OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp Houtos:

rwp@1Corinthians:8:3 @{The same is known of him} (\houtos egnstai hup' autou\). Loving God (condition of first class again) is the way to come to know God. It is not certain whether \houtos\ refers to the man who loves God or to God who is loved. Both are true. God knows those that are his (2Timothy:2:19; strkjv@Exodus:33:12|). Those who know God are known of God (Galatians:4:9|). We love God because he first loved us (1John:4:19|). But here Paul uses both ideas and both verbs. \Egnstai\ is perfect passive indicative of \ginsk\, an abiding state of recognition by (\hup'\) God. No one is acquainted with God who does not love him (1John:4:8|). God sets the seal of his favour on the one who loves him. Songs:much for the principle.

rwp@1John:5:6 @{This} (\houtos\). Jesus the Son of God (verse 5|). {He that came} (\ho elthn\). Second aorist active articular participle of \erchomai\, referring to the Incarnation as a definite historic event, the preexistent Son of God "sent from heaven to do God's will" (Brooke). {By water and blood} (\di' hudatos kai haimatos\). Accompanied by (\dia\ used with the genitive both as instrument and accompaniment, as in strkjv@Galatians:5:13|) water (as at the baptism) and blood (as on the Cross). These two incidents in the Incarnation are singled out because at the baptism Jesus was formally set apart to his Messianic work by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon him and by the Father's audible witness, and because at the Cross his work reached its culmination ("It is finished," Jesus said). There are other theories that do not accord with the language and the facts. It is true that at the Cross both water and blood came out of the side of Jesus when pierced by the soldier, as John bore witness (John:19:34|), a complete refutation of the Docetic denial of an actual human body for Jesus and of the Cerinthian distinction between Jesus and Christ. There is thus a threefold witness to the fact of the Incarnation, but he repeats the twofold witness before giving the third. The repetition of both preposition (\en\ this time rather than \dia\) and the article (\ti\ locative case) argues for two separate events with particular emphasis on the blood ("not only" \ouk monon\, "but" \all'\) which the Gnostics made light of or even denied. {It is the Spirit that beareth witness} (\to pneuma estin to marturoun\). Present active articular participle of \marture\ with article with both subject and predicate, and so interchangeable as in strkjv@3:4|. The Holy Spirit is the third and the chief witness at the baptism of Jesus and all through his ministry. {Because} (\hoti\). Or declarative "that." Either makes sense. In strkjv@John:15:26| Jesus spoke of "the Spirit of truth" (whose characteristic is truth). Here John identifies the Spirit with truth as Jesus said of himself (John:14:6|) without denying personality for the Holy Spirit.

rwp@1John:5:20 @{Is come} (\hkei\). Present active indicative, but the root has a perfect sense, "has come." See \exlthon kai hk\ in strkjv@John:8:42|. {An understanding} (\dianoian\). Here alone in John's writings, but in Paul (Ephesians:4:18|) and Peter (1Peter:1:13|). John does not use \gnsis\ (knowledge) and \nous\ (mind) only in strkjv@Revelation:13:18; strkjv@17:9|. {That we know} (\hina ginskomen\). Result clause with \hina\ and the present active indicative, as is common with \hina\ and the future indicative (John:7:3|). It is possible that here \o\ was pronounced \\ as a subjunctive, but many old MSS. have \hina ginskousin\ (plainly indicative) in strkjv@John:17:3|, and in many other places in the N.T. the present indicative with \hina\ occurs as a variant reading as in strkjv@John:5:20|. {Him that is true} (\ton althinon\). That is, God. Cf. strkjv@1:8|. {In him that is true} (\en ti althini\). In God in contrast with the world "in the evil one" (verse 19|). See strkjv@John:17:3|. {Even in his Son Jesus Christ} (\en ti huii autou Isou Christi\). The \autou\ refers clearly to \en ti althini\ (God). Hence this clause is not in apposition with the preceding, but an explanation as to how we are "in the True One" by being "in his Son Jesus Christ." {This} (\houtos\). Grammatically \houtos\ may refer to Jesus Christ or to "the True One." It is a bit tautological to refer it to God, but that is probably correct, God in Christ, at any rate. God is eternal life (John:5:26|) and he gives it to us through Christ.

rwp@2John:1:7 @{Deceivers} (\planoi\). Late adjective (Diodorus, Josephus) meaning wandering, roving (1Timothy:4:1|). As a substantive in N.T. of Jesus (Matthew:27:63|), of Paul (2Corinthians:6:8|), and here. See the verb (\tn planontn hums\) in strkjv@1John:2:26| of the Gnostic deceivers as here and also of Jesus (John:7:12|). Cf. strkjv@1John:1:8|. {Are gone forth} (\exlthan\, alpha ending). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\, perhaps an allusion to the crisis when they left the churches (1John:2:19|, same form). {Even they that confess not} (\hoi m homologountes\). "The ones not confessing" (\m\ regular negative with the participle). The articular participle describes the deceivers (\planoi\). {That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh} (\Isoun Christon erchomenon en sarki\). "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of \erchomai\ treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In strkjv@1John:4:2| we have \elluthota\ (perfect active participle) in this same construction with \homologe\, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ. {This} (\houtos\). See strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@5:6,20|. {The deceiver and the antichrist} (\ho planos kai ho antichristos\). Article with each word, as in strkjv@Revelation:1:17|, to bring out sharply each separate phrase, though one individual is referred to. The one _par excellence_ in popular expectation (1John:2:22|), though many in reality (1John:2:18; strkjv@3John:1:7|).

rwp@Acts:1:11 @{Who also} (\hoi kai\). Common use of \kai\ pleonastic to show that the two events were parallel. This is the simplest way from Homer on to narrate two parallel events. {Why?} (\ti\). Jesus had told them of his coming Ascension (John:6:62; strkjv@20:17|) so that they should have been prepared. {This Jesus} (\houtos ho Isous\). _Qui vobis fuit eritque semper Jesus, id est, Salvator_ (Corn. a Lapide). The personal name assures them that Jesus will always be in heaven a personal friend and divine Saviour (Knowling). {Songs:in like manner} (\houts hon tropon\). Same idea twice. "Songs:in which manner" (incorporation of antecedent and accusative of general reference). The fact of his second coming and the manner of it also described by this emphatic repetition.

rwp@Acts:1:18 @{Now this man} (\Houtos men oun\). Note \men oun\ again without a corresponding \de\ as in strkjv@1:6|. Verses 18,19| are a long parenthesis of Luke by way of explanation of the fate of Judas. In verse 20| Peter resumes and quotes the scripture to which he referred in verse 16|. {Obtained} (\ektsato\). First aorist middle indicative of \ktaomai\, to acquire, only in the middle, to get for oneself. With the covenant money for the betrayal, acquired it indirectly apparently according to strkjv@Matthew:26:14-16; strkjv@27:3-8| which see. {Falling headlong} (\prns genomenos\). Attic form usually \prans\. The word means, not "headlong," but "flat on the face" as opposed to \huptios\ on the back (Hackett). Hackett observes that the place suits admirably the idea that Judas hung himself (Matthew:27:5|) and, the rope breaking, fell flat on his face and {burst asunder in the midst} (\elaksen mesos\). First aorist active indicative of \lask\ old verb (here only in the N.T.), to clang, to crack, to crash, like a falling tree. Aristophanes uses it of crashing bones. \Mesos\ is predicate nominative referring to Judas. {Gushed out} (\exechuth\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekche\, to pour out.

rwp@Acts:4:10 @{Be it known} (\gnston est\). Imperative present active third singular of \eimi\, to be, and the verbal adjective \gnston\. {Whom ye crucified} (\hon humeis estaursate\). Too good a chance to miss, and so Peter boldly charges the Sanhedrin with responsibility for the death of Jesus. Note \humeis\ (ye) again. {Whom God raised from the dead} (\hon ho theos geiren ek nekrn\). Note repetition of \hon\ (whom). This is God's answer to their act of crucifixion. {In him doth this man stand} (\en touti houtos parestken\). Rather (note play on \houtos\), "In this one (\hon, hon\) this one stands (present perfect active indicative, intransitive)." In Jesus this man stands before you whole (\hugis\). It was a centre shot.

rwp@Acts:4:17 @{That it spread no further} (\hina m epi pleion dianemthi\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \dianem\, to distribute with \hina m\, negative purpose. {Let us threaten them} (\apeilsmetha autois\). Hortatory aorist middle subjunctive of \apeile\, old verb (note middle voice). In the N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:2:23|. {That they speak henceforth to no man in this name} (\mketi lalein epi ti onomati touti mdeni anthrpn\). Indirect command with the infinitive and double negative (\mketi, mdeni\). They will not say "Jesus," but make a slur at "this name," contemptuous use of \houtos\, though they apparently do mention the name "Jesus" in verse 18|.

rwp@Acts:6:14 @{We have heard him say} (\akkoamen autou legontos\). The only direct testimony and evidently wrong. Curiously like the charge brought against Jesus before Caiaphas that he would destroy the temple and build it again in three days. Undoubtedly Stephen had said something about Christianity before as meant for others besides Jews. He had caught the spirit of Jesus about worship as shown to the woman at Sychar in strkjv@John:4| that God is spirit and to be worshipped by men anywhere and everywhere without having to come to the temple in Jerusalem. It was inflammable material surely and it was easy to misrepresent and hard to clear up. {This Jesus of Nazareth} (\Isous ho Nazraios houtos\). With contempt.

rwp@Acts:7:35 @{This Moses} (\Touton ton Musn\). Rhetorical repetition follows this description of Moses (five times, anaphora, besides the use here, six cases of \houtos\ here about Moses: verse 35| twice, 36,37,38,40|). Clearly Stephen means to draw a parallel between Moses and Jesus. They in Egypt {denied} (\rnsanto\) Moses as now you the Jews denied (\rnsasthe\, strkjv@3:13|) Jesus. Those in Egypt scouted Moses as "ruler and judge" (verses 27,35|, \archonta kai dikastn\) and God "hath sent" (\apestalken\, perfect active indicative, state of completion) Moses "both a ruler and a deliverer" (\archonta kai lutrtn\) as Jesus was to be (Luke:1:68; strkjv@2:38; strkjv@Hebrews:9:12; strkjv@Titus:2:14|). "Ransomer" or "Redeemer" (\lutrts\) is not found elsewhere, \lutron\ (ransom), \lutro\, to ransom, and \lutrsis\, ransoming or redemption, are found often. In strkjv@Acts:5:31| Christ is termed "Prince and Saviour." {With the hand} (\sun cheiri\). Songs:the correct text. The Pharisees had accused Stephen of blaspheming "against Moses and God" (6:11|). Stephen here answers that slander by showing how Moses led the people out of Egypt in co-operation (\sun\) with the hand of the Angel of Jehovah.

rwp@Acts:7:40 @{Gods which shall go before us} (\theous hoi proporeusontai hmn\). strkjv@Exodus:32:1|. As guides and protectors, perhaps with some allusion to the pillar of fire and of cloud that had gone before them (Exodus:13:21|). The future indicative here with \hoi\ (relative) expresses purpose. {Ye wot not} (\ouk oidamen\). We do not know. How quickly they had forgotten both God and Moses while Moses was absent in the mount with God. {Become of him} (\egeneto auti\). Happened to him. "This" (\houtos\) here is a contemptuous allusion to Moses by the people.

rwp@Acts:9:20 @{He proclaimed Jesus} (\ekrussen ton Isoun\). Imperfect indicative, inchoative, began to preach. Jesus, not Christ, is the correct text here. He did this first preaching in the Jewish synagogues, a habit of his life when possible, and following the example of Jesus. {That he is the Son of God} (\hoti houtos estin ho huios tou theou\). This is Paul's platform as a Christian preacher, one that he always occupied to the very end. It was a complete reversal of his previous position. Jesus had turned him completely around. It is the conclusion that Saul now drew from the vision of the Risen Christ and the message through Ananias. By "the Son of God" Saul means the Messiah of promise and hope, the Messianic sense of the Baptist (John:1:34|) and of Nathanael (John:1:49|) for Saul is now proclaiming his faith in Jesus in the very synagogues where he had meant to arrest those who professed their faith in him. Peter laid emphasis on the Resurrection of Jesus as a glorious fact and proclaimed Jesus as Lord and Christ. Paul boldly calls Jesus the Son of God with full acknowledgment of his deity from the very start. Thomas had come to this place slowly (John:20:28|). Saul begins with this truth and never leaves it. With this faith he can shake the world. There is no power in any other preaching.

rwp@Acts:10:36 @{The word which he sent} (\ton logon hon apesteilen\). Many ancient MSS. (so Westcott and Hort) read merely \ton logon apesteilen\ (he sent the word). This reading avoids the anacoluthon and inverse attraction of \logon\ to the case of the relative \hon\ (which). {Preaching good tidings of peace through Jesus Christ} (\euaggelizomenos eirnn dia Isou Christou\). Gospelizing peace through Jesus Christ. There is no other way to have real peace between individuals and God, between races and nations, than by Jesus Christ. Almost this very language occurs in strkjv@Ephesians:2:17| where Paul states that Jesus on the cross "preached (gospelized) peace to you who are afar off and peace to you who are near." Peter here sees what Paul will see later with great clearness. {He is Lord of all} (\houtos estin pantn kurios\). A triumphant parenthesis that Peter throws in as the reason for his new truth. Jesus Christ is Lord of all, both Jews and Gentiles.

rwp@Acts:14:9 @{The same} (\houtos\). Just "this one." {Heard} (\kouen\). Imperfect active, was listening to Paul speaking (\lalountos\). Either at the gate or in the market place (17:17|) Paul was preaching to such as would listen or could understand his Greek (_Koin_). Ramsay (_St. Paul the Traveller_, pp. 114, 116) thinks that the cripple was a proselyte. At any rate he may have heard of the miracles wrought at Iconium (verse 3|) and Paul may have spoken of the work of healing wrought by Jesus. This man was "no mendicant pretender," for his history was known from his birth. {Fastening his eyes upon him} (\atenisas auti\). Just as in strkjv@13:9| of Paul and strkjv@1:10| which see. Paul saw a new hope in the man's eyes and face. {He had faith} (\echei pistin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse. {To be made whole} (\tou sthnai\). Genitive of articular first aorist passive infinitive (purpose and result combined) of \sz\, to make sound and also to save. Here clearly to make whole or well as in strkjv@Luke:7:50| (cf. strkjv@Acts:3:16; strkjv@4:10|).

rwp@Acts:17:3 @{Opening and alleging} (\dianoign kai paratithemenos\). Opening the Scriptures, Luke means, as made plain by the mission and message of Jesus, the same word (\dianoig\) used by him of the interpretation of the Scriptures by Jesus (Luke:24:32|) and of the opening of the mind of the disciples also by Jesus (Luke:24:45|) and of the opening of Lydia's heart by the Lord (16:14|). One cannot refrain from saying that such exposition of the Scriptures as Jesus and Paul gave would lead to more opening of mind and heart. Paul was not only "expounding" the Scriptures, he was also "propounding" (the old meaning of "allege") his doctrine or setting forth alongside the Scriptures (\para-tithemenos\), quoting the Scripture to prove his contention which was made in much conflict (1Thessalonians:2:2|), probably in the midst of heated discussion by the opposing rabbis who were anything but convinced by Paul's powerful arguments, for the Cross was a stumbling-block to the Jews (1Corinthians:1:23|). {That it behoved the Christ to suffer} (\hoti ton Christon edei pathein\). The second aorist active infinitive is the subject of \edei\ with \ton Christon\, the accusative of general reference. This is Paul's major premise in his argument from the Scriptures about the Messiah, the necessity of his sufferings according to the Scriptures, the very argument made by the Risen Jesus to the two on the way to Emmaus (Luke:24:25-27|). The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah was a passage in point that the rabbis had overlooked. Peter made the same point in strkjv@Acts:3:18| and Paul again in strkjv@Acts:26:23|. The minor premise is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. {To rise again from the dead} (\anastnai ek nekrn\). This second aorist active infinitive \anastnai\ is also the subject of \edei\. The actual resurrection of Jesus was also a necessity as Paul says he preached to them (1Thessalonians:4:14|) and argued always from Scripture (1Corinthians:15:3-4|) and from his own experience (Acts:9:22; strkjv@22:7; strkjv@26:8,14; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:8|). {This Jesus is the Christ} (\houtos estin ho Christos, ho Isous\). More precisely, "This is the Messiah, viz., Jesus whom I am proclaiming unto you." This is the conclusion of Paul's line of argument and it is logical and overwhelming. It is his method everywhere as in Damascus, in Antioch in Pisidia, here, in Corinth. He spoke as an eye-witness.

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). Imperfect active of \sunball\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gnthi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zenn daimonin dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@Acts:19:26 @{At Ephesus} (\Ephesou\). Genitive of place as also with \Asias\ (Asia). Cf. Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 494f. {This Paul} (\ho Paulos houtos\). Contemptuous use of \houtos\. {Hath turned away} (\metestsen\). Changed, transposed. First aorist active indicative, did change. Tribute to Paul's powers as a preacher borne out by Luke's record in strkjv@19:10|. There may be an element of exaggeration on the part of Demetrius to incite the workmen to action, for the worship of Artemis was their wealth. Paul had cut the nerve of their business. There had long been a Jewish colony in Ephesus, but their protest against idolatry was as nothing compared with Paul's preaching (Furneaux). {Which are made with hands} (\hoi dia cheirn ginomenoi\). Note the present tense, made from time to time. No doubt Paul had put the point sharply as in Athens (Acts:17:29|). Isaiah (Isaiah:44:9-17|) had pictured graphically the absurdity of worshipping stocks and stones, flatly forbidden by the Old Testament (Exodus:20:4; strkjv@Psalms:135:15-18|). The people identified their gods with the images of them and Demetrius reflects that point of view. He was jealous of the brand of gods turned out by his factory. The artisans would stand by him on this point. It was a reflection on their work.

rwp@Acts:22:24 @{That he be examined by scourging} (\mastixin anetazesthai auton\). The present passive infinitive of \anetaz\ in indirect command after \eipas\ (bidding). This verb does not occur in the old Greek (which used \exetaz\ as in strkjv@Matthew:2:8|), first in the LXX, in the N.T. only here and verse 29|, but Milligan and Moulton's _Vocabulary_ quotes an Oxyrhynchus papyrus of A.D. 127 which has a prefect using the word directing government clerks to "examine" (\anetazein\) documents and glue them together into volumes (\tomoi\). The word was evidently in use for such purposes. It was a kind of "third degree" applied to Paul by the use of scourges (\mastixin\), instrumental plural of \mastix\, old word for whip, as in strkjv@Hebrews:11:36|. But this way of beginning an inquiry by torture (inquisition) was contrary to Roman law (Page): _Non esse a tormentis incipiendum, Divus Augustus statuit_. {That he might know} (\hina epigni\). Final clause with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \epignsk\ (full knowledge). Lysias was as much in the dark as ever, for Paul's speech had been in Aramaic and this second explosion was a mystery to him like the first. {They so shouted} (\houtos epephnoun\). Imperfect active progressive imperfect had been so shouting.

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 tauts phns\). 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} (\hs\). Genitive of the relative attracted to the case of the antecedent {phns}. {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' humn\). Same idiom as in verses 19,20|.

rwp@Acts:26:32 @{This man might have been set at liberty} (\Apolelusthai edunato ho anthrpos houtos\). Conclusion of the second class condition (determined as unfulfilled) without \an\ as in strkjv@24:19| because of \edunato\ (verb of possibility, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1014). Note perfect passive infinitive \apolelusthai\ from \apolu\. He certainly "could have been set free." Why was it not done? {If he had not appealed unto Caesar} (\ei m epekeklto Kaisara\). Condition of the second class with the past perfect middle indicative (_op. cit._, p. 1015) of \epikale\ (cf. strkjv@25:11f.|). But Paul _only_ appealed to Caesar after Festus had tried to shift him back to Jerusalem and had refused to set him free in Caesarea. Festus comes out with no honour in the case. Since Agrippa was a favourite at court perhaps Festus would be willing to write favourably to Caesar.

rwp@Galatians:4:29 @{Persecuted} (\ediken\). Imperfect active of \dik\, to pursue, to persecute. strkjv@Genesis:21:9| has in Hebrew "laughing," but the LXX has "mocking." The Jewish tradition represents Ishmael as shooting arrows at Isaac. {Songs:now} (\houtos kai nun\) the Jews were persecuting Paul and all Christians (1Thessalonians:2:15f.|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:1 @{This Melchizedek} (\houtos ho Melchisedek\). The one already mentioned several times with whose priesthood that of Christ is compared and which is older and of a higher type than that of Aaron. See strkjv@Genesis:14:18-20; strkjv@Psalms:110| for the only account of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is a daring thing to put Melchizedek above Aaron, but the author does it. Moffatt calls verses 1-3| "a little sermon" on strkjv@6:20|. It is "for ever" (\eis ton aina\) that he explains. Melchizedek is the only one in his line and stands alone in the record in Genesis. The interpretation is rabbinical in method, but well adapted to Jewish readers. The description is taken verbatim from Genesis except that "who met" (\ho sunantsas\) is here applied to Melchizedek from strkjv@Genesis:14:17| instead of to the King of Sodom. They both met Abraham as a matter of fact. For this verb (first aorist active participle of \sunanta\) see strkjv@Luke:9:37|. {Slaughter} (\kops\). Old word for cutting (\kopt\, to cut), here only in N.T. These kings were Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, Tidal. Amraphel is usually taken to be Khammurabi. {Priest of God Most High} (\hiereus tou theou tou hupsistou\). He is called "priest" and note \tou hupsistou\ applied to God as the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews did. It is used also of Zeus and the Maccabean priest-kings. The demons apply it to God (Mark:5:7; strkjv@Luke:8:28|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:2 @{A tenth} (\dekatn\). It was common to offer a tenth of the spoils to the gods. Songs:Abraham recognized Melchizedek as a priest of God. {Divided} (\emerisen\). First aorist active of \meriz\, from \meros\ (portion), to separate into parts. From this point till near the end of verse 3| (the Son of God) is a long parenthesis with \houtos\ of verse 1| as the subject of \menei\ (abideth) as the Revised Version punctuates it. Philo had made popular the kind of exegesis used here. The author gives in Greek the meaning of the Hebrew words Melchizedek (King of righteousness, cf. strkjv@1:8|) and Salem (peace).

rwp@Hebrews:9:23 @{The copies} (\ta hupodeigmata\). See strkjv@8:5| for this word, the earthly (8:4; strkjv@9:1|) tabernacle. {With these} (\toutois\). Instrumental case of \houtos\, like the rites above described (verse 19|), perhaps with some disparagement. {Themselves} (\auta\). The heavenly realities (8:2,5; strkjv@9:11f.|). {With better sacrifices} (\kreittosin thusiais\). Instrumental case again. Point of this section (9:13-10:18|). {Than these} (\para tautas\). Use of \para\ and the accusative case after a comparative as in strkjv@1:4,9|. To us it seems a bit strained to speak of the ritual cleansing or dedication of heaven itself by the appearance of Christ as Priest-Victim. But the whole picture is highly mystical.

rwp@James:3:2 @{In many things} (\polla\). Accusative neuter plural either cognate with \ptaiomen\ or accusative of general reference. On \ptaiomen\ (stumble) see on ¯2:10|. James includes himself in this list of stumblers. {If not} (\ei-ou\). Condition of first class with \ou\ (not \m\) negativing the verb \ptaiei\. {In word} (\en logi\). In speech. The teacher uses his tongue constantly and so is in particular peril on this score. {The same} (\houtos\). "This one" (not \ho autos\ the same). {A perfect man} (\teleios anr\). "A perfect husband" also, for \anr\ is husband as well as man in distinction from woman (\gun\). The wife is at liberty to test her husband by this rule of the tongue. {To bridle the whole body also} (\chalinaggsai kai holon to sma\). See strkjv@1:26| for this rare verb applied to the tongue (\glssan\). Here the same metaphor is used and shown to apply to the whole body as horses are led by the mouth. The man follows his own mouth whether he controls the bridle therein (1:26|) or someone else holds the reins. James apparently means that the man who bridles his tongue does not stumble in speech and is able also to control his whole body with all its passions. See strkjv@Titus:1:11| about stopping people's mouths (\epistomiz\).

rwp@John:1:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one," the Logos of verse 1|, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John's style. He links together into one phrase two of the ideas already stated separately, "in the beginning he was with God," "afterwards in time he came to be with man" (Marcus Dods). Thus John clearly states of the Logos Pre-existence before Incarnation, Personality, Deity.

rwp@John:1:15 @{Beareth witness} (\marturei\). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. strkjv@1:17f.|). See strkjv@1:32,34| for historical examples of John's witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort's text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of verse 14|. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos. {Crieth} (\kekragen\). Second perfect active indicative of \kraz\, old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years. {This was} (\houtos n\). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in strkjv@Acts:3:10| where we should prefer "is" (\estin\). Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things." {Of whom I said} (\hon eipon\). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have \ho eipn\ "the one who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ. {After me} (\opis mou\). See also strkjv@1:27|. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One" (\ho erchomenos\) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:3:11| \ho opis mou erchomenos\ (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:7|). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. {Is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking. {Before me} (\emprosthen mou\). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, \ho ischuroteros mou\ "the one mightier than I" (Mark:1:7|) and \ischuroteros mou\ "mightier than I" (Matthew:3:11|). In strkjv@John:3:28| \emprosthen ekeinou\ (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (John:3:25-30|). {For he was before me} (\hoti prtos mou n\). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\n imperfect\) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after" John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. \Prtos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular _Koin_. Songs:the Beloved Disciple came first (\prtos\) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4|). Songs:also \prton humn\ in strkjv@15:18| means "before you" as if it were \proteron humn\. Verse 30| repeats these words almost exactly.

rwp@John:1:41 @{He findeth first} (\heuriskei houtos prton\). "This one finds (vivid dramatic present) first" (\protn\). \Protn\ (adverb supported by Aleph A B fam. 13) means that Andrew sought "his own brother Simon" (\ton adelphon ton idion Simna\) before he did anything else. But Aleph L W read \prtos\ (nominative adjective) which means that Andrew was the first who went after his brother implying that John also went after his brother James. Some old Latin manuscripts (b, e, r apparently), have \mane\ for Greek \pri\ (early in the morning). Bernard thinks that this is the true reading as it allows more time for Andrew to bring Simon to Jesus. Probably \prton\ is correct, but even so John likely brought also his brother James after Andrew's example. {We have found the Messiah} (\Heurkamen ton Messian\). First aorist active indicative of \heurisk\. Andrew and John had made the greatest discovery of the ages, far beyond gold or diamond mines. The Baptist had told about him. "We have seen him." {Which is} (\ho estin\). Same explanatory neuter relative as in verse 38|, "which word is." This Aramaic title Messiah is preserved in the N.T. only here and strkjv@4:25|, elsewhere translated into \Christos\, Anointed One, from \chri\, to anoint. See on ¯Matthew:1:1| for discussion.

rwp@John:2:20 @{Forty and six years was this temple in building} (\Tesserakonta kai hex etesin oikodomth ho naos houtos\). "Within forty and six years (associative instrumental case) was built (first aorist passive indicative, constative or summary use of the aorist, of \oikodome\, without augment) this temple." As a matter of fact, it was not yet finished, so distrustful had the Jews been of Herod. {And wilt thou?} (\kai su;\). An evident sneer in the use of \su\ (thou, an unknown upstart from Galilee, of the peasant class, not one of the Sanhedrin, not one of the ecclesiastics or even architects).

rwp@John:3:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one." {By night} (\nuktos\). Genitive of time. That he came at all is remarkable, not because there was any danger as was true at a later period, but because of his own prominence. He wished to avoid comment by other members of the Sanhedrin and others. Jesus had already provoked the opposition of the ecclesiastics by his assumption of Messianic authority over the temple. There is no ground for assigning this incident to a later period, for it suits perfectly here. Jesus was already in the public eye (2:23|) and the interest of Nicodemus was real and yet he wished to be cautious. {Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). See on ¯1:38|. Technically Jesus was not an acknowledged Rabbi of the schools, but Nicodemus does recognize him as such and calls him "My Master" just as Andrew and John did (1:38|). It was a long step for Nicodemus as a Pharisee to take, for the Pharisees had closely scrutinized the credentials of the Baptist in strkjv@1:19-24| (Milligan and Moulton's _Comm_.). {We know} (\oidamen\). Second perfect indicative first person plural. He seems to speak for others of his class as the blind man does in strkjv@9:31|. Westcott thinks that Nicodemus has been influenced partly by the report of the commission sent to the Baptist (1:19-27|). {Thou art a teacher come from God} (\apo theou elluthas didaskalos\). "Thou hast come from God as a teacher." Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\ and predicative nominative \didaskalos\. This is the explanation of Nicodemus for coming to Jesus, obscure Galilean peasant as he seemed, evidence that satisfied one of the leaders in Pharisaism. {Can do} (\dunatai poiein\). "Can go on doing" (present active infinitive of \poie\ and so linear). {These signs that thou doest} (\tauta ta smeia ha su poieis\). Those mentioned in strkjv@2:23| that convinced so many in the crowd and that now appeal to the scholar. Note \su\ (thou) as quite out of the ordinary. The scorn of Jesus by the rulers held many back to the end (John:12:42|), but Nicodemus dares to feel his way. {Except God be with him} (\ean m i ho theos met' autou\). Condition of the third class, presented as a probability, not as a definite fact. He wanted to know more of the teaching accredited thus by God. Jesus went about doing good because God was with him, Peter says (Acts:10:38|).

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} (\hi su memarturkas\). 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:4:29 @{All things that ever I did} (\panta ha epoisa\). {Ha}, not \hosa\ (as many as), no "ever" in the Greek. But a guilty conscience (verse 18f.|) led her to exaggerate a bit. {Can this be the Christ?} (\mti houtos estin ho Christos;\). She is already convinced herself (verses 26f.|), but she puts the question in a hesitant form to avoid arousing opposition. With a woman's intuition she avoided \ouk\ and uses \mti\. She does not take sides, but piques their curiosity.

rwp@John:6:46 @{This one has seen the Father} (\houtos heraken ton patera\). Perfect active indicative of \hora\. With the eyes no one has seen God (1:18|) save the Son who is "from God" in origin (1:1,14; strkjv@7:29; strkjv@16:27; strkjv@17:8|). The only way for others to see God is to see Christ (14:9|).

rwp@John:6:52 @{Strove} (\emachonto\). Imperfect (inchoative) middle of \machomai\, to fight in armed combat (Acts:7:26|), then to wage a war of words as here and strkjv@2Timothy:2:24|. They were already murmuring (41|), now they began bitter strife with one another over the last words of Jesus (43-51|), some probably seeing a spiritual meaning in them. There was division of opinion about Jesus in Jerusalem also later (7:12,40; strkjv@9:16; strkjv@10:19|). {How can?} (\Ps dunatai;\). The very idiom used by Nicodemus in strkjv@3:4,9|. Here scornful disbelief. {This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous use pictured in verse 42|. {His flesh to eat} (\tn sarka autou phagein\). As if we were cannibals! Some MSS. do not have \autou\, but the meaning is clear. The mystical appropriation of Christ by the believer (Galatians:2:20; strkjv@Ephesians:3:17|) they could not comprehend, though some apparently were against this literal interpretation of "flesh" (\sarx\).

rwp@John:6:58 @{This is the bread} (\houtos estin ho artos\). Summary and final explanation of the true manna (from verse 32| on) as being Jesus Christ himself.

rwp@John:7:18 @{From himself} (\aph' heautou\). This kind of teacher is self-taught, pushes his own ideas, presses his own claims for position and glory, "blows his own horn" as we say. Jesus is the other type of teacher, seeks the glory of the one who sent him, whose herald and ambassador he is. {The same} (\houtos\). "This one." {Unrighteousness} (\adikia\). Old word from \adikos\ (\a\ privative and \dik\). Here in contrast with "true" (\alths\). See strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:10; strkjv@1Corinthians:13:6| for the deceit of unrighteousness in contrast with truth as here.

rwp@John:7:25 @{Some therefore of them of Jerusalem} (\oun tines ek tn Ierosolumeitn\). The people of the city in contrast to the multitude of pilgrims at the feast. They form a separate group. The word is made from \Ierosoluma\ and occurs in Josephus and IV Maccabees. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:1:5|. These Jerusalem people knew better than the pilgrims the designs of the rulers (Vincent). {Is not this?} (\ouch houtos estin;\). Expecting affirmative answer. Clearly they were not as familiar with the appearance of Jesus as the Galilean multitude (Dods). {They seek} (\ztousin\). The plural refers to the group of leaders already present (7:15|) to whom the Jerusalem crowd probably pointed. They knew of their threats to kill Jesus (5:18|).

rwp@John:7:26 @{They say nothing unto him} (\ouden autoi legousin\). But only make sneering comments about him (7:16|) in spite of his speaking "openly" (\parrsii\, for which word see strkjv@7:13; strkjv@18:20|) before all. lt was sarcasm about the leaders, though an element of surprise on the part of "these shrewd townsmen" (Bernard) may have existed also. {Can it be that the rulers indeed know} (\m pote alths egnsin hoi archontes\). Negative answer expected by \m pote\ and yet there is ridicule of the rulers in the form of the question. See a like use of \m pote\ in strkjv@Luke:3:15|, though nowhere else in John. \Egnsan\ (second aorist ingressive active indicative of \ginsk\) may refer to the examination of Jesus by these rulers in strkjv@5:19ff.| and means, "Did they come to know or find out" (and so hold now)? {That this is the Christ} (\hoti houtos estin ho Christos\). The Messiah of Jewish hope.

rwp@John:7:27 @{Howbeit} (\alla\). Clearly adversative here. {This man} (\touton\). Possibly contemptuous use of \houtos\ as may be true in 25,26|. {Whence he is} (\pothen estin\). The Galilean Jews knew the family of Jesus (6:42|), but they knew Jesus only as from Nazareth, not as born in Bethlehem (verse 42|). {When the Christ cometh} (\ho Christos hotan erchtai\). Prolepsis of \ho Christos\ and indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the present middle subjunctive \erchtai\ rather than the more usual second aorist active \elthi\ as in verse 31|, a trifle more picturesque. This is a piece of popular theology. "Three things come wholly unexpected--Messiah, a godsend, and a scorpion" (_Sanhedrin_ 97a). The rulers knew the birthplace to be Bethlehem (7:42; strkjv@Matthew:2:5f.|), but some even expected the Messiah to drop suddenly from the skies as Satan proposed to Jesus to fall down from the pinnacle of the temple. The Jews generally expected a sudden emergence of the Messiah from concealment with an anointing by Elijah (_Apoc. of Bar_. XXIX. 3; 2Esdr. strkjv@7:28; strkjv@13:32; Justin Martyr, _Tryph_. 110).

rwp@John:7:35 @{Among themselves} (\pros heautous\). These Jewish leaders of verse 32| talk among themselves about what Jesus said in a spirit of contempt (this man or fellow, \houtos\). {That} (\hoti\). Almost result like \hoti\ in strkjv@Matthew:8:27|. {Will he go?} (\m mellei poreuesthai;\). Negative answer expected in an ironical question, "Is he about to go?" {Unto the Dispersion among the Greeks} (\eis tn diasporan tn Hellnn\). Objective genitive \tn Hellnn\ (of the Greeks) translated here "among," because it is the Dispersion of Jews among the Greeks. \Diaspora\ is from \diaspeir\, to scatter apart (Acts:8:1,4|). It occurs in Plutarch and is common in the LXX, in the N.T. only here, strkjv@James:1:1; strkjv@1Peter:1:1|. There were millions of these scattered Jews. {And teach the Greeks} (\kai didaskein tous Hellnas\). Confessing his failure to teach the Jews in Palestine, "thus ignorantly anticipating the course Christianity took; what seemed unlikely and impossible to them became actual" (Dods).

rwp@John:7:36 @{What is this word?} (\Tis estin ho logos houtos;\). Puzzled and uneasy over this unintelligible saying. Even Peter is distressed over it later (\13:37\).

rwp@John:7:41 @{This is the Christ} (\houtos estin ho Christos\). These went further and dared to call Jesus the Messiah and not merely the prophet who might not be the Messiah. They said it openly. {What} (\gar\). These denied that Jesus was the Messiah and gave as their reason (\gar\, for) the fact that he came from Galilee. The use of \m\ expects a negative answer.

rwp@John:7:49 @{This multitude} (\ho ochlos houtos\). The Pharisees had a scorn for the _amhaaretz_ or "people of the earth" (cf. our "clod-hoppers") as is seen in rabbinic literature. It was some of the \ochlos\ (multitude at the feast especially from Galilee) who had shown sympathy with Jesus (7:12,28f.|). {Which knoweth not the law} (\ho m ginoskn\). Present active articular participle of \ginsk\ with \m\ usual negative of the participle in the _Koin_. "No brutish man is sin-fearing, nor is one of the people of the earth pious" (_Aboth_, II. 6). See the amazement of the Sanhedrin at Peter and John in strkjv@Acts:4:13| as "unlettered and private men" (\agrammatoi kai iditai\). No wonder the common people (\ochlos\) heard Jesus gladly (Mark:12:37|). The rabbis scouted and scorned them. {Are accursed} (\eparatoi eisin\). Construction according to sense (plural verb and adjective with collective singular \ochlos\). \Eparatoi\ is old verbal adjective from \eparaomai\, to call down curses upon, here only in the N.T.

rwp@John:9:8 @{Neighbours} (\geitones\). From \g\ (land), of the same land, old word. See strkjv@Luke:14:2|. {Saw him} (\therountes\). Present active participle of \there\, who used to observe him. {Aforetime} (\to proteron\). Adverbial accusative, "the former time," formerly. {That he was a beggar} (\hoti prosaits n\). See strkjv@4:19; strkjv@12:19| for declarative \hoti\ after \there\. But it is entirely possible that \hoti\ here is "because" (Westcott). \Prosaits\ is a late word for beggar, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:10:46|. It is from \prosaite\, to ask in addition (see \prosaitn\ below), a thing that beggars know how to do. {Is not this he that sat and begged?} (\Ouch houtos estin ho kathmenos kai prosaitn;\). He had his regular place and was a familiar figure. But now his eyes are wide open.

rwp@John:9:19 @{Is this your son who ye say was born blind? how doth he now see?} (\Houtos estin ho huios humn, hon humeis lgete hoti tuphlos egennth; ps oun blepei arti;\). It was shrewdly put with three questions in one in order to confuse the parents if possible and give the hostile Pharisees a handle.

rwp@John:9:20 @{We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind} (\Oidamen hoti houtos estin ho huios hmn kai hoti tuphlos egennth\). These two questions the parents answer clearly and thus cut the ground from under the disbelief of these Pharisees as to the fact of the cure (verse 18|). Songs:these Pharisees made a failure here.

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

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

rwp@John:12:34 @{Out of the law} (\ek tou nomou\). That is, "out of the Scriptures" (10:34; strkjv@15:25|). {The Christ abideth forever} (\ho Christos menei eis ton aina\). Timeless present active indicative of \men\, to abide, remain. Perhaps from strkjv@Psalms:89:4; strkjv@110:4; strkjv@Isaiah:9:7; strkjv@Ezekiel:37:25; strkjv@Daniel:7:14|. {How sayest thou?} (\ps legeis su;\). In opposition to the law (Scripture). {The Son of man} (\ton huion tou anthrpou\). Accusative case of general reference with the infinitive \hupsthnai\ (first aorist passive of \hupso\ and taken in the sense of death by the cross as Jesus used it in verse 32|). Clearly the crowd understand Jesus to be "the Son of man" and take the phrase to be equivalent to "the Christ." This is the obvious way to understand the two terms in their reply, and not, as Bernard suggests, that they saw no connexion between "the Christ" (the Messiah) and "the Son of man." The use of "this" (\houtos\) in the question that follows is in contrast to verse 32|. The Messiah (the Son of man) abides forever and is not to be crucified as you say he "must" (\dei\) be.

rwp@John:18:40 @{Cried out} (\ekraugasan\). First aorist active of \kraugaz\, old and rare verb from \kraug\, outcry (Matthew:25:6|), as in strkjv@Matthew:12:19|. {Not this man} (\m touton\). Contemptuous use of \houtos\. The priests put the crowd up to this choice (Mark:15:11|) and Pilate offered the alternative (Matthew:27:17|, one MS. actually gives Jesus as the name of Barabbas also). The name \Barabbas\ in Aramaic simply means son of a father. {A robber} (\lists\). Old word from \lizomai\, to plunder, and so a brigand and possibly the leader of the band to which the two robbers belonged who were crucified with Jesus. Luke terms him an insurgent and murderer (Luke:23:19,25|). They chose Barabbas in preference to Jesus and apparently Jesus died on the very cross planned for Barabbas.

rwp@John:19:19 @{Pilate wrote a title also} (\egrapsen kai titlon ho Peilatos\). Only John tells us that Pilate himself wrote it and John alone uses the technical Latin word _titlon_ (several times in inscriptions), for the board with the name of the criminal and the crime in which he is condemned; Mark (Mark:15:26|) and Luke (Luke:23:28|) use \epigraph\ (superscription). Matthew (Matthew:27:37|) has simply \aitian\ (accusation). The inscription in John is the fullest of the four and has all in any of them save the words "this is" (\houtos estin\) in strkjv@Matthew:27:37|.

rwp@Luke:4:22 @{Bare him witness} (\emarturoun\). Imperfect active, perhaps inchoative. They all began to bear witness that the rumours were not exaggerations (4:14|) as they had supposed, but had foundation in fact if this discourse or its start was a fair sample of his teaching. The verb \marture\ is a very old and common one. It is frequent in Acts, Paul's Epistles, and the Johannine books. The substantive \martur\ is seen in our English \martyr\, one who witnesses even by his death to his faith in Christ. {And wondered} (\kai ethaumazon\). Imperfect active also, perhaps inchoative also. They began to marvel as he proceeded with his address. This verb is an old one and common in the Gospels for the attitude of the people towards Jesus. {At the words of grace} (\epi tois logois ts charitos\). See on ¯Luke:1:30; strkjv@2:52| for this wonderful word \charis\ so full of meaning and so often in the N.T. The genitive case (case of genus or kind) here means that the words that came out of the mouth of Jesus in a steady stream (present tense, \ekporeuomenois\) were marked by fascination and charm. They were "winning words" as the context makes plain, though they were also "gracious" in the Pauline sense of "grace." There is no necessary antithesis in the ideas of graceful and gracious in these words of Jesus. {Is not this Joseph's son?} (\Ouchi huios estin Isph houtos;\). Witness and wonder gave way to bewilderment as they began to explain to themselves the situation. The use of \ouchi\ intensive form of \ouk\ in a question expects the answer "yes." Jesus passed in Nazareth as the son of Joseph as Luke presents him in strkjv@3:23|. He does not stop here to correct this misconception because the truth has been already amply presented in strkjv@1:28-38; strkjv@2:49|. This popular conception of Jesus as the son of Joseph appears also in strkjv@John:1:45|. The puzzle of the people was due to their previous knowledge of Jesus as the carpenter (Mark:6:3|; the carpenter's son, strkjv@Matthew:13:55|). For him now to appear as the Messiah in Nazareth where he had lived and laboured as the carpenter was a phenomenon impossible to credit on sober reflection. Songs:the mood of wonder and praise quickly turned with whispers and nods and even scowls to doubt and hostility, a rapid and radical transformation of emotion in the audience.

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

rwp@Luke:7:39 @{This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous, this fellow. {If he were a (the) prophet} (\ei n [ho] prophts\). 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} (\eginsken 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 potap h gun\). She was notorious in person and character.

rwp@Luke:14:30 @{This man} (\houtos ho anthrpos\). This fellow, contemptuous or sarcastic use of \houtos\.

rwp@Luke:15:2 @{Both... and} (\te... kai\). United in the complaint. {Murmured} (\diegogguzon\). Imperfect active of \diagogguz\, late Greek compound in the LXX and Byzantine writers. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:7|. The force of \dia\ here is probably between or among themselves. It spread (imperfect tense) whenever these two classes came in contact with Jesus. As the publicans and the sinners were drawing near to Jesus just in that proportion the Pharisees and the scribes increased their murmurings. The social breach is here an open yawning chasm. {This man} (\houtos\). A contemptuous sneer in the use of the pronoun. They spoke out openly and probably pointed at Jesus. {Receiveth} (\prosdechetai\). Present middle indicative of the common verb \prosdechomai\. In strkjv@12:36| we had it for expecting, here it is to give access to oneself, to welcome like \hupedexato\ of Martha's welcome to Jesus (Luke:10:38|). The charge here is that this is the habit of Jesus. He shows no sense of social superiority to these outcasts (like the Hindu "untouchables" in India). {And eateth with them} (\kai sunesthiei autois\). Associative instrumental case (\autois\) after \sun-\ in composition. This is an old charge (Luke:5:30|) and a much more serious breach from the standpoint of the Pharisees. The implication is that Jesus prefers these outcasts to the respectable classes (the Pharisees and the scribes) because he is like them in character and tastes, even with the harlots. There was a sting in the charge that he was the "friend" (\philos\) of publicans and sinners (Luke:7:34|).

rwp@Luke:15:30 @{This thy son} (\ho huios sou houtos\). Contempt and sarcasm. He does not say: "This my brother." {Came} (\lthen\). He does not even say, came back or came home. {Devoured} (\kataphagn\). We say, "eaten up," but the Greek has, "eaten down" (perfective use of \kata-\). Suggested by the feasting going on. {With harlots} (\meta pornn\). This may be true (verse 13|), but the elder son did not know it to be true. He may reflect what he would have done in like case.

rwp@Mark:1:11 @{Thou art} (\su ei\). Songs:Luke:3:22|. strkjv@Matthew:3:17| has {this is} (\houtos estin\) which see. Songs:both Mark and Luke have "in thee," while Matthew has "in whom."

rwp@Mark:4:41 @{They feared exceedingly} (\ephobthsan phobon megan\). Cognate accusative with the first aorist passive indicative. They feared a great fear. strkjv@Matthew:8:27| and strkjv@Luke:8:22| mention that "they marvelled." But there was fear in it also. {Who then is this?} (\Tis ara houtos estin;\). No wonder that they feared if this One could command the wind and the waves at will as well as demons and drive out all diseases and speak such mysteries in parables. They were growing in their apprehension and comprehension of Jesus Christ. They had much yet to learn. There is much yet for us today to learn or seek to grow in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. This incident opened the eyes and minds of the disciples to the majesty of Jesus.

rwp@Mark:6:3 @{Is not this the carpenter?} (\Ouch houtos estin ho tektn;\). strkjv@Matthew:13:55| calls him "the carpenter's son" (\ho tou tektonos huios\). He was both. Evidently since Joseph's death he had carried on the business and was "the carpenter" of Nazareth. The word \tektn\ comes from \tekein, tikt\, to beget, create, like \techn\ (craft, art). It is a very old word, from Homer down. It was originally applied to the worker in wood or builder with wood like our carpenter. Then it was used of any artisan or craftsman in metal, or in stone as well as in wood and even of sculpture. It is certain that Jesus worked in wood. Justin Martyr speaks of ploughs, yokes, et cetera, made by Jesus. He may also have worked in stone and may even have helped build some of the stone synagogues in Galilee like that in Capernaum. But in Nazareth the people knew him, his family (no mention of Joseph), and his trade and discounted all that they now saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. This word carpenter "throws the only flash which falls on the continuous tenor of the first thirty years from infancy to manhood, of the life of Christ" (Farrar). That is an exaggeration for we have strkjv@Luke:2:41-50| and "as his custom was" (Luke:4:16|), to go no further. But we are grateful for Mark's realistic use of \tektn\ here. {And they were offended in him} (\kai eskandalizonto en auti\). Songs:exactly strkjv@Matthew:13:56|, {were made to stumble in him}, trapped like game by the \skandalon\ because they could not explain him, having been so recently one of them. "The Nazarenes found their stumbling block in the person or circumstances of Jesus. He became--\petra skandalou\ (1Peter:2:7,8; strkjv@Romans:9:33|) to those who disbelieved" (Swete). Both Mark and strkjv@Matthew:13:57|, which see, preserve the retort of Jesus with the quotation of the current proverb about a prophet's lack of honour in his own country. strkjv@John:4:44| quoted it from Jesus on his return to Galilee long before this. It is to be noted that Jesus here makes a definite claim to being a prophet (\prophts\, forspeaker for God), a seer. He was much more than this as he had already claimed to be Messiah (John:4:26; strkjv@Luke:4:21|), the Son of man with power of God (Mark:1:10; strkjv@Matthew:9:6; strkjv@Luke:5:24|), the Son of God (John:5:22|). They stumble at Jesus today as the townspeople of Nazareth did. {In his own house} (\en ti oikii autou\). Also in strkjv@Matthew:13:57|. This was the saddest part of it all, that his own brothers in his own home disbelieved his Messianic claims (John:7:5|). This puzzle was the greatest of all.

rwp@Matthew:3:2 @{For this is he that was spoken of by Isaiah the prophet} (\houtos gar estin ho rhtheis dia Esaiou tou prophtou\). This is Matthew's way of interpreting the mission and message of the Baptist. He quotes strkjv@Isaiah:40:3| where "the prophet refers to the return of Israel from the exile, accompanied by their God" (McNeile). He applies it to the work of John as "a voice crying in the wilderness" for the people to make ready the way of the Lord who is now near. He was only a voice, but what a voice he was. He can be heard yet across the centuries.

rwp@Matthew:9:3 @{This man blasphemeth} (\houtos blasphmei\). See the sneer in "this fellow." "The prophet always is a scandalous, irreverent blasphemer from the conventional point of view" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:12:23 @{Is this the Son of David?} (\mti houtos estin ho huios Daueid?\). The form of the question expects the answer "no," but they put it so because of the Pharisaic hostility towards Jesus. The multitudes "were amazed" or "stood out of themselves" (\existanto\), imperfect tense, vividly portraying the situation. They were almost beside themselves with excitement.

rwp@Matthew:13:19 @{Cometh the evil one and snatcheth away} (\erchetai ho ponros kai harpazei\). The birds pick up the seeds while the sower sows. The devil is busy with his job of snatching or seizing like a bandit or rogue the word of the kingdom before it has time even to sprout. How quickly after the sermon the impression is gone. "This is he" (\houtos estin\). Matthew, like Mark, speaks of the people who hear the words as the seed itself. That creates some confusion in this condensed form of what Jesus actually said, but the real point is clear. {The seed sown in his heart} (\to esparmenon en ti kardii autou\, perfect passive participle of \speir\, to sow) and "the man sown by the wayside" (\ho para tn hodon spareis\, aorist passive participle, along the wayside) are identified. The seed in the heart is not of itself responsible, but the man who lets the devil snatch it away.

rwp@Matthew:13:54 @{Is not this the carpenter's son?} (\ouch houtos estin ho tou tektnos huios?\). The well-known, the leading, or even for a time the only carpenter in Nazareth till Jesus took the place of Joseph as the carpenter. What the people of Nazareth could not comprehend was how one with the origin and environment of Jesus here in Nazareth could possess the wisdom which he appeared to have in his teaching (\edidasken\). That has often puzzled people how a boy whom they knew could become the man he apparently is after leaving them. They knew Joseph, Mary, the brothers (four of them named) and sisters (names not given). Jesus passed here as the son of Joseph and these were younger brothers and sisters (half brothers and sisters technically).

rwp@Matthew:26:71 @{Into the porch} (\eis ton pulna\). But Peter was not safe out here, for another maid recognized him and spoke of him as "this fellow" (\houtos\) with a gesture to those out there.

rwp@Matthew:27:54 @{Truly this was the Son of God} (\alths theou huios n houtos\). There is no article with God or Son in the Greek so that it means "God's Son," either "the Son of God" or "a Son of God." There is no way to tell. Evidently the centurion (\hekatontarchos\ here, ruler of a hundred, Latin word _kenturin_ in strkjv@Mark:15:39|) was deeply moved by the portents which he had witnessed. He had heard the several flings at Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God and may even have heard of his claim before the Sanhedrin and Pilate. How much he meant by his words we do not know, but probably he meant more than merely "a righteous man" (Luke:23:47|). Petronius is the name given this centurion by tradition. If he was won now to trust in Christ, he came as a pagan and, like the robber who believed, was saved as Jesus hung upon the Cross. All who are ever saved in truth are saved because of the death of Jesus on the Cross. Songs:the Cross began to do its work at once.

rwp@Romans:4:9 @{Is this blessing then pronounced?} (\ho makarismos oun houtos?\). "Is this felicitation then?" There is no verb in the Greek. Paul now proceeds to show that Abraham was said in strkjv@Genesis:15:6| to be set right with God by faith _before_ he was circumcised.

rwp@Romans:5:21 @{That--even so grace might reign} (\hina--houtos kai h charis basileusi\). Final \hina\ here, the purpose of God and the goal for us through Christ. Lightfoot notes the force of the aorist indicative (\ebasileusen\, established its throne) and the aorist subjunctive (\basileusi\, might establish its throne), the ingressive aorist both times. "This full rhetorical close has almost the value of a doxology" (Denney).

rwp@Romans:9:9 @{A word of promise} (\epaggelias ho logos houtos\). Literally, "this word is one of promise." Paul combines strkjv@Genesis:18:10,14| from the LXX.