OT-POET.filter - rwp miracle:

rwp@1Corinthians:15:12 @{Is preached} (\krussetai\). Personal use of the verb, Christ is preached. {How say some among you?} (\ps legousin en humin tines?\). The question springs naturally from the proof of the fact of the resurrection of Christ (verses 1-11|) and the continual preaching which Paul here assumes by condition of the first class (\ei--krussetai\). There were sceptics in Corinth, possibly in the church, who denied the resurrection of dead people just as some men today deny that miracles happen or ever did happen. Paul's answer is the resurrection of Christ as a fact. It all turns on this fact.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:12 @{Of an apostle} (\tou apostolou\). "Of the apostle" (definite article). Note the three words here for miracles wrought by Paul (\smeia\, signs, \terata\, wonders, \dunameis\, powers or miracles) as in strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|.

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

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

rwp@John:4:45 @{Songs:when} (\hote oun\). Transitional use of \oun\, sequence, not consequence. {Received him} (\edexanto auton\). First aorist middle of \dechomai\, "welcomed him." Jesus had evidently anticipated a quiet arrival. {Having seen} (\herakotes\). Perfect active participle of \hora\. Note \therountes\ in strkjv@2:23| about this very thing at the feast in Jerusalem. The miracles of Jesus at that first passover made a stir. {For they also went} (\kai autoi gar lthon\). The Samaritans did not go and so Jesus was a new figure to them, but the Galileans, as orthodox Jews, did go and so were predisposed in his favour.

rwp@John:4:46 @{Again} (\palin\). A second time. {Unto Cana} (\eis tn Kana\). Note article, "the Cana of Galilee" already mentioned in strkjv@2:1|. {Where he made the water wine} (\hopou epoisen to hudr oinon\). That outstanding first miracle would still be remembered in Cana and would indicate that Jesus had some friends there. {Nobleman} (\basilikos\). One connected with the king (\basileus\), whether by blood or by office. Probably here it is one of the courtiers of Herod the tetrarch of Galilee, Chuzas (Luke:8:3|), Manaen (Acts:13:1|), or some one else. Some of the manuscripts used \basiliskos\, a petty king, a diminutive of \basileus\. {Was sick} (\sthenei\). Imperfect active of \asthene\ (\a\ privative and \sthenos\, without strength, strkjv@Matthew:25:36|), continued sick. {At Capernaum} (\en Kapharnaoum\). Some miles from Cana near where the Jordan enters the Sea of Galilee.

rwp@John:4:47 @{When he heard} (\akousas\). First aorist active participle of \akou\. The news spread rapidly about Jesus. {Was come} (\hkei\). Present active indicative of \hk\, one of the perfective presents, retained in indirect discourse. He had heard the people talk about the miracles in Jerusalem and the first one in Cana. {Went and besought} (\aplthen kai rta\). Ingressive aorist indicative (went off at once) and imperfect active (\rta\, began to beg and kept it up). {That he would come down} (\hina katabi\, \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \katabain\, come down at once) {and heal his son} (\kai iastai autou ton huion\, \hina\ construction, sub-final use or object clause, with first aorist middle subjunctive of \iaomai\, completely heal). {For he was at the point of death} (\mellen gar apothnskein\). Reason (\gar\) for the urgency. Imperfect active of \mell\ with present active infinitive old and common verb for what is about to be and it is used with the infinitive present as here, the aorist infinitive (Revelation:13:16|), or the future infinitive (Acts:11:28|). The idiom is used of the impending death of Jesus (John:11:51; strkjv@12:33; strkjv@18:32|).

rwp@John:4:48 @{Except ye see} (\ean m idte\). Condition of the third class (\ean m\, negative, with second aorist active subjunctive of \hora\). Jesus is not discounting his "signs and wonders" (\smeia kai terata\, both words together here only in John, though common in N.T. as in strkjv@Matthew:24:24; strkjv@Mark:13:22; strkjv@Acts:2:19,22,43; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:9; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|), though he does seem disappointed that he is in Galilee regarded as a mere miracle worker. {Ye will in no wise believe} (\ou m pisteuste\). Strong double negative with aorist active subjunctive of \pisteu\, picturing the stubborn refusal of people to believe in Christ without miracles.

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

rwp@John:6:3 @{Into the mountain} (\eis to oros\). From the level of the Jordan valley up into the high hill on the eastern side. Mark (Mark:6:46|) and Matthew (Matthew:14:23|) mention that after the miracle Jesus went further up into the mountain to pray. {Sat} (\ekathto\). Imperfect middle of \kathmai\, was sitting, a picture of repose.

rwp@John:6:30 @{For a sign} (\smeion\). Predicate accusative, as a sign, with \ti\ (what). As if the sign of the day before was without value. Jesus had said that they did not understand his signs (verse 26|). {That we may see, and believe thee} (\hina idmen kai pisteusmen\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of \hora\ and the first aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of \pisteu\, "that we may come to see and come to have faith in thee." It is hard to have patience with this superficial and almost sneering mob. {What workest thou?} (\Ti ergazi;\). They not simply depreciate the miracle of the day before, but set up a standard for Jesus.

rwp@John:9:39 @{For judgement} (\eis krima\). The Father had sent the Son for this purpose (3:17|). This world (\kosmos\) is not the home of Jesus. The \krima\ (judgement), a word nowhere else in John, is the result of the \krisis\ (sifting) from \krin\, to separate. The Father has turned over this process of sifting (\krisis\) to the Son (5:22|). He is engaged in that very work by this miracle. {They which see not} (\hoi m blepontes\). The spiritually blind as well as the physically blind (Luke:4:18; strkjv@Isaiah:42:18|). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive \blepsin\ (may keep on seeing). This man now sees physically and spiritually. {And that they which see may become blind} (\kai hoi blepontes tuphloi genntai\). Another part of God's purpose, seen in strkjv@Matthew:11:25; strkjv@Luke:10:21|, is the curse on those who blaspheme and reject the Son. Note ingressive aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ and predicate nominative. \Hoi blepontes\ are those who profess to see like these Pharisees, but are really blind. Blind guides they were (Matthew:23:16|). Complacent satisfaction with their dim light.

rwp@John:11:45 @{Beheld that which he did} (\theasamenoi ho epoisen\). First aorist middle participle of \theaomai\ and first aorist active indicative of \poie\ in the relative (\ho\) clause. They were eye-witnesses of all the details and did not depend on hearsay. {Believed on him} (\episteusan eis auton\). Such a result had happened before (7:31|), and all the more in the presence of this tremendous miracle which held many to Jesus (12:11,17|).

rwp@John:12:1 @{Jesus therefore} (\Isous oun\). Here \oun\ is not causal, but simply copulative and transitional, "and so" (Bernard), as often in John (1:22|, etc.). {Six days before the passover} (\pro hex hmern tou pascha\). This idiom, transposition of \pro\, is like the Latin use of _ante_, but it occurs in the old Doric, in the inscriptions and the papyri. See strkjv@Amos:1:1| for it also (cf. Moulton, _Proleg_., pp. 100ff.; Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 621f.). If the crucifixion was on Friday, as seems certain from both John and the Synoptics, then six days before would be the Jewish Sabbath preceding or more probably the Friday afternoon before, since Jesus would most likely arrive before the Sabbath. Probably we are to put together in one scene for the atmosphere strkjv@John:11:55-57; strkjv@John:12:1, 9-11|. {Came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead} (\tlhen eis Bthanian, hopou n Lazaros, hon geiren ek nekrn Isous\). Each phrase explains the preceding. There is no reason for thinking this a gloss as Bernard does. It was a place of danger now after that great miracle and the consequent rage of the Sanhedrin (12:9-11|). The crowd of eager spectators to see both Lazarus and Jesus would only intensify this rage.

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

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION OF PAUL A PHYSICIAN The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his _Medical Language of St. Luke_ proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_ have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his _Style and Literary Method of Luke_ denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke "the beloved physician" (\ho iatros ho agaptos\, strkjv@Colossians:4:14|), "my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Acts:28:8-10|) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who "came and were healed (\etherapeuonto\) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing (\iasato\), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician's interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark's apparent discredit of physicians (Mark:5:26|) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luke:8:43|).

rwp@Luke:7:13 @{The Lord saw her} (\idn autn ho kurios\). The Lord of Life confronts death (Plummer) and Luke may use \Kurios\ here purposely. {Had compassion} (\esplagchth\). First aorist (ingressive) passive indicative of \splagchnizomai\. Often love and pity are mentioned as the motives for Christ's miracles (Matthew:14:14; strkjv@15:32|, etc.). It is confined to the Synoptics in the N.T. and about Christ save in the parables by Christ. {Weep not} (\m klaie\). Present imperative in a prohibition. Cease weeping.

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

rwp@Luke:23:8 @{Was exceeding glad} (\echar lian\). Second aorist passive indicative of \chair\, ingressive aorist, became glad. {Of a long time} (\ex hikann chronn\). For this idiom see strkjv@8:27; strkjv@20:9; strkjv@Acts:8:11|). {He hoped} (\lpizen\). Imperfect active. He was still hoping. He had long ago gotten over his fright that Jesus was John the Baptist come to life again (9:7-9|). {Done} (\ginomenon\). Present middle participle. He wanted to see a miracle happening like a stunt of a sleight-of-hand performer.

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:5:2 @{Out of the boat} (\ek tou ploiou\). Straightway (\euthus\) Mark says, using the genitive absolute (\exelthontos autou\) and then repeating \auti\ associative instrumental after \apntsen\. The demoniac greeted Jesus at once. Mark and strkjv@Luke:9:27| mention only one man while Matthew notes two demoniacs, perhaps one more violent than the other. Each of the Gospels has a different phrase. Mark has "a man with an unclean spirit" (\en pneumati akatharti\), strkjv@Matthew:8:28| "two possessed with demons" (\duo daimonizomenoi\), strkjv@Luke:8:27| "one having demons" (\tis echn daimonia\). Mark has many touches about this miracle not retained in Matthew and Luke. See on ¯Matthew:8:28|.

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

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

rwp@Mark:6:52 @{For they understood not} (\ou gar sunkan\). Explanation of their excessive amazement, viz., their failure to grasp the full significance of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, a nature miracle. Here was another, Jesus walking on the water. Their reasoning process (\kardia\ in the general sense for all the inner man) {was hardened} (\n peprmen\). See on ¯3:5| about \prsis\. Today some men have such intellectual hardness or denseness that they cannot believe that God can or would work miracles, least of all nature miracles.

rwp@Mark:8:1 @{Had nothing to eat} (\m echontn ti phagsin\). Genitive absolute and plural because \ochlou\ a collective substantive. Not having what to eat (deliberative subjunctive retained in indirect question). The repetition of a nature miracle of feeding four thousand in Decapolis disturbs some modern critics who cannot imagine how Jesus could or would perform another miracle elsewhere so similar to the feeding of the five thousand up near Bethsaida Julias. But both Mark and Matthew give both miracles, distinguish the words for baskets (\kophinos, sphuris\), and both make Jesus later refer to both incidents and use these two words with the same distinction (Mark:8:19f.; strkjv@Matthew:16:9f.|). Surely it is easier to conceive that Jesus wrought two such miracles than to hold that Mark and Matthew have made such a jumble of the whole business.

rwp@Mark:8:12 @{He sighed deeply in his spirit} (\anastenaxas ti 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 dothsetai ti genei tauti smeion\). strkjv@Matthew:16:4| has simply \ou dothsetai\, 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:8:23 @{Brought him out of the village} (\exnegken auton ex ts kms\). It had been a village, but Philip had enlarged it and made it a town or city (\polis\), though still called a village (verses 23,26|). As in the case of the deaf and dumb demoniac given also alone by Mark (Mark:7:31-37|), so here Jesus observes the utmost secrecy in performing the miracle for reasons not given by Mark. It was the season of retirement and Jesus is making the fourth withdrawal from Galilee. That fact may explain it. The various touches here are of interest also. Jesus led him out by the hand, put spittle on his eyes (using the poetical and _Koin_ papyri word \ommata\ instead of the usual \opthalmous\), and laid his hands upon him, perhaps all this to help the man's faith.

rwp@Matthew:7:22 @{Did we not prophesy in thy name?} (\ou ti si onomati eprophteusamen;\). The use of \ou\ in the question expects the affirmative answer. They claim to have prophesied (preached) in Christ's name and to have done many miracles. But Jesus will tear off the sheepskin and lay bare the ravening wolf. "I never knew you" (\oudepote egnn hms\). "I was never acquainted with you" (experimental knowledge). Success, as the world counts it, is not a criterion of one's knowledge of Christ and relation to him. "I will profess unto them" (\homologs autois\), the very word used of profession of Christ before men (Matthew:10:32|). This word Jesus will use for public and open announcement of their doom.

rwp@Matthew:17:20 @{Little faith} (\oligopistian\). A good translation. It was less than "a grain of mustard seed" (\kokkon sinapes\). See strkjv@13:31| for this phrase. They had no miracle faith. Bruce holds "this mountain" to be the Mount of Transfiguration to which Jesus pointed. Probably so. But it is a parable. Our trouble is always with "this mountain" which confronts our path. Note the form \metaba\ (\meta\ and \bthi\).

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

rwp@Matthew:24:24 @{Great signs and wonders} (\smeia megala kai terata\). Two of the three words so often used in the N.T. about the works (\erga\) of Jesus, the other being \dunameis\ (powers). They often occur together of the same work (John:4:48; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@4:30; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:12; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|). \Teras\ is a wonder or prodigy, \dunamis\, a mighty work or power, \smeion\, a sign of God's purpose. Miracle (\miraculum\) presents only the notion of wonder or portent. The same deed can be looked at from these different angles. But the point to note here is that mere "signs and wonders" do not of themselves prove the power of God. These charlatans will be so skilful that they will, {if possible} (\ei dunaton\), lead astray the very elect. The implication is that it is not possible. People become excited and are misled and are unable to judge of results. Often it is _post hoc, sed non propter hoc_. Patent-medicine men make full use of the credulity of people along this line as do spiritualistic mediums. Sleight-of-hand men can deceive the unwary.