OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp Historical:

rwp@1Corinthians:15:3 @{First of all} (\en prtois\). Among first things. _In primis_. Not to time, but to importance. {Which I also received} (\ho kai parelabon\). Direct revelation claimed as about the institution of the Lord's Supper (11:23|) and same verbs used (\paredka, parelabon\). Four items given by Paul in explaining "the gospel" which Paul preached. Stanley calls it (verses 1-11|) the creed of the early disciples, but "rather a sample of the exact form of the apostle's early teaching, than a profession of faith on the part of converts" (Vincent). The four items are presented by four verbs (died, \apethanen\, was buried, \etaph\, hath been raised, \eggertai\, appeared, \phth\). {Christ died} (\Christos apethanen\). Historical fact and crucial event. {For our sins} (\huper tn hamartin hmn\). \Huper\ means literally over, in behalf, even instead of (Galatians:3:13|), where used of persons. But here much in the sense of \peri\ (Galatians:1:14|) as is common in _Koin_. In strkjv@1Peter:3:18| we have \peri hamartin, huper adikn\. {According to the Scriptures} (\kata tas graphas\). As Jesus showed (Luke:22:37; strkjv@24:25|) and as Peter pointed out (Acts:2:25-27; strkjv@3:35|) and as Paul had done (Acts:13:24f.; strkjv@17:3|). Cf. strkjv@Romans:1:2ff|.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION But for the Acts we should know nothing of the early apostolic period save what is told in the Epistles. There are various apocryphal "Acts," but they are without historical worth. Hence the importance of this book.

rwp@Info_Acts @ SOURCES OF THE ACTS Beyond a doubt Luke employed a variety of sources for this great history as he did for the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|). In fact, Cadbury argues that this Prologue was meant to apply to the Acts also as Volume II whether he intended to write a third volume or not. Certainly we are entitled to say that Luke used the same historical method for Acts. Some of these sources are easy to see. Luke had his own personal experience for the "we" sections. Then he had the benefit of Paul's own notes or suggestions for all that portion where Paul figures from chapters 8 to 28, since Luke was apparently with Paul in Rome when he finished the Book. This would include Paul's sermons and addresses which Luke gives unless one wishes to say, as some do, that Luke followed the style of Thucydides and composed the kind of addresses that he thought Paul would make. I see no evidence of that for each address differs from the others and suits precisely the occasion when it was delivered. The ancients frequently employed shorthand and Paul may have preserved notes of his addresses. Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University, argues in his _Composition and Date of Acts_ (1916) that Luke used an Aramaic document for the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. There is an Aramaic element in certain portions of these chapters, but nothing like so pronounced as in Luke 1 and 2 after strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. It cannot be said that Torrey has made out his case for such a single document. Luke may have had several such documents besides access to others familiar with the early days of the work in Jerusalem. There was Simon Peter whom Paul visited for two weeks in Jerusalem (Galatians:1:18|) besides other points of contact with him in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts:15| and strkjv@Galatians:2|). There was also Barnabas who was early Paul's friend (Acts:9:27|) and who knew the beginnings as few did (Acts:4:36f.|). Besides many others it is to be observed that Paul with Luke made a special visit to Caesarea where he spent a week with the gifted Philip and his daughters with the gift of prophecy (Acts:21:8f.|). But with all the inevitable variety of sources for the information needed to cover the wide field of the Book of Acts the same mind has manifestly worked through it and it is the same style all through that appears in the "we" sections where the writer is confessedly a companion of Paul. No other companion of Paul carries this claim for the authorship and no other was a physician and no author has the external evidence from early writers.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE HISTORICAL VALUE It was once a fad with a certain school of critics to decry Luke in the Acts as wholly untrustworthy, not above the legendary stage. But the spade has done well by Luke for inscriptions and papyri have brought remarkable confirmation for scores of points where Luke once stood all alone and was discounted because he stood alone. These will be duly noted in the proper places as they occur. Ramsay has done most in this restoration of the rank of Luke as a credible historian, as shown in particular in his _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_ and in _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_. In every instance where discoveries have been made they have confirmed the testimony of Luke as concerning _politarchs_ in Thessalonica, _proconsul_ in Cyprus, etc. The result is that the balance of evidence is now in favour of Luke even when he still stands alone or seems to be opposed by Josephus. Luke, as it stands today, is a more credible historian than Josephus. Ramsay dares to call Luke, all things considered, the greatest of all historians, even above Thucydides. An interesting book on this phase of the subject is Chase's _The Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles_ (1902).

rwp@Acts:1:1 @{The former treatise} (\ton men prton\). Literally, the first treatise. The use of the superlative is common enough and by no means implies, though it allows, a third volume. This use of \prtos\ where only two are compared is seen between the Baptist and Jesus (John:1:15|), John and Peter (John:20:4|). The idiom is common in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 662, 669). The use of \men solitarium\ here, as Hackett notes, is common in Acts. It is by no means true that \men\ requires a following \de\ by contrast. The word is merely a weakened form of \mn\=surely, indeed. The reference is to the "first treatise" and merely emphasizes that. The use of \logos\ (word) for treatise or historical narrative is common in ancient Greek as in Herodotus 6 and 9. Plato (_Phaedo_, p. 61 B) makes a contrast between \muthos\ and \logos\. {I made} (\epoisamn\). Aorist middle indicative, the middle being the usual construction for mental acts with \poie\. {O Theophilus} (\O Theophile\). The interjection \O\ here as is common, though not in strkjv@Luke:1:3|. But the adjective \kratiste\ (most excellent) is wanting here. See remarks on Theophilus on ¯Luke:1:3|. Hackett thinks that he lived at Rome because of the way Acts ends. He was a man of rank. He may have defrayed the expense of publishing both Luke and Acts. Perhaps by this time Luke may have reached a less ceremonious acquaintance with Theophilus. {Which Jesus began} (\hn rxato Isous\). The relative is attracted from the accusative \ha\ to the genitive \hn\ because of the antecedent \pantn\ (all). The language of Luke here is not merely pleonastic as Winer held. Jesus "began" "both to do and to teach" (\poiein te kai didaskein\). Note present infinitives, linear action, still going on, and the use of \te--kai\ binds together the life and teachings of Jesus, as if to say that Jesus is still carrying on from heaven the work and teaching of the disciples which he started while on earth before his ascension. The record which Luke now records is really the Acts of Jesus as much as the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. A. T. Pierson called it "The Acts of the Holy Spirit," and that is true also. The Acts, according to Luke, is a continuation of the doings and teachings of Jesus. "The following writings appear intended to give us, and do, in fact, profess to give us, that which Jesus _continued_ to do and teach after the day in which he was taken up" (Bernard, _Progress of Doctrine in the N.T._).

rwp@Acts:5:36 @{Theudas} (\Theudas\). Luke represents Gamaliel here about A.D. 35 as speaking of a man who led a revolt before that of Judas the Galilean in connection with the enrolment under Quirinius (Cyrenius) in A.D. 6. But Josephus (_Ant_. XX. 5, 1) tells of a Theudas who led a similar insurrection in the reign of Claudius about A.D. 44 or 45. Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. 1, 6; XX. 5, 2; _War_ ii. 8, 1 and 17, 8) also describes Judas the Galilean or Gaulonite and places him about A.D. 6. It is not certain that Josephus and Luke (Gamaliel) refer to the same Theudas as the name is an abbreviation of Theodosus, a common name. "Josephus gives an account of four men named Simon who followed each other within forty years, and of three named Judas within ten years, who were all instigators of rebellion" (Hackett). If the same Theudas is meant, then either Josephus or Luke (Gamaliel) has the wrong historical order. In that case one will credit Luke or Josephus according to his estimate of the two as reliable historians. {To be somebody} (\einai tina\). Indirect assertion with the infinitive and the accusative of general reference (\heauton\) and \tina\, predicate accusative. \Tina\ could be "anybody" or "somebody" according to context, clearly "somebody" of importance here. {Joined themselves} (\proseklith\). Correct text and not \prosekollth\ (Textus Receptus). First aorist passive indicative of \prosklin\, old verb to lean towards, to incline towards. Here only in the N.T. {Was slain} (\anireth\). First aorist passive of \anaire\ (cf. verse 33|). {Obeyed} (\epeithonto\). Imperfect middle, kept on obeying. {Were dispersed} (\dieluthsan\). First aorist passive indicative (effective aorist) of \dialu\, old verb to dissolve, to go to pieces. Here only in the N.T.

rwp@Acts:7:1 @{Are these things so?} (\ei tauta houts echei\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. Songs:he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts:13:16ff.|) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse 51|) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "Songs:Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:10:11 @{Beholdeth} (\therei\). Vivid historical present and change from past time. {Opened} (\aneigmenon\, perfect passive participle with double reduplication, state of completion). {Descending} (\katabainon\). Present active participle describing the process. {Sheet} (\othonn\). Old word for linen cloth and only here in the N.T. Accusative case in apposition with \skeuos\ (vessel). {Let down} (\Kathiemenon\). Present passive participle of \Kathimi\. Old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:5:19; strkjv@Acts:9:25|. Linear action here picturing the process, "being let down." {By four corners} (\tessarsin archais\). Instrumental case of \arch\, beginning. We say "end" or extremity for this use of the word. The picture is the sheet held up by four cords to which the sheet is fastened. strkjv@Isaiah:11:12| had said that Israel would be gathered from the four corners of the earth. Knowling follows Hobart in taking the four corners of the sheet to be a medical phrase for bandage (the end of a bandage).

rwp@Acts:10:27 @{As he talked with him} (\sunomiln auti\). Present active participle of \sunomile\, rare compound and here alone in the N.T., with associative instrumental case. The uncompounded verb is common enough though in the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:24:14| which see and strkjv@Acts:20:11; strkjv@24:26|. {Findeth} (\heuriskei\). Vivid historical present indicative active. {Come together} (\sunelluthotas\). Second perfect active participle of \sunerchomai\. It was an expectant group of Gentiles eager for Peter's interpretation of the vision of Cornelius.

rwp@Acts:14:2 @{That were disobedient} (\hoi apeithsantes\). First aorist active articular participle, not the present \apeithountes\ as the Textus Receptus has it. But the meaning is probably the Jews that disbelieved, rather than that disobeyed. Strictly \apeithe\ does mean to disobey and \apiste\ to disbelieve, but that distinction is not observed in strkjv@John:3:36| nor in strkjv@Acts:19:9; strkjv@28:24|. The word \apeithe\ means to be \apeiths\, to be unwilling to be persuaded or to withhold belief and then also to withhold obedience. The two meanings run into one another. To disbelieve the word of God is to disobey God. {Made them evil affected} (\ekaksan\). First aorist active indicative of \kako\, old verb from \kakos\, to do evil to, to ill-treat, then in later Greek as here to embitter, to exasperate as in strkjv@Psalms:105:32| and in Josephus. In this sense only here in the N.T. Evidently Paul preached the same message as in Antioch for it won both Jews and Gentiles, and displeased the rabbis. Codex Bezae adds here that "the chiefs of the synagogue and the rulers" brought persecution upon Paul and Barnabas just as was argued about Antioch. Outside the synagogue the Jews would poison the minds of the Gentiles against Paul and Barnabas. "The story of Thecla suggests a means, and perhaps the apostles were brought before the magistrates on some charge of interference with family life. The magistrates however must have seen at once that there was no legal case against them; and by a sentence of acquittal or in some other way the Lord gave peace" (Rackham). As we have it, the story of Paul and Thecla undoubtedly has apocryphal features, though Thecla may very well be an historical character here at Iconium where the story is located. Certainly the picture of Paul herein drawn cannot be considered authentic though a true tradition may underlie it: "bald, bowlegged, strongly built, small in stature, with large eyes and meeting eyebrows and longish nose; full of grace; sometimes looking like a man, sometimes having the face of an angel."

rwp@Acts:16:13 @{By a river side} (\para potamon\). The little river Gangites (or Gargites) was one mile west of the town. Philippi as a military outpost had few Jews. There was evidently no synagogue inside the city, but "without the gates" (\ex ts puls\) they had noticed an enclosure "where we supposed" (\hou enomizomen\, correct text, imperfect active), probably as they came into the city, "was a place of prayer" (\proscuchn einai\). Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect discourse. \Proseuch\ is common in the LXX and the N.T. for the act of prayer as in strkjv@Acts:2:42| then for a place of prayer either a synagogue (III Macc. strkjv@7:20) or more often an open air enclosure near the sea or a river where there was water for ceremonial ablutions. The word occurs also in heathen writers for a place of prayer (Schurer, _Jewish People_, Div. II, Vol. II, p. 69, Engl. Tr.). Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 222) quotes an Egyptian inscription of the third century B.C. with this sense of the word and one from Panticapaeum on the Black Sea of the first century A.D. (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 102). Juvenal (III. 296) has a sneering reference to the Jewish \proseucha\. Josephus (_Ant_. XIV. 10, 23) quotes a decree of Halicarnassus which allowed the Jews "to make their prayers (\proseuchas\) on the seashore according to the custom of their fathers." There was a synagogue in Thessalonica, but apparently none in Amphipolis and Apollonia (Acts:17:1|). The rule of the rabbis required ten men to constitute a synagogue, but here were gathered only a group of women at the hour of prayer. In pioneer days in this country it was a common thing to preach under bush arbours in the open air. John Wesley and George Whitfield were great open air preachers. Paul did not have an inspiring beginning for his work in Europe, but he took hold where he could. The conjecture was correct. It was a place of prayer, but only a bunch of women had come together (\tais sunelthousais gunaixin\), excuse enough for not preaching to some preachers, but not to Paul and his party. The "man of Macedonia" turned out to be a group of women (Furneaux). Macedonian inscriptions show greater freedom for women in Macedonia than elsewhere at this time and confirm Luke's story of the activities of women in Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea. {We sat down and spake} (\kathisantes elaloumen\). Having taken our seats (aorist active participle of \kathiz\) we began to speak or preach (inchoative imperfect of \lale\, often used for preaching). Sitting was the Jewish attitude for public speaking. It was not mere conversation, but more likely conversational preaching of an historical and expository character. Luke's use of the first person plural implies that each of the four (Paul, Silas, Timothy, Luke) preached in turn, with Paul as chief speaker.

rwp@Galatians:4:24 @{Which things contain an allegory} (\hatina estin allgoroumena\). Literally, "Which things are allegorized" (periphrastic present passive indicative of \allgore\). Late word (Strabo, Plutarch, Philo, Josephus, ecclesiastical writers), only here in N.T. The ancient writers used \ainittomai\ to speak in riddles. It is compounded of \allo\, another, and \agoreu\, to speak, and so means speaking something else than what the language means, what Philo, the past-master in the use of allegory, calls the deeper spiritual sense. Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law. He puts a secondary meaning on the narrative just as he uses \tupiks\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:11| of the narrative. We need not press unduly the difference between allegory and type, for each is used in a variety of ways. The allegory in one sense is a speaking parable like Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_, the Prodigal Son in strkjv@Luke:15|, the Good Shepherd in strkjv@John:10|. But allegory was also used by Philo and by Paul here for a secret meaning not obvious at first, one not in the mind of the writer, like our illustration which throws light on the point. Paul was familiar with this rabbinical method of exegesis (Rabbi Akiba, for instance, who found a mystical sense in every hook and crook of the Hebrew letters) and makes skilful use of that knowledge here. Christian preachers in Alexandria early fell victims to Philo's allegorical method and carried it to excess without regard to the plain sense of the narrative. That startling style of preaching survives yet to the discredit of sound preaching. Please observe that Paul says here that he is using allegory, not ordinary interpretation. It is not necessary to say that Paul intended his readers to believe that this allegory was designed by the narrative. He illustrates his point by it. {For these are} (\hautai gar eisin\). Allegorically interpreted, he means. {From Mount Sinai} (\apo orous Sin\). Spoken from Mount Sinai. {Bearing} (\gennsa\). Present active participle of \genna\, to beget of the male (Matthew:1:1-16|), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke:1:13,57|). {Which is Hagar} (\htis estin Hagar\). Allegorically interpreted.

rwp@John:6:19 @{When therefore they had rowed} (\ellakotes oun\). Perfect active participle of \elaun\, old verb to march (Xenophon), to drive (James:3:4|), to row (Mark:6:48|). {Furlongs} (\stadious\). Stadia, accusative of extent of space, a little over halfway across, "in the midst of the sea" (Mark:6:47|). It was about forty stadia (six miles) across. {They behold} (\therousin\). Graphic dramatic present active indicative of \there\, vividly preserving the emotions of the disciples. {Walking} (\peripatounta\). Present active participle in the accusative case agreeing with \Isoun\. {Drawing nigh unto the boat} (\eggus tou ploiou ginomenon\). Present middle participle of \ginomai\ describing the process. "Coming near the boat." They behold Jesus slipping closer and closer to them on the water. {They were afraid} (\ephobthsan\). Ingressive aorist passive indicative of \phobeomai\, "they became afraid." Sudden change to the regular historical sequence.

rwp@John:8:42 @{Ye would love me} (\gapate an eme\). Conclusion of second-class condition with distinct implication that their failure to love Jesus is proof that God is not their Father (protasis). {For I came forth from God} (\eg gar ek tou theou exlthon\). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\, definite historical event (the Incarnation). See strkjv@4:30| for \exlthon ek\. In strkjv@13:3; strkjv@16:30| Jesus is said to have come from (\apo\) God. The distinction is not to be pressed. Note the definite consciousness of pre-existence with God as in strkjv@17:5|. {And am come} (\kai hk\). Present active indicative with perfect sense in the verb stem (state of completion) before rise of the tense and here retained. "I am here," Jesus means. {Of myself} (\ap' emautou\). His coming was not self-initiated nor independent of the Father. "But he (\ekeinos\, emphatic demonstrative pronoun) sent me" and here I am.

rwp@John:18:3 @{The band of soldiers} (\tn speiran\). No word for "of soldiers" in the Greek, but the Latin _spira_ (roll or ball) was used for a military cohort (Polybius 11, 23, 1) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:27; strkjv@Acts:10:1|, etc., here for a small band secured from the Tower of Antonia. The Synoptics do not mention the soldiers, but only the "officers" as here (\hupretas\ for which see strkjv@Matthew:26:58; strkjv@Mark:14:54,65|) or temple police from the Sanhedrin. {Cometh} (\erchetai\). Dramatic historical present middle indicative. {With lanterns and torches} (\meta phann kai lampadn\). Both old words, \phanos\ only here in N.T., \lampas\, an oil lamp (Matthew:25:1|). It was full moon, but Judas took no chances for it may have been cloudy and there were dark places by the walls and under the olive trees. \Meta\ is accompanied with {and weapons} (\kai hopln\). Mark (Mark:14:43|) mentions "swords and staves." Probably the temple guard had weapons as well as the soldiers.

rwp@John:18:28 @{They lead} (\agousin\). Dramatic historical present of \ag\, plural "they" for the Sanhedrists (Luke:23:1|). John gives no details of the trial before the Sanhedrin (only the fact, strkjv@John:18:24,28|) when Caiaphas presided, either the informal meeting at night (Mark:14:53,55-65; strkjv@Matthew:26:57,59-68; strkjv@Luke:22:54,63-65|) or the formal ratification meeting after dawn (Mark:15:1; strkjv@Matthew:27:1; strkjv@Luke:22:66-71|), but he gives much new material of the trial before Pilate (18:28-38|). {Into the palace} (\eis to praitrion\). For the history and meaning of this interesting Latin word, _praetorium_, see on ¯Matthew:27:27; strkjv@Acts:23:35; strkjv@Phillipians:1:13|. Here it is probably the magnificent palace in Jerusalem built by Herod the Great for himself and occupied by the Roman Procurator (governor) when in the city. There was also one in Caesarea (Acts:23:35|). Herod's palace in Jerusalem was on the Hill of Zion in the western part of the upper city. There is something to be said for the Castle of Antonia, north of the temple area, as the location of Pilate's residence in Jerusalem. {Early} (\pri\). Technically the fourth watch (3 A.M. to 6 A.M.). There were two violations of Jewish legal procedure (holding the trial for a capital case at night, passing condemnation on the same day of the trial). Besides, the Sanhedrin no longer had the power of death. A Roman court could meet any time after sunrise. John (19:14|) says it was "about the sixth hour" when Pilate condemned Jesus. {That they might not be defiled} (\hina m mianthsin\). Purpose clause with \hina m\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \miain\, to stain, to defile. For Jewish scruples about entering the house of a Gentile see strkjv@Acts:10:28; strkjv@11:3|. {But might eat the passover} (\alla phagsin to pascha\). Second aorist active subjunctive of the defective verb \esthi\, to eat. This phrase may mean to eat the passover meal as in strkjv@Matthew:27:17| (Mark:14:12,14; strkjv@Luke:22:11,15|), but it does not have to mean that. In strkjv@2Chronicles:30:22| we read: "And they did eat the festival seven days" when the paschal festival is meant, not the paschal lamb or the paschal supper. There are eight other examples of \pascha\ in John's Gospel and in all of them the feast is meant, not the supper. If we follow John's use of the word, it is the feast here, not the meal of strkjv@John:13:2| which was the regular passover meal. This interpretation keeps John in harmony with the Synoptics.

rwp@John:20:1 @{Now on the first day of the week} (\ti de mii tn sabbatn\). Locative case of time when. Both Mark (Mark:16:2|) and Luke (Luke:24:1|) have this very idiom of the cardinal \ti mii\, instead of the usual ordinal \ti prti\ (first), an idiom common in the papyri and in the modern Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 671). In all three instances also we have the genitive plural \tn sabbatn\ for "the week" as in strkjv@Acts:20:7|. The singular \sabbaton\ also occurs for "the week" as in strkjv@Luke:18:12; strkjv@Mark:16:9|. {Cometh Mary Magdalene} (\Maria h Magdaln erchetai\). Vivid historical present. Mary Magdalene is not to be confounded with Mary of Bethany. {While it was yet dark} (\skotias eti ouss\). Genitive absolute. For \skotia\ see strkjv@John:6:17; strkjv@Matthew:10:27|. Mark (Mark:16:2|) says the sun was risen on their actual arrival. She started from the house while still dark. {Taken away} (\rmenon\). Perfect passive participle of \air\, predicate accusative in apposition with \ton lithon\.

rwp@John:20:12 @{Beholdeth} (\therei\). Vivid historical present again as in verses 6,14|. Peter and John had not seen the two angels. Westcott suggests an "economy" in such manifestations as the explanations. Better our own ignorance as to the reason why only the women saw them. Angels were commonly believed to be clad in white. See strkjv@Mark:16:5| (a young man in a white robe), strkjv@Matthew:28:5| (the angel), strkjv@Luke:24:4| (two men in dazzling apparel). For other angels in John's Gospel see strkjv@1:41; strkjv@12:29; strkjv@20:12|. {Had lain} (\ekeito\). Imperfect in progressive sense, "had been lying," though not there now.

rwp@John:21:9 @{Got out} (\apebsan\). As in strkjv@Luke:5:2|. {They see} (\blepousin\). Vivid historical present. {A fire of coals} (\anthrakian\). See strkjv@18:18| for this word. Cf. our "anthracite." {There} (\keimenn\). Lying as placed, present middle participle of \keimai\. {Fish} (\opsarion\). As in strkjv@6:9,11|, like \prosphagion\ above. {Laid thereon} (\epikeimenon\). Songs:broiling with bread ready (toast).

rwp@Luke:4:31 @{Came down} (\katlthen\). strkjv@Mark:1:21| has the historical present, {they go into} (\eisporeuontai\). Capernaum (Tell Hum) is now the headquarters of the Galilean ministry, since Nazareth has rejected Jesus. strkjv@Luke:4:31-37| is parallel with strkjv@Mark:1:21-28| which he manifestly uses. It is the first of Christ's miracles which they give. {Was teaching them} (\n didaskn autous\). Periphrastic imperfect. Mark has \edidasken\ first and then \en didaskn\. "Them" here means the people present in the synagogue on the sabbath, construction according to sense as in strkjv@Mark:1:22|.

rwp@Luke:5:19 @{By what way they might bring him in} (\poias eis enegksin auton\). Deliberative subjunctive of the direct question retained in the indirect. {The housetop} (\to dma\). Very old word. The flat roof of Jewish houses was usually reached by outside stairway. Cf. strkjv@Acts:10:9| where Peter went for meditation. {Through the tiles} (\dia tn keramn\). Common and old word for the tile roof. strkjv@Mark:2:4| speaks of digging a hole in this tile roof. {Let him down} (\kathkan auton\). First aorist (k aorist) effective active of \kathimi\, common verb. strkjv@Mark:2:4| has historical present \chalsi\, the verb used by Jesus to Peter and in Peter's reply (Luke:5:4f.|). {With his couch} (\sun ti klinidii\). Also in verse 24|. Diminutive of \klin\ (verse 18|) occurring in Plutarch and _Koin_ writers. strkjv@Mark:2:4| has \krabatton\ (pallet). It doubtless was a pallet on which the paralytic lay. {Into the midst before Jesus} (\eis to meson emprosthen tou Isou\). The four friends had succeeded, probably each holding a rope to a corner of the pallet. It was a moment of triumph over difficulties and surprise to all in the house (Peter's apparently, strkjv@Mark:2:1|).

rwp@Matthew:10:26 @{Fear them not therefore} (\m oun phobthte autous\). Repeated in verses 28| and 31| (\m phobeisthe\ present middle imperative here in contrast with aorist passive subjunctive in the preceding prohibitions). Note also the accusative case with the aorist passive subjunctive, transitive though passive. See same construction in strkjv@Luke:12:5|. In strkjv@Matthew:10:28| the construction is with \apo\ and the ablative, a translation Hebraism as in strkjv@Luke:12:4| (Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek N.T. in the Light of Historical Research_, p. 577).

rwp@Matthew:13:22 @{Choke the word} (\sunpnigei ton logon\). We had \apepnixan\ (choked off) in strkjv@13:7|. Here it is \sunpnigei\ (choke together), historical present and singular with both subjects lumped together. "Lust for money and care go together and between them spoil many an earnest religious nature" (Bruce), "thorns" indeed. The thorns flourish and the character sickens and dies, choked to death for lack of spiritual food, air, sunshine.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE REVELATION OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 95 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION DIFFICULTY IN THE PROBLEM Perhaps no single book in the New Testament presents so many and so formidable problems as the Apocalypse of John. These difficulties concern the authorship, the date, the apocalyptic method, the relation to the other Johannine books, the purpose, the historical environment, the reception of the book in the New Testament canon, the use and misuse of the book through the ages, etc. In the eastern churches the recognition of the Apocalypse of John was slower than in the west, since it was not in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to Cerinthus the Gnostic, but he was ably answered by Hippolytus, who attributed it to the Apostle John. The Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 360) omitted it, but the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) accepted it. The dispute about millenarianism led Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the third century, A.D.) to deny the authorship to the Apostle John, though he accepted it as canonical. Eusebius suggested a second John as the author. But finally the book was accepted in the east as Hebrews was in the west after a period of doubt.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION They are literally many. There are those who make the book a chart of Christian and even of human history even to the end. These divide into two groups, the continuous and the synchronous. The continuous historical theory takes each vision and symbol in succession as an unfolding panorama. Under the influence of this theory there have been all sorts of fantastic identifications of men and events. The synchronous theory takes the series of sevens (seals, trumpets, bowls) as parallel with each other, each time going up to the end. But in neither case can any satisfactory program be arranged. Another historical interpretation takes it all as over and done, the preterist theory. This theory again breaks into two, one finding the fulfilment all in the Neronic period, the other in the Domitianic era. Something can be said for each view, but neither satisfies the whole picture by any means. Roman Catholic scholars have been fond of the preterist view to escape the Protestant interpretation of the second beast in chapter strkjv@Revelation:13| as papal Rome. There is still another interpretation, the futurist, which keeps the fulfilment all in the future and which can be neither proved nor disproved. There is also the purely spiritual theory which finds no historical allusion anywhere. This again can be neither proved nor disproved. One of the lines of cleavage is the millennium in chapter strkjv@Revelation:20|. Those who take the thousand years literally are either pre-millennialists who look for the second coming of Christ to be followed by a thousand years of personal reign here on earth or the postmillennialists who place the thousand years before the second coming. There are others who turn to strkjv@2Peter:3:8| and wonder if, after all, in a book of symbols this thousand years has any numerical value at all. There seems abundant evidence to believe that this apocalypse, written during the stress and storm of Domitian's persecution, was intended to cheer the persecuted Christians with a view of certain victory at last, but with no scheme of history in view.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY (ONLY BOOKS SINCE 1875) Abbott, E. A., _Johannine Grammar_ (1906).,_Notes on New Testament Criticism_ (Part VII of Diatessarica, 1907). Allo, E. B., _L'apocalypse et l'epoque de la parousia_ (1915).,_Saint Jean. L'apocalypse_ (1921). Baldensperger, _Messian. Apok. Hoffnung_. 3rd ed. (1903). Baljon, J. M. S., _Openbaring van Johannes_ (1908). Beckwith, J. T., _The Apocalypse of John_ (1919). Benson, E. W., _The Apocalypse_ (1900). Berg, _The Drama of the Apocalypse_ (1894). Bleek, F., _Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1875). Boll, _Aus der Offenbarung Johannis_ (1914). Bousset, W., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_. 2 Aufl. (1906).,_Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse_ (1894). Brown, Charles, _Heavenly Visions_ (1911). Brown, D., _The Structure of the Apocalypse_ (1891). Bullinger, _Die Apokalypse_ (1904). Bungeroth, _Schlussel zur Offenbarung Johannis_ (1907). Burger, C. H. A., _Offenbarung Johannis_ (1877). Cadwell, _The Revelation of Jesus Christ_ (1920). Calmes, _L'Apokalypse devant la Critique_ (1907). Campbell, _The Patmos Letters Applied to Modern Criticism_ (1908). Carrington, P., _The Meaning of the Revelation_ (1931). Case, S. J., _The Millennial Hope_ (1918).,_The Revelation of John_ (1920). Charles, R. H., _Studies in the Apocalypse_ (1913).,_The Revelation of St. John_. 2 vols. (1921). Chevalin, _L'apocalypse et les temps presents_ (1904). Crampon, _L'apocalypse de S. Jean_ (1904). Dean, J. T., _The Book of Revelation_ (1915) Deissmann, A., _Light from the Ancient East_. Tr. by Strachan (1927). Delaport, _Fragments sahidiques du N.T. Apocalypse_ (1906). Douglas, C. E., _New Light on the Revelation of St. John the Divine_ (1923). Dusterdieck, _Offenbarung Johannis_. 4 Aufl. (1887). Eckman, _When Christ Comes Again_ (1917). Erbes, _Offenbar. Johan. Kritischuntersucht_ (1891). Forbes, H. P., _International Handbook on the Apocalypse_ (1907). Gebhardt, _Doctrine of the Apocalypse_ (1878). Geil, W. E., _The Isle That Is Called Patmos_ (1905). Gibson, E. C. S., _The Revelation of St. John_ (1910). Gigot, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1915). Glazebrook, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1924). Gunkel, H., _Schopfung und Chaos_ (1895). Gwynn, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1897). Harnack, A., _Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur_. Bd I (1897). Henderson, B. W., _The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero_ (1903). Hill, _Apocalyptic Problems_ (1916). Hill, Erskine, _Mystic Studies in the Apocalypse_ (1931). Hirscht, _Die Apokalypse und ihre neueste Kritik_ (1895). Holtzmann, H. J., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_ (1891). Holtzmann-Bauer, _Hand-Comm., Offenbarung des Johannis_. 3 Aufl. (1908). Horne, _The Meaning of the Apocalypse_ (1916). Hort, F. J. A., _The Apocalypse of St. John, Chs. 1-3_ (1908). James, M. R., _The Apocalypse in Art_ (1931). Jowett, G. T., _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1910). Kubel, _Offenbarung Johannis_ (1893). Laughlin, _The Solecisms of the Apocalypse_ (1902). Lee, S., _Revelation in Speaker's Comm_. (1881). Linder, _Die Offenbarung des Johannis aufgeschlossen_ (1905). Llwyd, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). Lohmeyer, E., _Die Offenbarung des Johannes_. Handbuch zum N.T. (1926). Loisy, A., _L'Apocalypse de Jean_ (1923). Matheson, _Sidelights upon Patmos_. Milligan, W., _The Revelation of St. John_. Schaff's Popular Comm. (1885).,_The Book of Revelation_. Expositor's Bible (1889).,_Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1892).,_Discussions on the Apocalypse_ (1893). Moffatt, James, _Intr. to Literature of the N.T_. (1911).,_Revelation in Expos. Greek Testament_ (1910). Moule, H.C., _Some Thoughts on the Seven Epistles_ (1915). Mozley, _The Christian's Hope in the Apocalypse_ (1915). Oman, John, _The Book of Revelation_ (1923).,_The Text of Revelation_ (1928). Osborn, _The Lion and the Lamb_ (1922). Palmer, _The Drama of the Apocalypse_ (1902). Paul, _Latter Day Light on the Apocalypse_ (1898). Peake, A. S., _The Revelation of John_ (1921). Porter, F. C., _The Messages of the Apocalyptic Writers_ (1905). Pounder, _Historical Notes on the Book of Revelation_ (1912). Prager, L., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_ (1901). Ramsay, A., _Revelation in Westminster N.T_. (1910). Ramsay, W. M., _The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia_ (1904). Rauch, _Offenbarung des Johannis_ (1894). Reymond, _L'apocalypse_ (1908). Ross, J. J., _Pearls from Patmos_ (1923). Russell, J. S., _The Parousia_ (1878). Sabatier, _Les Origines Litteraires et la Comp. de l'Apoc_. (1888). Schlatter, _Der Evangelist Johannes_ (1931). Schoen, _L'Origine de l'Apocalypse_ (1887). Scott, C. Anderson, _Revelation in New Century Bible_ (1902). Scott, C. A., _Revelation in Devot. Comm_. (1906). Scott, J. J., _Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1909). Selwyn, E. C., _The Christian Prophets and the Prophetic Apocalypse_ (1901). Shepherd, W. J. L., _The Revelation of St. John the Divine_. 2 vols. (1923). Simcox, W. H., _Revelation in Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). Smith, J. A., _Revelation in American Comm_. (1888).,_The World Lighted_ (1890).,_The Divine Parable of History_ (1901). Spitta, F., _Die Offenbarung des Johannis_ (1889). Strange, _Instructions on the Revelation of St. John the Divine_ (1900). Swete, H. B., _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1906). 2nd ed. 1907. Turner, C. H., _Studies in Early Church History_ (1912). Vischer, _Die Offenb. Johan. eine judische Apok_ (1886). Volter, _Offenb. Johannis_. 2 Aufl. (1911).,_Das Problem der Apok_. (1893). Weiss, B., _Die Johannes-Apokalypse_. Textkrit. (1891, 2 Aufl. 1902). Weiss, J., _Offenb. Johannis_ (1904). Wellhausen, J., _Analyse der Offenb_. (1907). Weyland, _Omwerkings-en Compilatie-Hupothesen Toegepast op de Apok_. (1888). Whiting, _The Revelation of John_ (1918). Zahn, _Introduction to the N.T_. 3 vols. (1909).,_Komm_. (1926).

rwp@Romans:11:11 @{Did they stumble that they might fall?} (\m eptaisan hina pessin?\). Negative answer expected by \m\ as in verse 1|. First aorist active indicative of \ptai\, old verb, to stumble, only here in Paul (see strkjv@James:3:2|), suggested perhaps by \skandalon\ in verse 9|. If \hina\ is final, then we must add "merely" to the idea, "merely that they might fall" or make a sharp distinction between \ptai\, to stumble, and \pipt\, to fall, and take \pessin\ as effective aorist active subjunctive to fall completely and for good. \Hina\, as we know, can be either final, sub-final, or even result. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:29; strkjv@Galatians:5:17|. Paul rejects this query in verse 11| as vehemently as he did that in verse 1|. {By their fall} (\ti autn paraptmati\). Instrumental case. For the word, a falling aside or a false step from \parapipt\, see strkjv@5:15-20|. {Is come}. No verb in the Greek, but \ginetai\ or \gegonen\ is understood. {For to provoke them to jealousy} (\eis to parazlsai\). Purpose expressed by \eis\ and the articular infinitive, first aorist active, of \parazlo\, for which verb see strkjv@1Corinthians:10:22|. As an historical fact Paul turned to the Gentiles when the Jews rejected his message (Acts:13:45ff.; strkjv@28:28|, etc.). {The riches of the world} (\ploutos kosmou\). See strkjv@10:12|. {Their loss} (\to httma autn\). Songs:perhaps in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:7|, but in strkjv@Isaiah:31:8| defeat is the idea. Perhaps so here. {Fulness} (\plrma\). Perhaps "completion," though the word from \plro\, to fill, has a variety of senses, that with which anything is filled (1Corinthians:10:26,28|), that which is filled (Ephesians:1:23|). {How much more?} (\posi mallon\). Argument _a fortiori_ as in verse 24|. Verse 25| illustrates the point.