our word _cemetery_). Somehow the Thessalonians had a false notion about the dead in relation to the second coming. {Even as the rest which have no hope} (\kath“s hoi loipoi hoi mˆ echontes elpida\). This picture of the hopelessness of the pagan world about the future life is amply illustrated in ancient writings and particularly by inscriptions on tombs (Milligan). Some few pagans clung to this hope, but most had none.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:22 @{Abstain from every form of evil} (\apo pantos eidous ponˆrou apechesthe\). Present middle (direct) imperative of \ap-ech“\ (contrast with \kat-ech“\) and preposition \apo\ repeated with ablative as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:3|. Note use of \ponˆrou\ here for evil without the article, common enough idiom. \Eidos\ (from \eidon\) naturally means look or appearance as in strkjv@Luke:3:23; strkjv@9:29; strkjv@John:5:37; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:7|. But, if so taken, it is not semblance as opposed to reality (Milligan). The papyri give several examples of \eidos\ in the sense of class or kind and that idea suits best here. Evil had a way of showing itself even in the spiritual gifts including prophecy.

rwp@1Timothy:1:4 @{To give heed} (\prosechein\). With \noun\ understood. Old and common idiom in N.T. especially in Luke and Acts (Acts:8:10ff.|). Not in Paul's earlier Epistles. strkjv@1Timothy:3:8; strkjv@4:1,13; strkjv@Titus:1:14|. {To fables} (\muthois\). Dative case of old word for speech, narrative, story, fiction, falsehood. In N.T. only strkjv@2Peter:1:16; strkjv@1Timothy:1:4; strkjv@4:7; strkjv@Titus:1:14; strkjv@2Timothy:4:4|. {Genealogies} (\genealogiais\). Dative of old word, in LXX, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:9|. {Endless} (\aperantois\). Old verbal compound (from \a\ privative and \perain“\, to go through), in LXX, only here in N.T. Excellent examples there for old words used only in the Pastorals because of the subject matter, describing the Gnostic emphasis on aeons. {Questionings} (\ekzˆtˆseis\). "Seekings out." Late and rare compound from \ekzˆte“\ (itself _Koin‚_ word, strkjv@Romans:3:11| from LXX and in papyri). Here only in N.T. Simplex \zˆtˆsis\ in strkjv@Acts:15:2; strkjv@1Timothy:6:4; strkjv@Titus:3:9; strkjv@2Timothy:2:23|. {A dispensation} (\oikonomian\). Pauline word (1Corinthians:9:17; strkjv@Colossians:1:25; strkjv@Ephesians:1:9; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@1Timothy:1:4|), strkjv@Luke:16:2-4| only other N.T. examples. {In faith} (\en pistei\). Pauline use of \pistis\.

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ The occasion of the Epistle is made plain by numerous allusions personal and otherwise. Paul had arrived in Ephesus from Antioch shortly after the departure of Apollos for Corinth with letters of commendation from Priscilla and Aquila (Acts:18:28-19:1|). It is not clear how long Apollos remained in Corinth, but he is back in Ephesus when Paul writes the letter and he has declined Paul's request to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). Some of the household of Chloe had heard or come from Corinth with full details of the factions in the church over Apollos and Paul, clearly the reason why Apollos left (1Corinthians:1:10-12|). Even Cephas nominally was drawn into it, though there is no evidence that Peter himself had come to Corinth. Paul had sent Timothy over to Corinth to put an end to the factions (1Corinthians:4:17|), though he was uneasy over the outcome (1Corinthians:16:10f.|). This disturbance was enough of itself to call forth a letter from Paul. But it was by no means the whole story. Paul had already written a letter, now lost to us, concerning a peculiarly disgusting case of incest in the membership (1Corinthians:5:9|). They were having lawsuits with one another before heathen judges. Members of the church had written Paul a letter about marriage whether any or all should marry (1Corinthians:7:1|). They were troubled also whether it was right to eat meat that had been offered to idols in the heathen temples (1Corinthians:8:1|). Spiritual gifts of an unusual nature were manifested in Corinth and these were the occasion of a deal of trouble (1Corinthians:12:1|). The doctrine of the resurrection gave much trouble in Corinth (1Corinthians:15:12|). Paul was interested in the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Corinthians:16:1|) and in their share in it. The church in Corinth had sent a committee (Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus) to Paul in Ephesus. He hopes to come himself after passing through Macedonia (1Corinthians:16:5f.|). It is possible that he had made a short visit before this letter (2Corinthians:13:1|), though not certain as he may have intended to go one time without going as he certainly once changed his plans on the subject (2Corinthians:1:15-22|). Whether Titus took the letter on his visit or it was sent on after the return of Timothy is not perfectly clear. Probably Timothy returned to Ephesus from Corinth shortly after the epistle was sent on, possibly by the committee who returned to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:17|), for Timothy and Erastus were sent on from Ephesus to Macedonia before the outbreak at the hands of Demetrius (Acts:19:22|). Apparently Timothy had not fully succeeded in reconciling the factions in Corinth for Paul dispatched Titus who was to meet him at Troas as he went on to Macedonia. Paul's hurried departure from Ephesus (Acts:20:1|) took him to Troas before Titus arrived and Paul's impatience there brought him to Macedonia where he did meet Titus on his return from Corinth (2Corinthians:2:12f.|).

rwp@2Corinthians:2:3 @{I wrote this very thing} (\egrapsa touto auto\). Is this (and \egrapsa\ in verses 4,9,12|) the epistolary aorist referring to the present letter? In itself that is possible as the epistolary aorist does occur in the N.T. as in strkjv@8:18; strkjv@9:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 854f.). If not epistolary aorist as seems improbable from the context and from strkjv@7:8-12|, to what Epistle does he refer? To strkjv@1Corinthians:5| or to a lost letter? It is possible, of course, that, when Paul decided not to come to Corinth, he sent a letter. The language that follows in verses 3,4; strkjv@7:8-12| can hardly apply to I Corinthians. {Should have sorrow} (\lupˆn sch“\). Second aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of \ech“\, should get sorrow, after \hina mˆ\ negative final particles. {From them of whom} (\aph' h“n\). Antecedent omitted, \apo tout“n aph' h“n\ (from those from whom). {I ought} (\edei me\). Imperfect for unrealized present obligation as often and like English. {Having confidence} (\pepoith“s\). Second perfect active participle of \peith“\ (1:9|).

rwp@2Corinthians:7:9 @{Now I rejoice} (\nun chair“\). Now that Titus has come and told him the good news from Corinth (2:12f.|). This was the occasion of the noble outburst in strkjv@2:12-6:10|. {Unto repentance} (\eis metanoian\). Note the sharp difference here between "sorrow" (\lupˆ\) which is merely another form of \metamelomai\ (regret, remorse) and "repentance" (\metanoia\) or change of mind and life. It is a linguistic and theological tragedy that we have to go on using "repentance" for \metanoia\. But observe that the "sorrow" has led to "repentance" and was not Itself the repentance. {After a godly sort} (\kata theon\). In God's way. "God's way as opposed to man's way and the devil's way" (Plummer). It was not mere sorrow, but a change in their attitude that counted. {That ye might suffer loss by us in nothing} (\hina en mˆdeni zˆmi“thˆte ex hum“n\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \zˆmio“\, old verb to suffer damage. See on ¯Matthew:16:26|. This was God's intention and so he overruled their sorrow to good.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:25 @{Thrice was I beaten with rods} (\tris errabdisthˆn\). Roman (Gentile) punishment. It was forbidden to Roman citizens by the _Lex Porcia_, but Paul endured it in Philippi (Acts:16:23,37|), the only one of the three named in Acts. First aorist passive of \rabdiz“\, from \rabdos\, rod, _Koin‚_ word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:16:22| which see. {Once was I stoned} (\hapax elithasthˆn\). Once for all \hapax\ means. At Lystra (Acts:14:5-19|). On \lithaz“\ _Koin‚_ verb from \lithos\, see on ¯Acts:5:26|. {Thrice I suffered shipwreck} (\tris enauagˆsa\). First aorist active of \nauage“\, from \nauagos\, shipwrecked (\naus\, ship, \agnumi\, to break). Old and common verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:1:19|. We know nothing of these. The one told in strkjv@Acts:27| was much later. What a pity that we have no data for all these varied experiences of Paul. {Night and day} (\nuchthˆmeron\) Rare word. Papyri give \nuktˆmar\ with the same idea (night-day). {Have I been in the deep} (\en t“i buth“i pepoiˆka\). Vivid dramatic perfect active indicative of \poie“\, "I have done a night and day in the deep." The memory of it survives like a nightmare. \Buthos\ is old word (only here in N.T.) for bottom, depth of the sea, then the sea itself. Paul does not mean that he was a night and day under the water, not a Jonah experience, only that he was far out at sea and shipwrecked. This was one of the three shipwrecks-already named.

rwp@2Corinthians:13:2 @{As when I was present the second time} (\h“s par“n to deuteron\). This translation assumes the second visit as already made. It is a natural way to take the Greek \h“s par“n\. But \h“s\ with \par“n\ can also mean "as if present" the second time (Authorized Version). Probably "as when" is the more natural rendering, but the other cannot be ruled entirely out in view of strkjv@1:15-23|. {If I come again} (\ean elth“ eis to palin\). Condition of third class. The use of \palin\ of itself suits the idea that Paul had not yet made the second visit as it means simply "again" or "back," but in strkjv@Matthew:26:44| we find \palin ek tritou\ (again a third time) and so it is not decisive.

rwp@2John:1:9 @{Whosoever goeth onward} (\pƒs ho proag“n\). "Every one who goes ahead. \Proag“\ literally means to go on before (Mark:11:9|). That in itself is often the thing to do, but here the bad sense comes out by the parallel clause. {And abideth not in the teaching of Christ} (\kai mˆ men“n en tˆi didachˆi tou Christou\). Not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christ which is the standard of Christian teaching as the walk of Christ is the standard for the Christian's walk (1John:2:6|). See strkjv@John:7:16; strkjv@18:19|. These Gnostics claimed to be the progressives, the advanced thinkers, and were anxious to relegate Christ to the past in their onward march. This struggle goes on always among those who approach the study of Christ. Is he a "landmark" merely or is he our goal and pattern? Progress we all desire, but progress toward Christ, not away from him. Reactionary obscurantists wish no progress toward Christ, but desire to stop and camp where they are. "True progress includes the past" (Westcott). Jesus Christ is still ahead of us all calling us to come on to him.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 66 OR 67 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION MOST DOUBTFUL NEW TESTAMENT BOOK Every book in the New Testament is challenged by some one, as indeed the historicity of Jesus Christ himself is and the very existence of God. But it is true that more modern scholars deny the genuineness of II Peter than that of any single book in the canon. This is done by men like F. H. Chase, J. B. Mayor, and R. D. Strachan, who are followers of Christ as Lord and Saviour. One has to admit that the case concerning II Peter has problems of peculiar difficulty that call for careful consideration and balanced judgment. One other word needs to be said, which is that an adverse decision against the authenticity of II Peter stands by itself and does not affect the genuineness of the other books. It is easy to take an extreme position for or against it without full knowledge of all the evidence.

rwp@2Thessalonians:1:9 @{Who} (\hoitines\). Qualitative use, such as. Vanishing in papyri though surviving in Paul (1Corinthians:3:17; strkjv@Romans:1:25; strkjv@Galatians:4:26; strkjv@Phillipians:4:3|). {Shall suffer punishment} (\dikˆn tisousin\). Future active of old verb \tin“\, to pay penalty (\dikˆn\, right, justice), here only in N.T., but \apotin“\ once also to repay strkjv@Philemon:1:19|. In the papyri \dikˆ\ is used for a case or process in law. This is the regular phrase in classic writers for paying the penalty. {Eternal destruction} (\olethron ai“nion\). Accusative case in apposition with \dikˆn\ (penalty). This phrase does not appear elsewhere in the N.T., but is in IV Macc. strkjv@10:15 \ton ai“nion tou turannou olethron\ the eternal destruction of the tyrant (Antiochus Epiphanes). Destruction (cf. strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:3|) does not mean here annihilation, but, as Paul proceeds to show, separation {from the face of the Lord} (\apo pros“pou tou kuriou\) and from the {glory of his might} (\kai apo tˆs doxˆs tˆs ischuos autou\), an eternity of woe such as befell Antiochus Epiphanes. \Ai“nios\ in itself only means age-long and papyri and inscriptions give it in the weakened sense of a Caesar's life (Milligan), but Paul means by age-long {the coming age} in contrast with {this age}, as {eternal} as the New Testament knows how to make it. See on ¯Matthew:25:46| for use of \ai“nios\ both with \z“ˆn\, life, and \kolasin\, punishment.

rwp@3John:1:8 @{Ought} (\opheilomen\). See for this word strkjv@1John:2:6; strkjv@3:16; strkjv@4:11|. {To welcome} (\hupolambanein\). Present active infinitive (habit of welcoming) of \hupolamban“\, old word, to take up under, to carry off (Acts:1:9|), to reply (Luke:10:30|), to suppose (Acts:2:15|), only here in N.T. in this sense of receiving hospitably or to take under one's protection like \hupodechomai\ (Luke:10:38|). {Such} (\tous toioutous\). "The such" according to the Greek idiom (1Corinthians:16:16,18|). {That we may be} (\hina gin“metha\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the present middle subjunctive of \ginomai\, "that we may keep on becoming." {Fellow-workers} (\sunergoi\). Old compound (\sun, ergon\). {With the truth} (\tˆi alˆtheiƒi\). Songs:associative instrumental case with \sun\ in \sunergoi\, but it is not certain that this is the idea, though \sunerge“\ is so used with \ergois\ in strkjv@James:2:22|. \Sunergos\ itself occurs with the genitive of the person as in \theou sunergoi\ (1Corinthians:3:9|) or with genitive of the thing \tˆs charƒs\ (1Corinthians:3:9|). Songs:then here the meaning may be either "co-workers with such brethren for the truth" (dative of advantage) or "co-workers with the truth" (associative instrumental case).

rwp@3John:1:12 @{Demetrius hath the witness of all men} (\Dˆmˆtri“i memarturˆtai hupo pant“n\). Perfect passive indicative of \marture“\, "it has been witnessed to Demetrius (dative case) by all." We know nothing else about him, unless, as is unlikely, he be identified with Demas as a shortened form (Philemon:1:24; strkjv@Colossians:4:4; strkjv@2Timothy:4:10|), who has come back after his desertion or with the Ephesian silversmith (Acts:19:21ff.|), who may have been converted under John's ministry, which one would like to believe, though there is no evidence for it. He may indeed be the bearer of this letter from Ephesus to Gaius and may also have come under suspicion for some reason and hence John's warm commendation. {And of the truth itself} (\kai hupo autˆs tˆs alˆtheias\). A second commendation of Demetrius. It is possible, in view of strkjv@1John:5:6| (the Spirit is the truth), that John means the Holy Spirit and not a mere personification of the truth. {Yea we also} (\kai hˆmeis de\). A third witness to Demetrius, that is John himself (literary plural). {Thou knowest} (\oidas\). "The words in strkjv@John:21:24| sound like an echo of this sentence" (Westcott). John knew Demetrius well in Ephesus.

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:5:18 @{With jealousy} (\zˆlou\). Genitive case. Old word from ze“, to boil, our zeal. In itself it means only warmth, ardour, zeal, but for a bad cause or from a bad motive, jealousy, envy, rivalry results (Acts:13:45|). Common in the epistles. {In public ward} (\en tˆrˆsei dˆmosiƒi\). As in strkjv@4:3| only with \dˆmosiƒi\ (public) added, in the public prison, perhaps not the "common" prison, but any prison is bad enough. In verse 19| it is called "the prison" (\tˆs phulakˆs\), the guardhouse.

rwp@Acts:15:22 @{Then it seemed good} (\Tote edoxen\). First aorist active indicative of \doke“\. A regular idiom at the beginning of decrees. This Eirenicon of James commended itself to the whole assembly. Apparently a vote was taken which was unanimous, the Judaizers probably not voting. The apostles and the elders (\tois apostolois kai tois presbuterois\, article with each, dative case) probably all vocally expressed their position. {With the whole church} (\sun holei tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\). Probably by acclamation. It was a great victory. But James was a practical leader and he did not stop with speeches and a vote. {To choose men out of their company} (\eklezamenous andras ex aut“n\). Accusative case, though dative just before (\tois apostolois\, etc.), of first aorist middle participle of \ekleg“\, to select. This loose case agreement appears also in \grapsantes\ in verse 23| and in MSS. in verse 25|. It is a common thing in all Greek writers (Paul, for instance), especially in the papyri and in the Apocalypse of John. {Judas called Barsabbas} (\Ioudan ton kaloumenon Barsabban\). Not otherwise known unless he is a brother of Joseph Barsabbas of strkjv@1:23|, an early follower of Jesus. The other, Silas, is probably a shortened form of Silvanus (\Silouanos\, strkjv@1Peter:5:12|), the companion of Paul in his second mission tour (Acts:15:32,41; strkjv@16:25|). {Chief men} (\hˆgoumenous\). Leaders, leading men (participle from \hˆgeomai\, to lead).

rwp@Acts:15:25 @{It seemed good unto us} (\edoxen hˆmin\). See statement by Luke in verse 22|, and now this definite decision is in the epistle itself. It is repeated in verse 28|. {Having come to one accord} (\genomenois homothumadon\). On this adverb, common in Acts, see on ¯1:14|. But \genomenois\ clearly means that the final unity was the result of the Conference (private and public talks). The Judaizers are here brushed to one side as the defeated disturbers that they really were who had lacked the courage to vote against the majority. {To choose out men and send them} (\eklexamenois andras pempsai\ A B L, though Aleph C D read \eklexamenous\ as in verse 22|). Precisely the same idiom as in verse 22|, "having chosen out to send." {With our beloved Barnabas and Paul} (\sun tois agapˆtois hˆm“n Barnabƒi kai Paul“i\). The verbal adjective \agapˆtois\ (common in the N.T.) definitely sets the seal of warm approval on Barnabas and Paul. Paul (Galatians:2:9|) confirms this by his statement concerning the right hand of fellowship given.

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: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:16:7 @{Over against Mysia} (\kata tˆn Musian\). This was an ill-defined region rather north and west of Phrygia. The Romans finally absorbed most of it in the Province of Asia. {They assayed to go into Bithynia} (\epeirazon eis tˆn Bithunian poreuthˆnai\). Conative imperfect of \peiraz“\ and ingressive aorist passive infinitive of \poreuomai\. Now Bithynia is northeast of Mysia and north of Galatia (province). Clearly Luke means to say that Paul had, when hindered by the Holy Spirit from going west into Asia, gone north so as to come in front of Bithynia. This journey would take him directly through Phrygia and the North Galatian country (the real Gauls or Celts). This is, to my mind, the strongest argument for the North Galatian view in these verses 6,7|. The grammar and the topography bring Paul right up to Bithynia (north of the old Galatia). It is verses 6,7| that make me pause before accepting the plausible arguments of Ramsay for the South Galatian theory. In itself the problem is nothing like so important or so determinative as he makes it. But shall we smash Luke's grammar to pieces to bolster up a theory of criticism? {And the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not} (\kai ouk eiasen autous to pneuma Iˆsou\). The same Spirit who in verse 6| had forbidden going into Asia now closed the door into Bithynia. This expression occurs nowhere else, but we have the spirit of Christ (Romans:8:9|) and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:19|). \Eiasen\ is first aorist active indicative of \ea“\, old verb to allow.

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

rwp@Acts:16:14 @{Lydia} (\Ludia\). Her birthplace was Thyatira in Lydia. She may have been named after the land, though Lydia is a common female name (see Horace). Lydia was itself a Macedonian colony (Strabo, XIII. 4). Thyatira (note plural form like Philippi and one of the seven churches of Asia here strkjv@Revelation:2:18|) was famous for its purple dyes as old as Homer (Iliad, IV. 141) and had a guild of dyers (\hoi bapheis\) as inscriptions show. {A seller of purple} (\porphurop“lis\). A female seller of purple fabrics (\porphura, p“lis\). Late word, masculine form in an inscription. There was a great demand for this fabric as it was used on the official toga at Rome and in Roman colonies. We still use the term "royal purple." See on ¯Luke:16:19|. Evidently Lydia was a woman of some means to carry on such an important enterprise from her native city. She may have been a freed-woman, since racial names were often borne by slaves. {One that worshipped God} (\sebomenˆ ton theon\). A God-fearer or proselyte of the gate. There was a Jewish settlement in Thyatira which was especially interested in the dyeing industry. She probably became a proselyte there. Whether this was true of the other women we do not know. They may have been Jewesses or proselytes like Lydia, probably all of them employees of hers in her business. When Paul writes to the Philippians he does not mention Lydia who may have died meanwhile and who certainly was not Paul's wife. She was wealthy and probably a widow. {Heard us} (\ˆkouen\). Imperfect active of \akou“\, was listening, really listening and she kept it up, listening to each of these new and strange preachers. {Opened} (\diˆnoixen\). First aorist active indicative of \dianoig“\, old word, double compound (\dia, ana, oig“\) to open up wide or completely like a folding door (both sides, \dia\, two). Only the Lord could do that. Jesus had opened (the same verb) the mind of the disciples to understand the Scriptures (Luke:24:45|). {To give heed} (\prosechein\). To hold the mind (\ton noun\ understood), present active infinitive. She kept her mind centred on the things spoken by Paul whose words gripped her attention. She rightly perceived that Paul was the foremost one of the group. He had personal magnetism and power of intellect that the Spirit of God used to win the heart of this remarkable woman to Christ. It was worth coming to Philippi to win this fine personality to the Kingdom of God. She will be the chief spirit in this church that will give Paul more joy and co-operation than any of his churches. It is not stated that she was converted on the first Sabbath, though this may have been the case. "One solitary convert, a woman, and she already a seeker after God, and a native of that very Asia where they had been forbidden to preach" (Furneaux). But a new era had dawned for Europe and for women in the conversion of Lydia.

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

rwp@Acts:17:5 @{Moved with jealousy} (\zˆl“santes\). Both our English words, {zeal} and {jealousy}, are from the Greek \zˆlos\. In strkjv@13:45| the Jews (rabbis) "were filled with jealousy" (\eplˆsthˆsan zˆlou\). That is another way of saying the same thing as here. The success of Paul was entirely too great in both places to please the rabbis. Songs:here is jealousy of Jewish preachers towards Christian preachers. It is always between men or women of the same profession or group. In strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:3-10| Paul hints at some of the slanders spread against him by these rabbis (deceivers, using words of flattery as men-pleasers, after vain-glory, greed of gain, etc.). {Took unto them} (\proslabomenoi\). Second aorist middle (indirect, to themselves) participle of \proslamban“\, old and common verb. {Certain vile fellows of the rabble} (\t“n agorai“n andras tinas ponˆrous\). The \agora\ or market-place was the natural resort for those with nothing to do (Matthew:20:4|) like the court-house square today or various parks in our cities where bench-warmers flock. Plato (_Protagoras_ 347 C) calls these \agoraioi\ (common word, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@19:38|) idlers or good-for-nothing fellows. They are in every city and such "bums" are ready for any job. The church in Thessalonica caught some of these peripatetic idlers (2Thessalonians:3:10f.|) "doing nothing but doing about." Songs:the Jewish preachers gather to themselves a choice collection of these market-loungers or loafers or wharf-rats. The Romans called them _subrostrani_ (hangers round the rostrum or _subbasilicari_). {Gathering a crowd} (\ochlopoiˆsantes\). Literally, making or getting (\poie“\) a crowd (\ochlos\), a word not found elsewhere. Probably right in the \agora\ itself where the rabbis could tell men their duties and pay them in advance. Instance Hyde Park in London with all the curious gatherings every day, Sunday afternoons in particular. {Set the city on an uproar} (\ethoruboun\). Imperfect active of \thorube“\, from \thorubos\ (tumult), old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@20:10; strkjv@Matthew:9:23; strkjv@Mark:4:39|. They kept up the din, this combination of rabbis and rabble. {Assaulting the house of Jason} (\epistantes tˆi oikiƒi Iasonos\). Second aorist (ingressive) active of \ephistˆmi\, taking a stand against, rushing at, because he was Paul's host. He may have been a Gentile (Jason the name of an ancient king of Thessaly), but the Jews often used it for Joshua or Jesus (II Macc. strkjv@1:7). {They sought} (\ezˆtoun\). Imperfect active. They burst into the house and searched up and down. {Them} (\autous\). Paul and Silas. They were getting ready to have a lynching party.

rwp@Acts:17:13 @{Was proclaimed} (\katˆggelˆ\). Second aorist passive indicative of \kataggell“\, common late verb as in strkjv@Acts:16:21|. {Of Paul} (\hupo Paulou\). By Paul, of course. {Stirring up and troubling the multitudes} (\saleuontes kai tarassontes tous ochlous\). Shaking the crowds like an earthquake (4:31|) and disturbing like a tornado (17:8|). Success at Thessalonica gave the rabbis confidence and courage. The attack was sharp and swift. The Jews from Antioch in Pisidia had likewise pursued Paul to Iconium and Lystra. How long Paul had been in Beroea Luke does not say. But a church was established here which gave a good account of itself later and sent a messenger (Acts:20:4|) with their part of the collection to Jerusalem. This quiet and noble town was in a whirl of excitement over the attacks of the Jewish emissaries from Thessalonica who probably made the same charge of treason against Paul and Silas.

rwp@Acts:21:4 @{Having found} (\aneurontes\). Second aorist active participle of \aneurisk“\, to seek for, to find by searching (\ana\). There was a church here, but it was a large city and the number of members may not have been large. Probably some of those that fled from Jerusalem who came to Phoenicia (Acts:11:19|) started the work here. Paul went also through Phoenicia on the way to the Jerusalem Conference (15:3|). As at Troas and Miletus, so here Paul's indefatigible energy shows itself with characteristic zeal. {Through the Spirit} (\dia tou pneumatos\). The Holy Spirit undoubtedly who had already told Paul that bonds and afflictions awaited him in Jerusalem (20:23|). {That he should not set foot in Jerusalem} (\mˆ epibainein eis Ierosoluma\). Indirect command with \mˆ\ and the present active infinitive, not to keep on going to Jerusalem (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1046). In spite of this warning Paul felt it his duty as before (20:22|) to go on. Evidently Paul interpreted the action of the Holy Spirit as information and warning although the disciples at Tyre gave it the form of a prohibition. Duty called louder than warning to Paul even if both were the calls of God.

rwp@Acts:23:1 @{Looking steadfastly} (\atenisas\). See on this word strkjv@1:10; strkjv@3:12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@7:55; strkjv@13:9|. Paul may have had weak eyes, but probably the earnest gaze was to see if he recognized any faces that were in the body that tried Stephen and to which he apparently once belonged. {I have lived before God} (\pepoliteumai t“i the“i\). Perfect middle indicative of \politeu“\, old verb to manage affairs of city (\polis\) or state, to be a citizen, behave as a citizen. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|. The idea of citizenship was Greek and Roman, not Jewish. "He had lived as God's citizen, as a member of God's commonwealth" (Rackham). God (\the“i\) is the dative of personal interest. As God looked at it and in his relation to God. {In all good conscience unto this day} (\pasˆi suneidˆsei agathˆi achri tautˆs tˆs hˆmeras\). This claim seems to lack tact, but for brevity's sake Paul sums up a whole speech in it. He may have said much more than Luke here reports along the line of his speech the day before, but Paul did not make this claim without consideration. It appears to contradict his confession as the chief of sinners (1Timothy:1:13-16|). But that depends on one's interpretation of "good conscience." The word \suneidˆsis\ is literally "joint-knowledge" in Greek, Latin (_conscientia_) and English "conscience" from the Latin. It is a late word from \sunoida\, to know together, common in O.T., Apocrypha, Philo, Plutarch, New Testament, Stoics, ecclesiastical writers. In itself the word simply means consciousness of one's own thoughts (Hebrews:10:2|), or of one's own self, then consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong (Romans:2:15|) with approval or disapproval. But the conscience is not an infallible guide and acts according to the light that it has (1Corinthians:8:7,10; strkjv@1Peter:2:19|). The conscience can be contaminated (Hebrews:10:22|, evil \ponˆrƒs\). All this and more must be borne in mind in trying to understand Paul's description of his motives as a persecutor. Alleviation of his guilt comes thereby, but not removal of guilt as he himself felt (1Timothy:1:13-16|). He means to say to the Sanhedrin that he persecuted Christians as a conscientious (though mistaken) Jew (Pharisee) just as he followed his conscience in turning from Judaism to Christianity. It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no "apologies" (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. He had the consolation of a good conscience (1Peter:3:16|). The word does not occur in the Gospels and chiefly in Paul's Epistles, but we see it at work in strkjv@John:8:9| (the interpolation strkjv@7:53-8:11|).

rwp@Acts:25:16 @{It is not the custom of the Romans} (\hoti ouk estin ethos R“maiois\). If a direct quotation, \hoti\ is recitative as in Authorized Version. Canterbury Revision takes it as indirect discourse after \apekrithˆn\ (I answered), itself in a relative clause (\pros hous\) with the present tense (\estin\, is) preserved as is usual. There is a touch of disdain (Furneaux) in the tone of Festus. He may refer to a demand of the Jews before they asked that Paul be brought to Jerusalem (25:3|). At any rate there is a tone of scorn towards the Jews. {Before that the accused have} (\prin ˆ ho katˆgoroumenos echoi\). This use of the optative in this temporal clause with \prin ˆ\ instead of the subjunctive \an echˆi\ is in conformity with literary Greek and occurs only in Luke's writings in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 970). This sequence of modes is a mark of the literary style occasionally seen in Luke. It is interesting here to note the succession of dependent clauses in verses 14-16|. {The accusers face to face} (\kata pros“pon tous katˆgorous\). Same word \katˆgoros\ as in strkjv@23:30,35; strkjv@25:18|. This all sounds fair enough. {And have had opportunity to make his defence concerning the matter laid against him} (\topon te apologias laboi peri tou egklˆmatos\). Literally, "And should receive (\laboi\ optative for same reason as \echoi\ above, second aorist active of \lamban“\) opportunity for defence (objective genitive) concerning the charge" (\egklˆmatos\ in N.T. only here and strkjv@23:19| which see).

rwp@Info_Colossians @ THE OCCASION The Epistle itself gives it as being due to the arrival of Epaphras from Colossae (Colossians:1:7-9; strkjv@4:12f.|). He is probably one of Paul's converts while in Ephesus who in behalf of Paul (Colossians:1:7|) evangelized the Lycus Valley (Colossae, Hierapolis, Laodicea) where Paul had never been himself (Colossians:2:1; strkjv@4:13-16|). Since Paul's departure for Rome, the "grievous wolves" whom he foresaw in Miletus (Acts:20:29f.|) had descended upon these churches and were playing havoc with many and leading them astray much as new cults today mislead the unwary. These men were later called Gnostics (see Ignatius) and had a subtle appeal that was not easy to withstand. The air was full of the mystery cults like the Eleusinian mysteries, Mithraism, the vogue of Isis, what not. These new teachers professed new thought with a world-view that sought to explain everything on the assumption that matter was essentially evil and that the good God could only touch evil matter by means of a series of aeons or emanations so far removed from him as to prevent contamination by God and yet with enough power to create evil matter. This jejune theory satisfied many just as today some are content to deny the existence of sin, disease, death in spite of the evidence of the senses to the contrary. In his perplexity Epaphras journeyed all the way to Rome to obtain Paul's help.

rwp@Colossians:2:8 @{Take heed} (\blepete\). Present active imperative second person plural of \blep“\, common verb for warning like our "look out," "beware," "see to it." {Lest there shall be any one} (\mˆ tis estai\). Negative purpose with the future indicative, though the aorist subjunctive also occurs as in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:6|. {That maketh spoil of you} (\ho sulag“g“n\). Articular present active participle of \sulag“ge“\, late and rare (found here first) verb (from \sulˆ\, booty, and \ag“\, to lead, to carry), to carry off as booty a captive, slave, maiden. Only here in N.T. Note the singular here. There was some one outstanding leader who was doing most of the damage in leading the people astray. {Through his philosophy} (\dia tˆs philosophias\). The only use of the word in the N.T. and employed by Paul because the Gnostics were fond of it. Old word from \philosophos\ (\philos, sophos\, one devoted to the pursuit of wisdom) and in N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:17:18|. Paul does not condemn knowledge and wisdom (see verse 2|), but only this false philosophy, "knowledge falsely named" (\pseud“numos gn“sis\, strkjv@1Timothy:6:20|), and explained here by the next words. {And vain deceit} (\kai kenˆs apatˆs\). Old word for trick, guile, like riches (Matthew:13:22|). Descriptive of the philosophy of the Gnostics. {Tradition} (\paradosin\). Old word from \paradid“mi\, a giving over, a passing on. The word is colourless in itself. The tradition may be good (2Thessalonians:2:15; strkjv@3:6|) or bad (Mark:7:3|). Here it is worthless and harmful, merely the foolish theories of the Gnostics. {Rudiments} (\stoicheia\). Old word for anything in a \stoichos\ (row, series) like the letters of the alphabet, the materials of the universe (2Peter:3:10,12|), elementary teaching (Hebrews:5:12|), elements of Jewish ceremonial training (Acts:15:10; Gal strkjv@4:3,9|), the specious arguments of the Gnostic philosophers as here with all their aeons and rules of life. {And not after Christ} (\kai ou kata Christon\). Christ is the yardstick by which to measure philosophy and all phases of human knowledge. The Gnostics were measuring Christ by their philosophy as many men are doing today. They have it backwards. Christ is the measure for all human knowledge since he is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe.

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@Colossians:4:18 @{Of me Paul with mine own hand} (\tˆi emˆi cheiri Paulou\). More precisely, "with the hand of me Paul." The genitive \Paulou\ is in apposition with the idea in the possessive pronoun \emˆi\, which is itself in the instrumental case agreeing with \cheiri\. Songs:also strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:17; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21|. {My bonds} (\mou t“n desm“n\). Genitive case with \mnemoneuete\ (remember). The chain (\en halusei\ strkjv@Ephesians:6:20|) clanked afresh as Paul took the pen to sign the salutation. He was not likely to forget it himself

rwp@Info_Ephesians @ THE PLACE OF WRITING This would also be the same, that is Rome, though Deissmann and Duncan argue for Ephesus itself as the place of writing. Some scholars even suggest Caesarea.

rwp@Ephesians:2:21 @{Each several building} (\pƒsa oikodomˆ\). Songs:without article Aleph B D G K L. \Oikodomˆ\ is a late word from \oikos\ and \dem“\, to build for building up (edification) as in strkjv@Ephesians:4:29|, then for the building itself as here (Mark:13:1f.|). Ordinary Greek idiom here calls for "every building," not for "all the building" (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 772), though it is not perfectly clear what that means. Each believer is called a \naos theou\ (1Corinthians:3:16|). One may note the plural in strkjv@Mark:13:1| (\oikodomai\) of the various parts of the temple. Perhaps that is the idea here without precise definition of each \oikodomˆ\. But there are examples of \pƒs\ without the article where "all" is the idea as in \pƒsˆs ktise“s\ (all creation) in strkjv@Colossians:1:15|. {Fitly framed together} (\sunarmologoumenˆ\). Double compound from \sun\ and \harmologos\ (binding, \harmos\, joint and \leg“\), apparently made by Paul and in N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:4:16|. Architectural metaphor. {Into a holy temple} (\eis naon hagion\). The whole structure with all the \oikodomai\. Another metaphor for the Kingdom of God with which compare Peter's "spiritual house" (\oikos pneumatikos\) in which each is a living stone being built in (1Peter:2:5|).

rwp@Ephesians:4:16 @{From which} (\ex hou\). Out of which as the source of energy and direction. {Fitly framed} (\sunarmologoumenon\). See strkjv@2:21| for this verb. {Through that which every joint supplieth} (\dia pasˆs haphˆs tˆs epichorˆgias\). Literally, "through every joint of the supply." See strkjv@Colossians:2:19| for \haphˆ\ and strkjv@Phillipians:1:19| for the late word \epichorˆgia\ (only two examples in N.T.) from \epichorˆge“\, to supply (Colossians:2:19|). {In due measure} (\en metr“i\). Just "in measure" in the Greek, but the assumption is that each part of the body functions properly in its own sphere. {Unto the building up of itself} (\eis oikodomˆn heautou\). Modern knowledge of cell life in the human body greatly strengthens the force of Paul's metaphor. This is the way the body grows by cooperation under the control of the head and all "in love" (\en agapˆi\).

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ GENERAL EPISTLES BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION NOT A HAPPY TITLE There are various explanations of the term catholic (\katholikai epistolai\) as applied to this group of seven short letters by four writers (one by James, two by Peter, one by Jude, three by John). The Latin for \katholikos\ is _generalis_, though the Vulgate terms these letters _Catholicae_. The meaning is not orthodox as opposed to heretical or canonical, though they are sometimes termed \Epistolae canonicae\. As a matter of fact five of the seven (all but First Peter and First John) Eusebius placed among the "disputed" (\antilegomena\) books of the New Testament. "A canonical book is primarily one which has been measured and tested, and secondarily that which is itself a measure or standard" (Alfred Plummer). Canon is from \kan“n\ (cane) and is like a yardstick cut to the right measure and then used as a measure. Some see in the term \katholikos\ the idea that these Epistles are meant for both Jews and Gentiles, but the Epistle of James seems addressed to Jewish Christians. There were two other chief groups of New Testament writings in the old Greek manuscripts (the Gospels and Acts, then the Epistles of Paul). This group of seven Epistles and the Apocalypse constitute the remainder of the New Testament. The usual interpretation of the term \katholikos\ here is that these seven Epistles were not addressed to any particular church, but are general in their distribution. This is clearly true of I Peter, as is shown by the language in strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, where seven Roman provinces are mentioned. The language of strkjv@2Peter:3:1| bears the same idea. Apparently the Epistle of Jude:is general also as is I John. But II John is addressed to "an elect lady" (verse strkjv@2John:1:1|) and III John to Gaius (verse strkjv@3John:1:1|), both of them individuals, and therefore in no sense are these two brief letters general or catholic. The earliest instance of the word \katholikos\ is in an inscription (B.C. 6) with the meaning "general" (\tˆi katholikˆi mou prothesei\, my general purpose). It was common after that. The earliest example of it in Christian literature is in Ignatius' Epistle to the Church of Smyrna (VIII) where he has "the catholic church" (\hˆ katholikˆ ekklˆsia\), "the general church," not a local body. Clement of Alexandria (_Strom_. IV. xv) applies this adjective to the letter sent to the Gentile Christians "in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" from the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:23|).

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ IMPORTANCE OF THE GENERAL EPISTLES Without them we should be deprived of much concerning three outstanding personalities in early Christianity. We should know much less of "James, and Cephas, and John, they who were reputed to be pillars" (Galatians:2:9|). We should know less also of the Judaic (not Judaizing) form of Christianity seen in the Epistles of James and Jude:in contrast with, though not opposed to, the Pauline type. In Peter's Epistles we see, indeed, a mediating position without compromise of principle, for Peter in the Jerusalem Conference loyally supported Paul and Barnabas even if he did flicker for a moment later in Antioch. In the Johannine Epistles we see the great Eagle soar as in his Gospel in calm serenity in spite of conflict with the Gnostics who struck at the very life of Christianity itself. "The only opposition which remains worthy of a Christian's consideration is that between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate, God and the world, Christ and Antichrist, life and death" (Plummer). Songs:we can be grateful for the preservation of these little Epistles which reveal differences in the development of the great Christian leaders and the adaptation of the gospel message to changing world conditions then and now. Info_Epistles-Pastorial

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ DATES OF HIS EPISTLES Unfortunately there is not complete agreement among scholars as to the dates of some of Paul's Epistles. Baur denied the Pauline authorship of all the Epistles save I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans. Today some deny that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, though admitting the others. Some admit Pauline fragments even in the Pastoral Epistles, but more about this when these Epistles are reached. There is more doubt about the date of Galatians than any of the others. Lightfoot put it just before Romans, while Ramsay now makes it the earliest of all. The Epistle itself has no notes of place or time. The Epistles to the Thessalonians were written from Corinth after Timothy had been sent from Athens by Paul to Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:3:1f.|) and had just returned to Paul (1Thessalonians:3:6|) which we know was in Corinth (Acts:18:5|) shortly before Gallio came as Proconsul of Achaia (Acts:18:12|). We can now feel certain from the new "acclamation" of Claudius in the inscription at Delphi recently explained by Deissmann in his _St. Paul_ that the Thessalonian Epistles were written 50 to 51 A.D. We know also that he wrote I Corinthians while in Ephesus (1Corinthians:16:8|) and before pentecost, though the precise year is not given. But he spent three years at Ephesus in round numbers (Acts:19:8,10; strkjv@20:31|) and he wrote just before he left, probably spring of A.D. 54 or 55. He wrote II Corinthians from Macedonia shortly after leaving Ephesus (2Corinthians:2:12|) ] apparently the same year. Romans was written from Corinth and sent by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:1f.|) unless strkjv@Romans:16| be considered a separate Epistle to Ephesus as some hold, a view that does not commend itself to me. Deissmann (_New Testament in the Light of Modern Research_, p. 33) accepts a modern theory that Ephesus was the place of the writing of the first prison Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) as well as I Corinthians and Galatians and dates them all between A.D. 52 and 55. But we shall find that these prison Epistles most naturally fall to Rome between A.D. 61 and 63. If the Pastoral Epistles are genuine, as I hold, they come between A.D. 65 and 68. Bartlet argues for a date before A.D. 64, accepting the view that Paul was put to death then. But it is still far more probable that Paul met his death in Rome in A.D. 68 shortly before Nero's death which was June 8, A.D. 68. It will thus be seen that the dates of several of the Epistles are fairly clear, while some remain quite uncertain. In a broad outlook they must all come between A.D. 50 and 68.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE RECIPIENTS If the title is allowed to be genuine or a fair interpretation of the Epistle, then it is addressed to Jewish (Hebrew) Christians in a local church somewhere. Dr. James Moffatt in his _Commentary_ (pp. xv to xvii) challenges the title and insists that the book is written for Gentile Christians as truly as First Peter. He argues this largely from the author's use of the LXX. For myself Dr. Moffatt's reasons are not convincing. The traditional view that the author is addressing Jewish Christians in a definite locality, whether a large church or a small household church, is true, I believe. The author seems clearly to refer to a definite church in the experiences alluded to in strkjv@Hebrews:10:32-34|. The church in Jerusalem had undergone sufferings like these, but we really do not know where the church was. Apparently the author is in Italy when he writes (Hebrews:13:24|), though "they of Italy" (\hoi apo tˆs Italias\) can mean those who have come from Italy. These Jewish Christians may even have lived in Rome itself.

rwp@Hebrews:6:2 @The other four items are qualitative genitives with \didachˆn\ (\baptism“n, epithese“s cheir“n, anastase“s nekr“n, krimatos ai“niou\). The plural \baptism“n\ "by itself does not mean specifically Christian baptism either in this epistle (9:10|) or elsewhere (Mark:7:4|), but ablutions or immersions such as the mystery religions and the Jewish cultus required for initiates, proselytes, and worshippers in general" (Moffatt). The disciples of the Baptist had disputes with the Jews over purification (John:3:25|). See also strkjv@Acts:19:2|. "The laying on of hands" seems to us out of place in a list of elementary principles, but it was common as a sign of blessing (Matthew:19:13|), of healing (Mark:7:32|), in the choice of the Seven (Acts:6:6|), in the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (Acts:8:17f.; strkjv@19:6|), in separation for a special task (Acts:13:3|), in ordination (1Timothy:4:14; strkjv@5:22; strkjv@2Timothy:1:6|). Prayer accompanied this laying on of the hands as a symbol. The resurrection of the dead (both just and unjust, strkjv@John:5:29; strkjv@Acts:24:15|) is easily seen to be basal (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15|) as well as eternal judgment (timeless and endless).

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:9:11 @{Having come} (\paragenomenos\). Second aorist middle participle of \paraginomai\. This is the great historic event that is the crux of history. "Christ came on the scene, and all was changed" (Moffatt). {Of the good things to come} (\t“n mellont“n agath“n\). But B D read \genomen“n\ (that are come). It is a nice question which is the true text. Both aspects are true, for Christ is High Priest of good things that have already come as well as of the glorious future of hope. Westcott prefers \genomen“n\, Moffatt \mellont“n\. {Through the greater and more perfect tabernacle} (\dia tˆs meizonos kai teleioteras skˆnˆs\). Probably the instrumental use of \dia\ (2Corinthians:2:4; strkjv@Romans:2:27; strkjv@14:20|) as accompaniment, not the local idea (4:14; strkjv@10:20|). Christ as High Priest employed in his work the heavenly tabernacle (8:2|) after which the earthly was patterned (9:24|). {Not made with hands} (\ou cheiropoiˆtou\). Old compound verbal for which see strkjv@Mark:14:58; strkjv@Acts:7:48; strkjv@17:24|. Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:8:2|. Here in the predicate position. {Not of this creation} (\ou tautˆs tˆs ktise“s\). Explanation of \ou chieropoiˆtou\. For \ktisis\ see strkjv@2Corinthians:5:17; strkjv@Romans:8:19|. For the idea see strkjv@2Corinthians:4:18; strkjv@Hebrews:8:2|. This greater and more perfect tabernacle is heaven itself (9:24|).

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:9:19 @{When every commandment had been spoken} (\lalˆtheisˆs\). Genitive absolute with first aorist passive participle feminine singular of \lale“\. The author uses the account in strkjv@Exodus:24:3f.| "with characteristic freedom" (Moffatt). There is nothing there about the water, the scarlet wool (\erion\, diminutive of \eros, eiros\, old word, here and in strkjv@Revelation:1:14|; for \kokkinos\ see on ¯Matthew:27:6,28|), and hyssop (\huss“pou\, a plant mentioned in strkjv@John:19:29|). It had become the custom to mingle water with the blood and to use a wisp of wool or a stem of hyssop for sprinkling (Numbers:10:2-10|). {Both the book itself} (\auto te to biblion\). There is nothing in Exodus about sprinkling the book of the covenant, though it may very well have been done. He omits the use of oil in strkjv@Exodus:40:9f.; strkjv@Leviticus:8:10f.| and applies blood to all the details. {Sprinkled} (\erantisen\). First aorist active indicative from \rantiz“\ (from \rantos\ and this from \rain“\), like \baptiz“\ from \bapt“\. Cf. strkjv@Mark:7:4; strkjv@Hebrews:10:22; strkjv@Revelation:19:13|.

rwp@Hebrews:9:23 @{The copies} (\ta hupodeigmata\). See strkjv@8:5| for this word, the earthly (8:4; strkjv@9:1|) tabernacle. {With these} (\toutois\). Instrumental case of \houtos\, like the rites above described (verse 19|), perhaps with some disparagement. {Themselves} (\auta\). The heavenly realities (8:2,5; strkjv@9:11f.|). {With better sacrifices} (\kreittosin thusiais\). Instrumental case again. Point of this section (9:13-10:18|). {Than these} (\para tautas\). Use of \para\ and the accusative case after a comparative as in strkjv@1:4,9|. To us it seems a bit strained to speak of the ritual cleansing or dedication of heaven itself by the appearance of Christ as Priest-Victim. But the whole picture is highly mystical.

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@John:1:42 @{Looked upon him} (\emblepsas aut“i\). See verse 36| for same word and form of John's eager gaze at Jesus. Luke uses this word of Jesus when Peter denied him (Luke:22:61|). {He brought him} (\ˆgagen auton\). Effective second aorist active indicative of \ago\ as if Andrew had to overcome some resistance on Simon's part. {Thou shalt be called Cephas} (\su klˆthˆsˆi Kˆphƒs\). Apparently before Simon spoke. We do not know whether Jesus had seen Simon before or not, but he at once gives him a nickname that will characterize him some day, though not yet, when he makes the noble confession (Matthew:16:17f.|), and Jesus will say, "Thou art Peter." Here the future passive indicative of \kale“\ is only prophecy. The Aramaic \Cˆphƒs\ (rock) is only applied to Simon in John except by Paul (1Corinthians:1:12; strkjv@Galatians:1:18|, etc.). But the Greek \Petros\ is used by all. In the ancient Greek \petra\ was used for the massive ledge of rock like Stone Mountain while \petros\ was a detached fragment of the ledge, though itself large. This distinction may exist in strkjv@Matthew:16:17f.|, except that Jesus probably used Aramaic which would not have such a distinction.

rwp@John:2:3 @{When the wine failed} (\husterˆsantos oinou\). Genitive absolute with first aorist active participle of \hustere“\, old verb from \husteros\, late or lacking. See same use in strkjv@Mark:10:21|. A longer Western paraphrase occurs in some manuscripts. It was an embarrassing circumstance, especially to Mary, if partly due to the arrival of the seven guests. {They have no wine} (\Oinon ouk echousin\). The statement of the fact was in itself a hint and a request. But why made by the mother of Jesus and why to Jesus? She would not, of course, make it to the host. Mary feels some kind of responsibility and exercises some kind of authority for reasons not known to us. Mary had treasured in her heart the wonders connected with the birth of Jesus (Luke:2:19,51|). The ministry of the Baptist had stirred her hopes afresh. Had she not told Jesus all that she knew before he went to the Jordan to be baptized of John? This group of disciples meant to her that Jesus had begun his Messianic work. Songs:she dares propose the miracle to him.

rwp@John:6:35 @{I am the bread of life} (\Eg“ eimi ho artos tˆs z“ˆs\). This sublime sentence was startling in the extreme to the crowd. Philo does compare the manna to the \theios logos\ in an allegorical sense, but this language is far removed from Philo's vagueness. In the Synoptics (Mark:14:22; strkjv@Matthew:26:26; strkjv@Luke:22:19|) Jesus uses bread (\artos\) as the symbol of his body in the Lord's Supper, but here Jesus offers himself in place of the loaves and fishes which they had come to seek (24,26|). He is the bread of life in two senses: it has life in itself, the living bread (51|), and it gives life to others like the water of life, the tree of life. John often has Jesus saying "I am" (\eg“ eimi\). As also in strkjv@6:41,48,51; strkjv@8:12; strkjv@10:7,9,11,14; strkjv@11:25; strkjv@14:6; strkjv@15:1,5|. {He that cometh to me} (\ho erchomenos pros eme\). The first act of the soul in approaching Jesus. See also verse 37|. {Shall not hunger} (\ou mˆ peinasˆi\). Strong double negative \ou me\ with first aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive, "shall not become hungry." {He that believeth on me} (\ho pisteu“n eis eme\). The continuous relation of trust after coming like \pisteuˆte\ (present tense) in verse 29|. See both verbs used together also in strkjv@7:37f|. {Shall never thirst} (\ou mˆ dipsˆsei p“pote\). Songs:the old MSS. the future active indicative instead of the aorist subjunctive as above, an even stronger form of negation with \p“pote\ (1:18|) added.

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:20:7 @{The napkin} (\to soudarion\). Already in strkjv@11:44| which see. This napkin for the head was in a separate place. {Rolled up} (\entetuligmenon\). Perfect passive participle, predicate accusative like \keimenon\, from \entuliss“\, late verb, to wrap in, to roll up, already in strkjv@Matthew:27:59; strkjv@Luke:23:53|. It was arranged in an orderly fashion. There was no haste. {By itself} (\ch“ris\). Old adverb, "apart," "separately."

rwp@Info_Jude:@ THE EPISTLE OF JUDE ABOUT A.D. 65 TO 67 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR He calls himself Judas, but this was a very common name. In the N.T. itself we have Judas Iscariot and Judas not Iscariot (John:14:22|; also called Judas of James, son or brother, strkjv@Luke:6:6|), Judas a brother of our Lord (Matthew:13:55|), Judas of Galilee (Acts:5:37|), Judas of Damascus (Acts:9:11|), Judas Barsabbas (Acts:15:22|). The author explains that he is a "slave" of Jesus Christ as James did (Jude:1:1|), and adds that he is also a brother of James. Clement of Alexandria thinks that, like James, he deprecated being called the brother of the Lord Jesus (as by Hegesippus later) as claiming too much authority. Keil identifies him with Jude:the Apostle (not Iscariot), but that is most unlikely. The Epistle is one of the disputed books of Eusebius. It was recognized in the canon in the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397). It appears in the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170).

rwp@Luke:2:44 @{In the company} (\en tˆi sunodiƒi\). The caravan going together on the road or way (\sun, hodos\), a journey in company, then by metonymy the company itself. A common Greek word (Plutarch, Strabo, etc.). The women usually went ahead and the men followed. Joseph may have thought Jesus was with Mary and Mary that he was with Joseph. "The Nazareth caravan was so long that it took a whole day to look through it" (Plummer). {They sought for him} (\anezˆtoun auton\). Imperfect active. Common Greek verb. Note force of \ana\. They searched up and down, back and forth, a thorough search and prolonged, but in vain.

rwp@Luke:3:19 @{Reproved} (\elegchomenos\). Present passive participle of \elegch“\, an old verb meaning in Homer to treat with contempt, then to convict (Matthew:18:15|), to expose (Ephesians:5:11|), to reprove as here. The substantive \elegchos\ means proof (Hebrews:11:1|) and \elegmos\, censure (2Timothy:3:16|). Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. V.4) shows how repulsive this marriage was to Jewish feeling. {Evil things} (\ponˆr“n\). Incorporated into the relative sentence. The word is from \ponos, pone“\, toil, work, and gives the active side of evil, possibly with the notion of work itself as evil or at least an annoyance. The "evil eye" (\ophthalmos ponˆros\ in strkjv@Mark:7:22|) was a "mischief working eye" (Vincent). In strkjv@Matthew:6:23| it is a diseased eye. Songs:Satan is "the evil one" (Matthew:5:37; strkjv@6:13|, etc.). It is a very common adjective in the N.T. as in the older Greek. {Had done} (\epoiˆsen\). Aorist active indicative, not past perfect, merely a summary constative aorist, {he did}.

rwp@Luke:6:20 @{And he lifted up his eyes} (\kai autos eparas tous opthalmous autou\). First aorist active participle from \epair“\. Note also Luke's favourite use of \kai autos\ in beginning a paragraph. Vivid detail alone in Luke. Jesus looked the vast audience full in the face. strkjv@Matthew:5:2| mentions that "he opened his mouth and taught them" (began to teach them, inchoative imperfect, \edidasken\). He spoke out so that the great crowd could hear. Some preachers do not open their mouths and do not look up at the people, but down at the manuscript and drawl along while the people lose interest and even go to sleep or slip out. {Ye poor} (\hoi pt“choi\). {The poor}, but "yours" (\humetera\) justifies the translation "ye." Luke's report is direct address in all the four beatitudes and four woes given by him. It is useless to speculate why Luke gives only four of the eight beatitudes in Matthew or why Matthew does not give the four woes in Luke. One can only say that neither professes to give a complete report of the sermon. There is no evidence to show that either saw the report of the other. They may have used a common source like Q (the Logia of Jesus) or they may have had separate sources. Luke's first beatitude corresponds with Matthew's first, but he does not have "in spirit" after "poor." Does Luke represent Jesus as saying that poverty itself is a blessing? It can be made so. Or does Luke represent Jesus as meaning what is in Matthew, poverty of spirit? {The kingdom of God} (\hˆ basileia tou theou\). strkjv@Matthew:5:3| has "the kingdom of heaven" which occurs alone in Matthew though he also has the one here in Luke with no practical difference. The rabbis usually said "the kingdom of heaven." They used it of the political Messianic kingdom when Judaism of the Pharisaic sort would triumph over the world. The idea of Jesus is in the sharpest contrast to that conception here and always. See on ¯Matthew:3:2| for discussion of the meaning of the word "kingdom." It is the favourite word of Jesus for the rule of God in the heart here and now. It is both present and future and will reach a glorious consummation. Some of the sayings of Christ have apocalyptic and eschatological figures, but the heart of the matter is here in the spiritual reality of the reign of God in the hearts of those who serve him. The kingdom parables expand and enlarge upon various phases of this inward life and growth.

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

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

rwp@Luke:10:21 @{In that same hour} (\en autˆi tˆi h“rƒi\). Literally, "at the hour itself," almost a demonstrative use of \autos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 686) and in Luke alone in the N.T. (2:38; strkjv@10:21; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@20:19|). strkjv@Matthew:11:25| uses the demonstrative here, "at that time" (\en ekein“i t“i kair“i\). {Rejoiced in the Holy Spirit} (\ˆgalliasato t“i pneumati t“i hagi“i\). First aorist middle of the late verb \agallia“\ for \agall“\, to exult. Always in the middle in the N.T. save strkjv@Luke:1:47| in Mary's _Magnificat_. This holy joy of Jesus was directly due to the Holy Spirit. It is joy in the work of his followers, their victories over Satan, and is akin to the joy felt by Jesus in strkjv@John:4:32-38| when the vision of the harvest of the world stirred his heart. The rest of this verse is precisely like strkjv@Matthew:11:25f.|, a peculiarly Johannine passage in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, and so from Q (the Logia of Jesus). It has disturbed critics who are unwilling to admit the Johannine style and type of teaching as genuine, but here it is. See on Matthew for discussion. "That God had proved his independence of the human intellect is a matter for thankfulness. Intellectual gifts, so far from being necessary, are often a hindrance" (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:11:17 @{But he} (\autos de\). In contrast with them. {Knowing their thoughts} (\eid“s aut“n ta dianoˆmata\). From \dianoe“\, to think through or distinguish. This substantive is common in Plato, but occurs nowhere else in the N.T. It means intent, purpose. Jesus knew that they were trying to tempt him. {And a house divided against a house falleth} (\kai oikos epi oikon piptei\). It is not certain that \diameristheisa\ (divided) is to be repeated here as in strkjv@Matthew:12:25; strkjv@Mark:3:25|. It may mean, {and house falls upon house}, "one tumbling house knocking down its neighbour, a graphic picture of what happens when a kingdom is divided against itself" (Bruce).

rwp@Luke:12:42 @{Who then} (\tis ara\). Jesus introduces this parable of the wise steward (42-48|) by a rhetorical question that answers itself. Peter is this wise steward, each of the Twelve is, anyone is who acts thus. {The faithful and wise steward} (\ho pistos oikonomos ho phronimos\). The faithful steward, the wise one. A steward is house manager (\oikos, nem“\, to manage). Each man is a steward in his own responsibilities. {Household} (\therapeias\). Literally, service from \therapeu“\. medical service as in strkjv@Luke:9:11|, by metonymy household (a body of those domestics who serve). {Their portion of food} (\to sitometrion\). Late word from \sitometre“\ (Genesis:47:12|) for the Attic \ton siton metre“\, to measure the food, the rations. Here only in the N.T. or anywhere else till Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 158) found it in an Egyptian papyrus and then an inscription in Lycia (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 104).

rwp@Luke:13:1 @{At that very season} (\en aut“i t“i kair“i\). Luke's frequent idiom, "at the season itself." Apparently in close connexion with the preceding discourses. Probably "were present" (\parˆsan\, imperfect of \pareimi\) means "came," "stepped to his side," as often (Matthew:26:50; strkjv@Acts:12:20; strkjv@John:11:28|). These people had a piece of news for Jesus. {Whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices} (\h“n to haima Peilatos emixen meta t“n thusi“n aut“n\). The verb \emixen\ is first aorist active (not past perfect) of \mignumi\, a common verb. The incident is recorded nowhere else, but is in entire harmony with Pilate's record for outrages. These Galileans at a feast in Jerusalem may have been involved in some insurrection against the Roman government, the leaders of whom Pilate had slain right in the temple courts where the sacrifices were going on. Jesus comments on the incident, but not as the reporters had expected. Instead of denunciation of Pilate he turned it into a parable for their own conduct in the uncertainty of life.

rwp@Luke:13:34 @{O Jerusalem, Jerusalem} (\Ierousalˆm, Ierousalˆm\). In strkjv@Matthew:23:37f.| Jesus utters a similar lament over Jerusalem. The connection suits both there and here, but Plummer considers it "rather a violent hypothesis" to suppose that Jesus spoke these words twice. It is possible, of course, though not like Luke's usual method, that he put the words here because of the mention of Jerusalem. In itself it is not easy to see why Jesus could not have made the lament both here and in Jerusalem. The language of the apostrophe is almost identical in both places (Luke:13:34f.; strkjv@Matthew:23:37-39|). For details see on Matthew. In Luke we have \episunaxai\ (late first aorist active infinitive) and in Matthew \episunagagein\ (second aorist active infinitive), both from \episunag“\, a double compound of late Greek (Polybius). Both have "How often would I" (\posakis ˆthelˆsa\). How often did I wish. Clearly showing that Jesus made repeated visits to Jerusalem as we know otherwise only from John's Gospel. {Even as} (\hon tropon\). Accusative of general reference and in strkjv@Matthew:23:37| also. Incorporation of antecedent into the relative clause. {Brood} (\nossian\) is in Luke while Matthew has {chickens} (\nossia\), both late forms for the older \neossia\. The adjective {desolate} (\erˆmos\) is wanting in strkjv@Luke:13:35| and is doubtful in strkjv@Matthew:23:39|.

rwp@Luke:20:19 @{To lay hands on him} (\epibalein ep' auton tas cheiras\). Second aorist active infinitive of \epiball“\, an old verb and either transitively as here or intransitively as in strkjv@Mark:4:37|. Vivid picture here where strkjv@Mark:12:12; strkjv@Matthew:21:46| has "to seize" (\kratˆsai\). {In that very hour} (\en autˆi tˆi h“rƒi\). Luke's favourite idiom, in the hour itself. Not in Mark or Matthew and shows that the Sanhedrin were angry enough to force the climax then. {And they feared} (\kai ephobˆthˆsan\). Adversative use of \kai\ = but they feared. Hence they refrained. {For they perceived} (\egn“san gar\). The reason for their rage. Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\. {Against them} (\pros autous\). As in strkjv@Mark:12:12|. The cap fitted them and they saw it.

rwp@Luke:22:7 @{The day of unleavened bread came} (\ˆlthen hˆ hˆmera t“n azum“n\). The day itself came, not simply was drawing nigh (verse 1|). {Must be sacrificed} (\edei thuesthai\). This was Nisan 14 which began at sunset. Luke is a Gentile and this fact must be borne in mind. The lamb must be slain by the head of the family (Exodus:12:6|). The controversy about the day when Christ ate the last passover meal has already been discussed (Matthew:26:17; strkjv@Mark:14:12|). The Synoptics clearly present this as a fact. Jesus was then crucified on Friday at the passover or Thursday (our time) at the regular hour 6 P.M. (beginning of Friday). The five passages in John (13:1f.; strkjv@13:27; strkjv@18:28; strkjv@19:14; strkjv@19:31|) rightly interpreted teach the same thing as shown in my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_ (pp.279-284).

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@Luke:24:33 @{That very hour} (\autˆi tˆi h“rƒi\). Locative case and common Lukan idiom, at the hour itself. They could not wait. {Gathered} (\ˆthroismenous\). Perfect passive participle of \athroiz“\, old verb from \athroos\ (copulative \a\ and \throos\, crowd). Only here in the N.T.

rwp@Info_Mark @ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark's Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that A.D. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_. Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark's Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q (_Logia of Jesus_) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark's work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter (_The Four Gospels_) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter's own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|).

rwp@Info_Mark @ The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, strkjv@Mark:16:9-20|, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as strkjv@Mark:16:9-20| is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_. The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my _Harmony of the Gospels_ I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark's Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter's eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men's bodies and saving men's souls. strkjv@Mark:1:1 @{The beginning} (\archˆ\). There is no article in the Greek. It is possible that the phrase served as a heading or title for the paragraph about the ministry of the Baptist or as the superscription for the whole Gospel (Bruce) placed either by Mark or a scribe. And then the Gospel of Jesus Christ means the Message about Jesus Christ (objective genitive). The word Gospel here (\euaggelion\) comes close to meaning the record itself as told by Mark. Swete notes that each writer has a different starting point (\archˆ\). Mark, as the earliest form of the evangelic tradition, begins with the work of the Baptist, Matthew with the ancestry and birth of the Messiah, Luke with the birth of the Baptist, John with the Preincarnate Logos, Paul with the foundation of each of the churches (Phillipians:4:15|). {The Son of God} (\Huiou theou\). Aleph 28, 255 omit these words, but B, D, L, have them and the great mass of the manuscripts have \huiou tou theou\. If this is a heading added to what Mark wrote, the heading may have existed early in two forms, one with, one without "Son of God." If Mark wrote the words, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness since he uses the phrase elsewhere.

rwp@Mark:1:43 @{Strictly charged} (\embrimˆsamenos\). Only in Mark. strkjv@Luke:5:14| has \parˆggeilen\ (commanded). Mark's word occurs also in strkjv@14:5| and in strkjv@Matthew:9:30| and strkjv@John:11:38|. See on ¯Matthew:9:30|. It is a strong word for the snorting of a horse and expresses powerful emotion as Jesus stood here face to face with leprosy, itself a symbol of sin and all its train of evils. The command to report to the priests was in accord with the Mosaic regulations and the prohibition against talking about it was to allay excitement and to avoid needless opposition to Christ.

rwp@Mark:2:27 @{For man} (\dia ton anthr“pon\). Mark alone has this profound saying which subordinates the sabbath to man's real welfare (mankind, observe, generic article with \anthr“pos\, class from class). Man was not made for the sabbath as the rabbis seemed to think with all their petty rules about eating an egg laid on the sabbath or looking in the glass, _et cetera_. See 2Macc. strkjv@5:19 and _Mechilta_ on strkjv@Exodus:31:13|: "The sabbath is delivered unto you and ye are not delivered unto the sabbath." Christianity has had to fight this same battle about institutionalism. The church itself is for man, not man for the church.

rwp@Mark:3:23 @{In parables} (\en parabolais\). In crisp pungent thrusts that exposed the inconsistencies of the scribes and Pharisees. See on ¯Matthew:13| for discussion of the word {parable} (\parabolˆ\, placing beside for comparison). These short parabolic quips concern Satan's casting out (\ekballei\, the very word used of casting out demons) Satan (rhetorical question), a kingdom divided (\meristhˆi\, for a mere portion) against itself, a house divided (\meristhˆi\) against itself, two conditions of the third class undetermined, but with prospect of determination.

rwp@Mark:4:2 @{He taught them} (\edidasken autous\). Imperfect tense describing it as going on. {In parables} (\en parabolais\). As in strkjv@3:23|, only here more extended parables. See on ¯Matthew:13| for discussion concerning Christ's use of parables. Eight are given there, one (the Lamp both in strkjv@Mark:4:21| and strkjv@Luke:8:16| (both Sower and the Lamp in Luke), one alone in strkjv@Mark:4:26-29| (seed growing of itself) not in Matthew or Luke, ten on this occasion. Only four are mentioned in strkjv@Mark:4:1-34| (The Sower, the Lamp, the Seed Growing of Itself, the Mustard Seed). But Mark adds (4:34|) "without a parable spake he not unto them," clearly meaning that Jesus spoke many others on this occasion and Matt. after mentioning eight (Matthew:13:34|) makes the same statement. Manifestly, therefore, Jesus spoke many parables on this day and all theories of exegesis or dispensations on the basis of the number of these kingdom parables are quite beside the mark. In beginning Jesus said: {Hearken} (\Akouete\). It is significant that even Jesus had to ask people to listen when he spoke. See also verse 9|.

rwp@Mark:4:19 @{The lusts of other things} (\hai peri ta loipa epithumiai\). All the passions or longings, sensual, worldly, "pleasures of this life" (\hˆdon“n tou biou\) as Luke has it (Luke:8:14|), the world of sense drowning the world of spirit. The word \epithumia\ is not evil in itself. One can yearn (this word) for what is high and holy (Luke:22:15; strkjv@Phillipians:1:23|).

rwp@Mark:4:29 @{Is ripe} (\paradoi\, second aorist subjunctive with \hotan\). Whenever the fruit yields itself or permits. {Putteth forth} (\apostellei\). Sends forth the sickle. The word for _apostle_ comes from this verb. See strkjv@John:4:38|: "I sent you forth to reap" (\ego apesteila humƒs therizein\). Sickle (\drepanon\) here by metonymy stands for the reapers who use it when the harvest stands ready for it (\parestˆken\, stands by the side, present perfect indicative).

rwp@Mark:6:22 @{The daughter of Herodias herself} (\tˆs thugatros autˆs Hˆr“idiados\). Genitive absolute again. Some ancient manuscripts read \autou\ (his, referring to Herod Antipas. Songs:Westcott and Hort) instead of \autˆs\ (herself). In that case the daughter of Herodias would also have the name Herodias as well as Salome, the name commonly given her. That is quite possible in itself. It was toward the close of the banquet, when all had partaken freely of the wine, that Herodias made her daughter come in and dance (\eiselthousˆs kai orchˆsamenˆs\) in the midst (Matthew). "Such dancing was an almost unprecedented thing for women of rank, or even respectability. It was mimetic and licentious, and performed by professionals" (Gould). Herodias stooped thus low to degrade her own daughter like a common \hetaira\ in order to carry out her set purpose against John. {She pleased Herod and them that sat at meat} (\ˆresen Hˆr“idˆi kai tois sunanakeimenois\). The maudlin group lounging on the divans were thrilled by the licentious dance of the half-naked princess. {Whatsoever thou wilt} (\ho ean thelˆis\) The drunken Tetrarch had been caught in the net of Herodias. It was a public promise.

rwp@Mark:7:4 @{From the marketplace} (\ap' agoras\). Ceremonial defilement was inevitable in the mixing with men in public. This \agora\ from \ageir“\ to collect or gather, was a public forum in every town where the people gathered like the courthouse square in American towns. The disciples were already ceremonially defiled. {Wash themselves} (\baptis“ntai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \baptiz“\, dip or immerse. Westcott and Hort put \rantis“ntai\ in the text translated "sprinkle themselves" in the margin of the Revised Version, because Aleph, B, and some of the best cursives have it. Gould terms \rantis“ntai\ "a manifest emendation," to get rid of the difficulty of dipping or bathing the whole body. Meyer says: "The statement proceeds by way of climax: before eating they wash the hands always. When they come from market they take a bath before eating." This is not the place to enter into any controversy about the meaning of \baptiz“\, to dip, \rantiz“\, to sprinkle, and \ecche“\, to pour, all used in the New Testament. The words have their distinctive meanings here as elsewhere. Some scribes felt a difficulty about the use of \baptis“ntai\ here. The Western and Syrian classes of manuscripts add "and couches" (\kai klin“n\) at the end of the sentence. Swete considers the immersions of beds (\baptismous klin“n\) "an incongruous combination." But Gould says: "Edersheim shows that the Jewish ordinance required immersions, \baptismous\, of these vessels." We must let the Jewish scrupulosity stand for itself, though "and couches" is not supported by Aleph, B L D Bohairic, probably not genuine.

rwp@Mark:10:32 @{And they were amazed} (\kai ethambounto\). Imperfect tense describing the feelings of the disciples as Jesus was walking on in front of them (\ˆn proag“n autous\, periphrastic imperfect active), an unusual circumstance in itself that seemed to bode no good as they went on through Perea towards Jerusalem. In fact, {they that followed were afraid} (\hoi de akolouthountes ephobounto\) as they looked at Jesus walking ahead in solitude. The idiom (\hoi de\) may not mean that all the disciples were afraid, but only some of them. "The Lord walked in advance of the Twelve with a solemnity and a determination which foreboded danger" (Swete). Cf. strkjv@Luke:9:5|. They began to fear coming disaster as they neared Jerusalem. They read correctly the face of Jesus. {And he took again the twelve} (\kai paralab“n tous d“deka\). Matthew has "apart" from the crowds and that is what Mark also means. Note \paralab“n\, taking to his side. {And began to tell them the things that were to happen to him} (\ˆrxato autois legein ta mellonta aut“i sumbainein\). He had done it before three times already (Mark:8:31; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@9:31|). Songs:Jesus tries once more. They had failed utterly heretofore. How is it now? Luke adds (18:34|): "They understood none of these things." But Mark and Matthew show how the minds of two of the disciples were wholly occupied with plans of their own selfish ambition while Jesus was giving details of his approaching death and resurrection.

rwp@Mark:11:18 @{Sought how they might destroy him} (\ezˆtoun p“s auton apoles“sin\). Imperfect indicative, a continuous attitude and endeavour. Note deliberative subjunctive with \p“s\ retained in indirect question. Here both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes) combine in their resentment against the claims of Jesus and in the determination to kill him. Long ago the Pharisees and the Herodians had plotted for his death (Mark:3:6|). Now in Jerusalem the climax has come right in the temple. {For they feared him} (\ephobounto gar\). Imperfect middle indicative. Hence in wrath they planned his death and yet they had to be cautious. The Triumphal Entry had shown his power with the people. And now right in the temple itself "all the multitude was astonished at his teaching" (\pƒs ho ochlos exeplˆsseto epi tˆi didachˆi autou\). Imperfect passive. The people looked on Jesus as a hero, as the Messiah. This verse aptly describes the crisis that has now come between Christ and the Sanhedrin.

rwp@Info_Matthew @ In the Gospel itself we find Matthew the publican (Matthew:9:9; strkjv@10:3|) though Mark (Mark:2:14|) and Luke (Luke:5:27|) call him Levi the publican. Evidently therefore he had two names like John Mark. It is significant that Jesus called this man from so disreputable a business to follow him. He was apparently not a disciple of John the Baptist. He was specially chosen by Jesus to be one of the Twelve Apostles, a business man called into the ministry as was true of the fishermen James and John, Andrew and Simon. In the lists of the Apostles he comes either seventh or eighth. There is nothing definite told about him in the Gospels apart from the circle of the Twelve after the feast which he gave to his fellow publicans in honor of Jesus.

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:1:21 @{Thou shalt call his name Jesus} (\Kalesies to onoma autou Iˆsoun\). The rabbis named six whose names were given before birth: "Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and the name of the Messiah, whom may the Holy One, blessed be His name, bring in our day." The angel puts it up to Joseph as the putative father to name the child. "Jesus is the same as Joshua, a contraction of Jehoshuah (Numbers:13:16; strkjv@1Chronicles:7:27|), signifying in Hebrew, 'Jehovah is helper,' or 'Help of Jehovah'" (Broadus). Songs:Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua (Hebrews:4:8|). He is another Joshua to lead the true people of God into the Promised Land. The name itself was common enough as Josephus shows. Jehovah is Salvation as seen in Joshua for the Hebrews and in Jesus for all believers. "The meaning of the name, therefore, finds expression in the title _Saviour_ applied to our Lord (Luke:1:47; strkjv@2:11; strkjv@John:4:42|)" (Vincent). He will save (\s“sei\) his people from their sins and so be their Saviour (\S“tˆr\). He will be prophet, priest, and king, but "Saviour" sums it all up in one word. The explanation is carried out in the promise, "for he is the one who (\autos\) will save (\s“sei\ with a play on the name Jesus) his people from their sins." Paul will later explain that by the covenant people, the children of promise, God means the spiritual Israel, all who believe whether Jews or Gentiles. This wonderful word touches the very heart of the mission and message of the Messiah. Jesus himself will show that the kingdom of heaven includes all those and only those who have the reign of God in their hearts and lives. {From their sins} (\apo t“n hamarti“n aut“n\). Both sins of omission and of commission. The substantive (\hamartia\) is from the verb (\hamartanein\) and means missing the mark as with an arrow. How often the best of us fall short and fail to score. Jesus will save us away from (\apo\) as well as out of (\ex\) our sins. They will be cast into oblivion and he will cover them up out of sight.

rwp@Matthew:2:23 @{Should be called a Nazarene} (\Naz“raios klˆthˆsetai\). Matthew says "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets" (\dia t“n prophˆt“n\). It is the plural and no single prophecy exists which says that the Messiah was to be called a Nazarene. It may be that this term of contempt (John:1:46; strkjv@7:52|) is what is meant, and that several prophecies are to be combined like Ps. strkjv@22:6,8; strkjv@69:11,19; strkjv@Isaiah:53:2,3,4|. The name Nazareth means a shoot or branch, but it is by no means certain that Matthew has this in mind. It is best to confess that we do not know. See Broadus on Matthew for the various theories. But, despised as Nazareth was at that time, Jesus has exalted its fame. The lowly Nazarene he was at first, but it is our glory to be the followers of the Nazarene. Bruce says that "in this case, therefore, we certainly know that the historic fact suggested the prophetic reference, instead of the prophecy creating the history." The parallels drawn by Matthew between the history of Israel and the birth and infancy of Jesus are not mere fancy. History repeats itself and writers of history find frequent parallels. Surely Matthew is not beyond the bounds of reason or of fact in illustrating in his own way the birth and infancy of Jesus by the Providence of God in the history of Israel.

rwp@Matthew:5:3 @{Blessed} (\makarioi\). The English word "blessed" is more exactly represented by the Greek verbal \eulogˆtoi\ as in strkjv@Luke:1:68| of God by Zacharias, or the perfect passive participle \eulogˆmenos\ as in strkjv@Luke:1:42| of Mary by Elizabeth and in strkjv@Matthew:21:9|. Both forms come from \euloge“\, to speak well of (\eu, logos\). The Greek word here (\makarioi\) is an adjective that means "happy" which in English etymology goes back to hap, chance, good-luck as seen in our words haply, hapless, happily, happiness. "Blessedness is, of course, an infinitely higher and better thing than mere happiness" (Weymouth). English has thus ennobled "blessed" to a higher rank than "happy." But "happy" is what Jesus said and the _Braid Scots New Testament_ dares to say "Happy" each time here as does the _Improved Edition of the American Bible Union Version_. The Greek word is as old as Homer and Pindar and was used of the Greek gods and also of men, but largely of outward prosperity. Then it is applied to the dead who died in the Lord as in strkjv@Revelation:14:13|. Already in the Old Testament the Septuagint uses it of moral quality. "Shaking itself loose from all thoughts of outward good, it becomes the express symbol of a happiness identified with pure character. Behind it lies the clear cognition of sin as the fountain-head of all misery, and of holiness as the final and effectual cure for every woe. For knowledge as the basis of virtue, and therefore of happiness, it substitutes faith and love" (Vincent). Jesus takes this word "happy" and puts it in this rich environment. "This is one of the words which have been transformed and ennobled by New Testament use; by association, as in the Beatitudes, with unusual conditions, accounted by the world miserable, or with rare and difficult" (Bruce). It is a pity that we have not kept the word "happy" to the high and holy plane where Jesus placed it. "If you know these things, happy (\makarioi\) are you if you do them" (John:13:17|). "Happy (\makarioi\) are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John:20:29|). And Paul applies this adjective to God, "according to the gospel of the glory of the happy (\makariou\) God" (1Timothy:1:11|. Cf. also strkjv@Titus:2:13|). The term "Beatitudes" (Latin _beatus_) comes close to the meaning of Christ here by \makarioi\. It will repay one to make a careful study of all the "beatitudes" in the New Testament where this word is employed. It occurs nine times here (3-11|), though the beatitudes in verses 10 and 11 are very much alike. The copula is not expressed in either of these nine beatitudes. In each case a reason is given for the beatitude, "for" (\hoti\), that shows the spiritual quality involved. Some of the phrases employed by Jesus here occur in the Psalms, some even in the Talmud (itself later than the New Testament, though of separate origin). That is of small moment. "The originality of Jesus lies in putting the due value on these thoughts, collecting them, and making them as prominent as the Ten Commandments. No greater service can be rendered to mankind than to rescue from obscurity neglected moral commonplaces " (Bruce). Jesus repeated his sayings many times as all great teachers and preachers do, but this sermon has unity, progress, and consummation. It does not contain all that Jesus taught by any means, but it stands out as the greatest single sermon of all time, in its penetration, pungency, and power. {The poor in spirit} (\hoi pt“choi t“i pneumati\). Luke has only "the poor," but he means the same by it as this form in Matthew, "the pious in Israel, for the most part poor, whom the worldly rich despised and persecuted" (McNeile). The word used here (\pt“choi\) is applied to the beggar Lazarus in strkjv@Luke:16:20,22| and suggests spiritual destitution (from \pt“ss“\ to crouch, to cower). The other word \penˆs\ is from \penomai\, to work for one's daily bread and so means one who works for his living. The word \pt“chos\ is more frequent in the New Testament and implies deeper poverty than \penˆs\. "The kingdom of heaven" here means the reign of God in the heart and life. This is the _summum bonum_ and is what matters most.

rwp@Matthew:5:16 @{Even so} (\hout“s\). The adverb points backward to the lamp-stand. Thus men are to let their light shine, not to glorify themselves, but "your Father in heaven." Light shines to see others by, not to call attention to itself.

rwp@Matthew:6:12 @{Our debts} (\ta opheilˆmata hˆm“n\). Luke (Luke:11:4|) has "sins" (\hamartias\). In the ancient Greek \opheilˆma\ is common for actual legal debts as in strkjv@Romans:4:4|, but here it is used of moral and spiritual debts to God. "Trespasses" is a mistranslation made common by the Church of England Prayer Book. It is correct in verse 14| in Christ's argument about prayer, but it is not in the Model Prayer itself. See strkjv@Matthew:18:28,30| for sin pictured again by Christ "as debt and the sinner as a debtor" (Vincent). We are thus described as having wronged God. The word \opheilˆ\ for moral obligation was once supposed to be peculiar to the New Testament. But it is common in that sense in the papyri (Deismann, _Bible Studies_, p. 221; _Light from the Ancient East,_ New ed., p. 331). We ask forgiveness "in proportion as" (\h“s\) we _also_ have forgiven those in debt to us, a most solemn reflection. \Aphˆkamen\ is one of the three k aorists (\ethˆka, ed“ka, hˆka\). It means to send away, to dismiss, to wipe off.

rwp@Matthew:8:14 @{Lying sick of a fever} (\biblˆmenˆn kai puressousan\). Two participles, bedridden (perfect passive of \ball“\) and burning with fever (present active). How long the fever had had her we have no means of knowing, possibly a sudden and severe attack (Mark:1:30|), as they tell Jesus about her on reaching the house of Peter. We are not told what kind of fever it was. Fever itself was considered a disease. "Fever" is from German feuer (fire) like the Greek \pur\.

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

rwp@Matthew:11:9 @{And much more than a prophet} (\kai perissoteron prophˆtou\). Ablative of comparison after \perissoteron\ itself comparative though meaning exceeding (surrounded by, overflowing). John had all the great qualities of the true prophet: "Vigorous moral conviction, integrity, strength of will, fearless zeal for truth and righteousness" (Bruce). And then he was the Forerunner of the Messiah (Malachi:3:1|).

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:13:19 @{Cometh the evil one and snatcheth away} (\erchetai ho ponˆros kai harpazei\). The birds pick up the seeds while the sower sows. The devil is busy with his job of snatching or seizing like a bandit or rogue the word of the kingdom before it has time even to sprout. How quickly after the sermon the impression is gone. "This is he" (\houtos estin\). Matthew, like Mark, speaks of the people who hear the words as the seed itself. That creates some confusion in this condensed form of what Jesus actually said, but the real point is clear. {The seed sown in his heart} (\to esparmenon en tˆi kardiƒi autou\, perfect passive participle of \speir“\, to sow) and "the man sown by the wayside" (\ho para tˆn hodon spareis\, aorist passive participle, along the wayside) are identified. The seed in the heart is not of itself responsible, but the man who lets the devil snatch it away.

rwp@Matthew:14:32 @{Ceased} (\ekopasen\). From \kopos\, toil. The wind grew weary or tired, exhausted itself in the presence of its Master (cf. strkjv@Mark:4:39|). Not a mere coincidence that the wind ceased now.

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

rwp@Matthew:15:3 @{Ye also} (\kai h–meis\). Jesus admits that the disciples had transgressed the rabbinical traditions. Jesus treats it as a matter of no great importance in itself save as they had put the tradition of the elders in the place of the commandment of God. When the two clashed, as was often the case, the rabbis transgress the commandment of God "because of your tradition" (\dia tˆn paradosin h–m“n\). The accusative with \dia\ means that, not "by means of." Tradition is not good or bad in itself. It is merely what is handed on from one to another. Custom tended to make these traditions binding like law. The Talmud is a monument of their struggle with tradition. There could be no compromise on this subject and Jesus accepts the issue. He stands for real righteousness and spiritual freedom, not for bondage to mere ceremonialism and tradition. The rabbis placed tradition (the oral law) above the law of God.

rwp@Matthew:15:33 @{And the disciples say to him} (\kai legousin aut“i hoi mathˆtai\). It seems strange that they should so soon have forgotten the feeding of the five thousand (Matthew:14:13-21|), but they did. Soon Jesus will remind them of both these demonstrations of his power (16:9,10|). They forgot both of them, not just one. Some scholars scout the idea of two miracles so similar as the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand, though both are narrated in detail by both Mark and Matthew and both are later mentioned by Jesus. Jesus repeated his sayings and wrought multitudes of healings. There is no reason in itself why Jesus should not on occasion repeat a nature miracle like this elsewhere. He is in the region of Decapolis, not in the country of Philip (\Trachonitis\).

rwp@Matthew:25:27 @{Thou oughtest therefore} (\edsi se oun\). His very words of excuse convict him. It was a necessity (\edei\) that he did not see. {The bankers} (\tois trapezeitais\). The benchers, money-changers, brokers, who exchanged money for a fee and who paid interest on money. Word common in late Greek. {I should have received back} (\eg“ ekomisamˆn an\). Conclusion of a condition of the second class (determined as unfulfilled). The condition is not expressed, but it is implied. "If you had done that." {With interest} (\sun tok“i\). Not with "usury" in the sense of extortion or oppression. Usury only means "use" in itself. The word is from \tikt“\, to bring forth. Compound interest at six per cent doubles the principal every twenty years. It is amazing how rapidly that piles up if one carries it on for centuries and millenniums. "In the early Roman Empire legal interest was eight per cent, but in usurious transactions it was lent at twelve, twenty-four, and even forty-eight" (Vincent). Such practices exist today in our cities. The Mosaic law did not allow interest in dealings between Hebrews, but only with strangers (Deuteronomy:23:19,20; strkjv@Psalms:15:5|).

rwp@Matthew:27:3 @{Repented himself} (\metamelˆtheis\). Probably Judas saw Jesus led away to Pilate and thus knew that the condemnation had taken place. This verb (first aorist passive participle of \metamelomai\) really means to be sorry afterwards like the English word _repent_ from the Latin _repoenitet_, to have pain again or afterwards. See the same verb \metamelˆtheis\ in strkjv@Matthew:21:30| of the boy who became sorry and changed to obedience. The word does not have an evil sense in itself. Paul uses it of his sorrow for his sharp letter to the Corinthians, a sorrow that ceased when good came of the letter (2Corinthians:7:8|). But mere sorrow avails nothing unless it leads to change of mind and life (\metanoia\), the sorrow according to God (2Corinthians:7:9|). This sorrow Peter had when he wept bitterly. It led Peter back to Christ. But Judas had only remorse that led to suicide.

rwp@Matthew:28:20 @{Teaching them} (\didaskontes autous\). Christians have been slow to realize the full value of what we now call religious education. The work of teaching belongs to the home, to the church (sermon, Sunday school, young people's work, prayer-meeting, study classes, mission classes), to the school (not mixing of church and state, but moral instruction if not the reading of the Bible), good books which should be in every home, reading of the Bible itself. Some react too far and actually put education in the place of conversion or regeneration. That is to miss the mark. But teaching is part, a weighty part, of the work of Christians.

rwp@Philippians:1:6 @{Being confident} (\pepoith“s\). Second perfect active of \peith“\, to persuade. {This very thing} (\auto touto\). Accusative of the inner object with \pepoith“s\, "this thing itself." {Will perfect it} (\epitelesei\). Future active indicative of \epitele“\, will fully (\epi-\) finish. God began and God will consummate it (see strkjv@2Corinthians:8:6; strkjv@Galatians:3:3| where both words occur together as here), but not without their cooperation and partnership. {Until the day of Jesus Christ} (\achri hˆmeras Christou Iˆsou\). The second coming as in verse 10|. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:2,4; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:10; strkjv@2:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:18; strkjv@3:13; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14; strkjv@Romans:13:12|. Paul never sets the time for the Lord's return, but he is cheered by that blessed hope.

rwp@Revelation:1:20 @{The mystery of the seven stars} (\to mustˆrion t“n hepta aster“n\). On the word \mustˆrion\ see on ¯Matthew:13:11; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:7; strkjv@Colossians:1:26|. Here it means the inner meaning (the secret symbol) of a symbolic vision (Swete) as in strkjv@10:7; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@17:7,9; strkjv@Daniel:2:47|. Probably the accusative absolute (Charles), "as for the mystery" (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 490, 1130), as in strkjv@Romans:8:3|. This item is picked out of the previous vision (1:16|) as needing explanation at once and as affording a clue to what follows (2:1,5|). {Which} (\hous\). Masculine accusative retained without attraction to case of \aster“n\ (genitive, \h“n\). {In my right hand} (\epi tˆs dexias mou\). Or "upon," but \en tˆi\, etc., in verse 16|. {And the seven golden candlesticks} (\kai tas hepta luchnias tas chrusƒs\). "The seven lampstands the golden," identifying the stars of verse 16| with the lampstands of verse 12|. The accusative case here is even more peculiar than the accusative absolute \mustˆrion\, since the genitive \luchni“n\ after \mustˆrion\ is what one would expect. Charles suggests that John did not revise his work. {The angels of the seven churches} (\aggeloi t“n hepta ekklˆsi“n\). Anarthrous in the predicate (angels of, etc.). "The seven churches" mentioned in strkjv@1:4,11|. Various views of \aggelos\ here exist. The simplest is the etymological meaning of the word as messenger from \aggell“\ (Matthew:11:10|) as messengers from the seven churches to Patmos or by John from Patmos to the churches (or both). Another view is that \aggelos\ is the pastor of the church, the reading \tˆn gunaika sou\ (thy wife) in strkjv@2:20| (if genuine) confirming this view. Some would even take it to be the bishop over the elders as \episcopos\ in Ignatius, but a separate \aggelos\ in each church is against this idea. Some take it to be a symbol for the church itself or the spirit and genius of the church, though distinguished in this very verse from the churches themselves (the lampstands). Others take it to be the guardian angel of each church assuming angelic patrons to be taught in strkjv@Matthew:18:10; strkjv@Acts:12:15|. Each view is encompassed with difficulties, perhaps fewer belonging to the view that the "angel" is the pastor. {Are seven churches} (\hepta ekklˆsiai eisin\). These seven churches (1:4,11|) are themselves lampstands (1:12|) reflecting the light of Christ to the world (Matthew:5:14-16; strkjv@John:8:12|) in the midst of which Christ walks (1:13|).

rwp@Revelation:2:7 @{He that hath an ear} (\ho ech“n ous\). An individualizing note calling on each of the hearers (1:3|) to listen (2:7,11,17,28; strkjv@3:3,6,13,22|) and a reminiscence of the words of Jesus in the Synoptics (Matthew:11:15; strkjv@13:9,43; strkjv@Mark:4:9,23; strkjv@Luke:8:8; strkjv@14:35|), but not in John's Gospel. {The spirit} (\to pneuma\). The Holy Spirit as in strkjv@14:13; strkjv@22:17|. Both Christ and the Holy Spirit deliver this message. "The Spirit of Christ in the prophet is the interpreter of Christ's voice" (Swete). {To him that overcometh} (\t“i nik“nti\). Dative of the present (continuous victory) active articular participle of \nika“\, a common Johannine verb (John:16:33; strkjv@1John:2:13f; strkjv@4:4; strkjv@5:4f.; strkjv@Revelation:2:7,11,17,26; strkjv@3:5,12,21; strkjv@5:5; strkjv@12:11; strkjv@15:2; strkjv@17:14; strkjv@21:7|). Faith is dominant in Paul, victory in John, faith is victory (1John:5:4|). Songs:in each promise to these churches. {I will give} (\d“s“\). Future active of \did“mi\ as in strkjv@2:10,17,23,26,28; strkjv@3:8,21; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@11:3; strkjv@21:6|. {To eat} (\phagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \esthi“\. {Of the tree of life} (\ek tou xulou tˆs z“ˆs\). Note \ek\ with the ablative with \phagein\, like our "eat of" (from or part of). From strkjv@Genesis:2:9; strkjv@3:22|. Again in strkjv@Revelation:22:2,14| as here for immortality. This tree is now in the Garden of God. For the water of life see strkjv@21:6; strkjv@22:17| (Cf. strkjv@John:4:10,13f.|). {Which} (\ho\). The \xulon\ (tree). {In the Paradise of God} (\en t“i paradeis“i tou theou\). Persian word, for which see strkjv@Luke:23:43; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:4|. The abode of God and the home of the redeemed with Christ, not a mere intermediate state. It was originally a garden of delight and finally heaven itself (Trench), as here.

rwp@Revelation:2:14 @{There} (\ekei\). That is \par' humin\ (among you). A party in the church that resisted emperor-worship, to the death in the case of Antipas, yet were caught in the insidious wiles of the Nicolaitans which the church in Ephesus withstood. {Some that hold} (\kratountas\). "Men holding" (present active participle of \krate“\). {The teaching of Balaam} (\tˆn didachˆn Balaam\). Indeclinable substantive Balaam (Numbers:25:1-9; strkjv@31:15f.|). The point of likeness of these heretics with Balaam is here explained. {Taught Balak} (\edidasken t“i Balak\). Imperfect indicative of \didask“\, Balaam's habit, "as the prototype of all corrupt teachers" (Charles). These early Gnostics practised licentiousness as a principle since they were not under law, but under grace (Romans:6:15|). The use of the dative with \didask“\ is a colloquialism rather than a Hebraism. Two accusatives often occur with \didask“\. {To cast a stumbling-block} (\balein skandalon\). Second aorist active infinitive (accusative case after \edidasken\) of \ball“\, regular use with \skandalon\ (trap) like \tithˆmi skandalon\ in strkjv@Romans:14:13|. Balaam, as Josephus and Philo also say, showed Balak how to set a trap for the Israelites by beguiling them into the double sin of idolatry and fornication, which often went together (and do so still). {To eat things sacrificed to idols} (\phagein eid“lothuta\). Second aorist active infinitive of \esthi“\ and the verbal adjective (from \eid“lon\ and \thu“\), quoted here from strkjv@Numbers:25:1f.|, but in inverse order, repeated in other order in verse 20|. See strkjv@Acts:15:29; strkjv@21:25; strkjv@1Corinthians:8:1ff.| for the controversy over the temptation to Gentile Christians to do what in itself was harmless, but which led to evil if it led to participation in the pagan feasts. Perhaps both ideas are involved here. Balaam taught Balak how to lead the Israelites into sin in both ways.

rwp@Revelation:2:16 @{Repent therefore} (\metanoˆson oun\). First aorist (tense of urgency) active imperative of \metanoe“\ with the inferential particle \oun\ (as a result of their sin). {I come} (\erchomai\). Futuristic present middle indicative, "I am coming" (imminent), as in strkjv@2:5| with \tachu\ as in strkjv@3:11; strkjv@11:14; strkjv@22:7,12,20|. As with \en tachei\ (1:1|), we do not know how soon "quickly" is meant to be understood. But it is a real threat. {Against them} (\met' aut“n\). This proposition with \poleme“\ rather than \kata\ (against) is common in the LXX, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:2:16; strkjv@12:7; strkjv@13:4; strkjv@17:14| and the verb itself nowhere else in N.T. except strkjv@James:4:2|. "An eternal roll of thunder from the throne" (Renan). "The glorified Christ is in this book a Warrior, who fights with the sharp sword of the word" (Swete). {With} (\en\). Instrumental use of \en\. For the language see strkjv@1:16; strkjv@2:12; strkjv@19:15|.

rwp@Revelation:4:5 @{Out of the throne} (\ek tou thronou\). Back to the throne itself. The imagery is kin to that in strkjv@Exodus:19:16; strkjv@24:9f.; strkjv@Ezekiel:1:22,27|. {Proceed} (\ekporeuontai\). Graphic historical present. {Lightnings and voices and thunders} (\astrapai kai ph“nai kai brontai\). Songs:exactly in strkjv@11:19; strkjv@16:18|, but in strkjv@8:5| with \brontai\ first, \astrapai\ last, all old and common words. "The thunderstorm is in Hebrew poetry a familiar symbol of the Divine power: cf., e.g., strkjv@1Samuel:2:10; strkjv@Psalms:18:9f.; strkjv@Job:37:4f|." (Swete). {Seven lamps of fire} (\hepta lampades puros\). Return to the nominative (\idou\, not \eidon\) with \ˆsan\ (were) understood. Metaphor drawn from strkjv@Ezekiel:1:13; strkjv@Zechariah:4:12ff|. Our word "lamp," but here a torch as in strkjv@8:10|, identified with the Holy Spirit (the Seven Spirits of God) as in strkjv@1:4; strkjv@3:1|, not \luchniai\ (lampstands) as in strkjv@1:12,20|, nor \luchnos\ a hand-lamp with oil (Matthew:5:15|). "These torches blaze perpetually before the throne of God" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:8:7 @{Sounded} (\esalpisen\). First aorist active indicative of \salpiz“\, repeated with each angel in turn (8:8,10,12; strkjv@9:1,13; strkjv@11:15|). {Hail and fire mingled with blood} (\chalaza kai pur memigmena en haimati\). Like the plague of hail and fire in strkjv@Exodus:9:24|. The first four trumpets are very much like the plagues in Egypt, this one like a semitropical thunderstorm (Swete) with blood like the first plague (Exodus:7:17ff.; strkjv@Psalms:106:35|). The old feminine word \chalaza\ (hail) is from the verb \chala“\, to let down (Mark:2:4|), in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:8:7; strkjv@11:19; strkjv@16:21|. The perfect passive participle \memigmena\ (from \mignumi\, to mix) is neuter plural because of \pur\ (fire). {Were cast} (\eblˆthˆ\). First aorist passive singular because \chalaza\ and \pur\ treated as neuter plural. "The storm flung itself on the earth" (Swete). {Was burnt up} (\katekaˆ\). Second aorist (effective) passive indicative of \katakai“\, old verb to burn down (effective use of \kata\, up, we say). Repeated here three times for dramatic effect. See strkjv@7:1-3| about the trees and strkjv@9:4| where the locusts are forbidden to injure the grass.

rwp@Revelation:10:2 @{And he had} (\kai ech“n\). This use of the participle in place of \eichen\ (imperfect) is like that in strkjv@4:7f.; strkjv@12:2; strkjv@19:12; strkjv@21:12,14|, a Semitic idiom (Charles), or as if \katabain“n\ (nominative) had preceded in place of \katabainonta\. {A little book} (\biblaridion\). A diminutive of \biblarion\ (papyri), itself a diminutive of \biblion\ (5:1|) and perhaps in contrast with it, a rare form in Hermas and strkjv@Revelation:10:2,9,10|. In strkjv@10:8| Tischendorf reads \biblidarion\, diminutive of \biblidion\ (Aristophanes) instead of \biblion\ (Westcott and Hort). The contents of this little book are found in strkjv@11:1-13|. {Open} (\ˆne“igmenon\). See strkjv@Ezekiel:2:9f|. Perfect (triple reduplication) passive participle of \anoig“\, in contrast to the closed book in strkjv@5:1|. There also we have \epi\ (upon) \tˆn dexian\ (the right hand), for it was a large roll, but here the little open roll is held in the hand (\en tˆi cheiri\), apparently the left hand (verse 5|). {He set} (\ethˆken\). First aorist active indicative of \tithˆmi\. The size of the angel is colossal, for he bestrides both land and sea. Apparently there is no special point in the right foot (\ton poda ton dexion\) being on the sea (\epi tˆs thalassˆs\) and the left (\ton eu“numon\) upon the land (\epi tˆs gˆs\). It makes a bold and graphic picture. {As a lion roareth} (\h“sper le“n mukƒtai\). Only instance of \h“sper\ in the Apocalypse, but \h“s\ in the same sense several times. Present middle indicative of \mukaomai\, an old onomatopoetic word from \mu\ or \moo\ (the sound which a cow utters), common for the lowing and bellowing of cattle, Latin _mugire_, but in Theocritus for the roaring of a lion as here, though in strkjv@1Peter:5:8| we have \“ruomai\. Homer uses \mukaomai\ for the clangour of the shield and Aristophanes for thunder. It occurs here alone in the N.T. It does not mean that what the angel said was unintelligible, only loud. Cf. strkjv@1:10; strkjv@5:2,12; strkjv@6:10; strkjv@7:2,10|, etc.

rwp@Revelation:12:1 @{A great sign} (\sˆmeion mega\). The first of the visions to be so described (13:3; strkjv@15:1|), and it is introduced by \“phthˆ\ as in strkjv@11:19; strkjv@12:3|, not by \meta tauto\ or by \eidon\ or by \eidon kai idou\ as heretofore. This "sign" is really a \teras\ (wonder), as it is so by association in strkjv@Matthew:24:24; strkjv@John:4:48; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@5:12|. The element of wonder is not in the word \sˆmeion\ as in \teras\, but often in the thing itself as in strkjv@Luke:21:11; strkjv@John:9:16; strkjv@Revelation:13:13ff.; strkjv@15:1; strkjv@16:14; strkjv@19:20|. {A woman} (\gunˆ\). Nominative case in apposition with \sˆmeion\. "The first 'sign in heaven' is a Woman--the earliest appearance of a female figure in the Apocalyptic vision" (Swete). {Arrayed with the sun} (\peribeblˆmenˆ ton hˆlion\). Perfect passive participle of \periball“\, with the accusative retained as so often (9 times) in the Apocalypse. Both Charles and Moffatt see mythological ideas and sources behind the bold imagery here that leave us all at sea. Swete understands the Woman to be "the church of the Old Testament" as "the Mother of whom Christ came after the flesh. But here, as everywhere in the Book, no sharp dividing line is drawn between the Church of the Old Testament and the Christian Society." Certainly she is not the Virgin Mary, as verse 17| makes clear. Beckwith takes her to be "the heavenly representative of the people of God, the _ideal_ Zion, which, so far as it is embodied in concrete realities, is represented alike by the people of the Old and the New Covenants." John may have in mind strkjv@Isaiah:7:14| (Matthew:1:23; strkjv@Luke:1:31|) as well as strkjv@Micah:4:10; strkjv@Isaiah:26:17f.; strkjv@66:7| without a definite picture of Mary. The metaphor of childbirth is common enough (John:16:21; strkjv@Galatians:4:19|). The figure is a bold one with the moon "under her feet" (\hupokat“ t“n pod“n autˆs\) and "a crown of twelve stars" (\stephanos aster“n d“deka\), a possible allusion to the twelve tribes (James:1:1; strkjv@Revelation:21:12|) or to the twelve apostles (Revelation:21:14|).

rwp@Revelation:12:7 @{There was war in heaven} (\egeneto polemos en t“i ouran“i\). "There came to be war in heaven" (\egeneto\, not \ˆn\). "Another \tableau\, not a \sˆmeion\ (vv. 1,3|), but consequent upon the two \sˆmeia\ which precede it. The birth and rapture of the Woman's Son issue in a war which invades the \epourania\" (Swete). The reference is not to the original rebellion of Satan, as Andreas held. As the coming of Christ brought on fresh manifestations of diabolic power (Mark:1:13; strkjv@Luke:22:3,31; strkjv@John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|), just so Christ's return to heaven is pictured as being the occasion of renewed attacks there. We are not to visualize it too literally, but certainly modern airplanes help us to grasp the notion of battles in the sky even more than the phalanxes of storm-clouds (Swete). John even describes this last conflict as in heaven itself. Cf. strkjv@Luke:10:18; strkjv@1Kings:22:1ff.; strkjv@Job:1; 2; strkjv@Zechariah:3:1ff|. {Michael and his angels} (\ho Michaˆl kai hoi aggeloi autou\). The nominative here may be in apposition with \polemos\, but it is an abnormal construction with no verb, though \egeneto\ (arose) can be understood as repeated. Michael is the champion of the Jewish people (Daniel:10:13,21; strkjv@12:1|) and is called the archangel in strkjv@Jude:9|. {Going forth to war} (\tou polemˆsai\). This genitive articular infinitive is another grammatical problem in this sentence. If \egeneto\ (arose) is repeated as above, then we have the infinitive for purpose, a common enough idiom. Otherwise it is anomalous, not even like strkjv@Acts:10:25|. {With the dragon} (\meta tou drakontos\). On the use of \meta\ with \poleme“\ see strkjv@2:16; strkjv@13:4; strkjv@17:14| (nowhere else in N.T.). The devil has angels under his command (Matthew:25:41|) and preachers also (2Corinthians:11:14f.|). {Warred} (\epolemˆsen\). Constative aorist active indicative of \poleme“\, picturing the whole battle in one glimpse.

rwp@Revelation:13:6 @{For blasphemies} (\eis blasphˆmias\). "For the purpose of blasphemies." {Against God} (\pros ton theon\). "Face to face with God" in sheer defiance, like Milton's picture of Satan in _Paradise Lost_. See strkjv@Daniel:7:25; strkjv@8:10|. The aorist \ˆnoixen\ is probably constative, for he repeated the blasphemies, though the phrase (\anoig“\ to stoma, to open the mouth) is normally ingressive of the beginning of an utterance (Matthew:5:2; strkjv@Acts:8:35|). This verse explains verse 5|. The Roman emperors blasphemously assumed divine names in public documents. They directed their blasphemy against heaven itself ("his tabernacle," \tˆn skˆnˆn autou\, strkjv@7:15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@21:3|) and against "them that dwell in the heaven" (\tous en t“i ouran“i skˆnountas\), the same phrase of strkjv@12:12| (either angels or the redeemed or both).

rwp@Revelation:13:14 @{And he deceiveth} (\kai planƒi\). Present active (dramatic) indicative of \plana“\, the very thing that Jesus had said would happen (Matthew:24:24|, "Songs:as to lead astray" \h“ste planƒsthai\, the word used here, if possible the very elect). It is a constant cause for wonder, the gullibility of the public at the hands of new charlatans who continually bob up with their pipe-dreams. {That they should make an image to the beast} (\poiˆsai eikona t“i thˆri“i\). Indirect command (this first aorist active infinitive of \poie“\) after \leg“n\ as in strkjv@Acts:21:21|, not indirect assertion. This "image" (\eik“n\, for which word see strkjv@Matthew:22:20; strkjv@Colossians:1:15|) of the emperor could be his head upon a coin (Mark:12:16|), an _imago_ painted or woven upon a standard, a bust in metal or stone, a statue, anything that people could be asked to bow down before and worship. This test the priests in the provinces pressed as it was done in Rome itself. The phrase "the image of the beast," occurs ten times in this book (13:14,15| _ter_; strkjv@14:9,11; strkjv@15:2; strkjv@16:2; strkjv@19:20; strkjv@20:4|). Emperor-worship is the issue and that involves worship of the devil. {The stroke of the sword} (\tˆn plˆgˆn tˆs machairˆs\). This language can refer to the death of Nero by his own sword. {And lived} (\kai ezˆsen\). "And he came to life" (ingressive first aorist active indicative of \za“\). Perhaps a reference to Domitian as a second Nero in his persecution of Christians.

rwp@Revelation:14:20 @{Was trodden} (\epatˆthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \pate“\, to tread. The image of treading out the grapes is a familiar one in the East. Perhaps strkjv@Isaiah:63:3| is in mind. {Without the city} (\ex“then tˆs pole“s\). Ablative case with \ex“then\ (like \ex“\). This was the usual place (Hebrews:13:12|). See \ex“then\ in strkjv@11:2|. Joel (Joel:3:12|) pictures the valley of Jehoshaphat as the place of the slaughter of God's enemies. Cf. strkjv@Zechariah:14:4|. {Blood from the winepress} (\haima ek tˆs lˆnou\). Bold imagery suggested by the colour of the grapes. {Unto the bridles} (\achri t“n chalin“n\). Old word (from \chala“\ to slacken), in N.T. only here and strkjv@James:3:3|. Bold picture. {As far as a thousand and six hundred furlongs} (\apo stadi“n chili“n hexakosi“n\). A peculiar use of \apo\, for "distance from (of)" as also in strkjv@John:11:18; strkjv@21:8|, somewhat like the use of \pro\ in strkjv@John:12:1|. The distance itself covers the length of Palestine, but it is more likely that "the metaphor is worked out with the exuberance of apocalyptic symbolism" (Swete) for the whole earth.

rwp@Revelation:19:10 @{To worship him} (\proskunˆsai aut“i\). First aorist active infinitive of purpose. John either felt that the angel represented God or he was beside himself with excitement over the glorious consummation. He was tempted to worship an angel (Colossians:2:18|). {See thou do it not} (\hora mˆ\). Repeated in strkjv@22:9|. Here there is no verb after \mˆ\ (ellipse of \poiˆsˆis touto\) as in strkjv@Mark:1:44; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:15|), the aorist subjunctive of negative purpose with \mˆ\ after \hora\ (present active imperative of \hora“\), a common enough idiom. {Fellow-servant} (\sundoulos\). The angel refuses worship from John on this ground. All Christians are \sundouloi\ (fellow-servants) as Christ taught (Matthew:18:28ff.; strkjv@24:49|) and as Paul (Colossians:1:7; strkjv@4:7|) and John (Revelation:6:11|) taught. Angels are God's servants also (Hebrews:1:4-14|). For "the testimony of Jesus see strkjv@1:2,9; strkjv@6:9; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@22:4|. {Worship God} (\t“i the“i proskunˆson\). And Christ, who is the Son of God (5:13f.|). {The spirit of prophecy} (\to pneuma tˆs prophˆteias\). Explanatory use of \gar\ (for) here as in 8|. The possession of the prophetic spirit shows itself in witness to Jesus. In illustration see strkjv@Mark:1:10; strkjv@Matthew:3:16; strkjv@Luke:3:21; strkjv@John:1:51; strkjv@Revelation:4:1; strkjv@10:1; strkjv@11:19; strkjv@14:17; strkjv@15:5; strkjv@18:1; strkjv@19:1,7-9|.

rwp@Revelation:21:24 @{Amidst the light thereof} (\dia tou ph“tos autˆs\). Rather "by the light thereof." From strkjv@Isaiah:60:3,11,20|. All the moral and spiritual progress of moderns is due to Christ, and the nations of earth will be represented, including "the kings" (\hoi basileis\), mentioned also in strkjv@Isaiah:60:3|, "do bring their glory into it" (\pherousin tˆn doxan aut“n eis autˆn\). Present active indicative of \pher“\. Swete is uncertain whether this is a picture of heaven itself or "some gracious purpose of God towards humanity which has not yet been revealed" and he cites strkjv@22:2| in illustration. The picture is beautiful and glorious even if not realized here, but only in heaven.

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@Romans:2:1 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). See strkjv@1:24,26| for this relative conjunction, "because of which thing." {Without excuse} (\anapologˆtos\). See on ¯1:21|. {Whosoever thou art that judgest} (\pas ho krin“n\). Literally, "every one that judgest," vocative case in apposition with \anthr“pe\. Paul begins his discussion of the failure of the Jew to attain to the God-kind of righteousness (2:1-3:20|) with a general statement applicable to all as he did (1:18|) in the discussion of the failure of the Gentiles (Lightfoot). The Gentile is readily condemned by the Jew when he sins and equally so is the Jew condemned by the Gentile in like case. \Krin“\ does not of itself mean to condemn, but to pick out, separate, approve, determine, pronounce judgment, condemn (if proper). {Another} (\ton heteron\). Literally, "the other man." The notion of two in the word, one criticizing the other. {Thou condemnest thyself} (\seauton katakrineis\). Note \kata\ here with \krin“\, to make plain the adverse judgment. {For} (\gar\). Explanatory reason for the preceding statement. The critic {practises} (\prasseis\, not single acts \poie“\, but the habit \prass“\) the same things that he condemns.

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

rwp@Romans:7:7 @{Is the law sin?} (\ho nomos hamartia?\). A pertinent query in view of what he had said. Some people today oppose all inhibitions and prohibitions because they stimulate violations. That is half-baked thinking. {I had not known sin} (\tˆn hamartian ouk egn“n\). Second aorist indicative of \gin“sk“\, to know. It is a conclusion of a second class condition, determined as unfulfilled. Usually \an\ is used in the conclusion to make it plain that it is second class condition instead of first class, but occasionally it is not employed when it is plain enough without as here (John:16:22,24|). See on ¯Galatians:4:15|. Songs:as to {I had not known coveting} (lust), \epithumian ouk ˆidein\. But all the same the law is not itself sin nor the cause of sin. Men with their sinful natures turn law into an occasion for sinful acts.

rwp@Romans:8:16 @{The Spirit himself} (\auto to pneuma\). The grammatical gender of \pneuma\ is neuter as here, but the Greek used also the natural gender as we do exclusively as in strkjv@John:16:13| \ekeinos\ (masculine {he}), \to pneuma\ (neuter). See also strkjv@John:16:26| (\ho--ekeinos\). It is a grave mistake to use the neuter "it" or "itself" when referring to the Holy Spirit. {Beareth witness with our spirit} (\summarturei t“i pneumati hˆm“n\). See on ¯Romans:2:15| for this verb with associative instrumental case. See strkjv@1John:5:10f.| for this double witness.

rwp@Romans:8:21 @{The creation itself} (\autˆ hˆ ktisis\). It is the hope of creation, not of the Creator. Nature "possesses in the feeling of her unmerited suffering a sort of presentiment of her future deliverance" (Godet).

rwp@Romans:11:36 @{Of him} (\ex autou\), {through him} (\di' autou\), {unto him} (\eis auton\). By these three prepositions Paul ascribes the universe (\ta panta\) with all the phenomena concerning creation, redemption, providence to God as the {Source} (\ex\), the {Agent} (\di\), the {Goal} (\eis\). {For ever} (\eis tous ai“nas\). "For the ages." Alford terms this doxology in verses 33-36| "the sublimest apostrophe existing even in the pages of inspiration itself."

rwp@Romans:14:14 @{I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus} (\oida kai pepeismai en kuri“i Iˆsou\). He knows it and stands persuaded (perfect passive indicative of \peith“\, to persuade), but in the sphere of the Lord Jesus (cf. strkjv@9:1|), not by mere rational processes. {Unclean of itself} (\kainon di' heautou\). Songs:Paul takes his stand with the "strong" as in strkjv@1Corinthians:8:4f.|, but he is not a libertine. Paul's liberty as to food is regulated by his life in the Lord. For this use of \koinos\, not as common to all (Acts:2:44; strkjv@4:32|), but unhallowed, impure, see on ¯Mark:7:2,5; strkjv@Acts:10:14,28|. God made all things for their own uses. {Save that} (\ei mˆ\). The exception lies not in the nature of the food (\di' heautou\), but in the man's view of it (to him, \ekein“i\, dative case).

rwp@Romans:15:20 @{Yea} (\hout“s de\). "And so," introducing a limitation to the preceding statement. {Making it my aim} (\philotimoumenon\). Present middle participle (accusative case agreeing with \me\) of \philotimeomai\, old verb, to be fond of honour (\philos, timˆ\). In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:9|. A noble word in itself, quite different in aim from the Latin word for {ambition} (\ambio\, to go on both sides to carry one's point). {Not where} (\ouch hopou\). Paul was a pioneer preacher pushing on to new fields after the manner of Daniel Boone in Kentucky. {That I might now build upon another man's foundation} (\hina mˆ ep' allotrion themelion oikodom“\). For \allotrios\ (not \allos\) see strkjv@14:4|. For \themelion\, see strkjv@Luke:6:48f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:11|. This noble ambition of Paul's is not within the range of some ministers who can only build on another's foundation as Apollos did in Corinth. But the pioneer preacher and missionary has a dignity and glory all his own.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 2 21:59:20 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020