Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp sly:


rwp@1Corinthians:12:28 @{God hath set some} (\hous men etheto ho theos\). See verse 18| for \etheto ho theos\. Note middle voice (for his own use). Paul begins as if he means to say \hous men apostolous, hous de prophˆtas\ (some apostles, some prophets), but he changes the construction and has no \hous de\, but instead \pr“ton, deuteron, epeita\ (first, second, then, etc.). {In the church} (\en tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\). The general sense of \ekklˆsia\ as in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| and later in strkjv@Colossians:1:18,24; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23,32; strkjv@Hebrews:12:23|. See list also in strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|. See on ¯Matthew:10:2| for \apostolous\, the official title given the twelve by Jesus, and claimed by Paul though not one of the twelve. {Prophets} (\prophˆtas\). For-speakers for God and Christ. See the list of prophets and teachers in strkjv@Acts:13:1| with Barnabas first and Saul last. Prophets are needed today if men will let God's Spirit use them, men moved to utter the deep things of God. {Teachers} (\didaskalous\). Old word from \didask“\, to teach. Used to the Baptist (Luke:3:12|), to Jesus (John:3:10; strkjv@13:13|), and of Paul by himself along with \apostolos\ (1Timothy:2:7|). It is a calamity when the preacher is no longer a teacher, but only an exhorter. See strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|. {Then miracles} (\epeita dunameis\). Here a change is made from the concrete to the abstract. See the reverse in strkjv@Romans:12:7|. See these words (\dunameis, iamˆt“n, gl“ss“n\) in verses 9,10| with \gl“ss“n\, last again. But these two new terms (helps, governments). {Helps} (\antilˆmpseis\). Old word, from \antilambanomai\, to lay hold of. In LXX, common in papyri, here only in N.T. Probably refers to the work of the deacons, help rendered to the poor and the sick. {Governments} (\kubernˆseis\). Old word from \kuberna“\ (cf. \Kubernˆtˆs\ in strkjv@Acts:27:11|) like Latin _gubernare_, our govern. Songs:a governing. Probably Paul has in mind bishops (\episcopoi\) or elders (\presbuteroi\), the outstanding leaders (\hoi proistamenoi\ in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12; strkjv@Romans:12:8|; \hoi hˆgoumenoi\ in strkjv@Acts:15:22; strkjv@Hebrews:13:7,17,24|). Curiously enough, these two offices (pastors and deacons) which are not named specifically are the two that survive today. See strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| for both officers.

rwp@2Timothy:2:26 @{They may recover themselves} (\ananˆps“sin\). First aorist active subjunctive of \ananˆph“\, late and rare word, to be sober again, only here in N.T., though \nˆph“\ is in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:6|. {Out of the snare of the devil} (\ek tˆs tou diabolou pagidos\). They have been caught while mentally intoxicated in the devil's snare (1Timothy:3:7|). See strkjv@Romans:11:9| for \pagis\. {Taken captive} (\ez“grˆmenoi\). Perfect passive participle of \z“gre“\, old verb, to take alive (\z“os, agre“\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:5:10| (of Peter). "Taken captive alive." {By him unto his will} (\hup' autou eis to ekeinou thelˆma\). This difficult phrase is understood variously. One way is to take both \autou\ and \ekeinou\, to refer to the devil. Another way is to take both of them to refer to God. Another way is to take \autou\ of the devil and \ekeinou\, of God. This is probably best, "taken captive by the devil" "that they may come back to soberness to do the will of God." There are difficulties in either view.

rwp@2Timothy:3:6 @{That creep} (\hoi endunontes\). Old and common verb (also \endu“\) either to put on (1Thessalonians:5:8|) or to enter (to slip in by insinuation, as here). See same idea in strkjv@Jude:1:4| (\pareiseduˆsan\), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (\pareisaxousin\), strkjv@Galatians:2:4| (\pareisˆlthon\ and \pareisaktous\). These stealthy "creepers" are pictured also in strkjv@Titus:1:11|. {Take captive} (\aichmal“tizontes\). "Taking captive." Present active participle of \aichmal“tiz“\, for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:10:5; strkjv@Romans:7:23|. {Silly women} (\gunaikaria\). Literally, "little women" (diminutive of \gunˆ\), found in Diocles (comedian of 5 century B.C.) and in Epictetus. The word here is neuter (grammatical gender) plural. Used contemptuously here (only N.T. example). Ramsay suggests "society ladies." It is amazing how gullible some women are with religious charlatans who pose as exponents of "new thought." {Laden with sins} (\ses“reumena hamartiais\). Perfect passive participle of \s“reu“\, old word from Aristotle down (from \s“ros\, a heap) to heap up. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:12:20|. Associative instrumental case \hamartiais\. {Divers} (\poikilais\). Many coloured. See strkjv@Titus:3:3|. One has only to recall Schweinfurth, the false Messiah of forty odd years ago with his "heavenly harem" in Illinois and the recent infamous "House of David" in Michigan to understand how these Gnostic cults led women into licentiousness under the guise of religion or of liberty. The priestesses of Aphrodite and of Isis were illustrations ready to hand. \Agomena\ (present passive participle) means "continually led astray or from time to time."

rwp@2Timothy:4:13 @{The cloke} (\tˆn phelonˆn\). More common form \pheilonˆ\. By metathesis for \phainolˆ\, Latin _paenula_, though which language transliterated the word into the other is not known. The meaning is also uncertain, though probably "cloke" as there are so many papyri examples in that sense (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). Milligan (N.T. _Documents_, p. 20) had previously urged "book wrap" as probable but he changed his mind and rightly so. {With Carpus} (\para Karp“i\). "Beside Carpus," at his house. Not mentioned elsewhere. Probably a visit to Troas after Paul's return from Crete. {The books} (\ta biblia\). Probably papyrus rolls. One can only guess what rolls the old preacher longs to have with him, probably copies of Old Testament books, possibly copies of his own letters, and other books used and loved. The old preacher can be happy with his books. {Especially the parchments} (\malista tas membranas\). Latin _membrana_. The dressed skins were first made at Pergamum and so termed "parchments." These in particular would likely be copies of Old Testament books, parchment being more expensive than papyrus, possibly even copies of Christ's sayings (Luke:1:1-4|). We recall that in strkjv@Acts:26:24| Festus referred to Paul's learning (\ta grammata\). He would not waste his time in prison.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL ALSO The author of the Acts expressly states that he wrote "the first treatise (\ton pr“ton logon\) concerning all things, O Theophilus, that Jesus began both to do and to teach until which day he gave command through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen and was received up" (Acts:1:1f.|). There is no room for dispute that the reference is directly to the Gospel according to Luke as we have it now. Like the Gospel the book is dedicated to Theophilus. And, what is even more important, the same style appears in both Gospel and Acts. This fact Harnack has shown with great pains and conclusiveness. There is the same interest in medical matters and even Cadbury, who denies by implication the Lukan authorship, admits identity of authorship for both books.

rwp@Acts:4:4 @{Men} (\andr“n\). Strictly, men and not women, for \anthr“pos\ is the term for both men and women. But in strkjv@Luke:11:31| \andres\ seems to include both men and women and that is possible here, though by no means certain, for see strkjv@Matthew:14:21| where the women and children are expressly excepted.

rwp@Acts:4:32 @{Of one heart and soul} (\kardia kai psuchˆ mia\). It is not possible to make sharp distinction between heart and soul here (see strkjv@Mark:12:30|), only that there was harmony in thought and affection. But the English translation is curiously unlike the Greek original. "There was one heart and soul (nominative case, not genitive as the English has it) in the multitude (\tou plˆthous\, subjective genitive) of those who believed." {Not one of them} (\oude heis\). More emphatic than \oudeis\, "not even one." {Common} (\koina\). In the use of their property, not in the possession as Luke proceeds to explain. The word \koinos\ is kin to \sun\ (together with)=\xun\ (Epic) and so \xunos=koinos\. See this word already in strkjv@2:44|. The idea of unclean (Acts:10:15|) is a later development from the original notion of common to all.

rwp@Acts:6:14 @{We have heard him say} (\akˆkoamen autou legontos\). The only direct testimony and evidently wrong. Curiously like the charge brought against Jesus before Caiaphas that he would destroy the temple and build it again in three days. Undoubtedly Stephen had said something about Christianity before as meant for others besides Jews. He had caught the spirit of Jesus about worship as shown to the woman at Sychar in strkjv@John:4| that God is spirit and to be worshipped by men anywhere and everywhere without having to come to the temple in Jerusalem. It was inflammable material surely and it was easy to misrepresent and hard to clear up. {This Jesus of Nazareth} (\Iˆsous ho Naz“raios houtos\). With contempt.

rwp@Acts:7:57 @{Stopped their ears} (\suneschon ta “ta aut“n\). 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} (\h“rmˆsan 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 tˆs pole“s\). 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:8:9 @{Simon} (\Sim“n\). One of the common names (Josephus, _Ant_. XX. 7, 2) and a number of messianic pretenders had this name. A large number of traditions in the second and third centuries gathered round this man and Baur actually proposed that the Simon of the Clementine Homilies is really the apostle Paul though Paul triumphed over the powers of magic repeatedly (Acts:13:6-12; strkjv@19:11-19|), "a perfect absurdity" (Spitta, _Apostelgeschichte_, p. 149). One of the legends is that this Simon Magus of Acts is the father of heresy and went to Rome and was worshipped as a god (so Justin Martyr). But a stone found in the Tiber A.D. 1574 has an inscription to _Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum_ which is (Page) clearly to Hercules, Sancus being a Sabine name for Hercules. This Simon in Samaria is simply one of the many magicians of the time before the later gnosticism had gained a foothold. "In his person Christianity was for the first time confronted with superstition and religious imposture, of which the ancient world was at this period full" (Furneaux). {Which beforetime used sorcery} (\proupˆrchen mageu“n\). An ancient idiom (periphrastic), the present active participle \mageu“n\ with the imperfect active verb from \prouparch“\, the idiom only here and strkjv@Luke:23:12| in the N.T. Literally "Simon was existing previously practising magic." This old verb \mageu“\ is from \magos\ (a \magus\, seer, prophet, false prophet, sorcerer) and occurs here alone in the N.T. {Amazed} (existan“n). Present active participle of the verb \existan“\, later form of \existˆmi\, to throw out of position, displace, upset, astonish, chiefly in the Gospels in the N.T. Same construction as \mageu“n\. {Some great one} (\tina megan\). Predicate accusative of general reference (infinitive in indirect discourse). It is amazing how gullible people are in the presence of a manifest impostor like Simon. The Magi were the priestly order in the Median and Persian empires and were supposed to have been founded by Zoroaster. The word \magoi\ (magi) has a good sense in strkjv@Matthew:2:1|, but here and in strkjv@Acts:13:6| it has the bad sense like our "magic."

rwp@Acts:9:30 @{Knew it} (\epignontes\). Second aorist active participle of \epigin“sk“\, to know fully. The disciples saw it clearly, so they {conducted} (\katˆgagon\, effective second aorist active indicative of \katag“\). {Sent forth} (\exapesteilan\). Double compound (\ex\, out, \apo\, away or off). Sent him out and off {to Tarsus} (\eis Tarson\). Silence is preserved by Luke. But it takes little imagination to picture the scene at home when this brilliant young rabbi, the pride of Gamaliel, returns home a preacher of the despised Jesus of Nazareth whose disciples he had so relentlessly persecuted. What will father, mother, sister think of him now?

rwp@Acts:9:31 @{Songs:the church} (\Hˆ men oun ekklˆsia\). The singular \ekklˆsia\ is undoubtedly the true reading here (all the great documents have it so). By this time there were churches scattered over Judea, Galilee, and Samaria (Galatians:1:22|), but Luke either regards the disciples in Palestine as still members of the one great church in Jerusalem (instance already the work of Philip in Samaria and soon of Peter in Joppa and Caesarea) or he employs the term \ekklˆsia\ in a geographical or collective sense covering all of Palestine. The strictly local sense we have seen already in strkjv@8:1,3| (and strkjv@Matthew:18:17|) and the general spiritual sense in strkjv@Matthew:16:18|. But in strkjv@Acts:8:3| it is plain that the term is applied to the organization of Jerusalem Christians even when scattered in their homes. The use of \men oun\ (so) is Luke's common way of gathering up the connection. The obvious meaning is that the persecution ceased because the persecutor had been converted. The wolf no longer ravined the sheep. It is true also that the effort of Caligula A.D. 39 to set up his image in the temple in Jerusalem for the Jews to worship greatly excited the Jews and gave them troubles of their own (Josephus, _Ant_. XVIII. 8, 2-9). {Had peace} (\eichen eirˆnˆn\). Imperfect active. Kept on having peace, enjoying peace, because the persecution had ceased. Many of the disciples came back to Jerusalem and the apostles began to make preaching tours out from the city. This idiom (\ech“ eirˆnˆn\) occurs again in strkjv@Romans:5:1| (\eirˆnˆn ech“men\, present active subjunctive) where it has been grievously misunderstood. There it is an exhortation to keep on enjoying the peace with God already made, not to make peace with God which would be \eirˆnˆn sch“men\ (ingressive aorist subjunctive). {Edified} (\oikodomoumenˆ\). Present passive participle, linear action also. One result of the enjoyment of peace after the persecution was the continued edification (Latin word _aedificatio_ for building up a house), a favourite figure with Paul (1Corinthians:14; strkjv@Ephesians:3|) and scattered throughout the N.T., old Greek verb. In strkjv@1Peter:2:5| Peter speaks of "the spiritual house" throughout the five Roman provinces being "built up" (cf. strkjv@Matthew:16:18|). {In the comfort of the Holy Spirit} (\tˆi paraklˆsei tou hagiou pneumatos\). Either locative ({in}) or instrumental case ({by}). The Holy Spirit had been promised by Jesus as "another Paraclete" and now this is shown to be true. The only instance in Acts of the use of \paraklˆsis\ with the Holy Spirit. The word, of course, means calling to one's side (\parakale“\) either for advice or for consolation. {Was multiplied} (\eplˆthuneto\). Imperfect middle passive. The multiplication of the disciples kept pace with the peace, the edification, the walking in the fear of the Lord, the comfort of the Holy Spirit. The blood of the martyrs was already becoming the seed of the church. Stephen had not borne his witness in vain.

rwp@Acts:10:29 @{Without gainsaying} (\anantirrhˆt“s\). \A\ privative with compound adverb from \anti\ (back, in return, against) and verbal \rhˆtos\ (from \errhˆthˆn\, to speak). Late and rare and here only in the N.T., but the adjective in strkjv@19:36|. Without answering back. That is true after the Holy Spirit expressly told Peter to go with the messengers of Cornelius (10:19-23|). Peter's objections were made to the Lord in the vision which he did not understand. But that vision prepared him for this great step which he had now taken. He had stepped over the line of Jewish custom. {With what intent} (\tini log“i\). More exactly, "for what reason" as in Plato, _Gorgias_ 512 C.

rwp@Acts:12:1 @{About that time} (\kat' ekeinon ton kairon\). Same phrase in strkjv@Romans:9:9|. That is, the early part of A.D. 44 since that is the date of Herod's death. As already suggested, Barnabas and Saul came down from Antioch to Jerusalem after the persecution by Herod at the end of 44 or the beginning of 45. {Herod the king} (\Hˆr“idˆs ho basileus\). Accurate title at this particular time. Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, was King of Palestine A.D. 42 to 44; only for these three years was a Herod king over Palestine since the death of Herod the Great and never afterwards. Archelaus never actually became king though he had the popular title at first (Matthew:2:22|). {Put forth his hands} (\epebalen tas cheiras\). Second aorist active indicative of \epiball“\, old verb, to cast upon or against. The same idiom with \tas cheiras\ (the hands, common Greek idiom with article rather than possessive pronoun) in strkjv@4:3; strkjv@5:18|. {To afflict} (\kak“sai\). First aorist active infinitive of \kako“\, old word to do harm or evil to (\kakos\), already in strkjv@7:6,19|. Outside of Acts in the N.T. only strkjv@1Peter:5:13|. Infinitive of purpose. Probably the first who were afflicted were scourged or imprisoned, not put to death. It had been eight years or more since the persecution over the death of Stephen ceased with the conversion of Saul. But the disciples were not popular in Jerusalem with either Sadducees or Pharisees. The overtures to the Gentiles in Caesarea and Antioch may have stirred up the Pharisees afresh (cf. strkjv@6:14|). Herod Agrippa I was an Idumean through his grandfather Herod the Great and a grandson of Mariamne the Maccabean princess. He was a favourite of Caligula the Roman Emperor and was anxious to placate his Jewish subjects while retaining the favour of the Romans. Songs:he built theatres and held games for the Romans and Greeks and slew the Christians to please the Jews. Josephus (_Ant_. XIX. 7, 3) calls him a pleasant vain man scrupulously observing Jewish rites. Here we have for the first time political power (after Pilate) used against the disciples.

rwp@Acts:12:5 @{Therefore} (\men oun\). Because of the preceding situation. {Was kept} (\etˆreito\). Imperfect passive, continuously guarded, waiting for the feast to be over. {But prayer was made earnestly} (\proseuchˆ de ˆn ekten“s ginomenˆ\). Probably \de\ here is not adversative (but), merely parallel (and) as Page argues. It was a crisis for the Jerusalem church. James had been slain and Peter was to be the next victim. Hence "earnestly" (late adverb from \ektenˆs\, strained, from \ektein“\, to stretch. In the N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:22:44; strkjv@1Peter:1:22|) prayer was {going up} (\ginomenˆ\, present middle participle, periphrastic imperfect with \ˆn\). It looked like a desperate case for Peter. Hence the disciples prayed the more earnestly.

rwp@Acts:14:23 @{And when they had appointed for them elders in every church} (\cheirotonˆsantes de autois kat' ekklˆsian presbuterous\). They needed also some form of organization, though already churches. Note distributive use of \kata\ with \ekklˆsian\ (2:46; strkjv@5:42; strkjv@Titus:1:5|). \Cheirotone“\ (from \cheirotonos\, extending the hand, \cheir\, hand, and \tein“\, to stretch) is an old verb that originally meant to vote by show of the hands, finally to appoint with the approval of an assembly that chooses as in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:19|, and then to appoint without regard to choice as in Josephus (_Ant_. XIII. 2, 2) of the appointment of Jonathan as high priest by Alexander. Songs:in strkjv@Acts:10:41| the compound \procheiratone“\ is used of witnesses appointed by God. But the seven (deacons) were first selected by the Jerusalem church and then appointed (\katastˆsomen\) by the apostles. That is probably the plan contemplated by Paul in his directions to Titus (Titus:1:5|) about the choice of elders. It is most likely that this plan was the one pursued by Paul and Barnabas with these churches. They selected the elders in each instance and Paul and Barnabas "ordained" them as we say, though the word \cheirotone“\ does not mean that. "Elders" were mentioned first in strkjv@11:30|. Later Paul will give the requirements expected in these "elders" or "bishops" (Phillipians:1:1|) as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:1-7; strkjv@Titus:1:5-9|. It is fairly certain that these elders were chosen to correspond in a general way with the elders in the Jewish synagogue after which the local church was largely copied as to organization and worship. Paul, like Jesus, constantly worshipped and spoke in the synagogues. Already it is plain, as at Antioch in Syria (11:26|), that the Christians can no longer count on the use of the Jewish synagogue. They must have an organization of their own. The use of the plural here implies what was true at Philippi (Phillipians:1:1|) and Ephesus (Acts:20:17,28|) that each church (one in each city) "had its college of elders" (Hackett) as in Jerusalem (21:18|). Elder (\presbuteros\) was the Jewish name and bishop (\episkopos\) the Greek name for the same office. "Those who are called elders in speaking of Jewish communities are called bishops in speaking of Gentile communities" (Hackett). Hovey rightly holds against Hackett that teaching was a normal function of these elders, pastors or bishops as they were variously called (1Timothy:3:2; strkjv@Titus:1:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28,30; strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|). {Had prayed with fasting} (\proseuxamenoi meta nˆstei“n\). It was a serious matter, this formal setting apart of these "elders" in the churches. Songs:it was done in a public meeting with prayer and fasting as when Paul and Barnabas were sent forth from Antioch in Syria (13:3|) on this mission tour. {They commended them to the Lord} (\parethento autous t“i kuri“i\). Second aorist middle indicative of \paratithˆmi\. Old and solemn word, to entrust, to deposit as in a bank (1Timothy:1:18; strkjv@2Timothy:2:2|). Cf. \parathˆkˆ\ in strkjv@1Timothy:6:20; strkjv@2Timothy:1:12,14|. It was all that they could now do, to commit them to the Lord Jesus. Jesus used this word on the cross (Luke:22:32|). {On whom they had believed} (\eis hon pepisteukeisan\). Past perfect indicative (without augment) of \pisteu“\. They had "trusted" in Jesus (2Timothy:1:12|) and Paul now "entrusts" them to him with confidence. It was a solemn and serious occasion in each instance as it always is to set apart men for the ministry. These men may not have been ideal men for this service, but they were the only ones available and they were chosen from the actual membership in each instance, men who knew local conditions and problems.

rwp@Acts:16:18 @{She did} (\epoiei\). Imperfect active, kept it up for many days. The strange conduct gave Paul and the rest an unpleasant prominence in the community. {Being sore troubled} (\diaponˆtheis\). First aorist passive of \diapone“\, old verb, to work laboriously, then in passive to be "worked up," displeased, worn out. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@4:2| which see (there of the Sadducees about Peter's preaching). Paul was grieved, annoyed, indignant. He wanted no testimony from a source like this any more than he did the homage of the people of Lystra (14:14|). {That very hour} (\autˆi tˆi h“rƒi\). Locative case of time and familiar Lukan idiom in his Gospel, "at the hour itself." The cure was instantaneous. Paul, like Jesus, distinguished between the demon and the individual.

rwp@Acts:17:17 @{Songs:he reasoned} (\dielegeto men oun\). Accordingly therefore, with his spirit stirred by the proof of idolatry. Imperfect middle of \dialeg“\, same verb used in verse 2| which see. First he reasoned in the synagogue at the services to the Jews and the God-fearers, then daily in the agora or marketplace (southwest of the Acropolis, between it and the Areopagus and the Pnyx) to the chance-comers, "them that met him" (\pros tous paratugchanontas\). Simultaneously with the synagogue preaching at other hours Paul took his stand like Socrates before him and engaged in conversation with (\pros\) those who happened by. This old verb, \paratugchan“\, occurs here alone in the N.T. and accurately pictures the life in the agora. The listeners to Paul in the agora would be more casual than those who stop for street preaching, a Salvation Army meeting, a harangue from a box in Hyde Park. It was a slim chance either in synagogue or in agora, but Paul could not remain still with all the reeking idolatry around him. The boundaries of the agora varied, but there was always the \Poikilˆ Stoa\ (the Painted Porch), over against the Acropolis on the west. In this \Stoa\ (Porch) Zeno and other philosophers and rhetoricians held forth from time to time. Paul may have stood near this spot.

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai t“n Epikouri“n kai St“ik“n philosoph“n suneballon aut“i\). 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 (\Gn“thi 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} (\zen“n daimoni“n 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 S“kratˆs, kaina daimonia eispher“n\, 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 Iˆsoun kai tˆn anastasin euˆggelizato\). 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:4:17 @{They zealously seek you} (\zˆlousin humas\). \Zˆlo“\ is an old and a good word from \zˆlos\ (zeal, jealousy), but one can pay court with good motives or evil. Songs:here in contrast with Paul's plain speech the Judaizers bring their fawning flattery. {To shut you out} (\ekkleisai humas\). From Christ as he will show (5:4|). {That ye may seek them} (\hina autous zˆloute\). Probably present active indicative with \hina\ as in \phusiousthe\ (1Corinthians:4:6|) and \gin“skomen\ (1John:5:20|). The contraction \-oˆte\ would be \-“te\, not \-oute\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 325).

rwp@Galatians:4:18 @{To be zealously sought in a good matter} (\zˆlousthai en kal“i\). Present passive infinitive. It is only in an evil matter that it is bad as here (\ou kalos\). {When I am present} (\en t“i pareinai me\). "In the being present as to me."

rwp@Hebrews:7:23 @{Many in number} (\pleiones\). Comparative predicate adjective, "more than one," in succession, not simultaneously. {Because they are hindered} (\dia to k“luesthai\). Articular infinitive (present passive) with \dia\ and the accusative case, "because of the being hindered." {By death} (\thanat“i\). Instrumental case. {From continuing} (\paramenein\). Present active infinitive of the compound (remain beside) as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:25| and in the ablative case.

rwp@Hebrews:8:1 @{In the things which we are saying} (\epi tois legomenois\). Locative case of the articular present passive participle of \leg“\ after \epi\ as in strkjv@Luke:5:5; strkjv@Hebrews:11:4|, "in the matter of the things being discussed." {The chief point} (\kephalaion\). Neuter singular of the adjective \kephalaios\ (from \kephalˆ\, head), belonging to the head. Vulgate _capitulum_, nominative absolute in old and common sense, the main matter (even so without the article as in Thucydides), "the pith" (Coverdale), common in the papyri as in Greek literature. The word also occurs in the sense of the sum total or a sum of money (Acts:22:28|) as in Plutarch, Josephus, and also in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). {Such an high priest} (\toiouton archierea\). As the one described in chapters strkjv@4:16-7:28| and in particular strkjv@7:26| (\toioutos\) strkjv@7:27,28|. But the discussion of the priestly work of Jesus continues through strkjv@12:3|. \Toioutos\ is both retrospective and prospective. Here we have a summary of the five points of superiority of Jesus as high priest (8:1-6|). He is himself a better priest than Aaron (\toioutos\ in strkjv@8:1| such as shown in strkjv@4:16-7:28|); he works in a better sanctuary (8:2,5|); he offers a better sacrifice (8:3f.|); he is mediator of a better covenant (8:6|); his work rests on better promises (8:6|); hence he has obtained a better ministry as a whole (8:6|). In this resum‚ (\kephelaion\) the author gives the pith (\kephalaion\) of his argument, curiously enough with both senses of \kephalaion\ (pith, summary) pertinent. He will discuss the four points remaining thus: (1) the better covenant, strkjv@8:7-13|. (2) The better sanctuary, strkjv@9:1-12|. (3) The better sacrifice, strkjv@9:13-10:18|. (4) The better promises, strkjv@10:19-12:3|. One point (the better high priest, like Melchizedek) has already been discussed (4:16-7:28|). {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). Repetition of strkjv@1:3| with \tou thronou\ (the throne) added. This phrase prepares the way for the next point.

rwp@Hebrews:12:24 @{To Jesus} (\Iˆsou\). This great fact is not to be overlooked (Phillipians:2:10f.|). He is there as Lord and Saviour and still "Jesus." {The mediator of a new covenant} (\diathˆkˆs neas mesitˆi\). As already shown (7:22; strkjv@8:6,8,9,10; strkjv@9:15|) and now gloriously consummated. {To the blood of sprinkling} (\haimati rantismou\). As in strkjv@9:19-28|. {Than Abel} (\para ton Abel\). Accusative as in strkjv@1:4|. {Better} (\kreitton\). Comparative of \kalos\. Abel's blood still speaks (11:4|), but it is as nothing compared to that of Jesus.

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

rwp@James:3:5 @{A little member} (\mikron melos\). \Melos\ is old and common word for members of the human body (1Corinthians:12:12, etc.; strkjv@Romans:6:13|, etc.). {Boasteth great things} (\megala auchei\). Present active indicative of \auche“\, old verb, here only in N.T. The best MSS. here separate \megala\ from \auche“\, though \megalauche“\ does occur in Aeschylus, Plato, etc. \Megala\ is in contrast with \mikron\. {How much--how small} (\hˆlikon--hˆlikˆn\). The same relative form for two indirect questions together, "What-sized fire kindles what-sized forest?" For double interrogatives see strkjv@Mark:15:24|. The verb \anaptei\ is present active indicative of \anapt“\, to set fire to, to kindle (Luke:12:49|, only other N.T. example except some MSS. in strkjv@Acts:28:2|). \Hulˆn\ is accusative case, object of \anaptei\, and occurs here only in N.T., though old word for forest, wood. Forest fires were common in ancient times as now, and were usually caused by small sparks carelessly thrown.

rwp@James:4:2 @{Ye lust} (\epithumeite\). Present active indicative of \epithume“\, old word (from \epi, thumos\, yearning passion for), not necessarily evil as clearly not in strkjv@Luke:22:15| of Christ, but usually so in the N.T., as here. Coveting what a man or nation does not have is the cause of war according to James. {Ye kill and covet} (\phoneuete kai zˆloute\). Present active indicatives of \phoneu“\ (old verb from \phoneus\, murderer) and \zˆlo“\, to desire hotly to possess (1Corinthians:12:31|). It is possible (perhaps probable) that a full stop should come after \phoneuete\ (ye kill) as the result of lusting and not having. Then we have the second situation: "Ye covet and cannot obtain (\epituchein\, second aorist active infinitive of \epitugchan“\), and (as a result) ye fight and war." This punctuation makes better sense than any other and is in harmony with verse 1|. Thus also the anticlimax in \phoneuete\ and \zˆloute\ is avoided. Mayor makes the words a hendiadys, "ye murderously envy." {Ye have not, because ye ask not} (\ouk echete dia to mˆ aiteisthai humas\). James refers again to \ouk echete\ (ye do not have) in verse 2|. Such sinful lusting will not obtain. "Make the service of God your supreme end, and then your desires will be such as God can fulfil in answer to your prayer" (Ropes). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:6:31-33|. The reason here is expressed by \dia\ and the accusative of the articular present middle infinitive of \aite“\, used here of prayer to God as in strkjv@Matthew:7:7f|. \Humƒs\ (you) is the accusative of general reference. Note the middle voice here as in \aiteisthe\ in 3|. Mayor argues that the middle here, in contrast with the active, carries more the spirit of prayer, but Moulton (_Prol_., p. 160) regards the distinction between \aite“\ and \aiteomai\ often "an extinct subtlety."

rwp@James:4:5 @{The Scripture} (\hˆ graphˆ\). Personification as in strkjv@Galatians:3:8; strkjv@James:2:23|. But no O.T. passage is precisely like this, though it is "a poetical rendering" (Ropes) of strkjv@Exodus:20:5|. The general thought occurs also in strkjv@Genesis:6:3-5; strkjv@Isaiah:63:8-16|, etc. Paul has the same idea also (Galatians:5:17,21; strkjv@Romans:8:6,8|). It is possible that the reference is really to the quotation in verse 6| from strkjv@Proverbs:3:34| and treating all before as a parenthesis. There is no way to decide positively. {In vain} (\ken“s\). Old adverb (Aristotle) from \ken“s\ (2:20|), here alone in N.T. "Emptily," not meaning what it says. {Made to dwell} (\kat“ikisen\). First aorist active of \katoikiz“\, old verb, to give a dwelling to, only here in N.T. {Long unto envying} (\pros phthonon epipothei\). A difficult phrase. Some even take \pros phthonon\ with \legei\ rather than with \epipothei\, as it naturally does go, meaning "jealously." But even so, with God presented as a jealous lover, does \to pneuma\ refer to the Holy Spirit as the subject of \epipothei\ or to man's spirit as the object of \epipothei\? Probably the former and \epipothei\ then means to yearn after in the good sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:8|.

rwp@John:4:40 @{Two days} (\duo hˆmeras\). Accusative of extent of time. They wanted to cultivate the acquaintance of Jesus. Songs:he remained in Sychar in a continuous revival, a most unexpected experience when one recalls the feeling between the Jews and the Samaritans (4:9|). The reaping went on gloriously.

rwp@John:5:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). John is fond of this vague phrase (3:22; strkjv@6:1|). He does not mean that this incident follows immediately. He is supplementing the Synoptic Gospels and does not attempt a full story of the work of Jesus. Some scholars needlessly put chapter 5 after chapter 6 because in chapter 6 Jesus is in Galilee as at the end of chapter 4. But surely it is not incongruous to think of Jesus making a visit to Jerusalem before the events in chapter 6 which undoubtedly come within a year of the end (6:4|). {A feast of the Jews} (\heortˆ t“n Ioudai“n\). Some manuscripts have the article (\hˆ\) "the feast" which would naturally mean the passover. As a matter of fact there is no way of telling what feast it was which Jesus here attended. Even if it was not the passover, there may well be another passover not mentioned besides the three named by John (2:13,23; strkjv@6:4: strkjv@12:1|). {Went up} (\anebˆ\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain“\. It was up towards Jerusalem from every direction save from Hebron.

rwp@John:6:10 @{Sit down} (\anapesein\). Literally, "fall back," lie down, recline. Second aorist active infinitive of \anapipt“\. {Much grass} (\chortos polus\). Old word for pasture, green grass (Mark:6:39|) or hay (1Corinthians:3:12|). It was spring (John:6:4|) and plenty of green grass on the hillside. {The men} (\hoi andres\). Word for men as distinct from women, expressly stated in strkjv@Matthew:14:21|. {In number} (\ton arithmon\). Adverbial accusative (of general reference). {About} (\hos\). General estimate, though they were arranged in orderly groups by hundreds and fifties, "in ranks" like "garden beds" (\prasiai\, strkjv@Mark:6:40|).

rwp@John:6:25 @{When they found him} (\heurontes auton\). Second aorist active participle of \heurisk“\. Found him after search and in the synagogue as John explains (verse 59|) in Capernaum, perhaps that very synagogue built by a centurion (Luke:7:5|). {Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). See on ¯1:38| for this courteous title. {When camest thou hither?} (\pote h“de gegonas;\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. "When hast thou come?" We sought you anxiously on the other side of the lake and could not see how you came across (verses 22-24|).

rwp@John:6:54 @{He that eateth} (\ho tr“g“n\). Present active participle for continual or habitual eating like \pisteuete\ in verse 29|. The verb \tr“g“\ is an old one for eating fruit or vegetables and the feeding of animals. In the N.T. it occurs only in strkjv@John:6:54,56,58; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@Matthew:24:38|. Elsewhere in the Gospels always \esthi“\ or \ephagon\ (defective verb with \esthi“\). No distinction is made here between \ephagon\ (48,50,52,53,58|) and \tr“g“\ (54,56,57,58|). Some men understand Jesus here to be speaking of the Lord's Supper by prophetic forecast or rather they think that John has put into the mouth of Jesus the sacramental conception of Christianity by making participation in the bread and wine the means of securing eternal life. To me that is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ. It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus which these Jews also misunderstood. Christ uses bold imagery to picture spiritual appropriation of himself who is to give his life-blood for the life of the world (51|). It would have been hopeless confusion for these Jews if Jesus had used the symbolism of the Lord's Supper. It would be real dishonesty for John to use this discourse as a propaganda for sacramentalism. The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as he unfolds himself as the true manna.

rwp@John:7:19 @{And yet} (\kai\). Clear use of \kai\ in the adversative sense of "and yet" or "but." They marvelled at Christ's "ignorance" and boasted of their own knowledge of the law of Moses. And yet they violated that law by not practising it. {Why seek ye to kill me?} (\Ti me zˆteite apokteinai;\). A sudden and startling question as an illustration of their failure to do the law of Moses. Jesus had previously known (5:39,45-47|) that the Jews really rejected the teaching of Moses while professing to believe it. On that very occasion they had sought to kill him (5:18|), the very language used here. Apparently he had not been to Jerusalem since then. He undoubtedly alludes to their conduct then and charges them with the same purpose now.

rwp@John:12:4 @{Judas Iscariot} (\Ioudas ho Iskari“tˆs\). See \ho Iskari“tˆs\ in strkjv@14:22|. See strkjv@6:71; strkjv@13:1| for like description of Judas save that in strkjv@6:71| the father's name is given in the genitive, \Sim“nos\ and \Iskari“tou\ (agreeing with the father), but in strkjv@13:1| \Iskari“tˆs\ agrees with \Ioudas\, not with \Sim“nos\. Clearly then both father and son were called "Iscariot" or man of Kerioth in the tribe of Judah (Joshua:15:25|). Judas is the only one of the twelve not a Galilean. {One of his disciples} (\heis t“n mathˆt“n autou\). Likewise in strkjv@6:71|, only there \ek\ is used after \heis\ as some MSS. have here. This is the shameful fact that clung to the name of Judas. {Which should betray him} (\ho mell“n auton paradidonai\). John does not say in strkjv@6:71| (\emellen paradidonai auton\) or here that Judas "was predestined to betray Jesus" as Bernard suggests. He had his own responsibility for his guilt as Jesus said (Matthew:26:24|). \Mell“\ here simply points to the act as future, not as necessary. Note the contrast between Mary and Judas. "Mary in her devotion unconsciously provides for the honour of the dead. Judas in his selfishness unconsciously brings about the death itself" (Westcott).

rwp@John:12:8 @{Ye have always} (\pantote echete\). Jesus does not discredit gifts to the poor at all. But there is relativity in one's duties. {But me ye have not always} (\eme de ou pantote echete\). This is what Mary perceived with her delicate woman's intuition and what the apostles failed to understand though repeatedly and plainly told by Jesus. John does not mention the precious promise of praise for Mary preserved in strkjv@Mark:14:9; strkjv@Matthew:26:13|, but he does show her keen sympathetic insight and Christ's genuine appreciation of her noble deed. It is curiously \mal-a-propos\ surely to put alongside this incident the other incident told long before by Luke (Luke:7:35ff.|) of the sinful woman. Let Mary alone in her glorious act of love.

rwp@John:12:21 @{To Philip which was of Bethsaida of Galilee} (\Philipp“i t“i apo Bˆthsaida tˆs Galilaias\). He had a Greek name and the Greeks may have seen Philip in Galilee where there were many Greeks, probably (Mark:6:45|) the Western Bethsaida in Galilee, not Bethsaida Julias on the Eastern side (Luke:9:10|). {Asked} (\ˆr“t“n\). Imperfect active, probably inchoative, "began to ask," in contrast with the aorist tense just before (\prosˆlthan\, came to). {Sir} (\Kurie\). Most respectfully and courteously. {We would see Jesus} (\thelomen ton Iˆsoun idein\). "We desire to see Jesus." This is not abrupt like our "we wish" or "we want," but perfectly polite. However, they could easily "see" Jesus, had already done so, no doubt. They wish an interview with Jesus.

rwp@John:15:25 @{But this cometh to pass} (\all'\). Ellipsis in the Greek (no verb), as in strkjv@9:3; strkjv@13:18|. {In their law} (\en t“i nom“i aut“n\). Cf. strkjv@8:17; strkjv@10:34| for this standpoint. "Law" (\nomos\) here is for the whole of Scripture as in strkjv@12:34|. The allusion is to strkjv@Psalms:69:4| (or strkjv@Psalms:35:19|). The hatred of the Jews toward Jesus the promised Messiah (1:11|) is "part of the mysterious purpose of God" (Bernard) as shown by \hina plˆr“thˆi\ (first aorist passive subjunctive of \plˆro“\, to fulfil). {Without a cause} (\d“rean\). Adverbial accusative of \d“rea\ from \did“mi\, gratuitously, then unnecessarily or _gratis_ (in two _Koin‚_ tablets, Nageli) as here and strkjv@Galatians:2:21|.

rwp@John:18:12 @{The chief captain} (\ho chiliarchos\). They actually had the Roman commander of the cohort along (cf. strkjv@Acts:21:31|), not mentioned before. {Seized} (\sunelabon\). Second aorist active of \sullamban“\, old verb to grasp together, to arrest (technical word) in the Synoptics in this context (Mark:14:48; strkjv@Matthew:26:55|), here alone in John. {Bound} (\edˆsan\). First aorist active indicative of \de“\, to bind. As a matter of course, with the hands behind his back, but with no warrant in law and with no charge against him. {To Annas first} (\pros Annan pr“ton\). Ex-high priest and father-in-law (\pentheros\, old word, only here in N.T.) of Caiaphas the actual high priest. Then Jesus was subjected to a preliminary and superfluous inquiry by Annas (given only by John) while the Sanhedrin were gathering before Caiaphas. Bernard curiously thinks that the night trial actually took place here before Annas and only the early morning ratification was before Caiaphas. Songs:he calmly says that "Matthew inserts the name _Caiaphas_ at this point (the night trial) in which he seems to have been mistaken." But why "mistaken"? {That year} (\tou eniautou ekeinou\). Genitive of time.

rwp@John:19:1 @{Took and scourged} (\elaben kai emastig“sen\). First aorist active indicative of \lamban“\ and \mastigo“\ (from \mastix\, whip). For this redundant use of \lamban“\ see also verse 6|. It is the causative use of \mastigo“\, for Pilate did not actually scourge Jesus. He simply ordered it done, perhaps to see if the mob would be satisfied with this penalty on the alleged pretender to royalty (Luke:23:22|) whom Pilate had pronounced innocent (John:18:38|), an illegal act therefore. It was a preliminary to crucifixion, but Jesus was not yet condemned. The Sanhedrin had previously mocked Jesus (Mark:14:65; strkjv@Matthew:26:67f.; strkjv@Luke:22:63ff.|) as the soldiers will do later (Mark:15:16-19; strkjv@Matthew:27:27-30|). This later mock coronation (Mark and Matthew) was after the condemnation. {Plaited a crown of thorns} (\plexantes stephanon ex akanth“n\). Old verb \plek“\, to weave, in the N.T. only here, strkjv@Mark:15:17; strkjv@Matthew:27:19|. Not impossible for the mock coronation to be repeated. {Arrayed him} (\periebalon auton\). "Placed around him" (second aorist active indicative of \periball“\). {In a purple garment} (\himation porphuroun\). Old adjective \porphureos\ from \porphura\, purple cloth (Mark:15:17,20|), dyed in purple, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:18:16|. Jesus had been stripped of his outer garment \himation\ (Matthew:27:28|) and the scarlet cloak of one of the soldiers may have been put on him (Matthew:27:28|).

rwp@John:20:27 @{Then saith he to Thomas} (\eita legei t“i Thomƒi\). Jesus turns directly to Thomas as if he had come expressly for his sake. He reveals his knowledge of the doubt in the mind of Thomas and mentions the very tests that he had named (25|). {Be not faithless} (\mˆ ginou apistos\). Present middle imperative of \ginomai\ in prohibition, "stop becoming disbelieving." The doubt of Thomas in the face of the witness of the others was not a proof of his superior intelligence. Sceptics usually pose as persons of unusual mentality. The medium who won Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to spiritualism has confessed that it was all humbug, but he deceived the gullible novelist. But Thomas had carried his incredulity too far. Note play on \apistos\ (disbelieving) and \pistos\ (believing).

rwp@Jude:1:11 @{Woe to them} (\ouai autois\). Interjection with the dative as is common in the Gospels (Matthew:11:21|). {Went} (\eporeuthˆsan\). First aorist passive (deponent) indicative of \poreuomai\. {In the way of Cain} (\tˆi hod“i tou Kain\). Locative case \hod“i\. Cain is Jude's fourth example. Not in II Peter, but in strkjv@Hebrews:11:4; strkjv@1John:3:11f|. From strkjv@Genesis:4:7|. {Ran riotously} (\exechuthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekche“\, to pour out, "they were poured out," vigorous metaphor for excessive indulgence. But it is used also of God's love for us (Romans:5:5|). {In the error of Balaam} (\tˆi planˆi tou Balaam\). The fifth example in Jude. In II Peter also (2Peter:2:15|). Either locative case (in) or instrumental (by). \Planˆ\ (in Peter also) is the common word for such wandering (Matthew:24:4ff.|, etc.). {Perished} (\ap“lonto\). Second aorist middle (intransitive) of \apollumi\. {In the gainsaying of Korah} (\tˆi antilogiƒi tou Kore\). Again either locative or instrumental. The word \antilogia\ is originally answering back (Hebrews:6:16|), but it may be by act also (Romans:10:21|) as here. This is the sixth example in Jude, not in II Peter.

rwp@Jude:1:15 @{To execute judgment} (\poiˆsai krisin\). "To do justice." {To convict} (\elegxai\). First aorist (effective) active infinitive like \poiˆsai\ before it. {Ungodly} (\asebeis\). See verse 4| and end of this verse. {Of ungodliness} (\asebeias\). Old word as in strkjv@Romans:1:18|, plural in strkjv@Jude:1:18| as in strkjv@Romans:11:26|. {Which} (\h“n\). Genitive by attraction from \ha\ (cognate accusative with \ˆsebˆsan\, old verb, to act impiously, here alone in N.T. save some MSS. in strkjv@2Peter:2:6|) to agree with the antecedent \erg“n\ (deeds). {Hard things} (\sklˆr“n\). Harsh, rough things as in strkjv@John:6:60|. {Which} (\h“n\). Genitive by attraction from \ha\ (object of \elalˆsan\, first aorist active indicative of \lale“\) to the case of the antecedent \sklˆr“n\. Four times in this verse as a sort of refrain \asebeis\ (twice), \asebeias, ˆsebˆsan\.

rwp@Luke:2:5 @{To enrol himself with Mary} (\apograpsasthai sun Mariam\). Direct middle. "With Mary" is naturally taken with the infinitive as here. If so, that means that Mary's family register was in Bethlehem also and that she also belonged to the house of David. It is possible to connect "with Mary" far back with "went up" (\anebˆ\) in verse 4|, but it is unnatural to do so. There is no real reason for doubting that Mary herself was a descendant of David and that is the obvious way to understand Luke's genealogy of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:3:23-38|). The Syriac Sinaitic expressly says that both Joseph and Mary were of the house and city of David. {Betrothed} (\emnˆsteumenˆn\). Same verb as in strkjv@1:27|, but here it really means "married" or "espoused" as strkjv@Matthew:1:24f.| shows. Otherwise she could not have travelled with Joseph. {Great with child} (\enku“i\). Only here in N.T. Common Greek word.

rwp@Luke:4:1 @{Full of the Holy Spirit} (\plˆrˆs 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} (\ˆgeto 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 \anˆchthˆ\ which may be ingressive as he has \eis tˆn erˆmon\ (into the wilderness) while Luke has \en t“i erˆm“i\ (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} (\hˆmerƒs 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:4:6 @{All this authority} (\tˆn exousian tautˆn hapasan\). strkjv@Matthew:4:9| has "all these things." Luke's report is more specific. {And the glory of them} (\kai tˆn doxan aut“n\). strkjv@Matthew:4:8| has this in the statement of what the devil did, not what he said. {For it hath been delivered unto me} (\hoti emoi paradedotai\). Perfect passive indicative. Satan here claims possession of world power and Jesus does not deny it. It may be due to man's sin and by God's permission. Jesus calls Satan the ruler of this world (John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|). {To whomsoever I will} (\hoi an thel“\). Present subjunctive with \an\ in an indefinite relative sentence. This audacious claim, if allowed, makes one wonder whether some of the world rulers are not, consciously or unconsciously, agents of the devil. In several American cities there has been proven a definite compact between the police and the underworld of crime. But the tone of Satan here is one of superiority to Jesus in world power. He offers him a share in it on one condition.

rwp@Luke:4:17 @{Was delivered} (\epedothˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \epidid“mi\, to give over to, a common verb. At the proper stage of the service "the attendant" or "minister" (\hupˆretˆs\, under rower) or "beadle" took out a roll of the law from the ark, unwrapped it, and gave it to some one to read. On sabbath days some seven persons were asked to read small portions of the law. This was the first lesson or _Parashah_. This was followed by a reading from the prophets and a discourse, the second lesson or _Haphtarah_. This last is what Jesus did. {The book of the prophet Isaiah} (\biblion tou prophˆtou Esaiou\). Literally, "a roll of the prophet Isaiah." Apparently Isaiah was handed to Jesus without his asking for it. But certainly Jesus cared more for the prophets than for the ceremonial law. It was a congenial service that he was asked to perform. Jesus used Deuteronomy in his temptations and now Isaiah for this sermon. The Syriac Sinaitic manuscript has it that Jesus stood up after the attendant handed him the roll. {Opened} (\anoixas\). Really it was {unrolled} (\anaptuxas\) as Aleph D have it. But the more general term \anoixas\ (from \anoig“\, common verb) is probably genuine. \Anaptuss“\ does not occur in the N.T. outside of this passage if genuine. {Found the place} (\heuren ton topon\). Second aorist active indicative. He continued to unroll (rolling up the other side) till he found the passage desired. It may have been a fixed lesson for the day or it may have been his own choosing. At any rate it was a marvellously appropriate passage (Isaiah:61:1,2| with one clause omitted and some words from strkjv@Isaiah:58:6|). It is a free quotation from the Septuagint. {Where it was written} (\hou ˆn gegrammenon\). Periphrastic pluperfect passive again as in strkjv@4:16|.

rwp@Luke:5:12 @{Behold} (\kai idou\). Quite a Hebraistic idiom, this use of \kai\ after \egeneto\ (almost like \hoti\) with \idou\ (interjection) and no verb. {Full of leprosy} (\plˆrˆs lepras\). strkjv@Mark:1:40| and strkjv@Matthew:8:2| have simply "a leper" which see. Evidently a bad case full of sores and far advanced as Luke the physician notes. The law (Leviticus:13:12f.|) curiously treated advanced cases as less unclean than the earlier stages. {Fell on his face} (\pes“n epi pros“pon\). Second aorist active participle of \pipt“\, common verb. strkjv@Mark:1:40| has "kneeling" (\gonupet“n\) and strkjv@Matthew:8:40| "worshipped" (\prosekunei\). All three attitudes were possible one after the other. All three Synoptics quote the identical language of the leper and the identical answer of Jesus. His condition of the third class turned on the "will" (\thelˆis\) of Jesus who at once asserts his will (\thˆl“\) and cleanses him. All three likewise mention the touch (\hˆpsato\, verse 13|) of Christ's hand on the unclean leper and the instantaneous cure.

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} (\paretˆrounto auton\). Imperfect middle, were watching for themselves on the side (\para\). strkjv@Mark:3:2| has the imperfect active \paretˆroun\. 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 heur“sin katˆgorein 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@Matthew:13:33 @{Is like unto leaven} (\homoia estin zumˆi\). In its pervasive power. Curiously enough some people deny that Jesus here likens the expanding power of the Kingdom of heaven to leaven, because, they say, leaven is the symbol of corruption. But the language of Jesus is not to be explained away by such exegetical jugglery. The devil is called like a lion by Peter (1Peter:5:8|) and Jesus in Revelation is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Revelation:5:5|). The leaven permeates all the "wheaten meal" (\aleurou\) till the whole is leavened. There is nothing in the "three measures," merely a common amount to bake. Dr. T.R. Glover in his _Jesus of History_ suggests that Jesus used to notice his mother using that amount of wheat flour in baking bread. To find the Trinity here is, of course, quite beside the mark. The word for leaven, \zumˆ\, is from \ze“\, to boil, to seethe, and so pervasive fermentation.

rwp@Matthew:15:11 @{This defileth the man} (\touto koinoi ton anthr“pon\). This word is from \koinos\ which is used in two senses, either what is "common" to all and general like the _Koin‚_ Greek, or what is unclean and "common" either ceremonially or in reality. The ceremonial "commonness" disturbed Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Acts:10:14|). See also strkjv@Acts:21:28; strkjv@Hebrews:9:13|. One who is thus religiously common or unclean is cut off from doing his religious acts. "Defilement" was a grave issue with the rabbinical ceremonialists. Jesus appeals to the crowd here: {Hear and understand} (\akouete kai suniete\). He has a profound distinction to draw. Moral uncleanness is what makes a man common, defiles him. That is what is to be dreaded, not to be glossed over. "This goes beyond the tradition of the elders and virtually abrogates the Levitical distinctions between clean and unclean" (Bruce). One can see the pettifogging pretenders shrivel up under these withering words.

rwp@Matthew:15:30 @{And they cast them down at his feet} (\kai eripsan autous para tous podas autou\). A very strong word, flung them down, "not carelessly, but in haste, because so many were coming on the same errand" (Vincent). It was a great day for "they glorified the God of Israel."

rwp@Revelation:18:7 @{How much soever} (\hosa\). Indefinite quantitative relative pronoun \hosos\ in the accusative (cognate) neuter plural object of \edoxasen\ (first aorist active indicative of \doxaz“\). {Herself} (\hautˆn\). Reflexive pronoun, accusative also with \edoxasen\. {Waxed wanton} (\estrˆniasen\). First aorist (ingressive) active indicative of \strˆnia“\ (to live luxuriously), verb in late comedy instead of \trupha“\ (James:5:5|), from \strˆnos\ (Revelation:18:3|), only here in N.T. {Songs:much give her of torment and mourning} (\tosouton dote autˆi basanismon kai penthos\). Second aorist active imperative of \did“mi\, to give. The correlative pronoun \tosouton\ is masculine singular accusative, agreeing with \basanismon\, for which see strkjv@9:5; strkjv@14:11|, and is understood with the neuter word \penthos\ (mourning), in N.T. only in strkjv@James:4:9; strkjv@Revelation:18:7ff.; strkjv@21:4| (kin to \pathos, penomai\). {I sit a queen} (\kathˆmai basilissa\). Predicate nominative for the old form \basileia\ (\basilis\), as in strkjv@Matthew:12:42|. Babylon and Tyre had preceded Rome in such boasting (Isaiah:47:7-9; strkjv@Ezekiel:27:3; strkjv@28:2; strkjv@Zephaniah:2:15|). {And am no widow} (\kai chˆra ouk eimi\). Feminine of the adjective \chˆros\ (barren), old word (Mark:12:40|). {Shall in no wise see mourning} (\penthos ou mˆ id“\). Confident boast of security with emphatic position of \penthos\ (see above) and double negative \ou mˆ\ with the second aorist active subjunctive of \hora“\ (defective verb).

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_Revelation @ THE UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE Repeated efforts have been made to show that the Apocalypse of John is not the work of one man, but a series of Jewish and Christian apocalypses pieced together in a more or less bungling fashion. Spitta argued for this in 1889. Vischer was followed by Harnack in the view there was a Jewish apocalypse worked over by a Christian. Gunkel (_Creation and Chaos_, 1895) argued for a secret apocalyptic tradition of Babylonian origin. In 1904 J. Weiss carried on the argument for sources behind the Apocalypse. Many of the Jewish apocalypses do show composite authorship. There was a current eschatology which may have been drawn on without its being a written source. It is in chapter strkjv@Revelation:12| where the supposed Jewish source is urged more vigorously about the woman, the dragon, and the man child. There are no differences in language (vocabulary or grammar) that argue for varied sources. The author may indeed make use of events in the reign of Nero as well as in the reign of Domitian, but the essential unity of the book has stood the test of the keenest criticism.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE DATE There are two chief theories, the Neronic, soon after Nero's death, the other in the reign of Domitian. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius as saying expressly that the Apocalypse of John was written at the close of the reign of Domitian. This testimony is concurred in by Clement of Alexandria, by Origen, by Eusebius, by Jerome. In harmony with this clear testimony the severity of the persecutions suit the later date better than the earlier one. There is, besides, in strkjv@Revelation:17:11f.| an apparent reference to the story that Nero would return again. The fifth king who is one of the seven is an eighth. There was a Nero legend, to be sure, that Nero either was not dead but was in Parthia, or would be _redivivus_ after death. Juvenal termed Domitian "a bald Nero" and others called Domitian "a second Nero." But in spite of all this Hort, Lightfoot, Sanday, Westcott have argued strongly for the Neronic era. Peake is willing to admit allusions to the Neronic period as Swete is also, but both consider the Domitianic date the best supported. Moffatt considers any earlier date than Domitian "almost impossible."

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS SPRING OF A.D. 57 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:2|) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul's long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Romans:16:3-5|) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D) give chapter 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. Marcion rejected it and chapter 15 also for reasons of his own. Renan's theory that Romans was a circular letter like Ephesians sent in different forms to different churches (Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Corinthians:1:20|, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul's remarks about going to Rome (Romans:1:9-16|) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added strkjv@Romans:16:25-27| some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves strkjv@Romans:15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.

rwp@Romans:2:22 @{That abhorrest} (\ho bdelussomenos\). Old word to make foul, to stink, to have abhorrence for. In LXX, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:21:8|. The very word used by Jesus to express their horror of idols (\eid“la\, see on ¯Acts:7:41; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:2|). See strkjv@Matthew:24:15| for "abomination." {Dost thou rob temples?} (\hierosuleis?\). Old verb from \hierosulos\ (Acts:19:37|) and that from \hieron\, temple, and \sula“\, to rob. The town clerk (Acts:19:37|) said that these Jews (Paul and his companions) were "not robbers of temples," proof that the charge was sometimes made against Jews, though expressly forbidden the Jews (Josephus, _Ant_. IV. 8, 10). Paul refers to the crime of robbing idol temples in spite of the defilement of contact with idolatry.

rwp@Romans:3:10 @{As it is written} (\kath“s gegraptai hoti\). Usual formula of quotation as in verse 4| with recitative \hoti\ added as in verse 8|. Paul here uses a catena or chain of quotations to prove his point in verse 9| that Jews are in no better fix than the Greeks for all are under sin. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has shown that the Jews and early Christians had _Testimonia_ (quotations from the Old Testament) strung together for certain purposes as proof-texts. Paul may have used one of them or he may have put these passages together himself. Verses 10-12| come from strkjv@Psalms:14:1-3|; first half of 13| as far as \edoliousan\ from strkjv@Psalms:4:9|, the second half from strkjv@Psalms:140:3|; verse 14| from strkjv@Psalms:10:7|; 15-17| from an abridgment of strkjv@Isaiah:59:7f.|; verse 18| from strkjv@Psalms:35:1|. Paul has given compounded quotations elsewhere (2Corinthians:6:16; strkjv@Romans:9:25f.,27f; strkjv@11:26f.,34f.; strkjv@12:19f.|). Curiously enough this compounded quotation was imported bodily into the text (LXX) of strkjv@Psalms:14| after verse 4 in Aleph B, etc. {There is none righteous, no, not one} (\ouk estin dikaios oude heis\). "There is not a righteous man, not even one." This sentence is like a motto for all the rest, a summary for what follows.

rwp@Romans:3:21 @{But now apart from the law} (\nuni de ch“ris nomou\). He now (\nuni\ emphatic logical transition) proceeds carefully in verses 21-31| the {nature} of the God-kind of righteousness which stands manifested (\dikaiosunˆ theou pephaner“tai\, perfect passive indicative of \phanero“\, to make manifest), the {necessity} of which he has shown in strkjv@1:18-3:20|. This God kind of righteousness is "apart from law" of any kind and all of grace (\chariti\) as he will show in verse 24|. But it is not a new discovery on the part of Paul, but "witnessed by the law and the prophets" (\marturoumenˆ\, present passive participle, \hupo tou nomou kai t“n prophˆt“n\), made plain continuously by God himself.

rwp@Romans:4:12 @{The father of circumcision} (\patera peritomˆs\). The accusative with \eis to einai\ to be repeated from verse 11|. Lightfoot takes it to mean, not "a father of a circumcised progeny," but "a father belonging to circumcision," a less natural interpretation. {But who also walk} (\alla kai tois stoichousin\). The use of \tois\ here is hard to explain, for \ou monon\ and \alla kai\ both come after the preceding \tois\. All the MSS. have it thus. A primitive error in a copyist is suggested by Hort who would omit the second \tois\. Lightfoot regards it less seriously and would repeat the second \tois\ in the English: "To those who are, I do not say of circumcision only, but also to those who walk." {In the steps} (\tois ichnesin\). Locative case. See on ¯2Corinthians:12:18|. \Stoiche“\ is military term, to walk in file as in strkjv@Galatians:5:25; strkjv@Phillipians:3:16|.

rwp@Romans:8:24 @{For by hope were we saved} (\tˆi gar elpidi es“thˆmen\). First aorist passive indicative of \s“z“\. The case of \elpidi\ is not certain, the form being the same for locative, instrumental and dative. Curiously enough either makes good sense in this context: "We were saved in hope, by hope, for hope" (of the redemption of the body).

rwp@Romans:11:17 @{Branches} (\klad“n\). From \kla“\, to break. {Were broken off} (\exeklasthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekkla“\. Play on the word \klados\ (branch) and \ekkla“\, to break off. Condition of first class, assumed as true. Some of the individual Jews (natural Israel) were broken off the stock of the tree (spiritual Israel). {And thou} (\kai su\). An individual Gentile. {Being a wild olive} (\agrielaios “n\). This word, used by Aristotle, occurs in an inscription. Ramsay (_Pauline Studies_, pp. 219ff.) shows that the ancients used the wild-olive graft upon an old olive tree to reinvigorate the tree precisely as Paul uses the figure here and that both the olive tree and the graft were influenced by each other, though the wild olive graft did not produce as good olives as the original stock. But it should be noted that in verse 24| Paul expressly states that the grafting of Gentiles on to the stock of the spiritual Israel was "contrary to nature" (\para phusin\). {Wast grafted in} (\enekentristhˆs\). First aorist passive indicative of \enkentriz“\, to cut in, to graft, used by Aristotle. Belongs "to the higher _Koin‚_" (literary _Koin‚_) according to Milligan. {Partaker} (\sunkoin“nos\). Co-partner. {Fatness} (\piotˆtos\). Old word from \pi“n\ (fat), only here in N.T. Note three genitives here "of the root of the fatness of the olive."

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Thu Jul 4 00:30:10 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020