OT-POET.filter - rwp sch:
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:4:9 @{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:5:7 @{Purge out} (\ekkatharate\). First aorist (effective) active imperative of \ekkathair\, old verb to cleanse out (\ek\), to clean completely. Aorist tense of urgency, do it now and do it effectively before the whole church is contaminated. This turn to the metaphor is from the command to purge out the old (\palaian\, now old and decayed) leaven before the passover feast (Exodus:12:15f.; strkjv@13:7; strkjv@Zephaniah:1:12|). Cf. modern methods of disinfection after a contagious disease. {A new lump} (\neon phurama\). Make a fresh start as a new community with the contamination removed. \Neos\ is the root for \neaniskos\, a young man, not yet old (\graios\). Songs:new wine (\oinon neon\ strkjv@Matthew:9:17|). \Kainos\ is fresh as compared with the ancient (\palaios\). See the distinction in strkjv@Colossians:3:10; strkjv@Ephesians:4:22ff.; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:17|. {Unleavened} (\azumoi\). Without (\a\ privative) leaven, the normal and ideal state of Christians. Rare word among the ancients (once in Plato). They are a new creation (\kain ktisis\), "exemplifying Kant's maxim that you should treat a man as if he were what you would wish him to be" (Robertson and Plummer). {For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ} (\kai gar to pascha hmn etuth Christos\). First aorist passive indicative of \thu\, old verb to sacrifice. Euphony of consonants, \th\ to \t\ because of \-th\. Reference to the death of Christ on the Cross as the Paschal Lamb (common use of \pascha\ as strkjv@Mark:14:12; strkjv@Luke:22:7|), the figure used long before by the Baptist of Jesus (John:1:29|). Paul means that the Lamb was already slain on Calvary and yet you have not gotten rid of the leaven.
rwp@1Corinthians:15:26 @{The last enemy that shall be abolished is death} (\eschatos echthros katargeitai ho thanatos\). A rather free translation. Literally, "death (note article, and so subject) is done away (prophetic or futuristic use of present tense of same verb as in verse 24|), the last enemy" (predicate and only one "last" and so no article as in strkjv@1John:2:18|).
rwp@1Thessalonians:2:17 @{Being bereaved of you} (\aporphanisthentes aph' humn\). First aorist passive participle of the rare compound verb (\aporphaniz\, in Aeschylus, but nowhere else in N.T.). Literally, {being orphaned from you} (\aph' humn\, ablative case). Paul changes the figure again (\trophos\ or mother nurse in verse 7|, \npios\ or babe in verse 7|, \patr\ or father in verse 11|) to {orphan} (\orphanos\). He refers to the period of separation from them, {for a short season} (\pros kairon hras\) for a season of an hour. This idiom only here in N.T., but \pros kairon\ in strkjv@Luke:8:13| and \pros hran\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:8|. But it has seemed long to Paul. Precisely how long he had been gone we do not know, some months at any rate. {In presence, not in heart} (\prospi ou kardii\). Locative case. \Prospon\, old word (\pros, ops\, in front of the eye, face) for face, look, person. Literally, {in face or person}. His heart was with them, though they no longer saw his face. Heart, originally \kardia\, is the inner man, the seat of the affections and purposes, not always in contrast with intellect (\nous\). "Out of sight, not out of mind" (Rutherford). {Endeavoured the more exceedingly} (\perissoters espoudasamen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \spoudaz\, old word to hasten (from \spoud, speud\). {We became zealous}. Comparative adverb \perissoters\ from \perisson\, more abundantly than before being orphaned from you. {Your face} (\to prospon humn\). Cf. his {face} above. {With great desire} (\en polli epithumii\). {In much longing} (\epithumia\ from \epi\ and \thumos\, \epithume\, to run after, to yearn after, whether good or bad).
rwp@1Thessalonians:4:12 @{That ye may walk honestly} (\hina peripatte euschmons\). Present subjunctive (linear action). Old adverb from \euschmn\ (\eu, schma\, Latin _habitus_, graceful figure), becomingly, decently. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:13:13|. This idea includes honest financial transactions, but a good deal more. People outside the churches have a right to watch the conduct of professing Christians in business, domestic life, social life, politics.
rwp@2Corinthians:10:10 @{They say} (\phasin\). Reading of B old Latin Vulgate, but Westcott and Hort prefer \phsin\ (says one, the leader). This charge Paul quotes directly. {Weighty and strong} (\bareiai kai ischurai\). These adjectives can be uncomplimentary and mean "severe and violent" instead of "impressive and vigorous." The adjectives bear either sense. {His bodily presence} (\h parousia tou smatos\). This certainly is uncomplimentary. "The presence of his body." It seems clear that Paul did not have a commanding appearance like that of Barnabas (Acts:14:12|). He had some physical defect of the eyes (Galatians:4:14|) and a thorn in the flesh (2Corinthians:12:7|). In the second century _Acts of Paul and Thecla_ he is pictured as small, short, bow-legged, with eye-brows knit together, and an aquiline nose. A forgery of the fourth century in the name of Lucian describes Paul as "the bald-headed, hook-nosed Galilean." However that may be, his accusers sneered at his personal appearance as "weak" (\asthens\). {His speech of no account} (\ho logos exouthenmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \exouthene\, to treat as nothing (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:28|). The Corinthians (some of them) cared more for the brilliant eloquence of Apollos and did not find Paul a trained rhetorician (1Corinthians:1:17; strkjv@2:1,4; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:6|). He made different impressions on different people. "Seldom has any one been at once so ardently hated and so passionately loved as St. Paul" (Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 70). "At one time he seemed like a man, and at another he seemed like an angel" (_Acts of Paul and Thecla_). He spoke like a god at Lystra (Acts:14:8-12|), but Eutychus went to sleep on him (Acts:20:9|). Evidently Paul winced under this biting criticism of his looks and speech.
rwp@2Corinthians:11:13 @{False apostles} (\pseudapostoloi\). From \pseuds\, false, and \apostolos\. Paul apparently made this word (cf. strkjv@Revelation:2:2|). In verse 26| we have \pseudadelphos\, a word of like formation (Galatians:2:4|). See also \pseudochristoi\ and \pseudoprophtai\ in strkjv@Mark:13:22|. {Deceitful} (\dolioi\). Old word from \dolos\ (lure, snare), only here in N.T. (cf. strkjv@Romans:16:18|). {Fashioning themselves} (\metaschmatizomenoi\). Present middle (direct) participle of the old verb \metaschmatiz\ for which see on strkjv@1Corinthians:4:6|. Masquerading as apostles of Christ by putting on the outward habiliments, posing as ministers of Christ ("gentlemen of the cloth," nothing but cloth). Paul plays with this verb in verses 13,14,15|.
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 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 66 OR 67 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION MOST DOUBTFUL NEW TESTAMENT BOOK Every book in the New Testament is challenged by some one, as indeed the historicity of Jesus Christ himself is and the very existence of God. But it is true that more modern scholars deny the genuineness of II Peter than that of any single book in the canon. This is done by men like F. H. Chase, J. B. Mayor, and R. D. Strachan, who are followers of Christ as Lord and Saviour. One has to admit that the case concerning II Peter has problems of peculiar difficulty that call for careful consideration and balanced judgment. One other word needs to be said, which is that an adverse decision against the authenticity of II Peter stands by itself and does not affect the genuineness of the other books. It is easy to take an extreme position for or against it without full knowledge of all the evidence.
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 @ HE ACCEPTS PAUL'S EPISTLES AS SCRIPTURE This fact (2Peter:3:15f.|) has been used as conclusive proof by Baur and his school that Peter could not have written the Epistle after the stern rebuke from Paul at Antioch (Galatians:2:11f.|). But this argument ignores one element in Peter's impulsive nature and that is his coming back as he did with Jesus. Paul after that event in Antioch spoke kindly of Peter (1Corinthians:9:5|). Neither Peter nor Paul cherished a personal grudge where the Master's work was involved. It is also objected that Peter would not have put Paul's Epistles on the level with the O.T. and call them by implication "Scripture." But Paul claimed the help of the Holy Spirit in his writings and Peter knew the marks of the Holy Spirit's power. Besides, in calling Paul's Epistles Scripture he may not have meant to place them exactly on a par with the Old Testament.
rwp@Info_2Peter @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882).,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). strkjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Simn Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Symen\ as in strkjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Simn\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. strkjv@2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in strkjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \tim\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \tim\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \tim\ in strkjv@1:7,19; strkjv@2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \ti hmn\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosuni\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosun\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \stros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in strkjv@1:11| as in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|. Songs:in strkjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in strkjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in strkjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).
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: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: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:21:9 @{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:21:25 @{We wrote} (\epesteilamen\). First aorist active of \epistell\, to send to and so to write like our epistle (\epistol\). Old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:15:20; strkjv@Hebrews:13:22|. It is the very word used by James in this "judgment" at the Conference (Acts:15:20|, \episteilai\). B D here read \apesteilamen\ from \apostell\, to send away, to give orders. Wendt and Schuerer object to this as a gloss. Rather is it an explanation by James that he does not refer to the Gentile Christians whose freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial law was guaranteed at the Jerusalem Conference. James himself presided at that Conference and offered the resolution that was unanimously adopted. James stands by that agreement and repeats the main items (four: anything sacrificed to idols, blood, anything strangled, fornication, for discussion see strkjv@Acts:15|) from which they are to keep themselves (direct middle \phulassesthai\ of \phulass\, indirect command after \krinantes\ with accusative, \autous\, of general reference). James has thus again cleared the air about the Gentiles who have believed (\pepisteukotn\, perfect active participle genitive plural of \pisteu\). He asks that Paul will stand by the right of Jewish Christians to keep on observing the Mosaic law. He has put the case squarely and fairly.
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:22:2 @{He spake} (\prosephnei\). Imperfect active, was speaking. See aorist active \prosephnsen\ in strkjv@21:40|. {They were the more quiet} (\mllon pareschon hsuchian\). Literally, The more (\mllon\) they furnished or supplied (second aorist active indicative of \parech\) quietness (\hsuchian\, old word, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:12; strkjv@1Timothy:2:11ff.|). Precisely this idiom occurs in Plutarch (_Cor_. 18) and the LXX (Job:34:29|). Knowling notes the fondness of Luke for words of silence (\sig, siga, hsuchaz\) as in strkjv@Luke:14:4; strkjv@15:26; strkjv@Acts:11:18; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@15:12; strkjv@21:14,40|. It is a vivid picture of the sudden hush that swept over the vast mob under the spell of the Aramaic. They would have understood Paul's _Koin_ Greek, but they much preferred the Aramaic. It was a masterstroke.
rwp@Acts:22:3 @{I am a Jew} (\Eg eimi anr Ioudaios\). Note use of \Eg\ for emphasis. Paul recounts his Jewish advantages or privileges with manifest pride as in strkjv@Acts:26:4f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:22; strkjv@Galatians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {Born} (\gegennmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \genna\. See above in strkjv@21:39| for the claim of Tarsus as his birth-place. He was a Hellenistic Jew, not an Aramaean Jew (cf. strkjv@Acts:6:1|). {Brought up} (\anatethrammenos\). Perfect passive participle again of \anatreph\, to nurse up, to nourish up, common old verb, but in the N.T. only here, strkjv@7:20ff.|, and MSS. in strkjv@Luke:4:16|. The implication is that Paul was sent to Jerusalem while still young, "from my youth" (26:4|), how young we do not know, possibly thirteen or fourteen years old. He apparently had not seen Jesus in the flesh (2Corinthians:5:16|). {At the feet of Gamaliel} (\pros tous podas Gamalil\). The rabbis usually sat on a raised seat with the pupils in a circle around either on lower seats or on the ground. Paul was thus nourished in Pharisaic Judaism as interpreted by Gamaliel, one of the lights of Judaism. For remarks on Gamaliel see chapter strkjv@5:34ff|. He was one of the seven Rabbis to whom the Jews gave the highest title \Rabban\ (our Rabbi). \Rabbi\ (my teacher) was next, the lowest being \Rab\ (teacher). "As Aquinas among the schoolmen was called _Doctor Angelicus_, and Bonaventura _Doctor Seraphicus_, so Gamaliel was called _the Beauty of the Law_" (Conybeare and Howson). {Instructed} (\pepaideumenos\). Perfect passive participle again (each participle beginning a clause), this time of \paideu\, old verb to train a child (\pais\) as in strkjv@7:22| which see. In this sense also in strkjv@1Timothy:1:20; strkjv@Titus:2:12|. Then to chastise as in strkjv@Luke:23:16,22| (which see); strkjv@2Timothy:2:25; strkjv@Hebrews:12:6f|. {According to the strict manner} (\kata akribeian\). Old word, only here in N.T. Mathematical accuracy, minute exactness as seen in the adjective in strkjv@26:5|. See also strkjv@Romans:10:2; Gal strkjv@1:4; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {Of our fathers} (\patriou\). Old adjective from \pater\, only here and strkjv@24:14| in N.T. Means descending from father to son, especially property and other inherited privileges. \Patrikos\ (patrician) refers more to personal attributes and affiliations. {Being zealous for God} (\zlts huparchn tou theou\). Not adjective, but substantive {zealot} (same word used by James of the thousands of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, strkjv@21:20| which see) with objective genitive \tou theou\ (for God). See also verse 14; strkjv@28:17; strkjv@2Timothy:1:3| where he makes a similar claim. Songs:did Peter (Acts:3:13; strkjv@5:30|) and Stephen (7:32|). Paul definitely claims, whatever freedom he demanded for Gentile Christians, to be personally "a zealot for God" "even as ye all are this day" (\kaths pantes humeis este smeron\). In his conciliation he went to the limit and puts himself by the side of the mob in their zeal for the law, mistaken as they were about him. He was generous surely to interpret their fanatical frenzy as zeal for God. But Paul is sincere as he proceeds to show by appeal to his own conduct.
rwp@Acts:23:7 @{When he had so said} (\touto autou lalountos\). Genitive absolute of present participle (Westcott and Hort) rather than aorist (\eipontos\). While he was saying this. {A dissension} (\stasis\). This old word for standing or station (Hebrews:9:8|) from \histmi\, to place, we have seen already to mean insurrection (Acts:19:40| which see). Here it is strife as in strkjv@15:2|. {Was divided} (\eschisth\). See on ¯14:4|.
rwp@Acts:23:20 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). As if the whole nation was in the conspiracy and so in verse 12|. The conspirators may have belonged to the Zealots, but clearly they represented the state of Jewish feeling toward Paul in Jerusalem. {Have agreed} (\sunethento\). Second aorist middle indicative of \suntithmi\, old verb to join together, to agree. Already this form in strkjv@Luke:22:5| which see. See also strkjv@John:9:22; strkjv@Acts:24:9|. {To bring down} (\hops katagagis\). Very words of the conspirators in verse 15| as if the young man overheard. Second aorist active subjunctive of \katag\ with \hops\ in final clause, still used, but nothing like so common as \hina\ though again in verse 23| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 985). {As though thou wouldest inquire} (\hs melln punthanesthai\). Just as in verse 15| except that here \melln\ refers to Lysias instead of to the conspirators as in verse 15|. The singular is used by the youth out of deference to the authority of Lysias and so modifies a bit the scheming of the conspirators, not "absurd" as Page holds.
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: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:25:7 @{When he was come} (\paragenomenou autou\). Genitive absolute of common verb \paraginomai\ (cf. strkjv@24:24|). {Which had come down} (\hoi katabebkotes\). Perfect active participle of \katabain\. They had come down on purpose at the invitation of Festus (verse 5|), and were now ready. {Stood round about him} (\periestsan auton\). Second aorist (ingressive) active (intransitive) of \periistmi\, old verb, "Took their stand around him," "_periculum intentantes_" (Bengel). Cf. strkjv@Luke:23:10| about Christ. They have no lawyer this time, but they mass their forces so as to impress Festus. {Bringing against him} (\katapherontes\). Bearing down on. See on ¯20:9; strkjv@26:10|, only N.T. examples of this ancient verb. {Many and grievous charges} (\polla kai barea aitimata\). This word \aitima\ for old form \aitiama\ is found in one papyrus (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_) in sense of "blame." But the charges were no "heavier" than those made by Tertullus (24:5-8|). Paul's reply proves this and they were also probably on court record (Furneaux). See this adjective \barus\ (heavy) used with \lukoi\ (wolves) in strkjv@20:29|. {Which they could not prove} (\ha ouk ischuon apodeixai\). Imperfect active of \ischu\, to have strength or power as in strkjv@19:16,20|. Repetition and reiteration and vehemence took the place of proof (\apodeixai\, first aorist active infinitive of \apodeiknumi\, to show forth, old verb, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:2:22| which see and strkjv@1Corinthians:4:9|).
rwp@Acts:25:13 @{When certain days were passed} (\Hmern diagenomenon\). Genitive absolute of \diaginomai\, to come between, "days intervening." {Agrippa the King} (\Agrippas ho basileus\). Agrippa II son of Agrippa I of strkjv@Acts:12:20-23|. On the death of Herod King of Chalcis A.D. 48, Claudius A.D. 50 gave this Herod Agrippa II the throne of Chalcis so that Luke is correct in calling him king, though he is not king of Judea. But he was also given by Claudius the government of the temple and the right of appointing the high priest. Later he was given also the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias. He was the last Jewish king in Palestine, though not king of Judea. He angered the Jews by building his palace so as to overlook the temple and by frequent changes in the high priesthood. He made his capital at Caesarea Philippi which he called Neronias in honour of Nero. Titus visited it after the fall of Jerusalem. {Bernice} (\Bernik\). He was her brother and yet she lived with him in shameful intimacy in spite of her marriage to her uncle Herod King of Chalcis and to Polemon King of Cilicia whom she left. Schuerer calls her both a Jewish bigot and a wanton. She afterwards became the mistress of Titus. {Arrived at Caesarea} (\katntsan eis Kaisarian\). Came down (first aorist active of \katanta\) to Caesarea from Jerusalem. {And saluted Festus} (\aspasamenoi ton Phston\). The Textus Receptus has \aspasomenoi\ the future participle, but the correct text is the aorist middle participle \aspasamenoi\ which cannot possibly mean subsequent action as given in the Canterbury Revision "and saluted." It can only mean contemporaneous (simultaneous) action "saluting" or antecedent action like the margin "having saluted." But antecedent action is not possible here, so that simultaneous action is the only alternative. It is to be noted that the salutation synchronized with the arrival in Caesarea (note \kata\, down, the effective aorist tense), not with the departure from Jerusalem, nor with the whole journey. Rightly understood the aorist participle here gives no trouble at all (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 861-3).
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:26:14 @{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@Acts:26:17 @{Delivering thee} (\exairoumenos se\). Present middle participle of \exaire\, old verb and usually so rendered, but the old Greek also uses it for "choose" as also in LXX (Isaiah:48:10|). The papyri give examples of both meanings and either makes good sense here. God was continually rescuing Paul "out of the hands of Jews and Gentiles and Paul was a chosen vessel" (9:15|). Modern scholars are also divided.
rwp@Ephesians:3:8 @{Unto me who am less than the least of all saints} (\emoi ti elachistoteri pantn hagin\). Dative case \emoi\ with \eloth\. The peculiar form \elachistoteri\ (in apposition with \emoi\) is a comparative (\-teros\) formed on the superlative \elachistos\. This sort of thing was already done in the older Greek like \eschatoteros\ in Xenophon. It became more common in the _Koin_. Songs:the double comparative \meizoteran\ in strkjv@3John:1:4|. The case of \hagin\ is ablative. This was not mock humility (15:19|), for on occasion Paul stood up for his rights as an apostle (2Corinthians:11:5|). {The unsearchable riches of Christ} (\to anexichniaston ploutos tou Christou\). \Anexichniastos\ (\a\ privative and verbal of \exichniaz\, to track out, \ex\ and \ichnos\, track) appears first in strkjv@Job:5:9; strkjv@9:10|. Paul apparently got it from Job. Nowhere else in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:11:33|. In later Christian writers. Paul undertook to track out the untrackable in Christ.
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:3:17 @{That Christ may dwell} (\katoiksai ton Christon\). Another infinitive (first aorist active) after \hina di\. \Katoike\ is an old verb to make one's home, to be at home. Christ (\Christon\ accusative of general reference) is asked to make his home in our hearts. This is the ideal, but a deal of fixing would have to be done in our hearts for Christ. {Being rooted and grounded in love} (\en agapi errizmenoi kai tethemelimenoi\). But it is not certain whether \en agapi\ should go with these participles or with the preceding infinitive \katoiksai\ (dwell). Besides, these two perfect passive participles (from \rizo\, old verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:7|, and from \themelio\, see also strkjv@Colossians:1:23|) are in the nominative case and are to be taken with \hina exischuste\ and are proleptically placed before \hina\. Verse 18| should really begin with these participles. Paul piles up metaphors (dwelling, rooted, grounded).
rwp@Ephesians:3:18 @{That ye may be strong} (\hina exischuste\). Sub-final clause again with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \exischu\, a late and rare compound (from \ex, ischu\) to have full strength. Here only in N.T. {To apprehend} (\katalabesthai\). Second aorist middle infinitive of \katalamban\, old and common verb, to lay hold of effectively (\kata-\), here with the mind, to grasp (Acts:25:25|). {With all the saints} (\sun pasin tois hagiois\). No isolated privilege. Fellowship open to all. Paul gives a rectangular (four dimension) measure of love (breadth \platos\, length \mkos\, height \hupsos\, depth \bathos\, all common enough words).
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:5:4 @{Filthiness} (\aischrots\). Old word from \aischros\ (base), here alone in N.T. {Foolish talking} (\mrologia\). Late word from \mrologos\ (\mros, logos\), only here in N.T. {Jesting} (\eutrapelia\). Old word from \eutrapelos\ (\eu, trep\, to turn) nimbleness of wit, quickness in making repartee (so in Plato and Plutarch), but in low sense as here ribaldry, scurrility, only here in N.T. All of these disapproved vices are \hapax legomena\ in the N.T. {Which are not befitting} (\ha ouk anken\). Same idiom (imperfect with word of propriety about the present) in strkjv@Colossians:3:18|. Late MSS. read \ta ouk ankonta\ like \ta m kathkonta\ in strkjv@Romans:1:28|.
rwp@Ephesians:5:12 @{In secret} (\kruphi\). Old adverb, only here in N.T. Sin loves the dark. {Even to speak of} (\kai legein\). And yet one must sometimes speak out, turn on the light, even if to do so is disgraceful (\aischron\, like strkjv@1Corinthians:11:6|).
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 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 @ SOME BOOKS ON HEBREWS ANDEL, _Deuteronomy:Brief aan de Hebraer_ (1906). ANDERSON, R., _The Hebrews Epistle in the Light of the Types_ (1911). AYLES, _Destination, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). BAILEY, _Leading Ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1907). BLASS, F., _Brief an die Hebraer, Text, Angabe der Rhythmen_ (1903). BLEEK, F., _Der Hebraerbrief Erklart_ (1840). BRUCE, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). DALE, R. W., _The Jewish Temple in the Christian Church_ (1865). DAVIDSON, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1882). DELITZSCH, F., _Commentary on the Hebrews_ (1857). DIBELIUS, M., _Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes_ (1910). DODS, M., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). DU BOSE, W. P., _High Priesthood and sacrifice_ (1908). EDWARDS, T. C., _Expositor's Bible_ (1888). FARRAR, F. W., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). GOODSPEED, E. J., _Bible for Home and School_ (1908). GRIFFTH-THOMAS, W. H., _Let Us Go On_ (1923). HEIGL, _Verfalser und Addresse des Briefes an die Hebraer_ (1905). HOLLMANN, _Schriften d. N. T_. 2 Aufl. (1907). KENDRICK, A. C., _American Commentary_ (1890). LIDGETT, J. S., _Sonship and Salvation_ (1921). LOWRIE, _An Explanation of Hebrews_ (1921). LUNEMANN, G., _Meyer Komm_. (1882). MACFADYEN, J. F., _Through the Eternal Spirit_ (1925). MACNEILL, _The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1914). MENEGOZ, E., _Lamentations:Theologie de l'epitre aux Hebreaux_ (1894). MILLIGAN, G., _The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). MOFFATT JAMES, _Int. and Cosit. Comm_. (1924) MOULE, H. C., _Messages from the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1909). MURRAY, ANDREW, _Devotional Commentary_. NAIRNE, A., _The Epistle of Priesthood_ (1913). NAIRNE, A., _The Alexandrian Gospel_ (1917). PEAKE, A. S., _New Century Bible_ (1904). PORTER, S. J., _The Twelve-Gemmed Crown_ (1913). RENDALL, F., _The Theology of the Hebrew Christians_ (1886). RIGGENBACH, M., _Zoeckler Komm_. 2 Aufl. (1913). ROTHERHAM, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1906). SAPHIR, A., _Exposition of Hebrews_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1922). SEEBERG, A., _Der Brief an die Hebraer_ (1912). SLOT, _Deuteronomy:Letterkundige Vorm van den Brief aan de Hebraer (1912). SODEN, VON, _Hand-Comm_. (1899). THOLUCK, A., _Komm. zum Briefe an die Hebraer_. VAUGHAN, C. J., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WADE, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1923). WEISS, B., _Meyer-Komm_. 6 Aufl. (1902). WEISS, B., _Der Hebraerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Bekuch- tung_ (1910). WELCH, _Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WESTCOTT, B. F., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (3rd ed. 1906). WICKHAM, E. C., _Westminster Comm_. (1910). WINDISCH, H., _Handbuch zum N.T_. (1913). WREDE, W., _Das literarisches Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs_ (1906). strkjv@Hebrews:1:1 @{God} (\ho theos\). This Epistle begins like Genesis and the Fourth Gospel with God, who is the Author of the old revelation in the prophets and of the new in his Son. Verses 1-3| are a _proemium_ (Delitzsch) or introduction to the whole Epistle. The periodic structure of the sentence (1-4|) reminds one of strkjv@Luke:1:1-4, strkjv@Romans:1:1-7, strkjv@1John:1:1-4|. The sentence could have concluded with \en huii\ in verse 2|, but by means of three relatives (\hon, di' hou, hos\) the author presents the Son as "the exact counterpart of God" (Moffatt). {Of old time} (\palai\). "Long ago" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:21|. {Having spoken} (\lalsas\). First aorist active participle of \lale\, originally chattering of birds, then used of the highest form of speech as here. {Unto the fathers} (\tois patrasin\). Dative case. The Old Testament worthies in general without "our" or "your" as in strkjv@John:6:58; strkjv@7:22; strkjv@Romans:9:5|. {In the prophets} (\en tois prophtais\). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). strkjv@Songs:4:7|. {By divers portions} (\polumers\). "In many portions." Adverb from late adjective \polumers\ (in papyri), both in _Vettius Valens_, here only in N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:22 and Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 3, 9). The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, a progressive revelation of God to men. {In divers manners} (\polutrops\). "In many ways." Adverb from old adjective \polutropos\, in Philo, only here in N.T. The two adverbs together are "a sonorous hendiadys for 'variously'" (Moffatt) as Chrysostom (\diaphors\). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.).
rwp@Hebrews:1:2 @{At the end of these days} (\ep' eschatou tn hmern toutn\). In contrast with \palai\ above. {Hath spoken} (\elalsen\). First aorist indicative of \lale\, the same verb as above, "did speak" in a final and full revelation. {In his Son} (\en huii\). In sharp contrast to \en tois prophtais\. "The Old Testament slopes upward to Christ" (J. R. Sampey). No article or pronoun here with the preposition \en\, giving the absolute sense of "Son." Here the idea is not merely what Jesus said, but what he is (Dods), God's Son who reveals the Father (John:1:18|). "The revelation was a _son-revelation_" (Vincent). {Hath appointed} (\ethken\). First aorist (kappa aorist) active of \tithmi\, a timeless aorist. {Heir of all things} (\klronomon pantn\). See strkjv@Mark:12:6| for \ho klronomos\ in Christ's parable, perhaps an allusion here to this parable (Moffatt). The idea of sonship easily passes into that of heirship (Galatians:4:7; strkjv@Romans:8:17|). See the claim of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:11:27; strkjv@28:18| even before the Ascension. {Through whom} (\di' hou\). The Son as Heir is also the Intermediate Agent (\dia\) in the work of creation as we have it in strkjv@Colossians:1:16f.; strkjv@John:1:3|. {The worlds} (\tous ainas\). "The ages" (_secula_, Vulgate). See strkjv@11:3| also where \tous ainas=ton kosmon\ (the world) or the universe like \ta panta\ (the all things) in strkjv@1:3; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. The original sense of \ain\ (from \aei\, always) occurs in strkjv@Hebrews:5:20|, but here "by metonomy of the container for the contained" (Thayer) for "the worlds" (the universe) as in LXX, Philo, Josephus.
rwp@Hebrews:5:7 @{In the days of his flesh} (\en tais hmerais ts sarkos autou\). Here (verses 7-9|) the author turns to the other requirement of a high priest (human sympathy). Since Jesus was "without sin" (4:15|) he did not have to offer sacrifices "for himself," yet in all other points he felt the sympathy of the human high priest, even more so by reason of his victory over sin. {Having offered up} (\prosenegkas\). Second aorist active (\-a\ form) participle of \prospher\ (cf. verse 3|). An allusion to the Agony of Christ in Gethsemane. {Supplications} (\hiketrias\). Socrates, Polybius, Job:(Job:40:22|) combine this word with \deseis\ (prayers) as here. The older form was \hikesia\. The word \hiketrios\ is an adjective from \hikets\ (a suppliant from \hik\, to come to one) and suggests one coming with an olive-branch (\elaia\). Here only in the N.T. {With strong crying and tears} (\meta kraugs ischuras kai dakrun\). See strkjv@Luke:22:44f|. for a picture of the scene in Gethsemane (anguish and pathos). No doubt the writer has in mind other times when Jesus shed tears (John:11:35; strkjv@Luke:19:41|), but Gethsemane chiefly. {To save him from death} (\szein ek thanatou\). A reference to the cry of Jesus in Gethsemane (Matthew:26:39|). {Having been heard for his godly fear} (\eisakoustheis apo ts eulabeias\). Old word from \eulabs\ (taking hold well, strkjv@Luke:2:25| from \eu, lamban\, the verb \eulabeomai\ in N.T. only in strkjv@Hebrews:11:7|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@12:28|. Fine picture of Christ's attitude toward the Father in the prayer in Gethsemane and in all his prayers. Jesus in Gethsemane at once surrendered his will to that of the Father who heard his plea and enabled him to acquiesce in the Father's will.
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@Hebrews:5:9 @{Having been made perfect} (\teleitheis\). First aorist passive participle of \teleio\, the completion of the process of training mentioned by this same verb in strkjv@2:10| "by means of sufferings" (\dia pathmatn\) as stated again here in verse 8|. {The author of eternal salvation} (\aitios strias ainiou\). Common adjective from \aitia\ (cause), causing, often in Greek with \strias\ (Aeschines, Philo), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:23:4,14,22; strkjv@Acts:19:40|. See same idea in strkjv@Hebrews:2:10| (\archgon\). See strkjv@Isaiah:45:17|.
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@James:5:17 @{Of like passions with us} (\homoiopaths hmin\). Associative-instrumental case \hmin\ as with \homoios\. This old compound adjective (\homoios, pasch\), suffering the like with another, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:14:15|. {He prayed fervently} (\proseuchi prosuxato\). First aorist middle indicative of \proseuchomai\ and the instrumental case \proseuchi\ (cognate substantive), after idiom for intensity in classical Greek, like \pheugein phugi\, to flee with all speed (_figura etymologica_), but particularly frequent in the LXX (Genesis:2:17; strkjv@31:30|) in imitation of the Hebrew infinitive absolute. Songs:Luke:22:15; strkjv@John:3:29; strkjv@Acts:4:17|. {That it might not rain} (\tou m brexai\). Genitive of the articular infinitive (\brexai\, first aorist active of \brech\, old verb, to moisten, strkjv@Luke:7:38|, to rain, strkjv@Matthew:5:45|) with negative \m\ used either for direct purpose, for an object clause as here and strkjv@Acts:3:12; strkjv@15:20|, or even for result. {For three years and six months} (\eniautous treis kai mnas hex\). Accusative of extent of time.
rwp@James:5:20 @{Let him know} (\ginsket\). Present active imperative third person singular of \ginsk\, but Westcott and Hort read \ginskete\ (know ye) after B. In either case it is the conclusion of the condition in verse 19|. {He which converteth} (\ho epistrepsas\). First aorist active articular participle of \epistreph\ of verse 19|. {From the error} (\ek plans\). "Out of the wandering" of verse 19| (\plan\, from which \plana\ is made). See strkjv@1John:4:6| for contrast between "truth" and "error." {A soul from death} (\psuchn ek thanatou\). The soul of the sinner (\hamartlon\) won back to Christ, not the soul of the man winning him. A few MSS. have \autou\ added (his soul), which leaves it ambiguous, but \autou\ is not genuine. It is ultimate and final salvation here meant by the future (\ssei\). {Shall cover a multitude of sins} (\kalupsei plthos hamartin\). Future active of \kalupt\, old verb, to hide, to veil. But whose sins (those of the converter or the converted)? The Roman Catholics (also Mayor and Ropes) take it of the sins of the converter, who thus saves himself by saving others. The language here will allow that, but not New Testament teaching in general. It is apparently a proverbial saying which Resch considers one of the unwritten sayings of Christ (Clem. Al. _Paed_. iii. 12). It occurs also in strkjv@1Peter:4:8|, where it clearly means the sins of others covered by love as a veil thrown over them. The saying appears also in strkjv@Proverbs:10:12|: "Hatred stirs up strife, but love hides all transgressions"--that is "love refuses to see faults" (Mayor admits). That is undoubtedly the meaning in strkjv@1Peter:4:8; strkjv@James:5:20|.
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 @ 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 @ 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 @ ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK The late Dr. C. F. Burney of Oxford wrote a volume called, _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922) in which he tried to prove that the Fourth Gospel is really the first in time and was originally written in Aramaic. The theory excited some interest, but did not convince either Aramaic or Greek scholars to an appreciable extent. Some of the examples cited are plausible and some quite fanciful. This theory cannot be appealed to in any serious interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. The author was beyond doubt a Jew, but he wrote in the _Koin_ Greek of his time that is comparatively free from crude Semiticisms, perhaps due in part to the help of the friends in Ephesus.
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:1:3 @{All things} (\panta\). The philosophical phrase was \ta panta\ (the all things) as we have it in strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. In verse 10| John uses \ho kosmos\ (the orderly universe) for the whole. {Were made} (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of \n\ in verses 1,2|. All things "came into being." Creation is thus presented as a becoming (\ginomai\) in contrast with being (\eimi\). {By him} (\di' autou\). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews:1:2|) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians:1:16|). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6|, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (\ex hou\) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (\di' hou\). {Without him} (\chris autou\). Old adverbial preposition with the ablative as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:14|, "apart from." John adds the negative statement for completion, another note of his style as in strkjv@John:1:20; strkjv@1John:1:5|. Thus John excludes two heresies (Bernard) that matter is eternal and that angels or aeons had a share in creation. {Not anything} (\oude hen\). "Not even one thing." Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (\ho gegonen\) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with \ho gegonen\. The early uncials had no punctuation.
rwp@John:1:15 @{Beareth witness} (\marturei\). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. strkjv@1:17f.|). See strkjv@1:32,34| for historical examples of John's witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort's text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of verse 14|. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos. {Crieth} (\kekragen\). Second perfect active indicative of \kraz\, old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years. {This was} (\houtos n\). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in strkjv@Acts:3:10| where we should prefer "is" (\estin\). Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things." {Of whom I said} (\hon eipon\). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have \ho eipn\ "the one who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ. {After me} (\opis mou\). See also strkjv@1:27|. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One" (\ho erchomenos\) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:3:11| \ho opis mou erchomenos\ (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:7|). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. {Is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking. {Before me} (\emprosthen mou\). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, \ho ischuroteros mou\ "the one mightier than I" (Mark:1:7|) and \ischuroteros mou\ "mightier than I" (Matthew:3:11|). In strkjv@John:3:28| \emprosthen ekeinou\ (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (John:3:25-30|). {For he was before me} (\hoti prtos mou n\). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\n imperfect\) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after" John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. \Prtos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular _Koin_. Songs:the Beloved Disciple came first (\prtos\) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4|). Songs:also \prton humn\ in strkjv@15:18| means "before you" as if it were \proteron humn\. Verse 30| repeats these words almost exactly.
rwp@John:4:52 @{Inquired} (\eputheto\). Second aorist middle indicative of \punthanomai\. {Began to mend} (\kompsoteron eschen\). Second aorist ingressive active indicative of \ech\ (took a turn, got better) and comparative of adverb \kompss\. Arrian (_Epictetus iii. 10.13) has \kompss echeis\ from a physician, "Thou hast it fine," "Thou art doing finely." The papyri give several similar examples. \Kompss\ (neat) is from \kome\, to take care of. {At the seventh hour} (\hran hebdomn\). The accusative case without a preposition as in strkjv@Revelation:3:3|, though we have \peri hran enatn\ (about the ninth hour) in strkjv@Acts:10:3|. See the accusative also in strkjv@Exodus:9:18| \tautn tn hran aurion\ (tomorrow about this hour). The accusative has the notion of extension and can be thus loosely used. It can even mean here "during the seventh hour." In verse 53| the locative is more exact, "at that hour" (\en ekeini ti hri\). The seventh hour would be (Roman time) seven P.M.
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:5:29 @{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:5:43 @{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:6:4 @{The feast of the Jews} (\h heort tn Ioudain\). Here used of the passover (\to pascha\) as in strkjv@7:2| of the tabernacles. This is probably the third passover in Christ's ministry (2:13| and one unmentioned unless strkjv@5:1| be it). In strkjv@2:13|, here, and strkjv@11:55| (the last one) the adverb \eggus\ (near) is used. John is fond of notes of time. Jesus failed to go to this passover because of the hostility in Jerusalem (7:1|).
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:11:24 @{In the resurrection at the last day} (\en ti anastasei en ti eschati hmeri\). Did Jesus mean only that? She believed it, of course, and such comfort is often offered in case of death, but that idea did not console Martha and is not what she hinted at in verse 22|.
rwp@John:11:55 @{Was near} (\n eggus\). See strkjv@2:13| for the same phrase. This last passover was the time of destiny for Jesus. {Before the passover to purify themselves} (\pro tou pascha hina hagnissin heautous\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hagniz\, old verb from \hagnos\ (pure), ceremonial purification here, of course. All this took time. These came "from the country" (\ek ts chras\), from all over Palestine, from all parts of the world, in fact. John shifts the scene to Jerusalem just before the passover with no record of the way that Jesus came to Jerusalem from Ephraim. The Synoptic Gospels tell this last journey up through Samaria into Galilee to join the great caravan that crossed over into Perea and came down on the eastern side of the Jordan opposite Jericho and then marched up the mountain road to Bethany and Bethphage just beside Jerusalem. This story is found in strkjv@Luke:17:11-19:28; strkjv@Mark:10:1-52; strkjv@Matthew:19:1-20:34|. John simply assumes the Synoptic narrative and gives the picture of things in and around Jerusalem just before the passover (11:56,57|).
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@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 @ 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:1:13 @{Is heard} (\eiskousth\). First aorist passive indicative. A sort of timeless aorist, "was heard" when made, and so "is heard" now. Probably the prayer was for a son in spite of the great age of Elisabeth, though the Messianic redemption is possible also. {John} (\Iann\). The word means that God is gracious. The mention of the name should have helped Zacharias to believe. The message of the angel (verses 13-17|) takes on a metrical form when turned into Hebrew (Ragg) and it is a prose poem in Greek and English like strkjv@1:30-33,35-37,42-45,46-55,68-70; strkjv@2:10-12,14,29-32,34-35|. Certainly Luke has preserved the earliest Christian hymns in their oldest sources. He is the first critic of the sources of the Gospels and a scholarly one.
rwp@Luke:6:48 @{Digged and went deep} (\eskapsen kai ebathunen\). Two first aorist indicatives. Not a _hendiadys_ for dug deep. \Skapt\, to dig, is as old as Homer, as is \bathun\, to make deep. {And laid a foundation} (\kai ethken themelion\). That is the whole point. This wise builder struck the rock before he laid the foundation. {When a flood arose} (\plmmurs genomens\). Genitive absolute. Late word for flood, \plmmura\, only here in the N.T., though in strkjv@Job:40:18|. {Brake against} (\proserxen\). First aorist active indicative from \prosrgnumi\ and in late writers \prosrss\, to break against. Only here in the N.T. strkjv@Matthew:7:25| has \prosepesan\, from \prospipt\, to fall against. {Could not shake it} (\ouk ischusen saleusai autn\). Did not have strength enough to shake it. {Because it had been well builded} (\dia to kals oikodomsthai autn\). Perfect passive articular infinitive after \dia\ and with accusative of general reference.
rwp@Luke:18:13 @{Standing afar off} (\makrothen hests\). Second perfect active participle of \histmi\, intransitive like \statheis\ above. But no ostentation as with the Pharisee in verse 11|. At a distance from the Pharisee, not from the sanctuary. {Would not lift} (\ouk thelen oude eprai\). Negatives (double) imperfect of {thel}, was not willing even to lift up, refused to lift (\eprai\, first aorist active infinitive of the liquid compound verb, \ep-air\). Smote (\etupte\). Imperfect active of \tupt\, old verb, kept on smiting or beating. Worshippers usually lifted up their closed eyes to God. {Be merciful} (\hilasthti\). First aorist passive imperative of \hilaskomai\, an old verb, found also in LXX and inscriptions (\exhilaskomai\, Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 224). {A sinner} (\ti hamartli\). The sinner, not a sinner. It is curious how modern scholars ignore this Greek article. The main point in the contrast lies in this article. The Pharisee thought of others as sinners. The publican thinks of himself alone as the sinner, not of others at all.
rwp@Luke:20:14 @{That the inheritance may be ours} (\hina hmn gentai h klronomia\). That the inheritance may become (\gentai\, second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\). Here strkjv@Matthew:21:39| has \schmen\ "let us get, ingressive aorist active subjunctive." Cf. \echmen\, present subjunctive of the same verb \ech\ in strkjv@Romans:5:1; strkjv@Mark:12:7| has "and it will be ours" (\estai\).
rwp@Luke:20:21 @{Rightly} (\orths\). Matthew (Matthew:22:16|) notes that these "spies" were "disciples" (students) of the Pharisees and Mark (Mark:12:13|) adds that the Herodians are also involved in the plot. These bright theologues are full of palaver and flattery and openly endorse the teaching of Jesus as part of their scheme. {Acceptest not the person of any} (\ou lambaneis prospon\). Dost not take the face (or personal appearance) as the test. It is a Hebraism from which the word \prospolempsia\ (James:2:1|) comes. Originally it meant to lift the face, to lift the countenance, to regard the face, to accept the face value. See strkjv@Mark:12:13-17; strkjv@Matthew:22:15-22| for discussion of details here. They both have \blepeis\ here.
rwp@Luke:20:26 @{They were not able} (\ouk ischusan\). They did not have strength. An old verb \ischu\ from \ischus\ (strength). They failed "to take hold (cf. verse 20|) of the saying before the people." These "crack" students had made an ignominious failure and were not able to make a case for the surrender of Jesus to Pilate. He had slipped through their net with the utmost ease. {Held their peace} (\esigsan\). Ingressive aorist active of \siga\. They became silent as they went back with the "dry grins."
rwp@Luke:20:33 @{Had her} (\eschon\). Constative second aorist indicative of \ech\ including all seven seriatim. Songs:Matthew:22:28; strkjv@Mark:12:33| {To wife} (\gunaika\). As wife, accusative in apposition with "her."
rwp@Luke:20:42 @{For David himself} (\autos gar Daueid\). This language of Jesus clearly means that he treats David as the author of strkjv@Psalms:110|. The inspiration of this Psalm is expressly stated in strkjv@Mark:12:36; strkjv@Matthew:22:43| (which see) and the Messianic character of the Psalm in all three Synoptics who all quote the LXX practically alike. Modern criticism that denies the Davidic authorship of this Psalm has to say either that Jesus was ignorant of the fact about it or that he declined to disturb the current acceptation of the Davidic authorship. Certainly modern scholars are not agreed on the authorship of strkjv@Psalms:110|. Meanwhile one can certainly be excused for accepting the natural implication of the words of Jesus here, "David himself." {In the book of the Psalms} (\en bibli Psalmn\). Compare strkjv@3:4| "in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet."
rwp@Luke:21:9 @{Be not terrified} (\m ptothte\). First aorist passive subjunctive with \m\ from \ptoe\ an old verb to terrify, from \ptoa\, terror. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:24:37|. {First} (\Prton\). It is so easy to forget this and to insist that the end is "immediately" in spite of Christ's explicit denial here. See strkjv@Matthew:24:4-42; strkjv@Mark:13:1-37| for discussion of details for strkjv@Luke:21:8-36|, the great eschatological discourse of Jesus
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:22:1 @{The Passover} (\pascha\) Both names (unleavened bread and passover) are used here as in strkjv@Mark:14:1|. Strictly speaking the passover was Nisan 14 and the unleavened bread 15-21. This is the only place in the N.T. where the expression "the feast of unleavened bread" (common in LXX, Ex. strkjv@23:15|, etc.) occurs, for strkjv@Mark:14:1| has just "the unleavened bread." strkjv@Matthew:26:17| uses unleavened bread and passover interchangeably. {Drew nigh} (\ggizen\). Imperfect active. strkjv@Mark:14:1; strkjv@Matthew:26:2| mention "after two days" definitely.
rwp@Luke:22:15 @{With desire I have desired} (\epithumii epethumsa\). A Hebraism common in the LXX. Associative instrumental case of substantive and first aorist active indicative of same like a cognate accusative. Peculiar to Luke is all this verse. See this idiom in strkjv@John:3:29; strkjv@Acts:4:17|. {Before I suffer} (\pro tou me pathein\). Preposition \pro\ with articular infinitive and accusative of general reference, "before the suffering as to me." \Pathein\ is second aorist active infinitive of \pasch\.
rwp@Luke:22:59 @{After the space of about one hour} (\diastass hsei hras mias\). Genitive absolute with second aorist active participle feminine singular of \diistmi\. This classical verb in the N.T. is used only by Luke (22:59; strkjv@24:51; strkjv@Acts:27:28|). It means standing in two or apart, about an hour intervening. {Confidently affirmed} (\diischurizeto\). Imperfect middle, he kept affirming strongly. An old verb (\dia, ischurizomai\), to make oneself strong, to make emphatic declaration. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:12:15|. {For he is a Galilean} (\kai gar Galilaios estin\). strkjv@Matthew:26:73| makes it plain that it was his speech that gave him away, which see.
rwp@Luke:23:5 @{But they were the more urgent} (\hoi de epischuon\). Imperfect active of \epischu\, to give added (\epi\) strength (\ischu\). And they kept insisting. Evidently Pilate had taken the thing too lightly. {He stirred up the people} (\anaseiei ton laon\). This compound is rare, though old (Thucydides), to shake up (back and forth). This is a more vigorous repetition of the first charge (verse 2|, "perverting our nation"). {Beginning from Galilee} (\arxamenos apo ts Galilaias\). These very words occur in the address of Peter to the group in the house of Cornelius (Acts:10:37|). The idiomatic use of \arxamenos\ appears also in strkjv@Acts:1:22|. Galilee (Grote) was the mother of seditious men (see Josephus).
rwp@Luke:23:23 @{But they were instant} (\hoi de epekeinto\). Imperfect middle of \epikeimai\, an old verb for the rush and swirl of a tempest. {With loud voices} (\phnais megalais\). Instrumental case. Poor Pilate was overwhelmed by this tornado. {Prevailed} (\katischuon\). Imperfect active of \katischu\ (see strkjv@Matthew:16:18; strkjv@Luke:21:36|). The tempest Pilate had invited (23:13|).
rwp@Luke:24:27 @{Interpreted} (\dirmneusen\). First aorist active (constative aorist) indicative of \diermneu\ (Margin has the imperfect \dirmneuen\), intensive compound (\dia\) of \hermneu\, the old verb to interpret from \hermneus\, interpreter, and that from \Herms\, the messenger of the gods as the people of Lystra took Paul to be (Acts:14:12|). But what wonderful exegesis the two disciples were now hearing! {Concerning himself} (\peri heauton\). Jesus found himself in the Old Testament, a thing that some modern scholars do not seem able to do.
rwp@Luke:24:50 @{Over against Bethany} (\hes pros Bthanian\). That is on Olivet. On this blessed spot near where he had delivered the great Eschatological Discourse he could see Bethany and Jerusalem.
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:5:4 @{Often bound} (\pollakis dedesthai\). Perfect passive infinitive, state of completion. With fetters (\pedais\, from \peza\, foot, instep) and chains, bound hand and foot, but all to no purpose. The English plural of foot is feet (Anglo-Saxon _fot_, _fet_) and fetter is _feeter_. {Rent asunder} (\diespsthai\). Drawn (\spa\) in two (\dia-\ same root as \duo\, two). Perfect passive infinitive. {Broken in pieces} (\suntetriphthai\.) Perfect passive infinitive again, from \suntrib\, to rub together. Rubbed together, crushed together. Perhaps the neighbours who told the story could point to broken fragments of chains and fetters. The fetters may have been cords, or even wooden stocks and not chains. {No man had strength to tame him} (\oudeis ischuen auton damasai\). Imperfect tense. He roamed at will like a lion in the jungle.
rwp@Mark:5:23 @{My little daughter} (\to thugatrion mou\). Diminutive of \thugatr\ (Matthew:9:18|). "This little endearing touch in the use of the diminutive is peculiar to Mark" (Vincent). "Is at the point of death" (\eschats echei\). Has it in the last stages. strkjv@Matthew:9:18| has: "has just died" (\arti eteleusen\), Luke "she lay a dying" (\apethnsken\, imperfect, she was dying). It was a tragic moment for Jairus. {I pray thee}, not in the Greek. This ellipsis before \hina\ not uncommon, a sort of imperative use of \hina\ and the subjunctive in the _Koin_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 943).
rwp@Mark:5:26 @{Had suffered many things of many physicians} (\polla pathousa hupo polln iatrn\). A pathetic picture of a woman with a chronic case who had tried doctor after doctor. {Had spent all that she had} (\dapansasa ta par' auts panta\). Having spent the all from herself, all her resources. For the idiom with \para\ see strkjv@Luke:10:7; strkjv@Phillipians:4:18|. The tragedy of it was that she "was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse" (\mden pheltheisa alla mllon eis to cheiron elthousa\). Her money was gone, her disease was gaining on her, her one chance came now with Jesus. Matthew says nothing about her experience with the doctors and strkjv@Luke:8:43| merely says that she "had spent all her living upon physicians and could not be healed of any," a plain chronic case. Luke the physician neatly takes care of the physicians. But they were not to blame. She had a disease that they did not know how to cure. Vincent quotes a prescription for an issue of blood as given in the Talmud which gives one a most grateful feeling that he is not under the care of doctors of that nature. The only parallel today is Chinese medicine of the old sort before modern medical schools came.
rwp@Mark: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:5:35 @{While he yet spake} (\Eti autou lalountos\). Genitive absolute. Another vivid touch in Mark and strkjv@Luke:8:49|. The phrase is in strkjv@Genesis:29:9|. Nowhere does Mark preserve better the lifelike traits of an eyewitness like Peter than in these incidents in chapter 5. The arrival of the messengers from Jairus was opportune for the woman just healed of the issue of blood (\en husei haimatos\) for it diverted attention from her. Now the ruler's daughter has died (\apethane\). {Why troublest thou the master any further?} (\Ti eti skulleis ton didaskalon;\). It was all over, so they felt. Jesus had raised from the dead the son of the widow of Nain (Luke:7:11-17|), but people in general did not expect him to raise the dead. The word \skull\, from \skulon\ (_skin, pelt, spoils_), means to skin, to flay, in Aeschylus. Then it comes to mean to vex, annoy, distress as in strkjv@Matthew:9:36|, which see. The middle is common in the papyri for bother, worry, as in strkjv@Luke:7:6|. There was no further use in troubling the Teacher about the girl.
rwp@Mark:6:7 @{By two and two} (\duo duo\). This repetition of the numeral instead of the use of \ana duo\ or \kata duo\ is usually called a Hebraism. The Hebrew does have this idiom, but it appears in Aeschylus and Sophocles, in the vernacular _Koin_ (Oxyrhynchus Papyri No. 121), in Byzantine Greek, and in modern Greek (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 122f.). Mark preserves the vernacular _Koin_ better than the other Gospels and this detail suits his vivid style. The six pairs of apostles could thus cover Galilee in six different directions. Mark notes that he "began to send them forth" (\rxato autous apostellein\). Aorist tense and present infinitive. This may refer simply to this particular occasion in Mark's picturesque way. But the imperfect tense \edidou\ means he kept on giving them all through the tour, a continuous power (authority) over unclean spirits singled out by Mark as representing "all manner of diseases and all manner of sickness" (Matthew:10:1|), "to cure diseases" (\iasthai\, strkjv@Luke:9:1|), healing power. They were to preach and to heal (Luke:9:1; strkjv@Matthew:10:7|). Mark does not mention preaching as a definite part of the commission to the twelve on this their first preaching tour, but he does state that they did preach (6:12|). They were to be missioners or missionaries (\apostellein\) in harmony with their office (\apostoloi\).
rwp@Mark:6:20 @{Feared John} (\ephobeito ton Iann\). Imperfect tense, continual state of fear. He feared John and also Herodias. Between the two Herod vacillated. He knew him to be righteous and holy (\dikaion kai hagion\) and so innocent of any wrong. Songs:he {kept him safe} (\sunetrei\). Imperfect tense again. Late Greek verb. From the plots and schemes of Herodias. She was another Jezebel towards John and with Herod. {Much perplexed} (\polla porei\). This the correct text not \polla epoiei\, did many things. Imperfect tense again. {He heard him gladly} (\hdes kouen\). Imperfect tense again. This is the way that Herod really felt when he could slip away from the meshes of Herodias. These interviews with the Baptist down in the prison at Machaerus during his occasional visits there braced "his jaded mind as with a whiff of fresh air" (Swete). But then he saw Herodias again and he was at his wits' end (\porei\, lose one's way, \a\ privative and \poros\, way), for he knew that he had to live with Herodias with whom he was hopelessly entangled.
rwp@Mark:7:3 @{Diligently} (\pugmi\). Instrumental case, {with the fist}, up to the elbow, rubbing one hand and arm with the other hand clenched. Aleph had \pukna\ probably because of the difficulty about \pugmi\ (kin to Latin _pugnus_). Schultess considers it a dry wash or rubbing of the hands without water as a ritualistic concession. The middle voice \nipsntai\ means their own hands. This verb is often used for parts of the body while \lou\ is used of the whole body (John:13:10|). On the tradition of the elders see on ¯Matthew:15:2|.
rwp@Mark:8:38 @{For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my words} (\hos gar ean epaischunthi me kai tous emous logous\). More exactly, {whosoever is ashamed} (first aorist passive subjunctive with indefinite relative and \ean = an\. See Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 957-9. It is not a statement about the future conduct of one, but about his present attitude toward Jesus. The conduct of men toward Christ now determines Christ's conduct then (\epaischunthsetai\, first future passive indicative). This passive verb is transitive and uses the accusative (\me, auton\). {In this adulterous and sinful generation} (\en ti genei tauti ti moichalidi kai hamartli\). Only in Mark. {When he cometh} (\hotan elthi\). Aorist active subjunctive with reference to the future second coming of Christ with the glory of the Father with his holy angels (cf. strkjv@Matthew:16:27|). This is a clear prediction of the final eschatological coming of Christ. This verse could not be separated from strkjv@Mark:9:1| as the chapter division does. These two verses in strkjv@Mark:8:38; strkjv@9:1| form one paragraph and should go together.
rwp@Mark:9:18 @{Wheresoever it taketh him} (\hopou ean auton katalabi\). Seizes him down. Our word catalepsy is this same word. The word is used by Galen and Hippocrates for fits. The word is very common in the papyri in various senses as in the older Greek. Each of the verbs here in Mark is a graphic picture. {Dashes down} (\rssei\). Also \rgnumi, mi\ form. Convulses, rends, tears asunder. Old and common word. {Foameth} (\aphrizei\). Here only in the N.T. Poetic and late word. {Grindeth} (\trizei\). Another _hapax legomenon_ in the N.T. Old word for making a shrill cry or squeak. {Pineth away} (\xrainetai\). Old word for drying or withering as of grass in strkjv@James:1:11|. {And they were not able} (\kai ouk ischusan\). They did not have the strength (\ischus\) to handle this case. See strkjv@Matthew:17:16; strkjv@Luke:9:40| (\kai ouk dunthsan\, first aorist passive). It was a tragedy.
rwp@Mark:9:35 @{He sat down and called the twelve} (\kathisas ephnsen tous ddeka\). Deliberate action of Jesus to handle this delicate situation. Jesus gives them the rule of greatness: "If any man would be first (\prtos\) he shall be last (\eschatos\) of all, and minister (\diakonos\) of all." This saying of Christ, like many others, he repeated at other times (Mark:10:43f.; strkjv@Matthew:23:8ff.; strkjv@Luke:22:24f.|). strkjv@Matthew:18:2| says that he called a little child, one there in the house, perhaps Peter's child. strkjv@Luke:9:47| notes that he "set him by his side." Then Jesus {taking him in his arms} (\enagkalisamenos\, aorist middle participle, late Greek word from \agkal\ as in strkjv@Luke:2:28|) spoke again to the disciples.
rwp@Matthew:16:18 @{The gates of Hades} (\pulai hidou\) {shall not prevail against it} (\ou katischusousin auts\). Each word here creates difficulty. Hades is technically the unseen world, the Hebrew Sheol, the land of the departed, that is death. Paul uses \thanate\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:55| in quoting strkjv@Hosea:13:14| for \hid\. It is not common in the papyri, but it is common on tombstones in Asia Minor, "doubtless a survival of its use in the old Greek religion" (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). The ancient pagans divided Hades (\a\ privative and \idein\, to see, abode of the unseen) into Elysium and Tartarus as the Jews put both Abraham's bosom and Gehenna in Sheol or Hades (cf. strkjv@Luke:16:25|). Christ was in Hades (Acts:2:27,31|), not in Gehenna. We have here the figure of two buildings, the Church of Christ on the Rock, the House of Death (Hades). "In the Old Testament the 'gates of Hades' (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isaiah:38:10|; Wisd. strkjv@16:3; 3Macc. strkjv@5:51) than death," McNeile claims. See also strkjv@Psalms:9:13; strkjv@107:18; strkjv@Job:38:17| (\pulai thanatou pulroi hidou\). It is not the picture of Hades _attacking_ Christ's church, but of death's possible victory over the church. "The \ekklsia\ is built upon the Messiahship of her master, and death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her by keeping Him imprisoned. It was a mysterious truth, which He will soon tell them in plain words (verse 21|); it is echoed in strkjv@Acts:2:24,31|" (McNeile). Christ's church will prevail and survive because He will burst the gates of Hades and come forth conqueror. He will ever live and be the guarantor of the perpetuity of His people or church. The verb \katischu\ (literally have strength against, \ischu\ from \ischus\ and \kat-\) occurs also in strkjv@Luke:21:36; strkjv@23:23|. It appears in the ancient Greek, the LXX, and in the papyri with the accusative and is used in the modern Greek with the sense of gaining the mastery over. The wealth of imagery in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The \ekklsia\ which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. _Sublime Porte_ used to be the title of Turkish power in Constantinople.
rwp@Matthew:16:19 @{The Keys of the kingdom} (\tas kleidas ts basileias\). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18|. In strkjv@Revelation:1:18; strkjv@3:7| Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (\oikonomos\) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew:18:1|) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21|) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (\dsis\) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (\lusis\) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (\estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon\), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (18:18|). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John:20:23|), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, _primus inter pares_, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.
rwp@Matthew:16:28 @{Some of them that stand here} (\tines tn hode hesttn\). A _crux interpretum_ in reality. Does Jesus refer to the Transfiguration, the Resurrection of Jesus, the great Day of Pentecost, the Destruction of Jerusalem, the Second Coming and Judgment? We do not know, only that Jesus was certain of his final victory which would be typified and symbolized in various ways. The apocalyptic eschatological symbolism employed by Jesus here does not dominate his teaching. He used it at times to picture the triumph of the kingdom, not to set forth the full teaching about it. The kingdom of God was already in the hearts of men. There would be climaxes and consummations.
rwp@Matthew:17:2 @{He was transfigured before them} (\metemorphth emprosthen autn\). The word is the same as the metamorphoses (cf. Ovid) of pagan mythology. Luke does not use it. The idea is change (\meta-\) of form (\morph\). It really presents the essence of a thing as separate from the \schma\ (fashion), the outward accident. Songs:in strkjv@Romans:12:2| Paul uses both verbs, \sunschematizesthe\ (be not fashioned) and \metamorphousthe\ (be ye transformed in your inner life). Songs:in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:31| \schma\ is used for the fashion of the world while in strkjv@Mark:16:12| \morph\ is used of the form of Jesus after his resurrection. The false apostles are described by \metaschmatisomai\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13-15|. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| we have \en morphi\ used of the Preincarnate state of Christ and \morphn doulou\ of the Incarnate state (Phillipians:2:7|), while \schmati hs anthrpos\ emphasizes his being found "in fashion as a man." But it will not do in strkjv@Matthew:17:2| to use the English transliteration \metamorphsis\ because of its pagan associations. Songs:the Latin _transfigured_ (Vulgate _transfiguratus est_) is better. "The deeper force of \metamorphousthai\ is seen in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18| (with reference to the shining on Moses' face), strkjv@Romans:12:2|" (McNeile). The word occurs in a second-century papyrus of the pagan gods who are invisible. Matthew guards against the pagan idea by adding and explaining about the face of Christ "as the sun" and his garments "as the light."
rwp@Matthew:20:16 @{The last first and the first last} (\hoi eschtoi prtoi kai hoi prtoi eschatoi\). The adjectives change places as compared with strkjv@19:30|. The point is the same, though this order suits the parable better. After all one's work does not rest wholly on the amount of time spent on it. "Even so hath Rabbi Bun bar Chija in twenty-eight years wrought more than many studious scholars in a hundred years" (Jer. _Berak._ ii. 5c).
rwp@Matthew:21:38 @{Take his inheritance} (\schmen tn klronomian autou\). Ingressive aorist active subjunctive (hortatory, volitive) of \ech\. Let us get his inheritance.
rwp@Matthew:22:1 @{Again in parables} (\palin en parabolais\). Matthew has already given two on this occasion (The Two Sons, The Wicked Husbandmen). He alone gives this Parable of the Marriage Feast of the King's Son. It is somewhat similar to that of The Supper in strkjv@Luke:14:16-23| given on another occasion. Hence some scholars consider this merely Matthew's version of the Lucan parable in the wrong place because of Matthew's habit of grouping the sayings of Jesus. But that is a gratuitous indictment of Matthew's report which definitely locates the parable here by \palin\. Some regard it as not spoken by Jesus at all, but an effort on the part of the writer to cover the sin and fate of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and God's demand for righteousness. But here again it is like Jesus and suits the present occasion.
rwp@Matthew:22:12 @{Not having a wedding-garment} (\m echn enduma gamou\). \M\ is in the _Koin_ the usual negative with participles unless special emphasis on the negative is desired as in \ouk endedumenon\. There is a subtle distinction between \m\ and \ou\ like our subjective and objective notions. Some hold that the wedding-garment here is a portion of a lost parable separate from that of the Wedding Feast, but there is no evidence for that idea. Wunsche does report a parable by a rabbi of a king who set no time for his feast and the guests arrived, some properly dressed waiting at the door; others in their working clothes did not wait, but went off to work and, when the summons suddenly came, they had no time to dress properly and were made to stand and watch while the others partook of the feast.
rwp@Matthew:22:24 @{Shall marry} (\epigambreusei\). The Sadducees were "aiming at amusement rather than deadly mischief" (Bruce). It was probably an old conundrum that they had used to the discomfiture of the Pharisees. This passage is quoted from strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:5,6|. The word appears here only in the N.T. and elsewhere only in the LXX. It is used of any connected by marriage as in strkjv@Genesis:34:9; strkjv@1Samuel:18:22|. But in strkjv@Genesis:38:8| and strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:5| it is used specifically of one marrying his brother's widow.
rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ainos\) or consummation of the age. In a painting the artist by skilful perspective may give on the same surface the inside of a room, the fields outside the window, and the sky far beyond. Certainly in this discourse Jesus blends in apocalyptic language the background of his death on the cross, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, his own second coming and the end of the world. He now touches one, now the other. It is not easy for us to separate clearly the various items. It is enough if we get the picture as a whole as it is here drawn with its lessons of warning to be ready for his coming and the end. The destruction of Jerusalem came as he foretold. There are some who would date the Synoptic Gospels after A.D. 70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).
rwp@Matthew:24:4 @{Lead you astray} (\hms plansi\). This warning runs all through the discourse. It is amazing how successful deceivers have been through the ages with their eschatological programs. The word in the passive appears in strkjv@18:12| when the one sheep wanders astray. Here it is the active voice with the causative sense to lead astray. Our word planet comes from this root.
rwp@Matthew:24:5 @{In my name} (\epi ti onomati mou\). They will arrogate to themselves false claims of Messiahship in (on the basis of) the name of Christ himself. Josephus (_Wars_ VI, 54) gives there false Christs as one of the reasons for the explosion against Rome that led to the city's destruction. Each new hero was welcomed by the masses including Barcochba. "I am the Messiah," each would say. Forty odd years ago two men in Illinois claimed to be Messiah, each with followers (Schlatter, Schweinfurth). In more recent years Mrs. Annie Besant has introduced a theosophical Messiah and Mrs. Eddy made claims about herself on a par with those of Jesus.
rwp@Matthew:24:29 @{Immediately} (\euthes\). This word, common in Mark's Gospel as \euthus\, gives trouble if one stresses the time element. The problem is how much time intervenes between "the tribulation of those days" and the vivid symbolism of verse 29|. The use of \en tachei\ in strkjv@Revelation:1:1| should make one pause before he decides. Here we have a prophetic panorama like that with foreshortened perspective. The apocalyptic pictures in verse 29| also call for sobriety of judgment. One may compare Joel's prophecy as interpreted by Peter in strkjv@Acts:21:16-22|. Literalism is not appropriate in this apocalyptic eschatology.
rwp@Revelation:4:7 @{Like a lion} (\homoion leonti\). Associative-instrumental case again. In Ezekiel:(1:6,10|) each \zon\ has four faces, but here each has a different face. "The four forms represent whatever is noblest, strongest, wisest, and swiftest in nature" (Swete). But it is not necessary to try to find a symbolism in each face here like the early baseless identification with the Four Evangelists (the lion for Mark, the man for Matthew, the calf for Luke, the eagle for John). \Moschos\ is first a sprout, then the young of animals, then a calf (bullock or heifer) as in strkjv@Luke:15:23, 27,30|, or a full-grown ox (Ezekiel:1:10|). {Had} (\echn\). Masculine singular (some MSS. \echon\ neuter singular agreeing with \zon\) present active participle of \ech\, changing the construction with the \triton zon\ almost like a finite verb as in verse 8|. {A face as of a man} (\prospon hs anthrpou\). Shows that the likeness in each instance extended only to the face. {Like an eagle flying} (\homoion aeti petomeni\). Present middle participle of \petomai\, to fly, old verb, in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:4:7; strkjv@8:13; strkjv@12:14; strkjv@14:6; strkjv@19:17|. The \aetos\ in strkjv@Matthew:24:28; strkjv@Luke:17:37| may be a form of vulture going after carrion, but not in strkjv@Revelation:8:13; strkjv@12:14|.
rwp@Revelation:6:12 @{There was a great earthquake} (\seismos megas egeneto\). "There came a great earthquake." Jesus spoke of earthquakes in his great eschatological discourse (Mark:13:8|). In strkjv@Matthew:24:29| the powers of the heavens will be shaken. \Seismos\ is from \sei\, to shake, and occurs also in strkjv@Revelation:8:5; strkjv@11:13,19; strkjv@16:18|. The reference is not a local earthquake like those so common in Asia Minor. {As sackcloth of hair} (\hs sakkos trichinos\). \Sakkos\ (Attic \sakos\), Latin _saccus_, English _sack_, originally a bag for holding things (Genesis:42:25,35|), then coarse garment of hair (\trichinos\, old word from \thrix\, here only in N.T.) clinging to one like a sack, of mourners, suppliants, prophets leading austere lives (Matthew:3:4; strkjv@11:21; strkjv@Luke:10:13|). Here the hair is that of the black goat (Isaiah:50:3|). Cf. strkjv@Joel:2:10; strkjv@Ezekiel:32:7f.; strkjv@Isaiah:13:10; strkjv@Mark:13:24f|. See strkjv@Ecclesiastes:12:2| for eclipses treated as symbols of old age. Apocalyptic pictures all have celestial phenomena following earthquakes. {As blood} (\hs haima\). In strkjv@Acts:2:20| we find Peter interpreting the apocalyptic eschatological language of strkjv@Joel:2:31| about the sun being turned into darkness and the moon into blood as pointing to the events of the day of Pentecost as also "the great day of the Lord." Peter's interpretation of Joel should make us cautious about too literal an exegesis of these grand symbols.
rwp@Revelation:9:7 @{The shapes} (\ta homoimata\). Old word from \homoio\, to make like (from \homoios\, like), likeness, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Romans:5:14; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7|, "the likenesses were like" (\homoia\). \Homoima\ is "midway between \morph\ and \schma\" (Lightfoot). {Unto horses} (\hippois\). Associative-instrumental case, as is the rule with \homoios\ (1:15; strkjv@2:18; strkjv@4:6ff.; strkjv@9:10,19; strkjv@11:1; strkjv@13:2,11|), but with the accusative in strkjv@1:13; strkjv@14:14|. Songs:also \homoioi chrusi\ (like gold) in this same verse. {Prepared for war} (\htoimasmenois eis polemon\). Perfect passive participle of \hetoimaz\. This imagery of war-horses is like that in strkjv@Joel:2:4f|. "The likeness of a locust to a horse, especially to a horse equipped with armour, is so striking that the insect is named in German _Heupferd_ (hay horse), and in Italian _cavalett_ a little horse" (Vincent). {As it were crowns} (\hos stephanoi\). Not actual crowns, but what looked like crowns of gold, as conquerors, as indeed they were (4:4; strkjv@6:2; strkjv@12:1; strkjv@14:14|). These locusts of the abyss have another peculiar feature. {As men's faces} (\hs prospa anthrpn\). Human-looking faces in these demonic locusts to give added terror, "suggesting the intelligence and capacity of man" (Swete). Vincent actually sees "a distinct resemblance to the human countenance in the face of the locust."
rwp@Revelation:12:3 @{Another sign} (\allo smeion\). "A second tableau following close upon the first and inseparable from it" (Swete). {And behold} (\kai idou\). As often (4:1; strkjv@6:2,5,8|, etc.). {A great red dragon} (\drakn megas purros\). Homer uses this old word (probably from \derkomai\, to see clearly) for a great monster with three heads coiled like a serpent that ate poisonous herbs. The word occurs also in Hesiod, Pindar, Eschylus. The Babylonians feared a seven-headed hydra and Typhon was the Egyptian dragon who persecuted Osiris. One wonders if these and the Chinese dragons are not race memories of conflicts with the diplodocus and like monsters before their disappearance. Charles notes in the O.T. this monster as the chief enemy of God under such title as Rahab (Isaiah:51:9f.; strkjv@Job:26:12f.|), Behemoth (Job:40:15-24|), Leviathan (Isaiah:27:1|), the Serpent (Amos:9:2ff.|). In strkjv@Psalms:74:13| we read of "the heads of the dragons." On \purros\ (red) see strkjv@6:4|. Here (12:9|) and in strkjv@20:2| the great dragon is identified with Satan. See strkjv@Daniel:7| for many of the items here, like the ten horns (Daniel:7:7|) and hurling the stars (Daniel:8:10|). The word occurs in the Apocalypse alone in the N.T. {Seven diadems} (\hepta diadmata\). Old word from \diade\ (to bind around), the blue band marked with white with which Persian kings used to bind on the tiara, so a royal crown in contrast with \stephanos\ (chaplet or wreath like the Latin _corona_ as in strkjv@2:10|), in N.T. only here, strkjv@13:1; strkjv@19:12|. If Christ as Conqueror has "many diadems," it is not strange that Satan should wear seven (ten in strkjv@13:1|).
rwp@Revelation:12:8 @{And they prevailed not} (\kai ouk ischusan\). Here \kai\ equals "and yet" or "but." A few MSS. read the singular \ischusen\ like \epolemsen\, but wrongly so. {Neither was their place found any more} (\oude topos heureth autn eti\). First aorist passive indicative of \heurisk\, to find. Probably \autn\ is the objective genitive (place for them), just as in strkjv@20:11| \autois\ (dative, for them) is used with \topos ouch heureth\. The phrase occurs in strkjv@Daniel:2:35| Theod. and strkjv@Zechariah:10:10|. The dragon is finally expelled from heaven (cf. strkjv@Job:1:6|), though to us it seems a difficult conception to think of Satan having had access to heaven.
rwp@Revelation:16:15 @{Behold, I come as a thief} (\idou erchomai hs klepts\). The voice of Christ breaks in with the same metaphor as in strkjv@3:3|, which see. There comes one of seven beatitudes in Rev. (1:3; strkjv@14:13; strkjv@16:15; strkjv@19:9; strkjv@20:6; strkjv@22:7,14|). For \grgorn\ (watching) see strkjv@3:2|, and for \trn\ (keeping), strkjv@1:3|. {Lest he walk naked} (\hina m gumnos peripati\). Negative purpose clause with \hina m\ and the present active subjunctive of \peripate\, and note predicate nominative \gumnos\ (naked). {And they see his shame} (\kai blepsin tn aschmosunn autou\). Continuation of the final clause with present active subjunctive of \blep\. \Aschmosunn\ is old word (from \aschmn\, indecent, strkjv@1Corinthians:12:23|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:1:27|, a euphemism for \tn aischunn\ (Revelation:3:18|).
rwp@Romans:12:2 @{Be not fashioned} (\m sunschmatizesthe\). Present passive imperative with \m\, stop being fashioned or do not have the habit of being fashioned. Late Greek verb \suschmatiz\, to conform to another's pattern (1Corinthians:7:31; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.|). In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:1:14|. {According to this world} (\ti aini touti\). Associative instrumental case. Do not take this age as your fashion plate. {Be ye transformed} (\metamorphousthe\). Present passive imperative of \metamorpho\, another late verb, to transfigure as in strkjv@Matthew:17:2| (Mark:9:2|); strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18|, which see. On the distinction between \schma\ and \morph\, see strkjv@Phillipians:2:7|. There must be a radical change in the inner man for one to live rightly in this evil age, "by the renewing of your mind" (\ti anakainsei tou noos\). Instrumental case. The new birth, the new mind, the new (\kainos\) man. {That ye may prove} (\eis to dokimazein\). Infinitive of purpose with \eis to\, "to test" what is God's will, "the good and acceptable and perfect" (\to agathon kai euareston kai teleion\).
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}