NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp opta:

rwp@1Corinthians:13:4 @Verses 4-7| picture the character or conduct of love in marvellous rhapsody. {Suffereth long} (\makrothumei\). Late _Koin_ word (Plutarch) from \makros\, long, \thumos\, passion, ardour. Cf. strkjv@James:5:7f|. {Is kind} (\chrsteuetai\). From \chrstos\ (useful, gracious, kind) and that from \chraomai\, to use. Not found elsewhere save in Clement of Rome and Eusebius. "Perhaps of Paul's coining" (Findlay). Perhaps a vernacular word ready for Paul. Gentle in behaviour. {Envieth not} (\ou zloi\). Present active indicative of \zlo\ (contraction \oei=oi\, same as subjunctive and optative forms). Bad sense of \zlos\ from \ze\, to boil, good sense in strkjv@12:31|. Love is neither jealous nor envious (both ideas). {Vaunteth not itself} (\ou perpereuetai\). From \perperos\, vainglorious, braggart (Polybius, Epictetus) like Latin _perperus_. Only here in N.T. and earliest known example. It means play the braggart. Marcus Anton. V. 5 uses it with \areskeuomai\, to play the toady. {Is not puffed up} (\ou phusioutai\). Present direct middle indicative of \phusio\ from \phusis\ (late form for \phusa, phusia\ from \phusa\, bellows), to puff oneself out like a pair of bellows. This form in Herodas and Menander. Is not arrogant. See on ¯4:6|.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:24 @{Then cometh the end} (\eita to telos\). No verb \ginetai\ in the Greek. Supply "at his coming," the end or consummation of the age or world (Matthew:13:39,49; strkjv@1Peter:4:7|), {When he shall deliver up} (\hotan paradidi\). Present active subjunctive (not optative) of \paradidmi\ with \hotan\, whenever, and so quite indefinite and uncertain as to time. Present subjunctive rather than aorist \paradi\ because it pictures a future proceeding. {To God, even the Father} (\ti thei kai patri\). Better, "to the God and Father" or to "His God and Father." The Kingdom belongs to the Father. {When he shall have abolished} (\hotan katargsi\). First aorist active subjunctive with \hotan\, indefinite future time. Simply, "whenever he shall abolish," no use in making it future perfect, merely aorist subjunctive. On \katarge\ see strkjv@1Corinthians:6:13; strkjv@13:8,10,11|. {Rule} (\archn\), {authority} (\exousian\), {power} (\dunamin\). All forms of power opposing the will of God. Constative aorist tense covering the whole period of conflict with final victory as climax.

rwp@1Peter:1:2 @{According to} (\kata\). Probably to be connected with \eklektois\ rather than with \apostolos\ in spite of a rather loose arrangement of words and the absence of articles in verses 1,2|. {The foreknowledge} (\prognsin\). Late substantive (Plutarch, Lucian, papyri) from \proginsk\ (1:20|), to know beforehand, only twice in N.T. (here and strkjv@Acts:2:23| in Peter's sermon). In this Epistle Peter often uses substantives rather than verbs (cf. strkjv@Romans:8:29|). {Of God the Father} (\theou patros\). Anarthous again and genitive case. See \patr\ applied to God also in strkjv@1:3,17| as often by Paul (Romans:1:7|, etc.). Peter here presents the Trinity (God the Father, the Spirit, Jesus Christ). {In sanctification of the Spirit} (\en hagiasmi pneumatos\). Clearly the Holy Spirit, though anarthrous like \theou patros\. Late word from \hagiaz\, to render holy (\hagios\), to consecrate, as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:7|. The subjective genitive here, sanctification wrought by the Spirit as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:13| (where the Trinity mentioned as here). {Unto obedience} (\eis hupakon\). Obedience (from \hupakou\, to hear under, to hearken) to the Lord Jesus as in strkjv@1:22| "to the truth," result of "the sanctification." {And sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ} (\rantismon haimatos Isou Christou\). Late substantive from \rantiz\, to sprinkle (Hebrews:9:13|), a word used in the LXX of the sacrifices (Numbers:19:9,13,20|, etc.), but not in any non-biblical source so far as known, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:12:24| (of the sprinkling of blood). Reference to the death of Christ on the Cross and to the ratification of the New Covenant by the blood of Christ as given in strkjv@Hebrews:9:19f.; strkjv@12:24| with allusion to strkjv@Exodus:24:3-8|. Paul does not mention this ritual use of the blood of Christ, but Jesus does (Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Mark:14:24|). Hence it is not surprising to find the use of it by Peter and the author of Hebrews. Hort suggests that Peter may also have an ulterior reference to the blood of the martyrs as in strkjv@Revelation:7:14f.; strkjv@12:11|, but only as illustration of what Jesus did for us, not as having any value. The whole Epistle is a commentary upon \prognsis theou, hagiasmos pneumatos, haima Christou\ (Bigg). Peter is not ashamed of the blood of Christ. {Be multiplied} (\plthunthei\). First aorist passive optative (volitive) of \plthun\, old verb (from \plthus\, fulness), in a wish. Songs:in strkjv@2Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|, but nowhere else in N.T. salutations. Grace and peace (\charis kai eirn\) occur together in strkjv@2Peter:1:2|, in strkjv@2John:1:2| (with \eleos\), and in all Paul's Epistles (with \eleos\ added in I and II Timothy).

rwp@1Peter:3:14 @{But and if ye should suffer} (\all' ei kai paschoite\). "But if ye should also (or even) suffer." Condition of the fourth class with \ei\ and the optative (undetermined with less likelihood), a rare condition in the vernacular _Koin_, since the optative was a dying mode. If matters, in spite of the prophetic note of victory in verse 13|, should come to actual suffering "for righteousness' sake" (\dia dikaiosunn\) as in strkjv@Matthew:5:10| (\heneken\, not \dia\), then "blessed" (\makarioi\, the very word of Jesus there which see, a word meaning "happy," not \eulogtoi\) "are ye" (not in the Greek). If the conclusion were expressed regularly, it would be \eite an\ (ye would be), not \este\ (ye are). It is interesting to note the third-class condition in verse 13| just before the fourth-class one in verse 14|. {Fear not their fear} (\ton phobon autn m phobthte\). Prohibition with \m\ and the first aorist (ingressive) passive subjunctive of \phobeomai\, to fear, and the cognate accusative \phobon\ (fear, terror). "Do not fear their threats" (Bigg). Quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:8:12f|. {Neither be troubled} (\mde taraxthte\). Prohibition with \mde\ and the first aorist (ingressive) subjunctive of \tarass\, to disturb (Matthew:2:6; strkjv@John:12:27|). Part of the same quotation. Cf. strkjv@3:6|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:11 @{Our God and Father himself} (\autos ho theos kai patr hmn\). Note one article with both substantives for one person. {And our Lord Jesus} (\kai ho Kurios hmn Isous\). Separate article here with \Isous\. In strkjv@Titus:2:13; strkjv@2Peter:1:1| only one article (not two) treating "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" as one just like "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" in strkjv@2Peter:1:11; strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:18|. {Direct our way} (\kateuthunai tn hodon hmn\). First aorist optative (acute accent on penult, not circumflex first aorist active infinitive) of \kateuthun\, old verb to make straight path. Singular verb also, though both God and Christ mentioned as subject (unity in the Godhead). Apart from \m genoito\ ({may it not come to pass}) the optative in a wish of the third person is found in N.T. only in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:11,12; strkjv@5:23; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:17; strkjv@3:5,16; strkjv@Romans:15:5,13|.

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:12 @{The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). The Lord Jesus. Paul prays to Christ. {Make you to increase} (\humas pleonasai\). First aorist active optative (wish for future) of \pleonaz\, late verb from \pleon\ (more), {to superabound}. {And abound} (\perisseusai\). First aorist active optative (wish for future) of \perisseu\ from \perissos\, old verb, to be over (common in N.T.). It is hard to see much difference between the two verbs.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:23 @{The God of peace} (\ho theos ts eirns\). The God characterized by peace in his nature, who gladly bestows it also. Common phrase (Milligan) at close of Paul's Epistles (2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@Romans:15:33; strkjv@16:20; strkjv@Phillipians:4:9|) and {the Lord of peace} in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:6|. {Sanctify you} (\hagiasai hums\). First aorist active optative in a wish for the future. New verb in LXX and N.T. for the old \hagiz\, to render or to declare holy (\hagios\), to consecrate, to separate from things profane. {Wholly} (\holoteleis\). Predicate adjective in plural (\holos\, whole, \telos\, end), not adverb \holotels\. Late word in Plutarch, Hexapla, and in inscription A.D. 67 (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). Here alone in N.T. Here it means the whole of each of you, every part of each of you, "through and through" (Luther), qualitatively rather than quantitatively. {Your spirit and soul and body} (\humn to pneuma kai h psuch kai to sma\). Not necessarily trichotomy as opposed to dichotomy as elsewhere in Paul's Epistles. Both believers and unbelievers have an inner man (soul \psuch\, mind \nous\, heart \kardia\, the inward man \ho es anthrpos\) and the outer man (\sma, ho ex anthrpos\). But the believer has the Holy Spirit of God, the renewed spirit of man (1Corinthians:2:11; strkjv@Romans:8:9-11|). {Be preserved entire} (\holoklron trthei\). First aorist passive optative in wish for the future. Note singular verb and singular adjective (neuter) showing that Paul conceives of the man as "an undivided whole" (Frame), prayer for the consecration of both body and soul (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:6|). The adjective \holoklron\ is in predicate and is an old form and means complete in all its parts (\holos\, whole, \klros\, lot or part). There is to be no deficiency in any part. \Teleios\ (from \telos\, end) means final perfection. {Without blame} (\amempts\). Old adverb (\a\ privative, \memptos\, verbal of \memphomai\, to blame) only in I Thess. in N.T. (2:10; strkjv@3:13; strkjv@5:23|). Milligan notes it in certain sepulchral inscriptions discovered in Thessalonica. {At the coming} (\en ti parousii\). The Second Coming which was a sustaining hope to Paul as it should be to us and mentioned often in this Epistle (see on ¯2:19|).

rwp@2John:1:3 @{Shall be with us} (\estai meth' hmn\). He picks up the words before in reverse order. Future indicative here, not a wish with the optative (\eie\) as we have in strkjv@1Peter:1:2; strkjv@2Peter:1:2|. The salutation is like that in the Pastoral Epistles: "\Charis\, the wellspring in the heart of God; \eleos\, its outpourings; \eirn\, its blessed effect" (David Smith). {And from Jesus Christ} (\kai para Isou Christou\). The repetition of \para\ (with the ablative) is unique. "It serves to bring out distinctly the twofold personal relation of man to the Father and to the Son" (Westcott). "The Fatherhood of God, as revealed by one who being His Son _can_ reveal the Father, and who as man (\Isou\) can make him known to men" (Brooke).

rwp@2Peter:1:2 @{Be multiplied} (\plthunthei\). First aorist passive optative of \plthun\ in a wish for the future (volitive use) as in strkjv@1Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|. {In the knowledge} (\en epignsei\). Full (additional, \epi\) knowledge as in strkjv@1:8| (only \gnsis\ in strkjv@1:5,6; strkjv@3:18|), but \epignsin\ again in strkjv@1:3,8; strkjv@2:20|. As in Colossians, so here full knowledge is urged against the claims of the Gnostic heretics to special \gnsis\. {Of God and of Jesus our Lord} (\tou theou kai Isou tou kuriou hmn\). At first sight the idiom here seems to require one person as in strkjv@1:1|, though there is a second article (\tou\) before \kuriou\, and \Isou\ is a proper name. But the text here is very uncertain. Bengel, Spitta, Zahn, Nestle accept the short reading of P and some Vulgate MSS. and some minuscles with only \tou kuriou hmn\ (our Lord) from which the three other readings may have come. Elsewhere in II Peter \gnsis\ and \epignsis\ are used of Christ alone. The text of II Peter is not in a good state of preservation.

rwp@2Peter:1:16 @{We did not follow} (\ouk exakolouthsantes\). First aorist active participle of \exakolouthe\, late compound verb, to follow out (Polybius, Plutarch, LXX, papyri, inscriptions as of death following for any Gentile in the temple violating the barrier), with emphatic negative \ouk\, "not having followed." See also strkjv@2:2| for this verb. {Cunningly devised fables} (\sesophismenois muthois\). Associative instrumental case of \muthos\ (old term for word, narrative, story, fiction, fable, falsehood). In N.T. only here and the Pastoral Epistles (1Timothy:1:4|, etc.). Perfect passive participle of \sophiz\, old word (from \sophos\), only twice in N.T., in causative sense to make wise (2Timothy:3:15|), to play the sophist, to invent cleverly (here) and so also in the old writers and in the papyri. Some of the false teachers apparently taught that the Gospel miracles were only allegories and not facts (Bigg). Cf. strkjv@2:3| for "feigned words." {When we made known unto you} (\egnrisamen humin\). First aorist active indicative of \gnriz\, to make known unto you. Possibly by Peter himself. {The power and coming} (\tn dunamin kai parousian\). These words can refer (Chase) to the Incarnation, just as is true of \epiphaneia\ in strkjv@2Timothy:1:10| (second coming in strkjv@1Timothy:6:14|), and is true of \parousia\ (2Corinthians:7:6| of Titus). But elsewhere in the N.T. \parousia\ (technical term in the papyri for the coming of a king or other high dignitary), when used of Christ, refers to his second coming (2Peter:3:4,12|). {But we were eye-witnesses} (\all' epoptai genthentes\). First aorist passive participle of \ginomai\, "but having become eye-witnesses." \Epoptai\, old word (from \epopt\ like \epopteu\ in strkjv@1Peter:2:12; strkjv@3:2|), used of those who attained the third or highest degree of initiates in the Eleusinian mysteries (common in the inscriptions). Cf. \autopts\ in strkjv@Luke:1:2|. {Of his majesty} (\ts ekeinou megaleiottos\). Late and rare word (LXX and papyri) from \megaleios\ (Acts:2:11|), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:9:43| (of God); strkjv@Acts:19:27| (of Artemis). Peter clearly felt that he and James and John were lifted to the highest stage of initiation at the Transfiguration of Christ. Emphatic \ekeinou\ as in strkjv@2Timothy:2:26|.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:17 @{Comfort and stablish} (\parakalesai kai strixai\). First aorist active optative of wish for the future of two common verbs \parakale\ (see on ¯1Thessalonians:3:7; strkjv@4:18; strkjv@5:14|) and \steriz\ (see on ¯1Thessalonians:3:2,13|). God is the God of {comfort} (2Corinthians:1:3-7|) and strength (Romans:1:11; strkjv@16:25|).

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:5 @{Direct} (\kateuthunai\). First aorist active optative of wish for the future as in strkjv@2:17; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:23| from \kateuthun\, old verb, as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:11| (there {way}, here {hearts}) and strkjv@Luke:1:79| of {feet} (\podas\). Perfective use of \kata\. Bold figure for making smooth and direct road. The Lord here is the Lord Jesus. {Into the love of God} (\eis tn agapn tou theou\). Either subjective or objective genitive makes sense and Lightfoot pleads for both, "not only as an objective attribute of deity, but as a ruling principle in our hearts," holding that it is "seldom possible to separate the one from the other." Most scholars take it here as subjective, the characteristic of God. {Into the patience of Christ} (\eis tn hupomnn tou Christou\). There is the same ambiguity here, though the subjective idea, the patience shown by Christ, is the one usually accepted rather than "the patient waiting for Christ" (objective genitive).

rwp@2Timothy:1:16 @{Grant mercy} (\di eleos\). The phrase nowhere else in the N.T. Second aorist active optative of \didmi\, the usual form being \doi\. This is the usual construction in a wish about the future. {Unto the house of Onesiphorus} (\ti Onsiphorou oiki\). The same phrase in strkjv@4:19|. Apparently Onesiphorus is now dead as is implied by the wish in strkjv@1:18|. {For he oft refreshed me} (\hoti pollakis me anepsuxen\). First aorist active indicative of \anapsuch\, old verb, to cool again, in LXX and _Koin_ often, here only in N.T., but \anapsuxis\ in strkjv@Acts:3:20|. In the first imprisonment or the second. If he lost his life for coming to see Paul, it was probably recently during this imprisonment. {Was not ashamed of my chain} (\halusin mou ouk epaischunth\). Passive deponent again (first aorist indicative) with accusative as in strkjv@1:8|. For \halusin\ (chain) see strkjv@Ephesians:6:20|. Note absence of augment in \epaischunth\.

rwp@Acts:1:3 @{To whom also} (\hois kai\). He chose them and then also manifested himself to these very same men that they might have personal witness to give. {Shewed himself alive} (\parestsen heauton znta\). To the disciples the first Sunday evening (Mark:16:14; strkjv@Luke:24:36-43; strkjv@John:20:19-25|), the second Sunday evening (John:20:26-29|), at the Sea of Tiberias (John:21:1-23|), on the mountain in Galilee (Matthew:28:16-20; strkjv@Mark:16:15-18; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:6|), to the disciples in Jerusalem and Olivet (Luke:24:44-53; strkjv@Mark:16-19f.; strkjv@Acts:1:1-11|). Luke uses this verb \paristmi\ 13 times in the Acts both transitively and intransitively. It is rendered by various English words (present, furnish, provide, assist, commend). The early disciples including Paul never doubted the fact of the Resurrection, once they were convinced by personal experience. At first some doubted like Thomas (Mark:16:14; strkjv@Luke:24:41; strkjv@John:20:24f.; strkjv@Matthew:28:17|). But after that they never wavered in their testimony to their own experience with the Risen Christ, "whereof we are witnesses" Peter said (Acts:3:15|). They doubted at first, that we may believe, but at last they risked life itself in defence of this firm faith. {After his passion} (\meta to pathein auton\). Neat Greek idiom, \meta\ with the articular infinitive (second aorist active of \pasch\) and the accusative of general reference, "after the suffering as to him." For \pathein\ used absolutely of Christ's suffering see also strkjv@Acts:17:3; strkjv@26:23|. {By many proofs} (\en pollois tekmriois\). Literally, "in many proofs." \Tekmrion\ is only here in the N.T., though an old and common word in ancient Greek and occurring in the _Koin_ (papyri, etc.). The verb \tekmair\, to prove by sure signs, is from \tekmar\, a sign. Luke does not hesitate to apply the definite word "proofs" to the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ after full investigation on the part of this scientific historian. Aristotle makes a distinction between \tekmrion\ (proof) and \smeion\ (sign) as does Galen the medical writer. {Appearing} (\optanomenos\). Present middle participle from late verb \optan\, late _Koin_ verb from root \opt\ seen in \opsomai, phthn\. In LXX, papyri of second century B.C. (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 83). Only here in the N.T. For \optasia\ for vision see strkjv@Acts:26:19; strkjv@Luke:1:22; strkjv@24:23|. {By the space of forty days} (\di' hmern tesserakonta\). At intervals (\dia\, between) during the forty days, ten appearances being known to us. Jesus was not with them continually now in bodily presence. The period of forty days is given here alone. The Ascension was thus ten days before Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came. Moses was in the mount forty days (Exodus:24:18|) and Jesus fasted forty days (Matthew:4:2|). In the Gospel of Luke 24 this separation of forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension is not drawn. {The things concerning the Kingdom of God} (\ta peri ts basileias tou theou\). This phrase appears 33 times in Luke's Gospel, 15 times in Mark, 4 times in Matthew who elsewhere has "the kingdom of heaven," once in John, and 6 times in Acts. No essential distinction is to be drawn between the two for the Jews often used "heaven" rather than "God" to avoid using the Tetragrammaton. But it is noticeable how the word kingdom drops out of Acts. Other words like gospel (\euaggelion\) take the place of "kingdom." Jesus was fond of the word "kingdom" and Luke is fond of the idiom "the things concerning" (\ta peri\). Certainly with Jesus the term "kingdom" applies to the present and the future and covers so much that it is not strange that the disciples with their notions of a political Messianic kingdom (Acts:1:6|) were slow to comprehend the spiritual nature of the reign of God.

rwp@Acts:5:24 @{They were much perplexed} (\diporoun\). Imperfect active of \diapore\ old verb by Luke only in the N.T. See already on strkjv@Acts:2:12|. They continued puzzled. {Whereunto this would grow} (\ti an genoito touto\). More exactly, {As to what this would become}. Second aorist middle optative of \ginomai\ with \an\, the conclusion of a condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of determination), the unexpressed condition being "if the thing should be allowed to go on." The indirect question simply retains the optative with \an\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1021, 1044). If they had only known how this grain of mustard seed would grow into the greatest tree on earth and how dwarfed the tree of Judaism would be beside it!

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@Acts:23:12 @{Banded together} (\poisantes sustrophn\). See on strkjv@19:40| (riot), but here conspiracy, secret combination, binding together like twisted cords. {Bound themselves under a curse} (\anethematisan heautous\). First aorist active indicative of \anathematiz\, a late word, said by Cremer and Thayer to be wholly Biblical or ecclesiastical. But Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 95) quotes several examples of the verb in an Attic cursing tablet from Megara of the first or second century A.D. This proof shows that the word, as well as \anathema\ (substantive) from which the verb is derived, was employed by pagans as well as by Jews. Deissmann suggests that Greek Jews like the seven sons of Sceva may have been the first to coin it. It occurs in the LXX as well as strkjv@Mark:14:71| (which see and Luke strkjv@21:5|); strkjv@Acts:23:12,14,21|. They placed themselves under an anathema or curse, devoted themselves to God (cf. strkjv@Leviticus:27:28f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:22|). {Drink} (\pein=piein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \pin\. For this shortened form see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 343. {Till they had killed} (\hes hou apokteinsin\). First aorist active subjunctive of \apoktein\, common verb. No reason to translate "had killed," simply "till they should kill," the aorist merely punctiliar action, the subjunctive retained instead of the optative for vividness as usual in the _Koin_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 974-6). Same construction in verse 14|. King Saul took an "anathema" that imperilled Jonathan (1Samuel:14:24|). Perhaps the forty felt that the rabbis could find some way to absolve the curse if they failed. See this verse repeated in verse 21|.

rwp@Ephesians:1:3 @{Blessed} (\eulogtos\). Verbal of \euloge\, common in the LXX for Hebrew _baruk_ (Vulgate _benedictus_) and applied usually to God, sometimes to men (Genesis:24:31|), but in N.T. always to God (Luke:1:68|), while \eulogmenos\ (perfect passive participle) is applied to men (Luke:1:42|). "While \eulogmenos\ points to an isolated act or acts, \eulogtos\ describes the intrinsic character" (Lightfoot). Instead of the usual \eucharistoumen\ (Colossians:1:3|) Paul here uses \eulogtos\, elsewhere only in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3| in opening, though in a doxology in strkjv@Romans:1:25; strkjv@9:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:31|. The copula here is probably \estin\ (is), though either \est\ (imperative) or \ei\ (optative as wish) will make sense. {The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\ho theos kai patr tou Kuriou hmn Isou Christou\). \Kai\ is genuine here, though not in strkjv@Colossians:1:3|. The one article (\ho\) with \theos kai patr\ links them together as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3; strkjv@3:11,13; strkjv@Galatians:1:4|. See also the one article in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11|. In strkjv@Ephesians:1:17| we have \ho theos tou Kuriou hmn Isou Christou\, and the words of Jesus in strkjv@John:20:17|. {Who hath blessed us} (\ho eulogsas hums\). First aorist active participle of \euloge\, the same word, antecedent action to the doxology (\eulogtos\). {With} (\en\). So-called instrumental use of \en\ though {in} is clear. {Every spiritual blessing} (\pasi eulogii pneumatiki\). Third use of the root \eulog\ (verbal, verb, substantive). Paul lovingly plays with the idea. The believer is a citizen of heaven and the spiritual blessings count for most to him. {In the heavenly places in Christ} (\en tois epouraniois en Christi\). In four other places in Eph. (1:20; strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:10; strkjv@6:12|). This precise phrase (with \en\) occurs nowhere else in the N.T. and has a clearly local meaning in strkjv@1:20; strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:10|, doubtful in strkjv@6:12|, but probably so here. In strkjv@2:6| the believer is conceived as already seated with Christ. Heaven is the real abode of the citizen of Christ's kingdom (Phillipians:3:20|) who is a stranger on earth (Phillipians:1:27; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19|). The word \epouranios\ (heavenly) occurs in various passages in the N.T. in contrast with \ta epigeia\ (the earthly) as in strkjv@John:3:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:40,48,49; strkjv@Phillipians:2:10|, with \patris\ (country) in strkjv@Hebrews:11:16|, with \klsis\ (calling) in strkjv@Hebrews:3:1|, with \drea\ (gift) in strkjv@Hebrews:6:4|, with \basileia\ (kingdom) in strkjv@2Timothy:4:18|.

rwp@Galatians:6:14 @{Far be it from me} (\emoi m genoito\). Second aorist middle optative of \ginomai\ in a negative (\m\) wish about the future with dative case: "May it not happen to me." See strkjv@2:17|. The infinitive \kauchsthai\ (to glory) is the subject of \genoito\ as is common in the LXX, though not elsewhere in the N.T. {Hath been crucified unto me} (\emoi estaurtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \stauro\, stands crucified, with the ethical dative again (\emoi\). This is one of the great sayings of Paul concerning his relation to Christ and the world in contrast with the Judaizers. Cf. strkjv@2:19f.; strkjv@3:13; strkjv@4:4f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:23f.; strkjv@Romans:1:16; strkjv@3:21ff.; strkjv@4:25; strkjv@5:18|. {World} (\kosmos\) has no article, but is definite as in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19|. Paul's old world of Jewish descent and environment is dead to him (Phillipians:3:3f.|).

rwp@Hebrews:13:21 @{Make you perfect} (\katartisai\). First aorist active optative of \katartiz\, to equip, as in strkjv@10:5|. A wish for the future. See strkjv@1Corinthians:1:10; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@2Timothy:3:17|. {Working in us} (\poin en hemin\). "Doing in us." Some MSS. read "in you." {Well-pleasing} (\euareston\). Compound adjective (\eu, arestos\). Usually with the dative (Romans:12:2|), here with \enpion autou\ more like the Hebrew. This is one of the noblest doxologies in the N.T.

rwp@Luke:1:2 @{Even as} (\kaths\). This particle was condemned by the Atticists though occurring occasionally from Aristotle on. It is in the papyri. Luke asserts that the previous narratives had their sound basis. {Delivered unto us} (\paredsan hmin\). Second aorist active indicative of \paradidmi\. Luke received this tradition along with those who are mentioned above (the many). That is he was not one of the "eyewitnesses." He was a secondary, not a primary, witness of the events. Tradition has come to have a meaning of unreliability with us, but that is not the idea here. Luke means to say that the handing down was dependable, not mere wives' fables. Those who drew up the narratives had as sources of knowledge those who handed down the data. Here we have both written and oral sources. Luke had access to both kinds. {Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word} (\hoi ap' archs autoptai kai hupretai genomenoi tou logou\). "Who" is better than "which" for the article here. The word for {eyewitnesses} (\autoptai\) is an old Greek word and appears in the papyri also. It means seeing with one's own eyes. It occurs here only in the N.T. We have the very word in the medical term _autopsy_. Greek medical writers often had the word. It is a different word from \epoptai\ (eyewitness) in strkjv@2Peter:1:16|, a word used of those who beheld heavenly mysteries. The word for "ministers" (\hupretai\), under rowers or servants we have had already in strkjv@Matthew:5:25; strkjv@26:58; strkjv@Mark:14:54,65|, which see. We shall see it again in strkjv@Luke:4:20| of the attendant in the synagogue. In the sense of a preacher of the gospel as here, it occurs also in strkjv@Acts:26:16|. Here "the word" means the gospel message, as in strkjv@Acts:6:4; strkjv@8:4|, etc. {From the beginning} apparently refers to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as was true of the apostles (Acts:1:22|) and of the early apostolic preaching (Acts:10:37-43|). The Gospel of Mark follows this plan. The Gospel of Luke goes behind this in chapters 1 and 2 as does Matthew in chapters 1 and 2. But Luke is not here referring to himself. The matters about the childhood of Jesus Christ would not form part of the traditional preaching for obvious reasons.

rwp@Luke:1:62 @{Made signs} (\eneneuon\). Imperfect tense, repeated action as usual when making signs. In strkjv@1:22| the verb used of Zacharias is \dianeun\. {What he would have him called} (\to ti an theloi kaleisthai auto\). Note article \to\ with the indirect question, accusative of general reference. The optative with \an\ is here because it was used in the direct question (cf. strkjv@Acts:17:18|), and is simply retained in the indirect. {What would he wish him to be called?} ({if he could speak}), a conclusion of the fourth-class condition.

rwp@Luke:2:26 @{It had been revealed unto him} (\n auti kechrmatismenon\). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative. Common Greek verb. First to transact business from \chrma\ and that from \chraomai\, to use, make use of; then to do business with public officials, to give advice (judges, rulers, kings), then to get the advice of the Delphic and other oracles (Diodorus, Plutarch). The LXX and Josephus use it of God's commands. A Fayum papyrus of 257 B.C. has the substantive \chrmastismos\ for a divine response (cf. strkjv@Romans:11:4|). See Deissmann, _Light From the Ancient East_, p. 153. {Before} (\prin \). Classic Greek idiom after a negative to have subjunctive as here (only example in the N.T.) or the optative after past tense as in strkjv@Acts:25:16| (subjunctive changed to optative in indirect discourse). Elsewhere in the N.T. the infinitive follows \prin\ as in strkjv@Matthew:1:18|.

rwp@Luke:3:15 @{Were in expectation} (\prosdokntos\). Genitive absolute of this striking verb already seen in strkjv@1:21|. {Reasoned} (\dialogizomenn\). Genitive absolute again. John's preaching about the Messiah and the kingdom of God stirred the people deeply and set them to wondering. {Whether haply he were the Christ} (\mpote autos ei ho Christos\). Optative \ei\ in indirect question changed from the indicative in the direct (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1031). John wrought no miracles and was not in David's line and yet he moved people so mightily that they began to suspect that he himself (\autos\) was the Messiah. The Sanhedrin will one day send a formal committee to ask him this direct question (John:1:19|).

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:8:9 @{Asked} (\eprtn\). Imperfect of \eperta\ (\epi\ and \erta\) where strkjv@Mark:4:10| has \rtn\ (uncompounded imperfect), both the tense and the use of \epi\ indicate eager and repeated questions on the part of the disciples, perhaps dimly perceiving a possible reflection on their own growth. {What this parable might be} (\tis haut ei h parabol\). A mistranslation, What this parable was (or meant). The optative \ei\ is merely due to indirect discourse, changing the indicative \estin\ (is) of the direct question to the optative \ei\ of the indirect, a change entirely with the writer or speaker and without any change of meaning (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1043f.).

rwp@Luke:9:46 @{A reasoning} (\dialogismos\). A dispute. The word is from \dialogizomai\, the verb used in strkjv@Mark:9:33| about this incident. In Luke this dispute follows immediately after the words of Jesus about his death. They were afraid to ask Jesus about that subject, but strkjv@Matthew:18:1| states that they came to Jesus to settle it. {Which of them should be greatest} (\to tis an ei meizn autn\). Note the article with the indirect question, the clause being in the accusative of general reference. The optative with \an\ is here because it was so in the direct question (potential optative with \an\ retained in the indirect). But Luke makes it plain that it was not an abstract problem about greatness in the kingdom of heaven as they put it to Jesus (Matthew:18:1|), but a personal problem in their own group. Rivalries and jealousies had already come and now sharp words. By and by James and John will be bold enough to ask for the first places for themselves in this political kingdom which they expect (Mark:10:35; strkjv@Matthew:20:20|). It is a sad spectacle.

rwp@Luke:18:36 @{Inquired} (\epunthaneto\). Imperfect middle. Repeatedly inquired as he heard the tramp of the passing crowd going by (\diaporeuomenou\). {What this meant} (\Ti ei touto\). Literally, What it was. Without \an\ the optative is due to indirect discourse, changed from \estin\. With \an\ (margin of Westcott and Hort) the potential optative of the direct discourse is simply retained.

rwp@Luke:20:16 @{God forbid} (\m genoito\). Optative of wish about the future with \m\. Literally, {may it not happen}. No word "God" in the Greek. This was the pious protest of the defeated members of the Sanhedrin who began to see the turn of the parable against themselves.

rwp@Luke:22:23 @{Which of them it was} (\to tis ara ei ex autn\). Note the article \to\ with the indirect question as in verses 2,4|. The optative \ei\ here is changed from the present active indicative \estin\, though it was not always done, for see \dokei\ in verse 24| where the present indicative is retained. They all had their hands on the table. Whose hand was it?

rwp@Mark:11:14 @{No man eat fruit from thee henceforward forever} (\Mketi eis ton aina ek sou mdeis karpon phagoi\). The verb \phagoi\ is in the second aorist active optative. It is a wish for the future that in its negative form constitutes a curse upon the tree. strkjv@Matthew:21:19| has the aorist subjunctive with double negative \ou mketi gentai\, a very strong negative prediction that amounts to a prohibition. See on Matthew. Jesus probably spoke in the Aramaic on this occasion. {And his disciples heard it} (\kai kouon hoi mathtai autou\). Imperfect tense, "were listening to it," and evidently in amazement, for, after all, it was not the fault of the poor fig tree that it had put out leaves. One often sees peach blossoms nipped by the frost when they are too precocious in the changeable weather. But Jesus offered no explanation at this time.

rwp@Matthew:14:22 @{Constrained} (\nagkasen\). Literally, "compelled" or "forced." See this word also in strkjv@Luke:14:23|. The explanation for this strong word in strkjv@Mark:6:45| and strkjv@Matthew:14:22| is given in strkjv@John:6:15|. It is the excited purpose of the crowd to take Jesus by force and to make him national king. This would be political revolution and would defeat all the plans of Jesus about his kingdom. Things have reached a climax. The disciples were evidently swept off their feet by the mob psychology for they still shared the Pharisaic hope of a political kingdom. With the disciples out of the way Jesus could handle the crowd more easily, {till he should send the multitudes away} (\hes hou apolusi tous ochlous\). The use of the aorist subjunctive with \hes\ or \hes hou\ is a neat and common Greek idiom where the purpose is not yet realized. Songs:in strkjv@18:30; strkjv@26:36|. "While" sometimes renders it well. The subjunctive is retained after a past tense instead of the change to the optative of the ancient Attic. The optative is very rare anyhow, but Luke uses it with \prin \ in strkjv@Acts:25:16|.

rwp@Matthew:21:19 @{A fig tree} (\sukn mian\). "A single fig tree" (Margin of Rev. Version). But \heis\ was often used = \tis\ or like our indefinite article. See strkjv@Matthew:8:10; strkjv@26:69|. The Greek has strictly no indefinite article as the Latin has no definite article. {Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever} (\ou mketi sou karpos gentai eis ton aina\). Strictly speaking this is a prediction, not a prohibition or wish as in strkjv@Mark:11:14| (optative \phagoi\). "On you no fruit shall ever grow again" (Weymouth). The double negative \ou m\ with the aorist subjunctive (or future indicative) is the strongest kind of negative prediction. It sometimes amounts to a prohibition like \ou\ and the future indicative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 926f.). The early figs start in spring before the leaves and develop after the leaves. The main fig crop was early autumn (Mark:11:14|). There should have been figs on the tree with the crop of leaves. It was a vivid object lesson. Matthew does not distinguish between the two mornings as Mark does (Mark:11:13,20|), but says "immediately" (\parachrma\) twice (21:19,20|). This word is really \para to chrma\ like our "on the spot" (Thayer). It occurs in the papyri in monetary transactions for immediate cash payment.

rwp@Romans:11:13 @{To you that are Gentiles} (\humin tois ethnesin\). "To you the Gentiles." He has a serious word to say to them. {Inasmuch then} (\eph' hoson men oun\). Not temporal, _quamdiu_, "so long as" (Matthew:9:15|), but qualitative _quatenus_ "in so far then as" (Matthew:25:40|). {I glorify my ministry} (\tn diakonian mou doxaz\). As apostle to the Gentiles (\ethnn apostolos\, objective genitive). Would that every minister of Christ glorified his ministry. {If by any means} (\ei ps\). This use of \ei\ with purpose or aim is a kind of indirect discourse. {I may provoke} (\parazls\). Either future active indicative or first aorist active subjunctive, see same uncertainty in strkjv@Phillipians:3:10| \katants\, but in strkjv@3:11| \katalab\ after \ei\ is subjunctive. The future indicative is clear in strkjv@Romans:1:10| and the optative in strkjv@Acts:27:12|. Doubtful whether future indicative or aorist subjunctive also in \ss\ (save).

rwp@Romans:15:5 @{The God of patience and comfort} (\ho theos ts hupomons kai ts paraklses\). Genitive case of the two words in verse 4| used to describe God who uses the Scriptures to reveal himself to us. See strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3| for this idea; strkjv@Romans:15:13| for "the God of hope"; strkjv@15:33| for "the God of peace." {Grant you} (\di humin\). Second aorist active optative (_Koin_ form for older \doi\) as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:16; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17; strkjv@2Timothy:1:16,18; strkjv@2:25|, though MSS. vary in strkjv@Ephesians:1:17; strkjv@2Timothy:2:25| for \di\ (subjunctive). The optative here is for a wish for the future (regular idiom). {According to Christ Jesus} (\kata Christon Isoun\). "According to the character or example of Christ Jesus" (2Corinthians:11:17; strkjv@Colossians:2:8; strkjv@Ephesians:5:24|).