Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp disciple:


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

rwp@Info_2John @ SECOND JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is little to add to what was said about the First Epistle except that here the author terms himself "the elder" (\ho presbuteros\) and writes to "the elect lady" (\eklektˆi kuriƒi\). There is dispute about both of these titles. Some hold that it is the mythical "presbyter John" of whom Papias may speak, if so understood, but whose very existence is disproved by Dom Chapman in _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Peter the apostle (1Peter:1:1|) calls himself "fellow-elder" (\sunpresbuteros\) with the other elders (1Peter:5:1|). The word referred originally to age (Luke:15:25|), then to rank or office as in the Sanhedrin (Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Acts:6:12|) and in the Christian churches (Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@1Timothy:5:17,19|) as here also. A few even deny that the author is the same as in the First Epistle of John, but just an imitator. But the bulk of modern scholarly opinion agrees that the same man wrote all three Epistles and the Fourth Gospel (the Beloved Disciple, and many still say the Apostle John) whatever is true of the Apocalypse. There is no way of deciding whether "the elect lady" is a woman or a church. The obvious way of taking it is to a woman of distinction in one of the churches, as is true of "the co-elect lady in Babylon" (1Peter:5:13|), Peter's wife, who travelled with him (1Corinthians:9:5|). Some even take \kuria\ to be the name of the lady (Cyria). Some also take it to be "Eklecta the lady." Dr. Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 31) holds that Pergamum is the church to which the letter was sent. The same commentaries treat I, II, and III John as a rule, though Poggel has a book on II, III John (1896) and Bresky (1906) has _Das Verhaltnis des Zweiten Johannesbriefes zum dritten_. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has an interesting article in _The Expositor_ of London for March, 1901, on "The Problem of the Address to the Second Epistle of John," in which he argues from papyri examples that \kuria\ here means "my dear" or "my lady." But Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 26) argues that "the qualifying adjunct 'elect' lifts us into the region of Christian calling and dignity." It is not certain that II John was written after I John, though probable. Origen rejected it and the Peshitta Syriac does not have II and III John. strkjv@2John:1:1 @{And her children} (\kai tois teknois autˆs\). As with \eklektˆ kuria\, so here \tekna\ may be understood either literally as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:4|, or spiritually, as in strkjv@Galatians:4:19,25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. For the spiritual sense in \teknia\ see strkjv@1John:2:1,12|. {Whom} (\hous\). Masculine accusative plural, though \teknois\ is neuter plural (dative), construction according to sense, not according to grammatical gender, "embracing the mother and the children of both sexes" (Vincent). See thus \hous\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:19|. {I} (\Eg“\). Though \ho presbuteros\ is third person, he passes at once after the Greek idiom to the first and there is also special emphasis here in the use of \agap“\ with the addition of \en alˆtheiƒi\ (in truth, in the highest sphere, as in strkjv@John:17:19; strkjv@3John:1:1|) and \ouk eg“ monos\ (not I only, "not I alone"). Brooke argues that this language is unsuitable if to a single family and not to a church. But Paul employs this very phrase in sending greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans:16:4|). {That know} (\hoi egn“kotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \gin“sk“\, "those that have come to know and still know."

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

rwp@Acts:17:27 @{That they should seek God} (\Zˆtein ton theon\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose again. Seek him, not turn away from him as the nations had done (Romans:1:18-32|). {If haply they might feel after him} (\ei ara ge psˆlaphˆseian auton\). First aorist active (Aeolic form) optative of \psˆlapha“\, old verb from \psa“\, to touch. Songs:used by the Risen Jesus in his challenge to the disciples (Luke:24:39|), by the Apostle John of his personal contact with Jesus (1John:1:1|), of the contact with Mount Sinai (Hebrews:12:18|). Here it pictures the blind groping of the darkened heathen mind after God to "find him" (\heuroien\, second aorist active optative) whom they had lost. One knows what it is in a darkened room to feel along the walls for the door (Deuteronomy:28:29; strkjv@Job:5:14; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@Isaiah:59:10|). Helen Keller, when told of God, said that she knew of him already, groping in the dark after him. The optative here with \ei\ is due to the condition of the fourth class (undetermined, but with vague hope of being determined) with aim also present (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). Note also \ara ge\ the inferential particle \ara\ with the delicate intensive particle \ge\. {Though he is not far from each one of us} (\kai ge ou makran apo henos hekastou hˆm“n huparchonta\). More exactly with B L (\kai ge\ instead of \kaitoi\ or \kaitoi ge\), "and yet being not far from each one of us," a direct statement rather than a concessive one. The participle \huparchonta\ agrees with \auton\ and the negative \ou\ rather than the usual \me\ with the participle makes an emphatic negative. Note also the intensive particle \ge\.

rwp@Acts:21:4 @{Having found} (\aneurontes\). Second aorist active participle of \aneurisk“\, to seek for, to find by searching (\ana\). There was a church here, but it was a large city and the number of members may not have been large. Probably some of those that fled from Jerusalem who came to Phoenicia (Acts:11:19|) started the work here. Paul went also through Phoenicia on the way to the Jerusalem Conference (15:3|). As at Troas and Miletus, so here Paul's indefatigible energy shows itself with characteristic zeal. {Through the Spirit} (\dia tou pneumatos\). The Holy Spirit undoubtedly who had already told Paul that bonds and afflictions awaited him in Jerusalem (20:23|). {That he should not set foot in Jerusalem} (\mˆ epibainein eis Ierosoluma\). Indirect command with \mˆ\ and the present active infinitive, not to keep on going to Jerusalem (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1046). In spite of this warning Paul felt it his duty as before (20:22|) to go on. Evidently Paul interpreted the action of the Holy Spirit as information and warning although the disciples at Tyre gave it the form of a prohibition. Duty called louder than warning to Paul even if both were the calls of God.

rwp@Acts:21:6 @{Beach} (\aigialon\). As in strkjv@Matthew:13:2| which see. This scene is in public as at Miletus, but they did not care. {Bade each other farewell} (\apespasametha allˆlous\). First aorist middle of \apaspazomai\. Rare compound, here alone in the N.T. Tender scene, but "no bonds of long comradeship, none of the clinging love" (Furneaux) seen at Miletus (Acts:20:37f.|). {Home again} (\eis ta idia\). To their own places as of the Beloved Disciple in strkjv@John:19:27| and of Jesus in strkjv@John:1:11|. This idiom in the papyri also.

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

rwp@Acts:21:16 @{Certain of the disciples} (\t“n mathˆt“n\). The genitive here occurs with \tines\ understood as often in the Greek idiom, the partitive genitive used as nominative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 502). {Bringing} (\agontes\). Nominative plural participle agreeing with \tines\ understood, not with case of \mathˆt“n\. {One Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should lodge} (\par h“i xenisth“men Mnas“ni tini Kupri“i archai“i mathˆtˆi\). A thoroughly idiomatic Greek idiom, incorporation and attraction of the antecedent into the relative clause (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 718). \Mnas“ni\ is really the object of \agontes\ or the accusative with \para\ or \pros\ understood and should be accusative, but it is placed in the clause after the relative and in the same locative case with the relative \h“i\ (due to \par'\, beside, with). Then the rest agrees in case with \Mnas“ni\. He was originally from Cyprus, but now in Caesarea. The Codex Bezae adds \eis tina k“mˆn\ (to a certain village) and makes it mean that they were to lodge with Mnason at his home there about halfway to Jerusalem. This may be true. The use of the subjunctive \xenisth“men\ (first aorist passive of \xeniz“\, to entertain strangers as in strkjv@Acts:10:6,23,32| already) may be volitive of purpose with the relative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 955, 989). The use of \archai“i\ for "early" may refer to the fact that he was one of the original disciples at Pentecost as Peter in strkjv@15:7| uses \hˆmer“n archai“n\ (early days) to refer to his experience at Ceasarea in strkjv@Acts:10|. "As the number of the first disciples lessened, the next generation accorded a sort of honour to the survivors" (Furneaux).

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

rwp@Acts:24:5 @{For we have found} (\heurontes gar\). Second aorist active participle of \heurisk“\, but without a principal verb in the sentence. Probably we have here only a "summary of the charges against Paul" (Page). {A pestilent fellow} (\loimon\). An old word for pest, plague, pestilence, Paul the pest. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:11| (\loimoi kai limoi\, pestilences and famines) which see. Latin _pestis_. Think of the greatest preacher of the ages being branded a pest by a contemporary hired lawyer. {A mover of insurrections} (\kinounta staseis\). This was an offence against Roman law if it could be proven. "Plotted against at Damascus, plotted against at Jerusalem, expelled from Pisidian Antioch, stoned at Lystra, scourged and imprisoned at Philippi, accused of treason at Thessalonica, haled before the proconsul at Corinth, cause of a serious riot at Ephesus, and now finally of a riot at Jerusalem" (Furneaux). Specious proof could have been produced, but was not. Tertullus went on to other charges with which a Roman court had no concern (instance Gallio in Corinth). {Throughout the world} (\kata tˆn oikoumenˆn\). The Roman inhabited earth (\gˆn\) as in strkjv@17:6|. {A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes} (\pr“tostatˆn tˆs t“n Naz“rai“n hairese“s\). \Pr“tostatˆs\ is an old word in common use from \pr“tos\ and \histˆmi\, a front-rank man, a chief, a champion. Here only in the N.T. This charge is certainly true. About "sect" (\hairesis\) see on ¯5:17|. \Naz“raioi\ here only in the plural in the N.T., elsewhere of Jesus (Matthew:2:23; strkjv@26:71; strkjv@Luke:18:37; strkjv@John:18:5,7; strkjv@19:19; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@3:6; strkjv@4:10; strkjv@6:14; strkjv@22:8; strkjv@26:9|). The disciple is not above his Master. There was a sneer in the term as applied to Jesus and here to his followers.

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

rwp@Ephesians:5:8 @{But now light} (\nun de ph“s\). Jesus called his disciples the light of the world (Matthew:5:14|).

rwp@Info_John @ THE BELOVED DISCIPLE The book claims to be written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John:21:20|) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: "This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (John:21:24|). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with strkjv@John:20:31|, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in strkjv@John:21:24| is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922).

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

rwp@Info_John @ WITH A HOME IN JERUSALEM It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus "to his own home" (\eis ta idia\, strkjv@John:19:27|) from the Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest (John:18:15f.|). Delff (_Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_, 1890) argues that this fact shows that the Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin (John:7:45-52; strkjv@11:47-53; strkjv@12:10ff.|). But at once we are confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (John:13:23|). Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John:21:1ff.|) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the "Beloved Disciple" (John:21:20|).

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

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

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

rwp@John:1:11 @{Unto his own} (\eis ta idia\). Neuter plural, "unto his own things," the very idiom used in strkjv@19:27| when the Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus "to his own home." The world was "the own home" of the Logos who had made it. See also strkjv@16:32; strkjv@Acts:21:6|. {They that were his own} (\hoi idioi\). In the narrower sense, "his intimates," "his own family," "his own friends" as in strkjv@13:1|. Jesus later said that a prophet is not without honour save in his own country (Mark:6:4; strkjv@John:4:44|), and the town of Nazareth where he lived rejected him (Luke:4:28f.; strkjv@Matthew:13:58|). Probably here \hoi idioi\ means the Jewish people, the chosen people to whom Christ was sent first (Matthew:15:24|), but in a wider sense the whole world is included in \hoi idioi\. Conder's _The Hebrew Tragedy_ emphasizes the pathos of the situation that the house of Israel refused to welcome the Messiah when he did come, like a larger and sadder Enoch Arden experience. {Received him not} (\auton ou parelabon\). Second aorist active indicative of \paralamban“\, old verb to take to one's side, common verb to welcome, the very verb used by Jesus in strkjv@14:3| of the welcome to his Father's house. Cf. \katelaben\ in verse 5|. Israel slew the Heir (Hebrews:1:2|) when he came, like the wicked husbandmen (Luke:20:14|).

rwp@John:1:12 @{As many as received him} (\hosoi elabon auton\). Effective aorist active indicative of \lamban“\ "as many as did receive him," in contrast with \hoi idioi\ just before, exceptional action on the part of the disciples and other believers. {To them} (\autois\). Dative case explanatory of the relative clause preceding, an anacoluthon common in John 27 times as against 21 in the Synoptists. This is a common Aramaic idiom and is urged by Burney (_Aramaic Origin_, etc., p. 64) for his theory of an Aramaic original of the Fourth Gospel. {The right} (\exousian\). In strkjv@5:27| \ed“ken\ (first aorist active indicative of \did“mi\) \exousian\ means authority but includes power (\dunamis\). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right. {To become} (\genesthai\). Second aorist middle of \ginomai\, to become what they were not before. {Children of God} (\tekna theou\). In the full spiritual sense, not as mere offspring of God true of all men (Acts:17:28|). Paul's phrase \huioi theou\ (Gal strkjv@3:26|) for believers, used also by Jesus of the pure in heart (Matthew:5:9|), does not occur in John's Gospel (but in strkjv@Revelation:21:7|). It is possible that John prefers \ta tekna tou theou\ for the spiritual children of God whether Jew or Gentile (John:11:52|) because of the community of nature (\teknon\ from root \tek-\, to beget). But one cannot follow Westcott in insisting on "adoption" as Paul's reason for the use of \huioi\ since Jesus uses \huioi theou\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:9|. Clearly the idea of regeneration is involved here as in strkjv@John:3:3|. {Even to them that believe} (\tois pisteuousin\). No "even" in the Greek, merely explanatory apposition with \autois\, dative case of the articular present active participle of \pisteu“\. {On his name} (\eis to onoma\). Bernard notes \pisteu“ eis\ 35 times in John, to put trust in or on. See also strkjv@2:23; strkjv@3:38| for \pisteu“ eis to onoma autou\. This common use of \onoma\ for the person is an Aramaism, but it occurs also in the vernacular papyri and \eis to onoma\ is particularly common in the payment of debts (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). See strkjv@Acts:1:15| for \onomata\ for persons.

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 ˆn\). 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 eip“n\ "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 pr“tos mou ˆn\). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\ˆn 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. \Pr“tos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular _Koin‚_. Songs:the Beloved Disciple came first (\pr“tos\) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4|). Songs:also \pr“ton hum“n\ in strkjv@15:18| means "before you" as if it were \proteron hum“n\. Verse 30| repeats these words almost exactly.

rwp@John:1:19 @{And this is the witness of John} (\kai hautˆ estin hˆ marturia tou I“anou\). He had twice already alluded to it (verses 7f., 15|) and now he proceeds to give it as the most important item to add after the Prologue. Just as the author assumes the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, so he assumes the Synoptic accounts of the baptism of Jesus by John, but adds various details of great interest and value between the baptism and the Galilean ministry, filling out thus our knowledge of this first year of the Lord's ministry in various parts of Palestine. The story in John proceeds along the same lines as in the Synoptics. There is increasing unfolding of Christ to the disciples with increasing hostility on the part of the Jews till the final consummation in Jerusalem. {When the Jews sent unto him} (\hote apesteilan pros auton hoi Ioudaioi\). John, writing in Ephesus near the close of the first century long after the destruction of Jerusalem, constantly uses the phrase "the Jews" as descriptive of the people as distinct from the Gentile world and from the followers of Christ (at first Jews also). Often he uses it of the Jewish leaders and rulers in particular who soon took a hostile attitude toward both John and Jesus. Here it is the Jews from Jerusalem who sent (\apesteilan\, first aorist active indicative of \apostell“\). {Priests and Levites} (\hiereis kai Leueitas\). Sadducees these were. Down below in verse 24| the author explains that it was the Pharisees who sent the Sadducees. The Synoptics throw a flood of light on this circumstance, for in strkjv@Matthew:3:7| we are told that the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees "offspring of vipers" (Luke:3:7|). Popular interest in John grew till people were wondering "in their hearts concerning John whether haply he were the Christ" (Luke:3:15|). Songs:the Sanhedrin finally sent a committee to John to get his own view of himself, but the Pharisees saw to it that Sadducees were sent. {To ask him} (\hina er“tˆs“sin auton\). Final \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \er“ta“\, old verb to ask a question as here and often in the _Koin‚_ to ask for something (John:14:16|) like \aite“\. {Who art thou?} (\su tis ei;\). Direct question preserved and note proleptic position of \su\, "Thou, who art thou?" The committee from the Sanhedrin put the question sharply up to John to define his claims concerning the Messiah.

rwp@John:3:22 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). Transition after the interview with Nicodemus. For the phrase see strkjv@5:1; strkjv@6:1; strkjv@7:1|. {Into the land of Judea} (\eis tˆn Ioudaian gˆn\). Into the country districts outside of Jerusalem. The only example of this phrase in the N.T., but "the region of Judea" (\hˆ Ioudaia ch“ra\) in strkjv@Mark:1:5|. {He tarried} (\dietriben\). Descriptive imperfect active of \diatrib“\, old verb to rub between or hard, to spend time (Acts:14:3|). {Baptized} (\ebaptizen\). Imperfect active of \baptiz“\. "He was baptizing." The six disciples were with him and in strkjv@4:2| John explains that Jesus did the baptizing through the disciples.

rwp@John:3:25 @{A questioning} (\zˆtˆsis\). Old word from \zˆte“\. See strkjv@Acts:15:2| for the word where also \zˆtˆma\ (question) occurs. \Zˆtˆsis\ (process of inquiry) means a meticulous dispute (1Timothy:6:4|). {With a Jew} (\meta Ioudaiou\). Songs:correct text, not \Ioudai“n\ (Jews). Probably some Jew resented John's baptism of Jesus as implying impurity or that they were like Gentiles (cf. proselyte baptism). {About purifying} (\peri katharismou\). See strkjv@2:6| for the word. The committee from the Sanhedrin had challenged John's right to baptize (1:25|). The Jews had various kinds of baptisms or dippings (Hebrews:6:2|), "baptisms of cups and pots and brazen vessels" (Mark:6:4|). The disciples of John came to him with the dispute (the first known baptismal controversy, on the meaning of the ceremony) and with a complaint.

rwp@John:3:26 @{Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). Greeting John just like Jesus (1:38; strkjv@3:2|). {Beyond Jordan} (\peran tou Iordanou\). Evident reference to John's witness to Jesus told in strkjv@1:29-34|. {To whom thou hast borne witness} (\h“i su memarturˆkas\). Note avoidance of calling the name of Jesus. Perfect active indicative of \marture“\ so common in John (1:7|, etc.). These disciples of John are clearly jealous of Jesus as a rival of John and they distinctly blame John for his endorsement of one who is already eclipsing him in popularity. {The same baptizeth} (\houtos baptizei\). "This one is baptizing." Not personally (4:2|), as John did, but through his six disciples. {And all men come to him} (\kai pantes erchontai pros auton\). Linear present middle indicative, "are coming." The sight of the growing crowds with Jesus and the dwindling crowds with John stirred John's followers to keenest jealousy. What a life-like picture of ministerial jealousy in all ages.

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

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

rwp@John:4:37 @{For herein} (\en gar tout“i\). In this relation between the sower and the reaper. {The saying} (\ho logos\). Like strkjv@1Timothy:1:15; strkjv@3:1|, etc. Probably a proverb that is particularly true (\alˆthinos\ for which see strkjv@1:9|) in the spiritual realm. {One soweth, and another reapeth} (\allos estin ho speir“n kai allos ho theriz“n\). "One is the sower and another the reaper." It is sad when the sower misses the joy of reaping (Job:31:8|) and has only the sowing in tears (Psalms:126:5f.|). This may be the punishment for sin (Deuteronomy:28:30; strkjv@Micah:6:15|). Sometimes one reaps where he has not sown (Deuteronomy:6:11; strkjv@Joshua:24:13|). It is the prerogative of the Master to reap (Matthew:25:26f.|), but Jesus here lets the disciples share his joy.

rwp@John:4:38 @{I sent} (\eg“ apesteila\). Emphatic use of \eg“\ and first aorist active indicative of \apostell“\ common in John for to send. {Whereon ye have not laboured} (\ho ouch humeis kekopiakate\). Perfect active indicative of \kopia“\ for which see strkjv@4:6|. Songs:also \kekopiakasin\ in next line. The disciples had done no sowing here in Sychar, only Jesus and the woman. {Others} (\alloi\: Jesus, the Baptist, the prophets). {And ye} (\kai humeis\). Emphatic contrast. {Have entered} (\eiselˆluthate\). Perfect active indicative of \eiserchomai\. {Into their labour} (\eis ton kopon aut“n\). Into the fruit and blessed results of their toil (\kopos\). This is always true as seen in strkjv@Acts:8:5-7,14f|.

rwp@John:5:20 @{Loveth} (\philei\). In strkjv@3:35| we have \agapƒi\ from \agapa“\, evidently one verb expressing as noble a love as the other. Sometimes a distinction (21:17|) is made, but not here, unless \phile“\ presents the notion of intimate friendship (\philos\, friend), fellowship, the affectionate side, while \agapa“\ (Latin _diligo_) is more the intelligent choice. But John uses both verbs for the mystery of love of the Father for the Son. {Greater works than these} (\meizona tout“n erga\). \Tout“n\ is ablative case after the comparative \meizona\ (from \megas\, great). John often uses \erga\ for the miracles of Christ (5:36; strkjv@7:3,21; strkjv@10:25,32,38|, etc.). It is the Father who does these works (14:10|). There is more to follow. Even the disciples will surpass what Christ is doing in the extent of the work (14:12|). \Deixei\ is future active indicative of \deiknumi\, to show. See also strkjv@10:32|. {That ye may marvel} (\hina humeis thaumazˆte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \thaumaz“\. Wonder belongs to childhood and to men of knowledge. Modern science has increased the occasion for wonder. Clement of Alexandria has a saying of Jesus: "He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns shall rest."

rwp@John:6:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). A common, but indefinite, note of time in John (3:22; strkjv@5:1; strkjv@6:1; strkjv@7:1|). The phrase does not mean immediate sequence of events. As a matter of fact, a whole year may intervene between the events of chapter 5 in Jerusalem and those in chapter 6 in Galilee. There is no sufficient reason for believing that chapter 6 originally preceded chapter 5. The feeding of the five thousand is the only event before the last visit to Jerusalem recorded in all Four Gospels (Mark:6:30-44; strkjv@Matthew:14:13-21; strkjv@Luke:9:10-17; strkjv@John:6:1-13|). The disciples have returned from the tour of Galilee and report to Jesus. It was the passover time (John:6:4|) just a year before the end. {To the other side of the Sea of Galilee} (\peran tˆs thalassˆs tˆs Galilaias\). The name given in Mark and Matthew. It is called Gennesaret in strkjv@Luke:5:1| and "Sea of Tiberias" in strkjv@John:21:1|. Here "of Tiberias" (\tˆs Tiberiados\) is added as further description. Herod Antipas A.D. 22 built Tiberias to the west of the Sea of Galilee and made it his capital. See verse 23| for this city. Luke (Luke:9:10|) explains that it was the eastern Bethsaida (Julias) to which Jesus took the disciples, not the western Bethsaida of strkjv@Mark:6:45| in Galilee.

rwp@John:6:5 @{Lifting up his eyes} (\eparas tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active participle of \epair“\. See the same phrase in strkjv@4:35| where it is also followed by \theaomai\; strkjv@11:41; strkjv@17:1; strkjv@Luke:6:20|. Here it is particularly expressive as Jesus looked down from the mountain on the approaching multitude. {Cometh unto him} (\erchetai pros auton\). Present middle indicative, "is coming to him." The same \ochlos polus\ (here \polus ochlos\) of verse 2| that had followed Jesus around the head of the lake. {Whence are we to buy?} (\Pothen agoras“men;\). Deliberative subjunctive (aorist active). John passes by the earlier teaching and healing of the Synoptics (Mark:6:34f.; strkjv@Matthew:14:14f.; strkjv@Luke:9:11f.|) till mid-afternoon. In John also Jesus takes up the matter of feeding the multitude with Philip (from the other Bethsaida, strkjv@1:44|) whereas in the Synoptics the disciples raise the problem with Jesus. Songs:the disciples raise the problem in the feeding of the four thousand (Mark:8:4; strkjv@Matthew:15:33|). See strkjv@Numbers:11:13-22| (about Moses) and strkjv@2Kings:4:42f|. (about Elisha). {Bread} (\artous\). "Loaves" (plural) as in strkjv@Matthew:4:3|. {That these may eat} (\hina phag“sin houtoi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \esthi“\ (defective verb).

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

rwp@John:6:16 @{When evening came} (\h“s opsia egeneto\). "The late hour" (\h“ra\ understood), and so in late Greek the adjective is used as a substantive. It is late evening (real evening), not the early evening in mid-afternoon (Matthew:14:15|). The disciples were in no hurry to start back to Bethsaida in Galilee (Mark:6:45|), Capernaum in John (John:6:17|).

rwp@John:6:19 @{When therefore they had rowed} (\elˆlakotes oun\). Perfect active participle of \elaun“\, old verb to march (Xenophon), to drive (James:3:4|), to row (Mark:6:48|). {Furlongs} (\stadious\). Stadia, accusative of extent of space, a little over halfway across, "in the midst of the sea" (Mark:6:47|). It was about forty stadia (six miles) across. {They behold} (\the“rousin\). Graphic dramatic present active indicative of \the“re“\, vividly preserving the emotions of the disciples. {Walking} (\peripatounta\). Present active participle in the accusative case agreeing with \Iˆsoun\. {Drawing nigh unto the boat} (\eggus tou ploiou ginomenon\). Present middle participle of \ginomai\ describing the process. "Coming near the boat." They behold Jesus slipping closer and closer to them on the water. {They were afraid} (\ephobˆthˆsan\). Ingressive aorist passive indicative of \phobeomai\, "they became afraid." Sudden change to the regular historical sequence.

rwp@John:6:20 @{Be not afraid} (\mˆ phobeisthe\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and present middle imperative of \phobeomai\. Songs:in strkjv@Mark:6:50| (Matthew:14:27|). John does not tell that the disciples thought Jesus was an apparition (Mark:6:49; strkjv@Matthew:14:26|), nor does he give the account of Peter walking on the water (Matthew:14:28-31|).

rwp@John:6:37 @{All that} (\pƒn ho\). Collective use of the neuter singular, classic idiom, seen also in strkjv@6:39; strkjv@17:2,24; strkjv@1John:5:4|. Perhaps the notion of unity like \hen\ in strkjv@17:21| underlies this use of \pƒn ho\. {Giveth me} (\did“sin moi\). For the idea that the disciples are given to the Son see also strkjv@6:39,65; strkjv@10:29; strkjv@17:2,6,9,12,24; strkjv@18:9|. {I will in no wise cast out} (\ou mˆ ekbal“ ex“\). Strong double negation as in verse 35| with second aorist active subjunctive of \ball“\. Definite promise of Jesus to welcome the one who comes.

rwp@John:9:2 @{Who did sin?} (\tis hˆmarten;\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan“\. See strkjv@Acts:3:2; strkjv@14:8| for two examples of lameness from birth. Blindness is common in the Orient and Jesus healed many cases (cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23; strkjv@10:46|) and mentions this fact as one of the marks of the Messiah in the message to the Baptist (Matthew:11:5|). This is the only example of congenital blindness healed. It is not clear that the disciples expected Jesus to heal this case. They are puzzled by the Jewish notion that sickness was a penalty for sin. The Book of Job:had shown that this was not always the case and Jesus shows it also (Luke:13:1-5|). If this man was guilty, it was due to prenatal sin on his part, a curious notion surely. The other alternative charged it upon his parents. That is sometimes true (Exodus:20:5|, etc.), but by no means always. The rabbinical casuists loved to split hairs on this problem. Ezekiel (Ezekiel:18:20|) says: "The soul that sinneth it shall die" (individual responsibility for sin committed). There is something in heredity, but not everything. {That he should be born blind} (\hina tuphlos gennˆthˆi\). Probably consecutive (or sub-final) use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \genna“\.

rwp@John:11:13 @{Had spoken} (\eirˆkei\). Past perfect of \eipon\ (\er“\). The disciples had misunderstood Christ's metaphor for death. {That he spake} (\hoti legei\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse after the secondary tense (\edoxan\). {Of taking rest in sleep} (\peri tˆs koimˆse“s tou hupou\). Only use of \koimˆsis\ (from \koima“\) in the N.T., but it also was used of death (Sirach strkjv@46:19). \Hupnou\ (in sleep) is objective genitive of \hupnos\ (sleep, strkjv@Matthew:1:24|).

rwp@John:11:15 @{For your sakes} (\di' humas\). That they may witness his raising from the grave. {That I was not there} (\hoti ouk ˆmˆn ekei\). Imperfect middle \ˆmˆn\ of the later Greek instead of the common active \ˆn\ in indirect discourse in place of the usual present retained as in verse 13|. {To the intent ye may believe} (\hina pisteusˆte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the ingressive aorist active subjunctive, "that ye may come to believe" (more than you do). See the same use of the ingressive aorist in \episteusan\ (2:11|) where the disciples gained in belief. {Nevertheless let us go to him} (\alla ag“men pros auton\). Volitive subjunctive, repeating the proposal of verse 7|. He is dead, but no matter, yea all the more let us go on to him.

rwp@John:11:16 @{Didymus} (\Didumos\). The word means twin. Clearly Thomas had a twin brother or sister. Applied two other times to him (20:24; strkjv@21:2|). The Aramaic word for Thomas means Twin and Didymus is just the Greek equivalent of Thomas. He may even in Greek circles have been called Didymus. {His fellow disciples} (\tois sunmathˆtais\). Dative case and article use like "his." Only use of \sunmathˆtes\ in the N.T., rare word (in Plato). {Us also} (\kai hˆmeis\). As well as Jesus, since he is bent on going. {That we may die with him} (\hina apothan“men met' autou\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnˆsk“\. Die with Jesus, Thomas means. Lazarus is already dead and they will kill Jesus (verse 8|). Pessimistic courage surely.

rwp@John:11:40 @{Said I not unto thee?} (\Ouk eipon soi;\). Jesus pointedly reminds Martha of his promise to raise Lazarus (verses 25f.|). {That if thou believedst} (\hoti ean pisteusˆis\). Indirect discourse with \ean\ and the first aorist active subjunctive (condition of third class) retained after the secondary tense \eipon\. He had not said this very phrase, \ean pisteusˆis\, to Martha, but he did say to her: \Pisteueis touto\; (Believest thou this?). He meant to test Martha as to her faith already hinted at (verse 22|) on this very point. Jesus had also spoken of increase of faith on the part of the disciples (verse 15|). {Thou shouldest see the glory of God} (\opsˆi tˆn doxan tou theou\). Future middle indicative of the old defective verb \hora“\ retained in the conclusion of this condition in indirect discourse. Jesus means the glory of God as shown in the resurrection of Lazarus as he had already said to the disciples (verse 4|) and as he meant Martha to understand (verse 25|) and may in fact have said to her (the report of the conversation is clearly abridged). Hence Bernard's difficulty in seeing how Martha could understand the words of Jesus about the resurrection of Lazarus here and now seems fanciful and far-fetched.

rwp@John:11:54 @{Therefore walked no more openly} (\oun ouketi parrˆsiƒi periepatei\). Imperfect active of \peripate“\, to walk around. Jesus saw clearly that to do so would bring on the end now instead of his "hour" which was to be at the passover a month ahead. {Into the country near to the wilderness} (\eis tˆn ch“ran eggus tˆs erˆmou\). It was now in Jerusalem as it had become once in Galilee (7:1|) because of the plots of the hostile Jews. The hill country northeast of Jerusalem was thinly populated. {Into a city called Ephraim} (\eis Ephraim legomenˆn polin\). \Polis\ here means no more than town or village (\k“mˆ\). The place is not certainly known, not mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. Josephus mentions (_War_, IV. ix. 9) a small fort near Bethel in the hill country and in strkjv@2Chronicles:13:19| Ephron is named in connexion with Bethel. Up here Jesus would at least be free for the moment from the machinations of the Sanhedrin while he faced the coming catastrophe at the passover. He is not far from the mount of temptation where the devil showed and offered him the kingdoms of the world for the bending of the knee before him. Is it mere fancy to imagine that the devil came to see Jesus again here at this juncture with a reminder of his previous offer and of the present plight of the Son of God with the religious leaders conspiring his death? At any rate Jesus has the fellowship of his disciples this time (\meta t“n mathˆt“n\). But what were they thinking?

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

rwp@John:12:4 @{Judas Iscariot} (\Ioudas ho Iskari“tˆs\). See \ho Iskari“tˆs\ in strkjv@14:22|. See strkjv@6:71; strkjv@13:1| for like description of Judas save that in strkjv@6:71| the father's name is given in the genitive, \Sim“nos\ and \Iskari“tou\ (agreeing with the father), but in strkjv@13:1| \Iskari“tˆs\ agrees with \Ioudas\, not with \Sim“nos\. Clearly then both father and son were called "Iscariot" or man of Kerioth in the tribe of Judah (Joshua:15:25|). Judas is the only one of the twelve not a Galilean. {One of his disciples} (\heis t“n mathˆt“n autou\). Likewise in strkjv@6:71|, only there \ek\ is used after \heis\ as some MSS. have here. This is the shameful fact that clung to the name of Judas. {Which should betray him} (\ho mell“n auton paradidonai\). John does not say in strkjv@6:71| (\emellen paradidonai auton\) or here that Judas "was predestined to betray Jesus" as Bernard suggests. He had his own responsibility for his guilt as Jesus said (Matthew:26:24|). \Mell“\ here simply points to the act as future, not as necessary. Note the contrast between Mary and Judas. "Mary in her devotion unconsciously provides for the honour of the dead. Judas in his selfishness unconsciously brings about the death itself" (Westcott).

rwp@John:12:5 @{Sold} (\eprathˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \piprask“\, old verb to sell (Matthew:13:46|). {For three hundred pence} (\triakosi“n dˆnari“n\). Genitive of price. Same item in strkjv@Mark:14:5|, while in strkjv@Matthew:26:9| it is simply "for much" (\pollou\). But all three have "given to the poor" (\edothˆ pt“chois\). First aorist passive indicative of \did“mi\ with dative case \pt“chois\ (note absence of the article, poor people), real beggars, mendicants (Matthew:19:21; strkjv@Luke:14:13|). But only John singles out Judas as the one who made the protest against this waste of money while Mark says that "some" had indignation and Matthew has it that "the disciples" had indignation. Clearly Judas was the spokesman for the group who chimed in and agreed with his protest. The amount here spent by Mary (ten guineas) would equal a day labourer's wages for a year (Dods).

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

rwp@John:12:7 @{Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying} (\Aphes autˆn, hina eis tˆn hˆmeran tou entaphiasmou mou tˆrˆsˆi auto\). This reading (\hina tˆrˆsˆi\, purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \tˆre“\) rather than that of the Textus Receptus (just \tetˆreken\, perfect active indicative) is correct. It is supported by Aleph B D L W Theta. The \hina\ can be rendered as above after \aphes\ according to _Koin‚_ idiom or more probably: "Let her alone: it was that," etc. (supplying "it was"). Either makes good sense. The word \entaphiasmos\ is a later and rare substantive from the late verb \entaphiaz“\, to prepare for burial (Matthew:26:12; strkjv@John:19:40|), and means preparation for burial. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:14:8|. "Preparation for my burial" is the idea here and in Mark. The idea of Jesus is that Mary had saved this money to use in preparing his body for burial. She is giving him the flowers before the funeral. We can hardly take it that Mary did not use all of the ointment for Mark (Mark:14:3|) says that she broke it and yet he adds (Mark:14:8|) what John has here. It is a paradox, but Jesus is fond of paradoxes. Mary has kept this precious gift by giving it now beforehand as a preparation for my burial. We really keep what we give to Christ. This is Mary's glory that she had some glimmering comprehension of Christ's death which none of the disciples possessed.

rwp@John:12:14 @{Found} (\heur“n\). Second aorist active participle of \heurisk“\. Through the disciples, of course, as in strkjv@Mark:11:2-6| (Matthew:21:2-3,6; strkjv@Luke:19:30f.|). {A young ass} (\onarion\). Late diminutive of \onos\, in Epictetus and the papyri (even the double diminitive, \onaridion\), only here in the N.T. See discussion of ¯Matthew:21:5| where \kai\ has been wrongly rendered "and" instead of "even." Rightly understood Matthew has Jesus riding only the colt like the rest.

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

rwp@Luke:7:11 @{Soon afterwards} (\en toi hexˆs\). According to this reading supply \chron“i\, time. Other MSS. read \tˆi hexˆs\ (supply \hˆmerƒi\, day). \Hexˆs\ occurs in Luke and Acts in the N.T. though old adverb of time. {That} (\Hoti\). Not in the Greek, the two verbs \egeneto\ and \eporeuthˆ\ having no connective (asyndeton). {Went with him} (\suneporeuonto aut“i\). Imperfect middle picturing the procession of disciples and the crowd with Jesus. Nain is not mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. There is today a hamlet about two miles west of Endor on the north slope of Little Hermon. There is a burying-place still in use. Robinson and Stanley think that the very road on which the crowd with Jesus met the funeral procession can be identified.

rwp@Luke:7:18 @{And the disciples of John told him} (\kai apˆggeilan I“anˆi hoi mathˆtai autou\). Literally, and his disciples announced to John. Such news (verse 17|) was bound to come to the ears of the Baptist languishing in the dungeon of Machaerus (Luke:3:20|). strkjv@Luke:7:18-35| runs parallel with strkjv@Matthew:11:2-19|, a specimen of Q, the non-Marcan portion of Matthew and Luke.

rwp@Luke:7:21 @{In that hour he cured} (\en ekeinˆi tˆi horƒi etherapeusen\). This item is not in Matthew. Jesus gave the two disciples of John an example of the direct method. They had heard. Then they saw for themselves. {Diseases} (\nos“n\), {plagues} (\mastig“n\), {evil spirits} (\pneumat“n ponˆr“n\), all kinds of bodily ills, and he singles out the {blind} (\tuphlois\) to whom in particular he bestowed sight (\echarizato blepein\), gave as a free gift (from \charis\, grace) seeing (\blepein\).

rwp@Luke:8:9 @{Asked} (\epˆr“t“n\). Imperfect of \eper“ta“\ (\epi\ and \er“ta“\) where strkjv@Mark:4:10| has \ˆr“t“n\ (uncompounded imperfect), both the tense and the use of \epi\ indicate eager and repeated questions on the part of the disciples, perhaps dimly perceiving a possible reflection on their own growth. {What this parable might be} (\tis hautˆ eiˆ hˆ parabolˆ\). A mistranslation, What this parable was (or meant). The optative \eiˆ\ is merely due to indirect discourse, changing the indicative \estin\ (is) of the direct question to the optative \eiˆ\ of the indirect, a change entirely with the writer or speaker and without any change of meaning (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1043f.).

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

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

rwp@Luke:18:16 @{Called} (\prosekalesato\). Indirect middle aorist indicative, called the children with their parents to himself and then rebuked the disciples for their rebuke of the parents. The language of Jesus is precisely that of strkjv@Mark:10:14| which see, and nearly that of strkjv@Matthew:19:14| which see also. The plea of Jesus that children be allowed to come to him is one that many parents need to heed. It is a tragedy to think of parents "forbidding" their children or of preachers doing the same or of both being stumbling-blocks to children.

rwp@Luke:19:30 @{Whereon no man ever yet sat} (\eph' hon oudeis p“pote anthr“p“n 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:19:33 @{As they were loosing} (\luont“n aut“n\). Genitive absolute. {The owners thereof} (\hoi kurioi autou\). The same word \kurios\ used of the Lord Jesus in verse 31| (and 34|) and which these "owners" would understand. See on ¯Matthew:21:3; strkjv@Mark:11:3| for \kurios\ used by Jesus about himself with the expectation that these disciples would recognize him by that title as they did. The word in common use for the Roman emperor and in the LXX to translate the Hebrew _Elohim_ (God).

rwp@Luke:19:39 @{Some of the Pharisees} (\tines t“n Pharisai“n\). Luke seems to imply by "from the multitude" (\apo tou ochlou\) that these Pharisees were in the procession, perhaps half-hearted followers of the mob. But strkjv@John:12:19| speaks of Pharisees who stood off from the procession and blamed each other for their failure and the triumph of Jesus. These may represent the bolder spirits of their same group who dared to demand of Jesus that he rebuke his disciples.

rwp@Luke:20:21 @{Rightly} (\orth“s\). Matthew (Matthew:22:16|) notes that these "spies" were "disciples" (students) of the Pharisees and Mark (Mark:12:13|) adds that the Herodians are also involved in the plot. These bright theologues are full of palaver and flattery and openly endorse the teaching of Jesus as part of their scheme. {Acceptest not the person of any} (\ou lambaneis pros“pon\). Dost not take the face (or personal appearance) as the test. It is a Hebraism from which the word \pros“polempsia\ (James:2:1|) comes. Originally it meant to lift the face, to lift the countenance, to regard the face, to accept the face value. See strkjv@Mark:12:13-17; strkjv@Matthew:22:15-22| for discussion of details here. They both have \blepeis\ here.

rwp@Luke:21:5 @{As some spake} (\tin“n legont“n\). Genitive absolute. The disciples we know from strkjv@Mark:13:1; strkjv@Matthew:24:1|. {How} (\hoti\). Literally, "that." {It was adorned} (\kekosmˆtai\). 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 anathˆmasin\). 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 \anathˆma\ (here only in the N.T.) is not to be confused with \anathema\ from the same verb \anatithˆmi\, but which came to mean a curse (Galatians:1:8; strkjv@Acts:23:14|). Songs:\anathema\ came to mean devoted in a bad sense, \anathˆma\ 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:21:6 @{As for these things} (\tauta\). Accusative of general reference. {One stone upon another} (\lithos epi lith“i\). Stone upon stone (locative). Here both strkjv@Mark:13:2; strkjv@Matthew:24:2| have \epi lithon\ (accusative). Instead of \ouk aphethˆsetai\ (future passive) they both have \ou mˆ aphethˆi\ (double negative with aorist passive subjunctive). It was a shock to the disciples to hear this after the triumphal entry.

rwp@Luke:22:8 @{Peter and John} (\Petron kai I“anˆn\). strkjv@Mark:14:13| has only "two" while strkjv@Matthew:26:17| makes the disciples take the initiative. The word passover in this context is used either of the meal, the feast day, the whole period (including the unleavened bread). "Eat the passover" can refer to the meal as here or to the whole period of celebration (John:18:28|).

rwp@Luke:22:36 @{Buy a sword} (\agorasat“ machairan\). This is for defence clearly. The reference is to the special mission in Galilee (Luke:9:1-6; strkjv@Mark:6:6-13; strkjv@Matthew:9:35-11:1|). They are to expect persecution and bitter hostility (John:15:18-21|). Jesus does not mean that his disciples are to repel force by force, but that they are to be ready to defend his cause against attack. Changed conditions bring changed needs. This language can be misunderstood as it was then.

rwp@Luke:22:41 @{About a stone's throw} (\h“sei lithou bolˆn\). Accusative of extent of space. Luke does not tell of leaving eight disciples by the entrance to Gethsemane nor about taking Peter, James, and John further in with him. {Kneeled down} (\theis ta gonata\). Second aorist active participle from \tithˆmi\. strkjv@Mark:14:35| says "fell on the ground" and strkjv@Matthew:26:39| "fell on his face." All could be true at different moments. {Prayed} (\prosˆucheto\). Imperfect middle, was praying, kept on praying.

rwp@Luke:22:51 @{Suffer us thus far} (\eƒte he“s toutou\). Present active imperative of \ea“\, to allow. But the meaning is not clear. If addressed to Peter and the other disciples it means that they are to suffer this much of violence against Jesus. This is probably the idea. If it is addressed to the crowd, it means that they are to excuse Peter for his rash act. {He touched his ear and healed him} (\hapsamenos tou otiou iasato auton\). Whether Jesus picked up the piece of the ear and put it back is not said. He could have healed the wound without that. This miracle of surgery is given alone by Luke.

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

rwp@Luke:24:28 @{Made as though} (\prosepoiˆsato\). First aorist active middle (Some MSS. have \prosepoieito\ imperfect) indicative of \prospoie“\, old verb to conform oneself to, to pretend. Only here in the N.T. Of course he would have gone on if the disciples had not urged him to stay.

rwp@Luke:24:34 @{Saying} (\legontas\). Accusative present active participle agreeing with "the eleven and those with them" in verse 33|. {Indeed} (\ont“s\). Really, because "he has appeared to Simon" (\“pthˆ Sim“ni\). First aorist passive indicative of \hora“\. This is the crucial evidence that turned the scales with the disciples and explains "indeed." Paul also mentions it (1Corinthians:15:5|).

rwp@Luke:24:39 @{Myself} (\autos\). Jesus is patient with his proof. They were convinced before he came into the room, but that psychological shock had unnerved them all. {Handle} (\psˆlaphˆsate\). This very word is used in strkjv@1John:1:1| as proof of the actual human body of Jesus. It is an old verb for touching with the hand. {Flesh and bones} (\sarka kai ostea\). At least this proves that he is not just a ghost and that Jesus had a real human body against the Docetic Gnostics who denied it. But clearly we are not to understand that our resurrection bodies will have "flesh and bones." Jesus was in a transition state and had not yet been glorified. The mystery remains unsolved, but it was proof to the disciples of the identity of the Risen Christ with Jesus of Nazareth.

rwp@Mark:4:37 @{There ariseth a great storm of wind} (\ginetai lailaps megalˆ anemou\). Mark's vivid historical present again. strkjv@Matthew:8:24| has \egeneto\ (arose) and strkjv@Luke:8:23| \katebˆ\ (came down). Luke has also \lailaps\, but Matthew \seismos\ (tempest), a violent upheaval like an earthquake. \Lailaps\ is an old word for these cyclonic gusts or storms. Luke's "came down" shows that the storm fell suddenly from Mount Hermon down into the Jordan Valley and smote the Sea of Galilee violently at its depth of 682 feet below the Mediterranean Sea. The hot air at this depth draws the storm down with sudden power. These sudden storms continue to this day on the Sea of Galilee. The word occurs in the LXX of the whirlwind out of which God answered Job:(Job:38:1|) and in strkjv@Jonah:1:4|. {The waves beat into the boat} (\ta kumata epeballen eis to ploion\). Imperfect tense (were beating) vividly picturing the rolling over the sides of the boat "so that the boat was covered with the waves" (Matthew:8:24|). Mark has it: "insomuch that the boat was now filling" (\h“ste ˆdˆ gemizesthai to ploion\). Graphic description of the plight of the disciples.

rwp@Mark:4:39 @{Rebuked the wind} (\epetimˆsen t“i anem“i\) as in strkjv@Matthew:8:26| and strkjv@Luke:8:24|. He spoke to the sea also. All three Gospels speak of the sudden calm (\galˆnˆ\) and the rebuke to the disciples for this lack of faith.

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

rwp@Mark:5:31 @{Thronging thee} (\sunthlibonta se\). See verse 24|. The disciples were amazed at the sensitiveness of Jesus to the touch of the crowd. They little understood the drain on Jesus from all this healing that pulled at his heart-strings and exhausted his nervous energy even though the Son of God. He had the utmost human sympathy.

rwp@Mark:5:32 @{And he looked round about} (\kai perieblepeto\). Imperfect middle indicative. He kept looking around to find out. The answer of Jesus to the protest of the disciples was this scrutinizing gaze (see already strkjv@3:5,34|). Jesus knew the difference between touch and touch (Bruce).

rwp@Mark:5:37 @{Save Peter, and James, and John} (\ei mˆ Petron kai lak“bon kai I“anˆn\). Probably the house was too small for the other disciples to come in with the family. The first instance of this inner circle of three seen again on the Mount of Transfiguration and in the Garden of Gethsemane. The one article in the Greek treats the group as a unit.

rwp@Mark:6:14 @{Heard} (\ˆkousen\). This tour of Galilee by the disciples in pairs wakened all Galilee, for the name of Jesus thus became known (\phaneron\) or known till even Herod heard of it in the palace. "A palace is late in hearing spiritual news" (Bengel). {Therefore do these powers work in him} (\dia touto energousin hai dunameis en aut“i\). "A snatch of Herod's theology and philosophy" (Morison). John wrought no miracles (John:10:41|), but if he had risen from the dead perhaps he could. Songs:Herod may have argued. "Herod's superstition and his guilty conscience raised this ghost to plague him" (Gould). Our word _energy_ is this same Greek word here used (\energousin\). It means at work. Miraculous powers were at work in Jesus whatever the explanation. This all agreed, but they differed widely as to his personality, whether Elijah or another of the prophets or John the Baptist. Herod was at first much perplexed (\diˆporei\, strkjv@Luke:9:7| and strkjv@Mark:6:20|).

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

rwp@Mark:6:29 @{His corpse} (\to pt“ma autou\). See on ¯Matthew:24:28|. It was a mournful time for the disciples of John. "They went and told Jesus" (Matthew:14:12|). What else could they do?

rwp@Mark:6:33 @{Outwent them} (\proˆlthon autous\). The crowds were not to be outdone. They recognized (\egn“san\) Jesus and the disciples and ran around the head of the lake on foot (\pezˆi\) and got there ahead of Jesus and were waiting for Him when the boat came.

rwp@Mark:6:38 @{Go and see} (\hupagete idete\). John says that Jesus asked Philip to find out what food they had (John:6:5f.|) probably after the disciples had suggested that Jesus send the crowd away as night was coming on (Mark:6:35f.|). On this protest to his command that they feed the crowds (Mark:6:37; strkjv@Matthew:14:16; strkjv@Luke:9:13|) Jesus said "Go see" how many loaves you can get hold of. Then Andrew reports the fact of the lad with five barley loaves and two fishes (John:6:8f.|). They had suggested before that two hundred pennyworth (\dˆnari“n diakosi“n\. See on ¯Matthew:18:28|) was wholly inadequate and even that (some thirty-five dollars) was probably all that or even more than they had with them. John's Gospel alone tells of the lad with his lunch which his mother had given him.

rwp@Mark:6:41 @{Brake the loaves; and he gave to the disciples} (\kai apo t“n ichthu“n\). Apparently the fishes were in excess of the twelve baskets full of broken pieces of bread. See on ¯Matthew:14:20| for discussion of \kophinos\ and \sphuris\, the two kinds of baskets.

rwp@Mark:6:44 @{Men} (\andres\). Men as different from women as in strkjv@Matthew:14:21|. This remarkable miracle is recorded by all Four Gospels, a nature miracle that only God can work. No talk about accelerating natural processes will explain this miracle. And three eyewitnesses report it: the Logia of Matthew, the eyes of Peter in Mark, the witness of John the Beloved Disciple (Gould). The evidence is overwhelming.

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

rwp@Mark:6:48 @{Seeing them distressed in rowing} (\id“n autous basanizomenous en t“i elaunein\). See also strkjv@Matthew:8:29| for the word \basaniz“\, to torture, torment (Matthew:4:24|) with a touch-stone, then to distress as here. Papyri have \dia basan“n\ used on slaves like our third degree for criminals. \Elaunein\ is literally to drive as of ships or chariots. They drove the boat with oars. Common in Xenophon for marching. {About the fourth watch of the night} (\peri tetartˆn phulakˆn tˆs nuktos\). That is, between three and six A.M. The wind was {contrary to them} (\enantios autois\), that is in their faces and rowing was difficult, "a great wind" (John:6:18|), and as a result the disciples had made little progress. They should have been over long before this. {And he would have passed by them} (\kai ˆthelen parelthein autous\). Only in Mark. He wished to pass by them, _praeterire eos_ (Vulgate). Imperfect tense \ˆthelen\. {They thought} (\edoxan\). A natural conclusion. {And cried out} (\anekraxan\). {Cried up}, literally, a shriek of terror, or scream.

rwp@Mark:6:51 @{They were sore amazed in themselves} (\lian en heautois existanto\). Only in Mark. Imperfect tense picturing vividly the excited disciples. Mark does not give the incident of Peter's walking on the water and beginning to sink. Perhaps Peter was not fond of telling that story.

rwp@Mark:7:2 @{With defiled, that is unwashen hands} (\koinais chersin, tout' estin aniptois\). Associative instrumental case. Originally \koinos\ meant what was common to everybody like the _Koin‚_ Greek. But in later Greek it came also to mean as here what is vulgar or profane. Songs:Peter in strkjv@Acts:10:14| "common and unclean." The next step was the ceremonially unclean. The emissaries of the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem had seen "some of the disciples" eat without washing their hands, how many we are not told. Swete suggests that in going through the plain the disciples were seen eating some of the bread preserved in the twelve baskets the afternoon before across the lake. There was no particular opportunity to wash the hands, a very proper thing to do before eating for sanitary reasons. But the objection raised is on ceremonial, not sanitary, grounds.

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} (\baptis“ntai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \baptiz“\, dip or immerse. Westcott and Hort put \rantis“ntai\ 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 \rantis“ntai\ "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 \baptis“ntai\ here. The Western and Syrian classes of manuscripts add "and couches" (\kai klin“n\) at the end of the sentence. Swete considers the immersions of beds (\baptismous klin“n\) "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:7:14 @{And he called to him the multitude again} (\kai proskalesamenos palin ton ochlon\). Aorist middle participle, calling to himself. The rabbis had attacked the disciples about not washing their hands before eating. Jesus now turned the tables on them completely and laid bare their hollow pretentious hypocrisy to the people. {Hear me all of you and understand} (\akousate mou pantes kai suniete\). A most pointed appeal to the people to see into and see through the chicanery of these ecclesiastics. See on ¯Matthew:15:11| for discussion.

rwp@Mark:7:17 @{When he was entered into the house from the multitude} (\hote eisˆlthen eis oikon apo tou ochlou\). This detail in Mark alone, probably in Peter's house in Capernaum. To the crowd Jesus spoke the parable of corban, but the disciples want it interpreted (cf. strkjv@4:10ff.,33ff.|). strkjv@Matthew:15:15| represents Peter as the spokesman as was usually the case.

rwp@Mark:7:18 @{Are ye so without understanding also?} (\Hout“s kai humeis asunetoi este;\). See on ¯Matthew:15:16|. You also as well as the multitude. It was a discouraging moment for the great Teacher if his own chosen pupils (disciples) were still under the spell of the Pharisaic theological outlook. It was a riddle to them. "They had been trained in Judaism, in which the distinction between clean and unclean is ingrained, and could not understand a statement abrogating this" (Gould). They had noticed that the Pharisees stumbled at the parable of Jesus (Matthew:15:12|). They were stumbling themselves and did not know how to answer the Pharisees. Jesus charges the disciples with intellectual dulness and spiritual stupidity.

rwp@Mark:7:24 @{Into the borders of Tyre and Sidon} (\eis ta horia Turou kai Sid“nos\). The departure from Capernaum was a withdrawal from Galilee, the second of the four withdrawals from Galilee. The first had been to the region of Bethsaida Julias in the territory of Herod Philip. This is into distinctly heathen land. It was not merely the edge of Phoenicia, but into the parts of Tyre and Sidon (Matthew:15:21|). There was too much excitement among the people, too much bitterness among the Pharisees, too much suspicion on the part of Herod Antipas, too much dulness on the part of the disciples for Jesus to remain in Galilee. {And he could not be hid} (\kai ouk ˆdunasthˆ lathein\). Jesus wanted to be alone in the house after all the strain in Galilee. He craved a little privacy and rest. This was his purpose in going into Phoenicia. Note the adversative sense of \kai\ here= "but."

rwp@Mark:8:4 @{Here} (\h“de\). Of all places, in this desert region in the mountains. The disciples feel as helpless as when the five thousand were fed. They do not rise to faith in the unlimited power of Jesus after all that they have seen.

rwp@Mark:8:10 @{Into the parts of Dalmanutha} (\eis ta merˆ Dalmanoutha\). strkjv@Matthew:15:39| calls it "the borders of Magadan." Both names are unknown elsewhere, but apparently the same region of Galilee on the western side of the lake not far from Tiberias. Mark here uses "parts" (\merˆ\) in the same sense as "borders" (\horia\) in strkjv@7:24| just as Matthew reverses it with "parts" in strkjv@Matthew:15:21| and "borders" here in strkjv@Matthew:15:39|. Mark has here "with his disciples" (\meta t“n mathˆt“n autou\) only implied in strkjv@Matthew:15:39|.

rwp@Mark:8:15 @{Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod} (\Horƒte, blepete apo tˆs zumˆs t“n Pharisai“n kai tˆs zumˆs Hˆr“idou\). Present imperatives. Note \apo\ and the ablative case. \Zumˆ\ is from \zumo“\ and occurs already in strkjv@Matthew:13:33| in a good sense. For the bad sense see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:6|. He repeatedly charged (\diestelleto\, imperfect indicative), showing that the warning was needed. The disciples came out of a Pharisaic atmosphere and they had just met it again at Dalmanutha. It was insidious. Note the combination of Herod here with the Pharisees. This is after the agitation of Herod because of the death of the Baptist and the ministry of Jesus (Mark:6:14-29; strkjv@Matthew:14:1-12; strkjv@Luke:9:7-9|). Jesus definitely warns the disciples against "the leaven of Herod" (bad politics) and the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (bad theology and also bad politics).

rwp@Mark:8:17 @Mark here (vv. 17-20|) gives six keen questions of Jesus while strkjv@Matthew:16:8-11| gives as four that really include the six of Mark running some together. The questions reveal the disappointment of Jesus at the intellectual dulness of his pupils. The questions concern the intellect (\noeite\, from \nous, suniete\, comprehend), the heart in a {hardened state} (\pep“r“menˆn\, perfect passive predicate participle as in strkjv@Mark:6:52|, which see), the eyes, the ears, the memory of both the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand here sharply distinguished even to the two kinds of baskets (\kophinous, sphurid“n\). The disciples did recall the number of baskets left over in each instance, twelve and seven. Jesus "administers a sharp rebuke for their preoccupation with mere temporalities, as if there were nothing higher to be thought of _than bread_" (Bruce). "For the time the Twelve are way-side hearers, with hearts like a beaten path, into which the higher truths cannot sink so as to germinate" (Bruce).

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

rwp@Mark:8:29 @{Thou art the Christ} (\Su ei ho Christos\). Mark does not give "the Son of the living God" (Matthew:16:16|) or "of God" (Luke:9:20|). The full confession is the form in Matthew. Luke's language means practically the same, while Mark's is the briefest. But the form in Mark really means the full idea. Mark omits all praise of Peter, probably because Peter had done so in his story of the incident. For criticism of the view that Matthew's narrative is due to ecclesiastical development and effort to justify ecclesiastical prerogatives, see discussion on ¯Matthew:16:16,18|. The disciples had confessed him as Messiah before. Thus strkjv@John:1:41; strkjv@4:29; strkjv@6:69; strkjv@Matthew:14:33|. But Jesus had ceased to use the word Messiah to avoid political complications and a revolutionary movement (John:6:14f.|). But did the disciples still believe in Jesus as Messiah after all the defections and oppositions seen by them? It was a serious test to which Jesus now put them.

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

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

rwp@Mark:9:12 @{Restoreth all things} (\apokatistanei panta\). This late double compound verb, usual form \apokathistˆmi\ in the papyri, is Christ's description of the Baptist as the promised Elijah and Forerunner of the Messiah. See on ¯Matthew:17:10-13|. The disciples had not till now understood that the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy in strkjv@Malachi:3:5f|. They had just seen Elijah on the mountain, but Jesus as Messiah preceded this coming of Elijah. But Jesus patiently enlightens his dull pupils as they argue about the exegesis of the scribes.

rwp@Mark:9:14 @{And scribes questioning with them} (\kai grammateis sunzˆtountes pros autous\). Mark alone gives this item. He is much fuller on this incident (9:14-29|) than either Matthew (Matthew:17:14-20|) or Luke (Luke:9:37-43|). It was just like the professional scribes to take keen interest in the failure of the nine disciples to cure this poor boy. They gleefully nagged and quizzed them. Jesus and the three find them at it when they arrive in the plain.

rwp@Mark:9:15 @{Were greatly amazed} (\exethambˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive ingressive aorist with perfective compound \ex-\. The sudden and opportune appearance of Jesus in the midst of the dispute when no one was looking for him turned all eyes to him. He would not fail, however the disciples might do so. The people were awed for the moment and then running began to welcome him (\protrechontes ˆspazonto\). Present participle and imperfect middle indicative.

rwp@Mark:9:19 @{Bring him unto me} (\pherete auton pros me\). The disciples had failed and their unbelief had led to this fiasco. Even the disciples were like and part of the {faithless} (\apistos\, unbelieving) generation in which they lived. The word {faithless} does not here mean treacherous as it does with us. But Jesus is not afraid to undertake this case. We can always come to Jesus when others fail us.

rwp@Mark:9:22 @{But if thou canst} (\all 'ei ti dunˆi\). Jesus had asked (verse 21|) the history of the case like a modern physician. The father gave it and added further pathetic details about the fire and the water. The failure of the disciples had not wholly destroyed his faith in the power of Jesus, though the conditional form (first class, assuming it to be true) does suggest doubt whether the boy can be cured at all. It was a chronic and desperate case of epilepsy with the demon possession added. {Help us} (\boethˆson hemin\). Ingressive aorist imperative. Do it now. With touching tenderness he makes the boy's case his own as the Syrophoenician woman had said, "Have mercy on me" (Matthew:15:21|). The leper had said: "If thou wilt" (Mark:1:40|). This father says: "If thou canst."

rwp@Mark:9:28 @{Privately, saying} (\kat' idian hoti\). Indoors the nine disciples seek an explanation for their colossal failure. They had cast out demons and wrought cures before. The Revisers are here puzzled over Mark's use of \hoti\ as an interrogative particle meaning {why} where strkjv@Matthew:17:19| has \dia ti\. Some of the manuscripts have \dia ti\ here in strkjv@Mark:9:28| as all do in strkjv@Matthew:17:19|. See also strkjv@Mark:2:16| and strkjv@9:11|. It is probable that in these examples \hoti\ really means {why}. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 730. The use of \hos\ as interrogative "is by no means rare in the late Greek" (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 126).

rwp@Mark:9:33 @{In the house} (\en tˆi oikiƒi\). Probably Peter's house in Capernaum which was the home of Jesus when in the city. {What were ye reasoning in the way?} (\Ti en tˆi hod“i dielogiszethe;\). Imperfect tense. They had been disputing (verse 34|), not about the coming death of the Master, but about the relative rank of each of them in the political kingdom which they were expecting him to establish. Jesus had suspected the truth about them and they had apparently kept it up in the house. See on ¯Matthew:18:1| where the disciples are represented as bringing the dispute to Jesus while here Jesus asks them about it. Probably they asked Jesus first and then he pushed the matter further and deeper to see if this had not been the occasion of the somewhat heated discussion on the way in.

rwp@Mark:9:35 @{He sat down and called the twelve} (\kathisas eph“nˆsen tous d“deka\). Deliberate action of Jesus to handle this delicate situation. Jesus gives them the rule of greatness: "If any man would be first (\pr“tos\) he shall be last (\eschatos\) of all, and minister (\diakonos\) of all." This saying of Christ, like many others, he repeated at other times (Mark:10:43f.; strkjv@Matthew:23:8ff.; strkjv@Luke:22:24f.|). strkjv@Matthew:18:2| says that he called a little child, one there in the house, perhaps Peter's child. strkjv@Luke:9:47| notes that he "set him by his side." Then Jesus {taking him in his arms} (\enagkalisamenos\, aorist middle participle, late Greek word from \agkalˆ\ as in strkjv@Luke:2:28|) spoke again to the disciples.

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

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

rwp@Matthew:16:21 @{From that time began} (\apo tote ˆrxato\). It was a suitable time for the disclosure of the greatest secret of his death. It is now just a little over six months before the cross. They must know it now to be ready then. The great confession of Peter made this seem an appropriate time. He will repeat the warnings (17:22f.| with mention of betrayal; strkjv@20:17-19| with the cross) which he now "began." Songs:the necessity (\dei\, must) of his suffering death at the hands of the Jerusalem ecclesiastics who have dogged his steps in Galilee is now plainly stated. Jesus added his resurrection "on the third day" (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi\), not "on the fourth day," please observe. Dimly the shocked disciples grasped something of what Jesus said.

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 \id“n tous mathˆtas autou\). {Get thee behind me, Satan} (\Hupage opis“ mou, Satanƒ\). 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:16:24 @{Take up his cross} (\arat“ ton stauron autou\). Pick up at once, aorist tense. This same saying in strkjv@10:38|, which see. But pertinent here also in explanation of Christ's rebuke to Peter. Christ's own cross faces him. Peter had dared to pull Christ away from his destiny. He would do better to face squarely his own cross and to bear it after Jesus. The disciples would be familiar with cross-bearing as a figure of speech by reason of the crucifixion of criminals in Jerusalem. {Follow} (\akaloutheit“\). Present tense. Keep on following.

rwp@Matthew:17:1 @{After six days} (\meth' hˆmerƒs hex\). This could be on the sixth day, but as Luke (Luke:9:28|) puts it "about eight days" one naturally thinks of a week as the probable time, though it is not important. {Taketh with him} (\paralambanei\). Literally, {takes along}. Note historical present. These three disciples form an inner group who have shown more understanding of Jesus. Songs:at Gethsemane. {Apart} (\kat' idian\) means "by themselves" ({alone}, \monous\, Mark has it) up (\anapherei\) into a high mountain, probably Mount Hermon again, though we do not really know. "The Mount of Transfiguration does not concern geography" (Holtzmann).

rwp@Matthew:17:3 @{There appeared} (\“phthˆ\). Singular aorist passive verb with Moses (to be understood also with Elijah), but the participle \sunlalountes\ is plural agreeing with both. "Sufficient objectivity is guaranteed by the vision being enjoyed by all three" (Bruce). The Jewish apocalypses reveal popular expectations that Moses and Elijah would reappear. Both had mystery connected with their deaths. One represented law, the other prophecy, while Jesus represented the gospel (grace). They spoke of his decease (Luke:9:31|), the cross, the theme uppermost in the mind of Christ and which the disciples did not comprehend. Jesus needed comfort and he gets it from fellowship with Moses and Elijah.

rwp@Matthew:17:26 @{The sons} (\hoi huioi\). Christ, of course, and the disciples also in contrast with the Jews. Thus a reply to Peter's prompt "Yes." Logically (\arage\) free from the temple tax, but practically not as he proceeds to show.

rwp@Matthew:17:27 @{Lest we cause them to stumble} (\hina mˆ skandalis“men autous\). He does not wish to create the impression that he and the disciples despise the temple and its worship. Aorist tense (punctiliar single act) here, though some MSS. have present subjunctive (linear). "A hook" (\agkistron\). The only example in the N.T. of fishing with a hook. From an unused verb \agkiz“\, to angle, and that from \agkos\, a curve (so also \agkalˆ\ the inner curve of the arm, strkjv@Luke:2:38|). {First cometh up} (\ton anabanta pr“ton ichthun\). More correctly, "the first fish that cometh up." {A shekel} (\statˆra\). Greek stater = four drachmae, enough for two persons to pay the tax. {For me and thee} (\anti emou kai sou\). Common use of \anti\ in commercial transactions, "in exchange for." Here we have a miracle of foreknowledge. Such instances have happened. Some try to get rid of the miracle by calling it a proverb or by saying that Jesus only meant for Peter to sell the fish and thus get the money, a species of nervous anxiety to relieve Christ and the Gospel of Matthew from the miraculous. "All the attempts have been in vain which were made by the older Rationalism to put a non-miraculous meaning into these words" (B. Weiss). It is not stated that Peter actually caught such a fish though that is the natural implication. Why provision is thus only made for Peter along with Jesus we do not know.

rwp@Matthew:18:1 @{Who then is greatest} (\tis ara meiz“n estin\). The \ara\ seems to point back to the tax-collection incident when Jesus had claimed exemption for them all as "sons" of the Father. But it was not a new dispute, for jealousy had been growing in their hearts. The wonderful words of Jesus to Peter on Mount Hermon (Matthew:16:17-19|) had evidently made Peter feel a fresh sense of leadership on the basis of which he had dared even to rebuke Jesus for speaking of his death (16:22|). And then Peter was one of the three (James and John also) taken with the Master up on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter on that occasion had spoken up promptly. And just now the tax-collectors had singled out Peter as the one who seemed to represent the group. Mark (Mark:9:33|) represents Jesus as asking them about their dispute on the way into the house, perhaps just after their question in strkjv@Matthew:18:1|. Jesus had noticed the wrangling. It will break out again and again (Matthew:20:20-28; strkjv@Luke:22:24|). Plainly the primacy of Peter was not yet admitted by the others. The use of the comparative \meiz“n\ (so \ho meiz“n\ in verse 4|) rather than the superlative \megistos\ is quite in accord with the _Koin‚_ idiom where the comparative is displacing the superlative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 667ff.). But it is a sad discovery to find the disciples chiefly concerned about their own places (offices) in the political kingdom which they were expecting.

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

rwp@Matthew:22:16 @{Their disciples} (\tous mathˆtas aut“n\). Students, pupils, of the Pharisees as in strkjv@Mark:2:18|. There were two Pharisaic theological seminaries in Jerusalem (Hillel, Shammai). {The Herodians} (\t“n Her“idian“n\). Not members of Herod's family or Herod's soldiers, but partisans or followers of Herod. The form in \-ianos\ is a Latin termination like that in \Christianos\ (Acts:11:26|). Mentioned also in strkjv@Mark:3:6| combining with the Pharisees against Jesus. {The person of men} (\pros“pon anthr“p“n\). Literally, face of men. Paying regard to appearance is the sin of partiality condemned by James (James:2:1,9|) when \pros“polˆmpsia, pros“polˆmptein\ are used, in imitation of the Hebrew idiom. This suave flattery to Jesus implied "that Jesus was a reckless simpleton" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:23:8 @{But be not ye called Rabbi} (\humeis de mˆ klˆthˆte Rabbei\). An apparent aside to the disciples. Note the emphatic position of \humeis\. Some even regard verses 8-10| as a later addition and not part of this address to the Pharisees, but the apostles were present. Euthymius Zigabenus says: "Do not seek to be called (ingressive aorist subjunctive), if others call you this it will not be your fault." This is not far from the Master's meaning. Rabbi means "my great one," "my Master," apparently a comparatively new title in Christ's time.

rwp@Matthew:24:1 @{Went out from the temple} (\exelth“n apo tou hierou\). All the discourses since strkjv@Matthew:21:23| have been in the temple courts (\hieron\, the sacred enclosure). But now Jesus leaves it for good after the powerful denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees in chapter 23. His public teaching is over. It was a tragic moment. As he was going out (\eporeueto\, descriptive imperfect) the disciples, as if to relieve the thought of the Master came to him (\prosˆlthon\) to show (\epideixai\, ingressive aorist infinitive) the buildings of the temple (\tas oikodomas tou hierou\). They were familiar to Jesus and the disciples, but beautiful like a snow mountain (Josephus, _Wars_ V,5,6), the monument that Herod the Great had begun and that was not yet complete (John:2:20|). Great stones were there of polished marble.

rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathˆmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ai“nos\) or consummation of the age. In a painting the artist by skilful perspective may give on the same surface the inside of a room, the fields outside the window, and the sky far beyond. Certainly in this discourse Jesus blends in apocalyptic language the background of his death on the cross, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, his own second coming and the end of the world. He now touches one, now the other. It is not easy for us to separate clearly the various items. It is enough if we get the picture as a whole as it is here drawn with its lessons of warning to be ready for his coming and the end. The destruction of Jerusalem came as he foretold. There are some who would date the Synoptic Gospels after A.D. 70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).

rwp@Matthew:24:9 @{Ye shall be hated} (\esesthe misoumenoi\). Periphrastic future passive to emphasize the continuous process of the linear action. For tribulation (\thlipsin\ see strkjv@13:21|), a word common in the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse for the oppression (pressure) that the Christians received. {For my name's sake} (\dia to onoma mou\). The most glorious name in the world today, but soon to be a byword of shame (Acts:5:41|). The disciples would count it an honour to be dishonoured for the Name's sake.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Mon Jul 1 12:09:15 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020