Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp suit:


rwp@1Corinthians:1:20 @{Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?} (\Pou sophos; pou grammateus; pou sunzˆtˆtˆs tou ai“nos toutou;\). Paul makes use of strkjv@Isaiah:33:18| without exact quotation. The sudden retreat of Sennacherib with the annihilation of his officers. "On the tablet of Shalmaneser in the Assyrian Gallery of the British Museum there is a surprisingly exact picture of the scene described by Isaiah" (Robertson and Plummer). Note the absence of the Greek article in each of these rhetorical questions though the idea is clearly definite. Probably \sophos\ refers to the Greek philosopher, \grammateus\ to the Jewish scribe and \sunzˆtˆtˆs\ suits both the Greek and the Jewish disputant and doubter (Acts:6:9; strkjv@9:29; strkjv@17:18; strkjv@28:29|). There is a note of triumph in these questions. The word \sunzˆtˆtˆs\ occurs here alone in the N.T. and elsewhere only in Ignatius, Eph. 18 quoting this passage, but the papyri give the verb \sunzˆte“\ for disputing (questioning together). {Hath not God made foolish?} (\ouchi em“ranen ho theos;\). Strong negative form with aorist active indicative difficult of precise translation, "Did not God make foolish?" The old verb \m“rain“\ from \m“ros\, foolish, was to be foolish, to act foolish, then to prove one foolish as here or to make foolish as in strkjv@Romans:1:22|. In strkjv@Matthew:5:13; strkjv@Luke:14:34| it is used of salt that is tasteless. {World} (\kosmou\). Synonymous with \ai“n\ (age), orderly arrangement, then the non-Christian cosmos.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:3:14 @{If any man's work shall abide} (\ei tinos to ergon menei\). Condition of the first class with future indicative, determined as fulfilled, assumed as true. When the fire has done its work, what is left? That is the fiery test that the work of each of us must meet. Suitable reward (Matthew:20:8|) will come for the work that stands this test (gold, silver, precious stones)

rwp@1Corinthians:6:1 @{Dare any of you?} (\tolmƒi tis hum“n;\). Does any one of you dare? Rhetorical question with present indicative of \tolma“\, old verb from \tolma\, daring. Bengel: _grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum_. "The word is an argument in itself" (Robertson and Plummer). Apparently Paul has an actual case in mind as in chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:5| though no name is called. {Having a matter against his neighbour} (\pragma ech“n pros ton heteron\). Forensic sense of \pragma\ (from \prass“\, to do, to exact, to extort as in strkjv@Luke:3:13|), a case, a suit (Demosthenes 1020, 26), with the other or the neighbour as in strkjv@10:24; strkjv@14:17; strkjv@Galatians:6:4; strkjv@Romans:2:1|. {Go to law} (\krinesthai\). Present middle or passive (ch. strkjv@Romans:3:4|) in the same forensic sense as \krithˆnai\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:40|. \Kritˆs\, judge, is from this verb. {Before the unrighteous} (\epi t“n adik“n\). This use of \epi\ with the genitive for "in the presence of" is idiomatic as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:14|, \epi Titou\, in the case of Titus. The Jews held that to bring a lawsuit before a court of idolaters was blasphemy against the law. But the Greeks were fond of disputatious lawsuits with each other. Probably the Greek Christians brought cases before pagan judges.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:7 @{Nay, already it is altogether a defect among you} (\ˆdˆ men oun hol“s hˆttˆma humin estin\). "Indeed therefore there is to you already (to begin with, \ˆdˆ\, before any question of courts) wholly defeat." \Hˆttˆma\ (from \hˆttaomai\) is only here, strkjv@Romans:11:12; strkjv@Isaiah:31:8| and ecclesiastical writers. See \hˆttaomai\ (from \hˆtt“n\, less) in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:13; strkjv@2Peter:2:19f.| \Nikˆ\ was victory and \hˆtta\ defeat with the Greeks. It is defeat for Christians to have lawsuits (\krimata\, usually decrees or judgments) with one another. This was proof of the failure of love and forgiveness (Colossians:3:13|). {Take wrong} (\adikeisthe\). Present middle indicative, of old verb \adike“\ (from \adikos\, not right). Better undergo wrong yourself than suffer {defeat} in the matter of love and forgiveness of a brother. {Be defrauded} (\apostereisthe\). Permissive middle again like \adikeisthe\. Allow yourselves to be robbed (old verb to deprive, to rob) rather than have a lawsuit.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:16 @{For how knowest thou?} (\ti gar oidas;\). But what does Paul mean? Is he giving an argument _against_ the believer accepting divorce or _in favour_ of doing so? The syntax allows either interpretation with \ei\ (if) after \oidas\. Is the idea in \ei\ (if) _hope_ of saving the other or _fear_ of not saving and hence peril in continuing the slavery of such a bondage? The latter idea probably suits the context best and is adopted by most commentators. And yet one hesitates to interpret Paul as _advocating_ divorce unless strongly insisted on by the unbeliever. There is no problem at all unless the unbeliever makes it. If it is a hopeless case, acquiescence is the only wise solution. But surely the believer ought to be sure that there is no hope before he agrees to break the bond. Paul raises the problem of the wife first as in verse 10|.

rwp@1Corinthians:14:11 @{The meaning of the voice} (\tˆn dunamin tˆs ph“nˆs\). The power (force) of the voice. {A barbarian} (\barbaros\). Jargon, \bar-bar\. The Egyptians called all \barbarous\ who did not speak their tongue. The Greeks followed suit for all ignorant of Greek language and culture. They divided mankind into Hellenes and Barbarians. {Unto me} (\en emoi\). In my case, almost like a dative.

rwp@1Peter:2:1 @{Putting away therefore} (\apothemenoi oun\). Second aorist middle participle of \apotithˆmi\, old and common verb, in metaphorical sense either to cleanse defilements (3:21; strkjv@James:1:21|) or to put off clothing (Romans:13:12; strkjv@Colossians:3:5ff.; strkjv@Ephesians:4:22|). Either sense suits here. Therefore (\oun\) because of the new birth (1:23|) and the new life demanded. {Wickedness} (\kakian\). This old word, from \kakos\ (evil), in the ancients meant vice of any kind and note \pƒsan\ (all) here. {Guile} (\dolon\). Old word (from \del“\, to catch with bait), deceit. {Hypocrisies} (\hupokriseis\). Singular (\hupokrisin\) in the best MSS. See strkjv@1:22| (\anupokriton\) and strkjv@Mark:7:6f.| for Christ's denunciation of hypocrites which the disciples did not understand, including Peter (Matthew:15:16ff.|). {Envies} (\phthonous\). Genuine here, not \phonous\ (murders), as B has it. For the word see strkjv@Matthew:27:18|. {Evil speakings} (\katalalias\). Late word (from \katalalos\, defamer, strkjv@Romans:1:30|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:12:20|. "Backbitings." For verb see strkjv@2:12|.

rwp@1Peter:5:8 @{Be watchful} (\grˆgorˆsate\). First aorist active imperative of \grˆgore“\, late present imperative from perfect \egrˆgora\ (to be awake) from \egeir“\ (to arouse), as in strkjv@Matthew:24:42|. For \nˆpsate\ see strkjv@1:13; strkjv@4:7|. {Your adversary} (\ho antidikos hum“n\). Old word for opponent in a lawsuit (Matthew:5:25|). {The devil} (\diabolos\). Slanderer. See on ¯Matthew:4:1|. {As a roaring lion} (\h“s “ruomenos le“n\). But Jesus is also pictured as the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Revelation:5:5|). But Satan {roars} at the saints. Present middle participle \“ruomai\, old verb, here only in N.T., to howl like a wolf, dog, or lion, of men to sing loud (Pindar). See strkjv@Psalms:22:13|. {Whom he may devour} (\katapiein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \katapin“\, to drink down. B does not have \tina\, Aleph has \tina\ (somebody), "to devour some one," while A has interrogative \tina\, "whom he may devour" (very rare idiom). But the devil's purpose is the ruin of men. He is a "peripatetic" (\peripatei\) like the peripatetic philosophers who walked as they talked. Satan wants all of us and sifts us all (Luke:22:31|).

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:3 @{That no man be moved} (\to mˆdena sainesthai\). Epexegetical articular infinitive in accusative case of general reference. \Sain“\ is old word to wag the tail, to flatter, beguile and this sense suits here (only N.T. example). The sense of "moved" or troubled or disheartened is from \siainesthai\ the reading of F G and found in the papyri. {We are appointed} (\keimetha\). Present middle, used here as passive of \tithˆmi\. We Christians are set {hereunto} (\eis touto\) to be beguiled by tribulations. We must resist.

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

rwp@1Timothy:5:22 @{Lay hands hastily} (\cheiras tache“s epitithei\). Present active imperative of \epitithˆmi\ in the sense of approval (ordination) as in strkjv@Acts:6:6; strkjv@13:3|. But it is not clear whether it is the case of ministers just ordained as in strkjv@4:14| (\epithesis\), or of warning against hasty ordination of untried men, or the recognition and restoration of deposed ministers (verse 20|) as suits the context. The prohibition suits either situation, or both. {Be partakers of other men's sins} (\koin“nei hamartiais allotriais\). Present active imperative of \koin“ne“\ (from \koin“nos\, partner) with \mˆ\ in prohibition with associative instrumental case as in strkjv@2John:1:11; strkjv@Romans:12:13|. On \allotrios\ (belonging to another) see strkjv@Romans:14:4|. {Keep thyself pure} (\seauton hagnon tˆrei\). "Keep on keeping thyself pure." Present active imperative of \tˆre“\.

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ The occasion of the Epistle is made plain by numerous allusions personal and otherwise. Paul had arrived in Ephesus from Antioch shortly after the departure of Apollos for Corinth with letters of commendation from Priscilla and Aquila (Acts:18:28-19:1|). It is not clear how long Apollos remained in Corinth, but he is back in Ephesus when Paul writes the letter and he has declined Paul's request to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). Some of the household of Chloe had heard or come from Corinth with full details of the factions in the church over Apollos and Paul, clearly the reason why Apollos left (1Corinthians:1:10-12|). Even Cephas nominally was drawn into it, though there is no evidence that Peter himself had come to Corinth. Paul had sent Timothy over to Corinth to put an end to the factions (1Corinthians:4:17|), though he was uneasy over the outcome (1Corinthians:16:10f.|). This disturbance was enough of itself to call forth a letter from Paul. But it was by no means the whole story. Paul had already written a letter, now lost to us, concerning a peculiarly disgusting case of incest in the membership (1Corinthians:5:9|). They were having lawsuits with one another before heathen judges. Members of the church had written Paul a letter about marriage whether any or all should marry (1Corinthians:7:1|). They were troubled also whether it was right to eat meat that had been offered to idols in the heathen temples (1Corinthians:8:1|). Spiritual gifts of an unusual nature were manifested in Corinth and these were the occasion of a deal of trouble (1Corinthians:12:1|). The doctrine of the resurrection gave much trouble in Corinth (1Corinthians:15:12|). Paul was interested in the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Corinthians:16:1|) and in their share in it. The church in Corinth had sent a committee (Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus) to Paul in Ephesus. He hopes to come himself after passing through Macedonia (1Corinthians:16:5f.|). It is possible that he had made a short visit before this letter (2Corinthians:13:1|), though not certain as he may have intended to go one time without going as he certainly once changed his plans on the subject (2Corinthians:1:15-22|). Whether Titus took the letter on his visit or it was sent on after the return of Timothy is not perfectly clear. Probably Timothy returned to Ephesus from Corinth shortly after the epistle was sent on, possibly by the committee who returned to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:17|), for Timothy and Erastus were sent on from Ephesus to Macedonia before the outbreak at the hands of Demetrius (Acts:19:22|). Apparently Timothy had not fully succeeded in reconciling the factions in Corinth for Paul dispatched Titus who was to meet him at Troas as he went on to Macedonia. Paul's hurried departure from Ephesus (Acts:20:1|) took him to Troas before Titus arrived and Paul's impatience there brought him to Macedonia where he did meet Titus on his return from Corinth (2Corinthians:2:12f.|).

rwp@2Corinthians:1:9 @{Yea} (\alla\). Confirmatory use as in strkjv@7:11|, rather than adversative. {The answer of death} (\to apokrima tou thanatou\) This late word from \apokrinomai\, to reply, occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is in Josephus, Polybius, inscriptions and papyri (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 257; Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_), and always in the sense of decision or judgment rendered. But Vulgate renders it by _responsum_ and that idea suits best here, unless Paul conceives God as rendering the decision of death. {We ourselves have had within ourselves} (\autoi en heautois eschˆkamen\). Regular perfect of \ech“\, to have. And still have the vivid recollection of that experience. For this lively dramatic use of the present perfect indicative for a past experience see also \eschˆka\ in strkjv@2:13| (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 143f.; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 896f.). {That we should not trust in ourselves} (\hina mˆ pepoithotes “men eph' heautois\). A further purpose of God in affliction beyond that in verse 4|. "This dreadful trial was sent to him in order to give him a precious spiritual lesson (12:7-10|)" (Robertson and Plummer). Note periphrastic perfect active subjunctive of \peith“\, to persuade. {In} (\epi\), upon, both ourselves and God.

rwp@2Corinthians:3:18 @{We all} (\hˆmeis pantes\). All of us Christians, not merely ministers. {With unveiled face} (\anakekalummen“i pros“p“i\). Instrumental case of manner. Unlike and like Moses. {Reflecting as in a mirror} (\katoptrizomenoi\). Present middle participle of \katoptriz“\, late verb from \katoptron\, mirror (\kata, optron\, a thing to see with). In Philo (_Legis Alleg_. iii. 33) the word means beholding as in a mirror and that idea suits also the figure in strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|. There is an inscription of third century B.C. with \egkatoptrisasthai eis to hud“r\, to look at one's reflection in the water. Plutarch uses the active for mirroring or reflecting and Chrysostom takes it so here. Either makes good sense. The point that Paul is making is that we shall not lose the glory as Moses did. But that is true if we keep on beholding or keep on reflecting (present tense). Only here in N.T. {Are transformed} (\metamorphoumetha\). Present passive (are being transformed) of \metamorpho“\, late verb and in papyri. See on ¯Matthew:17:2; strkjv@Mark:9:2| where it is translated "transfigured." It is the word used for heathen mythological metamorphoses. {Into the same image} (\tˆn autˆn eikona\). Accusative retained with passive verb \metamorphoumetha\. Into the likeness of God in Christ (1Corinthians:15:48-53; strkjv@Romans:8:17,29; strkjv@Colossians:3:4; strkjv@1John:3:2|). {As from the Lord the Spirit} (\kathaper apo Kuriou pneumatos\). More likely, "as from the Spirit of the Lord."

rwp@2Corinthians:10:2 @{I beseech} (\deomai\). Songs:here, but \parakal“\ in verse 1|. Perhaps, "I beg" suits the new turn here. {That I may not when present show courage} (\to mˆ par“n tharrˆsai\). Articular infinitive (aorist active of \tharre“\) in the accusative case with negative \mˆ\ the direct object of \deomai\. Literally, "I beg the not when present (\par“n\ nominative present participle agreeing with subject of \tharr“\ in spite of being in the accusative infinitive clause, \to mˆ tharrˆsai\) showing courage." The example of humility in Christ makes Paul drop "from magisterial exhortation to earnest entreaty" (Plummer). {As if we walked according to the flesh} (\h“s kata sarka peripatountas\). Another sneering charge as made plain by the use of \h“s\ with the participle for the alleged reason.

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

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

rwp@Info_2Peter @ ANACHRONISMS It used to be said that it was impossible for II Peter to have been written in the first century, because it had the atmosphere of the second. But one fact is strongly against that argument. In strkjv@2Peter:3:8| occurs the quotation of strkjv@Psalms:90:4| about the thousand years without any chiliastic turn at all, a thing sure to happen in the second century after chiliasm had come to have such a swing. Peter's use of it suits the first century, not the second. As a matter of fact, the false teachers described in II Peter suit the first century precisely if one recalls Paul's troubles with the Judaizers in Galatia and Corinth and with the Gnostics in Colossae and Ephesus. "Every feature in the description of the false teachers and mockers is to be found in the apostolic age" (Bigg).

rwp@2Peter:1:15 @Peter may also have had an intimation by vision of his approaching death (cf. the legend _Domine quo vadis_) as Paul often did (Acts:16:9; strkjv@18:9; strkjv@21:11; strkjv@23:11; strkjv@27:23|). {At every time} (\hekastote\). As need arises, old adverb, here alone in N.T. {After my decease} (\meta tˆn emˆn exodon\). For \exodos\ meaning death see strkjv@Luke:9:31|, and for departure from Egypt (way out, \ex, hodos\) see strkjv@Hebrews:11:22|, the only other N.T. examples. Here again Peter was present on the Transfiguration mount when the talk was about the "exodus" of Jesus from earth. {That ye may be able} (\echein humas\). Literally, "that ye may have it," the same idiom with \ech“\ and the infinitive in strkjv@Mark:14:8; strkjv@Matthew:18:25|. It is the object-infinitive after \spoudas“\ (I will give diligence, for which see verse 10|). {To call these things to remembrance} (\tˆn tout“n mnˆmˆn poieisthai\). Present middle infinitive of \poie“\ (as in verse 10|). \Mnˆmˆ\ is an old word (from \mnaomai\), here alone in N.T. This idiom, like the Latin _mentionem facere_, is common in the old writers (papyri also both for "mention" and "remembrance"), here only in N.T., but in strkjv@Romans:1:20| we have \mneian poioumai\ (I make mention). Either sense suits here. It is possible, as Irenaeus (iii. I. I) thought, that Peter had in mind Mark's Gospel, which would help them after Peter was gone. Mark's Gospel was probably already written at Peter's suggestion, but Peter may have that fact in mind here.

rwp@2Timothy:2:22 @{Youthful} (\ne“terikas\). Literary _Koin‚_ word (Polybius, Josephus), only here in N.T. There are lusts peculiar to flaming youth. {Flee} (\pheuge\). Present active imperative of \pheug“\, old and common verb. In this sense see strkjv@1Corinthians:6:18|. {Follow after} (\di“ke\). Present active imperative of \di“k“\ as if in a chase for which sense see strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:15|. Steady pursuit of these virtues like those in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. {Call on the Lord} (\epikaloumenon ton kurion\). See strkjv@1Corinthians:1:2; strkjv@Romans:10:12-14|.

rwp@Info_Acts @ SOURCES OF THE ACTS Beyond a doubt Luke employed a variety of sources for this great history as he did for the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|). In fact, Cadbury argues that this Prologue was meant to apply to the Acts also as Volume II whether he intended to write a third volume or not. Certainly we are entitled to say that Luke used the same historical method for Acts. Some of these sources are easy to see. Luke had his own personal experience for the "we" sections. Then he had the benefit of Paul's own notes or suggestions for all that portion where Paul figures from chapters 8 to 28, since Luke was apparently with Paul in Rome when he finished the Book. This would include Paul's sermons and addresses which Luke gives unless one wishes to say, as some do, that Luke followed the style of Thucydides and composed the kind of addresses that he thought Paul would make. I see no evidence of that for each address differs from the others and suits precisely the occasion when it was delivered. The ancients frequently employed shorthand and Paul may have preserved notes of his addresses. Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University, argues in his _Composition and Date of Acts_ (1916) that Luke used an Aramaic document for the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. There is an Aramaic element in certain portions of these chapters, but nothing like so pronounced as in Luke 1 and 2 after strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. It cannot be said that Torrey has made out his case for such a single document. Luke may have had several such documents besides access to others familiar with the early days of the work in Jerusalem. There was Simon Peter whom Paul visited for two weeks in Jerusalem (Galatians:1:18|) besides other points of contact with him in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts:15| and strkjv@Galatians:2|). There was also Barnabas who was early Paul's friend (Acts:9:27|) and who knew the beginnings as few did (Acts:4:36f.|). Besides many others it is to be observed that Paul with Luke made a special visit to Caesarea where he spent a week with the gifted Philip and his daughters with the gift of prophecy (Acts:21:8f.|). But with all the inevitable variety of sources for the information needed to cover the wide field of the Book of Acts the same mind has manifestly worked through it and it is the same style all through that appears in the "we" sections where the writer is confessedly a companion of Paul. No other companion of Paul carries this claim for the authorship and no other was a physician and no author has the external evidence from early writers.

rwp@Acts:1:13 @{Into the upper chamber} (\eis to huper“ion\). The upstairs or upper room (\huper\ is upper or over, the adjective \huper“ios\), the room upstairs where the women staid in Homer, then a room up under the flat roof for retirement or prayer (Acts:9:37,39|), sometimes a large third story room suitable for gatherings (Acts:20:9|). It is possible, even probable, that this is the "large upper room" (\an“geon mega\) of strkjv@Mark:14:15; strkjv@Luke:22:12|. The Vulgate has _coenaculum_ for both words. The word is used in the N.T. only in Acts. It was in a private house as in strkjv@Luke:22:11| and not in the temple as strkjv@Luke:24:53| might imply, "continually" (\dia pantos\) these words probably meaning on proper occasions. {They were abiding} (\ˆsan katamenontes\). Periphrastic imperfect active. Perfective use of \kata\, to abide permanently. It is possible that this is the house of Mary the mother of John Mark where the disciples later met for prayer (Acts:12:12|). Here alone in the N.T., though old compound. Some MSS. here read \paramenontes\. This could mean constant residence, but most likely frequent resort for prayer during these days, some being on hand all the time as they came and went. {Simon the Zealot} (\Simon ho Zˆl“tˆs\). Called Simon the Cananaean (\ho Cananaios\) in strkjv@Matthew:10:4, strkjv@Mark:3:18|, but Zealot in strkjv@Luke:6:16| as here giving the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic word because Luke has Gentiles in mind. The epithet (member of the party of Zealots) clung to him after he became an apostle and distinguishes him from Simon Peter. See Vol. I on the Gospel of Matthew for discussion of the four lists of the apostles. {Judas the son of James} (\Joudas Iak“bou\). Literally, Judas of James, whether son or brother (cf. strkjv@Jude:1:1|) we do not really know. "Of James" is added to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot (John:14:22|). However we take it, he must be identified with the Thaddaeus (=Lebbaeus) of Mark and Matthew to make the list in the third group identical. No name appears in Acts for that of Judas Iscariot.

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

rwp@Acts:2:24 @{God raised up} (\ho theos anestˆsen\). _Est hoc summum orationis_ (Blass). Apparently this is the first public proclamation to others than believers of the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. "At a time it was still possible to test the statement, to examine witnesses, to expose fraud, the Apostle openly proclaimed the Resurrection as a fact, needing no evidence, but known to his hearers" (Furneaux). {The pangs of death} (\tas “dinas tou thanatou\). Codex Bezae has "Hades" instead of death. The LXX has \“dinas thanatou\ in strkjv@Psalms:18:4|, but the Hebrew original means "snares" or "traps" or "cords" of death where sheol and death are personified as hunters laying snares for prey. How Peter or Luke came to use the old Greek word \“dinas\ (birth pangs) we do not know. Early Christian writers interpreted the Resurrection of Christ as a birth out of death. "Loosing" (\lusas\) suits better the notion of "snares" held a prisoner by death, but birth pangs do bring deliverance to the mother also. {Because} (\kathoti\). This old conjunction (\kata, hoti\) occurs in the N.T. only in Luke's writings. {That he should be holden} (\krateisthai auton\). Infinitive present passive with accusative of general reference and subject of \ˆn adunaton\. The figure goes with "loosed" (\lusas\) above.

rwp@Acts:6:12 @{They stirred up the people} (\sunekinˆsan ton laon\). They shook the people together like an earthquake. First aorist active indicative of \sunkine“\, to throw into commotion. Old verb, but here only in the N.T. The elders and the scribes (Pharisees) are reached, but no word about the Sadducees. This is the first record of the hostility of the masses against the disciples (Vincent). {Came upon him} (\epistantes\). Second aorist (ingressive) active participle of \ephistˆmi\. Rushed at him. {Seized} (\sunˆrpasan\). Effective aorist active of \sunarpaz“\ as if they caught him after pursuit.

rwp@Acts:7:1 @{Are these things so?} (\ei tauta hout“s echei\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. Songs:he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts:13:16ff.|) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse 51|) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "Songs:Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:14:6 @{They became aware of it} (\sunidontes\). Second aorist (ingressive) active participle of \sunora“\ (\suneidon\), old word to see together, to become conscious of as already in strkjv@12:12|. In the N.T. only by Luke and Paul. {Fled} (\katephugon\). Second aorist (effective) active indicative of \katapheug“\, old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:6:18|. Paul and Barnabas had no idea of remaining to be stoned (lynched) by this mob. It is a wise preacher who always knows when to stand his ground and when to leave for the glory of God. Paul and Barnabas were following the directions of the Lord Jesus given to the twelve on their special tour of Galilee (Matthew:10:23|). Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia (still part of the Province of Galatia, though in another _Regio_), not far from the base of the Black Mountain. Professor Sterrett has apparently identified Lystra by an inscription about six hours (18 miles) south-southwest from Iconium near the village Khatyn Serai and Derbe probably near the village Losta or Zosta though its location is really not known. Lystra had been made a colony in B.C. 6 and Derbe was the frontier city of the Roman empire in the southeast. These are the only cities mentioned, but they were of importance and show that Paul kept to his plan of going to centres of influence. The new imperial road from Antioch and Iconium reached these cities. {The region round about} (\tˆn perich“ron\) was "a high table land, ill-watered, bleak, but suited for sheep pasture" (Page).

rwp@Acts:14:27 @{Gathered the church together} (\sunagagontes tˆn ekklˆsian\). Second aorist active participle of \sunag“\. It "was the first missionary meeting in history" (Furneaux). It was not hard to get the church together when the news spread that Paul and Barnabas had returned. "The suitability of the Gospel to become the religion of the world had not before been put to the test" (Furneaux). Doubtless many "wise-acres" had predicted failure as they did for William Carey and for Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice. {Rehearsed} (\anˆggellon\). Imperfect active. It was a long story for they had many things to tell of God's dealings "with them" (\met' aut“n\) for God had been "with them" all the while as Jesus had said he would be (Matthew:28:20|, \meth' h–m“n\). Paul could recount some of the details given later in strkjv@2Corinthians:11|. {And how} (\kai hoti\). Or "and that" in particular, as the upshot of it all. {He had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles} (\ˆnoixen tois ethnesin thuran piste“s\). Three times in Paul's Epistles (1Corinthians:16:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12; strkjv@Colossians:4:3|) he employed the metaphor of "door," perhaps a reminiscence of the very language of Paul here. This work in Galatia gained a large place in Paul's heart (Galatians:4:14f.|). The Gentiles now, it was plain, could enter the kingdom of God (verse 22|) through the door of faith, not by law or by circumcision or by heathen philosophy or mythology.

rwp@Acts:15:17 @{That the residue of men may seek after the Lord} (\hop“s an ekzˆtˆs“sin hoi kataloipoi t“n anthr“p“n ton kurion\). The use of \hop“s\ with the subjunctive (effective aorist active) to express purpose is common enough and note \an\ for an additional tone of uncertainty. On the rarity of \an\ with \hop“s\ in the _Koin‚_ see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 986. Here the Gentiles are referred to. The Hebrew text is quite different, "that they may possess the remnant of Edom." Certainly the LXX suits best the point that James is making. But the closing words of this verse point definitely to the Gentiles both in the Hebrew and the LXX, "all the Gentiles" (\panta ta ethnˆ\). Another item of similarity between this speech and the Epistle of James is in the phrase "my name is called" (\epikeklˆtai to onoma mou\) and strkjv@James:2:7|. The purpose of God, though future, is expressed by this perfect passive indicative \epikeklˆtai\ from \epi-kale“\, to call on. It is a Jewish way of speaking of those who worship God.

rwp@Acts:17:12 @{Many therefore} (\Polloi men oun\). As a result of this Bible study. {Also of the Greek women of honourable estate}. The word \Hellˆnis\ means Greek woman, but the word \gunˆ\ is added. In particular women of rank (\euschˆmon“n\, from \eu\ and \ech“\, graceful figure and the honourable standing) as in strkjv@13:50| (Mark:15:43|). Probably Luke means by implication that the "men" (\andr“n\) were also noble Greeks though he does not expressly say so. Songs:then the Jews were more open to the message, the proselytes or God-fearers followed suit, with "not a few" (\ouk oligoi\) real Greeks (both men and women) believing. It was quick and fine work.

rwp@Acts:18:22 @{He went up and saluted the church} (\anabas kai aspasamenos tˆn ekklˆsian\). The language could refer to the church in Caesarea where Paul had just landed, except for several things. The going up (\anabas\, second aorist active participle of \anabain“\) is the common way of speaking of going to Jerusalem which was up from every direction save from Hebron. It was the capital of Palestine as people in England today speaking of going up to London. Besides "he went down to Antioch" (\katebˆ eis Antiocheian\, second aorist active indicative of \katabain“\) which language suits better leaving Jerusalem than Caesarea. Moreover, there was no special reason for this trip to Caesarea, but to Jerusalem it was different. Here Paul saluted the church in the fourth of his five visits after his conversion (9:26; strkjv@11:30; strkjv@15:4; strkjv@18:22; strkjv@21:17|). The apostles may or may not have been in the city, but Paul had friends in Jerusalem now. Apparently he did not tarry long, but returned to Antioch to make a report of his second mission tour as he had done at the close of the first when he and Barnabas came back (14:26-28|). He had started on this tour with Silas and had picked up Timothy and Luke, but came back alone. He had a great story to tell.

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

rwp@Acts:20:11 @{When he was gone up} (\anabas\). Second aorist active participle in sharp contrast to \katabas\ (went down) of verse 10|. {Had broken bread} (\klasas ton arton\). Probably the Eucharist to observe which ordinance Paul had come and tarried (verse 7|), though some scholars distinguish between what took place in verse 7| and verse 11|, needlessly so as was stated on verse 7|. {And eaten} (\kai geusamenos\). The word is used in strkjv@10:10| of eating an ordinary meal and so might apply to the \Agapˆ\, but it suits equally for the Eucharist. The accident had interrupted Paul's sermon so that it was observed now and then Paul resumed his discourse. {And had talked with them a long while} (\eph' hikanon te homilˆsas\). Luke, as we have seen, is fond of \hikanos\ for periods of time, for a considerable space of time, "even till break of day" (\achri augˆs\). Old word for brightness, radiance like German _Auge_, English eye, only here in the N.T. Occurs in the papyri and in modern Greek for dawn. This second discourse lasted from midnight till dawn and was probably more informal (as in strkjv@10:27|) and conversational (\homilˆsas\, though our word homiletics comes from \homile“\) than the discourse before midnight (\dialegomai\, verses 7,9|). He had much to say before he left. {Songs:he departed} (\hout“s exˆlthen\). Thus Luke sums up the result. Paul left (went forth) only after all the events narrated by the numerous preceding participles had taken place. Effective aorist active indicative \exelthen\. \Hout“s\ here equals \tum demum\, now at length (Acts:27:7|) as Page shows.

rwp@Acts:21:34 @{Some shouting one thing, some another} (\alloi allo ti epeph“noun\). Same idiom of \alloi allo\ as in strkjv@19:32| which see. The imperfect of \epiph“ne“\, to call out to, suits well the idiom. This old verb occurs in the N.T. only in Luke and Acts (already in strkjv@12:22|). {When he could not know} (\mˆ dunamenou autou gn“nai\). Genitive absolute of present middle participle of \dunamai\ with negative \mˆ\ and second aorist active infinitive of \gin“sk“\. {The certainty} (\to asphales\). Neuter articular adjective from \a\ privative and \sphall“\, to make totter or fall. Old word, in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:21:34; strkjv@22:30; strkjv@25:26; strkjv@Phillipians:3:1; strkjv@Hebrews:6:19|. {Into the castle} (\eis tˆn parembolˆn\). _Koin‚_ word from \paremball“\, to cast in by the side of, to assign soldiers a place, to encamp (see on ¯Luke:19:43|). Songs:\parembolˆ\ comes to mean an interpolation, then an army drawn up (Hebrews:11:34|), but mainly an encampment (Hebrews:13:11,13|), frequent in Polybius and LXX. Songs:here barracks of the Roman soldiers in the tower of Antonia as in verse 37; strkjv@22:24; strkjv@23:10,16,32|.

rwp@Acts:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \gin“sk“\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg“ Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisai“n\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastase“s nekr“n krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.

rwp@Acts:25:24 @{Which are here present with us} (\hoi sunparontes hˆmin\). Present articular participle of \sunpareimi\ (only here in N.T.) with associative instrumental case \hˆmin\. {Made suit to me} (\enetuchon moi\). Second aorist active indicative of \entugchan“\, old verb to fall in with a person, to go to meet for consultation or supplication as here. Common in old Greek and _Koin‚_. Cf. strkjv@Romans:8:27,34|. See \enteuxis\ (petition) strkjv@1Timothy:2:1|. Papyri give many examples of the technical sense of \enteuxis\ as petition (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 121). Some MSS. have plural here \enetuchon\ rather than the singular \enetuchen\. {Crying} (\bo“ntes\). Yelling and demanding with loud voices. {That he ought not to live any longer} (\mˆ dein auton zˆin mˆketi\). Indirect command (demand) with the infinitive \dein\ for \dei\ (it is necessary). The double negative (\mˆ--mˆketi\) with \zˆin\ intensifies the demand.

rwp@Acts:26:22 @{Having therefore obtained} (\oun tuch“n\). Second aorist active participle of old verb \tugchan“\. {The help that is from God} (\epikourias tˆs apo tou theou\). Old word from \epikoure“\, to aid, and that from \epikouros\, ally, assister. Only here in N.T. God is Paul's ally. All of the plots of the Jews against Paul had failed so far. {I stand} (\hestˆka\). Second perfect of \histˆmi\, to place, intransitive to stand. Picturesque word (Page) of Paul's stability and fidelity (cf. strkjv@Phillipians:4:1; strkjv@Ephesians:6:13|). {Both to small and great} (\mikr“i te kai megal“i\). Dative singular (rather than instrumental, taking \marturoumenos\ middle, not passive) and use of \te kai\ links the two adjectives together in an inclusive way. These two adjectives in the singular (representative singular rather than plural) can apply to age (young and old) or to rank (Revelation:11:18|) as is specially suitable here with Festus and Agrippa present. In strkjv@Acts:8:10| (Hebrews:8:11|) the phrase explains \pantes\ (all). {Saying nothing but what} (\ouden ektos leg“n h“n\). "Saying nothing outside of those things which." The ablative relative \h“n\ is attracted into the case of the unexpressed antecedent \tout“n\ and so ablative after \ektos\ (adverbial preposition common in LXX, the papyri. In N.T. here and strkjv@1Corinthians:6:18; strkjv@15:27; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:2f.|). Cf. strkjv@Luke:16:29| about Moses and the prophets.

rwp@Acts:26:26 @{For the king knoweth of these things} (\epistatai gar peri tout“n ho basileus\). \Epistatai\ (present middle probably Ionic form of \ephistˆmi\) is a literary word and suits well here (cf. strkjv@24:10|). {Freely} (\parrˆsiazomenos\). Present middle participle, speaking fully, making a clean breast of it. From \parrˆsia\ (\pan, rhˆsis\) (cf. strkjv@13:46|). {Is hidden from him} (\lanthanein auton\). Escapes his notice. Infinitive in indirect discourse after \peithomai\ (I am persuaded).

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

rwp@Acts:27:12 @{Because the haven was not commodious to winter in} (\aneuthetou tou limenos huparchontos pros paracheimasian\). Genitive absolute again present tense of \huparch“\: "The harbour being unfit (\aneuthetou\, this compound not yet found elsewhere, simplex in strkjv@Luke:9:62; strkjv@14:35; strkjv@Hebrews:6:7|) for wintering" (\paracheimasia\, only here in N.T., but in Polybius and Diodorus, in an inscription A.D. 48, from \paracheimaz“\). {The more part advised} (\hoi pleiones ethento boulˆn\). Second aorist middle indicative of \tithˆmi\, ancient idiom with \boulˆn\, to take counsel, give counsel. Lysias held a council of the officers of the ship on the issue raised by Paul. {If by any means they could reach Phoenix and winter there} (\ei p“s dunainto katantˆsantes eis Phoinika paracheimasai\). The optative \dunainto\ (present middle of \dunamai\) here with \ei\ is a condition of the fourth class with the notion of purpose implied and indirect discourse (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). "We vote for going on the chance that we may be able" (Page). Phoenix is the town of palms (John:12:13|), the modern Lutro, the only town in Crete on the southern coast with a harbour fit for wintering, though Wordsworth and Page argue for Phineka which suits Luke's description better. The verb \paracheimaz“\, to winter, is from \para\ and \cheim“n\ (see also strkjv@28:11|). Used in several _Koin‚_ writers. {Looking northeast and southeast} (\bleponta kata liba kai kata ch“ron\). There are two ways of interpreting this language. \Lips\ means the southwest wind and \ch“ros\ the northwest wind. But what is the effect of \kata\ with these words? Does it mean "facing" the wind? If so, we must read "looking southwest and northwest." But \kata\ can mean down the line of the wind (the way the wind is blowing). If so, then it is proper to translate "looking northeast and southeast." This translation suits Lutro, the other suits Phoenike. Ramsay takes it to be Lutro, and suggests that sailors describe the harbour by the way it looks as they go into it (the subjectivity of the sailors) and that Luke so speaks and means Lutro which faces northeast and southeast. On the whole Lutro has the best of the argument.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS FROM ROME A.D. 63 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION GENUINENESS The author claims to be Paul (Colossians:1:1|) and there is no real doubt about it in spite of Baur's denial of the Pauline authorship which did not suit his _Tendenz_ theory of the New Testament books. There is every mark of Paul's style and power in the little Epistle and there is no evidence that any one else took Paul's name to palm off this striking and vigorous polemic.

rwp@Colossians:2:8 @{Take heed} (\blepete\). Present active imperative second person plural of \blep“\, common verb for warning like our "look out," "beware," "see to it." {Lest there shall be any one} (\mˆ tis estai\). Negative purpose with the future indicative, though the aorist subjunctive also occurs as in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:6|. {That maketh spoil of you} (\ho sulag“g“n\). Articular present active participle of \sulag“ge“\, late and rare (found here first) verb (from \sulˆ\, booty, and \ag“\, to lead, to carry), to carry off as booty a captive, slave, maiden. Only here in N.T. Note the singular here. There was some one outstanding leader who was doing most of the damage in leading the people astray. {Through his philosophy} (\dia tˆs philosophias\). The only use of the word in the N.T. and employed by Paul because the Gnostics were fond of it. Old word from \philosophos\ (\philos, sophos\, one devoted to the pursuit of wisdom) and in N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:17:18|. Paul does not condemn knowledge and wisdom (see verse 2|), but only this false philosophy, "knowledge falsely named" (\pseud“numos gn“sis\, strkjv@1Timothy:6:20|), and explained here by the next words. {And vain deceit} (\kai kenˆs apatˆs\). Old word for trick, guile, like riches (Matthew:13:22|). Descriptive of the philosophy of the Gnostics. {Tradition} (\paradosin\). Old word from \paradid“mi\, a giving over, a passing on. The word is colourless in itself. The tradition may be good (2Thessalonians:2:15; strkjv@3:6|) or bad (Mark:7:3|). Here it is worthless and harmful, merely the foolish theories of the Gnostics. {Rudiments} (\stoicheia\). Old word for anything in a \stoichos\ (row, series) like the letters of the alphabet, the materials of the universe (2Peter:3:10,12|), elementary teaching (Hebrews:5:12|), elements of Jewish ceremonial training (Acts:15:10; Gal strkjv@4:3,9|), the specious arguments of the Gnostic philosophers as here with all their aeons and rules of life. {And not after Christ} (\kai ou kata Christon\). Christ is the yardstick by which to measure philosophy and all phases of human knowledge. The Gnostics were measuring Christ by their philosophy as many men are doing today. They have it backwards. Christ is the measure for all human knowledge since he is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe.

rwp@Ephesians:3:20 @{That is able to do} (\t“i dunamen“i poiˆsai\). Dative case of the articular participle (present middle of \dunamai\). Paul is fully aware of the greatness of the blessings asked for, but the Doxology ascribes to God the power to do them for us. {Above all} (\huper panta\). Not simply \panta\, but \huper\ beyond and above all. {Exceedingly abundantly} (\huperekperissou\). Late and rare double compound (\huper, ek, perissou\) adverb (LXX, strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:10; strkjv@5:13; strkjv@Ephesians:3:20|). It suits well Paul's effort to pile Pelion on Ossa. {That we ask} (\h“n aitoumetha\). Ablative of the relative pronoun attracted from the accusative \ha\ to the case of the unexpressed antecedent \tout“n\. Middle voice (\aitoumetha\) "we ask for ourselves." {Or think} (\ˆ nooumen\). The highest aspiration is not beyond God's "power" (\dunamin\) to bestow.

rwp@Galatians:1:16 @{To reveal his Son in me} (\apokalupsai ton huion autou en emoi\). By "in me" (\en emoi\) Paul can mean to lay emphasis on his inward experience of grace or he may refer objectively to the vision of Christ on the way to Damascus, "in my case." Paul uses \en emoi\ in this sense (in my case) several times (verse 24; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:3; strkjv@Phillipians:1:30; strkjv@1Timothy:1:16|). Once (1Corinthians:14:11|) \en emoi\ is almost equivalent to the dative (to me). On the whole Lightfoot seems correct here in taking it to mean "in my case," though the following words suit either idea. Certainly Paul could not preach Christ among the Gentiles without the rich inward experience and in the objective vision he was called to that task. {I conferred not with flesh and blood} (\ou prosanethemˆn sarki kai haimati\). Second aorist middle indicative of \prosanatithˆmi\, old verb, double compound (\pros, ana\), to lay upon oneself in addition, to betake oneself to another, to confer with, dative case as here. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2:6|.

rwp@Hebrews:1:3 @{Being} (\“n\). Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of \eimi\) in contrast with \genomenos\ in verse 4| like \ˆn\ in strkjv@John:1:1| (in contrast with \egeneto\ in strkjv@1:14|) and like \huparch“n\ and \genomenos\ in strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {The effulgence of his glory} (\apaugasma tˆs doxˆs\). The word \apaugasma\, late substantive from \apaugaz“\, to emit brightness (\augˆ, augaz“\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4|), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in strkjv@John:12:45; strkjv@14:9|. "The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos" (Moffatt). The meaning "effulgence" suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (John:1:1|), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6|. {The very image of his substance} (\charaktˆr tˆs hupostase“s\). \Charaktˆr\ is an old word from \charass“\, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending \=tˆr\) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by \charagma\ (Acts:17:29; strkjv@Revelation:13:16f.|). Menander had already used (Moffatt) \charaktˆr\ in the sense of our "character." The word occurs in the inscriptions for "person" as well as for "exact reproduction" of a person. The word \hupostasis\ for the being or essence of God "is a philosophical rather than a religious term" (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In strkjv@11:1| \hypostasis\ is like the "title-deed" idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4| in his controversy with Arius. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11| pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul's simpler phrase \morphˆ theou\ (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of \Logos\ in strkjv@John:1:1-18| is parallel to strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4|. {And upholding} (\pher“n te\). Present active participle of \pher“\ closely connected with \“n\ (being) by \te\ and like strkjv@Colossians:1:17| in idea. The newer science as expounded by Eddington and Jeans is in harmony with the spiritual and personal conception of creation here presented. {By the word of his power} (\t“i rˆmati tˆs duname“s autou\). Instrumental case of \rˆma\ (word). See strkjv@11:3| for \rˆmati theou\ (by the word of God) as the explanation of creation like Genesis, but here \autou\ refers to God's Son as in strkjv@1:2|. {Purification of sins} (\katharismon t“n hamarti“n\). \Katharismos\ is from \kathariz“\, to cleanse (Matthew:8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14|), here only in Hebrews, but in same sense of cleansing from sins, strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Job:7:21|. Note middle participle \poiˆsamenos\ like \heuramenos\ in strkjv@9:12|. This is the first mention of the priestly work of Christ, the keynote of this Epistle. {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). First aorist active of \kathiz“\, "took his seat," a formal and dignified act. {Of the Majesty on high} (\tˆs megalosunˆs en hupsˆlois\). Late word from \megas\, only in LXX (Deuteronomy:32:3; strkjv@2Samuel:7:23|, etc.), Aristeas, strkjv@Hebrews:1:3; strkjv@8:1; strkjv@Jude:1:25|. Christ resumed his original dignity and glory (John:17:5|). The phrase \en hupsˆlois\ occurs in the Psalms (Psalms:93:4|), here only in N.T., elsewhere \en hupsistois\ in the highest (Matthew:21:9; strkjv@Luke:2:14|) or \en tois epouraniois\ in the heavenlies (Ephesians:1:3,20|). Jesus is here pictured as King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.

rwp@Hebrews:2:10 @{It became him} (\eprepen aut“i\). Imperfect active of \prep“\, old verb to stand out, to be becoming or seemly. Here it is impersonal with \telei“sai\ as subject, though personal in strkjv@Hebrews:7:26|. \Aut“i\ (him) is in the dative case and refers to God, not to Christ as is made plain by \ton archˆgon\ (author). One has only to recall strkjv@John:3:16| to get the idea here. The voluntary humiliation or incarnation of Christ the Son a little lower than the angels was a seemly thing to God the Father as the writer now shows in a great passage (2:10-18|) worthy to go beside strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {For whom} (\di' hon\). Referring to \aut“i\ (God) as the reason (cause) for the universe (\ta panta\). {Through whom} (\di' hou\). With the genitive \dia\ expresses the agent by whom the universe came into existence, a direct repudiation of the Gnostic view of intermediate agencies (aeons) between God and the creation of the universe. Paul puts it succinctly in strkjv@Romans:11:36| by his \ex autou kai di' autou kai eis auton ta panta\. The universe comes out of God, by means of God, for God. This writer has already said that God used his Son as the Agent (\di' hou\) in creation (1:2|), a doctrine in harmony with strkjv@Colossians:1:15f.| (\en aut“i, di' autou eis auton\) and strkjv@John:1:3|. {In bringing} (\agagonta\). Second aorist active participle of \ag“\ in the accusative case in spite of the dative \aut“i\ just before to which it refers. {The author} (\ton archˆgon\). Old compound word (\archˆ\ and \ag“\) one leading off, leader or prince as in strkjv@Acts:5:31|, one blazing the way, a pioneer (Dods) in faith (Hebrews:12:2|), author (Acts:3:15|). Either sense suits here, though author best (verse 9|). Jesus is the author of salvation, the leader of the sons of God, the Elder Brother of us all (Romans:8:29|). {To make perfect} (\telei“sai\). First aorist active infinitive of \teleio“\ (from \teleios\). If one recoils at the idea of God making Christ perfect, he should bear in mind that it is the humanity of Jesus that is under discussion. The writer does not say that Jesus was sinful (see the opposite in strkjv@4:15|), but simply that "by means of sufferings" God perfected his Son in his human life and death for his task as Redeemer and Saviour. One cannot know human life without living it. There was no moral imperfection in Jesus, but he lived his human life in order to be able to be a sympathizing and effective leader in the work of salvation.

rwp@Hebrews:5:5 @{Songs:Christ also} (\hout“s kai ho Christos\). Just as with Aaron. Jesus had divine appointment as high priest also. {To be made} (\genˆthˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \ginomai\. {High priest} (\archierea\). Predicate accusative agreeing with \heauton\ (himself) object of \edoxasen\. {But he that spake unto him} (\all' ho lalˆsas pros auton\). Ellipsis of \edoxasen\ to be supplied from preceding clause. God did glorify Jesus in appointing him priest as we see in strkjv@Psalms:2:7| quoted already as Messianic (Hebrews:1:5|). Jesus himself repeatedly claimed that the Father sent him on his mission to the world (John:5:30,43; strkjv@8:54; strkjv@17:5|, etc.). Bruce holds that Christ's priesthood is co-eval with his Sonship. Davidson thinks it is merely suitable because he is Son. Clearly the Father nominated (Dods) the Son to the Messianic priesthood (John:3:16|).

rwp@Hebrews:11:1 @{Now faith is} (\estin de pistis\). He has just said that "we are of faith" (10:39|), not of apostasy. Now he proceeds in a chapter of great eloquence and passion to illustrate his point by a recital of the heroes of faith whose example should spur them to like loyalty now. {The assurance of things hoped for} (\elpizomen“n hupostasis\). {Hupostasis} is a very common word from Aristotle on and comes from \huphistˆmi\ (\hupo\, under, \histˆmi\, intransitive), what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise). See the philosophical use of it in strkjv@1:3|, the sense of assurance (une assurance certaine, M‚n‚goz) in strkjv@3:14|, that steadiness of mind which holds one firm (2Corinthians:9:4|). It is common in the papyri in business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. "And as this is the essential meaning in strkjv@Hebrews:11:1| we venture to suggest the translation 'Faith is the _title-deed_ of things hoped for'" (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_, etc.). {The proving of things not seen} (\pragmat“n elegchos ou blepomen“n\). The only N.T. example of \elegchos\ (except Textus Receptus in strkjv@2Timothy:3:16| for \elegmon\). Old and common word from \elegch“\ (Matthew:18:15|) for "proof" and then for "conviction." Both uses occur in the papyri and either makes sense here, perhaps "conviction" suiting better though not in the older Greek.

rwp@James:1:5 @{Lacketh wisdom} (\leipetai sophias\). Condition of first class, assumed as true, \ei\ and present passive indicative of \leip“\ to be destitute of, with ablative case \sophias\. "If any one falls short of wisdom." A banking figure, to have a shortage of wisdom (not just knowledge, \gn“se“s\, but wisdom \sophias\, the practical use of knowledge). {Let him ask} (\aiteit“\). Present active imperative of \aite“\, "let him keep on asking." {Of God} (\para tou theou\). "From (from beside) God," ablative case with \para\. Liberally (\hapl“s\). This old adverb occurs here only in the N.T. (from \haplous\, single-fold, strkjv@Matthew:6:22|, and \haplotˆs\, simplicity, generosity, is common-- strkjv@2Corinthians:8:2; strkjv@Romans:12:8|). But the adverb is common in the papyri by way of emphasis as simply or at all (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). Mayor argues for the sense of "unconditionally" (the logical moral sense) while Hort and Ropes agree and suggest "graciously." The other sense of "abundantly" or "liberally" suits the idea in \haplotˆs\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:2; strkjv@Romans:12:8|, but no example of the adverb in this sense has been found unless this is one here. See strkjv@Isaiah:55:1| for the idea of God's gracious giving and the case of Solomon (1Kings:3:9-12; strkjv@Proverbs:2:3|). {Upbraideth not} (\mˆ oneidizontos\). Present active participle of \oneidiz“\ (old verb to reproach, to cast in one's teeth, strkjv@Matthew:5:11|) in the ablative case like \didontos\ agreeing with \theou\ and with the usual negative of the participle (\me\). This is the negative statement of \didontos hapl“s\ (giving graciously). The evil habit of giving stinging words along with the money is illustrated in Sirach strkjv@41:22 and Plutarch (_Deuteronomy:adulat._, p. 64A). ] Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:4:16|. {And it shall be given him} (\kai dothˆsetai aut“i\). First future passive of \did“mi\, a blessed promise in accord with the words of Jesus (Matthew:7:7,11; strkjv@Luke:11:13|), meaning here not only "wisdom," but all good gifts, including the Holy Spirit. There are frequent reminiscences of the words of Jesus in this Epistle.

rwp@James:5:13 @{Is any suffering?} (\kakopathei tis;\). See verse 10| for \kakopathia\. The verb in N.T. occurs only here and in strkjv@2Timothy:2:3,9; strkjv@4:5|. The lively interrogative is common in the diatribe and suits the style of James. {Among you} (\en humin\). As in strkjv@3:13|. {Let him pray} (\proseuchesth“\). Present middle imperative, "let him keep on praying" (instead of cursing as in verse 12|). {Is any cheerful} (\euthumei;\). Present active indicative of \euthume“\, old verb from \euthumos\ (Acts:27:36|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:27:22,25|. {Let him sing praise} (\psallet“\). Present active imperative of \psall“\, originally to twang a chord as on a harp, to sing praise to God whether with instrument or without, in N.T. only here, strkjv@1Corinthians:14:15; strkjv@Romans:15:9; strkjv@Ephesians:5:19|. "Let him keep on making melody."

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

rwp@John:2:4 @{Woman} (\gunai\). Vocative case of \gunˆ\, and with no idea of censure as is plain from its use by Jesus in strkjv@19:26|. But the use of \gunai\ instead of \mˆter\ (Mother) does show her she can no longer exercise maternal authority and not at all in his Messianic work. That is always a difficult lesson for mothers and fathers to learn, when to let go. {What have I to do with thee?} (\Ti emoi kai soi;\). There are a number of examples of this ethical dative in the LXX (Judges:11:12; strkjv@2Samuel:16:10; strkjv@1Kings:17:18; strkjv@2Kings:3:13; strkjv@2Chronicles:35:21|) and in the N.T. (Mark:1:24; strkjv@5:7; strkjv@Matthew:8:29; strkjv@27:19; strkjv@Luke:8:28|). Some divergence of thought is usually indicated. Literally the phrase means, "What is it to me and to thee?" In this instance F.C. Burkitt (_Journal of Theol. Studies_, July, 1912) interprets it to mean, "What is it to us?" That is certainly possible and suits the next clause also. {Mine hour is not yet come} (\oup“ hˆkei hˆ h“ra mou\). This phrase marks a crisis whenever it occurs, especially of his death (7:30; strkjv@8:20; strkjv@12:23; strkjv@13:1; strkjv@17:1|). Here apparently it means the hour for public manifestation of the Messiahship, though a narrower sense would be for Christ's intervention about the failure of the wine. The Fourth Gospel is written on the plane of eternity (W. M. Ramsay) and that standpoint exists here in this first sign of the Messiah.

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

rwp@John:3:31 @{Is above all} (\epan“ pant“n\). Ablative case with the compound preposition \epan“\. See the same idea in strkjv@Romans:9:5|. Here we have the comments of Evangelist (John) concerning the last words of John in verse 30| which place Jesus above himself. He is above all men, not alone above the Baptist. Bernard follows those who treat verses 31-36| as dislocated and put them after verse 21| (the interview with Nicodemus), but they suit better here. {Of the earth} (\ek tˆs gˆs\). John is fond of this use of \ek\ for origin and source of character as in strkjv@1:46; strkjv@1John:4:5|. Jesus is the one that comes out of heaven (\ho ek tou ouranou erchomenos\) as he has shown in strkjv@1:1-18|. Hence he is "above all."

rwp@John:7:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). John's favourite general note of the order of events. Bernard conceives that the events in strkjv@7:1-14| follow strkjv@7:15-24| and both follow chapter 5, not chapter 6, a wholly needless readjustment of the narrative to suit a preconceived theory. John simply supplements the narrative in the Synoptics at points deemed important. He now skips the period of withdrawal from Galilee of about six months (from passover to tabernacles). {Walked} (\periepatei\). Imperfect active, a literal picture of the itinerant ministry of Jesus. He has returned to Galilee from the region of Caesarea Philippi. He had been avoiding Galilee as well as Judea for six months. {For he would not walk in Judea} (\ou gar ˆthelen en tˆi Ioudaiƒi\). Imperfect active of \thel“\ picturing the attitude of refusal to work in Judea after the events in chapter 5 (perhaps a year and a half before). {Sought to kill} (\ezˆtoun apokteinai\). Imperfect active again, progressive attitude, had been seeking to kill him as shown in strkjv@5:18| where the same words occur.

rwp@John:9:6 @{He spat on the ground} (\eptusen chamai\). First aorist active indicative of the old verb \ptu“\ for which see strkjv@Mark:7:33|. \Chamai\ is an old adverb either in the dative or locative (sense suits locative), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:6|. Jesus was not asked to cure this man. The curative effects of saliva are held in many places. The Jews held saliva efficacious for eye-trouble, but it was forbidden on the Sabbath. "That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in the application of the clay is contradicted by the fact that in other cases of blindness He did not use it" (Dods). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23|. Why he here accommodated himself to current belief we do not know unless it was to encourage the man to believe. {He made clay} (\epoiˆsen pˆlon\). Only use of \pˆlos\, old word for clay, in N.T. in this chapter and strkjv@Romans:9:21|. The kneading of the clay and spittle added another offence against the Sabbath rules of the rabbis. {Anointed his eyes with the clay} (\epechrisen autou ton pˆlon epi tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active indicative of \epichri“\, old verb, to spread on, anoint, here only and verse 11| in N.T. "He spread the clay upon his eyes." B C read \epethˆken\ (first aorist active indicative of \epitithˆmi\, to put on).

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

rwp@Luke:1:78 @{Tender mercy} (\splagchna eleous\). Bowels of mercy literally (1Peter:3:8; strkjv@James:3:11|). Revised margin has it, hearts of mercy. {The dayspring from on high} (\anatolˆ ex hupsous\). Literally, rising from on high, like the rising sun or stars (Isaiah:60:19|). The word is used also of a sprouting plant or branch (Jeremiah:23:5; strkjv@Zechariah:6:12|), but that does not suit here. {Shall visit} (\epeskepsetai\), correct text, cf. strkjv@1:68|.

rwp@Luke:5:39 @{The old is good} (\Hosea:palaios chrˆstos estin\). Songs:the best MSS. rather that \chrˆstoteros\, comparative (better). Westcott and Hort wrongly bracket the whole verse, though occurring in Aleph, B C L and most of the old documents. It is absent in D and some of the old Latin MSS. It is the philosophy of the obscurantist, that is here pictured by Christ. "The prejudiced person will not even try the new, or admit that it has any merits. He knows that the old is pleasant, and suits him; and that is enough; he is not going to change" (Plummer). This is Christ's picture of the reactionary Pharisees.

rwp@Luke:7:42 @{Will love him most} (\pleion agapˆsei auton\). Strictly, comparative {more}, \pleion\, not superlative \pleista\, but most suits the English idiom best, even between two. Superlative forms are vanishing before the comparative in the _Koin‚_. This is the point of the parable, the attitude of the two debtors toward the lender who forgave both of them (Plummer).

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

rwp@Luke:13:34 @{O Jerusalem, Jerusalem} (\Ierousalˆm, Ierousalˆm\). In strkjv@Matthew:23:37f.| Jesus utters a similar lament over Jerusalem. The connection suits both there and here, but Plummer considers it "rather a violent hypothesis" to suppose that Jesus spoke these words twice. It is possible, of course, though not like Luke's usual method, that he put the words here because of the mention of Jerusalem. In itself it is not easy to see why Jesus could not have made the lament both here and in Jerusalem. The language of the apostrophe is almost identical in both places (Luke:13:34f.; strkjv@Matthew:23:37-39|). For details see on Matthew. In Luke we have \episunaxai\ (late first aorist active infinitive) and in Matthew \episunagagein\ (second aorist active infinitive), both from \episunag“\, a double compound of late Greek (Polybius). Both have "How often would I" (\posakis ˆthelˆsa\). How often did I wish. Clearly showing that Jesus made repeated visits to Jerusalem as we know otherwise only from John's Gospel. {Even as} (\hon tropon\). Accusative of general reference and in strkjv@Matthew:23:37| also. Incorporation of antecedent into the relative clause. {Brood} (\nossian\) is in Luke while Matthew has {chickens} (\nossia\), both late forms for the older \neossia\. The adjective {desolate} (\erˆmos\) is wanting in strkjv@Luke:13:35| and is doubtful in strkjv@Matthew:23:39|.

rwp@Luke:16:13 @{Servant} (\oiketˆs\). Household (\oikos\) servant. This is the only addition to strkjv@Matthew:6:24| where otherwise the language is precisely the same, which see. Either Matthew or Luke has put the \logion\ in the wrong place or Jesus spoke it twice. It suits perfectly each context. There is no real reason for objecting to repetition of favourite sayings by Jesus.

rwp@Mark:1:36 @{Followed after him} (\katedi“xen auton\). Hunted him out (Moffatt). Perfective use of the preposition \kata\ (down to the finish). The verb \di“k“\ is used for the hunt or chase, pursuit. Vulgate has _persecutus est_. The personal story of Peter comes in here. "Simon's intention at least was good; the Master seemed to be losing precious opportunities and must be brought back" (Swete). Peter and those with him kept up the search till they found him. The message that they brought would surely bring Jesus back to Peter's house.

rwp@Mark:2:19 @{The sons of the bridechamber} (\hoi huioi tou numph“nos\). Not merely the groomsmen, but the guests also, the \paranymphs\ (\paranumphoi\ of the old Greek). Jesus here adopts the Baptist's own metaphor (John:3:29|), changing the friend of the bridegroom (\ho philos tou numphiou\) to sons of the bridechamber. Jesus identifies himself with the bridegroom of the O.T. (Hosea:2:21|), God in his covenant relation with Israel (Swete). Mourning does not suit the wedding feast. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all give the three parables (bridegroom, unfulled cloth, new wineskins) illustrating and defending the conduct of Jesus in feasting with Levi on a Jewish fast-day. strkjv@Luke:5:36| calls these parables. Jesus here seems iconoclastic to the ecclesiastics and revolutionary in emphasis on the spiritual instead of the ritualistic and ceremonial.

rwp@Mark:4:12 @{Lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them} (\mˆpote epistreps“sin kai aphethˆi autois\). Luke does not have these difficult words that seem in Isaiah to have an ironical turn, though strkjv@Matthew:13:15| does retain them even after using \hoti\ for the first part of the quotation. There is no way to make \mˆpote\ in strkjv@Mark:4:12| and strkjv@Matthew:13:15| have a causal sense. It is the purpose of condemnation for wilful blindness and rejection such as suits the Pharisees after their blasphemous accusation against Jesus. Bengel says: _iam ante non videbant, nunc accedit iudicium divinum_. Jesus is pronouncing their doom in the language of Isaiah. It sounds like the dirge of the damned.

rwp@Mark:5:36 @{Not heeding} (\parakousas\). This is the sense in strkjv@Matthew:18:17| and uniformly so in the LXX. But here the other sense of hearing aside, overhearing what was not spoken directly to him, probably exists also. "Jesus might overhear what was said and disregard its import" (Bruce). Certainly he ignored the conclusion of the messengers. The present participle \laloumenon\ suits best the idea of overhearing. Both Mark and strkjv@Luke:8:50| have "Fear not, only believe" (\mˆ phobou, monon pisteue\). This to the ruler of the synagogue (\t“i archisunag“g“i\) who had remained and to whom the messenger had spoken.

rwp@Mark:5:40 @{And they laughed him to scorn} (\kai kategel“n\). "They jeered at him" (Weymouth). Note imperfect tense. They kept it up. And note also \kat-\ (perfective use). Exactly the same words in strkjv@Matthew:9:24| and strkjv@Luke:8:53|. The loud laughter was ill suited to the solemn occasion. But Jesus on his part (\autos de\) took charge of the situation. {Taketh the father of the child and her mother and them that were with him} (\paralambanei ton patera tou paidiou kai tˆn mˆtera kai tous met' autou\). Having put out (\ekbal“n\) the rest by a stern assertion of authority as if he were master of the house, Jesus takes along with him these five and enters the chamber of death "where the child was" (\hopou ˆn to paidion\). He had to use pressure to make the hired mourners leave. The presence of some people will ruin the atmosphere for spiritual work.

rwp@Mark:6:7 @{By two and two} (\duo duo\). This repetition of the numeral instead of the use of \ana duo\ or \kata duo\ is usually called a Hebraism. The Hebrew does have this idiom, but it appears in Aeschylus and Sophocles, in the vernacular _Koin‚_ (Oxyrhynchus Papyri No. 121), in Byzantine Greek, and in modern Greek (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 122f.). Mark preserves the vernacular _Koin‚_ better than the other Gospels and this detail suits his vivid style. The six pairs of apostles could thus cover Galilee in six different directions. Mark notes that he "began to send them forth" (\ˆrxato autous apostellein\). Aorist tense and present infinitive. This may refer simply to this particular occasion in Mark's picturesque way. But the imperfect tense \edidou\ means he kept on giving them all through the tour, a continuous power (authority) over unclean spirits singled out by Mark as representing "all manner of diseases and all manner of sickness" (Matthew:10:1|), "to cure diseases" (\iasthai\, strkjv@Luke:9:1|), healing power. They were to preach and to heal (Luke:9:1; strkjv@Matthew:10:7|). Mark does not mention preaching as a definite part of the commission to the twelve on this their first preaching tour, but he does state that they did preach (6:12|). They were to be missioners or missionaries (\apostellein\) in harmony with their office (\apostoloi\).

rwp@Mark:6:55 @{Ran about} (\periedramon\). Vivid constative aorist picturing the excited pursuit of Jesus as the news spread that he was in Gennesaret. {On their beds} (\epi tois krabattois\). Pallets like that of the man let down through the roof (Mark:2:4|). {Where they heard he was} (\hopou ˆkouon hoti estin\). Imperfect tense of \akou“\ (repetition), present indicative \estin\ retained in indirect discourse.

rwp@Matthew:6:27 @{Unto his stature} (\epi tˆn hˆlikian autou\). The word \hˆlikian\ is used either of height (stature) or length of life (age). Either makes good sense here, though probably "stature" suits the context best. Certainly anxiety will not help either kind of growth, but rather hinder by auto-intoxication if nothing more. This is no plea for idleness, for even the birds are diligent and the flowers grow.

rwp@Matthew:8:21 @{The Son of man} (\tho huios tou anthr“pou\). This remarkable expression, applied to himself by Jesus so often, appears here for the first time. There is a considerable modern literature devoted to it. "It means much for the Speaker, who has chosen it deliberately, in connection with private reflections, at whose nature we can only guess, by study of the many occasions on which the name is used" (Bruce). Often it means the Representative Man. It may sometimes stand for the Aramaic _barnasha_, the man, but in most instances that idea will not suit. Jesus uses it as a concealed Messianic title. It is possible that this scribe would not understand the phrase at all. Bruce thinks that here Jesus means "the unprivileged Man," worse off than the foxes and the birds. Jesus spoke Greek as well as Aramaic. It is inconceivable that the Gospels should never call Jesus "the Son of man" and always credit it to him as his own words if he did not so term himself, about eighty times in all, thirty-three in Matthew. Jesus in his early ministry, except at the very start in strkjv@John:4|, abstains from calling himself Messiah. This term suited his purpose exactly to get the people used to his special claim as Messiah when he is ready to make it openly.

rwp@Matthew:13:47 @{A net} (\sagˆnˆi\). Drag-net. Latin, _sagena_, English, seine. The ends were stretched out and drawn together. Only example of the word in the N.T. Just as the field is the world, so the drag-net catches all the fish that are in the sea. The separation comes afterwards. Vincent pertinently quotes Homer's _Odyssey_ (xxii. 384-389) where the slain suitors in the halls of Ulysses are likened to fishes on the shore caught by nets with myriad meshes.

rwp@Matthew:20:11 @{They murmured} (\egogguzon\). Onomatopoetic word, the meaning suiting the sound. Our words murmur and grumble are similar. Probably here inchoative imperfect, began to grumble. It occurs in old Ionic and in the papyri.

rwp@Matthew:21:29 @{I will not} (\ou thel“\). Songs:many old manuscripts, though the Vatican manuscript (B) has the order of the two sons reversed. Logically the "I, sir" (\eg“, kurie\) suits better for the second son (verse 30|) with a reference to the blunt refusal of the first. Songs:also the manuscripts differ in verse 31| between the first (\ho pr“tos\) and the last (\ho husteros\ or \eschatos\). But the one who actually did the will of the father is the one who {repented and went} (\metamelˆtheis apˆlthen\). This word really means "repent," to be sorry afterwards, and must be sharply distinguished from the word \metanoe“\ used 34 times in the N.T. as in strkjv@Matthew:3:2| and \metanoia\ used 24 times as in strkjv@Matthew:3:8|. The verb \metamelomai\ occurs in the N.T. only five times (Matthew:21:29,32; strkjv@27:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:8; strkjv@Hebrews:7:21| from strkjv@Psalms:109:4|). Paul distinguishes sharply between mere sorrow and the act "repentance" which he calls \metanoian\ (2Corinthians:7:9|). In the case of Judas (Matthew:27:3|) it was mere remorse. Here the boy got sorry for his stubborn refusal to obey his father and went and obeyed. Godly sorrow leads to repentance (\metanoian\), but mere sorrow is not repentance.

rwp@Matthew:22:1 @{Again in parables} (\palin en parabolais\). Matthew has already given two on this occasion (The Two Sons, The Wicked Husbandmen). He alone gives this Parable of the Marriage Feast of the King's Son. It is somewhat similar to that of The Supper in strkjv@Luke:14:16-23| given on another occasion. Hence some scholars consider this merely Matthew's version of the Lucan parable in the wrong place because of Matthew's habit of grouping the sayings of Jesus. But that is a gratuitous indictment of Matthew's report which definitely locates the parable here by \palin\. Some regard it as not spoken by Jesus at all, but an effort on the part of the writer to cover the sin and fate of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and God's demand for righteousness. But here again it is like Jesus and suits the present occasion.

rwp@Matthew:27:65 @{Make it as sure as you can} (\asphalisasthe h“s oidate\). "Make it secure for yourselves (ingressive aorist middle) as you know how." {Have a guard} (\echete koust“dian\), present imperative, a guard of Roman soldiers, not mere temple police. The Latin term _koust“dia_ occurs in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus of A.D. 22. "The curt permission to the Jews whom he despised is suitable in the mouth of the Roman official" (McNeile).

rwp@Philippians:1:10 @{Songs:that ye may} (\eis to humas\). Either purpose or result (\eis to\ plus infinitive as in strkjv@Romans:1:11,20; strkjv@3:26|, etc.). {Approve the things that are excellent} (\dokimazein ta diapheronta\). Originally, "test the things that differ." Cf. same idiom in strkjv@Romans:2:28|. The verb was used for assaying metals. Either sense suits this context, but the first step is to distinguish between good and evil and that is not always easy in our complex civilization. {Sincere} (\eilikrineis\). Old word of uncertain origin from \krin“\, to judge, by \heilˆ\ (sunlight) or to sift by rapid rolling (\eilos\). At any rate it means pure, unsullied. {Void of offence} (\aproskopoi\). Alpha privative \pros\ and \kopt“\, to cut, "not stumbled against" (not causing others to stumble) or if active "not stumbling against." Passive sense probably, not active as in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32|. Common in the papyri, though not in ancient Greek writers.

rwp@Philippians:1:17 @{Of faction} (\ex eritheias\). Out of partisanship. From \eritheu“\, to spin wool, and that from \erithos\, a hireling. The papyri examples suit the idea of selfish ambition (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). See strkjv@2Corinthians:12:20; strkjv@Galatians:5:20|. {Not sincerely} (\ouch hagn“s\). "Not purely," that is with mixed and impure motives. {To raise up affliction for my bonds} (\thlipsin egeirein tois desmois mou\). Now that Paul is down they jump on him in mean and nagging ways. Dative case in \desmois\. "To make my chains gall me" (Lightfoot).

rwp@Philippians:1:19 @{Will turn} (\apobˆsetai\). Future middle indicative of \apobain“\, old verb, to come from, to come back, to turn out. {To my salvation} (\eis s“tˆrian\). For his release from prison as he strongly hopes to see them again (1:26|). Lightfoot takes the word to be Paul's eternal salvation and it must be confessed that verse 20| (the close of this sentence) does suit that idea best. Can it be that Paul carried both conceptions in the word here? {Supply} (\epichorˆgias\). Late and rare word (one example in inscription of first century A.D.). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:4:16|. From the late verb \epichorˆge“\ (double compound, \epi, choros, hˆgeomai\, to furnish supply for the chorus) which see in strkjv@2Corinthians:9:10; strkjv@Galatians:3:5|.

rwp@Philippians:3:21 @{Shall fashion anew} (\metaschˆmatisei\). Future active indicative of \metaschˆmatiz“\ for which see strkjv@1Corinthians:4:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13ff|. {Conformed to} (\summorphon\). For which (\sun, morphˆ\) see strkjv@Romans:8:29|, only N.T. examples. With associative instrumental case. The body of our state of humiliation will be made suitable to associate with the body of Christ's glory (1Corinthians:15:54f.|). {According to the working} (\kata tˆn energeian\). "According to the energy." If any one doubts the power of Christ to do this transformation, Paul replies that he has power "even to subject all things unto himself."

rwp@Revelation:1:1 @{The Revelation} (\apokalupsis\). Late and rare word outside of N.T. (once in Plutarch and so in the vernacular _Koin‚_), only once in the Gospels (Luke:2:32|), but in LXX and common in the Epistles (2Thessalonians:1:7|), though only here in this book besides the title, from \apokalupt“\, old verb, to uncover, to unveil. In the Epistles \apokalupsis\ is used for insight into truth (Ephesians:1:17|) or for the revelation of God or Christ at the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:1:7; strkjv@1Peter:1:7|). It is interesting to compare \apokalupsis\ with \epiphaneia\ (2Thessalonians:2:8|) and \phaner“sis\ (1Corinthians:12:7|). The precise meaning here turns on the genitive following. {Of Jesus Christ} (\Iˆsou Christou\). Hort takes it as objective genitive (revelation about Jesus Christ), but Swete rightly argues for the subjective genitive because of the next clause. {Gave him} (\ed“ken autoi\). It is the Son who received the revelation from the Father, as is usual (John:5:20f.,26|, etc.). {To shew} (\deixai\). First aorist active infinitive of \deiknumi\, purpose of God in giving the revelation to Christ. {Unto his servants} (\tois doulois autou\). Believers in general and not just to officials. Dative case. God's servants (or Christ's). {Must shortly come to pass} (\dei genesthai en tachei\). Second aorist middle infinitive of \ginomai\ with \dei\. See this same adjunct (\en tachei\) in strkjv@Luke:18:8; strkjv@Romans:16:20; strkjv@Revelation:22:6|. It is a relative term to be judged in the light of strkjv@2Peter:3:8| according to God's clock, not ours. And yet undoubtedly the hopes of the early Christians looked for a speedy return of the Lord Jesus. This vivid panorama must be read in the light of that glorious hope and of the blazing fires of persecution from Rome. {Sent and signified} (\esˆmanen aposteilas\). "Having sent (first aorist active participle of \apostell“\, strkjv@Matthew:10:16| and again in strkjv@Revelation:22:6| of God sending his angel) signified" (first aorist active indicative of \sˆmain“\, from \sˆma\, sign or token, for which see strkjv@John:12:33; strkjv@Acts:11:28|). See strkjv@12:1| for \sˆmeion\, though \sˆmain“\ (only here in the Apocalypse) suits admirably the symbolic character of the book. {By his angel} (\dia tou aggelou autou\). Christ's angel as Christ is the subject of the verb \esˆmanen\, as in strkjv@22:16 Christ sends his angel, though in strkjv@22:6| God sends. {Unto his servant John} (\t“i doul“i autou I“anei\). Dative case. John gives his name here, though not in Gospel or Epistles, because "prophecy requires the guarantee of the individual who is inspired to utter it" (Milligan). "The genesis of the Apocalypse has now been traced from its origin in the Mind of God to the moment when it reached its human interpreter" (Swete). "Jesus is the medium of all revelation" (Moffatt).

rwp@Revelation:3:21 @{He that overcometh} (\ho nik“n\). Absolute nominative again as in strkjv@3:12|, but resumed this time by the dative \aut“i\ as in strkjv@2:26|. {To sit} (\kathisai\). First aorist active infinitive of \kathiz“\. This promise grows out of the prophecy that the saints will share in the Messiah's rule, made to the twelve (Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:29f.|), repeated by Paul (1Corinthians:6:2f.|), enlarged in strkjv@Revelation:22:1-5| (to last forever, strkjv@2Timothy:2:11f.|). James and John took this hope and promise literally (Mark:10:40|) not metaphorically. {As I also overcame} (\h“s kag“ enikˆsa\). First aorist active indicative of \nika“\, looking back on the victory as over in the past. In strkjv@John:16:33| before the Cross Jesus says \Eg“ nenikˆka ton kosmon\ (perfect active), emphasizing the abiding effect of the victory. {Sat down} (\ekathisa\). "I took my seat" (Hebrews:1:3|) where Christ is now (Revelation:22:3; strkjv@Colossians:3:1|). Cf. strkjv@1John:5:4; strkjv@Revelation:2:27f|. Each of these seven messages begins alike and ends alike. Each is the message of the Christ and of the Holy Spirit to the angel of the church. Each has a special message suited to the actual condition of each church. In each case the individual who overcomes has a promise of blessing. Christ the Shepherd knows his sheep and lays bare the particular peril in each case.

rwp@Revelation:6:9 @{Under the altar} (\hupokat“ tou thusiastˆriou\). "Under" (\hupokat“\), for the blood of the sacrifices was poured at the bottom of the altar (Leviticus:4:7|). The altar of sacrifice (Exodus:39:39; strkjv@40:29|), not of incense. The imagery, as in Hebrews, is from the tabernacle. For the word see strkjv@Matthew:5:23f.|, often in Rev. (Revelation:8:3,5; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@11:1; strkjv@14:18; strkjv@16:7|). This altar in heaven is symbolic, of course, the antitype for the tabernacle altar (Hebrews:8:5|). The Lamb was slain (5:6,9,12|) and these martyrs have followed the example of their Lord. {The souls} (\tas psuchas\). The lives, for the life is in the blood (Leviticus:17:11|), were given for Christ (Phillipians:2:17; strkjv@2Timothy:4:6|). {Of the slain} (\t“n esphagmen“n\). See strkjv@5:6|. Christians were slain during the Neronian persecution and now again under Domitian. A long line of martyrs has followed. {For the word of God} (\dia ton logon tou theou\). As in strkjv@1:9|, the confession of loyalty to Christ as opposed to emperor-worship. {And for the testimony which they held} (\kai dia tˆn marturian hˆn eichon\). See also strkjv@1:9|. Probably \kai\ equals "even" here, explaining the preceding. The imperfect tense \eichon\ suits the repetition of the witness to Christ and the consequent death.

rwp@Revelation:11:3 @{I will give} (\d“s“\). Future active of \did“mi\. The speaker may be God (Beckwith) or Christ (Swete) as in strkjv@2:13; strkjv@21:6| or his angel representative (22:7,12ff.|). The idiom that follows is Hebraic instead of either the infinitive after \did“mi\ as in strkjv@2:7; strkjv@3:21; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@7:2; strkjv@13:7,15; strkjv@16:8| or \hina\ with the subjunctive (9:5; strkjv@19:8|) we have \kai prophˆteusousin\ (and they shall prophesy). {Unto my two witnesses} (\tois dusin martusin mou\). Dative case after \d“s“\. The article seems to point to two well-known characters, like Elijah, Elisha, but there is no possible way to determine who they are. All sorts of identifications have been attempted. {Clothed} (\periblˆmenous\). Perfect passive participle of \periball“\ as often before (7:9,13; strkjv@10:1|, etc.). But Aleph A P Q here read the accusative plural in \-ous\, while C has the nominative in \-oi\. Charles suggests a mere slip for the nominative, but Hort suggests a primitive error in early MSS. for the dative \peribeblemenois\ agreeing with \martusin\. {In sackcloth} (\sakkous\). Accusative retained with this passive verb as in strkjv@7:9,13|. See strkjv@6:12| for \sakkos\ and also strkjv@Matthew:3:4|. The dress suited the message (Matthew:11:21|).

rwp@Revelation:12:13 @{He persecuted} (\edi“xen\). First aorist active participle of \di“k“\, to pursue, to chase, hostile pursuit here as in strkjv@Matthew:5:10f.; strkjv@10:23|, etc. John now, after the "voice" in 10-13|, returns to the narrative in verse 9|. The child was caught away in verse 5|, and now the woman (the true Israel on earth) is given deadly persecution. Perhaps events since A.D. 64 (burning of Rome by Nero) amply illustrated this vision, and they still do so. {Which} (\hˆtis\). "Which very one."

rwp@Revelation:22:2 @{In the midst of the street thereof} (\en mes“i tˆs plateias autˆs\). Connected probably with the river in verse 1|, though many connect it with verse 2|. Only one street mentioned here as in strkjv@21:21|. {On this side of the river and on that} (\tou potamou enteuthen kai ekeithen\). \Enteuthen\ occurs as a preposition in strkjv@Daniel:12:5| (Theodoret) and may be so here (post-positive), purely adverbial in strkjv@John:19:18|. {The tree of life} (\xulon z“ˆs\). For the metaphor see strkjv@Genesis:1:11f.| and strkjv@Revelation:2:7; strkjv@22:14|. \Xulon\ is used for a green tree in strkjv@Luke:23:31; strkjv@Ezekiel:47:12|. {Bearing} (\poioun\). Neuter active participle of \poie“\ (making, producing, as in strkjv@Matthew:7:17|). Some MSS. have \poi“n\ (masculine), though \xulon\ is neuter. {Twelve manner of fruits} (\karpous d“deka\). "Twelve fruits." {Yielding} (\apodidoun\). Neuter active participle of \apodid“mi\, to give back, but some MSS. have \apodidous\ (masculine) like \poi“n\. {For the healing of the nations} (\eis therapeian t“n ethn“n\). Spiritual healing, of course, as leaves (\phulla\) are often used for obtaining medicines. Here again the problem occurs whether this picture is heaven before the judgment or afterwards. Charles distinguishes sharply between the Heavenly City for the millennial reign and the New Jerusalem that descends from heaven after the judgment. Charles rearranges these chapters to suit his theory. But chronology is precarious here.

rwp@Revelation:22:10 @{And he saith unto me} (\kai legei moi\). The angel resumes as in strkjv@19:9|. {Seal not up} (\mˆ sphragisˆis\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and the ingressive first aorist active subjunctive of \sphragiz“\. Charles takes this to be the command of Christ because in verses 7,18| "the words of the prophecy of this book" come from Christ. But that is not a conclusive argument, though Charles, as already stated, rearranges these chapters to suit his own notion. Once only (10:4|) was John directed to seal and not to write. See there for discussion of \sphragiz“\. This book is to be left open for all to read (1:3; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@17:9; strkjv@22:7,18|). {At hand} (\eggus\). As in strkjv@1:3|.

rwp@Revelation:22:21 @{The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints} (\hˆ charis tou Kuriou Iˆsou meta t“n hagi“n\). John's own benediction, an unusual ending for an apocalypse, but suitable for one meant to be read in the churches (1:3f.|). Grace is Paul's unvarying word in conclusion of his letters, as is true of strkjv@Hebrews:13:25|. "The saints" or the consecrated (\hoi hagioi\) is John's constant word for believers in Christ (8:3f.; strkjv@11:18; strkjv@13:7,10; strkjv@14:12; strkjv@16:6; strkjv@17:6; strkjv@18:20,24; strkjv@19:8; strkjv@20:9|). It is a good word for the close of this marvellous picture of God's gracious provision for his people in earth and heaven.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE DATE There are two chief theories, the Neronic, soon after Nero's death, the other in the reign of Domitian. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius as saying expressly that the Apocalypse of John was written at the close of the reign of Domitian. This testimony is concurred in by Clement of Alexandria, by Origen, by Eusebius, by Jerome. In harmony with this clear testimony the severity of the persecutions suit the later date better than the earlier one. There is, besides, in strkjv@Revelation:17:11f.| an apparent reference to the story that Nero would return again. The fifth king who is one of the seven is an eighth. There was a Nero legend, to be sure, that Nero either was not dead but was in Parthia, or would be _redivivus_ after death. Juvenal termed Domitian "a bald Nero" and others called Domitian "a second Nero." But in spite of all this Hort, Lightfoot, Sanday, Westcott have argued strongly for the Neronic era. Peake is willing to admit allusions to the Neronic period as Swete is also, but both consider the Domitianic date the best supported. Moffatt considers any earlier date than Domitian "almost impossible."

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE READERS OF THE BOOK The whole book is sent to the seven churches in Asia (Revelation:1:4|). There is a special message to each of the seven (chapters strkjv@Revelation:2; 3|), suited to the peculiar needs of each church and with a direct reference to the geography and history of each church and city, so Ramsay holds (_The Letters to the Seven Churches_). The book is to be read aloud in each church (1:3|). One can imagine the intense interest that the book would arouse in each church. Children are charmed to hear the Apocalypse read. They do not understand the symbols, but they see the pictures in the unfolding panorama. There were other churches in the Province of Asia besides these seven, but these form a circle from Ephesus where John had lived and wrought. They do present a variety of churches, not necessarily all types, and by no means a chart of seven dispensations of Christian history.

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

rwp@Romans:3:8 @{And why not} (\kai mˆ\). We have a tangled sentence which can be cleared up in two ways. One is (Lightfoot) to supply \genˆtai\ after \mˆ\ and repeat \ti\ (\kai ti mˆ genˆtai\, deliberative subjunctive in a question): And why should it not happen? The other way (Sanday and Headlam) is to take \mˆ\ with \poiˆs“men\ and make a long parenthesis of all in between. Even so it is confusing because \hoti\ also (recitative \hoti\) comes just before \poiˆs“men\. The parenthesis is necessary anyhow, for there are two lines of thought, one the excuse brought forward by the unbeliever, the other the accusation that Paul affirms that very excuse that we may do evil that good may come. Note the double indirect assertion (the accusative and the infinitive \hˆmƒs legein\ after \phasin\ and then the direct quotation with recitative \hoti\ after \legein\, a direct quotation dependent on the infinitive in indirect quotation. {Let us do evil that good may come} (\poiˆs“men ta kaka hina elthˆi ta agatha\). The volitive aorist subjunctive (\poiˆs“men\) and the clause of purpose (\hina\ and the aorist subjunctive \elthˆi\). It sounds almost uncanny to find this maxim of the Jesuits attributed to Paul in the first century by Jews. It was undoubtedly the accusation of Antinomianism because Paul preached justification by faith and not by works.

rwp@Romans:3:9 @{What then?} (\ti oun?\). Paul's frequent query, to be taken with verses 1,2|. {Are we in worse case than they?} (\proechometha?\). The American Revisers render it: "Are we in better case than they?" There is still no fresh light on this difficult and common word though it occurs alone in the N.T. In the active it means to have before, to excel. But here it is either middle or passive. Thayer takes it to be middle and to mean to excel to one's advantage and argues that the context demands this. But no example of the middle in this sense has been found. If it is taken as passive, Lightfoot takes it to mean, "Are we excelled" and finds that sense in Plutarch. Vaughan takes it as passive but meaning, "Are we preferred?" This suits the context, but no other example has been found. Songs:the point remains unsettled. The papyri throw no light on it. {No, in no wise} (\ou pant“s\). "Not at all." See strkjv@1Corinthians:5:10|. {We before laid to the charge} (\proˆitiasametha\). First aorist middle indicative of \proaitiaomai\, to make a prior accusation, a word not yet found anywhere else. Paul refers to strkjv@1:18-32| for the Greeks and strkjv@2:1-29| for the Jews. The infinitive \einai\ with the accusative \pantas\ is in indirect discourse. {Under sin} (\hupo hamartian\). See strkjv@Galatians:3:22; strkjv@Romans:7:14|.

rwp@Romans:3:25 @{Set forth} (\proetheto\). Second aorist middle indicative. See on ¯1:13| for this word. Also in strkjv@Ephesians:1:9|, but nowhere else in N.T. God set before himself (purposed) and did it publicly before (\pro\) the whole world. {A propitiation} (\hilastˆrion\). The only other N.T. example of this word is in strkjv@Hebrews:9:5| where we have the "cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat" (\to hilastˆrion\). In Hebrews the adjective is used as a substantive or as "the propitiatory place " But that idea does not suit here. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 124-35) has produced examples from inscriptions where it is used as an adjective and as meaning "a votive offering" or "propitiatory gift." Hence he concludes about strkjv@Romans:3:25|: "The crucified Christ is the votive gift of the Divine Love for the salvation of men." God gave his Son as the means of propitiation (1John:2:2|). \Hilastˆrion\ is an adjective (\hilastˆrios\) from \hilaskomai\, to make propitiation (Hebrews:2:17|) and is kin in meaning to \hilasmos\, propitiation (1John:2:2; strkjv@4:10|). There is no longer room for doubting its meaning in strkjv@Romans:3:25|. {Through faith, by his blood} (\dia piste“s en t“i autou haimati\). Songs:probably, connecting \en toi haimati\ (in his blood) with \proetheto\. {To show his righteousness} (\eis endeixin tˆs dikaiosunˆs autou\). See strkjv@2Corinthians:8:24|. "For showing of his righteousness," the God-kind of righteousness. God could not let sin go as if a mere slip. God demanded the atonement and provided it. {Because of the passing over} (\dia tˆn paresin\). Late word from \pariˆmi\, to let go, to relax. In Dionysius Hal., Xenophon, papyri (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 266) for remission of punishment, especially for debt, as distinct from \aphesis\ (remission). {Done aforetime} (\progegonot“n\). Second perfect active genitive participle of \proginomai\. The sins before the coming of Christ (Acts:14:16; strkjv@17:30; strkjv@Hebrews:9:15|). {Forbearance} (\anochˆi\). Holding back of God as in strkjv@2:4|. In this sense Christ tasted death for every man (Hebrews:2:9|).

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 2 20:40:02 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020