OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp practical:

rwp@1Corinthians:12:8 @{To one} (\hi men\). Demonstrative \hos\ with \men\ in dative case, to this one. The distribution or correlation is carried on by \alli de\ (verses 8,9,10|), \heteri de\ (verses 9,10|) for variety, nine manifestations of the Spirit's work in verses 8-10|. {The Word of wisdom} (\logos sophias\). Old words. \Logos\ is reason, then speech. Wisdom is intelligence, then practical action in accord with it. Here it is speech full of God's wisdom (2:7|) under the impulse of the Spirit of God. This gift is placed first (revelation by the Spirit). {The word of knowledge} (\logos gnses\). This gift is insight (illumination) according to (\kata\) the same Spirit.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:15 @{Songs:then} (\ara oun\). Accordingly then. The illative \ara\ is supported (Ellicott) by the collective \oun\ as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:6; strkjv@Galatians:6:10|, etc. Here is the practical conclusion from God's elective purpose in such a world crisis. {Stand fast} (\stkete\). Present imperative active of the late present \stko\ from \hestka\ (perfect active of \histmi\). See on ¯1Thessalonians:3:8|. {Hold the traditions} (\krateite tas paradoseis\). Present imperative of \krate\, old verb, to have masterful grip on a thing, either with genitive (Mark:1:31|) or usually the accusative as here. \Paradosis\ (tradition) is an old word for what is handed over to one. Dibelius thinks that Paul reveals his Jewish training in the use of this word (Galatians:1:14|), but the word is a perfectly legitimate one for teaching whether oral, {by word} (\dia logou\), or written, {by epistle of ours} (\di' epistols hmn\). Paul draws here no distinction between oral tradition and written tradition as was done later. The worth of the tradition lies not in the form but in the source and the quality of the content. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23| says: "I received from the Lord what I also handed over (\paredka\) unto you." He praises them because ye "hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them unto you." The {tradition} may be merely that of men and so worthless and harmful in place of the word of God (Mark:7:8; strkjv@Colossians:2:6-8|). It all depends. It is easy to scoff at truth as mere tradition. But human progress in all fields is made by use of the old, found to be true, in connection with the new if found to be true. In Thessalonica the saints were already the victims of theological charlatans with their half-baked theories about the second coming of Christ and about social duties and relations. {Which ye were taught} (\has edidachthte\). First aorist passive indicative of \didask\, to teach, retaining the accusative of the thing in the passive as is common with this verb like _doce_ in Latin and teach in English.

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:6:9 @{The synagogue of the Libertines} (\ek ts sunaggs ts legomens Libertinn\). The Libertines (Latin _libertinus_, a freedman or the son of a freedman) were Jews, once slaves of Rome (perhaps descendants of the Jews taken to Rome as captives by Pompey), now set free and settled in Jerusalem and numerous enough to have a synagogue of their own. Schuerer calls a Talmudic myth the statement that there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. There were many, no doubt, but how many no one knows. These places of worship and study were in all the cities of the later times where there were Jews enough to maintain one. Apparently Luke here speaks of five such synagogues in Jerusalem (that of the Libertines, of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, of Cilicia, and of Asia). There probably were enough Hellenists in Jerusalem to have five such synagogues. But the language of Luke is not clear on this point. He may make only two groups instead of five since he uses the article \tn\ twice (once before \Libertinn kai Kurnain kai Alexandren\, again before \apo Kilikias kai Asias\). He also changes from the genitive plural to \apo\ before Cilicia and Asia. But, leaving the number of the synagogues unsettled whether five or two, it is certain that in each one where Stephen appeared as a Hellenist preaching Jesus as the Messiah he met opposition. Certain of them "arose" (\anestsan\) "stood up" after they had stood all that they could from Stephen, "disputing with Stephen" (\sunztountes ti Stephani\). Present active participle of \sunzte\, to question together as the two on the way to Emmaus did (Luke:24:15|). Such interruptions were common with Jews. They give a skilled speaker great opportunity for reply if he is quick in repartee. Evidently Stephen was fully equipped for the emergency. One of their synagogues had men from Cilicia in it, making it practically certain that young Saul of Tarsus, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, was present and tried his wits with Stephen. His ignominious defeat may be one explanation of his zest in the stoning of Stephen (Acts:8:1|).

rwp@Acts:6:11 @{Then they suborned men} (\tote hupebalon andras\). Second aorist active indicative of \hupoball\, old verb, but here only in the N.T., to put under like a carpet, to bring men under one's control by suggestion or by money. One recalls the plight of Caiaphas in the trial of Jesus when he sought false witnesses. _Subornaverunt_. They put these men forward in an underhand way for fraud. {Blasphemous words against Moses and God} (\blasphma eis Musn kai ton theon\). The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death. See strkjv@Matthew:12:31| for discussion of the word \blasphmia, blasphme, blasphmos\, all in the N.T. from \blapt\, to harm, and \phm\, speech, harmful speech, or \blax\, stupid, and \phm\. But the charge against Stephen was untrue. Please note that Moses is here placed before God and practically on a par with God in the matter of blasphemy. The purpose of this charge is to stir the prejudices of the people in the matter of Jewish rights and privileges. It is the Pharisees who are conducting this attack on Stephen while the Sadducees had led them against Peter and John. The position of Stephen is critical in the extreme for the Sadducees will not help him as Gamaliel did the apostles.

rwp@Acts:15:22 @{Then it seemed good} (\Tote edoxen\). First aorist active indicative of \doke\. A regular idiom at the beginning of decrees. This Eirenicon of James commended itself to the whole assembly. Apparently a vote was taken which was unanimous, the Judaizers probably not voting. The apostles and the elders (\tois apostolois kai tois presbuterois\, article with each, dative case) probably all vocally expressed their position. {With the whole church} (\sun holei ti ekklsii\). Probably by acclamation. It was a great victory. But James was a practical leader and he did not stop with speeches and a vote. {To choose men out of their company} (\eklezamenous andras ex autn\). Accusative case, though dative just before (\tois apostolois\, etc.), of first aorist middle participle of \ekleg\, to select. This loose case agreement appears also in \grapsantes\ in verse 23| and in MSS. in verse 25|. It is a common thing in all Greek writers (Paul, for instance), especially in the papyri and in the Apocalypse of John. {Judas called Barsabbas} (\Ioudan ton kaloumenon Barsabban\). Not otherwise known unless he is a brother of Joseph Barsabbas of strkjv@1:23|, an early follower of Jesus. The other, Silas, is probably a shortened form of Silvanus (\Silouanos\, strkjv@1Peter:5:12|), the companion of Paul in his second mission tour (Acts:15:32,41; strkjv@16:25|). {Chief men} (\hgoumenous\). Leaders, leading men (participle from \hgeomai\, to lead).

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). Imperfect active of \sunball\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gnthi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zenn daimonin dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@Hebrews:8:5 @{Serve} (\latreuousin\). Present active indicative of \latreu\ for which verb see on ¯Matthew:4:10|. {A copy} (\hupodeigmati\). Dative case after \latreuousin\. See already on ¯John:13:15; strkjv@Hebrews:4:11| for this interesting word. {Shadow} (\skii\). Dative case. Old word for which see already strkjv@Matthew:4:16; strkjv@Mark:4:32; strkjv@Colossians:2:17|. See same idea in strkjv@Hebrews:9:23|. For difference between \skia\ and \eikn\ see strkjv@10:1|. Here "copy and shadow" form a practical hendiadys for "a shadowy out- line" (Moffatt). {Is warned of God} (\kechrmatistai\). Perfect passive indicative of \chrmatiz\, old verb (from \chrma\, business) for which see on ¯Matthew:2:12,22; strkjv@Luke:2:26|. The word "God" is not used, but it is implied as in strkjv@Acts:10:22; strkjv@Hebrews:12:25|. Songs:in LXX, Josephus, and the papyri. {For saith he} (\gar phsi\). Argument from God's command (Exodus:25:40|). {See that thou make} (\Hor poiseis\). Common Greek idiom with present active imperative of \hora\ and the volitive future of \poie\ without \hina\ (asyndeton, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 949). {The pattern} (\ton tupon\). The very word used in strkjv@Exodus:25:40| and quoted also by Stephen in strkjv@Acts:7:44|. For \tupos\ see already strkjv@John:20:25; strkjv@Romans:6:17|, etc. The tabernacle was to be patterned after the heavenly model.

rwp@Info_James @ RECENT BOOKS ON JAMES Baljon, J. M. S., _Comm. op de katholieke brieven_ (1904). Bardenhewer, O., _Der Brief des hl. Jakobus_ (1928). Bartmann, _St. Paulus und St. Jakobus_. Belser, J. E., _Epistel des hl. Jakobus_ (1909). Beyschlag, W., _Der Brief des Jakobus_. Meyer Komm. 6 Aufl. (1898). Brown, Charles, _The General Epistle of James_. 2nd ed. (1907). Camerlinck, _Commentarius in epistolas catholicas_ (1909). Carpenter, W. Boyd, _The Wisdom of James the Just_ (1903). Carr, Arthur, _The General Epistle of James_. Cambridge Greek Testament. New ed. (1905). Chaine, J., _L Epitre de S. Jacques_ (1927). Dale, R. W., _Discourses on the Epistle of James (1895). Deems, C. F., _The Gospel of Common Sense_. Dibelius, _M., Meyer's Comm. 7 Aufl. (1921). Feine, _Der Jakobusbrief_, etc. (1893). Fitch, _James the Lord's Brother_. Gaugusch, L., _Der Lehrgehalt der Jakobus-epistel_ (1914). Grafe, _Stellung und Bedeutung des Jakobusbriefes_ (1904). Grosheide, F. W., _Deuteronomy:brief aan de Hebreen en de brief des Jakobus_ (1927). Hauck, F., _Der Br. d. Jak. in Zahn's Komm_. (1926). Hollmann, G., _Die Schriften d. N.T_. 3 Aufl. (1917). Holtzmann, O., _Das N.T. II_ (1926). Hort, F. J. A., _The Epistle of James as far as strkjv@4:7_ (1909). Huther, J. E., _Meyer's Komm_. 3 Aufl. (1870). Johnstone, R., _Lectures Exegetical and Practical_. 2nd ed. (1889). Knowling, R. J., _Comm. on the Epistle of St. James_ (1904). Westminster Series. Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. James_. 3rd ed. (1910). Meinertz, _Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser_ (1905). Meyer, A., _Das Ratsel des Jak_. (1930). Moffatt, James, _The General Epistles (James, Peter, and Judas_) (1928). Osterley, W. E., _The Epistle of St. James_. Expos. Gk. Test. (1910). Parry, J., _The General Epistle of James_ (1904). Patrick, W., _James, the Lord's Brother_ (1906). Plummer, A., _The General Epistle of St. James_. Expos. Bible (1891). Rendall, G. H., _The Epistle of St. James and Judaic Chris- tianity_ (1927). Robertson, A. T., _Studies in the Epistle of James_. 3rd ed. (1923). First in 1915 as _Pract. and Social Aspects of Christianity_. Ropes, J. H., _A Crit. and Exeget. Comm. on the Epistle of St. James_. Int. and Crit. Comm. (1916). Smith, H. M., _The Epistle of James_ (1925). Soden, H. Von, _Der Brief des Jakobus_. Hand-Comm. (1893). Spitta, F., _Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht_ (1896). Taylor, J. F., _The Apostle of Patience_ (1907). Weiss, B., _Die Katholische Briefe_ (1902). _Der Jakobusbrief und die neuere Kritik_ (1904). Windisch, H., _Die Katholische Briefe. Handbuch Zum N.T._, 2 Aufl. (1930). strkjv@James:1:1 @{James} (\Iakbos\). Grecised form (nominative absolute) of the Hebrew \Iakb\ (so LXX). Common name among the Jews, and this man in Josephus (_Ant_. XX.9.1) and three others of this name in Josephus also. {Servant} (\doulos\). Bond-servant or slave as Paul (Romans:1:1; strkjv@Phillipians:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|). {Of the Lord Jesus Christ} (\kuriou Isou Christou\). Here on a par with God (\theou\) and calls himself not \adelphos\ (brother) of Jesus, but \doulos\. The three terms here as in strkjv@2:1| have their full significance: Jesus is the Messiah and Lord. James is not an Ebionite. He accepts the deity of Jesus his brother, difficult as it was for him to do so. The word \kurios\ is frequent in the LXX for _Elohim_ and _Jahweh_ as the Romans applied it to the emperor in their emperor worship. See strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| for \Kurios Isous\ and strkjv@Phillipians:2:11| for \Kurios Isous Christos\. {To the twelve tribes} (\tais ddeka phulais\). Dative case. The expression means "Israel in its fulness and completeness" (Hort), regarded as a unity (Acts:26:7|) with no conception of any "lost" tribes. {Which are of the Dispersion} (\tais en ti diaspori\). "Those in the Dispersion" (repeated article). The term appears in strkjv@Deuteronomy:28:25| (LXX) and comes from \diaspeir\, to scatter (sow) abroad. In its literal sense we have it in strkjv@John:7:34|, but here and in strkjv@1Peter:1:1| Christian Jews are chiefly, if not wholly, in view. The Jews at this period were roughly divided into Palestinian Jews (chiefly agriculturists) and Jews of the Dispersion (dwellers in cities and mainly traders). In Palestine Aramaic was spoken as a rule, while in the Western Diaspora the language was Greek (_Koin_, LXX), though the Eastern Diaspora spoke Aramaic and Syriac. The Jews of the Diaspora were compelled to compare their religion with the various cults around them (comparative religion) and had a wider outlook on life. James writes thus in cultural _Koin_ but in the Hebraic tone. {Greeting} (\chairein\). Absolute infinitive (present active of \chair\) as in strkjv@Acts:15:23| (the Epistle to Antioch and the churches of Syria and Galatia). It is the usual idiom in the thousands of papyri letters known to us, but in no other New Testament letter. But note \chairein legete\ in strkjv@2John:1:10,11|.

rwp@James:1:5 @{Lacketh wisdom} (\leipetai sophias\). Condition of first class, assumed as true, \ei\ and present passive indicative of \leip\ to be destitute of, with ablative case \sophias\. "If any one falls short of wisdom." A banking figure, to have a shortage of wisdom (not just knowledge, \gnses\, but wisdom \sophias\, the practical use of knowledge). {Let him ask} (\aiteit\). Present active imperative of \aite\, "let him keep on asking." {Of God} (\para tou theou\). "From (from beside) God," ablative case with \para\. Liberally (\hapls\). This old adverb occurs here only in the N.T. (from \haplous\, single-fold, strkjv@Matthew:6:22|, and \haplots\, simplicity, generosity, is common-- strkjv@2Corinthians:8:2; strkjv@Romans:12:8|). But the adverb is common in the papyri by way of emphasis as simply or at all (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). Mayor argues for the sense of "unconditionally" (the logical moral sense) while Hort and Ropes agree and suggest "graciously." The other sense of "abundantly" or "liberally" suits the idea in \haplots\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:2; strkjv@Romans:12:8|, but no example of the adverb in this sense has been found unless this is one here. See strkjv@Isaiah:55:1| for the idea of God's gracious giving and the case of Solomon (1Kings:3:9-12; strkjv@Proverbs:2:3|). {Upbraideth not} (\m oneidizontos\). Present active participle of \oneidiz\ (old verb to reproach, to cast in one's teeth, strkjv@Matthew:5:11|) in the ablative case like \didontos\ agreeing with \theou\ and with the usual negative of the participle (\me\). This is the negative statement of \didontos hapls\ (giving graciously). The evil habit of giving stinging words along with the money is illustrated in Sirach strkjv@41:22 and Plutarch (_Deuteronomy:adulat._, p. 64A). ] Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:4:16|. {And it shall be given him} (\kai dothsetai auti\). First future passive of \didmi\, a blessed promise in accord with the words of Jesus (Matthew:7:7,11; strkjv@Luke:11:13|), meaning here not only "wisdom," but all good gifts, including the Holy Spirit. There are frequent reminiscences of the words of Jesus in this Epistle.

rwp@James:3:13 @{Who} (\Tis\). Rhetorical interrogative like strkjv@Luke:11:11|. Common in Paul and characteristic of the diatribe. James here returns to the standpoint of verse 1| about many teachers. Speech and wisdom are both liable to abuse (1Corinthians:1:5,17; strkjv@2:1-3:20|). {Wise and understanding} (\sophos kai epistmn\). \Sophos\ is used for the practical teacher (verse 1|), \epistmn\ (old word from \epistamai\, here only in N.T.) for an expert, a skilled and scientific person with a tone of superiority. In strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:13,15; strkjv@4:6|, the two terms are practically synonyms. {Let him shew} (\deixat\). First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, old verb to show. As about faith in strkjv@2:18|. Emphatic position of this verb. {By his good life} (\ek ts kals anastrophs\). For this literary _Koin_ word from \anastrephomai\ (walk, conduct) see strkjv@Galatians:1:13|. Actions speak louder than words even in the case of the professional wise man. Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:15|. {In meekness of wisdom} (\en prautti sophias\). As in strkjv@1:21| of the listener, so here of the teacher. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:5:5; strkjv@11:29| and Zac strkjv@9:9| of King Messiah quoted in strkjv@Matthew:21:5|. Startling combination.

rwp@James:3:17 @{First pure} (\prton men hagn\). First in rank and time. \Hagnos\ is from the same root as \hagios\ (holy), old adjective, pure from fault, not half-good and half-bad, like that above. {Then peaceable} (\epeita eirnik\). Old adjective from \eirn\ (peace), loving peace here, bringing peace in strkjv@Hebrews:12:11| (only N.T. examples). But clearly great as peace is, purity (righteousness) comes before peace and peace at any price is not worth the having. Hence Jesus spurned the devil's peace of surrender. {Gentle} (\epieiks\). Old adjective (from \eikos\, reasonable, fair), equitable (Phillipians:4:5; strkjv@1Peter:2:18|). No English word renders it clearly. {Easy to be entreated} (\eupeiths\). Old adjective (\eu, peithomai\), compliant, approachable. Only here in N.T. {Mercy} (\eleous\). Practical help (2:13,16|). {Good fruits} (\karpn agathn\). \Kaloi karpoi\ in strkjv@Matthew:7:17f|. Good deeds the fruit of righteousness (Phillipians:1:11|). {Without variance} (\adiakritos\). Late verbal adjective (from alpha privative and \diakrin\, to distinguish). "Unhesitating," not doubting (\diakrinomenos\) like the man in strkjv@1:6|. Here only in N.T. This wisdom does not put a premium on doubt. {Without hypocrisy} (\anupokritos\). Late and rare verbal adjective (alpha privative and \hupokrin\). Not hypocritical, sincere, unfeigned (Romans:12:9|).

rwp@James:4:14 @{Whereas ye know not} (\hoitines ouk epistasthe\). The longer relative \hostis\ defines here more precisely (like Latin _qui_) \hoi legontes\ (ye who say) of verse 13| in a causal sense, as in strkjv@Acts:10:47|, "who indeed do not know" (present middle indicative of \epistamai\). {What shall be on the morrow} (\ts aurion\). Supply \hmeras\ (day) after \aurion\. This is the reading of B (Westcott) "on the morrow" (genitive of time), but Aleph K L cursives have \to ts aurion\ ("the matter of tomorrow"), while A P cursives have \ta ts aurion\ ("the things of tomorrow"). The sense is practically the same, though \to ts aurion\ is likely correct. {What is your life?} (\poia h z humn\). Thus Westcott and Hort punctuate it as an indirect question, not direct. \Poia\ is a qualitative interrogative (of what character). {As vapour} (\atmis\). This is the answer. Old word for mist (like \atmos\, from which our "atmosphere"), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:2:19| with \kapnou\ (vapour of smoke (from strkjv@Joel:2:30|). {For a little time} (\pros oligon\). See same phrase in strkjv@1Timothy:4:8|, \pros kairon\ in strkjv@Luke:8:13|, \pros hran\ in strkjv@John:5:35|. {That appeareth and then vanisheth away} (\phainomen epeita kai aphanizomen\). Present middle participles agreeing with \atmis\, "appearing, then also disappearing," with play on the two verbs (\phainomai, aphaniz\ as in strkjv@Matthew:6:19|, from \aphans\ hidden strkjv@Hebrews:4:13|) with the same root \phan\ (\phain, a-phan-s\).

rwp@John:5:29 @{Unto the resurrection of life} (\eis anastasin zs\). \Anastasis\ is an old word (Aeschylus) from \anistmi\, to raise up, to arise. This combination occurs nowhere else in the N.T. nor does "the resurrection of judgement" (\eis anastasin krises\), but in strkjv@Luke:14:14| there is the similar phrase "in the resurrection of the just" (\en ti anastasei tn dikain\). Only there note both articles. Here without the articles it can mean "to a resurrection of life" and "to a resurrection of judgement," though the result is practically the same. There are two resurrections as to result, one to life, one to judgement. See both in strkjv@Daniel:12:2|.

rwp@John:16:4 @{Have I spoken} (\lelalka\). Perfect active indicative as in strkjv@15:11; strkjv@16:1|. Solemn repetition. {When their hour is come} (\hotan elthi h hra autn\). Indefinite temporal clause, \hotan\ with the second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\, "whenever their hour comes." The time appointed for these things. {Now that} (\hoti\). Simply "that" (declarative conjunction in indirect discourse. Forewarned is to be forearmed. Cf. strkjv@13:19|. {From the beginning} (\ex archs\). As in strkjv@6:64| but practically like \ap' archs\ in strkjv@15:27|. While Christ was with them, he was the object of attack (15:18|).

rwp@John:16:26 @{I say not} (\ou leg\). "I speak not." Christ did pray for the disciples before his death (John:14:16; strkjv@17:9,15,24|) and he prays also for sinners (Luke:23:34; strkjv@1John:2:1|). Here it is the special love of God for disciples of Jesus (John:14:21,23; strkjv@17:23; strkjv@1John:4:19|). Note \aite\ and \erta\ used in practically the same sense as in verse 23|.

rwp@John:16:28 @{I came out from the Father} (\exlthon ek tou patros\). Definite act (aorist), the Incarnation, with repetition of \ek\ (out of), while in verse 27| we have \para tou patros exlthon\) with no practical distinction between \ek\ and \para\ in resultant idea. {Amos:come} (\ellutha\). Perfect active indicative of \erchomai\, as in strkjv@18:37|. The Incarnation is now a permanent fact, once only a blessed hope (11:27|). His leaving the world and going to the Father does not set aside the fact of the Incarnation. Both \aphimi\ (I leave) and \poreuomai\ (I go) are futuristic present indicatives.

rwp@John:20:16 @{Mary} (\Mariam\). Aramaic form in Aleph B W, though \Maria\ in strkjv@19:25|. Clearly the old familiar tone of Jesus was in the pronunciation of her name. {Rabboni} (\Rabbounei\). Aramaic again for \Didaskale\ (Teacher), "my Teacher." In N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:10:51| though practically the same as \Rabbi\. See strkjv@11:28| for "the Teacher" (Rabbi). These two simple words tell the great fact that Christ is risen and Mary has seen him. One says little in really great moments.

rwp@John:20:21 @{Even so send I you} (\kag pemp humas\). Jesus has often spoken of the Father's sending him using both \apostell\ and \pemp\. Here he employs both words in practically the same sense. Jesus still bears the Commission of the Father (perfect active indicative). For this balanced contention (as... so) see strkjv@6:57; strkjv@10:15|. This is the first of the three commissions given by the Risen Christ (another on the mountain in Galilee (Matthew:28:16-20; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:6|), another on the Mount of Olives (Luke:24:44-51; strkjv@Acts:1:3-11|).

rwp@Luke:5:1 @{Pressed upon him} (\epikeisthai\). Luke in this paragraph (5:1-11; strkjv@Mark:1:16-20; strkjv@Matthew:4:18-22|) does not follow the chronology of Mark as he usually does. It seems reasonably clear that the renewed call of the four fishermen came before the first tour of Galilee in strkjv@Luke:4:42-44|. It is here assumed that Luke is describing in his own way the incident given in Mark and Matthew above. Luke singles out Simon in a graphic way. This verb \epikeisthai\ is an old one and means to \lie upon\, rest upon as of a stone on the tomb (John:11:38|) or of fish on the burning coals (John:21:9|). Songs:it is used of a tempest (Acts:27:20|) and of the urgent demands for Christ's crucifixion (Luke:23:23|). Here it vividly pictures the eager crowds around Jesus. \En ti epikeisthai\ is a favourite idiom with Luke as we have already seen, \en\ with the articular infinitive in the locative case. {That} (\kai\). \Kai\ does not technically mean the declarative conjunction "that," but it is a fair rendering of the somewhat awkward idiom of Luke to a certain extent imitating the Hebrew use of _wav_. {Was standing} (\n hests\). Periphrastic second past perfect of \histmi\ which here is equal to a practical imperfect. {By the lake} (\para tn limnn\). The use of the accusative with \para\, alongside, after a verb of rest used to be called the pregnant use, came and was standing. But that is no longer necessary, for the accusative as the case of extension is the oldest of the cases and in later Greek regains many of the earlier uses of the other cases employed for more precise distinctions. See the same idiom in verse 2|. We need not here stress the notion of extension. "With characteristic accuracy Luke never calls it a sea, while the others never call it a lake" (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:5:24 @{He saith unto him that was palsied} (\eipen ti paralelumeni\). This same parenthesis right in the midst of the words of Jesus is in strkjv@Mark:2:11; strkjv@Matthew:9:6|, conclusive proof of interrelation between these documents. The words of Jesus are quoted practically alike in all three Gospels, the same purpose also \hina eidte\ (second perfect active subjunctive).

rwp@Luke:6:20 @{And he lifted up his eyes} (\kai autos eparas tous opthalmous autou\). First aorist active participle from \epair\. Note also Luke's favourite use of \kai autos\ in beginning a paragraph. Vivid detail alone in Luke. Jesus looked the vast audience full in the face. strkjv@Matthew:5:2| mentions that "he opened his mouth and taught them" (began to teach them, inchoative imperfect, \edidasken\). He spoke out so that the great crowd could hear. Some preachers do not open their mouths and do not look up at the people, but down at the manuscript and drawl along while the people lose interest and even go to sleep or slip out. {Ye poor} (\hoi ptchoi\). {The poor}, but "yours" (\humetera\) justifies the translation "ye." Luke's report is direct address in all the four beatitudes and four woes given by him. It is useless to speculate why Luke gives only four of the eight beatitudes in Matthew or why Matthew does not give the four woes in Luke. One can only say that neither professes to give a complete report of the sermon. There is no evidence to show that either saw the report of the other. They may have used a common source like Q (the Logia of Jesus) or they may have had separate sources. Luke's first beatitude corresponds with Matthew's first, but he does not have "in spirit" after "poor." Does Luke represent Jesus as saying that poverty itself is a blessing? It can be made so. Or does Luke represent Jesus as meaning what is in Matthew, poverty of spirit? {The kingdom of God} (\h basileia tou theou\). strkjv@Matthew:5:3| has "the kingdom of heaven" which occurs alone in Matthew though he also has the one here in Luke with no practical difference. The rabbis usually said "the kingdom of heaven." They used it of the political Messianic kingdom when Judaism of the Pharisaic sort would triumph over the world. The idea of Jesus is in the sharpest contrast to that conception here and always. See on ¯Matthew:3:2| for discussion of the meaning of the word "kingdom." It is the favourite word of Jesus for the rule of God in the heart here and now. It is both present and future and will reach a glorious consummation. Some of the sayings of Christ have apocalyptic and eschatological figures, but the heart of the matter is here in the spiritual reality of the reign of God in the hearts of those who serve him. The kingdom parables expand and enlarge upon various phases of this inward life and growth.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ A PRACTICAL PURPOSE Songs:considered, this vision of the Reigning Christ in heaven with a constant eye on the suffering saints and martyrs is a guarantee of certain triumph in heaven and ultimate triumph on earth. The picture of Christ in heaven is a glorious one. He is the Lamb that was slain, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Word of God, the Victor over his enemies, worshipped in heaven like the Father, the Light and Life of men. Instead of trying to fit the various symbols on particular individuals one will do better to see the same application to times of persecution from time to time through the ages. The same Christ who was the Captain of salvation in the time of Domitian is the Pioneer and Perfecter of our faith today. The Apocalypse of John gives glimpses of heaven as well as of hell. Hope is the word that it brings to God's people at all times.

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE PURPOSE Paul tells this himself. He had long cherished a desire to come to Rome (Acts:19:21|) and had often made his plans to do so (Romans:1:13|) which were interrupted (Romans:15:22|), but now he definitely plans to go from Jerusalem, after taking the contribution there (Romans:15:26|), to Rome and then on to Spain (Romans:15:24,28|). Meanwhile he sends this Epistle that the Romans may know what Paul's gospel really is (Romans:1:15; strkjv@2:16|). He is full of the issues raised by the Judaizing controversy as set forth in the Epistles to Corinth and to Galatia. Songs:in a calmer mood and more at length he presents his conception of the Righteousness demanded by God (Romans:1:17|) of both Gentile (Romans:1:18-32|) and Jew (Romans:2:1-3:20|) and only to be obtained by faith in Christ who by his atoning death (justification) has made it possible (Romans:3:21-5:21|). This new life of faith in Christ should lead to holiness of life (sanctification, chapters strkjv@Romans:6-8|). This is Paul's gospel and the remaining chapters deal with corollaries growing out of the doctrine of grace as applied to practical matters. It is a cause for gratitude that Paul did write out so full a statement of his message. He had a message for the whole world and was anxious to win the Roman Empire to Christ. It was important that he go to Rome for it was the centre of the world's life. Nowhere does Paul's Christian statesmanship show to better advantage than in this greatest of his Epistles. It is not a book of formal theology though Paul is the greatest of theologians. Here Paul is seen in the plenitude of his powers with all the wealth of his knowledge of Christ and his rich experience in mission work. The church in Rome is plainly composed of both Jews and Greeks, though who started the work there we have no way of knowing. Paul's ambition was to preach where no one else had been (Romans:15:20|), but he has no hesitation in going on to Rome.