Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp Lord:


rwp@1Corinthians:3:21 @{Wherefore let no one glory in men} (\h“ste mˆdeis kauchasth“ en anthr“pois\). The conclusion (\h“ste\) from the self-conceit condemned. This particle here is merely inferential with no effect on the construction (\h“s+te\ = and so) any more than \oun\ would have, a paratactic conjunction. There are thirty such examples of \h“ste\ in the N.T., eleven with the imperative as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 999). The spirit of glorying in party is a species of self-conceit and inconsistent with glorying in the Lord (1:31|).

rwp@1Corinthians:4:1 @{Ministers of Christ} (\hupˆretas Christou\). Paul and all ministers (\diakonous\) of the New Covenant (1Corinthians:3:5|) are under-rowers, subordinate rowers of Christ, only here in Paul's Epistles, though in the Gospels (Luke:4:20| the attendant in the synagogue) and the Acts (Acts:13:5|) of John Mark. The {so} (\hout“s\) gathers up the preceding argument (3:5-23|) and applies it directly by the {as} (\h“s\) that follows. {Stewards of the mysteries of God} (\oikonomous mustˆri“n theou\). The steward or house manager (\oikos\, house, \nem“\, to manage, old word) was a slave (\doulos\) under his lord (\kurios\, strkjv@Luke:12:42|), but a master (Luke:16:1|) over the other slaves in the house (menservants \paidas\, maidservants \paidiskas\ strkjv@Luke:12:45|), an overseer (\epitropos\) over the rest (Matthew:20:8|). Hence the under-rower (\hupˆretˆs\) of Christ has a position of great dignity as steward (\oikonomos\) of the mysteries of God. Jesus had expressly explained that the mysteries of the kingdom were open to the disciples (Matthew:13:11|). They were entrusted with the knowledge of some of God's secrets though the disciples were not such apt pupils as they claimed to be (Matthew:13:51; strkjv@16:8-12|). As stewards Paul and other ministers are entrusted with the mysteries (see on ¯1Corinthians:2:7| for this word) of God and are expected to teach them. "The church is the \oikos\ (1Timothy:3:15|), God the \oikodespotˆs\ (Matthew:13:52|), the members the \oikeioi\ (Galatians:6:10; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19|)" (Lightfoot). Paul had a vivid sense of the dignity of this stewardship (\oikonomia\) of God given to him (Colossians:1:25; strkjv@Ephesians:1:10|). The ministry is more than a mere profession or trade. It is a calling from God for stewardship.

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:4:4 @{For I know nothing against myself} (\ouden gar emaut“i sunoida\). Not a statement of fact, but an hypothesis to show the unreliability of mere complacent self-satisfaction. Note the use of \sunoida\ (second perfect active indicative with dative (disadvantage) of the reflexive pronoun) for guilty knowledge against oneself (cf. strkjv@Acts:5:2; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@14:6|). {Yet} (\all'\). Adversative use of \alla\. {Amos:I not hereby justified} (\ouk en tout“i dedikai“mai\). Perfect passive indicative of state of completion. Failure to be conscious of one's own sins does not mean that one is innocent. Most prisoners plead "not guilty." Who is the judge of the steward of the mysteries of God? It is the Lord "that judgeth me" (\ho anakrin“n me\). Probably, who examines me and then passes on my fidelity (\pistos\ in verse 2|).

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

rwp@1Corinthians:6:2 @{Shall judge the world} (\ton kosmon krinousin\). Future active indicative. At the last day with the Lord Jesus (Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30|). {Are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?} (\anaxioi este kritˆri“n elachist“n;\). \Anaxios\ is an old word (\an\ and \axios\), though only here in the N.T. There is dispute as to the meaning of \kritˆria\ here and in verse 4|, old word, but nowhere else in N.T. save in strkjv@James:2:6|. Naturally, like other words in \-tˆrion\ (\akroatˆrion\, auditorium, strkjv@Acts:25:23|), this word means the place where judgment is rendered, or court. It is common in the papyri in the sense of tribunal. In the _Apost. Const_. ii. 45 we have \mˆ erchesth“ epi kritˆrion ethnikon\ (Let him not come before a heathen tribunal). Hence here it would mean, "Are ye unworthy of the smallest tribunals?" That is, of sitting on the smallest tribunals, of forming courts yourselves to settle such things?

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

rwp@1Thessalonians: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:3:12 @{The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). The Lord Jesus. Paul prays to Christ. {Make you to increase} (\humas pleonasai\). First aorist active optative (wish for future) of \pleonaz“\, late verb from \pleon\ (more), {to superabound}. {And abound} (\perisseusai\). First aorist active optative (wish for future) of \perisseu“\ from \perissos\, old verb, to be over (common in N.T.). It is hard to see much difference between the two verbs.

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

rwp@2Corinthians:10:18 @{Is approved} (\dokimos\). Accepted (from \dechomai\) by the Lord. The Lord accepts his own recommendation (\sunistˆsin\, see on ¯2Corinthians:3:1f.|).

rwp@2Corinthians:11:17 @{Not after the Lord} (\ou kata Kurion\). Not after the example of the Lord. He had appealed to the example of Christ in strkjv@10:1| (the meekness and gentleness of Christ). Paul's conduct here, he admits, is not in keeping with that. But circumstances force him on.

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

rwp@2Corinthians:12:9 @{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:13:13 @{The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all} (\hˆ charis tou Kuriou Iˆsou Christou kai hˆ agapˆ tou theou kai hˆ koin“nia tou hagiou pneumatos meta pant“n hum“n\). This benediction is the most complete of them all. It presents the persons of the Trinity in full form. From strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:17| it appears that Paul wrote the greeting or benediction with his own hand. We know from strkjv@Romans:15:19| that Paul went round about unto Illyricum before, apparently, he came on to Corinth. When he did arrive (Acts:20:1-3|) the troubles from the Judaizers had disappeared. Probably the leaders left after the coming of Titus and the brethren with this Epistle. The reading of it in the church would make a stir of no small proportions. But it did the work.

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 @ 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:1:2 @{Be multiplied} (\plˆthuntheiˆ\). First aorist passive optative of \plˆthun“\ in a wish for the future (volitive use) as in strkjv@1Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|. {In the knowledge} (\en epign“sei\). Full (additional, \epi\) knowledge as in strkjv@1:8| (only \gn“sis\ in strkjv@1:5,6; strkjv@3:18|), but \epign“sin\ again in strkjv@1:3,8; strkjv@2:20|. As in Colossians, so here full knowledge is urged against the claims of the Gnostic heretics to special \gn“sis\. {Of God and of Jesus our Lord} (\tou theou kai Iˆsou tou kuriou hˆm“n\). At first sight the idiom here seems to require one person as in strkjv@1:1|, though there is a second article (\tou\) before \kuriou\, and \Iˆsou\ is a proper name. But the text here is very uncertain. Bengel, Spitta, Zahn, Nestle accept the short reading of P and some Vulgate MSS. and some minuscles with only \tou kuriou hˆm“n\ (our Lord) from which the three other readings may have come. Elsewhere in II Peter \gn“sis\ and \epign“sis\ are used of Christ alone. The text of II Peter is not in a good state of preservation.

rwp@2Peter:1:11 @{Thus} (\hout“s\). As shown in verse 10|. {Shall be supplied} (\epichorˆgˆthˆsetai\). Future passive of \epichorˆge“\, for which see verse 5|. You supply the virtues above and God will supply the entrance (\hˆ eisodos\, old word already in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:9|, etc.). {Richly} (\plousi“s\). See strkjv@Colossians:3:16| for this adverb. {Into the eternal kingdom} (\eis tˆn ai“nion basileian\). The believer's inheritance of strkjv@1Peter:1:4| is here termed kingdom, but "eternal" (\ai“nion\ feminine same as masculine). Curiously again in the Stratonicea inscription we find \tˆs ai“niou archˆs\ (of the eternal rule) applied to "the lords of Rome." But this is the spiritual reign of God in men's hearts here on earth (1Peter:2:9|) and in heaven. {Of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou kuriou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\). For which idiom see on ¯1:1|.

rwp@2Peter:2:4 @{For if God spared not} (\ei gar ho theos ouk epheisato\). First instance (\gar\) of certain doom, that of the fallen angels. Condition of the first class precisely like that in strkjv@Romans:11:21| save that here the normal apodosis (\hum“n ou pheisetai\) is not expressed as there, but is simply implied in verse 9| by \oiden kurios ruesthai\ (the Lord knows how to deliver) after the parenthesis in verse 8|. {Angels when they sinned} (\aggel“n hamartˆsant“n\). Genitive case after \epheisato\ (first aorist middle indicative of \pheidomai\) and anarthrous (so more emphatic, even angels), first aorist active participle of \hamartan“\, "having sinned." {Cast them down to hell} (\tartar“sas\). First aorist active participle of \tartaro“\, late word (from \tartaros\, old word in Homer, Pindar, LXX strkjv@Job:40:15; strkjv@41:23|, Philo, inscriptions, the dark and doleful abode of the wicked dead like the Gehenna of the Jews), found here alone save in a scholion on Homer. \Tartaros\ occurs in Enoch strkjv@20:2 as the place of punishment of the fallen angels, while Gehenna is for apostate Jews. {Committed} (\pared“ken\). First aorist active indicative of \paradid“mi\, the very form solemnly used by Paul in strkjv@Romans:1:21,26,28|. {To pits of darkness} (\seirois zophou\). \Zophos\ (kin to \gnophos, nephos\) is an old word, blackness, gloom of the nether world in Homer, in N.T. only here, verse 17; strkjv@Jude:1:13; strkjv@Hebrews:12:18|. The MSS. vary between \seirais\ (\seira\, chain or rope) and \seirois\ (\seiros\, old word for pit, underground granary). \Seirois\ is right (Aleph A B C), dative case of destination. {To be reserved unto judgment} (\eis krisin tˆroumenous\). Present (linear action) passive participle of \tˆre“\. "Kept for judgment." Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:4|. Aleph A have \kolazomenous tˆrein\ as in verse 9|. Note \krisis\ (act of judgment).

rwp@2Peter:2:9 @{The Lord knoweth how} (\oiden kurios\). The actual apodosis of the long protasis begun in verse 4|. God can deliver his servants as shown by Noah and Lot and he will deliver you. The idiomatic use of \oida\ and the infinitive (\ruesthai\ present middle and see verse 7|) for knowing how as in strkjv@Matthew:7:11; strkjv@James:4:17|. {The godly} (\eusebeis\). Old anarthrous adjective (from \eu\ and \sebomai\, to worship), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:10:2,7| (by Peter). For {temptation} (\peirasmou\) see strkjv@James:1:2,12; strkjv@1Peter:1:6|. {To keep} (\tˆrein\). Present active infinitive of \tˆre“\ after \oiden\. {Unrighteous} (\adikous\). As in strkjv@1Peter:3:18|. {Under punishment} (\kolazomenous\). Present passive participle of \kolaz“\, old verb (from \kolos\, lopped off), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:4:21|. Present tense emphasises continuity of the punishment. See \kolasin ai“nion\ in strkjv@Matthew:25:46|.

rwp@2Peter:2:10 @{Chiefly} (\malista\). Especially. He turns now to the libertine heretics (verses 2,7|). {After the flesh} (\opis“ sarkos\). Hebraistic use of \opis“\ as with \hamarti“n\ (sins) in strkjv@Isaiah:65:2|. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:4:19; strkjv@1Timothy:5:15|. {Of defilement} (\miasmou\). Old word (from \miain“\ strkjv@Titus:1:15|), here only in N.T. {Despise dominion} (\kuriotˆtos kataphronountas\). \Kuriotˆs\ is late word for lordship (perhaps God or Christ) (from \Kurios\), in strkjv@Colossians:1:16; strkjv@Ephesians:1:21; strkjv@Jude:1:8|. Genitive case after \kataphrountas\ (thinking down on, strkjv@Matthew:6:24|). {Daring} (\tolmˆtai\). Old substantive (from \tolma“\, to dare), daring men, here only in N.T. {Self-willed} (\authadeis\). Old adjective (from \autos\ and \hˆdomai\), self-pleasing, arrogant, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:1:7|. {They tremble not to rail at dignities} (\doxas ou tremousin blasphˆmountes\). "They tremble not blaspheming dignities." \Trem“\ is old verb (Mark:5:33|), used only in present as here and imperfect. Here with the complementary participle \blasphˆmountes\ rather than the infinitive \blasphˆmein\. See strkjv@Jude:1:8|. Perhaps these dignities (\doxas\) are angels (\evil\).

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

rwp@Acts:21:14 @{When he would not be persuaded} (\mˆ peithomenou autou\). Genitive absolute of the present passive participle of \peith“\. Literally, "he not being persuaded." That was all. Paul's will (\kardia\) was not broken, not even bent. {We ceased} (\hˆsuchasamen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \hˆsuchaz“\, old verb to be quiet, silent. {The will of the Lord be done} (\tou kuriou to thelˆma ginesth“\). Present middle imperative of \ginomai\. There is a quaint naivete in this confession by the friends of Paul. Since Paul would not let them have their way, they were willing for the Lord to have his way, acquiescence after failure to have theirs.

rwp@Acts:23:11 @{The night following} (\tˆi epiousˆi nukti\). Locative case, on the next (following) night. {The Lord} (\ho kurios\). Jesus. Paul never needed Jesus more than now. On a previous occasion the whole church prayed for Peter's release (12:5|), but Paul clearly had no such grip on the church as that, though he had been kindly welcomed (21:18|). In every crisis Jesus appears to him (cf. strkjv@Acts:18:9|). It looked dark for Paul till Jesus spoke. Once before in Jerusalem Jesus spoke words of cheer (22:18|). Then he was told to leave Jerusalem. Now he is to have "cheer" or "courage" (\tharsei\). Jesus used this very word to others (Matthew:9:2,22; strkjv@Mark:10:49|). It is a brave word. {Thou hast testified} (\diemartur“\). First aorist middle indicative second person singular of \diamarturomai\, strong word (see on ¯22:18|). {Must thou} (\se dei\). That is the needed word and on this Paul leans. His hopes (19:21|) of going to Rome will not be in vain. He can bide Christ's time now. And Jesus has approved his witness in Jerusalem.

rwp@Acts:25:21 @{When Paul had appealed} (\tou Paulou epikalesamenou\). Genitive absolute with first aorist middle participle of \epikaleomai\, the technical word for appeal (verses 11,12|). The first aorist passive infinitive \tˆrˆthˆnai\ (to be kept) is the object of the participle. {For the decision of the emperor} (\eis tˆn tou Sebastou diagn“sin\). \Diagn“sin\ (cf. \diagn“somai\ strkjv@24:22|, I will determine) is the regular word for a legal examination (\cognitio\), thorough sifting (\dia\), here only in N.T. Instead of "the Emperor" it should be "the Augustus," as \Sebastos\ is simply the Greek translation of _Augustus_, the adjective (Revered, Reverent) assumed by Octavius B.C. 27 as the \agnomen\ that summed up all his various offices instead of _Rex_ so offensive to the Romans having led to the death of Julius Caesar. The successors of Octavius assumed _Augustus_ as a title. The Greek term \Sebastos\ has the notion of worship (cf. \sebasma\ in Acts strkjv@17:25|). In the N.T. only here, verse 25; strkjv@27:1| (of the legion). It was more imposing than "Caesar" which was originally a family name (always official in the N.T.) and it fell in with the tendency toward emperor-worship which later played such a large part in Roman life and which Christians opposed so bitterly. China is having a revival of this idea in the insistence on bowing three times to the picture of Sun-Yat-Sen. {Till I should send him to Caesar} (\he“s an anapemps“ auton pros Kaisara\). Here \anapemps“\ can be either future indicative or first aorist subjunctive (identical in first person singular), aorist subjunctive the usual construction with \he“s\ for future time (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 876). Literally, "send up" (\ana\) to a superior (the emperor). Common in this sense in the papyri and _Koin‚_ writers. Here "Caesar" is used as the title of Nero instead of "Augustus" as \Kurios\ (Lord) occurs in verse 26|.

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@Ephesians:4:5 @{One Lord} (\heis Kurios\). The Lord Jesus Christ and he alone (no series of aeons). {One faith} (\mia pistis\). One act of trust in Christ, the same for all (Jew or Gentile), one way of being saved. {One baptism} (\hen baptisma\). The result of baptizing (\baptisma\), while \baptismos\ is the act. Only in the N.T. (\baptismos\ in Josephus) and ecclesiastical writers naturally. See strkjv@Mark:10:38|. There is only one act of baptism for all (Jews and Gentiles) who confess Christ by means of this symbol, not that they are made disciples by this one act, but merely so profess him, put Christ on publicly by this ordinance.

rwp@James:1:12 @{Endureth} (\hupomenei\). Present active indicative of \hupomen“\. Cf. verse 3|. {Temptation} (\peirasmon\). Real temptation here. See verse 2| for "trials." {When he hath been approved} (\dokimos genomenos\). "Having become approved," with direct reference to \to dokimion\ in verse 3|. See also strkjv@Romans:5:4| for \dokimˆ\ (approval after test as of gold or silver). This beatitude (\makarios\) is for the one who has come out unscathed. See strkjv@1Timothy:6:9|. {The crown of life} (\ton stephanon tˆs z“ˆs\). The same phrase occurs in strkjv@Revelation:2:10|. It is the genitive of apposition, life itself being the crown as in strkjv@1Peter:5:4|. This crown is "an honourable ornament" (Ropes), with possibly no reference to the victor's crown (garland of leaves) as with Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:25; strkjv@2Timothy:4:8|, nor to the linen fillet (\diadˆma\) of royalty (Psalms:20:3|, where \stephanos\ is used like \diadˆma\, the kingly crown). \Stephanos\ has a variety of uses. Cf. the thorn chaplet on Jesus (Matthew:27:29|). {The Lord}. Not in the oldest Greek MSS., but clearly implied as the subject of \epˆggeilato\ ({he promised}, first aorist middle indicative).

rwp@James:2:1 @{My brethren} (\adelphoi mou\). Transition to a new topic as in strkjv@1:19; strkjv@2:5,14; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@5:7|. {Hold not} (\mˆ echete\). Present active imperative of \ech“\ with negative \mˆ\, exhortation to stop holding or not to have the habit of holding in the fashion condemned. {The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tˆn pistin tou kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). Clearly objective genitive, not subjective (faith of), but "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," like \echete pistin theou\ (Mark:11:22|), "have faith in God." See the same objective genitive with \pistis\ in strkjv@Acts:3:6; strkjv@Galatians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:3:22; strkjv@Revelation:14:12|. Note also the same combination as in strkjv@1:1| "our Lord Jesus Christ" (there on a par with God). {The Lord of Glory} (\tˆs doxˆs\). Simply "the Glory." No word for "Lord" (\kuriou\) in the Greek text. \Tˆs doxˆs\ clearly in apposition with \tou kuriou Iˆsou Christou\. James thus terms "our Lord Jesus Christ" the Shekinah Glory of God. See strkjv@Hebrews:9:5| for "the cherubim of Glory." Other New Testament passages where Jesus is pictured as the Glory are strkjv@Romans:9:4; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3|. Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {With respect of persons} (\en pros“polˆmpsiais\). A Christian word, like \pros“polˆmptˆs\ (Acts:10:34|) and \pros“polˆmpteite\ (James:2:9|), not in LXX or any previous Greek, but made from \pros“pon lambanein\ (Luke:20:21; strkjv@Galatians:2:6|), which is \a\ Hebrew idiom for _panim nasa_, "to lift up the face on a person," to be favorable and so partial to him. See \pros“polˆmpsia\ in this sense of partiality (respect of persons) in strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@Colossians:3:25; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9| (nowhere else in N.T.). Do not show partiality.

rwp@James:2:6 @{But ye have dishonoured the poor man} (\humeis de ˆtimasate ton pt“chon\). First aorist active indicative of \atimaz“\, old verb from \atimos\, dishonoured (Matthew:13:57|). In the act of partiality pictured in strkjv@2:3|. {Oppress you} (\katadunasteuousin hum“n\). Not very common compound (\katadunasteu“\, present active indicative, from \kata\ and \dunastˆs\, potentate, strkjv@Luke:1:52|), used of the devil in strkjv@Acts:10:38| (only other N.T. example). Examples in papyri of harsh treatment by men in authority. Already poor Christians are feeling pressure from rich Jews as overlords. {Drag you} (\helkousin humas\). Old and vigorous word for violent treatment, as of Paul in strkjv@Acts:16:19; strkjv@21:30|. Cf. such violence in strkjv@Luke:12:58; strkjv@Acts:8:3|. {Before the judgment-seats} (\eis kritˆria\). "To courts of justice" as in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:2,4| (only other N.T. examples). Common in the papyri in this sense. From \krin“\ to judge, \kritˆs\ (judge), place where judgment is given.

rwp@James:5:4 @{The hire} (\ho misthos\). Old word for wages (Matthew:20:8|). {Labourers} (\ergat“n\). Any one who works (\ergazomai\), especially agricultural workers (Matthew:9:37|). {Who mowed} (\t“n amˆsant“n\). Genitive plural of the articular first aorist active participle of \ama“\ (from \hama\, together), old verb, to gather together, to reap, here only in N.T. {Fields} (\ch“ras\). Estates or farms (Luke:12:16|). {Which is of you kept back by fraud} (\ho aphusterˆmenos aph' hum“n\). Perfect passive articular participle of \aphustere“\, late compound (simplex \hustere“\ common as strkjv@Matthew:19:20|), to be behindhand from, to fail of, to cause to withdraw, to defraud. Pitiful picture of earned wages kept back by rich Jews, old problem of capital and labour that is with us yet in acute form. {The cries} (\hai boai\). Old word from which \boa“\ comes (Matthew:3:3|), here only in N.T. The stolen money "cries out" (\krazei\), the workers cry out for vengeance. {That reaped} (\t“n therisant“n\). Genitive plural of the articular participle first aorist active of \theriz“\ (old verb from \theros\, summer, strkjv@Matthew:24:32|), to reap, to harvest while summer allows (Matthew:6:26|). {Have entered} (\eiselˆluthan\). Perfect active third person plural indicative of \eiserchomai\, old and common compound, to go or come into. This late form is by analogy of the aorist for the usual form in \-asi\. {Of the Lord of Sabaoth} (\Kuriou Saba“th\). "Of the Lord of Hosts," quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:5:9| as in strkjv@Romans:9:29|, transliterating the Hebrew word for "Hosts," an expression for the omnipotence of God like \Pantokrat“r\ (Revelation:4:8|). God hears the cries of the oppressed workmen even if the employers are deaf.

rwp@James:5:11 @{We call blessed} (\makarizomen\). Old word (present active indicative of \makariz“\), from \makarios\ (happy), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:1:48|. "We felicitate." As in strkjv@1:3,12; strkjv@Daniel:12:12|. {Ye have heard} (\ˆkousate\). First aorist (constative) active indicative of \akou“\. As in strkjv@Matthew:5:21,27,33,38,43|. Ropes suggests in the synagogues. {Of Job} (\I“b\). Job:did complain, but he refused to renounce God (Job:1:21; strkjv@2:10; strkjv@13:15; strkjv@16:19; strkjv@19:25f.|). He had become a stock illustration of loyal endurance. {Ye have seen} (\eidete\). Second aorist (constative) active indicative of \hora“\. In Job's case. {The end of the Lord} (\to telos kuriou\). The conclusion wrought by the Lord in Job's case (Job:42:12|). {Full of pity} (\polusplagchnos\). Late and rare compound (\polus, splagchnon\), only here in N.T. It occurs also in Hermas (_Sim_. v. 7. 4; _Mand_. iv, 3). "Very kind." {Merciful} (\oiktirm“n\). Late and rare adjective (from \oikteir“\ to pity), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:6:36|.

rwp@James:5:15 @{The prayer of faith} (\hˆ euchˆ tˆs piste“s\). Cf. strkjv@1:6| for prayer marked by faith. {Shall save} (\s“sei\). Future active of \s“z“\, to make well. As in strkjv@Matthew:9:21f.; strkjv@Mark:6:56|. No reference here to salvation of the soul. The medicine does not heal the sick, but it helps nature (God) do it. The doctor cooperates with God in nature. {The sick} (\ton kamnonta\). Present active articular participle of \kamn“\, old verb, to grow weary (Hebrews:12:3|), to be sick (here), only N.T. examples. {The Lord shall raise him up} (\egerei auton ho kurios\). Future active of \egeir“\. Precious promise, but not for a professional "faith-healer" who scoffs at medicine and makes merchandise out of prayer. {And if he have committed sins} (\kan hamartias ˆi pepoiˆk“s\). Periphrastic perfect active subjunctive (unusual idiom) with \kai ean\ (crasis \kan\) in condition of third class. Supposing that he has committed sins as many sick people have (Mark:2:5ff.; strkjv@John:5:14; strkjv@9:2f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:30|). {It shall be forgiven him} (\aphethˆsetai aut“i\). Future passive of \aphiˆmi\ (impersonal passive as in strkjv@Matthew:7:2,7; strkjv@Romans:10:10|). Not in any magical way, not because his sickness has been healed, not without change of heart and turning to God through Christ. Much is assumed here that is not expressed.

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

rwp@Info_John @ ONLY ONE JOHN OF EPHESUS It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa A.D. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase "the Elder John " (\ho presbuteros I“annˆs\) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by "the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. "Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord's Life" (Bousset, _Die Offenbarumg des Joh._, p. 38, translation of Nolloth, _The Fourth Evangelist_, p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.

rwp@Info_John @ EARLY AND CLEAR WITNESS TO THE APOSTLE JOHN Ignatius (_ad Philad_. vii. 1) about A.D. 110 says of the Spirit that "he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to strkjv@John:3:8|. Polycarp (_ad Phil_. S 7) quotes strkjv@1John:4:2,3|. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell "of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his _Diatessaron_ out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch (_Ad Autol_. ii. 22) calls John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about A.D. 180. The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has stronger external evidence.

rwp@Info_John @ THE USE OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (John:2:23; strkjv@6:4|) and another (John:5:1|) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord's public ministry ("the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John:1:19-4:45|). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John:1:1-18|) relates the Incarnation to God's eternal purpose as in strkjv@Colossians:1:14-20| and strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-3| and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time (\Logos\ -- Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

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

rwp@John:1:19 @{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:1:23 @{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:3:32 @{What he hath seen and heard} (\ho he“raken kai ˆkousen\). Perfect active indicative followed by aorist active indicative, because, as Westcott shows, the first belongs to the very existence of the Son and the latter to his mission. There is no confusion of tenses here. {No man} (\oudeis\). There were crowds coming to Jesus, but they do not really accept him as Saviour and Lord (1:11; strkjv@2:24|). It is superficial as time will show. But "no one" is not to be pressed too far, for it is the rhetorical use.

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

rwp@John:6:34 @{Lord} (\Kurie\). Used now instead of _Rabbi_ (25) though how much the people meant by it is not clear. {Evermore give us this bread} (\pantote dos hˆmin ton arton touton\). Second aorist active imperative second singular like \dos\ in strkjv@Matthew:6:11| (urgent petition). What kind of bread do they mean? The Jewish commentaries and Philo speak of the manna as typifying heavenly bread for the soul. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:3| seems to refer to the manna as "spiritual food." Like the woman at the well (4:15|) they long "always" to have "this bread," a perpetual supply. It is probably to this crowd as the water in strkjv@4:15| was to the woman.

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:9:36 @{And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?} (\Kai tis estin, kurie;\). The initial \kai\ (and) is common (Mark:10:26; strkjv@Luke:10:29; strkjv@18:26|). Probably by \kurie\ he means only "Sir." It usually comes at the beginning of the sentence, not at the end as here and verse 38|. {That I may believe on him} (\hina pisteus“ eis auton\). Ellipsis to be supplied before this final clause. He catches up the words of Jesus in the preceding verse, though he does not yet know who the Son of Man (or Son of God) is, but he trusts Jesus.

rwp@John:9:38 @{Lord, I believe} (\Pisteu“, kurie\). \Kurie\ here = Lord (reverence, no longer respect as in 36|). A short creed, but to the point. {And he worshipped him} (\kai prosekunˆsen aut“i\). Ingressive first aorist active indicative of \proskune“\, old verb to fall down in reverence, to worship. Sometimes of men (Matthew:18:26|). In John (see strkjv@4:20|) this verb "is always used to express divine worship" (Bernard). It is tragic to hear men today deny that Jesus should be worshipped. He accepted worship from this new convert as he later did from Thomas who called him "God" (John:20:28|). Peter (Acts:10:25f.|) refused worship from Cornelius as Paul and Barnabas did at Lystra (Acts:14:18|), but Jesus made no protest here.

rwp@John:11:21 @{Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died} (\Kurie, ei ˆs h“de ouk an apethanen ho adelphos mou\). Condition of the second class with \ei\ and the imperfect \ˆs\ (no aorist of \eimi\, to be) in the condition and \an\ with the second aorist active indicative of \apothnˆsk“\. Mary (verse 32|) uses these identical words to Jesus. Clearly they had said so to each other with wistful longing if not with a bit of reproach for his delay. But they used \ˆs\, not \ˆlthes\ or \egenou\. But busy, practical Martha comes to the point.

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

rwp@John:12:13 @{Took} (\elabon\). Second aorist active indicative of \lamban“\. {The branches of the palm-trees} (\ta baia t“n phoinik“n\). \Phoinix\ is an old word for palm-tree (Revelation:7:9| for the branches) and in strkjv@Acts:27:12| the name of a city. \Baion\ is apparently a word of Egyptian origin, palm branches, here only in N.T., but in the papyri and I Macc. strkjv@13:51. Here we have "the palm branches of the palm-trees." The use in 1 Macc. strkjv@13:51 (cf. II Macc. strkjv@10:7) is in the account of Simon's triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Bernard notes that to carry palms was a mark of triumphant homage to a victor or a king (Revelation:7:9|). Palm-trees grew on the Mount of Olives (Mark:11:8|) on the road from Bethany to Jerusalem. The crowds (one in front and one behind, strkjv@Mark:11:9; strkjv@Matthew:21:9; strkjv@John:2:18|) cut the branches as they came (Matthew:21:8|). {To meet him} (\eis hupantˆsin aut“i\). Literally, {for a meeting} (\hupantˆsis\, late word from the verb \hupanta“\, strkjv@Matthew:8:28; strkjv@John:11:20,30; strkjv@12:18|, in the papyri, but only here in the N.T.) with him" (\aut“i\, associative instrumental case after \hupantˆsin\ as after the verb in verse 18|). It was a scene of growing excitement. {And cried out} (\kai ekraugazon\). Imperfect active of \kraugaz“\, old and rare verb (from \kraugˆ\) as in strkjv@Matthew:12:19; strkjv@John:19:15|. {Hosannah} (\H“sannah\). Transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning "Save now." The LXX renders it by \S“son dˆ\ (Save now). {Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord} (\eulogˆmenos ho erchomenos en onomati kuriou\). Perfect passive participle of \euloge“\. Quotation from strkjv@Psalms:118:25f.|, written, some think, for the dedication of the second temple, or, as others think, for the feast of tabernacles after the return (Ezra:3:1f.|). It was sung in the processional recitation then as a welcome to the worshippers. Here the words are addressed to the Messiah as is made plain by the addition of the words, "even the king of Israel" (\kai ho basileus tou Israˆl\) as Nathanael called him (1:49|). Jesus is here hailed by the multitudes as the long-looked for Messiah of Jewish hope and he allows them so to greet him (Luke:19:38-40|), a thing that he prevented a year before in Galilee (John:6:14f.|). It is probable that "in the name of the Lord" should be taken with "blessed" as in strkjv@Deuteronomy:21:5; strkjv@2Samuel:6:18; strkjv@1Kings:22:16; strkjv@2Kings:2:24|. The Messiah was recognized by Martha as the Coming One (John:11:27|) and is so described by the Baptist (Matthew:11:3|). Mark (Mark:11:10|) adds "the kingdom that cometh" while Luke (19:38|) has "the king that cometh." "It was this public acclamation of Jesus as King of Israel or King of the Jews which was the foundation of the charge made against him before Pilate (18:33|)" (Bernard).

rwp@Jude:1:25 @{To the only God our Saviour} (\mon“i the“i s“tˆri hˆm“n\). Dative in the noble doxology. See strkjv@Romans:16:27|, \mon“i soph“i the“i\ (to the alone wise God), where also we have \dia Iˆsou Christou\, but without \tou kuriou hˆm“n\ (our Lord) as here. \S“tˆr\ is used of God eight times in the N.T., six of them in the Pastoral Epistles. \Doxa\ (glory) to God or Christ in all the doxologies except strkjv@1Timothy:6:16|. \Megalosunˆ\ (Majesty) is a late LXX word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:1:3; strkjv@8:1|. {Before all time} (\pro pantos tou ai“nos\). Eternity behind us. See same idea in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:7| \pro t“n ai“n“n\. {Now} (\nun\). The present. {For ever more} (\eis pantas tous ai“nas\). "Unto all the ages." All the future. As complete a statement of eternity as can be made in human language.

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

rwp@Luke:7:13 @{The Lord saw her} (\id“n autˆn ho kurios\). The Lord of Life confronts death (Plummer) and Luke may use \Kurios\ here purposely. {Had compassion} (\esplagchthˆ\). First aorist (ingressive) passive indicative of \splagchnizomai\. Often love and pity are mentioned as the motives for Christ's miracles (Matthew:14:14; strkjv@15:32|, etc.). It is confined to the Synoptics in the N.T. and about Christ save in the parables by Christ. {Weep not} (\mˆ klaie\). Present imperative in a prohibition. Cease weeping.

rwp@Luke:8:24 @{Master, Master} (\Epistata, epistata\). See on ¯Luke:5:5| for discussion. strkjv@Mark:4:38| has {Teacher} (\Didaskale\), strkjv@Matthew:8:25| has {Lord} (\Kurie\). The repetition here shows the uneasiness of the disciples. {We perish} (\apollumetha\). Songs:in strkjv@Mark:4:38; strkjv@Matthew:8:25|. Linear present middle indicative, we are perishing. {The raging of the water} (\t“i kludoni tou hudatos\). \Klud“n\, common Greek word, is a boisterous surge, a violent agitation. Here only in the N.T. save strkjv@James:1:6|. \Kuma\ (Mark:4:37|) is the regular swell or wave. A {calm} (\galˆnˆ\). Only in the parallels in the N.T., though common word. Here strkjv@Mark:4:39; strkjv@Matthew:8:26| add {great} (\megalˆ\). {That} (\hoti\). This use of \hoti\ as explanatory of the demonstrative pronoun \houtos\ occurs in the parallels strkjv@Mark:4:36; strkjv@Matthew:8:27| and also in strkjv@Luke:4:36|. It is almost result. {He commandeth} (\epitassei\). Peculiar to Luke.

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:21:20 @{Compassed with armies} (\kukloumenˆn hupo stratoped“n\). Present passive participle of \kuklo“\, to circle, encircle, from \kuklos\, circle. Old verb, but only four times in N.T. The point of this warning is the present tense, being encircled. It will be too late after the city is surrounded. It is objected by some that Jesus, not to say Luke, could not have spoken (or written) these words before the Roman armies came. One may ask why not, if such a thing as predictive prophecy can exist and especially in the case of the Lord Jesus. The word \stratoped“n\ (\stratos\, army, \pedon\, plain) is a military camp and then an army in camp. Old word, but only here in the N.T. {Then know} (\tote gn“te\). Second aorist active imperative of \gin“sk“\. Christians did flee from Jerusalem to Pella before it was too late as directed in strkjv@Luke:21:21; strkjv@Mark:13:14f.; strkjv@Matthew:24:16f|.

rwp@Luke:22:17 @{He received a cup} (\dexamenos potˆrion\). This cup is a diminutive of \potˆr\. It seems that this is still one of the four cups passed during the passover meal, though which one is uncertain. It is apparently just before the formal introduction of the Lord's Supper, though he gave thanks here also (\eucharistˆsas\). It is from this verb \euchariste“\ (see also verse 19|) that our word Eucharist comes. It is a common verb for giving thanks and was used also for "saying grace" as we call it.

rwp@Luke:22:21 @{That betrayeth} (\tou paradidontos\). Present active participle, actually engaged in doing it. The hand of Judas was resting on the table at the moment. It should be noted that Luke narrates the institution of the Lord's Supper before the exposure of Judas as the traitor while Mark and Matthew reverse this order.

rwp@Luke:22:25 @{Have lordship over} (\kurieuousin\). From \kurios\. Common verb, to lord it over. {Benefactors} (\euergetai\). From \eu\ and \ergon\. Doer of good. Old word. Here only in the N.T. Latin Benefactor is exact equivalent.

rwp@Luke:22:38 @{Lord, behold, here are two swords} (\kurie idou machairai h“de duo\). They took his words literally. And before this very night is over Peter will use one of these very swords to try to cut off the head of Malchus only to be sternly rebuked by Jesus (Mark:14:47; strkjv@Matthew:26:51f.; strkjv@Luke:22:50f.; strkjv@John:18:10f.|). Then Jesus will say: "For all that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew:26:52|). Clearly Jesus did not mean his language even about the sword to be pressed too literally. Songs:he said: "It is enough" (\Hikanon estin\). It is with sad irony and sorrow that Jesus thus dismisses the subject. They were in no humour now to understand the various sides of this complicated problem. Every preacher and teacher understands this mood, not of impatience, but of closing the subject for the present.

rwp@Luke:22:61 @{The Lord turned} (\strapheis ho kurios\). Second aorist passive participle of \streph“\, coming verb. Graphic picture drawn by Luke alone. {Looked upon Peter} (\eneblepsen t“i Petr“i\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \enblep“\, an old and vivid verb, to glance at. {Remembered} (\hupemnˆsthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \hupomimnˆsk“\, common verb to remind one of something (\hupo\ giving a suggestion or hint). The cock crowing and the look brought swiftly back to Peter's mind the prophecy of Jesus and his sad denials. The mystery is how he had forgotten that warning.

rwp@Luke:24:3 @{Of the Lord Jesus} (\tou kuriou Iˆsou\). The Western family of documents does not have these words and Westcott and Hort bracket them as Western non-interpolations. There are numerous instances of this shorter Western text in this chapter. For a discussion of the subject see my _Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_, pp. 225-237. This precise combination (the Lord Jesus) is common in the Acts, but nowhere else in the Gospels.

rwp@Info_Mark @ The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, strkjv@Mark:16:9-20|, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as strkjv@Mark:16:9-20| is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_. The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my _Harmony of the Gospels_ I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark's Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter's eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men's bodies and saving men's souls. strkjv@Mark:1:1 @{The beginning} (\archˆ\). There is no article in the Greek. It is possible that the phrase served as a heading or title for the paragraph about the ministry of the Baptist or as the superscription for the whole Gospel (Bruce) placed either by Mark or a scribe. And then the Gospel of Jesus Christ means the Message about Jesus Christ (objective genitive). The word Gospel here (\euaggelion\) comes close to meaning the record itself as told by Mark. Swete notes that each writer has a different starting point (\archˆ\). Mark, as the earliest form of the evangelic tradition, begins with the work of the Baptist, Matthew with the ancestry and birth of the Messiah, Luke with the birth of the Baptist, John with the Preincarnate Logos, Paul with the foundation of each of the churches (Phillipians:4:15|). {The Son of God} (\Huiou theou\). Aleph 28, 255 omit these words, but B, D, L, have them and the great mass of the manuscripts have \huiou tou theou\. If this is a heading added to what Mark wrote, the heading may have existed early in two forms, one with, one without "Son of God." If Mark wrote the words, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness since he uses the phrase elsewhere.

rwp@Mark:4:40 @{Why are ye fearful?} (\Ti deiloi este;\). They had the Lord of the wind and the waves with them in the boat. He was still Master even if asleep in the storm. {Have ye not yet faith?} (\Oup“ echete pistin;\). Not yet had they come to feel that Jesus was really Lord of nature. They had accepted his Messiaship, but all the conclusions from it they had not yet drawn. How like us in our troubles they were!

rwp@Mark:4:41 @{They feared exceedingly} (\ephobˆthˆsan phobon megan\). Cognate accusative with the first aorist passive indicative. They feared a great fear. strkjv@Matthew:8:27| and strkjv@Luke:8:22| mention that "they marvelled." But there was fear in it also. {Who then is this?} (\Tis ara houtos estin;\). No wonder that they feared if this One could command the wind and the waves at will as well as demons and drive out all diseases and speak such mysteries in parables. They were growing in their apprehension and comprehension of Jesus Christ. They had much yet to learn. There is much yet for us today to learn or seek to grow in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. This incident opened the eyes and minds of the disciples to the majesty of Jesus.

rwp@Mark:6:21 @{When a convenient day was come} (\genomenˆs hˆmeras eukairou\). Genitive absolute. A day well appointed \eu\, well, \kairos\, time) for the purpose, the day for which she had long waited. She had her plans all laid to spring a trap for her husband Herod Antipas and to make him do her will with the Baptist. Herod was not to know that he was the mere catspaw of Herodias till it was all over. See on ¯Matthew:14:6| for discussion of Herod's birthday (\genesiois\, locative case or associative instrumental of time). {Made a supper} (\deipnon epoiˆsen\). Banquet. {To his lords} (\tois megistƒsin autou\). From \megistan\ (that from \megas\, great), common in the LXX and later Greek. Cf. strkjv@Revelation:6:15; strkjv@18:23|. In the papyri. The grandees, magnates, nobles, the chief men of civil life. {The high captains} (\tois chiliarchois\). Military tribunes, commanders of a thousand men. {The chief men of Galilee} (\tois pr“tois tˆs Galilaias\). The first men of social importance and prominence. A notable gathering that included these three groups at the banquet on Herod's birthday.

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

rwp@Mark:8:12 @{He sighed deeply in his spirit} (\anastenaxas t“i pneumati\). The only instance of this compound in the N.T. though in the LXX. The uncompounded form occurs in strkjv@Mark:7:34| and it is common enough. The preposition \ana-\ intensifies the meaning of the verb (perfective use). "The sigh seemed to come, as we say, from the bottom of his heart, the Lord's human spirit was stirred to its depths" (Swete). Jesus resented the settled prejudice of the Pharisees (and now Sadducees also) against him and his work. {There shall no sign be given unto this generation} (\ei dothˆsetai tˆi geneƒi tautˆi sˆmeion\). strkjv@Matthew:16:4| has simply \ou dothˆsetai\, plain negative with the future passive indicative. Mark has \ei\ instead of \ou\, which is technically a conditional clause with the conclusion unexpressed (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1024), really aposiopesis in imitation of the Hebrew use of \im\. This is the only instance in the N.T. except in quotations from the LXX (Hebrews:3:11; strkjv@4:3,5|). It is very common in the LXX. The rabbis were splitting hairs over the miracles of Jesus as having a possible natural explanation (as some critics do today) even if by the power of Beelzebub, and those not of the sky (from heaven) which would be manifested from God. Songs:they put up this fantastic test to Jesus which he deeply resents. strkjv@Matthew:16:4| adds "but the sign of Jonah" mentioned already by Jesus on a previous occasion (Matthew:12:39-41|) at more length and to be mentioned again (Luke:11:32|). But the mention of the sign of Jonah was "an absolute refusal of signs in their sense" (Bruce). And when he did rise from the dead on the third day, the Sanhedrin refused to be convinced (see Acts 3 to 5).

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:16:19 @{The Keys of the kingdom} (\tas kleidas tˆs basileias\). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18|. In strkjv@Revelation:1:18; strkjv@3:7| Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (\oikonomos\) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew:18:1|) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21|) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (\dˆsˆis\) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (\lusˆis\) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (\estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon\), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (18:18|). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John:20:23|), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, _primus inter pares_, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.

rwp@Matthew:20:26 @{Would become great} (\hos an thelˆi megas genesthai\). Jesus does not condemn the desire to become great. It is a laudable ambition. There are "great ones" (\megaloi\) among Christians as among pagans, but they do not "lord it over" one another (\katakurieuousin\), a LXX word and very expressive, or "play the tyrant" (\katexousiazousin\), another suggestive word. {Your minister} (\h–m“n diakonos\). This word may come from \dia\ and \konis\ (dust), to raise a dust by one's hurry, and so to minister. It is a general word for servant and is used in a variety of ways including the technical sense of our "deacon" in Php. strkjv@1:1|. But it more frequently is applied to ministers of the Gospel (1Corinthians:3:5|). The way to be "first" (\pr“tos\), says Jesus, is to be your "servant" (\doulos\), "bond-servant" (verse 27|). This is a complete reversal of popular opinion then and now.

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:22:42 @{The Christ} (\tou Christou\). The Messiah, of course, not Christ as a proper name of Jesus. Jesus here assumes that strkjv@Psalms:110| refers to the Messiah. By his pungent question about the Messiah as David's son and Lord he really touches the problem of his Person (his Deity and his Humanity). Probably the Pharisees had never faced that problem before. They were unable to answer.

rwp@Revelation:4:8 @{Each one of them} (\hen kath' hen aut“n\). "One by one of them," a vernacular idiom like \heis kata heis\ in strkjv@Mark:14:19|. {Having} (\ech“n\). Masculine participle again as in verse 7|, though \z“on\ neuter. {Six wings} (\ana pterugas hex\). Distributive use of \ana\, "six wings apiece" as in strkjv@Luke:10:1| (\ana duo\, by twos). Like strkjv@Isaiah:6:2|, not like strkjv@Ezekiel:1:6|, where only four wings are given apiece. {Are full of} (\gemousin\). Plural verb, though \z“a\ neuter, to individualize each one. {Round about and within} (\kuklothen kai es“then\). Perhaps before and behind (4:6|) and under the wings, "pointing to the secret energies of nature" (Swete). {Rest} (\anapausin\). See also strkjv@14:11|. Old word (from \anapau“\, to relax), as in strkjv@Matthew:11:29|. God and Christ cease not their activity (John:5:17|). "This ceaseless activity of nature under the hand of God is a ceaseless tribute of praise" (Swete). {Day and night} (\hˆmeras kai nuktos\). Genitive of time, by day and by night. {Holy, holy, holy} (\hagios, hagios, hagios\). "The task of the Cherubim together with the Seraphim and Ophannim is to sing the praises of God" (Charles) in the \trisagion\ (triple repetition of \hagios\). {Is the Lord God} (\Kurios ho theos\). See strkjv@Isaiah:6:3|. The copula \estin\ (is) is not expressed, but is implied. {The Almighty} (\ho pantokrat“r\). See on ¯1:8|. {Which was and which is and which is to come} (\ho ˆn kai ho “n kai ho erchomenos\). Just as in strkjv@1:4,8|, but with the order changed.

rwp@Revelation:6:9 @{Under the altar} (\hupokat“ tou thusiastˆriou\). "Under" (\hupokat“\), for the blood of the sacrifices was poured at the bottom of the altar (Leviticus:4:7|). The altar of sacrifice (Exodus:39:39; strkjv@40:29|), not of incense. The imagery, as in Hebrews, is from the tabernacle. For the word see strkjv@Matthew:5:23f.|, often in Rev. (Revelation:8:3,5; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@11:1; strkjv@14:18; strkjv@16:7|). This altar in heaven is symbolic, of course, the antitype for the tabernacle altar (Hebrews:8:5|). The Lamb was slain (5:6,9,12|) and these martyrs have followed the example of their Lord. {The souls} (\tas psuchas\). The lives, for the life is in the blood (Leviticus:17:11|), were given for Christ (Phillipians:2:17; strkjv@2Timothy:4:6|). {Of the slain} (\t“n esphagmen“n\). See strkjv@5:6|. Christians were slain during the Neronian persecution and now again under Domitian. A long line of martyrs has followed. {For the word of God} (\dia ton logon tou theou\). As in strkjv@1:9|, the confession of loyalty to Christ as opposed to emperor-worship. {And for the testimony which they held} (\kai dia tˆn marturian hˆn eichon\). See also strkjv@1:9|. Probably \kai\ equals "even" here, explaining the preceding. The imperfect tense \eichon\ suits the repetition of the witness to Christ and the consequent death.

rwp@Revelation:6:12 @{There was a great earthquake} (\seismos megas egeneto\). "There came a great earthquake." Jesus spoke of earthquakes in his great eschatological discourse (Mark:13:8|). In strkjv@Matthew:24:29| the powers of the heavens will be shaken. \Seismos\ is from \sei“\, to shake, and occurs also in strkjv@Revelation:8:5; strkjv@11:13,19; strkjv@16:18|. The reference is not a local earthquake like those so common in Asia Minor. {As sackcloth of hair} (\h“s sakkos trichinos\). \Sakkos\ (Attic \sakos\), Latin _saccus_, English _sack_, originally a bag for holding things (Genesis:42:25,35|), then coarse garment of hair (\trichinos\, old word from \thrix\, here only in N.T.) clinging to one like a sack, of mourners, suppliants, prophets leading austere lives (Matthew:3:4; strkjv@11:21; strkjv@Luke:10:13|). Here the hair is that of the black goat (Isaiah:50:3|). Cf. strkjv@Joel:2:10; strkjv@Ezekiel:32:7f.; strkjv@Isaiah:13:10; strkjv@Mark:13:24f|. See strkjv@Ecclesiastes:12:2| for eclipses treated as symbols of old age. Apocalyptic pictures all have celestial phenomena following earthquakes. {As blood} (\h“s haima\). In strkjv@Acts:2:20| we find Peter interpreting the apocalyptic eschatological language of strkjv@Joel:2:31| about the sun being turned into darkness and the moon into blood as pointing to the events of the day of Pentecost as also "the great day of the Lord." Peter's interpretation of Joel should make us cautious about too literal an exegesis of these grand symbols.

rwp@Revelation:16:7 @{O Lord God, the Almighty} (\Kurie ho theos ho pantokrat“r\). Just as in strkjv@15:3| in the Song of Moses and of the Lamb, vocative with the article \ho\. "Judgments" (\kriseis\) here instead of "ways" (\hodoi\) there, and with the order of the adjectives reversed (\alˆthinai kai dikaiai\, true and righteous).

rwp@Revelation:16:14 @{Spirits of devils} (\pneumata daimoni“n\). "Spirits of demons." Explanation of the simile \h“s batrachoi\. See strkjv@1Timothy:4:1| about "deceiving spirits and teachings of demons." {Working signs} (\poiounta sˆmeia\). "Doing signs" (present active participle of \poie“\). The Egyptian magicians wrought "signs" (tricks), as did Simon Magus and later Apollonius of Tyana. Houdini claimed that he could reproduce every trick of the spiritualistic mediums. {Which go forth} (\ha ekporeuetai\). Singular verb with neuter plural (collective) subject. {Unto the kings} (\epi tous basileis\). The three evil spirits (dragon and the two beasts) spur on the kings of the whole world to a real world war. "There have been times when nations have been seized by a passion for war which the historian can but imperfectly explain" (Swete). {To gather them together} (\sunagagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \sunag“\, to express purpose (that of the unclean spirits). {Unto the war of the great day of God, the Almighty} (\eis ton polemon tˆs hˆmeras tˆs megalˆs tou theou tou pantokratoros\). Some take this to be war between nations, like strkjv@Mark:13:8|, but it is more likely war against God (Psalms:2:2|) and probably the battle pictured in strkjv@17:14; strkjv@19:19|. Cf. strkjv@2Peter:3:12|, "the day of God," his reckoning with the nations. See strkjv@Joel:2:11; strkjv@3:4|. Paul uses "that day" for the day of the Lord Jesus (the Parousia) as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:10; strkjv@2:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:1:6; strkjv@2:16; strkjv@2Timothy:1:12,18; strkjv@4:8|.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 23 14:13:05 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020