OT-LAW.filter - rwp sharp:
rwp@
1Corinthians:1:16 @{Also the household of Stephanas} (\kai ton Stephan oikon\). Mentioned as an afterthought. Robertson and Plummer suggest that Paul's amanuensis reminded him of this case. Paul calls him a first-fruit of Achaia (1Corinthians:16:15|) and so earlier than Crispus and he was one of the three who came to Paul from Corinth (16:17|), clearly a family that justified Paul's personal attention about baptism. {Besides} (\loipon\). Accusative of general reference, "as for anything else." Added to make clear that he is not meaning to omit any one who deserves mention. See also strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:2; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@2Timothy:4:8|. Ellicott insists on a sharp distinction from \to loipon\ "as for the rest" (2Thessalonians:3:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:1; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@Ephesians:6:10|). Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ (Romans:6:2-6|), but he clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness.
rwp@1Corinthians:1:18 @{For the word of the cross} (\ho logos gar ho tou staurou\). Literally, "for the preaching (with which I am concerned as the opposite of {wisdom of word} in verse 17|) that (repeated article \ho\, almost demonstrative) of the cross." "Through this incidental allusion to preaching St. Paul passes to a new subject. The discussions in the Corinthian Church are for a time forgotten, and he takes the opportunity of correcting his converts for their undue exaltation of human eloquence and wisdom" (Lightfoot). {To them that are perishing} (\tois men apollumenois\). Dative of disadvantage (personal interest). Present middle participle is here timeless, those in the path to destruction (not annihilation. See strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:10|). Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:4:3|. {Foolishness} (\mria\). Folly. Old word from \mros\, foolish. In N.T. only in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:18,21,23; strkjv@2:14; strkjv@3:19|. {But unto us which are being saved} (\tois szomenois hmin\). Sharp contrast to those that are perishing and same construction with the articular participle. No reason for the change of pronouns in English. This present passive participle is again timeless. Salvation is described by Paul as a thing done in the past, "we were saved" (Romans:8:24|), as a present state, "ye have been saved" (Ep strkjv@2:5|), as a process, "ye are being saved" (1Corinthians:15:2|), as a future result, "thou shalt be saved" (Romans:10:9|). {The power of God} (\dunamis theou\). Songs:in strkjv@Romans:1:16|. No other message has this dynamite of God (1Corinthians:4:20|). God's power is shown in the preaching of the Cross of Christ through all the ages, now as always. No other preaching wins men and women from sin to holiness or can save them. The judgment of Paul here is the verdict of every soul winner through all time.
rwp@1Corinthians:1:23 @{But we preach Christ crucified} (\hmeis de krussomen Christon estaurmenon\). Grammatically stated as a partial result (\de\) of the folly of both Jews and Greeks, actually in sharp contrast. We proclaim, "we do not discuss or dispute" (Lightfoot). Christ (Messiah) as crucified, as in strkjv@2:2; strkjv@Galatians:3:1|, "not a sign-shower nor a philosopher" (Vincent). Perfect passive participle of \stauro\. {Stumbling-block} (\skandalon\). Papyri examples mean trap or snare which here tripped the Jews who wanted a conquering Messiah with a world empire, not a condemned and crucified one (Matthew:27:42; strkjv@Luke:24:21|). {Foolishness} (\mrian\). Folly as shown by their conduct in Athens (Acts:17:32|).
rwp@1Corinthians:1:29 @{That no flesh should glory before God} (\hops m kauchstai psa sarx enpion tou theou\). This is the further purpose expressed by \hops\ for variety and appeals to God's ultimate choice in all three instances. The first aorist middle of the old verb \kauchaomai\, to boast, brings out sharply that not a single boast is to be made. The papyri give numerous examples of \enpion\ as a preposition in the vernacular, from adjective \en-pios\, in the eye of God. One should turn to strkjv@2Corinthians:4:7| for Paul's further statement about our having this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us.
rwp@1Corinthians:2:7 @{God's wisdom in a mystery} (\theou sophian en mustrii\). Two points are here sharply made. It is God's wisdom (note emphatic position of the genitive \theou\) in contrast to the wisdom of this age. Every age of the world has a conceit of its own and it is particularly true of this twentieth century, but God's wisdom is eternal and superior to the wisdom of any age or time. God's wisdom is alone absolute. See on ¯2:1| for mystery. It is not certain whether {in a mystery} is to be taken with {wisdom} or {we speak}. The result does not differ greatly, probably with {wisdom}, so long a secret and now at last revealed (Colossians:1:26; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:7|). {That hath been hidden} (\tn apokekrummenn\). See strkjv@Romans:16:25; strkjv@Colossians:1:26; strkjv@Ephesians:3:5|. Articular perfect passive participle of \apokrupt\, more precisely defining the indefinite \sophian\ (wisdom). {Foreordained before the worlds} (\prorisen pro tn ainn\). This relative clause (\hn\) defines still more closely God's wisdom. Note \pro\ with both verb and substantive (\ainn\). Constative aorist of God's elective purpose as shown in Christ crucified (1Corinthians:1:18-24|). "It was no afterthought or change of plan" (Robertson and Plummer). {Unto our glory} (\eis doxan hmn\). "The glory of inward enlightenment as well as of outward exaltation" (Lightfoot).
rwp@1Corinthians:6:3 @{How much more, things that pertain to this life?} (\Mti ge bitika;\). The question expects the answer no and \ge\ adds sharp point to Paul's surprised tone, "Need I so much as say?" It can be understood also as ellipsis, "let me not say" (\mtige leg\), not to say. \Bitika\ occurs first in Aristotle, but is common afterwards. In the papyri it is used of business matters. It is from \bios\ (manner of life in contrast to \z\, life principle).
rwp@1Corinthians:6:5 @{I say this to move you to shame} (\pros entropn humin leg\). Old word \entrop\ from \entrep\, to turn in (1Corinthians:4:14| which see). In N.T. only here and strkjv@15:34|. {One wise man} (\sophos\). From sarcasm to pathos Paul turns. {Does there not exist} (\eni\, short form for \enesti\)? With double negative \ouk--oudeis\, expecting the answer yes. Surely {one} such man exists in the church. {Who} (\hos\). Almost consecutive in idea, of such wisdom that he will be able. {To decide between his brethren} (\diakrinai ana meson tou adelphou autou\). \Krinai\ is to judge or decide (first aorist active infinitive of \krin\ and \dia\ (two) carries on the idea of between. Then \ana meson\ makes it still plainer, in the midst as {arbitrator} between brother and brother like \ana meson emou kai sou\ (Genesis:23:15|). It is even so a condensed expression with part of it unexpressed (\ana meson kai tou adelphou autou\) between brother and his brother. The use of \adelphos\ has a sharp reflection on them for their going to heathen judges to settle disputes between brothers in Christ.
rwp@1Corinthians:6:11 @{And such were some of you} (\kai tauta tines te\). A sharp homethrust. Literally, "And these things (\tauta\, neuter plural) were ye (some of you)." The horror is shown by \tauta\, but by \tines\ Paul narrows the picture to some, not all. But that was in the past (\te\, imperfect indicative) like strkjv@Romans:6:17|. Thank God the blood of Jesus does cleanse from such sins as these. But do not go back to them. {But ye were washed} (\apelousasthe\). First aorist middle indicative, not passive, of \apolou\. Either direct middle, ye washed yourselves, or indirect middle, as in strkjv@Acts:22:16|, ye washed your sins away (force of \apo\). This was their own voluntary act in baptism which was the outward expression of the previous act of God in cleansing (\hgiasthte\, ye were sanctified or cleansed before the baptism) and justified (\edikaithte\, ye were put right with God before the act of baptism). "These twin conceptions of the Christian state in its beginning appear commonly in the reverse order" (Findlay). The outward expression is usually mentioned before the inward change which precedes it. In this passage the Trinity appear as in the baptismal command in strkjv@Matthew:28:19|.
rwp@1Corinthians:8:2 @{Puffeth up} (\phusioi\). From \phusio\ (present indicative active). See on ¯4:6|. Pride may be the result, not edification (\oikodomei\) which comes from love. Note article (\h\) with both \gnsis\ and \agap\, making the contrast sharper. See on ¯1Thessalonians:5:11| for the verb \oikodome\, to build up. Love is the solution, not knowledge, in all social problems. {That he knoweth anything} (\egnkenai ti\). Perfect active infinitive in indirect discourse after \dokei\ (condition of first class with \ei\). Songs:"has acquired knowledge" (cf. strkjv@3:18|), has gone to the bottom of the subject. {He knoweth not yet} (\oup egn\). Second aorist active indicative, timeless aorist, summary (punctiliar) statement of his ignorance. {As he ought to know} (\kaths dei gnnai\). Second aorist active infinitive, ingressive aorist (come to know). Newton's remark that he was only gathering pebbles on the shore of the ocean of truth is pertinent. The really learned man knows his ignorance of what lies beyond. Shallow knowledge is like the depth of the mud hole, not of the crystal spring.
rwp@1Corinthians:9:3 @{My defence} (\h em apologia\). Original sense, not idea of apologizing as we say. See on ¯Acts:22:1; strkjv@25:16|. Refers to what precedes and to what follows as illustration of strkjv@8:13|. {To them that examine me} (\tois eme anakrinousin\). See on ¯1Corinthians:2:15; strkjv@4:3|. The critics in Corinth were "investigating" Paul with sharp eyes to find faults. How often the pastor is under the critic's spy-glass.
rwp@1Corinthians:9:11 @{Is it a great matter?} (\mega;\). The copula \estin\ has to be supplied. Note two conditions of first class with \ei\, both assumed to be true. On \pneumatika\ and \sarkika\ see on ¯2:14; strkjv@3:3|. This point comes out sharply also in strkjv@Galatians:6:6|.
rwp@1Corinthians:15:36 @{Thou foolish one} (\aphrn\). Old word (\a\ privative, \phrn\), lack of sense. It is a severe term and justified by the implication "that the objector plumes himself on his acuteness" (Robertson and Plummer). Proleptic position of \su\ (thou) sharpens the point. Sceptics (agnostics) pose as unusually intellectual (the intelligentsia), but the pose does not make one intelligent. {Except it die} (\ean m apothani\). Condition of third class, possibility assumed. This is the answer to the "how" question. In plant life death precedes life, death of the seed and then the new plant.
rwp@1John:2:4 @{I know him} (\Egnka auton\). Perfect active indicative with recitative \hoti\ like quotation marks just before it. This is one of the pious platitudes, cheap claptrap of the Gnostics, who would bob up in meetings with such explosions. John punctures such bubbles with the sharp addition "and keepeth not" (\ho m trn\, present active linear participle). "The one who keeps on saying: 'I have come to know him,' and keeps on not keeping his commandments is a liar" (\pseusts\, just like Satan, strkjv@John:8:44| and like strkjv@1John:1:8,10|), followed by the negative statement as in strkjv@1:8,10|. There is a whip-cracker effect in John's words.
rwp@1John:2:9 @{And hateth his brother} (\kai ton adelphon autou misn\). Sharp contrast between the love just described and hate. The only way to walk in the light (1:7|) is to have fellowship with God who is light (1:3,5|). Songs:the claim to be in the light is nullified by hating a brother. {Even until now} (\hes arti\). Up till this moment. In spite of the increasing light and his own boast he is in the dark.
rwp@1John:2:22 @{The liar} (\ho pseusts\). The liar (with the article) _par excellence_. Rhetorical question to sharpen the point made already about lying in strkjv@1:6,10; strkjv@2:4,21|. See strkjv@5:5| for a like rhetorical question. {But} (\ei m\). Except, if not. {That denieth that Jesus is the Christ} (\ho arnoumenos hoti Isous ouk estin ho Christos\). Common Greek idiom for \ouk\ to appear after \arneomai\ like redundant \m\ in strkjv@Luke:20:27; strkjv@Hebrews:12:19|. The old Latin retains _non_ here as old English did (Shakespeare, _Comedy of Errors_ IV. ii. 7, "He denied you had in him no right"). The Cerinthian Gnostics denied the identity of the man Jesus and Christ (an \aeon\, they held) like the modern Jesus or Christ controversy. {This is the antichrist} (\houtos estin ho antichristos\). The one just mentioned, Cerinthus himself in particular. {Even he that denieth the Father and the Son} (\ho arnoumenos ton patera kai ton huion\). This is the inevitable logic of such a rejection of the Son of God. Jesus had himself said this very same thing (John:5:23f.|).
rwp@1John:4:6 @{We} (\hmeis\). In sharp contrast with the false prophets and the world. We are in tune with the Infinite God. Hence "he that knoweth God" (\ho ginskn ton theon\, present active articular participle, the one who keeps on getting acquainted with God, growing in his knowledge of God) "hears us" (\akouei hmn\). This is one reason why sermons are dull (some actually are, others so to dull hearers) or inspiring. There is a touch of mysticism here, to be sure, but the heart of Christianity is mysticism (spiritual contact with God in Christ by the Holy Spirit). John states the same idea negatively by a relative clause parallel with the preceding articular participle, the negative with both clauses. John had felt the cold, indifferent, and hostile stare of the worldling as he preached Jesus. {By this} (\ek toutou\). "From this," deduction drawn from the preceding; only example in the Epistle for the common \en touti\ as in strkjv@4:2|. The power of recognition (\ginskomen\, we know by personal experience) belongs to all believers (Westcott). There is no reason for Christians being duped by "the spirit of error" (\to pneuma ts plans\), here alone in the N.T., though we have \pneumasin planois\ (misleading spirits) in strkjv@1Timothy:4:1|. Rejection of the truth may be due also to our not speaking the truth in love (Ephesians:4:15|).
rwp@1John:4:10 @{Not that} (\ouch hoti\) {--but that} (\all' hoti\). Sharp contrast as in strkjv@John:7:22; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:9; strkjv@Phillipians:4:17|. {We loved} (\gapsamen\). First aorist active indicative, but B reads \gapkamen\ (perfect active, we have loved). {He} (\autos\). Emphatic nominative (God). {To be the propitiation} (\hilasmon\). Merely predicate accusative in apposition with \huion\ (Son). For the word see strkjv@2:2; strkjv@Romans:3:25| for \hilastrion\, and for \peri\ see also strkjv@2:2|.
rwp@1John:5:4 @{For} (\hoti\). The reason why God's commandments are not heavy is the power that comes with the new birth from God. {Whatsoever is begotten of God} (\pn to gegennmenon ek tou theou\). Neuter singular perfect passive participle of \genna\ rather than the masculine singular (verse 1|) to express sharply the universality of the principle (Rothe) as in strkjv@John:3:6,8; strkjv@6:37,39|. {Overcometh the world} (\niki ton kosmon\). Present active indicative of \nika\, a continuous victory because a continuous struggle, "keeps on conquering the world" ("the sum of all the forces antagonistic to the spiritual life," D. Smith). {This is the victory} (\haut estin h nik\). For this form of expression see strkjv@1:5; strkjv@John:1:19|. \Nik\ (victory, cf. \nika\), old word, here alone in N.T., but the later form \nikos\ in strkjv@Matthew:12:20; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:54f.,57|. {That overcometh} (\h niksasa\). First aorist active articular participle of \nika\. The English cannot reproduce the play on the word here. The aorist tense singles out an individual experience when one believed or when one met temptation with victory. Jesus won the victory over the world (John:16:33|) and God in us (1John:4:4|) gives us the victory. {Even our faith} (\h pistis hmn\). The only instance of \pistis\ in the Johannine Epistles (not in John's Gospel, though in the Apocalypse). It is our faith in Jesus Christ as shown by our confession (verse 1|) and by our life (verse 2|).
rwp@1John:5:5 @{And who is he that overcometh?} (\tis estin de ho nikn?\). Not a mere rhetorical question (2:22|), but an appeal to experience and fact. Note the present active articular participle (\nikn\) like \niki\ (present active indicative in verse 4|), "the one who keeps on conquering the world." See strkjv@1Corinthians:15:57| for the same note of victory (\nikos\) through Christ. See verse 1| for \ho pisteun\ (the one who believes) as here. {Jesus is the Son of God} (\Isous estin ho huios tou theou\). As in verse 1| save that here \ho huios tou theou\ in place of \Christos\ and see both in strkjv@2:22f|. Here there is sharp antithesis between "Jesus" (humanity) and "the Son of God" (deity) united in the one personality.
rwp@1Peter:3:3 @{Whose adorning} (\hn kosmos\). Genitive plural of the relative referring to \gunaikn\ (wives). \Kosmos\ has here its old meaning of ornament (cf. our cosmetics), not the common one of world (John:17:5|) considered as an orderly whole. _Mundus_ in Latin is used in this double sense (ornament, world). {Let it be} (\est\). Imperative third singular of \eimi\. Not the outward adorning of plaiting the hair (\ouch ho exthen emploks trichn\). The use of \ouch\ here rather than \m\ (usual negative with the imperative) because of the sharp contrast in verse 4| (\all'\). The old adverb \exthen\ (from without) is in the attributive position like an adjective. \Emplok\ is a late word (from \emplek\, to inweave, strkjv@2Timothy:2:4; strkjv@2Peter:2:20|) in Strabo, but often in the papyri for struggle as well as plaiting, here only in N.T. {Of wearing} (\peritheses\). Late and rare word (Galen, Arrian) from \peritithmi\ (Matthew:27:28|), to put around, a placing around. Ornaments of gold were worn round the hair as nets and round the finger, arm, or ankle. {Or of putting on} (\enduses\). Old word from \endu\ (to put on), here only in N.T. Peter is not forbidding the wearing of clothes and ornaments by women, but the display of finery by contrast. Cf. strkjv@1Timothy:2:9-13; strkjv@Isaiah:3:16ff|.
rwp@1Thessalonians:1:3 @{Remembering} (\mnmoneuontes\). Present active participle of old verb from adjective \mnmn\ (mindful) and so to call to mind, to be mindful of, used either with the accusative as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| or the genitive as here. {Without ceasing} (\adialeipts\). Double compound adverb of the _Koin_ (Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo, papyri) from the verbal adjective \a-dia-leiptos\ (\a\ privative and \dia-leip\, to leave off). In the N.T. alone by Paul and always connected with prayer. Milligan prefers to connect this adverb (amphibolous in position) with the preceding participle \poioumenoi\ rather than with \mnmoneuontes\ as Revised Version and Westcott and Hort rightly do. {Your work of faith} (\humn tou ergou ts pistes\). Note article with both \ergou\ and \pistes\ (correlation of the article, both abstract substantives). \Ergou\ is genitive case the object of \mnmoneuontes\ as is common with verbs of emotion (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 508f.), though the accusative \kopon\ occurs in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| according to common Greek idiom allowing either case. \Ergou\ is the general term for work or business, employment, task. Note two genitives with \ergou\. \Humn\ is the usual possessive genitive, {your work}, while \ts pistes\ is the descriptive genitive, marked by, characterized by, faith, "the activity that faith inspires" (Frame). It is interesting to note this sharp conjunction of these two words by Paul. We are justified by faith, but faith produces works (Romans:6-8|) as the Baptist taught and as Jesus taught and as James does in strkjv@James:2|. {Labour of love} (\tou kopou ts agaps\). Note article with both substantives. Here again \tou kopou\ is the genitive the object of \mnmoneuontes\ while \ts agaps\ is the descriptive genitive characterizing the "labour" or "toil" more exactly. \Kopos\ is from \kopt\, to cut, to lash, to beat the bread, to toil. In strkjv@Revelation:14:13| the distinction is drawn between \kopou\ (toil) from which the saints rest and \erga\ (works, activities) which follow with them into heaven. Songs:here it is the labour that love prompts, assuming gladly the toil. \Agap\ is one of the great words of the N.T. (Milligan) and no certain example has yet been found in the early papyri or the inscriptions. It occurs in the Septuagint in the higher sense as with the sensuous associations. The Epistle of Aristeas calls love (\agap\) God's gift and Philo uses \agap\ in describing love for God. "When Christianity first began to think and speak in Greek, it took up \agap\ and its group of terms more freely, investing them with the new glow with which the N.T. writings make us familiar, a content which is invariably religious" (Moffatt, _Love in the New Testament_, p. 40). The New Testament never uses the word \ers\ (lust). {Patience of hope} (\ts hupomons ts elpidos\). Note the two articles again and the descriptive genitive \ts elpidos\. It is patience marked by hope, "the endurance inspired by hope" (Frame), yes, and sustained by hope in spite of delays and set-backs. \Hupomon\ is an old word (\hupo, men\, to remain under), but it "has come like \agap\ to be closely associated with a distinctively Christian virtue" (Milligan). The same order as here (\ergou, kopos, hupomon\) appears in strkjv@Revelation:2:2| and Lightfoot considers it" an ascending scale as practical proofs of self-sacrifice." The church in Thessalonica was not old, but already they were called upon to exercise the sanctifying grace of hope (Denney). {In our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tou Kuriou hmn Isou Christou\). The objective genitive with \elpidos\ (hope) and so translated by "in" here (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 499f.). Jesus is the object of this hope, the hope of his second coming which is still open to us. Note "Lord Jesus Christ" as in verse 1|. {Before our God and Father} (\emprosthen tou theou kai patros hmn\). The one article with both substantives precisely as in strkjv@Galatians:1:4|, not "before God and our Father," both article and possessive genitive going with both substantives as in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11; strkjv@Titus:2:13| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 785f.). The phrase is probably connected with \elpidos\. \Emprosthen\ in the N.T. occurs only of place, but it is common in the papyri of time. The picture here is the day of judgment when all shall appear before God.
rwp@1Thessalonians:1:5 @{How that} (\hoti\). It is not certain whether \hoti\ here means "because" (\quia\) as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:2:14; strkjv@Romans:8:27| or declarative \hoti\ "how that," knowing the circumstances of your election (Lightfoot) or explanatory, as in strkjv@Acts:16:3; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:3f.; strkjv@Romans:13:11|. {Our gospel} (\to euaggelion hmn\). The gospel (see on ¯Matthew:4:23; strkjv@Mark:1:1,15| for \euaggelion\) which we preach, Paul's phrase also in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:3; strkjv@Romans:2:16; strkjv@16:25; strkjv@2Timothy:2:8|. Paul had a definite, clear-cut message of grace that he preached everywhere including Thessalonica. This message is to be interpreted in the light of Paul's own sermons in Acts and Epistles, not by reading backward into them the later perversions of Gnostics and sacramentarians. This very word was later applied to the books about Jesus, but Paul is not so using the term here or anywhere else. In its origin Paul's gospel is of God (1Thessalonians:2:2,8,9|), in its substance it is Christ's (3:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:8|), and Paul is only the bearer of it (1Thessalonians:2:4,9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14|) as Milligan points out. Paul and his associates have been entrusted with this gospel (1Thessalonians:2:4|) and preach it (Galatians:2:2|). Elsewhere Paul calls it God's gospel (2Corinthians:11:7; strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@15:16|) or Christs (1Corinthians:9:12; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@10:14; strkjv@Galatians:1:7; strkjv@Romans:15:19; strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|). In both instances it is the subjective genitive. {Came unto you} (\egenth eis hums\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\ in practically same sense as \egeneto\ (second aorist middle indicative as in the late Greek generally). Songs:also \eis hums\ like the _Koin_ is little more than the dative \humin\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 594). {Not only--but also} (\ouk--monon, alla kai\). Sharp contrast, negatively and positively. The contrast between \logos\ (word) and \dunamis\ (power) is seen also in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:4; strkjv@4:20|. Paul does not refer to miracles by \dunamis\. {In the Holy Spirit and much assurance} (\en pneumati hagii kai plrophorii polli\). Preposition \en\ repeated with \logi, dunamei\, but only once here thus uniting closely {Holy Spirit} and {much assurance}. No article with either word. The word \plrophorii\ is not found in ancient Greek or the LXX. It appears once in Clement of Rome and one broken papyrus example. For the verb \plrophore\ see on ¯Luke:1:1|. The substantive in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:2; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|. It means the full confidence which comes from the Holy Spirit. {Even as ye know} (\kaths oidate\). Paul appeals to the Thessalonians themselves as witnesses to the character of his preaching and life among them. {What manner of men we showed ourselves toward you} (\hoioi egenthmen humin\). Literally, {What sort of men we became to you}. Qualitative relative \hoioi\ and dative \humin\ and first aorist passive indicative \egenthmen\, (not \metha\, we were). An epexegetical comment with {for your sake} (\di' hums\) added. It was all in their interest and for their advantage, however it may have seemed otherwise at the time.
rwp@1Thessalonians:2:1 @{For yourselves know} (\autoi gar oidate\). This explanatory \gar\ takes up in verses 1-12| the allusion in strkjv@1:9| about the "report" concerning the entrance (\eisodon\, way in, \eis, hodon\), {unto you} (\tn pros hums\). Note repeated article to sharpen the point. This proleptic accusative is common enough. It is expanded by the epexegetic use of the \hoti\ clause {that it hath not been found vain} (\hoti ou ken gegonen\). Literally, {that it has not become empty}. Second perfect active (completed state) of \ginomai\. Every pastor watches wistfully to see what will be the outcome of his work. Bengel says: _Non inanis, sed plena virtutis_. Cf. strkjv@1:5|. \Kenos\ is hollow, empty, while \mataios\ is fruitless, ineffective. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:14,17| Paul speaks of \kenon to krugma\ ({empty the preaching}) and \mataia h pistis\ ({vain the faith}). One easily leads to the other.
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@1Thessalonians:4:7 @{Not for uncleanness, but in sanctification} (\epi akatharsii all' en hagiasmi\). Sharp contrast made still sharper by the two prepositions \epi\ (on the basis of) and \en\ (in the sphere of). God has "called" us all for a decent sex life consonant with his aims and purposes. It was necessary for Paul to place this lofty ideal before the Thessalonian Christians living in a pagan world. It is equally important now.
rwp@2Corinthians:1:16 @{And again} (\kai palin\). This would have been the second benefit or joy. But he changed his plans and did not make that trip directly to Corinth, but came on to Macedonia first (Acts:19:21; strkjv@20:1f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:2; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12|). {To be set forward by you} (\huph' humn propemphthnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \propemp\. Paul uses this same verb in strkjv@Romans:15:24| for the same service by the Roman Christians on his proposed trip to Spain. The Corinthians, especially the anti-Pauline party, took advantage of Paul's change of plans to criticize him sharply for vacillation and flippancy. How easy it is to find fault with the preacher! Songs:Paul has to explain his conduct.
rwp@2Corinthians:7:9 @{Now I rejoice} (\nun chair\). Now that Titus has come and told him the good news from Corinth (2:12f.|). This was the occasion of the noble outburst in strkjv@2:12-6:10|. {Unto repentance} (\eis metanoian\). Note the sharp difference here between "sorrow" (\lup\) which is merely another form of \metamelomai\ (regret, remorse) and "repentance" (\metanoia\) or change of mind and life. It is a linguistic and theological tragedy that we have to go on using "repentance" for \metanoia\. But observe that the "sorrow" has led to "repentance" and was not Itself the repentance. {After a godly sort} (\kata theon\). In God's way. "God's way as opposed to man's way and the devil's way" (Plummer). It was not mere sorrow, but a change in their attitude that counted. {That ye might suffer loss by us in nothing} (\hina en mdeni zmithte ex humn\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \zmio\, old verb to suffer damage. See on ¯Matthew:16:26|. This was God's intention and so he overruled their sorrow to good.
rwp@2Corinthians:7:14 @{If--I have gloried} (\ei--kekauchmai\). Condition of first class. On this verb see strkjv@1Corinthians:3:21; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:12|. {I was not put to shame} (\ou katischunthn\). First aorist passive indicative of \kataischun\. Paul had assured Titus, who hesitated to go after the failure of Timothy, that the Corinthians were sound at bottom and would come round all right if handled properly. Paul's joy is equal to that of Titus. {In truth} (\en altheii\). In the sharp letter as well as in I Corinthians. He had not hesitated to speak plainly of their sins. {Our glorying before Titus} (\h kauchsis epi Titou\). The two things were not inconsistent and were not contradictory as the outcome proved.
rwp@2Corinthians:13:10 @{That I may not when present deal sharply} (\hina parn apotoms chrsmai\). Late adverb from \apotomos\, curt, cut off. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:1:13|.
rwp@2John:1:7 @{Deceivers} (\planoi\). Late adjective (Diodorus, Josephus) meaning wandering, roving (1Timothy:4:1|). As a substantive in N.T. of Jesus (Matthew:27:63|), of Paul (2Corinthians:6:8|), and here. See the verb (\tn planontn hums\) in strkjv@1John:2:26| of the Gnostic deceivers as here and also of Jesus (John:7:12|). Cf. strkjv@1John:1:8|. {Are gone forth} (\exlthan\, alpha ending). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\, perhaps an allusion to the crisis when they left the churches (1John:2:19|, same form). {Even they that confess not} (\hoi m homologountes\). "The ones not confessing" (\m\ regular negative with the participle). The articular participle describes the deceivers (\planoi\). {That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh} (\Isoun Christon erchomenon en sarki\). "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of \erchomai\ treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In strkjv@1John:4:2| we have \elluthota\ (perfect active participle) in this same construction with \homologe\, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ. {This} (\houtos\). See strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@5:6,20|. {The deceiver and the antichrist} (\ho planos kai ho antichristos\). Article with each word, as in strkjv@Revelation:1:17|, to bring out sharply each separate phrase, though one individual is referred to. The one _par excellence_ in popular expectation (1John:2:22|), though many in reality (1John:2:18; strkjv@3John:1:7|).
rwp@Info_1Thessalonians @ This Epistle is a bit sharper in tone than the First and also briefer. It has been suggested that there were two churches in Thessalonica, a Gentile Church to which First Thessalonians was sent, and a Jewish Church to which Second Thessalonians was addressed. There is no real evidence for such a gratuitous hypothesis. It assumes a difficulty about his sending a second letter to the same church that does not exist. The bearer of the first letter brought back news that made a second necessary. It was probably sent within the same year as the first. strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:1 @{Paul, etc.} (\Paulos, etc.\). This address or superscription is identical with that in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1| save that our (\hmn\) is added after {Father} (\patri\).
rwp@2Timothy:2:5 @{If also a man contend in the games} (\ean de kai athli tis\). Condition of third class with present (linear) active subjunctive of \athle\, old and common verb (from \athlos\, a contest), only this verse in N.T., but \sunathle\ in strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|. Note sharp distinction between \athli\ (present subjunctive, engage in a contest in general) and \athlsi\ (first aorist active subjunctive, engage in a particular contest). Not "except he have contended," but simply "unless he contend" (in any given case) "lawfully" (\nomims\). Old adverb, agreeably to the law, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Timothy:1:8|. {Is not crowned} (\ou stephanoutai\). Present passive indicative of \stephano\, old verb (from \stephanos\, crown), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:2:7,9|. One apodosis for two protases. The victor in the athletic contests was crowned with a garland.
rwp@Info_3John THIRD JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION Certainly III John is addressed to an individual, not to a church, though which Gaius we do not know. There are three friends of Paul with this name; Gaius of Corinth (1Corinthians:1:14|), Gaius of Macedonia (Acts:19:29|), Gaius of Derbe (Acts:20:4|), but it is unlikely that this Gaius of Pergamum (Findlay would call him) is either of these, though the _Apostolical Constitutions_ does identify him with Gaius of Derbe. It is possible that in strkjv@3John:1:9| there is an allusion to II John and, if so, then both letters went to individuals in the same church (one a loyal woman, the other a loyal man). Three persons are sharply sketched in III John (Gaius, Diotrephes, Demetrius). Gaius is the dependable layman in the church, Diotrephes the dominating official, Demetrius the kindly messenger from Ephesus with the letter, a vivid picture of early church life and missionary work. John is at Ephesus, the last of the apostles, and with an eagle's eye surveys the work in Asia Minor. The same Gnostic deceivers are at work as in the other Johannine Epistles. Pergamum is described in strkjv@Revelation:2:13| as the place "where Satan's throne is." strkjv@3John:1:1 @{The beloved} (\ti agapti\). Four times in this short letter this verbal adjective is used of Gaius (here, 2,5,11|). See strkjv@2John:1:1| for the same phrase here, "whom I love in truth."
rwp@3John:1:13 @{I had} (\eichon\). Imperfect active of \ech\, when I began to write (\grapsai\, ingressive aorist active infinitive of \graph\). {I am unwilling to write} (\ou thel graphein\). "I do not wish to go on writing them. {With ink and pen} (\dia melanos kai kalamou\), "by means of (\dia\) black (ink) and reed (used as pen)." See strkjv@2John:1:12| for \melanos\ and strkjv@Matthew:11:7| for \kalamos\, used for papyrus and parchment, as \grapheion\ (a sharp stilus) for wax tablets.
rwp@Acts:4:32 @{Of one heart and soul} (\kardia kai psuch mia\). It is not possible to make sharp distinction between heart and soul here (see strkjv@Mark:12:30|), only that there was harmony in thought and affection. But the English translation is curiously unlike the Greek original. "There was one heart and soul (nominative case, not genitive as the English has it) in the multitude (\tou plthous\, subjective genitive) of those who believed." {Not one of them} (\oude heis\). More emphatic than \oudeis\, "not even one." {Common} (\koina\). In the use of their property, not in the possession as Luke proceeds to explain. The word \koinos\ is kin to \sun\ (together with)=\xun\ (Epic) and so \xunos=koinos\. See this word already in strkjv@2:44|. The idea of unclean (Acts:10:15|) is a later development from the original notion of common to all.
rwp@Acts:5:41 @{They therefore} (\hoi men oun\). No answering \de\. {They were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name} (\katxithsan huper tou onomatos atimasthnai\). First aorist passive indicative of \kataxio\, old verb to count worthy. Three times in N.T. (Luke:20:35; strkjv@Acts:5:41; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:5|). First aorist passive infinitive of \atimaz\, old verb to make one dishonoured (\atimos\). Forms here an oxymoron (\oxus\, sharp, \moros\, foolish) pointedly foolish saying "which is witty or impressive through sheer contradiction or paradox as laborious idleness, sublime indifference" (Vincent). The apostles felt honoured by dishonour. Note the same use of "the Name" as in strkjv@James:2:7; strkjv@3John:1:7|. With the Jews this absolute use of "the Name" meant Jehovah. The Christians now apply it to Jesus.
rwp@Acts:13:7 @{With the proconsul Sergius Paulus} (\sun ti anthupati Sergii Pauli\). Luke used to be sharply criticized for applying this term to Sergius Paulus on the ground that Cyprus was a province under the appointment of the emperor with the title of propraetor and not under the control of the senate with the title of proconsul. That was true B.C. 30, but five years later it was changed to proconsul by Augustus and put under the control of the Senate. Two inscriptions have been found with the date A.D. 51 and 52 with the names of proconsuls of Cyprus and one is in the Cesnola Collection, an inscription found at Soli with the name of Paulus as Proconsul, undoubtedly this very man, though no date occurs. {A man of understanding} (\andri suneti\). All the more amazing that he should be a victim of Barjesus. He had given up idolatry at any rate and was eager to hear Barnabas and Saul.
rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.
rwp@Acts:15:39 @{A sharp contention} (\paroxusmos\). Our very word paroxysm in English. Old word though only twice in the N.T. (here and strkjv@Hebrews:10:24|), from \paroxun\, to sharpen (\para, oxus\) as of a blade and of the spirit (Acts:17:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:13:5|). This "son of consolation" loses his temper in a dispute over his cousin and Paul uses sharp words towards his benefactor and friend. It is often so that the little irritations of life give occasion to violent explosions. If the incident in strkjv@Galatians:2:11-21| had already taken place, there was a sore place already that could be easily rubbed. And if Mark also joined with Peter and Barnabas on that occasion, Paul had fresh ground for irritation about him. But there is no way to settle differences about men and we can only agree to disagree as Paul and Barnabas did. {Songs:that they parted asunder from one another} (\hste apochristhnai autous ap' allln\). Actual result here stated by \hste\ and the first aorist passive infinitive of \apochriz\, old verb to sever, to separate, here only and strkjv@Revelation:6:4| in the N.T. The accusative of general reference (\autous\) is normal. For construction with \hste\ see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 999f. {And Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus} (\ton te Barnaban paralabonta ton Markon ekpleusai eis Kupron\). Second infinitival clause \ekpleusai\ after \hste\ connected by \te\. The same participle is used here minus \sun, paralabonta\ (second aorist active). Barnabas and Mark sailed out (\ekpleusai\ from \ekple\) from the harbour of Antioch. This is the last glimpse that Luke gives us of Barnabas, one of the noblest figures in the New Testament. Paul has a kindly reference to him in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6|. No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One's judgment may go with Paul, but one's heart goes with Barnabas. And Mark made good with Barnabas, with Peter (1Peter:5:13|) and finally with Paul (Colossians:4:10; strkjv@2Timothy:4:11|). See my little book on John Mark (_Making Good in the Ministry_). Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times.
rwp@Acts:16:21 @{Customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, or to observe, being Romans} (\eth ha ouk estin hmin paradechesthai oude poiein Rmaiois ousin\). Note the sharp contrast between "being Jews" in verse 20| and "being Romans" here. This pose of patriotism is all sound and fury. It is love of money that moves these "masters" far more than zeal for Rome. As Roman citizens in a colony they make full use of all their rights of protest. Judaism was a _religio licita_ in the Roman empire, only they were not allowed to make proselytes of the Romans themselves. No Roman magistrate would pass on abstract theological questions (18:15|), but only if a breach of the peace was made (\ektarassousin hmn tn polin\) or the formation of secret sects and organizations. Evidently both of these last points are involved by the charges of "unlawful customs" by the masters who are silent about their real ground of grievance against Paul and Silas. \Ethos\ (kin to \thos\, strkjv@1Corinthians:15:33|) is from \eth\, to be accustomed or used to a thing. The Romans granted toleration to conquered nations to follow their religious customs provided they did not try to win the Romans. But the Jews had made great headway to favour (the God-fearers) with increasing hatred also. Emperor worship had in store grave peril for both Jews and Christians. The Romans will care more for this than for the old gods and goddesses. It will combine patriotism and piety.
rwp@Acts:16:37 @{Unto them} (\pros autous\). The lictors by the jailor. The reply of Paul is a marvel of brevity and energy, almost every word has a separate indictment showing the utter illegality of the whole proceeding. {They have beaten us} (\deirantes hmas\). First aorist active participle of \der\, old verb to flay, to skin, to smite. The _Lex Valeria_ B.C. 509 and the _Lex Poscia_ B.C. 248 made it a crime to inflict blows on a Roman citizen. Cicero says, "To fetter a Roman citizen was a crime, to scourge him a scandal, to slay him--parricide." Claudius had "deprived the city of Rhodes of its freedom for having crucified some citizen of Rome" (Rackham). {Publicly} (\dmosii\). This added insult to injury. Common adverb (\hodi\) supplied with adjective, associative instrumental case, opposed to \idii\ or \kat' oikous\, strkjv@Acts:20:20|) {Uncondemned} (\akatakritous\). This same verbal adjective from \kata-krin\ with \a\ privative is used by Paul in strkjv@22:25| and nowhere else in the N.T. Rare in late Greek like \akatagnstos\, but in late _Koin_ (papyri, inscriptions). The meaning is clearly "without being tried." Paul and Silas were not given a chance to make a defence. They were sentenced unheard (25:16|). Even slaves in Roman law had a right to be heard. {Men that are Romans} (\anthrpous Romaious huparchontas\). The praetors did not know, of course, that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens any more than Lysias knew it in strkjv@Acts:22:27|. Paul's claim is not challenged in either instance. It was a capital offence to make a false claim to Roman citizenship. {Have cast us into prison} (\ebalan eis phulakn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ball\, old verb, with first aorist ending as often in the _Koin_ (\-an\, not \-on\). This was the climax, treating them as criminals. {And now privily} (\kai nun lathri\). Paul balances their recent conduct with the former. {Nay verily, but} (\ou gar, alla\). No indeed! It is the use of \gar\ so common in answers (\ge+ara\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:23|. \Alla\ gives the sharp alternative. {Themselves} (\autoi\). As a public acknowledgment that they had wronged and mistreated Paul and Silas. Let them come themselves and lead us out (\exagagetsan\, third person plural second aorist active imperative of \exag\). It was a bitter pill to the proud praetors.
rwp@Acts:17:13 @{Was proclaimed} (\katggel\). Second aorist passive indicative of \kataggell\, common late verb as in strkjv@Acts:16:21|. {Of Paul} (\hupo Paulou\). By Paul, of course. {Stirring up and troubling the multitudes} (\saleuontes kai tarassontes tous ochlous\). Shaking the crowds like an earthquake (4:31|) and disturbing like a tornado (17:8|). Success at Thessalonica gave the rabbis confidence and courage. The attack was sharp and swift. The Jews from Antioch in Pisidia had likewise pursued Paul to Iconium and Lystra. How long Paul had been in Beroea Luke does not say. But a church was established here which gave a good account of itself later and sent a messenger (Acts:20:4|) with their part of the collection to Jerusalem. This quiet and noble town was in a whirl of excitement over the attacks of the Jewish emissaries from Thessalonica who probably made the same charge of treason against Paul and Silas.
rwp@Acts:21:5 @{That we had accomplished the days} (\exartisai hms tas hmeras\). First aorist active infinitive of \exartiz\, to furnish perfectly, rare in ancient writers, but fairly frequent in the papyri. Only twice in the N.T., here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:17|. Finish the exact number of days (seven) of verse 4|. The accusative of general reference \hms\ is the usual construction and the infinitive clause is the subject of \egeneto\. We departed and went on our journey (\exelthontes eporeuometha\). Sharp distinction between the first aorist active participle \exelthontes\ (from \exerchomai\, to go out) and the imperfect middle \eporeuometha\ from \poreu\ (we were going on). {And they all, with wives and children, brought us on our way} (\propempontn hms pantn sun gunaixi kai teknois\). No "and" in the Greek, simply genitive absolute, "They all with wives and children accompanying us," just as at Miletus (20:28|), same verb \propemp\ which see. The first mention of children in connection with the apostolic churches (Vincent). Vivid picture here as at Miletus, evident touch of an eyewitness. {Till we were out of the city} (\hes ex ts poles\). Note both adverbial prepositions (\hes ex\) clear outside of the city.
rwp@Acts:21:9 @{Virgins which did prophesy} (\parthenoi prophteusai\). Not necessarily an "order" of virgins, but Philip had the honour of having in his home four virgin daughters with the gift of prophecy which was not necessarily predicting events, though that was done as by Agabus here. It was more than ordinary preaching (cf. strkjv@19:6|) and was put by Paul above the other gifts like tongues (1Corinthians:14:1-33|). The prophecy of Joel (2:28f.|) about their sons and daughters prophesying is quoted by Peter and applied to the events on the day of Pentecost (Acts:2:17|). Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:5| gives directions about praying and prophesying by the women (apparently in public worship) with the head uncovered and sharply requires the head covering, though not forbidding the praying and prophesying. With this must be compared his demand for silence by the women in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:34-40; strkjv@1Timothy:2:8-15| which it is not easy to reconcile. One wonders if there was not something known to Paul about special conditions in Corinth and Ephesus that he has not told. There was also Anna the prophetess in the temple (Luke:2:36|) besides the inspired hymns of Elizabeth (Luke:1:42-45|) and of Mary (Luke:1:46-55|). At any rate there was no order of women prophets or official ministers. There were Old Testament prophetesses like Miriam, Deborah, Huldah. Today in our Sunday schools the women do most of the actual teaching. The whole problem is difficult and calls for restraint and reverence. One thing is certain and that is that Luke appreciated the services of women for Christ as is shown often in his writings (Luke:8:1-3|, for instance) before this incident.
rwp@Acts:21:13 @{What are you doing weeping?} (\Ti poieite klaiontes?\) Strong protest as in strkjv@Mark:11:5|. {Breaking my heart} (\sunthruptontes mou tn kardian\). The verb \sunthrupt\, to crush together, is late _Koin_ for \apothrupt\, to break off, both vivid and expressive words. Songs:to enervate and unman one, weakening Paul's determination to go on with his duty. {I am ready} (\Eg hetoims ech\). I hold (myself) in readiness (adverb, \hetoims\). Same idiom in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:14|. {Not only to be bound} (\ou monon dethnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \de\ and note \ou monon\ rather than \m monon\, the usual negative of the infinitive because of the sharp contrast (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1095). Paul's readiness to die, if need be, at Jerusalem is like that of Jesus on the way to Jerusalem the last time. Even before that Luke (9:51|) said that "he set his face to go on to Jerusalem." Later the disciples will say to Jesus, "Master, the Jews were but now seeking to stone thee; and goest thou thither?" (John:11:8|). The stature of Paul rises here to heroic proportions "for the name of the Lord Jesus" (\huper tou onomatos tou kuriou Isou\).
rwp@Acts:22:1 @{Brethren and fathers} (\Andres adelphoi kai pateres\) Men, brethren, and fathers. The very language used by Stephen (7:2|) when arraigned before the Sanhedrin with Paul then present. Now Paul faces a Jewish mob on the same charges brought against Stephen. These words are those of courtesy and dignity (_amoris et honoris nomina_, Page). These men were Paul's brother Jews and were (many of them) official representatives of the people (Sanhedrists, priests, rabbis). Paul's purpose is conciliatory, he employs "his ready tact" (Rackham). {The defence which I now make unto you} (\mou ts pros humas nuni apologias\). Literally, My defence to you at this time. \Nuni\ is a sharpened form (by \-i\) of \nun\ (now), just now. The term \apologia\ (apology) is not our use of the word for apologizing for an offence, but the original sense of defence for his conduct, his life. It is an old word from \apologeomai\, to talk oneself off a charge, to make defence. It occurs also in strkjv@Acts:25:16| and then also in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11; strkjv@Phillipians:1:7,16; strkjv@2Timothy:4:16; strkjv@1Peter:3:15|. Paul uses it again in strkjv@Acts:25:16| as here about his defence against the charges made by the Jews from Asia. He is suspected of being a renegade from the Mosaic law and charged with specific acts connected with the alleged profanation of the temple. Songs:Paul speaks in Aramaic and recites the actual facts connected with his change from Judaism to Christianity. The facts make the strongest argument. He first recounts the well-known story of his zeal for Judaism in the persecution of the Christians and shows why the change came. Then he gives a summary of his work among the Gentiles and why he came to Jerusalem this time. He answers the charge of enmity to the people and the law and of desecration of the temple. It is a speech of great skill and force, delivered under remarkable conditions. The one in chapter strkjv@Acts:26| covers some of the same ground, but for a slightly different purpose as we shall see. For a discussion of the three reports in Acts of Paul's conversion see chapter strkjv@Acts:9|. Luke has not been careful to make every detail correspond, though there is essential agreement in all three.
rwp@Acts:22:26 @{What art thou about to do?} (\Ti melleis poiein?\). On the point of doing, sharp warning.
rwp@Acts:26:6 @{And now} (\kai nun\). Sharp comparison between his youth and the present. {To be judged for the hope} (\ep' elpidi--krinomenos\). The hope of the resurrection and of the promised Messiah (13:32|). Page calls verses 6-8| a parenthesis in the course of Paul's argument by which he shows that his life in Christ is a real development of the best in Pharisaism. He does resume his narrative in verse 9|, but verses 6-8| are the core of his defence already presented in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11| where he proves that the children of faith are the real seed of Abraham.
rwp@Acts:28:22 @{But we desire} (\axioumen de\). Old verb \axio\, to deem worthy, to think right or proper as in strkjv@15:38| which see. They think it only fair to hear Paul's side of his case. {Concerning this sect} (\peri ts haireses tauts\). Paul had identified Christianity with Judaism (verse 20|) in its Messianic hope. The language seems to imply that the number of Christians in Rome was comparatively small and mainly Gentile. If the edict of Claudius for the expulsion of the Jews from Rome (Acts:18:2|) was due to disturbance over Christ (\Chrstus\), then even in Rome the Jews had special reason for hostility towards Christians. {Everywhere spoken against} (\pantachou antilegetai\). Cf. verse 19|. The line of cleavage between Jew and Christian was now sharply drawn everywhere.
rwp@Info_Colossians @ PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE Epaphras did not come in vain, for Paul was tremendously stirred by the peril to Christianity from the Gnostics (\hoi gnstikoi\, the knowing ones). He had won his fight for freedom in Christ against the Judaizers who tried to fasten Jewish sacramentarianism upon spiritual Christianity. Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. Songs:then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God. One cannot understand Colossians without some knowledge of Gnosticism such as may be obtained in such books as Angus's _The Mystery-Religions and Christianity_, Glover's _The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire_, Kennedy's St. _Paul and the Mystery-Religions_, Lightfoot's _Commentary on Colossians_.
rwp@Colossians:1:5 @{Because of the hope} (\dia tn elpida\). See strkjv@Romans:8:24|. It is not clear whether this phrase is to be linked with \eucha istoumen\ at the beginning of verse 3| or (more likely) with \tn agapn\ just before. Note also here \pistis\ (faith), \agap\ (love), \elpis\ (hope), though not grouped together so sharply as in strkjv@1Corinthians:13:13|. Here hope is objective, the goal ahead. {Laid up} (\apokeimeinn\). Literally, "laid away or by." Old word used in strkjv@Luke:19:20| of the pound laid away in a napkin. See also \apothsauriz\, to store away for future use (1Timothy:6:19|). The same idea occurs in strkjv@Matthew:6:20| (treasure in heaven) and strkjv@1Peter:1:4| and it is involved in strkjv@Philemon:3:20|. {Ye heard before} (\prokousate\). First aorist indicative active of this old compound \proakou\, though only here in the N.T. Before what? Before Paul wrote? Before the realization? Before the error of the Gnostics crept in? Each view is possible and has advocates. Lightfoot argues for the last and it is probably correct as is indicated by the next clause. {In the word of the truth of the gospel} (\en ti logi ts altheias tou euaggeliou\). "In the preaching of the truth of the gospel" (Galatians:2:5,14|) which is come (\parontos\, present active participle agreeing with \euaggeliou\, being present, a classical use of \pareimi\ as in strkjv@Acts:12:20|). They heard the pure gospel from Epaphras before the Gnostics came.
rwp@Colossians:1:17 @{Before all things} (\pro pantn\). \Pro\ with the ablative case. This phrase makes Paul's meaning plain. The precedence of Christ in time and the preeminence as Creator are both stated sharply. See the claim of Jesus to eternal timeless existence in strkjv@John:8:58; strkjv@17:5|. See also strkjv@Revelation:23:13| where Christ calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning (\arch\) and the End (\telos\). Paul states it also in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {Consist} (\sunestken\). Perfect active indicative (intransitive) of \sunistmi\, old verb, to place together and here to cohere, to hold together. The word repeats the statements in verse 16|, especially that in the form \ektistai\. Christ is the controlling and unifying force in nature. The Gnostic philosophy that matter is evil and was created by a remote aeon is thus swept away. The Son of God's love is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe which is not evil.
rwp@Colossians:1:22 @{Yet now} (\nuni de\). Sharpened contrast with emphatic form of \nun\, "now" being not at the present moment, but in the present order of things in the new dispensation of grace in Christ. {Hath he reconciled} (\apokatllaxen\). First aorist (effective, timeless) active indicative (a sort of parenthetical anacoluthon). Here B reads \apokatallagte\, be ye reconciled like \katallagte\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:20| while D has \apokatallagentes\. Lightfoot prefers to follow B here (the hard reading), though Westcott and Hort only put it in the margin. On the word see verse 20|. {In the body of his flesh} (\en ti smati ts sarkos autou\). See the same combination in strkjv@2:11| though in strkjv@Ephesians:2:14| only \sarki\ (flesh). Apparently Paul combines both \sma\ and \sarx\ to make plain the actual humanity of Jesus against incipient Docetic Gnostics who denied it. {Through death} (\dia tou thanatou\). The reconciliation was accomplished by means of Christ's death on the cross (verse 20|) and not just by the Incarnation (the body of his flesh) in which the death took place. {To present} (\parastsai\). First aorist active (transitive) infinitive (of purpose) of \paristmi\, old verb, to place beside in many connections. See it used of presenting Paul and the letter from Lysias to Felix (Acts:23:33|). Repeated in strkjv@Colossians:2:28|. See also strkjv@2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:14|. Paul has the same idea of his responsibility in rendering an account for those under his influence seen in strkjv@Hebrews:13:17|. See strkjv@Romans:12:1| for use of living sacrifice. {Holy} (\hagious\). Positively consecrated, separated unto God. Common in N.T. for believers. Haupt holds that all these terms have a religious and forensic sense here. {Without blemish} (\ammous\). Without spot (Phillipians:2:15|). Old word \a\ privative and \mmos\ (blemish). Common in the LXX for ceremonial purifications. {Unreproveable} (\anegkltous\). Old verbal adjective from \a\ privative and \egkale\, to call to account, to pick flaws in. These three adjectives give a marvellous picture of complete purity (positive and negative, internal and external). This is Paul's ideal when he presents the Colossians "before him" (\katenpion autou\), right down in the eye of Christ the Judge of all.
rwp@Colossians:2:23 @{Which things} (\hatina\). "Which very things," these ascetic regulations. {Have indeed a show of wisdom} (\estin logon men echonta sophias\). Periphrastic present indicative with \estin\ in the singular, but present indicative \echonta\ in the plural (\hatina\). \Logon sophias\ is probably "the repute of wisdom" (Abbott) like Plato and Herodotus. \Men\ (in deed) has no corresponding \de\. {In will-worship} (\en ethelothrskii\). This word occurs nowhere else and was probably coined by Paul after the pattern of \ethelodouleia\, to describe the voluntary worship of angels (see strkjv@2:18|). {And humility} (\kai tapeinophrosuni\). Clearly here the bad sense, "in mock humility." {And severity to the body} (\kai apheidii smatos\). Old word (Plato) from \apheids\, unsparing (\a\ privative, \pheidomai\, to spare). Here alone in N.T. Ascetics often practice flagellations and other hardnesses to the body. {Not of any value} (\ouk en timi tini\). \Tim\ usually means honour or price. {Against the indulgence of the flesh} (\pros plsmonn ts sarkos\). These words are sharply debated along with \tim\ just before. It is not unusual for \pros\ to be found in the sense of "against" rather than "with" or "for." See \pros\ in sense of {against} in strkjv@3:13; strkjv@Ephesians:6:11f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:6:1|. \Plsmon\ is an old word from \pimplmi\, to fill and means satiety. It occurs here only in the N.T. Peake is inclined to agree with Hort and Haupt that there is a primitive corruption here. But the translation in the Revised Version is possible and it is true that mere rules do not carry us very far in human conduct as every father or mother knows, though we must have some regulations in family and state and church. But they are not enough of themselves.
rwp@Colossians:3:7 @{Walked aforetime} (\periepatsate pote\). First aorist (constative) indicative referring to their previous pagan state. {When ye lived} (\hote ezte\). Imperfect active indicative of \za\, to live, "ye used to live" (customary action). Sharp distinction in the tenses.
rwp@Ephesians:4:20 @{But ye did not so learn Christ} (\Humeis de ouch houts emathete ton Christon\). In sharp contrast to pagan life (\houts\). Second aorist active indicative of \manthan\.
rwp@Ephesians:5:5 @{Ye know of a surety} (\iste ginskontes\). The correct text has \iste\, not \este\. It is the same form for present indicative (second person plural) and imperative, probably indicative here, "ye know." But why \ginskontes\ added? Probably, "ye know recognizing by your own experience." {No} (\ps--ou\). Common idiom in the N.T. like the Hebrew= _oudeis_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 732). {Covetous man} (\pleonekts, pleon ech\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:5:10f.; strkjv@6:10|. {Which is} (\ho estin\). Songs:Aleph B. A D K L have \hos\ (who), but \ho\ is right. See strkjv@Colossians:3:14| for this use of \ho\ (which thing is). On \eidlolatrs\ (idolater) see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:10f|. {In the Kingdom of Christ and God} (\en ti basileii tou Christou kai theou\). Certainly the same kingdom and Paul may here mean to affirm the deity of Christ by the use of the one article with \Christou kai theou\. But Sharp's rule cannot be insisted on here because \theos\ is often definite without the article like a proper name. Paul did teach the deity of Christ and may do it here.
rwp@Ephesians:6:17 @{The helmet of salvation} (\tn perikephalaian tou striou\). Late word (\peri, kephal\, head, around the head), in Polybius, LXX, strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:8; strkjv@Ephesians:6:17| alone in N.T. {Which is the word of God} (\ho estin to rma tou theou\). Explanatory relative (\ho\) referring to the sword (\machairan\). The sword given by the Spirit to be wielded as offensive weapon (the others defensive) by the Christian is the word of God. See strkjv@Hebrews:4:12| where the word of God is called "sharper than any two-edged sword."
rwp@Galatians:2:6 @{Somewhat} (\ti\). Something, not somebody. Paul refers to the Big Three (Cephas, James, and John). He seems a bit embarrassed in the reference. He means no disrespect, but he asserts his independence sharply in a tangled sentence with two parentheses (dashes in Westcott and Hort). {Whatsoever they were} (\hopoioi pote san\). Literally, "What sort they once were." {Hopoioi} is a qualitative word (1Thessalonians:1:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:13; strkjv@James:1:24|). Lightfoot thinks that these three leaders were the ones who suggested the compromise about Titus. That is a possible, but not the natural, interpretation of this involved sentence. The use of \de\ (but) in verse 6| seems to make a contrast between the three leaders and the pleaders for compromise in verses 4f|. {They, I say, imparted nothing to me} (\emoi gar ouden prosanethento\). He starts over again after the two parentheses and drops the construction \apo tn dokountn\ and changes the construction (anacoluthon) to \hoi dokountes\ (nominative case), the men of reputation and influences whom he names in verses 8f|. See the same verb in strkjv@1:16|. They added nothing in the conference to me. The compromisers tried to win them, but they finally came over to my view. Paul won his point, when he persuaded Peter, James, and John to agree with him and Barnabas in their contention for freedom for the Gentile Christians from the bondage of the Mosaic ceremonial law.
rwp@Galatians:6:18 @The farewell salutation is much briefer than that in strkjv@2Corinthians:13:13|, but identical with that in strkjv@Philemon:1:25|. He calls them "brethren" (\adelphoi\) in spite of the sharp things spoken to them.
rwp@Hebrews:1:2 @{At the end of these days} (\ep' eschatou tn hmern toutn\). In contrast with \palai\ above. {Hath spoken} (\elalsen\). First aorist indicative of \lale\, the same verb as above, "did speak" in a final and full revelation. {In his Son} (\en huii\). In sharp contrast to \en tois prophtais\. "The Old Testament slopes upward to Christ" (J. R. Sampey). No article or pronoun here with the preposition \en\, giving the absolute sense of "Son." Here the idea is not merely what Jesus said, but what he is (Dods), God's Son who reveals the Father (John:1:18|). "The revelation was a _son-revelation_" (Vincent). {Hath appointed} (\ethken\). First aorist (kappa aorist) active of \tithmi\, a timeless aorist. {Heir of all things} (\klronomon pantn\). See strkjv@Mark:12:6| for \ho klronomos\ in Christ's parable, perhaps an allusion here to this parable (Moffatt). The idea of sonship easily passes into that of heirship (Galatians:4:7; strkjv@Romans:8:17|). See the claim of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:11:27; strkjv@28:18| even before the Ascension. {Through whom} (\di' hou\). The Son as Heir is also the Intermediate Agent (\dia\) in the work of creation as we have it in strkjv@Colossians:1:16f.; strkjv@John:1:3|. {The worlds} (\tous ainas\). "The ages" (_secula_, Vulgate). See strkjv@11:3| also where \tous ainas=ton kosmon\ (the world) or the universe like \ta panta\ (the all things) in strkjv@1:3; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. The original sense of \ain\ (from \aei\, always) occurs in strkjv@Hebrews:5:20|, but here "by metonomy of the container for the contained" (Thayer) for "the worlds" (the universe) as in LXX, Philo, Josephus.
rwp@Hebrews:4:12 @{The word of God} (\ho logos tou theou\). That just quoted about the promise of rest and God's rest, but true of any real word of God. {Living} (\zn\). Cf. the Living God (3:12|). In Philo and the Book of Wisdom the Logos of God is personified, but still more in strkjv@John:1:1-18| where Jesus is pictured as the Logos on a par with God. "Our author is using Philonic language rather than Philonic ideas" (Moffatt). See strkjv@John:6:63|: "The words which I have spoken are spirit and are life." {Active} (\energs\). Energetic, powerful (John:1:12; strkjv@Phillipians:3:21; strkjv@Colossians:1:29|). {Sharper} (\tomteros\). Comparative of \tomos\, cutting (from \temn\, to cut), late adjective, here only in the N.T. {Than} (\huper\). Often so after a comparative (Luke:16:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:13|). {Two-edged} (\distomon\). "Two-mouthed" (\di-, stoma\), double-mouthed like a river (Polybius), branching ways (Sophocles), applied to sword (\xiphos\) by Homer and Euripides. {Piercing} (\diiknoumenos\). Present middle participle of \diikneomai\, old verb to go through, here only in N.T. {Even to the dividing} (\achri merismou\). Old word from \meriz\ (\meros\, part), to partition. {Of soul and spirit} (\psuchs kai pneumatos\). As in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:23; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:45|, but not an argument for trichotomy. Psychology is constantly changing its terminology. {Of both joints and marrow} (\harmn te kai mueln\). From \ar\, to join, comes \harmos\, old word, here only in the N.T. \Muelos\ (from \mu\, to shut), old word, here only in N.T. This surgeon goes into and through the joints and marrow, not cleaving between them. {Quick to discern} (\kritikos\). Verbal adjective in \-ikos\, from \krin\, skilled in judging, as the surgeon has to be and able to decide on the instant what to do. Songs:God's word like his eye sees the secret lurking doubt and unbelief "of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (\enthumsen kai ennoin kardias\). The surgeon carries a bright and powerful light for every dark crevice and a sharp knife for the removal of all the pus revealed by the light. It is a powerful picture here drawn.
rwp@Hebrews:6:8 @{If it beareth} (\ekpherousa\). Present active participle of \ekpher\, conditional participle. For "thorns and thistles" see strkjv@Matthew:7:16| for both words (\akanthas kai tribolous\). Roman soldiers scattered balls with sharp iron spikes, one of which was called _tribulus_, to hinder the enemy's cavalry. {Rejected} (\adokimos\). See strkjv@1Corinthians:9:27; strkjv@Romans:1:28|. For \kataras eggus\ (nigh unto a curse) see Gal strkjv@3:10|. {To be burned} (\eis kausin\). "For burning." Common sight in clearing up ground.
rwp@Hebrews:10:24 @{Let us consider one another} (\katanomen alllous\). Present (keep on doing so) active volitive subjunctive of \katanoe\. The verb used about Jesus in strkjv@3:1|. {To provoke} (\eis paroxusmon\). Our very word "paroxysm," from \paroxun\ (\para, oxun\ from \oxus\, sharp), to sharpen, to stimulate, to incite. Songs:here in good sense (for incitement to), but in strkjv@Acts:15:39| the word is used of irritation or contention as in the LXX and Demosthenes. Hippocrates uses it for "paroxysm" in disease (so in the papyri). {Unto love and good works} (\agaps kai kaln ergn\). Objective genitive. Songs:Paul seeks to stir up the Corinthians by the example of the Macedonians (2Corinthians:8:1-7|).
rwp@Hebrews:12:22 @{But} (\alla\). Sharp contrast to verse 18| with same form \proselluthate\. {Unto Mount Zion} (\Sin orei\). Dative case of \oros\, as with the other substantives. In contrast to Mount Sinai (verses 18-21|). Paul has contrasted Mount Sinai (present Jerusalem) with the Jerusalem above (heaven) in strkjv@Galatians:4:21-31|. {City} (\polei\). As in strkjv@11:10,16|. Heaven is termed thus a spiritual mountain and city. {The heavenly Jerusalem} (\Ierousalem epouranii\). See strkjv@11:10,16; strkjv@Isaiah:60:14|. {Innumerable hosts of angels} (\muriasin aggeln\). "Myriads of angels." \Murias\ is an old word (from \murios\, strkjv@1Corinthians:4:15|) as in strkjv@Luke:12:1|.
rwp@James:3:11 @{The fountain} (\h pg\). Old word for spring (John:4:14|). {Opening} (\ops\). Old word for fissure in the earth, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:11:38| (caves). {Send forth} (\bruei\). Present active indicative of \bru\, old verb, to bubble up, to gush forth, here only in N.T. The use of \mti\ shows that a negative answer is expected in this rhetorical question. {The sweet and the bitter} (\to gluku kai to pikron\). Cognate accusatives with \bruei\. Separate articles to distinguish sharply the two things. The neuter singular articular adjective is a common way of presenting a quality. \Glukus\ is an old adjective (in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:10:9f.|), the opposite of \pikron\ (from old root, to cut, to prick), in N.T. only here and verse 14| (sharp, harsh).
rwp@James:4:8 @{Draw nigh to God} (\eggisate ti thei\). First aorist active imperative of \eggiz\, late verb from \eggus\ (near) as in strkjv@Matthew:3:2|. With dative case again of personal relation. The priests in the sanctuary drew nigh to God (Exodus:19:22|), as we should now. {Cleanse your hands} (\katharisate cheiras\). First aorist active imperative of \kathariz\, to cleanse, from dirt in a ritual sense (Exodus:30:19-21; strkjv@Mark:7:3,19|). Here it is figurative, as in strkjv@Hosea:1:16; strkjv@Psalms:24:4|. If we always had clean (from sin) hands and hearts? {Ye sinners} (\hamartloi\). A sharp term to strike the conscience, "a reproach meant to startle and sting" (Ropes). {Purify your hearts} (\hagnisate kardias\). First aorist active imperative of \hagniz\, old verb from \hagnos\ (James:3:17|), ceremonially (Acts:21:24,26|), but here morally as in strkjv@1Peter:1:22; strkjv@1John:3:3|. Anarthrous use of \kardias\ as of \cheiras\ (wash hands, purify hearts). {Ye double-minded} (\dipsuchoi\). As in strkjv@1:8|.
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 @ A PERSONAL WITNESS It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In strkjv@John:1:14| he plainly says that "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" (\etheasametha tn doxan autou\). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in strkjv@John:21:25| he employs the singular "I suppose" (\oimai\) in sharp dis- tinction from the plural "we know" (\oidamen\) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness (\marture, marturia\) so common in this Gospel (John:1:7,8,19; strkjv@3:11,26,33; strkjv@5:31; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@21:24|, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luke:1:1-4|). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark's Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John's Gospel claims to be the personal witness of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eye-witness in the vivid details.
rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1880). ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_ (1891). ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_ (1935).,_Johannine Grammar_ (1906). APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_ (1915). ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_ (1910). BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_ (1898). BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_ (1907). BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl. (1925). BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_ (1905). BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_ (1922). BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_ (1902). BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel_ (1928). BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_ (1904). CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_ (1927). CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_ (1925). CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_ (1912). D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_ (1908).,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_ (1911). DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1909). DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_ (1890).,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums (1890). DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1897). DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1904). EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_ (1888). EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_ (1890). FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_ (1904). GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_ (1915). GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922). GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_ (1910).,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1924). GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_ (1920). GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_ (1910). GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_ (1902). GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_. (1911). HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_ (1917). HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_ (1917). HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc. (1913). HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_ (1919).,_The Fourth Gospel_ (1923). HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl. (1908). HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer (1908). HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_. (1885). HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_ (1931). IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_ (1906).,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_ (1909). KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_ (1905). LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_ (1914). LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_ (1910). LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_ (1908). LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1903). LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_ (1899). LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_ (1931). MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_ (1923). MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_ (1906). McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_ (1930). MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_ (1923). MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_ (1915). MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_ (1925). NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_ (1925). NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel (1927). ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1911). PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1913). REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1901). REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_ (1906). ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_ (1916). ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_ (1929). ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_ (1925). SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_ (1905). SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_ (1903). SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_ (1908). SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_ (1906). SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_ (1909). SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_ (1916). SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_ (1926). SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_ (1915). SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_ (1910). STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_ (1914). STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_ (1898). STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_ (1917).,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_ (1925). TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_ (1931). VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_ (1917). WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_ (1890). WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_ (1916). WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl. (1902).,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_ (1911). WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_ (1908). WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_ (1911).,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_ (1911). WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_ (1888). WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_ (1927). WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_ (1911). WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_ (1903). ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis (1908). 6 Aufl. (1921). strkjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archi\). \Arch\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in strkjv@Genesis:1:1|. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. {Was} (\n\). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (\egeneto\, became) appears in verse 14| for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in strkjv@8:58| "before Abraham came (\genesthai\) I am" (\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is from \leg\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used \spermatikos logos\ for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew _memra_ was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in strkjv@Proverbs:8:23|. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (_The Origin of the _Prologue to St. John_, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term \Logos\, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\ is applied to Christ only in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:13; strkjv@1John:1:1| "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in strkjv@John:17:5|. This term suits John's purpose better than \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (\sarx egeneto\, verse 14|) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \Pros\ with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In strkjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prospon pros prospon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gnston ts pros alllous suntheias\, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., _Vocabulary_) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, _Origin of Prologue_, p. 8) that the use of \pros\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin_, not old Attic. In strkjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos n ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos n ho logos\. That would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the predicate without it (\theos\) just as in strkjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in strkjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agap estin\ can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 767f. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
rwp@John:1:19 @{And this is the witness of John} (\kai haut estin h marturia tou Ianou\). He had twice already alluded to it (verses 7f., 15|) and now he proceeds to give it as the most important item to add after the Prologue. Just as the author assumes the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, so he assumes the Synoptic accounts of the baptism of Jesus by John, but adds various details of great interest and value between the baptism and the Galilean ministry, filling out thus our knowledge of this first year of the Lord's ministry in various parts of Palestine. The story in John proceeds along the same lines as in the Synoptics. There is increasing unfolding of Christ to the disciples with increasing hostility on the part of the Jews till the final consummation in Jerusalem. {When the Jews sent unto him} (\hote apesteilan pros auton hoi Ioudaioi\). John, writing in Ephesus near the close of the first century long after the destruction of Jerusalem, constantly uses the phrase "the Jews" as descriptive of the people as distinct from the Gentile world and from the followers of Christ (at first Jews also). Often he uses it of the Jewish leaders and rulers in particular who soon took a hostile attitude toward both John and Jesus. Here it is the Jews from Jerusalem who sent (\apesteilan\, first aorist active indicative of \apostell\). {Priests and Levites} (\hiereis kai Leueitas\). Sadducees these were. Down below in verse 24| the author explains that it was the Pharisees who sent the Sadducees. The Synoptics throw a flood of light on this circumstance, for in strkjv@Matthew:3:7| we are told that the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees "offspring of vipers" (Luke:3:7|). Popular interest in John grew till people were wondering "in their hearts concerning John whether haply he were the Christ" (Luke:3:15|). Songs:the Sanhedrin finally sent a committee to John to get his own view of himself, but the Pharisees saw to it that Sadducees were sent. {To ask him} (\hina ertssin auton\). Final \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \erta\, old verb to ask a question as here and often in the _Koin_ to ask for something (John:14:16|) like \aite\. {Who art thou?} (\su tis ei;\). Direct question preserved and note proleptic position of \su\, "Thou, who art thou?" The committee from the Sanhedrin put the question sharply up to John to define his claims concerning the Messiah.
rwp@John:3:6 @{That which is born} (\to gegennmenon\). Perfect passive articular participle. The sharp contrast between flesh (\sarx\) and Spirit (\pneuma\), drawn already in strkjv@1:13|, serves to remind Nicodemus of the crudity of his question in strkjv@3:4| about a second physical birth.
rwp@John:4:16 @{Go, call thy husband} (\Hupage phnson sou ton andra\). Two imperatives (present active, first aorist active). Had she started to leave after her perplexed reply? Her frequent trips to the well were partly for her husband. We may not have all the conversation preserved, but clearly Jesus by this sudden sharp turn gives the woman a conviction of sin and guilt without which she cannot understand his use of water as a metaphor for eternal life.
rwp@John:6:26 @{Not because ye saw signs} (\ouch hoti eidete smeia\). Second aorist active indicative of the defective verb \hora\. They had seen the "signs" wrought by Jesus (verse 2|), but this one had led to wild fanaticism (verse 14|) and complete failure to grasp the spiritual lessons. {But because ye ate of the loaves} (\all' hoti ephagete ek tn artn\). Second aorist active indicative of \esthi\, defective verb. {Ye were filled} (\echortasthte\). First aorist passive indicative of \chortaz\, from \chortos\ (grass) as in verse 10|, to eat grass, then to eat anything, to satisfy hunger. They were more concerned with hungry stomachs than with hungry souls. It was a sharp and deserved rebuke.
rwp@John:6:39 @{That of all that which} (\hina pn ho\). Literally, "That all which" (see verse 37| for \pan ho\), but there is a sharp anacoluthon with \pn\ left as _nominativus pendens_. {I should lose nothing} (\m apoles ex autou\). Construed with \hina\, "that I shall not lose anything of it." \Apoles\, from \apollumi\, can be either future active indicative or first aorist active subjunctive as is true also of \anasts\ (from \anistmi\), "I shall raise up." {At the last day} (\ti eschati hemeri\). Locative case without \en\. Only in John, but four times here (39,40,44,54|) "with the majesty of a solemn refrain." In strkjv@7:37| it is the last day of the feast of tabernacles, but in strkjv@11:24; strkjv@12:48| of the day of judgment as here. Christ is the Agent of the general resurrection in strkjv@5:28| as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:22| while here only the resurrection of the righteous is mentioned.
rwp@John: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:21:22 @{If I will} (\ean thel\). Condition of the third class with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive of \thel\. {Till I come} (\hes erchomai\). Literally, "while I am coming" (\hes\ and the present indicative, not \hes elth\ (second aorist active subjunctive). {What is that to thee?} (\ti pros se;\). A sharp rebuke to Peter's keen curiosity. {Follow thou me} (\su moi akolouthei\). "Do thou me keep on following." That lesson Peter needed.
rwp@Luke:2:35 @{A sword} (\rhomphaia\). A large sword, properly a long Thracian javelin. It occurs in the LXX of Goliath's sword (1Samuel:17:51|). How little Mary understood the meaning of Simeon's words that seemed so out of place in the midst of the glorious things already spoken, a sharp thorn in their roses, a veritable bitter-sweet. But one day Mary will stand by the Cross of Christ with this Thracian javelin clean through her soul, \stabat Mater Dolorosa\ (John:19:25|). It is only a parenthesis here, and a passing cloud perhaps passed over Mary's heart already puzzled with rapture and ecstasy. {May be revealed} (\apokaluphthsin\). Unveiled. First aorist passive subjunctive after \hops an\ and expresses God's purpose in the mission of the Messiah. He is to test men's thoughts (\dialogismoi\) and purposes. They will be compelled to take a stand for Christ or against him. That is true today.
rwp@Luke:5:33 @{Often} (\pukna\). Only in Luke. Common word for thick, compact, often. {And make supplications} (\kai deseis poiountai\). Only in Luke. {But thine} (\hoi de soi\). Sharp contrast between the conduct of the disciples of Jesus and those of John and the Pharisees who here appear together as critics of Christ and his disciples (Mark:2:18; strkjv@Matthew:9:14|), though Luke does not bring that out sharply. It is probable that Levi had his reception for Jesus on one of the Jewish fast days and, if so, this would give special edge to their criticism.
rwp@Luke:6:20 @{And he lifted up his eyes} (\kai autos eparas tous opthalmous autou\). First aorist active participle from \epair\. Note also Luke's favourite use of \kai autos\ in beginning a paragraph. Vivid detail alone in Luke. Jesus looked the vast audience full in the face. strkjv@Matthew:5:2| mentions that "he opened his mouth and taught them" (began to teach them, inchoative imperfect, \edidasken\). He spoke out so that the great crowd could hear. Some preachers do not open their mouths and do not look up at the people, but down at the manuscript and drawl along while the people lose interest and even go to sleep or slip out. {Ye poor} (\hoi ptchoi\). {The poor}, but "yours" (\humetera\) justifies the translation "ye." Luke's report is direct address in all the four beatitudes and four woes given by him. It is useless to speculate why Luke gives only four of the eight beatitudes in Matthew or why Matthew does not give the four woes in Luke. One can only say that neither professes to give a complete report of the sermon. There is no evidence to show that either saw the report of the other. They may have used a common source like Q (the Logia of Jesus) or they may have had separate sources. Luke's first beatitude corresponds with Matthew's first, but he does not have "in spirit" after "poor." Does Luke represent Jesus as saying that poverty itself is a blessing? It can be made so. Or does Luke represent Jesus as meaning what is in Matthew, poverty of spirit? {The kingdom of God} (\h basileia tou theou\). strkjv@Matthew:5:3| has "the kingdom of heaven" which occurs alone in Matthew though he also has the one here in Luke with no practical difference. The rabbis usually said "the kingdom of heaven." They used it of the political Messianic kingdom when Judaism of the Pharisaic sort would triumph over the world. The idea of Jesus is in the sharpest contrast to that conception here and always. See on ¯Matthew:3:2| for discussion of the meaning of the word "kingdom." It is the favourite word of Jesus for the rule of God in the heart here and now. It is both present and future and will reach a glorious consummation. Some of the sayings of Christ have apocalyptic and eschatological figures, but the heart of the matter is here in the spiritual reality of the reign of God in the hearts of those who serve him. The kingdom parables expand and enlarge upon various phases of this inward life and growth.
rwp@Luke:6:21 @{Now} (\nun\). Luke adds this adverb here and in the next sentence after "weep." This sharpens the contrast between present sufferings and the future blessings. {Filled} (\chortasthsesthe\). Future passive indicative. The same verb in strkjv@Matthew:5:6|. Originally it was used for giving fodder (\chortos\) to animals, but here it is spiritual fodder or food except in strkjv@Luke:15:16; strkjv@16:21|. Luke here omits "and thirst after righteousness." {Weep} (\klaiontes\). Audible weeping. Where strkjv@Matthew:5:4| has "mourn" (\penthountes\). {Shall laugh} (\gelasete\). Here strkjv@Matthew:5:4| has "shall be comforted." Luke's words are terse.
rwp@Luke:6:24 @{But woe unto you that are rich} (\Pln ouai humin tois plousiois\). Sharp contrast (\pln\). As a matter of fact the rich Pharisees and Sadducees were the chief opposers of Christ as of the early disciples later (James:5:1-6|). {Ye have received} (\apechete\). Receipt in full \apech\ means as the papyri show. {Consolation} (\paraklsin\). From \parakale\, to call to one's side, to encourage, to help, to cheer.
rwp@Luke:6:27 @{But I say unto you that hear} (\Alla humin leg tois akouousin\). There is a contrast in this use of \alla\ like that in strkjv@Matthew:5:44|. This is the only one of the many examples given by strkjv@Matthew:5| of the sharp antithesis between what the rabbis taught and what Jesus said. Perhaps that contrast is referred to by Luke. If necessary, \alla\ could be coordinating or paratactic conjunction as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11| rather than adversative as apparently here. See strkjv@Matthew:5:43f.| Love of enemies is in the O.T., but Jesus ennobles the word, \agapa\, and uses it of love for one's enemies.
rwp@Luke:6:39 @{Also a parable} (\kai paraboln\). Plummer thinks that the second half of the sermon begins here as indicated by Luke's insertion of "And he spake (\eipen de\) at this point. Luke has the word parable some fifteen times both for crisp proverbs and for the longer narrative comparisons. This is the only use of the term parable concerning the metaphors in the Sermon on the Mount. But in both Matthew and Luke's report of the discourse there are some sixteen possible applications of the word. Two come right together: The blind leading the blind, the mote and the beam. Matthew gives the parabolic proverb of the blind leading the blind later (Matthew:15:14|). Jesus repeated these sayings on various occasions as every teacher does his characteristic ideas. Songs:Luke strkjv@6:40; strkjv@Matthew:10:24|, strkjv@Luke:6:45; strkjv@Matthew:12:34f.| {Can} (\Mti dunatai\). The use of \mti\ in the question shows that a negative answer is expected. {Guide} (\hodgein\). Common verb from \hodgos\ (guide) and this from \hodos\ (way) and \hgeomai\, to lead or guide. {Shall they not both fall?} (\ouchi amphoteroi empesountai;\). \Ouchi\, a sharpened negative from \ouk\, in a question expecting the answer Yes. Future middle indicative of the common verb \empipt\. {Into a pit} (\eis bothunon\). Late word for older \bothros\.
rwp@Luke:7:31 @{And to what are they like?} (\kai tini eisin homoioi;\). This second question is not in strkjv@Matthew:11:16|. It sharpens the point. The case of \tini\ is associative instrumental after \homoioi\. See discussion of details in Matthew.
rwp@Luke:9:46 @{A reasoning} (\dialogismos\). A dispute. The word is from \dialogizomai\, the verb used in strkjv@Mark:9:33| about this incident. In Luke this dispute follows immediately after the words of Jesus about his death. They were afraid to ask Jesus about that subject, but strkjv@Matthew:18:1| states that they came to Jesus to settle it. {Which of them should be greatest} (\to tis an ei meizn autn\). Note the article with the indirect question, the clause being in the accusative of general reference. The optative with \an\ is here because it was so in the direct question (potential optative with \an\ retained in the indirect). But Luke makes it plain that it was not an abstract problem about greatness in the kingdom of heaven as they put it to Jesus (Matthew:18:1|), but a personal problem in their own group. Rivalries and jealousies had already come and now sharp words. By and by James and John will be bold enough to ask for the first places for themselves in this political kingdom which they expect (Mark:10:35; strkjv@Matthew:20:20|). It is a sad spectacle.
rwp@Luke:9:60 @{Leave the dead to bury their own dead} (\aphes tous nekrous thapsai tous heautn nekrous\). This paradox occurs so in strkjv@Matthew:8:22|. The explanation is that the spiritually dead can bury the literally dead. For such a quick change in the use of the same words see strkjv@John:5:21-29| (spiritual resurrection from sin in strkjv@John:5:21-27|, bodily resurrection from the grave, strkjv@John:5:28,29|) and strkjv@John:11:25f|. The harshness of this proverb to the scribe probably is due to the fact that he was manifestly using his aged father as an excuse for not giving Christ active service. {But go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God} (\su de apelthn diaggelle tn basileian tou theou\). The scribe's duty is put sharply (\But do thou, su de\). Christ called him to preach, and he was using pious phrases about his father as a pretext. Many a preacher has had to face a similar delicate problem of duty to father, mother, brothers, sisters and the call to preach. This was a clear case. Jesus will help any man called to preach to see his duty. Certainly Jesus does not advocate renunciation of family duties on the part of preachers.
rwp@Luke:11:8 @{Though} (\ei kai\). \Kai ei\ would be "Even if," a different idea. {Because he is his friend} (\dia to einai philon autou\). \Dia\ and the accusative articular infinitive with accusative of general reference, a causal clause="because of the being a friend of his." {Yet because of his importunity} (\dia ge tn anaidian autou\). From \anaids\, shameless, and that from \a\ privative and \aids\, shame, shamelessness, impudence. An old word, but here alone in the N.T. Examples in the papyri. The use of \ge\ here, one of the intensive particles, is to be noted. It sharpens the contrast to "though" by "yet." As examples of importunate prayer Vincent notes Abraham in behalf of Sodom (Genesis:18:23-33|) and the Syro-Phoenician woman in behalf of her daughter (Matthew:15:22-28|).
rwp@Luke:11:38 @{That he had not first washed before dinner} (\hoti ou prton ebaptisth pro tou aristou\). The verb is first aorist passive indicative of \baptiz\, to dip or to immerse. Here it is applied to the hands. It was the Jewish custom to dip the hands in water before eating and often between courses for ceremonial purification. In Galilee the Pharisees and scribes had sharply criticized the disciples for eating with unwashed hands (Mark:7:1-23; strkjv@Matthew:15:1-20|) when Jesus had defended their liberty and had opposed making a necessity of such a custom (tradition) in opposition to the command of God. Apparently Jesus on this occasion had himself reclined at the breakfast (not dinner) without this ceremonial dipping of the hands in water. The Greek has "first before" (\prton pro\), a tautology not preserved in the translation.
rwp@Luke:13:17 @{Were put to shame} (\katischunonto\). Imperfect passive of \kataischun\, old verb, to make ashamed, make one feel ashamed. Passive here, to blush with shame at their predicament. {Rejoiced} (\echairen\). Imperfect active. Sharp contrast in the emotions of the two groups. {Were done} (\ginomenois\). Present middle participle, were continually being done.
rwp@Luke:14:20 @{I cannot come} (\ou dunamai elthein\). Less polite than the others but a more plausible pretence if he wanted to make it so. The law excused a newly married man from war (Deuteronomy:24:5|), "but not from social courtesy" (Ragg). The new wife would probably have been glad to go with him to the feast if asked. But see strkjv@1Corinthians:7:33|. There is here as often a sharp difference between the excuses offered and the reasons behind them.
rwp@Luke:14:26 @{Hateth not} (\ou misei\). An old and very strong verb \mise\, to hate, detest. The orientals use strong language where cooler spirits would speak of preference or indifference. But even so Jesus does not here mean that one must hate his father or mother of necessity or as such, for strkjv@Matthew:15:4| proves the opposite. It is only where the element of choice comes in (cf. strkjv@Matthew:6:24|) as it sometimes does, when father or mother opposes Christ. Then one must not hesitate. The language here is more sharply put than in strkjv@Matthew:10:37|. The \ou\ here coalesces with the verb \misei\ in this conditional clause of the first class determined as fulfilled. It is the language of exaggerated contrast, it is true, but it must not be watered down till the point is gone. In mentioning "and wife" Jesus has really made a comment on the excuse given in verse 20| (I married a wife and so I am not able to come). {And his own life also} (\eti te kai tn psuchn heautou\). Note \te kai\, both--and. "The \te\ (B L) binds all the particulars into one bundle of _renuncianda_" (Bruce). Note this same triple group of conjunctions (\eti te kai\) in strkjv@Acts:21:28|, "And moreover also," "even going as far as his own life." Martyrdom should be an ever-present possibility to the Christian, not to be courted, but not to be shunned. Love for Christ takes precedence "over even the elemental instinct of self-preservation" (Ragg).
rwp@Luke:16:31 @{Neither will they be persuaded} (\oud' peisthsontai\). First future passive of \peith\. Gressmann calls attention to the fact that Jesus is saying this in the conclusion of the parable. It is a sharp discouragement against efforts today to communicate with the dead. "Saul was not led to repentance when he saw Samuel at Endor nor were the Pharisees when they saw Lazarus come forth from the tomb. The Pharisees tried to put Lazarus to death and to explain away the resurrection of Jesus" (Plummer). Alford comments on the curious fact that Lazarus was the name of the one who did rise from the dead but whose return from the dead "was the immediate exciting cause of their (Pharisees) crowning act of unbelief."
rwp@Luke:17:28 @Note the same sharp contrast between the imperfects here ({ate} \sthion\, {drank} \epinon\, {bought} \gorazon\, {sold} \eploun\, {planted} \ephuteuon\, {builded} \ikodomoun\) and the aorists in verse 29| ({went out} \exlthen\, {rained} \ebrexen\, {destroyed} \aplesen\).
rwp@Luke:22:32 @{That thy faith fail not} (\hina m eklipi he pistis mou\). Second aorist active subjunctive of purpose with \hina\ after \edethn\ ({I prayed}) of \ekleip\, old verb. Our word _eclipse_ is this word. Evidently Jesus could not keep Satan from attacking Peter. He had already captured Judas. Did he not repeatedly attack Jesus? But he could and did pray for Peter's faith and his praying won in the end, though Peter stumbled and fell. {And do thou} (\kai su\). The words single out Peter sharply. {Once thou hast turned again} (\pote epistrepsas\). First aorist active participle of \epistreph\, common verb to turn to, to return. But the use of this word implied that Peter would fall though he would come back and "strengthen thy brethren."
rwp@Mark:1:14 @{Jesus came into Galilee} (\lthen ho Isous eis tn Galilaian\). Here Mark begins the narrative of the active ministry of Jesus and he is followed by Matthew and Luke. Mark undoubtedly follows the preaching of Peter. But for the Fourth Gospel we should not know of the year of work in various parts of the land (Perea, Galilee, Judea, Samaria) preceding the Galilean ministry. John supplements the Synoptic Gospels at this point as often. The arrest of John had much to do with the departure of Jesus from Judea to Galilee (John:4:1-4|). {Preaching the gospel of God} (\krussn to euaggelion tou theou\). It is the subjective genitive, the gospel that comes from God. Swete observes that repentance (\metanoia\) is the keynote in the message of the Baptist as gospel (\euaggelion\) is with Jesus. But Jesus took the same line as John and proclaimed both repentance and the arrival of the kingdom of God. Mark adds to Matthew's report the words "the time is fulfilled" (\peplrtai ho kairos\). It is a significant fact that John looks backward to the promise of the coming of the Messiah and signalizes the fulfilment as near at hand (perfect passive indicative). It is like Paul's fulness of time (\plrma tou chronou\) in strkjv@Galatians:4:4| and fulness of the times (\plrma ton kairn\) in strkjv@Ephesians:1:10| when he employs the word \kairos\, opportunity or crisis as here in Mark rather than the more general term \chronos\. Mark adds here also: "and believe in the gospel" (\kai pisteuete en ti euaggelii\). Both repent and believe in the gospel. Usually faith in Jesus (or God) is expected as in John strkjv@14:1|. But this crisis called for faith in the message of Jesus that the Messiah had come. He did not use here the term Messiah, for it had come to have political connotations that made its use at present unwise. But the kingdom of God had arrived with the presence of the King. It does make a difference what one believes. Belief or disbelief in the message of Jesus made a sharp cleavage in those who heard him. "Faith in the message was the first step; a creed of some kind lies at the basis of confidence in the Person of Christ, and the occurrence of the phrase \pistuete en ti euaggelii\ in the oldest record of the teaching of our Lord is a valuable witness to this fact" (Swete).
rwp@Mark:2:14 @{And as he passed by} (\kai paragn\). Present participle active, was passing by. Jesus was constantly on the alert for opportunities to do good. An unlikely specimen was Levi (Matthew), son of Alpheus, sitting at the toll-gate (\telnion\) on the Great West Road from Damascus to the Mediterranean. He was a publican (\telns\) who collected toll for Herod Antipas. The Jews hated or despised these publicans and classed them with sinners (\hamartloi\). The challenge of Jesus was sudden and sharp, but Levi (Matthew) was ready to respond at once. He had heard of Jesus and quickly decided. Great decisions are often made on a moment's notice. Levi is a fine object lesson for business men who put off service to Christ to carry on their business.
rwp@Mark:7:8 @{Ye leave the commandment of God} (\aphentes tn entoln tou theou\). Note the sharp contrast between the command of God and the traditions of men. Jesus here drives a keen wedge into the Pharisaic contention. They had covered up the Word of God with their oral teaching. Jesus here shows that they care more for the oral teaching of the scribes and elders than for the written law of God. The Talmud gives abundant and specific confirmation of the truthfulness of this indictment.
rwp@Mark:8:17 @Mark here (vv. 17-20|) gives six keen questions of Jesus while strkjv@Matthew:16:8-11| gives as four that really include the six of Mark running some together. The questions reveal the disappointment of Jesus at the intellectual dulness of his pupils. The questions concern the intellect (\noeite\, from \nous, suniete\, comprehend), the heart in a {hardened state} (\peprmenn\, perfect passive predicate participle as in strkjv@Mark:6:52|, which see), the eyes, the ears, the memory of both the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand here sharply distinguished even to the two kinds of baskets (\kophinous, sphuridn\). The disciples did recall the number of baskets left over in each instance, twelve and seven. Jesus "administers a sharp rebuke for their preoccupation with mere temporalities, as if there were nothing higher to be thought of _than bread_" (Bruce). "For the time the Twelve are way-side hearers, with hearts like a beaten path, into which the higher truths cannot sink so as to germinate" (Bruce).
rwp@Mark:11:30 @{Answer me} (\apokrithte moi\). This sharp demand for a reply is only in Mark. See also verse 29|. Jesus has a right to take this turn because of John's direct relation to himself. It was not a dodge, but a home thrust that cleared the air and defined their attitude both to John and Jesus. They rejected John as they now reject Jesus.
rwp@Mark:11:31 @{If we say} (\ean eipmen\). Third-class condition with aorist active subjunctive. The alternatives are sharply presented in their secret conclave. They see the two horns of the dilemma clearly and poignantly. They know only too well what Jesus will say in reply. They wish to break Christ's power with the multitude, but a false step now will turn the laugh on them. They see it.
rwp@Mark:12:14 @{Shall we give or shall we not give?} (\dmen m dmen;\). Mark alone repeats the question in this sharp form. The deliberative subjunctive, aorist tense active voice. For the discussion of the palaver and flattery of this group of theological students see on ¯Matthew:22:16-22|.
rwp@Mark:12:43 @{Called unto him} (\proskalesamenos\). Indirect middle voice. The disciples themselves had slipped away from him while the terrific denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees had gone on, puzzled at this turn of affairs. {More than all} (\pleion pantn\). Ablative of comparison (\pantn\). It may mean, more than all the rich put together. {All that she had} (\panta hosa eichen\). Imperfect tense. {Cast in} (\ebalen\). Aorist tense, in sharp contrast. {All her living} (\holon ton bion auts\). Her {livelihood} (\bios\), not her life (\z\). It is a tragedy to see a stingy saint pose as giving the widow's mite when he could give thousands instead of pennies.
rwp@Mark:13:4 @{Tell us, when shall these things be?} (\Eipon hmin pote tauta estai;\). The Revised Version punctuates it as a direct question, but Westcott and Hort as an indirect inquiry. They asked about the {when} (\pote\) and the {what sign} (\ti smeion\). strkjv@Matthew:24:3| includes "the sign of thy coming and the end of the world," showing that these tragic events are brought before Jesus by the disciples. See discussion of the interpretation of this discourse on ¯Matthew:24:3|. This chapter in Mark is often called "The Little Apocalypse" with the notion that a Jewish apocalypse has been here adapted by Mark and attributed to Jesus. Many of the theories attribute grave error to Jesus or to the Gospels on this subject. The view adopted in the discussion in Matthew is the one suggested here, that Jesus blended in one picture his death, the destruction of Jerusalem within that generation, the second coming and end of the world typified by the destruction of the city. The lines between these topics are not sharply drawn in the report and it is not possible for us to separate the topics clearly. This great discourse is the longest preserved in Mark and may be due to Peter. Mark may have given it in order "to forewarn and forearm" (Bruce) the readers against the coming catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem. Both Matthew (Matthew:24|) and Luke (Luke:21:5-36|) follow the general line of Mark 13 though strkjv@Matthew:24:43-25:46| presents new material (parables).
rwp@Mark:14:1 @{After two days} (\meta duo hmeras\). This was Tuesday evening as we count time (beginning of the Jewish Wednesday). In strkjv@Matthew:26:2| Jesus is reported as naming this same date which would put it our Thursday evening, beginning of the Jewish Friday. The Gospel of John mentions five items that superficially considered seem to contradict this definite date in Mark and Matthew, but which are really in harmony with them. See discussion on strkjv@Matthew:26:17| and my {Harmony of the Gospels}, pp. 279 to 284. Mark calls it here the feast of "the passover and the unleavened bread," both names covering the eight days. Sometimes "passover" is applied to only the first day, sometimes to the whole period. No sharp distinction in usage was observed. {Sought} (\eztoun\). Imperfect tense. They were still at it, though prevented so far.
rwp@Mark:15:9 @{The King of the Jews} (\ton basilea tn Ioudain\). That phrase from this charge sharpened the contrast between Jesus and Barabbas which is bluntly put in strkjv@Matthew:27:17| "Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ." See discussion there.
rwp@Matthew:1:2 @{Begat} (\egennsen\). This word comes, like some of the early chapters of Genesis, with regularity through verse 16, until the birth of Jesus is reached when there is a sudden change. The word itself does not always mean immediate parentage, but merely direct descent. In verse 16| we have "Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ" (\ton Isph ton andra Marias ex hs egennth Isous ho legomenos Christos\). The article occurs here each time with the object of "begat," but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (1:6|) and Joseph the husband of Mary (1:16|) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (1:2|) and of both Phares and Zara (1:3|) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give verse 16| as above save the Ferrar Group of minuscules which are supported by the Sinaitic Syriac Version. Because of this fact Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates, deliberately prints his text "_Jacob begat Jesus_" (\Isph de egennsen Isoun\). But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:1:18-25|. Hence it is clear that "begat" here in strkjv@1:16| must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in strkjv@1:18-25|. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of _Studies in the Text of the New Testament_. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in strkjv@1:16|. The spelling of these Hebrew names in English is usually according to the Hebrew form, not the Greek. In the Greek itself the Hebrew spelling is often observed in violation of the Greek rules for the ending of words with no consonants save _n,r,s_. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails.
rwp@Matthew:6:16 @{Of a sad countenance} (\skuthrpoi\). Only here and strkjv@Luke:24:17| in the N.T. It is a compound of \skuthros\ (sullen) and \ops\ (countenance). These actors or hypocrites "put on a gloomy look" (Goodspeed) and, if necessary, even "disfigure their faces" (\aphanizousin ta prospa autn\), that they may look like they are fasting. It is this pretence of piety that Jesus so sharply ridicules. There is a play on the Greek words \aphanizousi\ (disfigure) and \phansin\ (figure). They conceal their real looks that they may seem to be fasting, conscious and pretentious hypocrisy.
rwp@Matthew:7:1 @{Judge not} (\m krinete\). The habit of censoriousness, sharp, unjust criticism. Our word critic is from this very word. It means to separate, distinguish, discriminate. That is necessary, but pre-judice (prejudgment) is unfair, captious criticism.
rwp@Matthew:7:21 @{Not--but} (\ou--all'\). Sharp contrast between the mere talker and the doer of God's will.
rwp@Matthew:9:10 @{Publicans and sinners} (\telnai kai hamartloi\). Often coupled together in common scorn and in contrast with the righteous (\dikaioi\ in strkjv@9:13|). It was a strange medley at Levi's feast (Jesus and the four fisher disciples, Nathanael and Philip; Matthew Levi and his former companions, publicans and sinners; Pharisees with their scribes or students as on-lookers; disciples of John the Baptist who were fasting at the very time that Jesus was feasting and with such a group). The Pharisees criticize sharply "your teacher" for such a social breach of "reclining" together with publicans at Levi's feast.
rwp@Matthew:10:39 @{Shall lose it} (\apolesei autn\). This paradox appears in four forms according to Allen (I) strkjv@Matthew:10:39| (2) strkjv@Mark:8:35; strkjv@Matthew:16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24| (3) strkjv@Luke:17:33| (4) strkjv@John:12:25|. _The Wisdom of Sirach_ (Hebrew text) in strkjv@51:26 has: "He that giveth his life findeth her (wisdom)." It is one of the profound sayings of Christ that he repeated many times. Plato (_Gorgias_ 512) has language somewhat similar though not so sharply put. The article and aorist participles here (\ho heurn, ho apolesas\) are timeless in themselves just like \ho dechomenos\ in verses 40| and 41|.
rwp@Matthew:13:44 @{And hid} (\kai ekrupsen\). Not necessarily bad morality. "He may have hid it to prevent it being stolen, or to prevent himself from being anticipated in buying a field" (Plummer). But if it was a piece of sharp practice, that is not the point of the parable. That is, the enormous wealth of the Kingdom for which any sacrifice, all that one has, is not too great a price to pay.
rwp@Matthew:15:5 @{But ye say} (\hmeis de legete\). In sharp contrast to the command of God. Jesus had quoted the fifth commandment (Exodus:20:12,16|) with the penalty "die the death" (\thanati teleutat\), "go on to his end by death," in imitation of the Hebrew idiom. They dodged this command of God about the penalty for dishonouring one's father or mother by the use "Corban" (\korban\) as Mark calls it (Mark:7:11|). All one had to do to evade one's duty to father or mother was to say "Corban" or "Gift" (\Dron\) with the idea of using the money for God. By an angry oath of refusal to help one's parents, the oath or vow was binding. By this magic word one set himself free (\ou m timsei\, he shall not honour) from obedience to the fifth commandment. Sometimes unfilial sons paid graft to the rabbinical legalists for such dodges. Were some of these very faultfinders guilty?
rwp@Matthew:17:5 @{Overshadowed} (\epeskiasen\). They were up in cloud-land that swept round and over them. See this verb used of Mary (Luke:1:35|) and of Peter's shadow (Acts:5:15|). {This is} (\houtos estin\). At the baptism (Matthew:3:17|) these words were addressed to Jesus. Here the voice out of the bright cloud speaks to them about Jesus. {Hear ye him} (\akouete autou\). Even when he speaks about his death. A sharp rebuke to Peter for his consolation to Jesus about his death.
rwp@Matthew:21:29 @{I will not} (\ou thel\). Songs:many old manuscripts, though the Vatican manuscript (B) has the order of the two sons reversed. Logically the "I, sir" (\eg, kurie\) suits better for the second son (verse 30|) with a reference to the blunt refusal of the first. Songs:also the manuscripts differ in verse 31| between the first (\ho prtos\) and the last (\ho husteros\ or \eschatos\). But the one who actually did the will of the father is the one who {repented and went} (\metameltheis aplthen\). This word really means "repent," to be sorry afterwards, and must be sharply distinguished from the word \metanoe\ used 34 times in the N.T. as in strkjv@Matthew:3:2| and \metanoia\ used 24 times as in strkjv@Matthew:3:8|. The verb \metamelomai\ occurs in the N.T. only five times (Matthew:21:29,32; strkjv@27:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:8; strkjv@Hebrews:7:21| from strkjv@Psalms:109:4|). Paul distinguishes sharply between mere sorrow and the act "repentance" which he calls \metanoian\ (2Corinthians:7:9|). In the case of Judas (Matthew:27:3|) it was mere remorse. Here the boy got sorry for his stubborn refusal to obey his father and went and obeyed. Godly sorrow leads to repentance (\metanoian\), but mere sorrow is not repentance.
rwp@Matthew:27:3 @{Repented himself} (\metameltheis\). Probably Judas saw Jesus led away to Pilate and thus knew that the condemnation had taken place. This verb (first aorist passive participle of \metamelomai\) really means to be sorry afterwards like the English word _repent_ from the Latin _repoenitet_, to have pain again or afterwards. See the same verb \metameltheis\ in strkjv@Matthew:21:30| of the boy who became sorry and changed to obedience. The word does not have an evil sense in itself. Paul uses it of his sorrow for his sharp letter to the Corinthians, a sorrow that ceased when good came of the letter (2Corinthians:7:8|). But mere sorrow avails nothing unless it leads to change of mind and life (\metanoia\), the sorrow according to God (2Corinthians:7:9|). This sorrow Peter had when he wept bitterly. It led Peter back to Christ. But Judas had only remorse that led to suicide.
rwp@Matthew:27:17 @{Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ?} (\Barabbn Isoun ton legomenon Christon;\). Pilate was catching at straws or seeking any loophole to escape condemning a harmless lunatic or exponent of a superstitious cult such as he deemed Jesus to be, certainly in no political sense a rival of Caesar. The Jews interpreted "Christ" for Pilate to be a claim to be King of the Jews in opposition to Caesar, "a most unprincipled proceeding" (Bruce). Songs:he bethought him of the time-honoured custom at the passover of releasing to the people "a prisoner whom they wished" (\desmion hon thelon\). No parallel case has been found, but Josephus mentions the custom (_Ant_. xx. 9,3). Barabbas was for some reason a popular hero, a notable (\epismon\), if not notorious, prisoner, leader of an insurrection or revolution (Mark:15:7|) probably against Rome, and so guilty of the very crime that they tried to fasten on Jesus who only claimed to be king in the spiritual sense of the spiritual kingdom. Songs:Pilate unwittingly pitted against each other two prisoners who represented the antagonistic forces of all time. It is an elliptical structure in the question, "whom do you wish that I release?" (\tina thelete apolus;\), either two questions in one (asyndeton) or the ellipse of \hina\ before \apolus\. See the same idiom in verse 21|. But Pilate's question tested the Jews as well as himself. It tests all men today. Some manuscripts add the name Jesus to Barabbas and that makes it all the sharper. Jesus Barabbas or Jesus Christ?
rwp@Matthew:27:29 @{A crown of thorns} (\stephanon ex akanthn\). They wove a crown out of thorns which would grow even in the palace grounds. It is immaterial whether they were young and tender thorn bushes, as probable in the spring, or hard bushes with sharp prongs. The soldiers would not care, for they were after ridicule and mockery even if it caused pain. It was more like a victor's garland (\stephanon\) than a royal diadem (\diadma\), but it served the purpose. Songs:with the reed (\kalamon\), a stalk of common cane grass which served as sceptre. The soldiers were familiar with the _Ave Caesar_ and copy it in their mockery of Jesus: {Hail, King of the Jews} (\chaire, Basileu tn Ioudain\). The soldiers added the insults used by the Sanhedrin (Matthew:26:67|), spitting on him and smiting him with the reed. Probably Jesus had been unbound already. At any rate the garments of mockery were removed before the _via dolorosa_ to the cross (verse 31|).
rwp@Philippians:1:18 @{What then?} (\ti gar?\). Sharp problem put up to Paul by the conduct of the Judaizers. {Only that} (\pln hoti\). Same idiom in strkjv@Acts:20:23|. \Pln\ is adverb \pleon\ (more besides). As a preposition \pln\ means "except." This essential thing Paul sees in spite of all their envy and selfishness that Christ is preached. {Whether in pretence} (\eite prophasei\). Either from \prophain\, to shew forth, or \prophmi\, to speak forth, the ostensible presentation often untrue. See strkjv@Acts:27:30|. Paul sees clearly through the pious pretence of these Judaizers and rejoices that people get some knowledge of Christ. Some Christ is better than no Christ. {Yea, and will rejoice} (\alla kai charsomai\). Note affirmative, not adversative, use of \alla\. Volitive use of the future (second future passive) indicative (\charsomai\) of \chair\. Paul is determined to rejoice in spite of the efforts of the Judaizers to prod him to anger.
rwp@Philippians:2:25 @{I counted it} (\hgsamn\). Epistolary aorist from the point of view of the readers. {Epaphroditus} (\Epaphroditon\). Common name, though only in Philippians in N.T., contracted into Epaphras, though not the same man as Epaphras in strkjv@Colossians:1:7|. Note one article \ton\ (the) with the three epithets given in an ascending scale (Lightfoot), brother (\adelphon\, common sympathy), fellow-worker (\sunergon\, common work), fellow-soldier (\sunstratitn\, common danger as in strkjv@Philemon:1:2|). \Mou\ (my) and \humn\ (your) come together in sharp contrast. {Messenger} (\apostolon\). See strkjv@2Corinthians:8:23| for this use of \apostolos\ as messenger (missionary). {Minister} (\leitourgon\). See on ¯Romans:13:6; strkjv@15:16| for this ritualistic term.
rwp@Revelation:1:16 @{And he had} (\kai echn\). "And having," present active participle of \ech\, loose use of the participle (almost like \eiche\, imperfect) and not in agreement with \autou\, genitive case. This is a common idiom in the book; a Hebraism, Charles calls it. {In his right hand} (\en ti dexii cheiri\). For safe keeping as in strkjv@John:10:28|. {Seven stars} (\asteras hepta\). Symbols of the seven churches (verse 20|), seven planets rather than Pleiades or any other constellation like the bear. {Proceeded} (\ekporeuomen\). Present middle participle of \ekporeuomai\, old compound (Matthew:3:5|) used loosely again like \echn\. {A sharp two-edged sword} (\romphaia distomos oxeia\). "A sword two-mouthed sharp." \Romphaia\ (as distinct from \machaira\) is a long sword, properly a Thracian javelin, in N.T. only strkjv@Luke:2:35; strkjv@Revelation:1:16; strkjv@2:12; strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. See \stoma\ used with \machairs\ in strkjv@Luke:21:24| (by the mouth of the sword). {Countenance} (\opsis\). Old word (from \opt\), in N.T. only here, strkjv@John:7:24; strkjv@11:44|. {As the sun shineth} (\hs ho hlios phainei\). Brachylogy, "as the sun when it shines." For \phainei\ see strkjv@John:1:5|.
rwp@Revelation:2:2 @{I know} (\oida\). Rather than \ginsk\ and so "emphasizes better the absolute clearness of mental vision which photographs all the facts of life as they pass" (Swete). Songs:also in strkjv@2:9,13,19; strkjv@3:1,8,15|. For the distinction see strkjv@John:21:17|, "where the universal knowledge passes into the field of special observation." {Works} (\erga\). The whole life and conduct as in strkjv@John:6:29|. {And thy toil and patience} (\kai ton kopon kai tn hupomonn sou\). "Both thy toil and patience," in explanation of \erga\, and see strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3|, where all three words (\ergon, kopos, hupomon\) occur together as here. See strkjv@14:13| for sharp distinction between \erga\ (activities) and \kopoi\ (toils, with weariness). Endurance (\hupomon\) in hard toil (\kopos\). {And that} (\kai hoti\). Further explanation of \kopos\ (hard toil). {Not able} (\ou duni\). This _Koin_ form for the Attic \dunasai\ (second person singular indicative middle) occurs also in strkjv@Mark:9:22; strkjv@Luke:16:2|. {Bear} (\bastasai\). First aorist active infinitive of \bastaz\, for which verb see strkjv@John:10:31; strkjv@12:6; strkjv@Galatians:6:2|. These evil men were indeed a heavy burden. {And didst try} (\kai epeirasas\). First aorist active indicative of \peiraz\, to test, a reference to a recent crisis when these Nicolaitans (verse 6|) were condemned. The present tenses (\duni, echeis\) indicate the continuance of this attitude. Cf. strkjv@1John:4:1|. {Which call themselves apostles} (\tous legontas heautous apostolous\). Perhaps itinerant missionaries of these Nicolaitans who posed as equal to or even superior to the original apostles, like the Judaizers so described by Paul (2Corinthians:11:5,13; strkjv@12:11|). Paul had foretold such false teachers (Gnostics), grievous wolves, in strkjv@Acts:20:29|; in sheep's clothing, Jesus had said (Matthew:7:15|). {And they are not} (\kai ouk eisin\). A parenthesis in Johannine style (John:2:9; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@1John:3:1|) for \kai ouk ontas\ to correspond to \legontas\. {And didst find} (\kai heures\). Second aorist active indicative of \heurisk\. Dropping back to the regular structure parallel with \epeirasas\. {False} (\pseudeis\). Predicate accusative plural of \pseuds\, self-deceived deceivers as in strkjv@21:8|.
rwp@Revelation:2:12 @{In Pergamum} (\en Pergami\). In a north-easterly direction from Smyrna in the Caicus Valley, some fifty-five miles away, in Mysia, on a lofty hill, a great political and religious centre. Ramsay (_Op. cit._, p. 281) calls it "the royal city, the city of authority." Eumenes II (B.C. 197-159) extended it and embellished it with many great buildings, including a library with 200,000 volumes, second only to Alexandria. The Kingdom of Pergamum became a Roman province B.C. 130. Pliny termed it the most illustrious city of Asia. Parchment (\charta Pergamena\) derived its name from Pergamum. It was a rival of Ephesus in the temples to Zeus, Athena, Dionysos, in the great grove Nicephorium (the glory of the city). Next to this was the grove and temple of Asklepios, the god of healing, called the god of Pergamum, with a university for medical study. Pergamum was the first city in Asia (A.D. 29) with a temple for the worship of Augustus (Octavius Caesar). Hence in the Apocalypse Pergamum is a very centre of emperor-worship "where Satan dwells" (2:13|). Here also the Nicolaitans flourished (2:15|) as in Ephesus (2:6|) and in Thyatira (2:20f.|). Like Ephesus this city is called temple-sweeper (\nekoros\) for the gods. {The sharp two-edged sword} (\tn romphaian tn distomon tn oxeian\). This item repeated from strkjv@1:16| in the same order of words with the article three times (the sword the two-mouthed the sharp) singling out each point.
rwp@Revelation:2:16 @{Repent therefore} (\metanoson oun\). First aorist (tense of urgency) active imperative of \metanoe\ with the inferential particle \oun\ (as a result of their sin). {I come} (\erchomai\). Futuristic present middle indicative, "I am coming" (imminent), as in strkjv@2:5| with \tachu\ as in strkjv@3:11; strkjv@11:14; strkjv@22:7,12,20|. As with \en tachei\ (1:1|), we do not know how soon "quickly" is meant to be understood. But it is a real threat. {Against them} (\met' autn\). This proposition with \poleme\ rather than \kata\ (against) is common in the LXX, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:2:16; strkjv@12:7; strkjv@13:4; strkjv@17:14| and the verb itself nowhere else in N.T. except strkjv@James:4:2|. "An eternal roll of thunder from the throne" (Renan). "The glorified Christ is in this book a Warrior, who fights with the sharp sword of the word" (Swete). {With} (\en\). Instrumental use of \en\. For the language see strkjv@1:16; strkjv@2:12; strkjv@19:15|.
rwp@Revelation:3:17 @{I am rich} (\hoti plousios eimi\). Recitative \hoti\ like quotation marks before direct quotation. Old adjective from \ploutos\, riches, wealth. Laodicea was a wealthy city and the church "carried the pride of wealth into its spiritual life" (Swete). {Have gotten riches} (\peploutka\). Perfect active indicative of \ploute\, old verb from \ploutos\, used here of imagined spiritual riches which the church did not possess, just the opposite of church in Smyrna (poor in wealth, rich in grace). This church was in a rich city and was rich in pride and conceit, but poor in grace and ignorant of its spiritual poverty (\ouk oidas\, knowest not). {The wretched one} (\ho talaipros\). Old adjective from \tla\, to endure, and \pros\, a callus, afflicted, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:7:24|. Note the one article in the predicate with all these five adjectives unifying the picture of sharp emphasis on "thou" (\su\), "thou that boastest." {Miserable} (\eleeinos\). Pitiable as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:19|. {Poor} (\ptchos\). See strkjv@2:9| for spiritual poverty. Perhaps some local example of self-complacency is in mind. {Blind} (\tuphlos\). Spiritual blindness as often (Matthew:23:17|), and note "eye-salve" in verse 18|. {Naked} (\gumnos\). "The figure completes the picture of actual poverty" (Beckwith). See 15,16|.
rwp@Revelation:12:1 @{A great sign} (\smeion mega\). The first of the visions to be so described (13:3; strkjv@15:1|), and it is introduced by \phth\ as in strkjv@11:19; strkjv@12:3|, not by \meta tauto\ or by \eidon\ or by \eidon kai idou\ as heretofore. This "sign" is really a \teras\ (wonder), as it is so by association in strkjv@Matthew:24:24; strkjv@John:4:48; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@5:12|. The element of wonder is not in the word \smeion\ as in \teras\, but often in the thing itself as in strkjv@Luke:21:11; strkjv@John:9:16; strkjv@Revelation:13:13ff.; strkjv@15:1; strkjv@16:14; strkjv@19:20|. {A woman} (\gun\). Nominative case in apposition with \smeion\. "The first 'sign in heaven' is a Woman--the earliest appearance of a female figure in the Apocalyptic vision" (Swete). {Arrayed with the sun} (\peribeblmen ton hlion\). Perfect passive participle of \periball\, with the accusative retained as so often (9 times) in the Apocalypse. Both Charles and Moffatt see mythological ideas and sources behind the bold imagery here that leave us all at sea. Swete understands the Woman to be "the church of the Old Testament" as "the Mother of whom Christ came after the flesh. But here, as everywhere in the Book, no sharp dividing line is drawn between the Church of the Old Testament and the Christian Society." Certainly she is not the Virgin Mary, as verse 17| makes clear. Beckwith takes her to be "the heavenly representative of the people of God, the _ideal_ Zion, which, so far as it is embodied in concrete realities, is represented alike by the people of the Old and the New Covenants." John may have in mind strkjv@Isaiah:7:14| (Matthew:1:23; strkjv@Luke:1:31|) as well as strkjv@Micah:4:10; strkjv@Isaiah:26:17f.; strkjv@66:7| without a definite picture of Mary. The metaphor of childbirth is common enough (John:16:21; strkjv@Galatians:4:19|). The figure is a bold one with the moon "under her feet" (\hupokat tn podn auts\) and "a crown of twelve stars" (\stephanos astern ddeka\), a possible allusion to the twelve tribes (James:1:1; strkjv@Revelation:21:12|) or to the twelve apostles (Revelation:21:14|).
rwp@Revelation:14:14 @{A white cloud} (\nephel leuk\). Like the "bright cloud" of strkjv@Matthew:17:5| (Transfiguration), a familiar object in the Mediterranean lands. See strkjv@Daniel:7:13; strkjv@Matthew:24:30; strkjv@26:64; strkjv@Acts:1:9,11| for the picture of Christ's return. {I saw one sitting} (\kathmenon\). No \eidon\ here, but the accusative follows the \eidon\ at the beginning, as \nephel\ is nominative after \idou\, as in strkjv@4:1,4|. {Like unto a son of man} (\homoion huion anthrpou\). Accusative here after \homoion\ as in strkjv@1:13|, instead of the usual associative instrumental (13:4|). {Having} (\echn\). Nominative again after the \idou\ construction, just before, not after, \eidon\. {A golden crown} (\stephanon chrusoun\). Here a golden wreath, not the diadems of strkjv@19:12|. {A sharp sickle} (\drepanon oxu\). Old form \drepan\ (from \drep\, to pluck), pruning-hook, in N.T. only in this chapter and strkjv@Mark:4:29|. Christ is come for reaping this time (Hebrews:9:28|) for the harvesting of earth (verses 15-17|). The priesthood of Christ is the chief idea in strkjv@1:12-20| and "as the true _Imperator_" (Swete) in chapter strkjv@Revelation:19|.
rwp@Revelation:14:17 @{He also} (\kai autos\). As well as the Reaper on the cloud. This is the fifth angel who is God's messenger from heaven (temple where God dwells). This fifth angel with his sharp sickle is to gather the vintage (18-20|) as Christ did the wheat.
rwp@Revelation:14:18 @{Another angel} (\allos aggelos\). The fifth angel above Swete terms "the Angel of vengeance." He responds to the call of the sixth angel here as Christ does to the call of the fourth angel in verse 15|. {Out from the altar} (\ek tou thusiastriou\). From the altar of incense where he is in charge of the fire (\exousian epi tou puros\). If it is the altar of burnt offering (6:9; strkjv@11:1|), we are reminded of the blood of the martyrs (Swete), but if the altar of incense (8:3,5; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@16:7|), then of the prayers of the saints. {The sharp sickle} (\to drepanon to oxu\). Useful for vintage as for harvesting. Songs:"send forth" (\pempson\) as in verse 15|. {Gather} (\trugson\). First aorist active imperative of \truga\, old verb (from \trug\ dryness, ripeness), in N.T. only strkjv@Revelation:15:18f.| and strkjv@Luke:6:44|. {The clusters} (\tous botruas\). Old word \botrus\, here only in N.T. (Genesis:40:10|). {Her grapes} (\hai staphulai auts\). Old word again for grapes, bunch of grapes, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Matthew:7:16; strkjv@Luke:6:44|. {Are fully ripe} (\kmasan\). Old and common verb (from \akm\, strkjv@Matthew:15:16|), to come to maturity, to reach its acme, here only in N.T.
rwp@Revelation:19:15 @{A sharp sword} (\romphaia oxeia\). As in strkjv@1:16; strkjv@2:12,15|. {That he should smite} (\hina pataxi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \patass\, old verb already in strkjv@11:6| and like strkjv@Isaiah:11:4|, a figure here for forensic and judicial condemnation. {And he shall rule them} (\kai autos poimanei\). Emphatic use of \autos\ twice (he himself). Future active of \poimain\, to shepherd as in strkjv@2:27; strkjv@12:5| "with a rod of iron" (\en rabdi sidri\) as there. See strkjv@1Peter:2:25; strkjv@Hebrews:13:20| for Christ as Shepherd. {And he treadeth} (\kai autos patei\). Change to present tense of \pate\, to tread (here transitive), with solemn repetition of \kai autos\. {The winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God} (\tn lnon tou oinou tou thumou ts orgs tou theou tou pantokratoros\). Literally, "the winepress of the wine of the wrath of the anger of God the Almighty" (four genitives dependent on one another and on \lnon\). These images are here combined from strkjv@14:8,10,19f.; strkjv@16:19|. The fact is already in strkjv@19:13| after strkjv@Isaiah:63:1ff|.
rwp@Revelation:21:1 @{A new heaven and a new earth} (\ouranon kainon kai gn kainn\). This new vision (\eidon\) is the picture of the bliss of the saints. {The first heaven and the first earth} (\ho prtos ouranos kai h prt g\) {are passed away} (\aplthan\, went away, second aorist active indicative of \aperchomai\). "Fled away" (\ephugen\) in strkjv@20:11|. {And the sea is no more} (\kai h thalassa ouk estin eti\). The sea had given up its dead (20:13|). There were great risks on the sea (18:17ff.|). The old physical world is gone in this vision. It is not a picture of renovation of this earth, but of the disappearance of this earth and sky (not heaven where God dwells). It is a glorious picture here in strkjv@21:1-8| in sharp contrast to the lake of fire in strkjv@20:11-15|. The symbolism in neither case is to be pressed too literally, but a stern and a glorious reality exists behind it all.
rwp@Revelation:21:9 @{One of the seven angels} (\heis ek tn hepta aggeln\). As in strkjv@17:1| with the same introduction when the angel made the announcement about the harlot city (Babylon), so here the description of the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, is given by one of the same group of angels who had the seven bowls. Thus the \numph\ (Bride) is placed in sharp contrast with the \porn\ (Harlot). The New Jerusalem was briefly presented in verse 2|, but now is pictured at length (21:9-22:5|) in a nearer and clearer vision. {The bride the wife of the Lamb} (\tn numphn tn gunaika tou arniou\). Twice already the metaphor of the Bride has been used (19:7; strkjv@21:2|), here termed "wife" (\gunaika\), mentioned proleptically as in strkjv@19:7| if the marriage is not yet a reality. For the use of the same metaphor elsewhere in the N.T. see on ¯19:7|.
rwp@Revelation:22:2 @{In the midst of the street thereof} (\en mesi ts plateias auts\). Connected probably with the river in verse 1|, though many connect it with verse 2|. Only one street mentioned here as in strkjv@21:21|. {On this side of the river and on that} (\tou potamou enteuthen kai ekeithen\). \Enteuthen\ occurs as a preposition in strkjv@Daniel:12:5| (Theodoret) and may be so here (post-positive), purely adverbial in strkjv@John:19:18|. {The tree of life} (\xulon zs\). For the metaphor see strkjv@Genesis:1:11f.| and strkjv@Revelation:2:7; strkjv@22:14|. \Xulon\ is used for a green tree in strkjv@Luke:23:31; strkjv@Ezekiel:47:12|. {Bearing} (\poioun\). Neuter active participle of \poie\ (making, producing, as in strkjv@Matthew:7:17|). Some MSS. have \poin\ (masculine), though \xulon\ is neuter. {Twelve manner of fruits} (\karpous ddeka\). "Twelve fruits." {Yielding} (\apodidoun\). Neuter active participle of \apodidmi\, to give back, but some MSS. have \apodidous\ (masculine) like \poin\. {For the healing of the nations} (\eis therapeian tn ethnn\). Spiritual healing, of course, as leaves (\phulla\) are often used for obtaining medicines. Here again the problem occurs whether this picture is heaven before the judgment or afterwards. Charles distinguishes sharply between the Heavenly City for the millennial reign and the New Jerusalem that descends from heaven after the judgment. Charles rearranges these chapters to suit his theory. But chronology is precarious here.
rwp@Romans:1:22 @{Professing themselves to be wise} (\phaskontes einai sophoi\). \Sophoi\ is predicate nominative with \einai\ in indirect discourse agreeing with \phaskontes\ (old verb, from \phmi\, to say, rare in N.T.) in case and number according to regular Greek idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1038). {Became vain} (\emataithsan\). Ingressive first aorist passive indicative of \mataio\ from \mataios\ (empty). Empty reasonings as often today. {Became fools} (\emranthsan\). Ingressive first aorist passive of \mrain\, to be a fool, old word from \mros\, a fool. An oxymoron or sharp saying, true and one that cuts to the bone. {For the likeness of an image} (\en homoimati eikonos\). Both words, "a likeness which consists in an image or copy" (Lightfoot). See strkjv@Phillipians:2:7| for "likeness of men" and strkjv@Colossians:1:15| for "image of God." Paul shows indignant contempt for these grotesque efforts to present pictures of a deity that had been lost (Denney). Why is it that heathen images of gods in the form of men and beasts are so horrible to look upon?
rwp@Romans:3:7 @{Through my lie} (\en ti emi pseusmati\). ] Old word from \pseudomai\, to lie, only here in N.T. Paul returns to the imaginary objection in verse 5|. The MSS. differ sharply here between \ei de\ (but if) and \ei gar\ (for if). Paul "uses the first person from motives of delicacy" (Sanday and Headlam) in this supposable case for argument's sake as in strkjv@1Corinthians:4:6|. Songs:here he "transfers by a fiction" (Field) to himself the objection.
rwp@Romans:11:11 @{Did they stumble that they might fall?} (\m eptaisan hina pessin?\). Negative answer expected by \m\ as in verse 1|. First aorist active indicative of \ptai\, old verb, to stumble, only here in Paul (see strkjv@James:3:2|), suggested perhaps by \skandalon\ in verse 9|. If \hina\ is final, then we must add "merely" to the idea, "merely that they might fall" or make a sharp distinction between \ptai\, to stumble, and \pipt\, to fall, and take \pessin\ as effective aorist active subjunctive to fall completely and for good. \Hina\, as we know, can be either final, sub-final, or even result. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:29; strkjv@Galatians:5:17|. Paul rejects this query in verse 11| as vehemently as he did that in verse 1|. {By their fall} (\ti autn paraptmati\). Instrumental case. For the word, a falling aside or a false step from \parapipt\, see strkjv@5:15-20|. {Is come}. No verb in the Greek, but \ginetai\ or \gegonen\ is understood. {For to provoke them to jealousy} (\eis to parazlsai\). Purpose expressed by \eis\ and the articular infinitive, first aorist active, of \parazlo\, for which verb see strkjv@1Corinthians:10:22|. As an historical fact Paul turned to the Gentiles when the Jews rejected his message (Acts:13:45ff.; strkjv@28:28|, etc.). {The riches of the world} (\ploutos kosmou\). See strkjv@10:12|. {Their loss} (\to httma autn\). Songs:perhaps in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:7|, but in strkjv@Isaiah:31:8| defeat is the idea. Perhaps so here. {Fulness} (\plrma\). Perhaps "completion," though the word from \plro\, to fill, has a variety of senses, that with which anything is filled (1Corinthians:10:26,28|), that which is filled (Ephesians:1:23|). {How much more?} (\posi mallon\). Argument _a fortiori_ as in verse 24|. Verse 25| illustrates the point.
rwp@Romans:14:4 @{Who art thou?} (\su tis ei?\). Proleptic position of \su\, "thou who art thou?" {The servant of another} (\allotrion oiketn\). Not another (\allon\) servant (household servant, \oiketn\), but "another's servant." For the adjective \allotrios\, see strkjv@Luke:16:12; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:15f|. {Shall be made to stand} (\stathsetai\). Future passive of \histmi\. In spite of your sharp criticisms of one another. {Hath power} (\dunatei\). Verb found only in Paul (2Corinthians:9:8; strkjv@13:3; strkjv@Romans:14:4|), from verbal adjective \dunatos\.
rwp@Titus:1:13 @{Testimony} (\marturia\). Of the poet Epimenides. Paul endorses it from his recent knowledge. {Sharply} (\apotoms\). Old adverb from \apotomos\ (from \apotemn\, to cut off), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:13:10|, "curtly," "abruptly." It is necessary to appear rude sometimes for safety, if the house is on fire and life is in danger. {That they may be sound} (\hina hugiainsin\). Final clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \hugiain\, for which verb see on ¯1Timothy:1:10|.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}