NONE.filter - rwp usage:

rwp@1Corinthians:11:4 @{Having his head covered} (\kata kephals echn\). Literally, having a veil (\kalumma\ understood) down from the head (\kephals\ ablative after \kata\ as with \kata\ in strkjv@Mark:5:13; strkjv@Acts:27:14|). It is not certain whether the Jews at this time used the _tallith_, "a four-corned shawl having fringes consisting of eight threads, each knotted five times" (Vincent) as they did later. Virgil (_Aeneid_ iii., 545) says: "And our heads are shrouded before the altar with a Phrygian vestment." The Greeks (both men and women) remained bareheaded in public prayer and this usage Paul commends for the men.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:33 @{Be not deceived} (\m plansthe\). Do not be led astray (\plana\) by such a false philosophy of life. {Evil company} (\homiliai kakai\). Evil companionships. Old word, \homilia\, from \homilos\ (a crowd, gang, bunch). Only here in N.T. Good manners (\th\). Old word (kin to \ethos\) custom, usage, morals. Good morals here. This line of poetry (iambic) occurs in Menander. It may be a current proverb. Paul could have gotten it from either source.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ SOME BOOKS Alford, H., Vol. IV. 1 of his _Greek Testament_ (1870). Baldwin, _The Fisherman of Galilee_ (1923). Barnes, _St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb on the Vatican Hill_. Beck, J. T., _Erklarung der Briefe Petri_ (1895). Bennett, W. H., _New-Century Bible_ (1901). Bigg, C., _Intern. Crit. Comm_. (1901). Birks, _Studies in the Life and Character of St. Peter_ (1887). Blenkin, _The First Ep. General of St. Peter_ (1915). Camerlinck, _Commentarius in epistolas catholicas_ (1909). Cooke and Lumby, _Speaker's Comm_. (1881). Couard, _Commentaire_ (1895). Couard, _Simon Petrus der Apostel des Herrn_. Davidson, _St. Peter and His Training_. Elert, _Die Religiositat des Petrus_ (1911). Erbes, _Die Todestage der Apostels Paulus and Petrus_ (1899). Foakes-Jackson, F. J., _Peter Prince of Apostles_ (1927). Foster, Ora D., _The Literary Relations of the First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Fouard, C., _St. Peter and the First Years of Christianity_ (1892). Gallagher, M., _Was the Apostle Peter Ever at Rome?_ (1894). Goutard, _Essai critique et historique sur la prem. e'pitre de S. Pierre_ (1905). Green, S. G., _The Apostle Peter: His Life and Letters_ (1880). Guignebert, _Lamentations:Primaute' de Pierre et la Venue de Pierre a Rome_ (1909). Gunkel, H., _Die Schriften d. N.T_. 3 Aufl. (1917). Hart, J. H. A., _Expos. Greek Test_. (1910). Henriott, _Saint Pierre_ (1891). Hort, F. J. A., _The First Epistle of St. Peter strkjv@1:1-2:17_ (1898). Howson, J., _Horae Petrinae_ (1883). Jenkins, R. C., _The Apostle Peter. Claims of Catholics_ (1875). Johnstone, _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1888). Kasteren, Van, _Deuteronomy:Eerste Brief Van d. Ap. Petrus_ (1911). Keil, C. F., _Comm. uber die Briefe des Petrus und Juda_ (1883). Knopf, R., _Die Briefe Petri und Juda_ (1912). Kogel, J., _Die Gedankenheit des Ersten Briefes Petri_ (1902). Kuhl, E., _Die Briefe Petri und Judae_ (Meyer Komm., 6 Aufl., 1897). Lietzmann, _Petrus and Paulus in Rom_. Lumby, J. R., _Expositor's Bible_ (1893). Masterman, J. H. B., _Epistles of St. Peter_ (1900). McInnis, J.M., _Simon Peter Fisherman and Philosopher_ (1928). Meyer, F. B., _Peter: Fisherman, Disciple, Apostle_ (1920). Moffatt, James, _Moffatt Comm. on N.T._ (1930). Monneir, J., _Lamentations:premiere e'pitre de l'apotre Pierre_ (1900). Perdelwitz, _Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des ersten Petrusbriefes_ (1911). Plumptre, _Cambridge Bible_ (1879). Reagan, _The Preaching of Peter, the Beginning of Christian Apologetics_ (1922). Robinson, C. G., _Simon Peter: His Life and Times_ (1889). Ross, J. M. E., _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Salmond, A. D. F., _Schaff's Comm_. (1883). Scharfe, _Die petrinische Stromung der neut. Literatur_ (1893). Schmid, _Petrus in Rome_ (1879). Seeley, _The Life and Writings of St. Peter_. Soden, Von, H., _Hand-Komm_. (3 Aufl., 1899). Taylor, W. M., _Peter the Apostle_ (1876). Thomas, W. H., Griffith, _The Apostle Peter_ (2nd ed., 1905). Thompson, _Life-Work of Peter the Apostle_. Upham, _Simon Peter Shepherd_ (1910). Usteri, J. M., _Wiss. und prakt. Komm. uber den I Petrus- brief_ (1887). Volter, D., _Der I Petrusbrief_ (1906). Weiss, B., _Die erste Petrusbrief und die Kritik_ (1906). _Der petrinische Lehrbegriff_ (1855). Williams, N. M., _American Comm_. Windisch, H., _Die Katholische Briefe. Handbuch zum N.T._ (2 Aufl., 1930). Wohlenberg, G., _Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief_. (Zahn Komm., 2 Aufl., 1915.) strkjv@1Peter:1:1 @{Peter} (\Petros\). Greek form for the Aramaic (Chaldaic) \Cphs\, the nickname given Simon by Jesus when he first saw him (John:1:42|) and reaffirmed in the Greek form on his great confession (Matthew:16:18|), with an allusion to \petra\, another form for a rock, ledge, or cliff. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have both \Simn\ and \Petros\. Paul in his Epistles always terms himself Paul, not Saul. Songs:Peter uses this name, not Cephas or Simon, because he is writing to Christians scattered over Asia Minor. The nominative absolute occurs here as in strkjv@James:1:1|, but without \chairein\ as there, the usual form of greeting in letters (Acts:23:26|) so common in the papyri. {An apostle of Jesus Christ} (\apostolos Isou Christou\). This is his official title, but in strkjv@2Peter:1:1| \doulos\ is added, which occurs alone in strkjv@James:1:1|. In II and III John we have only \ho presbuteros\ (the elder), as Peter terms himself \sunpresbuteros\ in strkjv@1Peter:5:1|. Paul's usage varies greatly: only the names in I and II Thessalonians, the title \apostolos\ added and defended in Galatians and Romans as also in I and II Corinthians and Colossians and Ephesians and II Timothy with "by the will of God" added, and in I Timothy with the addition of "according to the command of God." In Philippians Paul has only "\doulos\ (slave) \Christou Isou\," like James and Jude. In Romans and Titus Paul has both \doulos\ and \apostolos\, like II Peter, while in Philemon he uses only \desmios\ (prisoner) \Isou Christou\. {To the elect} (\eklektois\). Without article (with the article in strkjv@Matthew:24:22,24,31|) and dative case, "to elect persons" (viewed as a group). Bigg takes \eklektois\ (old, but rare verbal adjective from \ekleg\, to pick out, to select) as an adjective describing the next word, "to elect sojourners." That is possible and is like \genos eklekton\ in strkjv@2:9|. See the distinction between \kltoi\ (called) and \eklektoi\ (chosen) in strkjv@Matthew:22:14|. {Who are sojourners} (\parepidmois\). Late double compound adjective (\para, epidmountes\, strkjv@Acts:2:10|, to sojourn by the side of natives), strangers sojourning for a while in a particular place. Songs:in Polybius, papyri, in LXX only twice (Genesis:23:4|; 38 or 39 12), in N.T. only here, strkjv@2:11; strkjv@Hebrews:11:13|. The picture in the metaphor here is that heaven is our native country and we are only temporary sojourners here on earth. {Of the Dispersion} (\diaspors\). See strkjv@John:7:35| for literal sense of the word for scattered (from \diaspeir\, to scatter abroad, strkjv@Acts:8:1|) Jews outside of Palestine, and strkjv@James:1:1| for the sense here to Jewish Christians, including Gentile Christians (only N T. examples). Note absence of the article, though a definite conception (of the Dispersion). The Christian is a pilgrim on his way to the homeland. These five Roman provinces include what we call Asia Minor north and west of the Taurus mountain range (Hort). Hort suggests that the order here suggests that Silvanus (bearer of the Epistle) was to land in Pontus from the Euxine Sea, proceed through Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, to Bithynia, where he would re-embark for Rome. This, he holds, explains the separation of Pontus and Bithynia, though the same province. Only Galatia and Asia are mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. as having Christian converts, but the N.T. by no means gives a full account of the spread of the Gospel, as can be judged from strkjv@Colossians:1:6,23|.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882).,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). strkjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Simn Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Symen\ as in strkjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Simn\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. strkjv@2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in strkjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \tim\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \tim\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \tim\ in strkjv@1:7,19; strkjv@2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \ti hmn\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosuni\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosun\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \stros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in strkjv@1:11| as in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|. Songs:in strkjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in strkjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in strkjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:7 @{For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work} (\to gar mustrion d energeitai ts anomias\). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:13| for \energeitai\. The genitive \ts anomias\ (lawlessness) describes \to mustrion\ (note emphatic position of both). This mystery (\mustrion\ secret, from \musts\, an initiate, \mue\, to wink or blink) means here the secret purpose of lawlessness already at work, the only instance of this usage in the N.T. where it is used of the kingdom of God (Matthew:13:11|), of God (1Corinthians:2:1|) and God's will (Ephesians:1:9|), of Christ (Ephesians:3:4|), of the gospel (Ephesians:6:9|), of faith (1Timothy:3:9|), of godliness (1Timothy:3:16|), of the seven stars (Revelation:1:20|), of the woman (Revelation:17:7|). But this secret will be "revealed" and then we shall understand clearly what Paul's meaning is here. {Until he be taken out of the way} (\hes ek mesou gentai\). Usual construction with \hes\ for the future (aorist middle subjunctive, \gentai\). Note absence of \an\ as often in N.T. and the \Koin\. Paul uses \hes\ only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:4:5|. When the obstacle is removed then the mystery of lawlessness will be revealed in plain outline.

rwp@2Timothy:3:16 @{Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable} (\psa graph theopneustos kai phelimos\). There are two matters of doubt in this clause. One is the absence of the article \h\ before \graph\, whether that makes it mean "every scripture" or "all scripture" as of necessity if present. Unfortunately, there are examples both ways with both \ps\ and \graph\. Twice we find \graph\ in the singular without the article and yet definite (1Peter:2:6; strkjv@2Peter:1:20|). We have \ps Isral\ (Romans:11:26|) for all Israel (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 772). Songs:far as the grammatical usage goes, one can render here either "all scripture" or "every scripture." There is no copula (\estin\) in the Greek and so one has to insert it either before the \kai\ or after it. If before, as is more natural, then the meaning is: "All scripture (or every scripture) is inspired of God and profitable." In this form there is a definite assertion of inspiration. That can be true also of the second way, making "inspired of God" descriptive of "every scripture," and putting \estin\ (is) after \kai\: "All scripture (or every scripture), inspired of God, is also profitable." {Inspired of God} (\theopneustos\). "God-breathed." Late word (Plutarch) here only in N.T. Perhaps in contrast to the commandments of men in strkjv@Titus:1:14|. {Profitable} (\phelimos\). See strkjv@1Timothy:4:8|. See strkjv@Romans:15:4|. Four examples of \pros\ (facing, with a view to, for): \didaskalian\, teaching; \elegmon\, reproof, in LXX and here only in N.T.; \epanorthsin\, correction, old word, from \epanortho\, to set up straight in addition, here only in N.T., with which compare \epidiortho\ in strkjv@Titus:1:5|; \paideian\, instruction, with which compare strkjv@Ephesians:6:4|.

rwp@Acts:1:1 @_The Title_ is simply _Acts_ (\Praxeis\) in Aleph, Origen, Tertullian, Didymus, Hilary, Eusebius, Epiphanius. _The Acts of the Apostles_ (\Praxeis apostoln\) is the reading of B D (Aleph in subscription) Athanasius, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret, Hilary. _The Acts of the Holy Apostles_ (\Praxeis tn hagin apostoln\) is read by A2 E G H A K Chrysostom. It is possible that the book was given no title at all by Luke, for it is plain that usage varied greatly even in the same writers. The long title as found in the Textus Receptus (Authorized Version) is undoubtedly wrong with the adjective "Holy." The reading of B D, "_The Acts of the Apostles_," may be accepted as probably correct.

rwp@Acts:1:17 @{Was numbered} (\katrithmenos n\). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of \katarithme\, old verb, but here only in the N.T. (perfective use of \kata\). {Received his portion} (\elachen ton klron\). Second aorist active indicative of \lagchan\, old verb, to obtain by lot as in strkjv@Luke:1:9; strkjv@John:19:24|, especially by divine appointment as here and strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. \Klros\ also means lot, an object used in casting lots (Acts:1:26|), or what is obtained by lot as here and strkjv@8:21|, of eternal salvation (Acts:26:18; strkjv@Colossians:1:12|), of persons chosen by divine appointment (1Peter:5:3|). From this latter usage the Latin _cleros, clericus_, our clergy, one chosen by divine lot. Songs:Peter says that Judas "obtained by lot the lot of this ministry" (\diakonias\) which he had when he betrayed Jesus. The Master chose him and gave him his opportunity.

rwp@Acts:2:38 @{Repent ye} (\metanosate\). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You _crucified_ this Jesus. Now _crown_ him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. {And be baptized every one of you} (\kai baptistht hekastos hmn\). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (\en ti onomati Isou Christou\). In accordance with the command of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| (\eis to onoma\). No distinction is to be insisted on between \eis to onoma\ and \en ti onomati\ with \baptiz\ since \eis\ and \en\ are really the same word in origin. In strkjv@Acts:10:48| \en ti onomati Isou Christou\ occurs, but \eis\ to \onoma\ in strkjv@8:16; strkjv@19:5|. The use of \onoma\ means in the name or with the authority of one as \eis onoma prophtou\ (Matthew:10:41|) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in strkjv@Matthew:28:19|, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on ¯Matthew:28:19| for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). {Unto the remission of your sins} (\eis aphesin tn hamartin hmn\). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of \eis\ does exist as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:7| \eis doxan hmn\ (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of \eis\ for aim or purpose. It is seen in strkjv@Matthew:10:41| in three examples \eis onoma prophtou, dikaiou, mathtou\ where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in strkjv@Matthew:12:41| about the preaching of Jonah (\eis to krugma Ina\). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the _Koin_ generally (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. Songs:I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. {The gift of the Holy Ghost} (\tn drean tou hagiou pneumatos\). The gift consists (Acts:8:17|) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

rwp@Acts:8:3 @{Laid waste} (\elumaineto\). Imperfect middle of \lumainomai\, old verb (from \lum\, injury), to dishonour, defile, devastate, ruin. Only here in the N.T. Like the laying waste of a vineyard by a wild boar (Psalms:79:13|). Picturesque description of the havoc carried on by Saul now the leader in the persecution. He is victor over Stephen now who had probably worsted him in debate in the Cilician synagogue in Jerusalem. {Into every house} (\kata tous oikous\). But Luke terms it "the church" (\tn ekklsian\). Plainly not just an "assembly," but an organized body that was still "the church" when scattered in their own homes, "an unassembled assembly" according to the etymology. Words do not remain by the etymology, but travel on with usage. {Haling} (\surn\). Literally, dragging forcibly (=hauling). Present active participle of \sur\, old verb. {Men and women} (\andras kai gunaikas\). A new feature of the persecution that includes the women. They met it bravely as through all the ages since (cf. strkjv@9:2; strkjv@22:4|). This fact will be a bitter memory for Paul always. {Committed} (\paredidou\). Imperfect active of \paradidmi\, old verb, kept on handing them over to prison.

rwp@Acts:10:25 @{That Peter entered} (\tou eiselthein ton Petron\). This is a difficult construction, for the subject of \egeneto\ (it happened) has to be the articular genitive infinitive \tou eiselthein\ with the accusative of general reference \ton Petron\. Most commentators consider it inexplicable. It is probably an extension of the ordinary articular infinitive under the influence of the Hebrew infinitive construct without regard to the case, regarding it as a fixed case form and so using it as nominative. Precisely this construction of \tou\ and the infinitive as the subject of a verb occurs in the LXX (2Chronicles:6:7|, etc.). See Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1067f. for full discussion of this obvious Hebraism. Somewhat similar examples appear in strkjv@Acts:20:3; strkjv@27:1|. But the Codex Bezae avoids this awkward idiom by the genitive absolute (\proseggizontos tou Petrou\) and some additional details (one of the servants ran forward and announced that he was come). {Worshipped him} (\prosekunsen\). "Cornelius was not an idolator and would not have honoured Peter as a god" (Furneaux). The word probably means here reverence like old English usage (Wycliff) and not actual worship, though Peter took it that way (verse 26|). Jesus accepted such worship (Matthew:8:2; strkjv@Luke:5:8| by Peter).

rwp@Acts:24:27 @{But when two years were fulfilled} (\dietias de plrtheiss\). Genitive absolute first aorist passive of \plro\, common verb to fill full. \Dietia\, late word in LXX and Philo, common in the papyri, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:28:30|. Compound of \dia\, two (\duo, dis\) and \etos\, year. Songs:Paul lingered on in prison in Caesarea, waiting for the second hearing under Felix which never came. Caesarea now became the compulsory headquarters of Paul for two years. With all his travels Paul spent several years each at Tarsus, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, though not as a prisoner unless that was true part of the time at Ephesus for which there is some evidence though not of a convincing kind. We do not know that Luke remained in Caesarea all this time. In all probability he came and went with frequent visits with Philip the Evangelist. It was probably during this period that Luke secured the material for his Gospel and wrote part or all of it before going to Rome. He had ample opportunity to examine the eyewitnesses who heard Jesus and the first attempts at writing including the Gospel of Mark (Luke:1:1-4|). {Was succeeded by} (\elaben diadochon\). Literally, "received as successor." \Diadochos\ is an old word from \diadechomai\, to receive in succession (\dia, duo\, two) and occurs here alone in the N.T. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 115) gives papyri examples where \hoi diadochoi\ means "higher officials at the court of the Ptolemies," probably "deputies," a usage growing out of the "successors" of Alexander the Great (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_), though here the original notion of "successor" occurs (cf. Josephus, _Ant_. XX. 8, 9). Luke does not tell why Felix "received" a successor. The explanation is that during these two years the Jews and the Gentiles had an open fight in the market-place in Caesarea. Felix put the soldiers on the mob and many Jews were killed. The Jews made formal complaint to the Emperor with the result that Felix was recalled and Porcius Festus sent in his stead. {Porcius Festus} (\Porkion Phston\). We know very little about this man. He is usually considered a worthier man than Felix, but Paul fared no better at his hands and he exhibits the same insincerity and eagerness to please the Jews. Josephus (_Ant_. XX. 8, 9) says that "Porcius Festus was sent as a successor to Felix." The precise year when this change occurred is not clear. Albinus succeeded Festus by A.D. 62, so that it is probable that Festus came A.D. 58 (or 59). Death cut short his career in a couple of years though he did more than Felix to rid the country of robbers and _sicarii_. Some scholars argue for an earlier date for the recall of Felix. Nero became Emperor Oct. 13, A.D. 54. Poppaea, his Jewish mistress and finally wife, may have had something to do with the recall of Felix at the request of the Jews. {Desiring to gain favour with the Jews} (\theln te charita katathesthai tois Ioudaiois\). Reason for his conduct. Note second aorist (ingressive) middle infinitive \katathesthai\ from \katatithmi\, old verb to place down, to make a deposit, to deposit a favour with, to do something to win favour. Only here and strkjv@25:9| in N.T., though in some MSS. in strkjv@Mark:15:46|. It is a banking figure. {Left Paul in bonds} (\katelipe ton Paulon dedemenon\). Effective aorist active indicative of \kataleip\, to leave behind. Paul "in bonds" (\dedemenon\, perfect passive participle of \de\, to bind) was the "deposit" (\katathesthai\) for their favour. Codex Bezae adds that Felix left Paul in custody "because of Drusilla" (\dia Drousillan\). She disliked Paul as much as Herodias did John the Baptist. Songs:Pilate surrendered to the Jews about the death of Jesus when they threatened to report him to Caesar. Some critics would date the third group of Paul's Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) to the imprisonment here in Caesarea, some even to one in Ephesus. But the arguments for either of these two views are more specious than convincing. Furneaux would even put strkjv@2Timothy:4:9-22| here in spite of the flat contradiction with strkjv@Acts:21:29| about Trophimus being in Jerusalem instead of Miletus (2Timothy:4:20|), a "mistake" which he attributes to Luke! That sort of criticism can prove anything.

rwp@Acts:25:1 @{Having come into the province} (\epibas ti eparcheii\). Second aorist active participle of \epibain\, to set foot upon. Literally, "Having set foot upon his province." \Eparcheia\ is a late word for province, in N.T. only here and strkjv@23:34|. Judea was not strictly a province, but a department (Page) of the province of Syria which was under a _propraetor_ (\legatus Caesaris\) while Judea was under a _procurator_ (\epitropos\). {After three days} (\meta treis hmeras\). Songs:in strkjv@Acts:28:17| in Rome. That is on the third day, with a day of rest in between. Precisely the language used of the resurrection of Jesus "after three days" = "on the third day." Songs:by common usage then and now.

rwp@Acts:25:4 @{Howbeit} (\men oun\). No antithesis expressed, though Page considers \de\ in verse 6| to be one. They probably argued that it was easier for one man (Paul) to come to Jerusalem than for many to go down there. But Festus was clearly suspicious (verse 6|) and was wholly within his rights to insist that they make their charges in Caesarea where he held court. {Was kept in charge} (\treisthai\). Present passive infinitive of \tre\ in indirect assertion. \Hoti\ with finite verb is more common after \apokrinomai\, but the infinitive with the accusative of general reference is proper as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1036). {Shortly} (\en tachei\). In quickness, in speed. Old and common usage, seen already in strkjv@Luke:18:8; strkjv@Acts:12:7; strkjv@22:18|. Festus is clearly within his rights again since his stay in Caesarea had been so brief. He did go down in "eight or ten days" (verse 6|). Luke did not consider the matter important enough to be precise.

rwp@Acts:25:27 @{Unreasonable} (\alogon\). Old word from \a\ privative and \logos\ (reason, speech). "Without reason" as of animals (Jude:1:10; strkjv@2Peter:2:12|), "contrary to reason" here. These the only N.T. instances and in harmony with ancient usage. {In sending} (\pemponta\). Note accusative case with the infinitive \smnai\ though \moi\ (dative) just before. Cf. same variation in strkjv@15:22f.; strkjv@22:17|. {Signify} (\smnai\). First aorist active infinitive (not \smnai\, the old form) of \smain\, to give a sign (\smeion\). {The charges} (\tas aitias\). This naive confession of Festus reveals how unjust has been his whole treatment of Paul. He had to send along with the appeal of Paul _litterae dimissoriae_ (\apostoli\) which would give a statement of the case (Page).

rwp@Acts:27:27 @{As we were driven to and fro} (\diapheromenn hmn\). Genitive absolute with present passive participle of \diapher\, old verb to bear different ways (\dia=duo\, two), this way and that. Continued to be tossed to and fro in the rough seas. It would seem so to those on board. It does not necessarily mean that the wind had changed. The fourteenth night is reckoned from the time they left Fair Havens. {In the sea of Adria} (\en ti Hadrii\). Not the Adriatic Sea as we now call the sea between Italy and the mainland of Illyricum, but all the lower Mediterranean between Italy and Greece. Luke's usage is like that of Strabo. {Surmised} (\hupenooun\). Imperfect active indicative of \huponoe\, inchoative, began to suspect. {That they were drawing near to some country} (\prosagein tina autois chran\). Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect assertion. \Prosag\ is here used intransitively and Luke writes from the sailor's standpoint that a certain land was drawing near to them (\autois\, dative). The sailors heard the sound of breakers and grew uneasy.

rwp@Colossians:2:18 @{Rob you of your prize} (\katabrabeuet\). Late and rare compound (\kata, brabeu\, strkjv@Colossians:3:15|) to act as umpire against one, perhaps because of bribery in Demosthenes and Eustathius (two other examples in Preisigke's _Worterbuch_), here only in the N.T. Songs:here it means to decide or give judgment against. The judge at the games is called \brabeus\ and the prize \brabeion\ (1Corinthians:9:24; strkjv@Phillipians:3:14|). It is thus parallel to, but stronger than, \krinet\ in verse 16|. {By a voluntary humility} (\theln en tapeinophrosuni\). Present active participle of \thel\, to wish, to will, but a difficult idiom. Some take it as like an adverb for "wilfully" somewhat like \thelontas\ in strkjv@2Peter:3:5|. Others make it a Hebraism from the LXX usage, "finding pleasure in humility." The Revised Version margin has "of his own mere will, by humility." Hort suggested \en ethelotapeinophrosuni\ (in gratuitous humility), a word that occurs in Basil and made like \ethelothrskia\ in verse 23|. {And worshipping of the angels} (\kai thrskeii tn aggeln\). In strkjv@3:12| humility (\tapeinophrosunn\) is a virtue, but it is linked with worship of the angels which is idolatry and so is probably false humility as in verse 23|. They may have argued for angel worship on the plea that God is high and far removed and so took angels as mediators as some men do today with angels and saints in place of Christ. {Dwelling in the things which he hath seen} (\ha heoraken embateun\). Some MSS. have "not," but not genuine. This verb \embateu\ (from \embats\, stepping in, going in) has given much trouble. Lightfoot has actually proposed \kenembateun\ (a verb that does not exist, though \kenembate\ does occur) with \aira\, to tread on empty air, an ingenious suggestion, but now unnecessary. It is an old word for going in to take possession (papyri examples also). W. M. Ramsay (_Teaching of Paul_, pp. 287ff.) shows from inscriptions in Klaros that the word is used of an initiate in the mysteries who "set foot in" (\enebateusen\) and performed the rest of the rites. Paul is here quoting the very work used of these initiates who "take their stand on" these imagined revelations in the mysteries. {Vainly puffed up} (\eiki phusioumenos\). Present passive participle of \phusio\, late and vivid verb from \phusa\, pair of bellows, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:4:6,18f.; strkjv@8:1|. Powerful picture of the self-conceit of these bombastic Gnostics.

rwp@John:10:35 @{If he called them gods} (\ei ekeinous eipen theous\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. The conclusion (verse 36|) is \humeis legete\; ({Do ye say?}). As Jews (and rabbis) they are shut out from charging Jesus with blasphemy because of this usage in the O.T. It is a complete _ad hominem_ argument. To be sure, it is in strkjv@Psalms:82:6| a lower use of the term \theos\, but Jesus did not call himself "Son of Jahweh," but "\huios theou\" which can mean only "Son of _Elohim_." It must not be argued, as some modern men do, that Jesus thus disclaims his own deity. He does nothing of the kind. He is simply stopping the mouths of the rabbis from the charge of blasphemy and he does it effectually. The sentence is quite involved, but can be cleared up. {To whom the word of God came} (\pros hous ho logos tou theou egeneto\). The relative points to \ekeinous\, before. These judges had no other claim to the term \theoi\ (_elohim_). {And the scripture cannot be broken} (\kai ou dunatai luthnai h graph\). A parenthesis that drives home the pertinency of the appeal, one that the Pharisees had to accept. \Luthnai\ is first aorist passive infinitive of \lu\, to loosen, to break.

rwp@Luke:1:8 @{While he executed the priest's office} (\en ti hierateuein auton\). A favourite idiom in Luke, \en\ with the articular infinitive and the accusative of general reference where the genitive absolute could have been used or a temporal conjunction and finite verb. It is proper Greek, but occurs often in the LXX, which Luke read, particularly in imitation of the Hebrew infinitive construct. The word \hierateu\ does not appear in the ancient Greek, but in the LXX and this one example in Luke. It is on the Rosetta Stone and the early inscriptions so that the word was simply applied by the LXX translators from current usage.

rwp@Luke:4:38 @{He rose up} (\anastas\). Second aorist active participle of \anistmi\, a common verb. B. Weiss adds here "from the teacher's seat." Either from his seat or merely leaving the synagogue. This incident of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law is given in strkjv@Mark:1:29-34| and strkjv@Matthew:8:14-17|, which see for details. {Into the house of Simon} (\eis tn oikian Simnos\). "Peter's house" (Matthew:8:14|). "The house of Simon and Andrew" (Mark:1:29|). Paul's reference to Peter's wife (1Corinthians:9:5|) is pertinent. They lived together in Capernaum. This house came also to be the Capernaum home of Jesus. {Simon's wife's mother} (\penthera tou Simnos\). The word \penthera\ for mother-in-law is old and well established in usage. Besides the parallel passages (Mark:1:30; strkjv@Matthew:8:14; strkjv@Luke:4:38|) it occurs in the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:12:53|. The corresponding word \pentheros\, father-in-law, occurs in strkjv@John:18:13| alone in the N.T. {Was holden with a great fever} (\n sunechomen pureti megali\). Periphrastic imperfect passive, the analytical tense accenting the continuous fever, perhaps chronic and certainly severe. Luke employs this verb nine times and only three others in the N.T. (Matthew:4:24| passive with diseases here; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:14| active; strkjv@Phillipians:1:23| passive). In strkjv@Acts:28:8| the passive "with dysentery" is like the construction here and is a common one in Greek medical writers as in Greek literature generally. Luke uses the passive with "fear," strkjv@Luke:8:37|, the active for holding the hands over the ears (Acts:7:57|) and for pressing one or holding together (Luke:8:45; strkjv@19:43; strkjv@22:63|), the direct middle for holding oneself to preaching (Acts:18:5|). It is followed here by the instrumental case. Hobart (_Medical Language of Luke_, p. 3) quotes Galen as dividing fevers into "great" (\megaloi\) and "small" (\smikroi\).

rwp@Luke:5:17 @{That} (\kai\). Use of \kai\ = \hoti\ (that) like the Hebrew _wav_, though found in Greek also. {He} (\autos\). Luke sometimes has \autos\ in the nominative as unemphatic "he" as here, not "he himself." {Was teaching} (\n didaskn\). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom. {Were sitting by} (\san kathmenoi\). Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no "by" in the Greek. {Doctors of the law} (\nomodidaskaloi\). A compound word formed after analogy of \hierodidaskalos\, but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and strkjv@Acts:5:34; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7|. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word "doctor" is Latin for "teacher." These "teachers of the law" are called elsewhere in the Gospels "scribes" (\grammateis\) as in Matthew and Mark (see on ¯Matthew:5:20; strkjv@23:34|) and strkjv@Luke:5:21; strkjv@19:47; strkjv@21:1; strkjv@22:2|. Luke also employs \nomikos\ (one skilled in the law, \nomos\) as in strkjv@10:25|. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see on ¯Matthew:3:7,20|. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the "Pharisees" were "teachers of the law" so that both terms often occur together as in verse 21| where Luke has separate articles (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in strkjv@Matthew:5:20| or no article as here in verse 17|. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law "which were come" (\hoi san elluthotes\, periphrastic past perfect active, {had come}). {Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem} (\ek pass kms ts Galilaias kai Ioudaias kai Ierousalm\). Edersheim (_Jewish Social Life_) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use "every village." But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that strkjv@John:4:1-4| shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:23|. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life. {The power of the Lord was with him to heal} (\dunamis Kuriou n eis to isthai auton\). Songs:the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: "Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus)." Here \Kuriou\ refers to Jehovah. {Dunamis} (dynamite) is one of the common words for "miracles" (\dunameis\). What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion.

rwp@Luke:19:43 @{Shall cast up a bank} (\parembalousin charaka\). Future active indicative of \paremball\, a double compound (\para, en, ball\) of long usage, finally in a military sense of line of battle or in camp. Here alone in the N.T. Songs:also the word \charaka\ (\charax\) for bank, stake, palisade, rampart, is here alone in the N.T., though common enough in the old Greek. {Compass thee round} (\perikuklsousin se\). Future active indicative. Another common compound to make a circle (\kuklos\) around (\peri\), though here only in the N.T. {Keep thee in} (\sunexousin se\). Shall hold thee together on every side (\pantothen\). See about \sunech\ on strkjv@4:38|.

rwp@Mark:12:38 @{Beware of the scribes} (\blepete apo tn grammaten\). Jesus now turns to the multitudes and to his disciples (Matthew:23:1|) and warns them against the scribes and the Pharisees while they are still there to hear his denunciation. The scribes were the professional teachers of the current Judaism and were nearly all Pharisees. Mark (Mark:14:38-40|) gives a mere summary sketch of this bold and terrific indictment as preserved in strkjv@Matthew:23| in words that fairly blister today. strkjv@Luke:20:45-47| follows Mark closely. See strkjv@Matthew:8:15| for this same use of \blepete apo\ with the ablative. It is usually called a translation-Hebraism, a usage not found with \blep\ in the older Greek. But the papyri give it, a vivid vernacular idiom. "Beware of the Jews" (\blepe saton apo tn Ioudain\, Berl. G. U. 1079. A.D. 41). See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 577. The pride of the pompous scribes is itemized by Mark: {To walk in long robes} (\stolais\), {stoles}, the dress of dignitaries like kings and priests. {Salutations in the marketplaces} (\aspasmous en tais agorais\), where the people could see their dignity recognized.

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@Matthew:6:22 @{Single} (\haplous\). Used of a marriage contract when the husband is to repay the dowry "pure and simple" (\tn phernn hapln\), if she is set free; but in case he does not do so promptly, he is to add interest also (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_, etc.). There are various other instances of such usage. Here and in strkjv@Luke:11:34| the eye is called "single" in a moral sense. The word means "without folds" like a piece of cloth unfolded, _simplex_ in Latin. Bruce considers this parable of the eye difficult. "The figure and the ethical meaning seem to be mixed up, moral attributes ascribed to the physical eye which with them still gives light to the body. This confusion may be due to the fact that the eye, besides being the organ of vision, is the seat of expression, revealing inward dispositions." The "evil" eye (\ponros\) may be diseased and is used of stinginess in the LXX and so \haplous\ may refer to liberality as Hatch argues (_Essays in Biblical Greek_, p. 80). The passage may be elliptical with something to be supplied. If our eyes are healthy we see clearly and with a single focus (without astigmatism). If the eyes are diseased (bad, evil), they may even be cross-eyed or cock-eyed. We see double and confuse our vision. We keep one eye on the hoarded treasures of earth and roll the other proudly up to heaven. Seeing double is double-mindedness as is shown in verse 24|.

rwp@Matthew:8:29 @{Thou Son of God} (\huie tou theou\). The recognition of Jesus by the demons is surprising. The whole subject of demonology is difficult. Some hold that it is merely the ancient way of describing disease. But that does not explain the situation here. Jesus is represented as treating the demons as real existences separate from the human personality. Missionaries in China today claim that they have seen demons cast out. The devil knew Jesus clearly and it is not strange that Jesus was recognized by the devil's agents. They know that there is nothing in common between them and the Son of God (\hmin kai soi\, ethical dative) and they fear torment "before the time" (\pro kairou\). Usually \ta daimonia\ is the word in the New Testament for demons, but in strkjv@8:31| we have \hoi daimones\ (the only example in the N.T.). \Daimonion\ is a diminutive of \daimn\. In Homer \daimn\ is used synonymously with \theos\ and \thea\. Hesiod employed \daimn\ of men of the golden age as tutelary deities. Homer has the adjective \daimonios\ usually in an evil sense. Empedocles considered the demons both bad and good. They were thus used to relieve the gods and goddesses of much rascality. Grote (_History of Greece_) notes that the Christians were thus by pagan usage justified in calling idolatry the worship of demons. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20f.; strkjv@1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@16:13f|. In the Gospels demons are the same as unclean spirits (Mark:5:12,15; strkjv@3:22,30; strkjv@Luke:4:33|). The demons are disturbers (Vincent) of the whole life of man (Mark:5:2f.; strkjv@7:25; strkjv@Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|).

rwp@Matthew:13:13 @{Because seeing} (\hoti blepontes\). In the parallel passages in strkjv@Mark:4:12| and strkjv@Luke:8:10| we find \hina\ with the subjunctive. This does not necessarily mean that in Mark and Luke \hina=hoti\ with the causal sense, though a few rare instances of such usage may be found in late Greek. For a discussion of the problem see my chapter on "The Causal Use of _Hina_" in _Studies in Early Christianity_ (1928) edited by Prof. S.J. Case. Here in Matthew we have first "an adaptation of strkjv@Isaiah:6:9f.| which is quoted in full in v. 14f.|" (McNeile). Thus Matthew presents "a striking paradox, 'though they see, they do not (really) see'" (McNeile). Cf. strkjv@John:9:41|. The idiom here in Matthew gives no trouble save in comparison with Mark and Luke which will be discussed in due turn. The form \suniousin\ is an omega verb form (\suni\) rather than the \mi\ verb (\sunimi\) as is common in the _Koin_.

rwp@Matthew:21:3 @{The Lord} (\ho kurios\). It is not clear how the word would be understood here by those who heard the message though it is plain that Jesus applies it to himself. The word is from \kuros\, power or authority. In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. as master of the slave (Matthew:10:24|), of the harvest (9:38|), of the vineyard (20:8|), of the emperor (Acts:13:27|), of God (Matthew:11:20; strkjv@11:25|), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts:10:36|). Note strkjv@Matthew:8:25|. This is the only time in Matthew where the words \ho kurios\ are applied to Jesus except the doubtful passage in strkjv@28:6|. A similar usage is shown by Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_ and Deissmann's _Light from the Ancient East_. Particularly in Egypt it was applied to "the Lord Serapis" and Ptolemy and Cleopatra are called "the lords, the most great gods" (\hoi kurioi theoi megistoi\). Even Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I are addressed as "Lord King." In the west the Roman emperors are not so termed till the time of Domitian. But the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. It seems as if already the disciples were calling Jesus "Lord" and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here.

rwp@Revelation:2:11 @{Shall not be hurt} (\ou m adikthi\). Strong double negative with first aorist passive subjunctive of \adike\, old verb, to act unjustly (from \adikos\), here to do harm or wrong to one, old usage as in strkjv@6:6; strkjv@7:2f.; strkjv@9:4,10; strkjv@11:5|. {Of the second death} (\ek tou thanatou tou deuterou\). \Ek\ here used for the agent or instrument as often (3:18; strkjv@9:2; strkjv@18:1|). See strkjv@20:6,14; strkjv@21:8| where "the second death" is explained as "the lake of fire." The idea is present in strkjv@Daniel:12:3; strkjv@John:5:29| and is current in Jewish circles as in the Jerusalem Targum on strkjv@Deuteronomy:33:6| and in Philo. It is not annihilation. The Christians put to death in the persecution will at least escape this second death (eternal punishment).

rwp@Revelation:9:9 @{As it were breastplates of iron} (\hs thrakas siderous\). The \thrax\ was originally the breast (from the neck to the navel), then the breastplate, only N.T. usage (Revelation:9:9,17; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:8; strkjv@Ephesians:6:14|). The armour for the breastplate was usually of iron (\siderous\, strkjv@Revelation:2:27|), but with the locusts it only seemed to be so (\hs\). However, the scaly backs and flanks of the locusts do resemble coats of mail. "The locusts of the Abyss may be the memories of the past brought home at times of Divine visitation" (Swete). {The sound of their wings} (\h phn tn pterugn\). Graphic picture of the onrush of the swarms of demonic locusts and the hopelessness of resisting them. {As the sound of chariots, of many horses rushing to war} (\hs phn harmatn hippn polln trechontn eis polemon\). Both metaphors here, the clatter and clangour of the chariot wheels and the prancing of the horses are found in strkjv@Joel:2:4f|. \Trechontn\ is present active predicate participle of \trech\, to run. Cf. strkjv@2Kings:7:6; strkjv@Jeremiah:47:3|.