OT.filter - rwp Mary:

rwp@Acts:12:12 @{When he had considered} (\sunidn\). Second aorist active participle of \suneidon\ (for the defective verb \sunora\), to see together, to grasp as a whole, old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@14:6|, save the perfect indicative \sunoida\ (1Corinthians:4:4|) and participle (Acts:5:2|). It is the word from which \suneidsis\ (conscience) comes (Romans:2:15|). Peter's mind worked rapidly and he decided what to do. He took in his situation clearly. {To the house of Mary} (\epi tn oikian ts Marias\). Another Mary (the others were Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, Mary wife of Cleopas, Mary the mother of James and Joses). She may have been a widow and was possessed of some means since her house was large enough to hold the large group of disciples there. Barnabas, cousin of John Mark her son (Colossians:4:10|), was also a man of property or had been (Acts:4:36f.|). It is probable that the disciples had been in the habit of meeting in her house, a fact known to Peter and he was evidently fond of John Mark whom he afterwards calls "my son" (1Peter:5:13|) and whom he had met here. The upper room of strkjv@Acts:1:13| may have been in Mary's house and Mark may have been the man bearing a pitcher of water (Luke:22:10|) and the young man who fled in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark:14:51f.|). There was a gate and portress here as in the house of the highpriest (John:18:16|). Peter knew where to go and even at this early hour hoped to find some of the disciples. Mary is one of the many mothers who have become famous by reason of their sons, though she was undoubtedly a woman of high character herself. {Were gathered together and were praying} (\san sunthroismenoi kai proseuchomenoi\). Note difference in the tenses, one periphrastic past perfect passive (\sunathroiz\ old verb, in the N.T. here only and strkjv@19:25| and the uncompounded \throiz\ in strkjv@Luke:24:33|) and the periphrastic imperfect. The praying apparently had been going on all night and a large number (many, \hikanoi\) of the disciples were there. One recalls the time when they had gathered to pray (4:31|) after Peter had told the disciples of the threats of the Sanhedrin (4:23|). God had rescued Peter then. Would he let him be put to death now as James had been?

rwp@Acts:12:17 @There were probably loud exclamations of astonishment and joy. {Beckoning with the hand} (\kataseisas ti cheiri\). First aorist active participle of \katasei\, old verb to signal or shake down with the hand (instrumental case \cheiri\). In the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:12:17; strkjv@13:16; strkjv@19:33; strkjv@21:40|. The speaker indicates by a downward movement of the hand his desire for silence (to hold their peace, \sigin\, present active infinitive, to keep silent). Peter was anxious for every precaution and he wanted their instant attention. {Declared} (\digsato\). First aorist middle of \digeomai\, old verb to carry through a narrative, give a full story. See also strkjv@Acts:9:27| of Barnabas in his defence of Saul. Peter told them the wonderful story. {Unto James and the brethren} (\Iakbi kai tois adelphois\). Dative case after \apaggeilate\ (first aorist active imperative). Evidently "James and the brethren" were not at this meeting, probably meeting elsewhere. There was no place where all the thousands of disciples in Jerusalem could meet. This gathering in the house of Mary may have been of women only or a meeting of the Hellenists. It is plain that this James the Lord's brother, is now the leading presbyter or elder in Jerusalem though there were a number (11:30; strkjv@21:18|). Paul even terms him apostle (Gal strkjv@1:19|), though certainly not one of the twelve. The twelve apostles probably were engaged elsewhere in mission work save James now dead (Acts:12:2|) and Peter. The leadership of James is here recognized by Peter and is due, partly to the absence of the twelve, but mainly to his own force of character. He will preside over the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:13|). {To another place} (\eis heteron topon\). Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts:15:7|) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Gal strkjv@2:7; strkjv@1Peter:1:1|) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1Peter:5:13|), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of strkjv@2Corinthians:10:16| it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man's foundation (Romans:15:20|). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter strkjv@Acts:15|). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1Corinthians:9:5|).

rwp@Ephesians:1:4 @{Even as he chose us in him} (\kaths exelexato hms en auti\). First aorist middle indicative of \ekleg\, to pick out, to choose. Definitive statement of God's elective grace concerning believers in Christ. {Before the foundation of the world} (\pro katabols kosmou\). Old word from \kataball\, to fling down, used of the deposit of seed, the laying of a foundation. This very phrase with \pro\ in the Prayer of Jesus (John:17:24|) of love of the Father toward the Son. It occurs also in strkjv@1Peter:1:20|. Elsewhere we have \apo\ (from) used with it (Matthew:25:34; strkjv@Luke:11:50; strkjv@Hebrews:4:3; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Revelation:13:8; strkjv@17:8|). But Paul uses neither phrase elsewhere, though he has \apo tn ainn\ (from the ages) in strkjv@Ephesians:3:9|. Here in strkjv@Ephesians:1:3-14|. Paul in summary fashion gives an outline of his view of God's redemptive plans for the race. {That we should be} (\einai hms\). Infinitive of purpose with the accusative of general reference (\hms\). See strkjv@Colossians:1:22| for the same two adjectives and also \katenpion autou\.

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 archi\). \Arch\ 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} (\n\). 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" (\paraklton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prospon pros prospon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gnston ts pros alllous suntheias\, "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 n ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos n 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 agap 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:1:3 @{All things} (\panta\). The philosophical phrase was \ta panta\ (the all things) as we have it in strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. In verse 10| John uses \ho kosmos\ (the orderly universe) for the whole. {Were made} (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of \n\ in verses 1,2|. All things "came into being." Creation is thus presented as a becoming (\ginomai\) in contrast with being (\eimi\). {By him} (\di' autou\). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews:1:2|) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians:1:16|). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6|, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (\ex hou\) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (\di' hou\). {Without him} (\chris autou\). Old adverbial preposition with the ablative as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:14|, "apart from." John adds the negative statement for completion, another note of his style as in strkjv@John:1:20; strkjv@1John:1:5|. Thus John excludes two heresies (Bernard) that matter is eternal and that angels or aeons had a share in creation. {Not anything} (\oude hen\). "Not even one thing." Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (\ho gegonen\) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with \ho gegonen\. The early uncials had no punctuation.

rwp@John:2:1 @{The third day} (\ti hmeri ti triti\). "On the day the third" (locative case), from the start to Galilee when Philip was found (1:43|), seven days since strkjv@1:19|. {There was a marriage} (\gamos egeneto\). "A wedding (or marriage festival) took place." See on ¯Matthew:22:8|. {In Cana of Galilee} (\en Kana ts Galilaias\). This town, the home of Nathanael (21:2|), is only mentioned again in strkjv@4:46| as the home of the nobleman. There was a Cana in Coele-Syria. It is usually located at _Kefr Kenna_ (3 1/2 miles from Nazareth), though _Ain Kana_ and _Khirbet Kana_ are also possible. Bernard thinks that it was probably on Wednesday afternoon the fourth day of the week (usual day for marriage of virgins), when the party of Jesus arrived. {And the mother of Jesus was there} (\kai n h mtr tou Isou ekei\). When they arrived. John does not mention her name, probably because already well known in the Synoptics. Probably Joseph was already dead. Mary may have been kin to the family where the wedding took place, an intimate friend clearly.

rwp@John:8:41 @{Ye do the works of your father} (\humeis poieite ta erga tou patros humn\). Who is not Abraham and not God as Jesus plainly indicates. {We were not born of fornication} (\hmeis ek porneias egennthmen\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna\. This they said as a proud boast. Jesus had admitted that they were physical (Deuteronomy:23:2|) descendants of Abraham (37|), but now denies that they are spiritual children of Abraham (like Paul in strkjv@Romans:9:7|). \Porneia\ is from \pornos\ (harlot) and that from \pernmi\, to sell, a woman who sells her body for sexual uses. It is vaguely possible that in this stern denial the Pharisees may have an indirect fling at Jesus as the bastard son of Mary (so Talmud). {We have one Father, even God} (\hena patera echomen ton theon\). No "even" in the Greek, "One Father we have, God." This in direct reply to the implication of Jesus (verse 38|) that God was not their spiritual Father.

rwp@Luke:1:41 @{Leaped} (\eskirtsen\). A common enough incident with unborn children (Genesis:25:22|), but Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit to understand what had happened to Mary.

rwp@Luke:1:43 @{The mother of my Lord} (\h mtr tou Kuriou mou\). See strkjv@Psalms:110:1|. Only by the help of the Holy Spirit could Elisabeth know that Mary was to be the mother of the Messiah.

rwp@Luke:1:45 @{For} (\hoti\). It is not certain whether \hoti\ here is "that" or "because." It makes good sense either way. See also strkjv@7:16|. This is the first beatitude in the New Testament and it is similar to the last one in the Gospels spoken to Thomas to discourage his doubt (John:20:29|). Elisabeth wishes Mary to have full faith in the prophecy of the angel. This song of Elisabeth is as real poetry as is that of Mary (1:47-55|) and Zacharias (1:68-70|). All three spoke under the power of the Holy Spirit. These are the first New Testament hymns and they are very beautiful. Plummer notes four strophes in Mary's Magnificat (46-48|,49,50|,51-53|,54,55|). Every idea here occurs in the Old Testament, showing that Mary's mind was full of the spiritual message of God's word.

rwp@Luke:1:46 @{Doth magnify} (\megalunei\). Latin, _magnificat_. Harnack argues that this is also the song of Elisabeth because a few Latin MSS. have it so, but Mary is correct. She draws her material from the O.T. and sings in the noblest strain.

rwp@Luke:1:47 @{Hath rejoiced} (\galliasen\). This is aorist active indicative. Greek tenses do not correspond to those in English. The verb \agallia\ is a Hellenistic word from the old Greek \agall\. It means to exult. See the substantive \agalliasis\ in strkjv@Luke:1:14,44|. Mary is not excited like Elisabeth, but breathes a spirit of composed rapture. {My spirit} (\to pneuma mou\). One need not press unduly the difference between "soul" (\psuch\) in verse 46| and "spirit" here. Bruce calls them synonyms in parallel clauses. Vincent argues that the soul is the principle of individuality while the spirit is the point of contact between God and man. It is doubtful, however, if the trichotomous theory of man (body, soul, and spirit) is to be insisted on. It is certain that we have an inner spiritual nature for which various words are used in strkjv@Mark:12:30|. Even the distinction between intellect, emotions, and will is challenged by some psychologists. {God my Saviour} (\ti thei ti sotri mou\). Article with each substantive. God is called Saviour in the O.T. (Deuteronomy:32:15, strkjv@Psalms:24:5; strkjv@95:1|).

rwp@Luke:1:48 @{The low estate} (\tn tapeinsin\). The bride of a carpenter and yet to be the mother of the Messiah. Literal sense here as in strkjv@1:52|. {Shall call me blessed} (\makariousin me\). So-called Attic future of an old verb, to felicitate. Elisabeth had already given her a beatitude (\makaria\, strkjv@1:45|). Another occurs in strkjv@11:27|. But this is a very different thing from the worship of Mary (Mariolatry) by Roman Catholics. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_.

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

rwp@Luke:2:50 @{They understood not} (\ou sunkan\). First aorist active indicative (one of the k aorists). Even Mary with all her previous preparation and brooding was not equal to the dawning of the Messianic consciousness in her boy. "My Father is God," Jesus had virtually said, "and I must be in His house." Bruce observes that a new era has come when Jesus calls God "Father," not \Despotes\. "Even we do not yet fully understand" (Bruce) what Jesus the boy here said.

rwp@Luke:2:51 @{He was subject unto them} (\n hupotassomenos autois\). Periphrastic imperfect passive. He continued subject unto them, this wondrous boy who really knew more than parents and rabbis, this gentle, obedient, affectionate boy. The next eighteen years at Nazareth (Luke:3:23|) he remained growing into manhood and becoming the carpenter of Nazareth (Mark:6:3|) in succession to Joseph (Matthew:13:55|) who is mentioned here for the last time. Who can tell the wistful days when Jesus waited at Nazareth for the Father to call him to his Messianic task? {Kept} (\dietrei\). Imperfect active. Ancient Greek word (\diatre\), but only here and strkjv@Acts:15:29| in the N.T. though in strkjv@Genesis:37:11|. She kept thoroughly (\dia\) all these recent sayings (or things, \rhmata\). In strkjv@2:19| \sunetrei\ is the word used of Mary after the shepherds left. These she kept pondering and comparing all the things. Surely she has a full heart now. Could she foresee how destiny would take Jesus out beyond her mother's reach?

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Betrothed to Joseph} (\Mnsteutheiss ti Isph\). Matthew proceeds to explain his statement in strkjv@1:16| which implied that Joseph, though the legal father of Jesus in the royal line, was not the actual father of Mary's Son. Betrothal with the Jews was a serious matter, not lightly entered into and not lightly broken. The man who betrothed a maiden was legally husband (Genesis:29:21; strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:23f.|) and "an informal cancelling of betrothal was impossible" (McNeile). Though they did not live together as husband and wife till actual marriage, breach of faithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punished with death. _The New Testament in Braid Scots_ actually has "mairry't till Joseph" for "betrothed to Joseph." Matthew uses the genitive absolute construction here, a very common Greek idiom.

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heureth en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.

rwp@Revelation:10:5 @{Standing} (\hestta\). Second perfect active participle of \histmi\ (intransitive). John resumes the picture in verse 2|. {Lifted up} (\ren\). First aorist active indicative of \air\, to lift up. {To heaven} (\eis ton ouranon\). Toward heaven, the customary gesture in taking a solemn oath (Genesis:14:22; strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:40; strkjv@Daniel:12:7|).

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