NT.filter - rwp restrict:

rwp@Acts:2:4 @{With other tongues} (\heterais glssais\). Other than their native tongues. Each one began to speak in a language that he had not acquired and yet it was a real language and understood by those from various lands familiar with them. It was not jargon, but intelligible language. Jesus had said that the gospel was to go to all the nations and here the various tongues of earth were spoken. One might conclude that this was the way in which the message was to be carried to the nations, but future developments disprove it. This is a third miracle (the sound, the tongues like fire, the untaught languages). There is no blinking the fact that Luke so pictures them. One need not be surprised if this occasion marks the fulfilment of the Promise of the Father. But one is not to confound these miraculous signs with the Holy Spirit. They are merely proof that he has come to carry on the work of his dispensation. The gift of tongues came also on the house of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts:10:44-47; strkjv@11:15-17|), the disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts:19:6|), the disciples at Corinth (1Corinthians:14:1-33|). It is possible that the gift appeared also at Samaria (Acts:8:18|). But it was not a general or a permanent gift. Paul explains in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:22| that "tongues" were a sign to unbelievers and were not to be exercised unless one was present who understood them and could translate them. This restriction disposes at once of the modern so-called tongues which are nothing but jargon and hysteria. It so happened that here on this occasion at Pentecost there were Jews from all parts of the world, so that some one would understand one tongue and some another without an interpreter such as was needed at Corinth. The experience is identical in all four instances and they are not for edification or instruction, but for adoration and wonder and worship. {As the Spirit gave them utterance} (\kaths to pneuma edidou apophtheggesthai autois\). This is precisely what Paul claims in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:10,28|, but all the same without an interpreter the gift was not to be exercised (1Corinthians:14:6-19|). Paul had the gift of tongues, but refused to exercise it except as it would be understood. Note the imperfect tense here (\edidou\). Perhaps they did not all speak at once, but one after another. \Apophtheggesthai\ is a late verb (LXX of prophesying, papyri). Lucian uses it of the ring of a vessel when it strikes a reef. It is used of eager, elevated, impassioned utterance. In the N.T. only here, verse 14; strkjv@26:25|. \Apophthegm\ is from this verb.

rwp@Acts:11:28 @{Signified} (\esmainen\). Imperfect active in Westcott and Hort, but aorist active \esmnen\ in the margin. The verb is an old one from \sma\ (\smeion\) a sign (cf. the symbolic sign in strkjv@21:11|). Here Agabus (also in strkjv@21:10|) does predict a famine through the Holy Spirit. {Should be} (\mellein esesthai\). \Mell\ occurs either with the present infinitive (16:27|), the aorist infinitive (12:6|), or the future as here and strkjv@24:15; strkjv@27:10|. {Over all the world} (\eph' holn tn oikoumenn\). Over all the inhabited earth (\gn\, understood). Probably a common hyperbole for the Roman empire as in strkjv@Luke:2:1|. Josephus (_Ant_. VIII. 13, 4) appears to restrict it to Palestine. {In the days of Claudius} (\epi Klaudiou\). He was Roman Emperor A.D. 41-44. The Roman writers (Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Tacitus) all tell of dearths (_assiduae sterilitates_) during the brief reign of Claudius who was preceded by Caligula and followed by Nero.

rwp@Acts:14:4 @{But the multitude of the city was divided} (\eschisth de to plthos ts poles\). First aorist passive indicative of \schiz\, old verb to split, to make a schism or factions as Sadducees and Pharisees (23:7|). This division was within the Gentile populace. Part held (\hoi men san\), literally "some were with the Jews" (\sun tois Ioudaiois\), part with the apostles (\hoi de sun tois apostolois\). Common demonstrative of contrast (\hoi men, hoi de\, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 694). The Jewish leaders made some impression on the Gentiles as at Antioch in Pisidia and later at Thessalonica (17:4f.|). This is the first time in the Acts that Paul and Barnabas are termed "apostles" (see also verse 14|). Elsewhere in the Acts the word is restricted to the twelve. Certainly Luke does not here employ it in that technical sense. To have followed Jesus in his ministry and to have seen the Risen Christ was essential to the technical use (1:22f.|). Whether Barnabas had seen the Risen Christ we do not know, but certainly Paul had (1Corinthians:9:1f.; strkjv@15:8|). Paul claimed to be an apostle on a par with the twelve (Galatians:1:1,16-18|). The word originally means simply one sent (John:13:16|) like messengers of the churches with the collection (2Corinthians:8:23|). The Jews used it of those sent from Jerusalem to collect the temple tribute. Paul applies the word to James the Lord's brother (Galatians:1:19|), to Epaphroditus (Phillipians:2:25|) as the messenger of the church in Philippi, to Silvanus and Timothy (1Thessalonians:2:6; strkjv@Acts:18:5|), apparently to Apollos (1Corinthians:4:9|), and to Andronicus and Junias (Romans:16:6f.|). He even calls the Judaizers "false apostles" (2Corinthians:11:13|).

rwp@Acts:15:20 @{But that we write unto them} (\alla episteilai autois\). By way of contrast (\alla\). First aorist active infinitive of \epistell\, old verb to send to one (message, letter, etc.). Our word \epistle\ (\epistol\ as in verse 30|) comes from this verb. In the N.T. only here, He strkjv@13:22|, and possibly strkjv@Acts:21:25|. {That they abstain from} (\tou apechesthai\). The genitive of the articular infinitive of purpose, present middle (direct) of \apech\, old verb, to hold oneself back from. The best old MSS. do not have \apo\, but the ablative is clear enough in what follows. James agrees with Peter in his support of Paul and Barnabas in their contention for Gentile freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial law. The restrictions named by James affect the moral code that applies to all (idolatry, fornication, murder). Idolatry, fornication and murder were the outstanding sins of paganism then and now (Revelation:22:15|). Harnack argues ably against the genuineness of the word \pniktou\ (strangled) which is absent from D Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian. It is a nice point, though the best MSS. have it in accord with strkjv@Leviticus:17:10-16|. The problem is whether the words were added because "blood" was understood as not "murder," but a reference to the Mosaic regulation or whether it was omitted to remove the ceremonial aspect and make it all moral and ethical. The Western text omits the word also in verse 29|. But with the word retained here and in verse 29| the solution of James is not a compromise, though there is a wise concession to Jewish feeling. {Pollutions of idols} (\alisgmatn\). From \alisge\ only in the LXX and this substantive nowhere else. The word refers to idolatrous practices (pollutions) and things sacrificed to idols (\eidluthn\) in verse 29|, not to sacrificial meat sold in the market (1Corinthians:10:27|), a matter not referred to here. Cf. strkjv@Leviticus:17:1-9|. All the four items in the position of James (accepting \pniktou\) are mentioned in strkjv@Leviticus:17,18|.

rwp@Acts:15:28 @{To the Holy Spirit and to us} (\ti pneumati ti hagii kai hmin\). Dative case after \edoxen\ (third example, verses 22,25,28|). Definite claim that the church in this action had the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That fact was plain to the church from what had taken place in Caesarea and in this campaign of Paul and Barnabas (verse 8|). Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John:16:13|). Even so the church deliberated carefully before deciding. What a blessing it would be if this were always true! But even so the Judaizers are only silenced for the present, not convinced and only waiting for a better day to start over again. {No greater burden} (\mden pleon baros\). The restrictions named did constitute some burden (cf. strkjv@Matthew:20:12|), for the old word \baros\ means weight or heaviness. Morality itself is a restraint upon one's impulses as is all law a prohibition against license.

rwp@John:2:2 @{Jesus also was bidden} (\eklth kai ho Isous\). First aorist passive indicative of \kale\, "was also invited" as well as his mother and because of her presence, possibly at her suggestion. {And his disciples} (\kai hoi mathtai\). Included in the invitation and probably all of them acquaintances of the family. See on ¯1:35| for this word applied to John's followers. This group of six already won form the nucleus of the great host of "learners" through the ages who will follow Jesus as Teacher and Lord and Saviour. The term is sometimes restricted to the twelve apostles, but more often has a wider circle in view as in strkjv@John:6:61,66; strkjv@20:30|.

rwp@Matthew:5:38 @{An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth} (\ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos\). Note \anti\ with the notion of exchange or substitution. The quotation is from strkjv@Exodus:21:24; strkjv@Deuteronomy:19:21; strkjv@Leviticus:24:20|. Like divorce this _jus talionis_ is a restriction upon unrestrained vengeance. "It limited revenge by fixing an exact compensation for an injury" (McNeile). A money payment is allowed in the Mishna. The law of retaliation exists in Arabia today.

rwp@Matthew:10:10 @{No wallet} (\m pran\). Better than "scrip." It can be either a travelling or bread bag. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 108f.) shows that it can mean the beggar's collecting bag as in an inscription on a monument at Kefr Hanar in Syria: "While Christianity was still young the beggar priest was making his rounds in the land of Syria on behalf of the national goddess." Deissmann also quotes a pun in the _Didaskalia=Const. Apost_. 3, 6 about some itinerant widows who said that they were not so much \chrai\ (spouseless) as \prai\ (pouchless). He cites also Shakespeare, _Troilus and Cressida_ III. iii. 145: "Time hath, my lord, a wallet at his back, wherein he puts alms for oblivion." {For the labourer is worthy of his food} (\axios gar ho ergats ts trophs autou\). The sermon is worth the dinner, in other words. Luke in the charge to the seventy (Luke:10:7|) has the same words with \misthou\ (reward) instead of \trophs\ (food). In strkjv@1Timothy:5:18| Paul quotes Luke's form as scripture (\h graph\) or as a well-known saying if confined to the first quotation. The word for workman here (\ergats\) is that used by Jesus in the prayer for labourers (Matthew:9:38|). The well-known _Didach_ or _Teaching of the Twelve_ (xiii) shows that in the second century there was still a felt need for care on the subject of receiving pay for preaching. The travelling sophists added also to the embarrassment of the situation. The wisdom of these restrictions was justified in Galilee at this time. Mark (Mark:6:6-13|) and Luke (Luke:9:1-6|) vary slightly from Matthew in some of the details of the instructions of Jesus.

rwp@Matthew:10:14 @{Shake off the dust} (\ektinaxate ton koniorton\). Shake out, a rather violent gesture of disfavour. The Jews had violent prejudices against the smallest particles of Gentile dust, not as a purveyor of disease of which they did not know, but because it was regarded as the putrescence of death. If the apostles were mistreated by a host or hostess, they were to be treated as if they were Gentiles (cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:17; strkjv@Acts:18:6|). Here again we have a restriction that was for this special tour with its peculiar perils.

rwp@Matthew:19:6 @{What therefore God hath joined together} (\ho oun ho theos sunezeuxen\). Note "what," not "whom." The marriage relation God has made. "The creation of sex, and the high doctrine as to the cohesion it produces between man and woman, laid down in Gen., interdict separation" (Bruce). The word for "joined together" means "yoked together," a common verb for marriage in ancient Greek. It is the timeless aorist indicative (\sunezeuxen\), true always. {Bill} (\biblion\). A little \biblos\ (see on ¯1:1|), a scroll or document (papyrus or parchment). This was some protection to the divorced wife and a restriction on laxity.

rwp@Matthew:26:28 @{The Covenant} (\ts diathks\). The adjective \kains\ in Textus Receptus is not genuine. The covenant is an agreement or contract between two (\dia, duo, thke\, from \tithmi\). It is used also for will (Latin, _testamentum_) which becomes operative at death (Hebrews:9:15-17|). Hence our _New Testament_. Either covenant or will makes sense here. Covenant is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:7:22; strkjv@8:8| and often. In the Hebrew to make a covenant was to cut up the sacrifice and so ratify the agreement (Genesis:15:9-18|). Lightfoot argues that the word \diathke\ means covenant in the N.T. except in strkjv@Hebrews:9:15-17|. Jesus here uses the solemn words of strkjv@Exodus:24:8| "the blood of the covenant" at Sinai. "My blood of the covenant" is in contrast with that. This is the New Covenant of strkjv@Jeremiah:31; strkjv@Hebrews:8|. {Which is shed for many} (\to peri polln ekchunnomenon\). A prophetic present passive participle. The act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in strkjv@20:28|. There \anti\ and here \peri\. {Unto remission of sins} (\eis aphesin hamartin\). This clause is in Matthew alone but it is not to be restricted for that reason. It is the truth. This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins.