OT-POET.filter - rwp ouk:

rwp@1Corinthians:4:4 @{For I know nothing against myself} (\ouden gar emauti sunoida\). Not a statement of fact, but an hypothesis to show the unreliability of mere complacent self-satisfaction. Note the use of \sunoida\ (second perfect active indicative with dative (disadvantage) of the reflexive pronoun) for guilty knowledge against oneself (cf. strkjv@Acts:5:2; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@14:6|). {Yet} (\all'\). Adversative use of \alla\. {Amos:I not hereby justified} (\ouk en touti dedikaimai\). Perfect passive indicative of state of completion. Failure to be conscious of one's own sins does not mean that one is innocent. Most prisoners plead "not guilty." Who is the judge of the steward of the mysteries of God? It is the Lord "that judgeth me" (\ho anakrinn me\). Probably, who examines me and then passes on my fidelity (\pistos\ in verse 2|).

rwp@1Corinthians:4:7 @{Maketh thee to differ} (\se diakrinei\). Distinguishes thee, separates thee. \Diakrin\ means to sift or separate between (\dia\) as in strkjv@Acts:15:9| (which see) where \metaxu\ is added to make it plainer. All self-conceit rests on the notion of superiority of gifts and graces as if they were self-bestowed or self-acquired. {Which thou didst not receive} (\ho ouk elabes\). "Another home-thrust" (Robertson and Plummer). Pride of intellect, of blood, of race, of country, of religion, is thus shut out. {Dost thou glory} (\kauchasai\). The original second person singular middle ending \-sai\ is here preserved with variable vowel contraction, \kauchaesai=kauchasai\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 341). Paul is fond of this old and bold verb for boasting. {As if thou hadst not received it} (\hs m labn\). This neat participial clause (second aorist active of \lamban\) with \hs\ (assumption) and negative \m\ punctures effectually the inflated bag of false pride. What pungent questions Paul has asked. Robertson and Plummer say of Augustine, "Ten years before the challenge of Pelagius, the study of St. Paul's writings, and especially of this verse and of strkjv@Romans:9:16|, had crystallized in his mind the distinctively Augustinian doctrines of man's total depravity, of irresistible grace, and of absolute predestination." Human responsibility does exist beyond a doubt, but there is no foundation for pride and conceit.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:5 @{I say this to move you to shame} (\pros entropn humin leg\). Old word \entrop\ from \entrep\, to turn in (1Corinthians:4:14| which see). In N.T. only here and strkjv@15:34|. {One wise man} (\sophos\). From sarcasm to pathos Paul turns. {Does there not exist} (\eni\, short form for \enesti\)? With double negative \ouk--oudeis\, expecting the answer yes. Surely {one} such man exists in the church. {Who} (\hos\). Almost consecutive in idea, of such wisdom that he will be able. {To decide between his brethren} (\diakrinai ana meson tou adelphou autou\). \Krinai\ is to judge or decide (first aorist active infinitive of \krin\ and \dia\ (two) carries on the idea of between. Then \ana meson\ makes it still plainer, in the midst as {arbitrator} between brother and brother like \ana meson emou kai sou\ (Genesis:23:15|). It is even so a condensed expression with part of it unexpressed (\ana meson kai tou adelphou autou\) between brother and his brother. The use of \adelphos\ has a sharp reflection on them for their going to heathen judges to settle disputes between brothers in Christ.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:15 @{False witnesses of God} (\pseudomartures tou theou\). Late word, but \pseudomarture\, to bear false witness, old and common. The genitive (\tou theou\) can be either subjective (in God's service) or objective (concerning God). Either makes good sense. {Because we witnessed of God} (\hoti emartursamen kata tou theou\). Vulgate has _adversus Deum_. This is the more natural way to take \kata\ and genitive, {against God} not as equal to \peri\ (concerning). He would indeed make God play false in that case, {if so be that the dead are not raised} (\eiper ara nekroi ouk egeirontai\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. Note both \per\ intensive particle {indeed} and \ara\ inferential particle {therefore}.

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:1 @{When we could no longer forbear} (\mketi stegontes\). \Steg\ is old verb to cover from \steg\, roof (Mark:2:4|), to cover with silence, to conceal, to keep off, to endure as here and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:12; strkjv@13:7|. In the papyri in this sense (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). \Mketi\ usual negative with participle in the _Koin_ rather than \ouketi\. {We thought it good} (\udoksamen\). Either literary plural as in strkjv@2:18| or Paul and Silas as more likely. If so, both Timothy and Silas came to Athens (Acts:17:15f.|), but Timothy was sent ({we sent}, \epempsamen\, verse 2|) right back to Thessalonica and later Paul sent Silas on to Beroea or Thessalonica (verse 5|, {I sent}, \epempsa\). Then both Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia to Corinth (Acts:18:5|). {Alone} (\monoi\). Including Silas. {God's minister} (\diakonon tou theou\). See on ¯Matthew:22:13| for this interesting word, here in general sense not technical sense of deacon. Some MSS. have {fellow-worker} (\sunergon\). Already {apostle} in strkjv@2:7| and now {brother, minister} (and possibly {fellow-worker}).

rwp@2Corinthians:12:3 @{I do not know} (\ouk oida\). Paul declines to pass on his precise condition in this trance. We had best leave it as he has told it.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:4 @{Into Paradise} (\eis paradeison\). See on ¯Luke:23:43| for this interesting word. Paul apparently uses paradise as the equivalent of the third heaven in verse 2|. Some Jews (_Book of the Secrets of Enoch_, chapter viii) make Paradise in the third heaven. The rabbis had various ideas (two heavens, three, seven). We need not commit Paul to any "celestial gradation" (Vincent). {Unspeakable words} (\arrta rmata\). Old verbal adjective (\a\ privative, \rtos\ from \re\), only here in N.T. {Not lawful} (\ouk exon\). Copula \estin\ omitted. Hence Paul does {not} give these words.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:6 @{I shall not be foolish} (\ouk esomai aphrn\). Apparent contradiction to strkjv@11:1,16|. But he is here speaking of the Paul "caught up" in case he should tell the things heard (condition of the third class, \ean\ and first aorist subjunctive \thels\). {Of me} (\eis eme\). To my credit, almost like dative (cf. \en emoi\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:11|).

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

rwp@2John:1:12 @{I would not} (\ouk eboulthn\). Epistolary aorist (first passive indicative). {With paper and ink} (\dia chartou kai melanos\). The \charts\ was a leaf of papyrus prepared for writing by cutting the pith into strips and pasting together, old word (Jeremiah:43:23|), here only in N.T. \Melas\ is old adjective for black (Matthew:5:36; strkjv@Revelation:6:5,12|), and for black ink here, strkjv@3John:1:13; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:3|. Apparently John wrote this little letter with his own hand. {To come} (\genesthai\). Second aorist middle infinitive of \ginomai\ after \elpiz\, I hope. {Face to face} (\stoma pros stoma\). "Mouth to mouth." Songs:in strkjv@3John:1:14; strkjv@Numbers:12:8|. "Face to face" (\prospon pros prospon\) we have in strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|. {Your} (\humn\). Or "our" (\hmn\). Both true. {That may be fulfilled} (\hina peplrmen i\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive of \plro\, as in strkjv@1John:1:4|, which see.

rwp@2Peter:1:8 @{For if these things are yours and abound} (\tauta gar humin huparchonta kai pleonazonta\). Present active circumstantial (conditional) participles neuter plural of \huparch\ and \pleonaz\ (see strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:12|) with dative case \humin\, "these things existing for you (or in you) and abounding." {They make you to be} (\kathistsin\). "Render" (present active indicative of \kathistmi\, old verb, strkjv@James:3:6|), singular because \tauta\ neuter plural. {Not idle nor unfruitful} (\ouk argous oude akarpous\). Accusative predicative plural with \humas\ understood, both adjectives with alpha privative, for \argos\ see strkjv@James:2:20| and for \akarpos\ strkjv@Matthew:13:22|. {Knowledge} (\epignsin\). "Full (additional) knowledge" as in strkjv@1:2|.

rwp@2Peter:2:4 @{For if God spared not} (\ei gar ho theos ouk epheisato\). First instance (\gar\) of certain doom, that of the fallen angels. Condition of the first class precisely like that in strkjv@Romans:11:21| save that here the normal apodosis (\humn ou pheisetai\) is not expressed as there, but is simply implied in verse 9| by \oiden kurios ruesthai\ (the Lord knows how to deliver) after the parenthesis in verse 8|. {Angels when they sinned} (\aggeln hamartsantn\). Genitive case after \epheisato\ (first aorist middle indicative of \pheidomai\) and anarthrous (so more emphatic, even angels), first aorist active participle of \hamartan\, "having sinned." {Cast them down to hell} (\tartarsas\). First aorist active participle of \tartaro\, late word (from \tartaros\, old word in Homer, Pindar, LXX strkjv@Job:40:15; strkjv@41:23|, Philo, inscriptions, the dark and doleful abode of the wicked dead like the Gehenna of the Jews), found here alone save in a scholion on Homer. \Tartaros\ occurs in Enoch strkjv@20:2 as the place of punishment of the fallen angels, while Gehenna is for apostate Jews. {Committed} (\paredken\). First aorist active indicative of \paradidmi\, the very form solemnly used by Paul in strkjv@Romans:1:21,26,28|. {To pits of darkness} (\seirois zophou\). \Zophos\ (kin to \gnophos, nephos\) is an old word, blackness, gloom of the nether world in Homer, in N.T. only here, verse 17; strkjv@Jude:1:13; strkjv@Hebrews:12:18|. The MSS. vary between \seirais\ (\seira\, chain or rope) and \seirois\ (\seiros\, old word for pit, underground granary). \Seirois\ is right (Aleph A B C), dative case of destination. {To be reserved unto judgment} (\eis krisin troumenous\). Present (linear action) passive participle of \tre\. "Kept for judgment." Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:4|. Aleph A have \kolazomenous trein\ as in verse 9|. Note \krisis\ (act of judgment).

rwp@Acts:8:30 @{Understandest thou what thou readest?} (\Ara ge ginskeis ha anaginskeis?\) The interrogative particle \ara\ and the intensive particle \ge\ indicate doubt on Philip's part. The play (\paranomasia\) upon the words in the Greek is very neat: {Do you know what you know again (read)?} The verb for read (\anaginsko\) means to know the letters again, recognize, read. The famous comment of Julian about the Christian writings is often quoted: \Anegnn, egnn, kategnn\ (I read, I understood, I condemned). The keen retort was: \Anegns, all'ouk egns, ei gar egns, ouk an kategns\ (You read, but did not understand; for if you had understood, you would not have condemned).

rwp@Acts:20:31 @{Wherefore watch ye} (\dio grgoreite\). Paul has concluded his defence of himself and his warning. Now he exhorts on the basis of it (\dio\) because of which thing. The very command of Jesus concerning the perils before his return as in strkjv@Mark:13:35| (\grgoreite\), the very form (late present imperative from the second perfect \egrgora\ of \egeir\, to arouse). Stay awake. {I ceased not to admonish} (\ouk epausamn nouthetn\). Participle describes Paul, I did not cease admonishing, night and day (\nukta kai hmeran\, accusative of extent of time, for three years \trietian\, accusative of extent of time also). \Nouthetn\ is from \nouthete\, to put sense into one. Songs:Paul kept it up with tears (verse 19|) if so be he could save the Ephesians from the impending perils. Forewarned is to be forearmed. Paul did his duty by them.

rwp@Acts:21:37 @{May I say something unto thee?} (\Ei exestin moi eipein ti pros se?\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. The calm self-control of Paul in the presence of this mob is amazing. His courteous request to Lysias was in Greek to the chiliarch's amazement. {Dost thou know Greek?} (\Hellnisti ginskeis?\). Old Greek adverb in \-i\ from \Hellniz\, meaning "in Greek." "Do you know it in Greek?" In the N.T. only here and strkjv@John:19:20|. {Art thou not then the Egyptian?} (\Ouk ara su ei ho Aiguptios?\). Expects the answer _Yes_ and \ara\ argues the matter (therefore). The well-known (\ho\) Egyptian who had given the Romans so much trouble. {Stirred up to sedition} (\anastatsas\). First aorist active participle of \anastato\, a late verb from \anastatos\, outcast, and so to unsettle, to stir up, to excite, once known only in LXX and strkjv@Acts:17:6| (which see); strkjv@21:38; strkjv@Galatians:5:12|, but now found in several papyri examples with precisely this sense to upset. {Of the Assassins} (\tn sikarin\). Latin word _sicarius_, one who carried a short sword \sica\ under his cloak, a cutthroat. Josephus uses this very word for bands of robbers under this Egyptian (_War_ II. 17,6 and 13,5; _Ant_. XX. 8,10). Josephus says that there were 30,000 who gathered on the Mount of Olives to see the walls of Jerusalem fall down and not merely 4,000 as Lysias does here. But Lysias may refer to the group that were armed thus (banditti) the core of the mob of 30,000. Lysias at once saw by Paul's knowledge of Greek that he was not the famous Egyptian who led the Assassins and escaped himself when Felix attacked and slew the most of them.

rwp@Acts:21:39 @{I am} (\Eg men eimi\). In contrast with the wild guess of Lysias Paul uses \men\ and \de\. He tells briefly who he is: {a Jew} (\Ioudaios\) by race, {of Tarsus in Cilicia} (\Tarseus ts Kilikias\) by country, belonging to Tarsus (this adjective \Tarseus\ only here and strkjv@Acts:9:11|), and proud of it, one of the great cities of the empire with a great university. {A citizen of no mean city} (\ouk asmou poles polits\). Litotes again, "no mean" (\asmos\, old adjective, unmarked, \a\ privative and \sma\, mark, insignificant, here only in the N.T.). This same litotes used by Euripides of Athens (_Ion_ 8). But Paul calls himself a citizen (\polits\) of Tarsus. Note the "effective assonance" (Page) in \poles polits\. Paul now (\de\) makes his request (\deomai\) of Lysias. {Give me leave} (\epitrepson moi\). First aorist active imperative of \epitrep\, old and common verb to turn to, to permit, to allow. It was a strange request and a daring one, to wish to speak to this mob howling for Paul's blood.

rwp@Acts:22:9 @{But they heard not the voice} (\tn de phnn ouk kousan\). The accusative here may be used rather than the genitive as in verse 7| to indicate that those with Paul did not understand what they heard (9:7|) just as they beheld the light (22:9|), but did not see Jesus (9:7|). The difference in cases allows this distinction, though it is not always observed as just noticed about strkjv@22:14; strkjv@26:14|. The verb \akou\ is used in the sense of understand (Mark:4:33; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:2|). It is one of the evidences of the genuineness of this report of Paul's speech that Luke did not try to smooth out apparent discrepancies in details between the words of Paul and his own record already in ch. 9. The Textus Receptus adds in this verse: "And they became afraid" (\kai emphoboi egenonto\). Clearly not genuine.

rwp@Acts:22:11 @{I could not see} (\ouk eneblepon\). Imperfect active of \emblep\, I was not seeing, same fact stated in strkjv@9:8|. Here the reason as "for the glory of that light" (\apo ts doxs tou phtos ekeinou\). {Being led by the hand} (\cheiraggoumenos\). Present passive participle of \cheiragge\, the same verb used in strkjv@9:8| (\cheiraggountes\) which see. Late verb, in the N.T. only in these two places. In LXX.

rwp@Acts:23:5 @{I wist not} (\ouk idein\). Second past perfect of \oida\ used as an imperfect. The Greek naturally means that Paul did not know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his mouth. If this view is taken, several things may be said by way of explanation. The high priest may not have had on his official dress as the meeting was called hurriedly by Lysias. Paul had been away so long that he may not have known Ananias on sight. And then Paul may have had poor eyesight or the high priest may not have been sitting in the official seat. Another way of explaining it is to say that Paul was so indignant, even angry, at the command that he spoke without considering who it was that gave the order. The Greek allows this idea also. At any rate Paul at once recognizes the justice of the point made against him. He had been guilty of irreverence against the office of high priest as the passage from strkjv@Exodus:22:18| (LXX) shows and confesses his fault, but the rebuke was deserved. Jesus did not threaten (1Peter:2:23|) when smitten on the cheek (John:18:22|), but he did protest against the act and did not turn the other cheek.

rwp@Acts:25:7 @{When he was come} (\paragenomenou autou\). Genitive absolute of common verb \paraginomai\ (cf. strkjv@24:24|). {Which had come down} (\hoi katabebkotes\). Perfect active participle of \katabain\. They had come down on purpose at the invitation of Festus (verse 5|), and were now ready. {Stood round about him} (\periestsan auton\). Second aorist (ingressive) active (intransitive) of \periistmi\, old verb, "Took their stand around him," "_periculum intentantes_" (Bengel). Cf. strkjv@Luke:23:10| about Christ. They have no lawyer this time, but they mass their forces so as to impress Festus. {Bringing against him} (\katapherontes\). Bearing down on. See on ¯20:9; strkjv@26:10|, only N.T. examples of this ancient verb. {Many and grievous charges} (\polla kai barea aitimata\). This word \aitima\ for old form \aitiama\ is found in one papyrus (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) in sense of "blame." But the charges were no "heavier" than those made by Tertullus (24:5-8|). Paul's reply proves this and they were also probably on court record (Furneaux). See this adjective \barus\ (heavy) used with \lukoi\ (wolves) in strkjv@20:29|. {Which they could not prove} (\ha ouk ischuon apodeixai\). Imperfect active of \ischu\, to have strength or power as in strkjv@19:16,20|. Repetition and reiteration and vehemence took the place of proof (\apodeixai\, first aorist active infinitive of \apodeiknumi\, to show forth, old verb, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:2:22| which see and strkjv@1Corinthians:4:9|).

rwp@Acts:25:16 @{It is not the custom of the Romans} (\hoti ouk estin ethos Rmaiois\). If a direct quotation, \hoti\ is recitative as in Authorized Version. Canterbury Revision takes it as indirect discourse after \apekrithn\ (I answered), itself in a relative clause (\pros hous\) with the present tense (\estin\, is) preserved as is usual. There is a touch of disdain (Furneaux) in the tone of Festus. He may refer to a demand of the Jews before they asked that Paul be brought to Jerusalem (25:3|). At any rate there is a tone of scorn towards the Jews. {Before that the accused have} (\prin ho katgoroumenos echoi\). This use of the optative in this temporal clause with \prin \ instead of the subjunctive \an echi\ is in conformity with literary Greek and occurs only in Luke's writings in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 970). This sequence of modes is a mark of the literary style occasionally seen in Luke. It is interesting here to note the succession of dependent clauses in verses 14-16|. {The accusers face to face} (\kata prospon tous katgorous\). Same word \katgoros\ as in strkjv@23:30,35; strkjv@25:18|. This all sounds fair enough. {And have had opportunity to make his defence concerning the matter laid against him} (\topon te apologias laboi peri tou egklmatos\). Literally, "And should receive (\laboi\ optative for same reason as \echoi\ above, second aorist active of \lamban\) opportunity for defence (objective genitive) concerning the charge" (\egklmatos\ in N.T. only here and strkjv@23:19| which see).

rwp@Ephesians:5:4 @{Filthiness} (\aischrots\). Old word from \aischros\ (base), here alone in N.T. {Foolish talking} (\mrologia\). Late word from \mrologos\ (\mros, logos\), only here in N.T. {Jesting} (\eutrapelia\). Old word from \eutrapelos\ (\eu, trep\, to turn) nimbleness of wit, quickness in making repartee (so in Plato and Plutarch), but in low sense as here ribaldry, scurrility, only here in N.T. All of these disapproved vices are \hapax legomena\ in the N.T. {Which are not befitting} (\ha ouk anken\). Same idiom (imperfect with word of propriety about the present) in strkjv@Colossians:3:18|. Late MSS. read \ta ouk ankonta\ like \ta m kathkonta\ in strkjv@Romans:1:28|.

rwp@James:1:17 @{Gift} (\dosis\) {--boon} (\drma\). Both old substantives from the same original verb (\didmi\), to give. \Dosis\ is the act of giving (ending \-sis\), but sometimes by metonymy for the thing given like \ktisis\ for \ktisma\ (Colossians:1:15|). But \drma\ (from \dre\, from \dron\ a gift) only means a gift, a benefaction (Romans:5:16|). The contrast here argues for "giving" as the idea in \dosis\. Curiously enough there is a perfect hexameter line here: \psa do / sis aga / th kai / pn d / rma te / leion\. Such accidental rhythm occurs occasionally in many writers. Ropes (like Ewald and Mayor) argues for a quotation from an unknown source because of the poetical word \drma\, but that is not conclusive. {From above} (\anthen\). That is, from heaven. Cf. strkjv@John:3:31; strkjv@19:11|. {Coming down} (\katabainon\). Present active neuter singular participle of \katabain\ agreeing with \drma\, expanding and explaining \anthen\ (from above). {From the Father of lights} (\apo tou patros tn phtn\). "Of the lights" (the heavenly bodies). For this use of \patr\ see strkjv@Job:38:28| (Father of rain); strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17|. God is the Author of light and lights. {With whom} (\par' hi\). For \para\ (beside) with locative sense for standpoint of God see \para ti thei\ (Mark:10:27; strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@9:14; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9|. {Can be no} (\ouk eni\). This old idiom (also in strkjv@Galatians:3:28; strkjv@Colossians:3:11|) may be merely the original form of \en\ with recessive accent (Winer, Mayor) or a shortened form of \enesti\. The use of \eni en\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:5| argues for this view, as does the use of \eine\ (\einai\) in Modern Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 313). {Variation} (\parallag\). Old word from \parallass\, to make things alternate, here only in N.T. In Aristeas in sense of alternate stones in pavements. Dio Cassius has \parallaxis\ without reference to the modern astronomical parallax, though James here is comparing God (Father of the lights) to the sun (Malachi:4:2|), which does have periodic variations. {Shadow that is cast by turning} (\trops aposkiasma\). \Trop\ is an old word for "turning" (from \trep\ to turn), here only in N.T. \Aposkiasma\ is a late and rare word (\aposkiasmos\ in Plutarch) from \aposkiaz\ (\apo, skia\) a shade cast by one object on another. It is not clear what the precise metaphor is, whether the shadow thrown on the dial (\aposkiaz\ in Plato) or the borrowed light of the moon lost to us as it goes behind the earth. In fact, the text is by no means certain, for Aleph B papyrus of fourth century actually read \h trops aposkiasmatos\ (the variation of the turning of the shadow). Ropes argues strongly for this reading, and rather convincingly. At any rate there is no such periodic variation in God like that we see in the heavenly bodies.

rwp@James:1:25 @{He that looketh into} (\ho parakupsas\). First aorist active articular participle of \parakupt\, old verb, to stoop and look into (John:20:5,11|), to gaze carefully by the side of, to peer into or to peep into (1Peter:1:12|). Here the notion of beside (\para\) or of stooping (\kupt\) is not strong. Sometimes, as Hort shows, the word means only a cursory glance, but the contrast with verse 24| seems to preclude that here. {The perfect law} (\nomon teleion\). For \teleion\ see strkjv@1:17|. See strkjv@Romans:7:12| for Paul's idea of the law of God. James here refers to the word of truth (1:18|), the gospel of grace (Galatians:6:2; strkjv@Romans:12:2|). {The law of liberty} (\ton ts eleutherias\). "That of liberty," explaining why it is "perfect" (2:12| also), rests on the work of Christ, whose truth sets us free (John:8:32; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:16; strkjv@Romans:8:2|). {And so continueth} (\kai parameinas\). First aorist active articular participle again of \paramen\, parallel with \parakupsas\. \Paramen\ is to stay beside, and see strkjv@Phillipians:1:25| for contrast with the simplex \men\. {Being} (\genomenos\). Rather, "having become" (second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\ to become). {Not a hearer that forgetteth} (\ouk akroats epilsmons\). "Not a hearer of forgetfulness" (descriptive genitive, marked by forgetfulness). \Epilsmon\ is a late and rare word (from \epilsmn\, forgetful, from \epilanthomai\, to forget, as in verse 24|), here only in N.T. {But a doer that worketh} (\alla poits ergou\). "But a doer of work," a doer marked by work (descriptive genitive \ergou\), not by mere listening or mere talk. {In his doing} (\en ti poisei autou\). Another beatitude with \makarios\ as in strkjv@1:12|, like the Beatitudes in strkjv@Matthew:5:3-12|. \Poisis\ is an old word (from \poie\ for the act of doing), only here in N.T.

rwp@James:2:21 @{Justified by works} (\ex ergn edikaith\). First aorist passive indicative of \dikaio\ (see Galatians and Romans for this verb, to declare righteous, to set right) in a question with \ouk\ expecting an affirmative answer. This is the phrase that is often held to be flatly opposed to Paul's statement in strkjv@Romans:4:1-5|, where Paul pointedly says that it was the faith of Abraham (Romans:4:9|) that was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, not his works. But Paul is talking about the faith of Abraham before his circumcision (4:10|) as the basis of his being set right with God, which faith is symbolized in the circumcision. James makes plain his meaning also. {In that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar} (\anenegkas Isaak ton huion autou epi to thusiastrion\). They use the same words, but they are talking of different acts. James points to the offering (\anenegkas\ second aorist--with first aorist ending--active participle of \anapher\) of Isaac on the altar (Genesis:22:16f.|) as _proof_ of the faith that Abraham already had. Paul discusses Abraham's faith as the basis of his justification, that and not his circumcision. There is no contradiction at all between James and Paul. Neither is answering the other. Paul may or may not have seen the Epistle of James, who stood by him loyally in the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|).

rwp@John:1:10 @{He was in the world} (\en ti kosmi n\). Imperfect tense of continuous existence in the universe before the Incarnation as in verses 1,2|. {Was made by him} (\di' autou egeneto\). "Through him." Same statement here of "the world" (\ho kosmos\) as that made in verse 3| of \panta\. {Knew him not} (\auton ouk egn\). Second aorist active indicative of common verb \ginosk\, what Gildersleeve called a negative aorist, refused or failed to recognize him, his world that he had created and that was held together by him (Colossians:1:16|). Not only did the world fail to know the Pre-incarnate Logos, but it failed to recognize him when he became Incarnate (John:1:26|). Two examples in this sentence of John's fondness for \kai\ as in verses 1,4,5,14|, the paratactic rather than the hypotactic construction, like the common Hebrew use of _wav_.

rwp@John:1:20 @{And he confessed} (\kai hmologsen\). The continued paratactic use of \kai\ (and) and the first aorist active indicative of \homologe\, old verb from \homologos\ (\homon, leg\, to say the same thing), to confess, in the Synoptics (Matthew:10:32|) as here. {And denied not} (\kai ouk rnsato\). Negative statement of same thing in Johannine fashion, first aorist middle indicative of \arneomai\, another Synoptic and Pauline word (Matthew:10:33; strkjv@2Timothy:2:12|). He did not contradict or refuse to say who he was. {And he confessed} (\kai hmologsen\). Thoroughly Johannine again in the paratactic repetition. {I am not the Christ} (\Eg ouk eimi ho Christos\). Direct quotation again with recitative \hoti\ before it like our modern quotation marks. "I am not the Messiah," he means by \ho Christos\ (the Anointed One). Evidently it was not a new question as Luke had already shown (Luke:3:15|).

rwp@John:1:21 @{And they asked him} (\kai rtsan auton\). Here the paratactic \kai\ is like the transitional \oun\ (then). {What then?} (\Ti oun;\). Argumentative \oun\ like Paul's \ti oun\ in strkjv@Romans:6:15|. _Quid ergo?_ {Art thou Elijah?} (\Su Elias ei;\). The next inevitable question since Elijah had been understood to be the forerunner of the Messiah from strkjv@Malachi:4:5|. In strkjv@Mark:9:11f.| Jesus will identify John with the Elijah of Malachi's prophecy. Why then does John here flatly deny it? Because the expectation was that Elijah would return in person. This John denies. Jesus only asserts that John was Elijah in spirit. Elijah in person they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration. {He saith} (\legei\). Vivid dramatic present. {I am not} (\ouk eimi\). Short and blunt denial. {Art thou the prophet?} (\ho prophts ei su;\). "The prophet art thou?" This question followed naturally the previous denials. Moses (Deuteronomy:18:15|) had spoken of a prophet like unto himself. Christians interpreted this prophet to be the Messiah (Acts:3:22; strkjv@7:37|), but the Jews thought him another forerunner of the Messiah (John:7:40|). It is not clear in strkjv@John:6:15| whether the people identified the expected prophet with the Messiah, though apparently so. Even the Baptist later became puzzled in prison whether Jesus himself was the true Messiah or just one of the forerunners (Luke:7:19|). People wondered about Jesus himself whether he was the Messiah or just one of the looked for prophets (Mark:8:28; strkjv@Matthew:16:14|). {And he answered} (\kai apekrith\). First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense of voice gone) indicative of \apokrinomai\, to give a decision from myself, to reply. {No} (\Ou\). Shortest possible denial.

rwp@John:3:20 @{That doeth ill} (\ho phaula prassn\). The word \phaulos\ means first worthless and then wicked (usually so in N.T.) and both senses occur in the papyri. In strkjv@5:29| see contrast between \agatha poie\ (doing good things) and \phaula prass\ (practising evil things). {Hateth the light} (\misei to phs\). Hence talks against it, ridicules Christ, Christianity, churches, preachers, etc. Does it in talk, magazines, books, in a supercilious tone of sheer ignorance. {Cometh not to the light} (\ouk erchetai pros to phs\). The light hurts his eyes, reveals his own wickedness, makes him thoroughly uncomfortable. Hence he does not read the Bible, he does not come to church, he does not pray. He goes on in deeper darkness. {Lest his works should be reproved} (\hina m elegchthi ta erga autou\). Negative final clause (\hina m\) with first aorist passive subjunctive of \elegch\, old word to correct a fault, to reprove, to convict. See also strkjv@8:46; strkjv@16:8|. To escape this unpleasant process the evil man cuts out Christ.

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

rwp@John:4:42 @{Not because of thy speaking} (\ouketi dia tn sn lalian\). "No longer because of thy talk," good and effective as that was. \Lalia\ (cf. \lale\) is talk, talkativeness, mode of speech, one's vernacular, used by Jesus of his own speech (John:8:43|). {We have heard} (\akkoamen\). Perfect active indicative of \akou\, their abiding experience. {For ourselves} (\autoi\). Just "ourselves." {The Saviour of the world} (\ho str tou kosmou\). See strkjv@Matthew:1:21| for ssei used of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term \str\ to Jesus again in strkjv@1John:4:14|. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (verse 22|). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (verse 26|) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews. Sanday thinks that probably John puts this epithet of Saviour in the mouth of the Samaritans, but adds: "At the same time it is possible that such an epithet might be employed by them merely as synonymous with Messiah." But why "merely"? Was it not natural for these Samaritans who took Jesus as their "Saviour," Jew as he was, to enlarge the idea to the whole world? Bernard has this amazing statement on strkjv@John:4:42|: "That in the first century Messiah was given the title str is not proven." The use of "saviour and god" for Ptolemy in the third century B.C. is well known. "The ample materials collected by Magie show that the full title of honour, Saviour of the world, with which St. John adorns the Master, was bestowed with sundry variations in the Greek expression on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, and other Emperors in inscriptions in the Hellenistic East" (Deissmann, _Light_, etc., p. 364). Perhaps Bernard means that the Jews did not call Messiah Saviour. But what of it? The Romans so termed their emperors and the New Testament so calls Christ (Luke:2:11; strkjv@John:4:42; strkjv@Acts:5:31; strkjv@3:23; strkjv@Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23; strkjv@Titus:1:4; strkjv@2:13; strkjv@3:6; strkjv@2Timothy:1:10; strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11; strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|). All these are writings of the first century A.D. The Samaritan villagers rise to the conception that he was the Saviour of the world.

rwp@John:4:44 @{For Jesus himself testified} (\autos gar Isous emartursen\). John's explanation of the conduct of Jesus by quoting a proverb often used by Jesus (Mark:6:4; strkjv@Matthew:13:57; strkjv@Luke:4:24| in reference to Nazareth), but not necessarily used by Jesus on this occasion. A similar proverb has been found in Plutarch, Pliny, Seneca. {A prophet hath no honour in his own country} (\prophts en ti idii patridi timn ouk echei\). What is meant by \patridi\? In the Synoptics (Luke:4:24; strkjv@Mark:6:4; strkjv@Matthew:13:57|) the reference is to Nazareth where he was twice rejected. But what has John in mind in quoting it here? He probably knew the quotations in the Synoptics. Does John refer to Judea by "his own country"? If so, the application hardly fits for he had already explained that Jesus was leaving Judea because he was too popular there (4:1-3|). If he means Galilee, he immediately mentions the cordial welcome accorded Jesus there (verse 45|). But even so this is probably John's meaning for he is speaking of the motive of Jesus in going into Galilee where he had not yet laboured and where he apparently had no such fame as in Judea and now in Samaria.

rwp@John:5:31 @{If I bear witness of myself} (\Ean eg martur peri emautou\). Condition of third class, undetermined with prospect of determination (\ean\ and present active subjunctive of \marture\). The emphasis is on \eg\ (I alone with no other witness). {Is not true} (\ouk estin alths\). In law the testimony of a witness is not received in his own case (Jewish, Greek, Roman law). See strkjv@Deuteronomy:19:15| and the allusion to it by Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:18:16|. See also strkjv@2Corinthians:13:1; strkjv@1Timothy:5:19|. And yet in strkjv@8:12-19| Jesus claims that his witness concerning himself is true because the Father gives confirmation of his message. The Father and the Son are the two witnesses (8:17|). It is a paradox and yet true. But here Jesus yields to the rabbinical demand for proof outside of himself. He has the witness of another (the Father, strkjv@5:32,37|), the witness of the Baptist (5:33|), the witness of the works of Jesus (5:36|), the witness of the Scriptures (5:39|), the witness of Moses in particular (5:45|).

rwp@John:5:40 @{And ye will not come to me} (\kai ou thelete elthein pros me\). "And yet" (\kai\) as often in John. "This is the tragedy of the rejection of Messiah by the Messianic race" (Bernard). See strkjv@John:1:11; strkjv@Matthew:23:37| (\kai ouk thelsate\, and ye would not). Men loved darkness rather than light (John:3:19|). {That ye may have life} (\hina zn echte\). Life in its simplest form as in strkjv@3:36| (cf. strkjv@3:16|). This is the purpose of John in writing the Fourth Gospel (20:31|). There is life only in Christ Jesus.

rwp@John:6:17 @{Were going} (\rchonto\). Picturesque imperfect. {It was now dark} (\skotia d egegonei\). Past perfect active of \ginomai\. While they were going, "darkness had already come." {And Jesus had not yet come to them} (\kai ouk elluthei pros autous ho Isous\). Another past perfect active of \erchomai\ with negative \oup\. Darkness had come, but Jesus had not come, while they were going over the sea. The tenses in these verses are very graphic.

rwp@John:6:24 @{When the multitude therefore saw} (\hote oun eiden ho ochlos\). Resumption and clarification of the complicated statements of verse 22|. {That Jesus was not there} (\hoti Isous ouk estin ekei\). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. They still did not understand how Jesus had crossed over, but they acted on the basis of the plain fact. {They themselves got into} (\enebsan autoi eis\). Second aorist active indicative of \embain\ followed by \eis\ (both \en\ and \eis\ together as often in N.T.). {Seeking Jesus} (\ztountes ton Isoun\). Present active participle of \zte\. They had a double motive apart from the curiosity explained in verse 22|. They had clearly not given up the impulse of the evening before to make Jesus king (6:15|) and they had hopes of still another bountiful repast at the hands of Jesus as he said (6:26|).

rwp@John:9:31 @{God does not hear sinners} (\ho theos hamartln ouk akouei\). Note genitive case with \akouei\. This was the argument of the Pharisees in strkjv@9:16|. It is frequent in the O.T. (Job:27:9; strkjv@Psalms:66:18; strkjv@Isaiah:1:15; strkjv@59:2|, etc.). The conclusion is inevitable from this premise. Jesus is not \hamartlos\. {If any man be a worshipper of God} (\ean tis theosebs i\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and present active subjunctive \i\. \Theosebs\ (\theos\, God, \sebomai\, to worship) is an old compound adjective, here alone in the N.T. {And do his will} (\kai to thelma autou poiei\). Same condition with present active subjunctive of \poie\, "keep on doing his will."

rwp@John:9:33 @{If this man were not from God} (\ei m n houtos para theou\). Negative condition of second class with imperfect indicative. Assuming that Jesus is not "from God" (\para theou\) as some argued in strkjv@9:16|, "he could do nothing" (\ouk dunato poiein ouden\). Conclusion of the second-class condition with imperfect indicative (double augment in \dunato\) without \an\ as is usual in conditions of possibility, propriety, obligation (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 920,1014). The man has scored with terrific power in his use of Scripture and logic.

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

rwp@John:11:21 @{Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died} (\Kurie, ei s hde ouk an apethanen ho adelphos mou\). Condition of the second class with \ei\ and the imperfect \s\ (no aorist of \eimi\, to be) in the condition and \an\ with the second aorist active indicative of \apothnsk\. Mary (verse 32|) uses these identical words to Jesus. Clearly they had said so to each other with wistful longing if not with a bit of reproach for his delay. But they used \s\, not \lthes\ or \egenou\. But busy, practical Martha comes to the point.

rwp@John:11:37 @{Could not this man} (\ouk edunato houtos\). Imperfect middle of \dunamai\. They do not say \dunatai\ (can, present middle indicative). But clearly the opening of the blind man's eyes (chapter 9) had made a lasting impression on some of these Jews, for it was done three months ago. {Have caused that this man also should not die} (\poisai hina kai houtos m apothani\). First aorist active infinitive of \poie\ with \hina\, like the Latin _facere ut_ (sub-final use, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 985), with the second aorist active subjunctive \apothani\ and negative \m\. These Jews share the view expressed by Martha (verse 21|) and Mary (verse 32|) that Jesus could have {prevented} the death of Lazarus.

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

rwp@John:11:49 @{Caiaphas} (\Kaiaphas\). Son-in-law of Annas and successor and high priest for 18 years (A.D. 18 to 36). {That year} (\tou eniautou ekeinou\). Genitive of time; his high-priesthood included that year (A.D. 29 or 30). Songs:he took the lead at this meeting. {Ye know nothing at all} (\humeis ouk oidate ouden\). In this he is correct, for no solution of their problem had been offered.

rwp@John:11:51 @{Not of himself} (\aph' heautou ouk\). Not wholly of himself, John means. There was more in what Caiaphas said than he understood. His language is repeated in strkjv@18:14|. {Prophesied} (\eprophteusen\). Aorist active indicative of \prophteu\. But certainly unconscious prophecy on his part and purely accidental. Caiaphas meant only what was mean and selfish. {That Jesus should die} (\hoti emellen Isous apothnskein\). Imperfect active of \mell\ in indirect discourse instead of the usual present retained after a secondary tense (\eprophteusen\) as sometimes occurs (see strkjv@2:25|).

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

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

rwp@John:12:19 @{The Pharisees therefore laid among themselves} (\hoi oun Pharisaioi eipan pros heautous\). Graphic picture of the predicament of the Pharisees standing off and watching the enthusiastic crowds sweep by. As people usually do, they blame each other for the defeat of their plots against Jesus and for his final victory, as it seemed. {Behold how ye prevail nothing} (\thereite hoti ouk pheleite ouden\). It was a pathetic confession of failure because the rest of the plotters had bungled the whole thing. "Ye help nothing at all" by your plots and plans. {Lo, the world is gone after him} (\ide ho kosmos opis autou aplthen\). Exclamatory use of \ide\ and timeless aorist active indicative of \aperchomai\. The "world" is a bunch of fools, they feel, but see for yourselves. And the Sanhedrin had advertised to "find" Jesus! They can find him now!

rwp@Luke:6:48 @{Digged and went deep} (\eskapsen kai ebathunen\). Two first aorist indicatives. Not a _hendiadys_ for dug deep. \Skapt\, to dig, is as old as Homer, as is \bathun\, to make deep. {And laid a foundation} (\kai ethken themelion\). That is the whole point. This wise builder struck the rock before he laid the foundation. {When a flood arose} (\plmmurs genomens\). Genitive absolute. Late word for flood, \plmmura\, only here in the N.T., though in strkjv@Job:40:18|. {Brake against} (\proserxen\). First aorist active indicative from \prosrgnumi\ and in late writers \prosrss\, to break against. Only here in the N.T. strkjv@Matthew:7:25| has \prosepesan\, from \prospipt\, to fall against. {Could not shake it} (\ouk ischusen saleusai autn\). Did not have strength enough to shake it. {Because it had been well builded} (\dia to kals oikodomsthai autn\). Perfect passive articular infinitive after \dia\ and with accusative of general reference.

rwp@Luke:7:28 @{There is none} (\oudeis estin\). No one exists, this means. strkjv@Matthew:11:11| has \ouk eggertai\ (hath not arisen). See Matthew for discussion of "but little" and "greater."

rwp@Luke:7:32 @{And ye did not weep} (\kai ouk eklausate\). Here strkjv@Matthew:1:17| has "and ye did not mourn (or beat your breast, \ouk ekopsasthe\). They all did it at funerals. These children would not play wedding or funeral.

rwp@Luke:8:27 @{And for a long time} (\kai chroni hikani\). The use of the associative instrumental case in expressions of time is a very old Greek idiom that still appears in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 527). {He had worn no clothes} (\ouk enedusato himation\). First aorist middle indicative, constative aorist, viewing the "long time" as a point. Not pluperfect as English has it and not for the pluperfect, simply "and for a long time he did not put on himself (indirect middle) any clothing." The physician would naturally note this item. Common verb \endu\ or \endun\. This item in Luke alone, though implied by strkjv@Mark:5:15| "clothed" (\himatismenon\). {And abode not in any house} (\kai en oikii ouk emenen\). Imperfect active. Peculiar to Luke, though implied by the mention of tombs in all three (Mark:5:3; strkjv@Matthew:8:28; strkjv@Luke:8:27|).

rwp@Luke:18:4 @{He would not} (\ouk thelen\). Imperfect tense of continued refusal. {Though} (\ei kai\). Concerning sentence, not \kai ei\ (even if).

rwp@Luke:18:13 @{Standing afar off} (\makrothen hests\). Second perfect active participle of \histmi\, intransitive like \statheis\ above. But no ostentation as with the Pharisee in verse 11|. At a distance from the Pharisee, not from the sanctuary. {Would not lift} (\ouk thelen oude eprai\). Negatives (double) imperfect of {thel}, was not willing even to lift up, refused to lift (\eprai\, first aorist active infinitive of the liquid compound verb, \ep-air\). Smote (\etupte\). Imperfect active of \tupt\, old verb, kept on smiting or beating. Worshippers usually lifted up their closed eyes to God. {Be merciful} (\hilasthti\). First aorist passive imperative of \hilaskomai\, an old verb, found also in LXX and inscriptions (\exhilaskomai\, Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 224). {A sinner} (\ti hamartli\). The sinner, not a sinner. It is curious how modern scholars ignore this Greek article. The main point in the contrast lies in this article. The Pharisee thought of others as sinners. The publican thinks of himself alone as the sinner, not of others at all.

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

rwp@Luke:19:21 @{I feared} (\ephoboumn\). Imperfect middle, I continued to fear. {Austere} (\austros\). Old Greek word from \au\, to dry up. Reproduced in Latin _austeros_ and English _austere_. It means rough to the taste, stringent. Here only in the N.T. Compare \sklros\ (hard) in strkjv@Matthew:25:24|. "Harsh in flavour, then in disposition" (Bruce). {Thou layedst not down} (\ouk ethkas\). Probably a proverb for a grasping profiteer.

rwp@Luke:19:44 @{Shall dash to the ground} (\edaphiousin\). Attic future of \edaphiz\, to beat level, to raze to the ground, a rare verb from \edaphos\, bottom, base, ground (Acts:22:7|), here alone in the N.T. {Because} (\anth' hn\). "In return for which things." {Thou knewest not} (\ouk egns\). Applying the very words of the lament in the condition in verse 42|. This vivid prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem is used by those who deny predictive prophecy even for Jesus as proof that Luke wrote the Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem. But it is no proof at all to those who concede to Jesus adequate knowledge of his mission and claims.

rwp@Luke:20:26 @{They were not able} (\ouk ischusan\). They did not have strength. An old verb \ischu\ from \ischus\ (strength). They failed "to take hold (cf. verse 20|) of the saying before the people." These "crack" students had made an ignominious failure and were not able to make a case for the surrender of Jesus to Pilate. He had slipped through their net with the utmost ease. {Held their peace} (\esigsan\). Ingressive aorist active of \siga\. They became silent as they went back with the "dry grins."

rwp@Luke:20:40 @{They durst not any more} (\ouketi etolmn ouden\). Double negative and imperfect active of \tolma\. The courage of Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians vanished.

rwp@Luke:21:6 @{As for these things} (\tauta\). Accusative of general reference. {One stone upon another} (\lithos epi lithi\). Stone upon stone (locative). Here both strkjv@Mark:13:2; strkjv@Matthew:24:2| have \epi lithon\ (accusative). Instead of \ouk aphethsetai\ (future passive) they both have \ou m aphethi\ (double negative with aorist passive subjunctive). It was a shock to the disciples to hear this after the triumphal entry.

rwp@Luke:22:57 @{I know him not} (\ouk oida auton\). Just as Jesus had predicted that he would do (Luke:22:34|).

rwp@Luke:22:60 @{I know not what thou sayest} (\ouk oida ho legeis\). Each denial tangles Peter more and more. {While he yet spake} (\eti lalountos autou\). Genitive absolute. Peter could hear the crowing all right.

rwp@Luke:23:51 @{He had not consented to their counsel and deed} (\houtos ouk n sunkatatetheimenos ti bouli kai ti praxei autn\). This parenthesis is given by Luke alone and explains that, though a councillor (\bouleuts\, strkjv@Mark:5:43|) he had not agreed to the vote of the Sanhedrin. It is fairly certain that both Joseph and Nicodemus were suspected of sympathy with Jesus and so were not invited to the trial of Jesus. {Was looking for} (\prosedecheto\). Imperfect middle. strkjv@Mark:15:43| has the periphrastic imperfect (\n prosdechomenos\).

rwp@Luke:23:53 @{Took it down} (\katheln\). Second aorist active participle of \kathaire\ as in strkjv@Mark:15:46|. {Wrapped} (\enetulixen\), as in strkjv@Matthew:27:59| where strkjv@Mark:15:46| has \eneilsen\ (wound), which see. strkjv@John:19:40| has "bound" (\edsan\). See Matt. and Mark also for the linen cloth (\sindoni\). {Hewn in stone} (\laxeuti\). From \laxeu\ (\las\, a stone, \xe\, to polish). In the LXX and here only in the N.T. Nowhere else so far as known. See the usual Greek verb \latome\ in strkjv@Mark:15:46; strkjv@Matthew:27:60|. {Where never man had yet lain} (\hou ouk en oudeis oup keimenos\). Triple negative and periphrastic past perfect passive in sense (\keimai\), though periphrastic imperfect passive in form. Same item in strkjv@John:19:40| who uses \n tetheimenos\ (periphrastic past perfect passive in form).

rwp@Luke:24:6 @{He is not here, but is risen} (\ouk estin hde, alla gerth\). 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} (\ti triti hmeri anastnai\). 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:24:18 @{Dost thou alone sojourn?} (\su monos paroikeis;\). \Monos\ is predicate adjective. "Hast thou been dwelling alone (all by thyself)?" {And not know?} (\kai ouk egns;\). Second aorist active indicative and difficult to put into English as the aorist often is. The verb \paroike\ means to dwell beside one, then as a stranger like \paroikoi\ (Ephesians:2:19|). In Jerusalem everybody was talking about Jesus.

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

rwp@Mark:6:26 @{He would not reject her} (\ouk thelsen athetsai autn\). He was caught once again between his conscience and his environment. Like many since his day the environment stifled his conscience.

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

rwp@Mark:9:18 @{Wheresoever it taketh him} (\hopou ean auton katalabi\). Seizes him down. Our word catalepsy is this same word. The word is used by Galen and Hippocrates for fits. The word is very common in the papyri in various senses as in the older Greek. Each of the verbs here in Mark is a graphic picture. {Dashes down} (\rssei\). Also \rgnumi, mi\ form. Convulses, rends, tears asunder. Old and common word. {Foameth} (\aphrizei\). Here only in the N.T. Poetic and late word. {Grindeth} (\trizei\). Another _hapax legomenon_ in the N.T. Old word for making a shrill cry or squeak. {Pineth away} (\xrainetai\). Old word for drying or withering as of grass in strkjv@James:1:11|. {And they were not able} (\kai ouk ischusan\). They did not have the strength (\ischus\) to handle this case. See strkjv@Matthew:17:16; strkjv@Luke:9:40| (\kai ouk dunthsan\, first aorist passive). It was a tragedy.

rwp@Mark:9:30 @{He would not that any man should know it} (\ouk thelen hina tis gnoi\). Imperfect tense followed by ingressive aorist subjunctive (\gnoi = gni\, the usual form). He was not willing that any one should learn it. Back in Galilee Jesus was, but he was avoiding public work there now (cf. strkjv@7:24|). He was no longer the hero of Galilee. He had left Caesarea Philippi for Galilee.

rwp@Mark:9:38 @{Because he followed not us} (\hoti ouk kolouthei hmin\). Note vivid imperfect tense again. John evidently thought to change the subject from the constraint and embarrassment caused by their dispute. Songs:he told about a case of extra zeal on his part expecting praise from Jesus. Perhaps what Jesus had just said in verse 37| raised a doubt in John's mind as to the propriety of his excessive narrowness. One needs to know the difference between loyalty to Jesus and stickling over one's own narrow prejudices.

rwp@Mark:9:40 @{He that is not against us is with us} (\hos ouk estin kath' hmn huper hmn estin\). This profound saying throws a flood of light in every direction. The complement of this logion is that in strkjv@Matthew:12:30|: "He that is not with me is against me." Both are needed. Some people imagine that they are really for Christ who refuse to take a stand in the open with him and for him.

rwp@Matthew:17:12 @{Elijah is come already} (\Eleias d lthen\). Thus Jesus identifies John the Baptist with the promise in Malachi, though not the real Elijah in person which John denied (John:1:21|). {They knew him not} (\ouk epignsan auton\). Second aorist active indicative of \epiginsk\, to recognize. Just as they do not know Jesus now (John:1:26|). They killed John as they will Jesus the Son of Man.

rwp@Matthew:20:22 @{Ye know not what ye ask} (\ouk oidate ti aiteisthe\). How often that is true. \Aiteisthe\ is indirect middle voice, "ask for yourselves," "a selfish request." {We are able} (\dunametha\). Amazing proof of their ignorance and self-confidence. Ambition had blinded their eyes. They had not caught the martyr spirit.

rwp@Matthew:22:3 @{To call them that were bidden} (\kalesai tous keklmenous\). "Perhaps an unconscious play on the words, lost in both A.V. and Rev., {to call the called}" (Vincent). It was a Jewish custom to invite a second time the already invited (Esther:5:8; strkjv@6:14|). The prophets of old had given God's invitation to the Jewish people. Now the Baptist and Jesus had given the second invitation that the feast was ready. {And they would not come} (\kai ouk thelon elthein\). This negative imperfect characterizes the stubborn refusal of the Jewish leaders to accept Jesus as God's Son (John:1:11|). This is "The Hebrew Tragedy" (Conder).

rwp@Matthew:22:12 @{Not having a wedding-garment} (\m echn enduma gamou\). \M\ is in the _Koin_ the usual negative with participles unless special emphasis on the negative is desired as in \ouk endedumenon\. There is a subtle distinction between \m\ and \ou\ like our subjective and objective notions. Some hold that the wedding-garment here is a portion of a lost parable separate from that of the Wedding Feast, but there is no evidence for that idea. Wunsche does report a parable by a rabbi of a king who set no time for his feast and the guests arrived, some properly dressed waiting at the door; others in their working clothes did not wait, but went off to work and, when the summons suddenly came, they had no time to dress properly and were made to stand and watch while the others partook of the feast.

rwp@Matthew:22:34 @{He had put the Sadducees to silence} (\ephimsen tous Saddoukaious\). Muzzled the Sadducees. The Pharisees could not restrain their glee though they were joining with the Sadducees in trying to entrap Jesus. {Gathered themselves together} (\sunchthsan epi to auto\). First aorist passive, were gathered together. \Epi to auto\ explains more fully \sun-\. See also strkjv@Acts:2:47|. "Mustered their forces" (Moffatt).

rwp@Revelation:12:8 @{And they prevailed not} (\kai ouk ischusan\). Here \kai\ equals "and yet" or "but." A few MSS. read the singular \ischusen\ like \epolemsen\, but wrongly so. {Neither was their place found any more} (\oude topos heureth autn eti\). First aorist passive indicative of \heurisk\, to find. Probably \autn\ is the objective genitive (place for them), just as in strkjv@20:11| \autois\ (dative, for them) is used with \topos ouch heureth\. The phrase occurs in strkjv@Daniel:2:35| Theod. and strkjv@Zechariah:10:10|. The dragon is finally expelled from heaven (cf. strkjv@Job:1:6|), though to us it seems a difficult conception to think of Satan having had access to heaven.

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

rwp@Revelation:16:18 @{And there were} (\kai egenonto\). "And there came" (same verb _ginomai_). See strkjv@8:5; strkjv@11:19| for this list of terrible sounds and lightnings, and for the great earthquake (\seismos megas\) see strkjv@6:12; strkjv@11:13| (cf. strkjv@Luke:21:11|). {Such as was not} (\hoios ouk egeneto\). Qualitative relative with \ginomai\ again, "such as came not." {Since there were men} (\aph' hou anthrpoi egenonto\). "Since which time (\chronou\ understood) men came." {Songs:great an earthquake, so mighty} (\tlikoutos seismos hout megas\). Quantitative correlative \tlikoutos\ rather than the qualitative \toioutos\, to correspond with \hoios\ (not \hosos\). And then \hout megas\ repeats (redundant) \tlikoutos\. Cf. strkjv@Mark:13:19| for \hoia--toiaut\ about like tribulation (\thlipsis\).