NT.filter - rwp seems:
rwp@
1Corinthians:2:4 @{Not in persuasive words of wisdom} (\ouk en pithois sophias logois\). This looks like a false disclaimer or mock modesty, for surely the preacher desires to be persuasive. This adjective \pithos\ (MSS. \peithos\) has not yet been found elsewhere. It seems to be formed directly from \peith\, to persuade, as \pheidos\ (\phidos\) is from \pheidomai\, to spare. The old Greek form \pithanos\ is common enough and is used by Josephus (_Ant_. VIII. 9. 1) of "the plausible words of the lying prophet" in strkjv@1Kings:13|. The kindred word \pithanologia\ occurs in strkjv@Colossians:2:4| for the specious and plausible Gnostic philosophers. And gullible people are easy marks for these plausible pulpiteers. Corinth put a premium on the veneer of false rhetoric and thin thinking. {But in demonstration} (\all' en apodeixei\). In contrast with the {plausibility} just mentioned. This word, though an old one from \apodeiknumi\, to show forth, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. {Spirit} (\pneuma\) here can be the Holy Spirit or inward spirit as opposed to superficial expression and {power} (\dunamis\) is moral power rather than intellectual acuteness (cf. strkjv@1:18|).
rwp@1Corinthians:4:17 @{Have I sent} (\epempsa\). First aorist active indicative. Probably Timothy had already gone as seems clear from strkjv@16:10f|. Apparently Timothy came back to Ephesus and was sent on to Macedonia before the uproar in Ephesus (Acts:19:22|). Probably also Titus was then despatched to Corinth, also before the uproar. {In every church} (\en pasi ekklsii\). Paul expects his teachings and practices to be followed in every church (1Corinthians:14:33|). Note his language here "my ways those in Christ Jesus." Timothy as Paul's spokesman {will remind} (\anamnsei\) the Corinthians of Paul's teachings.
rwp@1Corinthians:5:3 @{For I verily} (\eg men gar\). Emphatic statement of Paul's own attitude of indignation, \eg\ in contrast with \humeis\. He justifies his demand for the expulsion of the man. {Being absent} (\apn\) Although absent (concessive participle) and so of \parn\ though present. Each with locative case (\ti smati, ti pneumati\). {Have already judged} (\d kekrika\). Perfect active indicative of \krin\. I have already decided or judged, as though present (\hs parn\). Paul felt compelled to reach a conclusion about the case and in a sentence of much difficulty seems to conceive an imaginary church court where the culprit has been tried and condemned. There are various ways of punctuating the clauses in this sentence in verses 3-5|. It is not merely Paul's individual judgment. The genitive absolute clause in verse 4|, {ye being gathered together} (\sunachthentn humn\, first aorist passive participle of \sunag\, in regular assembly) {and my spirit} (\kai tou emou pneumatos\) with the assembly (he means) {and meeting in the name of our Lord Jesus} (\en ti onomati tou Kuriou [hmn] Isou\) with the power of the Lord Jesus (\sun ti dunamei tou Kuriou hmn Isou\), though this clause can be taken with the infinitive to deliver (\paradounai\). It makes good syntax and sense taken either way. The chief difference is that, if taken with "gathered together" (\sunachthentn\) Paul assumes less apostolic prerogative to himself. But he did have such power and used it against Elymas (Acts:13:8ff.|) as Peter did against Ananias and Sapphira (Acts:5:1ff.|).
rwp@1Corinthians:9:21 @{To them that are without law} (\tois anomois\). The heathen, those outside the Mosaic law (Romans:2:14|), not lawless (Luke:22:37; strkjv@Acts:2:23; strkjv@1Timothy:1:9|). See how Paul bore himself with the pagans (Acts:14:15; strkjv@17:23; strkjv@24:25|), and how he quoted heathen poets. "Not being an outlaw of God, but an inlaw of Christ" (Evans, Estius has it _exlex, inlex_, \m n anomos theou, all' ennomos Christou\). The genitive case of \theou\ and \Christou\ (specifying case) comes out better thus, for it seems unusual with \anomos\ and \ennomos\, both old and regular adjectives.
rwp@1Corinthians:10:7 @{Neither be ye idolaters} (\mde eidlolatrai ginesthe\). Literally, stop becoming idolaters, implying that some of them had already begun to be. The word \eidlolatrs\ seems to be a Christian formation to describe the Christian view. Eating \ta eidlothuta\ might become a stepping-stone to idolatry in some instances. {Drink} (\pein\). Short form for \piein\, sometimes even \pin\ occurs (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 204). {To play} (\paizein\). This old verb to play like a child occurs nowhere else in the N.T., but is common in the LXX and it is quoted here from strkjv@Exodus:32:6|. In idolatrous festivals like that witnessed by Moses when he saw the people singing and dancing around the golden calf (Exodus:32:18f.|).
rwp@1Corinthians:10:10 @{Neither murmur ye} (\mde gogguzete\). Implying that some of them were murmuring. For this late picturesque onomatopoetic verb see on ¯Matthew:20:11|. The reference seems to be to strkjv@Numbers:16:41f.| after the punishment of Korah. {By the destroyer} (\hupo tou olothreutou\). This word, from \olothreu\ (late verb from \olethros\, destruction) occurs only here, so far as known. The reference is to the destroying angel of strkjv@Exodus:12:23| (\ho olothreun\).
rwp@1Corinthians:10:11 @{Now these things happened unto them} (\tauta de sunebainon ekeinois\). Imperfect tense because they happened from time to time. {By way of example} (\tupiks\). Adverb in sense of \tupoi\ in verse 6|. Only instance of the adverb except in ecclesiastical writers after this time, but adjective \tupikos\ occurs in a late papyrus. {For our admonition} (\pros nouthesian hmn\). Objective genitive (\hmn\) again. \Nouthesia\ is late word from \nouthete\ (see on ¯Acts:20:31; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12,14|) for earlier \nouthetsis\ and \nouthetia\. {The ends of the ages have come} (\ta tel tn ainn katntken\). Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:9:26| \h sunteleia tn ainn\, the consummation of the ages (also strkjv@Matthew:13:40|). The plural seems to point out how one stage succeeds another in the drama of human history. \Katntken\ is perfect active indicative of \katanta\, late verb, to come down to (see on ¯Acts:16:1|). Does Paul refer to the second coming of Christ as in strkjv@7:26|? In a sense the ends of the ages like a curtain have come down to all of us.
rwp@1Corinthians:10:30 @Paul carries on the supposed objective to his principle of love. Why incur the risk of being evil spoken of (\blasphmoumai\) for the sake of maintaining one's liberty? Is it worth it? See strkjv@Romans:14:6| where Paul justifies the conscience of one who eats the meat and of one who does not. Saying grace over food that one should not eat seems inconsistent. We have this very word _blaspheme_ in English.
rwp@1Corinthians:14:34 @{Keep silence in the churches} (\en tais ekklsiais sigatsan\). The same verb used about the disorders caused by speakers in tongues (verse 28|) and prophets (30|). For some reason some of the women were creating disturbance in the public worship by their dress (11:2-16|) and now by their speech. There is no doubt at all as to Paul's meaning here. In church the women are not allowed to speak (\lalein\) nor even to ask questions. They are to do that {at home} (\en oiki\). He calls it a shame (\aischron\) as in strkjv@11:6| (cf. strkjv@Ephesians:5:12; strkjv@Titus:1:11|). Certainly women are still in subjection (\hupotassesthsan\) to their husbands (or ought to be). But somehow modern Christians have concluded that Paul's commands on this subject, even strkjv@1Timothy:2:12|, were meant for specific conditions that do not apply wholly now. Women do most of the teaching in our Sunday schools today. It is not easy to draw the line. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. It seems clear that we need to be patient with each other as we try to understand Paul's real meaning here.
rwp@1Corinthians:16:20 @{With a holy kiss} (\en philmati hagii\). In the synagogue men kissed men and women kissed women. This was the Christian custom at a later date and apparently so here. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:26; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:12; strkjv@Romans:3:8; strkjv@1Peter:5:14|. It seems never to have been promiscuous between the sexes.
rwp@1Corinthians:16:22 @\Anathema\. The word seems a bit harsh to us, but the refusal to love Christ (\ou philei\) on the part of a nominal Christian deserves \anathema\ (see on ¯12:3| for this word). \Maran atha\. This Aramaic phrase means "Our Lord (\maran\) cometh (\atha\)" or, used as a proleptic perfect, "has come." It seems to be a sort of watchword (cf. strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:14ff.; strkjv@James:5:7f.; strkjv@Phillipians:4:5; strkjv@Revelation:1:7; strkjv@3:11; strkjv@22:20|), expressing the lively hope that the Lord will come. It was a curious blunder in the King James Version that connected \Maran atha\ with \Anathema\.
rwp@1Peter:1:18 @{Knowing} (\eidotes\). Second perfect active participle of \oida\, causal participle. The appeal is to an elementary Christian belief (Hort), the holiness and justice of God with the added thought of the high cost of redemption (Bigg). {Ye were redeemed} (\elutrthte\). First aorist passive indicative of \lutro\, old verb from \lutron\ (ransom for life as of a slave, strkjv@Matthew:20:28|), to set free by payment of ransom, abundant examples in the papyri, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:24:21; strkjv@Titus:2:14|. The ransom is the blood of Christ. Peter here amplifies the language in strkjv@Isaiah:52:3f|. {Not with corruptible things} (\ou phthartois\). Instrumental case neuter plural of the late verbal adjective from \phtheir\ to destroy or to corrupt, and so perishable, in N.T. here, verse 23; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:25; strkjv@15:53f.; strkjv@Romans:1:23|. \Argurii chrusii\ (silver or gold) are in explanatory apposition with \phthartois\ and so in the same case. Slaves were set free by silver and gold. {From your vain manner of life} (\ek ts mataias humn anastrophs\). "Out of" (\ek\), and so away from, the pre-Christian \anastroph\ of verse 15|, which was "vain" (\mataias\. Cf. strkjv@Ephesians:4:17-24|). {Handed down from your fathers} (\patroparadotou\). This adjective, though predicate in position, is really attributive in idea, like \cheiropoitou\ in strkjv@Ephesians:2:11| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 777), like the French idiom. This double compound verbal adjective (\pater, para, didmi\), though here alone in N.T., occurs in Diodorus, Dion. Halic, and in several inscriptions (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_; Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 266f.). The Jews made a wrong use of tradition (Matthew:15:2ff.|), but the reference here seems mainly to Gentiles (1Peter:2:12|).
rwp@1Peter:2:5 @{Ye also as living stones} (\kai autoi hs lithoi zntes\). Peter applies the metaphor about Christ as the living stone to the readers, "ye yourselves also." {Are built up a spiritual house} (\oikodomeisthe oikos pneumatikos\). Present passive indicative second person plural of \oikodome\, the very verb used by Jesus to Peter in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| (\oikodoms\) of building his church on the rock. If the metaphor of a house of living stones seems "violent" (Vincent), it should be remembered that Jesus employed the figure of a house of believers. Peter just carried it a bit farther and Paul uses a temple for believers in one place (1Corinthians:3:16|) and for the kingdom of God in general (Ephesians:2:22|), as does the author of Hebrews (Hebrews:3:6|). This "spiritual house" includes believers in the five Roman provinces of strkjv@1:1| and shows clearly how Peter understood the metaphor of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| to be not a local church, but the church general (the kingdom of Christ). {To be a holy priesthood} (\eis hierateuma hagion\). Late word (from \hierateu\, to serve as priest, strkjv@Luke:1:8| alone in N.T.), in LXX (Exodus:19:6|), in N.T. only here and verse 9|, either the office of priest (Hort) or an order or body of priests. At any rate, Peter has the same idea of Rev strkjv@1:6| (\hiereis\, priests) that all believers are priests (Hebrews:4:16|) and can approach God directly. {To offer up} (\anenegkai\). First aorist active infinitive (of purpose here) of \anapher\, the usual word for offering sacrifices (Hebrews:7:27|). Only these are "spiritual" (\pneumatikas\) as pictured also in strkjv@Hebrews:13:15f|. {Acceptable} (\euprosdektous\). Late (Plutarch) double compound verbal adjective (\eu, pros, dechomai\) as in strkjv@2Corinthians:6:2|.
rwp@1Peter:4:3 @{Past} (\parelluths\). Perfect active participle of the compound verb \parerchomai\, old verb, to go by (beside) as in strkjv@Matthew:14:15| with \hra\ (hour). {May suffice} (\arketos\). No copula in the Greek, probably \estin\ (is) rather than \dunatai\ (can). Late and rare verbal adjective from \arke\, to suffice, in the papyri several times, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:6:34; strkjv@10:25|, apparently referring to Christ's words in strkjv@Matthew:6:34| (possibly an axiom or proverb). {To have wrought} (\kateirgasthai\). Perfect middle infinitive of \katergazomai\, common compound (\kata, ergon\ work) as in strkjv@1Corinthians:5:3|. {The desire} (\to boulma\). Correct text, not \thelma\. Either means the thing desired, willed. Jews sometimes fell in with the ways of Gentiles (Romans:2:21-24; strkjv@3:9-18; strkjv@Ephesians:2:1-3|) as today some Christians copy the ways of the world. {And to have walked} (\peporeumenous\). Perfect middle participle of \poreuomai\ in the accusative plural of general reference with the infinitive \kateirgasthai\. Literally, "having walked or gone." {In lasciviousness} (\en aselgeiais\). All these sins are in the locative case with \en\. "In unbridled lustful excesses" (2Peter:2:7; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:21|). {Lusts} (\epithumiais\). Cf. strkjv@2:11; strkjv@4:2|. {Winebibbings} (\oinophlugiais\). Old compound (\oinos\, wine, \phlu\, to bubble up), for drunkenness, here only in N.T. (also in strkjv@Deuteronomy:21:20|). {Revellings} (\komois\). Old word (from \keimai\, to lie down), rioting drinking parties, in N.T. here and strkjv@Galatians:5:21; strkjv@Romans:13:13|. {Carousings} (\potois\). Old word for drinking carousal (from \pin\, to drink), here only in the N.T. In the light of these words it seems strange to find modern Christians justifying their "personal liberty" to drink and carouse, to say nothing of the prohibition law. The Greeks actually carried lust and drunkenness into their religious observances (Aphrodite, for instance). {Abominable idolatries} (\athemitois eidlolatriais\). To the Christian all "idolatry," (\eidlon, latreia\), worship of idols, is "abominable," not allowed (alpha privative and \themitos\, \themistos\ the old form, verbal of \themiz\, to make lawful), but particularly those associated with drinking and licentiousness. The only other N.T. example of \athemitos\ is by Peter also (Acts:10:28|) and about the Mosaic law. That may be the idea here, for Jews often fell into idolatrous practices (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 274).
rwp@1Thessalonians:2:15 @{Who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets} (\tn kai ton Kurion apokteinantn Isoun kai tous prophtas\). First aorist active participle of \apoktein\. Vivid justification of his praise of the churches in Judea. The Jews killed the prophets before the Lord Jesus who reminded them of their guilt (Matthew:23:29|). Paul, as Peter (Acts:2:23|), lays the guilt of the death of Christ on the Jews. {And drove us out} (\kai hms ekdixantn\). An old verb to drive out or banish, to chase out as if a wild beast. Only here in N.T. It is Paul's vivid description of the scene told in strkjv@Acts:17:5ff.| when the rabbis and the hoodlums from the agora chased him out of Thessalonica by the help of the politarchs. {Please not God} (\Thei m areskontn\). The rabbis and Jews thought that they were pleasing God by so doing as Paul did when he ravaged the young church in Jerusalem. But Paul knows better now. {And are contrary to all men} (\kai pasin anthrpois enantin\). Dative case with the adjective \enantin\ (old and common word, face to face, opposite). It seems like a bitter word about Paul's countrymen whom he really loved (Romans:9:1-5; strkjv@10:1-6|), but Paul knew only too well the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile as he shows in strkjv@Ephesians:2| and which only the Cross of Christ can break down. Tacitus (_Hist_. V. 5) says that the Jews are _adversus omnes alios hostile odium_.
rwp@1Timothy:1:15 @{Faithful is the saying} (\pistos ho logos\). Five times in the Pastorals (1Timothy:1:15; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@4:9; strkjv@Titus:3:8; strkjv@2Timothy:2:11|). It will pay to note carefully \pistis, pisteu, pistos\. Same use of \pistos\ (trustworthy) applied to \logos\ in strkjv@Titus:1:9; strkjv@Revelation:21:5; strkjv@22:6|. Here and probably in strkjv@2Timothy:2:11| a definite saying seems to be referred to, possibly a quotation (\hoti\) of a current saying quite like the Johannine type of teaching. This very phrase (Christ coming into the world) occurs in strkjv@John:9:37; strkjv@11:27; strkjv@16:28; strkjv@18:37|. Paul, of course, had no access to the Johannine writings, but such "sayings" were current among the disciples. There is no formal quotation, but "the whole phrase implies a knowledge of Synoptic and Johannine language" (Lock) as in strkjv@Luke:5:32; strkjv@John:12:47|. {Acceptation} (\apodochs\). Genitive case with \axios\ (worthy of). Late word (Polybius, Diod., Jos.) in N.T. only here and strkjv@4:9|. {Chief} (\prtos\). Not \n\ (I was), but \eimi\ (I am). "It is not easy to think of any one but St. Paul as penning these words" (White). In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:9| he had called himself "the least of the apostles" (\elachistos tn apostoln\). In strkjv@Ephesians:3:8| he refers to himself as "the less than the least of all saints" (\ti elachistoteri pantn hagin\). On occasion Paul would defend himself as on a par with the twelve apostles (Galatians:2:6-10|) and superior to the Judaizers (2Corinthians:11:5f.; strkjv@12:11|). It is not mock humility here, but sincere appreciation of the sins of his life (cf. strkjv@Romans:7:24|) as a persecutor of the church of God (Galatians:1:13|), of men and even women (Acts:22:4f.; strkjv@26:11|). He had sad memories of those days.
rwp@1Timothy:4:5 @{It is sanctified} (\hagiazetai\). Present passive indicative of \hagiaz\, here "rendered holy" rather than "declared holy." Cf. verse 4|. {Through the word of God and prayers} (\dia logou theou kai enteuxes\). See strkjv@2:1| for \enteuxis\. Paul seems to refer to Genesis 1. It is almost a hendiadys "by the use of Scripture in prayer."
rwp@2Corinthians:1:17 @{Did I shew fickleness?} (\mti ara ti elaphrii?\). An indignant negative answer is called for by \mti\. The instrumental case of \elaphrii\ is regular after \echrsamn\ from \chraomai\, to use. \Elaphria\ is a late word for levity from the old adjective, \elaphros\, light, agile (2Corinthians:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:11:30|). Here only in N.T. {Purpose} (\bouleuomai\). Paul raises the question of fickleness about any of his plans. {Yea yea} (\Nai nai\) {--nay nay} (\ou ou\). See a similar repetition in strkjv@Matthew:5:37|. It is plain in strkjv@James:5:12| where "the yea" is "yea" and "the nay" is "nay." That seems to be Paul's meaning here, "that the Yea may be yea and the Nay may be nay."
rwp@2Corinthians:2:3 @{I wrote this very thing} (\egrapsa touto auto\). Is this (and \egrapsa\ in verses 4,9,12|) the epistolary aorist referring to the present letter? In itself that is possible as the epistolary aorist does occur in the N.T. as in strkjv@8:18; strkjv@9:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 854f.). If not epistolary aorist as seems improbable from the context and from strkjv@7:8-12|, to what Epistle does he refer? To strkjv@1Corinthians:5| or to a lost letter? It is possible, of course, that, when Paul decided not to come to Corinth, he sent a letter. The language that follows in verses 3,4; strkjv@7:8-12| can hardly apply to I Corinthians. {Should have sorrow} (\lupn sch\). Second aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of \ech\, should get sorrow, after \hina m\ negative final particles. {From them of whom} (\aph' hn\). Antecedent omitted, \apo toutn aph' hn\ (from those from whom). {I ought} (\edei me\). Imperfect for unrealized present obligation as often and like English. {Having confidence} (\pepoiths\). Second perfect active participle of \peith\ (1:9|).
rwp@2Corinthians:10:10 @{They say} (\phasin\). Reading of B old Latin Vulgate, but Westcott and Hort prefer \phsin\ (says one, the leader). This charge Paul quotes directly. {Weighty and strong} (\bareiai kai ischurai\). These adjectives can be uncomplimentary and mean "severe and violent" instead of "impressive and vigorous." The adjectives bear either sense. {His bodily presence} (\h parousia tou smatos\). This certainly is uncomplimentary. "The presence of his body." It seems clear that Paul did not have a commanding appearance like that of Barnabas (Acts:14:12|). He had some physical defect of the eyes (Galatians:4:14|) and a thorn in the flesh (2Corinthians:12:7|). In the second century _Acts of Paul and Thecla_ he is pictured as small, short, bow-legged, with eye-brows knit together, and an aquiline nose. A forgery of the fourth century in the name of Lucian describes Paul as "the bald-headed, hook-nosed Galilean." However that may be, his accusers sneered at his personal appearance as "weak" (\asthens\). {His speech of no account} (\ho logos exouthenmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \exouthene\, to treat as nothing (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:28|). The Corinthians (some of them) cared more for the brilliant eloquence of Apollos and did not find Paul a trained rhetorician (1Corinthians:1:17; strkjv@2:1,4; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:6|). He made different impressions on different people. "Seldom has any one been at once so ardently hated and so passionately loved as St. Paul" (Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 70). "At one time he seemed like a man, and at another he seemed like an angel" (_Acts of Paul and Thecla_). He spoke like a god at Lystra (Acts:14:8-12|), but Eutychus went to sleep on him (Acts:20:9|). Evidently Paul winced under this biting criticism of his looks and speech.
rwp@2Corinthians:11:31 @{I am not lying} (\ou pseudomai\). The list seems so absurd and foolish that Paul takes solemn oath about it (cf. strkjv@1:23|). For the doxology see strkjv@Romans:1:25; strkjv@9:5|.
rwp@2Corinthians:12:2 @{I know a man} (\oida anthrpon\). Paul singles out one incident of ecstasy in his own experience that he declines to describe. He alludes to it in this indirect way as if it were some other personality. {Fourteen years ago} (\pro etn dekatessarn\). Idiomatic way of putting it, the preposition \pro\ (before) before the date (Robertson, _Grammar, p. 621f.) as in strkjv@John:12:1|. The date was probably while Paul was at Tarsus (Acts:9:30; strkjv@11:25|). We have no details of that period. {Caught up} (\harpagenta\). Second aorist passive participle of \harpaz\, to seize (see on strkjv@Matthew:11:12|). {Even to the third heaven} (\hes tritou ouranou\). It is unlikely that Paul alludes to the idea of seven heavens held by some Jews (_Test. of the Twelve Pat._, Levi ii. iii.). He seems to mean the highest heaven where God is (Plummer).
rwp@2Peter:1:2 @{Be multiplied} (\plthunthei\). First aorist passive optative of \plthun\ in a wish for the future (volitive use) as in strkjv@1Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|. {In the knowledge} (\en epignsei\). Full (additional, \epi\) knowledge as in strkjv@1:8| (only \gnsis\ in strkjv@1:5,6; strkjv@3:18|), but \epignsin\ again in strkjv@1:3,8; strkjv@2:20|. As in Colossians, so here full knowledge is urged against the claims of the Gnostic heretics to special \gnsis\. {Of God and of Jesus our Lord} (\tou theou kai Isou tou kuriou hmn\). At first sight the idiom here seems to require one person as in strkjv@1:1|, though there is a second article (\tou\) before \kuriou\, and \Isou\ is a proper name. But the text here is very uncertain. Bengel, Spitta, Zahn, Nestle accept the short reading of P and some Vulgate MSS. and some minuscles with only \tou kuriou hmn\ (our Lord) from which the three other readings may have come. Elsewhere in II Peter \gnsis\ and \epignsis\ are used of Christ alone. The text of II Peter is not in a good state of preservation.
rwp@2Peter:3:10 @{The day of the Lord} (\hmera kuriou\). Songs:Peter in strkjv@Acts:2:20| (from strkjv@Joel:3:4|) and Paul in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:2,4; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:5:5|; and day of Christ in strkjv@Phillipians:2:16| and day of God in strkjv@2:12| and day of judgment already in strkjv@2:9; strkjv@3:7|. This great day will certainly come (\hxei\). Future active of \hk\, old verb, to arrive, but in God's own time. {As a thief} (\hs klepts\). That is suddenly, without notice. This very metaphor Jesus had used (Luke:12:39; strkjv@Matthew:24:43|) and Paul after him (1Thessalonians:5:2|) and John will quote it also (Revelation:3:3; strkjv@16:15|). {In the which} (\en hi\). The day when the Lord comes. {Shall pass away} (\pareleusontai\). Future middle of \parerchomai\, old verb, to pass by. {With a great noise} (\roizdon\). Late and rare adverb (from \roize, roizos\)-- Lycophron, Nicander, here only in N.T., onomatopoetic, whizzing sound of rapid motion through the air like the flight of a bird, thunder, fierce flame. {The elements} (\ta stoicheia\). Old word (from \stoichos\ a row), in Plato in this sense, in other senses also in N.T. as the alphabet, ceremonial regulations (Hebrews:5:12; strkjv@Galatians:4:3; strkjv@5:1; strkjv@Colossians:2:8|). {Shall be dissolved} (\luthsetai\). Future passive of \lu\, to loosen, singular because \stoicheia\ is neuter plural. {With fervent heat} (\kausoumena\). Present passive participle of \kauso\, late verb (from \kausos\, usually medical term for fever) and nearly always employed for fever temperature. Mayor suggests a conflagration from internal heat. Bigg thinks it merely a vernacular (Doric) future for \kausomena\ (from \kai\, to burn). {Shall be burned up} (\katakasetai\). Repeated in verse 12|. Second future passive of the compound verb \katakai\, to burn down (up), according to A L. But Aleph B K P read \heurethsetai\ (future passive of \heurisk\, to find) "shall be found." There are various other readings here. The text seems corrupt.
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@2Thessalonians:2:3 @{Let no man beguile you in any wise} (\m tis humas exapatsi kata mdena tropon\). First aorist active subjunctive of \exapata\ (old verb to deceive, strengthened form of simple verb \apata\) with double negative (\m tis, mdena\) in accord with regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:11| rather than the aorist imperative which does occur sometimes in the third person as in strkjv@Mark:13:15| (\m katabat\). Paul broadens the warning to go beyond conversation and letter. He includes "tricks" of any kind. It is amazing how gullible some of the saints are when a new deceiver pulls off some stunts in religion. {For it will not be} (\hoti\). There is an ellipse here of \ouk estai\ (or \gensetai\) to be supplied after \hoti\. Westcott and Hort make an anacoluthon at the end of verse 4|. The meaning is clear. \Hoti\ is causal, because, but the verb is understood. The second coming not only is not "imminent," but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of verse 2|. {Except the falling away come first} (\ean m elthi h apostasia prton\). Negative condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of determination and the aorist subjunctive. \Apostasia\ is the late form of \apostasis\ and is our word apostasy. Plutarch uses it of political revolt and it occurs in I Macc. strkjv@2:15 about Antiochus Epiphanes who was enforcing the apostasy from Judaism to Hellenism. In strkjv@Joshua:22:22| it occurs for rebellion against the Lord. It seems clear that the word here means a religious revolt and the use of the definite article (\h\) seems to mean that Paul had spoken to the Thessalonians about it. The only other New Testament use of the word is in strkjv@Acts:21:21| where it means apostasy from Moses. It is not clear whether Paul means revolt of the Jews from God, of Gentiles from God, of Christians from God, or of the apostasy that includes all classes within and without the body of Christians. But it is to be {first} (\prton\) before Christ comes again. Note this adverb when only two events are compared (cf. strkjv@Acts:1:1|). {And the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition} (\kai apokaluphthi ho anthrpos ts anomias, ho huios ts apleias\). First aorist passive subjunctive after \ean m\ and same condition as with \elthi\. The use of this verb \apokalupt\, like \apokalupsin\ of the second coming in strkjv@1:7|, seems to note the superhuman character (Milligan) of the event and the same verb is repeated in verses 6,8|. The implication is that {the man of sin} is hidden somewhere who will be suddenly manifested just as false apostles pose as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:13ff.|), whether the crowning event of the apostasy or another name for the same event. Lightfoot notes the parallel between the man of sin, of whom sin is the special characteristic (genitive case, a Hebraism for the lawless one in verse 8|) and Christ. Both Christ and the adversary of Christ are revealed, there is mystery about each, both make divine claims (verse 4|). He seems to be the Antichrist of strkjv@1John:2:18|. The terrible phrase, the son of perdition, is applied to Judas in strkjv@John:17:12| (like Judas doomed to perdition), but here to the lawless one (\ho anomos\, verse 8|), who is not Satan, but some one definite person who is doing the work of Satan. Note the definite article each time.
rwp@Info_Acts @ THE HISTORICAL VALUE It was once a fad with a certain school of critics to decry Luke in the Acts as wholly untrustworthy, not above the legendary stage. But the spade has done well by Luke for inscriptions and papyri have brought remarkable confirmation for scores of points where Luke once stood all alone and was discounted because he stood alone. These will be duly noted in the proper places as they occur. Ramsay has done most in this restoration of the rank of Luke as a credible historian, as shown in particular in his _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_ and in _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_. In every instance where discoveries have been made they have confirmed the testimony of Luke as concerning _politarchs_ in Thessalonica, _proconsul_ in Cyprus, etc. The result is that the balance of evidence is now in favour of Luke even when he still stands alone or seems to be opposed by Josephus. Luke, as it stands today, is a more credible historian than Josephus. Ramsay dares to call Luke, all things considered, the greatest of all historians, even above Thucydides. An interesting book on this phase of the subject is Chase's _The Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles_ (1902).
rwp@Acts:1:7 @{Times or seasons} (\chronous kairous\). "Periods" and "points" of time sometimes and probably so here, but such a distinction is not always maintained. See strkjv@Acts:17:26| for \kairous\ in the same sense as \chronous\ for long periods of time. But here some distinction seems to be called for. It is curious how eager people have always been to fix definite dates about the second coming of Christ as the apostles were about the political Messianic kingdom which they were expecting. {Hath set} (\etheto\). Second aorist middle indicative, emphasizing the sovereignty of the Father in keeping all such matters to himself, a gentle hint to people today about the limits of curiosity. Note also "his own" (\idii\) "authority" (\exousii\).
rwp@Acts:2:6 @{When this sound was heard} (\genomens ts phns tauts\). Genitive absolute with aorist middle participle. Note \phn\ this time, not \cho\ as in verse 1|. \Phn\ originally meant sound as of the wind (John:3:8|) or an instrument (1Corinthians:14:7,8,10|), then voice of men. The meaning seems to be that the excited "other tongues" of verse 4| were so loud that the noise drew the crowd together. The house where the 120 were may have been (Hackett) on one of the avenues leading to the temple. {Were confounded} (\sunechuth\). First aorist passive indicative of \sunche\ or \sunchun\, to pour together precisely like the Latin _confundo_, to confound. The Vulgate has it _mente confusa est_. It is an old verb, but in the N.T. only in Acts five times (2:6; strkjv@9:22; strkjv@19:32; strkjv@21:27,31|). {In his own language} (\ti idii dialekti\). Locative case. Each one could understand his own language when he heard that. Every one that came heard somebody speaking in his native tongue.
rwp@Acts:2:40 @{With many other words} (\heterois logois pleiosin\). Instrumental case. Not necessarily "different" (\heterois\), but "further," showing that Luke does not pretend to give all that Peter said. This idea is also brought out clearly by \pleiosin\ ("more," not "many"), more than these given by Luke. {He testified} (\diemarturato\). First aorist middle of \diamarturomai\, old verb, to make solemn attestation or call to witness (perfective use of \dia\), while \marture\ is to bear witness. Page insists that here it should be translated "protested solemnly" to the Jews as it seems to mean in strkjv@Luke:16:28; strkjv@Acts:20:23; strkjv@1Timothy:5:21; strkjv@2Timothy:2:14; strkjv@4:1|. {And exhorted} (\kai parekalei\). Imperfect active, kept on exhorting. {Save yourselves} (\sthte\). First aorist passive of \sz\. Literally, Be ye saved. {Crooked} (\skolias\). Old word, opposite of \orthos\, straight. _Pravus_ the opposite of _rectus_, a perversity for turning off from the truth. Cf. strkjv@Luke:9:41; strkjv@Phillipians:2:15|.
rwp@Acts:4:4 @{Men} (\andrn\). Strictly, men and not women, for \anthrpos\ is the term for both men and women. But in strkjv@Luke:11:31| \andres\ seems to include both men and women and that is possible here, though by no means certain, for see strkjv@Matthew:14:21| where the women and children are expressly excepted.
rwp@Acts:7:4 @{When his father was dead} (\meta to apothanein auton\). \Meta\ with the accusative of the articular infinitive and the accusative of general reference (\auton\), regular Greek idiom. In strkjv@Genesis:11:32| it is stated that Terah died at Haran at the age of 205. There are various explanations of the discrepancy, but no one that seems certain. It is possible (Hackett, Felten) that Abraham is mentioned first in strkjv@Genesis:11:26| because he became the most prominent and was really younger than Haran his brother who died before the first migration who was really sixty years older than Abraham. According to this view Terah was 130 years old at the birth of Abraham, leaving Abraham 75 at the death of Terah (205). {Wherein ye now dwell} (\eis hn humeis nun katoikeite\). Note \eis\ in the sense of \en\ as often. Note also emphatic use of \humeis\ (ye) and now (\nun\).
rwp@Acts:9:2 @{Asked} (\itsato\). First aorist middle indicative, the indirect middle, asked for himself (as a favour to himself). Felten notes that "Saul as a Pharisee makes request of a Sadducee" (the high priest) either Caiaphas if before A.D. 35, but if in 36 Jonathan, son of Caiaphas or if in 37 Theophilus, another son of Caiaphas. {Letters} (\epistolas\). Julius Ceasar and Augustus had granted the high priest and Sanhedrin jurisdiction over Jews in foreign cities, but this central ecclesiastical authority was not always recognized in every local community outside of Judea. Paul says that he received his authority to go to Damascus from the priests (Acts strkjv@26:10|) and "the estate of the elders" (22:5|), that is the Sanhedrin. {To Damascus} (\eis Damaskon\). As if no disciples of importance (outside the apostles in Jerusalem) were left in Judea. Damascus at this time may have been under the rule of Aretas of Arabia (tributary to Rome) as it certainly was a couple of years later when Saul escaped in a basket (2Corinthians:11:32|). This old city is the most enduring in the history of the world (Knowling). It is some 150 miles Northeast from Jerusalem and watered by the river Abana from Anti-Lebanon. Here the Jews were strong in numbers (10,000 butchered by Nero later) and here some disciples had found refuge from Saul's persecution in Judea and still worshipped in the synagogues. Paul's language in strkjv@Acts:26:11| seems to mean that Damascus is merely one of other "foreign cities" to which he carried the persecution. {If he found} (\ean heuri\). Third class condition with aorist subjunctive retained after secondary tense (asked). {The Way} (\ts hodou\). A common method in the Acts for describing Christianity as the Way of life, absolutely as also in strkjv@19:9,23; strkjv@22:4; strkjv@24:14,22| or the way of salvation (16:17|) or the way of the Lord (18:25|). It is a Jewish definition of life as in strkjv@Isaiah:40:3| "the way of the Lord," strkjv@Psalms:1:6| "the way of the righteous," "the way of the wicked." Jesus called himself "the way" (John:14:6|), the only way to the Father. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas presents the Two Ways. The North American Indians call Christianity the Jesus Road. {That he might bring them bound} (\hops dedemenous agagi\). Final clause with \hops\ (less common than \hina\) and aorist (effective) subjunctive (\agagi\, reduplicated aorist of \ag\, common verb) and perfect passive participle (\dedemenous\) of \de\, in a state of sheer helplessness like his other victims both men and women. Three times (8:3; strkjv@9:2; strkjv@22:4|) this fact of persecuting women is mentioned as a special blot in Paul's cruelty (the third time by Paul himself) and one of the items in his being chief of sinners (1Timothy:1:15|).
rwp@Acts:12:10 @{When they were past} (\dielthontes\). Second aorist active participle of \dierchomai\, transitive with \dia\ in composition. {The first and the second ward} (\prtn phulakn kai deuteran\). It is not clear to what this language refers. Some take it to mean single soldiers, using \phulakn\ in the sense of a guard (one before the door, one at the iron gate). But it seems hardly likely that the two soldiers with whom Peter had been stationed are meant. Probably the "first ward" means the two soldiers of the quaternion stationed by the door and the second ward some other soldiers, not part of the sixteen, further on in the prison by the iron gate. However understood, the difficulties of escape are made plain. {Unto the iron gate that leadeth into the city} (\epi tn puln tn sidrn tn pherousan eis tn polin\). Note the triple use of the article (the gate the iron one the one leading into the city). For this resumptive use of the article see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 762, 764. This iron gate may have opened from a court out into the street and effectually barred escape. {Opened to them} (\noig autois\). Second aorist passive indicative of \anoig\, the usual later form though \noichth\ (first aorist passive) occurs also, was opened. {Of its own accord} (\automat\). Old compound adjective (\autos\, self, obsolete \ma\, to desire eagerly, feminine form though masculine \automatos\ also used as feminine). In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:4:28|. It was a strange experience for Peter. The Codex Bezae adds here "went down the seven steps" (\katebsan tous hepta bathmous\), an interesting detail that adds to the picture. {One street} (\rhumn mian\). The angel saw Peter through one of the narrow streets and then left him. We have no means of knowing precisely the location of the prison in the city. On "departed" (\apest\) see on verse ¯7|.
rwp@Acts:13:50 @{Urged on} (\partrunan\). First aorist (effective) active of \par-otrun\, old verb, but here alone in the N.T., to incite, to stir up. The Jews were apparently not numerous in this city as they had only one synagogue, but they had influence with people of prominence, like "the devout women of honourable estate" (\tas sebomenas gunaikas tas euschmonas\), the female proselytes of high station, a late use of an old word used about Joseph of Arimathea (Mark:15:43|). The rabbis went after these Gentile women who had embraced Judaism (cf. strkjv@Acts:17:4| in Thessalonica) as Paul had made an appeal to them. The prominence of women in public life here at Antioch is quite in accord with what we know of conditions in the cities of Asia Minor. "Thus women were appointed under the empire as magistrates, as presidents of the games, and even the Jews elected a woman as Archisynagogos, at least in one instance at Smyrna" (Knowling). In Damascus Josephus (_War_ II. 20, 21) says that a majority of the married women were proselytes. Strabo (VIII. 2) and Juvenal (VI. 542) speak of the addiction of women to the Jewish religion. {The chief men of the city} (\tous prtous ts poles\). Probably city officials (the Duumviri, the Praetors, the First Ten in the Greek Cities of the east) or other "foremost" men, not officials. The rabbis were shrewd enough to reach these men (not proselytes) through the women who were proselytes of distinction. {Stirred up a persecution} (\epgeiran digmon\). First aorist active indicative of \epegeir\, old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@14:2|. Paul seems to allude to this persecution in strkjv@2Timothy:3:11| "persecutions, sufferings, what things befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra, what persecutions I endured." Here Paul had perils from his own countrymen and perils from the Gentiles after the perils of rivers and perils of robbers on the way from Perga (2Corinthians:11:26|). He was thrice beaten with rods (\tris erhabdisthn\, strkjv@2Corinthians:11:25|) by Roman lictors in some Roman colony. If that was here, then Paul and Barnabas were publicly scourged by the lictors before they left. Probably the Jews succeeded in making the Roman officials look on Paul and Barnabas as disturbers of the public peace. Songs:"they cast them out of their borders" (\exebalon autous apo tn horin autn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ekball\, forcible expulsion plainly as public nuisances. Just a few days before they were the heroes of the city and now!
rwp@Acts:14:22 @{Confirming} (\epistrizontes\). Late verb (in LXX), in N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:14:22; strkjv@15:32,41|, to make more firm, to give additional (\epi\) strength. Each time in Acts the word is used concerning these churches. {To continue in the faith} (\emmenein ti pistei\). To remain in with locative, old verb. It is possible that \pistis\ here has the notion of creed as Paul uses it later (Colossians:1:23| with \epimen\; strkjv@1Timothy:5:8|). It seems to be here more than trust or belief. These recent converts from heathenism were ill-informed, were persecuted, had broken family and social ties, greatly needed encouragement if they were to hold out. {We must} (\dei hms\). It does not follow from this use of "we" that Luke was present, since it is a general proposition applying to all Christians at all times (2Timothy:3:12|). Luke, of course, approved this principle. Knowling asks why Timothy may not have told Luke about Paul's work. It all sounds like quotation of Paul's very language. Note the change of construction here after \parakalountes\ (infinitive of indirect command, \emmenein\, but \hoti dei\, indirect assertion). They needed the right understanding of persecution as we all do. Paul frankly warned these new converts in this heathen environment of the many tribulations through which they must enter the Kingdom of God (the culmination at last) as he did at Ephesus (Acts:20:20|) and as Jesus had done (John:16:33|). These saints were already converted.
rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.
rwp@Acts:16:40 @{Into the house of Lydia} (\pros tn Ludian\). No word in the Greek for "house," but it means the house of Lydia. Note "the brethren" here, not merely Luke and Timothy, but other brethren now converted besides those in the house of the jailor. The four missionaries were guests of Lydia (verse 15|) and probably the church now met in her home. {They departed} (\exlthan\). Paul and Silas, but not Luke and Timothy. Note "they" here, not "we." Note also the \-an\ ending instead of \-on\ as above. The movements of Timothy are not perfectly clear till he reappears at Beroea (17:15|). It seems unlikely that he came to Thessalonica with Paul and Silas since only Paul and Silas obtained security there (17:9|) and were sent on to Beroea (17:10|). Probably Timothy was sent to Thessalonica from Philippi with gifts of which Paul spoke later (Phillipians:4:15f.|). Then he followed Paul and Silas to Beroea.
rwp@Acts:17:2 @{As his custom was} (\kata to eithos ti Pauli\). The same construction in strkjv@Luke:4:16| about Jesus in Nazareth (\kata to eithos auti\) with the second perfect active participle neuter singular from \eth\. Paul's habit was to go to the Jewish synagogue to use the Jews and the God-fearers as a springboard for his work among the Gentiles. {For three Sabbaths} (\epi sabbata tria\). Probably the reference is to the first three Sabbaths when Paul had a free hand in the synagogue as at first in Antioch in Pisidia. Luke does not say that Paul was in Thessalonica only three weeks. He may have spoken there also during the week, though the Sabbath was the great day. Paul makes it plain, as Furneaux shows, that he was in Thessalonica a much longer period than three weeks. The rest of the time he spoke, of course, outside of the synagogue. Paul implies an extended stay by his language in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:8|. The church consisted mainly of Gentile converts (2Thessalonians:3:4,7,8|) and seems to have been well organized (1Thessalonians:5:12|). He received help while there several times from Philippi (Phillipians:4:16|) and even so worked night and day to support himself (1Thessalonians:2:9|). His preaching was misunderstood there in spite of careful instruction concerning the second coming of Christ (1Thessalonians:4:13-5:5; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1-12|). {Reasoned} (\dielexato\). First aorist middle indicative of \dialegomai\, old verb in the active to select, distinguish, then to revolve in the mind, to converse (interchange of ideas), then to teach in the Socratic ("dialectic") method of question and answer (cf. \dielegeto\ in verse 17|), then simply to discourse, but always with the idea of intellectual stimulus. With these Jews and God-fearers Paul appealed to the Scriptures as text and basis (\apo\) of his ideas.
rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). Imperfect active of \sunball\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gnthi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zenn daimonin dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.
rwp@Acts:17:22 @{Stood in the midst of the Areopagus} (\statheis en mesi tou Areiou Pagou\). First aorist passive of \histmi\ used of Peter in strkjv@2:14|. Majestic figure whether on Mars Hill or in the Stoa Basilica before the Areopagus Court. There would be a crowd of spectators and philosophers in either case and Paul seized the opportunity to preach Christ to this strange audience as he did in Caesarea before Herod Agrippa and the crowd of prominent people gathered by Festus for the entertainment. Paul does not speak as a man on trial, but as one trying to get a hearing for the gospel of Christ. {Somewhat superstitious} (\hs deisidaimonesterous\). The Authorized Version has "too superstitious," the American Standard "very religious." \Deisidaimn\ is a neutral word (from \deid\, to fear, and \daimn\, deity). The Greeks used it either in the good sense of pious or religious or the bad sense of superstitious. Thayer suggests that Paul uses it "with kindly ambiguity." Page thinks that Luke uses the word to represent the religious feeling of the Athenians (_religiosus_) which bordered on superstition. The Vulgate has _superstitiosiores_. In strkjv@25:19| Festus uses the term \deisidaimonia\ for "religion." It seems unlikely that Paul should give this audience a slap in the face at the very start. The way one takes this adjective here colours Paul's whole speech before the Council of Areopagus. The comparative here as in verse 21| means more religions than usual (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 664f.), the object of the comparison not being expressed. The Athenians had a tremendous reputation for their devotion to religion, "full of idols" (verse 16|).
rwp@Acts:18:18 @{Having tarried after this yet many days} (\eti prosmeinas hmeras hikanas\). First aorist (constative) active participle of \prosmen\, old verb, to remain besides (\pros\ as in strkjv@1Timothy:1:3|) and that idea is expressed also in \eti\ (yet). The accusative is extent of time. On Luke's frequent use of \hikanos\ see strkjv@8:11|. It is not certain that this period of "considerable days" which followed the trial before Gallio is included in the year and six months of verse 11| or is in addition to it which is most likely. Vindicated as Paul was, there was no reason for haste in leaving, though he usually left after such a crisis was passed. {Took his leave} (\apotaxamenos\). First aorist middle (direct), old verb, to separate oneself, to bid farewell (Vulgate _valefacio_), as in verse 21; strkjv@Mark:6:46|. {Sailed thence} (\exeplei\). Imperfect active of \ekple\, old and common verb, inchoative imperfect, started to sail. Only Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned as his companions though others may have been in the party. {Having shorn his head} (\keiramenos tn kephaln\). First aorist middle (causative) of \keir\, old verb to shear (sheep) and the hair as also in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:6|. The participle is masculine and so cannot refer to Priscilla. Aquila comes next to the participle, but since mention of Priscilla and Aquila is parenthetical and the two other participles (\prosmeinas, apotaxamenos\) refer to Paul it seems clear that this one does also. {For he had a vow} (\eichen gar euchn\). Imperfect active showing the continuance of the vow up till this time in Cenchreae, the port of Corinth when it expired. It was not a Nazarite vow which could be absolved only in Jerusalem. It is possible that the hair was only polled or trimmed, cut shorter, not "shaved" (\xura\ as in strkjv@21:24|) for there is a distinction as both verbs are contrasted in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:6| (\keirsthai xursthai\). It is not clear what sort of a vow Paul had taken nor why he took it. It may have been a thank offering for the outcome at Corinth (Hackett). Paul as a Jew kept up his observance of the ceremonial law, but refused to impose it on the Gentiles.
rwp@Acts:20:3 @{When he had spent three months there} (\poisas mnas treis\). Literally, "having done three months," the same idiom in strkjv@Acts:14:33; strkjv@18:23; strkjv@James:5:13|. During this period Paul may have written Galatians as Lightfoot argued and certainly did Romans. We do not have to say that Luke was ignorant of Paul's work during this period, only that he did not choose to enlarge upon it. {And a plot was laid against him by the Jews} (\genomens epibouls auti hupo tn Ioudain\). Genitive absolute, "a plot by the Jews having come against him." \Epiboul\ is an old word for a plot against one. In the N.T. only in Acts (9:24; strkjv@20:3,19; strkjv@23:30|). Please note that this plot is by the Jews, not the Judaizers whom Paul discusses so vehemently in strkjv@2Corinthians:10-13|. They had given Paul much anguish of heart as is shown in I Cor. and in strkjv@2Corinthians:1-7|, but that trouble seems now past. It is Paul's old enemies in Corinth who had cherished all these years their defeat at the hands of Gallio (Acts:18:5-17|) who now took advantage of Paul's plans for departure to compass his death if possible. {As he was about to set sail for Syria} (\mellonti anagesthai eis tn Surian\). The participle \mellonti\ agrees in case (dative) with \auti\. For the sense of intending see also verse 13|. \Anagesthai\ (present middle infinitive) is the common word for putting out to sea (going up, they said, from land) as in strkjv@13:13|. {He determined} (\egeneto gnms\). The best MSS. here read \gnms\ (predicate ablative of source like \epiluses\, strkjv@2Peter:1:20|, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 514), not \gnm\ (nominative). "He became of opinion." The Jews had heard of Paul's plan to sail for Syria and intended in the hurly-burly either to kill him at the docks in Cenchreae or to push him overboard from the crowded pilgrim ship bound for the passover. Fortunately Paul learned of their plot and so eluded them by going through Macedonia. The Codex Bezae adds here that "the Spirit bade him return into Macedonia."
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:20:22 @{Bound in the spirit} (\dedemenos ti pneumati\). Perfect passive participle of \de\, to bind, with the locative case. "Bound in my spirit" he means, as in strkjv@19:21|, from a high sense of duty. The mention of "the Holy Spirit" specifically in verse 23| seems to be in contrast to his own spirit here. His own spirit was under the control of the Holy Spirit (Romans:8:16|) and the sense does not differ greatly. {Not knowing} (\m eids\). Second perfect active participle of \oida\ with \m\. {That shall befall me} (\ta sunantsonta emoi\). Articular future active participle of \sunanta\, to meet with (Acts:10:25|), to befall (with associative instrumental case) and compare with \sumbantn\ (befell) in verse 19|. One of the rare instances of the future participle in the N.T.
rwp@Acts:21:8 @{On the morrow} (\ti epaurion\). Another and the more common way of expressing this idea of "next day" besides the three in strkjv@20:15| and the one in strkjv@21:1|. {Unto Caesarea} (\eis Kaisarian\). Apparently by land as the voyage (\ploun\) ended at Ptolemais (verse 7|). Caesarea is the political capital of Judea under the Romans where the procurators lived and a city of importance, built by Herod the Great and named in honour of Augustus. It had a magnificent harbour built Most of the inhabitants were Greeks. This is the third time that we have seen Paul in Caesarea, on his journey from Jerusalem to Tarsus (Acts:9:30|), on his return from Antioch at the close of the second mission tour (18:22|) and now. The best MSS. omit \hoi peri Paulou\ (we that were of Paul's company) a phrase like that in strkjv@13:13|. {Into the house of Philip the evangelist} (\eis ton oikon Philippou tou euaggelistou\). Second in the list of the seven (6:5|) after Stephen and that fact mentioned here. By this title he is distinguished from "Philip the apostle," one of the twelve. His evangelistic work followed the death of Stephen (Acts:8|) in Samaria, Philistia, with his home in Caesarea. The word "evangelizing" (\euggelizeto\) was used of him in strkjv@8:40|. The earliest of the three N.T. examples of the word "evangelist" (Acts:21:8; strkjv@Ephesians:4:11; strkjv@2Timothy:4:5|). Apparently a word used to describe one who told the gospel story as Philip did and may have been used of him first of all as John was termed "the baptizer" (\ho baptizn\, strkjv@Mark:1:4|), then "the Baptist" (\ho baptists\, strkjv@Matthew:3:1|). It is found on an inscription in one of the Greek islands of uncertain date and was used in ecclesiastical writers of later times on the Four Gospels as we do. As used here the meaning is a travelling missionary who "gospelized" communities. This is probably Paul's idea in strkjv@2Timothy:4:5|. In strkjv@Ephesians:4:11| the word seems to describe a special class of ministers just as we have them today. Men have different gifts and Philip had this of evangelizing as Paul was doing who is the chief evangelist. The ideal minister today combines the gifts of evangelist, herald, teacher, shepherd. "{We abode with him}" (\emeinamen par' auti\). Constative aorist active indicative. \Par auti\ (by his side) is a neat idiom for "at his house." What a joyful time Paul had in conversation with Philip. He could learn from him much of value about the early days of the gospel in Jerusalem. And Luke could, and probably did, take notes from Philip and his daughters about the beginnings of Christian history. It is generally supposed that the "we" sections of Acts represent a travel document by Luke (notes made by him as he journeyed from Troas to Rome). Those who deny the Lukan authorship of the whole book usually admit this. Songs:we may suppose that Luke is already gathering data for future use. If so, these were precious days for him.
rwp@Acts:21:18 @{The day following} (\ti epiousi\). As in strkjv@20:15| which see. {Went in} (\eisiei\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\, old classic verb used only four times in the N.T. (Acts:3:3; strkjv@21:18,26; strkjv@Hebrews:9:6|), a mark of the literary style rather than the colloquial _Koin_ use of \eiserchomai\. Together with us to James (\sun hmin pros Iakbon\). Songs:then Luke is present. The next use of "we" is in strkjv@27:1| when they leave Caesarea for Rome, but it is not likely that Luke was away from Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The reports of what was done and said in both places is so full and minute that it seems reasonable that Luke got first hand information here whatever his motive was for so full an account of these legal proceedings to be discussed later. There are many details that read like an eye witness's story (21:30,35,40; strkjv@22:2,3; strkjv@23:12|, etc.). It was probably the house of James (\pros\ and \para\ so used often). {And all the elders were present} (\pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi\). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in chapter 15. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours. The whole church was not called together probably because of the known prejudice against Paul created by the Judaizers.
rwp@Acts:23:1 @{Looking steadfastly} (\atenisas\). See on this word strkjv@1:10; strkjv@3:12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@7:55; strkjv@13:9|. Paul may have had weak eyes, but probably the earnest gaze was to see if he recognized any faces that were in the body that tried Stephen and to which he apparently once belonged. {I have lived before God} (\pepoliteumai ti thei\). Perfect middle indicative of \politeu\, old verb to manage affairs of city (\polis\) or state, to be a citizen, behave as a citizen. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|. The idea of citizenship was Greek and Roman, not Jewish. "He had lived as God's citizen, as a member of God's commonwealth" (Rackham). God (\thei\) is the dative of personal interest. As God looked at it and in his relation to God. {In all good conscience unto this day} (\pasi suneidsei agathi achri tauts ts hmeras\). This claim seems to lack tact, but for brevity's sake Paul sums up a whole speech in it. He may have said much more than Luke here reports along the line of his speech the day before, but Paul did not make this claim without consideration. It appears to contradict his confession as the chief of sinners (1Timothy:1:13-16|). But that depends on one's interpretation of "good conscience." The word \suneidsis\ is literally "joint-knowledge" in Greek, Latin (_conscientia_) and English "conscience" from the Latin. It is a late word from \sunoida\, to know together, common in O.T., Apocrypha, Philo, Plutarch, New Testament, Stoics, ecclesiastical writers. In itself the word simply means consciousness of one's own thoughts (Hebrews:10:2|), or of one's own self, then consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong (Romans:2:15|) with approval or disapproval. But the conscience is not an infallible guide and acts according to the light that it has (1Corinthians:8:7,10; strkjv@1Peter:2:19|). The conscience can be contaminated (Hebrews:10:22|, evil \ponrs\). All this and more must be borne in mind in trying to understand Paul's description of his motives as a persecutor. Alleviation of his guilt comes thereby, but not removal of guilt as he himself felt (1Timothy:1:13-16|). He means to say to the Sanhedrin that he persecuted Christians as a conscientious (though mistaken) Jew (Pharisee) just as he followed his conscience in turning from Judaism to Christianity. It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no "apologies" (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. He had the consolation of a good conscience (1Peter:3:16|). The word does not occur in the Gospels and chiefly in Paul's Epistles, but we see it at work in strkjv@John:8:9| (the interpolation strkjv@7:53-8:11|).
rwp@Acts:24:19 @{But certain Jews from Asia} (\tines de apo ts Alias Ioudaioi\). No verb appears in the Greek for these words. Perhaps he meant to say that "certain Jews from Asia charged me with doing these things." Instead of saying that, Paul stops to explain that they are not here, a thoroughly Pauline anacoluthon (2Corinthians:7:5|) as in strkjv@26:9|. "The passage as it stands is instinct with life, and seems to exhibit the abruptness so characteristic of the Pauline Epistles" (Page). {Who ought to have been here before thee} (\hous edei epi sou pareinai\). This use of \epi\ with genitive of the person is common. The imperfect indicative with verbs of necessity and obligation to express failure to live up to it is common in Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 919-21). "The accusers who were present had not witnessed the alleged offence: those who could have given evidence at first-hand were not present" (Furneaux). There was no case in a Roman court. These Asiatic Jews are never heard of after the riot, though they almost succeeded in killing Paul then. {If they had aught against me} (\ei ti echoien pros eme\). A condition of the fourth class or undetermined with less likelihood of being determined (\ei\ with the optative, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). This is a "mixed condition" (_op.cit._, p. 1022) with a conclusion of the second class.
rwp@Acts:26:20 @{But declared} (\alla apggellon\). Imperfect active of \apaggell\, repeatedly. {Throughout all the country of Judea} (\psan te tn chran ts Ioudaias\). The accusative here in the midst of the datives (\tois en Damaski, Ierosolumois, tois ethnesin\) seems strange and Page feels certain that \eis\ should be here even though absent in Aleph A B. But the accusative of extent of space will explain it (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 469). {Doing works worthy of repentance} (\axia ts metanoias erga prassontas\). Accusative case of present active participle \prassontas\ because of the implied \autous\ with the present infinitive \metanoein\ (repent) and \epistrephein\ (turn), though the dative \prassousin\ could have been used to agree with \ethnesin\ (Gentiles). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:3:8| for similar language used of the Baptist. Paul, the greatest of theologians, was an interesting practical preacher.
rwp@Acts:28:6 @{But they expected} (\hoi de prosedokn\). Imperfect active, were expecting, continued to expect. {That he would have swollen} (\auton mellein pimprasthai\). More exactly, "Expecting him to be about (or that he was about) to swell up." \Pimprasthai\ is present middle infinitive from \pimprmi\, to blow, to burn, to inflame, to cause to swell. \Prth\, to swell, seems connected and both use the aorist \eprsa\. Our word "inflammation" likewise means a burning and a swelling. This verb is a common medical term used as Luke has it. It occurs here only in N.T. {Or fallen down dead suddenly} (\ katapiptein aphn nekron\). Rather, "or was about to fall down dead suddenly." The two common results of a bite by a viper or other poisonous snake, both medical terms used by Luke. {But when they were long in expectation} (\epi polu de autn prosdokntn\). Genitive absolute. "But while they were expecting for much time." {Nothing amiss come to him} (\mden atopon eis auton ginomenon\). "Nothing out of place coming to him" (present middle participle). \Mden\ the usual negative of the participle and the accusative case the object of \therountn\ (genitive absolute). {Changed their minds} (\metabalomenoi\). Aorist middle (direct) participle of \metaball\, old verb to turn about or around, turning themselves about, changing their minds. Plato uses this very verb in middle voice for changing the mind. {That he was a god} (\auton einai theon\). Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse. At Lystra Paul was first received as a god (Mercury) and then they stoned him to kill him (Acts:14:11,19|). Songs:fickle is popular favour.
rwp@Acts:28:16 @{Paul was suffered to abide by himself} (\epetrap ti Pauli menein kath' heauton\). Second aorist passive of \epitrepo\, to permit or allow. Literally, "It was permitted to Paul to abide by himself." Some late documents (Textus Receptus) here add: "The centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard" (or the \stratopedarch\). This officer used to be considered Burrus who was Prefect of the Praetorian Guard A.D. 51-62. But it is by no means certain that Julius turned the prisoners over to this officer. It seems more likely that Julius would report to the captain of the Peregrini. If so, we may be sure that Julius would give a good report of Paul to this officer who would be kindly disposed and would allow Paul comparative freedom (living by himself, in his lodging, verse 23|, his own hired house verse 30|, though still chained to a soldier). {With the soldier that guarded him} (\sun ti phulassonti auton stratiti\). Probably a new soldier every day or night, but always with this soldier chained to his right hand day and night. Now that Paul is in Rome what can he do for Christ while he awaits the outcome of his own appeal to Nero?
rwp@Acts:28:22 @{But we desire} (\axioumen de\). Old verb \axio\, to deem worthy, to think right or proper as in strkjv@15:38| which see. They think it only fair to hear Paul's side of his case. {Concerning this sect} (\peri ts haireses tauts\). Paul had identified Christianity with Judaism (verse 20|) in its Messianic hope. The language seems to imply that the number of Christians in Rome was comparatively small and mainly Gentile. If the edict of Claudius for the expulsion of the Jews from Rome (Acts:18:2|) was due to disturbance over Christ (\Chrstus\), then even in Rome the Jews had special reason for hostility towards Christians. {Everywhere spoken against} (\pantachou antilegetai\). Cf. verse 19|. The line of cleavage between Jew and Christian was now sharply drawn everywhere.
rwp@Info_Colossians @ PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE Epaphras did not come in vain, for Paul was tremendously stirred by the peril to Christianity from the Gnostics (\hoi gnstikoi\, the knowing ones). He had won his fight for freedom in Christ against the Judaizers who tried to fasten Jewish sacramentarianism upon spiritual Christianity. Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. Songs:then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God. One cannot understand Colossians without some knowledge of Gnosticism such as may be obtained in such books as Angus's _The Mystery-Religions and Christianity_, Glover's _The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire_, Kennedy's St. _Paul and the Mystery-Religions_, Lightfoot's _Commentary on Colossians_.
rwp@Matthew:17:2 a reference to 'morphe' in '16:12'. This reference seems to be
rwp@1Corinthians:7:21 There seems to be a misplaced ')'. I think it should appear
rwp@Ephesians:3:15 @{Every family} (\psa patria\). Old word (\patra\ is the usual form) from \patr\, descent from a common ancestor as a tribe or race. Some take it here as = \patrots\, fatherhood, but that is most unlikely. Paul seems to mean that all the various classes of men on earth and of angels in heaven get the name of family from God the Father of all.
rwp@Ephesians:3:16 @{That he would grant you} (\hina di humin\). Sub-final clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \didmi\, to give. There are really five petitions in this greatest of all Paul's prayers (one already in strkjv@1:16-23|), two by the infinitives after \hina di\ (\krataithnai, katoiksai\), two infinitives after \hina exischuste\ (\katalabesthai, gnnai\), and the last clause \hina plrthte\. Nowhere does Paul sound such depths of spiritual emotion or rise to such heights of spiritual passion as here. The whole seems to be coloured with "the riches of His glory." {That ye may be strengthened} (\krataithnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \krataio\, late and rare (LXX, N.T.) from \krataios\, late form from \kratos\ (strength). See strkjv@Luke:1:80|. Paul adds \dunamei\ (with the Spirit). Instrumental case. {In the inward man} (\eis ton es anthrpon\). Same expression in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:16| (in contrast with the outward \ex\, man) and in strkjv@Romans:7:22|.
rwp@Ephesians:5:26 @{That he might sanctify it} (\hina autn hagiasi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hagiaz\. Jesus stated this as his longing and his prayer (John:17:17-19|). This was the purpose of Christ's death (verse 25|). {Having cleansed it} (\katharisas\). First aorist active participle of \kathariz\, to cleanse, either simultaneous action or antecedent. {By the washing of water} (\ti loutri tou hudatos\). If \loutron\ only means bath or bathing-place ( = \loutron\), then \loutri\ is in the locative. If it can mean bathing or washing, it is in the instrumental case. The usual meaning from Homer to the papyri is the bath or bathing-place, though some examples seem to mean bathing or washing. Salmond doubts if there are any clear instances. The only other N.T. example of \loutron\ is in strkjv@Titus:3:5|. The reference here seems to be to the baptismal bath (immersion) of water, "in the bath of water." See strkjv@1Corinthians:6:11| for the bringing together of \apelousasthe\ and \hgiasthte\. Neither there nor here does Paul mean that the cleansing or sanctification took place in the bath save in a symbolic fashion as in strkjv@Romans:6:4-6|. Some think that Paul has also a reference to the bath of the bride before marriage. Still more difficult is the phrase "with the word" (\en rmati\). In strkjv@John:17:17| Jesus connected "truth" with "sanctify." That is possible here, though it may also be connected with \katharisas\ (having cleansed). Some take it to mean the baptismal formula.
rwp@Ephesians:5:31 @{For this cause} (\anti toutou\). "Answering to this" = \heneken toutou\ of strkjv@Genesis:2:24|, in the sense of \anti\ seen in \anth' hn\ (Luke:12:3|). This whole verse is a practical quotation and application of the language to Paul's argument here. In strkjv@Matthew:19:5| Jesus quotes strkjv@Genesis:2:24|. It seems absurd to make Paul mean Christ here by \anthrpos\ (man) as some commentators do.
rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ GENERAL EPISTLES BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION NOT A HAPPY TITLE There are various explanations of the term catholic (\katholikai epistolai\) as applied to this group of seven short letters by four writers (one by James, two by Peter, one by Jude, three by John). The Latin for \katholikos\ is _generalis_, though the Vulgate terms these letters _Catholicae_. The meaning is not orthodox as opposed to heretical or canonical, though they are sometimes termed \Epistolae canonicae\. As a matter of fact five of the seven (all but First Peter and First John) Eusebius placed among the "disputed" (\antilegomena\) books of the New Testament. "A canonical book is primarily one which has been measured and tested, and secondarily that which is itself a measure or standard" (Alfred Plummer). Canon is from \kann\ (cane) and is like a yardstick cut to the right measure and then used as a measure. Some see in the term \katholikos\ the idea that these Epistles are meant for both Jews and Gentiles, but the Epistle of James seems addressed to Jewish Christians. There were two other chief groups of New Testament writings in the old Greek manuscripts (the Gospels and Acts, then the Epistles of Paul). This group of seven Epistles and the Apocalypse constitute the remainder of the New Testament. The usual interpretation of the term \katholikos\ here is that these seven Epistles were not addressed to any particular church, but are general in their distribution. This is clearly true of I Peter, as is shown by the language in strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, where seven Roman provinces are mentioned. The language of strkjv@2Peter:3:1| bears the same idea. Apparently the Epistle of Jude:is general also as is I John. But II John is addressed to "an elect lady" (verse strkjv@2John:1:1|) and III John to Gaius (verse strkjv@3John:1:1|), both of them individuals, and therefore in no sense are these two brief letters general or catholic. The earliest instance of the word \katholikos\ is in an inscription (B.C. 6) with the meaning "general" (\ti katholiki mou prothesei\, my general purpose). It was common after that. The earliest example of it in Christian literature is in Ignatius' Epistle to the Church of Smyrna (VIII) where he has "the catholic church" (\h katholik ekklsia\), "the general church," not a local body. Clement of Alexandria (_Strom_. IV. xv) applies this adjective to the letter sent to the Gentile Christians "in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" from the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:23|).
rwp@Galatians:1:16 @{To reveal his Son in me} (\apokalupsai ton huion autou en emoi\). By "in me" (\en emoi\) Paul can mean to lay emphasis on his inward experience of grace or he may refer objectively to the vision of Christ on the way to Damascus, "in my case." Paul uses \en emoi\ in this sense (in my case) several times (verse 24; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:3; strkjv@Phillipians:1:30; strkjv@1Timothy:1:16|). Once (1Corinthians:14:11|) \en emoi\ is almost equivalent to the dative (to me). On the whole Lightfoot seems correct here in taking it to mean "in my case," though the following words suit either idea. Certainly Paul could not preach Christ among the Gentiles without the rich inward experience and in the objective vision he was called to that task. {I conferred not with flesh and blood} (\ou prosanethemn sarki kai haimati\). Second aorist middle indicative of \prosanatithmi\, old verb, double compound (\pros, ana\), to lay upon oneself in addition, to betake oneself to another, to confer with, dative case as here. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2:6|.
rwp@Galatians:2:6 @{Somewhat} (\ti\). Something, not somebody. Paul refers to the Big Three (Cephas, James, and John). He seems a bit embarrassed in the reference. He means no disrespect, but he asserts his independence sharply in a tangled sentence with two parentheses (dashes in Westcott and Hort). {Whatsoever they were} (\hopoioi pote san\). Literally, "What sort they once were." {Hopoioi} is a qualitative word (1Thessalonians:1:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:13; strkjv@James:1:24|). Lightfoot thinks that these three leaders were the ones who suggested the compromise about Titus. That is a possible, but not the natural, interpretation of this involved sentence. The use of \de\ (but) in verse 6| seems to make a contrast between the three leaders and the pleaders for compromise in verses 4f|. {They, I say, imparted nothing to me} (\emoi gar ouden prosanethento\). He starts over again after the two parentheses and drops the construction \apo tn dokountn\ and changes the construction (anacoluthon) to \hoi dokountes\ (nominative case), the men of reputation and influences whom he names in verses 8f|. See the same verb in strkjv@1:16|. They added nothing in the conference to me. The compromisers tried to win them, but they finally came over to my view. Paul won his point, when he persuaded Peter, James, and John to agree with him and Barnabas in their contention for freedom for the Gentile Christians from the bondage of the Mosaic ceremonial law.
rwp@Galatians:2:7 @{But contrariwise} (\alla tounantion\). But on the contrary (accusative of general reference, \to enantion\). Songs:far from the three championing the cause of the Judaizers as some hoped or even the position of the compromisers in verses 4f.|, they came boldly to Paul's side after hearing the case argued in the private conference. This is the obvious interpretation rather than the view that Peter, James, and John first proposed the circumcision of Titus and afterwards surrendered to Paul's bold stand. {When they saw} (\idontes\). After seeing, after they heard our side of the matter. {That I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision} (\hoti pepisteumai to euaggelion ts akrobustias\). Perfect passive indicative of \pisteu\, to intrust, which retains the accusative of the thing (\to euaggelion\) in the passive voice. This clear-cut agreement between the leaders "denotes a distinction of sphere, and not a difference of type" (Lightfoot). Both divisions in the work preach the same "gospel" (not like strkjv@1:6f.|, the Judaizers). It seems hardly fair to the Three to suggest that they at first championed the cause of the Judaizers in the face of Paul's strong language in verse 5|.
rwp@Galatians:5:10 @{Whosoever he be} (\hostis ean i\). Indefinite relative clause with \ean\ and subjunctive. It seems unlikely that Paul knew precisely who the leader was. In strkjv@1:6| he uses the plural of the same verb \tarass\ and see also \anastatountes\ in verse 12|.
rwp@Hebrews:2:14 @{Are sharers in flesh and blood} (\kekoinnken haimatos kai sarkos\). The best MSS. read "blood and flesh." The verb is perfect active indicative of \koinne\, old verb with the regular genitive, elsewhere in the N.T. with the locative (Romans:12:13|) or with \en\ or \eis\. "The children have become partners (\koinnoi\) in blood and flesh." {Partook} (\metesche\). Second aorist active indicative of \metech\, to have with, a practical synonym for \koinne\ and with the genitive also (\tn autn\). That he might bring to nought (\hina katargsi\). Purpose of the incarnation clearly stated with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \katarge\, old word to render idle or ineffective (from \kata, argos\), causative verb (25 times in Paul), once in Luke (Luke:13:7|), once in Hebrews (here). "By means of death" (his own death) Christ broke the power (\kratos\) of the devil over death (paradoxical as it seems), certainly in men's fear of death and in some unexplained way Satan had sway over the realm of death (Zechariah:3:5f.|). Note the explanatory \tout' estin\ (that is) with the accusative after it as before it. In strkjv@Revelation:12:7| Satan is identified with the serpent in Eden, though it is not done in the Old Testament. See strkjv@Romans:5:12; strkjv@John:8:44; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11; strkjv@1John:3:12|. Death is the devil's realm, for he is the author of sin. "Death as death is no part of the divine order" (Westcott).
rwp@Hebrews:6:2 @The other four items are qualitative genitives with \didachn\ (\baptismn, epitheses cheirn, anastases nekrn, krimatos ainiou\). The plural \baptismn\ "by itself does not mean specifically Christian baptism either in this epistle (9:10|) or elsewhere (Mark:7:4|), but ablutions or immersions such as the mystery religions and the Jewish cultus required for initiates, proselytes, and worshippers in general" (Moffatt). The disciples of the Baptist had disputes with the Jews over purification (John:3:25|). See also strkjv@Acts:19:2|. "The laying on of hands" seems to us out of place in a list of elementary principles, but it was common as a sign of blessing (Matthew:19:13|), of healing (Mark:7:32|), in the choice of the Seven (Acts:6:6|), in the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (Acts:8:17f.; strkjv@19:6|), in separation for a special task (Acts:13:3|), in ordination (1Timothy:4:14; strkjv@5:22; strkjv@2Timothy:1:6|). Prayer accompanied this laying on of the hands as a symbol. The resurrection of the dead (both just and unjust, strkjv@John:5:29; strkjv@Acts:24:15|) is easily seen to be basal (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15|) as well as eternal judgment (timeless and endless).
rwp@Hebrews:9:22 @{I may almost say} (\schedon\). Old adverb, only three times in the N.T., here, strkjv@Acts:13:44; strkjv@19:26|. Here it qualifies the entire clause, not just \panta\. {With blood} (\en haimati\). In blood. There were exceptions (Exodus:19:10; strkjv@32:30f.; strkjv@Leviticus:5:11f.; strkjv@15:5; strkjv@Numbers:16:46f.; strkjv@31:23f.|, etc.). {Apart from shedding of blood} (\chris haimatekchusias\). A double compound first found here (coined by the writer) and later in ecclesiastical writers (\haima\, blood, \ek\, out, \che\, to pour, like \ekchusis haimatos\ strkjv@1Kings:18:28|). "Pouring out of blood." The author seems to have in mind Christ's words in strkjv@Matthew:26:28|: "This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins." The blood is the vital principle and is efficacious as an atonement. The blood of Christ sets aside all other plans for pardon.
rwp@Hebrews:9:23 @{The copies} (\ta hupodeigmata\). See strkjv@8:5| for this word, the earthly (8:4; strkjv@9:1|) tabernacle. {With these} (\toutois\). Instrumental case of \houtos\, like the rites above described (verse 19|), perhaps with some disparagement. {Themselves} (\auta\). The heavenly realities (8:2,5; strkjv@9:11f.|). {With better sacrifices} (\kreittosin thusiais\). Instrumental case again. Point of this section (9:13-10:18|). {Than these} (\para tautas\). Use of \para\ and the accusative case after a comparative as in strkjv@1:4,9|. To us it seems a bit strained to speak of the ritual cleansing or dedication of heaven itself by the appearance of Christ as Priest-Victim. But the whole picture is highly mystical.
rwp@Hebrews:11:37 @{They were stoned} (\elithasthsan\). Like Zechariah son of Jehoiada (2Chronicles:24:20|). "A characteristic Jewish punishment" (Vincent). First aorist passive indicative of \lithaz\ (John:10:31|). {They were sawn asunder} (\epristhsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \pri\ or \priz\, old verb (\prion\, a saw). Cruel Jewish punishment (Amos:1:3|) said to have been inflicted on Isaiah. {They were tempted} (\epeirasthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \peiraz\. The MSS. vary greatly in the text here and the order of these two items. This mild word seems an anticlimax after \epristhsan\. One of the seven brothers was fried (II Macc. strkjv@7:4) and so \eprsthesan\ (were burned) from \pimpra\ (Acts:28:6|) has been suggested. {With the sword} (\en phoni machairs\). "In (by) slaughter of the sword" (Ionic form of the genitive \machaires\ as in strkjv@Exodus:17:13; strkjv@Numbers:21:24|). The fate of unpopular prophets (1Kings:10:10; strkjv@Jeremiah:26:23|). {They went about} (\perilthon\). Constative aorist active indicative of \perierchomai\ (picturesque compound verb). Here the sufferings of the living. {In sheep skins} (\en mltais\). Late word from \mlon\ (sheep), rough garment of prophets as Elijah (1Kings:19:13,19|), here only in N.T. In Byzantine Greek a monk's garb. {In goatskins} (\en aigeiois dermasin\). \Derma\, old word from \der\, to flay (Matthew:21:35|), here only in N.T. \Aigeios\, old adjective (from \aix\, goat), here only in N.T. {Being destitute} (\husteroumenoi\). Present passive participle of \hustere\, old verb to be left behind, used by Paul of himself (2Corinthians:11:9|). {Afflicted} (\thlibomenoi\). Present passive participle of \thlib\, common verb to oppress. {Evil entreated} (\kakouchoumenoi\). Present passive participle of \kakouche\, late compound verb from obsolete \kakouchos\ (\kakos\ and \ech\), in LXX (1Kings:2:26|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@13:3|. See \sunkakoucheisthai\ in strkjv@11:25|.
rwp@James:1:25 @{He that looketh into} (\ho parakupsas\). First aorist active articular participle of \parakupt\, old verb, to stoop and look into (John:20:5,11|), to gaze carefully by the side of, to peer into or to peep into (1Peter:1:12|). Here the notion of beside (\para\) or of stooping (\kupt\) is not strong. Sometimes, as Hort shows, the word means only a cursory glance, but the contrast with verse 24| seems to preclude that here. {The perfect law} (\nomon teleion\). For \teleion\ see strkjv@1:17|. See strkjv@Romans:7:12| for Paul's idea of the law of God. James here refers to the word of truth (1:18|), the gospel of grace (Galatians:6:2; strkjv@Romans:12:2|). {The law of liberty} (\ton ts eleutherias\). "That of liberty," explaining why it is "perfect" (2:12| also), rests on the work of Christ, whose truth sets us free (John:8:32; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:16; strkjv@Romans:8:2|). {And so continueth} (\kai parameinas\). First aorist active articular participle again of \paramen\, parallel with \parakupsas\. \Paramen\ is to stay beside, and see strkjv@Phillipians:1:25| for contrast with the simplex \men\. {Being} (\genomenos\). Rather, "having become" (second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\ to become). {Not a hearer that forgetteth} (\ouk akroats epilsmons\). "Not a hearer of forgetfulness" (descriptive genitive, marked by forgetfulness). \Epilsmon\ is a late and rare word (from \epilsmn\, forgetful, from \epilanthomai\, to forget, as in verse 24|), here only in N.T. {But a doer that worketh} (\alla poits ergou\). "But a doer of work," a doer marked by work (descriptive genitive \ergou\), not by mere listening or mere talk. {In his doing} (\en ti poisei autou\). Another beatitude with \makarios\ as in strkjv@1:12|, like the Beatitudes in strkjv@Matthew:5:3-12|. \Poisis\ is an old word (from \poie\ for the act of doing), only here in N.T.
rwp@James:1:26 @{Thinketh himself to be religious} (\dokei thrskos einai\). Condition of first class (\ei-dokei\). \Thrskos\ (of uncertain etymology, perhaps from \threomai\, to mutter forms of prayer) is predicate nominative after \einai\, agreeing with the subject of \dokei\ (either "he seems" or "he thinks"). This source of self-deception is in saying and doing. The word \thrskos\ is found nowhere else except in lexicons. Hatch (_Essays in Biblical Greek_, pp. 55-57) shows that it refers to the external observances of public worship, such as church attendance, almsgiving, prayer, fasting (Matthew:6:1-18|). It is the Pharisaic element in Christian worship. {While he bridleth not his tongue} (\m chalinaggn glssan heautou\). "Not bridling his own tongue." A reference to verse 19| and the metaphor is repeated in strkjv@3:12|. This is the earliest known example of the compound \chalinagge\ (\chalinos\, bridle \ago\, to lead). It occurs also in Lucian. The picture is that of a man putting the bridle in his own mouth, not in that of another. See the similar metaphor of muzzling (\phimo\) one's mouth (Matthew:22:12| \ephimth\). {Deceiveth} (\apatn\). Present active participle from \apat\ (deceit). He plays a trick on himself. {Religion} (\thrskeia\). Later form of \thrski\ (Herodotus) from \thrskos\ above. It means religious worship in its external observances, religious exercise or discipline, but not to the exclusion of reverence. In the N.T. we have it also in strkjv@Acts:26:5| of Judaism and in strkjv@Colossians:2:18| of worshipping angels. It is vain (\mataios\, feminine form same as masculine) or empty. Comes to nothing.
rwp@James:4:1 @{Whence} (\pothen\). This old interrogative adverb (here twice) asks for the origin of wars and fights. James is full of interrogatives, like all diatribes. {Wars} (\polemoi\) {--fightings} (\machai\). {War} (\polemos\, old word, strkjv@Matthew:24:6|) pictures the chronic state or campaign, while \mach\ (also old word, strkjv@2Corinthians:7:5|) presents the separate conflicts or battles in the war. Songs:James covers the whole ground by using both words. The origin of a war or of any quarrel is sometimes hard to find, but James touches the sore spot here. {Of your pleasures} (\ek tn hdonn humn\). Old word from \hdomai\. Ablative case here after \ek\, "out of your sinful, sensual lusts," the desire to get what one does not have and greatly desires. {That war} (\tn strateuomenn\). Present middle articular participle (ablative case agreeing with \hdonn\) of \strateu\, to carry on a campaign, here as in strkjv@1Peter:2:11| of the passions in the human body. James seems to be addressing nominal Christians, "among you" (\en humin\). Modern church disturbances are old enough in practice.
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:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \n\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\esknsen en hmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skno\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\sknos\ or \skn\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\hs monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogen\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogens\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plrs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plrs\ can agree with the subject of \esknsen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai altheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \altheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.
rwp@John:1:49 @{Thou art the Son of God} (\su ei ho huios tou theou\). Whether Nathanael had heard the Baptist say this of Jesus (1:34|) we do not know, apparently not, but Nathanael was a student of the Old Testament as Philip implied (1:45|) and was quick to put together his knowledge, the statement of Philip, and the manifest supernatural knowledge of Jesus as just shown. There is no reason for toning down the noble confession of Nathanael in the light of Christ's claim in verse 51|. Cf. the confession of Peter in strkjv@6:69; strkjv@Matthew:16:16| and Martha's in strkjv@John:11:27|. Nathanael goes further. {Thou art King of Israel} (\Basileus ei tou Isral\). To us this seems an anti-climax, but not so to Nathanael for both are Messianic titles in strkjv@Psalms:2| and Jesus is greeted in the Triumphal Entry as the King of Israel (John:12:13|).
rwp@John:6:34 @{Lord} (\Kurie\). Used now instead of _Rabbi_ (25) though how much the people meant by it is not clear. {Evermore give us this bread} (\pantote dos hmin ton arton touton\). Second aorist active imperative second singular like \dos\ in strkjv@Matthew:6:11| (urgent petition). What kind of bread do they mean? The Jewish commentaries and Philo speak of the manna as typifying heavenly bread for the soul. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:3| seems to refer to the manna as "spiritual food." Like the woman at the well (4:15|) they long "always" to have "this bread," a perpetual supply. It is probably to this crowd as the water in strkjv@4:15| was to the woman.
rwp@John:6:65 @{Except it be given him of the Father} (\ean m i dedomenon auti ek tou patros\). Condition of third class with \ean m\ and periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive of \didmi\. Precisely the same point as in verse 44| where we have \helkusi\ instead of \i dedomenon\. The impulse to faith comes from God. Jesus does not expect all to believe and seems to imply that Judas did not truly believe.
rwp@John:8:1 @{But Jesus went} (\Isous de eporeuth\). Same deponent use of \poreuomai\ as in strkjv@7:53| and in contrast to the Sanhedrin's conduct, though it seems "pointless" (Dods). Apparently Jesus was lodging in the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.
rwp@John:8:23 @{Ye are from beneath} (\humeis ek tn kat\). This language, peculiar to John, could take up the idea in Josephus that these rabbis came from Gehenna whence they will go as children of the devil (8:44|), but the use of \ek tou kosmou toutou\ ("of this world" in origin) as parallel to what we have here seems to prove that the contrast between \kat\ and \an\ here is between the earthly (sensual) and the heavenly as in strkjv@James:3:15-17|. See also strkjv@Colossians:3:1|. This is the only use of \kat\ in John (except strkjv@8:6|). These proud rabbis had their origin in this world of darkness (1:9|) with all its limitations. {I am from above} (\eg ek tn an eimi\). The contrast is complete in origin and character, already stated in strkjv@3:31|, and calculated to intensify their anger.
rwp@John:8:24 @{For except ye believe} (\ean gar m pisteuste\). Negative condition of third class with \ean m\ and ingressive aorist active subjunctive of \pisteu\, "For unless ye come to believe." {That I am he} (\hoti eg eimi\). Indirect discourse, but with no word in the predicate after the copula \eimi\. Jesus can mean either "that I am from above" (verse 23|), "that I am the one sent from the Father or the Messiah" (7:18,28|), "that I am the Light of the World" (8:12|), "that I am the Deliverer from the bondage of sin" (8:28,31f.,36|), "that I am" without supplying a predicate in the absolute sense as the Jews (Deuteronomy:32:39|) used the language of Jehovah (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:43:10| where the very words occur \hina pisteuste--hoti eg eimi\). The phrase \eg eimi\ occurs three times here (8:24,28,58|) and also in strkjv@13:19|. Jesus seems to claim absolute divine being as in strkjv@8:58|.
rwp@John:8:25 @{Who art thou?} (\Su tis ei;\). Proleptic use of \su\ before \tis\, "Thou, who art thou?" Cf. strkjv@1:19|. He had virtually claimed to be the Messiah and on a par with God as in strkjv@5:15|. They wish to pin him down and to charge him with blasphemy. {Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning} (\tn archn hoti kai lal humin\). A difficult sentence. It is not clear whether it is an affirmation or a question. The Latin and Syriac versions treat it as affirmative. Westcott and Hort follow Meyer and take it as interrogative. The Greek fathers take it as an exclamation. It seems clear that the adverbial accusative \tn archn\ cannot mean "from the beginning" like \ap' archs\ (15:27|) or \ex archs\ (16:4|). The LXX has \tn archn\ for "at the beginning" or "at the first" (Genesis:43:20|). There are examples in Greek, chiefly negative, where \tn archn\ means "at all," "essentially," "primarily." Vincent and Bernard so take it here, "Primarily what I am telling you." Jesus avoids the term Messiah with its political connotations. He stands by his high claims already made.
rwp@John:10:29 @{Which} (\hos\). Who. If \ho\ (which) is correct, we have to take \ho patr\ as nominative absolute or independent, "As for my Father." {Is greater than all} (\pantn meizn estin\). If we read \hos\. But Aleph B L W read \ho\ and A B Theta have \meizon\. The neuter seems to be correct (Westcott and Hort). But is it? If so, the meaning is: "As for my Father, that which he hath given me is greater than all." But the context calls for \hos... meizn\ with \ho patr\ as the subject of \estin\. The greatness of the Father, not of the flock, is the ground of the safety of the flock. Hence the conclusion that "no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
rwp@John:11:33 @{When Jesus therefore saw her weeping} (\Isous oun hs eiden autn klaiousan\). Proleptic position of "Jesus," "Jesus therefore when he saw." She was weeping at the feet of Jesus, not at the tomb. {And the Jews also weeping} (\kai tous Ioudaious klaiontas\). Mary's weeping was genuine, that of the Jews was partly perfunctory and professional and probably actual "wailing" as the verb \klai\ can mean. \Klai\ is joined with \alalaz\ in strkjv@Mark:5:38|, with \ololuz\ in strkjv@James:5:1|, with \thorube\ in strkjv@Mark:5:39|, with \penthe\ in strkjv@Mark:16:10|. It was an incongruous combination. {He groaned in the spirit} (\enebrimsato ti pneumati\). First aorist middle indicative of \embrimaomai\, old verb (from \en\, and \brim\, strength) to snort with anger like a horse. It occurs in the LXX (Daniel:11:30|) for violent displeasure. The notion of indignation is present in the other examples of the word in the N.T. (Mark:1:43; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Matthew:9:30|). Songs:it seems best to see that sense here and in verse 38|. The presence of these Jews, the grief of Mary, Christ's own concern, the problem of the raising of Lazarus--all greatly agitated the spirit of Jesus (locative case \ti pneumati\). He struggled for self-control. {Was troubled} (\etaraxen heauton\). First aorist active indicative of \tarass\, old verb to disturb, to agitate, with the reflexive pronoun, "he agitated himself" (not passive voice, not middle). "His sympathy with the weeping sister and the wailing crowd caused this deep emotion" (Dods). Some indignation at the loud wailing would only add to the agitation of Jesus.
rwp@John:11:40 @{Said I not unto thee?} (\Ouk eipon soi;\). Jesus pointedly reminds Martha of his promise to raise Lazarus (verses 25f.|). {That if thou believedst} (\hoti ean pisteusis\). Indirect discourse with \ean\ and the first aorist active subjunctive (condition of third class) retained after the secondary tense \eipon\. He had not said this very phrase, \ean pisteusis\, to Martha, but he did say to her: \Pisteueis touto\; (Believest thou this?). He meant to test Martha as to her faith already hinted at (verse 22|) on this very point. Jesus had also spoken of increase of faith on the part of the disciples (verse 15|). {Thou shouldest see the glory of God} (\opsi tn doxan tou theou\). Future middle indicative of the old defective verb \hora\ retained in the conclusion of this condition in indirect discourse. Jesus means the glory of God as shown in the resurrection of Lazarus as he had already said to the disciples (verse 4|) and as he meant Martha to understand (verse 25|) and may in fact have said to her (the report of the conversation is clearly abridged). Hence Bernard's difficulty in seeing how Martha could understand the words of Jesus about the resurrection of Lazarus here and now seems fanciful and far-fetched.
rwp@John:12:1 @{Jesus therefore} (\Isous oun\). Here \oun\ is not causal, but simply copulative and transitional, "and so" (Bernard), as often in John (1:22|, etc.). {Six days before the passover} (\pro hex hmern tou pascha\). This idiom, transposition of \pro\, is like the Latin use of _ante_, but it occurs in the old Doric, in the inscriptions and the papyri. See strkjv@Amos:1:1| for it also (cf. Moulton, _Proleg_., pp. 100ff.; Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 621f.). If the crucifixion was on Friday, as seems certain from both John and the Synoptics, then six days before would be the Jewish Sabbath preceding or more probably the Friday afternoon before, since Jesus would most likely arrive before the Sabbath. Probably we are to put together in one scene for the atmosphere strkjv@John:11:55-57; strkjv@John:12:1, 9-11|. {Came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead} (\tlhen eis Bthanian, hopou n Lazaros, hon geiren ek nekrn Isous\). Each phrase explains the preceding. There is no reason for thinking this a gloss as Bernard does. It was a place of danger now after that great miracle and the consequent rage of the Sanhedrin (12:9-11|). The crowd of eager spectators to see both Lazarus and Jesus would only intensify this rage.
rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoisan oun auti deipnon ekei\). Here again \oun\ is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark:14:3-9|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6-13|) just two days (Mark:14:1|) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9|) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1|). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John "is here more probably accurate." It all turns on John's purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11|), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19|), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a|), and with two summary judgements (36b-50|). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke:7:36-50|). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. {And Martha served} (\kai h Martha dikonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\polln diakonian\, \diakonein\ as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6|) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke:7:36|), but Simon the leper (Mark:14:3; strkjv@Matthew:26:6|) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. {That sat at meat} (\tn anakeimenn\). "That lay back," reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after \ek\) of the common verb \anakeimai\. Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John:12:9|). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.
rwp@John:12:39 @{For this cause they could not believe} (\dia touto ouk edunanto pisteuein\). \Touto\ (this) seems to have a double reference (to what precedes and to what follows) as in strkjv@8:47|. The negative imperfect (double augment, \edunanto\) of \dunamai\. John is not absolving these Jews from moral responsibility, but only showing that the words of Isaiah "had to be fulfilled, for they were the expression of Divine foreknowledge " (Bernard).
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:14:22 @{Not Iscariot} (\ouch ho Iskarits\). Judas Iscariot had gone (13:30|), but John is anxious to make it clear that this Judas (common name, two apostles also named James) was not the infamous traitor. He is also called Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus (Mark:3:17; strkjv@Matthew:10:3|) and the brother (or son) of James (6:15; strkjv@Acts:1:13|). This is the fourth interruption of the talk of Jesus (by Peter, strkjv@13:36|; by Thomas, strkjv@14:5|; by Philip, strkjv@14:8|; by Judas, strkjv@14:22|). {And not to the world} (\kai ouchi ti kosmi\). Judas caught at the word \emphaniz\ in verse 21| as perhaps a Messianic theophany visible to all the world as at the judgment (5:27f.|). He seems to suspect a change of plan on the part of Jesus (\ti gegonen hoti\=how has it happened that).
rwp@John:18:12 @{The chief captain} (\ho chiliarchos\). They actually had the Roman commander of the cohort along (cf. strkjv@Acts:21:31|), not mentioned before. {Seized} (\sunelabon\). Second aorist active of \sullamban\, old verb to grasp together, to arrest (technical word) in the Synoptics in this context (Mark:14:48; strkjv@Matthew:26:55|), here alone in John. {Bound} (\edsan\). First aorist active indicative of \de\, to bind. As a matter of course, with the hands behind his back, but with no warrant in law and with no charge against him. {To Annas first} (\pros Annan prton\). Ex-high priest and father-in-law (\pentheros\, old word, only here in N.T.) of Caiaphas the actual high priest. Then Jesus was subjected to a preliminary and superfluous inquiry by Annas (given only by John) while the Sanhedrin were gathering before Caiaphas. Bernard curiously thinks that the night trial actually took place here before Annas and only the early morning ratification was before Caiaphas. Songs:he calmly says that "Matthew inserts the name _Caiaphas_ at this point (the night trial) in which he seems to have been mistaken." But why "mistaken"? {That year} (\tou eniautou ekeinou\). Genitive of time.
rwp@John:20:29 @{Thou hast believed} (\pepisteukas\). Perfect active indicative. Probably interrogative, but "it was _sight_, not _touch_ that convinced Thomas" (Bernard). {And yet} (\kai\). Clear use of \kai\ in the adversative sense. Thomas made a noble confession, but he missed the highest form of faith without the evidence of the senses. Peter (1Peter:1:8|) uses language that seems like a reminiscence of the words of Jesus to Thomas which Peter heard.
rwp@John:21:2 @{There were together} (\san homou\). These seven (Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others). We know that the sons of Zebedee were James and John (Matthew:4:21|), mentioned by name nowhere in John's Gospel, apparently because John is the author. We do not know who the "two others of his disciples" were, possibly Andrew and Philip. It seems to me to be crass criticism in spite of Harnack and Bernard to identify the incident here with that in strkjv@Luke:5:1-11|. There are a few points of similarity, but the differences are too great for such identification even with a hypothetical common source.
rwp@John:21:19 @{By what manner of death} (\poii thanati\). Undoubtedly John, who is writing long after Peter's death, seems to mean that Peter was to die (and did die) a martyr's death. "Whither thou wouldest not." There is a tradition that Peter met death by crucifixion and asked to be crucified head downwards, but that is not made plain here.
rwp@John:21:24 @{That is} (\houtos estin\). The one just mentioned in verse 20|, "the disciple whom Jesus loved." {And wrote these things} (\kai ho grapsas tauta\). Here there is a definite statement that the Beloved Disciple wrote this book. {We know} (\oidamen\). The plural here seems intentional as the identification and endorsement of a group of disciples who know the author and wish to vouch for his identity and for the truthfulness of his witness. Probably we see here a verse added by a group of elders in Ephesus where John had long laboured.
rwp@Info_Jude:@ THE USE OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS Jude:(verse strkjv@Jude:1:14|) quotes from "Enoch" by name and says that he "prophesied." What he quotes is a combination of various passages in the Book of Enoch as we have it now. It used to be held that part of Enoch was later than Jude, but Charles seems to have disproved that, though the book as we have it has many interpolations. Tertullian wanted to canonise Enoch because of what Jude:says, whereas Chrysostom says that the authenticity of Jude:was doubted because of the use of Enoch. In verse strkjv@Jude:1:9| there seems to be an allusion to the _Assumption of Moses_, another apocryphal book, but it is the use of "prophesied" in verse strkjv@Jude:1:14| about Enoch that gave most offence. It is possible, of course, that Jude:did not attach the full sense to that term.
rwp@Luke:1:3 @{It seemed good to me also} (\edoxe kamoi\). A natural conclusion and justification of Luke's decision to write his narrative. They had ample reason to draw up their narratives. Luke has more reason to do so because of his fuller knowledge and wider scope. {Having traced the course of all things} (\parkolouthkoti psin\). The perfect active participle of a common verb of the ancient Greek. Literally it means to follow along a thing in mind, to trace carefully. Both meanings occur abundantly in the ancient Greek. Cadbury (Appendix C to _Beginnings of Christianity_, Vol. II, pp. 489ff.) objects to the translation "having traced" here as implying research which the word does not here mean. Milligan (_Vocabulary_) is somewhat impressed by this argument. See my discussion of the point in Chapter XVI of _Studies in the Text of the N.T._ (The Implications in Luke's Preface) where the point is made that Luke here claims fulness of knowledge before he began to write his book. He had the traditions of the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word and the narratives previously drawn up. Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had _mentally_ followed along by the side of these events. Galen used this verb for the investigation of symptoms. Luke got himself ready to write before he began by full and accurate knowledge of the subject. \Akribs\ (accurately) means going into minute details, from \akron\, the topmost point. And he did it {from the first} (\anthen\). He seems to refer to the matters in Chapters strkjv@1:5-2:52|, the Gospel of the Infancy. {In order} (\kathexs\). Chronological order in the main following Mark's general outline. But in strkjv@9:51-18:10| the order is often topical. He has made careful investigation and his work deserves serious consideration. {Most excellent Theophilus} (\kratiste Theophile\). The name means god-lover or god-beloved. He may have been a believer already. He was probably a Gentile. Ramsay holds that "most excellent" was a title like "Your Excellency" and shows that he held office, perhaps a Knight. Songs:of Felix (Acts:23:26|) and Festus (Acts:26:25|). The adjective does not occur in the dedication in strkjv@Acts:1:1|.
rwp@Luke:1:17 @{Before his face} (\enpion autou\). Not in the ancient Greek, but common in the papyri as in LXX and N.T. It is a vernacular _Koin_ word, adverb used as preposition from adjective \enpios\, and that from \ho en pi n\ (the one who is in sight). {Autou} here seems to be "the Lord their God" in verse 16| since the Messiah has not yet been mentioned, though he was to be actually the Forerunner of the Messiah. {In the spirit and power of Elijah} (\en pneumati kai dunamei Elei\). See strkjv@Isaiah:40:1-11; strkjv@Malachi:3:1-5|. John will deny that he is actually Elijah in person, as they expected (John:1:21|), but Jesus will call him Elijah in spirit (Mark:9:12; strkjv@Matthew:17:12|). {Hearts of fathers} (\kardias patern\). Paternal love had died out. This is one of the first results of conversion, the revival of love in the home. {Wisdom} (\phronsei\). Not \sophia\, but a word for practical intelligence. {Prepared} (\kateskeuasmenon\). Perfect passive participle, state of readiness for Christ. This John did. This is a marvellous forecast of the character and career of John the Baptist, one that should have caught the faith of Zacharias.
rwp@Luke:1:73 @{The oath which he sware} (\horkon hon mosen\). Antecedent attracted to case of the relative. The oath appears in strkjv@Genesis:22:16-18|. The oppression of the Gentiles seems to be in the mind of Zacharias. It is not certain how clearly he grasped the idea of the spiritual Israel as Paul saw it in Galatians and Romans.
rwp@Luke:4:1 @{Full of the Holy Spirit} (\plrs pneumatos hagiou\). An evident allusion to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus at his baptism (Luke:3:21f.|). The distinctness of the Persons in the Trinity is shown there, but with evident unity. One recalls also Luke's account of the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit (1:35|). strkjv@Matthew:4:1| says that "Jesus was led of the Spirit" while strkjv@Mark:1:12| states that "the Spirit driveth him forth" which see for discussion. "Jesus had been endowed with supernatural power; and He was tempted to make use of it in furthering his own interests without regard to the Father's will" (Plummer). {Was led by the Spirit} (\geto en toi pneumati\). Imperfect passive, continuously led. \En\ may be the instrumental use as often, for strkjv@Matthew:4:1| has here \hupo\ of direct agency. But Matthew has the aorist passive \anchth\ which may be ingressive as he has \eis tn ermon\ (into the wilderness) while Luke has \en ti ermi\ (in the wilderness). At any rate Luke affirms that Jesus was now continuously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hence in this same sentence he mentions the Spirit twice. {During the forty days} (\hmers tesserakonta\). Accusative of duration of time, to be connected with "led" not with "tempted." He was led in the Spirit during these forty days (cf. strkjv@Deuteronomy:8:2|, forty years). The words are amphibolous also in strkjv@Mark:1:13|. strkjv@Matthew:4:2| seems to imply that the three recorded temptations came at the close of the fasting for forty days. That can be true and yet what Luke states be true also. These three may be merely specimens and so "representative of the struggle which continued throughout the whole period" (Plummer).
rwp@Luke:4:23 @{Doubtless} (\pants\). Adverb. Literally, at any rate, certainly, assuredly. Cf. strkjv@Acts:21:22; strkjv@28:4|. {This parable} (\tn paraboln tautn\). See discussion on ¯Matthew:13|. Here the word has a special application to a crisp proverb which involves a comparison. The word physician is the point of comparison. Luke the physician alone gives this saying of Jesus. The proverb means that the physician was expected to take his own medicine and to heal himself. The word \parabol\ in the N.T. is confined to the Synoptic Gospels except strkjv@Hebrews:9:9; strkjv@11:19|. This use for a proverb occurs also in strkjv@Luke:5:36; strkjv@6:39|. This proverb in various forms appears not only among the Jews, but in Euripides and Aeschylus among the Greeks, and in Cicero's _Letters_. Hobart quotes the same idea from Galen, and the Chinese used to demand it of their physicians. The point of the parable seems to be that the people were expecting him to make good his claim to the Messiahship by doing here in Nazareth what they had heard of his doing in Capernaum and elsewhere. "Establish your claims by direct evidence" (Easton). This same appeal (Vincent) was addressed to Christ on the Cross (Matthew:27:40,42|). There is a tone of sarcasm towards Jesus in both cases. {Heard done} (\kousamen genomena\). The use of this second aorist middle participle \genomena\ after \kousamen\ is a neat Greek idiom. It is punctiliar action in indirect discourse after this verb of sensation or emotion (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1040-42, 1122-24). {Do also here} (\poison kai hde\). Ingressive aorist active imperative. Do it here in thy own country and town and do it now. Jesus applies the proverb to himself as an interpretation of their real attitude towards himself.
rwp@Luke:5:1 @{Pressed upon him} (\epikeisthai\). Luke in this paragraph (5:1-11; strkjv@Mark:1:16-20; strkjv@Matthew:4:18-22|) does not follow the chronology of Mark as he usually does. It seems reasonably clear that the renewed call of the four fishermen came before the first tour of Galilee in strkjv@Luke:4:42-44|. It is here assumed that Luke is describing in his own way the incident given in Mark and Matthew above. Luke singles out Simon in a graphic way. This verb \epikeisthai\ is an old one and means to \lie upon\, rest upon as of a stone on the tomb (John:11:38|) or of fish on the burning coals (John:21:9|). Songs:it is used of a tempest (Acts:27:20|) and of the urgent demands for Christ's crucifixion (Luke:23:23|). Here it vividly pictures the eager crowds around Jesus. \En ti epikeisthai\ is a favourite idiom with Luke as we have already seen, \en\ with the articular infinitive in the locative case. {That} (\kai\). \Kai\ does not technically mean the declarative conjunction "that," but it is a fair rendering of the somewhat awkward idiom of Luke to a certain extent imitating the Hebrew use of _wav_. {Was standing} (\n hests\). Periphrastic second past perfect of \histmi\ which here is equal to a practical imperfect. {By the lake} (\para tn limnn\). The use of the accusative with \para\, alongside, after a verb of rest used to be called the pregnant use, came and was standing. But that is no longer necessary, for the accusative as the case of extension is the oldest of the cases and in later Greek regains many of the earlier uses of the other cases employed for more precise distinctions. See the same idiom in verse 2|. We need not here stress the notion of extension. "With characteristic accuracy Luke never calls it a sea, while the others never call it a lake" (Plummer).
rwp@Luke:6:29 @{On the cheek} (\epi tn siagona\). strkjv@Matthew:5:39| has "right." Old word meaning jaw or jawbone, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:5:39|, which see for discussion. It seems an act of violence rather than contempt. Sticklers for extreme literalism find trouble with the conduct of Jesus in strkjv@John:18:22f.| where Jesus, on receiving a slap in the face, protested against it. {Thy cloke} (\to himation\), {thy coat} (\ton chitna\). Here the upper and more valuable garment (\himation\) is first taken, the under and less valuable \chitn\ last. In strkjv@Matthew:5:40| the process (apparently a legal one) is reversed. {Withhold not} (\m klusis\). Aorist subjunctive in prohibition against committing an act. Do not hinder him in his robbing. It is usually useless anyhow with modern armed bandits.
rwp@Luke:7:37 @{A woman which was in the city, a sinner} (\gun htis en ti polei hamartlos\). Probably in Capernaum. The use of \htis\ means "Who was of such a character as to be" (cf. strkjv@8:3|) and so more than merely the relative \h\, who, that is, "who was a sinner in the city," a woman of the town, in other words, and known to be such. \Hamartlos\, from \hamartan\, to sin, means devoted to sin and uses the same form for feminine and masculine. It is false and unjust to Mary Magdalene, introduced as a new character in strkjv@Luke:8:2|, to identify this woman with her. Luke would have no motive in concealing her name here and the life of a courtesan would be incompatible with the sevenfold possession of demons. Still worse is it to identify this courtesan not only with Mary Magdalene, but also with Mary of Bethany simply because it is a Simon who gives there a feast to Jesus when Mary of Bethany does a beautiful deed somewhat like this one here (Mark:14:3-9; strkjv@Matthew:26:6-13; strkjv@John:12:2-8|). Certainly Luke knew full well the real character of Mary of Bethany (10:38-42|) so beautifully pictured by him. But a falsehood, once started, seems to have more lives than the cat's proverbial nine. The very name Magdalene has come to mean a repentant courtesan. But we can at least refuse to countenance such a slander on Mary Magdalene and on Mary of Bethany. This sinful woman had undoubtedly repented and changed her life and wished to show her gratitude to Jesus who had rescued her. Her bad reputation as a harlot clung to her and made her an unwelcome visitor in the Pharisee's house. {When she knew} (\epignousa\). Second aorist active participle from \epiginsk\, to know fully, to recognize. She came in by a curious custom of the time that allowed strangers to enter a house uninvited at a feast, especially beggars seeking a gift. This woman was an intruder whereas Mary of Bethany was an invited guest. "Many came in and took their places on the side seats, uninvited and yet unchallenged. They spoke to those at table on business or the news of the day, and our host spoke freely to them" (Trench in his _Parables_, describing a dinner at a Consul's house at Damietta). {He was sitting at meat} (\katakeitai\). Literally, he is reclining (present tense retained in indirect discourse in Greek). {An alabaster cruse of ointment} (\alabastron murou\). See on ¯Matthew:26:7| for discussion of \alabastron\ and \murou\.
rwp@Luke:8:11 @{Is this} (\estin de haut\). Means this. Jesus now proceeds to interpret his own parable. {The seed is the word of God} (\ho sporos estin ho logos tou theou\). The article with both subject and predicate as here means that they are interchangeable and can be turned round: The word of God is the seed. The phrase "the word of God" does not appear in Matthew and only once in Mark (Mark:7:13|) and John (John:10:35|), but four times in Luke (5:1; strkjv@8:11,21; strkjv@11:28|) and twelve times in Acts. In strkjv@Mark:4:14| we have only "the word." In strkjv@Mark:3:31| we have "the will of God," and in strkjv@Matthew:12:46| "the will of my Father" where strkjv@Luke:8:21| has "the word of God." This seems to show that Luke has the subjective genitive here and means the word that comes from God.
rwp@Luke:8:18 @{How ye hear} (\ps akouete\). The manner of hearing. strkjv@Mark:4:24| has "what ye hear" (\ti akouete\), the matter that is heard. Both are supremely important. Some things should not be heard at all. Some that are heard should be forgotten. Others should be treasured and practised. {For whosoever hath} (\Hosea:an gar echi\). Present active subjunctive of the common verb \ech\ which may mean "keep on having" or "acquiring." See on ¯Mark:4:25| for discussion. {Thinketh he hath} (\dokei echein\), or {seems to acquire or to hold}. Losses in business illustrate this saying as when we see their riches take wings and fly away. Songs:it is with hearing and heeding. Self-deception is a common complaint.
rwp@Luke:9:18 @{As he was praying} (\en ti einai auton proseuchomenon\). Common Lukan idiom of \en\ with the articular infinitive for a temporal clause, only here Luke has the periphrastic infinitive (\einai proseuchomenon\) as also in strkjv@11:1|. This item about Christ's praying alone in Luke. {Alone} (\kata monas\). In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:4:10|. Perhaps \chras\ (places) is to be supplied with \monas\ (lonely places). {Were with him} (\sunsan auti\). This seems like a contradiction unless "alone" is to be taken with \sunsan\. Westcott and Hort put \sunntsan\ in the margin. This would mean that as Jesus was praying alone, the disciples fell in with him. At any rate he was praying apart from them.
rwp@Luke:10:41 @{Art anxious} (\merimnis\). An old verb for worry and anxiety from \meriz\ (\meris\, part) to be divided, distracted. Jesus had warned against this in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew:6:25,28,31,34|. See also strkjv@Luke:12:11,22,26|). {And troubled} (\kai thorubazi\). From \thorubazomai\, a verb found nowhere else so far. Many MSS. here have the usual form \turbazi\, from \turbaz\. Apparently from \thorubos\, a common enough word for tumult. Martha had both inward anxiety and outward agitation. {But one thing is needful} (\henos de estin chreia\). This is the reading of A C and may be correct. A few manuscripts have: "There is need of few things." Aleph B L (and Westcott and Hort) have: "There is need of few things or one," which seems like a conflate reading though the readings are all old. See Robertson, _Introduction to Textual Criticism of the N.T._, p. 190. Jesus seems to say to Martha that only one dish was really necessary for the meal instead of the "many" about which she was so anxious.
rwp@Luke:12:22 @{Unto his disciples} (\pros tous mathtas autou\). Songs:Jesus turns from the crowd to the disciples (verses 22-40|, when Peter interrupts the discourse). From here to the end of the chapter Luke gives material that appears in Matthew, but not in one connection as here. In Matthew part of it is in the charge to the Twelve on their tour in Galilee, part in the eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives. None of it is in Mark. Hence Q or the Logia seems to be the source of it. The question recurs again whether Jesus repeated on other occasions what is given here or whether Luke has here put together separate discourses as Matthew is held by many to have done in the Sermon on the Mount. We have no way of deciding these points. We can only say again that Jesus would naturally repeat his favourite sayings like other popular preachers and teachers. Songs:Luke:12:22-31| corresponds to strkjv@Matthew:6:25-33|, which see for detailed discussion. The parable of the rich fool was spoken to the crowd, but this exhortation to freedom from care (22-31|) is to the disciples. Songs:the language in strkjv@Luke:12:22| is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:6:25|. See there for \m merimnte\ (stop being anxious) and the deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question (\phagte, endussthe\). Songs:verse 23| here is the same in strkjv@Matthew:6:25| except that there it is a question with \ouch\ expecting the affirmative answer, whereas here it is given as a reason (\gar\, for) for the preceding command.
rwp@Luke:16:1 @{Unto the disciples} (\kai pros tous mathtas\). The three preceding parables in chapter 15 exposed the special faults of the Pharisees, "their hard exclusiveness, self-righteousness, and contempt for others" (Plummer). This parable is given by Luke alone. The \kai\ (also) is not translated in the Revised Version. It seems to mean that at this same time, after speaking to the Pharisees (chapter 15), Jesus proceeds to speak a parable to the disciples (16:1-13|), the parable of the Unjust Steward. It is a hard parable to explain, but Jesus opens the door by the key in verse 9|. {Which had a steward} (\hos ichen oikonomon\). Imperfect active, continued to have. Steward is house-manager or overseer of an estate as already seen in strkjv@Luke:12:42|. {Was accused} (\dieblth\). First aorist indicative passive, of \diaball\, an old verb, but here only in the N.T. It means to throw across or back and forth, rocks or words and so to slander by gossip. The word implies malice even if the thing said is true. The word \diabolos\ (slanderer) is this same root and it is used even of women, she-devils (1Timothy:3:11|). {That he was wasting} (\hs diaskorpizn\). For the verb see on ¯15:13|. The use of \hs\ with the participle is a fine Greek idiom for giving the alleged ground of a charge against one. {His goods} (\ta huparchonta autou\). "His belongings," a Lukan idiom.
rwp@Luke:17:1 @{It is impossible} (\anendekton estin\). See \ouk endechetai\ in strkjv@13:33|. Alpha privative (\an-\) and \endektos\, verbal adjective, from \endechomai\. The word occurs only in late Greek and only here in the N.T. The meaning is inadmissible, unallowable. {But that occasions of stumbling should come} (\tou ta skandala m elthein\). This genitive articular infinitive is not easy to explain. In strkjv@Acts:10:25| there is another example where the genitive articular infinitive seems to be used as a nominative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1040). The loose Hebrew infinitive construction may have a bearing here, but one may recall that the original infinitives were either locatives (\-eni\) or datives (\-ai\). \Ta skandala\ is simply the accusative of general reference. Literally, the not coming as to occasions of stumbling. For \skandalon\ (a trap) see on ¯Matthew:5:29; strkjv@16:23|. It is here only in Luke. The positive form of this saying appears in strkjv@Matthew:18:7|, which see.
rwp@Luke:18:8 @{Howbeit} (\pln\). It is not clear whether this sentence is also a question or a positive statement. There is no way to decide. Either will make sense though not quite the same sense. The use of \ra\ before \heursei\ seems to indicate a question expecting a negative answer as in strkjv@Acts:8:30; strkjv@Romans:14:19|. But here \ra\ comes in the middle of the sentence instead of near the beginning, an unusual position for either inferential \ra\ or interrogative \ra\. On the whole the interrogative \ra\ is probably correct, meaning to question if the Son will find a persistence of faith like that of the widow.
rwp@Luke:19:39 @{Some of the Pharisees} (\tines tn Pharisain\). Luke seems to imply by "from the multitude" (\apo tou ochlou\) that these Pharisees were in the procession, perhaps half-hearted followers of the mob. But strkjv@John:12:19| speaks of Pharisees who stood off from the procession and blamed each other for their failure and the triumph of Jesus. These may represent the bolder spirits of their same group who dared to demand of Jesus that he rebuke his disciples.
rwp@Luke:22:16 @{Until it be fulfilled} (\hes hotou plrthi\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \plro\ with \hes\ (\hotou\), the usual construction about the future. It seems like a Messianic banquet that Jesus has in mind (cf. strkjv@14:15|).
rwp@Luke:22:17 @{He received a cup} (\dexamenos potrion\). This cup is a diminutive of \potr\. It seems that this is still one of the four cups passed during the passover meal, though which one is uncertain. It is apparently just before the formal introduction of the Lord's Supper, though he gave thanks here also (\eucharistsas\). It is from this verb \euchariste\ (see also verse 19|) that our word Eucharist comes. It is a common verb for giving thanks and was used also for "saying grace" as we call it.
rwp@Luke:22:30 @{And ye shall sit} (\kathsesthe\). But Westcott and Hort read in the text \kathsthe\ (present middle subjunctive with \hina\). The picture seems to be that given in strkjv@Matthew:19:28| when Jesus replied to Peter's inquiry. It is not clear how literally this imagery is to be taken. But there is the promise of honour for the loyal among these in the end.
rwp@Luke:22:66 @{As soon as it was day} (\hs egeneto hmera\). strkjv@Mark:15:1| (Matthew:27:1|) has "morning." {The assembly of the people} (\to presbuterion tou laou\). The technical word for "the eldership" (from \presbuteros\, an old man or elder) or group of the elders composing the Sanhedrin. The word occurs in the LXX for the Sanhedrin. In the N.T. occurs only here and strkjv@Acts:22:5| of the Sanhedrin. In strkjv@1Timothy:4:14| Paul uses it of the elders in a church (or churches). The Sanhedrin was composed of the elders and scribes and chief priests (Mark:15:1|) and all three groups are at this meeting. Luke's language (both chief priests and scribes, \te... kai\) seems to apply the word \presbuterion\ to the whole Sanhedrin. Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes) were nearly equally represented. {Into their council} (\eis to sunedrion autn\). The place of the gathering is not given, but Jesus was led into the council chamber.
rwp@Mark:1:23 @{With an unclean spirit} (\en pneumati akatharti\). This use of \en\ "with" is common in the Septuagint like the Hebrew _be_, but it occurs also in the papyri. It is the same idiom as "in Christ," "in the Lord" so common with Paul. In English we speak of our being in love, in drink, in his cups, etc. The unclean spirit was in the man and the man in the unclean spirit, a man in the power of the unclean spirit. Luke has "having," the usual construction. See on ¯Matthew:22:43|. Unclean spirit is used as synonymous with {demon} (\daimonion\). It is the idea of estrangement from God (Zechariah:13:2|). The whole subject of demonology is difficult, but no more so than the problem of the devil. Jesus distinguishes between the man and the unclean spirit. Usually physical or mental disease accompanied the possession by demons. One wonders today if the degenerates and confirmed criminals so common now are not under the power of demons. The only cure for confirmed criminals seems to be conversion (a new heart).
rwp@Mark:1:35 @{In the morning, a great while before day} (\pri ennucha lian\). Luke has only "when it was day" (\genomens hmeras\). The word \pri\ in Mark means the last watch of the night from three to six A.M. \Ennucha lian\ means in the early part of the watch while it was still a bit dark (cf. strkjv@Mark:16:2| \lian pri\). {Rose up and went out} (\anastas exlthen\). Out of the house and out of the city, off (\aplthen\, even if not genuine, possibly a conflate reading from strkjv@6:32,46|). "Flight from the unexpected reality into which His ideal conception of His calling had brought Him" (H.J. Holtzmann). Gould notes that Jesus seems to retreat before his sudden popularity, to prayer with the Father "that he might not be ensnared by this popularity, or in any way induced to accept the ways of ease instead of duty." But Jesus also had a plan for a preaching tour of Galilee and "He felt He could not begin too soon. He left in the night, fearing opposition from the people" (Bruce). Surely many a popular preacher can understand this mood of Jesus when in the night he slips away to a solitary place for prayer. Jesus knew what it was to spend a whole night in prayer. He knew the blessing of prayer and the power of prayer. {And there prayed} (\k'akei prosucheto\). Imperfect tense picturing Jesus as praying through the early morning hours.
rwp@Mark:2:19 @{The sons of the bridechamber} (\hoi huioi tou numphnos\). Not merely the groomsmen, but the guests also, the \paranymphs\ (\paranumphoi\ of the old Greek). Jesus here adopts the Baptist's own metaphor (John:3:29|), changing the friend of the bridegroom (\ho philos tou numphiou\) to sons of the bridechamber. Jesus identifies himself with the bridegroom of the O.T. (Hosea:2:21|), God in his covenant relation with Israel (Swete). Mourning does not suit the wedding feast. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all give the three parables (bridegroom, unfulled cloth, new wineskins) illustrating and defending the conduct of Jesus in feasting with Levi on a Jewish fast-day. strkjv@Luke:5:36| calls these parables. Jesus here seems iconoclastic to the ecclesiastics and revolutionary in emphasis on the spiritual instead of the ritualistic and ceremonial.
rwp@Mark:3:16 @{Simon he surnamed Peter} (\epethken onoma ti Simni Petron\). The Greek idiom seems awkward, but it is not. Peter is in apposition with _name_ or \onoma\ (accusative). This surname Jesus gave in addition (\epethken\) to Simon (dative case). Here then is a direct reference to what is told in strkjv@John:1:42| when Jesus met Simon for the first time. Mark here reflects Peter's own words. Luke (Luke:6:14|) simply says "Whom he also surnamed Peter." See strkjv@Matthew:16:18| for the full explanation of the name Peter, a Rock, Cephas.
rwp@Mark:4:32 @{Groweth up} (\anabainei\). strkjv@Matthew:13:32| {When it is grown} (\hotan auxthi\). {Under the shadow thereof} (\hupo tn skian autou\). A different picture from Matthew's {in the branches thereof} (\en tois kladois autou\). But both use \katasknoin\, to tent or camp down, make nests in the branches in the shade or hop on the ground under the shade just like a covey of birds. In strkjv@Matthew:8:20| the birds have nests (\katasknseis\). The use of the mustard seed for smallness seems to have been proverbial and Jesus employs it elsewhere (Matthew:17:20; strkjv@Luke:17:6|).
rwp@Mark:16:9 @{When he had risen early on the first day of the week} (\anastas pri prti sabbatou\). It is probable that this note of time goes with "risen" (\anastas\), though it makes good sense with "appeared" (\ephan\). Jesus is not mentioned by name here, though he is clearly the one meant. Mark uses \mia\ in verse 2|, but \prt\ in strkjv@14:12| and the plural \sabbatn\ in verse 2|, though the singular here. {First} (\prton\). Definite statement that Jesus {appeared} (\ephan\) to Mary Magdalene first of all. The verb \ephan\ (second aorist passive of \phain\) is here alone of the Risen Christ (cf. \Eleias ephan\, strkjv@Luke:9:8|), the usual verb being \phth\ (Luke:24:34; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:5ff.|). {From whom} (\par' hs\). Only instance of \para\ with the casting out of demons, \ek\ being usual (1:25,26; strkjv@5:8; strkjv@7:26,29; strkjv@9:25|). \Ekbeblkei\ is past perfect indicative without augment. This description of Mary Magdalene is like that in strkjv@Luke:8:2| and seems strange in Mark at this point, described as a new character here, though mentioned by Mark three times just before (15:40,47; strkjv@16:1|). The appearance to Mary Magdalene is given in full by strkjv@John:20:11-18|.
rwp@Info_Matthew @ The word Gospel (\Euaggelion\) comes to mean good news in Greek, though originally a reward for good tidings as in Homer's _Odyssey_ XIV. 152 and in strkjv@2Kings:4:10|. In the New Testament it is the good news of salvation through Christ. The English word Gospel probably comes from the Anglo-Saxon Godspell, story or narrative of God, the life of Christ. It was early confused with the Anglo-Saxon godspell, good story, which seems like a translation of the Greek \euaggelion\. But primarily the English word means the God story as seen in Christ which is the best news that the world has ever had. One thinks at once of the use of "word" (\Logos\) in strkjv@John:1:1,14|. Songs:then it is, according to the Greek, not the Good News of Matthew, but the Good News of God, brought to us in Christ the Word, the Son of God, the Image of the Father, the Message of the Father. We are to study this story first as presented by Matthew. The message is God's and it is as fresh to us today in Matthew's record as when he first wrote it.
rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heureth en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.
rwp@Matthew:2:1 @{In the days of Herod the King} (\en hmerais Hridou tou Basiles\). This is the only date for the birth of Christ given by Matthew. Luke gives a more precise date in his Gospel (Luke:2:1-3|), the time of the first enrolment by Augustus and while Cyrenius was ruler of Syria. More will be said of Luke's date when we come to his Gospel. We know from Matthew that Jesus was born while Herod was king, the Herod sometimes called Herod the Great. Josephus makes it plain that Herod died B.C. 4. He was first Governor of Galilee, but had been king of Judaea since B.C. 40 (by Antony and Octavius). I call him "Herod the Great Pervert" in _Some Minor Characters in the New Testament_. He was great in sin and in cruelty and had won the favour of the Emperor. The story in Josephus is a tragedy. It is not made plain by Matthew how long before the death of Herod Jesus was born. Our traditional date A.D. 1, is certainly wrong as Matthew shows. It seems plain that the birth of Jesus cannot be put later than B.C. 5. The data supplied by Luke probably call for B.C. 6 or 7.
rwp@Matthew:2:1 @{Wise men from the east} (\magoi apo anatoln\). The etymology of \Magi\ is quite uncertain. It may come from the same Indo-European root as _(megas) magnus_, though some find it of Babylonian origin. Herodotus speaks of a tribe of Magi among the Medians. Among the Persians there was a priestly caste of Magi like the Chaldeans in Babylon (Daniel:1:4|). Daniel was head of such an order (Daniel:2:48|). It is the same word as our "magician" and it sometimes carried that idea as in the case of Simon Magus (Acts:8:9,11|) and of Elymas Barjesus (Acts:13:6,8|). But here in Matthew the idea seems to be rather that of astrologers. Babylon was the home of astrology, but we only know that the men were from the east whether Arabia, Babylon, Persia, or elsewhere. The notion that they were kings arose from an interpretation of Is strkjv@60:3; strkjv@Revelation:21:24|. The idea that they were three in number is due to the mention of three kinds of gifts (gold, frankincense, myrrh), but that is no proof at all. Legend has added to the story that the names were Caspar, Balthasar, and Melchior as in _Ben Hur_ and also that they represent Shem, Ham, and Japhet. A casket in the Cologne Cathedral actually is supposed to contain the skulls of these three Magi. The word for east (\apo anatoln\) means "from the risings" of the sun.
rwp@Matthew:2:15 @{Until the death of Herod} (\hes ts teleuts Hridou\). The Magi had been warned in a dream not to report to Herod and now Joseph was warned in a dream to take Mary and the child along (\mellei ztein tou apolesai\ gives a vivid picture of the purpose of Herod in these three verbs). In Egypt Joseph was to keep Mary and Jesus till the death of Herod the monster. Matthew quotes strkjv@Hosea:11:1| to show that this was in fulfilment of God's purpose to call his Son out of Egypt. He may have quoted again from a collection of _testimonia_ rather than from the Septuagint. There is a Jewish tradition in the Talmud that Jesus "brought with him magic arts out of Egypt in an incision on his body" (_Shabb_. 104b). "This attempt to ascribe the Lord's miracles to Satanic agency seems to be independent of Matthew, and may have been known to him, so that one object of his account may have been to combat it" (McNeile).
rwp@Matthew:2:16 @{Slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem} (\aneilen pantas tous paidas tous en Bthleem\). The flight of Joseph was justified, for Herod was violently enraged (\ethumth lian\) that he had been mocked by the Magi, deluded in fact (\enepaichth\). Vulgate _illusus esset_. Herod did not know, of course, how old the child was, but he took no chances and included all the little boys (\tous paidas\, masculine article) in Bethlehem two years old and under, perhaps fifteen or twenty. It is no surprise that Josephus makes no note of this small item in Herod's chamber of horrors. It was another fulfilment of the prophecy in strkjv@Jeremiah:31:15|. The quotation (2:18|) seems to be from the Septuagint. It was originally written of the Babylonian captivity but it has a striking illustration in this case also. Macrobius (_Sat_. II. iv. II) notes that Augustus said that it was better to be Herod's sow (\hus\) than his son (\huios\), for the sow had a better chance of life.
rwp@Matthew:5:5 @{The meek} (\hoi praeis\). Wycliff has it "Blessed be mild men." The ancients used the word for outward conduct and towards men. They did not rank it as a virtue anyhow. It was a mild equanimity that was sometimes negative and sometimes positively kind. But Jesus lifted the word to a nobility never attained before. In fact, the Beatitudes assume a new heart, for the natural man does not find in happiness the qualities mentioned here by Christ. The English word "meek" has largely lost the fine blend of spiritual poise and strength meant by the Master. He calls himself "meek and lowly in heart" (Matthew:11:29|) and Moses is also called meek. It is the gentleness of strength, not mere effeminacy. By "the earth" (\tn gn\) Jesus seems to mean the Land of Promise (Psalms:37:11|) though Bruce thinks that it is the whole earth. Can it be the solid earth as opposed to the sea or the air?
rwp@Matthew:6:11 @{Our daily bread} (\ton arton hmn ton epiousion\). This adjective "daily" (\epiousion\) coming after "Give us this day" (\dos hmn smeron\) has given expositors a great deal of trouble. The effort has been made to derive it from \epi\ and \n\ (\ousa\). It clearly comes from \epi\ and \in\ (\epi\ and \eimi\) like \ti epiousi\ ("on the coming day," "the next day," strkjv@Acts:16:12|). But the adjective \epiousios\ is rare and Origen said it was made by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke to reproduce the idea of an Aramaic original. Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_ say: "The papyri have as yet shed no clear light upon this difficult word (Matthew:6:11; strkjv@Luke:11:3|), which was in all probability a new coinage by the author of the Greek Q to render his Aramaic Original" (this in 1919). Deissmann claims that only about fifty purely New Testament or "Christian" words can be admitted out of the more than 5,000 used. "But when a word is not recognizable at sight as a Jewish or Christian new formation, we must consider it as an ordinary Greek word until the contrary is proved. \Epiousios\ has all the appearance of a word that originated in trade and traffic of the everyday life of the people (cf. my hints in _Neutestamentliche Studien Georg Heinrici dargebracht_, Leipzig, 1914, pp. 118f.). The opinion here expressed has been confirmed by A. Debrunner's discovery (_Theol. Lit. Ztg_. 1925, Col. 119) of \epiousios\ in an ancient housekeeping book" (_Light from the Ancient East_, New ed. 1927, p. 78 and note 1). Songs:then it is not a word coined by the Evangelist or by Q to express an Aramaic original. The word occurs also in three late MSS. after 2Macc. strkjv@1:8, \tous epiousious\ after \tous artous\. The meaning, in view of the kindred participle (\epiousi\) in strkjv@Acts:16:12|, seems to be "for the coming day," a daily prayer for the needs of the next day as every housekeeper understands like the housekeeping book discovered by Debrunner.
rwp@Matthew:6:13 @{And bring us not into temptation} (\kai m eisenegkis eis peirasmon\). "Bring" or "lead" bothers many people. It seems to present God as an active agent in subjecting us to temptation, a thing specifically denied in strkjv@James:1:13|. The word here translated "temptation" (\peirasmon\) means originally "trial" or "test" as in strkjv@James:1:2| and Vincent so takes it here. _Braid Scots_ has it: "And lat us no be siftit." But God does test or sift us, though he does not tempt us to evil. No one understood temptation so well as Jesus for the devil tempted him by every avenue of approach to all kinds of sin, but without success. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus will say to Peter, James, and John: "Pray that ye enter not into temptation" (Luke:22:40|). That is the idea here. Here we have a "Permissive imperative" as grammarians term it. The idea is then: "Do not allow us to be led into temptation." There is a way out (1Corinthians:10:13|), but it is a terrible risk.
rwp@Matthew:8:19 @{A scribe} (\heis grammateus\). One (\heis\)="a," indefinite article. Already a disciple as shown by "another of the disciples" (\heteros tn mathtn\) in strkjv@8:21|. He calls Jesus "Teacher" (\didaskale\), but he seems to be a "bumptious" brother full of self-confidence and self-complacency. "Even one of that most unimpressionable class, in spirit and tendency utterly opposed to the ways of Jesus" (Bruce). Yet Jesus deals gently with him.
rwp@Matthew:11:12 @{Suffereth violence} (\biazetai\). This verb occurs only here and in strkjv@Luke:16:16| in the N.T. It seems to be middle in Luke and Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 258) quotes an inscription "where \biazomai\ is without doubt reflexive and absolute" as in strkjv@Luke:16:16|. But there are numerous papyri examples where it is passive (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_, etc.) so that "there seems little that promises decisive help for the difficult Logion of strkjv@Matthew:11:12; strkjv@Luke:16:16|." Songs:then in strkjv@Matthew:11:12| the form can be either middle or passive and either makes sense, though a different sense. The passive idea is that the kingdom is forced, is stormed, is taken by men of violence like "men of violence take it by force" (\biastai harpazousin autn\) or seize it like a conquered city. The middle voice may mean "experiences violence" or "forces its way" like a rushing mighty wind (so Zahn holds). These difficult words of Jesus mean that the preaching of John "had led to a violent and impetuous thronging to gather round Jesus and his disciples" (Hort, _Judaistic Christianity_, p. 26).
rwp@Matthew:12:10 @{Is it lawful?} (\ei exestin\). The use of \ei\ in direct questions is really elliptical and seems an imitation of the Hebrew (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 916). See also strkjv@Matthew:19:3|. It is not translated in English.
rwp@Matthew:15:33 @{And the disciples say to him} (\kai legousin auti hoi mathtai\). It seems strange that they should so soon have forgotten the feeding of the five thousand (Matthew:14:13-21|), but they did. Soon Jesus will remind them of both these demonstrations of his power (16:9,10|). They forgot both of them, not just one. Some scholars scout the idea of two miracles so similar as the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand, though both are narrated in detail by both Mark and Matthew and both are later mentioned by Jesus. Jesus repeated his sayings and wrought multitudes of healings. There is no reason in itself why Jesus should not on occasion repeat a nature miracle like this elsewhere. He is in the region of Decapolis, not in the country of Philip (\Trachonitis\).
rwp@Matthew:18:1 @{Who then is greatest} (\tis ara meizn estin\). The \ara\ seems to point back to the tax-collection incident when Jesus had claimed exemption for them all as "sons" of the Father. But it was not a new dispute, for jealousy had been growing in their hearts. The wonderful words of Jesus to Peter on Mount Hermon (Matthew:16:17-19|) had evidently made Peter feel a fresh sense of leadership on the basis of which he had dared even to rebuke Jesus for speaking of his death (16:22|). And then Peter was one of the three (James and John also) taken with the Master up on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter on that occasion had spoken up promptly. And just now the tax-collectors had singled out Peter as the one who seemed to represent the group. Mark (Mark:9:33|) represents Jesus as asking them about their dispute on the way into the house, perhaps just after their question in strkjv@Matthew:18:1|. Jesus had noticed the wrangling. It will break out again and again (Matthew:20:20-28; strkjv@Luke:22:24|). Plainly the primacy of Peter was not yet admitted by the others. The use of the comparative \meizn\ (so \ho meizn\ in verse 4|) rather than the superlative \megistos\ is quite in accord with the _Koin_ idiom where the comparative is displacing the superlative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 667ff.). But it is a sad discovery to find the disciples chiefly concerned about their own places (offices) in the political kingdom which they were expecting.
rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autn moicheuthnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenn gamsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\m epi porneii\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha or moicheu\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.
rwp@Matthew:21:3 @{The Lord} (\ho kurios\). It is not clear how the word would be understood here by those who heard the message though it is plain that Jesus applies it to himself. The word is from \kuros\, power or authority. In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. as master of the slave (Matthew:10:24|), of the harvest (9:38|), of the vineyard (20:8|), of the emperor (Acts:13:27|), of God (Matthew:11:20; strkjv@11:25|), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts:10:36|). Note strkjv@Matthew:8:25|. This is the only time in Matthew where the words \ho kurios\ are applied to Jesus except the doubtful passage in strkjv@28:6|. A similar usage is shown by Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_ and Deissmann's _Light from the Ancient East_. Particularly in Egypt it was applied to "the Lord Serapis" and Ptolemy and Cleopatra are called "the lords, the most great gods" (\hoi kurioi theoi megistoi\). Even Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I are addressed as "Lord King." In the west the Roman emperors are not so termed till the time of Domitian. But the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. It seems as if already the disciples were calling Jesus "Lord" and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here.
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:26:15 @{What are ye willing to give me?} (\ti thelete moi dounai?\) This "brings out the _chaffering_ aspect of the transaction" (Vincent). "Mary and Judas extreme opposites: she freely spending in love, he willing to sell his Master for money" (Bruce). And her act of love provoked Judas to his despicable deed, this rebuke of Jesus added to all the rest. {And I will deliver him unto you} (\kag hmin parads auton\). The use of \kai\ with a co-ordinate clause is a colloquialism (common in the _Koin_ as in the Hebrew use of _wav_. "A colloquialism or a Hebraism, the traitor mean in style as in spirit" (Bruce). The use of \eg\ seems to mean "I though one of his disciples will hand him over to you if you give me enough." {They weighed unto him} (\hoi de estsan auto\). They placed the money in the balances or scales. "Coined money was in use, but the shekels may have been weighed out in antique fashion by men careful to do an iniquitous thing in the most orthodox way" (Bruce). It is not known whether the Sanhedrin had offered a reward for the arrest of Jesus or not. {Thirty pieces of silver} (\triakonta arguria\). A reference to strkjv@Zechariah:11:12|. If a man's ox gored a servant, he had to pay this amount (Exodus:21:32|). Some manuscripts have \statras\ (staters). These thirty silver shekels were equal to 120 \denarii\, less than five English pounds, less than twenty-five dollars, the current price of a slave. There was no doubt contempt for Jesus in the minds of both the Sanhedrin and Judas in this bargain.
rwp@Philippians:1:22 @{If this is the fruit of my work} (\touto moi karpos ergou\). There is no \ei\ (if) here in the Greek, but \touto\ (this) seems to be resumptive and to repeat the conditional clause just before. If so, \kai\ just after means {then} and introduces the conclusion of the condition. Otherwise \touto\ introduces the conclusion and \kai\ means {and}. {I wot not} (\ou gnriz\). "I know not." It seems odd to preserve the old English word "wot" here. But it is not clear that \gnriz\ (old causative verb from \ginsk\) means just to know. Elsewhere in the N.T., as in strkjv@Luke:2:15; strkjv@Romans:9:22|, it means to make known, to declare. The papyri examples mean to make known. It makes perfectly good sense to take its usual meaning here, "I do not declare what I shall choose."
rwp@Philippians:2:16 @{As lights in the world} (\hs phstres en kosmi\). As luminaries like the heavenly bodies. Christians are the light of the world (Matthew:5:14|) as they reflect the light from Christ (John:1:4; strkjv@8:12|), but here the word is not \phs\ (light), but \phstres\ (luminaries, stars). The place for light is the darkness where it is needed. {Holding forth} (\epechontes\). Present active participle of \epech\. Probably not connected with the preceding metaphor in \phstres\. The old meaning of the verb \epech\ is to hold forth or to hold out (the word of life as here). The context seems to call for "holding fast." It occurs also with the sense of attending to (Acts:3:5|). {That I may have} (\emoi\). Ethical dative, "to me as a ground of boasting."
rwp@Philippians:3:5 @{Thinketh to have confidence} (\dokei pepoithenai\). Second perfect active infinitive. Old idiom, "seems to himself to have confidence." Later idiom like strkjv@Matthew:3:9| "think not to say" and strkjv@1Corinthians:11:16|, "thinks that he has ground of confidence in himself." {I yet more} (\eg mallon\). "I have more ground for boasting than he" and Paul proceeds to prove it in the rest of verses 5,6|. {Circumcised the eighth day} (\peritomi oktameros\). "In circumcision (locative case) an eighth day man." Use of the ordinal with persons like \tetartaios\ (John:11:39|). Ishmaelites were circumcised in the thirteenth year, proselytes from Gentiles in mature age, Jews on the eighth day (Luke:2:21|). {Of the stock of Israel} (\ek genous Isral\). Of the original stock, not a proselyte. {Benjamin} (\Beniamin\). Son of the right hand (that is, left-handed), son of Rachel. The first King, Saul (Paul's own Hebrew name) was from this little tribe. The battle cry of Israel was "After thee, O Benjamin" (Judges:5:14|). {A Hebrew of the Hebrews} (\Ebraios ex Ebrain\). Of Hebrew parents who retained the characteristic qualities in language and custom as distinct from the Hellenistic Jews (Acts:6:1|). Paul was from Tarsus and knew Greek as well as Aramaic (Acts:21:40; strkjv@22:2|) and Hebrew, but he had not become Hellenized. {A Pharisee} (\Pharisaios\). In distinction from the Sadducees (Galatians:1:14|) and he continued a Pharisee in many essential matters like the doctrine of the resurrection (Acts:23:6|). Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:11:22|.
rwp@Revelation:4:6 @{As it were a glassy sea} (\hs thalassa hualin\). Old adjective (from \hualos\, glass, strkjv@21:18,21|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@15:2|. Possibly from \huei\ (it rains), like a raindrop. At any rate here it is the appearance, not the material. Glass was made in Egypt 4,000 years ago. In strkjv@Exodus:24:10| the elders see under the feet of God in the theophany a paved work of sapphire stone (cf. strkjv@Ezekiel:1:26|). The likeness of the appearance of sky to sea suggests the metaphor here (Beckwith). {Like crystal} (\homoia krustalli\). Associative-instrumental case after \homoia\. Old word, from \kruos\ (ice and sometimes used for ice), in N.T. only here and strkjv@22:1|, not semi-opaque, but clear like rock-crystal. {In the midst of the throne} (\en mesi tou thronou\). As one looks from the front, really before. {Round about the throne} (\kukli tou thronou\). Merely an adverb in the locative case (Romans:15:19|), as a preposition in N.T. only here, strkjv@5:11; strkjv@7:11|. This seems to mean that on each of the four sides of the throne was one of the four living creatures either stationary or moving rapidly round (Ezekiel:1:12f.|). {Four living creatures} (\tessera za\). Not \thria\ (beasts), but living creatures. Certainly kin to the \za\ of strkjv@Ezekiel:1; 2| which are cherubim (Ezekiel:10:2,20|), though here the details vary as to faces and wings with a significance of John's own, probably representing creation in contrast with the redeemed (the elders). {Full of eyes} (\gemonta ophthalmn\). Present active participle of \gem\, to be full of, with the genitive, signifying here unlimited intelligence (Beckwith), the ceaseless vigilance of nature (Swete).
rwp@Revelation:6:2 @{And I saw and behold} (\kai eidon kai idou\). This combination is frequent in the Apocalypse (4:1; strkjv@6:2,5,8; strkjv@14:1,14; strkjv@19:11|). {A white horse} (\hippos leukos\). In strkjv@Zechariah:6:1-8| we have red, black, white, and grizzled bay horses like the four winds of heaven, ministers to do God's will. White seems to be the colour of victory (cf. the white horse of the Persian Kings) like the white horse ridden by the Roman conqueror in a triumphant procession. {Had} (\echn\). Agreeing in gender and case with \ho kathmenos\. {A bow} (\toxon\). Old word (Zechariah:9:13f.| of a great bow), here only in N.T. {Was given} (\edoth\). First aorist passive indicative of \didmi\. {A crown} (\stephanos\). See on ¯4:4| for this word. {He came forth} (\exlthen\). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\, either to come out or to go out (went forth). {Conquering} (\nikn\). Present active participle of \nika\. {And to conquer} (\kai hina niksi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \nika\. Here \hs niksn\ (future active participle with \hs\) could have been used. The aorist tense here points to ultimate victory. Commentators have been busy identifying the rider of the white horse according to their various theories. "It is tempting to identify him with the Rider on the white horse in strkjv@19:11f.|, whose name is 'the Word of God'" (Swete). Tempting, "but the two riders have nothing in common beyond the white horse."
rwp@Revelation:8:2 @{Stand} (\hestkasin\). Perfect active of \histmi\ (intransitive). Another "hebdomad" so frequent in the Apocalypse. The article (the seven angels) seems to point to seven well-known angels. In Enoch strkjv@20:7 the names of seven archangels are given (Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, Remiel) and "angels of the Presence" is an idea like that in strkjv@Isaiah:63:9|. We do not know precisely what is John's idea here. {Seven trumpets} (\hepta salpigges\). We see trumpets assigned to angels in strkjv@Matthew:24:31; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:52; strkjv@Revelation:4:1,4|. See also the use of trumpets in strkjv@Joshua:6:13; strkjv@Joel:2:1|. These seven trumpets are soon to break the half hour of silence. Thus the seven trumpets grow out of the opening of the seventh seal, however that fact is to be interpreted.
rwp@Revelation:11:3 @{I will give} (\ds\). Future active of \didmi\. The speaker may be God (Beckwith) or Christ (Swete) as in strkjv@2:13; strkjv@21:6| or his angel representative (22:7,12ff.|). The idiom that follows is Hebraic instead of either the infinitive after \didmi\ as in strkjv@2:7; strkjv@3:21; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@7:2; strkjv@13:7,15; strkjv@16:8| or \hina\ with the subjunctive (9:5; strkjv@19:8|) we have \kai prophteusousin\ (and they shall prophesy). {Unto my two witnesses} (\tois dusin martusin mou\). Dative case after \ds\. The article seems to point to two well-known characters, like Elijah, Elisha, but there is no possible way to determine who they are. All sorts of identifications have been attempted. {Clothed} (\periblmenous\). Perfect passive participle of \periball\ as often before (7:9,13; strkjv@10:1|, etc.). But Aleph A P Q here read the accusative plural in \-ous\, while C has the nominative in \-oi\. Charles suggests a mere slip for the nominative, but Hort suggests a primitive error in early MSS. for the dative \peribeblemenois\ agreeing with \martusin\. {In sackcloth} (\sakkous\). Accusative retained with this passive verb as in strkjv@7:9,13|. See strkjv@6:12| for \sakkos\ and also strkjv@Matthew:3:4|. The dress suited the message (Matthew:11:21|).
rwp@Revelation:11:4 @{The two olive trees} (\hai duo elaiai\). The article seems to point to what is known. For this original use of \elaia\ see strkjv@Romans:11:17,24|. In strkjv@Zechariah:4:2,3,14| the lampstand or candlestick (\luchnia\) is Israel, and the two olive trees apparently Joshua and Zerubbabel, but John makes his own use of this symbolism. Here the two olive trees and the candlesticks are identical. {Standing} (\hesttes\). Masculine perfect active participle agreeing with \houtoi\ instead of \hestsai\ (read by P and cursives) agreeing with \elaiai kai luchniai\, even though \hai\ (feminine plural article) be accepted before \enpion tou kuriou\ (before the Lord).
rwp@Revelation:13:3 @{And I saw} (\kai\). No verb (\eidon\) in the old MSS., but clearly understood from verse 2|. {As though it had been smitten} (\hs esphagmenn\). Perfect passive participle of \sphaz\, as in strkjv@5:6|, accusative singular agreeing with \mian\ (one of the heads), object of \eidon\ understood, "as though slain" (so the word means in seven other instances in the book). There is a reference to the death and new life of the Lamb in strkjv@5:6|. {And his death-stroke was healed} (\kai h plg autou etherapeuth\). First aorist passive indicative of \therapeu\. "The stroke of death" (that led to death). Apparently refers to the death of Nero in June 68 A.D. by his own hand. But after his death pretenders arose claiming to be Nero _redivivus_ even as late as 89 (Tacitus, _Hist_. i. 78, ii. 8, etc.). John seems to regard Domitian as Nero over again in the persecutions carried on by him. The distinction is not always preserved between the beast (Roman Empire) and the seven heads (emperors), but in strkjv@17:10| the beast survives the loss of five heads. Here it is the death-stroke of one head, while in verses 12,14| the beast himself receives a mortal wound. {Wondered after the beast} (\ethaumasth opis tou thriou\). First aorist passive (deponent) indicative of \thaumaz\, to wonder at, to admire, as in strkjv@17:8|. For this pregnant use of \opis\ see strkjv@John:12:9; strkjv@Acts:5:37; strkjv@20:30; strkjv@1Timothy:5:15|. "All the earth wondered at and followed after the beast," that is Antichrist as represented by Domitian as Nero _redivivus_. But Charles champions the view that Caligula, not Nero, is the head that received the death-stroke and recovered and set up statues of himself for worship, even trying to do it in Jerusalem.
rwp@Revelation:13:5 @{There was given to him} (\edoth auti\). First aorist passive indicative of \didmi\, to give, as in next line and verse 7|. Perhaps a reference to \edken\ (he gave) in verse 4|, where the dragon (Satan) gave the beast his power. The ultimate source of power is God, but the reference seems to be Satan here. {Speaking great things and blasphemies} (\laloun megala kai blasphmias\). Present active participle of \lale\, agreeing with \stoma\ (nominative neuter singular and subject of \edoth\). The words are like Daniel's description of the Little Horn (7:8,20,25|) and like the description of Antiochus Epiphanes (I Macc. strkjv@1:24). Cf. strkjv@2Peter:2:11|. {To continue} (\poisai\). First aorist active infinitive (epexegetic use) of \poie\, either in the sense of working (signs), as in strkjv@Daniel:8:12-14|, with the accusative of duration of time (\mnas\ months), or more likely in the sense of doing time, with \mnas\ as the direct object as in strkjv@Matthew:20:12; strkjv@Acts:20:3; strkjv@James:4:13|.
rwp@Revelation:14:4 @{Were not defiled with women} (\meta gunaikn ouk emolunthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \molun\, old verb, to stain, already in strkjv@3:4|, which see. The use of this word rules out marriage, which was not considered sinful. {For they are virgins} (\parthenoi gar eisin\). \Parthenos\ can be applied to men as well as women. Swete takes this language "metaphorically, as the symbolical character of the Book suggests." Charles considers it an interpolation in the interest of celibacy for both men and women. If taken literally, the words can refer only to adultery or fornication (Beckwith). Jesus recognised abstinence only for those able to receive it (Matthew:19:12|), as did Paul (1Corinthians:7:1,8,32,36|). Marriage is approved by Paul in strkjv@1Timothy:4:3| and by strkjv@Hebrews:13:4|. The New Testament exalts marriage and this passage should not be construed as degrading it. {Whithersoever he goeth} (\hopou an hupagei\). Indefinite local clause with modal \an\ and the present active indicative of \hupag\. The Christian life is following the Lamb of God as Jesus taught (Mark:2:14; strkjv@10:21; strkjv@Luke:9:59; strkjv@John:1:43; strkjv@21:19|, etc.) and as Peter taught (1Peter:2:21|) and John (1John:2:6|). {Were purchased from among men} (\gorasthsan apo tn anthrpn\). First aorist passive indicative of \agoraz\, repeating the close of verse 3|. {First fruits} (\aparch\). See for this word strkjv@1Corinthians:16:15; strkjv@Romans:11:16; strkjv@16:5|. This seems to mean that the 144,000 represent not the whole, but only a portion of the great harvest to come (Matthew:9:37|), not only the first installment, but those marked by high spiritual service to God and the Lamb (Romans:12:1; strkjv@Hebrews:13:15; strkjv@1Peter:2:5|).
rwp@Revelation:14:8 @{Another, a second angel} (\allos deuteros aggelos\). This second angel "followed" (\kolouthsen\, first aorist active indicative of \akolouthe\) and interpreted in part the first one. {Fallen, fallen} (\epesen, epesen\). Prophetic aorist active indicative of \pipt\, repeated as a solemn dirge announcing the certainty of the fall. The English participle "fallen, fallen" is more musical and rhythmical than the literal rendering "fell, fell." The language is an echo of strkjv@Isaiah:21:9|, though B in the LXX has \peptken, peptken\ (perfect). {Babylon the great} (\Babuln h magal\). The adjective \megal\ occurs with \Babuln\ each time in the Apocalypse (14:8; strkjv@16:19; strkjv@17:5; strkjv@18:2,10,21|) as a reminder of Nebuchadrezzar. There is no doubt that Rome is meant by Babylon, as is probably seen already in strkjv@1Peter:5:13|. As a prisoner in Patmos John can speak his mind by this symbolism. {Hath made to drink} (\pepotiken\). Perfect active indicative of \potiz\, old causative verb (from \potos\ drinking, strkjv@1Peter:4:3|), as in strkjv@Matthew:25:35|. The remarkable phrase that follows seems based on strkjv@Jeremiah:51:8| (Jeremiah:25:15|). It is a combination also of strkjv@Revelation:14:10| (the wine of God's wrath, also in strkjv@16:19; strkjv@19:15|) and strkjv@17:2|. There is no doubt of the dissoluteness of the old Babylon of Jeremiah's day as of the Rome of John's time. Rome is pictured as the great courtesan who intoxicates and beguiles the nations to fornication (17:2,4,6|), but the cup of God's wrath for her and her paramours is full (14:10; strkjv@16:19; strkjv@18:2|).
rwp@Revelation:15:1 @{Another sign in heaven} (\allo smeion en ti ourani\). Looking back to strkjv@12:1,3|, after the series intervening. The Seven Bowls are parallel with the Seven Seals (ch. strkjv@Revelation:6|) and the Seven Trumpets (chapters strkjv@Revelation:8-11|), but there is an even closer connection with chapters strkjv@Revelation:12-14|, "the drama of the long conflict between the church and the world" (Swete). {Great and marvellous} (\mega kai thaumaston\). \Thaumastos\ is an old verbal adjective (from \thaumaz\, to wonder) and is already in strkjv@Matthew:21:42|. The wonder extends to the end of this vision or sign (16:21|). {Seven angels} (\aggelous hepta\). Accusative case in apposition with \smeion\ after \eidon\. Cf. strkjv@8:2|. {Which are the last} (\tas eschatas\). "Seven plagues the last." As in strkjv@21:9|, "the final cycle of such visitations" (Swete). {Is finished} (\etelesth\). Proleptic prophetic first aorist passive indicative of \tele\ as in strkjv@10:7|. The number seven seems particularly appropriate here for finality and completeness.
rwp@Revelation:19:17 @{An angel} (\hena aggelon\). Like \heis\ in strkjv@18:21|, just "an," not "one." {Standing in the sun} (\hestta en ti hlii\). Second perfect active participle of \histmi\ (intransitive). "Where all the birds of prey would behold him" (Beckwith). For \orneois\ (birds) see strkjv@18:2| and for \en mesouranmati\ (in mid heaven) see strkjv@18:13; strkjv@14:6|. {Come and be gathered together} (\Deute sunachthte\). \Deute\ is the adverb \deur\ (hither), used when two or more are addressed, possibly from \deuro ite\ (come here). Asyndeton also without \kai\ (and). First aorist passive imperative of \sunag\. The metaphor is drawn from strkjv@Ezekiel:39:17|. {Unto the great supper of God} (\eis to deipnon to mega tou theou\). The habits of vultures are described by Christ in strkjv@Matthew:24:28|. This is a bold and powerful picture of the battlefield after the victory of the Messiah, "a sacrificial feast spread on God's table for all the vultures of the sky" (Swete). Is this battle the same as that of Har Magedon (16:16|) and that of Gog and Magog (20:8ff.|) mentioned after the thousand years? The language in strkjv@20:8ff.| seems like this derived from strkjv@Ezekiel:39:17ff.|, and "in the Apocalypse priority in the order of sequence does not always imply priority in time" (Swete). There seems no way to decide this point save that the end seems to be at hand.
rwp@Revelation:20:6 @{Blessed and holy} (\makarios kai hagios\). A fifth beatitude (1:3; strkjv@14:13; strkjv@16:15; strkjv@19:9|) already and two more to come (22:7,14|, seven in all). Here \hagios\ is added to the usual \makarios\. The second death (\ho deuteros thanatos\). The spiritual death of strkjv@2:11; strkjv@20:14; strkjv@21:8| in contrast to the first or physical death. This language raises a question about the interpretation of the first and the second resurrections, whether both are of the body or one of the spirit. There seems no way to reach a solid conception about it. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:23| there is no mention of the resurrection of any save "those of Christ" (\hoi tou Christou\), though the end follows (verse 24|). However, Paul elsewhere (Acts:24:15|) speaks of the resurrection of the just and of the unjust as if one event. {Priests of God and of Christ} (\hiereis tou theou kai tou Christou\). As in strkjv@1:6; strkjv@5:10; strkjv@22:3,5|. {Shall reign with him} (\basileusousin met' autou\). As promised in the same passages. The servants of God are to be priests with Christ and to reign with him (Matthew:19:28|). In strkjv@5:10| \epi ts gs\ (upon earth) occurs, but this item does not appear here. "No hint is given as to where this service is to be rendered and this royalty to be exercised" (Swete).
rwp@Romans:1:9 @{I serve} (\latreu\). Old verb from \latron\, hire, and \latris\, hireling, so to serve for hire, then to serve in general gods or men, whether sacred services (Hebrews:9:9; strkjv@10:2|) or spiritual service as here. Cf. strkjv@Romans:12:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:3|. {Unceasingly} (\adialeipts\). Late adverb for which see strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:2f.; strkjv@2:13; strkjv@5:17|, only other N.T. examples. {Always} (\pantote\). One might think that Paul prayed for no others, but he uses both adverbs in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:2|. He seems to have had prayer lists. He never omitted the Romans.
rwp@Romans:3:19 @{That every mouth may be stopped} (\hina pn stoma phragi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and second aorist passive subjunctive of \phrass\, old verb to fence in, to block up. See strkjv@2Corinthians:11:10|. Stopping mouths is a difficult business. See strkjv@Titus:1:11| where Paul uses \epistomizein\ (to stop up the mouth) for the same idea. Paul seems here to be speaking directly to Jews (\tois en ti nomi\), the hardest to convince. With the previous proof on that point he covers the whole ground for he made the case against the Gentiles in strkjv@1:18-32|. {May be brought under the judgement of God} (\hupodikos gentai ti thei\). "That all the world (Jew as well as Gentile) may become (\gentai\) answerable (\hupodikos\, old forensic word, here only in N.T.) to God (dative case \ti thei\)." Every one is "liable to God," in God's court.
rwp@Romans:10:7 @{Into the abyss} (\eis tn abusson\). See strkjv@Luke:8:31| for this old Greek word (\a\ privative and \bussos\) bottomless like sea (Psalms:106:26|), our abyss. In strkjv@Revelation:9:1| it is the place of torment. Paul seems to refer to Hades or Sheol (Acts:2:27,31|), the other world to which Christ went after death. {To bring Christ up} (\Christon anagagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \anag\ and dependent on \katabsetai\ (shall descend). Christ has already risen from the dead. The deity and resurrection of Christ are precisely the two chief points of attack today on the part of sceptics.
rwp@Romans:11:8 @{A spirit of stupor} (\pneuma katanuxes\). The quotation is a combination of strkjv@Deuteronomy:19:4; strkjv@Isaiah:29:10; strkjv@6:9f|. This phrase is from strkjv@Isaiah:29:10|. \Katanuxis\ is a late and rare word from \katanuss\, to prick or stick (Acts:2:37|), in LXX, here only in N.T., one example in _Pelagia-Legende_. The torpor seems the result of too much sensation, dulled by incitement into apathy. {That they should not see} (\tou m blepein\). Genitive articular infinitive of negative purpose. {That they should not hear} (\tou m akouein\). Songs:here also. See Stephen's speech (Acts:7:51f.|).
rwp@Romans:12:7 @{Let us give ourselves}. There is no verb in the Greek. We must supply \dmen heautous\ or some such phrase. {Or he that teacheth} (\eite ho didaskn\). Here the construction changes and no longer do we have the accusative case like \diakonian\ (general word for Christian service of all kinds including ministers and deacons) as the object of \echontes\, but the nominative articular participle. A new verb must be supplied of which \ho didaskn\ is the subject as with the succeeding participles through verse 8|. Perhaps in each instance the verb is to be repeated from the participle like \didasket\ here (let him teach) or a general term \poieit\ (let him do it) can be used for all of them as seems necessary before "with liberality" in verse 8| (\en haplotti\, in simplicity, for which word, see strkjv@Matthew:6:22; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:2; strkjv@9:11,13|). {He that ruleth} (\ho proistamenos\). "The one standing in front" for which see strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12|. {With diligence} (\en spoudi\). "In haste" as if in earnest (Mark:6:25; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11f., strkjv@8:8,16|), from \speud\, to hasten. Again verse 11|. {With cheerfulness} (\en hilarotti\). Late word, only here in N.T., from \hilaros\ (2Corinthians:9:7|) cheerful, hilarious.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}