OT-POET.filter - rwp Harp:

rwp@1Corinthians:5:10 @{Not altogether} (\ou pants\). Not absolutely, not in all circumstances. Paul thus puts a limitation on his prohibition and confines it to members of the church. He has no jurisdiction over the outsiders (this world, \tou kosmou toutou\). {The covetous} (\tois pleonektais\). Old word for the over-reachers, those avaricious for more and more (\pleon, ech\, to have more). In N.T. only here, strkjv@6:10; strkjv@Ephesians:5:5|. It always comes in bad company (the licentious and the idolaters) like the modern gangsters who form a combination of liquor, lewdness, lawlessness for money and power. {Extortioners} (\harpaxin\). An old adjective with only one gender, rapacious (Matthew:7:15; strkjv@Luke:18:11|), and as a substantive robber or extortioner (here and strkjv@6:10|). Bandits, hijackers, grafters they would be called today. {Idolaters} (\eidlolatrais\). Late word for hirelings (\latris\) of the idols (\eidlon\), so our very word idolater. See strkjv@6:9; strkjv@10:7; strkjv@Ephesians:5:5; strkjv@Revelation:21:8; strkjv@22:15|. Nageli regards this word as a Christian formation. {For then must ye needs} (\epei pheilete oun\). This neat Greek idiom of \epei\ with the imperfect indicative (\pheilete\, from \opheil\, to be under obligation) is really the conclusion of a second-class condition with the condition unexpressed (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 965). Sometimes \an\ is used also as in strkjv@Hebrews:10:2|, but with verbs of obligation or necessity \an\ is usually absent as here (cf. strkjv@Hebrews:9:20|). The unexpressed condition here would be, "if that were true" (including fornicators, the covetous, extortioners, idolaters of the outside world). \Ara\ means in that case.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:3 @{How much more, things that pertain to this life?} (\Mti ge bitika;\). The question expects the answer no and \ge\ adds sharp point to Paul's surprised tone, "Need I so much as say?" It can be understood also as ellipsis, "let me not say" (\mtige leg\), not to say. \Bitika\ occurs first in Aristotle, but is common afterwards. In the papyri it is used of business matters. It is from \bios\ (manner of life in contrast to \z\, life principle).

rwp@1Corinthians:6:5 @{I say this to move you to shame} (\pros entropn humin leg\). Old word \entrop\ from \entrep\, to turn in (1Corinthians:4:14| which see). In N.T. only here and strkjv@15:34|. {One wise man} (\sophos\). From sarcasm to pathos Paul turns. {Does there not exist} (\eni\, short form for \enesti\)? With double negative \ouk--oudeis\, expecting the answer yes. Surely {one} such man exists in the church. {Who} (\hos\). Almost consecutive in idea, of such wisdom that he will be able. {To decide between his brethren} (\diakrinai ana meson tou adelphou autou\). \Krinai\ is to judge or decide (first aorist active infinitive of \krin\ and \dia\ (two) carries on the idea of between. Then \ana meson\ makes it still plainer, in the midst as {arbitrator} between brother and brother like \ana meson emou kai sou\ (Genesis:23:15|). It is even so a condensed expression with part of it unexpressed (\ana meson kai tou adelphou autou\) between brother and his brother. The use of \adelphos\ has a sharp reflection on them for their going to heathen judges to settle disputes between brothers in Christ.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:3 @{Your sanctification} (\ho hagiasmos humn\). 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 ts 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:4:7 @{Not for uncleanness, but in sanctification} (\epi akatharsii all' en hagiasmi\). Sharp contrast made still sharper by the two prepositions \epi\ (on the basis of) and \en\ (in the sphere of). God has "called" us all for a decent sex life consonant with his aims and purposes. It was necessary for Paul to place this lofty ideal before the Thessalonian Christians living in a pagan world. It is equally important now.

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

rwp@2Corinthians:13:10 @{That I may not when present deal sharply} (\hina parn apotoms chrsmai\). Late adverb from \apotomos\, curt, cut off. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:1:13|.

rwp@2John:1:7 @{Deceivers} (\planoi\). Late adjective (Diodorus, Josephus) meaning wandering, roving (1Timothy:4:1|). As a substantive in N.T. of Jesus (Matthew:27:63|), of Paul (2Corinthians:6:8|), and here. See the verb (\tn planontn hums\) in strkjv@1John:2:26| of the Gnostic deceivers as here and also of Jesus (John:7:12|). Cf. strkjv@1John:1:8|. {Are gone forth} (\exlthan\, alpha ending). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\, perhaps an allusion to the crisis when they left the churches (1John:2:19|, same form). {Even they that confess not} (\hoi m homologountes\). "The ones not confessing" (\m\ regular negative with the participle). The articular participle describes the deceivers (\planoi\). {That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh} (\Isoun Christon erchomenon en sarki\). "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of \erchomai\ treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In strkjv@1John:4:2| we have \elluthota\ (perfect active participle) in this same construction with \homologe\, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ. {This} (\houtos\). See strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@5:6,20|. {The deceiver and the antichrist} (\ho planos kai ho antichristos\). Article with each word, as in strkjv@Revelation:1:17|, to bring out sharply each separate phrase, though one individual is referred to. The one _par excellence_ in popular expectation (1John:2:22|), though many in reality (1John:2:18; strkjv@3John:1:7|).

rwp@Acts:21:5 @{That we had accomplished the days} (\exartisai hms tas hmeras\). 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 \hms\ 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} (\propempontn hms pantn 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} (\hes ex ts poles\). Note both adverbial prepositions (\hes ex\) clear outside of the city.

rwp@Acts:21:9 @{Virgins which did prophesy} (\parthenoi prophteusai\). Not necessarily an "order" of virgins, but Philip had the honour of having in his home four virgin daughters with the gift of prophecy which was not necessarily predicting events, though that was done as by Agabus here. It was more than ordinary preaching (cf. strkjv@19:6|) and was put by Paul above the other gifts like tongues (1Corinthians:14:1-33|). The prophecy of Joel (2:28f.|) about their sons and daughters prophesying is quoted by Peter and applied to the events on the day of Pentecost (Acts:2:17|). Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:5| gives directions about praying and prophesying by the women (apparently in public worship) with the head uncovered and sharply requires the head covering, though not forbidding the praying and prophesying. With this must be compared his demand for silence by the women in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:34-40; strkjv@1Timothy:2:8-15| which it is not easy to reconcile. One wonders if there was not something known to Paul about special conditions in Corinth and Ephesus that he has not told. There was also Anna the prophetess in the temple (Luke:2:36|) besides the inspired hymns of Elizabeth (Luke:1:42-45|) and of Mary (Luke:1:46-55|). At any rate there was no order of women prophets or official ministers. There were Old Testament prophetesses like Miriam, Deborah, Huldah. Today in our Sunday schools the women do most of the actual teaching. The whole problem is difficult and calls for restraint and reverence. One thing is certain and that is that Luke appreciated the services of women for Christ as is shown often in his writings (Luke:8:1-3|, for instance) before this incident.

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 tn 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 hetoims ech\). I hold (myself) in readiness (adverb, \hetoims\). Same idiom in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:14|. {Not only to be bound} (\ou monon dethnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \de\ and note \ou monon\ rather than \m 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 Isou\).

rwp@Acts:22:1 @{Brethren and fathers} (\Andres adelphoi kai pateres\) Men, brethren, and fathers. The very language used by Stephen (7:2|) when arraigned before the Sanhedrin with Paul then present. Now Paul faces a Jewish mob on the same charges brought against Stephen. These words are those of courtesy and dignity (_amoris et honoris nomina_, Page). These men were Paul's brother Jews and were (many of them) official representatives of the people (Sanhedrists, priests, rabbis). Paul's purpose is conciliatory, he employs "his ready tact" (Rackham). {The defence which I now make unto you} (\mou ts pros humas nuni apologias\). Literally, My defence to you at this time. \Nuni\ is a sharpened form (by \-i\) of \nun\ (now), just now. The term \apologia\ (apology) is not our use of the word for apologizing for an offence, but the original sense of defence for his conduct, his life. It is an old word from \apologeomai\, to talk oneself off a charge, to make defence. It occurs also in strkjv@Acts:25:16| and then also in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11; strkjv@Phillipians:1:7,16; strkjv@2Timothy:4:16; strkjv@1Peter:3:15|. Paul uses it again in strkjv@Acts:25:16| as here about his defence against the charges made by the Jews from Asia. He is suspected of being a renegade from the Mosaic law and charged with specific acts connected with the alleged profanation of the temple. Songs:Paul speaks in Aramaic and recites the actual facts connected with his change from Judaism to Christianity. The facts make the strongest argument. He first recounts the well-known story of his zeal for Judaism in the persecution of the Christians and shows why the change came. Then he gives a summary of his work among the Gentiles and why he came to Jerusalem this time. He answers the charge of enmity to the people and the law and of desecration of the temple. It is a speech of great skill and force, delivered under remarkable conditions. The one in chapter strkjv@Acts:26| covers some of the same ground, but for a slightly different purpose as we shall see. For a discussion of the three reports in Acts of Paul's conversion see chapter strkjv@Acts:9|. Luke has not been careful to make every detail correspond, though there is essential agreement in all three.

rwp@Acts:22:26 @{What art thou about to do?} (\Ti melleis poiein?\). On the point of doing, sharp warning.

rwp@Acts:23:10 @{When there arose a great dissension} (\polls ts ginomens stases\). Present middle participle (genitive absolute). Literally, "dissension becoming much." {Lest Paul should be torn in pieces by them} (\m diaspasthi ho Paulos\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \diaspa\, to draw in two, to tear in pieces, old verb, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:5:4| of tearing chains in two. The subjunctive with \m\ is the common construction after a verb of fearing (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 995). {The soldiers} (\to strateuma\). The army, the band of soldiers and so in verse 27|. {To go down} (\kataban\). Second aorist active participle of \katabain\, having gone down. {Take him by force} (\harpasai\). To seize. The soldiers were to seize and save Paul from the midst of (\ek mesou\) the rabbis or preachers (in their rage to get at each other). Paul was more of a puzzle to Lysias now than ever.

rwp@Acts:26:6 @{And now} (\kai nun\). Sharp comparison between his youth and the present. {To be judged for the hope} (\ep' elpidi--krinomenos\). The hope of the resurrection and of the promised Messiah (13:32|). Page calls verses 6-8| a parenthesis in the course of Paul's argument by which he shows that his life in Christ is a real development of the best in Pharisaism. He does resume his narrative in verse 9|, but verses 6-8| are the core of his defence already presented in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11| where he proves that the children of faith are the real seed of Abraham.

rwp@Ephesians:4:20 @{But ye did not so learn Christ} (\Humeis de ouch houts emathete ton Christon\). In sharp contrast to pagan life (\houts\). Second aorist active indicative of \manthan\.

rwp@Ephesians:5:5 @{Ye know of a surety} (\iste ginskontes\). The correct text has \iste\, not \este\. It is the same form for present indicative (second person plural) and imperative, probably indicative here, "ye know." But why \ginskontes\ added? Probably, "ye know recognizing by your own experience." {No} (\ps--ou\). Common idiom in the N.T. like the Hebrew= _oudeis_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 732). {Covetous man} (\pleonekts, pleon ech\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:5:10f.; strkjv@6:10|. {Which is} (\ho estin\). Songs:Aleph B. A D K L have \hos\ (who), but \ho\ is right. See strkjv@Colossians:3:14| for this use of \ho\ (which thing is). On \eidlolatrs\ (idolater) see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:10f|. {In the Kingdom of Christ and God} (\en ti basileii tou Christou kai theou\). Certainly the same kingdom and Paul may here mean to affirm the deity of Christ by the use of the one article with \Christou kai theou\. But Sharp's rule cannot be insisted on here because \theos\ is often definite without the article like a proper name. Paul did teach the deity of Christ and may do it here.

rwp@Galatians:6:18 @The farewell salutation is much briefer than that in strkjv@2Corinthians:13:13|, but identical with that in strkjv@Philemon:1:25|. He calls them "brethren" (\adelphoi\) in spite of the sharp things spoken to them.

rwp@Hebrews:1:2 @{At the end of these days} (\ep' eschatou tn hmern toutn\). In contrast with \palai\ above. {Hath spoken} (\elalsen\). First aorist indicative of \lale\, the same verb as above, "did speak" in a final and full revelation. {In his Son} (\en huii\). In sharp contrast to \en tois prophtais\. "The Old Testament slopes upward to Christ" (J. R. Sampey). No article or pronoun here with the preposition \en\, giving the absolute sense of "Son." Here the idea is not merely what Jesus said, but what he is (Dods), God's Son who reveals the Father (John:1:18|). "The revelation was a _son-revelation_" (Vincent). {Hath appointed} (\ethken\). First aorist (kappa aorist) active of \tithmi\, a timeless aorist. {Heir of all things} (\klronomon pantn\). See strkjv@Mark:12:6| for \ho klronomos\ in Christ's parable, perhaps an allusion here to this parable (Moffatt). The idea of sonship easily passes into that of heirship (Galatians:4:7; strkjv@Romans:8:17|). See the claim of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:11:27; strkjv@28:18| even before the Ascension. {Through whom} (\di' hou\). The Son as Heir is also the Intermediate Agent (\dia\) in the work of creation as we have it in strkjv@Colossians:1:16f.; strkjv@John:1:3|. {The worlds} (\tous ainas\). "The ages" (_secula_, Vulgate). See strkjv@11:3| also where \tous ainas=ton kosmon\ (the world) or the universe like \ta panta\ (the all things) in strkjv@1:3; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. The original sense of \ain\ (from \aei\, always) occurs in strkjv@Hebrews:5:20|, but here "by metonomy of the container for the contained" (Thayer) for "the worlds" (the universe) as in LXX, Philo, Josephus.

rwp@James:5:13 @{Is any suffering?} (\kakopathei tis;\). See verse 10| for \kakopathia\. The verb in N.T. occurs only here and in strkjv@2Timothy:2:3,9; strkjv@4:5|. The lively interrogative is common in the diatribe and suits the style of James. {Among you} (\en humin\). As in strkjv@3:13|. {Let him pray} (\proseuchesth\). Present middle imperative, "let him keep on praying" (instead of cursing as in verse 12|). {Is any cheerful} (\euthumei;\). Present active indicative of \euthume\, old verb from \euthumos\ (Acts:27:36|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:27:22,25|. {Let him sing praise} (\psallet\). Present active imperative of \psall\, originally to twang a chord as on a harp, to sing praise to God whether with instrument or without, in N.T. only here, strkjv@1Corinthians:14:15; strkjv@Romans:15:9; strkjv@Ephesians:5:19|. "Let him keep on making melody."

rwp@Info_John @ A PERSONAL WITNESS It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In strkjv@John:1:14| he plainly says that "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" (\etheasametha tn doxan autou\). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in strkjv@John:21:25| he employs the singular "I suppose" (\oimai\) in sharp dis- tinction from the plural "we know" (\oidamen\) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness (\marture, marturia\) so common in this Gospel (John:1:7,8,19; strkjv@3:11,26,33; strkjv@5:31; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@21:24|, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luke:1:1-4|). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark's Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John's Gospel claims to be the personal witness of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eye-witness in the vivid details.

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

rwp@John:1:19 @{And this is the witness of John} (\kai haut estin h marturia tou Ianou\). 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 ertssin auton\). Final \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \erta\, 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:5:34 @{But the witness which I receive} (\Eg de ou tn marturian lamban\). "But I do not receive the witness" simply from a man (like John). The \eg\ (I) in sharp contrast with \humeis\ (ye) of verse 33|. Jesus complained of Nicodemus for not accepting his witness (3:11|). Cf. also strkjv@3:32|. In strkjv@1John:5:9| the witness of God is greater than that of men and this Jesus has. {That ye may be saved} (\hina humeis sthte\). Final clause with \hina\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \sz\. This was the purpose of Christ's coming, that the world might be saved (3:17|).

rwp@John:6:15 @{Perceiving} (\gnous\). Second aorist active participle of \ginsk\. It was not hard for Christ to read the mind of this excited mob. {They were about} (\mellousin\). Present active indicative of \mell\. Probably the leaders were already starting. {Take him by force} (\harpazein\). Present active infinitive of \harpaz\, old verb for violent seizing (Matthew:11:12; strkjv@13:19|). There was a movement to start a revolution against Roman rule in Palestine by proclaiming Jesus King and driving away Pilate. {To make him king} (\hina poissin basilea\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \poie\ with \basilea\ as predicate accusative. It was a crisis that called for quick action. {Himself alone} (\autos monos\). At first he had the disciples with him (verse 3|). But he sent them hurriedly by boat to the western side (Mark:6:45f.; strkjv@Matthew:14:22f.|) because clearly the apostles were sympathetic with the revolutionary impulse of the crowd. Then Jesus sent the multitudes away also and went up into the mountain alone. He was alone in every sense, for no one but the Father understood him at this stage, not even his own disciples. He went up to pray (Mark:6:46; strkjv@Matthew:14:23|).

rwp@John:6:26 @{Not because ye saw signs} (\ouch hoti eidete smeia\). Second aorist active indicative of the defective verb \hora\. They had seen the "signs" wrought by Jesus (verse 2|), but this one had led to wild fanaticism (verse 14|) and complete failure to grasp the spiritual lessons. {But because ye ate of the loaves} (\all' hoti ephagete ek tn artn\). Second aorist active indicative of \esthi\, defective verb. {Ye were filled} (\echortasthte\). First aorist passive indicative of \chortaz\, from \chortos\ (grass) as in verse 10|, to eat grass, then to eat anything, to satisfy hunger. They were more concerned with hungry stomachs than with hungry souls. It was a sharp and deserved rebuke.

rwp@John:6:39 @{That of all that which} (\hina pn ho\). Literally, "That all which" (see verse 37| for \pan ho\), but there is a sharp anacoluthon with \pn\ left as _nominativus pendens_. {I should lose nothing} (\m apoles ex autou\). Construed with \hina\, "that I shall not lose anything of it." \Apoles\, from \apollumi\, can be either future active indicative or first aorist active subjunctive as is true also of \anasts\ (from \anistmi\), "I shall raise up." {At the last day} (\ti eschati hemeri\). Locative case without \en\. Only in John, but four times here (39,40,44,54|) "with the majesty of a solemn refrain." In strkjv@7:37| it is the last day of the feast of tabernacles, but in strkjv@11:24; strkjv@12:48| of the day of judgment as here. Christ is the Agent of the general resurrection in strkjv@5:28| as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:22| while here only the resurrection of the righteous is mentioned.

rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoisan oun auti 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 h Martha dikonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\polln 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} (\tn anakeimenn\). "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:12:25 @{Loseth it} (\apolluei autn\). The second paradox. Present active indicative of \apollu\. This great saying was spoken at various times as in strkjv@Mark:8:35| (Matthew:16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24|) and strkjv@Mark:10:39| (Luke:17:33|). See those passages for discussion of \psuch\ (life or soul). For "he that hateth his life" (\ho misn tn psuchn autou\) see the sharp contrasts in Luke strkjv@14:26-35| where \mise\ is used of father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, as well as one's own life. Clearly \mise\ means "hate" when the issue is between Christ and the dearest things of life as happens when the choice is between martyrdom and apostasy. In that case one keeps his soul for eternal life by losing his life (\psuch\, each time) here. That is the way to "guard" (\phulaxei\) life by being true to Christ. This is the second paradox to show Christ's philosophy of life.

rwp@Jude:1:23 @{And some save} (\hous de szete\). B omits \hous de\. {Snatching them out of the fire} (\ek puros harpazontes\). Present active participle of \harpaz\, old verb, to seize. Quotation from strkjv@Amos:4:11| and strkjv@Zechariah:3:3|. Cf. strkjv@Psalms:106:18|. Firemen today literally do this rescue work. Do Christians? {And on some have mercy with fear} (\hous de elete en phobi\). In fear "of the contagion of sin while we are rescuing them" (Vincent). For this idea see strkjv@1Peter:1:17; strkjv@3:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:1; strkjv@Phillipians:2:12|. {Spotted} (\espilmenon\). Perfect passive participle of \spilo\, late and common verb (from \spilos\, spot, strkjv@2Peter:2:13|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@James:3:6|.

rwp@Luke:7:31 @{And to what are they like?} (\kai tini eisin homoioi;\). This second question is not in strkjv@Matthew:11:16|. It sharpens the point. The case of \tini\ is associative instrumental after \homoioi\. See discussion of details in Matthew.

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

rwp@Luke:22:32 @{That thy faith fail not} (\hina m eklipi he pistis mou\). Second aorist active subjunctive of purpose with \hina\ after \edethn\ ({I prayed}) of \ekleip\, old verb. Our word _eclipse_ is this word. Evidently Jesus could not keep Satan from attacking Peter. He had already captured Judas. Did he not repeatedly attack Jesus? But he could and did pray for Peter's faith and his praying won in the end, though Peter stumbled and fell. {And do thou} (\kai su\). The words single out Peter sharply. {Once thou hast turned again} (\pote epistrepsas\). First aorist active participle of \epistreph\, common verb to turn to, to return. But the use of this word implied that Peter would fall though he would come back and "strengthen thy brethren."

rwp@Mark:7:8 @{Ye leave the commandment of God} (\aphentes tn entoln tou theou\). Note the sharp contrast between the command of God and the traditions of men. Jesus here drives a keen wedge into the Pharisaic contention. They had covered up the Word of God with their oral teaching. Jesus here shows that they care more for the oral teaching of the scribes and elders than for the written law of God. The Talmud gives abundant and specific confirmation of the truthfulness of this indictment.

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} (\peprmenn\, 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, sphuridn\). 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@Matthew:6:16 @{Of a sad countenance} (\skuthrpoi\). Only here and strkjv@Luke:24:17| in the N.T. It is a compound of \skuthros\ (sullen) and \ops\ (countenance). These actors or hypocrites "put on a gloomy look" (Goodspeed) and, if necessary, even "disfigure their faces" (\aphanizousin ta prospa autn\), that they may look like they are fasting. It is this pretence of piety that Jesus so sharply ridicules. There is a play on the Greek words \aphanizousi\ (disfigure) and \phansin\ (figure). They conceal their real looks that they may seem to be fasting, conscious and pretentious hypocrisy.

rwp@Matthew:7:1 @{Judge not} (\m krinete\). The habit of censoriousness, sharp, unjust criticism. Our word critic is from this very word. It means to separate, distinguish, discriminate. That is necessary, but pre-judice (prejudgment) is unfair, captious criticism.

rwp@Matthew:7:15 @{False prophets} (\tn pseudoprophtn\). There were false prophets in the time of the Old Testament prophets. Jesus will predict "false Messiahs and false prophets" (Matthew:24:24|) who will lead many astray. They came in due time posing as angels of light like Satan, Judaizers (2Corinthians:11:13ff|.) and Gnostics (1John:4:1; strkjv@1Timothy:4:1|). Already false prophets were on hand when Jesus spoke on this occasion (cf. strkjv@Acts:13:6; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|). In outward appearance they look like sheep in the sheep's clothing which they wear, but within they are "ravening wolves" (\lukoi harpages\), greedy for power, gain, self. It is a tragedy that such men and women reappear through the ages and always find victims. Wolves are more dangerous than dogs and hogs.

rwp@Matthew:7:21 @{Not--but} (\ou--all'\). Sharp contrast between the mere talker and the doer of God's will.

rwp@Matthew:17:5 @{Overshadowed} (\epeskiasen\). They were up in cloud-land that swept round and over them. See this verb used of Mary (Luke:1:35|) and of Peter's shadow (Acts:5:15|). {This is} (\houtos estin\). At the baptism (Matthew:3:17|) these words were addressed to Jesus. Here the voice out of the bright cloud speaks to them about Jesus. {Hear ye him} (\akouete autou\). Even when he speaks about his death. A sharp rebuke to Peter for his consolation to Jesus about his death.

rwp@Matthew:23:25 @{From extortion and excess} (\ex harpags 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.