OT-POET.filter - rwp Plummer:

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

rwp@1Corinthians:4:3 @{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' humn 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} (\ hupo anthrpins hmeras\). 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:4:7 @{Maketh thee to differ} (\se diakrinei\). Distinguishes thee, separates thee. \Diakrin\ means to sift or separate between (\dia\) as in strkjv@Acts:15:9| (which see) where \metaxu\ is added to make it plainer. All self-conceit rests on the notion of superiority of gifts and graces as if they were self-bestowed or self-acquired. {Which thou didst not receive} (\ho ouk elabes\). "Another home-thrust" (Robertson and Plummer). Pride of intellect, of blood, of race, of country, of religion, is thus shut out. {Dost thou glory} (\kauchasai\). The original second person singular middle ending \-sai\ is here preserved with variable vowel contraction, \kauchaesai=kauchasai\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 341). Paul is fond of this old and bold verb for boasting. {As if thou hadst not received it} (\hs m labn\). This neat participial clause (second aorist active of \lamban\) with \hs\ (assumption) and negative \m\ punctures effectually the inflated bag of false pride. What pungent questions Paul has asked. Robertson and Plummer say of Augustine, "Ten years before the challenge of Pelagius, the study of St. Paul's writings, and especially of this verse and of strkjv@Romans:9:16|, had crystallized in his mind the distinctively Augustinian doctrines of man's total depravity, of irresistible grace, and of absolute predestination." Human responsibility does exist beyond a doubt, but there is no foundation for pride and conceit.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:8 @{Already are ye filled?} (\d kekoresmenoi este?\). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, of \korennumi\, old Greek verb to satiate, to satisfy. The only other example in N.T. is strkjv@Acts:27:38| which see. Paul may refer to strkjv@Deuteronomy:31:20; strkjv@32:15|. But it is keen irony, even sarcasm. Westcott and Hort make it a question and the rest of the sentence also. {Already ye are become rich} (\d eploutsate\). Note change to ingressive aorist indicative of \ploute\, old verb to be rich (cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9|). "The aorists, used instead of perfects, imply indecent haste" (Lightfoot). "They have got a private millennium of their own" (Robertson & Plummer) with all the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom (Luke:22:29f.; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:12; strkjv@2Timothy:2:12|). {Ye have reigned without us} (\chris hmn ebasileusate\). Withering sarcasm. Ye became kings without our company. Some think that Paul as in strkjv@3:21| is purposely employing Stoic phraseology though with his own meanings. If so, it is hardly consciously done. Paul was certainly familiar with much of the literature of his time, but it did not shape his ideas. {I would that ye did reign} (\kai ophelon ge ebasileusate\). More exactly, "And would at least that ye had come to reign (or become kings)." It is an unfulfilled wish about the past expressed by \ophelon\ and the aorist indicative instead of \ei gar\ and the aorist indicative (the ancient idiom). See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003, for the construction with particle \ophelon\ (an unaugmented second aorist form). {That we also might reign with you} (\hina kai hmeis humin sunbasileusmen\). Ironical contrast to \chris hmn ebasileusate\, just before. Associative instrumental case of \humin\ after \sun-\.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:10 @{We--you} (\hmeis--humeis\). Triple contrast in keenest ironical emphasis. "The three antitheses refer respectively to teaching, demeanour, and worldly position" (Robertson and Plummer). The apostles were fools for Christ's sake (2Corinthians:4:11; strkjv@Phillipians:3:7|). They made "union with Christ the basis of worldly wisdom" (Vincent). There is change of order (chiasm) in the third ironical contrast. They are over strong in pretension. \Endoxos\, illustrious, is one of the 103 words found only in Luke and Paul in the N.T. Notion of display and splendour.

rwp@1Corinthians:5:7 @{Purge out} (\ekkatharate\). First aorist (effective) active imperative of \ekkathair\, old verb to cleanse out (\ek\), to clean completely. Aorist tense of urgency, do it now and do it effectively before the whole church is contaminated. This turn to the metaphor is from the command to purge out the old (\palaian\, now old and decayed) leaven before the passover feast (Exodus:12:15f.; strkjv@13:7; strkjv@Zephaniah:1:12|). Cf. modern methods of disinfection after a contagious disease. {A new lump} (\neon phurama\). Make a fresh start as a new community with the contamination removed. \Neos\ is the root for \neaniskos\, a young man, not yet old (\graios\). Songs:new wine (\oinon neon\ strkjv@Matthew:9:17|). \Kainos\ is fresh as compared with the ancient (\palaios\). See the distinction in strkjv@Colossians:3:10; strkjv@Ephesians:4:22ff.; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:17|. {Unleavened} (\azumoi\). Without (\a\ privative) leaven, the normal and ideal state of Christians. Rare word among the ancients (once in Plato). They are a new creation (\kain ktisis\), "exemplifying Kant's maxim that you should treat a man as if he were what you would wish him to be" (Robertson and Plummer). {For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ} (\kai gar to pascha hmn etuth Christos\). First aorist passive indicative of \thu\, old verb to sacrifice. Euphony of consonants, \th\ to \t\ because of \-th\. Reference to the death of Christ on the Cross as the Paschal Lamb (common use of \pascha\ as strkjv@Mark:14:12; strkjv@Luke:22:7|), the figure used long before by the Baptist of Jesus (John:1:29|). Paul means that the Lamb was already slain on Calvary and yet you have not gotten rid of the leaven.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:1 @{Dare any of you?} (\tolmi tis humn;\). Does any one of you dare? Rhetorical question with present indicative of \tolma\, old verb from \tolma\, daring. Bengel: _grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum_. "The word is an argument in itself" (Robertson and Plummer). Apparently Paul has an actual case in mind as in chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:5| though no name is called. {Having a matter against his neighbour} (\pragma echn pros ton heteron\). Forensic sense of \pragma\ (from \prass\, to do, to exact, to extort as in strkjv@Luke:3:13|), a case, a suit (Demosthenes 1020, 26), with the other or the neighbour as in strkjv@10:24; strkjv@14:17; strkjv@Galatians:6:4; strkjv@Romans:2:1|. {Go to law} (\krinesthai\). Present middle or passive (ch. strkjv@Romans:3:4|) in the same forensic sense as \krithnai\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:40|. \Krits\, judge, is from this verb. {Before the unrighteous} (\epi tn adikn\). This use of \epi\ with the genitive for "in the presence of" is idiomatic as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:14|, \epi Titou\, in the case of Titus. The Jews held that to bring a lawsuit before a court of idolaters was blasphemy against the law. But the Greeks were fond of disputatious lawsuits with each other. Probably the Greek Christians brought cases before pagan judges.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:6 @{And that before unbelievers} (\kai touto epi apistn\). Climactic force of \kai\. The accusative of general reference with \touto\. "That there should be disputes about \bitika\ is bad; that Christian should go to law with Christian is worse; that Christians should do this before unbelievers is worst of all" (Robertson and Plummer).

rwp@2Corinthians:10:12 @{To number or compare ourselves} (\enkrinai sunkrinai\). Paronomasia here, play on the two words. \Enkrinai\ is first aorist active infinitive of old verb, but here only in N.T., to judge among, to judge one as worthy to be numbered among as here. The second verb \sunkrinai\ (first aorist active infinitive of \sunkrin\, old verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:2:13|) originally meant to combine as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:13| (which see), but here it has the sense of "compare" not found in the old Greek. The papyri use it to mean to decide. Plummer suggests "to pair and compare" for the play on the words here. {Measuring themselves by themselves} (\en heautois heautous metrountes\). Or "in themselves." Keenest sarcasm. Setting themselves up as the standards of orthodoxy these Judaizers always measure up to the standard while Paul falls short. {Comparing themselves with themselves} (\sunkrinontes heautous heautois\). Associate instrumental case \heautois\ after \sunkrinontes\ (verb just explained). Paul is not keen to fall into the trap set for him. {Are without understanding} (\ou sunisin\). The regular form for present active indicative third plural of \sunimi\, to comprehend, to grasp. Some MSS. have the late form \suniousin\ (omega form \suni\). It is a hard thing to see, but it is true. These men do not see their own picture so obvious to others (Ephesians:5:17; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7|). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:17|.

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

rwp@2Corinthians:11:21 @{By way of disparagement} (\kata atimian\). Intense irony. Cf. strkjv@6:8|. {As though} (\hs hoti\). Presented as the charge of another. "They more than tolerate those who trample on them while they criticize as 'weak' one who shows them great consideration" (Plummer). After these prolonged explanations Paul "changes his tone from irony to direct and masterful assertion" (Bernard). {I am bold also} (\tolm kag\). Real courage. Cf. strkjv@10:2,12|.

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

rwp@2Corinthians:11:32 @{The governor under Aretas} (\ho ethnarchs Hareta\). How it came to pass that Damascus, ruled by the Romans after B.C. 65, came at this time to be under the rule of Aretas, fourth of the name, King of the Nabatheans (II Macc. strkjv@5:8), we do not know. There is an absence of Roman coins in Damascus from A.D. 34 to 62. It is suggested (Plummer) that Caligula, to mark his dislike for Antipas, gave Damascus to Aretas (enemy of Antipas). {Guarded} (\ephrourei\). Imperfect active of \phroure\, old verb (from \phrouros\, a guard) to guard by posting sentries. In strkjv@Acts:9:24| we read that the Jews kept watch to seize Paul, but there is no conflict as they cooperated with the guard set by Aretas at their request. {To seize} (\piasai\). Doric first aorist active infinitive of \piez\ (Luke:6:38|) for which see on ¯Acts:3:7|.

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

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

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE GOSPEL OF LUKE BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _International and Critical Commentary_, in the Introduction to Ragg's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _Westminster Commentaries_, in the Introduction to Easton's _Gospel According to St. Luke_, Hayes' _Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, Ramsay's _Luke the Physician_, Harnack's _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake's _Beginnings of Christianity_, Carpenter's _Christianity According to St. Luke_, Cadbury's _The Making of Luke-Acts_, McLachlan's _St. Luke: The Man and His Work_, Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

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

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION AND AUTHOR LUKE All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in the title. We should know that Luke wrote these two books if there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. Even Renan says: "There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name."

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

rwp@Luke:1:4 @{Mightest know} (\epignis\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \epiginsk\. Full knowledge (\epi\-), in addition to what he already has. {The certainty} (\tn asphaleian\). Make no slip (\sphall\, to totter or fall, and \a\ privative). Luke promises a reliable narrative. "Theophilus shall know that the faith which he has embraced has an impregnable historical foundation" (Plummer). {The things} (\logn\). Literally "words," the details of the words in the instruction. {Wast instructed} (\katchths\). First aorist passive indicative. Not in O.T. and rare in ancient Greek. Occurs in the papyri. The word \che\ is our word echo (cf. strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:8| for \exchtai\, has sounded forth). \Katche\ is to sound down, to din, to instruct, to give oral instruction. Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:14:9; strkjv@Acts:21:21,24; strkjv@18:25; Gal strkjv@6:6|. Those men doing the teaching were called _catechists_ and those receiving it were called _catechumens_. Whether Theophilus was still a catechumen is not known. This Preface by Luke is in splendid literary _Koin_ and is not surpassed by those in any Greek writer (Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius). It is entirely possible that Luke was familiar with this habit of Greek historians to write prefaces since he was a man of culture.

rwp@Luke:1:5 @{There was} (\egeneto\). Not the usual \en\ for "was," but there arose or came into notice. With this verse the literary _Koin_ of verses 1 to 4 disappears. To the end of chapter 2 we have the most Hebraistic (Aramaic) passage in Luke's writings, due evidently to the use of documents or notes of oral tradition. Plummer notes a series of such documents ending with strkjv@1:80, strkjv@2:40, strkjv@2:52|. If the mother of Jesus was still alive, Luke could have seen her. She may have written in Aramaic an account of these great events. Natural reserve would keep her from telling too much and from too early publicity. Luke, as a physician, would take special interest in her birth report. The supernatural aspects disturb only those who do not admit the real Incarnation of Jesus Christ and who are unable to believe that God is superior to nature and that the coming of the Son of God to earth justifies such miraculous manifestations of divine power. Luke tells his story from the standpoint of Mary as Matthew gives his from the standpoint of Joseph. The two supplement each other. We have here the earliest documentary evidence of the origins of Christianity that has come down to us (Plummer). {Herod, King of Judea} (\Hridou basiles ts Ioudaias\). This note of time locates the events before the death of Herod the Great (as he was called later), appointed King of Judea by the Roman Senate B.C. 40 at the suggestion of Octavius and Antony. He died B.C. 4. {Of the course of Abijah} (\ex ephmerias Abia\). Not in old Greek, but in LXX and modern Greek. Papyri have a verb derived from it, \ephmere\. Daily service (Nehemiah:13:30; strkjv@1Chronicles:25:8|) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1Chronicles:23:6; strkjv@28:13|). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the eighth (1Chronicles:24:10; strkjv@2Chronicles:8:14|). Only four of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into twenty-four with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for eight days, sabbath to sabbath, twice a year. On sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of tabernacles all twenty-four courses were present. {Of the daughters of Aaron} (\ek tn thugatern Aarn\). "To be a priest and married to a priest's daughter was a double distinction" (Plummer). Like a preacher married to a preacher's daughter.

rwp@Luke:1:11 @{Appeared} (\phth\). First aorist passive indicative. It is the form used by Paul of the resurrection appearances of Jesus (1Corinthians:15:5-8|). There is no use in trying to explain away the reality of the angel. We must choose between admitting an objective appearance and a myth (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:1:15 @{Strong drink} (\sikera\). A Hebrew word transliterated into Greek, an intoxicating drink. Here only in the N.T. John was to be a personal "dry" or Nazarite (Numbers:6:3|). {Shall not drink} (\ou m pii\). Strong prohibition, double negative and second aorist subjunctive. {The Holy Ghost} (\pneumatos hagiou\). The Holy Spirit in contrast to the physical excitement of strong drink (Plummer). Luke uses this phrase 53 times, 12 in the Gospel, Mark and John 4 each, Matthew 5 times. {Even from his mother's womb} (\eti ek koilias mtros autou\). A manifest Hebraism. Cf. verse 41|.

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

rwp@Luke:7:12 @{Behold} (\kai idou\). The \kai\ introduces the apodosis of the temporal sentence and has to be left out in translations. It is a common idiom in Luke, \kai idou\. {There was carried out} (\exekomizeto\). Imperfect passive indicative. Common verb in late Greek for carrying out a body for burial, though here only in the N.T. (\ekkomiz\). Rock tombs outside of the village exist there today. {One that was dead} (\tethnks\). Perfect active participle of \thnsk\, to die. {The only son of his mother} (\monogens huios ti mtri auto\). Only begotten son to his mother (dative case). The compound adjective \monogens\ (\monos\ and \genos\) is common in the old Greek and occurs in the N.T. about Jesus (John:3:16,18|). The "death of a widow's only son was the greatest misfortune conceivable" (Easton). {And she was a widow} (\kai aut n chra\). This word \chra\ gives the finishing touch to the pathos of the situation. The word is from \chros\, bereft. The mourning of a widow for an only son is the extremity of grief (Plummer). {Much people} (\ochlos hikanos\). Considerable crowd as often with this adjective \hikanos\. Some were hired mourners, but the size of the crowd showed the real sympathy of the town for her.

rwp@Luke:7:13 @{The Lord saw her} (\idn autn ho kurios\). The Lord of Life confronts death (Plummer) and Luke may use \Kurios\ here purposely. {Had compassion} (\esplagchth\). 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} (\m klaie\). Present imperative in a prohibition. Cease weeping.

rwp@Luke:7:15 @{Sat up} (\anekathisen\). First aorist active indicative. The verb in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:9:40|. Medical writers often used it of the sick sitting up in bed (Hobart, _Med. Lang. of St. Luke_, p. 11). It is objected that the symmetry of these cases (daughter of Jairus raised from the death-bed, this widow's son raised from the bier, Lazarus raised from the tomb) is suspicious, but no one Gospel gives all three (Plummer). {Gave him to his mother} (\edken auton ti mtri autou\). Tender way of putting it. "For he had already ceased to belong to his mother" (Bengel). Songs:in strkjv@Luke:9:42|.

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

rwp@Luke:7:38 @{Standing behind at his feet} (\stsa opis para tous podas autou\). Second aorist active participle from \histmi\ and intransitive, first aorist \estsa\ being transitive. The guest removed his sandals before the meal and he reclined on the left side with the feet outward. She was standing beside (\para\) his feet {weeping} (\klaiousa\). She was drawn irresistibly by gratitude to Jesus and is overcome with emotion before she can use the ointment; her tears (\tois dakrusin\, instrumental case of \dakru\) take the place of the ointment. {Wiped them with the hair of her head} (\tais thrixin ts kephals auts exemassen\). Inchoative imperfect of an old verb \ekmass\, to rub out or off, began to wipe off, an act of impulse evidently and of embarrassment. "Among the Jews it was a shameful thing for a woman to let down her hair in public; but she makes this sacrifice" (Plummer). Songs:Mary of Bethany wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair (John:12:3|) with a similar sacrifice out of her great love for Jesus. This fact is relied on by some to prove that Mary of Bethany had been a woman of bad character, surely an utter failure to recognize Mary's motive and act. {Kissed} (\katephilei\). Imperfect active of \kataphile\, to kiss repeatedly (force of \kata\), and accented by the tense of continued action here. The word in the N.T. occurs here, of the prodigal's father (15:20|), of the kiss of Judas (Mark:14:45; strkjv@Matthew:26:49|), of the Ephesian elders (Acts:20:37|). " Kissing the feet was a common mark of deep reverence, especially to leading rabbis" (Plummer). {Anointed them with the ointment} (\leiphen ti muri\). Imperfect active again of \aleiph\, a very common verb. \Chri\ has a more religious sense. The anointing came after the burst of emotional excitement.

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

rwp@Luke:7:43 @{I suppose} (\hupolamban\). Old verb, originally to take up from under, to bear away as on high, to take up in speech (Luke:10:30|), to take up in mind or to assume as here and strkjv@Acts:2:15|. Here with an air of supercilious indifference (Plummer). {The most} (\to pleion\). The more. {Rightly} (\orths\). Correctly. Socrates was fond of \panu orths\. The end of the argument.

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

rwp@Luke:8:16 @{When he hath lighted a lamp} (\luchnon hapsas\). It is a portable lamp (\luchnon\) that one lights (\hapsas\ aorist active participle of \hapt\, to kindle, fasten to, light). {With a vessel} (\skeuei\, instrumental case of \skeuos\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:21| has the more definite figure "under the bushel" as has strkjv@Matthew:5:15|. {Under the bed} (\hupokat klins\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:21| has the regular \hupo tn klinn\ instead of the late compound \hupokat\. Ragg notes that Matthew distributes the sayings of Jesus given here by strkjv@Luke:8:16-18; strkjv@Mark:4:21-25| concerning the parable of the lamp and gives them in three separate places (Matthew:5:15; strkjv@10:26; strkjv@13:12|). That is true, but it does not follow that Mark and Luke have bunched together separate sayings or that Matthew has scattered sayings delivered only on one occasion. One of the slowest lessons for some critics to learn is that Jesus repeated favourite sayings on different occasions and in different groupings just as every popular preacher and teacher does today. See on ¯Mark:4:21| for further discussion of the lamp and stand. {May see the light} (\Blepsin to phs\). In strkjv@Matthew:5:16| Jesus has it "may see your good works." The purpose of light is to let one see something else, not the light. Note present subjunctive (\blepsin\), linear action "Jesus had kindled a light within them. They must not hide it, but must see that it spreads to others" (Plummer). The parable of the lamp throws light on the parable of the sower.

rwp@Luke:8:21 @{These which hear the word of God and do it} (\hoi ton logon tou theou akouontes kai poiountes\). The absence of the article with "mother" and "brothers" probably means, as Plummer argues, "Mother to me and brothers to me are those who &c." No one is a child of God because of human parentage (John:1:13|). "Family ties are at best temporal; spiritual ties are eternal" (Plummer). Note the use of "hear and do" together here as in strkjv@Matthew:7:24; strkjv@Luke:6:47| at the close of the Sermon on the Mount. The parable of the sower is almost like a footnote to that sermon. Later Jesus will make "doing" a test of friendship for him (John:15:14|).

rwp@Luke:18:14 @{This man} (\houtos\). This despised publican referred to contemptuously in verse 11| as "this" (\houtos\) publican. {Rather than the other} (\par' ekeinon\). In comparison with (placed beside) that one. A neat Greek idiom after the perfect passive participle \dedikaiomenos\. {For} (\hoti\). This moral maxim Christ had already used in strkjv@14:11|. Plummer pertinently asks: "Why is it assumed that Jesus did not repeat his sayings?"

rwp@Luke:18:18 @{Ruler} (\archn\). Not in strkjv@Mark:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:19:16|. {What shall I do to inherit?} (\Ti poisas klronoms;\). "By doing what shall I inherit?" Aorist active participle and future active indicative. Precisely the same question is asked by the lawyer in strkjv@Luke:10:25|. This young man probably thought that by some one act he could obtain eternal life. He was ready to make a large expenditure for it. {Good} (\agathon\). See on ¯Mark:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:19:16| for discussion of this adjective for absolute goodness. Plummer observes that no Jewish rabbi was called "good" in direct address. The question of Jesus will show whether it was merely fulsome flattery on the part of the young man or whether he really put Jesus on a par with God. He must at any rate define his attitude towards Christ.

rwp@Luke:18:28 @{Our own} (\ta idia\). Our own things (home, business, etc.). Right here is where so many fail. Peter speaks here not in a spirit of boastfulness, but rather with his reactions from their consternation at what has happened and at the words of Jesus (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:19:30 @{Whereon no man ever yet sat} (\eph' hon oudeis ppote anthrpn ekathisen\). Plummer holds that this fact indicated to the disciples a royal progress into the city of a piece with the Virgin Birth of Jesus and the burial in a new tomb.

rwp@Luke:20:20 @{They watched him} (\paratrsantes\). First aorist active participle of \paratre\, a common Greek verb to watch on the side or insidiously or with evil intent as in strkjv@Luke:6:7| (\paretrounto\) of the scribes and Pharisees. See on ¯Mark:3:2|. There is no "him" in the Greek. They were watching their chance. {Spies} (\enkathetous\). An old verbal adjective from \enkathimi\, to send down in or secretly. It means liers in wait who are suborned to spy out, one who is hired to trap one by crafty words. Only here in the N.T. {Feigned themselves} (\hupokrinomenous heautous\). Hypocritically professing to be "righteous" (\dikaious\). "They posed as scrupulous persons with a difficulty of conscience" (Plummer). {That they might take hold of his speech} (\hina epilabntai autou logou\). Second aorist middle of \epilamban\, an old verb for seizing hold with the hands and uses as here the genitive case. These spies are for the purpose of (\hina\) catching hold of the talk of Jesus if they can get a grip anywhere. This is their direct purpose and the ultimate purpose or result is also stated, "so as to deliver him up" (\hste paradounai auton\). Second aorist active infinitive of \paradidmi\, to hand over, to give from one's side to another. The trap is all set now and ready to be sprung by these "spies." {Of the governor} (\tou hgemonos\). The Sanhedrin knew that Pilate would have to condemn Jesus if he were put to death. Songs:then all their plans focus on this point as the goal. Luke alone mentions this item here.

rwp@Luke:21:5 @{As some spake} (\tinn legontn\). Genitive absolute. The disciples we know from strkjv@Mark:13:1; strkjv@Matthew:24:1|. {How} (\hoti\). Literally, "that." {It was adorned} (\kekosmtai\). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, stands adorned, tense retained in indirect discourse, though English has to change it. \Kosme\, old and common verb for orderly arrangement and adorning. {With goodly stones and offerings} (\lithois kalois kai anathmasin\). Instrumental case. Some of these stones in the substructure were enormous. "The columns of the cloister or portico were monoliths of marble over forty feet high" (Plummer). Cf. Josephus, _War_, V.5. The word \anathma\ (here only in the N.T.) is not to be confused with \anathema\ from the same verb \anatithmi\, but which came to mean a curse (Galatians:1:8; strkjv@Acts:23:14|). Songs:\anathema\ came to mean devoted in a bad sense, \anathma\ in a good sense. "Thus _knave_, lad, becomes a _rascal; villain_, a _farmer_, becomes a _scoundrel; cunning_, _skilful_, becomes _crafty_" (Vincent). These offerings in the temple were very numerous and costly (2Macc. strkjv@3:2-7) like the golden vine of Herod with branches as tall as a man (Josephus, _Ant_. XV. ii.3).

rwp@Luke:21:12 @{But before all these things} (\pro de toutn pantn\). In strkjv@Mark:13:8; strkjv@Matthew:24:8| these things are termed "the beginning of travail." That may be the idea here. Plummer insists that priority of time is the point, not magnitude. {Bringing you} (\apagomenous\). Present passive participle from \apag\, an old verb to lead off or away. But here the participle is in the accusative plural, not the nominative like \paradidontes\ (present active participle, delivering you up), agreeing with \humas\ not expressed the object of \paradidontes\, "you being brought before or led off." "A technical term in Athenian legal language" (Bruce).

rwp@Luke:21:32 @{This generation} (\h genea haut\). Naturally people then living. {Shall not pass away} (\ou m parelthi\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \parerchomai\. Strongest possible negative with \ou m\. {Till all things be accomplished} (\hes an panta gentai\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ with \hes\, common idiom. The words give a great deal of trouble to critics. Some apply them to the whole discourse including the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, the second coming and the end of the world. Some of these argue that Jesus was simply mistaken in his eschatology, some that he has not been properly reported in the Gospels. Others apply them only to the destruction of Jerusalem which did take place in A.D. 70 before that generation passed away. It must be said for this view that it is not easy in this great eschatological discourse to tell clearly when Jesus is discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and when the second coming. Plummer offers this solution: "The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world."

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

rwp@Luke:23:4 @{The multitude} (\tous ochlous\). The first mention of them. It is now after daybreak. The procession of the Sanhedrin would draw a crowd (Plummer) and some may have come to ask for the release of a prisoner (Mark:15:8|). There was need of haste if the condemnation went through before friends of Jesus came. {I find no fault} (\ouden heurisk aition\). In the N.T. Luke alone uses this old adjective \aitios\ (Luke:23:4,14,22; strkjv@Acts:19:40|) except Heb. strkjv@5:9|. It means one who is the author, the cause of or responsible for anything. Luke does not give the explanation of this sudden decision of Pilate that Jesus is innocent. Evidently he held a careful examination before he delivered his judgment on the case. That conversation is given in strkjv@John:18:33-38|. Pilate took Jesus inside the palace from the upper gallery (John:18:33|) and then came out and rendered his decision to the Sanhedrin (John:18:38|) who would not go into the palace of Pilate (John:18:28|).

rwp@Luke:23:14 @{As one that perverteth the people} (\hs apostrephonta ton laon\). Pilate here condenses the three charges in verse 2| into one (Plummer). He uses a more common compound of \streph\ here, \apostreph\, to turn away from, to seduce, to mislead, whereas \diastreph\ in verse 2| has more the notion of disturbing (turning this way and that). Note the use of \hs\ with the particle, the alleged reason. Pilate understands the charge against Jesus to be that he is a revolutionary agitator and a dangerous rival to Caesar, treason in plain words. {Having examined him before you} (\enpion humn anakrinas\). Right before your eyes I have given him a careful examination (\ana\) up and down, \krin\, to judge, sift. Old and common verb in the general sense and in the forensic sense as here and which Luke alone has in the N.T. (Luke:23:14; strkjv@4:9; strkjv@12:19; strkjv@28:18; strkjv@Acts:24:8|) except strkjv@1Corinthians:9:3|. {Whereof} (\hn\). Attraction of the relative \ha\ to the case (genitive) of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\.

rwp@Luke:23:27 @{Followed} (\kolouthei\). Imperfect active, was following. Verses 27-32| are peculiar to Luke. {Bewailed} (\ekoptonto\). Imperfect middle of \kopt\, to cut, smite, old and common verb. Direct middle, they were smiting themselves on the breast. "In the Gospels there is no instance of a woman being hostile to Christ" (Plummer). Luke's Gospel is appropriately called the Gospel of Womanhood (1:39-56; strkjv@2:36-38; strkjv@7:11-15, 37-50; strkjv@8:1-3; strkjv@10:38-42; strkjv@11:27; strkjv@13:11-16|). {Lamented} (\ethrnoun\). Imperfect active of \thrne\, old verb from \threomai\, to cry aloud, lament.

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

rwp@Matthew:16:23 @{But he turned} (\ho de strapheis\). Second aorist passive participle, quick ingressive action, away from Peter in revulsion, and toward the other disciples (Mark:8:33| has \epistrapheis\ and \idn tous mathtas autou\). {Get thee behind me, Satan} (\Hupage opis mou, Satan\). Just before Peter played the part of a rock in the noble confession and was given a place of leadership. Now he is playing the part of Satan and is ordered to the rear. Peter was tempting Jesus not to go on to the cross as Satan had done in the wilderness. "None are more formidable instruments of temptation than well-meaning friends, who care more for our comfort than for our character" (Bruce). "In Peter the banished Satan had once more returned" (Plummer). {A stumbling-block unto me} (\skandalon ei emou\). Objective genitive. Peter was acting as Satan's catspaw, in ignorance, surely, but none the less really. He had set a trap for Christ that would undo all his mission to earth. "Thou art not, as before, a noble block, lying in its right position as a massive foundation stone. On the contrary, thou art like a stone quite out of its proper place, and lying right across the road in which I must go--lying as a stone of stumbling" (Morison). {Thou mindest not} (\ou phroneis\). "Your outlook is not God's, but man's" (Moffatt). You do not think God's thoughts. Clearly the consciousness of the coming cross is not a new idea with Jesus. We do not know when he first foresaw this outcome any more than we know when first the Messianic consciousness appeared in Jesus. He had the glimmerings of it as a boy of twelve, when he spoke of "My Father's house." He knows now that he must die on the cross.

rwp@Matthew:17:24 @{They that received the half-shekel} (\hoi ta didrachma lambanontes\). This temple tax amounted to an Attic drachma or the Jewish half-shekel, about one-third of a dollar. Every Jewish man twenty years of age and over was expected to pay it for the maintenance of the temple. But it was not a compulsory tax like that collected by the publicans for the government. "The tax was like a voluntary church-rate; no one could be compelled to pay" (Plummer). The same Greek word occurs in two Egyptian papyri of the first century A.D. for the receipt for the tax for the temple of Suchus (Milligan and Moulton's _Vocabulary_). This tax for the Jerusalem temple was due in the month Adar (our March) and it was now nearly six months overdue. But Jesus and the Twelve had been out of Galilee most of this time. Hence the question of the tax-collectors. The payment had to be made in the Jewish coin, half-shekel. Hence the money-changers did a thriving business in charging a small premium for the Jewish coin, amounting to some forty-five thousand dollars a year, it is estimated. It is significant that they approached Peter rather than Jesus, perhaps not wishing to embarrass "Your Teacher," "a roundabout hint that the tax was overdue" (Bruce). Evidently Jesus had been in the habit of paying it (Peter's).

rwp@Matthew:20:14 @{Take up} (\aron\). First aorist active imperative of \air\. Pick up, as if he had saucily refused to take it from the table or had contemptuously thrown the denarius on the ground. If the first had been paid first and sent away, there would probably have been no murmuring, but "the murmuring is needed to bring out the lesson" (Plummer). The \dnarius\ was the common wage of a day labourer at that time. {What I will} (\ho thel\). This is the point of the parable, the _will_ of the householder. {With mine own} (\en tois emois\). In the sphere of my own affairs. There is in the _Koin_ an extension of the instrumental use of \en\.

rwp@Matthew:23:5 @{To be seen of men} (\pros to theathnai tois anthrpois\). See strkjv@6:1| where this same idiom occurs. Ostentation regulates the conduct of the rabbis. {Phylacteries} (\phulaktria\). An adjective from \phulaktr, phulass\ (to guard). Songs:a fortified place, station for garrison, then a safeguard, protecting charm or amulet. The rabbis wore \tephillin\ or prayer-fillets, small leather cases with four strips of parchment on which were written the words of strkjv@Exodus:13:1-10,11-16; strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:4-9; strkjv@11:13-21|. They took literally the words about "a sign unto thy hand," "a memorial between thine eyes," and "frontlets." "That for the head was to consist of a box with four compartments, each containing a slip of parchment inscribed with one of the four passages. Each of these strips was to be tied up with a well-washed hair from a calf's tail; lest, if tied with wool or thread, any fungoid growth should ever pollute them. The phylactery of the arm was to contain a single slip, with the same four passages written in four columns of seven lines each. The black leather straps by which they were fastened were wound seven times round the arm and three times round the hand. They were reverenced by the rabbis as highly as the scriptures, and, like them, might be rescued from the flames on a sabbath. They profanely imagined that God wore the _tephillin_" (Vincent). It is small wonder that Jesus ridiculed such minute concern for pretentious externalism and literalism. These _tephillin_ "are still worn at the present day on the forehead and left arm by Jews at the daily Morning Prayer" (McNeile). "The size of the phylacteries indexed the measure of zeal, and the wearing of large ones was apt to take the place of obedience" (Bruce). Hence they made them "broad." The superstitious would wear them as mere charms to ward off evil. {Enlarge the borders} (\megalunousin ta kraspeda\). In strkjv@9:20| we see that Jesus, like the Jews generally, wore a tassel or tuft, hem or border, a fringe on the outer garment according to strkjv@Numbers:15:38|. Here again the Jewish rabbi had minute rules about the number of the fringes and the knots (see on ¯9:20|). They made a virtue of the size of the fringes also. "Such things were useful as reminders; they were fatal when they were regarded as charms" (Plummer).

rwp@Matthew:23:13 @{Hypocrites} (\hupokritai\). This terrible word of Jesus appears first from him in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew:6:2,5,16; strkjv@7:5|), then in strkjv@15:7| and strkjv@22:18|. Here it appears "with terrific iteration" (Bruce) save in the third of the seven woes (23:13,15,23,25,27,29|). The verb in the active (\hupokrin\) meant to separate slowly or slightly subject to gradual inquiry. Then the middle was to make answer, to take up a part on the stage, to act a part. It was an easy step to mean to feign, to pretend, to wear a masque, to act the hypocrite, to play a part. This hardest word from the lips of Jesus falls on those who were the religious leaders of the Jews (Scribes and Pharisees), who had justified this thunderbolt of wrath by their conduct toward Jesus and their treatment of things high and holy. The _Textus Receptus has eight woes, adding verse 14| which the Revised Version places in the margin (called verse 13| by Westcott and Hort and rejected on the authority of Aleph B D as a manifest gloss from strkjv@Mark:12:40| and strkjv@Luke:20:47|). The MSS. that insert it put it either before 13 or after 13. Plummer cites these seven woes as another example of Matthew's fondness for the number seven, more fancy than fact for Matthew's Gospel is not the Apocalypse of John. These are all illustrations of Pharisaic saying and not doing (Allen). {Ye shut the kingdom of heaven} (\kleiete tn basileian tn ourann\). In strkjv@Luke:11:52| the lawyers are accused of keeping the door to the house of knowledge locked and with flinging away the keys so as to keep themselves and the people in ignorance. These custodians of the kingdom by their teaching obscured the way to life. It is a tragedy to think how preachers and teachers of the kingdom of God may block the door for those who try to enter in (\tous eiserchomenous\, conative present middle participle). {Against} (\emprosthen\). Literally, before. These door-keepers of the kingdom slam it shut in men's faces and they themselves are on the outside where they will remain. They hide the key to keep others from going in.

rwp@Matthew:23:29 @{The tombs of the prophets} (\tous taphous tn prophtn\). Cf. strkjv@Luke:11:48-52|. They were bearing witness against themselves (\heautois\, verse 31|) to "the murder-taint in your blood" (Allen). "These men who professed to be so distressed at the murdering of the Prophets, were themselves compassing the death of Him who was far greater than any Prophet" (Plummer). There are four monuments called Tombs of the Prophets (Zechariah, Absalom, Jehoshaphat, St. James) at the base of the Mount of Olives. Some of these may have been going up at the very time that Jesus spoke. In this seventh and last woe Jesus addresses the Jewish nation and not merely the Pharisees.