NONE.filter - rwp predilection:

rwp@Acts:16:15 @{And when she was baptized} (\hs de ebaptisth\). First aorist passive indicative of \baptiz\. The river Gangites was handy for the ordinance and she had now been converted and was ready to make this public declaration of her faith in Jesus Christ. {And her household} (\kai ho oikos auts\). Who constituted her "household"? The term \oikos\, originally means the building as below, "into my house" and then it includes the inmates of a house. There is nothing here to show whether Lydia's "household" went beyond "the women" employed by her who like her had heard the preaching of Paul and had believed. "Possibly Euodia and Syntyche and the other women, strkjv@Phillipians:4:2,3|, may have been included in the family of Lydia, who may have employed many slaves and freed women in her trade" (Knowling). "This statement cannot be claimed as any argument for infant baptism, since the Greek word may mean her servants or her work-people" (Furneaux). In the household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the jailor, Crispus) one sees "infants" or not according to his predilections or preferences. {If ye have judged me} (\ei kekrikate me\). Condition of the first class, assumed to be true (\ei\ and the indicative, here perfect active of \krin\). She had confessed her faith and submitted to baptism as proof that she was "faithful to the Lord" (\pistn ti kurii\), believing on the Lord. "If she was fit for that, surely she was fit to be their hostess" (Furneaux). And Paul and his party had clearly no comfortable place to stay while in Philippi. The ancient hotels or inns were abominable. Evidently Paul demurred for there were four of them and he did not wish to sacrifice his independence or be a burden even to a woman of wealth. {And she constrained us} (\kai parebiasato hmas\). Effective first aorist middle of \parabiazomai\, late word, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:24:29|. Some moral force (\bia\) or hospitable persuasion was required (cf. strkjv@1Samuel:28:23|), but Lydia had her way as women usually do. Songs:he accepted Lydia's hospitality in Philippi, though he worked for his own living in Thessalonica (2Thessalonians:3:8|) and elsewhere (2Corinthians:11:9|). Songs:far only women have been won to Christ in Philippi. The use of "us" shows that Luke was not a householder in Philippi.

rwp@John:8:46 @{Which of you convicteth me of sin?} (\Tis ex humn elegchei me peri hamaritas;\). See on strkjv@3:20; strkjv@16:8| (the work of the Holy Spirit) for \elegch\ for charge and proof. The use of \hamartia\ as in strkjv@1:29| means sin in general, not particular sins. The rhetorical question which receives no answer involves sinlessness (Hebrews:4:15|) without specifically saying so. Bernard suggests that Jesus paused after this pungent question before going on. {Why do ye not believe me?} (\Dia ti humeis ou pisteuete moi;\). This question drives home the irrationality of their hostility to Jesus. It was based on prejudice and predilection.

rwp@Info_Matthew @ If the book is genuine, as I believe, the date becomes a matter of interest. Here again there is nothing absolutely decisive save that it is later than the Gospel according to Mark which it apparently uses. If Mark is given an early date, between A.D. 50 to 60, then Matthew's book may be between 60 and 70, though many would place it between 70 and 80. It is not certain whether Luke wrote after Matthew or not, though that is quite possible. There is no definite use of Matthew by Luke that has been shown. One guess is as good as another and each decides by his own predilections. My own guess is that A.D. 60 is as good as any.

rwp@Revelation:20:5 @{The rest of the dead} (\hoi loipoi tn nekrn\). "All except the martyrs, both the righteous and the unrighteous" (Beckwith). But some take this to mean only the wicked. {Lived not until the thousand years should be finished} (\ouk ezsan achri telesthi ta chilia et\). See verse 4| for the items here. "To infer from this statement, as many expositors have done, that the \ezsan\ of v. 4| must be understood of bodily resuscitation, is to interpret apocalyptic prophecy by methods of exegesis which are proper to ordinary narrative" (Swete). I sympathize wholly with that comment and confess my own ignorance therefore as to the meaning of the symbolism without any predilections for post-millennialism or premillennialism. {This is the first resurrection} (\haut h anastasis h prt\). Scholars differ as to the genuineness of this phrase. Accepting it as genuine, Swete applies it to "the return of the martyrs and confessors to life at the beginning of the Thousand Years." According to this view the first resurrection is a special incident in the present life before the Parousia. It has no parallel with strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:16|, where the dead in Christ are raised before those living are changed. Some think that John here pictures the "Regeneration" (\palingenesia\) of strkjv@Matthew:19:28| and the "Restoration" (\apokatastasis\) of strkjv@Acts:3:21|. No effort is here made to solve this problem, save to call attention to the general judgment out of the books in strkjv@20:12| and to the general resurrection in strkjv@John:5:29; strkjv@Acts:24:15|.