Bible:
Filter: String:

NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp explained:

rwp@1Corinthians:4:1 @{Ministers of Christ} (\hupretas Christou\). Paul and all ministers (\diakonous\) of the New Covenant (1Corinthians:3:5|) are under-rowers, subordinate rowers of Christ, only here in Paul's Epistles, though in the Gospels (Luke:4:20| the attendant in the synagogue) and the Acts (Acts:13:5|) of John Mark. The {so} (\houts\) gathers up the preceding argument (3:5-23|) and applies it directly by the {as} (\hs\) that follows. {Stewards of the mysteries of God} (\oikonomous mustrin theou\). The steward or house manager (\oikos\, house, \nem\, to manage, old word) was a slave (\doulos\) under his lord (\kurios\, strkjv@Luke:12:42|), but a master (Luke:16:1|) over the other slaves in the house (menservants \paidas\, maidservants \paidiskas\ strkjv@Luke:12:45|), an overseer (\epitropos\) over the rest (Matthew:20:8|). Hence the under-rower (\huprets\) of Christ has a position of great dignity as steward (\oikonomos\) of the mysteries of God. Jesus had expressly explained that the mysteries of the kingdom were open to the disciples (Matthew:13:11|). They were entrusted with the knowledge of some of God's secrets though the disciples were not such apt pupils as they claimed to be (Matthew:13:51; strkjv@16:8-12|). As stewards Paul and other ministers are entrusted with the mysteries (see on ¯1Corinthians:2:7| for this word) of God and are expected to teach them. "The church is the \oikos\ (1Timothy:3:15|), God the \oikodespots\ (Matthew:13:52|), the members the \oikeioi\ (Galatians:6:10; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19|)" (Lightfoot). Paul had a vivid sense of the dignity of this stewardship (\oikonomia\) of God given to him (Colossians:1:25; strkjv@Ephesians:1:10|). The ministry is more than a mere profession or trade. It is a calling from God for stewardship.

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@1Corinthians:12:16 @Points explained precisely as in verse 15|.

rwp@1Corinthians:14:2 @{For no man understandeth} (\oudeis gar akouei\). Literally, hears, gets the sense, understands. Verb \akou\ used either of hearing the sound only or getting the idea (cf. strkjv@Acts:9:7; strkjv@22:9|). {Mysteries} (\mustria\). Unexplained mysteries (1Corinthians:2:7|).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:51 @{A mystery} (\mustrion\). He does not claim that he has explained everything. He has drawn a broad parallel which opens the door of hope and confidence. {We shall not all sleep} (\pantes ou koimthsometha\). Future passive indicative of \koimaomai\, to sleep. Not all of us shall die, Paul means. Some people will be alive when he comes. Paul does not affirm that he or any then living will be alive when Jesus comes again. He simply groups all under the phrase "we all." {But we shall all be changed} (\pantes de allagsometha\). Second future passive indicative of \allass\. Both living and dead shall be changed and so receive the resurrection body. See this same idea at more length in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13-18|.

rwp@1John:2:3 @{Hereby} (\en touti\). See this phrase also in strkjv@2:5; strkjv@3:16,19,24; strkjv@4:2,13; strkjv@5:2|. That is explained by the \ean\ clause, "if we keep his commandments " (\ean trmen\, condition of the third class, \ean\ with present active subjunctive, "if we keep on keeping"), the clause itself in apposition with \touti\ (locative case). {Know we that we know him} (\ginoskomen hoti egnkamen auton\). "Know we that we have come to know and still know him," \egnkamen\ the perfect active indicative of \ginsk\. The Gnostics boasted of their superior knowledge of Christ, and John here challenges their boast by an appeal to experimental knowledge of Christ which is shown by keeping his (\autou\, Christ's) commandments, thoroughly Johannine phrase (12 times in the Gospel, 6 in this Epistle, 6 in the Apocalypse).

rwp@1John:2:25 @{And this is the promise} (\kai haut estin h epaggelia\). See strkjv@1:5| for the same idiom with \aggelia\ (message). This is the only instance of \epaggelia\ in the Johannine writings. Here "the promise" is explained to be "the life eternal" (1:2|). In strkjv@Acts:1:4| the word is used for the coming of the Holy Spirit. {He promised} (\autos epggeilato\). First aorist middle indicative of \epaggell\. \Autos\ (he) is Christ as is seen in strkjv@3:3| by \ekeinos\.

rwp@1Peter:3:10 @{For} (\gar\). Reason for the entire exhortation in verses 8,9| and introducing in verses 10-12| a quotation from strkjv@Psalms:34:13-17| with some slight changes. {Would love life} (\theln zn agapin\). "Wishing to love life." This present life. The LXX expressions are obscure Hebraisms. The LXX has \agapn\ (participle present active of \agapa\, not the infinitive \agapin\. {Let him refrain} (\pausat\). Third person singular first aorist active imperative of \pau\ to make stop, whereas the LXX has \pauson\ (second person singular). {His tongue} (\tn glssan\). See strkjv@James:3:1-12|. {That they speak no guile} (\tou m lalsai dolon\). Purpose clause with genitive article \tou\ (negative \m\) and the first aorist active infinitive of \lale\. But it can also be explained as the ablative case with the redundant negative \m\ after a verb of hindering (\pausat\) like strkjv@Luke:4:42|. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1061. "Let him refrain his lips from speaking guile."

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:3 @{Your sanctification} (\ho hagiasmos humn\). Found only in the Greek Bible and ecclesiastical writers from \hagiaz\ and both to take the place of the old words \hagiz, hagismos\ with their technical ideas of consecration to a god or goddess that did not include holiness in life. Songs:Paul makes a sharp and pointed stand here for the Christian idea of sanctification as being "the will of God" (apposition) and as further explained by the epexegetic infinitive {that ye abstain from fornication} (\apechesthai humas apo ts porneias\). Pagan religion did not demand sexual purity of its devotees, the gods and goddesses being grossly immoral. Priestesses were in the temples for the service of the men who came.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:12 @{To number or compare ourselves} (\enkrinai sunkrinai\). Paronomasia here, play on the two words. \Enkrinai\ is first aorist active infinitive of old verb, but here only in N.T., to judge among, to judge one as worthy to be numbered among as here. The second verb \sunkrinai\ (first aorist active infinitive of \sunkrin\, old verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:2:13|) originally meant to combine as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:13| (which see), but here it has the sense of "compare" not found in the old Greek. The papyri use it to mean to decide. Plummer suggests "to pair and compare" for the play on the words here. {Measuring themselves by themselves} (\en heautois heautous metrountes\). Or "in themselves." Keenest sarcasm. Setting themselves up as the standards of orthodoxy these Judaizers always measure up to the standard while Paul falls short. {Comparing themselves with themselves} (\sunkrinontes heautous heautois\). Associate instrumental case \heautois\ after \sunkrinontes\ (verb just explained). Paul is not keen to fall into the trap set for him. {Are without understanding} (\ou sunisin\). The regular form for present active indicative third plural of \sunimi\, to comprehend, to grasp. Some MSS. have the late form \suniousin\ (omega form \suni\). It is a hard thing to see, but it is true. These men do not see their own picture so obvious to others (Ephesians:5:17; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7|). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:17|.

rwp@2Peter:3:8 @{Forget not this one thing} (\hen touto m lanthanet humas\). Rather, "let not this one thing escape you." For \lanthanet\ (present active imperative of \lanthan\) see verse 5|. The "one thing" (\hen\) is explained by the \hoti\ (that) clause following. Peter applies the language of strkjv@Psalms:90:4| about the eternity of God and shortness of human life to "the impatience of human expectations" (Bigg) about the second coming of Christ. "The day of judgment is at hand (1Peter:4:7|). It may come tomorrow; but what is tomorrow? What does God mean by a day? It may be a thousand years" (Bigg). Precisely the same argument applies to those who argue for a literal interpretation of the thousand years in strkjv@Revelation:20:4-6|. It may be a day or a day may be a thousand years. God's clock (\para kurii\, beside the Lord) does not run by our timepieces. The scoffers scoff ignorantly.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:14 @{And if any one obeyeth not our word by this epistle} (\ei de tis ouch hupakouei ti logi hmn dia ts epistols\). Paul sums up the issue bluntly with this ultimatum. Condition of the first class, with negative \ou\, assuming it to be true. {Note that man} (\touton smeiousthe\). Late verb \smeio\, from \smeion\, sign, mark, token. Put a tag on that man. Here only in N.T. "The verb is regularly used for the signature to a receipt or formal notice in the papyri and the ostraca of the Imperial period" (Moulton & Milligan's _Vocabulary_). How this is to be done (by letter or in public meeting) Paul does not say. {That ye have no company with him} (\m sunanamignusthai auti\). The MSS. are divided between the present middle infinitive as above in a command like strkjv@Romans:12:15; strkjv@Phillipians:3:16| or the present middle imperative \sunanamignusthe\ (\-ai\ and \-e\ often being pronounced alike in the _Koin_). The infinitive can also be explained as an indirect command. This double compound verb is late, in LXX and Plutarch, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:5:9,11|. \Auti\ is in associative instrumental case. {To the end that he may be ashamed} (\hina entrapi\). Purpose clause with \hina\. Second aorist passive subjunctive of \entrep\, to turn on, middle to turn on oneself or to put to shame, passive to be made ashamed. The idea is to have one's thoughts turned in on oneself.

rwp@Acts:23:24 @{Provide beasts} (\kten parastsai\). Change from direct to indirect discourse just the opposite of that in verse 22|. {Beasts} (\ktn\). For riding as here or for baggage. See on ¯Luke:10:34|. Asses or horses, but not war-horses. Since Paul was chained to a soldier, another animal would be required for baggage. It was also seventy miles and a change of horses might be needed. The extreme precaution of Lysias is explained in some Latin MSS. as due to fear of a night attack with the result that he might be accused to Felix of bribery. Luke also probably accompanied Paul. {To bring safe} (\hina diasssin\). Final clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \diasz\, old verb, to save through (\dia\) to a finish. Eight times in the N.T. (Matthew:14:36; strkjv@Luke:7:3; strkjv@Acts:23:24; strkjv@27:43,44; strkjv@28:1,4; strkjv@1Peter:3:20|). {Unto Felix the governor} (\pros Phlika ton hgemona\). Felix was a brother of Pallas, the notorious favourite of Claudius. Both had been slaves and were now freedmen. Felix was made procurator of Judea by Claudius A.D. 52. He held the position till Festus succeeded him after complaints by the Jews to Nero. He married Drusilla the daughter of Herod Agrippa I with the hope of winning the favour of the Jews. He was one of the most depraved men of his time. Tacitus says of him that "with all cruelty and lust he exercised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave." The term "governor" (\hgemn\) means "leader" from \hgeomai\, to lead, and was applied to leaders of all sorts (emperors, kings, procurators). In the N.T. it is used of Pilate (Matthew:27:2|), of Felix, (Acts:23:24,26,33; strkjv@24:1|), of Festus (26:30|).

rwp@Colossians:1:21 @{And you} (\kai hums\). Accusative case in a rather loose sentence, to be explained as the object of the infinitive \parastsai\ in verse 22| (note repeated \hums\ there) or as the anticipated object of \apokatllaxen\ if that be the genuine form in verse 22|. It can be the accusative of general reference followed by anacoluthon. See similar idiom in strkjv@Ephesians:2:1,12|. {Being in time past alienated} (\pote ontas apllotrimenous\). Periphrastic perfect passive participle (continuing state of alienation) of \apallotrio\, old word from Plato on, to estrange, to render \allotrios\ (belonging to another), alienated from God, a vivid picture of heathenism as in strkjv@Romans:1:20-23|. Only other N.T. examples in strkjv@Ephesians:2:12; strkjv@4:18|. \Enemies\ (\exthrous\). Old word from \echthos\ (hatred). Active sense here, {hostile} as in strkjv@Matthew:13:28; strkjv@Romans:8:7|, not passive {hateful} (Romans:11:28|). {In your mind} (\ti dianoii\). Locative case. \Dianoia\ (\dia, nous\), mind, intent, purpose. Old word. It is always a tragedy to see men use their minds actively against God. {In your evil works} (\en tois ergois tois ponrois\). Hostile purpose finds natural expression in evil deeds.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ DATES OF HIS EPISTLES Unfortunately there is not complete agreement among scholars as to the dates of some of Paul's Epistles. Baur denied the Pauline authorship of all the Epistles save I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans. Today some deny that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, though admitting the others. Some admit Pauline fragments even in the Pastoral Epistles, but more about this when these Epistles are reached. There is more doubt about the date of Galatians than any of the others. Lightfoot put it just before Romans, while Ramsay now makes it the earliest of all. The Epistle itself has no notes of place or time. The Epistles to the Thessalonians were written from Corinth after Timothy had been sent from Athens by Paul to Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:3:1f.|) and had just returned to Paul (1Thessalonians:3:6|) which we know was in Corinth (Acts:18:5|) shortly before Gallio came as Proconsul of Achaia (Acts:18:12|). We can now feel certain from the new "acclamation" of Claudius in the inscription at Delphi recently explained by Deissmann in his _St. Paul_ that the Thessalonian Epistles were written 50 to 51 A.D. We know also that he wrote I Corinthians while in Ephesus (1Corinthians:16:8|) and before pentecost, though the precise year is not given. But he spent three years at Ephesus in round numbers (Acts:19:8,10; strkjv@20:31|) and he wrote just before he left, probably spring of A.D. 54 or 55. He wrote II Corinthians from Macedonia shortly after leaving Ephesus (2Corinthians:2:12|) ] apparently the same year. Romans was written from Corinth and sent by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:1f.|) unless strkjv@Romans:16| be considered a separate Epistle to Ephesus as some hold, a view that does not commend itself to me. Deissmann (_New Testament in the Light of Modern Research_, p. 33) accepts a modern theory that Ephesus was the place of the writing of the first prison Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) as well as I Corinthians and Galatians and dates them all between A.D. 52 and 55. But we shall find that these prison Epistles most naturally fall to Rome between A.D. 61 and 63. If the Pastoral Epistles are genuine, as I hold, they come between A.D. 65 and 68. Bartlet argues for a date before A.D. 64, accepting the view that Paul was put to death then. But it is still far more probable that Paul met his death in Rome in A.D. 68 shortly before Nero's death which was June 8, A.D. 68. It will thus be seen that the dates of several of the Epistles are fairly clear, while some remain quite uncertain. In a broad outlook they must all come between A.D. 50 and 68.

rwp@Hebrews:2:14 @{Are sharers in flesh and blood} (\kekoinnken haimatos kai sarkos\). The best MSS. read "blood and flesh." The verb is perfect active indicative of \koinne\, old verb with the regular genitive, elsewhere in the N.T. with the locative (Romans:12:13|) or with \en\ or \eis\. "The children have become partners (\koinnoi\) in blood and flesh." {Partook} (\metesche\). Second aorist active indicative of \metech\, to have with, a practical synonym for \koinne\ and with the genitive also (\tn autn\). That he might bring to nought (\hina katargsi\). Purpose of the incarnation clearly stated with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \katarge\, old word to render idle or ineffective (from \kata, argos\), causative verb (25 times in Paul), once in Luke (Luke:13:7|), once in Hebrews (here). "By means of death" (his own death) Christ broke the power (\kratos\) of the devil over death (paradoxical as it seems), certainly in men's fear of death and in some unexplained way Satan had sway over the realm of death (Zechariah:3:5f.|). Note the explanatory \tout' estin\ (that is) with the accusative after it as before it. In strkjv@Revelation:12:7| Satan is identified with the serpent in Eden, though it is not done in the Old Testament. See strkjv@Romans:5:12; strkjv@John:8:44; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11; strkjv@1John:3:12|. Death is the devil's realm, for he is the author of sin. "Death as death is no part of the divine order" (Westcott).

rwp@Hebrews:7:26 @{Became us} (\hmin eprepen\). Imperfect active indicative of \prep\ as in strkjv@2:10|, only there it was applied to God while here to us. "Such" (\toioutos\) refers to the Melchizedek character of Jesus as high priest and in particular to his power to help and save (2:17f.|) as just explained in strkjv@7:24f.| Moffatt notes that "it is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody" but the adjectives that follow picture in outline the qualities of the high priest needed by us. {Holy} (\hosios\). Saintly, pious, as already noted. Cf. strkjv@Acts:2:24; strkjv@13:35|. {Guileless} (\akakos\). Without malice, innocent. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:16:18|. {Undefiled} (\amiantos\). Untainted, stainless. In the papyri. Not merely ritual purity (Leviticus:21:10-15|), but real ethical cleanness. {Separated from sinners} (\kechrismenos apo tn hamartln\). Perfect passive participle. Probably referring to Christ's exaltation (9:28|). {Made higher than the heavens} (\hupsloteros tn ourann genomenos\). "Having become higher than the heavens." Ablative case (\ourann\) after the comparative adjective (\hupsloteros\).

rwp@Hebrews:10:20 @{By the way which he dedicated for us} (\hn enekainisen hmin hodon\). This "new" (\prosphaton\, freshly killed, newly made, from \pros\ and the root of \phatos\, in the papyri, only here in N.T.) and "living" (\zsan\) Jesus opened ("dedicated") for us by his Incarnation and Death for us. Thus he fulfilled God's promise of the "New Covenant" (8:7-13|) in Jeremiah. The language is highly symbolic here and "through the veil" here is explained as meaning the flesh of Christ, his humanity, not the veil opening into heaven (6:20|). Some do take "veil" here as obscuring the deity of Christ rather than the revelation of God in the human body of Christ (John:1:18; strkjv@14:9|). At any rate because of the coming of Christ in the flesh we have the new way opened for access to God (Hebrews:2:17f.; strkjv@4:16|).

rwp@Hebrews:10:31 @{A fearful thing} (\phoberon\). Old adjective (from \phobe\, to frighten). In N.T. only in Heb. (10:27,31; strkjv@12:21|). The sense is not to be explained away. The wrath of God faces wrongdoers. {To fall} (\to empesein\). "The falling" (articular infinitive second aorist active of \empipt\, to fall in, followed here by \eis\). We are not dealing with a dead or an absentee God, but one who is alive and alert (3:12|).

rwp@James:1:24 @{He beholdeth himself} (\katenosen heauton\). Usually explained as gnomic aorist like those in strkjv@1:11|, but the ordinary force of the tenses is best here. "He glanced at himself (\katenosen\ aorist) and off he has gone (\apelluthen\ perfect active) and straightway forgot (\epelatheto\, second aorist middle indicative of \epilanthanomai\) what sort of a man he was" (\hopoios n\, back in the picture, imperfect tense). The tenses thus present a vivid and lifelike picture of the careless listener to preaching (Christ's wayside hearer).

rwp@James:4:11 @{Speak not one against another} (\m katalaleite allln\). Prohibition against such a habit or a command to quit doing it, with \m\ and the present imperative of \katalale\, old compound usually with the accusative in ancient Greek, in N.T. only with the genitive (here, strkjv@1Peter:2:12; strkjv@3:16|). Often harsh words about the absent. James returns to the subject of the tongue as he does again in strkjv@5:12| (twice before, strkjv@1:26; strkjv@3:1-12|). {Judgeth} (\krinn\). In the sense of harsh judgment as in strkjv@Matthew:7:1; strkjv@Luke:6:37| (explained by \katadikaz\). {Not a doer of the law, but a judge} (\ouk poits nomou, alla krits\). This tone of superiority to law is here sharply condemned. James has in mind God's law, of course, but the point is the same for all laws under which we live. We cannot select the laws which we will obey unless some contravene God's law, and so our own conscience (Acts:4:20|). Then we are willing to give our lives for our rebellion if need be.

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:1:40 @{Andrew} (\Andreas\). Explained by John as one of the two disciples of the Baptist and identified as the brother of the famous Simon Peter (cf. also strkjv@6:8; strkjv@12:22|). The more formal call of Andrew and Simon, James and John, comes later (Mark:1:16ff.; strkjv@Matthew:4:18ff.; strkjv@Luke:3:1-11|). {That heard John speak} (\tn akousantn para Ianou\). "That heard from John," a classical idiom (\para\ with ablative after \akou\) seen also in strkjv@6:45; strkjv@7:51; strkjv@8:26,40; strkjv@15:15|.

rwp@John:3:19 @{And this is the judgment} (\haut de estin h krisis\). A thoroughly Johannine phrase for sequence of thought (15:12; strkjv@17:3; strkjv@1John:1:5; strkjv@5:11,14; strkjv@3John:1:6|). It is more precisely the process of judging (\kri-sis\) rather than the result (\kri-ma\) of the judgment. "It is no arbitrary sentence, but the working out of a moral law" (Bernard). {The light is come} (\to phs elluthen\). Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\, a permanent result as already explained in the Prologue concerning the Incarnation (1:4,5,9,11|). Jesus is the Light of the world. {Loved darkness} (\gapsan to skotos\). Job:(Job:24:13|) spoke of men rebelling against the light. Here \to skotos\, common word for moral and spiritual darkness (1Thessalonians:5:5|), though \h skotia\ in strkjv@John:1:5|. "Darkness" is common in John as a metaphor for the state of sinners (8:12; strkjv@12:35, 46; strkjv@1John:1:6; strkjv@2:8,9,11|). Jesus himself is the only moral and spiritual light of the world (8:12|) as he dared claim to his enemies. The pathos of it all is that men fall in love with the darkness of sin and rebel against the light like denizens of the underworld, "for their works were evil (\ponra\)." When the light appears, they scatter to their holes and dens. \Ponros\ (from \ponos\, toil, \pone\, to toil) is used of the deeds of the world by Jesus (7:7|). In the end the god of this world blinds men's eyes so that they do not see the light (2Corinthians:4:4|). The fish in the Mammoth Cave have no longer eyes, but only sockets where eyes used to be. The evil one has a powerful grip on the world (1John:5:19|).

rwp@John:4:25 @{Messiah cometh} (\Messias erchetai\). Hebrew word in N.T. only here and strkjv@1:41| and explained by \Christos\ in both places. The Samaritans looked for a Messiah, a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy:18:18|). Simon Magus gave himself out in Samaria as some great one and had a large following (Acts:8:9|). Pilate quelled an uprising in Samaria over a fanatical Messianic claimant (Josephus, _Ant_. XVIII. iv. 1). {When he is come} (\hotan elthi ekeinos\). "Whenever that one comes." Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ (\hote\, \an\) and the second aorist active subjunctive. Wistfully she turns to this dim hope as a bare possibility about this strange "prophet." {He will declare unto us all things} (\anaggelei hmin hapanta\). Future active indicative of \anaggell\, old and common verb to announce fully (\ana\, up and down). See also strkjv@16:13|. Perhaps here is light on the knowledge of her life by Jesus as well as about the way to worship God.

rwp@John:4:42 @{Not because of thy speaking} (\ouketi dia tn sn lalian\). "No longer because of thy talk," good and effective as that was. \Lalia\ (cf. \lale\) is talk, talkativeness, mode of speech, one's vernacular, used by Jesus of his own speech (John:8:43|). {We have heard} (\akkoamen\). Perfect active indicative of \akou\, their abiding experience. {For ourselves} (\autoi\). Just "ourselves." {The Saviour of the world} (\ho str tou kosmou\). See strkjv@Matthew:1:21| for ssei used of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term \str\ to Jesus again in strkjv@1John:4:14|. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (verse 22|). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (verse 26|) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews. Sanday thinks that probably John puts this epithet of Saviour in the mouth of the Samaritans, but adds: "At the same time it is possible that such an epithet might be employed by them merely as synonymous with Messiah." But why "merely"? Was it not natural for these Samaritans who took Jesus as their "Saviour," Jew as he was, to enlarge the idea to the whole world? Bernard has this amazing statement on strkjv@John:4:42|: "That in the first century Messiah was given the title str is not proven." The use of "saviour and god" for Ptolemy in the third century B.C. is well known. "The ample materials collected by Magie show that the full title of honour, Saviour of the world, with which St. John adorns the Master, was bestowed with sundry variations in the Greek expression on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, and other Emperors in inscriptions in the Hellenistic East" (Deissmann, _Light_, etc., p. 364). Perhaps Bernard means that the Jews did not call Messiah Saviour. But what of it? The Romans so termed their emperors and the New Testament so calls Christ (Luke:2:11; strkjv@John:4:42; strkjv@Acts:5:31; strkjv@3:23; strkjv@Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23; strkjv@Titus:1:4; strkjv@2:13; strkjv@3:6; strkjv@2Timothy:1:10; strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11; strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|). All these are writings of the first century A.D. The Samaritan villagers rise to the conception that he was the Saviour of the world.

rwp@John:4:44 @{For Jesus himself testified} (\autos gar Isous emartursen\). John's explanation of the conduct of Jesus by quoting a proverb often used by Jesus (Mark:6:4; strkjv@Matthew:13:57; strkjv@Luke:4:24| in reference to Nazareth), but not necessarily used by Jesus on this occasion. A similar proverb has been found in Plutarch, Pliny, Seneca. {A prophet hath no honour in his own country} (\prophts en ti idii patridi timn ouk echei\). What is meant by \patridi\? In the Synoptics (Luke:4:24; strkjv@Mark:6:4; strkjv@Matthew:13:57|) the reference is to Nazareth where he was twice rejected. But what has John in mind in quoting it here? He probably knew the quotations in the Synoptics. Does John refer to Judea by "his own country"? If so, the application hardly fits for he had already explained that Jesus was leaving Judea because he was too popular there (4:1-3|). If he means Galilee, he immediately mentions the cordial welcome accorded Jesus there (verse 45|). But even so this is probably John's meaning for he is speaking of the motive of Jesus in going into Galilee where he had not yet laboured and where he apparently had no such fame as in Judea and now in Samaria.

rwp@John:18:37 @{Art thou a king then?} (\oukoun basileus ei su;\). Compound of \ouk\ and \oun\ and is clearly ironical expecting an affirmative answer, only here in the N.T., and in LXX only in A text in strkjv@2Kings:5:23|. {Thou sayest that} (\su legeis hoti\). In strkjv@Matthew:27:11; strkjv@Mark:15:2; strkjv@Luke:23:3|, \su legeis\ clearly means "yes," as \su eipas\ (thou saidst) does in strkjv@Matthew:26:64| (= "I am," \eg eimi\, in strkjv@Mark:41:62|). Hence here \hoti\ had best be taken to mean "because": "Yes, because I am a king." {Have I been born} (\eg gegennmai\). Perfect passive indicative of \genna\. The Incarnation was for this purpose. Note repetition of \eis touto\ (for this purpose), explained by \hina marturs ti altheii\ (that I may bear witness to the truth), \hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \marture\. Paul (1Timothy:6:13|) alludes to this good confession when Christ bore witness (\martursantos\) before Pilate. Jesus bore such witness always (John:3:11,32; strkjv@7:7; strkjv@8:14; strkjv@Revelation:1:5|).

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION OF PAUL A PHYSICIAN The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his _Medical Language of St. Luke_ proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_ have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his _Style and Literary Method of Luke_ denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke "the beloved physician" (\ho iatros ho agaptos\, strkjv@Colossians:4:14|), "my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Acts:28:8-10|) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who "came and were healed (\etherapeuonto\) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing (\iasato\), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician's interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark's apparent discredit of physicians (Mark:5:26|) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luke:8:43|).

rwp@Luke:6:17 @{He came down with them} (\katabas met' autn\). Second aorist active participle of \katabain\, common verb. This was the night of prayer up in the mountain (Mark:31:3; strkjv@Luke:6:12|) and the choice of the Twelve next morning. The going up into the mountain of strkjv@Matthew:5:1| may simply be a summary statement with no mention of what Luke has explained or may be a reference to the elevation, where he "sat down" (Matthew:5:1|), above the plain or "level place" (\epi topou pedinou\) on the mountain side where Jesus "stood" or "stopped" (\est\). It may be a level place towards the foot of the mountain. He stopped his descent at this level place and then found a slight elevation on the mountain side and began to speak. There is not the slightest reason for making Matthew locate this sermon on the mountain and Luke in the valley as if the places, audiences, and topics were different. For the unity of the sermon see discussion on ¯Matthew:5:1f|. The reports in Matthew and Luke begin alike, cover the same general ground and end alike. The report in Matthew is longer chiefly because in Chapter 5, he gives the argument showing the contrast between Christ's conception of righteousness and that of the Jewish rabbis. Undoubtedly, Jesus repeated many of the crisp sayings here at other times as in Luke 12, but it is quite gratuitous to argue that Matthew and Luke have made up this sermon out of isolated sayings of Christ at various times. Both Matthew and Luke give too much that is local of place and audience for that idea. strkjv@Matthew:5:1| speaks of "the multitudes" and "his disciples." strkjv@Luke:6:17| notes "a great multitude of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon." They agree in the presence of disciples and crowds besides the disciples from whom the twelve apostles were chosen. It is important to note how already people were coming from "the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon" "to hear him and to be healed (\iathnai\, first aorist passive of \iaomai\) of their diseases."

rwp@Luke:11:15 @{Dumb} (\kphon\). See on ¯Matthew:9:32|. {By Beelzebub} (\en Beezeboul\). Blasphemous accusation here in Judea as in Galilee (Mark:3:22; strkjv@Matthew:12:24,27|). See on Matthew for discussion of the form of this name and the various items in the sin against the Holy Spirit involved in the charge. It was useless to deny the fact of the miracles. Songs:they were explained as wrought by Satan himself, a most absurd explanation.

rwp@Luke:13:23 @{Are they few that be saved?} (\ei oligoi hoi szomenoi;\). Note use of \ei\ as an interrogative which can be explained as ellipsis or as \ei=\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1024). This was an academic theological problem with the rabbis, the number of the elect.

rwp@Mark:1:4 @{John came} (\egeneto Ians\). His coming was an epoch (\egeneto\), not a mere event (\n\). His coming was in accordance with the prophetic picture (\kaths\, strkjv@1:2|). Note the same verb about John in strkjv@John:1:6|. The coming of John the Baptizer was the real beginning of the spoken message about Christ. He is described as {the baptizing one} (\ho haptizn\) in the wilderness (\en ti ermi\). The baptizing took place in the River Jordan (Mark:1:5,9|) which was included in the general term the wilderness or the deserted region of Judea. {Preached the baptism of repentance} (\krussn baptisma metanoias\). Heralded a repentance kind of baptism (genitive case, genus case), a baptism marked by repentance. See on ¯Matthew:3:2| for discussion of repent, an exceedingly poor rendering of John's great word \metanoias\. He called upon the Jews to change their minds and to turn from their sins, "confessing their sins" (\exomologoumenoi tas hamartias autn\). See strkjv@Matthew:3:16|. The public confessions produced a profound impression as they would now. {Unto remission of sins} (\eis aphesin hamartin\). This is a difficult phrase to translate accurately. Certainly John did not mean that the baptism was the means of obtaining the forgiveness of their sins or necessary to the remission of sins. The trouble lies in the use of \eis\ which sometimes is used when purpose is expressed, but sometimes when there is no such idea as in strkjv@Matthew:10:41| and strkjv@Matthew:12:41|. Probably "with reference to" is as good a translation here as is possible. The baptism was on the basis of the repentance and confession of sin and, as Paul later explained (Romans:6:4|), was a picture of the death to sin and resurrection to new life in Christ. This symbol was already in use by the Jews for proselytes who became Jews. John is treating the Jewish nation as pagans who need to repent, to confess their sins, and to come back to the kingdom of God. The baptism in the Jordan was the objective challenge to the people.

rwp@Mark:1:21 @{And taught} (\edidasken\). Inchoative imperfect, began to teach as soon as he entered the synagogue in Capernaum on the sabbath. The synagogue in Capernaum afforded the best opening for the teaching of Jesus. He had now made Capernaum (Tell Hum) his headquarters after the rejection in Nazareth as explained in strkjv@Luke:4:16-31| and strkjv@Matthew:4:13-16|. The ruins of this synagogue have been discovered and there is even talk of restoring the building since the stones are in a good state of preservation. Jesus both taught (\didask\) and preached (\kruss\) in the Jewish synagogues as opportunity was offered by the chief or leader of the synagogue (\archisunaggos\). The service consisted of prayer, praise, reading of scripture, and exposition by any rabbi or other competent person. Often Paul was invited to speak at such meetings. In strkjv@Luke:4:20| Jesus gave back the roll of Isaiah to the attendant or beadle (\ti hupreti\) whose business it was to bring out the precious manuscript and return it to its place. Jesus was a preacher of over a year when he began to teach in the Capernaum synagogue. His reputation had preceded him (Luke:4:14|).

rwp@Mark:2:26 @{The house of God} (\ton oikon tou theou\). The tent or tabernacle at Nob, not the temple in Jerusalem built by Solomon. {When Abiathar was high priest} (\epi Abiathar archieres\). Neat Greek idiom, in the time of Abiathar as high priest. There was confusion in the Massoretic text and in the LXX about the difference between Ahimelech (Abimelech) and Abiathar (2Samuel:8:17|), Ahimelech's son and successor (1Samuel:21:2; strkjv@22:20|). Apparently Ahimelech, not Abiathar was high priest at this time. It is possible that both father and son bore both names (1Samuel:22:20; strkjv@2Samuel:8:17; strkjv@1Chronicles:18:16|), Abiathar mentioned though both involved. \Epi\ may so mean in the passage about Abiathar. Or we may leave it unexplained. They had the most elaborate rules for the preparation of the shewbread (\tous artous ts protheses\), the loaves of presentation, the loaves of the face or presence of God. It was renewed on the commencement of the sabbath and the old bread deposited on the golden table in the porch of the Sanctuary. This old bread was eaten by the priests as they came and went. This is what David ate.

rwp@Mark:11:22 @{Have faith in God} (\echete pistin theou\). Objective genitive \theou\ as in Gal strkjv@2:26; strkjv@Romans:3:22,26|. That was the lesson for the disciples from the curse on the fig tree so promptly fulfilled. See this point explained by Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:21:21| which see for "this mountain" also.

rwp@Mark:12:12 @{Against them} (\pros autous\). Songs:Luke. It was a straight shot, this parable of the Rejected Stone (12:10f.|) and the longer one of the Wicked Husbandmen. There was no mistaking the application, for he had specifically explained the application (Matthew:21:43-45|). The Sanhedrin were so angry that they actually started or sought to seize him, but fear of the populace now more enthusiastic for Jesus than ever held them back. They went off in disgust, but they had to listen to the Parable of the King's Son before going (Matthew:22:1-14|).

rwp@Matthew:13:23 @{Verily beareth fruit} (\d karpophorei\). Who in reality (\d\) does bear fruit (cf. strkjv@Matthew:7:16-20|). The fruit reveals the character of the tree and the value of the straw for wheat. Some grain must come else it is only chaff, straw, worthless. The first three classes have no fruit and so show that they are unfruitful soil, unsaved souls and lives. There is variety in those who do bear fruit, but they have some fruit. The lesson of the parable as explained by Jesus is precisely this, the variety in the results of the seed sown according to the soil on which it falls. Every teacher and preacher knows how true this is. It is the teacher's task as the sower to sow the right seed, the word of the kingdom. The soil determines the outcome. There are critics today who scout this interpretation of the parable by Jesus as too allegorical with too much detail and probably not that really given by Jesus since modern scholars are not agreed on the main point of the parable. But the average Christian sees the point all right. This parable was not meant to explain all the problems of human life.

rwp@Matthew:13:24 @{Set he before them} (\parethken\). Songs:again in strkjv@13:31|. He placed another parable beside (\para\) the one already given and explained. The same verb (\paratheinai\) occurs in strkjv@Luke:9:16|. {Is likened} (\hmoith\). Timeless aorist passive and a common way of introducing these parables of the kingdom where a comparison is drawn (18:23; strkjv@22:2; strkjv@25:1|). The case of \anthrpi\ is associative instrumental.

rwp@Matthew:13:33 @{Is like unto leaven} (\homoia estin zumi\). In its pervasive power. Curiously enough some people deny that Jesus here likens the expanding power of the Kingdom of heaven to leaven, because, they say, leaven is the symbol of corruption. But the language of Jesus is not to be explained away by such exegetical jugglery. The devil is called like a lion by Peter (1Peter:5:8|) and Jesus in Revelation is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Revelation:5:5|). The leaven permeates all the "wheaten meal" (\aleurou\) till the whole is leavened. There is nothing in the "three measures," merely a common amount to bake. Dr. T.R. Glover in his _Jesus of History_ suggests that Jesus used to notice his mother using that amount of wheat flour in baking bread. To find the Trinity here is, of course, quite beside the mark. The word for leaven, \zum\, is from \ze\, to boil, to seethe, and so pervasive fermentation.

rwp@Matthew:23:16 @{Ye blind guides} (\hodgoi tuphloi\). Note omission of "Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" with this third woe. In strkjv@15:14| Jesus had already called the Pharisees "blind guides" (leaders). They split hairs about oaths, as Jesus had explained in strkjv@5:33-37|, between the temple and the gold of the temple. {He is a debtor} (\opheilei\). He owes his oath, is bound by his oath. A.V., {is guilty}, is old English, obsolete sense of guilt as fine or payment.

rwp@Philemon:1:5 @{Hearing} (\akoun\). Through Epaphras (Colossians:1:7,8; strkjv@4:12|), possibly from Onesimus also. {And towards all the saints} (\kai eis pantas tous hagious\). He spoke of "thy love and faith" (\sou tn agapn kai tn pistin\) "towards the Lord Jesus" (\pros ton Kurion Isoun\) and by a sort of momentum (Vincent) he carries both words over to the saints, though it can be explained as chiasm (Galatians:4:4|) also.

rwp@Info_Philipians @ EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS FROM ROME ABOUT A.D. 61 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is something to be said for the idea that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Philippians while a prisoner in Ephesus if he ever was a prisoner there. All that can be said for that view has been presented by Professor George S. Duncan in _St. Paul's Ephesian Ministry_ (1930). But, when all is considered carefully in the light of the facts in the Acts and the Epistles, the best that one can say is that a possible case is made out with many difficulties remaining unexplained. The argument is more ingenious than convincing. It is not possible here to review the arguments _pro_ and _con_ that convince me that Paul was in Rome when he wrote this letter to Philippi. It is not clear whether it was written before the three that went together (Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) or afterwards. Probably there was no great difference in time, but there was time for Epaphroditus to come to Rome, to fall sick, for the news to reach Philippi and for Epaphroditus to hear of their concern about him. The church in Philippi was Paul's joy and pride and they had helped him before as they did this time.

rwp@Philippians:3:9 @{Be found in him} (\heureth en auti\). First aorist (effective) passive subjunctive with \hina\ of \heurisk\. At death (2Corinthians:5:3|) or when Christ comes. Cf. strkjv@2:8; strkjv@Galatians:2:17|. {Through faith in Christ} (\dia pistes Christou\). The objective genitive \Christou\, not subjective, as in strkjv@Galatians:2:16,20; strkjv@Romans:3:22|. Explained further by \epi ti pistei\ (on the basis of faith) as in strkjv@Acts:3:16|.

rwp@Revelation:1:6 @{And he made} (\kai epoisen\). Change from the participle construction, which would be \kai poisanti\ (first aorist active of \poie\) like \lusanti\ just before, a Hebraism Charles calls it, but certainly an anacoluthon of which John is very fond, as in strkjv@1:18; strkjv@2:2,9,20; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@7:14; strkjv@14:2f.; strkjv@15:3|. {Kingdom} (\basileian\). Songs:correctly Aleph A C, not \basileis\ (P cursives). Perhaps a reminiscence of strkjv@Exodus:19:6|, a kingdom of priests. In strkjv@5:10| we have again "a kingdom and priests." The idea here is that Christians are the true spiritual Israel in God's promise to Abraham as explained by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9|. {To be priests} (\hiereis\). In apposition with \basileian\, but with \kai\ (and) in strkjv@5:10|. Each member of this true kingdom is a priest unto God, with direct access to him at all times. {Unto his God and Father} (\ti thei kai patri autou\). Dative case and \autou\ (Christ) applies to both \thei\ and \patri\. Jesus spoke of the Father as his God (Matthew:27:46; strkjv@John:20:17|) and Paul uses like language (Ephesians:1:17|), as does Peter (1Peter:1:3|). {To him} (\auti\). Another doxology to Christ. "The adoration of Christ which vibrates in this doxology is one of the most impressive features of the book" (Moffatt). Like doxologies to Christ appear in strkjv@5:13; strkjv@7:10; strkjv@1Peter:4:11; strkjv@2Peter:3:18; strkjv@2Timothy:4:18; He strkjv@13:21|. These same words (\h doxa kai to kratos\) in strkjv@1Peter:4:11|, only \h doxa\ in strkjv@2Peter:3:18; strkjv@2Timothy:4:18|, but with several others in strkjv@Revelation:5:13; strkjv@7:10|.

rwp@Revelation:2:14 @{There} (\ekei\). That is \par' humin\ (among you). A party in the church that resisted emperor-worship, to the death in the case of Antipas, yet were caught in the insidious wiles of the Nicolaitans which the church in Ephesus withstood. {Some that hold} (\kratountas\). "Men holding" (present active participle of \krate\). {The teaching of Balaam} (\tn didachn Balaam\). Indeclinable substantive Balaam (Numbers:25:1-9; strkjv@31:15f.|). The point of likeness of these heretics with Balaam is here explained. {Taught Balak} (\edidasken ti Balak\). Imperfect indicative of \didask\, Balaam's habit, "as the prototype of all corrupt teachers" (Charles). These early Gnostics practised licentiousness as a principle since they were not under law, but under grace (Romans:6:15|). The use of the dative with \didask\ is a colloquialism rather than a Hebraism. Two accusatives often occur with \didask\. {To cast a stumbling-block} (\balein skandalon\). Second aorist active infinitive (accusative case after \edidasken\) of \ball\, regular use with \skandalon\ (trap) like \tithmi skandalon\ in strkjv@Romans:14:13|. Balaam, as Josephus and Philo also say, showed Balak how to set a trap for the Israelites by beguiling them into the double sin of idolatry and fornication, which often went together (and do so still). {To eat things sacrificed to idols} (\phagein eidlothuta\). Second aorist active infinitive of \esthi\ and the verbal adjective (from \eidlon\ and \thu\), quoted here from strkjv@Numbers:25:1f.|, but in inverse order, repeated in other order in verse 20|. See strkjv@Acts:15:29; strkjv@21:25; strkjv@1Corinthians:8:1ff.| for the controversy over the temptation to Gentile Christians to do what in itself was harmless, but which led to evil if it led to participation in the pagan feasts. Perhaps both ideas are involved here. Balaam taught Balak how to lead the Israelites into sin in both ways.

rwp@Romans:4:17 @{A father of many nations} (\patera polln ethnn\). Quotation from strkjv@Genesis:17:5|. Only true in the sense of spiritual children as already explained, father of believers in God. {Before him whom he believed even God} (\katenanti hou episteusen theou\). Incorporation of antecedent into the relative clause and attraction of the relative \hi\ into \hou\. See strkjv@Mark:11:2| for \katenanti\, "right in front of." {Calleth the things that are not as though they were} (\kalountos ta m onta hs onta\). "Summons the non-existing as existing." Abraham's body was old and decrepit. God rejuvenated him and Sarah (Hebrews:11:19|).