Bible:
Filter: String:

NT.filter - rwp closes:

rwp@Acts:19:21 @{Purposed in the spirit} (\etheto en ti pneumati\). Second aorist middle indicative for mental action and "spirit" expressed also. A new stage in Paul's career begins here, a new division of the Acts. {Passed through} (\dielthn\). Word (\dierchomai\) used ten times in Acts (cf. strkjv@19:1|) of missionary journeys (Ramsay). {Macedonia and Achaia} (\tn Makedonian kai Achaian\). This was the way that he actually went, but originally he had planned to go to Achaia (Corinth) and then to Macedonia, as he says in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:15f.|, but he had now changed that purpose, perhaps because of the bad news from Corinth. Already when he wrote I Corinthians he proposed to go first to Macedonia (1Corinthians:16:5-7|). He even hoped to spend the winter in Corinth "if the Lord permit" and to remain in Ephesus till Pentecost, neither of which things he did. {I must also see Rome} (\dei me kai Rmn idein\). This section of Acts begins with Rome in the horizon of Paul's plans and the book closes with Paul in Rome (Rackham). Here he feels the necessity of going as in strkjv@Romans:1:15| he feels himself "debtor" to all including "those in Rome" (Romans:1:16|). Paul had long desired to go to Rome (Rom strkjv@1:10|), but had been frequently hindered (Romans:1:13|), but he has definitely set his face to go to Rome and on to Spain (Romans:15:23-29|). Paley calls sharp attention to this parallel between strkjv@Acts:19:21| and strkjv@Romans:1:10-15; strkjv@15:23-29|. Rome had a fascination for Paul as the home of Aquila and Priscilla and numerous other friends (Romans:16|), but chiefly as the capital of the Roman Empire and a necessary goal in Paul's ambition to win it to Jesus Christ. His great work in Asia had stirred afresh in him the desire to do his part for Rome. He wrote to Rome from Corinth not long after this and in Jerusalem Jesus in vision will confirm the necessity (\dei\) that Paul see Rome (Acts strkjv@23:11|).

rwp@Acts:28:30 @{Two whole years} (\dietian holn\). Only here in N.T. and strkjv@24:27| which see. During these busy years in Rome Paul wrote Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, Epistles that would immortalize any man, unless, forsooth, one or more of them was written from Ephesus or Caesarea, which has not yet been proven. {In his own hired dwelling} (\en idii misthmati\). Old word, here only in N.T., that which is hired for a price (from \mistho\ and that from \misthos\, hire). {Received} (\apedecheto\). Imperfect middle of \apodechomai\, received from time to time as they came, all that came (\eisporeuomenous\) from time to time. {Preaching} (\kerussn\), {teaching} (\didaskn\), the two things that concerned Paul most, doing both as if his right hand was not in chains, to the amazement of those in Rome and in Philippi (Phillipians:1:12-14|). {None forbidding him} (\akluts\). Old adverb from \a\ privative and the verbal adjective \klutos\ (from \klu\, to hinder), here only in the N.T. Page comments on "the rhythmic cadence of the concluding words." Page rejects the notion that the book is an unfinished work. It closes with the style of a concluded work. I agree with Harnack that Luke wrote the Acts during this period of two years in Rome and carried events no further because they had gone no further. Paul was still a prisoner in Rome when Luke completed the book. But he had carried Paul to "Rome, the capital of the world, _Urbi et Orbi_" (Page). The gospel of Christ has reached Rome. For the fate of Paul we must turn elsewhere. But Luke had the presence of Paul while he carried the Acts to its triumphant conclusion. Ramsay can give a good deal in proof of his claim that Luke is the greatest of all historians. Beyond a doubt his rank is high and the world can never repay its debt to this cultured physician who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.

rwp@ These verses do not compare. The closest thing is strkjv@Matthew:16:12;

rwp@Galatians:2:20 @{I have been crucified with Christ} (\Christi sunestaurmai\). One of Paul's greatest mystical sayings. Perfect passive indicative of \sustauro\ with the associative instrumental case (\Christi\). Paul uses the same word in strkjv@Romans:6:6| for the same idea. In the Gospels it occurs of literal crucifixion about the robbers and Christ (Matthew:27:44; strkjv@Mark:15:32; strkjv@John:19:32|). Paul died to the law and was crucified with Christ. He uses often the idea of dying with Christ (Galatians:5:24; strkjv@6:14; strkjv@Romans:6:8; strkjv@Colossians:2:20|) and burial with Christ also (Romans:6:4; strkjv@Colossians:2:12|). {No longer I} (\ouketi eg\). Songs:complete has become Paul's identification with Christ that his separate personality is merged into that of Christ. This language helps one to understand the victorious cry in strkjv@Romans:7:25|. It is the union of the vine and the branch (John:15:1-6|). {Which is in the Son of God} (\ti tou huiou tou theou\). The objective genitive, not the faith of the Son of God. {For me} (\huper emou\). Paul has the closest personal feeling toward Christ. "He appropriates to himself, as Chrysostom observes, the love which belongs equally to the whole world. For Christ is indeed the personal friend of each man individually" (Lightfoot).

rwp@John:1:18 @{No man hath seen God at any time} (\theon oudeis heraken ppote\). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of \hora\. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus:33:20; strkjv@Deuteronomy:4:12|). Paul calls God \aoratos\ (Colossians:1:15; strkjv@1Timothy:1:17|). John repeats the idea in strkjv@John:5:37; strkjv@6:46|. And yet in strkjv@14:7| Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. {The only begotten Son} (\ho monogens huios\). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after \hs monogenous para patros\ in verse 14|. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read \monogens theos\ (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to \ho monogens huios\ to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like strkjv@3:16|. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called \theos\ in verse 1|. The Incarnation is stated in verse 14|, where he is also termed \monogens\. He was that before the Incarnation. Songs:he is "God only begotten," "the Eternal Generation of the Son" of Origen's phrase. {Which is in the bosom of the Father} (\ho n eis ton kolpon tou patros\). The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like \pros ton theon\ in verse 1|. In strkjv@3:13| there is some evidence for \ho n en ti ourani\ used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father. {He} (\ekinos\). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son. {Hath declared him} (\exgsato\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \exgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke's Gospel (24:35|) and four times in Acts:(10:8; strkjv@15:12,14; strkjv@21:19|). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.

rwp@John:3:15 @{That whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life} (\hina pas ho pisteun en auti echi zn ainion\). Final use of \hina\ with present active subjunctive of \ech\, that he may keep on having eternal life (a frequent phrase in John, always in John \ainios\ occurs with \z\, 16 times in the Gospel, 6 in 1John, ageless or endless life, beginning now and lasting forever). It is more than endless, for it is sharing in the life of God in Christ (5:26; strkjv@17:3; strkjv@1John:5:12|). Songs:here \en auti\ (in him) is taken with \echi\ rather than with \pisteun\. The interview with Nicodemus apparently closes with verse 15|. In verses 16-21| we have past tenses constantly as is natural for the reflection of John, but unnatural for Jesus speaking. There are phrases like the Prologue (verse 19; strkjv@1:9-11|). "Only begotten" does not occur elsewhere in the words of Jesus, but is in strkjv@1:14,18; strkjv@1John:4:9|. John often puts in explanatory comments (1:16-18; strkjv@12:37-41|).

rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoisan oun auti deipnon ekei\). Here again \oun\ is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark:14:3-9|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6-13|) just two days (Mark:14:1|) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9|) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1|). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John "is here more probably accurate." It all turns on John's purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11|), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19|), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a|), and with two summary judgements (36b-50|). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke:7:36-50|). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. {And Martha served} (\kai h Martha dikonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\polln diakonian\, \diakonein\ as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6|) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke:7:36|), but Simon the leper (Mark:14:3; strkjv@Matthew:26:6|) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. {That sat at meat} (\tn anakeimenn\). "That lay back," reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after \ek\) of the common verb \anakeimai\. Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John:12:9|). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.

rwp@John:12:44 @{Cried and said} (\ekraxen kai eipen\). First aorist active indicative of \kraz\, to cry aloud, and second aorist active of defective verb \er\, to say. This is probably a summary of what Jesus had already said as in verse 36| John closes the public ministry of Jesus without the Synoptic account of the last day in the temple on our Tuesday (Mark:11:27-12:44; strkjv@Matthew:21:23-23:39; strkjv@Luke:20:1-21:4|). {Not on me, but on him} (\ou eis eme, alla eis ton\). "Not on me only, but also on," another example of exaggerated contrast like that in verse 30|. The idea of Jesus here is a frequent one (believing on Jesus whom the Father has sent) as in strkjv@3:17f.; strkjv@5:23f.,30,43; strkjv@7:16; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@13:20; strkjv@14:1; strkjv@Matthew:10:40; strkjv@Luke:9:48|.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Matthew:5:29 @{Causeth thee to stumble} (\skandalizei se\). This is far better than the Authorized Version "_Offend thee_." _Braid Scots_ has it rightly "ensnare ye." It is not the notion of giving offence or provoking, but of setting a trap or snare for one. The substantive (\skandalon\, from \skandalthron\) means the stick in the trap that springs and closes the trap when the animal touches it. Pluck out the eye when it is a snare, cut off the hand, even the right hand. These vivid pictures are not to be taken literally, but powerfully plead for self-mastery. Bengel says: _Non oculum, sed scandalizentem oculum_. It is not mutilating of the body that Christ enjoins, but control of the body against sin. The man who plays with fire will get burnt. Modern surgery finely illustrates the teaching of Jesus. The tonsils, the teeth, the appendix, to go no further, if left diseased, will destroy the whole body. Cut them out in time and the life will be saved. Vincent notes that "the words scandal and slander are both derived from \skandalon\. And Wyc. renders, 'if thy right eye _slander_ thee.'" Certainly slander is a scandal and a stumbling-block, a trap, and a snare.

rwp@Matthew:13:9 @{He that hath ears let him hear} (\ho echn ta akouet\), Songs:also in strkjv@11:15| and strkjv@13:43|. It is comforting to teachers and preachers to observe that even Jesus had to exhort people to listen and to understand his sayings, especially his parables. They will bear the closest thought and are often enigmatical.

rwp@Matthew:28:20 @{I am with you} (\eg meta humn\). This is the amazing and blessed promise. He is to be with the disciples when he is gone, with all the disciples, with all knowledge, with all power, with them all the days (all sorts of days, weakness, sorrows, joy, power), till the consummation of the age (\hes ts sunteleias tou ainos\). That goal is in the future and unknown to the disciples. This blessed hope is not designed as a sedative to an inactive mind and complacent conscience, but an incentive to the fullest endeavor to press on to the farthest limits of the world that all the nations may know Christ and the power of his Risen Life. Songs:Matthew's Gospel closes in a blaze of glory. Christ is conqueror in prospect and in fact. Christian history from that eventful experience on the Mountain in Galilee has been the fulfilment of that promise in as far as we allow God's power to work in us for the winning of the world to Christ, the Risen, all powerful Redeemer, who is with his people all the time. Jesus employs the prophetic present here (\eimi\, I am). He is with us all the days till he comes in glory.