Bible:
Filter: String:

NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp legei:

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

rwp@Ephesians:4:8 @{Wherefore he saith} (\dio legei\). As a confirmation of what Paul has said. No subject is expressed in the Greek and commentators argue whether it should be \ho theos\ (God) or \h graph\ (Scripture). But it comes to God after all. See strkjv@Acts:2:17|. The quotation is from strkjv@Psalms:68:18|, a Messianic Psalm of victory which Paul adapts and interprets for Christ's triumph over death. {He led captivity captive} (\ichmalteusen aichmalsian\). Cognate accusative of \aichmalsian\, late word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:13:10|. The verb also (\aichmalteu\) is from the old word \aichmaltos\, captive in war (in N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:4:18|), in LXX and only here in N.T.

rwp@Ephesians:5:12 @{In secret} (\kruphi\). Old adverb, only here in N.T. Sin loves the dark. {Even to speak of} (\kai legein\). And yet one must sometimes speak out, turn on the light, even if to do so is disgraceful (\aischron\, like strkjv@1Corinthians:11:6|).

rwp@Ephesians:5:14 @{Wherefore he saith} (\dio legei\). Apparently a free adaptation of strkjv@Isaiah:26:19; strkjv@60:1|. The form \anasta\ for \anastthi\ (second person singular imperative second aorist active of \anistmi\) occurs in strkjv@Acts:12:7|. {Shall shine} (\epiphausei\). Future active of \epiphausk\, a form occurring in Job:(Job:25:5; strkjv@31:26|), a variation of \epiphsk\. The last line suggests the possibility that we have here the fragment of an early Christian hymn like strkjv@1Timothy:3:16|.

rwp@Galatians:3:8 @{Foreseeing} (\proidousa\). Second aorist active participle of \proora\. The Scripture is here personified. Alone in this sense of "sight," but common with \legei\ or \eipen\ (says, said) and really in verse 22| "hath shut up" (\sunekleisen\). {Would justify} (\dikaioi\). Present active indicative, "does justify." {Preached the gospel beforehand} (\proeuggelisato\). First aorist middle indicative of \proeuaggelizomai\ with augment on \a\ though both \pro\ and \eu\ before it in composition. Only instance in N.T. It occurs in Philo. and Schol. Soph. This Scripture announced beforehand the gospel on this point of justification by faith. He quotes the promise to Abraham in strkjv@Genesis:12:3; strkjv@18:18|, putting \panta ta ethn\ (all the nations) in strkjv@18:18| for \psai hai phulai\ (all the tribes) of the earth. It is a crucial passage for Paul's point, showing that the promise to Abraham included all the nations of the earth. The verb \eneuloge\ (future passive here) occurs in the LXX and here only in N.T. (not strkjv@Acts:3:25| in correct text). {In thee} (\en soi\). "As their spiritual progenitor" (Lightfoot).

rwp@Hebrews:8:13 @{In that he saith} (\en ti legein\). Locative case of the articular present active infinitive of \leg\, "in the saying as to him." {He hath made the first old} (\pepalaiken tn prtn\). Perfect active indicative of \palaio\, old verb from \palaios\ (in contrast with \kainos\, fresh, new), to treat as old and out of date. The conclusion is to the point. {That which is becoming old and waxeth aged} (\to palaioumenon kai graskon\). \Grask\ is old verb from \gras\ (age) like \gern\ (old man) and refers to the decay of old age so that both ideas appear here in opposition to \kainos\ (\palaios\) and \neos\ (\geraios\). {Is nigh unto vanishing away} (\eggus aphanismou\). Genitive case with \eggus\ and late word for disappearance (from \aphaniz\, strkjv@Matthew:6:19|), here only in the N.T. The author writes as if the Old Testament legal and ceremonial system were about to vanish before the new covenant of grace. If he wrote after A.D. 70, would he not have written "has vanished away"?

rwp@Hebrews:13:6 @{Songs:that we say} (\hste hmas legein\). The usual construction (the infinitive) with \hste\ in the _Koin_ even when the idea is result instead of purpose. The accusative \hmas\ is that of general reference. {With good courage} (\tharrountas\). Present active participle of \tharre\ (Ionic and early Attic \tharse\, strkjv@Matthew:9:2|) as in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:6,8|. The accusative agreeing with \hmas\, "being of good courage." The quotation is from strkjv@Psalms:118:6|. {My helper} (\emoi bothos\). "Helper to me" (ethical dative \emoi\). \Bothos\ is old adjective (cf. \bothe\, to help, strkjv@2:18|), often in LXX as substantive, here only in N.T. {I will not fear} (\ou phobthsomai\). Volitive first future passive of \phobeomai\.

rwp@James:4:5 @{The Scripture} (\h graph\). Personification as in strkjv@Galatians:3:8; strkjv@James:2:23|. But no O.T. passage is precisely like this, though it is "a poetical rendering" (Ropes) of strkjv@Exodus:20:5|. The general thought occurs also in strkjv@Genesis:6:3-5; strkjv@Isaiah:63:8-16|, etc. Paul has the same idea also (Galatians:5:17,21; strkjv@Romans:8:6,8|). It is possible that the reference is really to the quotation in verse 6| from strkjv@Proverbs:3:34| and treating all before as a parenthesis. There is no way to decide positively. {In vain} (\kens\). Old adverb (Aristotle) from \kens\ (2:20|), here alone in N.T. "Emptily," not meaning what it says. {Made to dwell} (\katikisen\). First aorist active of \katoikiz\, old verb, to give a dwelling to, only here in N.T. {Long unto envying} (\pros phthonon epipothei\). A difficult phrase. Some even take \pros phthonon\ with \legei\ rather than with \epipothei\, as it naturally does go, meaning "jealously." But even so, with God presented as a jealous lover, does \to pneuma\ refer to the Holy Spirit as the subject of \epipothei\ or to man's spirit as the object of \epipothei\? Probably the former and \epipothei\ then means to yearn after in the good sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:8|.

rwp@James:4:15 @{For that ye ought to say} (\anti tou legein hums\). "Instead of the saying as to you" (genitive of the articular infinitive with the preposition \anti\ and the accusative of general reference with \legein\), "instead of your saying." {If the Lord will} (\ean ho kurios theli\). Condition of the third class with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive (or first aorist active \thelesi\ in some MSS). The proper attitude of mind (Acts:18:21; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:19; strkjv@16:7; strkjv@Romans:1:19; strkjv@Phillipians:2:19,24; strkjv@Hebrews:6:3|), not to be uttered always in words like a charm. This Hellenistic formula was common among the ancient heathen, as today among modern Arabs like the Latin _deo volente_. {This or that} (\touto ekeino\). Applicable to every act.

rwp@John:1:21 @{And they asked him} (\kai rtsan auton\). Here the paratactic \kai\ is like the transitional \oun\ (then). {What then?} (\Ti oun;\). Argumentative \oun\ like Paul's \ti oun\ in strkjv@Romans:6:15|. _Quid ergo?_ {Art thou Elijah?} (\Su Elias ei;\). The next inevitable question since Elijah had been understood to be the forerunner of the Messiah from strkjv@Malachi:4:5|. In strkjv@Mark:9:11f.| Jesus will identify John with the Elijah of Malachi's prophecy. Why then does John here flatly deny it? Because the expectation was that Elijah would return in person. This John denies. Jesus only asserts that John was Elijah in spirit. Elijah in person they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration. {He saith} (\legei\). Vivid dramatic present. {I am not} (\ouk eimi\). Short and blunt denial. {Art thou the prophet?} (\ho prophts ei su;\). "The prophet art thou?" This question followed naturally the previous denials. Moses (Deuteronomy:18:15|) had spoken of a prophet like unto himself. Christians interpreted this prophet to be the Messiah (Acts:3:22; strkjv@7:37|), but the Jews thought him another forerunner of the Messiah (John:7:40|). It is not clear in strkjv@John:6:15| whether the people identified the expected prophet with the Messiah, though apparently so. Even the Baptist later became puzzled in prison whether Jesus himself was the true Messiah or just one of the forerunners (Luke:7:19|). People wondered about Jesus himself whether he was the Messiah or just one of the looked for prophets (Mark:8:28; strkjv@Matthew:16:14|). {And he answered} (\kai apekrith\). First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense of voice gone) indicative of \apokrinomai\, to give a decision from myself, to reply. {No} (\Ou\). Shortest possible denial.

rwp@John:1:36 @{He looked} (\emblepsas\). First aorist active participle of \emblep\, antecedent action before \legei\ (says). {As he walked} (\peripatounti\). Present active participle in dative case after \emblepsas\ and like \erchomenon\ in verse 29| vividly pictures the rapture of John in this vision of Jesus, so far as we know the third and last glimpse of Jesus by John (the baptism, verse 29|, and here). {Saith} (\legei\). Historical present, change from \histkei\ before. He repeats part of the tribute in verse 29|.

rwp@John:1:38 @{Turned} (\strapheis\). Second aorist passive participle of \streph\, vividly picturing the sudden act of Jesus on hearing their steps behind him. {Beheld} (\theasamenos\). First aorist middle participle of \theaomai\ (verse 32|). Both participles here express antecedent action to \legei\ (saith). {Following} (\akolothountas\). Present active participle of \akolouthe\ (verse 37|). It was Christ's first experience of this kind and the two came from the Baptist to Jesus. {What seek ye?} (\Ti zteite;\). Not "whom" (\tina\ strkjv@18:4; strkjv@20:15|), but "what purpose have you." The first words of Jesus preserved in this Gospel. See strkjv@Luke:2:49; strkjv@Matthew:3:15| for words spoken before this and strkjv@Mark:1:15| for Mark's first report in the Galilean ministry. {Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). Aramaic title for "Teacher" which John here translates by \Didaskale\ as he is writing late and for general readers. Luke, a Greek Christian, does not use it, but John recalls his first use of this term to Jesus and explains it. Matthew has it only in the greeting of Judas to the Master (Matthew:26:25,49|) and Mark once by Judas (Mark:14:45|) and twice by Peter (Mark:9:5; strkjv@11:21|). John's Gospel has the disciples at first addressing Jesus by Rabbi while others address him by \Kurie\ (Lord or Sir) as in strkjv@4:11,49; strkjv@5:7|. Peter uses \Kurie\ in strkjv@6:68|. In the end the disciples usually say \Kurie\ (13:6,25|, etc.), but Mary Magdalene says \Rabbounei\ (20:16|). {Being interpreted} (\methermmeuomenon\). Present passive participle of \methermneu\, late compound of \meta\ and \hermneu\, to explain (John:1:42|), old word from \Hermes\, the god of speech (hermeneutics). John often explains Aramaic words (1:38,41,42; strkjv@4:25; strkjv@9:7|, etc.). {Where abidest thou?} (\Pou meneis;\). They wished a place for quiet converse with Jesus.

rwp@John:6:42 @{How doth he now say?} (\Ps nun legei;\). They knew Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary. They cannot comprehend his claim to be from heaven. This lofty claim puzzles sceptics today.

rwp@John:8:5 @{Commanded} (\eneteilato\). First aorist middle indicative of \entell\, old verb to enjoin (Matthew:4:6|). {To stone such} (\tas toiautas lithazein\). Present active infinitive of \lithaz\ (from \lithos\), from Aristotle on. Stoning was specified for the case of a betrothed woman guilty of adultery (Deuteronomy:22:23f.|) and for a priest's daughter if guilty. In other cases just death was commanded (Leviticus:20:10; strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:22|). The Talmud prescribes strangulation. This case may have strictly come within the regulation as a betrothed virgin. {What then sayest thou of her?} (\su oun ti legeis;\). "Thou then, what dost thou say?" This was the whole point, to catch Jesus, not to punish the woman.

rwp@John:8:52 @{Now we know} (\nun egnkamen\). Perfect active indicative of \ginsk\, state of completion, "Now since such talk we have come to certain knowledge that thou hast a demon" (verse 48|). {Is dead} (\apethanen\). Second aorist active indicative of \apothnsk\. "Abraham died." {And thou sayest} (\kai su legeis\). Adversative use of \kai\, "and yet." Emphatic position of \su\ (thou). Same condition quoted as in verse 51|. {He shall never taste of death} (\ou me geustai thanatou eis ton aiona\). Same emphatic negative with subjunctive as in verse 51|, but \geustai\ (first aorist middle subjunctive of \geu\ with genitive case \thanatou\ (death). Another Hebraism for dying like \thersi\ (see) in verse 51|. Used in strkjv@Hebrews:2:9| of the death of Jesus and in Synoptics (Matthew:16:28; strkjv@Mark:9:1; strkjv@Luke:9:27|). It occurs in the Talmud, but not in the O.T. The Pharisees thus did not misquote Jesus, though they misunderstood him.

rwp@John:11:13 @{Had spoken} (\eirkei\). Past perfect of \eipon\ (\er\). The disciples had misunderstood Christ's metaphor for death. {That he spake} (\hoti legei\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse after the secondary tense (\edoxan\). {Of taking rest in sleep} (\peri ts koimses tou hupou\). Only use of \koimsis\ (from \koima\) in the N.T., but it also was used of death (Sirach strkjv@46:19). \Hupnou\ (in sleep) is objective genitive of \hupnos\ (sleep, strkjv@Matthew:1:24|).

rwp@John:13:22 @{Looked one on another} (\eblepon eis alllous\). Inchoative imperfect of \blep\, "began to glance at one another in bewilderment (doubting, \aporoumenoi\, present passive participle of \apore\, to be at a loss, to lose one's way, \a\ privative and \poros\, way). They recalled their strife about precedence and Judas betrayed nothing. {Concerning whom he spake} (\peri tinos legei\). Indirect question retaining present active indicative \legei\. See same note in ¯Mark:14:19; strkjv@Matthew:26:22; strkjv@Luke:22:23|.

rwp@John:13:24 @{Beckoneth} (\neuei\). Old verb to nod, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:24:10|. They were all looking in surprise at each other. {Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh} (\eipe tis estin peri hou legei\). Second aorist active imperative with indirect question (\tis\) and relative clause (\peri hou\). Peter was cautious, but could not contain his curiosity. John in front of Jesus was in a favourable position to have a whispered word with him. {Breast} (\stthos\). As in strkjv@21:20; strkjv@Luke:18:13| in place of \kolpon\ (verse 23|). This is the moment represented in Leonardo da Vinci's "Last Supper," only he shows the figures like the monks for whom he painted it.

rwp@John:18:37 @{Art thou a king then?} (\oukoun basileus ei su;\). Compound of \ouk\ and \oun\ and is clearly ironical expecting an affirmative answer, only here in the N.T., and in LXX only in A text in strkjv@2Kings:5:23|. {Thou sayest that} (\su legeis hoti\). In strkjv@Matthew:27:11; strkjv@Mark:15:2; strkjv@Luke:23:3|, \su legeis\ clearly means "yes," as \su eipas\ (thou saidst) does in strkjv@Matthew:26:64| (= "I am," \eg eimi\, in strkjv@Mark:41:62|). Hence here \hoti\ had best be taken to mean "because": "Yes, because I am a king." {Have I been born} (\eg gegennmai\). Perfect passive indicative of \genna\. The Incarnation was for this purpose. Note repetition of \eis touto\ (for this purpose), explained by \hina marturs ti altheii\ (that I may bear witness to the truth), \hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \marture\. Paul (1Timothy:6:13|) alludes to this good confession when Christ bore witness (\martursantos\) before Pilate. Jesus bore such witness always (John:3:11,32; strkjv@7:7; strkjv@8:14; strkjv@Revelation:1:5|).

rwp@John:19:12 @{Sought} (\eztei\). Imperfect active, "kept on seeking," "made renewed efforts to release him." He was afraid to act boldly against the will of the Jews. {If thou release this man} (\ean touton apolusis\). Condition of third class, a direct threat to Pilate. He knew all the time that the Sanhedrin might tell Caesar on him. {Thou art not Caesar's friend} (\ouk ei philos tou kaisaros\). Later to Vespasian this was an official title, here simply a daring threat to Pilate. {Speaketh against Caesar} (\antilegei ti kaisari\). Caesar brooks no rival. Jesus had allowed himself to be acclaimed king of Israel in the Triumphal Entry (John:12:13; strkjv@Mark:11:10; strkjv@Luke:19:38|). The Sanhedrin have caught Pilate in their toils.

rwp@Luke:4:21 @{And he began to say} (\rxato de legein\). Aorist ingressive active indicative and present infinitive. He began speaking. The moment of hushed expectancy was passed. These may or may not be the first words uttered here by Jesus. Often the first sentence is the crucial one in winning an audience. Certainly this is an arresting opening sentence. {Hath been fulfilled} (\peplrtai\). Perfect passive indicative, {stands fulfilled}. "Today this scripture (Isaiah:61:1,2|, just read) stands fulfilled in your ears." It was a most amazing statement and the people of Nazareth were quick to see the Messianic claim involved. Jesus could only mean that the real year of Jubilee had come, that the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah had come true today, and that in him they saw the Messiah of prophecy. There are critics today who deny that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. To be able to do that, they must reject the Gospel of John and all such passages as this one. And it is no apocalyptic eschatological Messiah whom Jesus here sets forth, but the one who forgives sin and binds up the broken-hearted. The words were too good to be true and to be spoken here at Nazareth by one of their own townsmen!

rwp@Luke:6:42 @{Canst thou say} (\dunasai legein\). Here strkjv@Matthew:7:4| has {wilt thou say} (\ereis\). {Beholdest not} (\ou blepn\). strkjv@Matthew:7:4| has "lo" (\idou\). {Thou hypocrite} (\hupokrita\). Contrast to the studied politeness of "brother" (\adelphe\) above. Powerful picture of blind self-complacence and incompetence, the keyword to argument here.

rwp@Luke:9:21 @{To tell this to no man} (\mdeni legein touto\). Indirect command with the negative infinitive after {commanded} (\parggeilen\). It had been necessary for Jesus to cease using the word {Messiah} (\Christos\) about himself because of the political meaning to the Jews. Its use by the disciples would lead to revolution as was plain after the feeding of the five thousand (John:6:15|).

rwp@Luke:9:33 @{As they were departing from him} (\en ti diachrizesthai autous ap' autou\). Peculiar to Luke and another instance of Luke's common idiom of \en\ with the articular infinitive in a temporal clause. This common verb occurs here only in the N.T. The present middle voice means to separate oneself fully (direct middle). This departing of Moses and Elijah apparently accompanied Peter's remark as given in all three Gospels. See for details on Mark and Matthew. {Master} (\Epistata\) here, {Rabbi} (Mark:9:5|), {Lord} (\Kurie\, strkjv@Matthew:17:4|). {Let us make} (\poismen\, first aorist active subjunctive) as in strkjv@Mark:9:5|, but strkjv@Matthew:17:4| has "I will make" (\pois\). It was near the time of the feast of the tabernacles. Songs:Peter proposes that they celebrate it up here instead of going to Jerusalem for it as they did a bit later (John:7|). {Not knowing what he said} (\m eids ho legei\). Literally, {not understanding what he was saying} (\m\, regular negative with participle and \legei\, present indicative retained in relative clause in indirect discourse). Luke puts it more bluntly than Mark (Peter's account), "For he wist not what to answer; for they became sore afraid" (Mark:9:6|). Peter acted according to his impulsive nature and spoke up even though he did not know what to say or even what he was saying when he spoke. He was only half awake as Luke explains and he was sore afraid as Mark (Peter) explains. He had bewilderment enough beyond a doubt, but it was Peter who spoke, not James and John.

rwp@Luke:11:27 @{As he said these things} (\en ti legein auton\). Luke's common idiom, \en\ with articular infinitive. Verses 27,28| are peculiar to Luke. His Gospel in a special sense is the Gospel of Woman. This woman "speaks well, but womanly" (Bengel). Her beatitude (\makaria\) reminds us of Elisabeth's words (Luke:1:42|, \eulogmen\). She is fulfilling Mary's own prophecy in strkjv@1:48| (\makariousin me\, shall call me happy).

rwp@Luke:23:3 @{Thou sayest} (\su legeis\). A real affirmative as in strkjv@22:70|. The Gospels all give Pilate's question about Jesus asking of the Jews in precisely the same words (Mark:15:2; strkjv@Matthew:27:11; strkjv@Luke:23:3; strkjv@John:18:33|).

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

rwp@Mark:7:19 @{Making all meats clean} (\katharizn panta ta brmata\). This anacoluthon can be understood by repeating {he says} (\legei\) from verse 18|. The masculine participle agrees with Jesus, the speaker. The words do not come from Jesus, but are added by Mark. Peter reports this item to Mark, probably with a vivid recollection of his own experience on the housetop in Joppa when in the vision Peter declined three times the Lord's invitation to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts:10:14-16|). It was a riddle to Peter as late as that day. "Christ asserts that _Levitical_ uncleanness, such as eating with unwashed hands, is of small importance compared with _moral_ uncleanness" (Vincent). The two chief words in both incidents, here and in Acts, are {defile} (\koino\) and {cleanse} (\kathariz\). "What God cleansed do not thou treat as defiled" (Acts:10:15|). It was a revolutionary declaration by Jesus and Peter was slow to understand it even after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus was amply justified in his astonished question: {Perceive ye not?} (\ou noeite;\). They were making little use of their intelligence in trying to comprehend the efforts of Jesus to give them a new and true spiritual insight.

rwp@Mark:10:18 @{Why callest thou me good?} (\Ti me legeis agathon;\). Songs:Luke:18:19|. strkjv@Matthew:19:17| has it: "Why asketh thou concerning that which is good? "The young ruler was probably sincere and not using mere fulsome compliment, but Jesus challenges him to define his attitude towards him as was proper. Did he mean "good" (\agathos\) in the absolute sense as applied to God? The language is not a disclaiming of deity on the part of Jesus. {That I may inherit} (\hina klronoms\). strkjv@Matthew:19:16| has (\sch\), that I may "get."

rwp@Mark:10:28 @{Peter began to say} (\rxato legein ho Petros\). It was hard for Peter to hold in till now. strkjv@Matthew:19:27| says that "Peter answered" as if the remark was addressed to him in particular. At any rate Peter reminds Jesus of what they had left to follow him, four of them that day by the sea (Mark:1:20; strkjv@Matthew:4:22; strkjv@Luke:5:11|). It was to claim obedience to this high ideal on their part in contrast with the conduct of the rich young ruler.

rwp@Mark:10:32 @{And they were amazed} (\kai ethambounto\). Imperfect tense describing the feelings of the disciples as Jesus was walking on in front of them (\n proagn autous\, periphrastic imperfect active), an unusual circumstance in itself that seemed to bode no good as they went on through Perea towards Jerusalem. In fact, {they that followed were afraid} (\hoi de akolouthountes ephobounto\) as they looked at Jesus walking ahead in solitude. The idiom (\hoi de\) may not mean that all the disciples were afraid, but only some of them. "The Lord walked in advance of the Twelve with a solemnity and a determination which foreboded danger" (Swete). Cf. strkjv@Luke:9:5|. They began to fear coming disaster as they neared Jerusalem. They read correctly the face of Jesus. {And he took again the twelve} (\kai paralabn tous ddeka\). Matthew has "apart" from the crowds and that is what Mark also means. Note \paralabn\, taking to his side. {And began to tell them the things that were to happen to him} (\rxato autois legein ta mellonta auti sumbainein\). He had done it before three times already (Mark:8:31; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@9:31|). Songs:Jesus tries once more. They had failed utterly heretofore. How is it now? Luke adds (18:34|): "They understood none of these things." But Mark and Matthew show how the minds of two of the disciples were wholly occupied with plans of their own selfish ambition while Jesus was giving details of his approaching death and resurrection.

rwp@Mark:14:68 @{I neither know nor understand} (\oute oida oute epistamai\). This denial is fuller in Mark, briefest in John. {What thou sayest} (\su ti legeis\). Can be understood as a direct question. Note position of {thou} (\su\), proleptical. {Into the porch} (\eis to proaulion\). Only here in the New Testament. Plato uses it of a prelude on a flute. It occurs also in the plural for preparations the day before the wedding. Here it means the vestibule to the court. strkjv@Matthew:26:71| has \pulna\, a common word for gate or front porch. {And the cock crew} (\kai alektr ephnsen\). Omitted by Aleph B L Sinaitic Syriac. It is genuine in verse 72| where "the second time" (\ek deuterou\) occurs also. It is possible that because of verse 72| it crept into verse 68|. Mark alone alludes to the cock crowing twice, originally (Mark:14:30|), and twice in verse 72|, besides verse 68| which is hardly genuine.

rwp@Mark:15:2 @{Art thou the King of the Jews?} (\Su ei ho basileus tn Ioudain;\). This is the only one of the charges made by the Sanhedrin to Pilate (Luke:23:2|) that he notices. He does not believe this one to be true, but he has to pay attention to it or be liable to charges himself of passing over a man accused of rivalry and revolution against Caesar. strkjv@John:18:28-32| gives the interview with Jesus that convinces Pilate that he is a harmless religious fanatic. See on ¯Matthew:26:11|. {Thou sayest} (\su legeis\). An affirmation, though in strkjv@John:18:34-37| there is a second and fuller interview between Pilate and Jesus. "Here, as in the trial before the Sanhedrin, this is the one question that Jesus answers. It is the only question on which his own testimony is important and necessary" (Gould). The Jews were out on the pavement or sidewalk outside the palace while Pilate came out to them from above on the balcony (John:18:28f.|) and had his interviews with Jesus on the inside, calling Jesus thither (John:18:33|).

rwp@Matthew:3:9 @{And think not to say within yourselves} (\kai m doxte legein en heautois\). John touched the tender spot, their ecclesiastical pride. They felt that the "merits of the fathers," especially of Abraham, were enough for all Israelites. At once John made clear that, reformer as he was, a breach existed between him and the religious leaders of the time. {Of these stones} (\ek tn lithn toutn\). "Pointing, as he spoke to the pebbles on the beach of the Jordan" (Vincent).

rwp@Matthew:9:6 @{That ye may know} (\hina eidte\). Jesus accepts the challenge in the thoughts of the scribes and performs the miracle of healing the paralytic, who so far only had his sins forgiven, to prove his Messianic power on earth to forgive sins even as God does. The word \exousia\ may mean either power or authority. He had both as a matter of fact. Note same word in strkjv@9:8|. {Then saith he to the sick of the palsy} (\tote legei ti paralutiki\). These words of course, were not spoken by Jesus. Curiously enough Matthew interjects them right in the midst of the sayings of Jesus in reply to the scorn of the scribes. Still more remarkable is the fact that Mark (Mark:2:10|) has precisely the same words in the same place save that Matthew has added \tote\, of which he is fond, to what Mark already had. Mark, as we know, largely reports Peter's words and sees with Peter's eyes. Luke has the same idea in the same place without the vivid historical present \legei (eipen ti paralelumeni)\ with the participle in place of the adjective. This is one of the many proofs that both Matthew and Luke made use of Mark's Gospel each in his own way. {Take up thy bed} (\ron sou tn klinn\). Pack up at once (aorist active imperative) the rolled-up pallet.

rwp@Matthew:26:70 @{I know not what thou sayest} (\ouk oida ti legeis\). It was an affectation of extreme ignorance (Bruce) that deceived no one. It was an easy and ancient dodge and easy subterfuge. Dalman (_Words of Jesus_, 80f.) suggests that Peter used the Galilean Aramaean word for know instead of the Judean Aramaean word which betrayed at once his Galilean residence.

rwp@Revelation:5:5 @{One of the elders} (\heis ek tn presbutern\). "One from among the elders" of strkjv@4:4,10| (\ek\ with the ablative 8 times in the Apocalypse, 12 in the Fourth Gospel, 10 in rest of the N.T., in place of the mere partitive genitive). No particular reason for one elder as the agent over another (7:13|). {Saith} (\legei\). Dramatic vivid present. {Weep not} (\m klaie\). "Cease weeping" (prohibition with \m\ and the present active imperative of \klai\. {The Lion} (\ho len\). Satan is called a lion by Peter (1Peter:5:8|), but the metaphor belongs to Jesus also. Judah is called a lion in the blessing of Jacob (Genesis:49:9|) and Jesus as the greatest of the tribe of Judah, "the Root of David" (\h riza Daueid\, strkjv@Isaiah:11:1,10|) or the Branch from this root (the Messiah). {Hath overcome} (\eniksen\). First aorist active indicative of \nika\, "did overcome," coming first in the sentence as "the great historical fact of the victory of the Christ" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:10:9 @{I went} (\apltha\). Second aorist active indicative (\-a\ form), "I went away" (\ap-\) to the angel. John left his position by the door of heaven (4:1|). {That he should give} (\dounai\). Second aorist active infinitive of \didmi\, indirect command after \legn\ (bidding) for \dos\ in the direct discourse (second aorist active imperative second person singular). This use of \leg\ to bid occurs in strkjv@13:14; strkjv@Acts:21:21|. {He saith} (\legei\). Dramatic vivid present active indicative of \leg\. {Take it and eat it up} (\labe kai kataphage auto\). Second aorist (effective) active imperatives of \lamban\ and \katesthi\ (perfective use of \kata\, "eat down," we say "eat up"). See the same metaphor in strkjv@Ezekiel:3:1-3; strkjv@Jeremiah:15:6f|. The book was already open and was not to be read aloud, but to be digested mentally by John. {It shall make thy belly bitter} (\pikranei sou tn koilian\). Future active of \pikrain\, for which verb see strkjv@8:11; strkjv@10:10; strkjv@Colossians:3:19|. There is no reference in Ezekiel or Jeremiah to the bitterness here mentioned. {Sweet as honey} (\gluku hs meli\). For the sweetness of the roll see strkjv@Psalms:19:10f.; strkjv@119:103|. "Every revelation of God's purposes, even though a mere fragment, a \biblaridion\, is 'bitter-sweet,' disclosing judgement as well as mercy" (Swete). Deep and bitter sorrows confront John as he comes to understand God's will and way.

rwp@Revelation:21:5 @{Behold, I make all things new} (\Idou kaina poi panta\). The first time since strkjv@1:8| that God has been represented as speaking directly, though voices have come out of the throne before (21:3|) and out of the sanctuary (16:1,17|), which may be from God himself, though more likely from one of the angels of the Presence. This message is not addressed to John (7:14; strkjv@17:7; strkjv@21:6; strkjv@22:6|), but to the entire world of the blessed. See strkjv@Isaiah:43:18f.| for the words (\Idou eg poi kaina\). The idea of a new heaven and a new earth is in strkjv@Isaiah:65:17; strkjv@66:22; strkjv@Psalms:102:25f|. For the locative here with \epi\ (\epi ti throni\) see strkjv@7:10; strkjv@19:4| (genitive more usual, strkjv@4:9f.; strkjv@5:1,7,13|, etc.). See strkjv@20:11| for the picture. {And he saith} (\kai legei\). Probably this means a change of speakers, made plain by \moi\ (to me) in many MSS. An angel apparently (as in strkjv@14:13; strkjv@19:9f.|) assures John and urges him to write (\grapson\ as in strkjv@1:11; strkjv@2:1,8,12,18; strkjv@3:1,7,14; strkjv@14:3|). The reason given (\hoti\, for) is precisely the saying in strkjv@22:6| and he uses the two adjectives (\pistoi kai althinoi\) employed in strkjv@19:11| about God himself, and strkjv@3:14| about Christ. In strkjv@19:9| \althinoi\ occurs also about "the words of God" as here. They are reliable and genuine.

rwp@Revelation:22:9 @{See thou do it not} (\Hora m\). The angel promptly interposes (\legei\, dramatic present). See strkjv@19:10| for discussion of this same phrase \hora m\ when John had once before started to worship the angel in his excitement. Here we have added to the words in strkjv@19:10| "the prophets (\tn prophtn\) and also "them which keep the words of this book" (\tn trountn tous logous tou bibliou toutou\), the last a repetition from strkjv@22:7|. In both places we have "Worship God" (\ti thei proskunson\). And not an angel.

rwp@Revelation:22:10 @{And he saith unto me} (\kai legei moi\). The angel resumes as in strkjv@19:9|. {Seal not up} (\m sphragisis\). Prohibition with \m\ and the ingressive first aorist active subjunctive of \sphragiz\. Charles takes this to be the command of Christ because in verses 7,18| "the words of the prophecy of this book" come from Christ. But that is not a conclusive argument, though Charles, as already stated, rearranges these chapters to suit his own notion. Once only (10:4|) was John directed to seal and not to write. See there for discussion of \sphragiz\. This book is to be left open for all to read (1:3; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@17:9; strkjv@22:7,18|). {At hand} (\eggus\). As in strkjv@1:3|.

rwp@Romans:9:15 @{For he says to Moses} (\ti Musei gar legei\). He has an Old Testament illustration of God's election in the case of Pharaoh (Exodus:33:19|). {On whom I have mercy} (\hon an ele\). Indefinite relative with \an\ and the present active subjunctive of \elea\, late verb only here and strkjv@Jude:1:23| in N.T. "On whomsoever I have mercy." The same construction in \hon an oikteir\, "on whomsoever I have compassion."

rwp@Romans:10:6 @{Saith thus} (\houts legei\). Paul personifies "the from faith righteousness" (\h ek pistes dikaiosun\). A free reproduction from strkjv@Deuteronomy:30:11-14|. Paul takes various phrases from the LXX and uses them for "his inspired conviction and experiences of the gospel" (Denney). He does not quote Moses as saying this or meaning this. {Say not in thy heart} (\m eipis en ti kardii sou\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \m\ like strkjv@Deuteronomy:8:17|. To say in the heart is to think (Matthew:3:9|). {That is, to bring Christ down} (\tout' estin Christon katagagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of the common verb \katag\, to bring or lead down. It is dependent on the preceding verb \anabsetai\ (shall ascend). \Tout' estin\ (that is) is what is called _Midrash_ or interpretation as in strkjv@9:8|. It occurs three times here (verses 6-8|). Paul applies the words of Moses to Christ. There is no need for one to go to heaven to bring Christ down to earth. The Incarnation is already a glorious fact. Today some men scout the idea of the Deity and Incarnation of Christ.