OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp risai:

rwp@Acts:2:7 @{Were amazed} (\existanto\). Imperfect middle of \existmi\, to stand out of themselves, wide-open astonishment. {Marvelled} (\ethaumazon\). Imperfect active. The wonder grew and grew. {Galileans} (\Galilaioi\). There were few followers of Jesus as yet from Jerusalem. The Galileans spoke a rude Aramaic (Mark:14:70|) and probably crude Greek vernacular also. They were not strong on language and yet these are the very people who now show such remarkable linguistic powers. These people who have come together are all Jews and therefore know Aramaic and the vernacular _Koin_, but there were various local tongues "wherein we were born" (\en hi egennthmen\). An example is the Lycaonian (Acts:14:11|). These Galilean Christians are now heard speaking these various local tongues. The lists in verses 9-11| are not linguistic, but geographical and merely illustrate how widespread the Dispersion (\Diaspora\) of the Jews was as represented on this occasion. Jews were everywhere, these "Jews among the nations" (Acts:21:21|). Page notes four main divisions here: (I) The Eastern or Babylonian, like the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamians. (2) The Syrian like Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia. (3) The Egyptian like Egypt, Libya, Cyrene. (4) The Roman. {Jews and proselytes} (\proslutoi\). These last from \proserchomai\, to come to, to join, Gentile converts to Judaism (circumcision, baptism, sacrifice). This proselyte baptism was immersion as is shown by I. Abrahams (_Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels_, p. 38). Many remained uncircumcised and were called proselytes of the gate.

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: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:9:26 @{He assayed} (\epeirazen\). Imperfect active of conative action. {To join himself} (\kollasthai\). Present middle (direct) infinitive of conative action again. Same word \kolla\ in strkjv@Luke:15:15; strkjv@Acts:10:28|. See on ¯Matthew:19:5| for discussion. {Were all afraid of him} (\pantes ephobounto auton\). They were fearing him. Imperfect middle picturing the state of mind of the disciples who had vivid recollections of his conduct when last here. What memories Saul had on this return journey to Jerusalem after three years. He had left a conquering hero of Pharisaism. He returns distrusted by the disciples and regarded by the Pharisees as a renegade and a turncoat. He made no effort to get in touch with the Sanhedrin who had sent him to Damascus. He had escaped the plots of the Jews in Damascus only to find himself the object of suspicion by the disciples in Jerusalem who had no proof of his sincerity in his alleged conversion. {Not believing} (\m pisteuontes\). They had probably heard of his conversion, but they frankly disbelieved the reports and regarded him as a hypocrite or a spy in a new role to ruin them. {Was} (\estin\). The present tense is here retained in indirect discourse according to the common Greek idiom.

rwp@Acts:11:2 @{They that were of the circumcision} (\hoi ek peritoms\). Literally, those of circumcision (on the side of circumcision, of the circumcision party). The phrase in strkjv@10:46| is confined to the six brethren with Peter in Caesarea (11:12|). That can hardly be the meaning here for it would mean that they were the ones who brought the charge against Peter though Hort takes this view. All the disciples in Jerusalem were Jews so that it can hardly mean the whole body. In strkjv@Galatians:2:12| the phrase has the narrower sense of the Judaizing or Pharisaic wing of the disciples (Acts:15:5|) who made circumcision necessary for all Gentile converts. Probably here by anticipation Luke so describes the beginning of that great controversy. The objectors probably did not know of Peter's vision at Joppa, but only of the revolutionary conduct of Peter in Caesarea. These extremists who spoke probably had abundant sympathy in their protest. The apostles are mentioned in verse 1|, but are not referred to in verse 2|. Apparently they are in contrast with the circumcision party in the church. {Contended} (\diekrinonto\). Imperfect middle of the common verb \diakrin\, to {separate}. Here to separate oneself apart (\dia\), to take sides against, to make a cleavage (\dia\, two, in two) as in strkjv@Jude:1:9|. Songs:Peter is at once put on the defensive as the contention went on. It is plain that Peter was not regarded as any kind of pope or overlord.

rwp@Acts:14:5 @{An onset} (\horm\). A rush or impulse as in strkjv@James:3:4|. Old word, but only twice in the N.T. (here and James). It probably denotes not an actual attack so much as the open start, the co-operation of both Jews and Gentiles (the disaffected portion), "with their rulers" (\sun tois archousin autn\), that is the rulers of the Jewish synagogue (13:27|). The city officials would hardly join in a mob like this, though Hackett and Rackham think that the city magistrates were also involved as in Antioch in Pisidia (13:50|). {To entreat them shamefully} (\hubrisai\). First aorist active infinitive of \hubriz\, old verb to insult insolently. See on ¯Matthew:22:6; strkjv@Luke:18:32|. {To stone} (\lithobolsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \lithobole\, late verb from \lithobolos\ (\lithos\, stone, \ball\, to throw) to pelt with stones, the verb used of the stoning of Stephen (7:58|). See on ¯Matthew:21:35|. The plan to stone them shows that the Jews were in the lead and followed by the Gentile rabble. "Legal proceedings having failed the only resource left for the Jews was illegal violence" (Rackham).

rwp@Acts:15:5 @{But there rose up} (\exanestsan de\). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive). Note both \ex\ and \an\. These men rose up out of the crowd at a critical moment. They were believers in Christ (\pepisteukotes\, having believed), but were still members of "the sect of the Pharisees" (\ts haireses tn Pharisain\). Evidently they still held to the Pharisaic narrowness shown in the attack on Peter (11:2f.|). Note the dogmatism of their "must" (\dei\) after the opposition of Paul and Barnabas to their "except" (\ean me\) at Antioch (15:1|). They are unconvinced and expected to carry the elders with them. Codex Bezae says that they had appealed to the elders (15:2,5|). At any rate they have made the issue in open meeting at the height of the jubilation. It is plain from verse 6| that this meeting was adjourned, for another gathering came together then. It is here that the private conference of which Paul speaks in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| took place. It was Paul's chance to see the leaders in Jerusalem (Peter, James, and John) and he won them over to his view of Gentile liberty from the Mosaic law so that the next public conference (Acts:15:6-29|) ratified heartily the views of Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and John. It was a diplomatic triumph of the first order and saved Christianity from the bondage of Jewish ceremonial sacramentalism. Songs:far as we know this is the only time that Paul and John met face to face, the great spirits in Christian history after Jesus our Lord. It is a bit curious to see men saying today that Paul surrendered about Titus and had him circumcised for the sake of peace, the very opposite of what he says in Galatians, "to whom I yielded, no not for an hour." Titus as a Greek was a red flag to the Judaizers and to the compromisers, but Paul stood his ground.

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:4:9 @{Now that ye have come to know God} (\nun de gnontes\). Fine example of the ingressive second aorist active participle of \ginsk\, come to know by experience through faith in Christ. {Rather to be known of God} (\mallon de gnsthentes hupo theou\). First aorist passive participle of the same verb. He quickly turns it round to the standpoint of God's elective grace reaching them (verse 6|). {How} (\ps\). "A question full of wonder" (Bengel). See strkjv@1:6|. {Turn ye back again?} (\epistrephete palin?\). Present active indicative, "Are ye turning again?" See \metatithesthe\ in strkjv@1:6|. {The weak and beggarly rudiments} (\ta asthen kai ptcha stoicheia\). The same \stoicheia\ in verse 3| from which they had been delivered, "weak and beggarly," still in their utter impotence from the Pharisaic legalism and the philosophical and religious legalism and the philosophical and religious quests of the heathen as shown by Angus's _The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World_. These were eagerly pursued by many, but they were shadows when caught. It is pitiful today to see some men and women leave Christ for will o' the wisps of false philosophy. {Over again} (\palin anthen\). Old word, from above (\an\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:51|, from the first (Luke:1:3|), then "over again" as here, back to where they were before (in slavery to rites and rules).

rwp@Hebrews:9:10 @{Only with meats and drinks and divers washings} (\monon epi brmasin kai pomasin kai diaphorois baptismois\). The parenthesis of the Revised Version here is unnecessary. The use of \epi\ here with the locative case is regular, "in the matter of" (Luke:12:52; strkjv@John:12:16; strkjv@Acts:21:24|). What ritual value these Levitical sacrifices had was confined to minute regulations about diet and ceremonial cleansing (clean and unclean). For "divers" (\diaphorois\, late adjective, in N.T. only in strkjv@Hebrews:1:4; strkjv@8:6; strkjv@9:10; strkjv@Romans:12:6|) say "different" or "various." \Baptismois\ is, of course, the Jewish ceremonial immersions (cf. strkjv@Mark:7:4; strkjv@Exodus:29:4; strkjv@Leviticus:11:25,28f.; strkjv@Numbers:8:7; strkjv@Revelation:6:2|). {Carnal ordinances} (\dikaimasin sarkos\). But the correct text is undoubtedly simply \dikaimata sarkos\ (nominative case), in apposition with \dra te kai thusiai\ (gifts and sacrifices). See strkjv@9:1| for \dikaimata\. {Imposed} (\epikeimena\). Present middle or passive participle of \epikeimai\, old verb to lie upon (be laid upon). Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:9:16|. {Until a time of reformation} (\mechri kairou diorthses\). Definite statement of the temporary nature of the Levitical system already stated in strkjv@7:10-17; strkjv@8:13| and argued clearly by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3:15-22|. \Diorthsis\ is a late word, here alone in N.T. (from \diortho\, to set right or straight), used by Hippocrates for making straight misshapen limbs like \anortho\ in strkjv@Hebrews:12:12|. Here for reformation like \diorthma\ (reform) in strkjv@Acts:24:2f|. Christianity itself is the great Reformation of the current Judaism (Pharisaism) and the spiritual Judaism foreshadowed by the old Abrahamic promise (see strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9|).

rwp@Hebrews:13:9 @{Be not carried away} (\m parapheresthe\). Prohibition with \m\ and present passive imperative of \parapher\, old verb to lead along (Jude:1:12|), to carry past (Mark:14:36|), to lead astray as here. {By divers and strange teachings} (\didachais poikilais kai xenais\). For \poikilos\ (many coloured) see strkjv@2:4|. \Xenos\ for guest we have had in strkjv@11:13|, but here as adjective meaning unheard of (1Peter:4:12|) as in older Greek also. The new is not always wrong any more than the old is always right (Matthew:13:52|). But the air was already full of new and strange teachings that fascinated many by their very novelty. The warning here is always needed. Cf. strkjv@Galatians:1:6-9; strkjv@2Timothy:3:16|. {That the heart be established by grace} (\chariti bebaiousthai tn kardian\). Present passive infinitive of \bebaio\ (from \bain\) to make stable with the instrumental case \chariti\ (by grace) and the accusative of general reference (\tn kardian\). How true it is that in the atmosphere of so many windy theories only the heart is stable that has an experience of God's grace in Christ. {That occupied themselves} (\hoi peripatountes\). "That walked" in the ritualistic Jewish rules about meats. {Were not profited} (\ouk phelthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \phele\, to help. Mere Jewish ceremonialism and ritualism failed to build up the spiritual life. It was sheer folly to give up Christ for Pharisaism or for Moses.

rwp@John:6:14 @{Saw the sign which he did} (\idontes ha epoisen smeia\). "Signs" oldest MSS. have. This sign added to those already wrought (verse 2|). Cf. strkjv@2:23; strkjv@3:2|. {They said} (\elegon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to say. {Of a truth} (\alths\). Common adverb (from \alths\) in John (7:40|). {The prophet that cometh} (\ho prophts ho erchomenos\). There was a popular expectation about the prophet of strkjv@Deuteronomy:18:15| as being the Messiah (John:1:21; strkjv@11:27|). The phrase is peculiar to John, but the idea is in Acts (3:22; strkjv@7:37|). The people are on the tiptoe of expectation and believe that Jesus is the political Messiah of Pharisaic hope.

rwp@John:6:29 @{The work of God that ye believe} (\to ergon tou theou hina pisteute\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3| Paul speaks of "your work of faith" (\humn tou ergou ts pistes\). Songs:here Jesus terms belief in him as the work of God. These Jews were thinking of various deeds of the Pharisaic type and rules. Jesus turns their minds to the central fact. "This simple formula contains the complete solution of the relation of faith and works" (Westcott). Note the present active subjunctive \pisteute\, "that ye may keep on believing." {On him whom he hath sent} (\eis hon apesteilen ekeinos\). The pronominal antecedent (\eis touton hon\) is omitted and the preposition \eis\ is retained with the relative \hon\ really the direct object of \apesteilen\ (sent). Note \ekeinos\ for God (emphatic he).

rwp@John:7:32 @{The Pharisees} (\hoi Pharisaioi\). This group of the Jewish rulers (7:11,15,25f.|) was particularly hostile to Christ, though already the Sadducees had become critical (Matthew:16:6|) and they join here (\hoi archiereis\, the chief priests being Sadducees) in determining to silence Jesus by bringing him before the Sanhedrin. They had heard the whispered talk about Jesus before he arrived (7:12f.|) and still more now. {Heard the multitude murmuring} (\kousan tou ochlou gogguzontos\). First aorist active indicative of \akou\ with the genitive case and the descriptive participle of the vivid onomatopoetic verb \gogguz\ (verse 12|) now grown louder like the hum of bees. It was the defence of Jesus by a portion of the crowd (7:31|) that irritated the Pharisees. Here the Pharisees take the initiative and enlist the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin (for this combination see strkjv@7:45; strkjv@11:47,57; strkjv@Matthew:21:45; strkjv@27:62|, the organized court) to send "officers" (\hupretas\) "to take him" (\hina piassin auton\, final clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \piaz\ for which verb see verse 30|). For \hupretas\ (temple police here) see verse 45; strkjv@18:3,12,22; strkjv@19:6; strkjv@Acts:5:22,26|. For the word see strkjv@Matthew:5:25; strkjv@Luke:1:2|, "an under rower" (\hupo, erets\), any assistant.

rwp@John:7:48 @{Hath any of the rulers believed on him?} (\M tis ek tn archontn episteusen eis auton;\). Negative answer sharply expected. First aorist active indicative of \pisteu\. "Did any one of the rulers believe on him?" "What right have subordinates to have a mind of their own?" (Dods). These police were employed by the temple authorities (rulers). "Power was slipping through their fingers" (Dods) and that was the secret of their hostility to Jesus. {Or of the Pharisees} (\ ek tn Pharisain\). A wider circle and the most orthodox of all.

rwp@John:8:3 @{The scribes and the Pharisees} (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\). John does not mention "scribes," though this combination (note two articles) is common enough in the Synoptics (Luke:5:30; strkjv@6:7|, etc.). {Bring} (\agousin\). Vivid dramatic present active indicative of \ag\. Dods calls this "in itself an unlawful thing to do" since they had a court for the trial of such a case. Their purpose is to entrap Jesus. {Taken in adultery} (\epi moicheii kateilemmenn\). Perfect passive participle of \katalamban\, old compound to seize (Mark:9:18|), to catch, to overtake (John:12:35|), to overcome (or overtake) in strkjv@1:5|. {Having let her in the midst} (\stsantes autn en mesi\). First aorist active (transitive) participle of \histmi\. Here all could see her and what Jesus did with such a case. They knew his proneness to forgive sinners.

rwp@John:9:24 @{A second time} (\ek deuterou\). He had given the Pharisees the facts the first time (9:15|). It was really the third time (see \palin\ in strkjv@9:17|). Now it was like a joke unless the Pharisees meant to imply that his previous story was untrue. {Give glory to God} (\dos doxan ti thei\). Second aorist active imperative of \didmi\ (cf. \sches, hes\). This phrase does not mean gratitude to God as in strkjv@Luke:17:18|. It is rather an adjuration to speak the truth (Joshua:7:19; strkjv@1Samuel:6:5|) as if he had not done it before. Augustine says: "_Quid est Daniel:gloriam Deo? Nega quod accepisti._" Is a sinner (\hamartlos estin\). They can no longer deny the fact of the cure since the testimony of the parents (9:19|) and now wish the man to admit that he was lying in saying that Jesus healed him. He must accept their ecclesiastical authority as proving that Jesus had nothing to do with the cure since Jesus is a sinner. They wish to decide the fact by logic and authority like all persecutors through the ages. Recall the Pharisaic distinction between \dikaios\ (righteous) and \hamartlos\ (sinner).

rwp@John:12:19 @{The Pharisees therefore laid among themselves} (\hoi oun Pharisaioi eipan pros heautous\). Graphic picture of the predicament of the Pharisees standing off and watching the enthusiastic crowds sweep by. As people usually do, they blame each other for the defeat of their plots against Jesus and for his final victory, as it seemed. {Behold how ye prevail nothing} (\thereite hoti ouk pheleite ouden\). It was a pathetic confession of failure because the rest of the plotters had bungled the whole thing. "Ye help nothing at all" by your plots and plans. {Lo, the world is gone after him} (\ide ho kosmos opis autou aplthen\). Exclamatory use of \ide\ and timeless aorist active indicative of \aperchomai\. The "world" is a bunch of fools, they feel, but see for yourselves. And the Sanhedrin had advertised to "find" Jesus! They can find him now!

rwp@John:12:42 @{Nevertheless even} (\homs mentoi kai\). For the old \homs\ see strkjv@1Corinthians:14:7; strkjv@Galatians:3:15| (only other examples in N.T.), here only with \mentoi\, "but yet," and \kai\, "even." In spite of what has just been said "many (\polloi\) even of the rulers" (recall the lonely shyness of Nicodemus in strkjv@3:1ff.|). These actually "believed on him" (\episteusan eis auton\) in their convictions, a remarkable statement as to the effect that Christ had in Jerusalem as the Sanhedrin plotted his death. Cf. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. {But because of the Pharisees} (\alla dia tous Pharisaious\). Like the whispered talk in strkjv@7:13| "because of the fear of the Jews." Once the Pharisees sneeringly asked the officers (7:48|): "Hath any one of the rulers believed on him?" And now "many of the rulers have believed on him." {They did not confess} (\ouch hmologoun\). Negative imperfect in contrast to the punctiliar aorist \episteusan\. "They kept on not confessing." How like the cowardly excuses made today by those under conviction who refuse to step out for Christ. {Lest they should be put out of the synagogue} (\hina m aposunaggoi genntai\). Cf. strkjv@9:22| where this very word occurs in a purpose clause like this. Only once more in the N.T. (16:2|), a Jewish word not in profane authors. This ostracism from the synagogue was dreaded by the Jews and made cowards of these "believing elders." {More than} (\mallon per\). They preferred the glory and praise of men more than the glory and praise of God. How \apropos\ these words are to some suave cowards today.

rwp@Luke:5:17 @{That} (\kai\). Use of \kai\ = \hoti\ (that) like the Hebrew _wav_, though found in Greek also. {He} (\autos\). Luke sometimes has \autos\ in the nominative as unemphatic "he" as here, not "he himself." {Was teaching} (\n didaskn\). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom. {Were sitting by} (\san kathmenoi\). Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no "by" in the Greek. {Doctors of the law} (\nomodidaskaloi\). A compound word formed after analogy of \hierodidaskalos\, but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and strkjv@Acts:5:34; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7|. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word "doctor" is Latin for "teacher." These "teachers of the law" are called elsewhere in the Gospels "scribes" (\grammateis\) as in Matthew and Mark (see on ¯Matthew:5:20; strkjv@23:34|) and strkjv@Luke:5:21; strkjv@19:47; strkjv@21:1; strkjv@22:2|. Luke also employs \nomikos\ (one skilled in the law, \nomos\) as in strkjv@10:25|. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see on ¯Matthew:3:7,20|. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the "Pharisees" were "teachers of the law" so that both terms often occur together as in verse 21| where Luke has separate articles (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in strkjv@Matthew:5:20| or no article as here in verse 17|. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law "which were come" (\hoi san elluthotes\, periphrastic past perfect active, {had come}). {Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem} (\ek pass kms ts Galilaias kai Ioudaias kai Ierousalm\). Edersheim (_Jewish Social Life_) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use "every village." But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that strkjv@John:4:1-4| shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:23|. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life. {The power of the Lord was with him to heal} (\dunamis Kuriou n eis to isthai auton\). Songs:the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: "Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus)." Here \Kuriou\ refers to Jehovah. {Dunamis} (dynamite) is one of the common words for "miracles" (\dunameis\). What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion.

rwp@Luke:5:30 @{The Pharisees and their scribes} (\hoi Pharisaioi kai hoi grammateis autn\). Note article with each substantive and the order, not "scribes and Pharisees," but "the Pharisees and the scribes of them" (the Pharisees). Some manuscripts omit "their," but strkjv@Mark:2:16| (the scribes of the Pharisees) shows that it is correct here. Some of the scribes were Sadducees. It is only the Pharisees who find fault here. {Murmured} (\egogguzon\). Imperfect active. Picturesque onomatopoetic word that sounds like its meaning. A late word used of the cooing of doves. It is like the buzzing of bees, like \tonthorruz\ of literary Greek. They were not invited to this feast and would not have come if they had been. But, not being invited, they hang on the outside and criticize the disciples of Jesus for being there. The crowd was so large that the feast may have been served out in the open court at Levi's house, a sort of reclining garden party. {The publicans and sinners} (\tn telnn kai hamartln\). Here Luke is quoting the criticism of the critics. Note one article making one group of all of them.

rwp@Luke:5:32 @{To repentance} (\eis metanoian\). Alone in Luke not genuine in strkjv@Mark:2:17; strkjv@Matthew:9:12|. Only sinners would need a call to repentance, a change of mind and life. For the moment Jesus accepts the Pharisaic division between "righteous" and "sinners" to score them and to answer their criticism. At the other times he will show that they only pretend to be "righteous" and are "hypocrites" in reality. But Jesus has here blazed the path for all soul-winners. The self-satisfied are the hard ones to win and they often resent efforts to win them to Christ.

rwp@Luke:6:7 @{The scribes and the Pharisees} (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\). Only Luke here though Pharisees named in strkjv@Matthew:12:14| and Pharisees and Herodians in strkjv@Mark:3:6|. {Watched him} (\paretrounto auton\). Imperfect middle, were watching for themselves on the side (\para\). strkjv@Mark:3:2| has the imperfect active \paretroun\. Common verb, but the proposition \para\ gave an extra touch, watching either assiduously like the physician at the bedside or insidiously with evil intent as here. {Would heal} (\therapeusei\). But the present active indicative (\therapeuei\) may be the correct text here. Songs:Westcott and Hort. {That they might find out how to accuse him} (\hina heursin katgorein autou\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \heurisk\ and the infinitive with it means to find out how to do a thing. They were determined to make a case against Jesus. They felt sure that their presence would prevent any spurious work on the part of Jesus.

rwp@Luke:6:11 @{They were filled with madness} (\eplsthsan anoias\) First aorist passive (effective) with genitive: In strkjv@5:26| we saw the people filled with fear. Here is rage that is kin to insanity, for \anoias\ is lack of sense (\a\ privative and \nous\, mind). An old word, but only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:9| in the N.T. {Communed} (\dielaloun\), imperfect active, picturing their excited counsellings with one another. strkjv@Mark:3:6| notes that they bolted out of the synagogue and outside plotted even with the Herodians how to destroy Jesus, strange co-conspirators these against the common enemy. {What they might do to Jesus} (\ti an poisaien Isou\). Luke puts it in a less damaging way than strkjv@Mark:3:6; strkjv@Matthew:12:14|. This aorist optative with \an\ is the deliberative question like that in strkjv@Acts:17:18| retained in the indirect form here. Perhaps Luke means, not that they were undecided about killing Jesus, but only as to the best way of doing it. Already nearly two years before the end we see the set determination to destroy Jesus. We see it here in Galilee. We have already seen it at the feast in Jerusalem (John:5:18|) where "the Jews sought the more to kill him." John and the Synoptics are in perfect agreement as to the Pharisaic attitude toward Jesus.

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@Matthew:12:2 @{Thy disciples do} (\hoi mathtai sou poiousin\). These critics are now watching a chance and they jump at this violation of their Pharisaic rules for Sabbath observance. The disciples were plucking the heads of wheat which to the Pharisees was reaping and were rubbing them in their hands (Luke:6:1|) which was threshing.

rwp@Matthew:12:9 @{Lord of the Sabbath} (\kurios tou sabbatou\). This claim that he as the Son of Man is master of the Sabbath and so above the Pharisaic regulations angered them extremely. By the phrase "the Son of man" here Jesus involves the claim of Messiahship, but as the Representative Man he affirms his solidarity with mankind, "standing for the human interest" (Bruce) on this subject.

rwp@Matthew:12:23 @{Is this the Son of David?} (\mti houtos estin ho huios Daueid?\). The form of the question expects the answer "no," but they put it so because of the Pharisaic hostility towards Jesus. The multitudes "were amazed" or "stood out of themselves" (\existanto\), imperfect tense, vividly portraying the situation. They were almost beside themselves with excitement.

rwp@Matthew:12:24 @{The Pharisees} (\hoi de Pharisaioi\). Already (Matthew:9:32-34|) we have had in Matthew the charge that Jesus is in league with the prince of demons, though the incident may be later than this one. See on ¯10:25| about "Beelzebub." The Pharisees feel that the excited condition of the crowds and the manifest disposition to believe that Jesus is the Messiah (the Son of David) demand strenuous action on their part. They cannot deny the fact of the miracles for the blind and dumb men both saw and spoke (12:22|). Songs:in desperation they suggest that Jesus works by the power of Beelzebub the prince of the demons.

rwp@Matthew:14:22 @{Constrained} (\nagkasen\). Literally, "compelled" or "forced." See this word also in strkjv@Luke:14:23|. The explanation for this strong word in strkjv@Mark:6:45| and strkjv@Matthew:14:22| is given in strkjv@John:6:15|. It is the excited purpose of the crowd to take Jesus by force and to make him national king. This would be political revolution and would defeat all the plans of Jesus about his kingdom. Things have reached a climax. The disciples were evidently swept off their feet by the mob psychology for they still shared the Pharisaic hope of a political kingdom. With the disciples out of the way Jesus could handle the crowd more easily, {till he should send the multitudes away} (\hes hou apolusi tous ochlous\). The use of the aorist subjunctive with \hes\ or \hes hou\ is a neat and common Greek idiom where the purpose is not yet realized. Songs:in strkjv@18:30; strkjv@26:36|. "While" sometimes renders it well. The subjunctive is retained after a past tense instead of the change to the optative of the ancient Attic. The optative is very rare anyhow, but Luke uses it with \prin \ in strkjv@Acts:25:16|.

rwp@Matthew:15:16 @{Are ye also even yet without understanding?} (\Akmn kai hmeis asunetoi este\). \Akmn\ is an adverbial accusative (classic \aichm\, point (of a weapon)=\akmn chronou\ at this point of time, just now=\eti\. It occurs in papyri and inscriptions, though condemned by the old grammarians. "In spite of all my teaching, are ye also like the Pharisees without spiritual insight and grasp?" One must never forget that the disciples lived in a Pharisaic environment. Their religious world-outlook was Pharisaic. They were lacking in spiritual intelligence or sense, "totally ignorant" (Moffatt).

rwp@Matthew:16:1 @{The Pharisees and Sadducees} (\hoi Pharisaioi kai Saddoukaioi\). The first time that we have this combination of the two parties who disliked each other exceedingly. Hate makes strange bedfellows. They hated Jesus more than they did each other. Their hostility has not decreased during the absence of Jesus, but rather increased. {Tempting him} (\peirazontes\). Their motive was bad. {A sign from heaven} (\smeion ek tou ouranou\). The scribes and Pharisees had already asked for a sign (12:38|). Now this new combination adds "from heaven." What did they have in mind? They may not have had any definite idea to embarrass Jesus. The Jewish apocalypses did speak of spectacular displays of power by the Son of Man (the Messiah). The devil had suggested that Jesus let the people see him drop down from the pinnacle of the temple and the people expected the Messiah to come from an unknown source (John:7:27|) who would do great signs (John:7:31|). Chrysostom (_Hom_. liii.) suggests stopping the course of the sun, bridling the moon, a clap of thunder.

rwp@Romans:7:24 @{O wretched man that I am} (\talaipros eg anthrpos\). "Wretched man I." Old adjective from \tla\, to bear, and \pros\, a callus. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:3:17|. "A heart-rending cry from the depths of despair" (Sanday and Headlam). {Out of the body of this death} (\ek tou smatos tou thanatou toutou\). Songs:the order of words demands. See verse 13| for "death" which finds a lodgment in the body (Lightfoot). If one feels that Paul has exaggerated his own condition, he has only to recall strkjv@1Timothy:1:15| when he describes himself a chief of sinners. He dealt too honestly with himself for Pharisaic complacency to live long.

rwp@Romans:8:39 @{To separate us} (\hms chrisai\). Aorist active infinitive of \choriz\ (same verb as in 35|). God's love is victor over all possible foes, "God's love that is in Christ Jesus." Paul has reached the mountain top. He has really completed his great argument concerning the God-kind of righteousness save for its bearing on some special problems. The first of these concerns the fact that the Jews (God's chosen people) have so largely rejected the gospel (chapters 9-11|).