OT-LAW.filter - rwp opinion:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:10 @{Now I beseech you} (\parakal de humas\). Old and common verb, over 100 times in N.T., to call to one's side. Corresponds here to \eucharist\, {I thank}, in verse 4|. Direct appeal after the thanksgiving. {Through the name} (\dia tou onomatos\). Genitive, not accusative (cause or reason), as the medium or instrument of the appeal (2Corinthians:10:1; strkjv@Romans:12:1; strkjv@15:30|). {That} (\hina\). Purport (sub-final) rather than direct purpose, common idiom in _Koin_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp.991-4) like strkjv@Matthew:14:36|. Used here with \legte, i, te katrtismenoi\, though expressed only once. {All speak} (\legte pantes\). Present active subjunctive, that ye all keep on speaking. With the divisions in mind. An idiom from Greek political life (Lightfoot). This touch of the classical writers argues for Paul's acquaintance with Greek culture. {There be no divisions among you} (\m i en humin schismata\). Present subjunctive, that divisions may not continue to be (they already had them). Negative statement of preceding idea. \Schisma\ is from \schiz\, old word to split or rend, and so means a rent (Matthew:9:16; strkjv@Mark:2:21|). Papyri use it for a splinter of wood and for ploughing. Here we have the earliest instance of its use in a moral sense of division, dissension, see also strkjv@1Corinthians:11:18| where a less complete change than \haireseis\; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@John:7:43| (discord); strkjv@9:16; strkjv@10:19|. "Here, faction, for which the classical word is \stasis\: division within the Christian community" (Vincent). These divisions were over the preachers (1:12-4:21|), immorality (5:1-13|), going to law before the heathen (6:1-11|), marriage (7:1-40|), meats offered to idols (1Corinthians:8-10|), conduct of women in church (11:1-16|), the Lord's Supper (11:17-34|), spiritual gifts (1Corinthians:12-14|), the resurrection (1Corinthians:15|). {But that ye be perfected together} (\te de katrtismenoi\). Periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive. See this verb in strkjv@Matthew:4:21| (Mark:1:19|) for mending torn nets and in moral sense already in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:10|. Galen uses it for a surgeon's mending a joint and Herodotus for composing factions. See strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@Galatians:6:1|. {Mind} (\noi\), {judgment} (\gnmi\). "Of these words \nous\ denotes the frame or state of mind, \gnm\ the judgment, opinion or sentiment, which is the outcome of \nous\" (Lightfoot).

rwp@1Corinthians:4:3 @{But with me} (\emoi de\). The ethical dative of personal relation and interest, "as I look at my own case." Cf. strkjv@Phillipians:1:21|. {It is a very small thing} (\eis elachiston estin\). This predicate use of \eis\ is like the Hebrew, but it occurs also in the papyri. The superlative \elachiston\ is elative, very little, not the true superlative, least. "It counts for very little with me." {That I should be judged of you} (\hina huph' humn anakrith\). Same use of \hina\ as in verse 2|. For the verb (first aorist passive subjunctive of \anakrin\) see on ¯1Corinthians:2:14f|. Paul does not despise public opinion, but he denies "the competency of the tribunal" in Corinth (Robertson and Plummer) to pass on his credentials with Christ as his Lord. {Or of man's judgement} (\ hupo anthrpins hmeras\). Or "by human day," in contrast to the Lord's Day (_der Tag_) in strkjv@3:13|. "_That_ is the tribunal which the Apostle recognizes; a _human_ tribunal he does not care to satisfy" (Robertson and Plummer). {Yea, I judge not mine own self} (\all' oude emauton anakrin\). \Alla\ here is confirmatory, not adversative. "I have often wondered how it is that every man sets less value on his own opinion of himself than on the opinion of others" (M. Aurelius, xii. 4. Translated by Robertson and Plummer). Paul does not even set himself up as judge of himself.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:25 @{I have no commandment of the Lord} (\epitagn Kuriou ouk ech\). A late word from \epitass\, old Greek verb to enjoin, to give orders to. Paul did have (verse 10|) a command from the Lord as we have in Matthew and Mark. It was quite possible for Paul to know this command of Jesus as he did other sayings of Jesus (Acts:20:35|) even if he had as yet no access to a written gospel or had received no direct revelation on the subject from Jesus (1Corinthians:11:23|). Sayings of Jesus were passed on among the believers. But Paul had no specific word from Jesus on the subject of virgins. They call for special treatment, young unmarried women only Paul means (7:25,28,34,36-38|) and not as in strkjv@Revelation:14:4| (metaphor). It is probable that in the letter (7:1|) the Corinthians had asked about this problem. {But I give my judgment} (\gnmn de didmi\). About mixed marriages (12-16|) Paul had the command of Jesus concerning divorce to guide him. Here he has nothing from Jesus at all. Songs:he gives no "command," but only "a judgment," a deliberately formed decision from knowledge (2Corinthians:8:10|), not a mere passing fancy. {As one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful} (\hs lemenos hupo kuriou pistos einai\). Perfect passive participle of \elee\, old verb to receive mercy (\eleos\). \Pistos\ is predicate nominative with infinitive \einai\. This language, so far from being a disclaimer of inspiration, is an express claim to help from the Lord in the forming of this duly considered judgment, which is in no sense a command, but an inspired opinion.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:26 @{I think therefore} (\nomiz oun\). Paul proceeds to express therefore the previously mentioned judgment (\gnmn\) and calls it his opinion, not because he is uncertain, but simply because it is not a command, but advice. {By reason of the present distress} (\dia tn enestsan anagkn\). The participle \enestsan\ is second perfect active of \enistmi\ and means "standing on" or "present" (cf. strkjv@Galatians:1:4; strkjv@Hebrews:9:9|). It occurs in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:2| of the advent of Christ as not "present." Whether Paul has in mind the hoped for second coming of Jesus in this verse we do not certainly know, though probably so. Jesus had spoken of those calamities which would precede his coming (Matthew:24:8ff.|) though Paul had denied saying that the advent was right at hand (2Thessalonians:2:2|). \Anagk\ is a strong word (old and common), either for external circumstances or inward sense of duty. It occurs elsewhere for the woes preceding the second coming (Luke:21:23|) and also for Paul's persecutions (1Thessalonians:3:7; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:4; strkjv@12:10|). Perhaps there is a mingling of both ideas here. {Namely}. This word is not in the Greek. The infinitive of indirect discourse (\huparchein\) after \nomiz\ is repeated with recitative \hoti\, "That the being so is good for a man" (\hoti kalon anthrpi to houts einai\). The use of the article \to\ with \einai\ compels this translation. Probably Paul means for one (\anthrpi\, generic term for man or woman) to remain as he is whether married or unmarried. The copula \estin\ is not expressed. He uses \kalon\ (good) as in strkjv@7:1|.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:27 @{Art thou bound to a wife?} (\dedesai gunaiki;\). Perfect passive indicative of \de\, to bind, with dative case \gunaiki\. Marriage bond as in strkjv@Romans:7:2|. {Seek not to be loosed} (\m ztei lusin\). Present active imperative with negative \m\, "Do not be seeking release" (\lusin\) from the marriage bond, old word, here only in N.T. {Seek not a wife} (\m ztei gunaika\). Same construction, Do not be seeking a wife. Bachelors as well as widowers are included in \lelusai\ (loosed, perfect passive indicative of \lu\). This advice of Paul he only urges "because of the present necessity" (verse 26|). Whether he held on to this opinion later one does not know. Certainly he gives the noblest view of marriage in strkjv@Ephesians:5:22-33|. Paul does not present it as his opinion for all men at all times. Men feel it their duty to seek a wife.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:15:41 @{For one star differeth from another star in glory} (\astr gar asteros diapherei en doxi\). A beautiful illustration of Paul's point. \Asteros\ is the ablative case after \diapherei\ (old verb \diapher\, Latin _differo_, our _differ_, bear apart). On \astr\ see strkjv@Matthew:2:7| and \astron\ strkjv@Luke:21:25|. Stars differ in magnitude and brilliancy. The telescope has added more force to Paul's argument. {In glory} (\en doxi\). Old word from \doke\, to think, to seem. Songs:opinion, estimate, then the shekinah glory of God in the LXX, glory in general. It is one of the great words of the N.T. Jesus is termed the glory in strkjv@James:2:1|.

rwp@1Timothy:6:3 @{Teacheth a different doctrine} (\heterodidaskalei\). See strkjv@1:3| for this verb, present active indicative here in condition of first class. {Consenteth not} (\m proserchetai\). Also condition of first class with \m\ instead of \ou\. \Proserchomai\ (old verb, to come to, to approach, with dative) is common enough in N.T. (Hebrews:4:16; strkjv@7:25|, etc.), but in the metaphorical sense of coming to one's ideas, assenting to, here only in N.T., but is so used in Philo and Irenaeus (Ellicott). {Sound words} (\hugiainousin logois\). See strkjv@1:10| for \hugiain\. {The words of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tois tou kuriou hmn Isou Christou\). Either subjective genitive (the words from the Lord Jesus, a collection of his sayings in Lock's opinion like strkjv@5:18; strkjv@Acts:20:35|, at least in the Spirit of Jesus as strkjv@Acts:16:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23|) or objective genitive about Jesus like strkjv@2Timothy:1:8; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:18|. {According to godliness} (\kata eusebeian\). Promoting (designed for) godliness as in strkjv@Titus:1:1|.

rwp@2Corinthians:8:10 @{Judgment} (\gnmn\). Deliberate opinion, but not a "command" (\epitag\ verse 8|). Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:7:25|. {A year ago} (\apo perusi\) From last year. {Not only to do, but also to will} (\ou monon to poisai, alla kai to thelein\). Articular infinitives the objects of \proenrxasthe\ on which verb see verse 6|). That is to say, the Corinthians promised before any others.

rwp@Info_2John @ SECOND JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is little to add to what was said about the First Epistle except that here the author terms himself "the elder" (\ho presbuteros\) and writes to "the elect lady" (\eklekti kurii\). There is dispute about both of these titles. Some hold that it is the mythical "presbyter John" of whom Papias may speak, if so understood, but whose very existence is disproved by Dom Chapman in _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Peter the apostle (1Peter:1:1|) calls himself "fellow-elder" (\sunpresbuteros\) with the other elders (1Peter:5:1|). The word referred originally to age (Luke:15:25|), then to rank or office as in the Sanhedrin (Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Acts:6:12|) and in the Christian churches (Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@1Timothy:5:17,19|) as here also. A few even deny that the author is the same as in the First Epistle of John, but just an imitator. But the bulk of modern scholarly opinion agrees that the same man wrote all three Epistles and the Fourth Gospel (the Beloved Disciple, and many still say the Apostle John) whatever is true of the Apocalypse. There is no way of deciding whether "the elect lady" is a woman or a church. The obvious way of taking it is to a woman of distinction in one of the churches, as is true of "the co-elect lady in Babylon" (1Peter:5:13|), Peter's wife, who travelled with him (1Corinthians:9:5|). Some even take \kuria\ to be the name of the lady (Cyria). Some also take it to be "Eklecta the lady." Dr. Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 31) holds that Pergamum is the church to which the letter was sent. The same commentaries treat I, II, and III John as a rule, though Poggel has a book on II, III John (1896) and Bresky (1906) has _Das Verhaltnis des Zweiten Johannesbriefes zum dritten_. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has an interesting article in _The Expositor_ of London for March, 1901, on "The Problem of the Address to the Second Epistle of John," in which he argues from papyri examples that \kuria\ here means "my dear" or "my lady." But Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 26) argues that "the qualifying adjunct 'elect' lifts us into the region of Christian calling and dignity." It is not certain that II John was written after I John, though probable. Origen rejected it and the Peshitta Syriac does not have II and III John. strkjv@2John:1:1 @{And her children} (\kai tois teknois auts\). As with \eklekt kuria\, so here \tekna\ may be understood either literally as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:4|, or spiritually, as in strkjv@Galatians:4:19,25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. For the spiritual sense in \teknia\ see strkjv@1John:2:1,12|. {Whom} (\hous\). Masculine accusative plural, though \teknois\ is neuter plural (dative), construction according to sense, not according to grammatical gender, "embracing the mother and the children of both sexes" (Vincent). See thus \hous\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:19|. {I} (\Eg\). Though \ho presbuteros\ is third person, he passes at once after the Greek idiom to the first and there is also special emphasis here in the use of \agap\ with the addition of \en altheii\ (in truth, in the highest sphere, as in strkjv@John:17:19; strkjv@3John:1:1|) and \ouk eg monos\ (not I only, "not I alone"). Brooke argues that this language is unsuitable if to a single family and not to a church. But Paul employs this very phrase in sending greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans:16:4|). {That know} (\hoi egnkotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \ginsk\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE DATE If we accept the Petrine authorship, it must come before his death, which was probably A.D. 67 or 68. Hence the Epistle cannot be beyond this date. There are those who argue for A.D. 64 as the date of Peter's death, but on insufficient grounds in my opinion.

rwp@2Timothy:4:11 @{Only Luke is with me} (\Loukas estin monos met' emou\). Luke is with Paul now in Rome as during the first Roman imprisonment (Philemon:1:24; strkjv@Colossians:4:14|). {Take Mark} (\Markon analabn\). Second aorist active participle of \analamban\, old verb, to pick up, as in strkjv@Ephesians:6:13,16|. "Pick up Mark." {He is useful to me} (\estin moi euchrstos\). See strkjv@2:21| for \euchrstos\. Paul had long ago changed his opinion of Mark (Colossians:4:10|) because Mark had changed his conduct and had made good in his ministry. Now Paul longs to have the man that he once scornfully rejected (Acts:15:37ff.|).

rwp@Acts:4:6 @{Annas} (\Hannas\). One of the rulers or chief priests, ex-high priest (A.D. 7-14) and father-in-law of {Caiaphas} (\Kaiaphas\) who was actual high priest at that time, though the title clung to Annas as here (both so called in strkjv@Luke:3:2|), Caiaphas so by Roman law, Annas so in the opinion of the Jews. They with John and Alexander are the leaders among the Sadducees in pressing the case against Peter and John.

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

rwp@Acts:15:13 @{After they had held their peace} (\meta to sigsai autous\). Literally, "after the becoming silent (ingressive aorist active of the articular infinitive) as to them (Barnabas and Paul, accusative of general reference)." {James answered} (\apekrith Iakbos\). First aorist passive (deponent) indicative. It was expected that James, as President of the Conference, would speak last. But he wisely waited to give every one an opportunity to speak. The challenge of the Judaizers called for an opinion from James. Furneaux thinks that he may have been elected one of the twelve to take the place of James the brother of John since Paul (Galatians:1:19|) calls him apostle. More likely he was asked to preside because of his great gifts and character as chief of the elders.

rwp@Acts:16:4 @{They delivered them} (\paredidosan autois\). Imperfect active, kept on delivering to them in city after city. This is a proof of Paul's loyalty to the Jerusalem compact (Knowling). The circumcision of Timothy would indicate also that the points involved were under discussion and that Paul felt no inconsistency in what he did. {The decrees} (\ta dogmata\). Old word from \doke\, to give an opinion. It is used of public decrees of rulers (Luke:2:1; strkjv@Acts:17:7|), of the requirements of the Mosaic law (Colossians:2:14|), and here of the regulations or conclusions of the Jerusalem Conference. Silas was with Paul and his presence gave added dignity to the passing out of the decrees, a charter of Gentile freedom, since he was one of the committee from Jerusalem to Antioch (15:22,27,32|). {Which had been ordained} (\ta kekrimena\). Perfect passive articular participle of \krin\, to judge, emphasizing the permanence of the conclusions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. {For to keep} (\phulassein\). This present active infinitive likewise accents that it is a charter of liberty for continual living, not a temporary compromise.

rwp@Acts:22:16 @{By baptized} (\baptisai\). First aorist middle (causative), not passive, Get thyself baptized (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 808). Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:10:2|. Submit yourself to baptism. Songs:as to \apolousai\, Get washed off as in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:11|. It is possible, as in strkjv@2:38|, to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so is in my opinion a complete subversion of Paul's vivid and picturesque language. As in strkjv@Romans:6:4-6| where baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way (verse 10|). Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ.

rwp@Acts:23:29 @{Concerning questions of their law} (\peri ztmata tou nomou autn\). The very distinction drawn by Gallio in Corinth (Acts:18:14f.|). On the word see on strkjv@15:2|. {But to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds} (\mden de axion thanatou desmn echonta enklma\). Literally, "having no accusation (or crime) worthy of death or of bonds." This phrase here only in the N.T. \Egklma\ is old word for accusation or crime from \egkale\ used in verse 28| and in the N.T. only here and strkjv@25:16|. Lysias thus expresses the opinion that Paul ought to be set free and the lenient treatment that Paul received in Caesarea and Rome (first imprisonment) is probably due to this report of Lysias. Every Roman magistrate before whom Paul appears declares him innocent (Gallio, Lysias, Felix, Festus).

rwp@Acts:24:15 @{That there shall be a resurrection} (\anastasin mellein esesthai\). Indirect assertion with infinitive and accusative of general reference (\anastasin\) after the word \elpida\ (hope). The future infinitive \esesthai\ after \mellein\ is also according to rule, \mell\ being followed by either present, aorist, or future infinitive (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 870, 877, 878). {Both of the just and the unjust} (\dikain te kai adikn\). Apparently at the same time as in strkjv@John:5:29| (cf. strkjv@Acts:17:31f.|). Gardner thinks that Luke here misrepresents Paul who held to no resurrection save for those "in Christ," a mistaken interpretation of Paul in my opinion. The Talmud teaches the resurrection of Israelites only, but Paul was more than a Pharisee.

rwp@Galatians:2:3 @{Being a Greek} (\Helln n\). Concessive participle, though he was a Greek. {Was compelled to be circumcised} (\nagkasth peritmthnai\). First aorist passive indicative of \anagkaz\ and first aorist passive infinitive of \peritemn\. Curiously enough some scholars interpret this language to mean that Paul voluntarily had Titus circumcised, instead of being compelled to do it, an impossible view in my opinion in the light of verse 5| and wholly inconsistent with the whole context. Paul means that he stood his ground against compulsion and all force.

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

rwp@John:5:39 @{Ye search} (\eraunte\). Proper spelling as the papyri show rather than \ereunte\, the old form (from \ereuna\, search) as in strkjv@7:52|. The form here can be either present active indicative second person plural or the present active imperative second person plural. Only the context can decide. Either makes sense here, but the reason given "because ye think" (\hoti humeis dokeite\, clearly indicative), supports the indicative rather than the imperative. Besides, Jesus is arguing on the basis of their use of "the Scriptures" (\tas graphas\). The plural with the article refers to the well-known collection in the Old Testament (Matthew:21:42; strkjv@Luke:24:27|). Elsewhere in John the singular refers to a particular passage (2:22; strkjv@7:38; strkjv@10:35|). {In them ye have eternal life} (\en autais zn ainion echein\). Indirect assertion after \dokeite\ without "ye" expressed either as nominative (\humeis\) or accusative (\humas\). Bernard holds that in John \doke\ always indicates a mistaken opinion (5:45; strkjv@11:13,31; strkjv@13:29; strkjv@16:20; strkjv@20:15|). Certainly the rabbis did make a mechanical use of the letter of Scripture as a means of salvation. {These are they} (\ekeinai eisin hai\). The true value of the Scriptures is in their witness to Christ (of me, \peri emou\). Luke (24:27,45|) gives this same claim of Jesus, and yet some critics fail to find the Messiah in the Old Testament. But Jesus did.

rwp@John:5:45 @{Think not} (\m dokeite\). Prohibition with \m\ and the present imperative. See on verse 39| for \doke\ for mistaken opinions in John. {I will accuse you} (\eg katgors humn\). Emphasis on \eg\ (I). Future active indicative of \katgore\ (\kata\, against, \agoreu\, to speak in the assembly \agora\, to bring an accusation in court, a public accusation). See strkjv@Romans:3:9| for \proaitiaomai\ for making previous charge and strkjv@Luke:16:1| for \diaball\, a secret malicious accusation, and strkjv@Romans:8:33| for \egkale\, for public charge, not necessarily before tribunal. {Even Moses} (\Muss\). No "even" in the Greek. {On whom ye have set your hope} (\eis hon humeis lpikate\). Perfect active indicative of \elpiz\, state of repose in Moses. Only example of \elpiz\ in John. See strkjv@2Corinthians:1:10| for use of \eis\ with \elpiz\ instead of the usual \epi\ (1Timothy:4:10|).

rwp@John:6:52 @{Strove} (\emachonto\). Imperfect (inchoative) middle of \machomai\, to fight in armed combat (Acts:7:26|), then to wage a war of words as here and strkjv@2Timothy:2:24|. They were already murmuring (41|), now they began bitter strife with one another over the last words of Jesus (43-51|), some probably seeing a spiritual meaning in them. There was division of opinion about Jesus in Jerusalem also later (7:12,40; strkjv@9:16; strkjv@10:19|). {How can?} (\Ps dunatai;\). The very idiom used by Nicodemus in strkjv@3:4,9|. Here scornful disbelief. {This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous use pictured in verse 42|. {His flesh to eat} (\tn sarka autou phagein\). As if we were cannibals! Some MSS. do not have \autou\, but the meaning is clear. The mystical appropriation of Christ by the believer (Galatians:2:20; strkjv@Ephesians:3:17|) they could not comprehend, though some apparently were against this literal interpretation of "flesh" (\sarx\).

rwp@John:9:17 @{Unto the blind man again} (\ti tuphli palin\). The doctors disagree and they ask the patient whose story they had already heard (verse 15|). {In that he opened thine eyes} (\hoti neixen sou tous ophthalmous\). Causal use of \hoti\ and triple augment in the first aorist active indicative of \anoig\. They offer the excuse that the man's experience particularly qualified him to explain the "how," overlooking the fact he had already told his story and also trying to conceal their own hopeless division of opinion. {He is a prophet} (\prophts estin\). The man will go that far anyhow.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE GOSPEL OF LUKE BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _International and Critical Commentary_, in the Introduction to Ragg's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _Westminster Commentaries_, in the Introduction to Easton's _Gospel According to St. Luke_, Hayes' _Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, Ramsay's _Luke the Physician_, Harnack's _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake's _Beginnings of Christianity_, Carpenter's _Christianity According to St. Luke_, Cadbury's _The Making of Luke-Acts_, McLachlan's _St. Luke: The Man and His Work_, Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Luke:2:1 @{Decree from Caesar Augustus} (\dogma para Kaisaros Augoustou\). Old and common word from \doke\, to think, form an opinion. No such decree was given by Greek or Roman historians and it was for long assumed by many scholars that Luke was in error. But papyri and inscriptions have confirmed Luke on every point in these crucial verses strkjv@2:1-7|. See W.M. Ramsay's books (_Was Christ Born at Bethelehem?_ _Luke the Physician_. _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the N.T._). {The World} (\tn oikoumenn\). Literally, {the inhabited} ({land}, \gn\). Inhabited by the Greeks, then by the Romans, then the whole world (Roman world, the world ruled by Rome). Songs:Acts:11:28; strkjv@17:6|. {Should be enrolled} (\apographesthai\). It was a census, not a taxing, though taxing generally followed and was based on the census. This word is very old and common. It means to write or copy off for the public records, to register.

rwp@Luke:5:26 @{Amazement} (\ekstasis\). Something out of its place, as the mind. Here the people were almost beside themselves as we say with the same idiom. See on ¯Mark:5:42|. Songs:they kept glorifying God (imperfect tense, \edoxazon\) and at the same time "were filled with fear" (\eplsthsan phobou\, aorist passive). {Strange things} (\paradoxa\). Our very word paradox, contrary to (\para\) received opinion (\doxa\). Plato, Xenophon, and Polybius use it. Here alone in the N.T.

rwp@Luke:6:37 @{And judge not} (\kai m krinete\). \M\ and the present active imperative, forbidding the habit of criticism. The common verb \krin\, to separate, we have in our English words critic, criticism, criticize, discriminate. Jesus does not mean that we are not to form opinions, but not to form them rashly, unfairly, like our prejudice. {Ye shall not be judged} (\ou m krithte\). First aorist passive subjunctive with double negative ou \m\, strong negative. {Condemn not} (\m katadikazete\). To give judgment (\dik, dixaz\) against (\kata\) one. \M\ and present imperative. Either cease doing or do not have the habit of doing it. Old verb. {Ye shall not be condemned} (\ou m katadikasthte\). First aorist passive indicative again with the double negative. Censoriousness is a bad habit. {Release} (\apoluete\). Positive command the opposite of the censoriousness condemned.

rwp@Luke:9:19 @{That I am} (\me einai\). Accusative and infinitive in indirect assertion, a common Greek idiom. strkjv@Matthew:16:13| for "I" has "the Son of man" as identical in the consciousness of Christ. The various opinions of men about Jesus here run parallel to the rumours heard by Herod (verses 8,9|).

rwp@Mark:8:27 @{Into the villages of Caesarea Philippi} (\eis ts kmas Kaisaris ts Philippou\). Parts (\mer\) strkjv@Matthew:16:13| has, the Caesarea of Philippi in contrast to the one down on the Mediterranean Sea. Mark means the villages belonging to the district around Caesarea Philippi. This region is on a spur of Mount Hermon in Iturea ruled by Herod Philip so that Jesus is safe from annoyance by Herod Antipas or the Pharisees and Sadducees. Up here on this mountain slope Jesus will have his best opportunity to give the disciples special teaching concerning the crucifixion just a little over six months ahead. Songs:Jesus asked (\eprt\, descriptive imperfect) {Who do men say that I am?} (\Tina me legousin hoi anthrpoi einai;\). strkjv@Matthew:16:13| has "the Son of Man" in place of "I" here in Mark and in strkjv@Luke:9:18|. He often described himself as "the Son of Man." Certainly here the phrase could not mean merely "a man." They knew the various popular opinions about Jesus of which Herod Antipas had heard (Mark:3:21,31|). It was time that the disciples reveal how much they had been influenced by their environment as well as by the direct instruction of Jesus.

rwp@Mark:16:18 @{They shall take up serpents} (\opheis arousin\). Jesus had said something like this in strkjv@Luke:10:19| and Paul was unharmed by the serpent in Malta (Acts:28:3f.|). {If they drink any deadly thing} (\k'an thanasimon ti pisin\). This is the only N.T. instance of the old Greek word \thanasimos\ (deadly). strkjv@James:3:8| has \thanatphoros\, deathbearing. Bruce considers these verses in Mark "a great lapse from the high level of Matthew's version of the farewell words of Jesus" and holds that "taking up venomous serpents and drinking deadly poison seem to introduce us into the twilight of apocryphal story." The great doubt concerning the genuineness of these verses (fairly conclusive proof against them in my opinion) renders it unwise to take these verses as the foundation for doctrine or practice unless supported by other and genuine portions of the N.T.

rwp@Matthew:2:5 @{And they said unto him} (\hoi de eipan auti\). Whether the ecclesiastics had to search their scriptures or not, they give the answer that is in accord with the common Jewish opinion that the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem and of the seed of David (John:7:42|). Songs:they quote strkjv@Micah:5:2|, "a free paraphrase" Alford calls it, for it is not precisely like the Hebrew text or like the Septuagint. It may have come from a collection of _testimonia_ with which J. Rendel Harris has made the world familiar. He had consulted the experts and now he has their answer. Bethlehem of Judah is the place. The use of the perfect passive indicative (\gegraptai\) is the common form in quoting scripture. It stands written. {Shall be shepherd} (\poimanei\). The Authorized Version had "shall rule," but "shepherd" is correct. "Homer calls kings 'the shepherds of the people'" (Vincent). In strkjv@Hebrews:13:20| Jesus is called "the great shepherd of the sheep." Jesus calls himself "the good shepherd" (John:10:11|). Peter calls Christ "the chief shepherd" (1Peter:2:25|). "The Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd" (Revelation:7:17|). Jesus told Peter to "shepherd" the lambs (John:21:16|). Our word pastor means shepherd.

rwp@Matthew:6:11 @{Our daily bread} (\ton arton hmn ton epiousion\). This adjective "daily" (\epiousion\) coming after "Give us this day" (\dos hmn smeron\) has given expositors a great deal of trouble. The effort has been made to derive it from \epi\ and \n\ (\ousa\). It clearly comes from \epi\ and \in\ (\epi\ and \eimi\) like \ti epiousi\ ("on the coming day," "the next day," strkjv@Acts:16:12|). But the adjective \epiousios\ is rare and Origen said it was made by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke to reproduce the idea of an Aramaic original. Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_ say: "The papyri have as yet shed no clear light upon this difficult word (Matthew:6:11; strkjv@Luke:11:3|), which was in all probability a new coinage by the author of the Greek Q to render his Aramaic Original" (this in 1919). Deissmann claims that only about fifty purely New Testament or "Christian" words can be admitted out of the more than 5,000 used. "But when a word is not recognizable at sight as a Jewish or Christian new formation, we must consider it as an ordinary Greek word until the contrary is proved. \Epiousios\ has all the appearance of a word that originated in trade and traffic of the everyday life of the people (cf. my hints in _Neutestamentliche Studien Georg Heinrici dargebracht_, Leipzig, 1914, pp. 118f.). The opinion here expressed has been confirmed by A. Debrunner's discovery (_Theol. Lit. Ztg_. 1925, Col. 119) of \epiousios\ in an ancient housekeeping book" (_Light from the Ancient East_, New ed. 1927, p. 78 and note 1). Songs:then it is not a word coined by the Evangelist or by Q to express an Aramaic original. The word occurs also in three late MSS. after 2Macc. strkjv@1:8, \tous epiousious\ after \tous artous\. The meaning, in view of the kindred participle (\epiousi\) in strkjv@Acts:16:12|, seems to be "for the coming day," a daily prayer for the needs of the next day as every housekeeper understands like the housekeeping book discovered by Debrunner.

rwp@Matthew:14:4 @{For John said unto him} (\elegen gar Ians auti\). Possibly the Pharisees may have put Herod up to inveigling John to Machaerus on one of his visits there to express an opinion concerning his marriage to Herodias (Broadus) and the imperfect tense (\elegen\) probably means that John said it repeatedly. It was a blunt and brave thing that John said. It cost him his head, but it is better to have a head like John's and lose it than to have an ordinary head and keep it. Herod Antipas was a politician and curbed his resentment toward John by his fear of the people who still held (\eichon\, imperfect tense) him as a prophet.

rwp@Matthew:16:13 @{Caesarea Philippi} (\Kaisarias ts Philippou\). Up on a spur of Mt. Hermon under the rule of Herod Philip. {He asked} (\rt\). Began to question, inchoative imperfect tense. He was giving them a test or examination. The first was for the opinion of men about the Son of Man.

rwp@Matthew:16:14 @{And they said} (\hoi de eipan\). They were ready to respond for they knew that popular opinion was divided on that point (14:1f.|). They give four different opinions. It is always a risky thing for a pastor to ask for people's opinions of him. But Jesus was not much concerned by their answers to this question. He knew by now that the Pharisees and Sadducees were bitterly hostile to him. The masses were only superficially following him and they looked for a political Messiah and had vague ideas about him. How much did the disciples understand and how far have they come in their development of faith? Are they still loyal?

rwp@Matthew:16:17 @{Blessed art thou} (\makarios ei\). A beatitude for Peter. Jesus accepts the confession as true. Thereby Jesus on this solemn occasion solemnly claims to be the Messiah, the Son of the living God, his deity in other words. The disciples express positive conviction in the Messiahship or Christhood of Jesus as opposed to the divided opinions of the populace. "The terms in which Jesus speaks of Peter are characteristic--warm, generous, unstinted. The style is not that of an ecclesiastical editor laying the foundation for church power, and prelatic pretentions, but of a noble-minded Master eulogizing in impassioned terms a loyal disciple" (Bruce). The Father had helped Peter get this spiritual insight into the Master's Person and Work.

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autn moicheuthnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenn gamsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\m epi porneii\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha or moicheu\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Matthew:19:10 @{The disciples say unto him} (\legousin auti hoi mathtai\). "Christ's doctrine on marriage not only separated Him \toto caelo\ from Pharisaic opinions of all shades, but was too high even for the Twelve" (Bruce). {The case} (\h aitia\). The word may refer to the use in verse 3| "for every cause." It may have a vague idea here = \res\, condition. But the point clearly is that "it is not expedient to marry" (\ou sumpherei gamsai\) if such a strict view is held. If the bond is so tight a man had best not commit matrimony. It is a bit unusual to have \anthrpos\ and \gun\ contrasted rather than \anr\ and \gun\.

rwp@Matthew:20:26 @{Would become great} (\hos an theli megas genesthai\). Jesus does not condemn the desire to become great. It is a laudable ambition. There are "great ones" (\megaloi\) among Christians as among pagans, but they do not "lord it over" one another (\katakurieuousin\), a LXX word and very expressive, or "play the tyrant" (\katexousiazousin\), another suggestive word. {Your minister} (\hmn diakonos\). This word may come from \dia\ and \konis\ (dust), to raise a dust by one's hurry, and so to minister. It is a general word for servant and is used in a variety of ways including the technical sense of our "deacon" in Php. strkjv@1:1|. But it more frequently is applied to ministers of the Gospel (1Corinthians:3:5|). The way to be "first" (\prtos\), says Jesus, is to be your "servant" (\doulos\), "bond-servant" (verse 27|). This is a complete reversal of popular opinion then and now.

rwp@Matthew:20:28 @{A ransom for many} (\lutron anti polln\). The Son of man is the outstanding illustration of this principle of self-abnegation in direct contrast to the self-seeking of James and John. The word translated "ransom" is the one commonly employed in the papyri as the price paid for a slave who is then set free by the one who bought him, the purchase money for manumitting slaves. See examples in Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_ and Deissmann's _Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 328f. There is the notion of exchange also in the use of \anti\. Jesus gave his own life as the price of freedom for the slaves of sin. There are those who refuse to admit that Jesus held this notion of a substitutionary death because the word in the N.T. occurs only here and the corresponding passage in strkjv@Mark:10:45|. But that is an easy way to get rid of passages that contradict one's theological opinions. Jesus here rises to the full consciousness of the significance of his death for men.

rwp@Romans:3:28 @{We reckon therefore} (\logizometha oun\). Present middle indicative. Westcott and Hort read \gar\ instead of \oun\. "My fixed opinion" is. The accusative and infinitive construction occurs after \logizometha\ here. On this verb \logizomai\, see strkjv@2:3; strkjv@4:3f.; strkjv@8:18; strkjv@14:14|. Paul restates verses 21f|.

rwp@Romans:14:1 @{Him that is weak} (\ton asthenounta\). See on ¯1Corinthians:8:7-12; strkjv@9:22; strkjv@Romans:4:19|. {Receive ye} (\proslambanesthe\). Present middle imperative (indirect), "take to yourselves." {Yet not to doubtful disputations} (\m eis diakriseis dialogismn\). "Not for decisions of opinions." Note \dia\ (between, two or \duo\) in both words. Discriminations between doubts or hesitations. For \diakrisis\, see strkjv@1Corinthians:12:10; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14| (only N.T. examples). For \dialogismos\ see strkjv@Luke:2:35; strkjv@24:38; strkjv@Phillipians:2:14|. The "strong" brother is not called upon to settle all the scruples of the "weak" brother. But each takes it on himself to do it.