OT-POET.filter - rwp bed:

rwp@1Corinthians:6:7 @{Nay, already it is altogether a defect among you} (\d men oun hols httma humin estin\). "Indeed therefore there is to you already (to begin with, \d\, before any question of courts) wholly defeat." \Httma\ (from \httaomai\) is only here, strkjv@Romans:11:12; strkjv@Isaiah:31:8| and ecclesiastical writers. See \httaomai\ (from \httn\, less) in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:13; strkjv@2Peter:2:19f.| \Nik\ was victory and \htta\ defeat with the Greeks. It is defeat for Christians to have lawsuits (\krimata\, usually decrees or judgments) with one another. This was proof of the failure of love and forgiveness (Colossians:3:13|). {Take wrong} (\adikeisthe\). Present middle indicative, of old verb \adike\ (from \adikos\, not right). Better undergo wrong yourself than suffer {defeat} in the matter of love and forgiveness of a brother. {Be defrauded} (\apostereisthe\). Permissive middle again like \adikeisthe\. Allow yourselves to be robbed (old verb to deprive, to rob) rather than have a lawsuit.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:4 @{That each one of you know how} (\eidenai hekaston humn\). Further epexegetic infinitive (second perfect active), learn how and so know how (learn the habit of purity). {To possess himself of his own vessel} (\to heautou skeuos ktasthai\). Present middle infinitive of \ktaomai\, to acquire, not \kektsthai\, to possess. But what does Paul mean by "his own vessel"? It can only mean his own body or his own wife. Objections are raised against either view, but perhaps he means that the man shall acquire his own wife "in sanctification and honour," words that elevate the wife and make it plain that Paul demands sexual purity on the part of men (married as well as unmarried). There is no double standard here. When the husband comes to the marriage bed, he should come as a chaste man to a chaste wife.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:8 @{I robbed} (\esulsa\). Old verb to despoil, strip arms from a slain foe, only here in N.T. He allowed other churches to do more than their share. {Taking wages} (\labn opsnion\). For \opsnion\ see on ¯1Corinthians:9:7; strkjv@Romans:6:17|. He got his "rations" from other churches, not from Corinth while there.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ ANACHRONISMS It used to be said that it was impossible for II Peter to have been written in the first century, because it had the atmosphere of the second. But one fact is strongly against that argument. In strkjv@2Peter:3:8| occurs the quotation of strkjv@Psalms:90:4| about the thousand years without any chiliastic turn at all, a thing sure to happen in the second century after chiliasm had come to have such a swing. Peter's use of it suits the first century, not the second. As a matter of fact, the false teachers described in II Peter suit the first century precisely if one recalls Paul's troubles with the Judaizers in Galatia and Corinth and with the Gnostics in Colossae and Ephesus. "Every feature in the description of the false teachers and mockers is to be found in the apostolic age" (Bigg).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE PURPOSE Certainly Peter is here concerned chiefly with the heresies of that general region in Asia Minor that so disturbed Paul (Colossians, Ephesians, Pastoral Epistles) and John (Gospel, Epistles, Apocalypse). Paul early foresaw at Miletus these wolves that would ravish the sheep (Acts:20:29f.|). In I Peter he is concerned chiefly with the fiery persecutions that are upon them, but here with the heretics that threaten to lead them astray.

rwp@Acts:8:23 @{That thou art} (\se onta\). Participle in indirect discourse after \hor\ (I see). {In the gall of bitterness} (\eis choln pikrias\). Old word from \cholas\ either from \che\, to pour, or \chlo\, yellowish green, bile or gall. In the N.T. only in strkjv@Matthew:27:34| and here. In LXX in sense of wormwood as well as bile. See strkjv@Deuteronomy:29:18; strkjv@32:32; strkjv@Lamentations:3:15; strkjv@Job:16:14|. "Gall and bitterness" in strkjv@Deuteronomy:29:18|. Here the gall is described by the genitive \pikrias\ as consisting in "bitterness." In strkjv@Hebrews:12:15| "a root of bitterness," a bitter root. This word \pikria\ in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:12:15; strkjv@Romans:3:14; strkjv@Ephesians:4:31|. The "bond of iniquity" (\sundesmon adikias\) is from strkjv@Isaiah:58:6|. Paul uses this word of peace (Ephesians:4:3|), of love (Colossians:3:14|), of the body (Colossians:2:19|). Peter describes Simon's offer as poison and a chain.

rwp@Acts:20:29 @{After my departing} (\meta tn aphixin mou\). Not his death, but his departure from them. From \aphikneomai\ and usually meant arrival, but departure in Herodotus IX. 17, 76 as here. {Grievous wolves} (\lukoi bareis\). \Bareis\ is heavy, rapacious, harsh. Jesus had already so described false teachers who would raven the fold (John:10:12|). Whether Paul had in mind the Judaizers who had given him so much trouble in Antioch, Jerusalem, Galatia, Corinth or the Gnostics the shadow of whose coming he already foresaw is not perfectly clear. But it will not be many years before Epaphras will come to Rome from Colossae with news of the new peril there (Epistle to the Colossians). In writing to Timothy (1Timothy:1:20|) Paul will warn him against some who have already made shipwreck of their faith. In strkjv@Revelation:2:2| John will represent Jesus as describing false apostles in Ephesus. {Not sparing the flock} (\m pheidomenoi tou poimniou\). Litotes again as so often in Acts. Sparing the flock was not the fashion of wolves. Jesus sent the seventy as lambs in the midst of wolves (Luke:10:3|). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had pictured the false prophets who would come as ravening wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew:7:15|).

rwp@Acts:23:2 @{Ananias} (\Hananias\). Not the one in strkjv@Luke:3:2; strkjv@John:18:13; strkjv@Acts:4:7|, but the son of Nebedaeus, nominated high priest by Herod, King of Chalcis, A.D. 48 and till A.D. 59. He was called to Rome A.D. 52 to answer "a charge of rapine and cruelty made against him by the Samaritans, but honourably acquitted" (Page). Though high priest, he was a man of bad character. {Them that stood by him} (\tois parestsin auti\). Dative case of second perfect participle of \paristmi\, to place, and intransitive. See the same form in verse 4| (\paresttes\). {To smite him on the mouth} (\tuptein autou to stoma\). See on ¯12:45; strkjv@18:17|. Cf. the treatment of Jesus (John:18:22|). Ananias was provoked by Paul's self-assertion while on trial before his judges. "The act was illegal and peculiarly offensive to a Jew at the hands of a Jew" (Knowling). More self-control might have served Paul better. Smiting the mouth or cheek is a peculiarly irritating offence and one not uncommon among the Jews and this fact gives point to the command of Jesus to turn the other check (Luke:6:29| where \tupt\ is also used).

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

rwp@Ephesians:3:10 @{To the intent that} (\hina\). Final clause. {Might be made known} (\gnristhi\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \gnriz\ with \hina\. The mystery was made known to Paul (3:3|) and now he wants it blazoned forth to all powers (Gnostic aeons or what not). {Through the church} (\dia ts ekklsias\). The wonderful body of Christ described in chapter strkjv@Ephesians:2|. {The manifold wisdom of God} (\h polupoikilos sophia tou theou\). Old and rare word, much-variegated, with many colours. Only here in N.T. \Poikilos\ (variegated) is more common (Matthew:4:24|).

rwp@Hebrews:5:8 @{Though he was a Son} (\kaiper n huios\). Concessive participle with \kaiper\, regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@7:5; strkjv@12:17|. {Yet learned obedience} (\emathen hupakon\). Second aorist active indicative of \manthan\. Succinct and crisp statement of the humanity of Jesus in full harmony with strkjv@Luke:2:40,52| and with strkjv@Hebrews:2:10|. {By the things which he suffered} (\aph' hn epathen\). There is a play on the two verbs (\emathen--epathen\), paronomasia. Second aorist active indicative of \pasch\. He always did his Father's will (John:8:29|), but he grew in experience as in wisdom and stature and in the power of sympathy with us.

rwp@James:2:10 @{Whosoever shall keep} (\hostis trsi\). Indefinite relative clause with \hostis\ and aorist active subjunctive of \tre\, old verb, to guard (from \tros\ guarding), as in strkjv@Matthew:27:36|, without \an\ (though often used, but only one example of modal \ean=an\ in James, viz., strkjv@4:4|). This modal \an\ (\ean\) merely interprets the sentence as either more indefinite or more definite (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 957f.). {And yet stumble in one point} (\ptaisi de en heni\). First aorist active subjunctive also of \ptai\, old verb, to trip, as in strkjv@3:2; strkjv@Romans:11:11|. "It is incipient falling" (Hort). {He is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect indicative of \ginomai\, "he has become" by that one stumble. {Guilty of all} (\pantn enochos\). Genitive of the crime with \enochos\, old adjective from \enech\ (to hold on or in), held in, as in strkjv@Mark:3:29|. This is law. To be a lawbreaker one does not have to violate all the laws, but he must keep all the law (\holon ton nomon\) to be a law-abiding citizen, even laws that one does not like. See strkjv@Matthew:5:18f.| for this same principle. There is Talmudic parallel: "If a man do all, but omit one, he is guilty for all and each." This is a pertinent principle also for those who try to save themselves. But James is urging obedience to all God's laws.

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

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

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

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

rwp@John:1:6 @{There came a man} (\egeneto anthrpos\). Definite event in the long darkness, same verb in verse 3|. {Sent} (\apestalmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \apostell\, to send. {From God} (\para theou\). From the side of (\para\) God (ablative case \theou\). {Whose name} (\onoma auti\). "Name to him," nominative parenthetic and dative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 460). {John} (\Ians\). One \n\ in Westcott and Hort. In the giving of the name see strkjv@Luke:1:59-63|, Hellenized form of Jonathan, Joanan (Gift of God), used always of the Baptist in this Gospel which never mentions the name of John son of Zebedee (the sons of Zebedee once, strkjv@21:2|).

rwp@John:1:15 @{Beareth witness} (\marturei\). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. strkjv@1:17f.|). See strkjv@1:32,34| for historical examples of John's witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort's text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of verse 14|. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos. {Crieth} (\kekragen\). Second perfect active indicative of \kraz\, old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years. {This was} (\houtos n\). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in strkjv@Acts:3:10| where we should prefer "is" (\estin\). Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things." {Of whom I said} (\hon eipon\). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have \ho eipn\ "the one who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ. {After me} (\opis mou\). See also strkjv@1:27|. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One" (\ho erchomenos\) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:3:11| \ho opis mou erchomenos\ (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:7|). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. {Is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking. {Before me} (\emprosthen mou\). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, \ho ischuroteros mou\ "the one mightier than I" (Mark:1:7|) and \ischuroteros mou\ "mightier than I" (Matthew:3:11|). In strkjv@John:3:28| \emprosthen ekeinou\ (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (John:3:25-30|). {For he was before me} (\hoti prtos mou n\). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\n imperfect\) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after" John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. \Prtos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular _Koin_. Songs:the Beloved Disciple came first (\prtos\) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4|). Songs:also \prton humn\ in strkjv@15:18| means "before you" as if it were \proteron humn\. Verse 30| repeats these words almost exactly.

rwp@John:3:36 @{Hath eternal life} (\echei zn ainion\). Has it here and now and for eternity. {That obeyeth not} (\ho apeithn\). "He that is disobedient to the Son." Jesus is the test of human life as Simeon said he would be (Luke:2:34f.|). This verb does not occur again in John's Gospel.

rwp@John:5:8 @{Arise, take up thy bed, and walk} (\Egeire, ron ton krabatton sou kai peripatei\). Present active imperative of \egeir\, a sort of exclamation, like our "Get up." The first active imperative (\ron\ of \air\) means to pick up the pallet, and then "go on walking" (present active imperative of \peripate\). For \krabatton\ (pallet) see strkjv@Mark:2:2-12; strkjv@6:55; strkjv@Acts:5:15; strkjv@9:33|.

rwp@John:5:9 @{Took up his bed and walked} (\re ton krabatton autou kai periepatei\). The same distinction in tenses in the same verbs preserved, punctiliar action in \re\ (first aorist active of \air\, took it up at once) and linear act (imperfect active of \peripate\, went on walking). {The sabbath on that day} (\sabbaton en ekeini ti hmeri\). The first of the violations of the Sabbath rules of the Jews by Jesus in Jerusalem that led to so much bitterness (cf. strkjv@9:14,16|). This controversy will spread to Galilee on Christ's return there (Mark:2:23-3:6; strkjv@Matthew:12:1-14; strkjv@Luke:6:1-11|).

rwp@John:5:10 @{Unto him that was cured} (\ti tetherapeumeni\). Perfect passive articular participle of \therapeu\ (only example in John), "to the healed man." See strkjv@Matthew:8:7|. {To take up thy bed} (\rai ton krabatton\). The very words of Jesus (verse 8|), only infinitive (first aorist active). Carrying burdens was considered unlawful on the Sabbath (Exodus:23:12; strkjv@Nehemiah:13:19; strkjv@Jeremiah:17:21|). Stoning was the rabbinical punishment. The healing of the man was a minor detail.

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

rwp@John:6:8 @{One of} (\heis ek\). Songs:in strkjv@12:4|; strkjv@13:23; strkjv@Mark:13:1| without \ek\. {Simon Peter's brother} (\ho adelphos Simnos Petrou\). Songs:described in strkjv@1:40|. The great distinction of Andrew was precisely this that he brought Simon to Christ. Philip and Andrew appear together again in strkjv@12:20-22|, but in the Synoptics he is distinguished only in strkjv@Mark:13:3|. In the Muratorian Fragment Andrew received the revelation for John to write the Fourth Gospel.

rwp@John:6:10 @{Sit down} (\anapesein\). Literally, "fall back," lie down, recline. Second aorist active infinitive of \anapipt\. {Much grass} (\chortos polus\). Old word for pasture, green grass (Mark:6:39|) or hay (1Corinthians:3:12|). It was spring (John:6:4|) and plenty of green grass on the hillside. {The men} (\hoi andres\). Word for men as distinct from women, expressly stated in strkjv@Matthew:14:21|. {In number} (\ton arithmon\). Adverbial accusative (of general reference). {About} (\hos\). General estimate, though they were arranged in orderly groups by hundreds and fifties, "in ranks" like "garden beds" (\prasiai\, strkjv@Mark:6:40|).

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

rwp@John:12:13 @{Took} (\elabon\). Second aorist active indicative of \lamban\. {The branches of the palm-trees} (\ta baia tn phoinikn\). \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 hupantsin auti\). Literally, {for a meeting} (\hupantsis\, 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" (\auti\, associative instrumental case after \hupantsin\ 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 \kraug\) as in strkjv@Matthew:12:19; strkjv@John:19:15|. {Hosannah} (\Hsannah\). Transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning "Save now." The LXX renders it by \Sson d\ (Save now). {Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord} (\eulogmenos 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 Isral\) 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@Luke:7:9 @{Turned} (\strapheis\). Second aorist passive participle of \streph\, to turn. Common verb. A vivid touch not in Matthew's account. In both Matthew and Luke Jesus marvels at the great faith of this Roman centurion beyond that among the Jews. As a military man he had learned how to receive orders and to execute them and hence to expect obedience to his commands, He recognized Jesus as Master over disease with power to compel obedience.

rwp@Luke:7:15 @{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: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:19:7 @{Murmured} (\diegogguzonto\). Imperfect middle of this compound onomatopoetic word \dia-gogguz\. In strkjv@Luke:5:30| we have the simple \gogguz\, a late word like the cooing doves or the hum of bees. This compound with \dia-\ is still rarer, but more expressive. {To lodge} (\katalusai\). Jesus was the hero of this crowd from Galilee on their way to the passover. But here he had shocked their sensibilities and those of the people of Jericho by inviting himself to be the guest of this chief publican and notorious sinner who had robbed nearly everybody in the city by exorbitant taxes.

rwp@Luke:20:44 @{David therefore} (\Daueid oun\). Without \ei\ as in strkjv@Matthew:22:45|. On the basis of this definite piece of exegesis (\oun\, therefore) Jesus presses the problem (\ps\, how) for an explanation. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:110| are thus set forth, the very problems that disturbed the rabbis then and that upset many critics today.

rwp@Luke:24:26 @{Behooved it not?} (\ouchi edei;\). Was it not necessary? The very things about the death of Jesus that disturbed them so were the strongest proof that he was the Messiah of the Old Testament.

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

rwp@Mark:5:4 @{Often bound} (\pollakis dedesthai\). Perfect passive infinitive, state of completion. With fetters (\pedais\, from \peza\, foot, instep) and chains, bound hand and foot, but all to no purpose. The English plural of foot is feet (Anglo-Saxon _fot_, _fet_) and fetter is _feeter_. {Rent asunder} (\diespsthai\). Drawn (\spa\) in two (\dia-\ same root as \duo\, two). Perfect passive infinitive. {Broken in pieces} (\suntetriphthai\.) Perfect passive infinitive again, from \suntrib\, to rub together. Rubbed together, crushed together. Perhaps the neighbours who told the story could point to broken fragments of chains and fetters. The fetters may have been cords, or even wooden stocks and not chains. {No man had strength to tame him} (\oudeis ischuen auton damasai\). Imperfect tense. He roamed at will like a lion in the jungle.

rwp@Mark:5:39 @{Make a tumult} (\thorubeisthe\). Middle voice. Jesus had dismissed one crowd (verse 37|), but finds the house occupied by the hired mourners making bedlam (\thorubos\) as if that showed grief with their ostentatious noise. strkjv@Matthew:9:23| spoke of flute-players (\aultas\) and the hubbub of the excited throng (\thoruboumenon\. Cf. strkjv@Mark:14:2; strkjv@Acts:20:1,21,34|). Mark, Matthew, and Luke all quote Jesus as saying that "the child is not dead, but sleepeth." Jesus undoubtedly meant that she was not dead to stay dead, though some hold that the child was not really dead. It is a beautiful word (she is {sleeping}, \katheudei\) that Jesus uses of death.

rwp@Mark:6:19 @{And Herodias set herself against him} (\H de Hridias eneichen auti\). Dative of disadvantage. Literally, {had it in for him}. This is modern slang, but is in exact accord with this piece of vernacular _Koin_. No object of \eichen\ is expressed, though \orgn\ or \cholon\ may be implied. The tense is imperfect and aptly described the feelings of Herodias towards this upstart prophet of the wilderness who had dared to denounce her private relations with Herod Antipas. Gould suggests that she "kept her eye on him" or kept up her hostility towards him. She never let up, but bided her time which, she felt sure, would come. See the same idiom in strkjv@Genesis:49:23|. She {desired to kill him} (\thelen auton apokteinai\). Imperfect again. {And she could not} (\kai ouk dunato\). \Kai\ here has an adversative sense, but she could not. That is, not yet. "The power was wanting, not the will" (Swete).

rwp@Mark:6:40 @{They sat down in ranks} (\anepesan prasiai prasiai\). They half-way reclined (\anaklithnai\, verse 39|). Fell up here (we have to say fell down), the word \anepesan\ means. But they were arranged in groups by hundreds and by fifties and they looked like garden beds with their many-coloured clothes which even men wore in the Orient. Then again Mark repeats the word, \prasiai prasiai\, in the nominative absolute as in verse 39| instead of using \ana\ or \kata\ with the accusative for the idea of distribution. Garden beds, garden beds. Peter saw and he never forgot the picture and so Mark caught it. There was colour as well as order in the grouping. There were orderly walks between the rows on rows of men reclining on the green grass. The grass is not green in Palestine much of the year, mainly at the passover time. Songs:here the Synoptic Gospels have an indication of more than a one-year ministry of Jesus (Gould). It is still one year before the last passover when Jesus was crucified.

rwp@Mark:6:55 @{Ran about} (\periedramon\). Vivid constative aorist picturing the excited pursuit of Jesus as the news spread that he was in Gennesaret. {On their beds} (\epi tois krabattois\). Pallets like that of the man let down through the roof (Mark:2:4|). {Where they heard he was} (\hopou kouon hoti estin\). Imperfect tense of \akou\ (repetition), present indicative \estin\ retained in indirect discourse.

rwp@Mark:7:4 @{From the marketplace} (\ap' agoras\). Ceremonial defilement was inevitable in the mixing with men in public. This \agora\ from \ageir\ to collect or gather, was a public forum in every town where the people gathered like the courthouse square in American towns. The disciples were already ceremonially defiled. {Wash themselves} (\baptisntai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \baptiz\, dip or immerse. Westcott and Hort put \rantisntai\ in the text translated "sprinkle themselves" in the margin of the Revised Version, because Aleph, B, and some of the best cursives have it. Gould terms \rantisntai\ "a manifest emendation," to get rid of the difficulty of dipping or bathing the whole body. Meyer says: "The statement proceeds by way of climax: before eating they wash the hands always. When they come from market they take a bath before eating." This is not the place to enter into any controversy about the meaning of \baptiz\, to dip, \rantiz\, to sprinkle, and \ecche\, to pour, all used in the New Testament. The words have their distinctive meanings here as elsewhere. Some scribes felt a difficulty about the use of \baptisntai\ here. The Western and Syrian classes of manuscripts add "and couches" (\kai klinn\) at the end of the sentence. Swete considers the immersions of beds (\baptismous klinn\) "an incongruous combination." But Gould says: "Edersheim shows that the Jewish ordinance required immersions, \baptismous\, of these vessels." We must let the Jewish scrupulosity stand for itself, though "and couches" is not supported by Aleph, B L D Bohairic, probably not genuine.

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

rwp@Mark:9:48 @{Their worm} (\ho sklx autn\). "The worm, i.e. that preys upon the inhabitants of this dread realm" (Gould). Two bold figures of Gehenna combined (the gnawing worm, the burning flame). No figures of Gehenna can equal the dread reality which is here described. See strkjv@Isaiah:66:24|.

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

rwp@Matthew:6:12 @{Our debts} (\ta opheilmata hmn\). Luke (Luke:11:4|) has "sins" (\hamartias\). In the ancient Greek \opheilma\ is common for actual legal debts as in strkjv@Romans:4:4|, but here it is used of moral and spiritual debts to God. "Trespasses" is a mistranslation made common by the Church of England Prayer Book. It is correct in verse 14| in Christ's argument about prayer, but it is not in the Model Prayer itself. See strkjv@Matthew:18:28,30| for sin pictured again by Christ "as debt and the sinner as a debtor" (Vincent). We are thus described as having wronged God. The word \opheil\ for moral obligation was once supposed to be peculiar to the New Testament. But it is common in that sense in the papyri (Deismann, _Bible Studies_, p. 221; _Light from the Ancient East,_ New ed., p. 331). We ask forgiveness "in proportion as" (\hs\) we _also_ have forgiven those in debt to us, a most solemn reflection. \Aphkamen\ is one of the three k aorists (\ethka, edka, hka\). It means to send away, to dismiss, to wipe off.

rwp@Matthew:6:22 @{Single} (\haplous\). Used of a marriage contract when the husband is to repay the dowry "pure and simple" (\tn phernn hapln\), if she is set free; but in case he does not do so promptly, he is to add interest also (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_, etc.). There are various other instances of such usage. Here and in strkjv@Luke:11:34| the eye is called "single" in a moral sense. The word means "without folds" like a piece of cloth unfolded, _simplex_ in Latin. Bruce considers this parable of the eye difficult. "The figure and the ethical meaning seem to be mixed up, moral attributes ascribed to the physical eye which with them still gives light to the body. This confusion may be due to the fact that the eye, besides being the organ of vision, is the seat of expression, revealing inward dispositions." The "evil" eye (\ponros\) may be diseased and is used of stinginess in the LXX and so \haplous\ may refer to liberality as Hatch argues (_Essays in Biblical Greek_, p. 80). The passage may be elliptical with something to be supplied. If our eyes are healthy we see clearly and with a single focus (without astigmatism). If the eyes are diseased (bad, evil), they may even be cross-eyed or cock-eyed. We see double and confuse our vision. We keep one eye on the hoarded treasures of earth and roll the other proudly up to heaven. Seeing double is double-mindedness as is shown in verse 24|.

rwp@Matthew:8:6 @{Grievously tormented} (\deins basanizomenos\). Participle present passive from root \basanos\ (see on ¯Matthew:4:24|). The boy (\pais\), slave (\doulos\, strkjv@Luke:7:2|), was a bedridden (\bebltai\, perfect passive indicative of \ball\) paralytic.

rwp@Matthew:8:9 @{For I also am a man under authority} (\kai gar eg anthrpos hupo exousian\). "Also" is in the text, though the \kai\ here may mean "even," even I in my subordinate position have soldiers under me. As a military man he had learned obedience to his superiors and so expected obedience to his commands, instant obedience (aorist imperatives and aoristic present indicatives). Hence his faith in Christ's power over the illness of the boy even without coming. Jesus had only to speak with a word (8:8|), say the word, and it would be done.

rwp@Matthew:8:14 @{Lying sick of a fever} (\biblmenn kai puressousan\). Two participles, bedridden (perfect passive of \ball\) and burning with fever (present active). How long the fever had had her we have no means of knowing, possibly a sudden and severe attack (Mark:1:30|), as they tell Jesus about her on reaching the house of Peter. We are not told what kind of fever it was. Fever itself was considered a disease. "Fever" is from German feuer (fire) like the Greek \pur\.

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

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

rwp@Revelation:9:12 @{The first woe} (\h ouai h mia\). Note feminine gender ascribed to the interjection \ouai\ as in strkjv@11:14|, perhaps because \thlipsis\ is feminine, though we really do not know. Note also the ordinal use of \mia\ (one) like \prt\ (first) as in strkjv@6:1; strkjv@Mark:16:2|. {There come yet two Woes} (\erchetai eti duo Ouai\). Singular number \erchetai\ instead of \erchontai\, though \duo ouai\. It is true that \ouai\ is an interjection and indeclinable, but it is here used with \duo\ and is feminine just before, and not neuter.

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

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

rwp@Romans:11:30 @{Ye in time past} (\humeis pote\). Ye Gentiles (1:18-32|). {Were disobedient} (\epeithsate\). First aorist active indicative of \apeithe\, to disbelieve and then to disobey. "Ye once upon a time disobeyed God." {By their disobedience} (\ti toutn apeithii\). Instrumental case, "by the disobedience of these" (Jews). Note "now" (\nun\) three times in this sentence.

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