NT.filter - rwp protested:

rwp@Acts:2:40 @{With many other words} (\heterois logois pleiosin\). Instrumental case. Not necessarily "different" (\heterois\), but "further," showing that Luke does not pretend to give all that Peter said. This idea is also brought out clearly by \pleiosin\ ("more," not "many"), more than these given by Luke. {He testified} (\diemarturato\). First aorist middle of \diamarturomai\, old verb, to make solemn attestation or call to witness (perfective use of \dia\), while \marture\ is to bear witness. Page insists that here it should be translated "protested solemnly" to the Jews as it seems to mean in strkjv@Luke:16:28; strkjv@Acts:20:23; strkjv@1Timothy:5:21; strkjv@2Timothy:2:14; strkjv@4:1|. {And exhorted} (\kai parekalei\). Imperfect active, kept on exhorting. {Save yourselves} (\sthte\). First aorist passive of \sz\. Literally, Be ye saved. {Crooked} (\skolias\). Old word, opposite of \orthos\, straight. _Pravus_ the opposite of _rectus_, a perversity for turning off from the truth. Cf. strkjv@Luke:9:41; strkjv@Phillipians:2:15|.

rwp@Acts:9:29 @{Preaching boldly} (\parrsiazomenos\). For a while. Evidently Saul did not extend his preaching outside of Jerusalem (Galatians:1:22|) and in the city preached mainly in the synagogues of the Hellenists (\pros tous Hellenistas\) as Stephen had done (Acts:8:9|). As a Cilician Jew he knew how to speak to the Hellenists. {Disputed} (\suneztei\). Imperfect active of \sunzte\, the very verb used in strkjv@6:9| of the disputes with Stephen in these very synagogues in one of which (Cilicia) Saul had probably joined issue with Stephen to his own discomfort. It was intolerable to these Hellenistic Jews now to hear Saul taking the place of Stephen and using the very arguments that Stephen had employed. {But they went about to kill him} (\Hoi de epecheiroun anelein auton\). Demonstrative \hoi\ with \de\ and the conative imperfect of \epicheire\, to put the hand to, to try, an old verb used in the N.T. only three times (Luke:1:1; strkjv@Acts:9:29; strkjv@19:3|). They offer to Saul the same conclusive answer that he gave to Stephen, death. Paul tells how the Lord Jesus appeared to him at this juncture in a vision in the temple (Acts:22:17-21|) with the distinct command to leave Jerusalem and how Paul protested that he was willing to meet the fate of Stephen in whose death he had a shameful part. That is to Saul's credit, but the Lord did not want Saul to be put to death yet. His crown of martyrdom will come later.

rwp@Acts:20:6 @{After the days of unleavened bread} (\meta tas hmers tn azumn\). Paul was a Jew, though a Christian, and observed the Jewish feasts, though he protested against Gentiles being forced to do it (Galatians:4:10; strkjv@Colossians:2:16|). Was Luke a proselyte because he notes the Jewish feasts as here and in strkjv@Acts:27:9|? He may have noted them merely because Paul observed them. But this passover was a year after that in Ephesus when Paul expected to remain there till Pentecost (1Corinthians:16:8|). He was hoping now to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (Acts:20:16|) as he did. We do not know the precise year, possibly A.D. 56 or 57. {In five days} (\achri hmern pente\). Up to five days (cf. strkjv@Luke:2:37|). D has \pemptaioi\, "fifth day men," a correct gloss. Cf. \deuteraioi\, second-day men (Acts:28:13|). In strkjv@Acts:16:11| they made the voyage in two days. Probably adverse winds held them back here. {Seven days} (\hepta hmeras\). To atone for the short stay in Troas before (2Corinthians:2:12f.|) when Paul was so restless. Now he preaches a week to them.

rwp@Luke:6:29 @{On the cheek} (\epi tn siagona\). strkjv@Matthew:5:39| has "right." Old word meaning jaw or jawbone, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:5:39|, which see for discussion. It seems an act of violence rather than contempt. Sticklers for extreme literalism find trouble with the conduct of Jesus in strkjv@John:18:22f.| where Jesus, on receiving a slap in the face, protested against it. {Thy cloke} (\to himation\), {thy coat} (\ton chitna\). Here the upper and more valuable garment (\himation\) is first taken, the under and less valuable \chitn\ last. In strkjv@Matthew:5:40| the process (apparently a legal one) is reversed. {Withhold not} (\m klusis\). Aorist subjunctive in prohibition against committing an act. Do not hinder him in his robbing. It is usually useless anyhow with modern armed bandits.

rwp@Mark:5:8 @{For he said} (\elegen gar\). For he had been saying (progressive imperfect). Jesus had already repeatedly ordered the demon to come out of the man whereat the demon made his outcry to Jesus and protested. strkjv@Matthew:8:29| had "before the time" (\pro kairou\) and strkjv@8:31| shows that the demons did not want to go back to the abyss (\tn abusson\) right now. That was their real home, but they did not wish to return to the place of torment just now.

rwp@Mark:9:32 @{But they understood not the saying} (\hoi de gnooun to rhma\). An old word. Chiefly in Paul's Epistles in the N.T. Imperfect tense. They continued not to understand. They were agnostics on the subject of the death and resurrection even after the Transfiguration experience. As they came down from the mountain they were puzzled again over the Master's allusion to his resurrection (Mark:9:10|). strkjv@Matthew:17:23| notes that "they were exceeding sorry" to hear Jesus talk this way again, but Mark adds that they "were afraid to ask him" (\ephobounto auton epertsai\). Continued to be afraid (imperfect tense), perhaps with a bitter memory of the term "Satan" hurled at Peter when he protested the other time when Jesus spoke of his death (Mark:8:33; strkjv@Matthew:16:23|). strkjv@Luke:9:45| explains that "it was concealed from them," probably partly by their own preconceived ideas and prejudices.

rwp@Matthew:5:39 @{Resist not him that is evil} (\me antistnai ti ponri\). Here again it is the infinitive (second aorist active) in indirect command. But is it "the evil man" or the "evil deed"? The dative case is the same form for masculine and neuter. Weymouth puts it "not to resist a (the) wicked man," Moffatt "not to resist an injury," Goodspeed "not to resist injury." The examples will go with either view. Jesus protested when smitten on the cheek (John:18:22|). And Jesus denounced the Pharisees (Matthew:23|) and fought the devil always. The language of Jesus is bold and picturesque and is not to be pressed too literally. Paradoxes startle and make us think. We are expected to fill in the other side of the picture. One thing certainly is meant by Jesus and that is that personal revenge is taken out of our hands, and that applies to "lynch-law." Aggressive or offensive war by nations is also condemned, but not necessarily defensive war or defence against robbery and murder. Professional pacifism may be mere cowardice.