rwp Real
rwp@Info
@ It has now been forty years since Dr. Marvin R. Vincent wrote his most useful series of volumes entitled _Word Studies in the New Testament_. They are still helpful for those for whom they were designed, but a great deal of water has run under the mill in these years. More scientific methods of philology are now in use. No longer are Greek tenses and prepositions explained in terms of conjectural English translations or interchanged according to the whim of the interpreter. Comparative grammar has thrown a flood of light on the real meaning of New Testament forms and idioms. New Testament writers are no longer explained as using one construction "for" another. New light has come also from the papyri discoveries in Egypt. Unusual Greek words from the standpoint of the literary critic or classical scholar are here found in everyday use in letters and business and public documents. The New Testament Greek is now known to be not a new or peculiar dialect of the Greek language, but the very lingo of the time. The vernacular _Koin_, the spoken language of the day, appears in the New Testament as in these scraps of Oxyrhynchus and Fayum papyri. There are specimens of the literary _Koin_ in the papyri as also in the writings of Luke, the Epistles of Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews. A new Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament will come in due time which will take note of the many startling discoveries from the Greek papyri and inscriptions first brought to notice in their bearing on the New Testament by Dr. Adolf Deissmann, then of Heidelberg, now of Berlin. His _Bible Studies_ (Translation by Alexander Grieve, 1901) and his _Light from the Ancient East_ (Revised Edition translated by L.R.M. Strachan, 1927) are accessible to students unfamiliar with the German originals.
rwp@1Corinthians:1:2 @{The church of God} (\ti ekklsii tou theou\). Belonging to God, not to any individual or faction, as this genitive case shows. In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1| Paul wrote "the church of the Thessalonians in God" (\en thei\), but "the churches of God" in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:14|. See same idiom in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32; strkjv@11:16,22; strkjv@15:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Galatians:1:13|, etc. {Which is in Corinth} (\ti ousi en Korinthi\). See on strkjv@Acts:13:1| for idiom. It is God's church even in Corinth, "_laetum et ingens paradoxon_" (Bengel). This city, destroyed by Mummius B.C. 146, had been restored by Julius Caesar a hundred years later, B.C. 44, and now after another hundred years has become very rich and very corrupt. The very word "to Corinthianize" meant to practise vile immoralities in the worship of Aphrodite (Venus). It was located on the narrow Isthmus of the Peloponnesus with two harbours (Lechaeum and Cenchreae). It had schools of rhetoric and philosophy and made a flashy imitation of the real culture of Athens. See strkjv@Acts:18| for the story of Paul's work here and now the later developments and divisions in this church will give Paul grave concern as is shown in detail in I and II Corinthians. All the problems of a modern city church come to the front in Corinth. They call for all the wisdom and statesmanship in Paul. {That are sanctified} (\hgiasmenois\). Perfect passive participle of \hagiaz\, late form for \hagiz\, so far found only in the Greek Bible and in ecclesiastical writers. It means to make or to declare \hagion\ (from \hagos\, awe, reverence, and this from \haz\, to venerate). It is significant that Paul uses this word concerning the {called saints} or {called to be saints} (\kltois hagiois\) in Corinth. Cf. \kltos apostolos\ in strkjv@1:1|. It is because they are sanctified {in Christ Jesus} (\en Christi Isou\). He is the sphere in which this act of consecration takes place. Note plural, construction according to sense, because \ekklsia\ is a collective substantive. {With all that call upon} (\sun psin tois epikaloumenois\). Associative instrumental case with \sun\ rather than \kai\ (and), making a close connection with "saints" just before and so giving the Corinthian Christians a picture of their close unity with the brotherhood everywhere through the common bond of faith. This phrase occurs in the LXX (Genesis:12:8; strkjv@Zechariah:13:9|) and is applied to Christ as to Jehovah (2Thessalonians:1:7,9,12; strkjv@Phillipians:2:9,10|). Paul heard Stephen pray to Christ as Lord (Acts:7:59|). Here "with a plain and direct reference to the Divinity of our Lord" (Ellicott). {Their Lord and ours} (\autn kai hmn\). This is the interpretation of the Greek commentators and is the correct one, an afterthought and expansion (\epanorthsis\) of the previous "our," showing the universality of Christ.
rwp@1Corinthians:1:5 @{That} (\hoti\). Explicit specification of this grace of God given to the Corinthians. Paul points out in detail the unusual spiritual gifts which were their glory and became their peril (chapters strkjv@1Corinthians:12-14|). {Ye were enriched in him} (\eploutisthte en auti\). First aorist passive indicative of \ploutiz\, old causative verb from \ploutos\, wealth, common in Attic writers, dropped out for centuries, reappeared in LXX. In N.T. only three times and alone in Paul (1Corinthians:1:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:10,11|). The Christian finds his real riches in Christ, one of Paul's pregnant phrases full of the truest mysticism. {In all utterance and all knowledge} (\en panti logi kai pasi gnsei\). One detail in explanation of the riches in Christ. The outward expression (\logi\) here is put before the inward knowledge (\gnsei\) which should precede all speech. But we get at one's knowledge by means of his speech. Chapters strkjv@1Corinthians:12-14| throw much light on this element in the spiritual gifts of the Corinthians (the gift of tongues, interpreting tongues, discernment) as summed up in strkjv@1Corinthians:13:1,2|, the greater gifts of strkjv@12:31|. It was a marvellously endowed church in spite of their perversions.
rwp@1Corinthians:3:15 @{Shall be burned} (\katakasetai\). First-class condition again, assumed as true. Second future (late form) passive indicative of \katakai\, to burn down, old verb. Note perfective use of preposition \kata\, shall be burned down. We usually say "burned up," and that is true also, burned up in smoke. {He shall suffer loss} (\zmithsetai\). First future passive indicative of \zmi\, old verb from \zmia\ (damage, loss), to suffer loss. In strkjv@Matthew:16:26; strkjv@Mark:8:36; strkjv@Luke:9:25| the loss is stated to be the man's soul (\psuchn\) or eternal life. But here there is no such total loss as that. The man's work (\ergon\) is burned up (sermons, lectures, books, teaching, all dry as dust). {But he himself shall be saved} (\autos de sthsetai\). Eternal salvation, but not by purgatory. His work is burned up completely and hopelessly, but he himself escapes destruction because he is really a saved man a real believer in Christ. {Yet so as through fire} (\houts de hs dia puros\). Clearly Paul means with his work burned down (verse 15|). It is the tragedy of a fruitless life, of a minister who built so poorly on the true foundation that his work went up in smoke. His sermons were empty froth or windy words without edifying or building power. They left no mark in the lives of the hearers. It is the picture of a wasted life. The one who enters heaven by grace, as we all do who are saved, yet who brings no sheaves with him. There is no garnered grain the result of his labours in the harvest field. There are no souls in heaven as the result of his toil for Christ, no enrichment of character, no growth in grace.
rwp@1Corinthians:4:19 @{If the Lord will} (\ean ho kurios thelsi\). Third-class condition. See James strkjv@4:15; strkjv@Acts:18:21; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:7| for the use of this phrase. It should represent one's constant attitude, though not always to be spoken aloud. {But the power} (\alla tn dunamin\). The puffed up Judaizers did a deal of talking in Paul's absence. He will come and will know their real strength. II Corinthians gives many evidences of Paul's sensitiveness to their talk about his inconsistencies and cowardice (in particular chs. 2 Co 1; 2; 10; 11; 12; 13|). He changed his plans to spare them, not from timidity. It will become plain later that Timothy failed on this mission and that Titus succeeded.
rwp@1Corinthians:9:16 @{For if I preach} (\ean gar euaggelizmai\). Third class condition, supposable case. Same construction in verse 16| (\ean m\). {For necessity is laid upon me} (\anagk gar moi epikeitai\). Old verb, lies upon me (dative case \moi\). Jesus had called him (Acts:9:6,15; strkjv@Galatians:1:15f.; strkjv@Romans:1:14|). He could do no other and deserves no credit for doing it. {Woe is me} (\ouai gar moi\). Explaining the \anagk\ (necessity). Paul had to heed the call of Christ that he had heard. He had a real call to the ministry. Would that this were the case with every modern preacher.
rwp@1Corinthians:11:24 @{When he had given thanks} (\eucharistsas\). First aorist active participle of \euchariste\ from which word our word Eucharist comes, common late verb (see on ¯1:14|). {Which is for you} (\to huper humn\). \Klmenon\ (broken) of the Textus Receptus (King James Version) is clearly not genuine. Luke (Luke:22:19|) has \didomenon\ (given) which is the real idea here. As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not broken (John:19:36|). The bread was broken, but not the body of Jesus. {In remembrance of me} (\eis tn emn anamnsin\). The objective use of the possessive pronoun \emn\. Not my remembrance of you, but your remembrance of me. \Anamnsis\, from \anamimnsk\, to remind or to recall, is an old word, but only here in N.T. save strkjv@Luke:22:19| which see.
rwp@1Corinthians:12:10 @{Workings of miracles} (\energmata dunamen\). Workings of powers. Cf. \energn dunameis\ in strkjv@Galatians:3:5; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4| where all three words are used (\smeia\, signs, \terata\, wonders, \dunameis\, powers). Some of the miracles were not healings as the blindness on Elymas the sorcerer. {Prophecy} (\prophteia\). Late word from \prophts\ and \prophmi\, to speak forth. Common in papyri. This gift Paul will praise most (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:14|). Not always prediction, but a speaking forth of God's message under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. {Discernings of spirits} (\diakriseis pneumatn\). \Diakrisis\ is old word from \diakrin\ (see strkjv@11:29|) and in N.T. only here; strkjv@Romans:14:1; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14|. A most needed gift to tell whether the gifts were really of the Holy Spirit and supernatural (cf. so-called "gifts" today) or merely strange though natural or even diabolical (1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@1John:4:1f.|). {Divers kinds of tongues} (\gen glssn\). No word for "divers" in the Greek. There has arisen a great deal of confusion concerning the gift of tongues as found in Corinth. They prided themselves chiefly on this gift which had become a source of confusion and disorder. There were varieties (kinds, \gen\) in this gift, but the gift was essentially an ecstatic utterance of highly wrought emotion that edified the speaker (14:4|) and was intelligible to God (14:2,28|). It was not always true that the speaker in tongues could make clear what he had said to those who did not know the tongue (14:13|): It was not mere gibberish or jargon like the modern "tongues," but in a real language that could be understood by one familiar with that tongue as was seen on the great Day of Pentecost when people who spoke different languages were present. In Corinth, where no such variety of people existed, it required an interpreter to explain the tongue to those who knew it not. Hence Paul placed this gift lowest of all. It created wonder, but did little real good. This is the error of the Irvingites and others who have tried to reproduce this early gift of the Holy Spirit which was clearly for a special emergency and which was not designed to help spread the gospel among men. See on ¯Acts:2:13-21; strkjv@10:44-46; strkjv@19:6|. {The interpretation of tongues} (\hermneia glssn\). Old word, here only and strkjv@14:26| in N.T., from \hermneu\ from \Herms\ (the god of speech). Cf. on \diermneu\ in strkjv@Luke:24:27; strkjv@Acts:9:36|. In case there was no one present who understood the particular tongue it required a special gift of the Spirit to some one to interpret it if any one was to receive benefit from it.
rwp@1Corinthians:13:6 @{Rejoiceth not in unrighteousness} (\ou chairei\). See strkjv@Romans:1:32| for this depth of degradation. There are people as low as that whose real joy is in the triumph of evil. {But rejoiceth with the truth} (\sunchairei de ti altheii\). Associative instrumental case after \sun-\ in composition. Truth personified as opposed to unrighteousness (2Thessalonians:2:12; strkjv@Romans:2:8|). Love is on the side of the angels. Paul returns here to the positive side of the picture (verse 4|) after the remarkable negatives.
rwp@1Corinthians:14:34 @{Keep silence in the churches} (\en tais ekklsiais sigatsan\). The same verb used about the disorders caused by speakers in tongues (verse 28|) and prophets (30|). For some reason some of the women were creating disturbance in the public worship by their dress (11:2-16|) and now by their speech. There is no doubt at all as to Paul's meaning here. In church the women are not allowed to speak (\lalein\) nor even to ask questions. They are to do that {at home} (\en oiki\). He calls it a shame (\aischron\) as in strkjv@11:6| (cf. strkjv@Ephesians:5:12; strkjv@Titus:1:11|). Certainly women are still in subjection (\hupotassesthsan\) to their husbands (or ought to be). But somehow modern Christians have concluded that Paul's commands on this subject, even strkjv@1Timothy:2:12|, were meant for specific conditions that do not apply wholly now. Women do most of the teaching in our Sunday schools today. It is not easy to draw the line. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. It seems clear that we need to be patient with each other as we try to understand Paul's real meaning here.
rwp@Info_1John @ GNOSTICISM The Epistle is not a polemic primarily, but a letter for the edification of the readers in the truth and the life in Christ. And yet the errors of the Gnostics are constantly before John's mind. The leaders had gone out from among the true Christians, but there was an atmosphere of sympathy that constituted a subtle danger. There are only two passages (1John:2:18f.; strkjv@4:1-6|) in which the false teachers are specifically denounced, but "this unethical intellectualism" (Robert Law) with its dash of Greek culture and Oriental mysticism and licentiousness gave a curious attraction for many who did not know how to think clearly. John, like Paul in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles, foresaw this dire peril to Christianity. In the second century it gave pure Christianity a gigantic struggle. "The great Gnostics were the first Christian philosophers" (Robert Law, _The Tests of Life_, p. 27) and threatened to undermine the Gospel message by "deifying the devil" (ib., p. 31) along with dethroning Christ. There were two kinds of Gnostics, both agreeing in the essential evil of matter. Both had trouble with the Person of Christ. The Docetic Gnostics denied the actual humanity of Christ, the Cerinthian Gnostics distinguished between the man Jesus and the \aeon\ Christ that came on him at his baptism and left him on the Cross. Some practised asceticism, some licentiousness. John opposes both classes in his Epistles. They claimed superior knowledge (\gnsis\) and so were called Gnostics (\Gnstikoi\). Nine times John gives tests for knowing the truth and uses the verb \ginsk\ (know) each time (1John:2:3,5; strkjv@3:16,19,24; strkjv@4:2,6,13; strkjv@5:2|). Some of the leaders he calls antichrists. There are stories about John's dread of Cerinthus and his unwillingness to be seen in the same public bath with him. The Apostle of love, as he is, is a real son of thunder when Gnosticism shows its head. Westcott thinks that the Fourth Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity. Certainly both ideas appear in both books.
rwp@1John:3:18 @{In word, neither with the tongue} (\logi mde ti glssi\). Either instrumental or locative makes sense. What John means is "not merely by word or by the tongue." He does not condemn kind words which are comforting and cheering, but warm words should be accompanied by warm deeds to make real "in deed and in truth" (\en ergi kai altheii\). Here is a case where actions do speak louder than mere words.
rwp@1John:4:18 @{Fear} (\phobos\). Like a bond-slave (Romans:8:15|), not the reverence of a son (\eulabeia\, strkjv@Hebrews:5:7f.|) or the obedience to a father (\en phobi\, strkjv@1Peter:1:17|). This kind of dread is the opposite of \parrsia\ (boldness). {Perfect love} (\h teleia agap\). There is such a thing, perfect because it has been perfected (verses 12,17|). Cf. strkjv@James:1:4|. {Casteth out fear} (\ex ballei ton phobon\). "Drives fear out" so that it does not exist in real love. See \ekball ex\ in strkjv@John:6:37; strkjv@9:34f.; strkjv@12:31; strkjv@15:6| to turn out-of-doors, a powerful metaphor. Perfect love harbours no suspicion and no dread (1Corinthians:13|). {Hath punishment} (\kolasin echei\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:25:46|. \Timria\ has only the idea of penalty, \kolasis\ has also that of discipline, while \paideia\ has that of chastisement (Hebrews:12:7|). The one who still dreads (\phoboumenos\) has not been made perfect in love (\ou teteleitai\). Bengel graphically describes different types of men: "sine timore et amore; cum timore sine amore; cum timore et amore; sine timore cum amore."
rwp@1Peter:3:13 @{That will harm you} (\ho kaksn humas\). Future active articular participle of \kako\, old verb (from \kakos\, bad) as in strkjv@Acts:7:6,19|. Any real hurt, either that wishes to harm you or that can harm. See the words in strkjv@Isaiah:50:9|. {If ye be} (\ean gensthe\). Rather, "if ye become" (condition of third class with \ean\ and second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\). {Zealous of that which is good} (\tou agathou zltai\). "Zealots for the good" (objective genitive after \zltai\ (zealots, not zealous), old word from \zlo\ (1Corinthians:12:12|).
rwp@1Thessalonians:1:10 @{To wait for his Son from heaven} (\anamenein ton huion autou ek tn ourann\). Present infinitive, like \douleuein\, and so linear, to keep on waiting for. The hope of the second coming of Christ was real and powerful with Paul as it should be with us. It was subject to abuse then as now as Paul will have to show in this very letter. He alludes to this hope at the close of each chapter in this Epistle. {Whom he raised from the dead} (\hon geiren ek [tn] nekrn\). Paul gloried in the fact of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead of which fact he was himself a personal witness. This fact is the foundation stone for all his theology and it comes out in this first chapter. {Jesus which delivereth us from the wrath to come} (\Isoun ton ruomenon hms ek ts orgs ts erchomens\). It is the historic, crucified, risen, and ascended Jesus Christ, God's Son, who delivers from the coming wrath. He is our Saviour (Matthew:1:21|) true to his name Jesus. He is our Rescuer (Romans:11:26|, \ho ruomenos\, from strkjv@Isaiah:59:20|). It is eschatological language, this coming wrath of God for sin (1Thessalonians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:3:5; strkjv@5:9; strkjv@9:22; strkjv@13:5|). It was Paul's allusion to the day of judgment with Jesus as Judge whom God had raised from the dead that made the Athenians mock and leave him (Acts:17:31f.|). But Paul did not change his belief or his preaching because of the conduct of the Athenians. He is certain that God's wrath in due time will punish sin. Surely this is a needed lesson for our day. It was coming then and it is coming now.
rwp@1Thessalonians:2:16 @{Forbidding us} (\kluontn hms\). Explanatory participle of the idea in \enantin\. They show their hostility to Paul at every turn. Right here in Corinth, where Paul is when he writes, they had already shown venomous hostility toward Paul as Luke makes plain (Acts:18:6ff.|). They not simply oppose his work among the Jews, but also to the Gentiles (\ethnesi\, nations outside of the Abrahamic covenant as they understood it). {That they may be saved} (\hina sthsin\). Final use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \sz\ old verb to save. It was the only hope of the Gentiles, Christ alone and not the mystery-religions offered any real hope. {To fill up their sins alway} (\eis to anaplrsai autn tas hamartias pantote\). Another example of \eis to\ and the infinitive as in verse 12|. It may either be God's conceived plan to allow the Jews to go on and fill up (\anaplrsai\, note \ana\, fill up full, old verb) or it may be the natural result from the continual (\pantote\) sins of the Jews. {Is come} (\ephthasen\). First aorist (timeless aorist) active indicative of \phthan\ which no longer means to come before as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:15| where alone in the N.T. it retains the old idea of coming before. Some MSS. have the perfect active \ephthaken\, prophetic perfect of realization already. Frame translates it: "But the wrath has come upon them at last." This is the most likely meaning of \eis telos\. Paul vividly foresees and foretells the final outcome of this attitude of hate on the part of the Jews. _Tristis exitus_, Bengel calls it. Paul speaks out of a sad experience.
rwp@1Thessalonians:5:7 @{They that be drunken are drunken in the night} (\hoi methuskomenoi nuktos methuousin\). No need of "be" here, they that are drunken. No real difference in meaning between \methusk\ and \methu\, to be drunk, except that \methusk\ (inceptive verb in \-sk\) means to get drunk. {Night} (\nuktos\, genitive by night) is the favourite time for drunken revelries.
rwp@2Corinthians:1:15 @{Confidence} (\pepoithsei\). This late word (LXX Philo, Josephus) is condemned by the Atticists, but Paul uses it a half dozen times (3:4| also). {I was minded to come} (\eboulomn elthein\). Imperfect, I was wishing to come, picturing his former state of mind. {Before unto you} (\proteron pros humas\). This was his former plan (\proteron\) while in Ephesus to go to Achaia directly from Ephesus. This he confesses in verse 16| "and by you to pass into Macedonia." {That ye might have a second benefit} (\hina deuteran charin schte\). Or second "joy" if we accept \charan\ with Westcott and Hort. This would be a real second blessing (or joy) if they should have two visits from Paul.
rwp@2Corinthians:8:8 @{Proving} (\dokimazn\). Testing and so proving. {The sincerity also of your love} (\kai to ts humeteras agaps gnsion\). Old adjective, contraction of \genesios\ (\ginomai\), legitimately born, not spurious. A collection is a test of one's love for Christ, not the only test, but a real one.
rwp@2Corinthians:11:21 @{By way of disparagement} (\kata atimian\). Intense irony. Cf. strkjv@6:8|. {As though} (\hs hoti\). Presented as the charge of another. "They more than tolerate those who trample on them while they criticize as 'weak' one who shows them great consideration" (Plummer). After these prolonged explanations Paul "changes his tone from irony to direct and masterful assertion" (Bernard). {I am bold also} (\tolm kag\). Real courage. Cf. strkjv@10:2,12|.
rwp@2Corinthians:12:14 @{Third time I am ready to come} (\triton touto hetoims ech\). Had he been already twice or only once? He had changed his plans once when he did not go (1:15f.|). He will not change his plans now. This looks as if he had only been once (that in strkjv@Acts:18|). Note the third use of \katanarka\ (11:9; strkjv@12:13,14|). They need not be apprehensive. He will be as financially independent of them as before. "I shall not sponge on you." {Not yours, but you} (\ou ta humn, alla humas\). The motto of every real preacher. {To lay up} (\thsaurizein\). For this use of the verb see strkjv@1Corinthians:16:2| (Matthew:6:19-21; strkjv@James:5:3|).
rwp@2Corinthians:12:21 @{When I come again} (\palin elthontos mou\). Genitive absolute. Paul assumes it as true. {Lest my God humble me} (\m tapeinsi me ho theos mou\). Negative final clause (\m\ and first aorist active subjunctive), going back to \phoboumai\ in 20|. He means a public humiliation as his fear. The conduct of the church had been a real humiliation whether he refers to a previous visit or not. {That have sinned heretofore} (\tn promartkotn\). Genitive plural of the articular perfect active participle of \proamartan\ to emphasize continuance of their sinful state as opposed to \m metanosantn\ (did not repent) in the aorist tense.
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@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorge\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai iditai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.
rwp@Info_1Thessalonians @ This Epistle is a bit sharper in tone than the First and also briefer. It has been suggested that there were two churches in Thessalonica, a Gentile Church to which First Thessalonians was sent, and a Jewish Church to which Second Thessalonians was addressed. There is no real evidence for such a gratuitous hypothesis. It assumes a difficulty about his sending a second letter to the same church that does not exist. The bearer of the first letter brought back news that made a second necessary. It was probably sent within the same year as the first. strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:1 @{Paul, etc.} (\Paulos, etc.\). This address or superscription is identical with that in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1| save that our (\hmn\) is added after {Father} (\patri\).
rwp@2Thessalonians:3:16 @{The Lord of peace himself} (\autos ho kurios ts eirns\). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:23| for {the God of peace himself}. {Give you peace} (\doi humin tn eirnn\). Second aorist active optative (_Koin_) of \didmi\, not \di\ (subjunctive). Songs:also strkjv@Romans:15:5; strkjv@2Timothy:1:16,18|. The Lord Jesus whose characteristic is peace, can alone give real peace to the heart and to the world. (John:14:27|).
rwp@Acts:2:3 @{Parting asunder} (\diamerizomenai\). Present middle (or passive) participle of \diameriz\, old verb, to cleave asunder, to cut in pieces as a butcher does meat (aorist passive in strkjv@Luke:11:17f.|). Songs:middle here would mean, parting themselves asunder or distributing themselves. The passive voice would be "being distributed." The middle is probably correct and means that "the fire-like appearance presented itself at first, as it were, in a single body, and then suddenly parted in this direction and that; so that a portion of it rested on each of those present" (Hackett). The idea is not that each tongue was cloven, but each separate tongue looked like fire, not real fire, but looking like (\hsei\, as if) fire. The audible sign is followed by a visible one (Knowling). "Fire had always been, with the Jews, the symbol of the Divine presence (cf. strkjv@Exodus:3:2; strkjv@Deuteronomy:5:4|). No symbol could be more fitting to express the Spirit's purifying energy and refining energy" (Furneaux). The Baptist had predicted a baptizing by the Messiah in the Holy Spirit and in fire (Matthew:3:11|). {It sat} (\ekathisen\). Singular verb here, though plural \pthsan\ with tongues (\glssai\). A tongue that looked like fire sat upon each one.
rwp@Acts:2:4 @{With other tongues} (\heterais glssais\). Other than their native tongues. Each one began to speak in a language that he had not acquired and yet it was a real language and understood by those from various lands familiar with them. It was not jargon, but intelligible language. Jesus had said that the gospel was to go to all the nations and here the various tongues of earth were spoken. One might conclude that this was the way in which the message was to be carried to the nations, but future developments disprove it. This is a third miracle (the sound, the tongues like fire, the untaught languages). There is no blinking the fact that Luke so pictures them. One need not be surprised if this occasion marks the fulfilment of the Promise of the Father. But one is not to confound these miraculous signs with the Holy Spirit. They are merely proof that he has come to carry on the work of his dispensation. The gift of tongues came also on the house of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts:10:44-47; strkjv@11:15-17|), the disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts:19:6|), the disciples at Corinth (1Corinthians:14:1-33|). It is possible that the gift appeared also at Samaria (Acts:8:18|). But it was not a general or a permanent gift. Paul explains in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:22| that "tongues" were a sign to unbelievers and were not to be exercised unless one was present who understood them and could translate them. This restriction disposes at once of the modern so-called tongues which are nothing but jargon and hysteria. It so happened that here on this occasion at Pentecost there were Jews from all parts of the world, so that some one would understand one tongue and some another without an interpreter such as was needed at Corinth. The experience is identical in all four instances and they are not for edification or instruction, but for adoration and wonder and worship. {As the Spirit gave them utterance} (\kaths to pneuma edidou apophtheggesthai autois\). This is precisely what Paul claims in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:10,28|, but all the same without an interpreter the gift was not to be exercised (1Corinthians:14:6-19|). Paul had the gift of tongues, but refused to exercise it except as it would be understood. Note the imperfect tense here (\edidou\). Perhaps they did not all speak at once, but one after another. \Apophtheggesthai\ is a late verb (LXX of prophesying, papyri). Lucian uses it of the ring of a vessel when it strikes a reef. It is used of eager, elevated, impassioned utterance. In the N.T. only here, verse 14; strkjv@26:25|. \Apophthegm\ is from this verb.
rwp@Acts:3:20 @{And that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus} (\kai aposteili ton prokecheirismenon humin Christon Isoun\). First aorist active subjunctive with \hops an\ as in strkjv@15:17| and strkjv@Luke:2:35|. There is little real difference in idea between \hops an\ and \hina an\. There is a conditional element in all purpose clauses. The reference is naturally to the second coming of Christ as verse 21| shows. Knowling admits "that there is a spiritual presence of the enthroned Jesus which believers enjoy as a foretaste of the visible and glorious Presence of the \Parousia\." Jesus did promise to be with the disciples all the days (Matthew:28:20|), and certainly repentance with accompanying seasons of refreshing help get the world ready for the coming of the King. The word \prokecheirismenon\ (perfect passive participle of \procheiriz\, from \procheiros\, at hand, to take into one's hands, to choose) is the correct text here, not \prokekrugmenon\. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:22:14; strkjv@26:16|. It is not "Jesus Christ" here nor "Christ Jesus," but "the Messiah, Jesus," identifying Jesus with the Messiah. See the Second Epiphany of Jesus foretold also in strkjv@1Timothy:6:15| and the First Epiphany described in strkjv@1Peter:1:20|.
rwp@Acts:4:23 @{To their own company} (\pros tous idious\). Their own people as in strkjv@John:1:11; strkjv@13:1; strkjv@Acts:24:23; strkjv@1Timothy:5:8; strkjv@Titus:3:14|, not merely the apostles (all the disciples). In spite of Peter's courageous defiance he and John told the brotherhood all that had been said by the Sanhedrin. They had real apprehension of the outcome.
rwp@Acts:5:15 @{Insomuch that} (\hste\). With the present infinitive \ekpherein\ and \tithenai\, regular Greek idiom for result. {Into the streets} (\eis tas plateias\). Supply \hodous\ (ways), into the broad ways. {On beds and couches} (\epi klinarin kai krabattn\). Little beds (\klinaria\ diminutive of \klin\) and camp beds or pallets (see on ¯Mark:2:4,9,11|). {As Peter came by} (\erchomenou Petrou\). Genitive absolute with present middle participle. {At the least his shadow might overshadow} (\kan h skia episkiasei\). Future active indicative with \hina\ (common with \hops\ in ancient Greek) and \kan\ (crasis for \kai ean\=even if), even if only the shadow. The word for shadow (\skia\, like our "sky") is repeated in the verb and preserved in our "overshadow." There was, of course, no virtue or power in Peter's shadow. That was faith with superstition, of course, just as similar cases in the Gospels occur (Matthew:9:20; strkjv@Mark:6:56; strkjv@John:9:5|) and the use of Paul's handkerchief (Acts:19:12|). God honours even superstitious faith if it is real faith in him. Few people are wholly devoid of superstition.
rwp@Acts:7:1 @{Are these things so?} (\ei tauta houts echei\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen speaking against the holy temple, changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. Songs:he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts:13:16ff.|) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse 51|) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "Songs:Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).
rwp@Acts:8:6 @{Gave heed} (\proseichon\). Imperfect active as in verses 10,11|, there with dative of the person (\auti\), here with the dative of the thing (\tois legomenois\). There is an ellipse of \noun\ (mind). They kept on giving heed or holding the mind on the things said by Philip, spell-bound, in a word. {When they heard} (\en ti akouein autous\). Favourite Lukan idiom, \en\ and the locative case of the articlar infinitive with the accusative of general reference "in the hearing as to them." {Which he did} (\ha epoiei\). Imperfect active again, which he kept on doing from time to time. Philip wrought real miracles which upset the schemes of Simon Magus.
rwp@Acts:9:5 @{Lord} (\kurie\). It is open to question if \kurie\ should not here be translated "Sir" as in strkjv@16:30| and in strkjv@Matthew:21:29,30; strkjv@John:5:7; strkjv@12:21; strkjv@20:15|; and should be so in strkjv@John:9:36|. It is hardly likely that at this stage Saul recognized Jesus as Lord, though he does so greet him in strkjv@22:10| "What shall I do, Lord?" Saul may have recognized the vision as from God as Cornelius says "Lord" in strkjv@10:4|. Saul surrendered instantly as Thomas did (John:20:28|) and as little Samuel (1Samuel:3:9|). This surrender of the will to Christ was the conversion of Saul. He saw a real Person, the Risen Christ, to whom he surrendered his life. On this point he never wavered for a moment to the end.
rwp@Acts:9:27 @{Took him} (\epilabomenos\). Second aorist middle (indirect) participle of \epilamban\, common verb to lay hold of. Barnabas saw the situation and took Saul to himself and listened to his story and believed it. It is to the credit of Barnabas that he had the insight and the courage to stand by Saul at the crucial moment in his life when the evidence seemed to be against him. It is a pleasing hypothesis that this influential disciple from Cyprus had gone to the University of Tarsus where he met Saul. If so, he would know more of him than those who only knew his record as a persecutor of Christians. That fact Barnabas knew also, but he was convinced that Jesus had changed the heart of Saul and he used his great influence (Acts:4:36; strkjv@11:22|) to win the favour of the apostles, Peter in particular (Galatians:1:19|) and James the half-brother of Jesus. The other apostles were probably out of the city as Paul says that he did not see them. {To the apostles} (\pros tous apostolous\). Both Barnabas and James are termed apostles in the general sense, though not belonging to the twelve, as Paul did not, though himself later a real apostle. Songs:Barnabas introduced Saul to Peter and vouched for his story, declared it fully (\digsato\, in detail) including Saul's vision of Jesus (\eiden ton kurion\) as the vital thing and Christ's message to Saul (\elalsen auti\) and Saul's bold preaching (\parrsiasato\, first aorist middle indicative of \parrsiaz\ from \pan--rsia\ telling it all as in strkjv@Acts:2:29|). Peter was convinced and Saul was his guest for two weeks (Galatians:1:18|) with delightful fellowship (\historsai\). He had really come to Jerusalem mainly "to visit" (to see) Peter, but not to receive a commission from him. He had that from the Lord (Galatians:1:1f.|). Both Peter and James could tell Saul of their special experiences with the Risen Christ. Furneaux thinks that Peter was himself staying at the home of Mary the mother of John Mark (Acts:12:12|) who was a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians:4:10|). This is quite possible. At any rate Saul is now taken into the inner circle of the disciples in Jerusalem.
rwp@Acts:10:16 @{Thrice} (\epitris\). For three times. Peter remained unconvinced even by the prohibition of God. Here is a striking illustration of obstinacy on the part of one who acknowledges the voice of God to him when the command of the Lord crosses one's preferences and prejudices. There are abundant examples today of precisely this thing. In a real sense Peter was maintaining a pose of piety beyond the will of the Lord. Peter was defiling what God had cleansed. {Was received up} (\anelmphth\). First aorist passive indicative of \analamban\, to take up. The word used of the Ascension (1:22|).
rwp@Acts:10:36 @{The word which he sent} (\ton logon hon apesteilen\). Many ancient MSS. (so Westcott and Hort) read merely \ton logon apesteilen\ (he sent the word). This reading avoids the anacoluthon and inverse attraction of \logon\ to the case of the relative \hon\ (which). {Preaching good tidings of peace through Jesus Christ} (\euaggelizomenos eirnn dia Isou Christou\). Gospelizing peace through Jesus Christ. There is no other way to have real peace between individuals and God, between races and nations, than by Jesus Christ. Almost this very language occurs in strkjv@Ephesians:2:17| where Paul states that Jesus on the cross "preached (gospelized) peace to you who are afar off and peace to you who are near." Peter here sees what Paul will see later with great clearness. {He is Lord of all} (\houtos estin pantn kurios\). A triumphant parenthesis that Peter throws in as the reason for his new truth. Jesus Christ is Lord of all, both Jews and Gentiles.
rwp@Acts:11:1 @{In Judea} (\kata tn Ioudaian\). Throughout Judea (probably all Palestine), distributive use of \kata\. The news from Casearea spread like wildfire among the Jewish Christians. The case of the Samaritans was different, for they were half Jews, though disliked. But here were real Romans even if with Jewish affinities. {Had received} (\edexanto\). First aorist middle indicative. The English idiom requires "had" received, the Greek has simply "received."
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@Acts:13:9 @{But Saul, who is also called Paul} (\Saulos de, ho kai Paulos\). By this remarkably brief phrase Luke presents this epoch in the life of Saul Paul. The "also" (\kai\) does not mean that the name Paul was given now for the first time, rather than he had always had it. As a Jew and a Roman citizen, he undoubtedly had both names all the time (cf. John Mark, Symeon Niger, Barsabbas Justus). Jerome held that the name of Sergius Paulus was adopted by Saul because of his conversion at this time, but this is a wholly unlikely explanation, "an element of vulgarity impossible to St. Paul " (Farrar). Augustine thought that the meaning of the Latin _paulus_ (little) would incline Saul to adopt, "but as a proper name the word rather suggested the glories of the Aemilian family, and even to us recalls the name of another Paulus, who was 'lavish of his noble life'" (Page). Among the Jews the name Saul was naturally used up to this point, but from now on Luke employs Paul save when there is a reference to his previous life (Acts:22:7; strkjv@26:14|). His real career is work among the Gentiles and Paul is the name used by them. There is a striking similarity in sound between the Hebrew Saul and the Roman Paul. Paul was proud of his tribe of Benjamin and so of King Saul (Phillipians:3:5|). {Filled with the Holy Spirit} (\plstheis pneumatos hagiou\). First aorist (ingressive) passive participle of \pimplmi\ with the genitive case. A special influx of power to meet this emergency. Here was a cultured heathen, typical of the best in Roman life, who called forth all the powers of Paul plus the special help of the Holy Spirit to expose the wickedness of Elymas Barjesus. If one wonders why the Holy Spirit filled Paul for this emergency rather than Barnabas, when Barnabas was named first in strkjv@13:2|, he can recall the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit in his choice of agents (1Corinthians:12:4-11|) and also the special call of Paul by Christ (Acts:9:15; strkjv@26:17f.|). {Fastened his eyes} (\atenisas\). As already in strkjv@Luke:4:20; strkjv@22:56; strkjv@Acts:3:4,12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@10:4|.
rwp@Acts:13:39 @{And by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses} (\kai apo pantn hn ouk dunthte en nomi Muses dikaiothnai en touti ps ho pisteun dikaioutai\). This is a characteristic Greek sentence with the principal clause at the end and Pauline to the core. A literal rendering as to the order would be: "And from all the things from (\apo\ not repeated in the Greek, but understood, the ablative case being repeated) which ye were not able to be justified in this one every one who believes is justified." The climax is at the close and gives us the heart of Paul's teaching about Christ. "We have here the germ of all that is most characteristic in Paul's later teaching. It is the argument of the Epistle to Galatians and Romans in a sentence" (Furneaux). The failure of the Mosaic law to bring the kind of righteousness that God demands is stated. This is made possible in and by (\en\) Christ alone. Paul's favourite words occur here, \pisteu\, believe, with which \pistis\, faith, is allied, \dikaio\, to set right with God on the basis of faith. In strkjv@Romans:6:7| Paul uses \apo\ also after \dikaio\. These are key words (\pisteu\ and \dikaio\) in Paul's theology and call for prolonged and careful study if one is to grasp the Pauline teaching. \Dikaio\ primarily means to make righteous, to declare righteous like \axio\, to deem worthy (\axios\). But in the end Paul holds that real righteousness will come (Romans:6-8|) to those whom God treats as righteous (Romans:3-5|) though both Gentile and Jew fall short without Christ (Romans:1-3|). This is the doctrine of grace that will prove a stumbling block to the Jews with their ceremonial works and foolishness to the Greeks with their abstract philosophical ethics (1Corinthians:1:23-25|). It is a new and strange doctrine to the people of Antioch.
rwp@Acts:13:46 @{Spake out boldly} (\parrsiasamenoi\). First aorist middle participle of \parrsiazomai\, to use freedom in speaking, to assume boldness. Both Paul and Barnabas accepted the challenge of the rabbis. They would leave their synagogue, but not without a word of explanation. {It was necessary to you first} (\Humin n anagkaion prton\). They had done their duty and had followed the command of Jesus (1:8|). They use the very language of Peter in strkjv@3:26| (\humin prton\) "to you first." This position Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles will always hold, the Jew first in privilege and penalty (Romans:1:16; strkjv@2:9,10|). {Ye thrust it from you} (\aptheisthe auton\). Present middle (indirect, from yourselves) indicative of \apthe\, to push from. Vigorous verb seen already in strkjv@Acts:7:27,39| which see. {Judge yourselves unworthy} (\ouk axious krinete heautous\). Present active indicative of the common verb \krin\, to judge or decide with the reflexive pronoun expressed. Literally, Do not judge yourselves worthy. By their action and their words they had taken a violent and definite stand. {Lo, we turn to the Gentiles} (\idou strephometha eis ta ethn\). It is a crisis (\idou\, lo): "Lo, we turn ourselves to the Gentiles." Probably also aoristic present, we now turn (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 864-70). \Strephometha\ is probably the direct middle (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 806-08) though the aorist passive \estraphn\ is so used also (7:39|). It is a dramatic moment as Paul and Barnabas turn from the Jews to the Gentiles, a prophecy of the future history of Christianity. In strkjv@Romans:9-11| Paul will discuss at length the rejection of Christ by the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles to be the real (the spiritual) Israel.
rwp@Acts:14:8 @{At Lystra} (\en Lustrois\). Neuter plural as in strkjv@16:2; strkjv@2Timothy:3:11| while feminine singular in strkjv@14:6,21; strkjv@16:1|. There was apparently no synagogue in Lystra and so not many Jews. Paul and Barnabas had to do open-air preaching and probably had difficulty in being understood by the natives though both Greek and Latin inscriptions were discovered here by Professor Sterrett in 1885. The incident narrated here (verses 8-18|) shows how they got a real hearing among these rude heathen. {There sat} (\ekathto\). Imperfect middle of \kathmai\. Was sitting. This case is very much like that in strkjv@3:1-11|, healed by Peter. Possibly outside the gate (verse 13|) or some public place. {Impotent in his feet} (\adunatos tois posin\). Old verbal, but only here in the N.T. in this sense except figuratively in strkjv@Romans:15:1|. Elsewhere it means "impossible" (Matthew:19:26|). Locative case. Common in medical writers in the sense of "impotent." Songs:Tobit strkjv@2:10; strkjv@5:9. {Had walked} (\periepatsen\). Songs:best MSS., first aorist active indicative "walked," not \periepepatkei\, "had walked" (past perfect active).
rwp@Acts:15:2 @{When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them} (\Genomens stases kai ztses ouk oligs ti Pauli kai Barnabi pros autous\). Genitive absolute of second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, genitive singular agreeing with first substantive \stases\. Literally, "No little (litotes for much) strife and questioning coming to Paul and Barnabas (dative case) with them " (\pros autous\, face to face with them). Paul and Barnabas were not willing to see this Gentile church brow-beaten and treated as heretics by these self-appointed regulators of Christian orthodoxy from Jerusalem. The work had developed under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas and they accepted full responsibility for it and stoutly resisted these Judaizers to the point of sedition (riot, outbreak in strkjv@Luke:23:25; strkjv@Acts:19:40|) as in strkjv@23:7|. There is no evidence that the Judaizers had any supporters in the Antioch church so that they failed utterly to make any impression. Probably these Judaizers compelled Paul to think through afresh his whole gospel of grace and so they did Paul and the world a real service. If the Jews like Paul had to believe, it was plain that there was no virtue in circumcision (Galatians:2:15-21|). It is not true that the early Christians had no disagreements. They had selfish avarice with Ananias and Sapphira, murmuring over the gifts to the widows, simony in the case of Simon Magus, violent objection to work in Caesarea, and now open strife over a great doctrine (grace vs. legalism). {The brethren appointed} (\etaxan\). "The brethren" can be supplied from verse 1| and means the church in Antioch. The church clearly saw that the way to remove this deadlock between the Judaizers and Paul and Barnabas was to consult the church in Jerusalem to which the Judaizers belonged. Paul and Barnabas had won in Antioch. If they can win in Jerusalem, that will settle the matter. The Judaizers will be answered in their own church for which they are presuming to speak. The verb \etaxan\ (\tass\, to arrange) suggests a formal appointment by the church in regular assembly. Paul (Galatians:2:2|) says that he went up by revelation (\kat' apokalupsin\), but surely that is not contradictory to the action of the church. {Certain others of them} (\tinas allous\). Certainly Titus (Galatians:2:1,3|), a Greek and probably a brother of Luke who is not mentioned in Acts. Rackham thinks that Luke was in the number. {The apostles and elders} (\tous apostolous kai presbuterous\). Note one article for both (cf. "the apostles and the brethren" in strkjv@11:1|). "Elders" now (11:30|) in full force. The apostles have evidently returned now to the city after the death of Herod Agrippa I stopped the persecution.
rwp@Acts:16:1 @{And he came also to Derbe and Lystra} (\katntsen de kai eis Derbn kai eis Lustran\). First aorist active of \katanta\, late verb to come down to, to arrive at. He struck Derbe first of the places in the first tour which was the last city reached then. {Timothy} (\Timotheos\). Apparently a native of Lystra ("there," \ekei\), his Hebrew mother named Eunice and grandmother Lois (2Timothy:1:5|) and his Greek father's name not known. He may have been a proselyte, but not necessarily so as Timothy was taught the Scriptures by his mother and grandmother (2Timothy:3:15|), and, if a proselyte, he would have had Timothy circumcised. It is idle to ask if Paul came on purpose to get Timothy to take Mark's place. Probably Timothy was about eighteen years of age, a convert of Paul's former visit a few years before (1Timothy:1:2|) and still young twelve years later (1Timothy:4:12|). Paul loved him devotedly (1Timothy:1:3; strkjv@5:23; strkjv@2Timothy:3:15; strkjv@Phillipians:2:19f.|). It is a glorious discovery to find a real young preacher for Christ's work.
rwp@Acts:16:6 @{The region of Phrygia and Galatia} (\tn Phrugian kai Galatikn chran\). This is probably the correct text with one article and apparently describes one "Region" or District in The Province of Galatia which was also Phrygian (the old-ethnographic name with which compare the use of Lycaonia in strkjv@14:6|). Strictly speaking Derbe and Lystra, though in the Province of Galatia, were not Phrygian, and so Luke would here be not resumptive of the record in verses 1-5|; but a reference to the country around Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia in North Galatia is not included. This verse is hotly disputed at every point by the advocates of the North Galatian theory as represented by Chase and the South Galatian theory by Ramsay. Whatever is true in regard to the language of Luke here and in strkjv@18:23|, it is still possible for Paul in strkjv@Galatians:1:2| to use the term Galatia of the whole province of that name which could, in fact, apply to either South or North Galatia or to both. He could, of course, use it also in the ethnographic sense of the real Gauls or Celts who dwelt in North Galatia. Certainly the first tour of Paul and Barnabas was in the Province of Galatia though touching only the Regions of Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia, which province included besides the Gauls to the north. In this second tour Lycaonia has been already touched (Derbe and Lystra) and now Phrygia. The question arises why Luke here and in strkjv@18:23| adds the term "of Galatia" (\Galatikn\) though not in strkjv@13:14| (Pisidian Antioch) nor in strkjv@14:6| (cities of Lycaonia). Does Luke mean to use "of Galatia" in the same ethnographic sense as "of Phrygia" or does he here add the province (Galatia) to the name of the Region (Phrygia)? In itself either view is possible and it really matters very little except that the question is raised whether Paul went into the North Galatian Region on this occasion or later (18:23|). He could have done so and the Epistle be addressed to the churches of South Galatia, North Galatia, or the province as a whole. But the Greek participle \kluthentes\ ("having been forbidden") plays a part in the argument that cannot be overlooked whether Luke means to say that Paul went north or not. This aorist passive participle of \klu\, to hinder, can only express simultaneous or antecedent action, not subsequent action as Ramsay argues. No example of the so-called subsequent use of the aorist participle has ever been found in Greek as all Greek grammarians agree (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 860-63, 1112-14). The only natural meaning of \kluthentes\ is that Paul with Silas and Timothy "passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia" because they were hindered by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia (the Province of Asia of which Ephesus was the chief city and west of Derbe and Lystra). This construction implies that the country called "the region of Phrygia and Galatia" is not in the direct line west toward Ephesus. What follows in verse 7| throws further light on the point.
rwp@Acts:16:7 @{Over against Mysia} (\kata tn Musian\). This was an ill-defined region rather north and west of Phrygia. The Romans finally absorbed most of it in the Province of Asia. {They assayed to go into Bithynia} (\epeirazon eis tn Bithunian poreuthnai\). Conative imperfect of \peiraz\ and ingressive aorist passive infinitive of \poreuomai\. Now Bithynia is northeast of Mysia and north of Galatia (province). Clearly Luke means to say that Paul had, when hindered by the Holy Spirit from going west into Asia, gone north so as to come in front of Bithynia. This journey would take him directly through Phrygia and the North Galatian country (the real Gauls or Celts). This is, to my mind, the strongest argument for the North Galatian view in these verses 6,7|. The grammar and the topography bring Paul right up to Bithynia (north of the old Galatia). It is verses 6,7| that make me pause before accepting the plausible arguments of Ramsay for the South Galatian theory. In itself the problem is nothing like so important or so determinative as he makes it. But shall we smash Luke's grammar to pieces to bolster up a theory of criticism? {And the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not} (\kai ouk eiasen autous to pneuma Isou\). The same Spirit who in verse 6| had forbidden going into Asia now closed the door into Bithynia. This expression occurs nowhere else, but we have the spirit of Christ (Romans:8:9|) and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:19|). \Eiasen\ is first aorist active indicative of \ea\, old verb to allow.
rwp@Acts:16:9 @{A vision} (\horama\). Old word, eleven times in Acts, once in strkjv@Matthew:17:9|. Twice Paul had been hindered by the Holy Spirit from going where he wanted to go. Most men would have gone back home with such rebuffs, but not so Paul. Now the call is positive and not negative, to go "far hence to the Gentiles" (22:21|). He had little dreamed of such a call when he left Antioch. Paul's frequent visions always came at real crises in his life. {A man of Macedonia} (\anr Makedn\). Ramsay follows Renan in the view that this was Luke with whom Paul had conversed about conditions in Macedonia. Verse 10| makes it plain that Luke was now in the party, but when he joined them we do not know. Some hold that Luke lived at Antioch in Syria and came on with Paul and Silas, others that he joined them later in Galatia, others that he appeared now either as Paul's physician or new convert. Ramsay thinks that Philippi was his home at this time. But, whatever is true about Luke, the narrative must not be robbed of its supernatural aspect (10:10; strkjv@22:17|). {Was standing} (\n hests\). Second perfect active participle of \histmi\, intransitive, periphrastic imperfect. Vivid picture. {Help us} (\bothson hmin\). Ingressive first aorist active imperative of \bothe\ (\bo, the\), to run at a cry, to help. The man uses the plural for all including himself. It was the cry of Europe for Christ.
rwp@Acts:16:16 @{A spirit of divination} (\pneuma puthna\). Songs:the correct text with accusative (apparition, a spirit, a python), not the genitive (\puthnos\). Hesychius defines it as \daimonion manikon\ (a spirit of divination). The etymology of the word is unknown. Bengel suggests \puthesthai\ from \punthanomai\, to inquire. Python was the name given to the serpent that kept guard at Delphi, slain by Apollo, who was called \Puthios Apollo\ and the prophetess at Delphi was termed Pythia. Certainly Luke does not mean to credit Apollo with a real existence (1Corinthians:8:4|). But Plutarch (A.D. 50-100) says that the term \puthnes\ was applied to ventriloquists (\eggastrimuthoi\). In the LXX those with familiar spirits are called by this word ventriloquists (Leviticus:19:31; strkjv@20:6,27|, including the witch of Endor strkjv@1Samuel:28:7|). It is possible that this slave girl had this gift of prophecy "by soothsaying" (\manteuomen\). Present middle participle of \manteuomai\, old heathen word (in contrast with \prophteu\) for acting the seer (\mantis\) and this kin to \mainomai\, to be mad, like the howling dervishes of later times. This is the so-called instrumental use of the circumstantial participles. {Brought} (\pareichen\). Imperfect active of \parech\, a steady source of income. {Much gain} (\ergasian polln\). Work, business, from \ergazomai\, to work. {Her masters} (\tois kuriois auts\). Dative case. Joint owners of this poor slave girl who were exploiting her calamity, whatever it was, for selfish gain, just as men and women today exploit girls and women in the "white slave" trade. As a fortune-teller she was a valuable asset for all the credulous dupes of the community. Simon Magus in Samaria and Elymas Barjesus in Cyprus had won power and wealth as soothsayers.
rwp@Acts:16:21 @{Customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, or to observe, being Romans} (\eth ha ouk estin hmin paradechesthai oude poiein Rmaiois ousin\). Note the sharp contrast between "being Jews" in verse 20| and "being Romans" here. This pose of patriotism is all sound and fury. It is love of money that moves these "masters" far more than zeal for Rome. As Roman citizens in a colony they make full use of all their rights of protest. Judaism was a _religio licita_ in the Roman empire, only they were not allowed to make proselytes of the Romans themselves. No Roman magistrate would pass on abstract theological questions (18:15|), but only if a breach of the peace was made (\ektarassousin hmn tn polin\) or the formation of secret sects and organizations. Evidently both of these last points are involved by the charges of "unlawful customs" by the masters who are silent about their real ground of grievance against Paul and Silas. \Ethos\ (kin to \thos\, strkjv@1Corinthians:15:33|) is from \eth\, to be accustomed or used to a thing. The Romans granted toleration to conquered nations to follow their religious customs provided they did not try to win the Romans. But the Jews had made great headway to favour (the God-fearers) with increasing hatred also. Emperor worship had in store grave peril for both Jews and Christians. The Romans will care more for this than for the old gods and goddesses. It will combine patriotism and piety.
rwp@Acts:17:10 @{Immediately by night} (\euthes dia nuktos\). Paul's work had not been in vain in Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:1:7f.; strkjv@2:13,20|). Paul loved the church here. Two of them, Aristarchus and Secundus, will accompany him to Jerusalem (Acts:20:4|) and Aristarchus will go on with him to Rome (27:2|). Plainly Paul and Silas had been in hiding in Thessalonica and in real danger. After his departure severe persecution came to the Christians in Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:2:14; strkjv@3:1-5; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:6|). It is possible that there was an escort of Gentile converts with Paul and Silas on this night journey to Beroea which was about fifty miles southwest from Thessalonica near Pella in another district of Macedonia (Emathia). There is a modern town there of some 6,000 people. {Went} (\apiesan\). Imperfect third plural active of \apeimi\, old verb to go away, here alone in the N.T. A literary, almost Atticistic, form instead of \aplthon\. {Into the synagogue of the Jews} (\eis tn sunaggn tn Ioudain\). Paul's usual custom and he lost no time about it. Enough Jews here to have a synagogue.
rwp@Acts:17:12 @{Many therefore} (\Polloi men oun\). As a result of this Bible study. {Also of the Greek women of honourable estate}. The word \Hellnis\ means Greek woman, but the word \gun\ is added. In particular women of rank (\euschmonn\, from \eu\ and \ech\, graceful figure and the honourable standing) as in strkjv@13:50| (Mark:15:43|). Probably Luke means by implication that the "men" (\andrn\) were also noble Greeks though he does not expressly say so. Songs:then the Jews were more open to the message, the proselytes or God-fearers followed suit, with "not a few" (\ouk oligoi\) real Greeks (both men and women) believing. It was quick and fine work.
rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). 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 (\Gnthi 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} (\zenn daimonin 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 Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, 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 Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). 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:17:28 @{For in him} (\en auti gar\). Proof of God's nearness, not stoic pantheism, but real immanence in God as God dwells in us. The three verbs (\zmen, kinoumetha, esmen\) form an ascending scale and reach a climax in God (life, movement, existence). \Kinoumetha\ is either direct middle present indicative (we move ourselves) or passive (we are moved). {As certain even of your own poets} (\hs kai tines tn kath' hums poitn\). "As also some of the poets among you." Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. B.C. 270) has these very words in his _Ta Phainomena_ and Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 B.C.) in his _Hymn to Zeus_ has \Ek sou gar genos esmen\. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:32| Paul quotes from Menander and in strkjv@Titus:1:12| from Epimenides. J. Rendel Harris claims that he finds allusions in Paul's Epistles to Pindar, Aristophanes, and other Greek writers. There is no reason in the world why Paul should not have acquaintance with Greek literature, though one need not strain a point to prove it. Paul, of course, knew that the words were written of Zeus (Jupiter), not of Jehovah, but he applies the idea in them to his point just made that all men are the offspring of God.
rwp@Acts:17:29 @{We ought not to think} (\ouk opheilomen nomizein\). It is a logical conclusion (\oun\, therefore) from the very language of Aratus and Cleanthes. {That the Godhead is like} (\to theion einai homoion\). Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect discourse. \To theion\ is strictly "the divine" nature like \theiots\ (Romans:1:20|) rather than like \theots\ (Colossians:2:9|). Paul may have used \to theion\ here to get back behind all their notions of various gods to the real nature of God. The Athenians may even have used the term themselves. After \homoios\ (like) the associative instrumental case is used as with \chrusi, arguri, lithi\. {Graven by art and device of man} (\charagmati techns kai enthumses anthrpou\). Apposition with preceding and so \charagmati\ in associative instrumental case. Literally, graven work or sculpture from \charass\, to engrave, old word, but here alone in N.T. outside of Revelation (the mark of the beast). Graven work of art (\techns\) or external craft, and of thought or device (\enthumses\) or internal conception of man.
rwp@Acts:19:18 @{Came} (\rchonto\). Imperfect middle, kept coming, one after another. Even some of the believers were secretly under the spell of these false spiritualists just as some Christians today cherish private contacts with so-called occult powers through mediums, seances, of which they are ashamed. {Confessing} (\exomologoumenoi\). It was time to make a clean breast of it all, to turn on the light, to unbosom their secret habits. {Declaring their deeds} (\anaggellontes tas praxeis autn\). Judgment was beginning at the house of God. The dupes (professing believers, alas) of these jugglers or exorcists now had their eyes opened when they saw the utter defeat of the tricksters who had tried to use the name of Jesus without his power. The boomerang was tremendous. The black arts were now laid bare in their real character. Gentile converts had a struggle to shake off their corrupt environment.
rwp@Acts:19:33 @{And they brought Alexander out of the crowd} (\ek de tou ochlou sunebibasan Alexandron\). The correct text (Aleph A B) has this verb \sunebibasan\ (from \sunbibaz\, to put together) instead of \proebibasan\ (from \probibaz\, to put forward). It is a graphic word, causal of \bain\, to go, and occurs in strkjv@Acts:16:10; strkjv@Colossians:2:19; strkjv@Ephesians:4:16|. Evidently some of the Jews grew afraid that the mob would turn on the Jews as well as on the Christians. Paul was a Jew and so was Aristarchus, one of the prisoners. The Jews were as strongly opposed to idolatry as were the Christians. {The Jews putting him forward} (\probalontn auton tn Ioudain\). Genitive absolute of the second aorist active participle of \proball\, old verb to push forward as leaves in the spring (Luke:21:30|). In the N.T. only in these two passages. Alexandria had already disgraceful scenes of Jew-baiting and there was real peril now in Ephesus with this wild mob. Songs:Alexander was pushed forward as the champion to defend the Jews to the excited mob. He may be the same Alexander the coppersmith who did Paul much evil (2Timothy:4:14|), against whom Paul will warn Timothy then in Ephesus. "The Jews were likely to deal in the copper and silver required for the shrines, so he may have had some trade connexion with the craftsmen which would give him influence" (Furneaux). {Beckoned with the hand} (\kataseisas tn cheira\). Old verb \katasei\, to shake down, here the hand, rapidly waving the hand up and down to get a hearing. In the N.T. elsewhere only in strkjv@Acts:12:17; strkjv@13:16; strkjv@21:40| where "with the hand" (\ti cheiri\, instrumental case) is used instead of \tn cheira\ (the accusative). {Would have made a defence unto the people} (\thelen apologeisthai ti dmi\). Imperfect active, wanted to make a defence, tried to, started to, but apparently never got out a word. \Apologeisthai\ (present middle infinitive, direct middle, to defend oneself), regular word for formal apology, but in N.T. only by Luke and Paul (twice in Gospel, six times in Acts, and in strkjv@Romans:2:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:19|).
rwp@Acts:21:20 @{Glorified} (\edoxazon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to glorify God, though without special praise of Paul. {How many thousands} (\posai muriades\). Old word for ten thousand (Acts:19:19|) and then an indefinite number like our "myriads" (this very word) as strkjv@Luke:12:1; strkjv@Acts:21:20; strkjv@Jude:1:14; strkjv@Revelation:5:11; strkjv@9:16|. But it is a surprising statement even with allowable hyperbole, but one may recall strkjv@Acts:4:4| (number of the men--not women--about five thousand); strkjv@5:14| (multitudes both of men and women); strkjv@6:7|. There were undoubtedly a great many thousands of believers in Jerusalem and all Jewish Christians, some, alas, Judaizers (Acts:11:2; strkjv@15:1,5|). This list may include the Christians from neighbouring towns in Palestine and even some from foreign countries here at the Feast of Pentecost, for it is probable that Paul arrived in time for it as he had hoped. But we do not have to count the hostile Jews from Asia (verse 27|) who were clearly not Christians at all. {All zealous for the law} (\pantes zltai tou nomou\). Zealots (substantive) rather than zealous (adjective) with objective genitive (\tou nomou\). The word zealot is from \zlo\, to burn with zeal, to boil. The Greek used \zlts\ for an imitator or admirer. There was a party of Zealots (developed from the Pharisees), a group of what would be called "hot-heads," who brought on the war with Rome. One of this party, Simon Zelotes (Acts:1:13|), was in the number of the twelve apostles. It is important to understand the issues in Jerusalem. It was settled at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|) that the Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be imposed upon Gentile Christians. Paul won freedom for them, but it was not said that it was wrong for Jewish Christians to go on observing it if they wished. We have seen Paul observing the passover in Philippi (Acts:20:6|) and planning to reach Jerusalem for Pentecost (20:16|). The Judaizers rankled under Paul's victory and power in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles and gave him great trouble in Galatia and Corinth. They were busy against him in Jerusalem also and it was to undo the harm done by them in Jerusalem that Paul gathered the great collection from the Gentile Christians and brought it with him and the delegates from the churches. Clearly then Paul had real ground for his apprehension of trouble in Jerusalem while still in Corinth (Romans:15:25|) when he asked for the prayers of the Roman Christians (verses 30-32|). The repeated warnings along the way were amply justified.
rwp@Acts:21:30 @{All the city was shaken} (\ekinth h polis hol\). First aorist passive of \kine\, common verb for violent motion and emotion. See also strkjv@24:5| where the word is used by Tertullus of Paul as the stirrer up of riots! {The people ran together} (\egeneto sundrom tou laou\). Rather, There came a running together (\sun-drom\ from \sun-trech\) of the people. The cry spread like wildfire over the city and there was a pell-mell scramble or rush to get to the place of the disturbance. {They laid hold on Paul} (\epilabomenoi tou Paulou\). Second aorist middle participle of \epilambanomai\ with the genitive (cf. \epebalan\ in verse 27|). {Dragged} (\heilkon\). Imperfect active of \helk\ (and also \helku\), old verb to drag or draw. Imperfect tense vividly pictures the act as going on. They were saving the temple by dragging Paul outside. Curiously enough both \epilabomenoi\ and \heilkusan\ occur in strkjv@16:19| about the arrest of Paul and Silas in Philippi. {Straightway the doors were shut} (\euthes ekleisthsan hai thurai\). With a bang and at once. First aorist (effective) passive of \klei\. The doors between the inner court and the court of the Gentiles. But this was only the beginning, the preparation for the real work of the mob. They did not wish to defile the holy place with blood. The doors were shut by the Levites.
rwp@Acts:21:31 @{As they were seeking to kill him} (\ztountn autn\). Genitive absolute of \zte\, to seek, without \autn\ (they). This was their real purpose. {Tidings} (\phasis\). From \phain\, to show. Old word for the work of informers and then the exposure of secret crime. In LXX. Here only in the N.T. {Came up} (\aneb\). Naturally in the wild uproar. The Roman guard during festivals was kept stationed in the Tower of Antonia at the northwest corner of the temple overlooking the temple and connected by stairs (verse 35|). {To the chief captain} (\ti chiliarchi\). Commander of a thousand men or cohort (Mark:15:16|). His name was Claudius Lysias. {Of the band} (\ts speirs\). Each legion had six tribunes and so each tribune (chiliarch) had a thousand if the cohort had its full quota. See on ¯10:1; strkjv@27:1|. The word is the Latin _spira_ (anything rolled up). Note the genitive \speirs\ instead of \speiras\ (Attic). {Was in confusion} (\sunchunnetai\). Present passive indicative of \sunchunn\ (see verse 27|, \sunecheon\). This is what the conspirators had desired.
rwp@Acts:24:14 @{I confess} (\homolog\). The only charge left was that of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. This Paul frankly confesses is true. He uses the word in its full sense. He is "guilty" of that. {After the Way} (\kata tn hodon\). This word Paul had already applied to Christianity (22:4|). He prefers it to "sect" (\hairesin\ which means a choosing, then a division). Paul claims Christianity to be the real (whole, catholic) Judaism, not a "sect" of it. But he will show that Christianity is not a deviation from Judaism, but the fulfilment of it (Page) as he has already shown in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9|. {Songs:serve I the God of our fathers} (\houts latreu ti patrii thei\). Paul has not stretched the truth at all. He has confirmed the claim made before the Sanhedrin that he is a spiritual Pharisee in the truest sense (23:6|). He reasserts his faith in all the law and the prophets, holding to the Messianic hope. A curious "heretic" surely! {Which these themselves also look for} (\hn kai autoi houtoi prosdechontai\). Probably with a gesture towards his accusers. He does not treat them all as Sadducees. See strkjv@Titus:2:13| for similar use of the verb (\prosdechomenoi tn makarian elpida\, looking for the happy hope).
rwp@Acts:26:1 @{Thou art permitted} (\epitrepetai soi\). Literally, It is permitted thee. As if Agrippa were master of ceremonies instead of Festus. Agrippa as a king and guest presides at the grand display while Festus has simply introduced Paul. {For thyself} (\huper seautou\). Some MSS. have \peri\ (concerning). Paul is allowed to speak in his own behalf. No charges are made against him. In fact, Festus has admitted that he has no real proof of any charges. {Stretched forth his hand} (\ekteinas tn cheira\). Dramatic oratorical gesture (not for silence as in strkjv@12:17; strkjv@13:16|) with the chain still upon it (verse 29|) linking him to the guard. First aorist active participle of \ektein\, to stretch out. {Made his defence} (\apelogeito\). Inchoative imperfect of \apologeomai\ (middle), "began to make his defence." This is the fullest of all Paul's defences. He has no word of censure of his enemies or of resentment, but seizes the opportunity to preach Christ to such a distinguished company which he does with "singular dignity" (Furneaux). He is now bearing the name of Christ "before kings" (Acts:9:15|). In general Paul follows the line of argument of the speech on the stairs (chapter strkjv@Acts:22|).
rwp@Acts:26:6 @{And now} (\kai nun\). Sharp comparison between his youth and the present. {To be judged for the hope} (\ep' elpidi--krinomenos\). The hope of the resurrection and of the promised Messiah (13:32|). Page calls verses 6-8| a parenthesis in the course of Paul's argument by which he shows that his life in Christ is a real development of the best in Pharisaism. He does resume his narrative in verse 9|, but verses 6-8| are the core of his defence already presented in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11| where he proves that the children of faith are the real seed of Abraham.
rwp@Acts:27:29 @{Lest haply we should be cast ashore on rocky ground} (\m pou kata tracheis topous ekpesmen\). The usual construction after a verb of fearing (\m\ and the aorist subjunctive \ekpesmen\). Literally, "Lest somewhere (\pou\) we should fall out down against (\kata\) rocky places." The change in the soundings made it a very real fear. \Tracheis\ (rough) is old adjective, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:3:5| (from strkjv@Isaiah:40:4|). {Four anchors} (\agkuras tessaras\). Old word from \agk\. In N.T. only in this chapter, with \rhipt\ here, with \ektein\ in verse 30|, with \periaire\ in verse 40|; and strkjv@Hebrews:6:19| (figuratively of hope). {From the stern} (\ek prumns\). Old word, but in N.T. only in strkjv@Mark:4:38|; here and 41| in contrast with \prira\ (prow). The usual practice was and is to anchor by the bows. "With a view to running the ship ashore anchoring from the stern would, it is said, be best" (Page). Nelson is quoted as saying that he had been reading strkjv@Acts:27| the morning of the Battle of Copenhagen (April, 1801) where he anchored his ships from the stern. {Wished for the day} (\uchonto\). Imperfect middle, kept on praying for "day to come" (\hmeran genesthai\) before the anchors broke under the strain of the storm or began to drag. If the ship had been anchored from the prow, it would have swung round and snapped the anchors or the stern would have faced the beach.
rwp@Acts:28:18 @{When they had examined me} (\anakrinantes me\). First aorist active participle of \anakrin\, the same verb used already in strkjv@24:8; strkjv@25:6,26| of the judicial examinations by Felix and Festus. {Desired} (\eboulonto\). Imperfect middle of attempted action or picture of their real attitude. This is a correct statement as the words of both Felix and Festus show. {Because there was} (\dia to--huparchein\). Accusative case with \dia\ (causal use) with the articular infinitive, "Because of the being no cause of death in me" (\en emoi\, in my case, \aitia\, usual word for crime or charge of crime).
rwp@Info_Colossians @ THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS FROM ROME A.D. 63 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION GENUINENESS The author claims to be Paul (Colossians:1:1|) and there is no real doubt about it in spite of Baur's denial of the Pauline authorship which did not suit his _Tendenz_ theory of the New Testament books. There is every mark of Paul's style and power in the little Epistle and there is no evidence that any one else took Paul's name to palm off this striking and vigorous polemic.
rwp@Info_Colossians @ PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE Epaphras did not come in vain, for Paul was tremendously stirred by the peril to Christianity from the Gnostics (\hoi gnstikoi\, the knowing ones). He had won his fight for freedom in Christ against the Judaizers who tried to fasten Jewish sacramentarianism upon spiritual Christianity. Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. Songs:then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God. One cannot understand Colossians without some knowledge of Gnosticism such as may be obtained in such books as Angus's _The Mystery-Religions and Christianity_, Glover's _The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire_, Kennedy's St. _Paul and the Mystery-Religions_, Lightfoot's _Commentary on Colossians_.
rwp@Colossians:1:4 @{Having heard of} (\akousantes\). Literary plural unless Timothy is included. Aorist active participle of \akou\ of antecedent action to \eucharistoumen\. Epaphras (verse 8|) had told Paul. {Your faith in Jesus Christ} (\tn pistin humn en Isou Christi\). See strkjv@Ephesians:1:15| for similar phrase. No article is needed before \en\ as it is a closely knit phrase and bears the same sense as the objective genitive in strkjv@Galatians:2:16| (\dia pistes Christou Isou\, by faith in Christ Jesus). {Which ye have} (\hn echete\). Probably genuine (Aleph A C D), though B omits it and others have the article (\tn\). There is a real distinction here between \en\ (sphere or basis) and \eis\ (direction towards), though they are often identical in idea.
rwp@Colossians:1:20 @{Through him} (\di' autou\). As the sufficient and chosen agent in the work of reconciliation (\apokatallaxai\, first aorist active infinitive of \apokatallass\, further addition to \eudoksen\, was pleased). This double compound (\apo, kata\ with \allass\) occurs only here, verse 22; strkjv@Ephesians:2:16|, and nowhere else so far as known. Paul's usual word for "reconcile" is \katallass\ (2Corinthians:5:18-20; strkjv@Romans:5:10|), though \diallass\ (Matthew:5:24|) is more common in Attic. The addition of \apo\ here is clearly for the idea of complete reconciliation. See on ¯2Corinthians:5:18-20| for discussion of \katallass\, Paul's great word. The use of \ta panta\ (the all things, the universe) as if the universe were somehow out of harmony reminds us of the mystical passage in strkjv@Romans:8:19-23| which see for discussion. Sin somehow has put the universe out of joint. Christ will set it right. {Unto himself} (\eis auton\). Unto God, though \auton\ is not reflexive unless written \hauton\. {Having made peace} (\eirnopoisas\). Late and rare compound (Proverbs:10:10| and here only in N.T.) from \eirnopoios\, peacemaker (Matthew:5:9|; here only in N.T.). In strkjv@Ephesians:2:15| we have \poin eirnn\ (separate words) {making peace}. Not the masculine gender, though agreeing with the idea of Christ involved even if \plrma\ be taken as the subject of \eudoksen\, a participial anacoluthon (construction according to sense as in strkjv@2:19|). If \theos\ be taken as the subject of \eudoksen\ the participle \eirnopoisas\ refers to Christ, not to \theos\ (God). {Through the blood of his cross} (\dia tou haimatos tou staurou autou\). This for the benefit of the Docetic Gnostics who denied the real humanity of Jesus and as clearly stating the _causa medians_ (Ellicott) of the work of reconciliation to be the Cross of Christ, a doctrine needed today. {Or things in the heavens} (\eite ta en tois ouranois\). Much needless trouble has been made over this phrase as if things in heaven were not exactly right. It is rather a hypothetical statement like verse 16| not put in categorical form (Abbott), _universitas rerum_ (Ellicott).
rwp@Colossians:2:1 @{How greatly I strive} (\hlikon agna ech\). Literally, "how great a contest I am having." The old adjectival relative \hlikos\ (like Latin _quantus_) is used for age or size in N.T. only here and strkjv@James:3:5| (twice, how great, how small). It is an inward contest of anxiety like the \merimna\ for all the churches (2Corinthians:11:28|). \Agna\ carries on the metaphor of \agnizomenos\ in strkjv@1:29|. {For them at Laodicea} (\tn en Laodikii\). {Supply} \huper\ as with \huper humn\. Paul's concern extended beyond Colossae to Laodicea (4:16|) and to Hierapolis (4:13|), the three great cities in the Lycus Valley where Gnosticism was beginning to do harm. Laodicea is the church described as lukewarm in strkjv@Revelation:3:14|. {For as many as have not seen my face} (\hosoi ouch heorakan to prospon mou\). The phrase undoubtedly includes Hierapolis (4:13|), and a few late MSS. actually insert it here. Lightfoot suggests that Hierapolis had not yet been harmed by the Gnostics as much as Colossae and Laodicea. Perhaps so, but the language includes all in that whole region who have not seen Paul's face in the flesh (that is, in person, and not in picture). How precious a real picture of Paul would be to us today. The antecedent to \hosoi\ is not expressed and it would be \toutn\ after \huper\. The form \heorakan\ (perfect active indicative of \hora\ instead of the usual \herakasin\ has two peculiarities \o\ in Paul's Epistles (1Corinthians:9:1|) instead of \\ (see strkjv@John:1:18| for \heraken\) and \-an\ by analogy in place of \-asin\, which short form is common in the papyri. See strkjv@Luke:9:36| \herakan\.
rwp@Colossians:2:11 @{Ye were also circumcised} (\kai perietmthte\). First aorist passive indicative of \peritemn\, to circumcise. But used here as a metaphor in a spiritual sense as in strkjv@Romans:2:29| "the circumcision of the heart." {Not made with hands} (\acheiropoiti\). This late and rare negative compound verbal occurs only in the N.T. (Mark:14:58; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:1; strkjv@Colossians:2:11|) by merely adding \a\ privative to the old verbal \cheiropoitos\ (Acts:7:48; strkjv@Ephesians:2:11|), possibly first in strkjv@Mark:14:58| where both words occur concerning the temple. In strkjv@2Corinthians:5:1| the reference is to the resurrection body. The feminine form of this compound adjective is the same as the masculine. {In the putting off} (\en ti apekdusei\). As if an old garment (the fleshly body). From \apekduomai\ (Colossians:2:15|, possibly also coined by Paul) and occurring nowhere else so far as known. The word is made in a perfectly normal way by the perfective use of the two Greek prepositions (\apo, ek\), "a resource available for and generally used by any real thinker writing Greek" (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). Paul had as much right to mint a Greek compound as any one and surely no one ever had more ideas to express and more power in doing it. {Of Christ} (\tou Christou\). Specifying genitive, the kind of circumcision that belongs to Christ, that of the heart.
rwp@Colossians:3:16 @{The word of Christ} (\ho logos tou Christou\). This precise phrase only here, though "the word of the Lord" in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:8; strkjv@4:15; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:1|. Elsewhere "the word of God." Paul is exalting Christ in this Epistle. \Christou\ can be either the subjective genitive (the word delivered by Christ) or the objective genitive (the word about Christ). See strkjv@1John:2:14|. {Dwell} (\enoikeit\). Present active imperative of \enoike\, to make one's home, to be at home. {In you} (\en humin\). Not "among you." {Richly} (\plousis\). Old adverb from \plousios\ (rich). See strkjv@1Timothy:6:17|. The following words explain \plousis\. {In all wisdom} (\en pasi sophii\). It is not clear whether this phrase goes with \plousis\ (richly) or with the participles following (\didaskontes kai nouthetountes\, see strkjv@1:28|). Either punctuation makes good sense. The older Greek MSS. had no punctuation. There is an anacoluthon here. The participles may be used as imperatives as in strkjv@Romans:12:11f.,16|. {With psalms} (\psalmois\, the Psalms in the Old Testament originally with musical accompaniment), {hymns} (\humnois\, praises to God composed by the Christians like strkjv@1Timothy:3:16|), {spiritual songs} (\idais pneumatikais\, general description of all whether with or without instrumental accompaniment). The same song can have all three words applied to it. {Singing with grace} (\en chariti idontes\). In God's grace (2Corinthians:1:12|). The phrase can be taken with the preceding words. The verb \id\ is an old one (Ephesians:5:19|) for lyrical emotion in a devout soul. {In your hearts} (\en tais kardiais humn\). Without this there is no real worship "to God" (\ti thei\). How can a Jew or Unitarian in the choir lead in the worship of Christ as Saviour? Whether with instrument or with voice or with both it is all for naught if the adoration is not in the heart.
rwp@Ephesians:1:3 @{Blessed} (\eulogtos\). Verbal of \euloge\, common in the LXX for Hebrew _baruk_ (Vulgate _benedictus_) and applied usually to God, sometimes to men (Genesis:24:31|), but in N.T. always to God (Luke:1:68|), while \eulogmenos\ (perfect passive participle) is applied to men (Luke:1:42|). "While \eulogmenos\ points to an isolated act or acts, \eulogtos\ describes the intrinsic character" (Lightfoot). Instead of the usual \eucharistoumen\ (Colossians:1:3|) Paul here uses \eulogtos\, elsewhere only in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3| in opening, though in a doxology in strkjv@Romans:1:25; strkjv@9:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:31|. The copula here is probably \estin\ (is), though either \est\ (imperative) or \ei\ (optative as wish) will make sense. {The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\ho theos kai patr tou Kuriou hmn Isou Christou\). \Kai\ is genuine here, though not in strkjv@Colossians:1:3|. The one article (\ho\) with \theos kai patr\ links them together as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3; strkjv@3:11,13; strkjv@Galatians:1:4|. See also the one article in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11|. In strkjv@Ephesians:1:17| we have \ho theos tou Kuriou hmn Isou Christou\, and the words of Jesus in strkjv@John:20:17|. {Who hath blessed us} (\ho eulogsas hums\). First aorist active participle of \euloge\, the same word, antecedent action to the doxology (\eulogtos\). {With} (\en\). So-called instrumental use of \en\ though {in} is clear. {Every spiritual blessing} (\pasi eulogii pneumatiki\). Third use of the root \eulog\ (verbal, verb, substantive). Paul lovingly plays with the idea. The believer is a citizen of heaven and the spiritual blessings count for most to him. {In the heavenly places in Christ} (\en tois epouraniois en Christi\). In four other places in Eph. (1:20; strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:10; strkjv@6:12|). This precise phrase (with \en\) occurs nowhere else in the N.T. and has a clearly local meaning in strkjv@1:20; strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:10|, doubtful in strkjv@6:12|, but probably so here. In strkjv@2:6| the believer is conceived as already seated with Christ. Heaven is the real abode of the citizen of Christ's kingdom (Phillipians:3:20|) who is a stranger on earth (Phillipians:1:27; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19|). The word \epouranios\ (heavenly) occurs in various passages in the N.T. in contrast with \ta epigeia\ (the earthly) as in strkjv@John:3:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:40,48,49; strkjv@Phillipians:2:10|, with \patris\ (country) in strkjv@Hebrews:11:16|, with \klsis\ (calling) in strkjv@Hebrews:3:1|, with \drea\ (gift) in strkjv@Hebrews:6:4|, with \basileia\ (kingdom) in strkjv@2Timothy:4:18|.
rwp@Ephesians:2:13 @{But now} (\nuni de\). Strong contrast, as opposed to "at that time." {Afar off} (\makran\). Adverb (accusative feminine adjective with \hodon\ understood). From the \politeia\ and its hope in God. {Are made nigh} (\egenthte eggus\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\, a sort of timeless aorist. Nigh to the commonwealth of Israel in Christ. {In the blood of Christ} (\en ti haimati tou Christou\). Not a perfunctory addition, but essential (1:7|), particularly in view of the Gnostic denial of Christ's real humanity.
rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ THE REASON FOR HIS EPISTLES In a real sense Paul's Epistles are tracts for the times, not for the age in general, but to meet real emergencies. He wrote to a particular church or group of churches or persons to meet immediate needs brought to his attention by messengers or letters. Dr. Deissmann contends strongly for the idea of calling Paul's Epistles "letters" rather than "Epistles." He gives a studied literary character to "epistles" as more or less artificial and written for the public eye rather than for definite effect. Four of Paul's Epistles are personal (those to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy) beyond a doubt, but in these which can properly be termed personal letters there are the principles of the gospel applied to personal, social, and ecclesiastical problems in such a pungent fashion that they possess permanent value. In the earliest group of Paul's Epistles, he reminds the Thessalonians of the official character of the Epistle which was meant for the church as a whole (1Thessalonians:5:27|). He says also: "But if any one does not obey our word by the epistle, mark this one, not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame" (2Thessalonians:3:14|). He calls attention to his signature as proof of the genuineness of every epistle (2Thessalonians:3:17|). He gave directions for the public reading of his epistles (Colossians:4:16|). He regarded them as the expression of God's will through the life of the churches and he put his whole heart into them. Two great controversies stirred Paul's life. That with the Judaizers called forth the great doctrinal group (I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans). That with the Gnostics occasioned the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians (Laodiceans) and this controversy ran on into the Pastoral Epistles. Each Epistle had its particular occasion which will be pointed out in due season. But even in the short ones like Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians Paul deals with the sublimest of all themes, the Person of Christ, with a masterfulness never equalled elsewhere. Even in I Corinthians, which deals so largely with church problems in Corinth, two great chapters rise to the heights of real eloquence (Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13| on Love and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15| on the Resurrection). Romans, the greatest of his Epistles, has the fullest discussion of Paul's gospel of grace and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:8| has a sweep of imagination and a grasp of faith unsurpassed. Hence, while denying to Paul the artificial rules of the rhetoricians attributed to him by Blass, I cannot agree that Paul's church Epistles are mere incidental letters. It is not a question whether Paul was writing for posterity or for the present emergency. He wrote for the present emergency in the most effective possible way. He brought the whole gospel message to bear upon the varied and pressing problems of the early Christians in the power of the Holy Spirit with the eloquence of a mind all ablaze with the truth and with a heart that yearned for their souls for Christ. They are not literary epistles, but they are more than personal letters. They are thunderbolts of passion and power that struck centre and that strike fire now for all who will take the trouble to come to them for the mind of Christ that is here.
rwp@Galatians:2:2 @{By revelation} (\kata apokalupsin\). In strkjv@Acts:15:2| the church sent them. But surely there is no inconsistency here. {I laid before them} (\anethemn autois\). Second aorist middle indicative of old word \anatithmi\, to put up, to place before, with the dative case. But who were the "them" (\autois\)? Evidently not the private conference for he distinguishes this address from that, "but privately" (\kat' idian\). Just place strkjv@Acts:15:4f.| beside the first clause and it is clear: "I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," precisely as Luke has recorded. Then came the private conference after the uproar caused by the Judaizers (Acts:15:5|). {Before them who were of repute} (\tois dokousin\). He names three of them (Cephas, James, and John). James the Lord's brother, for the other James is now dead (Acts:12:1f.|). But there were others also, a select group of real leaders. The decision reached by this group would shape the decision of the public conference in the adjourned meeting. Songs:far as we know Paul had not met John before, though he had met Peter and James at the other visit. Lightfoot has much to say about the Big Four (St. Paul and the Three) who here discuss the problems of mission work among Jews and Gentiles. It was of the utmost importance that they should see eye to eye. The Judaizers were assuming that the twelve apostles and James the Lord's brother would side with them against Paul and Barnabas. Peter had already been before the Jerusalem Church for his work in Caesarea (Acts:11:1-18|). James was considered a very loyal Jew. {Lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain} (\m ps eis kenon trech edramon\). Negative purpose with the present subjunctive (\trech\) and then by a sudden change the aorist indicative (\edramon\), as a sort of afterthought or retrospect (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 201; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 988). There are plenty of classical parallels. See also strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:5| for both together again.
rwp@Galatians:2:12 @{For before that certain came from James} (\pro tou gar elthein tinas apo Iakbou\). The reason (\gar\) for Paul's condemnation of Peter. Articular infinitive in the genitive after \pro\ with the accusative of general reference (\tinas\), "for before the coming as to some from James." Does Paul mean to say that these "certain" ones had been sent by James to Antioch to inspect the conduct of Peter and the other Jewish brethren? Some scholars think so. No doubt these brethren let the idea get out that they were emissaries "from James." But that idea is inconsistent with the position of James as president of the conference and the author of the resolution securing liberty to the Gentile Christians. No doubt these brethren threatened Peter to tell James and the church about his conduct and they reminded Peter of his previous arraignment before the Jerusalem Church on this very charge (Acts:11:1-18|). As a matter of fact the Jerusalem Conference did not discuss the matter of social relations between Jews and Gentiles though that was the charge made against Peter (Acts:11:1ff.|). {He did eat with the Gentiles} (\meta tn ethnn sunsthien\). It was his habit (imperfect tense). {He drew back} (\hupestellen\). Imperfect tense, inchoative action, "he began to draw himself (\heauton\) back." Old word \hupostell\. See middle voice to dissemble (Acts:20:20,27|), to shrink (Hebrews:10:38|). {Separated himself} (\aphrizen heauton\). Inchoative imperfect again, "began to separate himself" just like a Pharisee (see on ¯1:15|) and as if afraid of the Judaizers in the Jerusalem Church, perhaps half afraid that James might not endorse what he had been doing. {Fearing them that were of the circumcision} (\phoboumenos tous ek peritoms\). This was the real reason for Peter's cowardice. See strkjv@Acts:11:2| for "\hoi ek peritoms\" (they of the circumcision), the very phrase here. It was not that Peter had changed his views from the Jerusalem resolutions. It was pure fear of trouble to himself as in the denials at the trial of Christ.
rwp@Galatians:2:19 @{I through the law died to the law} (\eg dia nomou nomi apethanon\). Paradoxical, but true. See Rom strkjv@7:4,6| for picture of how the law waked Paul up to his real death to the law through Christ.
rwp@Galatians:3:7 @{The same are sons of Abraham} (\houtoi huioi eisin Abraham\). "These are." This is Paul's astounding doctrine to Jews that the real sons of Abraham are those who believe as he did, "they which be of faith" (\hoi ek pistes\), a common idiom with Paul for this idea (verse 9; strkjv@Romans:3:26; strkjv@4:16; strkjv@14:23|), those whose spiritual sonship springs out of (\ek\) faith, not out of blood. John the Baptist denounced the Pharisees and Sadducees as vipers though descendants of Abraham (Matthew:3:7; strkjv@Luke:3:7|) and Jesus termed the Pharisees children of the devil and not spiritual children of Abraham (not children of God) in strkjv@John:8:37-44|.
rwp@Hebrews:1:3 @{Being} (\n\). Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of \eimi\) in contrast with \genomenos\ in verse 4| like \n\ in strkjv@John:1:1| (in contrast with \egeneto\ in strkjv@1:14|) and like \huparchn\ and \genomenos\ in strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {The effulgence of his glory} (\apaugasma ts doxs\). The word \apaugasma\, late substantive from \apaugaz\, to emit brightness (\aug, augaz\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4|), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in strkjv@John:12:45; strkjv@14:9|. "The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos" (Moffatt). The meaning "effulgence" suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (John:1:1|), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6|. {The very image of his substance} (\charaktr ts hupostases\). \Charaktr\ is an old word from \charass\, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending \=tr\) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by \charagma\ (Acts:17:29; strkjv@Revelation:13:16f.|). Menander had already used (Moffatt) \charaktr\ in the sense of our "character." The word occurs in the inscriptions for "person" as well as for "exact reproduction" of a person. The word \hupostasis\ for the being or essence of God "is a philosophical rather than a religious term" (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In strkjv@11:1| \hypostasis\ is like the "title-deed" idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4| in his controversy with Arius. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11| pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul's simpler phrase \morph theou\ (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of \Logos\ in strkjv@John:1:1-18| is parallel to strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4|. {And upholding} (\phern te\). Present active participle of \pher\ closely connected with \n\ (being) by \te\ and like strkjv@Colossians:1:17| in idea. The newer science as expounded by Eddington and Jeans is in harmony with the spiritual and personal conception of creation here presented. {By the word of his power} (\ti rmati ts dunames autou\). Instrumental case of \rma\ (word). See strkjv@11:3| for \rmati theou\ (by the word of God) as the explanation of creation like Genesis, but here \autou\ refers to God's Son as in strkjv@1:2|. {Purification of sins} (\katharismon tn hamartin\). \Katharismos\ is from \kathariz\, to cleanse (Matthew:8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14|), here only in Hebrews, but in same sense of cleansing from sins, strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Job:7:21|. Note middle participle \poisamenos\ like \heuramenos\ in strkjv@9:12|. This is the first mention of the priestly work of Christ, the keynote of this Epistle. {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). First aorist active of \kathiz\, "took his seat," a formal and dignified act. {Of the Majesty on high} (\ts megalosuns en hupslois\). Late word from \megas\, only in LXX (Deuteronomy:32:3; strkjv@2Samuel:7:23|, etc.), Aristeas, strkjv@Hebrews:1:3; strkjv@8:1; strkjv@Jude:1:25|. Christ resumed his original dignity and glory (John:17:5|). The phrase \en hupslois\ occurs in the Psalms (Psalms:93:4|), here only in N.T., elsewhere \en hupsistois\ in the highest (Matthew:21:9; strkjv@Luke:2:14|) or \en tois epouraniois\ in the heavenlies (Ephesians:1:3,20|). Jesus is here pictured as King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.
rwp@Hebrews:4:1 @{Let us fear therefore} (\phobthmen oun\). First aorist passive volitive subjunctive of \phobeomai\, to be afraid. There is no break in the argument on strkjv@Psalms:95|. This is a poor chapter division. The Israelites perished because of disbelief. We today face a real peril. {Lest haply} (\m pote\) Here with the present subjunctive (\dokei\), but future indicative in strkjv@3:12|, after the verb of fearing. For the optative see strkjv@2Timothy:2:25|. {A promise being left} (\kataleipomens epaggelias\). Genitive absolute of the present passive participle of \kataleip\, to leave behind. God's promise still holds good for us in spite of the failure of the Israelites. {Should seem to have come short of it} (\dokei husterkenai\). Perfect active infinitive of \hustere\, old verb from \husteros\ (comparative of root \ud\ like our out, outer, outermost), to be too late, to fail to reach the goal as here, common in the N.T. (11:37; strkjv@12:15|).
rwp@Hebrews:4:12 @{The word of God} (\ho logos tou theou\). That just quoted about the promise of rest and God's rest, but true of any real word of God. {Living} (\zn\). Cf. the Living God (3:12|). In Philo and the Book of Wisdom the Logos of God is personified, but still more in strkjv@John:1:1-18| where Jesus is pictured as the Logos on a par with God. "Our author is using Philonic language rather than Philonic ideas" (Moffatt). See strkjv@John:6:63|: "The words which I have spoken are spirit and are life." {Active} (\energs\). Energetic, powerful (John:1:12; strkjv@Phillipians:3:21; strkjv@Colossians:1:29|). {Sharper} (\tomteros\). Comparative of \tomos\, cutting (from \temn\, to cut), late adjective, here only in the N.T. {Than} (\huper\). Often so after a comparative (Luke:16:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:13|). {Two-edged} (\distomon\). "Two-mouthed" (\di-, stoma\), double-mouthed like a river (Polybius), branching ways (Sophocles), applied to sword (\xiphos\) by Homer and Euripides. {Piercing} (\diiknoumenos\). Present middle participle of \diikneomai\, old verb to go through, here only in N.T. {Even to the dividing} (\achri merismou\). Old word from \meriz\ (\meros\, part), to partition. {Of soul and spirit} (\psuchs kai pneumatos\). As in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:23; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:45|, but not an argument for trichotomy. Psychology is constantly changing its terminology. {Of both joints and marrow} (\harmn te kai mueln\). From \ar\, to join, comes \harmos\, old word, here only in the N.T. \Muelos\ (from \mu\, to shut), old word, here only in N.T. This surgeon goes into and through the joints and marrow, not cleaving between them. {Quick to discern} (\kritikos\). Verbal adjective in \-ikos\, from \krin\, skilled in judging, as the surgeon has to be and able to decide on the instant what to do. Songs:God's word like his eye sees the secret lurking doubt and unbelief "of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (\enthumsen kai ennoin kardias\). The surgeon carries a bright and powerful light for every dark crevice and a sharp knife for the removal of all the pus revealed by the light. It is a powerful picture here drawn.
rwp@Hebrews:4:15 @{That cannot be touched with the feeling} (\m dunamenon sunpathsai\). "Not able to sympathize with." First aorist passive infinitive of \sunpathe\, late compound verb from the late adjective \sunpathos\ (Romans:12:15|), both from \sunpasch\, to suffer with (1Corinthians:12:26; strkjv@Romans:8:17|), occurring in Aristotle and Plutarch, in N.T. only in Hebrews (here and strkjv@10:34|). {One that hath been tempted} (\pepeirasmenon\). Perfect passive participle of \peiraz\, as already shown in strkjv@2:17f|. {Without sin} (\chris hamartias\). This is the outstanding difference that must never be overlooked in considering the actual humanity of Jesus. He did not yield to sin. But more than this is true. There was no latent sin in Jesus to be stirred by temptation and no habits of sin to be overcome. But he did have "weaknesses" (\astheneiai\) common to our human nature (hunger, thirst, weariness, etc.). Satan used his strongest weapons against Jesus, did it repeatedly, and failed. Jesus remained "undefiled" (\amiantos\) in a world of sin (John:8:46|). This is our ground of hope, the sinlessness of Jesus and his real sympathy.
rwp@Hebrews:7:26 @{Became us} (\hmin eprepen\). Imperfect active indicative of \prep\ as in strkjv@2:10|, only there it was applied to God while here to us. "Such" (\toioutos\) refers to the Melchizedek character of Jesus as high priest and in particular to his power to help and save (2:17f.|) as just explained in strkjv@7:24f.| Moffatt notes that "it is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody" but the adjectives that follow picture in outline the qualities of the high priest needed by us. {Holy} (\hosios\). Saintly, pious, as already noted. Cf. strkjv@Acts:2:24; strkjv@13:35|. {Guileless} (\akakos\). Without malice, innocent. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:16:18|. {Undefiled} (\amiantos\). Untainted, stainless. In the papyri. Not merely ritual purity (Leviticus:21:10-15|), but real ethical cleanness. {Separated from sinners} (\kechrismenos apo tn hamartln\). Perfect passive participle. Probably referring to Christ's exaltation (9:28|). {Made higher than the heavens} (\hupsloteros tn ourann genomenos\). "Having become higher than the heavens." Ablative case (\ourann\) after the comparative adjective (\hupsloteros\).
rwp@Hebrews:9:9 @{Which} (\htis\). "Which very thing," the first tent (\ts prts skns\, division of the tabernacle), a parenthesis and explanation. {A parable} (\parabol\). Only in the Synoptic Gospels in the N.T. and strkjv@Hebrews:9:9; strkjv@11:19|. See on ¯Matthew:13:3| for the word (from \paraball\, to place alongside). Here like \tupos\ (type or shadow of "the heavenly reality," Moffatt). {For the time now present} (\eis ton kairon ton enestkota\). "For the present crisis " (\kairon\, not \aina\, age, not \chronon\, time). Perfect active articular (repeated article) participle of \enistmi\ (intransitive), the age in which they lived, not the past, not the future. See strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22; strkjv@Romans:8:38| for contrast between \enestta\ and \mellonta\. This age of crisis, foreshadowed by the old tabernacle, pointed on to the richer fulfilment still to come. {According to which} (\kath' hn\). Here the relative refers to \parabol\ just mentioned, not to \skns\. See strkjv@5:1; strkjv@8:3|. {As touching the conscience} (\kata suneidsin\). For \suneidsis\ see strkjv@1Corinthians:8:10; strkjv@10:17; strkjv@Romans:2:15|. This was the real failure of animal sacrifice (10:1-4|). {Make the worshipper perfect} (\teleisai ton latreuonta\). First aorist active infinitive (2:10|). At best it was only ritual or ceremonial purification (7:11|), that called for endless repetition (10:1-4|).
rwp@Hebrews:9:15 @{Mediator of a new covenant} (\diathks kains mesits\). See strkjv@8:6| for this phrase with \kreittonos\ instead of \kains\. {A death having taken place} (\thanatou genomenou\). Genitive absolute, referring to Christ's death. {For the redemption} (\eis apolutrsin\). {Of the transgressions} (\tn parabasen\). Really ablative case, "from the transgressions." See verse 12|, \lutrsin\. {Under the first covenant} (\epi ti prti diathki\). Here there is a definite statement that the real value in the typical sacrifices under the Old Testament system was in the realization in the death of Christ. It is Christ's death that gives worth to the types that pointed to him. Songs:then the atoning sacrifice of Christ is the basis of the salvation of all who are saved before the Cross and since. {That they may receive} (\hops labsin\). Purpose clause (God's purpose in the rites and symbols) with \hops\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \lamban\.
rwp@Hebrews:11:10 @{He looked for} (\exedecheto\). Imperfect middle of \ekdechomai\ (see on ¯10:13|) picturesque progressive imperfect, his steady and patient waiting in spite of disappointment. {The foundations} (\tous themelious\). Not just "tents" (\sknais\, verse 9|). Ahraham set his steady gaze on heaven as his real home, being a mere pilgrim (\paroikos\) on earth. {Builder} (\technits\). Old word from \techn\ (craft) or trade (Acts:17:29; strkjv@18:3|), craftsman, artificer, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:19:24,38|. {Maker} (\dmiourgos\). Old word from \dmios\ (public) and \ergon\, a worker for the public, artisan, framer, here only in N.T.
rwp@James:1:12 @{Endureth} (\hupomenei\). Present active indicative of \hupomen\. Cf. verse 3|. {Temptation} (\peirasmon\). Real temptation here. See verse 2| for "trials." {When he hath been approved} (\dokimos genomenos\). "Having become approved," with direct reference to \to dokimion\ in verse 3|. See also strkjv@Romans:5:4| for \dokim\ (approval after test as of gold or silver). This beatitude (\makarios\) is for the one who has come out unscathed. See strkjv@1Timothy:6:9|. {The crown of life} (\ton stephanon ts zs\). The same phrase occurs in strkjv@Revelation:2:10|. It is the genitive of apposition, life itself being the crown as in strkjv@1Peter:5:4|. This crown is "an honourable ornament" (Ropes), with possibly no reference to the victor's crown (garland of leaves) as with Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:25; strkjv@2Timothy:4:8|, nor to the linen fillet (\diadma\) of royalty (Psalms:20:3|, where \stephanos\ is used like \diadma\, the kingly crown). \Stephanos\ has a variety of uses. Cf. the thorn chaplet on Jesus (Matthew:27:29|). {The Lord}. Not in the oldest Greek MSS., but clearly implied as the subject of \epggeilato\ ({he promised}, first aorist middle indicative).
rwp@James:2:18 @{Yea, a man will say} (\all' erei tis\). Future active of \eipon\. But \all'\ here is almost certainly adversative (But some one will say), not confirmatory. James introduces an imaginary objector who speaks one sentence: "Thou hast faith and I have works" (\Su pistin echeis kag erga ech\). Then James answers this objector. The objector can be regarded as asking a short question: "Hast thou faith?" In that case James replies: "I have works also." {Show me thy faith apart from thy works} (\deixon moi tn pistin sou chris tn ergn\). This is the reply of James to the objector. First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, tense of urgency. The point lies in \chris\, which means not "without," but "apart from," as in strkjv@Hebrews:11:6| (with the ablative case), "the works that properly belong to it and should characterise it" (Hort). James challenges the objector to do this. {And I by my works will shew thee my faith} (\kag soi deix ek tn ergn mou tn pistin\). It is not faith _or_ works, but proof of real faith (live faith _vs_. dead faith). The mere profession of faith with no works or profession of faith shown to be alive by works. This is the alternative clearly stated. Note \pistin\ (faith) in both cases. James is not here discussing "works" (ceremonial works) as a means of salvation as Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:4|, but works as proof of faith.
rwp@James:3:14 @{Bitter jealousy} (\zlon pikron\). \Zlos\ occurs in N.T. in good sense (John:2:17|) and bad sense (Acts:5:17|). Pride of knowledge is evil (1Corinthians:8:1|) and leaves a bitter taste. See "root of bitterness" in strkjv@Hebrews:12:14| (cf. strkjv@Ephesians:4:31|). This is a condition of the first class. {Faction} (\erithian\). Late word, from \erithos\ (hireling, from \eritheu\ to spin wool), a pushing forward for personal ends, partisanship, as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:16|. {In your heart} (\en ti kardii humn\). The real fountain (\pg\, verse 11|). {Glory not} (\m katakauchsthe\). Present middle imperative of \katakauchaomai\, for which see strkjv@2:13|. Wisdom is essential for the teacher. Boasting arrogance disproves the possession of wisdom. {Lie not against the truth} (\pseudesthe kata ts altheias\). Present middle imperative of \pseudomai\, old verb, to play false, with \m\ carried over. Lying against the truth is futile. By your conduct do not belie the truth which you teach; a solemn and needed lesson. Cf. strkjv@Romans:1:18f., strkjv@2:18,20|.
rwp@James:3:15 @{This wisdom} (\haut h sophia\). All talk and disproved by the life, counterfeit wisdom, not real wisdom (1:5; strkjv@3:17|). {Coming down from above} (\katerchomen anthen\). As in strkjv@1:5,17|. All true wisdom comes from God. {Earthly} (\epigeios\). Old adjective, on earth (\epi, g\), as in strkjv@John:3:12|, then with earthly limitations (Phillipians:3:19|), as here. {Sensual} (\psuchik\). Old adjective, belonging to the \psuch\, the sensuous or animal life (1Corinthians:2:14| and here). {Devilish} (\daimonids\). Late adjective from \daimonion\ (demon) and so demoniacal or demon-like, here only in N.T.
rwp@Info_John @ THE UNITY OF THE GOSPEL This has been attacked in various ways in spite of the identity of style throughout. There are clearly three parts in the Gospel: the Prologue, strkjv@John:1:1-18|, the Body of the Book, strkjv@John:1:19-20:31|, the Epilogue, strkjv@John:21|. But there is no evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter. This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but here again there is no proof and no real reason for the supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped at strkjv@John:20:31| and then added strkjv@John:21| before sending the book forth after his friends added strkjv@John:21:24| as their endorsement of the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there. Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands even if that be true.
rwp@John:1:5 @{Shineth} (\phainei\). Linear present active indicative of \phain\, old verb from \pha\, to shine (\phaos, phs\). "The light keeps on giving light." {In the darkness} (\en ti skotii\). Late word for the common \skotos\ (kin to \skia\, shadow). An evident allusion to the darkness brought on by sin. In strkjv@2Peter:2:17| we have \ho zophos tou skotou\ (the blackness of darkness). The Logos, the only real moral light, keeps on shining both in the Pre-incarnate state and after the Incarnation. John is fond of \skotia\ (\skotos\) for moral darkness from sin and \phs\ (\phtiz, phain\) for the light that is in Christ alone. In strkjv@1John:2:8| he proclaims that "the darkness is passing by and the true light is already shining." The Gnostics often employed these words and John takes them and puts them in the proper place. {Apprehended it not} (\auto ou katelaben\). Second aorist active indicative of \katalamban\, old verb to lay hold of, to seize. This very phrase occurs in strkjv@John:12:35| (\hina m skotia humas katalabi\) "that darkness overtake you not," the metaphor of night following day and in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:4| the same idiom (\hina katalabi\) is used of day overtaking one as a thief. This is the view of Origen and appears also in 2Macc. strkjv@8:18. The same word appears in Aleph D in strkjv@John:6:17| \katelabe de autous h skotia\ ("but darkness overtook them," came down on them). Hence, in spite of the Vulgate _comprehenderunt_, "overtook" or "overcame" seems to be the idea here. The light kept on shining in spite of the darkness that was worse than a London fog as the Old Testament and archaeological discoveries in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Crete, Asia Minor show.
rwp@John:1:9 @{There was} (\n\). Imperfect indicative. Emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence and so probably not periphrastic conjugation with \erchomenon\ (coming) near the end, though that is possible. {The true light} (\to phs to althinon\). "The light the genuine," not a false light of wreckers of ships, but the dependable light that guides to the harbor of safety. This true light had been on hand all the time in the darkness (\n\ imperfect, linear action) before John came. {Even the light} (not in the Greek). Added in the English to make plain this interpretation. {Lighteth every man} (\phtizei panta anthrpon\). Old verb (from \phs\) to give light as in strkjv@Revelation:22:5; strkjv@Luke:11:35f|. The Quakers appeal to this phrase for their belief that to every man there is given an inner light that is a sufficient guide, the Quaker's text it is called. But it may only mean that all the real light that men receive comes from Christ, not necessarily that each one receives a special revelation. {Coming} (\erchomenon\). This present middle participle of \erchomai\ can be taken with \anthrpon\ just before (accusative masculine singular), "every man as he comes into the world." It can also be construed with \phs\ (nominative neuter singular). This idea occurs in strkjv@John:3:19; strkjv@11:27; strkjv@12:46|. In the two last passages the phrase is used of the Messiah which makes it probable here. But even so the light presented in strkjv@11:27; strkjv@12:46| is that of the Incarnate Messiah, not the Pre-incarnate Logos. Here \kosmos\ rather than \panta\ occurs in the sense of the orderly universe as often in this Gospel. See strkjv@Ephesians:1:4|.
rwp@John:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \n\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\esknsen en hmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skno\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\sknos\ or \skn\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\hs monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogen\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogens\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plrs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plrs\ can agree with the subject of \esknsen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai altheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \altheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.
rwp@John:1:15 @{Beareth witness} (\marturei\). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. strkjv@1:17f.|). See strkjv@1:32,34| for historical examples of John's witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort's text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of verse 14|. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos. {Crieth} (\kekragen\). Second perfect active indicative of \kraz\, old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years. {This was} (\houtos n\). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in strkjv@Acts:3:10| where we should prefer "is" (\estin\). Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things." {Of whom I said} (\hon eipon\). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have \ho eipn\ "the one who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ. {After me} (\opis mou\). See also strkjv@1:27|. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One" (\ho erchomenos\) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:3:11| \ho opis mou erchomenos\ (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:7|). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. {Is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking. {Before me} (\emprosthen mou\). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, \ho ischuroteros mou\ "the one mightier than I" (Mark:1:7|) and \ischuroteros mou\ "mightier than I" (Matthew:3:11|). In strkjv@John:3:28| \emprosthen ekeinou\ (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (John:3:25-30|). {For he was before me} (\hoti prtos mou n\). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\n imperfect\) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after" John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. \Prtos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular _Koin_. Songs:the Beloved Disciple came first (\prtos\) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4|). Songs:also \prton humn\ in strkjv@15:18| means "before you" as if it were \proteron humn\. Verse 30| repeats these words almost exactly.
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 Nathanal\). 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 \heurkamen\ (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} (\Isoun huion tou Isph 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:2:9 @{Tasted} (\egeusato\). First aorist middle indicative of \geuomai\. As it was his function to do. {The water now become wine} (\to hudr oinon gegenmenon\). Accusative case, though the genitive also occurs with \geuomai\. Perfect passive participle of \ginomai\ and \oinon\, predicative accusative. The tablemaster knew nothing of the miracle, "whence it was" (\pothen estin\, indirect question retaining present indicative). The servants knew the source of the water, but not the power that made the wine. {Calleth the bridegroom} (\phnei ton numphion\). As apparently responsible for the supply of the wine ({thou hast kept} \tetrkas\). See strkjv@Matthew:9:15| for \numphios\. When men have drunk freely (\hotan methusthsin\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \methusk\. The verb does not mean that these guests are now drunk, but that this is a common custom to put "the worse" (\ton elass\, the less, the inferior) wine last. It is real wine that is meant by \oinos\ here. Unlike the Baptist Jesus mingled in the social life of the time, was even abused for it (Matthew:11:19; strkjv@Luke:7:34|). But this fact does not mean that today Jesus would approve the modern liquor trade with its damnable influences. The law of love expounded by Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:8-10| and in strkjv@Romans:14,15| teaches modern Christians to be willing gladly to give up what they see causes so many to stumble into sin.
rwp@John:2:23 @{In Jerusalem} (\en tois Ierosolumois\). The form \Ierosoluma\ as in strkjv@2:13| always in this Gospel and in Mark, and usually in Matthew, though \Ierousalm\ only in Revelation, and both forms by Luke and Paul. {During the feast} (\en ti heorti\). The feast of unleavened bread followed for seven days right after the passover (one day strictly), though \to pascha\ is used either for the passover meal or for the whole eight days. {Believed on his name} (\episteusan eis to onoma autou\). See on ¯1:12| for this phrase. Only one has to watch for the real import of \pisteu\. {Beholding his signs} (\therountes autou ta smeia\). Present active participle (causal use) of \there\. {Which he did} (\ha epoiei\). "Which he was doing" (imperfect tense). He did his first sign in Cana, but now he was doing many in Jerusalem. Already Jesus had become the cynosure of all eyes in Jerusalem at this first visit in his ministry.
rwp@John:3:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one." {By night} (\nuktos\). Genitive of time. That he came at all is remarkable, not because there was any danger as was true at a later period, but because of his own prominence. He wished to avoid comment by other members of the Sanhedrin and others. Jesus had already provoked the opposition of the ecclesiastics by his assumption of Messianic authority over the temple. There is no ground for assigning this incident to a later period, for it suits perfectly here. Jesus was already in the public eye (2:23|) and the interest of Nicodemus was real and yet he wished to be cautious. {Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). See on ¯1:38|. Technically Jesus was not an acknowledged Rabbi of the schools, but Nicodemus does recognize him as such and calls him "My Master" just as Andrew and John did (1:38|). It was a long step for Nicodemus as a Pharisee to take, for the Pharisees had closely scrutinized the credentials of the Baptist in strkjv@1:19-24| (Milligan and Moulton's _Comm_.). {We know} (\oidamen\). Second perfect indicative first person plural. He seems to speak for others of his class as the blind man does in strkjv@9:31|. Westcott thinks that Nicodemus has been influenced partly by the report of the commission sent to the Baptist (1:19-27|). {Thou art a teacher come from God} (\apo theou elluthas didaskalos\). "Thou hast come from God as a teacher." Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\ and predicative nominative \didaskalos\. This is the explanation of Nicodemus for coming to Jesus, obscure Galilean peasant as he seemed, evidence that satisfied one of the leaders in Pharisaism. {Can do} (\dunatai poiein\). "Can go on doing" (present active infinitive of \poie\ and so linear). {These signs that thou doest} (\tauta ta smeia ha su poieis\). Those mentioned in strkjv@2:23| that convinced so many in the crowd and that now appeal to the scholar. Note \su\ (thou) as quite out of the ordinary. The scorn of Jesus by the rulers held many back to the end (John:12:42|), but Nicodemus dares to feel his way. {Except God be with him} (\ean m i ho theos met' autou\). Condition of the third class, presented as a probability, not as a definite fact. He wanted to know more of the teaching accredited thus by God. Jesus went about doing good because God was with him, Peter says (Acts:10:38|).
rwp@John:3:17 @{For God sent not the Son} (\ou gar apesteilen ho theos ton huion\). Explanation (\gar\) of God's sending the Son into the world. First aorist active indicative of \apostell\. John uses both \apostell\ from which comes \apostolos\ (3:34; strkjv@5:36,38|, etc.) and \pemp\ (4:34; strkjv@5:23,24,30|, etc.) for God's sending the Son and \pemp\ more frequently, but with no real difference in meaning. All the Gospels use \ho huios\ in the absolute sense in contrast with the Father (Mark:13:32; strkjv@Matthew:11:27; strkjv@Luke:10:22|). {To judge} (\hina krini\). Final clause with \hina\ and the present (or aorist) active subjunctive of \krin\. The Messiah does judge the world as Jesus taught (Matthew:25:31f.; strkjv@John:5:27|), but this was not the primary or the only purpose of his coming. See on ¯Matthew:7:1| for \krin\, to pick out, select, approve, condemn, used so often and in so many varying contexts in the N.T. {But that the world should be saved through him} (\all hina sthi ho kosmos di' autou\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \sz\, the common verb to save (from \ss\, safe and sound), from which \str\ (Saviour) comes (the Saviour of the world, strkjv@4:42; strkjv@1John:4:14|) and \stria\ (salvation, strkjv@4:22| here only in John). The verb \sz\ is often used for physical health (Mark:5:28|), but here of the spiritual salvation as in strkjv@5:34|.
rwp@John:3:23 @{John was also baptizing} (\n de kai ho Ians baptizn\). Periphrastic imperfect picturing the continued activity of the Baptist simultaneous with the growing work of Jesus. There was no real rivalry except in people's minds. {In Aenon near to Salim} (\en Ainn eggus tou Saleim\). It is not clearly known where this place was. Eusebius locates it in the Jordan valley south of Beisan west of the river where are many springs (fountains, eyes). There is a place called Salim east of Shechem in Samaria with a village called 'Aimen, but with no water there. There may have been water there then, of course. {Because there was much water there} (\hoti hudata polla n ekei\). "Because many waters were there." Not for drinking, but for baptizing. "Therefore even in summer baptism by immersion could be continued" (Marcus Dods). {And they came, and were baptized} (\kai pareginonto kai ebaptizonto\). Imperfects both, one middle and the other passive, graphically picturing the long procession of pilgrims who came to John confessing their sins and receiving baptism at his hands.
rwp@John:4:10 @{Answered and said} (\apekrith kai eipen\). As often (redundant) in John. The first aorist passive (\apekrith\) is deponent, no longer passive in sense. {If thou knewest} (\ei ideis\). Condition of second class, determined as unfulfilled, \ei\ and past perfect \ideis\ (used as imperfect) in condition and \an\ and aorist active indicative in conclusion (\an itsas kai an edken\, note repetition of \an\, not always done). {The gift of God} (\tn drean tou theou\). Naturally the gift mentioned in strkjv@3:16| (Westcott), the inexpressible gift (2Corinthians:9:15|). Some take it to refer to the living water below, but that is another allusion (metaphor) to strkjv@3:16|. See strkjv@Ephesians:4:7| for Paul's use of both \charis\ and \drea\ (from \didmi\, to give). {Who it is} (\tis estin\). She only knew that he was a Jew. This Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus is plain in John, but it is early in the Synoptics also. {Living water} (\hudr zn\). Running water like a spring or well supplied by springs. This Jacob's Well was filled by water from rains percolating through, a sort of cistern, good water, but not equal to a real spring which was always preferred (Genesis:26:19; strkjv@Leviticus:14:5; strkjv@Numbers:19:17|). Jesus, of course, is symbolically referring to himself as the Living Water though he does not say it in plain words as he does about the Living Bread (6:51|). The phrase "the fountain of life" occurs in strkjv@Proverbs:13:14|. Jesus supplies the water of life (John:7:39|). Cf. strkjv@Revelation:7:17; strkjv@22:1|.
rwp@John:4:24 @{God is a Spirit} (\pneuma ho theos\). More precisely, "God is Spirit" as "God is Light" (1John:1:5|), "God is Love" (1John:4:8|). In neither case can we read Spirit is God, Light is God, Love is God. The non-corporeality of God is clearly stated and the personality of God also. All this is put in three words for the first time. {Must} (\dei\). Here is the real necessity (\dei\), not the one used by the woman about the right place of worship (verse 20|).
rwp@John:5:2 @{There is} (\estin\). Bengel argues that this proves a date before the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is probably only John's vivid memory. {By the sheep gate} (\epi ti probatiki\). Supply \puli\ (gate) which occurs with the adjective \probatik\ (pertaining to sheep, \probata\) in strkjv@Nehemiah:3:1,22|. {A pool} (\kolumbthra\). A diving or swimming pool (from \kolumba\, to swim, strkjv@Acts:27:43|), old word, only here in N.T. {Which is called} (\h epilegomen\). "The surnamed" (present passive participle, only N.T. example except strkjv@Acts:15:40| first aorist middle participle \epilexamenos\). {In Hebrew} (\Ebraisti\). "In Aramaic" strictly as in strkjv@19:13,17,20; strkjv@20:16; strkjv@Revelation:9:11; strkjv@16:16|. {Bethesda} (\Bethesda\, or House of Mercy. Songs:A C Syr cu). Aleph D L 33 have \Bethzatha\ or House of the Olive, while B W Vulg. Memph. have \Bethsaida\. {Having five porches} (\pente stoas echousa\). \Stoa\ was a covered colonnade where people can gather from which Stoic comes (Acts:17:18|). See strkjv@John:10:23; strkjv@Acts:3:11|. Schick in 1888 found twin pools north of the temple near the fortress of Antonia one of which has five porches. It is not, however, certain that this pool existed before A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed (Sanday, _Sacred Sites of the Gospels_, p. 55). Some have identified it with the Pool of Siloam (9:7|), though John distinguishes them. There is also the Virgin's Well, called the Gusher, because it periodically bubbles over from a natural spring, a kind of natural siphon. This is south of the temple in the Valley of Kedron and quite possibly the real site.
rwp@John:6:54 @{He that eateth} (\ho trgn\). Present active participle for continual or habitual eating like \pisteuete\ in verse 29|. The verb \trg\ is an old one for eating fruit or vegetables and the feeding of animals. In the N.T. it occurs only in strkjv@John:6:54,56,58; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@Matthew:24:38|. Elsewhere in the Gospels always \esthi\ or \ephagon\ (defective verb with \esthi\). No distinction is made here between \ephagon\ (48,50,52,53,58|) and \trg\ (54,56,57,58|). Some men understand Jesus here to be speaking of the Lord's Supper by prophetic forecast or rather they think that John has put into the mouth of Jesus the sacramental conception of Christianity by making participation in the bread and wine the means of securing eternal life. To me that is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ. It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus which these Jews also misunderstood. Christ uses bold imagery to picture spiritual appropriation of himself who is to give his life-blood for the life of the world (51|). It would have been hopeless confusion for these Jews if Jesus had used the symbolism of the Lord's Supper. It would be real dishonesty for John to use this discourse as a propaganda for sacramentalism. The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as he unfolds himself as the true manna.
rwp@John:6:57 @{The living Father} (\ho zn patr\). Nowhere else in the N.T., but see strkjv@5:26| and "the living God" (Matthew:16:16; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:16|). The Father is the source of life and so "I live because of the Father" (\kag z dia ton patera\). {He that eateth me} (\ho trgn me\). Still bolder putting of the mystical appropriation of Christ (51,53,54,56|). {Because of me} (\di' eme\). The same idea appears in strkjv@14:19|: "Because I live ye shall live also." See strkjv@11:25|. Jesus Christ is our ground of hope and guarantee of immortality. Life is in Christ. There is no real difficulty in this use of \dia\ with the accusative as with \dia ton patera\ just before. It occurs also in strkjv@15:3|. As the Father is the fount of life to Christ, so Christ is the fount of life to us. See strkjv@1John:4:9| where \dia\ is used with the genitive (\di' autou\) as the intermediate agent, not the ground or reason as here.
rwp@John:6:64 @{That believe not} (\hoi ou pisteuousin\). Failure to believe kills the life in the words of Jesus. {Knew from the beginning} (\idei ex archs\). In the N.T. we have \ex archs\ only here and strkjv@16:4|, but \ap' archs\ in apparently the same sense as here in strkjv@15:27; strkjv@1John:2:7,24; strkjv@3:11| and see strkjv@Luke:1:2; strkjv@1John:1:1|. From the first Jesus distinguished between real trust in him and mere lip service (2:24; strkjv@8:31|), two senses of \pisteu\. {Were} (\eisin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse. {And who it was that should betray him} (\kai tis estin ho paradsn\). Same use of \estin\ and note article and future active participle of \paradidmi\, to hand over, to betray. John does not say here that Jesus knew that Judas would betray him when he chose him as one of the twelve, least of all that he chose him for that purpose. What he does say is that Jesus was not taken by surprise and soon saw signs of treason in Judas. The same verb is used of John's arrest in strkjv@Matthew:4:12|. Once Judas is termed traitor (\prodots\) in strkjv@Luke:6:16|. Judas had gifts and was given his opportunity. He did not have to betray Jesus.
rwp@John:7:15 @{Marvelled} (\ethaumazon\). Picturesque imperfect active of \thaumaz\, "were wondering." After all the bluster of the rulers (verse 13|) here was Jesus teaching without interruption. {Knoweth letters} (\grammata oiden\). Second perfect active indicative used as present. \Grammata\, old word from \graph\, to write, is originally the letters formed (Galatians:6:11|), then a letter or epistle (Acts:28:21|), then the sacred Scriptures (John:5:47; strkjv@2Timothy:3:15|), then learning like Latin _litterae_ and English letters (Acts:26:24; strkjv@John:7:15|). "The marvel was that Jesus showed Himself familiar with the literary methods of the time, which were supposed to be confined to the scholars of the popular teachers" (Westcott). {Having never learned} (\m memathks\). Perfect active participle of \manthan\ with \m\, the usual negative (subjective) with the participle. It is not the wisdom of Jesus that disconcerted the Jewish leaders, but his learning (Marcus Dods). And yet Jesus had not attended either of the rabbinical theological schools in Jerusalem (Hillel, Shammai). He was not a rabbi in the technical sense, only a carpenter, and yet he surpassed the professional rabbis in the use of their own methods of debate. It is sometimes true today that unschooled men in various walks of life forge ahead of men of lesser gifts with school training. See the like puzzle of the Sanhedrin concerning Peter and John (Acts:4:13|). This is not an argument against education, but it takes more than education to make a real man. Probably this sneer at Jesus came from some of the teachers in the Jerusalem seminaries. "Christ was in the eyes of the Jews a merely self-taught enthusiast" (Westcott).
rwp@John:10:15 @{And I know the Father} (\kag ginsk ton patera\). Hence he is qualified to reveal the Father (1:18|). The comparison of the mutually reciprocal knowledge between the Father and the Son illustrates what he has just said, though it stands above all else (Matthew:11:27; strkjv@Luke:10:22; strkjv@John:17:21-26|). We cannot claim such perfect knowledge of the Good Shepherd as exists between the Father and the Son and yet the real sheep do know the Shepherd's voice and do love to follow his leadership here and now in spite of thieves, robbers, wolves, hirelings. {And I lay down my life for the sheep} (\kai tn psuchn mou tithmi huper tn probatn\). This he had said in verse 11|, but he repeats it now for clearness. This he does not just as an example for the sheep and for under-shepherds, but primarily to save the sheep from the wolves, the thieves and robbers.
rwp@John:10:22 @{And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem} (\egeneto de ta enkainia en tois Ierosolumois\). But Westcott and Hort read \tote\ (then) instead of \de\ (and) on the authority of B L W 33 and some versions. This is probably correct: "At that time came the feast of dedication in Jerusalem." \Tote\ does not mean that the preceding events followed immediately after the incidents in strkjv@10:1-21|. Bernard brings chapter 9 up to this date (possibly also chapter 8) and rearranges chapter 10 in a purely arbitrary way. There is no real reason for this arrangement. Clearly there is a considerable lapse between the events in strkjv@10:22-39| and strkjv@10:1-21|, possibly nearly three months (from just after tabernacles strkjv@7:37| to dedication strkjv@10:22|). The Pharisees greet his return with the same desire to catch him. This feast of dedication, celebrated for eight days about the middle of our December, was instituted by Judas Maccabeus B.C. 164 in commemoration of the cleansing of the temple from the defilements of pagan worship by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Macc. strkjv@4:59). The word \enkainia\ (\en\, \kainos\, new) occurs here only in the N.T. It was not one of the great feasts and could be observed elsewhere without coming to Jerusalem. Jesus had apparently spent the time between tabernacles and dedication in Judea (Luke:10:1-13:21|). {Winter} (\cheimn\). Old word from \cheima\ (\che\, to pour, rain, or from \chin\, snow). See strkjv@Matthew:24:20|.
rwp@John:10:38 @{But if I do} (\ei de poi\). Condition again of the first class, assumed as true, but with the opposite results. {Though ye believe not me} (\kan emoi m pisteute\). Condition now of third class, undetermined (but with prospect), "Even if you keep on (present active subjunctive of \pisteuo\) not believing me." {Believe the works} (\tois ergois pisteuete\). These stand irrefutable. The claims, character, words, and works of Jesus challenge the world today as then. {That ye may know and understand} (\hina gnte kai ginskte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the same verb \ginsk\ repeated in different tenses (first \gnte\, the second ingressive aorist active subjunctive, that ye may come to know; then the present active subjunctive, "that ye may keep on knowing"). This is Christ's deepest wish about his enemies who stand with stones in their uplifted hands to fling at him. {That the Father is in me, and I in the Father} (\hoti en emoi ho patr kag en ti patri\). Thus he repeats (verse 30|) sharply his real claim to oneness with the Father as his Son, to actual deity. It was a hopeless wish.
rwp@John:11:31 @{Followed her} (\kolouthsan auti\). First aorist active indicative of \akolouthe\ with associative instrumental case (\auti\). This crowd of consolers (\paramuthoumenoi\) meant kindly enough, but did the one wrong thing for Mary wished to see Jesus alone. People with kind notions often so act. The secrecy of Martha (verse 28|) was of no avail. {Supposing that she was going unto the tomb} (\doxantes hoti hupagei eis to mnmeion\). First aorist active participle of \doke\, justifying their conduct by a wrong inference. Note retention of present tense \hupagei\ in indirect discourse after the secondary tense \kolouthsan\. {To weep there} (\hina klausi ekei\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \klai\, old verb to weep. Sometimes to wail or howl in oriental style of grief, but surely not that here. At any rate this supposed purpose of Mary was a real reason for this crowd {not} to go with her.
rwp@John:12:5 @{Sold} (\eprath\). First aorist passive indicative of \piprask\, old verb to sell (Matthew:13:46|). {For three hundred pence} (\triakosin dnarin\). Genitive of price. Same item in strkjv@Mark:14:5|, while in strkjv@Matthew:26:9| it is simply "for much" (\pollou\). But all three have "given to the poor" (\edoth ptchois\). First aorist passive indicative of \didmi\ with dative case \ptchois\ (note absence of the article, poor people), real beggars, mendicants (Matthew:19:21; strkjv@Luke:14:13|). But only John singles out Judas as the one who made the protest against this waste of money while Mark says that "some" had indignation and Matthew has it that "the disciples" had indignation. Clearly Judas was the spokesman for the group who chimed in and agreed with his protest. The amount here spent by Mary (ten guineas) would equal a day labourer's wages for a year (Dods).
rwp@John:12:20 @{Certain Greeks} (\Hellnes tines\). Real Greeks, not Greek-speaking Jews (Hellenists, strkjv@Acts:6:1|), but Greeks like those in Antioch (Acts:11:20|, correct text \pros tous Hellnas\) to whom Barnabas was sent. These were probably proselytes of the gate or God-fearers like those worshipping Greeks in Thessalonica whom Paul won to Christ (Acts:17:4|). {To worship at the feast} (\hina proskunssin en ti heorti\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \proskune\, old and common verb to kiss the hand in reverence, to bow the knee in reverence and worship. We do not know whence they came, whether from Decapolis, Galilee, or further away. They found the pilgrims and the city ringing with talk about Jesus. They may even have witnessed the triumphal entry.
rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\h psuch mou\). The soul (\psuch\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, sson me ek ts hras tauts\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto lthon eis tn hran tautn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.
rwp@John:13:1 @{Now before the feast of the passover} (\pro de ts heorts tou pascha\). Just before, John means, not twenty-four hours before, that is our Thursday evening (beginning of 15th of Nisan, sunset to sunset Jewish day), since Jesus was crucified on Friday 15th of Nisan. Hence Jesus ate the regular passover meal at the usual time. The whole feast, including the feast of unleavened bread, lasted eight days. For a discussion of the objections to this interpretation of John in connexion with the Synoptic Gospels one may consult my _Harmony of the Gospels_, pp. 279-84, and David Smith's _In the Days of His Flesh_, Appendix VIII. The passover feast began on the 15th Nisan at sunset, the passover lamb being slain the afternoon of 14th Nisan. There seems no real doubt that this meal in strkjv@John:13:1-30| is the real passover meal described by the Synoptics also (Mark:14:18-21; strkjv@Matthew:26:21-25; strkjv@Luke:22:21-23|), followed by the institution of the Lord's Supper. Thus understood verse 1| here serves as an introduction to the great esoteric teaching of Christ to the apostles (John:13:2-17:26|), called by Barnas Sears _The Heart of Christ_. This phrase goes with the principal verb \gapsen\ (loved). {Knowing} (\eids\). Second perfect active participle, emphasizing the full consciousness of Christ. He was not stumbling into the dark as he faced "his hour" (\autou h hra\). See strkjv@18:4; strkjv@19:28| for other examples of the insight and foresight (Bernard) of Jesus concerning his death. See on strkjv@12:23| for use before by Jesus. {That he should depart} (\hina metabi\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \metabain\, old word, to go from one place to another, here (5:24; strkjv@1John:3:14|) to go from this world (8:23|) back to the Father from whom he had come (14:12,28; strkjv@16:10,28; strkjv@17:5|). {His own which were in the world} (\tous idious tous en ti kosmi\). His own disciples (17:6,9,11|), those left in the world when he goes to the Father, not the Jews as in strkjv@1:11|. See strkjv@Acts:4:23; strkjv@1Timothy:5:8| for the idiom. John pictures here the outgoing of Christ's very heart's love (chs. strkjv@John:13-17|) towards these men whom he had chosen and whom he loved "unto the end" (\eis telos\) as in strkjv@Matthew:10:22; strkjv@Luke:18:15|, but here as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:16| rather "to the uttermost." The culmination of the crisis ("his hour") naturally drew out the fulness of Christ's love for them as is shown in these great chapters (John:13-17|).
rwp@John:13:8 @{Thou shalt never wash my feet} (\ou m nipsis mou tous podas eis ton aina\). Strong double negative \ou m\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \nipt\ with \eis ton aina\ (for ever) added and \mou\ (my) made emphatic by position. Peter's sudden humility should settle the issue, he felt. {If I wash thee not} (\ean m nips se\). Third-class condition with \ean m\ (negative). Jesus picks up the challenge of Peter whose act amounted to irreverence and want of confidence. "The first condition of discipleship is self-surrender" (Westcott). Songs:"Jesus, waiting with the basin" (Dods), concludes. {Thou hast no part with me} (\ouk echeis meros met' emou\). Not simply here at the supper with its fellowship, but in the deeper sense of mystic fellowship as Peter was quick to see. Jesus does not make foot-washing essential to spiritual fellowship, but simply tests Peter's real pride and mock-humility by this symbol of fellowship.
rwp@John:13:21 @{He was troubled in the spirit} (\etarachth toi pneumati\). First aorist passive indicative of \tarass\ and the locative case of \pneuma\. See already strkjv@11:33; strkjv@12:27| for this use of \tarass\ for the agitation of Christ's spirit. In strkjv@14:1,27| it is used of the disciples. Jesus was one with God (5:19|) and yet he had our real humanity (1:14|). {Testified} (\emartursen\). First aorist active indicative of \marture\, definite witness as in strkjv@4:44; strkjv@18:37|. {One of you shall betray me} (\heis ex humn paradsei me\). Future active of \paradidmi\, to betray, the word so often used of Judas. This very language occurs in strkjv@Mark:14:18; strkjv@Matthew:26:21| and the idea in strkjv@Luke:22:21|. Jesus had said a year ago that "one of you is a devil" (John:6:70|), but it made no such stir then. Now it was a bolt from the blue sky as Jesus swept his eyes around and looked at the disciples.
rwp@John:14:21 @{He it is that loveth me} (\ekeinos estin ho agapn me\). Emphatic demonstrative pronoun \ekeinos\: "that is the one who loves me." {And will manifest myself unto him} (\kai emphanis auti emauton\). Future active of \emphaniz\, old verb from \emphans\ (Acts:10:40; strkjv@Romans:10:20|). The Unseen and Risen Christ will be a real and spiritual Presence to the obedient and loving believer.
rwp@John:15:19 @{The world would love its own} (\ho kosmos an to idion ephilei\). Conclusion of second-class condition (determined as unfulfilled), regular idiom with \an\ and imperfect indicative in present time. {But because ye are not of the world} (\hoti de ek tou kosmou ouk este\). Definite and specific reason for the world's hatred of real Christians whose very existence is a reproach to the sinful world. Cf. strkjv@7:7; strkjv@17:14; strkjv@1John:3:13|. Does the world hate us? If not, why not? Has the world become more Christian or Christians more worldly?
rwp@John:17:1 @{Lifting up} (\eparas\). First aorist active participle of \epair\, old and common verb with \ophthalmous\ (eyes) as in strkjv@4:35; strkjv@6:5; strkjv@11:41|. {Father} (\Pater\). Vocative form as in verses 5,11; strkjv@11:41|, Christ's usual way of beginning his prayers. It is inconceivable that this real _Lord's Prayer_ is the free composition of a disciple put into the mouth of Jesus. It is rather "the tenacious memory of an old man recalling the greatest days of his life" (Bernard), aided by the Holy Spirit promised for this very purpose (John:14:26; strkjv@16:13f.|). Jesus had the habit of prayer (Mark:1:35; strkjv@6:46; strkjv@Matthew:11:25f.; strkjv@Luke:3:21; strkjv@5:16; strkjv@6:12; strkjv@9:18,28; strkjv@11:22,42; strkjv@23:34,46; strkjv@John:11:41; strkjv@12:27|). He prayed here for himself (1-5|), for the disciples (6-19|), for all believers (20-26|). The prayer is similar in spirit to the Model Prayer for us in strkjv@Matthew:6:9-13|. The hour for his glorification has come as he had already told the disciples (13:31f.; strkjv@12:23|). {Glorify thy Son} (\doxason sou ton huion\). First aorist active imperative of \doxaz\, the only personal petition in this prayer. Jesus had already used this word \doxaz\ for his death (13:31f.|). Here it carries us into the very depths of Christ's own consciousness. It is not merely for strength to meet the Cross, but for the power to glorify the Father by his death and resurrection and ascension, "that the Son may glorify thee" (\hina ho huios doxasi se\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive.
rwp@John:17:7 @{Now they know} (\nun egnkan\). Perfect active indicative third plural like \tetrkan\ above. They have come to know, not as fully as they felt (16:30|), and yet in a real sense.
rwp@John:18:22 @{When he had said this} (\tauta autou eipontos\). Genitive absolute of second aorist active participle of \eipon\, to say. {Standing by} (\parestks\). Perfect active (intransitive) participle of \paristmi\ (transitive), to place beside. One of the temple police who felt his importance as protector of Annas. {Struck Jesus with his hand} (\edken rapisma ti Isou\). Late word \rapisma\ is from \rapiz\, to smite with a rod or with the palm of the hand (Matthew:26:67|). It occurs only three times in the N.T. (Mark:14:65; strkjv@John:18:22; strkjv@19:3|), in each of which it is uncertain whether the blow is with a rod or with the palm of the hand (probably this, a most insulting act). The papyri throw no real light on it. "He gave Jesus a slap in the face." Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:11:20|. {So} (\houts\). As Jesus had done in verse 21|, a dignified protest in fact by Jesus.
rwp@John:18:35 @{Amos:I a Jew?} (\mti eg Ioudaios eimi;\). Proud and fine scorn on Pilate's part at the idea that he had a personal interest in the question. Vehement negation implied. Cf. strkjv@4:29| for \mti\ in a question. The gulf between Jew and Gentile yawns wide here. {Nation} (\ethnos\ as in strkjv@11:48-52|, rather than \laos\, while both in strkjv@11:50|). For \paredkan\ see verse 30|. {What hast thou done?} (\ti epoisas;\). First aorist active indicative of \poie\. Blunt and curt question. "What didst thou do?" "What is thy real crime?" John's picture of this private interview between Pilate and Jesus is told with graphic power.
rwp@John:19:7 @{Because he made himself the Son of God} (\hoti huion theou heauton epoisen\). Here at last the Sanhedrin give the real ground for their hostility to Jesus, one of long standing for probably three years (John:5:18|) and the one on which the Sanhedrin voted the condemnation of Jesus (Mark:14:61-64; strkjv@Matthew:27:23-66|), but even now they do not mention their own decision to Pilate, for they had no legal right to vote Christ's death before Pilate's consent which they now have secured.
rwp@John:19:10 @{Unto me} (\emoi\). Emphatic position for this dative. It amounted to contempt of court with all of Pilate's real "authority" (\exousia\), better here than "power."
rwp@John:19:11 @{Thou wouldest have} (\ouk eiches\). Imperfect active indicative without \an\, but apodosis of second-class condition as in strkjv@15:22,24|. {Except it were given thee} (\ei m n dedomenon\). Periphrastic past perfect indicative of \didmi\ (a permanent possession). {From above} (\anthen\). From God (cf. strkjv@3:3|), the same doctrine of government stated by Paul in strkjv@Romans:13:1f|. Pilate did not get his "authority" from the Sanhedrin, but from Caesar. Jesus makes God the source of all real "authority." {Hath greater sin} (\meizona hamartian echei\). The same idiom in strkjv@9:41|. Caiaphas has his authority from God also and has used Pilate for his own base end.
rwp@John:19:35 @{He that hath seen} (\ho heraks\). Perfect active articular participle of \hora\. John the Apostle was there and saw this fact (still sees it, in fact). This personal witness disproves the theory of the Docetic Gnostics that Jesus did not have a real human body. {He knoweth} (\ekeinos oiden\). That is John does like strkjv@9:37|. It is possible that \ekeinos\ may be a solemn appeal to God as in strkjv@1:33| or Christ as in strkjv@1John:3:5|. Bernard argues that the final editor is distinguishing the Beloved Disciple from himself and is endorsing him. But the example of Josephus (_War_. III. 7, 16) is against this use of \ekeinos\. John is rather referring to himself as still alive.
rwp@John:20:22 @{He breathed on them} (\enephussen\). First aorist active indicative of \emphusa\, late verb, here only in N.T. though eleven times in the LXX and in the papyri. It was a symbolic art with the same word used in the LXX when God breathed the breath of life upon Adam (Genesis:2:7|). It occurs also in strkjv@Ezekiel:37:9|. See Christ's promise in strkjv@John:16:23|. Jesus gives the disciples a foretaste of the great pentecost. {Receive ye the Holy Ghost} (\labete pneuma hagion\). Second aorist (ingressive) active imperative of \lamban\. Note absence of article here (\pneuma hagion\) though \to pneuma to hagion\ in strkjv@14:26|. No real distinction is to be observed, for Holy Spirit is treated as a proper name with or without the article.
rwp@Info_Jude:@ THE READERS Of this we know nothing at all. Dr. Chase believes that the Epistle was sent to Antioch in Syria. That may be true, though it is mere conjecture. Any place or places in Asia Minor would suit so far as we know. The readers were probably both Jewish and Gentile Christians. Jerusalem and Alexandria are urged as the place of composition, but of that we have no real information.
rwp@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.
rwp@Luke:1:5 @{There was} (\egeneto\). Not the usual \en\ for "was," but there arose or came into notice. With this verse the literary _Koin_ of verses 1 to 4 disappears. To the end of chapter 2 we have the most Hebraistic (Aramaic) passage in Luke's writings, due evidently to the use of documents or notes of oral tradition. Plummer notes a series of such documents ending with strkjv@1:80, strkjv@2:40, strkjv@2:52|. If the mother of Jesus was still alive, Luke could have seen her. She may have written in Aramaic an account of these great events. Natural reserve would keep her from telling too much and from too early publicity. Luke, as a physician, would take special interest in her birth report. The supernatural aspects disturb only those who do not admit the real Incarnation of Jesus Christ and who are unable to believe that God is superior to nature and that the coming of the Son of God to earth justifies such miraculous manifestations of divine power. Luke tells his story from the standpoint of Mary as Matthew gives his from the standpoint of Joseph. The two supplement each other. We have here the earliest documentary evidence of the origins of Christianity that has come down to us (Plummer). {Herod, King of Judea} (\Hridou basiles ts Ioudaias\). This note of time locates the events before the death of Herod the Great (as he was called later), appointed King of Judea by the Roman Senate B.C. 40 at the suggestion of Octavius and Antony. He died B.C. 4. {Of the course of Abijah} (\ex ephmerias Abia\). Not in old Greek, but in LXX and modern Greek. Papyri have a verb derived from it, \ephmere\. Daily service (Nehemiah:13:30; strkjv@1Chronicles:25:8|) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1Chronicles:23:6; strkjv@28:13|). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the eighth (1Chronicles:24:10; strkjv@2Chronicles:8:14|). Only four of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into twenty-four with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for eight days, sabbath to sabbath, twice a year. On sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of tabernacles all twenty-four courses were present. {Of the daughters of Aaron} (\ek tn thugatern Aarn\). "To be a priest and married to a priest's daughter was a double distinction" (Plummer). Like a preacher married to a preacher's daughter.
rwp@Luke:1:45 @{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:2:5 @{To enrol himself with Mary} (\apograpsasthai sun Mariam\). Direct middle. "With Mary" is naturally taken with the infinitive as here. If so, that means that Mary's family register was in Bethlehem also and that she also belonged to the house of David. It is possible to connect "with Mary" far back with "went up" (\aneb\) in verse 4|, but it is unnatural to do so. There is no real reason for doubting that Mary herself was a descendant of David and that is the obvious way to understand Luke's genealogy of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:3:23-38|). The Syriac Sinaitic expressly says that both Joseph and Mary were of the house and city of David. {Betrothed} (\emnsteumenn\). Same verb as in strkjv@1:27|, but here it really means "married" or "espoused" as strkjv@Matthew:1:24f.| shows. Otherwise she could not have travelled with Joseph. {Great with child} (\enkui\). Only here in N.T. Common Greek word.
rwp@Luke:2:14 @{Among men in whom he is well pleased} (\en anthrpois eudokias\). The Textus Receptus (Authorized Version also has \eudokia\, but the genitive \eudokias\ is undoubtedly correct, supported by the oldest and best uncials. (Aleph, A B D W). C has a lacuna here. Plummer justly notes how in this angelic hymn Glory and Peace correspond, in the highest and on earth, to God and among men of goodwill. It would be possible to connect "on earth" with "the highest" and also to have a triple division. There has been much objection raised to the genitive \eudokias\, the correct text. But it makes perfectly good sense and better sense. As a matter of fact real peace on earth exists only among those who are the subjects of God's goodwill, who are characterized by goodwill toward God and man. This word \eudokia\ we have already had in strkjv@Matthew:11:26|. It does not occur in the ancient Greek. The word is confined to Jewish and Christian writings, though the papyri furnish instances of \eudoksis\. Wycliff has it "to men of goodwill."
rwp@Luke:2:25 @{Devout} (\eulabs\). Used only by Luke (Acts:2:5; strkjv@8:2; strkjv@22:12|) in the N.T. Common in ancient Greek from Plato on. It means taking hold well or carefully (\eu\ and \labein\) and so reverently, circumspectly. {Looking for the consolation of Israel} (\prosdechomenos paraklsin tou Israel\). Old Greek verb to admit to one's presence (Luke:15:2|) and then to expect as here and of Anna in verse 38|. {Paraklsin} here means the Messianic hope (Isaiah:11:10; strkjv@40:1|), calling to one's side for cheer. {Upon him} (\ep' auton\). This is the explanation of his lively Messianic hope. It was due to the Holy Spirit. Simeon and Anna are representatives of real piety in this time of spiritual dearth and deadness.
rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Isous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\n hsei etn triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\n huios hs enomizeto Isph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\hs enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.
rwp@Luke:4:18 @{Anointed me} (\echrisen me\). First aorist active indicative of the verb \chri\ from which {Christ} (\Christos\) is derived, the Anointed One. Isaiah is picturing the Jubilee year and the release of captives and the return from the Babylonian exile with the hope of the Messiah through it all. Jesus here applies this Messianic language to himself. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me" as was shown at the baptism (Luke:3:21|) where he was also "anointed" for his mission by the Father's voice (3:22|). {To the poor} (\ptchois\). Jesus singles this out also as one of the items to tell John the Baptist in prison (Luke:7:22|). Our word _Gospel_ is a translation of the Greek \Euaggelion\, and it is for the poor. {He hath sent me} (\apestalken me\). Change of tense to perfect active indicative. He is now on that mission here. Jesus is God's _Apostle_ to men (John:17:3|, Whom thou didst send). {Proclaim} (\kruxai\). As a herald like Noah (2Peter:2:5|). {To the captives} (\aichmaltois\). Prisoners of war will be released (\aichm\, a spear point, and \haltos\, from \haliskomai\, to be captured). Captured by the spear point. Common word, but here only in the N.T. {Set at liberty} (\aposteilai\). First aorist active infinitive of \apostell\. Same verb as \apestalken\, above. Brought in here from strkjv@Isaiah:58:6|. Plummer suggests that Luke inserts it here from memory. But Jesus could easily have turned back the roll and read it so. {Them that are bruised} (\tethrausmenous\). Perfect passive participle of \thrau\, an old verb, but here only in the N.T. It means to break in pieces broken in heart and often in body as well. One loves to think that Jesus felt it to be his mission to mend broken hearts like pieces of broken earthenware, real rescue-mission work. Jesus mends them and sets them free from their limitations.
rwp@Luke:4:21 @{And he began to say} (\rxato de legein\). Aorist ingressive active indicative and present infinitive. He began speaking. The moment of hushed expectancy was passed. These may or may not be the first words uttered here by Jesus. Often the first sentence is the crucial one in winning an audience. Certainly this is an arresting opening sentence. {Hath been fulfilled} (\peplrtai\). Perfect passive indicative, {stands fulfilled}. "Today this scripture (Isaiah:61:1,2|, just read) stands fulfilled in your ears." It was a most amazing statement and the people of Nazareth were quick to see the Messianic claim involved. Jesus could only mean that the real year of Jubilee had come, that the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah had come true today, and that in him they saw the Messiah of prophecy. There are critics today who deny that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. To be able to do that, they must reject the Gospel of John and all such passages as this one. And it is no apocalyptic eschatological Messiah whom Jesus here sets forth, but the one who forgives sin and binds up the broken-hearted. The words were too good to be true and to be spoken here at Nazareth by one of their own townsmen!
rwp@Luke:4:23 @{Doubtless} (\pants\). Adverb. Literally, at any rate, certainly, assuredly. Cf. strkjv@Acts:21:22; strkjv@28:4|. {This parable} (\tn paraboln tautn\). See discussion on ¯Matthew:13|. Here the word has a special application to a crisp proverb which involves a comparison. The word physician is the point of comparison. Luke the physician alone gives this saying of Jesus. The proverb means that the physician was expected to take his own medicine and to heal himself. The word \parabol\ in the N.T. is confined to the Synoptic Gospels except strkjv@Hebrews:9:9; strkjv@11:19|. This use for a proverb occurs also in strkjv@Luke:5:36; strkjv@6:39|. This proverb in various forms appears not only among the Jews, but in Euripides and Aeschylus among the Greeks, and in Cicero's _Letters_. Hobart quotes the same idea from Galen, and the Chinese used to demand it of their physicians. The point of the parable seems to be that the people were expecting him to make good his claim to the Messiahship by doing here in Nazareth what they had heard of his doing in Capernaum and elsewhere. "Establish your claims by direct evidence" (Easton). This same appeal (Vincent) was addressed to Christ on the Cross (Matthew:27:40,42|). There is a tone of sarcasm towards Jesus in both cases. {Heard done} (\kousamen genomena\). The use of this second aorist middle participle \genomena\ after \kousamen\ is a neat Greek idiom. It is punctiliar action in indirect discourse after this verb of sensation or emotion (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1040-42, 1122-24). {Do also here} (\poison kai hde\). Ingressive aorist active imperative. Do it here in thy own country and town and do it now. Jesus applies the proverb to himself as an interpretation of their real attitude towards himself.
rwp@Luke:6:22 @{When they shall separate you} (\hotan aphorissin hums\). First aorist active subjunctive, from \aphoriz\, common verb for marking off a boundary. Songs:either in good sense or bad sense as here. The reference is to excommunication from the congregation as well as from social intercourse. {Cast out your name as evil} (\exbalsin to onoma humn hs ponron\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \ekball\, common verb. The verb is used in Aristophanes, Sophocles, and Plato of hissing an actor off the stage. The name of Christian or disciple or Nazarene came to be a byword of contempt as shown in the Acts. It was even unlawful in the Neronian persecution when Christianity was not a _religio licita_. {For the Son of man's sake} (\heneka tou huiou tou anthrpou\). Jesus foretold what will befall those who are loyal to him. The Acts of the Apostles is a commentary on this prophecy. This is Christ's common designation of himself, never of others save by Stephen (Acts:7:56|) and in the Apocalypse (Revelation:1:13; strkjv@14:14|). But both Son of God and Son of man apply to him (John:1:50,52; strkjv@Matthew:26:63f.|). Christ was a real man though the Son of God. He is also the representative man and has authority over all men.
rwp@Luke:6:35 @{But} (\pln\). Plain adversative like \pln\ in verse 24|. Never despairing (\mden apelpizontes\). \Mden\ is read by A B L Bohairic and is the reading of Westcott and Hort. The reading \mdena\ is translated "despairing of no man." The Authorized Version has it "hoping for nothing again," a meaning for \apelpiz\ with no parallel elsewhere. Field (_Otium Nor._ iii. 40) insists that all the same the context demands this meaning because of \apelpizein\ in verse 34|, but the correct reading there is \elpizein\, not \apelpizein\. Here Field's argument falls to the ground. The word occurs in Polybius, Diodorus, LXX with the sense of despairing and that is the meaning here. D and Old Latin documents have _nihil desperantes_, but the Vulgate has _nihil inde sperantes_ (hoping for nothing thence) and this false rendering has wrought great havoc in Europe. "On the strength of it Popes and councils have repeatedly condemned the taking of any interest whatever for loans. As loans could not be had without interest, and Christians were forbidden to take it, money lending passed into the hands of the Jews, and added greatly to the unnatural detestation in which Jews were held" (Plummer). By "never despairing" or "giving up nothing in despair" Jesus means that we are not to despair about getting the money back. We are to help the apparently hopeless cases. Medical writers use the word for desperate or hopeless cases. {Sons of the Most High} (\huoi Hupsistou\). In strkjv@1:32| Jesus is called "Son of the Highest" and here all real children or sons of God (Luke:20:36|) are so termed. See also strkjv@1:35,76| for the use of "the Highest" of God. He means the same thing that we see in strkjv@Matthew:5:45,48| by "your Father." {Toward the unthankful and evil} (\epi tous acharistous kai ponrous\). God the Father is kind towards the unkind and wicked. Note the one article with both adjectives.
rwp@Luke:7:12 @{Behold} (\kai idou\). The \kai\ introduces the apodosis of the temporal sentence and has to be left out in translations. It is a common idiom in Luke, \kai idou\. {There was carried out} (\exekomizeto\). Imperfect passive indicative. Common verb in late Greek for carrying out a body for burial, though here only in the N.T. (\ekkomiz\). Rock tombs outside of the village exist there today. {One that was dead} (\tethnks\). Perfect active participle of \thnsk\, to die. {The only son of his mother} (\monogens huios ti mtri auto\). Only begotten son to his mother (dative case). The compound adjective \monogens\ (\monos\ and \genos\) is common in the old Greek and occurs in the N.T. about Jesus (John:3:16,18|). The "death of a widow's only son was the greatest misfortune conceivable" (Easton). {And she was a widow} (\kai aut n chra\). This word \chra\ gives the finishing touch to the pathos of the situation. The word is from \chros\, bereft. The mourning of a widow for an only son is the extremity of grief (Plummer). {Much people} (\ochlos hikanos\). Considerable crowd as often with this adjective \hikanos\. Some were hired mourners, but the size of the crowd showed the real sympathy of the town for her.
rwp@Luke:7:26 @{A prophet?} (\prophtn;\). A real prophet will always get a hearing if he has a message from God. He is a for-speaker, forth-teller (\pro-phts\). He may or may not be a fore-teller. The main thing is for the prophet to have a message from God which he is willing to tell at whatever cost to himself. The word of God came to John in the wilderness of Judea (Luke:3:2|)...preacher of the Gospel. Real prophets...
rwp@Luke:7:37 @{A woman which was in the city, a sinner} (\gun htis en ti polei hamartlos\). Probably in Capernaum. The use of \htis\ means "Who was of such a character as to be" (cf. strkjv@8:3|) and so more than merely the relative \h\, who, that is, "who was a sinner in the city," a woman of the town, in other words, and known to be such. \Hamartlos\, from \hamartan\, to sin, means devoted to sin and uses the same form for feminine and masculine. It is false and unjust to Mary Magdalene, introduced as a new character in strkjv@Luke:8:2|, to identify this woman with her. Luke would have no motive in concealing her name here and the life of a courtesan would be incompatible with the sevenfold possession of demons. Still worse is it to identify this courtesan not only with Mary Magdalene, but also with Mary of Bethany simply because it is a Simon who gives there a feast to Jesus when Mary of Bethany does a beautiful deed somewhat like this one here (Mark:14:3-9; strkjv@Matthew:26:6-13; strkjv@John:12:2-8|). Certainly Luke knew full well the real character of Mary of Bethany (10:38-42|) so beautifully pictured by him. But a falsehood, once started, seems to have more lives than the cat's proverbial nine. The very name Magdalene has come to mean a repentant courtesan. But we can at least refuse to countenance such a slander on Mary Magdalene and on Mary of Bethany. This sinful woman had undoubtedly repented and changed her life and wished to show her gratitude to Jesus who had rescued her. Her bad reputation as a harlot clung to her and made her an unwelcome visitor in the Pharisee's house. {When she knew} (\epignousa\). Second aorist active participle from \epiginsk\, to know fully, to recognize. She came in by a curious custom of the time that allowed strangers to enter a house uninvited at a feast, especially beggars seeking a gift. This woman was an intruder whereas Mary of Bethany was an invited guest. "Many came in and took their places on the side seats, uninvited and yet unchallenged. They spoke to those at table on business or the news of the day, and our host spoke freely to them" (Trench in his _Parables_, describing a dinner at a Consul's house at Damietta). {He was sitting at meat} (\katakeitai\). Literally, he is reclining (present tense retained in indirect discourse in Greek). {An alabaster cruse of ointment} (\alabastron murou\). See on ¯Matthew:26:7| for discussion of \alabastron\ and \murou\.
rwp@Luke:8:13 @{Which for a while believe} (\hoi pros kairon pisteuousin\). Ostensibly they are sincere and have made a real start in the life of faith. {They fall away} (\aphistantai\). Present middle indicative. They stand off, lose interest, stop coming to church, drop out of sight. It is positively amazing the number of new church members who "stumble" as strkjv@Mark:4:17| has it (\skandalizontai\), do not like the pastor, take offence at something said or done by somebody, object to the appeals for money, feel slighted. The "season of trial" becomes a "season of temptation" (\en kairi peirasmou\) for these superficial, emotional people who have to be periodically rounded up if kept within the fold.
rwp@Luke:8:15 @{In an honest and good heart} (\en kardii kali kai agathi\). Peculiar to Luke. In verse 8| the land (\gn\) is called \agathn\ (really good, generous) and in verse 15| we have \en ti kali gi\ ({in the beautiful or noble land}). Songs:Luke uses both adjectives of the heart. The Greeks used \kalos k' agathos\ of the high-minded gentleman. It is probable that Luke knew this idiom. It occurs here alone in the N.T. It is not easy to translate. We have such phrases as "good and true," "sound and good," "right and good," no one of which quite suits the Greek. Certainly Luke adds new moral qualities not in the Hellenic phrase. The English word "honest" here is like the Latin _honestus_ (fair, noble). The words are to be connected with "hold fast" (\katechousin\), "hold it down" so that the devil does not snatch it away, having depth of soil so that it does not shrivel up under the sun, and is not choked by weeds and thorns. It bears fruit (\karpophorousin\, an old expressive verb, \karpos\ and \phore\). That is the proof of spiritual life. {In patience} (\en hupomoni\). There is no other way for real fruit to come. Mushrooms spring up overnight, but they are usually poisonous. The best fruits require time, cultivation, patience.
rwp@Luke:8:49 @{From the ruler of the synagogue's house} (\para tou archisunaggou\). The word "house" is not in the Greek here as in strkjv@Mark:5:35| where \apo\ is used rather than \para\, as here. But the ruler himself had come to Jesus (Luke:8:41|) and this is the real idea. Trouble not (\mketi skulle\). See on ¯Luke:7:6| for this verb and also strkjv@Mark:5:35; strkjv@Matthew:9:36|.
rwp@Luke:9:59 @{And he said unto another} (\eipen de pros heteron\). strkjv@Matthew:8:21| omits Christ's "Follow me" (\akolouthei moi\) and makes this man a volunteer instead of responding to the appeal of Jesus. There is no real opposition, of course. In Matthew's account the man is apologetic as in Luke. Plummer calls him "one of the casual disciples" of whom there are always too many. The scribes knew how to give plausible reasons for not being active disciples. {First} (\prton\). One of the problems of life is the relation of duties to each other, which comes first. The burial of one's father was a sacred duty (Genesis:25:9|), but, as in the case of Tobit strkjv@4:3, this scribe's father probably was still alive. What the scribe apparently meant was that he could not leave his father while still alive to follow Jesus around over the country.
rwp@Luke:10:7 @{In that same house} (\en auti ti oikii\). Literally, in the house itself, not "in the same house" (\en ti auti oikii\), a different construction. A free rendering of the common Lukan idiom is, "in that very house." {Eating} (\esthontes\). An old poetic verb \esth\ for \esthi\ that survives in late Greek. {Such things as they give} (\ta par' autn\). "The things from them." {For the labourer is worthy of his hire} (\axios gar ho ergats tou misthou autou\). In strkjv@Matthew:10:10| we have \ts trophs autou\ (his food). strkjv@1Timothy:5:18| has this saying quoted as scripture. That is not impossible if Luke wrote by A.D. 62. Paul there however may quote only strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:4| as scripture and get this quotation either from strkjv@Luke:10:7| or from a proverbial saying of Jesus. It is certainly not a real objection against the Pauline authorship of First Timothy. {Go not from house to house} (\m metabainete ex oikias eis oikian\). As a habit, \m\ and the present imperative, and so avoid waste of time with such rounds of invitations as would come.
rwp@Luke:10:17 @{Returned with joy} (\hupestrepsan meta charas\). They had profited by the directions of Jesus. Joy overflows their faces and their words. {Even the demons} (\kai ta daimonia\). This was a real test. The Twelve had been expressly endowed with this power when they were sent out (Luke:9:1|), but the Seventy were only told to heal the sick (10:9|). It was better than they expected. The Gospel worked wonders and they were happy. The demons were merely one sign of the conflict between Christ and Satan. Every preacher has to grapple with demons in his work. {Are subject} (\hupotassetai\). Present passive indicative (repetition).
rwp@Luke:13:32 @{That fox} (\ti alpeki tauti\). This epithet for the cunning and cowardice of Herod shows clearly that Jesus understood the real attitude and character of the man who had put John the Baptist to death and evidently wanted to get Jesus into his power in spite of his superstitious fears that he might be John the Baptist _redivivus_. The message of Jesus means that he is independent of the plots and schemes of both Herod and the Pharisees. The preacher is often put in a tight place by politicians who are quite willing to see him shorn of all real power. {Cures} (\iaseis\). Old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:4:22,30|. {I am perfected} (\teleioumai\). Present passive indicative of \teleio\, old verb from \teleios\, to bring to perfection, frequent in the N.T. Used in strkjv@Hebrews:2:10| of the Father's purpose in the humanity of Christ. Perfect humanity is a process and Jesus was passing through that, without sin, but not without temptation and suffering. It is the prophetic present with the sense of the future.
rwp@Luke:15:18 @{I will arise and go} (\anastas proreusomai\). This determination is the act of the will after he comes to himself and sees his real condition. {I did sin} (\hmarton\). That is the hard word to say and he will say it first. The word means to miss the mark. I shot my bolt and I missed my aim (compare the high-handed demand in verse 12|).
rwp@Luke:15:32 @{It was meet} (\edei\). Imperfect tense. It expressed a necessity in the father's heart and in the joy of the return that justifies the feasting. \Euphranthnai\ is used again (first aorist passive infinitive) and \charnai\ (second aorist passive infinitive) is more than mere hilarity, deep-seated joy. The father repeats to the elder son the language of his heart used in verse 24| to his servants. A real father could do no less. One can well imagine how completely the Pharisees and scribes (verse 2|) were put to silence by these three marvellous parables. The third does it with a graphic picture of their own attitude in the case of the surly elder brother. Luke was called a painter by the ancients. Certainly he has produced a graphic pen picture here of God's love for the lost that justifies forever the coming of Christ to the world to seek and to save the lost. It glorifies also soul-saving on the part of his followers who are willing to go with Jesus after the lost in city and country, in every land and of every race.
rwp@Luke:16:13 @{Servant} (\oikets\). Household (\oikos\) servant. This is the only addition to strkjv@Matthew:6:24| where otherwise the language is precisely the same, which see. Either Matthew or Luke has put the \logion\ in the wrong place or Jesus spoke it twice. It suits perfectly each context. There is no real reason for objecting to repetition of favourite sayings by Jesus.
rwp@Luke:19:19 @{Be thou also over} (\kai su epano ginou\). Present middle imperative. Keep on becoming over. There is no real reason for identifying this parable of the pounds with the parable of the talents in strkjv@Matthew:25|. The versatility of Jesus needs to be remembered by those who seek to flatten out everything.
rwp@Luke:22:40 @{At the place} (\epi tou topou\). The place of secret prayer which was dear to Jesus. {Pray that ye enter not into temptation} (\proseuchesthe m eiselthein eis peirasmon\). "Keep on praying not to enter (ingressive aorist infinitive, not even once) into temptation." It is real "temptation" here, not just "trial." Jesus knew the power of temptation and the need of prayer. These words throw a light on the meaning of his language in strkjv@Matthew:6:13|. Jesus repeats this warning in verse 46|.
rwp@Luke:23:2 @{Began to accuse} (\rxanto katgorein\). They went at it and kept it up. Luke mentions three, but neither of them includes their real reason nor do they mention their own condemnation of Jesus. They had indulged their hatred in doing it, but they no longer have the power of life and death. Hence they say nothing to Pilate of that. {We found} (\heuramen\). Second aorist active indicative with first aorist vowel \a\. Probably they mean that they had caught Jesus in the act of doing these things (_in flagrante delicto_) rather than discovery by formal trial. {Perverting our nation} (\diastrephonta to ethnos hmn\). Present active participle of \diastreph\, old verb to turn this way and that, distort, disturb. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:13:10|. The Sanhedrin imply that the great popularity of Jesus was seditious. {Forbidding to give tribute to Caesar}, (\kluonta phorous kaisari didonai\). Note object infinitive \didonai\ after the participle \kluonta\. Literally, hindering giving tribute to Caesar. This was a flat untruth. Their bright young students had tried desperately to get Jesus to say this very thing, but they had failed utterly (Luke:20:25|). {Saying that he himself is Christ a king} (\legonta hauton Christon basilea einai\). Note the indirect discourse here after the participle \legonta\ with the accusative (\hauton\ where \auton\ could have been used), and the infinitive. This charge is true, but not in the sense meant by them. Jesus did claim to be the Christ and the king of the kingdom of God. But the Sanhedrin wanted Pilate to think that he set himself up as a rival to Caesar. Pilate would understand little from the word "Christ," but "King" was a different matter. He was compelled to take notice of this charge else he himself would be accused to Caesar of winking at such a claim by Jesus.
rwp@Luke:23:3 @{Thou sayest} (\su legeis\). A real affirmative as in strkjv@22:70|. The Gospels all give Pilate's question about Jesus asking of the Jews in precisely the same words (Mark:15:2; strkjv@Matthew:27:11; strkjv@Luke:23:3; strkjv@John:18:33|).
rwp@Luke:24:39 @{Myself} (\autos\). Jesus is patient with his proof. They were convinced before he came into the room, but that psychological shock had unnerved them all. {Handle} (\pslaphsate\). This very word is used in strkjv@1John:1:1| as proof of the actual human body of Jesus. It is an old verb for touching with the hand. {Flesh and bones} (\sarka kai ostea\). At least this proves that he is not just a ghost and that Jesus had a real human body against the Docetic Gnostics who denied it. But clearly we are not to understand that our resurrection bodies will have "flesh and bones." Jesus was in a transition state and had not yet been glorified. The mystery remains unsolved, but it was proof to the disciples of the identity of the Risen Christ with Jesus of Nazareth.
rwp@Mark:1:4 @{John came} (\egeneto Ians\). His coming was an epoch (\egeneto\), not a mere event (\n\). His coming was in accordance with the prophetic picture (\kaths\, strkjv@1:2|). Note the same verb about John in strkjv@John:1:6|. The coming of John the Baptizer was the real beginning of the spoken message about Christ. He is described as {the baptizing one} (\ho haptizn\) in the wilderness (\en ti ermi\). The baptizing took place in the River Jordan (Mark:1:5,9|) which was included in the general term the wilderness or the deserted region of Judea. {Preached the baptism of repentance} (\krussn baptisma metanoias\). Heralded a repentance kind of baptism (genitive case, genus case), a baptism marked by repentance. See on ¯Matthew:3:2| for discussion of repent, an exceedingly poor rendering of John's great word \metanoias\. He called upon the Jews to change their minds and to turn from their sins, "confessing their sins" (\exomologoumenoi tas hamartias autn\). See strkjv@Matthew:3:16|. The public confessions produced a profound impression as they would now. {Unto remission of sins} (\eis aphesin hamartin\). This is a difficult phrase to translate accurately. Certainly John did not mean that the baptism was the means of obtaining the forgiveness of their sins or necessary to the remission of sins. The trouble lies in the use of \eis\ which sometimes is used when purpose is expressed, but sometimes when there is no such idea as in strkjv@Matthew:10:41| and strkjv@Matthew:12:41|. Probably "with reference to" is as good a translation here as is possible. The baptism was on the basis of the repentance and confession of sin and, as Paul later explained (Romans:6:4|), was a picture of the death to sin and resurrection to new life in Christ. This symbol was already in use by the Jews for proselytes who became Jews. John is treating the Jewish nation as pagans who need to repent, to confess their sins, and to come back to the kingdom of God. The baptism in the Jordan was the objective challenge to the people.
rwp@Mark:2:18 @{John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting} (\san hoi mathtai Ianou kai hoi Pharisaioi nsteuontes\). The periphrastic imperfect, so common in Mark's vivid description. Probably Levi's feast happened on one of the weekly fast-days (second and fifth days of the week for the stricter Jews). Songs:there was a clash of standpoints. The disciples of John sided with the Pharisees in the Jewish ceremonial ritualistic observances. John was still a prisoner in Machaerus. John was more of an ascetic than Jesus (Matthew:18f.; strkjv@Luke:7:33-35|), but neither one pleased all the popular critics. These learners (\mathtai\) or disciples of John had missed the spirit of their leader when they here lined up with the Pharisees against Jesus. But there was no real congeniality between the formalism of the Pharisees and the asceticism of John the Baptist. The Pharisees hated John who had denounced them as broods of vipers. Here the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees (\hoi mathtai Ianou kai hoi mathtai tn Pharisain\) join in criticizing Jesus and his disciples. Later we shall see Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians, who bitterly detested each other, making com- mon cause against Jesus Christ. Songs:today we find various hostile groups combining against our Lord and Saviour. See on ¯Matthew:9:14-17| for comments. Matthew has here followed Mark closely.
rwp@Mark:2:27 @{For man} (\dia ton anthrpon\). Mark alone has this profound saying which subordinates the sabbath to man's real welfare (mankind, observe, generic article with \anthrpos\, class from class). Man was not made for the sabbath as the rabbis seemed to think with all their petty rules about eating an egg laid on the sabbath or looking in the glass, _et cetera_. See 2Macc. strkjv@5:19 and _Mechilta_ on strkjv@Exodus:31:13|: "The sabbath is delivered unto you and ye are not delivered unto the sabbath." Christianity has had to fight this same battle about institutionalism. The church itself is for man, not man for the church.
rwp@Mark:5:8 @{For he said} (\elegen gar\). For he had been saying (progressive imperfect). Jesus had already repeatedly ordered the demon to come out of the man whereat the demon made his outcry to Jesus and protested. strkjv@Matthew:8:29| had "before the time" (\pro kairou\) and strkjv@8:31| shows that the demons did not want to go back to the abyss (\tn abusson\) right now. That was their real home, but they did not wish to return to the place of torment just now.
rwp@Mark:5:30 @{Perceiving in himself} (\epignous en heauti\). She thought, perhaps, that the touch of Christ's garment would cure her without his knowing it, a foolish fancy, no doubt, but one due to her excessive timidity. Jesus felt in his own consciousness. The Greek idiom more exactly means: "Jesus perceiving in himself the power from him go out" (\tn ex autou dunamin exelthousan\). The aorist participle here is punctiliar simply and timeless and can be illustrated by strkjv@Luke:10:18|: "I was beholding Satan fall" (\etheroun ton Satann pesonta\), where \pesonta\ does not mean _fallen_ (\peptkota\) as in strkjv@Revelation:9:1| nor falling (\piptonta\) but simply the constative aorist {fall} (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 684). Songs:here Jesus means to say: "I felt in myself the power from me go." Scholars argue whether in this instance Jesus healed the woman by conscious will or by unconscious response to her appeal. Some even argue that the actual healing took place after Jesus became aware of the woman's reaching for help by touching his garment. What we do know is that Jesus was conscious of the going out of power from himself. strkjv@Luke:8:46| uses \egnn\ (personal knowledge), but Mark has \epignous\ (personal and additional, clear knowledge). One may remark that no real good can be done without the outgoing of power. That is true of mother, preacher, teacher, doctor. {Who touched my garments?} (\Tis mou hpsato tn himatin;\). More exactly, {Who touched me on my clothes}; The Greek verb uses two genitives, of the person and the thing. It was a dramatic moment for Jesus and for the timid woman. Later it was a common practice for the crowds to touch the hem of Christ's garments and be healed (Mark:6:56|). But here Jesus chose to single out this case for examination. There was no magic in the garments of Jesus. Perhaps there was superstition in the woman's mind, but Jesus honoured her darkened faith as in the case of Peter's shadow and Paul's handkerchief.
rwp@Mark:6:1 @{Into his own country} (\eis tn patrida autou\). Songs:Matthew:13:54|. There is no real reason for identifying this visit to Nazareth with that recorded in strkjv@Luke:4:26-31| at the beginning of the Galilean Ministry. He was rejected both times, but it is not incongruous that Jesus should give Nazareth a second chance. It was only natural for Jesus to visit his mother, brothers, and sisters again. Neither Mark nor Matthew mention Nazareth here by name, but it is plain that by \patrida\ the region of Nazareth is meant. He had not lived in Bethlehem since his birth.
rwp@Mark:6:13 @{They cast out many demons and they anointed with oil} (\exeballon kai leiphon elaii\). Imperfect tenses, continued repetition. Alone in Mark. This is the only example in the N.T. of \aleiph elaii\ used in connection with healing save in strkjv@James:5:14|. In both cases it is possible that the use of oil (olive oil) as a medicine is the basis of the practice. See strkjv@Luke:10:34| for pouring oil and wine upon the wounds. It was the best medicine of the ancients and was used internally and externally. It was employed often after bathing. The papyri give a number of examples of it. The only problem is whether \aleiph\ in Mark and James is used wholly in a ritualistic and ceremonial sense or partly as medicine and partly as a symbol of divine healing. The very word \aleiph\ can be translated rub or anoint without any ceremony. "Traces of a ritual use of the unction of the sick appear first among Gnostic practices of the second century" (Swete). We have today, as in the first century, God and medicine. God through nature does the real healing when we use medicine and the doctor.
rwp@Mark:10:39 @See on ¯Matthew:20:23-28| for discussion on these memorable verses (39-45|) identical in both Matthew and Mark. In particular in verse 45| note the language of Jesus concerning his death as "a ransom for many" (\lutron anti polln\), words of the Master that were not understood by the apostles when spoken by Jesus and which have been preserved for us by Peter through Mark. Some today seek to empty these words of all real meaning as if Jesus could not have or hold such a conception concerning his death for sinners.
rwp@Mark:14:40 @{Very heavy} (\katabarunomenoi\). Perfective use of \kata-\ with the participle. Matthew has the simple verb. Mark's word is only here in the N.T. and is rare in Greek writers. Mark has the vivid present passive participle, while Matthew has the perfect passive \bebarmenoi\. {And they wist not what to answer him} (\kai ouk ideisan ti apokrithsin auti\). Deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question. Alone in Mark and reminds one of the like embarrassment of these same three disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark:9:6|). On both occasions weakness of the flesh prevented their real sympathy with Jesus in his highest and deepest experiences. "Both their shame and their drowsiness would make them dumb" (Gould).
rwp@Mark:14:58 @{Made with hands} (\cheiropoiton\). In Mark alone. An old Greek word. The negative form \acheiropoiton\ here occurs elsewhere only in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:1; strkjv@Colossians:2:11|. In strkjv@Hebrews:9:11| the negative \ou\ is used with the positive form. It is possible that a real \logion\ of Jesus underlies the perversion of it here. Mark and Matthew do not quote the witnesses precisely alike. Perhaps they quoted Jesus differently and therein is shown part of the disagreement, for Mark adds verse 59| (not in Matthew). "And not even so did their witness agree together," repeating the point of verse 57|. Swete observes that Jesus, as a matter of fact, did do what he is quoted as saying in Mark: "He said what the event has proved to be true; His death destroyed the old order, and His resurrection created the new." But these witnesses did not mean that by what they said. The only saying of Jesus at all like this preserved to us is that in strkjv@John:2:19|, when he referred not to the temple in Jerusalem, but to the temple of his body, though no one understood it at the time.
rwp@Info_Matthew @ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION The passing years do not make it any plainer who actually wrote our Greek Matthew. Papias records, as quoted by Eusebius, that Matthew wrote the _Logia_ of Jesus in Hebrew (Aramaic). Is our present Matthew a translation of the Aramaic _Logia_ along with Mark and other sources as most modern scholars think? If so, was the writer the Apostle Matthew or some other disciple? There is at present no way to reach a clear decision in the light of the known facts. There is no real reason why the Apostle Matthew could not have written both the Aramaic _Logia_ and our Greek Matthew, unless one is unwilling to believe that he would make use of Mark's work on a par with his own. But Mark's book rests primarily on the preaching of Simon Peter. Scholfield has recently published _An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel_. We know quite too little of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels to say dogmatically that the Apostle Matthew was not in any real sense the author.
rwp@Matthew:1:1 @{The Book} (\biblos\). There is no article in the Greek, but the following genitives make it definite. It is our word Bible that is here used, _the_ Book as Sir Walter Scott called it as he lay dying. The usual word for book is a diminutive form (\biblion\), a little book or roll such as we have in strkjv@Luke:4:17|, "The roll of the prophet Isaiah." The pieces of papyrus (\papuros\), our paper, were pasted together to make a roll of varying lengths according to one's needs. Matthew, of course, is not applying the word book to the Old Testament, probably not to his own book, but to "the genealogical table of Jesus Christ" (\biblos geneses Isou Christou\), "the birth roll of Jesus Christ" Moffatt translates it. We have no means of knowing where the writer obtained the data for this genealogy. It differs radically from that in strkjv@Luke:3:23-38|. One can only give his own theory of the difference. Apparently in Matthew we have the actual genealogy of Joseph which would be the legal pedigree of Jesus according to Jewish custom. In Luke we apparently have the actual genealogy of Mary which would be the real line of Jesus which Luke naturally gives as he is writing for the Gentiles.
rwp@Matthew:1:1 @{The Son of David, the son of Abraham} (\huiou Daueid huiou Abraam\). Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. Songs:Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son (\bn\) for the quality or character, but here the idea is descent. Christians are called sons of God because Christ has bestowed this dignity upon us (Romans:8:14; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Galatians:3:26; strkjv@4:5-7|). Verse 1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17|. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (2-6|), David to Babylon Removal (6-11|), Jechoniah to Jesus (12-16|). The removal to Babylon (\metoikesias Babulnos\) occurs at the end of verse 11|, the beginning of verse 12|, and twice in the resume in verse 17|. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then verse 17| makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list.
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@Matthew:5:1 @{He went up into the mountain} (\aneb eis to oros\). Not "a" mountain as the Authorized Version has it. The Greek article is poorly handled in most English versions. We do not know what mountain it was. It was the one there where Jesus and the crowds were. "Delitzsch calls the Mount of Beatitudes the Sinai of the New Testament" (Vincent). He apparently went up to get in closer contact with the disciples, "seeing the multitudes." Luke (Luke:6:12|) says that he went out into the mountain to pray, Mark (Mark:3:13|) that he went up and called the twelve. All three purposes are true. Luke adds that after a whole night in prayer and after the choice of the twelve Jesus came down to a level place on the mountain and spoke to the multitudes from Judea to Phoenicia. The crowds are great in both Matthew and in Luke and include disciples and the other crowds. There is no real difficulty in considering the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke as one and the same. See full discussion in my _Harmony of the Gospels_.
rwp@Matthew:6:9 @{After this manner therefore pray ye} (\houts oun proseuchesthe humeis\). "You" expressed in contrast with "the Gentiles." It should be called "The Model Prayer" rather than "The Lord's Prayer." "Thus" pray as he gives them a model. He himself did not use it as a liturgy (cf. strkjv@John:17|). There is no evidence that Jesus meant it for liturgical use by others. In strkjv@Luke:11:2-4| practically the same prayer though briefer is given at a later time by Jesus to the apostles in response to a request that he teach them how to pray. McNeile argues that the form in Luke is the original to which Matthew has made additions: "The tendency of liturgical formulas is towards enrichment rather than abbreviation." But there is no evidence whatever that Jesus designed it as a set formula. There is no real harm in a liturgical formula if one likes it, but no one sticks to just one formula in prayer. There is good and not harm in children learning and saying this noble prayer. Some people are disturbed over the words "Our Father" and say that no one has a right to call God Father who has not been "born again." But that is to say that an unconverted sinner cannot pray until he is converted, an absurd contradiction. God is the Father of all men in one sense; the recognition of Him as the Father in the full sense is the first step in coming back to him in regeneration and conversion.
rwp@Matthew:6:16 @{Of a sad countenance} (\skuthrpoi\). Only here and strkjv@Luke:24:17| in the N.T. It is a compound of \skuthros\ (sullen) and \ops\ (countenance). These actors or hypocrites "put on a gloomy look" (Goodspeed) and, if necessary, even "disfigure their faces" (\aphanizousin ta prospa autn\), that they may look like they are fasting. It is this pretence of piety that Jesus so sharply ridicules. There is a play on the Greek words \aphanizousi\ (disfigure) and \phansin\ (figure). They conceal their real looks that they may seem to be fasting, conscious and pretentious hypocrisy.
rwp@Matthew:6:25 @{For your life} (\ti psuchi\). "Here \psuchi\ stands for the life principle common to man and beast, which is embodied in the \sma\: the former needs food, the latter clothing" (McNeile). \Psuch\ in the Synoptic Gospels occurs in three senses (McNeile): either the life principle in the body as here and which man may kill (Mark:3:4|) or the seat of the thoughts and emotions on a par with \kardia\ and \dianoia\ (Matthew:22:37|) and \pneuma\ (Luke:1:46|; cf. strkjv@John:12:27; strkjv@13:21|) or something higher that makes up the real self (Matthew:10:28; strkjv@16:26|). In strkjv@Matthew:16:25| (Luke:9:25|) \psuch\ appears in two senses paradoxical use, saving life and losing it.
rwp@Matthew:8:22 @{Leave the dead to bury their own dead} (\aphes tous nekrous thapsai tous heautn nekrous\). The spiritually dead are always on hand to bury the physically dead, if one's real duty is with Jesus. Chrysostom says that, while it is a good deed to bury the dead, it is a better one to preach Christ.
rwp@Matthew:8:29 @{Thou Son of God} (\huie tou theou\). The recognition of Jesus by the demons is surprising. The whole subject of demonology is difficult. Some hold that it is merely the ancient way of describing disease. But that does not explain the situation here. Jesus is represented as treating the demons as real existences separate from the human personality. Missionaries in China today claim that they have seen demons cast out. The devil knew Jesus clearly and it is not strange that Jesus was recognized by the devil's agents. They know that there is nothing in common between them and the Son of God (\hmin kai soi\, ethical dative) and they fear torment "before the time" (\pro kairou\). Usually \ta daimonia\ is the word in the New Testament for demons, but in strkjv@8:31| we have \hoi daimones\ (the only example in the N.T.). \Daimonion\ is a diminutive of \daimn\. In Homer \daimn\ is used synonymously with \theos\ and \thea\. Hesiod employed \daimn\ of men of the golden age as tutelary deities. Homer has the adjective \daimonios\ usually in an evil sense. Empedocles considered the demons both bad and good. They were thus used to relieve the gods and goddesses of much rascality. Grote (_History of Greece_) notes that the Christians were thus by pagan usage justified in calling idolatry the worship of demons. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20f.; strkjv@1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@16:13f|. In the Gospels demons are the same as unclean spirits (Mark:5:12,15; strkjv@3:22,30; strkjv@Luke:4:33|). The demons are disturbers (Vincent) of the whole life of man (Mark:5:2f.; strkjv@7:25; strkjv@Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|).
rwp@Matthew:10:19 @{Be not anxious} (\m merimnste\). Ingressive aorist subjunctive in prohibition. "Do not become anxious" (Matthew:6:31|). "Self-defence before Jewish kings and heathen governors would be a terrible ordeal for humble Galileans. The injunction applied to cases when preparation of a speech would be impossible" (McNeile). "It might well alarm the bravest of these simple fishermen to be told that they would have to answer for their doings on Christ's behalf before Jewish councils and heathen courts" (Plummer). Christ is not talking about preparation of sermons. "{In that hour}" (\en ekeini ti hri\), if not before. The Spirit of your Father will speak to you and through you (10:20|). Here is no posing as martyr or courting a martyr's crown, but real heroism with full loyalty to Christ.
rwp@Matthew:10:28 @{Destroy both soul and body in hell} (\kai psuchn kai sma apolesai en geenni\). Note "soul" here of the eternal spirit, not just life in the body. "Destroy" here is not annihilation, but eternal punishment in Gehenna (the real hell) for which see on ¯5:22|. Bruce thinks that the devil as the tempter is here meant, not God as the judge, but surely he is wrong. There is no more needed lesson today than the fear of God.
rwp@Matthew:12:7 @{The guiltless} (\tous anaitious\). Songs:in verse 5|. Common in ancient Greek. No real ground against, it means \an\ + \aitios\. Jesus quotes strkjv@Hosea:6:6| here as he did in strkjv@Matthew:9:13|. A pertinent prophecy that had escaped the notice of the sticklers for ceremonial literalness and the letter of the law.
rwp@Matthew:12:36 @{Every idle word} (\pan rhma argon\). An ineffective, useless word (\a\ privative and \ergon\). A word that does no good and so is pernicious like pernicious anaemia. It is a solemn thought. Jesus who knows our very thoughts (12:25|) insists that our words reveal our thoughts and form a just basis for the interpretation of character (12:37|). Here we have judgment by words as in strkjv@25:31-46| where Jesus presents judgment by deeds. Both are real tests of actual character. Homer spoke of "winged words" (\pteroenta epea\). And by the radio our words can be heard all round the earth. Who knows where they stop?
rwp@Matthew:12:49 @{Behold my mother and my brothers} (\idou h mtr mou kai hoi adelphoi mou\). A dramatic wave of the hand towards his disciples (learners) accompanied these words. Jesus loved his mother and brothers, but they were not to interfere in his Messianic work. The real spiritual family of Jesus included all who follow him. But it was hard for Mary to go back to Nazareth and leave Jesus with the excited throng so great that he was not even stopping to eat (Mark:3:20|).
rwp@Matthew:13:19 @{Cometh the evil one and snatcheth away} (\erchetai ho ponros kai harpazei\). The birds pick up the seeds while the sower sows. The devil is busy with his job of snatching or seizing like a bandit or rogue the word of the kingdom before it has time even to sprout. How quickly after the sermon the impression is gone. "This is he" (\houtos estin\). Matthew, like Mark, speaks of the people who hear the words as the seed itself. That creates some confusion in this condensed form of what Jesus actually said, but the real point is clear. {The seed sown in his heart} (\to esparmenon en ti kardii autou\, perfect passive participle of \speir\, to sow) and "the man sown by the wayside" (\ho para tn hodon spareis\, aorist passive participle, along the wayside) are identified. The seed in the heart is not of itself responsible, but the man who lets the devil snatch it away.
rwp@Matthew:15:2 @{The tradition of the elders} (\tn paradosin tn presbutern\). This was the oral law, handed down by the elders of the past in _ex cathedra_ fashion and later codified in the Mishna. Handwashing before meals is not a requirement of the Old Testament. It is, we know, a good thing for sanitary reasons, but the rabbis made it a mark of righteousness for others at any rate. This item was magnified at great length in the oral teaching. The washing (\niptontai\, middle voice, note) of the hands called for minute regulations. It was commanded to wash the hands before meals, it was one's duty to do it after eating. The more rigorous did it between the courses. The hands must be immersed. Then the water itself must be "clean" and the cups or pots used must be ceremonially "clean." Vessels were kept full of clean water ready for use (John:2:6-8|). Songs:it went on _ad infinitum_. Thus a real issue is raised between Jesus and the rabbis. It was far more than a point of etiquette or of hygienics. The rabbis held it to be a mortal sin. The incident may have happened in a Pharisee's house.
rwp@Matthew:15:3 @{Ye also} (\kai hmeis\). Jesus admits that the disciples had transgressed the rabbinical traditions. Jesus treats it as a matter of no great importance in itself save as they had put the tradition of the elders in the place of the commandment of God. When the two clashed, as was often the case, the rabbis transgress the commandment of God "because of your tradition" (\dia tn paradosin hmn\). The accusative with \dia\ means that, not "by means of." Tradition is not good or bad in itself. It is merely what is handed on from one to another. Custom tended to make these traditions binding like law. The Talmud is a monument of their struggle with tradition. There could be no compromise on this subject and Jesus accepts the issue. He stands for real righteousness and spiritual freedom, not for bondage to mere ceremonialism and tradition. The rabbis placed tradition (the oral law) above the law of God.
rwp@Matthew:16:4 @Same words in strkjv@12:39| except \tou prophtou\, a real doublet.
rwp@Matthew:17:12 @{Elijah is come already} (\Eleias d lthen\). Thus Jesus identifies John the Baptist with the promise in Malachi, though not the real Elijah in person which John denied (John:1:21|). {They knew him not} (\ouk epignsan auton\). Second aorist active indicative of \epiginsk\, to recognize. Just as they do not know Jesus now (John:1:26|). They killed John as they will Jesus the Son of Man.
rwp@Matthew:19:3 @{Pharisees tempting him} (\Pharisaioi peirazontes auton\). They "could not ask a question of Jesus without sinister motives" (Bruce). See strkjv@4:1| for the word (\peiraz\). {For every cause} (\kata pasan aitian\). This clause is an allusion to the dispute between the two theological schools over the meaning of strkjv@Deuteronomy:24:1|. The school of Shammai took the strict and unpopular view of divorce for unchastity alone while the school of Hillel took the liberal and popular view of easy divorce for any passing whim if the husband saw a prettier woman (modern enough surely) or burnt his biscuits for breakfast. It was a pretty dilemma and meant to do Jesus harm with the people. There is no real trouble about the use of \kata\ here in the sense of \propter\ or because of (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 509).
rwp@Matthew:19:29 @{A hundredfold} (\hekatonplasiona\). But Westcott and Hort read \pollaplasiona\, manifold. Eternal life is the real reward.
rwp@Matthew:21:21 @{Doubt not} (\m diakrithte\). First aorist passive subjunctive, second-class condition. To be divided in mind, to waver, to doubt, the opposite of "faith" (\pistin\), trust, confidence. {What is done to the fig tree} (\to ts suks\). The Greek means "the matter of the fig tree," as if a slight matter in comparison with {this mountain} (\ti orei touti\). Removing a mountain is a bigger task than blighting a fig tree. "The cursing of the fig-tree has always been regarded as of symbolic import, the tree being in Christ's mind an emblem of the Jewish people, with a great show of religion and no fruit of real godliness. This hypothesis is very credible" (Bruce). Plummer follows Zahn in referring it to the Holy City. Certainly "this mountain" is a parable and one already reported in strkjv@Matthew:17:20| (cf. sycamine tree in Lk strkjv@17:6|). Cf. strkjv@Zechariah:17:4|.
rwp@Matthew:23:9 @{Call no man your father} (\patera m kaleste hmn\). Jesus meant the full sense of this noble word for our heavenly Father. "Abba was not commonly a mode of address to a living person, but a title of honour for Rabbis and great men of the past" (McNeile). In Gethsemane Jesus said: "Abba, Father" (Mark:14:36|). Certainly the ascription of "Father" to pope and priest seems out of harmony with what Jesus here says. He should not be understood to be condemning the title to one's real earthly father. Jesus often leaves the exceptions to be supplied.
rwp@Matthew:26:41 @{Watch and pray} (\grgoreite kai proseuchesthe\). Jesus repeats the command of verse 38| with the addition of prayer and with the warning against the peril of temptation. He himself was feeling the worst of all temptations of his earthly life just then. He did not wish then to enter such temptation (\peirasmon\, here in this sense, not mere trial). Thus we are to understand the prayer in strkjv@Matthew:6:13| about leading (being led) into temptation. Their failure was due to weakness of the flesh as is often the case. {Spirit} (\pneuma\) here is the moral life (\intellect, will, emotions\) as opposed to the flesh (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:31:3; strkjv@Romans:7:25|). {Except I drink it} (\ean m auto pi\). Condition of the third class undetermined, but with likelihood of determination, whereas {if this cannot pass away} (\ei ou dunatai touto parelthein\) is first-class condition, determined as fulfilled, assumed to be true. This delicate distinction accurately presents the real attitude of Jesus towards this subtle temptation.
rwp@Matthew:26:65 @{He hath spoken blasphemy} (\eblasphmsen\). There was no need of witnesses now, for Jesus had incriminated himself by claiming under oath to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Now it would not be blasphemy for the real Messiah to make such a claim, but it was intolerable to admit that Jesus could be the Messiah of Jewish hope. At the beginning of Christ's ministry he occasionally used the word Messiah of himself, but he soon ceased, for it was plain that it would create trouble. The people would take it in the sense of a political revolutionist who would throw off the Roman yoke. If he declined that role, the Pharisees would have none of him for that was the kind of a Messiah that they desired. But the hour has now come. At the Triumphal Entry Jesus let the Galilean crowds hail him as Messiah, knowing what the effect would be. Now the hour has struck. He has made his claim and has defied the High Priest.
rwp@Philemon:1:9 @{Paul the aged} (\Paulos presbuts\). Paul is called \neanias\ (a young man) at the stoning of Stephen (Acts:7:58|). He was perhaps a bit under sixty now. Hippocrates calls a man \presbuts\ from 49 to 56 and \gern\ after that. The papyri use \presbuts\ for old man as in strkjv@Luke:1:18| of Zacharias and in strkjv@Titus:2:2|. But in strkjv@Ephesians:6:20| Paul says \presbeu en halusei\ (I am an ambassador in a chain). Hence Lightfoot holds that here \presbuts\ = \presbeuts\ because of common confusion by the scribes between \u\ and \eu\. In the LXX four times the two words are used interchangeably. There is some confusion also in the papyri and the inscriptions. Undoubtedly ambassador (\presbeuts\) is possible here as in strkjv@Ephesians:6:20| (\presbeu\) though there is no real reason why Paul should not term himself properly "Paul the aged."
rwp@Philippians:2:7 @{The form of a servant} (\morphn doulou\). He took the characteristic attributes (\morphn\ as in verse 6|) of a slave. His humanity was as real as his deity. {In the likeness of men} (\en homoimati anthrpn\). It was a likeness, but a real likeness (Kennedy), no mere phantom humanity as the Docetic Gnostics held. Note the difference in tense between \huparchn\ (eternal existence in the \morph\ of God) and \genomenos\ (second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, becoming, definite entrance in time upon his humanity).
rwp@Philippians:4:2 @{Euodia} (\Euodian\). This name means literally "prosperous journey" (\eu, hodos\). It occurs in the inscriptions. {Syntyche} (\Suntuchn\). From \suntugchan\, to meet with and so "pleasant acquaintance" or "good-luck." Occurs in the inscriptions and identified with Lydia by some. Klopper suggests that each of these rival women had church assemblies in their homes, one a Jewish-Christian church, the other a Gentile-Christian church. Vincent doubts the great influence of women in Macedonia held by Lightfoot who also suggests that these two were ladies of rank or perhaps deaconesses of the church in Philippi. Schinz suggests that in such a pure church even slight bickerings would make a real disturbance. "It may have been accidental friction between two energetic Christian women" (Kennedy).
rwp@Philippians:4:3 @{True yokefellow} (\gnsie sunzuge\). All sorts of suggestions have been made here, one that it was Lydia who is termed Paul's wife by the word \sunzuge\. Unfortunately for that view \gnsie\ is masculine vocative singular. Some have suggested it as a proper name though it is not found in the inscriptions, but the word does occur as an appellative in one. Lightfoot even proposes Epaphroditus, the bearer of the Epistle, certainly a curious turn to take to address him. After all it matters little that we do not know who the peacemaker was. {Help these women} (\sunlambanou autais\). Present middle imperative of \sunlamban\, to seize (Matthew:26:55|), to conceive (Luke:1:24|), then to take hold together with one (associative instrumental case), to help as here (Luke:5:7|). "Take hold with them." {They laboured with me} (\sunthlsan moi\). First aorist active indicative of \sunathle\ (for which see strkjv@1:27|) with associative instrumental case (\moi\). {With Clement also} (\meta kai Klmentos\). There is no evidence that he was Clement of Rome as the name is common. {In the book of life} (\en bibli zs\). The only instance of this expression in the N.T. outside of the Apocalypse (3:5; strkjv@13:8; strkjv@17:8|, etc.). Hence real Christians in spite of their bickerings.
rwp@Revelation:2:16 @{Repent therefore} (\metanoson oun\). First aorist (tense of urgency) active imperative of \metanoe\ with the inferential particle \oun\ (as a result of their sin). {I come} (\erchomai\). Futuristic present middle indicative, "I am coming" (imminent), as in strkjv@2:5| with \tachu\ as in strkjv@3:11; strkjv@11:14; strkjv@22:7,12,20|. As with \en tachei\ (1:1|), we do not know how soon "quickly" is meant to be understood. But it is a real threat. {Against them} (\met' autn\). This proposition with \poleme\ rather than \kata\ (against) is common in the LXX, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:2:16; strkjv@12:7; strkjv@13:4; strkjv@17:14| and the verb itself nowhere else in N.T. except strkjv@James:4:2|. "An eternal roll of thunder from the throne" (Renan). "The glorified Christ is in this book a Warrior, who fights with the sharp sword of the word" (Swete). {With} (\en\). Instrumental use of \en\. For the language see strkjv@1:16; strkjv@2:12; strkjv@19:15|.
rwp@Revelation:2:20 @{Thou sufferest} (\apheis\). Late vernacular present active indicative second person singular as if from a form \aphe\ instead of the usual \aphimi\ forms. {The woman Jezebel} (\tn gunaika Iezabel\). Symbolical name for some prominent woman in the church in Thyatira, like the infamous wife of Ahab who was guilty of whoredom and witchcraft (1Kings:16:31; strkjv@2Kings:9:22|) and who sought to drive out the worship of God from Israel. Some MSS. here (A Q 40 min.s) have \sou\ (thy wife, thy woman Ramsay makes it), but surely Aleph C P rightly reject \sou\. Otherwise she is the pastor's wife! {Which calleth herself a prophetess} (\h legousa heautn prophtin\). Nominative articular participle of \leg\ in apposition with the accusative \gunaika\ like \ho martus\ in apposition with \Antipas\ in strkjv@2:13|. \Prophtis\ is an old word, feminine form for \prophts\, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:2:36| (Anna), two extremes surely. See strkjv@Acts:21:9| for the daughters of Philip who prophesied. {And she teacheth and seduceth} (\kai didaskei kai plani\). A resolution of the participles (\didaskousa kai plansa\) into finite verbs (present active indicatives) as in strkjv@1:5f|. This woman was not a real prophetess, but a false one with loud claims and loose living. One is puzzled to know how such a woman had so much shrewdness and sex-appeal as to lead astray the servants of God in that church. The church tolerated the Nicolaitans and this leader whose primary object was sexual immorality (Charles) and became too much involved with her to handle the heresy.
rwp@Revelation:16:14 @{Spirits of devils} (\pneumata daimonin\). "Spirits of demons." Explanation of the simile \hs batrachoi\. See strkjv@1Timothy:4:1| about "deceiving spirits and teachings of demons." {Working signs} (\poiounta smeia\). "Doing signs" (present active participle of \poie\). The Egyptian magicians wrought "signs" (tricks), as did Simon Magus and later Apollonius of Tyana. Houdini claimed that he could reproduce every trick of the spiritualistic mediums. {Which go forth} (\ha ekporeuetai\). Singular verb with neuter plural (collective) subject. {Unto the kings} (\epi tous basileis\). The three evil spirits (dragon and the two beasts) spur on the kings of the whole world to a real world war. "There have been times when nations have been seized by a passion for war which the historian can but imperfectly explain" (Swete). {To gather them together} (\sunagagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \sunag\, to express purpose (that of the unclean spirits). {Unto the war of the great day of God, the Almighty} (\eis ton polemon ts hmeras ts megals tou theou tou pantokratoros\). Some take this to be war between nations, like strkjv@Mark:13:8|, but it is more likely war against God (Psalms:2:2|) and probably the battle pictured in strkjv@17:14; strkjv@19:19|. Cf. strkjv@2Peter:3:12|, "the day of God," his reckoning with the nations. See strkjv@Joel:2:11; strkjv@3:4|. Paul uses "that day" for the day of the Lord Jesus (the Parousia) as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:10; strkjv@2:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:1:6; strkjv@2:16; strkjv@2Timothy:1:12,18; strkjv@4:8|.
rwp@Revelation:21:2 @{The holy city, new Jerusalem} (\tn polin tn hagian Ierousalm kainn\). "The New Earth must have a new metropolis, not another Babylon, but another and greater Jerusalem" (Swete), and not the old Jerusalem which was destroyed A.D. 70. It was called the Holy City in a conventional way (Matthew:4:5; strkjv@27:53|), but now in reality because it is new and fresh (\kainn\), this heavenly Jerusalem of hope (Hebrews:12:22|), this Jerusalem above (Galatians:4:26ff.|) where our real citizenship is (Phillipians:3:20|). {Coming down out of heaven from God} (\katabainousan ek tou ouranou apo tou theou\). Glorious picture caught by John and repeated from strkjv@3:12| and again in strkjv@21:10|. But Charles distinguishes this new city of God from that in strkjv@21:9-22:2| because there is no tree of life in this one. But one shrinks from too much manipulation of this symbolism. It is better to see the glorious picture with John and let it tell its own story. {Made ready} (\htoimasmenn\). Perfect passive participle of \hetoimaz\ as in strkjv@19:7|. The Wife of the Lamb made herself ready in her bridal attire. {As a bride adorned} (\hs numphn kekosmmenn\). Perfect passive participle of \kosme\, old verb (from \kosmos\ ornament like our cosmetics), as in strkjv@21:19|. Only here the figure of bride is not the people of God as in strkjv@19:7|, but the abode of the people of God (the New Jerusalem). {For her husband} (\ti andri auts\). Dative case of personal interest.
rwp@Info_Revelation @ RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL Here scholars divide again. Many who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles accept the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, Baur, for instance. Hort, Lightfoot, and Westcott argued for the Johannine authorship on the ground that the Apocalypse was written early (time of Nero or Vespasian) when John did not know Greek so well as when the Epistles and the Gospel were written. There are numerous grammatical laxities in the Apocalypse, termed by Charles a veritable grammar of its own. They are chiefly retention of the nominative case in appositional words or phrases, particularly participles, many of them sheer Hebraisms, many of them clearly intentional (as in strkjv@Revelation:1:4|), all of them on purpose according to Milligan (_Revelation_ in Schaff's Pop. Comm.) and Heinrici (_Der Litterarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften_, p. 85). Radermacher (_Neutestamentliche Grammatik_, p. 3) calls it "the most uncultured literary production that has come down to us from antiquity," and one finds frequent parallels to the linguistic peculiarities in later illiterate papyri. J. H. Moulton (_Grammar_, Vol. II, Part I, p. 3) says: "Its grammar is perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a foreign language, its whole style that of a writer who neither knows nor cares for literary form." But we shall see that the best evidence is for a date in Domitian's reign and not much later than the Fourth Gospel. It is worth noting that in strkjv@Acts:4:13| Peter and John are both termed by the Sanhedrin \agrammatoi kai iditai\ (unlettered and unofficial men). We have seen the possibility that II Peter represents Peter's real style or at least that of a different amanuensis from Silvanus in strkjv@1Peter:5:12|. It seems clear that the Fourth Gospel underwent careful scrutiny and possibly by the elders in Ephesus (John:21:24|). If John wrote the Apocalypse while in Patmos and so away from Ephesus, it seems quite possible that here we have John's own uncorrected style more than in the Gospel and Epistles. There is also the added consideration that the excitement of the visions played a part along with a certain element of intentional variations from normal grammatical sequence. An old man's excitement would bring back his early style. There are numerous coincidences in vocabulary and style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.
rwp@Info_Romans @ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS SPRING OF A.D. 57 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:2|) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul's long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Romans:16:3-5|) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D) give chapter 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. Marcion rejected it and chapter 15 also for reasons of his own. Renan's theory that Romans was a circular letter like Ephesians sent in different forms to different churches (Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Corinthians:1:20|, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul's remarks about going to Rome (Romans:1:9-16|) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added strkjv@Romans:16:25-27| some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves strkjv@Romans:15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.
rwp@Romans:1:3 @{Concerning his Son} (\peri tou huiou autou\). Just as Jesus found himself in the O.T. (Luke:24:27,46|). The deity of Christ here stated. {According to the flesh} (\kata sarka\). His real humanity alongside of his real deity. For the descent from David see strkjv@Matthew:1:1,6,20; strkjv@Luke:1:27; strkjv@John:7:42; strkjv@Acts:13:23|, etc.
rwp@Romans:3:3 @{For what if?} (\ti gar ei?\). But Westcott and Hort print it, \Ti gar? ei\. See strkjv@Phillipians:1:18| for this exclamatory use of \ti gar\ (for how? How stands the case?). {Some were without faith} (\pistsan\). First aorist active indicative of \apiste\, old verb, to disbelieve. This is the common N.T. meaning (Luke:24:11,41; strkjv@Acts:28:24; strkjv@Romans:4:20|). Some of them "disbelieved," these "depositaries and guardians of revelation" (Denney). But the word also means to be unfaithful to one's trust and Lightfoot argues for that idea here and in strkjv@2Timothy:2:13|. The Revised Version renders it "faithless" there. Either makes sense here and both ideas are true of some of the Jews, especially concerning the Messianic promises and Jesus. {The faithfulness of God} (\tn pistin tou theou\). Undoubtedly \pistis\ has this sense here and not "faith." God has been faithful (2Timothy:2:13|) whether the Jews (some of them) were simply disbelievers or untrue to their trust. Paul can use the words in two senses in verse 3|, but there is no real objection to taking \pistsan, apistian, pistin\, all to refer to faithfulness rather than just faith.
rwp@Romans:5:1 @{Being therefore justified by faith} (\dikaithentes oun ek pistes\). First aorist passive participle of \dikaio\, to set right and expressing antecedent action to the verb \echmen\. The \oun\ refers to the preceding conclusive argument (chapters 1 to 4) that this is done by faith. {Let us have peace with God} (\eirnn echmen pros ton theon\). This is the correct text beyond a doubt, the present active subjunctive, not \echomen\ (present active indicative) of the Textus Receptus which even the American Standard Bible accepts. It is curious how perverse many real scholars have been on this word and phrase here. Godet, for instance. Vincent says that "it is difficult if not impossible to explain it." One has only to observe the force of the _tense_ to see Paul's meaning clearly. The mode is the volitive subjunctive and the present tense expresses linear action and so does not mean "make peace" as the ingressive aorist subjunctive \eirnn schmen\ would mean. A good example of \schmen\ occurs in strkjv@Matthew:21:38| (\schmen tn klronomian autou\) where it means: "Let us get hold of his inheritance." Here \eirnn echmen\ can only mean: "Let us enjoy peace with God" or "Let us retain peace with God." We have in strkjv@Acts:9:31| \eichen eirnn\ (imperfect and so linear), the church "enjoyed peace," not "made peace." The preceding justification (\dikaithentes\) "made peace with God." Observe \pros\ (face to face) with \ton theon\ and \dia\ (intermediate agent) with \tou kuriou\.
rwp@Romans:7:13 @{Become death unto me?} (\emoi egeneto thanatos?\). Ethical dative \emoi\ again. New turn to the problem. Admitting the goodness of God's law, did it issue in death for me? Paul repels (\m genoito\) this suggestion. It was sin that (But sin, \alla h hamartia\) "became death for me." {That it might be shown} (\hina phani\). Final clause, \hina\ and second aorist passive subjunctive of \phain\, to show. The sinfulness of sin is revealed in its violations of God's law. {By working death to me} (\moi katergazomen thanaton\). Present middle participle, as an incidental result. {Might become exceedingly sinful} (\gentai kath' huperboln hamartlos\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ with \hina\ in final clause. On \kath' huperboln\, see on ¯1Corinthians:12:31|. Our _hyperbole_ is the Greek \huperbol\. The excesses of sin reveal its real nature. Only then do some people get their eyes opened.
rwp@Romans:7:20 @{It is no more I that do it} (\ouketi eg katergazomai auto\). Just as in verse 17|, "no longer do I do it" (the real \Ego\, my better self), and yet there is responsibility and guilt for the struggle goes on.
rwp@Romans:7:22 @{For I delight in} (\sundomai gar\). Old verb, here alone in N.T., with associative instrumental case, "I rejoice with the law of God," my real self "after the inward man" (\kata ton es anthrpon\) of the conscience as opposed to "the outward man" (2Corinthians:4:16; strkjv@Ephesians:3:16|).
rwp@Romans:8:3 @{That the law could not do} (\to adunaton tou nomou\). Literally, "the impossibility of the law" as shown in strkjv@7:7-24|, either nominative absolute or accusative of general reference. No syntactical connection with the rest of the sentence. {In that} (\en hi\). "Wherein." {It was weak} (\sthenei\). Imperfect active, continued weak as already shown. {In the likeness of sinful flesh} (\en homoimati sarkos hamartias\). For "likeness" see strkjv@Phillipians:2:7|, a real man, but more than man for God's "own Son." Two genitives "of flesh of sin" (marked by sin), that is the flesh of man is, but not the flesh of Jesus. {And for sin} (\kai peri hamartias\). Condensed phrase, God sent his Son also concerning sin (our sin). {Condemned sin in the flesh} (\katekrine tn hamartian en ti sarki\). First aorist active indicative of \katakrin\. He condemned the sin of men and the condemnation took place in the flesh of Jesus. If the article \tn\ had been repeated before \en ti sarki\ Paul would have affirmed sin in the flesh of Jesus, but he carefully avoided that (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 784).
rwp@Romans:11:20 @{Well} (\kals\). Perhaps ironical, though Paul may simply admit the statement (cf. strkjv@Mark:12:32|) and show the Gentile his real situation. {By unbelief} (\ti apistii\) {--by faith} (\pistei\). Instrumental case with both contrasted words (by unbelief, by belief).
rwp@Romans:16:13 @{Rufus} (\Rouphon\). A very common slave name, possibly the Rufus of strkjv@Mark:15:21|. The word means "red." {The chosen} (\ton eklekton\). Not "the elect," but "the select." {And mine} (\kai emou\). Paul's appreciation of her maternal care once, not his real mother.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}