OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp objects:

rwp@Acts:10:2 @{Devout} (\eusebs\). Old word from \eu\ (well) and \sebomai\ (to worship, to reverence), but rare in the N.T. (Acts:10:2,7; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|). It might refer to a worshipful pagan (Acts:17:23|, \sebasmata\, objects of worship), but connected with "one that feared God" (\phoboumenos ton theon\) Luke describes "a God-fearing proselyte" as in strkjv@10:22,35|. This is his usual term for the Gentile seekers after God (13:16, 26;17:4,17|, etc.), who had come into the worship of the synagogue without circumcision, and were not strictly proselytes, though some call such men "proselytes of the gate" (cf. strkjv@Acts:13:43|); but clearly Cornelius and his family were still regarded as outside the pale of Judaism (10:28,34; strkjv@11:1,8; strkjv@15:7|). They had seats in the synagogue, but were not Jews. {Gave much alms} (\poin eleemosunas pollas\). Doing many alms (the very phrase in strkjv@Matthew:6:2|), a characteristic mark of Jewish piety and from a Gentile to the Jewish people. {Prayed} (\deomenos\). Begging of God. Almsgiving and prayer were two of the cardinal points with the Jews (Jesus adds fasting in his picture of the Pharisee in strkjv@Matthew:6:1-18|).

rwp@Acts:17:23 @{For} (\gar\). Paul gives an illustration of their religiousness from his own experiences in their city. {The objects of your worship} (\ta sebasmata humn\). Late word from \sebazomai\, to worship. In N T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4|. The use of this word for temples, altars, statues, shows the conciliatory tone in the use of \deisidaimonesterous\ in verse 22|. {An altar} (\bmon\). Old word, only here in the N.T. and the only mention of a heathen altar in the N.T {With this inscription} (\en hi epegegrapto\). On which had been written (stood written), past perfect passive indicative of \epigraph\, old and common verb for writing on inscriptions (\epigraph\, strkjv@Luke:23:38|). {To an Unknown God} (\AGNOSTO THEO\). Dative case, dedicated to. Pausanias (I. 1, 4) says that in Athens there are "altars to gods unknown" (\bmoi then agnstn\). Epimenides in a pestilence advised the sacrifice of a sheep to the befitting god whoever he might be. If an altar was dedicated to the wrong deity, the Athenians feared the anger of the other gods. The only use in the N.T. of \agnstos\, old and common adjective (from \a\ privative and \gnstos\ verbal of \ginsk\, to know). Our word agnostic comes from it. Here it has an ambiguous meaning, but Paul uses it though to a stern Christian philosopher it may be the "confession at once of a bastard philosophy and of a bastard religion" (Hort, _Hulsean Lectures_, p. 64). Paul was quick to use this confession on the part of the Athenians of a higher power than yet known to them. Songs:he gets his theme from this evidence of a deeper religious sense in them and makes a most clever use of it with consummate skill. {In ignorance} (\agnoountes\). Present active participle of \agnoe\, old verb from same root as \agnstos\ to which Paul refers by using it. {This set I forth unto you} (\touto ego kataggell humin\). He is a \kataggeleus\ (verse 18|) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is. By this master stroke he has brushed to one side any notion of violation of Roman law or suspicion of heresy and claims their endorsement of his new gospel, a shrewd and consummate turn. He has their attention now and proceeds to describe this God left out of their list as the one true and Supreme God. The later MSS. here read \hon--touton\ (whom--this one) rather than \ho--touto\ (what--this), but the late text is plainly an effort to introduce too soon the personal nature of God which comes out clearly in verse 24|.

rwp@John:16:22 @{And ye therefore now} (\kai humeis oun nun\). See strkjv@8:38| for like emphasis on {ye} (\humeis\). The "sorrow" (\lupn\) is like that of the mother in childbirth (real, but fleeting, with permanent joy following). The metaphor points, of course, to the resurrection of Jesus which did change the grief of the disciples to gladness, once they are convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead. {But I will see you again} (\palin de opsomai humas\). Future middle of \hora\, to see. In verses 16,19| Jesus had said "ye shall see me" (\opsesthe me\), but here we have one more blessed promise, "I shall see you," showing "that we are the objects of God's regard" (Westcott). {Shall rejoice} (\charsetai\). Second future passive of \chair\. {Taketh away} (\airei\). Present active indicative, futuristic present, but B D have \arei\ the future active (shall take away). This joy is a permanent possession.

rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Isous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\n hsei etn triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\n huios hs enomizeto Isph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\hs enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

rwp@Matthew:13:3 @{Behold, the sower went forth} (\idou lthen ho speirn\). Matthew is very fond of this exclamation \idou\. It is "the sower," not "a sower." Jesus expects one to see the man as he stepped forth to begin scattering with his hand. The parables of Jesus are vivid word pictures. To understand them one must see them, with the eyes of Jesus if he can. Christ drew his parables from familiar objects.

rwp@Romans:9:22 @{Willing} (\theln\). Concessive use of the participle, "although willing," not causal, "because willing" as is shown by "with much long-suffering" (\en polli makrothumii\, in much long-suffering). {His power} (\to dunaton autou\). Neuter singular of the verbal adjective rather than the substantive \dunamin\. {Endured} (\negken\). Constative second aorist active indicative of the old defective verb \pher\, to bear. {Vessels of wrath} (\skeu orgs\). The words occur in strkjv@Jeremiah:50:25| (LXX strkjv@Jeremiah:27:25|), but not in the sense here (objective genitive like \tekna orgs\, strkjv@Ephesians:2:3|, the objects of God's wrath). {Fitted} (\katrtismena\). Perfect passive participle of \katartiz\, old verb to equip (see strkjv@Matthew:4:21; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11|), state of readiness. Paul does not say here that God did it or that they did it. That they are responsible may be seen from strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:15f|. {Unto destruction} (\eis apleian\). Endless perdition (Matthew:7:13; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@Phillipians:3:19|), not annihilation.