OT-LAW.filter - rwp practical:

rwp@1Corinthians:2:2 @{For I determined not to know anything among you} (\ou gar ekrina ti eidenai en humin\). Literally, "For I did not decide to know anything among you." The negative goes with \ekrina\, not with \ti\. Paul means that he did not think it fit or his business to know anything for his message beyond this "mystery of God." {Save Jesus Christ} (\ei m Isoun Christon\). Both the person and the office (Lightfoot). I had no intent to go beyond him and in particular, {and him crucified} (\kai touton estaurmenon\). Literally, {and this one as crucified} (perfect passive participle). This phase in particular (1:18|) was selected by Paul from the start as the centre of his gospel message. He decided to stick to it even after Athens where he was practically laughed out of court. The Cross added to the \scandalon\ of the Incarnation, but Paul kept to the main track on coming to Corinth.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:19 @{Must be} (\dei einai\). Since moral conditions are so bad among you (cf. chapters 1 to 6). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:7|. {Heresies} (\haireseis\). The schisms naturally become {factions} or {parties}. Cf. strifes (\erides\) in strkjv@1:11|. See on ¯Acts:15:5| for \haireseis\, a choosing, taking sides, holding views of one party, heresy (our word). "Heresy is theoretical schism, schism practical heresy." Cf. strkjv@Titus:3:10; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. In Paul only here and strkjv@Galatians:5:20|. {That} (\hina\). God's purpose in these factions makes {the proved ones} (\hoi dokimoi\) become {manifest} (\phaneroi\). "These \haireseis\ are a magnet attracting unsound and unsettled minds" (Findlay). It has always been so. Instance so-called Christian Science, Russellism, New Thought, etc., today.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:58 @{Be ye steadfast, unmovable} (\hedraioi ginesthe, ametakintoi\). "Keep on becoming steadfast, unshaken." Let the sceptics howl and rage. Paul has given rational grounds for faith and hope in Christ the Risen Lord and Saviour. Note practical turn to this great doctrinal argument. {Work} (\ergon\), {labour} (\kopos\, toil). The best answer to doubt is work.

rwp@1John:3:17 @{Whoso hath} (\hos an echi\). Indefinite relative clause with modal \an\ with \hos\ and the present active subjunctive of \ech\. {The world's goods} (\ton bion tou kosmou\). "The living or livelihood (not \z\, the principle of life, and see strkjv@2:16| for \bios\) of the world" (not in the sense of evil or wicked, but simply this mundane sphere). {Beholdeth} (\therei\). Present active subjunctive of \there\, like \echei\ just before. {In need} (\chreian echonta\). "Having need" (present active predicate participle of \ech\, agreeing with \adelphon\). See the vivid picture of a like case in strkjv@James:2:15f|. {Shutteth up} (\kleisi\). First aorist (effective) active subjunctive of \klei\, to close like the door, changed on purpose from present tense to aorist (graphic slamming the door of his compassion, \splagchna\, common in LXX and N.T. for the nobler viscera, the seat of the emotions, as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:11; strkjv@Colossians:3:12|). Only here in John. {How} (\ps\). Rhetorical question like that in strkjv@James:2:16| (what is the use?). It is practical, not speculative, that counts in the hour of need.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE USE OF PAUL'S EPISTLES There are two extremes about the relation of Peter to Paul. One is that of violent antithesis, with Peter and Paul opposing one another by exaggerating and prolonging Paul's denunciation of Peter's cowardice in Antioch (Galatians:2:11-21|) and making Peter also the exponent of a Jewish type of Christianity (practically a Judaizing type). This view of Baur once had quite a following, but it has nearly disappeared. Under its influence Acts and Peter's Epistles were considered not genuine, but documents designed to patch up the disagreement between Peter and Paul. The other extreme is to deny any Pauline influence on Peter or of Peter on Paul. Paul was friendly to Peter (Galatians:1:18|), but was independent of his ecclesiastical authority (Galatians:2:1-10|) and Peter championed Paul's cause in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-13|). Peter was certainly not a Judaizer (Acts:11:1-18|), in spite of his temporary defection in Antioch. Undoubtedly Peter was won back to cordial relations with Paul if any confidence can be placed in strkjv@2Peter:3:15f|. There is no reason for doubting that Peter was familiar with some of Paul's Epistles as there indicated. There is some indication of Peter's use of Romans and Ephesians in this Epistle. It is not always conclusive to find the same words and even ideas which are not formally quoted, because there was a Christian vocabulary and a body of doctrinal ideas in common though with personal variations in expression. Peter may have read James, but not the Pastoral Epistles. There are points of contact with Hebrews which Von Soden considers sufficiently accounted for by the fact that Peter and the author of Hebrews were contemporaries.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:3 @{Remembering} (\mnmoneuontes\). Present active participle of old verb from adjective \mnmn\ (mindful) and so to call to mind, to be mindful of, used either with the accusative as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| or the genitive as here. {Without ceasing} (\adialeipts\). Double compound adverb of the _Koin_ (Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo, papyri) from the verbal adjective \a-dia-leiptos\ (\a\ privative and \dia-leip\, to leave off). In the N.T. alone by Paul and always connected with prayer. Milligan prefers to connect this adverb (amphibolous in position) with the preceding participle \poioumenoi\ rather than with \mnmoneuontes\ as Revised Version and Westcott and Hort rightly do. {Your work of faith} (\humn tou ergou ts pistes\). Note article with both \ergou\ and \pistes\ (correlation of the article, both abstract substantives). \Ergou\ is genitive case the object of \mnmoneuontes\ as is common with verbs of emotion (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 508f.), though the accusative \kopon\ occurs in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| according to common Greek idiom allowing either case. \Ergou\ is the general term for work or business, employment, task. Note two genitives with \ergou\. \Humn\ is the usual possessive genitive, {your work}, while \ts pistes\ is the descriptive genitive, marked by, characterized by, faith, "the activity that faith inspires" (Frame). It is interesting to note this sharp conjunction of these two words by Paul. We are justified by faith, but faith produces works (Romans:6-8|) as the Baptist taught and as Jesus taught and as James does in strkjv@James:2|. {Labour of love} (\tou kopou ts agaps\). Note article with both substantives. Here again \tou kopou\ is the genitive the object of \mnmoneuontes\ while \ts agaps\ is the descriptive genitive characterizing the "labour" or "toil" more exactly. \Kopos\ is from \kopt\, to cut, to lash, to beat the bread, to toil. In strkjv@Revelation:14:13| the distinction is drawn between \kopou\ (toil) from which the saints rest and \erga\ (works, activities) which follow with them into heaven. Songs:here it is the labour that love prompts, assuming gladly the toil. \Agap\ is one of the great words of the N.T. (Milligan) and no certain example has yet been found in the early papyri or the inscriptions. It occurs in the Septuagint in the higher sense as with the sensuous associations. The Epistle of Aristeas calls love (\agap\) God's gift and Philo uses \agap\ in describing love for God. "When Christianity first began to think and speak in Greek, it took up \agap\ and its group of terms more freely, investing them with the new glow with which the N.T. writings make us familiar, a content which is invariably religious" (Moffatt, _Love in the New Testament_, p. 40). The New Testament never uses the word \ers\ (lust). {Patience of hope} (\ts hupomons ts elpidos\). Note the two articles again and the descriptive genitive \ts elpidos\. It is patience marked by hope, "the endurance inspired by hope" (Frame), yes, and sustained by hope in spite of delays and set-backs. \Hupomon\ is an old word (\hupo, men\, to remain under), but it "has come like \agap\ to be closely associated with a distinctively Christian virtue" (Milligan). The same order as here (\ergou, kopos, hupomon\) appears in strkjv@Revelation:2:2| and Lightfoot considers it" an ascending scale as practical proofs of self-sacrifice." The church in Thessalonica was not old, but already they were called upon to exercise the sanctifying grace of hope (Denney). {In our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tou Kuriou hmn Isou Christou\). The objective genitive with \elpidos\ (hope) and so translated by "in" here (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 499f.). Jesus is the object of this hope, the hope of his second coming which is still open to us. Note "Lord Jesus Christ" as in verse 1|. {Before our God and Father} (\emprosthen tou theou kai patros hmn\). The one article with both substantives precisely as in strkjv@Galatians:1:4|, not "before God and our Father," both article and possessive genitive going with both substantives as in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11; strkjv@Titus:2:13| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 785f.). The phrase is probably connected with \elpidos\. \Emprosthen\ in the N.T. occurs only of place, but it is common in the papyri of time. The picture here is the day of judgment when all shall appear before God.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:5 @{How that} (\hoti\). It is not certain whether \hoti\ here means "because" (\quia\) as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:2:14; strkjv@Romans:8:27| or declarative \hoti\ "how that," knowing the circumstances of your election (Lightfoot) or explanatory, as in strkjv@Acts:16:3; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:3f.; strkjv@Romans:13:11|. {Our gospel} (\to euaggelion hmn\). The gospel (see on ¯Matthew:4:23; strkjv@Mark:1:1,15| for \euaggelion\) which we preach, Paul's phrase also in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:3; strkjv@Romans:2:16; strkjv@16:25; strkjv@2Timothy:2:8|. Paul had a definite, clear-cut message of grace that he preached everywhere including Thessalonica. This message is to be interpreted in the light of Paul's own sermons in Acts and Epistles, not by reading backward into them the later perversions of Gnostics and sacramentarians. This very word was later applied to the books about Jesus, but Paul is not so using the term here or anywhere else. In its origin Paul's gospel is of God (1Thessalonians:2:2,8,9|), in its substance it is Christ's (3:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:8|), and Paul is only the bearer of it (1Thessalonians:2:4,9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14|) as Milligan points out. Paul and his associates have been entrusted with this gospel (1Thessalonians:2:4|) and preach it (Galatians:2:2|). Elsewhere Paul calls it God's gospel (2Corinthians:11:7; strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@15:16|) or Christs (1Corinthians:9:12; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@10:14; strkjv@Galatians:1:7; strkjv@Romans:15:19; strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|). In both instances it is the subjective genitive. {Came unto you} (\egenth eis hums\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\ in practically same sense as \egeneto\ (second aorist middle indicative as in the late Greek generally). Songs:also \eis hums\ like the _Koin_ is little more than the dative \humin\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 594). {Not only--but also} (\ouk--monon, alla kai\). Sharp contrast, negatively and positively. The contrast between \logos\ (word) and \dunamis\ (power) is seen also in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:4; strkjv@4:20|. Paul does not refer to miracles by \dunamis\. {In the Holy Spirit and much assurance} (\en pneumati hagii kai plrophorii polli\). Preposition \en\ repeated with \logi, dunamei\, but only once here thus uniting closely {Holy Spirit} and {much assurance}. No article with either word. The word \plrophorii\ is not found in ancient Greek or the LXX. It appears once in Clement of Rome and one broken papyrus example. For the verb \plrophore\ see on ¯Luke:1:1|. The substantive in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:2; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|. It means the full confidence which comes from the Holy Spirit. {Even as ye know} (\kaths oidate\). Paul appeals to the Thessalonians themselves as witnesses to the character of his preaching and life among them. {What manner of men we showed ourselves toward you} (\hoioi egenthmen humin\). Literally, {What sort of men we became to you}. Qualitative relative \hoioi\ and dative \humin\ and first aorist passive indicative \egenthmen\, (not \metha\, we were). An epexegetical comment with {for your sake} (\di' hums\) added. It was all in their interest and for their advantage, however it may have seemed otherwise at the time.

rwp@2Peter:1:5 @{Yea, and for this very cause} (\kai auto touto de\). Adverbial accusative (\auto touto\) here, a classic idiom, with both \kai\ and \de\. Cf. \kai touto\ (Phillipians:1:29|), \touto men--touto de\ (Hebrews:10:33|). "The soul of religion is the practical part" (Bunyan). Because of the new birth and the promises we have a part to play. {Adding on your part} (\pareisenegkantes\). First aorist active participle of \pareispher\, old double compound, to bring in (\eispher\), besides (\para\), here only in N.T. {All diligence} (\spoudn psan\). Old word from \speud\ to hasten (Luke:19:5f.|). This phrase (\psan spoudn\) occurs in strkjv@Jude:1:3| with \poioumenos\ and on the inscription in Stratonicea (verse 3|) with \ispheresthai\ (certainly a curious coincidence, to say the least, though common in the _Koin_). {In your faith} (\en ti pistei humn\). Faith or \pistis\ (strong conviction as in strkjv@Hebrews:11:1,3|, the root of the Christian life strkjv@Ephesians:2:8|) is the foundation which goes through various steps up to love (\agap\). See similar lists in strkjv@James:1:30; strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:3f.; strkjv@Galatians:5:22f.; strkjv@Romans:5:3f.; strkjv@8:29f|. Hermas (Vis. iii. 8. 1-7) has a list called "daughters" of one another. Note the use of \en\ (in, on) with each step. {Supply} (\epichorgsate\). First aorist active imperative of \epichorge\, late and rare double compound verb (\epi\ and \chorge\ strkjv@1Peter:4:11| from \chorgos\, chorus-leader, \choros\ and \hgeomai\, to lead), to fit out the chorus with additional (complete) supplies. Both compound and simplex (more common) occur in the papyri. In strkjv@1:11| and already in strkjv@2Corinthians:9:10; strkjv@Galatians:3:5; strkjv@Colossians:2:19|. {Virtue} (\aretn\). Moral power, moral energy, vigor of soul (Bengel). See 3|. {Knowledge} (\gnsin\). Insight, understanding (1Corinthians:16:18; strkjv@John:15:15|).

rwp@2Peter:3:11 @{To be dissolved} (\luomenn\). Present passive participle (genitive absolute with \toutn pantn\, these things all) of \lu\, either the futuristic present or the process of dissolution presented. {What manner of persons} (\potapous\). Late qualitative interrogative pronoun for the older \podapos\ as in strkjv@Matthew:8:27|, accusative case with \dei huparchein\ agreeing with \hums\ (you). See strkjv@1:8| for \huparch\. {In all holy living and godliness} (\en hagiais anastrophais kai eusebeiais\). "In holy behaviours and pieties" (Alford). Plural of neither word elsewhere in N.T., but a practical plural in \psa anastroph\ in strkjv@1Peter:1:15|.

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

rwp@Acts:6:9 @{The synagogue of the Libertines} (\ek ts sunaggs ts legomens Libertinn\). The Libertines (Latin _libertinus_, a freedman or the son of a freedman) were Jews, once slaves of Rome (perhaps descendants of the Jews taken to Rome as captives by Pompey), now set free and settled in Jerusalem and numerous enough to have a synagogue of their own. Schuerer calls a Talmudic myth the statement that there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. There were many, no doubt, but how many no one knows. These places of worship and study were in all the cities of the later times where there were Jews enough to maintain one. Apparently Luke here speaks of five such synagogues in Jerusalem (that of the Libertines, of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, of Cilicia, and of Asia). There probably were enough Hellenists in Jerusalem to have five such synagogues. But the language of Luke is not clear on this point. He may make only two groups instead of five since he uses the article \tn\ twice (once before \Libertinn kai Kurnain kai Alexandren\, again before \apo Kilikias kai Asias\). He also changes from the genitive plural to \apo\ before Cilicia and Asia. But, leaving the number of the synagogues unsettled whether five or two, it is certain that in each one where Stephen appeared as a Hellenist preaching Jesus as the Messiah he met opposition. Certain of them "arose" (\anestsan\) "stood up" after they had stood all that they could from Stephen, "disputing with Stephen" (\sunztountes ti Stephani\). Present active participle of \sunzte\, to question together as the two on the way to Emmaus did (Luke:24:15|). Such interruptions were common with Jews. They give a skilled speaker great opportunity for reply if he is quick in repartee. Evidently Stephen was fully equipped for the emergency. One of their synagogues had men from Cilicia in it, making it practically certain that young Saul of Tarsus, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, was present and tried his wits with Stephen. His ignominious defeat may be one explanation of his zest in the stoning of Stephen (Acts:8:1|).

rwp@Acts:6:11 @{Then they suborned men} (\tote hupebalon andras\). Second aorist active indicative of \hupoball\, old verb, but here only in the N.T., to put under like a carpet, to bring men under one's control by suggestion or by money. One recalls the plight of Caiaphas in the trial of Jesus when he sought false witnesses. _Subornaverunt_. They put these men forward in an underhand way for fraud. {Blasphemous words against Moses and God} (\blasphma eis Musn kai ton theon\). The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death. See strkjv@Matthew:12:31| for discussion of the word \blasphmia, blasphme, blasphmos\, all in the N.T. from \blapt\, to harm, and \phm\, speech, harmful speech, or \blax\, stupid, and \phm\. But the charge against Stephen was untrue. Please note that Moses is here placed before God and practically on a par with God in the matter of blasphemy. The purpose of this charge is to stir the prejudices of the people in the matter of Jewish rights and privileges. It is the Pharisees who are conducting this attack on Stephen while the Sadducees had led them against Peter and John. The position of Stephen is critical in the extreme for the Sadducees will not help him as Gamaliel did the apostles.

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 ti ekklsii\). 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 autn\). 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} (\hgoumenous\). Leaders, leading men (participle from \hgeomai\, to lead).

rwp@Acts:26:20 @{But declared} (\alla apggellon\). Imperfect active of \apaggell\, repeatedly. {Throughout all the country of Judea} (\psan te tn chran ts Ioudaias\). The accusative here in the midst of the datives (\tois en Damaski, Ierosolumois, tois ethnesin\) seems strange and Page feels certain that \eis\ should be here even though absent in Aleph A B. But the accusative of extent of space will explain it (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 469). {Doing works worthy of repentance} (\axia ts metanoias erga prassontas\). Accusative case of present active participle \prassontas\ because of the implied \autous\ with the present infinitive \metanoein\ (repent) and \epistrephein\ (turn), though the dative \prassousin\ could have been used to agree with \ethnesin\ (Gentiles). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:3:8| for similar language used of the Baptist. Paul, the greatest of theologians, was an interesting practical preacher.

rwp@Info_Ephesians @ SPECIAL BOOKS ON EPHESIANS One may note Abbott (_Int. Crit. Comm_. 1897), Gross Alexander (1910), Beet (1891), Belser (1908), Candlish (1895), Dale (_Lectures on Ephesians_), Dibelius (_Handbuch_, 1912), Eadie (1883), Ellicott (1884), Ewald (_Zahn Komm._, 2 Auf. 1910), Findlay (1892), Gore (_Practical Exposition_, 1898), Haupt (_Meyer Komm._, 8 Auf. 1902), Hitchcock (1913), Hort (_Intr_. 1895), Knabenbauer (1913), Krukenberg (1903), Lidgett (1915), Lock (1929), Lueken (1906), Martin (_New Century Bible_), McPhail (1893), McPherson (1892), Meinertz (1917), Moule (1900), Mullins (1913), Murray (1915), Oltramare (1891), Robinson (1903), Salmond (1903), E. F. Scott (_Moffatt Comm._, 1930), Stroeter (_The Glory of the Body of Christ_, 1909), Von Soden (2 Aufl. 1893), F. B. Westcott (1906), Wohlenberg (1895). strkjv@Ephesians:1:1 @{Of Christ Jesus} (\Christou Isou\). Songs:B D, though Aleph A L have \Isou Christou\. Paul is named as the author and so he is. Otherwise the Epistle is pseudepigraphic. {By the will of God} (\dia thelmatos theou\). As in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Romans:1:1|. {At Ephesus} (\en Ephesi\). In Aleph and B these words are inserted by later hands, though both MSS. give the title \Pros Ephesious\. Origen explains the words \tois hagiois tois ousin\ as meaning "the saints that are" (genuine saints), showing that his MSS. did not have the words \en Ephesi\. The explanation of the insertion of these words has already been given in the remarks on "The Destination" as one copy of the general letter that was preserved in Ephesus. It is perfectly proper to call it the Epistle to the Ephesians if we understand the facts.

rwp@Ephesians:5:31 @{For this cause} (\anti toutou\). "Answering to this" = \heneken toutou\ of strkjv@Genesis:2:24|, in the sense of \anti\ seen in \anth' hn\ (Luke:12:3|). This whole verse is a practical quotation and application of the language to Paul's argument here. In strkjv@Matthew:19:5| Jesus quotes strkjv@Genesis:2:24|. It seems absurd to make Paul mean Christ here by \anthrpos\ (man) as some commentators do.

rwp@Ephesians:5:33 @{Nevertheless} (\pln\). "Howbeit," not to dwell unduly (Abbott) on the matter of Christ and the church. {Do ye also severally love} (\kai humeis hoi kath' hena hekastos agapt\). An unusual idiom. The verb \agapt\ (present active imperative) agrees with \hekastos\ and so is third singular instead of \agapte\ (second plural) like \humeis\. The use of \hoi kath' hena\ after \humeis\ = " ye one by one " and then \hekastos\ takes up (individualizes) the "one" in partitive apposition and in the third person. {Let the wife see that she fear} (\h gun hina phobtai\). There is no verb in the Greek for "let see" (\blepet\). For this use of \hina\ with the subjunctive as a practical imperative without a principal verb (an elliptical imperative) see strkjv@Mark:5:23; strkjv@Matthew:20:32; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:29; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:7; strkjv@Ephesians:4:29; strkjv@5:33| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 994). "Fear" (\phobtai\, present middle subjunctive) here is "reverence."

rwp@Ephesians:6:22 @{That ye may know} (\hina gnte\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \ginsk\. Just as in strkjv@Colossians:4:8| he had not written \hina eidte\ in verse 21|. {Our state} (\ta peri hmn\). "The things concerning us," practically the same as \ta kat' eme\ of verse 21|. See both phrases in strkjv@Colossians:4:7,8|.

rwp@Hebrews:2:14 @{Are sharers in flesh and blood} (\kekoinnken haimatos kai sarkos\). The best MSS. read "blood and flesh." The verb is perfect active indicative of \koinne\, old verb with the regular genitive, elsewhere in the N.T. with the locative (Romans:12:13|) or with \en\ or \eis\. "The children have become partners (\koinnoi\) in blood and flesh." {Partook} (\metesche\). Second aorist active indicative of \metech\, to have with, a practical synonym for \koinne\ and with the genitive also (\tn autn\). That he might bring to nought (\hina katargsi\). Purpose of the incarnation clearly stated with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \katarge\, old word to render idle or ineffective (from \kata, argos\), causative verb (25 times in Paul), once in Luke (Luke:13:7|), once in Hebrews (here). "By means of death" (his own death) Christ broke the power (\kratos\) of the devil over death (paradoxical as it seems), certainly in men's fear of death and in some unexplained way Satan had sway over the realm of death (Zechariah:3:5f.|). Note the explanatory \tout' estin\ (that is) with the accusative after it as before it. In strkjv@Revelation:12:7| Satan is identified with the serpent in Eden, though it is not done in the Old Testament. See strkjv@Romans:5:12; strkjv@John:8:44; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11; strkjv@1John:3:12|. Death is the devil's realm, for he is the author of sin. "Death as death is no part of the divine order" (Westcott).

rwp@Hebrews:3:7 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). Probably this inferential conjunction (\dia, ho\, because of which) goes with \m sklrunte\ (harden not) in verse 8| rather than with \blepete\ (take heed) in verse 12| unless the long quotation be considered a parenthesis. The long quotation in verses 7-11| is from strkjv@Psalms:95:7-11|. After the quotation the author has "three movements" (Moffatt) in his discussion of the passage as applied to the Jewish Christians (3:12-19; strkjv@4:1-10; strkjv@4:11-13|). The peril of apostasy as shown by the example of the Israelites is presented with vividness and power. {As the Holy Ghost saith} (\kaths legei to pneuma to hagion\). Just this phrase nowhere else in the N.T., except Act strkjv@21:11| (Agabus), though practically the same idea in strkjv@9:8; strkjv@10:15|. In strkjv@1Timothy:4:1| the adjective "Holy" is wanting as in strkjv@Revelation:2; 3|. But the writer quotes this Psalm as the Word of God and in strkjv@4:7| attributes it to David. {If ye shall hear} (\ean akouste\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \akou\.

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

rwp@James:3:13 @{Who} (\Tis\). Rhetorical interrogative like strkjv@Luke:11:11|. Common in Paul and characteristic of the diatribe. James here returns to the standpoint of verse 1| about many teachers. Speech and wisdom are both liable to abuse (1Corinthians:1:5,17; strkjv@2:1-3:20|). {Wise and understanding} (\sophos kai epistmn\). \Sophos\ is used for the practical teacher (verse 1|), \epistmn\ (old word from \epistamai\, here only in N.T.) for an expert, a skilled and scientific person with a tone of superiority. In strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:13,15; strkjv@4:6|, the two terms are practically synonyms. {Let him shew} (\deixat\). First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, old verb to show. As about faith in strkjv@2:18|. Emphatic position of this verb. {By his good life} (\ek ts kals anastrophs\). For this literary _Koin_ word from \anastrephomai\ (walk, conduct) see strkjv@Galatians:1:13|. Actions speak louder than words even in the case of the professional wise man. Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:15|. {In meekness of wisdom} (\en prautti sophias\). As in strkjv@1:21| of the listener, so here of the teacher. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:5:5; strkjv@11:29| and Zac strkjv@9:9| of King Messiah quoted in strkjv@Matthew:21:5|. Startling combination.

rwp@James:3:17 @{First pure} (\prton men hagn\). First in rank and time. \Hagnos\ is from the same root as \hagios\ (holy), old adjective, pure from fault, not half-good and half-bad, like that above. {Then peaceable} (\epeita eirnik\). Old adjective from \eirn\ (peace), loving peace here, bringing peace in strkjv@Hebrews:12:11| (only N.T. examples). But clearly great as peace is, purity (righteousness) comes before peace and peace at any price is not worth the having. Hence Jesus spurned the devil's peace of surrender. {Gentle} (\epieiks\). Old adjective (from \eikos\, reasonable, fair), equitable (Phillipians:4:5; strkjv@1Peter:2:18|). No English word renders it clearly. {Easy to be entreated} (\eupeiths\). Old adjective (\eu, peithomai\), compliant, approachable. Only here in N.T. {Mercy} (\eleous\). Practical help (2:13,16|). {Good fruits} (\karpn agathn\). \Kaloi karpoi\ in strkjv@Matthew:7:17f|. Good deeds the fruit of righteousness (Phillipians:1:11|). {Without variance} (\adiakritos\). Late verbal adjective (from alpha privative and \diakrin\, to distinguish). "Unhesitating," not doubting (\diakrinomenos\) like the man in strkjv@1:6|. Here only in N.T. This wisdom does not put a premium on doubt. {Without hypocrisy} (\anupokritos\). Late and rare verbal adjective (alpha privative and \hupokrin\). Not hypocritical, sincere, unfeigned (Romans:12:9|).

rwp@James:4:14 @{Whereas ye know not} (\hoitines ouk epistasthe\). The longer relative \hostis\ defines here more precisely (like Latin _qui_) \hoi legontes\ (ye who say) of verse 13| in a causal sense, as in strkjv@Acts:10:47|, "who indeed do not know" (present middle indicative of \epistamai\). {What shall be on the morrow} (\ts aurion\). Supply \hmeras\ (day) after \aurion\. This is the reading of B (Westcott) "on the morrow" (genitive of time), but Aleph K L cursives have \to ts aurion\ ("the matter of tomorrow"), while A P cursives have \ta ts aurion\ ("the things of tomorrow"). The sense is practically the same, though \to ts aurion\ is likely correct. {What is your life?} (\poia h z humn\). Thus Westcott and Hort punctuate it as an indirect question, not direct. \Poia\ is a qualitative interrogative (of what character). {As vapour} (\atmis\). This is the answer. Old word for mist (like \atmos\, from which our "atmosphere"), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:2:19| with \kapnou\ (vapour of smoke (from strkjv@Joel:2:30|). {For a little time} (\pros oligon\). See same phrase in strkjv@1Timothy:4:8|, \pros kairon\ in strkjv@Luke:8:13|, \pros hran\ in strkjv@John:5:35|. {That appeareth and then vanisheth away} (\phainomen epeita kai aphanizomen\). Present middle participles agreeing with \atmis\, "appearing, then also disappearing," with play on the two verbs (\phainomai, aphaniz\ as in strkjv@Matthew:6:19|, from \aphans\ hidden strkjv@Hebrews:4:13|) with the same root \phan\ (\phain, a-phan-s\).

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:3:16 @{For so} (\houts gar\). This use of \gar\ is quite in John's style in introducing his comments (2:25; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@5:13|, etc.). This "Little Gospel" as it is often called, this "comfortable word" (the Anglican Liturgy), while not a quotation from Jesus is a just and marvellous interpretation of the mission and message of our Lord. In verses 16-21| John recapitulates in summary fashion the teaching of Jesus to Nicodemus. {Loved} (\gapsen\). First aorist active indicative of \agapa\, the noble word so common in the Gospels for the highest form of love, used here as often in John (14:23; strkjv@17:23; strkjv@1John:3:1; strkjv@4:10|) of God's love for man (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:5:8; strkjv@Ephesians:2:4|). In strkjv@21:15| John presents a distinction between \agapa\ and \phile\. \Agapa\ is used also for love of men for men (13:34|), for Jesus (8:42|), for God (1John:4:10|). {The world} (\ton kosmon\). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. This universal aspect of God's love appears also in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19; strkjv@Romans:5:8|. {That he gave} (\hste edken\). The usual classical construction with \hste\ and the indicative (first aorist active) practical result, the only example in the N.T. save that in strkjv@Galatians:2:13|. Elsewhere \hste\ with the infinitive occurs for actual result (Matthew:13:32|) as well as purpose (Matthew:10:1|), though even this is rare. {His only begotten Son} (\ton huion ton monogen\). "The Son the only begotten." For this word see on ¯1:14,18; strkjv@3:18|. The rest of the sentence, the purpose clause with \hina-echi\ precisely reproduces the close of strkjv@3:15| save that \eis auton\ takes the place of \en auti\ (see strkjv@1:12|) and goes certainly with \pisteun\ (not with \echi\ as \en auti\ in verse 15|) and the added clause "should not perish but" (\m apoltai alla\, second aorist middle subjunctive, intransitive, of \apollumi\, to destroy). The same contrast between "perish" and "eternal life" (for this world and the next) appears also in strkjv@10:28|. On "perish" see also strkjv@17:12|.

rwp@John:11:38 @{Again groaning in himself} (\palin embrimmenos en heauti\). Direct reference to the use of this same word (present middle participle here) in verse 33|, only with \en heauti\ (in himself) rather than \ti pneumati\ (in his spirit), practically the same idea. The speculation concerning his power stirred the depths of his nature again. {Cometh to the tomb} (\erchetai eis to mnmeion\). Vivid historical present. {A cave} (\splaion\). Old word (from \speos\, cavern). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:21:13|. {Lay against it} (\epekeito ep' auti\). Imperfect middle of \epikeimai\, old verb to lie upon as in strkjv@21:9| and figuratively (1Corinthians:9:16|). Note repetition of \epi\ with locative case. The use of a cave for burial was common (Genesis:23:19|). Either the body was let down through a horizontal opening (hardly so here) or put in a tomb cut in the face of the rock (if so, \epi\ can mean "against"). The stones were used to keep away wild animals from the bodies.

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

rwp@John:20:21 @{Even so send I you} (\kag pemp humas\). Jesus has often spoken of the Father's sending him using both \apostell\ and \pemp\. Here he employs both words in practically the same sense. Jesus still bears the Commission of the Father (perfect active indicative). For this balanced contention (as... so) see strkjv@6:57; strkjv@10:15|. This is the first of the three commissions given by the Risen Christ (another on the mountain in Galilee (Matthew:28:16-20; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:6|), another on the Mount of Olives (Luke:24:44-51; strkjv@Acts:1:3-11|).

rwp@Luke:1:17 @{Before his face} (\enpion autou\). Not in the ancient Greek, but common in the papyri as in LXX and N.T. It is a vernacular _Koin_ word, adverb used as preposition from adjective \enpios\, and that from \ho en pi n\ (the one who is in sight). {Autou} here seems to be "the Lord their God" in verse 16| since the Messiah has not yet been mentioned, though he was to be actually the Forerunner of the Messiah. {In the spirit and power of Elijah} (\en pneumati kai dunamei Elei\). See strkjv@Isaiah:40:1-11; strkjv@Malachi:3:1-5|. John will deny that he is actually Elijah in person, as they expected (John:1:21|), but Jesus will call him Elijah in spirit (Mark:9:12; strkjv@Matthew:17:12|). {Hearts of fathers} (\kardias patern\). Paternal love had died out. This is one of the first results of conversion, the revival of love in the home. {Wisdom} (\phronsei\). Not \sophia\, but a word for practical intelligence. {Prepared} (\kateskeuasmenon\). Perfect passive participle, state of readiness for Christ. This John did. This is a marvellous forecast of the character and career of John the Baptist, one that should have caught the faith of Zacharias.

rwp@Luke:5:1 @{Pressed upon him} (\epikeisthai\). Luke in this paragraph (5:1-11; strkjv@Mark:1:16-20; strkjv@Matthew:4:18-22|) does not follow the chronology of Mark as he usually does. It seems reasonably clear that the renewed call of the four fishermen came before the first tour of Galilee in strkjv@Luke:4:42-44|. It is here assumed that Luke is describing in his own way the incident given in Mark and Matthew above. Luke singles out Simon in a graphic way. This verb \epikeisthai\ is an old one and means to \lie upon\, rest upon as of a stone on the tomb (John:11:38|) or of fish on the burning coals (John:21:9|). Songs:it is used of a tempest (Acts:27:20|) and of the urgent demands for Christ's crucifixion (Luke:23:23|). Here it vividly pictures the eager crowds around Jesus. \En ti epikeisthai\ is a favourite idiom with Luke as we have already seen, \en\ with the articular infinitive in the locative case. {That} (\kai\). \Kai\ does not technically mean the declarative conjunction "that," but it is a fair rendering of the somewhat awkward idiom of Luke to a certain extent imitating the Hebrew use of _wav_. {Was standing} (\n hests\). Periphrastic second past perfect of \histmi\ which here is equal to a practical imperfect. {By the lake} (\para tn limnn\). The use of the accusative with \para\, alongside, after a verb of rest used to be called the pregnant use, came and was standing. But that is no longer necessary, for the accusative as the case of extension is the oldest of the cases and in later Greek regains many of the earlier uses of the other cases employed for more precise distinctions. See the same idiom in verse 2|. We need not here stress the notion of extension. "With characteristic accuracy Luke never calls it a sea, while the others never call it a lake" (Plummer).

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

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 ptchoi\). {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} (\h 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:20:42 @{For David himself} (\autos gar Daueid\). This language of Jesus clearly means that he treats David as the author of strkjv@Psalms:110|. The inspiration of this Psalm is expressly stated in strkjv@Mark:12:36; strkjv@Matthew:22:43| (which see) and the Messianic character of the Psalm in all three Synoptics who all quote the LXX practically alike. Modern criticism that denies the Davidic authorship of this Psalm has to say either that Jesus was ignorant of the fact about it or that he declined to disturb the current acceptation of the Davidic authorship. Certainly modern scholars are not agreed on the authorship of strkjv@Psalms:110|. Meanwhile one can certainly be excused for accepting the natural implication of the words of Jesus here, "David himself." {In the book of the Psalms} (\en bibli Psalmn\). Compare strkjv@3:4| "in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet."

rwp@Luke:22:70 @{Art thou the Son of God?} (\Su oun ei ho huios tou theou;\). Note how these three epithets are used as practical equivalents. They ask about "the Messiah." Jesus affirms that he is the Son of Man and will sit at the right hand of the power of God. They take this to be a claim to be the Son of God (both humanity and deity). Jesus accepts the challenge and admits that he claims to be all three (Messiah, the Son of man, the Son of God). {Ye say} (\Humeis legete\). Just a Greek idiom for "Yes" (compare "I am" in strkjv@Mark:14:62| with "Thou has said" in strkjv@Matthew:26:64|).

rwp@Mark:2:1 @{Again into Capernaum after some days} (\palin eis Kapharnaoum di' hmern\). After the first tour of Galilee when Jesus is back in the city which is now the headquarters for the work in Galilee. The phrase \di' hmern\ means days coming in between (\dia, duo\, two) the departure and return. {In the house} (\en oiki\). More exactly, {at home}, in the home of Peter, now the home of Jesus. Another picture directly from Peter's discourse. Some of the manuscripts have here \eis oikon\, illustrating the practical identity in meaning of \en\ and \eis\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 591-6). {It was noised} (\kousth\). It was heard (first aorist, passive indicative from \akou\, to hear). People spread the rumour, "He is at home, he is indoors."

rwp@Mark:3:8 @{Hearing what great things he did} (\akouontes hosa poiei\). Masculine plural present participle, though \plthos\ is neuter singular (construction according to sense in both number and gender). This crowd by the sea came from Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond Jordan (Decapolis and Perea), Tyre and Sidon, Phoenicia, North, South, East, and Northwest, even from Idumea (mentioned here alone in the N.T.) won by John Hyrcanus to Palestine. "In our Lord's time Idumea was practically a part of Judea with a Jewish circumcised population" (George Adam Smith). Many of these were probably Gentiles (Phoenicia and Decapolis) and may have known only the Greek language. The fame of Jesus had spread through all the regions round about. There was a jam as the crowds came to Jesus by the Sea of Galilee.

rwp@Mark:8:14 @{Bread} (\artous\). {Loaves}, plural. {More than one loaf} (\ei m hina arton\). Except one loaf. Detail only in Mark. Practically for thirteen men when hungry.

rwp@Mark:8:29 @{Thou art the Christ} (\Su ei ho Christos\). Mark does not give "the Son of the living God" (Matthew:16:16|) or "of God" (Luke:9:20|). The full confession is the form in Matthew. Luke's language means practically the same, while Mark's is the briefest. But the form in Mark really means the full idea. Mark omits all praise of Peter, probably because Peter had done so in his story of the incident. For criticism of the view that Matthew's narrative is due to ecclesiastical development and effort to justify ecclesiastical prerogatives, see discussion on ¯Matthew:16:16,18|. The disciples had confessed him as Messiah before. Thus strkjv@John:1:41; strkjv@4:29; strkjv@6:69; strkjv@Matthew:14:33|. But Jesus had ceased to use the word Messiah to avoid political complications and a revolutionary movement (John:6:14f.|). But did the disciples still believe in Jesus as Messiah after all the defections and oppositions seen by them? It was a serious test to which Jesus now put them.

rwp@Matthew:6:9 @{After this manner therefore pray ye} (\houts oun proseuchesthe humeis\). "You" expressed in contrast with "the Gentiles." It should be called "The Model Prayer" rather than "The Lord's Prayer." "Thus" pray as he gives them a model. He himself did not use it as a liturgy (cf. strkjv@John:17|). There is no evidence that Jesus meant it for liturgical use by others. In strkjv@Luke:11:2-4| practically the same prayer though briefer is given at a later time by Jesus to the apostles in response to a request that he teach them how to pray. McNeile argues that the form in Luke is the original to which Matthew has made additions: "The tendency of liturgical formulas is towards enrichment rather than abbreviation." But there is no evidence whatever that Jesus designed it as a set formula. There is no real harm in a liturgical formula if one likes it, but no one sticks to just one formula in prayer. There is good and not harm in children learning and saying this noble prayer. Some people are disturbed over the words "Our Father" and say that no one has a right to call God Father who has not been "born again." But that is to say that an unconverted sinner cannot pray until he is converted, an absurd contradiction. God is the Father of all men in one sense; the recognition of Him as the Father in the full sense is the first step in coming back to him in regeneration and conversion.

rwp@Matthew:17:26 @{The sons} (\hoi huioi\). Christ, of course, and the disciples also in contrast with the Jews. Thus a reply to Peter's prompt "Yes." Logically (\arage\) free from the temple tax, but practically not as he proceeds to show.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ A PRACTICAL PURPOSE Songs:considered, this vision of the Reigning Christ in heaven with a constant eye on the suffering saints and martyrs is a guarantee of certain triumph in heaven and ultimate triumph on earth. The picture of Christ in heaven is a glorious one. He is the Lamb that was slain, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Word of God, the Victor over his enemies, worshipped in heaven like the Father, the Light and Life of men. Instead of trying to fit the various symbols on particular individuals one will do better to see the same application to times of persecution from time to time through the ages. The same Christ who was the Captain of salvation in the time of Domitian is the Pioneer and Perfecter of our faith today. The Apocalypse of John gives glimpses of heaven as well as of hell. Hope is the word that it brings to God's people at all times.

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE PURPOSE Paul tells this himself. He had long cherished a desire to come to Rome (Acts:19:21|) and had often made his plans to do so (Romans:1:13|) which were interrupted (Romans:15:22|), but now he definitely plans to go from Jerusalem, after taking the contribution there (Romans:15:26|), to Rome and then on to Spain (Romans:15:24,28|). Meanwhile he sends this Epistle that the Romans may know what Paul's gospel really is (Romans:1:15; strkjv@2:16|). He is full of the issues raised by the Judaizing controversy as set forth in the Epistles to Corinth and to Galatia. Songs:in a calmer mood and more at length he presents his conception of the Righteousness demanded by God (Romans:1:17|) of both Gentile (Romans:1:18-32|) and Jew (Romans:2:1-3:20|) and only to be obtained by faith in Christ who by his atoning death (justification) has made it possible (Romans:3:21-5:21|). This new life of faith in Christ should lead to holiness of life (sanctification, chapters strkjv@Romans:6-8|). This is Paul's gospel and the remaining chapters deal with corollaries growing out of the doctrine of grace as applied to practical matters. It is a cause for gratitude that Paul did write out so full a statement of his message. He had a message for the whole world and was anxious to win the Roman Empire to Christ. It was important that he go to Rome for it was the centre of the world's life. Nowhere does Paul's Christian statesmanship show to better advantage than in this greatest of his Epistles. It is not a book of formal theology though Paul is the greatest of theologians. Here Paul is seen in the plenitude of his powers with all the wealth of his knowledge of Christ and his rich experience in mission work. The church in Rome is plainly composed of both Jews and Greeks, though who started the work there we have no way of knowing. Paul's ambition was to preach where no one else had been (Romans:15:20|), but he has no hesitation in going on to Rome.