Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp denial:

rwp@1John:3:20 @{Whereinsoever our heart condemn us} (\hoti ean kataginski hmn h kardia\). A construction like \hoti an\, whatever, in strkjv@John:2:5; strkjv@14:13|. \Kataginsk\ occurs only three times in the N.T., here, verse 21; strkjv@Galatians:2:11|. It means to know something against one, to condemn. {Because God is greater than our heart} (\hoti meizn estin ts kardias hmn\). Ablative \kardias\ after the comparative \meizn\. {And knoweth all things} (\kai ginskei panta\). Just so Peter replied to Jesus in spite of his denials (John:21:17|). God's omniscience is linked with his love and sympathy. God knows every secret in our hearts. This difficult passage strikes the very centre of Christian truth (Brooke).

rwp@1John:5:6 @{This} (\houtos\). Jesus the Son of God (verse 5|). {He that came} (\ho elthn\). Second aorist active articular participle of \erchomai\, referring to the Incarnation as a definite historic event, the preexistent Son of God "sent from heaven to do God's will" (Brooke). {By water and blood} (\di' hudatos kai haimatos\). Accompanied by (\dia\ used with the genitive both as instrument and accompaniment, as in strkjv@Galatians:5:13|) water (as at the baptism) and blood (as on the Cross). These two incidents in the Incarnation are singled out because at the baptism Jesus was formally set apart to his Messianic work by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon him and by the Father's audible witness, and because at the Cross his work reached its culmination ("It is finished," Jesus said). There are other theories that do not accord with the language and the facts. It is true that at the Cross both water and blood came out of the side of Jesus when pierced by the soldier, as John bore witness (John:19:34|), a complete refutation of the Docetic denial of an actual human body for Jesus and of the Cerinthian distinction between Jesus and Christ. There is thus a threefold witness to the fact of the Incarnation, but he repeats the twofold witness before giving the third. The repetition of both preposition (\en\ this time rather than \dia\) and the article (\ti\ locative case) argues for two separate events with particular emphasis on the blood ("not only" \ouk monon\, "but" \all'\) which the Gnostics made light of or even denied. {It is the Spirit that beareth witness} (\to pneuma estin to marturoun\). Present active articular participle of \marture\ with article with both subject and predicate, and so interchangeable as in strkjv@3:4|. The Holy Spirit is the third and the chief witness at the baptism of Jesus and all through his ministry. {Because} (\hoti\). Or declarative "that." Either makes sense. In strkjv@John:15:26| Jesus spoke of "the Spirit of truth" (whose characteristic is truth). Here John identifies the Spirit with truth as Jesus said of himself (John:14:6|) without denying personality for the Holy Spirit.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:7 @{How ye ought to imitate us} (\ps dei mimeisthai hmas\). Literally, how it is necessary to imitate us. The infinitive \mimeisthai\ is the old verb \mimeomai\ from \mimos\ (actor, mimic), but in N.T. only here (and verse 9|), strkjv@Hebrews:13:7; strkjv@3John:1:11|. It is a daring thing to say, but Paul knew that he had to set the new Christians in the midst of Jews and Gentiles a model for their imitation (Phillipians:3:17|). {For we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you} (\hoti ouk taktsamen en humin\). First aorist active indicative of old verb \atakte\, to be out of ranks of soldiers. Specific denial on Paul's part in contrast to verse 6,17|.

rwp@Acts:3:15 @{But the Prince of life ye killed} (\ton de archgon ts zs apekteinate\). "The magnificent antithesis" (Bengel) Peter here draws between their asking for a murderer and killing the Prince (or Author) of life. Peter pictures Jesus as the source of all life as is done in strkjv@John:1:1-18; strkjv@Colossians:1:14-20; strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f|. \Archgos\ (\arch\, beginning, \ag\, to lead) is an adjective "furnishing the first cause or occasion" in Euripides, Plato. Thence substantive, the originator, the leader, the pioneer as of Jesus both Beginner and Finisher (Hebrews:12:2|). See also strkjv@Hebrews:2:10; strkjv@Acts:5:31| where it is applied to Jesus as "Prince and Saviour." But God raised him from the dead in contrast to what they had done. {Whereof we are witnesses} (\hou hmeis martures esmen\). Of which fact (the resurrection) or of whom as risen, \hou\ having the same form in the genitive singular for masculine or neuter. Peter had boldly claimed that all the 120 have seen the Risen Christ. There is no denial of that claim.

rwp@Acts:25:8 @{While Paul said in his defence} (\tou Paulou apologoumenou\). Genitive absolute again, present middle participle of \apologeomai\, old verb to make defence as in strkjv@19:33; strkjv@24:10; strkjv@26:1,2|. The recitative \hoti\ of the Greek before a direct quotation is not reproduced in English. {Have I sinned at all} (\ti hmarton\). Constative aorist active indicative of \hamartan\, to miss, to sin. The \ti\ is cognate accusative (or adverbial accusative). Either makes sense. Paul sums up the charges under the three items of law of the Jews, the temple, the Roman state (Caesar). This last was the one that would interest Festus and, if proved, would render Paul guilty of treason (\majestas\). Nero was Emperor A.D. 54-68, the last of the emperors with any hereditary claim to the name "Caesar." Soon it became merely a title like Kaiser and Czar (modern derivatives). In Acts only "Caesar" and "Augustus" are employed for the Emperor, not "King" (\Basileus\) as from the time of Domitian. Paul's denial is complete and no proof had been presented. Luke was apparently present at the trial.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS FROM ROME A.D. 63 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION GENUINENESS The author claims to be Paul (Colossians:1:1|) and there is no real doubt about it in spite of Baur's denial of the Pauline authorship which did not suit his _Tendenz_ theory of the New Testament books. There is every mark of Paul's style and power in the little Epistle and there is no evidence that any one else took Paul's name to palm off this striking and vigorous polemic.

rwp@Colossians:1:16 @{All things} (\ta panta\). The universe as in strkjv@Romans:11:35|, a well-known philosophical phrase. It is repeated at the end of the verse. {In him were created} (\en auti ektisth\). Paul now gives the reason (\hoti\, for) for the primacy of Christ in the work of creation (16f.|). It is the constative aorist passive indicative \ektisth\ (from \ktiz\, old verb, to found, to create (Romans:1:25|). This central activity of Christ in the work of creation is presented also in strkjv@John:1:3; strkjv@Hebrews:1:2| and is a complete denial of the Gnostic philosophy. The whole of creative activity is summed up in Christ including the angels in heaven and everything on earth. God wrought through "the Son of his love." All earthly dignities are included. {Have been created} (\ektistai\). Perfect passive indicative of \ktiz\, "stand created," "remain created." The permanence of the universe rests, then, on Christ far more than on gravity. It is a Christo-centric universe. {Through him} (\di' autou\). As the intermediate and sustaining agent. He had already used \en auti\ (in him) as the sphere of activity. {And unto him} (\kai eis auton\). This is the only remaining step to take and Paul takes it (1Corinthians:15:28|) See strkjv@Ephesians:1:10| for similar use of \en auti\ of Christ and in strkjv@Colossians:1:19; 20| again we have \en auti, di' autou, eis auton\ used of Christ. See strkjv@Hebrews:2:10| for \di' hon\ (because of whom) and \di' hou\ (by means of whom) applied to God concerning the universe (\ta panta\). In strkjv@Romans:11:35| we find \ex autou kai di' autou kai eis auton ta panta\ referring to God. But Paul does not use \ex\ in this connection of Christ, but only \en\, \dia\, and \eis\. See the same distinction preserved in strkjv@1Corinthians:8:6| (\ex\ of God, \dia\, of Christ).

rwp@Ephesians:2:13 @{But now} (\nuni de\). Strong contrast, as opposed to "at that time." {Afar off} (\makran\). Adverb (accusative feminine adjective with \hodon\ understood). From the \politeia\ and its hope in God. {Are made nigh} (\egenthte eggus\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\, a sort of timeless aorist. Nigh to the commonwealth of Israel in Christ. {In the blood of Christ} (\en ti haimati tou Christou\). Not a perfunctory addition, but essential (1:7|), particularly in view of the Gnostic denial of Christ's real humanity.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ SOME BOOKS ON THE PAULINE EPISTLES Bate, _As a Whole Guide to the Epistles of St. Paul_ (1927). Bonnet-Schroeder, _Epitres de Paul_ (4 ed. 1912). Champlain, _The Epistles of Paul_ (1906). Clemen, _Einheitlichkeit d. paul. Briefe_ (1894). Conybeare and Howson, _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_. Drummond, _The Epistles of Paul the Apostle_ (1899). Hayes, _Paul and His Epistles_ (1915). Heinrici, _Die Forschungen uber die paul. Briefe_ (1886). Lake, _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_ (1915). Lewin, _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_. (1875). Neil, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1906). Scott, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1909). Shaw, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1903). Vischer, _Die Paulusbriefe_ (1910). Voelter, _Die Composition der paul. Haupt Briefe_ (1890). Voelter, _Paulus und seine Briefe_ (1905). Way, _The Letters of Paul to Seven Churches and Three Friends_ (1906) Weinel, _Die Echtheit der paul. Hauptbriefe_ (1920). Weiss, B., _Present Status of the Inquiry Concerning the Genuineness of the Pauline Epistles_ (1901). Weiss, B., _Die Paulinische Briefe_ (1902). Wood, _Life, Letters, and Religion of St. Paul_ (1925). strkjv@Galatians:1:1 @{Not from men, neither through men} (\ouk ap' anthrpn oude di' anthrpou\). The bluntness of Paul's denial is due to the charge made by the Judaizers that Paul was not a genuine apostle because not one of the twelve. This charge had been made in Corinth and called forth the keenest irony of Paul (2Corinthians:10-12|). In strkjv@Galatians:1; 2| Paul proves his independence of the twelve and his equality with them as recognized by them. Paul denies that his apostleship had a human source (\ouk ap' anthrpn\) and that it had come to him through (\di' anthrpou\) a human channel (Burton). {But through Jesus Christ and God the Father} (\alla dia Isou Christou kai theou patros\). The call to be an apostle came to Paul through Jesus Christ as he claimed in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:1| and as told in strkjv@Acts:9:4-6; strkjv@22:7ff.; strkjv@26:16ff|. He is apostle also by the will of God. {Who raised him from the dead} (\tou egeirantos auton ek nekrn\). And therefore Paul was qualified to be an apostle since he had seen the Risen Christ (1Corinthians:9:1; strkjv@15:8f.|). This verb \egeir\ is often used in N.T. for raising from the sleep of death, to wake up the dead.

rwp@Galatians:2:5 @{No, not for an hour} (\oude pros hran\). Pointed denial that he and Barnabas yielded at all "in the way of subjection" (\ti hupotagi\, in the subjection demanded of them). The compromisers pleaded for the circumcision of Titus "because of the false brethren" in order to have peace. The old verb \eik\, to yield, occurs here alone in the N.T. See strkjv@2Corinthians:9:13| for \hupotag\. {The truth of the gospel} (\h altheia tou euaggeliou\). It was a grave crisis to call for such language. The whole problem of Gentile Christianity was involved in the case of Titus, whether Christianity was to be merely a modified brand of legalistic Judaism or a spiritual religion, the true Judaism (the children of Abraham by faith). The case of Timothy later was utterly different, for he had a Jewish mother and a Greek father. Titus was pure Greek.

rwp@Galatians:2:12 @{For before that certain came from James} (\pro tou gar elthein tinas apo Iakbou\). The reason (\gar\) for Paul's condemnation of Peter. Articular infinitive in the genitive after \pro\ with the accusative of general reference (\tinas\), "for before the coming as to some from James." Does Paul mean to say that these "certain" ones had been sent by James to Antioch to inspect the conduct of Peter and the other Jewish brethren? Some scholars think so. No doubt these brethren let the idea get out that they were emissaries "from James." But that idea is inconsistent with the position of James as president of the conference and the author of the resolution securing liberty to the Gentile Christians. No doubt these brethren threatened Peter to tell James and the church about his conduct and they reminded Peter of his previous arraignment before the Jerusalem Church on this very charge (Acts:11:1-18|). As a matter of fact the Jerusalem Conference did not discuss the matter of social relations between Jews and Gentiles though that was the charge made against Peter (Acts:11:1ff.|). {He did eat with the Gentiles} (\meta tn ethnn sunsthien\). It was his habit (imperfect tense). {He drew back} (\hupestellen\). Imperfect tense, inchoative action, "he began to draw himself (\heauton\) back." Old word \hupostell\. See middle voice to dissemble (Acts:20:20,27|), to shrink (Hebrews:10:38|). {Separated himself} (\aphrizen heauton\). Inchoative imperfect again, "began to separate himself" just like a Pharisee (see on ¯1:15|) and as if afraid of the Judaizers in the Jerusalem Church, perhaps half afraid that James might not endorse what he had been doing. {Fearing them that were of the circumcision} (\phoboumenos tous ek peritoms\). This was the real reason for Peter's cowardice. See strkjv@Acts:11:2| for "\hoi ek peritoms\" (they of the circumcision), the very phrase here. It was not that Peter had changed his views from the Jerusalem resolutions. It was pure fear of trouble to himself as in the denials at the trial of Christ.

rwp@Hebrews:2:15 @{And might deliver} (\kai apallaxi\). Further purpose with the first aorist active subjunctive of \appallass\, old verb to change from, to set free from, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:12:58; strkjv@Acts:19:12|. {Through fear of death} (\phobi thanatou\). Instrumental case of \phobos\. The ancients had great fear of death though the philosophers like Seneca argued against it. There is today a flippant attitude towards death with denial of the future life and rejection of God. But the author of Hebrews saw judgement after death (9:27f.|). Hence our need of Christ to break the power of sin and Satan in death. {All their lifetime} (\dia pantos tou zin\). Present active infinitive with \pas\ and the article in the genitive case with \dia\, "through all the living." {Subject to bondage} (\enochoi douleias\). Old adjective from \enech\, "held in," "bound to," with genitive, bond-slaves of fear, a graphic picture. Jesus has the keys of life and death and said: "I am the life." Thank God for that.

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

rwp@John:1:21 @{And they asked him} (\kai rtsan auton\). Here the paratactic \kai\ is like the transitional \oun\ (then). {What then?} (\Ti oun;\). Argumentative \oun\ like Paul's \ti oun\ in strkjv@Romans:6:15|. _Quid ergo?_ {Art thou Elijah?} (\Su Elias ei;\). The next inevitable question since Elijah had been understood to be the forerunner of the Messiah from strkjv@Malachi:4:5|. In strkjv@Mark:9:11f.| Jesus will identify John with the Elijah of Malachi's prophecy. Why then does John here flatly deny it? Because the expectation was that Elijah would return in person. This John denies. Jesus only asserts that John was Elijah in spirit. Elijah in person they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration. {He saith} (\legei\). Vivid dramatic present. {I am not} (\ouk eimi\). Short and blunt denial. {Art thou the prophet?} (\ho prophts ei su;\). "The prophet art thou?" This question followed naturally the previous denials. Moses (Deuteronomy:18:15|) had spoken of a prophet like unto himself. Christians interpreted this prophet to be the Messiah (Acts:3:22; strkjv@7:37|), but the Jews thought him another forerunner of the Messiah (John:7:40|). It is not clear in strkjv@John:6:15| whether the people identified the expected prophet with the Messiah, though apparently so. Even the Baptist later became puzzled in prison whether Jesus himself was the true Messiah or just one of the forerunners (Luke:7:19|). People wondered about Jesus himself whether he was the Messiah or just one of the looked for prophets (Mark:8:28; strkjv@Matthew:16:14|). {And he answered} (\kai apekrith\). First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense of voice gone) indicative of \apokrinomai\, to give a decision from myself, to reply. {No} (\Ou\). Shortest possible denial.

rwp@John:1:25 @{Why then baptizest thou?} (\Ti oun baptizeis;\). In view of his repeated denials (three here mentioned). {If thou art not} (\ei su ouk ei\). Condition of first class. They did not interpret his claim to be "the voice" to be important enough to justify the ordinance of baptism. Abrahams (_Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels_) shows that proselyte baptism was probably practised before John's time, but its use by John was treating the Jews as if they were themselves Gentiles.

rwp@John:6:32 @{It was not Moses that gave you} (\ou Muss edken humin\). "Not Moses gave you." Blunt and pointed denial (aorist active indicative of \didmi\) that Moses was the giver of the bread from heaven (the manna). Moses was not superior to Christ on this score. {But my Father} (\all ho patr mou\). Not "our Father," but same claim as in strkjv@5:17f|. Which caused so much anger in Jerusalem. {Gives} (\didsin\). Present active indicative, not aorist (\edken\). Continual process. {The true bread out of heaven} (\ton arton ek tou ouranou ton althinon\). "The bread out of heaven" as the manna and more "the genuine bread" of which that was merely a type. On \althinos\ see strkjv@1:9; strkjv@4:23|.

rwp@John:8:41 @{Ye do the works of your father} (\humeis poieite ta erga tou patros humn\). Who is not Abraham and not God as Jesus plainly indicates. {We were not born of fornication} (\hmeis ek porneias egennthmen\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna\. This they said as a proud boast. Jesus had admitted that they were physical (Deuteronomy:23:2|) descendants of Abraham (37|), but now denies that they are spiritual children of Abraham (like Paul in strkjv@Romans:9:7|). \Porneia\ is from \pornos\ (harlot) and that from \pernmi\, to sell, a woman who sells her body for sexual uses. It is vaguely possible that in this stern denial the Pharisees may have an indirect fling at Jesus as the bastard son of Mary (so Talmud). {We have one Father, even God} (\hena patera echomen ton theon\). No "even" in the Greek, "One Father we have, God." This in direct reply to the implication of Jesus (verse 38|) that God was not their spiritual Father.

rwp@John:9:9 @{Nay but he is like him} (\Ouchi, alla homoios auti estin\). Vigorous denial (\ouchi\) and mere similarity suggested. Associative instrumental case \autoi\ after \homoios\. The crowd is divided. {He said} (\ekeinos elegen\). Emphatic demonstrative (as in 11,12,25,36|), "That one spake up." He knew.

rwp@John:9:15 @{Again} (\palin\). Besides the questioning of the neighbours (verses 8,9|). {Therefore} (\oun\). Since he has been brought to the Pharisees who must make a show of wisdom. {Also asked him} (\rtn auton kai\). Inchoative imperfect active of \erta\, "began also to question him." {How he received his sight} (\ps aneblepsen\). No denial as yet of the fact, only interest in the "how." {He put} (\epethken\). Genuine here, but see verse 6|. {And lo see} (\kai blep\). That is the overwhelming fact.

rwp@John:9:22 @{Because they feared the Jews} (\hoti ephobounto tous Ioudaious\). Imperfect middle, a continuing fear and not without reason. See already the whispers about Jesus because of fear of the Jews (7:13|). {Had agreed already} (\d sunetetheinto\). Past perfect middle of \suntithmi\, to put together, to form a compact (7:32,47-49|). {If any man should confess him to be Christ} (\ean tis auton homologsi Christon\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \homologe\ and predicate accusative \Christon\. Jesus had made confession of himself before men the test of discipleship and denial the disproof (Matthew:10:32; strkjv@Luke:12:8|). We know that many of the rulers nominally believed on Jesus (12:42|) and yet "did not confess him because of the Pharisees" (\alla dia tous Pharisaious ouch hmologoun\), for the very reason given here, "that they might not be put out of the synagogue" (\hina m aposunaggoi genntai\). Small wonder then that here the parents cowered a bit. {That he should be put out of the synagogue} (\hina aposunaggos gentai\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\. \Aposunaggos\ (\apo\ and \sunagg\) is found in N.T. only here and strkjv@12:42; strkjv@16:2|. A purely Jewish word naturally. There were three kinds of excommunication (for thirty days, for thirty more, indefinitely).

rwp@John:10:33 @{For a good work we stone thee not} (\peri kalou ergou ou lithazomen\). "Concerning a good deed we are not stoning thee." Flat denial that the healing of the blind man on the Sabbath had led them to this attempt (8:59|) in spite of the facts. {But for blasphemy} (\alla peri blasphmias\). See strkjv@Acts:26:7| where \peri\ with the genitive is also used with \egkaloumai\ for the charge against Paul. This is the only example in John of the word \blasphmia\ (cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:31|). {And because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God} (\kai hoti su anthrpos n poieis seauton theon\). In strkjv@5:18| they stated the charge more accurately: "He called God his own Father, making himself equal with God." That is, he made himself the Son of God. This he did beyond a doubt. But was it blasphemy? Only if he was not the Son of God. The penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Leviticus:24:16; strkjv@1Kings:21:10,13|).

rwp@Mark:6:8 @{Save a staff only} (\ei m rabdon monon\). Every traveller and pilgrim carried his staff. Bruce thinks that Mark has here preserved the meaning of Jesus more clearly than strkjv@Matthew:10:10| (nor staff) and strkjv@Luke:9:3| (neither staff). This discrepancy has given trouble to commentators. Grotius suggests no second staff for Matthew and Luke. Swete considers that Matthew and Luke report "an early exaggeration of the sternness of the command." "Without even a staff is the _ne plus ultra_ of austere simplicity, and self-denial. Men who carry out the spirit of these precepts will not labour in vain" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:24:36 @{Not even the Son} (\oude ho huios\). Probably genuine, though absent in some ancient MSS. The idea is really involved in the words "but the Father only" (\ei m ho patr monos\). It is equally clear that in this verse Jesus has in mind the time of his second coming. He had plainly stated in verse 34| that those events (destruction of Jerusalem) would take place in that generation. He now as pointedly states that no one but the Father knows the day or the hour when these things (the second coming and the end of the world) will come to pass. One may, of course, accuse Jesus of hopeless confusion or extend his confession of ignorance of the date of the second coming to the whole chain of events. Songs:McNeile: "It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Jesus as Man, expected the End, within the lifetime of his contemporaries." And that after his explicit denial that he knew anything of the kind! It is just as easy to attribute ignorance to modern scholars with their various theories as to Jesus who admits his ignorance of the date, but not of the character of the coming.

rwp@Matthew:25:9 @{Peradventure there will not be enough for us and you} (\mpote ou m arkesei hmn kai humn\). There is an elliptical construction here that is not easy of explanation. Some MSS. Aleph A L Z have \ouk\ instead of \ou m\. But even so \m pote\ has to be explained either by supplying an imperative like \ginesth\ or by a verb of fearing like \phoboumetha\ (this most likely). Either \ouk\ or \ou m\ would be proper with the futuristic subjunctive \arkesei\ (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 192; Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1161,1174). "We are afraid that there is no possibility of there being enough for us both." This is a denial of oil by the wise virgins because there was not enough for both. "It was necessary to show that the foolish virgins could not have the consequences of their folly averted at the last moment" (Plummer). It is a courteous reply, but it is decisive. The compound Greek negatives are very expressive, \mpote--ou m\.

rwp@Matthew:26:33 @{I will never be offended} (\eg oudepote skandalisthsomai\). "Made to stumble," not "offended." Volitive future passive indicative. Peter ignored the prophecy of the resurrection of Jesus and the promised meeting in Galilee (32|). The quotation from strkjv@Zechariah:13:7| made no impression on him. He was intent on showing that he was superior to "all" the rest. Judas had turned traitor and all were weak, Peter in particular, little as he knew it. Songs:Jesus has to make it plainer by pointing out "this night" as the time (34|). {Before the cock crows} (\prin alektora phnsai\). No article in the Greek, "before a cock crow." Mark (Mark:14:30|) says that Peter will deny Jesus thrice before the cock crows twice. When one cock crows in the morning, others generally follow. The three denials lasted over an hour. Some scholars hold that chickens were not allowed in Jerusalem by the Jews, but the Romans would have them.

rwp@Matthew:26:63 @{Held his peace} (\esipa\). Kept silent, imperfect tense. Jesus refused to answer the bluster of Caiaphas. {I adjure thee by the living God} (\exorkiz se kata tou theou tou zntos\). Songs:Caiaphas put Jesus on oath in order to make him incriminate himself, a thing unlawful in Jewish jurisprudence. He had failed to secure any accusation against Jesus that would stand at all. But Jesus did not refuse to answer under solemn oath, clearly showing that he was not thinking of oaths in courts of justice when he prohibited profanity. The charge that Caiaphas makes is that Jesus claims to be the Messiah, the Son of God. To refuse to answer would be tantamount to a denial. Songs:Jesus answered knowing full well the use that would be made of his confession and claim.

rwp@Matthew:26:69 @{Thou also} (\kai su\). Peter had gone within (\es\) the palace (26:58|), but was sitting {without} (\ex\) the hall where the trial was going on in the open central court with the servants or officers (\hupretn\, under rowers, literally, strkjv@26:58|) of the Sanhedrin. But he could possibly see through the open door above what was going on inside. It is not plain at what stage of the Jewish trial the denials of Peter took place nor the precise order in which they came as the Gospels give them variously. This maid (\paidisk\, slave girl) stepped up to Peter as he was sitting in the court and pointedly said: "Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean." Peter was warming himself by the fire and the light shone in his face. She probably had noticed Peter come in with John the Beloved Disciple who went on up into the hall of trial. Or she may have seen Peter with Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem.

rwp@Matthew:26:73 @{They that stood by} (\hoi hesttes\). The talk about Peter continued. Luke (Luke:22:59|) states that the little while was about an hour. The bystanders came up to Peter and bluntly assert that he was "of a truth" (\alths\) one of the followers of Jesus for his speech betrayed him. Even the Revised Version retains "bewrayeth," quaint old English for "betrayeth." The Greek has it simply "makes thee evident" (\dlon se poiei\). His dialect (\lalia\) clearly revealed that he was a Galilean. The Galileans had difficulty with the gutterals and Peter's second denial had exposed him to the tormenting raillery of the loungers who continued to nag him.

rwp@Matthew:26:74 @{Then began he to curse and to swear} (\tote rxato katathematizein kai omnuein\). He repeated his denial with the addition of profanity to prove that he was telling the truth instead of the lie that they all knew. His repeated denials gave him away still more, for he could not pronounce the Judean gutterals. He called down on himself (\katathematizein\) imprecations in his desperate irritation and loss of self-control at his exposure. {The cock crew} (\alektn ephnsen\). No article in the Greek, just "a cock crew" at that juncture, "straightway" (\euthus\). But it startled Peter.

rwp@Matthew:26:75 @{Peter remembered} (\emnsth ho Petros\). A small thing, but _magna circumstantia_ (Bengel). In a flash of lightning rapidity he recalled the words of Jesus a few hours before (Matthew:26:34|) which he had then scouted with the proud boast that "even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee" (26:35|). And now this triple denial was a fact. There is no extenuation for the base denials of Peter. He had incurred the dread penalty involved in the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:10:33| of denial by Jesus before the Father in heaven. But Peter's revulsion of feeling was as sudden as his sin. {He went out and wept bitterly} (\exelthn ex eklausen pikrs\). Luke adds that the Lord turned and looked upon Peter (Luke:22:61|). That look brought Peter back to his senses. He could not stay where he now was with the revilers of Jesus. He did not feel worthy or able to go openly into the hall where Jesus was. Songs:outside he went with a broken heart. The constative aorist here does not emphasize as Mark's imperfect does (Mark:14:72|, \eklaien\) the continued weeping that was now Peter's only consolation. The tears were bitter, all the more so by reason of that look of understanding pity that Jesus gave him. One of the tragedies of the Cross is the bleeding heart of Peter. Judas was a total wreck and Peter was a near derelict. Satan had sifted them all as wheat, but Jesus had prayed specially for Peter (Luke:22:31f.|). Will Satan show Peter to be all chaff as Judas was?

rwp@Philippians:3:13 @{Not yet} (\oup\). But some MSS. read \ou\ (not). {To have apprehended} (\kateilphenai\). Perfect active infinitive of same verb \katalamban\ (perfective use of \kata\, to grasp completely). Surely denial enough. {But one thing} (\hen de\). No verb in the Greek. We can supply \poi\ (I do) or \dik\ (I keep on in the chase), but no verb is really needed. "When all is said, the greatest art is to limit and isolate oneself" (Goethe), concentration. {Forgetting the things which are behind} (\ta men opis epilanthanomenos\). Common verb, usually with the genitive, but the accusative in the _Koin_ is greatly revived with verbs. Paul can mean either his old pre-Christian life, his previous progress as a Christian, or both (all of it). {Stretching forward} (\epekteinomenos\). Present direct middle participle of the old double compound \epektein\ (stretching myself out towards). Metaphor of a runner leaning forward as he runs.