Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp Natural:


rwp@1Corinthians:2:13 @{Which things also we speak} (\ha kai laloumen\). This onomatopoetic verb \lale“\ (from \la-la\), to utter sounds. In the papyri the word calls more attention to the form of utterance while \leg“\ refers more to the substance. But \lale“\ in the N.T. as here is used of the highest and holiest speech. Undoubtedly Paul employs the word purposely for the utterance of the revelation which he has understood. That is to say, there is revelation (verse 10|), illumination (verse 12|), and inspiration (verse 13|). Paul claims therefore the help of the Holy Spirit for the reception of the revelation, for the understanding of it, for the expression of it. Paul claimed this authority for his preaching (1Thessalonians:4:2|) and for his epistles (2Thessalonians:3:14|). {Not in words which man's wisdom teacheth} (\ouk en didaktois anthr“pinˆs sophias logois\). Literally, "not in words taught by human wisdom." The verbal adjective \didaktois\ (from \didask“\, to teach) is here passive in idea and is followed by the ablative case of origin or source as in strkjv@John:6:45|, \esontai pantes didaktoi theou\ (from strkjv@Isaiah:54:13|), "They shall all be taught by God." The ablative in Greek, as is well known, has the same form as the genitive, though quite different in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). Songs:then Paul claims the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance (\laloumen\) of the words, "which the Spirit teacheth (\en didaktois pneumatos\), "in words taught by the Spirit" (ablative \pneumatos\ as above). Clearly Paul means that the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance of the revelation extends to the words. No theory of inspiration is here stated, but it is not _mere_ human wisdom. Paul's own Epistles bear eloquent witness to the lofty claim here made. They remain today after nearly nineteen centuries throbbing with the power of the Spirit of God, dynamic with life for the problems of today as when Paul wrote them for the needs of the believers in his time, the greatest epistles of all time, surcharged with the energy of God. {Comparing spiritual things with spiritual} (\pneumatikois pneumatika sunkrinontes\). Each of these words is in dispute. The verb \sunkrin“\, originally meant to combine, to join together fitly. In the LXX it means to interpret dreams (Genesis:40:8,22; strkjv@41:12|) possibly by comparison. In the later Greek it may mean to compare as in strkjv@2Corinthians:10:12|. In the papyri Moulton and Milligan (_Vocabulary_) give it only for "decide," probably after comparing. But "comparing," in spite of the translations, does not suit well here. Songs:it is best to follow the original meaning to combine as do Lightfoot and Ellicott. But what gender is \pneumatikois\? Is it masculine or neuter like \pneumatika\? If masculine, the idea would be "interpreting (like LXX) spiritual truths to spiritual persons" or "matching spiritual truths with spiritual persons." This is a possible rendering and makes good sense in harmony with verse 14|. If \pneumatikois\ be taken as neuter plural (associative instrumental case after \sun\ in \sunkrinontes\), the idea most naturally would be, "combining spiritual ideas (\pneumatika\) with spiritual words" (\pneumatikois\). This again makes good sense in harmony with the first part of verse 13|. On the whole this is the most natural way to take it, though various other possibilities exist.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:14 @{Now the natural man} (\psuchikos de anthr“pos\). Note absence of article here, "A natural man" (an unregenerate man). Paul does not employ modern psychological terms and he exercises variety in his use of all the terms here present as \pneuma\ and \pneumatikos, psuchˆ\ and \psuchikos, sarx\ and \sarkinos\ and \sarkikos\. A helpful discussion of the various uses of these words in the New Testament is given by Burton in his _New Testament Word Studies_, pp. 62-68, and in his {Spirit, Soul, and Flesh}. The papyri furnish so many examples of \sarx, pneuma\, and \psuchˆ\ that Moulton and Milligan make no attempt at an exhaustive treatment, but give a few miscellaneous examples to illustrate the varied uses that parallel the New Testament. \Psuchikos\ is a qualitative adjective from \psuchˆ\ (breath of life like \anima\, life, soul). Here the Vulgate renders it by _animalis_ and the German by _sinnlich_, the original sense of animal life as in strkjv@Jude:1:19; strkjv@James:3:15|. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:44,46| there is the same contrast between \psuchikos\ and \pneumatikos\ as here. The \psuchikos\ man is the unregenerate man while the \pneumatikos\ man is the renewed man, born again of the Spirit of God. {Receiveth not} (\ou dechetai\). Does not accept, rejects, refuses to accept. In strkjv@Romans:8:7| Paul definitely states the inability (\oude gar dunatai\) of the mind of the flesh to receive the things of the Spirit untouched by the Holy Spirit. Certainly the initiative comes from God whose Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the things of the Spirit of God. They are no longer "foolishness" (\m“ria\) to us as was once the case (1:23|). Today one notes certain of the _intelligentsia_ who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance. {He cannot know them} (\ou dunatai gn“nai\). He is not able to get a knowledge (ingressive second aorist active infinitive of \gin“sk“\). His helpless condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part, though such an one usually poses as a paragon of wisdom and commiserates the deluded followers of Christ. {They are spiritually judged} (\pneumatik“s anakrinetai\). Paul and Luke are fond of this verb, though nowhere else in the N.T. Paul uses it only in I Corinthians. The word means a sifting process to get at the truth by investigation as of a judge. In strkjv@Acts:17:11| the Beroeans scrutinized the Scriptures. These \psuchikoi\ men are incapable of rendering a decision for they are unable to recognize the facts. They judge by the \psuchˆ\ (mere animal nature) rather than by the \pneuma\ (the renewed spirit).

rwp@1Corinthians:4:6 @{I have in a figure transferred} (\meteschˆmatisa\). First aorist active (not perfect) indicative of \meta-schˆmatiz“\, used by Plato and Aristotle for changing the form of a thing (from \meta\, after, and \schˆma\, form or habit, like Latin _habitus_ from \ech“\ and so different from \morphˆ\ as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:12:2|). For the idea of refashioning see Field, _Notes_, p. 169f. and Preisigke, _Fachworter_). Both Greek and Latin writers (Quintilian, Martial) used \schˆma\ for a rhetorical artifice. Paul's use of the word (in Paul only in N.T.) appears also further in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13-15| where the word occurs three times, twice of the false apostles posing and passing as apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness, and once of Satan as an angel of light, twice with \eis\ and once with \h“s\. In strkjv@Phillipians:3:21| the word is used for the change in the body of our humiliation to the body of glory. But here it is clearly the rhetorical figure for a veiled allusion to Paul and Apollos "for your sakes" (\dia humas\). {That in us ye may learn} (\hina en hˆmin mathˆte\). Final clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \manthan“\, to learn. As an object lesson in our cases (\en hˆmin\). It is no more true of Paul and Apollos than of other ministers, but the wrangles in Corinth started about them. Songs:Paul boldly puts himself and Apollos to the fore in the discussion of the principles involved. {Not to go beyond the things which are written} (\to Mˆ huper ha gegraptai\). It is difficult to reproduce the Greek idiom in English. The article \to\ is in the accusative case as the object of the verb \mathˆte\ (learn) and points at the words "\Mˆ huper ha gegraptai\," apparently a proverb or rule, and elliptical in form with no principal verb expressed with \mˆ\, whether "think" (Auth.) or "go" (Revised). There was a constant tendency to smooth out Paul's ellipses as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26,31|. Lightfoot thinks that Paul may have in mind O.T. passages quoted in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:19,31; strkjv@3:19,20|. {That ye be not puffed up} (\hina mˆ phusiousthe\). Sub-final use of \hina\ (second use in this sentence) with notion of result. It is not certain whether \phusiousthe\ (late verb form like \phusia“, phusa“\, to blow up, to inflate, to puff up), used only by Paul in the N.T., is present indicative with \hina\ like \zˆloute\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:17| (cf. \hina gin“skomen\ in strkjv@1John:5:20|) or the present subjunctive by irregular contraction (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 203, 342f.), probably the present indicative. \Phusio“\ is from \phusis\ (nature) and so meant to make natural, but it is used by Paul just like \phusa“\ or \phusia“\ (from \phusa\, a pair of bellows), a vivid picture of self-conceit. {One for the one against the other} (\heis huper tou henos kata tou heterou\). This is the precise idea of this idiom of partitive apposition. This is the rule with partisans. They are "for" (\huper\) the one and "against" (\kata\, down on, the genitive case) the other (\tou heterou\, not merely another or a second, but the different sort, \heterodox\).

rwp@1Corinthians:6:2 @{Shall judge the world} (\ton kosmon krinousin\). Future active indicative. At the last day with the Lord Jesus (Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30|). {Are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?} (\anaxioi este kritˆri“n elachist“n;\). \Anaxios\ is an old word (\an\ and \axios\), though only here in the N.T. There is dispute as to the meaning of \kritˆria\ here and in verse 4|, old word, but nowhere else in N.T. save in strkjv@James:2:6|. Naturally, like other words in \-tˆrion\ (\akroatˆrion\, auditorium, strkjv@Acts:25:23|), this word means the place where judgment is rendered, or court. It is common in the papyri in the sense of tribunal. In the _Apost. Const_. ii. 45 we have \mˆ erchesth“ epi kritˆrion ethnikon\ (Let him not come before a heathen tribunal). Hence here it would mean, "Are ye unworthy of the smallest tribunals?" That is, of sitting on the smallest tribunals, of forming courts yourselves to settle such things?

rwp@1Corinthians:7:21 @{Wast thou called being a bondservant?} (\doulos eklˆthˆs;\). First aorist passive indicative. Wast thou, a slave, called? {Care not for it} (\mˆ soi melet“\). "Let it not be a care to thee." Third person singular (impersonal) of \melei\, old verb with dative \soi\. It was usually a fixed condition and a slave could be a good servant of Christ (Colossians:3:22; strkjv@Ephesians:6:5; strkjv@Titus:2:9|), even with heathen masters. {Use it rather} (\mallon chrˆsai\). Make use of what? There is no "it" in the Greek. Shall we supply \eleutheriƒi\ (instrumental case after \chrˆsai\ or \douleiƒi\)? Most naturally \eleutheriƒi\, freedom, from \eleutheros\, just before. In that case \ei kai\ is not taken as although, but \kai\ goes with \dunasai\, "But if thou canst also become free, the rather use your opportunity for freedom." On the whole this is probably Paul's idea and is in full harmony with the general principle above about mixed marriages with the heathen. \Chrˆsai\ is second person singular aorist middle imperative of \chraomai\, to use, old and common verb.

rwp@1Corinthians:10:3 @{The same spiritual meat} (\to auto pneumatikon br“ma\). Westcott and Hort needlessly bracket to \auto\. \Br“ma\ is food, not just flesh. The reference is to the manna (Exodus:16:13ff.|) which is termed "spiritual" by reason of its supernatural character. Jesus called himself the true bread from heaven (John:6:35|) which the manna typified.

rwp@1Corinthians:10:4 @{For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them} (\epinon ek pneumatikˆs akolouthousˆs petras\). Change to the imperfect \epinon\ shows their continual access to the supernatural source of supply. The Israelites were blessed by the water from the rock that Moses smote at Rephidim (Exodus:17:6|) and at Kadesh (Numbers:20:11|) and by the well of Beer (Numbers:21:16|). The rabbis had a legend that the water actually followed the Israelites for forty years, in one form a fragment of rock fifteen feet high that followed the people and gushed out water. Baur and some other scholars think that Paul adopts this "Rabbinical legend that the water-bearing Rephidim rock journeyed onwards with the Israelites" (Findlay). That is hard to believe, though it is quite possible that Paul alludes to this fancy and gives it a spiritual turn as a type of Christ in allegorical fashion. Paul knew the views of the rabbis and made use of allegory on occasion (Galatians:4:24|). {And the rock was Christ} (\hˆ petra de ˆn ho Christos\). He definitely states here in symbolic form the preexistence of Christ. But surely "we must not disgrace Paul by making him say that the pre-incarnate Christ followed the march of Israel in the shape of a lump of rock" (Hofmann). He does mean that Christ was the source of the water which saved the Israelites from perishing (Robertson and Plummer) as he is the source of supply for us today.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:19 @{Must be} (\dei einai\). Since moral conditions are so bad among you (cf. chapters 1 to 6). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:7|. {Heresies} (\haireseis\). The schisms naturally become {factions} or {parties}. Cf. strifes (\erides\) in strkjv@1:11|. See on ¯Acts:15:5| for \haireseis\, a choosing, taking sides, holding views of one party, heresy (our word). "Heresy is theoretical schism, schism practical heresy." Cf. strkjv@Titus:3:10; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. In Paul only here and strkjv@Galatians:5:20|. {That} (\hina\). God's purpose in these factions makes {the proved ones} (\hoi dokimoi\) become {manifest} (\phaneroi\). "These \haireseis\ are a magnet attracting unsound and unsettled minds" (Findlay). It has always been so. Instance so-called Christian Science, Russellism, New Thought, etc., today.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:10 @{Workings of miracles} (\energˆmata duname“n\). Workings of powers. Cf. \energ“n dunameis\ in strkjv@Galatians:3:5; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4| where all three words are used (\sˆmeia\, signs, \terata\, wonders, \dunameis\, powers). Some of the miracles were not healings as the blindness on Elymas the sorcerer. {Prophecy} (\prophˆteia\). Late word from \prophˆtˆs\ and \prophˆmi\, to speak forth. Common in papyri. This gift Paul will praise most (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:14|). Not always prediction, but a speaking forth of God's message under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. {Discernings of spirits} (\diakriseis pneumat“n\). \Diakrisis\ is old word from \diakrin“\ (see strkjv@11:29|) and in N.T. only here; strkjv@Romans:14:1; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14|. A most needed gift to tell whether the gifts were really of the Holy Spirit and supernatural (cf. so-called "gifts" today) or merely strange though natural or even diabolical (1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@1John:4:1f.|). {Divers kinds of tongues} (\genˆ gl“ss“n\). No word for "divers" in the Greek. There has arisen a great deal of confusion concerning the gift of tongues as found in Corinth. They prided themselves chiefly on this gift which had become a source of confusion and disorder. There were varieties (kinds, \genˆ\) in this gift, but the gift was essentially an ecstatic utterance of highly wrought emotion that edified the speaker (14:4|) and was intelligible to God (14:2,28|). It was not always true that the speaker in tongues could make clear what he had said to those who did not know the tongue (14:13|): It was not mere gibberish or jargon like the modern "tongues," but in a real language that could be understood by one familiar with that tongue as was seen on the great Day of Pentecost when people who spoke different languages were present. In Corinth, where no such variety of people existed, it required an interpreter to explain the tongue to those who knew it not. Hence Paul placed this gift lowest of all. It created wonder, but did little real good. This is the error of the Irvingites and others who have tried to reproduce this early gift of the Holy Spirit which was clearly for a special emergency and which was not designed to help spread the gospel among men. See on ¯Acts:2:13-21; strkjv@10:44-46; strkjv@19:6|. {The interpretation of tongues} (\hermˆneia gl“ss“n\). Old word, here only and strkjv@14:26| in N.T., from \hermˆneu“\ from \Hermˆs\ (the god of speech). Cf. on \diermˆneu“\ in strkjv@Luke:24:27; strkjv@Acts:9:36|. In case there was no one present who understood the particular tongue it required a special gift of the Spirit to some one to interpret it if any one was to receive benefit from it.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:12 @{Songs:also is Christ} (\hout“s kai ho Christos\). One would naturally expect Paul here to say \hout“s kai to s“ma tou Christou\ (so also is the body of Christ). He will later call Christ the Head of the Body the Church as in strkjv@Colossians:1:18,24; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23,30|. Aristotle had used \s“ma\ of the state as the body politic. What Paul here means is Christ as the Head of the Church has a body composed of the members who have varied gifts and functions like the different members of the human body. They are all vitally connected with the Head of the body and with each other. This idea he now elaborates in a remarkable manner.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:5 @{And that he appeared to Cephas} (\kai hoti “phthˆ Kˆphƒi\). First aorist passive indicative of the defective verb \hora“\, to see. Paul means not a mere "vision," but actual appearance. John uses \ephaner“thˆ\ (John:21:14|) from \phanero“\, to make manifest, of Christ's appearance to the seven by the Sea of Galilee. Peter was listed first (\pr“tos\) among the Apostles (Matthew:10:2|). Jesus had sent a special message to him (Mark:16:7|) after his resurrection. This special appearance to Peter is made the determining factor in the joyful faith of the disciples (Luke:24:34|), though mentioned incidentally here. Paul had told all these four facts to the Corinthians in his preaching. He gives further proof of the fact of Christ's resurrection. There are ten appearances given besides the one to Paul. Nine are in the Gospels (Mary Magdalene in John and Mark, the other women in Matthew, the two going to Emmaus in Luke, Simon Peter in Luke and I Corinthians, the ten apostles and others in Luke and John and Mark, the eleven and others in John, the seven by the sea in John, to over five hundred in Galilee in Matthew and Paul and Mark, to the apostles in Jerusalem in Luke and Mark and Acts and I Corinthians) and one in I Corinthians above (to James). It will be seen that Paul mentions only five of the ten, one, that to James, not given elsewhere. What he gives is conclusive evidence of the fact, particularly when re-enforced by his own experience (the sixth appearance mentioned by Paul). The way to prove this great fact is to start with Paul's own witness given in this undoubted Epistle. The natural way to understand Paul's adverbs of time here is chronological: {then} (\eita\), {then} (\epeita\), {then} (\epeita\), {then} (\eita\), {last of all} (\eschaton pant“n\). {To the twelve} (\tois d“deka\). The technical name. Only ten were present, for Judas was dead and Thomas was absent (John:20:24|).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:12 @{Is preached} (\kˆrussetai\). Personal use of the verb, Christ is preached. {How say some among you?} (\p“s legousin en humin tines?\). The question springs naturally from the proof of the fact of the resurrection of Christ (verses 1-11|) and the continual preaching which Paul here assumes by condition of the first class (\ei--kˆrussetai\). There were sceptics in Corinth, possibly in the church, who denied the resurrection of dead people just as some men today deny that miracles happen or ever did happen. Paul's answer is the resurrection of Christ as a fact. It all turns on this fact.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:15:22 @{Shall be made alive} (\z“opoiˆthˆsontai\). First future passive indicative of \z“opoie“\, late verb (Aristotle) to give life, to restore to life as here. In verse 36| \z“opoieitai\ is used in the sense of natural life as in strkjv@John:5:21; strkjv@6:63| of spiritual life. It is not easy to catch Paul's thought here. He means resurrection (restoration) by the verb here, but not necessarily eternal life or salvation. Songs:also \pantes\ may not coincide in both clauses. All who die die in Adam, all who will be made alive will be made alive (restored to life) in Christ. The same problem occurs in strkjv@Romans:5:18| about "all," and in verse 19| about "the many."

rwp@1Corinthians:15:27 @{He put} (\hupetaxen\). First aorist active of \hupotass“\, to subject. Supply God (\theos\) as subject (Psalms:8:7|). See strkjv@Hebrews:2:5-9| for similar use. Cf. strkjv@Psalms:8|. {But when he saith} (\hotan de eipˆi\). Here Christ must be supplied as the subject if the reference is to his future and final triumph. The syntax more naturally calls for God as the subject as before. Either way makes sense. But there is no need to take \eipˆi\ (second aorist active subjunctive) as _a futurum exactum_, merely "whenever he shall say." {Are put in subjection} (\hupotetaktai\). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, final triumph. {It is evident that} (\dˆlon hoti\). Supply \estin\ (is) before \hoti\. {He is excepted who did subject} (\ektos tou hupotaxantos\). "Except the one (God) who did subject (articular aorist active participle) the all things to him (Christ)."

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:15:35 @{But some one will say} (\alla erei tis\). Paul knows what the sceptics were saying. He is a master at putting the standpoint of the imaginary adversary. {How} (\p“s\). This is still the great objection to the resurrection of our bodies. Granted that Jesus rose from the dead, for the sake of argument, these sceptics refuse to believe in the possibility of our resurrection. It is the attitude of Matthew Arnold who said, "Miracles do not happen." Scientifically we know the "how" of few things. Paul has an astounding answer to this objection. Death itself is the way of resurrection as in the death of the seed for the new plant (verses 36f.|). {With what manner of body} (\poi“i s“mati\). This is the second question which makes plainer the difficulty of the first. The first body perishes. Will that body be raised? Paul treats this problem more at length (verses 38-54|) and by analogy of nature (Cf. Butler's famous _Analogy_). It is a spiritual, not a natural, body that is raised. \S“ma\ here is an organism. {Flesh} (\sarx\) is the \s“ma\ for the natural man, but there is spiritual (\pneumatikon\) \s“ma\ for the resurrection.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:44 @{A natural body} (\s“ma psuchikon\). See on ¯2:14| for this word, a difficult one to translate since \psuchˆ\ has so many meanings. Natural is probably as good a rendering as can be made, but it is not adequate, for the body here is not all \psuchˆ\ either as soul or life. The same difficulty exists as to a spiritual body (\s“ma pneumatikon\). The resurrection body is not wholly \pneuma\. Caution is needed here in filling out details concerning the \psuchˆ\ and the \pneuma\. But certainly he means to say that the "spiritual body" has some kind of germinal connection with the "natural body," though the development is glorious beyond our comprehension though not beyond the power of Christ to perform (Phillipians:3:21|). The force of the argument remains unimpaired though we cannot follow fully into the thought beyond us. {If there is} (\ei estin\). "If there exists" (\estin\ means this with accent on first syllable), a condition of first class assumed as true. {There is also} (\estin kai\). There exists also.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:46 @{Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural} (\all' ou pr“ton to pneumatikon, alla to psuchikon\). Literally, "But not first the spiritual, but the natural." This is the law of growth always.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:47 @{Earthly} (\cho‹kos\). Late rare word, from \chous\, dust. {The second man from heaven} (\ho deuteros anthr“pos ex ouranou\). Christ had a human (\psuchikon\) body, of course, but Paul makes the contrast between the first man in his natural body and the Second Man in his risen body. Paul saw Jesus after his resurrection and he appeared to him "from heaven." He will come again from heaven.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:50 @{Cannot inherit} (\klˆronomˆsai ou dunantai\). Hence there must be a change by death from the natural body to the spiritual body. In the case of Christ this change was wrought in less than three days and even then the body of Jesus was in a transition state before the Ascension. He ate and could be handled and yet he passed through closed doors. Paul does not base his argument on the special circumstances connected with the risen body of Jesus.

rwp@1John:3:9 @{Doeth no sin} (\hamartian ou poiei\). Linear present active indicative as in verse 4| like \hamartanei\ in verse 8|. The child of God does not have the habit of sin. {His seed} (\sperma autou\). God's seed, "the divine principle of life" (Vincent). Cf. strkjv@John:1|. {And he cannot sin} (\kai ou dunatai hamartanein\). This is a wrong translation, for this English naturally means "and he cannot commit sin" as if it were \kai ou dunatai hamartein\ or \hamartˆsai\ (second aorist or first aorist active infinitive). The present active infinitive \hamartanein\ can only mean "and he cannot go on sinning," as is true of \hamartanei\ in verse 8| and \hamartan“n\ in verse 6|. For the aorist subjunctive to commit a sin see \hamartˆte\ and \hamartˆi\ in strkjv@2:1|. A great deal of false theology has grown out of a misunderstanding of the tense of \hamartanein\ here. Paul has precisely John's idea in strkjv@Romans:6:1| \epimen“men tˆi hamartiƒi\ (shall we continue in sin, present active linear subjunctive) in contrast with \hamartˆs“men\ in strkjv@Romans:6:15| (shall we commit a sin, first aorist active subjunctive).

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE READERS Peter writes "to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1Peter:1:1|). These five Roman provinces are naturally given from the standpoint of Babylon. In Galatia and Asia Paul had labored, though not all over these provinces. At any rate, there is no reason to wonder that Peter should himself work in the same regions where Paul had been. In a general way Paul and Peter had agreed on separate spheres of activity, Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews (Galatians:21:7ff.|), though the distinction was not absolute, for Paul usually began his work in the Jewish synagogue. Probably the readers are mainly Jewish Christians. but not to the exclusion of Gentiles. Peter has clearly Paul's idea that Christianity is the true Judaism of God's promise (1Peter:2:4-10|)

rwp@1Peter:3:19 @{In which also} (\en h“i kai\). That is, in spirit (relative referring to \pneumati\). But, a number of modern scholars have followed Griesbach's conjecture that the original text was either \N“e kai\ (Noah also), or \En“ch kai\ (Enoch also), or \en h“i kai En“ch\ (in which Enoch also) which an early scribe misunderstood or omitted \En“ch kai\ in copying (\homoioteleuton\). It is allowed in Stier and Theile's _Polyglott_. It is advocated by J. Cramer in 1891, by J. Rendel Harris in _The Expositor_ (1901), and _Sidelights on N.T. Research_ (p. 208), by Nestle in 1902, by Moffatt's New Translation of the New Testament. Windisch rejects it as inconsistent with the context. There is no manuscript for the conjecture, though it would relieve the difficulty greatly. Luther admits that he does not know what Peter means. Bigg has no doubt that the event recorded took place between Christ's death and his resurrection and holds that Peter is alluding to Christ's _Descensus ad Inferos_ in strkjv@Acts:2:27| (with which he compares strkjv@Matthew:27:52f.; strkjv@Luke:23:34; strkjv@Ephesians:4:9|). With this Windisch agrees. But Wohlenberg holds that Peter means that Christ in his preexistent state preached to those who rejected the preaching of Noah who are now in prison. Augustine held that Christ was in Noah when he preached. Bigg argues strongly that Christ during the time between his death and resurrection preached to those who once heard Noah (but are now in prison) and offered them another chance and not mere condemnation. If so, why did Jesus confine his preaching to this one group? Songs:the theories run on about this passage. One can only say that it is a slim hope for those who neglect or reject Christ in this life to gamble with a possible second chance after death which rests on very precarious exegesis of a most difficult passage in Peter's Epistle. Accepting the text as we have, what can we make of it? {He went and preached} (\poreutheis ekˆruxen\). First aorist passive (deponent) participle of \poreuomai\ and first aorist active indicative of \kˆruss“\, the verb commonly used of the preaching of Jesus. Naturally the words mean personal action by Christ "in spirit" as illustration of his "quickening" (verse 18|) whether done before his death or afterwards. It is interesting to observe that, just as the relative \en h“i\ here tells something suggested by the word \pneumati\ (in spirit) just before, so in verse 21| the relative \ho\ (which) tells another illustration of the words \di' hudatos\ (by water) just before. Peter jumps from the flood in Noah's time to baptism in Peter's time, just as he jumped backwards from Christ's time to Noah's time. He easily goes off at a word. What does he mean here by the story that illustrates Christ's quickening in spirit? {Unto the spirits in prison} (\tois en phulakˆi pneumasin\). The language is plain enough except that it does not make it clear whether Jesus did the preaching to spirits in prison at the time or to people whose spirits are now in prison, the point of doubt already discussed. The metaphorical use of \en phulakˆi\ can be illustrated by strkjv@2Peter:2:4; strkjv@Jude:1:6; strkjv@Revelation:20:7| (the final abode of the lost). See strkjv@Hebrews:12:23| for the use of \pneumata\ for disembodied spirits.

rwp@1Peter:5:13 @{She that is in Babylon, elect together with you} (\hˆ en Babul“ni suneklektˆ\). Either actual Babylon or, as most likely, mystical Babylon (Rome) as in the Apocalypse. If Peter is in Rome about A.D. 65, there is every reason why he should not make that fact plain to the world at large and least of all to Nero. It is also uncertain whether \hˆ suneklektˆ\ (found here alone), "the co-elect woman," means Peter's wife (1Corinthians:9:5|) or the church in "Babylon." The natural way to take it is for Peter's wife. Cf. \eklektˆi kuriƒi\ in strkjv@2John:1:1| (also verse strkjv@2John:1:13|). {Mark my son} (\Markos ho huios mou\). Songs:this fact agrees with the numerous statements by the early Christian writers that Mark, after leaving Barnabas, became Peter's "interpreter" and under his influence wrote his Gospel. We know that Mark was with Paul in Rome some years before this time (Colossians:4:10|).

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:8 @{From you hath sounded forth} (\aph' hum“n exˆchˆtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \exˆche“\, late compound verb (\ex, ˆchos, ˆch“, ˆchˆ\, our echo) to sound out of a trumpet or of thunder, to reverberate like our echo. Nowhere else in the N.T. Songs:"from you" as a sounding board or radio transmitting station (to use a modern figure). It marks forcibly "both the clear and the persuasive nature of the \logos tou Kuriou\" (Ellicott). This phrase, the word of the Lord, may be subjective with the Lord as its author or objective with the Lord as the object. It is both. It is a graphic picture with a pardonable touch of hyperbole (Moffatt) for Thessalonica was a great commercial and political centre for disseminating the news of salvation (on the Egnation Way). {But in every place} (\all' en panti top“i\). In contrast to Macedonia and Achaia. The sentence would naturally stop here, but Paul is dictating rapidly and earnestly and goes on. {Your faith to God-ward} (\hˆ pistis hum“n hˆ pros ton theon\). Literally, {the faith of you that toward the God}. The repeated article makes clear that their faith is now directed toward the true God and not toward the idols from which they had turned (verse 10|). {Is gone forth} (\exelˆluthen\). Second perfect active indicative of old verb \exerchomai\, to go out, state of completion like \exˆchˆtai\ above. {Songs:that we need not to speak anything} (\h“ste mˆ chreian echein hˆmƒs lalein ti\). \H“ste\ with the infinitive for actual result as in verse 7|. No vital distinction between \lalein\ (originally to chatter as of birds) and \legein\, both being used in the _Koin‚_ for speaking and preaching (in the N.T.).

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:6 @{Nor seeking glory of men} (\oute zˆtountes ex anthr“p“n doxan\). "Upon the repudiation of covetousness follows naturally the repudiation of worldly ambition" (Milligan). See strkjv@Acts:20:19; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:5; strkjv@Ephesians:4:2|. This third disclaimer is as strong as the other two. Paul and his associates had not tried to extract praise or glory out of (\ex\) men. {Neither from you nor from others} (\oute aph' hum“n oute aph' all“n\). He widens the negation to include those outside of the church circles and changes the preposition from \ex\ (out of) to \apo\ (from). {When we might have been burdensome, as apostles of Christ} (\dunamenoi en barei einai h“s Christou apostoloi\). Westcott and Hort put this clause in verse 7|. Probably a concessive participle, {though being able to be in a position of weight} (either in matter of finance or of dignity, or a burden on your funds or "men of weight" as Moffatt suggests). Milligan suggests that Paul "plays here on the double sense of the phrase" like the Latin proverb: _Honos propter onus_. Songs:he adds, including Silas and Timothy, {as Christ's apostles}, as missionaries clearly, whether in the technical sense or not (cf. strkjv@Acts:14:4,14; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:23; strkjv@11:13; strkjv@Romans:16:7; strkjv@Phillipians:2:25; strkjv@Revelation:2:2|). They were entitled to pay as "Christ's apostles" (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:7ff.|), though they had not asked for it.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:16 @{Forbidding us} (\k“luont“n hˆmƒs\). Explanatory participle of the idea in \enanti“n\. They show their hostility to Paul at every turn. Right here in Corinth, where Paul is when he writes, they had already shown venomous hostility toward Paul as Luke makes plain (Acts:18:6ff.|). They not simply oppose his work among the Jews, but also to the Gentiles (\ethnesi\, nations outside of the Abrahamic covenant as they understood it). {That they may be saved} (\hina s“th“sin\). Final use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \s“z“\ old verb to save. It was the only hope of the Gentiles, Christ alone and not the mystery-religions offered any real hope. {To fill up their sins alway} (\eis to anaplˆr“sai aut“n tas hamartias pantote\). Another example of \eis to\ and the infinitive as in verse 12|. It may either be God's conceived plan to allow the Jews to go on and fill up (\anaplˆr“sai\, note \ana\, fill up full, old verb) or it may be the natural result from the continual (\pantote\) sins of the Jews. {Is come} (\ephthasen\). First aorist (timeless aorist) active indicative of \phthan“\ which no longer means to come before as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:15| where alone in the N.T. it retains the old idea of coming before. Some MSS. have the perfect active \ephthaken\, prophetic perfect of realization already. Frame translates it: "But the wrath has come upon them at last." This is the most likely meaning of \eis telos\. Paul vividly foresees and foretells the final outcome of this attitude of hate on the part of the Jews. _Tristis exitus_, Bengel calls it. Paul speaks out of a sad experience.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:22 @{Abstain from every form of evil} (\apo pantos eidous ponˆrou apechesthe\). Present middle (direct) imperative of \ap-ech“\ (contrast with \kat-ech“\) and preposition \apo\ repeated with ablative as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:3|. Note use of \ponˆrou\ here for evil without the article, common enough idiom. \Eidos\ (from \eidon\) naturally means look or appearance as in strkjv@Luke:3:23; strkjv@9:29; strkjv@John:5:37; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:7|. But, if so taken, it is not semblance as opposed to reality (Milligan). The papyri give several examples of \eidos\ in the sense of class or kind and that idea suits best here. Evil had a way of showing itself even in the spiritual gifts including prophecy.

rwp@Info_1Timothy @ FIRST TIMOTHY PROBABLY A.D. 65 FROM MACEDONIA BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION Assuming the Pauline authorship the facts shape up after this fashion. Paul had been in Ephesus (1Timothy:1:3|) after his arrival from Rome, which was certainly before the burning of Rome in A.D. 64. He had left Timothy in charge of the work in Ephesus and has gone on into Macedonia (1Timothy:1:3|), possibly to Philippi as he had hoped (Phillipians:2:24|). He wishes to help Timothy meet the problems of doctrine (against the Gnostics), discipline, and church training which are increasingly urgent. There are personal touches of a natural kind about Timothy's own growth and leadership. There are wise words here from the greatest of all preachers to a young minister whom Paul loved. strkjv@1Timothy:1:1 @{According to the commandment} (\kat' epitagˆn\). A late _Koin‚_ word (Polybius, Diodorus), but a Pauline word also in N.T. This very idiom ("by way of command") in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:8; strkjv@Romans:16:26; strkjv@1Timothy:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:3|. Paul means to say that he is an apostle under orders. {Of God our Saviour} (\theou s“tˆros hˆm“n\). Genitive case with \epitagˆn\. In the LXX \s“tˆr\ (old word from \s“z“\ for agent in saving, applied to deities, princes, kings, etc.) occurs 20 times, all but two to God. The Romans called the emperor "Saviour God." In the N.T. the designation of God as Saviour is peculiar to strkjv@Luke:1:47; strkjv@Jude:1:25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:3; strkjv@2:3; strkjv@4:10; strkjv@Titus:1:3; strkjv@2:10; strkjv@3:4|. In the other Epistles Paul uses it of Christ (Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23|) as in strkjv@2Timothy:1:10|. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" as in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. {Our hope} (\tˆs elpidos hˆm“n\). Like strkjv@Colossians:1:27|. More than the author and object of hope, "its very substance and foundation" (Ellicott).

rwp@1Timothy:3:15 @{But if I tarry long} (\ean de bradun“\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive of \bradun“\, old verb, to be slow (usually intransitive), from \bradus\ (slow, dull, strkjv@Luke:24:25|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Peter:3:9|. {That thou mayest know} (\hina eidˆis\). Final clause with \hina\ and second perfect active subjunctive of \oida\, to know. {How men ought} (\p“s dei\). "How it is necessary for thee" (supply \se\ more naturally than \tina\, any one). Indirect question. {To behave themselves} (\anastrephesthai\). Present middle (direct) infinitive of \anastreph“\, old verb, to turn up and down. See strkjv@2Corinthians:1:12; strkjv@Ephesians:2:3|. {In the house of God} (\en oik“i theou\). Probably here "household of God," that is "the family of God" rather than "the house (or temple) of God." Christians as yet had no separate houses of worship and \oikos\ commonly means "household." Christians are the \naos\ (sanctuary) of God (1Corinthians:3:16f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:16|), and Paul calls them \oikeioi tou theou\ (Ephesians:2:19|) "members of God's family." It is conduct as members of God's family (\oikos\) that Paul has in mind. {Which} (\hˆtis\). "Which very house of God," agreeing (feminine) with the predicate word \ekklˆsia\ (church). {The church of the living God} (\ekklˆsia theou z“ntos\). Probably here the general church or kingdom as in Colossians and Ephesians, though the local church in verse 5|. {The pillar and ground of the truth} (\stulos kai hedrai“ma tˆs alˆtheias\). Paul changes the metaphor again as he often does. Those words are in apposition to \ekklˆsia\ and \oikos\. On \stulos\, old word for pillar, see strkjv@Galatians:2:9; strkjv@Revelation:3:12| (only other N.T. examples). \Hedrai“ma\, late and rare word (from \hedraio“\, to make stable) occurs here first and only in ecclesiastical writers later. Probably it means stay or support rather than foundation or ground. See Co strkjv@1:23; strkjv@2Timothy:2:19| for similar idea. See also strkjv@Matthew:16:18f|.

rwp@2Corinthians:2:7 @{Songs:that on the contrary} (\h“ste tounantion\). The natural result expressed by \h“ste\ and the infinitive. \Tounantion\ is by crasis for \to enantion\ and accusative of general reference. {Rather} (\mallon\). Absent in some MSS. {Lest by any means} (\mˆ p“s\). Negative purpose. {Swallowed up} (\katapothˆi\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \katapin“\, to drink down (1Corinthians:15:54|). {With his overmuch sorrow} (\tˆi perissoterƒi lupˆi\). Instrumental case, "by the more abundant sorrow" (comparative of adjective \perissos\).

rwp@2Corinthians:5:20 @{We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ} (\huper Christou oun presbeuomen\). Old word from \presbus\, an old man, first to be an old man, then to be an ambassador (here and strkjv@Ephesians:6:20| with \en halusˆi\ in a chain added), common in both senses in the Greek. "The proper term in the Greek East for the Emperor's Legate" (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 374), in inscriptions and papyri. Songs:Paul has a natural pride in using this dignified term for himself and all ministers. The ambassador has to be _persona grata_ with both countries (the one that he represents and the one to which he goes). Paul was Christ's _Legate_ to act in his behalf and in his stead. {As though God were intreating by us} (\h“s tou theou parakalountos di' hˆm“n\). Genitive absolute with \h“s\ used with the participle as often to give the reason (apparent or real). Here God speaks through Christ's Legate. {Be ye reconciled to God} (\katallagˆte t“i the“i\). Second aorist passive imperative of \katallass“\ and used with the dative case. "Get reconciled to God," and do it now. This is the ambassador's message as he bears it to men from God.

rwp@2Corinthians:13:2 @{As when I was present the second time} (\h“s par“n to deuteron\). This translation assumes the second visit as already made. It is a natural way to take the Greek \h“s par“n\. But \h“s\ with \par“n\ can also mean "as if present" the second time (Authorized Version). Probably "as when" is the more natural rendering, but the other cannot be ruled entirely out in view of strkjv@1:15-23|. {If I come again} (\ean elth“ eis to palin\). Condition of third class. The use of \palin\ of itself suits the idea that Paul had not yet made the second visit as it means simply "again" or "back," but in strkjv@Matthew:26:44| we find \palin ek tritou\ (again a third time) and so it is not decisive.

rwp@2Peter:2:12 @{But these} (\houtoi de\). The false teachers of verse 1|. {As creatures} (\z“a\). Living creatures, old word, from \z“os\ (alive), strkjv@Jude:1:10; strkjv@Revelation:4:6-9|. {Without reason} (\aloga\). Old adjective, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Jude:1:10; strkjv@Acts:25:27|. Brute beasts like \thˆria\ (wild animals). {Born} (\gegennˆmena\). Perfect passive participle of \genna“\. {Mere animals} (\phusika\). Old adjective in \-ikos\ (from \phusis\, nature), natural animals, here only in N.T. {To be taken} (\eis hal“sin\). "For capture" (old substantive, from \halo“\, here only in N.T.). {And destroyed} (\kai phthoran\). "And for destruction" just like a beast of prey caught. See strkjv@1:4|. {In matters whereof they are ignorant} (\en hois agnoousin\). "In which things they are ignorant." Here \en hois\ = \en toutois ha\ (in those things which), a common Greek idiom. For \agnoe“\ (present active indicative) see strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7| for a like picture of loud ignoramuses posing as professional experts. {Shall in their destroying surely be destroyed} (\en tˆi phthorƒi aut“n phtharˆsontai\). Second future passive of \phtheir“\. Rhetorical Hebraism in the use of \en phthorƒi\ (same root as \phtheir“\), word four times in II Peter. See strkjv@Jude:1:10|.

rwp@2Peter:3:5 @{For this they wilfully forget} (\lanthanei gar autous touto thelontas\). Literally, "for this escapes them being willing." See this use of \lanthan“\ (old verb, to escape notice of, to be hidden from) in strkjv@Acts:26:26|. The present active participle \thelontas\ (from \thel“\, to wish) has almost an adverbial sense here. {Compacted} (\sunest“sa\). See Paul's \sunestˆken\ (Colossians:1:17|) "consist." Second perfect active (intransitive) participle of \sunistˆmi\, feminine singular agreeing with \gˆ\ (nearest to it) rather than with \ouranoi\ (subject of \ˆsan\ imperfect plural). There is no need to make Peter mean the Jewish mystical "seven heavens" because of the plural which was used interchangeably with the singular (Matthew:5:9f.|). {Out of water and amidst water} (\ex hudatos kai di' hudatos\). Out of the primeval watery chaos (Genesis:1:2|), but it is not plain what is meant by \di' hudatos\, which naturally means "by means of water," though \dia\ with the genitive is used for a condition or state (Hebrews:12:1|). The reference may be to strkjv@Genesis:1:9|, the gathering together of the waters. {By the word of God} (\t“i tou theou log“i\). Instrumental case \log“i\, "by the fiat of God" (Genesis:1:3; strkjv@Hebrews:11:3| \rˆmati theou\).

rwp@2Thessalonians:1:12 @{That} (\hop“s\). Rare with Paul compared with \hina\ (1Corinthians:1:29; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:14|). Perhaps here for variety (dependent on \hina\ clause in verse 11|). {The name} (\to onoma\). The Old Testament (LXX) uses \onoma\ embodying the revealed character of Jehovah. Songs:here the {Name} of our Lord Jesus means the Messiahship and Lordship of Jesus. The common Greek idiom of \onoma\ for title or dignity as in the papyri (Milligan) is not quite this idiom. The papyri also give examples of \onoma\ for person as in O.T. and strkjv@Acts:1:15| (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 196ff.). {In you, and ye in him} (\en humin, kai humeis en aut“i\). This reciprocal glorying is Pauline, but it is also like Christ's figure of the vine and the branches in strkjv@John:15:1-11|. {According to the grace} (\kata tˆn charin\). Not merely standard, but also aim (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 609). {Of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hˆm“n kai kuriou Iˆsou Christou\). Here strict syntax requires, since there is only one article with \theou\ and \kuriou\ that one person be meant, Jesus Christ, as is certainly true in strkjv@Titus:2:13; strkjv@2Peter:1:1| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p.786). This otherwise conclusive syntactical argument, admitted by Schmiedel, is weakened a bit by the fact that \Kurios\ is often employed as a proper name without the article, a thing not true of \s“tˆr\ in strkjv@Titus:2:13; strkjv@2Peter:1:1|. Songs:in strkjv@Ephesians:5:5| \en tˆi basileiƒi tou Christou kai theou\ the natural meaning is {in the Kingdom of Christ and God} regarded as one, but here again \theos\, like \Kurios\, often occurs as a proper name without the article. Songs:it has to be admitted that here Paul may mean "according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ," though he may also mean "according to the grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ."

rwp@2Timothy:2:6 @{The husbandman that laboureth} (\ton kopi“nta ge“rgon\). "The toiling tiller of the soil" (\ge“rgon\, from \gˆ\ and \erg“\, worker of the earth). See \ge“rgion\ (field) in strkjv@1Corinthians:3:9| and also strkjv@1Corinthians:9:7|. {First} (\pr“ton\). As is natural and right. {To partake} (\metalambanein\). Old word as in strkjv@Acts:2:46| to share in. Paul elsewhere uses \metech“\ as in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:12|.

rwp@2Timothy:3:2 @{Lovers of self} (\philautoi\). Old compound adjective (\philos, autos\), here only in N.T. {Lovers of money} (\philarguroi\). Old compound adjective, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:16:14|. See strkjv@1Timothy:6:10|. {Boastful} (\alazones\). Old word for empty pretender, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:1:30|. {Haughty} (\huperˆphanoi\). See also strkjv@Romans:1:30| for this old word. {Railers} (\blasphˆmoi\). See strkjv@1Timothy:1:13|. {Disobedient to parents} (\goneusin apeitheis\). See strkjv@Romans:1:30|. {Unthankful} (\acharistoi\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:6:35|. {Unholy} (\anosioi\). See strkjv@1Timothy:1:9|. {Without natural affection} (\astorgoi\). See strkjv@Romans:1:31|.

rwp@2Timothy:3:16 @{Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable} (\pƒsa graphˆ theopneustos kai “phelimos\). There are two matters of doubt in this clause. One is the absence of the article \hˆ\ before \graphˆ\, whether that makes it mean "every scripture" or "all scripture" as of necessity if present. Unfortunately, there are examples both ways with both \pƒs\ and \graphˆ\. Twice we find \graphˆ\ in the singular without the article and yet definite (1Peter:2:6; strkjv@2Peter:1:20|). We have \pƒs Israˆl\ (Romans:11:26|) for all Israel (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 772). Songs:far as the grammatical usage goes, one can render here either "all scripture" or "every scripture." There is no copula (\estin\) in the Greek and so one has to insert it either before the \kai\ or after it. If before, as is more natural, then the meaning is: "All scripture (or every scripture) is inspired of God and profitable." In this form there is a definite assertion of inspiration. That can be true also of the second way, making "inspired of God" descriptive of "every scripture," and putting \estin\ (is) after \kai\: "All scripture (or every scripture), inspired of God, is also profitable." {Inspired of God} (\theopneustos\). "God-breathed." Late word (Plutarch) here only in N.T. Perhaps in contrast to the commandments of men in strkjv@Titus:1:14|. {Profitable} (\“phelimos\). See strkjv@1Timothy:4:8|. See strkjv@Romans:15:4|. Four examples of \pros\ (facing, with a view to, for): \didaskalian\, teaching; \elegmon\, reproof, in LXX and here only in N.T.; \epanorth“sin\, correction, old word, from \epanortho“\, to set up straight in addition, here only in N.T., with which compare \epidiortho“\ in strkjv@Titus:1:5|; \paideian\, instruction, with which compare strkjv@Ephesians:6:4|.

rwp@3John:1:2 @{I pray} (\euchomai\). Here only in John's writings. See strkjv@Romans:9:3|. {In all things} (\peri pant“n\). To be taken with \euodousthai\ and like \peri\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:1|, "concerning all things." {Thou mayest prosper} (\se euodousthai\). Infinitive in indirect discourse (object infinitive) after \euchomai\, with accusative of general reference \se\ (as to thee). \Euodo“\ is old verb (from \euodos\, \eu\ and \hodos\, prosperous in a journey), to have a good journey, to prosper, in LXX, in N.T. only this verse (twice), strkjv@1Corinthians:16:2; strkjv@Romans:1:10|. {Be in health} (\hugiainein\). In Paul this word always means sound teaching (1Timothy:1:10; strkjv@6:3|), but here and in strkjv@Luke:5:31; strkjv@7:10; strkjv@15:27|, of bodily health. Brooke wonders if Gaius' health had caused his friends anxiety. {Even as thy soul prospereth} (\kath“s euodoutai sou hˆ psuchˆ\). A remarkable comparison which assumes the welfare (present middle indicative of \euodo“\) of his soul (\psuchˆ\ here as the principle of the higher life as in strkjv@John:12:27|, not of the natural life as in strkjv@Matthew:6:25|).

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE DATE There are three views about the date of the Acts. Baur and his Tubingen School held the second century to be the date of this late pamphlet as they termed it after the fashion of the Clementine Homilies. But that view is now practically abandoned save by the few who still strangely oppose the Lukan authorship. Probably the majority of those who accept the Lukan authorship place it in the latter part of the first century for two reasons. One is that the Gospel according to Luke is dated by them after the destruction of Jerusalem because of the prophecy by Jesus of the encompassing of the city by armies. Predictive prophecy that would be and so it is considered a prophecy _post eventum_. The other reason is the alleged use of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus by Luke. Josephus finished this work A.D. 93 so that, if Luke did use it, he must have written the Acts after that date. Usually this argument is made to show that Luke could not have written it at all, but some hold that he may have lived to an age that would allow it. But it cannot be assumed that Luke used Josephus because of his mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. They differ so widely (Acts:5:36f|. and Josephus, _Ant_. XX. v, 1, 2) that Von Dobschutz (_Dictionary of the Apostolic Church_, art. Josephus) argues that the two accounts are entirely independent of each other. Songs:Luke (Luke:13:1f.|) alludes to a Galilean revolt not mentioned by Josephus and Josephus records three revolts under Pilate not referred to by Luke. A comparison of the accounts of the death of Agrippa I in strkjv@Acts:12:20-23| and _Ant_. XIX. viii, 2 redounds to the credit of Luke. The Josephus phase of the argument may be brushed to one side. The third view, held by Harnack and adopted here, is that Luke wrote the Acts while with Paul in Rome and finished the book before Paul's release, that is by A.D. 63. This is the obvious and natural way to take the language of Luke at the close of Acts. Events had gone no farther and so he ends the narrative right there. It is argued against this that Luke contemplated a third volume and for this reason closed with the arrival of Paul in Rome. But the use of \pr“ton\ (first) in strkjv@Acts:1:1| is a common _Koin‚_ idiom and does not imply three volumes any more than first and second stories with us means that the house has three. Of course this date for the Acts puts the date of the Gospel further back either in Caesarea (57 to 59) or in Rome (60 to 62). And that means that Mark's Gospel is still earlier since Luke used it for his Gospel and the Logia (Q) earlier still. But all these dates are probable in the light of all the known facts.

rwp@Acts:2:16 @{This is that which hath been spoken by the prophet Joel} (\touto estin to eirˆmenon dia tou prophˆtou I“ˆl\). Positive interpretation of the supernatural phenomena in the light of the Messianic prophecy of strkjv@Joel:2:28-32|. Peter's mind is now opened by the Holy Spirit to understand the Messianic prophecy and the fulfilment right before their eyes. Peter now has spiritual insight and moral courage. The {power} (\dunamis\) of the Holy Spirit has come upon him as he proceeds to give the first interpretation of the life and work of Jesus Christ since his Ascension. It is also the first formal apology for Christianity to a public audience. Peter rises to the height of his powers in this remarkable sermon. Jesus had foretold that he would be a Rock and now he is no longer shale, but a solid force for aggressive Christianity. He follows here in verses 17-21| closely the LXX text of Joel and then applies the passage to the present emergency (22-24|).

rwp@Acts:2:41 @{They then} (\Hoi men oun\). A common phrase in Acts either without antithesis as in strkjv@1:6; strkjv@5:41; strkjv@8:4,25; strkjv@9:31; strkjv@11:19; strkjv@16:5|; or with it as here, strkjv@8:25; strkjv@13:4; strkjv@14:3; strkjv@17:17; strkjv@23:31; strkjv@25:4|. \Oun\ connects with what precedes as the result of Peter's sermon while \men\ points forward to what is to follow. {Were baptized} (\ebaptisthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative, constative aorist. Note that only those who had already received the word and were converted were baptized. {There were added} (\prosetethˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \prostithˆmi\, old verb to add, to join to. Luke means that the 3,000 were added to the 120 already enlisted. It is not stated they were all baptized by Peter or the twelve or all on the same day, though that is the natural implication of the language. The numerous pools in Jerusalem afforded ample opportunity for such wholesale baptizing and Hackett notes that the habit of orientals would place no obstacle in the way of the use of the public reservoirs. Furneaux warns us that all the 3,000 may not have been genuine converts and that many of them were pilgrims at the passover who returned home. {Souls} (\psuchai\). Persons as in verse 43|.

rwp@Acts:3:20 @{And that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus} (\kai aposteilˆi ton prokecheirismenon humin Christon Iˆsoun\). First aorist active subjunctive with \hop“s an\ as in strkjv@15:17| and strkjv@Luke:2:35|. There is little real difference in idea between \hop“s an\ and \hina an\. There is a conditional element in all purpose clauses. The reference is naturally to the second coming of Christ as verse 21| shows. Knowling admits "that there is a spiritual presence of the enthroned Jesus which believers enjoy as a foretaste of the visible and glorious Presence of the \Parousia\." Jesus did promise to be with the disciples all the days (Matthew:28:20|), and certainly repentance with accompanying seasons of refreshing help get the world ready for the coming of the King. The word \prokecheirismenon\ (perfect passive participle of \procheiriz“\, from \procheiros\, at hand, to take into one's hands, to choose) is the correct text here, not \prokekˆrugmenon\. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:22:14; strkjv@26:16|. It is not "Jesus Christ" here nor "Christ Jesus," but "the Messiah, Jesus," identifying Jesus with the Messiah. See the Second Epiphany of Jesus foretold also in strkjv@1Timothy:6:15| and the First Epiphany described in strkjv@1Peter:1:20|.

rwp@Acts:5:10 @{Immediately} (\parachrˆma\). Hence her death was regarded as supernatural like that of Ananias. {By her husband} (\pros ton andra autˆs\). Face to face to her husband.

rwp@Acts:7:51 @{Stiffnecked} (\sklˆrotrachˆloi\). From \sklˆros\ (hard) and \trachˆlos\, neck, both old words, but this compound only in the LXX and here alone in the N.T. Critics assume that Stephen was interrupted at this point because of the sharp tone of the speech. That may be true, but the natural climax is sufficient explanation. {Uncircumcised in heart} (\aperitmˆtoi kardiais\). Late adjective common in LXX and here only in the N.T. Verbal of \peritemn“\, to cut around and \a\ privative. Both of these epithets are applied to the Jews in the O.T. (Exodus:32:9; strkjv@33:3,5; strkjv@34:9; strkjv@Leviticus:26:41; strkjv@Deuteronomy:9:6; strkjv@Jeremiah:6:10|). \Kardiais\ is locative plural like \“sin\ (ears), but some MSS. have genitive singular \kardias\ (objective genitive). No epithet could have been more galling to these Pharisees than to be turned "uncircumcised in heart" (Romans:2:29|). They had only the physical circumcision which was useless. {Ye always} (\humeis aei\). Emphatic position of humeis and "always" looks backward over the history of their forefathers which Stephen had reviewed. {Resist} (\antipiptete\). Old word to fall against, to rush against. Only here in the N.T., but used in the O.T. which is here quoted (Numbers:27:14|). Their fathers had made "external worship a substitute for spiritual obedience" (Furneaux). Stephen has shown how God had revealed himself gradually, the revelation sloping upward to Christ Jesus. "And as he saw his countrymen repeating the old mistake--clinging to the present and the material, while God was calling them to higher spiritual levels--and still, as ever, resisting the Holy Spirit, treating the Messiah as the patriarchs had treated Joseph, and the Hebrews Moses--the pity of it overwhelmed him, and his mingled grief and indignation broke out in words of fire, such as burned of old on the lips of the prophets" (Furneaux). Stephen, the accused, is now the accuser, and the situation becomes intolerable to the Sanhedrin.

rwp@Acts:9:1 @{Yet} (\eti\). As if some time elapsed between the death of Stephen as is naturally implied by the progressive persecution described in strkjv@8:3|. The zeal of Saul the persecutor increased with success. {Breathing threatening and slaughter} (\enpne“n apeilˆs kai phonou\). Present active participle of old and common verb. Not "breathing out," but "breathing in" (inhaling) as in Aeschylus and Plato or "breathing on" (from Homer on). The partitive genitive of \apeilˆs\ and \phonou\ means that threatening and slaughter had come to be the very breath that Saul breathed, like a warhorse who sniffed the smell of battle. He breathed on the remaining disciples the murder that he had already breathed in from the death of the others. He exhaled what he inhaled. Jacob had said that "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf" (Genesis:49:27|). This greatest son of Benjamin was fulfilling this prophecy (Furneaux). The taste of blood in the death of Stephen was pleasing to young Saul (8:1|) and now he revelled in the slaughter of the saints both men and women. In strkjv@26:11| Luke quotes Paul as saying that he was "exceedingly mad against them."

rwp@Acts:9:3 @{As he journeyed} (\en t“i poreuesthai\). Luke's common idiom for a temporal clause (in the journeying), \en\ with the locative articular middle infinitive. {Drew nigh} (\eggizein\). Present active infinitive, was drawing nigh. {Shone round about him} (\auton periˆstrapsen\). First aorist (ingressive) active indicative of \periastrapt“\, late compound verb common in LXX and Byzantine writers, here and strkjv@22:6| alone in the N.T. "A light from heaven suddenly flashed around him." It was like a flash of lightning. Paul uses the same verb in strkjv@22:5|, but in strkjv@26:13| he employs \perilampsan\ (shining around). There are numerous variations in the historical narrative of Saul's conversion in strkjv@9:3-18| and Luke's report of Paul's two addresses, one on the steps of the Tower of Antonia facing the murderous mob (22:6-16|), the other before Festus and Agrippa (26:12-20|). A great deal of capital has been made of these variations to the discredit of Luke as a writer as if he should have made Paul's two speeches conform at every point with his own narrative. This objection has no weight except for those who hold that Luke composed Paul's speeches freely as some Greek writers used to do. But, if Luke had notes of Paul's speeches or help from Paul himself, he naturally preserved the form of the two addresses without trying to make them agree with each other in all details or with his own narrative in chapter 9. Luke evidently attached great importance to the story of Saul's conversion as the turning point not simply in the career of the man, but an epoch in the history of apostolic Christianity. In broad outline and in all essentials the three accounts agree and testify to the truthfulness of the account of the conversion of Saul. It is impossible to overestimate the worth to the student of Christianity of this event from every angle because we have in Paul's Epistles his own emphasis on the actual appearance of Jesus to him as the fact that changed his whole life (1Corinthians:15:8; strkjv@Galatians:1:16f.|). The variations that appear in the three accounts do not mar the story, when rightly understood, as we shall see. Here, for instance, Luke simply mentions "a light from heaven," while in strkjv@22:6| Paul calls it "a great (\hikanon\) light" "about noon" and in strkjv@26:13| "above the brightness of the sun," as it would have to be "at midday" with the sun shining.

rwp@Acts:9:6 @The best MSS. do not have "trembling and astonished," and "What wilt thou have me to do, Lord?" The Textus Receptus put these words in here without the authority of a Greek codex. See strkjv@22:10| above for the genuine text. {It shall be told thee} (\lalˆthˆsetai\). Future passive indicative of \lale“\. It is hardly likely that Luke records all that Jesus said to Saul, but more was to come on his arrival in Damascus. Saul had received all that he could bear just now (John:16:12|). {What} (\hoti\). Rare in _Koin‚_ use of this indefinite neuter relative in an indirect question, the only example in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 731). Human agents like Ananias can finish what Jesus by supernatural manifestation has here begun in Saul.

rwp@Acts:9:7 @{That journeyed with him} (\hoi sunodeuontes aut“i\). Not in the older Greek, but in the _Koin‚_, with the associative instrumental. {Speechless} (\eneoi\). Mute. Only here in N.T., though old word. {Hearing the voice, but beholding no man} (\akouontes men tˆs ph“nˆs, mˆdena de the“rountes\). Two present active participles in contrast (\men, de\). In strkjv@22:9| Paul says that the men "beheld the light" (\to men ph“s etheasanto\), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, "but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me" (\tˆn de ph“nˆn ouk ˆkousan tou lalountos moi\). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in strkjv@9:7| it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the "light" and "no one") a distinction between the "sound" (original sense of \ph“nˆ\ as in strkjv@John:3:8|) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that \akou“\ is used either with the accusative (the extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of \ph“nˆ\. They heard the sound (9:7|), but did not understand the words (22:9|). However, this distinction in case with \akou“\, though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in strkjv@John:3:8| where \ph“nˆn\ undoubtedly means "sound" the accusative occurs as Luke uses \ˆkousen ph“nˆn\ about Saul in strkjv@Acts:9:4|. Besides in strkjv@22:7| Paul uses \ˆkousa ph“nˆs\ about himself, but \ˆkousa ph“nˆn\ about himself in strkjv@76:14|, interchangeably.

rwp@Acts:9:10 @{Ananias} (\Hananias\). Name common enough (cf. strkjv@5:1| for another Ananias) and means "Jehovah is gracious." _Nomen et omen_ (Knowling). This Ananias had the respect of both Jews and Christians in Damascus (22:12|). {In a vision} (\en horamati\). Zeller and others scout the idea of the historicity of this vision as supernatural. Even Furneaux holds that "it is a characteristic of the Jewish Christian sources to point out the Providential ordering of events by the literary device of a vision," as "in the early chapters of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels." He is content with this "beautiful expression of the belief" with no interest in the actual facts. But that is plain illusion, not to say delusion, and makes both Paul and Luke deceived by the story of Ananias (9:10-18; strkjv@22:12-16,26|). One MS. of the old Latin Version does omit the vision to Ananias and that is basis enough for those who deny the supernatural aspects of Christianity.

rwp@Acts:9:38 @{Delay not} (\mˆ oknˆsˆis\). Ingressive aorist active subjunctive in prohibition. Direct discourse and not indirect as late MSS. have (aorist active infinitive, \oknˆsai\). Possibly the two messengers started before Dorcas was quite dead, though we do not know. Peter had recently healed Aeneas and the disciples may have had faith enough to believe that he could raise the dead by the power of Christ. W. M. Ramsay doubts if Dorcas was really dead, but why see legends in these supernatural events?

rwp@Acts:10:10 @{Hungry} (\prospeinos\) Only instance of the word known, a \hapax legomenon\. Probably "very hungry" (\pros\=besides, in addition). {Desired} (\ˆthelen\). Imperfect active. Was longing to eat. It was about twelve o'clock noon and Peter may even have smelt the savory dishes, "while they made ready" (\paraskeuazont“n\). "The natural and the supernatural border closely on one another, with no definable limits" (Furneaux). {He fell into a trance} (\egeneto ep' auton ekstasis\). More exactly, "An ecstasy came upon him," in which trance he passed out of himself (\ekstasis\, from \existˆmi\) and from which one came to himself (12:11|). Cf. also strkjv@11:5; strkjv@22:17|. It is thus different from a vision (\horama\) as in verse 3|.

rwp@Acts:11:24 @{For} (\hoti\). Because. This is the explanation of the conduct of Barnabas. The facts were opposed to the natural prejudices of a Jew like Barnabas, but he rose above such racial narrowness. He was a really good man (\agathos\). See strkjv@Romans:5:7| for distinction between \agathos\ and \dikaios\, righteous, where \agathos\ ranks higher than \dikaios\. Besides, Barnabas was full of the Holy Spirit (like Peter) and of faith and so willing to follow the leading of God's Spirit and take some risks. This is a noble tribute paid by Luke. One wonders if Barnabas was still living when he wrote this. Certainly he was not prejudiced against Barnabas though he will follow the fortunes of Paul after the separation (15:36; 41|). {Was added unto the Lord} (\prosetethˆ t“i kuri“i\). First aorist passive indicative of \prostithˆmi\, common verb to add to. These people were added to the Lord Jesus before they were added to the church. If that were always true, what a difference it would make in our churches.

rwp@Acts:13:49 @{Was spread abroad} (\diephereto\). Imperfect passive of \diapher“\, to carry in different directions (\dia\). By the recent converts as well as by Paul and Barnabas. This would seem to indicate a stay of some months with active work among the Gentiles that bore rich fruit. {Throughout all the region} (\di' holˆs tˆs ch“ras\). Antioch in Pisidia as a Roman colony would be the natural centre of a Roman _Regio_, an important element in Roman imperial administration. There were probably other _Regiones_ in South Galatia (Ramsay, _St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen_, pp. 102-12).

rwp@Acts:14:19 @{But there came thither Jews from Antioch and Iconium} (\Epˆlthan de apo Antiocheias kai Ikoniou Ioudaioi\). Came to or upon them, \epˆlthan\, second aorist (ingressive) indicative of \eperchomai\. Whether news of the miracle had reached those cities we do not know. These may have been travelling grain merchants. At any rate there was an interval in which Paul and Barnabas won some disciples (verse 22|). There would be a natural reaction, even revulsion, in the minds of many who had come so near to worshipping Paul and Barnabas. The pendulum swings easily from one extreme to the other. The hostile Jews from Antioch and Iconium may even have followed Paul and Barnabas along the fine Roman road on purpose to keep them on the run. They had driven them out of Antioch and out of Iconium and now appear at Lystra at an opportune moment for their work. {Having persuaded the multitudes} (\peisantes tous ochlous\). First aorist (effective) active participle of \peith“\. They had complete success with many and struck at the psychological moment. {They stoned Paul} (\lithasantes ton Paulon\). First aorist active participle of \lithaz“\, late verb from \lithos\ for throwing stones (used by Paul referring to this one incident when alone he was stoned, strkjv@2Corinthians:11:25|). The wounds inflicted may have left some of the scars (\stigmata\) mentioned in strkjv@Galatians:6:17|. They stoned Paul as the chief speaker (Mercury) and passed by Barnabas (Jupiter). It was a Jewish mode of punishment as against Stephen and these Jews knew that Paul was the man that they had to deal with. Hackett notes that the Jews with two exceptions incited the persecutions which Paul endured. The exceptions were in Philippi (16:16-40|) and Ephesus (19:23-41|). {Dragged him out of the city} (\esuron ex“ tˆs pole“s\). They hurled Stephen outside of the city before stoning him (\7:58\). It was a hurried and irregular proceeding, but they were dragging (imperfect active of \sur“\, old verb) Paul out now. {Supposing that he were dead} (\nomizontes auton tethnˆkenai\). Present active participle with infinitive (second perfect active of \thnˆsk“\) in indirect discourse with accusative of general reference. The Jews are jubilant this time with memories of Paul's escape at Antioch and Iconium. The pagan mob feel that they have settled accounts for their narrow escape from worshipping two Jewish renegade preachers. It was a good day's work for them all. Luke does not say that Paul was actually dead.

rwp@Acts:15:35 @{Tarried} (\dietribon\). Imperfect active of \diatrib“\, old verb to pass time, seen already in strkjv@12:19; strkjv@14:3,28|. {With many others also} (\meta kai heter“n poll“n\). A time of general revival and naturally so after the victory at Jerusalem. It is at this point that it is probable that the sad incident took place told by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:2:11-21|. Peter came up to see how things were going in Antioch after Paul's victory in Jerusalem. At first Peter mingled freely with the Greek Christians without the compunctions shown at Caesarea and for which he had to answer in Jerusalem (Acts:11:1-18|). Rumours of Peter's conduct reached Jerusalem and the Judaizers saw a chance to reopen the controversy on the line of social customs, a matter not passed on at the Jerusalem Conference. These Judaizers threaten Peter with a new trial and he surrenders and is followed by Barnabas and all the Jewish brethren in Antioch to the dismay of Paul who boldly rebuked Peter and Barnabas and won them back to his view. It was a crisis. Some would even date the Epistle to the Galatians at this time also, an unlikely hypothesis.

rwp@Acts:16:6 @{The region of Phrygia and Galatia} (\tˆn Phrugian kai Galatikˆn ch“ran\). This is probably the correct text with one article and apparently describes one "Region" or District in The Province of Galatia which was also Phrygian (the old-ethnographic name with which compare the use of Lycaonia in strkjv@14:6|). Strictly speaking Derbe and Lystra, though in the Province of Galatia, were not Phrygian, and so Luke would here be not resumptive of the record in verses 1-5|; but a reference to the country around Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia in North Galatia is not included. This verse is hotly disputed at every point by the advocates of the North Galatian theory as represented by Chase and the South Galatian theory by Ramsay. Whatever is true in regard to the language of Luke here and in strkjv@18:23|, it is still possible for Paul in strkjv@Galatians:1:2| to use the term Galatia of the whole province of that name which could, in fact, apply to either South or North Galatia or to both. He could, of course, use it also in the ethnographic sense of the real Gauls or Celts who dwelt in North Galatia. Certainly the first tour of Paul and Barnabas was in the Province of Galatia though touching only the Regions of Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia, which province included besides the Gauls to the north. In this second tour Lycaonia has been already touched (Derbe and Lystra) and now Phrygia. The question arises why Luke here and in strkjv@18:23| adds the term "of Galatia" (\Galatikˆn\) though not in strkjv@13:14| (Pisidian Antioch) nor in strkjv@14:6| (cities of Lycaonia). Does Luke mean to use "of Galatia" in the same ethnographic sense as "of Phrygia" or does he here add the province (Galatia) to the name of the Region (Phrygia)? In itself either view is possible and it really matters very little except that the question is raised whether Paul went into the North Galatian Region on this occasion or later (18:23|). He could have done so and the Epistle be addressed to the churches of South Galatia, North Galatia, or the province as a whole. But the Greek participle \k“luthentes\ ("having been forbidden") plays a part in the argument that cannot be overlooked whether Luke means to say that Paul went north or not. This aorist passive participle of \k“lu“\, to hinder, can only express simultaneous or antecedent action, not subsequent action as Ramsay argues. No example of the so-called subsequent use of the aorist participle has ever been found in Greek as all Greek grammarians agree (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 860-63, 1112-14). The only natural meaning of \k“luthentes\ is that Paul with Silas and Timothy "passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia" because they were hindered by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia (the Province of Asia of which Ephesus was the chief city and west of Derbe and Lystra). This construction implies that the country called "the region of Phrygia and Galatia" is not in the direct line west toward Ephesus. What follows in verse 7| throws further light on the point.

rwp@Acts:16:9 @{A vision} (\horama\). Old word, eleven times in Acts, once in strkjv@Matthew:17:9|. Twice Paul had been hindered by the Holy Spirit from going where he wanted to go. Most men would have gone back home with such rebuffs, but not so Paul. Now the call is positive and not negative, to go "far hence to the Gentiles" (22:21|). He had little dreamed of such a call when he left Antioch. Paul's frequent visions always came at real crises in his life. {A man of Macedonia} (\anˆr Maked“n\). Ramsay follows Renan in the view that this was Luke with whom Paul had conversed about conditions in Macedonia. Verse 10| makes it plain that Luke was now in the party, but when he joined them we do not know. Some hold that Luke lived at Antioch in Syria and came on with Paul and Silas, others that he joined them later in Galatia, others that he appeared now either as Paul's physician or new convert. Ramsay thinks that Philippi was his home at this time. But, whatever is true about Luke, the narrative must not be robbed of its supernatural aspect (10:10; strkjv@22:17|). {Was standing} (\ˆn hest“s\). Second perfect active participle of \histˆmi\, intransitive, periphrastic imperfect. Vivid picture. {Help us} (\boˆthˆson hˆmin\). Ingressive first aorist active imperative of \boˆthe“\ (\boˆ, the“\), to run at a cry, to help. The man uses the plural for all including himself. It was the cry of Europe for Christ.

rwp@Acts:16:17 @{The Most High God} (\tou theou tou hupsistou\). Pagan inscriptions use this language for the Supreme Being. It looks like supernatural testimony like that borne by the demoniacs to Jesus as "son of the Most High God" (Luke:8:28|. Cf; also strkjv@Mark:1:24; strkjv@3:11; strkjv@Matthew:8:29; strkjv@Luke:4:41|, etc.). She may have heard Paul preach about Jesus as the way of salvation. {The way of salvation} (\hodon s“tˆrias\). A way of salvation, strictly speaking (no article). There were many "ways of salvation" offered to men then as now.

rwp@Acts:17:5 @{Moved with jealousy} (\zˆl“santes\). Both our English words, {zeal} and {jealousy}, are from the Greek \zˆlos\. In strkjv@13:45| the Jews (rabbis) "were filled with jealousy" (\eplˆsthˆsan zˆlou\). That is another way of saying the same thing as here. The success of Paul was entirely too great in both places to please the rabbis. Songs:here is jealousy of Jewish preachers towards Christian preachers. It is always between men or women of the same profession or group. In strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:3-10| Paul hints at some of the slanders spread against him by these rabbis (deceivers, using words of flattery as men-pleasers, after vain-glory, greed of gain, etc.). {Took unto them} (\proslabomenoi\). Second aorist middle (indirect, to themselves) participle of \proslamban“\, old and common verb. {Certain vile fellows of the rabble} (\t“n agorai“n andras tinas ponˆrous\). The \agora\ or market-place was the natural resort for those with nothing to do (Matthew:20:4|) like the court-house square today or various parks in our cities where bench-warmers flock. Plato (_Protagoras_ 347 C) calls these \agoraioi\ (common word, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@19:38|) idlers or good-for-nothing fellows. They are in every city and such "bums" are ready for any job. The church in Thessalonica caught some of these peripatetic idlers (2Thessalonians:3:10f.|) "doing nothing but doing about." Songs:the Jewish preachers gather to themselves a choice collection of these market-loungers or loafers or wharf-rats. The Romans called them _subrostrani_ (hangers round the rostrum or _subbasilicari_). {Gathering a crowd} (\ochlopoiˆsantes\). Literally, making or getting (\poie“\) a crowd (\ochlos\), a word not found elsewhere. Probably right in the \agora\ itself where the rabbis could tell men their duties and pay them in advance. Instance Hyde Park in London with all the curious gatherings every day, Sunday afternoons in particular. {Set the city on an uproar} (\ethoruboun\). Imperfect active of \thorube“\, from \thorubos\ (tumult), old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@20:10; strkjv@Matthew:9:23; strkjv@Mark:4:39|. They kept up the din, this combination of rabbis and rabble. {Assaulting the house of Jason} (\epistantes tˆi oikiƒi Iasonos\). Second aorist (ingressive) active of \ephistˆmi\, taking a stand against, rushing at, because he was Paul's host. He may have been a Gentile (Jason the name of an ancient king of Thessaly), but the Jews often used it for Joshua or Jesus (II Macc. strkjv@1:7). {They sought} (\ezˆtoun\). Imperfect active. They burst into the house and searched up and down. {Them} (\autous\). Paul and Silas. They were getting ready to have a lynching party.

rwp@Acts:17:6 @{When they found them not} (\mˆ heurontes\). Usual negative \mˆ\ with the participle in the _Koin‚_, second aorist (effective) active participle, complete failure with all the noise and "bums." {They dragged} (\esuron\). Imperfect active, vivid picture, they were dragging (literally). See already strkjv@8:3; strkjv@16:19|. If they could not find Paul, they could drag Jason his host and some other Christians whom we do not know. {Before the rulers of the city} (\epi tous politarchas\). This word does not occur in Greek literature and used to be cited as an example of Luke's blunders. But now it is found in an inscription on an arch in the modern city preserved in the British Museum. It is also found in seventeen inscriptions (five from Thessalonica) where the word or the verb \politarche“\ occurs. It is a fine illustration of the historical accuracy of Luke in matters of detail. This title for city officers in Thessalonica, a free city, is correct. They were burgomasters or "rulers of the city." {Crying} (\bo“ntes\). Yelling as if the house was on fire like the mob in Jerusalem (21:28|). {These that have turned the world upside down} (\hoi tˆn oikoumenˆn anastat“santes\). The use of \oikoumenˆn\ (supply \gen\ or \ch“ran\, the inhabited earth, present passive participle of \oike“\) means the Roman Empire, since it is a political charge, a natural hyperbole in their excitement, but the phrase occurs for the Roman Empire in strkjv@Luke:2:1|. It is possible that news had come to Thessalonica of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius. There is truth in the accusation, for Christianity is revolutionary, but on this particular occasion the uproar (verse 5|) was created by the rabbis and the hired loafers. The verb \anastato“\ (here first aorist active participle) does not occur in the ancient writers, but is in LXX and in strkjv@Acts:17:6; strkjv@21:38; strkjv@Galatians:5:12|. It occurs also in Harpocration (A.D. 4th cent.) and about 100 B.C. \exanastato“\ is found in a fragment of papyrus (Tebtunis no. 2) and in a Paris Magical Papyrus l. 2243f. But in an Egyptian letter of Aug. 4, 41 A.D. (Oxyrhynchus Pap. no. 119, 10) "the bad boy" uses it = "he upsets me" or " he drives me out of my senses" (\anastatoi me\). See Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 84f. It is not a "Biblical word" at all, but belongs to the current _Koin‚_. It is a vigorous and graphic term.

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai t“n Epikouri“n kai St“ik“n philosoph“n suneballon aut“i\). 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 (\Gn“thi 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} (\zen“n daimoni“n 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 S“kratˆs, kaina daimonia eispher“n\, 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 Iˆsoun kai tˆn anastasin euˆggelizato\). 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:18:1 @{To Corinth} (\eis Korinthon\). Mummius had captured and destroyed Corinth B.C. 146. It was restored by Julius Caesar B.C. 46 as a boom town and made a colony. It was now the capital of the province of Achaia and the chief commercial city of Greece with a cosmopolitan population. It was only fifty miles from Athens. The summit of Acrocorinthus was 1,800 feet high and the ports of Cenchreae and Lechaeum and the Isthmus across which ships were hauled gave it command of the trade routes between Asia and Rome. The temple of Aphrodite on the Acrocorinthus had a thousand consecrated prostitutes and the very name to Corinthianize meant immorality. Not the Parthenon with Athene faced Paul in Corinth, but a worse situation. Naturally many Jews were in such a mart of trade. Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea, Athens, all had brought anxiety to Paul. What could he expect in licentious Corinth?

rwp@Acts:19:6 @{When Paul had laid his hands upon them} (\epithentos autois tou Paulou cheiras\). Genitive absolute of second aorist active participle of \epitithˆmi\. This act of laying on of the hands was done in Samaria by Peter and John (8:16|) and in Damascus in the case of Paul (9:17|) and was followed as here by the descent of the Holy Spirit in supernatural power. {They spake with tongues} (\elaloun gl“ssais\). Inchoative imperfect, began to speak with tongues as in Jerusalem at Pentecost and as in Caesarea before the baptism. {Prophesied} (\eprophˆteuon\). Inchoative imperfect again, began to prophesy. The speaking with tongues and prophesying was external and indubitable proof that the Holy Spirit had come on these twelve uninformed disciples now fully won to the service of Jesus as Messiah. But this baptism in water did not "convey" the Holy Spirit nor forgiveness of sins. Paul was not a sacramentalist.

rwp@Acts:19:11 @{Special miracles} (\dunameis ou tas tuchousas\). "Powers not the ones that happen by chance," "not the ordinary ones," litotes for "the extraordinary." All "miracles" or "powers" (\dunameis\) are supernatural and out of the ordinary, but here God regularly wrought (\epoiei\), imperfect active) wonders beyond those familiar to the disciples and completely different from the deeds of the Jewish exorcists. This phrase is peculiar to Luke in the N.T. (also strkjv@28:2|), but it occurs in the classical Greek and in the _Koin‚_ as in III Macc. strkjv@3:7 and in papyri and inscriptions (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 255). In Samaria Philip wrought miracles to deliver the people from the influence of Simon Magus. Here in Ephesus exorcists and other magicians had built an enormous vogue of a false spiritualism and Paul faces unseen forces of evil. His tremendous success led some people to superstitious practices thinking that there was power in Paul's person.

rwp@Acts:19:24 @{Demetrius, a silversmith} (\Dˆmˆtrios argurokopos\). The name is common enough and may or may not be the man mentioned in strkjv@3John:1:12| who was also from the neighbourhood of Ephesus. There is on an inscription at Ephesus near the close of the century a Demetrius called \neopoios Artemidos\ a temple warden of Artemis (Diana). Zoeckler suggests that Luke misunderstood this word \neopoios\ and translated it into \argurokopos\, a beater (\kopt“\, to beat) of silver (\arguros\, silver), "which made silver shrines of Artemis" (\poi“n naous\ (\argurous\) \Artemidos\). It is true that no silver shrines of the temple have been found in Ephesus, but only numerous terra-cotta ones. Ramsay suggests that the silver ones would naturally be melted down. The date is too late anyhow to identify the Demetrius who was \neopoios\ with the Demetrius \argurokopos\ who made little silver temples of Artemis, though B does not have the word \argurous\. The poor votaries would buy the terra-cotta ones, the rich the silver shrines (Ramsay, _Paul the Traveller_, p. 278). These small models of the temple with the statue of Artemis inside would be set up in the houses or even worn as amulets. It is a pity that the Revised Version renders Artemis here. Diana as the Ephesian Artemis is quite distinct from the Greek Artemis, the sister of Apollo, the Diana of the Romans. This temple, built in the 6th century B.C., was burnt by Herostratus Oct. 13 B.C. 356, the night when Alexander the Great was born. It was restored and was considered one of the seven wonders of the world. Artemis was worshipped as the goddess of fertility, like the Lydian Cybele, a figure with many breasts. The great festival in May would offer Demetrius a golden opportunity for the sale of the shrines. {Brought no little business} (\pareicheto ouk oligˆn ergasian\). Imperfect middle, continued to bring (furnish, provide). The middle accents the part that Demetrius played as the leader of the guild of silversmiths, work for himself and for them. {Unto the craftsmen} (\tais technitais\). The artisans from \technˆ\ (craft, art). Trade guilds were common in the ancient world. Demetrius had probably organized this guild and provided the capital for the enterprise.

rwp@Acts:19:28 @{They were filled with wrath} (\genomenoi plereis thumou\). Having become full of wrath. {Cried out} (\ekrazon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to cry out and kept it up continuously. Reiteration was characteristic of the orgiastic exercises. The Codex Bezae adds after \thumou\ (wrath): \Dramontes eis tˆn amphodon\ (running into the street), which they certainly did after the speech of Demetrius. {Great is Artemis of the Ephesians} (\Megalˆ hˆ Artemis Ephesi“n\). D (Codex Bezae) omits \hˆ\ (the) and makes it read: "Great Artemis of the Ephesians." This was the usual cry of the votaries in their orgies as the inscriptions show, an ejaculatory outcry or prayer instead of an argument as the other MSS. have it. That is vivid and natural (Ramsay, _Church in the Roman Empire_, pp. 135ff.). Yet on this occasion the artisans were making an argumentative protest and plea against Paul. An inscription at Dionysopolis has "Great is Apollo."

rwp@Acts:20:7 @{Upon the first day of the week} (\en de miƒi t“n sabbat“n\). The cardinal \miƒi\ used here for the ordinal \pr“tˆi\ (Mark:16:9|) like the Hebrew _ehadh_ as in strkjv@Mark:16:2; strkjv@Matthew:28:1; strkjv@Luke:24:1; strkjv@John:20:1| and in harmony with the _Koin‚_ idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 671). Either the singular (Mark:16:9|) \sabbatou\ or the plural \sabbaton\ as here was used for the week (sabbath to sabbath). For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week though in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:2| it is implied by the collections stored on that day. In strkjv@Revelation:1:10| the Lord's day seems to be the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the grave. Worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh naturally arose in Gentile churches, though strkjv@John:20:26| seems to mean that from the very start the disciples began to meet on the first (or eighth) day. But liberty was allowed as Paul makes plain in strkjv@Romans:14:5f|. {When we were gathered together} (\sunˆgmen“n hˆm“n\). Genitive absolute, perfect passive participle of \sunag“\, to gather together, a formal meeting of the disciples. See this verb used for gatherings of disciples in strkjv@Acts:4:31; strkjv@11:26; strkjv@14:27; strkjv@15:6,30; strkjv@19:7,8; strkjv@1Corinthians:5:4|. In strkjv@Hebrews:10:25| the substantive \episunag“gˆn\ is used for the regular gatherings which some were already neglecting. It is impossible for a church to flourish without regular meetings even if they have to meet in the catacombs as became necessary in Rome. In Russia today the Soviets are trying to break up conventicles of Baptists. They probably met on our Saturday evening, the beginning of the first day at sunset. Songs:these Christians began the day (Sunday) with worship. But, since this is a Gentile community, it is quite possible that Luke means our Sunday evening as the time when this meeting occurs, and the language in strkjv@John:20:19| "it being evening on that day the first day of the week" naturally means the evening following the day, not the evening preceding the day. {To break bread} (\klasai arton\). First aorist active infinitive of purpose of \kla“\. The language naturally bears the same meaning as in strkjv@2:42|, the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper which usually followed the \Agapˆ\. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:16|. The time came, when the \Agapˆ\ was no longer observed, perhaps because of the abuses noted in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:20ff|. Rackham argues that the absence of the article with bread here and its presence (\ton arton\) in verse 11| shows that the \Agapˆ\ is ] referred to in verse 7| and the Eucharist in verse 11|, but not necessarily so because \ton arton\ may merely refer to \arton\ in verse 7|. At any rate it should be noted that Paul, who conducted this service, was not a member of the church in Troas, but only a visitor. {Discoursed} (\dielegeto\). Imperfect middle because he kept on at length. {Intending} (\mell“\). Being about to, on the point of. {On the morrow} (\tˆi epaurion\). Locative case with \hˆmerƒi\ understood after the adverb \epaurion\. If Paul spoke on our Saturday evening, he made the journey on the first day of the week (our Sunday) after sunrise. If he spoke on our Sunday evening, then he left on our Monday morning. {Prolonged his speech} (\Pareteinen ton logon\). Imperfect active (same form as aorist) of \paratein“\, old verb to stretch beside or lengthwise, to prolong. Vivid picture of Paul's long sermon which went on and on till midnight (\mechri mesonuktiou\). Paul's purpose to leave early next morning seemed to justify the long discourse. Preachers usually have some excuse for the long sermon which is not always clear to the exhausted audience.

rwp@Acts:20:10 @{Fell on him} (\epepesen aut“i\). Second aorist active indicative of \epipipt“\ with dative case as Elijah did (1Kings:17:21|) and Elisha (2Kings:4:34|). {Embracing} (\sunperilab“n\). Second aorist active participle of \sunperilamban“\, old verb to embrace completely (take hold together round), but only here in the N.T. In strkjv@Ezra:5:3|. {Make ye no ado} (\mˆ thorubeisthe\). Stop (\mˆ\ and present middle imperative of \thorube“\) making a noise (\thorubos\) as the people did on the death of Jairus's daughter (Matthew:9:23| \thoruboumenou\ and strkjv@Mark:5:38| \thorubou\) when Jesus asked \Ti thorubeisthe?\ {For his life is in him} (\hˆ gar psuchˆ autou en aut“i estin\). This language is relied on by Ramsay, Wendt, Zoeckler to show that Eutychus had not really died, but had merely swooned. Paul's language would suit that view, but it suits equally well the idea that he had just been restored to life and so is indecisive. Furneaux urges also the fact that his friends did not bring him back to the meeting till morning (verse 12|) as additional evidence that it was a case of swooning rather than of death. But this again is not conclusive as they would naturally not take him back at once. One will believe here as the facts appeal to him.

rwp@Acts:20:14 @{Met us} (\suneballen hˆmin\). Imperfect active where the aorist (\sunebalen\, as C D have it) would seem more natural. It may mean that as soon as (\h“s\) Paul "came near or began to meet us" (inchoative imperfect), we picked him up. Luke alone in the N.T. uses \sunball“\ to bring or come together either in a friendly sense as here or as enemies (Luke:14:31|). {To Mitylene} (\eis Mitulˆnˆn\). The capital of Lesbos about thirty miles from Assos, an easy day's sailing.

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

rwp@Acts: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:24:3 @{In all ways and in all places} (\pantˆi te kai pantachou\). \Pantˆi\, old adverb of manner only here in N.T. \Pantachou\ also old adverb of place, several times in N.T. But these adverbs most likely go with the preceding clause about "reforms" rather than as here translated with "we accept" (\apodechometha\). But "with all gratitude" (\meta pasˆs eucharistias\) does naturally go with \apodechometha\.

rwp@Acts:25:14 @{Tarried} (\dietribon\). Imperfect active of \diatrib“\, common verb for spending time (Acts:12:19|, etc.). {Many days} (\pleious hˆmeras\). More days (than a few). Accusative case for extent of time. {Laid Paul's case} (\anetheto ta kata ton Paulon\). Second aorist middle indicative of \anatithˆmi\, old verb to set before, to place up, as if for consultation in conference. Only twice in N.T. here and strkjv@Galatians:2:2|. The motive of Festus is not given, though it was natural enough in view of the quandary of Festus about Paul (the things about Paul) and Agrippa's interest in and responsibility for Jewish worship in the temple in Jerusalem. It is quite possible that Festus had a bit of \ennui\ over the visit of these Jewish dignitaries as "more days" went by. Hence the tone of Festus about Paul in this proposal for the entertainment of Agrippa and Bernice is certainly one of superficial and supremely supercilious indifference. {Left a prisoner} (\katalelimmenos desmios\). Perfect passive participle of \kataleip“\, to leave behind. Paul is one of Felix's left overs (left behind), a sort of "junk" left on his hands. This cowardly Roman procurator thus pictures the greatest of living men and the greatest preacher of all time to this profligate pair (brother and sister) of sinners. Undoubtedly today in certain circles Christ and his preachers are held up to like contempt.

rwp@Acts:26:10 @{I both shut up many} (\pollous te katekleisa\). Effective aorist active of \kataklei“\, old word to shut down like a trap door, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:3:20|. Double use of \te\ (both--and). {Having received authority from the chief priests} (\tˆn para t“n archiere“n exousian lab“n\). "The authority," he says. Paul was the official persecutor of the saints under the direction of the Sanhedrin. He mentions "chief priests" (Sadducees), though a Pharisee himself. Both parties were co-operating against the saints. {And when they were put to death} (\anairoumen“n te aut“n\). Genitive absolute with present passive participle of \anaire“\. {I gave my vote against them} (\katˆnegka psˆphon\). "I cast down my pebble" (a black one). The ancient Greeks used white pebbles for acquittal (Revelation:2:17|), black ones for condemnation as here (the only two uses of the word in the N.T.). Paul's phrase (not found elsewhere) is more vivid than the usual \katapsˆphiz“\ for voting. They literally cast the pebbles into the urn. Cf. \sumpsˆphiz“\ in strkjv@Acts:19:19|, \sugkatapsephizo\ in strkjv@Acts:1:26|. If Paul's language is taken literally here, he was a member of the Sanhedrin and so married when he led the persecution. That is quite possible, though he was not married when he wrote strkjv@1Corinthians:7:7f.|, but a widower. It is possible to take the language figuratively for approval, but not so natural.

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

rwp@Acts:26:28 @{With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian} (\en olig“i me peitheis Christianon poiˆsai\). The Authorized rendering is impossible: "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." \En olig“i\ does not mean "almost." That would require \oligou, par' oligon\, or \dei oligou\. It is not clear, however, precisely what \en oligoi\ does mean. It may refer to time (in little time) or a short cut, but that does not suit well \en megal“i\ in verse 29|. Tyndale and Crammer rendered it "somewhat" (in small measure or degree). There are, alas, many "somewhat" Christians. Most likely the idea is "in (or with) small effort you are trying to persuade (\peitheis\, conative present active indicative) me in order to make me a Christian." This takes the infinitive \poiˆsai\ to be purpose (Page renders it by "so as") and thus avoids trying to make \poiˆsai\ like \genesthai\ (become). The aorist is punctiliar action for single act, not "perfect." The tone of Agrippa is ironical, but not unpleasant. He pushes it aside with a shrug of the shoulders. The use of "Christian" is natural here as in the other two instances (11:26; strkjv@1Peter:4:16|).

rwp@Acts:27:1 @{That we should sail} (\tou apoplein hˆmas\). This genitive articular infinitive with \ekrithˆ\ like the LXX construction translating the Hebrew infinitive construct is awkward in Greek. Several similar examples in strkjv@Luke:17:1; strkjv@Acts:10:25; strkjv@20:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1068). Luke alone uses this old verb in N.T. He uses nine compounds of \ple“\, to sail. Note the reappearance of "we" in the narrative. It is possible, of course, that Luke was not with Paul during the series of trials at Caesarea, or at least, not all the time. But it is natural for Luke to use "we" again because he and Aristarchus are travelling with Paul. In Caesarea Paul was the centre of the action all the time whether Luke was present or not. The great detail and minute accuracy of Luke's account of this voyage and shipwreck throw more light upon ancient seafaring than everything else put together. Smith's _Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_ is still a classic on the subject. Though so accurate in his use of sea terms, yet Luke writes like a landsman, not like a sailor. Besides, the character of Paul is here revealed in a remarkable fashion. {They delivered} (\paredidoun\). Imperfect active \“mega\ form rather than the old \-mi\ form \paredidosan\ as in strkjv@4:33|, from \paradid“mi\. Perhaps the imperfect notes the continuance of the handing over. {Certain other prisoners} (\tinas heterous desm“tas\). Bound (\desm“tas\) like Paul, but not necessarily appellants to Caesar, perhaps some of them condemned criminals to amuse the Roman populace in the gladiatorial shows, most likely pagans though \heterous\ does not have to mean different kind of prisoners from Paul. {Of the Augustan band} (\speirˆs Sebastˆs\). Note Ionic genitive \speirˆs\, not \speiras\. See on ¯Matthew:27:1; strkjv@Acts:10:1|. \Cohortis Augustae\. We do not really know why this cohort is called "Augustan." It may be that it is part of the imperial commissariat (_frumentarii_) since Julius assumes chief authority in the grain ship (verse 11|). These legionary centurions when in Rome were called _peregrini_ (foreigners) because their work was chiefly in the provinces. This man Julius may have been one of them.

rwp@Acts:27:9 @{Where much time was spent} (\Hikanou chronou diagenomenou\). Genitive absolute again with second aorist middle participle of \diaginomai\, to come in between (\dia\). "Considerable time intervening," since they became weatherbound in this harbour, though some take it since they left Caesarea. {And the voyage was now dangerous} (\kai ontos ˆdˆ episphalous\). Genitive absolute, "and the voyage being already (\ˆdˆ\=Latin _jam_) dangerous" (old word from \epi\ and \sphall“\, to trip, to fall, and so prone to fall, here only in N.T.). {Because the Fast was now already gone by} (\dia to kai tˆn nˆsteian ˆdˆ parelˆluthenai\). Accusative (after \dia\) of the articular infinitive perfect active of \parerchomai\, to pass by, with the accusative of general reference (\nˆsteian\, the great day of atonement of the Jews, strkjv@Leviticus:16:29ff.|) occurring about the end of September. The ancients considered navigation on the Mediterranean unsafe from early October till the middle of March. In A.D. 59 the Fast occurred on Oct. 5. There is nothing strange in Luke using this Jewish note of time as in strkjv@20:6| though a Gentile Christian. Paul did it also (1Corinthians:16:8|). It is no proof that Luke was a Jewish proselyte. We do not know precisely when the party left Caesarea (possibly in August), but in ample time to arrive in Rome before October if conditions had been more favourable. But the contrary winds had made the voyage very slow and difficult all the way (verse 7|) besides the long delay here in this harbour of Fair Havens. {Paul admonished them} (\parˆinˆi ho Paulos\). Imperfect active of \paraine“\, old word to exhort from \para\ and \aine“\, to praise (3:8|), only here and verse 22| in N.T. It is remarkable that a prisoner like Paul should venture to give advice at all and to keep on doing it (imperfect tense inchoative, began to admonish and kept on at it). Paul had clearly won the respect of the centurion and officers and also felt it to be his duty to give this unasked for warning. {I perceive} (\the“r“\). Old word from \the“ros\, a spectator. See strkjv@Luke:10:18|. Paul does not here claim prophecy, but he had plenty of experience with three shipwrecks already (2Corinthians:11:25|) to justify his apprehension. {Will be} (\mellein esesthai\). Infinitive in indirect assertion followed by future infinitive after \mellein\ in spite of \hoti\ which would naturally call for present indicative \mellei\, an anacoluthon due to the long sentence (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 478). {With injury} (\meta hubre“s\). An old word from \huper\ (above, upper, like our "uppishness") and so pride, insult, personal injury, the legal word for personal assault (Page). Josephus (_Ant_. III. 6, 4) uses it of the injury of the elements. {Loss} (\zˆmian\). Old word, opposite of \kerdos\, gain or profit (Phillipians:3:7f.|). Nowhere else in N.T. {Lading} (\phortiou\). Diminutive of \phortos\ (from \pher“\, to bear) only in form. Common word, but in N.T. only here in literal sense, as metaphor in strkjv@Matthew:11:30; strkjv@23:4; strkjv@Luke:11:46; strkjv@Galatians:6:5|. {But also of our lives} (\alla kai t“n psuch“n\). Common use of \psuchˆ\ for life, originally "breath of life" (Acts:20:10|), and also "soul" (14:2|). Fortunately no lives were lost, though all else was. But this outcome was due to the special mercy of God for the sake of Paul (verse 24|), not to the wisdom of the officers in rejecting Paul's advice. Paul begins now to occupy the leading role in this marvellous voyage.

rwp@Colossians:1:21 @{And you} (\kai humƒs\). Accusative case in a rather loose sentence, to be explained as the object of the infinitive \parastˆsai\ in verse 22| (note repeated \humƒs\ there) or as the anticipated object of \apokatˆllaxen\ if that be the genuine form in verse 22|. It can be the accusative of general reference followed by anacoluthon. See similar idiom in strkjv@Ephesians:2:1,12|. {Being in time past alienated} (\pote ontas apˆllotri“menous\). Periphrastic perfect passive participle (continuing state of alienation) of \apallotrio“\, old word from Plato on, to estrange, to render \allotrios\ (belonging to another), alienated from God, a vivid picture of heathenism as in strkjv@Romans:1:20-23|. Only other N.T. examples in strkjv@Ephesians:2:12; strkjv@4:18|. \Enemies\ (\exthrous\). Old word from \echthos\ (hatred). Active sense here, {hostile} as in strkjv@Matthew:13:28; strkjv@Romans:8:7|, not passive {hateful} (Romans:11:28|). {In your mind} (\tˆi dianoiƒi\). Locative case. \Dianoia\ (\dia, nous\), mind, intent, purpose. Old word. It is always a tragedy to see men use their minds actively against God. {In your evil works} (\en tois ergois tois ponˆrois\). Hostile purpose finds natural expression in evil deeds.

rwp@Ephesians:1:17 @{The Father of glory} (\ho patˆr tˆs doxˆs\). The God characterized by glory (the Shekinah, strkjv@Hebrews:9:5|) as in strkjv@Acts:7:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:2:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@James:2:1|. {That--may give} (\hina--d“iˆ\). In strkjv@Colossians:1:9| \hina\ is preceded by \aitoumenoi\, but here the sub-final use depends on the general idea asking in the sentence. The form \d“iˆ\ is a late _Koin‚_ optative (second aorist active) for the usual \doiˆ\. It occurs also in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:16; strkjv@Romans:15:5; strkjv@2Timothy:1:16,18| in the text of Westcott and Hort. Here B 63 read \d“i\ (like strkjv@John:15:16|) second aorist active subjunctive, the form naturally looked for after a primary tense (\pauomai\). This use of the volitive optative with \hina\ after a primary tense is rare, but not unknown in ancient Greek. {A spirit of wisdom and revelation} (\pneuma sophias kai apokalupse“s\). The Revised Version does not refer this use of \pneuma\ to the Holy Spirit (cf. strkjv@Galatians:6:1; strkjv@Romans:8:15|), but it is open to question if it is possible to obtain this wisdom and revelation apart from the Holy Spirit. {In the knowledge of him} (\en epign“sei autou\). In the full knowledge of Christ as in Colossians.

rwp@Ephesians:4:5 @{One Lord} (\heis Kurios\). The Lord Jesus Christ and he alone (no series of aeons). {One faith} (\mia pistis\). One act of trust in Christ, the same for all (Jew or Gentile), one way of being saved. {One baptism} (\hen baptisma\). The result of baptizing (\baptisma\), while \baptismos\ is the act. Only in the N.T. (\baptismos\ in Josephus) and ecclesiastical writers naturally. See strkjv@Mark:10:38|. There is only one act of baptism for all (Jews and Gentiles) who confess Christ by means of this symbol, not that they are made disciples by this one act, but merely so profess him, put Christ on publicly by this ordinance.

rwp@Ephesians:6:12 @{Our wrestling is not} (\ouk estin hˆmin hˆ palˆ\). "To us the wrestling is not." \Palˆ\ is an old word from \pall“\, to throw, to swing (from Homer to the papyri, though here only in N.T.), a contest between two till one hurls the other down and holds him down (\katech“\). Note \pros\ again (five times) in sense of "against," face to face conflict to the finish. {The world-rulers of this darkness} (\tous kosmokratoras tou skotous toutou\). This phrase occurs here alone. In strkjv@John:14:30| Satan is called "the ruler of this world" (\ho arch“n tou kosmou toutou\). In strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4| he is termed "the god of this age" (\ho theos tou ai“nos toutou\). The word \kosmokrat“r\ is found in the Orphic Hymns of Satan, in Gnostic writings of the devil, in rabbinical writings (transliterated) of the angel of death, in inscriptions of the Emperor Caracalla. These "world-rulers" are limited to "this darkness" here on earth. {The spiritual hosts of wickedness} (\ta pneumatika tˆs ponˆrias\). No word for "hosts" in the Greek. Probably simply, "the spiritual things (or elements) of wickedness." \Ponˆria\ (from \ponˆros\) is depravity (Matthew:22:18; strkjv@1Corinthians:5:8|). {In the heavenly places} (\en tois epouraniois\). Clearly so here. Our "wrestling" is with foes of evil natural and supernatural. We sorely need "the panoply of God" (furnished by God).

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ DATES OF HIS EPISTLES Unfortunately there is not complete agreement among scholars as to the dates of some of Paul's Epistles. Baur denied the Pauline authorship of all the Epistles save I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans. Today some deny that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, though admitting the others. Some admit Pauline fragments even in the Pastoral Epistles, but more about this when these Epistles are reached. There is more doubt about the date of Galatians than any of the others. Lightfoot put it just before Romans, while Ramsay now makes it the earliest of all. The Epistle itself has no notes of place or time. The Epistles to the Thessalonians were written from Corinth after Timothy had been sent from Athens by Paul to Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:3:1f.|) and had just returned to Paul (1Thessalonians:3:6|) which we know was in Corinth (Acts:18:5|) shortly before Gallio came as Proconsul of Achaia (Acts:18:12|). We can now feel certain from the new "acclamation" of Claudius in the inscription at Delphi recently explained by Deissmann in his _St. Paul_ that the Thessalonian Epistles were written 50 to 51 A.D. We know also that he wrote I Corinthians while in Ephesus (1Corinthians:16:8|) and before pentecost, though the precise year is not given. But he spent three years at Ephesus in round numbers (Acts:19:8,10; strkjv@20:31|) and he wrote just before he left, probably spring of A.D. 54 or 55. He wrote II Corinthians from Macedonia shortly after leaving Ephesus (2Corinthians:2:12|) ] apparently the same year. Romans was written from Corinth and sent by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:1f.|) unless strkjv@Romans:16| be considered a separate Epistle to Ephesus as some hold, a view that does not commend itself to me. Deissmann (_New Testament in the Light of Modern Research_, p. 33) accepts a modern theory that Ephesus was the place of the writing of the first prison Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) as well as I Corinthians and Galatians and dates them all between A.D. 52 and 55. But we shall find that these prison Epistles most naturally fall to Rome between A.D. 61 and 63. If the Pastoral Epistles are genuine, as I hold, they come between A.D. 65 and 68. Bartlet argues for a date before A.D. 64, accepting the view that Paul was put to death then. But it is still far more probable that Paul met his death in Rome in A.D. 68 shortly before Nero's death which was June 8, A.D. 68. It will thus be seen that the dates of several of the Epistles are fairly clear, while some remain quite uncertain. In a broad outlook they must all come between A.D. 50 and 68.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ The study of Paul's Epistles in the order of their writing is the best possible way of seeing his own growth as a theologian and interpreter of Christ. Sabatier long ago laid emphasis on this point in his book _The Apostle Paul_ as did Matheson in _The Spiritual Development of Paul_. It is a tragedy to have to read Paul's Epistles as printed in the usual Greek text of Westcott and Hort and the English translations, beginning with Romans and ending with Philemon. In the manuscripts that give Paul's Epistles Romans comes first as the largest and most important, but Titus and Philemon come after II Timothy (the last just before his death). We know something of Paul's early preaching how he laid emphasis on the Messiahship of Jesus proven by his resurrection, Paul himself having seen the Risen Christ (Acts:9:22|). This conviction and experience lay at the foundation of all his work and he never faltered concerning it (Acts:17:3). In the earliest sermon of which we have a full report Paul proclaims justification by faith in Christ with forgiveness of sins (Acts:13:38f.|), blessings not obtained by the law of Moses. In the unfolding life of Paul he grappled with great problems of Jewish rabbinism and Greek philosophy and mystery-religions and Paul himself grew in stature as he courageously and victoriously faced Judaizer and Gnostic. There are scholars who claim that Paul surrendered to the appeal of Gnostic sacramentarianism and so went back on his great doctrine of justification by faith, not by works. It will be shown at the proper time that this view misinterprets Paul's attitude. The events given by Luke in the Acts fit in with the self-revelation of Paul in his own Epistles as we read them. Each one of the four groups of Epistles has a slightly different style and vocabulary as is natural when one comes to think of it. The same thing is true of the plays of Shakespeare and the poems of Milton. Style is the man, Buffon says. Yes, but style is also a function of the subject. Particularly is this true of vocabulary which has to vary with the different topics treated. But style in the same man varies with different ages. Ripened old age mellows the exuberance of youth and the passionate vehemence of manhood. We shall see Paul himself in his Epistles, letting himself go in various ways and in different moods. But in all the changing phases of his life and work there is the same masterful man who glories in being the slave of Jesus Christ and the Apostle to the Gentiles. The passion of Paul is Christ and one can feel the throb of the heart of the chief of sinners who became the chief of saints in all his Epistles. There is the Pauline glow and glory in them all.

rwp@Galatians:2:6 @{Somewhat} (\ti\). Something, not somebody. Paul refers to the Big Three (Cephas, James, and John). He seems a bit embarrassed in the reference. He means no disrespect, but he asserts his independence sharply in a tangled sentence with two parentheses (dashes in Westcott and Hort). {Whatsoever they were} (\hopoioi pote ˆsan\). Literally, "What sort they once were." {Hopoioi} is a qualitative word (1Thessalonians:1:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:13; strkjv@James:1:24|). Lightfoot thinks that these three leaders were the ones who suggested the compromise about Titus. That is a possible, but not the natural, interpretation of this involved sentence. The use of \de\ (but) in verse 6| seems to make a contrast between the three leaders and the pleaders for compromise in verses 4f|. {They, I say, imparted nothing to me} (\emoi gar ouden prosanethento\). He starts over again after the two parentheses and drops the construction \apo t“n dokount“n\ and changes the construction (anacoluthon) to \hoi dokountes\ (nominative case), the men of reputation and influences whom he names in verses 8f|. See the same verb in strkjv@1:16|. They added nothing in the conference to me. The compromisers tried to win them, but they finally came over to my view. Paul won his point, when he persuaded Peter, James, and John to agree with him and Barnabas in their contention for freedom for the Gentile Christians from the bondage of the Mosaic ceremonial law.

rwp@Galatians:4:6 @{Because ye are sons} (\hoti este huioi\). This is the reason for sending forth the Son (4:4| and here). We were "sons" in God's elective purpose and love. \Hoti\ is causal (1Corinthians:12:15; strkjv@Romans:9:7|). {The Spirit of his Son} (\to pneuma tou huioi autou\). The Holy Spirit, called the Spirit of Christ (Romans:8:9f.|), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:19|). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (John:15:26|). {Crying, Abba, Father} (\krazon Abba ho patˆr\). The participle agrees with \pneuma\ neuter (grammatical gender), not neuter in fact. An old, though rare in present as here, onomatopoetic word to croak as a raven (Theophrastus, like Poe's _The Raven_), any inarticulate cry like "the unuttered groanings" of strkjv@Romans:8:26| which God understands. This cry comes from the Spirit of Christ in our hearts. \Abba\ is the Aramaic word for father with the article and \ho patˆr\ translates it. The articular form occurs in the vocative as in strkjv@John:20:28|. It is possible that the repetition here and in strkjv@Romans:8:15| may be "a sort of affectionate fondness for the very term that Jesus himself used" (Burton) in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark:14:36|). The rabbis preserve similar parallels. Most of the Jews knew both Greek and Aramaic. But there remains the question why Jesus used both in his prayer. Was it not natural for both words to come to him in his hour of agony as in his childhood? The same thing may be true here in Paul's case.

rwp@Hebrews:5:2 @{Who can bear gently} (\metriopathein dunamenos\). Present active infinitive of the late verb \metriopathe“\ (\metrios\, moderate, \pate“\, to feel or suffer). It is a philosophical term used by Aristotle to oppose the \apatheia\ (lack of feeling) of the Stoics. Philo ranks it below \apatheia\. Josephus (_Ant_. XII. 32) uses it of the moderation of Vespasian and Titus towards the Jews. It occurs here only in the N.T. "If the priest is cordially to plead with God for the sinner, he must bridle his natural disgust at the loathsomeness of sensuality, his impatience at the frequently recurring fall, his hopeless alienation from the hypocrite and the superficial, his indignation at any confession he hears from the penitent" (Dods). {With the ignorant} (\tois agnoousin\). Dative case of the articular present active participle of \agnoe“\, old verb not to know (Mark:9:32|). {And erring} (\kai plan“menois\). Present middle participle (dative case) of \plana“\. The one article with both participles probably makes it a hendiadys, sins of ignorance (both accidence and sudden passion) as opposed to high-handed sins of presumption and deliberate purpose. People who sinned "willingly" (\hekousi“s\, strkjv@10:26|) had no provision in the Levitical system. For deliberate apostasy (3:12; strkjv@10:26|) no pardon is offered. {Is compassed with infirmity} (\perikeitai astheneian\). Present passive indicative of the old verb \perikeimai\ here used transitively as in strkjv@Acts:28:20| (\halusin\, chain). The priest himself has weakness lying around him like a chain. Not so Jesus.

rwp@Hebrews:12:5 @{Ye have forgotten} (\eklelˆsthe\). Perfect middle indicative of \eklanthan“\, to cause to forget, old verb, here only in the N.T. with genitive case as usual. {Reasoneth with you} (\humin dialegetai\). Present middle indicative of \dialegomai\, old verb to ponder different (\dia-\) things, to converse, with dative. Cf. strkjv@Acts:19:8f|. The quotation is from strkjv@Proverbs:3:11f|. {Regard not lightly} (\mˆ olig“rei\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and the present active imperative of \olig“re“\, old verb from \olig“ros\ and this from \oligos\ (little) and \h“ra\ (hour), old verb, here only in N.T. {Chastening} (\paideias\). Old word from \paideu“\, to train a child (\pais\), instruction (2Timothy:3:16|), which naturally includes correction and punishment as here. See also strkjv@Ephesians:6:4|. {Nor faint} (\mˆde ekluou\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and present passive imperative of \eklu“\ (see verse 3|).

rwp@Hebrews:13:8 @{Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yea and forever} (\Iˆsous Christos echthes kai sˆmeron ho autos kai eis tous ai“nas\). There is no copula in the Greek. Vincent insists that \estin\ be supplied between \Iˆsous\ and \Christos\, "Jesus is Christ," but it more naturally comes after \Christos\ as the Revised Version has it. The old adverb \echthes\ is rare in the N.T. (John:4:52; strkjv@Acts:7:28; strkjv@Hebrews:13:8|). Here it refers to the days of Christ's flesh (2:3; strkjv@5:7|) and to the recent work of the leaders (13:7|). "Today" (\sˆmeron\, strkjv@3:15|) is the crisis which confronts them. "Forever" (\eis tous ai“nas\) is eternity as well as the Greek can say it. Jesus Christ is eternally "the same" (1:12|) and the revelation of God in him (1:1f.|) is final and never to be superseded or supplemented (Moffatt). Hence the peril of apostasy from the only hope of man.

rwp@Info_James @ THE DATE If the Epistle is genuine and James was put to death about A.D. 62, it was clearly written before that date. There are two theories about it, one placing it about A.D. 48, the other about A.D. 58. To my mind the arguments of Mayor for the early date are conclusive. There is no allusion to Gentile Christians, as would be natural after A.D. 50. If written after A.D. 70, the tone would likely be different, with some allusion to that dreadful calamity. The sins condemned are those characteristic of early Jewish Christians. The book itself is more like the Sermon on the Mount than the Epistles. The discussion of faith and works in chapter strkjv@James:2| reveals an absence of the issues faced by Paul in strkjv@Romans:4; strkjv@Galatians:3| after the Jerusalem Conference (A.D. 49). Hence the date before that Conference has decidedly the better of the argument. Ropes in his Commentary denies the genuineness of the Epistle and locates it between A.D. 75 and 125, but Hort holds that the evidence for a late date rests "on very slight and intangible grounds." Songs:we place the book before A.D. 49. It may indeed be the earliest New Testament book.

rwp@Info_James @ THE STYLE James assumes the doctrinal features of Christianity, but he is concerned mainly with the ethical and social aspects of the gospel that Jewish followers of Christ may square their lives with the gospel which they believe and profess. But this fact does not justify Luther in calling the Epistle of James "a veritable Epistle of straw." Luther imagined that James contradicted Paul's teaching of justification by faith. That is not true and the criticism of Luther is unjust. We shall see that, though James and Paul use the same words (faith, works, justify), they mean different things by them. It is possible that both Paul and Peter had read the Epistle of James, though by no means certain. M. Jones (_New Testament in the Twentieth Century_, p. 316) thinks that the author was familiar with Stoic philosophy. This is also possible, though he may have learned it only indirectly through the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. What is true is that the author writes in the easy and accurate _Koin‚_ Greek of a cultivated Jew (the literary _Koin‚_, not the vernacular), though not the artificial or stilted language of a professional stylist. Principal Patrick (_James the Lord's Brother_, p. 298) holds that he "had a wide knowledge of Classical Greek." This does not follow, though he does use the manner "of the Hellenistic diatribe" (Ropes, _Int. and Crit. Comm_., p. 19) so common at that time. Ropes (pp. 10-22) points out numerous parallels between James and the popular moral addresses of the period, familiar since the days of Socrates and at its height in Seneca and Epictetus. The use of an imaginary interlocutor is one instance (James:2:18f.; strkjv@5:13f.|) as is the presence of paradox (James:1:2,10; strkjv@2:5|; etc.). But the style of James is even more kin to that seen in the Jewish wisdom literature like Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, etc. It is thus both tract and Epistle, a brief Christian sermon on a high plane for a noble purpose. But it is all natural and not artificial. The metaphors are many, but brief and remind one constantly of the Master's use of them in the Sermon on the Mount. Did not Mary the mother of Jesus and James make frequent use of such homely parables? The author shows acquaintance with the LXX, but there are few Hebraisms in the language, though the style is Hebraic, as is the whole tone of the book (Hebraic and Christian). "The style is especially remarkable for constant hidden allusions to our Lord's sayings, such as we find in the first three Gospels" (Hort).

rwp@James:1:23 @{And not a doer} (\kai ou poiˆtˆs\). Condition of first class, assumed as true, and \ou\ (rather than \mˆ\) contrasts \poiˆtˆs\ with \akroatˆs\. {Unto a man beholding} (\andri katanoounti\). Associative instrumental case after \eoiken\ as in strkjv@1:6|. Note \andri\ as in strkjv@1:8| in contrast with \gunaiki\ (woman), not \anthr“p“i\ (general term for man). Present active participle of \katanoe“\ to put the mind down on (\kata, nous\), to consider attentively, to take note of, as in verse 24| (\katenoˆsen\). {His natural face} (\to pros“pon tˆs genese“s autou\). "The face of his birth" (origin, lineage, nativity). For this use of \genesis\ see strkjv@3:6; strkjv@Matthew:1:1,18; strkjv@Luke:1:13|. {In a mirror} (\en esoptr“i\). Old word (from \eis, opt“\) in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|. The mirrors of the ancients were not of glass, but of polished metal (of silver or usually of copper and tin). See \katoptrizomai\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18|.

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

rwp@James:3:4 @{The ships also} (\kai ta ploia\). Old word from \ple“\, to sail (Matthew:4:21|). Another metaphor like "horses" (\hippoi\). "There is more imagery drawn from mere natural phenomena in the one short Epistle of James than in all St. Paul's epistles put together" (Howson). {Though they are so great} (\tˆlikauta onta\). Concessive participle of \eimi\. The quantitative pronoun \tˆlikoutos\ occurs in the N.T. only here, strkjv@2Corinthians:1:10; strkjv@Hebrews:2:3; strkjv@Revelation:16:18|. If James had only seen the modern mammoth ships. But the ship on which Paul went to Malta carried 276 persons (Acts:27:37|). {And are driven} (\kai elaunomena\). Present passive participle of \elaun“\, old verb, in this sense (2Peter:2:17|) for rowing (Mark:6:48; strkjv@John:6:19|). {Rough} (\sklˆron\). Old adjective (from \skell“\, to dry up), harsh, stiff, hard (Matthew:25:24|). {Are yet turned} (\metagetai\). Present passive indicative of the same verb, \metag“\, in verse 3|. James is fond of repeating words (1:13f.; strkjv@2:14,16; strkjv@2:21,25|). {By a very small rudder} (\hupo elachistou pˆdaliou\). For the use of \hupo\ (under) with things see strkjv@Luke:8:14; strkjv@2Peter:2:7|. There is possibly personification in the use of \hupo\ for agency in strkjv@James:1:14; strkjv@2:9; strkjv@Colossians:2:18|. \Pˆdaliou\ (from \pˆdon\, the blade of an oar) is an old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:27:40|. \Elachistou\ is the elative superlative as in strkjv@1Corinthians:4:3| (from the Epic \elachus\ for \mikros\). {The impulse} (\hˆ hormˆ\). Old word for rapid, violent motion, here of the hand that worked the rudder, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:14:5| (rush or onset of the people). {Of the steersman} (\tou euthunontos\). Present active genitive articular participle of \euthun“\, old verb, to make straight (from \euthus\, straight, level, strkjv@Mark:1:3|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:1:23|. Used also of the shepherd, the charioteer, and today it would apply to the chauffeur. "The twin figure of the control of horse and of ship are frequently found together in later Greek writers" (Ropes). As in Plutarch and Philo. {Willeth} (\bouletai\). Present middle indicative of \boulomai\, common verb to will. Here intention of the steersman lies back of the impact of the hand on the rudder.

rwp@James:4:5 @{The Scripture} (\hˆ graphˆ\). Personification as in strkjv@Galatians:3:8; strkjv@James:2:23|. But no O.T. passage is precisely like this, though it is "a poetical rendering" (Ropes) of strkjv@Exodus:20:5|. The general thought occurs also in strkjv@Genesis:6:3-5; strkjv@Isaiah:63:8-16|, etc. Paul has the same idea also (Galatians:5:17,21; strkjv@Romans:8:6,8|). It is possible that the reference is really to the quotation in verse 6| from strkjv@Proverbs:3:34| and treating all before as a parenthesis. There is no way to decide positively. {In vain} (\ken“s\). Old adverb (Aristotle) from \ken“s\ (2:20|), here alone in N.T. "Emptily," not meaning what it says. {Made to dwell} (\kat“ikisen\). First aorist active of \katoikiz“\, old verb, to give a dwelling to, only here in N.T. {Long unto envying} (\pros phthonon epipothei\). A difficult phrase. Some even take \pros phthonon\ with \legei\ rather than with \epipothei\, as it naturally does go, meaning "jealously." But even so, with God presented as a jealous lover, does \to pneuma\ refer to the Holy Spirit as the subject of \epipothei\ or to man's spirit as the object of \epipothei\? Probably the former and \epipothei\ then means to yearn after in the good sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:8|.

rwp@Info_John @ THE BELOVED DISCIPLE The book claims to be written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John:21:20|) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: "This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (John:21:24|). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with strkjv@John:20:31|, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in strkjv@John:21:24| is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922).

rwp@Info_John @ ONLY ONE JOHN OF EPHESUS It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa A.D. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase "the Elder John " (\ho presbuteros I“annˆs\) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by "the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. "Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord's Life" (Bousset, _Die Offenbarumg des Joh._, p. 38, translation of Nolloth, _The Fourth Evangelist_, p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.

rwp@Info_John @ THE USE OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (John:2:23; strkjv@6:4|) and another (John:5:1|) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord's public ministry ("the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John:1:19-4:45|). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John:1:1-18|) relates the Incarnation to God's eternal purpose as in strkjv@Colossians:1:14-20| and strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-3| and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time (\Logos\ -- Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

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

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

rwp@Info_John @ 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@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:1:39 @{Come and ye shall see} (\erchesthe kai opsesthe\). Polite invitation and definite promise (future middle indicative \opsesthe\ from \hora“\, correct text, not imperative \idete\). {Where he abode} (\pou menei\). Indirect question preserving the present active indicative after secondary tense (\eidan\, saw) according to regular Greek idiom. Same verb \men“\ as in 38|. {With him} (\par' aut“i\). "By his side," "beside him." {That day} (\tˆn hˆmeran ekeinˆn\). Accusative of extent of time, all during that day. {About the tenth hour} (\h“ra h“s dekatˆ\). Roman time and so ten o'clock in the morning. John in Ephesus at the close of the century naturally uses Roman time. See strkjv@20:19| "evening on that day," clearly Roman time. Thus also strkjv@John:19:14| (sixth hour, morning) and strkjv@Mark:15:25| (third hour, nine A.M.) suit. To his latest day John never forgot the hour when first he met Jesus.

rwp@John:1:49 @{Thou art the Son of God} (\su ei ho huios tou theou\). Whether Nathanael had heard the Baptist say this of Jesus (1:34|) we do not know, apparently not, but Nathanael was a student of the Old Testament as Philip implied (1:45|) and was quick to put together his knowledge, the statement of Philip, and the manifest supernatural knowledge of Jesus as just shown. There is no reason for toning down the noble confession of Nathanael in the light of Christ's claim in verse 51|. Cf. the confession of Peter in strkjv@6:69; strkjv@Matthew:16:16| and Martha's in strkjv@John:11:27|. Nathanael goes further. {Thou art King of Israel} (\Basileus ei tou Israˆl\). To us this seems an anti-climax, but not so to Nathanael for both are Messianic titles in strkjv@Psalms:2| and Jesus is greeted in the Triumphal Entry as the King of Israel (John:12:13|).

rwp@John:2:14 @{Those that sold} (\tous p“lountas\). Present active articular participle of \p“le“\, to sell. They were in the Court of the Gentiles within the temple precinct (\en t“i hier“i\), but not in the \naos\ or temple proper. The sacrifices required animals (oxen, \boas\, sheep, \probata\, doves, \peristeras\) and "changers of money" (\kermatistas\, from \kermatiz“\, to cut into small pieces, to change money, only here in N.T., late and rare). Probably their very presence in his Father's house angered Jesus. The Synoptics (Mark:11:15-17; strkjv@Matthew:21:12f.; strkjv@Luke:10:45f.|) record a similar incident the day after the Triumphal Entry. If there was only one, it would seem more natural at the close. But why could it not occur at the beginning also? Here it is an obvious protest by Christ at the beginning of his ministry as in the Synoptics it is an indignant outcry against the desecration. The cessation was only temporary in both instances.

rwp@John:2:25 @{And because he needed not} (\kai hoti chreian eichen\). Imperfect active, "and because he did not have need." {That any one should bear witness concerning man} (\hina tis marturˆsˆi peri tou anthr“pou\). Non-final use of \hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \marture“\ and the generic article (\peri tou anthr“pou\) concerning mankind as in the next clause also. {For he himself knew} (\autos gar egin“sken\). Imperfect active, "for he himself kept on knowing" as he did from the start. {What was in man} (\ti ˆn en t“i anthr“p“i\). Indirect question with \estin\ of the direct changed to the imperfect \ˆn\, a rare idiom in the _Koin‚_. This supernatural knowledge of man is a mark of deity. Some men of genius can read men better than others, but not in the sense meant here.

rwp@John:3:15 @{That whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life} (\hina pas ho pisteu“n en aut“i echˆi z“ˆn ai“nion\). Final use of \hina\ with present active subjunctive of \ech“\, that he may keep on having eternal life (a frequent phrase in John, always in John \ai“nios\ occurs with \z“ˆ\, 16 times in the Gospel, 6 in 1John, ageless or endless life, beginning now and lasting forever). It is more than endless, for it is sharing in the life of God in Christ (5:26; strkjv@17:3; strkjv@1John:5:12|). Songs:here \en aut“i\ (in him) is taken with \echˆi\ rather than with \pisteu“n\. The interview with Nicodemus apparently closes with verse 15|. In verses 16-21| we have past tenses constantly as is natural for the reflection of John, but unnatural for Jesus speaking. There are phrases like the Prologue (verse 19; strkjv@1:9-11|). "Only begotten" does not occur elsewhere in the words of Jesus, but is in strkjv@1:14,18; strkjv@1John:4:9|. John often puts in explanatory comments (1:16-18; strkjv@12:37-41|).

rwp@John:4:10 @{Answered and said} (\apekrithˆ kai eipen\). As often (redundant) in John. The first aorist passive (\apekrithˆ\) is deponent, no longer passive in sense. {If thou knewest} (\ei ˆideis\). Condition of second class, determined as unfulfilled, \ei\ and past perfect \ˆideis\ (used as imperfect) in condition and \an\ and aorist active indicative in conclusion (\an ˆitˆsas kai an ed“ken\, note repetition of \an\, not always done). {The gift of God} (\tˆn d“rean tou theou\). Naturally the gift mentioned in strkjv@3:16| (Westcott), the inexpressible gift (2Corinthians:9:15|). Some take it to refer to the living water below, but that is another allusion (metaphor) to strkjv@3:16|. See strkjv@Ephesians:4:7| for Paul's use of both \charis\ and \d“rea\ (from \did“mi\, to give). {Who it is} (\tis estin\). She only knew that he was a Jew. This Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus is plain in John, but it is early in the Synoptics also. {Living water} (\hud“r z“n\). Running water like a spring or well supplied by springs. This Jacob's Well was filled by water from rains percolating through, a sort of cistern, good water, but not equal to a real spring which was always preferred (Genesis:26:19; strkjv@Leviticus:14:5; strkjv@Numbers:19:17|). Jesus, of course, is symbolically referring to himself as the Living Water though he does not say it in plain words as he does about the Living Bread (6:51|). The phrase "the fountain of life" occurs in strkjv@Proverbs:13:14|. Jesus supplies the water of life (John:7:39|). Cf. strkjv@Revelation:7:17; strkjv@22:1|.

rwp@John:4:17 @{I have no husband} (\ouk ech“ andra\). The Greek \anˆr\ means either "man" or "husband." She had her "man," but he was not a legal "husband." Her language veils her deceit. {Thou saidst well} (\kal“s eipes\). Jesus saw through the double sense of her language and read her heart as he only can do, a supernatural gift of which John often speaks (1:48; strkjv@2:24f.; strkjv@5:20|). {For thou hast had five husbands} (\pente gar andras esches\). "For thou didst have five men." Second aorist (constative) active indicative of \ech“\. {Is not thy husband} (\ouk estin sou anˆr\). In the full and legal sense of \anˆr\, not a mere "man." {This hast thou said truly} (\touto alˆthes eirˆkas\). "This a true thing thou hast said." Note absence of article with \alˆthes\ (predicate accusative). Perfect active indicative \eirˆkas\ here, not aorist \eipes\ (verse 17|).

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: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:5:2 @{There is} (\estin\). Bengel argues that this proves a date before the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is probably only John's vivid memory. {By the sheep gate} (\epi tˆi probatikˆi\). Supply \pulˆi\ (gate) which occurs with the adjective \probatikˆ\ (pertaining to sheep, \probata\) in strkjv@Nehemiah:3:1,22|. {A pool} (\kolumbˆthra\). A diving or swimming pool (from \kolumba“\, to swim, strkjv@Acts:27:43|), old word, only here in N.T. {Which is called} (\hˆ epilegomenˆ\). "The surnamed" (present passive participle, only N.T. example except strkjv@Acts:15:40| first aorist middle participle \epilexamenos\). {In Hebrew} (\Ebraisti\). "In Aramaic" strictly as in strkjv@19:13,17,20; strkjv@20:16; strkjv@Revelation:9:11; strkjv@16:16|. {Bethesda} (\Bethesda\, or House of Mercy. Songs:A C Syr cu). Aleph D L 33 have \Bethzatha\ or House of the Olive, while B W Vulg. Memph. have \Bethsaida\. {Having five porches} (\pente stoas echousa\). \Stoa\ was a covered colonnade where people can gather from which Stoic comes (Acts:17:18|). See strkjv@John:10:23; strkjv@Acts:3:11|. Schick in 1888 found twin pools north of the temple near the fortress of Antonia one of which has five porches. It is not, however, certain that this pool existed before A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed (Sanday, _Sacred Sites of the Gospels_, p. 55). Some have identified it with the Pool of Siloam (9:7|), though John distinguishes them. There is also the Virgin's Well, called the Gusher, because it periodically bubbles over from a natural spring, a kind of natural siphon. This is south of the temple in the Valley of Kedron and quite possibly the real site.

rwp@John:5:6 @{Knew that he had been a long time} (\gnous hoti polun ˆdˆ chronon echei\). How Jesus "knew" (\gnous\, second aorist active participle of \gin“sk“\) we are not told, whether supernatural knowledge (2:24f.|) or observation or overhearing people's comments. In \ˆdˆ echei\ we have a progressive present active indicative, "he has already been having much time" (\chronon\, accusative of extent of time). {Wouldest thou be made whole?} (\Theleis hugiˆs genesthai;\). "Dost thou wish to become whole?" Predicate nominative \hugiˆs\ with \genesthai\ (second aorist middle infinitive). It was a pertinent and sympathetic question.

rwp@John:6:61 @{Knowing in himself} (\eid“s en heaut“i\). Second perfect active participle of \oida\. See strkjv@2:25| for this supernatural insight into men's minds. {Murmured} (\gogguzousin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse. See 41| for \gogguz“\. {At this} (\peri toutou\). "Concerning this word." {Cause to stumble} (\skandalizei\). Common Synoptic verb from \skandalon\ for which see strkjv@Matthew:5:29|. In John again only in strkjv@16:1|.

rwp@John:7:3 @{His brethren} (\hoi adelphoi autou\). "His brothers" (half-brothers actually), who "were not believing on him" (\oude episteuon eis auton\) as stated in verse 5|. They were hostile to the Messianic assumptions of Jesus, a natural attitude as one can well see, though at first they were friendly (2:12|). {Depart hence} (\metabˆthi enteuthen\). Second aorist active imperative of \metabain“\, to pass to another place (5:24; strkjv@13:1|). It was impertinence on their part. {That thy disciples also may behold} (\hina kai hoi mathˆtai sou the“rˆsousin\). Final clause with \hina\ and the future active indicative of \the“re“\. Jesus had many disciples in Judea at the start (2:23; strkjv@4:1|) and had left it because of the jealousy of the Pharisees over his success (4:3|). The brothers may have heard of the great defection in the synagogue in Capernaum (6:66|), but the advice is clearly ironical. {Which thou doest} (\ha poieis\). To what works they refer by this language we do not know. But Jesus had been away from Galilee for some months and from Judea for a year and a half. Perhaps the brothers of Jesus may actually have been eager to rush Jesus into the hostile atmosphere of Jerusalem again.

rwp@John:7:30 @{They sought therefore} (\ezˆtoun oun\). Imperfect active of \zˆte“\, inchoative or conative, they began to seek. Either makes sense. The subject is naturally some of the Jerusalemites (Westcott) rather than some of the leaders (Bernard). {To take him} (\auton piasai\). First aorist active infinitive, Doric form from \piaz“\, from the usual \piez“\, occasionally so in the papyri, but \piaz“\ always in N.T. except strkjv@Luke:6:38|. {And} (\kai\). Here = "but." {Laid his hand} (\epebalen tˆn cheira\). Second aorist active indicative of \epiball“\, to cast upon. Old and common idiom for arresting one to make him a prisoner (Matthew:26:50|). See repetition in verse 44|. {His hour} (\hˆ h“ra autou\). In strkjv@13:1| we read that "the hour" had come, but that was "not yet" (\oup“\). "John is at pains to point out at every point that the persecution and death of Jesus followed a predestined course" (Bernard), as in strkjv@2:4; strkjv@7:6,8; strkjv@8:10; strkjv@10:39; strkjv@13:1|, etc. {Was not yet come} (\oup“ elˆluthei\). Past perfect active of \erchomai\, as John looks back on the story.

rwp@John:8:9 @{Went out} (\exˆrchonto\). Inchoative imperfect. Graphic picture. {One by one} (\heis kath' heis\). Not a Johannine phrase, but in strkjv@Mark:14:19| where also the second nominative is retained as if \kath'\ (\kata\) is regarded as a mere adverb and not as a preposition. {Beginning from the eldest} (\arxamenoi apo t“n presbuter“n\). "From the elder (comparative form, common in _Koin‚_ as superlative) men," as was natural for they had more sins of this sort which they recalled. "They are summoned to judge themselves rather than the woman" (Dods). {Was left alone} (\kateleiphthˆ monos\). First aorist effective passive indicative of \kataleip“\, to leave behind, with predicate nominative \monos\. "Jesus was left behind alone." {And the woman, where she was, in the midst} (\kai hˆ gunˆ en mes“i ousa\). The woman was left behind also "being in the midst" as they had placed her (verse 3|) before they were conscience stricken and left.

rwp@John:9:10 @{How then were thine eyes opened?} (\P“s oun ˆne“ichthˆsan sou hoi ophthalmoi;\). Natural and logical (\oun\) question. First aorist passive indicative (triple augment) of \anoig“\. These neighbours admit the fact and want the manner ("how") of the cure made clear.

rwp@John:9:22 @{Because they feared the Jews} (\hoti ephobounto tous Ioudaious\). Imperfect middle, a continuing fear and not without reason. See already the whispers about Jesus because of fear of the Jews (7:13|). {Had agreed already} (\ˆdˆ sunetetheinto\). Past perfect middle of \suntithˆmi\, to put together, to form a compact (7:32,47-49|). {If any man should confess him to be Christ} (\ean tis auton homologˆsˆi Christon\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \homologe“\ and predicate accusative \Christon\. Jesus had made confession of himself before men the test of discipleship and denial the disproof (Matthew:10:32; strkjv@Luke:12:8|). We know that many of the rulers nominally believed on Jesus (12:42|) and yet "did not confess him because of the Pharisees" (\alla dia tous Pharisaious ouch h“mologoun\), for the very reason given here, "that they might not be put out of the synagogue" (\hina mˆ aposunag“goi gen“ntai\). Small wonder then that here the parents cowered a bit. {That he should be put out of the synagogue} (\hina aposunag“gos genˆtai\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\. \Aposunag“gos\ (\apo\ and \sunag“gˆ\) is found in N.T. only here and strkjv@12:42; strkjv@16:2|. A purely Jewish word naturally. There were three kinds of excommunication (for thirty days, for thirty more, indefinitely).

rwp@John:11:29 @{And she} (\kai ekeinˆ\). Emphatic use of the demonstrative \ekeinos\ as often in John, "And that one." {Arose quickly} (\ˆgerthˆ\). First aorist (ingressive) passive of \egeir“\ and intransitive. Naturally so on the sudden impulse of joy. {And went unto him} (\kai ˆrcheto pros auton\). Imperfect middle, possibly inchoative, started towards him, certainly picturing her as she was going.

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:11:39 @{Take ye away the stone} (\arate ton lithon\). First aorist active imperative of \air“\. They could do this much without the exercise of Christ's divine power. It was a startling command to them. {By this time he stinketh} (\ˆdˆ ozei\). Present active indicative of old verb, here only in N.T. (cf. strkjv@Exodus:8:14|). It means to give out an odour, either good or bad. {For he hath been dead four days} (\tetartaios gar estin\). The Greek simply says, "For he is a fourth-day man." It is an old ordinal numeral from \tetartos\ (fourth). Herodotus (ii. 89) has \tetartaios genesthai\ of one four days dead as here. The word is only here in the N.T. The same idiom occurs in strkjv@Acts:28:13| with \deuteraioi\ (second-day men). Lightfoot (_Hor. Hebr._) quotes a Jewish tradition (_Beresh. Rabba_) to the effect that the soul hovers around the tomb for three days hoping to return to the body, but on the fourth day leaves it. But there is no suggestion here that Martha held that notion. Her protest is a natural one in spite of her strong faith in verses 22-27|.

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:12:3 @{A pound} (\litran\). Latin _libra_, late _Koin‚_ (Polybius, Plutarch) word with weight of 12 ounces, in N.T. only here and strkjv@19:39|. Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:7|) have alabaster cruse. {Of ointment of spikenard} (\murou nardou pistikˆs\). "Of oil of nard." See already strkjv@11:2| for \murou\ (also strkjv@Matthew:26:7|). Nard is the head or spike of an East Indian plant, very fragrant. Occurs also in strkjv@Mark:14:3|. \Pistikˆs\ here and in strkjv@Mark:14:3| probably means genuine (\pistikos\, from \pistos\, reliable). Only two instances in the N.T. {Very precious} (\polutimou\). Old compound adjective (\polus\, much, \timˆ\), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Matthew:13:46; strkjv@1Peter:1:7|. Mark has \polutelous\ (very costly). Matthew (Matthew:26:7|) has here \barutimou\ of weighty value (only N.T. instance). {Anointed} (\ˆleipsen\). First aorist active indicative of \aleiph“\, old word (Mark:16:1|). {The feet} (\tous podas\). Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:7|) have "his head." Why not both, though neither Gospel mentions both? The Latin MS. _fuldensis_ and the Syriac Sinatic do give both head and feet here. {Wiped} (\exemaxen\). First aorist active indicative of \ekmass“\, old verb to wipe off already in strkjv@11:2; strkjv@Luke:7:38,44|. {With her hair} (\tais thrixin autˆs\). Instrumental plural. It is this item that is relied on largely by those who identify Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman in Luke 7 and with Mary Magdalene. It is no doubt true that it was usually considered immodest for a woman to wear her hair loose. But it is not impossible that Mary of Bethany in her carefully planned love-offering for Jesus on this occasion was only glad to throw such a punctilio to the winds. Such an act on this occasion does not brand her a woman of loose character. {Was filled with the odour of the ointment} (\eplˆr“thˆ ek tˆs osmˆs tou murou\). Effective first aorist passive of \plˆro“\ and a natural result.

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:12:27 @{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@John:13:1 @{Now before the feast of the passover} (\pro de tˆs heortˆs tou pascha\). Just before, John means, not twenty-four hours before, that is our Thursday evening (beginning of 15th of Nisan, sunset to sunset Jewish day), since Jesus was crucified on Friday 15th of Nisan. Hence Jesus ate the regular passover meal at the usual time. The whole feast, including the feast of unleavened bread, lasted eight days. For a discussion of the objections to this interpretation of John in connexion with the Synoptic Gospels one may consult my _Harmony of the Gospels_, pp. 279-84, and David Smith's _In the Days of His Flesh_, Appendix VIII. The passover feast began on the 15th Nisan at sunset, the passover lamb being slain the afternoon of 14th Nisan. There seems no real doubt that this meal in strkjv@John:13:1-30| is the real passover meal described by the Synoptics also (Mark:14:18-21; strkjv@Matthew:26:21-25; strkjv@Luke:22:21-23|), followed by the institution of the Lord's Supper. Thus understood verse 1| here serves as an introduction to the great esoteric teaching of Christ to the apostles (John:13:2-17:26|), called by Barnas Sears _The Heart of Christ_. This phrase goes with the principal verb \ˆgapˆsen\ (loved). {Knowing} (\eid“s\). Second perfect active participle, emphasizing the full consciousness of Christ. He was not stumbling into the dark as he faced "his hour" (\autou hˆ h“ra\). See strkjv@18:4; strkjv@19:28| for other examples of the insight and foresight (Bernard) of Jesus concerning his death. See on strkjv@12:23| for use before by Jesus. {That he should depart} (\hina metabˆi\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \metabain“\, old word, to go from one place to another, here (5:24; strkjv@1John:3:14|) to go from this world (8:23|) back to the Father from whom he had come (14:12,28; strkjv@16:10,28; strkjv@17:5|). {His own which were in the world} (\tous idious tous en t“i kosm“i\). His own disciples (17:6,9,11|), those left in the world when he goes to the Father, not the Jews as in strkjv@1:11|. See strkjv@Acts:4:23; strkjv@1Timothy:5:8| for the idiom. John pictures here the outgoing of Christ's very heart's love (chs. strkjv@John:13-17|) towards these men whom he had chosen and whom he loved "unto the end" (\eis telos\) as in strkjv@Matthew:10:22; strkjv@Luke:18:15|, but here as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:16| rather "to the uttermost." The culmination of the crisis ("his hour") naturally drew out the fulness of Christ's love for them as is shown in these great chapters (John:13-17|).

rwp@John:13:27 @{Then entered Satan into him} (\tote eisˆlthen eis ekeinon ho Satanas\). The only time the word Satan occurs in the Gospel. As he had done before (13:2; strkjv@Luke:22:3|) until Christ considered him a devil (6:70|). This is the natural outcome of one who plays with the devil. {That thou doest, do quickly} (\Hosea:poieis poiˆson tacheion\). Aorist active imperative of \poie“\. "Do more quickly what thou art doing." \Tacheion\ is comparative of \tache“s\ (John:11:31|) and in N.T. only here, strkjv@20:4; strkjv@Hebrews:13:19,23|. See the eagerness of Jesus for the passion in strkjv@Luke:12:50|.

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

rwp@Luke:1:9 @{His lot was} (\elache\). Literally, {he obtained the lot}. Second aorist active indicative of \lagchan“\, to obtain by lot, a very old verb from Homer on. It is used either with the genitive as here, or the accusative as in strkjv@Acts:1:17; strkjv@2Peter:1:1|. Papyri show examples with the accusative. It was only once in a lifetime that a priest obtained the lot of going (\eiselth“n\, here nominative aorist active participle agreeing with the subject of \elache\) into the sanctuary (\ton naon\, not \to hieron\, the outer courts) and burning incense on the golden altar. "It was the great moment of Zacharias's life, and his heart was no doubt alert for the supernatural" (Ragg). The fortunate lot was "a white stone" to which strkjv@Revelation:2:17| may refer. {Burn incense} (\tou thumiasai\). Here only in the N.T. Occurs on inscriptions. Hobart finds it used by medical writers for fumigating herbs. "Ascending the steps to the Holy Place, the priests spread the coals on the golden altar, and arranged the incense, and the chief operating priest was then left alone within the Holy Place to await the signal of the president to burn the incense. It was probably at this time that the angel appeared to Zacharias" (Vincent).

rwp@Luke:2:5 @{To enrol himself with Mary} (\apograpsasthai sun Mariam\). Direct middle. "With Mary" is naturally taken with the infinitive as here. If so, that means that Mary's family register was in Bethlehem also and that she also belonged to the house of David. It is possible to connect "with Mary" far back with "went up" (\anebˆ\) in verse 4|, but it is unnatural to do so. There is no real reason for doubting that Mary herself was a descendant of David and that is the obvious way to understand Luke's genealogy of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:3:23-38|). The Syriac Sinaitic expressly says that both Joseph and Mary were of the house and city of David. {Betrothed} (\emnˆsteumenˆn\). Same verb as in strkjv@1:27|, but here it really means "married" or "espoused" as strkjv@Matthew:1:24f.| shows. Otherwise she could not have travelled with Joseph. {Great with child} (\enku“i\). Only here in N.T. Common Greek word.

rwp@Luke:2:7 @{Her firstborn} (\ton pr“totokon\). The expression naturally means that she afterwards had other children and we read of brothers and sisters of Jesus. There is not a particle of evidence for the notion that Mary refused to bear other children because she was the mother of the Messiah. {Wrapped in swaddling clothes} (\espargan“sen\). From \sparganon\, a swathing band. Only here and verse 12| in the N.T., but in Euripides, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Plutarch. Frequent in medical works. {In a manger} (\en phatnˆi\). In a crib in a stall whether in a cave (Justin Martyr) or connected with the inn we do not know. The cattle may have been out on the hills or the donkeys used in travelling may have been feeding in this stall or another near. {In the inn} (\en t“i katalumati\). A lodging-house or khan, poor enough at best, but there was not even room in this public place because of the crowds for the census. See the word also in strkjv@Luke:22:11; strkjv@Mark:14:14| with the sense of guest-room (cf. strkjv@1Kings:1:13|). It is the Hellenistic equivalent for \katag“geion\ and appears also in one papyrus. See strkjv@Exodus:4:24|. There would sometimes be an inner court, a range or arches, an open gallery round the four sides. On one side of the square, outside the wall, would be stables for the asses and camels, buffaloes and goats. Each man had to carry his own food and bedding.

rwp@Luke:2:49 @{Son} (\teknon\). Child, literally. It was natural for Mary to be the first to speak. {Why} (\Ti\). The mother's reproach of the boy is followed by a confession of negligence on her part and of Joseph ({sorrowing}, \odun“menoi\). {Thy father} (\ho pater sou\). No contradiction in this. Alford says: "Up to this time Joseph had been so called by the holy child himself, but from this time never." {Sought} (\ezˆtoumen\). Imperfect tense describing the long drawn out search for three days. {How is it that} (\Ti hoti\). The first words of Jesus preserved to us. This crisp Greek idiom without copula expresses the boy's amazement that his parents should not know that there was only one possible place in Jerusalem for him. {I must be} (\dei einai me\). Messianic consciousness of the necessity laid on him. Jesus often uses \dei\ (must) about his work. Of all the golden dreams of any boy of twelve here is the greatest. {In my Father's house} (\en tois tou patros mou\). Not "about my Father's business," but "in my Father's house" (cf. strkjv@Genesis:41:51|). Common Greek idiom. And note "my," not "our." When the boy first became conscious of his peculiar relation to the Father in heaven we do not know. But he has it now at twelve and it will grow within him through the years ahead in Nazareth.

rwp@Luke:3:21 @{When all the people were baptised} (\en t“i baptisthˆnai hapanta ton laon\). The use of the articular aorist infinitive here with \en\ bothers some grammarians and commentators. There is no element of time in the aorist infinitive. It is simply punctiliar action, literally "in the being baptized as to all the people." Luke does not say that all the people were baptized before Jesus came or were baptized at the same time. It is merely a general statement that Jesus was baptized in connexion with or at the time of the baptizing of the people as a whole. {Jesus also having been baptized} (\kai Iˆsou baptisthentos\). Genitive absolute construction, first aorist passive participle. In Luke's sentence the baptism of Jesus is merely introductory to the descent of the Holy Spirit and the voice of the Father. For the narrative of the baptism see strkjv@Mark:1:9; strkjv@Matthew:3:13-16|. {And praying} (\kai proseuchomenou\). Alone in Luke who so often mentions the praying of Jesus. Present participle and so naturally meaning that the heaven was opened while Jesus was praying though not necessarily in answer to his prayer. {The heaven was opened} (\ane“ichthˆnai ton ouranon\). First aorist passive infinitive with double augment, whereas the infinitive is not supposed to have any augment. The regular form would be \anoichthˆnai\ as in D (Codex Bezae). Songs:the augment appears in the future indicative \kateaxei\ (Matthew:12:20|) and the second aorist passive subjunctive \kateag“sin\ (John:19:31|). Such unusual forms appear in the _Koin‚_. This infinitive here with the accusative of general reference is the subject of \egeneto\ (it came to pass). strkjv@Matthew:3:16| uses the same verb, but strkjv@Mark:1:10| has \schizomenous\, rent asunder.

rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Iˆsous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin‚_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\ˆn h“sei et“n triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\“n huios h“s enomizeto I“sˆph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\h“s enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

rwp@Luke:4:1 @{Full of the Holy Spirit} (\plˆrˆs pneumatos hagiou\). An evident allusion to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus at his baptism (Luke:3:21f.|). The distinctness of the Persons in the Trinity is shown there, but with evident unity. One recalls also Luke's account of the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit (1:35|). strkjv@Matthew:4:1| says that "Jesus was led of the Spirit" while strkjv@Mark:1:12| states that "the Spirit driveth him forth" which see for discussion. "Jesus had been endowed with supernatural power; and He was tempted to make use of it in furthering his own interests without regard to the Father's will" (Plummer). {Was led by the Spirit} (\ˆgeto en toi pneumati\). Imperfect passive, continuously led. \En\ may be the instrumental use as often, for strkjv@Matthew:4:1| has here \hupo\ of direct agency. But Matthew has the aorist passive \anˆchthˆ\ which may be ingressive as he has \eis tˆn erˆmon\ (into the wilderness) while Luke has \en t“i erˆm“i\ (in the wilderness). At any rate Luke affirms that Jesus was now continuously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hence in this same sentence he mentions the Spirit twice. {During the forty days} (\hˆmerƒs tesserakonta\). Accusative of duration of time, to be connected with "led" not with "tempted." He was led in the Spirit during these forty days (cf. strkjv@Deuteronomy:8:2|, forty years). The words are amphibolous also in strkjv@Mark:1:13|. strkjv@Matthew:4:2| seems to imply that the three recorded temptations came at the close of the fasting for forty days. That can be true and yet what Luke states be true also. These three may be merely specimens and so "representative of the struggle which continued throughout the whole period" (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:4:2 @{Being tempted} (\peirazomenos\). Present passive participle and naturally parallel with the imperfect passive \ˆgeto\ (was led) in verse 1|. This is another instance of poor verse division which should have come at the end of the sentence. See on ¯Matthew:4:1; strkjv@Mark:1:13| for the words "tempt" and "devil." The devil challenged the Son of man though also the Son of God. It was a contest between Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, and the slanderer of men. The devil had won with Adam and Eve. He has hopes of triumph over Jesus. The story of this conflict is given only in strkjv@Matthew:4:1-11; strkjv@Luke:4:1-13|. There is a mere mention of it in strkjv@Mark:1:12f|. Songs:then here is a specimen of the Logia of Jesus (Q), a non-Markan portion of Matthew and Luke, the earliest document about Christ. The narrative could come ultimately only from Christ himself. It is noteworthy that it bears all the marks of the high conception of Jesus as the Son of God found in the Gospel of John and in Paul and Hebrews, the rest of the New Testament in fact, for Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Peter, and Jude:follow in this same strain. The point is that modern criticism has revealed the Messianic consciousness of Jesus as God's Son at his Baptism and in his Temptations at the very beginning of his ministry and in the oldest known documents about Christ (The Logia, Mark's Gospel). {He did eat nothing} (\ouk ephagen ouden\). Second aorist (constative) active indicative of the defective verb \esthi“\. Mark does not give the fast. strkjv@Matthew:4:2| has the aorist active participle \nˆsteusas\ which usually means a religious fast for purposes of devotion. That idea is not excluded by Luke's words. The entrance of Jesus upon his Messianic ministry was a fit time for this solemn and intense consecration. This mental and spiritual strain would naturally take away the appetite and there was probably nothing at hand to eat. The weakness from the absence of food gave the devil his special opportunity to tempt Jesus which he promptly seized. {When they were completed} (\suntelestheis“n aut“n\). Genitive absolute with the first aorist passive participle feminine plural because \hemer“n\ (days) is feminine. According to Luke the hunger (\epeinasen\, became hungry, ingressive aorist active indicative) came at the close of the forty days as in strkjv@Matthew:4:2|.

rwp@Luke:6:45 @{Bringeth forth} (\propherei\). In a similar saying repeated later. strkjv@Matthew:12:34f.| has the verb \ekballei\ (throws out, casts out), a bolder figure. "When men are natural, heart and mouth act in concert. But otherwise the mouth sometimes professes what the heart does not feel" (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:10:28 @{Thou hast answered right} (\orth“s apekrithˆs\). First aorist passive indicative second singular with the adverb \orth“s\. The answer was correct so far as the words went. In strkjv@Mark:12:34| Jesus commends the scribe for agreeing to his interpretation of the first and the second commandments. That scribe was "not far from the kingdom of God," but this lawyer was "tempting" Jesus. {Do this and thou shalt live} (\touto poiei kai zˆsˆi\). Present imperative (keep on doing this forever) and the future indicative middle as a natural result. There was only one trouble with the lawyer's answer. No one ever did or ever can "do" what the law lays down towards God and man always. To slip once is to fail. Songs:Jesus put the problem squarely up to the lawyer who wanted to know {by doing what}. Of course, if he kept the law {perfectly always}, he would inherit eternal life.

rwp@Luke:12:22 @{Unto his disciples} (\pros tous mathˆtas autou\). Songs:Jesus turns from the crowd to the disciples (verses 22-40|, when Peter interrupts the discourse). From here to the end of the chapter Luke gives material that appears in Matthew, but not in one connection as here. In Matthew part of it is in the charge to the Twelve on their tour in Galilee, part in the eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives. None of it is in Mark. Hence Q or the Logia seems to be the source of it. The question recurs again whether Jesus repeated on other occasions what is given here or whether Luke has here put together separate discourses as Matthew is held by many to have done in the Sermon on the Mount. We have no way of deciding these points. We can only say again that Jesus would naturally repeat his favourite sayings like other popular preachers and teachers. Songs:Luke:12:22-31| corresponds to strkjv@Matthew:6:25-33|, which see for detailed discussion. The parable of the rich fool was spoken to the crowd, but this exhortation to freedom from care (22-31|) is to the disciples. Songs:the language in strkjv@Luke:12:22| is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:6:25|. See there for \mˆ merimnƒte\ (stop being anxious) and the deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question (\phagˆte, endusˆsthe\). Songs:verse 23| here is the same in strkjv@Matthew:6:25| except that there it is a question with \ouch\ expecting the affirmative answer, whereas here it is given as a reason (\gar\, for) for the preceding command.

rwp@Luke:17:21 @{Within you} (\entos hum“n\). This is the obvious, and, as I think, the necessary meaning of \entos\. The examples cited of the use of \entos\ in Xenophon and Plato where \entos\ means "among" do not bear that out when investigated. Field (_Ot. Norv_.) "contends that there is no clear instance of \entos\ in the sense of among" (Bruce), and rightly so. What Jesus says to the Pharisees is that they, as others, are to look for the kingdom of God within themselves, not in outward displays and supernatural manifestations. It is not a localized display "Here" or "There." It is in this sense that in strkjv@Luke:11:20| Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God as "come upon you" (\ephthasen eph' humƒs\), speaking to Pharisees. The only other instance of \entos\ in the N.T. (Matthew:23:26|) necessarily means "within" ("the inside of the cup"). There is, beside, the use of \entos\ meaning "within" in the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus saying of Jesus of the Third Century (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 426) which is interesting: "The kingdom of heaven is within you" (\entos hum“n\ as here in strkjv@Luke:17:21|).

rwp@Mark:1:27 @{They questioned among themselves} (\sunzˆtein autous\). By look and word. {A new teaching} (\didachˆ kainˆ\). One surprise had followed another this day. The teaching was fresh (\kainˆ\), original as the dew of the morning on the blossoms just blown. That was a novelty in that synagogue where only staid and stilted rabbinical rules had been heretofore droned out. This new teaching charmed the people, but soon will be rated as heresy by the rabbis. And it was with authority (\kat' exousian\). It is not certain whether the phrase is to be taken with "new teaching," "It's new teaching with authority behind it," as Moffatt has it, or with the verb; "with authority commandeth even the unclean spirits" (\kai tois pneumasin tois akathartois epitassei\). The position is equivocal and may be due to the fact that "Mark gives the incoherent and excited remarks of the crowd in this natural form" (Swete). But the most astonishing thing of all is that the demons "obey him" (\hupakouousin aut“i\). The people were accustomed to the use of magical formulae by the Jewish exorcists (Matthew:12:27; strkjv@Acts:19:13|), but here was something utterly different. Simon Magus could not understand how Simon Peter could do his miracles without some secret trick and even offered to buy it (Acts:8:19|).

rwp@Mark:5:43 @{That no one should know this} (\hina mˆdeis gnoi touto\). Second aorist active subjunctive, \gnoi\. But would they keep still about it? There was the girl besides. Both Mark and Luke note that Jesus ordered that food be given to the child {given her to eat}, (\dothˆnai autˆi phagein\), a natural care of the Great Physician. Two infinitives here (first aorist passive and second aorist active). "She could walk and eat; not only alive, but well" (Bruce).

rwp@Mark:6:1 @{Into his own country} (\eis tˆn patrida autou\). Songs:Matthew:13:54|. There is no real reason for identifying this visit to Nazareth with that recorded in strkjv@Luke:4:26-31| at the beginning of the Galilean Ministry. He was rejected both times, but it is not incongruous that Jesus should give Nazareth a second chance. It was only natural for Jesus to visit his mother, brothers, and sisters again. Neither Mark nor Matthew mention Nazareth here by name, but it is plain that by \patrida\ the region of Nazareth is meant. He had not lived in Bethlehem since his birth.

rwp@Mark:6:44 @{Men} (\andres\). Men as different from women as in strkjv@Matthew:14:21|. This remarkable miracle is recorded by all Four Gospels, a nature miracle that only God can work. No talk about accelerating natural processes will explain this miracle. And three eyewitnesses report it: the Logia of Matthew, the eyes of Peter in Mark, the witness of John the Beloved Disciple (Gould). The evidence is overwhelming.

rwp@Mark:6:48 @{Seeing them distressed in rowing} (\id“n autous basanizomenous en t“i elaunein\). See also strkjv@Matthew:8:29| for the word \basaniz“\, to torture, torment (Matthew:4:24|) with a touch-stone, then to distress as here. Papyri have \dia basan“n\ used on slaves like our third degree for criminals. \Elaunein\ is literally to drive as of ships or chariots. They drove the boat with oars. Common in Xenophon for marching. {About the fourth watch of the night} (\peri tetartˆn phulakˆn tˆs nuktos\). That is, between three and six A.M. The wind was {contrary to them} (\enantios autois\), that is in their faces and rowing was difficult, "a great wind" (John:6:18|), and as a result the disciples had made little progress. They should have been over long before this. {And he would have passed by them} (\kai ˆthelen parelthein autous\). Only in Mark. He wished to pass by them, _praeterire eos_ (Vulgate). Imperfect tense \ˆthelen\. {They thought} (\edoxan\). A natural conclusion. {And cried out} (\anekraxan\). {Cried up}, literally, a shriek of terror, or scream.

rwp@Mark:8:12 @{He sighed deeply in his spirit} (\anastenaxas t“i pneumati\). The only instance of this compound in the N.T. though in the LXX. The uncompounded form occurs in strkjv@Mark:7:34| and it is common enough. The preposition \ana-\ intensifies the meaning of the verb (perfective use). "The sigh seemed to come, as we say, from the bottom of his heart, the Lord's human spirit was stirred to its depths" (Swete). Jesus resented the settled prejudice of the Pharisees (and now Sadducees also) against him and his work. {There shall no sign be given unto this generation} (\ei dothˆsetai tˆi geneƒi tautˆi sˆmeion\). strkjv@Matthew:16:4| has simply \ou dothˆsetai\, plain negative with the future passive indicative. Mark has \ei\ instead of \ou\, which is technically a conditional clause with the conclusion unexpressed (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1024), really aposiopesis in imitation of the Hebrew use of \im\. This is the only instance in the N.T. except in quotations from the LXX (Hebrews:3:11; strkjv@4:3,5|). It is very common in the LXX. The rabbis were splitting hairs over the miracles of Jesus as having a possible natural explanation (as some critics do today) even if by the power of Beelzebub, and those not of the sky (from heaven) which would be manifested from God. Songs:they put up this fantastic test to Jesus which he deeply resents. strkjv@Matthew:16:4| adds "but the sign of Jonah" mentioned already by Jesus on a previous occasion (Matthew:12:39-41|) at more length and to be mentioned again (Luke:11:32|). But the mention of the sign of Jonah was "an absolute refusal of signs in their sense" (Bruce). And when he did rise from the dead on the third day, the Sanhedrin refused to be convinced (see Acts 3 to 5).

rwp@Mark:10:13 @{They brought} (\prosepheron\). Imperfect active tense, implying repetition. Songs:also strkjv@Luke:18:15|, though strkjv@Matthew:19:13| has the constative aorist passive (\prosˆnechthˆsan\). "This incident follows with singular fitness after the Lord's assertion of the sanctity of married life" (Swete). These children (\paidia\, Mark and Matthew; \brephˆ\ in Luke) were of various ages. They were brought to Jesus for his blessing and prayers (Matthew). The mothers had reverence for Jesus and wanted him to touch (\hapsˆtai\) them. There was, of course, no question of baptism or salvation involved, but a most natural thing to do.

rwp@Mark:11:5 @{Certain of those that stood there} (\tines t“n ekei hestˆkot“n\). Perfect active participle, genitive plural. Bystanders. strkjv@Luke:19:33| terms them "the owners thereof" (\hoi kurioi autou\). The lords or masters of the colt. They make a natural protest.

rwp@Mark:13:32 @{Not even the Son} (\oude ho huios\). There is no doubt as to the genuineness of these words here such as exists in strkjv@Matthew:24:36|. This disclaimer of knowledge naturally interpreted applies to the second coming, not to the destruction of Jerusalem which had been definitely limited to that generation as it happened in A.D. 70.

rwp@Matthew:1:22 @{That it may be fulfilled} (\hina plˆr“thˆi\). Alford says that "it is impossible to interpret \hina\ in any other sense than in order that." That was the old notion, but modern grammarians recognize the non-final use of this particle in the _Koin‚_ and even the consecutive like the Latin _ut_. Some even argue for a causal use. If the context called for result, one need not hesitate to say so as in strkjv@Mark:11:28; strkjv@John:9:36; strkjv@1John:1:9; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@13:13|. See discussion in my _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research_, pp. 997-9. All the same it is purpose here, God's purpose, Matthew reports the angel as saying, spoken "by (\hupo\, immediate agent) the Lord through (\dia\, intermediate agent) the prophet." {"All this has happened"} (\touto de holon gegonen\, present perfect indicative), stands on record as historical fact. But the Virgin Birth of Jesus is not due to this interpretation of strkjv@Isaiah:7:14|. It is not necessary to maintain (Broadus) that Isaiah himself saw anything more in his prophecy than that a woman then a virgin, would bear a son and that in the course of a few years Ahaz would be delivered from the king of Syria and Israel by the coming of the Assyrians. This historical illustration finds its richest fulfilment in the birth of Jesus from Mary. "Words of themselves are empty. They are useful only as vessels to convey things from mind to mind" (Morison). The Hebrew word for young woman is translated by virgin (\parthenos\), but it is not necessary to conclude that Isaiah himself contemplated the supernatural birth of Jesus. We do not have to say that the idea of the Virgin Birth of Jesus came from Jewish sources. Certainly it did not come from the pagan myths so foreign to this environment, atmosphere and spirit. It is far simpler to admit the supernatural fact than try to explain the invention of the idea as a myth to justify the deification of Jesus. The birth, life, and death of Jesus throw a flood of light on the Old Testament narrative and prophecies for the early Christians. In Matthew and John in particular we often see "that the events of Christ's life were divinely ordered for the express purpose of fulfilling the Old Testament" (McNeile). See strkjv@Matthew:2:15,23; strkjv@4:14-17; strkjv@8:17; strkjv@12:17-21; strkjv@13:25; strkjv@21:4f.; strkjv@John:12:38f.; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@19:24,28,36f|.

rwp@Matthew:1:25 @{And knew her not} (\kai ouk egin“sken autˆn\). Note the imperfect tense, continuous or linear action. Joseph lived in continence with Mary till the birth of Jesus. Matthew does not say that Mary bore no other children than Jesus. "Her firstborn" is not genuine here, but is a part of the text in strkjv@Luke:2:7|. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught here. Jesus had brothers and sisters and the natural meaning is that they were younger children of Joseph and Mary and not children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Songs:Joseph "called his name Jesus" as the angel had directed and the child was born in wedlock. Joseph showed that he was an upright man in a most difficult situation.

rwp@Matthew:2:1 @{Now when Jesus was born} (\tou de Iˆsou gennˆthentos\). The fact of the birth of Jesus is stated by the genitive absolute construction (first aorist passive participle of the same verb \genna“\ used twice already of the birth of Jesus, strkjv@1:16,20|, and used in the genealogy, strkjv@1:2-16|). Matthew does not propose to give biographic details of the supernatural birth of Jesus, wonderful as it was and disbelieved as it is by some today who actually deny that Jesus was born at all or ever lived, men who talk of the Jesus Myth, the Christ Myth, etc. "The main purpose is to show the reception given by the world to the new-born Messianic King. Homage from afar, hostility at home; foreshadowing the fortunes of the new faith: reception by the Gentiles, rejection by the Jews" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:4:2 @{Had fasted} (\nˆsteusas\). No perfunctory ceremonial fast, but of communion with the Father in complete abstention from food as in the case of Moses during forty days and forty nights (Exodus:34:28|). "The period of the fast, as in the case of Moses was spent in a spiritual ecstasy, during which the wants of the natural body were suspended" (Alford). "He afterward hungered" and so at the close of the period of forty days.

rwp@Matthew:5:5 @{The meek} (\hoi praeis\). Wycliff has it "Blessed be mild men." The ancients used the word for outward conduct and towards men. They did not rank it as a virtue anyhow. It was a mild equanimity that was sometimes negative and sometimes positively kind. But Jesus lifted the word to a nobility never attained before. In fact, the Beatitudes assume a new heart, for the natural man does not find in happiness the qualities mentioned here by Christ. The English word "meek" has largely lost the fine blend of spiritual poise and strength meant by the Master. He calls himself "meek and lowly in heart" (Matthew:11:29|) and Moses is also called meek. It is the gentleness of strength, not mere effeminacy. By "the earth" (\tˆn gˆn\) Jesus seems to mean the Land of Promise (Psalms:37:11|) though Bruce thinks that it is the whole earth. Can it be the solid earth as opposed to the sea or the air?

rwp@Matthew:8:12 @{The sons of the kingdom} (\hoi huioi tˆs basileias\). A favourite Hebrew idiom like "son of hell" (Matthew:23:15|), "sons of this age" (Luke:16:8|). The Jews felt that they had a natural right to the privileges of the kingdom because of descent from Abraham (Matthew:3:9|). But mere natural birth did not bring spiritual sonship as the Baptist had taught before Jesus did.

rwp@Matthew:12:46 @{His mother and his brothers} (\hˆ mˆtˆr kai hoi adelphoi autou\). Brothers of Jesus, younger sons of Joseph and Mary. The charge of the Pharisees that Jesus was in league with Satan was not believed by the disciples of Jesus, but some of his friends did think that he was beside himself (Mark:3:21|) because of the excitement and strain. It was natural for Mary to want to take him home for rest and refreshment. Songs:the mother and brothers are pictured standing outside the house (or the crowd). They send a messenger to Jesus.

rwp@Matthew:23:37 @{How often would I have gathered} (\posakis ˆthelˆsa episunagein\). More exactly, how often did I long to gather to myself (double compound infinitive). The same verb (\episunagei\) is used of the hen with the compound preposition \hupokat“\. Everyone has seen the hen quickly get together the chicks under her wings in the time of danger. These words naturally suggest previous visits to Jerusalem made plain by John's Gospel.

rwp@Matthew:24:31 @{With a great sound of a trumpet} (\meta salpiggos ph“nˆs megalˆs\). Some MSS. omit (\ph“nˆs\) "sound." The trumpet was the signal employed to call the hosts of Israel to march as to war and is common in prophetic imagery (Isaiah:27:13|). Cf. the seventh angel (Revelation:11:15|). Clearly "the coming of the son of man is not to be identified with the judgment of Jerusalem but rather forms its preternatural background" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:24:34 @{This generation} (\hˆ genea hautˆ\). The problem is whether Jesus is here referring to the destruction of Jerusalem or to the second coming and end of the world. If to the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a literal fulfilment. In the Old Testament a generation was reckoned as forty years. This is the natural way to take verse 34| as of 33| (Bruce), "all things" meaning the same in both verses.

rwp@Matthew:25:32 @{All the nations} (panta ta ethnˆ). Not just Gentiles, but Jews also. Christians and non-Christians. This program for the general judgment has been challenged by some scholars who regard it as a composition by the evangelist to exalt Christ. But why should not Christ say this if he is the Son of Man and the Son of God and realized it? A "reduced" Christ has trouble with all the Gospels, not merely with the Fourth Gospel, and no less with Q and Mark than with Matthew and Luke. This is a majestic picture with which to close the series of parables about readiness for the second coming. Here is the program when he does come. "I am aware that doubt is thrown on this passage by some critics. But the doubt is most wanton. Where is the second brain that could have invented anything so original and so sublime as vv. 35-40,42-45|?" (Sanday, _Life of Christ in Recent Research_, p. 128). {As the shepherd separates} (\h“sper ho poimˆn aphorizei\). A common figure in Palestine. The sheep are usually white and the goats black. There are kids (\eriph“n, eriphia\) which have grazed together. The goats devastate a field of all herbage. "Indeed they have extirpated many species of trees which once covered the hills" (Tristram, _Natural History of the Bible_, pp. 89f.). The shepherd stands at the gate and taps the sheep to go to the right and the goats to the left.

rwp@Matthew:26:22 @{Is it I, Lord?} (\mˆti eg“ eimi, Kurie;\). The negative expects the answer No and was natural for all save Judas. But he had to bluff it out by the same form of question (verse 25|). The answer of Jesus, {Thou hast said} (\su eipas\), means Yes.

rwp@Matthew:27:27 @{Into the palace} (\eis to prait“rion\). In Rome the praetorium was the camp of the praetorian (from praetor) guard of soldiers (Phillipians:1:13|), but in the provinces it was the palace in which the governor resided as in strkjv@Acts:23:35| in Caesarea. Songs:here in Jerusalem Pilate ordered Jesus and all the band or cohort (\holˆn tˆn speiran\) of soldiers to be led into the palace in front of which the judgment-seat had been placed. The Latin _spira_ was anything rolled into a circle like a twisted ball of thread. These Latin words are natural here in the atmosphere of the court and the military environment. The soldiers were gathered together for the sport of seeing the scourging. These heathen soldiers would also enjoy showing their contempt for the Jews as well as for the condemned man.

rwp@Matthew:28:2 @{There was a great earthquake} (\seismos egeneto megas\). Clearly not the earthquake of strkjv@27:51|. The precise time of this earthquake is not given. It was before sunrise on the first day of the week when the women made the next visit. Matthew alone relates the coming of the angel of the Lord who rolled away the stone and was sitting upon it (\apekulise ton lithon kai ekathˆto epan“ autou\). If one is querulous about these supernatural phenomena, he should reflect that the Resurrection of Jesus is one of the great supernatural events of all time. Cornelius … Lapide dares to say: "The earth, which trembled with sorrow at the Death of Christ as it were leaped for joy at His Resurrection." The Angel of the Lord announced the Incarnation of the Son of God and also His Resurrection from the grave. There are apparent inconsistencies in the various narratives of the Resurrection and the appearances of the Risen Christ. We do not know enough of the details to be able to reconcile them. But the very variations strengthen the independent witness to the essential fact that Jesus rose from the grave. Let each writer give his own account in his own way. The stone was rolled away not to let the Lord out, but to let the women in to prove the fact of the empty tomb (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:28:17 @{But some doubted} (\hoi de edistasan\). From \dis\ (in two, divided in mind). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:14:31|. The reference is not to the eleven who were all now convinced after some doubt, but to the others present. Paul states that over five hundred were present, most of whom were still alive when he wrote (1Corinthians:15:6|). It is natural that some should hesitate to believe so great a thing at the first appearance of Jesus to them. Their very doubt makes it easier for us to believe. This was the mountain where Jesus had promised to meet them. This fact explains the large number present. Time and place were arranged beforehand. It was the climax of the various appearances and in Galilee where were so many believers. They worshipped (\prosekunˆsan\) Jesus as the women had done (28:9|). He is now their Risen Lord and Saviour.

rwp@Philippians:2:9 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). Because of which act of voluntary and supreme humility. {Highly exalted} (\huperups“se\). First aorist indicative of \huperupso“\ (\huper\ and \hupsos\) late and rare word (LXX and Byzantine). Here only in N.T. Because of Christ's voluntary humiliation God lifted him above or beyond (\huper\) the state of glory which he enjoyed before the Incarnation. What glory did Christ have after the Ascension that he did not have before in heaven? What did he take back to heaven that he did not bring? Clearly his humanity. He returned to heaven the Son of Man as well as the Son of God. {The name which is above every name} (\to onoma to huper pan onoma\). What name is that? Apparently and naturally the name {Jesus}, which is given in verse 10|. Some think it is "Jesus Christ," some "Lord," some the ineffable name Jehovah, some merely dignity and honour.

rwp@Philippians:3:7 @{Were gain to me} (\en moi kerdˆ\). "Were gains (plural, see on ¯1:21|) to me (ethical dative)." Paul had natural pride in his Jewish attainments. He was the star of hope for Gamaliel and the Sanhedrin. {Have I counted} (\hˆgˆmai\). Perfect middle indicative, state of completion and still true. {Loss} (\zˆmian\). Old word for damage, loss. In N.T. only in Phil. and strkjv@Acts:27:10,21|. Debit side of the ledger, not credit.

rwp@Revelation:1:9 @{I John} (\Eg“ I“anˆs\). strkjv@Songs:22:8|. In apocalyptic literature the personality of the writer is always prominent to guarantee the visions (Daniel:8:1; strkjv@10:2|). {Partaker with you} (\sunkoin“nos\). See already strkjv@1Corinthians:9:23|. "Co-partner with you" (Romans:11:17|). One article with \adelphos\ and \sunkoin“nos\ unifying the picture. The absence of \apostolos\ here does not show that he is not an apostle, but merely his self-effacement, as in the Fourth Gospel, and still more his oneness with his readers. Songs:there is only one article (\tˆi\) with \thlipsei\ (tribulation), \basileiƒi\ (kingdom), \hupomonˆi\ (patience), ideas running all through the book. Both the tribulation (see strkjv@Matthew:13:21| for \thlipsis\) and the kingdom (see strkjv@Matthew:3:2| for \basileia\) were present realities and called for patience (\hupomonˆ\ being "the spiritual alchemy" according to Charles for those in the kingdom, for which see strkjv@Luke:8:15; strkjv@James:5:7|). All this is possible only "in Jesus" (\en Iˆsou\), a phrase on a par with Paul's common \en Christ“i\ (in Christ), repeated in strkjv@14:13|. Cf. strkjv@3:20; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:5|. {Was} (\egenomˆn\). Rather, "I came to be," second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\. {In the isle that is called Patmos} (\en tˆi nˆs“i tˆi kaloumenˆi Patm“i\). Patmos is a rocky sparsely settled island some ten miles long and half that wide, one of the Sporades group in the Aegean Sea, south of Miletus. The present condition of the island is well described by W. E. Geil in _The Isle That Is Called Patmos_ (1905). Here John saw the visions described in the book, apparently written while still a prisoner there in exile. {For the word of God and the testimony of Jesus} (\dia ton logon tou theou kai tˆn marturian Iˆsou\). The reason for (\dia\ and the accusative) John's presence in Patmos, naturally as a result of persecution already alluded to, not for the purpose of preaching there or of receiving the visions. See verse 2| for the phrase.

rwp@Revelation:5:4 @{I wept much} (\eg“ eklaion polu\). Imperfect active of \klai“\, picturesque, descriptive, I kept on weeping much; natural tense in these vivid visions (1:12; strkjv@2:14; strkjv@5:4,14; strkjv@6:8,9; strkjv@10:10; strkjv@19:14; strkjv@21:15|). Perhaps weeping aloud. {Was found} (\heurethˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \heurisk“\. {Worthy} (\axios\). Predicative nominative after \heurethˆ\.

rwp@Revelation:5:6 @{And I saw} (\kai eidon\). Stirred by the words of the elder in verse 5| (\idou\, behold). "I beheld." {In the midst} (\en mes“i\). See strkjv@4:6| for this idiom. It is not quite clear where the Lamb was standing in the vision, whether close to the throne or in the space between the throne and the elders (perhaps implied by "came" in verse 7|, but nearness to the throne is implied by strkjv@14:1; strkjv@Acts:7:56; strkjv@Hebrews:10:11|). {A Lamb} (\arnion\). Elsewhere in the N.T. \ho amnos\ is used of Christ (John:1:29,36; Acts strkjv@8:32; strkjv@1Peter:1:19| like strkjv@Isaiah:53:7|), but in the Apocalypse \to arnion\ occurs for the Crucified Christ 29 times in twelve chapters. {Standing} (\hestˆkos\). Second perfect active (intransitive of \histˆmi\) neuter accusative singular (grammatical gender like \arnion\), though some MSS. read \hestˆk“s\ (natural gender masculine and nominative in spite of \eidon\ construction according to sense). {As though it had been slain} (\h“s esphagmenon\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \sphaz“\, old word, in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:5:6,9,12; strkjv@6:4,9; strkjv@13:3; strkjv@18:24; strkjv@1John:3:12|. \H“s\ (as if) is used because the Lamb is now alive, but (in appearance) with the marks of the sacrifice. The Christ as the Lamb is both sacrifice and Priest (Hebrews:9:12f.; strkjv@10:11|). {Having} (\ech“n\). Construction according to sense again with masculine nominative participle instead of \echonta\ (masculine accusative singular) or \echon\ (neuter accusative singular). Seven horns (\keras\) is a common symbol in the O.T. for strength and kingly power (1Samuel:2:10; strkjv@1Kings:22:11; strkjv@Psalms:112:9; strkjv@Daniel:7:7,20ff.|) and often in Rev. (Revelation:12:3; strkjv@13:1; strkjv@17:3,12|). Fulness of power (the All-powerful one) is symbolized by seven. {Seven eyes} (\ophthalmous hepta\). Like strkjv@Zechariah:3:9; strkjv@4:10| and denotes here, as there, omniscience. Here they are identified with the seven Spirits of Christ, while in strkjv@1:4| the seven Spirits are clearly the Holy Spirit of God (3:1|), and blaze like torches (4:5|), like the eyes of Christ (1:14|). The Holy Spirit is both Spirit of God and of Christ (Romans:8:9|). {Sent forth} (\apestalmenoi\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \apostell“\, masculine plural (agreeing with \hoi\ and \ophthalmous\ in gender), but some MSS. have \apestalmena\ agreeing with the nearer \pneumata\.

rwp@Revelation:5:12 @{Worthy} (\axion\). Agreeing in gender (grammatical neuter) with \arnion\, but some MSS. have \axios\ (masculine, natural gender). Note change to third person \estin\ instead of second \ei\. The point of the song is the same as that in verses 9,10|, but the language differs. Note the repeated article \to\ (the lamb the slain) referring to verses 6,9|. Note also the one article \tˆn\ before \dunamin\ for all the seven grounds of praise (\dunamin\, power, \plouton\, wealth, \sophian\, wisdom, \ischun\, strength, \timˆn\, honor, \doxan\, glory, \eulogian\, blessing), though \plouton\ is masculine, in contrast with separate article for each item (all three feminine) in strkjv@4:11|, here grouping them all together, "a heptad of praise" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:6:16 @{They say} (\legousin\). Vivid dramatic present active indicative, as is natural here. {Fall on us} (\Pesate eph' hˆmƒs\). Second aorist (first aorist ending) imperative of \pipt“\, tense of urgency, do it now. {And hide us} (\kai krupsate hˆmƒs\). Same tense of urgency again from \krupt“\ (verb in verse 15|). Both imperatives come in inverted order from strkjv@Hosea:10:8| with \kalupsate\ (cover) in place of \krupsate\ (hide), quoted by Jesus on the way to the Cross (Luke:23:30|) in the order here, but with \kalupsate\, not \krupsate\. {From the face of him that} (\apo pros“pou tou\, etc.). "What sinners dread most is not death, but the revealed Presence of God" (Swete). Cf. strkjv@Genesis:3:8|. {And from the wrath of the Lamb} (\kai apo tˆs orgˆs tou arniou\). Repetition of "the grave irony" (Swete) of strkjv@5:5f|. The Lamb is the Lion again in the terribleness of his wrath. Recall the mourning in strkjv@1:7|. See strkjv@Matthew:25:41ff.| where Jesus pronounces the woes on the wicked.

rwp@Revelation:8:5 @{Taketh} (\eilˆphen\). Vivid dramatic perfect active indicative of \lamban“\ as in strkjv@5:7|, "has taken." The angel had apparently ]aid aside the censer. Hardly merely the pleonastic use of \lamban“\ (John:19:23|). John pictures the scene for us. {Filled} (\egemisen\). He drops back to the narrative use of the first aorist active indicative of \gemiz“\. {With the fire} (\ek tou puros\), live coals from the altar (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:6:6|). {Cast} (\ebalen\). Second aorist active indicative of \ball“\. See strkjv@Genesis:19:24| (Sodom); strkjv@Ezekiel:10:2| and Christ's bold metaphor in strkjv@Luke:12:49|. See this use of \ball“\ also in strkjv@Revelation:8:7; strkjv@12:4,9,13; strkjv@14:19|. {Followed} (\egenonto\). Came to pass naturally after the casting of fire on the earth. Same three elements in strkjv@4:5|, but in different order (lightnings, voices, thunders), lightning naturally preceding thunder as some MSS. have it here. Perhaps \ph“nai\, the voices of the storm (wind, etc.).

rwp@Revelation:13:8 @{Shall worship him} (\proskunˆsousin auton\). Future active of \proskune“\ with the accusative here as some MSS. in strkjv@13:4| (\to thˆrion\), both constructions in this book. {Whose} (\hou--autou\). Redundant use of genitive \autou\ (his) with \hou\ (whose) as common in this book, and singular instead of plural \h“n\ with antecedent \pantes\ (all, plural), thus calling attention to the responsibility of the individual in emperor-worship. {Hath not been written} (\ou gegraptai\). Perfect passive indicative of \graph“\, permanent state, stands written. {In the book of life of the Lamb} (\en t“i bibli“i tˆs z“ˆs tou arniou\). See strkjv@3:5| for this phrase and the O.T. references. It occurs again in strkjv@17:8; strkjv@20:12,15; strkjv@21:27|. "Here and in strkjv@21:27|, the Divine Register is represented as belonging to 'the Lamb that was slain'" (Swete). {That hath been slain from the foundation of the world} (\tou esphagmenou\ (for which see strkjv@5:6|) \apo katabolˆs kosmou\). For the phrase \apo katabolˆs kosmou\ (not in the LXX) there are six other N.T. uses (Matthew:13:35| without \kosmou\; strkjv@25:34; strkjv@Luke:11:50; strkjv@Hebrews:4:3; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Revelation:17:8|), and for \pro katabolˆs kosmou\ three (John:17:24; strkjv@Ephesians:1:4; strkjv@1Peter:1:20|). It is doubtful here whether it is to be taken with \tou esphagmenou\ (cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:20|) or with \gegraptai\ as in strkjv@Revelation:17:8|. Either makes sense, and here the most natural use is with \esphagmenou\. At any rate the death of Christ lies in the purpose of God, as in strkjv@John:3:16|.

rwp@Revelation:16:11 @{They blasphemed} (\eblasphˆmˆsan\) {and they repented not} (\kai ou metenoˆsan\). Precisely as in verse 9|, which see. Not just because of the supernatural darkness, but also "because of their pains" (\ek t“n pon“n aut“n\, plural here and same use of \ek\) and their sores (\kai ek t“n helk“n aut“n\, as in verse 2|, only plural, and same use of \ek\). {Of their works} (\ek t“n erg“n aut“n\). "Out of their deeds," and addition to verse 9|. {The God of heaven} (\ton theon tou ouranou\). As in strkjv@Daniel:2:44|. Like the pride of Nebuchadrezzar against Jehovah.

rwp@Revelation:22:8 @{And I John} (\Kag“ I“annˆs\). Here John the Seer is the speaker. He had already given his name (1:1,4,9|). Here he claims to be the "one who hears and sees these things" (\ho akou“n kai blep“n tauta\). {I fell down to worship} (\epesa proskunˆsai\). Second aorist active indicative of \pipt“\ (with \-a\ form) and the first aorist active infinitive of purpose of \proskune“\. It was a natural, though a wrong, thing to do, especially after Christ's own voice followed that of the angel "which shewed me these things" (\tou deiknuontos tauta\). Genitive singular of the articular present active participle of \deiknu“\. Cf. strkjv@1:1; strkjv@4:1; strkjv@17:1; strkjv@21:9f.; strkjv@22:1,6|.

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS SPRING OF A.D. 57 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:2|) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul's long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Romans:16:3-5|) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D) give chapter 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. Marcion rejected it and chapter 15 also for reasons of his own. Renan's theory that Romans was a circular letter like Ephesians sent in different forms to different churches (Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Corinthians:1:20|, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul's remarks about going to Rome (Romans:1:9-16|) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added strkjv@Romans:16:25-27| some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves strkjv@Romans:15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.

rwp@Romans:1:8 @{First} (\pr“ton men\). Adverb in the accusative case, but no \epeita de\ (in the next place) as in strkjv@Hebrews:7:2| or \epeita\ as in strkjv@James:3:17| follows. The rush of thoughts crowds out the balanced phraseology as in strkjv@Romans:3:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:18|. {Through} (\dia\). As the mediator or medium of thanksgiving as in strkjv@7:25|. {For} (\peri\). Concerning, about. {That} (\hoti\). Or because. Either declarative or causal \hoti\ makes sense here. {Your faith} (\hˆ pistis hum“n\). "Your Christianity" (Sanday and Headlam). {Is proclaimed} (\kataggelletai\). Present passive indicative of \kataggell“\, to announce (\aggell“\) up and down (\kata\). See also \anaggell“\, to bring back news (John:5:15|), \apaggell“\, to announce from one as the source (Matthew:2:8|), \prokataggell“\, to announce far and wide beforehand (Acts:3:18|). {Throughout all the world} (\en hol“i t“i kosm“i\). Natural hyperbole as in strkjv@Colossians:1:6; strkjv@Acts:17:6|. But widely known because the church was in the central city of the empire.

rwp@Romans:1:18 @{For the wrath of God is revealed} (\apokaluptetai gar orgˆ theou\). Note in Romans Paul's use of \gar\, now argumentative, now explanatory, now both as here. There is a parallel and antecedent revelation (see verse 17|) of God's wrath corresponding to the revelation of God's righteousness, this an unwritten revelation, but plainly made known. \Orgˆ\ is from \orga“\, to teem, to swell. It is the temper of God towards sin, not rage, but the wrath of reason and law (Shedd). The revelation of God's righteousness in the gospel was necessary because of the failure of men to attain it without it, for God's wrath justly rested upon all both Gentiles (1:18-32|) and Jews (2:1-3:20|). {Ungodliness} (\asebeian\). Irreligion, want of reverence toward God, old word (cf. strkjv@2Timothy:2:16|). {Unrighteousness} (\adikian\). Lack (\a\ privative and \dikˆ\) of right conduct toward men, injustice (Romans:9:14; strkjv@Luke:18:6|). This follows naturally from irreverence. The basis of ethical conduct rests on the nature of God and our attitude toward him, otherwise the law of the jungle (cf. Nietzsche, "might makes right"). {Hold down the truth} (\tˆn alˆtheian katechont“n\). Truth (\alˆtheia, alˆthˆs\, from \a\ privative and \lˆth“\ or \lanthan“\, to conceal) is out in the open, but wicked men, so to speak, put it in a box and sit on the lid and "hold it down in unrighteousness." Their evil deeds conceal the open truth of God from men. Cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:6f.| for this use of \katech“\, to hinder.

rwp@Romans:1:31 @{Without understanding} (\asunetous\). Same word in verse 21|. {Covenant-breakers} (\asunthetous\). Another paronomasia or pun. \A\ privative and verbal \sunthetos\ from \suntithˆmi\, to put together. Old word, common in LXX (Jeremiah:3:7|), men "false to their engagements" (Sanday and Headlam), who treat covenants as "a scrap of paper." {Without natural affection} (\astorgous\). Late word, \a\ privative and \storgˆ\, love of kindred. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:3|. {Unmerciful} (\aneleˆmonas\). From \a\ privative and \eleˆm“n\, merciful. Late word, only here in N.T. Some MSS. add \aspondous\, implacable, from strkjv@2Timothy:3:3|. It is a terrible picture of the effects of sin on the lives of men and women. The late Dr. R. H. Graves of Canton, China, said that a Chinaman who got hold of this chapter declared that Paul could not have written it, but only a modern missionary who had been to China. It is drawn to the life because Paul knew Pagan Graeco-Roman civilization.

rwp@Romans:4:12 @{The father of circumcision} (\patera peritomˆs\). The accusative with \eis to einai\ to be repeated from verse 11|. Lightfoot takes it to mean, not "a father of a circumcised progeny," but "a father belonging to circumcision," a less natural interpretation. {But who also walk} (\alla kai tois stoichousin\). The use of \tois\ here is hard to explain, for \ou monon\ and \alla kai\ both come after the preceding \tois\. All the MSS. have it thus. A primitive error in a copyist is suggested by Hort who would omit the second \tois\. Lightfoot regards it less seriously and would repeat the second \tois\ in the English: "To those who are, I do not say of circumcision only, but also to those who walk." {In the steps} (\tois ichnesin\). Locative case. See on ¯2Corinthians:12:18|. \Stoiche“\ is military term, to walk in file as in strkjv@Galatians:5:25; strkjv@Phillipians:3:16|.

rwp@Romans:5:12 @{Therefore} (\dia touto\). "For this reason." What reason? Probably the argument made in verses 1-11|, assuming our justification and urging exultant joy in Christ because of the present reconciliation by Christ's death and the certainty of future final salvation by his life. {As through one man} (\h“sper di' henos anthr“pou\). Paul begins a comparison between the effects of Adam's sin and the effects of the redemptive work of Christ, but he does not give the second member of the comparison. Instead of that he discusses some problems about sin and death and starts over again in verse 15|. The general point is plain that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants, though he does not say how it was done whether by the natural or the federal headship of Adam. It is important to note that Paul does not say that the whole race receives the full benefit of Christ's atoning death, but only those who do. Christ is the head of all believers as Adam is the head of the race. In this sense Adam "is a figure of him that was to come." {Sin entered into the world} (\hˆ hamartia eis ton kosmon eisˆlthen\). Personification of sin and represented as coming from the outside into the world of humanity. Paul does not discuss the origin of evil beyond this fact. There are some today who deny the fact of sin at all and who call it merely "an error of mortal mind" (a notion) while others regard it as merely an animal inheritance devoid of ethical quality. {And so death passed unto all men} (\kai hout“s eis pantas anthr“pous diˆlthen\). Note use of \dierchomai\ rather than \eiserchomai\, just before, second aorist active indicative in both instances. By "death" in strkjv@Genesis:2:17; strkjv@3:19| physical death is meant, but in verses 17,21| eternal death is Paul's idea and that lurks constantly behind physical death with Paul. {For that all sinned} (\eph' h“i pantes hˆmarton\). Constative (summary) aorist active indicative of \hamartan“\, gathering up in this one tense the history of the race (committed sin). The transmission from Adam became facts of experience. In the old Greek \eph' h“i\ usually meant "on condition that," but "because" in N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 963).

rwp@Romans:8:16 @{The Spirit himself} (\auto to pneuma\). The grammatical gender of \pneuma\ is neuter as here, but the Greek used also the natural gender as we do exclusively as in strkjv@John:16:13| \ekeinos\ (masculine {he}), \to pneuma\ (neuter). See also strkjv@John:16:26| (\ho--ekeinos\). It is a grave mistake to use the neuter "it" or "itself" when referring to the Holy Spirit. {Beareth witness with our spirit} (\summarturei t“i pneumati hˆm“n\). See on ¯Romans:2:15| for this verb with associative instrumental case. See strkjv@1John:5:10f.| for this double witness.

rwp@Romans:8:38 @{For I am persuaded} (\pepeismai gar\). Perfect passive participle of \peith“\, "I stand convinced." The items mentioned are those that people dread (life, death, supernatural powers, above, below, any creature to cover any omissions).

rwp@Romans:9:5 @{Of whom} (\ex h“n\). Fourth relative clause and here with \ex\ and the ablative. {Christ} (\ho Christos\). The Messiah. {As concerning the flesh} (\to kata sarka\). Accusative of general reference, "as to the according to the flesh." Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in strkjv@1:3f|. {Who is over all, God blessed for ever} (\ho on epi pant“n theos eulogˆtos\). A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after \sarka\ (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See strkjv@Acts:20:28; strkjv@Titus:2:13| for Paul's use of \theos\ applied to Jesus Christ.

rwp@Romans:11:16 @{First fruit} (\aparchˆ\). See on ¯1Corinthians:15:20,23|. The metaphor is from strkjv@Numbers:15:19f|. The LXX has \aparchˆn phuramatos\, first of the dough as a heave offering. {The lump} (\to phurama\). From which the first fruit came. See on ¯9:21|. Apparently the patriarchs are the first fruit. {The root} (\hˆ riza\). Perhaps Abraham singly here. The metaphor is changed, but the idea is the same. Israel is looked on as a tree. But one must recall and keep in mind the double sense of Israel in strkjv@9:6f|. (the natural and the spiritual).

rwp@Romans:11:17 @{Branches} (\klad“n\). From \kla“\, to break. {Were broken off} (\exeklasthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekkla“\. Play on the word \klados\ (branch) and \ekkla“\, to break off. Condition of first class, assumed as true. Some of the individual Jews (natural Israel) were broken off the stock of the tree (spiritual Israel). {And thou} (\kai su\). An individual Gentile. {Being a wild olive} (\agrielaios “n\). This word, used by Aristotle, occurs in an inscription. Ramsay (_Pauline Studies_, pp. 219ff.) shows that the ancients used the wild-olive graft upon an old olive tree to reinvigorate the tree precisely as Paul uses the figure here and that both the olive tree and the graft were influenced by each other, though the wild olive graft did not produce as good olives as the original stock. But it should be noted that in verse 24| Paul expressly states that the grafting of Gentiles on to the stock of the spiritual Israel was "contrary to nature" (\para phusin\). {Wast grafted in} (\enekentristhˆs\). First aorist passive indicative of \enkentriz“\, to cut in, to graft, used by Aristotle. Belongs "to the higher _Koin‚_" (literary _Koin‚_) according to Milligan. {Partaker} (\sunkoin“nos\). Co-partner. {Fatness} (\piotˆtos\). Old word from \pi“n\ (fat), only here in N.T. Note three genitives here "of the root of the fatness of the olive."

rwp@Romans:11:24 @{Contrary to nature} (\para phusin\). This is the gist of the argument, the power of God to do what is contrary to natural processes. He put the wild olive (Gentile) into the good olive tree (the spiritual Israel) and made the wild olive (contrary to nature) become the good olive (\kallielaios\, the garden olive, \kallos\ and \elaia\ in Aristotle and a papyrus). {Into their own olive tree} (\tˆi idiƒi elaiƒi\). Dative case. Another argument _a fortiori_, "how much more" (\poll“i mallon\). God can graft the natural Israel back upon the spiritual Israel, if they become willing.

rwp@Romans:15:27 @{Their debtors} (\opheiletai aut“n\). Objective genitive: the Gentiles are debtors to the Jews. See the word \opheiletˆs\ in strkjv@1:14; strkjv@8:12|. {For if} (\ei gar\). Condition of the first class, assumed as true, first aorist active indicative (\ekoin“nˆsan\, from \koin“ne“\, to share) with associative instrumental case (\pneumatikois\, spiritual things). {To minister unto} (\leitourgˆsai\, first aorist active infinitive of \leitourge“\ with dative case \autois\, to them), but here certainly with no "sacerdotal" functions (cf. verse 16|). {In carnal things} (\en tois sarkikois\). Things which belong to the natural life of the flesh (\sarx\), not the sinful aspects of the flesh at all.

rwp@Romans:16:7 @{Andronicus and Junias} (\Andronicou kai Iounian\). The first is a Greek name found even in the imperial household. The second name can be either masculine or feminine. {Kinsmen} (\suggeneis\). Probably only fellow-countrymen as in strkjv@9:13|. {Fellow-prisoners} (\sunaichmal“tus\). Late word and rare (in Lucian). One of Paul's frequent compounds with \sun\. Literally, fellow captives in war. Perhaps they had shared one of Paul's numerous imprisonments (2Corinthians:11:23|). In N.T. only here, strkjv@Philemon:1:23; strkjv@Colossians:4:10|. {Of note} (\episˆmoi\). Stamped, marked (\epi sˆma\). Old word, only here and strkjv@Matthew:27:16| (bad sense) in N.T. {Among the apostles} (\en tois apostolois\). Naturally this means that they are counted among the apostles in the general sense true of Barnabas, James, the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean simply that they were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense. {Who have been in Christ before me} (\hoi kai pro emou gegonan en Christ“i\). Andronicus and Junias were converted before Paul was. Note \gegonan\ (_Koin‚_ form by analogy) instead of the usual second perfect active indicative form \gegonasin\, which some MSS. have. The perfect tense notes that they are still in Christ.

rwp@Titus:3:3 @{Aforetime} (\pote\). "Once" in our unconverted state as in strkjv@Ephesians:2:3|. {Foolish} (\anoˆtoi\). See strkjv@Romans:1:14,21|. {Disobedient} (\apeitheis\). See strkjv@Romans:1:30|. {Deceived} (\plan“menoi\). Present passive participle of \plana“\ though the middle is possible. {Divers lusts} (\hˆdonais poikilais\). "Pleasures" (\hˆdonais\ from \hˆdomai\, old word, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:8:14; strkjv@James:4:1,3; strkjv@2Peter:2:13|). \Poikilais\ (old word) is many-coloured as in strkjv@Mark:1:34; strkjv@James:1:2; strkjv@2Timothy:3:6|, etc. {Living} (\diagontes\). See strkjv@1Timothy:3:6| (supply \bion\). {In malice} (\en kakiƒi\). See strkjv@Romans:1:29|. {Envy} (\phthon“i\). See strkjv@Romans:1:29|. {Hateful} (\stugˆtoi\). Late passive verbal from \stuge“\, to hate. In Philo, only here in N.T. {Hating one another} (\misountes allˆlous\). Active sense and natural result of being "hateful."

rwp@Titus:3:6 @{Which} (\hou\). Genitive case by attraction from \ho\ (grammatical gender) to the case of \pneumatos hagiou\. We do not have grammatical gender (only natural) in English. Hence here we should say "whom," even if it does not go smoothly with \execheen\ (he poured out, second aorist active indicative of \ekche“\). The reference is to the great Pentecost (Acts:2:33|) as foretold by Joel (Joel:2:28|). {Richly} (\plousi“s\). Then and to each one in his own experience. See strkjv@Romans:10:12; strkjv@1Timothy:6:17|.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Thu Jul 4 00:58:30 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020