Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp Both:


rwp@1Corinthians:3:19 @{Foolishness with God} (\m“ria para t“i the“i\). Whose standard does a church (temple) of God wish, that of this world or of God? The two standards are not the same. It is a pertinent inquiry with us all whose idea rules in our church. Paul quotes strkjv@Job:5:13|. {That taketh} (\ho drassomenos\). Old verb \drassomai\, to grasp with the hand, is used here for the less vivid word in the LXX \katalamban“n\. It occurs nowhere else in the N.T., but appears in the papyri to lay hands on. Job:is quoted in the N.T. only here and in strkjv@Romans:11:35| and both times with variations from the LXX. This word occurs in Ecclesiasticus strkjv@26:7; strkjv@34:2. In strkjv@Psalms:2:12| the LXX has \draxasthe paideias\, lay hold on instruction. {Craftiness} (\panourgiƒi\). The \panourgos\ man is ready for any or all work (if bad enough). Songs:it means versatile cleverness (Robertson and Plummer), _astutia_ (Vulgate).

rwp@1Corinthians:4:5 @{Wherefore} (\h“ste\). As in strkjv@3:21| which see. {Judge nothing} (\mˆ ti krinete\). Stop passing judgment, stop criticizing as they were doing. See the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:7:1|. The censorious habit was ruining the Corinthian Church. {Before the time} (\pro kairou\). The day of the Lord in strkjv@3:13|. "Do not therefore anticipate the great judgment (\krisis\) by any preliminary investigation (\anakrisis\) which must be futile and incomplete" (Lightfoot). {Until the Lord come} (\he“s an elthˆi ho kurios\). Common idiom of \he“s\ and the aorist subjunctive with or without \an\ for a future event. Simple futurity, but held forth as a glorious hope, the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus as Judge. {Who will both bring to light} (\hos kai ph“tisei\). Future indicative of this late verb (in papyri also) from \ph“s\ (light), to turn the light on the hidden things of darkness. {And make manifest} (\kai phaner“sei\). (Ionic and late) causative verb \phanero“\ from \phaneros\. By turning on the light the counsels of all hearts stand revealed. {His praise} (\ho epainos\). The praise (note article) due him from God (Romans:2:29|) will come to each then (\tote\) and not till then. Meanwhile Paul will carry on and wait for the praise from God.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:6 @{I have in a figure transferred} (\meteschˆmatisa\). First aorist active (not perfect) indicative of \meta-schˆmatiz“\, used by Plato and Aristotle for changing the form of a thing (from \meta\, after, and \schˆma\, form or habit, like Latin _habitus_ from \ech“\ and so different from \morphˆ\ as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:12:2|). For the idea of refashioning see Field, _Notes_, p. 169f. and Preisigke, _Fachworter_). Both Greek and Latin writers (Quintilian, Martial) used \schˆma\ for a rhetorical artifice. Paul's use of the word (in Paul only in N.T.) appears also further in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13-15| where the word occurs three times, twice of the false apostles posing and passing as apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness, and once of Satan as an angel of light, twice with \eis\ and once with \h“s\. In strkjv@Phillipians:3:21| the word is used for the change in the body of our humiliation to the body of glory. But here it is clearly the rhetorical figure for a veiled allusion to Paul and Apollos "for your sakes" (\dia humas\). {That in us ye may learn} (\hina en hˆmin mathˆte\). Final clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \manthan“\, to learn. As an object lesson in our cases (\en hˆmin\). It is no more true of Paul and Apollos than of other ministers, but the wrangles in Corinth started about them. Songs:Paul boldly puts himself and Apollos to the fore in the discussion of the principles involved. {Not to go beyond the things which are written} (\to Mˆ huper ha gegraptai\). It is difficult to reproduce the Greek idiom in English. The article \to\ is in the accusative case as the object of the verb \mathˆte\ (learn) and points at the words "\Mˆ huper ha gegraptai\," apparently a proverb or rule, and elliptical in form with no principal verb expressed with \mˆ\, whether "think" (Auth.) or "go" (Revised). There was a constant tendency to smooth out Paul's ellipses as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26,31|. Lightfoot thinks that Paul may have in mind O.T. passages quoted in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:19,31; strkjv@3:19,20|. {That ye be not puffed up} (\hina mˆ phusiousthe\). Sub-final use of \hina\ (second use in this sentence) with notion of result. It is not certain whether \phusiousthe\ (late verb form like \phusia“, phusa“\, to blow up, to inflate, to puff up), used only by Paul in the N.T., is present indicative with \hina\ like \zˆloute\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:17| (cf. \hina gin“skomen\ in strkjv@1John:5:20|) or the present subjunctive by irregular contraction (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 203, 342f.), probably the present indicative. \Phusio“\ is from \phusis\ (nature) and so meant to make natural, but it is used by Paul just like \phusa“\ or \phusia“\ (from \phusa\, a pair of bellows), a vivid picture of self-conceit. {One for the one against the other} (\heis huper tou henos kata tou heterou\). This is the precise idea of this idiom of partitive apposition. This is the rule with partisans. They are "for" (\huper\) the one and "against" (\kata\, down on, the genitive case) the other (\tou heterou\, not merely another or a second, but the different sort, \heterodox\).

rwp@1Corinthians:4:9 @{Hath set forth us the apostles last} (\hˆmas tous apostolous eschatous apedeixen\). The first aorist active indicative of \apodeiknumi\, old verb to show, to expose to view or exhibit (Herodotus), in technical sense (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4|) for gladiatorial show as in \ethˆriomachˆsa\ (1Corinthians:15:32|). In this grand pageant Paul and other apostles come last (\eschatous\, predicate accusative after \apedeixen\) as a grand finale. {As men doomed to die} (\h“s epithanatious\). Late word, here alone in N.T. The LXX (Bel and the Dragon 31) has it for those thrown daily to the lions. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (_A.R_. vii. 35) uses it of those thrown from the Tarpeian Rock. The gladiators would say _morituri salutamus_. All this in violent contrast to the kingly Messianic pretensions of the Corinthians. {A spectacle} (\theatron\). Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:11:33-40|. The word, like our theatre, means the place of the show (Acts:19:29,31|). Then, it means the spectacle shown there (\theama\ or \thea\), and, as here, the man exhibited as the show like the verb \theatrizomenoi\, made a spectacle (Hebrews:10:33|). Sometimes it refers to the spectators (\theatai\) like our "house" for the audience. Here the spectators include "the world, both to angels and men" (\t“i kosm“i kai aggelois kai anthr“pois\), dative case of personal interest.

rwp@1Corinthians:5:5 @{To deliver such an one unto Satan} (\paradounai ton toiouton t“i Satanƒi\). We have the same idiom in strkjv@1Timothy:1:20| used of Hymenius and Alexander. In strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| Paul speaks of his own physical suffering as a messenger (\aggelos\) of Satan. Paul certainly means expulsion from the church (verse 2|) and regarding him as outside of the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians:2:11f.|). But we are not to infer that expulsion from the local church means the damnation of the offender. The wilful offenders have to be expelled and not regarded as enemies, but admonished as brothers (2Thessalonians:3:14f.|). {For the destruction of the flesh} (\eis olethron tˆs sarkos\). Both for physical suffering as in the case of Job:(Job:2:6|) and for conquest of the fleshly sins, remedial punishment. {That the spirit may be saved} (\hina to pneuma s“thˆi\). The ultimate purpose of the expulsion as discipline. Note the use of \to pneuma\ in contrast with \sarx\ as the seat of personality (cf. strkjv@3:15|). Paul's motive is not merely vindictive, but the reformation of the offender who is not named here nor in strkjv@2Corinthians:2:5-11| if the same man is meant, which is very doubtful. The final salvation of the man in the day of Christ is the goal and this is to be attained not by condoning his sin.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:11 @{Songs:we preach, and so ye believed} (\hout“s kˆrussomen, kai hout“s episteusate\). This is what matters both for preacher and hearers. This is Paul's gospel. Their conduct in response to his message was on record.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:14 @{Vain} (\kenon\). _Inanis_, Vulgate. Old word, empty. Both Paul's preaching and their faith are empty if Christ has not been raised. If the sceptics refuse to believe the fact of Christ's resurrection, they have nothing to stand on.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:15 @{False witnesses of God} (\pseudomartures tou theou\). Late word, but \pseudomarture“\, to bear false witness, old and common. The genitive (\tou theou\) can be either subjective (in God's service) or objective (concerning God). Either makes good sense. {Because we witnessed of God} (\hoti emarturˆsamen kata tou theou\). Vulgate has _adversus Deum_. This is the more natural way to take \kata\ and genitive, {against God} not as equal to \peri\ (concerning). He would indeed make God play false in that case, {if so be that the dead are not raised} (\eiper ara nekroi ouk egeirontai\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. Note both \per\ intensive particle {indeed} and \ara\ inferential particle {therefore}.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:22 @{Shall be made alive} (\z“opoiˆthˆsontai\). First future passive indicative of \z“opoie“\, late verb (Aristotle) to give life, to restore to life as here. In verse 36| \z“opoieitai\ is used in the sense of natural life as in strkjv@John:5:21; strkjv@6:63| of spiritual life. It is not easy to catch Paul's thought here. He means resurrection (restoration) by the verb here, but not necessarily eternal life or salvation. Songs:also \pantes\ may not coincide in both clauses. All who die die in Adam, all who will be made alive will be made alive (restored to life) in Christ. The same problem occurs in strkjv@Romans:5:18| about "all," and in verse 19| about "the many."

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:9 @{Travail} (\mochthon\). Old word for difficult labour, harder than \kopos\ (toil). In the N.T. only here, strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:27|. Note accusative case here though genitive with \mnˆmoneu“\ in strkjv@1:3|. {Night and day} (\nuktos kai hˆmeras\). Genitive case, both by day and by night, perhaps beginning before dawn and working after dark. Songs:in strkjv@3:10|. {That we might not burden any of you} (\pros to mˆ epibarˆsai tina hum“n\). Use of \pros\ with the articular infinitive to express purpose (only four times by Paul). The verb \epibare“\ is late, but in the papyri and inscriptions for laying a burden (\baros\) on (\epi-\) one. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:5|. Paul boasted of his financial independence where he was misunderstood as in Thessalonica and Corinth (2Corinthians:9-12|), though he vindicated his right to remuneration. {We preached} (\ekˆruxamen\). {We heralded} (from \kˆrux\, herald) to you, common verb for preach.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:14 @{Imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea} (\mimˆtai t“n ekklˆsi“n tou theou t“n ous“n en tˆi Ioudaiƒi\). On \mimˆtai\ see on ¯1:5|. "This passage, implying an affectionate admiration of the Jewish churches on the part of St. Paul, and thus entirely bearing out the impression produced by the narrative in the Acts, is entirely subversive of the theory maintained by some and based on a misconception of strkjv@Galatians:2|, and by the fiction of the Pseudo-Clementines, of the feud existing between St. Paul and the Twelve" (Lightfoot). {In Christ Jesus} (\en Christ“i Iˆsou\). It takes this to make a _Christian_ church of God. Note order here {Christ Jesus} as compared with {Jesus Christ} in strkjv@1:1,3|. {Ye also--even as they} (\kai humeis--kai autoi\). Note \kai\ twice (correlative use of \kai\). {Countrymen} (\sumphulet“n\). Fellow-countrymen or tribesmen. Late word that refers primarily to Gentiles who no doubt joined the Jews in Thessalonica who instigated the attacks on Paul and Silas so that it "was taken up by the native population, without whose co-operation it would have been powerless" (Lightfoot). {Own} (\idi“n\) here has apparently a weakened force. Note \hupo\ here with the ablative both with \sumphulet“n\ and \Ioudai“n\ after the intransitive \epathete\ (suffered). The persecution of the Christians by the Jews in Judea was known everywhere.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:15 @{Who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets} (\t“n kai ton Kurion apokteinant“n Iˆsoun kai tous prophˆtas\). First aorist active participle of \apoktein“\. Vivid justification of his praise of the churches in Judea. The Jews killed the prophets before the Lord Jesus who reminded them of their guilt (Matthew:23:29|). Paul, as Peter (Acts:2:23|), lays the guilt of the death of Christ on the Jews. {And drove us out} (\kai hˆmƒs ekdi“xant“n\). An old verb to drive out or banish, to chase out as if a wild beast. Only here in N.T. It is Paul's vivid description of the scene told in strkjv@Acts:17:5ff.| when the rabbis and the hoodlums from the agora chased him out of Thessalonica by the help of the politarchs. {Please not God} (\The“i mˆ areskont“n\). The rabbis and Jews thought that they were pleasing God by so doing as Paul did when he ravaged the young church in Jerusalem. But Paul knows better now. {And are contrary to all men} (\kai pasin anthr“pois enanti“n\). Dative case with the adjective \enanti“n\ (old and common word, face to face, opposite). It seems like a bitter word about Paul's countrymen whom he really loved (Romans:9:1-5; strkjv@10:1-6|), but Paul knew only too well the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile as he shows in strkjv@Ephesians:2| and which only the Cross of Christ can break down. Tacitus (_Hist_. V. 5) says that the Jews are _adversus omnes alios hostile odium_.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:18 @{Because} (\dioti\). As in strkjv@2:8|. {We would fain have come to you} (\ˆthelˆsamen elthein pros humas\). First aorist active indicative of \thel“\. Literally, {we desired to come to you. I Paul} (\eg“ men Paulos\). Clear example of literary plural \ˆthelesamen\ with singular pronoun \eg“\. Paul uses his own name elsewhere also as in strkjv@2Corinthians:10:1; strkjv@Galatians:5:2; strkjv@Colossians:1:23; strkjv@Ephesians:3:1; strkjv@Philemon:1:19|. {Once and again} (\kai hapax kai dis\). {Both once and twice} as in strkjv@Phillipians:4:16|. Old idiom in Plato. {And Satan hindered us} (\kai enekopsen hˆmas ho Satanas\). Adversative use of \kai=\ but or and yet. First aorist active indicative of \enkopt“\, late word to cut in, to hinder. Milligan quotes papyrus example of third century, B.C. Verb used to cut in a road, to make a road impassable. Songs:Paul charges Satan with cutting in on his path. Used by Paul in strkjv@Acts:24:4; strkjv@Galatians:5:7| and passive \enekoptomˆn\ in strkjv@Romans:15:22; strkjv@1Peter:3:7|. This hindrance may have been illness, opposition of the Jews in Corinth, what not.

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:1 @{When we could no longer forbear} (\mˆketi stegontes\). \Steg“\ is old verb to cover from \stegˆ\, roof (Mark:2:4|), to cover with silence, to conceal, to keep off, to endure as here and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:12; strkjv@13:7|. In the papyri in this sense (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). \Mˆketi\ usual negative with participle in the _Koin‚_ rather than \ouketi\. {We thought it good} (\ˆudokˆsamen\). Either literary plural as in strkjv@2:18| or Paul and Silas as more likely. If so, both Timothy and Silas came to Athens (Acts:17:15f.|), but Timothy was sent ({we sent}, \epempsamen\, verse 2|) right back to Thessalonica and later Paul sent Silas on to Beroea or Thessalonica (verse 5|, {I sent}, \epempsa\). Then both Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia to Corinth (Acts:18:5|). {Alone} (\monoi\). Including Silas. {God's minister} (\diakonon tou theou\). See on ¯Matthew:22:13| for this interesting word, here in general sense not technical sense of deacon. Some MSS. have {fellow-worker} (\sunergon\). Already {apostle} in strkjv@2:7| and now {brother, minister} (and possibly {fellow-worker}).

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:11 @{Our God and Father himself} (\autos ho theos kai patˆr hˆm“n\). Note one article with both substantives for one person. {And our Lord Jesus} (\kai ho Kurios hˆm“n Iˆsous\). Separate article here with \Iˆsous\. In strkjv@Titus:2:13; strkjv@2Peter:1:1| only one article (not two) treating "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" as one just like "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" in strkjv@2Peter:1:11; strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:18|. {Direct our way} (\kateuthunai tˆn hodon hˆm“n\). First aorist optative (acute accent on penult, not circumflex first aorist active infinitive) of \kateuthun“\, old verb to make straight path. Singular verb also, though both God and Christ mentioned as subject (unity in the Godhead). Apart from \mˆ genoito\ ({may it not come to pass}) the optative in a wish of the third person is found in N.T. only in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:11,12; strkjv@5:23; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:17; strkjv@3:5,16; strkjv@Romans:15:5,13|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:3 @{Your sanctification} (\ho hagiasmos hum“n\). Found only in the Greek Bible and ecclesiastical writers from \hagiaz“\ and both to take the place of the old words \hagiz“, hagismos\ with their technical ideas of consecration to a god or goddess that did not include holiness in life. Songs:Paul makes a sharp and pointed stand here for the Christian idea of sanctification as being "the will of God" (apposition) and as further explained by the epexegetic infinitive {that ye abstain from fornication} (\apechesthai humas apo tˆs porneias\). Pagan religion did not demand sexual purity of its devotees, the gods and goddesses being grossly immoral. Priestesses were in the temples for the service of the men who came.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:6 @{That no man transgress} (\to mˆ huperbainein\). Old verb to go beyond. Final use of \to\ (accusative of general reference) and the infinitive (negative \mˆ\), parallel to \apechesthai\ and \eidenai ktasthai\ above. {And wrong his brother} (\kai pleonektein ton adelphon autou\). To take more, to overreach, to take advantage of, to defraud. {In the matter} (\en t“i pragmati\). The delicacy of Paul makes him refrain from plainer terms and the context makes it clear enough as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11| (\t“i pragmati\). {An avenger} (\ekdikos\). Regular term in the papyri for legal avenger. Modern men and women need to remember that God is the avenger for sexual wrongs both in this life and the next.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:11 @{That ye study to be quiet} (\philotimeisthai hˆsuchazein\). First infinitive dependent on \parakaloumen\ (verse 10|, we exhort you), the second on \philotimeisthai\ (old verb from \philotimos\, fond of honour, \philos, timˆ\). The notion of ambition appears in each of the three N.T. examples (1Thessalonians:4:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:9; strkjv@Romans:5:20|), but it is ambition to do good, not evil. The word ambition is Latin (_ambitio_ from _ambo, ire_), to go on both sides to accomplish one's aims and often evil). A preacher devoid of ambition lacks power. There was a restless spirit in Thessalonica because of the misapprehension of the second coming. Songs:Paul urges an ambition to be quiet or calm, to lead a quiet life, including silence (Acts:11:18|). {To do your own business} (\prassein ta idia\). Present infinitive like the others, to have the habit of attending to their own affairs (\ta idia\). This restless meddlesomeness here condemned Paul alludes to again in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:11| in plainer terms. It is amazing how much wisdom people have about other people's affairs and so little interest in their own. {To work with your own hands} (\ergazesthai tais chersin hum“n\). Instrumental case (\chersin\). Paul gave a new dignity to manual labour by precept and example. There were "pious" idlers in the church in Thessalonica who were promoting trouble. He had commanded them when with them.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:16 @{With a shout} (\en keleusmati\). Note this so-called instrumental use of \en\. Old word, here only in N.T., from \keleu“\, to order, command (military command). Christ will come as Conqueror. {With the voice of the archangel} (\en ph“nˆi archaggelou\). Further explanation of \keleusmati\ (command). The only archangel mentioned in N.T. is Michael in strkjv@Jude:1:9|. But note absence of article with both \ph“nˆi\ and \archaggelou\. The reference may be thus indefinite. {With the trump of God} (\en salpiggi theou\). Trumpet. See same figure in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:52|. {The dead in Christ shall rise first} (\hoi nekroi en Christ“i anastˆsontai pr“ton\). {First} here refers plainly to the fact that, so far from the dead in Christ having no share in the Parousia, they will rise before those still alive are changed.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:17 @{Then} (\epeita\). The next step, not the identical time (\tote\), but immediately afterwards. {Together with them} (\hama sun autois\). Note both \hama\ (at the same time) and \sun\ (together with) with the associative instrumental case \autois\ (the risen saints). {Shall be caught up} (\harpagˆsometha\). Second future passive indicative of \harpaz“\, old verb to seize, to carry off like Latin _rapio_. {To meet the Lord in the air} (\eis apantˆsin tou Kuriou eis aera\). This special Greek idiom is common in the LXX like the Hebrew, but Polybius has it also and it occurs in the papyri (Moulton, _Proleg_., p. 14, n. 3). This rapture of the saints (both risen and changed) is a glorious climax to Paul's argument of consolation. {And so} (\kai hout“s\). This is the outcome, to be forever with the Lord, whether with a return to earth or with an immediate departure for heaven Paul does not say. To be with Christ is the chief hope of Paul's life (1Thessalonians:5:10; strkjv@Phillipians:1:23; strkjv@Colossians:3:4; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:8|).

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:1 @{But concerning the times and the seasons} (\peri de t“n chron“n kai t“n kair“n\). See both words used also in strkjv@Titus:1:2f|. \Chronos\ is rather an extended period and \kairos\ a definite space of time.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:8 @{Putting on the breastplate of faith and love} (\endusamenoi th“raka piste“s kai agapˆs\). First aorist (ingressive) middle participle of \endu“\. The same figure of breastplate in strkjv@Ephesians:6:14|, only there "of righteousness." The idea of watchfulness brings the figure of a sentry on guard and armed to Paul's mind as in strkjv@Romans:13:12| "the weapons of light." The word \th“rax\ (breastplate) is common in the LXX. {For a helmet, the hope of salvation} (\perikephalaian elpida s“tˆrias\). Same figure in strkjv@Ephesians:6:17| and both like strkjv@Isaiah:59:17|. Late word meaning around (\peri\) the head (\kephalˆ\) and in Polybius, LXX, and in the papyri. \S“tˆrias\ is objective genitive.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:27 @{In labour and travail} (\kop“i kai mochth“i\). Both old words for severe work, combined here as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8|, "by toil and moil" (Plummer). The rest of the list is like the items in strkjv@2Corinthians:6:4ff|. {In cold} (\en psuchei\). Old word from \psuch“\, to cool by blowing. See strkjv@Acts:28:2|. See the picture of the aged Paul later in the Roman dungeon (2Timothy:4:9-18|).

rwp@2Corinthians:12:1 @{I must needs glory} (\kauchasthai dei\). This is the reading of B L Latin Syriac, but Aleph D Bohairic have \de\ while K M read \dˆ\. The first is probably correct. He must go on with the glorying already begun, foolish as it is, though it is not expedient (\ou sumpheron\). {Visions} (\optasias\). Late word from \optaz“\. See on ¯Luke:1:22; strkjv@Acts:26:19|. {Revelations of the Lord} (\apokalupseis Kuriou\). Unveilings (from \apokalupt“\ as in strkjv@Revelation:1:1|). See on ¯2Thessalonians:1:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:7; strkjv@14:26|. Paul had both repeated visions of Christ (Acts:9:3; strkjv@16:9; strkjv@18:9; strkjv@22:17; strkjv@27:23f.|) and revelations. He claimed to speak by direct revelation (1Corinthians:11:23; strkjv@15:3; strkjv@Galatians:1:12; strkjv@Ephesians:3:3|, etc.).

rwp@2Corinthians:12:7 @{By reason of the exceeding greatness} (\tˆi huperbolˆi\). Instrumental case, "by the excess." {That I should not be exalted overmuch} (\hina mˆ huperair“mai\). Present passive subjunctive in final clause of \huperair“\, old verb to lift up beyond, only here in N.T. This clause is repeated at the end of the sentence. {A thorn in the flesh} (\skolops tˆi sarki\). This old word is used for splinter, stake, thorn. In the papyri and inscriptions examples occur both for splinter and thorn as the meaning. In the LXX it is usually thorn. The case of \tˆi sarki\ can be either locative (in) or dative (for). What was it? Certainly it was some physical malady that persisted. All sorts of theories are held (malaria, eye-trouble, epilepsy, insomnia, migraine or sick-headache, etc.). It is a blessing to the rest of us that we do not know the particular affliction that so beset Paul. Each of us has some such splinter or thorn in the flesh, perhaps several at once. {Messenger of Satan} (\aggelos Satana\). Angel of Satan, the affliction personified. {Buffet} (\kolaphizˆi\). See on ¯Matthew:26:67; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:11| for this late and rare word from \kolaphos\, fist. The messenger of Satan kept slapping Paul in the face and Paul now sees that it was God's will for it to be so.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:15 @{I will most gladly spend and be spent} (\hˆdista dapanˆs“ kai ekdapanˆthˆsomai\). Both future active of old verb \dapana“\ (Mark:5:26|) to spend money, time, energy, strength and the future passive of \ekdapana“\, late compound to spend utterly, to spend out, (\ek-\), to spend wholly. Only here in N.T.

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" (\eklektˆi kuriƒi\). 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 autˆs\). As with \eklektˆ 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 alˆtheiƒi\ (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 egn“kotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \gin“sk“\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@2John:1:12 @{I would not} (\ouk eboulˆthˆn\). Epistolary aorist (first passive indicative). {With paper and ink} (\dia chartou kai melanos\). The \chartˆs\ was a leaf of papyrus prepared for writing by cutting the pith into strips and pasting together, old word (Jeremiah:43:23|), here only in N.T. \Melas\ is old adjective for black (Matthew:5:36; strkjv@Revelation:6:5,12|), and for black ink here, strkjv@3John:1:13; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:3|. Apparently John wrote this little letter with his own hand. {To come} (\genesthai\). Second aorist middle infinitive of \ginomai\ after \elpiz“\, I hope. {Face to face} (\stoma pros stoma\). "Mouth to mouth." Songs:in strkjv@3John:1:14; strkjv@Numbers:12:8|. "Face to face" (\pros“pon pros pros“pon\) we have in strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|. {Your} (\hum“n\). Or "our" (\hˆm“n\). Both true. {That may be fulfilled} (\hina peplˆr“menˆ ˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive of \plˆro“\, as in strkjv@1John:1:4|, which see.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ CLAIMS PETRINE AUTHORSHIP Not only so, but in fuller form than strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, for the writer terms himself "Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon (Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in strkjv@Acts:15:14|) is the real name (John:1:42|) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas, the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the fact remains that II Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and orthodox teaching.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorˆge“\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophˆteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai idi“tai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

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} (\spoudˆn pƒsan\). Old word from \speud“\ to hasten (Luke:19:5f.|). This phrase (\pƒsan spoudˆn\) 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 tˆi pistei hum“n\). 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 (\agapˆ\). 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} (\epichorˆgˆsate\). First aorist active imperative of \epichorˆge“\, late and rare double compound verb (\epi\ and \chorˆge“\ strkjv@1Peter:4:11| from \chorˆgos\, chorus-leader, \choros\ and \hˆgeomai\, 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} (\aretˆn\). Moral power, moral energy, vigor of soul (Bengel). See 3|. {Knowledge} (\gn“sin\). Insight, understanding (1Corinthians:16:18; strkjv@John:15:15|).

rwp@2Peter:1:8 @{For if these things are yours and abound} (\tauta gar humin huparchonta kai pleonazonta\). Present active circumstantial (conditional) participles neuter plural of \huparch“\ and \pleonaz“\ (see strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:12|) with dative case \humin\, "these things existing for you (or in you) and abounding." {They make you to be} (\kathistˆsin\). "Render" (present active indicative of \kathistˆmi\, old verb, strkjv@James:3:6|), singular because \tauta\ neuter plural. {Not idle nor unfruitful} (\ouk argous oude akarpous\). Accusative predicative plural with \humas\ understood, both adjectives with alpha privative, for \argos\ see strkjv@James:2:20| and for \akarpos\ strkjv@Matthew:13:22|. {Knowledge} (\epign“sin\). "Full (additional) knowledge" as in strkjv@1:2|.

rwp@2Peter:1:10 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). Because of the exhortation and argument in verses 5-9|. {Give the more diligence} (\mƒllon spoudasate\). "Become diligent (first aorist ingressive active imperative of \spoudaz“\ as in strkjv@2Timothy:2:15; strkjv@2Peter:1:15|) the more" (\mallon\, not less). {To make} (\poieisthai\). Present middle infinitive of \poie“\, to make for yourselves. {Calling and election} (\klˆsin kai eklogˆn\). Both words (\klˆsin\, the invitation, \eklogˆn\, actual acceptance). See for \eklogˆ\ strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:4; strkjv@Romans:9:11|. {If ye do} (\poiountes\). Present active circumstantial (conditional) participle of \poie“\, "doing." {Ye shall never stumble} (\ou mˆ ptaisˆte pote\). Strong double negative (\ou mˆ pote\) with first aorist active subjunctive of \ptai“\, old verb to stumble, to fall as in strkjv@James:2:10; strkjv@3:2|.

rwp@2Peter:1:14 @{The putting off of my tabernacle} (\hˆ apothesis tou skˆnn“matos mou\). For \apothesis\ see on ¯1Peter:3:21| and for \skˆn“ma\ verse 13|. For the metaphor see strkjv@2Corinthians:5:3f|. {Cometh swiftly} (\tachinˆ estin\). Late adjective (Theocritus, LXX, inscription), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2:1|. It is not clear whether \tachinos\ means soon or speedy as in strkjv@Isaiah:59:7| and like \tachus\ in strkjv@James:1:19|, or sudden, like \tachus\ in Plato (_Republ_. 553 D). Either sense agrees with the urgent tone of Peter here, whether he felt his death to be near or violent or both. {Signified unto me} (\edˆl“sen moi\). First aorist active indicative of \dˆlo“\, old verb (from \delos\), as in strkjv@1Peter:1:11|. Peter refers to the incident told in strkjv@John:21:18f.|, which he knew by personal experience before John wrote it down.

rwp@Acts:13:15 @{After the reading of the law and the prophets} (\meta tˆn anagn“sin tou nomou kai t“n prophˆt“n\). The law was first read in the synagogues till B.C. 163 when Antiochus Epiphones prohibited it. Then the reading of the prophets was substituted for it. The Maccabees restored both. There was a reading from the law and one from the prophets in Hebrew which was interpreted into the Aramaic or the Greek _Koin‚_ for the people. The reading was followed by the sermon as when Jesus was invited to read and to preach in Nazareth (Luke:4:16f.|). For the service in the synagogue see Schuerer, _History of the Jewish People_, Div. II, Vol. II, pp. 79ff. It was the duty of the rulers of the synagogue (\archisunag“goi\) to select the readers and the speakers for the service (Mark:5:22,35-38; strkjv@Luke:8:49; strkjv@13:14; strkjv@Acts:13:15; strkjv@18:8,17|). Any rabbi or distinguished stranger could be called on to speak. {If ye have any word of exhortation for the people} (\ei tis estin en humin logos paraklˆse“s pros ton laon\). Literally, if there is among you any word of exhortation for the people. It is a condition of the first class and assumed to be true, a polite invitation. On "exhortation" (\paraklˆsis\) see strkjv@9:31|. It may be a technical phrase used in the synagogue (Hebrews:13:22; strkjv@1Timothy:4:13|).

rwp@Acts:13:16 @{Paul stood up} (\anastas Paulos\). The Jewish custom was to sit while speaking (Luke:4:20|), but the Greek and Roman was to stand (Acts:17:22|). It is possible as Lewin (_Life of St. Paul_, Vol. 1, p. 141) suggests that here Paul stepped upon the platform and then took his seat as he began to speak or he may have followed the Greek and Roman custom. Paul is the leader now and the more gifted speaker (Acts:14:12|), so that he responds to the courteous invitation of the rulers. {Beckoning} (\kataseisas\). First aorist active participle of \katasei“\, old verb to shake down, a dramatic gesture for quiet and order like Peter in strkjv@12:17| and Paul on the steps of the tower of Antonia (21:40|). {And ye that fear God} (\kai hoi phoboumenoi ton theon\). Evidently large numbers of these Gentiles like Cornelius in Caesarea were present. They offered Paul a great opportunity for reaching the purely pagan Gentiles. This (verses 16-41|) is the first full report of a sermon of Paul's that Luke has preserved for us. He is now a practised preacher of the gospel that he began proclaiming at Damascus, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of promise and the Saviour of the whole world both Jew and Gentile if they will only believe on him and be saved. It is possible that Paul here based his sermon on the passages of the law and the prophets that had just been read. He uses two words from the LXX, one in verse 19| from strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:31| \etrophophorˆsen\ (as a nursing-father bare he them), the reading of many old MSS. and the one preferred by the American Committee, the other in verse 17| from strkjv@Isaiah:1:2| \hups“sen\ (exalted). At any rate it is clear that Paul spoke in Greek so that all could understand his sermon. He may have written out notes of this sermon afterwards for Luke. The keynotes of Paul's theology as found in his Epistles appear in this sermon. It is interesting to observe the steady growth of Paul's Christology as he faced the great problems of his day. Here we see Paul's gospel for the Jews and the God-fearers (Gentiles friendly to the Jews).

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

rwp@Acts:21:5 @{That we had accomplished the days} (\exartisai hˆmƒs tas hˆmeras\). First aorist active infinitive of \exartiz“\, to furnish perfectly, rare in ancient writers, but fairly frequent in the papyri. Only twice in the N.T., here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:17|. Finish the exact number of days (seven) of verse 4|. The accusative of general reference \hˆmƒs\ is the usual construction and the infinitive clause is the subject of \egeneto\. We departed and went on our journey (\exelthontes eporeuometha\). Sharp distinction between the first aorist active participle \exelthontes\ (from \exerchomai\, to go out) and the imperfect middle \eporeuometha\ from \poreu“\ (we were going on). {And they all, with wives and children, brought us on our way} (\propempont“n hˆmƒs pant“n sun gunaixi kai teknois\). No "and" in the Greek, simply genitive absolute, "They all with wives and children accompanying us," just as at Miletus (20:28|), same verb \propemp“\ which see. The first mention of children in connection with the apostolic churches (Vincent). Vivid picture here as at Miletus, evident touch of an eyewitness. {Till we were out of the city} (\he“s ex“ tˆs pole“s\). Note both adverbial prepositions (\he“s ex“\) clear outside of the city.

rwp@Acts:21:12 @{Both we and they of that place} (\hˆmeis te kai hoi entopioi\). Usual use of \te kai\ (both--and). \Entopioi\, old word, only here in N.T. {Not to go up} (\tou mˆ anabainein\). Probably ablative of the articular present active infinitive with redundant negative \me\ after \parekaloumen\ (imperfect active, conative). We tried to persuade him from going up. It can be explained as genitive, but not so likely: We tried to persuade him in respect to not going up. Vincent cites the case of Regulus who insisted on returning from Rome to Carthage to certain death and that of Luther on the way to the Diet of Worms. Spalatin begged Luther not to go on. Luther said: "Though devils be as many in Worms as tiles upon the roofs, yet thither will I go." This dramatic warning of Agabus came on top of that in Tyre (21:4|) and Paul's own confession in Miletus (20:23|). It is small wonder that Luke and the other messengers together with Philip and his daughters (prophetesses versus prophet?) joined in a chorus of dissuasion to Paul.

rwp@Acts:21:13 @{What are you doing weeping?} (\Ti poieite klaiontes?\) Strong protest as in strkjv@Mark:11:5|. {Breaking my heart} (\sunthruptontes mou tˆn kardian\). The verb \sunthrupt“\, to crush together, is late _Koin‚_ for \apothrupt“\, to break off, both vivid and expressive words. Songs:to enervate and unman one, weakening Paul's determination to go on with his duty. {I am ready} (\Eg“ hetoim“s ech“\). I hold (myself) in readiness (adverb, \hetoim“s\). Same idiom in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:14|. {Not only to be bound} (\ou monon dethˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \de“\ and note \ou monon\ rather than \mˆ monon\, the usual negative of the infinitive because of the sharp contrast (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1095). Paul's readiness to die, if need be, at Jerusalem is like that of Jesus on the way to Jerusalem the last time. Even before that Luke (9:51|) said that "he set his face to go on to Jerusalem." Later the disciples will say to Jesus, "Master, the Jews were but now seeking to stone thee; and goest thou thither?" (John:11:8|). The stature of Paul rises here to heroic proportions "for the name of the Lord Jesus" (\huper tou onomatos tou kuriou Iˆsou\).

rwp@Acts:21:18 @{The day following} (\tˆi epiousˆi\). As in strkjv@20:15| which see. {Went in} (\eisˆiei\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\, old classic verb used only four times in the N.T. (Acts:3:3; strkjv@21:18,26; strkjv@Hebrews:9:6|), a mark of the literary style rather than the colloquial _Koin‚_ use of \eiserchomai\. Together with us to James (\sun hˆmin pros Iak“bon\). Songs:then Luke is present. The next use of "we" is in strkjv@27:1| when they leave Caesarea for Rome, but it is not likely that Luke was away from Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The reports of what was done and said in both places is so full and minute that it seems reasonable that Luke got first hand information here whatever his motive was for so full an account of these legal proceedings to be discussed later. There are many details that read like an eye witness's story (21:30,35,40; strkjv@22:2,3; strkjv@23:12|, etc.). It was probably the house of James (\pros\ and \para\ so used often). {And all the elders were present} (\pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi\). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in chapter 15. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours. The whole church was not called together probably because of the known prejudice against Paul created by the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:21:20 @{Glorified} (\edoxazon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to glorify God, though without special praise of Paul. {How many thousands} (\posai muriades\). Old word for ten thousand (Acts:19:19|) and then an indefinite number like our "myriads" (this very word) as strkjv@Luke:12:1; strkjv@Acts:21:20; strkjv@Jude:1:14; strkjv@Revelation:5:11; strkjv@9:16|. But it is a surprising statement even with allowable hyperbole, but one may recall strkjv@Acts:4:4| (number of the men--not women--about five thousand); strkjv@5:14| (multitudes both of men and women); strkjv@6:7|. There were undoubtedly a great many thousands of believers in Jerusalem and all Jewish Christians, some, alas, Judaizers (Acts:11:2; strkjv@15:1,5|). This list may include the Christians from neighbouring towns in Palestine and even some from foreign countries here at the Feast of Pentecost, for it is probable that Paul arrived in time for it as he had hoped. But we do not have to count the hostile Jews from Asia (verse 27|) who were clearly not Christians at all. {All zealous for the law} (\pantes zˆl“tai tou nomou\). Zealots (substantive) rather than zealous (adjective) with objective genitive (\tou nomou\). The word zealot is from \zˆlo“\, to burn with zeal, to boil. The Greek used \zˆl“tˆs\ for an imitator or admirer. There was a party of Zealots (developed from the Pharisees), a group of what would be called "hot-heads," who brought on the war with Rome. One of this party, Simon Zelotes (Acts:1:13|), was in the number of the twelve apostles. It is important to understand the issues in Jerusalem. It was settled at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|) that the Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be imposed upon Gentile Christians. Paul won freedom for them, but it was not said that it was wrong for Jewish Christians to go on observing it if they wished. We have seen Paul observing the passover in Philippi (Acts:20:6|) and planning to reach Jerusalem for Pentecost (20:16|). The Judaizers rankled under Paul's victory and power in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles and gave him great trouble in Galatia and Corinth. They were busy against him in Jerusalem also and it was to undo the harm done by them in Jerusalem that Paul gathered the great collection from the Gentile Christians and brought it with him and the delegates from the churches. Clearly then Paul had real ground for his apprehension of trouble in Jerusalem while still in Corinth (Romans:15:25|) when he asked for the prayers of the Roman Christians (verses 30-32|). The repeated warnings along the way were amply justified.

rwp@Acts:21:29 @{For} (\gar\). Luke adds the reason for the wild charges made against Paul. {They had before seen} (\ˆsan proe“rakotes\). Periphrastic past perfect of \proora“\, old verb to see before, whether time or place. Only twice in the N.T., here and strkjv@Acts:2:25| quoted from strkjv@Psalms:15:8|. Note the double reduplication in \-e“-\ as in Attic (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 364). {With him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian} (\Trophimon ton Ephesion en tˆi polei sun aut“i\). The Jews from Asia (Ephesus) knew Trophimus by sight as well as Paul. One day they saw both of them together (\sun\) in the city. That was a fact. They had just seized Paul in the temple (\hieron\). That was another fact. {They supposed} (\enomizon\). Imperfect active of \nomiz“\, common to think or suppose. Perfectly harmless word, but they did, as so many people do, put their supposed inference on the same basis with the facts. They did not see Trophimus with Paul now in the temple, nor had they ever seen him there. They simply argued that, if Paul was willing to be seen down street with a Greek Christian, he would not hesitate to bring him (therefore, did bring him, \eisˆgagen\ as in verse 28|) into the temple, that is into the court of Israel and therefore both Paul and Trophimus were entitled to death, especially Paul who had brought him in (if he had) and, besides, they now had Paul. This is the way of the mob-mind in all ages. Many an innocent man has been rushed to his death by the fury of a lynching party.

rwp@Acts:21:30 @{All the city was shaken} (\ekinˆthˆ hˆ polis holˆ\). First aorist passive of \kine“\, common verb for violent motion and emotion. See also strkjv@24:5| where the word is used by Tertullus of Paul as the stirrer up of riots! {The people ran together} (\egeneto sundromˆ tou laou\). Rather, There came a running together (\sun-dromˆ\ from \sun-trech“\) of the people. The cry spread like wildfire over the city and there was a pell-mell scramble or rush to get to the place of the disturbance. {They laid hold on Paul} (\epilabomenoi tou Paulou\). Second aorist middle participle of \epilambanomai\ with the genitive (cf. \epebalan\ in verse 27|). {Dragged} (\heilkon\). Imperfect active of \helk“\ (and also \helku“\), old verb to drag or draw. Imperfect tense vividly pictures the act as going on. They were saving the temple by dragging Paul outside. Curiously enough both \epilabomenoi\ and \heilkusan\ occur in strkjv@16:19| about the arrest of Paul and Silas in Philippi. {Straightway the doors were shut} (\euthe“s ekleisthˆsan hai thurai\). With a bang and at once. First aorist (effective) passive of \klei“\. The doors between the inner court and the court of the Gentiles. But this was only the beginning, the preparation for the real work of the mob. They did not wish to defile the holy place with blood. The doors were shut by the Levites.

rwp@Acts:22:4 @{And I} (\hos\). {I who}, literally. {This Way} (\tautˆn tˆn hodon\). The very term used for Christianity by Luke concerning Paul's persecution (9:2|), which see. Here it "avoids any irritating name for the Christian body" (Furneaux) by using this Jewish terminology. {Unto the death} (\achri thanatou\). Unto death, actual death of many as strkjv@26:10| shows. {Both men and women} (\andras te kai gunaikas\). Paul felt ashamed of this fact and it was undoubtedly in his mind when he pictured his former state as "a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious (1Timothy:1:13|), the first of sinners" (1Timothy:1:15|). But it showed the lengths to which Paul went in his zeal for Judaism.

rwp@Acts:23:8 @{There is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit} (\mˆ einai anastasin mˆte aggelon mˆte pneuma\). Infinitive with negative \mˆ\ in indirect assertion. These points constitute the chief doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. {Both} (\amphotera\). Here used though three items of belief are mentioned as in strkjv@19:16| where the seven sons of Sceva are thus described. This idiom is common enough in papyri and Byzantine Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 745).

rwp@Acts:23:24 @{Provide beasts} (\ktenˆ parastˆsai\). Change from direct to indirect discourse just the opposite of that in verse 22|. {Beasts} (\ktˆnˆ\). For riding as here or for baggage. See on ¯Luke:10:34|. Asses or horses, but not war-horses. Since Paul was chained to a soldier, another animal would be required for baggage. It was also seventy miles and a change of horses might be needed. The extreme precaution of Lysias is explained in some Latin MSS. as due to fear of a night attack with the result that he might be accused to Felix of bribery. Luke also probably accompanied Paul. {To bring safe} (\hina dias“s“sin\). Final clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \dias“z“\, old verb, to save through (\dia\) to a finish. Eight times in the N.T. (Matthew:14:36; strkjv@Luke:7:3; strkjv@Acts:23:24; strkjv@27:43,44; strkjv@28:1,4; strkjv@1Peter:3:20|). {Unto Felix the governor} (\pros Phˆlika ton hˆgemona\). Felix was a brother of Pallas, the notorious favourite of Claudius. Both had been slaves and were now freedmen. Felix was made procurator of Judea by Claudius A.D. 52. He held the position till Festus succeeded him after complaints by the Jews to Nero. He married Drusilla the daughter of Herod Agrippa I with the hope of winning the favour of the Jews. He was one of the most depraved men of his time. Tacitus says of him that "with all cruelty and lust he exercised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave." The term "governor" (\hˆgem“n\) means "leader" from \hˆgeomai\, to lead, and was applied to leaders of all sorts (emperors, kings, procurators). In the N.T. it is used of Pilate (Matthew:27:2|), of Felix, (Acts:23:24,26,33; strkjv@24:1|), of Festus (26:30|).

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} (\dikai“n te kai adik“n\). 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@Acts:24:16 @{Herein} (\en tout“i\). His whole confession of belief in verses 14,15|. {Do I also exercise myself} (\kai autos ask“\). "Do I also myself take exercise," take pains, labour, strive. Old word in Homer to work as raw materials, to adorn by art, then to drill. Our word ascetic comes from this root, one who seeks to gain piety by rules and severe hardship. Paul claims to be equal to his accusers in efforts to please God. {Void of offence} (\aproskopon\). This word belongs to the papyri and N.T. (only in Paul), not in the ancient writers. The papyri examples (Moulton Milligan, _Vocabulary_) use the word to mean "free from hurt or harm." It is a privative and \proskopt“\ (to cut or stumble against). Page likes "void of offence" since that can be either active "not stumbling" as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:10| or passive "not stumbled against" as in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32| (the first toward God and the second toward men), the only other N.T. examples. Hence the word here appears in both senses (the first towards God, the second towards men). Paul adds "alway" (\dia pantos\), a bold claim for a consistent aim in life. "Certainly his conscience acquitted him of having caused any offence to his countrymen" (Rackham). Furneaux thinks that it must have been wormwood and gall to Ananias to hear Paul repeat here the same words because of which he had ordered Paul to be smitten on the mouth (23:1f.|).

rwp@Acts:25:11 @{If I am a wrong-doer} (\ei men oun adik“\). Condition of the first class with \ei\ and the present active indicative of \adike“\ (\a\ privative and \dikˆ\): "If I am in the habit of doing injustice," assuming it to be true for the sake of argument. {And have committed anything worthy of death} (\kai axion thanatou pepracha\). Same condition with the difference in tense (\pepracha\, perfect active indicative) of a single case instead of a general habit. Assuming either or both Paul draws his conclusion. {I refuse not to die} (\ou paraitoumai to apothanein\). Old verb to ask alongside, to beg from, to deprecate, to refuse, to decline. See on ¯Luke:14:18f|. Josephus (_Life_, 29) has \thanein ou paraitoumai\. Here the articular second aorist active infinitive is in the accusative case the object of \paraitoumai\: "I do not beg off dying from myself." {But if none of these things is} (\ei de ouden estin\). \De\ here is contrasted with \men\ just before. No word for "true" in the Greek. \Estin\ ("is") in the Greek here means "exists." Same condition (first class, assumed as true). {Whereof these accuse me} (\h“n houtoi katˆgorousin mou\). Genitive of relative \hon\ by attraction from \ha\ (accusative with \katˆgorousin\) to case of the unexpressed antecedent \tout“n\ ("of these things"). \Mou\ is genitive of person after \katˆgorousin\. {No man can give me up to them} (\oudeis me dunatai autois charisasthai\). "Can" legally. Paul is a Roman citizen and not even Festus can make a free gift (\charisasthai\) of Paul to the Sanhedrin. {I appeal unto Caesar} (\Kaisara epikaloumai\). Technical phrase like Latin _Caesarem appello_. Originally the Roman law allowed an appeal from the magistrate to the people (_provocatio ad populum_), but the emperor represented the people and so the appeal to Caesar was the right of every Roman citizen. Paul had crossed the Rubicon on this point and so took his case out of the hands of dilatory provincial justice (really injustice). Roman citizens could make this appeal in capital offences. There would be expense connected with it, but better that with some hope than delay and certain death in Jerusalem. Festus was no better than Felix in his vacillation and desire to curry favour with the Jews at Paul's expense. No doubt Paul's long desire to see Rome (19:21; strkjv@Romans:15:22-28|) and the promise of Jesus that he would see Rome (Acts:23:11|) played some part in Paul's decision. But he made it reluctantly for he says in Rome (Acts:28:19|): "I was constrained to appeal." But acquittal at the hands of Festus with the hope of going to Rome as a free man had vanished.

rwp@Acts:25:13 @{When certain days were passed} (\Hˆmer“n diagenomenon\). Genitive absolute of \diaginomai\, to come between, "days intervening." {Agrippa the King} (\Agrippas ho basileus\). Agrippa II son of Agrippa I of strkjv@Acts:12:20-23|. On the death of Herod King of Chalcis A.D. 48, Claudius A.D. 50 gave this Herod Agrippa II the throne of Chalcis so that Luke is correct in calling him king, though he is not king of Judea. But he was also given by Claudius the government of the temple and the right of appointing the high priest. Later he was given also the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias. He was the last Jewish king in Palestine, though not king of Judea. He angered the Jews by building his palace so as to overlook the temple and by frequent changes in the high priesthood. He made his capital at Caesarea Philippi which he called Neronias in honour of Nero. Titus visited it after the fall of Jerusalem. {Bernice} (\Bernikˆ\). He was her brother and yet she lived with him in shameful intimacy in spite of her marriage to her uncle Herod King of Chalcis and to Polemon King of Cilicia whom she left. Schuerer calls her both a Jewish bigot and a wanton. She afterwards became the mistress of Titus. {Arrived at Caesarea} (\katˆntˆsan eis Kaisarian\). Came down (first aorist active of \katanta“\) to Caesarea from Jerusalem. {And saluted Festus} (\aspasamenoi ton Phˆston\). The Textus Receptus has \aspasomenoi\ the future participle, but the correct text is the aorist middle participle \aspasamenoi\ which cannot possibly mean subsequent action as given in the Canterbury Revision "and saluted." It can only mean contemporaneous (simultaneous) action "saluting" or antecedent action like the margin "having saluted." But antecedent action is not possible here, so that simultaneous action is the only alternative. It is to be noted that the salutation synchronized with the arrival in Caesarea (note \kata\, down, the effective aorist tense), not with the departure from Jerusalem, nor with the whole journey. Rightly understood the aorist participle here gives no trouble at all (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 861-3).

rwp@Acts:25:19 @{But had} (\de eichon\). Descriptive imperfect active of \ech“\ and \de\ of contrast (but). {Concerning their own religion} (\peri tˆs idias deisidaimonias\). See on ¯17:22| for discussion of this word. Festus would hardly mean "superstition," whatever he really thought, because Agrippa was a Jew. {And of one Jesus} (\kai peri tinos Iˆsou\). This is the climax of supercilious scorn toward both Paul and "one Jesus." {Who was dead} (\tethnˆkotos\). Perfect active participle of \thnˆsk“\ agreeing with \Iˆsou\ (genitive). As being dead. {Whom Paul affirmed to be alive} (\hon ephasken ho Paulos zˆin\). Imperfect active of \phask“\, old form of \phˆmi\ to say, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:24:9; strkjv@Romans:1:22|. Infinitive \zˆin\ in indirect discourse with \hon\ (whom) the accusative of general reference. With all his top-loftical airs Festus has here correctly stated the central point of Paul's preaching about Jesus as no longer dead, but living.

rwp@Acts:25:20 @{Being perplexed} (\aporoumenos\). Present middle participle of the common verb \apore“\ (\a\ privative and \poros\ way), to be in doubt which way to turn, already in strkjv@Mark:6:20| which see and strkjv@Luke:24:4|. The Textus Receptus has \eis\ after here, but critical text has only the accusative which this verb allows (Mark:6:20|) as in Thucydides and Plato. {How to inquire concerning these things} (\tˆn peri tout“n zˆtˆsin\). Literally, "as to the inquiry concerning these things." This is not the reason given by Luke in verse 9| (wanting to curry favour with the Jews), but doubtless this motive also actuated Festus as both could be true. {Whether he would go to Jerusalem} (\ei bouloito poreuesthai eis Ierosoluma\). Optative in indirect question after \elegon\ (asked or said) imperfect active, though the present indicative could have been retained with change of person: "Dost thou wish, etc.," (\ei boulˆi\, etc.). See Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1031, 1044. This is the question put to Paul in verse 9| though \theleis\ is there used.

rwp@Acts:26:3 @{Especially because thou art expert} (\malista gn“stˆn onta se\). Or like the margin, "because thou art especially expert," according as \malista\ is construed. \Gn“stˆn\ is from \gin“sk“\ and means a knower, expert, connoisseur. Plutarch uses it and Deissmann (_Light_, etc., p. 367) restores it in a papyrus. Agrippa had the care of the temple, the appointment of the high priest, and the care of the sacred vestments. But the accusative \onta se\ gives trouble here coming so soon after \sou\ (genitive with \epi\). Some MSS. insert \epistamenos\ or \eid“s\ (knowing) but neither is genuine. Page takes it as "governed by the sense of thinking or considering." Knowling considers it an anacoluthon. Buttmann held it to be an accusative absolute after the old Greek idiom. \Tuchon\ is such an instance though used as an adverb (1Corinthians:16:6|). It is possible that one exists in strkjv@Ephesians:1:18|. See other examples discussed in Robertson's _Grammar_, pp. 490f. {Customs and questions} (\eth“n te kai zˆtˆmat“n\). Both _consuetudinum in practicis_ and _quaestionum in theoreticis_ (Bengel). Agrippa was qualified to give Paul an understanding and a sympathetic hearing. Paul understands perfectly the grand-stand play of the whole performance, but he refused to be silent and chose to use this opportunity, slim as it seemed, to get a fresh hearing for his own case and to present the claims of Christ to this influential man. His address is a masterpiece of noble apologetic. {Patiently} (\makrothum“s\). Adverb from \makrothumos\. Only here in the N.T., though \makrothumia\ occurs several times. Vulgate has _longanimiter_. Long spirit, endurance, opposite of impatience. Songs:Paul takes his time.

rwp@Acts:26:5 @{Having knowledge of me from the first} (\progin“skontes me an“then\). Literally, "knowing me beforehand" (both \pro\ and \an“then\), from the beginning of Paul's public education in Jerusalem (Knowling). Cf. strkjv@2Peter:3:17|. {If they be willing to testify} (\ean thel“sin marturein\). Condition of third class (\ean\ and subjunctive). A neat turning of the tables on the distinguished audience about Paul's Jerusalem reputation before his conversion. {After the straitest sect} (\tˆn akribestatˆn hairesin\). This is a true superlative (not elative) and one of the three (also \hagi“tatos\, strkjv@Jude:1:20|, \timi“tatos\ strkjv@Revelation:18:12; strkjv@21:11|) superlatives in \-tatos\ in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 279f., 670), though common enough in the LXX and the papyri. \Hairesin\ (choosing) is properly used here with Pharisees (Josephus, _Life_, 38). {Religion} (\thrˆskeias\). From \thrˆskeu“\ and this from \thrˆskos\ (James:1:26|), old word for religious worship or discipline, common in the papyri and inscriptions (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) for reverent worship, not mere external ritual. In N.T. only here, strkjv@James:1:26f.; strkjv@Colossians:2:18|. {I lived a Pharisee} (\ezˆsa Pharisaios\). Emphatic position. Paul knew the rules of the Pharisees and played the game to the full (Galatians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:3:5f.|). The Talmud makes it plain what the life of a Pharisee was. Paul had become one of the leaders and stars of hope for his sect.

rwp@Acts:26:10 @{I both shut up many} (\pollous te katekleisa\). Effective aorist active of \kataklei“\, old word to shut down like a trap door, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:3:20|. Double use of \te\ (both--and). {Having received authority from the chief priests} (\tˆn para t“n archiere“n exousian lab“n\). "The authority," he says. Paul was the official persecutor of the saints under the direction of the Sanhedrin. He mentions "chief priests" (Sadducees), though a Pharisee himself. Both parties were co-operating against the saints. {And when they were put to death} (\anairoumen“n te aut“n\). Genitive absolute with present passive participle of \anaire“\. {I gave my vote against them} (\katˆnegka psˆphon\). "I cast down my pebble" (a black one). The ancient Greeks used white pebbles for acquittal (Revelation:2:17|), black ones for condemnation as here (the only two uses of the word in the N.T.). Paul's phrase (not found elsewhere) is more vivid than the usual \katapsˆphiz“\ for voting. They literally cast the pebbles into the urn. Cf. \sumpsˆphiz“\ in strkjv@Acts:19:19|, \sugkatapsephizo\ in strkjv@Acts:1:26|. If Paul's language is taken literally here, he was a member of the Sanhedrin and so married when he led the persecution. That is quite possible, though he was not married when he wrote strkjv@1Corinthians:7:7f.|, but a widower. It is possible to take the language figuratively for approval, but not so natural.

rwp@Acts:26:16 @{Arise and stand} (\anastˆthi kai stˆthi\). "Emphatic assonance" (Page). Second aorist active imperative of compound verb (\anistˆmi\) and simplex (\histˆmi\). "Stand up and take a stand." {Have I appeared unto thee} (\“phthˆn soi\). First aorist passive indicative of \hora“\. See on ¯Luke:22:43|. {To appoint thee} (\procheirisasthai se\). See strkjv@3:30; strkjv@22:14| for this verb. {Both of the things wherein thou hast seen me} (\h“n te eides me\). The reading \me\ (not in all MSS.) makes it the object of \eides\ (didst see) and \h“n\ is genitive of \ha\ (accusative of general reference) attracted to the case of the unexpressed antecedent \tout“n\. Paul is thus a personal eyewitness of the Risen Christ (Luke:1:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:1; strkjv@9:1|). {And of the things wherein I will appear unto thee} (\h“n te ophthˆsomai soi\). Here again \h“n\ is genitive of the accusative (general reference) relative \ha\ attracted to the case of the antecedent \tout“n\ or \ekein“n\ as before. But \ophthˆsomai\ is first future passive of \hora“\ and cannot be treated as active or middle. Page takes it to mean "the visions in which I shall be seen by you," the passive form bringing out the agency of God. See those in strkjv@Acts:18:9; strkjv@23:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:2|. The passive voice, however, like \apekrithˆn\ and \ephobˆthˆn\, did become sometimes transitive in the _Koin‚_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 819).

rwp@Acts:26:17 @{Delivering thee} (\exairoumenos se\). Present middle participle of \exaire“\, old verb and usually so rendered, but the old Greek also uses it for "choose" as also in LXX (Isaiah:48:10|). The papyri give examples of both meanings and either makes good sense here. God was continually rescuing Paul "out of the hands of Jews and Gentiles and Paul was a chosen vessel" (9:15|). Modern scholars are also divided.

rwp@Ephesians:4:4 @{One body} (\hen s“ma\). One mystical body of Christ (the spiritual church or kingdom, cf. strkjv@1:23; strkjv@2:16|). {One Spirit} (\hen pneuma\). One Holy Spirit, grammatical neuter gender (not to be referred to by "it," but by "he"). {In one hope} (\en miƒi elpidi\). The same hope as a result of their calling for both Jew and Greek as shown in chapter 2|.

rwp@Ephesians:4:12 @{For the perfecting} (\pros ton katartismon\). Late and rare word (in Galen in medical sense, in papyri for house-furnishing), only here in N.T., though \katartisis\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:13:9|, both from \katartiz“\, to mend (Matthew:4:21; strkjv@Galatians:6:1|). "For the mending (repair) of the saints." {Unto the building up} (\eis oikodomˆn\). See strkjv@2:21|. This is the ultimate goal in all these varied gifts, "building up."

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

rwp@Hebrews:1:3 @{Being} (\“n\). Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of \eimi\) in contrast with \genomenos\ in verse 4| like \ˆn\ in strkjv@John:1:1| (in contrast with \egeneto\ in strkjv@1:14|) and like \huparch“n\ and \genomenos\ in strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {The effulgence of his glory} (\apaugasma tˆs doxˆs\). The word \apaugasma\, late substantive from \apaugaz“\, to emit brightness (\augˆ, augaz“\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4|), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in strkjv@John:12:45; strkjv@14:9|. "The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos" (Moffatt). The meaning "effulgence" suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (John:1:1|), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6|. {The very image of his substance} (\charaktˆr tˆs hupostase“s\). \Charaktˆr\ is an old word from \charass“\, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending \=tˆr\) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by \charagma\ (Acts:17:29; strkjv@Revelation:13:16f.|). Menander had already used (Moffatt) \charaktˆr\ in the sense of our "character." The word occurs in the inscriptions for "person" as well as for "exact reproduction" of a person. The word \hupostasis\ for the being or essence of God "is a philosophical rather than a religious term" (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In strkjv@11:1| \hypostasis\ is like the "title-deed" idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4| in his controversy with Arius. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11| pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul's simpler phrase \morphˆ theou\ (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of \Logos\ in strkjv@John:1:1-18| is parallel to strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4|. {And upholding} (\pher“n te\). Present active participle of \pher“\ closely connected with \“n\ (being) by \te\ and like strkjv@Colossians:1:17| in idea. The newer science as expounded by Eddington and Jeans is in harmony with the spiritual and personal conception of creation here presented. {By the word of his power} (\t“i rˆmati tˆs duname“s autou\). Instrumental case of \rˆma\ (word). See strkjv@11:3| for \rˆmati theou\ (by the word of God) as the explanation of creation like Genesis, but here \autou\ refers to God's Son as in strkjv@1:2|. {Purification of sins} (\katharismon t“n hamarti“n\). \Katharismos\ is from \kathariz“\, to cleanse (Matthew:8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14|), here only in Hebrews, but in same sense of cleansing from sins, strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Job:7:21|. Note middle participle \poiˆsamenos\ like \heuramenos\ in strkjv@9:12|. This is the first mention of the priestly work of Christ, the keynote of this Epistle. {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). First aorist active of \kathiz“\, "took his seat," a formal and dignified act. {Of the Majesty on high} (\tˆs megalosunˆs en hupsˆlois\). Late word from \megas\, only in LXX (Deuteronomy:32:3; strkjv@2Samuel:7:23|, etc.), Aristeas, strkjv@Hebrews:1:3; strkjv@8:1; strkjv@Jude:1:25|. Christ resumed his original dignity and glory (John:17:5|). The phrase \en hupsˆlois\ occurs in the Psalms (Psalms:93:4|), here only in N.T., elsewhere \en hupsistois\ in the highest (Matthew:21:9; strkjv@Luke:2:14|) or \en tois epouraniois\ in the heavenlies (Ephesians:1:3,20|). Jesus is here pictured as King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.

rwp@Hebrews:1:4 @{Having become} (\genomenos\). Second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\. In contrast with on in verse 3|. {By so much} (\tosout“i\). Instrumental case of \tosoutos\ correlative with \hos“i\ (as) with comparative in both clauses (\kreitt“n\, better, comparative of \kratus\, \diaphor“teron\, more excellent, comparative of \diaphoros\). {Than the angels} (\t“n aggel“n\). Ablative of comparison after \kreitt“n\, as often. {Than they} (\par' autous\). Instead of the ablative \aut“n\ here the preposition \para\ (along, by the side of) with the accusative occurs, another common idiom as in strkjv@3:3; strkjv@9:23|. \Diaphoros\ only in Hebrews in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:12:6|. {Hath inherited} (\keklˆronomˆken\). Perfect active indicative of \klˆronome“\ (from \klˆronomos\, heir, verse 2|), and still inherits it, the name (\onoma\, oriental sense of rank) of "Son" which is superior to prophets as already shown (1:2|) and also to angels (1:4-2:18|) as he now proceeds to prove. Jesus is superior to angels as God's Son, his deity (1:4-2:4|). The author proves it from Scripture (1:4-14|).

rwp@James:1:17 @{Gift} (\dosis\) {--boon} (\d“rˆma\). Both old substantives from the same original verb (\did“mi\), to give. \Dosis\ is the act of giving (ending \-sis\), but sometimes by metonymy for the thing given like \ktisis\ for \ktisma\ (Colossians:1:15|). But \d“rˆma\ (from \d“re“\, from \d“ron\ a gift) only means a gift, a benefaction (Romans:5:16|). The contrast here argues for "giving" as the idea in \dosis\. Curiously enough there is a perfect hexameter line here: \pƒsa do / sis aga / thˆ kai / pƒn d“ / rˆma te / leion\. Such accidental rhythm occurs occasionally in many writers. Ropes (like Ewald and Mayor) argues for a quotation from an unknown source because of the poetical word \d“rˆma\, but that is not conclusive. {From above} (\an“then\). That is, from heaven. Cf. strkjv@John:3:31; strkjv@19:11|. {Coming down} (\katabainon\). Present active neuter singular participle of \katabain“\ agreeing with \d“rˆma\, expanding and explaining \an“then\ (from above). {From the Father of lights} (\apo tou patros t“n ph“t“n\). "Of the lights" (the heavenly bodies). For this use of \patˆr\ see strkjv@Job:38:28| (Father of rain); strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17|. God is the Author of light and lights. {With whom} (\par' h“i\). For \para\ (beside) with locative sense for standpoint of God see \para t“i the“i\ (Mark:10:27; strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@9:14; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9|. {Can be no} (\ouk eni\). This old idiom (also in strkjv@Galatians:3:28; strkjv@Colossians:3:11|) may be merely the original form of \en\ with recessive accent (Winer, Mayor) or a shortened form of \enesti\. The use of \eni en\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:5| argues for this view, as does the use of \eine\ (\einai\) in Modern Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 313). {Variation} (\parallagˆ\). Old word from \parallass“\, to make things alternate, here only in N.T. In Aristeas in sense of alternate stones in pavements. Dio Cassius has \parallaxis\ without reference to the modern astronomical parallax, though James here is comparing God (Father of the lights) to the sun (Malachi:4:2|), which does have periodic variations. {Shadow that is cast by turning} (\tropˆs aposkiasma\). \Tropˆ\ is an old word for "turning" (from \trep“\ to turn), here only in N.T. \Aposkiasma\ is a late and rare word (\aposkiasmos\ in Plutarch) from \aposkiaz“\ (\apo, skia\) a shade cast by one object on another. It is not clear what the precise metaphor is, whether the shadow thrown on the dial (\aposkiaz“\ in Plato) or the borrowed light of the moon lost to us as it goes behind the earth. In fact, the text is by no means certain, for Aleph B papyrus of fourth century actually read \hˆ tropˆs aposkiasmatos\ (the variation of the turning of the shadow). Ropes argues strongly for this reading, and rather convincingly. At any rate there is no such periodic variation in God like that we see in the heavenly bodies.

rwp@James:1:19 @{Ye know this} (\iste\). Or "know this." Probably the perfect active indicative (literary form as in strkjv@Ephesians:5:5; strkjv@Hebrews:12:17|, unless both are imperative, while in strkjv@James:4:4| we have \oidate\, the usual vernacular _Koin‚_ perfect indicative). The imperative uses only \iste\ and only the context can decide which it is. \Esto\ (let be) is imperative. {Swift to hear} (\tachus eis to akousai\). For this use of \eis to\ with the infinitive after an adjective see strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:9|. For \eis to\ after adjectives see strkjv@Romans:16:19|. The picture points to listening to the word of truth (verse 18|) and is aimed against violent and disputatious speech (chapter strkjv@3:1-12|). The Greek moralists often urge a quick and attentive ear. {Slow to speak} (\bradus eis to lalˆsai\). Same construction and same ingressive aorist active infinitive, slow to begin speaking, not slow while speaking. {Slow to anger} (\bradus eis orgˆn\). He drops the infinitive here, but he probably means that slowness to speak up when angry will tend to curb the anger.

rwp@James:1:20 @{The wrath of man} (\orgˆ andros\). Here \anˆr\ (as opposed to \gunˆ\ woman), not \anthr“pos\ of verse 19| (inclusive of both man and woman). If taken in this sense, it means that a man's anger (settled indignation in contrast with \thumos\, boiling rage or fury) does not necessarily work God's righteousness. There is such a thing as righteous indignation, but one is not necessarily promoting the cause of God by his own personal anger. See strkjv@Acts:10:35| for "working righteousness," and strkjv@James:2:9| for "working sin" (\ergazomai\ both times).

rwp@James:1:27 @{Pure religion and undefiled} (\thrˆskeia kathara kai amiantos\). Numerous examples in papyri and inscriptions of \thrˆskeia\ for ritual and reverential worship in the Roman Empire (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_; Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 251). As Hort shows, this is not a definition of religion or religious worship, but only a pertinent illustration of the right spirit of religion which leads to such acts. {Before our God and Father} (\para t“i the“i kai patri\). By the side of (\para\) and so from God's standpoint (Mark:10:27|). \Amiantos\ (compound verbal adjective, alpha privative, \miain“\ to defile), puts in negative form (cf. strkjv@1:4,6|) the idea in \kathara\ (pure, clean). This (\hautˆ\). Feminine demonstrative pronoun in the predicate agreeing with \thrˆskeia\. {To visit} (\episkeptesthai\). Epexegetic (explaining \hautˆ\) present middle infinitive of \episkeptomai\, common verb to go to see, to inspect, present tense for habit of going to see. See strkjv@Matthew:25:36,43| for visiting the sick. {The fatherless and widows} (\orphanous kai chˆras\). "The natural objects of charity in the community" (Ropes). \Orphanos\ is old word for bereft of father or mother or both. In N.T. only here and strkjv@John:14:18|. Note order (orphans before widows). {Unspotted} (\aspilon\). Old adjective (alpha privative and \spilos\, spot), spotless. This the more important of the two illustrations and the hardest to execute. {To keep} (\tˆrein\). Present active infinitive, "to keep on keeping oneself un-specked from the world" (a world, \kosmos\, full of dirt and slime that bespatters the best of men).

rwp@James:2:11 @{He that said} (\ho eip“n\) {--said also} (\eipen kai\). The unity of the law lies in the Lawgiver who spoke both prohibitions (\mˆ\ and the aorist active subjunctive in each one, \moicheusˆis, phoneusˆis\). The order here is that of B in strkjv@Exodus:20| (Luke:18:20; strkjv@Romans:13:9|), but not in strkjv@Matthew:5:21,27| (with \ou\ and future indicative). {Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest} (\ei de ou moicheueis, phoneueis de\). Condition of first class with \ou\ (not \mˆ\) because of the contrast with \de\, whereas \ei mˆ\ would mean "unless," a different idea. Songs:\ou\ in strkjv@1:23|. {A transgressor of the law} (\parabatˆs nomou\) as in verse 9|. Murder springs out of anger (Matthew:5:21-26|). People free from fleshly sins have often "made their condemnation of fleshly sins an excuse for indulgence towards spiritual sins" (Hort).

rwp@James:2:18 @{Yea, a man will say} (\all' erei tis\). Future active of \eipon\. But \all'\ here is almost certainly adversative (But some one will say), not confirmatory. James introduces an imaginary objector who speaks one sentence: "Thou hast faith and I have works" (\Su pistin echeis kag“ erga ech“\). Then James answers this objector. The objector can be regarded as asking a short question: "Hast thou faith?" In that case James replies: "I have works also." {Show me thy faith apart from thy works} (\deixon moi tˆn pistin sou ch“ris t“n erg“n\). This is the reply of James to the objector. First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, tense of urgency. The point lies in \ch“ris\, which means not "without," but "apart from," as in strkjv@Hebrews:11:6| (with the ablative case), "the works that properly belong to it and should characterise it" (Hort). James challenges the objector to do this. {And I by my works will shew thee my faith} (\kag“ soi deix“ ek t“n erg“n mou tˆn pistin\). It is not faith _or_ works, but proof of real faith (live faith _vs_. dead faith). The mere profession of faith with no works or profession of faith shown to be alive by works. This is the alternative clearly stated. Note \pistin\ (faith) in both cases. James is not here discussing "works" (ceremonial works) as a means of salvation as Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:4|, but works as proof of faith.

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

rwp@James:5:14 @{Is any among you sick?} (\asthenei tis en humin;\). Present active indicative of \asthene“\, old verb, to be weak (without strength), often in N.T. (Matthew:10:8|). {Let him call for} (\proskalesasth“\). First aorist (ingressive) middle imperative of \proskale“\. Note change of tense (aorist) and middle (indirect) voice. Care for the sick is urged in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| ("help the sick"). Note the plural here, "elders of the church, as in strkjv@Acts:20:17; strkjv@15:6,22; strkjv@21:18; strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| (bishops). {Let them pray over him} (\proseuxasth“san ep' auton\). First aorist middle imperative of \proseuchomai\. Prayer for the sick is clearly enjoined. {Anointing him with oil} (\aleipsantes elai“i\). First aorist active participle of \aleiph“\, old verb, to anoint, and the instrumental case of \elaion\ (oil). The aorist participle can be either simultaneous or antecedent with \proseuxasth“san\ (pray). See the same use of \aleiph“ elai“i\ in strkjv@Mark:6:13|. The use of olive oil was one of the best remedial agencies known to the ancients. They used it internally and externally. Some physicians prescribe it today. It is clear both in strkjv@Mark:6:13| and here that medicinal value is attached to the use of the oil and emphasis is placed on the worth of prayer. There is nothing here of the pagan magic or of the later practice of "extreme unction" (after the eighth century). It is by no means certain that \aleiph“\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:13| means "anoint" in a ceremonial fashion rather than "rub" as it commonly does in medical treatises. Trench (N.T. Synonyms) says: "\Aleiphein\ is the mundane and profane, \chriein\ the sacred and religious, word." At bottom in James we have God and medicine, God and the doctor, and that is precisely where we are today. The best physicians believe in God and want the help of prayer.

rwp@Info_John @ LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as "the Elder" (\ho presbuteros\), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Peter:5:1|) he calls himself "your fellow-elder" (\ho sunpresbuteros\). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in strkjv@1John:1:1-4| and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the _aeon_ Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in strkjv@1John:2:22|. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

rwp@Info_John @ BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Revelation:1:4,9; strkjv@22:8|), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. Songs:one ventures to call attention to the statement in strkjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai idi“tai\ (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan's _Greek Papyri_, for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

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

rwp@John:1:4 @{In him was life} (\en aut“i z“ˆ ˆn\). 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“ˆ\ 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 \ˆn\ to bring out clearly the timelessness of this phrase of the work of the \Logos\. {And the life was the light of men} (\kai hˆ z“ˆ ˆn to ph“s t“n anthr“p“n\). Here the article with both \z“ˆ\ and \ph“s\ 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 (\t“n anthr“pon\, 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:1:5 @{Shineth} (\phainei\). Linear present active indicative of \phain“\, old verb from \pha“\, to shine (\phaos, ph“s\). "The light keeps on giving light." {In the darkness} (\en tˆi skotiƒi\). Late word for the common \skotos\ (kin to \skia\, shadow). An evident allusion to the darkness brought on by sin. In strkjv@2Peter:2:17| we have \ho zophos tou skotou\ (the blackness of darkness). The Logos, the only real moral light, keeps on shining both in the Pre-incarnate state and after the Incarnation. John is fond of \skotia\ (\skotos\) for moral darkness from sin and \ph“s\ (\ph“tiz“, phain“\) for the light that is in Christ alone. In strkjv@1John:2:8| he proclaims that "the darkness is passing by and the true light is already shining." The Gnostics often employed these words and John takes them and puts them in the proper place. {Apprehended it not} (\auto ou katelaben\). Second aorist active indicative of \katalamban“\, old verb to lay hold of, to seize. This very phrase occurs in strkjv@John:12:35| (\hina mˆ skotia humas katalabˆi\) "that darkness overtake you not," the metaphor of night following day and in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:4| the same idiom (\hina katalabˆi\) is used of day overtaking one as a thief. This is the view of Origen and appears also in 2Macc. strkjv@8:18. The same word appears in Aleph D in strkjv@John:6:17| \katelabe de autous hˆ skotia\ ("but darkness overtook them," came down on them). Hence, in spite of the Vulgate _comprehenderunt_, "overtook" or "overcame" seems to be the idea here. The light kept on shining in spite of the darkness that was worse than a London fog as the Old Testament and archaeological discoveries in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Crete, Asia Minor show.

rwp@John:1:7 @{For witness} (\eis marturian\). Old word from \marture“\ (from \martus\), both more common in John's writings than the rest of the N.T. This the purpose of the Baptist's ministry. {That he might bear witness} (\hina marturˆsˆi\). Final clause with \hina\ and aorist active subjunctive of \marture“\ to make clearer \eis marturian\. {Of the light} (\peri tou ph“tos\). "Concerning the light." The light was shining and men with blinded eyes were not seeing the light (John:1:26|), blinded by the god of this world still (2Corinthians:4:4|). John had his own eyes opened so that he saw and told what he saw. That is the mission of every preacher of Christ. But he must first have his own eyes opened. {That all might believe} (\hina pisteus“sin\). Final clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \pisteu“\, ingressive aorist "come to believe." This is one of John's great words (about 100 times), "with nine times the frequency with which it is used by the Synoptists" (Bernard). And yet \pistis\, so common in Paul, John uses only in strkjv@1John:5:4| and four times in the Apocalypse where \pisteu“\ does not occur at all. Here it is used absolutely as in strkjv@John:1:50|, etc. {Through him} (\di' autou\). As the intermediate agent in winning men to believe in Christ (the Logos) as the Light and the Life of men. This is likewise the purpose of the author of this book (21:31|). The preacher is merely the herald to point men to Christ.

rwp@John:1:13 @{Which were born} (\hoi egennˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna“\, to beget, "who were begotten." By spiritual generation (of God, \ek theou\), not by physical (\ex haimat“n\, plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; \ek thelˆmatos sarkos\, from sexual desire; \ek thelˆmatos andros\, from the will of the male). But _b_ of the old Latin reads _qui natus est_ and makes it refer to Christ and so expressly teach the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Likewise Irenaeus reads _qui natus est_ as does Tertullian who argues that _qui nati sunt_ (\hoi egennˆthˆsan\) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass (_Philology of the Gospels_, p. 234) opposes this reading, but all the old Greek uncials read \hoi egennˆthˆsan\ and it must be accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in verse 14|, but it is not stated in verse 13|.

rwp@John:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \ˆn\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\eskˆn“sen en hˆmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skˆno“\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\skˆnos\ or \skˆnˆ\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tˆn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\h“s monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogenˆ\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patˆr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogenˆs\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plˆrˆs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plˆrˆs\ can agree with the subject of \eskˆn“sen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai alˆtheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \alˆtheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

rwp@John:1:18 @{No man hath seen God at any time} (\theon oudeis he“raken p“pote\). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of \hora“\. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus:33:20; strkjv@Deuteronomy:4:12|). Paul calls God \aoratos\ (Colossians:1:15; strkjv@1Timothy:1:17|). John repeats the idea in strkjv@John:5:37; strkjv@6:46|. And yet in strkjv@14:7| Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. {The only begotten Son} (\ho monogenˆs huios\). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after \h“s monogenous para patros\ in verse 14|. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read \monogenˆs theos\ (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to \ho monogenˆs huios\ to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like strkjv@3:16|. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called \theos\ in verse 1|. The Incarnation is stated in verse 14|, where he is also termed \monogenˆs\. He was that before the Incarnation. Songs:he is "God only begotten," "the Eternal Generation of the Son" of Origen's phrase. {Which is in the bosom of the Father} (\ho “n eis ton kolpon tou patros\). The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like \pros ton theon\ in verse 1|. In strkjv@3:13| there is some evidence for \ho “n en t“i ouran“i\ used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father. {He} (\ekinos\). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son. {Hath declared him} (\exˆgˆsato\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \exˆgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke's Gospel (24:35|) and four times in Acts:(10:8; strkjv@15:12,14; strkjv@21:19|). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.

rwp@John:1:19 @{And this is the witness of John} (\kai hautˆ estin hˆ marturia tou I“anou\). He had twice already alluded to it (verses 7f., 15|) and now he proceeds to give it as the most important item to add after the Prologue. Just as the author assumes the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, so he assumes the Synoptic accounts of the baptism of Jesus by John, but adds various details of great interest and value between the baptism and the Galilean ministry, filling out thus our knowledge of this first year of the Lord's ministry in various parts of Palestine. The story in John proceeds along the same lines as in the Synoptics. There is increasing unfolding of Christ to the disciples with increasing hostility on the part of the Jews till the final consummation in Jerusalem. {When the Jews sent unto him} (\hote apesteilan pros auton hoi Ioudaioi\). John, writing in Ephesus near the close of the first century long after the destruction of Jerusalem, constantly uses the phrase "the Jews" as descriptive of the people as distinct from the Gentile world and from the followers of Christ (at first Jews also). Often he uses it of the Jewish leaders and rulers in particular who soon took a hostile attitude toward both John and Jesus. Here it is the Jews from Jerusalem who sent (\apesteilan\, first aorist active indicative of \apostell“\). {Priests and Levites} (\hiereis kai Leueitas\). Sadducees these were. Down below in verse 24| the author explains that it was the Pharisees who sent the Sadducees. The Synoptics throw a flood of light on this circumstance, for in strkjv@Matthew:3:7| we are told that the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees "offspring of vipers" (Luke:3:7|). Popular interest in John grew till people were wondering "in their hearts concerning John whether haply he were the Christ" (Luke:3:15|). Songs:the Sanhedrin finally sent a committee to John to get his own view of himself, but the Pharisees saw to it that Sadducees were sent. {To ask him} (\hina er“tˆs“sin auton\). Final \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \er“ta“\, old verb to ask a question as here and often in the _Koin‚_ to ask for something (John:14:16|) like \aite“\. {Who art thou?} (\su tis ei;\). Direct question preserved and note proleptic position of \su\, "Thou, who art thou?" The committee from the Sanhedrin put the question sharply up to John to define his claims concerning the Messiah.

rwp@John:3:20 @{That doeth ill} (\ho phaula prass“n\). The word \phaulos\ means first worthless and then wicked (usually so in N.T.) and both senses occur in the papyri. In strkjv@5:29| see contrast between \agatha poie“\ (doing good things) and \phaula prass“\ (practising evil things). {Hateth the light} (\misei to ph“s\). Hence talks against it, ridicules Christ, Christianity, churches, preachers, etc. Does it in talk, magazines, books, in a supercilious tone of sheer ignorance. {Cometh not to the light} (\ouk erchetai pros to ph“s\). The light hurts his eyes, reveals his own wickedness, makes him thoroughly uncomfortable. Hence he does not read the Bible, he does not come to church, he does not pray. He goes on in deeper darkness. {Lest his works should be reproved} (\hina mˆ elegchthˆi ta erga autou\). Negative final clause (\hina mˆ\) with first aorist passive subjunctive of \elegch“\, old word to correct a fault, to reprove, to convict. See also strkjv@8:46; strkjv@16:8|. To escape this unpleasant process the evil man cuts out Christ.

rwp@John:3:23 @{John was also baptizing} (\ˆn de kai ho I“anˆs baptiz“n\). Periphrastic imperfect picturing the continued activity of the Baptist simultaneous with the growing work of Jesus. There was no real rivalry except in people's minds. {In Aenon near to Salim} (\en Ain“n eggus tou Saleim\). It is not clearly known where this place was. Eusebius locates it in the Jordan valley south of Beisan west of the river where are many springs (fountains, eyes). There is a place called Salim east of Shechem in Samaria with a village called 'Aimen, but with no water there. There may have been water there then, of course. {Because there was much water there} (\hoti hudata polla ˆn ekei\). "Because many waters were there." Not for drinking, but for baptizing. "Therefore even in summer baptism by immersion could be continued" (Marcus Dods). {And they came, and were baptized} (\kai pareginonto kai ebaptizonto\). Imperfects both, one middle and the other passive, graphically picturing the long procession of pilgrims who came to John confessing their sins and receiving baptism at his hands.

rwp@John:3:29 @{The bridegroom} (\numphios\). Predicate nominative without article. Both \numphˆ\ (bride) and \numphios\ are old and common words. Jesus will use this metaphor of himself as the Bridegroom (Mark:2:19|) and Paul develops it (2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23-32|) and so in Revelation (19:7; strkjv@21:2|). John is only like the _paranymph_ (\paranumphios\) or "the friend of the bridegroom." His office is to bring groom and bride together. Songs:he stands expectant (\hestˆk“s\, second perfect active participle of \histˆmi\) and listens (\akou“n\, present active participle of \akou“\) with joy ({rejoiceth greatly}, \charƒi chairei\, "with joy rejoices") to the music of the bridegroom's voice. {This my joy therefore is fulfilled} (\hautˆ oun hˆ chara peplˆr“tai\). Perfect passive indicative of \plˆro“\, stands filled like a cup to the brim with joy.

rwp@John:4:1 @{When therefore} (\H“s oun\). Reference to strkjv@3:22f|. the work of the Baptist and the jealousy of his disciples. \Oun\ is very common in John's Gospel in such transitions. {The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). Songs:the best manuscripts (Neutral Alexandrian), though the Western class has \ho Iˆsous\. Mark usually has \ho Iˆsous\ and Luke often \ho Kurios\. In the narrative portion of John we have usually \ho Iˆsous\, but \ho Kurios\ in five passages (4:1; strkjv@6:23; strkjv@11:2; strkjv@20:20; strkjv@21:12|). There is no reason why John should not apply \ho Kurios\ to Jesus in the narrative sections as well as Luke. Bernard argues that these are "explanatory glosses," not in the first draft of the Gospel. But why? When John wrote his Gospel he certainly held Jesus to be \Kurios\ (Lord) as Luke did earlier when he wrote both Gospel and Acts This is hypercriticism. {Knew} (\egn“\). Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\. The Pharisees knew this obvious fact. It was easy for Jesus to know the attitude of the Pharisees about it (2:24|). Already the Pharisees are suspicious of Jesus. {How that} (\hoti\). Declarative \hoti\ (indirect assertion). {Was making and baptizing more disciples than John} (\pleionas mathˆtas poiei kai baptizei ˆ I“anˆs\). Present active indicative in both verbs retained in indirect discourse. Recall the tremendous success of John's early ministry (Mark:1:5; strkjv@Matthew:3:5; strkjv@Luke:3:7,15|) in order to see the significance of this statement that Jesus had forged ahead of him in popular favour. Already the Pharisees had turned violently against John who had called them broods of vipers. It is most likely that they drew John out about the marriage of Herod Antipas and got him involved directly with the tetrarch so as to have him cast into prison (Luke:3:19f.|). Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. v. 2) gives a public reason for this act of Herod Antipas, the fear that John would "raise a rebellion," probably the public reason for his private vengeance as given by Luke. Apparently John was cast into prison, though recently still free (John:3:24|), before Jesus left for Galilee. The Pharisees, with John out of the way, turn to Jesus with envy and hate.

rwp@John:4:48 @{Except ye see} (\ean mˆ idˆte\). Condition of the third class (\ean mˆ\, negative, with second aorist active subjunctive of \hora“\). Jesus is not discounting his "signs and wonders" (\sˆmeia kai terata\, both words together here only in John, though common in N.T. as in strkjv@Matthew:24:24; strkjv@Mark:13:22; strkjv@Acts:2:19,22,43; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:9; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|), though he does seem disappointed that he is in Galilee regarded as a mere miracle worker. {Ye will in no wise believe} (\ou mˆ pisteusˆte\). Strong double negative with aorist active subjunctive of \pisteu“\, picturing the stubborn refusal of people to believe in Christ without miracles.

rwp@John:5:15 @{Went away and told} (\apˆlthen kai eipen\). Both aorist active indicatives. Instead of giving heed to the warning of Jesus about his own sins he went off and told the Jews that now he knew who the man was who had commanded him to take up his bed on the Sabbath Day, to clear himself with the ecclesiastics and escape a possible stoning. {That it was Jesus} (\hoti Iˆsous estin\). Present indicative preserved in indirect discourse. The man was either ungrateful and wilfully betrayed Jesus or he was incompetent and did not know that he was bringing trouble on his benefactor. In either case one has small respect for him.

rwp@John:5:20 @{Loveth} (\philei\). In strkjv@3:35| we have \agapƒi\ from \agapa“\, evidently one verb expressing as noble a love as the other. Sometimes a distinction (21:17|) is made, but not here, unless \phile“\ presents the notion of intimate friendship (\philos\, friend), fellowship, the affectionate side, while \agapa“\ (Latin _diligo_) is more the intelligent choice. But John uses both verbs for the mystery of love of the Father for the Son. {Greater works than these} (\meizona tout“n erga\). \Tout“n\ is ablative case after the comparative \meizona\ (from \megas\, great). John often uses \erga\ for the miracles of Christ (5:36; strkjv@7:3,21; strkjv@10:25,32,38|, etc.). It is the Father who does these works (14:10|). There is more to follow. Even the disciples will surpass what Christ is doing in the extent of the work (14:12|). \Deixei\ is future active indicative of \deiknumi\, to show. See also strkjv@10:32|. {That ye may marvel} (\hina humeis thaumazˆte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \thaumaz“\. Wonder belongs to childhood and to men of knowledge. Modern science has increased the occasion for wonder. Clement of Alexandria has a saying of Jesus: "He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns shall rest."

rwp@John:5:21 @{Quickeneth whom he will} (\hous thelei z“opoiei\). Present active indicative of \z“opoie“\ (from \z“opoios\, making alive), common in Paul (1Corinthians:15:45|, etc.). As yet, so far as we know, Jesus had not raised the dead, but he claims the power to do it on a par with the power of the Father. The raising of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke:7:11-17|) is not far ahead, followed by the message to the Baptist which speaks of this same power (Luke:7:22; strkjv@Matthew:11:5|), and the raising of Jairus' daughter (Matthew:9:18,22-26|). Jesus exercises this power on those "whom he wills." Christ has power to quicken both body and soul.

rwp@John:5:28 @{In the tombs} (\en tois mnˆmeiois\). \Taphos\ (grave) presents the notion of burial (\thapt“\, to bury) as in strkjv@Matthew:23:27|, \mnˆmeion\ (from \mnaomai\, \mimnˆsk“\, to remind) is a memorial (sepulchre as a monument). Jesus claims not only the power of life (spiritual) and of judgement, but of power to quicken the actual dead at the Last Day. They will hear his voice and come out (\ekporeusontai\, future middle indicative of \ekporeuomai\). A general judgement and a general bodily resurrection we have here for both good and bad as in strkjv@Matthew:25:46; strkjv@Acts:24:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:10| and as often implied in the words of Jesus (Matthew:5:29f.; strkjv@10:28; strkjv@Luke:11:32|). In strkjv@John:6:39| Jesus asserts that he will raise up the righteous.

rwp@John:5:29 @{Unto the resurrection of life} (\eis anastasin z“ˆs\). \Anastasis\ is an old word (Aeschylus) from \anistˆmi\, to raise up, to arise. This combination occurs nowhere else in the N.T. nor does "the resurrection of judgement" (\eis anastasin krise“s\), but in strkjv@Luke:14:14| there is the similar phrase "in the resurrection of the just" (\en tˆi anastasei t“n dikai“n\). Only there note both articles. Here without the articles it can mean "to a resurrection of life" and "to a resurrection of judgement," though the result is practically the same. There are two resurrections as to result, one to life, one to judgement. See both in strkjv@Daniel:12:2|.

rwp@John:5:38 @{And} (\kai\). "And yet" as in strkjv@1:10| and strkjv@5:40| below. {His word abiding in you} (\ton logon autou en humin menonta\). But God's word had come to them through the centuries by the prophets. For the phrase see strkjv@10:35; strkjv@15:3; strkjv@17:6; strkjv@1John:1:10; strkjv@2:14|. {Him ye believe not} (\tout“i humeis ou pisteuete\). "This one" (\tout“i\, dative case with \pisteuete\) in emphatic relation to preceding "he" (\ekeinos\, God). Jesus has given them God's word, but they reject both Jesus and God's word (John:14:9|).

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

rwp@John:6:21 @{They were willing therefore} (\ˆthelon oun\). Inchoative imperfect, "they began to be willing." This does not contradict strkjv@Mark:6:51| as Bernard thinks. Both Jesus and Peter climbed into the boat. {Whither they were going} (\eis hˆn hupˆgon\). Progressive imperfect active, "to which land they had been going" (intransitive use of \hupag“\, to lead under, to go under or away as in verse 67; strkjv@7:33; strkjv@12:11; strkjv@18:8|.

rwp@John:6:24 @{When the multitude therefore saw} (\hote oun eiden ho ochlos\). Resumption and clarification of the complicated statements of verse 22|. {That Jesus was not there} (\hoti Iˆsous ouk estin ekei\). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. They still did not understand how Jesus had crossed over, but they acted on the basis of the plain fact. {They themselves got into} (\enebˆsan autoi eis\). Second aorist active indicative of \embain“\ followed by \eis\ (both \en\ and \eis\ together as often in N.T.). {Seeking Jesus} (\zˆtountes ton Iˆsoun\). Present active participle of \zˆte“\. They had a double motive apart from the curiosity explained in verse 22|. They had clearly not given up the impulse of the evening before to make Jesus king (6:15|) and they had hopes of still another bountiful repast at the hands of Jesus as he said (6:26|).

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

rwp@John:9:3 @{But that the works of God should be made manifest in him} (\all' hina phaner“thˆi ta erga tou theou en aut“i\). Jesus denies both alternatives, and puts God's purpose (\all' hina\ with first aorist subjunctive of \phanero“\) as the true solution. It is sometimes true that disease is the result of personal sin as in the man in strkjv@5:14| and parents can hand on the effects of sin to the third and fourth generations, but there are cases free from blame like this. There is comfort for many sufferers in the words of Jesus here.

rwp@John:9:37 @{Thou hast both seen him} (\kai he“rakas auton\). Perfect active indicative (double reduplication) of \hora“\. Since his eyes were opened. {And he it is that speaketh with thee} (\kai ho lal“n meta sou ekeinos estin\). "And the one speaking with thee is that man." See strkjv@19:35| for \ekeinos\ used of the speaker. In strkjv@4:26| Jesus reveals himself in like manner to the Samaritan woman as Messiah while here as the Son of Man (or the Son of God).

rwp@John:11:20 @{That Jesus was coming} (\hoti Iˆsous erchetai\). Present middle indicative retained in indirect discourse after the secondary tense \ˆkousen\ (first aorist active). {Went and met him} (\hupˆntˆsen aut“i\). First aorist (ingressive) active indicative of \hupanta“\, old compound verb, to go to meet (Matthew:8:28|) with the associative instrumental case \aut“i\. {But Mary still sat in the house} (\Mariam de en t“i oik“i ekathezeto\). Imperfect middle of \kathezomai\, old verb to sit down, graphic picture of Mary, "while Mary was sitting in the house." Both Martha and Mary act true to form here as in strkjv@Luke:10:38-42|.

rwp@John:11:25 @{I am the resurrection and the life} (\Eg“ eimi hˆ anastasis kai hˆ z“ˆ\). 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“ˆ\. Jesus had taught the future resurrection often (6:39|), but here he means more, even that Lazarus is now alive. {Though he die} (\kan apothanˆi\). "Even if he die," condition (concession) of third class with \kai ean\ (\kan\) and the second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnˆsk“\ (physical death, he means). {Yet shall he live} (\zˆsetai\). Future middle of \za“\ (spiritual life, of course).

rwp@John:11:47 @{Gathered a council} (\sunˆgagon sunedrion\). Second aorist active indicative of \sunag“\ and \sunedrion\, the regular word for the Sanhedrin (Matthew:5:22|, etc.), only here in John. Here a sitting or session of the Sanhedrin. Both chief priests (Sadducees) and Pharisees (mentioned no more in John after strkjv@7:57| save strkjv@12:19,42|) combine in the call (cf. strkjv@7:32|). From now on the chief priests (Sadducees) take the lead in the attacks on Jesus, though loyally supported by their opponents (the Pharisees). {And said} (\kai elegon\). Imperfect active of \leg“\, perhaps inchoative, "began to say." {What do we?} (\Ti poioumen;\). Present active (linear) indicative of \poie“\. Literally, "What are we doing?" {Doeth} (\poiei\). Better, "is doing" (present, linear action). He is active and we are idle. There is no mention of the raising of Lazarus as a fact, but it is evidently inoluded in the "many signs."

rwp@John:11:48 @{If we let him thus alone} (\ean aph“men auton hout“s\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \apiˆmi\. "Suppose we leave him thus alone." Suppose also that he keeps on raising the dead right here next door to Jerusalem! {All will believe on him} (\pantes pisteusousin eis auton\). Future active of \pisteu“\. The inevitable conclusion, "all" (\pantes\), not just "some" (\tines\). as now. {And the Romans will come} (\kai eleusontai hoi R“maioi\). Another inevitable result with the future middle of \erchomai\. Only if the people take Jesus as their political Messiah (6:15|) as they had once started to do. This is a curious muddle for the rulers knew that Jesus did not claim to be a political Messiah and would not be a rival to Caesar. And yet they use this fear (their own belief about the Messiah) to stir themselves to frenzy as they will use it with Pilate later. {And take away both our place and our nation} (\kai arousin hˆm“n kai ton topon kai to ethnos\). Future active of \air“\, another certain result of their inaction. Note the order here when "place" (job) is put before nation (patriotism), for all the world like modern politicians who make the fate of the country turn on their getting the jobs which they are seeking. In the course of time the Romans will come, not because of the leniency of the Sanhedrin toward Jesus, but because of the uprising against Rome led by the Zealots and they will destroy both temple and city and the Sanhedrin will lose their jobs and the nation will be scattered. Future historians will say that this fate came as punishment on the Jews for their conduct toward Jesus.

rwp@John:12:1 @{Jesus therefore} (\Iˆsous oun\). Here \oun\ is not causal, but simply copulative and transitional, "and so" (Bernard), as often in John (1:22|, etc.). {Six days before the passover} (\pro hex hˆmer“n tou pascha\). This idiom, transposition of \pro\, is like the Latin use of _ante_, but it occurs in the old Doric, in the inscriptions and the papyri. See strkjv@Amos:1:1| for it also (cf. Moulton, _Proleg_., pp. 100ff.; Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 621f.). If the crucifixion was on Friday, as seems certain from both John and the Synoptics, then six days before would be the Jewish Sabbath preceding or more probably the Friday afternoon before, since Jesus would most likely arrive before the Sabbath. Probably we are to put together in one scene for the atmosphere strkjv@John:11:55-57; strkjv@John:12:1, 9-11|. {Came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead} (\ˆtlhen eis Bˆthanian, hopou ˆn Lazaros, hon ˆgeiren ek nekr“n Iˆsous\). Each phrase explains the preceding. There is no reason for thinking this a gloss as Bernard does. It was a place of danger now after that great miracle and the consequent rage of the Sanhedrin (12:9-11|). The crowd of eager spectators to see both Lazarus and Jesus would only intensify this rage.

rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoiˆsan oun aut“i deipnon ekei\). Here again \oun\ is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark:14:3-9|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6-13|) just two days (Mark:14:1|) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9|) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1|). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John "is here more probably accurate." It all turns on John's purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11|), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19|), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a|), and with two summary judgements (36b-50|). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke:7:36-50|). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. {And Martha served} (\kai hˆ Martha diˆkonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone“\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\pollˆn diakonian\, \diakonein\ as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6|) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke:7:36|), but Simon the leper (Mark:14:3; strkjv@Matthew:26:6|) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. {That sat at meat} (\t“n anakeimen“n\). "That lay back," reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after \ek\) of the common verb \anakeimai\. Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John:12:9|). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.

rwp@John:12:3 @{A pound} (\litran\). Latin _libra_, late _Koin‚_ (Polybius, Plutarch) word with weight of 12 ounces, in N.T. only here and strkjv@19:39|. Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:7|) have alabaster cruse. {Of ointment of spikenard} (\murou nardou pistikˆs\). "Of oil of nard." See already strkjv@11:2| for \murou\ (also strkjv@Matthew:26:7|). Nard is the head or spike of an East Indian plant, very fragrant. Occurs also in strkjv@Mark:14:3|. \Pistikˆs\ here and in strkjv@Mark:14:3| probably means genuine (\pistikos\, from \pistos\, reliable). Only two instances in the N.T. {Very precious} (\polutimou\). Old compound adjective (\polus\, much, \timˆ\), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Matthew:13:46; strkjv@1Peter:1:7|. Mark has \polutelous\ (very costly). Matthew (Matthew:26:7|) has here \barutimou\ of weighty value (only N.T. instance). {Anointed} (\ˆleipsen\). First aorist active indicative of \aleiph“\, old word (Mark:16:1|). {The feet} (\tous podas\). Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:7|) have "his head." Why not both, though neither Gospel mentions both? The Latin MS. _fuldensis_ and the Syriac Sinatic do give both head and feet here. {Wiped} (\exemaxen\). First aorist active indicative of \ekmass“\, old verb to wipe off already in strkjv@11:2; strkjv@Luke:7:38,44|. {With her hair} (\tais thrixin autˆs\). Instrumental plural. It is this item that is relied on largely by those who identify Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman in Luke 7 and with Mary Magdalene. It is no doubt true that it was usually considered immodest for a woman to wear her hair loose. But it is not impossible that Mary of Bethany in her carefully planned love-offering for Jesus on this occasion was only glad to throw such a punctilio to the winds. Such an act on this occasion does not brand her a woman of loose character. {Was filled with the odour of the ointment} (\eplˆr“thˆ ek tˆs osmˆs tou murou\). Effective first aorist passive of \plˆro“\ and a natural result.

rwp@John:12:4 @{Judas Iscariot} (\Ioudas ho Iskari“tˆs\). See \ho Iskari“tˆs\ in strkjv@14:22|. See strkjv@6:71; strkjv@13:1| for like description of Judas save that in strkjv@6:71| the father's name is given in the genitive, \Sim“nos\ and \Iskari“tou\ (agreeing with the father), but in strkjv@13:1| \Iskari“tˆs\ agrees with \Ioudas\, not with \Sim“nos\. Clearly then both father and son were called "Iscariot" or man of Kerioth in the tribe of Judah (Joshua:15:25|). Judas is the only one of the twelve not a Galilean. {One of his disciples} (\heis t“n mathˆt“n autou\). Likewise in strkjv@6:71|, only there \ek\ is used after \heis\ as some MSS. have here. This is the shameful fact that clung to the name of Judas. {Which should betray him} (\ho mell“n auton paradidonai\). John does not say in strkjv@6:71| (\emellen paradidonai auton\) or here that Judas "was predestined to betray Jesus" as Bernard suggests. He had his own responsibility for his guilt as Jesus said (Matthew:26:24|). \Mell“\ here simply points to the act as future, not as necessary. Note the contrast between Mary and Judas. "Mary in her devotion unconsciously provides for the honour of the dead. Judas in his selfishness unconsciously brings about the death itself" (Westcott).

rwp@John:12:10 @{The chief priests took counsel} (\ebouleusanto hoi archiereis\). First aorist middle indicative of \bouleu“\, old verb, seen already in strkjv@11:53| which see. The whole Sanhedrin (7:32|) had decided to put Jesus to death and had asked for information concerning him (11:57|) that might lead to his arrest, but the Sadducees were specially active now to accomplish the death of Lazarus also (\hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \apoktein“\ as in strkjv@11:53|). Perhaps they argued that, if they should kill both Jesus and Lazarus, then Lazarus would remain dead. The raising of Lazarus has brought matters to a crisis. Incidentally, it may be observed that here we may see the reason why the Synoptics do not tell the story of the raising of Lazarus, if he was still living (cf. the case of Malchus's name in strkjv@John:18:10|).

rwp@John:12:15 @{Daughter of Zion} (\thugatˆr Si“n\). Nominative form (instead of \thugater\) but vocative case. The quotation is from strkjv@Zechariah:9:9| shortened. {Thy King cometh} (\ho basileus erchetai\). Prophetic futuristic present. The ass was the animal ridden in peace as the horse was in war (Judges:10:4; strkjv@12:14; strkjv@2Samuel:17:23; strkjv@19:26|). Zechariah pictures one coming in peace. Songs:the people here regarded Jesus as the Prince of Peace in the triumphal entry. {Sitting on an ass's colt} (\kathˆmenos epi p“lon onou\). Matthew (Matthew:21:6f.|) does speak of both the ass and the colt having garments put on them, but he does not say that Jesus "sat upon" both animals at once, for \epan“ aut“n\ (upon them) probably refers to the garments, not to the colts. When John wrote (end of the century), Jerusalem had fallen. Jesus will lament over Jerusalem (Luke:19:41ff.|). Songs:"Fear not" (\mˆ phobou\).

rwp@John:12:24 @{Except} (\ean mˆ\). Negative condition of third class (undetermined, supposable case) with second aorist active participle \pes“n\ (from \pipt“\, to fall) and the second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnˆsk“\, to die. {A grain of wheat} (\ho kokkos tou sitou\). Rather, "the grain of wheat." {By itself alone} (\autos monos\). Both predicate nominatives after \menei\. It is not necessary to think (nor likely) that Jesus has in mind the Eleusinian mysteries which became a symbol of the mystery of spring. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:36| uses the same illustration of the resurrection that Jesus does here. Jesus shows here the paradox that life comes through death. Whether the Greeks heard him or not we do not know. If so, they heard something not in Greek philosophy, the Christian ideal of sacrifice, "and this was foreign to the philosophy of Greece" (Bernard). Jesus had already spoken of himself as the bread of life (6:35-65|). {But if it die} (\ean de apothanˆi\). Parallel condition of the third class. Grains of wheat have been found in Egyptian tombs three or four thousand years old, but they are now dead. They bore no fruit.

rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\hˆ psuchˆ mou\). The soul (\psuchˆ\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass“\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip“;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, s“son me ek tˆs h“ras tautˆs\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto ˆlthon eis tˆn h“ran tautˆn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.

rwp@John:12:28 @{Father, glorify thy name} (\pater, doxason sou to onoma\). First aorist (note of urgency) active imperative of \doxaz“\ and in the sense of his death already in verses 16,23| and again in strkjv@13:31; strkjv@17:5|. This is the prayer of the \pneuma\ (or \psuchˆ\) as opposed to that of the \sarx\ (flesh) in verse 27|. The "name" (\onoma\) of God expresses the character of God (1:12; strkjv@5:43; strkjv@17:11|). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:6:9|. {A voice out of heaven} (\ph“nˆ ek tou ouranou\). This was the Father's answer to the prayer of Jesus for help. See already the Father's voice at the baptism of Jesus (Mark:1:11|) and at the transfiguration (Mark:9:7|). The rabbis called the audible voice of God _bath-qol_ (the daughter of a voice). {I have both glorified it and will glorify it again} (\kai edoxasa kai palin doxas“\). This definite assurance from the Father will nerve the soul of Jesus for the coming ordeal. Cf. strkjv@11:40| for \edoxasa\ and strkjv@13:31; strkjv@17:5| for \doxas“\.

rwp@Jude:1:21 @{Keep yourselves} (\heautous tˆrˆsate\). First aorist active imperative (of urgency) of \tˆre“\. In verse 1| they are said to be kept, but note the warning in verse 5| from the angels who did not keep their dominion. See also strkjv@James:1:27|. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:12| both sides (human responsibility and divine sovereignty are presented side by side). {Looking for} (\prosdechomenoi\). Present middle participle of \prosdechomai\, the very form in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The same idea in \prosdok“ntes\ in strkjv@2Peter:3:14|.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SAME AUTHOR FOR GOSPEL AND ACTS The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as "the first treatise," \ton pr“ton logon\, (Acts:1:1|) and both are addressed to Theophilus (Luke:1:3; strkjv@Acts:1:1|). He speaks of himself in both books as "me" (\kamoi\, strkjv@Luke:1:3|) and {I made} (\epoiˆsamˆn\, strkjv@Acts:1:1|). He refers to himself with others as "we" and "us" as in strkjv@Acts:16:10|, the "we" sections of Acts. The unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the author's statement. It is quite possible that the formal Introduction to the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|) was intended to apply to the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury, who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: "In my study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom." He adds: "They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author's original plan and purpose."

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION OF PAUL A PHYSICIAN The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his _Medical Language of St. Luke_ proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_ have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his _Style and Literary Method of Luke_ denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke "the beloved physician" (\ho iatros ho agapˆtos\, strkjv@Colossians:4:14|), "my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Acts:28:8-10|) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who "came and were healed (\etherapeuonto\) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing (\iasato\), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician's interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark's apparent discredit of physicians (Mark:5:26|) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luke:8:43|).

rwp@Info_Luke @ A SKETCH OF LUKE His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of \Lukios\ and \Lukanos\. Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title \Kata Lukanon\. Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born. That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. Songs:this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a "we" passage after strkjv@Acts:11:27| which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether one of Paul's converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.

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@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

rwp@Luke:1:1 @{Forasmuch as} (\epeidˆper\). Here alone in the N.T., though common in literary Attic. Appears in the papyri. A triple compound (\epei\ = since, \dˆ\ = admittedly true, \per\ = intensive particle to emphasize importance). {Many} (\polloi\). How many no one knows, but certainly more than two or three. We know that Luke used the Logia of Jesus written by Matthew in Aramaic (Papias) and Mark's Gospel. Undoubtedly he had other written sources. {Have taken in hand} (\epecheirˆsan\). A literal translation of \epicheire“\ (from \cheir\, hand and \epi\, upon). Both Hippocrates and Galen use this word in their introduction to their medical works. Here only in the N.T., though a common literary word. Common in the papyri for undertaking with no idea of failure or blame. Luke does not mean to cast reflection on those who preceded him. The apocryphal gospels were all much later and are not in his mind. Luke had secured fuller information and planned a book on a larger scale and did surpass them with the result that they all perished save Mark's Gospel and what Matthew and Luke possess of the Logia of Jesus. There was still room for Luke's book. That motive influences every author and thus progress is made. {To draw up, a narrative} (\anataxasthai diˆgˆsin\). Ingressive aorist middle infinitive. This verb \anataxasthai\ has been found only in Plutarch's _Moral_. 968 CD about an elephant "rehearsing" by moonlight certain tricks it had been taught (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). That was from memory going regularly through the thing again. But the idea in the word is plain enough. The word is composed of \tass“\, a common verb for arranging things in proper order and \ana\, again. Luke means to say that those before him had made attempts to rehearse in orderly fashion various matters about Christ. "The expression points to a connected series of narratives in some order (\taxis\), topical or chronological rather than to isolated narratives" (Bruce). "They had produced something more than mere notes or anecdotes" (Plummer). \Diˆgˆsis\ means leading or carrying a thing through, not a mere incident. Galen applies this word some seventy-five times to the writing of Hippocrates. {Which have been fulfilled} (\t“n peplˆr“phorˆmen“n\). Perfect passive participle from \plˆrophore“\ and that from \plˆrˆs\ (full) and \pher“\ (to bring). Hence to bring or make full. The verb is rare outside of the LXX and the N.T. Papyri examples occur for finishing off a legal matter or a financial matter in full. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 86f.) gives examples from the papyri and inscriptions for completing a task or being convinced or satisfied in mind. The same ambiguity occurs here. When used of persons in the N.T. the meaning is to be convinced, or fully persuaded (Romans:4:21; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|). When used of things it has the notion of completing or finishing (2Timothy:4:5,17|). Luke is here speaking of "matters" (\pragmat“n\). Luke may refer to the matters connected with Christ's life which have been brought to a close among us or accomplished. Bruce argues plausibly that he means fulness of knowledge "concerning the things which have become widely known among us Christians." In strkjv@Colossians:2:2| we have "fulness of understanding" (\tˆs plˆrophorias tˆs sunese“s\). In modern Greek the verb means to inform. The careful language of Luke here really pays a tribute to those who had preceded him in their narratives concerning Christ.

rwp@Luke:1:2 @{Even as} (\kath“s\). This particle was condemned by the Atticists though occurring occasionally from Aristotle on. It is in the papyri. Luke asserts that the previous narratives had their sound basis. {Delivered unto us} (\pared“san hˆmin\). Second aorist active indicative of \paradid“mi\. Luke received this tradition along with those who are mentioned above (the many). That is he was not one of the "eyewitnesses." He was a secondary, not a primary, witness of the events. Tradition has come to have a meaning of unreliability with us, but that is not the idea here. Luke means to say that the handing down was dependable, not mere wives' fables. Those who drew up the narratives had as sources of knowledge those who handed down the data. Here we have both written and oral sources. Luke had access to both kinds. {Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word} (\hoi ap' archˆs autoptai kai hupˆretai genomenoi tou logou\). "Who" is better than "which" for the article here. The word for {eyewitnesses} (\autoptai\) is an old Greek word and appears in the papyri also. It means seeing with one's own eyes. It occurs here only in the N.T. We have the very word in the medical term _autopsy_. Greek medical writers often had the word. It is a different word from \epoptai\ (eyewitness) in strkjv@2Peter:1:16|, a word used of those who beheld heavenly mysteries. The word for "ministers" (\hupˆretai\), under rowers or servants we have had already in strkjv@Matthew:5:25; strkjv@26:58; strkjv@Mark:14:54,65|, which see. We shall see it again in strkjv@Luke:4:20| of the attendant in the synagogue. In the sense of a preacher of the gospel as here, it occurs also in strkjv@Acts:26:16|. Here "the word" means the gospel message, as in strkjv@Acts:6:4; strkjv@8:4|, etc. {From the beginning} apparently refers to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as was true of the apostles (Acts:1:22|) and of the early apostolic preaching (Acts:10:37-43|). The Gospel of Mark follows this plan. The Gospel of Luke goes behind this in chapters 1 and 2 as does Matthew in chapters 1 and 2. But Luke is not here referring to himself. The matters about the childhood of Jesus Christ would not form part of the traditional preaching for obvious reasons.

rwp@Luke:1:3 @{It seemed good to me also} (\edoxe kamoi\). A natural conclusion and justification of Luke's decision to write his narrative. They had ample reason to draw up their narratives. Luke has more reason to do so because of his fuller knowledge and wider scope. {Having traced the course of all things} (\parˆkolouthˆkoti pƒsin\). The perfect active participle of a common verb of the ancient Greek. Literally it means to follow along a thing in mind, to trace carefully. Both meanings occur abundantly in the ancient Greek. Cadbury (Appendix C to _Beginnings of Christianity_, Vol. II, pp. 489ff.) objects to the translation "having traced" here as implying research which the word does not here mean. Milligan (_Vocabulary_) is somewhat impressed by this argument. See my discussion of the point in Chapter XVI of _Studies in the Text of the N.T._ (The Implications in Luke's Preface) where the point is made that Luke here claims fulness of knowledge before he began to write his book. He had the traditions of the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word and the narratives previously drawn up. Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had _mentally_ followed along by the side of these events. Galen used this verb for the investigation of symptoms. Luke got himself ready to write before he began by full and accurate knowledge of the subject. \Akrib“s\ (accurately) means going into minute details, from \akron\, the topmost point. And he did it {from the first} (\an“then\). He seems to refer to the matters in Chapters strkjv@1:5-2:52|, the Gospel of the Infancy. {In order} (\kathexˆs\). Chronological order in the main following Mark's general outline. But in strkjv@9:51-18:10| the order is often topical. He has made careful investigation and his work deserves serious consideration. {Most excellent Theophilus} (\kratiste Theophile\). The name means god-lover or god-beloved. He may have been a believer already. He was probably a Gentile. Ramsay holds that "most excellent" was a title like "Your Excellency" and shows that he held office, perhaps a Knight. Songs:of Felix (Acts:23:26|) and Festus (Acts:26:25|). The adjective does not occur in the dedication in strkjv@Acts:1:1|.

rwp@Luke:7:1 @{After} (\epeidˆ, epei and dˆ\). This conjunction was written \epei dˆ\ in Homer and is simple \epei\ with the intensive \dˆ\ added and even \epei dˆ per\ once in N.T. (Luke:1:1|). This is the only instance of the temporal use of \epeidˆ\ in the N.T. The causal sense occurs only in Luke and Paul, for \epei\ is the correct text in strkjv@Matthew:21:46|. {Had ended} (\eplˆr“sen\). First aorist active indicative. There is here a reference to the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, but with nothing concerning the impression produced by the discourse such as is seen in strkjv@Matthew:7:28|. This verse really belongs as the conclusion of Chapter 6, not as the beginning of Chapter 7. {In the ears of the people} (\eis tas akoas tou laou\). \Akoˆ\ from \akou“\, to hear, is used of the sense of hearing (1Corinthians:12:17|), the ear with which one hears (Mark:7:35; strkjv@Hebrews:5:11|), the thing heard or the report (Rom strkjv@10:16|) or oral instruction (Galatians:3:2,5|). Both strkjv@Matthew:8:5-13; strkjv@Luke:7:1-10| locate the healing of the centurion's servant in Capernaum where Jesus was after the Sermon on the Mount.

rwp@Luke:7:2 @{Centurion's servant} (\Hekatontarchou tinos doulos\). Slave of a certain centurion (Latin word \centurio\, commander of a century or hundred). strkjv@Mark:15:39,44| has the Latin word in Greek letters, \kenturi“n\. The centurion commanded a company which varied from fifty to a hundred. Each cohort had six centuries. Each legion had ten cohorts or bands (Acts:10:1|). The centurions mentioned in the N.T. all seem to be fine men as Polybius states that the best men in the army had this position. See also strkjv@Luke:23:47|. The Greek has two forms of the word, both from \hekaton\, hundred, and \arch“\, to rule, and they appear to be used interchangeably. Songs:we have \hekatontarchos\; here, the form is \-archos\, and \hekatontarchˆs\, the form is \-archˆs\ in verse 6|. The manuscripts differ about it in almost every instance. The \-archos\ form is accepted by Westcott and Hort only in the nominative save the genitive singular here in strkjv@Luke:7:2| and the accusative singular in strkjv@Acts:22:25|. See like variation between them in strkjv@Matthew:8:5,8| (\-archos\) and strkjv@Matthew:8:13| (\archˆi\). Songs:also \-archon\ (Acts:22:25|) and \-archˆs\ (Acts:22:26|). {Dear to him} (\aut“i entimos\). Held in honour, prized, precious, dear (Luke:14:8; strkjv@1Peter:2:4; strkjv@Phillipians:2:29|), common Greek word. Even though a slave he was dear to him. {Was sick} (\kak“s ech“n\). Having it bad. Common idiom. See already strkjv@Matthew:4:24; strkjv@8:16; strkjv@Mark:2:17; strkjv@Luke:5:31|, etc. strkjv@Matthew:8:6| notes that the slave was a paralytic. {And at the point of death} (\ˆmellen teleutƒin\). Imperfect active of \mell“\ (note double augment \ˆ\) which is used either with the present infinitive as here, the aorist (Revelation:3:16|), or even the future because of the future idea in \mell“\ (Acts:11:28; strkjv@24:15|). He was about to die.

rwp@Luke:7:6 @{Went with them} (\eporeueto sun autois\). Imperfect indicative middle. He started to go along with them. {Now} (\ˆdˆ\). Already like Latin _jam_. In strkjv@1Corinthians:4:8| \nun ˆdˆ\ like _jam nunc_. {Sent friends} (\epempsen philous\). This second embassy also, wanting in Matthew's narrative. He "puts the message of both into the mouth of the centurion himself" (Plummer). Note saying (\leg“n\), present active singular participle, followed by direct quotation from the centurion himself. {Trouble not thyself} (\Mˆ skullou\). Present middle (direct use) imperative of \skull“\, old verb originally meaning to skin, to mangle, and then in later Greek to vex, trouble, annoy. Frequent in the papyri in this latter sense. {For I am not worthy that} (\ou gar hikanos eimi hina\). The same word \hikanos\, not \axios\, as in strkjv@Matthew:8:8|, which see for discussion, from \hik“, hikan“\, to fit, to reach, be adequate for. \Hina\ in both places as common in late Greek. See strkjv@Matthew:8:8| also for "roof" (\stegˆn\, covering).

rwp@Luke:7:9 @{Turned} (\strapheis\). Second aorist passive participle of \streph“\, to turn. Common verb. A vivid touch not in Matthew's account. In both Matthew and Luke Jesus marvels at the great faith of this Roman centurion beyond that among the Jews. As a military man he had learned how to receive orders and to execute them and hence to expect obedience to his commands, He recognized Jesus as Master over disease with power to compel obedience.

rwp@Luke:7:19 @{Calling unto him} (\proskalesamenos\). First aorist middle (indirect) participle. {Two} (\duo tinas\). Certain two. Not in strkjv@Matthew:11:2|. {Saying} (\leg“n\). John saying by the two messengers. The message is given precisely alike in strkjv@Matthew:11:3|, which see. In both we have \heteron\ for "another," either a second or a different kind. In verse 20| Westcott and Hort read \allon\ in the text, \heteron\ in the margin. \Prosdok“men\, may be present indicative or present subjunctive (deliberative), the same contract form (\ao= “, a“ “\).

rwp@Luke:7:24 @{When the messengers of John were departed} (\apelthont“n t“n aggel“n I“anou\). Genitive absolute of aorist active participle. strkjv@Matthew:11:7| has the present middle participle \poreuomen“n\, suggesting that Jesus began his eulogy of John as soon as the messengers (angels, Luke calls them) were on their way. The vivid questions about the people's interest in John are precisely alike in both Matthew and Luke.

rwp@Luke:7:39 @{This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous, this fellow. {If he were a (the) prophet} (\ei ˆn [ho] prophˆtˆs\). Condition of the second class, determined as unfulfilled. The Pharisee assumes that Jesus is not a prophet (or the prophet, reading of B, that he claims to be). A Greek condition puts the thing from the standpoint of the speaker or writer. It does not deal with the actual facts, but only with the statement about the facts. {Would have perceived} (\egin“sken an\). Wrong translation, would now perceive or know (which he assumes that Jesus does not do). The protasis is false and the conclusion also. He is wrong in both. The conclusion (apodosis), like the condition, deals here with the present situation and so both use the imperfect indicative (\an\ in the conclusion, a mere device for making it plain that it is not a condition of the first class). {Who and what manner of woman} (\tis kai potapˆ hˆ gunˆ\). She was notorious in person and character.

rwp@Luke:7:42 @{Will love him most} (\pleion agapˆsei auton\). Strictly, comparative {more}, \pleion\, not superlative \pleista\, but most suits the English idiom best, even between two. Superlative forms are vanishing before the comparative in the _Koin‚_. This is the point of the parable, the attitude of the two debtors toward the lender who forgave both of them (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:8:1 @{Soon afterwards} (\en t“i kathexˆs\). In strkjv@7:11| we have \en t“i hexˆs\. This word means one after the other, successively, but that gives no definite data as to the time, only that this incident in strkjv@8:1-3| follows that in strkjv@7:36-50|. Both in Luke alone. {That} (\kai\). One of Luke's idioms with \kai egeneto\ like Hebrew _wav_. Went about (\di“deuen\). Imperfect active of \diodeu“\, to make one's way through (\dia, hodos\), common in late Greek writers. In the N.T. here only and strkjv@Acts:17:1|. {Through cities and villages} (\kata polin kai k“mˆn\). Distributive use of \kata\ (up and down). The clause is amphibolous and goes equally well with \di“deuen\ or with \kˆruss“n\ (heralding) \kai euaggelizomenos\ (evangelizing, gospelizing). This is the second tour of Galilee, this time the Twelve with him.

rwp@Luke:8:4 @{By a parable} (\dia parabolˆs\). strkjv@Mark:4:2| says "in parables" as does strkjv@Matthew:13:3|. This is the beginning of the first great group of parables as given in strkjv@Mark:4:1-34| and strkjv@Matthew:13:1-53|. There are ten of these parables in Mark and Matthew and only two in strkjv@Luke:8:4-18| (The Sower and the Lamp, strkjv@8:16|) though Luke also has the expression "in parables" (8:10|). See strkjv@Matthew:13| and strkjv@Mark:4| for discussion of the word parable and the details of the Parable of the Sower. Luke does not locate the place, but he mentions the great crowds on hand, while both Mark and Matthew name the seaside as the place where Jesus was at the start of the series of parables.

rwp@Luke:8:9 @{Asked} (\epˆr“t“n\). Imperfect of \eper“ta“\ (\epi\ and \er“ta“\) where strkjv@Mark:4:10| has \ˆr“t“n\ (uncompounded imperfect), both the tense and the use of \epi\ indicate eager and repeated questions on the part of the disciples, perhaps dimly perceiving a possible reflection on their own growth. {What this parable might be} (\tis hautˆ eiˆ hˆ parabolˆ\). A mistranslation, What this parable was (or meant). The optative \eiˆ\ is merely due to indirect discourse, changing the indicative \estin\ (is) of the direct question to the optative \eiˆ\ of the indirect, a change entirely with the writer or speaker and without any change of meaning (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1043f.).

rwp@Luke:8:10 @{The mysteries} (\ta mustˆria\). See for this word on ¯Matthew:13:11; strkjv@Mark:4:11|. Part of the mystery here explained is how so many people who have the opportunity to enter the kingdom fail to do so because of manifest unfitness. {That} (\hina\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:11| also has \hina\ while strkjv@Matthew:13:13| has \hoti\ (because). On the so-called causal use of \hina\ as here equal to \hoti\ see discussion on ¯Matthew:13:13; strkjv@Mark:4:11|. Plummer sensibly argues that there is truth both in the causal \hoti\ of Matthew and the final \hina\ of Mark and Matthew. "But the principle that he who hath shall receive more, while he who hath not shall be deprived of what he seemeth to have, explains both the \hina\ and the \hoti\. Jesus speaks in parables because the multitudes see without seeing and hear without hearing. But He also speaks in parable {in order that} they may see without seeing and hear without hearing." Only for "hearing" Luke has "understand" \suni“sin\, present subjunctive from a late omega form \suni“\ instead of the \-mi\ verb \suniˆmi\.

rwp@Luke:8:11 @{Is this} (\estin de hautˆ\). Means this. Jesus now proceeds to interpret his own parable. {The seed is the word of God} (\ho sporos estin ho logos tou theou\). The article with both subject and predicate as here means that they are interchangeable and can be turned round: The word of God is the seed. The phrase "the word of God" does not appear in Matthew and only once in Mark (Mark:7:13|) and John (John:10:35|), but four times in Luke (5:1; strkjv@8:11,21; strkjv@11:28|) and twelve times in Acts. In strkjv@Mark:4:14| we have only "the word." In strkjv@Mark:3:31| we have "the will of God," and in strkjv@Matthew:12:46| "the will of my Father" where strkjv@Luke:8:21| has "the word of God." This seems to show that Luke has the subjective genitive here and means the word that comes from God.

rwp@Luke:8:14 @{They are choked} (\sunpnigontai\). Present passive indicative of this powerfully vivid compound verb \sunpnig“\ used in strkjv@Mark:4:19; strkjv@Matthew:13:22|, only there these worldly weeds choke the word while here the victims themselves are choked. Both are true. Diphtheria will choke and strangle the victim. Who has not seen the promise of fair flower and fruit choked into yellow withered stalk without fruit "as they go on their way" (\poreuomenoi\). {Bring no fruit to perfection} (\ou telesphorousin\). Compound verb common in the late writers (\telos, phore“\). To bring to completion. Used of fruits, animals, pregnant women. Only here in the N.T.

rwp@Luke:8:15 @{In an honest and good heart} (\en kardiƒi kalˆi kai agathˆi\). Peculiar to Luke. In verse 8| the land (\gˆn\) is called \agathˆn\ (really good, generous) and in verse 15| we have \en tˆi kalˆi gˆi\ ({in the beautiful or noble land}). Songs:Luke uses both adjectives of the heart. The Greeks used \kalos k' agathos\ of the high-minded gentleman. It is probable that Luke knew this idiom. It occurs here alone in the N.T. It is not easy to translate. We have such phrases as "good and true," "sound and good," "right and good," no one of which quite suits the Greek. Certainly Luke adds new moral qualities not in the Hellenic phrase. The English word "honest" here is like the Latin _honestus_ (fair, noble). The words are to be connected with "hold fast" (\katechousin\), "hold it down" so that the devil does not snatch it away, having depth of soil so that it does not shrivel up under the sun, and is not choked by weeds and thorns. It bears fruit (\karpophorousin\, an old expressive verb, \karpos\ and \phore“\). That is the proof of spiritual life. {In patience} (\en hupomonˆi\). There is no other way for real fruit to come. Mushrooms spring up overnight, but they are usually poisonous. The best fruits require time, cultivation, patience.

rwp@Luke:8:18 @{How ye hear} (\p“s akouete\). The manner of hearing. strkjv@Mark:4:24| has "what ye hear" (\ti akouete\), the matter that is heard. Both are supremely important. Some things should not be heard at all. Some that are heard should be forgotten. Others should be treasured and practised. {For whosoever hath} (\Hosea:an gar echˆi\). Present active subjunctive of the common verb \ech“\ which may mean "keep on having" or "acquiring." See on ¯Mark:4:25| for discussion. {Thinketh he hath} (\dokei echein\), or {seems to acquire or to hold}. Losses in business illustrate this saying as when we see their riches take wings and fly away. Songs:it is with hearing and heeding. Self-deception is a common complaint.

rwp@Luke:18:3 @{Came oft} (\ˆrcheto\). Imperfect tense denotes repetitions, no adverb for "oft" in the Greek. {Avenge me of} (\ekdikˆson me apo\). A late verb for doing justice, protecting one from another (note both \ek\ and \apo\, here). Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 420ff.) quotes a \stˆlˆ\ of the second century B.C. with a prayer for vengeance for a Jewish girl that had been murdered which has this very verb \ekdike“\.

rwp@Luke:18:16 @{Called} (\prosekalesato\). Indirect middle aorist indicative, called the children with their parents to himself and then rebuked the disciples for their rebuke of the parents. The language of Jesus is precisely that of strkjv@Mark:10:14| which see, and nearly that of strkjv@Matthew:19:14| which see also. The plea of Jesus that children be allowed to come to him is one that many parents need to heed. It is a tragedy to think of parents "forbidding" their children or of preachers doing the same or of both being stumbling-blocks to children.

rwp@Luke:18:25 @{Through a needle's eye} (\dia trˆmatos belonˆs\). Both words are old. \Trˆma\ means a perforation or hole or eye and in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:19:24|. \Belonˆ\ means originally the point of a spear and then a surgeon's needle. Here only in the N.T. strkjv@Mark:10:25; strkjv@Matthew:19:24| have \rhaphidos\ for needle. This is probably a current proverb for the impossible. The Talmud twice speaks of an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as being impossible.

rwp@Luke:19:29 @{Unto Bethphage and Bethany} (\eis Bˆthphagˆ kai Bˆthania\). Both indeclinable forms of the Hebrew or Aramaic names. In strkjv@Mark:11:1| "Bethany" is inflected regularly, which see. {Of Olives} (\Elai“n\). As in strkjv@Mark:11:1; strkjv@Matthew:21:1|, though some editors take it to be, not the genitive plural of \elaia\ (olive tree), but the name of the place Olivet. In the Greek it is just a matter of accent (circumflex or acute) Olivet is correct in strkjv@Acts:1:12|. See on ¯Matthew:21:1ff.; strkjv@Mark:11:1ff.| for details.

rwp@Luke:20:1 @{On one of the days} (\en miƒi t“n hˆmer“n\). Luke's favourite way of indicating time. It was the last day of the temple teaching (Tuesday). strkjv@Luke:20:1-19| is to be compared with strkjv@Mark:11:27-12:12; strkjv@Matthew:21:23-46|. {There came upon him} (\epestˆsan\). Second aorist active indicative, ingressive aorist of \ephistˆmi\, old and common verb, stood up against him, with the notion of sudden appearance. These leaders (cf. strkjv@19:47|) had determined to attack Jesus on this morning, both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes), a formal delegation from the Sanhedrin.

rwp@Luke:20:21 @{Rightly} (\orth“s\). Matthew (Matthew:22:16|) notes that these "spies" were "disciples" (students) of the Pharisees and Mark (Mark:12:13|) adds that the Herodians are also involved in the plot. These bright theologues are full of palaver and flattery and openly endorse the teaching of Jesus as part of their scheme. {Acceptest not the person of any} (\ou lambaneis pros“pon\). Dost not take the face (or personal appearance) as the test. It is a Hebraism from which the word \pros“polempsia\ (James:2:1|) comes. Originally it meant to lift the face, to lift the countenance, to regard the face, to accept the face value. See strkjv@Mark:12:13-17; strkjv@Matthew:22:15-22| for discussion of details here. They both have \blepeis\ here.

rwp@Luke:21:6 @{As for these things} (\tauta\). Accusative of general reference. {One stone upon another} (\lithos epi lith“i\). Stone upon stone (locative). Here both strkjv@Mark:13:2; strkjv@Matthew:24:2| have \epi lithon\ (accusative). Instead of \ouk aphethˆsetai\ (future passive) they both have \ou mˆ aphethˆi\ (double negative with aorist passive subjunctive). It was a shock to the disciples to hear this after the triumphal entry.

rwp@Luke:22:1 @{The Passover} (\pascha\) Both names (unleavened bread and passover) are used here as in strkjv@Mark:14:1|. Strictly speaking the passover was Nisan 14 and the unleavened bread 15-21. This is the only place in the N.T. where the expression "the feast of unleavened bread" (common in LXX, Ex. strkjv@23:15|, etc.) occurs, for strkjv@Mark:14:1| has just "the unleavened bread." strkjv@Matthew:26:17| uses unleavened bread and passover interchangeably. {Drew nigh} (\ˆggizen\). Imperfect active. strkjv@Mark:14:1; strkjv@Matthew:26:2| mention "after two days" definitely.

rwp@Luke:22:50 @{His right ear} (\to ous autou to dexion\). Mark strkjv@14:47; strkjv@Matthew:26:51| do not mention "right," but Luke the Physician does. strkjv@John:18:10| follows Luke in this item and also adds the names of Peter and of Malchus since probably both were dead by that time and Peter would not be involved in trouble.

rwp@Luke:22:56 @{In the light} (\pros to ph“s\). Facing (\pros\) the light, for the fire gave light as well as heat. strkjv@Mark:14:65| has "warming himself in the light," John (John:18:18,25|) "warming himself." {Looking steadfastly} (\atenisasa\). Favourite word in Luke (4:20|, etc.) for gazing steadily at one. {This man also} (\kai houtos\). As if pointing to Peter and talking about him. The other Gospels (Mark:14:67; strkjv@Matthew:26:69; strkjv@John:18:25|) make a direct address to Peter. Both could be true, as she turned to Peter.

rwp@Luke:22:66 @{As soon as it was day} (\h“s egeneto hˆmera\). strkjv@Mark:15:1| (Matthew:27:1|) has "morning." {The assembly of the people} (\to presbuterion tou laou\). The technical word for "the eldership" (from \presbuteros\, an old man or elder) or group of the elders composing the Sanhedrin. The word occurs in the LXX for the Sanhedrin. In the N.T. occurs only here and strkjv@Acts:22:5| of the Sanhedrin. In strkjv@1Timothy:4:14| Paul uses it of the elders in a church (or churches). The Sanhedrin was composed of the elders and scribes and chief priests (Mark:15:1|) and all three groups are at this meeting. Luke's language (both chief priests and scribes, \te... kai\) seems to apply the word \presbuterion\ to the whole Sanhedrin. Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes) were nearly equally represented. {Into their council} (\eis to sunedrion aut“n\). The place of the gathering is not given, but Jesus was led into the council chamber.

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@Luke:23:37 @{If} (\ei\). Condition of the first class as is text in verse 35| used by the rulers. The soldiers pick out "the king of the Jews" as the point of their sneer, the point on which Jesus was condemned. But both soldiers and rulers fail to understand that Jesus could not save himself if he was to save others.

rwp@Luke:23:40 @{Rebuking} (\epitim“n\). From what Mark and Matthew say both robbers sneered at Jesus at first, but this one came to himself and turned on his fellow robber in a rage. {Dost thou not even fear God?} (\Oude phobˆi ton theon;\). \Oude\ here goes with the verb. \Phobˆi\ (second person singular present indicative middle of \phobeomai\. Both of you will soon appear before God. Jesus has nothing to answer for and you have added this to your other sins.

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

rwp@Luke:23:46 @{Father} (\Pater\). Jesus dies with the words of strkjv@Psalms:31:5| on his lips. {Gave up the ghost} (\exepneusen\). First aorist active indicative of \ekpne“\, to breathe out, to expire, old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:15:37,39|. There is no special reason for retaining "ghost" in the English as both strkjv@Matthew:27:50| (yielded up his spirit, \aphˆken to pneuma\) and strkjv@John:19:30| (gave up his spirit, \pared“ken to pneuma\) use \pneuma\ which is the root of \ekpne“\, the verb in Mark and Luke.

rwp@Luke:23:51 @{He had not consented to their counsel and deed} (\houtos ouk ˆn sunkatatetheimenos tˆi boulˆi kai tˆi praxei aut“n\). This parenthesis is given by Luke alone and explains that, though a councillor (\bouleutˆs\, strkjv@Mark:5:43|) he had not agreed to the vote of the Sanhedrin. It is fairly certain that both Joseph and Nicodemus were suspected of sympathy with Jesus and so were not invited to the trial of Jesus. {Was looking for} (\prosedecheto\). Imperfect middle. strkjv@Mark:15:43| has the periphrastic imperfect (\ˆn prosdechomenos\).

rwp@Luke:24:37 @{Terrified} (\ptoˆthentes\). First aorist passive participle of \ptoe“\, old verb and in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:9| which see. {Affrighted} (\emphoboi genomenoi\). Late adjective from \en\ and \phobos\ (fear). Both these terms of fear are strong. {Supposed} (\edokoun\). Imperfect active of \doke“\, kept on thinking so.

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

rwp@Info_Mark @ This Gospel is the briefest of the four, but is fullest of striking details that apparently came from Peter's discourses which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds (Mark:6:38|), two thousand hogs (Mark:5:13|), looking round about (Mark:3:5,34|). Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases than the others, like _Boanerges_ (Mark:3:17|), _Talitha cumi_ (Mark:5:41|), _Korban_ (Mark:7:11|), _Ephphatha_ (Mark:7:34|), _Abba_ (Mark:14:36|). The Greek is distinctly vernacular _Koin‚_ like one-eyed (\monophthalmon\, strkjv@Mark:9:47|) as one would expect from both Peter and Mark. There are also more Latin phrases and idioms like _centurio_ (Mark:15:39|), _quadrans_ (Mark:12:42|), _flagellare_ (Mark:15:15|), _speculator_ (Mark:6:27|), _census_ (Mark:12:14|), _sextarius_ (Mark:7:4|), _praetorium_ (Mark:15:6|), than in the other Gospels, so much so that C. H. Turner raises the question whether Mark wrote first in Latin, or at any rate in Rome. There are some who hold that Mark wrote first in Aramaic, but the facts are sufficiently accounted for by the fact of Peter's preaching and the activity in Rome. Some even think that he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and read the manuscript. B.W. Bacon holds that this Gospel has a distinct Pauline flavour and may have had several recensions. The Ur-Marcus theory does not have strong support now. Mark was once a co-worker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga. Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work. When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced and commends him heartily to the Colossians (Colossians:4:10|) In the end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along with him to Paul in Rome, for he has found him useful for ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul would have no more of him. This tribute to Mark by Paul throws credit upon both of them as is shown in my _Making Good in the Ministry_. The character of the Gospel of Mark is determined largely by the scope of Peter's preaching as we see it in strkjv@Acts:10:36-42|, covering the period in outline from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing about the birth of the Baptist or of Jesus. This peculiarity of Mark's Gospel cannot be used against the narratives of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, since Mark tells nothing whatever about his birth at all.

rwp@Mark:4:38 @{Asleep on the cushion} (\epi to proskephalaion katheud“n\). Mark also mentions the cushion or bolster and the stern of the boat (\en tˆi prumnˆi\). strkjv@Matthew:8:24| notes that Jesus was sleeping (\ekatheuden\), Luke that {he fell asleep} (\aphupn“sen\, ingressive aorist indicative). He was worn out from the toil of this day. {They awake him} (\egeirousin auton\). Songs:Mark's graphic present. Matthew and Luke both have "awoke him." Mark has also what the others do not: "Carest thou not?" (\ou melei soi;\). It was a rebuke to Jesus for sleeping in such a storm. We are perishing (\apollumetha\, linear present middle). Precisely this same form also in strkjv@Matthew:8:25| and strkjv@Luke:8:24|.

rwp@Mark:5:35 @{While he yet spake} (\Eti autou lalountos\). Genitive absolute. Another vivid touch in Mark and strkjv@Luke:8:49|. The phrase is in strkjv@Genesis:29:9|. Nowhere does Mark preserve better the lifelike traits of an eyewitness like Peter than in these incidents in chapter 5. The arrival of the messengers from Jairus was opportune for the woman just healed of the issue of blood (\en husei haimatos\) for it diverted attention from her. Now the ruler's daughter has died (\apethane\). {Why troublest thou the master any further?} (\Ti eti skulleis ton didaskalon;\). It was all over, so they felt. Jesus had raised from the dead the son of the widow of Nain (Luke:7:11-17|), but people in general did not expect him to raise the dead. The word \skull“\, from \skulon\ (_skin, pelt, spoils_), means to skin, to flay, in Aeschylus. Then it comes to mean to vex, annoy, distress as in strkjv@Matthew:9:36|, which see. The middle is common in the papyri for bother, worry, as in strkjv@Luke:7:6|. There was no further use in troubling the Teacher about the girl.

rwp@Mark:5:36 @{Not heeding} (\parakousas\). This is the sense in strkjv@Matthew:18:17| and uniformly so in the LXX. But here the other sense of hearing aside, overhearing what was not spoken directly to him, probably exists also. "Jesus might overhear what was said and disregard its import" (Bruce). Certainly he ignored the conclusion of the messengers. The present participle \laloumenon\ suits best the idea of overhearing. Both Mark and strkjv@Luke:8:50| have "Fear not, only believe" (\mˆ phobou, monon pisteue\). This to the ruler of the synagogue (\t“i archisunag“g“i\) who had remained and to whom the messenger had spoken.

rwp@Mark:5:43 @{That no one should know this} (\hina mˆdeis gnoi touto\). Second aorist active subjunctive, \gnoi\. But would they keep still about it? There was the girl besides. Both Mark and Luke note that Jesus ordered that food be given to the child {given her to eat}, (\dothˆnai autˆi phagein\), a natural care of the Great Physician. Two infinitives here (first aorist passive and second aorist active). "She could walk and eat; not only alive, but well" (Bruce).

rwp@Mark:6:1 @{Into his own country} (\eis tˆn patrida autou\). Songs:Matthew:13:54|. There is no real reason for identifying this visit to Nazareth with that recorded in strkjv@Luke:4:26-31| at the beginning of the Galilean Ministry. He was rejected both times, but it is not incongruous that Jesus should give Nazareth a second chance. It was only natural for Jesus to visit his mother, brothers, and sisters again. Neither Mark nor Matthew mention Nazareth here by name, but it is plain that by \patrida\ the region of Nazareth is meant. He had not lived in Bethlehem since his birth.

rwp@Mark:6:2 @{Began to teach} (\ˆrxato didaskein\). As was now his custom in the synagogue on the sabbath. The ruler of the synagogue (\archisunag“gos\, see strkjv@Matthew:5:22|) would ask some one to speak whensoever he wished. The reputation of Jesus all over Galilee opened the door for him. Jesus may have gone to Nazareth for rest, but could not resist this opportunity for service. {Whence hath this man these things?} (\Pothen tout“i tauta;\). Laconic and curt, {Whence these things to this fellow?} With a sting and a fling in their words as the sequel shows. They continued to be amazed (\exeplˆssonto\, imperfect tense passive). They challenge both the apparent {wisdom} (\sophia\) with which he spoke and {the mighty works} or powers (\hai dunameis\) {such as those} (\toiautai\) {coming to pass} (\ginomenai\, present middle participle, repeatedly wrought) {by his hands} (\dia t“n cheir“n\). They felt that there was some hocus-pocus about it somehow and somewhere. They do not deny the wisdom of his words, nor the wonder of his works, but the townsmen knew Jesus and they had never suspected that he possessed such gifts and graces.

rwp@Mark:6:3 @{Is not this the carpenter?} (\Ouch houtos estin ho tekt“n;\). strkjv@Matthew:13:55| calls him "the carpenter's son" (\ho tou tektonos huios\). He was both. Evidently since Joseph's death he had carried on the business and was "the carpenter" of Nazareth. The word \tekt“n\ comes from \tekein, tikt“\, to beget, create, like \technˆ\ (craft, art). It is a very old word, from Homer down. It was originally applied to the worker in wood or builder with wood like our carpenter. Then it was used of any artisan or craftsman in metal, or in stone as well as in wood and even of sculpture. It is certain that Jesus worked in wood. Justin Martyr speaks of ploughs, yokes, et cetera, made by Jesus. He may also have worked in stone and may even have helped build some of the stone synagogues in Galilee like that in Capernaum. But in Nazareth the people knew him, his family (no mention of Joseph), and his trade and discounted all that they now saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. This word carpenter "throws the only flash which falls on the continuous tenor of the first thirty years from infancy to manhood, of the life of Christ" (Farrar). That is an exaggeration for we have strkjv@Luke:2:41-50| and "as his custom was" (Luke:4:16|), to go no further. But we are grateful for Mark's realistic use of \tekt“n\ here. {And they were offended in him} (\kai eskandalizonto en aut“i\). Songs:exactly strkjv@Matthew:13:56|, {were made to stumble in him}, trapped like game by the \skandalon\ because they could not explain him, having been so recently one of them. "The Nazarenes found their stumbling block in the person or circumstances of Jesus. He became--\petra skandalou\ (1Peter:2:7,8; strkjv@Romans:9:33|) to those who disbelieved" (Swete). Both Mark and strkjv@Matthew:13:57|, which see, preserve the retort of Jesus with the quotation of the current proverb about a prophet's lack of honour in his own country. strkjv@John:4:44| quoted it from Jesus on his return to Galilee long before this. It is to be noted that Jesus here makes a definite claim to being a prophet (\prophˆtˆs\, forspeaker for God), a seer. He was much more than this as he had already claimed to be Messiah (John:4:26; strkjv@Luke:4:21|), the Son of man with power of God (Mark:1:10; strkjv@Matthew:9:6; strkjv@Luke:5:24|), the Son of God (John:5:22|). They stumble at Jesus today as the townspeople of Nazareth did. {In his own house} (\en tˆi oikiƒi autou\). Also in strkjv@Matthew:13:57|. This was the saddest part of it all, that his own brothers in his own home disbelieved his Messianic claims (John:7:5|). This puzzle was the greatest of all.

rwp@Mark:6:13 @{They cast out many demons and they anointed with oil} (\exeballon kai ˆleiphon elai“i\). Imperfect tenses, continued repetition. Alone in Mark. This is the only example in the N.T. of \aleiph“ elai“i\ used in connection with healing save in strkjv@James:5:14|. In both cases it is possible that the use of oil (olive oil) as a medicine is the basis of the practice. See strkjv@Luke:10:34| for pouring oil and wine upon the wounds. It was the best medicine of the ancients and was used internally and externally. It was employed often after bathing. The papyri give a number of examples of it. The only problem is whether \aleiph“\ in Mark and James is used wholly in a ritualistic and ceremonial sense or partly as medicine and partly as a symbol of divine healing. The very word \aleiph“\ can be translated rub or anoint without any ceremony. "Traces of a ritual use of the unction of the sick appear first among Gnostic practices of the second century" (Swete). We have today, as in the first century, God and medicine. God through nature does the real healing when we use medicine and the doctor.

rwp@Mark:6:34 @{They were as sheep not having a shepherd} (\ˆsan h“s probata mˆ echonta poimena\). Matthew has these words in another context (Matthew:9:26|), but Mark alone has them here. \Mˆ\ is the usual negative for the participle in the _Koin‚_. These excited and exciting people (Bruce) greatly needed teaching. strkjv@Matthew:14:14| mentions healing as does strkjv@Luke:9:11| (both preaching and healing). But a vigorous crowd of runners would not have many sick. The people had plenty of official leaders but these rabbis were for spiritual matters blind leaders of the blind. Jesus had come over for rest, but his heart was touched by the pathos of this situation. Songs:"he began to teach them many things" (\ˆrxato didaskein autous polla\). Two accusatives with the verb of teaching and the present tense of the infinitive. He kept it up.

rwp@Mark:7:13 @{Making void the word of God by your tradition} (\akurountes ton logon tou theou tˆi paradosei hum“n\). See on ¯Matthew:15:6| for the word \akurountes\, invalidating, a stronger word than \athetein\, to set aside, in verse 9|. See both used in strkjv@Galatians:3:15,17|. Setting aside does invalidate.

rwp@Mark:7:19 @{Making all meats clean} (\kathariz“n panta ta br“mata\). This anacoluthon can be understood by repeating {he says} (\legei\) from verse 18|. The masculine participle agrees with Jesus, the speaker. The words do not come from Jesus, but are added by Mark. Peter reports this item to Mark, probably with a vivid recollection of his own experience on the housetop in Joppa when in the vision Peter declined three times the Lord's invitation to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts:10:14-16|). It was a riddle to Peter as late as that day. "Christ asserts that _Levitical_ uncleanness, such as eating with unwashed hands, is of small importance compared with _moral_ uncleanness" (Vincent). The two chief words in both incidents, here and in Acts, are {defile} (\koino“\) and {cleanse} (\kathariz“\). "What God cleansed do not thou treat as defiled" (Acts:10:15|). It was a revolutionary declaration by Jesus and Peter was slow to understand it even after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus was amply justified in his astonished question: {Perceive ye not?} (\ou noeite;\). They were making little use of their intelligence in trying to comprehend the efforts of Jesus to give them a new and true spiritual insight.

rwp@Mark:8:1 @{Had nothing to eat} (\mˆ echont“n ti phag“sin\). Genitive absolute and plural because \ochlou\ a collective substantive. Not having what to eat (deliberative subjunctive retained in indirect question). The repetition of a nature miracle of feeding four thousand in Decapolis disturbs some modern critics who cannot imagine how Jesus could or would perform another miracle elsewhere so similar to the feeding of the five thousand up near Bethsaida Julias. But both Mark and Matthew give both miracles, distinguish the words for baskets (\kophinos, sphuris\), and both make Jesus later refer to both incidents and use these two words with the same distinction (Mark:8:19f.; strkjv@Matthew:16:9f.|). Surely it is easier to conceive that Jesus wrought two such miracles than to hold that Mark and Matthew have made such a jumble of the whole business.

rwp@Mark:8:10 @{Into the parts of Dalmanutha} (\eis ta merˆ Dalmanoutha\). strkjv@Matthew:15:39| calls it "the borders of Magadan." Both names are unknown elsewhere, but apparently the same region of Galilee on the western side of the lake not far from Tiberias. Mark here uses "parts" (\merˆ\) in the same sense as "borders" (\horia\) in strkjv@7:24| just as Matthew reverses it with "parts" in strkjv@Matthew:15:21| and "borders" here in strkjv@Matthew:15:39|. Mark has here "with his disciples" (\meta t“n mathˆt“n autou\) only implied in strkjv@Matthew:15:39|.

rwp@Mark:8:17 @Mark here (vv. 17-20|) gives six keen questions of Jesus while strkjv@Matthew:16:8-11| gives as four that really include the six of Mark running some together. The questions reveal the disappointment of Jesus at the intellectual dulness of his pupils. The questions concern the intellect (\noeite\, from \nous, suniete\, comprehend), the heart in a {hardened state} (\pep“r“menˆn\, perfect passive predicate participle as in strkjv@Mark:6:52|, which see), the eyes, the ears, the memory of both the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand here sharply distinguished even to the two kinds of baskets (\kophinous, sphurid“n\). The disciples did recall the number of baskets left over in each instance, twelve and seven. Jesus "administers a sharp rebuke for their preoccupation with mere temporalities, as if there were nothing higher to be thought of _than bread_" (Bruce). "For the time the Twelve are way-side hearers, with hearts like a beaten path, into which the higher truths cannot sink so as to germinate" (Bruce).

rwp@Mark:9:4 @{Elijah with Moses} (\Eleias sun M“usei\). Matthew and Luke have "Moses and Elijah." Both, as a matter of fact were prophets and both dealt with law. Both had mysterious deaths. The other order in strkjv@Mark:9:5|.

rwp@Mark:9:20 @{Tare him grievously} (\sunesparaxen auton\). strkjv@Luke:9:42| has both \errˆxen\ (dashed down, like strkjv@Mark:9:18|, \rˆssei\) and \sunesparaxen\ (convulsed). This compound with \sun-\ (together with), strengthens the force of the verb as in \sunpnig“\ (Mark:4:7|) and \suntˆre“\ (6:20|). The only other instance of this compound verb known is in Maximus Tyrius (second century B.C.). {Wallowed} (\ekulieto\). Imperfect passive, was rolled. A pitiful sight. Late form of the old \kulind“\.

rwp@Mark:9:40 @{He that is not against us is with us} (\hos ouk estin kath' hˆm“n huper hˆm“n estin\). This profound saying throws a flood of light in every direction. The complement of this logion is that in strkjv@Matthew:12:30|: "He that is not with me is against me." Both are needed. Some people imagine that they are really for Christ who refuse to take a stand in the open with him and for him.

rwp@Matthew:6:13 @{And bring us not into temptation} (\kai mˆ eisenegkˆis eis peirasmon\). "Bring" or "lead" bothers many people. It seems to present God as an active agent in subjecting us to temptation, a thing specifically denied in strkjv@James:1:13|. The word here translated "temptation" (\peirasmon\) means originally "trial" or "test" as in strkjv@James:1:2| and Vincent so takes it here. _Braid Scots_ has it: "And lat us no be siftit." But God does test or sift us, though he does not tempt us to evil. No one understood temptation so well as Jesus for the devil tempted him by every avenue of approach to all kinds of sin, but without success. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus will say to Peter, James, and John: "Pray that ye enter not into temptation" (Luke:22:40|). That is the idea here. Here we have a "Permissive imperative" as grammarians term it. The idea is then: "Do not allow us to be led into temptation." There is a way out (1Corinthians:10:13|), but it is a terrible risk.

rwp@Matthew:6:19 @{Lay not up for yourselves treasures} (\mˆ thˆsaurizete humin thˆsaurous\). Do not have this habit (\mˆ\ and the present imperative). See on ¯Matthew:2:11| for the word "treasure." Here there is a play on the word, "treasure not for yourselves treasures." Same play in verse 20| with the cognate accusative. In both verses \humin\ is dative of personal interest and is not reflexive, but the ordinary personal pronoun. Wycliff has it: "Do not treasure to you treasures."

rwp@Matthew:6:24 @{No man can serve two masters} (\oudeis dunatai dusi kuriois douleuein\). Many try it, but failure awaits them all. Men even try "to be slaves to God and mammon" (\The“i douleuein kai mam“nƒi\). Mammon is a Chaldee, Syriac, and Punic word like _Plutus_ for the money-god (or devil). The slave of mammon will obey mammon while pretending to obey God. The United States has had a terrible revelation of the power of the money-god in public life in the Sinclair-Fall-Teapot-Air-Dome-Oil case. When the guide is blind and leads the blind, both fall into the ditch. The man who cannot tell road from ditch sees falsely as Ruskin shows in _Modern Painters_. He will hold to one (\henos anthexetai\). The word means to line up face to face (\anti\) with one man and so against the other.

rwp@Matthew:6:25 @Vincent quotes Bacon (Henry VII): "Harris, an alderman of London, was put in trouble and died with thought and anguish." But words change with time and now this passage is actually quoted (Lightfoot) "as an objection to the moral teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, on the ground that it encouraged, nay, commanded, a reckless neglect of the future." We have narrowed the word to mere planning without any notion of anxiety which is in the Greek word. The verb \merimna“\ is from \meris, meriz“\, because care or anxiety distracts and divides. It occurs in Christ's rebuke to Martha for her excessive solicitude about something to eat (Luke:10:41|). The notion of proper care and forethought appears in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:32; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@Phillipians:2:20|. It is here the present imperative with the negative, a command not to have the habit of petulant worry about food and clothing, a source of anxiety to many housewives, a word for women especially as the command not to worship mammon may be called a word for men. The command can mean that they must stop such worry if already indulging in it. In verse 31| Jesus repeats the prohibition with the ingressive aorist subjunctive: "Do not become anxious," "Do not grow anxious." Here the direct question with the deliberative subjunctive occurs with each verb (\phag“men, pi“men, peribal“metha\). This deliberative subjunctive of the direct question is retained in the indirect question employed in verse 25|. A different verb for clothing occurs, both in the indirect middle (\peribal“metha\, fling round ourselves in 31|, \endusˆsthe\, put on yourselves in 25|).

rwp@Matthew:7:29 @{And not as their scribes} (\kai ouch h“s hoi grammateis aut“n\). They had heard many sermons before from the regular rabbis in the synagogues. We have specimens of these discourses preserved in the Mishna and Gemara, the Jewish Talmud when both were completed, the driest, dullest collection of disjounted comments upon every conceivable problem in the history of mankind. The scribes quoted the rabbis before them and were afraid to express an idea without bolstering it up by some predecessor. Jesus spoke with the authority of truth, the reality and freshness of the morning light, and the power of God's Spirit. This sermon which made such a profound impression ended with the tragedy of the fall of the house on the sand like the crash of a giant oak in the forest. There was no smoothing over the outcome.

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

rwp@Matthew:16:26 @{Gain} (\kerdˆsˆi\) and {profit} (\zˆmi“thˆi\). Both aorist subjunctives (one active, the other passive) and so punctiliar action, condition of third class, undetermined, but with prospect of determination. Just a supposed case. The verb for "forfeit" occurs in the sense of being fined or mulcted of money. Songs:the papyri and inscriptions. {Exchange} (\antallagma\). As an exchange, accusative in apposition with \ti\. The soul has no market price, though the devil thinks so. "A man must give, surrender, his life, and nothing less to God; no \antallagma\ is possible" (McNeile). This word \antallagma\ occurs twice in the _Wisdom of Sirach_: "There is no exchange for a faithful friend" (6:15); "There is no exchange for a well-instructed soul" (26:14).

rwp@Matthew:17:2 @{He was transfigured before them} (\metemorph“thˆ emprosthen aut“n\). The word is the same as the metamorphoses (cf. Ovid) of pagan mythology. Luke does not use it. The idea is change (\meta-\) of form (\morphˆ\). It really presents the essence of a thing as separate from the \schˆma\ (fashion), the outward accident. Songs:in strkjv@Romans:12:2| Paul uses both verbs, \sunschematizesthe\ (be not fashioned) and \metamorphousthe\ (be ye transformed in your inner life). Songs:in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:31| \schˆma\ is used for the fashion of the world while in strkjv@Mark:16:12| \morphˆ\ is used of the form of Jesus after his resurrection. The false apostles are described by \metaschˆmatisomai\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13-15|. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| we have \en morphˆi\ used of the Preincarnate state of Christ and \morphˆn doulou\ of the Incarnate state (Phillipians:2:7|), while \schˆmati h“s anthr“pos\ emphasizes his being found "in fashion as a man." But it will not do in strkjv@Matthew:17:2| to use the English transliteration \metamorph“sis\ because of its pagan associations. Songs:the Latin _transfigured_ (Vulgate _transfiguratus est_) is better. "The deeper force of \metamorphousthai\ is seen in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18| (with reference to the shining on Moses' face), strkjv@Romans:12:2|" (McNeile). The word occurs in a second-century papyrus of the pagan gods who are invisible. Matthew guards against the pagan idea by adding and explaining about the face of Christ "as the sun" and his garments "as the light."

rwp@Matthew:17:3 @{There appeared} (\“phthˆ\). Singular aorist passive verb with Moses (to be understood also with Elijah), but the participle \sunlalountes\ is plural agreeing with both. "Sufficient objectivity is guaranteed by the vision being enjoyed by all three" (Bruce). The Jewish apocalypses reveal popular expectations that Moses and Elijah would reappear. Both had mystery connected with their deaths. One represented law, the other prophecy, while Jesus represented the gospel (grace). They spoke of his decease (Luke:9:31|), the cross, the theme uppermost in the mind of Christ and which the disciples did not comprehend. Jesus needed comfort and he gets it from fellowship with Moses and Elijah.

rwp@Matthew:18:2 @{Called to him} (\proskalesamenos\). Indirect middle voice aorist participle. It may even be Peter's "little child" (\paidion\) as it was probably in Peter's house (Mark:9:33|). {Set him} (\estˆsen\). Transitive first aorist active indicative, not intransitive second aorist, \estˆ\. {In the midst of them} (\en mes“i aut“n\). Luke adds (Luke:9:47|) "by his side" (\par' heaut“i\). Both are true.

rwp@Matthew:20:29 @{From Jericho} (\apo Iereich“\). Songs:Mark:10:46|. But Luke (Luke:18:35|) places the incident as they were drawing near to Jericho (\eis Iereich“\). It is probable that Mark and Matthew refer to the old Jericho, the ruins of which have been discovered, while Luke alludes to the new Roman Jericho. The two blind men were apparently between the two towns. Mark (Mark:10:46|) and Luke (Luke:18:35|) mention only one blind man, Bartimaeus (Mark). In Kentucky there are two towns about a half mile apart both called Pleasureville (one Old Pleasureville, the other New Pleasureville).

rwp@Matthew:21:1 @{Unto Bethphage} (\eis Bethphagˆ\). An indeclinable Aramaic name here only in O.T. or N.T. (Mark:11:1; strkjv@Luke:19:29|). It means "house of unripe young figs." It apparently lay on the eastern slope of Olivet or at the foot of the mountain, a little further from Jerusalem than Bethany. Both Mark and Luke speak of Christ's coming "unto Bethphage and Bethany" as if Bethphage was reached first. It is apparently larger than Bethany. {Unto the Mount of Olives} (\eis to oros t“n Elai“n\). Matthew has thus three instances of \eis\ with Jerusalem, Mount of Olives. Mark and Luke use \pros\ with Mount of Olives, the Mount of Olive trees (\elai“n\ from \elaia\, olive tree), the mountain covered with olive trees.

rwp@Matthew:22:3 @{To call them that were bidden} (\kalesai tous keklˆmenous\). "Perhaps an unconscious play on the words, lost in both A.V. and Rev., {to call the called}" (Vincent). It was a Jewish custom to invite a second time the already invited (Esther:5:8; strkjv@6:14|). The prophets of old had given God's invitation to the Jewish people. Now the Baptist and Jesus had given the second invitation that the feast was ready. {And they would not come} (\kai ouk ˆthelon elthein\). This negative imperfect characterizes the stubborn refusal of the Jewish leaders to accept Jesus as God's Son (John:1:11|). This is "The Hebrew Tragedy" (Conder).

rwp@Matthew:22:4 @{My dinner} (\to ariston mou\). It is breakfast, not dinner. In strkjv@Luke:14:12| both \ariston\ (breakfast) and \deipnon\ (dinner) are used. This noon or midday meal, like the French breakfast at noon, was sometimes called \deipnon mesˆmbrinon\ (midday dinner or luncheon). The regular dinner (\deipnon\) came in the evening. The confusion arose from applying \ariston\ to the early morning meal and then to the noon meal (some not eating an earlier meal). In strkjv@John:21:12,15| \arista“\ is used of the early morning meal, "Break your fast" (\aristˆsate\). When \ariston\ was applied to luncheon, like the Latin _prandium_, \akratisma\ was the term for the early breakfast. {My fatlings} (\ta sitista\). Verbal from \sitiz“\, to feed with wheat or other grain, to fatten. Fed-up or fatted animals.

rwp@Matthew:23:24 @{Strain out the gnat} (\diulizontes ton k“n“pa\). By filtering through (\dia\), not the "straining at" in swallowing so crudely suggested by the misprint in the A.V. {Swallow the camel} (\tˆn de kamˆlon katapinontes\). Gulping or drinking down the camel. An oriental hyperbole like that in strkjv@19:24|. See also strkjv@5:29,30; strkjv@17:20; strkjv@21:21|. Both insects and camels were ceremonially unclean (Leviticus:11:4,20,23,42|). "He that kills a flea on the Sabbath is as guilty as if he killed a camel" (Jer. _Shabb._ 107).

rwp@Matthew:23:25 @{From extortion and excess} (\ex harpagˆs kai akrasias\). A much more serious accusation. These punctilious observers of the external ceremonies did not hesitate at robbery (\harpages\) and graft (\akrasias\), lack of control. A modern picture of wickedness in high places both civil and ecclesiastical where the moral elements in life are ruthlessly trodden under foot. Of course, the idea is for both the outside \ektos\ and the inside (\entos\) of the cup and the platter (fine side dish). But the inside is the more important. Note the change to singular in verse 26| as if Jesus in a friendlier tone pleads with a Pharisee to mend his ways.

rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathˆmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ai“nos\) or consummation of the age. In a painting the artist by skilful perspective may give on the same surface the inside of a room, the fields outside the window, and the sky far beyond. Certainly in this discourse Jesus blends in apocalyptic language the background of his death on the cross, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, his own second coming and the end of the world. He now touches one, now the other. It is not easy for us to separate clearly the various items. It is enough if we get the picture as a whole as it is here drawn with its lessons of warning to be ready for his coming and the end. The destruction of Jerusalem came as he foretold. There are some who would date the Synoptic Gospels after A.D. 70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).

rwp@Revelation:6:8 @{A pale horse} (\hippos chl“ros\). Old adjective. Contracted from \chloeros\ (from \chloˆ\, tender green grass) used of green grass (Mark:6:39; strkjv@Revelation:8:7; strkjv@9:4|), here for yellowish, common in both senses in old Greek, though here only in N.T. in this sense, greenish yellow. We speak of a sorrel horse, never of a green horse. Zechariah (Zechariah:6:3|) uses \poikilos\ (grizzled or variegated). Homer used \chl“ros\ of the ashen colour of a face blanched by fear (pallid) and so the pale horse is a symbol of death and of terror. {His name was Death} (\onoma aut“i ho thanatos\). Anacoluthon in grammatical structure like that in strkjv@John:3:1| (cf. strkjv@Revelation:2:26|) and common enough. Death is the name of this fourth rider (so personified) and there is with Death "his inseparable comrade, Hades (1:16; strkjv@20:13f.|)" (Swete). Hades (\hƒidˆs\, alpha privative, and \idein\, to see, the unseen) is the abode of the dead, the keys of which Christ holds (Revelation:1:18|). {Followed} (\ˆkolouthei\). Imperfect active of \akolouthe“\, kept step with death, whether on the same horse or on another horse by his side or on foot John does not say. {Over the fourth part of the earth} (\epi to tetarton tˆs gˆs\). Partitive genitive \gˆs\ after \tetarton\. Wider authority (\exousia\) was given to this rider than to the others, though what part of the earth is included in the fourth part is not indicated. {To kill} (\apokteinai\). First aorist active infinitive of \apoktein“\, explanation of the \exousia\ (authority). The four scourges of strkjv@Ezekiel:14:21| are here reproduced with instrumental \en\ with the inanimate things (\romphaiƒi, lim“i thanat“i\) and \hupo\ for the beasts (\thˆri“n\). Death here (\thanat“i\) seems to mean pestilence as the Hebrew does (\loimos\ -- cf. \limos\ famine). Cf. the "black death" for a plague.

rwp@Revelation:9:9 @{As it were breastplates of iron} (\h“s th“rakas siderous\). The \th“rax\ was originally the breast (from the neck to the navel), then the breastplate, only N.T. usage (Revelation:9:9,17; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:8; strkjv@Ephesians:6:14|). The armour for the breastplate was usually of iron (\siderous\, strkjv@Revelation:2:27|), but with the locusts it only seemed to be so (\h“s\). However, the scaly backs and flanks of the locusts do resemble coats of mail. "The locusts of the Abyss may be the memories of the past brought home at times of Divine visitation" (Swete). {The sound of their wings} (\hˆ ph“nˆ t“n pterug“n\). Graphic picture of the onrush of the swarms of demonic locusts and the hopelessness of resisting them. {As the sound of chariots, of many horses rushing to war} (\h“s ph“nˆ harmat“n hipp“n poll“n trechont“n eis polemon\). Both metaphors here, the clatter and clangour of the chariot wheels and the prancing of the horses are found in strkjv@Joel:2:4f|. \Trechont“n\ is present active predicate participle of \trech“\, to run. Cf. strkjv@2Kings:7:6; strkjv@Jeremiah:47:3|.

rwp@Revelation:9:11 @{As king} (\basilea\). Predicate accusative and anarthrous. In strkjv@Proverbs:30:27| it is stated that the locust has no king, but this is not true of these demonic locusts. Their king is "the angel of the abyss (verse 1|) whose orders they obey." {His name is} (\onoma aut“i\). "Name to him" (nominative absolute and dative, as in strkjv@6:8|). {In Hebrew} (\Ebraisti\). Adverb as in strkjv@16:16; strkjv@John:5:2; strkjv@19:13,17,20; strkjv@20:16|. \Abadd“n\. A word almost confined to the Wisdom books (Job:26:6; strkjv@Psalms:88:11; strkjv@Proverbs:15:11|). It is rendered in the LXX by \Ap“leia\, destruction. {In the Greek tongue} (\en tˆi Hellˆnikˆi\). With \gl“ssˆi\ or \dialekt“i\ understood. As usual, John gives both the Hebrew and the Greek. {Apollyon} (\Apollu“n\). Present active masculine singular participle of \apollu“\, meaning "destroying," used here as a name and so "Destroyer," with the nominative case retained though in apposition with the accusative \onoma\. The personification of Abaddon occurs in the Talmud also. It is not clear whether by Apollyon John means Death or Satan. Bousset even finds in the name Apollyon an indirect allusion to Apollo, one of whose symbols was the locust, a doubtful point assuredly.

rwp@Revelation:9:13 @{A voice} (\ph“nˆn mian\). For \mian\ as indefinite article see strkjv@8:13|. Accusative case here after \ˆkousa\, though genitive in strkjv@8:13|, a distinction between sound and sense sometimes exists (Acts:9:7; strkjv@22:9|), but not here as the words are clearly heard in both instances. {From} (\ek\). "Out of the horns." Note triple use of the genitive article here as of the accusative article with this identical phrase in strkjv@8:3| ("the altar the golden the one before the throne").

rwp@Revelation:9:14 @{One saying to the sixth angel} (\legonta t“i hekt“i\). Accusative masculine singular active participle of \leg“\, personifying \ph“nˆn\ and agreeing with it in case, though not in gender. This voice speaks to the sixth angel (dative case). {Which had the trumpet} (\ho ech“n tˆn salpigga\). Nominative case in apposition with \aggel“i\ (dative), the same anomalous phenomenon in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:12; strkjv@14:12|. Swete treats it as a parenthesis, like strkjv@4:1; strkjv@11:15|. {Loose} (\luson\). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative of \lu“\, "let loose." Another group of four angels (7:1|) like strkjv@Acts:12:4|, described here "which are bound" (\tous dedemenous\). Perfect passive articular participle of \de“\, evidently the leaders of the demonic horsemen (9:15ff.|) as the four angels let loose the demonic locusts (7:1ff.|), both quaternions agents of God's wrath. {At the great river Euphrates} (\epi t“i potam“i t“i megal“i Euphratˆi\). A regular epithet of the Euphrates (16:12; strkjv@Genesis:15:18; strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:7|). It rises in Armenia and joins the Tigris in lower Babylonia, a total length of nearly 1800 miles, the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire next to Parthia.

rwp@Revelation:9:17 @{And thus I saw in the vision} (\kai hout“s eidon en tˆi horasei\). Nowhere else does John allude to his own vision, though often in Dan. (Daniel:7:2; strkjv@8:2,15; strkjv@9:21|). {Having} (\echontas\). Accusative masculine plural of \ech“\, probably referring to the riders (\tous kathˆmenous ep' aut“n\) rather than to the horses (\tous hippous\). {Breastplates as of fire and of hyacinth and of brimstone} (\th“rakas purinous kai huakinthinous kai thei“deis\). There is no \h“s\ (as) in the Greek, but that is the idea of these three adjectives which are only metaphors. \Purinos\ is an old adjective (from \pur\, fire), here only in N.T. \Huakinthos\ is also an old word (from \huakinthos\, hyacinth, then of a sapphire stone strkjv@Revelation:21:20|), of a red color bordering on black, here only in the N.T. \Thei“dˆs\ is a late word (from \theion\, brimstone), sulphurous, here only in N.T. {As the heads of lions} (\h“s kephalai leont“n\). This of the horses, war-horses as always in the Bible except in strkjv@Isaiah:28:28|. These horses likewise have "fire and smoke and brimstone" (\theion\, brimstone, is old word, in N.T. only in Rev. and strkjv@Luke:17:29|) proceeding (\ekporeuetai\, singular because it comes first and the subjects afterwards) out of their mouths. Both rider and horse are terrible.

rwp@Revelation:12:9 @{Was cast down} (\eblˆthˆ\). Effective first aorist passive indicative of \ball“\, cast down for good and all, a glorious consummation. This vision of final victory over Satan is given by Jesus in strkjv@Luke:10:18; strkjv@John:12:31|. It has not come yet, but it is coming, and the hope of it should be a spur to missionary activity and zeal. The word megas (great) occurs here with \drak“n\ as in strkjv@12:3|, and the whole picture is repeated in strkjv@20:2|. The dragon in both places is identified with the old serpent (Genesis:3:1ff.|) and called \archaios\ (from \archˆ\, beginning), as Jesus said that the devil was a murderer "from the beginning" (John:8:44|). Both \diabolos\ (slanderer) and Satan (\Satanƒs\) are common in N.T. for this great dragon and old serpent, the chief enemy of mankind. See on ¯Matthew:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:2:10| for \diabolos\ and strkjv@Luke:10:18| for \Satanƒs\. {The deceiver of the whole world} (\ho plan“n tˆn oikoumenˆn holˆn\). This is his aim and his occupation, pictured here by the nominative articular present active participle of \plana“\, to lead astray. For "the inhabited world" see strkjv@Luke:2:1; strkjv@Revelation:3:10; strkjv@16:14|. Satan can almost "lead astray" the very elect of God (Matthew:24:24|), so artful is he in his beguilings as he teaches us how to deceive ourselves (1John:1:8|). {He was cast down to the earth} (\eblˆthˆ eis tˆn gˆn\). Effective aorist repeated from the beginning of the verse. "The earth was no new sphere of Satan's working" (Swete). {Were cast down} (\eblˆthˆsan\). Triple use of the same verb applied to Satan's minions. The expulsion is complete.

rwp@Revelation:12:11 @{They overcame him} (\autoi enikˆsan\). First aorist active indicative of \nika“\, the verb used by Jesus of his own victory (John:16:33|) and about him (Revelation:3:21; strkjv@5:5|). "The victory of the martyrs marks the failure of Satan's endeavours" (Swete). {Because of the blood of the Lamb} (\dia to haima tou arniou\). As in strkjv@1:5; strkjv@5:6,9; strkjv@7:14|. The blood of Christ is here presented by \dia\ as the ground for the victory and not the means, as by \en\ in strkjv@1:5; strkjv@5:9|. Both ideas are true, but \dia\ with the accusative gives only the reason. The blood of Christ does cleanse us from sin (John:1:29; strkjv@1John:1:7|). Christ conquered Satan, and so makes our victory possible (Luke:11:21f.; strkjv@Hebrews:2:18|). "Thus the Lamb is the true \sunˆgoros\ (like Michael) of the New Israel, its \paraklˆtos pros ton patera\ (1John:2:1|)" (Swete). {Because of the Word of their testimony} (\dia ton logon tˆs marturias aut“n\). The same use of \dia\, "because of their testimony to Jesus" as in John's own case in strkjv@1:9|. These martyrs have been true to their part. {They loved not their life even unto death} (\ouk ˆgapˆsan ten psuchˆn aut“n achri thanatou\). First aorist active indicative of \agapa“\. They did resist "unto blood" (\mechris haimatos\ strkjv@Hebrews:12:4|) and did not put their own lives before loyalty to Christ. There is a direct reference to the words of Jesus in strkjv@John:12:25| as illustrated also in strkjv@Mark:8:35; strkjv@Matthew:10:39; strkjv@16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24; strkjv@17:33|. Paul's own example is pertinent (Acts:21:13; strkjv@Phillipians:1:20ff.|). Jesus himself had been "obedient unto death" (Phillipians:2:8|). These martyrs seem to be still alive on earth, but their heroism is proleptically pictured.

rwp@Revelation:16:5 @{The angel of the waters} (\tou aggelou ton hudat“n\). Genitive case object of \ˆkousa\. See strkjv@7:1| for the four angels in control of the winds and strkjv@14:18| for the angel with power over fire. The rabbis spoke also of an angel with power over the earth and another over the sea. {Which art and which wast} (\ho “n kai ho ˆn\). See this peculiar idiom for God's eternity with \ho\ as relative before \ˆn\ in strkjv@1:4,8; strkjv@4:8|, but without \ho erchomenos\ (the coming on, the one who is to be) there for the future as in strkjv@11:17|. {Thou Holy One} (\ho hosios\). Nominative form, but vocative case, as often. Note both \dikaios\ and \hosios\ applied to God as in strkjv@3:1; strkjv@15:3f|. {Because thou didst thus judge} (\hoti tauta ekrinas\). Reason for calling God \dikaios\ and \hosios\. The punishment on the waters is deserved. First aorist active indicative of \krin“\, to judge.

rwp@Revelation:16:19 @{Was divided into three parts} (\egeneto eis tria merˆ\). "Came into three parts" (\ginomai\ again). In strkjv@11:3| a tenth part of the city fell. Babylon (Rome) is meant (17:18|). {Fell} (\epesan\). Second aorist active indicative of \pipt“\ (\-an\ form in place of \-on\). {Was remembered} (\emnˆsthˆ\). First aorist (prophetic) passive indicative of \mimnˆsk“\. Babylon (Rome) had not been overlooked. God was simply biding his time with Rome. {To give unto her} (\dounai autˆi\). Second aorist active infinitive of \did“mi\, epexegetic use as in strkjv@11:18; strkjv@16:9|. {The cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath} (\to potˆrion tou oinou tou thumou tˆs orgˆs autou\). "The cup of the wine of the wrath of his anger," using both \thumos\ (boiling rage) and \orgˆ\ (settled anger). See both in strkjv@Jeremiah:30:24|.

rwp@Romans:11:26 @{And so} (\kai hout“s\). By the complement of the Gentiles stirring up the complement of the Jews (verses 11f.|). {All Israel} (\pƒs Israˆl\). What does Paul mean? The immediate context (use of \pƒs\ in contrast with \apo merous, plˆr“ma\ here in contrast with \plˆr“ma\ in verse 12|) argues for the Jewish people "as a whole." But the spiritual Israel (both Jews and Gentiles) may be his idea in accord with strkjv@9:6| (Galatians:6:16|) as the climax of the argument. At any rate we should strive for and pray for the conversion of Jews as a whole. Paul here quotes from strkjv@Isaiah:59:20f.; strkjv@27:9|. {The Deliverer} (\ho ruomenos\). Present middle articular participle of \ruomai\, to rescue, to deliver. See on ¯1Thessalonians:1:10; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:10|. The Hebrew _Goel_, the Avenger, the Messiah, the Redeemer (Deuteronomy:25:5-10; strkjv@Job:19:25; strkjv@Ruth:3:12f.|). Paul interprets it of Jesus as Messiah.

rwp@Romans:11:32 @{Hath shut up} (\sunekleisen\). First aorist active indicative of \sunklei“\, to shut together like a net (Luke:5:6|). See strkjv@Galatians:3:22| for this word with \hupo hamartian\ (under sin). This is a resultant (effective) aorist because of the disbelief and disobedience of both Gentile (1:17-32|) and Jew (2:1-3:20|). {All} (\tous pantas\). "The all" (both Gentiles and Jews). {That he might have mercy} (\hina--eleˆsˆi\). Purpose with \hina\ and aorist active subjunctive. No merit in anyone, but all of grace. "The all" again, who receive God's mercy, not that "all" men are saved.

rwp@Romans:11:35 @{First driven to him} (\proed“ken aut“i\). First aorist active indicative of \prodid“mi\, to give beforehand or first. Old verb, here alone in N.T. From strkjv@Job:41:11|, but not like the LXX, Paul's own translation. {Shall be recompensed} (\antapodothˆsetai\). First future passive of double compound \antapodid“mi\, to pay back (both \anti\ and \apo\), old word in good sense, as here and strkjv@Luke:14:14; strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:9| and in bad sense as strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:6; strkjv@Romans:12:19|.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 2 22:58:13 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020