Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp port:


rwp@1Thessalonians:3:13 @{To the end he may stablish} (\eis to stˆrixai\). Another example of \eis\ and the articular infinitive of purpose. Same idiom in strkjv@3:2|. From \stˆriz“\, from \stˆrigx\, a support. {Unblameable} (\amemptous\). Old compound adjective (\a\ privative and verbal of \memphomai\, to blame). Rare in N.T. Predicate position here. Second coming of Christ again.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:7 @{Not for uncleanness, but in sanctification} (\epi akatharsiƒi all' en hagiasm“i\). Sharp contrast made still sharper by the two prepositions \epi\ (on the basis of) and \en\ (in the sphere of). God has "called" us all for a decent sex life consonant with his aims and purposes. It was necessary for Paul to place this lofty ideal before the Thessalonian Christians living in a pagan world. It is equally important now.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:15 @{By the word of the Lord} (\en log“i Kuriou\). We do not know to what word of the Lord Jesus Paul refers, probably Paul meaning only the point in the teaching of Christ rather than a quotation. He may be claiming a direct revelation on this important matter as about the Lord's Supper in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23|. Jesus may have spoken on this subject though it has not been preserved to us (cf. strkjv@Mark:9:1|). {Ye that are alive} (\hˆmeis hoi z“ntes\). Paul here includes himself, but this by no means shows that Paul knew that he would be alive at the Parousia of Christ. He was alive, not dead, when he wrote. {Shall in no wise precede} (\ou mˆ phthas“men\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \phthan“\, to come before, to anticipate. This strong negative with \ou mˆ\ (double negative) and the subjunctive is the regular idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 929). Hence there was no ground for uneasiness about the dead in Christ.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:14 @{An angel of light} (\aggelon ph“tos\). The prince of darkness puts on the garb of light and sets the fashion for his followers in the masquerade to deceive the saints. "Like master like man." Cf. strkjv@2:11; strkjv@Galatians:1:8|. This terrible portrayal reveals the depth of Paul's feelings about the conduct of the Judaizing leaders in Corinth. In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| he terms those in Jerusalem "false brethren."

rwp@2Corinthians:13:13 @{The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all} (\hˆ charis tou Kuriou Iˆsou Christou kai hˆ agapˆ tou theou kai hˆ koin“nia tou hagiou pneumatos meta pant“n hum“n\). This benediction is the most complete of them all. It presents the persons of the Trinity in full form. From strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:17| it appears that Paul wrote the greeting or benediction with his own hand. We know from strkjv@Romans:15:19| that Paul went round about unto Illyricum before, apparently, he came on to Corinth. When he did arrive (Acts:20:1-3|) the troubles from the Judaizers had disappeared. Probably the leaders left after the coming of Titus and the brethren with this Epistle. The reading of it in the church would make a stir of no small proportions. But it did the work.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorˆge“\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophˆteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai idi“tai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

rwp@Acts:8:26 @{Toward the South} (\kata mesˆmbrian\). Old word from \mesos\ and \hˆmera\, midday or noon as in strkjv@Acts:22:16|, the only other example in the N.T. That may be the idea here also, though "towards the South" gets support from the use of \kata liba\ in strkjv@Acts:27:12|. {The same is desert} (\hautˆ estin erˆmos\). Probably a parenthetical remark by Luke to give an idea of the way. One of the ways actually goes through a desert. Gaza itself was a strong city that resisted Alexander the Great five months. It was destroyed by the Romans after war broke out with the Jews.

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

rwp@Acts:13:16 @{Paul stood up} (\anastas Paulos\). The Jewish custom was to sit while speaking (Luke:4:20|), but the Greek and Roman was to stand (Acts:17:22|). It is possible as Lewin (_Life of St. Paul_, Vol. 1, p. 141) suggests that here Paul stepped upon the platform and then took his seat as he began to speak or he may have followed the Greek and Roman custom. Paul is the leader now and the more gifted speaker (Acts:14:12|), so that he responds to the courteous invitation of the rulers. {Beckoning} (\kataseisas\). First aorist active participle of \katasei“\, old verb to shake down, a dramatic gesture for quiet and order like Peter in strkjv@12:17| and Paul on the steps of the tower of Antonia (21:40|). {And ye that fear God} (\kai hoi phoboumenoi ton theon\). Evidently large numbers of these Gentiles like Cornelius in Caesarea were present. They offered Paul a great opportunity for reaching the purely pagan Gentiles. This (verses 16-41|) is the first full report of a sermon of Paul's that Luke has preserved for us. He is now a practised preacher of the gospel that he began proclaiming at Damascus, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of promise and the Saviour of the whole world both Jew and Gentile if they will only believe on him and be saved. It is possible that Paul here based his sermon on the passages of the law and the prophets that had just been read. He uses two words from the LXX, one in verse 19| from strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:31| \etrophophorˆsen\ (as a nursing-father bare he them), the reading of many old MSS. and the one preferred by the American Committee, the other in verse 17| from strkjv@Isaiah:1:2| \hups“sen\ (exalted). At any rate it is clear that Paul spoke in Greek so that all could understand his sermon. He may have written out notes of this sermon afterwards for Luke. The keynotes of Paul's theology as found in his Epistles appear in this sermon. It is interesting to observe the steady growth of Paul's Christology as he faced the great problems of his day. Here we see Paul's gospel for the Jews and the God-fearers (Gentiles friendly to the Jews).

rwp@Acts:16:25 @{About midnight} (\kata de mesonuktion\). Middle of the night, old adjective seen already in strkjv@Mark:13:35; strkjv@Luke:11:5| which see. {Were praying and singing} (\proseuchomenoi humnoun\). Present middle participle and imperfect active indicative: Praying they were singing (simultaneously, blending together petition and praise). \Humne“\ is an old verb from \humnos\ (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:12:4; strkjv@Daniel:3:23|). Paul and Silas probably used portions of the Psalms (cf. strkjv@Luke:1:39f.,67f.; strkjv@2:28f.|) with occasional original outbursts of praise. {Were listening to them} (\epˆkro“nto aut“n\). Imperfect middle of \epakroaomai\. Rare verb to listen with pleasure as to a recitation or music (Page). It was a new experience for the prisoners and wondrously attractive entertainment to them.

rwp@Acts:20:34 @{Ye yourselves} (\autoi\). Intensive pronoun. Certainly they knew that the church in Ephesus had not supported Paul while there. {These hands} (\hai cheires hautai\). Paul was not above manual labour. He pointed to his hands with pride as proof that he toiled at his trade of tent-making as at Thessalonica and Corinth for his own needs (\chreiais\) and for those with him (probably Aquila and Priscilla) with whom he lived and probably Timothy because of his often infirmities (1Timothy:5:23|). {Ministered} (\hupˆretˆsan\). First aorist active of \hupˆrete“\, to act as under rower, old verb, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:13:36; strkjv@20:34; strkjv@24:23|. While in Ephesus Paul wrote to Corinth: "We toil, working with our own hands" (1Corinthians:4:12|). "As he held them up, they saw a tongue of truth in every seam that marked them" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:21:1 @{Were parted from them} (\apospasthentas ap' aut“n\). First aorist passive participle of \apospa“\ same verb as in strkjv@20:30; strkjv@Luke:22:41|. {Had set sail} (\anachthˆnai\). First aorist passive of \anag“\, the usual verb to put out (up) to sea as in verse 2| (\anˆchthˆmen\). {We came with a straight course} (\euthudromˆsantes ˆlthomen\). The same verb (aorist active participle of \euthudrome“\) used by Luke in strkjv@16:11| of the voyage from Troas to Samothrace and Neapolis, which see. {Unto Cos} (\eis tˆn Ko\). Standing today, about forty nautical miles south from Miletus, island famous as the birthplace of Hippocrates and Apelles with a great medical school. Great trading place with many Jews. {The next day} (\tˆi hexˆs\). Locative case with \hˆmerƒi\ (day) understood. The adverb \hexˆs\ is from \ech“\ (future \hex“\) and means successively or in order. This is another one of Luke's ways of saying "on the next day" (cf. three others in strkjv@20:15|). {Unto Rhodes} (\eis tˆn Rhodon\). Called the island of roses. The sun shone most days and made roses luxuriant. The great colossus which represented the sun, one of the seven wonders of the world, was prostrate at this time. The island was at the entrance to the Aegean Sea and had a great university, especially for rhetoric and oratory. There was great commerce also. {Unto Patara} (\eis Patara\). A seaport on the Lycian coast on the left bank of the Xanthus. It once had an oracle of Apollo which rivalled that at Delphi. This was the course taken by hundreds of ships every season.

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

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

rwp@Acts:21:18 @{The day following} (\tˆi epiousˆi\). As in strkjv@20:15| which see. {Went in} (\eisˆiei\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\, old classic verb used only four times in the N.T. (Acts:3:3; strkjv@21:18,26; strkjv@Hebrews:9:6|), a mark of the literary style rather than the colloquial _Koin‚_ use of \eiserchomai\. Together with us to James (\sun hˆmin pros Iak“bon\). Songs:then Luke is present. The next use of "we" is in strkjv@27:1| when they leave Caesarea for Rome, but it is not likely that Luke was away from Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The reports of what was done and said in both places is so full and minute that it seems reasonable that Luke got first hand information here whatever his motive was for so full an account of these legal proceedings to be discussed later. There are many details that read like an eye witness's story (21:30,35,40; strkjv@22:2,3; strkjv@23:12|, etc.). It was probably the house of James (\pros\ and \para\ so used often). {And all the elders were present} (\pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi\). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in chapter 15. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours. The whole church was not called together probably because of the known prejudice against Paul created by the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:21:20 @{Glorified} (\edoxazon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to glorify God, though without special praise of Paul. {How many thousands} (\posai muriades\). Old word for ten thousand (Acts:19:19|) and then an indefinite number like our "myriads" (this very word) as strkjv@Luke:12:1; strkjv@Acts:21:20; strkjv@Jude:1:14; strkjv@Revelation:5:11; strkjv@9:16|. But it is a surprising statement even with allowable hyperbole, but one may recall strkjv@Acts:4:4| (number of the men--not women--about five thousand); strkjv@5:14| (multitudes both of men and women); strkjv@6:7|. There were undoubtedly a great many thousands of believers in Jerusalem and all Jewish Christians, some, alas, Judaizers (Acts:11:2; strkjv@15:1,5|). This list may include the Christians from neighbouring towns in Palestine and even some from foreign countries here at the Feast of Pentecost, for it is probable that Paul arrived in time for it as he had hoped. But we do not have to count the hostile Jews from Asia (verse 27|) who were clearly not Christians at all. {All zealous for the law} (\pantes zˆl“tai tou nomou\). Zealots (substantive) rather than zealous (adjective) with objective genitive (\tou nomou\). The word zealot is from \zˆlo“\, to burn with zeal, to boil. The Greek used \zˆl“tˆs\ for an imitator or admirer. There was a party of Zealots (developed from the Pharisees), a group of what would be called "hot-heads," who brought on the war with Rome. One of this party, Simon Zelotes (Acts:1:13|), was in the number of the twelve apostles. It is important to understand the issues in Jerusalem. It was settled at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|) that the Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be imposed upon Gentile Christians. Paul won freedom for them, but it was not said that it was wrong for Jewish Christians to go on observing it if they wished. We have seen Paul observing the passover in Philippi (Acts:20:6|) and planning to reach Jerusalem for Pentecost (20:16|). The Judaizers rankled under Paul's victory and power in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles and gave him great trouble in Galatia and Corinth. They were busy against him in Jerusalem also and it was to undo the harm done by them in Jerusalem that Paul gathered the great collection from the Gentile Christians and brought it with him and the delegates from the churches. Clearly then Paul had real ground for his apprehension of trouble in Jerusalem while still in Corinth (Romans:15:25|) when he asked for the prayers of the Roman Christians (verses 30-32|). The repeated warnings along the way were amply justified.

rwp@Acts:21:26 @{Took the men} (\paralab“n tous andras\). The very phrase used in verse 24| to Paul. {The next day} (\tˆi echomenˆi\). One of the phrases in strkjv@20:15| for the coming day. Locative case of time. {Purifying himself with them} (\sun autois hagnistheis\, first aorist passive participle of \hagniz“\). The precise language again of the recommendation in verse 24|. Paul was conforming to the letter. {Went into the temple} (\eisˆiei eis to hieron\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\ as in verse 18| which see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined the four men in their vow of separation. {Declaring} (\diaggell“n\). To the priests what day he would report the fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:11:17| (quotation from the LXX). It is not necessary to assume that the vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham). {Until the offering was offered for every one of them} (\he“s hou prosˆnechthˆ huper henos hekastou aut“n hˆ prosphora\). This use of \he“s hou\ (like \he“s\, alone) with the first aorist passive indicative \prosˆnechthˆ\ of \prospher“\, to offer, contemplates the final result (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 974f.) and is probably the statement of Luke added to Paul's announcement. He probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:20| when no principle was involved. It is charged that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these "false apostles" over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded by Paul's accusers. Songs:far as the evidence goes that thing was accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea the Judaizers cut no figure at all. The Jewish Christians do not appear in Paul's behalf, but there was no opportunity for them to do so. The explosion that came on the last day of Paul's appearance in the temple was wholly disconnected from his offerings for the four brethren and himself. It must be remembered that Paul had many kinds of enemies. The attack on him by these Jews from Asia had no connexion whatever with the slanders of the Judaizers about Paul's alleged teachings that Jewish Christians in the dispersion should depart from the Mosaic law. That slander was put to rest forever by his following the advice of James and justifies the wisdom of that advice and Paul's conduct about it.

rwp@Acts:21:27 @{The seven days} (\hai hepta hˆmerai\). For which Paul had taken the vow, though there may be an allusion to the pentecostal week for which Paul had desired to be present (20:16|). There is no necessary connexion with the vow in strkjv@18:15|. In strkjv@24:17| Paul makes a general reference to his purpose in coming to Jerusalem to bring alms and offerings (\prosphoras\, sacrifices). Paul spent seven days in Troas (20:6|), Tyre (21:4|), and had planned for seven here if not more. It was on the last of the seven days when Paul was completing his offerings about the vows on all five that the incident occurred that was to make him a prisoner for five years. {When they saw him in the temple} (\theasamenoi auton en t“i hier“i\). First aorist middle participle of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, a view, cf. theatre) to behold. In the very act of honouring the temple these Jews from Asia raise a hue and cry that he is dishonouring it. Paul was not known by face now to many of the Jerusalem Jews, though once the leader of the persecution after the death of Stephen and the outstanding young Jew of the day. But the Jews in Ephesus knew him only too well, some of whom are here at the pentecostal feast. They had plotted against him in Ephesus to no purpose (Acts:19:23-41; strkjv@20:19|), but now a new opportunity had come. It is possible that the cry was led by Alexander put forward by the Jews in Ephesus (19:33|) who may be the same as Alexander the coppersmith who did Paul so much harm (2Timothy:4:14|). Paul was not in the inner sanctuary (\ho naos\), but only in the outer courts (\to hieron\). {Stirred up all the multitude} (\sunecheon panta ton ochlon\). Imperfect (kept on) active of \sunche“\ or \sunchun“\ (\-unn“\), to pour together, to confuse as in strkjv@Acts:2:6; strkjv@9:22; strkjv@19:31,32; strkjv@21:31| and here to stir up by the same sort of confusion created by Demetrius in Ephesus where the same word is used twice (19:31,32|). The Jews from Ephesus had learned it from Demetrius the silversmith. {Laid hands on him} (\epebalan ep' auton tas cheiras\). Second aorist (ingressive, with endings of the first aorist, \-an\) active indicative of \epiball“\, old verb to lay upon, to attack (note repetition of \epi\). They attacked and seized Paul before the charge was made.

rwp@Acts:21:40 @{When he had given him leave} (\epitrepsantos autou\). Genitive absolute of aorist active participle of the same verb \epitrep“\. {Standing on the stairs} (\hest“s epi t“n anabathm“n\). Second perfect active participle of \histˆmi\, to place, but intransitive to stand. Dramatic scene. Paul had faced many audiences and crowds, but never one quite like this. Most men would have feared to speak, but not so Paul. He will speak about himself only as it gives him a chance to put Christ before this angry Jewish mob who look on Paul as a renegade Jew, a turncoat, a deserter, who went back on Gamaliel and all the traditions of his people, who not only turned from Judaism to Christianity, but who went after Gentiles and treated Gentiles as if they were on a par with Jews. Paul knows only too well what this mob thinks of him. {Beckoned with the hand} (\kateseise tˆi cheiri\). He shook down to the multitude with the hand (instrumental case \cheiri\), while Alexander, Luke says (19:33|), "shook down the hand" (accusative with the same verb, which see). In strkjv@26:1| Paul reached out the hand (\ekteinas tˆn cheira\). {When there was made a great silence} (\pollˆs sigˆs genomenˆs\). Genitive absolute again with second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, "much silence having come." Paul waited till silence had come. {In the Hebrew language} (\tˆi Ebraidi dialekt“i\). The Aramaean which the people in Jerusalem knew better than the Greek. Paul could use either tongue at will. His enemies had said in Corinth that "his bodily presence was weak and his speech contemptible" (2Corinthians:10:10|). But surely even they would have to admit that Paul's stature and words reach heroic proportions on this occasion. Self-possessed with majestic poise Paul faces the outraged mob beneath the stairs.

rwp@Acts:22:1 @{Brethren and fathers} (\Andres adelphoi kai pateres\) Men, brethren, and fathers. The very language used by Stephen (7:2|) when arraigned before the Sanhedrin with Paul then present. Now Paul faces a Jewish mob on the same charges brought against Stephen. These words are those of courtesy and dignity (_amoris et honoris nomina_, Page). These men were Paul's brother Jews and were (many of them) official representatives of the people (Sanhedrists, priests, rabbis). Paul's purpose is conciliatory, he employs "his ready tact" (Rackham). {The defence which I now make unto you} (\mou tˆs pros humas nuni apologias\). Literally, My defence to you at this time. \Nuni\ is a sharpened form (by \-i\) of \nun\ (now), just now. The term \apologia\ (apology) is not our use of the word for apologizing for an offence, but the original sense of defence for his conduct, his life. It is an old word from \apologeomai\, to talk oneself off a charge, to make defence. It occurs also in strkjv@Acts:25:16| and then also in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11; strkjv@Phillipians:1:7,16; strkjv@2Timothy:4:16; strkjv@1Peter:3:15|. Paul uses it again in strkjv@Acts:25:16| as here about his defence against the charges made by the Jews from Asia. He is suspected of being a renegade from the Mosaic law and charged with specific acts connected with the alleged profanation of the temple. Songs:Paul speaks in Aramaic and recites the actual facts connected with his change from Judaism to Christianity. The facts make the strongest argument. He first recounts the well-known story of his zeal for Judaism in the persecution of the Christians and shows why the change came. Then he gives a summary of his work among the Gentiles and why he came to Jerusalem this time. He answers the charge of enmity to the people and the law and of desecration of the temple. It is a speech of great skill and force, delivered under remarkable conditions. The one in chapter strkjv@Acts:26| covers some of the same ground, but for a slightly different purpose as we shall see. For a discussion of the three reports in Acts of Paul's conversion see chapter strkjv@Acts:9|. Luke has not been careful to make every detail correspond, though there is essential agreement in all three.

rwp@Acts:22:7 @{I fell} (\epesa\). Second aorist active indicative with \-a\ rather than \epeson\, the usual form of \pipt“\. {Unto the ground} (\eis to edaphos\). Old word, here alone in N.T. Songs:the verb \edaphiz“\, is in strkjv@Luke:19:44| alone in the N.T. {A voice saying} (\ph“nˆs legousˆs\). Genitive after \ˆkousa\, though in strkjv@26:14| the accusative is used after \ˆkousa\, as in strkjv@22:14| after \akousai\, either being allowable. See on ¯9:7| for discussion of the difference in case. Saul's name repeated each time (9:4; strkjv@22:7; strkjv@26:14|). Same question also in each report: "Why persecuted thou me?" (\Ti me di“keis?\). These piercing words stuck in Paul's mind.

rwp@Acts:22:9 @{But they heard not the voice} (\tˆn de ph“nˆn ouk ˆkousan\). 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:22:28 @{With a great sum} (\pollou kephalaiou\). The use of \kephalaiou\ (from \kephalˆ\, head) for sums of money (principal as distinct from interest) is old and frequent in the papyri. Our word capital is from \caput\ (head). The genitive is used here according to rule for price. "The sale of the Roman citizenship was resorted to by the emperors as a means of filling the exchequer, much as James I. made baronets" (Page). Dio Cassius (LX., 17) tells about Messalina the wife of Claudius selling Roman citizenship. Lysias was probably a Greek and so had to buy his citizenship. {But I am a Roman born} (\Eg“ de kai gegennˆmai\). Perfect passive indicative of \genna“\. The word "Roman" not in the Greek. Literally, "But I have been even born one," (i.e. born a Roman citizen). There is calm and simple dignity in this reply and pardonable pride. Being a citizen of Tarsus (21:39|) did not make Paul a Roman citizen. Tarsus was an _urbs libera_, not a _colonia_ like Philippi. Some one of his ancestors (father, grandfather) obtained it perhaps as a reward for distinguished service. Paul's family was of good social position. "He was educated by the greatest of the Rabbis; he was at an early age entrusted by the Jewish authorities with an important commission; his nephew could gain ready access to the Roman tribune; he was treated as a person of consequence by Felix, Festus, Agrippa, and Julius" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:22:30 @{To know the certainty} (\gn“nai to asphales\). Same idiom in strkjv@21:34| which see. {Wherefore he was accused} (\to ti kategoreitai\). Epexegetical after to \asphales\. Note article (accusative case) with the indirect question here as in strkjv@Luke:22:1,23,24| (which see), a neat idiom in the Greek. {Commanded} (\ekeleusen\). Songs:the Sanhedrin had to meet, but in the Tower of Antonia, for he brought Paul down (\katagag“n\, second aorist active participle of \katag“\). {Set him} (\estˆsen\). First aorist active (transitive) indicative of \histˆmi\, not the intransitive second aorist \estˆ\. Lysias is determined to find out the truth about Paul, more puzzled than ever by the important discovery that he has a Roman citizen on his hands in this strange prisoner.

rwp@Acts:23:1 @{Looking steadfastly} (\atenisas\). See on this word strkjv@1:10; strkjv@3:12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@7:55; strkjv@13:9|. Paul may have had weak eyes, but probably the earnest gaze was to see if he recognized any faces that were in the body that tried Stephen and to which he apparently once belonged. {I have lived before God} (\pepoliteumai t“i the“i\). Perfect middle indicative of \politeu“\, old verb to manage affairs of city (\polis\) or state, to be a citizen, behave as a citizen. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|. The idea of citizenship was Greek and Roman, not Jewish. "He had lived as God's citizen, as a member of God's commonwealth" (Rackham). God (\the“i\) is the dative of personal interest. As God looked at it and in his relation to God. {In all good conscience unto this day} (\pasˆi suneidˆsei agathˆi achri tautˆs tˆs hˆmeras\). This claim seems to lack tact, but for brevity's sake Paul sums up a whole speech in it. He may have said much more than Luke here reports along the line of his speech the day before, but Paul did not make this claim without consideration. It appears to contradict his confession as the chief of sinners (1Timothy:1:13-16|). But that depends on one's interpretation of "good conscience." The word \suneidˆsis\ is literally "joint-knowledge" in Greek, Latin (_conscientia_) and English "conscience" from the Latin. It is a late word from \sunoida\, to know together, common in O.T., Apocrypha, Philo, Plutarch, New Testament, Stoics, ecclesiastical writers. In itself the word simply means consciousness of one's own thoughts (Hebrews:10:2|), or of one's own self, then consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong (Romans:2:15|) with approval or disapproval. But the conscience is not an infallible guide and acts according to the light that it has (1Corinthians:8:7,10; strkjv@1Peter:2:19|). The conscience can be contaminated (Hebrews:10:22|, evil \ponˆrƒs\). All this and more must be borne in mind in trying to understand Paul's description of his motives as a persecutor. Alleviation of his guilt comes thereby, but not removal of guilt as he himself felt (1Timothy:1:13-16|). He means to say to the Sanhedrin that he persecuted Christians as a conscientious (though mistaken) Jew (Pharisee) just as he followed his conscience in turning from Judaism to Christianity. It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no "apologies" (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. He had the consolation of a good conscience (1Peter:3:16|). The word does not occur in the Gospels and chiefly in Paul's Epistles, but we see it at work in strkjv@John:8:9| (the interpolation strkjv@7:53-8:11|).

rwp@Acts:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \gin“sk“\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg“ Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisai“n\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastase“s nekr“n krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.

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

rwp@Acts:23:29 @{Concerning questions of their law} (\peri zˆtˆmata tou nomou aut“n\). The very distinction drawn by Gallio in Corinth (Acts:18:14f.|). On the word see on strkjv@15:2|. {But to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds} (\mˆden de axion thanatou ˆ desm“n echonta enklˆma\). Literally, "having no accusation (or crime) worthy of death or of bonds." This phrase here only in the N.T. \Egklˆma\ is old word for accusation or crime from \egkale“\ used in verse 28| and in the N.T. only here and strkjv@25:16|. Lysias thus expresses the opinion that Paul ought to be set free and the lenient treatment that Paul received in Caesarea and Rome (first imprisonment) is probably due to this report of Lysias. Every Roman magistrate before whom Paul appears declares him innocent (Gallio, Lysias, Felix, Festus).

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

rwp@Acts:24:27 @{But when two years were fulfilled} (\dietias de plˆr“theisˆs\). Genitive absolute first aorist passive of \plˆro“\, common verb to fill full. \Dietia\, late word in LXX and Philo, common in the papyri, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:28:30|. Compound of \dia\, two (\duo, dis\) and \etos\, year. Songs:Paul lingered on in prison in Caesarea, waiting for the second hearing under Felix which never came. Caesarea now became the compulsory headquarters of Paul for two years. With all his travels Paul spent several years each at Tarsus, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, though not as a prisoner unless that was true part of the time at Ephesus for which there is some evidence though not of a convincing kind. We do not know that Luke remained in Caesarea all this time. In all probability he came and went with frequent visits with Philip the Evangelist. It was probably during this period that Luke secured the material for his Gospel and wrote part or all of it before going to Rome. He had ample opportunity to examine the eyewitnesses who heard Jesus and the first attempts at writing including the Gospel of Mark (Luke:1:1-4|). {Was succeeded by} (\elaben diadochon\). Literally, "received as successor." \Diadochos\ is an old word from \diadechomai\, to receive in succession (\dia, duo\, two) and occurs here alone in the N.T. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 115) gives papyri examples where \hoi diadochoi\ means "higher officials at the court of the Ptolemies," probably "deputies," a usage growing out of the "successors" of Alexander the Great (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_), though here the original notion of "successor" occurs (cf. Josephus, _Ant_. XX. 8, 9). Luke does not tell why Felix "received" a successor. The explanation is that during these two years the Jews and the Gentiles had an open fight in the market-place in Caesarea. Felix put the soldiers on the mob and many Jews were killed. The Jews made formal complaint to the Emperor with the result that Felix was recalled and Porcius Festus sent in his stead. {Porcius Festus} (\Porkion Phˆston\). We know very little about this man. He is usually considered a worthier man than Felix, but Paul fared no better at his hands and he exhibits the same insincerity and eagerness to please the Jews. Josephus (_Ant_. XX. 8, 9) says that "Porcius Festus was sent as a successor to Felix." The precise year when this change occurred is not clear. Albinus succeeded Festus by A.D. 62, so that it is probable that Festus came A.D. 58 (or 59). Death cut short his career in a couple of years though he did more than Felix to rid the country of robbers and _sicarii_. Some scholars argue for an earlier date for the recall of Felix. Nero became Emperor Oct. 13, A.D. 54. Poppaea, his Jewish mistress and finally wife, may have had something to do with the recall of Felix at the request of the Jews. {Desiring to gain favour with the Jews} (\thel“n te charita katathesthai tois Ioudaiois\). Reason for his conduct. Note second aorist (ingressive) middle infinitive \katathesthai\ from \katatithˆmi\, old verb to place down, to make a deposit, to deposit a favour with, to do something to win favour. Only here and strkjv@25:9| in N.T., though in some MSS. in strkjv@Mark:15:46|. It is a banking figure. {Left Paul in bonds} (\katelipe ton Paulon dedemenon\). Effective aorist active indicative of \kataleip“\, to leave behind. Paul "in bonds" (\dedemenon\, perfect passive participle of \de“\, to bind) was the "deposit" (\katathesthai\) for their favour. Codex Bezae adds that Felix left Paul in custody "because of Drusilla" (\dia Drousillan\). She disliked Paul as much as Herodias did John the Baptist. Songs:Pilate surrendered to the Jews about the death of Jesus when they threatened to report him to Caesar. Some critics would date the third group of Paul's Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) to the imprisonment here in Caesarea, some even to one in Ephesus. But the arguments for either of these two views are more specious than convincing. Furneaux would even put strkjv@2Timothy:4:9-22| here in spite of the flat contradiction with strkjv@Acts:21:29| about Trophimus being in Jerusalem instead of Miletus (2Timothy:4:20|), a "mistake" which he attributes to Luke! That sort of criticism can prove anything.

rwp@Acts:25:2 @{The principal men} (\hoi pr“toi\). The first men, the leading men of the city, besides the chief priests. In verse 15| we have "the chief priests and the elders." These chief men among the Jews would desire to pay their respects to the new Procurator on his first visit to Jerusalem. There was another high priest now, Ishmael in place of Ananias. {Informed him against Paul} (\enephanisan aut“i kata tou Paulou\). "This renewal of the charge after two years, on the very first opportunity, is a measure, not only of their unsleeping hatred, but of the importance which they attached to Paul's influence" (Furneaux). {Besought} (\parekaloun\). Imperfect active, kept on beseeching as a special favour to the Jews.

rwp@Acts:25:3 @{Asking favour against him} (\aitoumenoi charin kat' autou\). A favour to themselves (middle voice), not to Paul, but "against" (\kat'\, down, against) him. {That he would send for} (\hop“s metapempsˆtai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \metapemp“\ (see strkjv@24:24,26|) with final particle \hop“s\ like \hina\. Aorist tense for single case. {Laying wait} (\enedran poiountes\). See on ¯23:16| for the word \enedra\. Old idiom (Thucydides) for laying a plot or ambush as here. Only these two uses of \enedra\ in N.T. Two years before the Sanhedrin had agreed to the plot of the forty conspirators. Now they propose one on their own initiative. {On the way} (\kata tˆn hodon\). Down along, up and down along the way. Plenty of opportunity would occur between Caesarea and Jerusalem for ambush and surprise attacks.

rwp@Acts:25:4 @{Howbeit} (\men oun\). No antithesis expressed, though Page considers \de\ in verse 6| to be one. They probably argued that it was easier for one man (Paul) to come to Jerusalem than for many to go down there. But Festus was clearly suspicious (verse 6|) and was wholly within his rights to insist that they make their charges in Caesarea where he held court. {Was kept in charge} (\tˆreisthai\). Present passive infinitive of \tˆre“\ in indirect assertion. \Hoti\ with finite verb is more common after \apokrinomai\, but the infinitive with the accusative of general reference is proper as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1036). {Shortly} (\en tachei\). In quickness, in speed. Old and common usage, seen already in strkjv@Luke:18:8; strkjv@Acts:12:7; strkjv@22:18|. Festus is clearly within his rights again since his stay in Caesarea had been so brief. He did go down in "eight or ten days" (verse 6|). Luke did not consider the matter important enough to be precise.

rwp@Acts:25:16 @{It is not the custom of the Romans} (\hoti ouk estin ethos R“maiois\). If a direct quotation, \hoti\ is recitative as in Authorized Version. Canterbury Revision takes it as indirect discourse after \apekrithˆn\ (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 ˆ ho katˆgoroumenos echoi\). This use of the optative in this temporal clause with \prin ˆ\ instead of the subjunctive \an echˆi\ 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 pros“pon tous katˆgorous\). Same word \katˆgoros\ 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 egklˆmatos\). 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" (\egklˆmatos\ in N.T. only here and strkjv@23:19| which see).

rwp@Acts:26:1 @{Thou art permitted} (\epitrepetai soi\). Literally, It is permitted thee. As if Agrippa were master of ceremonies instead of Festus. Agrippa as a king and guest presides at the grand display while Festus has simply introduced Paul. {For thyself} (\huper seautou\). Some MSS. have \peri\ (concerning). Paul is allowed to speak in his own behalf. No charges are made against him. In fact, Festus has admitted that he has no real proof of any charges. {Stretched forth his hand} (\ekteinas tˆn cheira\). Dramatic oratorical gesture (not for silence as in strkjv@12:17; strkjv@13:16|) with the chain still upon it (verse 29|) linking him to the guard. First aorist active participle of \ektein“\, to stretch out. {Made his defence} (\apelogeito\). Inchoative imperfect of \apologeomai\ (middle), "began to make his defence." This is the fullest of all Paul's defences. He has no word of censure of his enemies or of resentment, but seizes the opportunity to preach Christ to such a distinguished company which he does with "singular dignity" (Furneaux). He is now bearing the name of Christ "before kings" (Acts:9:15|). In general Paul follows the line of argument of the speech on the stairs (chapter strkjv@Acts:22|).

rwp@Acts:26:3 @{Especially because thou art expert} (\malista gn“stˆn onta se\). Or like the margin, "because thou art especially expert," according as \malista\ is construed. \Gn“stˆn\ is from \gin“sk“\ and means a knower, expert, connoisseur. Plutarch uses it and Deissmann (_Light_, etc., p. 367) restores it in a papyrus. Agrippa had the care of the temple, the appointment of the high priest, and the care of the sacred vestments. But the accusative \onta se\ gives trouble here coming so soon after \sou\ (genitive with \epi\). Some MSS. insert \epistamenos\ or \eid“s\ (knowing) but neither is genuine. Page takes it as "governed by the sense of thinking or considering." Knowling considers it an anacoluthon. Buttmann held it to be an accusative absolute after the old Greek idiom. \Tuchon\ is such an instance though used as an adverb (1Corinthians:16:6|). It is possible that one exists in strkjv@Ephesians:1:18|. See other examples discussed in Robertson's _Grammar_, pp. 490f. {Customs and questions} (\eth“n te kai zˆtˆmat“n\). Both _consuetudinum in practicis_ and _quaestionum in theoreticis_ (Bengel). Agrippa was qualified to give Paul an understanding and a sympathetic hearing. Paul understands perfectly the grand-stand play of the whole performance, but he refused to be silent and chose to use this opportunity, slim as it seemed, to get a fresh hearing for his own case and to present the claims of Christ to this influential man. His address is a masterpiece of noble apologetic. {Patiently} (\makrothum“s\). Adverb from \makrothumos\. Only here in the N.T., though \makrothumia\ occurs several times. Vulgate has _longanimiter_. Long spirit, endurance, opposite of impatience. Songs:Paul takes his time.

rwp@Galatians:6:10 @{As we have opportunity} (\h“s kairon ech“men\). Indefinite comparative clause (present subjunctive without \an\). "As we have occasion at any time." {Let us work that which is good} (\ergaz“metha to agathon\). Volitive present middle subjunctive of \ergazomai\, "Let us keep on working the good deed." {Of the household of faith} (\tous oikeious tˆs piste“s\). For the obvious reason that they belong to the same family with necessary responsibility.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION UNSETTLED PROBLEMS Probably no book in the New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and pleads for us now.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE PICTURE OF CHRIST At once we are challenged by the bold stand taken by the author concerning the Person of Christ as superior to the prophets of the Old Testament because he is the Son of God through whom God has spoken in the new dispensation (Hebrews:1:1-3|), this Son who is God's Agent in the work of creation and of grace as we see it stated in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11; strkjv@Colossians:1:13-20; strkjv@John:1:1-18|. This high doctrine of Jesus as God's Son with the glory and stamp of God's nature is never lowered, for as God's Son he is superior to angels (Hebrews:1:4-2:4|), though the humanity of Jesus is recognized as one proof of the glory of Jesus (Hebrews:2:5-18|). Jesus is shown to be superior to Moses as God's Son over God's house (Hebrews:3:1-4:13|), But the chief portion of the Epistle is devoted to the superiority of Jesus Christ as priest to the work of Aaron and the whole Levitical line (Hebrews:4:14-12:3|). Here the author with consummate skill, though with rabbinical refinements at times, shows that Jesus is like Melchizedek and so superior to Aaron (Hebrews:4:14-7:28|), works under a better covenant of grace (Hebrews:8:1-13|), works in a better sanctuary which is in heaven (Hebrews:9:1-12|), offers a better sacrifice which is his own blood (Hebrews:9:13-10:18|), and gives us better promises for the fulfilment of his task (Hebrews:10:19-12:3|). Hence this Epistle deserves to be called the Epistle of the Priesthood of Christ. Songs:W. P. Du Bose calls his exposition of the book, _High Priesthood and Sacrifice_ (1908). This conception of Christ as our Priest who offered himself on the Cross and as our Advocate with the Father runs all through the New Testament (Mark:10:46; strkjv@Matthew:20:28; strkjv@John:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Romans:8:32; strkjv@1Peter:1:18f.; strkjv@1John:2:1f.; strkjv@Revelation:5:9|, etc.). But it is in Hebrews that we have the full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as our Priest and Redeemer. The Glory of Jesus runs through the whole book.

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

rwp@James:1:27 @{Pure religion and undefiled} (\thrˆskeia kathara kai amiantos\). Numerous examples in papyri and inscriptions of \thrˆskeia\ for ritual and reverential worship in the Roman Empire (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_; Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 251). As Hort shows, this is not a definition of religion or religious worship, but only a pertinent illustration of the right spirit of religion which leads to such acts. {Before our God and Father} (\para t“i the“i kai patri\). By the side of (\para\) and so from God's standpoint (Mark:10:27|). \Amiantos\ (compound verbal adjective, alpha privative, \miain“\ to defile), puts in negative form (cf. strkjv@1:4,6|) the idea in \kathara\ (pure, clean). This (\hautˆ\). Feminine demonstrative pronoun in the predicate agreeing with \thrˆskeia\. {To visit} (\episkeptesthai\). Epexegetic (explaining \hautˆ\) present middle infinitive of \episkeptomai\, common verb to go to see, to inspect, present tense for habit of going to see. See strkjv@Matthew:25:36,43| for visiting the sick. {The fatherless and widows} (\orphanous kai chˆras\). "The natural objects of charity in the community" (Ropes). \Orphanos\ is old word for bereft of father or mother or both. In N.T. only here and strkjv@John:14:18|. Note order (orphans before widows). {Unspotted} (\aspilon\). Old adjective (alpha privative and \spilos\, spot), spotless. This the more important of the two illustrations and the hardest to execute. {To keep} (\tˆrein\). Present active infinitive, "to keep on keeping oneself un-specked from the world" (a world, \kosmos\, full of dirt and slime that bespatters the best of men).

rwp@Info_John @ A DIFFERENT STYLE OF TEACHING Songs:different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon's _Memorabilia_ and of Plato's _Dialogues_. There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters strkjv@John:7-11|. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|). The use of "the Father" and "the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

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

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

rwp@Info_John @ JOHN'S PORTRAIT OF CHRIST No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: "And the Word was God" (John:1:1|) and in the correct text of strkjv@John:1:18|, "God only begotten" (\theos monogenˆs\). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: "This is the Son of God" (John:1:34|). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (John:5:18|) and the claim of Christ himself (John:5:20-23; strkjv@6:48; strkjv@8:12,58; strkjv@11:25; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|) with the full and frank conviction of the author in strkjv@John:20:31|. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term \theos\ applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_ (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ's crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly (_Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah_, 1900; _St. John's Portrait of Christ_, 1910).

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

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

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

rwp@John:5:39 @{Ye search} (\eraunƒte\). Proper spelling as the papyri show rather than \ereunƒte\, the old form (from \ereuna\, search) as in strkjv@7:52|. The form here can be either present active indicative second person plural or the present active imperative second person plural. Only the context can decide. Either makes sense here, but the reason given "because ye think" (\hoti humeis dokeite\, clearly indicative), supports the indicative rather than the imperative. Besides, Jesus is arguing on the basis of their use of "the Scriptures" (\tas graphas\). The plural with the article refers to the well-known collection in the Old Testament (Matthew:21:42; strkjv@Luke:24:27|). Elsewhere in John the singular refers to a particular passage (2:22; strkjv@7:38; strkjv@10:35|). {In them ye have eternal life} (\en autais z“ˆn ai“nion echein\). Indirect assertion after \dokeite\ without "ye" expressed either as nominative (\humeis\) or accusative (\humas\). Bernard holds that in John \doke“\ always indicates a mistaken opinion (5:45; strkjv@11:13,31; strkjv@13:29; strkjv@16:20; strkjv@20:15|). Certainly the rabbis did make a mechanical use of the letter of Scripture as a means of salvation. {These are they} (\ekeinai eisin hai\). The true value of the Scriptures is in their witness to Christ (of me, \peri emou\). Luke (24:27,45|) gives this same claim of Jesus, and yet some critics fail to find the Messiah in the Old Testament. But Jesus did.

rwp@John:5:47 @{His writings} (\tois ekeinou grammasin\). Dative case with \pistuete\. See strkjv@Luke:16:31| for a like argument. The authority of Moses was the greatest of all for Jews. There is a contrast also between {writings} (\grammasin\, from \graph“\, to write) and {words} (\rˆmasin\, from \eipon\). \Gramma\ may mean the mere letter as opposed to spirit (2Corinthians:3:6; strkjv@Romans:2:27,29; strkjv@7:6|), a debtor's bond (Luke:16:6f.|), letters or learning (John:7:15; strkjv@Acts:26:24|) like \agrammatoi\ for unlearned (Acts:4:13|), merely written characters (Luke:23:38; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:7; strkjv@Galatians:6:11|), official communications (Acts:28:21|), once \hiera grammata\ for the sacred writings (2Timothy:3:15|) instead of the more usual \hai hagiai graphai\. \Graphˆ\ is used also for a single passage (Mark:12:10|), but \biblion\ for a book or roll (Luke:4:17|) or \biblos\ (Luke:20:42|). Jesus clearly states the fact that Moses wrote portions of the Old Testament, what portions he does not say. See also strkjv@Luke:24:27,44| for the same idea. There was no answer from the rabbis to this conclusion of Christ. The scribes (\hoi grammateis\) made copies according to the letter (\kata to gramma\).

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

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

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

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

rwp@John:11:47 @{Gathered a council} (\sunˆgagon sunedrion\). Second aorist active indicative of \sunag“\ and \sunedrion\, the regular word for the Sanhedrin (Matthew:5:22|, etc.), only here in John. Here a sitting or session of the Sanhedrin. Both chief priests (Sadducees) and Pharisees (mentioned no more in John after strkjv@7:57| save strkjv@12:19,42|) combine in the call (cf. strkjv@7:32|). From now on the chief priests (Sadducees) take the lead in the attacks on Jesus, though loyally supported by their opponents (the Pharisees). {And said} (\kai elegon\). Imperfect active of \leg“\, perhaps inchoative, "began to say." {What do we?} (\Ti poioumen;\). Present active (linear) indicative of \poie“\. Literally, "What are we doing?" {Doeth} (\poiei\). Better, "is doing" (present, linear action). He is active and we are idle. There is no mention of the raising of Lazarus as a fact, but it is evidently inoluded in the "many signs."

rwp@John:11:57 @{The chief priests and the Pharisees} (\hoi archiereis kai hoi Pharisaioi\). The Sanhedrin. {Had given commandment} (\ded“keisan entolas\). Past perfect active of \did“mi\. {That he should shew it} (\hina mˆnusˆi\). Sub-final \hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \mˆnu“\, old verb to disclose, to report formally (Acts:23:30|). {If any man knew} (\ean tis gn“i\). Third-class condition with \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \gin“sk“\. {Where he was} (\pou estin\). Indirect question with interrogative adverb and present indicative \estin\ retained like \gn“i\ and \mˆnusˆi\ after the secondary tense \ded“keisan\. {That they might take him} (\hop“s pias“sin auton\). Purpose clause with \hop“s\ instead of \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \piaz“\ so often used before (7:44|, etc.).

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

rwp@John:12:17 @{Bare witness} (\emarturei\). Imperfect active of \marture“\. This crowning triumph of Jesus gave an added sense of importance to the crowds that were actually with Jesus when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead. For this description of this portion of the crowd see strkjv@11:45f.; strkjv@12:1,9-11|.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SAME AUTHOR FOR GOSPEL AND ACTS The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as "the first treatise," \ton pr“ton 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} (\epoiˆsamˆn\, 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 agapˆtos\, 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@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK Literary charm is here beyond dispute. It is a book that only a man with genuine culture and literary genius could write. It has all the simple grace of Mark and Matthew plus an indefinable quality not in these wonderful books. There is a delicate finish of detail and proportion of parts that give the balance and poise that come only from full knowledge of the subject, the chief element in a good style according to Dr. James Stalker. This scientific physician, this man of the schools, this converted Gentile, this devoted friend of Paul, comes to the study of the life of Christ with a trained intellect, with an historian's method of research, with a physician's care in diagnosis and discrimination, with a charm of style all his own, with reverence for and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. One could not afford to give up either of the Four Gospels. They each supplement the other in a wonderful way. John's Gospel is the greatest book in all the world, reaching the highest heights of all. But if we had only Luke's Gospel, we should have an adequate portrait of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Son of Man. If Mark's is the Gospel for the Romans and Matthew's for the Jews, the Gospel of Luke is for the Gentile world. He shows the sympathy of Jesus for the poor and the outcast. Luke understands women and children and so is the universal Gospel of mankind in all phases and conditions. It is often called the Gospel of womanhood, of infancy, of prayer, of praise. We have in Luke the first Christian hymns. With Luke we catch some glimpses of the child Jesus for which we are grateful. Luke was a friend and follower of Paul, and verbal parallels with Paul's Epistles do occur, but there is no Pauline propaganda in the Gospel as Moffatt clearly shows (_Intr. to Lit. of the N.T._, p. 281). The Prologue is in literary _Koin‚_ and deserves comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style is versatile and is often coloured by his source. He was a great reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show. Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting Thucydides. Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics used to cite strkjv@Luke:2:1-7| as a passage containing more historical blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his various books, especially in _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_. The main feature of this proof appears also in my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_. Songs:many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still stands alone.

rwp@Luke:1:1 @{Forasmuch as} (\epeidˆper\). Here alone in the N.T., though common in literary Attic. Appears in the papyri. A triple compound (\epei\ = since, \dˆ\ = admittedly true, \per\ = intensive particle to emphasize importance). {Many} (\polloi\). How many no one knows, but certainly more than two or three. We know that Luke used the Logia of Jesus written by Matthew in Aramaic (Papias) and Mark's Gospel. Undoubtedly he had other written sources. {Have taken in hand} (\epecheirˆsan\). A literal translation of \epicheire“\ (from \cheir\, hand and \epi\, upon). Both Hippocrates and Galen use this word in their introduction to their medical works. Here only in the N.T., though a common literary word. Common in the papyri for undertaking with no idea of failure or blame. Luke does not mean to cast reflection on those who preceded him. The apocryphal gospels were all much later and are not in his mind. Luke had secured fuller information and planned a book on a larger scale and did surpass them with the result that they all perished save Mark's Gospel and what Matthew and Luke possess of the Logia of Jesus. There was still room for Luke's book. That motive influences every author and thus progress is made. {To draw up, a narrative} (\anataxasthai diˆgˆsin\). Ingressive aorist middle infinitive. This verb \anataxasthai\ has been found only in Plutarch's _Moral_. 968 CD about an elephant "rehearsing" by moonlight certain tricks it had been taught (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). That was from memory going regularly through the thing again. But the idea in the word is plain enough. The word is composed of \tass“\, a common verb for arranging things in proper order and \ana\, again. Luke means to say that those before him had made attempts to rehearse in orderly fashion various matters about Christ. "The expression points to a connected series of narratives in some order (\taxis\), topical or chronological rather than to isolated narratives" (Bruce). "They had produced something more than mere notes or anecdotes" (Plummer). \Diˆgˆsis\ means leading or carrying a thing through, not a mere incident. Galen applies this word some seventy-five times to the writing of Hippocrates. {Which have been fulfilled} (\t“n peplˆr“phorˆmen“n\). Perfect passive participle from \plˆrophore“\ and that from \plˆrˆs\ (full) and \pher“\ (to bring). Hence to bring or make full. The verb is rare outside of the LXX and the N.T. Papyri examples occur for finishing off a legal matter or a financial matter in full. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 86f.) gives examples from the papyri and inscriptions for completing a task or being convinced or satisfied in mind. The same ambiguity occurs here. When used of persons in the N.T. the meaning is to be convinced, or fully persuaded (Romans:4:21; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|). When used of things it has the notion of completing or finishing (2Timothy:4:5,17|). Luke is here speaking of "matters" (\pragmat“n\). Luke may refer to the matters connected with Christ's life which have been brought to a close among us or accomplished. Bruce argues plausibly that he means fulness of knowledge "concerning the things which have become widely known among us Christians." In strkjv@Colossians:2:2| we have "fulness of understanding" (\tˆs plˆrophorias tˆs sunese“s\). In modern Greek the verb means to inform. The careful language of Luke here really pays a tribute to those who had preceded him in their narratives concerning Christ.

rwp@Luke:1:5 @{There was} (\egeneto\). Not the usual \en\ for "was," but there arose or came into notice. With this verse the literary _Koin‚_ of verses 1 to 4 disappears. To the end of chapter 2 we have the most Hebraistic (Aramaic) passage in Luke's writings, due evidently to the use of documents or notes of oral tradition. Plummer notes a series of such documents ending with strkjv@1:80, strkjv@2:40, strkjv@2:52|. If the mother of Jesus was still alive, Luke could have seen her. She may have written in Aramaic an account of these great events. Natural reserve would keep her from telling too much and from too early publicity. Luke, as a physician, would take special interest in her birth report. The supernatural aspects disturb only those who do not admit the real Incarnation of Jesus Christ and who are unable to believe that God is superior to nature and that the coming of the Son of God to earth justifies such miraculous manifestations of divine power. Luke tells his story from the standpoint of Mary as Matthew gives his from the standpoint of Joseph. The two supplement each other. We have here the earliest documentary evidence of the origins of Christianity that has come down to us (Plummer). {Herod, King of Judea} (\Hˆr“idou basile“s tˆs Ioudaias\). This note of time locates the events before the death of Herod the Great (as he was called later), appointed King of Judea by the Roman Senate B.C. 40 at the suggestion of Octavius and Antony. He died B.C. 4. {Of the course of Abijah} (\ex ephˆmerias Abia\). Not in old Greek, but in LXX and modern Greek. Papyri have a verb derived from it, \ephˆmere“\. Daily service (Nehemiah:13:30; strkjv@1Chronicles:25:8|) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1Chronicles:23:6; strkjv@28:13|). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the eighth (1Chronicles:24:10; strkjv@2Chronicles:8:14|). Only four of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into twenty-four with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for eight days, sabbath to sabbath, twice a year. On sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of tabernacles all twenty-four courses were present. {Of the daughters of Aaron} (\ek t“n thugater“n Aar“n\). "To be a priest and married to a priest's daughter was a double distinction" (Plummer). Like a preacher married to a preacher's daughter.

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

rwp@Luke:7:17 @{This report} (\ho logos houtos\). That God had raised up a great prophet who had shown his call by raising the dead.

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

rwp@Luke:8:3 @{Joanna} (\I“ana\). Her husband \Chuzƒ\, steward (\epitropou\) of Herod, is held by some to be the nobleman (\basilikos\) of strkjv@John:4:46-53| who believed and all his house. At any rate Christ had a follower from the household of Herod Antipas who had such curiosity to see and hear him. One may recall also Manaen (Acts:13:1|), Herod's foster brother. Joanna is mentioned again with Mary Magdalene in strkjv@Luke:24:10|. {Who ministered unto them} (\haitines diˆkonoun autois\). Imperfect active of \diakone“\, common verb, but note augment as if from \dia\ and \akone“\, but from \diakonos\ and that from \dia\ and \konis\ (dust). The very fact that Jesus now had twelve men going with him called for help from others and the women of means responded to the demand. {Of their substance} (\ek t“n huparchont“n autais\). From the things belonging to them. This is the first woman's missionary society for the support of missionaries of the Gospel. They had difficulties in their way, but they overcame these, so great was their gratitude and zeal.

rwp@Luke:8:10 @{The mysteries} (\ta mustˆria\). See for this word on ¯Matthew:13:11; strkjv@Mark:4:11|. Part of the mystery here explained is how so many people who have the opportunity to enter the kingdom fail to do so because of manifest unfitness. {That} (\hina\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:11| also has \hina\ while strkjv@Matthew:13:13| has \hoti\ (because). On the so-called causal use of \hina\ as here equal to \hoti\ see discussion on ¯Matthew:13:13; strkjv@Mark:4:11|. Plummer sensibly argues that there is truth both in the causal \hoti\ of Matthew and the final \hina\ of Mark and Matthew. "But the principle that he who hath shall receive more, while he who hath not shall be deprived of what he seemeth to have, explains both the \hina\ and the \hoti\. Jesus speaks in parables because the multitudes see without seeing and hear without hearing. But He also speaks in parable {in order that} they may see without seeing and hear without hearing." Only for "hearing" Luke has "understand" \suni“sin\, present subjunctive from a late omega form \suni“\ instead of the \-mi\ verb \suniˆmi\.

rwp@Luke:8:16 @{When he hath lighted a lamp} (\luchnon hapsas\). It is a portable lamp (\luchnon\) that one lights (\hapsas\ aorist active participle of \hapt“\, to kindle, fasten to, light). {With a vessel} (\skeuei\, instrumental case of \skeuos\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:21| has the more definite figure "under the bushel" as has strkjv@Matthew:5:15|. {Under the bed} (\hupokat“ klinˆs\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:21| has the regular \hupo tˆn klinˆn\ instead of the late compound \hupokat“\. Ragg notes that Matthew distributes the sayings of Jesus given here by strkjv@Luke:8:16-18; strkjv@Mark:4:21-25| concerning the parable of the lamp and gives them in three separate places (Matthew:5:15; strkjv@10:26; strkjv@13:12|). That is true, but it does not follow that Mark and Luke have bunched together separate sayings or that Matthew has scattered sayings delivered only on one occasion. One of the slowest lessons for some critics to learn is that Jesus repeated favourite sayings on different occasions and in different groupings just as every popular preacher and teacher does today. See on ¯Mark:4:21| for further discussion of the lamp and stand. {May see the light} (\Blep“sin to ph“s\). In strkjv@Matthew:5:16| Jesus has it "may see your good works." The purpose of light is to let one see something else, not the light. Note present subjunctive (\blep“sin\), linear action "Jesus had kindled a light within them. They must not hide it, but must see that it spreads to others" (Plummer). The parable of the lamp throws light on the parable of the sower.

rwp@Luke:8:18 @{How ye hear} (\p“s akouete\). The manner of hearing. strkjv@Mark:4:24| has "what ye hear" (\ti akouete\), the matter that is heard. Both are supremely important. Some things should not be heard at all. Some that are heard should be forgotten. Others should be treasured and practised. {For whosoever hath} (\Hosea:an gar echˆi\). Present active subjunctive of the common verb \ech“\ which may mean "keep on having" or "acquiring." See on ¯Mark:4:25| for discussion. {Thinketh he hath} (\dokei echein\), or {seems to acquire or to hold}. Losses in business illustrate this saying as when we see their riches take wings and fly away. Songs:it is with hearing and heeding. Self-deception is a common complaint.

rwp@Luke:19:2 @{Chief publican} (\architel“nˆs\). The word occurs nowhere else apparently but the meaning is clear from the other words with \archi-\ like \archiereus\ (chief priest) \archipoimˆn\ (chief shepherd). Jericho was an important trading point for balsam and other things and so Zacchaeus was the head of the tax collections in this region, a sort of commissioner of taxes who probably had other publicans serving under him.

rwp@Luke:20:37 @{Even Moses} (\kai M“usˆs\). Moses was used by the Sadducees to support their denial of the resurrection. This passage (Exodus:3:6|) Jesus skilfully uses as a proof of the resurrection. See discussion on ¯Matthew:22:32; strkjv@Mark:12:26f|.

rwp@Luke:20:39 @{Certain of the scribes} (\tines t“n grammate“n\). Pharisees who greatly enjoyed this use by Jesus of a portion of the Pentateuch against the position of the Sadducees. Songs:they praise the reply of Jesus, hostile though they are to him.

rwp@Luke:20:45 @{In the hearing of all the people} (\akouontos pantos tou laou\). Genitive absolute, "while all the people were listening" (present active participle). That is the time to speak. The details in this verse and verse 47| are precisely those given in strkjv@Mark:12:38f.|, which see for discussion of details. strkjv@Matthew:23:1-39| has a very full and rich description of this last phase of the debate in the temple where Jesus drew a full-length portrait of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and scribes in their presence. It was a solemn climax to this last public appearance of Christ in the temple when Jesus poured out the vials of his indignation as he had done before (Matthew:16:2; strkjv@Luke:11:37-54; 12-1|).

rwp@Luke:21:5 @{As some spake} (\tin“n legont“n\). Genitive absolute. The disciples we know from strkjv@Mark:13:1; strkjv@Matthew:24:1|. {How} (\hoti\). Literally, "that." {It was adorned} (\kekosmˆtai\). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, stands adorned, tense retained in indirect discourse, though English has to change it. \Kosme“\, old and common verb for orderly arrangement and adorning. {With goodly stones and offerings} (\lithois kalois kai anathˆmasin\). Instrumental case. Some of these stones in the substructure were enormous. "The columns of the cloister or portico were monoliths of marble over forty feet high" (Plummer). Cf. Josephus, _War_, V.5. The word \anathˆma\ (here only in the N.T.) is not to be confused with \anathema\ from the same verb \anatithˆmi\, but which came to mean a curse (Galatians:1:8; strkjv@Acts:23:14|). Songs:\anathema\ came to mean devoted in a bad sense, \anathˆma\ in a good sense. "Thus _knave_, lad, becomes a _rascal; villain_, a _farmer_, becomes a _scoundrel; cunning_, _skilful_, becomes _crafty_" (Vincent). These offerings in the temple were very numerous and costly (2Macc. strkjv@3:2-7) like the golden vine of Herod with branches as tall as a man (Josephus, _Ant_. XV. ii.3).

rwp@Luke:21:32 @{This generation} (\hˆ genea hautˆ\). Naturally people then living. {Shall not pass away} (\ou mˆ parelthˆi\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \parerchomai\. Strongest possible negative with \ou mˆ\. {Till all things be accomplished} (\he“s an panta genˆtai\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ with \he“s\, common idiom. The words give a great deal of trouble to critics. Some apply them to the whole discourse including the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, the second coming and the end of the world. Some of these argue that Jesus was simply mistaken in his eschatology, some that he has not been properly reported in the Gospels. Others apply them only to the destruction of Jerusalem which did take place in A.D. 70 before that generation passed away. It must be said for this view that it is not easy in this great eschatological discourse to tell clearly when Jesus is discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and when the second coming. Plummer offers this solution: "The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world."

rwp@Luke:22:6 @{Consented} (\ex“mologˆsen\). Old verb, but the ancients usually used the simple form for promise or consent rather than the compound. This is the only instance of this sense in the N.T. It is from \homologos\ (\homos\, same, and \leg“\, to say), to say the same thing with another and so agree. {Opportunity} (\eukarian\). From \eukairos\ (\eu, kairos\), a good chance. Old word, but in the N.T. only here and parallel passage strkjv@Matthew:26:16|. {In the absence of the multitude} (\ater ochlou\). \Ater\ is an old preposition, common in the poets, but rare in prose. Also in verse 35|. It means "without," "apart from," like \ch“ris\. The point of Judas was just this. He would get Jesus into the hands of the Sanhedrin during the feast in spite of the crowd. It was necessary to avoid tumult (Matthew:26:5|) because of the popularity of Jesus.

rwp@Luke:23:38 @{A superscription} (\epigraphˆ\). strkjv@Mark:15:26| has "the superscription of his accusation" strkjv@Matthew:27:37|, "his accusation," strkjv@John:19:19| "a title." But they all refer to the charge written at the top on the cross giving, as was the custom, the accusation on which the criminal was condemned, with his name and residence. Put all the reports together and we have: This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews. This full title appeared in Latin for law, in Aramaic for the Jews, in Greek for everybody (John:19:20|).

rwp@Info_Mark @ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark's Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that A.D. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_. Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark's Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q (_Logia of Jesus_) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark's work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter (_The Four Gospels_) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter's own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|).

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

rwp@Mark:5:20 @{He went his way} (\apˆlthen\). He went off and did as Jesus told him. He heralded (\kˆrussein\) or published the story till all over Decapolis men marvelled (\ethaumazon\) at what Jesus did, kept on marvelling (imperfect tense). The man had a greater opportunity for Christ right in his home land than anywhere else. They all knew this once wild demoniac who now was a new man in Christ Jesus. Thousands of like cases of conversion under Christ's power have happened in rescue missions in our cities.

rwp@Mark:5:33 @{Fearing and trembling, knowing} (\phobˆtheisa kai tremousa, eiduia\). These participles vividly portray this woman who had tried to hide in the crowd. She had heard Christ's question and felt his gaze. She had to come and confess, for something "has happened" (\gegonen\, second perfect active indicative, still true) to her. {Fell down before him} (\prosepesen aut“i\). That was the only proper attitude now. {All the truth} (\pƒsan tˆn alˆtheian\). Secrecy was no longer possible. She told "the pitiful tale of chronic misery" (Bruce).

rwp@Mark:5:35 @{While he yet spake} (\Eti autou lalountos\). Genitive absolute. Another vivid touch in Mark and strkjv@Luke:8:49|. The phrase is in strkjv@Genesis:29:9|. Nowhere does Mark preserve better the lifelike traits of an eyewitness like Peter than in these incidents in chapter 5. The arrival of the messengers from Jairus was opportune for the woman just healed of the issue of blood (\en husei haimatos\) for it diverted attention from her. Now the ruler's daughter has died (\apethane\). {Why troublest thou the master any further?} (\Ti eti skulleis ton didaskalon;\). It was all over, so they felt. Jesus had raised from the dead the son of the widow of Nain (Luke:7:11-17|), but people in general did not expect him to raise the dead. The word \skull“\, from \skulon\ (_skin, pelt, spoils_), means to skin, to flay, in Aeschylus. Then it comes to mean to vex, annoy, distress as in strkjv@Matthew:9:36|, which see. The middle is common in the papyri for bother, worry, as in strkjv@Luke:7:6|. There was no further use in troubling the Teacher about the girl.

rwp@Mark:5:36 @{Not heeding} (\parakousas\). This is the sense in strkjv@Matthew:18:17| and uniformly so in the LXX. But here the other sense of hearing aside, overhearing what was not spoken directly to him, probably exists also. "Jesus might overhear what was said and disregard its import" (Bruce). Certainly he ignored the conclusion of the messengers. The present participle \laloumenon\ suits best the idea of overhearing. Both Mark and strkjv@Luke:8:50| have "Fear not, only believe" (\mˆ phobou, monon pisteue\). This to the ruler of the synagogue (\t“i archisunag“g“i\) who had remained and to whom the messenger had spoken.

rwp@Mark:6:2 @{Began to teach} (\ˆrxato didaskein\). As was now his custom in the synagogue on the sabbath. The ruler of the synagogue (\archisunag“gos\, see strkjv@Matthew:5:22|) would ask some one to speak whensoever he wished. The reputation of Jesus all over Galilee opened the door for him. Jesus may have gone to Nazareth for rest, but could not resist this opportunity for service. {Whence hath this man these things?} (\Pothen tout“i tauta;\). Laconic and curt, {Whence these things to this fellow?} With a sting and a fling in their words as the sequel shows. They continued to be amazed (\exeplˆssonto\, imperfect tense passive). They challenge both the apparent {wisdom} (\sophia\) with which he spoke and {the mighty works} or powers (\hai dunameis\) {such as those} (\toiautai\) {coming to pass} (\ginomenai\, present middle participle, repeatedly wrought) {by his hands} (\dia t“n cheir“n\). They felt that there was some hocus-pocus about it somehow and somewhere. They do not deny the wisdom of his words, nor the wonder of his works, but the townsmen knew Jesus and they had never suspected that he possessed such gifts and graces.

rwp@Mark:6:8 @{Save a staff only} (\ei mˆ rabdon monon\). Every traveller and pilgrim carried his staff. Bruce thinks that Mark has here preserved the meaning of Jesus more clearly than strkjv@Matthew:10:10| (nor staff) and strkjv@Luke:9:3| (neither staff). This discrepancy has given trouble to commentators. Grotius suggests no second staff for Matthew and Luke. Swete considers that Matthew and Luke report "an early exaggeration of the sternness of the command." "Without even a staff is the _ne plus ultra_ of austere simplicity, and self-denial. Men who carry out the spirit of these precepts will not labour in vain" (Bruce).

rwp@Mark:6:21 @{When a convenient day was come} (\genomenˆs hˆmeras eukairou\). Genitive absolute. A day well appointed \eu\, well, \kairos\, time) for the purpose, the day for which she had long waited. She had her plans all laid to spring a trap for her husband Herod Antipas and to make him do her will with the Baptist. Herod was not to know that he was the mere catspaw of Herodias till it was all over. See on ¯Matthew:14:6| for discussion of Herod's birthday (\genesiois\, locative case or associative instrumental of time). {Made a supper} (\deipnon epoiˆsen\). Banquet. {To his lords} (\tois megistƒsin autou\). From \megistan\ (that from \megas\, great), common in the LXX and later Greek. Cf. strkjv@Revelation:6:15; strkjv@18:23|. In the papyri. The grandees, magnates, nobles, the chief men of civil life. {The high captains} (\tois chiliarchois\). Military tribunes, commanders of a thousand men. {The chief men of Galilee} (\tois pr“tois tˆs Galilaias\). The first men of social importance and prominence. A notable gathering that included these three groups at the banquet on Herod's birthday.

rwp@Mark:6:27 @{A soldier of his guard} (\spekoulatora\). Latin word _speculator_. A spy, scout, lookout, and often executioner. It was used of the bodyguard of the Roman emperor and so for one of Herod's spies. He was used to do errands of this sort and it was soon done. It was a gruesome job, but he soon brought John's head to the damsel, apparently in the presence of all, and she took it to her mother. This miserable Tetrarch, the slave of Herodias, was now the slave of his fears. He is haunted by the ghost of John and shudders at the reports of the work of Jesus.

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

rwp@Mark:6:44 @{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:7:2 @{With defiled, that is unwashen hands} (\koinais chersin, tout' estin aniptois\). Associative instrumental case. Originally \koinos\ meant what was common to everybody like the _Koin‚_ Greek. But in later Greek it came also to mean as here what is vulgar or profane. Songs:Peter in strkjv@Acts:10:14| "common and unclean." The next step was the ceremonially unclean. The emissaries of the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem had seen "some of the disciples" eat without washing their hands, how many we are not told. Swete suggests that in going through the plain the disciples were seen eating some of the bread preserved in the twelve baskets the afternoon before across the lake. There was no particular opportunity to wash the hands, a very proper thing to do before eating for sanitary reasons. But the objection raised is on ceremonial, not sanitary, grounds.

rwp@Mark:7:4 @{From the marketplace} (\ap' agoras\). Ceremonial defilement was inevitable in the mixing with men in public. This \agora\ from \ageir“\ to collect or gather, was a public forum in every town where the people gathered like the courthouse square in American towns. The disciples were already ceremonially defiled. {Wash themselves} (\baptis“ntai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \baptiz“\, dip or immerse. Westcott and Hort put \rantis“ntai\ in the text translated "sprinkle themselves" in the margin of the Revised Version, because Aleph, B, and some of the best cursives have it. Gould terms \rantis“ntai\ "a manifest emendation," to get rid of the difficulty of dipping or bathing the whole body. Meyer says: "The statement proceeds by way of climax: before eating they wash the hands always. When they come from market they take a bath before eating." This is not the place to enter into any controversy about the meaning of \baptiz“\, to dip, \rantiz“\, to sprinkle, and \ecche“\, to pour, all used in the New Testament. The words have their distinctive meanings here as elsewhere. Some scribes felt a difficulty about the use of \baptis“ntai\ here. The Western and Syrian classes of manuscripts add "and couches" (\kai klin“n\) at the end of the sentence. Swete considers the immersions of beds (\baptismous klin“n\) "an incongruous combination." But Gould says: "Edersheim shows that the Jewish ordinance required immersions, \baptismous\, of these vessels." We must let the Jewish scrupulosity stand for itself, though "and couches" is not supported by Aleph, B L D Bohairic, probably not genuine.

rwp@Mark:7:11 @{Corban} (\korban ho estin d“ron\). See on ¯Matthew:15:5|. Mark preserves the Hebrew word for a gift or offering to God (Exodus:21:17; strkjv@Leviticus:20:9|), indeclinable here, meaning {gift} (\d“ron\), but declinable \korbanas\ in strkjv@Matthew:27:6|, meaning sacred treasury. The rabbis ({but ye say}, \humeis de legete\) actually allowed the mere saying of this word by an unfaithful son to prevent the use of needed money for the support of father or mother. It was a home thrust to these pettifogging sticklers for ceremonial punctilios. They not only justified such a son's trickery, but held that he was prohibited from using it for father or mother, but he might use it for himself.

rwp@Mark:7:19 @{Making all meats clean} (\kathariz“n panta ta br“mata\). This anacoluthon can be understood by repeating {he says} (\legei\) from verse 18|. The masculine participle agrees with Jesus, the speaker. The words do not come from Jesus, but are added by Mark. Peter reports this item to Mark, probably with a vivid recollection of his own experience on the housetop in Joppa when in the vision Peter declined three times the Lord's invitation to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts:10:14-16|). It was a riddle to Peter as late as that day. "Christ asserts that _Levitical_ uncleanness, such as eating with unwashed hands, is of small importance compared with _moral_ uncleanness" (Vincent). The two chief words in both incidents, here and in Acts, are {defile} (\koino“\) and {cleanse} (\kathariz“\). "What God cleansed do not thou treat as defiled" (Acts:10:15|). It was a revolutionary declaration by Jesus and Peter was slow to understand it even after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus was amply justified in his astonished question: {Perceive ye not?} (\ou noeite;\). They were making little use of their intelligence in trying to comprehend the efforts of Jesus to give them a new and true spiritual insight.

rwp@Mark:7:27 @{Let the children first be filled} (\aphes pr“ton chortasthˆnai ta paidia\). The Jews had the first claim. See the command of Jesus in the third tour of Galilee to avoid the Gentiles and the Samaritans (Matthew:10:5|). Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, but he gave the Jew the first opportunity (Romans:2:9f.|). See on ¯Matthew:15:24f|.

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

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

rwp@Matthew:6:12 @{Our debts} (\ta opheilˆmata hˆm“n\). Luke (Luke:11:4|) has "sins" (\hamartias\). In the ancient Greek \opheilˆma\ is common for actual legal debts as in strkjv@Romans:4:4|, but here it is used of moral and spiritual debts to God. "Trespasses" is a mistranslation made common by the Church of England Prayer Book. It is correct in verse 14| in Christ's argument about prayer, but it is not in the Model Prayer itself. See strkjv@Matthew:18:28,30| for sin pictured again by Christ "as debt and the sinner as a debtor" (Vincent). We are thus described as having wronged God. The word \opheilˆ\ for moral obligation was once supposed to be peculiar to the New Testament. But it is common in that sense in the papyri (Deismann, _Bible Studies_, p. 221; _Light from the Ancient East,_ New ed., p. 331). We ask forgiveness "in proportion as" (\h“s\) we _also_ have forgiven those in debt to us, a most solemn reflection. \Aphˆkamen\ is one of the three k aorists (\ethˆka, ed“ka, hˆka\). It means to send away, to dismiss, to wipe off.

rwp@Matthew:16:18 @{The gates of Hades} (\pulai hƒidou\) {shall not prevail against it} (\ou katischusousin autˆs\). Each word here creates difficulty. Hades is technically the unseen world, the Hebrew Sheol, the land of the departed, that is death. Paul uses \thanate\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:55| in quoting strkjv@Hosea:13:14| for \hƒidˆ\. It is not common in the papyri, but it is common on tombstones in Asia Minor, "doubtless a survival of its use in the old Greek religion" (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). The ancient pagans divided Hades (\a\ privative and \idein\, to see, abode of the unseen) into Elysium and Tartarus as the Jews put both Abraham's bosom and Gehenna in Sheol or Hades (cf. strkjv@Luke:16:25|). Christ was in Hades (Acts:2:27,31|), not in Gehenna. We have here the figure of two buildings, the Church of Christ on the Rock, the House of Death (Hades). "In the Old Testament the 'gates of Hades' (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isaiah:38:10|; Wisd. strkjv@16:3; 3Macc. strkjv@5:51) than death," McNeile claims. See also strkjv@Psalms:9:13; strkjv@107:18; strkjv@Job:38:17| (\pulai thanatou pul“roi hƒidou\). It is not the picture of Hades _attacking_ Christ's church, but of death's possible victory over the church. "The \ekklˆsia\ is built upon the Messiahship of her master, and death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her by keeping Him imprisoned. It was a mysterious truth, which He will soon tell them in plain words (verse 21|); it is echoed in strkjv@Acts:2:24,31|" (McNeile). Christ's church will prevail and survive because He will burst the gates of Hades and come forth conqueror. He will ever live and be the guarantor of the perpetuity of His people or church. The verb \katischu“\ (literally have strength against, \ischu“\ from \ischus\ and \kat-\) occurs also in strkjv@Luke:21:36; strkjv@23:23|. It appears in the ancient Greek, the LXX, and in the papyri with the accusative and is used in the modern Greek with the sense of gaining the mastery over. The wealth of imagery in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The \ekklˆsia\ which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. _Sublime Porte_ used to be the title of Turkish power in Constantinople.

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

rwp@Matthew:20:20 @{Then} (\tote\). Surely an inopportune time for such a request just after the pointed prediction of Christ's crucifixion. Perhaps their minds had been preoccupied with the words of Jesus (19:28|) about their sitting on twelve thrones taking them in a literal sense. The mother of James and John, probably Salome, possibly a sister of the Master's mother (John:19:25|), apparently prompted her two sons because of the family relationship and now speaks for them. {Asking a certain thing} (\aitousa ti\). "Asking something," "plotting perhaps when their Master was predicting" (Bruce). The "something" put forward as a small matter was simply the choice of the two chief thrones promised by Jesus (19:28|).

rwp@Matthew:20:23 @{Ye shall drink} (\piesthe\). Future middle from \pin“\. Christ's cup was martyrdom. James was the first of the Twelve to meet the martyr's death (Acts:12:2|) and John the last if reports are true about him. How little they knew what they were saying.

rwp@Matthew:20:30 @{That Jesus was passing by} (\hoti Iˆsous paragei\). These men "were sitting by the wayside" (\kathˆmenoi para ten hodon\) at their regular stand. They heard the crowd yelling that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by (\paragei\, present indicative of direct discourse retained in the indirect). It was their one opportunity, now or never. They had heard of what he had done for other blind men. They hail him as "the son of David" (the Messiah). It is just one of many such incidents when Jesus stood still and opened their eyes, so many that even the multitude was impatient with the cries of these poor men that their eyes be opened (\anoig“sin\, second aorist passive subjunctive).

rwp@Matthew:21:33 @{A hedge} (\phragmon\). Or fence as a protection against wild beasts. {Digged a winepress} (\“ruxen lˆnon\). Out of the solid rock to hold the grapes and wine as they were crushed. Such wine-vats are to be seen today in Palestine. {Built a tower} (\“ikodomˆsen purgon\). This for the vinedressers and watchmen (2Chronicles:26:10|). Utmost care was thus taken. Note "a booth in a vineyard" (Isaiah:1:8|). See also strkjv@Isaiah:24:20; strkjv@Job:27:18|. Let it out (\exedeto, exedoto\ the usual form). For hire, the terms not being given. The lease allowed three forms, money-rent, a proportion of the crop, or a definite amount of the produce whether it was a good or bad year. Probably the last form is that contemplated here.

rwp@Matthew:21:34 @{His servants} (\tous doulous autou\). These slaves are distinguished from {the husbandmen} (\ge“rgoi\, workers of the soil) or workers of the vineyard who had leased it from the householder before he went away. The conduct of the husbandmen towards the householder's slaves portrays the behaviour of the Jewish people and the religious leaders in particular towards the prophets and now towards Christ. The treatment of God's prophets by the Jews pointedly illustrates this parable.

rwp@Matthew:22:1 @{Again in parables} (\palin en parabolais\). Matthew has already given two on this occasion (The Two Sons, The Wicked Husbandmen). He alone gives this Parable of the Marriage Feast of the King's Son. It is somewhat similar to that of The Supper in strkjv@Luke:14:16-23| given on another occasion. Hence some scholars consider this merely Matthew's version of the Lucan parable in the wrong place because of Matthew's habit of grouping the sayings of Jesus. But that is a gratuitous indictment of Matthew's report which definitely locates the parable here by \palin\. Some regard it as not spoken by Jesus at all, but an effort on the part of the writer to cover the sin and fate of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and God's demand for righteousness. But here again it is like Jesus and suits the present occasion.

rwp@Matthew:22:12 @{Not having a wedding-garment} (\mˆ ech“n enduma gamou\). \Mˆ\ 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 \mˆ\ 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:23:25 @{From extortion and excess} (\ex harpagˆs kai akrasias\). A much more serious accusation. These punctilious observers of the external ceremonies did not hesitate at robbery (\harpages\) and graft (\akrasias\), lack of control. A modern picture of wickedness in high places both civil and ecclesiastical where the moral elements in life are ruthlessly trodden under foot. Of course, the idea is for both the outside \ektos\ and the inside (\entos\) of the cup and the platter (fine side dish). But the inside is the more important. Note the change to singular in verse 26| as if Jesus in a friendlier tone pleads with a Pharisee to mend his ways.

rwp@Matthew:24:6 @{See that ye be not troubled} (\horate mˆ throeisthe\). Asyndeton here with these two imperatives as strkjv@Mark:8:15| \orate blepete\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 949). Look out for the wars and rumours of wars, but do not be scared out of your wits by them. \Throe“\ means to cry aloud, to scream, and in the passive to be terrified by an outcry. Paul uses this very verb (\mˆde throeisthai\) in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:2| as a warning against excitement over false reports that he had predicted the immediate second coming of Christ. {But the end is not yet} (\all' oup“ estin to telos\). It is curious how people overlook these words of Jesus and proceed to set dates for the immediate end. That happened during the Great War and it has happened since.

rwp@Matthew:24:24 @{Great signs and wonders} (\sˆmeia 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, \sˆmeion\, 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.

rwp@Revelation:6:6 @{As it were a voice} (\h“s ph“nˆn\). "This use of \h“s\, giving a certain vagueness or mysteriousness to a phrase, is one of the characteristics of the writer's style, e.g., strkjv@8:1; strkjv@14:3; strkjv@19:1,6|" (Beckwith). This voice comes from the midst of the four living creatures, "the protest of nature against the horrors of famine" (Swete). {A measure} (\choinix\). Old word for less than a quart with us, here only in N.T. {Of wheat} (\sitou\). Old word for wheat, a number of times in N.T., in Rev. only here and strkjv@18:13|. This was enough wheat to keep a man of moderate appetite alive for a day. {For a penny} (\dˆnariou\). Genitive of price, the wages of a day laborer (Matthew:20:2|), about eighteen cents in our money today. {Of barley} (\krith“n\). Old word \krithˆ\, usually in plural as here. Barley was the food of the poor and it was cheaper even in the famine and it took more of it to support life. Here the proportion is three to one (cf. strkjv@2Kings:7:18|). The proclamation forbids famine prices for food (solid and liquid). {Hurt thou not} (\mˆ adikˆsˆis\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and the ingressive first aorist active subjunctive of \adike“\. See strkjv@7:3; strkjv@9:4| for \adike“\ for injury to vegetable life. "The prohibition is addressed to the nameless rider who represents Dearth" (Swete). Wheat and barley, oil and the vine, were the staple foods in Palestine and Asia Minor.

rwp@Romans:12:6 @{Differing} (\diaphora\). Old adjective from \diapher“\, to differ, to vary. Songs:Hebrews:9:10|. {According to the proportion of our faith} (\kata tˆn analogian tˆs piste“s\). The same use of \pistis\ (faith) as in verse 3| "the measure of faith." Old word. \analogia\ (our word "analogy") from \analogos\ (analogous, conformable, proportional). Here alone in N.T. The verb \prophˆteu“men\ (present active volitive subjunctive, let us prophesy) must be supplied with which \echontes\ agrees. The context calls for the subjective meaning of "faith" rather than the objective and outward standard though \pistis\ does occur in that sense (Galatians:1:23; strkjv@3:23|).

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Tue Jul 2 16:48:04 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020