[pBiblx2]
Home
rwp
Chap
OT
NT
INDX
?
Help

Gen
Exo
Lev
Num
Deu
Jos
Jud
Rut
1Sam
2Sam
1Ki
2Ki
1Ch
2Ch
Ezr
Neh
Est
Job
Psa
Pro
Ecc
Son
Isa
Jer
Lam
Eze
Dan
Hos
Amo
Oba
Jon
Mic
Nah
Hab
Zep
Hag
Zac
Mal
TOP

Mat
Mar
Luk
Joh
Act
Rom
1Co
2Ch
Gal
Eph
Phi
Col
1Th
2Th
1Ti
2Ti
Tit
Ph
Heb
Jam
1Pe
2Pe
1Jo
2Jo
3Jo
Jud
Rev
TOP

KJV
NKJV
RSV
ALL
TOP

AAA
BBB
CCC
DDD
EEE
FFF
GGG
HHH
III
JJJ
KKK
LLL
MMM
NNN
OOO
PPP
QQQ
RRR
SSS
TTT
UUU
VVV
WWW
XXX
YYY
ZZZ

TOP

rwp claims



rwp@1Corinthians:1:26 @{Behold} (\blepete\). Same form for imperative present active plural and indicative. Either makes sense as in strkjv@John:5:39| \eraunate\ and strkjv@14:1| \pisteuete\. {Calling} (\klˆsin\). The act of calling by God, based not on the external condition of those called (\klˆtoi\, verse 2|), but on God's sovereign love. It is a clinching illustration of Paul's argument, an _argumentum ad hominen_. {How that} (\hoti\). Explanatory apposition to \klˆsin\. {After the flesh} (\kata sarka\). According to the standards of the flesh and to be used not only with \sophoi\ (wise, philosophers), but also \dunatoi\ (men of dignity and power), \eugeneis\ (noble, high birth), the three claims to aristocracy (culture, power, birth). {Are called}. Not in the Greek, but probably to be supplied from the idea in \klˆsin\.

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

rwp@1Corinthians:14:37 @{The commandment of the Lord} (\Kuriou entolˆ\)...words of Paul. He claims inspiration...

rwp@Info_1Peter @...is not anonymous, but claims to...(1Peter:1:1|), that is Cephas (Simon Peter). If this is not true, then the book is pseudonymous by a late writer who assumed Peter's name, as in the so-called Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc. "There is no book in the New Testament which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation, though Irenaeus is the first to quote it by name" (Bigg). Eusebius (_H.E_. iii. 25.2) places it among the acknowledged books, those accepted with no doubt at all. We here assume that Simon Peter wrote this Epistle or at any rate dictated it by an amanuensis, as Paul did in Romans (Romans:16:22|). Bigg suggests Silvanus (Silas) as the amanuensis or interpreter (1Peter:5:12|), the obvious meaning of the language (\dia\, through). He may also have been the bearer of the Epistle. It happens that we know more of Peter's life than of any of the twelve apostles because of his prominence in the Gospels and in the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. In the _Student's Chronological New Testament_ I have given a full list of the passages in the Gospels where Peter appears with any clearness and the material is rich and abundant. The account in Acts is briefer, though Peter is the outstanding man in the first five chapters during his career in Jerusalem. After the conversion of Saul he begins to work outside of Jerusalem and after escaping death at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts:12:3ff.|) he left for a while, but is back in Jerusalem at the Conference called by Paul and Barnabas (Acts:15:6-14; Gal strkjv@2:1-10|). After that we have no more about him in Acts, though he reappears in Antioch and is rebuked by Paul for cowardice because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-21). He travelled for the Gospel among the Jews of the Dispersion (Galatians:2:9|) with his wife (1Corinthians:9:5|), and went to Asia Minor (1Peter:1:1|) and as far as Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|). Besides Silvanus he had John Mark with him also (1Peter:5:13|), who was said by the early Christian writers to have been Peter's "interpreter" in his preaching, since Peter was not expert in the Greek (Acts:4:13|), and who also wrote his Gospel under the inspiration of Peter's preaching. We are not able to follow clearly the close of his life or to tell precisely the time of his death. He was apparently put to death in A.D. 67 or 68, but some think that he was executed in Rome in A.D. 64.

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

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:4 @{But even as we have been approved by God} (\alla kath“s dedokimasmetha hupo tou theou\). Perfect passive indicative of \dokimaz“\...by God. Paul here claims the...{To be entrusted with the gospel} (\pisteuthˆnai to euaggelion\). First aorist passive infinitive of \pisteu“\, common verb for believing, from \pistis\ (faith), but here to entrust rather than to trust. The accusative of the thing is retained in the passive according to regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:17; strkjv@Galatians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:3:2; strkjv@1Timothy:1:11; strkjv@Titus:1:3|, though the active had the dative of the person. {Songs:we speak} (\hout“s laloumen\). Simple, yet confident claim of loyalty to God's call and message. Surely this should be the ambition of every preacher of the gospel of God. {Not as pleasing men} (\ouch h“s anthr“pois areskontes\). Dative case with \aresk“\ as in strkjv@Galatians:1:10|. Few temptations assail the preacher more strongly than this one to please men, even if God is not pleased, though with the dim hope that God will after all condone or overlook. Nothing but experience will convince some preachers how fickle is popular favour and how often it is at the cost of failure to please God. And yet the preacher wishes to win men to Christ. It is all as subtle as it is deceptive. God tests our hearts (the very verb \dokimaz“\ used in the beginning of this verse) and he is the only one whose approval matters in the end of the day (1Corinthians:4:5|).

rwp@2Corinthians:3:10 @{In this respect} (\en tout“i t“i merei\). The glory on the face of Moses was temporary, though real, and passed away (verse 7|), a type of the dimming of the glory of the old dispensation by the brightness of the new. The moon makes a dim light after the sun rises, "is not glorified" (\ou dedoxastai\, perfect passive indicative of \doxaz“\). {By reason of the glory that surpasseth} (\heineken tˆs huperballousˆs doxˆs\). The surpassing (\huper-ball“\, throwing beyond)...the shade. Cf. the claims of...5-7|.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:23 @{As one beside himself} (\paraphron“n\). Present active participle of \paraphrone“\. Old verb from \paraphr“n\ (\para, phrˆn\), beside one's wits. Only here in N.T. Such open boasting is out of accord with Paul's spirit and habit. {I more} (\huper eg“\). This adverbial use of \huper\ appears in ancient Greek (Euripides). It has no effect on \eg“\...more than they." He claims superiority...{More abundant} (\perissoter“s\). See on ¯7:15|. No verbs with these clauses, but they are clear. {In prisons} (\en phulakais\). Plural also in strkjv@6:5|. Clement of Rome (_Cor_. V.) says that Paul was imprisoned seven times. We know of only five (Philippi, Jerusalem, Caesarea, twice in Rome), and only one before II Corinthians (Philippi). But Luke does not tell them all nor does Paul. Had he been in prison in Ephesus? Songs:many think and it is possible as we have seen. {Above measure} (\huperballont“s\). Old adverb from the participle \huperballont“n\ (\huperball“\, to hurl beyond). Here only in N.T. {In deaths oft} (\en thanatois pollakis\). He had nearly lost his life, as we know, many times (1:9f.; strkjv@4:11|).

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@2Peter:1:2 @{Be multiplied} (\plˆthuntheiˆ\). First aorist passive optative of \plˆthun“\ in a wish for the future (volitive use) as in strkjv@1Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|. {In the knowledge} (\en epign“sei\). Full (additional, \epi\) knowledge as in strkjv@1:8| (only \gn“sis\ in strkjv@1:5,6; strkjv@3:18|), but \epign“sin\ again in strkjv@1:3,8; strkjv@2:20|...is urged against the claims of...\gn“sis\. {Of God and of Jesus our Lord} (\tou theou kai Iˆsou tou kuriou hˆm“n\). At first sight the idiom here seems to require one person as in strkjv@1:1|, though there is a second article (\tou\) before \kuriou\, and \Iˆsou\ is a proper name. But the text here is very uncertain. Bengel, Spitta, Zahn, Nestle accept the short reading of P and some Vulgate MSS. and some minuscles with only \tou kuriou hˆm“n\ (our Lord) from which the three other readings may have come. Elsewhere in II Peter \gn“sis\ and \epign“sis\ are used of Christ alone. The text of II Peter is not in a good state of preservation.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:3 @{Let no man beguile you in any wise} (\mˆ tis humas exapatˆsˆi kata mˆdena tropon\). First aorist active subjunctive of \exapata“\ (old verb to deceive, strengthened form of simple verb \apata“\) with double negative (\mˆ tis, mˆdena\) in accord with regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:11| rather than the aorist imperative which does occur sometimes in the third person as in strkjv@Mark:13:15| (\mˆ katabat“\). Paul broadens the warning to go beyond conversation and letter. He includes "tricks" of any kind. It is amazing how gullible some of the saints are when a new deceiver pulls off some stunts in religion. {For it will not be} (\hoti\). There is an ellipse here of \ouk estai\ (or \genˆsetai\) to be supplied after \hoti\. Westcott and Hort make an anacoluthon at the end of verse 4|. The meaning is clear. \Hoti\ is causal, because, but the verb is understood. The second coming not only is not "imminent," but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of verse 2|. {Except the falling away come first} (\ean mˆ elthˆi hˆ apostasia pr“ton\). Negative condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of determination and the aorist subjunctive. \Apostasia\ is the late form of \apostasis\ and is our word apostasy. Plutarch uses it of political revolt and it occurs in I Macc. strkjv@2:15 about Antiochus Epiphanes who was enforcing the apostasy from Judaism to Hellenism. In strkjv@Joshua:22:22| it occurs for rebellion against the Lord. It seems clear that the word here means a religious revolt and the use of the definite article (\hˆ\) seems to mean that Paul had spoken to the Thessalonians about it. The only other New Testament use of the word is in strkjv@Acts:21:21| where it means apostasy from Moses. It is not clear whether Paul means revolt of the Jews from God, of Gentiles from God, of Christians from God, or of the apostasy that includes all classes within and without the body of Christians. But it is to be {first} (\pr“ton\) before Christ comes again. Note this adverb when only two events are compared (cf. strkjv@Acts:1:1|). {And the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition} (\kai apokaluphthˆi ho anthr“pos tˆs anomias, ho huios tˆs ap“leias\). First aorist passive subjunctive after \ean mˆ\ and same condition as with \elthˆi\. The use of this verb \apokalupt“\, like \apokalupsin\ of the second coming in strkjv@1:7|, seems to note the superhuman character (Milligan) of the event and the same verb is repeated in verses 6,8|. The implication is that {the man of sin} is hidden somewhere who will be suddenly manifested just as false apostles pose as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:13ff.|), whether the crowning event of the apostasy or another name for the same event. Lightfoot notes the parallel between the man of sin, of whom sin is the special characteristic (genitive case, a Hebraism for the lawless one in verse 8|)...each, both make divine claims... (verse 4|). He seems to be the Antichrist of strkjv@1John:2:18|. The terrible phrase, the son of perdition, is applied to Judas in strkjv@John:17:12| (like Judas doomed to perdition), but here to the lawless one (\ho anomos\, verse 8|), who is not Satan, but some one definite person who is doing the work of Satan. Note the definite article each time.

rwp@2Timothy:1:3 @{I thank} (\charin ech“\). "I have gratitude." As in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12|. Robinson cites examples of this phrase from the papyri. It occurs also in strkjv@Luke:17:9; strkjv@Acts:2:47|. \Charis\ in doxologies Paul uses (1Corinthians:15:57; strkjv@2:14; strkjv@8:16; strkjv@9:15; strkjv@Romans:6:17; strkjv@7:25|). His usual idiom is \eucharist“\ (1Corinthians:1:4; strkjv@Romans:1:8; strkjv@Philemon:1:4; strkjv@Phillipians:1:3|) or \eucharistoumen\ (1Thessalonians:1:2; strkjv@Colossians:1:3|) or \ou pauomai eucharist“n\ (Ephesians:1:16|) or \eucharistein opheilomen\ (2Thessalonians:1:3|). {Whom I serve from my forefathers} (\h“i latreu“ apo progon“n\). The relative \h“i\ is the dative case with \latreu“\ (see strkjv@Romans:1:9| for this verb), progressive present (I have been serving). For \progon“n\ (forefathers) see strkjv@1Timothy:5:4|. Paul claims a pious ancestry as in strkjv@Acts:24:14; strkjv@Acts:26:5; strkjv@Galatians:2:14; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {In a pure conscience} (\en katharƒi suneidˆsei\). See strkjv@1Timothy:1:5; strkjv@Acts:23:1|. {Unceasing} (\adialeipton\). Late and rare compound, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:9:2| which see. The adverb \adialeipt“s\ is more frequent (in the papyri, literary _Koin‚_, strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:2; strkjv@Romans:1:9|). The adjective here is the predicate accusative, "how I hold the memory concerning thee unceasing." The use of \adialeipt“s\ (adverb) is a sort of epistolary formula (papyri, strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:2; strkjv@2:13; strkjv@5:17; strkjv@Romans:1:9|). {Remembrance} (\mneian\). Old word, in N.T. only Pauline (seven times, strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:2; strkjv@Romans:1:9; strkjv@Phillipians:1:3|).

rwp@Acts:1:16 @{Brethren} (\andres adelphoi\). Literally, men, brethren or brother men. More dignified and respectful than just "brethren." Demosthenes sometimes said \Andres Athˆnaioi\. Cf. our "gentlemen and fellow-citizens." Women are included in this address though \andres\ refers only to men. {It was needful} (\edei\). Imperfect tense of the impersonal \dei\ with the infinitive clause (first aorist passive) and the accusative of general reference as a loose subject. Peter here assumes that Jesus is the Messiah and finds scripture illustrative of the treachery of Judas. He applies it to Judas and quotes the two passages in verse 20| (Psalms:69:25; strkjv@109:8|). The Holy Spirit has not yet come upon them, but Peter feels moved to interpret the situation. He feels that his mind is opened by Jesus (Luke:24:45|)...points out. Peter here claims the...2Peter:1:21|. His description of Judas as "guide" (\hodˆgou\) to those who seized (\sullabousin\) Jesus is that of the base traitor that he was. This very verb occurs in strkjv@Luke:22:54| of the arrest of Jesus.

rwp@Acts:2:4 @{With other tongues} (\heterais gl“ssais\). 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} (\kath“s to pneuma edidou apophtheggesthai autois\)...is precisely what Paul claims in...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:2:32 @{This Jesus} (\touton ton Iˆsoun\). Many of the name "Jesus," but he means the one already called "the Nazarene" (verse 22|) and foretold as the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:16| and raised from the dead by God in proof that he is the Messiah (2:24,32|), "this Jesus whom ye crucified" (verse 36|). Other terms used of him in the Acts are the Messiah, verse 31|, the one whom God "anointed" (Acts:10:38|), as in strkjv@John:1:41|, Jesus Christ (9:34|). In strkjv@2:36| God made this Jesus Messiah, in strkjv@3:20| the Messiah Jesus, in strkjv@17:3| Jesus is the Messiah, in strkjv@18:5| the Messiah is Jesus, in strkjv@24:24| Christ Jesus. {Whereof} (\hou\)...both are true. Peter claims the...120 as personal witnesses to the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead and they are all present as Peter calls them to witness on the point. In Galilee over 500 had seen the Risen Christ at one time (1Corinthians:15:6|) most of whom were still living when Paul wrote. Thus the direct evidence for the resurrection of Jesus piles up in cumulative force.

rwp@Acts:3:22 @{Like unto me} (\h“s eme\). As me, literally; Moses (Deuteronomy:18:14-18|) claims that God raised him up as a prophet and that another and greater one will come, the Messiah. The Jews understood Moses to be a type of Christ (John:1:21|). God spoke to Moses face to face (Exodus:33:11|) and he was the greatest of the prophets (Deuteronomy:34:10|).

rwp@Acts:5:32 @{We are witnesses} (\hˆmeis esmen martures\). As in strkjv@2:32|. {Things} (\rhˆmat“n\). Literally, sayings, but like the Hebrew _dabhar_ for "word" it is here used for "things." {And so is the Holy Ghost} (\kai to pneuma to hagion\). The word for "is" (\estin\)...plainly the meaning. Peter claims the...

rwp@Acts:14:17 @{And yet} (\kaitoi\). Old Greek compound particle (\kai toi\). In the N.T. twice only, once with finite verb as here, once with the participle (Hebrews:4:3|). {Without witness} (\amarturon\). Old adjective (\a\ privative and \martus\, witness), only here in the N.T. {Left} (\aphˆken\). First aorist active (\k\ aorist indicative of \aphiˆmi\). {In that he did good} (\agathourg“n\). Present active causal participle of \agathourge“\, late and rare verb (also \agathoerge“\ strkjv@1Timothy:6:18|), reading of the oldest MSS. here for \agathopoie“\, to do good. Note two other causal participles here parallel with \agathourg“n\, viz., \didous\ ("giving you") present active of \did“mi, empipl“n\ ("filling") present active of \empimpla“\ (late form of \empimplˆmi\). This witness to God (his doing good, giving rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness) they could receive without the help of the Old Testament revelation (Romans:1:20|). Zeus was regarded as the god of rain (Jupiter Pluvius) and Paul claims the rain and the fruitful (\karpophorous, karpos\, and \pher“\, fruit bearing, old word, here alone in N.T.) seasons as coming from God. Lycaonia was often dry and it would be an appropriate item. "Mercury, as the God of merchandise, was also the dispenser of food" (Vincent). Paul does not talk about laws of nature as if they governed themselves, but he sees the living God "behind the drama of the physical world" (Furneaux)...his ideas as he claims everything...{Gladness} (\euphrosunˆs\). Old word from \euphr“n\ (\eu\ and \phrˆn\), good cheer. In the N.T. only strkjv@Acts:2:28| and here. Cheerfulness should be our normal attitude when we consider God's goodness. Paul does not here mention Christ because he had the single definite purpose to dissuade them from worshipping Barnabas and himself.

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

rwp@Acts:17:23 @{For} (\gar\). Paul gives an illustration of their religiousness from his own experiences in their city. {The objects of your worship} (\ta sebasmata hum“n\). Late word from \sebazomai\, to worship. In N T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4|. The use of this word for temples, altars, statues, shows the conciliatory tone in the use of \deisidaimonesterous\ in verse 22|. {An altar} (\b“mon\). Old word, only here in the N.T. and the only mention of a heathen altar in the N.T {With this inscription} (\en h“i epegegrapto\). On which had been written (stood written), past perfect passive indicative of \epigraph“\, old and common verb for writing on inscriptions (\epigraphˆ\, strkjv@Luke:23:38|). {To an Unknown God} (\AGNOSTO THEO\). Dative case, dedicated to. Pausanias (I. 1, 4) says that in Athens there are "altars to gods unknown" (\b“moi the“n agn“st“n\). Epimenides in a pestilence advised the sacrifice of a sheep to the befitting god whoever he might be. If an altar was dedicated to the wrong deity, the Athenians feared the anger of the other gods. The only use in the N.T. of \agn“stos\, old and common adjective (from \a\ privative and \gn“stos\ verbal of \gin“sk“\, to know). Our word agnostic comes from it. Here it has an ambiguous meaning, but Paul uses it though to a stern Christian philosopher it may be the "confession at once of a bastard philosophy and of a bastard religion" (Hort, _Hulsean Lectures_, p. 64). Paul was quick to use this confession on the part of the Athenians of a higher power than yet known to them. Songs:he gets his theme from this evidence of a deeper religious sense in them and makes a most clever use of it with consummate skill. {In ignorance} (\agnoountes\). Present active participle of \agnoe“\, old verb from same root as \agn“stos\ to which Paul refers by using it. {This set I forth unto you} (\touto ego kataggell“ humin\). He is a \kataggeleus\ (verse 18|)...suspicion of heresy and claims their...\hon--touton\ (whom--this one) rather than \ho--touto\ (what--this), but the late text is plainly an effort to introduce too soon the personal nature of God which comes out clearly in verse 24|.

rwp@Acts:17:26 @{And he made of one} (\epoiˆsen te ex henos\). The word \haimatos\ (blood) is absent from Aleph A B and is a later explanatory addition. What Paul affirms is the unity of the human race with a common origin and with God as the Creator. This view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan (the Jews were \laos\, the Gentiles \ethnˆ\)...Jew and Greek and claims the...\antochthonous\ (indigenous) and a special creation. Zeno and Seneca did teach a kind of cosmopolitanism (really pantheism) far different from the personal God of Paul. It was Rome, not Greece, that carried out the moral ideas of Zeno. Man is part of the universe (verse 24|) and God created (\epoiˆsen\) man as he created (\poiˆsas\) the all. {For to dwell} (\katoikein\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose, so as to dwell. {Having determined} (\horisas\). First aorist active participle of \horiz“\, old verb to make a horizon as already in strkjv@19:42| which see. Paul here touches God's Providence. God has revealed himself in history as in creation. His hand appears in the history of all men as well as in that of the Chosen People of Israel. {Appointed seasons} (\prostetagmenous kairous\). Not the weather as in strkjv@14:17|, but "the times of the Gentiles" (\kairoi ethn“n\) of which Jesus spoke (Luke:21:24|). The perfect passive participle of \prostass“\, old verb to enjoin, emphasizes God's control of human history without any denial of human free agency as was involved in the Stoic Fate (\Heirmarmenˆ\). {Bounds} (\horothesias\). Limits? Same idea in strkjv@Job:12:23|. Nations rise and fall, but it is not blind chance or hard fate. Thus there is an interplay between God's will and man's activities, difficult as it is for us to see with our shortened vision.

rwp@Acts:17:28 @{For in him} (\en aut“i gar\). Proof of God's nearness, not stoic pantheism, but real immanence in God as God dwells in us. The three verbs (\z“men, 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} (\h“s kai tines t“n kath' humƒs poiˆt“n\). "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|...Epimenides. J. Rendel Harris claims that...(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:17:31 @{Inasmuch as} (\kathoti\). According as (\kata, hoti\). Old causal conjunction, but in N.T. only used in Luke's writings (Luke:1:7; strkjv@19:9; strkjv@Acts:2:45; strkjv@4:35; strkjv@17:31|). {Hath appointed a day} (\estˆsen hˆmeran\) First aorist active indicative of \histˆmi\, to place, set. God did set the day in his counsel and he will fulfil it in his own time. {Will judge} (\mellei krinein\). Rather, is going to judge, \mell“\ and the present active infinitive of \krin“\. Paul here quotes strkjv@Psalms:9:8| where \krinei\ occurs. {By the man whom he hath ordained} (\en andri h“i h“risen\). Here he adds to the Psalm the place and function of Jesus Christ, a passage in harmony with Christ's own words in strkjv@Matthew:25|. \H“i\ (whom) is attracted from the accusative, object of \h“risen\ (first aorist active indicative of \horiz“\) to the case of the antecedent \andri\. It has been said that Paul left the simple gospel in this address to the council of the Areopagus for philosophy. But did he? He skilfully caught their attention by reference to an altar to an Unknown God whom he interprets to be the Creator of all things and all men who overrules the whole world and who now commands repentance of all and has revealed his will about a day of reckoning when Jesus Christ will be Judge. He has preached the unity of God, the one and only God, has proclaimed repentance, a judgment day, Jesus as the Judge as shown by his Resurrection, great fundamental doctrines, and doubtless had much more to say when they interrupted his address. There is no room here for such a charge against Paul. He rose to a great occasion and made a masterful exposition of God's place and power in human history. {Whereof he hath given assurance} (\pistin parasch“n\). Second aorist active participle of \parech“\, old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of \pistis\ as conviction or ground of confidence (Hebrews:11:1|) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of \pistis\ grow out of this one from \peith“\, to persuade. {In that he hath raised him from the dead} (\anastˆsas auton ek nekr“n\). First aorist active participle of \anistˆmi\, causal participle, but literally, "having raised him from the dead." This Paul knew to be a fact because he himself had seen the Risen Christ. Paul has here come to the heart of his message and could now throw light on their misapprehension about "Jesus and the Resurrection" (verse 18|)...proof of all his claims in...

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 tˆn 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} (\hout“s latreu“ t“i patr“i“i the“i\). 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} (\hˆn 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 tˆn makarian elpida\, looking for the happy hope).

rwp@Acts:24:16 @{Herein} (\en tout“i\). His whole confession of belief in verses 14,15|. {Do I also exercise myself} (\kai autos ask“\)...and severe hardship. Paul claims to...{Void of offence} (\aproskopon\). This word belongs to the papyri and N.T. (only in Paul), not in the ancient writers. The papyri examples (Moulton Milligan, _Vocabulary_) use the word to mean "free from hurt or harm." It is a privative and \proskopt“\ (to cut or stumble against). Page likes "void of offence" since that can be either active "not stumbling" as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:10| or passive "not stumbled against" as in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32| (the first toward God and the second toward men), the only other N.T. examples. Hence the word here appears in both senses (the first towards God, the second towards men). Paul adds "alway" (\dia pantos\), a bold claim for a consistent aim in life. "Certainly his conscience acquitted him of having caused any offence to his countrymen" (Rackham). Furneaux thinks that it must have been wormwood and gall to Ananias to hear Paul repeat here the same words because of which he had ordered Paul to be smitten on the mouth (23:1f.|).

rwp@Acts:26:3 @{Especially because thou art expert} (\malista gn“stˆn onta se\). Or like the margin, "because thou art especially expert," according as \malista\ is construed. \Gn“stˆn\ is from \gin“sk“\ and means a knower, expert, connoisseur. Plutarch uses it and Deissmann (_Light_, etc., p. 367) restores it in a papyrus. Agrippa had the care of the temple, the appointment of the high priest, and the care of the sacred vestments. But the accusative \onta se\ gives trouble here coming so soon after \sou\ (genitive with \epi\). Some MSS. insert \epistamenos\ or \eid“s\ (knowing) but neither is genuine. Page takes it as "governed by the sense of thinking or considering." Knowling considers it an anacoluthon. Buttmann held it to be an accusative absolute after the old Greek idiom. \Tuchon\ is such an instance though used as an adverb (1Corinthians:16:6|). It is possible that one exists in strkjv@Ephesians:1:18|. See other examples discussed in Robertson's _Grammar_, pp. 490f. {Customs and questions} (\eth“n te kai zˆtˆmat“n\). Both _consuetudinum in practicis_ and _quaestionum in theoreticis_ (Bengel). Agrippa was qualified to give Paul an understanding and a sympathetic hearing. Paul understands perfectly the grand-...and to present the claims of...{Patiently} (\makrothum“s\). Adverb from \makrothumos\. Only here in the N.T., though \makrothumia\ occurs several times. Vulgate has _longanimiter_. Long spirit, endurance, opposite of impatience. Songs:Paul takes his time.

rwp@Info_Colossians @...INTRODUCTION GENUINENESS The author claims to...(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@Ephesians:1:21 @{Far above all rule} (\huperan“ pasˆs archˆs\). Late compound adverbial preposition (\huper, an“\) with the ablative case. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:9:5|. As in strkjv@Colossians:1:16|, so here Paul claims primacy for Jesus Christ above all angels, aeons, what not. These titles all were used in the Gnostic speculations with a graduated angelic hierarchy. {World} (\ai“ni\). "Age." See this identical expression in strkjv@Matthew:12:32| for the present time (Gal strkjv@1:4; strkjv@1Timothy:6:17|) and the future life (Ephesians:2:7; strkjv@Luke:20:35|). Both combined in strkjv@Mark:10:30; strkjv@Luke:18:30|.

rwp@Ephesians:3:5 @{In other generations} (\heterais geneais\). Locative case of time. He had already claimed this revelation for himself (verse 3|). Now he claims it for all the other apostles and prophets of God.

rwp@Galatians:1:14 @{I advanced} (\proekopton\). Imperfect active again of \prokopt“\, old verb, to cut forward (as in a forest), to blaze a way, to go ahead. In N.T. only here, strkjv@Romans:13:12; strkjv@2Timothy:2:16; strkjv@3:9,13|. Paul was a brilliant pupil under Gamaliel. See strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-6|. He was in the lead of the persecution also. {Beyond many of mine own age} (\huper pollous sunˆliki“tas\). Later compound form for the Attic \hˆliki“tˆs\ which occurs in Dion Hal. and inscriptions (from \sun\, with, and \hˆlikia\, age). Paul modestly claims that he went "beyond" (\huper\) his fellow-students in his progress in Judaism. {More exceedingly zealous} (\perissoter“s zˆlotˆs\). Literally, "more exceedingly a zealot." See on ¯Acts:1:13; strkjv@21:20; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:12|. Like Simon Zelotes. {For the traditions of my fathers} (\t“n patrik“n mou paradose“n\). Objective genitive after \zˆlotˆs\. \Patrik“n\ only here in N.T., though old word from \patˆr\ (father), paternal, descending from one's father. For \patr“ios\ see strkjv@Acts:22:3,14|. Tradition (\paradosis\) played a large part in the teaching and life of the Pharisees (Mark:7:1-23|). Paul now taught the Christian tradition (2Thessalonians:2:15|).

rwp@Info_James @...INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR He claims to...44 (Acts:12:2|). But James the brother of Jesus (Galatians:1:19|) was still alive and became a leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts:12:17|), presiding over the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts:15:13-21|) and apparently writing the message from the Conference to the Gentile churches (Acts:15:22-29|), and was still the leading elder in Jerusalem on Paul's last visit (Acts:21:18-25|). James does not claim here to be an apostle and he was not one of the twelve apostles, and the dispute about accepting it of which Eusebius spoke was about its apostolicity since James was only an apostle by implication (Galatians:1:19|) in the general sense of that term like Barnabas (Acts:14:14|), perhaps Silas and Timothy (1Thessalonians:2:7|)...had once disbelieved his claims to...(John:7:6f.|), but he was won by a special vision of the Risen Christ (1Corinthians:15:7|) and was in the upper room before the great pentecost (Acts:1:14|). It is plain that he had much to overcome as a zealous Jew to become a Christian, though he was not a mere cousin of Jesus or a son of Joseph by a former marriage. He was strictly the half-brother of Jesus, since Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. There is no reason to believe that he was a Nazirite. We know that he was married (1Corinthians:9:5|). He came to be called James the Just and was considered very devout. The Judaizers had counted on him to agree with them against Paul and Barnabas, but he boldly stood for Gentile freedom from the ceremonial law. The Judaizers still claimed him at Antioch and used his name wrongly to frighten Peter thereby (Galatians:2:12|). But to the end he remained the loyal friend to Paul and his gospel rightly understood (Acts:21:18-25|). Clement of Alexandria (_Hypot_. vii) says that, when he bore strong testimony to Jesus as the Son of man, they flung him down from the gable of the temple, stoned him, and beat him to death with a club. But Josephus (_Ant_. XX. ix. I) says that the Sadducees about A.D. 62 had James and some others brought before the Sanhedrin (Ananus presiding) and had them stoned as transgressors of the law. At any rate he won a martyr's crown like Stephen and James the brother of John.

rwp@Info_John @...BELOVED DISCIPLE The book claims to...(John:21:20|) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: "This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (John:21:24|). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with strkjv@John:20:31|, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in strkjv@John:21:24| is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in _The Beloved Disciple_.

rwp@Info_John @ A PERSONAL WITNESS It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In strkjv@John:1:14| he plainly says that "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" (\etheasametha tˆn doxan autou\). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in strkjv@John:21:25| he employs the singular "I suppose" (\oimai\) in sharp dis- tinction from the plural "we know" (\oidamen\) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness (\marture“, marturia\) so common in this Gospel (John:1:7,8,19; strkjv@3:11,26,33; strkjv@5:31; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@21:24|, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luke:1:1-4|)...John Mark. John's Gospel claims to...-witness in the vivid details.

rwp@Info_John @ THE AUTHOR THE APOSTLE JOHN Loisy (_Leviticus:Quatr. Evangile_, p. 132) says that if one takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does not take it "literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not use his own name instead of a _nom de plume_...if we test their claims for...21| it is easy to drop the names of Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (Acts:12:1|). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle John as the author.

rwp@Info_John @ HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his _Diatessaron_, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter strkjv@John:11|...of Christ with Messianic claims at...23|, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter strkjv@John:21| with that in strkjv@Luke:5|, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter strkjv@John:12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in strkjv@Luke:7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter strkjv@John:1| is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_.

rwp@Info_John @...author of the Apocalypse claims to...(Revelation:1:4,9; strkjv@22:8|), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. Songs:one ventures to call attention to the statement in strkjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai idi“tai\ (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan's _Greek Papyri_, for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

rwp@John:1:18 @{No man hath seen God at any time} (\theon oudeis he“raken p“pote\). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of \hora“\. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus:33:20; strkjv@Deuteronomy:4:12|). Paul calls God \aoratos\ (Colossians:1:15; strkjv@1Timothy:1:17|). John repeats the idea in strkjv@John:5:37; strkjv@6:46|. And yet in strkjv@14:7| Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. {The only begotten Son} (\ho monogenˆs huios\). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after \h“s monogenous para patros\ in verse 14|. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read \monogenˆs theos\ (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to \ho monogenˆs huios\ to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like strkjv@3:16|. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called \theos\ in verse 1|. The Incarnation is stated in verse 14|, where he is also termed \monogenˆs\. He was that before the Incarnation. Songs:he is "God only begotten," "the Eternal Generation of the Son" of Origen's phrase. {Which is in the bosom of the Father} (\ho “n eis ton kolpon tou patros\). The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like \pros ton theon\ in verse 1|. In strkjv@3:13| there is some evidence for \ho “n en t“i ouran“i\ used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father. {He} (\ekinos\). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son. {Hath declared him} (\exˆgˆsato\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \exˆgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke's Gospel (24:35|) and four times in Acts:(10:8; strkjv@15:12,14; strkjv@21:19|). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.

rwp@John:1:19 @{And this is the witness of John} (\kai hautˆ estin hˆ marturia tou I“anou\). He had twice already alluded to it (verses 7f., 15|) and now he proceeds to give it as the most important item to add after the Prologue. Just as the author assumes the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, so he assumes the Synoptic accounts of the baptism of Jesus by John, but adds various details of great interest and value between the baptism and the Galilean ministry, filling out thus our knowledge of this first year of the Lord's ministry in various parts of Palestine. The story in John proceeds along the same lines as in the Synoptics. There is increasing unfolding of Christ to the disciples with increasing hostility on the part of the Jews till the final consummation in Jerusalem. {When the Jews sent unto him} (\hote apesteilan pros auton hoi Ioudaioi\). John, writing in Ephesus near the close of the first century long after the destruction of Jerusalem, constantly uses the phrase "the Jews" as descriptive of the people as distinct from the Gentile world and from the followers of Christ (at first Jews also). Often he uses it of the Jewish leaders and rulers in particular who soon took a hostile attitude toward both John and Jesus. Here it is the Jews from Jerusalem who sent (\apesteilan\, first aorist active indicative of \apostell“\). {Priests and Levites} (\hiereis kai Leueitas\). Sadducees these were. Down below in verse 24| the author explains that it was the Pharisees who sent the Sadducees. The Synoptics throw a flood of light on this circumstance, for in strkjv@Matthew:3:7| we are told that the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees "offspring of vipers" (Luke:3:7|). Popular interest in John grew till people were wondering "in their hearts concerning John whether haply he were the Christ" (Luke:3:15|). Songs:the Sanhedrin finally sent a committee to John to get his own view of himself, but the Pharisees saw to it that Sadducees were sent. {To ask him} (\hina er“tˆs“sin auton\). Final \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \er“ta“\, old verb to ask a question as here and often in the _Koin‚_ to ask for something (John:14:16|) like \aite“\. {Who art thou?} (\su tis ei;\). Direct question preserved and note proleptic position of \su\...John to define his claims concerning...

rwp@John:1:51 @{Verily, Verily} (\Amˆn, amˆn\). Hebrew word transliterated into Greek and then into English, our "amen." John always repeats it, not singly as in the Synoptics, and only in the words of Jesus, an illustration of Christ's authoritative manner of speaking as shown also by \leg“ humin\ (I say unto you). Note plural \humin\ though \aut“i\ just before is singular (to him). Jesus addresses thus others besides Nathanael. {The heaven opened} (\ton ouranon ane“igota\). Second perfect active participle of \anoig“\ with double reduplication, standing open. The words remind one of what took place at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew:3:16; strkjv@Luke:3:21|), but the immediate reference is to the opened heaven as the symbol of free intercourse between God and man (Isaiah:64:1|) and as it was later illustrated in the death of Stephen (Acts:7:56|). There is a quotation from strkjv@Genesis:28:12f.|, Jacob's vision at Bethel. That was a dream to Jacob, but Christ is himself the bond of fellowship between heaven and earth, between God and man, for Jesus is both "the Son of God" as Nathanael said and "the Son of Man" (\epi ton huion tou anthr“pou\) as Jesus here calls himself. God and man meet in Christ. He is the true Jacob's Ladder. "I am the Way," Jesus will say. He is more than King of Israel, he is the Son of Man (the race)...the first disciples, the claims of...(Mark:14:62|). Here at the start Jesus is conscious of the final culmination and in apocalyptic eschatological language that we do not fully understand he sets forth the dignity and majesty of his Person.

rwp@John:3:11 @{We speak that we do know} (\ho oidamen laloumen\). Jesus simply claims knowledge of what he has tried to make plain to the famous Rabbi without success. John uses \lale“\ some 60 times, half of them by Jesus, very little distinction existing between the use of \lale“\ and \leg“\ in John. Originally \lale“\ referred to the chatter of birds. Note John's frequent use of \amˆn amˆn\ and \leg“\ (double emphasis). {And bear witness of that we have seen} (\kai ho he“rakamen marturoumen\). The same use of neuter singular relative \ho\ as before. Perfect active indicative of \hora“\. He is not a dreamer, guesser, or speculator. He is bearing witness from personal knowledge, strange as this may seem to Nicodemus. {And ye receive not our witness} (\kai tˆn marturian hˆm“n ou lambanete\). This is the tragedy of the matter as John has shown (1:11,26|) and as will continue to be true even today. Jesus probably associates here with himself ("we") those who have personal experience of grace and so are qualified as witnesses. Note the plural in strkjv@1John:1:1f|. Bernard thinks that John has here read into the words of Jesus the convictions of a later age, a serious charge to make.

rwp@John:4:2 @{Although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples} (\kaitoige Iˆsous autos ouk ebaptizen all' hoi mathˆtai autou\). Parenthetical explanation that applies also to strkjv@3:22|. Imperfect tense means that it was not the habit of Jesus. This is the only N.T. instance of \kaitoige\ (and yet indeed), compound conjunction (\kaitoi\ in strkjv@Acts:14:17; strkjv@Hebrews:4:3|) with intensive particle \ge\ added. This is the last mention of baptism under the direction of Jesus till the Great Commission (Matthew:28:19|)...raised about his Messianic claims till...

rwp@John:5:21 @{Quickeneth whom he will} (\hous thelei z“opoiei\). Present active indicative of \z“opoie“\ (from \z“opoios\, making alive), common in Paul (1Corinthians:15:45|, etc.)...the dead, but he claims the...(Luke:7:11-17|) is not far ahead, followed by the message to the Baptist which speaks of this same power (Luke:7:22; strkjv@Matthew:11:5|), and the raising of Jairus' daughter (Matthew:9:18,22-26|). Jesus exercises this power on those "whom he wills." Christ has power to quicken both body and soul.

rwp@John:5:23 @{That all may honour the Son} (\hina pantes tim“sin ton huion\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \tima“\ (may keep on honouring the Son). {He that honoureth not the Son} (\ho mˆ tim“n ton huion\). Articular present active participle of \tima“\ with negative \mˆ\. Jesus claims here the same right to worship from men that the Father has. Dishonouring Jesus is dishonouring the Father who sent him (8:49; strkjv@12:26; strkjv@15:23; strkjv@1John:2:23|). See also strkjv@Luke:10:16|...and yet deny his claims to...(even Q, the Logia of Jesus) and the rest of the New Testament.

rwp@John:5:28 @{In the tombs} (\en tois mnˆmeiois\). \Taphos\ (grave) presents the notion of burial (\thapt“\, to bury) as in strkjv@Matthew:23:27|, \mnˆmeion\ (from \mnaomai\, \mimnˆsk“\, to remind) is a memorial (sepulchre as a monument). Jesus claims not only the power of life (spiritual) and of judgement, but of power to quicken the actual dead at the Last Day. They will hear his voice and come out (\ekporeusontai\, future middle indicative of \ekporeuomai\). A general judgement and a general bodily resurrection we have here for both good and bad as in strkjv@Matthew:25:46; strkjv@Acts:24:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:10| and as often implied in the words of Jesus (Matthew:5:29f.; strkjv@10:28; strkjv@Luke:11:32|). In strkjv@John:6:39| Jesus asserts that he will raise up the righteous.

rwp@John:5:31 @{If I bear witness of myself} (\Ean eg“ martur“ peri emautou\). Condition of third class, undetermined with prospect of determination (\ean\ and present active subjunctive of \marture“\). The emphasis is on \eg“\ (I alone with no other witness). {Is not true} (\ouk estin alˆthˆs\). In law the testimony of a witness is not received in his own case (Jewish, Greek, Roman law). See strkjv@Deuteronomy:19:15| and the allusion to it by Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:18:16|. See also strkjv@2Corinthians:13:1; strkjv@1Timothy:5:19|. And yet in strkjv@8:12-19| Jesus claims that his witness concerning himself is true because the Father gives confirmation of his message. The Father and the Son are the two witnesses (8:17|). It is a paradox and yet true. But here Jesus yields to the rabbinical demand for proof outside of himself. He has the witness of another (the Father, strkjv@5:32,37|), the witness of the Baptist (5:33|), the witness of the works of Jesus (5:36|), the witness of the Scriptures (5:39|), the witness of Moses in particular (5:45|).

rwp@John:7:6 @{My time is not yet come} (\ho kairos ho emos oup“ parestin\). Only use with verse 8| of \kairos\ in this Gospel, elsewhere \chronos\ (John:5:6|) or more often \h“ra\ (2:4|) "the predestined hour" (Bernard). Here \kairos\ is the fitting or proper occasion for Christ's manifesting himself publicly to the authorities as Messiah as in verse 8|...did make such public claims... (7:29,33; strkjv@8:12,28,38,42,58|). \Parestin\ is present active indicative of \pareimi\, old compound, to be by, to be present. The brothers of Jesus had the regular Jewish obligation to go up to the feast, but the precise day was a matter of indifference to them.

rwp@John:7:18 @{From himself} (\aph' heautou\). This kind of teacher is self-...ideas, presses his own claims for...{The same} (\houtos\). "This one." {Unrighteousness} (\adikia\). Old word from \adikos\ (\a\ privative and \dikˆ\). Here in contrast with "true" (\alˆthˆs\). See strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:10; strkjv@1Corinthians:13:6| for the deceit of unrighteousness in contrast with truth as here.

rwp@John:8:13 @{Of thyself} (\peri seautou\). This technical objection was according to the rules of evidence among the rabbis. "No man can give witness for himself" (_Mishnah, Ketub_. 11. 9). Hence, they say, "not true" (\ouk alˆthes\), not pertinent. "They were still in the region of pedantic rules and external tests." In strkjv@John:5:31|...outside of his own claims... (John:19-30|) and proceeded to give it (John:32-47|) in the testimony of the Baptist, of the Father, of his works, of the Scriptures, and of Moses in particular.

rwp@John:8:19 @{Where is thy Father?} (\pou estin ho patˆr sou;\). "The testimony of an unseen and unheard witness would not satisfy them" (Vincent)...to see that Jesus claims God..._Patrem Christi carnaliter acceperunt_, Christ's human father, as if the Pharisees were "misled perhaps by the Lord's use of \anthr“pon\ (verse 17|)" (Dods). Cyril even took it to be a coarse allusion to the birth of Jesus as a bastard according to the Talmud. Perhaps the Pharisees used the question with _double entendre_, even with all three ideas dancing in their hostile minds. {Ye would know my Father also} (\kai ton patera mou an ˆideite\). Conclusion of second-class condition determined as unfulfilled with \an\ and second perfect active of \oida\ used as imperfect in both condition and conclusion. See this same point made to Philip in strkjv@14:9|. In strkjv@14:7| Jesus will use \gin“sk“\ in the condition and \oida\ in the conclusion. The ignorance of the Pharisees about Jesus proves it and is due to their ignorance of the Father. See this point more fully stated in strkjv@5:36-38| when Jesus had his previous controversy in Jerusalem. In strkjv@7:28| Jesus said that they knew his home in Nazareth, but he denied then that they knew the Father who sent him. Jesus will again on this occasion (8:55|) deny their knowledge of the Father. Later he will deny their knowledge of the Father and of the Son (16:3|). The Pharisees are silenced for the moment.

rwp@John:8:25 @{Who art thou?} (\Su tis ei;\). Proleptic use of \su\ before \tis\, "Thou, who art thou?" Cf. strkjv@1:19|. He had virtually claimed to be the Messiah and on a par with God as in strkjv@5:15|. They wish to pin him down and to charge him with blasphemy. {Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning} (\tˆn archˆn hoti kai lal“ humin\). A difficult sentence. It is not clear whether it is an affirmation or a question. The Latin and Syriac versions treat it as affirmative. Westcott and Hort follow Meyer and take it as interrogative. The Greek fathers take it as an exclamation. It seems clear that the adverbial accusative \tˆn archˆn\ cannot mean "from the beginning" like \ap' archˆs\ (15:27|) or \ex archˆs\ (16:4|). The LXX has \tˆn archˆn\ for "at the beginning" or "at the first" (Genesis:43:20|). There are examples in Greek, chiefly negative, where \tˆn archˆn\...stands by his high claims already...

rwp@John:8:26 @{I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you} (\polla ech“ peri hum“n lalein kai krinein\)...talk about his own claims... (already plain enough) Jesus turns to speak and to judge concerning them and their attitude towards him (cf. verse 16|). Whatever they think of Jesus the Father who sent him is true (\alˆthˆs\). They cannot evade responsibility for the message heard. Songs:Jesus goes on speaking it from the Father.

rwp@John:8:31 @{Which had believed him} (\tous pepisteukotas aut“i\). Articular perfect active participle of \pisteu“\ with dative \aut“i\ (trusted him) rather than \eis auton\ (on him) in verse 30|. They believed him (cf. strkjv@6:30|) as to his claims to being the Messiah with their own interpretation (6:15|), but they did not commit themselves to him and may represent only one element of those in verse 30|, but see strkjv@2:23| for \pisteu“ eis\ there. {If ye abide in my word} (\ean humeis meinˆte en t“i log“i t“i em“i\). Third-class condition with \ean\ and first aorist (constative) active subjunctive. {Are ye truly my disciples} (\alˆth“s mathˆtai mou este\). Your future loyalty to my teaching will prove the reality of your present profession. Songs:the conclusion of this future condition is put in the present tense. As then, so now. We accept church members on _profession_ of trust in Christ. Continuance in the word (teaching) proves the sincerity or insincerity of the profession. It is the acid test of life.

rwp@John:8:58 @{Before Abraham was} (\prin Abraam genesthai\). Usual idiom with \prin\ in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of \ginomai\) and the accusative of general reference, "before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born." {I am} (\eg“ eimi\). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between \genesthai\ (entrance into existence of Abraham) and \eimi\ (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between \en\ in strkjv@1:1| and \egeneto\ in strkjv@1:14|. See the contrast also in strkjv@Psalms:90:2| between God (\ei\, art) and the mountains (\genˆthˆnai\). See the same use of \eimi\ in strkjv@John:6:20; strkjv@9:9; strkjv@8:24,28; strkjv@18:6|.

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

rwp@John:10:37 @{If I do not} (\ei ou poi“\). Condition of first class, assumed as true, with negative \ou\, not \ei mˆ\=unless. {Believe me not} (\mˆ pisteuete moi\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and the present active imperative. Either "cease believing me" or "do not have the habit of believing me." Jesus rests his case on his doing the works of "my Father" (\tou patros mou\), repeating his claims to sonship and deity.

rwp@John:11:41 @{Songs:they took away the stone} (\ˆran oun ton lithon\). First aorist active indicative of \air“\, but without the explanatory gloss of the Textus Receptus "from the place where the dead was laid" (not genuine). {I thank thee that thou heardest me} (\eucharist“ soi hoti ˆkousas mou\). See strkjv@6:11| for \euchariste“\. Clearly Jesus had prayed to the Father concerning the raising of Lazarus. He has the answer before he acts. "No pomp of incantation, no wrestling in prayer even; but simple words of thanksgiving, as if already Lazarus was restored" (Dods)...he failed, his own claims to...(the Messiah), would be hopelessly discredited with all. If he succeeded, the rulers would be so embittered as to compass his own death.

rwp@John:12:31 @{The judgement} (\krisis\). No article, "A judgement." The next few days will test this world. {The prince of this world} (\ho arch“n tou kosmou toutou\). This phrase here, descriptive of Satan as in possession of the evil world, occurs again in strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|...In the temptations Satan claims power...(Matthew:4:8-10; strkjv@Luke:4:5-8|). Jesus did not deny Satan's power then, but here proclaims final victory over him. {Shall be cast out} (\ekblˆthˆsetai ex“\). Future passive of \ekball“\. Note \ex“\, clean out. The Book of Revelation also proclaims final victory over Satan.

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

rwp@John:17:6 @{I manifested} (\ephaner“sa\). First aorist active indicative of \phanero“\ (from \phaneros\, manifest). Another word for claiming successful accomplishment of his task as in verse 4| with \edoxasa\ and in verse 26| with \egn“risa\. {Whom} (\hous\). Accusative case after \ed“kas\, not attracted to case of antecedent (\anthr“pois\). Jesus regards the apostles as the Father's gift to him. Recall the night of prayer before he chose them. {They have kept} (\tetˆrˆkan\). Perfect active indicative, late _Koin‚_ form for the third plural instead of the usual \tetˆrˆkasin\. Jesus claims loyalty and fidelity in these men with the one exception of Judas (verse 12|). He does not claim perfection for them, but they have at least held on to the message of the Father in spite of doubt and wavering (6:67-71; strkjv@Matthew:16:15-20|).

rwp@John:18:36 @{My kingdom} (\hˆ basileia hˆ emˆ\). Christ claims to be king to Pilate, but of a peculiar kingdom. For "world" (\kosmou\) see strkjv@17:13-18|. {My servants} (\hoi hupˆretai hoi emoi\). For the word see verse 3| where it means the temple police or guards (literally, under-rowers). In the LXX always (Proverbs:14:35; strkjv@Isaiah:32:5; strkjv@Daniel:3:46|) officers of a king as here. Christ then had only a small band of despised followers who could not fight against Caesar. Was he alluding also to legions of angels on his side? (Matthew:26:56|). {Would fight} (\ˆg“nizonto an\). Imperfect middle of \ag“nizomai\ common verb (only here in John, but see strkjv@1Corinthians:9:25|) from \ag“n\ (contest) with \an\, a conclusion of the second-class condition (assumed as untrue). Christians should never forget the profound truth stated here by Jesus. {That I should not be delivered} (\hina mˆ paradoth“\). Negative final clause with \hina mˆ\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \paradid“mi\ (see verses 28,36|). Jesus expects Pilate to surrender to the Jews. {But now} (\nun de\). In contrast to the condition already stated as in strkjv@8:40; strkjv@9:41; strkjv@15:22,24|.

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

rwp@Luke:1:3 @{It seemed good to me also} (\edoxe kamoi\). A natural conclusion and justification of Luke's decision to write his narrative. They had ample reason to draw up their narratives. Luke has more reason to do so because of his fuller knowledge and wider scope. {Having traced the course of all things} (\parˆkolouthˆkoti pƒsin\). The perfect active participle of a common verb of the ancient Greek. Literally it means to follow along a thing in mind, to trace carefully. Both meanings occur abundantly in the ancient Greek. Cadbury (Appendix C to _Beginnings of Christianity_, Vol. II, pp. 489ff.) objects to the translation "having traced" here as implying research which the word does not here mean. Milligan (_Vocabulary_) is somewhat impressed by this argument. See my discussion of the point in Chapter XVI of _Studies in the Text of the N.T._ (The Implications in Luke's Preface)...made that Luke here claims fulness..._mentally_ followed along by the side of these events. Galen used this verb for the investigation of symptoms. Luke got himself ready to write before he began by full and accurate knowledge of the subject. \Akrib“s\ (accurately) means going into minute details, from \akron\, the topmost point. And he did it {from the first} (\an“then\). He seems to refer to the matters in Chapters strkjv@1:5-2:52|, the Gospel of the Infancy. {In order} (\kathexˆs\). Chronological order in the main following Mark's general outline. But in strkjv@9:51-18:10| the order is often topical. He has made careful investigation and his work deserves serious consideration. {Most excellent Theophilus} (\kratiste Theophile\). The name means god-lover or god-beloved. He may have been a believer already. He was probably a Gentile. Ramsay holds that "most excellent" was a title like "Your Excellency" and shows that he held office, perhaps a Knight. Songs:of Felix (Acts:23:26|) and Festus (Acts:26:25|). The adjective does not occur in the dedication in strkjv@Acts:1:1|.

rwp@Luke:4:6 @{All this authority} (\tˆn exousian tautˆn hapasan\). strkjv@Matthew:4:9| has "all these things." Luke's report is more specific. {And the glory of them} (\kai tˆn doxan aut“n\). strkjv@Matthew:4:8| has this in the statement of what the devil did, not what he said. {For it hath been delivered unto me} (\hoti emoi paradedotai\)...passive indicative. Satan here claims possession...(John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|). {To whomsoever I will} (\hoi an thel“\). Present subjunctive with \an\ in an indefinite relative sentence. This audacious claim, if allowed, makes one wonder whether some of the world rulers are not, consciously or unconsciously, agents of the devil. In several American cities there has been proven a definite compact between the police and the underworld of crime. But the tone of Satan here is one of superiority to Jesus in world power. He offers him a share in it on one condition.

rwp@Luke:4:23 @{Doubtless} (\pant“s\). Adverb. Literally, at any rate, certainly, assuredly. Cf. strkjv@Acts:21:22; strkjv@28:4|. {This parable} (\tˆn parabolˆn tautˆn\). 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 \parabolˆ\ 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_...and elsewhere. "Establish your claims by...(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} (\ˆkousamen genomena\). The use of this second aorist middle participle \genomena\ after \ˆkousamen\ 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} (\poiˆson kai h“de\). 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:7:39 @{This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous, this fellow. {If he were a (the) prophet} (\ei ˆn [ho] prophˆtˆs\). Condition of the second class, determined as unfulfilled. The Pharisee assumes that Jesus is not a prophet (...of B, that he claims to...). A Greek condition puts the thing from the standpoint of the speaker or writer. It does not deal with the actual facts, but only with the statement about the facts. {Would have perceived} (\egin“sken an\). Wrong translation, would now perceive or know (which he assumes that Jesus does not do). The protasis is false and the conclusion also. He is wrong in both. The conclusion (apodosis), like the condition, deals here with the present situation and so both use the imperfect indicative (\an\ in the conclusion, a mere device for making it plain that it is not a condition of the first class). {Who and what manner of woman} (\tis kai potapˆ hˆ gunˆ\). She was notorious in person and character.

rwp@Luke:8:19 @{His mother and brethren} (\hˆ mˆtˆr kai hoi adelphoi autou\). strkjv@Mark:3:31-35; strkjv@Matthew:12:46-50| place the visit of the mother and brothers of Jesus before the parable of the sower. Usually Luke follows Mark's order, but he does not do so here. At first the brothers of Jesus (younger sons of Joseph and Mary, I take the words to mean, there being sisters also) were not unfriendly to the work of Jesus as seen in strkjv@John:2:12| when they with the mother of Jesus are with him and the small group (half dozen) disciples in Capernaum after the wedding in Cana. But as Jesus went on with his work and was rejected at Nazareth (Luke:4:16-31|)...evident disbelief in his claims on...(John:7:5|). At this stage they have apparently come with Mary to take Jesus home out of the excitement of the crowds, perhaps thinking that he is beside himself (Mark:3:21|). They hardly believed the charge of the rabbis that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub. Certainly the mother of Jesus could give no credence to that slander. But she herself was deeply concerned and wanted to help him if possible. See discussion of the problem in my little book _The Mother of Jesus_ and also on ¯Mark:3:31| and ¯Matthew:12:46|. {Come to him} (\suntuchein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \suntugchan“\, an old verb, though here alone in the N.T., meaning to meet with, to fall in with as if accidentally, here with associative instrumental case \aut“i\.

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

rwp@Luke:15:7 @{Over one sinner that repenteth} (\epi heni hamart“l“i metanoounti\). The word sinner points to verse 1|. Repenting is what these sinners were doing, these lost sheep brought to the fold. The joy in heaven is in contrast with the grumbling Pharisees and scribes. {More than over} (\ˆ epi\). There is no comparative in the Greek. It is only implied by a common idiom like our "rather than." {Which need no repentance} (\hoitines ou chreian echousin metanoias\)...of argument accepts their claims about...(Luke:5:31f.|). They posed as "righteous." Very well, then. That shuts their mouths on the point of Christ's saving the publicans and sinners.

rwp@Luke:22:69 @{The Son of man} (\ho huios tou anthr“pou\)...understand him. He makes claims of...

rwp@Luke:22:70 @{Art thou the Son of God?} (\Su oun ei ho huios tou theou;\). Note how these three epithets are used as practical equivalents. They ask about "the Messiah." Jesus affirms that he is the Son of Man and will sit at the right hand of the power of God. They take this to be a claim to be the Son of God (both humanity and deity)...and admits that he claims to...(Messiah, the Son of man, the Son of God). {Ye say} (\Humeis legete\). Just a Greek idiom for "Yes" (compare "I am" in strkjv@Mark:14:62| with "Thou has said" in strkjv@Matthew:26:64|).

rwp@Luke:23:41 @{Nothing amiss} (\ouden atopon\). Nothing out of place (\a\ privative, \topos\, place). Old word, three times in the N.T. (Luke:23:44; strkjv@Acts:28:6; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:2|)...this robber accepts the claims of...

rwp@Mark:3:21 @{His friends} (\hoi par' autou\). The phrase means literally "those from the side of him (Jesus)." It could mean another circle of disciples who had just arrived and who knew of the crowds and strain of the Galilean ministry who now come at this special juncture. But the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX. The fact that in verse 31| "his mother and his brothers" are expressly mentioned would indicate that they are "the friends" alluded to in verse 21|. It is a mournful spectacle to think of the mother and brothers saying, {He is beside himself} (\exestˆ\). Second aorist active indicative intransitive. The same charge was brought against Paul (Acts:26:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:13|). We say that one is out of his head. Certainly Mary did not believe that Jesus was in the power of Beelzebub as the rabbis said already. The scribes from Jerusalem are trying to discount the power and prestige of Jesus (3:22|). See on ¯Matthew:9:32-34; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@12:24| for Beelzebub and Beelzebul. Mary probably felt that Jesus was overwrought and wished to take him home out of the excitement and strain that he might get rest and proper food. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_...believe the pretensions and claims of...(John:7:5|). Herod Antipas will later consider Jesus as John the Baptist _redivivus_, the scribes treat him as under demonic possession, even the family and friends fear a disordered mind as a result of overstrain. It was a crucial moment for Jesus. His family or friends came to take him home, to lay hold of him (\kratˆsai\), forcibly if need be.

rwp@Mark:6:3 @{Is not this the carpenter?} (\Ouch houtos estin ho tekt“n;\). strkjv@Matthew:13:55| calls him "the carpenter's son" (\ho tou tektonos huios\). He was both. Evidently since Joseph's death he had carried on the business and was "the carpenter" of Nazareth. The word \tekt“n\ comes from \tekein, tikt“\, to beget, create, like \technˆ\ (craft, art). It is a very old word, from Homer down. It was originally applied to the worker in wood or builder with wood like our carpenter. Then it was used of any artisan or craftsman in metal, or in stone as well as in wood and even of sculpture. It is certain that Jesus worked in wood. Justin Martyr speaks of ploughs, yokes, et cetera, made by Jesus. He may also have worked in stone and may even have helped build some of the stone synagogues in Galilee like that in Capernaum. But in Nazareth the people knew him, his family (no mention of Joseph), and his trade and discounted all that they now saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. This word carpenter "throws the only flash which falls on the continuous tenor of the first thirty years from infancy to manhood, of the life of Christ" (Farrar). That is an exaggeration for we have strkjv@Luke:2:41-50| and "as his custom was" (Luke:4:16|), to go no further. But we are grateful for Mark's realistic use of \tekt“n\ here. {And they were offended in him} (\kai eskandalizonto en aut“i\). Songs:exactly strkjv@Matthew:13:56|, {were made to stumble in him}, trapped like game by the \skandalon\ because they could not explain him, having been so recently one of them. "The Nazarenes found their stumbling block in the person or circumstances of Jesus. He became--\petra skandalou\ (1Peter:2:7,8; strkjv@Romans:9:33|) to those who disbelieved" (Swete). Both Mark and strkjv@Matthew:13:57|, which see, preserve the retort of Jesus with the quotation of the current proverb about a prophet's lack of honour in his own country. strkjv@John:4:44| quoted it from Jesus on his return to Galilee long before this. It is to be noted that Jesus here makes a definite claim to being a prophet (\prophˆtˆs\, forspeaker for God), a seer. He was much more than this as he had already claimed to be Messiah (John:4:26; strkjv@Luke:4:21|), the Son of man with power of God (Mark:1:10; strkjv@Matthew:9:6; strkjv@Luke:5:24|), the Son of God (John:5:22|). They stumble at Jesus today as the townspeople of Nazareth did. {In his own house} (\en tˆi oikiƒi autou\). Also in strkjv@Matthew:13:57|...home disbelieved his Messianic claims... (John:7:5|). This puzzle was the greatest of all.

rwp@Mark:11:18 @{Sought how they might destroy him} (\ezˆtoun p“s auton apoles“sin\). Imperfect indicative, a continuous attitude and endeavour. Note deliberative subjunctive with \p“s\ retained in indirect question. Here both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes)...their resentment against the claims of...(Mark:3:6|). Now in Jerusalem the climax has come right in the temple. {For they feared him} (\ephobounto gar\). Imperfect middle indicative. Hence in wrath they planned his death and yet they had to be cautious. The Triumphal Entry had shown his power with the people. And now right in the temple itself "all the multitude was astonished at his teaching" (\pƒs ho ochlos exeplˆsseto epi tˆi didachˆi autou\). Imperfect passive. The people looked on Jesus as a hero, as the Messiah. This verse aptly describes the crisis that has now come between Christ and the Sanhedrin.

rwp@Mark:13:10 @{Must first be preached} (\pr“ton dei kˆruchthˆnai\). This only in Mark. It is interesting to note that Paul in strkjv@Colossians:1:6,23| claims that the gospel has spread all over the world. All this was before the destruction of Jerusalem.

rwp@Mark:14:23 @{A cup} (\potˆrion\). Probably the ordinary wine of the country mixed with two-thirds water, though the word for wine (\oinos\) is not used here in the Gospels, but "the fruit of the vine" (\ek tou genˆmatos tˆs ampelou\). See strkjv@Matthew:26:26-29| for discussion of important details. Mark and Matthew give substantially the same account of the institution of the Supper by Jesus, while strkjv@Luke:22:17-20| agrees closely with strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23-26| where Paul claims to have obtained his account by direct revelation from the Lord Jesus.

rwp@Mark:14:62 @{I am} (\ego eimi\). Matthew has it, "Thou hast said," which is the equivalent of the affirmative. But Mark's statement is definite beyond controversy. See on ¯Matthew:26:64-68| for the claims of Jesus and the conduct of Caiaphas.

rwp@Mark:15:11 @{Stirred up} (\aneseisan\). {Shook up} like an earthquake (\seismos\). strkjv@Matthew:27:20| has a weaker word, "persuaded" (\epeisan\). Effective aorist indicative. The priests and scribes had amazing success. If one wonders why the crowd was fickle, he may recall that this was not yet the same people who followed him in triumphal entry and in the temple. That was the plan of Judas to get the thing over before those Galilean sympathizers waked up. "It was a case of regulars against an irregular, of priests against prophet" (Gould). "But Barabbas, as described by Mark, represented a popular passion, which was stronger than any sympathy they might have for so unworldly a character as Jesus--the passion for _political liberty_" (Bruce). "What unprincipled characters they were! They accuse Jesus to Pilate of political ambition, and they recommend Barabbas to the people for the same reason" (Bruce)...already abdicated his kingly claims while...{Rather} (_mƒllon_). Rather than Jesus. It was a gambler's choice.

rwp@Matthew:4:9 @{All these things will I give thee} (\tauta soi panta d“s“\). The devil claims the rule of the world, not merely of Palestine or of the Roman Empire. "The kingdoms of the cosmos" (4:8|) were under his sway. This word for world brings out the orderly arrangement of the universe while \hˆ oikoumenˆ\ presents the inhabited earth. Jesus does not deny the grip of the devil on the world of men, but the condition (\ean\ and aorist subjunctive, second class undetermined with likelihood of determination), was spurned by Jesus. As Matthew has it Jesus is plainly to "fall down and worship me" (\pes“n prokunˆsˆis moi\), while Luke (Luke:4:7|) puts it, "worship before me" (\en“pion emou\), a less offensive demand, but one that really involved worship of the devil. The ambition of Jesus is thus appealed to at the price of recognition of the devil's primacy in the world. It was compromise that involved surrender of the Son of God to the world ruler of this darkness. "The temptation was threefold: to gain a temporal, not a spiritual, dominion; to gain it at once; and to gain it by an act of homage to the ruler of this world, which would make the self-constituted Messiah the vice-regent of the devil and not of God" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:5:32 @{Saving for the cause of fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). An unusual phrase that perhaps means "except for a matter of unchastity." "Except on the ground of unchastity" (Weymouth), "except unfaithfulness" (Goodspeed), and is equivalent to \mˆ epi porneiƒi\ in strkjv@Matthew:19:9|...not give it. He claims that...

rwp@Matthew:6:11 @{Our daily bread} (\ton arton hˆm“n ton epiousion\). This adjective "daily" (\epiousion\) coming after "Give us this day" (\dos hˆmŒn sˆmeron\) has given expositors a great deal of trouble. The effort has been made to derive it from \epi\ and \“n\ (\ousa\). It clearly comes from \epi\ and \i“n\ (\epi\ and \eimi\) like \tˆi epiousˆi\ ("on the coming day," "the next day," strkjv@Acts:16:12|). But the adjective \epiousios\ is rare and Origen said it was made by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke to reproduce the idea of an Aramaic original. Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_ say: "The papyri have as yet shed no clear light upon this difficult word (Matthew:6:11; strkjv@Luke:11:3|), which was in all probability a new coinage by the author of the Greek Q to render his Aramaic Original" (this in 1919). Deissmann claims that only about fifty purely New Testament or "Christian" words can be admitted out of the more than 5,000 used. "But when a word is not recognizable at sight as a Jewish or Christian new formation, we must consider it as an ordinary Greek word until the contrary is proved. \Epiousios\ has all the appearance of a word that originated in trade and traffic of the everyday life of the people (cf. my hints in _Neutestamentliche Studien Georg Heinrici dargebracht_, Leipzig, 1914, pp. 118f.). The opinion here expressed has been confirmed by A. Debrunner's discovery (_Theol. Lit. Ztg_. 1925, Col. 119) of \epiousios\ in an ancient housekeeping book" (_Light from the Ancient East_, New ed. 1927, p. 78 and note 1). Songs:then it is not a word coined by the Evangelist or by Q to express an Aramaic original. The word occurs also in three late MSS. after 2Macc. strkjv@1:8, \tous epiousious\ after \tous artous\. The meaning, in view of the kindred participle (\epiousˆi\) in strkjv@Acts:16:12|, seems to be "for the coming day," a daily prayer for the needs of the next day as every housekeeper understands like the housekeeping book discovered by Debrunner.

rwp@Matthew:8:17 @{Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases} (\autos tas astheneias elaben kai tas nosous ebastasen\). A quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:53:4|. It is not clear in what sense Matthew applies the words in Isaiah whether in the precise sense of the Hebrew or in an independent manner. Moffatt translates it: "He took away our sicknesses, and bore the burden of our diseases." Goodspeed puts it: "He took our sickness and carried away our diseases." Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 102f.) thinks that Matthew has made a free interpretation of the Hebrew, has discarded the translation of the Septuagint, and has transposed the two Hebrew verbs so that Matthew means: "He took upon himself our pains, and bore our diseases." Plummer holds that "It is impossible, and also unnecessary, to understand what the Evangelist understood by 'took ' (\elaben\) and 'bare' (\ebastasen\). It at least must mean that Christ removed their sufferings from the sufferers. He can hardly have meant that the diseases were transferred to Christ." \Bastaz“\ occurs freely in the papyri with the sense of lift, carry, endure, carry away (the commonest meaning, Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_), pilfer. In strkjv@Matthew:3:11| we have the common vernacular use to take off sandals. The Attic Greek did not use it in the sense of carrying off. "This passage is the cornerstone of the faith-cure theory, which claims that the atonement of Christ includes provision for _bodily_ no less than for spiritual healing, and therefore insists on translating 'took away'" (Vincent). We have seen that the word \bastaz“\ will possibly allow that meaning, but I agree with McNeile: "The passage, _as Mt. employs it_, has no bearing on the doctrine of the atonement." But Jesus does show his sympathy with us. "Christ's sympathy with the sufferers was so intense that he really felt their weaknesses and pains." In our burdens Jesus steps under the load with us and helps us to carry on.

rwp@Matthew:13:35 @{I will utter} (\ereuxomai\). To cast forth like a river, to gurgle, to disgorge, the passion of a prophet. From strkjv@Psalms:19:2; strkjv@78:2|. The Psalmist claims to be able to utter "things hidden from the foundation of the world" and Matthew applies this language to the words of Jesus. Certain it is that the life and teaching of Jesus throw a flood of light on the purposes of God long kept hidden (\kekrummena\).

rwp@Matthew:16:17 @{Blessed art thou} (\makarios ei\)...this solemn occasion solemnly claims to...--warm, generous, unstinted. The style is not that of an ecclesiastical editor laying the foundation for church power, and prelatic pretentions, but of a noble-minded Master eulogizing in impassioned terms a loyal disciple" (Bruce). The Father had helped Peter get this spiritual insight into the Master's Person and Work.

rwp@Matthew:17:25 @{Jesus spake first to him} (\proephthasen auton ho Iˆsous leg“n\). Here only in the N.T. One example in a papyrus B.C. 161 (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). The old idiomatic use of \phthan“\ with the participle survives in this example of \prophthan“\ in strkjv@Matthew:17:25|, meaning to anticipate, to get before one in doing a thing. The _Koin‚_ uses the infinitive thus with \phthan“\ which has come to mean simply to arrive. Here the anticipation is made plain by the use of \pro-\. See Robertson's _Grammar_, p. 1120. The "prevent" of the Authorized Version was the original idea of _praevenire_, to go before, to anticipate. Peter felt obliged to take the matter up with Jesus. But the Master had observed what was going on and spoke to Peter first. {Toll or tribute} (\telˆ ˆ kˆnson\). Customs or wares collected by the publicans (like \phoros\, strkjv@Romans:13:7|) and also the capitation tax on persons, indirect and direct taxation. \Kˆnsos\ is the Latin _census_, a registration for the purpose of the appraisement of property like \hˆ apographˆ\ in strkjv@Luke:2:2; strkjv@Acts:5:37|...the Son of God claims exemption...

rwp@Matthew:19:20 @{What lack I yet?} (\ti eti huster“?\)...a psychological paradox. He claims to...(a series of acts) and not qualitative (of the nature of God). Did his question reveal proud complacency or pathetic despair? A bit of both most likely.

rwp@Matthew:24:5 @{In my name} (\epi t“i onomati mou\)...arrogate to themselves false claims of...(on the basis of) the name of Christ himself. Josephus (_Wars_ VI, 54) gives there false Christs as one of the reasons for the explosion against Rome that led to the city's destruction. Each new hero was welcomed by the masses including Barcochba. "I am the Messiah," each would say. Forty odd years ago two men in Illinois claimed to be Messiah, each with followers (Schlatter, Schweinfurth)...and Mrs. Eddy made claims about...

rwp@Matthew:26:63 @{Held his peace} (\esi“pa\). Kept silent, imperfect tense. Jesus refused to answer the bluster of Caiaphas. {I adjure thee by the living God} (\exorkiz“ se kata tou theou tou z“ntos\)...makes is that Jesus claims to...

rwp@Matthew:26:64 @{Thou hast said} (\su eipas\). This is a Greek affirmative reply. Mark (Mark:14:62|) has it plainly, "I am" (\eimi\)...said to Caiaphas. He claims that...7:13| and strkjv@Psalms:109:1|. It was all that Caiaphas wanted.

rwp@Matthew:26:68 @{Thou Christ} (\Christe\)...definite sneer at his claims under...26:63|. With uncontrolled glee and abandon like a lot of hoodlums these doctors of divinity insulted Jesus. They actually spat in his face, buffeted him on the neck (\ekolaphisan\, from \kolaphos\ the fist), and struck him in the face with the palms of their hands (\erapisan\, from \rapis\, a rod), all personal indignities after the legal injustice already done. They thus gave vent to their spite and hatred.

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 \aphiˆmi\ forms. {The woman Jezebel} (\tˆn 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} (\hˆ legousa heautˆn prophˆtin\). Nominative articular participle of \leg“\ in apposition with the accusative \gunaika\ like \ho martus\ in apposition with \Antipas\ in strkjv@2:13|. \Prophˆtis\ is an old word, feminine form for \prophˆtˆs\, 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 planƒi\). A resolution of the participles (\didaskousa kai plan“sa\) into finite verbs (present active indicatives) as in strkjv@1:5f|...false one with loud claims and...-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:22:8 @{And I John} (\Kag“ I“annˆs\). Here John the Seer is the speaker. He had already given his name (1:1,4,9|). Here he claims to be the "one who hears and sees these things" (\ho akou“n kai blep“n tauta\). {I fell down to worship} (\epesa proskunˆsai\). Second aorist active indicative of \pipt“\ (with \-a\ form) and the first aorist active infinitive of purpose of \proskune“\. It was a natural, though a wrong, thing to do, especially after Christ's own voice followed that of the angel "which shewed me these things" (\tou deiknuontos tauta\). Genitive singular of the articular present active participle of \deiknu“\. Cf. strkjv@1:1; strkjv@4:1; strkjv@17:1; strkjv@21:9f.; strkjv@22:1,6|.

rwp@Info_Revelation @...APOCALYPTIC STYLE The book claims to...(Revelation:1:1|) and has to be treated as such. It is an unveiling (\apokalupsis\, from \apokalupt“\) or revelation of Jesus Christ, a prophecy, in other words, of a special type, like Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel in the Old Testament. There was a considerable Jewish apocalyptic literature by this time when John wrote, much of it B.C., some of it A.D., like the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Book of Jubilees, the Assumption of Moses, the Psalms of Solomon, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Sibylline Oracles, some of them evidently "worked over by Christian hands" (Swete). Jesus himself used the apocalyptic style at times (Mark:13; strkjv@Matthew:24,25; strkjv@Luke:21|). Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:14| spoke of the unpremeditated apocalyptic utterances in the Christian meetings and suggested restraints concerning them. "The Revelation of John is the only written apocalypse, as it is the only written prophecy of the Apostolic age.... The first Christian apocalypse came on the crest of this long wave of apocalyptic effort" (Swete). The reason for this style of writing is usually severe persecution and the desire to deliver a message in symbolic form. The effort of Antiochus Epiphanes, who claimed to be "a god manifest," to hellenize the Jews aroused violent opposition and occasioned many apocalypses to cheer the persecuted Jews.

rwp@Info_Revelation @...fact that the author claims to...(3 1/2, 7, 3, 4, 12, 24, 1000) cannot be pressed, though some do so. Even Harnack called the Apocalypse the plainest book in the New Testament, by using Harnack's key for the symbols.

rwp@Romans:1:4 @{Who was declared} (\tou horisthentos\). Articular participle (first aorist passive) of \horiz“\ for which verb see on ¯Luke:22:22; strkjv@Acts:2:23|. He was the Son of God in his preincarnate state (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6|) and still so after his Incarnation (verse 3|, "of the seed of David"), but it was the Resurrection of the dead (\ex anastase“s nekr“n\, the general resurrection implied by that of Christ)...Son because of his claims about...(cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15|) gave God's seal "with power" (\en dunamei\), "in power," declared so in power (2Corinthians:13:4|). The Resurrection of Christ is the miracle of miracles. "The resurrection only declared him to be what he truly was" (Denney). {According to the spirit of holiness} (\kata pneuma hagi“sunˆs\). Not the Holy Spirit, but a description of Christ ethically as \kata sarka\ describes him physically (Denney). \Hagi“sunˆ\ is rare (1Thessalonians:3:13; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:1| in N.T.), three times in LXX, each time as the attribute of God. "The \pneuma hagi“sunˆs\, though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity or Divine Personality Resided " (Sanday and Headlam). {Jesus Christ our Lord} (\Iˆsou Christou tou kuriou hˆm“n\). These words gather up the total personality of Jesus (his deity and his humanity).

rwp@Romans:1:17 @{For therein} (\gar en aut“i\). In the gospel (verse 16|) of which Paul is not ashamed. {A righteousness of God} (\dikaiosunˆ theou\). Subjective genitive, "a God kind of righteousness," one that each must have and can obtain in no other way save "from faith unto faith" (\ek piste“s eis pistin\), faith the starting point and faith the goal (Lightfoot). {Is revealed} (\apokaluptetai\). It is a revelation from God, this God kind of righteousness, that man unaided could never have conceived or still less attained. In these words we have Paul's statement in his own way of the theme of the Epistle, the content of the gospel as Paul understands it. Every word is important: \s“tˆrian\ (salvation), \euaggelion\ (gospel), \apokaluptetai\ (is revealed), \dikaiosunˆ theou\ (righteousness of God), \pistis\ (faith) and \pisteuonti\ (believing). He grounds his position on strkjv@Habbakkuk:2:4| (quoted also in strkjv@Galatians:3:11|). By "righteousness" we shall see that Paul means both "justification" and "sanctification." It is important to get a clear idea of Paul's use of \dikaiosunˆ\ here for it controls the thought throughout the Epistle. Jesus set up a higher standard of righteousness (\dikaiosunˆ\) in the Sermon on the Mount than the Scribes and Pharisees taught and practised (Matthew:5:20|)...various items. Here Paul claims that...(the righteousness that God has and that he bestows). It is an old word for quality from \dikaios\, a righteous man, and that from \dikˆ\, right or justice (called a goddess in strkjv@Acts:28:4|), and that allied with \deiknumi\, to show, to point out. Other allied words are \dikaio“\, to declare or make \dikaios\ (Romans:3:24,26|), \dikai“ma\, that which is deemed \dikaios\ (sentence or ordinance as in strkjv@1:32; strkjv@2:26; strkjv@8:4|), \dikai“sis\, the act of declaring \dikaios\ (only twice in N.T., strkjv@4:25; strkjv@5:18|). \Dikaiosunˆ\ and \dikaio“\ are easy to render into English, though we use justice in distinction from righteousness and sanctification for the result that comes after justification (the setting one right with God). Paul is consistent and usually clear in his use of these great words.

rwp@Romans:9:21 @{Or hath not the potter a right over the clay?} (\ˆ ouk echei exousian ho kerameus tou pˆlou?\). This question, expecting an affirmative answer, is Paul's reply to the previous one, "Why didst thou make me thus?" \Pˆlos\, old word for clay, is mud or wet clay in strkjv@John:9:6,11,14f|. The old word for potter (\kerameus\) in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:27:7,10|. {Lump} (\phuramatos\). Late word from \phura“\, to mix (clay, dough, etc.). {One part} (\ho men\) {--another} (\ho de\). Regular idiom for contrast (\men--de\) with the old demonstrative \ho\ (this), "this vessel (\skeuos\, old word as in strkjv@Mark:11:16|)...for dishonour." Paul thus claims clearly...(\exousian\, power, right, authority, from \exesti\) to use men (already sinners) for his own purpose.

Seeker Overlay: Off On
Bible:
Bible:
Book:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jul 7 16:39:35 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.11 - GPL3 2009-2020