OT-POET.filter - rwp egin:

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

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:9 @{Travail} (\mochthon\). Old word for difficult labour, harder than \kopos\ (toil). In the N.T. only here, strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:27|. Note accusative case here though genitive with \mnmoneu\ in strkjv@1:3|. {Night and day} (\nuktos kai hmeras\). Genitive case, both by day and by night, perhaps beginning before dawn and working after dark. Songs:in strkjv@3:10|. {That we might not burden any of you} (\pros to m epibarsai tina humn\). Use of \pros\ with the articular infinitive to express purpose (only four times by Paul). The verb \epibare\ is late, but in the papyri and inscriptions for laying a burden (\baros\) on (\epi-\) one. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:5|. Paul boasted of his financial independence where he was misunderstood as in Thessalonica and Corinth (2Corinthians:9-12|), though he vindicated his right to remuneration. {We preached} (\ekruxamen\). {We heralded} (from \krux\, herald) to you, common verb for preach.

rwp@Acts:8:28 @{Was reading} (\aneginsken\). Imperfect active descriptive, not periphrastic like the two preceding verbs (was returning and sitting). He was reading aloud as Philip "heard him reading" (\kousen auton anaginskontos\), a common practice among orientals. He had probably purchased this roll of Isaiah in Jerusalem and was reading the LXX Greek text. See imperfect again in verse 32|.

rwp@Acts:8:32 @{The place} (\he perioch\). See the verb \periechei\ so used in strkjv@1Peter:2:6|. The word is used either of the section as in Codex A before the beginning of Mark or the contents of a passage. He was here reading one particular passage (Isaiah:53:7f.|). The quotation is from the LXX which has some variations from the Hebrew.

rwp@Acts:21:8 @{On the morrow} (\ti epaurion\). Another and the more common way of expressing this idea of "next day" besides the three in strkjv@20:15| and the one in strkjv@21:1|. {Unto Caesarea} (\eis Kaisarian\). Apparently by land as the voyage (\ploun\) ended at Ptolemais (verse 7|). Caesarea is the political capital of Judea under the Romans where the procurators lived and a city of importance, built by Herod the Great and named in honour of Augustus. It had a magnificent harbour built Most of the inhabitants were Greeks. This is the third time that we have seen Paul in Caesarea, on his journey from Jerusalem to Tarsus (Acts:9:30|), on his return from Antioch at the close of the second mission tour (18:22|) and now. The best MSS. omit \hoi peri Paulou\ (we that were of Paul's company) a phrase like that in strkjv@13:13|. {Into the house of Philip the evangelist} (\eis ton oikon Philippou tou euaggelistou\). Second in the list of the seven (6:5|) after Stephen and that fact mentioned here. By this title he is distinguished from "Philip the apostle," one of the twelve. His evangelistic work followed the death of Stephen (Acts:8|) in Samaria, Philistia, with his home in Caesarea. The word "evangelizing" (\euggelizeto\) was used of him in strkjv@8:40|. The earliest of the three N.T. examples of the word "evangelist" (Acts:21:8; strkjv@Ephesians:4:11; strkjv@2Timothy:4:5|). Apparently a word used to describe one who told the gospel story as Philip did and may have been used of him first of all as John was termed "the baptizer" (\ho baptizn\, strkjv@Mark:1:4|), then "the Baptist" (\ho baptists\, strkjv@Matthew:3:1|). It is found on an inscription in one of the Greek islands of uncertain date and was used in ecclesiastical writers of later times on the Four Gospels as we do. As used here the meaning is a travelling missionary who "gospelized" communities. This is probably Paul's idea in strkjv@2Timothy:4:5|. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:11| the word seems to describe a special class of ministers just as we have them today. Men have different gifts and Philip had this of evangelizing as Paul was doing who is the chief evangelist. The ideal minister today combines the gifts of evangelist, herald, teacher, shepherd. "{We abode with him}" (\emeinamen par' auti\). Constative aorist active indicative. \Par auti\ (by his side) is a neat idiom for "at his house." What a joyful time Paul had in conversation with Philip. He could learn from him much of value about the early days of the gospel in Jerusalem. And Luke could, and probably did, take notes from Philip and his daughters about the beginnings of Christian history. It is generally supposed that the "we" sections of Acts represent a travel document by Luke (notes made by him as he journeyed from Troas to Rome). Those who deny the Lukan authorship of the whole book usually admit this. Songs:we may suppose that Luke is already gathering data for future use. If so, these were precious days for him.

rwp@Acts:21:30 @{All the city was shaken} (\ekinth h polis hol\). First aorist passive of \kine\, common verb for violent motion and emotion. See also strkjv@24:5| where the word is used by Tertullus of Paul as the stirrer up of riots! {The people ran together} (\egeneto sundrom tou laou\). Rather, There came a running together (\sun-drom\ from \sun-trech\) of the people. The cry spread like wildfire over the city and there was a pell-mell scramble or rush to get to the place of the disturbance. {They laid hold on Paul} (\epilabomenoi tou Paulou\). Second aorist middle participle of \epilambanomai\ with the genitive (cf. \epebalan\ in verse 27|). {Dragged} (\heilkon\). Imperfect active of \helk\ (and also \helku\), old verb to drag or draw. Imperfect tense vividly pictures the act as going on. They were saving the temple by dragging Paul outside. Curiously enough both \epilabomenoi\ and \heilkusan\ occur in strkjv@16:19| about the arrest of Paul and Silas in Philippi. {Straightway the doors were shut} (\euthes ekleisthsan hai thurai\). With a bang and at once. First aorist (effective) passive of \klei\. The doors between the inner court and the court of the Gentiles. But this was only the beginning, the preparation for the real work of the mob. They did not wish to defile the holy place with blood. The doors were shut by the Levites.

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

rwp@Acts:22:24 @{That he be examined by scourging} (\mastixin anetazesthai auton\). The present passive infinitive of \anetaz\ in indirect command after \eipas\ (bidding). This verb does not occur in the old Greek (which used \exetaz\ as in strkjv@Matthew:2:8|), first in the LXX, in the N.T. only here and verse 29|, but Milligan and Moulton's _Vocabulary_ quotes an Oxyrhynchus papyrus of A.D. 127 which has a prefect using the word directing government clerks to "examine" (\anetazein\) documents and glue them together into volumes (\tomoi\). The word was evidently in use for such purposes. It was a kind of "third degree" applied to Paul by the use of scourges (\mastixin\), instrumental plural of \mastix\, old word for whip, as in strkjv@Hebrews:11:36|. But this way of beginning an inquiry by torture (inquisition) was contrary to Roman law (Page): _Non esse a tormentis incipiendum, Divus Augustus statuit_. {That he might know} (\hina epigni\). Final clause with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \epignsk\ (full knowledge). Lysias was as much in the dark as ever, for Paul's speech had been in Aramaic and this second explosion was a mystery to him like the first. {They so shouted} (\houtos epephnoun\). Imperfect active progressive imperfect had been so shouting.

rwp@Acts:23:3 @{Thou whited wall} (\toiche kekoniamene\). Perfect passive participle of \konia\ (from \konia\, dust or lime). The same word used in strkjv@Matthew:23:27| for "whited sepulchres" (\taphoi kekoniamenoi\) which see. It is a picturesque way of calling Ananias a hypocrite, undoubtedly true, but not a particularly tactful thing for a prisoner to say to his judge, not to say Jewish high priest. Besides, Paul had hurled back at him the word \tuptein\ (smite) in his command, putting it first in the sentence (\tuptein se mellei ho theos\) in strong emphasis. Clearly Paul felt that he, not Ananias, was living as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. {And sittest thou to judge me?} (\Kai su kathi krinn me?\) Literally, "And thou (being what thou art) art sitting (\kathi\, second person singular middle of \kathmai\, late form for \kathsai\, the uncontracted form) judging me." Cf. strkjv@Luke:22:30|. \Kai su\ at the beginning of a question expresses indignation. {Contrary to the law} (\paranomn\). Present active participle of \paranome\, old verb to act contrary to the law, here alone in the N.T., "acting contrary to the law."

rwp@Acts:23:25 @{And he wrote} (\grapsas\). First aorist active participle of \graph\, agreeing with the subject (Lysias) of \eipen\ (said) back in verse 23| (beginning). {After this form} (\echousan ton tupon touton\). Textus Receptus has \periechousan\. The use of \tupon\ (type or form) like _exemplum_ in Latin (Page who quotes Cicero _Ad Att_. IX. 6. 3) may give merely the purport or substantial contents of the letter. But there is no reason for thinking that it is not a genuine copy since the letter may have been read in open court before Felix, and Luke was probably with Paul. The Roman law required that a subordinate officer like Lysias in reporting a case to his superior should send a written statement of the case and it was termed _elogium_. A copy of the letter may have been given Paul after his appeal to Caesar. It was probably written in Latin. The letter is a "dexterous mixture of truth and falsehood" (Furneaux) with the stamp of genuineness. It puts things in a favourable light for Lysias and makes no mention of his order to scourge Paul.

rwp@Acts:24:7 @This whole verse with some words at the end of verse 6| and the beginning of verse 8| in the Textus Receptus ("And would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee") is absent from Aleph A B H L P 61 (many other cursives) Sahidic Bohairic. It is beyond doubt a later addition to the incomplete report of the speech of Tertullus. As the Revised Version stands, verse 8| connects with verse 6|. The motive of the added words is clearly to prejudice Felix against Lysias and they contradict the record in strkjv@Acts:21|. Furneaux holds them to be genuine and omitted because contradictory to strkjv@Acts:21|. More likely they are a clumsy attempt to complete the speech of Tertullus.

rwp@Acts:24:9 @{Joined in the charge} (\sunepethento\). Second aorist middle indicative of \sunepitithmi\, old verb, double compound, to place upon (\epi\) together with (\sun\), to make a joint attack, here only in the N.T. {Affirming} (\phaskontes\). Alleging, with the accusative in indirect assertion as in strkjv@25:19; strkjv@Romans:1:22| (nominative with infinitive, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1038). {Were so} (\houts echein\), "held thus," common idiom.

rwp@Acts:26:2 @{I think myself happy} (\hgmai emauton makarion\). See on ¯Matthew:5:3| for \makarios\. Blass notes that Paul, like Tertullus, begins with _captatio benevolentiae_, but _absque adulatione_. He says only what he can truthfully speak. For \hgmai\ see strkjv@Phillipians:3:7; strkjv@1Timothy:6:1| (perfect middle indicative of \hgeomai\), I have considered. {That I am to make my defence} (\melln apologeisthai\). Literally, "being about to make my defence." {Whereof I am accused} (\hn egkaloumai\). Genitive with \egkaloumai\ as in strkjv@19:40| or by attraction from accusative of relative (\ha\) to case of antecedent (\pantn\).

rwp@Acts:26:5 @{Having knowledge of me from the first} (\proginskontes me anthen\). Literally, "knowing me beforehand" (both \pro\ and \anthen\), from the beginning of Paul's public education in Jerusalem (Knowling). Cf. strkjv@2Peter:3:17|. {If they be willing to testify} (\ean thelsin marturein\). Condition of third class (\ean\ and subjunctive). A neat turning of the tables on the distinguished audience about Paul's Jerusalem reputation before his conversion. {After the straitest sect} (\tn akribestatn hairesin\). This is a true superlative (not elative) and one of the three (also \hagitatos\, strkjv@Jude:1:20|, \timitatos\ strkjv@Revelation:18:12; strkjv@21:11|) superlatives in \-tatos\ in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 279f., 670), though common enough in the LXX and the papyri. \Hairesin\ (choosing) is properly used here with Pharisees (Josephus, _Life_, 38). {Religion} (\thrskeias\). From \thrskeu\ and this from \thrskos\ (James:1:26|), old word for religious worship or discipline, common in the papyri and inscriptions (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) for reverent worship, not mere external ritual. In N.T. only here, strkjv@James:1:26f.; strkjv@Colossians:2:18|. {I lived a Pharisee} (\ezsa Pharisaios\). Emphatic position. Paul knew the rules of the Pharisees and played the game to the full (Galatians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:3:5f.|). The Talmud makes it plain what the life of a Pharisee was. Paul had become one of the leaders and stars of hope for his sect.

rwp@Ephesians:3:17 @{That Christ may dwell} (\katoiksai ton Christon\). Another infinitive (first aorist active) after \hina di\. \Katoike\ is an old verb to make one's home, to be at home. Christ (\Christon\ accusative of general reference) is asked to make his home in our hearts. This is the ideal, but a deal of fixing would have to be done in our hearts for Christ. {Being rooted and grounded in love} (\en agapi errizmenoi kai tethemelimenoi\). But it is not certain whether \en agapi\ should go with these participles or with the preceding infinitive \katoiksai\ (dwell). Besides, these two perfect passive participles (from \rizo\, old verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:7|, and from \themelio\, see also strkjv@Colossians:1:23|) are in the nominative case and are to be taken with \hina exischuste\ and are proleptically placed before \hina\. Verse 18| should really begin with these participles. Paul piles up metaphors (dwelling, rooted, grounded).

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE STYLE It is called an epistle and so it is, but of a peculiar kind. In fact, as has been said, it begins like a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and concludes like a letter. It is, in fact, more like a literary composition than any other New Testament book as Deissmann shows: "It points to the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its more definitely artistic, more literary language (corresponding to its more theological subject matter), constituted an epoch in the history of the new religion. Christianity is beginning to lay hands on the instruments of culture; the literary and theological period has begun" (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 70f.). But Blass (_Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa_, 1905) argues that the author of Hebrews certainly and Paul probably were students of Greek oratory and rhetoric. He is clearly wrong about Paul and probably so about the author of Hebrews. There is in Hebrews more of "a studied rhetorical periodicity" (Thayer), but with many "parenthetical involutions" (Westcott) and with less of "the impetuous eloquence of Paul." The eleventh chapter reveals a studied style and as a whole the Epistle belongs to the literary _Koin_ rather than to the vernacular. Moulton (_Cambridge Biblical Essays_, p. 483) thinks that the author did not know Hebrew but follows the Septuagint throughout in his abundant use of the Old Testament.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ SOME BOOKS ON HEBREWS ANDEL, _Deuteronomy:Brief aan de Hebraer_ (1906). ANDERSON, R., _The Hebrews Epistle in the Light of the Types_ (1911). AYLES, _Destination, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). BAILEY, _Leading Ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1907). BLASS, F., _Brief an die Hebraer, Text, Angabe der Rhythmen_ (1903). BLEEK, F., _Der Hebraerbrief Erklart_ (1840). BRUCE, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). DALE, R. W., _The Jewish Temple in the Christian Church_ (1865). DAVIDSON, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1882). DELITZSCH, F., _Commentary on the Hebrews_ (1857). DIBELIUS, M., _Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes_ (1910). DODS, M., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). DU BOSE, W. P., _High Priesthood and sacrifice_ (1908). EDWARDS, T. C., _Expositor's Bible_ (1888). FARRAR, F. W., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). GOODSPEED, E. J., _Bible for Home and School_ (1908). GRIFFTH-THOMAS, W. H., _Let Us Go On_ (1923). HEIGL, _Verfalser und Addresse des Briefes an die Hebraer_ (1905). HOLLMANN, _Schriften d. N. T_. 2 Aufl. (1907). KENDRICK, A. C., _American Commentary_ (1890). LIDGETT, J. S., _Sonship and Salvation_ (1921). LOWRIE, _An Explanation of Hebrews_ (1921). LUNEMANN, G., _Meyer Komm_. (1882). MACFADYEN, J. F., _Through the Eternal Spirit_ (1925). MACNEILL, _The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1914). MENEGOZ, E., _Lamentations:Theologie de l'epitre aux Hebreaux_ (1894). MILLIGAN, G., _The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). MOFFATT JAMES, _Int. and Cosit. Comm_. (1924) MOULE, H. C., _Messages from the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1909). MURRAY, ANDREW, _Devotional Commentary_. NAIRNE, A., _The Epistle of Priesthood_ (1913). NAIRNE, A., _The Alexandrian Gospel_ (1917). PEAKE, A. S., _New Century Bible_ (1904). PORTER, S. J., _The Twelve-Gemmed Crown_ (1913). RENDALL, F., _The Theology of the Hebrew Christians_ (1886). RIGGENBACH, M., _Zoeckler Komm_. 2 Aufl. (1913). ROTHERHAM, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1906). SAPHIR, A., _Exposition of Hebrews_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1922). SEEBERG, A., _Der Brief an die Hebraer_ (1912). SLOT, _Deuteronomy:Letterkundige Vorm van den Brief aan de Hebraer (1912). SODEN, VON, _Hand-Comm_. (1899). THOLUCK, A., _Komm. zum Briefe an die Hebraer_. VAUGHAN, C. J., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WADE, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1923). WEISS, B., _Meyer-Komm_. 6 Aufl. (1902). WEISS, B., _Der Hebraerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Bekuch- tung_ (1910). WELCH, _Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WESTCOTT, B. F., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (3rd ed. 1906). WICKHAM, E. C., _Westminster Comm_. (1910). WINDISCH, H., _Handbuch zum N.T_. (1913). WREDE, W., _Das literarisches Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs_ (1906). strkjv@Hebrews:1:1 @{God} (\ho theos\). This Epistle begins like Genesis and the Fourth Gospel with God, who is the Author of the old revelation in the prophets and of the new in his Son. Verses 1-3| are a _proemium_ (Delitzsch) or introduction to the whole Epistle. The periodic structure of the sentence (1-4|) reminds one of strkjv@Luke:1:1-4, strkjv@Romans:1:1-7, strkjv@1John:1:1-4|. The sentence could have concluded with \en huii\ in verse 2|, but by means of three relatives (\hon, di' hou, hos\) the author presents the Son as "the exact counterpart of God" (Moffatt). {Of old time} (\palai\). "Long ago" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:21|. {Having spoken} (\lalsas\). First aorist active participle of \lale\, originally chattering of birds, then used of the highest form of speech as here. {Unto the fathers} (\tois patrasin\). Dative case. The Old Testament worthies in general without "our" or "your" as in strkjv@John:6:58; strkjv@7:22; strkjv@Romans:9:5|. {In the prophets} (\en tois prophtais\). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). strkjv@Songs:4:7|. {By divers portions} (\polumers\). "In many portions." Adverb from late adjective \polumers\ (in papyri), both in _Vettius Valens_, here only in N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:22 and Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 3, 9). The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, a progressive revelation of God to men. {In divers manners} (\polutrops\). "In many ways." Adverb from old adjective \polutropos\, in Philo, only here in N.T. The two adverbs together are "a sonorous hendiadys for 'variously'" (Moffatt) as Chrysostom (\diaphors\). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.).

rwp@James:1:19 @{Ye know this} (\iste\). Or "know this." Probably the perfect active indicative (literary form as in strkjv@Ephesians:5:5; strkjv@Hebrews:12:17|, unless both are imperative, while in strkjv@James:4:4| we have \oidate\, the usual vernacular _Koin_ perfect indicative). The imperative uses only \iste\ and only the context can decide which it is. \Esto\ (let be) is imperative. {Swift to hear} (\tachus eis to akousai\). For this use of \eis to\ with the infinitive after an adjective see strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:9|. For \eis to\ after adjectives see strkjv@Romans:16:19|. The picture points to listening to the word of truth (verse 18|) and is aimed against violent and disputatious speech (chapter strkjv@3:1-12|). The Greek moralists often urge a quick and attentive ear. {Slow to speak} (\bradus eis to lalsai\). Same construction and same ingressive aorist active infinitive, slow to begin speaking, not slow while speaking. {Slow to anger} (\bradus eis orgn\). He drops the infinitive here, but he probably means that slowness to speak up when angry will tend to curb the anger.

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

rwp@Info_John @ THE SAME STYLE IN THE DISCOURSES It is further objected that there is no difference in style between the discourses of Jesus in John's Gospel and his own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, strkjv@John:3:16-21|. Does the discourse of Jesus end with verse 15,16, or 21? Songs:in strkjv@John:12:44-50|. Does John give here a resume of Christ's teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ as in chapters 4,6,7,8,9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures including that of John's Gospel for the whole view of Christ.

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

rwp@John:1:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one," the Logos of verse 1|, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John's style. He links together into one phrase two of the ideas already stated separately, "in the beginning he was with God," "afterwards in time he came to be with man" (Marcus Dods). Thus John clearly states of the Logos Pre-existence before Incarnation, Personality, Deity.

rwp@John:1:3 @{All things} (\panta\). The philosophical phrase was \ta panta\ (the all things) as we have it in strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. In verse 10| John uses \ho kosmos\ (the orderly universe) for the whole. {Were made} (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of \n\ in verses 1,2|. All things "came into being." Creation is thus presented as a becoming (\ginomai\) in contrast with being (\eimi\). {By him} (\di' autou\). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews:1:2|) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians:1:16|). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6|, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (\ex hou\) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (\di' hou\). {Without him} (\chris autou\). Old adverbial preposition with the ablative as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:14|, "apart from." John adds the negative statement for completion, another note of his style as in strkjv@John:1:20; strkjv@1John:1:5|. Thus John excludes two heresies (Bernard) that matter is eternal and that angels or aeons had a share in creation. {Not anything} (\oude hen\). "Not even one thing." Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (\ho gegonen\) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with \ho gegonen\. The early uncials had no punctuation.

rwp@John:1:9 @{There was} (\n\). Imperfect indicative. Emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence and so probably not periphrastic conjugation with \erchomenon\ (coming) near the end, though that is possible. {The true light} (\to phs to althinon\). "The light the genuine," not a false light of wreckers of ships, but the dependable light that guides to the harbor of safety. This true light had been on hand all the time in the darkness (\n\ imperfect, linear action) before John came. {Even the light} (not in the Greek). Added in the English to make plain this interpretation. {Lighteth every man} (\phtizei panta anthrpon\). Old verb (from \phs\) to give light as in strkjv@Revelation:22:5; strkjv@Luke:11:35f|. The Quakers appeal to this phrase for their belief that to every man there is given an inner light that is a sufficient guide, the Quaker's text it is called. But it may only mean that all the real light that men receive comes from Christ, not necessarily that each one receives a special revelation. {Coming} (\erchomenon\). This present middle participle of \erchomai\ can be taken with \anthrpon\ just before (accusative masculine singular), "every man as he comes into the world." It can also be construed with \phs\ (nominative neuter singular). This idea occurs in strkjv@John:3:19; strkjv@11:27; strkjv@12:46|. In the two last passages the phrase is used of the Messiah which makes it probable here. But even so the light presented in strkjv@11:27; strkjv@12:46| is that of the Incarnate Messiah, not the Pre-incarnate Logos. Here \kosmos\ rather than \panta\ occurs in the sense of the orderly universe as often in this Gospel. See strkjv@Ephesians:1:4|.

rwp@John:1:17 @{Was given} (\edoth\). First aorist passive indicative of \didmi\. {By Moses} (\dia Muses\). "Through Moses" as the intermediate agent of God. {Came} (\egeneto\). The historical event, the beginning of Christianity. {By Jesus Christ} (\dia Isou Christou\). "Through Jesus Christ," the intermediate agent of God the Father. Here in plain terms John identifies the Pre-incarnate Logos with Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. The full historical name "Jesus Christ" is here for the first time in John. See also strkjv@17:3| and four times in 1John and five times in Revelation. Without Christ there would have been no Christianity. John's theology is here pictured by the words "grace and truth" (\h charis kai h altheia\), each with the article and each supplementary to the other. It is grace in contrast with law as Paul sets forth in Galatians and Romans. Paul had made grace "a Christian commonplace" (Bernard) before John wrote. It is truth as opposed to Gnostic and all other heresy as Paul shows in Colossians and Ephesians. The two words aptly describe two aspects of the Logos and John drops the use of \Logos\ and \charis\, but clings to \altheia\ (see strkjv@8:32| for the freedom brought by truth), though the ideas in these three words run all through his Gospel.

rwp@John:3:23 @{John was also baptizing} (\n de kai ho Ians baptizn\). Periphrastic imperfect picturing the continued activity of the Baptist simultaneous with the growing work of Jesus. There was no real rivalry except in people's minds. {In Aenon near to Salim} (\en Ainn eggus tou Saleim\). It is not clearly known where this place was. Eusebius locates it in the Jordan valley south of Beisan west of the river where are many springs (fountains, eyes). There is a place called Salim east of Shechem in Samaria with a village called 'Aimen, but with no water there. There may have been water there then, of course. {Because there was much water there} (\hoti hudata polla n ekei\). "Because many waters were there." Not for drinking, but for baptizing. "Therefore even in summer baptism by immersion could be continued" (Marcus Dods). {And they came, and were baptized} (\kai pareginonto kai ebaptizonto\). Imperfects both, one middle and the other passive, graphically picturing the long procession of pilgrims who came to John confessing their sins and receiving baptism at his hands.

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

rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoisan oun auti 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 h Martha dikonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\polln 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} (\tn anakeimenn\). "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@Info_Luke @ THE GOSPEL OF LUKE BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _International and Critical Commentary_, in the Introduction to Ragg's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _Westminster Commentaries_, in the Introduction to Easton's _Gospel According to St. Luke_, Hayes' _Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, Ramsay's _Luke the Physician_, Harnack's _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake's _Beginnings of Christianity_, Carpenter's _Christianity According to St. Luke_, Cadbury's _The Making of Luke-Acts_, McLachlan's _St. Luke: The Man and His Work_, Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

rwp@Info_Luke @ A SKETCH OF LUKE His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of \Lukios\ and \Lukanos\. Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title \Kata Lukanon\. Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born. That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. Songs:this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a "we" passage after strkjv@Acts:11:27| which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether one of Paul's converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.

rwp@Luke:1:2 @{Even as} (\kaths\). This particle was condemned by the Atticists though occurring occasionally from Aristotle on. It is in the papyri. Luke asserts that the previous narratives had their sound basis. {Delivered unto us} (\paredsan hmin\). Second aorist active indicative of \paradidmi\. Luke received this tradition along with those who are mentioned above (the many). That is he was not one of the "eyewitnesses." He was a secondary, not a primary, witness of the events. Tradition has come to have a meaning of unreliability with us, but that is not the idea here. Luke means to say that the handing down was dependable, not mere wives' fables. Those who drew up the narratives had as sources of knowledge those who handed down the data. Here we have both written and oral sources. Luke had access to both kinds. {Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word} (\hoi ap' archs autoptai kai hupretai genomenoi tou logou\). "Who" is better than "which" for the article here. The word for {eyewitnesses} (\autoptai\) is an old Greek word and appears in the papyri also. It means seeing with one's own eyes. It occurs here only in the N.T. We have the very word in the medical term _autopsy_. Greek medical writers often had the word. It is a different word from \epoptai\ (eyewitness) in strkjv@2Peter:1:16|, a word used of those who beheld heavenly mysteries. The word for "ministers" (\hupretai\), under rowers or servants we have had already in strkjv@Matthew:5:25; strkjv@26:58; strkjv@Mark:14:54,65|, which see. We shall see it again in strkjv@Luke:4:20| of the attendant in the synagogue. In the sense of a preacher of the gospel as here, it occurs also in strkjv@Acts:26:16|. Here "the word" means the gospel message, as in strkjv@Acts:6:4; strkjv@8:4|, etc. {From the beginning} apparently refers to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as was true of the apostles (Acts:1:22|) and of the early apostolic preaching (Acts:10:37-43|). The Gospel of Mark follows this plan. The Gospel of Luke goes behind this in chapters 1 and 2 as does Matthew in chapters 1 and 2. But Luke is not here referring to himself. The matters about the childhood of Jesus Christ would not form part of the traditional preaching for obvious reasons.

rwp@Luke:1:3 @{It seemed good to me also} (\edoxe kamoi\). A natural conclusion and justification of Luke's decision to write his narrative. They had ample reason to draw up their narratives. Luke has more reason to do so because of his fuller knowledge and wider scope. {Having traced the course of all things} (\parkolouthkoti psin\). The perfect active participle of a common verb of the ancient Greek. Literally it means to follow along a thing in mind, to trace carefully. Both meanings occur abundantly in the ancient Greek. Cadbury (Appendix C to _Beginnings of Christianity_, Vol. II, pp. 489ff.) objects to the translation "having traced" here as implying research which the word does not here mean. Milligan (_Vocabulary_) is somewhat impressed by this argument. See my discussion of the point in Chapter XVI of _Studies in the Text of the N.T._ (The Implications in Luke's Preface) where the point is made that Luke here claims fulness of knowledge before he began to write his book. He had the traditions of the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word and the narratives previously drawn up. Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had _mentally_ followed along by the side of these events. Galen used this verb for the investigation of symptoms. Luke got himself ready to write before he began by full and accurate knowledge of the subject. \Akribs\ (accurately) means going into minute details, from \akron\, the topmost point. And he did it {from the first} (\anthen\). He seems to refer to the matters in Chapters strkjv@1:5-2:52|, the Gospel of the Infancy. {In order} (\kathexs\). Chronological order in the main following Mark's general outline. But in strkjv@9:51-18:10| the order is often topical. He has made careful investigation and his work deserves serious consideration. {Most excellent Theophilus} (\kratiste Theophile\). The name means god-lover or god-beloved. He may have been a believer already. He was probably a Gentile. Ramsay holds that "most excellent" was a title like "Your Excellency" and shows that he held office, perhaps a Knight. Songs:of Felix (Acts:23:26|) and Festus (Acts:26:25|). The adjective does not occur in the dedication in strkjv@Acts:1:1|.

rwp@Luke:7:1 @{After} (\epeid, epei and d\). This conjunction was written \epei d\ in Homer and is simple \epei\ with the intensive \d\ added and even \epei d per\ once in N.T. (Luke:1:1|). This is the only instance of the temporal use of \epeid\ in the N.T. The causal sense occurs only in Luke and Paul, for \epei\ is the correct text in strkjv@Matthew:21:46|. {Had ended} (\eplrsen\). First aorist active indicative. There is here a reference to the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, but with nothing concerning the impression produced by the discourse such as is seen in strkjv@Matthew:7:28|. This verse really belongs as the conclusion of Chapter 6, not as the beginning of Chapter 7. {In the ears of the people} (\eis tas akoas tou laou\). \Ako\ from \akou\, to hear, is used of the sense of hearing (1Corinthians:12:17|), the ear with which one hears (Mark:7:35; strkjv@Hebrews:5:11|), the thing heard or the report (Rom strkjv@10:16|) or oral instruction (Galatians:3:2,5|). Both strkjv@Matthew:8:5-13; strkjv@Luke:7:1-10| locate the healing of the centurion's servant in Capernaum where Jesus was after the Sermon on the Mount.

rwp@Luke:7:39 @{This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous, this fellow. {If he were a (the) prophet} (\ei n [ho] prophts\). Condition of the second class, determined as unfulfilled. The Pharisee assumes that Jesus is not a prophet (or the prophet, reading of B, that he claims to be). A Greek condition puts the thing from the standpoint of the speaker or writer. It does not deal with the actual facts, but only with the statement about the facts. {Would have perceived} (\eginsken an\). Wrong translation, would now perceive or know (which he assumes that Jesus does not do). The protasis is false and the conclusion also. He is wrong in both. The conclusion (apodosis), like the condition, deals here with the present situation and so both use the imperfect indicative (\an\ in the conclusion, a mere device for making it plain that it is not a condition of the first class). {Who and what manner of woman} (\tis kai potap h gun\). She was notorious in person and character.

rwp@Luke:8:4 @{By a parable} (\dia parabols\). strkjv@Mark:4:2| says "in parables" as does strkjv@Matthew:13:3|. This is the beginning of the first great group of parables as given in strkjv@Mark:4:1-34| and strkjv@Matthew:13:1-53|. There are ten of these parables in Mark and Matthew and only two in strkjv@Luke:8:4-18| (The Sower and the Lamp, strkjv@8:16|) though Luke also has the expression "in parables" (8:10|). See strkjv@Matthew:13| and strkjv@Mark:4| for discussion of the word parable and the details of the Parable of the Sower. Luke does not locate the place, but he mentions the great crowds on hand, while both Mark and Matthew name the seaside as the place where Jesus was at the start of the series of parables.

rwp@Luke:18:8 @{Howbeit} (\pln\). It is not clear whether this sentence is also a question or a positive statement. There is no way to decide. Either will make sense though not quite the same sense. The use of \ra\ before \heursei\ seems to indicate a question expecting a negative answer as in strkjv@Acts:8:30; strkjv@Romans:14:19|. But here \ra\ comes in the middle of the sentence instead of near the beginning, an unusual position for either inferential \ra\ or interrogative \ra\. On the whole the interrogative \ra\ is probably correct, meaning to question if the Son will find a persistence of faith like that of the widow.

rwp@Luke:18:34 @{And they perceived not} (\kai ouk eginskon\). Imperfect active. They kept on not perceiving. Twice already Luke has said this in the same sentence. {They understood none of these things} (\ouden toutn sunkan\). First aorist active indicative, a summary statement. {This saying was hid from them} (\n to rhma touto kekrummenon ap' autn\). Past perfect passive indicative (periphrastic), state of completion. It was a puzzling experience. No wonder that Luke tries three times to explain the continued failure of the apostles to understand Jesus. The words of Christ about his death ran counter to all their hopes and beliefs.

rwp@Luke:19:45 @{Began to cast out} (\rxato ekballein\). Songs:Mark:11:15| whereas strkjv@Matthew:21:12| has simply "he cast out." See Mark and Matthew for discussion of this second cleansing of the temple at the close of the public ministry in relation to the one at the beginning in strkjv@John:2:14-22|. There is nothing gained by accusing John or the Synoptics of a gross chronological blunder. There was abundant time in these three years for all the abuses to be revived.

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

rwp@Luke:21:31 @{Coming to pass} (\ginomena\). Present middle participle of \ginomai\ and so descriptive of the process. {Nigh} (\eggus\). The consummation of the kingdom is here meant, not the beginning.

rwp@Luke:22:7 @{The day of unleavened bread came} (\lthen h hmera tn azumn\). The day itself came, not simply was drawing nigh (verse 1|). {Must be sacrificed} (\edei thuesthai\). This was Nisan 14 which began at sunset. Luke is a Gentile and this fact must be borne in mind. The lamb must be slain by the head of the family (Exodus:12:6|). The controversy about the day when Christ ate the last passover meal has already been discussed (Matthew:26:17; strkjv@Mark:14:12|). The Synoptics clearly present this as a fact. Jesus was then crucified on Friday at the passover or Thursday (our time) at the regular hour 6 P.M. (beginning of Friday). The five passages in John (13:1f.; strkjv@13:27; strkjv@18:28; strkjv@19:14; strkjv@19:31|) rightly interpreted teach the same thing as shown in my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_ (pp.279-284).

rwp@Luke:22:43 @{An angel} (\aggelos\). The angels visited Jesus at the close of the three temptations at the beginning of his ministry (Matthew:4:11|). Here the angel comes during the conflict.

rwp@Luke:23:5 @{But they were the more urgent} (\hoi de epischuon\). Imperfect active of \epischu\, to give added (\epi\) strength (\ischu\). And they kept insisting. Evidently Pilate had taken the thing too lightly. {He stirred up the people} (\anaseiei ton laon\). This compound is rare, though old (Thucydides), to shake up (back and forth). This is a more vigorous repetition of the first charge (verse 2|, "perverting our nation"). {Beginning from Galilee} (\arxamenos apo ts Galilaias\). These very words occur in the address of Peter to the group in the house of Cornelius (Acts:10:37|). The idiomatic use of \arxamenos\ appears also in strkjv@Acts:1:22|. Galilee (Grote) was the mother of seditious men (see Josephus).

rwp@Luke:24:47 @{Beginning} (\arxamenoi\). Aorist middle participle of \arch\, but the nominative plural with no syntactical connection (an anacoluthon).

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

rwp@Mark:6:1 @{Into his own country} (\eis tn patrida autou\). Songs:Matthew:13:54|. There is no real reason for identifying this visit to Nazareth with that recorded in strkjv@Luke:4:26-31| at the beginning of the Galilean Ministry. He was rejected both times, but it is not incongruous that Jesus should give Nazareth a second chance. It was only natural for Jesus to visit his mother, brothers, and sisters again. Neither Mark nor Matthew mention Nazareth here by name, but it is plain that by \patrida\ the region of Nazareth is meant. He had not lived in Bethlehem since his birth.

rwp@Mark:6:6 @{And he marvelled because of their unbelief} (\kai ethaumasen dia tn apistian autn\). Aorist tense, but Westcott and Hort put the imperfect in the margin. Jesus had divine knowledge and accurate insight into the human heart, but he had human limitations in certain things that are not clear to us. He marvelled at the faith of the Roman centurion where one would not expect faith (Matthew:8:10; strkjv@Luke:7:9|). Here he marvels at the lack of faith where he had a right to expect it, not merely among the Jews, but in his own home town, among his kinspeople, even in his own home. One may excuse Mary, the mother of Jesus, from this unbelief, puzzled, as she probably was, by his recent conduct (Mark:3:21,31|). There is no proof that she ever lost faith in her wonderful Son. {He went round about the villages teaching} (\perigen ts kmas kukli didaskn\). A good illustration of the frequent poor verse division. An entirely new paragraph begins with these words, the third tour of Galilee. They should certainly be placed with verse 7|. The Revised Version would be justified if it had done nothing else than give us paragraphs according to the sense and connection. "Jesus resumes the role of a wandering preacher in Galilee" (Bruce). Imperfect tense, \perigen\.

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:8:31 @{He began to teach them} (\rxato didaskein autous\). Mark is fond of this idiom, but it is not a mere rhetorical device. strkjv@Matthew:16:21| expressly says "from that time." They had to be told soon about the approaching death of Jesus. The confession of faith in Jesus indicated that it was a good time to begin. Death at the hands of the Sanhedrin (elders, chief priests, and scribes) in which Pharisees and Sadducees had about equal strength. The resurrection on the third day is mentioned, but it made no impression on their minds. This rainbow on the cloud was not seen. {After three days} (\meta treis hmeras\). strkjv@Matthew:16:21| has "the third day" (\ti triti hmeri\) in the locative case of point of time (so also strkjv@Luke:9:22|). There are some people who stickle for a strict interpretation of "after three days" which would be "on the fourth day," not "on the third day." Evidently Mark's phrase here has the same sense as that in Matthew and Luke else they are hopelessly contradictory. In popular language "after three days" can and often does mean "on the third day," but the fourth day is impossible.

rwp@Matthew:7:26 @{And doeth them not} (\kai m poin autous\). The foolish builder put his house on the sands that could not hold in the storm. One is reminded of the words of Jesus at the beginning of the Sermon in strkjv@5:19| about the one "who does and teaches." Hearing sermons is a dangerous business if one does not put them into practice.

rwp@Matthew:18:8 @In verses 8| and 9| we have one of the dualities or doublets in Matthew (5:29-30|). Jesus repeated his pungent sayings many times. Instead of \eis geennan\ (5:29|) we have \eis to pur to ainion\ and at the end of verse 9| \tou puros\ is added to \tn geennan\. This is the first use in Matthew of \ainios\. We have it again in strkjv@19:16,29| with \zo\, in strkjv@25:41| with \pur\, in strkjv@25:46| with \kolasin\ and \zon\. The word means ageless, without beginning or end as of God (Romans:16:26|), without beginning as in strkjv@Romans:16:25|, without end as here and often. The effort to make it mean "\aeonian\" fire will make it mean "\aeonian\" life also. If the punishment is limited, _ipso facto_ the life is shortened. In verse 9| also \monophthalmon\ occurs. It is an Ionic compound in Herodotus that is condemned by the Atticists, but it is revived in the vernacular _Koin_. Literally one-eyed. Here only and strkjv@Mark:9:47| in the New Testament.

rwp@Matthew:24:8 @{The beginning of travail} (\arch odinn\). The word means birth-pangs and the Jews used the very phrase for the sufferings of the Messiah which were to come before the coming of the Messiah (Book of Jubilees, strkjv@23:18; Apoc. of Baruch 27-29). But the word occurs with no idea of birth as the pains of death (Psalms:18:5; strkjv@Acts:2:24|). These woes, says Jesus, are not a proof of the end, but of the beginning.

rwp@Revelation:9:15 @{Were loosed} (\eluthsan\). First aorist (ingressive) passive indicative of \lu\, "were let loose." {Which had been prepared} (\hoi htoimasmenoi\). Perfect passive articular participle of \hetoimaz\, to make ready (\hetoimos\), in a state of readiness prepared by God (12:6; strkjv@16:12; strkjv@Matthew:25:34|). {For the hour and day and month and year} (\eis tn hran kai hmeran kai mna kai eniauton\). For this use of \eis\ with \htoimasmenon\ see strkjv@2Timothy:2:21|. All preparation over, the angels are waiting for the signal to begin. {That they should kill} (\hina apokteinsin\). The same idiom in verse 5| about the fifth trumpet, which brought torture. This one brings death.

rwp@Revelation:12:9 @{Was cast down} (\eblth\). Effective first aorist passive indicative of \ball\, cast down for good and all, a glorious consummation. This vision of final victory over Satan is given by Jesus in strkjv@Luke:10:18; strkjv@John:12:31|. It has not come yet, but it is coming, and the hope of it should be a spur to missionary activity and zeal. The word megas (great) occurs here with \drakn\ as in strkjv@12:3|, and the whole picture is repeated in strkjv@20:2|. The dragon in both places is identified with the old serpent (Genesis:3:1ff.|) and called \archaios\ (from \arch\, beginning), as Jesus said that the devil was a murderer "from the beginning" (John:8:44|). Both \diabolos\ (slanderer) and Satan (\Satans\) are common in N.T. for this great dragon and old serpent, the chief enemy of mankind. See on ¯Matthew:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:2:10| for \diabolos\ and strkjv@Luke:10:18| for \Satans\. {The deceiver of the whole world} (\ho plann tn oikoumenn holn\). This is his aim and his occupation, pictured here by the nominative articular present active participle of \plana\, to lead astray. For "the inhabited world" see strkjv@Luke:2:1; strkjv@Revelation:3:10; strkjv@16:14|. Satan can almost "lead astray" the very elect of God (Matthew:24:24|), so artful is he in his beguilings as he teaches us how to deceive ourselves (1John:1:8|). {He was cast down to the earth} (\eblth eis tn gn\). Effective aorist repeated from the beginning of the verse. "The earth was no new sphere of Satan's working" (Swete). {Were cast down} (\eblthsan\). Triple use of the same verb applied to Satan's minions. The expulsion is complete.