OT-POET.filter - rwp There:
rwp@
1Corinthians:3:21 @{Wherefore let no one glory in men} (\hste mdeis kauchasth en anthrpois\). The conclusion (\hste\) from the self-conceit condemned. This particle here is merely inferential with no effect on the construction (\hs+te\ = and so) any more than \oun\ would have, a paratactic conjunction. There are thirty such examples of \hste\ in the N.T., eleven with the imperative as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 999). The spirit of glorying in party is a species of self-conceit and inconsistent with glorying in the Lord (1:31|).
rwp@1Corinthians:3:22 @{Yours} (\humn\). Predicate genitive, belong to you. All the words in this verse and 23| are anarthrous, though not indefinite, but definite. The English reproduces them all properly without the definite article except \kosmos\ (the world), and even here just world will answer. Proper names do not need the article to be definite nor do words for single objects like world, life, death. Things present (\enestta\, second perfect participle of \enistmi\) and things to come divide two classes. Few of the finer points of Greek syntax need more attention than the absence of the article. We must not think of the article as "omitted" (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 790). The wealth of the Christian includes all things, all leaders, past, present, future, Christ, and God. There is no room for partisan wrangling here.
rwp@1Corinthians:4:5 @{Wherefore} (\hste\). As in strkjv@3:21| which see. {Judge nothing} (\m ti krinete\). Stop passing judgment, stop criticizing as they were doing. See the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:7:1|. The censorious habit was ruining the Corinthian Church. {Before the time} (\pro kairou\). The day of the Lord in strkjv@3:13|. "Do not therefore anticipate the great judgment (\krisis\) by any preliminary investigation (\anakrisis\) which must be futile and incomplete" (Lightfoot). {Until the Lord come} (\hes an elthi ho kurios\). Common idiom of \hes\ and the aorist subjunctive with or without \an\ for a future event. Simple futurity, but held forth as a glorious hope, the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus as Judge. {Who will both bring to light} (\hos kai phtisei\). Future indicative of this late verb (in papyri also) from \phs\ (light), to turn the light on the hidden things of darkness. {And make manifest} (\kai phanersei\). (Ionic and late) causative verb \phanero\ from \phaneros\. By turning on the light the counsels of all hearts stand revealed. {His praise} (\ho epainos\). The praise (note article) due him from God (Romans:2:29|) will come to each then (\tote\) and not till then. Meanwhile Paul will carry on and wait for the praise from God.
rwp@1Corinthians:4:6 @{I have in a figure transferred} (\meteschmatisa\). First aorist active (not perfect) indicative of \meta-schmatiz\, used by Plato and Aristotle for changing the form of a thing (from \meta\, after, and \schma\, form or habit, like Latin _habitus_ from \ech\ and so different from \morph\ as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:12:2|). For the idea of refashioning see Field, _Notes_, p. 169f. and Preisigke, _Fachworter_). Both Greek and Latin writers (Quintilian, Martial) used \schma\ for a rhetorical artifice. Paul's use of the word (in Paul only in N.T.) appears also further in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13-15| where the word occurs three times, twice of the false apostles posing and passing as apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness, and once of Satan as an angel of light, twice with \eis\ and once with \hs\. In strkjv@Phillipians:3:21| the word is used for the change in the body of our humiliation to the body of glory. But here it is clearly the rhetorical figure for a veiled allusion to Paul and Apollos "for your sakes" (\dia humas\). {That in us ye may learn} (\hina en hmin mathte\). Final clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \manthan\, to learn. As an object lesson in our cases (\en hmin\). It is no more true of Paul and Apollos than of other ministers, but the wrangles in Corinth started about them. Songs:Paul boldly puts himself and Apollos to the fore in the discussion of the principles involved. {Not to go beyond the things which are written} (\to M huper ha gegraptai\). It is difficult to reproduce the Greek idiom in English. The article \to\ is in the accusative case as the object of the verb \mathte\ (learn) and points at the words "\M huper ha gegraptai\," apparently a proverb or rule, and elliptical in form with no principal verb expressed with \m\, whether "think" (Auth.) or "go" (Revised). There was a constant tendency to smooth out Paul's ellipses as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26,31|. Lightfoot thinks that Paul may have in mind O.T. passages quoted in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:19,31; strkjv@3:19,20|. {That ye be not puffed up} (\hina m phusiousthe\). Sub-final use of \hina\ (second use in this sentence) with notion of result. It is not certain whether \phusiousthe\ (late verb form like \phusia, phusa\, to blow up, to inflate, to puff up), used only by Paul in the N.T., is present indicative with \hina\ like \zloute\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:17| (cf. \hina ginskomen\ in strkjv@1John:5:20|) or the present subjunctive by irregular contraction (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 203, 342f.), probably the present indicative. \Phusio\ is from \phusis\ (nature) and so meant to make natural, but it is used by Paul just like \phusa\ or \phusia\ (from \phusa\, a pair of bellows), a vivid picture of self-conceit. {One for the one against the other} (\heis huper tou henos kata tou heterou\). This is the precise idea of this idiom of partitive apposition. This is the rule with partisans. They are "for" (\huper\) the one and "against" (\kata\, down on, the genitive case) the other (\tou heterou\, not merely another or a second, but the different sort, \heterodox\).
rwp@1Corinthians:4:7 @{Maketh thee to differ} (\se diakrinei\). Distinguishes thee, separates thee. \Diakrin\ means to sift or separate between (\dia\) as in strkjv@Acts:15:9| (which see) where \metaxu\ is added to make it plainer. All self-conceit rests on the notion of superiority of gifts and graces as if they were self-bestowed or self-acquired. {Which thou didst not receive} (\ho ouk elabes\). "Another home-thrust" (Robertson and Plummer). Pride of intellect, of blood, of race, of country, of religion, is thus shut out. {Dost thou glory} (\kauchasai\). The original second person singular middle ending \-sai\ is here preserved with variable vowel contraction, \kauchaesai=kauchasai\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 341). Paul is fond of this old and bold verb for boasting. {As if thou hadst not received it} (\hs m labn\). This neat participial clause (second aorist active of \lamban\) with \hs\ (assumption) and negative \m\ punctures effectually the inflated bag of false pride. What pungent questions Paul has asked. Robertson and Plummer say of Augustine, "Ten years before the challenge of Pelagius, the study of St. Paul's writings, and especially of this verse and of strkjv@Romans:9:16|, had crystallized in his mind the distinctively Augustinian doctrines of man's total depravity, of irresistible grace, and of absolute predestination." Human responsibility does exist beyond a doubt, but there is no foundation for pride and conceit.
rwp@1Corinthians:4:9 @{Hath set forth us the apostles last} (\hmas tous apostolous eschatous apedeixen\). The first aorist active indicative of \apodeiknumi\, old verb to show, to expose to view or exhibit (Herodotus), in technical sense (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4|) for gladiatorial show as in \ethriomachsa\ (1Corinthians:15:32|). In this grand pageant Paul and other apostles come last (\eschatous\, predicate accusative after \apedeixen\) as a grand finale. {As men doomed to die} (\hs epithanatious\). Late word, here alone in N.T. The LXX (Bel and the Dragon 31) has it for those thrown daily to the lions. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (_A.R_. vii. 35) uses it of those thrown from the Tarpeian Rock. The gladiators would say _morituri salutamus_. All this in violent contrast to the kingly Messianic pretensions of the Corinthians. {A spectacle} (\theatron\). Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:11:33-40|. The word, like our theatre, means the place of the show (Acts:19:29,31|). Then, it means the spectacle shown there (\theama\ or \thea\), and, as here, the man exhibited as the show like the verb \theatrizomenoi\, made a spectacle (Hebrews:10:33|). Sometimes it refers to the spectators (\theatai\) like our "house" for the audience. Here the spectators include "the world, both to angels and men" (\ti kosmi kai aggelois kai anthrpois\), dative case of personal interest.
rwp@1Corinthians:4:10 @{We--you} (\hmeis--humeis\). Triple contrast in keenest ironical emphasis. "The three antitheses refer respectively to teaching, demeanour, and worldly position" (Robertson and Plummer). The apostles were fools for Christ's sake (2Corinthians:4:11; strkjv@Phillipians:3:7|). They made "union with Christ the basis of worldly wisdom" (Vincent). There is change of order (chiasm) in the third ironical contrast. They are over strong in pretension. \Endoxos\, illustrious, is one of the 103 words found only in Luke and Paul in the N.T. Notion of display and splendour.
rwp@1Corinthians:6:2 @{Shall judge the world} (\ton kosmon krinousin\). Future active indicative. At the last day with the Lord Jesus (Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30|). {Are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?} (\anaxioi este kritrin elachistn;\). \Anaxios\ is an old word (\an\ and \axios\), though only here in the N.T. There is dispute as to the meaning of \kritria\ here and in verse 4|, old word, but nowhere else in N.T. save in strkjv@James:2:6|. Naturally, like other words in \-trion\ (\akroatrion\, auditorium, strkjv@Acts:25:23|), this word means the place where judgment is rendered, or court. It is common in the papyri in the sense of tribunal. In the _Apost. Const_. ii. 45 we have \m erchesth epi kritrion ethnikon\ (Let him not come before a heathen tribunal). Hence here it would mean, "Are ye unworthy of the smallest tribunals?" That is, of sitting on the smallest tribunals, of forming courts yourselves to settle such things?
rwp@1Corinthians:6:5 @{I say this to move you to shame} (\pros entropn humin leg\). Old word \entrop\ from \entrep\, to turn in (1Corinthians:4:14| which see). In N.T. only here and strkjv@15:34|. {One wise man} (\sophos\). From sarcasm to pathos Paul turns. {Does there not exist} (\eni\, short form for \enesti\)? With double negative \ouk--oudeis\, expecting the answer yes. Surely {one} such man exists in the church. {Who} (\hos\). Almost consecutive in idea, of such wisdom that he will be able. {To decide between his brethren} (\diakrinai ana meson tou adelphou autou\). \Krinai\ is to judge or decide (first aorist active infinitive of \krin\ and \dia\ (two) carries on the idea of between. Then \ana meson\ makes it still plainer, in the midst as {arbitrator} between brother and brother like \ana meson emou kai sou\ (Genesis:23:15|). It is even so a condensed expression with part of it unexpressed (\ana meson kai tou adelphou autou\) between brother and his brother. The use of \adelphos\ has a sharp reflection on them for their going to heathen judges to settle disputes between brothers in Christ.
rwp@1Corinthians:6:6 @{And that before unbelievers} (\kai touto epi apistn\). Climactic force of \kai\. The accusative of general reference with \touto\. "That there should be disputes about \bitika\ is bad; that Christian should go to law with Christian is worse; that Christians should do this before unbelievers is worst of all" (Robertson and Plummer).
rwp@1Corinthians:6:7 @{Nay, already it is altogether a defect among you} (\d men oun hols httma humin estin\). "Indeed therefore there is to you already (to begin with, \d\, before any question of courts) wholly defeat." \Httma\ (from \httaomai\) is only here, strkjv@Romans:11:12; strkjv@Isaiah:31:8| and ecclesiastical writers. See \httaomai\ (from \httn\, less) in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:13; strkjv@2Peter:2:19f.| \Nik\ was victory and \htta\ defeat with the Greeks. It is defeat for Christians to have lawsuits (\krimata\, usually decrees or judgments) with one another. This was proof of the failure of love and forgiveness (Colossians:3:13|). {Take wrong} (\adikeisthe\). Present middle indicative, of old verb \adike\ (from \adikos\, not right). Better undergo wrong yourself than suffer {defeat} in the matter of love and forgiveness of a brother. {Be defrauded} (\apostereisthe\). Permissive middle again like \adikeisthe\. Allow yourselves to be robbed (old verb to deprive, to rob) rather than have a lawsuit.
rwp@1Corinthians:15:9 @{The least} (\ho elachistos\). True superlative, not elative. Explanation of the strong word \ektrma\ just used. See strkjv@Ephesians:3:8| where he calls himself "less than the least of all saints" and strkjv@1Timothy:1:15| the "chief" (\prtos\) of sinners. Yet under attack from the Judaizers Paul stood up for his rank as equal to any apostle (2Corinthians:11:5f.,23|). {Because I persecuted the church of God} (\edixa tn ekklsian tou theou\). There were times when this terrible fact confronted Paul like a nightmare. Who does not understand this mood of contrition?
rwp@1Corinthians:15:12 @{Is preached} (\krussetai\). Personal use of the verb, Christ is preached. {How say some among you?} (\ps legousin en humin tines?\). The question springs naturally from the proof of the fact of the resurrection of Christ (verses 1-11|) and the continual preaching which Paul here assumes by condition of the first class (\ei--krussetai\). There were sceptics in Corinth, possibly in the church, who denied the resurrection of dead people just as some men today deny that miracles happen or ever did happen. Paul's answer is the resurrection of Christ as a fact. It all turns on this fact.
rwp@1Corinthians:15:15 @{False witnesses of God} (\pseudomartures tou theou\). Late word, but \pseudomarture\, to bear false witness, old and common. The genitive (\tou theou\) can be either subjective (in God's service) or objective (concerning God). Either makes good sense. {Because we witnessed of God} (\hoti emartursamen kata tou theou\). Vulgate has _adversus Deum_. This is the more natural way to take \kata\ and genitive, {against God} not as equal to \peri\ (concerning). He would indeed make God play false in that case, {if so be that the dead are not raised} (\eiper ara nekroi ouk egeirontai\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. Note both \per\ intensive particle {indeed} and \ara\ inferential particle {therefore}.
rwp@1Corinthians:15:27 @{He put} (\hupetaxen\). First aorist active of \hupotass\, to subject. Supply God (\theos\) as subject (Psalms:8:7|). See strkjv@Hebrews:2:5-9| for similar use. Cf. strkjv@Psalms:8|. {But when he saith} (\hotan de eipi\). Here Christ must be supplied as the subject if the reference is to his future and final triumph. The syntax more naturally calls for God as the subject as before. Either way makes sense. But there is no need to take \eipi\ (second aorist active subjunctive) as _a futurum exactum_, merely "whenever he shall say." {Are put in subjection} (\hupotetaktai\). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, final triumph. {It is evident that} (\dlon hoti\). Supply \estin\ (is) before \hoti\. {He is excepted who did subject} (\ektos tou hupotaxantos\). "Except the one (God) who did subject (articular aorist active participle) the all things to him (Christ)."
rwp@1Corinthians:15:30 @{Why do we also stand in jeopardy every hour?} (\ti kai hmeis kinduneuomen pasan hran?\). We also as well as those who receive baptism which symbolizes death. Old verb from \kindunos\ (peril, danger), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:8:23|. Paul's Epistles and Acts (especially chapter strkjv@Acts:19|) throw light on Paul's argument. He was never out of danger from Damascus to the last visit to Rome. There are perils in Ephesus of which we do not know (2Corinthians:1:8f.|) whatever may be true as to an Ephesian imprisonment. G. S. Duncan (_St. Paul's Ephesian Ministry_, 1930) even argues for several imprisonments in Ephesus. The accusative of time (\pasan hran\) naturally means all through every hour (extension).
rwp@1Corinthians:15:32 @{After the manner of men} (\kata anthrpon\). Like men, for applause, money, etc. (4:9ff.; strkjv@Phillipians:3:7|). {If I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus} (\ei ethriomachsa en Ephesi\). Late verb from \thriomachos\, a fighter with wild beasts. Found in inscriptions and in Ignatius. Those who argue for an Ephesian imprisonment for Paul and Ephesus as the place where he wrote the imprisonment epistles (see Duncan's book just mentioned) take the verb literally. There is in the ruins of Ephesus now a place called St. Paul's Prison. But Paul was a Roman citizen and it was unlawful to make such a one be a \thriomachos\. If he were cast to the lions unlawfully, he could have prevented it by claiming his citizenship. Besides, shortly after this Paul wrote II Corinthians, but he does not mention so unusual a peril in the list in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:23f|. The incident, whatever it was, whether literal or figurative language, took place before Paul wrote I Corinthians. {What doth it profit me?} (\ti moi to ophelos?\). What the profit to me? {Let us eat and drink} (\phagmen kai pimen\). Volitive second aorist subjunctives of \esthi\ and \pin\. Cited from strkjv@Isaiah:22:13|. It is the outcry of the people of Jerusalem during the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. At Anchiale near Tarsus is a statue of Sardanapalus with the inscription: "Eat, drink, enjoy thyself. The rest is nothing." This was the motto of the Epicureans. Paul is not giving his own view, but that of people who deny the resurrection.
rwp@1Thessalonians:2:10 @{How holily and righteously and unblameably} (\hs hosis kai dikais kai amempts\). Paul calls the Thessalonians and God as witnesses (\martures\) to his life toward you the believers (\humin tois pisteuousin\) dative of personal interest. He employs three common adverbs that show how holily toward God and how righteously toward men so that they did not blame him and his associates in either respect. Songs:there is a reason for each adverb. All this argues that Paul spent a considerable time in Thessalonica, more than the three sabbaths mentioned by Luke. The pastor ought to live so that his life will bear close inspection.
rwp@1Thessalonians:2:11 @{As a father with his own children} (\hs patr tekna heautou\). Change from the figure of the mother-nurse in verse 7|. There is ellipse of a principal verb with the participles \parakalountes, paramuthoumenoi, marturoumenoi\. Lightfoot suggests \enouthetoumen\ (we admonished) or \egenthmen\ (we became). The three participles give three phases of the minister's preaching (exhorting, encouraging or consoling, witnessing or testifying). They are all old verbs, but only the first (\parakale\) is common in the N.T.
rwp@1Thessalonians:4:4 @{That each one of you know how} (\eidenai hekaston humn\). Further epexegetic infinitive (second perfect active), learn how and so know how (learn the habit of purity). {To possess himself of his own vessel} (\to heautou skeuos ktasthai\). Present middle infinitive of \ktaomai\, to acquire, not \kektsthai\, to possess. But what does Paul mean by "his own vessel"? It can only mean his own body or his own wife. Objections are raised against either view, but perhaps he means that the man shall acquire his own wife "in sanctification and honour," words that elevate the wife and make it plain that Paul demands sexual purity on the part of men (married as well as unmarried). There is no double standard here. When the husband comes to the marriage bed, he should come as a chaste man to a chaste wife.
rwp@1Thessalonians:4:8 @{Therefore} (\toigaroun\). This old triple compound particle (\toi, gar, oun\) is in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:12:1|. Paul applies the logic of the case. {He that rejecteth} (\ho athetn\). This late verb (Polybius and LXX) is from \a-thetos\ (\a\ privative and verbal of \tithmi\, to proscribe a thing, to annul it. {But God} (\alla ton theon\). Paul sees this clearly and modern atheists see it also. In order to justify their licentiousness they do not hesitate to set aside God.
rwp@1Thessalonians:4:11 @{That ye study to be quiet} (\philotimeisthai hsuchazein\). First infinitive dependent on \parakaloumen\ (verse 10|, we exhort you), the second on \philotimeisthai\ (old verb from \philotimos\, fond of honour, \philos, tim\). The notion of ambition appears in each of the three N.T. examples (1Thessalonians:4:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:9; strkjv@Romans:5:20|), but it is ambition to do good, not evil. The word ambition is Latin (_ambitio_ from _ambo, ire_), to go on both sides to accomplish one's aims and often evil). A preacher devoid of ambition lacks power. There was a restless spirit in Thessalonica because of the misapprehension of the second coming. Songs:Paul urges an ambition to be quiet or calm, to lead a quiet life, including silence (Acts:11:18|). {To do your own business} (\prassein ta idia\). Present infinitive like the others, to have the habit of attending to their own affairs (\ta idia\). This restless meddlesomeness here condemned Paul alludes to again in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:11| in plainer terms. It is amazing how much wisdom people have about other people's affairs and so little interest in their own. {To work with your own hands} (\ergazesthai tais chersin humn\). Instrumental case (\chersin\). Paul gave a new dignity to manual labour by precept and example. There were "pious" idlers in the church in Thessalonica who were promoting trouble. He had commanded them when with them.
rwp@1Thessalonians:4:15 @{By the word of the Lord} (\en logi Kuriou\). We do not know to what word of the Lord Jesus Paul refers, probably Paul meaning only the point in the teaching of Christ rather than a quotation. He may be claiming a direct revelation on this important matter as about the Lord's Supper in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23|. Jesus may have spoken on this subject though it has not been preserved to us (cf. strkjv@Mark:9:1|). {Ye that are alive} (\hmeis hoi zntes\). Paul here includes himself, but this by no means shows that Paul knew that he would be alive at the Parousia of Christ. He was alive, not dead, when he wrote. {Shall in no wise precede} (\ou m phthasmen\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \phthan\, to come before, to anticipate. This strong negative with \ou m\ (double negative) and the subjunctive is the regular idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 929). Hence there was no ground for uneasiness about the dead in Christ.
rwp@1Thessalonians:5:3 @{When they are saying} (\hotan legsin\). Present active subjunctive picturing these false prophets of {peace and safety} like strkjv@Ezekiel:13:10| (Peace, and there is no peace). \Asphaleia\ only in N.T. in strkjv@Luke:1:4| (which see); strkjv@Acts:5:23| and here. {Sudden destruction} (\aiphnidios olethros\). \Olethros\ old word from \ollumi\, to destroy. See also strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:9|. \Aiphnidios\, old adjective akin to \aphn\ and in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:34| where Westcott and Hort spell it \ephnidios\. {Cometh upon them} (\autois epistatai\). Unaspirated form instead of the usual \ephistatai\ (present middle indicative) from \ephistmi\ perhaps due to confusion with \epistamai\. {As travail upon a woman with child} (\hsper h din ti en gastri echousi\). Earlier form \dis\ for birth-pang used also by Jesus (Mark:13:8; strkjv@Matthew:24:8|). Technical phrase for pregnancy, {to the one who has it in belly} (cf. strkjv@Matthew:1:18| of Mary). {They shall in no wise escape} (\ou m ekphugsin\). Strong negative like that in strkjv@4:15| \ou m\ (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive.
rwp@1Thessalonians:5:6 @{Songs:then} (\ara oun\). Two inferential particles, accordingly therefore, as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:15| and only in Paul in N.T. {Let us not sleep} (\m katheudmen\). Present active subjunctive (volitive), let us not go on sleeping. {Let us watch} (\grgormen\). Present active subj. (volitive) again, let us keep awake (late verb \grgore\ from perfect \egrgora\). {Be sober} (\nphmen\). Present active subjunctive (volitive). Old verb not to be drunk. In N.T. only in figurative sense, to be calm, sober-minded. Also in verse 8| with the metaphor of drunkenness in contrast.
rwp@1Thessalonians:5:8 @{Putting on the breastplate of faith and love} (\endusamenoi thraka pistes kai agaps\). First aorist (ingressive) middle participle of \endu\. The same figure of breastplate in strkjv@Ephesians:6:14|, only there "of righteousness." The idea of watchfulness brings the figure of a sentry on guard and armed to Paul's mind as in strkjv@Romans:13:12| "the weapons of light." The word \thrax\ (breastplate) is common in the LXX. {For a helmet, the hope of salvation} (\perikephalaian elpida strias\). Same figure in strkjv@Ephesians:6:17| and both like strkjv@Isaiah:59:17|. Late word meaning around (\peri\) the head (\kephal\) and in Polybius, LXX, and in the papyri. \Strias\ is objective genitive.
rwp@2Corinthians:11:1 @{Would that ye could bear with me} (\ophelon aneichesthe mou\). _Koin_ way of expressing a wish about the present, \ophelon\ (as a conjunction, really second aorist active indicative of \opheil\ without augment) and the imperfect indicative instead of \eithe\ or \ei gar\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003). Cf. strkjv@Revelation:3:15|. See strkjv@Galatians:5:12| for future indicative with \ophelon\ and strkjv@1Corinthians:4:8| for aorist. \Mou\ is ablative case after \aneichesthe\ (direct middle, hold yourselves back from me). There is a touch of irony here. {Bear with me} (\anechesthe mou\). Either imperative middle or present middle indicative (ye do bear with me). Same form. {In a little foolishness} (\mikron ti aphrosuns\). Accusative of general reference (\mikron ti\). "Some little foolishness" (from \aphrn\, foolish). Old word only in this chapter in N.T.
rwp@2Corinthians:11:8 @{I robbed} (\esulsa\). Old verb to despoil, strip arms from a slain foe, only here in N.T. He allowed other churches to do more than their share. {Taking wages} (\labn opsnion\). For \opsnion\ see on ¯1Corinthians:9:7; strkjv@Romans:6:17|. He got his "rations" from other churches, not from Corinth while there.
rwp@2Corinthians:11:12 @{That I may cut off occasion} (\hina ekkops tn aphormn\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \ekkopt\, old verb to cut out or off (Matthew:3:10; strkjv@5:30|). See strkjv@2Corinthians:5:12| for \aphormn\. {From them which desire an occasion} (\tn thelontn aphormn\). Ablative case after \ekkops\. There are always some hunting for occasions to start something against preachers. {They may be found} (\heurethsin\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \heurisk\, to find with final conjunction \hina\.
rwp@2Corinthians:11:32 @{The governor under Aretas} (\ho ethnarchs Hareta\). How it came to pass that Damascus, ruled by the Romans after B.C. 65, came at this time to be under the rule of Aretas, fourth of the name, King of the Nabatheans (II Macc. strkjv@5:8), we do not know. There is an absence of Roman coins in Damascus from A.D. 34 to 62. It is suggested (Plummer) that Caligula, to mark his dislike for Antipas, gave Damascus to Aretas (enemy of Antipas). {Guarded} (\ephrourei\). Imperfect active of \phroure\, old verb (from \phrouros\, a guard) to guard by posting sentries. In strkjv@Acts:9:24| we read that the Jews kept watch to seize Paul, but there is no conflict as they cooperated with the guard set by Aretas at their request. {To seize} (\piasai\). Doric first aorist active infinitive of \piez\ (Luke:6:38|) for which see on ¯Acts:3:7|.
rwp@2Corinthians:12:5 @{But on mine own behalf} (\huper de emautou\). As if there were two Pauls. In a sense there were. He will only glory in the things mentioned above, the things of his weaknesses (11:30|).
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@2John:1:11 @{Partaketh in his evil works} (\koinnei tois ergois autou tois ponrois\). Associative instrumental case with \koinnei\ as in strkjv@1Timothy:5:22|, common verb from \koinnos\ (partner). It is to be borne in mind that the churches often met in private homes (Romans:16:5; strkjv@Colossians:4:15|), and if these travelling deceivers were allowed to spread their doctrines in these homes and then sent on with endorsement as Apollos was from Ephesus to Corinth (Acts:18:27|), there was no way of escaping responsibility for the harm wrought by these propagandists of evil. It is not a case of mere hospitality to strangers.
rwp@2John:1:13 @{Of thine elect sister} (\ts adelphs sou ts eklekts\). Same word \eklekt\ as in verse 1; strkjv@Revelation:17:4|. Apparently children of a deceased sister of the lady of verse 1| who lived in Ephesus and whom John knew as members of his church there.
rwp@Info_2Peter @ SLOW IN GENERAL ACCEPTANCE It was accepted in the canon by the council at Laodicea (372) and at Carthage (397). Jerome accepted it for the Vulgate, though it was absent from the Peshito Syriac Version. Eusebius placed it among the disputed books, while Origen was inclined to accept it. Clement of Alexandria accepted it and apparently wrote a commentary on it. It is probable that the so-called Apocalypse of Peter (early second century) used it and the Epistle of Jude:either used it or II Peter used Jude. There are undoubted allusions also to phrases in II Peter in Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome. When one considers the brevity of the Epistle, the use of it is really as strong as one can expect. Athanasius and Augustine accepted it as genuine, as did Luther, while Calvin doubted and Erasmus rejected it. It may be said for it that it won its way under criticism and was not accepted blindly.
rwp@Info_2Peter @ CLAIMS PETRINE AUTHORSHIP Not only so, but in fuller form than strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, for the writer terms himself "Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon (Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in strkjv@Acts:15:14|) is the real name (John:1:42|) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas, the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the fact remains that II Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and orthodox teaching.
rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF PETER The writer makes use of his own contact with Jesus, especially at the Transfiguration of Christ (Mark:9:2-8; strkjv@Matthew:17:1-8; strkjv@Luke:9:28-36|). This fact has been used against the genuineness of the Epistle on the plea that the writer is too anxious, anyhow, to show that he is Symeon Peter (2Peter:1:1|). But Bigg rightly replies that, if he had only given his name with no personal contacts with Jesus, the name would be called "a forged addition." It is possible also that the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration may have been suggested by Peter's use of \exodos\ for his own death (2Peter:1:15|), the very word used by Luke (Luke:9:31|) as the topic of discussion between Jesus and Moses and Elijah. There is also in strkjv@2Peter:1:13| the use of "tent" (\sknoma\) for the life in the body, like Peter's use of "tents" (\sknas\) to Jesus at that very time (Mark:9:5; strkjv@Matthew:17:4; strkjv@Luke:9:33|). In strkjv@2Peter:1:14| Peter also refers to the plain words of Jesus about his coming death (John:21:18f.|). In strkjv@2Peter:1:15| Peter speaks of his own plan for preserving the knowledge of Jesus when he is gone (possibly by Mark's Gospel). All this is in perfect keeping with Peter's own nature.
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@Info_2Peter @ THE RESEMBLANCE TO THE EPISTLE OF JUDE This is undoubted, particularly between Jude:and the second chapter of II Peter. Kuhl argues that strkjv@2Peter:2:1-3:2| is an interpolation, though the same style runs through out the Epistle. "The theory of interpolation is always a last and desperate expedient" (Bigg). In II Peter 2 we have the fallen angels, the flood, the cities of the plain with Lot, Balaam. In Jude:we have Israel in the wilderness, the fallen angels, the cities of the plain (with no mention of Lot, Cain, Balaam, Korah). Jude:mentions the dispute between Michael and Satan, quotes Enoch by name. There is rather more freshness in Jude:than in II Peter, though II Peter is more intelligible. Evidently one had the other before him, besides other material. Which is the earlier? There is no way to decide this point clearly. Every point is looked at differently and argued differently by different writers. My own feeling is that Jude:was before (just before) II Peter, though it is only a feeling and not a conviction.
rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE READERS The author says that this is his second Epistle to them (2Peter:3:1|), and that means that he is writing to the saints in the five Roman provinces in Asia Minor to whom the first Epistle was sent (1Peter:1:1|). Spitta and Zahn deny this on the ground that the two Epistles do not discuss the same subjects, surely a flimsy objection. Zahn even holds that II Peter precedes I Peter and that the Epistle referred to in strkjv@2Peter:3:1| has been lost. He holds that II Peter was addressed to the church in Corinth. He considers the readers to be Jews while I Peter was addressed to Gentiles. But "there is nothing in II Peter to differentiate its first readers from those of I Peter" (Bigg).
rwp@Info_2Peter @ BALANCE OF PROBABILITY There are difficulties in any decision about the authorship and character of II Peter. But, when all things are considered, I agree with Bigg that the Epistle is what it professes to be by Simon Peter. Else it is pseudonymous. The Epistle more closely resembles the other New Testament books than it does the large pseudepigraphic literature of the second and third centuries.
rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE DATE If we accept the Petrine authorship, it must come before his death, which was probably A.D. 67 or 68. Hence the Epistle cannot be beyond this date. There are those who argue for A.D. 64 as the date of Peter's death, but on insufficient grounds in my opinion.
rwp@2Peter:1:2 @{Be multiplied} (\plthunthei\). First aorist passive optative of \plthun\ in a wish for the future (volitive use) as in strkjv@1Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|. {In the knowledge} (\en epignsei\). Full (additional, \epi\) knowledge as in strkjv@1:8| (only \gnsis\ in strkjv@1:5,6; strkjv@3:18|), but \epignsin\ again in strkjv@1:3,8; strkjv@2:20|. As in Colossians, so here full knowledge is urged against the claims of the Gnostic heretics to special \gnsis\. {Of God and of Jesus our Lord} (\tou theou kai Isou tou kuriou hmn\). At first sight the idiom here seems to require one person as in strkjv@1:1|, though there is a second article (\tou\) before \kuriou\, and \Isou\ is a proper name. But the text here is very uncertain. Bengel, Spitta, Zahn, Nestle accept the short reading of P and some Vulgate MSS. and some minuscles with only \tou kuriou hmn\ (our Lord) from which the three other readings may have come. Elsewhere in II Peter \gnsis\ and \epignsis\ are used of Christ alone. The text of II Peter is not in a good state of preservation.
rwp@2Peter:1:4 @{Whereby} (\di' hn\). Probably the "glory and virtue" just mentioned, though it is possible to take it with \panta ta pros\, etc., or with \hmin\ (unto us, meaning "through whom"). {He hath granted} (\dedrtai\). Perfect middle indicative of \dre\, for which see verse 3|. {His precious and exceeding great promises} (\ta timia kai megista epaggelmata\). \Epaggelma\ is an old word (from \epaggell\) in place of the common \epaggelia\, in N.T. only here and strkjv@3:13|. \Timios\ (precious, from \tim\, value), three times by Peter (1Peter:1:7| of faith; strkjv@1:19| of the blood of Christ; strkjv@2Peter:1:4| of Christ's promises). \Megista\ is the elative superlative used along with a positive adjective (\timia\). {That ye may become} (\hina gensthe\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\. {Through these} (\dia toutn\). The promises. {Partakers} (\koinnoi\). Partners, sharers in, for which word see strkjv@1Peter:5:1|. {Of the divine nature} (\theias phuses\). This phrase, like \to theion\ in strkjv@Acts:17:29|, "belongs rather to Hellenism than to the Bible" (Bigg). It is a Stoic phrase, but not with the Stoic meaning. Peter is referring to the new birth as strkjv@1Peter:1:23| (\anagegennmenoi\). The same phrase occurs in an inscription possibly under the influence of Mithraism (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). {Having escaped} (\apophugontes\). Second aorist active participle of \apopheug\, old compound verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@2:18-20|, with the ablative here (\phthors\, old word from \phtheir\, moral decay as in strkjv@2:12|) and the accusative there. {By lust} (\en epithumii\). Caused by, consisting in, lust. "Man becomes either regenerate or degenerate" (Strachan).
rwp@2Peter:1:9 @{He that lacketh these things} (\hi m parestin tauta\). "To whom (dative case of possession) these things are not (\m\ because a general or indefinite relative clause)." {Seeing only what is near} (\mupazn\). Present active participle of \mupaz\, a rare verb from \mups\ (in Aristotle for a near-sighted man) and that from \mue tous pas\ (to close the eyes in order to see, not to keep from seeing). The only other instance of \mupaz\ is given by Suicer from Ps. Dion. Eccl. Hier. ii. 3 (\mupasousi kai apostrephomeni\) used of a soul on which the light shines (blinking and turning away). Thus understood the word here limits \tuphlos\ as a short-sighted man screwing up his eyes because of the light. {Having forgotten} (\lthn labn\). "Having received forgetfulness." Second aorist active participle of \lamban\ and accusative \lthn\, old word, from \lthomai\, to forget, here only in N.T. See strkjv@2Timothy:1:5| for a like phrase \hupomnsin labn\ (having received remembrance). {The cleansing} (\tou katharismou\). See strkjv@Hebrews:1:3| for this word for the expiatory sacrifice of Christ for our sins as in strkjv@1Peter:1:18; strkjv@2:24; strkjv@3:18|. In strkjv@1Peter:3:21| Peter denied actual cleansing of sin by baptism (only symbolic). If there is a reference to baptism here, which is doubtful, it can only be in a symbolic sense. {Old} (\palai\). Of the language as in strkjv@Hebrews:1:1|.
rwp@2Peter:2:4 @{For if God spared not} (\ei gar ho theos ouk epheisato\). First instance (\gar\) of certain doom, that of the fallen angels. Condition of the first class precisely like that in strkjv@Romans:11:21| save that here the normal apodosis (\humn ou pheisetai\) is not expressed as there, but is simply implied in verse 9| by \oiden kurios ruesthai\ (the Lord knows how to deliver) after the parenthesis in verse 8|. {Angels when they sinned} (\aggeln hamartsantn\). Genitive case after \epheisato\ (first aorist middle indicative of \pheidomai\) and anarthrous (so more emphatic, even angels), first aorist active participle of \hamartan\, "having sinned." {Cast them down to hell} (\tartarsas\). First aorist active participle of \tartaro\, late word (from \tartaros\, old word in Homer, Pindar, LXX strkjv@Job:40:15; strkjv@41:23|, Philo, inscriptions, the dark and doleful abode of the wicked dead like the Gehenna of the Jews), found here alone save in a scholion on Homer. \Tartaros\ occurs in Enoch strkjv@20:2 as the place of punishment of the fallen angels, while Gehenna is for apostate Jews. {Committed} (\paredken\). First aorist active indicative of \paradidmi\, the very form solemnly used by Paul in strkjv@Romans:1:21,26,28|. {To pits of darkness} (\seirois zophou\). \Zophos\ (kin to \gnophos, nephos\) is an old word, blackness, gloom of the nether world in Homer, in N.T. only here, verse 17; strkjv@Jude:1:13; strkjv@Hebrews:12:18|. The MSS. vary between \seirais\ (\seira\, chain or rope) and \seirois\ (\seiros\, old word for pit, underground granary). \Seirois\ is right (Aleph A B C), dative case of destination. {To be reserved unto judgment} (\eis krisin troumenous\). Present (linear action) passive participle of \tre\. "Kept for judgment." Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:4|. Aleph A have \kolazomenous trein\ as in verse 9|. Note \krisis\ (act of judgment).
rwp@Acts:8:24 @{Pray ye for me} (\Dethte humeis huper emou\). Emphasis on \humeis\ (you). First aorist passive imperative. Simon is thoroughly frightened by Peter's words, but shows no sign of personal repentance or change of heart. He wants to escape the penalty for his sin and hopes that Peter can avert it. Peter had clearly diagnosed his case. He was an unconverted man in spite of his profession of faith and baptism. There is no evidence that he ever changed his life at all. {Which} (\hn\). Genitive by attraction of the accusative relative \ha\ to case of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\ (of those things), a common Greek idiom.
rwp@Acts:8:25 @{They therefore} (\hoi men oun\). Demonstrative \hoi\ with \men\ (no following \de\) and the inferential \oun\ (therefore) as often in Acts (1:6|, etc.). {Returned} (\hupestrephon\). Imperfect active picturing the joyful journey of preaching (\euggelizonto\, imperfect middle) to the Samaritan villages. Peter and John now carried on the work of Philip to the Samaritans. This issue was closed.
rwp@Acts:13:12 @{Believed} (\episteusen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative. Renan considers it impossible that a Roman proconsul could be converted by a miracle. But it was the teaching about the Lord (\tou kuriou\, objective genitive) by which he was astonished (\ekplssomenos\, present passive participle of \ekplss\, see on ¯Matthew:7:28|) or struck out as well as by the miracle. The blindness came "immediately" (\paraehrma\) upon the judgment pronounced by Paul. It is possible that Sergius Paulus was converted to Christ without openly identifying himself with the Christians as his baptism is not mentioned as in the case of Cornelius. But, even if he was baptized, he need not have been deposed from his proconsulship as Furneaux and Rackham argue because his office called for "official patronage of idolatrous worship." But that could have been merely perfunctory as it probably was already. He had been a disciple of the Jewish magician, Elymas Barjesus, without losing his position. Imperial persecution against Christianity had not yet begun. Furneaux even suggests that the conversion of a proconsul to Christianity at this stage would have called for mention by the Roman and Greek historians. There is the name Sergia Paullina in a Christian cemetery in Rome which shows that one of his family was a Christian later. One will believe what he wills about Sergius Paulus, but I do not see that Luke leaves him in the category of Simon Magus who "believed" (8:13|) for revenue only.
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:13:15 @{After the reading of the law and the prophets} (\meta tn anagnsin tou nomou kai tn prophtn\). The law was first read in the synagogues till B.C. 163 when Antiochus Epiphones prohibited it. Then the reading of the prophets was substituted for it. The Maccabees restored both. There was a reading from the law and one from the prophets in Hebrew which was interpreted into the Aramaic or the Greek _Koin_ for the people. The reading was followed by the sermon as when Jesus was invited to read and to preach in Nazareth (Luke:4:16f.|). For the service in the synagogue see Schuerer, _History of the Jewish People_, Div. II, Vol. II, pp. 79ff. It was the duty of the rulers of the synagogue (\archisunaggoi\) to select the readers and the speakers for the service (Mark:5:22,35-38; strkjv@Luke:8:49; strkjv@13:14; strkjv@Acts:13:15; strkjv@18:8,17|). Any rabbi or distinguished stranger could be called on to speak. {If ye have any word of exhortation for the people} (\ei tis estin en humin logos paraklses pros ton laon\). Literally, if there is among you any word of exhortation for the people. It is a condition of the first class and assumed to be true, a polite invitation. On "exhortation" (\paraklsis\) see strkjv@9:31|. It may be a technical phrase used in the synagogue (Hebrews:13:22; strkjv@1Timothy:4:13|).
rwp@Acts:17:26 @{And he made of one} (\epoisen te ex henos\). The word \haimatos\ (blood) is absent from Aleph A B and is a later explanatory addition. What Paul affirms is the unity of the human race with a common origin and with God as the Creator. This view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan (the Jews were \laos\, the Gentiles \ethn\). The cosmopolitanism of Paul here rises above Jew and Greek and claims the one God as the Creator of the one race of men. The Athenians themselves claimed to be \antochthonous\ (indigenous) and a special creation. Zeno and Seneca did teach a kind of cosmopolitanism (really pantheism) far different from the personal God of Paul. It was Rome, not Greece, that carried out the moral ideas of Zeno. Man is part of the universe (verse 24|) and God created (\epoisen\) man as he created (\poisas\) the all. {For to dwell} (\katoikein\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose, so as to dwell. {Having determined} (\horisas\). First aorist active participle of \horiz\, old verb to make a horizon as already in strkjv@19:42| which see. Paul here touches God's Providence. God has revealed himself in history as in creation. His hand appears in the history of all men as well as in that of the Chosen People of Israel. {Appointed seasons} (\prostetagmenous kairous\). Not the weather as in strkjv@14:17|, but "the times of the Gentiles" (\kairoi ethnn\) of which Jesus spoke (Luke:21:24|). The perfect passive participle of \prostass\, old verb to enjoin, emphasizes God's control of human history without any denial of human free agency as was involved in the Stoic Fate (\Heirmarmen\). {Bounds} (\horothesias\). Limits? Same idea in strkjv@Job:12:23|. Nations rise and fall, but it is not blind chance or hard fate. Thus there is an interplay between God's will and man's activities, difficult as it is for us to see with our shortened vision.
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:20:30 @{From among your own selves} (\ex humn autn\). In sheep's clothing just as Jesus had foretold. The outcome fully justified Paul's apprehensions as we see in Colossians, Ephesians, I and II Timothy, Revelation. False philosophy, immorality, asceticism will lead some astray (Colossians:2:8,18; strkjv@Ephesians:4:14; strkjv@5:6|). John will picture "antichrists" who went out from us because they were not of us (1John:2:18f.|). There is a false optimism that is complacently blind as well as a despondent pessimism that gives up the fight. {Perverse things} (\diestrammena\). Perfect passive participle of \diastreph\, old verb to turn aside, twist, distort as in strkjv@Acts:13:8,10|. {To draw away} (\tou apospin\). Articular genitive present active participle of purpose from \apospa\, old verb used to draw the sword (Matthew:26:51|), to separate (Luke:22:41; strkjv@Acts:21:1|). The pity of it is that such leaders of dissension can always gain a certain following. Paul's long residence in Ephesus enabled him to judge clearly of conditions there.
rwp@Acts:20:34 @{Ye yourselves} (\autoi\). Intensive pronoun. Certainly they knew that the church in Ephesus had not supported Paul while there. {These hands} (\hai cheires hautai\). Paul was not above manual labour. He pointed to his hands with pride as proof that he toiled at his trade of tent-making as at Thessalonica and Corinth for his own needs (\chreiais\) and for those with him (probably Aquila and Priscilla) with whom he lived and probably Timothy because of his often infirmities (1Timothy:5:23|). {Ministered} (\hupretsan\). First aorist active of \huprete\, to act as under rower, old verb, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:13:36; strkjv@20:34; strkjv@24:23|. While in Ephesus Paul wrote to Corinth: "We toil, working with our own hands" (1Corinthians:4:12|). "As he held them up, they saw a tongue of truth in every seam that marked them" (Furneaux).
rwp@Acts:20:37 @{They all wept sore} (\hikanos klauthmos egeneto pantn\). Literally, There came considerable weeping of all (on the part of all, genitive case). {Kissed him} (\katephiloun auton\). Imperfect active of \kataphile\, old verb, intensive with \kata\ and repetition shown also by the tense: They kept on kissing or kissed repeatedly, probably one after the other falling on his neck. Cf. also strkjv@Matthew:26:49|.
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:21:3 @{When we had come in sight of Cyprus} (\anaphanantes tn Kupron\). First aorist active participle of \anaphain\ (Doric form \-phanntes\ rather than the Attic \-phnantes\), old verb to make appear, bring to light, to manifest. Having made Cyprus visible or rise up out of the sea. Nautical terms. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:11| which see. {On the left hand} (\eunumon\). Compound feminine adjective like masculine. They sailed south of Cyprus. {We sailed} (\epleomen\). Imperfect active of common verb \ple\, kept on sailing till we came to Syria. {Landed at Tyre} (\katlthomen eis Turon\). Came down to Tyre. Then a free city of Syria in honour of its former greatness (cf. the long siege by Alexander the Great). {There} (\ekeise\). Thither, literally. Only one other instance in N.T., strkjv@22:5| which may be pertinent = \ekei\ (there). {Was to unlade} (\n apophortizomenon\). Periphrastic imperfect middle of \apophortiz\, late verb from \apo\ and \phortos\, load, but here only in the N.T. Literally, "For thither the boat was unloading her cargo," a sort of "customary" or "progressive" imperfect (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 884). {Burden} (\gomon\). Cargo, old word, from \gem\, to be full. Only here and strkjv@Revelation:18:11f.| in N.T. Probably a grain or fruit ship. It took seven days here to unload and reload.
rwp@Acts:21:4 @{Having found} (\aneurontes\). Second aorist active participle of \aneurisk\, to seek for, to find by searching (\ana\). There was a church here, but it was a large city and the number of members may not have been large. Probably some of those that fled from Jerusalem who came to Phoenicia (Acts:11:19|) started the work here. Paul went also through Phoenicia on the way to the Jerusalem Conference (15:3|). As at Troas and Miletus, so here Paul's indefatigible energy shows itself with characteristic zeal. {Through the Spirit} (\dia tou pneumatos\). The Holy Spirit undoubtedly who had already told Paul that bonds and afflictions awaited him in Jerusalem (20:23|). {That he should not set foot in Jerusalem} (\m epibainein eis Ierosoluma\). Indirect command with \m\ and the present active infinitive, not to keep on going to Jerusalem (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1046). In spite of this warning Paul felt it his duty as before (20:22|) to go on. Evidently Paul interpreted the action of the Holy Spirit as information and warning although the disciples at Tyre gave it the form of a prohibition. Duty called louder than warning to Paul even if both were the calls of God.
rwp@Acts:21:7 @{Had finished} (\dianusantes\). First aorist active participle of \dianu\, old verb to accomplish (\anu\) thoroughly (\dia\), only here in the N.T. {From Tyre} (\apo Turou\). Page takes (Hackett also) with \katntsamen\ (we arrived) rather than with "\ton ploun\" (the voyage) and with good reason: "And we, having (thereby) finished the voyage, arrived from Tyre at Ptolemais." Ptolemais is the modern Acre, called Accho in strkjv@Judges:1:31|. The harbour is the best on the coast of Palestine and is surrounded by mountains. It is about thirty miles south of Tyre. It was never taken by Israel and was considered a Philistine town and the Greeks counted it a Phoenician city. It was the key to the road down the coast between Syria and Egypt and had successively the rule of the Ptolemies, Syrians, Romans. {Saluted} (\aspasamenoi\). Here greeting as in strkjv@21:19| rather than farewell as in strkjv@20:1|. The stay was short, one day (\hmeran mian\, accusative), but "the brethren" Paul and his party found easily. Possibly the scattered brethren (Acts:11:19|) founded the church here or Philip may have done it.
rwp@Acts:21:9 @{Virgins which did prophesy} (\parthenoi prophteusai\). Not necessarily an "order" of virgins, but Philip had the honour of having in his home four virgin daughters with the gift of prophecy which was not necessarily predicting events, though that was done as by Agabus here. It was more than ordinary preaching (cf. strkjv@19:6|) and was put by Paul above the other gifts like tongues (1Corinthians:14:1-33|). The prophecy of Joel (2:28f.|) about their sons and daughters prophesying is quoted by Peter and applied to the events on the day of Pentecost (Acts:2:17|). Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:5| gives directions about praying and prophesying by the women (apparently in public worship) with the head uncovered and sharply requires the head covering, though not forbidding the praying and prophesying. With this must be compared his demand for silence by the women in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:34-40; strkjv@1Timothy:2:8-15| which it is not easy to reconcile. One wonders if there was not something known to Paul about special conditions in Corinth and Ephesus that he has not told. There was also Anna the prophetess in the temple (Luke:2:36|) besides the inspired hymns of Elizabeth (Luke:1:42-45|) and of Mary (Luke:1:46-55|). At any rate there was no order of women prophets or official ministers. There were Old Testament prophetesses like Miriam, Deborah, Huldah. Today in our Sunday schools the women do most of the actual teaching. The whole problem is difficult and calls for restraint and reverence. One thing is certain and that is that Luke appreciated the services of women for Christ as is shown often in his writings (Luke:8:1-3|, for instance) before this incident.
rwp@Acts:21:11 @{Coming} (\elthn\, second aorist active participle of \erchomai\), taking (\aras\, first aorist active participle of \air\, to take up), {binding} (\dsas\, first aorist active participle of \de\, to bind). Vivid use of three successive participles describing the dramatic action of Agabus. {Paul's girdle} (\tn znn tou Paulou\). Old word from \znnumi\, to gird. See on ¯12:8|. {His own feet and hands} (\heautou tous podas kai tas cheiras\). Basis for the interpretation. Old Testament prophets often employed symbolic deeds (1Kings:22:11; strkjv@James:2:2; strkjv@Jeremiah:13:1-7; strkjv@Ezekiel:4:1-6|). Jesus interpreted the symbolism of Peter's girding himself (John:21:18|). {So} (\houts\). As Agabus had bound himself. Agabus was just from Jerusalem and probably knew the feeling there against Paul. At any rate the Holy Spirit revealed it to him as he claims. {Shall deliver} (\paradsousin\). Like the words of Jesus about himself (Matthew:20:19|). He was "delivered" into the hands of the Gentiles and it took five years to get out of those hands.
rwp@Acts:21:14 @{When he would not be persuaded} (\m peithomenou autou\). Genitive absolute of the present passive participle of \peith\. Literally, "he not being persuaded." That was all. Paul's will (\kardia\) was not broken, not even bent. {We ceased} (\hsuchasamen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \hsuchaz\, old verb to be quiet, silent. {The will of the Lord be done} (\tou kuriou to thelma ginesth\). Present middle imperative of \ginomai\. There is a quaint naivete in this confession by the friends of Paul. Since Paul would not let them have their way, they were willing for the Lord to have his way, acquiescence after failure to have theirs.
rwp@Acts:21:16 @{Certain of the disciples} (\tn mathtn\). The genitive here occurs with \tines\ understood as often in the Greek idiom, the partitive genitive used as nominative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 502). {Bringing} (\agontes\). Nominative plural participle agreeing with \tines\ understood, not with case of \mathtn\. {One Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should lodge} (\par hi xenisthmen Mnasni tini Kuprii archaii mathti\). A thoroughly idiomatic Greek idiom, incorporation and attraction of the antecedent into the relative clause (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 718). \Mnasni\ is really the object of \agontes\ or the accusative with \para\ or \pros\ understood and should be accusative, but it is placed in the clause after the relative and in the same locative case with the relative \hi\ (due to \par'\, beside, with). Then the rest agrees in case with \Mnasni\. He was originally from Cyprus, but now in Caesarea. The Codex Bezae adds \eis tina kmn\ (to a certain village) and makes it mean that they were to lodge with Mnason at his home there about halfway to Jerusalem. This may be true. The use of the subjunctive \xenisthmen\ (first aorist passive of \xeniz\, to entertain strangers as in strkjv@Acts:10:6,23,32| already) may be volitive of purpose with the relative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 955, 989). The use of \archaii\ for "early" may refer to the fact that he was one of the original disciples at Pentecost as Peter in strkjv@15:7| uses \hmern archain\ (early days) to refer to his experience at Ceasarea in strkjv@Acts:10|. "As the number of the first disciples lessened, the next generation accorded a sort of honour to the survivors" (Furneaux).
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:21:23 @{Do therefore this} (\touto oun poison\). The elders had thought out a plan of procedure by which Paul could set the whole matter straight. {We have} (\eisin hmin\). "There are to us" (dative of possession as in strkjv@18:10|). Apparently members of the Jerusalem church. {Which have a vow on them} (\euchn echontes aph'\-- or \eph' heautn\). Apparently a temporary Nazarite vow like that in strkjv@Numbers:6:1-21| and its completion was marked by several offerings in the temple, the shaving of the head (Numbers:6:13-15|). Either Paul or Aquila had such a vow on leaving Cenchreae (Acts:18:18|). "It was considered a work of piety to relieve needy Jews from the expenses connected with this vow, as Paul does here" (Page). The reading \aph' heautn\ would mean that they had taken the vow voluntarily or of themselves (Luke:12:57; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:5|), while \eph' heautn\ means that the vow lies on them still.
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:21:28 @{Help} (\botheite\). Present active imperative of \bothe\, to run (\the\) at a cry (\bo\), as if an outrage had been committed like murder or assault. {All men everywhere} (\panta pantachi\). Alliterative. \Pantachi\ is a variation in MSS., often \pantachou\, and here only in the N.T. The charges against Paul remind one of those against Stephen (Acts:6:13|) in which Paul had participated according to his confession (22:20|). Like the charges against Stephen and Jesus before him truth and falsehood are mixed. Paul had said that being a Jew would not save a man. He had taught the law of Moses was not binding on Gentiles. He did hold, like Jesus and Stephen, that the temple was not the only place to worship God. But Paul gloried himself in being a Jew, considered the Mosaic law righteous for Jews, and was honouring the temple at this very moment. {And moreover also he brought Greeks also into the temple} (\eti te kai Hellnas eisgagen eis to hieron\). Note the three particles (\eti te kai\), {and} (\te\) {still more} (\eti\) {also} or {even} (\kai\). Worse than his teaching (\didaskn\) is his dreadful deed: he actually brought (\eisgagen\, second aorist active indicative of \eisag\). This he had a right to do if they only went into the court of the Gentiles. But these Jews mean to imply that Paul had brought Greeks beyond this court into the court of Israel. An inscription was found by Clermont-Ganneau in Greek built into the walls of a mosque on the Via Dolorosa that was on the wall dividing the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles. Death was the penalty to any Gentile who crossed over into the Court of Israel (_The Athenaeum_, July, 1871). {Hath defiled this holy place} (\kekoinken ton hagion topon touton\). Present perfect active of \koino\, to make common (see on ¯10:14|). Note vivid change of tense, the defilement lasts (state of completion). All this is the substance of the call of these shrewd conspirators from Ephesus, Jews (not Jewish Christians, not even Judaizers) who hated him for his work there and who probably "spoke evil of the Way before the multitude" there so that Paul had to separate the disciples from the synagogue and go to the School of Tyrannus (19:9f.|). These enemies of Paul had now raised the cry of "fire" and vanish from the scene completely (24:19|). This charge was absolutely false as we shall see, made out of inferences of hate and suspicion.
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:21:30 @{All the city was shaken} (\ekinth h polis hol\). First aorist passive of \kine\, common verb for violent motion and emotion. See also strkjv@24:5| where the word is used by Tertullus of Paul as the stirrer up of riots! {The people ran together} (\egeneto sundrom tou laou\). Rather, There came a running together (\sun-drom\ from \sun-trech\) of the people. The cry spread like wildfire over the city and there was a pell-mell scramble or rush to get to the place of the disturbance. {They laid hold on Paul} (\epilabomenoi tou Paulou\). Second aorist middle participle of \epilambanomai\ with the genitive (cf. \epebalan\ in verse 27|). {Dragged} (\heilkon\). Imperfect active of \helk\ (and also \helku\), old verb to drag or draw. Imperfect tense vividly pictures the act as going on. They were saving the temple by dragging Paul outside. Curiously enough both \epilabomenoi\ and \heilkusan\ occur in strkjv@16:19| about the arrest of Paul and Silas in Philippi. {Straightway the doors were shut} (\euthes ekleisthsan hai thurai\). With a bang and at once. First aorist (effective) passive of \klei\. The doors between the inner court and the court of the Gentiles. But this was only the beginning, the preparation for the real work of the mob. They did not wish to defile the holy place with blood. The doors were shut by the Levites.
rwp@Acts:21:37 @{May I say something unto thee?} (\Ei exestin moi eipein ti pros se?\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. The calm self-control of Paul in the presence of this mob is amazing. His courteous request to Lysias was in Greek to the chiliarch's amazement. {Dost thou know Greek?} (\Hellnisti ginskeis?\). Old Greek adverb in \-i\ from \Hellniz\, meaning "in Greek." "Do you know it in Greek?" In the N.T. only here and strkjv@John:19:20|. {Art thou not then the Egyptian?} (\Ouk ara su ei ho Aiguptios?\). Expects the answer _Yes_ and \ara\ argues the matter (therefore). The well-known (\ho\) Egyptian who had given the Romans so much trouble. {Stirred up to sedition} (\anastatsas\). First aorist active participle of \anastato\, a late verb from \anastatos\, outcast, and so to unsettle, to stir up, to excite, once known only in LXX and strkjv@Acts:17:6| (which see); strkjv@21:38; strkjv@Galatians:5:12|, but now found in several papyri examples with precisely this sense to upset. {Of the Assassins} (\tn sikarin\). Latin word _sicarius_, one who carried a short sword \sica\ under his cloak, a cutthroat. Josephus uses this very word for bands of robbers under this Egyptian (_War_ II. 17,6 and 13,5; _Ant_. XX. 8,10). Josephus says that there were 30,000 who gathered on the Mount of Olives to see the walls of Jerusalem fall down and not merely 4,000 as Lysias does here. But Lysias may refer to the group that were armed thus (banditti) the core of the mob of 30,000. Lysias at once saw by Paul's knowledge of Greek that he was not the famous Egyptian who led the Assassins and escaped himself when Felix attacked and slew the most of them.
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:22:5 @{Doth bear me witness} (\marturei moi\). Present active indicative as if still living. Caiaphas was no longer high priest now, for Ananias is at this time (23:2|), though he may be still alive. {All the estate of the elders} (\pan to presbuterion\). All the eldership or the Sanhedrin (4:5|) of which Paul was probably then a member (26:10|). Possibly some of those present were members of the Sanhedrin then (some 20 odd years ago). {From whom} (\par' hn\). The high priest and the Sanhedrin. {Letters unto the brethren} (\epistalas pros tous adelphous\). Paul still can tactfully call the Jews his "brothers" as he did in strkjv@Romans:9:3|. There is no bitterness in his heart. {Journeyed} (\eporeuomn\). Imperfect middle indicative of \poreuomai\, and a vivid reality to Paul still as he was going on towards Damascus. {To bring also} (\axn kai\). Future active participle of \ag\, to express purpose, one of the few N.T. examples of this classic idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1118). {Them which were there} (\tous ekeise ontas\). _Constructio praegnans_. The usual word would be \ekei\ (there), not \ekeise\ (thither). Possibly the Christians who had fled to Damascus, and so were there (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 548). {In bonds} (\dedemenous\). Perfect passive participle of \de\, predicate position, "bound." {For to be punished} (\hina timrthsin\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \timre\, old verb to avenge, to take vengeance on. In the N.T. only here, and strkjv@26:11|. Pure final clause with \hina\. He carried his persecution outside of Palestine just as later he carried the gospel over the Roman empire.
rwp@Acts:22:28 @{With a great sum} (\pollou kephalaiou\). The use of \kephalaiou\ (from \kephal\, head) for sums of money (principal as distinct from interest) is old and frequent in the papyri. Our word capital is from \caput\ (head). The genitive is used here according to rule for price. "The sale of the Roman citizenship was resorted to by the emperors as a means of filling the exchequer, much as James I. made baronets" (Page). Dio Cassius (LX., 17) tells about Messalina the wife of Claudius selling Roman citizenship. Lysias was probably a Greek and so had to buy his citizenship. {But I am a Roman born} (\Eg de kai gegennmai\). Perfect passive indicative of \genna\. The word "Roman" not in the Greek. Literally, "But I have been even born one," (i.e. born a Roman citizen). There is calm and simple dignity in this reply and pardonable pride. Being a citizen of Tarsus (21:39|) did not make Paul a Roman citizen. Tarsus was an _urbs libera_, not a _colonia_ like Philippi. Some one of his ancestors (father, grandfather) obtained it perhaps as a reward for distinguished service. Paul's family was of good social position. "He was educated by the greatest of the Rabbis; he was at an early age entrusted by the Jewish authorities with an important commission; his nephew could gain ready access to the Roman tribune; he was treated as a person of consequence by Felix, Festus, Agrippa, and Julius" (Furneaux).
rwp@Acts:23:1 @{Looking steadfastly} (\atenisas\). See on this word strkjv@1:10; strkjv@3:12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@7:55; strkjv@13:9|. Paul may have had weak eyes, but probably the earnest gaze was to see if he recognized any faces that were in the body that tried Stephen and to which he apparently once belonged. {I have lived before God} (\pepoliteumai ti thei\). Perfect middle indicative of \politeu\, old verb to manage affairs of city (\polis\) or state, to be a citizen, behave as a citizen. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|. The idea of citizenship was Greek and Roman, not Jewish. "He had lived as God's citizen, as a member of God's commonwealth" (Rackham). God (\thei\) is the dative of personal interest. As God looked at it and in his relation to God. {In all good conscience unto this day} (\pasi suneidsei agathi achri tauts ts hmeras\). This claim seems to lack tact, but for brevity's sake Paul sums up a whole speech in it. He may have said much more than Luke here reports along the line of his speech the day before, but Paul did not make this claim without consideration. It appears to contradict his confession as the chief of sinners (1Timothy:1:13-16|). But that depends on one's interpretation of "good conscience." The word \suneidsis\ is literally "joint-knowledge" in Greek, Latin (_conscientia_) and English "conscience" from the Latin. It is a late word from \sunoida\, to know together, common in O.T., Apocrypha, Philo, Plutarch, New Testament, Stoics, ecclesiastical writers. In itself the word simply means consciousness of one's own thoughts (Hebrews:10:2|), or of one's own self, then consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong (Romans:2:15|) with approval or disapproval. But the conscience is not an infallible guide and acts according to the light that it has (1Corinthians:8:7,10; strkjv@1Peter:2:19|). The conscience can be contaminated (Hebrews:10:22|, evil \ponrs\). All this and more must be borne in mind in trying to understand Paul's description of his motives as a persecutor. Alleviation of his guilt comes thereby, but not removal of guilt as he himself felt (1Timothy:1:13-16|). He means to say to the Sanhedrin that he persecuted Christians as a conscientious (though mistaken) Jew (Pharisee) just as he followed his conscience in turning from Judaism to Christianity. It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no "apologies" (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. He had the consolation of a good conscience (1Peter:3:16|). The word does not occur in the Gospels and chiefly in Paul's Epistles, but we see it at work in strkjv@John:8:9| (the interpolation strkjv@7:53-8:11|).
rwp@Acts:23:8 @{There is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit} (\m einai anastasin mte aggelon mte pneuma\). Infinitive with negative \m\ in indirect assertion. These points constitute the chief doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. {Both} (\amphotera\). Here used though three items of belief are mentioned as in strkjv@19:16| where the seven sons of Sceva are thus described. This idiom is common enough in papyri and Byzantine Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 745).
rwp@Acts:23:10 @{When there arose a great dissension} (\polls ts ginomens stases\). Present middle participle (genitive absolute). Literally, "dissension becoming much." {Lest Paul should be torn in pieces by them} (\m diaspasthi ho Paulos\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \diaspa\, to draw in two, to tear in pieces, old verb, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:5:4| of tearing chains in two. The subjunctive with \m\ is the common construction after a verb of fearing (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 995). {The soldiers} (\to strateuma\). The army, the band of soldiers and so in verse 27|. {To go down} (\kataban\). Second aorist active participle of \katabain\, having gone down. {Take him by force} (\harpasai\). To seize. The soldiers were to seize and save Paul from the midst of (\ek mesou\) the rabbis or preachers (in their rage to get at each other). Paul was more of a puzzle to Lysias now than ever.
rwp@Acts:23:21 @{Do not therefore yield unto them} (\Su oun m peisthis autois\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \peith\, common verb, here to be persuaded by, to listen to, to obey, to yield to. With negative and rightly. Do not yield to them (dative) at all. On the aorist subjunctive with \m\ in prohibitions against committing an act see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 851-4. {For there lie in wait} (\enedreuousin gar\). Present active indicative of \enedreu\, old verb from \enedra\ (verse 16|), in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:11:54| which see. {Till they have slain him} (\hes hou anelsin auton\). Same idiom as in verse 12| save that here we have \anelsin\ (second aorist active subjunctive) instead of \apokteinsin\ (another word for kill), "till they slay him." {Looking for the promise from thee} (\prosdechomenoi tn apo sou epaggelian\). This item is all that is needed to put the scheme through, the young man shrewdly adds.
rwp@Acts:23:25 @{And he wrote} (\grapsas\). First aorist active participle of \graph\, agreeing with the subject (Lysias) of \eipen\ (said) back in verse 23| (beginning). {After this form} (\echousan ton tupon touton\). Textus Receptus has \periechousan\. The use of \tupon\ (type or form) like _exemplum_ in Latin (Page who quotes Cicero _Ad Att_. IX. 6. 3) may give merely the purport or substantial contents of the letter. But there is no reason for thinking that it is not a genuine copy since the letter may have been read in open court before Felix, and Luke was probably with Paul. The Roman law required that a subordinate officer like Lysias in reporting a case to his superior should send a written statement of the case and it was termed _elogium_. A copy of the letter may have been given Paul after his appeal to Caesar. It was probably written in Latin. The letter is a "dexterous mixture of truth and falsehood" (Furneaux) with the stamp of genuineness. It puts things in a favourable light for Lysias and makes no mention of his order to scourge Paul.
rwp@Acts:23:27 @{Was seized} (\sullmphthenta\). First aorist passive participle of \sullamban\. {Rescued him having learned that he was a Roman} (\exeilamen mathn hoti Romaios estin\). Wendt, Zoeckler, and Furneaux try to defend this record of two facts by Lysias in the wrong order from being an actual lie as Bengel rightly says. Lysias did rescue Paul and he did learn that he was a Roman, but in this order. He did not first learn that he was a Roman and then rescue him as his letter states. The use of the aorist participle (\mathn\ from \manthan\) after the principal verb \exeilamen\ (second aorist middle of \exaire\, to take out to oneself, to rescue) can be either simultaneous action or antecedent. There is in Greek no such idiom as the aorist participle of subsequent action (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1112-14). Lysias simply reversed the order of the facts and omitted the order for scourging Paul to put himself in proper light with Felix his superior officer and actually poses as the protector of a fellow Roman citizen.
rwp@Acts:23:30 @{When it was shown to me that there would be a plot} (\mnutheiss moi epibouls esesthai\). Two constructions combined; genitive absolute (\mnutheiss epibouls\, first aorist passive participle of \mnu\) and future infinitive (\esesthai\ as if \epibouln\ accusative of general reference used) in indirect assertion after \mnu\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 877). {Charging his accusers also} (\paraggeilas kai tois katgorois\). First aorist active participle of \paraggell\ with which compare \mathn\ above (verse 27|), not subsequent action. Dative case in \katgorois\. {Before thee} (\epi sou\). Common idiom for "in the presence of" when before a judge (like Latin _apud_) as in strkjv@24:20,21; strkjv@25:26; strkjv@26:2|. What happened to the forty conspirators we have no way of knowing. Neither they nor the Jews from Asia are heard of more during the long five years of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea and Rome.
rwp@Acts:24:5 @{For we have found} (\heurontes gar\). Second aorist active participle of \heurisk\, but without a principal verb in the sentence. Probably we have here only a "summary of the charges against Paul" (Page). {A pestilent fellow} (\loimon\). An old word for pest, plague, pestilence, Paul the pest. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:11| (\loimoi kai limoi\, pestilences and famines) which see. Latin _pestis_. Think of the greatest preacher of the ages being branded a pest by a contemporary hired lawyer. {A mover of insurrections} (\kinounta staseis\). This was an offence against Roman law if it could be proven. "Plotted against at Damascus, plotted against at Jerusalem, expelled from Pisidian Antioch, stoned at Lystra, scourged and imprisoned at Philippi, accused of treason at Thessalonica, haled before the proconsul at Corinth, cause of a serious riot at Ephesus, and now finally of a riot at Jerusalem" (Furneaux). Specious proof could have been produced, but was not. Tertullus went on to other charges with which a Roman court had no concern (instance Gallio in Corinth). {Throughout the world} (\kata tn oikoumenn\). The Roman inhabited earth (\gn\) as in strkjv@17:6|. {A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes} (\prtostatn ts tn Nazrain haireses\). \Prtostats\ is an old word in common use from \prtos\ and \histmi\, a front-rank man, a chief, a champion. Here only in the N.T. This charge is certainly true. About "sect" (\hairesis\) see on ¯5:17|. \Nazraioi\ here only in the plural in the N.T., elsewhere of Jesus (Matthew:2:23; strkjv@26:71; strkjv@Luke:18:37; strkjv@John:18:5,7; strkjv@19:19; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@3:6; strkjv@4:10; strkjv@6:14; strkjv@22:8; strkjv@26:9|). The disciple is not above his Master. There was a sneer in the term as applied to Jesus and here to his followers.
rwp@Acts:24:15 @{That there shall be a resurrection} (\anastasin mellein esesthai\). Indirect assertion with infinitive and accusative of general reference (\anastasin\) after the word \elpida\ (hope). The future infinitive \esesthai\ after \mellein\ is also according to rule, \mell\ being followed by either present, aorist, or future infinitive (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 870, 877, 878). {Both of the just and the unjust} (\dikain te kai adikn\). Apparently at the same time as in strkjv@John:5:29| (cf. strkjv@Acts:17:31f.|). Gardner thinks that Luke here misrepresents Paul who held to no resurrection save for those "in Christ," a mistaken interpretation of Paul in my opinion. The Talmud teaches the resurrection of Israelites only, but Paul was more than a Pharisee.
rwp@Acts:24:18 @{Amidst which} (\en hail\). That is, "in which offerings" (in presenting which offerings, strkjv@21:27|). {They found me} (my accusers here present, \heuron me\), {purified in the temple} (\hgnismenon en ti hieri\). Perfect passive participle of \hagniz\ (same verb in strkjv@21:24,26|) state of completion of the Jewish sacrifices which had gone on for seven days (21:27|), the very opposite of the charges made. {With no crowd} (\ou meta ochlou\). "Not with a crowd" till the Asiatic Jews gathered one (21:27|). {Nor yet with tumult} (\oude meta thorubou\). They made the tumult (27:30|), not Paul. Till they made the stir, all was quiet.
rwp@Acts:24:19 @{But certain Jews from Asia} (\tines de apo ts Alias Ioudaioi\). No verb appears in the Greek for these words. Perhaps he meant to say that "certain Jews from Asia charged me with doing these things." Instead of saying that, Paul stops to explain that they are not here, a thoroughly Pauline anacoluthon (2Corinthians:7:5|) as in strkjv@26:9|. "The passage as it stands is instinct with life, and seems to exhibit the abruptness so characteristic of the Pauline Epistles" (Page). {Who ought to have been here before thee} (\hous edei epi sou pareinai\). This use of \epi\ with genitive of the person is common. The imperfect indicative with verbs of necessity and obligation to express failure to live up to it is common in Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 919-21). "The accusers who were present had not witnessed the alleged offence: those who could have given evidence at first-hand were not present" (Furneaux). There was no case in a Roman court. These Asiatic Jews are never heard of after the riot, though they almost succeeded in killing Paul then. {If they had aught against me} (\ei ti echoien pros eme\). A condition of the fourth class or undetermined with less likelihood of being determined (\ei\ with the optative, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). This is a "mixed condition" (_op.cit._, p. 1022) with a conclusion of the second class.
rwp@Acts:24:22 @{Having more exact knowledge} (\akribesteron eids\). "Knowing" (second perfect active participle of \oida\) "more accurately" (comparative of adverb \akribs\). More accurately than what? Than the Sanhedrin supposed he had "concerning the Way" (\ta peri ts hodou\, the things concerning the Way, common in Acts for Christianity). How Felix had gained this knowledge of Christianity is not stated. Philip the Evangelist lived here in Caesarea and there was a church also. Drusilla was a Jewess and may have told him something. Besides, it is wholly possible that Felix knew of the decision of Gallio in Corinth that Christianity was a _religio licita_ as a form of Judaism. As a Roman official he knew perfectly well that the Sanhedrin with the help of Tertullus had failed utterly to make out a case against Paul. He could have released Paul and probably would have done so but for fear of offending the Jews whose ruler he was and the hope that Paul (note "alms" in verse 17|) might offer him bribes for his liberty. {Deferred them} (\anebaleto autous\). Second aorist middle indicative of \anaball\, old verb (only here in N.T.) to throw or toss up, to put back or off, in middle to put off from one, to delay, to adjourn. Felix adjourned the case without a decision under a plausible pretext, that he required the presence of Lysias in person, which was not the case. Lysias had already said that Paul was innocent and was never summoned to Caesarea, so far as we know. Since Paul was a Roman citizen, Lysias could have thrown some light on the riot, if he had any. {Shall come down} (\katabi\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \katabain\. {I will determine your matter} (\diagnsomai ta kath' hums\). Future middle of \diaginsk\, old and common verb to know accurately or thoroughly (\dia\). In the N.T. only here (legal sense) and strkjv@23:15|. "The things according to you" (plural, the matters between Paul and the Sanhedrin).
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:25:2 @{The principal men} (\hoi prtoi\). The first men, the leading men of the city, besides the chief priests. In verse 15| we have "the chief priests and the elders." These chief men among the Jews would desire to pay their respects to the new Procurator on his first visit to Jerusalem. There was another high priest now, Ishmael in place of Ananias. {Informed him against Paul} (\enephanisan auti kata tou Paulou\). "This renewal of the charge after two years, on the very first opportunity, is a measure, not only of their unsleeping hatred, but of the importance which they attached to Paul's influence" (Furneaux). {Besought} (\parekaloun\). Imperfect active, kept on beseeching as a special favour to the Jews.
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:25:5 @{Them therefore which are of power among you} (\hoi oun en humin dunatoi\). "The mighty ones among you," "the men of power" (\dunatoi\) and authority, "the first men," the Sanhedrin, in other words. Note change here by Luke from indirect discourse in verse 4|, to direct in verse 5| (\phsin\, says he). {Go down with me} (\sunkatabantes\). Double compound (\sun, kata\) second aorist active participle of \sunkatabain\. It was a fair proposal. {If there is anything amiss in the man} (\ei ti estin en ti andri atopon\). Condition of the first class, assuming that there is (to be courteous to them), but not committing himself on the merits of the case. \Atopon\ is an old word, specially common in Plato, meaning "out of place." In N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:23:41| which see; strkjv@Acts:28:6; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:2|. Note present tense active voice of \katgoreitsan\ (imperative) of \katgore\, repeat their accusations.
rwp@Acts:25:9 @{Desiring to gain favour with the Jews} (\theln tois Ioudaiois charin katathesthai\). Precisely the expression used of Felix by Luke in strkjv@24:27| which see. Festus, like Felix, falls a victim to fear of the Jews. {Before me} (\ep' emou\). Same use of \epi\ with the genitive as in strkjv@23:30; strkjv@24:19,21|. Festus, seeing that it was unjust to condemn Paul and yet disadvantageous to absolve him (Blass), now makes the very proposal to Paul that the rulers had made to him in Jerusalem (verse 3|). He added the words "\ep' emou\" (before me) as if to insure Paul of justice. If Festus was unwilling to give Paul justice in Caesarea where his regular court held forth, what assurance was there that Festus would give it to him at Jerusalem in the atmosphere of intense hostility to Paul? Only two years ago the mob, the Sanhedrin, the forty conspirators had tried to take his life in Jerusalem. Festus had no more courage to do right than Felix, however plausible his language might sound. Festus also, while wanting Paul to think that he would in Jerusalem "be judged of these things before me," in reality probably intended to turn Paul over to the Sanhedrin in order to please the Jews, probably with Festus present also to see that Paul received justice (\me presente\). Festus possibly was surprised to find that the charges were chiefly against Jewish law, though one was against Caesar. It was not a mere change of venue that Paul sensed, but the utter unwillingness of Festus to do his duty by him and his willingness to connive at Jewish vengeance on Paul. Paul had faced the mob and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, two years of trickery at the hands of Felix in Caesarea, and now he is confronted by the bland chicanery of Festus. It is too much, the last straw.
rwp@Acts:25:11 @{If I am a wrong-doer} (\ei men oun adik\). Condition of the first class with \ei\ and the present active indicative of \adike\ (\a\ privative and \dik\): "If I am in the habit of doing injustice," assuming it to be true for the sake of argument. {And have committed anything worthy of death} (\kai axion thanatou pepracha\). Same condition with the difference in tense (\pepracha\, perfect active indicative) of a single case instead of a general habit. Assuming either or both Paul draws his conclusion. {I refuse not to die} (\ou paraitoumai to apothanein\). Old verb to ask alongside, to beg from, to deprecate, to refuse, to decline. See on ¯Luke:14:18f|. Josephus (_Life_, 29) has \thanein ou paraitoumai\. Here the articular second aorist active infinitive is in the accusative case the object of \paraitoumai\: "I do not beg off dying from myself." {But if none of these things is} (\ei de ouden estin\). \De\ here is contrasted with \men\ just before. No word for "true" in the Greek. \Estin\ ("is") in the Greek here means "exists." Same condition (first class, assumed as true). {Whereof these accuse me} (\hn houtoi katgorousin mou\). Genitive of relative \hon\ by attraction from \ha\ (accusative with \katgorousin\) to case of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\ ("of these things"). \Mou\ is genitive of person after \katgorousin\. {No man can give me up to them} (\oudeis me dunatai autois charisasthai\). "Can" legally. Paul is a Roman citizen and not even Festus can make a free gift (\charisasthai\) of Paul to the Sanhedrin. {I appeal unto Caesar} (\Kaisara epikaloumai\). Technical phrase like Latin _Caesarem appello_. Originally the Roman law allowed an appeal from the magistrate to the people (_provocatio ad populum_), but the emperor represented the people and so the appeal to Caesar was the right of every Roman citizen. Paul had crossed the Rubicon on this point and so took his case out of the hands of dilatory provincial justice (really injustice). Roman citizens could make this appeal in capital offences. There would be expense connected with it, but better that with some hope than delay and certain death in Jerusalem. Festus was no better than Felix in his vacillation and desire to curry favour with the Jews at Paul's expense. No doubt Paul's long desire to see Rome (19:21; strkjv@Romans:15:22-28|) and the promise of Jesus that he would see Rome (Acts:23:11|) played some part in Paul's decision. But he made it reluctantly for he says in Rome (Acts:28:19|): "I was constrained to appeal." But acquittal at the hands of Festus with the hope of going to Rome as a free man had vanished.
rwp@Acts:25:16 @{It is not the custom of the Romans} (\hoti ouk estin ethos Rmaiois\). If a direct quotation, \hoti\ is recitative as in Authorized Version. Canterbury Revision takes it as indirect discourse after \apekrithn\ (I answered), itself in a relative clause (\pros hous\) with the present tense (\estin\, is) preserved as is usual. There is a touch of disdain (Furneaux) in the tone of Festus. He may refer to a demand of the Jews before they asked that Paul be brought to Jerusalem (25:3|). At any rate there is a tone of scorn towards the Jews. {Before that the accused have} (\prin ho katgoroumenos echoi\). This use of the optative in this temporal clause with \prin \ instead of the subjunctive \an echi\ is in conformity with literary Greek and occurs only in Luke's writings in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 970). This sequence of modes is a mark of the literary style occasionally seen in Luke. It is interesting here to note the succession of dependent clauses in verses 14-16|. {The accusers face to face} (\kata prospon tous katgorous\). Same word \katgoros\ as in strkjv@23:30,35; strkjv@25:18|. This all sounds fair enough. {And have had opportunity to make his defence concerning the matter laid against him} (\topon te apologias laboi peri tou egklmatos\). Literally, "And should receive (\laboi\ optative for same reason as \echoi\ above, second aorist active of \lamban\) opportunity for defence (objective genitive) concerning the charge" (\egklmatos\ in N.T. only here and strkjv@23:19| which see).
rwp@Acts:25:20 @{Being perplexed} (\aporoumenos\). Present middle participle of the common verb \apore\ (\a\ privative and \poros\ way), to be in doubt which way to turn, already in strkjv@Mark:6:20| which see and strkjv@Luke:24:4|. The Textus Receptus has \eis\ after here, but critical text has only the accusative which this verb allows (Mark:6:20|) as in Thucydides and Plato. {How to inquire concerning these things} (\tn peri toutn ztsin\). Literally, "as to the inquiry concerning these things." This is not the reason given by Luke in verse 9| (wanting to curry favour with the Jews), but doubtless this motive also actuated Festus as both could be true. {Whether he would go to Jerusalem} (\ei bouloito poreuesthai eis Ierosoluma\). Optative in indirect question after \elegon\ (asked or said) imperfect active, though the present indicative could have been retained with change of person: "Dost thou wish, etc.," (\ei bouli\, etc.). See Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1031, 1044. This is the question put to Paul in verse 9| though \theleis\ is there used.
rwp@Acts:25:23 @{When Agrippa was come and Bernice} (\elthontos tou Agrippa kai ts Berniks\). Genitive absolute, the participle agreeing in number and gender (masculine singular, \elthontos\) with \Agrippa\, \Berniks\ being added as an afterthought. {With great pomp} (\meta polls phantasias\). \Phantasia\ is a _Koin_ word (Polybius, Diodorus, etc.) from the old verb \phantaz\ (Hebrews:12:21|) and it from \phain\, common verb to show, to make an appearance. This is the only N.T. example of \phantasia\, though the kindred common word \phantasma\ (appearance) occurs twice in the sense of apparition or spectre (Matthew:14:26; strkjv@Mark:6:49|). Herodotus (VII. 10) used the verb \phantaz\ for a showy parade. Festus decided to gratify the wish of Agrippa by making the "hearing" of Paul the prisoner (verse 22|) an occasion for paying a compliment to Agrippa (Rackham) by a public gathering of the notables in Caesarea. Festus just assumed that Paul would fall in with this plan for a grand entertainment though he did not have to do it. {Into the place of hearing} (\eis to akroatrion\). From \akroaomai\ (to be a hearer) and, like the Latin _auditorium_, in Roman law means the place set aside for hearing, and deciding cases. Here only in the N.T. Late word, several times in Plutarch and other _Koin_ writers. The hearing was "semi-official" (Page) as is seen in verse 26|. {With the chief captains} (\sun te chiliarchois\). \Chiliarchs\, each a leader of a thousand. There were five cohorts of soldiers stationed in Caesarea. {And the principal men of the city} (\kai andrasin tois kat' exochn\). The use of \kat' exochn\, like our French phrase _par excellence_, occurs here only in the N.T., and not in the ancient Greek, but it is found in inscriptions of the first century A.D. (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). \Exoch\ in medical writers is any protuberance or swelling. Cf. our phrase "outstanding men." {At the command of Festus} (\keleusantos tou Phstou\). Genitive absolute again, "Festus having commanded."
rwp@Acts:25:26 @{No certain thing} (\asphales ti--ou\). Nothing definite or reliable (\a\ privative, \sphall\, to trip). All the charges of the Sanhedrin slipped away or were tripped up by Paul. Festus confesses that he had nothing left and thereby convicts himself of gross insincerity in his proposal to Paul in verse 9| about going up to Jerusalem. By his own statement he should have set Paul free. The various details here bear the marks of the eyewitness. Luke was surely present and witnessed this grand spectacle with Paul as chief performer. {Unto my lord} (\ti kurii\). Augustus (Octavius) and Tiberius refused the title of \kurios\ (lord) as too much like _rex_ (king) and like master and slave, but the servility of the subjects gave it to the other emperors who accepted it (Nero among them). Antoninus Pius put it on his coins. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105) gives an ostracon dated Aug. 4, A.D. 63 with the words "in the year nine of Nero the lord" (\enatou Nernos tou kuriou\). Deissmann (_op. cit._, pp. 349ff.) runs a most interesting parallel "between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term \kurios\, lord" in ostraca, papyri, inscriptions. Beyond a doubt Paul has all this fully in mind when he says in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| that "no one is able to say \Kurios Isous\ except in the Holy Spirit" (cf. also strkjv@Phillipians:2:11|). The Christians claimed this word for Christ and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say " Lord Caesar" and insisted on saying "Lord Jesus" when it meant his certain death. {Before you} (\eph' humn\). The whole company. In no sense a new trial, but an examination in the presence of these prominent men to secure data and to furnish entertainment and pleasure to Agrippa (verse 22|). {Especially before thee} (\malista epi sou\). Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as verse 22| shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul's case. {After examination had} (\ts anakrises genomens\). Genitive absolute, "the examination having taken place." \Anakrisis\ from \anakrin\ (cf. strkjv@12:19; strkjv@24:8; strkjv@28:18|) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. {That I may have somewhat to write} (\hops sch ti graps\). Ingressive aorist subjunctive \sch\ (may get) with \hops\ (final particle like \hina\). \Ti graps\ in indirect question after \sch\ is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a "trial," but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament.
rwp@Acts:26:7 @{Our twelve tribes} (\to ddekaphulon hmn\). A word found only here in N.T. and in Christian and Jewish writings, though \ddekamnon\ (twelve month) is common in the papyri and \dekaphulos\ (ten tribes) in Herodotus. Paul's use of this word for the Jewish people, like strkjv@James:1:1| (\tais ddeka phulais\, the twelve tribes), shows that Paul had no knowledge of any "lost ten tribes." There is a certain national pride and sense of unity in spite of the dispersion (Page). {Earnestly} (\en ekteneii\). A late word from \ektein\, to stretch out, only here in N.T., but in papyri and inscriptions. Page refers to Simeon and Anna (Luke:2:25-28|) as instances of Jews looking for the coming of the Messiah. Note the accusative of \nukta kai hmeran\ as in strkjv@20:31|. {Hope to attain} (\elpizei katantsai\). This Messianic hope had been the red thread running through Jewish history. Today, alas, it is a sadly worn thread for Jews who refuse to see the Messiah in Jesus. {I am accused by Jews} (\egkaloumai hupo Ioudain\). The very word used in strkjv@23:28| (\enekaloun\) which see, and by Jews of all people in the world whose mainspring was this very "hope." It is a tremendously effective turn.
rwp@Acts:26:14 @{When we were all fallen} (\pantn katapesontn hmn\). Genitive absolute with second aorist active participle of \katapipt\. In the Hebrew language (\ti Ebraidi dialekti\). Natural addition here, for Paul is speaking in Greek, not Aramaic as in strkjv@22:2|. {It is hard for thee to kick against the goad} (\sklron soi pros kentra laktizein\). Genuine here, but not in chapters 9,22|. A common proverb as Aeschylus _Ag_. 1624: \Pros kentra m laktize\. "It is taken from an ox that being pricked with a goad kicks and receives a severer wound" (Page). Cf. the parables of Jesus (Matthew:13:35|). Blass observes that Paul's mention of this Greek and Latin proverb is an indication of his culture. Besides he mentions (not invents) it here rather than in chapter 22| because of the culture of this audience. \Kentron\ means either sting as of bees (II Macc. strkjv@14:19) and so of death (1Corinthians:15:55|) or an iron goad in the ploughman's hand as here (the only two N.T. examples). Note plural here (goads) and \laktizein\ is present active infinitive so that the idea is "to keep on kicking against goads." This old verb means to kick with the heel (adverb \lax\, with the heel), but only here in the N.T. There is a papyrus example of kicking (\laktiz\) with the feet against the door.
rwp@Ephesians:3:16 @{That he would grant you} (\hina di humin\). Sub-final clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \didmi\, to give. There are really five petitions in this greatest of all Paul's prayers (one already in strkjv@1:16-23|), two by the infinitives after \hina di\ (\krataithnai, katoiksai\), two infinitives after \hina exischuste\ (\katalabesthai, gnnai\), and the last clause \hina plrthte\. Nowhere does Paul sound such depths of spiritual emotion or rise to such heights of spiritual passion as here. The whole seems to be coloured with "the riches of His glory." {That ye may be strengthened} (\krataithnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \krataio\, late and rare (LXX, N.T.) from \krataios\, late form from \kratos\ (strength). See strkjv@Luke:1:80|. Paul adds \dunamei\ (with the Spirit). Instrumental case. {In the inward man} (\eis ton es anthrpon\). Same expression in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:16| (in contrast with the outward \ex\, man) and in strkjv@Romans:7:22|.
rwp@Ephesians:3:19 @{And to know} (\gnnai te\). Second aorist active infinitive with \exischuste\. {Which passeth knowledge} (\tn huperballousan ts gnses\). Ablative case \gnses\ after \huperballousan\ (from \huperball\). All the same Paul dares to scale this peak. {That ye may be filled with all the fulness of God} (\hina plrthte eis pn to plrma tou theou\). Final clause again (third use of \hina\ in the sentence) with first aorist passive subjunctive of \plro\ and the use of \eis\ after it. One hesitates to comment on this sublime climax in Paul's prayer, the ultimate goal for followers of Christ in harmony with the injunction in strkjv@Matthew:5:48| to be perfect (\teleioi\) as our heavenly Father is perfect. There is nothing that any one can add to these words. One can turn to strkjv@Romans:8:29| again for our final likeness to God in Christ.
rwp@Ephesians:4:3 @{The unity} (\tn henotta\). Late and rare word (from \heis\, one), in Aristotle and Plutarch, though in N.T. only here and verse 13|. {In the bond of peace} (\en ti sundesmi ts eirns\). In strkjv@Colossians:3:14| \agap\ (love) is the \sundesmos\ (bond). But there is no peace without love (verse 2|).
rwp@Ephesians:4:5 @{One Lord} (\heis Kurios\). The Lord Jesus Christ and he alone (no series of aeons). {One faith} (\mia pistis\). One act of trust in Christ, the same for all (Jew or Gentile), one way of being saved. {One baptism} (\hen baptisma\). The result of baptizing (\baptisma\), while \baptismos\ is the act. Only in the N.T. (\baptismos\ in Josephus) and ecclesiastical writers naturally. See strkjv@Mark:10:38|. There is only one act of baptism for all (Jews and Gentiles) who confess Christ by means of this symbol, not that they are made disciples by this one act, but merely so profess him, put Christ on publicly by this ordinance.
rwp@Ephesians:4:11 @{And he gave} (\kai autos edken\). First aorist active indicative of \didmi\. In strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28| Paul uses \etheto\ (more common verb, appointed), but here repeats \edken\ from the quotation in verse 8|. There are four groups (\tous men\, \tous de\ three times, as the direct object of \edken\). The titles are in the predicate accusative (\apostolous, prophtas, poimenas kai didaskalous\). Each of these words occurs in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28| (which see for discussion) except \poimenas\ (shepherds). This word \poimn\ is from a root meaning to protect. Jesus said the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (John:10:11|) and called himself the Good Shepherd. In strkjv@Hebrews:13:20| Christ is the Great Shepherd (cf. strkjv@1Peter:2:25|). Only here are preachers termed shepherds (Latin _pastores_) in the N.T. But the verb \poimain\, to shepherd, is employed by Jesus to Peter (John:21:16|), by Peter to other ministers (1Peter:5:2|), by Paul to the elders (bishops) of Ephesus (Acts:20:28|). Here Paul groups "shepherds and teachers" together. All these gifts can be found in one man, though not always. Some have only one.
rwp@Ephesians:4:21 @{If so be that} (\ei ge\). "If indeed." Condition of first class with aorist indicatives here, assumed to be true (\kousate kai edidachthte\). {Even as truth is in Jesus} (\kaths estin altheia en ti Isou\). It is not clear what Paul's precise idea is here. The Cerinthian Gnostics did distinguish between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. Paul here identifies Christ (verse 20|) and Jesus (verse 21|). At any rate he flatly affirms that there is "truth in Jesus" which is in direct opposition to the heathen manner of life and which is further explained by the epexegetical infinitives that follow (\apothesthai, ananeousthai de, kai endusasthai\).
rwp@Ephesians:4:29 @{Corrupt} (\sapros\). Rotten, putrid, like fruit (Matthew:7:17f.|), fish (Matthew:13:48|), here the opposite of \agathos\ (good). {For edifying as the need may be} (\pros oikodomn ts chreias\). "For the build-up of the need," "for supplying help when there is need." Let no other words come out. {That it may give} (\hina di\). For this elliptical use of \hina\ see on ¯5:33|.
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 @ THE AUTHOR Origen bluntly wrote: "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul's while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in strkjv@Hebrews:11:32| (\me digoumenon\) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply \Pros Hebraious\ as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.
rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE DATE Here again modern scholars differ widely. Westcott places it between A.D. 64 and 67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written strkjv@Hebrews:10:1f.|: "Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in strkjv@Hebrews:8:13| "nigh to vanishing away" (\eggus aphanismou\) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in strkjv@Hebrews:13:23| as being "set free" (\apolelumenon\) raises an inquiry concerning Paul's last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Timothy:4:11-13|). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero's own death (June 8, A.D. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 A.D. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.
rwp@Hebrews:1:6 @{And when he again bringeth in} (\hotan de palin eisagagi\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \eisag\. If \palin\ is taken with \eisagagi\, the reference is to the Second Coming as in strkjv@9:28|. If \palin\ merely introduces another quotation (Psalms:97:7|) parallel to \kai palin\ in verse 5|, the reference is to the incarnation when the angels did worship the Child Jesus (Luke:2:13f.|). There is no way to decide certainly about it. {The first-born} (\ton prtotokon\). See strkjv@Psalms:89:28|. For this compound adjective applied to Christ in relation to the universe see strkjv@Colossians:1:15|, to other men, strkjv@Romans:8:29; strkjv@Colossians:1:18|, to the other children of Mary, strkjv@Luke:2:7|; here it is used absolutely. {The world} (\tn oikoumenn\). "The inhabited earth." See strkjv@Acts:17:6|. {Let worship} (\proskunsatsan\). Imperative first aorist active third plural of \proskune\, here in the full sense of worship, not mere reverence or courtesy. This quotation is from the LXX of strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:43|, but is not in the Hebrew, though most of the LXX MSS. (except F) have \huioi theou\, but the substance does occur also in strkjv@Psalms:97:7| with \hoi aggeloi autou\.
rwp@Hebrews:5:8 @{Though he was a Son} (\kaiper n huios\). Concessive participle with \kaiper\, regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@7:5; strkjv@12:17|. {Yet learned obedience} (\emathen hupakon\). Second aorist active indicative of \manthan\. Succinct and crisp statement of the humanity of Jesus in full harmony with strkjv@Luke:2:40,52| and with strkjv@Hebrews:2:10|. {By the things which he suffered} (\aph' hn epathen\). There is a play on the two verbs (\emathen--epathen\), paronomasia. Second aorist active indicative of \pasch\. He always did his Father's will (John:8:29|), but he grew in experience as in wisdom and stature and in the power of sympathy with us.
rwp@James:1:11 @{Ariseth} (\aneteilen\). Gnomic or timeless aorist active indicative of the old compound \anatell\, used here of plants (cf. \anathall\ in strkjv@Phillipians:4:10|), often of the sun (Matthew:13:6|). {With the scorching wind} (\sun ti kausni\). Associative instrumental case with \sun\. In the LXX this late word (from \kausos\) is usually the sirocco, the dry east wind from the desert (Job:1:19|). In strkjv@Matthew:20:12; strkjv@Luke:12:55| it is the burning heat of the sun. Either makes sense here. {Withereth} (\exranen\). Another gnomic aorist active indicative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 837) of \xrain\, old verb (from \xros\, dry or withered, strkjv@Matthew:12:10|), to dry up. Grass and flowers are often used to picture the transitoriness of human life. {Falleth} (\exepesen\). Another gnomic aorist (second aorist active indicative) of \ekpipt\ to fall out (off). {The grace} (\h euprepeia\). Old word (from \eupreps\ well-looking, not in the N.T.), only here in N.T. Goodly appearance, beauty. {Of the fashion of it} (\tou prospou autou\). "Of the face of it." The flower is pictured as having a "face," like a rose or lily. {Perisheth} (\apleto\). Another gnomic aorist (second aorist middle indicative of \apollumi\, to destroy, but intransitive here, to perish). The beautiful rose is pitiful when withered. {Shall fade away} (\maranthsetai\). Future passive indicative of \marain\, old verb, to extinguish a flame, a light. Used of roses in Wisdom strkjv@2:8. {Goings} (\poreiais\). Old word from \poreu\ to journey, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:13:22| (of Christ's journey toward Jerusalem). The rich man's travels will come to "journey's end."
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:1:20 @{The wrath of man} (\org andros\). Here \anr\ (as opposed to \gun\ woman), not \anthrpos\ of verse 19| (inclusive of both man and woman). If taken in this sense, it means that a man's anger (settled indignation in contrast with \thumos\, boiling rage or fury) does not necessarily work God's righteousness. There is such a thing as righteous indignation, but one is not necessarily promoting the cause of God by his own personal anger. See strkjv@Acts:10:35| for "working righteousness," and strkjv@James:2:9| for "working sin" (\ergazomai\ both times).
rwp@James:2:1 @{My brethren} (\adelphoi mou\). Transition to a new topic as in strkjv@1:19; strkjv@2:5,14; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@5:7|. {Hold not} (\m echete\). Present active imperative of \ech\ with negative \m\, exhortation to stop holding or not to have the habit of holding in the fashion condemned. {The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tn pistin tou kuriou hmn Isou Christou\). Clearly objective genitive, not subjective (faith of), but "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," like \echete pistin theou\ (Mark:11:22|), "have faith in God." See the same objective genitive with \pistis\ in strkjv@Acts:3:6; strkjv@Galatians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:3:22; strkjv@Revelation:14:12|. Note also the same combination as in strkjv@1:1| "our Lord Jesus Christ" (there on a par with God). {The Lord of Glory} (\ts doxs\). Simply "the Glory." No word for "Lord" (\kuriou\) in the Greek text. \Ts doxs\ clearly in apposition with \tou kuriou Isou Christou\. James thus terms "our Lord Jesus Christ" the Shekinah Glory of God. See strkjv@Hebrews:9:5| for "the cherubim of Glory." Other New Testament passages where Jesus is pictured as the Glory are strkjv@Romans:9:4; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3|. Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {With respect of persons} (\en prospolmpsiais\). A Christian word, like \prospolmpts\ (Acts:10:34|) and \prospolmpteite\ (James:2:9|), not in LXX or any previous Greek, but made from \prospon lambanein\ (Luke:20:21; strkjv@Galatians:2:6|), which is \a\ Hebrew idiom for _panim nasa_, "to lift up the face on a person," to be favorable and so partial to him. See \prospolmpsia\ in this sense of partiality (respect of persons) in strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@Colossians:3:25; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9| (nowhere else in N.T.). Do not show partiality.
rwp@James:2:2 @{For} (\gar\). An illustration of the prohibition. {If there come in} (\ean eiselthi\). Condition of third class (supposable case) with \ean\ and second (ingressive) aorist active subjunctive of \eiserchomai\. {Into your synagogue} (\eis sunaggn humn\). The common word for the gathering of Jews for worship (Luke:12:11|) and particularly for the building where they met (Luke:4:15,20,28|, etc.). Here the first is the probable meaning as it clearly is in strkjv@Hebrews:10:25| (\tn episunaggn heautn\), where the longer compound occurs. It may seem a bit odd for a Christian church (\ekklsia\) to be termed \sunagg\, but James is writing to Jewish Christians and this is another incidental argument for the early date. Epiphanius (_Haer_. XXX. 18) states that the Ebionites call their church \sunagg\, not \ekklsia\. In the fourth century an inscription has \sunagg\ for the meeting-house of certain Christians. {A man with a gold ring} (\anr chrusodaktulios\). "A gold-fingered man," "wearing a gold ring." The word occurs nowhere else, but Lucian has \chrusocheir\ (gold-handed) and Epictetus has \chrusous daktulious\ (golden seal-rings). "Hannibal, after the battle of Cannae, sent as a great trophy to Carthage, three bushels of gold-rings from the fingers of Roman knights slain in battle" (Vincent). {In fine clothing} (\en esthti lampri\). "In bright (brilliant) clothing" as in strkjv@Luke:23:11; strkjv@Acts:10:30; strkjv@Revelation:18:41|. In contrast with "vile clothing" (\en rupari esthti\), "new glossy clothes and old shabby clothes" (Hort). \Ruparos\ (late word from \rupos\, filth, strkjv@1Peter:3:21|) means filthy, dirty. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:22:11| (filthy). {Poor man} (\ptchos\). Beggarly mendicant (Matthew:19:21|), the opposite of \plousios\ (rich).
rwp@James:2:3 @{And ye have regard to} (\epiblepste de epi\). First aorist active subjunctive (still with \ean\ of verse 2|) of \epiblep\, followed by repeated preposition \epi\, to gaze upon, old compound, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:1:48; strkjv@9:38|. {Weareth} (\phorounta\). "Wearing," present active participle of the old frequentative verb \phore\ (from \pher\), to bear constantly, to wear (Matthew:11:8|). Note repeated article \tn\ (the) with \esthta\ pointing to verse 2|. {And say} (\kai eipte\). Continuing the third-class condition with \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \eipon\. {Sit thou here in a good place} (\su kathou hde kals\). Emphatic position of \su\, "Do thou sit here in a good place." Present middle imperative of \kathmai\ to sit for the literary \kathso\. See strkjv@Matthew:23:6| for the first seats in the synagogue (places of honour). {And ye say to the poor man} (\kai ti ptchi eipte\). Third class condition with \ean\ continued as before (\eipte\). Note article \ti\ pointing to verse 2|. {Stand thou there} (\su stthi ekei\). Second aorist (intransitive) active imperative of \histmi\, to place. Ingressive aorist, Take a stand. \Su\ emphatic again. The MSS. vary in the position of \ekei\ (there). {Or sit under my footstool} (\ kathou hupo to hupopodion mou\). For this use of \hupo\ "down against" or "down beside" see strkjv@Exodus:19:17| \hupo to oros\ ("at the foot of the mountain") and \hupo se\ ("at thy feet") (Deuteronomy:33:3|). Conquerors often placed their feet on the necks of the victims (Luke:20:43|).
rwp@James:2:9 @{But if ye have respect of persons} (\ei de prospolmpteite\). Condition of first class by contrast with that in verse 8|. For this verb (present active indicative), formed from \prospon lamban\, here alone in the N.T., see in strkjv@2:1|. A direct reference to the partiality there pictured. {Ye commit sin} (\hamartian ergazesthe\). "Ye work a sin." A serious charge, apparently, for what was regarded as a trifling fault. See strkjv@Matthew:7:23|, \hoi ergazomenoi tn anomian\ (ye that work iniquity), an apparent reminiscence of the words of Jesus there (from strkjv@Psalms:6:8|). {Being convicted} (\elegchomenoi\). Present passive participle of \elegch\, to convict by proof of guilt (John:3:20; strkjv@8:9,46; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:24|). {As transgressors} (\hs parabatai\). For this word from \parabain\, to step across, to transgress, see strkjv@Galatians:2:18; strkjv@Romans:2:25,27|. See this very sin of partiality condemned in strkjv@Leviticus:19:15; strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:17; strkjv@16:19|. To the law and to the testimony.
rwp@James:2:10 @{Whosoever shall keep} (\hostis trsi\). Indefinite relative clause with \hostis\ and aorist active subjunctive of \tre\, old verb, to guard (from \tros\ guarding), as in strkjv@Matthew:27:36|, without \an\ (though often used, but only one example of modal \ean=an\ in James, viz., strkjv@4:4|). This modal \an\ (\ean\) merely interprets the sentence as either more indefinite or more definite (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 957f.). {And yet stumble in one point} (\ptaisi de en heni\). First aorist active subjunctive also of \ptai\, old verb, to trip, as in strkjv@3:2; strkjv@Romans:11:11|. "It is incipient falling" (Hort). {He is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect indicative of \ginomai\, "he has become" by that one stumble. {Guilty of all} (\pantn enochos\). Genitive of the crime with \enochos\, old adjective from \enech\ (to hold on or in), held in, as in strkjv@Mark:3:29|. This is law. To be a lawbreaker one does not have to violate all the laws, but he must keep all the law (\holon ton nomon\) to be a law-abiding citizen, even laws that one does not like. See strkjv@Matthew:5:18f.| for this same principle. There is Talmudic parallel: "If a man do all, but omit one, he is guilty for all and each." This is a pertinent principle also for those who try to save themselves. But James is urging obedience to all God's laws.
rwp@James:2:19 @{Thou believest that God is one} (\su pisteueis hoti heis theos estin\). James goes on with his reply and takes up mere creed apart from works, belief that God exists (there is one God), a fundamental doctrine, but that is not belief or trust in God. It may be mere creed. {Thou doest well} (\kals poieis\). That is good as far as it goes, which is not far. {The demons also believe} (\kai ta daimonia pisteuousin\). They go that far (the same verb \pisteu\). They never doubt the fact of God's existence. {And shudder} (\kai phrissousin\). Present active indicative of \phriss\, old onomatopoetic verb to bristle up, to shudder, only here in N.T. Like Latin _horreo_ (horror, standing of the hair on end with terror). The demons do more than believe a fact. They shudder at it.
rwp@James:2:21 @{Justified by works} (\ex ergn edikaith\). First aorist passive indicative of \dikaio\ (see Galatians and Romans for this verb, to declare righteous, to set right) in a question with \ouk\ expecting an affirmative answer. This is the phrase that is often held to be flatly opposed to Paul's statement in strkjv@Romans:4:1-5|, where Paul pointedly says that it was the faith of Abraham (Romans:4:9|) that was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, not his works. But Paul is talking about the faith of Abraham before his circumcision (4:10|) as the basis of his being set right with God, which faith is symbolized in the circumcision. James makes plain his meaning also. {In that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar} (\anenegkas Isaak ton huion autou epi to thusiastrion\). They use the same words, but they are talking of different acts. James points to the offering (\anenegkas\ second aorist--with first aorist ending--active participle of \anapher\) of Isaac on the altar (Genesis:22:16f.|) as _proof_ of the faith that Abraham already had. Paul discusses Abraham's faith as the basis of his justification, that and not his circumcision. There is no contradiction at all between James and Paul. Neither is answering the other. Paul may or may not have seen the Epistle of James, who stood by him loyally in the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|).
rwp@James:5:14 @{Is any among you sick?} (\asthenei tis en humin;\). Present active indicative of \asthene\, old verb, to be weak (without strength), often in N.T. (Matthew:10:8|). {Let him call for} (\proskalesasth\). First aorist (ingressive) middle imperative of \proskale\. Note change of tense (aorist) and middle (indirect) voice. Care for the sick is urged in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| ("help the sick"). Note the plural here, "elders of the church, as in strkjv@Acts:20:17; strkjv@15:6,22; strkjv@21:18; strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| (bishops). {Let them pray over him} (\proseuxasthsan ep' auton\). First aorist middle imperative of \proseuchomai\. Prayer for the sick is clearly enjoined. {Anointing him with oil} (\aleipsantes elaii\). First aorist active participle of \aleiph\, old verb, to anoint, and the instrumental case of \elaion\ (oil). The aorist participle can be either simultaneous or antecedent with \proseuxasthsan\ (pray). See the same use of \aleiph elaii\ in strkjv@Mark:6:13|. The use of olive oil was one of the best remedial agencies known to the ancients. They used it internally and externally. Some physicians prescribe it today. It is clear both in strkjv@Mark:6:13| and here that medicinal value is attached to the use of the oil and emphasis is placed on the worth of prayer. There is nothing here of the pagan magic or of the later practice of "extreme unction" (after the eighth century). It is by no means certain that \aleiph\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:13| means "anoint" in a ceremonial fashion rather than "rub" as it commonly does in medical treatises. Trench (N.T. Synonyms) says: "\Aleiphein\ is the mundane and profane, \chriein\ the sacred and religious, word." At bottom in James we have God and medicine, God and the doctor, and that is precisely where we are today. The best physicians believe in God and want the help of prayer.
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 BELOVED DISCIPLE The book claims to be written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John:21:20|) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: "This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (John:21:24|). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with strkjv@John:20:31|, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in strkjv@John:21:24| is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922).
rwp@Info_John @ NO EARLY MARTYRDOM FOR THE APOSTLE JOHN In 1862 a fragment of the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, was published. It is the _Codex Coislinianus_, Paris, 305, which differs from the other manuscripts of this author in saying that John according to Papias was slain by the Jews (\hupo Ioudain anireth\) while the other manuscripts say that John rested in peace (\en eirni anepausato\). The passage also quotes Eusebius to the effect that John received Asia as his sphere of work and lived and died in Ephesus. This same George the Sinner misquotes Origen about the death of John for Origen really says that the Roman king condemned him to the Isle of Patmos, not to death. Another fragment of Philip of Side, apparently used by Georgius, makes the same erroneous reference to Papias. It is therefore a worthless legend growing out of the martyrdom promised James and John by Jesus (Mark:10:39; strkjv@Matthew:20:23|) and realized by James first of all (Acts:12:1f.|). John drank the cup in the exile to Patmos. The correction to Peter in strkjv@John:21:20-23| would have no meaning if the Apostle John had already been put to death.
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 @ THE USE OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (John:2:23; strkjv@6:4|) and another (John:5:1|) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord's public ministry ("the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John:1:19-4:45|). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John:1:1-18|) relates the Incarnation to God's eternal purpose as in strkjv@Colossians:1:14-20| and strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-3| and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time (\Logos\ -- Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.
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 @ THE SAME STYLE IN THE DISCOURSES It is further objected that there is no difference in style between the discourses of Jesus in John's Gospel and his own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, strkjv@John:3:16-21|. Does the discourse of Jesus end with verse 15,16, or 21? Songs:in strkjv@John:12:44-50|. Does John give here a resume of Christ's teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ as in chapters 4,6,7,8,9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures including that of John's Gospel for the whole view of Christ.
rwp@Info_John @ HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his _Diatessaron_, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter strkjv@John:11| which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in strkjv@Matthew:23|, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter strkjv@John:21| with that in strkjv@Luke:5|, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter strkjv@John:12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in strkjv@Luke:7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter strkjv@John:1| is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910).
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 UNITY OF THE GOSPEL This has been attacked in various ways in spite of the identity of style throughout. There are clearly three parts in the Gospel: the Prologue, strkjv@John:1:1-18|, the Body of the Book, strkjv@John:1:19-20:31|, the Epilogue, strkjv@John:21|. But there is no evidence that the Prologue was added by another hand, even though the use of Logos (Word) for Christ does not occur thereafter. This high conception of Christ dominates the whole book. Some argue that the Epilogue was added by some one else than John, but here again there is no proof and no real reason for the supposition. It is possible, as already stated, that John stopped at strkjv@John:20:31| and then added strkjv@John:21| before sending the book forth after his friends added strkjv@John:21:24| as their endorsement of the volume. Some scholars claim that they detect various displacements in the arrangement of the material, but such subjective criticism is never convincing. There are undoubtedly long gaps in the narrative as between chapters 5 and 6, but John is not giving a continuous narrative, but only a supplementary account assuming knowledge of the Synoptics. It is held that editorial comments by redactors can be detected here and there. Perhaps, and perhaps not. The unity of this great book stands even if that be true.
rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1880). ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_ (1891). ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_ (1935).,_Johannine Grammar_ (1906). APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_ (1915). ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_ (1910). BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_ (1898). BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_ (1907). BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl. (1925). BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_ (1905). BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_ (1922). BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_ (1902). BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel_ (1928). BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_ (1904). CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_ (1927). CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_ (1925). CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_ (1912). D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_ (1908).,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_ (1911). DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1909). DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_ (1890).,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums (1890). DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1897). DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1904). EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_ (1888). EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_ (1890). FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_ (1904). GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_ (1915). GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922). GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_ (1910).,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1924). GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_ (1920). GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_ (1910). GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_ (1902). GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_. (1911). HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_ (1917). HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_ (1917). HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc. (1913). HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_ (1919).,_The Fourth Gospel_ (1923). HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl. (1908). HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer (1908). HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_. (1885). HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_ (1931). IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_ (1906).,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_ (1909). KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_ (1905). LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_ (1914). LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_ (1910). LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_ (1908). LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1903). LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_ (1899). LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_ (1931). MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_ (1923). MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_ (1906). McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_ (1930). MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_ (1923). MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_ (1915). MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_ (1925). NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_ (1925). NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel (1927). ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1911). PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1913). REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1901). REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_ (1906). ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_ (1916). ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_ (1929). ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_ (1925). SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_ (1905). SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_ (1903). SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_ (1908). SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_ (1906). SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_ (1909). SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_ (1916). SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_ (1926). SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_ (1915). SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_ (1910). STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_ (1914). STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_ (1898). STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_ (1917).,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_ (1925). TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_ (1931). VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_ (1917). WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_ (1890). WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_ (1916). WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl. (1902).,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_ (1911). WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_ (1908). WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_ (1911).,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_ (1911). WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_ (1888). WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_ (1927). WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_ (1911). WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_ (1903). ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis (1908). 6 Aufl. (1921). strkjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archi\). \Arch\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in strkjv@Genesis:1:1|. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. {Was} (\n\). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (\egeneto\, became) appears in verse 14| for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in strkjv@8:58| "before Abraham came (\genesthai\) I am" (\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is from \leg\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used \spermatikos logos\ for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew _memra_ was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in strkjv@Proverbs:8:23|. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (_The Origin of the _Prologue to St. John_, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term \Logos\, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\ is applied to Christ only in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:13; strkjv@1John:1:1| "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in strkjv@John:17:5|. This term suits John's purpose better than \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (\sarx egeneto\, verse 14|) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \Pros\ with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In strkjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prospon pros prospon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gnston ts pros alllous suntheias\, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., _Vocabulary_) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, _Origin of Prologue_, p. 8) that the use of \pros\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin_, not old Attic. In strkjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos n ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos n ho logos\. That would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the predicate without it (\theos\) just as in strkjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in strkjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agap estin\ can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 767f. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
rwp@John:1:6 @{There came a man} (\egeneto anthrpos\). Definite event in the long darkness, same verb in verse 3|. {Sent} (\apestalmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \apostell\, to send. {From God} (\para theou\). From the side of (\para\) God (ablative case \theou\). {Whose name} (\onoma auti\). "Name to him," nominative parenthetic and dative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 460). {John} (\Ians\). One \n\ in Westcott and Hort. In the giving of the name see strkjv@Luke:1:59-63|, Hellenized form of Jonathan, Joanan (Gift of God), used always of the Baptist in this Gospel which never mentions the name of John son of Zebedee (the sons of Zebedee once, strkjv@21:2|).
rwp@John:1:9 @{There was} (\n\). Imperfect indicative. Emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence and so probably not periphrastic conjugation with \erchomenon\ (coming) near the end, though that is possible. {The true light} (\to phs to althinon\). "The light the genuine," not a false light of wreckers of ships, but the dependable light that guides to the harbor of safety. This true light had been on hand all the time in the darkness (\n\ imperfect, linear action) before John came. {Even the light} (not in the Greek). Added in the English to make plain this interpretation. {Lighteth every man} (\phtizei panta anthrpon\). Old verb (from \phs\) to give light as in strkjv@Revelation:22:5; strkjv@Luke:11:35f|. The Quakers appeal to this phrase for their belief that to every man there is given an inner light that is a sufficient guide, the Quaker's text it is called. But it may only mean that all the real light that men receive comes from Christ, not necessarily that each one receives a special revelation. {Coming} (\erchomenon\). This present middle participle of \erchomai\ can be taken with \anthrpon\ just before (accusative masculine singular), "every man as he comes into the world." It can also be construed with \phs\ (nominative neuter singular). This idea occurs in strkjv@John:3:19; strkjv@11:27; strkjv@12:46|. In the two last passages the phrase is used of the Messiah which makes it probable here. But even so the light presented in strkjv@11:27; strkjv@12:46| is that of the Incarnate Messiah, not the Pre-incarnate Logos. Here \kosmos\ rather than \panta\ occurs in the sense of the orderly universe as often in this Gospel. See strkjv@Ephesians:1:4|.
rwp@John:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \n\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\esknsen en hmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skno\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\sknos\ or \skn\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\hs monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogen\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogens\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plrs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plrs\ can agree with the subject of \esknsen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai altheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \altheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.
rwp@John:1:17 @{Was given} (\edoth\). First aorist passive indicative of \didmi\. {By Moses} (\dia Muses\). "Through Moses" as the intermediate agent of God. {Came} (\egeneto\). The historical event, the beginning of Christianity. {By Jesus Christ} (\dia Isou Christou\). "Through Jesus Christ," the intermediate agent of God the Father. Here in plain terms John identifies the Pre-incarnate Logos with Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. The full historical name "Jesus Christ" is here for the first time in John. See also strkjv@17:3| and four times in 1John and five times in Revelation. Without Christ there would have been no Christianity. John's theology is here pictured by the words "grace and truth" (\h charis kai h altheia\), each with the article and each supplementary to the other. It is grace in contrast with law as Paul sets forth in Galatians and Romans. Paul had made grace "a Christian commonplace" (Bernard) before John wrote. It is truth as opposed to Gnostic and all other heresy as Paul shows in Colossians and Ephesians. The two words aptly describe two aspects of the Logos and John drops the use of \Logos\ and \charis\, but clings to \altheia\ (see strkjv@8:32| for the freedom brought by truth), though the ideas in these three words run all through his Gospel.
rwp@John:1:18 @{No man hath seen God at any time} (\theon oudeis heraken ppote\). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of \hora\. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus:33:20; strkjv@Deuteronomy:4:12|). Paul calls God \aoratos\ (Colossians:1:15; strkjv@1Timothy:1:17|). John repeats the idea in strkjv@John:5:37; strkjv@6:46|. And yet in strkjv@14:7| Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. {The only begotten Son} (\ho monogens huios\). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after \hs monogenous para patros\ in verse 14|. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read \monogens theos\ (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to \ho monogens huios\ to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like strkjv@3:16|. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called \theos\ in verse 1|. The Incarnation is stated in verse 14|, where he is also termed \monogens\. He was that before the Incarnation. Songs:he is "God only begotten," "the Eternal Generation of the Son" of Origen's phrase. {Which is in the bosom of the Father} (\ho n eis ton kolpon tou patros\). The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like \pros ton theon\ in verse 1|. In strkjv@3:13| there is some evidence for \ho n en ti ourani\ used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father. {He} (\ekinos\). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son. {Hath declared him} (\exgsato\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \exgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke's Gospel (24:35|) and four times in Acts:(10:8; strkjv@15:12,14; strkjv@21:19|). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.
rwp@John:1:19 @{And this is the witness of John} (\kai haut estin h marturia tou Ianou\). He had twice already alluded to it (verses 7f., 15|) and now he proceeds to give it as the most important item to add after the Prologue. Just as the author assumes the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, so he assumes the Synoptic accounts of the baptism of Jesus by John, but adds various details of great interest and value between the baptism and the Galilean ministry, filling out thus our knowledge of this first year of the Lord's ministry in various parts of Palestine. The story in John proceeds along the same lines as in the Synoptics. There is increasing unfolding of Christ to the disciples with increasing hostility on the part of the Jews till the final consummation in Jerusalem. {When the Jews sent unto him} (\hote apesteilan pros auton hoi Ioudaioi\). John, writing in Ephesus near the close of the first century long after the destruction of Jerusalem, constantly uses the phrase "the Jews" as descriptive of the people as distinct from the Gentile world and from the followers of Christ (at first Jews also). Often he uses it of the Jewish leaders and rulers in particular who soon took a hostile attitude toward both John and Jesus. Here it is the Jews from Jerusalem who sent (\apesteilan\, first aorist active indicative of \apostell\). {Priests and Levites} (\hiereis kai Leueitas\). Sadducees these were. Down below in verse 24| the author explains that it was the Pharisees who sent the Sadducees. The Synoptics throw a flood of light on this circumstance, for in strkjv@Matthew:3:7| we are told that the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees "offspring of vipers" (Luke:3:7|). Popular interest in John grew till people were wondering "in their hearts concerning John whether haply he were the Christ" (Luke:3:15|). Songs:the Sanhedrin finally sent a committee to John to get his own view of himself, but the Pharisees saw to it that Sadducees were sent. {To ask him} (\hina ertssin auton\). Final \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \erta\, old verb to ask a question as here and often in the _Koin_ to ask for something (John:14:16|) like \aite\. {Who art thou?} (\su tis ei;\). Direct question preserved and note proleptic position of \su\, "Thou, who art thou?" The committee from the Sanhedrin put the question sharply up to John to define his claims concerning the Messiah.
rwp@John:1:22 @{They said therefore} (\eipan oun\). Second aorist active indicative of defective verb \eipon\ with \a\ instead of usual \o\. Note \oun\, inferential here as in verse 21| though often merely transitional in John. {Who art thou?} (\Tis ei;\). Same question as at first (verse 19|), but briefer. {That we give answer} (\hina apokrisin dmen\). Final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \didmi\ with \apokrisin\ from \apokrinomai\, above, old substantive as in strkjv@Luke:2:47|. {To those that sent} (\tois pempsasin\). Dative case plural of the articular participle first aorist active of \pemp\. {What sayest thou of thyself?} (\Ti legeis peri seautou;\). This time they opened wide the door without giving any hint at all.
rwp@John:1:23 @{He said} (\eph\). Common imperfect active (or second aorist active) of \phmi\, to say, old defective verb. {I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness} (\Eg phn bontos en ti ermi\). For his answer John quotes strkjv@Isaiah:40:3|. The Synoptics (Mark:1:3; strkjv@Matthew:3:3; strkjv@Luke:3:4|) quote this language from Isaiah as descriptive of John, but do not say that he also applied it to himself. There is no reason to think that he did not do so. John also refers to Isaiah as the author of the words and also of the message, "{Make straight the way of the Lord}" (\Euthunate tn hodon tou kuriou\). By this language (\euthun\ in N.T. only here and strkjv@James:3:4|, first aorist active imperative here) John identifies himself to the committee as the forerunner of the Messiah. The early writers note the differences between the use of \Logos\ (Word) for the Messiah and \phn\ (Voice) for John.
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:3:29 @{The bridegroom} (\numphios\). Predicate nominative without article. Both \numph\ (bride) and \numphios\ are old and common words. Jesus will use this metaphor of himself as the Bridegroom (Mark:2:19|) and Paul develops it (2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23-32|) and so in Revelation (19:7; strkjv@21:2|). John is only like the _paranymph_ (\paranumphios\) or "the friend of the bridegroom." His office is to bring groom and bride together. Songs:he stands expectant (\hestks\, second perfect active participle of \histmi\) and listens (\akoun\, present active participle of \akou\) with joy ({rejoiceth greatly}, \chari chairei\, "with joy rejoices") to the music of the bridegroom's voice. {This my joy therefore is fulfilled} (\haut oun h chara peplrtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \plro\, stands filled like a cup to the brim with joy.
rwp@John:3:32 @{What he hath seen and heard} (\ho heraken kai kousen\). Perfect active indicative followed by aorist active indicative, because, as Westcott shows, the first belongs to the very existence of the Son and the latter to his mission. There is no confusion of tenses here. {No man} (\oudeis\). There were crowds coming to Jesus, but they do not really accept him as Saviour and Lord (1:11; strkjv@2:24|). It is superficial as time will show. But "no one" is not to be pressed too far, for it is the rhetorical use.
rwp@John:4:1 @{When therefore} (\Hs oun\). Reference to strkjv@3:22f|. the work of the Baptist and the jealousy of his disciples. \Oun\ is very common in John's Gospel in such transitions. {The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). Songs:the best manuscripts (Neutral Alexandrian), though the Western class has \ho Isous\. Mark usually has \ho Isous\ and Luke often \ho Kurios\. In the narrative portion of John we have usually \ho Isous\, but \ho Kurios\ in five passages (4:1; strkjv@6:23; strkjv@11:2; strkjv@20:20; strkjv@21:12|). There is no reason why John should not apply \ho Kurios\ to Jesus in the narrative sections as well as Luke. Bernard argues that these are "explanatory glosses," not in the first draft of the Gospel. But why? When John wrote his Gospel he certainly held Jesus to be \Kurios\ (Lord) as Luke did earlier when he wrote both Gospel and Acts This is hypercriticism. {Knew} (\egn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. The Pharisees knew this obvious fact. It was easy for Jesus to know the attitude of the Pharisees about it (2:24|). Already the Pharisees are suspicious of Jesus. {How that} (\hoti\). Declarative \hoti\ (indirect assertion). {Was making and baptizing more disciples than John} (\pleionas mathtas poiei kai baptizei Ians\). Present active indicative in both verbs retained in indirect discourse. Recall the tremendous success of John's early ministry (Mark:1:5; strkjv@Matthew:3:5; strkjv@Luke:3:7,15|) in order to see the significance of this statement that Jesus had forged ahead of him in popular favour. Already the Pharisees had turned violently against John who had called them broods of vipers. It is most likely that they drew John out about the marriage of Herod Antipas and got him involved directly with the tetrarch so as to have him cast into prison (Luke:3:19f.|). Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. v. 2) gives a public reason for this act of Herod Antipas, the fear that John would "raise a rebellion," probably the public reason for his private vengeance as given by Luke. Apparently John was cast into prison, though recently still free (John:3:24|), before Jesus left for Galilee. The Pharisees, with John out of the way, turn to Jesus with envy and hate.
rwp@John:4:3 @{Left Judea} (\aphken tn Ioudaian\). Unusual use of \aphimi\. First (\Kappa\) aorist active indicative. Originally the word means to send away, to dismiss, to forsake, to forgive, to allow. Jesus uses it in this sense in strkjv@16:28|. Evidently because Jesus did not wish to bring the coming conflict with the Pharisees to an issue yet. Songs:he mainly avoids Jerusalem and Judea now till the end. Each time hereafter that Jesus appears in Jerusalem and Judea before the last visit there is an open breach with the Pharisees who attack him (John:5:1-47; strkjv@7:14-10:21; strkjv@10:22-42; strkjv@11:17-53|). {Again into Galilee} (\palin eis tn Galilaian\). Reference to strkjv@2:1-12|. The Synoptics tell nothing of this early work in Perea (John:1:19-51|), Galilee, or Judea (2:13-4:2|). John supplements their records purposely.
rwp@John:4:5 @{Songs:he cometh} (\erchetai oun\). Vivid present middle indicative and transitional \oun\. {Sychar} (\Suchar\). There is a dispute whether this is just a variation of Shechem as meaning "drunken-town" (Isaiah:28:1|) or "lying-town" (Habbakkuk:2:18|) or is a separate village near Shechem (Neapolis, Nablous) as the Talmud and Eusebius indicate. Apparently the present village Askar corresponds well with the site. The use of \polin\ (city) does not mean that it was a large town. Mark and John use it freely for small places. {Parcel of ground} (\chriou\). Old use of this diminutive of \chros\ or \chra\, a piece of ground. {That Jacob gave to his son Joseph} (\ho edken Iakb ti Isph ti huii autou\). See strkjv@Genesis:33:19; strkjv@48:22|. Relative \ho\ is not attracted to case of \chriou\. First aorist active indicative \edken\.
rwp@John:4:44 @{For Jesus himself testified} (\autos gar Isous emartursen\). John's explanation of the conduct of Jesus by quoting a proverb often used by Jesus (Mark:6:4; strkjv@Matthew:13:57; strkjv@Luke:4:24| in reference to Nazareth), but not necessarily used by Jesus on this occasion. A similar proverb has been found in Plutarch, Pliny, Seneca. {A prophet hath no honour in his own country} (\prophts en ti idii patridi timn ouk echei\). What is meant by \patridi\? In the Synoptics (Luke:4:24; strkjv@Mark:6:4; strkjv@Matthew:13:57|) the reference is to Nazareth where he was twice rejected. But what has John in mind in quoting it here? He probably knew the quotations in the Synoptics. Does John refer to Judea by "his own country"? If so, the application hardly fits for he had already explained that Jesus was leaving Judea because he was too popular there (4:1-3|). If he means Galilee, he immediately mentions the cordial welcome accorded Jesus there (verse 45|). But even so this is probably John's meaning for he is speaking of the motive of Jesus in going into Galilee where he had not yet laboured and where he apparently had no such fame as in Judea and now in Samaria.
rwp@John:4:46 @{Again} (\palin\). A second time. {Unto Cana} (\eis tn Kana\). Note article, "the Cana of Galilee" already mentioned in strkjv@2:1|. {Where he made the water wine} (\hopou epoisen to hudr oinon\). That outstanding first miracle would still be remembered in Cana and would indicate that Jesus had some friends there. {Nobleman} (\basilikos\). One connected with the king (\basileus\), whether by blood or by office. Probably here it is one of the courtiers of Herod the tetrarch of Galilee, Chuzas (Luke:8:3|), Manaen (Acts:13:1|), or some one else. Some of the manuscripts used \basiliskos\, a petty king, a diminutive of \basileus\. {Was sick} (\sthenei\). Imperfect active of \asthene\ (\a\ privative and \sthenos\, without strength, strkjv@Matthew:25:36|), continued sick. {At Capernaum} (\en Kapharnaoum\). Some miles from Cana near where the Jordan enters the Sea of Galilee.
rwp@John:5:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). John is fond of this vague phrase (3:22; strkjv@6:1|). He does not mean that this incident follows immediately. He is supplementing the Synoptic Gospels and does not attempt a full story of the work of Jesus. Some scholars needlessly put chapter 5 after chapter 6 because in chapter 6 Jesus is in Galilee as at the end of chapter 4. But surely it is not incongruous to think of Jesus making a visit to Jerusalem before the events in chapter 6 which undoubtedly come within a year of the end (6:4|). {A feast of the Jews} (\heort tn Ioudain\). Some manuscripts have the article (\h\) "the feast" which would naturally mean the passover. As a matter of fact there is no way of telling what feast it was which Jesus here attended. Even if it was not the passover, there may well be another passover not mentioned besides the three named by John (2:13,23; strkjv@6:4: strkjv@12:1|). {Went up} (\aneb\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain\. It was up towards Jerusalem from every direction save from Hebron.
rwp@John:5:2 @{There is} (\estin\). Bengel argues that this proves a date before the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is probably only John's vivid memory. {By the sheep gate} (\epi ti probatiki\). Supply \puli\ (gate) which occurs with the adjective \probatik\ (pertaining to sheep, \probata\) in strkjv@Nehemiah:3:1,22|. {A pool} (\kolumbthra\). A diving or swimming pool (from \kolumba\, to swim, strkjv@Acts:27:43|), old word, only here in N.T. {Which is called} (\h epilegomen\). "The surnamed" (present passive participle, only N.T. example except strkjv@Acts:15:40| first aorist middle participle \epilexamenos\). {In Hebrew} (\Ebraisti\). "In Aramaic" strictly as in strkjv@19:13,17,20; strkjv@20:16; strkjv@Revelation:9:11; strkjv@16:16|. {Bethesda} (\Bethesda\, or House of Mercy. Songs:A C Syr cu). Aleph D L 33 have \Bethzatha\ or House of the Olive, while B W Vulg. Memph. have \Bethsaida\. {Having five porches} (\pente stoas echousa\). \Stoa\ was a covered colonnade where people can gather from which Stoic comes (Acts:17:18|). See strkjv@John:10:23; strkjv@Acts:3:11|. Schick in 1888 found twin pools north of the temple near the fortress of Antonia one of which has five porches. It is not, however, certain that this pool existed before A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed (Sanday, _Sacred Sites of the Gospels_, p. 55). Some have identified it with the Pool of Siloam (9:7|), though John distinguishes them. There is also the Virgin's Well, called the Gusher, because it periodically bubbles over from a natural spring, a kind of natural siphon. This is south of the temple in the Valley of Kedron and quite possibly the real site.
rwp@John:5:3 @{In these} (\en tautais\). In these five porches. {Lay} (\katekeito\). Imperfect middle of \katakeimai\, to lie down, singular number because \plthos\ (multitude) is a collective substantive. {Withered} (\xrn\). Old adjective \xros\ for dry, wasted as the hand (Matthew:12:10|). The oldest and best manuscripts omit what the Textus Receptus adds here "waiting for the moving of the water" (\ekdechomenon tn tou hudatos kinsin\), a Western and Syrian addition to throw light on the word \tarachthi\ (is troubled) in verse 7|.
rwp@John:5:7 @{When the water is troubled} (\hotan tarachthi to hudr\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \tarass\, old verb to agitate (Matthew:2:3|). The popular belief was that, at each outflow of this intermittent spring, there was healing power in the water for the first one getting in. {To put me into the pool} (\hina bali me eis tn kolumbthran\). Final use of \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \ball\, "that he throw me in" quickly before any one else. For this use of \ball\ see strkjv@Mark:7:30; strkjv@Luke:16:20|. {But while I am coming} (\en hi de erchomai\). Temporal use of the relative, "in which time" (\chroni\ or \kairi\ understood). \Eg\ (I) is emphatic.
rwp@John:5:9 @{Took up his bed and walked} (\re ton krabatton autou kai periepatei\). The same distinction in tenses in the same verbs preserved, punctiliar action in \re\ (first aorist active of \air\, took it up at once) and linear act (imperfect active of \peripate\, went on walking). {The sabbath on that day} (\sabbaton en ekeini ti hmeri\). The first of the violations of the Sabbath rules of the Jews by Jesus in Jerusalem that led to so much bitterness (cf. strkjv@9:14,16|). This controversy will spread to Galilee on Christ's return there (Mark:2:23-3:6; strkjv@Matthew:12:1-14; strkjv@Luke:6:1-11|).
rwp@John:5:20 @{Loveth} (\philei\). In strkjv@3:35| we have \agapi\ from \agapa\, evidently one verb expressing as noble a love as the other. Sometimes a distinction (21:17|) is made, but not here, unless \phile\ presents the notion of intimate friendship (\philos\, friend), fellowship, the affectionate side, while \agapa\ (Latin _diligo_) is more the intelligent choice. But John uses both verbs for the mystery of love of the Father for the Son. {Greater works than these} (\meizona toutn erga\). \Toutn\ is ablative case after the comparative \meizona\ (from \megas\, great). John often uses \erga\ for the miracles of Christ (5:36; strkjv@7:3,21; strkjv@10:25,32,38|, etc.). It is the Father who does these works (14:10|). There is more to follow. Even the disciples will surpass what Christ is doing in the extent of the work (14:12|). \Deixei\ is future active indicative of \deiknumi\, to show. See also strkjv@10:32|. {That ye may marvel} (\hina humeis thaumazte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \thaumaz\. Wonder belongs to childhood and to men of knowledge. Modern science has increased the occasion for wonder. Clement of Alexandria has a saying of Jesus: "He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns shall rest."
rwp@John:5:23 @{That all may honour the Son} (\hina pantes timsin ton huion\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \tima\ (may keep on honouring the Son). {He that honoureth not the Son} (\ho m timn ton huion\). Articular present active participle of \tima\ with negative \m\. Jesus claims here the same right to worship from men that the Father has. Dishonouring Jesus is dishonouring the Father who sent him (8:49; strkjv@12:26; strkjv@15:23; strkjv@1John:2:23|). See also strkjv@Luke:10:16|. There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as teacher and yet deny his claims to worship. The Gospel of John carries this high place for Christ throughout, but so do the other Gospels (even Q, the Logia of Jesus) and the rest of the New Testament.
rwp@John:5:29 @{Unto the resurrection of life} (\eis anastasin zs\). \Anastasis\ is an old word (Aeschylus) from \anistmi\, to raise up, to arise. This combination occurs nowhere else in the N.T. nor does "the resurrection of judgement" (\eis anastasin krises\), but in strkjv@Luke:14:14| there is the similar phrase "in the resurrection of the just" (\en ti anastasei tn dikain\). Only there note both articles. Here without the articles it can mean "to a resurrection of life" and "to a resurrection of judgement," though the result is practically the same. There are two resurrections as to result, one to life, one to judgement. See both in strkjv@Daniel:12:2|.
rwp@John:5:40 @{And ye will not come to me} (\kai ou thelete elthein pros me\). "And yet" (\kai\) as often in John. "This is the tragedy of the rejection of Messiah by the Messianic race" (Bernard). See strkjv@John:1:11; strkjv@Matthew:23:37| (\kai ouk thelsate\, and ye would not). Men loved darkness rather than light (John:3:19|). {That ye may have life} (\hina zn echte\). Life in its simplest form as in strkjv@3:36| (cf. strkjv@3:16|). This is the purpose of John in writing the Fourth Gospel (20:31|). There is life only in Christ Jesus.
rwp@John:5:43 @{In my Father's name} (\en ti onomati tou patros mou\). Seven times Jesus in John speaks of the "Name" of the Father (5:43; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@12:28; strkjv@17:6,11,12,26|). See strkjv@1:12| for use of \onoma\ (Luke:1:49|). {And ye receive me not} (\kai ou lambanete me\). "And yet ye do not receive me," as in verse 40|, "the Gospel of the Rejection" (1:11; strkjv@3:11,32; strkjv@12:37|) often applied to the Fourth Gospel. {If another come} (\ean allos elthi\). Condition of third class (\ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\). Note \allos\, not \heteros\, like \allon Isoun\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4|. Similar prophecies occur in strkjv@Mark:13:6,22| (Matthew:24:5,24|), all general in character like Antichrist in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:8-12|. There is no occasion for a reference to any individual like Barcochba (about A.D. 134) as Pfleiderer and Schmiedel hold. These Messianic upstarts all come "in their own name" and always find a following. {Him ye will receive} (\ekeinon lmpsesthe\). "That one," whoever he is, as Jesus said. Future active indicative of \lamban\. Credulous about the false Messiahs, incredulous about Christ.
rwp@John:5:47 @{His writings} (\tois ekeinou grammasin\). Dative case with \pistuete\. See strkjv@Luke:16:31| for a like argument. The authority of Moses was the greatest of all for Jews. There is a contrast also between {writings} (\grammasin\, from \graph\, to write) and {words} (\rmasin\, from \eipon\). \Gramma\ may mean the mere letter as opposed to spirit (2Corinthians:3:6; strkjv@Romans:2:27,29; strkjv@7:6|), a debtor's bond (Luke:16:6f.|), letters or learning (John:7:15; strkjv@Acts:26:24|) like \agrammatoi\ for unlearned (Acts:4:13|), merely written characters (Luke:23:38; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:7; strkjv@Galatians:6:11|), official communications (Acts:28:21|), once \hiera grammata\ for the sacred writings (2Timothy:3:15|) instead of the more usual \hai hagiai graphai\. \Graph\ is used also for a single passage (Mark:12:10|), but \biblion\ for a book or roll (Luke:4:17|) or \biblos\ (Luke:20:42|). Jesus clearly states the fact that Moses wrote portions of the Old Testament, what portions he does not say. See also strkjv@Luke:24:27,44| for the same idea. There was no answer from the rabbis to this conclusion of Christ. The scribes (\hoi grammateis\) made copies according to the letter (\kata to gramma\).
rwp@John:6:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). A common, but indefinite, note of time in John (3:22; strkjv@5:1; strkjv@6:1; strkjv@7:1|). The phrase does not mean immediate sequence of events. As a matter of fact, a whole year may intervene between the events of chapter 5 in Jerusalem and those in chapter 6 in Galilee. There is no sufficient reason for believing that chapter 6 originally preceded chapter 5. The feeding of the five thousand is the only event before the last visit to Jerusalem recorded in all Four Gospels (Mark:6:30-44; strkjv@Matthew:14:13-21; strkjv@Luke:9:10-17; strkjv@John:6:1-13|). The disciples have returned from the tour of Galilee and report to Jesus. It was the passover time (John:6:4|) just a year before the end. {To the other side of the Sea of Galilee} (\peran ts thalasss ts Galilaias\). The name given in Mark and Matthew. It is called Gennesaret in strkjv@Luke:5:1| and "Sea of Tiberias" in strkjv@John:21:1|. Here "of Tiberias" (\ts Tiberiados\) is added as further description. Herod Antipas A.D. 22 built Tiberias to the west of the Sea of Galilee and made it his capital. See verse 23| for this city. Luke (Luke:9:10|) explains that it was the eastern Bethsaida (Julias) to which Jesus took the disciples, not the western Bethsaida of strkjv@Mark:6:45| in Galilee.
rwp@John:6:12 @{And when they were filled} (\hs de eneplsthsan\). First aorist (effective) passive indicative of \empimplmi\, old verb to fill in, to fill up, to fill completely. They were all satisfied. The Synoptics have \echortasthsan\ like strkjv@John:6:26| (\echortasthte\). {Gather up} (\sunagagete\). Second aorist active imperative of \sunag\, to gather together. {Broken pieces} (\klasmata\). From \kla\, to break. Not crumbs or scraps on the ground, but pieces broken by Jesus (Mark:6:41|) and not consumed. {Be lost} (\apoltai\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of \apollumi\ with \hina\ in purpose clause. Only in John. There was to be no wastefulness in Christ's munificence. The Jews had a custom of leaving something for those that served.
rwp@John:6:14 @{Saw the sign which he did} (\idontes ha epoisen smeia\). "Signs" oldest MSS. have. This sign added to those already wrought (verse 2|). Cf. strkjv@2:23; strkjv@3:2|. {They said} (\elegon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to say. {Of a truth} (\alths\). Common adverb (from \alths\) in John (7:40|). {The prophet that cometh} (\ho prophts ho erchomenos\). There was a popular expectation about the prophet of strkjv@Deuteronomy:18:15| as being the Messiah (John:1:21; strkjv@11:27|). The phrase is peculiar to John, but the idea is in Acts (3:22; strkjv@7:37|). The people are on the tiptoe of expectation and believe that Jesus is the political Messiah of Pharisaic hope.
rwp@John:6:15 @{Perceiving} (\gnous\). Second aorist active participle of \ginsk\. It was not hard for Christ to read the mind of this excited mob. {They were about} (\mellousin\). Present active indicative of \mell\. Probably the leaders were already starting. {Take him by force} (\harpazein\). Present active infinitive of \harpaz\, old verb for violent seizing (Matthew:11:12; strkjv@13:19|). There was a movement to start a revolution against Roman rule in Palestine by proclaiming Jesus King and driving away Pilate. {To make him king} (\hina poissin basilea\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \poie\ with \basilea\ as predicate accusative. It was a crisis that called for quick action. {Himself alone} (\autos monos\). At first he had the disciples with him (verse 3|). But he sent them hurriedly by boat to the western side (Mark:6:45f.; strkjv@Matthew:14:22f.|) because clearly the apostles were sympathetic with the revolutionary impulse of the crowd. Then Jesus sent the multitudes away also and went up into the mountain alone. He was alone in every sense, for no one but the Father understood him at this stage, not even his own disciples. He went up to pray (Mark:6:46; strkjv@Matthew:14:23|).
rwp@John:6:19 @{When therefore they had rowed} (\ellakotes oun\). Perfect active participle of \elaun\, old verb to march (Xenophon), to drive (James:3:4|), to row (Mark:6:48|). {Furlongs} (\stadious\). Stadia, accusative of extent of space, a little over halfway across, "in the midst of the sea" (Mark:6:47|). It was about forty stadia (six miles) across. {They behold} (\therousin\). Graphic dramatic present active indicative of \there\, vividly preserving the emotions of the disciples. {Walking} (\peripatounta\). Present active participle in the accusative case agreeing with \Isoun\. {Drawing nigh unto the boat} (\eggus tou ploiou ginomenon\). Present middle participle of \ginomai\ describing the process. "Coming near the boat." They behold Jesus slipping closer and closer to them on the water. {They were afraid} (\ephobthsan\). Ingressive aorist passive indicative of \phobeomai\, "they became afraid." Sudden change to the regular historical sequence.
rwp@John:6:21 @{They were willing therefore} (\thelon oun\). Inchoative imperfect, "they began to be willing." This does not contradict strkjv@Mark:6:51| as Bernard thinks. Both Jesus and Peter climbed into the boat. {Whither they were going} (\eis hn hupgon\). Progressive imperfect active, "to which land they had been going" (intransitive use of \hupag\, to lead under, to go under or away as in verse 67; strkjv@7:33; strkjv@12:11; strkjv@18:8|.
rwp@John:6:24 @{When the multitude therefore saw} (\hote oun eiden ho ochlos\). Resumption and clarification of the complicated statements of verse 22|. {That Jesus was not there} (\hoti Isous ouk estin ekei\). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. They still did not understand how Jesus had crossed over, but they acted on the basis of the plain fact. {They themselves got into} (\enebsan autoi eis\). Second aorist active indicative of \embain\ followed by \eis\ (both \en\ and \eis\ together as often in N.T.). {Seeking Jesus} (\ztountes ton Isoun\). Present active participle of \zte\. They had a double motive apart from the curiosity explained in verse 22|. They had clearly not given up the impulse of the evening before to make Jesus king (6:15|) and they had hopes of still another bountiful repast at the hands of Jesus as he said (6:26|).
rwp@John:6:28 @{What must we do?} (\Ti poimen;\). Present active deliberative subjunctive of \poie\, "What are we to do as a habit?" For the aorist subjunctive (\poismen\) in a like question for a single act see strkjv@Luke:3:10|. For the present indicative (\poioumen\) of inquiry concerning actual conduct see strkjv@John:11:47| (what are we doing?). {That we may work the works of God} (\hina ergazmetha ta erga tou theou\). Final clause with \hina\ and the present middle subjunctive, "that we may go on working the works of God." There may have been an element of vague sincerity in this question in spite of their supercilious attitude.
rwp@John:6:39 @{That of all that which} (\hina pn ho\). Literally, "That all which" (see verse 37| for \pan ho\), but there is a sharp anacoluthon with \pn\ left as _nominativus pendens_. {I should lose nothing} (\m apoles ex autou\). Construed with \hina\, "that I shall not lose anything of it." \Apoles\, from \apollumi\, can be either future active indicative or first aorist active subjunctive as is true also of \anasts\ (from \anistmi\), "I shall raise up." {At the last day} (\ti eschati hemeri\). Locative case without \en\. Only in John, but four times here (39,40,44,54|) "with the majesty of a solemn refrain." In strkjv@7:37| it is the last day of the feast of tabernacles, but in strkjv@11:24; strkjv@12:48| of the day of judgment as here. Christ is the Agent of the general resurrection in strkjv@5:28| as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:22| while here only the resurrection of the righteous is mentioned.
rwp@John:6:43 @{Murmur not} (\m gogguzete\). Prohibition with \m\ and the present active imperative, "stop murmuring" (the very word of verse 41|). There was a rising tide of protest.
rwp@John:6:45 @{Taught of God} (\didaktoi theou\). A free quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:54:13| with this phrase in the LXX. There is here the ablative case \theou\ with the passive verbal adjective \didaktoi\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:9| we have the compound verbal \theodidaktoi\. The same use of \didaktos\ with the ablative occurs in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:13|. {And hath learned} (\kai mathn\). Second aorist active participle of \manthan\. It is not enough to hear God's voice. He must heed it and learn it and do it. This is a voluntary response. This one inevitably comes to Christ.
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:11:15 @{For your sakes} (\di' humas\). That they may witness his raising from the grave. {That I was not there} (\hoti ouk mn ekei\). Imperfect middle \mn\ of the later Greek instead of the common active \n\ in indirect discourse in place of the usual present retained as in verse 13|. {To the intent ye may believe} (\hina pisteuste\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the ingressive aorist active subjunctive, "that ye may come to believe" (more than you do). See the same use of the ingressive aorist in \episteusan\ (2:11|) where the disciples gained in belief. {Nevertheless let us go to him} (\alla agmen pros auton\). Volitive subjunctive, repeating the proposal of verse 7|. He is dead, but no matter, yea all the more let us go on to him.
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:11:31 @{Followed her} (\kolouthsan auti\). First aorist active indicative of \akolouthe\ with associative instrumental case (\auti\). This crowd of consolers (\paramuthoumenoi\) meant kindly enough, but did the one wrong thing for Mary wished to see Jesus alone. People with kind notions often so act. The secrecy of Martha (verse 28|) was of no avail. {Supposing that she was going unto the tomb} (\doxantes hoti hupagei eis to mnmeion\). First aorist active participle of \doke\, justifying their conduct by a wrong inference. Note retention of present tense \hupagei\ in indirect discourse after the secondary tense \kolouthsan\. {To weep there} (\hina klausi ekei\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \klai\, old verb to weep. Sometimes to wail or howl in oriental style of grief, but surely not that here. At any rate this supposed purpose of Mary was a real reason for this crowd {not} to go with her.
rwp@John:11:33 @{When Jesus therefore saw her weeping} (\Isous oun hs eiden autn klaiousan\). Proleptic position of "Jesus," "Jesus therefore when he saw." She was weeping at the feet of Jesus, not at the tomb. {And the Jews also weeping} (\kai tous Ioudaious klaiontas\). Mary's weeping was genuine, that of the Jews was partly perfunctory and professional and probably actual "wailing" as the verb \klai\ can mean. \Klai\ is joined with \alalaz\ in strkjv@Mark:5:38|, with \ololuz\ in strkjv@James:5:1|, with \thorube\ in strkjv@Mark:5:39|, with \penthe\ in strkjv@Mark:16:10|. It was an incongruous combination. {He groaned in the spirit} (\enebrimsato ti pneumati\). First aorist middle indicative of \embrimaomai\, old verb (from \en\, and \brim\, strength) to snort with anger like a horse. It occurs in the LXX (Daniel:11:30|) for violent displeasure. The notion of indignation is present in the other examples of the word in the N.T. (Mark:1:43; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Matthew:9:30|). Songs:it seems best to see that sense here and in verse 38|. The presence of these Jews, the grief of Mary, Christ's own concern, the problem of the raising of Lazarus--all greatly agitated the spirit of Jesus (locative case \ti pneumati\). He struggled for self-control. {Was troubled} (\etaraxen heauton\). First aorist active indicative of \tarass\, old verb to disturb, to agitate, with the reflexive pronoun, "he agitated himself" (not passive voice, not middle). "His sympathy with the weeping sister and the wailing crowd caused this deep emotion" (Dods). Some indignation at the loud wailing would only add to the agitation of Jesus.
rwp@John:11:39 @{Take ye away the stone} (\arate ton lithon\). First aorist active imperative of \air\. They could do this much without the exercise of Christ's divine power. It was a startling command to them. {By this time he stinketh} (\d ozei\). Present active indicative of old verb, here only in N.T. (cf. strkjv@Exodus:8:14|). It means to give out an odour, either good or bad. {For he hath been dead four days} (\tetartaios gar estin\). The Greek simply says, "For he is a fourth-day man." It is an old ordinal numeral from \tetartos\ (fourth). Herodotus (ii. 89) has \tetartaios genesthai\ of one four days dead as here. The word is only here in the N.T. The same idiom occurs in strkjv@Acts:28:13| with \deuteraioi\ (second-day men). Lightfoot (_Hor. Hebr._) quotes a Jewish tradition (_Beresh. Rabba_) to the effect that the soul hovers around the tomb for three days hoping to return to the body, but on the fourth day leaves it. But there is no suggestion here that Martha held that notion. Her protest is a natural one in spite of her strong faith in verses 22-27|.
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:11:51 @{Not of himself} (\aph' heautou ouk\). Not wholly of himself, John means. There was more in what Caiaphas said than he understood. His language is repeated in strkjv@18:14|. {Prophesied} (\eprophteusen\). Aorist active indicative of \prophteu\. But certainly unconscious prophecy on his part and purely accidental. Caiaphas meant only what was mean and selfish. {That Jesus should die} (\hoti emellen Isous apothnskein\). Imperfect active of \mell\ in indirect discourse instead of the usual present retained after a secondary tense (\eprophteusen\) as sometimes occurs (see strkjv@2:25|).
rwp@John:11:54 @{Therefore walked no more openly} (\oun ouketi parrsii periepatei\). Imperfect active of \peripate\, to walk around. Jesus saw clearly that to do so would bring on the end now instead of his "hour" which was to be at the passover a month ahead. {Into the country near to the wilderness} (\eis tn chran eggus ts ermou\). It was now in Jerusalem as it had become once in Galilee (7:1|) because of the plots of the hostile Jews. The hill country northeast of Jerusalem was thinly populated. {Into a city called Ephraim} (\eis Ephraim legomenn polin\). \Polis\ here means no more than town or village (\km\). The place is not certainly known, not mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. Josephus mentions (_War_, IV. ix. 9) a small fort near Bethel in the hill country and in strkjv@2Chronicles:13:19| Ephron is named in connexion with Bethel. Up here Jesus would at least be free for the moment from the machinations of the Sanhedrin while he faced the coming catastrophe at the passover. He is not far from the mount of temptation where the devil showed and offered him the kingdoms of the world for the bending of the knee before him. Is it mere fancy to imagine that the devil came to see Jesus again here at this juncture with a reminder of his previous offer and of the present plight of the Son of God with the religious leaders conspiring his death? At any rate Jesus has the fellowship of his disciples this time (\meta tn mathtn\). But what were they thinking?
rwp@John:11:56 @{They sought therefore for Jesus} (\eztoun oun ton Isoun\). Imperfect active of \zte\ and common \oun\ of which John is so fond. They were seeking Jesus six months before at the feast of tabernacles (7:11|), but now they really mean to kill him. {As they stood in the temple} (\en ti hieri hestkotes\). Perfect active participle (intransitive) of \histmi\, a graphic picture of the various groups of leaders in Jerusalem and from other lands, "the knots of people in the Temple precincts" (Bernard). They had done this at the tabernacles (7:11-13|), but now there is new excitement due to the recent raising of Lazarus and to the public order for the arrest of Jesus. {That he will not come to the feast?} (\hoti ou m elthi eis tn heortn;\). The form of the question (indirect discourse after \dokeite\) assumes strongly that Jesus will not (\ou m\, double negative with second aorist active \elthi\ from \erchomai\) dare to come this time for the reason given in verse 57|.
rwp@John:12:1 @{Jesus therefore} (\Isous oun\). Here \oun\ is not causal, but simply copulative and transitional, "and so" (Bernard), as often in John (1:22|, etc.). {Six days before the passover} (\pro hex hmern tou pascha\). This idiom, transposition of \pro\, is like the Latin use of _ante_, but it occurs in the old Doric, in the inscriptions and the papyri. See strkjv@Amos:1:1| for it also (cf. Moulton, _Proleg_., pp. 100ff.; Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 621f.). If the crucifixion was on Friday, as seems certain from both John and the Synoptics, then six days before would be the Jewish Sabbath preceding or more probably the Friday afternoon before, since Jesus would most likely arrive before the Sabbath. Probably we are to put together in one scene for the atmosphere strkjv@John:11:55-57; strkjv@John:12:1, 9-11|. {Came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead} (\tlhen eis Bthanian, hopou n Lazaros, hon geiren ek nekrn Isous\). Each phrase explains the preceding. There is no reason for thinking this a gloss as Bernard does. It was a place of danger now after that great miracle and the consequent rage of the Sanhedrin (12:9-11|). The crowd of eager spectators to see both Lazarus and Jesus would only intensify this rage.
rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoisan oun auti deipnon ekei\). Here again \oun\ is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark:14:3-9|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6-13|) just two days (Mark:14:1|) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9|) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1|). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John "is here more probably accurate." It all turns on John's purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11|), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19|), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a|), and with two summary judgements (36b-50|). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke:7:36-50|). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. {And Martha served} (\kai h Martha dikonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\polln diakonian\, \diakonein\ as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6|) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke:7:36|), but Simon the leper (Mark:14:3; strkjv@Matthew:26:6|) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. {That sat at meat} (\tn anakeimenn\). "That lay back," reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after \ek\) of the common verb \anakeimai\. Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John:12:9|). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.
rwp@John:12:4 @{Judas Iscariot} (\Ioudas ho Iskarits\). See \ho Iskarits\ in strkjv@14:22|. See strkjv@6:71; strkjv@13:1| for like description of Judas save that in strkjv@6:71| the father's name is given in the genitive, \Simnos\ and \Iskaritou\ (agreeing with the father), but in strkjv@13:1| \Iskarits\ agrees with \Ioudas\, not with \Simnos\. Clearly then both father and son were called "Iscariot" or man of Kerioth in the tribe of Judah (Joshua:15:25|). Judas is the only one of the twelve not a Galilean. {One of his disciples} (\heis tn mathtn autou\). Likewise in strkjv@6:71|, only there \ek\ is used after \heis\ as some MSS. have here. This is the shameful fact that clung to the name of Judas. {Which should betray him} (\ho melln auton paradidonai\). John does not say in strkjv@6:71| (\emellen paradidonai auton\) or here that Judas "was predestined to betray Jesus" as Bernard suggests. He had his own responsibility for his guilt as Jesus said (Matthew:26:24|). \Mell\ here simply points to the act as future, not as necessary. Note the contrast between Mary and Judas. "Mary in her devotion unconsciously provides for the honour of the dead. Judas in his selfishness unconsciously brings about the death itself" (Westcott).
rwp@John:12:6 @{Not because he cared for the poor} (\ouch hoti peri tn ptchn emelen auti\). Literally, "not because it was a care to him concerning the poor" (impersonal imperfect of \melei\, it was a care). John often makes explanatory comments of this kind as in strkjv@2:21f.; strkjv@7:22,39|. {But because he was a thief} (\alle hoti klepts n\). Clearly the disciples did not know then that Judas was a petty thief. That knowledge came later after he took the bribe of thirty pieces of silver for betraying Jesus (Matthew:26:15|), for the disciples did not suspect Judas of treachery (13:28f.|), let alone small peculations. There is no reason for thinking that John is unfair to Judas. "Temptation commonly comes through that for which we are naturally fitted" (Westcott). In this case Judas himself was "the poor beggar" who wanted this money. {And having the bag took away what was put therein} (\kai to glssokomon echn ta ballomena ebastazen\). This is the correct text. This compound for the earlier \glssokomeion\ (from \glssa\, tongue, and \kome\, to tend) was originally a receptacle for the tongues or mouth-pieces of wind instruments. The shorter form is already in the Doric inscriptions and is common in the papyri for "money-box" as here. It occurs also in Josephus, Plutarch, etc. In N.T. only here and strkjv@13:29| in same sense about Judas. \Ballomena\ is present passive participle (repeatedly put in) of \ball\, to cast or fling. The imperfect active (custom) of \bastaz\, old verb to pick up (John:10:31|), to carry (19:17|), but here and strkjv@20:15| with the sense to bear away as in Polybius, Josephus, Diogenes Laertes, and often so in the papyri.
rwp@John:12:8 @{Ye have always} (\pantote echete\). Jesus does not discredit gifts to the poor at all. But there is relativity in one's duties. {But me ye have not always} (\eme de ou pantote echete\). This is what Mary perceived with her delicate woman's intuition and what the apostles failed to understand though repeatedly and plainly told by Jesus. John does not mention the precious promise of praise for Mary preserved in strkjv@Mark:14:9; strkjv@Matthew:26:13|, but he does show her keen sympathetic insight and Christ's genuine appreciation of her noble deed. It is curiously \mal-a-propos\ surely to put alongside this incident the other incident told long before by Luke (Luke:7:35ff.|) of the sinful woman. Let Mary alone in her glorious act of love.
rwp@John:12:11 @{Because that} (\hoti\). Causal use of \hoti\. {By reason of him} (\di' auton\). "Because of him," regular idiom, accusative case with \dia\. {Went away} (\hupgon\). Cf. strkjv@6:67| for this verb. Inchoative imperfect active of \hupag\, "began to withdraw" as happened at the time of the raising of Lazarus (11:45f.|) and the secession was still going on. {And believed on Jesus} (\kai episteuon eis ton Isoun\). Imperfect active of \pisteu\ (note aorist in strkjv@11:45|). There was danger of a mass movement of the people to Jesus.
rwp@John:12:18 @{The multitude} (\ho ochlos\). The multitude of verse 13|, not the crowd just mentioned that had been with Jesus at the raising of Lazarus. There were two crowds (one following Jesus, one meeting Jesus as here). {Went and met him} (\hupntsen auti\). First aorist active indicative of \hupanta\, old compound verb (\hupo, anta\) to go to meet, with associative instrumental case \auti\. Cf. strkjv@John:4:51|. {That he had done this sign} (\touto auton pepoikenai to smeion\). Perfect active infinitive in indirect discourse after \kousan\ (first aorist active indicative of \akou\, to hear) (instead of a \hoti\ clause) with the accusative of general reference \auton\ (as to him) and another accusative (\smeion\, sign) the object of the infinitive. Clearly there was much talk about the raising of Lazarus as the final proof that Jesus in truth is the Messiah of Jewish hope.
rwp@John:12:19 @{The Pharisees therefore laid among themselves} (\hoi oun Pharisaioi eipan pros heautous\). Graphic picture of the predicament of the Pharisees standing off and watching the enthusiastic crowds sweep by. As people usually do, they blame each other for the defeat of their plots against Jesus and for his final victory, as it seemed. {Behold how ye prevail nothing} (\thereite hoti ouk pheleite ouden\). It was a pathetic confession of failure because the rest of the plotters had bungled the whole thing. "Ye help nothing at all" by your plots and plans. {Lo, the world is gone after him} (\ide ho kosmos opis autou aplthen\). Exclamatory use of \ide\ and timeless aorist active indicative of \aperchomai\. The "world" is a bunch of fools, they feel, but see for yourselves. And the Sanhedrin had advertised to "find" Jesus! They can find him now!
rwp@John:12:21 @{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:12:26 @{If any man serve me} (\ean emoi tis diakoni\). Condition of third class again (\ean\ with present active subjunctive of \diakone\, keep on serving with dative \emoi\). {Let him follow me} (\emoi akoloutheit\). "Me (associative instrumental case) let him keep on following" (present active imperative of \akolouthe\). {Where... there} (\hopou... ekei\). In presence and spiritual companionship here and hereafter. Cf. strkjv@14:3; strkjv@17:24; strkjv@Matthew:28:20|. {Shall honour} (\timsei\). Future active of \tima\, but it may be the kind of honour that Jesus will get (verse 23|).
rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\h psuch mou\). The soul (\psuch\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, sson me ek ts hras tauts\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto lthon eis tn hran tautn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.
rwp@Jude:1:18 @{How that} (\hoti\). Declarative \hoti\ as in verse 5|. See discussion of strkjv@2Peter:3:3| for differences, no \en empaigmoni\ here and no \tn asebein\ there.
rwp@Info_Luke @ THE GOSPEL OF LUKE BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _International and Critical Commentary_, in the Introduction to Ragg's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _Westminster Commentaries_, in the Introduction to Easton's _Gospel According to St. Luke_, Hayes' _Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, Ramsay's _Luke the Physician_, Harnack's _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake's _Beginnings of Christianity_, Carpenter's _Christianity According to St. Luke_, Cadbury's _The Making of Luke-Acts_, McLachlan's _St. Luke: The Man and His Work_, Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.
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 @ THIS COMPANION AND AUTHOR LUKE All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in the title. We should know that Luke wrote these two books if there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. Even Renan says: "There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name."
rwp@Info_Luke @ A SKETCH OF LUKE His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of \Lukios\ and \Lukanos\. Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title \Kata Lukanon\. Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born. That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. Songs:this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a "we" passage after strkjv@Acts:11:27| which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether one of Paul's converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.
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:1:5 @{There was} (\egeneto\). Not the usual \en\ for "was," but there arose or came into notice. With this verse the literary _Koin_ of verses 1 to 4 disappears. To the end of chapter 2 we have the most Hebraistic (Aramaic) passage in Luke's writings, due evidently to the use of documents or notes of oral tradition. Plummer notes a series of such documents ending with strkjv@1:80, strkjv@2:40, strkjv@2:52|. If the mother of Jesus was still alive, Luke could have seen her. She may have written in Aramaic an account of these great events. Natural reserve would keep her from telling too much and from too early publicity. Luke, as a physician, would take special interest in her birth report. The supernatural aspects disturb only those who do not admit the real Incarnation of Jesus Christ and who are unable to believe that God is superior to nature and that the coming of the Son of God to earth justifies such miraculous manifestations of divine power. Luke tells his story from the standpoint of Mary as Matthew gives his from the standpoint of Joseph. The two supplement each other. We have here the earliest documentary evidence of the origins of Christianity that has come down to us (Plummer). {Herod, King of Judea} (\Hridou basiles ts Ioudaias\). This note of time locates the events before the death of Herod the Great (as he was called later), appointed King of Judea by the Roman Senate B.C. 40 at the suggestion of Octavius and Antony. He died B.C. 4. {Of the course of Abijah} (\ex ephmerias Abia\). Not in old Greek, but in LXX and modern Greek. Papyri have a verb derived from it, \ephmere\. Daily service (Nehemiah:13:30; strkjv@1Chronicles:25:8|) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1Chronicles:23:6; strkjv@28:13|). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the eighth (1Chronicles:24:10; strkjv@2Chronicles:8:14|). Only four of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into twenty-four with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for eight days, sabbath to sabbath, twice a year. On sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of tabernacles all twenty-four courses were present. {Of the daughters of Aaron} (\ek tn thugatern Aarn\). "To be a priest and married to a priest's daughter was a double distinction" (Plummer). Like a preacher married to a preacher's daughter.
rwp@Luke:1:11 @{Appeared} (\phth\). First aorist passive indicative. It is the form used by Paul of the resurrection appearances of Jesus (1Corinthians:15:5-8|). There is no use in trying to explain away the reality of the angel. We must choose between admitting an objective appearance and a myth (Plummer).
rwp@Luke:7:1 @{After} (\epeid, epei and d\). This conjunction was written \epei d\ in Homer and is simple \epei\ with the intensive \d\ added and even \epei d per\ once in N.T. (Luke:1:1|). This is the only instance of the temporal use of \epeid\ in the N.T. The causal sense occurs only in Luke and Paul, for \epei\ is the correct text in strkjv@Matthew:21:46|. {Had ended} (\eplrsen\). First aorist active indicative. There is here a reference to the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, but with nothing concerning the impression produced by the discourse such as is seen in strkjv@Matthew:7:28|. This verse really belongs as the conclusion of Chapter 6, not as the beginning of Chapter 7. {In the ears of the people} (\eis tas akoas tou laou\). \Ako\ from \akou\, to hear, is used of the sense of hearing (1Corinthians:12:17|), the ear with which one hears (Mark:7:35; strkjv@Hebrews:5:11|), the thing heard or the report (Rom strkjv@10:16|) or oral instruction (Galatians:3:2,5|). Both strkjv@Matthew:8:5-13; strkjv@Luke:7:1-10| locate the healing of the centurion's servant in Capernaum where Jesus was after the Sermon on the Mount.
rwp@Luke:7:11 @{Soon afterwards} (\en toi hexs\). According to this reading supply \chroni\, time. Other MSS. read \ti hexs\ (supply \hmeri\, day). \Hexs\ occurs in Luke and Acts in the N.T. though old adverb of time. {That} (\Hoti\). Not in the Greek, the two verbs \egeneto\ and \eporeuth\ having no connective (asyndeton). {Went with him} (\suneporeuonto auti\). Imperfect middle picturing the procession of disciples and the crowd with Jesus. Nain is not mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. There is today a hamlet about two miles west of Endor on the north slope of Little Hermon. There is a burying-place still in use. Robinson and Stanley think that the very road on which the crowd with Jesus met the funeral procession can be identified.
rwp@Luke:7:12 @{Behold} (\kai idou\). The \kai\ introduces the apodosis of the temporal sentence and has to be left out in translations. It is a common idiom in Luke, \kai idou\. {There was carried out} (\exekomizeto\). Imperfect passive indicative. Common verb in late Greek for carrying out a body for burial, though here only in the N.T. (\ekkomiz\). Rock tombs outside of the village exist there today. {One that was dead} (\tethnks\). Perfect active participle of \thnsk\, to die. {The only son of his mother} (\monogens huios ti mtri auto\). Only begotten son to his mother (dative case). The compound adjective \monogens\ (\monos\ and \genos\) is common in the old Greek and occurs in the N.T. about Jesus (John:3:16,18|). The "death of a widow's only son was the greatest misfortune conceivable" (Easton). {And she was a widow} (\kai aut n chra\). This word \chra\ gives the finishing touch to the pathos of the situation. The word is from \chros\, bereft. The mourning of a widow for an only son is the extremity of grief (Plummer). {Much people} (\ochlos hikanos\). Considerable crowd as often with this adjective \hikanos\. Some were hired mourners, but the size of the crowd showed the real sympathy of the town for her.
rwp@Luke:7:26 @{A prophet?} (\prophtn;\). A real prophet will always get a hearing if he has a message from God. He is a for-speaker, forth-teller (\pro-phts\). He may or may not be a fore-teller. The main thing is for the prophet to have a message from God which he is willing to tell at whatever cost to himself. The word of God came to John in the wilderness of Judea (Luke:3:2|). That made him a prophet. There is a prophetic element in every real preacher of the Gospel. Real prophets become leaders and moulders of men.
rwp@Luke:7:28 @{There is none} (\oudeis estin\). No one exists, this means. strkjv@Matthew:11:11| has \ouk eggertai\ (hath not arisen). See Matthew for discussion of "but little" and "greater."
rwp@Luke:7:33 @{John the Baptist is come} (\elluthen\). Second perfect active indicative where strkjv@Matthew:11:18| has \lthen\ second aorist active indicative. Songs:as to verse 34|. Luke alone has "bread" and "wine." Otherwise these verses like strkjv@Matthew:11:18,19|, which see for discussion of details. There are actually critics today who say that Jesus was called the friend of sinners and even of harlots because he loved them and their ways and so deserved the slur cast upon him by his enemies. If men can say that today we need not wonder that the Pharisees and lawyers said it then to justify their own rejection of Jesus.
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:8:4 @{By a parable} (\dia parabols\). strkjv@Mark:4:2| says "in parables" as does strkjv@Matthew:13:3|. This is the beginning of the first great group of parables as given in strkjv@Mark:4:1-34| and strkjv@Matthew:13:1-53|. There are ten of these parables in Mark and Matthew and only two in strkjv@Luke:8:4-18| (The Sower and the Lamp, strkjv@8:16|) though Luke also has the expression "in parables" (8:10|). See strkjv@Matthew:13| and strkjv@Mark:4| for discussion of the word parable and the details of the Parable of the Sower. Luke does not locate the place, but he mentions the great crowds on hand, while both Mark and Matthew name the seaside as the place where Jesus was at the start of the series of parables.
rwp@Luke:8:6 @{Upon the rock} (\epi tn petran\). strkjv@Mark:4:5| "the rocky ground" (\epi to petrdes\), strkjv@Matthew:13:5| "the rocky places. {As soon as it grew} (\phuen\). Second aorist passive participle of \phu\, an old verb to spring up like a sprout. {Withered away} (\exranth\). First aorist passive indicative of \zrain\, old verb, to dry up. {Moisture} (\ikmada\). Here only in the N.T., though common word.
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:8:14 @{They are choked} (\sunpnigontai\). Present passive indicative of this powerfully vivid compound verb \sunpnig\ used in strkjv@Mark:4:19; strkjv@Matthew:13:22|, only there these worldly weeds choke the word while here the victims themselves are choked. Both are true. Diphtheria will choke and strangle the victim. Who has not seen the promise of fair flower and fruit choked into yellow withered stalk without fruit "as they go on their way" (\poreuomenoi\). {Bring no fruit to perfection} (\ou telesphorousin\). Compound verb common in the late writers (\telos, phore\). To bring to completion. Used of fruits, animals, pregnant women. Only here in the N.T.
rwp@Luke:8:15 @{In an honest and good heart} (\en kardii kali kai agathi\). Peculiar to Luke. In verse 8| the land (\gn\) is called \agathn\ (really good, generous) and in verse 15| we have \en ti kali gi\ ({in the beautiful or noble land}). Songs:Luke uses both adjectives of the heart. The Greeks used \kalos k' agathos\ of the high-minded gentleman. It is probable that Luke knew this idiom. It occurs here alone in the N.T. It is not easy to translate. We have such phrases as "good and true," "sound and good," "right and good," no one of which quite suits the Greek. Certainly Luke adds new moral qualities not in the Hellenic phrase. The English word "honest" here is like the Latin _honestus_ (fair, noble). The words are to be connected with "hold fast" (\katechousin\), "hold it down" so that the devil does not snatch it away, having depth of soil so that it does not shrivel up under the sun, and is not choked by weeds and thorns. It bears fruit (\karpophorousin\, an old expressive verb, \karpos\ and \phore\). That is the proof of spiritual life. {In patience} (\en hupomoni\). There is no other way for real fruit to come. Mushrooms spring up overnight, but they are usually poisonous. The best fruits require time, cultivation, patience.
rwp@Luke:8:19 @{His mother and brethren} (\h mtr kai hoi adelphoi autou\). strkjv@Mark:3:31-35; strkjv@Matthew:12:46-50| place the visit of the mother and brothers of Jesus before the parable of the sower. Usually Luke follows Mark's order, but he does not do so here. At first the brothers of Jesus (younger sons of Joseph and Mary, I take the words to mean, there being sisters also) were not unfriendly to the work of Jesus as seen in strkjv@John:2:12| when they with the mother of Jesus are with him and the small group (half dozen) disciples in Capernaum after the wedding in Cana. But as Jesus went on with his work and was rejected at Nazareth (Luke:4:16-31|), there developed an evident disbelief in his claims on the part of the brothers who ridiculed him six months before the end (John:7:5|). At this stage they have apparently come with Mary to take Jesus home out of the excitement of the crowds, perhaps thinking that he is beside himself (Mark:3:21|). They hardly believed the charge of the rabbis that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub. Certainly the mother of Jesus could give no credence to that slander. But she herself was deeply concerned and wanted to help him if possible. See discussion of the problem in my little book _The Mother of Jesus_ and also on ¯Mark:3:31| and ¯Matthew:12:46|. {Come to him} (\suntuchein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \suntugchan\, an old verb, though here alone in the N.T., meaning to meet with, to fall in with as if accidentally, here with associative instrumental case \auti\.
rwp@Luke:8:26 @{They arrived} (\katepleusan\). First aorist active indicative of \kataple\, common verb, but here only in the N.T. Literally, {they sailed down} from the sea to the land, the opposite of {launched forth} (\anchthsan\) of verse 22|. Songs:we today use like nautical terms, to bear up, to bear down. {The Gerasenes} (\ton Gerasnn\). This is the correct text here as in strkjv@Mark:5:1| while Gadarenes is correct in strkjv@Matthew:8:28|. See there for explanation of this famous discrepancy, now cleared up by Thomson's discovery of Khersa (\Gersa\) on the steep eastern bank and in the vicinity of Gadara. {Over against Galilee} (\antipera ts Galilaias\). Only here in the N.T. The later Greek form is \antiperan\ (Polybius, etc.). Some MSS. here have \peran\ like strkjv@Mark:5:1; strkjv@Matthew:8:28|.
rwp@Luke:8:28 @{Fell down} (\prosepesen\). Second aorist active of \prospipt\, to fall forward, towards, prostrate before one as here. Common verb. strkjv@Mark:5:6| has \prosekunsen\ (worshipped). {The Most High God} (\tou theou tou hupsistou\). Uncertain whether \tou theou\ genuine or not. But "the Most High" clearly means God as already seen (Luke:1:32,35,36; strkjv@6:35|). The phrase is common among heathen (Numbers:24:16; strkjv@Micah:6:6; strkjv@Isaiah:14:14|). The demoniac may have been a Gentile, but it is the demon here speaking. See on ¯Mark:2:7; strkjv@Matthew:8:29| for the Greek idiom (\ti emoi kai soi\). "What have I to do with thee?" See there also for "Torment me not."
rwp@Luke:18:8 @{Howbeit} (\pln\). It is not clear whether this sentence is also a question or a positive statement. There is no way to decide. Either will make sense though not quite the same sense. The use of \ra\ before \heursei\ seems to indicate a question expecting a negative answer as in strkjv@Acts:8:30; strkjv@Romans:14:19|. But here \ra\ comes in the middle of the sentence instead of near the beginning, an unusual position for either inferential \ra\ or interrogative \ra\. On the whole the interrogative \ra\ is probably correct, meaning to question if the Son will find a persistence of faith like that of the widow.
rwp@Luke: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:19:19 @{Be thou also over} (\kai su epano ginou\). Present middle imperative. Keep on becoming over. There is no real reason for identifying this parable of the pounds with the parable of the talents in strkjv@Matthew:25|. The versatility of Jesus needs to be remembered by those who seek to flatten out everything.
rwp@Luke:19:33 @{As they were loosing} (\luontn autn\). Genitive absolute. {The owners thereof} (\hoi kurioi autou\). The same word \kurios\ used of the Lord Jesus in verse 31| (and 34|) and which these "owners" would understand. See on ¯Matthew:21:3; strkjv@Mark:11:3| for \kurios\ used by Jesus about himself with the expectation that these disciples would recognize him by that title as they did. The word in common use for the Roman emperor and in the LXX to translate the Hebrew _Elohim_ (God).
rwp@Luke:19:35 @{Set Jesus thereon} (\epebibasan ton Isoun\). First aorist active. Old verb, to cause to mount, causative verb from \bain\, to go. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:10:34; strkjv@Acts:23:24|.
rwp@Luke:19:45 @{Began to cast out} (\rxato ekballein\). Songs:Mark:11:15| whereas strkjv@Matthew:21:12| has simply "he cast out." See Mark and Matthew for discussion of this second cleansing of the temple at the close of the public ministry in relation to the one at the beginning in strkjv@John:2:14-22|. There is nothing gained by accusing John or the Synoptics of a gross chronological blunder. There was abundant time in these three years for all the abuses to be revived.
rwp@Luke:20:1 @{On one of the days} (\en mii tn hmern\). Luke's favourite way of indicating time. It was the last day of the temple teaching (Tuesday). strkjv@Luke:20:1-19| is to be compared with strkjv@Mark:11:27-12:12; strkjv@Matthew:21:23-46|. {There came upon him} (\epestsan\). Second aorist active indicative, ingressive aorist of \ephistmi\, old and common verb, stood up against him, with the notion of sudden appearance. These leaders (cf. strkjv@19:47|) had determined to attack Jesus on this morning, both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes), a formal delegation from the Sanhedrin.
rwp@Luke:20:20 @{They watched him} (\paratrsantes\). First aorist active participle of \paratre\, a common Greek verb to watch on the side or insidiously or with evil intent as in strkjv@Luke:6:7| (\paretrounto\) of the scribes and Pharisees. See on ¯Mark:3:2|. There is no "him" in the Greek. They were watching their chance. {Spies} (\enkathetous\). An old verbal adjective from \enkathimi\, to send down in or secretly. It means liers in wait who are suborned to spy out, one who is hired to trap one by crafty words. Only here in the N.T. {Feigned themselves} (\hupokrinomenous heautous\). Hypocritically professing to be "righteous" (\dikaious\). "They posed as scrupulous persons with a difficulty of conscience" (Plummer). {That they might take hold of his speech} (\hina epilabntai autou logou\). Second aorist middle of \epilamban\, an old verb for seizing hold with the hands and uses as here the genitive case. These spies are for the purpose of (\hina\) catching hold of the talk of Jesus if they can get a grip anywhere. This is their direct purpose and the ultimate purpose or result is also stated, "so as to deliver him up" (\hste paradounai auton\). Second aorist active infinitive of \paradidmi\, to hand over, to give from one's side to another. The trap is all set now and ready to be sprung by these "spies." {Of the governor} (\tou hgemonos\). The Sanhedrin knew that Pilate would have to condemn Jesus if he were put to death. Songs:then all their plans focus on this point as the goal. Luke alone mentions this item here.
rwp@Luke:20:27 @{There is no resurrection} (\anastasin m einai\). Accusative and infinitive with negative \m\ in indirect assertion. The Sadducees rally after the complete discomfiture of the Pharisees and Herodians. They had a stock conundrum with which they had often gotten a laugh on the Pharisees. Songs:they volunteer to try it on Jesus. For discussion of details here see on ¯Matthew:22:23-33; strkjv@Mark:12:18-27|. Only a few striking items remain for Luke.
rwp@Luke:20:36 @{Equal unto the angels} (\isaggeloi\). A rare and late word from \isos\, equal, and \aggelos\. Only here in the N.T. Mark and Matthew have "as angels" (\hs aggeloi\). Angels do not marry, there is no marriage in heaven. {Sons of God, being sons of the resurrection} (\huioi theou ts anastases huioi ontes\). This Hebraistic phrase, "sons of the resurrection" defines "sons of God" and is a direct answer to the Sadducees.
rwp@Luke:20:41 @{How say they?} (\Ps legousin;\). The Pharisees had rallied in glee and one of their number, a lawyer, had made a feeble contribution to the controversy which resulted in his agreement with Jesus and in praise from Jesus (Mark:12:28-34; strkjv@Matthew:27:34-40|). Luke does not give this incident which makes it plain that by "they say" (\legousin\) Jesus refers to the Pharisees (rabbis, lawyers), carrying on the discussion and turning the tables on them while the Pharisees are still gathered together (Matthew:22:41|). The construction with \legousin\ is the usual infinitive and the accusative in indirect discourse. By "the Christ" (\ton Christon\) "the Messiah" is meant.
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:21:24 @{Edge of the sword} (\stomati machairs\). Instrumental case of \stomati\ which means "mouth" literally (Genesis:34:26|). This verse like the close of verse 22| is only in Luke. Josephus (_War_, VI. 9.3) states that 1,100,000 Jews perished in the destruction of Jerusalem and 97,000 were taken captive. Surely this is an exaggeration and yet the number must have been large. {Shall be led captive} (\aichmaltisthsontai\). Future passive of \aichmaltiz\ from \aichm\, spear and \haltos\ (\haliskomai\). Here alone in the literal sense in the N.T. {Shall be trodden under foot} (\estai patoumen\). Future passive periphrastic of \pate\, to tread, old verb. {Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled} (\achri hou plrthsin kairoi ethnn\). First aorist passive subjunctive with \achri hou\ like \hes hou\. What this means is not clear except that Paul in strkjv@Romans:11:25| shows that the punishment of the Jews has a limit. The same idiom appears there also with \achri hou\ and the aorist subjunctive.
rwp@Luke:21:32 @{This generation} (\h genea haut\). Naturally people then living. {Shall not pass away} (\ou m parelthi\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \parerchomai\. Strongest possible negative with \ou m\. {Till all things be accomplished} (\hes an panta gentai\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ with \hes\, common idiom. The words give a great deal of trouble to critics. Some apply them to the whole discourse including the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, the second coming and the end of the world. Some of these argue that Jesus was simply mistaken in his eschatology, some that he has not been properly reported in the Gospels. Others apply them only to the destruction of Jerusalem which did take place in A.D. 70 before that generation passed away. It must be said for this view that it is not easy in this great eschatological discourse to tell clearly when Jesus is discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and when the second coming. Plummer offers this solution: "The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world."
rwp@Luke:21:36 @{But watch ye} (\agrupneite de\). \Agrupne\ is a late verb to be sleepless (\a\ privative and \hupnos\, sleep). Keep awake and be ready is the pith of Christ's warning. {That ye may prevail to escape} (\hina katischuste ekphugein\). First aorist active subjunctive with \hina\ of purpose. The verb \katischu\ means to have strength against (cf. strkjv@Matthew:16:18|). Common in later writers. \Ekphugein\ is second aorist active infinitive, to escape out. {To stand before the Son of man} (\stathnai emprosthen tou huiou tou anthrpou\). That is the goal. There will be no dread of the Son then if one is ready. \Stathnai\ is first aorist passive infinitive of \histmi\.
rwp@Luke:22:20 @{After the supper} (\meta to deipnsai\). Preposition \meta\ and the accusative articular infinitive. The textual situation here is confusing, chiefly because of the two cups (verses 17,20|). Some of the documents omit the latter part of verse 19| and all of verse 20|. It is possible, of course, that this part crept into the text of Luke from strkjv@1Corinthians:11:24f|. But, if this part is omitted, Luke would then have the order reversed, the cup before the bread. Songs:there are difficulties whichever turn one takes here with Luke's text whether one cup or two cups. {The New Covenant} (\he kain diathk\). See on ¯Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Mark:14:24| for "covenant." Westcott and Hort reject "new" there, but accept it here and in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:25|. See on ¯Luke:5:38| for difference between \kain\ and \nea\. "The ratification of a covenant was commonly associated with the shedding of blood; and what was written in blood was believed to be indelible" (Plummer). {Poured out} (\ekchunnomenon\). Same word in strkjv@Mark:14:24; strkjv@Matthew:26:28| translated "shed." Late form present passive participle of \ekchunn\ of \ekche\, to pour out.
rwp@Luke:22:30 @{And ye shall sit} (\kathsesthe\). But Westcott and Hort read in the text \kathsthe\ (present middle subjunctive with \hina\). The picture seems to be that given in strkjv@Matthew:19:28| when Jesus replied to Peter's inquiry. It is not clear how literally this imagery is to be taken. But there is the promise of honour for the loyal among these in the end.
rwp@Luke:22:62 @{And he went out and wept bitterly} (\kai exelthn ex eklausen pikrs\). A few old Latin documents omit this verse which is genuine in strkjv@Matthew:26:75|. It may be an insertion here from there, but the evidence for the rejection is too slight. It is the ingressive aorist (\eklausen\), he burst into tears. "Bitter" is a common expression for tears in all languages and in all hearts.
rwp@Luke:23:4 @{The multitude} (\tous ochlous\). The first mention of them. It is now after daybreak. The procession of the Sanhedrin would draw a crowd (Plummer) and some may have come to ask for the release of a prisoner (Mark:15:8|). There was need of haste if the condemnation went through before friends of Jesus came. {I find no fault} (\ouden heurisk aition\). In the N.T. Luke alone uses this old adjective \aitios\ (Luke:23:4,14,22; strkjv@Acts:19:40|) except Heb. strkjv@5:9|. It means one who is the author, the cause of or responsible for anything. Luke does not give the explanation of this sudden decision of Pilate that Jesus is innocent. Evidently he held a careful examination before he delivered his judgment on the case. That conversation is given in strkjv@John:18:33-38|. Pilate took Jesus inside the palace from the upper gallery (John:18:33|) and then came out and rendered his decision to the Sanhedrin (John:18:38|) who would not go into the palace of Pilate (John:18:28|).
rwp@Luke:23:27 @{Followed} (\kolouthei\). Imperfect active, was following. Verses 27-32| are peculiar to Luke. {Bewailed} (\ekoptonto\). Imperfect middle of \kopt\, to cut, smite, old and common verb. Direct middle, they were smiting themselves on the breast. "In the Gospels there is no instance of a woman being hostile to Christ" (Plummer). Luke's Gospel is appropriately called the Gospel of Womanhood (1:39-56; strkjv@2:36-38; strkjv@7:11-15, 37-50; strkjv@8:1-3; strkjv@10:38-42; strkjv@11:27; strkjv@13:11-16|). {Lamented} (\ethrnoun\). Imperfect active of \thrne\, old verb from \threomai\, to cry aloud, lament.
rwp@Luke:23:33 @{The skull} (\to kranion\). Probably because it looked like a skull. See on ¯Matthew:27:33; strkjv@Mark:15:22|. {There they crucified him} (\ekei estaursan\). There between the two robbers and on the very cross on which Barabbas, the leader of the robber band, was to have been crucified. {One} (\hon men\), {the other} (\hon de\). Common idiom of contrast with this old demonstrative \hos\ and \men\ and \de\.
rwp@Luke:23:46 @{Father} (\Pater\). Jesus dies with the words of strkjv@Psalms:31:5| on his lips. {Gave up the ghost} (\exepneusen\). First aorist active indicative of \ekpne\, to breathe out, to expire, old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:15:37,39|. There is no special reason for retaining "ghost" in the English as both strkjv@Matthew:27:50| (yielded up his spirit, \aphken to pneuma\) and strkjv@John:19:30| (gave up his spirit, \paredken to pneuma\) use \pneuma\ which is the root of \ekpne\, the verb in Mark and Luke.
rwp@Luke:23:55 @{Had come with him} (\san sunelluthuiai\). Periphrastic past perfect active of \sunerchomai\. {Followed after} (\katakolouthsasai\). Aorist active participle of \katakolouthe\, an old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:16:17|. It is possible that they followed after Joseph and Nicodemus so that they "beheld the tomb," (\etheasanto to mnmeion\), and also "how his body was laid" (\hs eteth to sma autou\). First aorist passive indicative of \tithmi\. They may in fact, have witnessed the silent burial from a distance. The Syriac Sinaitic and the Syriac Curetonian give it thus: "and the women, who came with Him from Galilee went to the sepulchre in their footsteps, and saw the body when they had brought it in there." At any rate the women saw "that" and "how" the body of Jesus was laid in this new tomb of Joseph in the rocks.
rwp@Luke:24:3 @{Of the Lord Jesus} (\tou kuriou Isou\). The Western family of documents does not have these words and Westcott and Hort bracket them as Western non-interpolations. There are numerous instances of this shorter Western text in this chapter. For a discussion of the subject see my _Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_, pp. 225-237. This precise combination (the Lord Jesus) is common in the Acts, but nowhere else in the Gospels.
rwp@Luke:24:4 @{While they were perplexed thereabout} (\en ti aporeisthai autas peri toutou\). Luke's common Hebraistic idiom, \en\ with the articular infinitive (present passive \aporeisthai\ from \apore\, to lose one's way) and the accusative of general reference. {Two men} (\andres duo\). Men, not women. ![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}