OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp Hoti:
rwp@
1Corinthians:13:7 @{Beareth all things} (\panta stegei\). \Steg\ is old verb from \steg\, roof, already in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:12; strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:1,5| which see. Love covers, protects, forbears (_suffert_, Vulgate). See strkjv@1Peter:4:8| "because love covers a multitude of sins" (\hoti agap kaluptei phthos hamartin\), throws a veil over. {Believeth all things} (\panta pisteuei\). Not gullible, but has faith in men. {Hopeth all things} (\panta elpizei\). Sees the bright side of things. Does not despair. \Endureth all things\ (\panta hupomenei\). Perseveres. Carries on like a stout-hearted soldier. If one knows Sir Joshua Reynolds's beautiful painting of the Seven Virtues (the four cardinal virtues of the Stoics--temperance, prudence, fortitude, justice--and the three Christian graces--faith, hope, love), he will find them all exemplified here as marks of love (the queen of them all).
rwp@1Corinthians:14:23 @{Will they not say that ye are mad?} (\ouk erousin hoti mainesthe?\). These unbelievers unacquainted (\iditai\) with Christianity will say that the Christians are raving mad (see on ¯Acts:12:15; strkjv@26:24|). They will seem like a congregation of lunatics.
rwp@1Corinthians:14:25 @{That God is among you indeed} (\hoti onts en humin estin\). Recitative \hoti\ and direct quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:45:15| (Hebrew rather than the LXX). "Really (\onts\ strkjv@Luke:24:34|) God is in you."
rwp@1Corinthians:15:4 @{And that he was buried} (\kai hoti etaph\). Note \hoti\ repeated before each of the four verbs as a separate item. Second aorist passive indicative of \thapt\, old verb, to bury. This item is an important detail as the Gospels show. {And that he hath been raised} (\kai hoti eggertai\). Perfect passive indicative, not \gerth\ like {rose} of the King James' Version. There is reason for this sudden change of tense. Paul wishes to emphasize the permanence of the resurrection of Jesus. He is still risen. {On the third day} (\ti hmeri ti triti\). Locative case of time. Whether Paul had seen either of the Gospels we do not know, but this item is closely identified with the fact of Christ's resurrection. We have it in Peter's speech (Acts:10:40|) and Jesus points it out as part of prophecy (Luke:24:46|). The other expression occasionally found "after three days" (Mark:10:34|) is merely free vernacular for the same idea and not even strkjv@Matthew:12:40| disturbs it. See on ¯Luke:24:1| for record of the empty tomb on the first day of the week (the third day).
rwp@1Corinthians:15:5 @{And that he appeared to Cephas} (\kai hoti phth Kphi\). First aorist passive indicative of the defective verb \hora\, to see. Paul means not a mere "vision," but actual appearance. John uses \ephanerth\ (John:21:14|) from \phanero\, to make manifest, of Christ's appearance to the seven by the Sea of Galilee. Peter was listed first (\prtos\) among the Apostles (Matthew:10:2|). Jesus had sent a special message to him (Mark:16:7|) after his resurrection. This special appearance to Peter is made the determining factor in the joyful faith of the disciples (Luke:24:34|), though mentioned incidentally here. Paul had told all these four facts to the Corinthians in his preaching. He gives further proof of the fact of Christ's resurrection. There are ten appearances given besides the one to Paul. Nine are in the Gospels (Mary Magdalene in John and Mark, the other women in Matthew, the two going to Emmaus in Luke, Simon Peter in Luke and I Corinthians, the ten apostles and others in Luke and John and Mark, the eleven and others in John, the seven by the sea in John, to over five hundred in Galilee in Matthew and Paul and Mark, to the apostles in Jerusalem in Luke and Mark and Acts and I Corinthians) and one in I Corinthians above (to James). It will be seen that Paul mentions only five of the ten, one, that to James, not given elsewhere. What he gives is conclusive evidence of the fact, particularly when re-enforced by his own experience (the sixth appearance mentioned by Paul). The way to prove this great fact is to start with Paul's own witness given in this undoubted Epistle. The natural way to understand Paul's adverbs of time here is chronological: {then} (\eita\), {then} (\epeita\), {then} (\epeita\), {then} (\eita\), {last of all} (\eschaton pantn\). {To the twelve} (\tois ddeka\). The technical name. Only ten were present, for Judas was dead and Thomas was absent (John:20:24|).
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@2Thessalonians:2:4 @{He that opposeth and exalteth himself} (\ho antikeimenos kai huperairomenos\). Like John's Antichrist this one opposes (\anti-\) Christ and exalts himself (direct middle of \huperair\, old verb to lift oneself up {above} others, only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| in N.T.), but not Satan, but an agent of Satan. This participial clause is in apposition with the two preceding phrases, the man of sin, the son of perdition. Note strkjv@1Corinthians:8:5| about one called God and strkjv@Acts:17:23| for \sebasma\ (from \sebazomai\), object of worship, late word, in N.T. only in these two passages. {Songs:that he sitteth in the temple of God} (\hste auton eis ton naon tou theou kathisai\). Another example of the infinitive with \hste\ for result. Caius Caligula had made a desperate attempt to have his statue set up for worship in the Temple in Jerusalem. This incident may lie behind Paul's language here. {Setting himself forth as God} (\apodeiknunta heauton hoti estin theos\). Present active participle (\mi\ form) of \apodeiknumi\, agreeing in case with \auton\, {showing himself that he is God}. Caligula claimed to be God. Moffatt doubts if Paul is identifying this deception with the imperial cultus at this stage. Lightfoot thinks that the deification of the Roman emperor supplied Paul's language here. Wetstein notes a coin of Julius with \theos\ on one side and \Thessaloniken\ on the other. In strkjv@1John:2:18| we are told of "many antichrists" some of whom had already come. Hence it is not clear that Paul has in mind only one individual or even individuals at all rather than evil principles, for in verse 6| he speaks of \to katechon\ (that which restraineth) while in verse 7| it is \ho katechn\ (the one that restraineth). Frame argues for a combination of Belial and Antichrist as the explanation of Paul's language. But the whole subject is left by Paul in such a vague form that we can hardly hope to clear it up. It is possible that his own preaching while with them gave his readers a clue that we do not possess.
rwp@2Thessalonians:2:13 @See strkjv@1:3| for same beginning. {Beloved of the Lord} (\gapmenoi hupo kuriou\). Perfect passive participle of \agapa\ with \hupo\ and the ablative as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:4|, only here \kuriou\ instead of \theou\, the Lord Jesus rather than God the Father. {Because that God chose you} (\hoti heilato humas ho theos\). First aorist middle indicative of \haire\, to take, old verb, but uncompounded only in N.T. here, strkjv@Phillipians:1:22; strkjv@Hebrews:11:25|, and here only in sense of {choose}, that being usually \exaireomai\ or \prooriz\. {From the beginning} (\ap' archs\). Probably the correct text (Aleph D L) and not \aparchn\ (first fruits, B G P), though here alone in Paul's writings and a hard reading, the eternal choice or purpose of God (1Corinthians:2:7; strkjv@Ephesians:1:4; strkjv@2Timothy:1:9|), while \aparchn\ is a favourite idea with Paul (1Corinthians:15:20,23; strkjv@16:15; strkjv@Romans:8:23; strkjv@11:16; strkjv@16:5|). {Unto salvation} (\eis strian\). The ultimate goal, final salvation. {In sanctification of the Spirit} (\en hagiasmi pneumatos\). Subjective genitive \pneumatos\, sanctification wrought by the Holy Spirit. {And belief of the truth} (\kai pistei altheias\). Objective genitive \altheias\, belief in the truth.
rwp@2Thessalonians:3:7 @{How ye ought to imitate us} (\ps dei mimeisthai hmas\). Literally, how it is necessary to imitate us. The infinitive \mimeisthai\ is the old verb \mimeomai\ from \mimos\ (actor, mimic), but in N.T. only here (and verse 9|), strkjv@Hebrews:13:7; strkjv@3John:1:11|. It is a daring thing to say, but Paul knew that he had to set the new Christians in the midst of Jews and Gentiles a model for their imitation (Phillipians:3:17|). {For we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you} (\hoti ouk taktsamen en humin\). First aorist active indicative of old verb \atakte\, to be out of ranks of soldiers. Specific denial on Paul's part in contrast to verse 6,17|.
rwp@2Thessalonians:3:9 @{Not because we have not the right} (\ouch hoti ouk echomen exousian\). Paul is sensitive on his {right} to receive adequate support (1Thessalonians:2:6; 1 Co strkjv@9:4| where he uses the same word \exousian\ in the long defence of this {right}, strkjv@1Corinthians:9:1-27|). Songs:he here puts in this limitation to avoid misapprehension. He did allow churches to help him where he would not be misunderstood (2Corinthians:11:7-11; strkjv@Phillipians:4:45f.|). Paul uses \ouch hoti\ elsewhere to avoid misunderstanding (2Corinthians:1:24; strkjv@3:5; strkjv@Phillipians:4:17|). {But to make ourselves an ensample unto you} (\all' hina heautous tupon dmen humin\). Literally, {but that we might give ourselves a type to you}. Purpose with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \didmi\. On \tupon\ see on ¯1Thessalonians:1:7|.
rwp@2Thessalonians:3:10 @{This} (\touto\). What he proceeds to give. {If any will not work, neither let him eat} (\hoti ei tis ou thelei ergazesthai mde esthiet\). Recitative \hoti\ here not to be translated, like our modern quotation marks. Apparently a Jewish proverb based on strkjv@Genesis:3:19|. Wetstein quotes several parallels. Moffatt gives this from Carlyle's _Chartism_: "He that will not work according to his faculty, let him perish according to his necessity." Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 314) sees Paul borrowing a piece of workshop morality. It was needed, as is plain. This is a condition of the first class (note negative \ou\) with the negative imperative in the conclusion.
rwp@2Timothy:1:16 @{Grant mercy} (\di eleos\). The phrase nowhere else in the N.T. Second aorist active optative of \didmi\, the usual form being \doi\. This is the usual construction in a wish about the future. {Unto the house of Onesiphorus} (\ti Onsiphorou oiki\). The same phrase in strkjv@4:19|. Apparently Onesiphorus is now dead as is implied by the wish in strkjv@1:18|. {For he oft refreshed me} (\hoti pollakis me anepsuxen\). First aorist active indicative of \anapsuch\, old verb, to cool again, in LXX and _Koin_ often, here only in N.T., but \anapsuxis\ in strkjv@Acts:3:20|. In the first imprisonment or the second. If he lost his life for coming to see Paul, it was probably recently during this imprisonment. {Was not ashamed of my chain} (\halusin mou ouk epaischunth\). Passive deponent again (first aorist indicative) with accusative as in strkjv@1:8|. For \halusin\ (chain) see strkjv@Ephesians:6:20|. Note absence of augment in \epaischunth\.
rwp@Acts:2:24 @{God raised up} (\ho theos anestsen\). _Est hoc summum orationis_ (Blass). Apparently this is the first public proclamation to others than believers of the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. "At a time it was still possible to test the statement, to examine witnesses, to expose fraud, the Apostle openly proclaimed the Resurrection as a fact, needing no evidence, but known to his hearers" (Furneaux). {The pangs of death} (\tas dinas tou thanatou\). Codex Bezae has "Hades" instead of death. The LXX has \dinas thanatou\ in strkjv@Psalms:18:4|, but the Hebrew original means "snares" or "traps" or "cords" of death where sheol and death are personified as hunters laying snares for prey. How Peter or Luke came to use the old Greek word \dinas\ (birth pangs) we do not know. Early Christian writers interpreted the Resurrection of Christ as a birth out of death. "Loosing" (\lusas\) suits better the notion of "snares" held a prisoner by death, but birth pangs do bring deliverance to the mother also. {Because} (\kathoti\). This old conjunction (\kata, hoti\) occurs in the N.T. only in Luke's writings. {That he should be holden} (\krateisthai auton\). Infinitive present passive with accusative of general reference and subject of \n adunaton\. The figure goes with "loosed" (\lusas\) above.
rwp@Acts:2:45 @{Sold} (\epipraskon\). Imperfect active, a habit or custom from time to time. Old and common verb, \piprask\. {Parted} (\diemerizon\). Imperfect again of \diameriz\, old verb for dividing or distributing between (\dia\) people. {According as any man had need} (\kathoti an tis chreian eichen\). Regular Greek idiom for comparative clause with \an\ and imperfect indicative corresponding precisely with the three preceding imperfects (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 967).
rwp@Acts:4:35 @{Distribution was made} (\diedideto\). Imperfect passive of \diadidmi\, late omega form for \diedidoto\ (the stem vowel \o\ displaced by \e\). Impersonal use of the verb here. {According as any one had need} (\kathoti an tis chreian eichen\). Imperfect active of \ech\ with \kathoti\ and \an\ with the notion of customary repetition in a comparative clause (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 967).
rwp@Acts:5:4 @{Whiles it remained} (\menon\). Present active participle of mend, unsold, Peter means. {After it was sold} (\prathen\). First aorist passive of \piprask\, to sell. {How is that thou hast conceived} (\Ti hoti ethou\). _Quid est quod_. See strkjv@Luke:2:49|. See also strkjv@Acts:5:9|. Second aorist middle indicative second person singular of \tithmi\. The devil filled his heart (verse 3|), but all the same Ananias did it too and is wholly responsible.
rwp@Acts:5:38 @{Refrain from} (\apostte apo\). Second aorist (ingressive) active imperative of \aphistmi\ of verse 37|. Do ye stand off from these men. "Hands off" was the policy of Gamaliel. {For if--be} (\hoti ean--i\). \Hoti\ gives the reason for the advice. Gamaliel presents two alternatives in terms of two conditional clauses. The first one is stated as a condition of the third class, \ean\ with the present subjunctive \i\, undetermined with prospect of determination. Assuming that it is from men, "it will be overthrown" (\kataluthsetai\, first future passive of \katalu\, to loosen down like a falling house) as was true of the following of Theudas and Judas the Galilean.
rwp@Acts:8:14 @{That Samaria had received} (\hoti dedektai h Samaria\). The district here, not the city as in verse 5|. Perfect middle indicative of \dechomai\ retained in indirect discourse. It was a major event for the apostles for now the gospel was going into Samaria as Jesus had predicted (1:8|). Though the Samaritans were nominally Jews, they were not held so by the people. The sending of Peter and John was no reflection on Philip, but was an appropriate mission since "many Christian Jews would be scandalized by the admission of Samaritans" (Furneaux). If Peter and John sanctioned it, the situation would be improved. John had once wanted to call down fire from heaven on a Samaritan village (Luke:9:54|).
rwp@Acts:10:14 @{Not so, Lord} (\Mdams, kurie\). The negative \mdams\ calls for the optative \ei\ (may it not be) or the imperative \est\ (let it be). It is not \oudams\, a blunt refusal (I shall not do it). And yet it is more than a mild protest as Page and Furneaux argue. It is a polite refusal with a reason given. Peter recognizes the invitation to slay (\thuson\) the unclean animals as from the Lord (\kurie\) but declines it three times. {For I have never eaten anything} (\hoti oudepote ephagon pan\). Second aorist active indicative, I never did anything like this and I shall not do it now. The use of \pan\ (everything) with \oudepote\ (never) is like the Hebrew (_lo--kl_) though a like idiom appears in the vernacular _Koin_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 752). {Common and unclean} (\koinon kai akatharton\). \Koinos\ from epic \xunos\ (\xun, sun\, together with) originally meant common to several (Latin _communis_) as in strkjv@Acts:2:44; strkjv@4:32; strkjv@Titus:1:4; strkjv@Jude:1:3|. The use seen here (also strkjv@Mark:7:2,5; strkjv@Romans:14:14; strkjv@Hebrews:10:29; strkjv@Revelation:21:27; strkjv@Acts:10:28; strkjv@11:8|), like Latin _vulgaris_ is unknown in ancient Greek. Here the idea is made plain by the addition of \akatharton\ (unclean), ceremonially unclean, of course. We have the same double use in our word "common." See on ¯Mark:7:18f.| where Mark adds the remarkable participle \katharizn\ (making all meats clean), evidently from Peter who recalls this vision. Peter had been reared from childhood to make the distinction between clean and unclean food and this new proposal even from the Lord runs against all his previous training. He did not see that some of God's plans for the Jews could be temporary. This symbol of the sheet was to show Peter ultimately that Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews. At this moment he is in spiritual and intellectual turmoil.
rwp@Acts:10:20 @{But} (\alla\). Songs:usually, though it is open to question whether \alla\ is adversative here and not rather, "Now then." {Get thee down} (\katabthi\). Second aorist active imperative, at once. {Go} (\poreuou\). Present middle imperative, go on. {Nothing doubting} (\mden diakrinomenos\). Another compound of \dia\, old and common verb for a divided mind (\dia\ like \duo\, two). Note usual negative of the present middle participle, the subjective \mden\. The notion of wavering (James:1:6|) is common with this verb in the middle voice. In strkjv@Acts:11:12| the aorist active (\mden diakrinanta\) is used perhaps with the idea of conduct towards others rather than his own internal doubt as here (Page). {For I} (\hoti eg\). The Holy Spirit assumes responsibility for the messengers from Cornelius and thus connects their mission with the vision which was still troubling Peter. Peter had heard his name called by the man (verse 19|).
rwp@Acts:10:28 @{How that it is an unlawful thing} (\hs athemiton estin\). The conjunction \hs\ is sometimes equivalent to \hoti\ (that). The old form of \athemitos\ was \athemistos\ from \themisto\ (\themiz, themis\, law custom) and \a\ privative. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:4:3| (Peter both times). But there is no O.T. regulation forbidding such social contact with Gentiles, though the rabbis had added it and had made it binding by custom. There is nothing more binding on the average person than social custom. On coming from the market an orthodox Jew was expected to immerse to avoid defilement (Edersheim, _Jewish Social Life_, pp. 26-28; Taylor's _Sayings of the Jewish Fathers_, pp. 15, 26, 137, second edition). See also strkjv@Acts:11:3; strkjv@Galatians:2:12|. It is that middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians:2:14|) which Jesus broke down. {One of another nation} (\allophuli\). Dative case of an old adjective, but only here in the N.T. (\allos\, another, \phulon\, race). Both Juvenal (_Sat_. XIV. 104, 105) and Tacitus (_History_, V. 5) speak of the Jewish exclusiveness and separation from Gentiles. {And yet unto} (\kamoi\). Dative of the emphatic pronoun (note position of prominence) with \kai\ (\crasis\) meaning here "and yet" or adversative "but" as often with \kai\ which is by no means always merely the connective "and" (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1182f.). Now Peter takes back both the adjectives used in his protest to the Lord (verse 14|) "common and unclean." It is a long journey that Peter has made. He here refers to "no one" (\mdena\), not to "things," but that is great progress.
rwp@Acts:10:38 @{Jesus of Nazareth} (\Isoun ton apo Nazareth\). Jesus the one from Nazareth, the article before the city identifying him clearly. The accusative case is here by \prolepsis\, Jesus being expressed for emphasis before the verb "anointed" and the pronoun repeated pleonastically after it. "Jesus transfers the mind from the gospel-history to the personal subject of it" (Hackett). {God anointed him} (\echrisen, auton, ho theos\). First aorist active of the verb \chri\, to anoint, from which the verbal \Christos\ is formed (Acts:2:36|). The precise event referred to by Peter could be the Incarnation (Luke:1:35f.|), the Baptism (Luke:3:22|), the Ministry at Nazareth (Luke:4:14|). Why not to the life and work of Jesus as a whole? {Went about doing good} (\dilthen euergetn\). Beautiful description of Jesus. Summary (constative) aorist active of \dierehomai\, to go through (\dia\) or from place to place. The present active participle \euergetn\ is from the old verb \euergete\ (\eu\, well, \ergon\, work) and occurs only here in the N.T. The substantive \euergets\ (benefactor) was often applied to kings like Ptolemy Euergetes and that is the sense in strkjv@Luke:22:25| the only N.T. example. But the term applies to Jesus far more than to Ptolemy or any earthly king (Cornelius a Lapide). {And healing} (\kai imenos\). And in particular healing. Luke does not exclude other diseases (cf. strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|), but he lays special emphasis on demoniacal possession (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:23|). {That were oppressed} (\tous katadunasteuomenous\). Present passive articular participle of \katadunasteu\. A late verb in LXX and papyri. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@James:2:6| (best MSS.). One of the compounds of \kata\ made transitive. The reality of the devil (the slanderer, \diabolos\) is recognized by Peter. {For God was with him} (\hoti ho theos n met' autou\). Surely this reason does not reveal "a low Christology" as some charge. Peter had used the same language in strkjv@Acts:7:9| and earlier in strkjv@Luke:1:28,66| as Nicodemus does in strkjv@John:3:2|.
rwp@Acts:11:24 @{For} (\hoti\). Because. This is the explanation of the conduct of Barnabas. The facts were opposed to the natural prejudices of a Jew like Barnabas, but he rose above such racial narrowness. He was a really good man (\agathos\). See strkjv@Romans:5:7| for distinction between \agathos\ and \dikaios\, righteous, where \agathos\ ranks higher than \dikaios\. Besides, Barnabas was full of the Holy Spirit (like Peter) and of faith and so willing to follow the leading of God's Spirit and take some risks. This is a noble tribute paid by Luke. One wonders if Barnabas was still living when he wrote this. Certainly he was not prejudiced against Barnabas though he will follow the fortunes of Paul after the separation (15:36; 41|). {Was added unto the Lord} (\proseteth ti kurii\). First aorist passive indicative of \prostithmi\, common verb to add to. These people were added to the Lord Jesus before they were added to the church. If that were always true, what a difference it would make in our churches.
rwp@Acts:12:3 @{That it pleased the Jews} (\hoti areston estin tois Ioudaiois\). Indirect assertion with the present tense \estin\ retained. \Areston\ is the verbal adjective from \aresk\ followed by the dative as in strkjv@John:8:29|. {Proceeded to seize} (\prosetheto sullabein\). A patent Hebraism in strkjv@Luke:20:11f.| already, and nowhere else in the N.T. It occurs in the LXX (Genesis:4:2; strkjv@8:12; strkjv@18:29|, etc.). Second aorist middle indicative of \prostithmi\ and the second aorist active infinitive of \sullamban\. Literally, he added to seize, he seized Peter in addition to James. {The days of unleavened bread} (\hmerai tn azumn\). By this parenthesis Luke locates the time of the year when Peter was arrested, the passover. It was a fine occasion for Agrippa to increase his favour among the crowds of Jews there by extra zeal against the Christians. It is possible that Luke obtained his information about this incident from John Mark for at his Mother's house the disciples gathered (12:12|).
rwp@Acts:12:9 @{Wist not} (\ouk idei\). Past perfect of \oida\ used as imperfect, did not know. {Followed} (\kolouthei\). Imperfect active, kept on following as the angel had directed (verse 8|). That it was true (\hoti althes estin\). Indirect assertion and so present tense retained. Note "true" (\althes\) in the sense of reality or actuality. {Which was done} (\to ginomenon\). Present middle participle, that which was happening. {Thought he saw a vision} (\edokei horama blepein\). Imperfect active, kept on thinking, puzzled as he was. \Blepein\ is the infinitive in indirect assertion without the pronoun (he) expressed which could be either nominative in apposition with the subject as in strkjv@Romans:1:22| or accusative of general reference as in strkjv@Acts:5:36; strkjv@8:9| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1036-40). Peter had had a vision in Joppa (10:10|) which Luke describes as an "ecstasy," but here is objective fact, at least Luke thought so and makes that distinction. Peter will soon know whether he is still in the cell or not as we find out that a dream is only a dream when we wake up.
rwp@Acts:13:35 @{Because} (\dioti\). Compound conjunction (\dia, hoti\) like our "because that." The reason for the previous statement about "the holy things." {Thou wilt not give thy holy one to see corruption} (\ou dseis ton hosion sou idein diaphthoran\). Quotation from strkjv@Psalms:16:10| to show that Jesus did not see corruption in his body, a flat contradiction for those who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
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:14:27 @{Gathered the church together} (\sunagagontes tn ekklsian\). Second aorist active participle of \sunag\. It "was the first missionary meeting in history" (Furneaux). It was not hard to get the church together when the news spread that Paul and Barnabas had returned. "The suitability of the Gospel to become the religion of the world had not before been put to the test" (Furneaux). Doubtless many "wise-acres" had predicted failure as they did for William Carey and for Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice. {Rehearsed} (\anggellon\). Imperfect active. It was a long story for they had many things to tell of God's dealings "with them" (\met' autn\) for God had been "with them" all the while as Jesus had said he would be (Matthew:28:20|, \meth' hmn\). Paul could recount some of the details given later in strkjv@2Corinthians:11|. {And how} (\kai hoti\). Or "and that" in particular, as the upshot of it all. {He had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles} (\noixen tois ethnesin thuran pistes\). Three times in Paul's Epistles (1Corinthians:16:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12; strkjv@Colossians:4:3|) he employed the metaphor of "door," perhaps a reminiscence of the very language of Paul here. This work in Galatia gained a large place in Paul's heart (Galatians:4:14f.|). The Gentiles now, it was plain, could enter the kingdom of God (verse 22|) through the door of faith, not by law or by circumcision or by heathen philosophy or mythology.
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@Galatians:4:6 @{Because ye are sons} (\hoti este huioi\). This is the reason for sending forth the Son (4:4| and here). We were "sons" in God's elective purpose and love. \Hoti\ is causal (1Corinthians:12:15; strkjv@Romans:9:7|). {The Spirit of his Son} (\to pneuma tou huioi autou\). The Holy Spirit, called the Spirit of Christ (Romans:8:9f.|), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:19|). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (John:15:26|). {Crying, Abba, Father} (\krazon Abba ho patr\). The participle agrees with \pneuma\ neuter (grammatical gender), not neuter in fact. An old, though rare in present as here, onomatopoetic word to croak as a raven (Theophrastus, like Poe's _The Raven_), any inarticulate cry like "the unuttered groanings" of strkjv@Romans:8:26| which God understands. This cry comes from the Spirit of Christ in our hearts. \Abba\ is the Aramaic word for father with the article and \ho patr\ translates it. The articular form occurs in the vocative as in strkjv@John:20:28|. It is possible that the repetition here and in strkjv@Romans:8:15| may be "a sort of affectionate fondness for the very term that Jesus himself used" (Burton) in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark:14:36|). The rabbis preserve similar parallels. Most of the Jews knew both Greek and Aramaic. But there remains the question why Jesus used both in his prayer. Was it not natural for both words to come to him in his hour of agony as in his childhood? The same thing may be true here in Paul's case.
rwp@Hebrews:7:8 @{Here} (\hde\). In the Levitical system. {There} (\ekei\). In the case of Melchizedek. {Of whom it is witnessed} (\marturoumenos\). "Being witnessed," present passive participle of \marture\ (personal construction, not impersonal). {That he lives} (\hoti zi\). Present active indicative of \za\). The Genesis record tells nothing of his death.
rwp@Hebrews:8:9 @{In the day that I took them} (\en hmeri epilabomenou mou\). Genitive absolute (\mou\ and second aorist middle participle of \epilamban\), "a Hellenistic innovation" (Moffatt) in imitation of the Hebrew after \hmeri\ in place of \en hi epelabomen\, occurring also in Barn. strkjv@2:28. {By the hand} (\ts cheiros\). Technical use of the genitive of the part affected. {To lead them forth} (\exagagein autous\). Second aorist active infinitive of \exag\ to denote purpose. {For they continued not} (\hoti autoi ouk enemeinan\). First aorist active indicative of \emmen\, old verb to remain in (Acts:14:22|). The Israelites broke the covenant. Then God annulled it. {I regarded not} (\melsa\). "I neglected" as in strkjv@2:3|. The covenant was void when they broke it.
rwp@Hebrews:9:16 @{A testament} (\diathk\). The same word occurs for covenant (verse 15|) and will (verse 16|). This double sense of the word is played upon also by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3:15f|. We say today "The New Testament" (_Novum Testamentum_) rather than " The New Covenant." Both terms are pertinent. {That made it} (\tou diathemenou\). Genitive of the articular second aorist middle participle of \diatithmi\ from which \diathk\ comes. The notion of will here falls in with \klronomia\ (inheritance, strkjv@1Peter:1:4|) as well as with \thanatos\ (death). {Of force} (\bebaia\). Stable, firm as in strkjv@3:6,14|. {Where there hath been death} (\epi nekrois\). "In the case of dead people." A will is only operative then. {For doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?} (\epei m pote ischuei hote zi ho diathemenos;\). This is a possible punctuation with \m pote\ in a question (John:7:26|). Without the question mark, it is a positive statement of fact. Aleph and D read \tote\ (then) instead of \pote\. The use of \m\ in a causal sentence is allowable (John:3:18|, \hoti m\).
rwp@Hebrews:11:6 @{Impossible} (\adunaton\). Strong word as in strkjv@6:4,18|. See strkjv@Romans:8:8| for same idea with \aresai\ (\aresk\, strkjv@Galatians:1:10|). {Must believe} (\pisteusai dei\). Moral necessity to have faith (trust, \pisteu\). This is true in business also (banks, for instance). {That he is} (\hoti estin\). The very existence of God is a matter of intelligent faith (Romans:1:19ff.|) Songs:that men are left without excuse. {He is a rewarder} (\misthapodots ginetai\). Rather, "becomes a rewarder" (present middle indicative of \ginomai\, not of \eimi\). Only N.T. example of \misthapodots\, late and rare double compound (one papyrus example, from \misthos\ (reward) and \apodidmi\ (to pay back) like \misthapodosia\ (10:35; strkjv@11:26|). {Seek after} (\ekztousin\). That seek out God.
rwp@John:4:51 @{As he was now going down} (\d autou katabainontos\). Genitive absolute in-spite of the fact that \auti\ (associative instrumental case with \hupntsan\ aorist active indicative of \hupanta\) is near. {That his son lived} (\hoti ho pais autou zi\). Present active indicative preserved in indirect discourse (cf. the words of Jesus in verse 50|). Note \pais\ here (only example in John), \huios\ in 50|, \paidion\ (diminutive of tenderness) in 49|.
rwp@John:5:6 @{Knew that he had been a long time} (\gnous hoti polun d chronon echei\). How Jesus "knew" (\gnous\, second aorist active participle of \ginsk\) we are not told, whether supernatural knowledge (2:24f.|) or observation or overhearing people's comments. In \d echei\ we have a progressive present active indicative, "he has already been having much time" (\chronon\, accusative of extent of time). {Wouldest thou be made whole?} (\Theleis hugis genesthai;\). "Dost thou wish to become whole?" Predicate nominative \hugis\ with \genesthai\ (second aorist middle infinitive). It was a pertinent and sympathetic question.
rwp@John:5:15 @{Went away and told} (\aplthen kai eipen\). Both aorist active indicatives. Instead of giving heed to the warning of Jesus about his own sins he went off and told the Jews that now he knew who the man was who had commanded him to take up his bed on the Sabbath Day, to clear himself with the ecclesiastics and escape a possible stoning. {That it was Jesus} (\hoti Isous estin\). Present indicative preserved in indirect discourse. The man was either ungrateful and wilfully betrayed Jesus or he was incompetent and did not know that he was bringing trouble on his benefactor. In either case one has small respect for him.
rwp@John:5:16 @{Persecute} (\edikon\). Inchoative imperfect, "began to persecute" and kept it up. They took this occasion as one excuse (\dia touto\, because of this). They disliked Jesus when here first (2:18|) and were suspicious of his popularity (4:1|). Now they have cause for an open breach. {Because he did} (\hoti epoiei\). Imperfect active, not just this one act, but he was becoming a regular Sabbath-breaker. The Pharisees will watch his conduct on the Sabbath henceforth (Mark:2:23; strkjv@3:2|).
rwp@John:5:27 @{Because he is the Son of man} (\hoti huios anthrpou estin\). Rather, "because he is a son of man" (note absence of articles and so not as the Messiah), because the judge of men must partake of human nature himself (Westcott). Bernard insists that John is here giving his own reflections rather than the words of Jesus and uses \huios anthrpou\ in the same sense as \ho huios tou anthrpou\ (always in the Gospels used by Jesus of himself). But that in my opinion is a wrong view since we have here ostensibly certainly the words of Jesus himself. Songs:in strkjv@Revelation:1:13; strkjv@4:14| \huion anthrpou\ means "a son of man."
rwp@John:5:30 @{I} (\Eg\). The discourse returns to the first person after using "the Son" since verse 19|. Here Jesus repeats in the first person (as in strkjv@8:28|) the statement made in verse 19| about the Son. In John \emautou\ is used by Jesus 16 times and not at all by Jesus in the Synoptics. It occurs in the Synoptics only in strkjv@Matthew:8:8; strkjv@Luke:7:7f|. {Righteous} (\dikaia\). As all judgements should be. The reason is plain (\hoti\, because), the guiding principle with the Son being the will of the Father who sent him and made him Judge. Judges often have difficulty in knowing what is law and what is right, but the Son's task as Judge is simple enough, the will of the Father which he knows (verse 20|).
rwp@John:5:39 @{Ye search} (\eraunte\). Proper spelling as the papyri show rather than \ereunte\, the old form (from \ereuna\, search) as in strkjv@7:52|. The form here can be either present active indicative second person plural or the present active imperative second person plural. Only the context can decide. Either makes sense here, but the reason given "because ye think" (\hoti humeis dokeite\, clearly indicative), supports the indicative rather than the imperative. Besides, Jesus is arguing on the basis of their use of "the Scriptures" (\tas graphas\). The plural with the article refers to the well-known collection in the Old Testament (Matthew:21:42; strkjv@Luke:24:27|). Elsewhere in John the singular refers to a particular passage (2:22; strkjv@7:38; strkjv@10:35|). {In them ye have eternal life} (\en autais zn ainion echein\). Indirect assertion after \dokeite\ without "ye" expressed either as nominative (\humeis\) or accusative (\humas\). Bernard holds that in John \doke\ always indicates a mistaken opinion (5:45; strkjv@11:13,31; strkjv@13:29; strkjv@16:20; strkjv@20:15|). Certainly the rabbis did make a mechanical use of the letter of Scripture as a means of salvation. {These are they} (\ekeinai eisin hai\). The true value of the Scriptures is in their witness to Christ (of me, \peri emou\). Luke (24:27,45|) gives this same claim of Jesus, and yet some critics fail to find the Messiah in the Old Testament. But Jesus did.
rwp@John:6:24 @{When the multitude therefore saw} (\hote oun eiden ho ochlos\). Resumption and clarification of the complicated statements of verse 22|. {That Jesus was not there} (\hoti Isous ouk estin ekei\). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. They still did not understand how Jesus had crossed over, but they acted on the basis of the plain fact. {They themselves got into} (\enebsan autoi eis\). Second aorist active indicative of \embain\ followed by \eis\ (both \en\ and \eis\ together as often in N.T.). {Seeking Jesus} (\ztountes ton Isoun\). Present active participle of \zte\. They had a double motive apart from the curiosity explained in verse 22|. They had clearly not given up the impulse of the evening before to make Jesus king (6:15|) and they had hopes of still another bountiful repast at the hands of Jesus as he said (6:26|).
rwp@John:6:26 @{Not because ye saw signs} (\ouch hoti eidete smeia\). Second aorist active indicative of the defective verb \hora\. They had seen the "signs" wrought by Jesus (verse 2|), but this one had led to wild fanaticism (verse 14|) and complete failure to grasp the spiritual lessons. {But because ye ate of the loaves} (\all' hoti ephagete ek tn artn\). Second aorist active indicative of \esthi\, defective verb. {Ye were filled} (\echortasthte\). First aorist passive indicative of \chortaz\, from \chortos\ (grass) as in verse 10|, to eat grass, then to eat anything, to satisfy hunger. They were more concerned with hungry stomachs than with hungry souls. It was a sharp and deserved rebuke.
rwp@John:6:36 @{That ye have seen me} (\hoti kai herakate me\). It is not certain that \me\ is genuine. If not, Jesus may refer to verse 26|. If genuine, some other saying is referred to that we do not have. Note \kai\ (also or even). {And yet believe not} (\kai ou pisteuete\). Use of \kai\ = and yet.
rwp@John:7:22 @{For this cause} (\dia touto\). Some would take this phrase with the preceding verb \thaumazete\ (ye marvel for this cause). {Hath given} (\dedken\). Present active indicative of \didmi\ (permanent state). {Not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers} (\ouch hoti ek tou Muses estin all' ek tn patern\). A parenthesis to explain that circumcision is older in origin than Moses. {And on the sabbath ye circumcise} (\kai en sabbati peritemnete\). Adversative use of \kai\=and yet as in 19|. That is to say, the Jews keep one law (circumcision) by violating another (on the Sabbath, the charge against him in chapter 5, healing on the Sabbath).
rwp@John:7:26 @{They say nothing unto him} (\ouden autoi legousin\). But only make sneering comments about him (7:16|) in spite of his speaking "openly" (\parrsii\, for which word see strkjv@7:13; strkjv@18:20|) before all. lt was sarcasm about the leaders, though an element of surprise on the part of "these shrewd townsmen" (Bernard) may have existed also. {Can it be that the rulers indeed know} (\m pote alths egnsin hoi archontes\). Negative answer expected by \m pote\ and yet there is ridicule of the rulers in the form of the question. See a like use of \m pote\ in strkjv@Luke:3:15|, though nowhere else in John. \Egnsan\ (second aorist ingressive active indicative of \ginsk\) may refer to the examination of Jesus by these rulers in strkjv@5:19ff.| and means, "Did they come to know or find out" (and so hold now)? {That this is the Christ} (\hoti houtos estin ho Christos\). The Messiah of Jewish hope.
rwp@John:7:35 @{Among themselves} (\pros heautous\). These Jewish leaders of verse 32| talk among themselves about what Jesus said in a spirit of contempt (this man or fellow, \houtos\). {That} (\hoti\). Almost result like \hoti\ in strkjv@Matthew:8:27|. {Will he go?} (\m mellei poreuesthai;\). Negative answer expected in an ironical question, "Is he about to go?" {Unto the Dispersion among the Greeks} (\eis tn diasporan tn Hellnn\). Objective genitive \tn Hellnn\ (of the Greeks) translated here "among," because it is the Dispersion of Jews among the Greeks. \Diaspora\ is from \diaspeir\, to scatter apart (Acts:8:1,4|). It occurs in Plutarch and is common in the LXX, in the N.T. only here, strkjv@James:1:1; strkjv@1Peter:1:1|. There were millions of these scattered Jews. {And teach the Greeks} (\kai didaskein tous Hellnas\). Confessing his failure to teach the Jews in Palestine, "thus ignorantly anticipating the course Christianity took; what seemed unlikely and impossible to them became actual" (Dods).
rwp@John:7:39 @{Which} (\hou\). Genitive by attraction of the relative \ho\ (accusative singular object of \lambanein\) to the case of \tou pneumatos\ (the Spirit) the antecedent. But it is purely grammatical gender (neuter \ho\ because of \pneuma\) which we do not have in English. Even here one should say "whom," not which, of the Spirit of God. {Were to receive} (\emellon lambanein\). Imperfect active of \mell\ with the present active infinitive \lambanein\, to receive, one of the three constructions with \mell\ (present, aorist, or future infinitive). Literally, "whom they were about to receive," a clear reference to the great pentecost. {For the Spirit was not yet given} (\oup gar n pneuma\). No verb for "given" in the Greek. The reference is not to the existence of the Spirit, but to the dispensation of the Spirit. This same use of \eimi\ like \pareimi\ (to be present) appears in strkjv@Acts:19:2| of the Spirit's activity. John, writing at the close of the century, inserts this comment and interpretation of the language of Jesus as an allusion to the coming of the Holy Spirit at pentecost (the Promise of the Father). {Because Jesus was not yet glorified} (\hoti Isous oup edoxasth\). Reason for the previous statement, the pentecostal outpouring following the death of Jesus here called "glorified" (\edoxasth\, first aorist passive indicative of \doxaz\), used later of the death of Jesus (12:16|), even by Jesus himself (12:23; strkjv@13:31|).
rwp@John:7:52 @{Art thou also of Galilee?} (\M kai su ek ts Galilaias ei;\). Formally negative answer expected by \m\, but really they mean to imply that Nicodemus from local feeling or prejudice has lined himself up with this Galilean mob (\ochlos\) of sympathizers with Jesus and is like Jesus himself a Galilean. "These aristocrats of Jerusalem had a scornful contempt for the rural Galileans" (Bernard). {That out of Galilee ariseth no prophet} (\hoti ek ts Galilaias prophts ouk egeiretai\). As a matter of fact Jonah, Hosea, Nahum, possibly also Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were from Galilee. It was simply the rage of the Sanhedrin against Jesus regardless of the facts. Westcott suggests that they may have reference to the future, but that is a mere excuse for them.
rwp@John:8:14 @{Even if} (\kan\). That is \kai ean\, a condition of the third class with the present active subjunctive \martur\. Jesus means that his own witness concerning himself is true (\althes\) even if it contravenes their technical rules of evidence. He can and does tell the truth all by himself concerning himself. {For I know whence I came and whither I go} (\hoti oida pothen lthon kai pou hupag\). In this terse sentence with two indirect questions Jesus alludes to his pre-existence with the Father before his Incarnation as in strkjv@17:5| and to the return to the Father after the death and resurrection as in strkjv@13:3; strkjv@14:2f|. He again puts both ideas together in one crisp clause in strkjv@16:28| for the apostles who profess to understand him then. But here these Pharisees are blind to the words of Jesus. "But ye know not whence I come nor whither I go" (\humeis de ouk oidate pothen erchomai pou hupag\). He had spoken of his heavenly destiny (7:33|). Jesus alone knew his personal consciousness of his coming from, fellowship with, and return to the Father. Stier (_Words of the Lord Jesus_) argues that one might as well say to the sun, if claiming to be the sun, that it was night, because it bore witness of itself. The answer is the shining of the sun.
rwp@John:8:16 @{Yea and if I judge} (\kai ean krin de eg\). "And even if I pass judgment." Condition of third class again. {True} (althin). See strkjv@1:9| for \althinos\, genuine, soundly based (cf. \dikaia\ in strkjv@5:30|), "satisfying our perfect conception" (Westcott), not merely true (\althes\) in the particular facts (verse 14|). {For I am not alone} (\hoti monos ouk eimi\). Jesus now takes up the technical criticism in verse 13| after justifying his right to speak concerning himself. {But I and the Father that sent me} (\all eg kai ho pempsas me patr\). See strkjv@16:32| for a like statement about the Father being with Christ. It is not certain that \patr\ is genuine here (omitted by Aleph D, but in B L W), but the Father is clearly meant as in strkjv@7:18,33|. Jesus gives the Father as the second witness.
rwp@John:8:20 @{In the treasury} (\en ti gazophulakii\). See already strkjv@Mark:12:41; strkjv@Luke:21:1| for this word for the treasure-chambers of the temple. "It abutted on the Court of the Women, and against its walls were placed chests, trumpet-like in form, as receptacles for the offerings of the worshippers" (Bernard). The Persian word _gaza_ (treasure) occurs only once in the N.T. (Acts:8:27|) and the compound (\phulak\, guard) only here in John. Jesus hardly taught within a treasure-chamber. It probably means "at the treasury in the temple." This court was probably the most public part of the temple (Vincent). {And} (\kai\)="and yet" as in strkjv@1:10|, etc. {Because his hour was not yet come} (\hoti oup elluthei h hra autou\). {Reason} (\hoti\) given why no one seized (\epiasen\, cf. strkjv@7:30|) him. \Elluthei\ is past perfect active of \erchomai\, "had not yet come." This very use of \hra\ appears in strkjv@2:4| and the very clause in strkjv@7:30| which see.
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:8:27 @{They perceived not} (\ouk egnsan\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. "Preoccupied as they were with thoughts of an earthly deliverer" (Westcott) and prejudiced against recognizing Jesus as the one sent from God. {That he spake to them of the Father} (\hoti ton patera autois elegen\). Indirect assertion, but with the present indicative (\legei\) changed to the imperfect (\elegen\) as was sometimes done (2:25|) after a secondary tense.
rwp@John:8:44 @{Ye are of your father the devil} (\humeis ek tou patros tou diabolou\). Certainly they can "understand" (\ginskete\ in 43|) this "talk" (\lalian\) though they will be greatly angered. But they had to hear it (\akouein\ in 43|). It was like a bombshell in spite of the preliminary preparation. {Your will to do} (\thelete poiein\). Present active indicative of \thel\ and present active infinitive, "Ye wish to go on doing." This same idea Jesus presents in strkjv@Matthew:13:38| (the sons of the evil one, the devil) and strkjv@23:15| (twofold more a son of Gehenna than you). See also strkjv@1John:3:8| for "of the devil" (\ek tou diabolou\) for the one who persists in sinning. In strkjv@Revelation:12:9| the devil is one who leads all the world astray. The Gnostic view that Jesus means "the father of the devil" is grotesque. Jesus does not, of course, here deny that the Jews, like all men, are children of God the Creator, like Paul's offspring of God for all men in strkjv@Acts:17:28|. What he denies to these Pharisees is that they are spiritual children of God who do his will. They do the lusts and will of the devil. The Baptist had denied this same spiritual fatherhood to the merely physical descendants of Abraham (Matthew:3:9|). He even called them "broods of vipers" as Jesus did later (Matthew:12:34|). {A murderer} (\anthrpoktonos\). Old and rare word (Euripides) from \anthrpos\, man, and \ktein\, to kill. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1John:3:15|. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus and so like their father the devil. {Stood not in the truth} (\en ti altheii ouk estken\). Since \ouk\, not \ouch\, is genuine, the form of the verb is \esteken\ the imperfect of the late present stem \stk\ (Mark:11:25|) from the perfect active \hestka\ (intransitive) of \histmi\, to place. {No truth in him} (\ouk estin altheia en auti\). Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. {When he speaketh a lie} (\hotan lali to pseudos\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the present active subjunctive of \lale\. But note the article \to\: "Whenever he speaks the lie," as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence "he speaks out of his own" (\ek tn idin lalei\) like a fountain bubbling up (cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:34|). {For he is a liar} (\hoti pseusts estin\). Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood (\pseudos\). See strkjv@1John:1:10; strkjv@Romans:3:4|. Common word in John because of the emphasis on \altheia\ (truth). {And the father thereof} (\kai ho patr autou\). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. {Autou} in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, "because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar," making "one," not the devil, the subject of "whenever he speaks," a very doubtful expression.
rwp@John:8:45 @{Because I speak the truth} (\eg de hoti tn altheian leg\). Proleptic emphatic position of \eg\. "Truth is uncongenial to them" (Bernard). See strkjv@3:19| for their picture.
rwp@John:8:54 @{If I glorify myself} (\ean eg doxas emauton\). Third-class condition with \ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive (or future active indicative) of \doxaz\. {It is my Father that glorifieth me} (\estin ho patr mou ho doxazn me\). The position and accent of \estin\ mean: "Actually my Father is the one," etc. {Of whom ye say} (\hon humeis legete\). The accusative of the person (\hon\) with \legete\ is regular (cf. strkjv@10:36|). {Your God} (\theos humn\). Songs:Aleph B D and apparently correct, though A C L W Delta Theta have \hmn\ (our God). The \hoti\ can be taken as recitative (direct quotation, \hmn\, our) or declarative (indirect, that, and so \humn\). The Jews claimed God as their peculiar national God as they had said in 41|. Songs:Jesus turns this confession and claim against them.
rwp@John:9:29 @{We know that God hath spoken unto Moses} (\hmeis oidamen hoti Musei lelalken ho theos\). Perfect active indicative of \lale\, so still on record. See strkjv@Exodus:33:11|. For \lale\ used of God speaking see strkjv@Hebrews:1:1|. They are proud to be disciples of Moses. {But as for this man, we do not know whence he is} (\touton de ouk oidamen pothen estin\). "This fellow" they mean by "\touton\" in emphatic position, we do not even know whence he is. Some of the people did (7:27|), but in the higher sense none of the Jews knew (8:14|). These Pharisees neither knew nor cared.
rwp@John:12:6 @{Not because he cared for the poor} (\ouch hoti peri tn ptchn emelen auti\). Literally, "not because it was a care to him concerning the poor" (impersonal imperfect of \melei\, it was a care). John often makes explanatory comments of this kind as in strkjv@2:21f.; strkjv@7:22,39|. {But because he was a thief} (\alle hoti klepts n\). Clearly the disciples did not know then that Judas was a petty thief. That knowledge came later after he took the bribe of thirty pieces of silver for betraying Jesus (Matthew:26:15|), for the disciples did not suspect Judas of treachery (13:28f.|), let alone small peculations. There is no reason for thinking that John is unfair to Judas. "Temptation commonly comes through that for which we are naturally fitted" (Westcott). In this case Judas himself was "the poor beggar" who wanted this money. {And having the bag took away what was put therein} (\kai to glssokomon echn ta ballomena ebastazen\). This is the correct text. This compound for the earlier \glssokomeion\ (from \glssa\, tongue, and \kome\, to tend) was originally a receptacle for the tongues or mouth-pieces of wind instruments. The shorter form is already in the Doric inscriptions and is common in the papyri for "money-box" as here. It occurs also in Josephus, Plutarch, etc. In N.T. only here and strkjv@13:29| in same sense about Judas. \Ballomena\ is present passive participle (repeatedly put in) of \ball\, to cast or fling. The imperfect active (custom) of \bastaz\, old verb to pick up (John:10:31|), to carry (19:17|), but here and strkjv@20:15| with the sense to bear away as in Polybius, Josephus, Diogenes Laertes, and often so in the papyri.
rwp@John:12:9 @{The common people} (\ho ochlos polus\). This is the right reading with the article \ho\, literally, "the people much or in large numbers." One is reminded of the French idiom. Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 284) gives a few rare examples of the idiom \ho anr agathos\. Westcott suggests that \ochlos polus\ came to be regarded as a compound noun. This is the usual order in the N.T. rather than \polus ochlos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 774). Mark (Mark:12:37|) has \ho polus ochlos\. Moulton (_Proleg_., p. 84) terms \ho ochlos polus\ here and in verse 12| "a curious misplacement of the article." John's use of \ochlos\ is usually the common crowd as "riff-raff." {That he was} (\hoti estin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse after the secondary tense (\egn\, second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\). These "Jews" are not all hostile to Jesus as in strkjv@5:10; strkjv@6:41|, etc., but included some who were friendly (verse 11|). {But that they might see Lazarus also} (\all' hina kai ton Lazaron idsin\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \hora\. Motive enough to gather a great crowd, to see one raised from the dead (cf. verse 1| for the same phrase, "whom he had raised from the dead"). Some of the very witnesses of the raising of Lazarus will bear witness later (verse 17|). It was a tense situation.
rwp@John:12:11 @{Because that} (\hoti\). Causal use of \hoti\. {By reason of him} (\di' auton\). "Because of him," regular idiom, accusative case with \dia\. {Went away} (\hupgon\). Cf. strkjv@6:67| for this verb. Inchoative imperfect active of \hupag\, "began to withdraw" as happened at the time of the raising of Lazarus (11:45f.|) and the secession was still going on. {And believed on Jesus} (\kai episteuon eis ton Isoun\). Imperfect active of \pisteu\ (note aorist in strkjv@11:45|). There was danger of a mass movement of the people to Jesus.
rwp@John:12:18 @{The multitude} (\ho ochlos\). The multitude of verse 13|, not the crowd just mentioned that had been with Jesus at the raising of Lazarus. There were two crowds (one following Jesus, one meeting Jesus as here). {Went and met him} (\hupntsen auti\). First aorist active indicative of \hupanta\, old compound verb (\hupo, anta\) to go to meet, with associative instrumental case \auti\. Cf. strkjv@John:4:51|. {That he had done this sign} (\touto auton pepoikenai to smeion\). Perfect active infinitive in indirect discourse after \kousan\ (first aorist active indicative of \akou\, to hear) (instead of a \hoti\ clause) with the accusative of general reference \auton\ (as to him) and another accusative (\smeion\, sign) the object of the infinitive. Clearly there was much talk about the raising of Lazarus as the final proof that Jesus in truth is the Messiah of Jewish hope.
rwp@John:12:19 @{The Pharisees therefore laid among themselves} (\hoi oun Pharisaioi eipan pros heautous\). Graphic picture of the predicament of the Pharisees standing off and watching the enthusiastic crowds sweep by. As people usually do, they blame each other for the defeat of their plots against Jesus and for his final victory, as it seemed. {Behold how ye prevail nothing} (\thereite hoti ouk pheleite ouden\). It was a pathetic confession of failure because the rest of the plotters had bungled the whole thing. "Ye help nothing at all" by your plots and plans. {Lo, the world is gone after him} (\ide ho kosmos opis autou aplthen\). Exclamatory use of \ide\ and timeless aorist active indicative of \aperchomai\. The "world" is a bunch of fools, they feel, but see for yourselves. And the Sanhedrin had advertised to "find" Jesus! They can find him now!
rwp@John:12:41 @{Because he saw his glory} (\hoti eiden tn doxan autou\). Correct reading here \hoti\ (because), not \hote\ (when). Isaiah with spiritual vision saw the glory of the Messiah and spoke (\elalsen\) of him, John says, whatever modern critics may think or say. Songs:Jesus said that Abraham saw his day (8:56|). Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:11:13|.
rwp@John:13:3 @{Knowing} (\eids\). Repeated from verse 1|, accenting the full consciousness of Jesus. {Had given} (\edken\). Songs:Aleph B L W, aorist active instead of \dedken\ (perfect active) of \didmi\. Cf. strkjv@3:31| for a similar statement with \en\ instead of \eis\. See strkjv@Matthew:11:27| (Luke:10:22|) and strkjv@28:18| for like claim by Jesus to complete power. {And that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God} (\kai hoti apo theou exlthen kai pros ton theon hupagei\). See plain statement by Jesus on this point in strkjv@16:28|. The use of \pros ton theon\ recalls the same words in strkjv@1:1|. Jesus is fully conscious of his deity and Messianic dignity when he performs this humble act.
rwp@John:13:19 @{From henceforth} (\ap' arti\). "From now on," as in strkjv@14:7; strkjv@Matthew:23:39; strkjv@Revelation:14:13|. {Before it come to pass} (\pro tou genesthai\). \Pro\ with ablative of the articular second aorist middle infinitive \ginomai\ (before the coming to pass). {When it is come to pass} (\hotan gentai\). Indefinite relative clause with \hotan\ and the second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\, "whenever it does come to pass." {That ye may believe} (\hina pisteute\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \pisteu\, "that ye may keep on believing." Cf. strkjv@Isaiah:48:5|. {That I am he} (\hoti eg eimi\). As Jesus has repeatedly claimed to be the Messiah (8:24,58|, etc.). Cf. also strkjv@14:29| (\pisteuste\ here); strkjv@16:4|.
rwp@John:13:20 @{Whomsoever I send} (\an tina pemps\). More precisely, "If I send any one" (third-class condition, \an=ean\ and \tina\, indefinite pronoun accusative case, object of \pemps\, first aorist active subjunctive of \pemp\, to send). This use of \ei tis\ or \ean tis\ (if any one) is very much like the indefinite relative \hostis\ and \hos an\ (or \ean\), but the idiom is different. In strkjv@Mark:8:34f.| we have both \ei tis thelei\ and \hos ean\ while in strkjv@John:14:13f.| we find \hoti an\ and \ean ti\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 956).
rwp@John:14:2 @{Mansions} (\monai\). Old word from \men\, to abide, abiding places, in N.T. only here and verse 23|. There are many resting-places in the Father's house (\oikia\). Christ's picture of heaven here is the most precious one that we possess. It is our heavenly home with the Father and with Jesus. {If it were not so} (\ei de m\). Ellipsis of the verb (Mark:2:21; strkjv@Revelation:2:5,16; strkjv@John:14:11|). Here a suppressed condition of the second class (determined as unfulfilled) as the conclusion shows. {I would have told you} (\eipon an humin\). Regular construction for this apodosis (\an\ and aorist--second active--indicative). {For I go} (\hoti poreuomai\). Reason for the consolation given, futuristic present middle indicative, and explanation of his words in strkjv@13:33| that puzzled Peter so (13:36f.|). {To prepare a place for you} (\hetoimasai topon humin\). First aorist active infinitive of purpose of \hetoimaz\, to make ready, old verb from \hetoimos\. Here only in John, but in strkjv@Mark:10:40| (Matthew:20:23|). It was customary to send one forward for such a purpose (Numbers:10:33|). Songs:Jesus had sent Peter and John to make ready (this very verb) for the passover meal (Mark:14:12; strkjv@Matthew:26:17|). Jesus is thus our Forerunner (\prodromos\) in heaven (Hebrews:6:20|).
rwp@John:14:12 @{Shall he do also} (\kakeinos poisei\). Emphatic pronoun \ekeinos\, "that one also." {Greater works than these} (\meizona toutn\). Comparative adjective neuter plural from \megas\ with ablative case \toutn\. Not necessarily greater miracles and not greater spiritual works in quality, but greater in quantity. Cf. Peter at Pentecost and Paul's mission tours. "Because I go" (\hoti eg poreuornai\). Reason for this expansion made possible by the Holy Spirit as Paraclete (16:7|).
rwp@John:14:13 @{Whatsoever ye shall ask} (\hoti an aitste\). Indefinite relative clause with \hoti\ (neuter accusative singular of \hostis\), \an\ and the aorist active subjunctive of \aite\. This is an advance thought over verse 12|. {In my name} (\en ti onomati mou\). First mention of his "name" as the open sesame to the Father's will. See also strkjv@14:26; strkjv@15:16; strkjv@16:23,24,26|. {That will I do} (\touto pois\). The Father answers prayers (15:16; strkjv@16:23|), but so does the Son (here and verse 14|). The purpose (\hina\ clause with first aorist passive subjunctive of \doxaz\) is "that the Father may be glorified in the Son." Plead Christ's name in prayer to the Father.
rwp@John:14:19 @{But ye behold me} (\humeis de thereite me\). Emphatic position of \humeis\ (ye) in contrast to the blind, unseeing world. Cf. strkjv@13:33; strkjv@16:10,16|. {Because I live, ye shall live also} (\hoti eg z kai humeis zsete\). This is our blessed guarantee of immortal, eternal life, the continued living of Jesus. He is the surety of a better covenant (Hebrews:7:22|), the Risen Christ Jesus. He had said it before (6:57|).
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:15:19 @{The world would love its own} (\ho kosmos an to idion ephilei\). Conclusion of second-class condition (determined as unfulfilled), regular idiom with \an\ and imperfect indicative in present time. {But because ye are not of the world} (\hoti de ek tou kosmou ouk este\). Definite and specific reason for the world's hatred of real Christians whose very existence is a reproach to the sinful world. Cf. strkjv@7:7; strkjv@17:14; strkjv@1John:3:13|. Does the world hate us? If not, why not? Has the world become more Christian or Christians more worldly?
rwp@John:16:3 @{Because} (\hoti\). Definite reason for the religious hatred is ignorance of God and Christ as in strkjv@15:21|.
rwp@John:16:4 @{Have I spoken} (\lelalka\). Perfect active indicative as in strkjv@15:11; strkjv@16:1|. Solemn repetition. {When their hour is come} (\hotan elthi h hra autn\). Indefinite temporal clause, \hotan\ with the second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\, "whenever their hour comes." The time appointed for these things. {Now that} (\hoti\). Simply "that" (declarative conjunction in indirect discourse. Forewarned is to be forearmed. Cf. strkjv@13:19|. {From the beginning} (\ex archs\). As in strkjv@6:64| but practically like \ap' archs\ in strkjv@15:27|. While Christ was with them, he was the object of attack (15:18|).
rwp@John:16:9 @{Because they believe not on me} (\hoti ou pisteuousin eis eme\). Without this conviction by the Paraclete such men actually have a pride of intellectual superiority in refusing to believe on Jesus.
rwp@John:16:11 @{Because the prince of this world hath been judged} (\hoti ho archn tou kosmou toutou kekritai\). Cf. strkjv@12:31; strkjv@14:31| for the title. Perfect passive indicative of \krin\. He stands condemned. The sinful world is in his grip, but he will be cast out (12:31|).
rwp@John:16:14 @{He shall glorify me} (\ekeinos eme doxasei\). This is the glory of the Holy Spirit, to glorify Jesus Christ. {For he shall take of mine} (\hoti ek tou emou lmpsetai\). Future middle of \lamban\ and a definite promise of the Spirit's guidance in interpreting Christ. One need only refer to Peter's sermon at pentecost after the coming of the Holy Spirit, to Peter's Epistles, to Paul's Epistles, to Hebrews, to John's Epistles, to see how under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit the disciples grew into the fulness of the knowledge of God in the face of Christ (2Corinthians:6:4|).
rwp@John:16:19 @{Jesus perceived} (\egn Isous\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. {That they were desirous to ask him} (\hoti thelon auton ertin\). Imperfect active tense of \thel\ in indirect discourse instead of the retention of the present \thelousin\ (the usual idiom), just like our English. Their embarrassment was manifest after four inquiries already (Peter, Thomas, Philip, Judas). Songs:Jesus takes the initiative.
rwp@John:17:23 @{That they may be perfected into one} (\hina sin teteleimenoi eis hen\). Purpose clause again with \hina\ (nineteen times in this prayer, this the fifteenth) with the periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive of \teleio\ (verse 4|), permanent state, with \eis hen\ (into one) as the goal and final result. {That the world may know} (\hina ginski\). Present active subjunctive of \ginsk\ with \hina\ like the present tense of \pisteu\ in verse 21|, "that the world may keep on knowing" with the same pregnant phrase "that thou me didst send" (\hoti su me apesteilas\) as in 8,25|. {And lovedst them} (\kai gapsas autous\). Timeless aorist, but love shown by sending Christ (John:3:16|) and illustrated and proven by the way Christians love one another.
rwp@John:18:37 @{Art thou a king then?} (\oukoun basileus ei su;\). Compound of \ouk\ and \oun\ and is clearly ironical expecting an affirmative answer, only here in the N.T., and in LXX only in A text in strkjv@2Kings:5:23|. {Thou sayest that} (\su legeis hoti\). In strkjv@Matthew:27:11; strkjv@Mark:15:2; strkjv@Luke:23:3|, \su legeis\ clearly means "yes," as \su eipas\ (thou saidst) does in strkjv@Matthew:26:64| (= "I am," \eg eimi\, in strkjv@Mark:41:62|). Hence here \hoti\ had best be taken to mean "because": "Yes, because I am a king." {Have I been born} (\eg gegennmai\). Perfect passive indicative of \genna\. The Incarnation was for this purpose. Note repetition of \eis touto\ (for this purpose), explained by \hina marturs ti altheii\ (that I may bear witness to the truth), \hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \marture\. Paul (1Timothy:6:13|) alludes to this good confession when Christ bore witness (\martursantos\) before Pilate. Jesus bore such witness always (John:3:11,32; strkjv@7:7; strkjv@8:14; strkjv@Revelation:1:5|).
rwp@John:19:7 @{Because he made himself the Son of God} (\hoti huion theou heauton epoisen\). Here at last the Sanhedrin give the real ground for their hostility to Jesus, one of long standing for probably three years (John:5:18|) and the one on which the Sanhedrin voted the condemnation of Jesus (Mark:14:61-64; strkjv@Matthew:27:23-66|), but even now they do not mention their own decision to Pilate, for they had no legal right to vote Christ's death before Pilate's consent which they now have secured.
rwp@John:19:21 @{But that he said} (\all' hoti ekeinos eipen\). The chief priests were uneasy for fear that the joke in the mock title was on them instead of on Jesus. They were right in their fear.
rwp@John:20:18 @{And telleth} (\aggellousa\). Present active participle, "announcing." {I have seen the Lord} (\Heraka ton kurion\). Perfect active indicative of \hora\. She will always carry in her heart that vision (picture) of the Risen Christ. She tells this fact before she delivers Christ's message to the brethren of Christ. {How that}. No word in the Greek, but a conjunction like \hs\ is implied. \Hoti\ here is recitative. The disciples (brethren) did not believe Mary's story nor that of the other women (Luke:24:11; strkjv@Mark:16:11|). Paul does not mention the vision to Mary or the women in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:5-7|. But Mary Magdalene was the first one to see the Risen Lord.
rwp@John:21:23 @{That that disciple should not die} (\hoti ho mathts ekeinos ouk apothnskei\) (present active indicative), because Peter or others misunderstood what Jesus meant as John now carefully explains. He was rebuking Peter's curiosity, not affirming that John would live on till the Master returned. John is anxious to set this matter right.
rwp@Luke:1:45 @{For} (\hoti\). It is not certain whether \hoti\ here is "that" or "because." It makes good sense either way. See also strkjv@7:16|. This is the first beatitude in the New Testament and it is similar to the last one in the Gospels spoken to Thomas to discourage his doubt (John:20:29|). Elisabeth wishes Mary to have full faith in the prophecy of the angel. This song of Elisabeth is as real poetry as is that of Mary (1:47-55|) and Zacharias (1:68-70|). All three spoke under the power of the Holy Spirit. These are the first New Testament hymns and they are very beautiful. Plummer notes four strophes in Mary's Magnificat (46-48|,49,50|,51-53|,54,55|). Every idea here occurs in the Old Testament, showing that Mary's mind was full of the spiritual message of God's word.
rwp@Luke:2:49 @{Son} (\teknon\). Child, literally. It was natural for Mary to be the first to speak. {Why} (\Ti\). The mother's reproach of the boy is followed by a confession of negligence on her part and of Joseph ({sorrowing}, \odunmenoi\). {Thy father} (\ho pater sou\). No contradiction in this. Alford says: "Up to this time Joseph had been so called by the holy child himself, but from this time never." {Sought} (\eztoumen\). Imperfect tense describing the long drawn out search for three days. {How is it that} (\Ti hoti\). The first words of Jesus preserved to us. This crisp Greek idiom without copula expresses the boy's amazement that his parents should not know that there was only one possible place in Jerusalem for him. {I must be} (\dei einai me\). Messianic consciousness of the necessity laid on him. Jesus often uses \dei\ (must) about his work. Of all the golden dreams of any boy of twelve here is the greatest. {In my Father's house} (\en tois tou patros mou\). Not "about my Father's business," but "in my Father's house" (cf. strkjv@Genesis:41:51|). Common Greek idiom. And note "my," not "our." When the boy first became conscious of his peculiar relation to the Father in heaven we do not know. But he has it now at twelve and it will grow within him through the years ahead in Nazareth.
rwp@Luke:3:20 @{Added} (\prosethken\). First aorist active indicative (kappa aorist). Common verb (\prostithmi\) in all Greek. In N.T. chiefly in Luke and Acts. Hippocrates used it of applying wet sponges to the head and Galen of applying a decoction of acorns. There is no evidence that Luke has a medical turn to the word here. The absence of the conjunction \hoti\ (that) before the next verb \katekleisen\ (shut up) is asyndeton. This verb literally means {shut down}, possibly with a reference to closing down the door of the dungeon, though it makes sense as a perfective use of the preposition, like our "shut up" without a strict regard to the idea of "down." It is an old and common verb, though here and strkjv@Acts:26:10| only in the N.T. See strkjv@Matthew:14:3| for further statement about the prison.
rwp@Luke:4:6 @{All this authority} (\tn exousian tautn hapasan\). strkjv@Matthew:4:9| has "all these things." Luke's report is more specific. {And the glory of them} (\kai tn doxan autn\). strkjv@Matthew:4:8| has this in the statement of what the devil did, not what he said. {For it hath been delivered unto me} (\hoti emoi paradedotai\). Perfect passive indicative. Satan here claims possession of world power and Jesus does not deny it. It may be due to man's sin and by God's permission. Jesus calls Satan the ruler of this world (John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|). {To whomsoever I will} (\hoi an thel\). Present subjunctive with \an\ in an indefinite relative sentence. This audacious claim, if allowed, makes one wonder whether some of the world rulers are not, consciously or unconsciously, agents of the devil. In several American cities there has been proven a definite compact between the police and the underworld of crime. But the tone of Satan here is one of superiority to Jesus in world power. He offers him a share in it on one condition.
rwp@Luke:4:9 @{Led him} (\gagen\). Aorist active indicative of \ag\. strkjv@Matthew:4:5| has \paralambanei\ (dramatic present). {The wing of the temple} (\to pterugion tou hierou\). See on ¯Matthew:4:5|. It is not easy to determine precisely what it was. {From hence} (\enteuthen\). This Luke adds to the words in Matthew, which see. {To guard thee} (\tou diaphulaxai se\). Not in strkjv@Matthew:4:6| quoted by Satan from strkjv@Psalms:91:11,12|. Satan does not misquote this Psalm, but he misapplies it and makes it mean presumptuous reliance on God. This compound verb is very old, but occurs here alone in the N.T. and that from the LXX. Luke repeats \hoti\ (recitative \hoti\ after \gegraptai\, is written) after this part of the quotation.
rwp@Luke:4:32 @Rest of the sentence as in Mark, which see, except that Luke omits "and not as their scribes" and uses \hoti n\ instead of \hs echn\.
rwp@Luke:4:36 @{Amazement came} (\egeneto thambos\). Mark has \ethambthsan\. {They spake together one with another} (\sunelaloun pros alllous\). Imperfect indicative active and the reciprocal pronoun. Mark has simply the infinitive \sunztein\ (question). {For} (\hoti\). We have here an ambiguous \hoti\ as in strkjv@1:45|, which can be either the relative "that" or the casual \hoti\ "because" or "for," as the Revised Version has it. Either makes good sense. Luke adds here \dunamei\ (with power) to Mark's "authority" (\exousian\). {And they come out} (\exerchontai\). Songs:Luke where Mark has "and they obey him" (\kai upakouousin auti\).
rwp@Luke:4:41 @{Came out} (\exrcheto\, singular, or \exrchonto\, plural). Imperfect tense, repetition, from one after another. {Thou art the Son of God} (\Su ei ho huios tou theou\). More definite statement of the deity of Jesus than the witness of the demoniac in the synagogue (Luke:4:34; strkjv@Mark:1:24|), like the words of the Father (Luke:3:22|) and more so than the condition of the devil (Luke:4:3,9|). In the Canterbury Revision "devils" should always be "demons" (\daimonia\) as here. {Suffered them not to speak} (\ouk eia auta lalein\). Imperfect third singular active of \ea\, very old and common verb with syllabic augment \ei\. The tense accents the continued refusal of Jesus to receive testimony to his person and work from demons. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:8:4| to the lepers. {Because they knew} (\hoti ideisan\). Causal, not declarative, \hoti\. Past perfect of the second perfect \oida\. {That he was the Christ} (\ton Christon auton einai\). Infinitive in indirect assertion with the accusative of general reference. \Ton Christon\ = {the Anointed}, the Messiah.
rwp@Luke:4:43 @{I must} (\me dei\). Jesus felt the urge to go with the work of evangelism "to the other cities also," to all, not to a favoured few. {For therefore was I sent} (\hoti epi touto apestaln\). "A phrase of Johannine ring" (Ragg). Second aorist passive indicative of \apostell\. Christ is the great Apostle of God to men.
rwp@Luke:5:12 @{Behold} (\kai idou\). Quite a Hebraistic idiom, this use of \kai\ after \egeneto\ (almost like \hoti\) with \idou\ (interjection) and no verb. {Full of leprosy} (\plrs lepras\). strkjv@Mark:1:40| and strkjv@Matthew:8:2| have simply "a leper" which see. Evidently a bad case full of sores and far advanced as Luke the physician notes. The law (Leviticus:13:12f.|) curiously treated advanced cases as less unclean than the earlier stages. {Fell on his face} (\pesn epi prospon\). Second aorist active participle of \pipt\, common verb. strkjv@Mark:1:40| has "kneeling" (\gonupetn\) and strkjv@Matthew:8:40| "worshipped" (\prosekunei\). All three attitudes were possible one after the other. All three Synoptics quote the identical language of the leper and the identical answer of Jesus. His condition of the third class turned on the "will" (\thelis\) of Jesus who at once asserts his will (\thl\) and cleanses him. All three likewise mention the touch (\hpsato\, verse 13|) of Christ's hand on the unclean leper and the instantaneous cure.
rwp@Luke:5:17 @{That} (\kai\). Use of \kai\ = \hoti\ (that) like the Hebrew _wav_, though found in Greek also. {He} (\autos\). Luke sometimes has \autos\ in the nominative as unemphatic "he" as here, not "he himself." {Was teaching} (\n didaskn\). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom. {Were sitting by} (\san kathmenoi\). Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no "by" in the Greek. {Doctors of the law} (\nomodidaskaloi\). A compound word formed after analogy of \hierodidaskalos\, but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and strkjv@Acts:5:34; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7|. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word "doctor" is Latin for "teacher." These "teachers of the law" are called elsewhere in the Gospels "scribes" (\grammateis\) as in Matthew and Mark (see on ¯Matthew:5:20; strkjv@23:34|) and strkjv@Luke:5:21; strkjv@19:47; strkjv@21:1; strkjv@22:2|. Luke also employs \nomikos\ (one skilled in the law, \nomos\) as in strkjv@10:25|. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see on ¯Matthew:3:7,20|. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the "Pharisees" were "teachers of the law" so that both terms often occur together as in verse 21| where Luke has separate articles (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in strkjv@Matthew:5:20| or no article as here in verse 17|. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law "which were come" (\hoi san elluthotes\, periphrastic past perfect active, {had come}). {Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem} (\ek pass kms ts Galilaias kai Ioudaias kai Ierousalm\). Edersheim (_Jewish Social Life_) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use "every village." But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that strkjv@John:4:1-4| shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:23|. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life. {The power of the Lord was with him to heal} (\dunamis Kuriou n eis to isthai auton\). Songs:the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: "Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus)." Here \Kuriou\ refers to Jehovah. {Dunamis} (dynamite) is one of the common words for "miracles" (\dunameis\). What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion.
rwp@Luke:6:19 @{Sought to touch him} (\eztoun haptesthai autou\). Imperfect active. One can see the surging, eager crowd pressing up to Jesus. Probably some of them felt that there was a sort of virtue or magic in touching his garments like the poor woman in strkjv@Luke:8:43f|. (Mark:5:23; strkjv@Matthew:9:21|). {For power came forth from him} (\hoti dunamis par' autou exrcheto\). Imperfect middle, {power was coming out from him}. This is the reason for the continual approach to Jesus. {And healed them all} (\kai ito pantas\). Imperfect middle again. Was healing all, kept on healing all. The preacher today who is not a vehicle of power from Christ to men may well question why that is true. Undoubtedly the failure to get a blessing is one reason why many people stop going to church. One may turn to Paul's tremendous words in strkjv@Phillipians:4:13|: "I have strength for all things in him who keeps on pouring power into me" (\panta ischu en ti endunamounti me\). It was at a time of surpassing dynamic spiritual energy when Jesus delivered this greatest of all sermons so far as they are reported to us. The very air was electric with spiritual power. There are such times as all preachers know.
rwp@Matthew:13:13 @{Because seeing} (\hoti blepontes\). In the parallel passages in strkjv@Mark:4:12| and strkjv@Luke:8:10| we find \hina\ with the subjunctive. This does not necessarily mean that in Mark and Luke \hina=hoti\ with the causal sense, though a few rare instances of such usage may be found in late Greek. For a discussion of the problem see my chapter on "The Causal Use of _Hina_" in _Studies in Early Christianity_ (1928) edited by Prof. S.J. Case. Here in Matthew we have first "an adaptation of strkjv@Isaiah:6:9f.| which is quoted in full in v. 14f.|" (McNeile). Thus Matthew presents "a striking paradox, 'though they see, they do not (really) see'" (McNeile). Cf. strkjv@John:9:41|. The idiom here in Matthew gives no trouble save in comparison with Mark and Luke which will be discussed in due turn. The form \suniousin\ is an omega verb form (\suni\) rather than the \mi\ verb (\sunimi\) as is common in the _Koin_.
rwp@Matthew:15:23 @{For she crieth after us} (\hoti krazei opisthen hmn\). The disciples greatly disliked this form of public attention, a strange woman crying after them. They disliked a sensation. Did they wish the woman sent away with her daughter healed or unhealed?
rwp@Revelation:17:8 @{Was and is not} (\n kai ouk estin\). Imperfect and present of \eimi\, an apparent antithesis to \ho n kai ho n\ of strkjv@1:4|. This is a picture of the beast of strkjv@13:1ff.| which the woman is riding, but no longer just the empire, but one of the emperors who died (\ouk estin\, is not). {And is about to come up out of the abyss} (\kai mellei anabainein ek ts abussou\). That is, he is going to come to life again. {And to go into perdition} (\kai eis apleian hupagei\). Songs:(and he goes into perdition) the best MSS. read rather than the infinitive \hupagein\. Most interpreters see here an allusion to the "Nero _redivivus_" expectancy realized in Domitian, who was ruling when John wrote and who was called Nero _redivivus_. {Shall wonder} (\thaumasthsontai\). First future passive (deponent) of \thaumaz\, with which compare \ethaumasth\ in strkjv@13:3|. John had wondered (\ethaumasa\) in verse 6| "with the amazement of a horrible surprise; the world will wonder and admire" (Swete). {Whose name} (\hn onoma\). Singular \onoma\, like \ptma\ in strkjv@11:8|. See strkjv@13:8| for the same description of those who worship the beast and for discussion of details. {When they behold} (\blepontn\). Genitive plural of the present active participle of \blep\, agreeing with \hn\ (genitive relative) rather than with \hoi katoikountes\ (nominative just before \hn\). {How that} (\hoti\). "Namely that." {He was, and is not, and shall come} (\n kai ouk estin kai parestai\). Repetition of what is in verse 7| with \parestai\ (future of \pareimi\, from which \parousia\ comes) in place of \mellei\, "parody of the divine name" (Charles) in strkjv@1:4,8; strkjv@4:8|, "as the hellish antitype of Christ." The Neronic Antichrist has also a \parousia\.
rwp@Revelation:17:14 @{These} (\houtoi\). These ten kings. {Shall war against the Lamb} (\meta tou thriou polemsousin\). Future active of \polemeo\, to war. As allies of the beast (the servant of the dragon, strkjv@12:7|) they will wage war with the Lamb (the enemy of the dragon). These kings gather for battle as in strkjv@16:13f|. {And the Lamb shall overcome them} (\kai to arnion niksei autous\). Future active of \nika\. This is the glorious outcome, victory by the Lamb over the coalition of kings as against the beast before. {For he is Lord of lords and King of kings} (\hoti Kurios kurin estin kai Basileus basilen\). The same words are again descriptive of Christ in strkjv@19:16|, as of God in strkjv@Deuteronomy:10:17| (God of gods and Lord of lords) and strkjv@Daniel:10:17| (God of gods and Lord of kings). Cf. also strkjv@1Timothy:6:15; strkjv@Revelation:1:5|. Crowned heads are Christ's subjects. {And they also shall overcome that are with him} (\kai hoi met' autou\). "And those with him shall also overcome" (supply \niksousin\, not \eisin\). They will share in the triumph of the Lamb, as they shared in the conflict. Cf. \meta tou thriou\ in verse 12|. {Called and chosen and faithful} (\kltoi kai eklektoi kai pistoi\). These are the three notes of those who share in the victory. For \kltos\ and \eklektos\ see strkjv@Matthew:22:14| (contrasted); strkjv@Romans:8:28ff.; strkjv@2Peter:1:10; strkjv@Revelation:2:10,13|. The elect are called and prove faithful.
rwp@Revelation:18:11 @{The merchants} (\hoi emporoi\). As in strkjv@18:3,15,23|. The dirge of the merchants follows the wail of the kings. {Weep and mourn} (\klaiousin kai penthousin\). Present active indicatives of \klai\ and \penthe\ as in verses 9| (for \klai\), 15,19|. {For no man buyeth their merchandise any more} (\hoti ton gomon autn oudeis agorazei ouketi\). Reason enough for their sorrow over Rome's fall. \Gomos\ is old word (from \gem\ to be full) for a ship's cargo (Acts:21:3|) and then any merchandise (Revelation:18:11f.|). Galen, Pliny, Aristides tell of the vastness of the commerce and luxury of Rome, the world's chief market. Many of the items here are like those in the picture of the destruction of Tyre in strkjv@Ezekiel:26; 27|. There are twenty-nine items singled out in verses 12,13| of this merchandise or cargo (\gomon\), imports into the port of Rome. Only a few need any comment.
rwp@Revelation:18:16 @For the Woe see verses 10,19|. For the next clause see strkjv@17:4| with the addition here of \bussinon\ (18:12|). {For in one hour so great riches is made desolate} (\hoti mii hri rmth ho tosoutos ploutos\). The reason (\hoti\) for the "woe." First aorist passive indicative of \ermo\, for which verb see strkjv@17:16; strkjv@18:19|. This is the dirge of the merchants.
rwp@Revelation:19:2 @{For} (\hoti\). Because. The reason for God's judgments is given in strkjv@15:3; strkjv@16:7|. The doom of Babylon seen in strkjv@14:7| is now realized. {For} (\hoti\). Second use of \hoti\, explaining the first. {He hath judged} (\ekrinen\). First aorist (prophetic and climacteric, effective) active indicative of \krin\. {Which} (\htis\). The very one which. {Did corrupt} (\ephtheiren\). This is the terrible fact. First aorist active indicative of \phtheir\. Cf. strkjv@11:18; strkjv@14:8; strkjv@17:2; strkjv@18:3|. {And he hath avenged} (\kai exediksen\). God has exacted vengeance for the blood of his servants from (\ek\) her. Prophetic aorist again of \ekdike\ with accusative and \ek\ with ablative as in strkjv@6:10|.
rwp@Revelation:21:5 @{Behold, I make all things new} (\Idou kaina poi panta\). The first time since strkjv@1:8| that God has been represented as speaking directly, though voices have come out of the throne before (21:3|) and out of the sanctuary (16:1,17|), which may be from God himself, though more likely from one of the angels of the Presence. This message is not addressed to John (7:14; strkjv@17:7; strkjv@21:6; strkjv@22:6|), but to the entire world of the blessed. See strkjv@Isaiah:43:18f.| for the words (\Idou eg poi kaina\). The idea of a new heaven and a new earth is in strkjv@Isaiah:65:17; strkjv@66:22; strkjv@Psalms:102:25f|. For the locative here with \epi\ (\epi ti throni\) see strkjv@7:10; strkjv@19:4| (genitive more usual, strkjv@4:9f.; strkjv@5:1,7,13|, etc.). See strkjv@20:11| for the picture. {And he saith} (\kai legei\). Probably this means a change of speakers, made plain by \moi\ (to me) in many MSS. An angel apparently (as in strkjv@14:13; strkjv@19:9f.|) assures John and urges him to write (\grapson\ as in strkjv@1:11; strkjv@2:1,8,12,18; strkjv@3:1,7,14; strkjv@14:3|). The reason given (\hoti\, for) is precisely the saying in strkjv@22:6| and he uses the two adjectives (\pistoi kai althinoi\) employed in strkjv@19:11| about God himself, and strkjv@3:14| about Christ. In strkjv@19:9| \althinoi\ occurs also about "the words of God" as here. They are reliable and genuine.
rwp@Romans:1:8 @{First} (\prton men\). Adverb in the accusative case, but no \epeita de\ (in the next place) as in strkjv@Hebrews:7:2| or \epeita\ as in strkjv@James:3:17| follows. The rush of thoughts crowds out the balanced phraseology as in strkjv@Romans:3:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:18|. {Through} (\dia\). As the mediator or medium of thanksgiving as in strkjv@7:25|. {For} (\peri\). Concerning, about. {That} (\hoti\). Or because. Either declarative or causal \hoti\ makes sense here. {Your faith} (\h pistis humn\). "Your Christianity" (Sanday and Headlam). {Is proclaimed} (\kataggelletai\). Present passive indicative of \kataggell\, to announce (\aggell\) up and down (\kata\). See also \anaggell\, to bring back news (John:5:15|), \apaggell\, to announce from one as the source (Matthew:2:8|), \prokataggell\, to announce far and wide beforehand (Acts:3:18|). {Throughout all the world} (\en holi ti kosmi\). Natural hyperbole as in strkjv@Colossians:1:6; strkjv@Acts:17:6|. But widely known because the church was in the central city of the empire.
rwp@Romans:1:19 @{Because} (\dioti\). Gives the reason (\dia, hoti\ like our "for that") for the revelation of God's wrath. {That which may be known of God} (\to gnston tou theou\). Verbal adjective from \ginsk\, either "the known" as elsewhere in N.T. (Acts:1:19; strkjv@15:18|, etc.) or "the knowable" as usual in ancient Greek, that is "the knowledge" (\h gnsis\) of God. See strkjv@Phillipians:3:8|. Cf. same use of the verbal \chrston\ in strkjv@Romans:2:4|, \ametatheton\ in strkjv@Hebrews:6:17|. {Manifest in them} (\phaneron en autois\). In their hearts and consciences. {God manifested} (\ho theos ephanersen\). First aorist active indicative of \phanero\. Not mere tautology. See strkjv@2:14-16|.
rwp@Romans:3:8 @{And why not} (\kai m\). We have a tangled sentence which can be cleared up in two ways. One is (Lightfoot) to supply \gentai\ after \m\ and repeat \ti\ (\kai ti m gentai\, deliberative subjunctive in a question): And why should it not happen? The other way (Sanday and Headlam) is to take \m\ with \poismen\ and make a long parenthesis of all in between. Even so it is confusing because \hoti\ also (recitative \hoti\) comes just before \poismen\. The parenthesis is necessary anyhow, for there are two lines of thought, one the excuse brought forward by the unbeliever, the other the accusation that Paul affirms that very excuse that we may do evil that good may come. Note the double indirect assertion (the accusative and the infinitive \hms legein\ after \phasin\ and then the direct quotation with recitative \hoti\ after \legein\, a direct quotation dependent on the infinitive in indirect quotation. {Let us do evil that good may come} (\poismen ta kaka hina elthi ta agatha\). The volitive aorist subjunctive (\poismen\) and the clause of purpose (\hina\ and the aorist subjunctive \elthi\). It sounds almost uncanny to find this maxim of the Jesuits attributed to Paul in the first century by Jews. It was undoubtedly the accusation of Antinomianism because Paul preached justification by faith and not by works.
rwp@Romans:3:10 @{As it is written} (\kaths gegraptai hoti\). Usual formula of quotation as in verse 4| with recitative \hoti\ added as in verse 8|. Paul here uses a catena or chain of quotations to prove his point in verse 9| that Jews are in no better fix than the Greeks for all are under sin. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has shown that the Jews and early Christians had _Testimonia_ (quotations from the Old Testament) strung together for certain purposes as proof-texts. Paul may have used one of them or he may have put these passages together himself. Verses 10-12| come from strkjv@Psalms:14:1-3|; first half of 13| as far as \edoliousan\ from strkjv@Psalms:4:9|, the second half from strkjv@Psalms:140:3|; verse 14| from strkjv@Psalms:10:7|; 15-17| from an abridgment of strkjv@Isaiah:59:7f.|; verse 18| from strkjv@Psalms:35:1|. Paul has given compounded quotations elsewhere (2Corinthians:6:16; strkjv@Romans:9:25f.,27f; strkjv@11:26f.,34f.; strkjv@12:19f.|). Curiously enough this compounded quotation was imported bodily into the text (LXX) of strkjv@Psalms:14| after verse 4 in Aleph B, etc. {There is none righteous, no, not one} (\ouk estin dikaios oude heis\). "There is not a righteous man, not even one." This sentence is like a motto for all the rest, a summary for what follows.
rwp@Romans:3:20 @{Because} (\dioti\, again, \dia, hoti\). {By the works of the law} (\ex ergn nomou\). "Out of works of law." Mosaic law and any law as the source of being set right with God. Paul quotes strkjv@Psalms:43:2| as he did in strkjv@Galatians:2:16| to prove his point. {The knowledge of sin} (\epignsis hamartias\). The effect of law universally is rebellion to it (1Corinthians:15:56|). Paul has shown this carefully in strkjv@Galatians:3:19-22|. Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:10:3|. He has now proven the guilt of both Gentile and Jew.
rwp@Romans:4:23 @{That} (\hoti\). Either recitative or declarative \hoti\. It makes sense either way.
rwp@Romans:6:15 @{What then?} (\ti oun?\). Another turn in the argument about the excess of grace. {Shall we sin?} (\hamartesmen?\). First aorist active deliberative subjunctive of \hamartan\. "Shall we commit sin" (occasional acts of sin as opposed to the life of sin as raised by \epimenmen ti hamartii\ in verse 1|)? {Because} (\hoti\). The same reason as in verse 1| and taken up from the very words in verse 14|. Surely, the objector says, we may take a night off now and then and sin a little bit "since we are under grace."
rwp@Romans:8:20 @{Was subjected} (\hupetag\). Second aorist passive indicative of \hupatass\ (cf. verse 7|). {To vanity} (\ti mataiotti\). Dative case. Rare and late word, common in LXX. From \mataios\, empty, vain. strkjv@Ephesians:4:17; strkjv@2Peter:2:18|. {Not of its own will} (\ouch hekousa\). Common adjective, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:27|. It was due to the effect of man's sin. {But by reason of him} (\alla dia ton\). Because of God. {In hope that} (\eph' helpidi hoti\). Note the form \helpidi\ rather than the usual \elpidi\ and so \eph'\. \Hoti\ can be causal "because" instead of declarative "that."
rwp@Romans:9:6 @{But it is not as though} (\ouch hoion de hoti\). Supply \estin\ after \ouch\: "But it is not such as that," an old idiom, here alone in N.T. {Hath come to nought} (\ekpeptken\). Perfect active indicative of \ekpipt\, old verb, to fall out. {For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel} (\ou gar pantes hoi ex Isral houtoi Isral\). "For not all those out of Israel (the literal Jewish nation), these are Israel (the spiritual Israel)." This startling paradox is not a new idea with Paul. He had already shown (Galatians:3:7-9|) that those of faith are the true sons of Abraham. He has amplified that idea also in strkjv@Romans:4|. Songs:he is not making a clever dodge here to escape a difficulty. He now shows how this was the original purpose of God to include only those who believed. {Seed of Abraham} (\sperma Abraam\). Physical descent here, but spiritual seed by promise in verse 8|. He quotes strkjv@Genesis:21:12f|.
rwp@Romans:10:9 @{If thou shalt confess} (\ean homologsis\). Third class condition (\ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \homologe\). {With thy mouth Jesus as Lord} (\en ti stomati sou Kurion Isoun\). This is the reading of nearly all the MSS. But B 71 Clem of Alex. read \to rma en ti stomati sou hoti Kurios Isous\ (the word in thy mouth that Jesus is Lord). The idea is the same, the confession of Jesus as Lord as in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:11|. No Jew would do this who had not really trusted Christ, for \Kurios\ in the LXX is used of God. No Gentile would do it who had not ceased worshipping the emperor as \Kurios\. The word \Kurios\ was and is the touchstone of faith. {And shalt believe} (\kai pisteusis\). Same construction. Faith precedes confession, of course.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}