Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp arate:


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

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

rwp@1Corinthians:5:13 @{Put away the wicked man} (\exarate ton ponˆron\). By this quotation from strkjv@Deuteronomy:17:7| Paul clinches the case for the expulsion of the offender (5:2|). Note \ex\ twice and effective aorist tense.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:4 @{The wife} (\hˆ gunˆ\). The wife is mentioned first, but the equality of the sexes in marriage is clearly presented as the way to keep marriage undefiled (Hebrews:13:4|). "In wedlock separate ownership of the person ceases" (Robertson and Plummer).

rwp@1Corinthians:7:10 @{To the married} (\tois gegamˆkosin\). Perfect active participle of \game“\, old verb, to marry, and still married as the tense shows. {I give charge} (\paraggell“\). Not mere wish as in verses 7,8|. {Not I, but the Lord} (\ouk eg“ alla ho kurios\). Paul had no commands from Jesus to the unmarried (men or women), but Jesus had spoken to the married (husbands and wives) as in strkjv@Matthew:5:31f.; strkjv@19:3-12; strkjv@Mark:10:9-12; strkjv@Luke:16:18|. The Master had spoken plain words about divorce. Paul reenforces his own inspired command by the command of Jesus. In strkjv@Mark:10:9| we have from Christ: "What therefore God joined together let not man put asunder" (\mˆ chorizet“\). {That the wife depart not from her husband} (\gunaika apo andros mˆ choristhˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive (indirect command after \paraggell“\) of \choriz“\, old verb from adverbial preposition \ch“ris\, separately, apart from, from. Here used of divorce by the wife which, though unusual then, yet did happen as in the case of Salome (sister of Herod the Great) and of Herodias before she married Herod Antipas. Jesus also spoke of it (Mark:10:12|). Now most of the divorces are obtained by women. This passive infinitive is almost reflexive in force according to a constant tendency in the _Koin‚_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 817).

rwp@1Corinthians:7:11 @{But and if she depart} (\ean de kai ch“risthˆi\). Third class condition, undetermined. If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she get separated (ingressive passive subjunctive), {let her remain unmarried} (\menet“ agamos\). Paul here makes no allowance for remarriage of the innocent party as Jesus does by implication. {Or else be reconciled to her husband} (\ˆ t“i andri katallagˆt“\). Second aorist (ingressive) passive imperative of \katallass“\, old compound verb to exchange coins as of equal value, to reconcile. One of Paul's great words for reconciliation with God (2Corinthians:5:18-20; strkjv@Romans:5:10|). \Diallass“\ (Matthew:5:24| which see) was more common in the older Greek, but \katallass“\ in the later. The difference in idea is very slight, \dia-\ accents notion of exchange, \kat-\ the perfective idea (complete reconciliation). Dative of personal interest is the case of \andri\. This sentence is a parenthesis between the two infinitives \ch“risthˆnai\ and \aphienai\ (both indirect commands after \paraggell“\). {And that the husband leave not his wife} (\kai andra mˆ aphienai\). This is also part of the Lord's command (Mark:10:11|). \Apolu“\ occurs in Mark of the husband's act and \aphienai\ here, both meaning to send away. Bengel actually stresses the difference between \ch“risthˆnai\ of the woman as like _separatur_ in Latin and calls the wife "pars ignobilior" and the husband "nobilior." I doubt if Paul would stand for that extreme.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:15 @{Is not under bondage} (\ou dedoul“tai\). Perfect passive indicative of \doulo“\, to enslave, has been enslaved, does not remain a slave. The believing husband or wife is not at liberty to separate, unless the disbeliever or pagan insists on it. Wilful desertion of the unbeliever sets the other free, a case not contemplated in Christ's words in strkjv@Matthew:5:32; strkjv@19:9|. Luther argued that the Christian partner, thus released, may marry again. But that is by no means clear, unless the unbeliever marries first. {But God hath called us in peace} (\en de eirˆnˆi keklˆken hˆmas\ or \humas\). Perfect active indicative of \kale“\, permanent call in the sphere or atmosphere of peace. He does not desire enslavement in the marriage relation between the believer and the unbeliever.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:32 @{Ye are chastened of the Lord} (\hupo tou Kuriou paideuometha\). On this sense of \paideu“\, from \pais\, child, to train a child (Acts:7:22|), to discipline with words (2Timothy:2:25|), to chastise with scourges see on ¯Luke:23:16| (Hebrews:12:7|), and so by afflictions as here (Hebrews:12:6|). \Hupo tou Kuriou\ can be construed with \krinomenoi\ instead of with \paideuometha\. {With the world} (\sun t“i kosm“i\). Along with the world. Afflictions are meant to separate us from the doom of the wicked world. Final use of \hina mˆ\ here with \katakrith“men\ (first aorist passive subjunctive).

rwp@1Corinthians:12:11 @{Worketh} (\energei\). The same word that was used in verse 6| of God. {Severally} (\idiƒi\). Separately. {Even as he will} (\kath“s bouletai\). Hence there is no occasion for conceit, pride, or faction (4:7|).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:4 @{And that he was buried} (\kai hoti etaphˆ\). Note \hoti\ repeated before each of the four verbs as a separate item. Second aorist passive indicative of \thapt“\, old verb, to bury. This item is an important detail as the Gospels show. {And that he hath been raised} (\kai hoti egˆgertai\). Perfect passive indicative, not \ˆgerthˆ\ like {rose} of the King James' Version. There is reason for this sudden change of tense. Paul wishes to emphasize the permanence of the resurrection of Jesus. He is still risen. {On the third day} (\tˆi hˆmerƒi tˆi tritˆi\). Locative case of time. Whether Paul had seen either of the Gospels we do not know, but this item is closely identified with the fact of Christ's resurrection. We have it in Peter's speech (Acts:10:40|) and Jesus points it out as part of prophecy (Luke:24:46|). The other expression occasionally found "after three days" (Mark:10:34|) is merely free vernacular for the same idea and not even strkjv@Matthew:12:40| disturbs it. See on ¯Luke:24:1| for record of the empty tomb on the first day of the week (the third day).

rwp@1John:4:3 @{Confesseth not} (\mˆ homologei\). Indefinite relative clause with the subjective negative \mˆ\ rather than the usual objective negative \ou\ (verse 6|). It is seen also in strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Titus:1:11|, a survival of the literary construction (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 171). The Vulgate (along with Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine) reads _solvit_ (\luei\) instead of \mˆ homologei\, which means "separates Jesus," apparently an allusion to the Cerinthian heresy (distinction between Jesus and Christ) as the clause before refers to the Docetic heresy. Many MSS. have here also \en sarki elˆluthota\ repeated from preceding clause, but not A B Vg Cop. and not genuine. {The spirit of the antichrist} (\to tou antichristou\). \Pneuma\ (spirit) not expressed, but clearly implied by the neuter singular article to. It is a repetition of the point about antichrists made in strkjv@2:18-25|. {Whereof} (\ho\). Accusative of person (grammatical neuter referring to \pneuma\) with \akou“\ along with accusative of the thing (\hoti erchetai\, as in strkjv@2:18|, futuristic present middle indicative). Here the perfect active indicative (\akˆkoate\), while in strkjv@2:18| the aorist (\ˆkousate\). {And now already} (\kai nun ˆdˆ\). As in strkjv@2:18| also (many have come). "The prophecy had found fulfilment before the Church had looked for it" (Westcott). It is often so. For \ˆdˆ\ see strkjv@John:4:35; strkjv@9:27|.

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

rwp@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@1Thessalonians:1:7 @{Songs:that ye became} (\h“ste genesthai humas\). Definite result expressed by \h“ste\ and the infinitive \genesthai\ (second aorist middle of \ginomai\) as is common in the _Koin‚_. {An ensample} (\tupon\). Songs:B D, but Aleph A C have \tupous\ (plural). The singular looks at the church as a whole, the plural as individuals like \humƒs\. \Tupos\ is an old word from \tupt“\, to strike, and so the mark of a blow, print as in John strkjv@20:25|. Then the figure formed by the blow, image as in strkjv@Acts:7:43|. Then the mould or form (Romans:6:17; strkjv@Acts:23:25|). Then an example or pattern as in strkjv@Acts:7:44|, to be imitated as here, strkjv@Phillipians:3:17|, etc. It was a great compliment for the church in Thessalonica to be already a model for believers in Macedonia and Achaia. Our word _type_ for printers is this same word with one of its meanings. Note separate article with both Macedonia (\tˆi Makedoniƒi\) and Achaia (\tˆi Achaiƒi\) treated as separate provinces as they were.

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:11 @{Our God and Father himself} (\autos ho theos kai patˆr hˆm“n\). Note one article with both substantives for one person. {And our Lord Jesus} (\kai ho Kurios hˆm“n Iˆsous\). Separate article here with \Iˆsous\. In strkjv@Titus:2:13; strkjv@2Peter:1:1| only one article (not two) treating "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" as one just like "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" in strkjv@2Peter:1:11; strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:18|. {Direct our way} (\kateuthunai tˆn hodon hˆm“n\). First aorist optative (acute accent on penult, not circumflex first aorist active infinitive) of \kateuthun“\, old verb to make straight path. Singular verb also, though both God and Christ mentioned as subject (unity in the Godhead). Apart from \mˆ genoito\ ({may it not come to pass}) the optative in a wish of the third person is found in N.T. only in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:11,12; strkjv@5:23; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:17; strkjv@3:5,16; strkjv@Romans:15:5,13|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:23 @{The God of peace} (\ho theos tˆs eirˆnˆs\). The God characterized by peace in his nature, who gladly bestows it also. Common phrase (Milligan) at close of Paul's Epistles (2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@Romans:15:33; strkjv@16:20; strkjv@Phillipians:4:9|) and {the Lord of peace} in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:6|. {Sanctify you} (\hagiasai humƒs\). First aorist active optative in a wish for the future. New verb in LXX and N.T. for the old \hagiz“\, to render or to declare holy (\hagios\), to consecrate, to separate from things profane. {Wholly} (\holoteleis\). Predicate adjective in plural (\holos\, whole, \telos\, end), not adverb \holotel“s\. Late word in Plutarch, Hexapla, and in inscription A.D. 67 (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). Here alone in N.T. Here it means the whole of each of you, every part of each of you, "through and through" (Luther), qualitatively rather than quantitatively. {Your spirit and soul and body} (\hum“n to pneuma kai hˆ psuchˆ kai to s“ma\). Not necessarily trichotomy as opposed to dichotomy as elsewhere in Paul's Epistles. Both believers and unbelievers have an inner man (soul \psuchˆ\, mind \nous\, heart \kardia\, the inward man \ho es“ anthr“pos\) and the outer man (\s“ma, ho ex“ anthr“pos\). But the believer has the Holy Spirit of God, the renewed spirit of man (1Corinthians:2:11; strkjv@Romans:8:9-11|). {Be preserved entire} (\holoklˆron tˆrˆtheiˆ\). First aorist passive optative in wish for the future. Note singular verb and singular adjective (neuter) showing that Paul conceives of the man as "an undivided whole" (Frame), prayer for the consecration of both body and soul (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:6|). The adjective \holoklˆron\ is in predicate and is an old form and means complete in all its parts (\holos\, whole, \klˆros\, lot or part). There is to be no deficiency in any part. \Teleios\ (from \telos\, end) means final perfection. {Without blame} (\amempt“s\). Old adverb (\a\ privative, \memptos\, verbal of \memphomai\, to blame) only in I Thess. in N.T. (2:10; strkjv@3:13; strkjv@5:23|). Milligan notes it in certain sepulchral inscriptions discovered in Thessalonica. {At the coming} (\en tˆi parousiƒi\). The Second Coming which was a sustaining hope to Paul as it should be to us and mentioned often in this Epistle (see on ¯2:19|).

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:2:13 @{I had no relief} (\ouk eschˆka anesin\). Perfect active indicative like that in strkjv@1:9|, vivid dramatic recital, not to be treated as "for" the aorist (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 896, 898ff.). He still feels the shadow of that restlessness. \Anesis\, from \aniˆmi\, to let up, to hold back, is old word for relaxing or release (Acts:24:34|). {For my spirit} (\t“i pneumati mou\). Dative of interest. {Because I found not Titus} (\t“i mˆ heurein me Titon\). Instrumental case of the articular infinitive with negative \mˆ\ and accusative of general reference \me\, "by the not finding Titus as to me." {Taking my leave of them} (\apotaxamenos autois\). First aorist middle participle of \apotass“\, old verb, to set apart, in middle in late Greek to separate oneself, to bid adieu to as in strkjv@Mark:6:46|.

rwp@2Corinthians:13:12 @{With a holy kiss} (\en hagi“i philˆmati\). In the Jewish synagogues where the sexes were separated, men kissed men, the women, women. This apparently was the Christian custom also. It is still observed in the Coptic and the Russian churches. It was dropped because of charges made against the Christians by the pagans. In England in 1250 Archbishop Walter of York introduced a "pax-board" which was first kissed by the clergy and then passed around. Think of the germ theory of disease and that kissing tablet!

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

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:5 @{Direct} (\kateuthunai\). First aorist active optative of wish for the future as in strkjv@2:17; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:23| from \kateuthun“\, old verb, as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:11| (there {way}, here {hearts}) and strkjv@Luke:1:79| of {feet} (\podas\). Perfective use of \kata\. Bold figure for making smooth and direct road. The Lord here is the Lord Jesus. {Into the love of God} (\eis tˆn agapˆn tou theou\). Either subjective or objective genitive makes sense and Lightfoot pleads for both, "not only as an objective attribute of deity, but as a ruling principle in our hearts," holding that it is "seldom possible to separate the one from the other." Most scholars take it here as subjective, the characteristic of God. {Into the patience of Christ} (\eis tˆn hupomnˆn tou Christou\). There is the same ambiguity here, though the subjective idea, the patience shown by Christ, is the one usually accepted rather than "the patient waiting for Christ" (objective genitive).

rwp@Acts:2:3 @{Parting asunder} (\diamerizomenai\). Present middle (or passive) participle of \diameriz“\, old verb, to cleave asunder, to cut in pieces as a butcher does meat (aorist passive in strkjv@Luke:11:17f.|). Songs:middle here would mean, parting themselves asunder or distributing themselves. The passive voice would be "being distributed." The middle is probably correct and means that "the fire-like appearance presented itself at first, as it were, in a single body, and then suddenly parted in this direction and that; so that a portion of it rested on each of those present" (Hackett). The idea is not that each tongue was cloven, but each separate tongue looked like fire, not real fire, but looking like (\h“sei\, as if) fire. The audible sign is followed by a visible one (Knowling). "Fire had always been, with the Jews, the symbol of the Divine presence (cf. strkjv@Exodus:3:2; strkjv@Deuteronomy:5:4|). No symbol could be more fitting to express the Spirit's purifying energy and refining energy" (Furneaux). The Baptist had predicted a baptizing by the Messiah in the Holy Spirit and in fire (Matthew:3:11|). {It sat} (\ekathisen\). Singular verb here, though plural \“pthˆsan\ with tongues (\gl“ssai\). A tongue that looked like fire sat upon each one.

rwp@Acts:2:11 @{Cretes and Arabians}. These two groups "seem to have been added to the list as an afterthought" (Knowling). Crete is an island to itself and Arabia was separate also though near Judea and full of Jews. The point is not that each one of these groups of Jews spoke a different language, but that wherever there was a local tongue they heard men speaking in it. {We do hear them speaking} (\akouomen lalount“n aut“n\). Genitive case \aut“n\ with \akou“\ the participle \lalount“n\ agreeing with \aut“n\, a sort of participial idiom of indirect discourse (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1040ff.). {The mighty works} (\ta megaleia\). Old adjective for magnificent. In LXX, but only here (not genuine in strkjv@Luke:1:49|) in the N.T. Cf. strkjv@2Peter:1:16| for \megaleiotˆs\ (majesty).

rwp@Acts:5:2 @{Kept back} (\enosphisato\). First aorist middle indicative of \nosphiz“\, old verb from \nosphi\, afar, apart, and so to set apart, to separate for oneself, but only here, verse 3; strkjv@Titus:2:10| in the N.T. {His wife also being privy to it} (\suneiduiˆs kai tˆs gunaikos\). Genitive absolute with second perfect participle of \sunoida\, to know together with one, "his wife also knowing it together with him." {Brought a certain part} (\enegkas meros ti\). Aorist active participle of \pher“\, for a definite act. The praise of Joseph was too much for Ananias, but he was not willing to turn over all. He wanted praise for giving all and yet he took care of himself by keeping some. Thus he started the Ananias Club that gave a new meaning to his lovely name (God is gracious).

rwp@Acts:5:11 @{Upon the whole church} (\eph' holˆn tˆn ekklˆsian\). Here \ekklˆsia\ for the first time in Acts of the believers in Jerusalem. Twice already in the Gospels, once of the whole body of believers or the Kingdom (Matthew:16:18|), the other of the local body (Matthew:18:17|). In strkjv@Acts:7:38| it is used of the whole congregation of Israel while in strkjv@19:32| it is used of a public assembly in Ephesus. But already in strkjv@Acts:8:3| it is applied to the church which Saul was persecuting in their homes when not assembled. Songs:here the etymological meaning of "assembly" disappears for "the church" were now the scattered saints hiding in their separate homes. The whole body of believers in Jerusalem and all who heard of the fate of Ananias and Sapphira (beautiful, her name means) were in awe and dread. It was already a dangerous thing to be a follower of Christ unless one was willing to walk straight.

rwp@Acts:6:2 @{The multitude} (\to plˆthos\). The whole church, not just the 120. {Fit} (\areston\). Pleasing, verbal adjective from \aresk“\, to please, old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:12:3; strkjv@John:8:29; strkjv@1John:3:22|. _Non placet_. {Should forsake} (\kataleipsantas\). Late first aorist active participle for usual second aorist \katalipontas\ from \kataleip“\, to leave behind. {Serve tables} (\diakonein trapezais\). Present active infinitive of \diakone“\ from \diakonos\ (\dia\ and \konis\, dust), to raise a dust in a hurry, to serve, to minister either at table (John:12:20|), or other service (John:12:25f.|), to serve as deacon (1Timothy:3:10,13|). "Tables" here hardly means money-tables as in strkjv@John:2:15|, but rather the tables used in the common daily distribution of the food (possibly including the love-feasts, strkjv@Acts:2:43-47|). This word is the same root as \diakonia\ (ministration) in verse 1| and \diakonos\ (deacon) in strkjv@Phillipians:1:1; strkjv@1Timothy:3:8-13|. It is more frequently used in the N.T. of ministers (preachers) than of deacons, but it is quite possible, even probable, that the office of deacon as separate from bishop or elder grew out of this incident in strkjv@Acts:6:1-7|. Furneaux is clear that these "seven" are not to be identified with the later "deacons" but why he does not make clear.

rwp@Acts:8:4 @{They therefore} (\hoi men oun\). Demonstrative \hoi\ as often (1:6|, etc.) though it will make sense as the article with the participle \diasparentes\. The general statement is made here by \men\ and a particular instance (\de\) follows in verse 5|. The inferential particle (\oun\) points back to verse 3|, the persecution by young Saul and the Pharisees. Jesus had commanded the disciples not to depart from Jerusalem till they received the Promise of the Father (1:4|), but they had remained long after that and were not carrying the gospel to the other peoples (1:8|). Now they were pushed out by Saul and began as a result to carry out the Great Commission for world conquest, that is those "scattered abroad" (\diasparentes\, second aorist passive participle of \diaspeir“\). This verb means disperse, to sow in separate or scattered places (\dia\) and so to drive people hither and thither. Old and very common verb, especially in the LXX, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:8:1,4; strkjv@11:19|. {Went about} (\diˆlthon\). Constative second aorist active of \dierchomai\, to go through (from place to place, \dia\). Old and common verb, frequent for missionary journeys in the Acts (5:40; strkjv@8:40; strkjv@9:32; strkjv@11:19; strkjv@13:6|). {Preaching the word} (\euaggelizomenoi ton logon\). Evangelizing or gospelizing the word (the truth about Christ). In strkjv@11:19| Luke explains more fully the extent of the labours of these new preachers of the gospel. They were emergency preachers, not ordained clergymen, but men stirred to activity by the zeal of Saul against them. The blood of the martyrs (Stephen) was already becoming the seed of the church. "The violent dispersion of these earnest disciples resulted in a rapid diffusion of the gospel" (Alvah Hovey).

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:10:34 @{Opened his mouth} (\anoixas to stoma\). Solemn formula for beginning his address (8:35; strkjv@18:14; strkjv@Matthew:5:2; strkjv@13:35|). But also good elocution for the speaker. {I perceive} (\katalambanomai\). Aoristic present middle of \katalamban“\, to take hold of, the middle noting mental action, to lay hold with the mind (Acts:4:13; strkjv@10:34; strkjv@25:25; strkjv@Ephesians:3:18|). It had been a difficult thing for Peter to grasp, but now "of a truth" (\ep' alˆtheias\) the light has cleared away the fogs. It was not until Peter had crossed the threshold of the house of Cornelius in the new environment and standpoint that he sees this new and great truth. {Respecter of persons} (\pros“polˆmptˆs\). This compound occurs only here and in Chrysostom. It is composed of \pros“pon\ face or person (\pros\ and \ops\, before the eye or face) and \lamban“\. The abstract form \pros“polˆmpsia\ occurs in strkjv@James:2:1| (also strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9; strkjv@Colossians:3:25|) and the verb \pros“polempte“\ in strkjv@James:2:9|. The separate phrase (\lambanein pros“pon\) occurs in strkjv@Luke:20:21; strkjv@Galatians:2:6|. The phrase was already in the LXX (Deuteronomy:10:17; strkjv@2Chronicles:19:7; strkjv@Psalms:82:6|). Luke has simply combined the two words into one compound one. The idea is to pay regard to one's looks or circumstances rather than to his intrinsic character. The Jews had come to feel that they were the favourites of God and actually sons of the kingdom of heaven because they were descendants of Abraham. John the Baptist rebuked them for this fallacy.

rwp@Acts:11:2 @{They that were of the circumcision} (\hoi ek peritomˆs\). Literally, those of circumcision (on the side of circumcision, of the circumcision party). The phrase in strkjv@10:46| is confined to the six brethren with Peter in Caesarea (11:12|). That can hardly be the meaning here for it would mean that they were the ones who brought the charge against Peter though Hort takes this view. All the disciples in Jerusalem were Jews so that it can hardly mean the whole body. In strkjv@Galatians:2:12| the phrase has the narrower sense of the Judaizing or Pharisaic wing of the disciples (Acts:15:5|) who made circumcision necessary for all Gentile converts. Probably here by anticipation Luke so describes the beginning of that great controversy. The objectors probably did not know of Peter's vision at Joppa, but only of the revolutionary conduct of Peter in Caesarea. These extremists who spoke probably had abundant sympathy in their protest. The apostles are mentioned in verse 1|, but are not referred to in verse 2|. Apparently they are in contrast with the circumcision party in the church. {Contended} (\diekrinonto\). Imperfect middle of the common verb \diakrin“\, to {separate}. Here to separate oneself apart (\dia\), to take sides against, to make a cleavage (\dia\, two, in two) as in strkjv@Jude:1:9|. Songs:Peter is at once put on the defensive as the contention went on. It is plain that Peter was not regarded as any kind of pope or overlord.

rwp@Acts:11:26 @{Even for a whole year} (\kai eniauton holon\). Accusative of extent of time, probably the year A.D. 44, the year preceding the visit to Jerusalem (11:30|), the year of the famine. The preceding years with Tarsus as headquarters covered A.D. 37 (39) to 44. {They were gathered together with the church} (\sunachthˆnai en tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\). First aorist passive infinitive of \sunag“\, old verb, probably here to meet together as in strkjv@Matthew:28:12|. In strkjv@Acts:14:27| the verb is used of gathering together the church, but here \en tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\ excludes that idea. Barnabas met together "in the church" (note first use of the word for the disciples at Antioch). This peculiar phrase accents the leadership and co-operation of Barnabas and Saul in teaching (\didaxai\, first aorist active infinitive) much people. Both infinitives are in the nominative case, the subject of \egeneto\ (it came to pass). {And that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch} (\chrˆmatisai te pr“t“s en Antiocheiƒi tous mathˆtas Christianous\). This first active infinitive \chrˆmatisai\ is also a subject of \egeneto\ and is added as a separate item by the use of \te\ rather than \kai\. For the word itself in the sense of divine command see on ¯Matthew:2:12,22; strkjv@Luke:2:26; strkjv@Acts:10:22|. Here and in strkjv@Romans:7:3| it means to be called or named (assuming a name from one's business, \chrˆma\, from \chraomai\, to use or to do business). Polybius uses it in this sense as here. \Tous mathˆtas\ (the disciples) is in the accusative of general reference with the infinitive. \Christianous\ (Christians) is simply predicate accusative. This word is made after the pattern of \Herodianus\ (Matthew:22:16|, \Her“idianoi\, followers of Herod), \Caesarianus\, a follower of Caesar (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 377, gives papyri examples of the genitive \Kaisaros\ meaning also "belonging to Caesar" like the common adjective \Caesarianus\). It is made thus like a Latin adjective, though it is a Greek word, and it refers to the Hebrew belief in a Messiah (Page). The name was evidently given to the followers of Christ by the Gentiles to distinguish them from the Jews since they were Greeks, not Grecian Jews. The Jews would not call them Christians because of their own use of \Christos\ the Messiah. The Jews termed them Galileans or Nazarenes. The followers of Christ called themselves disciples (learners), believers, brethren, saints, those of the Way. The three uses of Christian in the N.T. are from the heathen standpoint (here), strkjv@Acts:26:28| (a term of contempt in the mouth of Agrippa), and strkjv@1Peter:4:16| (persecution from the Roman government). It is a clear distinction from both Jews and Gentiles and it is not strange that it came into use first here in Antioch when the large Greek church gave occasion for it. Later Ignatius was bishop in Antioch and was given to the lions in Rome, and John Chrysostom preached here his wonderful sermons.

rwp@Acts:15:39 @{A sharp contention} (\paroxusmos\). Our very word paroxysm in English. Old word though only twice in the N.T. (here and strkjv@Hebrews:10:24|), from \paroxun“\, to sharpen (\para, oxus\) as of a blade and of the spirit (Acts:17:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:13:5|). This "son of consolation" loses his temper in a dispute over his cousin and Paul uses sharp words towards his benefactor and friend. It is often so that the little irritations of life give occasion to violent explosions. If the incident in strkjv@Galatians:2:11-21| had already taken place, there was a sore place already that could be easily rubbed. And if Mark also joined with Peter and Barnabas on that occasion, Paul had fresh ground for irritation about him. But there is no way to settle differences about men and we can only agree to disagree as Paul and Barnabas did. {Songs:that they parted asunder from one another} (\h“ste apoch“risthˆnai autous ap' allˆl“n\). Actual result here stated by \h“ste\ and the first aorist passive infinitive of \apoch“riz“\, old verb to sever, to separate, here only and strkjv@Revelation:6:4| in the N.T. The accusative of general reference (\autous\) is normal. For construction with \h“ste\ see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 999f. {And Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus} (\ton te Barnaban paralabonta ton Markon ekpleusai eis Kupron\). Second infinitival clause \ekpleusai\ after \h“ste\ connected by \te\. The same participle is used here minus \sun, paralabonta\ (second aorist active). Barnabas and Mark sailed out (\ekpleusai\ from \ekple“\) from the harbour of Antioch. This is the last glimpse that Luke gives us of Barnabas, one of the noblest figures in the New Testament. Paul has a kindly reference to him in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6|. No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One's judgment may go with Paul, but one's heart goes with Barnabas. And Mark made good with Barnabas, with Peter (1Peter:5:13|) and finally with Paul (Colossians:4:10; strkjv@2Timothy:4:11|). See my little book on John Mark (_Making Good in the Ministry_). Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times.

rwp@Acts:16:12 @{To Philippi} (\eis Philippous\). The plural like \Athˆnai\ (Athens) is probably due to separate sections of the city united (Winer-Moulton, _Grammar_, p. 220). The city (ancient name Krenides or Wells) was renamed after himself by Philip, the father of Alexander the Great. It was situated about a mile east of the small stream Gangites which flows into the river Strymon some thirty miles away. In this valley the Battle of Philippi was fought B.C. 42 between the Second Triumvirate (Octavius, Antonius, Lepidus) and Brutus and Cassius. In memory of the victory Octavius made it a colony (\kol“nia\) with all the privileges of Roman citizenship, such as freedom from scourging, freedom from arrest save in extreme cases, and the right of appeal to the emperor. This Latin word occurs here alone in the N.T. Octavius planted here a colony of Roman veterans with farms attached, a military outpost and a miniature of Rome itself. The language was Latin. Here Paul is face to face with the Roman power and empire in a new sense. He was a new Alexander, come from Asia to conquer Europe for Christ, a new Caesar to build the Kingdom of Christ on the work of Alexander and Caesar. One need not think that Paul was conscious of all that was involved in destiny for the world. Philippi was on the Egnatian Way, one of the great Roman roads, that ran from here to Dyrrachium on the shores of the Adriatic, a road that linked the east with the west. {The first of the district} (\pr“tˆ tˆs meridos\). Philippi was not the first city of Macedonia nor does Luke say so. That honour belonged to Thessalonica and even Amphipolis was larger than Philippi. It is not clear whether by \meris\ Luke means a formal division of the province, though the _Koin‚_ has examples of this geographical sense (papyri). There is no article with \pr“tˆ\ and Luke may not mean to stress unduly the position of Philippi in comparison with Amphipolis. But it was certainly a leading city of this district of Macedonia. {We were tarrying} (\ˆmen diatribontes\). Periphrastic imperfect active.

rwp@Acts:16:37 @{Unto them} (\pros autous\). The lictors by the jailor. The reply of Paul is a marvel of brevity and energy, almost every word has a separate indictment showing the utter illegality of the whole proceeding. {They have beaten us} (\deirantes hˆmas\). First aorist active participle of \der“\, old verb to flay, to skin, to smite. The _Lex Valeria_ B.C. 509 and the _Lex Poscia_ B.C. 248 made it a crime to inflict blows on a Roman citizen. Cicero says, "To fetter a Roman citizen was a crime, to scourge him a scandal, to slay him--parricide." Claudius had "deprived the city of Rhodes of its freedom for having crucified some citizen of Rome" (Rackham). {Publicly} (\dˆmosiƒi\). This added insult to injury. Common adverb (\hod“i\) supplied with adjective, associative instrumental case, opposed to \idiƒi\ or \kat' oikous\, strkjv@Acts:20:20|) {Uncondemned} (\akatakritous\). This same verbal adjective from \kata-krin“\ with \a\ privative is used by Paul in strkjv@22:25| and nowhere else in the N.T. Rare in late Greek like \akatagn“stos\, but in late _Koin‚_ (papyri, inscriptions). The meaning is clearly "without being tried." Paul and Silas were not given a chance to make a defence. They were sentenced unheard (25:16|). Even slaves in Roman law had a right to be heard. {Men that are Romans} (\anthr“pous Romaious huparchontas\). The praetors did not know, of course, that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens any more than Lysias knew it in strkjv@Acts:22:27|. Paul's claim is not challenged in either instance. It was a capital offence to make a false claim to Roman citizenship. {Have cast us into prison} (\ebalan eis phulakˆn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ball“\, old verb, with first aorist ending as often in the _Koin‚_ (\-an\, not \-on\). This was the climax, treating them as criminals. {And now privily} (\kai nun lathrƒi\). Paul balances their recent conduct with the former. {Nay verily, but} (\ou gar, alla\). No indeed! It is the use of \gar\ so common in answers (\ge+ara\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:23|. \Alla\ gives the sharp alternative. {Themselves} (\autoi\). As a public acknowledgment that they had wronged and mistreated Paul and Silas. Let them come themselves and lead us out (\exagaget“san\, third person plural second aorist active imperative of \exag“\). It was a bitter pill to the proud praetors.

rwp@Acts:17:16 @{Now while Paul waited for them in Athens} (\En de tais Athˆnais ekdechomenou autous tou Paulou\). Genitive absolute with present middle participle of \ekdechomai\, old verb to receive, but only with the sense of looking out for, expecting found here and elsewhere in N.T We know that Timothy did come to Paul in Athens (1Thessalonians:3:1,6|) from Thessalonica and was sent back to them from Athens. If Silas also came to Athens, he was also sent away, possibly to Philippi, for that church was deeply interested in Paul. At any rate both Timothy and Silas came from Macedonia to Corinth with messages and relief for Paul (Acts:18:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:8f.|). Before they came and after they left, Paul felt lonely in Athens (1Thessalonians:3:1|), the first time on this tour or the first that he has been completely without fellow workers. Athens had been captured by Sulla B.C. 86. After various changes Achaia, of which Corinth is the capital, is a separate province from Macedonia and A.D. 44 was restored by Claudius to the Senate with the Proconsul at Corinth. Paul is probably here about A.D. 50. Politically Athens is no longer of importance when Paul comes though it is still the university seat of the world with all its rich environment and traditions. Rackham grows eloquent over Paul the Jew of Tarsus being in the city of Pericles and Demosthenes, Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, Sophocles and Euripides. In its Agora Socrates had taught, here was the Academy of Plato, the Lyceum of Aristotle, the Porch of Zeno, the Garden of Epicurus. Here men still talked about philosophy, poetry, politics, religion, anything and everything. It was the art centre of the world. The Parthenon, the most beautiful of temples, crowned the Acropolis. Was Paul insensible to all this cultural environment? It is hard to think so for he was a university man of Tarsus and he makes a number of allusions to Greek writers. Probably it had not been in Paul's original plan to evangelize Athens, difficult as all university seats are, but he cannot be idle though here apparently by chance because driven out of Macedonia. {Was provoked} (\par“xuneto\). Imperfect passive of \paroxun“\, old verb to sharpen, to stimulate, to irritate (from \para, oxus\), from \paroxusmos\ (Acts:15:39|), common in old Greek, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:13:5|. It was a continual challenge to Paul's spirit when he beheld (\the“rountos\, genitive of present participle agreeing with \autou\ (his), though late MSS. have locative \the“rounti\ agreeing with \en aut“i\). {The city full of idols} (\kateid“lon ousan tˆn polin\). Note the participle \ousan\ not preserved in the English (either the city being full of idols or that the city was full of idols, sort of indirect discourse). Paul, like any stranger was looking at the sights as he walked around. This adjective \kateid“lon\ (perfective use of \kata\ and \eid“lon\ is found nowhere else, but it is formed after the analogy of \katampelos, katadendron\), full of idols. Xenophon (_de Republ. Ath_.) calls the city \holˆ bomos, holˆ thuma theois kai anathˆma\ (all altar, all sacrifice and offering to the gods). These statues were beautiful, but Paul was not deceived by the mere art for art's sake. The idolatry and sensualism of it all glared at him (Romans:1:18-32|). Renan ridicules Paul's ignorance in taking these statues for idols, but Paul knew paganism better than Renan. The superstition of this centre of Greek culture was depressing to Paul. One has only to recall how superstitious cults today flourish in the atmosphere of Boston and Los Angeles to understand conditions in Athens. Pausanias says that Athens had more images than all the rest of Greece put together. Pliny states that in the time of Nero Athens had over 30,000 public statues besides countless private ones in the homes. Petronius sneers that it was easier to find a god than a man in Athens. Every gateway or porch had its protecting god. They lined the street from the Piraeus and caught the eye at every place of prominence on wall or in the agora.

rwp@Acts:18:18 @{Having tarried after this yet many days} (\eti prosmeinas hˆmeras hikanas\). First aorist (constative) active participle of \prosmen“\, old verb, to remain besides (\pros\ as in strkjv@1Timothy:1:3|) and that idea is expressed also in \eti\ (yet). The accusative is extent of time. On Luke's frequent use of \hikanos\ see strkjv@8:11|. It is not certain that this period of "considerable days" which followed the trial before Gallio is included in the year and six months of verse 11| or is in addition to it which is most likely. Vindicated as Paul was, there was no reason for haste in leaving, though he usually left after such a crisis was passed. {Took his leave} (\apotaxamenos\). First aorist middle (direct), old verb, to separate oneself, to bid farewell (Vulgate _valefacio_), as in verse 21; strkjv@Mark:6:46|. {Sailed thence} (\exeplei\). Imperfect active of \ekple“\, old and common verb, inchoative imperfect, started to sail. Only Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned as his companions though others may have been in the party. {Having shorn his head} (\keiramenos tˆn kephalˆn\). First aorist middle (causative) of \keir“\, old verb to shear (sheep) and the hair as also in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:6|. The participle is masculine and so cannot refer to Priscilla. Aquila comes next to the participle, but since mention of Priscilla and Aquila is parenthetical and the two other participles (\prosmeinas, apotaxamenos\) refer to Paul it seems clear that this one does also. {For he had a vow} (\eichen gar euchˆn\). Imperfect active showing the continuance of the vow up till this time in Cenchreae, the port of Corinth when it expired. It was not a Nazarite vow which could be absolved only in Jerusalem. It is possible that the hair was only polled or trimmed, cut shorter, not "shaved" (\xura“\ as in strkjv@21:24|) for there is a distinction as both verbs are contrasted in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:6| (\keirƒsthai ˆ xurƒsthai\). It is not clear what sort of a vow Paul had taken nor why he took it. It may have been a thank offering for the outcome at Corinth (Hackett). Paul as a Jew kept up his observance of the ceremonial law, but refused to impose it on the Gentiles.

rwp@Acts:19:9 @{But when some were hardened} (\h“s de tines esklˆrunonto\). Imperfect passive of \sklˆrun“\, causative like _hiphil_ in Hebrew, to make hard (\sklˆros\) or rough or harsh (Matthew:25:24|). In LXX and Hippocrates and Galen (in medical writings). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:9:18| and 4 times in strkjv@Hebrews:3:8,13,15; strkjv@4:7,8| quoting and referring to strkjv@Psalms:95:8| about hardening the heart like a gristle. The inevitable reaction against Paul went on even in Ephesus though slowly. {Disobedient} (\epeithoun\). Imperfect again, showing the growing disbelief and disobedience (\apeithˆs\), both ideas as in strkjv@14:2; strkjv@17:5|, first refusal to believe and then refusal to obey. Both \sklˆrun“\ and \apeithe“\ occur together, as here, in Ecclus. strkjv@30:12. {Speaking evil of the Way} (\kakologountes tˆn hodon\). Late verb from \kakologos\ (speaker of evil) for the old \kak“s leg“\. Already in strkjv@Mark:7:10; strkjv@9:39; strkjv@Matthew:15:4|. Now these Jews are aggressive opponents of Paul and seek to injure his influence with the crowd. Note "the Way" as in strkjv@9:2| for Christianity. {He departed from them} (\apostas ap' aut“n\). Second aorist active participle of \aphistˆmi\, made an "apostasy" (standing off, cleavage) as he did at Corinth (18:7|, \metabas\, making a change). {Separated the disciples} (\aph“risen tous mathˆtas\). First aorist active indicative of \aphoriz“\, old verb to mark limits (horizon) as already in strkjv@13:2|. Paul himself was a spiritual Pharisee "separated" to Christ (Romans:1:1|). The Jews regarded this withdrawal as apostasy, like separating the sheep from the goats (Matthew:25:32|). Paul now made a separate church as he had done at Thessalonica and Corinth. {In the school of Tyrannus} (\en tˆi scholˆi Turannou\). \Scholˆ\ (our school) is an old word from \schein\ (\ech“\) to hold on, leisure and then in later Greek (Plutarch, etc.) a place where there is leisure as here. Only this example in the N.T. This is the Greek notion of "school," the Jewish being that of "yoke" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:29|. The name Tyrannus (our tyrant) is a common one. It is an inscription in the Columbarium of the Empress Livia as that of a physician in the court. Furneaux suggests the possibility that a relative of this physician was lecturing on medicine in Ephesus and so as a friend of Luke, the physician, would be glad to help Paul about a place to preach. It was probably a public building or lecture hall with this name whether hired by Paul or loaned to him. The pagan sophists often spoke in such halls. The Codex Bezae adds "from the fifth hour to the tenth" as the time allotted Paul for his work in this hall, which is quite possible, from just before midday till the close of the afternoon (from before the noon meal till two hours before sunset) each day. Here Paul had great freedom and a great hearing. As the church grows there will be other places of meeting as the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (1Corinthians:16:19|).

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:20:30 @{From among your own selves} (\ex hum“n aut“n\). In sheep's clothing just as Jesus had foretold. The outcome fully justified Paul's apprehensions as we see in Colossians, Ephesians, I and II Timothy, Revelation. False philosophy, immorality, asceticism will lead some astray (Colossians:2:8,18; strkjv@Ephesians:4:14; strkjv@5:6|). John will picture "antichrists" who went out from us because they were not of us (1John:2:18f.|). There is a false optimism that is complacently blind as well as a despondent pessimism that gives up the fight. {Perverse things} (\diestrammena\). Perfect passive participle of \diastreph“\, old verb to turn aside, twist, distort as in strkjv@Acts:13:8,10|. {To draw away} (\tou apospƒin\). Articular genitive present active participle of purpose from \apospa“\, old verb used to draw the sword (Matthew:26:51|), to separate (Luke:22:41; strkjv@Acts:21:1|). The pity of it is that such leaders of dissension can always gain a certain following. Paul's long residence in Ephesus enabled him to judge clearly of conditions there.

rwp@Acts:21:28 @{Help} (\boˆtheite\). Present active imperative of \boˆthe“\, to run (\the“\) at a cry (\boˆ\), as if an outrage had been committed like murder or assault. {All men everywhere} (\panta pantachˆi\). Alliterative. \Pantachˆi\ is a variation in MSS., often \pantachou\, and here only in the N.T. The charges against Paul remind one of those against Stephen (Acts:6:13|) in which Paul had participated according to his confession (22:20|). Like the charges against Stephen and Jesus before him truth and falsehood are mixed. Paul had said that being a Jew would not save a man. He had taught the law of Moses was not binding on Gentiles. He did hold, like Jesus and Stephen, that the temple was not the only place to worship God. But Paul gloried himself in being a Jew, considered the Mosaic law righteous for Jews, and was honouring the temple at this very moment. {And moreover also he brought Greeks also into the temple} (\eti te kai Hellˆnas eisˆgagen eis to hieron\). Note the three particles (\eti te kai\), {and} (\te\) {still more} (\eti\) {also} or {even} (\kai\). Worse than his teaching (\didask“n\) is his dreadful deed: he actually brought (\eisˆgagen\, second aorist active indicative of \eisag“\). This he had a right to do if they only went into the court of the Gentiles. But these Jews mean to imply that Paul had brought Greeks beyond this court into the court of Israel. An inscription was found by Clermont-Ganneau in Greek built into the walls of a mosque on the Via Dolorosa that was on the wall dividing the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles. Death was the penalty to any Gentile who crossed over into the Court of Israel (_The Athenaeum_, July, 1871). {Hath defiled this holy place} (\kekoin“ken ton hagion topon touton\). Present perfect active of \koino“\, to make common (see on ¯10:14|). Note vivid change of tense, the defilement lasts (state of completion). All this is the substance of the call of these shrewd conspirators from Ephesus, Jews (not Jewish Christians, not even Judaizers) who hated him for his work there and who probably "spoke evil of the Way before the multitude" there so that Paul had to separate the disciples from the synagogue and go to the School of Tyrannus (19:9f.|). These enemies of Paul had now raised the cry of "fire" and vanish from the scene completely (24:19|). This charge was absolutely false as we shall see, made out of inferences of hate and suspicion.

rwp@Colossians:1:20 @{Through him} (\di' autou\). As the sufficient and chosen agent in the work of reconciliation (\apokatallaxai\, first aorist active infinitive of \apokatallass“\, further addition to \eudokˆsen\, was pleased). This double compound (\apo, kata\ with \allass“\) occurs only here, verse 22; strkjv@Ephesians:2:16|, and nowhere else so far as known. Paul's usual word for "reconcile" is \katallass“\ (2Corinthians:5:18-20; strkjv@Romans:5:10|), though \diallass“\ (Matthew:5:24|) is more common in Attic. The addition of \apo\ here is clearly for the idea of complete reconciliation. See on ¯2Corinthians:5:18-20| for discussion of \katallass“\, Paul's great word. The use of \ta panta\ (the all things, the universe) as if the universe were somehow out of harmony reminds us of the mystical passage in strkjv@Romans:8:19-23| which see for discussion. Sin somehow has put the universe out of joint. Christ will set it right. {Unto himself} (\eis auton\). Unto God, though \auton\ is not reflexive unless written \hauton\. {Having made peace} (\eirˆnopoiˆsas\). Late and rare compound (Proverbs:10:10| and here only in N.T.) from \eirˆnopoios\, peacemaker (Matthew:5:9|; here only in N.T.). In strkjv@Ephesians:2:15| we have \poi“n eirˆnˆn\ (separate words) {making peace}. Not the masculine gender, though agreeing with the idea of Christ involved even if \plˆr“ma\ be taken as the subject of \eudokˆsen\, a participial anacoluthon (construction according to sense as in strkjv@2:19|). If \theos\ be taken as the subject of \eudokˆsen\ the participle \eirˆnopoiˆsas\ refers to Christ, not to \theos\ (God). {Through the blood of his cross} (\dia tou haimatos tou staurou autou\). This for the benefit of the Docetic Gnostics who denied the real humanity of Jesus and as clearly stating the _causa medians_ (Ellicott) of the work of reconciliation to be the Cross of Christ, a doctrine needed today. {Or things in the heavens} (\eite ta en tois ouranois\). Much needless trouble has been made over this phrase as if things in heaven were not exactly right. It is rather a hypothetical statement like verse 16| not put in categorical form (Abbott), _universitas rerum_ (Ellicott).

rwp@Colossians:1:22 @{Yet now} (\nuni de\). Sharpened contrast with emphatic form of \nun\, "now" being not at the present moment, but in the present order of things in the new dispensation of grace in Christ. {Hath he reconciled} (\apokatˆllaxen\). First aorist (effective, timeless) active indicative (a sort of parenthetical anacoluthon). Here B reads \apokatallagˆte\, be ye reconciled like \katallagˆte\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:20| while D has \apokatallagentes\. Lightfoot prefers to follow B here (the hard reading), though Westcott and Hort only put it in the margin. On the word see verse 20|. {In the body of his flesh} (\en t“i s“mati tˆs sarkos autou\). See the same combination in strkjv@2:11| though in strkjv@Ephesians:2:14| only \sarki\ (flesh). Apparently Paul combines both \s“ma\ and \sarx\ to make plain the actual humanity of Jesus against incipient Docetic Gnostics who denied it. {Through death} (\dia tou thanatou\). The reconciliation was accomplished by means of Christ's death on the cross (verse 20|) and not just by the Incarnation (the body of his flesh) in which the death took place. {To present} (\parastˆsai\). First aorist active (transitive) infinitive (of purpose) of \paristˆmi\, old verb, to place beside in many connections. See it used of presenting Paul and the letter from Lysias to Felix (Acts:23:33|). Repeated in strkjv@Colossians:2:28|. See also strkjv@2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:14|. Paul has the same idea of his responsibility in rendering an account for those under his influence seen in strkjv@Hebrews:13:17|. See strkjv@Romans:12:1| for use of living sacrifice. {Holy} (\hagious\). Positively consecrated, separated unto God. Common in N.T. for believers. Haupt holds that all these terms have a religious and forensic sense here. {Without blemish} (\am“mous\). Without spot (Phillipians:2:15|). Old word \a\ privative and \m“mos\ (blemish). Common in the LXX for ceremonial purifications. {Unreproveable} (\anegklˆtous\). Old verbal adjective from \a\ privative and \egkale“\, to call to account, to pick flaws in. These three adjectives give a marvellous picture of complete purity (positive and negative, internal and external). This is Paul's ideal when he presents the Colossians "before him" (\katen“pion autou\), right down in the eye of Christ the Judge of all.

rwp@Colossians:4:15 @{Nymphas} (\Numphan\). That is masculine, if \autou\ (his) is genuine (D E K L) after \kat' oikon\, but \Numpha\ (feminine) if \autˆs\ (her) is read (B 67). Aleph A C P read \aut“n\ (their), perhaps including \adelphous\ (brethren) and so locating this church (\ekklˆsia\) in Laodicea. It was not till the third century that separate buildings were used for church worship. See strkjv@Romans:16:5| for Prisca and Aquila. It is not possible to tell whether it is "her" or "his" house here.

rwp@Ephesians:2:12 @{Separate from Christ} (\ch“ris Christou\). Ablative case with adverbial preposition \ch“ris\, describing their former condition as heathen. {Alienated from the commonwealth of Israel} (\apˆllotri“menoi tˆs politeias tou Israˆl\). Perfect passive participle of \apallotrio“\, for which see strkjv@Colossians:1:21|. Here followed by ablative case \politeias\, old word from \politeu“\, to be a citizen (Phillipians:1:27|) from \politˆs\ and that from \polis\ (city). Only twice in N.T., here as commonwealth (the spiritual Israel or Kingdom of God) and strkjv@Acts:22:28| as citizenship. {Strangers from the covenants of the promise} (\xenoi t“n diathˆk“n tˆs epaggelias\). For \xenos\ (Latin _hospes_), as stranger see strkjv@Matthew:25:35,38,43f.|, as guest-friend see strkjv@Romans:16:23|. Here it is followed by the ablative case \diathˆk“n\. {Having no hope} (\elpida mˆ echontes\). No hope of any kind. In strkjv@Galatians:4:8| \ouk\ (strong negative) occurs with \eidotes theon\, but here \mˆ\ gives a more subjective picture (1Thessalonians:4:5|). {Without God} (\atheoi\). Old Greek word, not in LXX, only here in N.T. Atheists in the original sense of being without God and also in the sense of hostility to God from failure to worship him. See Paul's words in strkjv@Romans:1:18-32|. "In the world" (\en t“i kosm“i\) goes with both phrases. It is a terrible picture that Paul gives, but a true one.

rwp@Ephesians:4:6 @{One God and Father of all} (\heis theos kai patˆr pant“n\). Not a separate God for each nation or religion. One God for all men. See here the Trinity again (Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit). {Who is over all} (\ho epi pant“n\), {and through all} (\kai dia pant“n\), {and in all} (\kai en pƒsin\). Thus by three prepositions (\epi, dia, en\) Paul has endeavoured to express the universal sweep and power of God in men's lives. The pronouns (\pant“n, pant“n, pƒsin\) can be all masculine, all neuter, or part one or the other. The last "in all" is certainly masculine and probably all are.

rwp@Ephesians:5:23 @{For the husband is the head of the wife} (\hoti anˆr estin kephalˆ tˆs gunaikos\). "For a husband is head of the (his) wife." No article with \anˆr\ or \kephalˆ\. {As Christ also is the head of the church} (\h“s kai ho Christos kephalˆ tˆs ekklˆsias\). No article with \kephalˆ\, "as also Christ is head of the church." This is the comparison, but with a tremendous difference which Paul hastens to add either in an appositional clause or as a separate sentence. {Himself the saviour of the body} (\autos s“tˆr tou s“matos\). He means the church as the body of which Christ is head and Saviour.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64, this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_ (1921). Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII) notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the amanuensis for the Pastorals.

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@Galatians:1:15 @{It was the good pleasure of God} (\eudokˆsen ho theos\). Paul had no doubt about God's purpose in him (1Thessalonians:2:8|). {Who separated me} (\ho aphorisas me\). \Aphoriz“\ is old word (from \apo\ and \horos\) to mark off from a boundary or line. The Pharisees were the separatists who held themselves off from others. Paul conceives himself as a spiritual Pharisee "separated unto the gospel of God" (Romans:1:1|, the same word \aph“rismenos\). Before his birth God had his plans for him and called him.

rwp@Galatians:2:12 @{For before that certain came from James} (\pro tou gar elthein tinas apo Iak“bou\). The reason (\gar\) for Paul's condemnation of Peter. Articular infinitive in the genitive after \pro\ with the accusative of general reference (\tinas\), "for before the coming as to some from James." Does Paul mean to say that these "certain" ones had been sent by James to Antioch to inspect the conduct of Peter and the other Jewish brethren? Some scholars think so. No doubt these brethren let the idea get out that they were emissaries "from James." But that idea is inconsistent with the position of James as president of the conference and the author of the resolution securing liberty to the Gentile Christians. No doubt these brethren threatened Peter to tell James and the church about his conduct and they reminded Peter of his previous arraignment before the Jerusalem Church on this very charge (Acts:11:1-18|). As a matter of fact the Jerusalem Conference did not discuss the matter of social relations between Jews and Gentiles though that was the charge made against Peter (Acts:11:1ff.|). {He did eat with the Gentiles} (\meta t“n ethn“n sunˆsthien\). It was his habit (imperfect tense). {He drew back} (\hupestellen\). Imperfect tense, inchoative action, "he began to draw himself (\heauton\) back." Old word \hupostell“\. See middle voice to dissemble (Acts:20:20,27|), to shrink (Hebrews:10:38|). {Separated himself} (\aph“rizen heauton\). Inchoative imperfect again, "began to separate himself" just like a Pharisee (see on ¯1:15|) and as if afraid of the Judaizers in the Jerusalem Church, perhaps half afraid that James might not endorse what he had been doing. {Fearing them that were of the circumcision} (\phoboumenos tous ek peritomˆs\). This was the real reason for Peter's cowardice. See strkjv@Acts:11:2| for "\hoi ek peritomˆs\" (they of the circumcision), the very phrase here. It was not that Peter had changed his views from the Jerusalem resolutions. It was pure fear of trouble to himself as in the denials at the trial of Christ.

rwp@Galatians:2:14 @{But when I saw} (\All' hote eidon\). Paul did see and saw it in time to speak. {That they walked not uprightly} (\hoti orthopodousin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse, "they are not walking straight." \Orthopode“\ (\orthos\, straight, \pous\, foot). Found only here and in later ecclesiastical writers, though \orthopodes bainontes\ does occur. {According to the truth of the gospel} (\pros tˆn alˆtheian tou euaggeliou\). Just as in strkjv@2:5|. Paul brought them to face (\pros\) that. {I said unto Cephas before them all} (\eipon t“i Kˆphƒi emprosthen pant“n\). {Being a Jew} (\Ioudaios huparch“n\, though being a Jew). Condition of first class, assumed as true. It was not a private quarrel, but a matter of public policy. One is a bit curious to know what those who consider Peter the first pope will do with this open rebuke by Paul, who was in no sense afraid of Peter or of all the rest. {As do the Gentiles} (\ethnik“s\). Late adverb, here only in N.T. Like Gentiles. {As do the Jews} (\Ioudaik“s\). Only here in N.T., but in Josephus. {To live as do the Jews} (\Iouda‹zein\). Late verb, only here in the N.T. From \Ioudaios\, Jew. Really Paul charges Peter with trying to compel (conative present, \anagkazeis\) the Gentiles to live all like Jews, to Judaize the Gentile Christians, the very point at issue in the Jerusalem Conference when Peter so loyally supported Paul. It was a bold thrust that allowed no reply. But Paul won Peter back and Barnabas also. If II Peter is genuine, as is still possible, he shows it in strkjv@2Peter:3:15|. Paul and Barnabas remained friends (Acts:15:39f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6|), though they soon separated over John Mark.

rwp@Galatians:2:20 @{I have been crucified with Christ} (\Christ“i sunestaur“mai\). One of Paul's greatest mystical sayings. Perfect passive indicative of \sustauro“\ with the associative instrumental case (\Christ“i\). Paul uses the same word in strkjv@Romans:6:6| for the same idea. In the Gospels it occurs of literal crucifixion about the robbers and Christ (Matthew:27:44; strkjv@Mark:15:32; strkjv@John:19:32|). Paul died to the law and was crucified with Christ. He uses often the idea of dying with Christ (Galatians:5:24; strkjv@6:14; strkjv@Romans:6:8; strkjv@Colossians:2:20|) and burial with Christ also (Romans:6:4; strkjv@Colossians:2:12|). {No longer I} (\ouketi eg“\). Songs:complete has become Paul's identification with Christ that his separate personality is merged into that of Christ. This language helps one to understand the victorious cry in strkjv@Romans:7:25|. It is the union of the vine and the branch (John:15:1-6|). {Which is in the Son of God} (\tˆi tou huiou tou theou\). The objective genitive, not the faith of the Son of God. {For me} (\huper emou\). Paul has the closest personal feeling toward Christ. "He appropriates to himself, as Chrysostom observes, the love which belongs equally to the whole world. For Christ is indeed the personal friend of each man individually" (Lightfoot).

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

rwp@Hebrews:7:26 @{Became us} (\hˆmin eprepen\). Imperfect active indicative of \prep“\ as in strkjv@2:10|, only there it was applied to God while here to us. "Such" (\toioutos\) refers to the Melchizedek character of Jesus as high priest and in particular to his power to help and save (2:17f.|) as just explained in strkjv@7:24f.| Moffatt notes that "it is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody" but the adjectives that follow picture in outline the qualities of the high priest needed by us. {Holy} (\hosios\). Saintly, pious, as already noted. Cf. strkjv@Acts:2:24; strkjv@13:35|. {Guileless} (\akakos\). Without malice, innocent. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:16:18|. {Undefiled} (\amiantos\). Untainted, stainless. In the papyri. Not merely ritual purity (Leviticus:21:10-15|), but real ethical cleanness. {Separated from sinners} (\kech“rismenos apo t“n hamart“l“n\). Perfect passive participle. Probably referring to Christ's exaltation (9:28|). {Made higher than the heavens} (\hupsˆloteros t“n ouran“n genomenos\). "Having become higher than the heavens." Ablative case (\ouran“n\) after the comparative adjective (\hupsˆloteros\).

rwp@James:1:6 @{In faith} (\en pistei\). Faith here "is the fundamental religious attitude" (Ropes), belief in God's beneficent activity and personal reliance on him (Oesterley). {Nothing doubting} (\mˆden diakrinomenos\). Negative way of saying \en pistei\ (in faith), present passive participle of \diakrin“\, old verb to separate (\krin“\) between (\dia\), to discriminate as shown clearly in strkjv@Acts:11:12, strkjv@15:9|, but no example of the sense of divided against oneself has been found earlier than the N.T., though it appears in later Christian writings. It is like the use of \diamerizomai\ in strkjv@Luke:11:18| and occurs in strkjv@Matthew:21:21; strkjv@Mark:11:23; strkjv@Acts:10:20; strkjv@Romans:2:4; strkjv@4:20; strkjv@14:23|. It is a vivid picture of internal doubt. {Is like} (\eoiken\). Second perfect active indicative with the linear force alone from \eik“\ to be like. Old form, but in N.T. only here and verse 23| (a literary touch, not in LXX). {The surge of the sea} (\klud“ni thalassˆs\). Old word (from \kluz“\ to wash against) for a dashing or surging wave in contrast with \kuma\ (successive waves), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:8:24|. In associative instrumental case after \eoiken\. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:14| we have \kludoniz“\ (from \klud“n\), to toss by waves. {Driven by the wind} (\anemizomen“i\). Present passive participle (agreeing in case with \klud“ni\) of \anemiz“\, earliest known example and probably coined by James (from \anemos\), who is fond of verbs in \-iz“\ (Mayor). The old Greek used \anemo“\. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:14| Paul uses both \kludoniz“\ and \peripher“ anem“i\. It is a vivid picture of the sea whipped into white-caps by the winds. {Tossed} (\ripizomen“i\). Present passive participle also in agreement with \klud“ni\ from \ripiz“\, rare verb (Aristophanes, Plutarch, Philo) from \ripis\ (a bellows or fire-fan), here only in N.T. It is a picture of "the restless swaying to and fro of the surface of the water, blown upon by shifting breezes" (Hort), the waverer with slight rufflement.

rwp@James:2:4 @{Are ye not divided in your own mind?} (\ou diekrithˆte en heautois;\). First aorist (gnomic) passive indicative of \diakrin“\, to separate, conclusion of the third-class condition (future) in a rhetorical question in the gnomic aorist (as if past) with ou expecting an affirmative answer. For this idiom (gnomic aorist) in a conclusion of the third-class condition see strkjv@1Corinthians:7:28|. "Were ye not divided in (among) yourselves?" Cf. strkjv@1:6; strkjv@Matthew:21:21|. {Judges with evil thoughts} (\kritai dialogism“n ponˆr“n\). Descriptive genitive as in strkjv@1:25|. \Dialogismos\ is an old word for reasoning (Romans:1:21|). Reasoning is not necessarily evil, but see strkjv@Matthew:15:19| (\ponˆroi\) and strkjv@Mark:7:21| (\kakoi\) for evil reasonings, and strkjv@1Timothy:2:8| without an adjective. See strkjv@James:1:8; strkjv@4:8| for \dipsuchos\. They are guilty of partiality (a divided mind) as between the two strangers.

rwp@James:3:5 @{A little member} (\mikron melos\). \Melos\ is old and common word for members of the human body (1Corinthians:12:12, etc.; strkjv@Romans:6:13|, etc.). {Boasteth great things} (\megala auchei\). Present active indicative of \auche“\, old verb, here only in N.T. The best MSS. here separate \megala\ from \auche“\, though \megalauche“\ does occur in Aeschylus, Plato, etc. \Megala\ is in contrast with \mikron\. {How much--how small} (\hˆlikon--hˆlikˆn\). The same relative form for two indirect questions together, "What-sized fire kindles what-sized forest?" For double interrogatives see strkjv@Mark:15:24|. The verb \anaptei\ is present active indicative of \anapt“\, to set fire to, to kindle (Luke:12:49|, only other N.T. example except some MSS. in strkjv@Acts:28:2|). \Hulˆn\ is accusative case, object of \anaptei\, and occurs here only in N.T., though old word for forest, wood. Forest fires were common in ancient times as now, and were usually caused by small sparks carelessly thrown.

rwp@James:3:11 @{The fountain} (\hˆ pˆgˆ\). Old word for spring (John:4:14|). {Opening} (\opˆs\). Old word for fissure in the earth, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:11:38| (caves). {Send forth} (\bruei\). Present active indicative of \bru“\, old verb, to bubble up, to gush forth, here only in N.T. The use of \mˆti\ shows that a negative answer is expected in this rhetorical question. {The sweet and the bitter} (\to gluku kai to pikron\). Cognate accusatives with \bruei\. Separate articles to distinguish sharply the two things. The neuter singular articular adjective is a common way of presenting a quality. \Glukus\ is an old adjective (in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:10:9f.|), the opposite of \pikron\ (from old root, to cut, to prick), in N.T. only here and verse 14| (sharp, harsh).

rwp@James:4:1 @{Whence} (\pothen\). This old interrogative adverb (here twice) asks for the origin of wars and fights. James is full of interrogatives, like all diatribes. {Wars} (\polemoi\) {--fightings} (\machai\). {War} (\polemos\, old word, strkjv@Matthew:24:6|) pictures the chronic state or campaign, while \machˆ\ (also old word, strkjv@2Corinthians:7:5|) presents the separate conflicts or battles in the war. Songs:James covers the whole ground by using both words. The origin of a war or of any quarrel is sometimes hard to find, but James touches the sore spot here. {Of your pleasures} (\ek t“n hˆdon“n hum“n\). Old word from \hˆdomai\. Ablative case here after \ek\, "out of your sinful, sensual lusts," the desire to get what one does not have and greatly desires. {That war} (\t“n strateuomen“n\). Present middle articular participle (ablative case agreeing with \hˆdon“n\) of \strateu“\, to carry on a campaign, here as in strkjv@1Peter:2:11| of the passions in the human body. James seems to be addressing nominal Christians, "among you" (\en humin\). Modern church disturbances are old enough in practice.

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

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

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

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

rwp@John:2:16 @{Take these things hence} (\Arate tauta enteuthen\). First aorist active imperative of \air“\. Probably the doves were in baskets or cages and so had to be taken out by the traders. {Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise} (\mˆ poieite ton oikon tou patros mou oikon emporiou\). "Stop making," it means, \mˆ\ and the present active imperative. They had made it a market-house (\emporiou\, here only in N.T., old word from \emporos\, merchant, one who goes on a journey for traffic, a drummer). Note the clear-cut Messianic claim here (My Father as in strkjv@Luke:2:49|). Jerome says: "A certain fiery and starry light shone from his eyes and the majesty of Godhead gleamed in His face."

rwp@John:4:5 @{Songs:he cometh} (\erchetai oun\). Vivid present middle indicative and transitional \oun\. {Sychar} (\Suchar\). There is a dispute whether this is just a variation of Shechem as meaning "drunken-town" (Isaiah:28:1|) or "lying-town" (Habbakkuk:2:18|) or is a separate village near Shechem (Neapolis, Nablous) as the Talmud and Eusebius indicate. Apparently the present village Askar corresponds well with the site. The use of \polin\ (city) does not mean that it was a large town. Mark and John use it freely for small places. {Parcel of ground} (\ch“riou\). Old use of this diminutive of \ch“ros\ or \ch“ra\, a piece of ground. {That Jacob gave to his son Joseph} (\ho ed“ken Iak“b t“i I“sˆph t“i hui“i autou\). See strkjv@Genesis:33:19; strkjv@48:22|. Relative \ho\ is not attracted to case of \ch“riou\. First aorist active indicative \ed“ken\.

rwp@John:4:35 @{Say not ye?} (\Ouch humeis legete;\). It is not possible to tell whether Jesus is alluding to a rural proverb of which nothing is known about there being four months from seedtime to harvest (a longer time than four months in fact) or whether he means that it was then actually four months to harvest. In the latter sense, since harvest began about the middle of April, it would be December when Jesus spoke. {There are yet four months} (\eti tetramˆnos estin\). The use of \eti\ (yet) and the fact that the space between seedtime and harvest is longer than four months (\tetra\, Aeolic for \tessara\, and \mˆn\, month) argue against the proverb idea. {And then cometh the harvest} (\kai ho therismos erchetai\). "And the harvest (\therismos\, from \theriz“\, rare in Greek writers) comes." The possible Iambic verse here is purely accidental as in strkjv@5:14|. {Lift up your eyes} (\eparate tous ophthalmous hum“n\). First aorist active imperative of \epair“\. Deliberate looking as in strkjv@John:6:5| where \theaomai\ also is used as here. {Fields} (\ch“ras\). Cultivated or ploughed ground as in strkjv@Luke:21:21|. {White} (\leukai\). Ripened grain like grey hair (Matthew:5:36|). {Already unto harvest} (\pros therismon ˆdˆ\). Probably \ˆdˆ\ (already) goes with verse 36|. The Samaritans could already be seen approaching and they were the field "white for harvest." This is the meaning of Christ's parable. If it is the spring of the year and Christ can point to the ripened grain, the parable is all the plainer, but it is not dependent on this detail. Recall the parable of the sower in strkjv@Matthew:13|.

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

rwp@John:8:17 @{Yea and in your law} (\kai en t“i nom“i de t“i humeter“i\). Same use of \kai--de\ as in verse 16|. They claimed possession of the law (7:49|) and so Jesus takes this turn in answer to the charge of single witness in verse 13|. He will use similar language (your law) in strkjv@10:34| in an _argumentum ad hominem_ as here in controversy with the Jews. In strkjv@15:24| to the apostles Jesus even says "in their law" in speaking of the hostile Jews plotting his death. He does not mean in either case to separate himself wholly from the Jews and the law, though in Matthew 5 he does show the superiority of his teaching to that of the law. For the Mosaic regulation about two witnesses see strkjv@Deuteronomy:17:6; strkjv@19:15|. This combined witness of two is not true just because they agree, unless true in fact separately. But if they disagree, the testimony falls to the ground. In this case the Father confirms the witness of the Son as Jesus had already shown (5:37|).

rwp@John:9:39 @{For judgement} (\eis krima\). The Father had sent the Son for this purpose (3:17|). This world (\kosmos\) is not the home of Jesus. The \krima\ (judgement), a word nowhere else in John, is the result of the \krisis\ (sifting) from \krin“\, to separate. The Father has turned over this process of sifting (\krisis\) to the Son (5:22|). He is engaged in that very work by this miracle. {They which see not} (\hoi mˆ blepontes\). The spiritually blind as well as the physically blind (Luke:4:18; strkjv@Isaiah:42:18|). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive \blep“sin\ (may keep on seeing). This man now sees physically and spiritually. {And that they which see may become blind} (\kai hoi blepontes tuphloi gen“ntai\). Another part of God's purpose, seen in strkjv@Matthew:11:25; strkjv@Luke:10:21|, is the curse on those who blaspheme and reject the Son. Note ingressive aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ and predicate nominative. \Hoi blepontes\ are those who profess to see like these Pharisees, but are really blind. Blind guides they were (Matthew:23:16|). Complacent satisfaction with their dim light.

rwp@John:10:30 @{One} (\hen\). Neuter, not masculine (\heis\). Not one person (cf. \heis\ in strkjv@Galatians:3:28|), but one essence or nature. By the plural \sumus\ (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by \unum\ Arius. Songs:Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John:5:18|). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30|). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21|). Note \hen\ used in strkjv@1Corinthians:3:3| of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in strkjv@17:11,23| of the hoped for unity of Christ's disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ's claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.

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:11:44 @{He that was dead came forth} (\exˆlthen ho tethnˆk“s\). Literally, "Came out the dead man," (effective aorist active indicative and perfect active articular participle of \thnˆsk“\). Just as he was and at once. {Bound hand and foot} (\dedemenos tous podas kai tas cheiras\). Perfect passive participle of \de“\ with the accusative loosely retained according to the common Greek idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 486), but literally "as to the feet and hands" (opposite order from the English). Probably the legs were bound separately. {With grave-clothes} (\keiriais\). Or "with bands." Instrumental case of this late and rare word (in Plutarch, medical papyrus in the form \kˆria\, and strkjv@Proverbs:7:16|). Only here in N.T. {His face} (\hˆ opsis autou\). Old word, but \pros“pon\ is usual in N.T. See strkjv@Revelation:1:16| for another instance. {Was bound about} (\periededeto\). Past perfect passive of \peride“\, old verb to bind around, only here in N.T. {With a napkin} (\soudari“i\). Instrumental case of \soudarion\ (Latin word _sudarium_ from _sudor_, sweat). In N.T. here, strkjv@20:7; strkjv@Luke:19:20; strkjv@Acts:19:12|. Our handkerchief. {Loose him} (\lusate auton\). First aorist active imperative of \lu“\. From the various bands. {Let him go} (\aphete auton hupagein\). Second aorist active imperative of \aphiˆmi\ and present active infinitive.

rwp@John:13:13 @{Ye} (\humeis\). Emphatic. {Call me} (\ph“neite me\). "Address me." \Ph“ne“\ regular for addressing one with his title (1:48|). {Master} (\Hosea:didaskalos\). Nominative form (not in apposition with \me\ accusative after \ph“neite\), but really vocative in address with the article (called titular nominative sometimes) like \Hosea:Kurios kai ho theos mou\ in strkjv@20:28|. "Teacher." See strkjv@11:28| for Martha's title for Jesus to Mary. {Lord} (\Hosea:Kurios\). Another and separate title. In strkjv@1:38| we have \Didaskale\ (vocative form) for the Jewish \Rabbei\ and in strkjv@9:36,38| \Kurie\ for the Jewish _Mari_. It is significant that Jesus approves (\kal“s\, well) the application of both titles to himself as he accepts from Thomas the terms \kurios\ and \theos\. {For I am} (\eimi gar\). Jesus distinctly claims here to be both Teacher and Lord in the full sense, at the very moment when he has rendered this menial, but symbolic, service to them. Here is a hint for those who talk lightly about "the peril of worshipping Jesus!"

rwp@John:20:2 @{Runneth} (\trechei\). Vivid dramatic present indicative of \trech“\. John deals only with Mary Magdalene. She left the tomb at once before the rest and without seeing the angels as told in the Synoptics (Mark:16:2-8; strkjv@Matthew:28:5-8; strkjv@Luke:24:1-8|). Luke (Luke:24:9-12|) does not distinguish between the separate report of Mary Magdalene and that of the other women. {To Simon Peter} (\pros Sim“na Petron\). Full name as usual in John and back with John and the other disciples. The association of Peter and the other disciple in strkjv@John:18-21| is like that between Peter and John in strkjv@Acts:1-5|. {Loved} (\ephilei\). Imperfect of \phile“\ for which see strkjv@5:20; strkjv@11:3| and for distinction from \agapa“\ see strkjv@11:5; strkjv@13:23; strkjv@21:7,15,17|. {They have taken away} (\ˆran\). First aorist active indicative of \air“\, indefinite plural. {We know not} (\ouk oidamen\). Mary associates the other women with her in her ignorance. For \ethˆkan\ (have laid) see strkjv@19:42|. Mary fears a grave robbery. She has no idea of the resurrection of Jesus.

rwp@John:20:7 @{The napkin} (\to soudarion\). Already in strkjv@11:44| which see. This napkin for the head was in a separate place. {Rolled up} (\entetuligmenon\). Perfect passive participle, predicate accusative like \keimenon\, from \entuliss“\, late verb, to wrap in, to roll up, already in strkjv@Matthew:27:59; strkjv@Luke:23:53|. It was arranged in an orderly fashion. There was no haste. {By itself} (\ch“ris\). Old adverb, "apart," "separately."

rwp@Luke:5:17 @{That} (\kai\). Use of \kai\ = \hoti\ (that) like the Hebrew _wav_, though found in Greek also. {He} (\autos\). Luke sometimes has \autos\ in the nominative as unemphatic "he" as here, not "he himself." {Was teaching} (\ˆn didask“n\). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom. {Were sitting by} (\ˆsan kathˆmenoi\). Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no "by" in the Greek. {Doctors of the law} (\nomodidaskaloi\). A compound word formed after analogy of \hierodidaskalos\, but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and strkjv@Acts:5:34; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7|. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word "doctor" is Latin for "teacher." These "teachers of the law" are called elsewhere in the Gospels "scribes" (\grammateis\) as in Matthew and Mark (see on ¯Matthew:5:20; strkjv@23:34|) and strkjv@Luke:5:21; strkjv@19:47; strkjv@21:1; strkjv@22:2|. Luke also employs \nomikos\ (one skilled in the law, \nomos\) as in strkjv@10:25|. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see on ¯Matthew:3:7,20|. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the "Pharisees" were "teachers of the law" so that both terms often occur together as in verse 21| where Luke has separate articles (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in strkjv@Matthew:5:20| or no article as here in verse 17|. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law "which were come" (\hoi ˆsan elˆluthotes\, periphrastic past perfect active, {had come}). {Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem} (\ek pasˆs k“mˆs tˆs Galilaias kai Ioudaias kai Ierousalˆm\). Edersheim (_Jewish Social Life_) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use "every village." But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that strkjv@John:4:1-4| shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:23|. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life. {The power of the Lord was with him to heal} (\dunamis Kuriou ˆn eis to iƒsthai auton\). Songs:the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: "Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus)." Here \Kuriou\ refers to Jehovah. {Dunamis} (dynamite) is one of the common words for "miracles" (\dunameis\). What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion.

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

rwp@Luke:9:33 @{As they were departing from him} (\en t“i diach“rizesthai autous ap' autou\). Peculiar to Luke and another instance of Luke's common idiom of \en\ with the articular infinitive in a temporal clause. This common verb occurs here only in the N.T. The present middle voice means to separate oneself fully (direct middle). This departing of Moses and Elijah apparently accompanied Peter's remark as given in all three Gospels. See for details on Mark and Matthew. {Master} (\Epistata\) here, {Rabbi} (Mark:9:5|), {Lord} (\Kurie\, strkjv@Matthew:17:4|). {Let us make} (\poiˆs“men\, first aorist active subjunctive) as in strkjv@Mark:9:5|, but strkjv@Matthew:17:4| has "I will make" (\poiˆs“\). It was near the time of the feast of the tabernacles. Songs:Peter proposes that they celebrate it up here instead of going to Jerusalem for it as they did a bit later (John:7|). {Not knowing what he said} (\mˆ eid“s ho legei\). Literally, {not understanding what he was saying} (\mˆ\, regular negative with participle and \legei\, present indicative retained in relative clause in indirect discourse). Luke puts it more bluntly than Mark (Peter's account), "For he wist not what to answer; for they became sore afraid" (Mark:9:6|). Peter acted according to his impulsive nature and spoke up even though he did not know what to say or even what he was saying when he spoke. He was only half awake as Luke explains and he was sore afraid as Mark (Peter) explains. He had bewilderment enough beyond a doubt, but it was Peter who spoke, not James and John.

rwp@Luke:12:1 @{In the meantime} (\en hois\). It is a classic idiom to start a sentence or even a paragraph as here with a relative, "in which things or circumstances," without any expressed antecedent other than the incidents in strkjv@11:53f|. In strkjv@12:3| Luke actually begins the sentence with two relatives \anth' h“n hosa\ (wherefore whatsoever). {Many thousands} (\muriad“n\). Genitive absolute with \episunachtheis“n\ (first aorist passive participle feminine plural because of \muriad“n\), a double compound late verb, \episunag“\, to gather together unto. The word "myriads" is probably hyperbolical as in strkjv@Acts:21:20|, but in the sense of ten thousand, as in strkjv@Acts:19:19|, it means a very large crowd apparently drawn together by the violent attacks of the rabbis against Jesus. {Insomuch that they trode one upon another} (\h“ste katapatein allˆlous\). The imagination must complete the picture of this jam. {Unto his disciples first of all} (\pros tous mathˆtas autou pr“ton\). This long discourse in strkjv@Luke:12| is really a series of separate talks to various groups in the vast crowds around Jesus. This particular talk goes through verse 12|. {Beware of} (\prosechete heautois apo\). Put your mind (\noun\ understood) for yourselves (dative) and avoid (\apo\ with the ablative). {The leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy} (\tˆs zumˆs hˆtis estin hupocrisis t“n Pharisai“n\). In strkjv@Mark:8:15| Jesus had coupled the lesson of the Pharisees with that of Herod, in strkjv@Matthew:16:6| with that of the Sadducees also. He had long ago called the Pharisees hypocrites (Matthew:6:2,5,16|). The occasion was ripe here for this crisp saying. In strkjv@Matthew:13:33| leaven does not have an evil sense as here, which see. See strkjv@Matthew:23:13| for hypocrites. Hypocrisy was the leading Pharisaic vice (Bruce) and was a mark of sanctity to hide an evil heart.

rwp@Luke:12:10 @{But unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit} (\t“i de eis to hagion pneuma blasphˆmˆsanti\). This unpardonable sin is given by strkjv@Mark:3:28f.; strkjv@Matthew:12:31f.| immediately after the charge that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub. Luke here separates it from the same charge made in Judea (11:15-20|). As frequently said, there is no sound reason for saying that Jesus only spoke his memorable sayings once. Luke apparently finds a different environment here. Note the use of \eis\ here in the sense of "against."

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:14:3 @{Answering} (\apokritheis\). First aorist passive participle without the passive meaning. Jesus answered the thoughts of those mentioned in verse 1|. Here "lawyers and Pharisees" are treated as one class with one article (\tous\) whereas in strkjv@7:30| they are treated as two classes with separate articles. {Or not} (\ˆ ou\). The dilemma forestalled any question by them. {They held their peace} (\hˆsuchasan\). Ingressive aorist active of old verb \hˆsuchaz“\. They became silent, more so than before.

rwp@Luke:14:33 @{Renounceth not} (\ouk apotassetai\). Old Greek word to set apart as in a military camp, then in the middle voice to separate oneself from, say good-bye to (Luke:9:61|), to renounce, forsake, as here. {All that he hath} (\pasin tois heautou huparchousin\). Dative case, says good-bye to all his property, "all his own belongings" (neuter plural participle used as substantive) as named in verse 26|. This verse gives the principle in the two parables of the rash builder and of the rash king. The minor details do not matter. The spirit of self-sacrifice is the point.

rwp@Luke:15:1 @{All the publicans and sinners} (\pantes hoi tel“nai kai hoi hamart“loi\). The two articles separate the two classes (all the publicans and the sinners). They are sometimes grouped together (5:30; strkjv@Matthew:9:11|), but not here. The publicans are put on the same level with the outcasts or sinners. Songs:in verse 2| the repeated article separates Pharisees and scribes as not quite one. The use of "all" here may be hyperbole for very many or the reference may be to these two classes in the particular place where Jesus was from time to time. {Were drawing near unto him} (\ˆsan aut“i eggizontes\). Periphrastic imperfect of \eggiz“\, from \eggus\ (near), late verb. {For to hear} (\akouein\). Just the present active infinitive of purpose.

rwp@Luke:16:4 @{I am resolved} (\egn“n\). Second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\. A difficult tense to reproduce in English. I knew, I know, I have known, all miss it a bit. It is a burst of daylight to the puzzled, darkened man: I've got it, I see into it now, a sudden solution. {What to do} (\ti poiˆs“\). Either deliberative first aorist active subjunctive or deliberative future active indicative. {When I am put out} (\hotan metastath“\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \methistˆmi\, (\meta, histˆmi\), old verb, to transpose, transfer, remove. He is expecting to be put out. {They may receive me} (\dex“ntai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \dechomai\, common verb. Subjunctive with final particle \hina\. He wishes to put the debtors under obligation to himself. {Debtors} (\t“n chreophilet“n\). A late word. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:7:41| from \chreos\, loan, and \opheiletˆs\, debtor. It is probable that he dealt with "each one" separately.

rwp@Mark:8:38 @{For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my words} (\hos gar ean epaischunthˆi me kai tous emous logous\). More exactly, {whosoever is ashamed} (first aorist passive subjunctive with indefinite relative and \ean = an\. See Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 957-9. It is not a statement about the future conduct of one, but about his present attitude toward Jesus. The conduct of men toward Christ now determines Christ's conduct then (\epaischunthˆsetai\, first future passive indicative). This passive verb is transitive and uses the accusative (\me, auton\). {In this adulterous and sinful generation} (\en tˆi geneƒi tautˆi tˆi moichalidi kai hamart“l“i\). Only in Mark. {When he cometh} (\hotan elthˆi\). Aorist active subjunctive with reference to the future second coming of Christ with the glory of the Father with his holy angels (cf. strkjv@Matthew:16:27|). This is a clear prediction of the final eschatological coming of Christ. This verse could not be separated from strkjv@Mark:9:1| as the chapter division does. These two verses in strkjv@Mark:8:38; strkjv@9:1| form one paragraph and should go together.

rwp@Mark:9:25 @{A multitude came running together} (\episuntrechei ochlos\). A double compound here alone in the N.T. and not in the old Greek writers. \Epitrech“\ occurs in the papyri, but not \episuntrech“\. The double compound vividly describes the rapid gathering of the crowd to Jesus and the epileptic boy to see the outcome. {Come out of him} (\exelthe ex autou\). Jesus addresses the demon as a separate being from the boy as he often does. This makes it difficult to believe that Jesus was merely indulging popular belief in a superstition. He evidently regards the demon as the cause in this case of the boy's misfortune.

rwp@Mark:11:20 @{As they passed by in the morning} (\paraporeuomenoi pr“i\). Literally, passing by in the morning. The next morning. They went back by the lower road up the Mount of Olives and came down each morning by the steep and more direct way. Hence they saw it. strkjv@Matthew:21:20| does not separate the two mornings as Mark does. {From the roots} (\ek riz“n\). Mark alone gives this detail with \exˆrammenˆn\ perfect passive predicate participle from \xˆrain“\.

rwp@Mark:11:27 @{The chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders} (\hoi archiereis kai hoi grammateis kai hoi presbuteroi\). Note the article with each separate group as in strkjv@Luke:20:1| and strkjv@Matthew:21:23|. These three classes were in the Sanhedrin. Clearly a large committee of the Sanhedrin including both Sadducees and Pharisees here confront Jesus in a formal attack upon his authority for cleansing the temple and teaching in it.

rwp@Mark:13:4 @{Tell us, when shall these things be?} (\Eipon hˆmin pote tauta estai;\). The Revised Version punctuates it as a direct question, but Westcott and Hort as an indirect inquiry. They asked about the {when} (\pote\) and the {what sign} (\ti sˆmeion\). strkjv@Matthew:24:3| includes "the sign of thy coming and the end of the world," showing that these tragic events are brought before Jesus by the disciples. See discussion of the interpretation of this discourse on ¯Matthew:24:3|. This chapter in Mark is often called "The Little Apocalypse" with the notion that a Jewish apocalypse has been here adapted by Mark and attributed to Jesus. Many of the theories attribute grave error to Jesus or to the Gospels on this subject. The view adopted in the discussion in Matthew is the one suggested here, that Jesus blended in one picture his death, the destruction of Jerusalem within that generation, the second coming and end of the world typified by the destruction of the city. The lines between these topics are not sharply drawn in the report and it is not possible for us to separate the topics clearly. This great discourse is the longest preserved in Mark and may be due to Peter. Mark may have given it in order "to forewarn and forearm" (Bruce) the readers against the coming catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem. Both Matthew (Matthew:24|) and Luke (Luke:21:5-36|) follow the general line of Mark 13 though strkjv@Matthew:24:43-25:46| presents new material (parables).

rwp@Mark:14:14 @{The goodman of the house} (\t“i oikodespotˆi\). A non-classical word, but in late papyri. It means master (\despot\) of the house, householder. The usual Greek has two separate words, \oikou despotˆs\ (master of the house). {My guest-chamber} (\to kataluma mou\). In LXX, papyri, and modern Greek for lodging-place (inn, as in strkjv@Luke:2:7| or guest-chamber as here). It was used for \khan\ or \caravanserai\. {I shall eat} (\phag“\). Futuristic aorist subjunctive with \hopou\.

rwp@Matthew:5:3 @{Blessed} (\makarioi\). The English word "blessed" is more exactly represented by the Greek verbal \eulogˆtoi\ as in strkjv@Luke:1:68| of God by Zacharias, or the perfect passive participle \eulogˆmenos\ as in strkjv@Luke:1:42| of Mary by Elizabeth and in strkjv@Matthew:21:9|. Both forms come from \euloge“\, to speak well of (\eu, logos\). The Greek word here (\makarioi\) is an adjective that means "happy" which in English etymology goes back to hap, chance, good-luck as seen in our words haply, hapless, happily, happiness. "Blessedness is, of course, an infinitely higher and better thing than mere happiness" (Weymouth). English has thus ennobled "blessed" to a higher rank than "happy." But "happy" is what Jesus said and the _Braid Scots New Testament_ dares to say "Happy" each time here as does the _Improved Edition of the American Bible Union Version_. The Greek word is as old as Homer and Pindar and was used of the Greek gods and also of men, but largely of outward prosperity. Then it is applied to the dead who died in the Lord as in strkjv@Revelation:14:13|. Already in the Old Testament the Septuagint uses it of moral quality. "Shaking itself loose from all thoughts of outward good, it becomes the express symbol of a happiness identified with pure character. Behind it lies the clear cognition of sin as the fountain-head of all misery, and of holiness as the final and effectual cure for every woe. For knowledge as the basis of virtue, and therefore of happiness, it substitutes faith and love" (Vincent). Jesus takes this word "happy" and puts it in this rich environment. "This is one of the words which have been transformed and ennobled by New Testament use; by association, as in the Beatitudes, with unusual conditions, accounted by the world miserable, or with rare and difficult" (Bruce). It is a pity that we have not kept the word "happy" to the high and holy plane where Jesus placed it. "If you know these things, happy (\makarioi\) are you if you do them" (John:13:17|). "Happy (\makarioi\) are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John:20:29|). And Paul applies this adjective to God, "according to the gospel of the glory of the happy (\makariou\) God" (1Timothy:1:11|. Cf. also strkjv@Titus:2:13|). The term "Beatitudes" (Latin _beatus_) comes close to the meaning of Christ here by \makarioi\. It will repay one to make a careful study of all the "beatitudes" in the New Testament where this word is employed. It occurs nine times here (3-11|), though the beatitudes in verses 10 and 11 are very much alike. The copula is not expressed in either of these nine beatitudes. In each case a reason is given for the beatitude, "for" (\hoti\), that shows the spiritual quality involved. Some of the phrases employed by Jesus here occur in the Psalms, some even in the Talmud (itself later than the New Testament, though of separate origin). That is of small moment. "The originality of Jesus lies in putting the due value on these thoughts, collecting them, and making them as prominent as the Ten Commandments. No greater service can be rendered to mankind than to rescue from obscurity neglected moral commonplaces " (Bruce). Jesus repeated his sayings many times as all great teachers and preachers do, but this sermon has unity, progress, and consummation. It does not contain all that Jesus taught by any means, but it stands out as the greatest single sermon of all time, in its penetration, pungency, and power. {The poor in spirit} (\hoi pt“choi t“i pneumati\). Luke has only "the poor," but he means the same by it as this form in Matthew, "the pious in Israel, for the most part poor, whom the worldly rich despised and persecuted" (McNeile). The word used here (\pt“choi\) is applied to the beggar Lazarus in strkjv@Luke:16:20,22| and suggests spiritual destitution (from \pt“ss“\ to crouch, to cower). The other word \penˆs\ is from \penomai\, to work for one's daily bread and so means one who works for his living. The word \pt“chos\ is more frequent in the New Testament and implies deeper poverty than \penˆs\. "The kingdom of heaven" here means the reign of God in the heart and life. This is the _summum bonum_ and is what matters most.

rwp@Matthew:5:20 @{Shall exceed} (\perisseusˆi pleion\). Overflow like a river out of its banks and then Jesus adds "more" followed by an unexpressed ablative (\tˆs dikaiosunˆs\), brachylogy. A daring statement on Christ's part that they had to be better than the rabbis. They must excel the scribes, the small number of regular teachers (5:21-48|), and the Pharisees in the Pharisaic life (6:1-18|) who were the separated ones, the orthodox pietists.

rwp@Matthew:6:6 @{Into thy closet} (\eis to tameion\). The word is a late syncopated form of \tamieion\ from \tamias\ (steward) and the root \tam-\ from \temn“\, to cut. Songs:it is a store-house, a separate apartment, one's private chamber, closet, or "den" where he can withdraw from the world and shut the world out and commune with God.

rwp@Matthew:7:1 @{Judge not} (\mˆ krinete\). The habit of censoriousness, sharp, unjust criticism. Our word critic is from this very word. It means to separate, distinguish, discriminate. That is necessary, but pre-judice (prejudgment) is unfair, captious criticism.

rwp@Matthew:8:29 @{Thou Son of God} (\huie tou theou\). The recognition of Jesus by the demons is surprising. The whole subject of demonology is difficult. Some hold that it is merely the ancient way of describing disease. But that does not explain the situation here. Jesus is represented as treating the demons as real existences separate from the human personality. Missionaries in China today claim that they have seen demons cast out. The devil knew Jesus clearly and it is not strange that Jesus was recognized by the devil's agents. They know that there is nothing in common between them and the Son of God (\hˆmin kai soi\, ethical dative) and they fear torment "before the time" (\pro kairou\). Usually \ta daimonia\ is the word in the New Testament for demons, but in strkjv@8:31| we have \hoi daimones\ (the only example in the N.T.). \Daimonion\ is a diminutive of \daim“n\. In Homer \daim“n\ is used synonymously with \theos\ and \thea\. Hesiod employed \daim“n\ of men of the golden age as tutelary deities. Homer has the adjective \daimonios\ usually in an evil sense. Empedocles considered the demons both bad and good. They were thus used to relieve the gods and goddesses of much rascality. Grote (_History of Greece_) notes that the Christians were thus by pagan usage justified in calling idolatry the worship of demons. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20f.; strkjv@1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@16:13f|. In the Gospels demons are the same as unclean spirits (Mark:5:12,15; strkjv@3:22,30; strkjv@Luke:4:33|). The demons are disturbers (Vincent) of the whole life of man (Mark:5:2f.; strkjv@7:25; strkjv@Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|).

rwp@Matthew:11:29 @{Take my yoke upon you and learn of me} (\arate ton zugon mou eph'humas kai mathete ap'emou\). The rabbis used yoke for school as many pupils find it now a yoke. The English word "school" is Greek for leisure (\scholˆ\). But Jesus offers refreshment (\anapausin\) in his school and promises to make the burden light, for he is a meek and humble teacher. Humility was not a virtue among the ancients. It was ranked with servility. Jesus has made a virtue of this vice. He has glorified this attitude so that Paul urges it (Phillipians:2:3|), "in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself." In portions of Europe today people place yokes on the shoulders to make the burden easier to carry. Jesus promises that we shall find the yoke kindly and the burden lightened by his help. "Easy" is a poor translation of \chrˆstos\. Moffatt puts it "kindly." That is the meaning in the Septuagint for persons. We have no adjective that quite carries the notion of kind and good. The yoke of Christ is useful, good, and kindly. Cf. strkjv@Songs:1:10|.

rwp@Matthew:19:10 @{The disciples say unto him} (\legousin aut“i hoi mathˆtai\). "Christ's doctrine on marriage not only separated Him \toto caelo\ from Pharisaic opinions of all shades, but was too high even for the Twelve" (Bruce). {The case} (\hˆ aitia\). The word may refer to the use in verse 3| "for every cause." It may have a vague idea here = \res\, condition. But the point clearly is that "it is not expedient to marry" (\ou sumpherei gamˆsai\) if such a strict view is held. If the bond is so tight a man had best not commit matrimony. It is a bit unusual to have \anthr“pos\ and \gunˆ\ contrasted rather than \anˆr\ and \gunˆ\.

rwp@Matthew:22:12 @{Not having a wedding-garment} (\mˆ ech“n enduma gamou\). \Mˆ\ is in the _Koin‚_ the usual negative with participles unless special emphasis on the negative is desired as in \ouk endedumenon\. There is a subtle distinction between \mˆ\ and \ou\ like our subjective and objective notions. Some hold that the wedding-garment here is a portion of a lost parable separate from that of the Wedding Feast, but there is no evidence for that idea. Wunsche does report a parable by a rabbi of a king who set no time for his feast and the guests arrived, some properly dressed waiting at the door; others in their working clothes did not wait, but went off to work and, when the summons suddenly came, they had no time to dress properly and were made to stand and watch while the others partook of the feast.

rwp@Matthew:23:13 @{Hypocrites} (\hupokritai\). This terrible word of Jesus appears first from him in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew:6:2,5,16; strkjv@7:5|), then in strkjv@15:7| and strkjv@22:18|. Here it appears "with terrific iteration" (Bruce) save in the third of the seven woes (23:13,15,23,25,27,29|). The verb in the active (\hupokrin“\) meant to separate slowly or slightly subject to gradual inquiry. Then the middle was to make answer, to take up a part on the stage, to act a part. It was an easy step to mean to feign, to pretend, to wear a masque, to act the hypocrite, to play a part. This hardest word from the lips of Jesus falls on those who were the religious leaders of the Jews (Scribes and Pharisees), who had justified this thunderbolt of wrath by their conduct toward Jesus and their treatment of things high and holy. The _Textus Receptus has eight woes, adding verse 14| which the Revised Version places in the margin (called verse 13| by Westcott and Hort and rejected on the authority of Aleph B D as a manifest gloss from strkjv@Mark:12:40| and strkjv@Luke:20:47|). The MSS. that insert it put it either before 13 or after 13. Plummer cites these seven woes as another example of Matthew's fondness for the number seven, more fancy than fact for Matthew's Gospel is not the Apocalypse of John. These are all illustrations of Pharisaic saying and not doing (Allen). {Ye shut the kingdom of heaven} (\kleiete tˆn basileian t“n ouran“n\). In strkjv@Luke:11:52| the lawyers are accused of keeping the door to the house of knowledge locked and with flinging away the keys so as to keep themselves and the people in ignorance. These custodians of the kingdom by their teaching obscured the way to life. It is a tragedy to think how preachers and teachers of the kingdom of God may block the door for those who try to enter in (\tous eiserchomenous\, conative present middle participle). {Against} (\emprosthen\). Literally, before. These door-keepers of the kingdom slam it shut in men's faces and they themselves are on the outside where they will remain. They hide the key to keep others from going in.

rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathˆmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ai“nos\) or consummation of the age. In a painting the artist by skilful perspective may give on the same surface the inside of a room, the fields outside the window, and the sky far beyond. Certainly in this discourse Jesus blends in apocalyptic language the background of his death on the cross, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, his own second coming and the end of the world. He now touches one, now the other. It is not easy for us to separate clearly the various items. It is enough if we get the picture as a whole as it is here drawn with its lessons of warning to be ready for his coming and the end. The destruction of Jerusalem came as he foretold. There are some who would date the Synoptic Gospels after A.D. 70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).

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@Revelation:1:12 @{To see the voice} (\blepein tˆn ph“nˆn\). The voice put for the person speaking. {Having turned} (\epistrepsas\). First aorist active participle of \epistreph“\, from which also \epestrepsa\, just before, for which verb see strkjv@Acts:15:36; strkjv@16:18|. {Seven golden candlesticks} (\hepta luchnias chrusas\). See strkjv@Matthew:5:15| for \luchnia\ (lampstand). Symbols of the seven churches as explained in verse 20|. See strkjv@Exodus:25:35ff.| for description of a seven-branched candlestick, but here the lampstands are separate.

rwp@Revelation:1:20 @{The mystery of the seven stars} (\to mustˆrion t“n hepta aster“n\). On the word \mustˆrion\ see on ¯Matthew:13:11; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:7; strkjv@Colossians:1:26|. Here it means the inner meaning (the secret symbol) of a symbolic vision (Swete) as in strkjv@10:7; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@17:7,9; strkjv@Daniel:2:47|. Probably the accusative absolute (Charles), "as for the mystery" (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 490, 1130), as in strkjv@Romans:8:3|. This item is picked out of the previous vision (1:16|) as needing explanation at once and as affording a clue to what follows (2:1,5|). {Which} (\hous\). Masculine accusative retained without attraction to case of \aster“n\ (genitive, \h“n\). {In my right hand} (\epi tˆs dexias mou\). Or "upon," but \en tˆi\, etc., in verse 16|. {And the seven golden candlesticks} (\kai tas hepta luchnias tas chrusƒs\). "The seven lampstands the golden," identifying the stars of verse 16| with the lampstands of verse 12|. The accusative case here is even more peculiar than the accusative absolute \mustˆrion\, since the genitive \luchni“n\ after \mustˆrion\ is what one would expect. Charles suggests that John did not revise his work. {The angels of the seven churches} (\aggeloi t“n hepta ekklˆsi“n\). Anarthrous in the predicate (angels of, etc.). "The seven churches" mentioned in strkjv@1:4,11|. Various views of \aggelos\ here exist. The simplest is the etymological meaning of the word as messenger from \aggell“\ (Matthew:11:10|) as messengers from the seven churches to Patmos or by John from Patmos to the churches (or both). Another view is that \aggelos\ is the pastor of the church, the reading \tˆn gunaika sou\ (thy wife) in strkjv@2:20| (if genuine) confirming this view. Some would even take it to be the bishop over the elders as \episcopos\ in Ignatius, but a separate \aggelos\ in each church is against this idea. Some take it to be a symbol for the church itself or the spirit and genius of the church, though distinguished in this very verse from the churches themselves (the lampstands). Others take it to be the guardian angel of each church assuming angelic patrons to be taught in strkjv@Matthew:18:10; strkjv@Acts:12:15|. Each view is encompassed with difficulties, perhaps fewer belonging to the view that the "angel" is the pastor. {Are seven churches} (\hepta ekklˆsiai eisin\). These seven churches (1:4,11|) are themselves lampstands (1:12|) reflecting the light of Christ to the world (Matthew:5:14-16; strkjv@John:8:12|) in the midst of which Christ walks (1:13|).

rwp@Revelation:2:9 @{Thy tribulation and thy poverty} (\sou tˆn thlipsin kai pt“cheian\). Separate articles of same gender, emphasizing each item. The tribulation was probably persecution, which helped to intensify the poverty of the Christians (James:2:5; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:10; strkjv@8:2|). In contrast with the wealthy church in Laodicea (3:17|). {But thou art rich} (\alla plousios ei\). Parenthesis to show the spiritual riches of this church in contrast with the spiritual poverty in Laodicea (3:17|), this a rich poor church, that a poor rich church. Rich in grace toward God (Luke:12:21|) and in good deeds (1Timothy:6:18|). Perhaps Jews and pagans had pillaged their property (Hebrews:10:34|), poor as they already were. {Blasphemy} (\blasphˆmian\). Reviling believers in Christ. See strkjv@Mark:7:22|. The precise charge by these Jews is not indicated, but see strkjv@Acts:13:45|. {Of them which say} (\ek t“n legont“n\). "From those saying" (\ek\ with the ablative plural of the present active articular participle of \leg“\). {They are Jews} (\Ioudaious einai heautous\). This is the accusative of general reference and the infinitive in indirect discourse after \leg“\ (Acts:5:36; strkjv@8:9|) even though \legont“n\ is here ablative (cf. strkjv@3:9|), common idiom. These are actual Jews and only Jews, not Christians. {And they are not} (\kai ouk eisin\). Another parenthesis like that in strkjv@2:2|. These are Jews in name only, not spiritual Jews (Galatians:6:15f., strkjv@Romans:2:28|). {A synagogue of Satan} (\sunag“gˆ tou Satanƒ\). In strkjv@3:9| again and note strkjv@2:13,24|, serving the devil (John:8:44|) instead of the Lord (Numbers:16:3; strkjv@20:4|).

rwp@Revelation:2:19 @{Thy works} (\sou ta erga\). As in strkjv@2:2| and explained (explanatory use of \kai\ =namely) by what follows. Four items are given, with separate feminine article for each (\tˆn agapˆn, tˆn pistin, tˆn diakonian, tˆn hupomonˆn\), a longer list of graces than in strkjv@2:2| for Ephesus. More praise is given in the case of Ephesus and Thyatira when blame follows than in the case of Smyrna and Philadelphia when no fault is found. Love comes first in this list in true Johannine fashion. Faith (\pistin\) here may be "faithfulness," and ministry (\diakonian\) is ministration to needs of others (Acts:11:29; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:15|). {And that} (\kai\). Only \kai\ (and) in the Greek, but doubtless \hoti\ (that) is understood. {Than the first} (\t“n pr“t“n\). Ablative after the comparative \pleiona\ (more).

rwp@Revelation:3:7 @{In Philadelphia} (\en Philadelphiƒi\). Some twenty-eight miles south-east of Sardis, in Lydia, subject to earthquakes, rebuilt by Tiberius after the great earthquake of A.D. 17, for a time called in coins Neo-Caesarea, in wine-growing district with Bacchus (Dionysos) as the chief deity, on fine Roman roads and of commercial importance, though not a large city, called by Ramsay (_op. cit._, p. 392) "the Missionary City" to promote the spread of the Graeco-Roman civilization and then of Christianity, later offering stubborn resistance to the Turks (1379-90 A.D.) and now called Ala-Sheher (reddish city, Charles, from the red hills behind it). The chief opposition to the faithful little church is from the Jews (cf. strkjv@Romans:9-11|). There are some 1,000 Christians there today. {The holy, he that is true} (\ho hagios, ho alˆthinos\). Separate articles (four in all) for each item in this description. "The holy, the genuine." Asyndeton in the Greek. Latin Vulgate, _Sanctus et Verus_. \Hosea:hagios\ is ascribed to God in strkjv@4:8; strkjv@6:10| (both \hagios\ and \alˆthinos\ as here), but to Christ in strkjv@Mark:1:24; strkjv@Luke:4:34; strkjv@John:6:69; strkjv@Acts:4:27,30; strkjv@1John:2:20|, a recognized title of the Messiah as the consecrated one set apart. Swete notes that \alˆthinos\ is _verus_ as distinguished from _verax_ (\alˆthˆs\). Songs:it is applied to God in strkjv@6:10| and to Christ in strkjv@3:14; strkjv@19:11| as in strkjv@John:1:9; strkjv@6:32; strkjv@15:1|. {He that hath the key of David} (\ho ech“n tˆn klein Daueid\). This epithet comes from strkjv@Isaiah:22:22|, where Eliakim as the chief steward of the royal household holds the keys of power. Christ as the Messiah (Revelation:5:5; strkjv@22:16|) has exclusive power in heaven, on earth, and in Hades (Matthew:16:19; strkjv@28:18; strkjv@Romans:14:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:9f.; strkjv@Revelation:1:18|). Christ has power to admit and exclude of his own will (Matthew:25:10f.; strkjv@Ephesians:1:22; strkjv@Revelation:3:21; strkjv@19:11-16; strkjv@20:4; strkjv@22:16|). {And none shall shut} (\kai oudeis kleisei\). Charles calls the structure Hebrew (future active indicative of \klei“\), and not Greek because it does not correspond to the present articular participle just before \ho anoig“n\ (the one opening), but it occurs often in this book as in the very next clause, "and none openeth" (\kai oudeis anoigei\) over against \klei“n\ (present active participle, opening) though here some MSS. read \kleiei\ (present active indicative, open).

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:5:13 @{Every created thing} (\pƒn ktisma\). Every creature in a still wider antiphonal circle beyond the circle of angels (from \ktiz“\, for which see strkjv@1Timothy:4:4; strkjv@James:1:18|), from all the four great fields of life (in heaven, upon the earth, under the earth as in verse 3|, with on the sea \epi tˆs thalassˆs\ added). No created thing is left out. This universal chorus of praise to Christ from all created life reminds one of the profound mystical passage in strkjv@Romans:8:20-22| concerning the sympathetic agony of creation (\ktisis\) in hope of freedom from the bondage of corruption. If the trail of the serpent is on all creation, it will be ultimately thrown off. {Saying} (\legontas\). Masculine (construction according to sense, personifying the created things) if genuine, though some MSS. have \legonta\ (grammatical gender agreeing with \panta\) present active participle of \leg“\, to say. {And to the Lamb} (\kai t“i arni“i\). Dative case. Praise and worship are rendered to the Lamb precisely as to God on the throne. Note separate articles here in the doxology as in strkjv@4:11| and the addition of \to kratos\ (active power) in place of \ischus\ (reserve of strength) in strkjv@5:12|.

rwp@Revelation:6:14 @{Was removed} (\apech“risthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \apoch“riz“\, to separate, to part (Acts:15:39|). "The heaven was parted." {As a scroll when it is rolled up} (\h“s biblion helissomenon\). Present passive participle of \heliss“\, old verb, to roll up, in N.T. only here (from strkjv@Isaiah:34:4|) and strkjv@Hebrews:1:12| (from strkjv@Psalms:102:27|). Vivid picture of the expanse of the sky rolled up and away as a papyrus roll (Luke:4:17|). {Were moved} (\ekinˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \kine“\, to move. {Out of their places} (\ek t“n top“n aut“n\). See also strkjv@16:20| for these violent displacements in the earth's crust. Cf. strkjv@Nahum:1:5; strkjv@Jeremiah:4:24|. Jesus spoke of faith removing mountains (of difficulty) as in strkjv@Mark:11:23| (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:13:2|).

rwp@Revelation:14:3 @{They sing as it were a new song} (\aidousin h“s “idˆn kainˆn\). See strkjv@5:9| for this phrase (cognate accusative) save that here \h“s\ (as if) is added. There the new song was sung by the four living creatures and the elders, but here "before" (\en“pion\) them and so apparently by the throng who were themselves redeemed by the Lamb. {No man could learn the song save} (\oudeis edunato mathein tˆn “idˆn ei mˆ\). Imperfect (\edunato\) of \dunamai\ and second aorist (ingressive) active infinitive of \manthan“\. In strkjv@5:9-12| the angels join in the song. In strkjv@15:3| it is the Song of Moses and the Lamb. {Even they that had been purchased out of the earth} (\hoi ˆgorasmenoi apo tˆs gˆs\). Perfect passive articular participle of \agoraz“\, purchased by the blood of the Lamb (5:9|), masculine plural in apposition with \chiliades\ (thousands) feminine plural (7:5,8; strkjv@14:1|). \Apo\ (from) here, though \ek\ (out of) in strkjv@5:9|. The 144,000 are not yet separated from the earth (John:17:15|). Whether the 144,000 here are identical with that number in strkjv@7:4-8| or not, they must embrace both men and women.

rwp@Revelation:15:3 @{The song of Moses} (\tˆn “idˆn tou M“use“s\). strkjv@Exodus:14:31; strkjv@15:1-19|. A song of victory like that of Moses after crossing the Red Sea. {And the song of the Lamb} (\tˆn “idˆn tou arniou\). A separate note of victory like that of Moses, though one song, not two. Charles finds it impossible to reconcile the two expressions, if genuine, but it is a needless objection. The words come from the O.T.: "great" (\megala\) from strkjv@Psalms:111:2|, "wonderful" (\thaumasta\) from strkjv@Psalms:139:14|, "O Lord God the Almighty" (\Kurie ho theos ho pantokrat“r\) from strkjv@Amos:4:13| (Revelation:4:8|), "righteous and true" (\dikaiai kai alˆthinai\) from strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:4|, "Thou King of the ages" (\ho basileus t“n ai“n“n\) like strkjv@Jeremiah:10:10; strkjv@1Timothy:1:17|. Some MSS. have "the king of the saints" and some "the king of the nations," like strkjv@Jeremiah:10:7|. John thus combines in Hebraic tone the expressions of the old and the new in the song to the Glorified Messiah.

rwp@Info_Romans @{Paul} @(\Paulos\). Roman name (\Paulus\). See on ¯Acts:13:9| for the origin of this name by the side of Saul. {Servant} (\doulos\). Bond-slave of Jesus Christ (or Christ Jesus as some MSS. give it and as is the rule in the later Epistles) for the first time in the Epistles in the opening sentence, though the phrase already in strkjv@Galatians:1:10|. Recurs in strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| and \desmios\ (bondsman) in strkjv@Philemon:1:1|. {Called to be an apostle} (\klˆtos apostolos\). An apostle by vocation (Denney) as in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:1|. In strkjv@Galatians:1:1| \klˆtos\ is not used, but the rest of the verse has the same idea. {Separated} (\aph“rismenos\). Perfect passive participle of \aphoriz“\ for which verb see on ¯Galatians:1:15|. Paul is a spiritual Pharisee (etymologically), separated not to the oral tradition, but to God's gospel, a chosen vessel (Acts:9:15|). By man also (Acts:13:2|). Many of Paul's characteristic words like \euaggelion\ have been already discussed in the previous Epistles that will call for little comment from now on.

rwp@Romans:2:1 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). See strkjv@1:24,26| for this relative conjunction, "because of which thing." {Without excuse} (\anapologˆtos\). See on ¯1:21|. {Whosoever thou art that judgest} (\pas ho krin“n\). Literally, "every one that judgest," vocative case in apposition with \anthr“pe\. Paul begins his discussion of the failure of the Jew to attain to the God-kind of righteousness (2:1-3:20|) with a general statement applicable to all as he did (1:18|) in the discussion of the failure of the Gentiles (Lightfoot). The Gentile is readily condemned by the Jew when he sins and equally so is the Jew condemned by the Gentile in like case. \Krin“\ does not of itself mean to condemn, but to pick out, separate, approve, determine, pronounce judgment, condemn (if proper). {Another} (\ton heteron\). Literally, "the other man." The notion of two in the word, one criticizing the other. {Thou condemnest thyself} (\seauton katakrineis\). Note \kata\ here with \krin“\, to make plain the adverse judgment. {For} (\gar\). Explanatory reason for the preceding statement. The critic {practises} (\prasseis\, not single acts \poie“\, but the habit \prass“\) the same things that he condemns.

rwp@Romans:4:20 @{He wavered not through unbelief} (\ou diekrithˆ tˆi apistiƒi\). First aorist passive indicative of old and common verb \diakrin“\, to separate, to distinguish between, to decide between, to desert, to dispute, to be divided in one's own mind. This last sense occurs here as in strkjv@Matthew:21:22; strkjv@Mark:11:23; strkjv@Romans:14:23; strkjv@James:1:6|. "He was not divided in his mind by unbelief" (instrumental case). {Waxed strong through faith} (\enedunam“thˆ tˆi pistei\). First aorist passive again of \endunamo“\, late word to empower, to put power in, in LXX and Paul and strkjv@Acts:9:22|.

rwp@Romans:4:25 @{For our justification} (\dia tˆn dikai“sin hˆm“n\). The first clause (\paredothˆ dia ta parapt“mata\) is from strkjv@Isaiah:53:12|. The first \dia\ with \parapt“mata\ is probably retrospective, though it will make sense as prospective (to make atonement for our transgressions). The second \dia\ is quite clearly prospective with a view to our justification. Paul does not mean to separate the resurrection from the death of Christ in the work of atonement, but simply to show that the resurrection is at one with the death on the Cross in proof of Christ's claims.

rwp@Romans:8:35 @{Shall separate} (\ch“risei\). Future active of old verb \choriz“\ from adverb \ch“ris\ and that from \ch“ra\, space. Can any one put a distance between Christ's love and us (objective genitive)? Can any one lead Christ to cease loving us? Such things do happen between husband and wife, alas. Paul changes the figure from "who" (\tis\) to "what" (\ti\). The items mentioned will not make Christ love us less. Paul here glories in tribulations as in strkjv@5:3ff|.

rwp@Romans:8:37 @{Nay} (\alla\). On the contrary, we shall not be separated. {We are more than conquerors} (\hupernik“men\). Late and rare compound. Here only in N.T. "We gain a surpassing victory through the one who loved us."

rwp@Romans:8:39 @{To separate us} (\hˆmƒs ch“risai\). Aorist active infinitive of \choriz“\ (same verb as in 35|). God's love is victor over all possible foes, "God's love that is in Christ Jesus." Paul has reached the mountain top. He has really completed his great argument concerning the God-kind of righteousness save for its bearing on some special problems. The first of these concerns the fact that the Jews (God's chosen people) have so largely rejected the gospel (chapters 9-11|).

rwp@Romans:15:33 @{The God of peace} (\ho theos tˆs eirˆnˆs\). One of the characteristics of God that Paul often mentions in benedictions (1Thessalonians:5:23; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:16; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@Phillipians:4:9; strkjv@Romans:16:20|). Because of the "amen" here some scholars would make this the close of the Epistle and make chapter 16 a separate Epistle to the Ephesians. But the MSS. are against it. There is nothing strange at all in Paul's having so many friends in Rome though he had not yet been there himself. Rome was the centre of the world's life as Paul realized (1:15|). All men sooner or later hoped to see Rome.

rwp@Romans:16:1 @{I commend} (\sunistˆmi\). The regular word for letters of commendation as in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:1| (\sustatik“n epistol“n\). See also strkjv@Romans:3:5|. Songs:here verses 1,2| constitute Paul's recommendation of Phoebe, the bearer of the Epistle. Nothing else is known of her, though her name (\Phoibˆ\) means bright or radiant. {Sister} (\adelphˆn\). In Christ, not in the flesh. {Who is a servant of the church} (\ousan diakonon tˆs ekklˆsias\). The etymology of \diakonos\ we have had repeatedly. The only question here is whether it is used in a general sense or in a technical sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:1; strkjv@1Timothy:3:8-13|. In favour of the technical sense of "deacon" or "deaconess" is the addition of "\tˆs ekklˆsias\" (of the church). In some sense Phoebe was a servant or minister of the church in Cenchreae. Besides, right in the midst of the discussion in strkjv@1Timothy:3:8-13| Paul has a discussion of \gunaikas\ (verse 11|) either as women as deaconesses or as the wives of deacons (less likely though possible). The _Apostolic Constitutions_ has numerous allusions to deaconesses. The strict separation of the sexes made something like deaconesses necessary for baptism, visiting the women, etc. Cenchreae, as the eastern port of Corinth, called for much service of this kind. Whether the deaconesses were a separate organization on a par with the deacons we do not know nor whether they were the widows alluded to in strkjv@1Timothy:5:9f|.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Thu Jul 4 00:32:16 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020