NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp decided:

rwp@1Corinthians:5:3 @{For I verily} (\eg men gar\). Emphatic statement of Paul's own attitude of indignation, \eg\ in contrast with \humeis\. He justifies his demand for the expulsion of the man. {Being absent} (\apn\) Although absent (concessive participle) and so of \parn\ though present. Each with locative case (\ti smati, ti pneumati\). {Have already judged} (\d kekrika\). Perfect active indicative of \krin\. I have already decided or judged, as though present (\hs parn\). Paul felt compelled to reach a conclusion about the case and in a sentence of much difficulty seems to conceive an imaginary church court where the culprit has been tried and condemned. There are various ways of punctuating the clauses in this sentence in verses 3-5|. It is not merely Paul's individual judgment. The genitive absolute clause in verse 4|, {ye being gathered together} (\sunachthentn humn\, first aorist passive participle of \sunag\, in regular assembly) {and my spirit} (\kai tou emou pneumatos\) with the assembly (he means) {and meeting in the name of our Lord Jesus} (\en ti onomati tou Kuriou [hmn] Isou\) with the power of the Lord Jesus (\sun ti dunamei tou Kuriou hmn Isou\), though this clause can be taken with the infinitive to deliver (\paradounai\). It makes good syntax and sense taken either way. The chief difference is that, if taken with "gathered together" (\sunachthentn\) Paul assumes less apostolic prerogative to himself. But he did have such power and used it against Elymas (Acts:13:8ff.|) as Peter did against Ananias and Sapphira (Acts:5:1ff.|).

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:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Acts:25:23 @{When Agrippa was come and Bernice} (\elthontos tou Agrippa kai ts Berniks\). Genitive absolute, the participle agreeing in number and gender (masculine singular, \elthontos\) with \Agrippa\, \Berniks\ being added as an afterthought. {With great pomp} (\meta polls phantasias\). \Phantasia\ is a _Koin_ word (Polybius, Diodorus, etc.) from the old verb \phantaz\ (Hebrews:12:21|) and it from \phain\, common verb to show, to make an appearance. This is the only N.T. example of \phantasia\, though the kindred common word \phantasma\ (appearance) occurs twice in the sense of apparition or spectre (Matthew:14:26; strkjv@Mark:6:49|). Herodotus (VII. 10) used the verb \phantaz\ for a showy parade. Festus decided to gratify the wish of Agrippa by making the "hearing" of Paul the prisoner (verse 22|) an occasion for paying a compliment to Agrippa (Rackham) by a public gathering of the notables in Caesarea. Festus just assumed that Paul would fall in with this plan for a grand entertainment though he did not have to do it. {Into the place of hearing} (\eis to akroatrion\). From \akroaomai\ (to be a hearer) and, like the Latin _auditorium_, in Roman law means the place set aside for hearing, and deciding cases. Here only in the N.T. Late word, several times in Plutarch and other _Koin_ writers. The hearing was "semi-official" (Page) as is seen in verse 26|. {With the chief captains} (\sun te chiliarchois\). \Chiliarchs\, each a leader of a thousand. There were five cohorts of soldiers stationed in Caesarea. {And the principal men of the city} (\kai andrasin tois kat' exochn\). The use of \kat' exochn\, like our French phrase _par excellence_, occurs here only in the N.T., and not in the ancient Greek, but it is found in inscriptions of the first century A.D. (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). \Exoch\ in medical writers is any protuberance or swelling. Cf. our phrase "outstanding men." {At the command of Festus} (\keleusantos tou Phstou\). Genitive absolute again, "Festus having commanded."

rwp@Colossians:3:8 @{But now} (\nuni de\). Emphatic form of \nun\ in decided contrast (to \pote\ in verse 7|) in the resurrection life of strkjv@2:12; strkjv@3:1|. {Put ye also away} (\apothesthe kai humeis\). Second aorist middle imperative of old verb \apotithmi\, to put away, lay aside like old clothes. This metaphor of clothing Paul now uses with several verbs (\apothesthe\ here, \apekdusamenoi\ in verse 9|, \endusamenoi\ in verse 10|, \endusasthe\ in verse 12|). {All these} (\ta panta\). The whole bunch of filthy rags (anger \orgn\, wrath \thumon\, malice \kakian\, railing \blasphmian\, shameful speaking \aischrologian\). See somewhat similar lists of vices in strkjv@Colossians:3:5; strkjv@Galatians:5:20; strkjv@Ephesians:4:29-31|. These words have all been discussed except \aischrologian\, an old word for low and obscene speech which occurs here only in the N.T. It is made from \aischrologos\ (\aischros\ as in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:6| and that from \aischos\, disgrace). Note also the addition of "out of your mouth" (\ek tou stomatos humn\). The word was used for both abusive and filthy talk and Lightfoot combines both ideas as often happens. Such language should never come out of the mouth of a Christian living the new life in Christ.

rwp@Ephesians:2:15 @{Having abolished} (\katargsas\). First aorist active participle of \katarge\, to make null and void. {The enmity} (\tn echthran\). But it is very doubtful if \tn echthran\ (old word from \echthros\, hostile, strkjv@Luke:23:12|) is the object of \katargsas\. It looks as if it is in apposition with to \mesotoichon\ and so the further object of \lusas\. The enmity between Jew and Gentile was the middle wall of partition. And then it must be decided whether "in his flesh" (\en ti sarki autou\) should be taken with \lusas\ and refer especially to the Cross (Colossians:1:22|) or be taken with \katargsas\. Either makes sense, but better sense with \lusas\. Certainly "the law of commandments in ordinances (\ton nomon tn entoln en dogmasin\) is governed by \katargsas\. {That he might create} (\hina ktisi\). Final clause with first aorist active subjunctive of \ktiz\. {The twain} (\tous duo\). The two men (masculine here, neuter in verse 14|), Jew and Gentile. {One new man} (\eis hena kainon anthrpon\). Into one fresh man (Colossians:3:9-11|) "in himself" (\en hauti\). Thus alone is it possible. {Making peace} (\poin eirnn\). Thus alone can it be done. Christ is the peace-maker between men, nations, races, classes.

rwp@John:6:27 @{Work not for} (\m ergazesthe\). Prohibition with \m\ and present middle imperative of \ergazomai\, old verb from \ergon\, work. {The meat} (\tn brsin\). The act of eating (Romans:14:17|), corrosion (Matthew:6:19|), the thing eaten as here (2Corinthians:9:10|). See on ¯John:4:32|. {Which perisheth} (\tn apollumenn\). Present middle participle of \apollumi\. They were already hungry again. {Unto eternal life} (\eis zn ainion\). Mystical metaphor quite beyond this crowd hungry only for more loaves and fishes. Bernard thinks that John has here put together various sayings of Christ to make one discourse, a gratuitous interpretation. {Will give} (\dsei\). Future active indicative of \didmi\. The outcome is still future and will be decided by their attitude towards the Son of man (verse 51|). {For him the Father, even God, hath sealed} (\touton gar ho patr esphragisen ho theos\). Literally, "For this one the Father sealed, God." First aorist active indicative of \sphragiz\, to seal. See elsewhere in strkjv@John:3:33| (attestation by man). Sealing by God is rare in N.T. (2Corinthians:1:22; strkjv@Ephesians:1:13; strkjv@4:30|). It is not clear to what item, if any single one, John refers when the Father set his seal of approval on the Son. It was done at his baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon him and the Father spoke to him. Cf. strkjv@5:37|.

rwp@John:12:10 @{The chief priests took counsel} (\ebouleusanto hoi archiereis\). First aorist middle indicative of \bouleu\, old verb, seen already in strkjv@11:53| which see. The whole Sanhedrin (7:32|) had decided to put Jesus to death and had asked for information concerning him (11:57|) that might lead to his arrest, but the Sadducees were specially active now to accomplish the death of Lazarus also (\hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \apoktein\ as in strkjv@11:53|). Perhaps they argued that, if they should kill both Jesus and Lazarus, then Lazarus would remain dead. The raising of Lazarus has brought matters to a crisis. Incidentally, it may be observed that here we may see the reason why the Synoptics do not tell the story of the raising of Lazarus, if he was still living (cf. the case of Malchus's name in strkjv@John:18:10|).

rwp@Luke:6:11 @{They were filled with madness} (\eplsthsan anoias\) First aorist passive (effective) with genitive: In strkjv@5:26| we saw the people filled with fear. Here is rage that is kin to insanity, for \anoias\ is lack of sense (\a\ privative and \nous\, mind). An old word, but only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:9| in the N.T. {Communed} (\dielaloun\), imperfect active, picturing their excited counsellings with one another. strkjv@Mark:3:6| notes that they bolted out of the synagogue and outside plotted even with the Herodians how to destroy Jesus, strange co-conspirators these against the common enemy. {What they might do to Jesus} (\ti an poisaien Isou\). Luke puts it in a less damaging way than strkjv@Mark:3:6; strkjv@Matthew:12:14|. This aorist optative with \an\ is the deliberative question like that in strkjv@Acts:17:18| retained in the indirect form here. Perhaps Luke means, not that they were undecided about killing Jesus, but only as to the best way of doing it. Already nearly two years before the end we see the set determination to destroy Jesus. We see it here in Galilee. We have already seen it at the feast in Jerusalem (John:5:18|) where "the Jews sought the more to kill him." John and the Synoptics are in perfect agreement as to the Pharisaic attitude toward Jesus.

rwp@Luke:11:11 @{Of which of you that is a father} (\tina de ex humn ton patera\). There is a decided anacoluthon here. The MSS. differ a great deal. The text of Westcott and Hort makes \ton patera\ (the father) in apposition with \tina\ (of whom) and in the accusative the object of \aitsei\ (shall ask) which has also another accusative (both person and thing) "a loaf." Songs:far so good. But the rest of the sentence is, {will ye give him a stone?} (\m lithon epidsei auti;\). \M\ shows that the answer No is expected, but the trouble is that the interrogative \tina\ in the first clause is in the accusative the object of \aitsei\ while here the same man (he) is the subject of \epidsei\. It is a very awkward piece of Greek and yet it is intelligible. Some of the old MSS. do not have the part about "loaf" and "stone," but only the two remaining parts about "fish" and "serpent," "egg" and "scorpion." The same difficult construction is carried over into these questions also.

rwp@Mark:2:14 @{And as he passed by} (\kai paragn\). Present participle active, was passing by. Jesus was constantly on the alert for opportunities to do good. An unlikely specimen was Levi (Matthew), son of Alpheus, sitting at the toll-gate (\telnion\) on the Great West Road from Damascus to the Mediterranean. He was a publican (\telns\) who collected toll for Herod Antipas. The Jews hated or despised these publicans and classed them with sinners (\hamartloi\). The challenge of Jesus was sudden and sharp, but Levi (Matthew) was ready to respond at once. He had heard of Jesus and quickly decided. Great decisions are often made on a moment's notice. Levi is a fine object lesson for business men who put off service to Christ to carry on their business.

rwp@Titus:3:12 @{When I shall send} (\hotan pemps\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the first aorist active subjunctive (or future indicative) of \pemp\ (same form). {Artemas} (\Artemn\). Perhaps abbreviation of Artemidorus. Nothing more is known of him. {Or Tychicus} (\ Tuchikon\). Paul's well-known disciple (Colossians:4:7; strkjv@Ephesians:6:21; strkjv@2Timothy:4:12|). {To Nicopolis} (\eis Nikopolin\). Probably in Epirus, a good place for work in Dalmatia (2Timothy:4:10|). {I have determined} (\kekrika\). Perfect active indicative. I have decided. {To winter there} (\ekei paracheimasai\). First aorist active infinitive of \paracheimaz\, a literary _Koin_ word for which see strkjv@Acts:27:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:6|.