OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp record:

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@Info_Acts @ THE DATE There are three views about the date of the Acts. Baur and his Tubingen School held the second century to be the date of this late pamphlet as they termed it after the fashion of the Clementine Homilies. But that view is now practically abandoned save by the few who still strangely oppose the Lukan authorship. Probably the majority of those who accept the Lukan authorship place it in the latter part of the first century for two reasons. One is that the Gospel according to Luke is dated by them after the destruction of Jerusalem because of the prophecy by Jesus of the encompassing of the city by armies. Predictive prophecy that would be and so it is considered a prophecy _post eventum_. The other reason is the alleged use of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus by Luke. Josephus finished this work A.D. 93 so that, if Luke did use it, he must have written the Acts after that date. Usually this argument is made to show that Luke could not have written it at all, but some hold that he may have lived to an age that would allow it. But it cannot be assumed that Luke used Josephus because of his mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. They differ so widely (Acts:5:36f|. and Josephus, _Ant_. XX. v, 1, 2) that Von Dobschutz (_Dictionary of the Apostolic Church_, art. Josephus) argues that the two accounts are entirely independent of each other. Songs:Luke (Luke:13:1f.|) alludes to a Galilean revolt not mentioned by Josephus and Josephus records three revolts under Pilate not referred to by Luke. A comparison of the accounts of the death of Agrippa I in strkjv@Acts:12:20-23| and _Ant_. XIX. viii, 2 redounds to the credit of Luke. The Josephus phase of the argument may be brushed to one side. The third view, held by Harnack and adopted here, is that Luke wrote the Acts while with Paul in Rome and finished the book before Paul's release, that is by A.D. 63. This is the obvious and natural way to take the language of Luke at the close of Acts. Events had gone no farther and so he ends the narrative right there. It is argued against this that Luke contemplated a third volume and for this reason closed with the arrival of Paul in Rome. But the use of \prton\ (first) in strkjv@Acts:1:1| is a common _Koin_ idiom and does not imply three volumes any more than first and second stories with us means that the house has three. Of course this date for the Acts puts the date of the Gospel further back either in Caesarea (57 to 59) or in Rome (60 to 62). And that means that Mark's Gospel is still earlier since Luke used it for his Gospel and the Logia (Q) earlier still. But all these dates are probable in the light of all the known facts.

rwp@Acts:1:1 @{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:2:20 @{Shall be turned} (\metastraphsetai\). Second future passive of \metastreph\, common verb, but only three times in the N.T. (Acts:2:20| from Joel; strkjv@James:4:9; strkjv@Galatians:1:7|). These are the "wonders" or portents of verse 19|. It is worth noting that Peter interprets these "portents" as fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, though no such change of the sun into darkness or of the moon into blood is recorded. Clearly Peter does not interpret the symbolism of Joel in literal terms. This method of Peter may be of some service in the Book of Revelation where so many apocalyptic symbols occur as well as in the great Eschatological Discourse of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:24,25|. In strkjv@Matthew:24:6,29| Jesus had spoken of wars on earth and wonders in heaven. {Before the day of the Lord come, that great and notable day} (\prin elthein hmeran kuriou tn megaln kai epiphan\). The use of \prin\ with the infinitive and the accusative of general reference is a regular Greek idiom. The use of the adjectives with the article is also good Greek, though the article is not here repeated as in strkjv@1:25|. The Day of the Lord is a definite conception without the article. {Notable} (\epiphan\) is the same root as epiphany (\epiphaneia\) used of the Second Coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:8; strkjv@1Timothy:6:14; strkjv@2Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Titus:2:13|). It translates here the Hebrew word for "terrible." In the Epistles the Day of the Lord is applied (Knowling) to the Coming of Christ for judgment (1Thessalonians:5:2; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:1:10|).

rwp@Acts:5:34 @{Gamaliel} (\Gamalil\). The grandson of Hillel, teacher of Paul (Acts:22:3|), later president of the Sanhedrin, and the first of the seven rabbis termed "Rabban." It is held by some that he was one of the doctors who heard the Boy Jesus in the temple (Luke:2:47|) and that he was a secret disciple like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, but there is no evidence of either position. Besides, he appears here as a loyal Pharisee and "a doctor of the law" (\nomodidaskalos\). This word appears already in strkjv@Luke:5:17| of the Pharisaic doctors bent on criticizing Jesus, which see. Paul uses it of Judaizing Christians (1Timothy:1:7|). Like other great rabbis he had a great saying: "Procure thyself a teacher, avoid being in doubt; and do not accustom thyself to give tithes by guess." He was a man of judicial temper and not prone to go off at a tangent, though his brilliant young pupil Saul went to the limit about Stephen without any restraint on the part of Gamaliel so far as the record goes. Gamaliel champions the cause of the apostles as a Pharisee to score a point against the Sadducees. He acts as a theological opportunist, not as a disciple of Christ. He felt that a temporizing policy was best. There are difficulties in this speech of Gamaliel and it is not clear how Luke obtained the data for the address. It is, of course, possible that Saul was present and made notes of it for Luke afterwards. {Had in honour of all the people} (\timios panti ti lai\). Ethical dative. \Timios\ from \tim\, old word meaning precious, dear. {The men} (\tous anthrpous\). Correct text as in verse 35|, not "the apostles" as Textus Receptus.

rwp@Acts:6:12 @{They stirred up the people} (\sunekinsan ton laon\). They shook the people together like an earthquake. First aorist active indicative of \sunkine\, to throw into commotion. Old verb, but here only in the N.T. The elders and the scribes (Pharisees) are reached, but no word about the Sadducees. This is the first record of the hostility of the masses against the disciples (Vincent). {Came upon him} (\epistantes\). Second aorist (ingressive) active participle of \ephistmi\. Rushed at him. {Seized} (\sunrpasan\). Effective aorist active of \sunarpaz\ as if they caught him after pursuit.

rwp@Acts:7:13 @{At the second time} (\en ti deuteri\). This expression only here in the N.T. This second visit is recorded in strkjv@Genesis:45:1ff|. {Became manifest} (\phaneron egeneto\). In strkjv@Genesis:41:12| the fact that Joseph was a Hebrew had been incidentally mentioned to Pharaoh, but now it was made clear to him.

rwp@Acts:9:27 @{Took him} (\epilabomenos\). Second aorist middle (indirect) participle of \epilamban\, common verb to lay hold of. Barnabas saw the situation and took Saul to himself and listened to his story and believed it. It is to the credit of Barnabas that he had the insight and the courage to stand by Saul at the crucial moment in his life when the evidence seemed to be against him. It is a pleasing hypothesis that this influential disciple from Cyprus had gone to the University of Tarsus where he met Saul. If so, he would know more of him than those who only knew his record as a persecutor of Christians. That fact Barnabas knew also, but he was convinced that Jesus had changed the heart of Saul and he used his great influence (Acts:4:36; strkjv@11:22|) to win the favour of the apostles, Peter in particular (Galatians:1:19|) and James the half-brother of Jesus. The other apostles were probably out of the city as Paul says that he did not see them. {To the apostles} (\pros tous apostolous\). Both Barnabas and James are termed apostles in the general sense, though not belonging to the twelve, as Paul did not, though himself later a real apostle. Songs:Barnabas introduced Saul to Peter and vouched for his story, declared it fully (\digsato\, in detail) including Saul's vision of Jesus (\eiden ton kurion\) as the vital thing and Christ's message to Saul (\elalsen auti\) and Saul's bold preaching (\parrsiasato\, first aorist middle indicative of \parrsiaz\ from \pan--rsia\ telling it all as in strkjv@Acts:2:29|). Peter was convinced and Saul was his guest for two weeks (Galatians:1:18|) with delightful fellowship (\historsai\). He had really come to Jerusalem mainly "to visit" (to see) Peter, but not to receive a commission from him. He had that from the Lord (Galatians:1:1f.|). Both Peter and James could tell Saul of their special experiences with the Risen Christ. Furneaux thinks that Peter was himself staying at the home of Mary the mother of John Mark (Acts:12:12|) who was a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians:4:10|). This is quite possible. At any rate Saul is now taken into the inner circle of the disciples in Jerusalem.

rwp@Acts:13:34 @{Now no more to return to corruption} (\mketi mellonta hupostrephein eis diaphthoran\). No longer about to return as Lazarus did. Jesus did not die again and so is the first fruits of the resurrection (1Corinthians:15:23; strkjv@Romans:6:9|). {He hath spoken} (\eirken\). Present perfect active indicative, common way of referring to the permanent utterances of God which are on record in the Scriptures. {The holy and sure blessings of David} (\ta hosia Daueid ta pista\). See strkjv@2Samuel:7:13|. Literally, "the holy things of David the trustworthy things." He explains "the holy things" at once.

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: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@Galatians:4:23 @{Is born} (\gegenntai\). Perfect passive indicative of \genna\, stand on record so. {Through promise} (\di' epaggelias\). In addition to being "after the flesh" (\kata sarka\).

rwp@Hebrews:7:1 @{This Melchizedek} (\houtos ho Melchisedek\). The one already mentioned several times with whose priesthood that of Christ is compared and which is older and of a higher type than that of Aaron. See strkjv@Genesis:14:18-20; strkjv@Psalms:110| for the only account of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is a daring thing to put Melchizedek above Aaron, but the author does it. Moffatt calls verses 1-3| "a little sermon" on strkjv@6:20|. It is "for ever" (\eis ton aina\) that he explains. Melchizedek is the only one in his line and stands alone in the record in Genesis. The interpretation is rabbinical in method, but well adapted to Jewish readers. The description is taken verbatim from Genesis except that "who met" (\ho sunantsas\) is here applied to Melchizedek from strkjv@Genesis:14:17| instead of to the King of Sodom. They both met Abraham as a matter of fact. For this verb (first aorist active participle of \sunanta\) see strkjv@Luke:9:37|. {Slaughter} (\kops\). Old word for cutting (\kopt\, to cut), here only in N.T. These kings were Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, Tidal. Amraphel is usually taken to be Khammurabi. {Priest of God Most High} (\hiereus tou theou tou hupsistou\). He is called "priest" and note \tou hupsistou\ applied to God as the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews did. It is used also of Zeus and the Maccabean priest-kings. The demons apply it to God (Mark:5:7; strkjv@Luke:8:28|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:3 @{Without father, without mother, without genealogy} (\apatr, amtr, agenealogtos\). Alliteration like strkjv@Romans:1:30|, the first two old words, the third coined by the author (found nowhere else) and meaning simply "devoid of any genealogy." The argument is that from silence, made much of by Philo, but not to be pressed. The record in Genesis tells nothing of any genealogy. Melchizedek stands alone. He is not to be understood as a miraculous being without birth or death. Melchizedek has been made more mysterious than he is by reading into this interpretation what is not there. {Made like} (\aphmoimenos\). Perfect passive participle of \aphomoio\, old verb, to produce a facsimile or copy, only here in N.T. The likeness is in the picture drawn in Genesis, not in the man himself. Such artificial interpretation does not amount to proof, but only serves as a parallel or illustration. {Unto the Son of God} (\ti huii tou theou\). Associative instrumental case of \huios\. {Abideth a priest} (\menei hiereus\). According to the record in Genesis, the only one in his line just as Jesus stands alone, but with the difference that Jesus continues priest in fact in heaven. {Continually} (\eis to dinekes\). Old phrase (for the continuity) like \eis ton aina\, in N.T. only in Hebrews (7:3; strkjv@10:1,14,21|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:6 @{He whose genealogy is not counted} (\ho m genealogoumenos\). Articular participle with negative \m\ (usual with participles) of the old verb \genealoge\ trace ancestry (cf. verse 3|) {Hath taken tithes} (\dedekatken\). Perfect active indicative of \dekato\, standing on record in Genesis. {Hath blessed} (\eulogken\). Perfect active indicative of \euloge\, likewise standing on record. Note the frequent perfect tenses in Hebrews. {Him that hath the promises} (\ton echonta tas epaggelias\). Cf. strkjv@6:12,13-15| for allusion to the repeated promises to Abraham (Genesis:12:3,7; strkjv@13:14; strkjv@15:5; strkjv@17:5; strkjv@22:16-18|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:8 @{Here} (\hde\). In the Levitical system. {There} (\ekei\). In the case of Melchizedek. {Of whom it is witnessed} (\marturoumenos\). "Being witnessed," present passive participle of \marture\ (personal construction, not impersonal). {That he lives} (\hoti zi\). Present active indicative of \za\). The Genesis record tells nothing of his death.

rwp@Hebrews:11:5 @{Was translated} (\meteteth\). First aorist passive indicative of \metatithmi\, old verb to transpose, to change as in strkjv@7:12; strkjv@Acts:7:16|. {That he should not see death} (\tou m idein thanaton\). Here again \tou\ with the infinitive usually expresses purpose, but in this case result is the idea as in strkjv@Matthew:21:23; strkjv@Romans:1:24; strkjv@7:3|, etc. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1002). {He was not found} (\ouch hurisketo\). Imperfect passive of \heurisk\ from strkjv@Genesis:5:24|. Was still not found. {Translated} (\metethken\). First aorist active of same verb as \meteteth\ just before. {Translation} (\metatheses\). Substantive from the same verb \metatithmi\, used already in strkjv@7:12| for change. See also strkjv@12:27|. Our very word "metathesis." {He hath had witness borne him} (\memarturtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \marture\, stands on record still, "he has been testified to." {That he had been well-pleasing unto God} (\euarestkenai ti thei\). Perfect active infinitive of \euareste\, late compound from \euarestos\ (well-pleasing), in N.T. only in strkjv@Hebrews:11:5f.; strkjv@13:16|. With dative case \thei\. Quoted here from strkjv@Genesis:5:22,24|. The word is common of a servant pleasing his master.

rwp@Hebrews:11:17 @{Being tried} (\peirazomenos\). Present passive participle of \peiraz\. The test was still going on. {Offered up} (\prosennochen\). Perfect active indicative of \prospher\, the verb so often used in this Epistle. The act was already consummated so far as Abraham was concerned when it was interrupted and it stands on record about him. See strkjv@Genesis:22:1-18|. {He that had gladly received the promises} (\ho tas epaggelias anadexamenos\). \Anadechomai\ is old verb to welcome, to entertain, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:28:7|. It seemed the death of his hopes. {Was offering up} (\prosepheren\). It is the imperfect of an interrupted action like \ekaloun\ in strkjv@Luke:1:59|.

rwp@John:6:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). A common, but indefinite, note of time in John (3:22; strkjv@5:1; strkjv@6:1; strkjv@7:1|). The phrase does not mean immediate sequence of events. As a matter of fact, a whole year may intervene between the events of chapter 5 in Jerusalem and those in chapter 6 in Galilee. There is no sufficient reason for believing that chapter 6 originally preceded chapter 5. The feeding of the five thousand is the only event before the last visit to Jerusalem recorded in all Four Gospels (Mark:6:30-44; strkjv@Matthew:14:13-21; strkjv@Luke:9:10-17; strkjv@John:6:1-13|). The disciples have returned from the tour of Galilee and report to Jesus. It was the passover time (John:6:4|) just a year before the end. {To the other side of the Sea of Galilee} (\peran ts thalasss ts Galilaias\). The name given in Mark and Matthew. It is called Gennesaret in strkjv@Luke:5:1| and "Sea of Tiberias" in strkjv@John:21:1|. Here "of Tiberias" (\ts Tiberiados\) is added as further description. Herod Antipas A.D. 22 built Tiberias to the west of the Sea of Galilee and made it his capital. See verse 23| for this city. Luke (Luke:9:10|) explains that it was the eastern Bethsaida (Julias) to which Jesus took the disciples, not the western Bethsaida of strkjv@Mark:6:45| in Galilee.

rwp@John:7:20 @{The multitude} (\ho ochlos\). Outside of Jerusalem (the Galilean crowd as in verses 11f.|) and so unfamiliar with the effort to kill Jesus recorded in strkjv@5:18|. It is important in this chapter to distinguish clearly the several groups like the Jewish leaders (7:13,15,25,26,30,32|, etc.), the multitude from Galilee and elsewhere (10-13,20,31,40,49|), the common people of Jerusalem (25|), the Roman soldiers (45f.|). {Thou hast a devil} (\daimonion echeis\). "Demon," of course, as always in the Gospels. These pilgrims make the same charge against Jesus made long ago by the Pharisees in Jerusalem in explanation of the difference between John and Jesus (Matthew:11:18; strkjv@Luke:7:33|). It is an easy way to make a fling like that. "He is a monomaniac labouring under a hallucination that people wish to kill him" (Dods).

rwp@John:9:29 @{We know that God hath spoken unto Moses} (\hmeis oidamen hoti Musei lelalken ho theos\). Perfect active indicative of \lale\, so still on record. See strkjv@Exodus:33:11|. For \lale\ used of God speaking see strkjv@Hebrews:1:1|. They are proud to be disciples of Moses. {But as for this man, we do not know whence he is} (\touton de ouk oidamen pothen estin\). "This fellow" they mean by "\touton\" in emphatic position, we do not even know whence he is. Some of the people did (7:27|), but in the higher sense none of the Jews knew (8:14|). These Pharisees neither knew nor cared.

rwp@John:13:15 @{An example} (\hupodeigma\). For the old \paradeigma\ (not in N.T.), from \hupodeiknumi\, to show under the eyes as an illustration or warning (Matthew:3:7|), common in the papyri for illustration, example, warning, here only in John, but in strkjv@James:5:10; strkjv@2Peter:2:6; strkjv@Hebrews:4:11; strkjv@8:5; strkjv@9:26|. Peter uses \tupoi\ (1Peter:5:3|) with this incident in mind. In strkjv@Jude:1:7| \deigma\ (without \hupo\) occurs in the sense of example. {That ye also should do} (\hina kai humeis poite\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the present active subjunctive of \poie\ (keep on doing). Doing what? Does Jesus here institute a new church ordinance as some good people today hold? If so, it is curious that there is no record of it in the N.T. Jesus has given the disciples an object lesson in humility to rebuke their jealousy, pride, and strife exhibited at this very meal. The lesson of the "example" applies to all the relations of believers with each other. It is one that is continually needed.

rwp@John:20:8 @{Then therefore} (\tote oun\). After Peter in time and influenced by the boldness of Peter. {And he saw and believed} (\kai eiden kai episteusen\). Both aorist active indicative (second and first). Peter saw more after he entered than John did in his first glance, but John saw into the meaning of it all better than Peter. Peter had more sight, John more insight. John was the first to believe that Jesus was risen from the tomb even before he saw him. According to strkjv@Luke:24:12| Peter went away "wondering" still. The Sinaitic Syriac and 69 and 124 wrongly read here "they believed." John was evidently proud to be able to record this great moment when he believed without seeing in contrast to Thomas (20:29|). Peter and John did not see the angels.

rwp@John:21:1 @{Manifested himself} (\ephanerosen heauton\). First aorist active indicative of \phanero\ with the reflexive pronoun (cf. strkjv@7:4; strkjv@13:4|). For the passive see strkjv@1:31; strkjv@21:14|. Jesus was only seen during the forty days now and then (Acts:1:3|), ten instances being recorded. The word \phanero\ is often used of Christ on earth (John:1:31; strkjv@2:11; strkjv@1Peter:1:20; strkjv@1John:1:2|), of his works (John:3:5|), of the second coming (1John:2:28|), of Christ in glory (Colossians:3:4; strkjv@1John:3:2|). {At} (\epi\). By or upon. {Of Tiberias} (\ts Tiberiados\). As in strkjv@6:1| instead of the usual "Sea of Galilee." Tiberias, the capital city of Galilee, gave this epithet to the Sea of Galilee. This is not the appearance in Galilee prearranged by Jesus (Mark:16:7; strkjv@Matthew:28:7,16|).

rwp@Luke:2:1 @{Decree from Caesar Augustus} (\dogma para Kaisaros Augoustou\). Old and common word from \doke\, to think, form an opinion. No such decree was given by Greek or Roman historians and it was for long assumed by many scholars that Luke was in error. But papyri and inscriptions have confirmed Luke on every point in these crucial verses strkjv@2:1-7|. See W.M. Ramsay's books (_Was Christ Born at Bethelehem?_ _Luke the Physician_. _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the N.T._). {The World} (\tn oikoumenn\). Literally, {the inhabited} ({land}, \gn\). Inhabited by the Greeks, then by the Romans, then the whole world (Roman world, the world ruled by Rome). Songs:Acts:11:28; strkjv@17:6|. {Should be enrolled} (\apographesthai\). It was a census, not a taxing, though taxing generally followed and was based on the census. This word is very old and common. It means to write or copy off for the public records, to register.

rwp@Luke:4:1 @{Full of the Holy Spirit} (\plrs pneumatos hagiou\). An evident allusion to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus at his baptism (Luke:3:21f.|). The distinctness of the Persons in the Trinity is shown there, but with evident unity. One recalls also Luke's account of the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit (1:35|). strkjv@Matthew:4:1| says that "Jesus was led of the Spirit" while strkjv@Mark:1:12| states that "the Spirit driveth him forth" which see for discussion. "Jesus had been endowed with supernatural power; and He was tempted to make use of it in furthering his own interests without regard to the Father's will" (Plummer). {Was led by the Spirit} (\geto en toi pneumati\). Imperfect passive, continuously led. \En\ may be the instrumental use as often, for strkjv@Matthew:4:1| has here \hupo\ of direct agency. But Matthew has the aorist passive \anchth\ which may be ingressive as he has \eis tn ermon\ (into the wilderness) while Luke has \en ti ermi\ (in the wilderness). At any rate Luke affirms that Jesus was now continuously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hence in this same sentence he mentions the Spirit twice. {During the forty days} (\hmers tesserakonta\). Accusative of duration of time, to be connected with "led" not with "tempted." He was led in the Spirit during these forty days (cf. strkjv@Deuteronomy:8:2|, forty years). The words are amphibolous also in strkjv@Mark:1:13|. strkjv@Matthew:4:2| seems to imply that the three recorded temptations came at the close of the fasting for forty days. That can be true and yet what Luke states be true also. These three may be merely specimens and so "representative of the struggle which continued throughout the whole period" (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:4:16 @{Where he had been brought up} (\hou n tethrammenos\). Past perfect passive periphrastic indicative, a state of completion in past time, from \treph\, a common Greek verb. This visit is before that recorded in strkjv@Mark:6:1-6; strkjv@Matthew:13:54-58| which was just before the third tour of Galilee. Here Jesus comes back after a year of public ministry elsewhere and with a wide reputation (Luke:4:15|). Luke may have in mind strkjv@2:51|, but for some time now Nazareth had not been his home and that fact may be implied by the past perfect tense. {As his custom was} (\kata to eithos auti\). Second perfect active neuter singular participle of an old \eth\ (Homer), to be accustomed. Literally according to what was customary to him (\auti\, dative case). This is one of the flashlights on the early life of Jesus. He had the habit of going to public worship in the synagogue as a boy, a habit that he kept up when a grown man. If the child does not form the habit of going to church, the man is almost certain not to have it. We have already had in Matthew and Mark frequent instances of the word synagogue which played such a large part in Jewish life after the restoration from Babylon. {Stood up} (\anest\). Second aorist active indicative and intransitive. Very common verb. It was the custom for the reader to stand except when the Book of Esther was read at the feast of Purim when he might sit. It is not here stated that Jesus had been in the habit of standing up to read here or elsewhere. It was his habit to go to the synagogue for worship. Since he entered upon his Messianic work his habit was to teach in the synagogues (Luke:4:15|). This was apparently the first time that he had done so in Nazareth. He may have been asked to read as Paul was in Antioch in Pisidia (Acts:13:15|). The ruler of the synagogue for that day may have invited Jesus to read and speak because of his now great reputation as a teacher. Jesus could have stood up voluntarily and appropriately because of his interest in his home town. {To read} (\anagnnai\). Second aorist active infinitive of \anaginsk\, to recognize again the written characters and so to read and then to read aloud. It appears first in Pindar in the sense of read and always so in the N.T. This public reading aloud with occasional comments may explain the parenthesis in strkjv@Matthew:24:15| (Let him that readeth understand).

rwp@Matthew:14:19 @{To sit down on the grass} (\anaklithnai epi tou chortou\). "Recline," of course, the word means, first aorist passive infinitive. A beautiful picture in the afternoon sun on the grass on the mountain side that sloped westward. The orderly arrangement (Mark) made it easy to count them and to feed them. Jesus stood where all could see him "break" (\klasas\) the thin Jewish cakes of bread and give to the disciples and they to the multitudes. This is a nature miracle that some men find it hard to believe, but it is recorded by all four Gospels and the only one told by all four. It was impossible for the crowds to misunderstand and to be deceived. If Jesus is in reality Lord of the universe as John tells us (John:1:1-18|) and Paul holds (Colossians:1:15-20|), why should we balk at this miracle? He who created the universe surely has power to go on creating what he wills to do.

rwp@Revelation:20:12 @{The dead, the great and the small} (\tous nekrous tous megalous kai tous mikrous\). The general resurrection of verse 13| is pictured by anticipation as already over. No living are mentioned after the battle of verses 7-10|, though some will be living when Jesus comes to judge the quick and the dead (2Timothy:4:1; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13ff.|). All classes and conditions (11:18; strkjv@13:16; strkjv@19:5,18|) John saw "standing before the throne" (\hesttas enpion tou thronou\). {Books were opened} (\biblia noichthsan\). First aorist passive of \anoig\. Like strkjv@Daniel:7:10|. The record of each human being has been kept in God's books. {Were judged} (\ekrithsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \krin\. The sentence upon each rests upon written evidence. {Another book which is the book of life} (\allo biblion ho estin ts zs\). This book has already been mentioned (3:5; strkjv@13:8; strkjv@17:8|). "It is the roll of living citizens of Jerusalem" (Swete), "the church of the first born enrolled in heaven" (Hebrews:12:23|). The books are "the vouchers for the book of life" (Alford). We are saved by grace, but character at last (according to their works) is the test as the fruit of the tree (Matthew:7:16,20; strkjv@10:32f.; strkjv@25:31-46; strkjv@John:15:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:10; strkjv@Romans:2:10; strkjv@Revelation:2:23; strkjv@20:12; strkjv@22:12|).

rwp@Romans:9:29 @{Hath said before} (\proeirken\). Perfect active indicative of \proeipon\ (defective verb). Stands on record in strkjv@Isaiah:1:9|. {Had left} (\egkatelipen\). Second aorist active indicative of old verb \egkataleip\, to leave behind. Condition of second class, determined as unfulfilled, with \an egenthmen\ and \an hmoithmen\ as the conclusions (both first aorist passives of \ginomai\ and \homoio\, common verbs). {A seed} (\sperma\). The remnant of verse 27|.