NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp offence:

rwp@1Corinthians:9:20 @{As a Jew} (\hs Ioudaios\). He was a Jew and was not ashamed of it (Acts:18:18; strkjv@21:26|). {Not being myself under the law} (\m n autos hupo nomon\). He was emancipated from the law as a means of salvation, yet he knew how to speak to them because of his former beliefs and life with them (Galatians:4:21|). He knew how to put the gospel to them without compromise and without offence.

rwp@1Peter:2:8 @{And} (\kai\). Peter now quotes strkjv@Isaiah:8:14| and gives a new turn to the previous quotation. To the disbelieving, Christ was indeed "a stone of stumbling (\lithos proskommatos\) and rock of offence (\petra skandalou\)," quoted also by Paul in strkjv@Romans:9:32f.|, which see for discussion. \Proskomma\ (from \proskopt\, to cut against) is an obstacle against which one strikes by accident, while \skandalon\ is a trap set to trip one, but both make one fall. Too much distinction need not be made between \lithos\ (a loose stone in the path) and \petra\ (a ledge rising out of the ground). {For they} (\hoi\). Causal use of the relative pronoun. {Stumble at the word, being disobedient} (\proskoptousin ti logi apeithountes\). Present active indicative of \proskopt\ with dative case, \logi\, and present active participle of \apeithe\ (cf. \apistousin\ in strkjv@2:7|) as in strkjv@3:1|. \Ti logi\ can be construed with \apeithountes\ (stumble, being disobedient to the word). {Whereunto also they were appointed} (\eis ho kai etethsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \tithmi\. See this idiom in strkjv@1Timothy:2:7|. "Their disobedience is not ordained, the penalty of their disobedience is" (Bigg). They rebelled against God and paid the penalty.

rwp@Acts:10:33 @{And thou hast well done that thou art come} (\su te kals epoisas paragenomenos\). "And thou didst well in coming." A regular formula for expressing thanks as in strkjv@Phillipians:4:14; strkjv@3John:1:6; strkjv@2Peter:1:19|. The participle completes the idea of \kals poie\ neatly. Cornelius commends Peter for his courage in breaking away from Jewish custom and takes no offence at the implied superiority of the Jews over the Gentiles. Cornelius and his circle of kinsmen and close friends are prepared soil for a new era in the history of Christianity. The Samaritans were now nominal Jews and the Ethiopian eunuch was a single case, but here Peter the chief apostle, not Philip the preaching deacon (evangelist), was involved. It was a crisis. Cornelius reveals an open mind for the message of God through Peter. {Commanded thee} (\prostetagmena soi\). Perfect passive participle with the dative case (\soi\). Cornelius is a military man and he employs a military term (\prostass\, old word to command). He is ready for orders from the Lord.

rwp@Acts:22:1 @{Brethren and fathers} (\Andres adelphoi kai pateres\) Men, brethren, and fathers. The very language used by Stephen (7:2|) when arraigned before the Sanhedrin with Paul then present. Now Paul faces a Jewish mob on the same charges brought against Stephen. These words are those of courtesy and dignity (_amoris et honoris nomina_, Page). These men were Paul's brother Jews and were (many of them) official representatives of the people (Sanhedrists, priests, rabbis). Paul's purpose is conciliatory, he employs "his ready tact" (Rackham). {The defence which I now make unto you} (\mou ts pros humas nuni apologias\). Literally, My defence to you at this time. \Nuni\ is a sharpened form (by \-i\) of \nun\ (now), just now. The term \apologia\ (apology) is not our use of the word for apologizing for an offence, but the original sense of defence for his conduct, his life. It is an old word from \apologeomai\, to talk oneself off a charge, to make defence. It occurs also in strkjv@Acts:25:16| and then also in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11; strkjv@Phillipians:1:7,16; strkjv@2Timothy:4:16; strkjv@1Peter:3:15|. Paul uses it again in strkjv@Acts:25:16| as here about his defence against the charges made by the Jews from Asia. He is suspected of being a renegade from the Mosaic law and charged with specific acts connected with the alleged profanation of the temple. Songs:Paul speaks in Aramaic and recites the actual facts connected with his change from Judaism to Christianity. The facts make the strongest argument. He first recounts the well-known story of his zeal for Judaism in the persecution of the Christians and shows why the change came. Then he gives a summary of his work among the Gentiles and why he came to Jerusalem this time. He answers the charge of enmity to the people and the law and of desecration of the temple. It is a speech of great skill and force, delivered under remarkable conditions. The one in chapter strkjv@Acts:26| covers some of the same ground, but for a slightly different purpose as we shall see. For a discussion of the three reports in Acts of Paul's conversion see chapter strkjv@Acts:9|. Luke has not been careful to make every detail correspond, though there is essential agreement in all three.

rwp@Acts:23:2 @{Ananias} (\Hananias\). Not the one in strkjv@Luke:3:2; strkjv@John:18:13; strkjv@Acts:4:7|, but the son of Nebedaeus, nominated high priest by Herod, King of Chalcis, A.D. 48 and till A.D. 59. He was called to Rome A.D. 52 to answer "a charge of rapine and cruelty made against him by the Samaritans, but honourably acquitted" (Page). Though high priest, he was a man of bad character. {Them that stood by him} (\tois parestsin auti\). Dative case of second perfect participle of \paristmi\, to place, and intransitive. See the same form in verse 4| (\paresttes\). {To smite him on the mouth} (\tuptein autou to stoma\). See on ¯12:45; strkjv@18:17|. Cf. the treatment of Jesus (John:18:22|). Ananias was provoked by Paul's self-assertion while on trial before his judges. "The act was illegal and peculiarly offensive to a Jew at the hands of a Jew" (Knowling). More self-control might have served Paul better. Smiting the mouth or cheek is a peculiarly irritating offence and one not uncommon among the Jews and this fact gives point to the command of Jesus to turn the other check (Luke:6:29| where \tupt\ is also used).

rwp@Acts:24:5 @{For we have found} (\heurontes gar\). Second aorist active participle of \heurisk\, but without a principal verb in the sentence. Probably we have here only a "summary of the charges against Paul" (Page). {A pestilent fellow} (\loimon\). An old word for pest, plague, pestilence, Paul the pest. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:11| (\loimoi kai limoi\, pestilences and famines) which see. Latin _pestis_. Think of the greatest preacher of the ages being branded a pest by a contemporary hired lawyer. {A mover of insurrections} (\kinounta staseis\). This was an offence against Roman law if it could be proven. "Plotted against at Damascus, plotted against at Jerusalem, expelled from Pisidian Antioch, stoned at Lystra, scourged and imprisoned at Philippi, accused of treason at Thessalonica, haled before the proconsul at Corinth, cause of a serious riot at Ephesus, and now finally of a riot at Jerusalem" (Furneaux). Specious proof could have been produced, but was not. Tertullus went on to other charges with which a Roman court had no concern (instance Gallio in Corinth). {Throughout the world} (\kata tn oikoumenn\). The Roman inhabited earth (\gn\) as in strkjv@17:6|. {A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes} (\prtostatn ts tn Nazrain haireses\). \Prtostats\ is an old word in common use from \prtos\ and \histmi\, a front-rank man, a chief, a champion. Here only in the N.T. This charge is certainly true. About "sect" (\hairesis\) see on ¯5:17|. \Nazraioi\ here only in the plural in the N.T., elsewhere of Jesus (Matthew:2:23; strkjv@26:71; strkjv@Luke:18:37; strkjv@John:18:5,7; strkjv@19:19; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@3:6; strkjv@4:10; strkjv@6:14; strkjv@22:8; strkjv@26:9|). The disciple is not above his Master. There was a sneer in the term as applied to Jesus and here to his followers.

rwp@Acts:24:16 @{Herein} (\en touti\). His whole confession of belief in verses 14,15|. {Do I also exercise myself} (\kai autos ask\). "Do I also myself take exercise," take pains, labour, strive. Old word in Homer to work as raw materials, to adorn by art, then to drill. Our word ascetic comes from this root, one who seeks to gain piety by rules and severe hardship. Paul claims to be equal to his accusers in efforts to please God. {Void of offence} (\aproskopon\). This word belongs to the papyri and N.T. (only in Paul), not in the ancient writers. The papyri examples (Moulton Milligan, _Vocabulary_) use the word to mean "free from hurt or harm." It is a privative and \proskopt\ (to cut or stumble against). Page likes "void of offence" since that can be either active "not stumbling" as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:10| or passive "not stumbled against" as in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32| (the first toward God and the second toward men), the only other N.T. examples. Hence the word here appears in both senses (the first towards God, the second towards men). Paul adds "alway" (\dia pantos\), a bold claim for a consistent aim in life. "Certainly his conscience acquitted him of having caused any offence to his countrymen" (Rackham). Furneaux thinks that it must have been wormwood and gall to Ananias to hear Paul repeat here the same words because of which he had ordered Paul to be smitten on the mouth (23:1f.|).

rwp@Acts:24:19 @{But certain Jews from Asia} (\tines de apo ts Alias Ioudaioi\). No verb appears in the Greek for these words. Perhaps he meant to say that "certain Jews from Asia charged me with doing these things." Instead of saying that, Paul stops to explain that they are not here, a thoroughly Pauline anacoluthon (2Corinthians:7:5|) as in strkjv@26:9|. "The passage as it stands is instinct with life, and seems to exhibit the abruptness so characteristic of the Pauline Epistles" (Page). {Who ought to have been here before thee} (\hous edei epi sou pareinai\). This use of \epi\ with genitive of the person is common. The imperfect indicative with verbs of necessity and obligation to express failure to live up to it is common in Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 919-21). "The accusers who were present had not witnessed the alleged offence: those who could have given evidence at first-hand were not present" (Furneaux). There was no case in a Roman court. These Asiatic Jews are never heard of after the riot, though they almost succeeded in killing Paul then. {If they had aught against me} (\ei ti echoien pros eme\). A condition of the fourth class or undetermined with less likelihood of being determined (\ei\ with the optative, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). This is a "mixed condition" (_op.cit._, p. 1022) with a conclusion of the second class.

rwp@Acts:25:11 @{If I am a wrong-doer} (\ei men oun adik\). Condition of the first class with \ei\ and the present active indicative of \adike\ (\a\ privative and \dik\): "If I am in the habit of doing injustice," assuming it to be true for the sake of argument. {And have committed anything worthy of death} (\kai axion thanatou pepracha\). Same condition with the difference in tense (\pepracha\, perfect active indicative) of a single case instead of a general habit. Assuming either or both Paul draws his conclusion. {I refuse not to die} (\ou paraitoumai to apothanein\). Old verb to ask alongside, to beg from, to deprecate, to refuse, to decline. See on ¯Luke:14:18f|. Josephus (_Life_, 29) has \thanein ou paraitoumai\. Here the articular second aorist active infinitive is in the accusative case the object of \paraitoumai\: "I do not beg off dying from myself." {But if none of these things is} (\ei de ouden estin\). \De\ here is contrasted with \men\ just before. No word for "true" in the Greek. \Estin\ ("is") in the Greek here means "exists." Same condition (first class, assumed as true). {Whereof these accuse me} (\hn houtoi katgorousin mou\). Genitive of relative \hon\ by attraction from \ha\ (accusative with \katgorousin\) to case of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\ ("of these things"). \Mou\ is genitive of person after \katgorousin\. {No man can give me up to them} (\oudeis me dunatai autois charisasthai\). "Can" legally. Paul is a Roman citizen and not even Festus can make a free gift (\charisasthai\) of Paul to the Sanhedrin. {I appeal unto Caesar} (\Kaisara epikaloumai\). Technical phrase like Latin _Caesarem appello_. Originally the Roman law allowed an appeal from the magistrate to the people (_provocatio ad populum_), but the emperor represented the people and so the appeal to Caesar was the right of every Roman citizen. Paul had crossed the Rubicon on this point and so took his case out of the hands of dilatory provincial justice (really injustice). Roman citizens could make this appeal in capital offences. There would be expense connected with it, but better that with some hope than delay and certain death in Jerusalem. Festus was no better than Felix in his vacillation and desire to curry favour with the Jews at Paul's expense. No doubt Paul's long desire to see Rome (19:21; strkjv@Romans:15:22-28|) and the promise of Jesus that he would see Rome (Acts:23:11|) played some part in Paul's decision. But he made it reluctantly for he says in Rome (Acts:28:19|): "I was constrained to appeal." But acquittal at the hands of Festus with the hope of going to Rome as a free man had vanished.

rwp@John:5:18 @{Sought the more} (\mallon eztoun\). Imperfect active of \zte\, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (\auton apokteinai\, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in strkjv@7:1,19,25; strkjv@8:37,40|. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. {Not only brake the Sabbath} (\ou monon elue to sabbaton\). Imperfect active of \lu\. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. \Lu\ means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of \lu\ in this sense like \luein ta penth\ (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. {But also called God his own Father} (\alla kai patera idion elege ton theon\). "His own" (\idion\) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See strkjv@Romans:8:32| for \ho idios huios\, "his own Son." {Making himself equal with God} (\ison heauton poin ti thei\). \Isos\ is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means {equal}. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ \isa thei\, "equal to God" (plural \isa\, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be \isos thei\ because in strkjv@John:14:28| he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in strkjv@14:7| that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in strkjv@10:33; strkjv@19:7|. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47|).

rwp@John:9:6 @{He spat on the ground} (\eptusen chamai\). First aorist active indicative of the old verb \ptu\ for which see strkjv@Mark:7:33|. \Chamai\ is an old adverb either in the dative or locative (sense suits locative), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:6|. Jesus was not asked to cure this man. The curative effects of saliva are held in many places. The Jews held saliva efficacious for eye-trouble, but it was forbidden on the Sabbath. "That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in the application of the clay is contradicted by the fact that in other cases of blindness He did not use it" (Dods). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23|. Why he here accommodated himself to current belief we do not know unless it was to encourage the man to believe. {He made clay} (\epoisen plon\). Only use of \plos\, old word for clay, in N.T. in this chapter and strkjv@Romans:9:21|. The kneading of the clay and spittle added another offence against the Sabbath rules of the rabbis. {Anointed his eyes with the clay} (\epechrisen autou ton plon epi tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active indicative of \epichri\, old verb, to spread on, anoint, here only and verse 11| in N.T. "He spread the clay upon his eyes." B C read \epethken\ (first aorist active indicative of \epitithmi\, to put on).

rwp@Info_Jude:@ THE USE OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS Jude:(verse strkjv@Jude:1:14|) quotes from "Enoch" by name and says that he "prophesied." What he quotes is a combination of various passages in the Book of Enoch as we have it now. It used to be held that part of Enoch was later than Jude, but Charles seems to have disproved that, though the book as we have it has many interpolations. Tertullian wanted to canonise Enoch because of what Jude:says, whereas Chrysostom says that the authenticity of Jude:was doubted because of the use of Enoch. In verse strkjv@Jude:1:9| there seems to be an allusion to the _Assumption of Moses_, another apocryphal book, but it is the use of "prophesied" in verse strkjv@Jude:1:14| about Enoch that gave most offence. It is possible, of course, that Jude:did not attach the full sense to that term.

rwp@Luke:6:1 @{On a sabbath} (\en sabbati\). This is the second sabbath on which Jesus is noted by Luke. The first was strkjv@Luke:4:31-41|. There was another in strkjv@John:5:1-47|. There is Western and Syrian (Byzantine) evidence for a very curious reading here which calls this sabbath "secondfirst" (\deuteroprti\). It is undoubtedly spurious, though Westcott and Hort print it in the margin. A possible explanation is that a scribe wrote "first" (\prti\) on the margin because of the sabbath miracle in strkjv@Luke:6:6-11|. Then another scribe recalled strkjv@Luke:4:31| where a sabbath is mentioned and wrote "second" (\deuteri\) also on the margin. Finally a third scribe combined the two in the word \deuteroprti\ that is not found elsewhere. If it were genuine, we should not know what it means. {Plucked} (\etillon\). Imperfect active. They were plucking as they went on through (\diaporeuesthai\). Whether wheat or barley, we do not know, not our "corn" (maize). {Did eat} (\sthion\). Imperfect again. See on ¯Matthew:12:1f.; strkjv@Mark:2:23f.| for the separate acts in supposed violence of the sabbath laws. {Rubbing them in their hands} (\pschontes tais chersin\). Only in Luke and only here in the N.T. This was one of the chief offences. "According to Rabbinical notions, it was reaping, threshing, winnowing, and preparing food all at once" (Plummer). These Pharisees were straining out gnats and swallowing camels! This verb \psch\ is a late one for \psa\, to rub.

rwp@Mark:2:16 @{The scribes of the Pharisees} (\hoi grammateis tn Pharisain\). This is the correct text. Cf. "their scribes" in strkjv@Luke:5:30|. Matthew gave a great reception (\dochn\, strkjv@Luke:5:29|) in his house (Mark:2:15|). These publicans and sinners not simply accepted Levi's invitation, but they imitated his example "and were following Jesus" (\kai kolouthoun auti\). It was a motly crew from the standpoint of these young theologues, scribes of the Pharisees, who were on hand, being invited to pick flaws if they could. It was probably in the long hall of the house where the scribes stood and ridiculed Jesus and the disciples, unless they stood outside, feeling too pious to go into the house of a publican. It was an offence for a Jew to eat with Gentiles as even many of the early Jewish Christians felt (Acts:11:3|) and publicans and sinners were regarded like Gentiles (1Corinthians:5:11|).

rwp@Philippians:1:10 @{Songs:that ye may} (\eis to humas\). Either purpose or result (\eis to\ plus infinitive as in strkjv@Romans:1:11,20; strkjv@3:26|, etc.). {Approve the things that are excellent} (\dokimazein ta diapheronta\). Originally, "test the things that differ." Cf. same idiom in strkjv@Romans:2:28|. The verb was used for assaying metals. Either sense suits this context, but the first step is to distinguish between good and evil and that is not always easy in our complex civilization. {Sincere} (\eilikrineis\). Old word of uncertain origin from \krin\, to judge, by \heil\ (sunlight) or to sift by rapid rolling (\eilos\). At any rate it means pure, unsullied. {Void of offence} (\aproskopoi\). Alpha privative \pros\ and \kopt\, to cut, "not stumbled against" (not causing others to stumble) or if active "not stumbling against." Passive sense probably, not active as in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32|. Common in the papyri, though not in ancient Greek writers.

rwp@Romans:9:33 @Paul repeats the phrase just used in the whole quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:8:14| with the same idea in "a rock of offence" (\petran skandalou\, "a rock of snare," a rock which the Jews made a cause of stumbling). The rest of the verse is quoted from strkjv@Isaiah:28:16|. However, the Hebrew means "shall not make haste" rather than "shall not be put to shame." In strkjv@1Peter:2:8| we have the same use of these Scriptures about Christ. Either Peter had read Romans or both Paul and Peter had a copy of Christian _Testimonia_ like Cyprian's later.

rwp@Romans:14:20 @{Overthrow not} (\m katalue\). "Destroy not," "do not loosen down" (carrying on the metaphor in \oikodom\, building). {The work of God} (\to ergon tou theou\). The brother for whom Christ died, verse 15|. Perhaps with a side-glance at Esau and his mess of pottage. {But it is evil} (\alla kakon\). Paul changes from the plural \koina\ to the singular \kakon\. {With offence} (\dia proskommatos\). "With a stumbling-block" as in verse 13|. This use of \dia\ (accompaniment) is common. Songs:then it is addressed to the "strong" brother not to cause a stumbling-block by the way he eats and exercises his freedom.