Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp terms:


rwp@1Corinthians:1:30 @{Of him} (\ex autou\). Out of God. He chose you. {In Christ Jesus} (\en Christ“i Iˆsou\). In the sphere of Christ Jesus the choice was made. This is God's wisdom. {Who was made unto us wisdom from God} (\hos egenˆthˆ sophia hˆmin apo theou\). Note \egenˆthˆ\, became (first aorist passive and indicative), not \ˆn\, was, the Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection. Christ is the wisdom of God (Co strkjv@2:2f.|) "both righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (\dikaiosunˆ te kai hagiasmos kai apolutr“sis\), as is made plain by the use of \te--kai--kai\. The three words (\dikaiosunˆ, hagiasmos, apolutr“sis\) are thus shown to be an epexegesis of \sophia\ (Lightfoot). All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ Jesus. We are made righteous, holy, and redeemed in Christ Jesus. Redemption comes here last for emphasis though the foundation of the other two. In strkjv@Romans:1:17| we see clearly Paul's idea of the God kind of righteousness (\dikaiosunˆ\) in Christ. In strkjv@Romans:3:24| we have Paul's conception of redemption (\apolutr“sis\, setting free as a ransomed slave) in Christ. In strkjv@Romans:6:19| we have Paul's notion of holiness or sanctification (\hagiasmos\) in Christ. These great theological terms will call for full discussion in Romans, but they must not be overlooked here. See also strkjv@Acts:10:35; strkjv@24:25; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:3-7; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:2|.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:11:27 @{Unworthily} (\anaxi“s\). Old adverb, only here in N.T., not genuine in verse 29|. Paul defines his meaning in verse 29f|. He does not say or imply that we ourselves must be "worthy" (\axioi\) to partake of the Lord's Supper. No one would ever partake on those terms. Many pious souls have abstained from observing the ordinance through false exegesis here. {Shall be guilty} (\enochos estai\). Shall be held guilty as in strkjv@Matthew:5:21f.| which see. Shall be guilty of a crime committed against the body and blood of the Lord by such sacrilege (cf. strkjv@Hebrews:6:6; strkjv@10:29|).

rwp@1Corinthians:12:28 @{God hath set some} (\hous men etheto ho theos\). See verse 18| for \etheto ho theos\. Note middle voice (for his own use). Paul begins as if he means to say \hous men apostolous, hous de prophˆtas\ (some apostles, some prophets), but he changes the construction and has no \hous de\, but instead \pr“ton, deuteron, epeita\ (first, second, then, etc.). {In the church} (\en tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\). The general sense of \ekklˆsia\ as in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| and later in strkjv@Colossians:1:18,24; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23,32; strkjv@Hebrews:12:23|. See list also in strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|. See on ¯Matthew:10:2| for \apostolous\, the official title given the twelve by Jesus, and claimed by Paul though not one of the twelve. {Prophets} (\prophˆtas\). For-speakers for God and Christ. See the list of prophets and teachers in strkjv@Acts:13:1| with Barnabas first and Saul last. Prophets are needed today if men will let God's Spirit use them, men moved to utter the deep things of God. {Teachers} (\didaskalous\). Old word from \didask“\, to teach. Used to the Baptist (Luke:3:12|), to Jesus (John:3:10; strkjv@13:13|), and of Paul by himself along with \apostolos\ (1Timothy:2:7|). It is a calamity when the preacher is no longer a teacher, but only an exhorter. See strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|. {Then miracles} (\epeita dunameis\). Here a change is made from the concrete to the abstract. See the reverse in strkjv@Romans:12:7|. See these words (\dunameis, iamˆt“n, gl“ss“n\) in verses 9,10| with \gl“ss“n\, last again. But these two new terms (helps, governments). {Helps} (\antilˆmpseis\). Old word, from \antilambanomai\, to lay hold of. In LXX, common in papyri, here only in N.T. Probably refers to the work of the deacons, help rendered to the poor and the sick. {Governments} (\kubernˆseis\). Old word from \kuberna“\ (cf. \Kubernˆtˆs\ in strkjv@Acts:27:11|) like Latin _gubernare_, our govern. Songs:a governing. Probably Paul has in mind bishops (\episcopoi\) or elders (\presbuteroi\), the outstanding leaders (\hoi proistamenoi\ in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12; strkjv@Romans:12:8|; \hoi hˆgoumenoi\ in strkjv@Acts:15:22; strkjv@Hebrews:13:7,17,24|). Curiously enough, these two offices (pastors and deacons) which are not named specifically are the two that survive today. See strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| for both officers.

rwp@1John:4:8 @{He that loveth not} (\ho mˆ agap“n\). Present active articular participle of \agapa“\ "keeps on not loving." {Knoweth not God} (\ouk egn“ ton theon\). Timeless aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\, has no acquaintance with God, never did get acquainted with him. {God is love} (\ho theos agapˆ estin\). Anarthrous predicate, not \hˆ agapˆ\. John does not say that love is God, but only that God is love. The two terms are not interchangeable. God is also light (1:5|) and spirit (John:4:24|).

rwp@Info_1Peter @ SOME BOOKS Alford, H., Vol. IV. 1 of his _Greek Testament_ (1870). Baldwin, _The Fisherman of Galilee_ (1923). Barnes, _St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb on the Vatican Hill_. Beck, J. T., _Erklarung der Briefe Petri_ (1895). Bennett, W. H., _New-Century Bible_ (1901). Bigg, C., _Intern. Crit. Comm_. (1901). Birks, _Studies in the Life and Character of St. Peter_ (1887). Blenkin, _The First Ep. General of St. Peter_ (1915). Camerlinck, _Commentarius in epistolas catholicas_ (1909). Cooke and Lumby, _Speaker's Comm_. (1881). Couard, _Commentaire_ (1895). Couard, _Simon Petrus der Apostel des Herrn_. Davidson, _St. Peter and His Training_. Elert, _Die Religiositat des Petrus_ (1911). Erbes, _Die Todestage der Apostels Paulus and Petrus_ (1899). Foakes-Jackson, F. J., _Peter Prince of Apostles_ (1927). Foster, Ora D., _The Literary Relations of the First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Fouard, C., _St. Peter and the First Years of Christianity_ (1892). Gallagher, M., _Was the Apostle Peter Ever at Rome?_ (1894). Goutard, _Essai critique et historique sur la prem. e'pitre de S. Pierre_ (1905). Green, S. G., _The Apostle Peter: His Life and Letters_ (1880). Guignebert, _Lamentations:Primaute' de Pierre et la Venue de Pierre a Rome_ (1909). Gunkel, H., _Die Schriften d. N.T_. 3 Aufl. (1917). Hart, J. H. A., _Expos. Greek Test_. (1910). Henriott, _Saint Pierre_ (1891). Hort, F. J. A., _The First Epistle of St. Peter strkjv@1:1-2:17_ (1898). Howson, J., _Horae Petrinae_ (1883). Jenkins, R. C., _The Apostle Peter. Claims of Catholics_ (1875). Johnstone, _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1888). Kasteren, Van, _Deuteronomy:Eerste Brief Van d. Ap. Petrus_ (1911). Keil, C. F., _Comm. uber die Briefe des Petrus und Juda_ (1883). Knopf, R., _Die Briefe Petri und Juda_ (1912). Kogel, J., _Die Gedankenheit des Ersten Briefes Petri_ (1902). Kuhl, E., _Die Briefe Petri und Judae_ (Meyer Komm., 6 Aufl., 1897). Lietzmann, _Petrus and Paulus in Rom_. Lumby, J. R., _Expositor's Bible_ (1893). Masterman, J. H. B., _Epistles of St. Peter_ (1900). McInnis, J.M., _Simon Peter Fisherman and Philosopher_ (1928). Meyer, F. B., _Peter: Fisherman, Disciple, Apostle_ (1920). Moffatt, James, _Moffatt Comm. on N.T._ (1930). Monneir, J., _Lamentations:premiere e'pitre de l'apotre Pierre_ (1900). Perdelwitz, _Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des ersten Petrusbriefes_ (1911). Plumptre, _Cambridge Bible_ (1879). Reagan, _The Preaching of Peter, the Beginning of Christian Apologetics_ (1922). Robinson, C. G., _Simon Peter: His Life and Times_ (1889). Ross, J. M. E., _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Salmond, A. D. F., _Schaff's Comm_. (1883). Scharfe, _Die petrinische Stromung der neut. Literatur_ (1893). Schmid, _Petrus in Rome_ (1879). Seeley, _The Life and Writings of St. Peter_. Soden, Von, H., _Hand-Komm_. (3 Aufl., 1899). Taylor, W. M., _Peter the Apostle_ (1876). Thomas, W. H., Griffith, _The Apostle Peter_ (2nd ed., 1905). Thompson, _Life-Work of Peter the Apostle_. Upham, _Simon Peter Shepherd_ (1910). Usteri, J. M., _Wiss. und prakt. Komm. uber den I Petrus- brief_ (1887). Volter, D., _Der I Petrusbrief_ (1906). Weiss, B., _Die erste Petrusbrief und die Kritik_ (1906). _Der petrinische Lehrbegriff_ (1855). Williams, N. M., _American Comm_. Windisch, H., _Die Katholische Briefe. Handbuch zum N.T._ (2 Aufl., 1930). Wohlenberg, G., _Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief_. (Zahn Komm., 2 Aufl., 1915.) strkjv@1Peter:1:1 @{Peter} (\Petros\). Greek form for the Aramaic (Chaldaic) \Cˆphƒs\, the nickname given Simon by Jesus when he first saw him (John:1:42|) and reaffirmed in the Greek form on his great confession (Matthew:16:18|), with an allusion to \petra\, another form for a rock, ledge, or cliff. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have both \Sim“n\ and \Petros\. Paul in his Epistles always terms himself Paul, not Saul. Songs:Peter uses this name, not Cephas or Simon, because he is writing to Christians scattered over Asia Minor. The nominative absolute occurs here as in strkjv@James:1:1|, but without \chairein\ as there, the usual form of greeting in letters (Acts:23:26|) so common in the papyri. {An apostle of Jesus Christ} (\apostolos Iˆsou Christou\). This is his official title, but in strkjv@2Peter:1:1| \doulos\ is added, which occurs alone in strkjv@James:1:1|. In II and III John we have only \ho presbuteros\ (the elder), as Peter terms himself \sunpresbuteros\ in strkjv@1Peter:5:1|. Paul's usage varies greatly: only the names in I and II Thessalonians, the title \apostolos\ added and defended in Galatians and Romans as also in I and II Corinthians and Colossians and Ephesians and II Timothy with "by the will of God" added, and in I Timothy with the addition of "according to the command of God." In Philippians Paul has only "\doulos\ (slave) \Christou Iˆsou\," like James and Jude. In Romans and Titus Paul has both \doulos\ and \apostolos\, like II Peter, while in Philemon he uses only \desmios\ (prisoner) \Iˆsou Christou\. {To the elect} (\eklektois\). Without article (with the article in strkjv@Matthew:24:22,24,31|) and dative case, "to elect persons" (viewed as a group). Bigg takes \eklektois\ (old, but rare verbal adjective from \ekleg“\, to pick out, to select) as an adjective describing the next word, "to elect sojourners." That is possible and is like \genos eklekton\ in strkjv@2:9|. See the distinction between \klˆtoi\ (called) and \eklektoi\ (chosen) in strkjv@Matthew:22:14|. {Who are sojourners} (\parepidˆmois\). Late double compound adjective (\para, epidˆmountes\, strkjv@Acts:2:10|, to sojourn by the side of natives), strangers sojourning for a while in a particular place. Songs:in Polybius, papyri, in LXX only twice (Genesis:23:4|; 38 or 39 12), in N.T. only here, strkjv@2:11; strkjv@Hebrews:11:13|. The picture in the metaphor here is that heaven is our native country and we are only temporary sojourners here on earth. {Of the Dispersion} (\diasporƒs\). See strkjv@John:7:35| for literal sense of the word for scattered (from \diaspeir“\, to scatter abroad, strkjv@Acts:8:1|) Jews outside of Palestine, and strkjv@James:1:1| for the sense here to Jewish Christians, including Gentile Christians (only N T. examples). Note absence of the article, though a definite conception (of the Dispersion). The Christian is a pilgrim on his way to the homeland. These five Roman provinces include what we call Asia Minor north and west of the Taurus mountain range (Hort). Hort suggests that the order here suggests that Silvanus (bearer of the Epistle) was to land in Pontus from the Euxine Sea, proceed through Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, to Bithynia, where he would re-embark for Rome. This, he holds, explains the separation of Pontus and Bithynia, though the same province. Only Galatia and Asia are mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. as having Christian converts, but the N.T. by no means gives a full account of the spread of the Gospel, as can be judged from strkjv@Colossians:1:6,23|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:3 @{Remembering} (\mnˆmoneuontes\). Present active participle of old verb from adjective \mnˆm“n\ (mindful) and so to call to mind, to be mindful of, used either with the accusative as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| or the genitive as here. {Without ceasing} (\adialeipt“s\). Double compound adverb of the _Koin‚_ (Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo, papyri) from the verbal adjective \a-dia-leiptos\ (\a\ privative and \dia-leip“\, to leave off). In the N.T. alone by Paul and always connected with prayer. Milligan prefers to connect this adverb (amphibolous in position) with the preceding participle \poioumenoi\ rather than with \mnˆmoneuontes\ as Revised Version and Westcott and Hort rightly do. {Your work of faith} (\hum“n tou ergou tˆs piste“s\). Note article with both \ergou\ and \piste“s\ (correlation of the article, both abstract substantives). \Ergou\ is genitive case the object of \mnˆmoneuontes\ as is common with verbs of emotion (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 508f.), though the accusative \kopon\ occurs in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| according to common Greek idiom allowing either case. \Ergou\ is the general term for work or business, employment, task. Note two genitives with \ergou\. \Hum“n\ is the usual possessive genitive, {your work}, while \tˆs piste“s\ is the descriptive genitive, marked by, characterized by, faith, "the activity that faith inspires" (Frame). It is interesting to note this sharp conjunction of these two words by Paul. We are justified by faith, but faith produces works (Romans:6-8|) as the Baptist taught and as Jesus taught and as James does in strkjv@James:2|. {Labour of love} (\tou kopou tˆs agapˆs\). Note article with both substantives. Here again \tou kopou\ is the genitive the object of \mnˆmoneuontes\ while \tˆs agapˆs\ is the descriptive genitive characterizing the "labour" or "toil" more exactly. \Kopos\ is from \kopt“\, to cut, to lash, to beat the bread, to toil. In strkjv@Revelation:14:13| the distinction is drawn between \kopou\ (toil) from which the saints rest and \erga\ (works, activities) which follow with them into heaven. Songs:here it is the labour that love prompts, assuming gladly the toil. \Agapˆ\ is one of the great words of the N.T. (Milligan) and no certain example has yet been found in the early papyri or the inscriptions. It occurs in the Septuagint in the higher sense as with the sensuous associations. The Epistle of Aristeas calls love (\agapˆ\) God's gift and Philo uses \agapˆ\ in describing love for God. "When Christianity first began to think and speak in Greek, it took up \agapˆ\ and its group of terms more freely, investing them with the new glow with which the N.T. writings make us familiar, a content which is invariably religious" (Moffatt, _Love in the New Testament_, p. 40). The New Testament never uses the word \er“s\ (lust). {Patience of hope} (\tˆs hupomonˆs tˆs elpidos\). Note the two articles again and the descriptive genitive \tˆs elpidos\. It is patience marked by hope, "the endurance inspired by hope" (Frame), yes, and sustained by hope in spite of delays and set-backs. \Hupomonˆ\ is an old word (\hupo, men“\, to remain under), but it "has come like \agapˆ\ to be closely associated with a distinctively Christian virtue" (Milligan). The same order as here (\ergou, kopos, hupomonˆ\) appears in strkjv@Revelation:2:2| and Lightfoot considers it" an ascending scale as practical proofs of self-sacrifice." The church in Thessalonica was not old, but already they were called upon to exercise the sanctifying grace of hope (Denney). {In our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tou Kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). The objective genitive with \elpidos\ (hope) and so translated by "in" here (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 499f.). Jesus is the object of this hope, the hope of his second coming which is still open to us. Note "Lord Jesus Christ" as in verse 1|. {Before our God and Father} (\emprosthen tou theou kai patros hˆm“n\). The one article with both substantives precisely as in strkjv@Galatians:1:4|, not "before God and our Father," both article and possessive genitive going with both substantives as in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11; strkjv@Titus:2:13| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 785f.). The phrase is probably connected with \elpidos\. \Emprosthen\ in the N.T. occurs only of place, but it is common in the papyri of time. The picture here is the day of judgment when all shall appear before God.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:7 @{But we were gentle in the midst of you} (\alla egenˆthˆmen nˆpioi en mes“i hum“n\). Note \egenˆthˆmen\ (became), not \ˆmetha\ (were). This rendering follows \ˆpioi\ instead of \nˆpioi\ (Aleph B D C Vulg. Boh.) which is clearly correct, though Dibelius, Moffatt, Ellicott, Weiss prefer \ˆpioi\ as making better sense. Dibelius terms \nˆpioi\ _unmoglich_ (impossible), but surely that is too strong. Paul is fond of the word \nˆpioi\ (babes). Lightfoot admits that he here works the metaphor to the limit in his passion, but does not mar it as Ellicott holds. {As when a nurse cherishes her own children} (\h“s ean trophos thalpˆi ta heautˆs tekna\). This comparative clause with \h“s ean\ (Mark:4:26; strkjv@Galatians:6:10| without \ean\ or \an\) and the subjunctive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 968) has a sudden change of the metaphor, as is common with Paul (1Timothy:5:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:13ff.|) from {babes} to {nurse} (\trophos\), old word, here only in the N.T., from \treph“\, to nourish, \trophˆ\, nourishment. It is really the mother-nurse "who suckles and nurses her own children" (Lightfoot), a use found in Sophocles, and a picture of Paul's tender affection for the Thessalonians. \Thalp“\ is an old word to keep warm, to cherish with tender love, to foster. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:5:29|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:6 @{That no man transgress} (\to mˆ huperbainein\). Old verb to go beyond. Final use of \to\ (accusative of general reference) and the infinitive (negative \mˆ\), parallel to \apechesthai\ and \eidenai ktasthai\ above. {And wrong his brother} (\kai pleonektein ton adelphon autou\). To take more, to overreach, to take advantage of, to defraud. {In the matter} (\en t“i pragmati\). The delicacy of Paul makes him refrain from plainer terms and the context makes it clear enough as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11| (\t“i pragmati\). {An avenger} (\ekdikos\). Regular term in the papyri for legal avenger. Modern men and women need to remember that God is the avenger for sexual wrongs both in this life and the next.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:11 @{That ye study to be quiet} (\philotimeisthai hˆsuchazein\). First infinitive dependent on \parakaloumen\ (verse 10|, we exhort you), the second on \philotimeisthai\ (old verb from \philotimos\, fond of honour, \philos, timˆ\). The notion of ambition appears in each of the three N.T. examples (1Thessalonians:4:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:9; strkjv@Romans:5:20|), but it is ambition to do good, not evil. The word ambition is Latin (_ambitio_ from _ambo, ire_), to go on both sides to accomplish one's aims and often evil). A preacher devoid of ambition lacks power. There was a restless spirit in Thessalonica because of the misapprehension of the second coming. Songs:Paul urges an ambition to be quiet or calm, to lead a quiet life, including silence (Acts:11:18|). {To do your own business} (\prassein ta idia\). Present infinitive like the others, to have the habit of attending to their own affairs (\ta idia\). This restless meddlesomeness here condemned Paul alludes to again in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:11| in plainer terms. It is amazing how much wisdom people have about other people's affairs and so little interest in their own. {To work with your own hands} (\ergazesthai tais chersin hum“n\). Instrumental case (\chersin\). Paul gave a new dignity to manual labour by precept and example. There were "pious" idlers in the church in Thessalonica who were promoting trouble. He had commanded them when with them.

rwp@2Corinthians:5:18 @{Who reconciled us to himself through Christ} (\tou katallaxantos hˆmas heaut“i dia Christou\). Here Paul uses one of his great doctrinal words, \katallass“\, old word for exchanging coins. \Diallass“\, to change one's mind, to reconcile, occurs in N.T. only in strkjv@Matthew:5:24| though in papyri (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 187), and common in Attic. \Katallass“\ is old verb, but more frequent in later writers. We find \sunallass“\ in strkjv@Acts:7:26| and \apokatallass“\ in strkjv@Colossians:1:20f.; strkjv@Ephesians:2:16| and the substantive \katallagˆ\ in strkjv@Romans:5:11; strkjv@11:15| as well as here. It is hard to discuss this great theme without apparent contradiction. God's love (John:3:16|) provided the means and basis for man's reconciliation to God against whom he had sinned. It is all God's plan because of his love, but God's own sense of justice had to be satisfied (Romans:3:26|) and so God gave his Son as a propitiation for our sins (Romans:3:25; strkjv@Colossians:1:20; strkjv@1John:2:2; strkjv@4:10|). The point made by Paul here is that God needs no reconciliation, but is engaged in the great business of reconciling us to himself. This has to be done on God's terms and is made possible through (\dia\) Christ. {And gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation} (\kai dontos hˆmin tˆn diakonian tˆs katallagˆs\). It is a ministry marked by reconciliation, that consists in reconciliation. God has made possible through Christ our reconciliation to him, but in each case it has to be made effective by the attitude of each individual. The task of winning the unreconciled to God is committed to us. It is a high and holy one, but supremely difficult, because the offending party (the guilty) is the hardest to win over. We must be loyal to God and yet win sinful men to him.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:14 @{An angel of light} (\aggelon ph“tos\). The prince of darkness puts on the garb of light and sets the fashion for his followers in the masquerade to deceive the saints. "Like master like man." Cf. strkjv@2:11; strkjv@Galatians:1:8|. This terrible portrayal reveals the depth of Paul's feelings about the conduct of the Judaizing leaders in Corinth. In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| he terms those in Jerusalem "false brethren."

rwp@2Corinthians:11:15 @{As ministers of righteousness} (\h“s diakonoi dikaiosunˆs\). Jesus (John:10:1-21|) terms these false shepherds thieves and robbers. It is a tragedy to see men in the livery of heaven serve the devil.

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

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

rwp@Acts:2:20 @{Shall be turned} (\metastraphˆsetai\). Second future passive of \metastreph“\, common verb, but only three times in the N.T. (Acts:2:20| from Joel; strkjv@James:4:9; strkjv@Galatians:1:7|). These are the "wonders" or portents of verse 19|. It is worth noting that Peter interprets these "portents" as fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, though no such change of the sun into darkness or of the moon into blood is recorded. Clearly Peter does not interpret the symbolism of Joel in literal terms. This method of Peter may be of some service in the Book of Revelation where so many apocalyptic symbols occur as well as in the great Eschatological Discourse of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:24,25|. In strkjv@Matthew:24:6,29| Jesus had spoken of wars on earth and wonders in heaven. {Before the day of the Lord come, that great and notable day} (\prin elthein hˆmeran kuriou tˆn megalˆn kai epiphanˆ\). The use of \prin\ with the infinitive and the accusative of general reference is a regular Greek idiom. The use of the adjectives with the article is also good Greek, though the article is not here repeated as in strkjv@1:25|. The Day of the Lord is a definite conception without the article. {Notable} (\epiphanˆ\) is the same root as epiphany (\epiphaneia\) used of the Second Coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:8; strkjv@1Timothy:6:14; strkjv@2Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Titus:2:13|). It translates here the Hebrew word for "terrible." In the Epistles the Day of the Lord is applied (Knowling) to the Coming of Christ for judgment (1Thessalonians:5:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:1:10|).

rwp@Acts:2:27 @{In Hades} (\eis Hƒidˆn\). Hades is the unseen world, Hebrew Sheol, but here it is viewed as death itself "considered as a rapacious destroyer" (Hackett). It does not mean the place of punishment, though both heaven and the place of torment are in Hades (Luke:16:23|). "Death and Hades are strictly parallel terms: he who is dead is in Hades" (Page). The use of \eis\ here=\en\ is common enough. The Textus Receptus here reads \eis Hƒidou\ (genitive case) like the Attic idiom with \domon\ (abode) understood. "Hades" in English is not translation, but transliteration. The phrase in the Apostles' Creed, "descended into hell" is from this passage in Acts (Hades, not Gehenna). The English word "hell" is Anglo-Saxon from \helan\, to hide, and was used in the Authorized Version to translate both Hades as here and Gehenna as in strkjv@Matthew:5:22|. {Thy Holy One} (\ton hosion sou\). Peter applies these words to the Messiah. {Corruption} (\diaphthoran\). The word can mean destruction or putrefaction from \diaphtheir“\, old word, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:13:34-37|. The Hebrew word in strkjv@Psalms:16| can mean also the pit or the deep.

rwp@Acts:2:32 @{This Jesus} (\touton ton Iˆsoun\). Many of the name "Jesus," but he means the one already called "the Nazarene" (verse 22|) and foretold as the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:16| and raised from the dead by God in proof that he is the Messiah (2:24,32|), "this Jesus whom ye crucified" (verse 36|). Other terms used of him in the Acts are the Messiah, verse 31|, the one whom God "anointed" (Acts:10:38|), as in strkjv@John:1:41|, Jesus Christ (9:34|). In strkjv@2:36| God made this Jesus Messiah, in strkjv@3:20| the Messiah Jesus, in strkjv@17:3| Jesus is the Messiah, in strkjv@18:5| the Messiah is Jesus, in strkjv@24:24| Christ Jesus. {Whereof} (\hou\). Or "of whom." Either makes sense and both are true. Peter claims the whole 120 as personal witnesses to the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead and they are all present as Peter calls them to witness on the point. In Galilee over 500 had seen the Risen Christ at one time (1Corinthians:15:6|) most of whom were still living when Paul wrote. Thus the direct evidence for the resurrection of Jesus piles up in cumulative force.

rwp@Acts:3:13 @{His servant Jesus} (\ton paida Iˆsoun\). This phrase occurs in strkjv@Isaiah:42:1; strkjv@52:13| about the Messiah except the name "Jesus" which Peter adds, the first part of the quotation is from strkjv@Exodus:3:6; strkjv@5:30|. The LXX translated the Hebrew _ebhedh_ by \pais\, the servant of Jehovah being a Messianic designation. But the phrase "servant of God" (\pais theou\) is applied also to Israel (Luke:1:54|) and to David (Luke:1:69; strkjv@Acts:4:25|). Paul terms himself \doulos theou\ (Titus:1:1|). \Pais\ is just child (boy or girl), and it was also used of a slave (Matthew:8:6,8,13|). But it is not here \huios\ (son) that Peter uses, but \pais\. Luke quotes Peter as using it again in this Messianic sense in strkjv@Acts:3:26; strkjv@4:27,30|. {Whom ye delivered up} (\hon humeis men pared“kate\). Note emphatic use of \humeis\ (ye). No \de\ to correspond to \men\. First aorist active (\k\ aorist) plural indicative of \paradid“mi\ (usual form \paredote\, second aorist). {When he} (\ekeinou\). Emphatic pronoun, that one, in contrast with "ye" (\humeis\), genitive absolute with \krinantos\, here the nearest word (Pilate), the latter.

rwp@Acts:5:38 @{Refrain from} (\apostˆte apo\). Second aorist (ingressive) active imperative of \aphistˆmi\ of verse 37|. Do ye stand off from these men. "Hands off" was the policy of Gamaliel. {For if--be} (\hoti ean--ˆi\). \Hoti\ gives the reason for the advice. Gamaliel presents two alternatives in terms of two conditional clauses. The first one is stated as a condition of the third class, \ean\ with the present subjunctive \ˆi\, undetermined with prospect of determination. Assuming that it is from men, "it will be overthrown" (\kataluthˆsetai\, first future passive of \katalu“\, to loosen down like a falling house) as was true of the following of Theudas and Judas the Galilean.

rwp@Acts:8:3 @{Laid waste} (\elumaineto\). Imperfect middle of \lumainomai\, old verb (from \lumˆ\, injury), to dishonour, defile, devastate, ruin. Only here in the N.T. Like the laying waste of a vineyard by a wild boar (Psalms:79:13|). Picturesque description of the havoc carried on by Saul now the leader in the persecution. He is victor over Stephen now who had probably worsted him in debate in the Cilician synagogue in Jerusalem. {Into every house} (\kata tous oikous\). But Luke terms it "the church" (\tˆn ekklˆsian\). Plainly not just an "assembly," but an organized body that was still "the church" when scattered in their own homes, "an unassembled assembly" according to the etymology. Words do not remain by the etymology, but travel on with usage. {Haling} (\sur“n\). Literally, dragging forcibly (=hauling). Present active participle of \sur“\, old verb. {Men and women} (\andras kai gunaikas\). A new feature of the persecution that includes the women. They met it bravely as through all the ages since (cf. strkjv@9:2; strkjv@22:4|). This fact will be a bitter memory for Paul always. {Committed} (\paredidou\). Imperfect active of \paradid“mi\, old verb, kept on handing them over to prison.

rwp@Acts:9:4 @{He fell upon the earth} (\pes“n epi tˆn gˆn\). Second aorist active participle. Songs:in strkjv@22:7| Paul says: "I fell unto the ground" (\epesa eis to edaphos\) using an old word rather than the common \gˆn\. In strkjv@26:14| Paul states that "we were all fallen to the earth" (\pant“n katapesont“n hˆm“n eis tˆn gˆn\, genitive absolute construction). But here in verse 7| "the men that journeyed with him stood speechless" (\histˆkeisan eneoi\). But surely the points of time are different. In strkjv@26:14| Paul refers to the first appearance of the vision when all fell to the earth. Here in verse 7| Luke refers to what occurred after the vision when both Saul and the men had risen from the ground. {Saul, Saul} (\Saoul, Saoul\). The Hebrew form occurs also in strkjv@22:7; strkjv@26:14| where it is expressly stated that the voice was in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue as also in strkjv@9:17| (Ananias). Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 316) terms this use of \Saoul\ "the historian's sense of liturgical rhythm." For the repetition of names by Jesus note strkjv@Luke:10:41| (Martha, Martha), strkjv@Luke:22:31| (Simon, Simon). {Me} (\me\). In persecuting the disciples, Saul was persecuting Jesus, as the words of Jesus in verse 5| made plain. Christ had already spoken of the mystic union between himself and his followers (Matthew:10:40; strkjv@25:40,45; strkjv@John:15:1-5|). The proverb (Pindar) that Jesus quotes to Saul about kicking against the goad is genuine in strkjv@26:14|, but not here.

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

rwp@Acts:19:27 @{This our trade} (\touto to meros\). Part, share, task, job, trade. {Come into disrepute} (\eis apelegmon elthein\). Not in the old writers, but in LXX and _Koin‚_. Literally, reputation, exposure, censure, rejection after examination, and so disrepute. Their business of making gods would lose caste as the liquor trade (still called the trade in England) has done in our day. They felt this keenly and so Demetrius names it first. They felt it in their pockets. {Of the great goddess Artemis} (\tˆs megalˆs theas Artemidos\). She was generally known as the Great (\hˆ Megalˆ\). An inscription found at Ephesus calls her "the greatest god" (\hˆ megistˆ theos\). The priests were eunuchs and there were virgin priestesses and a lower order of slaves known as temple-sweepers (\ne“koroi\, verse 35|). They had wild orgiastic exercises that were disgraceful with their Corybantic processions and revelries. {Be made of no account} (\eis outhen logisthˆnai\). Be reckoned as nothing, first aorist passive infinitive of \logizomai\ and \eis\. {Should even be deposed of her magnificence} (\mellein te kai kathaireisthai tˆs megaleiotˆtos autˆs\). Note the present infinitive after \mellein\, ablative case (so best MSS.) after \kathaire“\, to take down, to depose, to deprive of. The word \megaleiotˆs\ occurs also in strkjv@Luke:9:43| (the majesty of God) and in strkjv@2Peter:1:16| of the transfiguration of Christ. It is already in the LXX and Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 363) thinks that the word runs parallel with terms used in the emperor-cult. {All Asia and the world} \holˆ (hˆ) Asia kai (hˆ) oikoumenˆ\. See strkjv@11:28| for same use of \oikoumenˆ\. An exaggeration, to be sure, but Pausanias says that no deity was more widely worshipped. Temples of Artemis have been found in Spain and Gaul. _Multitudo errantium non efficit veritatem_ (Bengel). Even today heathenism has more followers than Christianity. To think that all this splendour was being set at naught by one man and a despised Jew at that!

rwp@Acts:20:15 @{We came over against Chios} (\katˆntˆsamen antikrus Chiou\). Luke uses this _Koin‚_ verb several times (16:1; strkjv@18:19|), meaning to come right down in front of and the notion of \anta\ is made plainer by \antikrus\, face to face with, common "improper" preposition only here in the N.T. They probably lay off the coast (anchoring) during the night instead of putting into the harbour. The Island of Chios is about eight miles from the mainland. {The next day} (\tˆi heterƒi\). The third day in reality from Assos (the fourth from Troas), in contrast with \tˆi epiousˆi\ just before for Chios. {We touched at Samos} (\parebalomen eis Samon\). Second aorist active of \paraball“\, to throw alongside, to cross over, to put in by. Songs:Thucydides III. 32. Only here in the N.T. though in Textus Receptus in strkjv@Mark:4:30|. The word parable (\parabolˆ\) is from this verb. The Textus Receptus adds here \kai meinantes en Trogulli“i\ (and remaining at Trogyllium), but clearly not genuine. In passing from Chios to Samos they sailed past Ephesus to save time for Pentecost in Jerusalem (verse 16|), if in control of the ship, or because the captain allowed Paul to have his way. The island of Samos is still further down the coast below Chios. It is not stated whether a stop was made here or not. {The day after} (\tˆi echomenˆi\). The day holding itself next to the one before. Note Luke's three terms in this verse (\tˆi epiousˆi, tˆi heterƒi, tˆi echomenˆi\). This would be the fourth from Assos. {To Miletus} (\eis Milˆton\). About 28 miles south of Ephesus and now the site is several miles from the sea due to the silt from the Maeander. This city, once the chief city of the Ionian Greeks, was now quite eclipsed by Ephesus.

rwp@Acts:20:17 @{Called to him} (\metekalesato\). Aorist middle (indirect) indicative of \metakale“\, old verb to call from one place to another (\meta\ for "change"), middle to call to oneself, only in Acts in the N.T. (7:14; strkjv@10:32; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@24:25|). Ephesus was some thirty miles, a stiff day's journey each way. They would be with Paul the third day of the stay in Miletus. {The elders of the church} (\tous presbuterous tˆs ekklˆsias\). The very men whom Paul terms "bishops" (\episkopous\) in verse 28| just as in strkjv@Titus:1:5,7| where both terms (\presbuterous, ton episkopon\) describe the same office. The term "elder" applied to Christian ministers first appears in strkjv@Acts:11:30| in Jerusalem and reappears in strkjv@15:4,6,22| in connection with the apostles and the church. The "elders" are not "apostles" but are "bishops" (cf. strkjv@Phillipians:1:1|) and with "deacons" constitute the two classes of officers in the early churches. Ignatius shows that in the early second century the office of bishop over the elders had developed, but Lightfoot has shown that it was not so in the first century. Each church, as in Jerusalem, Philippi, Ephesus, had a number of "elders" ("bishops") in the one great city church. Hackett thinks that other ministers from the neighbourhood also came. It was a noble group of preachers and Paul, the greatest preacher of the ages, makes a remarkable talk to preachers with all the earmarks of Pauline originality (Spitta, _Apostelgeschichte_, p. 252) as shown by the characteristic Pauline words, phrases, ideas current in all his Epistles including the Pastoral (testify, course, pure, take heed, presbyter, bishop, acquire, apparel). Luke heard this address as he may and probably did hear those in Jerusalem and Caesarea (Acts:21-26|). Furneaux suggests that Luke probably took shorthand notes of the address since Galen says that his students took down his medical lectures in shorthand: "At any rate, of all the speeches in the Acts this contains most of Paul and least of Luke.... It reveals Paul as nothing else does. The man who spoke it is no longer a man of eighteen centuries ago: he is of yesterday; of today. He speaks as we speak and feels as we feel; or rather as we fain would speak and feel." We have seen and listened to Paul speak to the Jews in Antioch in Pisidia as Luke pictures the scene, to the uneducated pagans at Lystra, to the cultured Greeks in Athens. We shall hear him plead for his life to the Jewish mob in Jerusalem, to the Roman governor Felix in Caesarea, to the Jewish "King" Herod Agrippa II in Caesarea, and at last to the Jews in Rome. But here Paul unbosoms himself to the ministers of the church in Ephesus where he had spent three years (longer than with any other church) and where he had such varied experiences of prowess and persecution. He opens his heart to these men as he does not to the average crowd even of believers. It is Paul's _Apologia pro sua Vita_. He will probably not see them again and so the outlook and attitude is similar to the farewell discourse of Jesus to the disciples in the upper room (John:13-17|). He warns them about future perils as Jesus had done. Paul's words here will repay any preacher's study today. There is the same high conception of the ministry here that Paul had already elaborated in strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12-6:10| (see my _Glory of the Ministry_). It is a fitting time and occasion for Paul to take stock of his ministry at the close of the third mission tour. What wonders had God wrought already.

rwp@Acts:21:3 @{When we had come in sight of Cyprus} (\anaphanantes tˆn Kupron\). First aorist active participle of \anaphain“\ (Doric form \-phanƒntes\ rather than the Attic \-phˆnantes\), old verb to make appear, bring to light, to manifest. Having made Cyprus visible or rise up out of the sea. Nautical terms. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:11| which see. {On the left hand} (\eu“numon\). Compound feminine adjective like masculine. They sailed south of Cyprus. {We sailed} (\epleomen\). Imperfect active of common verb \ple“\, kept on sailing till we came to Syria. {Landed at Tyre} (\katˆlthomen eis Turon\). Came down to Tyre. Then a free city of Syria in honour of its former greatness (cf. the long siege by Alexander the Great). {There} (\ekeise\). Thither, literally. Only one other instance in N.T., strkjv@22:5| which may be pertinent = \ekei\ (there). {Was to unlade} (\ˆn apophortizomenon\). Periphrastic imperfect middle of \apophortiz“\, late verb from \apo\ and \phortos\, load, but here only in the N.T. Literally, "For thither the boat was unloading her cargo," a sort of "customary" or "progressive" imperfect (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 884). {Burden} (\gomon\). Cargo, old word, from \gem“\, to be full. Only here and strkjv@Revelation:18:11f.| in N.T. Probably a grain or fruit ship. It took seven days here to unload and reload.

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

rwp@Acts:28:6 @{But they expected} (\hoi de prosedok“n\). Imperfect active, were expecting, continued to expect. {That he would have swollen} (\auton mellein pimprasthai\). More exactly, "Expecting him to be about (or that he was about) to swell up." \Pimprasthai\ is present middle infinitive from \pimprˆmi\, to blow, to burn, to inflame, to cause to swell. \Prˆth“\, to swell, seems connected and both use the aorist \eprˆsa\. Our word "inflammation" likewise means a burning and a swelling. This verb is a common medical term used as Luke has it. It occurs here only in N.T. {Or fallen down dead suddenly} (\ˆ katapiptein aphn“ nekron\). Rather, "or was about to fall down dead suddenly." The two common results of a bite by a viper or other poisonous snake, both medical terms used by Luke. {But when they were long in expectation} (\epi polu de aut“n prosdok“nt“n\). Genitive absolute. "But while they were expecting for much time." {Nothing amiss come to him} (\mˆden atopon eis auton ginomenon\). "Nothing out of place coming to him" (present middle participle). \Mˆden\ the usual negative of the participle and the accusative case the object of \the“rount“n\ (genitive absolute). {Changed their minds} (\metabalomenoi\). Aorist middle (direct) participle of \metaball“\, old verb to turn about or around, turning themselves about, changing their minds. Plato uses this very verb in middle voice for changing the mind. {That he was a god} (\auton einai theon\). Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse. At Lystra Paul was first received as a god (Mercury) and then they stoned him to kill him (Acts:14:11,19|). Songs:fickle is popular favour.

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

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ GENERAL EPISTLES BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION NOT A HAPPY TITLE There are various explanations of the term catholic (\katholikai epistolai\) as applied to this group of seven short letters by four writers (one by James, two by Peter, one by Jude, three by John). The Latin for \katholikos\ is _generalis_, though the Vulgate terms these letters _Catholicae_. The meaning is not orthodox as opposed to heretical or canonical, though they are sometimes termed \Epistolae canonicae\. As a matter of fact five of the seven (all but First Peter and First John) Eusebius placed among the "disputed" (\antilegomena\) books of the New Testament. "A canonical book is primarily one which has been measured and tested, and secondarily that which is itself a measure or standard" (Alfred Plummer). Canon is from \kan“n\ (cane) and is like a yardstick cut to the right measure and then used as a measure. Some see in the term \katholikos\ the idea that these Epistles are meant for both Jews and Gentiles, but the Epistle of James seems addressed to Jewish Christians. There were two other chief groups of New Testament writings in the old Greek manuscripts (the Gospels and Acts, then the Epistles of Paul). This group of seven Epistles and the Apocalypse constitute the remainder of the New Testament. The usual interpretation of the term \katholikos\ here is that these seven Epistles were not addressed to any particular church, but are general in their distribution. This is clearly true of I Peter, as is shown by the language in strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, where seven Roman provinces are mentioned. The language of strkjv@2Peter:3:1| bears the same idea. Apparently the Epistle of Jude:is general also as is I John. But II John is addressed to "an elect lady" (verse strkjv@2John:1:1|) and III John to Gaius (verse strkjv@3John:1:1|), both of them individuals, and therefore in no sense are these two brief letters general or catholic. The earliest instance of the word \katholikos\ is in an inscription (B.C. 6) with the meaning "general" (\tˆi katholikˆi mou prothesei\, my general purpose). It was common after that. The earliest example of it in Christian literature is in Ignatius' Epistle to the Church of Smyrna (VIII) where he has "the catholic church" (\hˆ katholikˆ ekklˆsia\), "the general church," not a local body. Clement of Alexandria (_Strom_. IV. xv) applies this adjective to the letter sent to the Gentile Christians "in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" from the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:23|).

rwp@Galatians:2:4 @{But because of the false brethren privately brought in} (\dia de tous pareisaktous pseudadelphous\). Late verbal adjective \pareisaktos\ from the double compound verb \pareisag“\, found in papyri in the sense of brought in by the side or on the sly as here. Evidently some of the Judaizers or sympathizers whom Paul had not invited had come in as often happens. Paul terms them "false brethren" like "the false apostles" in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13| of the Judaizers in Corinth. {Who came in privily} (\hoitines pareisˆlthon\). Repetition of the charge of their slipping in unwanted (\pareiserchomai\, late double compound, in Plutarch, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:5:20|). {To spy out} (\kataskopˆsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \kataskope“\, old Greek verb from \kataskopos\, a spy, to reconnoitre, to make a treacherous investigation. {That they might bring us into bondage} (\hina hˆmas katadoul“sousin\). Future active indicative of this old compound, to enslave completely (\kata-\) as in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:20|. Nowhere else in N.T. This was their purpose (\hina\ and future active indicative of this causative verb). It was as serious a conflict as this. Spiritual liberty or spiritual bondage, which?

rwp@Galatians:2:16 @{Is not justified} (\ou dikaioutai\). Present passive indicative of \dikaio“\, an old causative verb from \dikaios\, righteous (from \dike\, right), to make righteous, to declare righteous. It is made like \axio“\, to deem worthy, and \koino“\, to consider common. It is one of the great Pauline words along with \dikaiosunˆ\, righteousness. The two ways of getting right with God are here set forth: by faith in Christ Jesus (objective genitive), by the works of the law (by keeping all the law in the most minute fashion, the way of the Pharisees). Paul knew them both (see strkjv@Romans:7|). In his first recorded sermon the same contrast is made that we have here (Acts:13:39|) with the same word \dikaio“\, employed. It is the heart of his message in all his Epistles. The terms faith (\pistis\), righteousness (\dikaiosunˆ\), law (\nomos\), works (\erga\) occur more frequently in Galatians and Romans because Paul is dealing directly with the problem in opposition to the Judaizers who contended that Gentiles had to become Jews to be saved. The whole issue is here in an acute form. {Save} (\ean mˆ\). Except. {Even we} (\kai hˆmeis\). We Jews believed, had to believe, were not saved or justified till we did believe. This very point Peter had made at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:10f.|). He quotes strkjv@Psalms:143:2|. Paul uses \dikaiosunˆ\ in two senses (1) Justification, on the basis of what Christ has done and obtained by faith. Thus we are set right with God. strkjv@Romans:1-5|. (2) Sanctification. Actual goodness as the result of living with and for Christ. strkjv@Romans:6-8|. The same plan exists for Jew and Gentile.

rwp@Galatians:4:2 @{Under guardians} (\hupo epitropous\). Old word from \epitrep“\, to commit, to intrust. Songs:either an overseer (Matthew:20:8|) or one in charge of children as here. It is common as the guardian of an orphan minor. Frequent in the papyri as guardian of minors. {Stewards} (\oikonomous\). Old word for manager of a household whether freeborn or slave. See strkjv@Luke:12:42; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:2|. Papyri show it as manager of an estate and also as treasurer like strkjv@Romans:16:23|. No example is known where this word is used of one in charge of a minor and no other where both occur together. {Until the time appointed of the father} (\achri tˆs prothesmias tou patros\). Supply \hˆmeras\ (day), for \prothesmios\ is an old adjective "appointed beforehand" (\pro, thesmos\, from \tithˆmi\). Under Roman law the _tutor_ had charge of the child till he was fourteen when the curator took charge of him till he was twenty-five. Ramsay notes that in Graeco-Phrygia cities the same law existed except that the father in Syria appointed both tutor and curator whereas the Roman father appointed only the tutor. Burton argues plausibly that no such legal distinction is meant by Paul, but that the terms here designate two functions of one person. The point does not disturb Paul's illustration at all.

rwp@Galatians:4:8 @{To them which by nature are not gods} (\tois phusei mˆ ousi theois\). In strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20| he terms them "demons," the "so-called gods" (1Corinthians:8:5|), worshipping images made by hands (Acts:17:29|).

rwp@Galatians:6:5 @{Each shall bear his own burden} (\to idion phortion bastasei\). \Phortion\ is old word for ship's cargo (Acts:27:10|). Christ calls his \phortion\ light, though he terms those of the Pharisees heavy (Matthew:23:4|), meant for other people. The terms are thus not always kept distinct, though Paul does make a distinction here from the \barˆ\ in verse 2|.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE PURPOSE The author states it repeatedly. He urges the Jewish Christians to hold fast the confession which they have made in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Their Jewish neighbours have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism. The Judaizers tried to make Jews out of Gentile Christians and to fasten Judaism upon Christianity with a purely sacramental type of religion as the result. Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ over all these imaginary \aeons\ (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God's Son and man's Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms it "a profound homily."

rwp@Hebrews:4:14 @{A great high priest} (\archierea megan\). The author now takes up the main argument of the Epistle, already alluded to in strkjv@1:3; strkjv@2:17f.; strkjv@3:1|, the priestly work of Jesus as superior to that of the Levitical line (4:14-12:3|). Jesus is superior to the prophets (1:1-3|), to angels (1:4-2:18|), to Moses (3:1-4:13|), he has already shown. Here he only terms Jesus "great" as high priest (a frequent adjective with high priest in Philo) but the superiority comes out as he proceeds. {Who hath passed through the heavens} (\dielˆluthota tous ouranous\). Perfect active participle of \dierchomai\, state of completion. Jesus has passed through the upper heavens up to the throne of God (1:3|) where he performs his function as our high priest. This idea will be developed later (6:19f.; strkjv@7:26-28; strkjv@9:11f.,24f.|). {Jesus the Son of God} (\Iˆsoun ton huion tou theou\). The human name linked with his deity, clinching the argument already made (1:1-4:13|). {Let us hold fast our confession} (\krat“men tˆs homologias\). Present active volitive subjunctive of \krate“\, old verb (from \kratos\, power), with genitive to cling to tenaciously as here and strkjv@6:18| and also with the accusative (2Thessalonians:2:15; strkjv@Colossians:2:19|). "Let us keep on holding fast." This keynote runs all through the Epistle, the exhortation to the Jewish Christians to hold on to the confession (3:1|) of Christ already made. Before making the five points of Christ's superior priestly work (better priest than Aaron, strkjv@5:1-7:25|; under a better covenant, strkjv@8:1-13|; in a better sanctuary, strkjv@9:1-12|; offering a better sacrifice, strkjv@9:13-10:18|; based on better promises, strkjv@10:19-12:3|), the author gives a double exhortation (4:14-16|) like that in strkjv@2:1-4| to hold fast to the high priest (14f.|) and to make use of him (16|).

rwp@Hebrews:8:10 @{This} (\hautˆ\). The "new" one of verse 8|. {That I will make} (\hˆn diathˆsomai\). Future middle of \diatithˆmi\, "that I will covenant," cognate accusative (\hˆn\), using the same root in the verb as in \diathˆkˆ\. {I will put} (\didous\). "Giving," present active participle of \did“mi\, to give. {Into their mind} (\eis tˆn dianoian aut“n\). Their intellect, their moral understanding, all the intellect as in Aristotle (Colossians:1:21; strkjv@Ephesians:4:18|). {On their heart} (\epi kardias aut“n\). Either genitive singular or accusative plural. \Kardia\ is the seat of man's personal life (Westcott), the two terms covering the whole of man's inward nature. {A god} (\eis theon\). Note the Hebraistic use of \eis\ in the predicate instead of the usual nominative \theos\ as in "a people" (\eis laon\). This was the ideal of the old covenant (Exodus:6:7|), now at last to be a fact.

rwp@Hebrews:9:16 @{A testament} (\diathˆkˆ\). The same word occurs for covenant (verse 15|) and will (verse 16|). This double sense of the word is played upon also by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3:15f|. We say today "The New Testament" (_Novum Testamentum_) rather than " The New Covenant." Both terms are pertinent. {That made it} (\tou diathemenou\). Genitive of the articular second aorist middle participle of \diatithˆmi\ from which \diathˆkˆ\ comes. The notion of will here falls in with \klˆronomia\ (inheritance, strkjv@1Peter:1:4|) as well as with \thanatos\ (death). {Of force} (\bebaia\). Stable, firm as in strkjv@3:6,14|. {Where there hath been death} (\epi nekrois\). "In the case of dead people." A will is only operative then. {For doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?} (\epei mˆ pote ischuei hote zˆi ho diathemenos;\). This is a possible punctuation with \mˆ pote\ in a question (John:7:26|). Without the question mark, it is a positive statement of fact. Aleph and D read \tote\ (then) instead of \pote\. The use of \mˆ\ in a causal sentence is allowable (John:3:18|, \hoti mˆ\).

rwp@Info_James @ RECENT BOOKS ON JAMES Baljon, J. M. S., _Comm. op de katholieke brieven_ (1904). Bardenhewer, O., _Der Brief des hl. Jakobus_ (1928). Bartmann, _St. Paulus und St. Jakobus_. Belser, J. E., _Epistel des hl. Jakobus_ (1909). Beyschlag, W., _Der Brief des Jakobus_. Meyer Komm. 6 Aufl. (1898). Brown, Charles, _The General Epistle of James_. 2nd ed. (1907). Camerlinck, _Commentarius in epistolas catholicas_ (1909). Carpenter, W. Boyd, _The Wisdom of James the Just_ (1903). Carr, Arthur, _The General Epistle of James_. Cambridge Greek Testament. New ed. (1905). Chaine, J., _L Epitre de S. Jacques_ (1927). Dale, R. W., _Discourses on the Epistle of James (1895). Deems, C. F., _The Gospel of Common Sense_. Dibelius, _M., Meyer's Comm. 7 Aufl. (1921). Feine, _Der Jakobusbrief_, etc. (1893). Fitch, _James the Lord's Brother_. Gaugusch, L., _Der Lehrgehalt der Jakobus-epistel_ (1914). Grafe, _Stellung und Bedeutung des Jakobusbriefes_ (1904). Grosheide, F. W., _Deuteronomy:brief aan de Hebreen en de brief des Jakobus_ (1927). Hauck, F., _Der Br. d. Jak. in Zahn's Komm_. (1926). Hollmann, G., _Die Schriften d. N.T_. 3 Aufl. (1917). Holtzmann, O., _Das N.T. II_ (1926). Hort, F. J. A., _The Epistle of James as far as strkjv@4:7_ (1909). Huther, J. E., _Meyer's Komm_. 3 Aufl. (1870). Johnstone, R., _Lectures Exegetical and Practical_. 2nd ed. (1889). Knowling, R. J., _Comm. on the Epistle of St. James_ (1904). Westminster Series. Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. James_. 3rd ed. (1910). Meinertz, _Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser_ (1905). Meyer, A., _Das Ratsel des Jak_. (1930). Moffatt, James, _The General Epistles (James, Peter, and Judas_) (1928). Osterley, W. E., _The Epistle of St. James_. Expos. Gk. Test. (1910). Parry, J., _The General Epistle of James_ (1904). Patrick, W., _James, the Lord's Brother_ (1906). Plummer, A., _The General Epistle of St. James_. Expos. Bible (1891). Rendall, G. H., _The Epistle of St. James and Judaic Chris- tianity_ (1927). Robertson, A. T., _Studies in the Epistle of James_. 3rd ed. (1923). First in 1915 as _Pract. and Social Aspects of Christianity_. Ropes, J. H., _A Crit. and Exeget. Comm. on the Epistle of St. James_. Int. and Crit. Comm. (1916). Smith, H. M., _The Epistle of James_ (1925). Soden, H. Von, _Der Brief des Jakobus_. Hand-Comm. (1893). Spitta, F., _Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht_ (1896). Taylor, J. F., _The Apostle of Patience_ (1907). Weiss, B., _Die Katholische Briefe_ (1902). _Der Jakobusbrief und die neuere Kritik_ (1904). Windisch, H., _Die Katholische Briefe. Handbuch Zum N.T._, 2 Aufl. (1930). strkjv@James:1:1 @{James} (\Iak“bos\). Grecised form (nominative absolute) of the Hebrew \Iak“b\ (so LXX). Common name among the Jews, and this man in Josephus (_Ant_. XX.9.1) and three others of this name in Josephus also. {Servant} (\doulos\). Bond-servant or slave as Paul (Romans:1:1; strkjv@Phillipians:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|). {Of the Lord Jesus Christ} (\kuriou Iˆsou Christou\). Here on a par with God (\theou\) and calls himself not \adelphos\ (brother) of Jesus, but \doulos\. The three terms here as in strkjv@2:1| have their full significance: Jesus is the Messiah and Lord. James is not an Ebionite. He accepts the deity of Jesus his brother, difficult as it was for him to do so. The word \kurios\ is frequent in the LXX for _Elohim_ and _Jahweh_ as the Romans applied it to the emperor in their emperor worship. See strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| for \Kurios Iˆsous\ and strkjv@Phillipians:2:11| for \Kurios Iˆsous Christos\. {To the twelve tribes} (\tais d“deka phulais\). Dative case. The expression means "Israel in its fulness and completeness" (Hort), regarded as a unity (Acts:26:7|) with no conception of any "lost" tribes. {Which are of the Dispersion} (\tais en tˆi diasporƒi\). "Those in the Dispersion" (repeated article). The term appears in strkjv@Deuteronomy:28:25| (LXX) and comes from \diaspeir“\, to scatter (sow) abroad. In its literal sense we have it in strkjv@John:7:34|, but here and in strkjv@1Peter:1:1| Christian Jews are chiefly, if not wholly, in view. The Jews at this period were roughly divided into Palestinian Jews (chiefly agriculturists) and Jews of the Dispersion (dwellers in cities and mainly traders). In Palestine Aramaic was spoken as a rule, while in the Western Diaspora the language was Greek (_Koin‚_, LXX), though the Eastern Diaspora spoke Aramaic and Syriac. The Jews of the Diaspora were compelled to compare their religion with the various cults around them (comparative religion) and had a wider outlook on life. James writes thus in cultural _Koin‚_ but in the Hebraic tone. {Greeting} (\chairein\). Absolute infinitive (present active of \chair“\) as in strkjv@Acts:15:23| (the Epistle to Antioch and the churches of Syria and Galatia). It is the usual idiom in the thousands of papyri letters known to us, but in no other New Testament letter. But note \chairein legete\ in strkjv@2John:1:10,11|.

rwp@James:2:1 @{My brethren} (\adelphoi mou\). Transition to a new topic as in strkjv@1:19; strkjv@2:5,14; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@5:7|. {Hold not} (\mˆ echete\). Present active imperative of \ech“\ with negative \mˆ\, exhortation to stop holding or not to have the habit of holding in the fashion condemned. {The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tˆn pistin tou kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). Clearly objective genitive, not subjective (faith of), but "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," like \echete pistin theou\ (Mark:11:22|), "have faith in God." See the same objective genitive with \pistis\ in strkjv@Acts:3:6; strkjv@Galatians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:3:22; strkjv@Revelation:14:12|. Note also the same combination as in strkjv@1:1| "our Lord Jesus Christ" (there on a par with God). {The Lord of Glory} (\tˆs doxˆs\). Simply "the Glory." No word for "Lord" (\kuriou\) in the Greek text. \Tˆs doxˆs\ clearly in apposition with \tou kuriou Iˆsou Christou\. James thus terms "our Lord Jesus Christ" the Shekinah Glory of God. See strkjv@Hebrews:9:5| for "the cherubim of Glory." Other New Testament passages where Jesus is pictured as the Glory are strkjv@Romans:9:4; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3|. Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {With respect of persons} (\en pros“polˆmpsiais\). A Christian word, like \pros“polˆmptˆs\ (Acts:10:34|) and \pros“polˆmpteite\ (James:2:9|), not in LXX or any previous Greek, but made from \pros“pon lambanein\ (Luke:20:21; strkjv@Galatians:2:6|), which is \a\ Hebrew idiom for _panim nasa_, "to lift up the face on a person," to be favorable and so partial to him. See \pros“polˆmpsia\ in this sense of partiality (respect of persons) in strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@Colossians:3:25; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9| (nowhere else in N.T.). Do not show partiality.

rwp@James:3:9 @{Therewith} (\en autˆi\). This instrumental use of \en\ is not merely Hebraistic, but appears in late _Koin‚_ writers (Moulton, _Prol._, pp. 11f., 61f.). See also strkjv@Romans:15:6|. {We bless} (\eulogoumen\). Present active indicative of \euloge“\, old verb from \eulogos\ (a good word, \eu, logos\), as in strkjv@Luke:1:64| of God. "This is the highest function of speech" (Hort). {The Lord and Father} (\ton kurion kai patera\). Both terms applied to God. {Curse we} (\katar“metha\). Present middle indicative of the old compound verb \kataraomai\, to curse (from \katara\ a curse), as in strkjv@Luke:6:28|. {Which are made after the likeness of God} (\tous kath' homoi“sin theou gegonotas\). Second perfect articular participle of \ginomai\ and \homoi“sis\, old word from \homoio“\ (to make like), making like, here only in N.T. (from strkjv@Genesis:1:26; strkjv@9:6|), the usual word being \homoi“ma\, resemblance (Phillipians:2:7|). It is this image of God which sets man above the beasts. Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18|.

rwp@James:3:13 @{Who} (\Tis\). Rhetorical interrogative like strkjv@Luke:11:11|. Common in Paul and characteristic of the diatribe. James here returns to the standpoint of verse 1| about many teachers. Speech and wisdom are both liable to abuse (1Corinthians:1:5,17; strkjv@2:1-3:20|). {Wise and understanding} (\sophos kai epistˆm“n\). \Sophos\ is used for the practical teacher (verse 1|), \epistˆm“n\ (old word from \epistamai\, here only in N.T.) for an expert, a skilled and scientific person with a tone of superiority. In strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:13,15; strkjv@4:6|, the two terms are practically synonyms. {Let him shew} (\deixat“\). First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, old verb to show. As about faith in strkjv@2:18|. Emphatic position of this verb. {By his good life} (\ek tˆs kalˆs anastrophˆs\). For this literary _Koin‚_ word from \anastrephomai\ (walk, conduct) see strkjv@Galatians:1:13|. Actions speak louder than words even in the case of the professional wise man. Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:15|. {In meekness of wisdom} (\en prautˆti sophias\). As in strkjv@1:21| of the listener, so here of the teacher. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:5:5; strkjv@11:29| and Zac strkjv@9:9| of King Messiah quoted in strkjv@Matthew:21:5|. Startling combination.

rwp@James:5:7 @{Be patient therefore} (\makrothumˆsate oun\). A direct corollary (\oun\, therefore) from the coming judgment on the wicked rich (5:1-6|). First aorist (constative) active imperative of \makrothume“\, late compound (Plutarch, LXX) from \makrothumos\ (\makros, thumos\, of long spirit, not losing heart), as in strkjv@Matthew:18:26|. The appeal is to the oppressed brethren. Catch your wind for a long race (long-tempered as opposed to short-tempered). See already the exhortation to patience (\hupomonˆ\) in strkjv@1:3f.,12| and repeated in strkjv@5:11|. They will need both submission (\hupomen“\ strkjv@5:11|) and steadfastness (\makrothumia\ strkjv@5:10|). {Until the coming of the Lord} (\he“s tˆs parousias\). The second coming of Christ he means, the regular phrase here and in verse 8| for that idea (Matthew:24:3,37,39; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:19|, etc.). {The husbandman} (\ho ge“rgos\). The worker in the ground (\gˆ, erg“\) as in strkjv@Matthew:21:33f|. {Waiteth for} (\ekdechetai\). Present middle indicative of \ekdechomai\, old verb for eager expectation as in strkjv@Acts:17:16|. {Precious} (\timion\). Old adjective from \timˆ\ (honor, price), dear to the farmer because of his toil for it. See strkjv@1Peter:1:19|. {Being patient over it} (\makrothum“n ep' aut“i\). Present active participle of \makrothume“\ just used in the exhortation, picturing the farmer longing and hoping over his precious crop (cf. strkjv@Luke:18:7| of God). {Until it receive} (\he“s labˆi\). Temporal clause of the future with \he“s\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \lamban“\, vividly describing the farmer's hopes and patience. {The early and latter rain} (\pro‹mon kai opsimon\). The word for rain (\hueton\ strkjv@Acts:14:17|) is absent from the best MSS. The adjective \pro‹mos\ (from \pr“‹\, early) occurs here only in N.T., though old in the form \pro‹mos\ and \pr“‹s\. See strkjv@Deuteronomy:11:14; strkjv@Jeremiah:5:24|, etc. for these terms for the early rain in October or November for the germination of the grain, and the latter rain (\opsimon\, from \opse\, late, here only in N.T.) in April and May for maturing the grain.

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

rwp@Info_John @ 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:1:16 @{For} (\hoti\). Correct text (Aleph B C D L) and not \kai\ (and) of the Textus Receptus. Explanatory reason for verse 14|. {Of his fulness} (\ek tou plˆr“matos\). The only instance of \plˆr“ma\ in John's writings, though five times of Christ in Paul's Epistles (Colossians:1:19; strkjv@2:9; strkjv@Ephesians:1:23; strkjv@3:19; strkjv@4:13|). See strkjv@Colossians:1:19| for discussion of these terms of the Gnostics that Paul employs for all the attributes of God summed up in Christ (Colossians:2:9|) and so used here by John of the Incarnate Logos. {We all} (\hˆmeis pantes\). John is facing the same Gnostic depreciation of Christ of which Paul writes in Colossians. Songs:here John appeals to all his own contemporaries as participants with him in the fulness of the Logos. {Received} (\elabomen\). Second aorist active indicative of \lamban“\, a wider experience than beholding (\etheasametha\, verse 14|) and one that all believers may have. {Grace for grace} (\charin anti charitos\). The point is in \anti\, a preposition disappearing in the _Koin‚_ and here only in John. It is in the locative case of \anta\ (end), "at the end," and was used of exchange in sale. See strkjv@Luke:11:11|, \anti ichthuos ophin\, "a serpent for a fish," strkjv@Hebrews:12:2| where "joy" and "cross" are balanced against each other. Here the picture is "grace" taking the place of "grace" like the manna fresh each morning, new grace for the new day and the new service.

rwp@John:1:17 @{Was given} (\edothˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \did“mi\. {By Moses} (\dia M“use“s\). "Through Moses" as the intermediate agent of God. {Came} (\egeneto\). The historical event, the beginning of Christianity. {By Jesus Christ} (\dia Iˆsou Christou\). "Through Jesus Christ," the intermediate agent of God the Father. Here in plain terms John identifies the Pre-incarnate Logos with Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. The full historical name "Jesus Christ" is here for the first time in John. See also strkjv@17:3| and four times in 1John and five times in Revelation. Without Christ there would have been no Christianity. John's theology is here pictured by the words "grace and truth" (\hˆ charis kai hˆ alˆtheia\), each with the article and each supplementary to the other. It is grace in contrast with law as Paul sets forth in Galatians and Romans. Paul had made grace "a Christian commonplace" (Bernard) before John wrote. It is truth as opposed to Gnostic and all other heresy as Paul shows in Colossians and Ephesians. The two words aptly describe two aspects of the Logos and John drops the use of \Logos\ and \charis\, but clings to \alˆtheia\ (see strkjv@8:32| for the freedom brought by truth), though the ideas in these three words run all through his Gospel.

rwp@John:1:45 @{Philip findeth} (\heuriskei Philippos\). Dramatic present again. Philip carries on the work. One wins one. If that glorious beginning had only kept on! Now it takes a hundred to win one. {Nathaniel} (\ton Nathanaˆl\). It is a Hebrew name meaning "God has given" like the Greek \Theodore\ (Gift of God). He was from Cana of Galilee (John:21:2|), not far from Bethsaida and so known to Philip. His name does not occur in the Synoptics while Bartholomew (a patronymic, _Bar Tholmai_) does not appear in John. They are almost certainly two names of the same man. Philip uses \heurˆkamen\ (verse 41|) also to Nathanael and so unites himself with the circle of believers, but instead of \Messian\ describes him "of whom (\hon\ accusative with \egrapsen\) Moses in the law (Deuteronomy:18:15|) and the prophets (so the whole O.T. as in strkjv@Luke:24:27,44|) did write." {Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph} (\Iˆsoun huion tou I“sˆph ton apo Nazaret\). More exactly, "Jesus, son of Joseph, the one from Nazareth." Jesus passed as son (no article in the Greek) of Joseph, though John has just described him as "God-only Begotten" in verse 18|, but certainly Philip could not know this. Bernard terms this part "the irony of St. John" for he is sure that his readers will agree with him as to the real deity of Jesus Christ. These details were probably meant to interest Nathanael.

rwp@John:6:29 @{The work of God that ye believe} (\to ergon tou theou hina pisteuˆte\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3| Paul speaks of "your work of faith" (\hum“n tou ergou tˆs piste“s\). Songs:here Jesus terms belief in him as the work of God. These Jews were thinking of various deeds of the Pharisaic type and rules. Jesus turns their minds to the central fact. "This simple formula contains the complete solution of the relation of faith and works" (Westcott). Note the present active subjunctive \pisteuˆte\, "that ye may keep on believing." {On him whom he hath sent} (\eis hon apesteilen ekeinos\). The pronominal antecedent (\eis touton hon\) is omitted and the preposition \eis\ is retained with the relative \hon\ really the direct object of \apesteilen\ (sent). Note \ekeinos\ for God (emphatic he).

rwp@John:8:10 @{Lifted up himself} (\anakupsas\). First aorist active participle of \anakupt“\ as in verse 7|. {Where are they?} (\Pou eisin;\). Jesus had kept on writing on the ground as the accusers had slipped away one by one. {Did no man condemn thee?} (\oudeis se katekrinen;\). First aorist active indicative of \katakrin“\, old and common verb to give judgment against (down on) one, but not in John. No one dared to cast a stone at the woman on Christ's terms.

rwp@John:11:3 @{Sent saying} (\apesteilan legousai\). First aorist active indicative of \apostell“\ and present active participle. The message was delivered by the messenger. {Thou lovest} (\phileis\). \Phile“\ means to love as a friend (see \philos\ in verse 11|) and so warmly, while \agapa“\ (akin to \agamai\, to admire, and \agathos\, good) means high regard. Here both terms occur of the love of Jesus for Lazarus (\ˆgapa\ in verse 5|). Both occur of the Father's love for the Son (\agapƒi\ in strkjv@3:35|, \philei\ in strkjv@5:20|). Hence the distinction is not always observed.

rwp@John:12:9 @{The common people} (\ho ochlos polus\). This is the right reading with the article \ho\, literally, "the people much or in large numbers." One is reminded of the French idiom. Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 284) gives a few rare examples of the idiom \ho anˆr agathos\. Westcott suggests that \ochlos polus\ came to be regarded as a compound noun. This is the usual order in the N.T. rather than \polus ochlos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 774). Mark (Mark:12:37|) has \ho polus ochlos\. Moulton (_Proleg_., p. 84) terms \ho ochlos polus\ here and in verse 12| "a curious misplacement of the article." John's use of \ochlos\ is usually the common crowd as "riff-raff." {That he was} (\hoti estin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse after the secondary tense (\egn“\, second aorist active indicative of \gin“sk“\). These "Jews" are not all hostile to Jesus as in strkjv@5:10; strkjv@6:41|, etc., but included some who were friendly (verse 11|). {But that they might see Lazarus also} (\all' hina kai ton Lazaron id“sin\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \hora“\. Motive enough to gather a great crowd, to see one raised from the dead (cf. verse 1| for the same phrase, "whom he had raised from the dead"). Some of the very witnesses of the raising of Lazarus will bear witness later (verse 17|). It was a tense situation.

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

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

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

rwp@John:19:18 @{They crucified} (\estaur“san\). The soldiers just as in strkjv@Acts:22:24f.|; the scourging of Paul was to be done by the soldiers. {And Jesus in the midst} (\meson de ton Iˆsoun\). Predicate adjective \meson\. A robber (\lˆistˆs\, not a thief, \kleptˆs\) was on each side of Jesus (Mark:15:27; strkjv@Matthew:27:38|) like Barabbas (John:18:40|) and probably members of his band, malefactors (\kakourgoi\) Luke terms them (Luke:23:32|).

rwp@John:20:23 @{Whosesoever sins ye forgive} (\an tin“n aphˆte tas hamartias\). "If the sins of any ye forgive" (\aphˆte\, second aorist active subjunctive with \an\ in the sense of \ean\), a condition of the third class. Precisely so with "retain" (\kratˆte\, present active subjunctive of \krate“\). {They are forgiven} (\aphe“ntai\). Perfect passive indicative of \aphiˆmi\, Doric perfect for \apheintai\. {Are retained} (\kekratˆntai\). Perfect passive indicative of \krate“\. The power to forgive sin belongs only to God, but Jesus claimed to have this power and right (Mark:2:5-7|). What he commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. There is no proof that he actually transferred to the apostles or their successors the power in and of themselves to forgive sins. In strkjv@Matthew:16:19; strkjv@18:18| we have a similar use of the rabbinical metaphor of binding and loosing by proclaiming and teaching. Jesus put into the hands of Peter and of all believers the keys of the Kingdom which we should use to open the door for those who wish to enter. This glorious promise applies to all believers who will tell the story of Christ's love for men.

rwp@John:20:25 @{We have seen the Lord} (\he“rakamen ton kurion\). The very language in the plural that Mary Magdalene had used (20:18|) when no one believed her. {Except I shall see} (\ean mˆ id“\). Negative condition of third class with \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive and so as to \bal“\ (from \ball“\) "and put." {The print} (\ton tupon\). The mark or stamp made by the nails, here the original idea. Various terms as in strkjv@Acts:7:44; strkjv@1Timothy:4:12|. Finally our "type" as in strkjv@Romans:5:14|. Clearly the disciples had told Thomas that they had seen the \tupon\ of the nails in his hands and the spear in his side. {I will not believe} (\ou mˆ pisteus“\). Strong refusal with \ou mˆ\ (doubtful negative) and first aorist active subjunctive (or future indicative).

rwp@Jude:1:14 @{And to these also} (\de kai toutois\). Dative case, for these false teachers as well as for his contemporaries. {Enoch the seventh from Adam} (\hebdomos apo Adam Hen“ch\). The genealogical order occurs in strkjv@Genesis:5:4-20|, with Enoch as seventh. He is so termed in Enoch strkjv@60:8; strkjv@93:3. {Prophesied} (\eprophˆteusen\). First aorist active indicative of \prophˆteu“\. If the word is given its ordinary meaning as in strkjv@1Peter:1:10|, then Jude:terms the Book of Enoch an inspired book. The words quoted are "a combination of passages from Enoch" (Bigg), chiefly from Enoch strkjv@1:9. {With ten thousand of his holy ones} (\en hagiais muriasin autou\). "With (\en\ of accompaniment, strkjv@Luke:14:31|) his holy ten thousands" (\murias\ regular word, feminine gender, for ten thousand, strkjv@Acts:19:19|, there an unlimited number like our myriads, strkjv@Luke:12:1|).

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION OF PAUL A PHYSICIAN The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his _Medical Language of St. Luke_ proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_ have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his _Style and Literary Method of Luke_ denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke "the beloved physician" (\ho iatros ho agapˆtos\, strkjv@Colossians:4:14|), "my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Acts:28:8-10|) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who "came and were healed (\etherapeuonto\) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing (\iasato\), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician's interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark's apparent discredit of physicians (Mark:5:26|) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luke:8:43|).

rwp@Luke:5:7 @{They beckoned} (\kateneusan\). Possibly they were too far away for a call to be understood. Simon alone had been ordered to put out into the deep. Songs:they used signs. {Unto their partners} (\tois metechois\). This word \metochos\, from \metech“\, to have with, means participation with one in common blessings (Hebrews:3:1,14; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@12:8|). While \koin“nos\ (verse 10| here of James and John also) has the notion of personal fellowship, partnership. Both terms are here employed of the two pairs of brothers who have a business company under Simon's lead. {Help them} (\sullabesthai\). Second aorist middle infinitive. Take hold together with and so to help. Paul uses it in strkjv@Phillipians:4:3|. It is an old word that was sometimes employed for seizing a prisoner (Luke:22:54|) and for conception (_con-capio_) by a woman (Luke:1:24|). {Songs:that they began to sink} (\h“ste buthizesthai auta\). Consecutive use of \h“ste\ and the infinitive (present tense, inchoative use, beginning to sink). An old verb from \buthos\. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:6:9|.

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

rwp@Luke:9:23 @{He said unto all} (\elegen de pros pantas\). This is like Luke (cf. verse 43|). Jesus wanted all (the multitude with his disciples, as strkjv@Mark:8:34| has it) to understand the lesson of self-sacrifice. They could not yet understand the full meaning of Christ's words as applied to his approaching death of which he had been speaking. But certainly the shadow of the cross is already across the path of Jesus as he is here speaking. For details (soul, life, forfeit, gain, profit, lose, world) see discussion on ¯Matthew:16:24-26; strkjv@Mark:8:34-37|. The word for lose (\apolesei\, from \apollumi\, a very common verb) is used in the sense of destroy, kill, lose, as here. Note the mercantile terms in this passage (gain, lose, fine or forfeit, exchange). {Daily} (\kath' hˆmeran\). Peculiar to Luke in this incident. Take up the cross (his own cross) daily (aorist tense, \ƒrat“\), but keep on following me (\akoloutheit“\, present tense). The cross was a familiar figure in Palestine. It was rising before Jesus as his destiny. Each man has his own cross to meet and bear.

rwp@Luke:10:22 @{Knoweth who the Son is} (\gin“skei tis estin ho huios\). Knows by experience, \gin“skei\. Here strkjv@Matthew:11:27| has \epigin“skei\ (fully knows) and simply \ton huion\ (the Son) instead of the "who" (\tis\) clause. Songs:also in "who the Father is" (\tis estin ho pater\). But the same use and contrast of "the Father," "the Son." in both Matthew and Luke, "an aerolite from the Johannean heaven" (Hase). No sane criticism can get rid of this Johannine bit in these Gospels written long before the Fourth Gospel was composed. We are dealing here with the oldest known document about Christ (the Logia) and the picture is that drawn in the Fourth Gospel (see my _The Christ of the Logia_). It is idle to try to whittle away by fantastic exegesis the high claims made by Jesus in this passage. It is an ecstatic prayer in the presence of the Seventy under the rapture of the Holy Spirit on terms of perfect equality and understanding between the Father and the Son in the tone of the priestly prayer in strkjv@John:17|. We are justified in saying that this prayer of supreme Fellowship with the Father in contemplation of final victory over Satan gives us a glimpse of the prayers with the Father when the Son spent whole nights on the mountain alone with the Father. Here is the Messianic consciousness in complete control and with perfect confidence in the outcome. Here as in strkjv@Matthew:11:27| by the use of {willeth to reveal him} (\boulˆtai apokalupsai\). The Son claims the power to reveal the Father "to whomsoever he wills" (\h“i an boulˆtai\, indefinite relative and present subjunctive of \boulomai\, to will, not the future indicative). This is divine sovereignty most assuredly. Human free agency is also true, but it is full divine sovereignty in salvation that is here claimed along with possession (\paredothˆ\, timeless aorist passive indicative) of all power from the Father. Let that supreme claim stand.

rwp@Mark:2:10 @{That ye may know} (\hina eidˆte\). The scribes could have said either of the alternatives in verse 9| with equal futility. Jesus could say either with equal effectiveness. In fact Jesus chose the harder first, the forgiveness which they could not see. Songs:he now performs the miracle of healing which all could see, that all could know that (the Son of Man, Christ's favourite designation of himself, a claim to be the Messiah in terms that could not be easily attacked) he really had the authority and power (\exousian\) to forgive sins. He has the right and power here on earth to forgive sins, here and now without waiting for the day of judgment. {He saith to the sick of the palsy} (\legei\). This remarkable parenthesis in the middle of the sentence occurs also in strkjv@Matthew:9:6| and strkjv@Luke:5:24|, proof that both Matthew and Luke followed Mark's narrative. It is inconceivable that all three writers should independently have injected the same parenthesis at the same place.

rwp@Mark:4:11 @{Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God} (\Humin to mustˆrion dedotai tˆs basileias tou theou\). See on ¯Matthew:13:11| for word \mustˆrion\. Here (Mark:4:11; strkjv@Matthew:13:11; strkjv@Luke:8:10|) alone in the Gospels, but in Paul 21 times and in the Revelation 4 times. It is frequent in Daniel and O.T. Apocrypha. Matthew and Luke use it here in the plural. Matthew and Luke add the word {to know} (\gn“nai\), but Mark's presentation covers a wider range than growing knowledge, the permanent possession of the mystery even before they understand it. The secret is no longer hidden from the initiated. Discipleship means initiation into the secret of God's kingdom and it will come gradually to these men. {But unto them that are without} (\ekeinois de tois ex“\). Peculiar to Mark, those outside our circle, the uninitiated, the hostile group like the scribes and Pharisees, who were charging Jesus with being in league with Beelzebub. strkjv@Luke:8:10| has "to the rest" (\tois loipois\), strkjv@Matthew:13:11| simply "to them" (\ekeinois\). Without the key the parables are hard to understand, for parables veil the truth of the kingdom being stated in terms of another realm. Without a spiritual truth and insight they are unintelligible and are often today perverted. The parables are thus a condemnation on the wilfully blind and hostile, while a guide and blessing to the enlightened. {That} (\hina\). Mark has the construction of the Hebrew "lest" of strkjv@Isaiah:6:9f|. with the subjunctive and so strkjv@Luke:8:10|, while strkjv@Matthew:13:13| uses causal \hoti\ with the indicative following the LXX. See on ¯Matthew:13:13| for the so-called causal use of \hina\. Gould on strkjv@Mark:4:12| has an intelligent discussion of the differences between Matthew and Mark and Luke. He argues that Mark here probably "preserves the original form of Jesus' saying." God ironically commands Isaiah to harden the hearts of the people. If the notion of purpose is preserved in the use of \hina\ in Mark and Luke, there is probably some irony also in the sad words of Jesus. If \hina\ is given the causative use of \hoti\ in Matthew, the difficulty disappears. What is certain is that the use of parables on this occasion was a penalty for judicial blindness on those who will not see.

rwp@Mark:7:4 @{From the marketplace} (\ap' agoras\). Ceremonial defilement was inevitable in the mixing with men in public. This \agora\ from \ageir“\ to collect or gather, was a public forum in every town where the people gathered like the courthouse square in American towns. The disciples were already ceremonially defiled. {Wash themselves} (\baptis“ntai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \baptiz“\, dip or immerse. Westcott and Hort put \rantis“ntai\ in the text translated "sprinkle themselves" in the margin of the Revised Version, because Aleph, B, and some of the best cursives have it. Gould terms \rantis“ntai\ "a manifest emendation," to get rid of the difficulty of dipping or bathing the whole body. Meyer says: "The statement proceeds by way of climax: before eating they wash the hands always. When they come from market they take a bath before eating." This is not the place to enter into any controversy about the meaning of \baptiz“\, to dip, \rantiz“\, to sprinkle, and \ecche“\, to pour, all used in the New Testament. The words have their distinctive meanings here as elsewhere. Some scribes felt a difficulty about the use of \baptis“ntai\ here. The Western and Syrian classes of manuscripts add "and couches" (\kai klin“n\) at the end of the sentence. Swete considers the immersions of beds (\baptismous klin“n\) "an incongruous combination." But Gould says: "Edersheim shows that the Jewish ordinance required immersions, \baptismous\, of these vessels." We must let the Jewish scrupulosity stand for itself, though "and couches" is not supported by Aleph, B L D Bohairic, probably not genuine.

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

rwp@Mark:14:36 @{Abba, Father} (\Abba ho patˆr\). Both Aramaic and Greek and the article with each. This is not a case of translation, but the use of both terms as is strkjv@Galatians:4:6|, a probable memory of Paul's childhood prayers. About "the cup" see on ¯Matthew:26:39|. It is not possible to take the language of Jesus as fear that he might die before he came to the Cross. He was heard (Hebrews:5:7f.|) and helped to submit to the Father's will as he does instantly. {Not what I will} (\ou ti eg“ thel“\). Matthew has "as" (\h“s\). We see the humanity of Jesus in its fulness both in the Temptations and in Gethsemane, but without sin each time. And this was the severest of all the temptations, to draw back from the Cross. The victory over self brought surrender to the Father's will.

rwp@Matthew:4:10 @{Get thee hence, Satan} (\Hupage, Satanƒ\). The words "behind me" (\opis“ mou\) belong to strkjv@Matthew:16:23|, not here. "Begone" Christ says to Satan. This temptation is the limit of diabolical suggestion and argues for the logical order in Matthew. "Satan" means the adversary and Christ so terms the devil here. The third time Jesus quotes Deuteronomy, this time strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:13|, and repels the infamous suggestion by Scripture quotation. The words "him alone thou shalt serve" need be recalled today. Jesus will warn men against trying to serve God and mammon (Matthew:6:24|). The devil as the lord of the evil world constantly tries to win men to the service of the world and God. This is his chief camouflage for destroying a preacher's power for God. The word here in strkjv@Matthew:4:10| for serve is \latreuseis\ from \latris\ a hired servant, one who works for hire, then render worship.

rwp@Matthew:15:39 @{The borders of Magadan} (\eis ta horia Magadan\). On the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee and so in Galilee again. Mark terms it Dalmanutha (Mark:8:10|). Perhaps after all the same place as Magdala, as most manuscripts have it.

rwp@Matthew:16:17 @{Blessed art thou} (\makarios ei\). A beatitude for Peter. Jesus accepts the confession as true. Thereby Jesus on this solemn occasion solemnly claims to be the Messiah, the Son of the living God, his deity in other words. The disciples express positive conviction in the Messiahship or Christhood of Jesus as opposed to the divided opinions of the populace. "The terms in which Jesus speaks of Peter are characteristic--warm, generous, unstinted. The style is not that of an ecclesiastical editor laying the foundation for church power, and prelatic pretentions, but of a noble-minded Master eulogizing in impassioned terms a loyal disciple" (Bruce). The Father had helped Peter get this spiritual insight into the Master's Person and Work.

rwp@Matthew:21:33 @{A hedge} (\phragmon\). Or fence as a protection against wild beasts. {Digged a winepress} (\“ruxen lˆnon\). Out of the solid rock to hold the grapes and wine as they were crushed. Such wine-vats are to be seen today in Palestine. {Built a tower} (\“ikodomˆsen purgon\). This for the vinedressers and watchmen (2Chronicles:26:10|). Utmost care was thus taken. Note "a booth in a vineyard" (Isaiah:1:8|). See also strkjv@Isaiah:24:20; strkjv@Job:27:18|. Let it out (\exedeto, exedoto\ the usual form). For hire, the terms not being given. The lease allowed three forms, money-rent, a proportion of the crop, or a definite amount of the produce whether it was a good or bad year. Probably the last form is that contemplated here.

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

rwp@Philemon:1:21 @{Obedience} (\hupakoˆi\). "Compliance" seems less harsh to us in the light of 9|. {I write} (\egrapsa\). Epistolary aorist again. {Even beyond what I say} (\kai huper ha leg“\). That can only mean that Paul "knows" (\eid“s\, second perfect active participle of \oida\) that Philemon will set Onesimus free. He prefers that it come as Philemon's idea and wish rather than as a command from Paul. Paul has been criticized for not denouncing slavery in plain terms. But, when one considers the actual conditions in the Roman empire, he is a wise man who can suggest a better plan than the one pursued here for the ultimate overthrow of slavery.

rwp@Revelation:2:8 @{In Smyrna} (\en Smurnˆi\). North of Ephesus, on a gulf of the Aegean, one of the great cities of Asia (province), a seat of emperor-worship with temple to Tiberius, with many Jews hostile to Christianity who later join in the martyrdom of Polycarp, poor church (rich in grace) which receives only praise from Christ, scene of the recent massacre of Greeks by the Turks. Ramsay (_op. cit._, p. 251) terms Smyrna "the City of Life." Christianity has held on here better than in any city of Asia. {The first and the last} (\ho pr“tos kai ho eschatos\). Repeating the language of strkjv@1:17|. {Which was dead} (\hos egeneto nekros\). Rather, "who became dead" (second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\) as in strkjv@1:18|. {And lived again} (\kai ezˆsen\). First aorist (ingressive, came to life) active of \za“\ (\ho z“n\ in strkjv@1:18|). Emphasis on the resurrection of Christ.

rwp@Revelation:12:6 @{Fled into the wilderness} (\ephugen eis tˆn erˆmon\). Second aorist active indicative of \pheug“\. Here, of course, not Mary, but "the ideal woman" (God's people) of the preceding verses, who fled under persecution of the dragon. God's people do not at once share the rapture of Christ, but the dragon is unable to destroy them completely. The phrases used here seem to be reminiscent of strkjv@Deuteronomy:8:2ff.| (wanderings of Israel in the wilderness), strkjv@1Kings:17:2f.| and strkjv@19:3f.| (Elijah's flight), I Macc. strkjv@2:29 (flight of the Jews from Antiochus Epiphanes), strkjv@Matthew:2:13| (flight of Joseph and Mary to Egypt), strkjv@Mark:13:14| (the flight of Christians at the destruction of Jerusalem). {Where} (\hopou--ekei\). Hebrew redundancy (where--there) as in strkjv@3:8; strkjv@8:9,9; strkjv@13:8,12; strkjv@17:9; strkjv@20:8|. {Prepared} (\hˆtoimasmenon\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \hetoimaz“\, for which verb see strkjv@Matthew:20:23; strkjv@Revelation:8:6; strkjv@9:7,15; strkjv@16:12; strkjv@19:7; strkjv@21:2|, and for its use with \topos\ strkjv@John:14:2f.| and for the kind of fellowship meant by it (Psalms:31:21; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:13; strkjv@Colossians:3:3; strkjv@1John:1:3|). {Of God} (\apo tou theou\). "From (by) God," marking the source as God (9:18; strkjv@James:1:13|). This anticipatory symbolism is repeated in strkjv@12:13f|. {That there they may nourish her} (\hina ekei treph“sin autˆn\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the present for continued action: active subjunctive according to A P though C reads \trephousin\, present active indicative, as is possible also in strkjv@13:17| and certainly so in strkjv@1John:5:20| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 984), a solecism in late vernacular Greek. The plural is indefinite "they" as in strkjv@10:11; strkjv@11:9|. One MSS. has \trephetai\ (is nourished). The stereotyped phrase occurs here, as in strkjv@11:2f.|, for the length of the dragon's power, repeated in strkjv@12:14| in more general terms and again in strkjv@13:5|.

rwp@Revelation:14:18 @{Another angel} (\allos aggelos\). The fifth angel above Swete terms "the Angel of vengeance." He responds to the call of the sixth angel here as Christ does to the call of the fourth angel in verse 15|. {Out from the altar} (\ek tou thusiastˆriou\). From the altar of incense where he is in charge of the fire (\exousian epi tou puros\). If it is the altar of burnt offering (6:9; strkjv@11:1|), we are reminded of the blood of the martyrs (Swete), but if the altar of incense (8:3,5; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@16:7|), then of the prayers of the saints. {The sharp sickle} (\to drepanon to oxu\). Useful for vintage as for harvesting. Songs:"send forth" (\pempson\) as in verse 15|. {Gather} (\trugˆson\). First aorist active imperative of \truga“\, old verb (from \trugˆ\ dryness, ripeness), in N.T. only strkjv@Revelation:15:18f.| and strkjv@Luke:6:44|. {The clusters} (\tous botruas\). Old word \botrus\, here only in N.T. (Genesis:40:10|). {Her grapes} (\hai staphulai autˆs\). Old word again for grapes, bunch of grapes, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Matthew:7:16; strkjv@Luke:6:44|. {Are fully ripe} (\ˆkmasan\). Old and common verb (from \akmˆ\, strkjv@Matthew:15:16|), to come to maturity, to reach its acme, here only in N.T.

rwp@Romans:1:7 @{In Rome} (\en R“mˆi\). One late uncial (G of tenth century) and a cursive omit these words here and one or two other late MSS. omit \en R“mˆi\ in verse 15|. This possibly proves the Epistle was circulated as a circular to a limited extent, but the evidence is late and slight and by no means shows that this was the case in the first century. It is not comparable with the absence of \en Ephes“i\ in strkjv@Ephesians:1:1| from Aleph and B (the two oldest and best MSS.). {Beloved of God} (\agapˆtois theou\). Ablative case of \theou\ after the verbal adjective like \didaktoi theou\ (taught of God) in strkjv@John:6:45| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). {From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ} (\apo theou patros hˆm“n kai kuriou Iˆsou Christou\). "St. Paul, if not formally enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which cannot really be distinguished from it" (Sanday and Headlam). Paul's theology is clearly seen in the terms used in verses 1-7|.

rwp@Romans:3:22 @{Even} (\de\). Not adversative here. It defines here. {Through faith in Jesus Christ} (\dia piste“s [Iˆsou] Christou\). Intermediate agency (\dia\) is faith and objective genitive, "in Jesus Christ," not subjective "of Jesus Christ," in spite of Haussleiter's contention for that idea. The objective nature of faith in Christ is shown in strkjv@Galatians:2:16| by the addition \eis Christon Iˆsoun episteusamen\ (we believed in Christ), by \tˆs eis Christon piste“s hum“n\ (of your faith in Christ) in strkjv@Colossians:2:5|, by \en pistei tˆi en Christ“i Iˆsou\ (in faith that in Christ Jesus) in strkjv@1Timothy:3:13|, as well as here by the added words "unto all them that believe" (\eis pantas tous pisteuontas\) in Jesus, Paul means. {Distinction} (\diastolˆ\). See on ¯1Corinthians:14:7| for the difference of sounds in musical instruments. Also in strkjv@Romans:10:12|. The Jew was first in privilege as in penalty (2:9f.|), but justification or setting right with God is offered to both on the same terms.

rwp@Romans:11:3 @{They have digged down} (\kateskapsan\). First aorist active indicative of \kataskapt“\, to dig under or down. Old verb, here only in N.T. (critical text). LXX has \katheilan\ "pulled down." Paul has reversed the order of the LXX of strkjv@1Kings:19:10,14,18|. {Altars} (\thusiastˆria\). Late word (LXX, Philo, Josephus, N.T. eccl. writers) from \thusiaz“\, to sacrifice. See strkjv@Acts:17:23|. {And I am left alone} (\kag“ hupeleiphthˆn monos\). First aorist passive indicative of \hupoleip“\, old word, to leave under or behind, here only in N.T. Elijah's mood was that of utter dejection in his flight from Jezebel. {Life} (\psuchˆn\). It is not possible to draw a clear distinction between \psuchˆ\ (soul) and \pneuma\ (spirit). \Psuchˆ\ is from \psuch“\, to breathe or blow, \pneuma\ from \pne“\, to blow. Both are used for the personality and for the immortal part of man. Paul is usually dichotomous in his language, but sometimes trichotomous in a popular sense. We cannot hold Paul's terms to our modern psychological distinctions.

rwp@Romans:11:36 @{Of him} (\ex autou\), {through him} (\di' autou\), {unto him} (\eis auton\). By these three prepositions Paul ascribes the universe (\ta panta\) with all the phenomena concerning creation, redemption, providence to God as the {Source} (\ex\), the {Agent} (\di\), the {Goal} (\eis\). {For ever} (\eis tous ai“nas\). "For the ages." Alford terms this doxology in verses 33-36| "the sublimest apostrophe existing even in the pages of inspiration itself."

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 30 20:40:08 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020