NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp justly:

rwp@1Peter:2:19 @{For this is acceptable} (\touto gar charis\). "For this thing (neuter singular \touto\, obedience to crooked masters) is grace" (\charis\ is feminine, here "thanks" as in strkjv@Romans:7:25|). "Acceptable" calls for \euprosdekton\ (2:5|), which is not the text here. {If a man endureth griefs} (\ei huopherei tis lupas\). Condition of first class with \ei\ and present active indicative of \hupopher\, old verb, to bear up under, in N.T. only here, strkjv@1Corinthians:10:13; strkjv@2Timothy:3:11|. Note plural of \lup\ (grief). {For conscience toward God} (\dia suneidsin theou\). Suffering is not a blessing in and of itself, but, if one's duty to God is involved (Acts:4:20|), then one can meet it with gladness of heart. \Theou\ (God) is objective genitive. For \suneidsis\ (conscience) see on ¯Acts:23:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:8:7|. It occurs again in strkjv@1Peter:3:16|. {Suffering wrongfully} (\paschn adiks\). Present active participle of \pasch\ and the common adverb \adiks\, unjustly, here alone in N.T. This is the whole point, made clear already by Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:5:10-12|, where Jesus has also "falsely" (\pseudomenoi\). See also strkjv@Luke:6:32-34|.

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). Imperfect active of \sunball\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gnthi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zenn daimonin dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@Luke:2:14 @{Among men in whom he is well pleased} (\en anthrpois eudokias\). The Textus Receptus (Authorized Version also has \eudokia\, but the genitive \eudokias\ is undoubtedly correct, supported by the oldest and best uncials. (Aleph, A B D W). C has a lacuna here. Plummer justly notes how in this angelic hymn Glory and Peace correspond, in the highest and on earth, to God and among men of goodwill. It would be possible to connect "on earth" with "the highest" and also to have a triple division. There has been much objection raised to the genitive \eudokias\, the correct text. But it makes perfectly good sense and better sense. As a matter of fact real peace on earth exists only among those who are the subjects of God's goodwill, who are characterized by goodwill toward God and man. This word \eudokia\ we have already had in strkjv@Matthew:11:26|. It does not occur in the ancient Greek. The word is confined to Jewish and Christian writings, though the papyri furnish instances of \eudoksis\. Wycliff has it "to men of goodwill."

rwp@Luke:4:19 @{The acceptable year of the Lord} (\eniauton Kuriou dekton\). He does not mean that his ministry is to be only one year in length as Clement of Alexandria and Origen argued. That is to turn figures into fact. The Messianic age has come, Jesus means to say. On the first day of the year of Jubilee the priests with sound of trumpet proclaimed the blessings of that year (Leviticus:25:8-17|). This great passage justly pictures Christ's conception of his mission and message.

rwp@Romans:1:18 @{For the wrath of God is revealed} (\apokaluptetai gar org theou\). Note in Romans Paul's use of \gar\, now argumentative, now explanatory, now both as here. There is a parallel and antecedent revelation (see verse 17|) of God's wrath corresponding to the revelation of God's righteousness, this an unwritten revelation, but plainly made known. \Org\ is from \orga\, to teem, to swell. It is the temper of God towards sin, not rage, but the wrath of reason and law (Shedd). The revelation of God's righteousness in the gospel was necessary because of the failure of men to attain it without it, for God's wrath justly rested upon all both Gentiles (1:18-32|) and Jews (2:1-3:20|). {Ungodliness} (\asebeian\). Irreligion, want of reverence toward God, old word (cf. strkjv@2Timothy:2:16|). {Unrighteousness} (\adikian\). Lack (\a\ privative and \dik\) of right conduct toward men, injustice (Romans:9:14; strkjv@Luke:18:6|). This follows naturally from irreverence. The basis of ethical conduct rests on the nature of God and our attitude toward him, otherwise the law of the jungle (cf. Nietzsche, "might makes right"). {Hold down the truth} (\tn altheian katechontn\). Truth (\altheia, alths\, from \a\ privative and \lth\ or \lanthan\, to conceal) is out in the open, but wicked men, so to speak, put it in a box and sit on the lid and "hold it down in unrighteousness." Their evil deeds conceal the open truth of God from men. Cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:6f.| for this use of \katech\, to hinder.

rwp@Romans:2:12 @{Have sinned} (\hmarton\). Constative aorist active indicative, "sinned," a timeless aorist. {Without law} (\anoms\). Old adverb "contrary to law," "unjustly," but here in ignorance of the Mosaic law (or of any law). Nowhere else in N.T. {Shall also perish without law} (\anoms kai apolountai\). Future middle indicative of \apollumi\, to destroy. This is a very important statement. The heathen who sin are lost, because they do not keep the law which they have, not because they do not have the Mosaic law or Christianity. {Under law} (\en nomi\). In the sphere of the Mosaic law. {By the law} (\dia nomou\). The Jew has to stand or fall by the Mosaic law.