NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp foretold:

rwp@Acts:2:35 @{Till I make} (\hes an th\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \tithmi\ with \an\ after \hes\ for the future, a common Greek idiom. This dominion of Christ as Mediator will last till the plan of the kingdom is carried out (1Corinthians:15:23-28|). Complete subjugation will come, perhaps referring to the custom of victorious kings placing their feet upon the necks of their enemies (Joshua:10:24|). {Therefore assuredly} (\Asphals oun\). Assuredly therefore, without any slip or trip (\asphals\ from \a\ privative and \sphall\, to trip, to slip. Peter draws a powerfully pungent conclusion by the use of the adverb \asphals\ and the inferential conjunction \oun\. Peter's closing sentence drives home the point of his sermon: "This very Jesus whom ye crucified (note \humeis\, strongly emphatic {ye}), him God made both Lord and Messiah" (\kai kurion kai Christon\), as David foretold in strkjv@Psalms:110| and as the events of this day have confirmed. The critics are disturbed over how Luke could have gotten the substance of this masterful address spoken on the spur of the moment with passion and power. They even say that Luke composed it for Peter and put the words in his mouth. If so, he made a good job of it. But Peter could have written out the notes of the address afterwards. Luke had plenty of chances to get hold of it from Peter or from others.

rwp@Acts:2:39 @{The promise} (\h epaggelia\). The promise made by Jesus (1:4|) and foretold by Joel (verse 18|). {To you} (\humin\). You Jews. To your descendants, sons and daughters of verse 17|. {To all that are afar off} (\psin tois eis makran\. The horizon widens and includes the Gentiles. Those "afar off" from the Jews were the heathen (Isaiah:49:1; strkjv@57:19; strkjv@Ephesians:2:13,17|). The rabbis so used it. {Shall call} (\an proskalestai\). First aorist middle subjunctive with \an\ in an indefinite relative clause, a perfectly regular construction. The Lord God calls men of every nation anywhere whether Jews or Gentiles. It may be doubted how clearly Peter grasped the significance of these words for he will have trouble over this very matter on the housetop in Joppa and in Caesarea, but he will see before long the full sweep of the great truth that he here proclaims under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. It was a great moment that Peter here reaches.

rwp@Acts:3:20 @{And that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus} (\kai aposteili ton prokecheirismenon humin Christon Isoun\). First aorist active subjunctive with \hops an\ as in strkjv@15:17| and strkjv@Luke:2:35|. There is little real difference in idea between \hops an\ and \hina an\. There is a conditional element in all purpose clauses. The reference is naturally to the second coming of Christ as verse 21| shows. Knowling admits "that there is a spiritual presence of the enthroned Jesus which believers enjoy as a foretaste of the visible and glorious Presence of the \Parousia\." Jesus did promise to be with the disciples all the days (Matthew:28:20|), and certainly repentance with accompanying seasons of refreshing help get the world ready for the coming of the King. The word \prokecheirismenon\ (perfect passive participle of \procheiriz\, from \procheiros\, at hand, to take into one's hands, to choose) is the correct text here, not \prokekrugmenon\. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:22:14; strkjv@26:16|. It is not "Jesus Christ" here nor "Christ Jesus," but "the Messiah, Jesus," identifying Jesus with the Messiah. See the Second Epiphany of Jesus foretold also in strkjv@1Timothy:6:15| and the First Epiphany described in strkjv@1Peter:1:20|.

rwp@Acts:7:1 @{Are these things so?} (\ei tauta houts echei\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. Songs:he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts:13:16ff.|) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse 51|) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "Songs:Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:7:52 @{Which of the prophets} (\tina tn prophtn\). Jesus (Luke:11:47; strkjv@Matthew:23:29-37|) had charged them with this very thing. Cf. strkjv@2Chronicles:36:16|. {Which shewed before} (\prokataggeilantas\). The very prophets who foretold the coming of the Messiah their fathers killed. {The coming} (\ts eleuses\). Not in ancient Greek or LXX and only here in the N.T. (in a few late writers). {Betrayers} (\prodotai\). Just like Judas Iscariot. He hurled this old biting word at them. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:6:16; strkjv@2Timothy:3:4|. It cut like a knife. It is blunter than Peter in strkjv@Acts:3:13|. {Murderers} (\phoneis\). The climax with this sharp word used of Barabbas (3:14|).

rwp@Acts:10:43 @{Every one that believeth} (\panta ton pisteuonta\). This accusative active participle of general reference with the infinitive in indirect discourse is the usual idiom. Only \labein\ (second aorist active infinitive of \lamban\) is not indirect statement so much as indirect command or arrangement. The prophets bear witness to Jesus Christ to this effect. It is God's plan and no race distinctions are drawn. Peter had already said the same thing at Pentecost (2:38|), but now he sees himself that Gentiles do not have to become Jews, but have only to believe in Jesus as Messiah and Judge as foretold by the prophets. It was glorious news to Cornelius and his group. {Through his name} (\dia tou onomatos autou\), not as a _title_ or magic formula (Acts:18:13|), but the power of Christ himself represented by his name.

rwp@Acts:23:14 @{Came to the chief priests and the elders} (\proselthontes tois archiereusin kai tois presbuterois\). The Sanhedrin, just as Judas did (Luke:22:4|). {With a great curse} (\anathemati\). This use of the same word as the verb repeated in the instrumental case is in imitation of the Hebrew absolute infinitive and common in the LXX, the very idiom and words of strkjv@Deuteronomy:13:15; strkjv@20:17|, an example of translation Greek, though found in other languages (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 531). See on ¯Luke:21:5| for the distinction between \anathema\ and \anathma\. Jesus had foretold: "Whoso killeth you will think that he doeth God service" (John:16:2|).

rwp@Acts:27:22 @{And now} (\kai ta nun\). Accusative plural neuter article of general reference in contrast with \men\ in verse 21|. Paul shows modesty (Bengel) in the mild contrast. {No loss of life} (\apobol psuchs oudemia\). Old word from \apoball\, to throw away, only twice in N.T. strkjv@Romans:11:15| (rejection) and here. He had foretold such loss of life as likely (verse 10|), but he now gives his reason for his changed view.

rwp@John:10:16 @{Other sheep} (\alla probata\). Sheep, not goats, but "not of this fold" (\ek ts auls tauts\). See verse 1| for \aul\. Clearly "his flock is not confined to those enclosed in the Jewish fold, whether in Palestine or elsewhere" (Westcott). Christ's horizon takes in all men of all races and times (John:11:52; strkjv@12:32|). The world mission of Christ for all nations is no new idea with him (Matthew:8:11; strkjv@Luke:13:28|). God loved the world and gave his Son for the race (\John strkjv@3:16\), {Them also I must bring} (\kakeina dei me agagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \ag\ with \dei\ expressing the moral urgency of Christ's passion for God's people in all lands and ages. Missions in Christ's mind takes in the whole world. This is according to prophecy (Isaiah:42:6; strkjv@49:6; strkjv@56:8|) for the Messiah is to be a Light also to the Gentiles. It was typified by the brazen serpent (John:3:14|). Christ died for every man. The Pharisees doubtless listened in amazement and even the disciples with slow comprehension. {And they shall hear my voice} (\kai ts phns mou akousontai\). Future middle indicative of \akou\ with the genitive \phns\. These words read like a transcript from the Acts and the Epistles of Paul (Romans:9-11| in particular). See especially Paul's words in strkjv@Acts:28:28|. Present-day Christianity is here foretold. Only do we really listen to the voice of the Shepherd as we should? Jesus means that the Gentiles will hearken if the Jews turn away from him. {And they shall become one flock, one shepherd} (\kai gensontai mia poimn, heis poimn\). Future middle indicative of \ginomai\, plural, not singular \gensetai\ as some MSS. have it. All (Jews and Gentiles) will form one flock under one Shepherd. Note the distinction here by Jesus between \poimn\ (old word, contraction of \poimen\ from \poimn\, shepherd), as in strkjv@Matthew:26:31|, and \aul\ (fold) just before. There may be many folds of the one flock. Jerome in his Vulgate confused this distinction, but he is wrong. His use of _ovile_ for both \aul\ and \pomnion\ has helped Roman Catholic assumptions. Christ's use of "flock" (\poimn\) here is just another metaphor for kingdom (\basileia\) in strkjv@Matthew:8:11| where the children of the kingdom come from all climes and nations. See also the various metaphors in strkjv@Ephesians:2| for this same idea. There is only the one Great Shepherd of the sheep (Hebrews:13:20|), Jesus Christ our Lord.

rwp@John:11:2 @{And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair} (\n de Mariam h aleipsasa ton kurion muri kai ekmaxasa tous podas autou tais thrixin auts\). This description is added to make plainer who Mary is "whose brother Lazarus was sick" (\hs ho adelphos Lazaros sthenei\). There is an evident proleptic allusion to the incident described by John in strkjv@12:1-8| just after chapter 11. As John looks back from the end of the century it was all behind him, though the anointing (\h aleipsasa\, first aorist active articular participle of \aleiph\, old verb for which see strkjv@Mark:6:13|) took place after the events in chapter 11. The aorist participle is timeless and merely pictures the punctiliar act. The same remark applies to \ekmaxasa\, old verb \ekmass\, to wipe off or away (Isaiah:12:3; strkjv@13:5; strkjv@Luke:7:38,44|). Note the Aramaic form \Mariam\ as usual in John, but \Marias\ in verse 1|. When John wrote, it was as Jesus had foretold (Matthew:26:13|), for the fame of Mary of Bethany rested on the incident of the anointing of Jesus. The effort to link Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene and then both names with the sinful woman of strkjv@Luke:7:36-50| is gratuitous and to my mind grotesque and cruel to the memory of both Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene. Bernard may be taken as a specimen: "The conclusion is inevitable that John (or his editor) regarded Mary of Bethany as the same person who is described by Luke as \hamartlos\." This critical and artistic heresy has already been discussed in Vol. II on Luke's Gospel. Suffice it here to say that Luke introduces Mary Magdalene as an entirely new character in strkjv@8:2| and that the details in strkjv@Luke:7:36-50; strkjv@John:12:1-8| have only superficial resemblances and serious disagreements. John is not here alluding to Luke's record, but preparing for his own in chapter 12. What earthly difficulty is there in two different women under wholly different circumstances doing a similar act for utterly different purposes?

rwp@Luke:6:22 @{When they shall separate you} (\hotan aphorissin hums\). First aorist active subjunctive, from \aphoriz\, common verb for marking off a boundary. Songs:either in good sense or bad sense as here. The reference is to excommunication from the congregation as well as from social intercourse. {Cast out your name as evil} (\exbalsin to onoma humn hs ponron\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \ekball\, common verb. The verb is used in Aristophanes, Sophocles, and Plato of hissing an actor off the stage. The name of Christian or disciple or Nazarene came to be a byword of contempt as shown in the Acts. It was even unlawful in the Neronian persecution when Christianity was not a _religio licita_. {For the Son of man's sake} (\heneka tou huiou tou anthrpou\). Jesus foretold what will befall those who are loyal to him. The Acts of the Apostles is a commentary on this prophecy. This is Christ's common designation of himself, never of others save by Stephen (Acts:7:56|) and in the Apocalypse (Revelation:1:13; strkjv@14:14|). But both Son of God and Son of man apply to him (John:1:50,52; strkjv@Matthew:26:63f.|). Christ was a real man though the Son of God. He is also the representative man and has authority over all men.

rwp@Matthew:23:35 @{Zachariah son of Barachiah} (\Zachariou huiou Barachiou\). Broadus gives well the various alternatives in understanding and explaining the presence of "son of Barachiah" here which is not in strkjv@Luke:11:51|. The usual explanation is that the reference is to Zachariah the son of Jehoiada the priest who was slain in the court of the temple (2Chronicles:24:20ff.|). How the words, "son of Barachiah," got into Matthew we do not know. A half-dozen possibilities can be suggested. In the case of Abel a reckoning for the shedding of his blood was foretold (Genesis:4:10|) and the same thing was true of the slaying of Zachariah (2Chronicles:24:22|).

rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ainos\) or consummation of the age. In a painting the artist by skilful perspective may give on the same surface the inside of a room, the fields outside the window, and the sky far beyond. Certainly in this discourse Jesus blends in apocalyptic language the background of his death on the cross, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, his own second coming and the end of the world. He now touches one, now the other. It is not easy for us to separate clearly the various items. It is enough if we get the picture as a whole as it is here drawn with its lessons of warning to be ready for his coming and the end. The destruction of Jerusalem came as he foretold. There are some who would date the Synoptic Gospels after A.D. 70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).

rwp@Matthew:26:55 @{As against a robber} (\hs epi listn\). As a robber, not as a thief, but a robber hiding from justice. He will be crucified between two robbers and on the very cross planned for their leader, Barabbas. They have come with no warrant for any crime, but with an armed force to seize Jesus as if a highway robber. Jesus reminds them that he used to sit (imperfect, \ekathezomn\) in the temple and teach. But he sees God's purpose in it all for the prophets had foretold his "cup." The desertion of Jesus by the disciples followed this rebuke of the effort of Peter. Jesus had surrendered. Songs:they fled.

rwp@Matthew:27:32 @{Compelled} (\ggareusan\). This word of Persian origin was used in strkjv@Matthew:5:41|, which see. There are numerous papyri examples of Ptolemaic date and it survives in modern Greek vernacular. Songs:the soldiers treat Simon of Cyrene (a town of Libya) as a Persian courier (\aggaros\) and impress him into service, probably because Jesus was showing signs of physical weakness in bearing his own Cross as the victims had to do, and not as a mere jest on Simon. "Gethsemane, betrayal, the ordeal of the past sleepless night, scourging, have made the flesh weak" (Bruce). Yes, and the burden of sin of the world that was breaking his heart. {His cross} (\ton stauron autou\). Jesus had used the term cross about himself (16:24|). It was a familiar enough picture under Roman rule. Jesus had long foreseen and foretold this horrible form of death for himself (Matthew:20:19; strkjv@23:24; strkjv@26:2|). He had heard the cry of the mob to Pilate that he be crucified (27:22|) and Pilate's surrender (27:26|) and he was on the way to the Cross (27:31|). There were various kinds of crosses and we do not know precisely the shape of the Cross on which Jesus was crucified, though probably the one usually presented is correct. Usually the victim was nailed (hands and feet) to the cross before it was raised and it was not very high. The crucifixion was done by the soldiers (27:35|) in charge and two robbers were crucified on each side of Jesus, three crosses standing in a row (27:38|).

rwp@Matthew:27:63 @{Sir, we remember} (\kurie, emnesthmen\). This was the next day, on our Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, the day after the Preparation (Matthew:27:62|). Ingressive aorist indicative, we have just recalled. It is objected that the Jewish rulers would know nothing of such a prediction, but in strkjv@Matthew:12:40| he expressly made it to them. Meyer scouts as unhistorical legend the whole story that Christ definitely foretold his resurrection on the third day. But that is to make legendary much of the Gospels and to limit Jesus to a mere man. The problem remains why the disciples forgot and the Jewish leaders remembered. But that is probably due on the one hand to the overwhelming grief of the disciples coupled with the blighting of all their hopes of a political Messiah in Jesus, and on the other hand to the keen nervous fear of the leaders who dreaded the power of Jesus though dead. They wanted to make sure of their victory and prevent any possible revival of this pernicious heresy. {That deceiver} (\ekeinos ho planos\) they call him, a vagabond wanderer (\planos\) with a slur in the use of {that} (\ekeinos\), a picturesque sidelight on their intense hatred of and fear of Jesus.

rwp@Titus:3:6 @{Which} (\hou\). Genitive case by attraction from \ho\ (grammatical gender) to the case of \pneumatos hagiou\. We do not have grammatical gender (only natural) in English. Hence here we should say "whom," even if it does not go smoothly with \execheen\ (he poured out, second aorist active indicative of \ekche\). The reference is to the great Pentecost (Acts:2:33|) as foretold by Joel (Joel:2:28|). {Richly} (\plousis\). Then and to each one in his own experience. See strkjv@Romans:10:12; strkjv@1Timothy:6:17|.