OT-POET.filter - rwp soi:

rwp@Acts:22:10 @{Into Damascus} (\eis Damaskon\). In strkjv@9:6| simply "into the city" (\eis tn polin\). {Of all things which} (\peri pantn hn\). \Hn\, relative plural attracted to genitive of antecedent from accusative \ha\, object of \poisai\ (do). {Are appointed for thee} (\tetaktai soi\). Perfect passive indicative of \tass\, to appoint, to order, with dative \soi\. Compare with \hoti se dei\ of strkjv@9:6|. The words were spoken to Paul, of course, in the Aramaic, Saoul, Saoul.

rwp@Acts:23:18 @{Paul the prisoner} (\ho desmios Paulos\). Bound (\desmios\) to a soldier, but not with two chains (21:33|), and with some freedom to see his friends as later (28:16|), in military custody (_custodia militaris_). This was better than _custodia publica_ (public custody), the common prison, but more confining. {Who hath something to say to thee} (\echonta ti lalsai soi\). Same idiom as in verse 17,19|, but \lalsai\ here instead of \apaggeilai\.

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 tn 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:26:14 @{When we were all fallen} (\pantn katapesontn hmn\). Genitive absolute with second aorist active participle of \katapipt\. In the Hebrew language (\ti Ebraidi dialekti\). Natural addition here, for Paul is speaking in Greek, not Aramaic as in strkjv@22:2|. {It is hard for thee to kick against the goad} (\sklron soi pros kentra laktizein\). Genuine here, but not in chapters 9,22|. A common proverb as Aeschylus _Ag_. 1624: \Pros kentra m laktize\. "It is taken from an ox that being pricked with a goad kicks and receives a severer wound" (Page). Cf. the parables of Jesus (Matthew:13:35|). Blass observes that Paul's mention of this Greek and Latin proverb is an indication of his culture. Besides he mentions (not invents) it here rather than in chapter 22| because of the culture of this audience. \Kentron\ means either sting as of bees (II Macc. strkjv@14:19) and so of death (1Corinthians:15:55|) or an iron goad in the ploughman's hand as here (the only two N.T. examples). Note plural here (goads) and \laktizein\ is present active infinitive so that the idea is "to keep on kicking against goads." This old verb means to kick with the heel (adverb \lax\, with the heel), but only here in the N.T. There is a papyrus example of kicking (\laktiz\) with the feet against the door.

rwp@Acts:26:16 @{Arise and stand} (\anastthi kai stthi\). "Emphatic assonance" (Page). Second aorist active imperative of compound verb (\anistmi\) and simplex (\histmi\). "Stand up and take a stand." {Have I appeared unto thee} (\phthn soi\). First aorist passive indicative of \hora\. See on ¯Luke:22:43|. {To appoint thee} (\procheirisasthai se\). See strkjv@3:30; strkjv@22:14| for this verb. {Both of the things wherein thou hast seen me} (\hn te eides me\). The reading \me\ (not in all MSS.) makes it the object of \eides\ (didst see) and \hn\ is genitive of \ha\ (accusative of general reference) attracted to the case of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\. Paul is thus a personal eyewitness of the Risen Christ (Luke:1:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:1; strkjv@9:1|). {And of the things wherein I will appear unto thee} (\hn te ophthsomai soi\). Here again \hn\ is genitive of the accusative (general reference) relative \ha\ attracted to the case of the antecedent \toutn\ or \ekeinn\ as before. But \ophthsomai\ is first future passive of \hora\ and cannot be treated as active or middle. Page takes it to mean "the visions in which I shall be seen by you," the passive form bringing out the agency of God. See those in strkjv@Acts:18:9; strkjv@23:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:2|. The passive voice, however, like \apekrithn\ and \ephobthn\, did become sometimes transitive in the _Koin_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 819).

rwp@James:1:21 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). Because of this principle. See strkjv@Ephesians:4:25|. {Putting away} (\apothemenoi\). Second aorist middle participle of \apotithmi\, to put off, metaphor of removing clothing as in strkjv@Romans:13:12; strkjv@Colossians:3:8; strkjv@Ephesians:4:22,25; strkjv@1Peter:2:1|. {Filthiness} (\ruparian\). Late word (Plutarch) from \ruparos\, dirty (James:2:2|), here only in N.T. Surely a dirty garment. {Overflowing of wickedness} (\perisseian kakias\). \Perisseia\ is a late word (from \perissos\, abundant, exceeding), only four times in N.T., in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:2| with \charas\ (of joy), in strkjv@Romans:5:17| with \charitos\ (of grace). \Kakia\ (from \kakos\, evil) can be either general like \ruparia\ (filthiness, naughtiness), or special like "malice." But any of either sense is a "superfluity." {With meekness} (\en pratti\). In docility. "The contrast is with \org\ rather than \kakias\" (Ropes). {The implanted word} (\ton emphuton logon\). This old verbal adjective (from \emphu\ to implant, to grow in), only here in N.T., meaning properly ingrown, inborn, not \emphuteuton\ (engrafted). It is "the rooted word" (verse 18|), sown in the heart as the soil or garden of God (Matthew:13:3-23; strkjv@15:13; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:6|). {Able to save} (\dunamenon ssai\). Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:9; strkjv@James:2:14; strkjv@4:12; strkjv@5:20; strkjv@Romans:1:16|. Ultimate salvation (effective aorist active infinitive \ssai\ from \sz\).

rwp@James:2:18 @{Yea, a man will say} (\all' erei tis\). Future active of \eipon\. But \all'\ here is almost certainly adversative (But some one will say), not confirmatory. James introduces an imaginary objector who speaks one sentence: "Thou hast faith and I have works" (\Su pistin echeis kag erga ech\). Then James answers this objector. The objector can be regarded as asking a short question: "Hast thou faith?" In that case James replies: "I have works also." {Show me thy faith apart from thy works} (\deixon moi tn pistin sou chris tn ergn\). This is the reply of James to the objector. First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, tense of urgency. The point lies in \chris\, which means not "without," but "apart from," as in strkjv@Hebrews:11:6| (with the ablative case), "the works that properly belong to it and should characterise it" (Hort). James challenges the objector to do this. {And I by my works will shew thee my faith} (\kag soi deix ek tn ergn mou tn pistin\). It is not faith _or_ works, but proof of real faith (live faith _vs_. dead faith). The mere profession of faith with no works or profession of faith shown to be alive by works. This is the alternative clearly stated. Note \pistin\ (faith) in both cases. James is not here discussing "works" (ceremonial works) as a means of salvation as Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:4|, but works as proof of faith.

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

rwp@John:1:12 @{As many as received him} (\hosoi elabon auton\). Effective aorist active indicative of \lamban\ "as many as did receive him," in contrast with \hoi idioi\ just before, exceptional action on the part of the disciples and other believers. {To them} (\autois\). Dative case explanatory of the relative clause preceding, an anacoluthon common in John 27 times as against 21 in the Synoptists. This is a common Aramaic idiom and is urged by Burney (_Aramaic Origin_, etc., p. 64) for his theory of an Aramaic original of the Fourth Gospel. {The right} (\exousian\). In strkjv@5:27| \edken\ (first aorist active indicative of \didmi\) \exousian\ means authority but includes power (\dunamis\). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right. {To become} (\genesthai\). Second aorist middle of \ginomai\, to become what they were not before. {Children of God} (\tekna theou\). In the full spiritual sense, not as mere offspring of God true of all men (Acts:17:28|). Paul's phrase \huioi theou\ (Gal strkjv@3:26|) for believers, used also by Jesus of the pure in heart (Matthew:5:9|), does not occur in John's Gospel (but in strkjv@Revelation:21:7|). It is possible that John prefers \ta tekna tou theou\ for the spiritual children of God whether Jew or Gentile (John:11:52|) because of the community of nature (\teknon\ from root \tek-\, to beget). But one cannot follow Westcott in insisting on "adoption" as Paul's reason for the use of \huioi\ since Jesus uses \huioi theou\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:9|. Clearly the idea of regeneration is involved here as in strkjv@John:3:3|. {Even to them that believe} (\tois pisteuousin\). No "even" in the Greek, merely explanatory apposition with \autois\, dative case of the articular present active participle of \pisteu\. {On his name} (\eis to onoma\). Bernard notes \pisteu eis\ 35 times in John, to put trust in or on. See also strkjv@2:23; strkjv@3:38| for \pisteu eis to onoma autou\. This common use of \onoma\ for the person is an Aramaism, but it occurs also in the vernacular papyri and \eis to onoma\ is particularly common in the payment of debts (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). See strkjv@Acts:1:15| for \onomata\ for persons.

rwp@John:5:14 @{Findeth him} (\heuriskei auton\). Dramatic present as in strkjv@1:45|, possibly after search as in strkjv@9:35|. {Sin no more} (\mketi hamartane\). "No longer go on sinning." Present active imperative with \mketi\, a clear implication that disease was due to personal sin as is so often the case. Jesus used the same words to the woman taken in adultery in the spurious passage (John:8:11|). He had suffered for 38 years. All sickness is not due to personal sin (9:3|), but much is and nature is a hard paymaster. Jesus is here living up to his name (Matthew:1:21|). {Lest a worse thing befall thee} (\hina m cheiron soi ti gentai\). Negative final clause with second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\. \Cheiron\ is comparative of \kakos\, bad. Worse than the illness of 38 years, bad as that is. He will now be sinning against knowledge.

rwp@John:11:22 @{And even now I know} (\kai nun oida\). Rather just, "Even now I know." \Alla\ (but) of the Textus Receptus is not genuine. {Whatsoever thou shalt ask of God} (\hosa an aitsi ton theon\). Indefinite relative (\hosa\, as many things as) with \an\ and the first aorist middle (indirect middle, thou thyself asking) subjunctive of \aite\. Martha uses \aite\ (usual word of prayer of men to God) rather than \erta\ (usual word of Jesus praying to the Father), but in strkjv@16:23| we have \erta\ used of prayer to Jesus and \aite\ of prayer to God. But the distinction is not to be pressed. "As many things as thou dost ask of God." {God will give} (\dsei soi ho theos\). Repetition of \ho theos\ for emphasis. Martha still has courageous faith in the power of God through Jesus and Jesus in verse 41| says practically what she has said here.

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

rwp@John:11:41 @{Songs:they took away the stone} (\ran oun ton lithon\). First aorist active indicative of \air\, but without the explanatory gloss of the Textus Receptus "from the place where the dead was laid" (not genuine). {I thank thee that thou heardest me} (\eucharist soi hoti kousas mou\). See strkjv@6:11| for \euchariste\. Clearly Jesus had prayed to the Father concerning the raising of Lazarus. He has the answer before he acts. "No pomp of incantation, no wrestling in prayer even; but simple words of thanksgiving, as if already Lazarus was restored" (Dods). Jesus well knew the issues involved on this occasion. If he failed, his own claims to be the Son of God (the Messiah), would be hopelessly discredited with all. If he succeeded, the rulers would be so embittered as to compass his own death.

rwp@Luke:8:15 @{In an honest and good heart} (\en kardii kali kai agathi\). Peculiar to Luke. In verse 8| the land (\gn\) is called \agathn\ (really good, generous) and in verse 15| we have \en ti kali gi\ ({in the beautiful or noble land}). Songs:Luke uses both adjectives of the heart. The Greeks used \kalos k' agathos\ of the high-minded gentleman. It is probable that Luke knew this idiom. It occurs here alone in the N.T. It is not easy to translate. We have such phrases as "good and true," "sound and good," "right and good," no one of which quite suits the Greek. Certainly Luke adds new moral qualities not in the Hellenic phrase. The English word "honest" here is like the Latin _honestus_ (fair, noble). The words are to be connected with "hold fast" (\katechousin\), "hold it down" so that the devil does not snatch it away, having depth of soil so that it does not shrivel up under the sun, and is not choked by weeds and thorns. It bears fruit (\karpophorousin\, an old expressive verb, \karpos\ and \phore\). That is the proof of spiritual life. {In patience} (\en hupomoni\). There is no other way for real fruit to come. Mushrooms spring up overnight, but they are usually poisonous. The best fruits require time, cultivation, patience.

rwp@Luke:8:28 @{Fell down} (\prosepesen\). Second aorist active of \prospipt\, to fall forward, towards, prostrate before one as here. Common verb. strkjv@Mark:5:6| has \prosekunsen\ (worshipped). {The Most High God} (\tou theou tou hupsistou\). Uncertain whether \tou theou\ genuine or not. But "the Most High" clearly means God as already seen (Luke:1:32,35,36; strkjv@6:35|). The phrase is common among heathen (Numbers:24:16; strkjv@Micah:6:6; strkjv@Isaiah:14:14|). The demoniac may have been a Gentile, but it is the demon here speaking. See on ¯Mark:2:7; strkjv@Matthew:8:29| for the Greek idiom (\ti emoi kai soi\). "What have I to do with thee?" See there also for "Torment me not."

rwp@Luke:18:10 @{Stood} (\statheis\). First aorist passive participle of \histmi\. Struck an attitude ostentatiously where he could be seen. Standing was the common Jewish posture in prayer (Matthew:6:5; strkjv@Mark:11:25|). {Prayed thus} (\tauta prosucheto\). Imperfect middle, was praying these things (given following). {With himself} (\pros heauton\). A soliloquy with his own soul, a complacent recital of his own virtues for his own self-satisfaction, not fellowship with God, though he addresses God. {I thank thee} (\eucharist soi\). But his gratitude to God is for his own virtues, not for God's mercies to him. One of the rabbis offers a prayer like this of gratitude that he was in a class by himself because he was a Jew and not a Gentile, because he was a Pharisee and not of the _am-haaretz_ or common people, because he was a man and not a woman. {Extortioners} (\harpages\). An old word, \harpax\ from same root as \harpaz\, to plunder. An adjective of only one gender, used of robbers and plunderers, grafters, like the publicans (Luke:3:13|), whether wolves (Matthew:7:15|) or men (1Corinthians:5:19f.|). The Pharisee cites the crimes of which he is not guilty. {Or even} (\ kai\). As the climax of iniquity (Bruce), he points to "this publican." Zaccheus will admit robbery (Luke:19:8|). {God} (\ho theos\). Nominative form with the article as common with the vocative use of \theos\ (so verse 13; strkjv@John:20:28|).

rwp@Luke:18:22 @{One thing thou lackest yet} (\eti hen soi leipei\). Literally, one thing still fails thee or is wanting to thee. An old verb with the dative of personal interest. strkjv@Mark:10:21| has here \husterei se\, which see. It was an amazing compliment for one who was aiming at perfection (Matthew:19:21|). The youth evidently had great charm and was sincere in his claims. {Distribute} (\diados\). Second aorist active imperative of \diadidmi\ (give to various ones, \dia-\). Here Mark and Matthew simply have \dos\ (give). The rest the same in all three Gospels.

rwp@Luke:18:41 @{What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?} (\Ti soi theleis pois;\). Same idiom in strkjv@Mark:10:51; strkjv@Matthew:20:32| which see, the use of \thel\ without \hina\ with aorist subjunctive (or future indicative). See same references also for \hina anableps\ "that I may see again" without verb before \hina\. Three uses of \anablep\ here (verses 41,42,43|).

rwp@Mark:4:38 @{Asleep on the cushion} (\epi to proskephalaion katheudn\). Mark also mentions the cushion or bolster and the stern of the boat (\en ti prumni\). strkjv@Matthew:8:24| notes that Jesus was sleeping (\ekatheuden\), Luke that {he fell asleep} (\aphupnsen\, ingressive aorist indicative). He was worn out from the toil of this day. {They awake him} (\egeirousin auton\). Songs:Mark's graphic present. Matthew and Luke both have "awoke him." Mark has also what the others do not: "Carest thou not?" (\ou melei soi;\). It was a rebuke to Jesus for sleeping in such a storm. We are perishing (\apollumetha\, linear present middle). Precisely this same form also in strkjv@Matthew:8:25| and strkjv@Luke:8:24|.

rwp@Mark:6:56 @{Wheresoever he entered} (\hopou an eiseporeueto\). The imperfect indicative with \an\ used to make a general indefinite statement with the relative adverb. See the same construction at the close of the verse, \hosoi an hpsanto auton\ (aorist indicative and \an\ in a relative clause), {as many as touched him}. One must enlarge the details here to get an idea of the richness of the healing ministry of Jesus. We are now near the close of the Galilean ministry with its many healing mercies and excitement is at the highest pitch (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:16:22 @{Peter took him} (\proslabomenos auton ho Petros\). Middle voice, "taking to himself," aside and apart, "as if by a right of his own. He acted with greater familiarity after the token of acknowledgment had been given. Jesus, however, reduces him to his level" (Bengel). "Peter here appears in a new character; a minute ago speaking under inspiration from heaven, now under inspiration from the opposite quarter" (Bruce). Syriac Sinaitic for strkjv@Mark:8:32| has it "as though pitying him." But this exclamation and remonstrance of Peter was soon interrupted by Jesus. {God have mercy on thee} (\hiles\. Supply \ei\ or \est ho theos\). {This shall never be} (\ou m estai soi touto\). Strongest kind of negation, as if Peter would not let it happen. Peter had perfect assurance.

rwp@Matthew:21:34 @{His servants} (\tous doulous autou\). These slaves are distinguished from {the husbandmen} (\gergoi\, 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.