Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp este:


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

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

rwp@1Corinthians:6:4 @{If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life} (\bi“tika men oun kritˆria ean echˆte\). Note emphatic position (proleptic) of \bi“tika kritˆria\ (tribunals pertaining to this life, as above). "If ye have tribunals pertaining to this life" (condition of third class, \ean echˆte\). If \kathizete\ (do ye set) is indicative and interrogative, then by "who are of no account in the church" (\tous exouthenˆmenous en tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\) Paul means the heathen as in verse 1|. If \kathizete\ be imperative, then Paul means the least esteemed members of the church for such unwished for work. It is a harsh term for the heathen, but one of indignation toward Christians.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:17 @{Vain} (\mataia\). Old word from adverb \matˆn\ (Matthew:15:9|), devoid of truth, a lie. Stronger word than \kenon\ in verse 14|. {Ye are yet in your sins} (\eti este en tais hamartiais hum“n\). Because the death of Christ has no atoning value if he did not rise from the dead. In that case he was only a man like other men and did not die for our sins (verse 3|).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:29 @{Else} (\epei\). Otherwise, if not true. On this use of \epei\ with ellipsis see on ¯5:10; strkjv@7:14|. {Which are baptized for the dead} (\hoi baptizomenoi huper t“n nekr“n\). This passage remains a puzzle. Stanley gives thirteen interpretations, no one of which may be correct. Over thirty have been suggested. The Greek expositors took it to be about the dead (\huper\ in sense of \peri\ as often as in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:6|) since baptism is a burial and a resurrection (Romans:6:2-6|). Tertullian tells of some heretics who took it to mean baptized in the place of dead people (unsaved) in order to save them. Some take it to be baptism over the dead. Others take it to mean that Paul and others were in peril of death as shown by baptism (see verse 30|). {At all} (\hol“s\). See on ¯5:1|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:3 @{Your sanctification} (\ho hagiasmos hum“n\). Found only in the Greek Bible and ecclesiastical writers from \hagiaz“\ and both to take the place of the old words \hagiz“, hagismos\ with their technical ideas of consecration to a god or goddess that did not include holiness in life. Songs:Paul makes a sharp and pointed stand here for the Christian idea of sanctification as being "the will of God" (apposition) and as further explained by the epexegetic infinitive {that ye abstain from fornication} (\apechesthai humas apo tˆs porneias\). Pagan religion did not demand sexual purity of its devotees, the gods and goddesses being grossly immoral. Priestesses were in the temples for the service of the men who came.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:9 @{Concerning love of the brethren} (\peri tˆs philadelphias\). Late word, love of brothers or sisters. In profane Greek (one papyrus example) and LXX the word means love of those actually kin by blood, but in the N.T. it is the kinship in the love of Christ as here. {Are taught by God} (\theodidaktoi este\). Only here and ecclesiastical writers. Passive verbal adjective in \-tos\ from \didask“\ as if \theo-\ in ablative case like \didaktoi theou\ (John:6:45|). {To love one another} (\eis to agapƒin allˆlous\). Another example of \eis to\ and the infinitive. Only those taught of God keep on loving one another, love neighbours and even enemies as Jesus taught (Matthew:5:44|). Note the use of \agapa“\, not \phile“\.

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

rwp@2Corinthians:13:5 @{Unless indeed ye be reprobate} (\ei mˆti adokimoi este\). Paul challenged his opposers in Corinth to try (\peirazete\) themselves, to test (\dokimazete\) themselves, whether they were "in the faith" (\en tˆi pistei\), a much more vital matter for them than trying to prove Paul a heretic. Such tests can be made, unless, alas, they are "reprobate" (\adokimoi\, the very adjective that Paul held up before himself as a dreadful outcome to be avoided, strkjv@1Corinthians:9:27|).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF PETER The writer makes use of his own contact with Jesus, especially at the Transfiguration of Christ (Mark:9:2-8; strkjv@Matthew:17:1-8; strkjv@Luke:9:28-36|). This fact has been used against the genuineness of the Epistle on the plea that the writer is too anxious, anyhow, to show that he is Symeon Peter (2Peter:1:1|). But Bigg rightly replies that, if he had only given his name with no personal contacts with Jesus, the name would be called "a forged addition." It is possible also that the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration may have been suggested by Peter's use of \exodos\ for his own death (2Peter:1:15|), the very word used by Luke (Luke:9:31|) as the topic of discussion between Jesus and Moses and Elijah. There is also in strkjv@2Peter:1:13| the use of "tent" (\skˆnoma\) for the life in the body, like Peter's use of "tents" (\skˆnas\) to Jesus at that very time (Mark:9:5; strkjv@Matthew:17:4; strkjv@Luke:9:33|). In strkjv@2Peter:1:14| Peter also refers to the plain words of Jesus about his coming death (John:21:18f.|). In strkjv@2Peter:1:15| Peter speaks of his own plan for preserving the knowledge of Jesus when he is gone (possibly by Mark's Gospel). All this is in perfect keeping with Peter's own nature.

rwp@Acts:13:14 @{Passing through} (\dielthontes\). It is not clear why Paul and Barnabas left Perga so soon nor why they went to Antioch in Pisidia. Ramsay suggests malaria that spurred them on to the hills after the desertion of John Mark. They preached at Perga on the return (14:25|) and apparently hurried away now. Farrar thinks that the hot weather had driven the population to the hills. At any rate it is not difficult to imagine the perils of this climb over the rough mountain way from Perga to Pisidian Antioch to which Paul apparently refers in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:26|. {Sat down} (\ekathisan\). Ingressive aorist active indicative, took their seats as visiting Jews, possibly in the seats of the rabbis (J. Lightfoot). Whether they expected to be called on or not, they were given the opportunity as prominent visitors. The Pisidian Antioch was really in Phrygia, but towards Pisidia to distinguish it from Antioch on the Maeander (Ramsay, _Church in the Roman Empire_, p. 25). It was a colony like Philippi and so a free city. If Paul is referring to South Galatia and not North Galatia in strkjv@Galatians:4:13| when he says that his preaching in Galatia at first was due to illness, then it was probably here at Pisidian Antioch. What it was we have no means of knowing, though it was a temptation in his flesh to them so severe that they were willing to pluck out their eyes for him (Galatians:4:14f.|). Opthalmia, malaria, epilepsy have all been suggested as this stake in the flesh (2Corinthians:12:7|). But Paul was able to preach with power whatever his actual physical condition was.

rwp@Acts:21:24 @{These take} (\toutous paralab“n\). Second aorist active participle of \paralamban“\. Taking these alone. {Purify thyself with them} (\hagnisthˆti sun autois\). First aorist passive imperative of \hagniz“\, old verb to purify, to make pure (\hagnos\). See the active voice in strkjv@James:4:8; strkjv@1Peter:1:22; strkjv@1John:3:3|. It is possible to see the full passive force here, "Be purified." But a number of aorist passives in the _Koin‚_ supplant the aorist middle forms and preserve the force of the middle (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 819). That is possible here. Hence, "Purify thyself" is allowable. The word occurs in strkjv@Numbers:6:1| for taking the Nazarite vow. The point is that Paul takes the vow with them. Note \hagnismou\ in verse 26|. {Be at charges for them} (\dapanˆson ep' autois\). First aorist active imperative of old verb \dapana“\, to incur expense, expend. Spend (money) upon (\ep'\) them. Ramsay (_St. Paul the Traveller_, etc., p. 310) argues that Paul had use of considerable money at this period, perhaps from his father's estate. The charges for five men would be considerable. "A poor man would not have been treated with the respect paid him at Caesarea, on the voyage, and at Rome" (Furneaux). {That they may shave their heads} (\hina xurˆsontai tˆn kephalˆn\). Note \tˆn kephalˆn\, the head (singular). Future middle indicative of \xura“\, late form for the old \xure“\, to shave, middle to shave oneself or (causative) to get oneself shaved. This use of \hina\ with the future indicative is like the classic \hop“s\ with the future indicative and is common in the N.T. as in the _Koin‚_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 984). {And all shall know} (\kai gn“sontai\). This future middle indicative of \gin“sk“\ (cf. \akousontai\ in verse 22|) may be independent of \hina\ or dependent on it like \xurˆsontai\, though some MSS. (H L P) have \gn“sin\ (second aorist subjunctive, clearly dependent on \hina\). {Of which} (\h“n\). Genitive plural of the relative \ha\ (accusative) object of the perfect passive verb \katˆchˆntai\ (cf. verse 21| \katˆchˆthˆsan\) attracted into the case of the omitted antecedent \tout“n\. The instruction still in effect. {But that thou thyself walkest orderly} (\alla stoicheis kai autos\). \Stoicheis\ is an old verb to go in a row (from \stoichos\, row, rank, series), to walk in a line or by rule. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Galatians:5:25; strkjv@Romans:4:12; strkjv@Phillipians:3:16|. The rule is the law and Paul was not a sidestepper. The idea of the verb is made plain by the participle \phulass“n ton nomon\ (keeping or observing the law).

rwp@Acts:21:25 @{We wrote} (\epesteilamen\). First aorist active of \epistell“\, to send to and so to write like our epistle (\epistolˆ\). Old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:15:20; strkjv@Hebrews:13:22|. It is the very word used by James in this "judgment" at the Conference (Acts:15:20|, \episteilai\). B D here read \apesteilamen\ from \apostell“\, to send away, to give orders. Wendt and Schuerer object to this as a gloss. Rather is it an explanation by James that he does not refer to the Gentile Christians whose freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial law was guaranteed at the Jerusalem Conference. James himself presided at that Conference and offered the resolution that was unanimously adopted. James stands by that agreement and repeats the main items (four: anything sacrificed to idols, blood, anything strangled, fornication, for discussion see strkjv@Acts:15|) from which they are to keep themselves (direct middle \phulassesthai\ of \phulass“\, indirect command after \krinantes\ with accusative, \autous\, of general reference). James has thus again cleared the air about the Gentiles who have believed (\pepisteukot“n\, perfect active participle genitive plural of \pisteu“\). He asks that Paul will stand by the right of Jewish Christians to keep on observing the Mosaic law. He has put the case squarely and fairly.

rwp@Acts:22:3 @{I am a Jew} (\Eg“ eimi anˆr 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} (\gegennˆmenos\). 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 Gamaliˆl\). 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} (\patr“iou\). 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} (\zˆl“tˆs huparch“n 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" (\kath“s pantes humeis este sˆmeron\). 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:23:15 @{Ye} (\humeis\). Emphatic. {Signify} (\emphanisate\). First aorist active imperative of \emphaniz“\. Make plain from \emphanˆs\, chiefly in Acts. Repeated in verse 22|. The authority is with the chiliarch not with the Sanhedrin, but he had appealed to the Sanhedrin for advice. {As though ye would judge of his case more exactly} (\h“s mellontas diagin“skein akribesteron ta peri autou\). \H“s\ with the participle gives the alleged reason as here. Songs:also in verse 20|. \Diagnosk“\, old verb to distinguish accurately, only here in N.T. and strkjv@24:22|. {Or ever come near} (\pro tou eggisai auton\). "Before the coming near as to him." \Pro\ and the genitive of the articular infinitive of \eggiz“\ with accusative of general reference. {We are ready to slay him} (\hetoimoi esmen tou anelein auton\). Genitive of purpose of the articular infinitive after the adjective \hetoimoi\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1061). \Anelein\, second aorist active of \anaire“\.

rwp@Acts:24:6 @{Assayed to profane} (\epeirasen bebˆl“sai\). A flat untruth, but the charge of the Asian Jews (21:28-30|). _Verbum optum ad calumnian_ (Bengel). {We seized} (\ekratˆsamen\). As if the Sanhedrin had arrested Paul, Tertullus identifying himself with his clients. But it was the mob (21:28-31|) that attacked Paul and Lysias who rescued him (21:32ff.|).

rwp@Acts:24:22 @{Having more exact knowledge} (\akribesteron eid“s\). "Knowing" (second perfect active participle of \oida\) "more accurately" (comparative of adverb \akrib“s\). More accurately than what? Than the Sanhedrin supposed he had "concerning the Way" (\ta peri tˆs hodou\, the things concerning the Way, common in Acts for Christianity). How Felix had gained this knowledge of Christianity is not stated. Philip the Evangelist lived here in Caesarea and there was a church also. Drusilla was a Jewess and may have told him something. Besides, it is wholly possible that Felix knew of the decision of Gallio in Corinth that Christianity was a _religio licita_ as a form of Judaism. As a Roman official he knew perfectly well that the Sanhedrin with the help of Tertullus had failed utterly to make out a case against Paul. He could have released Paul and probably would have done so but for fear of offending the Jews whose ruler he was and the hope that Paul (note "alms" in verse 17|) might offer him bribes for his liberty. {Deferred them} (\anebaleto autous\). Second aorist middle indicative of \anaball“\, old verb (only here in N.T.) to throw or toss up, to put back or off, in middle to put off from one, to delay, to adjourn. Felix adjourned the case without a decision under a plausible pretext, that he required the presence of Lysias in person, which was not the case. Lysias had already said that Paul was innocent and was never summoned to Caesarea, so far as we know. Since Paul was a Roman citizen, Lysias could have thrown some light on the riot, if he had any. {Shall come down} (\katabˆi\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \katabain“\. {I will determine your matter} (\diagn“somai ta kath' humƒs\). Future middle of \diagin“sk“\, old and common verb to know accurately or thoroughly (\dia\). In the N.T. only here (legal sense) and strkjv@23:15|. "The things according to you" (plural, the matters between Paul and the Sanhedrin).

rwp@Ephesians:5:5 @{Ye know of a surety} (\iste gin“skontes\). The correct text has \iste\, not \este\. It is the same form for present indicative (second person plural) and imperative, probably indicative here, "ye know." But why \gin“skontes\ added? Probably, "ye know recognizing by your own experience." {No} (\pƒs--ou\). Common idiom in the N.T. like the Hebrew= _oudeis_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 732). {Covetous man} (\pleonektˆs, pleon ech“\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:5:10f.; strkjv@6:10|. {Which is} (\ho estin\). Songs:Aleph B. A D K L have \hos\ (who), but \ho\ is right. See strkjv@Colossians:3:14| for this use of \ho\ (which thing is). On \eid“lolatrˆs\ (idolater) see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:10f|. {In the Kingdom of Christ and God} (\en tˆi basileiƒi tou Christou kai theou\). Certainly the same kingdom and Paul may here mean to affirm the deity of Christ by the use of the one article with \Christou kai theou\. But Sharp's rule cannot be insisted on here because \theos\ is often definite without the article like a proper name. Paul did teach the deity of Christ and may do it here.

rwp@Galatians:6:11 @{With how large letters} (\pˆlikois grammasin\). Paul now takes the pen from the amanuensis (cf. strkjv@Romans:16:22|) and writes the rest of the Epistle (verses 11-18|) himself instead of the mere farewell greeting (2Thessalonians:3:17; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21; strkjv@Colossians:4:18|). But what does he mean by "with how large letters"? Certainly not "how large a letter." It has been suggested that he employed large letters because of defective eyesight or because he could only write ill-formed letters because of his poor handwriting (like the print letters of children) or because he wished to call particular attention to this closing paragraph by placarding it in big letters (Ramsay). This latter is the most likely reason. Deissmann, (_St. Paul_, p. 51) argues that artisans write clumsy letters, yes, and scholars also. Milligan (_Documents_, p. 24; _Vocabulary_, etc.) suggests the contrast seen in papyri often between the neat hand of the scribe and the big sprawling hand of the signature. {I have written} (\egrapsa\). Epistolary aorist. {With mine own hand} (\tˆi emˆi cheiri\). Instrumental case as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21|.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE AUTHOR Origen bluntly wrote: "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul's while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in strkjv@Hebrews:11:32| (\me diˆgoumenon\) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply \Pros Hebraious\ as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

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 @ NO EARLY MARTYRDOM FOR THE APOSTLE JOHN In 1862 a fragment of the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, was published. It is the _Codex Coislinianus_, Paris, 305, which differs from the other manuscripts of this author in saying that John according to Papias was slain by the Jews (\hupo Ioudai“n anˆirethˆ\) while the other manuscripts say that John rested in peace (\en eirˆnˆi anepausato\). The passage also quotes Eusebius to the effect that John received Asia as his sphere of work and lived and died in Ephesus. This same George the Sinner misquotes Origen about the death of John for Origen really says that the Roman king condemned him to the Isle of Patmos, not to death. Another fragment of Philip of Side, apparently used by Georgius, makes the same erroneous reference to Papias. It is therefore a worthless legend growing out of the martyrdom promised James and John by Jesus (Mark:10:39; strkjv@Matthew:20:23|) and realized by James first of all (Acts:12:1f.|). John drank the cup in the exile to Patmos. The correction to Peter in strkjv@John:21:20-23| would have no meaning if the Apostle John had already been put to death.

rwp@Info_John @ THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK He tells us himself in strkjv@John:20:30f|. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: "But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in 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 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:1:4 @{In him was life} (\en aut“i z“ˆ ˆn\). That which has come into being (verse 3|) in the Logos was life. The power that creates and sustains life in the universe is the Logos. This is what Paul means by the perfect passive verb \ektistai\ (stands created) in strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. This is also the claim of Jesus to Martha (John:11:25|). This is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:1:3| "bearing (upholding) the all things by the word of his power." Once this language might have been termed unscientific, but not so now after the spiritual interpretation of the physical world by Eddington and Jeans. Usually in John \z“ˆ\ means spiritual life, but here the term is unlimited and includes all life; only it is not \bios\ (manner of life), but the very principle or essence of life. That is spiritual behind the physical and to this great scientists today agree. It is also personal intelligence and power. Some of the western documents have \estin\ here instead of \ˆn\ to bring out clearly the timelessness of this phrase of the work of the \Logos\. {And the life was the light of men} (\kai hˆ z“ˆ ˆn to ph“s t“n anthr“p“n\). Here the article with both \z“ˆ\ and \ph“s\ makes them interchangeable. "The light was the life of men" is also true. That statement is curiously like the view of some physicists who find in electricity (both light and power) the nearest equivalent to life in its ultimate physical form. Later Jesus will call himself the light of the world (John:8:12|). John is fond of these words life and light in Gospel, Epistles, Revelation. He here combines them to picture his conception of the Pre-incarnate Logos in his relation to the race. He was and is the Life of men (\t“n anthr“pon\, generic use of the article) and the Light of men. John asserts this relation of the Logos to the race of men in particular before the Incarnation.

rwp@John:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \ˆn\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\eskˆn“sen en hˆmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skˆno“\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\skˆnos\ or \skˆnˆ\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tˆn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\h“s monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogenˆ\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patˆr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogenˆs\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plˆrˆs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plˆrˆs\ can agree with the subject of \eskˆn“sen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai alˆtheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \alˆtheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

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: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:4:38 @{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:5:3 @{In these} (\en tautais\). In these five porches. {Lay} (\katekeito\). Imperfect middle of \katakeimai\, to lie down, singular number because \plˆthos\ (multitude) is a collective substantive. {Withered} (\xˆr“n\). Old adjective \xˆros\ for dry, wasted as the hand (Matthew:12:10|). The oldest and best manuscripts omit what the Textus Receptus adds here "waiting for the moving of the water" (\ekdechomenon tˆn tou hudatos kinˆsin\), a Western and Syrian addition to throw light on the word \tarachthˆi\ (is troubled) in verse 7|.

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:6:15 @{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:6:29 @{The work of God that ye believe} (\to ergon tou theou hina pisteuˆte\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3| Paul speaks of "your work of faith" (\hum“n tou ergou tˆs piste“s\). Songs:here Jesus terms belief in him as the work of God. These Jews were thinking of various deeds of the Pharisaic type and rules. Jesus turns their minds to the central fact. "This simple formula contains the complete solution of the relation of faith and works" (Westcott). Note the present active subjunctive \pisteuˆte\, "that ye may keep on believing." {On him whom he hath sent} (\eis hon apesteilen ekeinos\). The pronominal antecedent (\eis touton hon\) is omitted and the preposition \eis\ is retained with the relative \hon\ really the direct object of \apesteilen\ (sent). Note \ekeinos\ for God (emphatic he).

rwp@John:9:4 @{We must work the works of him that sent me} (\hˆmas dei ergazesthai ta erga tou pempsantos me\). This is undoubtedly the correct text (supported by the Neutral and Western classes) and not \eme\ (I) and \me\ (me) of the Syrian class nor \hˆmas\ (we) and \hˆmas\ (us) of the Alexandrian class. Jesus associates us with him in the task committed to him by the Father. Bernard argues vigorously, but vainly, for \eme\ me. We are not able to fathom the depth of the necessity (\dei\) here involved in each life as in this poor blind man and in each of us. {While it is day} (\he“s hˆmera estin\). This clause gives the note of urgency upon us all. {The night cometh} (\erchetai nux\). "Night is coming on," and rapidly. Night was coming for Jesus (7:33|) and for each of us. Cf. strkjv@11:9; strkjv@12:35|. Even electric lights do not turn night into day. \He“s\ with the present indicative (21:22f.|) means "while," not until as in strkjv@13:38|.

rwp@John:9:7 @{Wash} (\nipsai\). First aorist middle imperative second person singular of \nipt“\, later form of \niz“\, to wash, especially parts of the body. Certainly bathing the eyes is good for eye trouble, and yet we are not to infer that the cure was due to the use of the clay or to the washing. {In the pool of Siloam} (\eis tˆn kolumbˆthran tou Sil“am\). The word \kolumbˆthra\ (from \kolumba“\, to swim) is a common word for swimming-pool, in N.T. only here and strkjv@5:2,7|. The name _Siloam_ is Hebrew (Isaiah:8:6|) and means "sent" (\apestalmenos\, perfect passive participle of \apostell“\). It was situated south of the temple area and was apparently connected by a subterranean tunnel with the Virgin's Well (5:2|) according to Bernard. The water was conducted artificially to the pool of Siloam. {Washed} (\enipsato\). First aorist direct middle (cf. \nipsai\), apparently bathing and not merely washing his eyes. {Came seeing} (\ˆlthen blep“n\). Jesus had healed him. He was tested by the demand to bathe his eyes.

rwp@John:11:42 @{And I knew} (\eg“ de ˆidein\). Past perfect of \oida\ used as imperfect. This confident knowledge is no new experience with Jesus. It has "always" (\pantote\) been so. {Which standeth around} (\ton periest“ta\). Second perfect active (intransitive) articular participle of \periistˆmi\. It was a picturesque and perilous scene. {That they may believe} (\hina pisteus“sin\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first ingressive aorist active subjunctive of \pisteu“\, "that they may come to believe." {That thou didst send me} (\hoti su me apesteilas\). First aorist active indicative of \apostell“\ and note position of \su me\ side by side. This claim Jesus had long ago made (5:36|) and had repeatedly urged (10:25,38|). Here was a supreme opportunity and Jesus opens his heart about it.

rwp@John:12:21 @{To Philip which was of Bethsaida of Galilee} (\Philipp“i t“i apo Bˆthsaida tˆs Galilaias\). He had a Greek name and the Greeks may have seen Philip in Galilee where there were many Greeks, probably (Mark:6:45|) the Western Bethsaida in Galilee, not Bethsaida Julias on the Eastern side (Luke:9:10|). {Asked} (\ˆr“t“n\). Imperfect active, probably inchoative, "began to ask," in contrast with the aorist tense just before (\prosˆlthan\, came to). {Sir} (\Kurie\). Most respectfully and courteously. {We would see Jesus} (\thelomen ton Iˆsoun idein\). "We desire to see Jesus." This is not abrupt like our "we wish" or "we want," but perfectly polite. However, they could easily "see" Jesus, had already done so, no doubt. They wish an interview with Jesus.

rwp@Luke:7:3 @{Sent unto him elders of the Jews} (\apesteilen pros auton presbouterous t“n Ioudai“n\). strkjv@Matthew:8:5| says "the centurion came unto him." For discussion of this famous case of apparent discrepancy see discussion on Matthew. One possible solution is that Luke tells the story as it happened with the details, whereas Matthew simply presents a summary statement without the details. What one does through another he does himself. {Asking him} (\er“t“n auton\). Present active participle, masculine singular nominative, of the verb \er“ta“\ common for asking a question as in the old Greek (Luke:22:68|). But more frequently in the N.T. the verb has the idea of making a request as here. This is not a Hebraism or an Aramaism, but is a common meaning of the verb in the papyri (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 168). It is to be noted here that Luke represents the centurion himself as "asking" through the elders of the Jews (leading citizens). In strkjv@Matthew:8:6| the verb is \parakal“n\ (beseeching). {That he would come and save} (\hop“s elth“n dias“sˆi\). \Hina\ is the more common final or sub-final (as here) conjunction, but \hop“s\ still occurs. \Dias“sˆi\ is effective aorist active subjunctive, to bring safe through as in a storm (Acts:28:1,4|). Common word.

rwp@Luke:23:56 @{On the sabbath they rested} (\to sabbaton hˆsuchasan\). They returned and prepared spices before the sabbath began. Then they rested all during the sabbath (accusative of extent of time, \to sabbaton\).

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

rwp@Luke:24:6 @{He is not here, but is risen} (\ouk estin h“de, alla ˆgerthˆ\). Another Western non-interpolation according to Westcott and Hort. The words are genuine at any rate in strkjv@Mark:16:6; strkjv@Matthew:28:7|. {The third day rise again} (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi anastˆnai\). See strkjv@9:22; strkjv@18:32,33| where Jesus plainly foretold this fact. And yet they had forgotten it, for it ran counter to all their ideas and hopes.

rwp@Luke:24:12 @This entire verse is a Western non-interpolation. This incident is given in complete form in strkjv@John:18:2-10| and most of the words in this verse are there also. It is of a piece with many items in this chapter about which it is not easy to reach a final conclusion. {Stooping and looking in} (\parakupsas\). First aorist active participle of \parakupt“\, to stoop besides and peer into. Old verb used also in strkjv@John:20:5,11; strkjv@James:1:25; strkjv@1Peter:1:12|. {By themselves} (\mona\). Without the body. {To his home} (\pros hauton\). Literally, "to himself."

rwp@Luke:24:31 @{Were opened} (\diˆnoichthˆsan\). Ingressive first aorist passive indicative of \dianoig“\. {Knew} (\epegn“san\). Effective first aorist active indicative fully recognized him. Same word in verse 16|. {Vanished} (\aphantos egeneto\). Became invisible or unmanifested. \Aphantos\ from \a\ privative and \phainomai\, to appear. Old word, only here in the N.T.

rwp@Luke:24:38 @{Why are ye troubled?} (\ti tetaragmenoi este;\). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of \tarass“\, old verb, to agitate, to stir up, to get excited.

rwp@Luke:24:40 @Another Western non-interpolation according to Westcott and Hort. It is genuine in strkjv@John:20:20|.

rwp@Luke:24:52 @{Worshipped him} (\proskunˆsantes auton\). Here again we have one of Westcott and Hort's Western non-interpolations that may be genuine or not. {With great joy} (\meta charas megalˆs\). Now that the Ascension has come they are no longer in despair. Joy becomes the note of victory as it is today. No other note can win victories for Christ. The bells rang in heaven to greet the return of Jesus there, but he set the carillon of joy to ringing on earth in human hearts in all lands and for all time.

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

rwp@Mark:1:2 @{In Isaiah, the prophet} (\en t“i Esaiƒi t“i prophˆtˆi\). The quotation comes from strkjv@Malachi:3:1| and strkjv@Isaiah:40:3|. The Western and Neutral classes read Isaiah, the Alexandrian and Syrian, "the prophets," an evident correction because part of it is from Malachi. But Isaiah is mentioned as the chief of the prophets. It was common to combine quotations from the prophets in _testimonia_ and _catenae_ (chains of quotations). This is Mark's only prophetic quotation on his own account (Bruce).

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

rwp@Mark:5:8 @{For he said} (\elegen gar\). For he had been saying (progressive imperfect). Jesus had already repeatedly ordered the demon to come out of the man whereat the demon made his outcry to Jesus and protested. strkjv@Matthew:8:29| had "before the time" (\pro kairou\) and strkjv@8:31| shows that the demons did not want to go back to the abyss (\tˆn abusson\) right now. That was their real home, but they did not wish to return to the place of torment just now.

rwp@Mark:6:36 @{Into the country and villages round about} (\eis tous kukl“i agrous kai k“mas\). The fields (\agrous\) were the scattered farms (Latin, _villae_). The villages (\k“mas\) may have included Bethsaida Julias not far away (Luke:9:10|). The other Bethsaida was on the Western side of the lake (Mark:6:45|). {Somewhat to eat} (\ti phag“sin\). Literally, {what to eat}, {what they were to eat}. Deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question.

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:6:45 @{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: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:7:18 @{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:7:34 @{Ephphatha} (\dianoichthˆti\, be opened). Another one of Mark's Aramaic words preserved and transliterated and then translated into Greek. "Be thou unbarred" (_Braid Scots_). Jesus sighed (\estenaxen\) as he looked up into heaven and spoke the word \ephphatha\. Somehow he felt a nervous strain in this complex case (deaf, dumb, demoniac) that we may not quite comprehend.

rwp@Mark:7:36 @{Songs:much the more a great deal they published it} (\autoi mƒllon perissoteron ekˆrusson\). Imperfect tense, continued action. Double comparative as occurs elsewhere for emphasis as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:23| "much more better" (\poll“i mƒllon kreisson\). See Robertson's _Grammar_, pp. 663f. Human nature is a peculiar thing. The command not to tell provoked these people to tell just as the leper had done (Mark:1:44f.|). The more Jesus commanded (\hoson autois diestelleto\) them not to tell the more they told. It was a continuous performance. Prohibitions always affect some people that way, especially superficial and light-headed folks. But we have to have prohibitions or anarchy.

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

rwp@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:9:29 @{Save by prayer} (\ei mˆ en proseuchˆi\). The addition of "and of fasting" does not appear in the two best Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B). It is clearly a late addition to help explain the failure. But it is needless and also untrue. Prayer is what the nine had failed to use. They were powerless because they were prayerless. Their self-complacency spelled defeat. strkjv@Matthew:17:20| has "because of your little faith" (\oligopistian\). That is true also. They had too much faith in themselves, too little in Christ. "They had trusted to the semi-magical power with which they thought themselves invested" (Swete). "Spirits of such malignity were quick to discern the lack of moral power and would yield to no other" (_ibid_.).

rwp@Mark:9:32 @{But they understood not the saying} (\hoi de ˆgnooun to rhˆma\). An old word. Chiefly in Paul's Epistles in the N.T. Imperfect tense. They continued not to understand. They were agnostics on the subject of the death and resurrection even after the Transfiguration experience. As they came down from the mountain they were puzzled again over the Master's allusion to his resurrection (Mark:9:10|). strkjv@Matthew:17:23| notes that "they were exceeding sorry" to hear Jesus talk this way again, but Mark adds that they "were afraid to ask him" (\ephobounto auton eper“tˆsai\). Continued to be afraid (imperfect tense), perhaps with a bitter memory of the term "Satan" hurled at Peter when he protested the other time when Jesus spoke of his death (Mark:8:33; strkjv@Matthew:16:23|). strkjv@Luke:9:45| explains that "it was concealed from them," probably partly by their own preconceived ideas and prejudices.

rwp@Mark:9:41 @{Because ye are Christ's} (\hoti Christou este\). Predicate genitive, belong to Christ. See strkjv@Romans:8:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:12; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:7|. That is the bond of universal brotherhood of the redeemed. It breaks over the lines of nation, race, class, sex, everything. No service is too small, even a cup of cold water, if done for Christ's sake. See on ¯Matthew:18:6f.| for discussion on stumbling-blocks for these little ones that believe on Jesus (Mark:9:42|), a loving term of all believers, not just children.

rwp@Mark:9:44 @The oldest and best manuscripts do not give these two verses. They came in from the Western and Syrian (Byzantine) classes. They are a mere repetition of verse 48|. Hence we lose the numbering 44 and 46 in our verses which are not genuine.

rwp@Matthew:7:9 @{Loaf--stone} (\arton--lithon\). Some stones look like loaves of bread. Songs:the devil suggested that Jesus make loaves out of stones (Matthew:4:3|).

rwp@Matthew:23:24 @{Strain out the gnat} (\diulizontes ton k“n“pa\). By filtering through (\dia\), not the "straining at" in swallowing so crudely suggested by the misprint in the A.V. {Swallow the camel} (\tˆn de kamˆlon katapinontes\). Gulping or drinking down the camel. An oriental hyperbole like that in strkjv@19:24|. See also strkjv@5:29,30; strkjv@17:20; strkjv@21:21|. Both insects and camels were ceremonially unclean (Leviticus:11:4,20,23,42|). "He that kills a flea on the Sabbath is as guilty as if he killed a camel" (Jer. _Shabb._ 107).

rwp@Matthew:23:35 @{Zachariah son of Barachiah} (\Zachariou huiou Barachiou\). Broadus gives well the various alternatives in understanding and explaining the presence of "son of Barachiah" here which is not in strkjv@Luke:11:51|. The usual explanation is that the reference is to Zachariah the son of Jehoiada the priest who was slain in the court of the temple (2Chronicles:24:20ff.|). How the words, "son of Barachiah," got into Matthew we do not know. A half-dozen possibilities can be suggested. In the case of Abel a reckoning for the shedding of his blood was foretold (Genesis:4:10|) and the same thing was true of the slaying of Zachariah (2Chronicles:24:22|).

rwp@Matthew:24:30 @{The sign of the Son of Man in heaven} (\to sˆmeion tou huiou tou anthr“pou en ouran“i\). Many theories have been suggested like the cross in the sky, etc. Bruce sees a reference to strkjv@Daniel:7:13| "one like the Son of man" and holds that Christ himself is the sign in question (the genitive of apposition). This is certainly possible. It is confirmed by the rest of the verse: "They shall see the Son of man coming." See strkjv@Matthew:16:27; strkjv@26:64|. The Jews had repeatedly asked for such a sign (Broadus) as in strkjv@Matthew:12:38; strkjv@16:1; strkjv@John:2:18|.

rwp@Romans:12:9 @{Without hypocrisy} (\anupokritos\). Late double compound adjective for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:6:6|. Hypocritical or pretended love is no love at all as Paul describes \agapˆ\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:13|. {Abhor} (\apostugountes\). Old verb with intensive (\apo\) dislike, only here in N.T. The present active participle is here employed in the sense of the present active indicative as sometimes happens with the independent participle (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1132ff.). This same idiom appears with \koll“menoi\ (cleaving) for which verb see on ¯1Corinthians:6:17|, with \proˆgoumenoi\ (preferring) in verse 10| (old verb here only in N.T.), and with the participles in verses 11-13| and again in verses 16-18|. One can supply \este\ if he prefers.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sat Jun 29 23:35:30 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020