Luke 9:39
<2400> [lo.]
Luke 9:42
demon <1140> [the devil.]
and ...... But .......... and gave ... back <1161 2532 591> [and delivered.]
Mark 5:3-5
to subdue <1150> [tame.]
cry out <2896> [crying.]
Mark 9:20-26
spirit <4151> [the spirit.]
How <4214> [How.]
<1536> [if.]
have compassion <4697> [have.]
If <1487> [If.]
<3326> [with.]
help <997> [help.]
he rebuked <2008> [he rebuked.]
Mute <216> [thou.]
If this had been only a natural disease, as some have contended, could our Lord with any propriety have thus addressed it? If the demoniacal possession had been false, or merely a vulgar error, would our Lord, the Revealer of truth, have thus established falsehood, sanctioned error, or encouraged deception, by teaching men to ascribe effects to the malice and power of evil spirits, which they had no agency in producing? Impossible! Such conduct is utterly unworthy the sacred character of the Redeemer.
I command <1473 2004> [I charge.]
shrieked <2896> [cried.]
Mark 9:2
later <3326> [after.]
Peter <4074> [Peter.]
high <5308> [an high.]
he was transfigured <3339> [transfigured.]
Mark 2:25-26
never <3763> [Have.]
what <5101> [what.]
Abiathar <8> [Abiathar.]
It appears from the passage referred to here, that Ahimelech was then high priest at Nob; and from other passages, that Abiathar was his son. Various conjectures have been formed in order to solve this difficulty; and some, instead of untying, have cut the knot, by pronouncing it an interpolation. The most probable opinion seems to be, that both father and son had two names, the father being also called Abiathar; and this appears almost certain from 2 Sa 8:17; 1 Ch 18:16, where Ahimelech seems evidently termed Abiathar, while Abiathar is called Ahimelech or Abimelech. (Compare 1 Ki 2:26, 27.)
which is against the law <3739 1832 3756> [which is not lawful.]
