Bible:
Filter: String:

OT.filter - rwp graph:

rwp@1Corinthians:6:16 @{One body} (\hen sma\). With the harlot. That union is for the harlot the same as with the wife. The words quoted from strkjv@Genesis:2:24| describing the sexual union of husband and wife, are also quoted and explained by Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:19:5f.| which see for discussion of the translation Hebraism with use of \eis\. {Saith he} (\phsin\). Supply either \ho theos\ (God) or \h graph\ (the Scripture).

rwp@1John:3:17 @{Whoso hath} (\hos an echi\). Indefinite relative clause with modal \an\ with \hos\ and the present active subjunctive of \ech\. {The world's goods} (\ton bion tou kosmou\). "The living or livelihood (not \z\, the principle of life, and see strkjv@2:16| for \bios\) of the world" (not in the sense of evil or wicked, but simply this mundane sphere). {Beholdeth} (\therei\). Present active subjunctive of \there\, like \echei\ just before. {In need} (\chreian echonta\). "Having need" (present active predicate participle of \ech\, agreeing with \adelphon\). See the vivid picture of a like case in strkjv@James:2:15f|. {Shutteth up} (\kleisi\). First aorist (effective) active subjunctive of \klei\, to close like the door, changed on purpose from present tense to aorist (graphic slamming the door of his compassion, \splagchna\, common in LXX and N.T. for the nobler viscera, the seat of the emotions, as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:11; strkjv@Colossians:3:12|). Only here in John. {How} (\ps\). Rhetorical question like that in strkjv@James:2:16| (what is the use?). It is practical, not speculative, that counts in the hour of need.

rwp@1Timothy:3:1 @{Faithful is the saying} (\pistos ho logos\). Here the phrase points to the preceding words (not like strkjv@1:15|) and should close the preceding paragraph. {If a man seeketh} (\ei tis oregetai\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. Present middle indicative of \oreg\, old verb to reach out after something, governing the genitive. In N.T. only here, strkjv@6:10; strkjv@Hebrews:11:16|. {The office of a bishop} (\episkops\). Genitive case after \oregetai\. Late and rare word outside of LXX and N.T. (in a Lycaonian inscription). From \episkope\ and means "over-seership" as in strkjv@Acts:1:20|.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:17 @{Of me Paul with mine own hand} (\ti emi cheiri Paulou\). Instrumental case \cheiri\. Note genitive \Paulou\ in apposition with possessive idea in the possessive pronoun \emi\. Paul had dictated the letter, but now wrote the salutation in his hand. {The token in every epistle} (\smeion en pasi epistoli\). Mark (verse 14|) and proof of the genuineness of each epistle, Paul's signature. Already there were spurious forgeries (2Thessalonians:2:2|). Thus each church was enabled to know that Paul wrote the letter. If only the autograph copy could be found!

rwp@Acts:20:35 @{I gave you an example} (\hupedeixa\). First aorist active indicative of \hupodeiknumi\, old verb to show under one's eyes, to give object lesson, by deed as well as by word (Luke:6:47|). \Hupodeigma\ means example (John:13:15; strkjv@James:5:10|). Songs:Paul appeals to his example in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:17|. \Panta\ is accusative plural of general reference (in all things). {Songs:labouring ye ought to help} (\houts kopintas dei antilambanesthai\). So, as I did. Necessity (\dei\). Toiling (\kopintas\) not just for ourselves, but to help (\antilambanesthai\), to take hold yourselves (middle voice) at the other end (\anti\). This verb common in the old Greek, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:54; strkjv@Acts:20:35; strkjv@1Timothy:6:2|. This noble plea to help the weak is the very spirit of Christ (1Thessalonians:5:14; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28; strkjv@Romans:5:6; strkjv@14:1|). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| \antechesthe tn asthenountn\ we have Paul's very idea again. Every Community Chest appeal today re-echoes Paul's plea. {He himself said} (\autos eipen\). Not in the Gospels, one of the sayings of Jesus in current use that Paul had received and treasured. Various other _Agrapha_ of Jesus have been preserved in ancient writers and some in recently discovered papyri which may be genuine or not. We are grateful that Paul treasured this one. This Beatitude (on \makarion\ see on strkjv@Matthew:5:3-11|) is illustrated by the whole life of Jesus with the Cross as the culmination. Aristotle (Eth. IV. I) has a saying somewhat like this, but assigns the feeling of superiority as the reason (Page), an utterly different idea from that here. This quotation raises the question of how much Paul personally knew of the life and sayings of Jesus.

rwp@Galatians:3:13 @{Redeemed us} (\hmas exgorasen\). First aorist active of the compound verb \exagoraz\ (Polybius, Plutarch, Diodorus), to buy from, to buy back, to ransom. The simple verb \agoraz\ (1Corinthians:6:20; strkjv@7:23|) is used in an inscription for the purchase of slaves in a will (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 324). See also strkjv@Galatians:4:5; strkjv@Colossians:4:5; strkjv@Ephesians:5:16|. Christ purchased us {from the curse of the law} (\ek ts kataras tou nomou\). "Out from (\ek\ repeated) under (\hupo\ in verse 10|) the curse of the law." {Having become a curse for us} (\genomenos huper hmn katara\). Here the graphic picture is completed. We were under (\hupo\) a curse, Christ became a curse {over} (\huper\) us and so between us and the overhanging curse which fell on him instead of on us. Thus he bought us out (\ek\) and we are free from the curse which he took on himself. This use of \huper\ for substitution is common in the papyri and in ancient Greek as in the N.T. (John:11:50; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:14f.|). {That hangeth on a tree} (\ho kremamenos epi xulou\). Quotation from strkjv@Deuteronomy:21:23| with the omission of \hupo theou\ (by God). Since Christ was not cursed by God. The allusion was to exposure of dead bodies on stakes or crosses (Joshua:10:26|). \Xulon\ means wood, not usually tree, though so in strkjv@Luke:23:31| and in later Greek. It was used of gallows, crosses, etc. See strkjv@Acts:5:30; strkjv@10:39; strkjv@1Peter:2:24|. On the present middle participle from the old verb \kremannumi\, to hang, see on ¯Matthew:18:6; strkjv@Acts:5:30|.

rwp@Hebrews:11:8 @{Not knowing whither he went} (\m epistamenos pou erchetai\). Usual negative \m\ with a participle (present middle from \epistamai\, old and common verb to put the mind on). Present middle indicative (\erchetai\) preserved in the indirect question after the secondary tense \exlthen\ (went out) from which \epistamenos\ gets its time. Abraham is a sublime and graphic example of faith. He did not even know where the land was that he was going to receive "as an inheritance" (\eis klronomian\).

rwp@James:4:5 @{The Scripture} (\h graph\). Personification as in strkjv@Galatians:3:8; strkjv@James:2:23|. But no O.T. passage is precisely like this, though it is "a poetical rendering" (Ropes) of strkjv@Exodus:20:5|. The general thought occurs also in strkjv@Genesis:6:3-5; strkjv@Isaiah:63:8-16|, etc. Paul has the same idea also (Galatians:5:17,21; strkjv@Romans:8:6,8|). It is possible that the reference is really to the quotation in verse 6| from strkjv@Proverbs:3:34| and treating all before as a parenthesis. There is no way to decide positively. {In vain} (\kens\). Old adverb (Aristotle) from \kens\ (2:20|), here alone in N.T. "Emptily," not meaning what it says. {Made to dwell} (\katikisen\). First aorist active of \katoikiz\, old verb, to give a dwelling to, only here in N.T. {Long unto envying} (\pros phthonon epipothei\). A difficult phrase. Some even take \pros phthonon\ with \legei\ rather than with \epipothei\, as it naturally does go, meaning "jealously." But even so, with God presented as a jealous lover, does \to pneuma\ refer to the Holy Spirit as the subject of \epipothei\ or to man's spirit as the object of \epipothei\? Probably the former and \epipothei\ then means to yearn after in the good sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:8|.

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:4:6 @{Jacob's well} (\pg tou Iakb\). "A spring of Jacob" (here and verse 14|), but \phrear\ (well, pit, cistern) in verses 11,12|. It is really a cistern 100 feet deep dug by a stranger apparently in a land of abundant springs (Genesis:26:19|). {Wearied} (\kekopiaks\). Perfect active participle of \kopia\, a state of weariness. The verb means to toil excessively (Luke:5:5|). John emphasizes the human emotions of Jesus (1:14; strkjv@11:3,33,35,38,41f.; strkjv@12:27; strkjv@13:21; strkjv@19:28|). {With his journey} (\ek ts hodoiporias\). As a result (\ek\) of the journey. Old compound word from \hodoporos\ (wayfarer), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:11:26|. {Sat} (\ekathezeto\). Imperfect (descriptive) middle of \kathezomai\, "was sitting." {Thus} (\houts\). Probably "thus wearied," graphic picture. {By the well} (\epi ti pgi\). Literally, "upon the curbstone of the well." {Sixth hour} (\hs hekt\). Roman time, about 6 P.M., the usual time for drawing water.

rwp@John:5:39 @{Ye search} (\eraunte\). Proper spelling as the papyri show rather than \ereunte\, the old form (from \ereuna\, search) as in strkjv@7:52|. The form here can be either present active indicative second person plural or the present active imperative second person plural. Only the context can decide. Either makes sense here, but the reason given "because ye think" (\hoti humeis dokeite\, clearly indicative), supports the indicative rather than the imperative. Besides, Jesus is arguing on the basis of their use of "the Scriptures" (\tas graphas\). The plural with the article refers to the well-known collection in the Old Testament (Matthew:21:42; strkjv@Luke:24:27|). Elsewhere in John the singular refers to a particular passage (2:22; strkjv@7:38; strkjv@10:35|). {In them ye have eternal life} (\en autais zn ainion echein\). Indirect assertion after \dokeite\ without "ye" expressed either as nominative (\humeis\) or accusative (\humas\). Bernard holds that in John \doke\ always indicates a mistaken opinion (5:45; strkjv@11:13,31; strkjv@13:29; strkjv@16:20; strkjv@20:15|). Certainly the rabbis did make a mechanical use of the letter of Scripture as a means of salvation. {These are they} (\ekeinai eisin hai\). The true value of the Scriptures is in their witness to Christ (of me, \peri emou\). Luke (24:27,45|) gives this same claim of Jesus, and yet some critics fail to find the Messiah in the Old Testament. But Jesus did.

rwp@Luke:3:4 @{As it is written} (\hs gegraptai\). The regular formula for quotation, perfect passive indicative of \graph\. {Isaiah the prophet} (\Esaiou tou prophtou\). The same phrase in strkjv@Mark:1:2| (correct text) and strkjv@Matthew:3:3|. Mark, as we have seen, adds a quotation from strkjv@Malachi:3:1| and Luke gives verses 4 and 5 of Isa. 40| not in Matthew or Mark (Luke:3:5,6|). See strkjv@Matthew:3:3; strkjv@Mark:1:3| for discussion of Luke strkjv@4:4.

rwp@Luke:11:54 @{Laying wait for him} (\enedreuontes auton\). An old verb from \en\ and \hedra\, a seat, so to lie in ambush for one. Here only and strkjv@Acts:23:21| in the N.T. Vivid picture of the anger of these rabbis who were treating Jesus as if he were a beast of prey. {To catch something out of his mouth} (\threusai to ek tou stomatos autou\). An old Greek verb, though here only in the N.T., from \thra\ (cf. strkjv@Romans:11:9|), to ensnare, to catch in hunting, to hunt. These graphic words from the chase show the rage of the rabbis toward Jesus. Luke gives more details here than in strkjv@20:45-47; strkjv@Matthew:23:1-7|, but there is no reason at all why Jesus should not have had this conflict at the Pharisee's breakfast before that in the temple in the great Tuesday debate.

rwp@Mark:12:24 @{Is it not for this cause that ye err?} (\Ou dia touto plansthe;\). Mark puts it as a question with \ou\ expecting the affirmative answer. Matthew puts it as a positive assertion: "Ye are." \Planaomai\ is to wander astray (cf. our word _planet_, wandering stars, \asteres plantai\, strkjv@Jude:1:13|) like the Latin _errare_ (our _error_, err). {That ye know not the scriptures} (\m eidotes tas graphas\). The Sadducees posed as men of superior intelligence and knowledge in opposition to the traditionalists among the Pharisees with their oral law. And yet on this very point they were ignorant of the Scriptures. How much error today is due to this same ignorance among the educated! {Nor the power of God} (\mde tn dunamin tou theou\). The two kinds of ignorance generally go together (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15:34|).

rwp@Revelation:7:4 @{The number of the sealed} (\ton arithmon tn esphragismenn\). Accusative case object of \kousa\ and genitive of the perfect passive articular participle of \sphragiz\. He did not see the sealing or count them himself, but only heard. {A hundred and forty and four thousand} (\hekaton tesserakonta tessares chiliades\). Symbolical, of course, and not meant to be a complete number of the sealed (or saved) even in that generation, let alone for all time. The number connotes perfection (Alford), 12x12x1000 = a hundred and forty-four thousands (\chiliades\, strkjv@5:11|). Nominative absolute, not agreeing in case either with \arithmon\ (accusative) or \esphragismenn\ (genitive). Songs:as to the case of \esphragismenoi\. {Out of every tribe of the children of Israel} (\ek pss phuls huin Isral\). There are two opposite views here, one taking the sealed as referring only to Jews (either actual Jews as a remnant or just Jewish Christians), the other including Gentiles as well as Jewish Christians, that is the true Israel as in strkjv@2:9; strkjv@3:9ff.| and like Paul in Galatians and Romans. This is the more probable view and it takes the twelve tribes in a spiritual sense. But in either view there remains the difficulty about names of the tribes. The list is not geographical, since Levi is included, but Dan is omitted and Manasseh put in his place, though he as the son of Joseph is included in Joseph. Irenaeus suggested that Antichrist was expected to come from the tribe of Dan and hence the omission here. There are various lists of the tribes in the O.T. (Genesis:35:22f.; strkjv@46:8ff.,49; strkjv@Exodus:1:1ff.; strkjv@Numbers:1:2; strkjv@13:4ff; strkjv@26:34; strkjv@Deuteronomy:27:11f.; strkjv@33:6ff.; strkjv@Joshua:13-22; strkjv@Judges:5; strkjv@1Chronicles:2-8; strkjv@12:24ff.; strkjv@27:16ff.; strkjv@Ezekiel:48|) and given in various orders. In strkjv@1Chronicles:7:12| both Dan and Zebulon are omitted. Joseph is given here in place of Ephraim. The distribution is equal (12,000) to each tribe.

rwp@Revelation:14:13 @{Write} (\Grapson\). First aorist active imperative of \graph\ as in strkjv@1:11|. John's meditation is broken by this command. This new beatitude (\makarioi\, Blessed) for the Christian dead goes farther than Paul's words (1Thessalonians:4:14-16; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:18|). Probably "from henceforth" (\ap' arti\) goes with "those who die in the Lord," giving comfort to those facing persecution and death. {That they may rest} (\hina anapasontai\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second future passive of \anapau\. {From their labours} (\ek tn kopn autn\). From the toils, the wearinesses, but not from the activities (\erga\), for these "follow with them." There is this to comfort us for all our growth here. Even if cut short, it can be utilized in heaven, which is not a place of idleness, but of the highest form of spiritual service.

rwp@Revelation:21:12 @{Having a wall great and high} (\echousa teichos mega kai hupslon\). John returns, after the parenthesis in verse 11|, to the structure in verse 10|, only to use the accusative \echousan\ as before to agree with \polin\, but the nominative \echousa\ as again with "twelve gates" (\pulnas ddeka\). \Puln\ is an old word (from \pul\ gate) for a large gate as in strkjv@Luke:16:20| and six times in Rev. for the gate tower of a city wall (Revelation:21:12,13,15,21,25; strkjv@22:14|) as in strkjv@1Kings:17:10; strkjv@Acts:14:13|. See strkjv@Ezekiel:48:31ff.| for these twelve gates, one for each tribe (cf. strkjv@Revelation:7:1-8|). {At the gates} (\epi tois pulsin\). "Upon the gate towers." {Twelve angels} (\aggelous ddeka\). As \pulroi\ or \phulakes\ according to strkjv@Isaiah:62:6; strkjv@2Chronicles:8:14|. {Names written thereon} (\onomata epigegrammena\). Perfect passive participle of \epigraph\. {Which are the names} (\ha estin\). Just as in Ezekiel's vision (48:31ff.|), so here the names of the twelve tribes of Israel appear, one on each gate.

rwp@Romans:4:2 @{The Scripture} (\h graph\). strkjv@Genesis:15:6|. {Was justified by works} (\ex ergn edikaith\). Condition of first class, assumed as true for the sake of argument, though untrue in fact. The rabbis had a doctrine of the merits of Abraham who had a superfluity of credits to pass on to the Jews (Luke:3:8|). {But not towards God} (\all' ou pros theon\). Abraham deserved all the respect from men that came to him, but his relation to God was a different matter. He had _there_ no ground of boasting at all.

rwp@Romans:4:18 @{In hope believed against hope} (\par' elpida ep' elpidi episteusen\). "Past hope in (upon) hope he trusted." Graphic picture. {To the end that he might become} (\eis to genesthai auton\). Purpose clause again with \eis\ to and the infinitive as in verses 11-16|.