Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-LAW.filter - rwp private:

rwp@1Corinthians:4:8 @{Already are ye filled?} (\d kekoresmenoi este?\). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, of \korennumi\, old Greek verb to satiate, to satisfy. The only other example in N.T. is strkjv@Acts:27:38| which see. Paul may refer to strkjv@Deuteronomy:31:20; strkjv@32:15|. But it is keen irony, even sarcasm. Westcott and Hort make it a question and the rest of the sentence also. {Already ye are become rich} (\d eploutsate\). Note change to ingressive aorist indicative of \ploute\, old verb to be rich (cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9|). "The aorists, used instead of perfects, imply indecent haste" (Lightfoot). "They have got a private millennium of their own" (Robertson & Plummer) with all the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom (Luke:22:29f.; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:12; strkjv@2Timothy:2:12|). {Ye have reigned without us} (\chris hmn ebasileusate\). Withering sarcasm. Ye became kings without our company. Some think that Paul as in strkjv@3:21| is purposely employing Stoic phraseology though with his own meanings. If so, it is hardly consciously done. Paul was certainly familiar with much of the literature of his time, but it did not shape his ideas. {I would that ye did reign} (\kai ophelon ge ebasileusate\). More exactly, "And would at least that ye had come to reign (or become kings)." It is an unfulfilled wish about the past expressed by \ophelon\ and the aorist indicative instead of \ei gar\ and the aorist indicative (the ancient idiom). See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003, for the construction with particle \ophelon\ (an unaugmented second aorist form). {That we also might reign with you} (\hina kai hmeis humin sunbasileusmen\). Ironical contrast to \chris hmn ebasileusate\, just before. Associative instrumental case of \humin\ after \sun-\.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:5 @{Except it be by consent for a season} (\ei mti [an] ek sumphnou pros kairon\). If \an\ is genuine, it can either be regarded as like \ean\ though without a verb or as loosely added after \ei mti\ and construed with it. {That ye may give yourselves unto prayer} (\hina scholaste ti proseuchi\). First aorist active subjunctive of \scholaz\, late verb from \schol\, leisure (our "school"), and so to have leisure (punctiliar act and not permanent) for prayer. Note private devotions here. {That Satan tempt you not} (\hina m peirazi\). Present subjunctive, that Satan may not keep on tempting you. {Because of your incontinency} (\dia tn akrasian [humn]\). A late word from Aristotle on for \akrateia\ from \akrats\ (without self-control, \a\ privative and \krate\, to control, common old word). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:23:25| which see.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:1 @{Now concerning things sacrificed to idols} (\peri de tn eidlothutn\). Plainly the Corinthians had asked also about this problem in their letter to Paul (7:1|). This compound adjective (\eidlon\, idol, \thutos\, verbal adjective from \thu\, to sacrifice) is still found only in the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, not so far in the papyri. We have seen this problem mentioned in the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:29; strkjv@21:25|). The connection between idolatry and impurity was very close, especially in Corinth. See both topics connected in strkjv@Revelation:2:14,20|. By \eidlothuta\ was meant the portion of the flesh left over after the heathen sacrifices. The heathen called it \hierothuton\ (1Corinthians:10:28|). This leftover part "was either eaten sacrificially, or taken home for private meals, or sold in the markets" (Robertson and Plummer). What were Christians to do about eating such portions either buying in the market or eating in the home of another or at the feast to the idol? Three questions are thus involved and Paul discusses them all. There was evidently difference of opinion on the subject among the Corinthian Christians. Aspects of the matter come forward not touched on in the Jerusalem Conference to which Paul does not here allude, though he does treat it in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10|. There was the more enlightened group who acted on the basis of their superior knowledge about the non-existence of the gods represented by the idols. {Ye know that we all have knowledge} (\oidamen hoti pantes gnsin echomen\). This may be a quotation from the letter (Moffatt, _Lit. of N.T._, p. 112). Since their conversion to Christ, they know the emptiness of idol-worship. Paul admits that all Christians have this knowledge (personal experience, \gnsis\), but this problem cannot be solved by knowledge.

rwp@Info_1John @ BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, _Epistles of John_ (Speaker's Comm., 1889). Barrett, _Devotional Comm. on John_ (1910). Baumgartner, _Die Schriften des N.T_. (IV. 3, 1918). Belser, _Komm_. (1906). Bennett, _New-Century Bible_. Brooke, _Int. Crit. Comm_. (Johannine Epistles, 1912). Cox, _Private Letters of St. Paul and St. John_ (1887). Ebrard, _Die Briefe Johannis_ (1859). Ewald, _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ (1861). Findlay, _Fellowship in the Life Eternal_ (1909) Gibbon, _Eternal Life_ (1890). Gore, _Epistles of John_ (1921). Green, _Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). Haring, _Die Johannesbriefe_ (1927). Haupt, _I John_ (1869). Hilgenfeld, _Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem Lehrbegriff dargestellt_ (1849). Holtzmann-Bauer, _Hand-Comm. sum N.T_. (1908). Holtzmann, _Das Problem des I Johannesbr. in seinem Ver- haltniss zum Evang_. (Jahrbuch fur Prot. Theologie, 1881, 1882). Huther, _Crit. and Exeget. to the General Eps. of James and John_ (1882). Karl, _Johanneische Studien_ (der I Johannes Brief, 1898). Law, _The Tests of Life_ (1909). Lias, _Epistles of John_ (1887). Loisy, _Les epitres dites de Jean_ (1921) in le quatrieme evan- gile. Lucke, _Comm. on Epistles of John_ (1837). Luthardt, _Strack-Zoeckler Komm_. (1895). Maurice, _The Epistles of St. John_ (1857). Plummer, _Cambridge Greek Test_ (1886). Ramsay, A., _Westminster N.T_. (1910). Ritter, _Die Gemeinschaft der Heiligen_ (1929). Robertson, J. A., _The Johannine Epistles_ (1920). Rothe, _Der erste Brief Johannis_ (1879). Sawtelle, _American Comm_. (1890). Smith, David, _The Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). Watson, _Epistles of John_ (1910). Weiss, B., _Die drei Briefe des Apostels Johannis_ (Meyer Komm. 1900). Wendt, _Die Johannesbriefe und das Johanneische Christen- tum_ (1925). Westcott, _The Epistles of St. John_. 3rd ed. (1892). Windisch, _Die Katholischer Briefe_ (Handbuch zum N.T., 2 Aufl., 1930). Wrede, _In Die Heiligen Schriften des N.T_. (2 Aufl., 1924). Wurm, _Die Irrlehrer im I Johannes Brief_ (1903). strkjv@1John:1:1 @{That which} (\ho\). Strictly speaking, the neuter relative here is not personal, but the message "concerning the Word of life" (\peri tou logou ts zs\), a phrase that reminds one at once of the Word (\Logos\) in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:14| (an incidental argument for identity of authorship for all these books). For discussion of the \Logos\ see on ¯John:1:1-18|. Here the \Logos\ is described by \ts zs\ (of life), while in strkjv@John:1:4| he is called \h z\ (the Life) as here in verse 2| and as Jesus calls himself (John:11:25; strkjv@14:6|), an advance on the phrase here, and in strkjv@Revelation:19:14| he is termed \ho logos tou theou\ (the Word of God), though in strkjv@John:1:1| the \Logos\ is flatly named \ho theos\ (God). John does use \ho\ in a collective personal sense in strkjv@John:6:37,39|. See also \pan ho\ in strkjv@1John:5:4|. {From the beginning} (\ap' archs\). Anarthrous as in strkjv@John:1:1; strkjv@6:64; strkjv@16:4|. See same phrase in strkjv@2:7|. The reference goes beyond the Christian dispensation, beyond the Incarnation, to the eternal purpose of God in Christ (John:3:16|), "coeval in some sense with creation" (Westcott). {That which we have heard} (\ho akkoamen\). Note fourfold repetition of \ho\ (that which) without connectives (asyndeton). The perfect tense (active indicative of \akou\) stresses John's equipment to speak on this subject so slowly revealed. It is the literary plural unless John associates the elders of Ephesus with himself (Lightfoot) the men who certified the authenticity of the Gospel (John:21:24|). {That which we have seen} (\ho herakamen\). Perfect active, again, of \hora\, with the same emphasis on the possession of knowledge by John. {With our eyes} (\tois ophthalmois hmn\). Instrumental case and showing it was not imagination on John's part, not an optical illusion as the Docetists claimed, for Jesus had an actual human body. He could be heard and seen. {That which we beheld} (\ho etheasametha\). Repetition with the aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (the very form in strkjv@John:1:14|), "a spectacle which broke on our astonished vision" (D. Smith). {Handled} (\epslaphsan\). First aorist active indicative of \pslapha\, old and graphic verb (from \psa\, to touch), the very verb used by Jesus to prove that he was not a mere spirit (Luke:24:39|). Three senses are here appealed to (hearing, sight, touch) as combining to show the reality of Christ's humanity against the Docetic Gnostics and the qualification of John by experience to speak. But he is also "the Word of life" and so God Incarnate.

rwp@1Timothy:4:13 @{Till I come} (\hes erchomai\). "While I am coming" (present indicative with \hes\), not "till I come" (\hes elth\). {Give heed} (\proseche\). Present active imperative, supply \ton noun\, "keep on putting thy mind on." {The reading} (\ti anagnsei\). Old word from \anaginsk\. See strkjv@2Corinthians:3:14|. Probably in particular the public reading of the Scriptures (Acts:13:15|), though surely private reading is not to be excluded. {To exhortation} (\ti paraklsei\), {to teaching} (\ti didaskalii\). Two other public functions of the minister. Probably Paul does not mean for the exhortation to precede the instruction, but the reverse in actual public work. Exhortation needs teaching to rest it upon, a hint for preachers today.

rwp@2John:1:11 @{Partaketh in his evil works} (\koinnei tois ergois autou tois ponrois\). Associative instrumental case with \koinnei\ as in strkjv@1Timothy:5:22|, common verb from \koinnos\ (partner). It is to be borne in mind that the churches often met in private homes (Romans:16:5; strkjv@Colossians:4:15|), and if these travelling deceivers were allowed to spread their doctrines in these homes and then sent on with endorsement as Apollos was from Ephesus to Corinth (Acts:18:27|), there was no way of escaping responsibility for the harm wrought by these propagandists of evil. It is not a case of mere hospitality to strangers.

rwp@2Peter:1:20 @{Knowing this first} (\touto prton ginskontes\). Agreeing with \poieite\ like \prosechontes\ in verse 19|. {No prophecy of Scripture} (\psa prophteia ou\). Like the Hebrew _lo-kl_, but also in the papyri as in strkjv@1John:2:21| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 753). {Is} (\ginetai\). Rather "comes," "springs" (Alford), not "is" (\estin\). {Of private interpretation} (\idias epiluses\). Ablative case of origin or source in the predicate as with \gnms\ in strkjv@Acts:20:3| and with \tou theou\ and \ex hmn\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:7|. "No prophecy of Scripture comes out of private disclosure," not "of private interpretation." The usual meaning of \epilusis\ is explanation, but the word does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. It occurs in the papyri in the sense of solution and even of discharge of a debt. Spitta urges "dissolved" as the idea here. The verb \epilu\, to unloose, to untie, to release, occurs twice in the N.T., once (Mark:4:34|) where it can mean "disclose" about parables, the other (Acts:19:39|) where it means to decide. It is the prophet's grasp of the prophecy, not that of the readers that is here presented, as the next verse shows.

rwp@2Peter:1:21 @{For} (\gar\). The reason for the previous statement that no prophet starts a prophecy himself. He is not a self-starter. {Came} (\nechth\). First aorist passive indicative of \pher\ (verses 17f.|). {By the will of man} (\thelmati anthrpou\). Instrumental case of \thelma\. Prophecy is of divine origin, not of one's private origination (\idias epiluses\). {Moved by the Holy Ghost} (\hupo pneumatos hagiou pheromenoi\). Present passive participle of \pher\, moved from time to time. There they "spoke from God." Peter is not here warning against personal interpretation of prophecy as the Roman Catholics say, but against the folly of upstart prophets with no impulse from God.

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

rwp@Acts:4:13 @{The boldness} (\tn parrsian\). Telling it all (\pan, rsia\). See also verses 29,31|. Actually Peter had turned the table on the Sanhedrin and had arraigned them before the bar of God. {Had perceived} (\katalabomenoi\). Second aorist middle participle of \katalamban\, common verb to grasp strongly (\kata\), literally or with the mind (especially middle voice), to comprehend. The rulers recalled Peter and John from having seen them often with Jesus, probably during the temple teaching, etc. {They were unlearned} (\agrammatoi eisin\). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. Unlettered men without technical training in the professional rabbinical schools of Hillel or Shammai. Jesus himself was so regarded (John:7:15|, "not having learned letters"). {And ignorant} (\kai iditai\). Old word, only here in the N.T. and strkjv@1Corinthians:14:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:6|. It does not mean "ignorant," but a layman, a man not in office (a private person), a common soldier and not an officer, a man not skilled in the schools, very much like \agrammatos\. It is from \idios\ (one's own) and our "idiosyncracy" is one with an excess of such a trait, while "idiot" (this very word) is one who has nothing but his idiosyncracy. Peter and John were men of ability and of courage, but they did not belong to the set of the rabbis. {They marvelled} (\ethaumazon\). Imperfect (inchoative) active, began to wonder and kept it up. {Took knowledge of them} (\epeginskon autous\). Imperfect (inchoative) active again, they began to recognize them as men that they had seen with Jesus.

rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Acts:15:5 @{But there rose up} (\exanestsan de\). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive). Note both \ex\ and \an\. These men rose up out of the crowd at a critical moment. They were believers in Christ (\pepisteukotes\, having believed), but were still members of "the sect of the Pharisees" (\ts haireses tn Pharisain\). Evidently they still held to the Pharisaic narrowness shown in the attack on Peter (11:2f.|). Note the dogmatism of their "must" (\dei\) after the opposition of Paul and Barnabas to their "except" (\ean me\) at Antioch (15:1|). They are unconvinced and expected to carry the elders with them. Codex Bezae says that they had appealed to the elders (15:2,5|). At any rate they have made the issue in open meeting at the height of the jubilation. It is plain from verse 6| that this meeting was adjourned, for another gathering came together then. It is here that the private conference of which Paul speaks in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| took place. It was Paul's chance to see the leaders in Jerusalem (Peter, James, and John) and he won them over to his view of Gentile liberty from the Mosaic law so that the next public conference (Acts:15:6-29|) ratified heartily the views of Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and John. It was a diplomatic triumph of the first order and saved Christianity from the bondage of Jewish ceremonial sacramentalism. Songs:far as we know this is the only time that Paul and John met face to face, the great spirits in Christian history after Jesus our Lord. It is a bit curious to see men saying today that Paul surrendered about Titus and had him circumcised for the sake of peace, the very opposite of what he says in Galatians, "to whom I yielded, no not for an hour." Titus as a Greek was a red flag to the Judaizers and to the compromisers, but Paul stood his ground.

rwp@Acts:15:10 @{Why tempt ye God?} (\ti peirazete ton theon;\). By implying that God had made a mistake this time, though right about Cornelius. It is a home-thrust. They were refusing to follow the guidance of God like the Israelites at Massah and Meribah (Exodus:17:7; strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:10:9|). {That ye should put} (\epitheinai\). Second aorist active infinitive of \epitithmi\, epexegetic, explaining the tempting. {A yoke upon the neck} (\zugon epi ton trachlon\). Familiar image of oxen with yokes upon the necks. Paul's very image for the yoke of bondage of the Mosaic law in strkjv@Galatians:5:1|. It had probably been used in the private interview. Cf. the words of Jesus about the Pharisees (Matthew:23:4|) and how easy and light his own yoke is (Matthew:11:30|). {Were able to bear} (\ischusamen bastasai\). Neither our fathers nor we had strength (\ischu\) to carry this yoke which the Judaizers wish to put on the necks of the Gentiles. Peter speaks as the spiritual emancipator. He had been slow to see the meaning of God's dealings with him at Joppa and Caesarea, but he has seen clearly by now. He takes his stand boldly with Paul and Barnabas for Gentile freedom.

rwp@Acts:15:25 @{It seemed good unto us} (\edoxen hmin\). See statement by Luke in verse 22|, and now this definite decision is in the epistle itself. It is repeated in verse 28|. {Having come to one accord} (\genomenois homothumadon\). On this adverb, common in Acts, see on ¯1:14|. But \genomenois\ clearly means that the final unity was the result of the Conference (private and public talks). The Judaizers are here brushed to one side as the defeated disturbers that they really were who had lacked the courage to vote against the majority. {To choose out men and send them} (\eklexamenois andras pempsai\ A B L, though Aleph C D read \eklexamenous\ as in verse 22|). Precisely the same idiom as in verse 22|, "having chosen out to send." {With our beloved Barnabas and Paul} (\sun tois agaptois hmn Barnabi kai Pauli\). The verbal adjective \agaptois\ (common in the N.T.) definitely sets the seal of warm approval on Barnabas and Paul. Paul (Galatians:2:9|) confirms this by his statement concerning the right hand of fellowship given.

rwp@Acts:17:11 @{More noble than those} (\eugenesteroi tn\). Comparative form of \eugens\, old and common adjective, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26|. Followed by ablative case \tn\ as often after the comparative. {With all readiness of mind} (\meta pss prothumias\). Old word from \prothumos\ (\pro, thumos\) and means eagerness, rushing forward. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:8:11-19; strkjv@9:2|. In Thessalonica many of the Jews out of pride and prejudice refused to listen. Here the Jews joyfully welcomed the two Jewish visitors. {Examining the Scriptures daily} (\kath' hmeran anakrinontes tas graphas\). Paul expounded the Scriptures daily as in Thessalonica, but the Beroeans, instead of resenting his new interpretation, examined (\anakrin\ means to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal processes as in strkjv@Acts:4:9; strkjv@12:19|, etc.) the Scriptures for themselves. In Scotland people have the Bible open on the preacher as he expounds the passage, a fine habit worth imitating. {Whether these things were so} (\ei echoi tauta houts\). Literally, "if these things had it thus." The present optative in the indirect question represents an original present indicative as in strkjv@Luke:1:29| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1043f.). This use of \ei\ with the optative may be looked at as the condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of determination) as in strkjv@Acts:17:27; strkjv@20:16; strkjv@24:19; strkjv@27:12| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). The Beroeans were eagerly interested in the new message of Paul and Silas but they wanted to see it for themselves. What a noble attitude. Paul's preaching made Bible students of them. The duty of private interpretation is thus made plain (Hovey).

rwp@Acts:23:19 @{Took him by the hand} (\epilabomenos ts cheiros autou\). Kindly touch in Lysias, _ut fiduciam adolescentis confirmaret_ (Bengel). Note genitive with the second aorist middle (indirect, to himself) of \epilamban\ as in strkjv@Luke:8:54| with \kratsas\ which see. How old the young man (\neanias\) was we do not know, but it is the very word used of Paul in strkjv@7:58| when he helped in the killing of Stephen, a young man in the twenties probably. See also strkjv@20:9| of Eutychus. He is termed \neaniskos\ in verse 22|. {Asked him privately} (\kat' idian epunthaneto\). Imperfect middle, began to ask (inchoative).

rwp@Ephesians:5:13 @{Are made manifest by the light} (\hupo tou phtos phaneroutai\). Turn on the light. Often the preacher is the only man brave enough to turn the light on the private sins of men and women or even those of a community.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ The conclusion of Lock is that "either they are genuine 'letters' or artificial 'Epistles'" (_Int. Crit. Comm._, p. XXV). If not genuine, they are forgeries in Paul's name (pseudepigraphic). "The argument from style is in favour of the Pauline authorship, that from vocabulary strongly, though not quite conclusively, against it" (Lock, _Op. Cit._, p. XXIX). I should put the case for the Pauline authorship more strongly than that and shall treat them as Paul's own. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXIII) well says: "It is not reasonable to expect that a private letter, addressed to a personal friend, for his own instruction and consideration, should exhibit the same features as a letter addressed to a community for public, oral communication."

rwp@Galatians:2:1 @{Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again} (\epeita dia dekatessarn etn palin anebn\) This use of \dia\ for interval between is common enough. Paul is not giving a recital of his visits to Jerusalem, but of his points of contact with the apostles in Jerusalem. As already observed, he here refers to the Jerusalem Conference given by Luke in strkjv@Acts:15| when Paul and Barnabas were endorsed by the apostles and elders and the church over the protest of the Judaizers who had attacked them in Antioch (Acts:15:1f.|). But Paul passes by another visit to Jerusalem, that in strkjv@Acts:11:30| when Barnabas and Saul brought alms from Antioch to Jerusalem and delivered them to "the elders" with no mention of the apostles who were probably out of the city since the events in strkjv@Acts:12| apparently preceded that visit and Peter had left for another place (Acts:12:17|). Paul here gives the inside view of this private conference in Jerusalem that came in between the two public meetings (Acts:15:4,6-29|). {With Barnabas} (\meta Barnab\). As in strkjv@Acts:15:2|. {Taking Titus also with me} (\sunparalabn kai Titon\). Second aorist active participle of \sunparalamban\ the very verb used in strkjv@Acts:15:37f.| of the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas about Mark. Titus is not mentioned in Acts 15 nor anywhere else in Acts for some reason, possibly because he was Luke's own brother. But his very presence was a challenge to the Judaizers, since he was a Greek Christian.

rwp@Galatians:2:2 @{By revelation} (\kata apokalupsin\). In strkjv@Acts:15:2| the church sent them. But surely there is no inconsistency here. {I laid before them} (\anethemn autois\). Second aorist middle indicative of old word \anatithmi\, to put up, to place before, with the dative case. But who were the "them" (\autois\)? Evidently not the private conference for he distinguishes this address from that, "but privately" (\kat' idian\). Just place strkjv@Acts:15:4f.| beside the first clause and it is clear: "I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," precisely as Luke has recorded. Then came the private conference after the uproar caused by the Judaizers (Acts:15:5|). {Before them who were of repute} (\tois dokousin\). He names three of them (Cephas, James, and John). James the Lord's brother, for the other James is now dead (Acts:12:1f.|). But there were others also, a select group of real leaders. The decision reached by this group would shape the decision of the public conference in the adjourned meeting. Songs:far as we know Paul had not met John before, though he had met Peter and James at the other visit. Lightfoot has much to say about the Big Four (St. Paul and the Three) who here discuss the problems of mission work among Jews and Gentiles. It was of the utmost importance that they should see eye to eye. The Judaizers were assuming that the twelve apostles and James the Lord's brother would side with them against Paul and Barnabas. Peter had already been before the Jerusalem Church for his work in Caesarea (Acts:11:1-18|). James was considered a very loyal Jew. {Lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain} (\m ps eis kenon trech edramon\). Negative purpose with the present subjunctive (\trech\) and then by a sudden change the aorist indicative (\edramon\), as a sort of afterthought or retrospect (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 201; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 988). There are plenty of classical parallels. See also strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:5| for both together again.

rwp@Galatians:2:4 @{But because of the false brethren privately brought in} (\dia de tous pareisaktous pseudadelphous\). Late verbal adjective \pareisaktos\ from the double compound verb \pareisag\, found in papyri in the sense of brought in by the side or on the sly as here. Evidently some of the Judaizers or sympathizers whom Paul had not invited had come in as often happens. Paul terms them "false brethren" like "the false apostles" in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13| of the Judaizers in Corinth. {Who came in privily} (\hoitines pareislthon\). Repetition of the charge of their slipping in unwanted (\pareiserchomai\, late double compound, in Plutarch, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:5:20|). {To spy out} (\kataskopsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \kataskope\, old Greek verb from \kataskopos\, a spy, to reconnoitre, to make a treacherous investigation. {That they might bring us into bondage} (\hina hmas katadoulsousin\). Future active indicative of this old compound, to enslave completely (\kata-\) as in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:20|. Nowhere else in N.T. This was their purpose (\hina\ and future active indicative of this causative verb). It was as serious a conflict as this. Spiritual liberty or spiritual bondage, which?

rwp@Galatians:2:7 @{But contrariwise} (\alla tounantion\). But on the contrary (accusative of general reference, \to enantion\). Songs:far from the three championing the cause of the Judaizers as some hoped or even the position of the compromisers in verses 4f.|, they came boldly to Paul's side after hearing the case argued in the private conference. This is the obvious interpretation rather than the view that Peter, James, and John first proposed the circumcision of Titus and afterwards surrendered to Paul's bold stand. {When they saw} (\idontes\). After seeing, after they heard our side of the matter. {That I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision} (\hoti pepisteumai to euaggelion ts akrobustias\). Perfect passive indicative of \pisteu\, to intrust, which retains the accusative of the thing (\to euaggelion\) in the passive voice. This clear-cut agreement between the leaders "denotes a distinction of sphere, and not a difference of type" (Lightfoot). Both divisions in the work preach the same "gospel" (not like strkjv@1:6f.|, the Judaizers). It seems hardly fair to the Three to suggest that they at first championed the cause of the Judaizers in the face of Paul's strong language in verse 5|.

rwp@Galatians:2:14 @{But when I saw} (\All' hote eidon\). Paul did see and saw it in time to speak. {That they walked not uprightly} (\hoti orthopodousin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse, "they are not walking straight." \Orthopode\ (\orthos\, straight, \pous\, foot). Found only here and in later ecclesiastical writers, though \orthopodes bainontes\ does occur. {According to the truth of the gospel} (\pros tn altheian tou euaggeliou\). Just as in strkjv@2:5|. Paul brought them to face (\pros\) that. {I said unto Cephas before them all} (\eipon ti Kphi emprosthen pantn\). {Being a Jew} (\Ioudaios huparchn\, though being a Jew). Condition of first class, assumed as true. It was not a private quarrel, but a matter of public policy. One is a bit curious to know what those who consider Peter the first pope will do with this open rebuke by Paul, who was in no sense afraid of Peter or of all the rest. {As do the Gentiles} (\ethniks\). Late adverb, here only in N.T. Like Gentiles. {As do the Jews} (\Ioudaiks\). Only here in N.T., but in Josephus. {To live as do the Jews} (\Ioudazein\). Late verb, only here in the N.T. From \Ioudaios\, Jew. Really Paul charges Peter with trying to compel (conative present, \anagkazeis\) the Gentiles to live all like Jews, to Judaize the Gentile Christians, the very point at issue in the Jerusalem Conference when Peter so loyally supported Paul. It was a bold thrust that allowed no reply. But Paul won Peter back and Barnabas also. If II Peter is genuine, as is still possible, he shows it in strkjv@2Peter:3:15|. Paul and Barnabas remained friends (Acts:15:39f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6|), though they soon separated over John Mark.

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

rwp@John:4:1 @{When therefore} (\Hs oun\). Reference to strkjv@3:22f|. the work of the Baptist and the jealousy of his disciples. \Oun\ is very common in John's Gospel in such transitions. {The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). Songs:the best manuscripts (Neutral Alexandrian), though the Western class has \ho Isous\. Mark usually has \ho Isous\ and Luke often \ho Kurios\. In the narrative portion of John we have usually \ho Isous\, but \ho Kurios\ in five passages (4:1; strkjv@6:23; strkjv@11:2; strkjv@20:20; strkjv@21:12|). There is no reason why John should not apply \ho Kurios\ to Jesus in the narrative sections as well as Luke. Bernard argues that these are "explanatory glosses," not in the first draft of the Gospel. But why? When John wrote his Gospel he certainly held Jesus to be \Kurios\ (Lord) as Luke did earlier when he wrote both Gospel and Acts This is hypercriticism. {Knew} (\egn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. The Pharisees knew this obvious fact. It was easy for Jesus to know the attitude of the Pharisees about it (2:24|). Already the Pharisees are suspicious of Jesus. {How that} (\hoti\). Declarative \hoti\ (indirect assertion). {Was making and baptizing more disciples than John} (\pleionas mathtas poiei kai baptizei Ians\). Present active indicative in both verbs retained in indirect discourse. Recall the tremendous success of John's early ministry (Mark:1:5; strkjv@Matthew:3:5; strkjv@Luke:3:7,15|) in order to see the significance of this statement that Jesus had forged ahead of him in popular favour. Already the Pharisees had turned violently against John who had called them broods of vipers. It is most likely that they drew John out about the marriage of Herod Antipas and got him involved directly with the tetrarch so as to have him cast into prison (Luke:3:19f.|). Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. v. 2) gives a public reason for this act of Herod Antipas, the fear that John would "raise a rebellion," probably the public reason for his private vengeance as given by Luke. Apparently John was cast into prison, though recently still free (John:3:24|), before Jesus left for Galilee. The Pharisees, with John out of the way, turn to Jesus with envy and hate.

rwp@John:4:19 @{Sir} (\Kurie\). Songs:still. {I perceive} (\ther\). "I am beginning to perceive" from what you say, your knowledge of my private life (verse 29|). See strkjv@2:23| for \there\ which John's Gospel has 23 times, of bodily sight (20:6,14|), of mental contemplation (12:45; strkjv@14:17|). See both \there\ and \optomai\ in strkjv@1:51; strkjv@16:16|. {That thou art a prophet} (\hoti prophts ei su\). "That a prophet art thou" (emphasis on "thou"). She felt that this was the explanation of his knowledge of her life and she wanted to change the subject at once to the outstanding theological dispute.

rwp@Luke:3:7 @{To the multitude that went out} (\tois exporeuomenois ochlois\). Plural, {Multitudes}. The present participle also notes the repetition of the crowds as does \elegen\ (imperfect), he used to say. strkjv@Matthew:3:7-10| singles out the message of John to the Pharisees and Sadducees, which see for discussion of details. Luke gives a summary of his preaching to the crowds with special replies to these inquiries: the multitudes, 10,11|, the publicans 12,13|, the soldiers 14|. {To be baptized of him} (\baptisthnai hup' autou\). This is the purpose of their coming. strkjv@Matthew:3:7| has simply "to his baptism." John's metaphors are from the wilderness (vipers, fruits, axe, slave boy loosing sandals, fire, fan, thrashing-floor, garner, chaff, stones). {Who warned you?} (\tis hepedeixen humin;\). The verb is like our "suggest" by proof to eye, ear, or brain (Luke:6:47; strkjv@12:5; strkjv@Acts:9:16; strkjv@20:35; strkjv@Matthew:3:7|). Nowhere else in the N.T. though common ancient word (\hupodeiknumi\, show under, point out, give a tip or private hint).

rwp@Luke:10:23 @{Turning to the disciples} (\strapheis pros tous mathtas\). Second aorist passive of \streph\ as in strkjv@9:55|. The prayer was a soliloquy though uttered in the presence of the Seventy on their return. Now Jesus turned and spoke "privately" or to the disciples (the Twelve, apparently), whether on this same occasion or a bit later. {Blessed} (\makarioi\). A beatitude, the same adjective as in strkjv@Matthew:5:3-11|. A beatitude of privilege very much like that in strkjv@Matthew:5:13-16|. Jesus often repeated his sayings.

rwp@Mark:3:7 @{Withdrew to the sea} (\anechrsen eis tn thalassan\). Evidently Jesus knew of the plot to kill him, "perceiving it" (Matthew:12:15|). "He and His would be safer by the open beach" (Swete). He has the disciples with him. Vincent notes that on eleven occasions Mark mentions the withdrawals of Jesus to escape his enemies, for prayer, for rest, for private conference with his disciples (1:12; strkjv@3:7; strkjv@6:31,46; strkjv@7:24,31; strkjv@9:2; strkjv@10:1; strkjv@14:34|). But, as often, a great multitude (\polu plthos\) from Galilee followed him.

rwp@Mark:4:34 @{But privately to his disciples he expounded all things} (\kat' idian de tois idiois mathtais epeluen panta\). To his own (\idiois\) disciples in private, in distinction from the mass of the people Jesus was in the habit (imperfect tense, \epeluen\) of {disclosing}, revealing, all things (\panta\) in plain language without the parabolic form used before the crowds. This verb \epilu\ occurs in the N.T. only here and in strkjv@Acts:19:39| where the town-clerk of Ephesus says of the troubles by the mob: "It shall be settled in the regular assembly" (\en ti ennomi ekklsii epiluthsetai\). First future passive indicative from \epilu\. The word means to give additional (\epi\) loosening (\lu\), so to explain, to make plainer, clearer, even to the point of revelation. This last is the idea of the substantive in strkjv@2Peter:1:20| where even the Revised Version has it: "No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation" (\psa prophteia graphs idias epiluses ou ginetai\). Here the use of \ginetai\ (comes) with the ablative case (\epiluses\) and the explanation given in verse strkjv@2Peter:1:21| shows plainly that disclosure or revelation to the prophet is what is meant, not interpretation of what the prophet said. The prophetic impulse and message came from God through the Holy Spirit. In private the further disclosures of Jesus amounted to fresh revelations concerning the mysteries of the kingdom of God.

rwp@Mark:6:19 @{And Herodias set herself against him} (\H de Hridias eneichen auti\). Dative of disadvantage. Literally, {had it in for him}. This is modern slang, but is in exact accord with this piece of vernacular _Koin_. No object of \eichen\ is expressed, though \orgn\ or \cholon\ may be implied. The tense is imperfect and aptly described the feelings of Herodias towards this upstart prophet of the wilderness who had dared to denounce her private relations with Herod Antipas. Gould suggests that she "kept her eye on him" or kept up her hostility towards him. She never let up, but bided her time which, she felt sure, would come. See the same idiom in strkjv@Genesis:49:23|. She {desired to kill him} (\thelen auton apokteinai\). Imperfect again. {And she could not} (\kai ouk dunato\). \Kai\ here has an adversative sense, but she could not. That is, not yet. "The power was wanting, not the will" (Swete).

rwp@Mark:9:28 @{Privately, saying} (\kat' idian hoti\). Indoors the nine disciples seek an explanation for their colossal failure. They had cast out demons and wrought cures before. The Revisers are here puzzled over Mark's use of \hoti\ as an interrogative particle meaning {why} where strkjv@Matthew:17:19| has \dia ti\. Some of the manuscripts have \dia ti\ here in strkjv@Mark:9:28| as all do in strkjv@Matthew:17:19|. See also strkjv@Mark:2:16| and strkjv@9:11|. It is probable that in these examples \hoti\ really means {why}. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 730. The use of \hos\ as interrogative "is by no means rare in the late Greek" (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 126).

rwp@Mark:13:3 @{Over against the temple} (\katenanti tou hierou\). In full view of the temple about which they had been speaking. {Privately} (\kat' idian\). Peter and James and John and Andrew (named only in Mark) had evidently been discussing the strange comment of Jesus as they were coming out of the temple. In their bewilderment they ask Jesus a bit to one side, though probably all the rest drew up as Jesus began to speak this great eschatological discourse.

rwp@Matthew:1:19 @{A Righteous Man} (\dikaios\). Or just, not benignant or merciful. The same adjective is used of Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke:1:6|) and Simeon (Luke:2:25|). "An upright man," the _Braid Scots_ has it. He had the Jewish conscientiousness for the observance of the law which would have been death by stoning (Deuteronomy:22:23|). Though Joseph was upright, he would not do that. "As a good Jew he would have shown his zeal if he had branded her with public disgrace" (McNeile). {And yet not willing} (\kai m theln\). Songs:we must understand \kai\ here, "and yet." Matthew makes a distinction here between "willing" (\theln\) and "wishing" (\eboulth\), that between purpose (\thel\) and desire (\boulomai\) a distinction not always drawn, though present here. It was not his purpose to "make her a public example" (\deigmatisai\), from the root (\deiknumi\ to show), a rare word (Colossians:2:15|). The Latin Vulgate has it _traducere_, the Old Latin _divulgare_, Wycliff _pupplische_ (publish), Tyndale _defame_, Moffatt _disgrace_, Braid Scots "Be i the mooth o' the public." The substantive (\deigmatismos\) occurs on the Rosetta Stone in the sense of "verification." There are a few instances of the verb in the papyri though the meaning is not clear (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). The compound form appears (\paradeigmatiz\) in strkjv@Hebrews:6:6| and there are earlier instances of this compound than of the uncompounded, curiously enough. But new examples of the simple verb, like the substantive, may yet be found. The papyri examples mean to furnish a sample (P Tebt. 5.75), to make trial of (P Ryl. I. 28.32). The substantive means exposure in (P Ryl. I. 28.70). At any rate it is clear that Joseph "was minded to put her away privily." He could give her a bill of divorcement (\apolusai\), the \gt\ laid down in the Mishna, without a public trial. He had to give her the writ (\gt\) and pay the fine (Deuteronomy:24:1|). Songs:he proposed to do this privately (\lathrai\) to avoid all the scandal possible. One is obliged to respect and sympathize with the motives of Joseph for he evidently loved Mary and was appalled to find her untrue to him as he supposed. It is impossible to think of Joseph as the actual father of Jesus according to the narrative of Matthew without saying that Matthew has tried by legend to cover up the illegitimate birth of Jesus. The Talmud openly charges this sin against Mary. Joseph had "a short but tragic struggle between his legal conscience and his love" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:6:4 @{In secret} (\ti krupti\). The Textus Receptus added the words \en ti phaneri\ (openly) here and in strkjv@6:6|, but they are not genuine. Jesus does not promise a _public_ reward for private piety.

rwp@Matthew:6:6 @{Into thy closet} (\eis to tameion\). The word is a late syncopated form of \tamieion\ from \tamias\ (steward) and the root \tam-\ from \temn\, to cut. Songs:it is a store-house, a separate apartment, one's private chamber, closet, or "den" where he can withdraw from the world and shut the world out and commune with God.

rwp@Matthew:8:21 @{The Son of man} (\tho huios tou anthrpou\). This remarkable expression, applied to himself by Jesus so often, appears here for the first time. There is a considerable modern literature devoted to it. "It means much for the Speaker, who has chosen it deliberately, in connection with private reflections, at whose nature we can only guess, by study of the many occasions on which the name is used" (Bruce). Often it means the Representative Man. It may sometimes stand for the Aramaic _barnasha_, the man, but in most instances that idea will not suit. Jesus uses it as a concealed Messianic title. It is possible that this scribe would not understand the phrase at all. Bruce thinks that here Jesus means "the unprivileged Man," worse off than the foxes and the birds. Jesus spoke Greek as well as Aramaic. It is inconceivable that the Gospels should never call Jesus "the Son of man" and always credit it to him as his own words if he did not so term himself, about eighty times in all, thirty-three in Matthew. Jesus in his early ministry, except at the very start in strkjv@John:4|, abstains from calling himself Messiah. This term suited his purpose exactly to get the people used to his special claim as Messiah when he is ready to make it openly.

rwp@Matthew:14:12 @{And they went and told Jesus} (\kai elthontes apggeilan ti Isou\). As was meet after they had given his body decent burial. It was a shock to the Master who alone knew how great John really was. The fate of John was a prophecy of what was before Jesus. According to strkjv@Matthew:14:13| the news of the fate of John led to the withdrawal of Jesus to the desert privately, an additional motive besides the need for rest after the strain of the recent tour.

rwp@Matthew:18:15 @{If thy brother sin against thee} (\ean hamartsi adelphos sou\). Literally, commit a sin (ingressive aorist subjunctive of \hamartan\). Aleph B Sahidic do not have "against thee" (\eis se\). {Shew him his fault} (\elegxon\). Such private reproof is hard to do, but it is the way of Christ. {Thou hast gained} (\ekerdsas\). Aorist active indicative of \kerdain\ in conclusion of a third-class condition, a sort of timeless aorist, a blessed achievement already made.

rwp@Matthew:27:11 @{Now Jesus stood before the governor} (\ho de Isous estath emprosthen tou hgemonos\). Here is one of the dramatic episodes of history. Jesus stood face to face with the Roman governor. The verb \estath\, not \est\ (second aorist active), is first aorist passive and can mean "was placed" there, but he stood, not sat. The term \hgemn\ (from \hgeomai\, to lead) was technically a _legatus Caesaris_, an officer of the Emperor, more exactly procurator, ruler under the Emperor of a less important province than propraetor (as over Syria). The senatorial provinces like Achaia were governed by proconsuls. Pilate represented Roman law. {Art thou the King of the Jews?} (\Su ei ho basileus tn Ioudain;\). This is what really mattered. Matthew does not give the charges made by the Sanhedrin (Luke:23:2|) nor the private interview with Pilate (John:18:28-32|). He could not ignore the accusation that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews. Else he could be himself accused to Caesar for disloyalty. Rivals and pretenders were common all over the empire. Songs:here was one more. By his answer ({thou sayest}) Jesus confesses that he is. Songs:Pilate has a problem on his hands. What sort of a king does this one claim to be? {Thou} (\su\) the King of the Jews?

rwp@Romans:2:17 @{Bearest the name} (\eponomazi\). Present passive indicative in condition of first class of \eponomaz\, old word, to put a name upon (\epi\), only here in N.T. "Thou art surnamed Jew" (Lightfoot). Jew as opposed to Greek denoted nationality while Hebrew accented the idea of language. {Restest upon the law} (\epanapaui nomi\). Late and rare double compound, in LXX and once in the Didache. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:10:6| which see. It means to lean upon, to refresh oneself back upon anything, here with locative case (\nomi\). It is the picture of blind and mechanical reliance on the Mosaic law. {Gloriest in God} (\kauchsai en thei\). _Koin_ vernacular form for \kauchi\ (\kauchaesai, kauchsai\) of \kauchaomai\ as in verse 23; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:7| and \katakauchsai\ in strkjv@Romans:11:18|. The Jew gloried in God as a national asset and private prerogative (2Corinthians:10:15; strkjv@Galatians:6:13|). {Approvest the things that are excellent} (\dokimazeis ta diapheronta\). Originally, "Thou testest the things that differ," and then as a result comes the approval for the excellent things. As in strkjv@Phillipians:1:10| it is difficult to tell which stage of the process Paul has in mind. {Instructed out of the law} (\katchoumenos ek tou nomou\). Present passive participle of \katche\, a rare verb to instruct, though occurring in the papyri for legal instruction. See on ¯Luke:1:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:19|. The Jew's "ethical discernment was the fruit of catechetical and synagogical instruction in the Old Testament" (Shedd).