OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp raised:

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@1Corinthians:15:4 @{And that he was buried} (\kai hoti etaph\). Note \hoti\ repeated before each of the four verbs as a separate item. Second aorist passive indicative of \thapt\, old verb, to bury. This item is an important detail as the Gospels show. {And that he hath been raised} (\kai hoti eggertai\). Perfect passive indicative, not \gerth\ like {rose} of the King James' Version. There is reason for this sudden change of tense. Paul wishes to emphasize the permanence of the resurrection of Jesus. He is still risen. {On the third day} (\ti hmeri ti triti\). Locative case of time. Whether Paul had seen either of the Gospels we do not know, but this item is closely identified with the fact of Christ's resurrection. We have it in Peter's speech (Acts:10:40|) and Jesus points it out as part of prophecy (Luke:24:46|). The other expression occasionally found "after three days" (Mark:10:34|) is merely free vernacular for the same idea and not even strkjv@Matthew:12:40| disturbs it. See on ¯Luke:24:1| for record of the empty tomb on the first day of the week (the third day).

rwp@Acts:2:24 @{God raised up} (\ho theos anestsen\). _Est hoc summum orationis_ (Blass). Apparently this is the first public proclamation to others than believers of the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. "At a time it was still possible to test the statement, to examine witnesses, to expose fraud, the Apostle openly proclaimed the Resurrection as a fact, needing no evidence, but known to his hearers" (Furneaux). {The pangs of death} (\tas dinas tou thanatou\). Codex Bezae has "Hades" instead of death. The LXX has \dinas thanatou\ in strkjv@Psalms:18:4|, but the Hebrew original means "snares" or "traps" or "cords" of death where sheol and death are personified as hunters laying snares for prey. How Peter or Luke came to use the old Greek word \dinas\ (birth pangs) we do not know. Early Christian writers interpreted the Resurrection of Christ as a birth out of death. "Loosing" (\lusas\) suits better the notion of "snares" held a prisoner by death, but birth pangs do bring deliverance to the mother also. {Because} (\kathoti\). This old conjunction (\kata, hoti\) occurs in the N.T. only in Luke's writings. {That he should be holden} (\krateisthai auton\). Infinitive present passive with accusative of general reference and subject of \n adunaton\. The figure goes with "loosed" (\lusas\) above.

rwp@Acts:2:32 @{This Jesus} (\touton ton Isoun\). Many of the name "Jesus," but he means the one already called "the Nazarene" (verse 22|) and foretold as the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:16| and raised from the dead by God in proof that he is the Messiah (2:24,32|), "this Jesus whom ye crucified" (verse 36|). Other terms used of him in the Acts are the Messiah, verse 31|, the one whom God "anointed" (Acts:10:38|), as in strkjv@John:1:41|, Jesus Christ (9:34|). In strkjv@2:36| God made this Jesus Messiah, in strkjv@3:20| the Messiah Jesus, in strkjv@17:3| Jesus is the Messiah, in strkjv@18:5| the Messiah is Jesus, in strkjv@24:24| Christ Jesus. {Whereof} (\hou\). Or "of whom." Either makes sense and both are true. Peter claims the whole 120 as personal witnesses to the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead and they are all present as Peter calls them to witness on the point. In Galilee over 500 had seen the Risen Christ at one time (1Corinthians:15:6|) most of whom were still living when Paul wrote. Thus the direct evidence for the resurrection of Jesus piles up in cumulative force.

rwp@Acts:3:15 @{But the Prince of life ye killed} (\ton de archgon ts zs apekteinate\). "The magnificent antithesis" (Bengel) Peter here draws between their asking for a murderer and killing the Prince (or Author) of life. Peter pictures Jesus as the source of all life as is done in strkjv@John:1:1-18; strkjv@Colossians:1:14-20; strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f|. \Archgos\ (\arch\, beginning, \ag\, to lead) is an adjective "furnishing the first cause or occasion" in Euripides, Plato. Thence substantive, the originator, the leader, the pioneer as of Jesus both Beginner and Finisher (Hebrews:12:2|). See also strkjv@Hebrews:2:10; strkjv@Acts:5:31| where it is applied to Jesus as "Prince and Saviour." But God raised him from the dead in contrast to what they had done. {Whereof we are witnesses} (\hou hmeis martures esmen\). Of which fact (the resurrection) or of whom as risen, \hou\ having the same form in the genitive singular for masculine or neuter. Peter had boldly claimed that all the 120 have seen the Risen Christ. There is no denial of that claim.

rwp@Acts:3:22 @{Like unto me} (\hs eme\). As me, literally; Moses (Deuteronomy:18:14-18|) claims that God raised him up as a prophet and that another and greater one will come, the Messiah. The Jews understood Moses to be a type of Christ (John:1:21|). God spoke to Moses face to face (Exodus:33:11|) and he was the greatest of the prophets (Deuteronomy:34:10|).

rwp@Acts:4:10 @{Be it known} (\gnston est\). Imperative present active third singular of \eimi\, to be, and the verbal adjective \gnston\. {Whom ye crucified} (\hon humeis estaursate\). Too good a chance to miss, and so Peter boldly charges the Sanhedrin with responsibility for the death of Jesus. Note \humeis\ (ye) again. {Whom God raised from the dead} (\hon ho theos geiren ek nekrn\). Note repetition of \hon\ (whom). This is God's answer to their act of crucifixion. {In him doth this man stand} (\en touti houtos parestken\). Rather (note play on \houtos\), "In this one (\hon, hon\) this one stands (present perfect active indicative, intransitive)." In Jesus this man stands before you whole (\hugis\). It was a centre shot.

rwp@Acts:7:57 @{Stopped their ears} (\suneschon ta ta autn\). Second aorist active of \sunech\, to hold together. They held their ears together with their hands and affected to believe Stephen guilty of blasphemy (cf. strkjv@Matthew:26:65|). {Rushed upon him with one accord} (\hrmsan homothumadon ep' auton\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \horma\, to rush impetuously as the hogs did down the cliff when the demons entered them (Luke:8:33|). No vote was taken by the Sanhedrin. No scruple was raised about not having the right to put him to death (John:8:31|). It may have taken place after Pilate's recall and before his successor came or Pilate, if there, just connived at such an incident that did not concern Rome. At any rate it was mob violence like modern lynching that took the law into the hands of the Sanhedrin without further formalities. {Out of the city} (\ek ts poles\). To keep from defiling the place with blood. But they sought to kill Paul as soon as they got him out of the temple area (Acts:21:30f.|). {Stoned} (\elithoboloun\). Imperfect active indicative of \lithobole\, began to stone, from \lithobolos\ (\lithos\, stone, \ball\, to throw), late Greek verb, several times in the N.T. as strkjv@Luke:13:34|. Stoning was the Jewish punishment for blasphemy (Leviticus:24:14-16|). {The witnesses} (\hoi martures\). The false testifiers against Stephen suborned by the Pharisees (Acts:6:11,13|). These witnesses had the privilege of casting the first stones (Deuteronomy:13:10; strkjv@17:7|) against the first witness for Christ with death (_martyr_ in our modern sense of the word). {At the feet of a young man named Saul} (\para tous podas neaniou kaloumenou Saulou\). Beside (\para\) the feet. Our first introduction to the man who became the greatest of all followers of Jesus Christ. Evidently he was not one of the "witnesses" against Stephen, for he was throwing no stones at him. But evidently he was already a leader in the group of Pharisees. We know from later hints from Saul (Paul) himself that he had been a pupil of Gamaliel (Acts:22:3|). Gamaliel, as the Pharisaic leader in the Sanhedrin, was probably on hand to hear the accusations against Stephen by the Pharisees. But, if so, he does not raise his voice against this mob violence. Saul does not seem to be aware that he is going contrary to the views of his master, though pupils often go further than their teachers.

rwp@Acts:9:41 @{Raised her up} (\anestsen autn\). First aorist active indicative, transitive, of \anistmi\. {Presented} (\parestsen\). First aorist active indicative, transitive of \paristmi\ (cf. intransitive second aorist in verse 39| above). It was a joyful time for Peter, the widows, all the saints, and for Dorcas.

rwp@Acts:11:23 @{The grace of God, was glad} (\tn charin tn tou theou echar\). Note repetition of the article, "the grace that of God." The verb (second aorist passive indicative of \chair\) has the same root as \charis\. See the same _suavis paronomasia_ in strkjv@Luke:1:28|. "Grace brings gladness" (Page). "A smaller man would have raised difficulties as to circumcision or baptism" (Furneaux). {He exhorted} (\parekalei\). Imperfect active, picturing the continuous encouragement from Barnabas. {With purpose of heart} (\ti prothesei ts kardias\). Placing before (from \pro-tithmi\), old word for set plan as in strkjv@Acts:27:13; strkjv@Romans:8:28|. The glow of the first enthusiasm might pass as often happens after a revival. Barnabas had a special gift (4:36|) for work like this. {Cleave unto the Lord} (\prosmenein [en] ti kurii\). Dative case (locative if \en\ is genuine) of \kurios\ (here Jesus again) after \prosemenein\ to keep on remaining loyal to (present active infinitive). Persistence was needed in such a pagan city.

rwp@Acts:13:30 @{But God raised him from the dead} (\ho de theos geiren ek nekrn\). This crucial fact Paul puts sharply as he always did.

rwp@Acts:13:33 @{Hath fulfilled} (\ekpeplrken\). Hath filled out (\ek\). {Unto our children} (\tois teknois hmn\). The MSS. vary greatly here about \hmn\ (our), some have \autn\, some \autn hmin\. Westcott and Hort consider these readings "a primitive error" for \hmin\ (to us) taken with \anastsas Isoun\ (having for us raised up Jesus). This raising up (from \anistmi\, set up) as in strkjv@3:22; strkjv@7:37| refers not to resurrection (verse 34|), but to the sending of Jesus (two raisings up). {In the second psalm} (\en ti psalmi ti deuteri\). strkjv@Psalms:2:7|. D has \prti\ because the first psalm was often counted as merely introductory.

rwp@Acts:13:38 @{Through this man} (\dia toutou\). This very man whom the Jews had crucified and whom God had raised from the dead. Remission of sins (\aphesis hamartin\) is proclaimed (\kataggelletai\) to you. This is the keynote of Paul's message as it had been that of Peter at Pentecost (2:38; strkjv@5:31; strkjv@10:43|). Cf. strkjv@26:18|. This glorious message Paul now presses home in his exhortation.

rwp@Acts:16:6 @{The region of Phrygia and Galatia} (\tn Phrugian kai Galatikn chran\). This is probably the correct text with one article and apparently describes one "Region" or District in The Province of Galatia which was also Phrygian (the old-ethnographic name with which compare the use of Lycaonia in strkjv@14:6|). Strictly speaking Derbe and Lystra, though in the Province of Galatia, were not Phrygian, and so Luke would here be not resumptive of the record in verses 1-5|; but a reference to the country around Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia in North Galatia is not included. This verse is hotly disputed at every point by the advocates of the North Galatian theory as represented by Chase and the South Galatian theory by Ramsay. Whatever is true in regard to the language of Luke here and in strkjv@18:23|, it is still possible for Paul in strkjv@Galatians:1:2| to use the term Galatia of the whole province of that name which could, in fact, apply to either South or North Galatia or to both. He could, of course, use it also in the ethnographic sense of the real Gauls or Celts who dwelt in North Galatia. Certainly the first tour of Paul and Barnabas was in the Province of Galatia though touching only the Regions of Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia, which province included besides the Gauls to the north. In this second tour Lycaonia has been already touched (Derbe and Lystra) and now Phrygia. The question arises why Luke here and in strkjv@18:23| adds the term "of Galatia" (\Galatikn\) though not in strkjv@13:14| (Pisidian Antioch) nor in strkjv@14:6| (cities of Lycaonia). Does Luke mean to use "of Galatia" in the same ethnographic sense as "of Phrygia" or does he here add the province (Galatia) to the name of the Region (Phrygia)? In itself either view is possible and it really matters very little except that the question is raised whether Paul went into the North Galatian Region on this occasion or later (18:23|). He could have done so and the Epistle be addressed to the churches of South Galatia, North Galatia, or the province as a whole. But the Greek participle \kluthentes\ ("having been forbidden") plays a part in the argument that cannot be overlooked whether Luke means to say that Paul went north or not. This aorist passive participle of \klu\, to hinder, can only express simultaneous or antecedent action, not subsequent action as Ramsay argues. No example of the so-called subsequent use of the aorist participle has ever been found in Greek as all Greek grammarians agree (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 860-63, 1112-14). The only natural meaning of \kluthentes\ is that Paul with Silas and Timothy "passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia" because they were hindered by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia (the Province of Asia of which Ephesus was the chief city and west of Derbe and Lystra). This construction implies that the country called "the region of Phrygia and Galatia" is not in the direct line west toward Ephesus. What follows in verse 7| throws further light on the point.

rwp@Acts:16:22 @{Rose up together} (\sunepest\). Second aorist (ingressive) active of the double compound \sunephistmi\, intransitive, old verb, but only here in the N.T. (cf. \katepestsan\ in strkjv@18:12|). There was no actual attack of the mob as Paul and Silas were in the hands of the officers, but a sudden and violent uprising of the people, the appeal to race and national prejudice having raised a ferment. {Rent their garments off them} (\perirxantes autn ta himatia\). First aorist active participle of \perirgnumi\, old verb, to break off all around, to strip or rend all round. Here only in the N.T. The duumvirs probably gave orders for Paul and Silas to be stripped of their outer garments (\himatia\), though not actually doing it with their own hands, least of all not stripping off their own garments in horror as Ramsay thinks. That would call for the middle voice. In II Macc. strkjv@4:38 the active voice is used as here of stripping off the garments of others. Paul in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:2| refers to the shameful treatment received in Philippi, "insulted" (\hubristhentas\). As a Roman citizen this was unlawful, but the duumvirs looked on Paul and Silas as vagabond and seditious Jews and "acted with the highhandedness characteristic of the fussy provincial authorities" (Knowling). {Commanded} (\ekeleuon\). Imperfect active, repeatedly ordered. The usual formula of command was: "Go, lictors; strip off their garments; let them be scourged." {To beat them with rods} (\rhabdizein\). Present active infinitive of \rhabdiz\, old verb, but in the N.T.=_virgis caedere_ only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:11:25| where Paul alludes to this incident and two others not given by Luke (\tris erhabdisthn\). He came near getting another in Jerusalem (Acts:22:25|). Why did not Paul say here that he was a Roman citizen as he does later (verse 37|) and in Jerusalem (22:26f.|)? It might have done no good in this hubbub and no opportunity was allowed for defence of any kind.

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@John:5:21 @{Quickeneth whom he will} (\hous thelei zopoiei\). Present active indicative of \zopoie\ (from \zopoios\, making alive), common in Paul (1Corinthians:15:45|, etc.). As yet, so far as we know, Jesus had not raised the dead, but he claims the power to do it on a par with the power of the Father. The raising of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke:7:11-17|) is not far ahead, followed by the message to the Baptist which speaks of this same power (Luke:7:22; strkjv@Matthew:11:5|), and the raising of Jairus' daughter (Matthew:9:18,22-26|). Jesus exercises this power on those "whom he wills." Christ has power to quicken both body and soul.

rwp@John:12:9 @{The common people} (\ho ochlos polus\). This is the right reading with the article \ho\, literally, "the people much or in large numbers." One is reminded of the French idiom. Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 284) gives a few rare examples of the idiom \ho anr agathos\. Westcott suggests that \ochlos polus\ came to be regarded as a compound noun. This is the usual order in the N.T. rather than \polus ochlos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 774). Mark (Mark:12:37|) has \ho polus ochlos\. Moulton (_Proleg_., p. 84) terms \ho ochlos polus\ here and in verse 12| "a curious misplacement of the article." John's use of \ochlos\ is usually the common crowd as "riff-raff." {That he was} (\hoti estin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse after the secondary tense (\egn\, second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\). These "Jews" are not all hostile to Jesus as in strkjv@5:10; strkjv@6:41|, etc., but included some who were friendly (verse 11|). {But that they might see Lazarus also} (\all' hina kai ton Lazaron idsin\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \hora\. Motive enough to gather a great crowd, to see one raised from the dead (cf. verse 1| for the same phrase, "whom he had raised from the dead"). Some of the very witnesses of the raising of Lazarus will bear witness later (verse 17|). It was a tense situation.

rwp@John:12:17 @{Bare witness} (\emarturei\). Imperfect active of \marture\. This crowning triumph of Jesus gave an added sense of importance to the crowds that were actually with Jesus when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead. For this description of this portion of the crowd see strkjv@11:45f.; strkjv@12:1,9-11|.

rwp@John:19:13 @{Sat down on the judgement seat} (\ekathisen epi bmatos\). "Took his seat upon the \bma\" (the raised platform for the judge outside the palace as in strkjv@Acts:7:5|). The examination is over and Pilate is now ready for the final stage. {The Pavement} (\Lithostrton\). Late compound from \lithos\, stone, and the verbal adjective \strtos\ form \strnnumi\, to speak, a mosaic or tesselated pavement, spread with stones, in strkjv@2Chronicles:7:3|, Josephus, Epictetus, papyri. The Chaldean name \Gabbath\, an elevation, was apparently given because of the shape.

rwp@Luke:2:14 @{Among men in whom he is well pleased} (\en anthrpois eudokias\). The Textus Receptus (Authorized Version also has \eudokia\, but the genitive \eudokias\ is undoubtedly correct, supported by the oldest and best uncials. (Aleph, A B D W). C has a lacuna here. Plummer justly notes how in this angelic hymn Glory and Peace correspond, in the highest and on earth, to God and among men of goodwill. It would be possible to connect "on earth" with "the highest" and also to have a triple division. There has been much objection raised to the genitive \eudokias\, the correct text. But it makes perfectly good sense and better sense. As a matter of fact real peace on earth exists only among those who are the subjects of God's goodwill, who are characterized by goodwill toward God and man. This word \eudokia\ we have already had in strkjv@Matthew:11:26|. It does not occur in the ancient Greek. The word is confined to Jewish and Christian writings, though the papyri furnish instances of \eudoksis\. Wycliff has it "to men of goodwill."

rwp@Matthew:11:5 @{And the dead are raised up} (\kai nekroi egeirontai\). Like that of the son of the widow of Nain. Did he raise the dead also on this occasion? "Tell John your story over again and remind him of these prophetic texts, strkjv@Isaiah:35:5; strkjv@61:1|" (Bruce). The items were convincing enough and clearer than mere eschatological symbolism. "The poor" in particular have the gospel, a climax.

rwp@Matthew:15:2 @{The tradition of the elders} (\tn paradosin tn presbutern\). This was the oral law, handed down by the elders of the past in _ex cathedra_ fashion and later codified in the Mishna. Handwashing before meals is not a requirement of the Old Testament. It is, we know, a good thing for sanitary reasons, but the rabbis made it a mark of righteousness for others at any rate. This item was magnified at great length in the oral teaching. The washing (\niptontai\, middle voice, note) of the hands called for minute regulations. It was commanded to wash the hands before meals, it was one's duty to do it after eating. The more rigorous did it between the courses. The hands must be immersed. Then the water itself must be "clean" and the cups or pots used must be ceremonially "clean." Vessels were kept full of clean water ready for use (John:2:6-8|). Songs:it went on _ad infinitum_. Thus a real issue is raised between Jesus and the rabbis. It was far more than a point of etiquette or of hygienics. The rabbis held it to be a mortal sin. The incident may have happened in a Pharisee's house.

rwp@Revelation:20:5 @{The rest of the dead} (\hoi loipoi tn nekrn\). "All except the martyrs, both the righteous and the unrighteous" (Beckwith). But some take this to mean only the wicked. {Lived not until the thousand years should be finished} (\ouk ezsan achri telesthi ta chilia et\). See verse 4| for the items here. "To infer from this statement, as many expositors have done, that the \ezsan\ of v. 4| must be understood of bodily resuscitation, is to interpret apocalyptic prophecy by methods of exegesis which are proper to ordinary narrative" (Swete). I sympathize wholly with that comment and confess my own ignorance therefore as to the meaning of the symbolism without any predilections for post-millennialism or premillennialism. {This is the first resurrection} (\haut h anastasis h prt\). Scholars differ as to the genuineness of this phrase. Accepting it as genuine, Swete applies it to "the return of the martyrs and confessors to life at the beginning of the Thousand Years." According to this view the first resurrection is a special incident in the present life before the Parousia. It has no parallel with strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:16|, where the dead in Christ are raised before those living are changed. Some think that John here pictures the "Regeneration" (\palingenesia\) of strkjv@Matthew:19:28| and the "Restoration" (\apokatastasis\) of strkjv@Acts:3:21|. No effort is here made to solve this problem, save to call attention to the general judgment out of the books in strkjv@20:12| and to the general resurrection in strkjv@John:5:29; strkjv@Acts:24:15|.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE AUTHOR The writer calls himself John (Revelation:1:1,4,9; strkjv@22:8|). But what John? The book can hardly be pseudonymous, though, with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas, that is the rule with apocalypses. There would have been a clearer claim than just the name. The traditional and obvious way to understand the name is the Apostle John, though Dionysius of Alexandria mentions John Mark as held by some and he himself suggests another John, like the so-called Presbyter John of Papias as quoted by Eusebius. The uncertain language of Papias has raised a deal of questioning. Swete thinks that the majority of modern critics ascribe the Apocalypse to this Presbyter John, to whom Moffatt assigns probably II and III John. Irenaeus represents the Apostle John as having lived to the time of Trajan, at least to A.D. 98. Most ancient writers agree with this extreme old age of John. Justin Martyr states expressly that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse. Irenaeus called it the work of a disciple of Jesus. In the ninth century lived Georgius Hamartolus, and a MS. of his alleges that Papias says that John the son of Zebedee was beheaded by the Jews and there is an extract in an Oxford MS. of the seventh century which alleges that Papias says John and James were put to death by the Jews. On the basis of this slim evidence some today argue that John did not live to the end of the century and so did not write any of the Johannine books. But a respectable number of modern scholars still hold to the ancient view that the Apocalypse of John is the work of the Apostle and Beloved Disciple, the son of Zebedee.

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.

rwp@Romans:4:24 @{Him that raised up Jesus} (\ton egeiranta Isoun\). First aorist active articular participle of \egeir\, to raise up. The fact of the Resurrection of Jesus is central in Paul's gospel (1Corinthians:15:4ff.|).

rwp@Romans:6:1 @{What shall we say then?} (\ti oun eroumen?\). "A debater's phrase" (Morison). Yes, and an echo of the rabbinical method of question and answer, but also an expression of exultant victory of grace versus sin. But Paul sees the possible perversion of this glorious grace. {Shall we continue in sin?} (\epimenmen ti hamartii?\). Present active deliberative subjunctive of \epimen\, old verb to tarry as in Ephesus (1Corinthians:16:8|) with locative case. The practice of sin as a habit (present tense) is here raised. {That grace may abound} (\hina h charis pteonasi\). Final clause with ingressive aorist subjunctive, to set free the superfluity of grace alluded to like putting money in circulation. Horrible thought (\m genoito\) and yet Paul faced it. There are occasionally so-called pietists who actually think that God's pardon gives them liberty to sin without penalty (cf. the sale of indulgences that stirred Martin Luther).

rwp@Romans:6:15 @{What then?} (\ti oun?\). Another turn in the argument about the excess of grace. {Shall we sin?} (\hamartesmen?\). First aorist active deliberative subjunctive of \hamartan\. "Shall we commit sin" (occasional acts of sin as opposed to the life of sin as raised by \epimenmen ti hamartii\ in verse 1|)? {Because} (\hoti\). The same reason as in verse 1| and taken up from the very words in verse 14|. Surely, the objector says, we may take a night off now and then and sin a little bit "since we are under grace."