NONE.filter - rwp acquiescence:

rwp@1Corinthians:7:16 @{For how knowest thou?} (\ti gar oidas;\). But what does Paul mean? Is he giving an argument _against_ the believer accepting divorce or _in favour_ of doing so? The syntax allows either interpretation with \ei\ (if) after \oidas\. Is the idea in \ei\ (if) _hope_ of saving the other or _fear_ of not saving and hence peril in continuing the slavery of such a bondage? The latter idea probably suits the context best and is adopted by most commentators. And yet one hesitates to interpret Paul as _advocating_ divorce unless strongly insisted on by the unbeliever. There is no problem at all unless the unbeliever makes it. If it is a hopeless case, acquiescence is the only wise solution. But surely the believer ought to be sure that there is no hope before he agrees to break the bond. Paul raises the problem of the wife first as in verse 10|.

rwp@Acts:11:18 @{Held their peace} (\hsuchasan\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \hsuchaz\, old verb to be quiet, to keep quiet. The wrangling (verse 2|) ceased. The critics even "glorified God" (\edoxasan\, ingressive aorist again). {Then to the Gentiles also} (\Ara kai tois ethnesin\). \Ergo\ as in strkjv@Luke:11:20,48| and like \ara oun\ in strkjv@Romans:5:18|. In ancient Greek inferential \ara\ cannot come at the beginning of a clause as here. It was reluctant acquiescence in the undoubted fact that God had "granted repentance unto life" to these Gentiles in Caesarea, but the circumcision party undoubtedly looked on it as an exceptional case and not to be regarded as a precedent to follow with other Gentiles. Peter will see in this incident (Acts:15:8|) the same principle for which Paul contends at the Jerusalem Conference. Furneaux suggests that this conduct of Peter in Caesarea, though grudgingly acquiesced in after his skilful defence, decreased his influence in Jerusalem where he had been leader and helped open the way for the leadership of James the Lord's brother.

rwp@Acts:21:14 @{When he would not be persuaded} (\m peithomenou autou\). Genitive absolute of the present passive participle of \peith\. Literally, "he not being persuaded." That was all. Paul's will (\kardia\) was not broken, not even bent. {We ceased} (\hsuchasamen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \hsuchaz\, old verb to be quiet, silent. {The will of the Lord be done} (\tou kuriou to thelma ginesth\). Present middle imperative of \ginomai\. There is a quaint naivete in this confession by the friends of Paul. Since Paul would not let them have their way, they were willing for the Lord to have his way, acquiescence after failure to have theirs.

rwp@Luke:5:5 @{Master} (\epistata\). Used only by Luke in the N.T. and always in addresses to Christ (8:24,45; strkjv@9:33,49; strkjv@17:13|). Common in the older writers for superintendent or overseer (one standing over another). This word recognizes Christ's authority. {We toiled} (\kopiasantes\). This verb is from \kopos\ (\work, toil\) and occurs from Aristophanes on. It used to be said that the notion of weariness in toil appears only in the LXX and the N.T. But Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 312f.) cites examples from inscriptions on tombstones quite in harmony with the use in the N.T. Peter's protest calls attention also to the whole night of fruitless toil. {But at thy word} (\epi de ti rhmati sou\). On the base of \epi\. Acquiescence to show his obedience to Christ as "Master," but with no confidence whatsoever in the wisdom of this particular command. Besides, fishing in this lake was Peter's business and he really claimed superior knowledge on this occasion to that of Jesus.