NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp somewhere:

rwp@1Corinthians:7:39 @{For so long time as her husband liveth} (\eph' hoson chronon zi ho anr auts\). While he lives (\ti znti andri\) Paul says in strkjv@Romans:7:2|. This is the ideal and is pertinent today when husbands meet their ex-wives and wives meet their ex-husbands. There is a screw loose somewhere. Paul here treats as a sort of addendum the remarriage of widows. He will discuss it again in strkjv@1Timothy:5:9-13| and then he will advise younger widows to marry. Paul leaves her free here also to be married again, "only in the Lord" (\monon en Kurii\). Every marriage ought to be "in the Lord." {To be married} (\gamthnai\) is first aorist passive infinitive followed by the dative relative \hi\ with unexpressed antecedent \touti\.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:3 @{Let no man beguile you in any wise} (\m tis humas exapatsi kata mdena tropon\). First aorist active subjunctive of \exapata\ (old verb to deceive, strengthened form of simple verb \apata\) with double negative (\m tis, mdena\) in accord with regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:11| rather than the aorist imperative which does occur sometimes in the third person as in strkjv@Mark:13:15| (\m katabat\). Paul broadens the warning to go beyond conversation and letter. He includes "tricks" of any kind. It is amazing how gullible some of the saints are when a new deceiver pulls off some stunts in religion. {For it will not be} (\hoti\). There is an ellipse here of \ouk estai\ (or \gensetai\) to be supplied after \hoti\. Westcott and Hort make an anacoluthon at the end of verse 4|. The meaning is clear. \Hoti\ is causal, because, but the verb is understood. The second coming not only is not "imminent," but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of verse 2|. {Except the falling away come first} (\ean m elthi h apostasia prton\). Negative condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of determination and the aorist subjunctive. \Apostasia\ is the late form of \apostasis\ and is our word apostasy. Plutarch uses it of political revolt and it occurs in I Macc. strkjv@2:15 about Antiochus Epiphanes who was enforcing the apostasy from Judaism to Hellenism. In strkjv@Joshua:22:22| it occurs for rebellion against the Lord. It seems clear that the word here means a religious revolt and the use of the definite article (\h\) seems to mean that Paul had spoken to the Thessalonians about it. The only other New Testament use of the word is in strkjv@Acts:21:21| where it means apostasy from Moses. It is not clear whether Paul means revolt of the Jews from God, of Gentiles from God, of Christians from God, or of the apostasy that includes all classes within and without the body of Christians. But it is to be {first} (\prton\) before Christ comes again. Note this adverb when only two events are compared (cf. strkjv@Acts:1:1|). {And the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition} (\kai apokaluphthi ho anthrpos ts anomias, ho huios ts apleias\). First aorist passive subjunctive after \ean m\ and same condition as with \elthi\. The use of this verb \apokalupt\, like \apokalupsin\ of the second coming in strkjv@1:7|, seems to note the superhuman character (Milligan) of the event and the same verb is repeated in verses 6,8|. The implication is that {the man of sin} is hidden somewhere who will be suddenly manifested just as false apostles pose as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:13ff.|), whether the crowning event of the apostasy or another name for the same event. Lightfoot notes the parallel between the man of sin, of whom sin is the special characteristic (genitive case, a Hebraism for the lawless one in verse 8|) and Christ. Both Christ and the adversary of Christ are revealed, there is mystery about each, both make divine claims (verse 4|). He seems to be the Antichrist of strkjv@1John:2:18|. The terrible phrase, the son of perdition, is applied to Judas in strkjv@John:17:12| (like Judas doomed to perdition), but here to the lawless one (\ho anomos\, verse 8|), who is not Satan, but some one definite person who is doing the work of Satan. Note the definite article each time.

rwp@Acts:27:29 @{Lest haply we should be cast ashore on rocky ground} (\m pou kata tracheis topous ekpesmen\). The usual construction after a verb of fearing (\m\ and the aorist subjunctive \ekpesmen\). Literally, "Lest somewhere (\pou\) we should fall out down against (\kata\) rocky places." The change in the soundings made it a very real fear. \Tracheis\ (rough) is old adjective, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:3:5| (from strkjv@Isaiah:40:4|). {Four anchors} (\agkuras tessaras\). Old word from \agk\. In N.T. only in this chapter, with \rhipt\ here, with \ektein\ in verse 30|, with \periaire\ in verse 40|; and strkjv@Hebrews:6:19| (figuratively of hope). {From the stern} (\ek prumns\). Old word, but in N.T. only in strkjv@Mark:4:38|; here and 41| in contrast with \prira\ (prow). The usual practice was and is to anchor by the bows. "With a view to running the ship ashore anchoring from the stern would, it is said, be best" (Page). Nelson is quoted as saying that he had been reading strkjv@Acts:27| the morning of the Battle of Copenhagen (April, 1801) where he anchored his ships from the stern. {Wished for the day} (\uchonto\). Imperfect middle, kept on praying for "day to come" (\hmeran genesthai\) before the anchors broke under the strain of the storm or began to drag. If the ship had been anchored from the prow, it would have swung round and snapped the anchors or the stern would have faced the beach.

rwp@Hebrews:2:6 @{But one somewhere} (\de pou tis\). See strkjv@4:4| for a like indefinite quotation. Philo uses this "literary mannerism" (Moffatt). He quotes strkjv@Psalms:8:5-7| and extends here to 8a|. {Hath testified} (\diemarturato\). First aorist middle indicative of \diamarturomai\, old verb to testify vigorously (Acts:2:40|). {What} (\Ti\). Neuter, not masculine \tis\ (who). The insignificance of man is implied. {The son of man} (\huios anthrpou\). Not \ho huios tou anthrpou\ which Jesus used so often about himself, but literally here "son of man" like the same words so often in Ezekiel, without Messianic meaning here. {Visited} (\episkepti\). Second person singular present indicative middle of \episkeptomai\, old verb to look upon, to look after, to go to see (Matthew:25:36|), from which verb \episcopos\, overseer, bishop, comes.

rwp@John:1:44 @{From Bethsaida} (\apo Bthsaida\). Same expression in strkjv@12:21| with the added words "of Galilee," which locates it in Galilee, not in Iturea. There were two Bethsaidas, one called Bethsaida Julias in Iturea (that in strkjv@Luke:9:10|) or the Eastern Bethsaida, the other the Western Bethsaida in Galilee (Mark:6:45|), perhaps somewhere near Capernaum. This is the town of Andrew and Peter and Philip. Hence Philip would be inclined to follow the example of his townsmen.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Romans:4:19 @{Without being weakened in faith} (\m asthensas ti pistei\). "Not becoming weak in faith." Ingressive first aorist active participle with negative \m\. {Now as good as dead} (\d nenekrmenon\). Perfect passive participle of \nekro\, "now already dead." B omits \d\. He was, he knew, too old to become father of a child. {About} (\pou\). The addition of \pou\ (somewhere, about) "qualifies the exactness of the preceding numeral" (Vaughan). The first promise of a son to Abraham and Sarah came (Genesis:15:3f.|) before the birth of Ishmael (86 when Ishmael was born). The second promise came when Abraham was 99 years old (Genesis:17:1|), calling himself 100 (Genesis:17:17|).