Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp Many:

rwp@1Corinthians:4:2 @{Here} (\hde\). Either here on earth or in this matter. It is always local. {Moreover} (\loipon\). Like \loipon\ in strkjv@1:16| which see, accusative of general reference, as for what is left, besides. {It is required} (\zteitai\). It is sought. Many MSS. read \zteite\, ye seek, an easy change as \ai\ and \e\ came to be pronounced alike (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 186). {That a man be found faithful} (\hina pistos tis heurethi\). Non-final use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \heurisk\, the result of the seeking (\zte\). Fidelity is the essential requirement in all such human relationships, in other words, plain honesty in handling money like bank-clerks or in other positions of trust like public office.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:22 @{Shall be made alive} (\zopoithsontai\). First future passive indicative of \zopoie\, late verb (Aristotle) to give life, to restore to life as here. In verse 36| \zopoieitai\ is used in the sense of natural life as in strkjv@John:5:21; strkjv@6:63| of spiritual life. It is not easy to catch Paul's thought here. He means resurrection (restoration) by the verb here, but not necessarily eternal life or salvation. Songs:also \pantes\ may not coincide in both clauses. All who die die in Adam, all who will be made alive will be made alive (restored to life) in Christ. The same problem occurs in strkjv@Romans:5:18| about "all," and in verse 19| about "the many."

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:13 @{We would not have} (\ou thelomen\). We do not wish. {You ignorant} (\humas agnoein\). Old word, not to know (\a\ privative, \gno-\, root of \ginsk\). No advantage in ignorance of itself. {Concerning them that fall asleep} (\peri tn koimmenn\). Present passive (or middle) participle (Aleph B) rather than the perfect passive \kekoimmenn\ of many later MSS. From old \koima\, to put to sleep. Present tense gives idea of repetition, from time to time fall asleep. Greeks and Romans used this figure of sleep for death as Jesus does (John:11:11|) and N.T. generally (cf. our word _cemetery_). Somehow the Thessalonians had a false notion about the dead in relation to the second coming. {Even as the rest which have no hope} (\kaths hoi loipoi hoi m echontes elpida\). This picture of the hopelessness of the pagan world about the future life is amply illustrated in ancient writings and particularly by inscriptions on tombs (Milligan). Some few pagans clung to this hope, but most had none.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:23 @{As one beside himself} (\paraphronn\). Present active participle of \paraphrone\. Old verb from \paraphrn\ (\para, phrn\), beside one's wits. Only here in N.T. Such open boasting is out of accord with Paul's spirit and habit. {I more} (\huper eg\). This adverbial use of \huper\ appears in ancient Greek (Euripides). It has no effect on \eg\, not "more than I," but "I more than they." He claims superiority now to these "superextra apostles." {More abundant} (\perissoters\). See on ¯7:15|. No verbs with these clauses, but they are clear. {In prisons} (\en phulakais\). Plural also in strkjv@6:5|. Clement of Rome (_Cor_. V.) says that Paul was imprisoned seven times. We know of only five (Philippi, Jerusalem, Caesarea, twice in Rome), and only one before II Corinthians (Philippi). But Luke does not tell them all nor does Paul. Had he been in prison in Ephesus? Songs:many think and it is possible as we have seen. {Above measure} (\huperballonts\). Old adverb from the participle \huperballontn\ (\huperball\, to hurl beyond). Here only in N.T. {In deaths oft} (\en thanatois pollakis\). He had nearly lost his life, as we know, many times (1:9f.; strkjv@4:11|).

rwp@Info_2John @ SECOND JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is little to add to what was said about the First Epistle except that here the author terms himself "the elder" (\ho presbuteros\) and writes to "the elect lady" (\eklekti kurii\). There is dispute about both of these titles. Some hold that it is the mythical "presbyter John" of whom Papias may speak, if so understood, but whose very existence is disproved by Dom Chapman in _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Peter the apostle (1Peter:1:1|) calls himself "fellow-elder" (\sunpresbuteros\) with the other elders (1Peter:5:1|). The word referred originally to age (Luke:15:25|), then to rank or office as in the Sanhedrin (Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Acts:6:12|) and in the Christian churches (Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@1Timothy:5:17,19|) as here also. A few even deny that the author is the same as in the First Epistle of John, but just an imitator. But the bulk of modern scholarly opinion agrees that the same man wrote all three Epistles and the Fourth Gospel (the Beloved Disciple, and many still say the Apostle John) whatever is true of the Apocalypse. There is no way of deciding whether "the elect lady" is a woman or a church. The obvious way of taking it is to a woman of distinction in one of the churches, as is true of "the co-elect lady in Babylon" (1Peter:5:13|), Peter's wife, who travelled with him (1Corinthians:9:5|). Some even take \kuria\ to be the name of the lady (Cyria). Some also take it to be "Eklecta the lady." Dr. Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 31) holds that Pergamum is the church to which the letter was sent. The same commentaries treat I, II, and III John as a rule, though Poggel has a book on II, III John (1896) and Bresky (1906) has _Das Verhaltnis des Zweiten Johannesbriefes zum dritten_. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has an interesting article in _The Expositor_ of London for March, 1901, on "The Problem of the Address to the Second Epistle of John," in which he argues from papyri examples that \kuria\ here means "my dear" or "my lady." But Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 26) argues that "the qualifying adjunct 'elect' lifts us into the region of Christian calling and dignity." It is not certain that II John was written after I John, though probable. Origen rejected it and the Peshitta Syriac does not have II and III John. strkjv@2John:1:1 @{And her children} (\kai tois teknois auts\). As with \eklekt kuria\, so here \tekna\ may be understood either literally as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:4|, or spiritually, as in strkjv@Galatians:4:19,25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. For the spiritual sense in \teknia\ see strkjv@1John:2:1,12|. {Whom} (\hous\). Masculine accusative plural, though \teknois\ is neuter plural (dative), construction according to sense, not according to grammatical gender, "embracing the mother and the children of both sexes" (Vincent). See thus \hous\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:19|. {I} (\Eg\). Though \ho presbuteros\ is third person, he passes at once after the Greek idiom to the first and there is also special emphasis here in the use of \agap\ with the addition of \en altheii\ (in truth, in the highest sphere, as in strkjv@John:17:19; strkjv@3John:1:1|) and \ouk eg monos\ (not I only, "not I alone"). Brooke argues that this language is unsuitable if to a single family and not to a church. But Paul employs this very phrase in sending greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans:16:4|). {That know} (\hoi egnkotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \ginsk\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@2John:1:7 @{Deceivers} (\planoi\). Late adjective (Diodorus, Josephus) meaning wandering, roving (1Timothy:4:1|). As a substantive in N.T. of Jesus (Matthew:27:63|), of Paul (2Corinthians:6:8|), and here. See the verb (\tn planontn hums\) in strkjv@1John:2:26| of the Gnostic deceivers as here and also of Jesus (John:7:12|). Cf. strkjv@1John:1:8|. {Are gone forth} (\exlthan\, alpha ending). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\, perhaps an allusion to the crisis when they left the churches (1John:2:19|, same form). {Even they that confess not} (\hoi m homologountes\). "The ones not confessing" (\m\ regular negative with the participle). The articular participle describes the deceivers (\planoi\). {That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh} (\Isoun Christon erchomenon en sarki\). "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of \erchomai\ treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In strkjv@1John:4:2| we have \elluthota\ (perfect active participle) in this same construction with \homologe\, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ. {This} (\houtos\). See strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@5:6,20|. {The deceiver and the antichrist} (\ho planos kai ho antichristos\). Article with each word, as in strkjv@Revelation:1:17|, to bring out sharply each separate phrase, though one individual is referred to. The one _par excellence_ in popular expectation (1John:2:22|), though many in reality (1John:2:18; strkjv@3John:1:7|).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorge\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai iditai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

rwp@Acts:13:13 @{Paul and his company} (\hoi peri Paulon\). Neat Greek idiom as in Plato, Cratylus 440 C \hoi peri Herakleiton\. On this idiom see Gildersleeve, _Syntax_, p. 264. It means a man and his followers, "those around Paul." Now Paul ranks first always in Acts save in strkjv@14:2; strkjv@15:12,25| for special reasons. Heretofore Saul (Paul) held a secondary position (9:27; strkjv@11:30; strkjv@13:1f.|). "In nothing is the greatness of Barnabas more manifest than in his recognition of the superiority of Paul and acceptance of a secondary position for himself" (Furneaux). {Set sail} (\anachthentes\). First aorist passive participle of \anag\. Thirteen times in the Acts and strkjv@Luke:8:22| which see. They sailed up to sea and came down (\katag, katabain\) to land. Songs:it looks. {Departed from them} (\apochrsas ap' autn\). First aorist active participle of \apochre\, old verb to withdraw, go away from. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:7:23; strkjv@Luke:9:39|. He is called John there as in verse 5| and Mark in strkjv@15:39|, though John Mark in strkjv@12:12,25|. This may be accidental or on purpose (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 317). Luke is silent on John's reasons for leaving Paul and Barnabas. He was the cousin of Barnabas and may not have relished the change in leadership. There may have been change in plans also now that Paul is in command. Barnabas had chosen Cyprus and Paul has led them to Perga in Pamphylia and means to go on into the highlands to Antioch in Pisidia. There were perils of many sorts around them and ahead (2Corinthians:11:26|), perils to which John Mark was unwilling to be exposed. Paul will specifically charge him at Antioch with desertion of his post (Acts:15:39|). It is possible, as Ramsay suggests, that the mosquitoes at Perga gave John malaria. If so, they bit Paul and Barnabas also. He may not have liked Paul's aggressive attitude towards the heathen. At any rate he went home to Jerusalem instead of to Antioch, _zu seiner Mutter_ (Holtzmann). It was a serious breach in the work, but Paul and Barnabas stuck to the work.

rwp@Acts:13:16 @{Paul stood up} (\anastas Paulos\). The Jewish custom was to sit while speaking (Luke:4:20|), but the Greek and Roman was to stand (Acts:17:22|). It is possible as Lewin (_Life of St. Paul_, Vol. 1, p. 141) suggests that here Paul stepped upon the platform and then took his seat as he began to speak or he may have followed the Greek and Roman custom. Paul is the leader now and the more gifted speaker (Acts:14:12|), so that he responds to the courteous invitation of the rulers. {Beckoning} (\kataseisas\). First aorist active participle of \katasei\, old verb to shake down, a dramatic gesture for quiet and order like Peter in strkjv@12:17| and Paul on the steps of the tower of Antonia (21:40|). {And ye that fear God} (\kai hoi phoboumenoi ton theon\). Evidently large numbers of these Gentiles like Cornelius in Caesarea were present. They offered Paul a great opportunity for reaching the purely pagan Gentiles. This (verses 16-41|) is the first full report of a sermon of Paul's that Luke has preserved for us. He is now a practised preacher of the gospel that he began proclaiming at Damascus, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of promise and the Saviour of the whole world both Jew and Gentile if they will only believe on him and be saved. It is possible that Paul here based his sermon on the passages of the law and the prophets that had just been read. He uses two words from the LXX, one in verse 19| from strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:31| \etrophophorsen\ (as a nursing-father bare he them), the reading of many old MSS. and the one preferred by the American Committee, the other in verse 17| from strkjv@Isaiah:1:2| \hupssen\ (exalted). At any rate it is clear that Paul spoke in Greek so that all could understand his sermon. He may have written out notes of this sermon afterwards for Luke. The keynotes of Paul's theology as found in his Epistles appear in this sermon. It is interesting to observe the steady growth of Paul's Christology as he faced the great problems of his day. Here we see Paul's gospel for the Jews and the God-fearers (Gentiles friendly to the Jews).

rwp@Acts:20:29 @{After my departing} (\meta tn aphixin mou\). Not his death, but his departure from them. From \aphikneomai\ and usually meant arrival, but departure in Herodotus IX. 17, 76 as here. {Grievous wolves} (\lukoi bareis\). \Bareis\ is heavy, rapacious, harsh. Jesus had already so described false teachers who would raven the fold (John:10:12|). Whether Paul had in mind the Judaizers who had given him so much trouble in Antioch, Jerusalem, Galatia, Corinth or the Gnostics the shadow of whose coming he already foresaw is not perfectly clear. But it will not be many years before Epaphras will come to Rome from Colossae with news of the new peril there (Epistle to the Colossians). In writing to Timothy (1Timothy:1:20|) Paul will warn him against some who have already made shipwreck of their faith. In strkjv@Revelation:2:2| John will represent Jesus as describing false apostles in Ephesus. {Not sparing the flock} (\m pheidomenoi tou poimniou\). Litotes again as so often in Acts. Sparing the flock was not the fashion of wolves. Jesus sent the seventy as lambs in the midst of wolves (Luke:10:3|). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had pictured the false prophets who would come as ravening wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew:7:15|).

rwp@Acts:21:1 @{Were parted from them} (\apospasthentas ap' autn\). First aorist passive participle of \apospa\ same verb as in strkjv@20:30; strkjv@Luke:22:41|. {Had set sail} (\anachthnai\). First aorist passive of \anag\, the usual verb to put out (up) to sea as in verse 2| (\anchthmen\). {We came with a straight course} (\euthudromsantes lthomen\). The same verb (aorist active participle of \euthudrome\) used by Luke in strkjv@16:11| of the voyage from Troas to Samothrace and Neapolis, which see. {Unto Cos} (\eis tn Ko\). Standing today, about forty nautical miles south from Miletus, island famous as the birthplace of Hippocrates and Apelles with a great medical school. Great trading place with many Jews. {The next day} (\ti hexs\). Locative case with \hmeri\ (day) understood. The adverb \hexs\ is from \ech\ (future \hex\) and means successively or in order. This is another one of Luke's ways of saying "on the next day" (cf. three others in strkjv@20:15|). {Unto Rhodes} (\eis tn Rhodon\). Called the island of roses. The sun shone most days and made roses luxuriant. The great colossus which represented the sun, one of the seven wonders of the world, was prostrate at this time. The island was at the entrance to the Aegean Sea and had a great university, especially for rhetoric and oratory. There was great commerce also. {Unto Patara} (\eis Patara\). A seaport on the Lycian coast on the left bank of the Xanthus. It once had an oracle of Apollo which rivalled that at Delphi. This was the course taken by hundreds of ships every season.

rwp@Acts:21:10 @{As we tarried} (\epimenontn hmn\). Genitive absolute. Note \epi\ (additional) with \men\ as in strkjv@12:16|. {Many days} (\hmeras pleious\). More days (than we expected), accusative of time. {A certain prophet named Agabus} (\prophts onomati Agabos\). A prophet like the daughters of Philip, mentioned already in connection with the famine predicted by him (Acts:11:28|), but apparently not a man of prominence like Barnabas, and so no allusion to that former prophecy.

rwp@Acts:21:12 @{Both we and they of that place} (\hmeis te kai hoi entopioi\). Usual use of \te kai\ (both--and). \Entopioi\, old word, only here in N.T. {Not to go up} (\tou m anabainein\). Probably ablative of the articular present active infinitive with redundant negative \me\ after \parekaloumen\ (imperfect active, conative). We tried to persuade him from going up. It can be explained as genitive, but not so likely: We tried to persuade him in respect to not going up. Vincent cites the case of Regulus who insisted on returning from Rome to Carthage to certain death and that of Luther on the way to the Diet of Worms. Spalatin begged Luther not to go on. Luther said: "Though devils be as many in Worms as tiles upon the roofs, yet thither will I go." This dramatic warning of Agabus came on top of that in Tyre (21:4|) and Paul's own confession in Miletus (20:23|). It is small wonder that Luke and the other messengers together with Philip and his daughters (prophetesses versus prophet?) joined in a chorus of dissuasion to Paul.

rwp@Acts:21:18 @{The day following} (\ti epiousi\). As in strkjv@20:15| which see. {Went in} (\eisiei\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\, old classic verb used only four times in the N.T. (Acts:3:3; strkjv@21:18,26; strkjv@Hebrews:9:6|), a mark of the literary style rather than the colloquial _Koin_ use of \eiserchomai\. Together with us to James (\sun hmin pros Iakbon\). Songs:then Luke is present. The next use of "we" is in strkjv@27:1| when they leave Caesarea for Rome, but it is not likely that Luke was away from Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The reports of what was done and said in both places is so full and minute that it seems reasonable that Luke got first hand information here whatever his motive was for so full an account of these legal proceedings to be discussed later. There are many details that read like an eye witness's story (21:30,35,40; strkjv@22:2,3; strkjv@23:12|, etc.). It was probably the house of James (\pros\ and \para\ so used often). {And all the elders were present} (\pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi\). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in chapter 15. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours. The whole church was not called together probably because of the known prejudice against Paul created by the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:21:20 @{Glorified} (\edoxazon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to glorify God, though without special praise of Paul. {How many thousands} (\posai muriades\). Old word for ten thousand (Acts:19:19|) and then an indefinite number like our "myriads" (this very word) as strkjv@Luke:12:1; strkjv@Acts:21:20; strkjv@Jude:1:14; strkjv@Revelation:5:11; strkjv@9:16|. But it is a surprising statement even with allowable hyperbole, but one may recall strkjv@Acts:4:4| (number of the men--not women--about five thousand); strkjv@5:14| (multitudes both of men and women); strkjv@6:7|. There were undoubtedly a great many thousands of believers in Jerusalem and all Jewish Christians, some, alas, Judaizers (Acts:11:2; strkjv@15:1,5|). This list may include the Christians from neighbouring towns in Palestine and even some from foreign countries here at the Feast of Pentecost, for it is probable that Paul arrived in time for it as he had hoped. But we do not have to count the hostile Jews from Asia (verse 27|) who were clearly not Christians at all. {All zealous for the law} (\pantes zltai tou nomou\). Zealots (substantive) rather than zealous (adjective) with objective genitive (\tou nomou\). The word zealot is from \zlo\, to burn with zeal, to boil. The Greek used \zlts\ for an imitator or admirer. There was a party of Zealots (developed from the Pharisees), a group of what would be called "hot-heads," who brought on the war with Rome. One of this party, Simon Zelotes (Acts:1:13|), was in the number of the twelve apostles. It is important to understand the issues in Jerusalem. It was settled at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|) that the Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be imposed upon Gentile Christians. Paul won freedom for them, but it was not said that it was wrong for Jewish Christians to go on observing it if they wished. We have seen Paul observing the passover in Philippi (Acts:20:6|) and planning to reach Jerusalem for Pentecost (20:16|). The Judaizers rankled under Paul's victory and power in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles and gave him great trouble in Galatia and Corinth. They were busy against him in Jerusalem also and it was to undo the harm done by them in Jerusalem that Paul gathered the great collection from the Gentile Christians and brought it with him and the delegates from the churches. Clearly then Paul had real ground for his apprehension of trouble in Jerusalem while still in Corinth (Romans:15:25|) when he asked for the prayers of the Roman Christians (verses 30-32|). The repeated warnings along the way were amply justified.

rwp@Acts:21:22 @{What is it therefore?} (\Ti oun estin?\). See this form of question by Paul (1Corinthians:14:15,26|). What is to be done about it? Clearly James and the elders do not believe these misrepresentations of Paul's teaching, but many do. {They will certainly hear} (\pants akousontai\). \Pants\ is old adverb, by all means, altogether, wholly, certainly as here and strkjv@28:4; strkjv@Luke:4:23; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:10|. This future middle of \akou\ is the usual form instead of \akous\. There was no way to conceal Paul's arrival nor was it wise to do so. B C and several cursives omit \dei plthos sunelthein\ (The multitude must needs come together).

rwp@Acts:21:26 @{Took the men} (\paralabn tous andras\). The very phrase used in verse 24| to Paul. {The next day} (\ti echomeni\). One of the phrases in strkjv@20:15| for the coming day. Locative case of time. {Purifying himself with them} (\sun autois hagnistheis\, first aorist passive participle of \hagniz\). The precise language again of the recommendation in verse 24|. Paul was conforming to the letter. {Went into the temple} (\eisiei eis to hieron\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\ as in verse 18| which see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined the four men in their vow of separation. {Declaring} (\diaggelln\). To the priests what day he would report the fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:11:17| (quotation from the LXX). It is not necessary to assume that the vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham). {Until the offering was offered for every one of them} (\hes hou prosnechth huper henos hekastou autn h prosphora\). This use of \hes hou\ (like \hes\, alone) with the first aorist passive indicative \prosnechth\ of \prospher\, to offer, contemplates the final result (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 974f.) and is probably the statement of Luke added to Paul's announcement. He probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:20| when no principle was involved. It is charged that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these "false apostles" over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded by Paul's accusers. Songs:far as the evidence goes that thing was accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea the Judaizers cut no figure at all. The Jewish Christians do not appear in Paul's behalf, but there was no opportunity for them to do so. The explosion that came on the last day of Paul's appearance in the temple was wholly disconnected from his offerings for the four brethren and himself. It must be remembered that Paul had many kinds of enemies. The attack on him by these Jews from Asia had no connexion whatever with the slanders of the Judaizers about Paul's alleged teachings that Jewish Christians in the dispersion should depart from the Mosaic law. That slander was put to rest forever by his following the advice of James and justifies the wisdom of that advice and Paul's conduct about it.

rwp@Acts:21:27 @{The seven days} (\hai hepta hmerai\). For which Paul had taken the vow, though there may be an allusion to the pentecostal week for which Paul had desired to be present (20:16|). There is no necessary connexion with the vow in strkjv@18:15|. In strkjv@24:17| Paul makes a general reference to his purpose in coming to Jerusalem to bring alms and offerings (\prosphoras\, sacrifices). Paul spent seven days in Troas (20:6|), Tyre (21:4|), and had planned for seven here if not more. It was on the last of the seven days when Paul was completing his offerings about the vows on all five that the incident occurred that was to make him a prisoner for five years. {When they saw him in the temple} (\theasamenoi auton en ti hieri\). First aorist middle participle of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, a view, cf. theatre) to behold. In the very act of honouring the temple these Jews from Asia raise a hue and cry that he is dishonouring it. Paul was not known by face now to many of the Jerusalem Jews, though once the leader of the persecution after the death of Stephen and the outstanding young Jew of the day. But the Jews in Ephesus knew him only too well, some of whom are here at the pentecostal feast. They had plotted against him in Ephesus to no purpose (Acts:19:23-41; strkjv@20:19|), but now a new opportunity had come. It is possible that the cry was led by Alexander put forward by the Jews in Ephesus (19:33|) who may be the same as Alexander the coppersmith who did Paul so much harm (2Timothy:4:14|). Paul was not in the inner sanctuary (\ho naos\), but only in the outer courts (\to hieron\). {Stirred up all the multitude} (\sunecheon panta ton ochlon\). Imperfect (kept on) active of \sunche\ or \sunchun\ (\-unn\), to pour together, to confuse as in strkjv@Acts:2:6; strkjv@9:22; strkjv@19:31,32; strkjv@21:31| and here to stir up by the same sort of confusion created by Demetrius in Ephesus where the same word is used twice (19:31,32|). The Jews from Ephesus had learned it from Demetrius the silversmith. {Laid hands on him} (\epebalan ep' auton tas cheiras\). Second aorist (ingressive, with endings of the first aorist, \-an\) active indicative of \epiball\, old verb to lay upon, to attack (note repetition of \epi\). They attacked and seized Paul before the charge was made.

rwp@Acts:21:29 @{For} (\gar\). Luke adds the reason for the wild charges made against Paul. {They had before seen} (\san proerakotes\). Periphrastic past perfect of \proora\, old verb to see before, whether time or place. Only twice in the N.T., here and strkjv@Acts:2:25| quoted from strkjv@Psalms:15:8|. Note the double reduplication in \-e-\ as in Attic (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 364). {With him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian} (\Trophimon ton Ephesion en ti polei sun auti\). The Jews from Asia (Ephesus) knew Trophimus by sight as well as Paul. One day they saw both of them together (\sun\) in the city. That was a fact. They had just seized Paul in the temple (\hieron\). That was another fact. {They supposed} (\enomizon\). Imperfect active of \nomiz\, common to think or suppose. Perfectly harmless word, but they did, as so many people do, put their supposed inference on the same basis with the facts. They did not see Trophimus with Paul now in the temple, nor had they ever seen him there. They simply argued that, if Paul was willing to be seen down street with a Greek Christian, he would not hesitate to bring him (therefore, did bring him, \eisgagen\ as in verse 28|) into the temple, that is into the court of Israel and therefore both Paul and Trophimus were entitled to death, especially Paul who had brought him in (if he had) and, besides, they now had Paul. This is the way of the mob-mind in all ages. Many an innocent man has been rushed to his death by the fury of a lynching party.

rwp@Acts:21:40 @{When he had given him leave} (\epitrepsantos autou\). Genitive absolute of aorist active participle of the same verb \epitrep\. {Standing on the stairs} (\hests epi tn anabathmn\). Second perfect active participle of \histmi\, to place, but intransitive to stand. Dramatic scene. Paul had faced many audiences and crowds, but never one quite like this. Most men would have feared to speak, but not so Paul. He will speak about himself only as it gives him a chance to put Christ before this angry Jewish mob who look on Paul as a renegade Jew, a turncoat, a deserter, who went back on Gamaliel and all the traditions of his people, who not only turned from Judaism to Christianity, but who went after Gentiles and treated Gentiles as if they were on a par with Jews. Paul knows only too well what this mob thinks of him. {Beckoned with the hand} (\kateseise ti cheiri\). He shook down to the multitude with the hand (instrumental case \cheiri\), while Alexander, Luke says (19:33|), "shook down the hand" (accusative with the same verb, which see). In strkjv@26:1| Paul reached out the hand (\ekteinas tn cheira\). {When there was made a great silence} (\polls sigs genomens\). Genitive absolute again with second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, "much silence having come." Paul waited till silence had come. {In the Hebrew language} (\ti Ebraidi dialekti\). The Aramaean which the people in Jerusalem knew better than the Greek. Paul could use either tongue at will. His enemies had said in Corinth that "his bodily presence was weak and his speech contemptible" (2Corinthians:10:10|). But surely even they would have to admit that Paul's stature and words reach heroic proportions on this occasion. Self-possessed with majestic poise Paul faces the outraged mob beneath the stairs.

rwp@Acts:22:1 @{Brethren and fathers} (\Andres adelphoi kai pateres\) Men, brethren, and fathers. The very language used by Stephen (7:2|) when arraigned before the Sanhedrin with Paul then present. Now Paul faces a Jewish mob on the same charges brought against Stephen. These words are those of courtesy and dignity (_amoris et honoris nomina_, Page). These men were Paul's brother Jews and were (many of them) official representatives of the people (Sanhedrists, priests, rabbis). Paul's purpose is conciliatory, he employs "his ready tact" (Rackham). {The defence which I now make unto you} (\mou ts pros humas nuni apologias\). Literally, My defence to you at this time. \Nuni\ is a sharpened form (by \-i\) of \nun\ (now), just now. The term \apologia\ (apology) is not our use of the word for apologizing for an offence, but the original sense of defence for his conduct, his life. It is an old word from \apologeomai\, to talk oneself off a charge, to make defence. It occurs also in strkjv@Acts:25:16| and then also in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11; strkjv@Phillipians:1:7,16; strkjv@2Timothy:4:16; strkjv@1Peter:3:15|. Paul uses it again in strkjv@Acts:25:16| as here about his defence against the charges made by the Jews from Asia. He is suspected of being a renegade from the Mosaic law and charged with specific acts connected with the alleged profanation of the temple. Songs:Paul speaks in Aramaic and recites the actual facts connected with his change from Judaism to Christianity. The facts make the strongest argument. He first recounts the well-known story of his zeal for Judaism in the persecution of the Christians and shows why the change came. Then he gives a summary of his work among the Gentiles and why he came to Jerusalem this time. He answers the charge of enmity to the people and the law and of desecration of the temple. It is a speech of great skill and force, delivered under remarkable conditions. The one in chapter strkjv@Acts:26| covers some of the same ground, but for a slightly different purpose as we shall see. For a discussion of the three reports in Acts of Paul's conversion see chapter strkjv@Acts:9|. Luke has not been careful to make every detail correspond, though there is essential agreement in all three.

rwp@Acts:22:4 @{And I} (\hos\). {I who}, literally. {This Way} (\tautn tn hodon\). The very term used for Christianity by Luke concerning Paul's persecution (9:2|), which see. Here it "avoids any irritating name for the Christian body" (Furneaux) by using this Jewish terminology. {Unto the death} (\achri thanatou\). Unto death, actual death of many as strkjv@26:10| shows. {Both men and women} (\andras te kai gunaikas\). Paul felt ashamed of this fact and it was undoubtedly in his mind when he pictured his former state as "a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious (1Timothy:1:13|), the first of sinners" (1Timothy:1:15|). But it showed the lengths to which Paul went in his zeal for Judaism.

rwp@Acts:24:7 @This whole verse with some words at the end of verse 6| and the beginning of verse 8| in the Textus Receptus ("And would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee") is absent from Aleph A B H L P 61 (many other cursives) Sahidic Bohairic. It is beyond doubt a later addition to the incomplete report of the speech of Tertullus. As the Revised Version stands, verse 8| connects with verse 6|. The motive of the added words is clearly to prejudice Felix against Lysias and they contradict the record in strkjv@Acts:21|. Furneaux holds them to be genuine and omitted because contradictory to strkjv@Acts:21|. More likely they are a clumsy attempt to complete the speech of Tertullus.

rwp@Acts:24:10 @{When the governor had beckoned to him} (\neusantos auti tou hgemonos\). Genitive absolute again with first aorist active participle of \neu\, to give a nod, old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:13:24|. "The governor nodding to him." {Forasmuch as I know} (\epistamenos\). Knowing, from \epistamai\. {That thou hast been of many years a judge} (\ek polln etn onta se kritn\). The participle in indirect assertion after \epistamenos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1041). Paul goes as far as he can in the way of a compliment. For seven years Felix has been governor, \onta\ being a sort of progressive present participle with \ek polln etn\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 892). {Cheerfully} (\euthums\). Old adverb from \euthumos\ (\eu\ and \thumos\, good spirit), here only in N.T. {Make my defence} (\apologoumai\). Old and regular word for this idea as in strkjv@Luke:21:14| which see.

rwp@Acts:24:17 @{After many years} (\di' etn pleionn\). "At an interval (\dia\) of more (\pleionn\) years" (than a few, one must add), not "after many years." If, as is likely Paul went up to Jerusalem in strkjv@Acts:18:22|, that was some five years ago and would justify "\pleionn\" (several years ago or some years ago). {To bring alms} (\elemosunas poison\). Another (see \proskunsn\ in verse 11|) example of the future participle of purpose in the N.T. These "alms" (on \elemosunas\ see on ¯Matthew:6:1,4; strkjv@Acts:10:2|, common in Tobit and is in the papyri) were for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Corinthians:16:1-4; strkjv@2Corinthians:8; 9; strkjv@Romans:15:26|) who were none the less Jews. "And offerings" (\kai prosphoras\). The very word used in strkjv@21:26| of the offerings or sacrifices made by Paul for the four brethren and himself. It does not follow that it was Paul's original purpose to make these "offerings" before he came to Jerusalem (cf. strkjv@18:18|). He came up to worship (verse 11|) and to be present at Pentecost (20:16|).

rwp@Acts:24:27 @{But when two years were fulfilled} (\dietias de plrtheiss\). Genitive absolute first aorist passive of \plro\, common verb to fill full. \Dietia\, late word in LXX and Philo, common in the papyri, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:28:30|. Compound of \dia\, two (\duo, dis\) and \etos\, year. Songs:Paul lingered on in prison in Caesarea, waiting for the second hearing under Felix which never came. Caesarea now became the compulsory headquarters of Paul for two years. With all his travels Paul spent several years each at Tarsus, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, though not as a prisoner unless that was true part of the time at Ephesus for which there is some evidence though not of a convincing kind. We do not know that Luke remained in Caesarea all this time. In all probability he came and went with frequent visits with Philip the Evangelist. It was probably during this period that Luke secured the material for his Gospel and wrote part or all of it before going to Rome. He had ample opportunity to examine the eyewitnesses who heard Jesus and the first attempts at writing including the Gospel of Mark (Luke:1:1-4|). {Was succeeded by} (\elaben diadochon\). Literally, "received as successor." \Diadochos\ is an old word from \diadechomai\, to receive in succession (\dia, duo\, two) and occurs here alone in the N.T. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 115) gives papyri examples where \hoi diadochoi\ means "higher officials at the court of the Ptolemies," probably "deputies," a usage growing out of the "successors" of Alexander the Great (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_), though here the original notion of "successor" occurs (cf. Josephus, _Ant_. XX. 8, 9). Luke does not tell why Felix "received" a successor. The explanation is that during these two years the Jews and the Gentiles had an open fight in the market-place in Caesarea. Felix put the soldiers on the mob and many Jews were killed. The Jews made formal complaint to the Emperor with the result that Felix was recalled and Porcius Festus sent in his stead. {Porcius Festus} (\Porkion Phston\). We know very little about this man. He is usually considered a worthier man than Felix, but Paul fared no better at his hands and he exhibits the same insincerity and eagerness to please the Jews. Josephus (_Ant_. XX. 8, 9) says that "Porcius Festus was sent as a successor to Felix." The precise year when this change occurred is not clear. Albinus succeeded Festus by A.D. 62, so that it is probable that Festus came A.D. 58 (or 59). Death cut short his career in a couple of years though he did more than Felix to rid the country of robbers and _sicarii_. Some scholars argue for an earlier date for the recall of Felix. Nero became Emperor Oct. 13, A.D. 54. Poppaea, his Jewish mistress and finally wife, may have had something to do with the recall of Felix at the request of the Jews. {Desiring to gain favour with the Jews} (\theln te charita katathesthai tois Ioudaiois\). Reason for his conduct. Note second aorist (ingressive) middle infinitive \katathesthai\ from \katatithmi\, old verb to place down, to make a deposit, to deposit a favour with, to do something to win favour. Only here and strkjv@25:9| in N.T., though in some MSS. in strkjv@Mark:15:46|. It is a banking figure. {Left Paul in bonds} (\katelipe ton Paulon dedemenon\). Effective aorist active indicative of \kataleip\, to leave behind. Paul "in bonds" (\dedemenon\, perfect passive participle of \de\, to bind) was the "deposit" (\katathesthai\) for their favour. Codex Bezae adds that Felix left Paul in custody "because of Drusilla" (\dia Drousillan\). She disliked Paul as much as Herodias did John the Baptist. Songs:Pilate surrendered to the Jews about the death of Jesus when they threatened to report him to Caesar. Some critics would date the third group of Paul's Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) to the imprisonment here in Caesarea, some even to one in Ephesus. But the arguments for either of these two views are more specious than convincing. Furneaux would even put strkjv@2Timothy:4:9-22| here in spite of the flat contradiction with strkjv@Acts:21:29| about Trophimus being in Jerusalem instead of Miletus (2Timothy:4:20|), a "mistake" which he attributes to Luke! That sort of criticism can prove anything.

rwp@Acts:25:4 @{Howbeit} (\men oun\). No antithesis expressed, though Page considers \de\ in verse 6| to be one. They probably argued that it was easier for one man (Paul) to come to Jerusalem than for many to go down there. But Festus was clearly suspicious (verse 6|) and was wholly within his rights to insist that they make their charges in Caesarea where he held court. {Was kept in charge} (\treisthai\). Present passive infinitive of \tre\ in indirect assertion. \Hoti\ with finite verb is more common after \apokrinomai\, but the infinitive with the accusative of general reference is proper as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1036). {Shortly} (\en tachei\). In quickness, in speed. Old and common usage, seen already in strkjv@Luke:18:8; strkjv@Acts:12:7; strkjv@22:18|. Festus is clearly within his rights again since his stay in Caesarea had been so brief. He did go down in "eight or ten days" (verse 6|). Luke did not consider the matter important enough to be precise.

rwp@Acts:25:7 @{When he was come} (\paragenomenou autou\). Genitive absolute of common verb \paraginomai\ (cf. strkjv@24:24|). {Which had come down} (\hoi katabebkotes\). Perfect active participle of \katabain\. They had come down on purpose at the invitation of Festus (verse 5|), and were now ready. {Stood round about him} (\periestsan auton\). Second aorist (ingressive) active (intransitive) of \periistmi\, old verb, "Took their stand around him," "_periculum intentantes_" (Bengel). Cf. strkjv@Luke:23:10| about Christ. They have no lawyer this time, but they mass their forces so as to impress Festus. {Bringing against him} (\katapherontes\). Bearing down on. See on ¯20:9; strkjv@26:10|, only N.T. examples of this ancient verb. {Many and grievous charges} (\polla kai barea aitimata\). This word \aitima\ for old form \aitiama\ is found in one papyrus (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) in sense of "blame." But the charges were no "heavier" than those made by Tertullus (24:5-8|). Paul's reply proves this and they were also probably on court record (Furneaux). See this adjective \barus\ (heavy) used with \lukoi\ (wolves) in strkjv@20:29|. {Which they could not prove} (\ha ouk ischuon apodeixai\). Imperfect active of \ischu\, to have strength or power as in strkjv@19:16,20|. Repetition and reiteration and vehemence took the place of proof (\apodeixai\, first aorist active infinitive of \apodeiknumi\, to show forth, old verb, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:2:22| which see and strkjv@1Corinthians:4:9|).

rwp@Acts:25:14 @{Tarried} (\dietribon\). Imperfect active of \diatrib\, common verb for spending time (Acts:12:19|, etc.). {Many days} (\pleious hmeras\). More days (than a few). Accusative case for extent of time. {Laid Paul's case} (\anetheto ta kata ton Paulon\). Second aorist middle indicative of \anatithmi\, old verb to set before, to place up, as if for consultation in conference. Only twice in N.T. here and strkjv@Galatians:2:2|. The motive of Festus is not given, though it was natural enough in view of the quandary of Festus about Paul (the things about Paul) and Agrippa's interest in and responsibility for Jewish worship in the temple in Jerusalem. It is quite possible that Festus had a bit of \ennui\ over the visit of these Jewish dignitaries as "more days" went by. Hence the tone of Festus about Paul in this proposal for the entertainment of Agrippa and Bernice is certainly one of superficial and supremely supercilious indifference. {Left a prisoner} (\katalelimmenos desmios\). Perfect passive participle of \kataleip\, to leave behind. Paul is one of Felix's left overs (left behind), a sort of "junk" left on his hands. This cowardly Roman procurator thus pictures the greatest of living men and the greatest preacher of all time to this profligate pair (brother and sister) of sinners. Undoubtedly today in certain circles Christ and his preachers are held up to like contempt.

rwp@Acts:25:24 @{Which are here present with us} (\hoi sunparontes hmin\). Present articular participle of \sunpareimi\ (only here in N.T.) with associative instrumental case \hmin\. {Made suit to me} (\enetuchon moi\). Second aorist active indicative of \entugchan\, old verb to fall in with a person, to go to meet for consultation or supplication as here. Common in old Greek and _Koin_. Cf. strkjv@Romans:8:27,34|. See \enteuxis\ (petition) strkjv@1Timothy:2:1|. Papyri give many examples of the technical sense of \enteuxis\ as petition (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 121). Some MSS. have plural here \enetuchon\ rather than the singular \enetuchen\. {Crying} (\bontes\). Yelling and demanding with loud voices. {That he ought not to live any longer} (\m dein auton zin mketi\). Indirect command (demand) with the infinitive \dein\ for \dei\ (it is necessary). The double negative (\m--mketi\) with \zin\ intensifies the demand.

rwp@Acts:26:10 @{I both shut up many} (\pollous te katekleisa\). Effective aorist active of \kataklei\, old word to shut down like a trap door, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:3:20|. Double use of \te\ (both--and). {Having received authority from the chief priests} (\tn para tn archieren exousian labn\). "The authority," he says. Paul was the official persecutor of the saints under the direction of the Sanhedrin. He mentions "chief priests" (Sadducees), though a Pharisee himself. Both parties were co-operating against the saints. {And when they were put to death} (\anairoumenn te autn\). Genitive absolute with present passive participle of \anaire\. {I gave my vote against them} (\katnegka psphon\). "I cast down my pebble" (a black one). The ancient Greeks used white pebbles for acquittal (Revelation:2:17|), black ones for condemnation as here (the only two uses of the word in the N.T.). Paul's phrase (not found elsewhere) is more vivid than the usual \katapsphiz\ for voting. They literally cast the pebbles into the urn. Cf. \sumpsphiz\ in strkjv@Acts:19:19|, \sugkatapsephizo\ in strkjv@Acts:1:26|. If Paul's language is taken literally here, he was a member of the Sanhedrin and so married when he led the persecution. That is quite possible, though he was not married when he wrote strkjv@1Corinthians:7:7f.|, but a widower. It is possible to take the language figuratively for approval, but not so natural.

rwp@Acts:26:11 @{Punishing} (\timrn\). Old word \timre\ originally to render help, to succor (\timros\, from \tim\ and \ouros\), then to avenge (for honour). In N.T. only here and strkjv@22:5|. {I strove to make them blaspheme} (\nagkazon blasphmein\). Conative imperfect active of \anagkaz\, old verb from \anagk\ (necessity, compulsion). The tense, like the imperfect in strkjv@Matthew:3:14; strkjv@Luke:1:59|, leaves room to hope that Paul was not successful in this effort, for he had already said that he brought many "unto death" (22:4|). {I persecuted} (\edikon\). Imperfect active again, repeated attempts. The old verb \dik\ was used to run after or chase game and then to chase enemies. The word "persecute" is the Latin _persequor_, to follow through or after. It is a vivid picture that Paul here paints of his success in hunting big game, a grand heresy hunt. {Even unto foreign cities} (\kai eis ex poleis\). We know of Damascus, and Paul evidently planned to go to other cities outside of Palestine and may even have done so before the fateful journey to Damascus.

rwp@Ephesians:3:10 @{To the intent that} (\hina\). Final clause. {Might be made known} (\gnristhi\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \gnriz\ with \hina\. The mystery was made known to Paul (3:3|) and now he wants it blazoned forth to all powers (Gnostic aeons or what not). {Through the church} (\dia ts ekklsias\). The wonderful body of Christ described in chapter strkjv@Ephesians:2|. {The manifold wisdom of God} (\h polupoikilos sophia tou theou\). Old and rare word, much-variegated, with many colours. Only here in N.T. \Poikilos\ (variegated) is more common (Matthew:4:24|).

rwp@Ephesians:4:13 @{Till we all attain} (\mechri katantsmen hoi pantes\). Temporal clause with purpose idea with \mechri\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \katanta\, late verb, to come down to the goal (Phillipians:3:11|). "The whole" including every individual. Hence the need of so many gifts. {Unto the unity of the faith} (\eis tn henotta ts pistes\). "Unto oneness of faith" (of trust) in Christ (verse 3|) which the Gnostics were disturbing. {And of the knowledge of the Son of God} (\kai ts epignses tou huiou tou theou\). Three genitives in a chain dependent also on \tn henotta\, "the oneness of full (\epi-\) knowledge of the Son of God," in opposition to the Gnostic vagaries. {Unto a full-grown man} (\eis andra teleion\). Same figure as in strkjv@2:15| and \teleios\ in sense of adult as opposed to \npioi\ (infants) in 14|. {Unto the measure of the stature} (\eis metron hlikias\). Songs:apparently \hlikia\ here as in strkjv@Luke:2:52|, not age (John:9:21|). Boys rejoice in gaining the height of a man. But Paul adds to this idea "the fulness of Christ" (\tou plrmatos tou Christou\), like "the fulness of God" in strkjv@3:19|. And yet some actually profess to be "perfect" with a standard like this to measure by! No pastor has finished his work when the sheep fall so far short of the goal.

rwp@Galatians:6:17 @{From henceforth} (\tou loipou\). Usually \to loipon\, the accusative of general reference, "as for the rest" (Phillipians:3:1; strkjv@4:8|). The genitive case (as here and strkjv@Ephesians:6:10|) means "in respect of the remaining time." {The marks of Jesus} (\ta stigmata tou Isou\). Old word from \stiz\, to prick, to stick, to sting. Slaves had the names or stamp of their owners on their bodies. It was sometimes done for soldiers also. There were devotees also who stamped upon their bodies the names of the gods whom they worshipped. Today in a round-up cattle are given the owner's mark. Paul gloried in being the slave of Jesus Christ. This is probably the image in Paul's mind since he bore in his body brandmarks of suffering for Christ received in many places (2Corinthians:6:4-6; strkjv@11:23ff.|), probably actual scars from the scourgings (thirty-nine lashes at a time). If for no other reason, listen to me by reason of these scars for Christ and "let no one keep on furnishing trouble to me."

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE STYLE It is called an epistle and so it is, but of a peculiar kind. In fact, as has been said, it begins like a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and concludes like a letter. It is, in fact, more like a literary composition than any other New Testament book as Deissmann shows: "It points to the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its more definitely artistic, more literary language (corresponding to its more theological subject matter), constituted an epoch in the history of the new religion. Christianity is beginning to lay hands on the instruments of culture; the literary and theological period has begun" (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 70f.). But Blass (_Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa_, 1905) argues that the author of Hebrews certainly and Paul probably were students of Greek oratory and rhetoric. He is clearly wrong about Paul and probably so about the author of Hebrews. There is in Hebrews more of "a studied rhetorical periodicity" (Thayer), but with many "parenthetical involutions" (Westcott) and with less of "the impetuous eloquence of Paul." The eleventh chapter reveals a studied style and as a whole the Epistle belongs to the literary _Koin_ rather than to the vernacular. Moulton (_Cambridge Biblical Essays_, p. 483) thinks that the author did not know Hebrew but follows the Septuagint throughout in his abundant use of the Old Testament.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ SOME BOOKS ON HEBREWS ANDEL, _Deuteronomy:Brief aan de Hebraer_ (1906). ANDERSON, R., _The Hebrews Epistle in the Light of the Types_ (1911). AYLES, _Destination, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). BAILEY, _Leading Ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1907). BLASS, F., _Brief an die Hebraer, Text, Angabe der Rhythmen_ (1903). BLEEK, F., _Der Hebraerbrief Erklart_ (1840). BRUCE, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). DALE, R. W., _The Jewish Temple in the Christian Church_ (1865). DAVIDSON, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1882). DELITZSCH, F., _Commentary on the Hebrews_ (1857). DIBELIUS, M., _Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes_ (1910). DODS, M., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). DU BOSE, W. P., _High Priesthood and sacrifice_ (1908). EDWARDS, T. C., _Expositor's Bible_ (1888). FARRAR, F. W., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). GOODSPEED, E. J., _Bible for Home and School_ (1908). GRIFFTH-THOMAS, W. H., _Let Us Go On_ (1923). HEIGL, _Verfalser und Addresse des Briefes an die Hebraer_ (1905). HOLLMANN, _Schriften d. N. T_. 2 Aufl. (1907). KENDRICK, A. C., _American Commentary_ (1890). LIDGETT, J. S., _Sonship and Salvation_ (1921). LOWRIE, _An Explanation of Hebrews_ (1921). LUNEMANN, G., _Meyer Komm_. (1882). MACFADYEN, J. F., _Through the Eternal Spirit_ (1925). MACNEILL, _The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1914). MENEGOZ, E., _Lamentations:Theologie de l'epitre aux Hebreaux_ (1894). MILLIGAN, G., _The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). MOFFATT JAMES, _Int. and Cosit. Comm_. (1924) MOULE, H. C., _Messages from the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1909). MURRAY, ANDREW, _Devotional Commentary_. NAIRNE, A., _The Epistle of Priesthood_ (1913). NAIRNE, A., _The Alexandrian Gospel_ (1917). PEAKE, A. S., _New Century Bible_ (1904). PORTER, S. J., _The Twelve-Gemmed Crown_ (1913). RENDALL, F., _The Theology of the Hebrew Christians_ (1886). RIGGENBACH, M., _Zoeckler Komm_. 2 Aufl. (1913). ROTHERHAM, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1906). SAPHIR, A., _Exposition of Hebrews_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1922). SEEBERG, A., _Der Brief an die Hebraer_ (1912). SLOT, _Deuteronomy:Letterkundige Vorm van den Brief aan de Hebraer (1912). SODEN, VON, _Hand-Comm_. (1899). THOLUCK, A., _Komm. zum Briefe an die Hebraer_. VAUGHAN, C. J., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WADE, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1923). WEISS, B., _Meyer-Komm_. 6 Aufl. (1902). WEISS, B., _Der Hebraerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Bekuch- tung_ (1910). WELCH, _Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WESTCOTT, B. F., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (3rd ed. 1906). WICKHAM, E. C., _Westminster Comm_. (1910). WINDISCH, H., _Handbuch zum N.T_. (1913). WREDE, W., _Das literarisches Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs_ (1906). strkjv@Hebrews:1:1 @{God} (\ho theos\). This Epistle begins like Genesis and the Fourth Gospel with God, who is the Author of the old revelation in the prophets and of the new in his Son. Verses 1-3| are a _proemium_ (Delitzsch) or introduction to the whole Epistle. The periodic structure of the sentence (1-4|) reminds one of strkjv@Luke:1:1-4, strkjv@Romans:1:1-7, strkjv@1John:1:1-4|. The sentence could have concluded with \en huii\ in verse 2|, but by means of three relatives (\hon, di' hou, hos\) the author presents the Son as "the exact counterpart of God" (Moffatt). {Of old time} (\palai\). "Long ago" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:21|. {Having spoken} (\lalsas\). First aorist active participle of \lale\, originally chattering of birds, then used of the highest form of speech as here. {Unto the fathers} (\tois patrasin\). Dative case. The Old Testament worthies in general without "our" or "your" as in strkjv@John:6:58; strkjv@7:22; strkjv@Romans:9:5|. {In the prophets} (\en tois prophtais\). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). strkjv@Songs:4:7|. {By divers portions} (\polumers\). "In many portions." Adverb from late adjective \polumers\ (in papyri), both in _Vettius Valens_, here only in N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:22 and Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 3, 9). The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, a progressive revelation of God to men. {In divers manners} (\polutrops\). "In many ways." Adverb from old adjective \polutropos\, in Philo, only here in N.T. The two adverbs together are "a sonorous hendiadys for 'variously'" (Moffatt) as Chrysostom (\diaphors\). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.).

rwp@James:1:17 @{Gift} (\dosis\) {--boon} (\drma\). Both old substantives from the same original verb (\didmi\), to give. \Dosis\ is the act of giving (ending \-sis\), but sometimes by metonymy for the thing given like \ktisis\ for \ktisma\ (Colossians:1:15|). But \drma\ (from \dre\, from \dron\ a gift) only means a gift, a benefaction (Romans:5:16|). The contrast here argues for "giving" as the idea in \dosis\. Curiously enough there is a perfect hexameter line here: \psa do / sis aga / th kai / pn d / rma te / leion\. Such accidental rhythm occurs occasionally in many writers. Ropes (like Ewald and Mayor) argues for a quotation from an unknown source because of the poetical word \drma\, but that is not conclusive. {From above} (\anthen\). That is, from heaven. Cf. strkjv@John:3:31; strkjv@19:11|. {Coming down} (\katabainon\). Present active neuter singular participle of \katabain\ agreeing with \drma\, expanding and explaining \anthen\ (from above). {From the Father of lights} (\apo tou patros tn phtn\). "Of the lights" (the heavenly bodies). For this use of \patr\ see strkjv@Job:38:28| (Father of rain); strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17|. God is the Author of light and lights. {With whom} (\par' hi\). For \para\ (beside) with locative sense for standpoint of God see \para ti thei\ (Mark:10:27; strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@9:14; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9|. {Can be no} (\ouk eni\). This old idiom (also in strkjv@Galatians:3:28; strkjv@Colossians:3:11|) may be merely the original form of \en\ with recessive accent (Winer, Mayor) or a shortened form of \enesti\. The use of \eni en\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:5| argues for this view, as does the use of \eine\ (\einai\) in Modern Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 313). {Variation} (\parallag\). Old word from \parallass\, to make things alternate, here only in N.T. In Aristeas in sense of alternate stones in pavements. Dio Cassius has \parallaxis\ without reference to the modern astronomical parallax, though James here is comparing God (Father of the lights) to the sun (Malachi:4:2|), which does have periodic variations. {Shadow that is cast by turning} (\trops aposkiasma\). \Trop\ is an old word for "turning" (from \trep\ to turn), here only in N.T. \Aposkiasma\ is a late and rare word (\aposkiasmos\ in Plutarch) from \aposkiaz\ (\apo, skia\) a shade cast by one object on another. It is not clear what the precise metaphor is, whether the shadow thrown on the dial (\aposkiaz\ in Plato) or the borrowed light of the moon lost to us as it goes behind the earth. In fact, the text is by no means certain, for Aleph B papyrus of fourth century actually read \h trops aposkiasmatos\ (the variation of the turning of the shadow). Ropes argues strongly for this reading, and rather convincingly. At any rate there is no such periodic variation in God like that we see in the heavenly bodies.

rwp@James:5:15 @{The prayer of faith} (\h euch ts pistes\). Cf. strkjv@1:6| for prayer marked by faith. {Shall save} (\ssei\). Future active of \sz\, to make well. As in strkjv@Matthew:9:21f.; strkjv@Mark:6:56|. No reference here to salvation of the soul. The medicine does not heal the sick, but it helps nature (God) do it. The doctor cooperates with God in nature. {The sick} (\ton kamnonta\). Present active articular participle of \kamn\, old verb, to grow weary (Hebrews:12:3|), to be sick (here), only N.T. examples. {The Lord shall raise him up} (\egerei auton ho kurios\). Future active of \egeir\. Precious promise, but not for a professional "faith-healer" who scoffs at medicine and makes merchandise out of prayer. {And if he have committed sins} (\kan hamartias i pepoiks\). Periphrastic perfect active subjunctive (unusual idiom) with \kai ean\ (crasis \kan\) in condition of third class. Supposing that he has committed sins as many sick people have (Mark:2:5ff.; strkjv@John:5:14; strkjv@9:2f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:30|). {It shall be forgiven him} (\aphethsetai auti\). Future passive of \aphimi\ (impersonal passive as in strkjv@Matthew:7:2,7; strkjv@Romans:10:10|). Not in any magical way, not because his sickness has been healed, not without change of heart and turning to God through Christ. Much is assumed here that is not expressed.

rwp@James:5:16 @{Confess therefore your sins one to another} (\exomologeisthe oun alllois tas hamartias\). Present middle (indirect) of \exomologe\. Confession of sin to God is already assumed. But public confession of certain sins to one another in the meetings is greatly helpful in many ways. This is not confessing to one man like a priest in place of the public confession. One may confess to the pastor without confessing to God or to the church, with little benefit to anybody. {Pray for one another} (\proseuchesthe huper allln\). Present middle imperative. Keep this up. {That ye may be healed} (\hops iathte\). Purpose clause with \hops\ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \iaomai\. Probably of bodily healing (verse 14|), though \iaomai\ is used also of healing of the soul (Matthew:13:15; strkjv@1Peter:2:24; strkjv@Hebrews:12:13|) as Mayor takes it here. {Availeth much} (\polu ischuei\). "Has much force." Present active indicative of \ischu\ (from \ischus\, strength). {In its working} (\energoumen\). Probably the present middle participle of \energe\ as Paul apparently uses it in strkjv@Galatians:5:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:12; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:7|, meaning "when it works." The passive is possible, as is the usual idiom elsewhere. Mayor argues strongly for the passive here, "when it is exercised" (Ropes).

rwp@Info_John @ THE AUTHOR THE APOSTLE JOHN Loisy (_Leviticus:Quatr. Evangile_, p. 132) says that if one takes literally what is given in the body of the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple he is bound to be one of the twelve. Loisy does not take it "literally." But why not? Are we to assume that the author of this greatest of books is playing a part or using a deliberate artifice to deceive? It may be asked why John does not use his own name instead of a _nom de plume_. Reference can be made to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, no one of which gives the author's name. One can see a reason for the turn here given since the book consists so largely of personal experiences of the author with Christ. He thus avoids the too frequent use of the personal pronoun and preserves the element of witness which marks the whole book. One by one the other twelve apostles disappear if we test their claims for the authorship. In the list of seven in chapter strkjv@John:21| it is easy to drop the names of Simon Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael. There are left two unnamed disciples and the sons of Zebedee (here alone mentioned, not even named, in the book). John in this Gospel always means the Baptist. Why does the author so uniformly slight the sons of Zebedee if not one of them himself? In the Acts Luke does not mention his own name nor that of Titus his brother, though so many other friends of Paul are named. If the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle, the silence about James and himself is easily understood. James is ruled out because of his early death (Acts:12:1|). The evidence in the Gospel points directly to the Apostle John as the author.

rwp@Info_John @ A DIFFERENT STYLE OF TEACHING Songs:different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon's _Memorabilia_ and of Plato's _Dialogues_. There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters strkjv@John:7-11|. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|). The use of "the Father" and "the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

rwp@Info_John @ LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as "the Elder" (\ho presbuteros\), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Peter:5:1|) he calls himself "your fellow-elder" (\ho sunpresbuteros\). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in strkjv@1John:1:1-4| and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the _aeon_ Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in strkjv@1John:2:22|. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

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@Info_John @ THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK He tells us himself in strkjv@John:20:30f|. He has made a selection of the many signs wrought by Jesus for an obvious purpose: "But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." This is the high and noble purpose plainly stated by the author. The book is thus confessedly apologetic and this fact ruins it with the critics who demand a dull and dry chronicle of events without plan or purpose in a book of history. Such a book would not be read and would be of little value if written. Each of the Synoptics is written with a purpose and every history or biography worth reading is written with a purpose. It is one thing to have a purpose in writing, but quite another to suppress or distort facts in order to create the impression that one wishes. This John did not do. He has given us his deliberate, mature, tested view of Jesus Christ as shown to him while alive and as proven since his resurrection. He writes to win others to like faith in Christ.

rwp@John:1:12 @{As many as received him} (\hosoi elabon auton\). Effective aorist active indicative of \lamban\ "as many as did receive him," in contrast with \hoi idioi\ just before, exceptional action on the part of the disciples and other believers. {To them} (\autois\). Dative case explanatory of the relative clause preceding, an anacoluthon common in John 27 times as against 21 in the Synoptists. This is a common Aramaic idiom and is urged by Burney (_Aramaic Origin_, etc., p. 64) for his theory of an Aramaic original of the Fourth Gospel. {The right} (\exousian\). In strkjv@5:27| \edken\ (first aorist active indicative of \didmi\) \exousian\ means authority but includes power (\dunamis\). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right. {To become} (\genesthai\). Second aorist middle of \ginomai\, to become what they were not before. {Children of God} (\tekna theou\). In the full spiritual sense, not as mere offspring of God true of all men (Acts:17:28|). Paul's phrase \huioi theou\ (Gal strkjv@3:26|) for believers, used also by Jesus of the pure in heart (Matthew:5:9|), does not occur in John's Gospel (but in strkjv@Revelation:21:7|). It is possible that John prefers \ta tekna tou theou\ for the spiritual children of God whether Jew or Gentile (John:11:52|) because of the community of nature (\teknon\ from root \tek-\, to beget). But one cannot follow Westcott in insisting on "adoption" as Paul's reason for the use of \huioi\ since Jesus uses \huioi theou\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:9|. Clearly the idea of regeneration is involved here as in strkjv@John:3:3|. {Even to them that believe} (\tois pisteuousin\). No "even" in the Greek, merely explanatory apposition with \autois\, dative case of the articular present active participle of \pisteu\. {On his name} (\eis to onoma\). Bernard notes \pisteu eis\ 35 times in John, to put trust in or on. See also strkjv@2:23; strkjv@3:38| for \pisteu eis to onoma autou\. This common use of \onoma\ for the person is an Aramaism, but it occurs also in the vernacular papyri and \eis to onoma\ is particularly common in the payment of debts (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). See strkjv@Acts:1:15| for \onomata\ for persons.

rwp@John:3:23 @{John was also baptizing} (\n de kai ho Ians baptizn\). Periphrastic imperfect picturing the continued activity of the Baptist simultaneous with the growing work of Jesus. There was no real rivalry except in people's minds. {In Aenon near to Salim} (\en Ainn eggus tou Saleim\). It is not clearly known where this place was. Eusebius locates it in the Jordan valley south of Beisan west of the river where are many springs (fountains, eyes). There is a place called Salim east of Shechem in Samaria with a village called 'Aimen, but with no water there. There may have been water there then, of course. {Because there was much water there} (\hoti hudata polla n ekei\). "Because many waters were there." Not for drinking, but for baptizing. "Therefore even in summer baptism by immersion could be continued" (Marcus Dods). {And they came, and were baptized} (\kai pareginonto kai ebaptizonto\). Imperfects both, one middle and the other passive, graphically picturing the long procession of pilgrims who came to John confessing their sins and receiving baptism at his hands.

rwp@John:4:41 @{Many more} (\polli pleious\). "More by much" (instrumental case \polli\) in comparison with just "many" (\polloi\) of verse 39|. Jesus was reaping more rapidly than the woman did. But all were rejoicing that so many "believed" (\episteusan\, really believed).

rwp@John:4:54 @{The second sign that} (\deuteron smeion\). No article, simply predicate accusative, "This again a second sign did Jesus having come out of Judea into Galilee." The first one was also in Cana (2:1ff.|), but many were wrought in Jerusalem also (2:23|).

rwp@John:5:4 @All of this verse is wanting in the oldest and best manuscripts like Aleph B C D W 33 Old Syriac, Coptic versions, Latin Vulgate. It is undoubtedly added, like the clause in verse 3|, to make clearer the statement in verse 7|. Tertullian is the earliest writer to mention it. The Jews explained the healing virtues of the intermittent spring by the ministry of angels. But the periodicity of such angelic visits makes it difficult to believe. It is a relief to many to know that the verse is spurious.

rwp@John:5:37 @{He hath borne witness} (\ekeinos memarturken\). \Ekeinos\ (that one; cf. strkjv@5:35,38|), not \autos\. Perfect active indicative of \marture\, the direct witness of the Father, besides the indirect witness of the works. Jesus is not speaking of the voice of the Father at his baptism (Mark:1:11|), the transfiguration (Mark:9:7|), nor even at the time of the visit of the Greeks (John:12:28|). This last voice was heard by many who thought it was thunder or an angel. The language of Jesus refers to the witness of the Father in the heart of the believers as is made plain in strkjv@1John:5:9,10|. God's witness does not come by audible "voice" (\phnn\) nor visible "form" (\eidos\). Cf. strkjv@1:18; strkjv@6:46; strkjv@1John:4:12|. \Akkoate\ is perfect active indicative of \akou\, to hear, and \herakate\ is perfect active indicative of \hora\, to see. It is a permanent state of failure to hear and see God. The experience of Jacob in Peniel (Genesis:32:30|) was unusual, but Jesus will say that those who have seen him have seen the Father (John:14:9|), but here he means the Father's "voice" and "form" as distinct from the Son.

rwp@John:9:2 @{Who did sin?} (\tis hmarten;\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan\. See strkjv@Acts:3:2; strkjv@14:8| for two examples of lameness from birth. Blindness is common in the Orient and Jesus healed many cases (cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23; strkjv@10:46|) and mentions this fact as one of the marks of the Messiah in the message to the Baptist (Matthew:11:5|). This is the only example of congenital blindness healed. It is not clear that the disciples expected Jesus to heal this case. They are puzzled by the Jewish notion that sickness was a penalty for sin. The Book of Job:had shown that this was not always the case and Jesus shows it also (Luke:13:1-5|). If this man was guilty, it was due to prenatal sin on his part, a curious notion surely. The other alternative charged it upon his parents. That is sometimes true (Exodus:20:5|, etc.), but by no means always. The rabbinical casuists loved to split hairs on this problem. Ezekiel (Ezekiel:18:20|) says: "The soul that sinneth it shall die" (individual responsibility for sin committed). There is something in heredity, but not everything. {That he should be born blind} (\hina tuphlos gennthi\). Probably consecutive (or sub-final) use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \genna\.

rwp@John:9:3 @{But that the works of God should be made manifest in him} (\all' hina phanerthi ta erga tou theou en auti\). Jesus denies both alternatives, and puts God's purpose (\all' hina\ with first aorist subjunctive of \phanero\) as the true solution. It is sometimes true that disease is the result of personal sin as in the man in strkjv@5:14| and parents can hand on the effects of sin to the third and fourth generations, but there are cases free from blame like this. There is comfort for many sufferers in the words of Jesus here.

rwp@John:9:6 @{He spat on the ground} (\eptusen chamai\). First aorist active indicative of the old verb \ptu\ for which see strkjv@Mark:7:33|. \Chamai\ is an old adverb either in the dative or locative (sense suits locative), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:6|. Jesus was not asked to cure this man. The curative effects of saliva are held in many places. The Jews held saliva efficacious for eye-trouble, but it was forbidden on the Sabbath. "That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in the application of the clay is contradicted by the fact that in other cases of blindness He did not use it" (Dods). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23|. Why he here accommodated himself to current belief we do not know unless it was to encourage the man to believe. {He made clay} (\epoisen plon\). Only use of \plos\, old word for clay, in N.T. in this chapter and strkjv@Romans:9:21|. The kneading of the clay and spittle added another offence against the Sabbath rules of the rabbis. {Anointed his eyes with the clay} (\epechrisen autou ton plon epi tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active indicative of \epichri\, old verb, to spread on, anoint, here only and verse 11| in N.T. "He spread the clay upon his eyes." B C read \epethken\ (first aorist active indicative of \epitithmi\, to put on).

rwp@John:11:19 @{Had come} (\ellutheisan\). Past perfect of \erchomai\. These Jews were probably not hostile to Jesus. There were seven days of solemn mourning (1Samuel:31:13|). The presence of so many indicates the prominence of the family. {To Martha and Mary} (\pros tn Marthan kai Mariam\). Correct text, not the Textus Receptus \pros tas peri Marthan kai Mariam\ (to the women about Martha and Mary). {To console them} (\hina paramuthsntai\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist middle subjunctive of \paramutheomai\, old verb (\para\, beside, \muthos\, word), to put in a word beside, to offer consolation. Again in verse 31|. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:11; strkjv@5:14|. See strkjv@Job:2:13| for these visits of consolation, often deplorable enough, though kindly meant.

rwp@John:11:22 @{And even now I know} (\kai nun oida\). Rather just, "Even now I know." \Alla\ (but) of the Textus Receptus is not genuine. {Whatsoever thou shalt ask of God} (\hosa an aitsi ton theon\). Indefinite relative (\hosa\, as many things as) with \an\ and the first aorist middle (indirect middle, thou thyself asking) subjunctive of \aite\. Martha uses \aite\ (usual word of prayer of men to God) rather than \erta\ (usual word of Jesus praying to the Father), but in strkjv@16:23| we have \erta\ used of prayer to Jesus and \aite\ of prayer to God. But the distinction is not to be pressed. "As many things as thou dost ask of God." {God will give} (\dsei soi ho theos\). Repetition of \ho theos\ for emphasis. Martha still has courageous faith in the power of God through Jesus and Jesus in verse 41| says practically what she has said here.

rwp@John:11:45 @{Beheld that which he did} (\theasamenoi ho epoisen\). First aorist middle participle of \theaomai\ and first aorist active indicative of \poie\ in the relative (\ho\) clause. They were eye-witnesses of all the details and did not depend on hearsay. {Believed on him} (\episteusan eis auton\). Such a result had happened before (7:31|), and all the more in the presence of this tremendous miracle which held many to Jesus (12:11,17|).

rwp@John:11:47 @{Gathered a council} (\sungagon sunedrion\). Second aorist active indicative of \sunag\ and \sunedrion\, the regular word for the Sanhedrin (Matthew:5:22|, etc.), only here in John. Here a sitting or session of the Sanhedrin. Both chief priests (Sadducees) and Pharisees (mentioned no more in John after strkjv@7:57| save strkjv@12:19,42|) combine in the call (cf. strkjv@7:32|). From now on the chief priests (Sadducees) take the lead in the attacks on Jesus, though loyally supported by their opponents (the Pharisees). {And said} (\kai elegon\). Imperfect active of \leg\, perhaps inchoative, "began to say." {What do we?} (\Ti poioumen;\). Present active (linear) indicative of \poie\. Literally, "What are we doing?" {Doeth} (\poiei\). Better, "is doing" (present, linear action). He is active and we are idle. There is no mention of the raising of Lazarus as a fact, but it is evidently inoluded in the "many signs."

rwp@John:12:21 @{To Philip which was of Bethsaida of Galilee} (\Philippi ti apo Bthsaida ts Galilaias\). He had a Greek name and the Greeks may have seen Philip in Galilee where there were many Greeks, probably (Mark:6:45|) the Western Bethsaida in Galilee, not Bethsaida Julias on the Eastern side (Luke:9:10|). {Asked} (\rtn\). Imperfect active, probably inchoative, "began to ask," in contrast with the aorist tense just before (\proslthan\, came to). {Sir} (\Kurie\). Most respectfully and courteously. {We would see Jesus} (\thelomen ton Isoun idein\). "We desire to see Jesus." This is not abrupt like our "we wish" or "we want," but perfectly polite. However, they could easily "see" Jesus, had already done so, no doubt. They wish an interview with Jesus.

rwp@John:12:22 @{Andrew} (\ti Andrei\). Another apostle with a Greek name and associated with Philip again (John:6:7f.|), the man who first brought his brother Simon to Jesus (1:41|). Andrew was clearly a man of wisdom for a crisis. Note the vivid dramatic presents here, {cometh} (\erchetai\), {telleth} (\legei\). What was the crisis? These Greeks wish an interview with Jesus. True Jesus had said something about "other sheep" than Jews (10:16|), but he had not explained. Philip and Andrew wrestle with the problem that will puzzle Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Acts:10:9-18|), that middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile that was only broken down by the Cross of Christ (Ephesians:2:11-22|) and that many Christians and Jews still set up between each other. Andrew has no solution for Philip and they bring the problem, but not the Greeks, to Jesus.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION OF PAUL A PHYSICIAN The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his _Medical Language of St. Luke_ proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_ have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his _Style and Literary Method of Luke_ denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke "the beloved physician" (\ho iatros ho agaptos\, strkjv@Colossians:4:14|), "my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Acts:28:8-10|) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who "came and were healed (\etherapeuonto\) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing (\iasato\), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician's interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark's apparent discredit of physicians (Mark:5:26|) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luke:8:43|).

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

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK Literary charm is here beyond dispute. It is a book that only a man with genuine culture and literary genius could write. It has all the simple grace of Mark and Matthew plus an indefinable quality not in these wonderful books. There is a delicate finish of detail and proportion of parts that give the balance and poise that come only from full knowledge of the subject, the chief element in a good style according to Dr. James Stalker. This scientific physician, this man of the schools, this converted Gentile, this devoted friend of Paul, comes to the study of the life of Christ with a trained intellect, with an historian's method of research, with a physician's care in diagnosis and discrimination, with a charm of style all his own, with reverence for and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. One could not afford to give up either of the Four Gospels. They each supplement the other in a wonderful way. John's Gospel is the greatest book in all the world, reaching the highest heights of all. But if we had only Luke's Gospel, we should have an adequate portrait of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Son of Man. If Mark's is the Gospel for the Romans and Matthew's for the Jews, the Gospel of Luke is for the Gentile world. He shows the sympathy of Jesus for the poor and the outcast. Luke understands women and children and so is the universal Gospel of mankind in all phases and conditions. It is often called the Gospel of womanhood, of infancy, of prayer, of praise. We have in Luke the first Christian hymns. With Luke we catch some glimpses of the child Jesus for which we are grateful. Luke was a friend and follower of Paul, and verbal parallels with Paul's Epistles do occur, but there is no Pauline propaganda in the Gospel as Moffatt clearly shows (_Intr. to Lit. of the N.T._, p. 281). The Prologue is in literary _Koin_ and deserves comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style is versatile and is often coloured by his source. He was a great reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show. Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting Thucydides. Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics used to cite strkjv@Luke:2:1-7| as a passage containing more historical blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his various books, especially in _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_. The main feature of this proof appears also in my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_. Songs:many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still stands alone.

rwp@Luke:1:1 @{Forasmuch as} (\epeidper\). Here alone in the N.T., though common in literary Attic. Appears in the papyri. A triple compound (\epei\ = since, \d\ = admittedly true, \per\ = intensive particle to emphasize importance). {Many} (\polloi\). How many no one knows, but certainly more than two or three. We know that Luke used the Logia of Jesus written by Matthew in Aramaic (Papias) and Mark's Gospel. Undoubtedly he had other written sources. {Have taken in hand} (\epecheirsan\). A literal translation of \epicheire\ (from \cheir\, hand and \epi\, upon). Both Hippocrates and Galen use this word in their introduction to their medical works. Here only in the N.T., though a common literary word. Common in the papyri for undertaking with no idea of failure or blame. Luke does not mean to cast reflection on those who preceded him. The apocryphal gospels were all much later and are not in his mind. Luke had secured fuller information and planned a book on a larger scale and did surpass them with the result that they all perished save Mark's Gospel and what Matthew and Luke possess of the Logia of Jesus. There was still room for Luke's book. That motive influences every author and thus progress is made. {To draw up, a narrative} (\anataxasthai digsin\). Ingressive aorist middle infinitive. This verb \anataxasthai\ has been found only in Plutarch's _Moral_. 968 CD about an elephant "rehearsing" by moonlight certain tricks it had been taught (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). That was from memory going regularly through the thing again. But the idea in the word is plain enough. The word is composed of \tass\, a common verb for arranging things in proper order and \ana\, again. Luke means to say that those before him had made attempts to rehearse in orderly fashion various matters about Christ. "The expression points to a connected series of narratives in some order (\taxis\), topical or chronological rather than to isolated narratives" (Bruce). "They had produced something more than mere notes or anecdotes" (Plummer). \Digsis\ means leading or carrying a thing through, not a mere incident. Galen applies this word some seventy-five times to the writing of Hippocrates. {Which have been fulfilled} (\tn peplrphormenn\). Perfect passive participle from \plrophore\ and that from \plrs\ (full) and \pher\ (to bring). Hence to bring or make full. The verb is rare outside of the LXX and the N.T. Papyri examples occur for finishing off a legal matter or a financial matter in full. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 86f.) gives examples from the papyri and inscriptions for completing a task or being convinced or satisfied in mind. The same ambiguity occurs here. When used of persons in the N.T. the meaning is to be convinced, or fully persuaded (Romans:4:21; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|). When used of things it has the notion of completing or finishing (2Timothy:4:5,17|). Luke is here speaking of "matters" (\pragmatn\). Luke may refer to the matters connected with Christ's life which have been brought to a close among us or accomplished. Bruce argues plausibly that he means fulness of knowledge "concerning the things which have become widely known among us Christians." In strkjv@Colossians:2:2| we have "fulness of understanding" (\ts plrophorias ts suneses\). In modern Greek the verb means to inform. The careful language of Luke here really pays a tribute to those who had preceded him in their narratives concerning Christ.

rwp@Luke:1:2 @{Even as} (\kaths\). This particle was condemned by the Atticists though occurring occasionally from Aristotle on. It is in the papyri. Luke asserts that the previous narratives had their sound basis. {Delivered unto us} (\paredsan hmin\). Second aorist active indicative of \paradidmi\. Luke received this tradition along with those who are mentioned above (the many). That is he was not one of the "eyewitnesses." He was a secondary, not a primary, witness of the events. Tradition has come to have a meaning of unreliability with us, but that is not the idea here. Luke means to say that the handing down was dependable, not mere wives' fables. Those who drew up the narratives had as sources of knowledge those who handed down the data. Here we have both written and oral sources. Luke had access to both kinds. {Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word} (\hoi ap' archs autoptai kai hupretai genomenoi tou logou\). "Who" is better than "which" for the article here. The word for {eyewitnesses} (\autoptai\) is an old Greek word and appears in the papyri also. It means seeing with one's own eyes. It occurs here only in the N.T. We have the very word in the medical term _autopsy_. Greek medical writers often had the word. It is a different word from \epoptai\ (eyewitness) in strkjv@2Peter:1:16|, a word used of those who beheld heavenly mysteries. The word for "ministers" (\hupretai\), under rowers or servants we have had already in strkjv@Matthew:5:25; strkjv@26:58; strkjv@Mark:14:54,65|, which see. We shall see it again in strkjv@Luke:4:20| of the attendant in the synagogue. In the sense of a preacher of the gospel as here, it occurs also in strkjv@Acts:26:16|. Here "the word" means the gospel message, as in strkjv@Acts:6:4; strkjv@8:4|, etc. {From the beginning} apparently refers to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as was true of the apostles (Acts:1:22|) and of the early apostolic preaching (Acts:10:37-43|). The Gospel of Mark follows this plan. The Gospel of Luke goes behind this in chapters 1 and 2 as does Matthew in chapters 1 and 2. But Luke is not here referring to himself. The matters about the childhood of Jesus Christ would not form part of the traditional preaching for obvious reasons.

rwp@Luke:7:37 @{A woman which was in the city, a sinner} (\gun htis en ti polei hamartlos\). Probably in Capernaum. The use of \htis\ means "Who was of such a character as to be" (cf. strkjv@8:3|) and so more than merely the relative \h\, who, that is, "who was a sinner in the city," a woman of the town, in other words, and known to be such. \Hamartlos\, from \hamartan\, to sin, means devoted to sin and uses the same form for feminine and masculine. It is false and unjust to Mary Magdalene, introduced as a new character in strkjv@Luke:8:2|, to identify this woman with her. Luke would have no motive in concealing her name here and the life of a courtesan would be incompatible with the sevenfold possession of demons. Still worse is it to identify this courtesan not only with Mary Magdalene, but also with Mary of Bethany simply because it is a Simon who gives there a feast to Jesus when Mary of Bethany does a beautiful deed somewhat like this one here (Mark:14:3-9; strkjv@Matthew:26:6-13; strkjv@John:12:2-8|). Certainly Luke knew full well the real character of Mary of Bethany (10:38-42|) so beautifully pictured by him. But a falsehood, once started, seems to have more lives than the cat's proverbial nine. The very name Magdalene has come to mean a repentant courtesan. But we can at least refuse to countenance such a slander on Mary Magdalene and on Mary of Bethany. This sinful woman had undoubtedly repented and changed her life and wished to show her gratitude to Jesus who had rescued her. Her bad reputation as a harlot clung to her and made her an unwelcome visitor in the Pharisee's house. {When she knew} (\epignousa\). Second aorist active participle from \epiginsk\, to know fully, to recognize. She came in by a curious custom of the time that allowed strangers to enter a house uninvited at a feast, especially beggars seeking a gift. This woman was an intruder whereas Mary of Bethany was an invited guest. "Many came in and took their places on the side seats, uninvited and yet unchallenged. They spoke to those at table on business or the news of the day, and our host spoke freely to them" (Trench in his _Parables_, describing a dinner at a Consul's house at Damietta). {He was sitting at meat} (\katakeitai\). Literally, he is reclining (present tense retained in indirect discourse in Greek). {An alabaster cruse of ointment} (\alabastron murou\). See on ¯Matthew:26:7| for discussion of \alabastron\ and \murou\.

rwp@Luke:8:10 @{The mysteries} (\ta mustria\). See for this word on ¯Matthew:13:11; strkjv@Mark:4:11|. Part of the mystery here explained is how so many people who have the opportunity to enter the kingdom fail to do so because of manifest unfitness. {That} (\hina\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:11| also has \hina\ while strkjv@Matthew:13:13| has \hoti\ (because). On the so-called causal use of \hina\ as here equal to \hoti\ see discussion on ¯Matthew:13:13; strkjv@Mark:4:11|. Plummer sensibly argues that there is truth both in the causal \hoti\ of Matthew and the final \hina\ of Mark and Matthew. "But the principle that he who hath shall receive more, while he who hath not shall be deprived of what he seemeth to have, explains both the \hina\ and the \hoti\. Jesus speaks in parables because the multitudes see without seeing and hear without hearing. But He also speaks in parable {in order that} they may see without seeing and hear without hearing." Only for "hearing" Luke has "understand" \sunisin\, present subjunctive from a late omega form \suni\ instead of the \-mi\ verb \sunimi\.

rwp@Luke:8:12 @{Those by the wayside} (\hoi para tn hodon\). As in strkjv@Mark:4:15; strkjv@Matthew:13:19| so here the people who hear the word = the seed are discussed by metonymy. {The devil} (\ho diabolos\). The slanderer. Here strkjv@Mark:4:15| has Satan. {From their heart} (\apo ts kardias autn\). Here Mark has "in them." It is the devil's business to snatch up the seed from the heart before it sprouts and takes root. Every preacher knows how successful the devil is with his auditors. strkjv@Matthew:13:19| has it "sown in the heart." {That they may not believe and be saved} (\hina m pisteusantes sthsin\). Peculiar to Luke. Negative purpose with aorist active participle and first aorist (ingressive) passive subjunctive. Many reasons are offered today for the failure of preachers to win souls. Here is the main one, the activity of the devil during and after the preaching of the sermon. No wonder then that the sower must have good seed and sow wisely, for even then he can only win partial success.

rwp@Luke:18:16 @{Called} (\prosekalesato\). Indirect middle aorist indicative, called the children with their parents to himself and then rebuked the disciples for their rebuke of the parents. The language of Jesus is precisely that of strkjv@Mark:10:14| which see, and nearly that of strkjv@Matthew:19:14| which see also. The plea of Jesus that children be allowed to come to him is one that many parents need to heed. It is a tragedy to think of parents "forbidding" their children or of preachers doing the same or of both being stumbling-blocks to children.

rwp@Luke:18:28 @{Our own} (\ta idia\). Our own things (home, business, etc.). Right here is where so many fail. Peter speaks here not in a spirit of boastfulness, but rather with his reactions from their consternation at what has happened and at the words of Jesus (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:18:30 @{Shall not receive} (\ouchi m labi\). Very strong double negative with aorist active subjunctive of \lamban\. {Manifold more} (\pollaplasiona\). Late Greek word, here alone in the N.T. save strkjv@Matthew:19:29| where Westcott and Hort have it though many MSS. there read \hekatonplasiona\ (a hundredfold) as in strkjv@Mark:10:30|.

rwp@Luke:20:44 @{David therefore} (\Daueid oun\). Without \ei\ as in strkjv@Matthew:22:45|. On the basis of this definite piece of exegesis (\oun\, therefore) Jesus presses the problem (\ps\, how) for an explanation. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:110| are thus set forth, the very problems that disturbed the rabbis then and that upset many critics today.

rwp@Luke:21:22 @{That may be fulfilled} (\tou plsthnai\). Articular infinitive passive to express purpose with accusative of general reference. The O.T. has many such warnings (Hosea:9:7; strkjv@Deuteronomy:28:49-57|, etc.).

rwp@Luke:22:65 @{Many other things} (\hetera polla\). These are just samples.

rwp@Luke:23:9 @{He questioned} (\eprt\). Imperfect active, kept on questioning. {In many words} (\en logois hikanois\). Same use of \hikanos\ as in verse 8|.

rwp@Luke:23:45 @{The sun's light failing} (\tou hliou ekleipontos\). Genitive absolute of the present active participle of \ekleip\, an old verb, to leave out, omit, pass by, to fail, to die. The word was used also of the eclipse of the sun or moon. But this was impossible at this time because the moon was full at the passover. Hence many documents change this correct text to "the sun was darkened" (\eskotisth ho hlios\) to obviate the difficulty about the technical eclipse. But the sun can be darkened in other ways. In a London fog at noon the street lights are often turned on. The Revised Version translates it correctly, "the sun's light failing." Leave the darkness unexplained. {In the midst} (\meson\). In the middle. strkjv@Mark:15:38; strkjv@Matthew:27:51| have "in two" (\eis duo\).

rwp@Luke:24:12 @This entire verse is a Western non-interpolation. This incident is given in complete form in strkjv@John:18:2-10| and most of the words in this verse are there also. It is of a piece with many items in this chapter about which it is not easy to reach a final conclusion. {Stooping and looking in} (\parakupsas\). First aorist active participle of \parakupt\, to stoop besides and peer into. Old verb used also in strkjv@John:20:5,11; strkjv@James:1:25; strkjv@1Peter:1:12|. {By themselves} (\mona\). Without the body. {To his home} (\pros hauton\). Literally, "to himself."

rwp@Info_Mark @ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark's Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that A.D. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_. Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark's Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q (_Logia of Jesus_) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark's work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter (_The Four Gospels_) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter's own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|).

rwp@Mark:5:2 @{Out of the boat} (\ek tou ploiou\). Straightway (\euthus\) Mark says, using the genitive absolute (\exelthontos autou\) and then repeating \auti\ associative instrumental after \apntsen\. The demoniac greeted Jesus at once. Mark and strkjv@Luke:9:27| mention only one man while Matthew notes two demoniacs, perhaps one more violent than the other. Each of the Gospels has a different phrase. Mark has "a man with an unclean spirit" (\en pneumati akatharti\), strkjv@Matthew:8:28| "two possessed with demons" (\duo daimonizomenoi\), strkjv@Luke:8:27| "one having demons" (\tis echn daimonia\). Mark has many touches about this miracle not retained in Matthew and Luke. See on ¯Matthew:8:28|.

rwp@Mark:5:13 @{And he gave them leave} (\kai epetrepsen autois\). These words present the crucial difficulty for interpreters as to why Jesus allowed the demons to enter the hogs and destroy them instead of sending them back to the abyss. Certainly it was better for hogs to perish than men, but this loss of property raises a difficulty of its own akin to the problem of tornadoes and earthquakes. The question of one man containing so many demons is difficult also, but not much more so than how one demon can dwell in a man and make his home there. One is reminded of the man out of whom a demon was cast, but the demon came back with seven other demons and took possession. Gould thinks that this man with a legion of demons merely makes a historical exaggeration. "I feel as if I were possessed by a thousand devils." That is too easy an explanation. See on ¯Matthew:8:32| for "rushed down the steep." {They were choked} (\epnigonto\). Imperfect tense picturing graphically the disappearance of pig after pig in the sea. strkjv@Luke:8:33| has \apegnig\, {choked off}, constative second aorist passive indicative, treated as a whole, strkjv@Matthew:8:32| merely has "perished" (\apethanon\; died).

rwp@Mark:5:26 @{Had suffered many things of many physicians} (\polla pathousa hupo polln iatrn\). A pathetic picture of a woman with a chronic case who had tried doctor after doctor. {Had spent all that she had} (\dapansasa ta par' auts panta\). Having spent the all from herself, all her resources. For the idiom with \para\ see strkjv@Luke:10:7; strkjv@Phillipians:4:18|. The tragedy of it was that she "was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse" (\mden pheltheisa alla mllon eis to cheiron elthousa\). Her money was gone, her disease was gaining on her, her one chance came now with Jesus. Matthew says nothing about her experience with the doctors and strkjv@Luke:8:43| merely says that she "had spent all her living upon physicians and could not be healed of any," a plain chronic case. Luke the physician neatly takes care of the physicians. But they were not to blame. She had a disease that they did not know how to cure. Vincent quotes a prescription for an issue of blood as given in the Talmud which gives one a most grateful feeling that he is not under the care of doctors of that nature. The only parallel today is Chinese medicine of the old sort before modern medical schools came.

rwp@Mark:6:13 @{They cast out many demons and they anointed with oil} (\exeballon kai leiphon elaii\). Imperfect tenses, continued repetition. Alone in Mark. This is the only example in the N.T. of \aleiph elaii\ used in connection with healing save in strkjv@James:5:14|. In both cases it is possible that the use of oil (olive oil) as a medicine is the basis of the practice. See strkjv@Luke:10:34| for pouring oil and wine upon the wounds. It was the best medicine of the ancients and was used internally and externally. It was employed often after bathing. The papyri give a number of examples of it. The only problem is whether \aleiph\ in Mark and James is used wholly in a ritualistic and ceremonial sense or partly as medicine and partly as a symbol of divine healing. The very word \aleiph\ can be translated rub or anoint without any ceremony. "Traces of a ritual use of the unction of the sick appear first among Gnostic practices of the second century" (Swete). We have today, as in the first century, God and medicine. God through nature does the real healing when we use medicine and the doctor.

rwp@Mark:6:20 @{Feared John} (\ephobeito ton Iann\). Imperfect tense, continual state of fear. He feared John and also Herodias. Between the two Herod vacillated. He knew him to be righteous and holy (\dikaion kai hagion\) and so innocent of any wrong. Songs:he {kept him safe} (\sunetrei\). Imperfect tense again. Late Greek verb. From the plots and schemes of Herodias. She was another Jezebel towards John and with Herod. {Much perplexed} (\polla porei\). This the correct text not \polla epoiei\, did many things. Imperfect tense again. {He heard him gladly} (\hdes kouen\). Imperfect tense again. This is the way that Herod really felt when he could slip away from the meshes of Herodias. These interviews with the Baptist down in the prison at Machaerus during his occasional visits there braced "his jaded mind as with a whiff of fresh air" (Swete). But then he saw Herodias again and he was at his wits' end (\porei\, lose one's way, \a\ privative and \poros\, way), for he knew that he had to live with Herodias with whom he was hopelessly entangled.

rwp@Mark:6:26 @{He would not reject her} (\ouk thelsen athetsai autn\). He was caught once again between his conscience and his environment. Like many since his day the environment stifled his conscience.

rwp@Mark:6:34 @{They were as sheep not having a shepherd} (\san hs probata m echonta poimena\). Matthew has these words in another context (Matthew:9:26|), but Mark alone has them here. \M\ is the usual negative for the participle in the _Koin_. These excited and exciting people (Bruce) greatly needed teaching. strkjv@Matthew:14:14| mentions healing as does strkjv@Luke:9:11| (both preaching and healing). But a vigorous crowd of runners would not have many sick. The people had plenty of official leaders but these rabbis were for spiritual matters blind leaders of the blind. Jesus had come over for rest, but his heart was touched by the pathos of this situation. Songs:"he began to teach them many things" (\rxato didaskein autous polla\). Two accusatives with the verb of teaching and the present tense of the infinitive. He kept it up.

rwp@Mark:6:38 @{Go and see} (\hupagete idete\). John says that Jesus asked Philip to find out what food they had (John:6:5f.|) probably after the disciples had suggested that Jesus send the crowd away as night was coming on (Mark:6:35f.|). On this protest to his command that they feed the crowds (Mark:6:37; strkjv@Matthew:14:16; strkjv@Luke:9:13|) Jesus said "Go see" how many loaves you can get hold of. Then Andrew reports the fact of the lad with five barley loaves and two fishes (John:6:8f.|). They had suggested before that two hundred pennyworth (\dnarin diakosin\. See on ¯Matthew:18:28|) was wholly inadequate and even that (some thirty-five dollars) was probably all that or even more than they had with them. John's Gospel alone tells of the lad with his lunch which his mother had given him.

rwp@Mark:6:40 @{They sat down in ranks} (\anepesan prasiai prasiai\). They half-way reclined (\anaklithnai\, verse 39|). Fell up here (we have to say fell down), the word \anepesan\ means. But they were arranged in groups by hundreds and by fifties and they looked like garden beds with their many-coloured clothes which even men wore in the Orient. Then again Mark repeats the word, \prasiai prasiai\, in the nominative absolute as in verse 39| instead of using \ana\ or \kata\ with the accusative for the idea of distribution. Garden beds, garden beds. Peter saw and he never forgot the picture and so Mark caught it. There was colour as well as order in the grouping. There were orderly walks between the rows on rows of men reclining on the green grass. The grass is not green in Palestine much of the year, mainly at the passover time. Songs:here the Synoptic Gospels have an indication of more than a one-year ministry of Jesus (Gould). It is still one year before the last passover when Jesus was crucified.

rwp@Mark:6:56 @{Wheresoever he entered} (\hopou an eiseporeueto\). The imperfect indicative with \an\ used to make a general indefinite statement with the relative adverb. See the same construction at the close of the verse, \hosoi an hpsanto auton\ (aorist indicative and \an\ in a relative clause), {as many as touched him}. One must enlarge the details here to get an idea of the richness of the healing ministry of Jesus. We are now near the close of the Galilean ministry with its many healing mercies and excitement is at the highest pitch (Bruce).

rwp@Mark:7:2 @{With defiled, that is unwashen hands} (\koinais chersin, tout' estin aniptois\). Associative instrumental case. Originally \koinos\ meant what was common to everybody like the _Koin_ Greek. But in later Greek it came also to mean as here what is vulgar or profane. Songs:Peter in strkjv@Acts:10:14| "common and unclean." The next step was the ceremonially unclean. The emissaries of the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem had seen "some of the disciples" eat without washing their hands, how many we are not told. Swete suggests that in going through the plain the disciples were seen eating some of the bread preserved in the twelve baskets the afternoon before across the lake. There was no particular opportunity to wash the hands, a very proper thing to do before eating for sanitary reasons. But the objection raised is on ceremonial, not sanitary, grounds.

rwp@Mark:9:35 @{He sat down and called the twelve} (\kathisas ephnsen tous ddeka\). Deliberate action of Jesus to handle this delicate situation. Jesus gives them the rule of greatness: "If any man would be first (\prtos\) he shall be last (\eschatos\) of all, and minister (\diakonos\) of all." This saying of Christ, like many others, he repeated at other times (Mark:10:43f.; strkjv@Matthew:23:8ff.; strkjv@Luke:22:24f.|). strkjv@Matthew:18:2| says that he called a little child, one there in the house, perhaps Peter's child. strkjv@Luke:9:47| notes that he "set him by his side." Then Jesus {taking him in his arms} (\enagkalisamenos\, aorist middle participle, late Greek word from \agkal\ as in strkjv@Luke:2:28|) spoke again to the disciples.

rwp@Matthew:6:7 @{Use not vain repetitions} (\m battalogste\). Used of stammerers who repeat the words, then mere babbling or chattering, empty repetition. The etymology is uncertain, but it is probably onomatopoetic like "babble." The worshippers of Baal on Mount Carmel (1Kings:8:26|) and of Diana in the amphitheatre at Ephesus who yelled for two hours (Acts:19:34|) are examples. The Mohammedans may also be cited who seem to think that they "will be heard for their much speaking" (\en ti polulogii\). Vincent adds "and the Romanists with their _paternosters_ and _avast_." The Syriac Sinaitic has it: "Do not be saying idle things." Certainly Jesus does not mean to condemn all repetition in prayer since he himself prayed three times in Gethsemane "saying the same words again" (Matthew:26:44|). "As the Gentiles do," says Jesus. "The Pagans thought that by endless repetitions and many words they would inform their gods as to their needs and weary them ('_fatigare deos_') into granting their requests" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:6:13 @{And bring us not into temptation} (\kai m eisenegkis eis peirasmon\). "Bring" or "lead" bothers many people. It seems to present God as an active agent in subjecting us to temptation, a thing specifically denied in strkjv@James:1:13|. The word here translated "temptation" (\peirasmon\) means originally "trial" or "test" as in strkjv@James:1:2| and Vincent so takes it here. _Braid Scots_ has it: "And lat us no be siftit." But God does test or sift us, though he does not tempt us to evil. No one understood temptation so well as Jesus for the devil tempted him by every avenue of approach to all kinds of sin, but without success. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus will say to Peter, James, and John: "Pray that ye enter not into temptation" (Luke:22:40|). That is the idea here. Here we have a "Permissive imperative" as grammarians term it. The idea is then: "Do not allow us to be led into temptation." There is a way out (1Corinthians:10:13|), but it is a terrible risk.

rwp@Matthew:6:24 @{No man can serve two masters} (\oudeis dunatai dusi kuriois douleuein\). Many try it, but failure awaits them all. Men even try "to be slaves to God and mammon" (\Thei douleuein kai mamni\). Mammon is a Chaldee, Syriac, and Punic word like _Plutus_ for the money-god (or devil). The slave of mammon will obey mammon while pretending to obey God. The United States has had a terrible revelation of the power of the money-god in public life in the Sinclair-Fall-Teapot-Air-Dome-Oil case. When the guide is blind and leads the blind, both fall into the ditch. The man who cannot tell road from ditch sees falsely as Ruskin shows in _Modern Painters_. He will hold to one (\henos anthexetai\). The word means to line up face to face (\anti\) with one man and so against the other.

rwp@Matthew:6:25 @Vincent quotes Bacon (Henry VII): "Harris, an alderman of London, was put in trouble and died with thought and anguish." But words change with time and now this passage is actually quoted (Lightfoot) "as an objection to the moral teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, on the ground that it encouraged, nay, commanded, a reckless neglect of the future." We have narrowed the word to mere planning without any notion of anxiety which is in the Greek word. The verb \merimna\ is from \meris, meriz\, because care or anxiety distracts and divides. It occurs in Christ's rebuke to Martha for her excessive solicitude about something to eat (Luke:10:41|). The notion of proper care and forethought appears in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:32; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@Phillipians:2:20|. It is here the present imperative with the negative, a command not to have the habit of petulant worry about food and clothing, a source of anxiety to many housewives, a word for women especially as the command not to worship mammon may be called a word for men. The command can mean that they must stop such worry if already indulging in it. In verse 31| Jesus repeats the prohibition with the ingressive aorist subjunctive: "Do not become anxious," "Do not grow anxious." Here the direct question with the deliberative subjunctive occurs with each verb (\phagmen, pimen, peribalmetha\). This deliberative subjunctive of the direct question is retained in the indirect question employed in verse 25|. A different verb for clothing occurs, both in the indirect middle (\peribalmetha\, fling round ourselves in 31|, \endussthe\, put on yourselves in 25|).

rwp@Matthew:7:15 @{False prophets} (\tn pseudoprophtn\). There were false prophets in the time of the Old Testament prophets. Jesus will predict "false Messiahs and false prophets" (Matthew:24:24|) who will lead many astray. They came in due time posing as angels of light like Satan, Judaizers (2Corinthians:11:13ff|.) and Gnostics (1John:4:1; strkjv@1Timothy:4:1|). Already false prophets were on hand when Jesus spoke on this occasion (cf. strkjv@Acts:13:6; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|). In outward appearance they look like sheep in the sheep's clothing which they wear, but within they are "ravening wolves" (\lukoi harpages\), greedy for power, gain, self. It is a tragedy that such men and women reappear through the ages and always find victims. Wolves are more dangerous than dogs and hogs.

rwp@Matthew:7:16 @{By their fruits ye shall know them} (\apo tn karpn autn epignsesthe\). From their fruits you will recognize them." The verb "know " (\ginsk\) has \epi\ added, fully know. The illustrations from the trees and vines have many parallels in ancient writers.

rwp@Matthew:7:22 @{Did we not prophesy in thy name?} (\ou ti si onomati eprophteusamen;\). The use of \ou\ in the question expects the affirmative answer. They claim to have prophesied (preached) in Christ's name and to have done many miracles. But Jesus will tear off the sheepskin and lay bare the ravening wolf. "I never knew you" (\oudepote egnn hms\). "I was never acquainted with you" (experimental knowledge). Success, as the world counts it, is not a criterion of one's knowledge of Christ and relation to him. "I will profess unto them" (\homologs autois\), the very word used of profession of Christ before men (Matthew:10:32|). This word Jesus will use for public and open announcement of their doom.

rwp@Matthew:7:29 @{And not as their scribes} (\kai ouch hs hoi grammateis autn\). They had heard many sermons before from the regular rabbis in the synagogues. We have specimens of these discourses preserved in the Mishna and Gemara, the Jewish Talmud when both were completed, the driest, dullest collection of disjounted comments upon every conceivable problem in the history of mankind. The scribes quoted the rabbis before them and were afraid to express an idea without bolstering it up by some predecessor. Jesus spoke with the authority of truth, the reality and freshness of the morning light, and the power of God's Spirit. This sermon which made such a profound impression ended with the tragedy of the fall of the house on the sand like the crash of a giant oak in the forest. There was no smoothing over the outcome.

rwp@Matthew:16:19 @{The Keys of the kingdom} (\tas kleidas ts basileias\). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18|. In strkjv@Revelation:1:18; strkjv@3:7| Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (\oikonomos\) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew:18:1|) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21|) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (\dsis\) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (\lusis\) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (\estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon\), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (18:18|). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John:20:23|), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, _primus inter pares_, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.

rwp@Matthew:18:8 @In verses 8| and 9| we have one of the dualities or doublets in Matthew (5:29-30|). Jesus repeated his pungent sayings many times. Instead of \eis geennan\ (5:29|) we have \eis to pur to ainion\ and at the end of verse 9| \tou puros\ is added to \tn geennan\. This is the first use in Matthew of \ainios\. We have it again in strkjv@19:16,29| with \zo\, in strkjv@25:41| with \pur\, in strkjv@25:46| with \kolasin\ and \zon\. The word means ageless, without beginning or end as of God (Romans:16:26|), without beginning as in strkjv@Romans:16:25|, without end as here and often. The effort to make it mean "\aeonian\" fire will make it mean "\aeonian\" life also. If the punishment is limited, _ipso facto_ the life is shortened. In verse 9| also \monophthalmon\ occurs. It is an Ionic compound in Herodotus that is condemned by the Atticists, but it is revived in the vernacular _Koin_. Literally one-eyed. Here only and strkjv@Mark:9:47| in the New Testament.

rwp@Matthew:18:17 @{Refuse to hear} (\parakousi\). Like strkjv@Isaiah:65:12|. Many papyri examples for ignoring, disregarding, hearing without heeding, hearing aside (\para-\), hearing amiss, overhearing (Mark:5:36|). {The church} (\ti ekklsii\). The local body, not the general as in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| which see for discussion. The problem here is whether Jesus has in mind an actual body of believers already in existence or is speaking prophetically of the local churches that would be organized later (as in Acts). There are some who think that the Twelve Apostles constituted a local \ekklsia\, a sort of moving church of preachers. That could only be true in essence as they were a band of ministers and not located in any one place. Bruce holds that they were "the nucleus" of a local church at any rate.

rwp@Matthew:20:16 @{The last first and the first last} (\hoi eschtoi prtoi kai hoi prtoi eschatoi\). The adjectives change places as compared with strkjv@19:30|. The point is the same, though this order suits the parable better. After all one's work does not rest wholly on the amount of time spent on it. "Even so hath Rabbi Bun bar Chija in twenty-eight years wrought more than many studious scholars in a hundred years" (Jer. _Berak._ ii. 5c).

rwp@Matthew:20:28 @{A ransom for many} (\lutron anti polln\). The Son of man is the outstanding illustration of this principle of self-abnegation in direct contrast to the self-seeking of James and John. The word translated "ransom" is the one commonly employed in the papyri as the price paid for a slave who is then set free by the one who bought him, the purchase money for manumitting slaves. See examples in Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_ and Deissmann's _Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 328f. There is the notion of exchange also in the use of \anti\. Jesus gave his own life as the price of freedom for the slaves of sin. There are those who refuse to admit that Jesus held this notion of a substitutionary death because the word in the N.T. occurs only here and the corresponding passage in strkjv@Mark:10:45|. But that is an easy way to get rid of passages that contradict one's theological opinions. Jesus here rises to the full consciousness of the significance of his death for men.

rwp@Matthew:20:30 @{That Jesus was passing by} (\hoti Isous paragei\). These men "were sitting by the wayside" (\kathmenoi para ten hodon\) at their regular stand. They heard the crowd yelling that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by (\paragei\, present indicative of direct discourse retained in the indirect). It was their one opportunity, now or never. They had heard of what he had done for other blind men. They hail him as "the son of David" (the Messiah). It is just one of many such incidents when Jesus stood still and opened their eyes, so many that even the multitude was impatient with the cries of these poor men that their eyes be opened (\anoigsin\, second aorist passive subjunctive).

rwp@Matthew:22:14 @{For many are called, but few chosen} (\polloi gar eisin kltoi oligoi de eklektoi\). This crisp saying of Christ occurs in various connections. He evidently repeated many of his sayings many times as every teacher does. There is a distinction between the called (\kltoi\) and the chosen (\eklektoi\) called out from the called.

rwp@Matthew:22:36 @{The great commandment in the law} (\entol megal en ti nomi\). The positive adjective is sometimes as high in rank as the superlative. See \megas\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:19| in contrast with \elachistos\. The superlative \megistos\ occurs in the N.T. only in strkjv@2Peter:1:4|. Possibly this scribe wishes to know which commandment stood first (Mark:12:28|) with Jesus. "The scribes declared that there were 248 affirmative precepts, as many as the members of the human body; and 365 negative precepts, as many as the days in the year, the total being 613, the number of letters in the Decalogue" (Vincent). But Jesus cuts through such pettifogging hair-splitting to the heart of the problem.

rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ainos\) or consummation of the age. In a painting the artist by skilful perspective may give on the same surface the inside of a room, the fields outside the window, and the sky far beyond. Certainly in this discourse Jesus blends in apocalyptic language the background of his death on the cross, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, his own second coming and the end of the world. He now touches one, now the other. It is not easy for us to separate clearly the various items. It is enough if we get the picture as a whole as it is here drawn with its lessons of warning to be ready for his coming and the end. The destruction of Jerusalem came as he foretold. There are some who would date the Synoptic Gospels after A.D. 70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).

rwp@Matthew:24:12 @{Shall wax cold} (\psugsetai\). Second future passive indicative from \psuch\. To breathe cool by blowing, to grow cold, "spiritual energy blighted or chilled by a malign or poisonous wind" (Vincent). {The love of many} (\h agap tn polln\). Love of the brotherhood gives way to mutual hatred and suspicion.

rwp@Matthew:24:30 @{The sign of the Son of Man in heaven} (\to smeion tou huiou tou anthrpou en ourani\). Many theories have been suggested like the cross in the sky, etc. Bruce sees a reference to strkjv@Daniel:7:13| "one like the Son of man" and holds that Christ himself is the sign in question (the genitive of apposition). This is certainly possible. It is confirmed by the rest of the verse: "They shall see the Son of man coming." See strkjv@Matthew:16:27; strkjv@26:64|. The Jews had repeatedly asked for such a sign (Broadus) as in strkjv@Matthew:12:38; strkjv@16:1; strkjv@John:2:18|.

rwp@Revelation:6:4 @{A red horse} (\hippos purros\). Old adjective from \pur\ (fire), flame-coloured, blood-red (2Kings:3:22|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@12:3|, like strkjv@Zechariah:1:8; strkjv@6:2| (roan horse). {To take peace from the earth} (\labein tn eirnn ek ts gs\). Second aorist active infinitive of \lamban\, and here the nominative case, the subject of \edoth\ (see verse 2|), "to take peace out of the earth." Alas, how many red horses have been ridden through the ages. {And that they should slay one another} (\kai hina alllous sphaxousin\). Epexegetical explanatory purpose clause with \hina\ and the future active of \sphaz\ (5:6|) instead of the more usual subjunctive (verse 2|). Cf. Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 998f. This is what war does to perfection, makes cannon fodder (cf. strkjv@John:14:27|) of men. {A great sword} (\machaira megal\). \Machaira\ may be a knife carried in a sheath at the girdle (John:18:10|) or a long sword in battle as here. \Romphaia\, also a large sword, is the only other word for sword in the N.T. (Revelation:1:16; strkjv@2:12,16; strkjv@6:8; strkjv@19:15,21|).

rwp@Revelation:6:10 @{How long} (\hes pote\). "Until when." Cf. strkjv@Matthew:7:17; strkjv@John:10:24|. {O Master} (\ho despots\). Nominative articular form, but used as vocative (\despota\) as in strkjv@4:11| (John:20:28|). On \despots\ (correlative of \doulos\) see strkjv@Luke:2:29|. Here (alone in the Apocalypse) it is applied to God as in strkjv@Luke:2:29; strkjv@Acts:4:24|, but to Christ in strkjv@Jude:1:4; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. {The holy and true} (\ho hagios kai althinos\). See strkjv@3:7| for these attributes of God. {Avenge our blood on them that dwell upon the earth} (\ekdikeis to haima hmn ek tn katoikountn epi ts gs\). This same idiom in strkjv@19:2| and see it also in strkjv@Luke:18:7f.|, "a passage which goes far to answer many questions in theodicy" (Swete). We find \ekdike\, late compound, used with \ek\ as here in strkjv@Deuteronomy:18:19; strkjv@1Samuel:24:13|, but with \apo\ in strkjv@Luke:18:3|. For \epi ts gs\ (upon the earth) see strkjv@3:10|.

rwp@Revelation:9:9 @{As it were breastplates of iron} (\hs thrakas siderous\). The \thrax\ was originally the breast (from the neck to the navel), then the breastplate, only N.T. usage (Revelation:9:9,17; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:8; strkjv@Ephesians:6:14|). The armour for the breastplate was usually of iron (\siderous\, strkjv@Revelation:2:27|), but with the locusts it only seemed to be so (\hs\). However, the scaly backs and flanks of the locusts do resemble coats of mail. "The locusts of the Abyss may be the memories of the past brought home at times of Divine visitation" (Swete). {The sound of their wings} (\h phn tn pterugn\). Graphic picture of the onrush of the swarms of demonic locusts and the hopelessness of resisting them. {As the sound of chariots, of many horses rushing to war} (\hs phn harmatn hippn polln trechontn eis polemon\). Both metaphors here, the clatter and clangour of the chariot wheels and the prancing of the horses are found in strkjv@Joel:2:4f|. \Trechontn\ is present active predicate participle of \trech\, to run. Cf. strkjv@2Kings:7:6; strkjv@Jeremiah:47:3|.

rwp@Revelation:12:3 @{Another sign} (\allo smeion\). "A second tableau following close upon the first and inseparable from it" (Swete). {And behold} (\kai idou\). As often (4:1; strkjv@6:2,5,8|, etc.). {A great red dragon} (\drakn megas purros\). Homer uses this old word (probably from \derkomai\, to see clearly) for a great monster with three heads coiled like a serpent that ate poisonous herbs. The word occurs also in Hesiod, Pindar, Eschylus. The Babylonians feared a seven-headed hydra and Typhon was the Egyptian dragon who persecuted Osiris. One wonders if these and the Chinese dragons are not race memories of conflicts with the diplodocus and like monsters before their disappearance. Charles notes in the O.T. this monster as the chief enemy of God under such title as Rahab (Isaiah:51:9f.; strkjv@Job:26:12f.|), Behemoth (Job:40:15-24|), Leviathan (Isaiah:27:1|), the Serpent (Amos:9:2ff.|). In strkjv@Psalms:74:13| we read of "the heads of the dragons." On \purros\ (red) see strkjv@6:4|. Here (12:9|) and in strkjv@20:2| the great dragon is identified with Satan. See strkjv@Daniel:7| for many of the items here, like the ten horns (Daniel:7:7|) and hurling the stars (Daniel:8:10|). The word occurs in the Apocalypse alone in the N.T. {Seven diadems} (\hepta diadmata\). Old word from \diade\ (to bind around), the blue band marked with white with which Persian kings used to bind on the tiara, so a royal crown in contrast with \stephanos\ (chaplet or wreath like the Latin _corona_ as in strkjv@2:10|), in N.T. only here, strkjv@13:1; strkjv@19:12|. If Christ as Conqueror has "many diadems," it is not strange that Satan should wear seven (ten in strkjv@13:1|).

rwp@Revelation:12:10 @{A great voice saying} (\phnn megaln legousan\). Accusative after \kousa\ in this phrase as in strkjv@5:11; strkjv@10:4; strkjv@14:2; strkjv@18:4|, but the genitive \phns legouss\ in strkjv@11:12; strkjv@14:13|. We are not told whence this voice or song comes, possibly from one of the twenty-four elders (Swete) or some other heavenly beings (11:15|) who can sympathize with human beings (19:10|), the martyrs in heaven (Charles). {Now is come} (\arti egeneto\). \Arti\ (John:13:33|) shows how recent the downfall of Satan here proleptically pictured as behind us in time (aorist tense \egeneto\). {The salvation} (\h stria\). Here "the victory" as in strkjv@7:10; strkjv@19:1|. {The power} (\h dunamis\). Gods power over the dragon (cf. strkjv@7:12; strkjv@11:17; strkjv@19:1|). {The kingdom} (\h basileia\). "The empire of God" as in strkjv@11:15|. {The authority of his Christ} (\h exousia tou Christou autou\). Which Christ received from the Father (Matthew:28:18; strkjv@John:17:2|). See strkjv@11:15| (Psalms:2:2|) for "his Anointed." {The accuser} (\ho katgr\). The regular form, \katgoros\, occurs in strkjv@John:8:10; strkjv@Acts:23:30,35; strkjv@25:16,18| and in many MSS. here in strkjv@Revelation:12:10|, but A reads \katgr\, which Westcott and Hort accept. It was once considered a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew word, but Deissmann (_Light_, etc., p. 93f.) quotes it from a vernacular magical papyrus of the fourth century A.D. with no sign of Jewish or Christian influence, just as \diakn\ appears as a vernacular form of \diakonos\. Only here is the word applied to Satan in the N.T. In late Judaism Satan is the accuser, and Michael the defender, of the faithful. {Of our brethren} (\tn adelphn hmn\). The saints still on earth battling with Satan and his devices. {Which accuseth them} (\ho katgorn autous\). Articular present active participle of \katgore\, old verb, to accuse, usually with the genitive of the person (John:5:45|), but here with the accusative. This is the devil's constant occupation (Job:1:6f.|). {Day and night} (\hmeras kai nuktos\). Genitive of time. "By day and by night."