OT-POET.filter - rwp 11:25:

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

rwp@2Corinthians:12:2 @{I know a man} (\oida anthrpon\). Paul singles out one incident of ecstasy in his own experience that he declines to describe. He alludes to it in this indirect way as if it were some other personality. {Fourteen years ago} (\pro etn dekatessarn\). Idiomatic way of putting it, the preposition \pro\ (before) before the date (Robertson, _Grammar, p. 621f.) as in strkjv@John:12:1|. The date was probably while Paul was at Tarsus (Acts:9:30; strkjv@11:25|). We have no details of that period. {Caught up} (\harpagenta\). Second aorist passive participle of \harpaz\, to seize (see on strkjv@Matthew:11:12|). {Even to the third heaven} (\hes tritou ouranou\). It is unlikely that Paul alludes to the idea of seven heavens held by some Jews (_Test. of the Twelve Pat._, Levi ii. iii.). He seems to mean the highest heaven where God is (Plummer).

rwp@Ephesians:3:14 @{I bow my knees} (\kampt ta gonata mou\). He now prays whether he had at first intended to do so at strkjv@3:1| or not. Calvin supposes that Paul knelt as he dictated this prayer, but this is not necessary. This was a common attitude in prayer (Luke:22:41; strkjv@Acts:7:40; strkjv@20:36; strkjv@21:5|), though standing is also frequent (Mark:11:25; strkjv@Luke:18:11,13|).

rwp@Ephesians:4:18 @{Being darkened} (\eskotmenoi ontes\). Periphrastic perfect passive participle of \skoto\, old verb from \skotos\ (darkness), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:9:2; strkjv@16:10|. {In their understanding} (\ti dianoii\). Locative case. Probably \dianoia\ (\dia, nous\) includes the emotions as well as the intellect (\nous\). It is possible to take \ontes\ with \apllotrimenoi\ (see strkjv@2:12|) which would then be periphrastic (instead of \eskotmenoi\) perfect passive participle. {From the life of God} (\ts zs tou theou\). Ablative case \zs\ after \apllotrimenoi\ (2:12|). {Because of the ignorance} (\dia tn agnoian\). Old word from \agnoe\, not to know. Rare in N.T. See strkjv@Acts:3:17|. {Hardening} (\prsin\). Late medical term (Hippocrates) for callous hardening. Only other N.T. examples are strkjv@Mark:3:5; strkjv@Romans:11:25|.

rwp@Info_John @ A DIFFERENT STYLE OF TEACHING Songs:different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon's _Memorabilia_ and of Plato's _Dialogues_. There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters strkjv@John:7-11|. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|). The use of "the Father" and "the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

rwp@Info_John @ JOHN'S PORTRAIT OF CHRIST No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: "And the Word was God" (John:1:1|) and in the correct text of strkjv@John:1:18|, "God only begotten" (\theos monogens\). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: "This is the Son of God" (John:1:34|). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (John:5:18|) and the claim of Christ himself (John:5:20-23; strkjv@6:48; strkjv@8:12,58; strkjv@11:25; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|) with the full and frank conviction of the author in strkjv@John:20:31|. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term \theos\ applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_ (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ's crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly (_Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah_, 1900; _St. John's Portrait of Christ_, 1910).

rwp@John:1:4 @{In him was life} (\en auti z n\). That which has come into being (verse 3|) in the Logos was life. The power that creates and sustains life in the universe is the Logos. This is what Paul means by the perfect passive verb \ektistai\ (stands created) in strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. This is also the claim of Jesus to Martha (John:11:25|). This is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:1:3| "bearing (upholding) the all things by the word of his power." Once this language might have been termed unscientific, but not so now after the spiritual interpretation of the physical world by Eddington and Jeans. Usually in John \z\ means spiritual life, but here the term is unlimited and includes all life; only it is not \bios\ (manner of life), but the very principle or essence of life. That is spiritual behind the physical and to this great scientists today agree. It is also personal intelligence and power. Some of the western documents have \estin\ here instead of \n\ to bring out clearly the timelessness of this phrase of the work of the \Logos\. {And the life was the light of men} (\kai h z n to phs tn anthrpn\). Here the article with both \z\ and \phs\ makes them interchangeable. "The light was the life of men" is also true. That statement is curiously like the view of some physicists who find in electricity (both light and power) the nearest equivalent to life in its ultimate physical form. Later Jesus will call himself the light of the world (John:8:12|). John is fond of these words life and light in Gospel, Epistles, Revelation. He here combines them to picture his conception of the Pre-incarnate Logos in his relation to the race. He was and is the Life of men (\tn anthrpon\, generic use of the article) and the Light of men. John asserts this relation of the Logos to the race of men in particular before the Incarnation.

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

rwp@John:9:39 @{For judgement} (\eis krima\). The Father had sent the Son for this purpose (3:17|). This world (\kosmos\) is not the home of Jesus. The \krima\ (judgement), a word nowhere else in John, is the result of the \krisis\ (sifting) from \krin\, to separate. The Father has turned over this process of sifting (\krisis\) to the Son (5:22|). He is engaged in that very work by this miracle. {They which see not} (\hoi m blepontes\). The spiritually blind as well as the physically blind (Luke:4:18; strkjv@Isaiah:42:18|). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive \blepsin\ (may keep on seeing). This man now sees physically and spiritually. {And that they which see may become blind} (\kai hoi blepontes tuphloi genntai\). Another part of God's purpose, seen in strkjv@Matthew:11:25; strkjv@Luke:10:21|, is the curse on those who blaspheme and reject the Son. Note ingressive aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ and predicate nominative. \Hoi blepontes\ are those who profess to see like these Pharisees, but are really blind. Blind guides they were (Matthew:23:16|). Complacent satisfaction with their dim light.

rwp@John:11:25 @{I am the resurrection and the life} (\Eg eimi h anastasis kai h z\). This reply is startling enough. They are not mere doctrines about future events, but present realities in Jesus himself. "The Resurrection is one manifestation of the Life: it is involved in the Life" (Westcott). Note the article with both \anastasis\ and \z\. Jesus had taught the future resurrection often (6:39|), but here he means more, even that Lazarus is now alive. {Though he die} (\kan apothani\). "Even if he die," condition (concession) of third class with \kai ean\ (\kan\) and the second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnsk\ (physical death, he means). {Yet shall he live} (\zsetai\). Future middle of \za\ (spiritual life, of course).

rwp@Luke:18:10 @{Stood} (\statheis\). First aorist passive participle of \histmi\. Struck an attitude ostentatiously where he could be seen. Standing was the common Jewish posture in prayer (Matthew:6:5; strkjv@Mark:11:25|). {Prayed thus} (\tauta prosucheto\). Imperfect middle, was praying these things (given following). {With himself} (\pros heauton\). A soliloquy with his own soul, a complacent recital of his own virtues for his own self-satisfaction, not fellowship with God, though he addresses God. {I thank thee} (\eucharist soi\). But his gratitude to God is for his own virtues, not for God's mercies to him. One of the rabbis offers a prayer like this of gratitude that he was in a class by himself because he was a Jew and not a Gentile, because he was a Pharisee and not of the _am-haaretz_ or common people, because he was a man and not a woman. {Extortioners} (\harpages\). An old word, \harpax\ from same root as \harpaz\, to plunder. An adjective of only one gender, used of robbers and plunderers, grafters, like the publicans (Luke:3:13|), whether wolves (Matthew:7:15|) or men (1Corinthians:5:19f.|). The Pharisee cites the crimes of which he is not guilty. {Or even} (\ kai\). As the climax of iniquity (Bruce), he points to "this publican." Zaccheus will admit robbery (Luke:19:8|). {God} (\ho theos\). Nominative form with the article as common with the vocative use of \theos\ (so verse 13; strkjv@John:20:28|).

rwp@Luke:21:24 @{Edge of the sword} (\stomati machairs\). Instrumental case of \stomati\ which means "mouth" literally (Genesis:34:26|). This verse like the close of verse 22| is only in Luke. Josephus (_War_, VI. 9.3) states that 1,100,000 Jews perished in the destruction of Jerusalem and 97,000 were taken captive. Surely this is an exaggeration and yet the number must have been large. {Shall be led captive} (\aichmaltisthsontai\). Future passive of \aichmaltiz\ from \aichm\, spear and \haltos\ (\haliskomai\). Here alone in the literal sense in the N.T. {Shall be trodden under foot} (\estai patoumen\). Future passive periphrastic of \pate\, to tread, old verb. {Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled} (\achri hou plrthsin kairoi ethnn\). First aorist passive subjunctive with \achri hou\ like \hes hou\. What this means is not clear except that Paul in strkjv@Romans:11:25| shows that the punishment of the Jews has a limit. The same idiom appears there also with \achri hou\ and the aorist subjunctive.

rwp@Luke:22:20 @{After the supper} (\meta to deipnsai\). Preposition \meta\ and the accusative articular infinitive. The textual situation here is confusing, chiefly because of the two cups (verses 17,20|). Some of the documents omit the latter part of verse 19| and all of verse 20|. It is possible, of course, that this part crept into the text of Luke from strkjv@1Corinthians:11:24f|. But, if this part is omitted, Luke would then have the order reversed, the cup before the bread. Songs:there are difficulties whichever turn one takes here with Luke's text whether one cup or two cups. {The New Covenant} (\he kain diathk\). See on ¯Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Mark:14:24| for "covenant." Westcott and Hort reject "new" there, but accept it here and in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:25|. See on ¯Luke:5:38| for difference between \kain\ and \nea\. "The ratification of a covenant was commonly associated with the shedding of blood; and what was written in blood was believed to be indelible" (Plummer). {Poured out} (\ekchunnomenon\). Same word in strkjv@Mark:14:24; strkjv@Matthew:26:28| translated "shed." Late form present passive participle of \ekchunn\ of \ekche\, to pour out.

rwp@Matthew:18:14 @{The will of your Father} (\thelma emprosthen\). Observe that Westcott and Hort read \mou\ here rather than \hmn\ after B Sahidic Coptic. Either makes good sense, though "your" carries on the picture of God's care for "each one of these little ones" (\hen tn mikrn toutn\) among God's children. The use of \emprosthen\ with \thelma\ is a Hebraism like \emprosthen sou\ in strkjv@11:25| with \eudokia\, "before the face" of God.

rwp@Matthew:21:3 @{The Lord} (\ho kurios\). It is not clear how the word would be understood here by those who heard the message though it is plain that Jesus applies it to himself. The word is from \kuros\, power or authority. In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. as master of the slave (Matthew:10:24|), of the harvest (9:38|), of the vineyard (20:8|), of the emperor (Acts:13:27|), of God (Matthew:11:20; strkjv@11:25|), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts:10:36|). Note strkjv@Matthew:8:25|. This is the only time in Matthew where the words \ho kurios\ are applied to Jesus except the doubtful passage in strkjv@28:6|. A similar usage is shown by Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_ and Deissmann's _Light from the Ancient East_. Particularly in Egypt it was applied to "the Lord Serapis" and Ptolemy and Cleopatra are called "the lords, the most great gods" (\hoi kurioi theoi megistoi\). Even Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I are addressed as "Lord King." In the west the Roman emperors are not so termed till the time of Domitian. But the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. It seems as if already the disciples were calling Jesus "Lord" and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here.