OT-POET.filter - rwp argue:
rwp@
1Corinthians:5:6 @{Not good} (\ou kalon\). Not beautiful, not seemly, in view of this plague spot, this cancer on the church. They needed a surgical operation at once instead of boasting and pride (puffed up). \Kauchma\ is the thing gloried in. {A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump} (\mikra zum holon to phurama zumoi\). This proverb occurs _verbatim_ in strkjv@Galatians:5:9|. \Zum\ (leaven) is a late word from \ze\, to boil, as is \zumo\, to leaven. The contraction is regular (\-oei=oi\) for the third person singular present indicative. See the parables of Jesus for the pervasive power of leaven (Matthew:13:33|). Some of the members may have argued that one such case did not affect the church as a whole, a specious excuse for negligence that Paul here answers. The emphasis is on the "little" (\mikra\, note position). Lump (\phurama\ from \phura\, to mix, late word, in the papyri mixing a medical prescription) is a substance mixed with water and kneaded like dough. Compare the pervasive power of germs of disease in the body as they spread through the body.
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@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@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 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@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:21:24 @{These take} (\toutous paralabn\). Second aorist active participle of \paralamban\. Taking these alone. {Purify thyself with them} (\hagnisthti sun autois\). First aorist passive imperative of \hagniz\, old verb to purify, to make pure (\hagnos\). See the active voice in strkjv@James:4:8; strkjv@1Peter:1:22; strkjv@1John:3:3|. It is possible to see the full passive force here, "Be purified." But a number of aorist passives in the _Koin_ supplant the aorist middle forms and preserve the force of the middle (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 819). That is possible here. Hence, "Purify thyself" is allowable. The word occurs in strkjv@Numbers:6:1| for taking the Nazarite vow. The point is that Paul takes the vow with them. Note \hagnismou\ in verse 26|. {Be at charges for them} (\dapanson ep' autois\). First aorist active imperative of old verb \dapana\, to incur expense, expend. Spend (money) upon (\ep'\) them. Ramsay (_St. Paul the Traveller_, etc., p. 310) argues that Paul had use of considerable money at this period, perhaps from his father's estate. The charges for five men would be considerable. "A poor man would not have been treated with the respect paid him at Caesarea, on the voyage, and at Rome" (Furneaux). {That they may shave their heads} (\hina xursontai tn kephaln\). Note \tn kephaln\, the head (singular). Future middle indicative of \xura\, late form for the old \xure\, to shave, middle to shave oneself or (causative) to get oneself shaved. This use of \hina\ with the future indicative is like the classic \hops\ with the future indicative and is common in the N.T. as in the _Koin_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 984). {And all shall know} (\kai gnsontai\). This future middle indicative of \ginsk\ (cf. \akousontai\ in verse 22|) may be independent of \hina\ or dependent on it like \xursontai\, though some MSS. (H L P) have \gnsin\ (second aorist subjunctive, clearly dependent on \hina\). {Of which} (\hn\). Genitive plural of the relative \ha\ (accusative) object of the perfect passive verb \katchntai\ (cf. verse 21| \katchthsan\) attracted into the case of the omitted antecedent \toutn\. The instruction still in effect. {But that thou thyself walkest orderly} (\alla stoicheis kai autos\). \Stoicheis\ is an old verb to go in a row (from \stoichos\, row, rank, series), to walk in a line or by rule. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Galatians:5:25; strkjv@Romans:4:12; strkjv@Phillipians:3:16|. The rule is the law and Paul was not a sidestepper. The idea of the verb is made plain by the participle \phulassn ton nomon\ (keeping or observing the law).
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:21:37 @{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:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \ginsk\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisain\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastases nekrn krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.
rwp@Acts:24:27 @{But when two years were fulfilled} (\dietias de plrtheiss\). Genitive absolute first aorist passive of \plro\, common verb to fill full. \Dietia\, late word in LXX and Philo, common in the papyri, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:28:30|. Compound of \dia\, two (\duo, dis\) and \etos\, year. Songs:Paul lingered on in prison in Caesarea, waiting for the second hearing under Felix which never came. Caesarea now became the compulsory headquarters of Paul for two years. With all his travels Paul spent several years each at Tarsus, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, though not as a prisoner unless that was true part of the time at Ephesus for which there is some evidence though not of a convincing kind. We do not know that Luke remained in Caesarea all this time. In all probability he came and went with frequent visits with Philip the Evangelist. It was probably during this period that Luke secured the material for his Gospel and wrote part or all of it before going to Rome. He had ample opportunity to examine the eyewitnesses who heard Jesus and the first attempts at writing including the Gospel of Mark (Luke:1:1-4|). {Was succeeded by} (\elaben diadochon\). Literally, "received as successor." \Diadochos\ is an old word from \diadechomai\, to receive in succession (\dia, duo\, two) and occurs here alone in the N.T. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 115) gives papyri examples where \hoi diadochoi\ means "higher officials at the court of the Ptolemies," probably "deputies," a usage growing out of the "successors" of Alexander the Great (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_), though here the original notion of "successor" occurs (cf. Josephus, _Ant_. XX. 8, 9). Luke does not tell why Felix "received" a successor. The explanation is that during these two years the Jews and the Gentiles had an open fight in the market-place in Caesarea. Felix put the soldiers on the mob and many Jews were killed. The Jews made formal complaint to the Emperor with the result that Felix was recalled and Porcius Festus sent in his stead. {Porcius Festus} (\Porkion Phston\). We know very little about this man. He is usually considered a worthier man than Felix, but Paul fared no better at his hands and he exhibits the same insincerity and eagerness to please the Jews. Josephus (_Ant_. XX. 8, 9) says that "Porcius Festus was sent as a successor to Felix." The precise year when this change occurred is not clear. Albinus succeeded Festus by A.D. 62, so that it is probable that Festus came A.D. 58 (or 59). Death cut short his career in a couple of years though he did more than Felix to rid the country of robbers and _sicarii_. Some scholars argue for an earlier date for the recall of Felix. Nero became Emperor Oct. 13, A.D. 54. Poppaea, his Jewish mistress and finally wife, may have had something to do with the recall of Felix at the request of the Jews. {Desiring to gain favour with the Jews} (\theln te charita katathesthai tois Ioudaiois\). Reason for his conduct. Note second aorist (ingressive) middle infinitive \katathesthai\ from \katatithmi\, old verb to place down, to make a deposit, to deposit a favour with, to do something to win favour. Only here and strkjv@25:9| in N.T., though in some MSS. in strkjv@Mark:15:46|. It is a banking figure. {Left Paul in bonds} (\katelipe ton Paulon dedemenon\). Effective aorist active indicative of \kataleip\, to leave behind. Paul "in bonds" (\dedemenon\, perfect passive participle of \de\, to bind) was the "deposit" (\katathesthai\) for their favour. Codex Bezae adds that Felix left Paul in custody "because of Drusilla" (\dia Drousillan\). She disliked Paul as much as Herodias did John the Baptist. Songs:Pilate surrendered to the Jews about the death of Jesus when they threatened to report him to Caesar. Some critics would date the third group of Paul's Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) to the imprisonment here in Caesarea, some even to one in Ephesus. But the arguments for either of these two views are more specious than convincing. Furneaux would even put strkjv@2Timothy:4:9-22| here in spite of the flat contradiction with strkjv@Acts:21:29| about Trophimus being in Jerusalem instead of Miletus (2Timothy:4:20|), a "mistake" which he attributes to Luke! That sort of criticism can prove anything.
rwp@Acts:25:4 @{Howbeit} (\men oun\). No antithesis expressed, though Page considers \de\ in verse 6| to be one. They probably argued that it was easier for one man (Paul) to come to Jerusalem than for many to go down there. But Festus was clearly suspicious (verse 6|) and was wholly within his rights to insist that they make their charges in Caesarea where he held court. {Was kept in charge} (\treisthai\). Present passive infinitive of \tre\ in indirect assertion. \Hoti\ with finite verb is more common after \apokrinomai\, but the infinitive with the accusative of general reference is proper as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1036). {Shortly} (\en tachei\). In quickness, in speed. Old and common usage, seen already in strkjv@Luke:18:8; strkjv@Acts:12:7; strkjv@22:18|. Festus is clearly within his rights again since his stay in Caesarea had been so brief. He did go down in "eight or ten days" (verse 6|). Luke did not consider the matter important enough to be precise.
rwp@Ephesians:4:8 @{Wherefore he saith} (\dio legei\). As a confirmation of what Paul has said. No subject is expressed in the Greek and commentators argue whether it should be \ho theos\ (God) or \h graph\ (Scripture). But it comes to God after all. See strkjv@Acts:2:17|. The quotation is from strkjv@Psalms:68:18|, a Messianic Psalm of victory which Paul adapts and interprets for Christ's triumph over death. {He led captivity captive} (\ichmalteusen aichmalsian\). Cognate accusative of \aichmalsian\, late word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:13:10|. The verb also (\aichmalteu\) is from the old word \aichmaltos\, captive in war (in N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:4:18|), in LXX and only here in N.T.
rwp@Ephesians:4:9 @{Now this} (\to de\). Paul picks out the verb \anabas\ (second aorist active participle of \anabain\, to go up), changes its form to \aneb\ (second aorist indicative), and points the article (\to\) at it. Then he concludes that it implied a previous \katabas\ (coming down). {Into the lower parts of the earth} (\eis ta kattera ts gs\). If the \anabas\ is the Ascension of Christ, then the \katabas\ would be the Descent (Incarnation) to earth and \ts gs\ would be the genitive of apposition. What follows in verse 10| argues for this view. Otherwise one must think of the death of Christ (the descent into Hades of strkjv@Acts:2:31|).
rwp@Galatians:6:11 @{With how large letters} (\plikois grammasin\). Paul now takes the pen from the amanuensis (cf. strkjv@Romans:16:22|) and writes the rest of the Epistle (verses 11-18|) himself instead of the mere farewell greeting (2Thessalonians:3:17; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21; strkjv@Colossians:4:18|). But what does he mean by "with how large letters"? Certainly not "how large a letter." It has been suggested that he employed large letters because of defective eyesight or because he could only write ill-formed letters because of his poor handwriting (like the print letters of children) or because he wished to call particular attention to this closing paragraph by placarding it in big letters (Ramsay). This latter is the most likely reason. Deissmann, (_St. Paul_, p. 51) argues that artisans write clumsy letters, yes, and scholars also. Milligan (_Documents_, p. 24; _Vocabulary_, etc.) suggests the contrast seen in papyri often between the neat hand of the scribe and the big sprawling hand of the signature. {I have written} (\egrapsa\). Epistolary aorist. {With mine own hand} (\ti emi cheiri\). Instrumental case as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21|.
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 RECIPIENTS If the title is allowed to be genuine or a fair interpretation of the Epistle, then it is addressed to Jewish (Hebrew) Christians in a local church somewhere. Dr. James Moffatt in his _Commentary_ (pp. xv to xvii) challenges the title and insists that the book is written for Gentile Christians as truly as First Peter. He argues this largely from the author's use of the LXX. For myself Dr. Moffatt's reasons are not convincing. The traditional view that the author is addressing Jewish Christians in a definite locality, whether a large church or a small household church, is true, I believe. The author seems clearly to refer to a definite church in the experiences alluded to in strkjv@Hebrews:10:32-34|. The church in Jerusalem had undergone sufferings like these, but we really do not know where the church was. Apparently the author is in Italy when he writes (Hebrews:13:24|), though "they of Italy" (\hoi apo ts Italias\) can mean those who have come from Italy. These Jewish Christians may even have lived in Rome itself.
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@Info_Hebrews @ THE PURPOSE The author states it repeatedly. He urges the Jewish Christians to hold fast the confession which they have made in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Their Jewish neighbours have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism. The Judaizers tried to make Jews out of Gentile Christians and to fasten Judaism upon Christianity with a purely sacramental type of religion as the result. Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ over all these imaginary \aeons\ (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God's Son and man's Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms it "a profound homily."
rwp@James:1:17 @{Gift} (\dosis\) {--boon} (\drma\). Both old substantives from the same original verb (\didmi\), to give. \Dosis\ is the act of giving (ending \-sis\), but sometimes by metonymy for the thing given like \ktisis\ for \ktisma\ (Colossians:1:15|). But \drma\ (from \dre\, from \dron\ a gift) only means a gift, a benefaction (Romans:5:16|). The contrast here argues for "giving" as the idea in \dosis\. Curiously enough there is a perfect hexameter line here: \psa do / sis aga / th kai / pn d / rma te / leion\. Such accidental rhythm occurs occasionally in many writers. Ropes (like Ewald and Mayor) argues for a quotation from an unknown source because of the poetical word \drma\, but that is not conclusive. {From above} (\anthen\). That is, from heaven. Cf. strkjv@John:3:31; strkjv@19:11|. {Coming down} (\katabainon\). Present active neuter singular participle of \katabain\ agreeing with \drma\, expanding and explaining \anthen\ (from above). {From the Father of lights} (\apo tou patros tn phtn\). "Of the lights" (the heavenly bodies). For this use of \patr\ see strkjv@Job:38:28| (Father of rain); strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17|. God is the Author of light and lights. {With whom} (\par' hi\). For \para\ (beside) with locative sense for standpoint of God see \para ti thei\ (Mark:10:27; strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@9:14; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9|. {Can be no} (\ouk eni\). This old idiom (also in strkjv@Galatians:3:28; strkjv@Colossians:3:11|) may be merely the original form of \en\ with recessive accent (Winer, Mayor) or a shortened form of \enesti\. The use of \eni en\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:5| argues for this view, as does the use of \eine\ (\einai\) in Modern Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 313). {Variation} (\parallag\). Old word from \parallass\, to make things alternate, here only in N.T. In Aristeas in sense of alternate stones in pavements. Dio Cassius has \parallaxis\ without reference to the modern astronomical parallax, though James here is comparing God (Father of the lights) to the sun (Malachi:4:2|), which does have periodic variations. {Shadow that is cast by turning} (\trops aposkiasma\). \Trop\ is an old word for "turning" (from \trep\ to turn), here only in N.T. \Aposkiasma\ is a late and rare word (\aposkiasmos\ in Plutarch) from \aposkiaz\ (\apo, skia\) a shade cast by one object on another. It is not clear what the precise metaphor is, whether the shadow thrown on the dial (\aposkiaz\ in Plato) or the borrowed light of the moon lost to us as it goes behind the earth. In fact, the text is by no means certain, for Aleph B papyrus of fourth century actually read \h trops aposkiasmatos\ (the variation of the turning of the shadow). Ropes argues strongly for this reading, and rather convincingly. At any rate there is no such periodic variation in God like that we see in the heavenly bodies.
rwp@James:5:16 @{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 @ WITH A HOME IN JERUSALEM It is not only that the writer was a Jew who knew accurately places and events in Palestine, once denied though now universally admitted. The Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus "to his own home" (\eis ta idia\, strkjv@John:19:27|) from the Cross when Jesus commended his mother to his care. But this Beloved Disciple had access to the palace of the high priest (John:18:15f.|). Delff (_Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_, 1890) argues that this fact shows that the Beloved Disciple was not one of the twelve apostles, one of a priestly family of wealth in Jerusalem. He does seem to have had special information concerning what took place in the Sanhedrin (John:7:45-52; strkjv@11:47-53; strkjv@12:10ff.|). But at once we are confronted with the difficulty of supposing one outside of the circle of the twelve on even more intimate terms with Jesus than the twelve themselves and who was even present at the last passover meal and reclined on the bosom of Jesus (John:13:23|). Nor is this all, for he was one of the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John:21:1ff.|) when Peter speaks to Jesus about the "Beloved Disciple" (John:21:20|).
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 @ 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 @ JOHN'S PORTRAIT OF CHRIST No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: "And the Word was God" (John:1:1|) and in the correct text of strkjv@John:1:18|, "God only begotten" (\theos monogens\). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: "This is the Son of God" (John:1:34|). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (John:5:18|) and the claim of Christ himself (John:5:20-23; strkjv@6:48; strkjv@8:12,58; strkjv@11:25; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|) with the full and frank conviction of the author in strkjv@John:20:31|. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term \theos\ applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_ (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ's crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly (_Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah_, 1900; _St. John's Portrait of Christ_, 1910).
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:1:13 @{Which were born} (\hoi egennthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna\, to beget, "who were begotten." By spiritual generation (of God, \ek theou\), not by physical (\ex haimatn\, plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; \ek thelmatos sarkos\, from sexual desire; \ek thelmatos andros\, from the will of the male). But _b_ of the old Latin reads _qui natus est_ and makes it refer to Christ and so expressly teach the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Likewise Irenaeus reads _qui natus est_ as does Tertullian who argues that _qui nati sunt_ (\hoi egennthsan\) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass (_Philology of the Gospels_, p. 234) opposes this reading, but all the old Greek uncials read \hoi egennthsan\ and it must be accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in verse 14|, but it is not stated in verse 13|.
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: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: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:9:4 @{We must work the works of him that sent me} (\hmas dei ergazesthai ta erga tou pempsantos me\). This is undoubtedly the correct text (supported by the Neutral and Western classes) and not \eme\ (I) and \me\ (me) of the Syrian class nor \hmas\ (we) and \hmas\ (us) of the Alexandrian class. Jesus associates us with him in the task committed to him by the Father. Bernard argues vigorously, but vainly, for \eme\ me. We are not able to fathom the depth of the necessity (\dei\) here involved in each life as in this poor blind man and in each of us. {While it is day} (\hes hmera estin\). This clause gives the note of urgency upon us all. {The night cometh} (\erchetai nux\). "Night is coming on," and rapidly. Night was coming for Jesus (7:33|) and for each of us. Cf. strkjv@11:9; strkjv@12:35|. Even electric lights do not turn night into day. \Hes\ with the present indicative (21:22f.|) means "while," not until as in strkjv@13:38|.
rwp@John:9:33 @{If this man were not from God} (\ei m n houtos para theou\). Negative condition of second class with imperfect indicative. Assuming that Jesus is not "from God" (\para theou\) as some argued in strkjv@9:16|, "he could do nothing" (\ouk dunato poiein ouden\). Conclusion of the second-class condition with imperfect indicative (double augment in \dunato\) without \an\ as is usual in conditions of possibility, propriety, obligation (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 920,1014). The man has scored with terrific power in his use of Scripture and logic.
rwp@John:12:10 @{The chief priests took counsel} (\ebouleusanto hoi archiereis\). First aorist middle indicative of \bouleu\, old verb, seen already in strkjv@11:53| which see. The whole Sanhedrin (7:32|) had decided to put Jesus to death and had asked for information concerning him (11:57|) that might lead to his arrest, but the Sadducees were specially active now to accomplish the death of Lazarus also (\hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \apoktein\ as in strkjv@11:53|). Perhaps they argued that, if they should kill both Jesus and Lazarus, then Lazarus would remain dead. The raising of Lazarus has brought matters to a crisis. Incidentally, it may be observed that here we may see the reason why the Synoptics do not tell the story of the raising of Lazarus, if he was still living (cf. the case of Malchus's name in strkjv@John:18:10|).
rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SAME AUTHOR FOR GOSPEL AND ACTS The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as "the first treatise," \ton prton logon\, (Acts:1:1|) and both are addressed to Theophilus (Luke:1:3; strkjv@Acts:1:1|). He speaks of himself in both books as "me" (\kamoi\, strkjv@Luke:1:3|) and {I made} (\epoisamn\, strkjv@Acts:1:1|). He refers to himself with others as "we" and "us" as in strkjv@Acts:16:10|, the "we" sections of Acts. The unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the author's statement. It is quite possible that the formal Introduction to the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|) was intended to apply to the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury, who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: "In my study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom." He adds: "They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author's original plan and purpose."
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@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: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:8:21 @{These which hear the word of God and do it} (\hoi ton logon tou theou akouontes kai poiountes\). The absence of the article with "mother" and "brothers" probably means, as Plummer argues, "Mother to me and brothers to me are those who &c." No one is a child of God because of human parentage (John:1:13|). "Family ties are at best temporal; spiritual ties are eternal" (Plummer). Note the use of "hear and do" together here as in strkjv@Matthew:7:24; strkjv@Luke:6:47| at the close of the Sermon on the Mount. The parable of the sower is almost like a footnote to that sermon. Later Jesus will make "doing" a test of friendship for him (John:15:14|).
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@Info_Mark @ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark's Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that A.D. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_. Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark's Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q (_Logia of Jesus_) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark's work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter (_The Four Gospels_) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter's own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|).
rwp@Mark:5:30 @{Perceiving in himself} (\epignous en heauti\). She thought, perhaps, that the touch of Christ's garment would cure her without his knowing it, a foolish fancy, no doubt, but one due to her excessive timidity. Jesus felt in his own consciousness. The Greek idiom more exactly means: "Jesus perceiving in himself the power from him go out" (\tn ex autou dunamin exelthousan\). The aorist participle here is punctiliar simply and timeless and can be illustrated by strkjv@Luke:10:18|: "I was beholding Satan fall" (\etheroun ton Satann pesonta\), where \pesonta\ does not mean _fallen_ (\peptkota\) as in strkjv@Revelation:9:1| nor falling (\piptonta\) but simply the constative aorist {fall} (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 684). Songs:here Jesus means to say: "I felt in myself the power from me go." Scholars argue whether in this instance Jesus healed the woman by conscious will or by unconscious response to her appeal. Some even argue that the actual healing took place after Jesus became aware of the woman's reaching for help by touching his garment. What we do know is that Jesus was conscious of the going out of power from himself. strkjv@Luke:8:46| uses \egnn\ (personal knowledge), but Mark has \epignous\ (personal and additional, clear knowledge). One may remark that no real good can be done without the outgoing of power. That is true of mother, preacher, teacher, doctor. {Who touched my garments?} (\Tis mou hpsato tn himatin;\). More exactly, {Who touched me on my clothes}; The Greek verb uses two genitives, of the person and the thing. It was a dramatic moment for Jesus and for the timid woman. Later it was a common practice for the crowds to touch the hem of Christ's garments and be healed (Mark:6:56|). But here Jesus chose to single out this case for examination. There was no magic in the garments of Jesus. Perhaps there was superstition in the woman's mind, but Jesus honoured her darkened faith as in the case of Peter's shadow and Paul's handkerchief.
rwp@Mark:6:14 @{Heard} (\kousen\). This tour of Galilee by the disciples in pairs wakened all Galilee, for the name of Jesus thus became known (\phaneron\) or known till even Herod heard of it in the palace. "A palace is late in hearing spiritual news" (Bengel). {Therefore do these powers work in him} (\dia touto energousin hai dunameis en auti\). "A snatch of Herod's theology and philosophy" (Morison). John wrought no miracles (John:10:41|), but if he had risen from the dead perhaps he could. Songs:Herod may have argued. "Herod's superstition and his guilty conscience raised this ghost to plague him" (Gould). Our word _energy_ is this same Greek word here used (\energousin\). It means at work. Miraculous powers were at work in Jesus whatever the explanation. This all agreed, but they differed widely as to his personality, whether Elijah or another of the prophets or John the Baptist. Herod was at first much perplexed (\diporei\, strkjv@Luke:9:7| and strkjv@Mark:6:20|).
rwp@Mark:9:12 @{Restoreth all things} (\apokatistanei panta\). This late double compound verb, usual form \apokathistmi\ in the papyri, is Christ's description of the Baptist as the promised Elijah and Forerunner of the Messiah. See on ¯Matthew:17:10-13|. The disciples had not till now understood that the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy in strkjv@Malachi:3:5f|. They had just seen Elijah on the mountain, but Jesus as Messiah preceded this coming of Elijah. But Jesus patiently enlightens his dull pupils as they argue about the exegesis of the scribes.
rwp@Matthew:6:9 @{After this manner therefore pray ye} (\houts oun proseuchesthe humeis\). "You" expressed in contrast with "the Gentiles." It should be called "The Model Prayer" rather than "The Lord's Prayer." "Thus" pray as he gives them a model. He himself did not use it as a liturgy (cf. strkjv@John:17|). There is no evidence that Jesus meant it for liturgical use by others. In strkjv@Luke:11:2-4| practically the same prayer though briefer is given at a later time by Jesus to the apostles in response to a request that he teach them how to pray. McNeile argues that the form in Luke is the original to which Matthew has made additions: "The tendency of liturgical formulas is towards enrichment rather than abbreviation." But there is no evidence whatever that Jesus designed it as a set formula. There is no real harm in a liturgical formula if one likes it, but no one sticks to just one formula in prayer. There is good and not harm in children learning and saying this noble prayer. Some people are disturbed over the words "Our Father" and say that no one has a right to call God Father who has not been "born again." But that is to say that an unconverted sinner cannot pray until he is converted, an absurd contradiction. God is the Father of all men in one sense; the recognition of Him as the Father in the full sense is the first step in coming back to him in regeneration and conversion.
rwp@Matthew:6:22 @{Single} (\haplous\). Used of a marriage contract when the husband is to repay the dowry "pure and simple" (\tn phernn hapln\), if she is set free; but in case he does not do so promptly, he is to add interest also (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_, etc.). There are various other instances of such usage. Here and in strkjv@Luke:11:34| the eye is called "single" in a moral sense. The word means "without folds" like a piece of cloth unfolded, _simplex_ in Latin. Bruce considers this parable of the eye difficult. "The figure and the ethical meaning seem to be mixed up, moral attributes ascribed to the physical eye which with them still gives light to the body. This confusion may be due to the fact that the eye, besides being the organ of vision, is the seat of expression, revealing inward dispositions." The "evil" eye (\ponros\) may be diseased and is used of stinginess in the LXX and so \haplous\ may refer to liberality as Hatch argues (_Essays in Biblical Greek_, p. 80). The passage may be elliptical with something to be supplied. If our eyes are healthy we see clearly and with a single focus (without astigmatism). If the eyes are diseased (bad, evil), they may even be cross-eyed or cock-eyed. We see double and confuse our vision. We keep one eye on the hoarded treasures of earth and roll the other proudly up to heaven. Seeing double is double-mindedness as is shown in verse 24|.
rwp@Romans:11:26 @{And so} (\kai houts\). By the complement of the Gentiles stirring up the complement of the Jews (verses 11f.|). {All Israel} (\ps Isral\). What does Paul mean? The immediate context (use of \ps\ in contrast with \apo merous, plrma\ here in contrast with \plrma\ in verse 12|) argues for the Jewish people "as a whole." But the spiritual Israel (both Jews and Gentiles) may be his idea in accord with strkjv@9:6| (Galatians:6:16|) as the climax of the argument. At any rate we should strive for and pray for the conversion of Jews as a whole. Paul here quotes from strkjv@Isaiah:59:20f.; strkjv@27:9|. {The Deliverer} (\ho ruomenos\). Present middle articular participle of \ruomai\, to rescue, to deliver. See on ¯1Thessalonians:1:10; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:10|. The Hebrew _Goel_, the Avenger, the Messiah, the Redeemer (Deuteronomy:25:5-10; strkjv@Job:19:25; strkjv@Ruth:3:12f.|). Paul interprets it of Jesus as Messiah.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}