Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp Himself:


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

rwp@1Corinthians: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:15:9 @{The least} (\ho elachistos\). True superlative, not elative. Explanation of the strong word \ektr“ma\ just used. See strkjv@Ephesians:3:8| where he calls himself "less than the least of all saints" and strkjv@1Timothy:1:15| the "chief" (\pr“tos\) of sinners. Yet under attack from the Judaizers Paul stood up for his rank as equal to any apostle (2Corinthians:11:5f.,23|). {Because I persecuted the church of God} (\edi“xa tˆn ekklˆsian tou theou\). There were times when this terrible fact confronted Paul like a nightmare. Who does not understand this mood of contrition?

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:4:4 @{That each one of you know how} (\eidenai hekaston hum“n\). Further epexegetic infinitive (second perfect active), learn how and so know how (learn the habit of purity). {To possess himself of his own vessel} (\to heautou skeuos ktasthai\). Present middle infinitive of \ktaomai\, to acquire, not \kektˆsthai\, to possess. But what does Paul mean by "his own vessel"? It can only mean his own body or his own wife. Objections are raised against either view, but perhaps he means that the man shall acquire his own wife "in sanctification and honour," words that elevate the wife and make it plain that Paul demands sexual purity on the part of men (married as well as unmarried). There is no double standard here. When the husband comes to the marriage bed, he should come as a chaste man to a chaste wife.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:15 @{By the word of the Lord} (\en log“i Kuriou\). We do not know to what word of the Lord Jesus Paul refers, probably Paul meaning only the point in the teaching of Christ rather than a quotation. He may be claiming a direct revelation on this important matter as about the Lord's Supper in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23|. Jesus may have spoken on this subject though it has not been preserved to us (cf. strkjv@Mark:9:1|). {Ye that are alive} (\hˆmeis hoi z“ntes\). Paul here includes himself, but this by no means shows that Paul knew that he would be alive at the Parousia of Christ. He was alive, not dead, when he wrote. {Shall in no wise precede} (\ou mˆ phthas“men\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \phthan“\, to come before, to anticipate. This strong negative with \ou mˆ\ (double negative) and the subjunctive is the regular idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 929). Hence there was no ground for uneasiness about the dead in Christ.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:9 @{I was not a burden to any man} (\ou katenarkˆsa outhenos\). First aorist active indicative of \katanarka“\. Jerome calls this word one of Paul's _cilicisms_ which he brought from Cilicia. But the word occurs in Hippocrates for growing quite stiff and may be a medical term in popular use. \Narka“\ means to become numb, torpid, and so a burden. It is only here and strkjv@12:13f|. Paul "did not benumb the Corinthians by his demand for pecuniary aid" (Vincent). {From being burdensome} (\abarˆ\). Old adjective, free from weight or light (\a\ privative and \baros\, weight). See on ¯1Thessalonians:2:9| for same idea. Paul kept himself independent.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:20 @{For ye bear with a man} (\anechesthe gar\). " You tolerate tyranny, extortion, craftiness, arrogance, violence, and insult" (Plummer). Sarcasm that cut to the bone. Note the verb with each of the five conditional clauses (enslaves, devours, takes captive, exalteth himself, smites on the face). The climax of insult, smiting on the face.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:23 @{As one beside himself} (\paraphron“n\). Present active participle of \paraphrone“\. Old verb from \paraphr“n\ (\para, phrˆn\), beside one's wits. Only here in N.T. Such open boasting is out of accord with Paul's spirit and habit. {I more} (\huper eg“\). This adverbial use of \huper\ appears in ancient Greek (Euripides). It has no effect on \eg“\, not "more than I," but "I more than they." He claims superiority now to these "superextra apostles." {More abundant} (\perissoter“s\). See on ¯7:15|. No verbs with these clauses, but they are clear. {In prisons} (\en phulakais\). Plural also in strkjv@6:5|. Clement of Rome (_Cor_. V.) says that Paul was imprisoned seven times. We know of only five (Philippi, Jerusalem, Caesarea, twice in Rome), and only one before II Corinthians (Philippi). But Luke does not tell them all nor does Paul. Had he been in prison in Ephesus? Songs:many think and it is possible as we have seen. {Above measure} (\huperballont“s\). Old adverb from the participle \huperballont“n\ (\huperball“\, to hurl beyond). Here only in N.T. {In deaths oft} (\en thanatois pollakis\). He had nearly lost his life, as we know, many times (1:9f.; strkjv@4:11|).

rwp@2Corinthians:12:9 @{He hath said} (\eirˆken\). Perfect active indicative, as if a final word. Paul probably still has the thorn in his flesh and needs this word of Christ. {Is sufficient} (\arkei\). Old word of rich meaning, perhaps kin to Latin _arceo_, to ward off against danger. Christ's grace suffices and abides. {Is perfected} (\teleitai\). Present passive indicative of \tele“\, to finish. It is linear in idea. Power is continually increased as the weakness grows. See strkjv@Phillipians:4:13| for this same noble conception. The human weakness opens the way for more of Christ's power and grace. {Most gladly rather} (\hˆdista mallon\). Two adverbs, one superlative (\hˆdista\), one comparative (\mallon\). "Rather" than ask any more (thrice already) for the removal of the thorn or splinter "most gladly will I glory in my weaknesses." Slowly Paul had learned this supreme lesson, but it will never leave him (Romans:5:2; strkjv@2Timothy:4:6-8|). {May rest upon me} (\episkˆn“sˆi ep' eme\). Late and rare verb in first aorist active subjunctive with \hina\ (final clause), to fix a tent upon, here upon Paul himself by a bold metaphor, as if the Shechinah of the Lord was overshadowing him (cf. strkjv@Luke:9:34|), the power (\dunamis\) of the Lord Jesus.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:11 @{I am become foolish} (\gegona aphr“n\). Perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. In spite of what he said in verse 6| that he would not be foolish if he gloried in the other Paul. But he feels that he has dropped back to the mood of strkjv@11:1,16|. He has been swept on by the memory of the ecstasy. {For I ought to have been commended by you} (\eg“ gar “pheilon huph' hum“n sunistasthai\). Explanation of "ye compelled me." Imperfect active \“pheilon\ of \opheil“\, to be under obligation, and the tense here expresses an unfulfilled obligation about the present. But \sunistasthai\ is present passive infinitive, not aorist or perfect passive. He literally means, "I ought now to be commended by you" instead of having to glorify myself. He repeats his boast already made (11:5f.|), that he is no whit behind "the super-extra apostles" (the Judaizers), "though I am nothing" (\ei kai ouden eimi\). Even boasting himself against those false apostles causes a reaction of feeling that he has to express (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15:9; strkjv@1Timothy:1:15f.|).

rwp@2Corinthians:12:16 @{I did not myself burden you} (\eg“ ou katebarˆsa humas\). First aorist active of late verb \katabare“\, to press a burden down on one. Only here in N.T. {Crafty} (\panourgos\). Old word from \pan\, all, and \ergo\, to do anything (good or bad). Good sense is skilful, bad sense cunning. Only here in N.T. and Paul is quoting the word from his enemies. {With guile} (\dol“i\). Instrumental case of \dolos\, bait to catch fish with. The enemies of Paul said that he was raising this big collection for himself. Moffatt has done well to put these charges in quotation marks to make it plain to readers that Paul is ironical.

rwp@2Corinthians:13:5 @{Unless indeed ye be reprobate} (\ei mˆti adokimoi este\). Paul challenged his opposers in Corinth to try (\peirazete\) themselves, to test (\dokimazete\) themselves, whether they were "in the faith" (\en tˆi pistei\), a much more vital matter for them than trying to prove Paul a heretic. Such tests can be made, unless, alas, they are "reprobate" (\adokimoi\, the very adjective that Paul held up before himself as a dreadful outcome to be avoided, strkjv@1Corinthians:9:27|).

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:1:5 @{Beseech} (\er“t“\). For pray as in strkjv@1John:5:16|. {Lady} (\kuria\). Vocative case and in the same sense as in 1|. {As though I wrote} (\h“s graph“n\). Common idiom \h“s\ with the participle (present active) for the alleged reason. {New} (\kainˆn\). As in strkjv@1John:2:7f.|, which see. {We had} (\eichamen\). Imperfect active (late \-a\ form like \eichan\ in strkjv@Mark:8:7|) of \ech“\ and note \eichete\ with \ap' archˆs\ in strkjv@1John:2:7|. Not literary plural, John identifying all Christians with himself in this blessing. {That we love one another} (\hina agap“men allˆlous\). Either a final clause after \er“t“\ as in strkjv@John:17:15| or an object clause in apposition with \entolˆn\, like strkjv@1John:2:27; strkjv@3:23| and like verse 6|.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 66 OR 67 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION MOST DOUBTFUL NEW TESTAMENT BOOK Every book in the New Testament is challenged by some one, as indeed the historicity of Jesus Christ himself is and the very existence of God. But it is true that more modern scholars deny the genuineness of II Peter than that of any single book in the canon. This is done by men like F. H. Chase, J. B. Mayor, and R. D. Strachan, who are followers of Christ as Lord and Saviour. One has to admit that the case concerning II Peter has problems of peculiar difficulty that call for careful consideration and balanced judgment. One other word needs to be said, which is that an adverse decision against the authenticity of II Peter stands by itself and does not affect the genuineness of the other books. It is easy to take an extreme position for or against it without full knowledge of all the evidence.

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 @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882).,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). strkjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Sim“n Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Syme“n\ as in strkjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Sim“n\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. strkjv@2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan“\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in strkjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \timˆ\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \timˆ\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \timˆ\ in strkjv@1:7,19; strkjv@2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hˆmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \tˆi hˆm“n\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosunˆi\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosunˆ\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \s“tˆros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in strkjv@1:11| as in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|. Songs:in strkjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patˆr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in strkjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in strkjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).

rwp@2Peter:1:6 @{Temperance} (\tˆn egkrateian\). Self-control. Old word (from \egkratˆs\, \en\ and \kratos\, one holding himself in as in strkjv@Titus:1:8|), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:24:25; strkjv@Galatians:5:23|. The opposite of the \pleonexia\ of the heretics. {Patience} (\tˆn hupomonˆn\). For which see strkjv@James:1:3|. {Godliness} (\tˆn eusebeian\). For which see verse 3|.

rwp@Acts:13:11 @{Upon thee} (\epi se\). The use of \epi\ with the accusative is rich and varied, the precise shade of meaning depending on the content. The "hand of the Lord" might be kindly (Acts:11:21|) or hostile (Hebrews:10:31|), but when God's hand touches one's life (Job:19:21|) it may be in judgment as here with Elymas. He has not humbled himself under the mighty hand of God (1Peter:5:6|). {Not seeing} (\mˆ blep“n\). Repeating with negative participle the negative idea in "blind" (\tuphlos\). "It was a judicial infliction; blindness for blindness, darkness without for wilful darkness within" (Furneaux). He was an example of the blind leading the blind that was to cease and Sergius Paulus was to be led into the light. The blindness was to be "for a season" (\achri kairou\, strkjv@Luke:4:13|), if it should please God to restore his sight. Paul apparently recalls his own blindness as he entered Damascus. {A mist} (\achlus\). Especially a dimness of the eyes, old poetic word and late prose, in LXX, only here in N.T. Galen uses it of the opacity of the eye caused by a wound. {He went about seeking some one to lead him by the hand} (\periag“n ezˆtei cheirag“gous\). A rather free rendering. Literally, "going about (\periag“n\, present active participle of \periag“\) he was seeking (\ezˆtei\, imperfect active of \zˆte“\) guides (\cheirag“gous\, from \cheir\, hand, and \ag“gos\, guide, from \ag“\, one who leads by the hand)." The very verb \cheirag“ge“\, to lead by the hand, Luke uses of Paul in strkjv@9:8|, as he entered Damascus.

rwp@Acts:13:12 @{Believed} (\episteusen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative. Renan considers it impossible that a Roman proconsul could be converted by a miracle. But it was the teaching about the Lord (\tou kuriou\, objective genitive) by which he was astonished (\ekplˆssomenos\, present passive participle of \ekplˆss“\, see on ¯Matthew:7:28|) or struck out as well as by the miracle. The blindness came "immediately" (\paraehrˆma\) upon the judgment pronounced by Paul. It is possible that Sergius Paulus was converted to Christ without openly identifying himself with the Christians as his baptism is not mentioned as in the case of Cornelius. But, even if he was baptized, he need not have been deposed from his proconsulship as Furneaux and Rackham argue because his office called for "official patronage of idolatrous worship." But that could have been merely perfunctory as it probably was already. He had been a disciple of the Jewish magician, Elymas Barjesus, without losing his position. Imperial persecution against Christianity had not yet begun. Furneaux even suggests that the conversion of a proconsul to Christianity at this stage would have called for mention by the Roman and Greek historians. There is the name Sergia Paullina in a Christian cemetery in Rome which shows that one of his family was a Christian later. One will believe what he wills about Sergius Paulus, but I do not see that Luke leaves him in the category of Simon Magus who "believed" (8:13|) for revenue only.

rwp@Acts:13:13 @{Paul and his company} (\hoi peri Paulon\). Neat Greek idiom as in Plato, Cratylus 440 C \hoi peri Herakleiton\. On this idiom see Gildersleeve, _Syntax_, p. 264. It means a man and his followers, "those around Paul." Now Paul ranks first always in Acts save in strkjv@14:2; strkjv@15:12,25| for special reasons. Heretofore Saul (Paul) held a secondary position (9:27; strkjv@11:30; strkjv@13:1f.|). "In nothing is the greatness of Barnabas more manifest than in his recognition of the superiority of Paul and acceptance of a secondary position for himself" (Furneaux). {Set sail} (\anachthentes\). First aorist passive participle of \anag“\. Thirteen times in the Acts and strkjv@Luke:8:22| which see. They sailed up to sea and came down (\katag“, katabain“\) to land. Songs:it looks. {Departed from them} (\apoch“rˆsas ap' aut“n\). First aorist active participle of \apoch“re“\, old verb to withdraw, go away from. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:7:23; strkjv@Luke:9:39|. He is called John there as in verse 5| and Mark in strkjv@15:39|, though John Mark in strkjv@12:12,25|. This may be accidental or on purpose (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 317). Luke is silent on John's reasons for leaving Paul and Barnabas. He was the cousin of Barnabas and may not have relished the change in leadership. There may have been change in plans also now that Paul is in command. Barnabas had chosen Cyprus and Paul has led them to Perga in Pamphylia and means to go on into the highlands to Antioch in Pisidia. There were perils of many sorts around them and ahead (2Corinthians:11:26|), perils to which John Mark was unwilling to be exposed. Paul will specifically charge him at Antioch with desertion of his post (Acts:15:39|). It is possible, as Ramsay suggests, that the mosquitoes at Perga gave John malaria. If so, they bit Paul and Barnabas also. He may not have liked Paul's aggressive attitude towards the heathen. At any rate he went home to Jerusalem instead of to Antioch, _zu seiner Mutter_ (Holtzmann). It was a serious breach in the work, but Paul and Barnabas stuck to the work.

rwp@Acts:17:26 @{And he made of one} (\epoiˆsen te ex henos\). The word \haimatos\ (blood) is absent from Aleph A B and is a later explanatory addition. What Paul affirms is the unity of the human race with a common origin and with God as the Creator. This view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan (the Jews were \laos\, the Gentiles \ethnˆ\). The cosmopolitanism of Paul here rises above Jew and Greek and claims the one God as the Creator of the one race of men. The Athenians themselves claimed to be \antochthonous\ (indigenous) and a special creation. Zeno and Seneca did teach a kind of cosmopolitanism (really pantheism) far different from the personal God of Paul. It was Rome, not Greece, that carried out the moral ideas of Zeno. Man is part of the universe (verse 24|) and God created (\epoiˆsen\) man as he created (\poiˆsas\) the all. {For to dwell} (\katoikein\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose, so as to dwell. {Having determined} (\horisas\). First aorist active participle of \horiz“\, old verb to make a horizon as already in strkjv@19:42| which see. Paul here touches God's Providence. God has revealed himself in history as in creation. His hand appears in the history of all men as well as in that of the Chosen People of Israel. {Appointed seasons} (\prostetagmenous kairous\). Not the weather as in strkjv@14:17|, but "the times of the Gentiles" (\kairoi ethn“n\) of which Jesus spoke (Luke:21:24|). The perfect passive participle of \prostass“\, old verb to enjoin, emphasizes God's control of human history without any denial of human free agency as was involved in the Stoic Fate (\Heirmarmenˆ\). {Bounds} (\horothesias\). Limits? Same idea in strkjv@Job:12:23|. Nations rise and fall, but it is not blind chance or hard fate. Thus there is an interplay between God's will and man's activities, difficult as it is for us to see with our shortened vision.

rwp@Acts:20:28 @{Take heed unto yourselves} (\prosechete heautois\). The full phrase had \ton noun\, hold your mind on yourselves (or other object in the dative), as often in old writers and in strkjv@Job:7:17|. But the ancients often used the idiom with \noun\ understood, but not expressed as here and strkjv@Acts:5:35; strkjv@Luke:12:1; strkjv@17:3; strkjv@21:34; strkjv@1Timothy:1:4; strkjv@3:8; strkjv@4:13|. \Epeche\ is so used in strkjv@1Timothy:4:16|. {To all the flock} (\panti t“i poimni“i\). Contracted form of \poimenion = poimnˆ\ (John:10:16|) already in strkjv@Luke:12:32| and also in strkjv@Acts:20:29; strkjv@1Peter:5:2,3|. Common in old Greek. {Hath made} (\etheto\). Did make, second aorist middle indicative of \tithˆmi\, did appoint. Paul evidently believed that the Holy Spirit calls and appoints ministers. {Bishops} (\episkopous\). The same men termed elders in verse 17| which see. {To shepherd} (\poimainein\). Present active infinitive of purpose of \poimain“\, old verb to feed or tend the flock (\poimnˆ, poimnion\), to act as shepherd (\poimˆn\). These ministers are thus in Paul's speech called elders (verse 17|), bishops (verse 28|), and shepherds (verse 28|). Jesus had used this very word to Peter (John:21:16|, twice \boske\, feed, strkjv@21:15,17|) and Peter will use it in addressing fellow-elders (1Peter:5:2|) with memories, no doubt of the words of Jesus to him. The "elders" were to watch over as "bishops" and "tend and feed as shepherds" the flock. Jesus is termed "the shepherd and bishop of your souls" in strkjv@1Peter:2:25| and "the great Shepherd of the sheep" in strkjv@Hebrews:13:20|. Jesus called himself "the good Shepherd" in strkjv@John:10:11|. {The church of God} (\tˆn ekklˆsian tou theou\). The correct text, not "the church of the Lord" or "the church of the Lord and God" (Robertson, _Introduction to Textual Criticism of the N.T._, p. 189). {He purchased} (\periepoiˆsato\). First aorist middle of \peripoie“\, old verb to reserve, to preserve (for or by oneself, in the middle). In the N.T. only in Luke strkjv@17:33; strkjv@Acts:20:28; strkjv@1Timothy:3:13|. The substantive \peripoiˆsin\ (preservation, possession) occurs in strkjv@1Peter:2:9| ("a peculiar people" = a people for a possession) and in strkjv@Ephesians:1:14|. {With his own blood} (\dia tou haimatos tou idiou\). Through the agency of (\dia\) his own blood. Whose blood? If \tou theou\ (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called "God" who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have strkjv@Romans:9:5; strkjv@Colossians:2:9; strkjv@Titus:2:13| where he does that very thing, besides strkjv@Colossians:1:15-20; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|.

rwp@Acts:20:31 @{Wherefore watch ye} (\dio grˆgoreite\). Paul has concluded his defence of himself and his warning. Now he exhorts on the basis of it (\dio\) because of which thing. The very command of Jesus concerning the perils before his return as in strkjv@Mark:13:35| (\grˆgoreite\), the very form (late present imperative from the second perfect \egrˆgora\ of \egeir“\, to arouse). Stay awake. {I ceased not to admonish} (\ouk epausamˆn nouthet“n\). Participle describes Paul, I did not cease admonishing, night and day (\nukta kai hˆmeran\, accusative of extent of time, for three years \trietian\, accusative of extent of time also). \Nouthet“n\ is from \nouthete“\, to put sense into one. Songs:Paul kept it up with tears (verse 19|) if so be he could save the Ephesians from the impending perils. Forewarned is to be forearmed. Paul did his duty by them.

rwp@Acts:20:33 @{No man's silver or gold or apparel} (\arguriou ˆ chrusiou ˆ himatismou oudenos\). Genitive case after \epethumˆsa\. One of the slanders against Paul was that he was raising this collection, ostensibly for the poor, really for himself (2Corinthians:12:17f.|). He includes "apparel" because oriental wealth consisted largely in fine apparel (not old worn out clothes). See strkjv@Genesis:24:53; strkjv@2Kings:5:5; strkjv@Psalms:45:13f.; strkjv@Matthew:6:19|. Paul did not preach just for money.

rwp@Acts:20:35 @{I gave you an example} (\hupedeixa\). First aorist active indicative of \hupodeiknumi\, old verb to show under one's eyes, to give object lesson, by deed as well as by word (Luke:6:47|). \Hupodeigma\ means example (John:13:15; strkjv@James:5:10|). Songs:Paul appeals to his example in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:17|. \Panta\ is accusative plural of general reference (in all things). {Songs:labouring ye ought to help} (\hout“s kopi“ntas dei antilambanesthai\). So, as I did. Necessity (\dei\). Toiling (\kopi“ntas\) not just for ourselves, but to help (\antilambanesthai\), to take hold yourselves (middle voice) at the other end (\anti\). This verb common in the old Greek, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:54; strkjv@Acts:20:35; strkjv@1Timothy:6:2|. This noble plea to help the weak is the very spirit of Christ (1Thessalonians:5:14; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28; strkjv@Romans:5:6; strkjv@14:1|). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| \antechesthe t“n asthenount“n\ we have Paul's very idea again. Every Community Chest appeal today re-echoes Paul's plea. {He himself said} (\autos eipen\). Not in the Gospels, one of the sayings of Jesus in current use that Paul had received and treasured. Various other _Agrapha_ of Jesus have been preserved in ancient writers and some in recently discovered papyri which may be genuine or not. We are grateful that Paul treasured this one. This Beatitude (on \makarion\ see on strkjv@Matthew:5:3-11|) is illustrated by the whole life of Jesus with the Cross as the culmination. Aristotle (Eth. IV. I) has a saying somewhat like this, but assigns the feeling of superiority as the reason (Page), an utterly different idea from that here. This quotation raises the question of how much Paul personally knew of the life and sayings of Jesus.

rwp@Acts:21:11 @{Coming} (\elth“n\, second aorist active participle of \erchomai\), taking (\aras\, first aorist active participle of \air“\, to take up), {binding} (\dˆsas\, first aorist active participle of \de“\, to bind). Vivid use of three successive participles describing the dramatic action of Agabus. {Paul's girdle} (\tˆn z“nˆn tou Paulou\). Old word from \z“nnumi\, to gird. See on ¯12:8|. {His own feet and hands} (\heautou tous podas kai tas cheiras\). Basis for the interpretation. Old Testament prophets often employed symbolic deeds (1Kings:22:11; strkjv@James:2:2; strkjv@Jeremiah:13:1-7; strkjv@Ezekiel:4:1-6|). Jesus interpreted the symbolism of Peter's girding himself (John:21:18|). {So} (\hout“s\). As Agabus had bound himself. Agabus was just from Jerusalem and probably knew the feeling there against Paul. At any rate the Holy Spirit revealed it to him as he claims. {Shall deliver} (\parad“sousin\). Like the words of Jesus about himself (Matthew:20:19|). He was "delivered" into the hands of the Gentiles and it took five years to get out of those hands.

rwp@Acts:21:25 @{We wrote} (\epesteilamen\). First aorist active of \epistell“\, to send to and so to write like our epistle (\epistolˆ\). Old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:15:20; strkjv@Hebrews:13:22|. It is the very word used by James in this "judgment" at the Conference (Acts:15:20|, \episteilai\). B D here read \apesteilamen\ from \apostell“\, to send away, to give orders. Wendt and Schuerer object to this as a gloss. Rather is it an explanation by James that he does not refer to the Gentile Christians whose freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial law was guaranteed at the Jerusalem Conference. James himself presided at that Conference and offered the resolution that was unanimously adopted. James stands by that agreement and repeats the main items (four: anything sacrificed to idols, blood, anything strangled, fornication, for discussion see strkjv@Acts:15|) from which they are to keep themselves (direct middle \phulassesthai\ of \phulass“\, indirect command after \krinantes\ with accusative, \autous\, of general reference). James has thus again cleared the air about the Gentiles who have believed (\pepisteukot“n\, perfect active participle genitive plural of \pisteu“\). He asks that Paul will stand by the right of Jewish Christians to keep on observing the Mosaic law. He has put the case squarely and fairly.

rwp@Acts:21:26 @{Took the men} (\paralab“n tous andras\). The very phrase used in verse 24| to Paul. {The next day} (\tˆi echomenˆi\). One of the phrases in strkjv@20:15| for the coming day. Locative case of time. {Purifying himself with them} (\sun autois hagnistheis\, first aorist passive participle of \hagniz“\). The precise language again of the recommendation in verse 24|. Paul was conforming to the letter. {Went into the temple} (\eisˆiei eis to hieron\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\ as in verse 18| which see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined the four men in their vow of separation. {Declaring} (\diaggell“n\). To the priests what day he would report the fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:11:17| (quotation from the LXX). It is not necessary to assume that the vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham). {Until the offering was offered for every one of them} (\he“s hou prosˆnechthˆ huper henos hekastou aut“n hˆ prosphora\). This use of \he“s hou\ (like \he“s\, alone) with the first aorist passive indicative \prosˆnechthˆ\ of \prospher“\, to offer, contemplates the final result (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 974f.) and is probably the statement of Luke added to Paul's announcement. He probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:20| when no principle was involved. It is charged that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these "false apostles" over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded by Paul's accusers. Songs:far as the evidence goes that thing was accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea the Judaizers cut no figure at all. The Jewish Christians do not appear in Paul's behalf, but there was no opportunity for them to do so. The explosion that came on the last day of Paul's appearance in the temple was wholly disconnected from his offerings for the four brethren and himself. It must be remembered that Paul had many kinds of enemies. The attack on him by these Jews from Asia had no connexion whatever with the slanders of the Judaizers about Paul's alleged teachings that Jewish Christians in the dispersion should depart from the Mosaic law. That slander was put to rest forever by his following the advice of James and justifies the wisdom of that advice and Paul's conduct about it.

rwp@Acts:21:28 @{Help} (\boˆtheite\). Present active imperative of \boˆthe“\, to run (\the“\) at a cry (\boˆ\), as if an outrage had been committed like murder or assault. {All men everywhere} (\panta pantachˆi\). Alliterative. \Pantachˆi\ is a variation in MSS., often \pantachou\, and here only in the N.T. The charges against Paul remind one of those against Stephen (Acts:6:13|) in which Paul had participated according to his confession (22:20|). Like the charges against Stephen and Jesus before him truth and falsehood are mixed. Paul had said that being a Jew would not save a man. He had taught the law of Moses was not binding on Gentiles. He did hold, like Jesus and Stephen, that the temple was not the only place to worship God. But Paul gloried himself in being a Jew, considered the Mosaic law righteous for Jews, and was honouring the temple at this very moment. {And moreover also he brought Greeks also into the temple} (\eti te kai Hellˆnas eisˆgagen eis to hieron\). Note the three particles (\eti te kai\), {and} (\te\) {still more} (\eti\) {also} or {even} (\kai\). Worse than his teaching (\didask“n\) is his dreadful deed: he actually brought (\eisˆgagen\, second aorist active indicative of \eisag“\). This he had a right to do if they only went into the court of the Gentiles. But these Jews mean to imply that Paul had brought Greeks beyond this court into the court of Israel. An inscription was found by Clermont-Ganneau in Greek built into the walls of a mosque on the Via Dolorosa that was on the wall dividing the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles. Death was the penalty to any Gentile who crossed over into the Court of Israel (_The Athenaeum_, July, 1871). {Hath defiled this holy place} (\kekoin“ken ton hagion topon touton\). Present perfect active of \koino“\, to make common (see on ¯10:14|). Note vivid change of tense, the defilement lasts (state of completion). All this is the substance of the call of these shrewd conspirators from Ephesus, Jews (not Jewish Christians, not even Judaizers) who hated him for his work there and who probably "spoke evil of the Way before the multitude" there so that Paul had to separate the disciples from the synagogue and go to the School of Tyrannus (19:9f.|). These enemies of Paul had now raised the cry of "fire" and vanish from the scene completely (24:19|). This charge was absolutely false as we shall see, made out of inferences of hate and suspicion.

rwp@Acts:21:37 @{May I say something unto thee?} (\Ei exestin moi eipein ti pros se?\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. The calm self-control of Paul in the presence of this mob is amazing. His courteous request to Lysias was in Greek to the chiliarch's amazement. {Dost thou know Greek?} (\Hellˆnisti gin“skeis?\). Old Greek adverb in \-i\ from \Hellˆniz“\, meaning "in Greek." "Do you know it in Greek?" In the N.T. only here and strkjv@John:19:20|. {Art thou not then the Egyptian?} (\Ouk ara su ei ho Aiguptios?\). Expects the answer _Yes_ and \ara\ argues the matter (therefore). The well-known (\ho\) Egyptian who had given the Romans so much trouble. {Stirred up to sedition} (\anastat“sas\). First aorist active participle of \anastato“\, a late verb from \anastatos\, outcast, and so to unsettle, to stir up, to excite, once known only in LXX and strkjv@Acts:17:6| (which see); strkjv@21:38; strkjv@Galatians:5:12|, but now found in several papyri examples with precisely this sense to upset. {Of the Assassins} (\t“n sikari“n\). Latin word _sicarius_, one who carried a short sword \sica\ under his cloak, a cutthroat. Josephus uses this very word for bands of robbers under this Egyptian (_War_ II. 17,6 and 13,5; _Ant_. XX. 8,10). Josephus says that there were 30,000 who gathered on the Mount of Olives to see the walls of Jerusalem fall down and not merely 4,000 as Lysias does here. But Lysias may refer to the group that were armed thus (banditti) the core of the mob of 30,000. Lysias at once saw by Paul's knowledge of Greek that he was not the famous Egyptian who led the Assassins and escaped himself when Felix attacked and slew the most of them.

rwp@Acts:21:39 @{I am} (\Eg“ men eimi\). In contrast with the wild guess of Lysias Paul uses \men\ and \de\. He tells briefly who he is: {a Jew} (\Ioudaios\) by race, {of Tarsus in Cilicia} (\Tarseus tˆs Kilikias\) by country, belonging to Tarsus (this adjective \Tarseus\ only here and strkjv@Acts:9:11|), and proud of it, one of the great cities of the empire with a great university. {A citizen of no mean city} (\ouk asˆmou pole“s politˆs\). Litotes again, "no mean" (\asˆmos\, old adjective, unmarked, \a\ privative and \sˆma\, mark, insignificant, here only in the N.T.). This same litotes used by Euripides of Athens (_Ion_ 8). But Paul calls himself a citizen (\politˆs\) of Tarsus. Note the "effective assonance" (Page) in \pole“s politˆs\. Paul now (\de\) makes his request (\deomai\) of Lysias. {Give me leave} (\epitrepson moi\). First aorist active imperative of \epitrep“\, old and common verb to turn to, to permit, to allow. It was a strange request and a daring one, to wish to speak to this mob howling for Paul's blood.

rwp@Acts:21:40 @{When he had given him leave} (\epitrepsantos autou\). Genitive absolute of aorist active participle of the same verb \epitrep“\. {Standing on the stairs} (\hest“s epi t“n anabathm“n\). Second perfect active participle of \histˆmi\, to place, but intransitive to stand. Dramatic scene. Paul had faced many audiences and crowds, but never one quite like this. Most men would have feared to speak, but not so Paul. He will speak about himself only as it gives him a chance to put Christ before this angry Jewish mob who look on Paul as a renegade Jew, a turncoat, a deserter, who went back on Gamaliel and all the traditions of his people, who not only turned from Judaism to Christianity, but who went after Gentiles and treated Gentiles as if they were on a par with Jews. Paul knows only too well what this mob thinks of him. {Beckoned with the hand} (\kateseise tˆi cheiri\). He shook down to the multitude with the hand (instrumental case \cheiri\), while Alexander, Luke says (19:33|), "shook down the hand" (accusative with the same verb, which see). In strkjv@26:1| Paul reached out the hand (\ekteinas tˆn cheira\). {When there was made a great silence} (\pollˆs sigˆs genomenˆs\). Genitive absolute again with second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, "much silence having come." Paul waited till silence had come. {In the Hebrew language} (\tˆi Ebraidi dialekt“i\). The Aramaean which the people in Jerusalem knew better than the Greek. Paul could use either tongue at will. His enemies had said in Corinth that "his bodily presence was weak and his speech contemptible" (2Corinthians:10:10|). But surely even they would have to admit that Paul's stature and words reach heroic proportions on this occasion. Self-possessed with majestic poise Paul faces the outraged mob beneath the stairs.

rwp@Acts:22:3 @{I am a Jew} (\Eg“ eimi anˆr Ioudaios\). Note use of \Eg“\ for emphasis. Paul recounts his Jewish advantages or privileges with manifest pride as in strkjv@Acts:26:4f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:22; strkjv@Galatians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {Born} (\gegennˆmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \genna“\. See above in strkjv@21:39| for the claim of Tarsus as his birth-place. He was a Hellenistic Jew, not an Aramaean Jew (cf. strkjv@Acts:6:1|). {Brought up} (\anatethrammenos\). Perfect passive participle again of \anatreph“\, to nurse up, to nourish up, common old verb, but in the N.T. only here, strkjv@7:20ff.|, and MSS. in strkjv@Luke:4:16|. The implication is that Paul was sent to Jerusalem while still young, "from my youth" (26:4|), how young we do not know, possibly thirteen or fourteen years old. He apparently had not seen Jesus in the flesh (2Corinthians:5:16|). {At the feet of Gamaliel} (\pros tous podas Gamaliˆl\). The rabbis usually sat on a raised seat with the pupils in a circle around either on lower seats or on the ground. Paul was thus nourished in Pharisaic Judaism as interpreted by Gamaliel, one of the lights of Judaism. For remarks on Gamaliel see chapter strkjv@5:34ff|. He was one of the seven Rabbis to whom the Jews gave the highest title \Rabban\ (our Rabbi). \Rabbi\ (my teacher) was next, the lowest being \Rab\ (teacher). "As Aquinas among the schoolmen was called _Doctor Angelicus_, and Bonaventura _Doctor Seraphicus_, so Gamaliel was called _the Beauty of the Law_" (Conybeare and Howson). {Instructed} (\pepaideumenos\). Perfect passive participle again (each participle beginning a clause), this time of \paideu“\, old verb to train a child (\pais\) as in strkjv@7:22| which see. In this sense also in strkjv@1Timothy:1:20; strkjv@Titus:2:12|. Then to chastise as in strkjv@Luke:23:16,22| (which see); strkjv@2Timothy:2:25; strkjv@Hebrews:12:6f|. {According to the strict manner} (\kata akribeian\). Old word, only here in N.T. Mathematical accuracy, minute exactness as seen in the adjective in strkjv@26:5|. See also strkjv@Romans:10:2; Gal strkjv@1:4; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {Of our fathers} (\patr“iou\). Old adjective from \pater\, only here and strkjv@24:14| in N.T. Means descending from father to son, especially property and other inherited privileges. \Patrikos\ (patrician) refers more to personal attributes and affiliations. {Being zealous for God} (\zˆl“tˆs huparch“n tou theou\). Not adjective, but substantive {zealot} (same word used by James of the thousands of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, strkjv@21:20| which see) with objective genitive \tou theou\ (for God). See also verse 14; strkjv@28:17; strkjv@2Timothy:1:3| where he makes a similar claim. Songs:did Peter (Acts:3:13; strkjv@5:30|) and Stephen (7:32|). Paul definitely claims, whatever freedom he demanded for Gentile Christians, to be personally "a zealot for God" "even as ye all are this day" (\kath“s pantes humeis este sˆmeron\). In his conciliation he went to the limit and puts himself by the side of the mob in their zeal for the law, mistaken as they were about him. He was generous surely to interpret their fanatical frenzy as zeal for God. But Paul is sincere as he proceeds to show by appeal to his own conduct.

rwp@Acts:23:1 @{Looking steadfastly} (\atenisas\). See on this word strkjv@1:10; strkjv@3:12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@7:55; strkjv@13:9|. Paul may have had weak eyes, but probably the earnest gaze was to see if he recognized any faces that were in the body that tried Stephen and to which he apparently once belonged. {I have lived before God} (\pepoliteumai t“i the“i\). Perfect middle indicative of \politeu“\, old verb to manage affairs of city (\polis\) or state, to be a citizen, behave as a citizen. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|. The idea of citizenship was Greek and Roman, not Jewish. "He had lived as God's citizen, as a member of God's commonwealth" (Rackham). God (\the“i\) is the dative of personal interest. As God looked at it and in his relation to God. {In all good conscience unto this day} (\pasˆi suneidˆsei agathˆi achri tautˆs tˆs hˆmeras\). This claim seems to lack tact, but for brevity's sake Paul sums up a whole speech in it. He may have said much more than Luke here reports along the line of his speech the day before, but Paul did not make this claim without consideration. It appears to contradict his confession as the chief of sinners (1Timothy:1:13-16|). But that depends on one's interpretation of "good conscience." The word \suneidˆsis\ is literally "joint-knowledge" in Greek, Latin (_conscientia_) and English "conscience" from the Latin. It is a late word from \sunoida\, to know together, common in O.T., Apocrypha, Philo, Plutarch, New Testament, Stoics, ecclesiastical writers. In itself the word simply means consciousness of one's own thoughts (Hebrews:10:2|), or of one's own self, then consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong (Romans:2:15|) with approval or disapproval. But the conscience is not an infallible guide and acts according to the light that it has (1Corinthians:8:7,10; strkjv@1Peter:2:19|). The conscience can be contaminated (Hebrews:10:22|, evil \ponˆrƒs\). All this and more must be borne in mind in trying to understand Paul's description of his motives as a persecutor. Alleviation of his guilt comes thereby, but not removal of guilt as he himself felt (1Timothy:1:13-16|). He means to say to the Sanhedrin that he persecuted Christians as a conscientious (though mistaken) Jew (Pharisee) just as he followed his conscience in turning from Judaism to Christianity. It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no "apologies" (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. He had the consolation of a good conscience (1Peter:3:16|). The word does not occur in the Gospels and chiefly in Paul's Epistles, but we see it at work in strkjv@John:8:9| (the interpolation strkjv@7:53-8:11|).

rwp@Acts:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \gin“sk“\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg“ Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisai“n\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastase“s nekr“n krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.

rwp@Acts:23:17 @{Called unto him} (\proskalesamenos\). First aorist participle indirect middle, calling to himself. Paul laid his plans as energetically as if Jesus had not promised that he would see Rome (23:11|). {Bring} (\apage\). "Take away."

rwp@Acts:23:19 @{Took him by the hand} (\epilabomenos tˆs cheiros autou\). Kindly touch in Lysias, _ut fiduciam adolescentis confirmaret_ (Bengel). Note genitive with the second aorist middle (indirect, to himself) of \epilamban“\ as in strkjv@Luke:8:54| with \kratˆsas\ which see. How old the young man (\neanias\) was we do not know, but it is the very word used of Paul in strkjv@7:58| when he helped in the killing of Stephen, a young man in the twenties probably. See also strkjv@20:9| of Eutychus. He is termed \neaniskos\ in verse 22|. {Asked him privately} (\kat' idian epunthaneto\). Imperfect middle, began to ask (inchoative).

rwp@Acts:23:27 @{Was seized} (\sullˆmphthenta\). First aorist passive participle of \sullamban“\. {Rescued him having learned that he was a Roman} (\exeilamen math“n hoti Romaios estin\). Wendt, Zoeckler, and Furneaux try to defend this record of two facts by Lysias in the wrong order from being an actual lie as Bengel rightly says. Lysias did rescue Paul and he did learn that he was a Roman, but in this order. He did not first learn that he was a Roman and then rescue him as his letter states. The use of the aorist participle (\math“n\ from \manthan“\) after the principal verb \exeilamen\ (second aorist middle of \exaire“\, to take out to oneself, to rescue) can be either simultaneous action or antecedent. There is in Greek no such idiom as the aorist participle of subsequent action (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1112-14). Lysias simply reversed the order of the facts and omitted the order for scourging Paul to put himself in proper light with Felix his superior officer and actually poses as the protector of a fellow Roman citizen.

rwp@Acts:24:2 @{When he (Paul) was called} (\klˆthentos autou\). Genitive absolute (as so often in Acts) with first aorist passive participle of \kale“\. Seeing that by thee we enjoy much peace (\pollˆs eirˆnˆs tugchanontes dia sou\). Literally, obtaining much peace by thee. A regular piece of flattery, _captatio benevolentiae_, to ingratiate himself into the good graces of the governor. Felix had suppressed a riot, but Tacitus (_Ann_. XII. 54) declares that Felix secretly encouraged banditti and shared the plunder for which the Jews finally made complaint to Nero who recalled him. But it sounded well to praise Felix for keeping peace in his province, especially as Tertullus was going to accuse Paul of being a disturber of the peace. {And that by thy providence} (\kai dia tˆs pronoias\). Forethought, old Greek word from \pronoos\ (\pronoe“\ in strkjv@1Timothy:5:8; strkjv@Romans:12:17; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:21|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:13:14|. "Providence" is Latin _Providentia_ (foreseeing, _provideo_). Roman coins often have _Providentia Caesaris_. Post-Augustan Latin uses it of God (Deus). {Evils are corrected for this nation} (\diorth“mat“n ginomen“n t“i ethnei tout“i\). Genitive absolute again, \ginomen“n\, present middle participle describing the process of reform going on for this nation (dative case of personal interest). \Diorth“ma\ (from \diortho“\, to set right) occurs from Aristotle on of setting right broken limbs (Hippocrates) or reforms in law and life (Polybius, Plutarch). "Reform continually taking place for this nation." Felix the Reform Governor of Judea! It is like a campaign speech, but it doubtless pleased Felix.

rwp@Acts:24:6 @{Assayed to profane} (\epeirasen bebˆl“sai\). A flat untruth, but the charge of the Asian Jews (21:28-30|). _Verbum optum ad calumnian_ (Bengel). {We seized} (\ekratˆsamen\). As if the Sanhedrin had arrested Paul, Tertullus identifying himself with his clients. But it was the mob (21:28-31|) that attacked Paul and Lysias who rescued him (21:32ff.|).

rwp@Acts:24:8 @{From whom} (\par' hou\). Referring to Paul, but in the Textus Receptus referring to Lysias. {By examining him thyself} (\autos anakrinas\). Not by torture, since Paul was a Roman citizen, but by hearing what Paul has to say in defence of himself. \Anakrin“\ is to examine thoroughly up and down as in strkjv@Luke:23:14|.

rwp@Acts:24:17 @{After many years} (\di' et“n pleion“n\). "At an interval (\dia\) of more (\pleion“n\) years" (than a few, one must add), not "after many years." If, as is likely Paul went up to Jerusalem in strkjv@Acts:18:22|, that was some five years ago and would justify "\pleion“n\" (several years ago or some years ago). {To bring alms} (\eleˆmosunas poiˆson\). Another (see \proskunˆs“n\ in verse 11|) example of the future participle of purpose in the N.T. These "alms" (on \eleˆmosunas\ see on ¯Matthew:6:1,4; strkjv@Acts:10:2|, common in Tobit and is in the papyri) were for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Corinthians:16:1-4; strkjv@2Corinthians:8; 9; strkjv@Romans:15:26|) who were none the less Jews. "And offerings" (\kai prosphoras\). The very word used in strkjv@21:26| of the offerings or sacrifices made by Paul for the four brethren and himself. It does not follow that it was Paul's original purpose to make these "offerings" before he came to Jerusalem (cf. strkjv@18:18|). He came up to worship (verse 11|) and to be present at Pentecost (20:16|).

rwp@Acts:25:5 @{Them therefore which are of power among you} (\hoi oun en humin dunatoi\). "The mighty ones among you," "the men of power" (\dunatoi\) and authority, "the first men," the Sanhedrin, in other words. Note change here by Luke from indirect discourse in verse 4|, to direct in verse 5| (\phˆsin\, says he). {Go down with me} (\sunkatabantes\). Double compound (\sun, kata\) second aorist active participle of \sunkatabain“\. It was a fair proposal. {If there is anything amiss in the man} (\ei ti estin en t“i andri atopon\). Condition of the first class, assuming that there is (to be courteous to them), but not committing himself on the merits of the case. \Atopon\ is an old word, specially common in Plato, meaning "out of place." In N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:23:41| which see; strkjv@Acts:28:6; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:2|. Note present tense active voice of \katˆgoreit“san\ (imperative) of \katˆgore“\, repeat their accusations.

rwp@Acts:25:26 @{No certain thing} (\asphales ti--ou\). Nothing definite or reliable (\a\ privative, \sphall“\, to trip). All the charges of the Sanhedrin slipped away or were tripped up by Paul. Festus confesses that he had nothing left and thereby convicts himself of gross insincerity in his proposal to Paul in verse 9| about going up to Jerusalem. By his own statement he should have set Paul free. The various details here bear the marks of the eyewitness. Luke was surely present and witnessed this grand spectacle with Paul as chief performer. {Unto my lord} (\t“i kuri“i\). Augustus (Octavius) and Tiberius refused the title of \kurios\ (lord) as too much like _rex_ (king) and like master and slave, but the servility of the subjects gave it to the other emperors who accepted it (Nero among them). Antoninus Pius put it on his coins. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105) gives an ostracon dated Aug. 4, A.D. 63 with the words "in the year nine of Nero the lord" (\enatou Ner“nos tou kuriou\). Deissmann (_op. cit._, pp. 349ff.) runs a most interesting parallel "between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term \kurios\, lord" in ostraca, papyri, inscriptions. Beyond a doubt Paul has all this fully in mind when he says in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| that "no one is able to say \Kurios Iˆsous\ except in the Holy Spirit" (cf. also strkjv@Phillipians:2:11|). The Christians claimed this word for Christ and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say " Lord Caesar" and insisted on saying "Lord Jesus" when it meant his certain death. {Before you} (\eph' hum“n\). The whole company. In no sense a new trial, but an examination in the presence of these prominent men to secure data and to furnish entertainment and pleasure to Agrippa (verse 22|). {Especially before thee} (\malista epi sou\). Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as verse 22| shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul's case. {After examination had} (\tˆs anakrise“s genomenˆs\). Genitive absolute, "the examination having taken place." \Anakrisis\ from \anakrin“\ (cf. strkjv@12:19; strkjv@24:8; strkjv@28:18|) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. {That I may have somewhat to write} (\hop“s sch“ ti graps“\). Ingressive aorist subjunctive \sch“\ (may get) with \hop“s\ (final particle like \hina\). \Ti graps“\ in indirect question after \sch“\ is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a "trial," but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament.

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@Ephesians:4:10 @{Is the same also} (\autos estin\). Rather, "the one who came down (\ho katabas\, the Incarnation) is himself also the one who ascended (\ho anabas\, the Ascension)." {Far above} (\huperan“\). See strkjv@1:21|. {All the heavens} (\pant“n t“n ouran“n\). Ablative case after \huperan“\. For the plural used of Christ's ascent see strkjv@Hebrews:4:14; strkjv@7:27|. Whether Paul has in mind the Jewish notion of a graded heaven like the third heaven in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:2| or the seven heavens idea one does not know. {That he might fill all things} (\hina plˆr“sˆi ta panta\). This purpose we can understand, the supremacy of Christ (Colossians:2:9f.|).

rwp@Ephesians:4:11 @{And he gave} (\kai autos ed“ken\). First aorist active indicative of \did“mi\. In strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28| Paul uses \etheto\ (more common verb, appointed), but here repeats \ed“ken\ from the quotation in verse 8|. There are four groups (\tous men\, \tous de\ three times, as the direct object of \ed“ken\). The titles are in the predicate accusative (\apostolous, prophˆtas, poimenas kai didaskalous\). Each of these words occurs in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28| (which see for discussion) except \poimenas\ (shepherds). This word \poimˆn\ is from a root meaning to protect. Jesus said the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (John:10:11|) and called himself the Good Shepherd. In strkjv@Hebrews:13:20| Christ is the Great Shepherd (cf. strkjv@1Peter:2:25|). Only here are preachers termed shepherds (Latin _pastores_) in the N.T. But the verb \poimain“\, to shepherd, is employed by Jesus to Peter (John:21:16|), by Peter to other ministers (1Peter:5:2|), by Paul to the elders (bishops) of Ephesus (Acts:20:28|). Here Paul groups "shepherds and teachers" together. All these gifts can be found in one man, though not always. Some have only one.

rwp@Ephesians:5:2 @{An offering and a sacrifice to God} (\prosphoran kai thusian t“i the“i\). Accusative in apposition with \heauton\ (himself). Christ's death was an offering to God "in our behalf" (\huper hˆm“n\) not an offering to the devil (Anselm), a ransom (\lutron\) as Christ himself said (Matthew:20:28|), Christ's own view of his atoning death. {For an odour of a sweet smell} (\eis osmˆn eu“dias\). Same words in strkjv@Phillipians:4:18| from strkjv@Leviticus:4:31| (of the expiatory offering). Paul often presents Christ's death as a propitiation (Romans:3:25|) as in strkjv@1John:2:2|.

rwp@Galatians:6:11 @{With how large letters} (\pˆlikois grammasin\). Paul now takes the pen from the amanuensis (cf. strkjv@Romans:16:22|) and writes the rest of the Epistle (verses 11-18|) himself instead of the mere farewell greeting (2Thessalonians:3:17; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21; strkjv@Colossians:4:18|). But what does he mean by "with how large letters"? Certainly not "how large a letter." It has been suggested that he employed large letters because of defective eyesight or because he could only write ill-formed letters because of his poor handwriting (like the print letters of children) or because he wished to call particular attention to this closing paragraph by placarding it in big letters (Ramsay). This latter is the most likely reason. Deissmann, (_St. Paul_, p. 51) argues that artisans write clumsy letters, yes, and scholars also. Milligan (_Documents_, p. 24; _Vocabulary_, etc.) suggests the contrast seen in papyri often between the neat hand of the scribe and the big sprawling hand of the signature. {I have written} (\egrapsa\). Epistolary aorist. {With mine own hand} (\tˆi emˆi cheiri\). Instrumental case as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21|.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE PICTURE OF CHRIST At once we are challenged by the bold stand taken by the author concerning the Person of Christ as superior to the prophets of the Old Testament because he is the Son of God through whom God has spoken in the new dispensation (Hebrews:1:1-3|), this Son who is God's Agent in the work of creation and of grace as we see it stated in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11; strkjv@Colossians:1:13-20; strkjv@John:1:1-18|. This high doctrine of Jesus as God's Son with the glory and stamp of God's nature is never lowered, for as God's Son he is superior to angels (Hebrews:1:4-2:4|), though the humanity of Jesus is recognized as one proof of the glory of Jesus (Hebrews:2:5-18|). Jesus is shown to be superior to Moses as God's Son over God's house (Hebrews:3:1-4:13|), But the chief portion of the Epistle is devoted to the superiority of Jesus Christ as priest to the work of Aaron and the whole Levitical line (Hebrews:4:14-12:3|). Here the author with consummate skill, though with rabbinical refinements at times, shows that Jesus is like Melchizedek and so superior to Aaron (Hebrews:4:14-7:28|), works under a better covenant of grace (Hebrews:8:1-13|), works in a better sanctuary which is in heaven (Hebrews:9:1-12|), offers a better sacrifice which is his own blood (Hebrews:9:13-10:18|), and gives us better promises for the fulfilment of his task (Hebrews:10:19-12:3|). Hence this Epistle deserves to be called the Epistle of the Priesthood of Christ. Songs:W. P. Du Bose calls his exposition of the book, _High Priesthood and Sacrifice_ (1908). This conception of Christ as our Priest who offered himself on the Cross and as our Advocate with the Father runs all through the New Testament (Mark:10:46; strkjv@Matthew:20:28; strkjv@John:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Romans:8:32; strkjv@1Peter:1:18f.; strkjv@1John:2:1f.; strkjv@Revelation:5:9|, etc.). But it is in Hebrews that we have the full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as our Priest and Redeemer. The Glory of Jesus runs through the whole book.

rwp@Hebrews:5:7 @{In the days of his flesh} (\en tais hˆmerais tˆs sarkos autou\). Here (verses 7-9|) the author turns to the other requirement of a high priest (human sympathy). Since Jesus was "without sin" (4:15|) he did not have to offer sacrifices "for himself," yet in all other points he felt the sympathy of the human high priest, even more so by reason of his victory over sin. {Having offered up} (\prosenegkas\). Second aorist active (\-a\ form) participle of \prospher“\ (cf. verse 3|). An allusion to the Agony of Christ in Gethsemane. {Supplications} (\hiketˆrias\). Socrates, Polybius, Job:(Job:40:22|) combine this word with \deˆseis\ (prayers) as here. The older form was \hikesia\. The word \hiketˆrios\ is an adjective from \hiketˆs\ (a suppliant from \hik“\, to come to one) and suggests one coming with an olive-branch (\elaia\). Here only in the N.T. {With strong crying and tears} (\meta kraugˆs ischuras kai dakru“n\). See strkjv@Luke:22:44f|. for a picture of the scene in Gethsemane (anguish and pathos). No doubt the writer has in mind other times when Jesus shed tears (John:11:35; strkjv@Luke:19:41|), but Gethsemane chiefly. {To save him from death} (\s“zein ek thanatou\). A reference to the cry of Jesus in Gethsemane (Matthew:26:39|). {Having been heard for his godly fear} (\eisakoustheis apo tˆs eulabeias\). Old word from \eulabˆs\ (taking hold well, strkjv@Luke:2:25| from \eu, lamban“\, the verb \eulabeomai\ in N.T. only in strkjv@Hebrews:11:7|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@12:28|. Fine picture of Christ's attitude toward the Father in the prayer in Gethsemane and in all his prayers. Jesus in Gethsemane at once surrendered his will to that of the Father who heard his plea and enabled him to acquiesce in the Father's will.

rwp@James:1:13 @{Let no one say} (\mˆdeis leget“\). Present active imperative, prohibiting such a habit. {When he is tempted} (\peirazomenos\). Present passive participle of \peiraz“\, here in evil sense of tempt, not test, as in strkjv@Matthew:4:1|. Verses 12-18| give a vivid picture of temptation. {I am tempted of God} (\apo theou peirazomai\). The use of \apo\ shows origin (\apo\ with ablative case), not agency (\hupo\), as in strkjv@Mark:1:13|, of Satan. It is contemptible, but I have heard wicked and weak men blame God for their sins. Cf. strkjv@Proverbs:19:3|; Sirach strkjv@15:11f. Temptation does not spring "from God." {Cannot be tempted with evil} (\apeirastos kak“n\). Verbal compound adjective (alpha privative and \peiraz“\), probably with the ablative case, as is common with alpha privative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516), though Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 74) treats it as the genitive of definition. The ancient Greek has \apeiratos\ (from \peira“\), but this is the earliest example of \apeirastos\ (from \peiraz“\) made on the same model. Only here in the N.T. Hort notes \apeiratos kak“n\ as a proverb (Diodorus, Plutarch, Josephus) "free from evils." That is possible here, but the context calls for "untemptable" rather than "untempted." {And he himself tempteth no man} (\peirazei de autos oudena\). Because "untemptable."

rwp@James:1:22 @{But be ye} (\ginesthe de\). Rather, "But keep on becoming" (present middle imperative of \ginomai\). {Doers of the word} (\poiˆtai logou\). Old word for agent (\-tˆs\) from \poie“\ to do as in strkjv@4:11; strkjv@Romans:2:13|, but in strkjv@Acts:17:28| our "poet" (long regarded as a "doer" or "maker"). {Hearers} (\akroatai\). Old word for agent again from \akroamai\ (to be a hearer), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:2:13|. {Deluding yourselves} (\paralogizomenoi heautous\). Present middle (direct) participle of \paralogizomai\, to reckon aside (\para\) and so wrong, to cheat, to deceive. Redundant reflexive \heautous\ with the middle. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:4|. Such a man does not delude anyone but himself.

rwp@James:1:24 @{He beholdeth himself} (\katenoˆsen heauton\). Usually explained as gnomic aorist like those in strkjv@1:11|, but the ordinary force of the tenses is best here. "He glanced at himself (\katenoˆsen\ aorist) and off he has gone (\apelˆluthen\ perfect active) and straightway forgot (\epelatheto\, second aorist middle indicative of \epilanthanomai\) what sort of a man he was" (\hopoios ˆn\, back in the picture, imperfect tense). The tenses thus present a vivid and lifelike picture of the careless listener to preaching (Christ's wayside hearer).

rwp@James:1:26 @{Thinketh himself to be religious} (\dokei thrˆskos einai\). Condition of first class (\ei-dokei\). \Thrˆskos\ (of uncertain etymology, perhaps from \threomai\, to mutter forms of prayer) is predicate nominative after \einai\, agreeing with the subject of \dokei\ (either "he seems" or "he thinks"). This source of self-deception is in saying and doing. The word \thrˆskos\ is found nowhere else except in lexicons. Hatch (_Essays in Biblical Greek_, pp. 55-57) shows that it refers to the external observances of public worship, such as church attendance, almsgiving, prayer, fasting (Matthew:6:1-18|). It is the Pharisaic element in Christian worship. {While he bridleth not his tongue} (\mˆ chalinag“g“n gl“ssan heautou\). "Not bridling his own tongue." A reference to verse 19| and the metaphor is repeated in strkjv@3:12|. This is the earliest known example of the compound \chalinag“ge“\ (\chalinos\, bridle \ago\, to lead). It occurs also in Lucian. The picture is that of a man putting the bridle in his own mouth, not in that of another. See the similar metaphor of muzzling (\phimo“\) one's mouth (Matthew:22:12| \ephim“thˆ\). {Deceiveth} (\apat“n\). Present active participle from \apatˆ\ (deceit). He plays a trick on himself. {Religion} (\thrˆskeia\). Later form of \thrˆskiˆ\ (Herodotus) from \thrˆskos\ above. It means religious worship in its external observances, religious exercise or discipline, but not to the exclusion of reverence. In the N.T. we have it also in strkjv@Acts:26:5| of Judaism and in strkjv@Colossians:2:18| of worshipping angels. It is vain (\mataios\, feminine form same as masculine) or empty. Comes to nothing.

rwp@James:2:5 @{Did not God choose?} (\ouch ho theos exelexato;\). Affirmative answer expected. First aorist middle (indirect, God chose for himself) indicative of \ekleg“\, the very form used by Paul three times of God's choice in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:27f|. {As to the world} (\t“i kosm“i\). The ethical dative of interest, as the world looks at it as in strkjv@Acts:7:20; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:18; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:4; strkjv@James:4:4|. By the use of the article (the poor) James does not affirm that God chose all the poor, but only that he did choose poor people (Matthew:10:23-26; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26-28|). {Rich in faith} (\plousious en pistei\). Rich because of their faith. As he has shown in strkjv@1:9f|. {Which he promised} (\hˆs epeggeilato\). Genitive of the accusative relative \hˆn\ attracted to the case of the antecedent \basileias\ (the Messianic kingdom), the same verb and idea already in strkjv@1:12| (\epˆggeilato\). Cf. the beatitude of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:5:3| for the poor in spirit.

rwp@James:5:20 @{Let him know} (\gin“sket“\). Present active imperative third person singular of \gin“sk“\, but Westcott and Hort read \gin“skete\ (know ye) after B. In either case it is the conclusion of the condition in verse 19|. {He which converteth} (\ho epistrepsas\). First aorist active articular participle of \epistreph“\ of verse 19|. {From the error} (\ek planˆs\). "Out of the wandering" of verse 19| (\planˆ\, from which \plana“\ is made). See strkjv@1John:4:6| for contrast between "truth" and "error." {A soul from death} (\psuchˆn ek thanatou\). The soul of the sinner (\hamart“lon\) won back to Christ, not the soul of the man winning him. A few MSS. have \autou\ added (his soul), which leaves it ambiguous, but \autou\ is not genuine. It is ultimate and final salvation here meant by the future (\s“sei\). {Shall cover a multitude of sins} (\kalupsei plˆthos hamarti“n\). Future active of \kalupt“\, old verb, to hide, to veil. But whose sins (those of the converter or the converted)? The Roman Catholics (also Mayor and Ropes) take it of the sins of the converter, who thus saves himself by saving others. The language here will allow that, but not New Testament teaching in general. It is apparently a proverbial saying which Resch considers one of the unwritten sayings of Christ (Clem. Al. _Paed_. iii. 12). It occurs also in strkjv@1Peter:4:8|, where it clearly means the sins of others covered by love as a veil thrown over them. The saying appears also in strkjv@Proverbs:10:12|: "Hatred stirs up strife, but love hides all transgressions"--that is "love refuses to see faults" (Mayor admits). That is undoubtedly the meaning in strkjv@1Peter:4:8; strkjv@James:5:20|.

rwp@Info_John @ THE AUTHOR THE APOSTLE JOHN Loisy (_Leviticus:Quatr. Evangile_, p. 132) says that if one takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does not take it "literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not use his own name instead of a _nom de plume_. Reference can be made to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no one of which gives the author's name. One can see a reason for the turn here given since the book consists so largely of personal experiences of the author with Christ. He thus avoids the too frequent use of the personal pronoun and preserves the element of witness which marks the whole book. One by one the other twelve apostles disappear if we test their claims for the authorship. In the list of seven in chapter strkjv@John:21| it is easy to drop the names of Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (Acts:12:1|). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle John as the author.

rwp@Info_John @ HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his _Diatessaron_, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter strkjv@John:11| which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in strkjv@Matthew:23|, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter strkjv@John:21| with that in strkjv@Luke:5|, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter strkjv@John:12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in strkjv@Luke:7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter strkjv@John:1| is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910).

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 @ THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK He tells us himself in strkjv@John:20:30f|. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: "But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in Christ.

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@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:1:14 @{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:1:21 @{And they asked him} (\kai ˆr“tˆsan auton\). Here the paratactic \kai\ is like the transitional \oun\ (then). {What then?} (\Ti oun;\). Argumentative \oun\ like Paul's \ti oun\ in strkjv@Romans:6:15|. _Quid ergo?_ {Art thou Elijah?} (\Su Elias ei;\). The next inevitable question since Elijah had been understood to be the forerunner of the Messiah from strkjv@Malachi:4:5|. In strkjv@Mark:9:11f.| Jesus will identify John with the Elijah of Malachi's prophecy. Why then does John here flatly deny it? Because the expectation was that Elijah would return in person. This John denies. Jesus only asserts that John was Elijah in spirit. Elijah in person they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration. {He saith} (\legei\). Vivid dramatic present. {I am not} (\ouk eimi\). Short and blunt denial. {Art thou the prophet?} (\ho prophˆtˆs ei su;\). "The prophet art thou?" This question followed naturally the previous denials. Moses (Deuteronomy:18:15|) had spoken of a prophet like unto himself. Christians interpreted this prophet to be the Messiah (Acts:3:22; strkjv@7:37|), but the Jews thought him another forerunner of the Messiah (John:7:40|). It is not clear in strkjv@John:6:15| whether the people identified the expected prophet with the Messiah, though apparently so. Even the Baptist later became puzzled in prison whether Jesus himself was the true Messiah or just one of the forerunners (Luke:7:19|). People wondered about Jesus himself whether he was the Messiah or just one of the looked for prophets (Mark:8:28; strkjv@Matthew:16:14|). {And he answered} (\kai apekrithˆ\). First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense of voice gone) indicative of \apokrinomai\, to give a decision from myself, to reply. {No} (\Ou\). Shortest possible denial.

rwp@John:1:23 @{He said} (\ephˆ\). Common imperfect active (or second aorist active) of \phˆmi\, to say, old defective verb. {I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness} (\Eg“ ph“nˆ bo“ntos en tˆi erˆm“i\). For his answer John quotes strkjv@Isaiah:40:3|. The Synoptics (Mark:1:3; strkjv@Matthew:3:3; strkjv@Luke:3:4|) quote this language from Isaiah as descriptive of John, but do not say that he also applied it to himself. There is no reason to think that he did not do so. John also refers to Isaiah as the author of the words and also of the message, "{Make straight the way of the Lord}" (\Euthunate tˆn hodon tou kuriou\). By this language (\euthun“\ in N.T. only here and strkjv@James:3:4|, first aorist active imperative here) John identifies himself to the committee as the forerunner of the Messiah. The early writers note the differences between the use of \Logos\ (Word) for the Messiah and \ph“nˆ\ (Voice) for John.

rwp@John:3:19 @{And this is the judgment} (\hautˆ de estin hˆ krisis\). A thoroughly Johannine phrase for sequence of thought (15:12; strkjv@17:3; strkjv@1John:1:5; strkjv@5:11,14; strkjv@3John:1:6|). It is more precisely the process of judging (\kri-sis\) rather than the result (\kri-ma\) of the judgment. "It is no arbitrary sentence, but the working out of a moral law" (Bernard). {The light is come} (\to ph“s elˆluthen\). Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\, a permanent result as already explained in the Prologue concerning the Incarnation (1:4,5,9,11|). Jesus is the Light of the world. {Loved darkness} (\ˆgapˆsan to skotos\). Job:(Job:24:13|) spoke of men rebelling against the light. Here \to skotos\, common word for moral and spiritual darkness (1Thessalonians:5:5|), though \hˆ skotia\ in strkjv@John:1:5|. "Darkness" is common in John as a metaphor for the state of sinners (8:12; strkjv@12:35, 46; strkjv@1John:1:6; strkjv@2:8,9,11|). Jesus himself is the only moral and spiritual light of the world (8:12|) as he dared claim to his enemies. The pathos of it all is that men fall in love with the darkness of sin and rebel against the light like denizens of the underworld, "for their works were evil (\ponˆra\)." When the light appears, they scatter to their holes and dens. \Ponˆros\ (from \ponos\, toil, \pone“\, to toil) is used of the deeds of the world by Jesus (7:7|). In the end the god of this world blinds men's eyes so that they do not see the light (2Corinthians:4:4|). The fish in the Mammoth Cave have no longer eyes, but only sockets where eyes used to be. The evil one has a powerful grip on the world (1John:5:19|).

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:3:31 @{Is above all} (\epan“ pant“n\). Ablative case with the compound preposition \epan“\. See the same idea in strkjv@Romans:9:5|. Here we have the comments of Evangelist (John) concerning the last words of John in verse 30| which place Jesus above himself. He is above all men, not alone above the Baptist. Bernard follows those who treat verses 31-36| as dislocated and put them after verse 21| (the interview with Nicodemus), but they suit better here. {Of the earth} (\ek tˆs gˆs\). John is fond of this use of \ek\ for origin and source of character as in strkjv@1:46; strkjv@1John:4:5|. Jesus is the one that comes out of heaven (\ho ek tou ouranou erchomenos\) as he has shown in strkjv@1:1-18|. Hence he is "above all."

rwp@John:4:2 @{Although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples} (\kaitoige Iˆsous autos ouk ebaptizen all' hoi mathˆtai autou\). Parenthetical explanation that applies also to strkjv@3:22|. Imperfect tense means that it was not the habit of Jesus. This is the only N.T. instance of \kaitoige\ (and yet indeed), compound conjunction (\kaitoi\ in strkjv@Acts:14:17; strkjv@Hebrews:4:3|) with intensive particle \ge\ added. This is the last mention of baptism under the direction of Jesus till the Great Commission (Matthew:28:19|). It is possible that Jesus stopped the baptizing because of the excitement and the issue raised about his Messianic claims till after his resurrection when he enjoined it upon his disciples as a rite of public enlistment in his service.

rwp@John:4:44 @{For Jesus himself testified} (\autos gar Iˆsous emarturˆsen\). John's explanation of the conduct of Jesus by quoting a proverb often used by Jesus (Mark:6:4; strkjv@Matthew:13:57; strkjv@Luke:4:24| in reference to Nazareth), but not necessarily used by Jesus on this occasion. A similar proverb has been found in Plutarch, Pliny, Seneca. {A prophet hath no honour in his own country} (\prophˆtˆs en tˆi idiƒi patridi timˆn ouk echei\). What is meant by \patridi\? In the Synoptics (Luke:4:24; strkjv@Mark:6:4; strkjv@Matthew:13:57|) the reference is to Nazareth where he was twice rejected. But what has John in mind in quoting it here? He probably knew the quotations in the Synoptics. Does John refer to Judea by "his own country"? If so, the application hardly fits for he had already explained that Jesus was leaving Judea because he was too popular there (4:1-3|). If he means Galilee, he immediately mentions the cordial welcome accorded Jesus there (verse 45|). But even so this is probably John's meaning for he is speaking of the motive of Jesus in going into Galilee where he had not yet laboured and where he apparently had no such fame as in Judea and now in Samaria.

rwp@John:4:53 @{Songs:the father knew} (\egn“ oun ho patˆr\). Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\. Inferential use of \oun\. {Himself believed} (\episteusen autos\). Not just the word of Jesus (verse 50|), but complete faith in Jesus himself as the Messiah, absolute use of \pisteu“\ as in strkjv@1:7|. {And his whole house} (\kai hˆ oikia autou\). All his family, the first example of a whole family believing in Jesus like the later case of Crispus (Acts:18:8|).

rwp@John:5:13 @{He that was healed} (\ho iatheis\). First aorist passive articular participle of \iaomai\ (John's usual word). {Who it was} (\tis estin\). Present tense preserved in indirect question. {Had conveyed himself away} (\exeneusen\). First aorist active indicative of \ekne“\, old verb to swim out, to slip out, or from \ekneu“\, to turn out, to turn the head to one side (to one side with which compare \eneneuon\, they nodded, strkjv@Luke:1:62|). Either of these verbs can explain the form here. The aorist tense simply states an antecedent action without being a pastperfect. {A multitude being in the place} (\ochlou ontos en t“i top“i\). Genitive absolute and the reason for Christ's departure.

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:5:17 @{Answered} (\apekrinato\). Regular aorist middle indicative of \apokrinomai\, in John here only and verse 19|, elsewhere \apekrithˆ\ as in verse 11|. {My Father} (\ho pater mou\). Not "our Father," claim to peculiar relation to the Father. {Worketh even until now} (\he“s arti ergazetai\). Linear present middle indicative, "keeps on working until now" without a break on the Sabbath. Philo points out this fact of the continuous activity of God. Justin Martyr, Origen and others note this fact about God. He made the Sabbath for man's blessing, but cannot observe it himself. {And I work} (\kag“ ergazomai\). Jesus puts himself on a par with God's activity and thus justifies his healing on the Sabbath.

rwp@John:5:18 @{Sought the more} (\mallon ezˆtoun\). Imperfect active of \zˆte“\, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (\auton apokteinai\, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in strkjv@7:1,19,25; strkjv@8:37,40|. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. {Not only brake the Sabbath} (\ou monon elue to sabbaton\). Imperfect active of \lu“\. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. \Lu“\ means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of \lu“\ in this sense like \luein ta penthˆ\ (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. {But also called God his own Father} (\alla kai patera idion elege ton theon\). "His own" (\idion\) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See strkjv@Romans:8:32| for \ho idios huios\, "his own Son." {Making himself equal with God} (\ison heauton poi“n t“i the“i\). \Isos\ is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means {equal}. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ \isa the“i\, "equal to God" (plural \isa\, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be \isos the“i\ because in strkjv@John:14:28| he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in strkjv@14:7| that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in strkjv@10:33; strkjv@19:7|. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47|).

rwp@John:5:19 @{The Son} (\ho huios\). The absolute use of the Son in relation to the Father admitting the charge in verse 18| and defending his equality with the Father. {Can do nothing by himself} (\ou dunatai poiein aph'heautou ouden\). True in a sense of every man, but in a much deeper sense of Christ because of the intimate relation between him and the Father. See this same point in strkjv@5:30; strkjv@7:28; strkjv@8:28; strkjv@14:10|. Jesus had already made it in strkjv@5:17|. Now he repeats and defends it. {But what he seeth the Father doing} (\an mˆ ti blepˆi ton patera poiounta\). Rather, "unless he sees the Father doing something." Negative condition (\an mˆ\=\ean mˆ\, if not, unless) of third class with present (habit) subjunctive (\blepˆi\) and present active participle (\poiounta\). It is a supreme example of a son copying the spirit and work of a father. In his work on earth the Son sees continually what the Father is doing. In healing this poor man he was doing what the Father wishes him to do. {For what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner} (\ha gar an ekeinos poiˆi tauta kai ho huios homoi“s poiei\). Indefinite relative clause with \an\ and the present active subjunctive (\poiˆi\). Note \ekeinos\, emphatic demonstrative, that one, referring to the Father. This sublime claim on the part of Jesus will exasperate his enemies still more.

rwp@John:5:25 @{And now is} (\kai nun estin\). See strkjv@4:23| for this phrase. Not the future resurrection in verse 28|, but the spiritual resurrection here and now. {The dead} (\hoi nekroi\). The spiritually dead, dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians:2:1,5; strkjv@5:14|). {Shall hear the voice of the Son of God} (\akousousin tˆs ph“nˆs tou huiou tou theou\). Note three genitives (\ph“nˆs\ after \akousousin\, \huiou\ with \ph“nˆs\, \theou\ with \huiou\). Note three articles (correlation of the article) and that Jesus here calls himself "the Son of God" as in strkjv@10:36; strkjv@11:4|. {Shall live} (\zˆsousin\). Future active indicative, shall come to life spiritually.

rwp@John:5:26 @{In himself} (\en heaut“i\). The Living God possesses life wholly in himself and so he has bestowed this power of life to the Son as already stated in the Prologue of the Logos (1:3|). For "gave" (\ed“ken\, timeless aorist active indicative) see also strkjv@3:35; strkjv@17:2,24|. The particles "as" (\h“sper\) and "so" (\hout“s\) mark here the fact, not the degree (Westcott).

rwp@John:5:27 @{Because he is the Son of man} (\hoti huios anthr“pou estin\). Rather, "because he is a son of man" (note absence of articles and so not as the Messiah), because the judge of men must partake of human nature himself (Westcott). Bernard insists that John is here giving his own reflections rather than the words of Jesus and uses \huios anthr“pou\ in the same sense as \ho huios tou anthr“pou\ (always in the Gospels used by Jesus of himself). But that in my opinion is a wrong view since we have here ostensibly certainly the words of Jesus himself. Songs:in strkjv@Revelation:1:13; strkjv@4:14| \huion anthr“pou\ means "a son of man."

rwp@John:5:31 @{If I bear witness of myself} (\Ean eg“ martur“ peri emautou\). Condition of third class, undetermined with prospect of determination (\ean\ and present active subjunctive of \marture“\). The emphasis is on \eg“\ (I alone with no other witness). {Is not true} (\ouk estin alˆthˆs\). In law the testimony of a witness is not received in his own case (Jewish, Greek, Roman law). See strkjv@Deuteronomy:19:15| and the allusion to it by Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:18:16|. See also strkjv@2Corinthians:13:1; strkjv@1Timothy:5:19|. And yet in strkjv@8:12-19| Jesus claims that his witness concerning himself is true because the Father gives confirmation of his message. The Father and the Son are the two witnesses (8:17|). It is a paradox and yet true. But here Jesus yields to the rabbinical demand for proof outside of himself. He has the witness of another (the Father, strkjv@5:32,37|), the witness of the Baptist (5:33|), the witness of the works of Jesus (5:36|), the witness of the Scriptures (5:39|), the witness of Moses in particular (5:45|).

rwp@John:6:15 @{Perceiving} (\gnous\). Second aorist active participle of \gin“sk“\. 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 poiˆs“sin 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:6:35 @{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:9:6 @{He spat on the ground} (\eptusen chamai\). First aorist active indicative of the old verb \ptu“\ for which see strkjv@Mark:7:33|. \Chamai\ is an old adverb either in the dative or locative (sense suits locative), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:6|. Jesus was not asked to cure this man. The curative effects of saliva are held in many places. The Jews held saliva efficacious for eye-trouble, but it was forbidden on the Sabbath. "That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in the application of the clay is contradicted by the fact that in other cases of blindness He did not use it" (Dods). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23|. Why he here accommodated himself to current belief we do not know unless it was to encourage the man to believe. {He made clay} (\epoiˆsen pˆlon\). Only use of \pˆlos\, old word for clay, in N.T. in this chapter and strkjv@Romans:9:21|. The kneading of the clay and spittle added another offence against the Sabbath rules of the rabbis. {Anointed his eyes with the clay} (\epechrisen autou ton pˆlon epi tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active indicative of \epichri“\, old verb, to spread on, anoint, here only and verse 11| in N.T. "He spread the clay upon his eyes." B C read \epethˆken\ (first aorist active indicative of \epitithˆmi\, to put on).

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:11:25 @{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:11:27 @{Yea, Lord} (\Nai, kurie\). Martha probably did not understand all that Jesus said and meant, but she did believe in the future resurrection, in eternal life for believers in Christ, in the power of Christ to raise even the dead here and now. She had heroic faith and makes now her own confession of faith in words that outrank those of Peter in strkjv@Matthew:16:16| because she makes hers with her brother dead now four days and with the hope that Jesus will raise him up now. {I have believed} (\pepisteuka\). Perfect active indicative of \pisteu“\. It is my settled and firm faith. Peter uses this same tense in strkjv@6:69|. {That thou art the Son of God} (\hoti su ei ho Christos ho huios tou theou\). The Messiah or the Christ (1:41|) was to be also "the Son of God" as the Baptist said he had found Jesus to be (1:34|), as Peter confessed on Hermon for the apostles (Matthew:16:16|), as Jesus claimed to be (John:11:41|) and confessed on oath before Caiaphas that he was (Matthew:26:63f.|), and as John stated that it was his purpose to prove in his Gospel (20:31|). But no one said it under more trying circumstances than Martha. {Even he that cometh into the world} (\ho eis ton kosmon erchomenos\). No "even" in the Greek. This was a popular way of putting the people's expectation (6:14; strkjv@Matthew:11:3|). Jesus himself spoke of his coming into the world (9:39; strkjv@16:28; strkjv@8:37|).

rwp@John:11:33 @{When Jesus therefore saw her weeping} (\Iˆsous oun h“s eiden autˆn klaiousan\). Proleptic position of "Jesus," "Jesus therefore when he saw." She was weeping at the feet of Jesus, not at the tomb. {And the Jews also weeping} (\kai tous Ioudaious klaiontas\). Mary's weeping was genuine, that of the Jews was partly perfunctory and professional and probably actual "wailing" as the verb \klai“\ can mean. \Klai“\ is joined with \alalaz“\ in strkjv@Mark:5:38|, with \ololuz“\ in strkjv@James:5:1|, with \thorube“\ in strkjv@Mark:5:39|, with \penthe“\ in strkjv@Mark:16:10|. It was an incongruous combination. {He groaned in the spirit} (\enebrimˆsato t“i pneumati\). First aorist middle indicative of \embrimaomai\, old verb (from \en\, and \brimˆ\, strength) to snort with anger like a horse. It occurs in the LXX (Daniel:11:30|) for violent displeasure. The notion of indignation is present in the other examples of the word in the N.T. (Mark:1:43; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Matthew:9:30|). Songs:it seems best to see that sense here and in verse 38|. The presence of these Jews, the grief of Mary, Christ's own concern, the problem of the raising of Lazarus--all greatly agitated the spirit of Jesus (locative case \t“i pneumati\). He struggled for self-control. {Was troubled} (\etaraxen heauton\). First aorist active indicative of \tarass“\, old verb to disturb, to agitate, with the reflexive pronoun, "he agitated himself" (not passive voice, not middle). "His sympathy with the weeping sister and the wailing crowd caused this deep emotion" (Dods). Some indignation at the loud wailing would only add to the agitation of Jesus.

rwp@John:11:38 @{Again groaning in himself} (\palin embrim“menos en heaut“i\). Direct reference to the use of this same word (present middle participle here) in verse 33|, only with \en heaut“i\ (in himself) rather than \t“i pneumati\ (in his spirit), practically the same idea. The speculation concerning his power stirred the depths of his nature again. {Cometh to the tomb} (\erchetai eis to mnˆmeion\). Vivid historical present. {A cave} (\spˆlaion\). Old word (from \speos\, cavern). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:21:13|. {Lay against it} (\epekeito ep' aut“i\). Imperfect middle of \epikeimai\, old verb to lie upon as in strkjv@21:9| and figuratively (1Corinthians:9:16|). Note repetition of \epi\ with locative case. The use of a cave for burial was common (Genesis:23:19|). Either the body was let down through a horizontal opening (hardly so here) or put in a tomb cut in the face of the rock (if so, \epi\ can mean "against"). The stones were used to keep away wild animals from the bodies.

rwp@John:11:51 @{Not of himself} (\aph' heautou ouk\). Not wholly of himself, John means. There was more in what Caiaphas said than he understood. His language is repeated in strkjv@18:14|. {Prophesied} (\eprophˆteusen\). Aorist active indicative of \prophˆteu“\. But certainly unconscious prophecy on his part and purely accidental. Caiaphas meant only what was mean and selfish. {That Jesus should die} (\hoti emellen Iˆsous apothnˆskein\). Imperfect active of \mell“\ in indirect discourse instead of the usual present retained after a secondary tense (\eprophˆteusen\) as sometimes occurs (see strkjv@2:25|).

rwp@John:12:6 @{Not because he cared for the poor} (\ouch hoti peri t“n pt“ch“n emelen aut“i\). Literally, "not because it was a care to him concerning the poor" (impersonal imperfect of \melei\, it was a care). John often makes explanatory comments of this kind as in strkjv@2:21f.; strkjv@7:22,39|. {But because he was a thief} (\alle hoti kleptˆs ˆn\). Clearly the disciples did not know then that Judas was a petty thief. That knowledge came later after he took the bribe of thirty pieces of silver for betraying Jesus (Matthew:26:15|), for the disciples did not suspect Judas of treachery (13:28f.|), let alone small peculations. There is no reason for thinking that John is unfair to Judas. "Temptation commonly comes through that for which we are naturally fitted" (Westcott). In this case Judas himself was "the poor beggar" who wanted this money. {And having the bag took away what was put therein} (\kai to gl“ssokomon ech“n ta ballomena ebastazen\). This is the correct text. This compound for the earlier \gl“ssokomeion\ (from \gl“ssa\, tongue, and \kome“\, to tend) was originally a receptacle for the tongues or mouth-pieces of wind instruments. The shorter form is already in the Doric inscriptions and is common in the papyri for "money-box" as here. It occurs also in Josephus, Plutarch, etc. In N.T. only here and strkjv@13:29| in same sense about Judas. \Ballomena\ is present passive participle (repeatedly put in) of \ball“\, to cast or fling. The imperfect active (custom) of \bastaz“\, old verb to pick up (John:10:31|), to carry (19:17|), but here and strkjv@20:15| with the sense to bear away as in Polybius, Josephus, Diogenes Laertes, and often so in the papyri.

rwp@John:12:16 @{Understood not} (\ouk egn“san\). Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\. Another comment by John concerning the failure of the disciples to know what was happening (cf. strkjv@2:22; strkjv@7:39|). {At the first} (\to pr“ton\). Adverbial accusative, as in strkjv@10:40; strkjv@19:39|. {Was glorified} (\edoxasthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \doxaz“\, to glorify, used of his death already in strkjv@7:39| and by Jesus himself of his death, resurrection, and ascension in strkjv@12:23; strkjv@13:31|. {Then remembered they} (\tote emnˆsthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \mimnˆsk“\. It was easier to understand then and they had the Holy Spirit to help them (16:13-15|). {Were written of him} (\ˆn ep' aut“i gegrammena\). Periphrastic past perfect passive of \graph“\ with neuter plural participle agreeing with \tauta\ (these things) and singular verb, though the plural \ˆsan\ could have been used. Note the threefold repetition of \tauta\ in this verse, "clumsy" Bernard calls it, but making for clarity. The use of \ep' aut“i\ for "of him" rather than \peri autou\ is unusual, but occurs in strkjv@Revelation:10:11; strkjv@22:16|. {They had done} (\epoiˆsan\). First aorist active indicative of \poie“\, simply, "they did."

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@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 @ THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK Literary charm is here beyond dispute. It is a book that only a man with genuine culture and literary genius could write. It has all the simple grace of Mark and Matthew plus an indefinable quality not in these wonderful books. There is a delicate finish of detail and proportion of parts that give the balance and poise that come only from full knowledge of the subject, the chief element in a good style according to Dr. James Stalker. This scientific physician, this man of the schools, this converted Gentile, this devoted friend of Paul, comes to the study of the life of Christ with a trained intellect, with an historian's method of research, with a physician's care in diagnosis and discrimination, with a charm of style all his own, with reverence for and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. One could not afford to give up either of the Four Gospels. They each supplement the other in a wonderful way. John's Gospel is the greatest book in all the world, reaching the highest heights of all. But if we had only Luke's Gospel, we should have an adequate portrait of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Son of Man. If Mark's is the Gospel for the Romans and Matthew's for the Jews, the Gospel of Luke is for the Gentile world. He shows the sympathy of Jesus for the poor and the outcast. Luke understands women and children and so is the universal Gospel of mankind in all phases and conditions. It is often called the Gospel of womanhood, of infancy, of prayer, of praise. We have in Luke the first Christian hymns. With Luke we catch some glimpses of the child Jesus for which we are grateful. Luke was a friend and follower of Paul, and verbal parallels with Paul's Epistles do occur, but there is no Pauline propaganda in the Gospel as Moffatt clearly shows (_Intr. to Lit. of the N.T._, p. 281). The Prologue is in literary _Koin‚_ and deserves comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style is versatile and is often coloured by his source. He was a great reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show. Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting Thucydides. Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics used to cite strkjv@Luke:2:1-7| as a passage containing more historical blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his various books, especially in _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_. The main feature of this proof appears also in my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_. Songs:many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still stands alone.

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:7:3 @{Sent unto him elders of the Jews} (\apesteilen pros auton presbouterous t“n Ioudai“n\). strkjv@Matthew:8:5| says "the centurion came unto him." For discussion of this famous case of apparent discrepancy see discussion on Matthew. One possible solution is that Luke tells the story as it happened with the details, whereas Matthew simply presents a summary statement without the details. What one does through another he does himself. {Asking him} (\er“t“n auton\). Present active participle, masculine singular nominative, of the verb \er“ta“\ common for asking a question as in the old Greek (Luke:22:68|). But more frequently in the N.T. the verb has the idea of making a request as here. This is not a Hebraism or an Aramaism, but is a common meaning of the verb in the papyri (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 168). It is to be noted here that Luke represents the centurion himself as "asking" through the elders of the Jews (leading citizens). In strkjv@Matthew:8:6| the verb is \parakal“n\ (beseeching). {That he would come and save} (\hop“s elth“n dias“sˆi\). \Hina\ is the more common final or sub-final (as here) conjunction, but \hop“s\ still occurs. \Dias“sˆi\ is effective aorist active subjunctive, to bring safe through as in a storm (Acts:28:1,4|). Common word.

rwp@Luke:7:4 @{Besought} (\parekaloun\). Imperfect active, began and kept on beseeching. This is the same verb used by Matthew in strkjv@Matthew:8:5| of the centurion himself. {Earnestly} (\spoudai“s\). From \spoudˆ\ haste. Songs:eagerly, earnestly, zealously, for time was short. {That thou shouldst do this for him} (\h“i parexˆi touto\). Second future middle singular of \parech“\. Old and common verb, furnish on thy part. \H“i\ is relative in dative case almost with notion of contemplated result (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 961).

rwp@Luke:7:5 @{For} (\gar\). This clause gives the reason why the elders of the Jews consider him "worthy" (\axios\, drawing down the scale, \axis\, \ago\). He was hardly a proselyte, but was a Roman who had shown his love for the Jews. {Himself} (\autos\). All by himself and at his own expense. {Us} (\hˆmin\). Dative case, for us. It is held by some archaeologists that the black basalt ruins in Tell Hum are the remains of the very synagogue (\tˆn sunag“gˆn\). Literally, {the synagogue}, the one which we have, the one for us.

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:7:26 @{A prophet?} (\prophˆtˆn;\). A real prophet will always get a hearing if he has a message from God. He is a for-speaker, forth-teller (\pro-phˆtˆs\). He may or may not be a fore-teller. The main thing is for the prophet to have a message from God which he is willing to tell at whatever cost to himself. The word of God came to John in the wilderness of Judea (Luke:3:2|). That made him a prophet. There is a prophetic element in every real preacher of the Gospel. Real prophets become leaders and moulders of men.

rwp@Luke:7:36 @{That he would eat with him} (\hina phagˆi met' autou\). Second aorist active subjunctive. The use of \hina\ after \er“ta“\ (see also strkjv@Luke:16:27|) is on the border between the pure object clause and the indirect question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1046) and the pure final clause. Luke has two other instances of Pharisees who invited Jesus to meals (11:37; strkjv@14:1|) and he alone gives them. This is the Gospel of Hospitality (Ragg). Jesus would dine with a Pharisee or with a publican (Luke:5:29; strkjv@Mark:2:15; strkjv@Matthew:9:10|) and even invited himself to be the guest of Zaccheus (Luke:9:5|). This Pharisee was not as hostile as the leaders in Jerusalem. It is not necessary to think this Pharisee had any sinister motive in his invitation though he was not overly friendly (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:8:19 @{His mother and brethren} (\hˆ mˆtˆr kai hoi adelphoi autou\). strkjv@Mark:3:31-35; strkjv@Matthew:12:46-50| place the visit of the mother and brothers of Jesus before the parable of the sower. Usually Luke follows Mark's order, but he does not do so here. At first the brothers of Jesus (younger sons of Joseph and Mary, I take the words to mean, there being sisters also) were not unfriendly to the work of Jesus as seen in strkjv@John:2:12| when they with the mother of Jesus are with him and the small group (half dozen) disciples in Capernaum after the wedding in Cana. But as Jesus went on with his work and was rejected at Nazareth (Luke:4:16-31|), there developed an evident disbelief in his claims on the part of the brothers who ridiculed him six months before the end (John:7:5|). At this stage they have apparently come with Mary to take Jesus home out of the excitement of the crowds, perhaps thinking that he is beside himself (Mark:3:21|). They hardly believed the charge of the rabbis that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub. Certainly the mother of Jesus could give no credence to that slander. But she herself was deeply concerned and wanted to help him if possible. See discussion of the problem in my little book _The Mother of Jesus_ and also on ¯Mark:3:31| and ¯Matthew:12:46|. {Come to him} (\suntuchein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \suntugchan“\, an old verb, though here alone in the N.T., meaning to meet with, to fall in with as if accidentally, here with associative instrumental case \aut“i\.

rwp@Luke:8:27 @{And for a long time} (\kai chron“i hikan“i\). The use of the associative instrumental case in expressions of time is a very old Greek idiom that still appears in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 527). {He had worn no clothes} (\ouk enedusato himation\). First aorist middle indicative, constative aorist, viewing the "long time" as a point. Not pluperfect as English has it and not for the pluperfect, simply "and for a long time he did not put on himself (indirect middle) any clothing." The physician would naturally note this item. Common verb \endu“\ or \endun“\. This item in Luke alone, though implied by strkjv@Mark:5:15| "clothed" (\himatismenon\). {And abode not in any house} (\kai en oikiƒi ouk emenen\). Imperfect active. Peculiar to Luke, though implied by the mention of tombs in all three (Mark:5:3; strkjv@Matthew:8:28; strkjv@Luke:8:27|).

rwp@Luke:18:2 @Regarded not (\mˆ entrepomenos\). Present middle participle of \entrep“\, old verb, to turn one on himself, to shame one, to reverence one. This was a "hard-boiled" judge who knew no one as his superior. See on ¯Matthew:21:37|.

rwp@Luke:18:10 @{Stood} (\statheis\). First aorist passive participle of \histˆmi\. 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 prosˆucheto\). 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} (\ˆ 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:18:13 @{Standing afar off} (\makrothen hest“s\). Second perfect active participle of \histˆmi\, intransitive like \statheis\ above. But no ostentation as with the Pharisee in verse 11|. At a distance from the Pharisee, not from the sanctuary. {Would not lift} (\ouk ˆthelen oude epƒrai\). Negatives (double) imperfect of {thel“}, was not willing even to lift up, refused to lift (\epƒrai\, first aorist active infinitive of the liquid compound verb, \ep-air“\). Smote (\etupte\). Imperfect active of \tupt“\, old verb, kept on smiting or beating. Worshippers usually lifted up their closed eyes to God. {Be merciful} (\hilasthˆti\). First aorist passive imperative of \hilaskomai\, an old verb, found also in LXX and inscriptions (\exhilaskomai\, Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 224). {A sinner} (\t“i hamart“l“i\). The sinner, not a sinner. It is curious how modern scholars ignore this Greek article. The main point in the contrast lies in this article. The Pharisee thought of others as sinners. The publican thinks of himself alone as the sinner, not of others at all.

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:18:31 @{Took unto him} (\paralab“n\). Second aorist active participle of \paralamban“\. Taking along with himself. Songs:Mark:10:32|. strkjv@Matthew:20:17| adds \kat' idian\ (apart). Jesus is making a special point of explaining his death to the Twelve. {We go up} (\anabainomen\). Present active indicative, we are going up. {Unto the Son of man} (\t“i hui“i tou anthr“pou\). Dative case of personal interest. The position is amphibolous and the construction makes sense either with "shall be accomplished" (\telesthˆsetai\) or "that are written" (\ta gegrammena\), probably the former. Compare these minute details of the prophecy here (verses 32f.|) with the words in strkjv@Mark:10:33f.; strkjv@Matthew:20:18f.|, which see.

rwp@Luke:19:7 @{Murmured} (\diegogguzonto\). Imperfect middle of this compound onomatopoetic word \dia-gogguz“\. In strkjv@Luke:5:30| we have the simple \gogguz“\, a late word like the cooing doves or the hum of bees. This compound with \dia-\ is still rarer, but more expressive. {To lodge} (\katalusai\). Jesus was the hero of this crowd from Galilee on their way to the passover. But here he had shocked their sensibilities and those of the people of Jericho by inviting himself to be the guest of this chief publican and notorious sinner who had robbed nearly everybody in the city by exorbitant taxes.

rwp@Luke:19:12 @{To take to himself a kingdom} (\labein heaut“i basileian\). Second aorist active infinitive of \lamban“\ with the dative reflexive \heaut“i\ where the middle voice could have been used. Apparently this parable has the historical basis of Archelaus who actually went from Jerusalem to Rome on this very errand to get a kingdom in Palestine and to come back to it. This happened while Jesus was a boy in Nazareth and it was a matter of common knowledge.

rwp@Luke:19:33 @{As they were loosing} (\luont“n aut“n\). Genitive absolute. {The owners thereof} (\hoi kurioi autou\). The same word \kurios\ used of the Lord Jesus in verse 31| (and 34|) and which these "owners" would understand. See on ¯Matthew:21:3; strkjv@Mark:11:3| for \kurios\ used by Jesus about himself with the expectation that these disciples would recognize him by that title as they did. The word in common use for the Roman emperor and in the LXX to translate the Hebrew _Elohim_ (God).

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

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:23:2 @{Began to accuse} (\ˆrxanto katˆgorein\). They went at it and kept it up. Luke mentions three, but neither of them includes their real reason nor do they mention their own condemnation of Jesus. They had indulged their hatred in doing it, but they no longer have the power of life and death. Hence they say nothing to Pilate of that. {We found} (\heuramen\). Second aorist active indicative with first aorist vowel \a\. Probably they mean that they had caught Jesus in the act of doing these things (_in flagrante delicto_) rather than discovery by formal trial. {Perverting our nation} (\diastrephonta to ethnos hˆm“n\). Present active participle of \diastreph“\, old verb to turn this way and that, distort, disturb. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:13:10|. The Sanhedrin imply that the great popularity of Jesus was seditious. {Forbidding to give tribute to Caesar}, (\k“luonta phorous kaisari didonai\). Note object infinitive \didonai\ after the participle \k“luonta\. Literally, hindering giving tribute to Caesar. This was a flat untruth. Their bright young students had tried desperately to get Jesus to say this very thing, but they had failed utterly (Luke:20:25|). {Saying that he himself is Christ a king} (\legonta hauton Christon basilea einai\). Note the indirect discourse here after the participle \legonta\ with the accusative (\hauton\ where \auton\ could have been used), and the infinitive. This charge is true, but not in the sense meant by them. Jesus did claim to be the Christ and the king of the kingdom of God. But the Sanhedrin wanted Pilate to think that he set himself up as a rival to Caesar. Pilate would understand little from the word "Christ," but "King" was a different matter. He was compelled to take notice of this charge else he himself would be accused to Caesar of winking at such a claim by Jesus.

rwp@Luke:23:7 @{When he knew} (\epignous\). Second aorist active participle from \epigin“sk“\, having gained full (\epi\, added knowledge). {Of Herod's jurisdiction} (\ek tˆs exousias Hˆr“idou\). Herod was naturally jealous of any encroachment by Pilate, the Roman Procurator of Judea. Songs:here was a chance to respect the prerogative (\exousia\) of Herod and get rid of this troublesome case also. {Sent him up} (\anepempsen\). First aorist active indicative of \anapemp“\. This common verb is used of sending back as in verse 11| or of sending up to a higher court as of Paul to Caesar (Acts:25:21|). {Who himself also was} (\onta kai auton\). Being also himself in Jerusalem. Present active participle of \eimi\.

rwp@Luke:23:13 @{Called together} (\sunkalesamenos\). First aorist middle participle (to himself). Pilate included "the people" in the hope that Jesus might have some friends among them.

rwp@Luke:23:35 @{The people stood beholding} (\histˆkei\). Past perfect active of \histˆmi\, intransitive and like imperfect. A graphic picture of the dazed multitude, some of whom may have been in the Triumphal Entry on Sunday morning. {Scoffed} (\exemuktˆrizon\). Imperfect active, perhaps inchoative, began to turn up (out, \ex\) at the dying Christ. The language comes from strkjv@Psalms:22:7|. {The Christ of God} (\ho Christos tou theou\). He had claimed to be just this (22:67,70|). The sarcastic sneer (he saved others; let him save others, for himself he cannot save) is in strkjv@Mark:15:31; strkjv@Matthew:27:42|. Luke alone gives the contemptuous use of \houtos\ (this fellow) and the fling in "the elect" (\ho eklektos\). These rulers were having their day at last.

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:24:12 @This entire verse is a Western non-interpolation. This incident is given in complete form in strkjv@John:18:2-10| and most of the words in this verse are there also. It is of a piece with many items in this chapter about which it is not easy to reach a final conclusion. {Stooping and looking in} (\parakupsas\). First aorist active participle of \parakupt“\, to stoop besides and peer into. Old verb used also in strkjv@John:20:5,11; strkjv@James:1:25; strkjv@1Peter:1:12|. {By themselves} (\mona\). Without the body. {To his home} (\pros hauton\). Literally, "to himself."

rwp@Luke:24:15 @{While they communed and questioned together} (\en t“i homilein autous kai sunzˆtein\). Same idiom as in verse 14|, which see. Note \sunzˆtein\; each questioned the other. {Jesus himself} (\autos Iˆsous\). In actual person. {Went with them} (\suneporeueto autois\). Imperfect middle, was going along with them.

rwp@Luke:24:27 @{Interpreted} (\diˆrmˆneusen\). First aorist active (constative aorist) indicative of \diermˆneu“\ (Margin has the imperfect \diˆrmˆneuen\), intensive compound (\dia\) of \hermˆneu“\, the old verb to interpret from \hermˆneus\, interpreter, and that from \Hermˆs\, the messenger of the gods as the people of Lystra took Paul to be (Acts:14:12|). But what wonderful exegesis the two disciples were now hearing! {Concerning himself} (\peri heauton\). Jesus found himself in the Old Testament, a thing that some modern scholars do not seem able to do.

rwp@Luke:24:36 @{He himself stood} (\autos estˆ\). He himself stepped and stood. Some documents do not have "Peace be unto you."

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@Mark:5:5 @{He was crying out, and cutting himself with stones} (\ˆn kraz“n kai katakopt“n heauton lithois\). Further vivid details by Mark. Night and day his loud scream or screech could be heard like other demoniacs (cf. strkjv@1:26; strkjv@3:11; strkjv@9:26|). The verb for cutting himself occurs here only in the N.T., though an old verb. It means to _cut down_ (perfective use of \kata-\). We say _cut up_, gash, hack to pieces. Perhaps he was scarred all over with such gashes during his moments of wild frenzy night and day in the tombs and on the mountains. Periphrastic imperfect active with \ˆn\ and the participles.

rwp@Mark:5:6 @{Ran and worshipped} (\edramen kai prosekunˆsen\). "At first perhaps with hostile intentions. The onrush of the naked yelling maniac must have tried the newly recovered confidence of the Twelve. We can imagine their surprise when, on approaching, he threw himself on his knees" (Swete).

rwp@Mark:5:30 @{Perceiving in himself} (\epignous en heaut“i\). She thought, perhaps, that the touch of Christ's garment would cure her without his knowing it, a foolish fancy, no doubt, but one due to her excessive timidity. Jesus felt in his own consciousness. The Greek idiom more exactly means: "Jesus perceiving in himself the power from him go out" (\tˆn ex autou dunamin exelthousan\). The aorist participle here is punctiliar simply and timeless and can be illustrated by strkjv@Luke:10:18|: "I was beholding Satan fall" (\ethe“roun ton Satanƒn pesonta\), where \pesonta\ does not mean _fallen_ (\pept“kota\) as in strkjv@Revelation:9:1| nor falling (\piptonta\) but simply the constative aorist {fall} (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 684). Songs:here Jesus means to say: "I felt in myself the power from me go." Scholars argue whether in this instance Jesus healed the woman by conscious will or by unconscious response to her appeal. Some even argue that the actual healing took place after Jesus became aware of the woman's reaching for help by touching his garment. What we do know is that Jesus was conscious of the going out of power from himself. strkjv@Luke:8:46| uses \egn“n\ (personal knowledge), but Mark has \epignous\ (personal and additional, clear knowledge). One may remark that no real good can be done without the outgoing of power. That is true of mother, preacher, teacher, doctor. {Who touched my garments?} (\Tis mou hˆpsato t“n himati“n;\). More exactly, {Who touched me on my clothes}; The Greek verb uses two genitives, of the person and the thing. It was a dramatic moment for Jesus and for the timid woman. Later it was a common practice for the crowds to touch the hem of Christ's garments and be healed (Mark:6:56|). But here Jesus chose to single out this case for examination. There was no magic in the garments of Jesus. Perhaps there was superstition in the woman's mind, but Jesus honoured her darkened faith as in the case of Peter's shadow and Paul's handkerchief.

rwp@Mark:6:17 @{For Herod himself} (\Autos gar ho Hˆr“idˆs\). Mark now proceeds to give the narrative of the death of John the Baptist some while before these nervous fears of Herod. But this _post eventum_ narrative is very little out of the chronological order. The news of John's death at Machaerus may even have come at the close of the Galilean tour. "The tidings of the murder of the Baptist seem to have brought the recent circuit to an end" (Swete). The disciples of John "went and told Jesus. Now when Jesus heard it, he withdrew from thence in a boat" (Matthew:14:12f.|). See on ¯Matthew:14:3-12| for the discussion about Herod Antipas and John and Herodias.

rwp@Mark:6:45 @{To Bethsaida} (\pros Bˆthsaidan\). This is Bethsaida on the Western side, not Bethsaida Julias on the Eastern side where they had just been (Luke:9:10|). {While he himself sendeth the multitude away} (\he“s autos apoluei ton ochlon\). strkjv@Matthew:14:22| has it "till he should send away" (\he“s hou apolusˆi\) with the aorist subjunctive of purpose. Mark with the present indicative \apoluei\ pictures Jesus as personally engaged in persuading the crowds to go away now. strkjv@John:6:41f.| explains this activity of Jesus. The crowds had become so excited that they were in the mood to start a revolution against the Roman government and proclaim Jesus king. He had already forced in reality the disciples to leave in a boat {to go before him} (\proagein\) in order to get them out of this atmosphere of overwrought excitement with a political twist to the whole conception of the Messianic Kingdom. They were in grave danger of being swept off their feet and falling heedlessly into the Pharisaic conception and so defeating the whole teaching and training of Jesus with them. See on ¯Matthew:14:22,23|. To this pass things had come one year before the Crucifixion. He had done his best to help and bless the crowds and lost his chance to rest. No one really understood Jesus, not the crowds, not the disciples. Jesus needed the Father to stay and steady him. The devil had come again to tempt him with world dominion in league with the Pharisees, the populace, and the devil in the background.

rwp@Mark:7:11 @{Corban} (\korban ho estin d“ron\). See on ¯Matthew:15:5|. Mark preserves the Hebrew word for a gift or offering to God (Exodus:21:17; strkjv@Leviticus:20:9|), indeclinable here, meaning {gift} (\d“ron\), but declinable \korbanas\ in strkjv@Matthew:27:6|, meaning sacred treasury. The rabbis ({but ye say}, \humeis de legete\) actually allowed the mere saying of this word by an unfaithful son to prevent the use of needed money for the support of father or mother. It was a home thrust to these pettifogging sticklers for ceremonial punctilios. They not only justified such a son's trickery, but held that he was prohibited from using it for father or mother, but he might use it for himself.

rwp@Mark:7:14 @{And he called to him the multitude again} (\kai proskalesamenos palin ton ochlon\). Aorist middle participle, calling to himself. The rabbis had attacked the disciples about not washing their hands before eating. Jesus now turned the tables on them completely and laid bare their hollow pretentious hypocrisy to the people. {Hear me all of you and understand} (\akousate mou pantes kai suniete\). A most pointed appeal to the people to see into and see through the chicanery of these ecclesiastics. See on ¯Matthew:15:11| for discussion.

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

rwp@Mark:8:33 @{He turning about and seeing his disciples} (\epistrapheis kai id“n tous mathˆtƒs autou\). Peter had called Jesus off to himself (\proskalesamenos\), but Jesus quickly wheeled round on Peter (\epistrapheis\, only \strapheis\ in Matthew). In doing that the other disciples were in plain view also (this touch only in Mark). Hence Jesus rebukes Peter in the full presence of the whole group. Peter no doubt felt that it was his duty as a leader of the Twelve to remonstrate with the Master for this pessimistic utterance (Swete). It is even possible that the others shared Peter's views and were watching the effect of his daring rebuke of Jesus. It was more than mere officiousness on the part of Peter. He had not risen above the level of ordinary men and deserves the name of Satan whose role he was now acting. It was withering, but it was needed. The temptation of the devil on the mountain was here offered by Peter. It was Satan over again. See on ¯Matthew:16:23|.

rwp@Mark:8:34 @{And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples} (\kai proskalesamenos ton ochlon sun tois mathˆtais autou\). Mark alone notes the unexpected presence of a crowd up here near Caesarea Philippi in heathen territory. In the presence of this crowd Jesus explains his philosophy of life and death which is in direct contrast with that offered by Peter and evidently shared by the disciples and the people. Songs:Jesus gives this profound view of life and death to them all. {Deny himself} (\aparnˆsasth“ heauton\). Say no to himself, a difficult thing to do. Note reflexive along with the middle voice. Ingressive first aorist imperative. See on ¯Matthew:16:24| about taking up the Cross. The shadow of Christ's Cross was already on him (Mark:8:31|) and one faces everyone.

rwp@Mark:9:1 @{Till they see the kingdom of God come with power} (\he“s an id“sin tˆn basileian tou theou elˆluthuian en dunamei\). In strkjv@8:38| Jesus clearly is speaking of the second coming. To what is he referring in strkjv@9:1|? One is reminded of strkjv@Mark:13:32; strkjv@Matthew:24:36| where Jesus expressly denies that anyone save the Father himself (not even the Son) knows the day or the hour. Does he contradict that here? It may be observed that Luke has only "see the kingdom of God," while Matthew has "see the Son of man coming" (\erchomenon\, present participle, a process). Mark has "see the kingdom of God come" (\elˆluthuian\, perfect active participle, already come) and adds "with power." Certainly the second coming did not take place while some of those standing there still lived. Did Jesus mean that? The very next incident in the Synoptic Gospels is the Transfiguration on Mount Hermon. Does not Jesus have that in mind here? The language will apply also to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the great Day of Pentecost. Some see in it a reference to the destruction of the temple. It is at least open to question whether the Master is speaking of the same event in strkjv@Mark:8:38; strkjv@9:1|.

rwp@Matthew:6:7 @{Use not vain repetitions} (\mˆ battalogˆsˆte\). Used of stammerers who repeat the words, then mere babbling or chattering, empty repetition. The etymology is uncertain, but it is probably onomatopoetic like "babble." The worshippers of Baal on Mount Carmel (1Kings:8:26|) and of Diana in the amphitheatre at Ephesus who yelled for two hours (Acts:19:34|) are examples. The Mohammedans may also be cited who seem to think that they "will be heard for their much speaking" (\en tˆi polulogiƒi\). Vincent adds "and the Romanists with their _paternosters_ and _avast_." The Syriac Sinaitic has it: "Do not be saying idle things." Certainly Jesus does not mean to condemn all repetition in prayer since he himself prayed three times in Gethsemane "saying the same words again" (Matthew:26:44|). "As the Gentiles do," says Jesus. "The Pagans thought that by endless repetitions and many words they would inform their gods as to their needs and weary them ('_fatigare deos_') into granting their requests" (Bruce).

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

rwp@Matthew:6:29 @{Was not arrayed} (\oude periebaleto\). Middle voice and so "did not clothe himself," "did not put around himself."

rwp@Matthew:8:7 @{I will come and heal him} (\eg“ elth“n therapeus“ auton\). Future indicative, not deliberative subjunctive in question (McNeile). The word here for heal (\therapeus“\) means first to serve, give medical attention, then cure, restore to health. The centurion uses the more definite word for healing (\iathˆsetai\ strkjv@8:8|) as Matthew does in strkjv@8:13| (\iathˆ\). Luke (Luke:9:11|), like a physician, says that Jesus healed (\iato\) those in need of treatment (\therapeias\), but the distinction is not always observed. In strkjv@Acts:28:8| Luke uses \iasato\ of the miraculous healings in Malta by Paul while he employs \etherapeuonto\ (Acts:28:9|) apparently of the practice of Luke the physician (so W. M. Ramsay). Matthew represents the centurion himself as speaking to Jesus while Luke has it that two committees from the centurion brought the messages, apparently a more detailed narrative. What one does through others he does himself as Pilate "scourged Jesus" (had him scourged).

rwp@Matthew:8:17 @{Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases} (\autos tas astheneias elaben kai tas nosous ebastasen\). A quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:53:4|. It is not clear in what sense Matthew applies the words in Isaiah whether in the precise sense of the Hebrew or in an independent manner. Moffatt translates it: "He took away our sicknesses, and bore the burden of our diseases." Goodspeed puts it: "He took our sickness and carried away our diseases." Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 102f.) thinks that Matthew has made a free interpretation of the Hebrew, has discarded the translation of the Septuagint, and has transposed the two Hebrew verbs so that Matthew means: "He took upon himself our pains, and bore our diseases." Plummer holds that "It is impossible, and also unnecessary, to understand what the Evangelist understood by 'took ' (\elaben\) and 'bare' (\ebastasen\). It at least must mean that Christ removed their sufferings from the sufferers. He can hardly have meant that the diseases were transferred to Christ." \Bastaz“\ occurs freely in the papyri with the sense of lift, carry, endure, carry away (the commonest meaning, Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_), pilfer. In strkjv@Matthew:3:11| we have the common vernacular use to take off sandals. The Attic Greek did not use it in the sense of carrying off. "This passage is the cornerstone of the faith-cure theory, which claims that the atonement of Christ includes provision for _bodily_ no less than for spiritual healing, and therefore insists on translating 'took away'" (Vincent). We have seen that the word \bastaz“\ will possibly allow that meaning, but I agree with McNeile: "The passage, _as Mt. employs it_, has no bearing on the doctrine of the atonement." But Jesus does show his sympathy with us. "Christ's sympathy with the sufferers was so intense that he really felt their weaknesses and pains." In our burdens Jesus steps under the load with us and helps us to carry on.

rwp@Matthew:16:20 @{That they should tell no man} (\hina mˆdeni eip“sin\). Why? For the very reason that he had himself avoided this claim in public. He was the Messiah (\ho Christos\), but the people would inevitably take it in a political sense. Jesus was plainly profoundly moved by Peter's great confession on behalf of the disciples. He was grateful and confident of the final outcome. But he foresaw peril to all. Peter had confessed him as the Messiah and on this rock of faith thus confessed he would build his church or kingdom. They will all have and use the keys to this greatest of all buildings, but for the present they must be silent.

rwp@Matthew:16:22 @{Peter took him} (\proslabomenos auton ho Petros\). Middle voice, "taking to himself," aside and apart, "as if by a right of his own. He acted with greater familiarity after the token of acknowledgment had been given. Jesus, however, reduces him to his level" (Bengel). "Peter here appears in a new character; a minute ago speaking under inspiration from heaven, now under inspiration from the opposite quarter" (Bruce). Syriac Sinaitic for strkjv@Mark:8:32| has it "as though pitying him." But this exclamation and remonstrance of Peter was soon interrupted by Jesus. {God have mercy on thee} (\hile“s\. Supply \eiˆ\ or \est“ ho theos\). {This shall never be} (\ou mˆ estai soi touto\). Strongest kind of negation, as if Peter would not let it happen. Peter had perfect assurance.

rwp@Matthew:18:4 @{This little child} (\to paidion touto\). This saying about humbling oneself Jesus repeated a number of times as for instance in strkjv@Matthew:23:12|. Probably Jesus pointed to the child by his side. The ninth-century story that the child was Ignatius is worthless. It is not that the child humbled himself, but that the child is humble from the nature of the case in relation to older persons. That is true, however "bumptious" the child himself may be. Bruce observes that to humble oneself is "the most difficult thing in the world for saint as for sinner."

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

rwp@Matthew:21:4 @{By the prophet} (\dia tou prophˆtou\). The first line is from strkjv@Isaiah:62:11|, the rest from strkjv@Zechariah:9:9|. John (John:12:14f.|) makes it clear that Jesus did not quote the passage himself. In Matthew it is not so plain, but probably it is his own comment about the incident. It is not Christ's intention to fulfil the prophecy, simply that his conduct did fulfil it.

rwp@Matthew:23:10 @{Masters} (\kathˆgˆtai\). This word occurs here only in the N.T. It is found in the papyri for teacher (Latin, _doctor_). It is the modern Greek word for professor. "While \didaskalos\ represents \Rab\, \kathˆgˆtes\ stands for the more honourable \Rabban, -b“n\" (McNeile). Dalman (_Words of Jesus_, p. 340) suggests that the same Aramaic word may be translated by either \didaskalos\ or \kathˆgˆtes\. {The Christ} (\ho Christos\). The use of these words here by Jesus like "Jesus Christ" in his Prayer (John:17:3|) is held by some to show that they were added by the evangelist to what Jesus actually said, since the Master would not have so described himself. But he commended Peter for calling him "the Christ the Son of the living God" (Matthew:16:16f.|). We must not empty the consciousness of Jesus too much.

rwp@Matthew:23:12 @{Exalt himself} (\hups“sei heauton\). Somewhat like strkjv@18:4; strkjv@20:26|. Given by Luke in other contexts (14:11; strkjv@18:14|). Characteristic of Christ.

rwp@Matthew:24:5 @{In my name} (\epi t“i onomati mou\). They will arrogate to themselves false claims of Messiahship in (on the basis of) the name of Christ himself. Josephus (_Wars_ VI, 54) gives there false Christs as one of the reasons for the explosion against Rome that led to the city's destruction. Each new hero was welcomed by the masses including Barcochba. "I am the Messiah," each would say. Forty odd years ago two men in Illinois claimed to be Messiah, each with followers (Schlatter, Schweinfurth). In more recent years Mrs. Annie Besant has introduced a theosophical Messiah and Mrs. Eddy made claims about herself on a par with those of Jesus.

rwp@Matthew:24:22 @{Had been shortened} (\ekolob“thˆsan\). From \kolobos\, lopped, mutilated, as the hands, the feet. It is a second-class condition, determined as unfulfilled. It is a prophetic figure, the future regarded as past. {For the elect's sake} (\dia tous eklektous\). See strkjv@Matthew:22:14| for another use of this phrase by Jesus and also strkjv@24:31|. The siege was shortened by various historical events like the stopping of the strengthening of the walls by Herod Agrippa by orders from the Emperor, the sudden arrival of Titus, the neglect of the Jews to prepare for a long siege. "Titus himself confessed that God was against the Jews, since otherwise neither his armies nor his engines would have availed against their defences" (Vincent).

rwp@Matthew:24:30 @{The sign of the Son of Man in heaven} (\to sˆmeion tou huiou tou anthr“pou en ouran“i\). Many theories have been suggested like the cross in the sky, etc. Bruce sees a reference to strkjv@Daniel:7:13| "one like the Son of man" and holds that Christ himself is the sign in question (the genitive of apposition). This is certainly possible. It is confirmed by the rest of the verse: "They shall see the Son of man coming." See strkjv@Matthew:16:27; strkjv@26:64|. The Jews had repeatedly asked for such a sign (Broadus) as in strkjv@Matthew:12:38; strkjv@16:1; strkjv@John:2:18|.

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@Romans:12:1 @{Therefore} (\oun\). This inferential participle gathers up all the great argument of chapters 1-11|. Now Paul turns to exhortation (\parakal“\), "I beseech you." {By the mercies} (\dia t“n oiktirm“n\). "By means of the mercies of God" as shown in his argument and in our lives. See strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3| for "the Father of mercies." {To present} (\parastˆsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \paristˆmi\, for which verb see strkjv@6:13|, a technical term for offering a sacrifice (Josephus, _Ant_. IV. 6, 4), though not in the O.T. Used of presenting the child Jesus in the temple (Luke:2:22|), of the Christian presenting himself (Romans:6:13|), of God presenting the saved (Ephesians:5:27|), of Christ presenting the church (Colossians:1:28|). {Bodies} (\s“mata\). Songs:literally as in strkjv@6:13,19; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:10| and in contrast with \nous\ (mind) in verse 2|. {A living sacrifice} (\thusian z“san\). In contrast with the Levitical sacrifices of slain animals. Cf. strkjv@6:8,11,13|. Not a propitiatory sacrifice, but one of praise. {Acceptable} (\euareston\). "Well-pleasing." See on ¯2Corinthians:5:9|. {Which is your reasonable service} (\tˆn logikˆn hum“n latreian\). "Your rational (spiritual) service (worship)." For \latreia\, see on ¯9:4|. \Logikos\ is from \logos\, reason. The phrase means here "worship rendered by the reason (or soul)." Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:2:2| \to logikon gala\ (not logical milk, but the milk nourishing the soul).

rwp@Romans:12:3 @{Not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think} (\mˆ huperphronein par' ho dei phronein\). Indirect negative command after \leg“\ (I say). Play on the two infinitives \phronein\, to think, and \huperphronein\ (old verb from \huperphr“n\, over-proud, here only in N.T.) to "over-think" with \par' ho\ (beyond what) added. Then another play on \phronein\ and \s“phronein\ (old verb from \s“phr“n\, sober-minded), to be in one's right mind (Mark:5:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:13|). Self-conceit is here treated as a species of insanity. {A measure of faith} (\metron piste“s\). Accusative case, the object of the verb \emerisen\. Each has his gift from God (1Corinthians:3:5; strkjv@4:7|). There is no occasion for undue pride. {To each man} (\hekast“i\). Emphatic position before \h“s\ (as) and emphasizes the diversity.

rwp@Romans:13:2 @{He that resisteth} (\ho antitassomenos\). Present middle articular participle of \antitass“\, old verb to range in battle against as in strkjv@Acts:18:6|, "he that lines himself up against." {Withstandeth} (\anthestˆken\). Perfect active indicative of \anthistˆmi\ and intransitive, "has taken his stand against." {The ordinance of God} (\tˆi tou theou diatagˆi\). Late word, but common in papyri (Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 89), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:7:53|. Note repetition of root of \tass“\. {To themselves} (\heautois\). Dative of disadvantage. See strkjv@Mark:12:40| for "shall receive a judgment" (\krina lˆmpsontai\). Future middle of \lamban“\.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 2 23:59:12 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020