Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp what:


rwp@1Corinthians:4:2 @{Here} (\h“de\). Either here on earth or in this matter. It is always local. {Moreover} (\loipon\). Like \loipon\ in strkjv@1:16| which see, accusative of general reference, as for what is left, besides. {It is required} (\zˆteitai\). It is sought. Many MSS. read \zˆteite\, ye seek, an easy change as \ai\ and \e\ came to be pronounced alike (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 186). {That a man be found faithful} (\hina pistos tis heurethˆi\). Non-final use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \heurisk“\, the result of the seeking (\zˆte“\). Fidelity is the essential requirement in all such human relationships, in other words, plain honesty in handling money like bank-clerks or in other positions of trust like public office.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:5:7 @{Purge out} (\ekkatharate\). First aorist (effective) active imperative of \ekkathair“\, old verb to cleanse out (\ek\), to clean completely. Aorist tense of urgency, do it now and do it effectively before the whole church is contaminated. This turn to the metaphor is from the command to purge out the old (\palaian\, now old and decayed) leaven before the passover feast (Exodus:12:15f.; strkjv@13:7; strkjv@Zephaniah:1:12|). Cf. modern methods of disinfection after a contagious disease. {A new lump} (\neon phurama\). Make a fresh start as a new community with the contamination removed. \Neos\ is the root for \neaniskos\, a young man, not yet old (\gˆraios\). Songs:new wine (\oinon neon\ strkjv@Matthew:9:17|). \Kainos\ is fresh as compared with the ancient (\palaios\). See the distinction in strkjv@Colossians:3:10; strkjv@Ephesians:4:22ff.; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:17|. {Unleavened} (\azumoi\). Without (\a\ privative) leaven, the normal and ideal state of Christians. Rare word among the ancients (once in Plato). They are a new creation (\kainˆ ktisis\), "exemplifying Kant's maxim that you should treat a man as if he were what you would wish him to be" (Robertson and Plummer). {For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ} (\kai gar to pascha hˆm“n etuthˆ Christos\). First aorist passive indicative of \thu“\, old verb to sacrifice. Euphony of consonants, \th\ to \t\ because of \-thˆ\. Reference to the death of Christ on the Cross as the Paschal Lamb (common use of \pascha\ as strkjv@Mark:14:12; strkjv@Luke:22:7|), the figure used long before by the Baptist of Jesus (John:1:29|). Paul means that the Lamb was already slain on Calvary and yet you have not gotten rid of the leaven.

rwp@1Corinthians:5:9 @{I wrote unto you in my epistle} (\egrapsa humin en tˆi epistolˆi\). Not the epistolary aorist, but a reference to an epistle to the Corinthians earlier than this one (our First Corinthians), one not preserved to us. What a "find" it would be if a bundle of papyri in Egypt should give it back to us? {To have no company with fornicators} (\mˆ sunanamignusthai pornois\). Present middle infinitive with \mˆ\ in an indirect command of a late double compound verb used in the papyri to mix up with (\sun-ana-mignusthai\, a \mi\ verb). It is in the N.T. only here and verse 11; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:14| which see. It is used here with the associative instrumental case (\pornois\, from \pera“, pernˆmi\, to sell, men and women who sell their bodies for lust). It is a pertinent question today how far modern views try to put a veneer over the vice in men and women.

rwp@1Corinthians:5:12 @{For what have I to do?} (\ti gar moi;\). "For what is it to me (dative) to judge those without (\tous exo\)?" They are outside the church and not within Paul's jurisdiction. God passes judgment on them.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:10 @{What I am} (\ho eimi\). Not, {who} (\hos\), but {what} (\ho\), neuter singular. His actual character and attainments. All "by the grace of God" (\chariti theou\). {I laboured more abundantly than they all} (\perissoteron aut“n pant“n ekopiasa\). This is sober fact as shown by the Acts and Paul's Epistles. He had tremendous energy and used it. Genius is work, Carlyle said. Take Paul as a specimen.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:11 @{Songs:we preach, and so ye believed} (\hout“s kˆrussomen, kai hout“s episteusate\). This is what matters both for preacher and hearers. This is Paul's gospel. Their conduct in response to his message was on record.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:19 @{We have hoped} (\ˆlpikotes esmen\). Periphrastic perfect active indicative. Hope limited to this life even if "in Christ." {Only} (\monon\) qualifies the whole clause. {Most pitiable} (\eleeinoteroi\). Comparative form, not superlative, of old adjective \eleeinos\, to be pitied, pitiable. If our hope is limited to this life, we have denied ourselves what people call pleasures and have no happiness beyond. The Epicureans have the argument on us. Paul makes morality turn on the hope of immortality. Is he not right? Witness the breaking of moral ties today when people take a merely animal view of life.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:30 @{Why do we also stand in jeopardy every hour?} (\ti kai hˆmeis kinduneuomen pasan h“ran?\). We also as well as those who receive baptism which symbolizes death. Old verb from \kindunos\ (peril, danger), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:8:23|. Paul's Epistles and Acts (especially chapter strkjv@Acts:19|) throw light on Paul's argument. He was never out of danger from Damascus to the last visit to Rome. There are perils in Ephesus of which we do not know (2Corinthians:1:8f.|) whatever may be true as to an Ephesian imprisonment. G. S. Duncan (_St. Paul's Ephesian Ministry_, 1930) even argues for several imprisonments in Ephesus. The accusative of time (\pasan h“ran\) naturally means all through every hour (extension).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:32 @{After the manner of men} (\kata anthr“pon\). Like men, for applause, money, etc. (4:9ff.; strkjv@Phillipians:3:7|). {If I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus} (\ei ethˆriomachˆsa en Ephes“i\). Late verb from \thˆriomachos\, a fighter with wild beasts. Found in inscriptions and in Ignatius. Those who argue for an Ephesian imprisonment for Paul and Ephesus as the place where he wrote the imprisonment epistles (see Duncan's book just mentioned) take the verb literally. There is in the ruins of Ephesus now a place called St. Paul's Prison. But Paul was a Roman citizen and it was unlawful to make such a one be a \thˆriomachos\. If he were cast to the lions unlawfully, he could have prevented it by claiming his citizenship. Besides, shortly after this Paul wrote II Corinthians, but he does not mention so unusual a peril in the list in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:23f|. The incident, whatever it was, whether literal or figurative language, took place before Paul wrote I Corinthians. {What doth it profit me?} (\ti moi to ophelos?\). What the profit to me? {Let us eat and drink} (\phag“men kai pi“men\). Volitive second aorist subjunctives of \esthi“\ and \pin“\. Cited from strkjv@Isaiah:22:13|. It is the outcry of the people of Jerusalem during the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. At Anchiale near Tarsus is a statue of Sardanapalus with the inscription: "Eat, drink, enjoy thyself. The rest is nothing." This was the motto of the Epicureans. Paul is not giving his own view, but that of people who deny the resurrection.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:18 @{Because} (\dioti\). As in strkjv@2:8|. {We would fain have come to you} (\ˆthelˆsamen elthein pros humas\). First aorist active indicative of \thel“\. Literally, {we desired to come to you. I Paul} (\eg“ men Paulos\). Clear example of literary plural \ˆthelesamen\ with singular pronoun \eg“\. Paul uses his own name elsewhere also as in strkjv@2Corinthians:10:1; strkjv@Galatians:5:2; strkjv@Colossians:1:23; strkjv@Ephesians:3:1; strkjv@Philemon:1:19|. {Once and again} (\kai hapax kai dis\). {Both once and twice} as in strkjv@Phillipians:4:16|. Old idiom in Plato. {And Satan hindered us} (\kai enekopsen hˆmas ho Satanas\). Adversative use of \kai=\ but or and yet. First aorist active indicative of \enkopt“\, late word to cut in, to hinder. Milligan quotes papyrus example of third century, B.C. Verb used to cut in a road, to make a road impassable. Songs:Paul charges Satan with cutting in on his path. Used by Paul in strkjv@Acts:24:4; strkjv@Galatians:5:7| and passive \enekoptomˆn\ in strkjv@Romans:15:22; strkjv@1Peter:3:7|. This hindrance may have been illness, opposition of the Jews in Corinth, what not.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:2 @{What charge} (\tinas paraggelias\). Plural, charges or precepts, command (Acts:16:24|), prohibition (Acts:5:28|), right living (1Timothy:1:5|). Military term in Xenophon and Polybius.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:4 @{That each one of you know how} (\eidenai hekaston hum“n\). Further epexegetic infinitive (second perfect active), learn how and so know how (learn the habit of purity). {To possess himself of his own vessel} (\to heautou skeuos ktasthai\). Present middle infinitive of \ktaomai\, to acquire, not \kektˆsthai\, to possess. But what does Paul mean by "his own vessel"? It can only mean his own body or his own wife. Objections are raised against either view, but perhaps he means that the man shall acquire his own wife "in sanctification and honour," words that elevate the wife and make it plain that Paul demands sexual purity on the part of men (married as well as unmarried). There is no double standard here. When the husband comes to the marriage bed, he should come as a chaste man to a chaste wife.

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:10:11 @{What we are} (\hoioi esmen\). Rather, "what sort" (\hoioi\), not \ho\ (what) nor \hoi\ (who). Literary plural. \Hoios\ is qualitative just as \toioutoi\ (such). Paul's quality in his letters when absent (\apontes\) and in his deeds when present (\parontes\) is precisely the same.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:25 @{Thrice was I beaten with rods} (\tris errabdisthˆn\). Roman (Gentile) punishment. It was forbidden to Roman citizens by the _Lex Porcia_, but Paul endured it in Philippi (Acts:16:23,37|), the only one of the three named in Acts. First aorist passive of \rabdiz“\, from \rabdos\, rod, _Koin‚_ word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:16:22| which see. {Once was I stoned} (\hapax elithasthˆn\). Once for all \hapax\ means. At Lystra (Acts:14:5-19|). On \lithaz“\ _Koin‚_ verb from \lithos\, see on ¯Acts:5:26|. {Thrice I suffered shipwreck} (\tris enauagˆsa\). First aorist active of \nauage“\, from \nauagos\, shipwrecked (\naus\, ship, \agnumi\, to break). Old and common verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:1:19|. We know nothing of these. The one told in strkjv@Acts:27| was much later. What a pity that we have no data for all these varied experiences of Paul. {Night and day} (\nuchthˆmeron\) Rare word. Papyri give \nuktˆmar\ with the same idea (night-day). {Have I been in the deep} (\en t“i buth“i pepoiˆka\). Vivid dramatic perfect active indicative of \poie“\, "I have done a night and day in the deep." The memory of it survives like a nightmare. \Buthos\ is old word (only here in N.T.) for bottom, depth of the sea, then the sea itself. Paul does not mean that he was a night and day under the water, not a Jonah experience, only that he was far out at sea and shipwrecked. This was one of the three shipwrecks-already named.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:7 @{By reason of the exceeding greatness} (\tˆi huperbolˆi\). Instrumental case, "by the excess." {That I should not be exalted overmuch} (\hina mˆ huperair“mai\). Present passive subjunctive in final clause of \huperair“\, old verb to lift up beyond, only here in N.T. This clause is repeated at the end of the sentence. {A thorn in the flesh} (\skolops tˆi sarki\). This old word is used for splinter, stake, thorn. In the papyri and inscriptions examples occur both for splinter and thorn as the meaning. In the LXX it is usually thorn. The case of \tˆi sarki\ can be either locative (in) or dative (for). What was it? Certainly it was some physical malady that persisted. All sorts of theories are held (malaria, eye-trouble, epilepsy, insomnia, migraine or sick-headache, etc.). It is a blessing to the rest of us that we do not know the particular affliction that so beset Paul. Each of us has some such splinter or thorn in the flesh, perhaps several at once. {Messenger of Satan} (\aggelos Satana\). Angel of Satan, the affliction personified. {Buffet} (\kolaphizˆi\). See on ¯Matthew:26:67; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:11| for this late and rare word from \kolaphos\, fist. The messenger of Satan kept slapping Paul in the face and Paul now sees that it was God's will for it to be so.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:11 @{I am become foolish} (\gegona aphr“n\). Perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. In spite of what he said in verse 6| that he would not be foolish if he gloried in the other Paul. But he feels that he has dropped back to the mood of strkjv@11:1,16|. He has been swept on by the memory of the ecstasy. {For I ought to have been commended by you} (\eg“ gar “pheilon huph' hum“n sunistasthai\). Explanation of "ye compelled me." Imperfect active \“pheilon\ of \opheil“\, to be under obligation, and the tense here expresses an unfulfilled obligation about the present. But \sunistasthai\ is present passive infinitive, not aorist or perfect passive. He literally means, "I ought now to be commended by you" instead of having to glorify myself. He repeats his boast already made (11:5f.|), that he is no whit behind "the super-extra apostles" (the Judaizers), "though I am nothing" (\ei kai ouden eimi\). Even boasting himself against those false apostles causes a reaction of feeling that he has to express (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15:9; strkjv@1Timothy:1:15f.|).

rwp@2Corinthians:12:20 @{Lest by any means, when I come, I should find you not such as I would} (\mˆ p“s elth“n ouch hoious thel“ heur“ humas\). An idiomatic construction after the verb of fearing (\phoboumai\) with \mˆ p“s\ as the conjunction and with \ouch\ as the negative of the verb \heur“\ (second aorist active subjunctive of \heurisk“\), \mˆ\ the conjunction, \ouch\ the negative. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 995. {And I be found} (\kag“ heureth“\). Same construction with first aorist passive subjunctive. {Such as ye would not} (\hoion ou thelete\). Neat change in voice just before and position of the negative here. {Lest by any means} (\mˆ p“s\). Still further negative purpose by repeating the conjunction. With graphic pen pictures Paul describes what had been going on against him during his long absence. {Backbitings} (\katalaliai\). Late and rare word. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:2:1|. If it only existed nowhere else! {Whisperings} (\psithurismoi\). Late word from \psithuriz“\, to whisper into one's ear. An onomatopoetic word for the sibilant murmur of a snake charmer (Ecclesiastes:10:11|). Only here in N.T. {Swellings} (\phusi“seis\). From \phusio“\, to swell up, late word only here and in ecclesiastical writers. Did Paul make up the word for the occasion? See on ¯1Corinthians:4:6| for verb. {Tumults} (\akatastasiai\). See on strkjv@2Corinthians:6:5|.

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

rwp@Info_2Peter @ CLAIMS PETRINE AUTHORSHIP Not only so, but in fuller form than strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, for the writer terms himself "Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon (Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in strkjv@Acts:15:14|) is the real name (John:1:42|) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas, the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the fact remains that II Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and orthodox teaching.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ BALANCE OF PROBABILITY There are difficulties in any decision about the authorship and character of II Peter. But, when all things are considered, I agree with Bigg that the Epistle is what it professes to be by Simon Peter. Else it is pseudonymous. The Epistle more closely resembles the other New Testament books than it does the large pseudepigraphic literature of the second and third centuries.

rwp@2Peter:1:9 @{He that lacketh these things} (\h“i mˆ parestin tauta\). "To whom (dative case of possession) these things are not (\mˆ\ because a general or indefinite relative clause)." {Seeing only what is near} (\mu“paz“n\). Present active participle of \mu“paz“\, a rare verb from \mu“ps\ (in Aristotle for a near-sighted man) and that from \mue“ tous “pas\ (to close the eyes in order to see, not to keep from seeing). The only other instance of \mu“paz“\ is given by Suicer from Ps. Dion. Eccl. Hier. ii. 3 (\mu“pasousˆi kai apostrephomenˆi\) used of a soul on which the light shines (blinking and turning away). Thus understood the word here limits \tuphlos\ as a short-sighted man screwing up his eyes because of the light. {Having forgotten} (\lˆthˆn lab“n\). "Having received forgetfulness." Second aorist active participle of \lamban“\ and accusative \lˆthˆn\, old word, from \lˆthomai\, to forget, here only in N.T. See strkjv@2Timothy:1:5| for a like phrase \hupomnˆsin lab“n\ (having received remembrance). {The cleansing} (\tou katharismou\). See strkjv@Hebrews:1:3| for this word for the expiatory sacrifice of Christ for our sins as in strkjv@1Peter:1:18; strkjv@2:24; strkjv@3:18|. In strkjv@1Peter:3:21| Peter denied actual cleansing of sin by baptism (only symbolic). If there is a reference to baptism here, which is doubtful, it can only be in a symbolic sense. {Old} (\palai\). Of the language as in strkjv@Hebrews:1:1|.

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

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

rwp@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:16:24 @{Into the inner prison} (\eis tˆn es“teran phulakˆn\). The comparative form from the adverb \es“\ (within), Ionic and old Attic for \eis“\. In the LXX, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:6:19|. The Roman public prisons had a vestibule and outer prison and behind this the inner prison, a veritable dungeon with no light or air save what came through the door when open. One has only to picture modern cells in our jails, the dungeons in feudal castles, London prisons before the time of Howard, to appreciate the horrors of an inner prison cell in a Roman provincial town of the first century A.D. {Made their feet fast} (\tous podas ˆsphalisato aut“n\). First aorist (effective) middle of \asphaliz“\, from \asphalˆs\ (safe), common verb in late Greek, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:24:64ff|. The inner prison was safe enough without this refinement of cruelty. {In the stocks} (\eis to xulon\). \Xulon\, from \xu“\, to scrape or plane, is used for a piece of wood whether a cross or gibbet (Acts:5:30; strkjv@10:39; strkjv@13:29; strkjv@Galatians:3:13; strkjv@1Peter:2:24|) or a log or timber with five holes (four for the wrists and ankles and one for the neck) or two for the feet as here, \xulopedˆ\, Latin _vervus_, to shackle the feet stretched apart (Job:33:11|). This torment was practiced in Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Adonirom Judson suffered it in Burmah. \Xulon\ is also used in the N.T. for stick or staff (Matthew:26:47|) and even a tree (Luke:23:31|). Tertullian said of Christians in the stocks: _Nihil crus sentit in vervo, quum animus in caelo est_ (Nothing the limb feels in the stocks when the mind is in heaven).

rwp@Acts:17:26 @{And he made of one} (\epoiˆsen te ex henos\). The word \haimatos\ (blood) is absent from Aleph A B and is a later explanatory addition. What Paul affirms is the unity of the human race with a common origin and with God as the Creator. This view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan (the Jews were \laos\, the Gentiles \ethnˆ\). The cosmopolitanism of Paul here rises above Jew and Greek and claims the one God as the Creator of the one race of men. The Athenians themselves claimed to be \antochthonous\ (indigenous) and a special creation. Zeno and Seneca did teach a kind of cosmopolitanism (really pantheism) far different from the personal God of Paul. It was Rome, not Greece, that carried out the moral ideas of Zeno. Man is part of the universe (verse 24|) and God created (\epoiˆsen\) man as he created (\poiˆsas\) the all. {For to dwell} (\katoikein\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose, so as to dwell. {Having determined} (\horisas\). First aorist active participle of \horiz“\, old verb to make a horizon as already in strkjv@19:42| which see. Paul here touches God's Providence. God has revealed himself in history as in creation. His hand appears in the history of all men as well as in that of the Chosen People of Israel. {Appointed seasons} (\prostetagmenous kairous\). Not the weather as in strkjv@14:17|, but "the times of the Gentiles" (\kairoi ethn“n\) of which Jesus spoke (Luke:21:24|). The perfect passive participle of \prostass“\, old verb to enjoin, emphasizes God's control of human history without any denial of human free agency as was involved in the Stoic Fate (\Heirmarmenˆ\). {Bounds} (\horothesias\). Limits? Same idea in strkjv@Job:12:23|. Nations rise and fall, but it is not blind chance or hard fate. Thus there is an interplay between God's will and man's activities, difficult as it is for us to see with our shortened vision.

rwp@Acts:17:27 @{That they should seek God} (\Zˆtein ton theon\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose again. Seek him, not turn away from him as the nations had done (Romans:1:18-32|). {If haply they might feel after him} (\ei ara ge psˆlaphˆseian auton\). First aorist active (Aeolic form) optative of \psˆlapha“\, old verb from \psa“\, to touch. Songs:used by the Risen Jesus in his challenge to the disciples (Luke:24:39|), by the Apostle John of his personal contact with Jesus (1John:1:1|), of the contact with Mount Sinai (Hebrews:12:18|). Here it pictures the blind groping of the darkened heathen mind after God to "find him" (\heuroien\, second aorist active optative) whom they had lost. One knows what it is in a darkened room to feel along the walls for the door (Deuteronomy:28:29; strkjv@Job:5:14; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@Isaiah:59:10|). Helen Keller, when told of God, said that she knew of him already, groping in the dark after him. The optative here with \ei\ is due to the condition of the fourth class (undetermined, but with vague hope of being determined) with aim also present (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). Note also \ara ge\ the inferential particle \ara\ with the delicate intensive particle \ge\. {Though he is not far from each one of us} (\kai ge ou makran apo henos hekastou hˆm“n huparchonta\). More exactly with B L (\kai ge\ instead of \kaitoi\ or \kaitoi ge\), "and yet being not far from each one of us," a direct statement rather than a concessive one. The participle \huparchonta\ agrees with \auton\ and the negative \ou\ rather than the usual \me\ with the participle makes an emphatic negative. Note also the intensive particle \ge\.

rwp@Acts:20:35 @{I gave you an example} (\hupedeixa\). First aorist active indicative of \hupodeiknumi\, old verb to show under one's eyes, to give object lesson, by deed as well as by word (Luke:6:47|). \Hupodeigma\ means example (John:13:15; strkjv@James:5:10|). Songs:Paul appeals to his example in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:17|. \Panta\ is accusative plural of general reference (in all things). {Songs:labouring ye ought to help} (\hout“s kopi“ntas dei antilambanesthai\). So, as I did. Necessity (\dei\). Toiling (\kopi“ntas\) not just for ourselves, but to help (\antilambanesthai\), to take hold yourselves (middle voice) at the other end (\anti\). This verb common in the old Greek, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:54; strkjv@Acts:20:35; strkjv@1Timothy:6:2|. This noble plea to help the weak is the very spirit of Christ (1Thessalonians:5:14; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28; strkjv@Romans:5:6; strkjv@14:1|). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| \antechesthe t“n asthenount“n\ we have Paul's very idea again. Every Community Chest appeal today re-echoes Paul's plea. {He himself said} (\autos eipen\). Not in the Gospels, one of the sayings of Jesus in current use that Paul had received and treasured. Various other _Agrapha_ of Jesus have been preserved in ancient writers and some in recently discovered papyri which may be genuine or not. We are grateful that Paul treasured this one. This Beatitude (on \makarion\ see on strkjv@Matthew:5:3-11|) is illustrated by the whole life of Jesus with the Cross as the culmination. Aristotle (Eth. IV. I) has a saying somewhat like this, but assigns the feeling of superiority as the reason (Page), an utterly different idea from that here. This quotation raises the question of how much Paul personally knew of the life and sayings of Jesus.

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:21:19 @{He rehearsed} (\exˆgeito\). Imperfect middle of \exˆgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Songs:Paul is pictured as taking his time for he had a great story to tell of what had happened since they saw him last. {One by one} (\kath' hena hekaston\). According to each one (item) and the adverbial phrase used as an accusative after the verb \exˆgeito\ as Demosthenes does (1265), though it could be like \kath' hena hekastos\ in strkjv@Ephesians:5:33|. {Which} (\h“n\). Genitive attracted from \ha\ (accusative) into the case of the unexpressed antecedent \tout“n\. {God had wrought} (\epoiˆsen ho theos\). Summary constative aorist active indicative that gathers up all that God did and he takes pains to give God the glory. It is possible that at this formal meeting Paul observed an absence of warmth and enthusiasm in contrast with the welcome accorded by his friends the day before (verse 17|). Furneaux thinks that Paul was coldly received on this day in spite of the generous offering brought from the Gentile Christians. "It looks as though his misgiving as to its reception (Romans:15:31|) was confirmed. Nor do we hear that the Christians of Jerusalem later put in so much as a word on his behalf with either the Jewish or the Roman authorities, or expressed any sympathy with him during his long imprisonment at Caesarea" (Furneaux). The most that can be said is that the Judaizers referred to by James do not appear actively against him. The collection and the plan proposed by James accomplished that much at any rate. It stopped the mouths of those lions.

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:21:21 @{They have been informed concerning thee} (\katˆchˆthˆsan peri sou\). First aorist passive indicative of \katˆche“\. A word in the ancient Greek, but a few examples survive in the papyri. It means to sound (echo, from \ˆch“\, our word) down (\kata\), to resound, re-echo, to teach orally. Oriental students today (Arabs learning the Koran) often study aloud. In the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:4| which see; strkjv@Acts:18:25; strkjv@21:21; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:19; strkjv@Galatians:6:6; strkjv@Romans:2:18|. This oral teaching about Paul was done diligently by the Judaizers who had raised trouble against Peter (Acts:11:2|) and Paul (15:1,5|). They had failed in their attacks on Paul's world campaigns. Now they try to undermine him at home. In Paul's long absence from Jerusalem, since strkjv@18:22|, they have had a free hand, save what opposition James would give, and have had great success in prejudicing the Jerusalem Christians against Paul. Songs:James, in the presence of the other elders and probably at their suggestion, feels called upon to tell Paul the actual situation. {That thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses} (\hoti apostasian didaskeis apo M“use“s tous kata ta ethnˆ pantas Ioudaious\). Two accusatives with \didaskeis\ (verb of teaching) according to rule. Literally, "That thou art teaching all the Jews among (\kata\) the Gentiles (the Jews of the dispersion as in strkjv@2:9|) apostasy from Moses." That is the point, the dreadful word \apostasian\ (our apostasy), a late form (I Macc. strkjv@2:15) for the earlier \apostasis\ (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3| for \apostasia\). "In the eyes of the church at Jerusalem this was a far more serious matter than the previous question at the Conference about the status of Gentile converts" (Furneaux). Paul had brought that issue to the Jerusalem Conference because of the contention of the Judaizers. But here it is not the Judaizers, but the elders of the church with James as their spokesman on behalf of the church as a whole. They do not believe this false charge, but they wish Paul to set it straight. Paul had made his position clear in his Epistles (I Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) for all who cared to know. {Telling them not to circumcise their children} (\leg“n mˆ peritemnein autous ta tekna\). The participle \leg“n\ agrees with "thou" (Paul), the subject of \didaskeis\. This is not indirect assertion, but indirect command, hence the negative \mˆ\ instead of \ou\ with the infinitive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p.1046). The point is not that Paul stated what the Jewish Christians in the dispersion do, but that he says that they (\autous\ accusative of general reference) are not to go on circumcising (\peritemnein\, present active infinitive) their children. Paul taught the very opposite (1Corinthians:7:18|) and had Timothy circumcised (Acts:16:3|) because he was half Jew and half Greek. His own practice is stated in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:19| ("to the Jews as a Jew"). {Neither to walk after the customs} (\mˆde tois ethesin peripatein\). Locative case with infinitive \peripatein\. The charge was here enlarged to cover it all and to make Paul out an enemy of Jewish life and teachings. That same charge had been made against Stephen when young Saul (Paul) was the leader (6:14|): "Will change the customs (\ethˆ\ the very word used here) which Moses delivered unto us." It actually seemed that some of the Jews cared more for Moses than for God (Acts:6:11|). Songs:much for the charge of the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:21:22 @{What is it therefore?} (\Ti oun estin?\). See this form of question by Paul (1Corinthians:14:15,26|). What is to be done about it? Clearly James and the elders do not believe these misrepresentations of Paul's teaching, but many do. {They will certainly hear} (\pant“s akousontai\). \Pant“s\ is old adverb, by all means, altogether, wholly, certainly as here and strkjv@28:4; strkjv@Luke:4:23; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:10|. This future middle of \akou“\ is the usual form instead of \akous“\. There was no way to conceal Paul's arrival nor was it wise to do so. B C and several cursives omit \dei plˆthos sunelthein\ (The multitude must needs come together).

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:21:31 @{As they were seeking to kill him} (\zˆtount“n aut“n\). Genitive absolute of \zˆte“\, to seek, without \aut“n\ (they). This was their real purpose. {Tidings} (\phasis\). From \phain“\, to show. Old word for the work of informers and then the exposure of secret crime. In LXX. Here only in the N.T. {Came up} (\anebˆ\). Naturally in the wild uproar. The Roman guard during festivals was kept stationed in the Tower of Antonia at the northwest corner of the temple overlooking the temple and connected by stairs (verse 35|). {To the chief captain} (\t“i chiliarch“i\). Commander of a thousand men or cohort (Mark:15:16|). His name was Claudius Lysias. {Of the band} (\tˆs speirˆs\). Each legion had six tribunes and so each tribune (chiliarch) had a thousand if the cohort had its full quota. See on ¯10:1; strkjv@27:1|. The word is the Latin _spira_ (anything rolled up). Note the genitive \speirˆs\ instead of \speiras\ (Attic). {Was in confusion} (\sunchunnetai\). Present passive indicative of \sunchunn“\ (see verse 27|, \sunecheon\). This is what the conspirators had desired.

rwp@Acts:21:32 @{Forthwith} (\exautˆs\). Common in the _Koin‚_ (\ex autˆs\, supply \h“ras\, hour). {He took} (\paralab“n\). See verses 24,26|. {Centurions} (\hekatontarchas\). See on ¯Luke:7:2| for discussion. Plural shows that Lysias the chiliarch took several hundred soldiers along (a centurion with each hundred). {Ran down} (\katedramen\). Effective second aorist active indicative of \katatrech“\. From the tower of Antonia, vivid scene. {And they} (\hoi de\). Demonstrative use of \hoi\. The Jewish mob who had begun the work of killing Paul (verse 31|). {Left off beating Paul} (\epausanto tuptontes ton Paulon\). The participle with \pauomai\ describes what they were already doing, the supplementary participle (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1121). They stopped before the job was over because of the sudden onset of the Roman soldiers. Some ten years before in a riot at the passover the Roman guard marched down and in the panic several hundred were trampled to death.

rwp@Acts:21:33 @{Came near} (\eggisas\). First aorist active participle of \eggiz“\, to draw near, _Koin‚_ verb from \eggus\, near, and common in the N.T. {Laid hold on him} (\epelabeto antou\). See same verb in verse 30|. {To be bound} (\dethˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \de“\ (see verse 11|). {With two chains} (\halusesi dusi\). Instrumental case of \halusis\, old word from \a\ privative and \lu“\ (not loosing, i.e. chaining). With two chains as a violent and seditious person, probably leader of a band of assassins (verse 38|). See on ¯Mark:5:4|. {Inquired} (\epunthaneto\). Imperfect middle of \punthanomai\, old and common verb used mainly by Luke in the N.T. Lysias repeated his inquiries. {Who he was} (\tis eiˆ\). Present active optative of \eimi\ changed from \estin\ (present indicative) in the indirect question, a change not obligatory after a past tense, but often done in the older Greek, rare in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1043f.). {And what he had done} (\kai ti estin pepoiˆk“s\). Periphrastic perfect active indicative of \poie“\ here retained, not changed to the optative as is true of \eiˆ\ from \estin\ in the same indirect question, illustrating well the freedom about it.

rwp@Acts:21:36 @{Followed after} (\ˆkolouthei\). Imperfect active of \akoluthe“\, was following. Cheated of their purpose to lynch Paul, they were determined to have his blood. {Crying out} (\krazontes\). Construction according to sense, plural masculine participle agreeing with neuter singular substantive \plˆthos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 401). {Away with him} (\Aire auton\). The very words used by the mob to Pilate when they chose Barabbas in preference to Jesus (Luke:23:18|, \Aire touton\). He will hear it again from this same crowd (Acts:22:22|). It is the present imperative (\aire\) as in strkjv@Luke:23:18|, but some may have used the urgent aorist active imperative as also in the case of Jesus strkjv@John:19:15|, \ƒron, ƒron\ with \staur“son\ added). Luke does not say that this mob demanded crucifixion for Paul. He was learning what it was to share the sufferings of Christ as the sullen roar of the mob's yells rolled on and on in his ears.

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:22:3 @{I am a Jew} (\Eg“ eimi anˆr Ioudaios\). Note use of \Eg“\ for emphasis. Paul recounts his Jewish advantages or privileges with manifest pride as in strkjv@Acts:26:4f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:22; strkjv@Galatians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {Born} (\gegennˆmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \genna“\. See above in strkjv@21:39| for the claim of Tarsus as his birth-place. He was a Hellenistic Jew, not an Aramaean Jew (cf. strkjv@Acts:6:1|). {Brought up} (\anatethrammenos\). Perfect passive participle again of \anatreph“\, to nurse up, to nourish up, common old verb, but in the N.T. only here, strkjv@7:20ff.|, and MSS. in strkjv@Luke:4:16|. The implication is that Paul was sent to Jerusalem while still young, "from my youth" (26:4|), how young we do not know, possibly thirteen or fourteen years old. He apparently had not seen Jesus in the flesh (2Corinthians:5:16|). {At the feet of Gamaliel} (\pros tous podas Gamaliˆl\). The rabbis usually sat on a raised seat with the pupils in a circle around either on lower seats or on the ground. Paul was thus nourished in Pharisaic Judaism as interpreted by Gamaliel, one of the lights of Judaism. For remarks on Gamaliel see chapter strkjv@5:34ff|. He was one of the seven Rabbis to whom the Jews gave the highest title \Rabban\ (our Rabbi). \Rabbi\ (my teacher) was next, the lowest being \Rab\ (teacher). "As Aquinas among the schoolmen was called _Doctor Angelicus_, and Bonaventura _Doctor Seraphicus_, so Gamaliel was called _the Beauty of the Law_" (Conybeare and Howson). {Instructed} (\pepaideumenos\). Perfect passive participle again (each participle beginning a clause), this time of \paideu“\, old verb to train a child (\pais\) as in strkjv@7:22| which see. In this sense also in strkjv@1Timothy:1:20; strkjv@Titus:2:12|. Then to chastise as in strkjv@Luke:23:16,22| (which see); strkjv@2Timothy:2:25; strkjv@Hebrews:12:6f|. {According to the strict manner} (\kata akribeian\). Old word, only here in N.T. Mathematical accuracy, minute exactness as seen in the adjective in strkjv@26:5|. See also strkjv@Romans:10:2; Gal strkjv@1:4; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {Of our fathers} (\patr“iou\). Old adjective from \pater\, only here and strkjv@24:14| in N.T. Means descending from father to son, especially property and other inherited privileges. \Patrikos\ (patrician) refers more to personal attributes and affiliations. {Being zealous for God} (\zˆl“tˆs huparch“n tou theou\). Not adjective, but substantive {zealot} (same word used by James of the thousands of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, strkjv@21:20| which see) with objective genitive \tou theou\ (for God). See also verse 14; strkjv@28:17; strkjv@2Timothy:1:3| where he makes a similar claim. Songs:did Peter (Acts:3:13; strkjv@5:30|) and Stephen (7:32|). Paul definitely claims, whatever freedom he demanded for Gentile Christians, to be personally "a zealot for God" "even as ye all are this day" (\kath“s pantes humeis este sˆmeron\). In his conciliation he went to the limit and puts himself by the side of the mob in their zeal for the law, mistaken as they were about him. He was generous surely to interpret their fanatical frenzy as zeal for God. But Paul is sincere as he proceeds to show by appeal to his own conduct.

rwp@Acts: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:22:15 @{A witness for him} (\martus aut“i\). As in strkjv@1:8|. {Of what} (\h“n\). Attraction of the accusative relative \ha\ to the genitive case of the unexpressed antecedent \tout“n\. {Thou hast seen and heard} (\he“rakas\, present perfect active indicative \kai ˆkousas\, first aorist active indicative). This subtle change of tense is not preserved in the English. Blass properly cites the perfect \he“raka\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:1| as proof of Paul's enduring qualification for the apostleship.

rwp@Acts:22:26 @{What art thou about to do?} (\Ti melleis poiein?\). On the point of doing, sharp warning.

rwp@Acts:23:3 @{Thou whited wall} (\toiche kekoniamene\). Perfect passive participle of \konia“\ (from \konia\, dust or lime). The same word used in strkjv@Matthew:23:27| for "whited sepulchres" (\taphoi kekoniamenoi\) which see. It is a picturesque way of calling Ananias a hypocrite, undoubtedly true, but not a particularly tactful thing for a prisoner to say to his judge, not to say Jewish high priest. Besides, Paul had hurled back at him the word \tuptein\ (smite) in his command, putting it first in the sentence (\tuptein se mellei ho theos\) in strong emphasis. Clearly Paul felt that he, not Ananias, was living as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. {And sittest thou to judge me?} (\Kai su kathˆi krin“n me?\) Literally, "And thou (being what thou art) art sitting (\kathˆi\, second person singular middle of \kathˆmai\, late form for \kathˆsai\, the uncontracted form) judging me." Cf. strkjv@Luke:22:30|. \Kai su\ at the beginning of a question expresses indignation. {Contrary to the law} (\paranom“n\). Present active participle of \paranome“\, old verb to act contrary to the law, here alone in the N.T., "acting contrary to the law."

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:23:9 @{Strove} (\diemachonto\). Imperfect middle of \diamachomai\, old Attic verb, to fight it out (between, back and forth, fiercely). Here only in the N.T. It was a lively scrap and Luke pictures it as going on. The Pharisees definitely take Paul's side. {And what if a spirit hath spoken to him or an angel?} (\ei de pneuma elalˆsen aut“i ˆ aggelos?\). This is aposiopesis, not uncommon in the N.T., as in strkjv@Luke:13:9; strkjv@John:6:62| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1203). See one also in strkjv@Exodus:32:32|.

rwp@Acts:23:16 @{Their lying in wait} (\tˆn enedran\). Old word from \en\ (in) and \hedra\ (seat), ambush. In N.T. only here and strkjv@25:3|. Accusative object of \akousas\. {He came} (\paragenomenos\). Second aorist middle participle of \paraginomai\. It may mean, "having come upon them" and so discount their plot, a graphic touch. Vincent thinks that some Pharisee, since Paul was a Pharisee and so a member of the "guild," told his nephew of the plot. Perhaps, and perhaps not. {Told Paul} (\apˆggeilen t“i Paul“i\). This nephew is not known otherwise. He may be a student here from Tarsus as Paul once was. Anyhow he knows what to do when he catches on to the conspirators. He had enough address to get into the barracks where Paul was. He ran the risk of death if discovered.

rwp@Acts:23:30 @{When it was shown to me that there would be a plot} (\mˆnutheisˆs moi epiboulˆs esesthai\). Two constructions combined; genitive absolute (\mˆnutheisˆs epiboulˆs\, first aorist passive participle of \mˆnu“\) and future infinitive (\esesthai\ as if \epiboulˆn\ accusative of general reference used) in indirect assertion after \mˆnu“\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 877). {Charging his accusers also} (\paraggeilas kai tois katˆgorois\). First aorist active participle of \paraggell“\ with which compare \math“n\ above (verse 27|), not subsequent action. Dative case in \katˆgorois\. {Before thee} (\epi sou\). Common idiom for "in the presence of" when before a judge (like Latin _apud_) as in strkjv@24:20,21; strkjv@25:26; strkjv@26:2|. What happened to the forty conspirators we have no way of knowing. Neither they nor the Jews from Asia are heard of more during the long five years of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea and Rome.

rwp@Acts:23:33 @{And they} (\hoitines\). Which very ones, the cavalry, the horsemen of verse 31|. {Delivered} (\anadontes\). Second aorist active participle of \anadid“mi\, old verb to give up, to hand over, here only in the N.T. {Presented Paul also} (\parestˆsan kai ton Paulon\). First aorist active (transitive, not second aorist intransitive) indicative of \paristˆmi\, common verb to present or place beside. What would Paul's friends in Caesarea (Philip and his daughters) think of the prophecy of Agabus now so quickly come true.

rwp@Acts:23:34 @{When he had read it} (\anagnous\). Second aorist active participle of \anagin“sk“\, to know again, to read. {Of what province he was} (\ek poias eparcheias estin\). Tense of \estin\ (is) retained in indirect question. \Poias\ is strictly "of what kind of" province, whether senatorial or imperial. Cilicia, like Judea, was under the control of the propraetor of Syria (imperial province). Paul's arrest was in Jerusalem and so under the jurisdiction of Felix unless it was a matter of insurrection when he could appeal to the propraetor of Syria.

rwp@Acts:24:1 @{And with an Orator, one Tertullus} (\kai rhˆtoros Tertullou tinos\). A deputation of elders along with the high priest Ananias, not the whole Sanhedrin, but no hint of the forty conspirators or of the Asian Jews. The Sanhedrin had become divided so that now it is probably Ananias (mortally offended) and the Sadducees who take the lead in the prosecution of Paul. It is not clear whether after five days is from Paul's departure from Jerusalem or his arrival in Caesarea. If he spent nine days in Jerusalem, then the five days would be counted from then (verse 11|). The employment of a Roman lawyer (Latin _orator_) was necessary since the Jews were not familiar with Roman legal procedure and it was the custom in the provinces (Cicero _pro Cael_. 30). The speech was probably in Latin which Paul may have understood also. \Rhˆt“r\ is a common old Greek word meaning a forensic orator or advocate but here only in the N.T. The Latin _rhetor_ was a teacher of rhetoric, a very different thing. Tertullus is a diminutive of Tertius (Romans:16:22|). {Informed} (\enephanisan\). Same verb as in strkjv@23:15,22|, somewhat like our modern "indictment," certainly accusations "against Paul" (\kata tou Paulou\). They were down on Paul and the hired barrister was prosecuting attorney. For the legal form see _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Vol. II., p. 162, line 19.

rwp@Acts:24:8 @{From whom} (\par' hou\). Referring to Paul, but in the Textus Receptus referring to Lysias. {By examining him thyself} (\autos anakrinas\). Not by torture, since Paul was a Roman citizen, but by hearing what Paul has to say in defence of himself. \Anakrin“\ is to examine thoroughly up and down as in strkjv@Luke:23:14|.

rwp@Acts:24:21 @{Except it be} (\e\). Literally, "than," but after interrogative \ti = ti allo\ "what else than." {For this one voice} (\peri mias tautˆs ph“nˆs\). The normal Greek idiom with the attributive use of \houtos\ calls for the article before \mias\, though some inscriptions show it as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 702). {That} (\hˆs\). Genitive of the relative attracted to the case of the antecedent {ph“nˆs}. {I cried} (\ekekraxa\). Reduplicated aorist as is usual with this verb in the LXX (Judges:3:15|). Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 348. {Touching} (\peri\). Concerning (around, about). {I am called in question} (\krinomai\). As in strkjv@23:6|. {Before you} (\eph' hum“n\). Same idiom as in verses 19,20|.

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

rwp@Acts:25:9 @{Desiring to gain favour with the Jews} (\thel“n tois Ioudaiois charin katathesthai\). Precisely the expression used of Felix by Luke in strkjv@24:27| which see. Festus, like Felix, falls a victim to fear of the Jews. {Before me} (\ep' emou\). Same use of \epi\ with the genitive as in strkjv@23:30; strkjv@24:19,21|. Festus, seeing that it was unjust to condemn Paul and yet disadvantageous to absolve him (Blass), now makes the very proposal to Paul that the rulers had made to him in Jerusalem (verse 3|). He added the words "\ep' emou\" (before me) as if to insure Paul of justice. If Festus was unwilling to give Paul justice in Caesarea where his regular court held forth, what assurance was there that Festus would give it to him at Jerusalem in the atmosphere of intense hostility to Paul? Only two years ago the mob, the Sanhedrin, the forty conspirators had tried to take his life in Jerusalem. Festus had no more courage to do right than Felix, however plausible his language might sound. Festus also, while wanting Paul to think that he would in Jerusalem "be judged of these things before me," in reality probably intended to turn Paul over to the Sanhedrin in order to please the Jews, probably with Festus present also to see that Paul received justice (\me presente\). Festus possibly was surprised to find that the charges were chiefly against Jewish law, though one was against Caesar. It was not a mere change of venue that Paul sensed, but the utter unwillingness of Festus to do his duty by him and his willingness to connive at Jewish vengeance on Paul. Paul had faced the mob and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, two years of trickery at the hands of Felix in Caesarea, and now he is confronted by the bland chicanery of Festus. It is too much, the last straw.

rwp@Acts:25:12 @{When he had conferred with the council} (\sunlalˆsas meta tou sumbouliou\). The word \sumboulion\ in the N.T. usually means "counsel" as in strkjv@Matthew:12:14|, but here alone as an assembly of counsellors or council. But the papyri (Milligan and Moulton's _Vocabulary_) furnish a number of instances of this sense of the word as "council." Here it apparently means the chief officers and personal retinue of the procurator, his assessors (\assessores consiliarii\). These local advisers were a necessity. Some discretion was allowed the governor about granting the appeal. If the prisoner were a well-known robber or pirate, it could be refused. {Thou hast appealed unto Caesar} (\Kaisara epikeklˆsai\). The same technical word, but the perfect tense of the indicative. {Unto Caesar thou shalt go} (\epi Kaisara poreusˆi\). Perhaps the volitive future (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 874). Bengel thinks that Festus sought to frighten Paul with these words. Knowling suggests that "they may have been uttered, if not with a sneer, yet with the implication 'thou little knowest what an appeal to Caesar means.'" But embarrassment will come to Festus. He has refused to acquit this prisoner. Hence he must formulate charges against him to go before Caesar.

rwp@Acts:25:19 @{But had} (\de eichon\). Descriptive imperfect active of \ech“\ and \de\ of contrast (but). {Concerning their own religion} (\peri tˆs idias deisidaimonias\). See on ¯17:22| for discussion of this word. Festus would hardly mean "superstition," whatever he really thought, because Agrippa was a Jew. {And of one Jesus} (\kai peri tinos Iˆsou\). This is the climax of supercilious scorn toward both Paul and "one Jesus." {Who was dead} (\tethnˆkotos\). Perfect active participle of \thnˆsk“\ agreeing with \Iˆsou\ (genitive). As being dead. {Whom Paul affirmed to be alive} (\hon ephasken ho Paulos zˆin\). Imperfect active of \phask“\, old form of \phˆmi\ to say, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:24:9; strkjv@Romans:1:22|. Infinitive \zˆin\ in indirect discourse with \hon\ (whom) the accusative of general reference. With all his top-loftical airs Festus has here correctly stated the central point of Paul's preaching about Jesus as no longer dead, but living.

rwp@Acts:25:26 @{No certain thing} (\asphales ti--ou\). Nothing definite or reliable (\a\ privative, \sphall“\, to trip). All the charges of the Sanhedrin slipped away or were tripped up by Paul. Festus confesses that he had nothing left and thereby convicts himself of gross insincerity in his proposal to Paul in verse 9| about going up to Jerusalem. By his own statement he should have set Paul free. The various details here bear the marks of the eyewitness. Luke was surely present and witnessed this grand spectacle with Paul as chief performer. {Unto my lord} (\t“i kuri“i\). Augustus (Octavius) and Tiberius refused the title of \kurios\ (lord) as too much like _rex_ (king) and like master and slave, but the servility of the subjects gave it to the other emperors who accepted it (Nero among them). Antoninus Pius put it on his coins. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105) gives an ostracon dated Aug. 4, A.D. 63 with the words "in the year nine of Nero the lord" (\enatou Ner“nos tou kuriou\). Deissmann (_op. cit._, pp. 349ff.) runs a most interesting parallel "between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term \kurios\, lord" in ostraca, papyri, inscriptions. Beyond a doubt Paul has all this fully in mind when he says in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| that "no one is able to say \Kurios Iˆsous\ except in the Holy Spirit" (cf. also strkjv@Phillipians:2:11|). The Christians claimed this word for Christ and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say " Lord Caesar" and insisted on saying "Lord Jesus" when it meant his certain death. {Before you} (\eph' hum“n\). The whole company. In no sense a new trial, but an examination in the presence of these prominent men to secure data and to furnish entertainment and pleasure to Agrippa (verse 22|). {Especially before thee} (\malista epi sou\). Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as verse 22| shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul's case. {After examination had} (\tˆs anakrise“s genomenˆs\). Genitive absolute, "the examination having taken place." \Anakrisis\ from \anakrin“\ (cf. strkjv@12:19; strkjv@24:8; strkjv@28:18|) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. {That I may have somewhat to write} (\hop“s sch“ ti graps“\). Ingressive aorist subjunctive \sch“\ (may get) with \hop“s\ (final particle like \hina\). \Ti graps“\ in indirect question after \sch“\ is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a "trial," but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament.

rwp@Acts:26:2 @{I think myself happy} (\hˆgˆmai emauton makarion\). See on ¯Matthew:5:3| for \makarios\. Blass notes that Paul, like Tertullus, begins with _captatio benevolentiae_, but _absque adulatione_. He says only what he can truthfully speak. For \hˆgˆmai\ see strkjv@Phillipians:3:7; strkjv@1Timothy:6:1| (perfect middle indicative of \hˆgeomai\), I have considered. {That I am to make my defence} (\mell“n apologeisthai\). Literally, "being about to make my defence." {Whereof I am accused} (\h“n egkaloumai\). Genitive with \egkaloumai\ as in strkjv@19:40| or by attraction from accusative of relative (\ha\) to case of antecedent (\pant“n\).

rwp@Acts:26:5 @{Having knowledge of me from the first} (\progin“skontes me an“then\). Literally, "knowing me beforehand" (both \pro\ and \an“then\), from the beginning of Paul's public education in Jerusalem (Knowling). Cf. strkjv@2Peter:3:17|. {If they be willing to testify} (\ean thel“sin marturein\). Condition of third class (\ean\ and subjunctive). A neat turning of the tables on the distinguished audience about Paul's Jerusalem reputation before his conversion. {After the straitest sect} (\tˆn akribestatˆn hairesin\). This is a true superlative (not elative) and one of the three (also \hagi“tatos\, strkjv@Jude:1:20|, \timi“tatos\ strkjv@Revelation:18:12; strkjv@21:11|) superlatives in \-tatos\ in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 279f., 670), though common enough in the LXX and the papyri. \Hairesin\ (choosing) is properly used here with Pharisees (Josephus, _Life_, 38). {Religion} (\thrˆskeias\). From \thrˆskeu“\ and this from \thrˆskos\ (James:1:26|), old word for religious worship or discipline, common in the papyri and inscriptions (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) for reverent worship, not mere external ritual. In N.T. only here, strkjv@James:1:26f.; strkjv@Colossians:2:18|. {I lived a Pharisee} (\ezˆsa Pharisaios\). Emphatic position. Paul knew the rules of the Pharisees and played the game to the full (Galatians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:3:5f.|). The Talmud makes it plain what the life of a Pharisee was. Paul had become one of the leaders and stars of hope for his sect.

rwp@Acts:26:13 @{At midday} (\hˆmeras mesˆs\). Genitive of time and idiomatic use of \mesos\, in the middle of the day, more vivid than \mesˆmbrian\ (22:6|). {Above the brightness of the sun} (\huper tˆn lamprotˆta tou hˆliou\). Here alone not in strkjv@Acts:9; 22|, though implied in strkjv@9:3; strkjv@22:6|, "indicating the supernatural character of the light" (Knowling). Luke makes no effort to harmonize the exact phrases here with those in the other accounts and Paul here (verse 16|) blends together what Jesus said to him directly and the message of Jesus through Ananias (9:15|). The word \lamprotˆs\, old word, is here alone in the N.T. {Shining round about me} (\perilampsan me\). First aorist active participle of \perilamp“\, common _Koin‚_ verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:2:9|.

rwp@Ephesians:3:10 @{To the intent that} (\hina\). Final clause. {Might be made known} (\gn“risthˆi\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \gn“riz“\ with \hina\. The mystery was made known to Paul (3:3|) and now he wants it blazoned forth to all powers (Gnostic aeons or what not). {Through the church} (\dia tˆs ekklˆsias\). The wonderful body of Christ described in chapter strkjv@Ephesians:2|. {The manifold wisdom of God} (\hˆ polupoikilos sophia tou theou\). Old and rare word, much-variegated, with many colours. Only here in N.T. \Poikilos\ (variegated) is more common (Matthew:4:24|).

rwp@Ephesians:4:8 @{Wherefore he saith} (\dio legei\). As a confirmation of what Paul has said. No subject is expressed in the Greek and commentators argue whether it should be \ho theos\ (God) or \hˆ graphˆ\ (Scripture). But it comes to God after all. See strkjv@Acts:2:17|. The quotation is from strkjv@Psalms:68:18|, a Messianic Psalm of victory which Paul adapts and interprets for Christ's triumph over death. {He led captivity captive} (\ˆichmal“teusen aichmal“sian\). Cognate accusative of \aichmal“sian\, late word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:13:10|. The verb also (\aichmal“teu“\) is from the old word \aichmal“tos\, captive in war (in N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:4:18|), in LXX and only here in N.T.

rwp@Ephesians:4:9 @{Now this} (\to de\). Paul picks out the verb \anabas\ (second aorist active participle of \anabain“\, to go up), changes its form to \anebˆ\ (second aorist indicative), and points the article (\to\) at it. Then he concludes that it implied a previous \katabas\ (coming down). {Into the lower parts of the earth} (\eis ta kat“tera tˆs gˆs\). If the \anabas\ is the Ascension of Christ, then the \katabas\ would be the Descent (Incarnation) to earth and \tˆs gˆs\ would be the genitive of apposition. What follows in verse 10| argues for this view. Otherwise one must think of the death of Christ (the descent into Hades of strkjv@Acts:2:31|).

rwp@Ephesians:4:21 @{If so be that} (\ei ge\). "If indeed." Condition of first class with aorist indicatives here, assumed to be true (\ˆkousate kai edidachthˆte\). {Even as truth is in Jesus} (\kath“s estin alˆtheia en t“i Iˆsou\). It is not clear what Paul's precise idea is here. The Cerinthian Gnostics did distinguish between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. Paul here identifies Christ (verse 20|) and Jesus (verse 21|). At any rate he flatly affirms that there is "truth in Jesus" which is in direct opposition to the heathen manner of life and which is further explained by the epexegetical infinitives that follow (\apothesthai, ananeousthai de, kai endusasthai\).

rwp@Galatians:6:7 @{Be not deceived} (\mˆ planƒsthe\). Present passive imperative with \mˆ\, "stop being led astray" (\plana“\, common verb to wander, to lead astray as in strkjv@Matthew:24:4f.|). {God is not mocked} (\ou muktˆrizetai\). This rare verb (common in LXX) occurs in Lysias. It comes from \muktˆr\ (nose) and means to turn the nose up at one. That is done towards God, but never without punishment, Paul means to say. In particular, he means "an evasion of his laws which men think to accomplish, but, in fact, cannot" (Burton). {Whatsoever a man soweth} (\ho ean speirˆi anthr“pos\). Indefinite relative clause with \ean\ and the active subjunctive (either aorist or present, form same here). One of the most frequent of ancient proverbs (Job:4:8|; Arist., _Rhet_. iii. 3). Already in strkjv@2Corinthians:9:6|. Same point in strkjv@Matthew:7:16; strkjv@Mark:4:26f|. {That} (\touto\). That very thing, not something different. {Reap} (\therisei\). See on ¯Matthew:6:26| for this old verb.

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

rwp@Galatians:6:12 @{To make a fair show} (\eupros“pˆsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \eupros“pe“\, late verb from \eupros“pos\, fair of face (\eu, pros“pon\). Here only in N.T., but one example in papyri (Tebt. I. 19 12 B.C. 114) which shows what may happen to any of our N.T. words not yet found elsewhere. It is in Chrysostom and later writers. {They compel} (\anagkazousin\). Conative present active indicative, "they try to compel." {For the cross of Christ} (\t“i staur“i tou Christou\). Instrumental case (causal use, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 532). Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:2:13|. "For professing the cross of Christ" (Lightfoot).

rwp@Hebrews:1:2 @{At the end of these days} (\ep' eschatou t“n hˆmer“n tout“n\). In contrast with \palai\ above. {Hath spoken} (\elalˆsen\). First aorist indicative of \lale“\, the same verb as above, "did speak" in a final and full revelation. {In his Son} (\en hui“i\). In sharp contrast to \en tois prophˆtais\. "The Old Testament slopes upward to Christ" (J. R. Sampey). No article or pronoun here with the preposition \en\, giving the absolute sense of "Son." Here the idea is not merely what Jesus said, but what he is (Dods), God's Son who reveals the Father (John:1:18|). "The revelation was a _son-revelation_" (Vincent). {Hath appointed} (\ethˆken\). First aorist (kappa aorist) active of \tithˆmi\, a timeless aorist. {Heir of all things} (\klˆronomon pant“n\). See strkjv@Mark:12:6| for \ho klˆronomos\ in Christ's parable, perhaps an allusion here to this parable (Moffatt). The idea of sonship easily passes into that of heirship (Galatians:4:7; strkjv@Romans:8:17|). See the claim of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:11:27; strkjv@28:18| even before the Ascension. {Through whom} (\di' hou\). The Son as Heir is also the Intermediate Agent (\dia\) in the work of creation as we have it in strkjv@Colossians:1:16f.; strkjv@John:1:3|. {The worlds} (\tous ai“nas\). "The ages" (_secula_, Vulgate). See strkjv@11:3| also where \tous ai“nas=ton kosmon\ (the world) or the universe like \ta panta\ (the all things) in strkjv@1:3; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. The original sense of \ai“n\ (from \aei\, always) occurs in strkjv@Hebrews:5:20|, but here "by metonomy of the container for the contained" (Thayer) for "the worlds" (the universe) as in LXX, Philo, Josephus.

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

rwp@James:1:24 @{He beholdeth himself} (\katenoˆsen heauton\). Usually explained as gnomic aorist like those in strkjv@1:11|, but the ordinary force of the tenses is best here. "He glanced at himself (\katenoˆsen\ aorist) and off he has gone (\apelˆluthen\ perfect active) and straightway forgot (\epelatheto\, second aorist middle indicative of \epilanthanomai\) what sort of a man he was" (\hopoios ˆn\, back in the picture, imperfect tense). The tenses thus present a vivid and lifelike picture of the careless listener to preaching (Christ's wayside hearer).

rwp@James:2:7 @{Blaspheme} (\blasphˆmousin\). Present active indicative of common verb \blasphˆme“\ (from \blasphˆmos\, speaking evil, \blax\ or \blapt“\ and \phˆmˆ\), as in strkjv@Luke:22:65|. {The honourable name} (\to kalon onoma\). "The beautiful name." {By the which ye were called} (\to epiklˆthen eph' humƒs\). "The one called upon you" (first aorist passive articular participle of \epikale“\, to put a name upon, to give a surname to, as strkjv@Acts:10:18|). What name is that? Almost certainly the name of Christ as we see it in strkjv@Acts:11:26; strkjv@26:28; strkjv@1Peter:4:14,16|. It was blasphemy to speak against Christ as some Jews and Gentiles were doing (Acts:13:45; strkjv@18:6; strkjv@26:11; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3; strkjv@1Timothy:1:13|). Cf. strkjv@Acts:15:17|.

rwp@James:2:9 @{But if ye have respect of persons} (\ei de pros“polˆmpteite\). Condition of first class by contrast with that in verse 8|. For this verb (present active indicative), formed from \pros“pon lamban“\, here alone in the N.T., see in strkjv@2:1|. A direct reference to the partiality there pictured. {Ye commit sin} (\hamartian ergazesthe\). "Ye work a sin." A serious charge, apparently, for what was regarded as a trifling fault. See strkjv@Matthew:7:23|, \hoi ergazomenoi tˆn anomian\ (ye that work iniquity), an apparent reminiscence of the words of Jesus there (from strkjv@Psalms:6:8|). {Being convicted} (\elegchomenoi\). Present passive participle of \elegch“\, to convict by proof of guilt (John:3:20; strkjv@8:9,46; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:24|). {As transgressors} (\h“s parabatai\). For this word from \parabain“\, to step across, to transgress, see strkjv@Galatians:2:18; strkjv@Romans:2:25,27|. See this very sin of partiality condemned in strkjv@Leviticus:19:15; strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:17; strkjv@16:19|. To the law and to the testimony.

rwp@James:2:14 @{What doth it profit?} (\ti ophelos;\). Rhetorical question, almost of impatience. Old word from \ophell“\, to increase, in N.T. only here, verse 16; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:32|. "\Ti ophelos\ was a common expression in the vivacious style of a moral diatribe" (Ropes). {If a man say} (\ean legˆi tis\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive of \leg“\, "if one keep on saying." {He hath faith} (\pistin echein\). Infinitive in indirect assertion after \legˆi\. {But have not works} (\erga de mˆ echˆi\). Third-class condition continued, "but keeps on not having (\mˆ\ and present active subjunctive \echˆi\) works." It is the spurious claim to faith that James here condemns. {Can that faith save him?} (\mˆ dunatai hˆ pistis s“sai auton;\). Negative answer expected (\mˆ\). Effective aorist active infinitive \s“sai\ (from \s“z“\). The article \hˆ\ here is almost demonstrative in force as it is in origin, referring to the claim of faith without works just made.

rwp@James:2:16 @{And one of you say unto them} (\eipˆi de tis autois ex hum“n\). Third-class condition again continued from verse 15| with second aorist active subjunctive \eipˆi\. {Go in peace} (\hupagete en eirˆnˆi\). Present active imperative of \hupag“\. Common Jewish farewell (Judges:18:6; strkjv@1Samuel:1:17; strkjv@20:42; strkjv@2Samuel:15:9|). Used by Jesus (Mark:5:34; strkjv@Luke:7:50|). {Be ye warmed and filled} (\thermainesthe kai chortazesthe\). Present imperative either middle (direct) or passive. We have \thermainomai\ as a direct middle in strkjv@John:18:18| (were warming themselves) and that makes good sense here: "Warm yourselves." \Chortaz“\ was originally used for pasturing cattle, but came to be used of men also as here. "Feed yourselves" (if middle, as is likely). Instead of warm clothes and satisfying food they get only empty words to look out for themselves. {And yet ye give not} (\mˆ d“te de\). Third-class condition with \de\ (and yet) and \mˆ\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \did“mi\, to give, cold deeds with warm words. {The things needful to the body} (\ta epitˆdeia tou s“matos\). "The necessities of the body" (the necessaries of life). Old adjective from adverb \epitˆdes\ (enough), only here in N.T. {What doth it profit?} (\ti ophelos;\). As in verse 14| and here the conclusion (apodosis) of the long condition begun in verse 15|.

rwp@James:5:12 @{Above all things} (\pro pant“n\). No connection with what immediately precedes. Probably an allusion to the words of Jesus (Matthew:5:34-37|). It is not out of place here. See the same phrase in strkjv@1Peter:4:8|. Robinson (_Ephesians_, p. 279) cites like examples from the papyri at the close of letters. Here it means "But especially" (Ropes). {Swear not} (\mˆ omnuete\). Prohibition of the habit (or to quit doing it if guilty) with \mˆ\ and the present active imperative of \omnu“\. The various oaths (profanity) forbidden (\mˆte\, thrice) are in the accusative case after \omnuete\, according to rule (\ouranon, gˆn, horkon\). The Jews were wont to split hairs in their use of profanity, and by avoiding God's name imagine that they were not really guilty of this sin, just as professing Christians today use "pious oaths" which violate the prohibition of Jesus. {Let be} (\ˆt“\). Imperative active third singular of \eimi\, late form (1Corinthians:16:22|) for \est“\. "Your yea be yea" (and no more). A different form from that in strkjv@Matthew:5:37|. {That ye fall not under judgment} (\hina mˆ hupo krisin pesˆte\). Negative purpose with \hina mˆ\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \pipt“\, to fall. See \hina mˆ krithˆte\ in verse 9|. \Krisis\ (from \krin“\) is the act of judging rather than the judgment rendered (\krima\ strkjv@James:3:1|).

rwp@Info_John @ WITH A HOME IN JERUSALEM It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus "to his own home" (\eis ta idia\, strkjv@John:19:27|) from the Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest (John:18:15f.|). Delff (_Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_, 1890) argues that this fact shows that the Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin (John:7:45-52; strkjv@11:47-53; strkjv@12:10ff.|). But at once we are confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (John:13:23|). Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John:21:1ff.|) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the "Beloved Disciple" (John:21:20|).

rwp@Info_John @ THE AUTHOR THE APOSTLE JOHN Loisy (_Leviticus:Quatr. Evangile_, p. 132) says that if one takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does not take it "literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not use his own name instead of a _nom de plume_. Reference can be made to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no one of which gives the author's name. One can see a reason for the turn here given since the book consists so largely of personal experiences of the author with Christ. He thus avoids the too frequent use of the personal pronoun and preserves the element of witness which marks the whole book. One by one the other twelve apostles disappear if we test their claims for the authorship. In the list of seven in chapter strkjv@John:21| it is easy to drop the names of Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (Acts:12:1|). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle John as the author.

rwp@Info_John @ BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Revelation:1:4,9; strkjv@22:8|), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. Songs:one ventures to call attention to the statement in strkjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai idi“tai\ (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan's _Greek Papyri_, for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

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

rwp@John:1:4 @{In him was life} (\en aut“i z“ˆ ˆn\). That which has come into being (verse 3|) in the Logos was life. The power that creates and sustains life in the universe is the Logos. This is what Paul means by the perfect passive verb \ektistai\ (stands created) in strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. This is also the claim of Jesus to Martha (John:11:25|). This is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:1:3| "bearing (upholding) the all things by the word of his power." Once this language might have been termed unscientific, but not so now after the spiritual interpretation of the physical world by Eddington and Jeans. Usually in John \z“ˆ\ means spiritual life, but here the term is unlimited and includes all life; only it is not \bios\ (manner of life), but the very principle or essence of life. That is spiritual behind the physical and to this great scientists today agree. It is also personal intelligence and power. Some of the western documents have \estin\ here instead of \ˆn\ to bring out clearly the timelessness of this phrase of the work of the \Logos\. {And the life was the light of men} (\kai hˆ z“ˆ ˆn to ph“s t“n anthr“p“n\). Here the article with both \z“ˆ\ and \ph“s\ makes them interchangeable. "The light was the life of men" is also true. That statement is curiously like the view of some physicists who find in electricity (both light and power) the nearest equivalent to life in its ultimate physical form. Later Jesus will call himself the light of the world (John:8:12|). John is fond of these words life and light in Gospel, Epistles, Revelation. He here combines them to picture his conception of the Pre-incarnate Logos in his relation to the race. He was and is the Life of men (\t“n anthr“pon\, generic use of the article) and the Light of men. John asserts this relation of the Logos to the race of men in particular before the Incarnation.

rwp@John:1:7 @{For witness} (\eis marturian\). Old word from \marture“\ (from \martus\), both more common in John's writings than the rest of the N.T. This the purpose of the Baptist's ministry. {That he might bear witness} (\hina marturˆsˆi\). Final clause with \hina\ and aorist active subjunctive of \marture“\ to make clearer \eis marturian\. {Of the light} (\peri tou ph“tos\). "Concerning the light." The light was shining and men with blinded eyes were not seeing the light (John:1:26|), blinded by the god of this world still (2Corinthians:4:4|). John had his own eyes opened so that he saw and told what he saw. That is the mission of every preacher of Christ. But he must first have his own eyes opened. {That all might believe} (\hina pisteus“sin\). Final clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \pisteu“\, ingressive aorist "come to believe." This is one of John's great words (about 100 times), "with nine times the frequency with which it is used by the Synoptists" (Bernard). And yet \pistis\, so common in Paul, John uses only in strkjv@1John:5:4| and four times in the Apocalypse where \pisteu“\ does not occur at all. Here it is used absolutely as in strkjv@John:1:50|, etc. {Through him} (\di' autou\). As the intermediate agent in winning men to believe in Christ (the Logos) as the Light and the Life of men. This is likewise the purpose of the author of this book (21:31|). The preacher is merely the herald to point men to Christ.

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

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

rwp@John:1:18 @{No man hath seen God at any time} (\theon oudeis he“raken p“pote\). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of \hora“\. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus:33:20; strkjv@Deuteronomy:4:12|). Paul calls God \aoratos\ (Colossians:1:15; strkjv@1Timothy:1:17|). John repeats the idea in strkjv@John:5:37; strkjv@6:46|. And yet in strkjv@14:7| Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. {The only begotten Son} (\ho monogenˆs huios\). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after \h“s monogenous para patros\ in verse 14|. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read \monogenˆs theos\ (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to \ho monogenˆs huios\ to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like strkjv@3:16|. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called \theos\ in verse 1|. The Incarnation is stated in verse 14|, where he is also termed \monogenˆs\. He was that before the Incarnation. Songs:he is "God only begotten," "the Eternal Generation of the Son" of Origen's phrase. {Which is in the bosom of the Father} (\ho “n eis ton kolpon tou patros\). The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like \pros ton theon\ in verse 1|. In strkjv@3:13| there is some evidence for \ho “n en t“i ouran“i\ used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father. {He} (\ekinos\). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son. {Hath declared him} (\exˆgˆsato\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \exˆgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke's Gospel (24:35|) and four times in Acts:(10:8; strkjv@15:12,14; strkjv@21:19|). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.

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

rwp@John:1:22 @{They said therefore} (\eipan oun\). Second aorist active indicative of defective verb \eipon\ with \a\ instead of usual \o\. Note \oun\, inferential here as in verse 21| though often merely transitional in John. {Who art thou?} (\Tis ei;\). Same question as at first (verse 19|), but briefer. {That we give answer} (\hina apokrisin d“men\). Final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \did“mi\ with \apokrisin\ from \apokrinomai\, above, old substantive as in strkjv@Luke:2:47|. {To those that sent} (\tois pempsasin\). Dative case plural of the articular participle first aorist active of \pemp“\. {What sayest thou of thyself?} (\Ti legeis peri seautou;\). This time they opened wide the door without giving any hint at all.

rwp@John:3:26 @{Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). Greeting John just like Jesus (1:38; strkjv@3:2|). {Beyond Jordan} (\peran tou Iordanou\). Evident reference to John's witness to Jesus told in strkjv@1:29-34|. {To whom thou hast borne witness} (\h“i su memarturˆkas\). Note avoidance of calling the name of Jesus. Perfect active indicative of \marture“\ so common in John (1:7|, etc.). These disciples of John are clearly jealous of Jesus as a rival of John and they distinctly blame John for his endorsement of one who is already eclipsing him in popularity. {The same baptizeth} (\houtos baptizei\). "This one is baptizing." Not personally (4:2|), as John did, but through his six disciples. {And all men come to him} (\kai pantes erchontai pros auton\). Linear present middle indicative, "are coming." The sight of the growing crowds with Jesus and the dwindling crowds with John stirred John's followers to keenest jealousy. What a life-like picture of ministerial jealousy in all ages.

rwp@John:3:32 @{What he hath seen and heard} (\ho he“raken kai ˆkousen\). Perfect active indicative followed by aorist active indicative, because, as Westcott shows, the first belongs to the very existence of the Son and the latter to his mission. There is no confusion of tenses here. {No man} (\oudeis\). There were crowds coming to Jesus, but they do not really accept him as Saviour and Lord (1:11; strkjv@2:24|). It is superficial as time will show. But "no one" is not to be pressed too far, for it is the rhetorical use.

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

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

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

rwp@John:5:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). John is fond of this vague phrase (3:22; strkjv@6:1|). He does not mean that this incident follows immediately. He is supplementing the Synoptic Gospels and does not attempt a full story of the work of Jesus. Some scholars needlessly put chapter 5 after chapter 6 because in chapter 6 Jesus is in Galilee as at the end of chapter 4. But surely it is not incongruous to think of Jesus making a visit to Jerusalem before the events in chapter 6 which undoubtedly come within a year of the end (6:4|). {A feast of the Jews} (\heortˆ t“n Ioudai“n\). Some manuscripts have the article (\hˆ\) "the feast" which would naturally mean the passover. As a matter of fact there is no way of telling what feast it was which Jesus here attended. Even if it was not the passover, there may well be another passover not mentioned besides the three named by John (2:13,23; strkjv@6:4: strkjv@12:1|). {Went up} (\anebˆ\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain“\. It was up towards Jerusalem from every direction save from Hebron.

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

rwp@John:5:18 @{Sought the more} (\mallon ezˆtoun\). Imperfect active of \zˆte“\, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (\auton apokteinai\, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in strkjv@7:1,19,25; strkjv@8:37,40|. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. {Not only brake the Sabbath} (\ou monon elue to sabbaton\). Imperfect active of \lu“\. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. \Lu“\ means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of \lu“\ in this sense like \luein ta penthˆ\ (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. {But also called God his own Father} (\alla kai patera idion elege ton theon\). "His own" (\idion\) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See strkjv@Romans:8:32| for \ho idios huios\, "his own Son." {Making himself equal with God} (\ison heauton poi“n t“i the“i\). \Isos\ is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means {equal}. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ \isa the“i\, "equal to God" (plural \isa\, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be \isos the“i\ because in strkjv@John:14:28| he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in strkjv@14:7| that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in strkjv@10:33; strkjv@19:7|. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47|).

rwp@John:5:19 @{The Son} (\ho huios\). The absolute use of the Son in relation to the Father admitting the charge in verse 18| and defending his equality with the Father. {Can do nothing by himself} (\ou dunatai poiein aph'heautou ouden\). True in a sense of every man, but in a much deeper sense of Christ because of the intimate relation between him and the Father. See this same point in strkjv@5:30; strkjv@7:28; strkjv@8:28; strkjv@14:10|. Jesus had already made it in strkjv@5:17|. Now he repeats and defends it. {But what he seeth the Father doing} (\an mˆ ti blepˆi ton patera poiounta\). Rather, "unless he sees the Father doing something." Negative condition (\an mˆ\=\ean mˆ\, if not, unless) of third class with present (habit) subjunctive (\blepˆi\) and present active participle (\poiounta\). It is a supreme example of a son copying the spirit and work of a father. In his work on earth the Son sees continually what the Father is doing. In healing this poor man he was doing what the Father wishes him to do. {For what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner} (\ha gar an ekeinos poiˆi tauta kai ho huios homoi“s poiei\). Indefinite relative clause with \an\ and the present active subjunctive (\poiˆi\). Note \ekeinos\, emphatic demonstrative, that one, referring to the Father. This sublime claim on the part of Jesus will exasperate his enemies still more.

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

rwp@John:5:30 @{I} (\Eg“\). The discourse returns to the first person after using "the Son" since verse 19|. Here Jesus repeats in the first person (as in strkjv@8:28|) the statement made in verse 19| about the Son. In John \emautou\ is used by Jesus 16 times and not at all by Jesus in the Synoptics. It occurs in the Synoptics only in strkjv@Matthew:8:8; strkjv@Luke:7:7f|. {Righteous} (\dikaia\). As all judgements should be. The reason is plain (\hoti\, because), the guiding principle with the Son being the will of the Father who sent him and made him Judge. Judges often have difficulty in knowing what is law and what is right, but the Son's task as Judge is simple enough, the will of the Father which he knows (verse 20|).

rwp@John:5:44 @{How can ye believe?} (\p“s dunasthe humeis pisteusai;\). Emphasis on "ye" (\humeis\), ye being what ye are. They were not true Jews (Romans:2:29; strkjv@Esther:9:28|) who cared for the glory of God, but they prefer the praise of men (Matthew:6:1f.; strkjv@23:5|) like the Pharisees who feared to confess Christ (John:12:43|). {From the only God} (\para tou monou theou\). B and W omit \theou\ which is certainly meant even if not genuine here. See strkjv@17:3; strkjv@Romans:16:27; strkjv@1Timothy:6:15f|.

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:6:6 @{To prove him} (\peiraz“n auton\). Present active participle of \peiraz“\, testing him, not here in bad sense of tempting as so often (Matthew:4:1|). {What he would do} (\ti ˆmellen poiein\). Indirect question with change of tense to imperfect. As in strkjv@2:25| so here John explains why Jesus put the question to Philip.

rwp@John:6:13 @{Twelve baskets} (\d“deka kophinous\). One for each of the apostles. What about the lad? Stout wicker baskets (coffins, Wycliff) in distinction from the soft and frail \sphurides\ used at the feeding of the four thousand (Mark:8:8; strkjv@Matthew:15:37|). Here all the Gospels (Mark:6:43; strkjv@Matthew:14:20; strkjv@Luke:9:17; strkjv@John:6:13|) use \kophinoi\. The same distinction between \kophinoi\ and \sphurides\ is preserved in the allusion to the incidents by Jesus in strkjv@Mark:8:19,20; strkjv@Matthew:16:9,10|. {Unto them that had eaten} (\tois bebr“kosin\). Articular perfect active participle (dative case) of \bibr“sk“\, old verb to eat, only here in N.T., though often in LXX.

rwp@John:6:27 @{Work not for} (\mˆ ergazesthe\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and present middle imperative of \ergazomai\, old verb from \ergon\, work. {The meat} (\tˆn br“sin\). The act of eating (Romans:14:17|), corrosion (Matthew:6:19|), the thing eaten as here (2Corinthians:9:10|). See on ¯John:4:32|. {Which perisheth} (\tˆn apollumenˆn\). Present middle participle of \apollumi\. They were already hungry again. {Unto eternal life} (\eis z“ˆn ai“nion\). Mystical metaphor quite beyond this crowd hungry only for more loaves and fishes. Bernard thinks that John has here put together various sayings of Christ to make one discourse, a gratuitous interpretation. {Will give} (\d“sei\). Future active indicative of \did“mi\. The outcome is still future and will be decided by their attitude towards the Son of man (verse 51|). {For him the Father, even God, hath sealed} (\touton gar ho patˆr esphragisen ho theos\). Literally, "For this one the Father sealed, God." First aorist active indicative of \sphragiz“\, to seal. See elsewhere in strkjv@John:3:33| (attestation by man). Sealing by God is rare in N.T. (2Corinthians:1:22; strkjv@Ephesians:1:13; strkjv@4:30|). It is not clear to what item, if any single one, John refers when the Father set his seal of approval on the Son. It was done at his baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon him and the Father spoke to him. Cf. strkjv@5:37|.

rwp@John:6:28 @{What must we do?} (\Ti poi“men;\). Present active deliberative subjunctive of \poie“\, "What are we to do as a habit?" For the aorist subjunctive (\poiˆs“men\) in a like question for a single act see strkjv@Luke:3:10|. For the present indicative (\poioumen\) of inquiry concerning actual conduct see strkjv@John:11:47| (what are we doing?). {That we may work the works of God} (\hina ergaz“metha ta erga tou theou\). Final clause with \hina\ and the present middle subjunctive, "that we may go on working the works of God." There may have been an element of vague sincerity in this question in spite of their supercilious attitude.

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

rwp@John:6:34 @{Lord} (\Kurie\). Used now instead of _Rabbi_ (25) though how much the people meant by it is not clear. {Evermore give us this bread} (\pantote dos hˆmin ton arton touton\). Second aorist active imperative second singular like \dos\ in strkjv@Matthew:6:11| (urgent petition). What kind of bread do they mean? The Jewish commentaries and Philo speak of the manna as typifying heavenly bread for the soul. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:3| seems to refer to the manna as "spiritual food." Like the woman at the well (4:15|) they long "always" to have "this bread," a perpetual supply. It is probably to this crowd as the water in strkjv@4:15| was to the woman.

rwp@John:6:41 @{Murmured} (\egogguzon\). Imperfect active of the onomatopoetic verb \gogguz“\, late verb in LXX (murmuring against Moses), papyri (vernacular), like the cooing of doves or the buzzing of bees. These Galilean Jews are puzzled over what Jesus had said (verses 33,35|) about his being the bread of God come down from heaven.

rwp@John:9:35 @{Finding him} (\heur“n auton\). Second aorist active participle of \heurisk“\, after search because of what he had heard (\ˆkousen\). {Dost thou believe on the Son of God?} (\Su pisteueis eis ton huion tou theou;\). Songs:A L Theta and most versions, but Aleph B D W Syr-sin read \tou anthr“pou\ (the Son of Man), almost certainly correct. In either case it is a distinct Messianic claim quite beyond the range of this man's limited knowledge, keen as he is.

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 aitˆsˆi 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 \er“ta“\ (usual word of Jesus praying to the Father), but in strkjv@16:23| we have \er“ta“\ 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} (\d“sei 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:11:23 @{Thy brother will rise again} (\anastˆsetai ho adelphos sou\). Future middle (intransitive) of \anistˆmi\. The words promise Martha what she has asked for, if Jesus means that.

rwp@John:11:24 @{In the resurrection at the last day} (\en tˆi anastasei en tˆi eschatˆi hˆmerƒi\). Did Jesus mean only that? She believed it, of course, and such comfort is often offered in case of death, but that idea did not console Martha and is not what she hinted at in verse 22|.

rwp@John:11:32 @{Fell down at his feet} (\epesen autou pros tous podas\). Second aorist active of \pipt“\, to fall. Note unusual position of \autou\. This impulsive act like Mary. She said precisely what Martha had said to Jesus (verse 21|). But she said no more, only wept (verse 33|).

rwp@John:11:34 @{Where have ye laid him?} (\Pou tetheikate auton;\). Perfect active indicative of \tithˆmi\. A simple question for information. The only other like it in John is in strkjv@6:6| where it is expressly stated that Jesus knew what he was going to do. Songs:it was here, only he politely asked for direction to the tomb of Lazarus. The people invite him to come and see, the very language used by Philip to Nathanael (1:46|). It was a natural and polite reply as they would show Jesus the way, but they had no idea of his purpose.

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:11:50 @{That it is expedient for you} (\hoti sumpherei humin\). Indirect discourse with present active indicative of \sumpher“\ used with the \hina\ clause as subject. It means to bear together, to be profitable, with the dative case as here (\humin\, for you). It is to your interest and that is what they cared most for. {That one man die} (\hina heis anthr“pos apothanˆi\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnˆsk“\ as subject clause with \sumpherei\. See strkjv@16:7; strkjv@18:7| for the same construction. {For the people} (\huper tou laou\). \Huper\ simply means _over_, but can be in behalf of as often, and in proper context the resultant idea is "instead of" as the succeeding clause shows and as is clearly so in strkjv@Galatians:3:13| of the death of Christ and naturally so in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:14f.; strkjv@Romans:5:6|. In the papyri \huper\ is the usual preposition used of one who writes a letter for one unable to write. {And that the whole nation perish not} (\kai mˆ holon to ethnos apolˆtai\). Continuation of the \hina\ construction with \mˆ\ and the second aorist subjunctive of \apollumi\. What Caiaphas has in mind is the giving of Jesus to death to keep the nation from perishing at the hands of the Romans. Politicians are often willing to make a sacrifice of the other fellow.

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

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

rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoiˆsan oun aut“i deipnon ekei\). Here again \oun\ is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark:14:3-9|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6-13|) just two days (Mark:14:1|) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9|) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1|). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John "is here more probably accurate." It all turns on John's purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11|), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19|), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a|), and with two summary judgements (36b-50|). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke:7:36-50|). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. {And Martha served} (\kai hˆ Martha diˆkonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone“\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\pollˆn diakonian\, \diakonein\ as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6|) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke:7:36|), but Simon the leper (Mark:14:3; strkjv@Matthew:26:6|) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. {That sat at meat} (\t“n anakeimen“n\). "That lay back," reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after \ek\) of the common verb \anakeimai\. Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John:12:9|). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.

rwp@John:12:6 @{Not because he cared for the poor} (\ouch hoti peri t“n pt“ch“n emelen aut“i\). Literally, "not because it was a care to him concerning the poor" (impersonal imperfect of \melei\, it was a care). John often makes explanatory comments of this kind as in strkjv@2:21f.; strkjv@7:22,39|. {But because he was a thief} (\alle hoti kleptˆs ˆn\). Clearly the disciples did not know then that Judas was a petty thief. That knowledge came later after he took the bribe of thirty pieces of silver for betraying Jesus (Matthew:26:15|), for the disciples did not suspect Judas of treachery (13:28f.|), let alone small peculations. There is no reason for thinking that John is unfair to Judas. "Temptation commonly comes through that for which we are naturally fitted" (Westcott). In this case Judas himself was "the poor beggar" who wanted this money. {And having the bag took away what was put therein} (\kai to gl“ssokomon ech“n ta ballomena ebastazen\). This is the correct text. This compound for the earlier \gl“ssokomeion\ (from \gl“ssa\, tongue, and \kome“\, to tend) was originally a receptacle for the tongues or mouth-pieces of wind instruments. The shorter form is already in the Doric inscriptions and is common in the papyri for "money-box" as here. It occurs also in Josephus, Plutarch, etc. In N.T. only here and strkjv@13:29| in same sense about Judas. \Ballomena\ is present passive participle (repeatedly put in) of \ball“\, to cast or fling. The imperfect active (custom) of \bastaz“\, old verb to pick up (John:10:31|), to carry (19:17|), but here and strkjv@20:15| with the sense to bear away as in Polybius, Josephus, Diogenes Laertes, and often so in the papyri.

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:12:8 @{Ye have always} (\pantote echete\). Jesus does not discredit gifts to the poor at all. But there is relativity in one's duties. {But me ye have not always} (\eme de ou pantote echete\). This is what Mary perceived with her delicate woman's intuition and what the apostles failed to understand though repeatedly and plainly told by Jesus. John does not mention the precious promise of praise for Mary preserved in strkjv@Mark:14:9; strkjv@Matthew:26:13|, but he does show her keen sympathetic insight and Christ's genuine appreciation of her noble deed. It is curiously \mal-a-propos\ surely to put alongside this incident the other incident told long before by Luke (Luke:7:35ff.|) of the sinful woman. Let Mary alone in her glorious act of love.

rwp@John:12:12 @{On the morrow} (\tˆi epaurion\). Locative case. Supply \hˆmerƒi\ (day) after the adverb \epaurion\ ("on the tomorrow day"). That is on our Sunday, Palm Sunday. {A great multitude} (\ho ochlos polus\). Same idiom rendered "the common people" in verse 9| and should be so translated here. {That had come} (\ho elth“n\). Second aorist active participle, masculine singular of \erchomai\ agreeing with \ochlos\, "that came." {When they heard} (\akousantes\). First aorist active masculine plural participle of \akou“\, construction according to sense (plural, though \ochlos\ singular). {Was coming} (\erchetai\). Present middle indicative of \erchomai\ retained in indirect discourse after a secondary tense. It is a vivid picture. What they heard was: "Jesus is coming into Jerusalem." He is defying the Sanhedrin with all their public advertisement for him.

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

rwp@John:12:22 @{Andrew} (\t“i Andreƒi\). Another apostle with a Greek name and associated with Philip again (John:6:7f.|), the man who first brought his brother Simon to Jesus (1:41|). Andrew was clearly a man of wisdom for a crisis. Note the vivid dramatic presents here, {cometh} (\erchetai\), {telleth} (\legei\). What was the crisis? These Greeks wish an interview with Jesus. True Jesus had said something about "other sheep" than Jews (10:16|), but he had not explained. Philip and Andrew wrestle with the problem that will puzzle Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Acts:10:9-18|), that middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile that was only broken down by the Cross of Christ (Ephesians:2:11-22|) and that many Christians and Jews still set up between each other. Andrew has no solution for Philip and they bring the problem, but not the Greeks, to Jesus.

rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\hˆ psuchˆ mou\). The soul (\psuchˆ\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass“\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip“;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, s“son me ek tˆs h“ras tautˆs\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto ˆlthon eis tˆn h“ran tautˆn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.

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@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:1:3 @{It seemed good to me also} (\edoxe kamoi\). A natural conclusion and justification of Luke's decision to write his narrative. They had ample reason to draw up their narratives. Luke has more reason to do so because of his fuller knowledge and wider scope. {Having traced the course of all things} (\parˆkolouthˆkoti pƒsin\). The perfect active participle of a common verb of the ancient Greek. Literally it means to follow along a thing in mind, to trace carefully. Both meanings occur abundantly in the ancient Greek. Cadbury (Appendix C to _Beginnings of Christianity_, Vol. II, pp. 489ff.) objects to the translation "having traced" here as implying research which the word does not here mean. Milligan (_Vocabulary_) is somewhat impressed by this argument. See my discussion of the point in Chapter XVI of _Studies in the Text of the N.T._ (The Implications in Luke's Preface) where the point is made that Luke here claims fulness of knowledge before he began to write his book. He had the traditions of the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word and the narratives previously drawn up. Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had _mentally_ followed along by the side of these events. Galen used this verb for the investigation of symptoms. Luke got himself ready to write before he began by full and accurate knowledge of the subject. \Akrib“s\ (accurately) means going into minute details, from \akron\, the topmost point. And he did it {from the first} (\an“then\). He seems to refer to the matters in Chapters strkjv@1:5-2:52|, the Gospel of the Infancy. {In order} (\kathexˆs\). Chronological order in the main following Mark's general outline. But in strkjv@9:51-18:10| the order is often topical. He has made careful investigation and his work deserves serious consideration. {Most excellent Theophilus} (\kratiste Theophile\). The name means god-lover or god-beloved. He may have been a believer already. He was probably a Gentile. Ramsay holds that "most excellent" was a title like "Your Excellency" and shows that he held office, perhaps a Knight. Songs:of Felix (Acts:23:26|) and Festus (Acts:26:25|). The adjective does not occur in the dedication in strkjv@Acts:1:1|.

rwp@Luke:1:4 @{Mightest know} (\epign“is\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \epigin“sk“\. Full knowledge (\epi\-), in addition to what he already has. {The certainty} (\tˆn asphaleian\). Make no slip (\sphall“\, to totter or fall, and \a\ privative). Luke promises a reliable narrative. "Theophilus shall know that the faith which he has embraced has an impregnable historical foundation" (Plummer). {The things} (\log“n\). Literally "words," the details of the words in the instruction. {Wast instructed} (\katˆchˆthˆs\). First aorist passive indicative. Not in O.T. and rare in ancient Greek. Occurs in the papyri. The word \ˆche“\ is our word echo (cf. strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:8| for \exˆchˆtai\, has sounded forth). \Katˆche“\ is to sound down, to din, to instruct, to give oral instruction. Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:14:9; strkjv@Acts:21:21,24; strkjv@18:25; Gal strkjv@6:6|. Those men doing the teaching were called _catechists_ and those receiving it were called _catechumens_. Whether Theophilus was still a catechumen is not known. This Preface by Luke is in splendid literary _Koin‚_ and is not surpassed by those in any Greek writer (Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius). It is entirely possible that Luke was familiar with this habit of Greek historians to write prefaces since he was a man of culture.

rwp@Luke:1:7 @{Because that} (\kathoti\). Good Attic word, according to what. Only in Luke and Acts in the N.T. In the papyri. {Well stricken in years} (\probebˆkotes en tais hˆmerais aut“n\). Wycliff has it right: "Had gone far in their days." Perfect active participle. See also verse 18|.

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

rwp@Luke:7:22 @{What things ye have seen and heard} (\ha eidete kai ˆkousate\). In strkjv@Matthew:11:4|, present tense "which ye do hear and see." Rest of verse 22,23| as in strkjv@Matthew:11:4-6|, which see for details. Luke mentions no raisings from the dead in verse 21|, but the language is mainly general, while here it is specific. \Skandalizomai\ used here has the double notion of to trip up and to entrap and in the N.T. always means causing to sin.

rwp@Luke:7:26 @{A prophet?} (\prophˆtˆn;\). A real prophet will always get a hearing if he has a message from God. He is a for-speaker, forth-teller (\pro-phˆtˆs\). He may or may not be a fore-teller. The main thing is for the prophet to have a message from God which he is willing to tell at whatever cost to himself. The word of God came to John in the wilderness of Judea (Luke:3:2|). That made him a prophet. There is a prophetic element in every real preacher of the Gospel. Real prophets become leaders and moulders of men.

rwp@Luke:7:31 @{And to what are they like?} (\kai tini eisin homoioi;\). This second question is not in strkjv@Matthew:11:16|. It sharpens the point. The case of \tini\ is associative instrumental after \homoioi\. See discussion of details in Matthew.

rwp@Luke:7:37 @{A woman which was in the city, a sinner} (\gunˆ hˆtis en tˆi polei hamart“los\). Probably in Capernaum. The use of \hˆtis\ means "Who was of such a character as to be" (cf. strkjv@8:3|) and so more than merely the relative \hˆ\, who, that is, "who was a sinner in the city," a woman of the town, in other words, and known to be such. \Hamart“los\, from \hamartan“\, to sin, means devoted to sin and uses the same form for feminine and masculine. It is false and unjust to Mary Magdalene, introduced as a new character in strkjv@Luke:8:2|, to identify this woman with her. Luke would have no motive in concealing her name here and the life of a courtesan would be incompatible with the sevenfold possession of demons. Still worse is it to identify this courtesan not only with Mary Magdalene, but also with Mary of Bethany simply because it is a Simon who gives there a feast to Jesus when Mary of Bethany does a beautiful deed somewhat like this one here (Mark:14:3-9; strkjv@Matthew:26:6-13; strkjv@John:12:2-8|). Certainly Luke knew full well the real character of Mary of Bethany (10:38-42|) so beautifully pictured by him. But a falsehood, once started, seems to have more lives than the cat's proverbial nine. The very name Magdalene has come to mean a repentant courtesan. But we can at least refuse to countenance such a slander on Mary Magdalene and on Mary of Bethany. This sinful woman had undoubtedly repented and changed her life and wished to show her gratitude to Jesus who had rescued her. Her bad reputation as a harlot clung to her and made her an unwelcome visitor in the Pharisee's house. {When she knew} (\epignousa\). Second aorist active participle from \epigin“sk“\, to know fully, to recognize. She came in by a curious custom of the time that allowed strangers to enter a house uninvited at a feast, especially beggars seeking a gift. This woman was an intruder whereas Mary of Bethany was an invited guest. "Many came in and took their places on the side seats, uninvited and yet unchallenged. They spoke to those at table on business or the news of the day, and our host spoke freely to them" (Trench in his _Parables_, describing a dinner at a Consul's house at Damietta). {He was sitting at meat} (\katakeitai\). Literally, he is reclining (present tense retained in indirect discourse in Greek). {An alabaster cruse of ointment} (\alabastron murou\). See on ¯Matthew:26:7| for discussion of \alabastron\ and \murou\.

rwp@Luke:7:39 @{This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous, this fellow. {If he were a (the) prophet} (\ei ˆn [ho] prophˆtˆs\). Condition of the second class, determined as unfulfilled. The Pharisee assumes that Jesus is not a prophet (or the prophet, reading of B, that he claims to be). A Greek condition puts the thing from the standpoint of the speaker or writer. It does not deal with the actual facts, but only with the statement about the facts. {Would have perceived} (\egin“sken an\). Wrong translation, would now perceive or know (which he assumes that Jesus does not do). The protasis is false and the conclusion also. He is wrong in both. The conclusion (apodosis), like the condition, deals here with the present situation and so both use the imperfect indicative (\an\ in the conclusion, a mere device for making it plain that it is not a condition of the first class). {Who and what manner of woman} (\tis kai potapˆ hˆ gunˆ\). She was notorious in person and character.

rwp@Luke:8:9 @{Asked} (\epˆr“t“n\). Imperfect of \eper“ta“\ (\epi\ and \er“ta“\) where strkjv@Mark:4:10| has \ˆr“t“n\ (uncompounded imperfect), both the tense and the use of \epi\ indicate eager and repeated questions on the part of the disciples, perhaps dimly perceiving a possible reflection on their own growth. {What this parable might be} (\tis hautˆ eiˆ hˆ parabolˆ\). A mistranslation, What this parable was (or meant). The optative \eiˆ\ is merely due to indirect discourse, changing the indicative \estin\ (is) of the direct question to the optative \eiˆ\ of the indirect, a change entirely with the writer or speaker and without any change of meaning (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1043f.).

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:8:18 @{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: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 \prosekunˆsen\ (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:18:18 @{Ruler} (\arch“n\). Not in strkjv@Mark:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:19:16|. {What shall I do to inherit?} (\Ti poiˆsas klˆronomˆs“;\). "By doing what shall I inherit?" Aorist active participle and future active indicative. Precisely the same question is asked by the lawyer in strkjv@Luke:10:25|. This young man probably thought that by some one act he could obtain eternal life. He was ready to make a large expenditure for it. {Good} (\agathon\). See on ¯Mark:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:19:16| for discussion of this adjective for absolute goodness. Plummer observes that no Jewish rabbi was called "good" in direct address. The question of Jesus will show whether it was merely fulsome flattery on the part of the young man or whether he really put Jesus on a par with God. He must at any rate define his attitude towards Christ.

rwp@Luke:18:26 @{Then who} (\kai tis\). Literally, {and who}. The \kai\ calls attention to what has just been said. Wealth was assumed to be mark of divine favour, not a hindrance to salvation.

rwp@Luke:18:28 @{Our own} (\ta idia\). Our own things (home, business, etc.). Right here is where so many fail. Peter speaks here not in a spirit of boastfulness, but rather with his reactions from their consternation at what has happened and at the words of Jesus (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:18:36 @{Inquired} (\epunthaneto\). Imperfect middle. Repeatedly inquired as he heard the tramp of the passing crowd going by (\diaporeuomenou\). {What this meant} (\Ti eiˆ touto\). Literally, What it was. Without \an\ the optative is due to indirect discourse, changed from \estin\. With \an\ (margin of Westcott and Hort) the potential optative of the direct discourse is simply retained.

rwp@Luke:18:41 @{What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?} (\Ti soi theleis poiˆs“;\). 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@Luke:19:13 @{Trade ye herewith till I come} (\pragmateusasthe en h“i erchomai\). First aorist middle imperative of \pragmateuomai\, an old verb from \prƒgma\, business. Here only in the N.T. Westcott and Hort in their text read \pragmateusasthai\, first aorist middle infinitive (\-ai\ and \-e\ were pronounced alike). The infinitive makes it indirect discourse, the imperative direct. {While I am coming} is what \en h“i erchomai\ really means.

rwp@Luke:19:48 @{They could not find} (\ouch hˆuriskon\). Imperfect active. They kept on not finding. {What they might do} (\to ti poiˆs“sin\). First aorist active deliberative subjunctive in a direct question retained in the indirect. Note the article \to\ (neuter accusative) with the question. {Hung upon him} (\exekremeto autou\). Imperfect middle of \ekkremamai\, an old verb (\mi\ form) to hang from, here only in the N.T. The form is an \omega\ form from \ekkremomai\, a constant tendency to the \omega\ form in the _Koin‚_. It pictures the whole nation (save the leaders in verse 47|) hanging upon the words of Jesus as if in suspense in mid-air, rapt attention that angered these same leaders. Tyndale renders it "stuck by him."

rwp@Luke:20:2 @{Tell us} (\eipon hˆmin\). Luke adds these words to what Mark and Matthew have. Second aorist active imperative for the old form \eipe\ and with ending \-on\ of the first aorist active. Westcott and Hort punctuate the rest of the sentence as an indirect question after \eipon\, but the Revised Version puts a semicolon after "us" and retains the direct question. The Greek manuscripts have no punctuation.

rwp@Luke:20:13 @{What shall I do?} (\Ti poiˆs“;\). Deliberative future indicative or aorist subjunctive (same form). This detail only in Luke. Note the variations in all three Gospels. All three have "will reverence" (\entrapˆsontai\) for which see Matthew and Mark. {It may be} (\is“s\). Perhaps, from \isos\, equal. Old adverb, but only here in the N.T.

rwp@Luke:21:24 @{Edge of the sword} (\stomati machairˆs\). Instrumental case of \stomati\ which means "mouth" literally (Genesis:34:26|). This verse like the close of verse 22| is only in Luke. Josephus (_War_, VI. 9.3) states that 1,100,000 Jews perished in the destruction of Jerusalem and 97,000 were taken captive. Surely this is an exaggeration and yet the number must have been large. {Shall be led captive} (\aichmal“tisthˆsontai\). Future passive of \aichmal“tiz“\ from \aichmˆ\, spear and \hal“tos\ (\haliskomai\). Here alone in the literal sense in the N.T. {Shall be trodden under foot} (\estai patoumenˆ\). Future passive periphrastic of \pate“\, to tread, old verb. {Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled} (\achri hou plˆr“th“sin kairoi ethn“n\). First aorist passive subjunctive with \achri hou\ like \he“s hou\. What this means is not clear except that Paul in strkjv@Romans:11:25| shows that the punishment of the Jews has a limit. The same idiom appears there also with \achri hou\ and the aorist subjunctive.

rwp@Luke:22:20 @{After the supper} (\meta to deipnˆsai\). Preposition \meta\ and the accusative articular infinitive. The textual situation here is confusing, chiefly because of the two cups (verses 17,20|). Some of the documents omit the latter part of verse 19| and all of verse 20|. It is possible, of course, that this part crept into the text of Luke from strkjv@1Corinthians:11:24f|. But, if this part is omitted, Luke would then have the order reversed, the cup before the bread. Songs:there are difficulties whichever turn one takes here with Luke's text whether one cup or two cups. {The New Covenant} (\he kainˆ diathˆkˆ\). See on ¯Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Mark:14:24| for "covenant." Westcott and Hort reject "new" there, but accept it here and in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:25|. See on ¯Luke:5:38| for difference between \kainˆ\ and \nea\. "The ratification of a covenant was commonly associated with the shedding of blood; and what was written in blood was believed to be indelible" (Plummer). {Poured out} (\ekchunnomenon\). Same word in strkjv@Mark:14:24; strkjv@Matthew:26:28| translated "shed." Late form present passive participle of \ekchunn“\ of \ekche“\, to pour out.

rwp@Luke:22:49 @{What would follow} (\to esomenon\). Article and the future middle participle of \eimi\, to be. {Shall we smite with a sword?} (\ei pataxomen en machairˆi;\). Note \ei\ in a direct question like the Hebrew. Luke alone gives this question. Instrumental use of \en\. They had the two swords already mentioned (22:38|).

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

rwp@Luke:22:71 @{For we ourselves have heard} (\autoi gar ˆkousamen\). They were right if Jesus is not what he claimed to be. They were eternally wrong for he is the Christ, the Son of man, the Son of God. They made their choice and must face Christ as Judge.

rwp@Luke:23:22 @{Why, what evil?} (\Ti gar kakon;\). Note this use of \gar\ (explanatory and argumentative combined).

rwp@Luke:23:31 @{In the green tree} (\en hugr“i xul“i\). Green wood is hard to burn and so is used for the innocent. {In the dry} (\en t“i xˆr“i\). Dry wood kindles easily and is a symbol for the guilty. This common proverb has various applications. Here the point is that if they can put Jesus to death, being who he is, what will happen to Jerusalem when its day of judgment comes? {What shall be done} (\ti genˆtai\). Deliberative subjunctive.

rwp@Luke:23:40 @{Rebuking} (\epitim“n\). From what Mark and Matthew say both robbers sneered at Jesus at first, but this one came to himself and turned on his fellow robber in a rage. {Dost thou not even fear God?} (\Oude phobˆi ton theon;\). \Oude\ here goes with the verb. \Phobˆi\ (second person singular present indicative middle of \phobeomai\. Both of you will soon appear before God. Jesus has nothing to answer for and you have added this to your other sins.

rwp@Luke:24:27 @{Interpreted} (\diˆrmˆneusen\). First aorist active (constative aorist) indicative of \diermˆneu“\ (Margin has the imperfect \diˆrmˆneuen\), intensive compound (\dia\) of \hermˆneu“\, the old verb to interpret from \hermˆneus\, interpreter, and that from \Hermˆs\, the messenger of the gods as the people of Lystra took Paul to be (Acts:14:12|). But what wonderful exegesis the two disciples were now hearing! {Concerning himself} (\peri heauton\). Jesus found himself in the Old Testament, a thing that some modern scholars do not seem able to do.

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@Info_Mark @ The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, strkjv@Mark:16:9-20|, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as strkjv@Mark:16:9-20| is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_. The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my _Harmony of the Gospels_ I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark's Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter's eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men's bodies and saving men's souls. strkjv@Mark:1:1 @{The beginning} (\archˆ\). There is no article in the Greek. It is possible that the phrase served as a heading or title for the paragraph about the ministry of the Baptist or as the superscription for the whole Gospel (Bruce) placed either by Mark or a scribe. And then the Gospel of Jesus Christ means the Message about Jesus Christ (objective genitive). The word Gospel here (\euaggelion\) comes close to meaning the record itself as told by Mark. Swete notes that each writer has a different starting point (\archˆ\). Mark, as the earliest form of the evangelic tradition, begins with the work of the Baptist, Matthew with the ancestry and birth of the Messiah, Luke with the birth of the Baptist, John with the Preincarnate Logos, Paul with the foundation of each of the churches (Phillipians:4:15|). {The Son of God} (\Huiou theou\). Aleph 28, 255 omit these words, but B, D, L, have them and the great mass of the manuscripts have \huiou tou theou\. If this is a heading added to what Mark wrote, the heading may have existed early in two forms, one with, one without "Son of God." If Mark wrote the words, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness since he uses the phrase elsewhere.

rwp@Mark:4:38 @{Asleep on the cushion} (\epi to proskephalaion katheud“n\). Mark also mentions the cushion or bolster and the stern of the boat (\en tˆi prumnˆi\). strkjv@Matthew:8:24| notes that Jesus was sleeping (\ekatheuden\), Luke that {he fell asleep} (\aphupn“sen\, 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:5:19 @{Go to thy house unto thy friends} (\Hupage eis ton oikon sou pros tous sous\). "To thy own folks" rather than "thy friends." Certainly no people needed the message about Christ more than these people who were begging Jesus to leave. Jesus had greatly blessed this man and so gave him the hardest task of all, to go home and witness there for Christ. In Galilee Jesus had several times forbidden the healed to tell what he had done for them because of the undue excitement and misunderstanding. But here it was different. There was no danger of too much enthusiasm for Christ in this environment.

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:5:30 @{Perceiving in himself} (\epignous en heaut“i\). She thought, perhaps, that the touch of Christ's garment would cure her without his knowing it, a foolish fancy, no doubt, but one due to her excessive timidity. Jesus felt in his own consciousness. The Greek idiom more exactly means: "Jesus perceiving in himself the power from him go out" (\tˆn ex autou dunamin exelthousan\). The aorist participle here is punctiliar simply and timeless and can be illustrated by strkjv@Luke:10:18|: "I was beholding Satan fall" (\ethe“roun ton Satanƒn pesonta\), where \pesonta\ does not mean _fallen_ (\pept“kota\) as in strkjv@Revelation:9:1| nor falling (\piptonta\) but simply the constative aorist {fall} (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 684). Songs:here Jesus means to say: "I felt in myself the power from me go." Scholars argue whether in this instance Jesus healed the woman by conscious will or by unconscious response to her appeal. Some even argue that the actual healing took place after Jesus became aware of the woman's reaching for help by touching his garment. What we do know is that Jesus was conscious of the going out of power from himself. strkjv@Luke:8:46| uses \egn“n\ (personal knowledge), but Mark has \epignous\ (personal and additional, clear knowledge). One may remark that no real good can be done without the outgoing of power. That is true of mother, preacher, teacher, doctor. {Who touched my garments?} (\Tis mou hˆpsato t“n himati“n;\). More exactly, {Who touched me on my clothes}; The Greek verb uses two genitives, of the person and the thing. It was a dramatic moment for Jesus and for the timid woman. Later it was a common practice for the crowds to touch the hem of Christ's garments and be healed (Mark:6:56|). But here Jesus chose to single out this case for examination. There was no magic in the garments of Jesus. Perhaps there was superstition in the woman's mind, but Jesus honoured her darkened faith as in the case of Peter's shadow and Paul's handkerchief.

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:6:9 @{Shod with sandals} (\hupodedemenous sandalia\). Perfect passive participle in the accusative case as if with the infinitive \poreuesthai\ or \poreuthˆnai\, (to go). Note the aorist infinitive middle, \endusasthai\ (text of Westcott and Hort), but \endusˆsthe\ (aorist middle subjunctive) in the margin. Change from indirect to direct discourse common enough, not necessarily due to "disjointed notes on which the Evangelist depended" (Swete). strkjv@Matthew:10:10| has "nor shoes" (\mˆde hupodˆmata\), possibly preserving the distinction between "shoes" and "sandals" (worn by women in Greece and by men in the east, especially in travelling). But here again extra shoes may be the prohibition. See on ¯Matthew:10:10| for this. {Two coats} (\duo chit“nas\). Two was a sign of comparative wealth (Swete). The mention of "two" here in all three Gospels probably helps us to understand that the same thing applies to shoes and staff. "In general, these directions are against luxury in equipment, and also against their providing themselves with what they could procure from the hospitality of others" (Gould).

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

rwp@Mark:6:22 @{The daughter of Herodias herself} (\tˆs thugatros autˆs Hˆr“idiados\). Genitive absolute again. Some ancient manuscripts read \autou\ (his, referring to Herod Antipas. Songs:Westcott and Hort) instead of \autˆs\ (herself). In that case the daughter of Herodias would also have the name Herodias as well as Salome, the name commonly given her. That is quite possible in itself. It was toward the close of the banquet, when all had partaken freely of the wine, that Herodias made her daughter come in and dance (\eiselthousˆs kai orchˆsamenˆs\) in the midst (Matthew). "Such dancing was an almost unprecedented thing for women of rank, or even respectability. It was mimetic and licentious, and performed by professionals" (Gould). Herodias stooped thus low to degrade her own daughter like a common \hetaira\ in order to carry out her set purpose against John. {She pleased Herod and them that sat at meat} (\ˆresen Hˆr“idˆi kai tois sunanakeimenois\). The maudlin group lounging on the divans were thrilled by the licentious dance of the half-naked princess. {Whatsoever thou wilt} (\ho ean thelˆis\) The drunken Tetrarch had been caught in the net of Herodias. It was a public promise.

rwp@Mark:6:24 @{What shall I ask?} (\Ti aitˆs“mai;\). The fact that she went and spoke to her mother proves that she had not been told beforehand what to ask. strkjv@Matthew:14:8| does not necessarily mean that, but he simply condenses the account. The girl's question implies by the middle voice that she is thinking of something for herself. She was no doubt unprepared for her mother's ghastly reply.

rwp@Mark:6:29 @{His corpse} (\to pt“ma autou\). See on ¯Matthew:24:28|. It was a mournful time for the disciples of John. "They went and told Jesus" (Matthew:14:12|). What else could they do?

rwp@Mark:6:30 @{And the apostles gather themselves together unto Jesus} (\kai sunagontai hoi apostoloi pros ton Iˆsoun\). Vivid historical present. {All things whatsoever they had done and whatsoever they had taught} (\panta hosa epoiˆsan kai hosa edidaxan\). Not past perfect in the Greek, just the aorist indicative, constative aorist that summed it all up, the story of this their first tour without Jesus. And Jesus listened to it all (Luke:9:10|). He was deeply concerned in the outcome.

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

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

rwp@Mark: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:7:19 @{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:7:33 @{Took him aside} (\apolabomenos auton\). The secrecy here observed was partly to avoid excitement and partly to get the attention of the deaf and dumb demoniac. He could not hear what Jesus said. Songs:Jesus put his fingers into his ears, spat, and touched his tongue. There was, of course, no virtue in the spittle and it is not clear why Jesus used it. Saliva was by some regarded as remedial and was used by exorcists in their incantations. Whether this was a concession to the man's denseness one does not know. But it all showed the poor man that Jesus healed him in his own way.

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

rwp@Mark:9:1 @{Till they see the kingdom of God come with power} (\he“s an id“sin tˆn basileian tou theou elˆluthuian en dunamei\). In strkjv@8:38| Jesus clearly is speaking of the second coming. To what is he referring in strkjv@9:1|? One is reminded of strkjv@Mark:13:32; strkjv@Matthew:24:36| where Jesus expressly denies that anyone save the Father himself (not even the Son) knows the day or the hour. Does he contradict that here? It may be observed that Luke has only "see the kingdom of God," while Matthew has "see the Son of man coming" (\erchomenon\, present participle, a process). Mark has "see the kingdom of God come" (\elˆluthuian\, perfect active participle, already come) and adds "with power." Certainly the second coming did not take place while some of those standing there still lived. Did Jesus mean that? The very next incident in the Synoptic Gospels is the Transfiguration on Mount Hermon. Does not Jesus have that in mind here? The language will apply also to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the great Day of Pentecost. Some see in it a reference to the destruction of the temple. It is at least open to question whether the Master is speaking of the same event in strkjv@Mark:8:38; strkjv@9:1|.

rwp@Mark:9:6 @{For he wist not what to answer} (\ou gar ˆidei ti apokrithˆi\). Deliberative subjunctive retained in indirect question. But why did Peter say anything? Luke says that he spoke, "not knowing what he said," as an excuse for the inappropriateness of his remarks. Perhaps Peter felt embarrassed at having been asleep (Luke:9:32|) and the feast of tabernacles or booths (\skˆnai\) was near. See on ¯Matthew:17:4|. Peter and the others apparently had not heard the talk of Moses and Elijah with Jesus about his decease (\exodon\, exodus, departure) and little knew the special comfort that Jesus had found in this understanding of the great approaching tragedy concerning which Peter had shown absolute stupidity (Mark:8:32f.|) so recently. See on ¯Matthew:17:5| about the overshadowing and the voice.

rwp@Mark:9:16 @{What question ye with them?} (\Ti sunzˆteite pros autous;\). Jesus had noticed the embarrassment of the nine and at once takes hold of the situation.

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

rwp@Mark:9:33 @{In the house} (\en tˆi oikiƒi\). Probably Peter's house in Capernaum which was the home of Jesus when in the city. {What were ye reasoning in the way?} (\Ti en tˆi hod“i dielogiszethe;\). Imperfect tense. They had been disputing (verse 34|), not about the coming death of the Master, but about the relative rank of each of them in the political kingdom which they were expecting him to establish. Jesus had suspected the truth about them and they had apparently kept it up in the house. See on ¯Matthew:18:1| where the disciples are represented as bringing the dispute to Jesus while here Jesus asks them about it. Probably they asked Jesus first and then he pushed the matter further and deeper to see if this had not been the occasion of the somewhat heated discussion on the way in.

rwp@Mark:9:37 @{One of such little children} (\hen t“n toiout“n paidi“n\). strkjv@Matthew:18:5| has "one such little child" and strkjv@Luke:9:48| "this little child." It was an object lesson to the arrogant conceit of the twelve apostles contending for primacy. They did not learn this lesson for they will again wrangle over primacy (Mark:10:33-45; strkjv@Matthew:20:20-28|) and they will be unable to comprehend easily what the attitude of Jesus was toward children (Mark:10:13-16; strkjv@Matthew:19:13-15; strkjv@Luke:8:15-17|). The child was used as a rebuke to the apostles.

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

rwp@Matthew:6:9 @{After this manner therefore pray ye} (\hout“s oun proseuchesthe humeis\). "You" expressed in contrast with "the Gentiles." It should be called "The Model Prayer" rather than "The Lord's Prayer." "Thus" pray as he gives them a model. He himself did not use it as a liturgy (cf. strkjv@John:17|). There is no evidence that Jesus meant it for liturgical use by others. In strkjv@Luke:11:2-4| practically the same prayer though briefer is given at a later time by Jesus to the apostles in response to a request that he teach them how to pray. McNeile argues that the form in Luke is the original to which Matthew has made additions: "The tendency of liturgical formulas is towards enrichment rather than abbreviation." But there is no evidence whatever that Jesus designed it as a set formula. There is no real harm in a liturgical formula if one likes it, but no one sticks to just one formula in prayer. There is good and not harm in children learning and saying this noble prayer. Some people are disturbed over the words "Our Father" and say that no one has a right to call God Father who has not been "born again." But that is to say that an unconverted sinner cannot pray until he is converted, an absurd contradiction. God is the Father of all men in one sense; the recognition of Him as the Father in the full sense is the first step in coming back to him in regeneration and conversion.

rwp@Matthew:7:6 @{That which is holy unto the dogs} (\to hagion tois kusin\). It is not clear to what "the holy" refers, to ear-rings or to amulets, but that would not appeal to dogs. Trench (_Sermon on the Mount_, p. 136) says that the reference is to meat offered in sacrifice that must not be flung to dogs: "It is not that the dogs would not eat it, for it would be welcome to them; but that it would be a profanation to give it to them, thus to make it a _skubalon_, strkjv@Exodus:22:31|." The yelping dogs would jump at it. Dogs are kin to wolves and infest the streets of oriental cities. {Your pearls before the swine} (\tous margaritas h–m“n emprosthen t“n choir“n\). The word pearl we have in the name Margarita (Margaret). Pearls look a bit like peas or acorns and would deceive the hogs until they discovered the deception. The wild boars haunt the Jordan Valley still and are not far removed from bears as they trample with their feet and rend with their tusks those who have angered them.

rwp@Matthew:8:7 @{I will come and heal him} (\eg“ elth“n therapeus“ auton\). Future indicative, not deliberative subjunctive in question (McNeile). The word here for heal (\therapeus“\) means first to serve, give medical attention, then cure, restore to health. The centurion uses the more definite word for healing (\iathˆsetai\ strkjv@8:8|) as Matthew does in strkjv@8:13| (\iathˆ\). Luke (Luke:9:11|), like a physician, says that Jesus healed (\iato\) those in need of treatment (\therapeias\), but the distinction is not always observed. In strkjv@Acts:28:8| Luke uses \iasato\ of the miraculous healings in Malta by Paul while he employs \etherapeuonto\ (Acts:28:9|) apparently of the practice of Luke the physician (so W. M. Ramsay). Matthew represents the centurion himself as speaking to Jesus while Luke has it that two committees from the centurion brought the messages, apparently a more detailed narrative. What one does through others he does himself as Pilate "scourged Jesus" (had him scourged).

rwp@Matthew:8:14 @{Lying sick of a fever} (\biblˆmenˆn kai puressousan\). Two participles, bedridden (perfect passive of \ball“\) and burning with fever (present active). How long the fever had had her we have no means of knowing, possibly a sudden and severe attack (Mark:1:30|), as they tell Jesus about her on reaching the house of Peter. We are not told what kind of fever it was. Fever itself was considered a disease. "Fever" is from German feuer (fire) like the Greek \pur\.

rwp@Matthew:8:17 @{Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases} (\autos tas astheneias elaben kai tas nosous ebastasen\). A quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:53:4|. It is not clear in what sense Matthew applies the words in Isaiah whether in the precise sense of the Hebrew or in an independent manner. Moffatt translates it: "He took away our sicknesses, and bore the burden of our diseases." Goodspeed puts it: "He took our sickness and carried away our diseases." Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 102f.) thinks that Matthew has made a free interpretation of the Hebrew, has discarded the translation of the Septuagint, and has transposed the two Hebrew verbs so that Matthew means: "He took upon himself our pains, and bore our diseases." Plummer holds that "It is impossible, and also unnecessary, to understand what the Evangelist understood by 'took ' (\elaben\) and 'bare' (\ebastasen\). It at least must mean that Christ removed their sufferings from the sufferers. He can hardly have meant that the diseases were transferred to Christ." \Bastaz“\ occurs freely in the papyri with the sense of lift, carry, endure, carry away (the commonest meaning, Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_), pilfer. In strkjv@Matthew:3:11| we have the common vernacular use to take off sandals. The Attic Greek did not use it in the sense of carrying off. "This passage is the cornerstone of the faith-cure theory, which claims that the atonement of Christ includes provision for _bodily_ no less than for spiritual healing, and therefore insists on translating 'took away'" (Vincent). We have seen that the word \bastaz“\ will possibly allow that meaning, but I agree with McNeile: "The passage, _as Mt. employs it_, has no bearing on the doctrine of the atonement." But Jesus does show his sympathy with us. "Christ's sympathy with the sufferers was so intense that he really felt their weaknesses and pains." In our burdens Jesus steps under the load with us and helps us to carry on.

rwp@Matthew:16:19 @{The Keys of the kingdom} (\tas kleidas tˆs basileias\). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18|. In strkjv@Revelation:1:18; strkjv@3:7| Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (\oikonomos\) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew:18:1|) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21|) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (\dˆsˆis\) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (\lusˆis\) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (\estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon\), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (18:18|). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John:20:23|), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, _primus inter pares_, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.

rwp@Matthew:16:21 @{From that time began} (\apo tote ˆrxato\). It was a suitable time for the disclosure of the greatest secret of his death. It is now just a little over six months before the cross. They must know it now to be ready then. The great confession of Peter made this seem an appropriate time. He will repeat the warnings (17:22f.| with mention of betrayal; strkjv@20:17-19| with the cross) which he now "began." Songs:the necessity (\dei\, must) of his suffering death at the hands of the Jerusalem ecclesiastics who have dogged his steps in Galilee is now plainly stated. Jesus added his resurrection "on the third day" (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi\), not "on the fourth day," please observe. Dimly the shocked disciples grasped something of what Jesus said.

rwp@Matthew:17:4 @{And Peter answered} (\apokritheis de ho Petros\). "Peter to the front again, but not greatly to his credit" (Bruce). It is not clear what Peter means by his saying: "It is good for us to be here" (\kalon estin hˆmƒs h“de einai\). Luke (Luke:9:33|) adds "not knowing what he said," as they "were heavy with sleep." Songs:it is not well to take Peter too seriously on this occasion. At any rate he makes a definite proposal. {I will make} (\paiˆs“\). Future indicative though aorist subjunctive has same form. {Tabernacles} (\skˆnas\), booths. The Feast of Tabernacles was not far away. Peter may have meant that they should just stay up here on the mountain and not go to Jerusalem for the feast.

rwp@Matthew:17:25 @{Jesus spake first to him} (\proephthasen auton ho Iˆsous leg“n\). Here only in the N.T. One example in a papyrus B.C. 161 (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). The old idiomatic use of \phthan“\ with the participle survives in this example of \prophthan“\ in strkjv@Matthew:17:25|, meaning to anticipate, to get before one in doing a thing. The _Koin‚_ uses the infinitive thus with \phthan“\ which has come to mean simply to arrive. Here the anticipation is made plain by the use of \pro-\. See Robertson's _Grammar_, p. 1120. The "prevent" of the Authorized Version was the original idea of _praevenire_, to go before, to anticipate. Peter felt obliged to take the matter up with Jesus. But the Master had observed what was going on and spoke to Peter first. {Toll or tribute} (\telˆ ˆ kˆnson\). Customs or wares collected by the publicans (like \phoros\, strkjv@Romans:13:7|) and also the capitation tax on persons, indirect and direct taxation. \Kˆnsos\ is the Latin _census_, a registration for the purpose of the appraisement of property like \hˆ apographˆ\ in strkjv@Luke:2:2; strkjv@Acts:5:37|. By this parable Jesus as the Son of God claims exemption from the temple tax as the temple of his Father just as royal families do not pay taxes, but get tribute from the foreigners or aliens, subjects in reality.

rwp@Matthew:18:10 @{Despise} (\kataphronˆsˆte\). Literally, "think down on," with the assumption of superiority. {Their angels} (\hoi aggeloi aut“n\). The Jews believed that each nation had a guardian angel (Daniel:10:13,20f.; strkjv@12:1|). The seven churches in Revelation (Revelation:1:20|) have angels, each of them, whatsoever the meaning is. Does Jesus mean to teach here that each little child or child of faith had a special angel who appears in God's presence, "see the face of my Father" (\blepousin to pros“pon tou patros mou\) in special intimacy? Or does he simply mean that the angels do take an interest in the welfare of God's people (Hebrews:1:14|)? There is comfort to us in that thought. Certainly Jesus means that the Father takes special care of his "little ones" who believe in Him. There are angels in God's presence (Luke:1:19|).

rwp@Matthew:20:14 @{Take up} (\aron\). First aorist active imperative of \air“\. Pick up, as if he had saucily refused to take it from the table or had contemptuously thrown the denarius on the ground. If the first had been paid first and sent away, there would probably have been no murmuring, but "the murmuring is needed to bring out the lesson" (Plummer). The \dˆnarius\ was the common wage of a day labourer at that time. {What I will} (\ho thel“\). This is the point of the parable, the _will_ of the householder. {With mine own} (\en tois emois\). In the sphere of my own affairs. There is in the _Koin‚_ an extension of the instrumental use of \en\.

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

rwp@Matthew: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: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:22:21 @{Render} (\apodote\). "Give back" to Caesar what is already Caesar's.

rwp@Matthew:23:3 @{For they say and do not} (\legousin kai ou poiousin\). "As teachers they have their place, but beware of following their example" (Bruce). Songs:Jesus said: "Do not ye after their works " (\mˆ poieite\). Do not practice their practices. They are only preachers. Jesus does not here disapprove any of their teachings as he does elsewhere. The point made here is that they are only teachers (or preachers) and do not practice what they teach as God sees it.

rwp@Matthew:23:9 @{Call no man your father} (\patera mˆ kalesˆte h–m“n\). Jesus meant the full sense of this noble word for our heavenly Father. "Abba was not commonly a mode of address to a living person, but a title of honour for Rabbis and great men of the past" (McNeile). In Gethsemane Jesus said: "Abba, Father" (Mark:14:36|). Certainly the ascription of "Father" to pope and priest seems out of harmony with what Jesus here says. He should not be understood to be condemning the title to one's real earthly father. Jesus often leaves the exceptions to be supplied.

rwp@Matthew:23:10 @{Masters} (\kathˆgˆtai\). This word occurs here only in the N.T. It is found in the papyri for teacher (Latin, _doctor_). It is the modern Greek word for professor. "While \didaskalos\ represents \Rab\, \kathˆgˆtes\ stands for the more honourable \Rabban, -b“n\" (McNeile). Dalman (_Words of Jesus_, p. 340) suggests that the same Aramaic word may be translated by either \didaskalos\ or \kathˆgˆtes\. {The Christ} (\ho Christos\). The use of these words here by Jesus like "Jesus Christ" in his Prayer (John:17:3|) is held by some to show that they were added by the evangelist to what Jesus actually said, since the Master would not have so described himself. But he commended Peter for calling him "the Christ the Son of the living God" (Matthew:16:16f.|). We must not empty the consciousness of Jesus too much.

rwp@Matthew:23:12 @{Exalt himself} (\hups“sei heauton\). Somewhat like strkjv@18:4; strkjv@20:26|. Given by Luke in other contexts (14:11; strkjv@18:14|). Characteristic of Christ.

rwp@Matthew:23:17 @{Ye fools} (\m“roi\). In strkjv@5:22| Jesus had warned against calling a man \m“ros\ in a rage, but here he so terms the blind Pharisees for their stupidity, description of the class. "It shows that not the word but the spirit in which it is uttered is what matters" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:23:23 @{Ye tithe} (\apodekatoute\). The tithe had to be paid upon "all the increase of thy seed" (Deuteronomy:14:22; strkjv@Leviticus:27:30|). The English word tithe is tenth. These small aromatic herbs, mint (\to hˆduosmon\, sweet-smelling), anise or dill (\anˆthon\), cummin (\kuminon\, with aromatic seeds), show the Pharisaic scrupulous conscientiousness, all marketable commodities. "The Talmud tells of the ass of a certain Rabbi which had been so well trained as to refuse corn of which the tithes had not been taken" (Vincent). {These ye ought} (\tauta edei\). Jesus does not condemn tithing. What he does condemn is doing it to the neglect of the {weightier matters} (\ta barutera\). The Pharisees were externalists; cf. strkjv@Luke:11:39-44|.

rwp@Matthew:23:32 @{Fill ye up} (\plˆr“sate\). The keenest irony in this command has been softened in some MSS. to the future indicative (\plˆr“sete\). "Fill up the measure of your fathers; crown their misdeeds by killing the prophet God has sent to you. Do at last what has long been in your hearts. The hour is come" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:23:33 @{Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers} (\opheis gennˆmata echidn“n\). These blistering words come as a climax and remind one of the Baptist (3:17|) and of the time when the Pharisees accused Jesus of being in league with Beelzebub (12:34|). They cut to the bone like whip-cords. {How shall ye escape} (\p“s phugˆte\). Deliberate subjunctive. There is a curse in the Talmud somewhat like this: "Woe to the house of Annas! Woe to their serpent-like hissings."

rwp@Revelation:4:7 @{Like a lion} (\homoion leonti\). Associative-instrumental case again. In Ezekiel:(1:6,10|) each \z“on\ has four faces, but here each has a different face. "The four forms represent whatever is noblest, strongest, wisest, and swiftest in nature" (Swete). But it is not necessary to try to find a symbolism in each face here like the early baseless identification with the Four Evangelists (the lion for Mark, the man for Matthew, the calf for Luke, the eagle for John). \Moschos\ is first a sprout, then the young of animals, then a calf (bullock or heifer) as in strkjv@Luke:15:23, 27,30|, or a full-grown ox (Ezekiel:1:10|). {Had} (\ech“n\). Masculine singular (some MSS. \echon\ neuter singular agreeing with \z“on\) present active participle of \ech“\, changing the construction with the \triton z“on\ almost like a finite verb as in verse 8|. {A face as of a man} (\pros“pon h“s anthr“pou\). Shows that the likeness in each instance extended only to the face. {Like an eagle flying} (\homoion aet“i petomen“i\). Present middle participle of \petomai\, to fly, old verb, in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:4:7; strkjv@8:13; strkjv@12:14; strkjv@14:6; strkjv@19:17|. The \aetos\ in strkjv@Matthew:24:28; strkjv@Luke:17:37| may be a form of vulture going after carrion, but not in strkjv@Revelation:8:13; strkjv@12:14|.

rwp@Revelation:6:4 @{A red horse} (\hippos purros\). Old adjective from \pur\ (fire), flame-coloured, blood-red (2Kings:3:22|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@12:3|, like strkjv@Zechariah:1:8; strkjv@6:2| (roan horse). {To take peace from the earth} (\labein tˆn eirˆnˆn ek tˆs gˆs\). Second aorist active infinitive of \lamban“\, and here the nominative case, the subject of \edothˆ\ (see verse 2|), "to take peace out of the earth." Alas, how many red horses have been ridden through the ages. {And that they should slay one another} (\kai hina allˆlous sphaxousin\). Epexegetical explanatory purpose clause with \hina\ and the future active of \sphaz“\ (5:6|) instead of the more usual subjunctive (verse 2|). Cf. Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 998f. This is what war does to perfection, makes cannon fodder (cf. strkjv@John:14:27|) of men. {A great sword} (\machaira megalˆ\). \Machaira\ may be a knife carried in a sheath at the girdle (John:18:10|) or a long sword in battle as here. \Romphaia\, also a large sword, is the only other word for sword in the N.T. (Revelation:1:16; strkjv@2:12,16; strkjv@6:8; strkjv@19:15,21|).

rwp@Revelation:6:8 @{A pale horse} (\hippos chl“ros\). Old adjective. Contracted from \chloeros\ (from \chloˆ\, tender green grass) used of green grass (Mark:6:39; strkjv@Revelation:8:7; strkjv@9:4|), here for yellowish, common in both senses in old Greek, though here only in N.T. in this sense, greenish yellow. We speak of a sorrel horse, never of a green horse. Zechariah (Zechariah:6:3|) uses \poikilos\ (grizzled or variegated). Homer used \chl“ros\ of the ashen colour of a face blanched by fear (pallid) and so the pale horse is a symbol of death and of terror. {His name was Death} (\onoma aut“i ho thanatos\). Anacoluthon in grammatical structure like that in strkjv@John:3:1| (cf. strkjv@Revelation:2:26|) and common enough. Death is the name of this fourth rider (so personified) and there is with Death "his inseparable comrade, Hades (1:16; strkjv@20:13f.|)" (Swete). Hades (\hƒidˆs\, alpha privative, and \idein\, to see, the unseen) is the abode of the dead, the keys of which Christ holds (Revelation:1:18|). {Followed} (\ˆkolouthei\). Imperfect active of \akolouthe“\, kept step with death, whether on the same horse or on another horse by his side or on foot John does not say. {Over the fourth part of the earth} (\epi to tetarton tˆs gˆs\). Partitive genitive \gˆs\ after \tetarton\. Wider authority (\exousia\) was given to this rider than to the others, though what part of the earth is included in the fourth part is not indicated. {To kill} (\apokteinai\). First aorist active infinitive of \apoktein“\, explanation of the \exousia\ (authority). The four scourges of strkjv@Ezekiel:14:21| are here reproduced with instrumental \en\ with the inanimate things (\romphaiƒi, lim“i thanat“i\) and \hupo\ for the beasts (\thˆri“n\). Death here (\thanat“i\) seems to mean pestilence as the Hebrew does (\loimos\ -- cf. \limos\ famine). Cf. the "black death" for a plague.

rwp@Revelation:9:6 @{Men} (\hoi anthr“poi\). Generic use of the article (men as a class). {Shall not find it} (\ou mˆ heurˆsousin auton\). Strong double negative \ou mˆ\ with the future active indicative according to Aleph Q, but \heur“sin\ (second aorist active subjunctive) according to A P (either construction regular). The idea here is found in strkjv@Job:3:21; strkjv@Jeremiah:8:3|. "Such a death as they desire, a death which will end their sufferings, is impossible; physical death is no remedy for the \basanismos\ of an evil conscience" (Swete). {They shall desire to die} (\epithumˆsousin apothanein\). Future active of \epithume“\, a climax to \zˆtˆsousin\ (they shall seek), to desire vehemently. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:1:23| shows a preference for death if his work is done, in order to be with Christ, a very different feeling from what we have here. {Fleeth} (\pheugei\). Vivid futuristic present active indicative of \pheug“\. Even death does not come to their relief.

rwp@Revelation:9:7 @{The shapes} (\ta homoi“mata\). Old word from \homoio“\, to make like (from \homoios\, like), likeness, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Romans:5:14; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7|, "the likenesses were like" (\homoia\). \Homoi“ma\ is "midway between \morphˆ\ and \schˆma\" (Lightfoot). {Unto horses} (\hippois\). Associative-instrumental case, as is the rule with \homoios\ (1:15; strkjv@2:18; strkjv@4:6ff.; strkjv@9:10,19; strkjv@11:1; strkjv@13:2,11|), but with the accusative in strkjv@1:13; strkjv@14:14|. Songs:also \homoioi chrus“i\ (like gold) in this same verse. {Prepared for war} (\hˆtoimasmenois eis polemon\). Perfect passive participle of \hetoimaz“\. This imagery of war-horses is like that in strkjv@Joel:2:4f|. "The likeness of a locust to a horse, especially to a horse equipped with armour, is so striking that the insect is named in German _Heupferd_ (hay horse), and in Italian _cavalett_ a little horse" (Vincent). {As it were crowns} (\hos stephanoi\). Not actual crowns, but what looked like crowns of gold, as conquerors, as indeed they were (4:4; strkjv@6:2; strkjv@12:1; strkjv@14:14|). These locusts of the abyss have another peculiar feature. {As men's faces} (\h“s pros“pa anthr“p“n\). Human-looking faces in these demonic locusts to give added terror, "suggesting the intelligence and capacity of man" (Swete). Vincent actually sees "a distinct resemblance to the human countenance in the face of the locust."

rwp@Revelation:12:4 @{His tail} (\hˆ oura autou\). See strkjv@9:10,19|. {Draweth} (\surei\). Present active indicative of \sur“\, old verb, to drag, here alone in the Apocalypse, but see strkjv@John:21:8|. {The third part of the stars} (\to triton t“n aster“n\). Like a great comet is this monster. See strkjv@Daniel:8:10|. Perhaps only the third is meant to soften the picture as in strkjv@Revelation:8:7f|. {Did cast them} (\ebalen autous\). Second aorist active indicative. Charles takes this to refer to a war in heaven between the good angels and Satan, with the fall of some angels (Jude:1:6|). But John may have in mind the martyrs before Christ (Hebrews:11:32f.|) and after Christ's ascension (Matthew:23:35|). {Stood} (\estˆken\). Imperfect active of a late verb, \stˆk“\, from the perfect \hestˆka\ of \histˆmi\, graphic picture of the dragon's challenge of the woman who is about to give birth. {When she was delivered} (\hotan tekˆi\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \tikt“\, "whenever she gives birth." {That he might devour} (\hina kataphagˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \katesthi“\, to eat up (down). Cf. strkjv@Jeremiah:28:34|. This is what Pharaoh did to Israel (Exodus:1:15-22; strkjv@Psalms:85:13; strkjv@Isaiah:27:1; strkjv@51:9; strkjv@Ezekiel:29:3|). Precisely so the devil tried to destroy the child Jesus on his birth.

rwp@Romans:11:26 @{And so} (\kai hout“s\). By the complement of the Gentiles stirring up the complement of the Jews (verses 11f.|). {All Israel} (\pƒs Israˆl\). What does Paul mean? The immediate context (use of \pƒs\ in contrast with \apo merous, plˆr“ma\ here in contrast with \plˆr“ma\ in verse 12|) argues for the Jewish people "as a whole." But the spiritual Israel (both Jews and Gentiles) may be his idea in accord with strkjv@9:6| (Galatians:6:16|) as the climax of the argument. At any rate we should strive for and pray for the conversion of Jews as a whole. Paul here quotes from strkjv@Isaiah:59:20f.; strkjv@27:9|. {The Deliverer} (\ho ruomenos\). Present middle articular participle of \ruomai\, to rescue, to deliver. See on ¯1Thessalonians:1:10; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:10|. The Hebrew _Goel_, the Avenger, the Messiah, the Redeemer (Deuteronomy:25:5-10; strkjv@Job:19:25; strkjv@Ruth:3:12f.|). Paul interprets it of Jesus as Messiah.

rwp@Romans:12:2 @{Be not fashioned} (\mˆ sunschˆmatizesthe\). Present passive imperative with \mˆ\, stop being fashioned or do not have the habit of being fashioned. Late Greek verb \suschˆmatiz“\, to conform to another's pattern (1Corinthians:7:31; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.|). In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:1:14|. {According to this world} (\t“i ai“ni tout“i\). Associative instrumental case. Do not take this age as your fashion plate. {Be ye transformed} (\metamorphousthe\). Present passive imperative of \metamorpho“\, another late verb, to transfigure as in strkjv@Matthew:17:2| (Mark:9:2|); strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18|, which see. On the distinction between \schˆma\ and \morphˆ\, see strkjv@Phillipians:2:7|. There must be a radical change in the inner man for one to live rightly in this evil age, "by the renewing of your mind" (\tˆi anakain“sei tou noos\). Instrumental case. The new birth, the new mind, the new (\kainos\) man. {That ye may prove} (\eis to dokimazein\). Infinitive of purpose with \eis to\, "to test" what is God's will, "the good and acceptable and perfect" (\to agathon kai euareston kai teleion\).

rwp@Romans:12:3 @{Not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think} (\mˆ huperphronein par' ho dei phronein\). Indirect negative command after \leg“\ (I say). Play on the two infinitives \phronein\, to think, and \huperphronein\ (old verb from \huperphr“n\, over-proud, here only in N.T.) to "over-think" with \par' ho\ (beyond what) added. Then another play on \phronein\ and \s“phronein\ (old verb from \s“phr“n\, sober-minded), to be in one's right mind (Mark:5:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:13|). Self-conceit is here treated as a species of insanity. {A measure of faith} (\metron piste“s\). Accusative case, the object of the verb \emerisen\. Each has his gift from God (1Corinthians:3:5; strkjv@4:7|). There is no occasion for undue pride. {To each man} (\hekast“i\). Emphatic position before \h“s\ (as) and emphasizes the diversity.

rwp@Romans:12:18 @{As much as in you lieth} (\to ex hum“n\). Accusative of general reference, "so far as what proceeds from you" ("the from you part"). See \to kat' eme\ in strkjv@1:15|. This phrase explains "if it be possible" (\ei dunaton\). "All _your_ part is to be peace" (Alford). For "be at peace" (\eirˆneuontes\) see strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11|.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sat Jun 29 23:31:20 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020