NONE.filter - rwp harmony:
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 anthrpins sophias logois\). Literally, "not in words taught by human wisdom." The verbal adjective \didaktois\ (from \didask\, to teach) is here passive in idea and is followed by the ablative case of origin or source as in strkjv@John:6:45|, \esontai pantes didaktoi theou\ (from strkjv@Isaiah:54:13|), "They shall all be taught by God." The ablative in Greek, as is well known, has the same form as the genitive, though quite different in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). Songs:then Paul claims the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance (\laloumen\) of the words, "which the Spirit teacheth (\en didaktois pneumatos\), "in words taught by the Spirit" (ablative \pneumatos\ as above). Clearly Paul means that the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance of the revelation extends to the words. No theory of inspiration is here stated, but it is not _mere_ human wisdom. Paul's own Epistles bear eloquent witness to the lofty claim here made. They remain today after nearly nineteen centuries throbbing with the power of the Spirit of God, dynamic with life for the problems of today as when Paul wrote them for the needs of the believers in his time, the greatest epistles of all time, surcharged with the energy of God. {Comparing spiritual things with spiritual} (\pneumatikois pneumatika sunkrinontes\). Each of these words is in dispute. The verb \sunkrin\, originally meant to combine, to join together fitly. In the LXX it means to interpret dreams (Genesis:40:8,22; strkjv@41:12|) possibly by comparison. In the later Greek it may mean to compare as in strkjv@2Corinthians:10:12|. In the papyri Moulton and Milligan (_Vocabulary_) give it only for "decide," probably after comparing. But "comparing," in spite of the translations, does not suit well here. Songs:it is best to follow the original meaning to combine as do Lightfoot and Ellicott. But what gender is \pneumatikois\? Is it masculine or neuter like \pneumatika\? If masculine, the idea would be "interpreting (like LXX) spiritual truths to spiritual persons" or "matching spiritual truths with spiritual persons." This is a possible rendering and makes good sense in harmony with verse 14|. If \pneumatikois\ be taken as neuter plural (associative instrumental case after \sun\ in \sunkrinontes\), the idea most naturally would be, "combining spiritual ideas (\pneumatika\) with spiritual words" (\pneumatikois\). This again makes good sense in harmony with the first part of verse 13|. On the whole this is the most natural way to take it, though various other possibilities exist.
rwp@1Corinthians:3:11 @{Other foundation} (\themelion allon\). The gender of the adjective is here masculine as is shown by \allon\. If neuter, it would be \allo\. It is masculine because Paul has Christ in mind. It is not here \heteron\ a different kind of gospel (\heteron euaggelion\, strkjv@Galatians:1:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4|) which is not another (\allo\, strkjv@Galatians:1:7|) in reality. But another Jesus (2Corinthians:11:4|, \allon Isoun\) is a reflection on the one Lord Jesus. Hence there is no room on the platform with Jesus for another Saviour, whether Buddha, Mahomet, Dowie, Eddy, or what not. Jesus Christ is the one foundation and it is gratuitous impudence for another to assume the role of Foundation. {Than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus} (\para ton keimenon, hos estin Isous Christos\). Literally, "alongside (\para\) the one laid (\keimenon\)," already laid (present middle participle of \keimai\, used here as often as the perfect passive of \tithmi\ in place of \tetheimenon\). Paul scouts the suggestion that one even in the interest of so-called "new thought" will dare to lay beside Jesus another foundation for religion. And yet I have seen an article by a professor in a theological seminary in which he advocates regarding Jesus as a landmark, not as a goal, not as a foundation. Clearly Paul means that on this one true foundation, Jesus Christ, one must build only what is in full harmony with the Foundation which is Jesus Christ. If one accuses Paul of narrowness, it can be replied that the architect has to be narrow in the sense of building here and not there. A broad foundation will be too thin and unstable for a solid and abiding structure. It can be said also that Paul is here merely repeating the claim of Jesus himself on this very subject when he quoted strkjv@Psalms:118:22f.| to the members of the Sanhedrin who challenged his authority (Mark:11:10f.; strkjv@Matthew:21:42-45; strkjv@Luke:20:17f.|). Apostles and prophets go into this temple of God, but Christ Jesus is the chief corner stone (\akrognaios\, strkjv@Ephesians:2:20|). All believers are living stones in this temple (1Peter:2:5|). But there is only one foundation possible.
rwp@1Corinthians:3:20 @{And again} (\kai palin\). Another confirmatory passage from strkjv@Psalms:94:11|. {Reasonings} (\dialogismous\). More than _cogitationes_ (Vulgate), sometimes disputations (Phillipians:2:14|). Paul changes "men" of LXX to wise (\sophn\) in harmony with the Hebrew context. {Vain} (\mataioi\). Useless, foolish, from \mat\, a futile attempt.
rwp@1Corinthians:4:12 @{We toil} (\kopimen\). Common late verb for weariness in toil (Luke:5:5|), {working with our own hands} (\ergazomenoi tais idiais chersin\) instrumental case \chersin\ and not simply for himself but also for Aquila and Priscilla as he explains in strkjv@Acts:20:34|. This personal touch gives colour to the outline. Paul alludes to this fact often (1Thessalonians:2:9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:7|). "Greeks despised manual labour; St. Paul glories in it" (Robertson and Plummer). Cf. Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 317. {Being reviled we bless} (\loidoroumenoi eulogoumen\). Almost the language of Peter about Jesus (1Peter:2:23|) in harmony with the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:5:44; strkjv@Luke:6:27|. {Being persecuted we endure} (\dikomenoi anechometha\). We hold back and do not retaliate. Turn to Paul's other picture of his experiences in the vivid contrasts in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:7-10; strkjv@6:3-10| for an interpretation of his language here.
rwp@1Corinthians:7:21 @{Wast thou called being a bondservant?} (\doulos eklths;\). First aorist passive indicative. Wast thou, a slave, called? {Care not for it} (\m soi melet\). "Let it not be a care to thee." Third person singular (impersonal) of \melei\, old verb with dative \soi\. It was usually a fixed condition and a slave could be a good servant of Christ (Colossians:3:22; strkjv@Ephesians:6:5; strkjv@Titus:2:9|), even with heathen masters. {Use it rather} (\mallon chrsai\). Make use of what? There is no "it" in the Greek. Shall we supply \eleutherii\ (instrumental case after \chrsai\ or \douleii\)? Most naturally \eleutherii\, freedom, from \eleutheros\, just before. In that case \ei kai\ is not taken as although, but \kai\ goes with \dunasai\, "But if thou canst also become free, the rather use your opportunity for freedom." On the whole this is probably Paul's idea and is in full harmony with the general principle above about mixed marriages with the heathen. \Chrsai\ is second person singular aorist middle imperative of \chraomai\, to use, old and common verb.
rwp@1Corinthians:11:2 @{Hold fast the traditions} (\tas paradoseis katechete\). Hold down as in strkjv@15:2|. \Paradosis\ (tradition) from \paradidmi\ (\paredka\, first aorist active indicative) is an old word and merely something handed on from one to another. The thing handed on may be bad as in strkjv@Matthew:15:2f.| (which see) and contrary to the will of God (Mark:7:8f.|) or it may be wholly good as here. There is a constant conflict between the new and the old in science, medicine, law, theology. The obscurantist rejects all the new and holds to the old both true and untrue. New truth must rest upon old truth and is in harmony with it.
rwp@Acts:4:32 @{Of one heart and soul} (\kardia kai psuch mia\). It is not possible to make sharp distinction between heart and soul here (see strkjv@Mark:12:30|), only that there was harmony in thought and affection. But the English translation is curiously unlike the Greek original. "There was one heart and soul (nominative case, not genitive as the English has it) in the multitude (\tou plthous\, subjective genitive) of those who believed." {Not one of them} (\oude heis\). More emphatic than \oudeis\, "not even one." {Common} (\koina\). In the use of their property, not in the possession as Luke proceeds to explain. The word \koinos\ is kin to \sun\ (together with)=\xun\ (Epic) and so \xunos=koinos\. See this word already in strkjv@2:44|. The idea of unclean (Acts:10:15|) is a later development from the original notion of common to all.
rwp@Acts:7:1 @{Are these things so?} (\ei tauta houts echei\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. Songs:he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts:13:16ff.|) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse 51|) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "Songs:Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).
rwp@Acts:12:23 @{Smote him} (\epataxen auton\). Effective aorist active indicative of \patass\, old verb, used already in verse 7| of gentle smiting of the angel of the Lord, here of a severe stroke of affliction. Like Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel:4:30|) pride went before a fall. He was struck down in the very zenith of his glory. {Because} (\anth' hn\). \Anti\ with the genitive of the relative pronoun, "in return for which things." He accepted the impious flattery (Hackett) instead of giving God the glory. He was a nominal Jew. {He was eaten of worms} (\genomenos sklkobrtos\). Ingressive aorist middle participle, "becoming worm-eaten." The compound verbal adjective (\sklx\, worm, \brtos\, eaten, from \bibrsk\) is a late word (II Macc. strkjv@9:9) of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, used also of a tree (Theophrastus), here only in the N.T. The word \sklx\ was used of intestinal worms and Herodotus (IV. 205) describes Pheretima, Queen of Cyrene, as having swarms of worms which ate her flesh while still alive. Josephus (_Ant_. XIX. 8, 2) says that Herod Agrippa lingered for five days and says that the rotting of his flesh produced worms, an item in harmony with the narrative in Luke. Josephus gives further details, one a superstitious sight of an owl sitting on one of the ropes of the awning of the theatre while the people flattered him, an omen of his death to him. Luke puts it simply that God smote him. {Gave up the ghost} (\exepsuxen\). Effective aorist active of \ekpsuch\, to breathe out, late verb, medical term in Hippocrates, in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:5:5,10; strkjv@12:23|. Herod was carried out of the theatre a dying man and lingered only five days.
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} (\estsen hmeran\) First aorist active indicative of \histmi\, 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 hi hrisen\). 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|. \Hi\ (whom) is attracted from the accusative, object of \hrisen\ (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 paraschn\). 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} (\anastsas auton ek nekrn\). First aorist active participle of \anistmi\, 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|). Here Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the address that seemed new and strange to them.
rwp@Acts:20:7 @{Upon the first day of the week} (\en de mii tn sabbatn\). The cardinal \mii\ used here for the ordinal \prti\ (Mark:16:9|) like the Hebrew _ehadh_ as in strkjv@Mark:16:2; strkjv@Matthew:28:1; strkjv@Luke:24:1; strkjv@John:20:1| and in harmony with the _Koin_ idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 671). Either the singular (Mark:16:9|) \sabbatou\ or the plural \sabbaton\ as here was used for the week (sabbath to sabbath). For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week though in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:2| it is implied by the collections stored on that day. In strkjv@Revelation:1:10| the Lord's day seems to be the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the grave. Worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh naturally arose in Gentile churches, though strkjv@John:20:26| seems to mean that from the very start the disciples began to meet on the first (or eighth) day. But liberty was allowed as Paul makes plain in strkjv@Romans:14:5f|. {When we were gathered together} (\sungmenn hmn\). Genitive absolute, perfect passive participle of \sunag\, to gather together, a formal meeting of the disciples. See this verb used for gatherings of disciples in strkjv@Acts:4:31; strkjv@11:26; strkjv@14:27; strkjv@15:6,30; strkjv@19:7,8; strkjv@1Corinthians:5:4|. In strkjv@Hebrews:10:25| the substantive \episunaggn\ is used for the regular gatherings which some were already neglecting. It is impossible for a church to flourish without regular meetings even if they have to meet in the catacombs as became necessary in Rome. In Russia today the Soviets are trying to break up conventicles of Baptists. They probably met on our Saturday evening, the beginning of the first day at sunset. Songs:these Christians began the day (Sunday) with worship. But, since this is a Gentile community, it is quite possible that Luke means our Sunday evening as the time when this meeting occurs, and the language in strkjv@John:20:19| "it being evening on that day the first day of the week" naturally means the evening following the day, not the evening preceding the day. {To break bread} (\klasai arton\). First aorist active infinitive of purpose of \kla\. The language naturally bears the same meaning as in strkjv@2:42|, the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper which usually followed the \Agap\. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:16|. The time came, when the \Agap\ was no longer observed, perhaps because of the abuses noted in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:20ff|. Rackham argues that the absence of the article with bread here and its presence (\ton arton\) in verse 11| shows that the \Agap\ is ] referred to in verse 7| and the Eucharist in verse 11|, but not necessarily so because \ton arton\ may merely refer to \arton\ in verse 7|. At any rate it should be noted that Paul, who conducted this service, was not a member of the church in Troas, but only a visitor. {Discoursed} (\dielegeto\). Imperfect middle because he kept on at length. {Intending} (\mell\). Being about to, on the point of. {On the morrow} (\ti epaurion\). Locative case with \hmeri\ understood after the adverb \epaurion\. If Paul spoke on our Saturday evening, he made the journey on the first day of the week (our Sunday) after sunrise. If he spoke on our Sunday evening, then he left on our Monday morning. {Prolonged his speech} (\Pareteinen ton logon\). Imperfect active (same form as aorist) of \paratein\, old verb to stretch beside or lengthwise, to prolong. Vivid picture of Paul's long sermon which went on and on till midnight (\mechri mesonuktiou\). Paul's purpose to leave early next morning seemed to justify the long discourse. Preachers usually have some excuse for the long sermon which is not always clear to the exhausted audience.
rwp@Acts:21:26 @{Took the men} (\paralabn tous andras\). The very phrase used in verse 24| to Paul. {The next day} (\ti echomeni\). One of the phrases in strkjv@20:15| for the coming day. Locative case of time. {Purifying himself with them} (\sun autois hagnistheis\, first aorist passive participle of \hagniz\). The precise language again of the recommendation in verse 24|. Paul was conforming to the letter. {Went into the temple} (\eisiei eis to hieron\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\ as in verse 18| which see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined the four men in their vow of separation. {Declaring} (\diaggelln\). To the priests what day he would report the fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:11:17| (quotation from the LXX). It is not necessary to assume that the vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham). {Until the offering was offered for every one of them} (\hes hou prosnechth huper henos hekastou autn h prosphora\). This use of \hes hou\ (like \hes\, alone) with the first aorist passive indicative \prosnechth\ of \prospher\, to offer, contemplates the final result (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 974f.) and is probably the statement of Luke added to Paul's announcement. He probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:20| when no principle was involved. It is charged that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these "false apostles" over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded by Paul's accusers. Songs:far as the evidence goes that thing was accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea the Judaizers cut no figure at all. The Jewish Christians do not appear in Paul's behalf, but there was no opportunity for them to do so. The explosion that came on the last day of Paul's appearance in the temple was wholly disconnected from his offerings for the four brethren and himself. It must be remembered that Paul had many kinds of enemies. The attack on him by these Jews from Asia had no connexion whatever with the slanders of the Judaizers about Paul's alleged teachings that Jewish Christians in the dispersion should depart from the Mosaic law. That slander was put to rest forever by his following the advice of James and justifies the wisdom of that advice and Paul's conduct about it.
rwp@Acts:25:27 @{Unreasonable} (\alogon\). Old word from \a\ privative and \logos\ (reason, speech). "Without reason" as of animals (Jude:1:10; strkjv@2Peter:2:12|), "contrary to reason" here. These the only N.T. instances and in harmony with ancient usage. {In sending} (\pemponta\). Note accusative case with the infinitive \smnai\ though \moi\ (dative) just before. Cf. same variation in strkjv@15:22f.; strkjv@22:17|. {Signify} (\smnai\). First aorist active infinitive (not \smnai\, the old form) of \smain\, to give a sign (\smeion\). {The charges} (\tas aitias\). This naive confession of Festus reveals how unjust has been his whole treatment of Paul. He had to send along with the appeal of Paul _litterae dimissoriae_ (\apostoli\) which would give a statement of the case (Page).
rwp@Acts:28:25 @{When they agreed not} (\asumphnoi ontes\). Old adjective, only here in N.T., double compound (\a\ privative, \sum, phn\), without symphony, out of harmony, dissonant, discordant. It was a triumph to gain adherents at all in such an audience. {They departed} (\apeluonto\). Imperfect middle (direct) indicative, "They loosed themselves from Paul." Graphic close. {After that Paul had spoken one word} (\eipontos tou Paulou rhma hen\). Genitive absolute. One last word (like a preacher) after the all day exposition. {Well} (\kals\). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:14:7; strkjv@Mark:7:6,9| (irony). Here strong indignation in the very position of the word (Page). {To your fathers} (\pros tous pateras humn\). Songs:Aleph A B instead of \hmn\ (our) like Stephen in strkjv@7:52| whose words Paul had heard. By mentioning the Holy Spirit Paul shows (Knowling) that they are resisting God (7:52|).
rwp@Colossians:1:20 @{Through him} (\di' autou\). As the sufficient and chosen agent in the work of reconciliation (\apokatallaxai\, first aorist active infinitive of \apokatallass\, further addition to \eudoksen\, was pleased). This double compound (\apo, kata\ with \allass\) occurs only here, verse 22; strkjv@Ephesians:2:16|, and nowhere else so far as known. Paul's usual word for "reconcile" is \katallass\ (2Corinthians:5:18-20; strkjv@Romans:5:10|), though \diallass\ (Matthew:5:24|) is more common in Attic. The addition of \apo\ here is clearly for the idea of complete reconciliation. See on ¯2Corinthians:5:18-20| for discussion of \katallass\, Paul's great word. The use of \ta panta\ (the all things, the universe) as if the universe were somehow out of harmony reminds us of the mystical passage in strkjv@Romans:8:19-23| which see for discussion. Sin somehow has put the universe out of joint. Christ will set it right. {Unto himself} (\eis auton\). Unto God, though \auton\ is not reflexive unless written \hauton\. {Having made peace} (\eirnopoisas\). Late and rare compound (Proverbs:10:10| and here only in N.T.) from \eirnopoios\, peacemaker (Matthew:5:9|; here only in N.T.). In strkjv@Ephesians:2:15| we have \poin eirnn\ (separate words) {making peace}. Not the masculine gender, though agreeing with the idea of Christ involved even if \plrma\ be taken as the subject of \eudoksen\, a participial anacoluthon (construction according to sense as in strkjv@2:19|). If \theos\ be taken as the subject of \eudoksen\ the participle \eirnopoisas\ refers to Christ, not to \theos\ (God). {Through the blood of his cross} (\dia tou haimatos tou staurou autou\). This for the benefit of the Docetic Gnostics who denied the real humanity of Jesus and as clearly stating the _causa medians_ (Ellicott) of the work of reconciliation to be the Cross of Christ, a doctrine needed today. {Or things in the heavens} (\eite ta en tois ouranois\). Much needless trouble has been made over this phrase as if things in heaven were not exactly right. It is rather a hypothetical statement like verse 16| not put in categorical form (Abbott), _universitas rerum_ (Ellicott).
rwp@Ephesians:3:19 @{And to know} (\gnnai te\). Second aorist active infinitive with \exischuste\. {Which passeth knowledge} (\tn huperballousan ts gnses\). Ablative case \gnses\ after \huperballousan\ (from \huperball\). All the same Paul dares to scale this peak. {That ye may be filled with all the fulness of God} (\hina plrthte eis pn to plrma tou theou\). Final clause again (third use of \hina\ in the sentence) with first aorist passive subjunctive of \plro\ and the use of \eis\ after it. One hesitates to comment on this sublime climax in Paul's prayer, the ultimate goal for followers of Christ in harmony with the injunction in strkjv@Matthew:5:48| to be perfect (\teleioi\) as our heavenly Father is perfect. There is nothing that any one can add to these words. One can turn to strkjv@Romans:8:29| again for our final likeness to God in Christ.
rwp@Hebrews:1:3 @{Being} (\n\). Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of \eimi\) in contrast with \genomenos\ in verse 4| like \n\ in strkjv@John:1:1| (in contrast with \egeneto\ in strkjv@1:14|) and like \huparchn\ and \genomenos\ in strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {The effulgence of his glory} (\apaugasma ts doxs\). The word \apaugasma\, late substantive from \apaugaz\, to emit brightness (\aug, augaz\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4|), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in strkjv@John:12:45; strkjv@14:9|. "The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos" (Moffatt). The meaning "effulgence" suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (John:1:1|), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6|. {The very image of his substance} (\charaktr ts hupostases\). \Charaktr\ is an old word from \charass\, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending \=tr\) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by \charagma\ (Acts:17:29; strkjv@Revelation:13:16f.|). Menander had already used (Moffatt) \charaktr\ in the sense of our "character." The word occurs in the inscriptions for "person" as well as for "exact reproduction" of a person. The word \hupostasis\ for the being or essence of God "is a philosophical rather than a religious term" (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In strkjv@11:1| \hypostasis\ is like the "title-deed" idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4| in his controversy with Arius. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11| pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul's simpler phrase \morph theou\ (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of \Logos\ in strkjv@John:1:1-18| is parallel to strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4|. {And upholding} (\phern te\). Present active participle of \pher\ closely connected with \n\ (being) by \te\ and like strkjv@Colossians:1:17| in idea. The newer science as expounded by Eddington and Jeans is in harmony with the spiritual and personal conception of creation here presented. {By the word of his power} (\ti rmati ts dunames autou\). Instrumental case of \rma\ (word). See strkjv@11:3| for \rmati theou\ (by the word of God) as the explanation of creation like Genesis, but here \autou\ refers to God's Son as in strkjv@1:2|. {Purification of sins} (\katharismon tn hamartin\). \Katharismos\ is from \kathariz\, to cleanse (Matthew:8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14|), here only in Hebrews, but in same sense of cleansing from sins, strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Job:7:21|. Note middle participle \poisamenos\ like \heuramenos\ in strkjv@9:12|. This is the first mention of the priestly work of Christ, the keynote of this Epistle. {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). First aorist active of \kathiz\, "took his seat," a formal and dignified act. {Of the Majesty on high} (\ts megalosuns en hupslois\). Late word from \megas\, only in LXX (Deuteronomy:32:3; strkjv@2Samuel:7:23|, etc.), Aristeas, strkjv@Hebrews:1:3; strkjv@8:1; strkjv@Jude:1:25|. Christ resumed his original dignity and glory (John:17:5|). The phrase \en hupslois\ occurs in the Psalms (Psalms:93:4|), here only in N.T., elsewhere \en hupsistois\ in the highest (Matthew:21:9; strkjv@Luke:2:14|) or \en tois epouraniois\ in the heavenlies (Ephesians:1:3,20|). Jesus is here pictured as King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.
rwp@Hebrews:2:10 @{It became him} (\eprepen auti\). Imperfect active of \prep\, old verb to stand out, to be becoming or seemly. Here it is impersonal with \teleisai\ as subject, though personal in strkjv@Hebrews:7:26|. \Auti\ (him) is in the dative case and refers to God, not to Christ as is made plain by \ton archgon\ (author). One has only to recall strkjv@John:3:16| to get the idea here. The voluntary humiliation or incarnation of Christ the Son a little lower than the angels was a seemly thing to God the Father as the writer now shows in a great passage (2:10-18|) worthy to go beside strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {For whom} (\di' hon\). Referring to \auti\ (God) as the reason (cause) for the universe (\ta panta\). {Through whom} (\di' hou\). With the genitive \dia\ expresses the agent by whom the universe came into existence, a direct repudiation of the Gnostic view of intermediate agencies (aeons) between God and the creation of the universe. Paul puts it succinctly in strkjv@Romans:11:36| by his \ex autou kai di' autou kai eis auton ta panta\. The universe comes out of God, by means of God, for God. This writer has already said that God used his Son as the Agent (\di' hou\) in creation (1:2|), a doctrine in harmony with strkjv@Colossians:1:15f.| (\en auti, di' autou eis auton\) and strkjv@John:1:3|. {In bringing} (\agagonta\). Second aorist active participle of \ag\ in the accusative case in spite of the dative \auti\ just before to which it refers. {The author} (\ton archgon\). Old compound word (\arch\ and \ag\) one leading off, leader or prince as in strkjv@Acts:5:31|, one blazing the way, a pioneer (Dods) in faith (Hebrews:12:2|), author (Acts:3:15|). Either sense suits here, though author best (verse 9|). Jesus is the author of salvation, the leader of the sons of God, the Elder Brother of us all (Romans:8:29|). {To make perfect} (\teleisai\). First aorist active infinitive of \teleio\ (from \teleios\). If one recoils at the idea of God making Christ perfect, he should bear in mind that it is the humanity of Jesus that is under discussion. The writer does not say that Jesus was sinful (see the opposite in strkjv@4:15|), but simply that "by means of sufferings" God perfected his Son in his human life and death for his task as Redeemer and Saviour. One cannot know human life without living it. There was no moral imperfection in Jesus, but he lived his human life in order to be able to be a sympathizing and effective leader in the work of salvation.
rwp@Hebrews:2:11 @{He that sanctifieth} (\ho hagiazn\). Present active articular participle of \hagiaz\. Jesus is the sanctifier (9:13f.; strkjv@13:12|). {They that are sanctified} (\hoi hagiazomenoi\). Present passive articular participle of \hagiaz\. It is a process here as in strkjv@10:14|, not a single act, though in strkjv@10:10| the perfect passive indicative presents a completed state. {Of one} (\ex henos\). Referring to God as the Father of Jesus and of the "many sons" above (verse 10|) and in harmony with verse 14| below. Even before the incarnation Jesus had a kinship with men though we are not sons in the full sense that he is. {He is not ashamed} (\ouk epaischunetai\). Present passive indicative of \epaischunomai\, old compound (Romans:1:16|). Because of the common Father Jesus is not ashamed to own us as "brothers" (\adelphous\), unworthy sons though we be.
rwp@Hebrews:4:10 @{As God did from his} (\hsper apo tn idin ho theos\). It is not cessation of work, but rather of the weariness and pain in toil. The writer pictures salvation as God's rest which man is to share and God will have perfect satisfaction when man is in harmony with him (Dods).
rwp@Hebrews:5:8 @{Though he was a Son} (\kaiper n huios\). Concessive participle with \kaiper\, regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@7:5; strkjv@12:17|. {Yet learned obedience} (\emathen hupakon\). Second aorist active indicative of \manthan\. Succinct and crisp statement of the humanity of Jesus in full harmony with strkjv@Luke:2:40,52| and with strkjv@Hebrews:2:10|. {By the things which he suffered} (\aph' hn epathen\). There is a play on the two verbs (\emathen--epathen\), paronomasia. Second aorist active indicative of \pasch\. He always did his Father's will (John:8:29|), but he grew in experience as in wisdom and stature and in the power of sympathy with us.
rwp@James:4:2 @{Ye lust} (\epithumeite\). Present active indicative of \epithume\, old word (from \epi, thumos\, yearning passion for), not necessarily evil as clearly not in strkjv@Luke:22:15| of Christ, but usually so in the N.T., as here. Coveting what a man or nation does not have is the cause of war according to James. {Ye kill and covet} (\phoneuete kai zloute\). Present active indicatives of \phoneu\ (old verb from \phoneus\, murderer) and \zlo\, to desire hotly to possess (1Corinthians:12:31|). It is possible (perhaps probable) that a full stop should come after \phoneuete\ (ye kill) as the result of lusting and not having. Then we have the second situation: "Ye covet and cannot obtain (\epituchein\, second aorist active infinitive of \epitugchan\), and (as a result) ye fight and war." This punctuation makes better sense than any other and is in harmony with verse 1|. Thus also the anticlimax in \phoneuete\ and \zloute\ is avoided. Mayor makes the words a hendiadys, "ye murderously envy." {Ye have not, because ye ask not} (\ouk echete dia to m aiteisthai humas\). James refers again to \ouk echete\ (ye do not have) in verse 2|. Such sinful lusting will not obtain. "Make the service of God your supreme end, and then your desires will be such as God can fulfil in answer to your prayer" (Ropes). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:6:31-33|. The reason here is expressed by \dia\ and the accusative of the articular present middle infinitive of \aite\, used here of prayer to God as in strkjv@Matthew:7:7f|. \Hums\ (you) is the accusative of general reference. Note the middle voice here as in \aiteisthe\ in 3|. Mayor argues that the middle here, in contrast with the active, carries more the spirit of prayer, but Moulton (_Prol_., p. 160) regards the distinction between \aite\ and \aiteomai\ often "an extinct subtlety."
rwp@James:4:4 @{Ye adulteresses} (\moichalides\). \Moichoi kai\ (ye adulterers) is spurious (Syrian text only). The feminine form here is a common late word from the masculine \moichoi\. It is not clear whether the word is to be taken literally here as in strkjv@Romans:7:3|, or figuratively for all unfaithful followers of Christ (like an unfaithful bride), as in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:1f.; strkjv@Ephesians:5:24-28| (the Bride of Christ). Either view makes sense in this context, probably the literal view being more in harmony with the language of verses 2f|. In that case James may include more than Christians in his view, though Paul talks plainly to church members about unchastity (Ephesians:5:3-5|). {Enmity with God} (\echthra tou theou\). Objective genitive \theou\ with \echthra\ (predicate and so without article), old word from \echthros\, enemy (Romans:5:10|), with \eis theon\ (below and strkjv@Romans:8:7|). {Whosoever therefore would be} (\hos ean oun boulthi\). Indefinite relative clause with \hos\ and modal \ean\ and the first aorist passive (deponent) subjunctive of \boulomai\, to will (purpose). {A friend of the world} (\philos tou kosmou\). Predicate nominative with infinitive \einai\ agreeing with \hos\. See strkjv@2:23| for \philos theou\ (friend of God). {Maketh himself} (\kathistatai\). Present passive (not middle) indicative as in strkjv@3:6|, "is constituted," "is rendered." {An enemy of God} (\echthros tou theou\). Predicate nominative and anarthrous and objective genitive (\theou\).
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| which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in strkjv@Matthew: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_ (1910).
rwp@John:1:18 @{No man hath seen God at any time} (\theon oudeis heraken ppote\). "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 monogens huios\). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after \hs monogenous para patros\ in verse 14|. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read \monogens theos\ (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to \ho monogens 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 \monogens\. 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 ti ourani\ 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} (\exgsato\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \exgeomai\, 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:3:5 @{Of water and the Spirit} (\ex hudatos kai pneumatos\). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah. Why does Jesus add \ex hudatos\ here? In verse 3| we have "\anthen\" (from above) which is repeated in verse 7|, while in verse 8| we have only \ek tou pneumatos\ (of the Spirit) in the best manuscripts. Many theories exist. One view makes baptism, referred to by \ex hudatos\ (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus (3,5,7|)? Calvin makes water and Spirit refer to the one act (the cleansing work of the Spirit). Some insist on the language in verse 6| as meaning the birth of the flesh coming in a sac of water in contrast to the birth of the Spirit. One wonders after all what was the precise purpose of Jesus with Nicodemus, the Pharisaic ceremonialist, who had failed to grasp the idea of spiritual birth which is a commonplace to us. By using water (the symbol before the thing signified) first and adding Spirit, he may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit. That is to say the mention of "water" here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism. Bernard holds that the words \hudatos kai\ (water and) do not belong to the words of Jesus, but "are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation." Here Jesus uses \eiselthein\ (enter) instead of \idein\ (see) of verse 3|, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom).
rwp@John:7:17 @{If any man willeth to do} (\ean tis theli poiein\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and present active subjunctive \theli\ not used as a mere auxiliary verb for the future "will do," but with full force of \thel\, to will, to wish. See the same use of \thel\ in strkjv@5:40| "and yet ye are not willing to come" (\kai ou thelete elthein\). {He shall know} (\gnsetai\). Future middle indicative of \ginsk\. Experimental knowledge from willingness to do God's will. See this same point by Jesus in strkjv@5:46; strkjv@18:37|. There must be moral harmony between man's purpose and God's will. "If there be no sympathy there can be no understanding" (Westcott). Atheists of all types have no point of contact for approach to the knowledge of Christ. This fact does not prove the non-existence of God, but simply their own isolation. They are out of tune with the Infinite. For those who love God it is also true that obedience to God's will brings richer knowledge of God. Agnostic and atheistic critics are disqualified by Jesus as witnesses to his claims. {Of God} (\ek tou theou\). Out of God as source. {From myself} (\ap' emautou\). Instead of from God.
rwp@John:8:29 @{Is with me} (\met' emou estin\). The Incarnation brought separation from the Father in one sense, but in essence there is complete harmony and fellowship as he had already said (8:16|) and will expand in strkjv@17:21-26|. {He hath not left me alone} (\ouk aphken me monon\). First aorist active indicative of \aphimi\. "He did not leave me alone." However much the crowds and the disciples misunderstood or left Jesus, the Father always comforted and understood him (Mark:6:46; strkjv@Matthew:14:23; strkjv@John:6:15|). {That are pleasing to him} (\ta aresta auti\). This old verbal adjective, from \aresk\, to please, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:6:2; strkjv@12:3; strkjv@1John:3:32|. The joy of Jesus was in doing the will of the Father who sent him (4:34|).
rwp@John:13:1 @{Now before the feast of the passover} (\pro de ts heorts tou pascha\). Just before, John means, not twenty-four hours before, that is our Thursday evening (beginning of 15th of Nisan, sunset to sunset Jewish day), since Jesus was crucified on Friday 15th of Nisan. Hence Jesus ate the regular passover meal at the usual time. The whole feast, including the feast of unleavened bread, lasted eight days. For a discussion of the objections to this interpretation of John in connexion with the Synoptic Gospels one may consult my _Harmony of the Gospels_, pp. 279-84, and David Smith's _In the Days of His Flesh_, Appendix VIII. The passover feast began on the 15th Nisan at sunset, the passover lamb being slain the afternoon of 14th Nisan. There seems no real doubt that this meal in strkjv@John:13:1-30| is the real passover meal described by the Synoptics also (Mark:14:18-21; strkjv@Matthew:26:21-25; strkjv@Luke:22:21-23|), followed by the institution of the Lord's Supper. Thus understood verse 1| here serves as an introduction to the great esoteric teaching of Christ to the apostles (John:13:2-17:26|), called by Barnas Sears _The Heart of Christ_. This phrase goes with the principal verb \gapsen\ (loved). {Knowing} (\eids\). Second perfect active participle, emphasizing the full consciousness of Christ. He was not stumbling into the dark as he faced "his hour" (\autou h hra\). See strkjv@18:4; strkjv@19:28| for other examples of the insight and foresight (Bernard) of Jesus concerning his death. See on strkjv@12:23| for use before by Jesus. {That he should depart} (\hina metabi\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \metabain\, old word, to go from one place to another, here (5:24; strkjv@1John:3:14|) to go from this world (8:23|) back to the Father from whom he had come (14:12,28; strkjv@16:10,28; strkjv@17:5|). {His own which were in the world} (\tous idious tous en ti kosmi\). His own disciples (17:6,9,11|), those left in the world when he goes to the Father, not the Jews as in strkjv@1:11|. See strkjv@Acts:4:23; strkjv@1Timothy:5:8| for the idiom. John pictures here the outgoing of Christ's very heart's love (chs. strkjv@John:13-17|) towards these men whom he had chosen and whom he loved "unto the end" (\eis telos\) as in strkjv@Matthew:10:22; strkjv@Luke:18:15|, but here as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:16| rather "to the uttermost." The culmination of the crisis ("his hour") naturally drew out the fulness of Christ's love for them as is shown in these great chapters (John:13-17|).
rwp@John:15:7 @{Ask whatsoever ye will} (\ho ean thelte aitsasthe\). Indefinite relative with \ean\ and present active subjunctive of \thel\, to wish, to will, and aorist middle imperative of \aite\, to ask. This astounding command and promise (\gensetai\, future middle of \ginomai\, it will come to pass) is not without conditions and limitations. It involves such intimate union and harmony with Christ that nothing will be asked out of accord with the mind of Christ and so of the Father. Christ's name is mentioned in strkjv@15:16|; cf. strkjv@14:13; strkjv@16:23|.
rwp@John:17:11 @{And these} (\kai houtoi\ or \autoi\, they). Note adversative use of \kai\ (= but these). {I come} (\erehomai\). Futuristic present, "I am coming." Cf. strkjv@13:3; strkjv@14:12; strkjv@17:13|. Christ will no longer be visibly present to the world, but he will be with the believers through the Holy Spirit (Matthew:28:20|). {Holy Father} (\pater hagie\). Only here in the N.T., but see strkjv@1John:2:20; strkjv@Luke:1:49| for the holiness of God, a thoroughly Jewish conception. See strkjv@John:6:69| where Peter calls Jesus \ho hagios tou theou\. For the word applied to saints see strkjv@Acts:9:13|. See verse 25| for \patr dikaie\ (Righteous Father). {Keep them} (\trson autous\). First aorist (constative) active imperative of \tre\, as now specially needing the Father's care with Jesus gone (urgency of the aorist tense in prayer). {Which} (\hi\). Locative case of the neuter relative singular, attracted from the accusative \ho\ to the case of the antecedent \onomati\ (name). {That they may be one} (\hina sin hen\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the present active subjunctive of \eimi\ (that they may keep on being). Oneness of will and spirit (\hen\, neuter singular), not one person (\heis\, masculine singular) for which Christ does not pray. Each time Jesus uses \hen\ (verses 11,21,22|) and once, \eis hen\, "into one" (verse 23|). This is Christ's prayer for all believers, for unity, not for organic union of which we hear so much. The disciples had union, but lacked unity or oneness of spirit as was shown this very evening at the supper (Luke:22:24; strkjv@John:13:4-15|). Jesus offers the unity in the Trinity (three persons, but one God) as the model for believers. The witness of the disciples will fail without harmony (17:21|).
rwp@John:18:28 @{They lead} (\agousin\). Dramatic historical present of \ag\, plural "they" for the Sanhedrists (Luke:23:1|). John gives no details of the trial before the Sanhedrin (only the fact, strkjv@John:18:24,28|) when Caiaphas presided, either the informal meeting at night (Mark:14:53,55-65; strkjv@Matthew:26:57,59-68; strkjv@Luke:22:54,63-65|) or the formal ratification meeting after dawn (Mark:15:1; strkjv@Matthew:27:1; strkjv@Luke:22:66-71|), but he gives much new material of the trial before Pilate (18:28-38|). {Into the palace} (\eis to praitrion\). For the history and meaning of this interesting Latin word, _praetorium_, see on ¯Matthew:27:27; strkjv@Acts:23:35; strkjv@Phillipians:1:13|. Here it is probably the magnificent palace in Jerusalem built by Herod the Great for himself and occupied by the Roman Procurator (governor) when in the city. There was also one in Caesarea (Acts:23:35|). Herod's palace in Jerusalem was on the Hill of Zion in the western part of the upper city. There is something to be said for the Castle of Antonia, north of the temple area, as the location of Pilate's residence in Jerusalem. {Early} (\pri\). Technically the fourth watch (3 A.M. to 6 A.M.). There were two violations of Jewish legal procedure (holding the trial for a capital case at night, passing condemnation on the same day of the trial). Besides, the Sanhedrin no longer had the power of death. A Roman court could meet any time after sunrise. John (19:14|) says it was "about the sixth hour" when Pilate condemned Jesus. {That they might not be defiled} (\hina m mianthsin\). Purpose clause with \hina m\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \miain\, to stain, to defile. For Jewish scruples about entering the house of a Gentile see strkjv@Acts:10:28; strkjv@11:3|. {But might eat the passover} (\alla phagsin to pascha\). Second aorist active subjunctive of the defective verb \esthi\, to eat. This phrase may mean to eat the passover meal as in strkjv@Matthew:27:17| (Mark:14:12,14; strkjv@Luke:22:11,15|), but it does not have to mean that. In strkjv@2Chronicles:30:22| we read: "And they did eat the festival seven days" when the paschal festival is meant, not the paschal lamb or the paschal supper. There are eight other examples of \pascha\ in John's Gospel and in all of them the feast is meant, not the supper. If we follow John's use of the word, it is the feast here, not the meal of strkjv@John:13:2| which was the regular passover meal. This interpretation keeps John in harmony with the Synoptics.
rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.
rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Isous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\n hsei etn triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\n huios hs enomizeto Isph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\hs enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.
rwp@Luke:5:5 @{Master} (\epistata\). Used only by Luke in the N.T. and always in addresses to Christ (8:24,45; strkjv@9:33,49; strkjv@17:13|). Common in the older writers for superintendent or overseer (one standing over another). This word recognizes Christ's authority. {We toiled} (\kopiasantes\). This verb is from \kopos\ (\work, toil\) and occurs from Aristophanes on. It used to be said that the notion of weariness in toil appears only in the LXX and the N.T. But Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 312f.) cites examples from inscriptions on tombstones quite in harmony with the use in the N.T. Peter's protest calls attention also to the whole night of fruitless toil. {But at thy word} (\epi de ti rhmati sou\). On the base of \epi\. Acquiescence to show his obedience to Christ as "Master," but with no confidence whatsoever in the wisdom of this particular command. Besides, fishing in this lake was Peter's business and he really claimed superior knowledge on this occasion to that of Jesus.
rwp@Luke:13:1 @{At that very season} (\en auti ti kairi\). Luke's frequent idiom, "at the season itself." Apparently in close connexion with the preceding discourses. Probably "were present" (\parsan\, imperfect of \pareimi\) means "came," "stepped to his side," as often (Matthew:26:50; strkjv@Acts:12:20; strkjv@John:11:28|). These people had a piece of news for Jesus. {Whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices} (\hn to haima Peilatos emixen meta tn thusin autn\). The verb \emixen\ is first aorist active (not past perfect) of \mignumi\, a common verb. The incident is recorded nowhere else, but is in entire harmony with Pilate's record for outrages. These Galileans at a feast in Jerusalem may have been involved in some insurrection against the Roman government, the leaders of whom Pilate had slain right in the temple courts where the sacrifices were going on. Jesus comments on the incident, but not as the reporters had expected. Instead of denunciation of Pilate he turned it into a parable for their own conduct in the uncertainty of life.
rwp@Luke:15:25 @{As he came and drew nigh} (\hs erchomenos ggisen\). More exactly, "As, coming, he drew nigh," for \erchomenos\ is present middle participle and \ggisen\ is aorist active indicative. {Music} (\sumphnias\). Our word "symphony." An old Greek word from \sumphnos\ (\sun\, together, and \phn\, voice or sound), {harmony, concord}, by a band of musicians. Here alone in the N.T. {And dancing} (\kai chorn\). An old word again, but here alone in the N.T. Origin uncertain, possibly from \orchos\ by metathesis (\orcheomai\, to dance). A circular dance on the green.
rwp@Luke:22:7 @{The day of unleavened bread came} (\lthen h hmera tn azumn\). The day itself came, not simply was drawing nigh (verse 1|). {Must be sacrificed} (\edei thuesthai\). This was Nisan 14 which began at sunset. Luke is a Gentile and this fact must be borne in mind. The lamb must be slain by the head of the family (Exodus:12:6|). The controversy about the day when Christ ate the last passover meal has already been discussed (Matthew:26:17; strkjv@Mark:14:12|). The Synoptics clearly present this as a fact. Jesus was then crucified on Friday at the passover or Thursday (our time) at the regular hour 6 P.M. (beginning of Friday). The five passages in John (13:1f.; strkjv@13:27; strkjv@18:28; strkjv@19:14; strkjv@19:31|) rightly interpreted teach the same thing as shown in my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_ (pp.279-284).
rwp@Info_Mark @ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark's Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that A.D. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_. Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark's Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q (_Logia of Jesus_) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark's work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter (_The Four Gospels_) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter's own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|).
rwp@Info_Mark @ The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, strkjv@Mark:16:9-20|, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as strkjv@Mark:16:9-20| is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_. The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my _Harmony of the Gospels_ I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark's Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter's eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men's bodies and saving men's souls. strkjv@Mark:1:1 @{The beginning} (\arch\). There is no article in the Greek. It is possible that the phrase served as a heading or title for the paragraph about the ministry of the Baptist or as the superscription for the whole Gospel (Bruce) placed either by Mark or a scribe. And then the Gospel of Jesus Christ means the Message about Jesus Christ (objective genitive). The word Gospel here (\euaggelion\) comes close to meaning the record itself as told by Mark. Swete notes that each writer has a different starting point (\arch\). Mark, as the earliest form of the evangelic tradition, begins with the work of the Baptist, Matthew with the ancestry and birth of the Messiah, Luke with the birth of the Baptist, John with the Preincarnate Logos, Paul with the foundation of each of the churches (Phillipians:4:15|). {The Son of God} (\Huiou theou\). Aleph 28, 255 omit these words, but B, D, L, have them and the great mass of the manuscripts have \huiou tou theou\. If this is a heading added to what Mark wrote, the heading may have existed early in two forms, one with, one without "Son of God." If Mark wrote the words, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness since he uses the phrase elsewhere.
rwp@Mark:3:14 @{He appointed twelve} (\epoisen ddeka\). This was a second selection out of those invited to the hills and after the night of prayer and after day came (Luke:6:13|). Why he chose twelve we are not told, probably because there were twelve tribes in Israel. It was a good round number at any rate. They were to be princes in the new Israel (cf. strkjv@Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30; strkjv@Revelation:21:14,15|). Luke (Luke:6:13-16|) also gives the list of the twelve at this point while Matthew (Matthew:10:1-4|) postpones giving the names till they are sent out in Galilee. There is a fourth list in strkjv@Acts:1:13|. See discussion of the names of the apostles on ¯Matthew:10:1-4| and pp. 271-3 of my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_. The three groups of four begin alike (Simon, Philip, James). There are some difficulties. {Whom he also named apostles} (\hous kai apostolous nomasen\). Margin of Revised Version, the text of Westcott and Hort after Aleph, B, C, etc. Genuine in strkjv@Luke:6:13| and probably so here. The meaning is that Jesus himself gave the name apostle or missionary (\apostell\, to send) to this group of twelve. The word is applied in the New Testament to others besides as delegates or messengers of churches (2Corinthians:8:23; strkjv@Phillipians:2:25|), and messenger (John:13:16|). It is applied also to Paul on a par with the twelve (Galatians:1:1,11f.|, etc.) and also to Barnabas (Acts:14:14|), and perhaps also to Timothy and Silas (1Timothy:2:6f.|). Two purposes of Jesus are mentioned by Mark in the choice of these twelve, {that they might be with him} (\hina sin met' autou\), {and that he might send them forth} (\kai hina apostelli autous\). They were not ready to be sent forth till they had been with Jesus for some time. This is one of the chief tasks of Christ to train this group of men. See Bruce's _The Training of the Twelve_. The very word \apostolos\ is from \apostell\. There were two purposes in sending them forth expressed by two infinitives, one to preach (\krussein\, from \krux\, herald), the other to have power to cast out demons (\echein exousian ekballein ta daimonia\). This double ministry of preaching and healing was to mark their work. The two things are, however, different, and one does not necessarily involve the other.
rwp@Mark:6:7 @{By two and two} (\duo duo\). This repetition of the numeral instead of the use of \ana duo\ or \kata duo\ is usually called a Hebraism. The Hebrew does have this idiom, but it appears in Aeschylus and Sophocles, in the vernacular _Koin_ (Oxyrhynchus Papyri No. 121), in Byzantine Greek, and in modern Greek (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 122f.). Mark preserves the vernacular _Koin_ better than the other Gospels and this detail suits his vivid style. The six pairs of apostles could thus cover Galilee in six different directions. Mark notes that he "began to send them forth" (\rxato autous apostellein\). Aorist tense and present infinitive. This may refer simply to this particular occasion in Mark's picturesque way. But the imperfect tense \edidou\ means he kept on giving them all through the tour, a continuous power (authority) over unclean spirits singled out by Mark as representing "all manner of diseases and all manner of sickness" (Matthew:10:1|), "to cure diseases" (\iasthai\, strkjv@Luke:9:1|), healing power. They were to preach and to heal (Luke:9:1; strkjv@Matthew:10:7|). Mark does not mention preaching as a definite part of the commission to the twelve on this their first preaching tour, but he does state that they did preach (6:12|). They were to be missioners or missionaries (\apostellein\) in harmony with their office (\apostoloi\).
rwp@Mark:14:1 @{After two days} (\meta duo hmeras\). This was Tuesday evening as we count time (beginning of the Jewish Wednesday). In strkjv@Matthew:26:2| Jesus is reported as naming this same date which would put it our Thursday evening, beginning of the Jewish Friday. The Gospel of John mentions five items that superficially considered seem to contradict this definite date in Mark and Matthew, but which are really in harmony with them. See discussion on strkjv@Matthew:26:17| and my {Harmony of the Gospels}, pp. 279 to 284. Mark calls it here the feast of "the passover and the unleavened bread," both names covering the eight days. Sometimes "passover" is applied to only the first day, sometimes to the whole period. No sharp distinction in usage was observed. {Sought} (\eztoun\). Imperfect tense. They were still at it, though prevented so far.
rwp@Mark:16:2 @{When the sun was risen} (\anateilantos tou hliou\). Genitive absolute, aorist participle, though some manuscripts read \anatellontos\, present participle. strkjv@Luke:24:1| has it "at early dawn" (\orthrou batheos\) and strkjv@John:20:1| "while it was yet dark." It was some two miles from Bethany to the tomb. Mark himself gives both notes of time, "very early" (\lian pri\), "when the sun was risen." Probably they started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb. All three mention that it was on the first day of the week, our Sunday morning when the women arrive. The body of Jesus was buried late on Friday before the sabbath (our Saturday) which began at sunset. This is made clear as a bell by strkjv@Luke:23:54| "and the sabbath drew on." The women rested on the sabbath (Luke strkjv@23:56|). This visit of the women was in the early morning of our Sunday, the first day of the week. Some people are greatly disturbed over the fact that Jesus did not remain in the grave full seventy-two hours. But he repeatedly said that he would rise on the third day and that is precisely what happened. He was buried on Friday afternoon. He was risen on Sunday morning. If he had really remained in the tomb full three days and then had risen after that, it would have been on the fourth day, not on the third day. The occasional phrase "after three days" is merely a vernacular idiom common in all languages and not meant to be exact and precise like "on the third day." We can readily understand "after three days" in the sense of "on the third day." It is impossible to understand "on the third day" to be "on the fourth day." See my _Harmony of the Gospels_, pp. 289-91.
rwp@Matthew:5:1 @{He went up into the mountain} (\aneb eis to oros\). Not "a" mountain as the Authorized Version has it. The Greek article is poorly handled in most English versions. We do not know what mountain it was. It was the one there where Jesus and the crowds were. "Delitzsch calls the Mount of Beatitudes the Sinai of the New Testament" (Vincent). He apparently went up to get in closer contact with the disciples, "seeing the multitudes." Luke (Luke:6:12|) says that he went out into the mountain to pray, Mark (Mark:3:13|) that he went up and called the twelve. All three purposes are true. Luke adds that after a whole night in prayer and after the choice of the twelve Jesus came down to a level place on the mountain and spoke to the multitudes from Judea to Phoenicia. The crowds are great in both Matthew and in Luke and include disciples and the other crowds. There is no real difficulty in considering the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke as one and the same. See full discussion in my _Harmony of the Gospels_.
rwp@Matthew:13:3 @{Many things in parables} (\polla en parabolais\). It was not the first time that Jesus had used parables, but the first time that he had spoken so many and some of such length. He will use a great many in the future as in Luke 12 to 18 and Matt. 24 and 25. The parables already mentioned in Matthew include the salt and the light (5:13-16|), the birds and the lilies (6:26-30|), the splinter and the beam in the eye (7:3-5|), the two gates (7:13f.|), the wolves in sheep's clothing (7:15|), the good and bad trees (7:17-19|), the wise and foolish builders (7:24-27|), the garment and the wineskins (9:16f.|), the children in the market places (11:16f.|). It is not certain how many he spoke on this occasion. Matthew mentions eight in this chapter (the Sower, the Tares, the Mustard Seed, the Leaven, the Hid Treasure, the Pearl of Great Price, the Net, the Householder). Mark adds the Parable of the Lamp (Mark:4:21; strkjv@Luke:8:16|), the Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mark:4:26-29|), making ten of which we know. But both Mark (Mark:4:33|) and Matthew (13:34|) imply that there were many others. "Without a parable spake he nothing unto them" (Matthew:13:34|), on this occasion, we may suppose. The word parable (\parabol\ from \paraball\, to place alongside for measurement or comparison like a yardstick) is an objective illustration for spiritual or moral truth. The word is employed in a variety of ways (a) as for sententious sayings or proverbs (Matthew:15:15; strkjv@Mark:3:23; strkjv@Luke:4:23; strkjv@5:36-39; strkjv@6:39|), for a figure or type (Heb. strkjv@9:9; strkjv@11:19|); (b) a comparison in the form of a narrative, the common use in the Synoptic Gospels like the Sower; (c) "A narrative illustration not involving a comparison" (Broadus), like the Rich Fool, the Good Samaritan, etc. "The oriental genius for picturesque speech found expression in a multitude of such utterances" (McNeile). There are parables in the Old Testament, in the Talmud, in sermons in all ages. But no one has spoken such parables as these of Jesus. They hold the mirror up to nature and, as all illustrations should do, throw light on the truth presented. The fable puts things as they are not in nature, Aesop's Fables, for instance. The parable may not be actual fact, but it could be so. It is harmony with the nature of the case. The allegory (\allgoria\) is a speaking parable that is self-explanatory all along like Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_. All allegories are parables, but not all parables are allegories. The Prodigal Son is an allegory, as is the story of the Vine and Branches (John:15|). John does not use the word parable, but only \paroimia\, a saying by the way (John:10:6; strkjv@16:25,29|). As a rule the parables of Jesus illustrate one main point and the details are more or less incidental, though sometimes Jesus himself explains these. When he does not do so, we should be slow to interpret the minor details. Much heresy has come from fantastic interpretations of the parables. In the case of the Parable of the Sower (13:3-8|) we have also the careful exposition of the story by Jesus (18-23|) as well as the reason for the use of parables on this occasion by Jesus (9-17|).
rwp@Matthew:18:19 @{Shall agree} (\sumphnssin\). Our word "symphony" is this very root. It is no longer looked at as a concord of voices, a chorus in harmony, though that would be very appropriate in a church meeting rather than the rasping discord sometimes heard even between two brethren or sisters. {Of my Father} (\para tou patros mou\). From the side of, "by my Father."
rwp@Matthew:23:9 @{Call no man your father} (\patera m kaleste hmn\). Jesus meant the full sense of this noble word for our heavenly Father. "Abba was not commonly a mode of address to a living person, but a title of honour for Rabbis and great men of the past" (McNeile). In Gethsemane Jesus said: "Abba, Father" (Mark:14:36|). Certainly the ascription of "Father" to pope and priest seems out of harmony with what Jesus here says. He should not be understood to be condemning the title to one's real earthly father. Jesus often leaves the exceptions to be supplied.
rwp@Matthew:26:17 @{To eat the passover} (\phagein to pascha\). There were two feasts rolled into one, the passover feast and the feast of unleavened bread. Either name was employed. Here the passover meal is meant, though in strkjv@John:18:28| it is probable that the passover feast is referred to as the passover meal (the last supper) had already been observed. There is a famous controversy on the apparent disagreement between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel on the date of this last passover meal. My view is that the five passages in John (John:13:1f.,27; strkjv@18:28; strkjv@19:14,31|) rightly interpreted agree with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew:26:17,20; strkjv@Mark:14:12,17; strkjv@Luke:22:7,14|) that Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time about 6 P.M. beginning of 15 Nisan. The passover lamb was slain on the afternoon of 14 Nisan and the meal eaten at sunset the beginning of 15 Nisan. According to this view Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time and died on the cross the afternoon of 15 Nisan. See my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_, pp.279-284. The question of the disciples here assumes that they are to observe the regular passover meal. Note the deliberative subjunctive (\hetoimasmen\) after \theleis\ with \hina\. For the asyndeton see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 935.
rwp@Matthew:26:52 @{Put up again thy sword} (\apostrepson tn machairan sou\). Turn back thy sword into its place. It was a stern rebuke for Peter who had misunderstood the teaching of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:22:38| as well as in strkjv@Matthew:5:39| (cf. strkjv@John:18:36|). The reason given by Jesus has had innumerable illustrations in human history. The sword calls for the sword. Offensive war is here given flat condemnation. The Paris Pact of 1928 (the Kellogg Treaty) is certainly in harmony with the mind of Christ. The will to peace is the first step towards peace, the outlawing of war. Our American cities are often ruled by gangsters who kill each other off.
rwp@Philippians:2:2 @{Fulfil} (\plrsate\). Better here, "fill full." Paul's cup of joy will be full if the Philippians will only keep on having unity of thought and feeling (\to auto phronte\, present active subjunctive, keep on thinking the same thing). {Being of one accord} (\sunpsuchoi\). Late word here for the first time, from \sun\ and \psuch\, harmonious in soul, souls that beat together, in tune with Christ and with each other. {Of one mind} (\to hen phronountes\). "Thinking the one thing." Like clocks that strike at the same moment. Perfect intellectual telepathy. Identity of ideas and harmony of feelings.
rwp@Revelation:22:16 @{I Jesus} (\Eg Isous\). The last and most solemn attestation to the book that from Jesus (the historic Jesus known to the churches), in harmony with strkjv@1:1f|. {Have sent} (\epempsa\). First aorist active indicative of \pemp\, used here in the same sense as \aposteilas\ in strkjv@1:1| as his personal messenger. It is the Jesus of history here speaking, who is also the Christ of theology and the Lamb of God. {For the churches} (\epi tais ekklsiais\). For this use of \epi\ see strkjv@10:11; strkjv@John:12:16|. It is not just for the seven churches (1:4|), but for all the churches in the world then and now. {I am the root and the offspring of David} (\Eg eimi h riza kai to genos Daueid\). See strkjv@5:5| for "the root of David," to which John now adds \to genos\ in the sense of "offspring" (Acts:17:28f.|), not of family or race (Acts:4:6; strkjv@7:13|). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:22:42-45|. {The bright, the morning star} (\ho astr ho lampros ho prinos\). The Davidic King is called a star in strkjv@Numbers:24:17; strkjv@Luke:1:78|. This "day-star" (\phsphoros\) is interpreted as Christ (2Peter:1:19|). In strkjv@Revelation:2:28| the phrase "the morning star" occurs in Christ's words, which is here interpreted. Christ is the Light that was coming into the world (John:1:9; strkjv@8:12|).
rwp@Revelation:22:18 @{I testify} (\Eg martur\). Commentators disagree keenly about the words in verses 18,19|. Charles rejects them as an interpolation and out of harmony with the rest of the book. Beckwith takes them to be John's own warning, drawn from strkjv@Deuteronomy:4:2| "to every man that heareth" (\panti ti akouonti\, dative of the articular present active participle of \akou\, which compare strkjv@1:3|). Swete properly holds these verses to be from Jesus himself, still bearing solemn witness to this book, with warning against wilful perversion of its teachings. {If any man shall add} (\ean tis epithi\). Condition of the third class with \ean\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \epitithmi\, with \epi\ added with \auta\, as also in the conclusion \epithsei ep' auton\ (future active). This warning is directed against perversions of this book, not about the New Testament or the Bible as a whole, though it may be true there also. Surely no warning was more needed when we consider the treatment accorded the Apocalypse, so that Dr. Robert South said that the Apocalypse either found one crazy or left him so.
rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE DATE There are two chief theories, the Neronic, soon after Nero's death, the other in the reign of Domitian. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius as saying expressly that the Apocalypse of John was written at the close of the reign of Domitian. This testimony is concurred in by Clement of Alexandria, by Origen, by Eusebius, by Jerome. In harmony with this clear testimony the severity of the persecutions suit the later date better than the earlier one. There is, besides, in strkjv@Revelation:17:11f.| an apparent reference to the story that Nero would return again. The fifth king who is one of the seven is an eighth. There was a Nero legend, to be sure, that Nero either was not dead but was in Parthia, or would be _redivivus_ after death. Juvenal termed Domitian "a bald Nero" and others called Domitian "a second Nero." But in spite of all this Hort, Lightfoot, Sanday, Westcott have argued strongly for the Neronic era. Peake is willing to admit allusions to the Neronic period as Swete is also, but both consider the Domitianic date the best supported. Moffatt considers any earlier date than Domitian "almost impossible."
rwp@Romans:3:27 @{It is excluded} (\exekleisth\). First aorist (effective) passive indicative. "It is completely shut out." Glorying is on man's part. {Nay; but by a law of faith} (\ouchi, alla dia nomou pistes\). Strong negative, and note "law of faith," by the principle of faith in harmony with God's love and grace.
rwp@Romans:14:13 @{Let us not therefore judge one another any more} (\mketi oun alllous krinmen\). Present active subjunctive (volitive). "Let us no longer have the habit of criticizing one another." A wonderfully fine text for modern Christians and in harmony with what the Master said (Matthew:7:1|). {That no man put a stumbling block in his brother's way or an occasion of falling} (\to m tithenai proskomma ti adelphi skandalon\). Articular present active infinitive of \tithmi\ in apposition with \touto\, accusative case after \krinate\: "Judge this rather, the not putting a stumbling block (see strkjv@9:32| for \proskomma\) or a trap (\skandalon\, strkjv@9:33|) for his brother" (\adelphi\, dative of disadvantage).
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}