NT.filter - rwp contemplated:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:15 @{Lest any man should say} (\hina m tis eipi\). Certainly sub-final \hina\ again or contemplated result as in strkjv@7:29; strkjv@John:9:2|. Ellicott thinks that already some in Corinth were laying emphasis on the person of the baptizer whether Peter or some one else. It is to be recalled that Jesus himself baptized no one (John:4:2|) to avoid this very kind of controversy. And yet there are those today who claim Paul as a sacramentalist, an impossible claim in the light of his words here.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:15 @{Is not under bondage} (\ou dedoultai\). Perfect passive indicative of \doulo\, to enslave, has been enslaved, does not remain a slave. The believing husband or wife is not at liberty to separate, unless the disbeliever or pagan insists on it. Wilful desertion of the unbeliever sets the other free, a case not contemplated in Christ's words in strkjv@Matthew:5:32; strkjv@19:9|. Luther argued that the Christian partner, thus released, may marry again. But that is by no means clear, unless the unbeliever marries first. {But God hath called us in peace} (\en de eirni keklken hmas\ or \humas\). Perfect active indicative of \kale\, permanent call in the sphere or atmosphere of peace. He does not desire enslavement in the marriage relation between the believer and the unbeliever.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:11 @{And for this reason God sendeth them} (\kai dia touto pempei autois ho theos\). Futuristic (prophetic) present of the time when the lawless one is revealed. Here is the definite judicial act of God (Milligan) who gives the wicked over to the evil which they have deliberately chosen (Romans:1:24,26,28|). {A working of error} (\energeian plans\). Terrible result of wilful rejection of the truth of God. {That they should believe a lie} (\eis to pisteusai autous ti pseudei\). Note \eis to\ again and \ti pseudei\ (the lie, the falsehood already described), a contemplated result. Note strkjv@Romans:1:25| "who changed the truth of God into the lie."

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE DATE There are three views about the date of the Acts. Baur and his Tubingen School held the second century to be the date of this late pamphlet as they termed it after the fashion of the Clementine Homilies. But that view is now practically abandoned save by the few who still strangely oppose the Lukan authorship. Probably the majority of those who accept the Lukan authorship place it in the latter part of the first century for two reasons. One is that the Gospel according to Luke is dated by them after the destruction of Jerusalem because of the prophecy by Jesus of the encompassing of the city by armies. Predictive prophecy that would be and so it is considered a prophecy _post eventum_. The other reason is the alleged use of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus by Luke. Josephus finished this work A.D. 93 so that, if Luke did use it, he must have written the Acts after that date. Usually this argument is made to show that Luke could not have written it at all, but some hold that he may have lived to an age that would allow it. But it cannot be assumed that Luke used Josephus because of his mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. They differ so widely (Acts:5:36f|. and Josephus, _Ant_. XX. v, 1, 2) that Von Dobschutz (_Dictionary of the Apostolic Church_, art. Josephus) argues that the two accounts are entirely independent of each other. Songs:Luke (Luke:13:1f.|) alludes to a Galilean revolt not mentioned by Josephus and Josephus records three revolts under Pilate not referred to by Luke. A comparison of the accounts of the death of Agrippa I in strkjv@Acts:12:20-23| and _Ant_. XIX. viii, 2 redounds to the credit of Luke. The Josephus phase of the argument may be brushed to one side. The third view, held by Harnack and adopted here, is that Luke wrote the Acts while with Paul in Rome and finished the book before Paul's release, that is by A.D. 63. This is the obvious and natural way to take the language of Luke at the close of Acts. Events had gone no farther and so he ends the narrative right there. It is argued against this that Luke contemplated a third volume and for this reason closed with the arrival of Paul in Rome. But the use of \prton\ (first) in strkjv@Acts:1:1| is a common _Koin_ idiom and does not imply three volumes any more than first and second stories with us means that the house has three. Of course this date for the Acts puts the date of the Gospel further back either in Caesarea (57 to 59) or in Rome (60 to 62). And that means that Mark's Gospel is still earlier since Luke used it for his Gospel and the Logia (Q) earlier still. But all these dates are probable in the light of all the known facts.

rwp@Acts:14:23 @{And when they had appointed for them elders in every church} (\cheirotonsantes de autois kat' ekklsian presbuterous\). They needed also some form of organization, though already churches. Note distributive use of \kata\ with \ekklsian\ (2:46; strkjv@5:42; strkjv@Titus:1:5|). \Cheirotone\ (from \cheirotonos\, extending the hand, \cheir\, hand, and \tein\, to stretch) is an old verb that originally meant to vote by show of the hands, finally to appoint with the approval of an assembly that chooses as in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:19|, and then to appoint without regard to choice as in Josephus (_Ant_. XIII. 2, 2) of the appointment of Jonathan as high priest by Alexander. Songs:in strkjv@Acts:10:41| the compound \procheiratone\ is used of witnesses appointed by God. But the seven (deacons) were first selected by the Jerusalem church and then appointed (\katastsomen\) by the apostles. That is probably the plan contemplated by Paul in his directions to Titus (Titus:1:5|) about the choice of elders. It is most likely that this plan was the one pursued by Paul and Barnabas with these churches. They selected the elders in each instance and Paul and Barnabas "ordained" them as we say, though the word \cheirotone\ does not mean that. "Elders" were mentioned first in strkjv@11:30|. Later Paul will give the requirements expected in these "elders" or "bishops" (Phillipians:1:1|) as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:1-7; strkjv@Titus:1:5-9|. It is fairly certain that these elders were chosen to correspond in a general way with the elders in the Jewish synagogue after which the local church was largely copied as to organization and worship. Paul, like Jesus, constantly worshipped and spoke in the synagogues. Already it is plain, as at Antioch in Syria (11:26|), that the Christians can no longer count on the use of the Jewish synagogue. They must have an organization of their own. The use of the plural here implies what was true at Philippi (Phillipians:1:1|) and Ephesus (Acts:20:17,28|) that each church (one in each city) "had its college of elders" (Hackett) as in Jerusalem (21:18|). Elder (\presbuteros\) was the Jewish name and bishop (\episkopos\) the Greek name for the same office. "Those who are called elders in speaking of Jewish communities are called bishops in speaking of Gentile communities" (Hackett). Hovey rightly holds against Hackett that teaching was a normal function of these elders, pastors or bishops as they were variously called (1Timothy:3:2; strkjv@Titus:1:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28,30; strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|). {Had prayed with fasting} (\proseuxamenoi meta nstein\). It was a serious matter, this formal setting apart of these "elders" in the churches. Songs:it was done in a public meeting with prayer and fasting as when Paul and Barnabas were sent forth from Antioch in Syria (13:3|) on this mission tour. {They commended them to the Lord} (\parethento autous ti kurii\). Second aorist middle indicative of \paratithmi\. Old and solemn word, to entrust, to deposit as in a bank (1Timothy:1:18; strkjv@2Timothy:2:2|). Cf. \parathk\ in strkjv@1Timothy:6:20; strkjv@2Timothy:1:12,14|. It was all that they could now do, to commit them to the Lord Jesus. Jesus used this word on the cross (Luke:22:32|). {On whom they had believed} (\eis hon pepisteukeisan\). Past perfect indicative (without augment) of \pisteu\. They had "trusted" in Jesus (2Timothy:1:12|) and Paul now "entrusts" them to him with confidence. It was a solemn and serious occasion in each instance as it always is to set apart men for the ministry. These men may not have been ideal men for this service, but they were the only ones available and they were chosen from the actual membership in each instance, men who knew local conditions and problems.

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@Luke:7:4 @{Besought} (\parekaloun\). Imperfect active, began and kept on beseeching. This is the same verb used by Matthew in strkjv@Matthew:8:5| of the centurion himself. {Earnestly} (\spoudais\). From \spoud\ haste. Songs:eagerly, earnestly, zealously, for time was short. {That thou shouldst do this for him} (\hi parexi touto\). Second future middle singular of \parech\. Old and common verb, furnish on thy part. \Hi\ is relative in dative case almost with notion of contemplated result (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 961).

rwp@Matthew:1:22 @{That it may be fulfilled} (\hina plrthi\). Alford says that "it is impossible to interpret \hina\ in any other sense than in order that." That was the old notion, but modern grammarians recognize the non-final use of this particle in the _Koin_ and even the consecutive like the Latin _ut_. Some even argue for a causal use. If the context called for result, one need not hesitate to say so as in strkjv@Mark:11:28; strkjv@John:9:36; strkjv@1John:1:9; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@13:13|. See discussion in my _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research_, pp. 997-9. All the same it is purpose here, God's purpose, Matthew reports the angel as saying, spoken "by (\hupo\, immediate agent) the Lord through (\dia\, intermediate agent) the prophet." {"All this has happened"} (\touto de holon gegonen\, present perfect indicative), stands on record as historical fact. But the Virgin Birth of Jesus is not due to this interpretation of strkjv@Isaiah:7:14|. It is not necessary to maintain (Broadus) that Isaiah himself saw anything more in his prophecy than that a woman then a virgin, would bear a son and that in the course of a few years Ahaz would be delivered from the king of Syria and Israel by the coming of the Assyrians. This historical illustration finds its richest fulfilment in the birth of Jesus from Mary. "Words of themselves are empty. They are useful only as vessels to convey things from mind to mind" (Morison). The Hebrew word for young woman is translated by virgin (\parthenos\), but it is not necessary to conclude that Isaiah himself contemplated the supernatural birth of Jesus. We do not have to say that the idea of the Virgin Birth of Jesus came from Jewish sources. Certainly it did not come from the pagan myths so foreign to this environment, atmosphere and spirit. It is far simpler to admit the supernatural fact than try to explain the invention of the idea as a myth to justify the deification of Jesus. The birth, life, and death of Jesus throw a flood of light on the Old Testament narrative and prophecies for the early Christians. In Matthew and John in particular we often see "that the events of Christ's life were divinely ordered for the express purpose of fulfilling the Old Testament" (McNeile). See strkjv@Matthew:2:15,23; strkjv@4:14-17; strkjv@8:17; strkjv@12:17-21; strkjv@13:25; strkjv@21:4f.; strkjv@John:12:38f.; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@19:24,28,36f|.

rwp@Matthew:21:33 @{A hedge} (\phragmon\). Or fence as a protection against wild beasts. {Digged a winepress} (\ruxen lnon\). Out of the solid rock to hold the grapes and wine as they were crushed. Such wine-vats are to be seen today in Palestine. {Built a tower} (\ikodomsen purgon\). This for the vinedressers and watchmen (2Chronicles:26:10|). Utmost care was thus taken. Note "a booth in a vineyard" (Isaiah:1:8|). See also strkjv@Isaiah:24:20; strkjv@Job:27:18|. Let it out (\exedeto, exedoto\ the usual form). For hire, the terms not being given. The lease allowed three forms, money-rent, a proportion of the crop, or a definite amount of the produce whether it was a good or bad year. Probably the last form is that contemplated here.

rwp@Revelation:7:14 @{I say} (\eirka\). Perfect active indicative of \eipon\, "I have said." "To the Seer's mind the whole scene was still fresh and vivid" (Swete) like \kekragen\ in strkjv@John:1:15| and \eilphen\ in strkjv@Revelation:5:7|, not the so-called "aoristic perfect" which even Moulton (_Prol_. p. 145) is disposed to admit. {My lord} (\Kurie mou\). "An address of reverence to a heavenly being" (Vincent), not an act of worship on John's part. {Thou knowest} (\su oidas\). "At once a confession of ignorance, and an appeal for information" (Swete), not of full confidence like \su oidas\ in strkjv@John:21:15ff|. {They which come out of the great tribulation} (\hoi erchomenoi ek ts thlipses ts megals\). Present middle participle with the idea of continued repetition. "The martyrs are still arriving from the scene of the great tribulation" (Charles). Apparently some great crisis is contemplated (Matthew:13:19ff.; strkjv@24:21; strkjv@Mark:13:10|), though the whole series may be in mind and so may anticipate final judgment. {And they washed} (\kai eplunan\). First aorist active indicative of \plun\, old verb, to wash, in N.T. only strkjv@Luke:5:2; strkjv@Revelation:7:14; strkjv@22:14|. This change of construction after \hoi erchomenoi\ from \hoi plunsantes\ to \kai eplunan\ is common in the Apocalypse, one of Charles's Hebraisms, like \kai epoisen\ in strkjv@1:6| and \kai plani\ in strkjv@2:20|. {Made them white} (\eleukanan\). First aorist active indicative of \leukain\, to whiten, old verb from \leukos\ (verse 13|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:9:3|. "Milligan remarks that _robes_ are the expression of character and compares the word _habit_ used of dress" (Vincent). The language here comes partly from strkjv@Genesis:49:11| and partly from strkjv@Exodus:19:10,14|. For the cleansing power of Christ's blood see also strkjv@Romans:3:25; strkjv@5:9; strkjv@Colossians:1:20: strkjv@Ephesians:1:7; strkjv@1Peter:1:2; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14; strkjv@1John:1:7; strkjv@Revelation:1:5; strkjv@5:9; strkjv@22:14|. "The aorists look back to the life on earth when the cleansing was effected" (Swete). See strkjv@Phillipians:2:12f.| for both divine and human aspects of salvation. {In the blood of the Lamb} (\en ti haimati tou arniou\). There is power alone in the blood of Christ to cleanse from sin (1John:1:7|), not in the blood of the martyrs themselves. The result is "white," not "red," as one might imagine.

rwp@Romans:1:24 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). Paul's inexorable logic. See it also in verse 26| with the same verb and in verse 28| \kai\ like "and so." {God gave them up} (\paredken autous ho theos\). First aorist active indicative of \paradidmi\, old and common verb to hand over (beside, \para\) to one's power as in strkjv@Matthew:4:12|. These people had already wilfully deserted God who merely left them to their own self-determination and self-destruction, part of the price of man's moral freedom. Paul refers to this stage and state of man in strkjv@Acts:17:30| by "overlooked" (\huperidn\). The withdrawal of God's restraint sent men deeper down. Three times Paul uses \paredken\ here (verses 24,26,28|), not three stages in the giving over, but a repetition of the same withdrawal. The words sound to us like clods on the coffin as God leaves men to work their own wicked will. {That their bodies should be dishonoured} (\tou atimazesthai ta smata autn\). Contemplated result expressed by \tou\ (genitive article) and the passive infinitive \atimazesthai\ (from \atimos\, \a\ privative and \timos\, dishonoured) with the accusative of general reference. Christians had a new sense of dignity for the body (1Thessalonians:4:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:6:13|). Heathenism left its stamp on the bodies of men and women.

rwp@Romans:4:11 @{The sign of circumcision} (\smeion peritoms\). It is the genitive of apposition, circumcision being the sign. {A seal of the righteousness of the faith} (\sphragida ts dikaiosuns ts pistes\). \Sphragis\ is old word for the seal placed on books (Revelation:5:1|), for a signet-ring (Revelation:7:2|), the stamp made by the seal (2Timothy:2:19|), that by which anything is confirmed (1Corinthians:9:2|) as here. The circumcision did not convey the righteousness, but only gave outward confirmation. It came by faith and "the faith which he had while in uncircumcision" (\ts en ti akrobustii\), "the in the state of uncircumcision faith." Whatever parallel exists between baptism and circumcision as here stated by Paul argues for faith before baptism and for baptism as the sign and seal of the faith already had before baptism. {That he might be} (\eis to einai auton\). This idiom may be God's purpose (contemplated result) as in \eis to logisthnai\ below, or even actual result (so that he was) as in strkjv@1:20|. {Though they be in uncircumcision} (\di' akrobustias\). Simply, "of those who believe while in the condition of uncircumcision."