OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp Acts:12:2:

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:10 @{With all deceit of unrighteousness} (\en pasi apati adikias\). This pastmaster of trickery will have at his command all the energy and skill of Satan to mislead and deceive. How many illustrations lie along the pathway of Christian history. {For them that are perishing} (\tois apollumenois\). Dative case of personal interest. Note this very phrase in strkjv@2Corinthians:2:15; strkjv@4:3|. Present middle participle of \appollumi\, to destroy, the dreadful process goes on. {Because} (\anth' hon\). In return for which things (\anti\ and the genitive of the relative pronoun). Same idiom in strkjv@Luke:1:20; strkjv@12:3; strkjv@19:44; strkjv@Acts:12:23| and very common in the LXX. {The love of the truth} (\tn agapn ts altheias\). That is the gospel in contrast with _lying_ and _deceit_. {That they might be saved} (\eis to sthnai autous\). First aorist passive infinitive of \sz\ with \eis to\, again, epexegetic purpose of {the truth} if they had heeded it.

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:1:5 @{Baptized with water} (\ebaptisen hudati\) {and with the Holy Ghost} (\en pneumati baptisthsesthe hagii\). The margin has "in the Holy Ghost" (Spirit, it should be). The American Standard Version renders "in" both with "water" and "Holy Spirit" as do Goodspeed (American Translation) and Mrs. Montgomery (Centenary Translation). John's own words (Matthew:3:11|) to which Jesus apparently refers use \en\ (in) both with water and Spirit. There is a so-called instrumental use of \en\ where we in English have to say "with" (Revelation:13:10| \en machairi\, like \machairi\, strkjv@Acts:12:2|). That is to say \en\ with the locative presents the act as located in a certain instrument like a sword (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 589f.). But the instrumental case is more common without \en\ (the locative and instrumental cases having the same form). Songs:it is often a matter of indifference which idiom is used as in strkjv@John:21:8| we have \ti ploiarii\ (locative without \en\). They came {in} (locative case without \en\) the boat. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:31| \en hudati baptizn\ baptizing in water. No distinction therefore can be insisted on here between the construction \hudati\ and \en pneumati\ (both being in the locative case, one without, one with \en\). Note unusual position of the verb \baptisthsesthe\ (future passive indicative) between \pneumati\ and \hagii\. This baptism of the Holy Spirit was predicted by John (Matthew:3:11|) as the characteristic of the Messiah's work. Now the Messiah himself in his last message before his Ascension proclaims that in a few days the fulfilment of that prophecy will come to pass. The Codex Bezae adds here "which ye are about to receive" and "until the Pentecost" to verse 5|. {Not many days hence} (\ou meta pollas tautas hmeras\). A neat Greek idiom difficult to render smoothly into English: "Not after many days these." The litotes (not many=few) is common in Luke (Luke:7:6; strkjv@15:13; strkjv@Acts:17:27; strkjv@19:11; strkjv@20:12; strkjv@21:39; strkjv@28:14; strkjv@28:2|). The predicate use of \tautas\ (without article) is to be noted. "These" really means as a starting point, "from these" (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 702). It was ten days hence. This idiom occurs several times in Luke (Luke:24:21; strkjv@Acts:24:21|), as elsewhere (John:4:18; strkjv@2Peter:3:1|). In strkjv@Luke:2:12| the copula is easily supplied as it exists in strkjv@Luke:1:36; strkjv@2:2|.

rwp@Acts:2:23 @{Him} (\touton\). "This one," resumptive and emphatic object of "did crucify and slay." {Being delivered up} (\ekdoton\). Verbal adjective from \ekdidmi\, to give out or over. Old word, but here only in the N.T. Delivered up by Judas, Peter means. {By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God} (\ti hrismeni bouli kai prognsi tou theou\). Instrumental case. Note both purpose (\boul\) and foreknowledge (\prognsis\) of God and "determined" (\hrismen\, perfect passive participle, state of completion). God had willed the death of Jesus (John:3:16|) and the death of Judas (Acts:1:16|), but that fact did not absolve Judas from his responsibility and guilt (Luke:22:22|). He acted as a free moral agent. {By the hand} (\dia cheiros\). Luke is fond of these figures (hand, face, etc.) very much like the Hebrew though the vernacular of all languages uses them. {Lawless men} (\anomn\). Men without law, who recognize no law for their conduct, like men in high and low stations today who defy the laws of God and man. Old word, very common in the LXX. {Ye did crucify} (\prospxantes\). First aorist active participle of \prospgnumi\, rare compound word in Dio Cassius and here only in the N.T. One must supply \ti stauri\ and so it means "fastened to the cross," a graphic picture like Paul's "nailed to the cross" (\proslsas ti stauri\) in strkjv@Colossians:2:14|. {Did slay} (\aneilate\). Second aorist active indicative with first aorist vowel \a\ instead of \o\ as is common in the _Koin_. This verb \anaire\, to take up, is often used for kill as in strkjv@Acts:12:2|. Note Peter's boldness now under the power of the Holy Spirit. He charges the people to their faces with the death of Christ.

rwp@Acts:12:2 @{James the brother of John} (\Iakbon ton adelphon Ianou\). He had been called by Jesus a son of thunder along with his brother John. Jesus had predicted a bloody death for both of them (Mark:10:38ff.; strkjv@Matthew:20:23|). James is the first of the apostles to die and John probably the last. He is not James the Lord's brother (Galatians:1:19|). We do not know why Luke tells so little about the death of James and so much about the death of Stephen nor do we know why Herod selected him as a victim. Eusebius (_H.E_. ii. 9) quotes Clement of Alexandria as saying that a Jew made accusations against James and was converted and beheaded at the same time with him. {Killed with the sword} (\aneilen machairi\). The verb is a favourite one with Luke (Acts:2:33; strkjv@5:33,36; strkjv@7:28; strkjv@9:23-29; strkjv@10:39|, etc.). Instrumental case and Ionic form of \machaira\. The Jews considered beheading a shameful death as in the case of the Baptist (Matthew:14:10|).

rwp@Acts:12:17 @There were probably loud exclamations of astonishment and joy. {Beckoning with the hand} (\kataseisas ti cheiri\). First aorist active participle of \katasei\, old verb to signal or shake down with the hand (instrumental case \cheiri\). In the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:12:17; strkjv@13:16; strkjv@19:33; strkjv@21:40|. The speaker indicates by a downward movement of the hand his desire for silence (to hold their peace, \sigin\, present active infinitive, to keep silent). Peter was anxious for every precaution and he wanted their instant attention. {Declared} (\digsato\). First aorist middle of \digeomai\, old verb to carry through a narrative, give a full story. See also strkjv@Acts:9:27| of Barnabas in his defence of Saul. Peter told them the wonderful story. {Unto James and the brethren} (\Iakbi kai tois adelphois\). Dative case after \apaggeilate\ (first aorist active imperative). Evidently "James and the brethren" were not at this meeting, probably meeting elsewhere. There was no place where all the thousands of disciples in Jerusalem could meet. This gathering in the house of Mary may have been of women only or a meeting of the Hellenists. It is plain that this James the Lord's brother, is now the leading presbyter or elder in Jerusalem though there were a number (11:30; strkjv@21:18|). Paul even terms him apostle (Gal strkjv@1:19|), though certainly not one of the twelve. The twelve apostles probably were engaged elsewhere in mission work save James now dead (Acts:12:2|) and Peter. The leadership of James is here recognized by Peter and is due, partly to the absence of the twelve, but mainly to his own force of character. He will preside over the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:13|). {To another place} (\eis heteron topon\). Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts:15:7|) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Gal strkjv@2:7; strkjv@1Peter:1:1|) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1Peter:5:13|), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of strkjv@2Corinthians:10:16| it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man's foundation (Romans:15:20|). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter strkjv@Acts:15|). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1Corinthians:9:5|).

rwp@Acts:12:20 @{Was highly displeased} (\n thumomachn\). Periphrastic imperfect active of \thumomache\, late compound of \thumos\ (passionate heat) and \machomai\, to fight. Only here in the N.T., to fight desperately, to have a hot quarrel. Whether it was open war with the Phoenicians or just violent hostility we do not know, save that Phoenicia belonged to Syria and Herod Agrippa had no authority there. The quarrel may have been over commercial matters. {They came with one accord} (\homothumadon parsan\). The representatives of Tyre and Sidon. See on ¯1:14| for \homothumadon\. Tyre was a colony of Sidon and had become one of the chief commercial cities of the world by reason of the Phoenician ships. {The king's chamberlain} (\ton epi tou koitnos tou basileos\). The one over the bedchamber (\koitnos\, late word from \koit\, bed, here only in the N.T.). {Made their friend} (\peisantes\). First aorist active participle of \peith\, to persuade. Having persuaded (probably with bribes as in strkjv@Matthew:28:14|). {They asked for peace} (\itounto eirnn\). Imperfect middle of \aite\, kept on asking for peace. {Because their country was fed} (\dia to trephesthai autn tn choran\). Causal sentence with \dia\ and the articular infinitive (present passive of \treph\, to nourish or feed) and the accusative of general reference, "because of the being fed as to their country." Tyre and Sidon as large commercial cities on the coast received large supplies of grain and fruits from Palestine. Herod had cut off the supplies and that brought the two cities to action.

rwp@Acts:12:21 @{Upon a set day} (\takti hmeri\). Locative case and the verbal adjective of \tass\, to arrange, appoint, old word, here only in the N.T. Josephus (_Ant_. XVII. 6, 8; XIX. 8, 2) gives a full account of the occasion and the death of Herod Agrippa. It was the second day of the festival in honour of the Emperor Claudius, possibly his birthday rather than the _Quinquennalia_. The two accounts of Luke and Josephus supplement each other with no contradiction. Josephus does not mention the name of Blastus. {Arrayed himself in royal apparel} (\endusamenos esthta basilikn\). First aorist middle (indirect) participle of \endun\ or \endu\, common verb to put on. Literally, having put royal apparel on himself (a robe of silver tissue, Josephus says). The rays of the sun shone on this brilliant apparel and the vast crowd in the open amphitheatre became excited as Herod began to speak. {Made an oration} (\edmgorei\). Imperfect active of \dmgore\, old verb from \dmgoros\ (haranguer of the people), and that from \dmos\ (people) and \agoreu\, to harangue or address the people. Only here in the N.T. He kept it up.

rwp@Acts:12:22 @{Shouted} (\epephnei\). Imperfect active, kept on shouting, calling out to him. Old verb, but only four times in the N.T. and all by Luke. The heathen crowd (\dmos\) repeated their flattering adulation to gain Herod's favour. {The voice of a god} (\theou phn\). In the pagan sense of emperor worship, not as the Supreme Being. But it was pleasing to Herod Agrippa's vanity.

rwp@Acts:12:23 @{Smote him} (\epataxen auton\). Effective aorist active indicative of \patass\, old verb, used already in verse 7| of gentle smiting of the angel of the Lord, here of a severe stroke of affliction. Like Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel:4:30|) pride went before a fall. He was struck down in the very zenith of his glory. {Because} (\anth' hn\). \Anti\ with the genitive of the relative pronoun, "in return for which things." He accepted the impious flattery (Hackett) instead of giving God the glory. He was a nominal Jew. {He was eaten of worms} (\genomenos sklkobrtos\). Ingressive aorist middle participle, "becoming worm-eaten." The compound verbal adjective (\sklx\, worm, \brtos\, eaten, from \bibrsk\) is a late word (II Macc. strkjv@9:9) of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, used also of a tree (Theophrastus), here only in the N.T. The word \sklx\ was used of intestinal worms and Herodotus (IV. 205) describes Pheretima, Queen of Cyrene, as having swarms of worms which ate her flesh while still alive. Josephus (_Ant_. XIX. 8, 2) says that Herod Agrippa lingered for five days and says that the rotting of his flesh produced worms, an item in harmony with the narrative in Luke. Josephus gives further details, one a superstitious sight of an owl sitting on one of the ropes of the awning of the theatre while the people flattered him, an omen of his death to him. Luke puts it simply that God smote him. {Gave up the ghost} (\exepsuxen\). Effective aorist active of \ekpsuch\, to breathe out, late verb, medical term in Hippocrates, in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:5:5,10; strkjv@12:23|. Herod was carried out of the theatre a dying man and lingered only five days.

rwp@Acts:12:24 @{Grew and multiplied} (\uxanen kai eplthuneto\). Imperfect active and passive. Cf. strkjv@6:1|. The reaction from the death of James and the imprisonment of Peter.

rwp@Acts:12:25 @{From Jerusalem} (\ex Ierousalm\). Probably correct text, though D has \apo\. Westcott and Hort follow Aleph B in reading \eis\ (to) Jerusalem, an impossible reading contradicted by strkjv@11:29f.; strkjv@13:1|. The ministration (\diakonian\) referred to is that in strkjv@11:29f.| which may have taken place, in point of time, after the death of Herod. {Taking with them} (\sunparalabontes\). Taking along (\para\) with (\sun\) them, John Mark from Jerusalem (12:12|) to Antioch (13:1|). The aorist participle does not express subsequent action as Rackham here argues (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 861-863).

rwp@Info_James @ THE EPISTLE OF JAMES BEFORE A.D. 50 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR He claims to be James, and so the book is not anonymous. It is either genuine or pseudonymous. He does not claim to be the brother of the Lord Jesus, as one might expect. James the brother of John was put to death by Herod Agrippa I about A.D. 44 (Acts:12:2|). But James the brother of Jesus (Galatians:1:19|) was still alive and became a leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts:12:17|), presiding over the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts:15:13-21|) and apparently writing the message from the Conference to the Gentile churches (Acts:15:22-29|), and was still the leading elder in Jerusalem on Paul's last visit (Acts:21:18-25|). James does not claim here to be an apostle and he was not one of the twelve apostles, and the dispute about accepting it of which Eusebius spoke was about its apostolicity since James was only an apostle by implication (Galatians:1:19|) in the general sense of that term like Barnabas (Acts:14:14|), perhaps Silas and Timothy (1Thessalonians:2:7|), certainly not on a par with Paul, who claimed equality with the twelve. James, like the other brothers of Jesus, had once disbelieved his claims to be the Messiah (John:7:6f.|), but he was won by a special vision of the Risen Christ (1Corinthians:15:7|) and was in the upper room before the great pentecost (Acts:1:14|). It is plain that he had much to overcome as a zealous Jew to become a Christian, though he was not a mere cousin of Jesus or a son of Joseph by a former marriage. He was strictly the half-brother of Jesus, since Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. There is no reason to believe that he was a Nazirite. We know that he was married (1Corinthians:9:5|). He came to be called James the Just and was considered very devout. The Judaizers had counted on him to agree with them against Paul and Barnabas, but he boldly stood for Gentile freedom from the ceremonial law. The Judaizers still claimed him at Antioch and used his name wrongly to frighten Peter thereby (Galatians:2:12|). But to the end he remained the loyal friend to Paul and his gospel rightly understood (Acts:21:18-25|). Clement of Alexandria (_Hypot_. vii) says that, when he bore strong testimony to Jesus as the Son of man, they flung him down from the gable of the temple, stoned him, and beat him to death with a club. But Josephus (_Ant_. XX. ix. I) says that the Sadducees about A.D. 62 had James and some others brought before the Sanhedrin (Ananus presiding) and had them stoned as transgressors of the law. At any rate he won a martyr's crown like Stephen and James the brother of John.