Bible:
Filter: String:

NT.filter - rwp definitely:

rwp@1Corinthians:10:4 @{For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them} (\epinon ek pneumatiks akolouthouss petras\). Change to the imperfect \epinon\ shows their continual access to the supernatural source of supply. The Israelites were blessed by the water from the rock that Moses smote at Rephidim (Exodus:17:6|) and at Kadesh (Numbers:20:11|) and by the well of Beer (Numbers:21:16|). The rabbis had a legend that the water actually followed the Israelites for forty years, in one form a fragment of rock fifteen feet high that followed the people and gushed out water. Baur and some other scholars think that Paul adopts this "Rabbinical legend that the water-bearing Rephidim rock journeyed onwards with the Israelites" (Findlay). That is hard to believe, though it is quite possible that Paul alludes to this fancy and gives it a spiritual turn as a type of Christ in allegorical fashion. Paul knew the views of the rabbis and made use of allegory on occasion (Galatians:4:24|). {And the rock was Christ} (\h petra de n ho Christos\). He definitely states here in symbolic form the preexistence of Christ. But surely "we must not disgrace Paul by making him say that the pre-incarnate Christ followed the march of Israel in the shape of a lump of rock" (Hofmann). He does mean that Christ was the source of the water which saved the Israelites from perishing (Robertson and Plummer) as he is the source of supply for us today.

rwp@1John:2:18 @{It is the last hour} (\eschat hra estin\). This phrase only here in N.T., though John often uses \hra\ for a crisis (John:2:4; strkjv@4:21,23; strkjv@5:25,28|, etc.). It is anarthrous here and marks the character of the "hour." John has seven times "the last day" in the Gospel. Certainly in verse 28| John makes it plain that the \parousia\ might come in the life of those then living, but it is not clear that here he definitely asserts it as a fact. It was his hope beyond a doubt. We are left in doubt about this "last hour" whether it covers a period, a series, or the final climax of all just at hand. {As ye heard} (\kaths kousate\). First aorist active indicative of \akou\. {Antichrist cometh} (\antichristos erchetai\). "Is coming." Present futuristic or prophetic middle indicative retained in indirect assertion. Songs:Jesus taught (Mark:13:6,22; strkjv@Matthew:24:5,15,24|) and so Paul taught (Acts:20:30; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3|). These false Christs (Matthew:24:24; strkjv@Mark:13:22|) are necessarily antichrists, for there can be only one. \Anti\ can mean substitution or opposition, but both ideas are identical in the word \antichristos\ (in N.T. only here, strkjv@2:22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7|). Westcott rightly observes that John's use of the word is determined by the Christian conception, not by the Jewish apocalypses. {Have there arisen} (\gegonasin\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. {Many antichrists} (\antichristoi polloi\). Not just one, but the exponents of the Gnostic teaching are really antichrists, just as some modern deceivers deserve this title. {Whereby} (\hothen\). By the fact that these many antichrists have come.

rwp@1Peter:1:11 @{Searching} (\eraunntes\). Present active participle of \erauna\, late form for older \ereuna\ (both in the papyri), uncompounded verb (John:7:52|), the compound occurring in verse 10| above. {What time or what manner of time} (\eis tina poion kairon\). Proper sense of \poios\ (qualitative interrogative) kept here as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:35, strkjv@Romans:3:27|, though it is losing its distinctive sense from \tis\ (Acts:23:34|). The prophets knew what they prophesied, but not at what time the Messianic prophecies would be fulfilled. {The Spirit of Christ which was in them} (\to en autois pneuma Christou\). Peter definitely asserts here that the Spirit of Jesus Christ (the Messiah) was in the Old Testament prophets, the Holy Spirit called the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God (Romans:8:9|), who spoke to the prophets as he would speak to the apostles (John:16:14|). {Did point unto} (\edlou\). Imperfect active of \dlo\, to make plain, "did keep on pointing to," though they did not clearly perceive the time. {When it testified beforehand} (\promarturomenon\). Present middle participle of \promarturomai\, a late compound unknown elsewhere save in a writer of the fourteenth century (Theodorus Mech.) and now in a papyrus of the eighth. It is neuter here because \pneuma\ is neuter, but this grammatical gender should not be retained as "it" in English, but should be rendered "he" (and so as to strkjv@Acts:8:15|). Here we have predictive prophecy concerning the Messiah, though some modern critics fail to find predictions of the Messiah in the Old Testament. {The sufferings of Christ} (\ta eis Christon pathmata\). "The sufferings for (destined for) Christ" like the use of \eis\ in verse 10| (\eis humas\ for you). {The glories that should follow them} (\tas meta tauta doxas\). "The after these things (sufferings) glories." The plural of \doxa\ is rare, but occurs in strkjv@Exodus:15:11; strkjv@Hosea:9:11|. The glories of Christ followed the sufferings as in strkjv@4:13; strkjv@5:1,6|.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:2 @{To the end that} (\eis to\). One of Paul's favourite idioms for purpose, \eis to\ and the infinitive. {Ye be not quickly shaken} (\m taches saleuthnai humas\). First aorist passive infinitive of \saleu\, old verb to agitate, to cause to totter like a reed (Matthew:11:7|), the earth (Hebrews:12:26|). Usual negative \m\ and accusative of general reference \humas\ with the infinitive. {From your mind} (\apo tou noos\). Ablative case of nous, mind, reason, sober sense, "from your witte" (Wyclif), to "keep their heads." {Nor yet be troubled} (\mde throeisthai\). Old verb \throe\, to cry aloud (from \throos\, clamour, tumult), to be in a state of nervous excitement (present passive infinitive, as if it were going on), "a continued state of agitation following the definite shock received (\saleuthnai\)" (Milligan). {Either by spirit} (\mte dia pneumatos\). By ecstatic utterance (1Thessalonians:5:10|). The nervous fear that the coming was to be at once prohibited by \mde\ Paul divides into three sources by \mte, mte, mte\. No individual claim to divine revelation (the gift of prophecy) can justify the statement. {Or by word} (\mte dia logou\). Oral statement of a conversation with Paul (Lightfoot) to this effect {as from us}. An easy way to set aside Paul's first Epistle by report of a private remark from Paul. {Or by epistle as from us} (\mte di' epistols hs di' hmn\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13-5:3| Paul had plainly said that Jesus would come as a thief in the night and had shown that the dead would not be left out in the rapture. But evidently some one claimed to have a private epistle from Paul which supported the view that Jesus was coming at once, {as that the day of the Lord is now present} (\hs hoti enestken h hmera tou kuriou\). Perfect active indicative of \enistmi\, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near. Songs:"is imminent" (Lightfoot). The verb is common in the papyri. In strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22; strkjv@Romans:8:38| we have a contrast between \ta enestta\, the things present, and \ta mellonta\, the things future (to come). The use of \hs hoti\ may be disparaging here, though that is not true in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19|. In the _Koin_ it comes in the vernacular to mean simply "that" (Moulton, _Proleg_., p. 212), but that hardly seems the case in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1033). Here it means "to wit that," though "as that" or "as if" does not miss it much. Certainly it flatly denies that by conversation or by letter he had stated that the second coming was immediately at hand. "It is this misleading assertion that accounts both for the increased discouragement of the faint-hearted to encourage whom Paul writes strkjv@1:3-2:17|, and for the increased meddlesomeness of the idle brethren to warn whom Paul writes strkjv@3:1-18|" (Frame). It is enough to give one pause to note Paul's indignation over this use of his name by one of the over-zealous advocates of the view that Christ was coming at once. It is true that Paul was still alive, but, if such a "pious fraud" was so common and easily condoned as some today argue, it is difficult to explain Paul's evident anger. Moreover, Paul's words should make us hesitate to affirm that Paul definitely proclaimed the early return of Jesus. He hoped for it undoubtedly, but he did not specifically proclaim it as so many today assert and accuse him of misleading the early Christians with a false presentation.

rwp@Acts:3:19 @{Repent therefore} (\metanosate oun\). Peter repeats to this new crowd the command made in strkjv@Acts:2:38| which see. God's purpose and patience call for instant change of attitude on their part. Their guilt does not shut them out if they will turn. {And turn again} (\kai epistrepsate\). Definitely turn to God in conduct as well as in mind. {That your sins may be blotted out} (\pros to exaliphthnai humn tas hamartias\). Articular infinitive (first aorist passive of \exaleiph\, to wipe out, rub off, erase, smear out, old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:14|) with the accusative of general reference and with \pros\ and the accusative to express purpose. {That so} (\hops an\). Final particle with \an\ and the aorist active subjunctive \elthsin\ (come) and not "when" as the Authorized Version has it. Some editors put this clause in verse 20| (Westcott and Hort, for instance). {Seasons of refreshing} (\kairoi anapsuxes\). The word \anapsuxis\ (from \anapsuch\, to cool again or refresh, strkjv@2Timothy:1:16|) is a late word (LXX) and occurs here alone in the N.T. Surely repentance will bring "seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord."

rwp@Acts:9:23 @{When many days were fulfilled} (\Hs eplrounto hmerai hikanai\). Imperfect passive indicative of \plro\, old and common verb, were in process of being fulfilled. How "many" (considerable, \hikanai\, common word for a long period) Luke does not say nor does he say that Saul spent all of this period in Damascus, as we know from strkjv@Galatians:1:16-18| was not the case. Paul there states definitely that he went away from Damascus to Arabia and returned there before going back to Jerusalem and that the whole period was about "three years" which need not mean three full years, but at least portions of three. Most of the three years was probably spent in Arabia because of the two explosions in Damascus (before his departure and on his return) and because he was unknown in Jerusalem as a Christian on his arrival there. It cannot be argued from the frequent lacunae in the Acts that Luke tells all that was true or that he knew. He had his own methods and aims as every historian has. We are at perfect liberty to supplement the narrative in the Acts with items from Paul's Epistles. Songs:we must assume the return of Saul from Arabia at this juncture, between verses 22,23|, when Saul resumed his preaching in the Jewish synagogues with renewed energy and grasp after the period of mature reflection and readjustment in Arabia. {Took counsel together} (\sunebouleusanto\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \sunbouleu\, old and common verb for counselling (\bouleu\) together (\sun\). Things had reached a climax. It was worse than before he left for Arabia. Paul was now seeing the fulfilment of the prophecy of Jesus about him (9:16|). {To kill him} (\anelein auton\). Second aorist (effective) active infinitive of \anaire\, to take up, to make away with, to kill (Luke:23:32; strkjv@Acts:12:1|, etc.). The infinitive expresses purpose here as is done in verse 24| by \hops\ and the aorist active subjunctive of the same verb (\anelsin\). Saul now knew what Stephen had suffered at his hands as his own life was in peril in the Jewish quarter of Damascus. It was a picture of his old self. He may even have been scourged here (2Corinthians:11:24|).

rwp@Acts:11:25 @{To seek for Saul} (\anaztsai Saulon\). First aorist (effective) active infinitive of purpose. \Anazte\ is a common verb since Plato, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:2:44,45|, to seek up and down (\ana\), back and forth, to hunt up, to make a thorough search till success comes. It is plain from strkjv@Galatians:1:21| that Saul had not been idle in Cilicia. Tarsus was not very far from Antioch. Barnabas probably knew that Saul was a vessel of choice (Acts:9:15|) by Christ for the work among the Gentiles. He knew, of course, of Saul's work with the Hellenists in Jerusalem (9:29|) and echoes of his work in Cilicia and Syria had probably come to him. Songs:to Tarsus he goes when he saw the need for help. "He had none of the littleness which cannot bear the presence of a possible rival" (Furneaux). Barnabas knew his own limitations and knew where the man of destiny for this crisis was, the man who already had the seal of God upon him. The hour and the man met when Barnabas brought Saul to Antioch. The door was open and the man was ready, far more ready than when Jesus called him on the road to Damascus. The years in Cilicia and Syria were not wasted for they had not been idle. If we only knew the facts, it is probable that Saul also had been preaching to Hellenes as well as to Hellenists. Jesus had definitely called him to work among the Gentiles (9:15|). In his own way he had come to the same place that Peter reached in Caesarea and that Barnabas now holds in Antioch. God always has a man prepared for a great emergency in the kingdom. The call of Barnabas was simply the repetition of the call of Christ. Songs:Saul came.

rwp@Acts:15:17 @{That the residue of men may seek after the Lord} (\hops an ekztssin hoi kataloipoi tn anthrpn ton kurion\). The use of \hops\ with the subjunctive (effective aorist active) to express purpose is common enough and note \an\ for an additional tone of uncertainty. On the rarity of \an\ with \hops\ in the _Koin_ see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 986. Here the Gentiles are referred to. The Hebrew text is quite different, "that they may possess the remnant of Edom." Certainly the LXX suits best the point that James is making. But the closing words of this verse point definitely to the Gentiles both in the Hebrew and the LXX, "all the Gentiles" (\panta ta ethn\). Another item of similarity between this speech and the Epistle of James is in the phrase "my name is called" (\epikekltai to onoma mou\) and strkjv@James:2:7|. The purpose of God, though future, is expressed by this perfect passive indicative \epikekltai\ from \epi-kale\, to call on. It is a Jewish way of speaking of those who worship God.

rwp@Acts:18:12 @{When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia} (\Gallinos de anthupatou ontos ts Achaias\). Genitive absolute of present participle \ontos\. Brother of Seneca the Stoic (Nero's tutor) and uncle of Lucan the author of the \Pharsalia\. His original name was M. Annaeus Novatus till he was adopted by Gallio the rhetorician. The family was Spanish. Gallio was a man of culture and refinement and may have been chosen proconsul of Achaia for this reason. Statius calls him "_dulcis Gallio_." Seneca says of him: _Nemo enim mortalium uni tam dulcis quam hic omnibus_ (No one of mortals is so pleasant to one person as he is to all). Luke alone among writers says that he was proconsul, but Seneca speaks of his being in Achaia where he caught fever, a corroboration of Luke. But now a whitish grey limestone inscription from the Hagios Elias quarries near Delphi (a letter of Claudius to Delphi) has been found which definitely names Gallio as proconsul of Achaia (\authupatos ts Achaias\). The province of Achaia after various shifts (first senatorial, then imperial) back and forth with Macedonia, in A.D. 44 Claudius gave back to the Senate with proconsul as the title of the governor. It is amazing how Luke is confirmed whenever a new discovery is made. The discovery of this inscription has thrown light also on the date of Paul's work in Corinth as it says that Gallio came in the 26th acclamation of Claudius as Emperor in A.D. 51, that would definitely fix the time of Paul in Corinth as A.D. 50 and 51 (or 51 and 52). Deissmann has a full and able discussion of the whole matter in Appendix I to his _St. Paul_. {Rose up} (\katepestsan\). Second aorist active of \kat-eph-istmi\, intransitive, to take a stand against, a double compound verb found nowhere else. They took a stand (\estsan\) against (\kata\, down on, \epi\, upon), they made a dash or rush at Paul as if they would stand it no longer. {Before the judgment seat} (\epi to bma\). See on ¯12:21|. The proconsul was sitting in the basilica in the forum or agora. The Jews had probably heard of his reputation for moderation and sought to make an impression as they had on the praetors of Philippi by their rush (\sunepest\, strkjv@16:22|). The new proconsul was a good chance also (25:2|). Songs:for the second time Paul faces a Roman proconsul (Sergius Paulus, strkjv@13:7|) though under very different circumstances.

rwp@Acts:19:21 @{Purposed in the spirit} (\etheto en ti pneumati\). Second aorist middle indicative for mental action and "spirit" expressed also. A new stage in Paul's career begins here, a new division of the Acts. {Passed through} (\dielthn\). Word (\dierchomai\) used ten times in Acts (cf. strkjv@19:1|) of missionary journeys (Ramsay). {Macedonia and Achaia} (\tn Makedonian kai Achaian\). This was the way that he actually went, but originally he had planned to go to Achaia (Corinth) and then to Macedonia, as he says in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:15f.|, but he had now changed that purpose, perhaps because of the bad news from Corinth. Already when he wrote I Corinthians he proposed to go first to Macedonia (1Corinthians:16:5-7|). He even hoped to spend the winter in Corinth "if the Lord permit" and to remain in Ephesus till Pentecost, neither of which things he did. {I must also see Rome} (\dei me kai Rmn idein\). This section of Acts begins with Rome in the horizon of Paul's plans and the book closes with Paul in Rome (Rackham). Here he feels the necessity of going as in strkjv@Romans:1:15| he feels himself "debtor" to all including "those in Rome" (Romans:1:16|). Paul had long desired to go to Rome (Rom strkjv@1:10|), but had been frequently hindered (Romans:1:13|), but he has definitely set his face to go to Rome and on to Spain (Romans:15:23-29|). Paley calls sharp attention to this parallel between strkjv@Acts:19:21| and strkjv@Romans:1:10-15; strkjv@15:23-29|. Rome had a fascination for Paul as the home of Aquila and Priscilla and numerous other friends (Romans:16|), but chiefly as the capital of the Roman Empire and a necessary goal in Paul's ambition to win it to Jesus Christ. His great work in Asia had stirred afresh in him the desire to do his part for Rome. He wrote to Rome from Corinth not long after this and in Jerusalem Jesus in vision will confirm the necessity (\dei\) that Paul see Rome (Acts strkjv@23:11|).

rwp@Acts:23:9 @{Strove} (\diemachonto\). Imperfect middle of \diamachomai\, old Attic verb, to fight it out (between, back and forth, fiercely). Here only in the N.T. It was a lively scrap and Luke pictures it as going on. The Pharisees definitely take Paul's side. {And what if a spirit hath spoken to him or an angel?} (\ei de pneuma elalsen auti aggelos?\). This is aposiopesis, not uncommon in the N.T., as in strkjv@Luke:13:9; strkjv@John:6:62| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1203). See one also in strkjv@Exodus:32:32|.

rwp@Galatians:2:8 @{He that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision} (\ho gar energsas Petri eis apostoln ts peritoms\). Paul here definitely recognizes Peter's leadership (apostleship, \apostoln\, late word, already in strkjv@Acts:1:25; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:2|) to the Jews and asserts that Peter acknowledges his apostleship to the Gentiles. This is a complete answer to the Judaizers who denied the genuineness of Paul's apostleship because he was not one of the twelve.

rwp@Hebrews:9:4 @{Having a golden censer} (\chrusoun echousa thumiatrion\). The present active participle \echousa\ (feminine singular) agrees with \skn\ (the Holy of Holies). It is not certain whether \thumiatrion\ here means censer or altar of incense. In the LXX (2Chronicles:26:19; strkjv@Exodus:8:11|; IV Macc. strkjv@7:11) it means censer and apparently so in the inscriptions and papyri. But in Philo and Josephus it means altar of incense for which the LXX has \thusiastrion tou thumiatos\ (Exodus:30:1-10|). Apparently the altar of incense was in the Holy Place, though in strkjv@Exodus:30:1-10| it is left quite vague. B puts it in verse 2|. Songs:we leave the discrepancy unsettled. At any rate the altar of incense was used for the Holy of Holies ("its ritual associations," Dods). {The ark of the covenant} (\tn kibton ts diathks\). A box or chest four feet long, two and a half broad and high (Exodus:25:10f.|). The Scotch have a "meal-ark." {Wherein} (\en hi\). In the ark. There were three treasures in the ark of the covenant (a pot of manna, Aaron's rod, the tables of the covenant). For the pot of manna (golden added in the LXX) see strkjv@Exodus:16:32-34|. For Aaron's rod that budded (\h blastsasa\, first aorist active participle of \blastan\) see strkjv@Numbers:17:1-11|. For the tables of the covenant see strkjv@Exodus:25:16f.; strkjv@31:18; strkjv@Deuteronomy:9:9; strkjv@10:5|. Not definitely clear about these items in the ark, but on front, except that strkjv@1Kings:8:9| states that it did contain the tables of the covenant. For \plakes\ (tables) see strkjv@2Corinthians:3:3| (only other N.T. example).

rwp@James:5:6 @{Ye have condemned} (\katedikasate\). First aorist active indicative of \katadikaz\, old verb (from \katadik\, condemnation, strkjv@Acts:25:15|). The rich controlled the courts of justice. {Ye have killed the righteous one} (\ephoneusate ton dikaion\). First aorist active indicative of \phoneu\ (2:11; strkjv@4:2|). "The righteous one" (\tn dikaion\) is the generic use of the singular with article for the class. There is probably no direct reference to one individual, though it does picture well the death of Christ and also the coming death of James himself, who was called the Just (Eus. _H.E_. ii. 23). Stephen (Acts:7:52|) directly accuses the Sanhedrin with being betrayers and murderers (\prodotai kai phoneis\) of the righteous one (\tou dikaiou\). {He doth not resist you} (\ouk antitassetai humin\). It is possible to treat this as a question. Present middle indicative of \antitass\, for which see strkjv@James:4:6|. Without a question the unresisting end of the victim (\ton dikaion\) is pictured. With a question (\ouk\, expecting an affirmative answer) God or Lord is the subject, with the final judgment in view. There is no way to decide definitely.

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

rwp@John:9:22 @{Because they feared the Jews} (\hoti ephobounto tous Ioudaious\). Imperfect middle, a continuing fear and not without reason. See already the whispers about Jesus because of fear of the Jews (7:13|). {Had agreed already} (\d sunetetheinto\). Past perfect middle of \suntithmi\, to put together, to form a compact (7:32,47-49|). {If any man should confess him to be Christ} (\ean tis auton homologsi Christon\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \homologe\ and predicate accusative \Christon\. Jesus had made confession of himself before men the test of discipleship and denial the disproof (Matthew:10:32; strkjv@Luke:12:8|). We know that many of the rulers nominally believed on Jesus (12:42|) and yet "did not confess him because of the Pharisees" (\alla dia tous Pharisaious ouch hmologoun\), for the very reason given here, "that they might not be put out of the synagogue" (\hina m aposunaggoi genntai\). Small wonder then that here the parents cowered a bit. {That he should be put out of the synagogue} (\hina aposunaggos gentai\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\. \Aposunaggos\ (\apo\ and \sunagg\) is found in N.T. only here and strkjv@12:42; strkjv@16:2|. A purely Jewish word naturally. There were three kinds of excommunication (for thirty days, for thirty more, indefinitely).

rwp@John:17:8 @{The words} (\ta rmata\). Plural, each word of God, as in strkjv@3:34|, and of Christ (5:47; strkjv@6:63,68|), while the singular (\ton logon sou\) in verses 6,14| views God's message as a whole. {Knew} (\egnsan\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\ like \elabon\ in contrast with \egnkan\ (perfect) in verse 7|. They definitely "received and recognized truly" (\alths\). There was comfort to Christ in this fact. {They believed} (\episteusan\). Another aorist parallel with \elabon\ and \egnsan\. The disciples believed in Christ's mission from the Father (John:6:69; strkjv@Matthew:16:16|). Note \apesteilas\ here as in verse 3|. Christ is God's {Apostle} to man (Hebrews:3:1|). This statement, like a solemn refrain (\Thou didst send me\), occurs five times in this prayer (verses 8,18,21,23,25|).

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION AND AUTHOR LUKE All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in the title. We should know that Luke wrote these two books if there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. Even Renan says: "There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name."

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Luke: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:22:1 @{The Passover} (\pascha\) Both names (unleavened bread and passover) are used here as in strkjv@Mark:14:1|. Strictly speaking the passover was Nisan 14 and the unleavened bread 15-21. This is the only place in the N.T. where the expression "the feast of unleavened bread" (common in LXX, Ex. strkjv@23:15|, etc.) occurs, for strkjv@Mark:14:1| has just "the unleavened bread." strkjv@Matthew:26:17| uses unleavened bread and passover interchangeably. {Drew nigh} (\ggizen\). Imperfect active. strkjv@Mark:14:1; strkjv@Matthew:26:2| mention "after two days" definitely.

rwp@Mark:8:15 @{Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod} (\Horte, blepete apo ts zums tn Pharisain kai ts zums Hridou\). Present imperatives. Note \apo\ and the ablative case. \Zum\ is from \zumo\ and occurs already in strkjv@Matthew:13:33| in a good sense. For the bad sense see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:6|. He repeatedly charged (\diestelleto\, imperfect indicative), showing that the warning was needed. The disciples came out of a Pharisaic atmosphere and they had just met it again at Dalmanutha. It was insidious. Note the combination of Herod here with the Pharisees. This is after the agitation of Herod because of the death of the Baptist and the ministry of Jesus (Mark:6:14-29; strkjv@Matthew:14:1-12; strkjv@Luke:9:7-9|). Jesus definitely warns the disciples against "the leaven of Herod" (bad politics) and the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (bad theology and also bad politics).

rwp@Mark:9:31 @{For he taught} (\edidasken gar\). Imperfect tense, and the reason given for secrecy. He was renewing again definitely the prediction of his death in Jerusalem some six months ahead as he had done before (Mark:8:31; strkjv@Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Luke:9:22|). Now as then Jesus foretells his resurrection "after three days" ("the third day," strkjv@Matthew:17:23|).

rwp@Mark:13:32 @{Not even the Son} (\oude ho huios\). There is no doubt as to the genuineness of these words here such as exists in strkjv@Matthew:24:36|. This disclaimer of knowledge naturally interpreted applies to the second coming, not to the destruction of Jerusalem which had been definitely limited to that generation as it happened in A.D. 70.

rwp@Matthew:22:1 @{Again in parables} (\palin en parabolais\). Matthew has already given two on this occasion (The Two Sons, The Wicked Husbandmen). He alone gives this Parable of the Marriage Feast of the King's Son. It is somewhat similar to that of The Supper in strkjv@Luke:14:16-23| given on another occasion. Hence some scholars consider this merely Matthew's version of the Lucan parable in the wrong place because of Matthew's habit of grouping the sayings of Jesus. But that is a gratuitous indictment of Matthew's report which definitely locates the parable here by \palin\. Some regard it as not spoken by Jesus at all, but an effort on the part of the writer to cover the sin and fate of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and God's demand for righteousness. But here again it is like Jesus and suits the present occasion.

rwp@Matthew:26:45 @{Sleep on now and take your rest} (\katheudete loipon kai anapauesthe\). This makes it "mournful irony" (Plummer) or reproachful concession: "Ye may sleep and rest indefinitely so far as I am concerned; I need no longer your watchful interest" (Bruce). It may be a sad query as Goodspeed: "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest?" Songs:Moffatt. This use of \loipon\ for now or henceforth is common in the papyri. {The hour is at hand} (\ggiken h hra\). Time for action has now come. They have missed their chance for sympathy with Jesus. He has now won the victory without their aid. "The Master's time of weakness is past; He is prepared to face the worst" (Bruce). {Is betrayed} (\paradidotai\). Futuristic present or inchoative present, the first act in the betrayal is at hand. Jesus had foreseen his "hour" for long and now he faces it bravely.

rwp@Matthew:27:63 @{Sir, we remember} (\kurie, emnesthmen\). This was the next day, on our Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, the day after the Preparation (Matthew:27:62|). Ingressive aorist indicative, we have just recalled. It is objected that the Jewish rulers would know nothing of such a prediction, but in strkjv@Matthew:12:40| he expressly made it to them. Meyer scouts as unhistorical legend the whole story that Christ definitely foretold his resurrection on the third day. But that is to make legendary much of the Gospels and to limit Jesus to a mere man. The problem remains why the disciples forgot and the Jewish leaders remembered. But that is probably due on the one hand to the overwhelming grief of the disciples coupled with the blighting of all their hopes of a political Messiah in Jesus, and on the other hand to the keen nervous fear of the leaders who dreaded the power of Jesus though dead. They wanted to make sure of their victory and prevent any possible revival of this pernicious heresy. {That deceiver} (\ekeinos ho planos\) they call him, a vagabond wanderer (\planos\) with a slur in the use of {that} (\ekeinos\), a picturesque sidelight on their intense hatred of and fear of Jesus.

rwp@Romans:1:2 @{He promised afore} (\proepggeilato\). First aorist middle of \proepaggell\ for which verb see on ¯2Corinthians:9:5|. {By} (\dia\). Through, by means of, intermediate agency like strkjv@Matthew:1:22| which see. {In the holy scriptures} (\en graphais hagiais\). No article, yet definite. Perhaps the earliest use of the phrase (Sanday and Headlam). Paul definitely finds God's gospel in the Holy Scriptures.

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