OT-LAW.filter - rwp accepted:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:12 @{Now this I mean} (\leg de touto\). Explanatory use of \leg\. Each has his party leader. \Apoll\ is genitive of \Apolls\ (Acts:18:24|), probably abbreviation of \Apollnius\ as seen in Codex Bezae for strkjv@Acts:18:24|. See on Acts for discussion of this "eloquent Alexandrian" (Ellicott), whose philosophical and oratorical preaching was in contrast "with the studied plainness" of Paul (1Corinthians:2:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:10|). People naturally have different tastes about styles of preaching and that is well, but Apollos refused to be a party to this strife and soon returned to Ephesus and refused to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). \Cph\ is the genitive of \Cphs\, the Aramaic name given Simon by Jesus (John:1:42|), \Petros\ in Greek. Except in strkjv@Galatians:2:7,8| Paul calls him Cephas. He had already taken his stand with Paul in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-11; strkjv@Galatians:2:7-10|). Paul had to rebuke him at Antioch for his timidity because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-14|), but, in spite of Baur's theory, there is no evidence of a schism in doctrine between Paul and Peter. If strkjv@2Peter:3:15f.| be accepted as genuine, as I do, there is proof of cordial relations between them and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:5| points in the same direction. But there is no evidence that Peter himself visited Corinth. Judaizers came and pitted Peter against Paul to the Corinthian Church on the basis of Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch. These Judaizers made bitter personal attacks on Paul in return for their defeat at the Jerusalem Conference. Songs:a third faction was formed by the use of Peter's name as the really orthodox wing of the church, the gospel of the circumcision. {And I of Christ} (\eg de Christou\). Still a fourth faction in recoil from the partisan use of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, with "a spiritually proud utterance" (Ellicott) that assumes a relation to Christ not true of the others. "Those who used this cry arrogated the common watchword as their _peculium_" (Findlay). This partisan use of the name of Christ may have been made in the name of unity against the other three factions, but it merely added another party to those existing. In scouting the names of the other leaders they lowered the name and rank of Christ to their level.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 65 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR The Epistle is not anonymous, but claims to be written by "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1Peter:1:1|), that is Cephas (Simon Peter). If this is not true, then the book is pseudonymous by a late writer who assumed Peter's name, as in the so-called Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc. "There is no book in the New Testament which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation, though Irenaeus is the first to quote it by name" (Bigg). Eusebius (_H.E_. iii. 25.2) places it among the acknowledged books, those accepted with no doubt at all. We here assume that Simon Peter wrote this Epistle or at any rate dictated it by an amanuensis, as Paul did in Romans (Romans:16:22|). Bigg suggests Silvanus (Silas) as the amanuensis or interpreter (1Peter:5:12|), the obvious meaning of the language (\dia\, through). He may also have been the bearer of the Epistle. It happens that we know more of Peter's life than of any of the twelve apostles because of his prominence in the Gospels and in the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. In the _Student's Chronological New Testament_ I have given a full list of the passages in the Gospels where Peter appears with any clearness and the material is rich and abundant. The account in Acts is briefer, though Peter is the outstanding man in the first five chapters during his career in Jerusalem. After the conversion of Saul he begins to work outside of Jerusalem and after escaping death at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts:12:3ff.|) he left for a while, but is back in Jerusalem at the Conference called by Paul and Barnabas (Acts:15:6-14; Gal strkjv@2:1-10|). After that we have no more about him in Acts, though he reappears in Antioch and is rebuked by Paul for cowardice because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-21). He travelled for the Gospel among the Jews of the Dispersion (Galatians:2:9|) with his wife (1Corinthians:9:5|), and went to Asia Minor (1Peter:1:1|) and as far as Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|). Besides Silvanus he had John Mark with him also (1Peter:5:13|), who was said by the early Christian writers to have been Peter's "interpreter" in his preaching, since Peter was not expert in the Greek (Acts:4:13|), and who also wrote his Gospel under the inspiration of Peter's preaching. We are not able to follow clearly the close of his life or to tell precisely the time of his death. He was apparently put to death in A.D. 67 or 68, but some think that he was executed in Rome in A.D. 64.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:13 @{And for this cause we also} (\kai dia touto kai hmeis\). Note \kai\ twice. We as well as you are grateful for the way the gospel was received in Thessalonica. {Without ceasing} (\adialeipts\). Late adverb for which see on strkjv@1:2| and for \eucharistoumen\ see on ¯1:2|. {The word of the message} (\logon akos\). Literally, {the word of} hearing, as in Sir. strkjv@42:1 and strkjv@Hebrews:4:2| \ho logos ts akos\, the word marked by hearing (genitive case), the word which you heard. Here with \tou theou\ (of God) added as a second descriptive genitive which Paul expands and justifies. {Ye received it so} (\paralabontes\) and {accepted or welcomed it} (\edexasthe\) so, {not as the word of men} (\ou logou anthrpn\), {but as the word of God} (\alla logon theou\), {as it is in truth} (\kaths alths estin\). This last clause is literally, {as it truly is}. Paul had not a doubt that he was proclaiming God's message. Should any preacher preach his doubts if he has any? God's message can be found and Paul found it. {Worketh in you} (\energeitai en humin\). Perhaps middle voice of \energe\ (\en, ergon\, work) late verb, not in ancient Greek or LXX, but in papyri and late writers (Polybius, etc.) and in N.T. only by Paul and James. If it is passive, as Milligan thinks, it means "is set in operation," as Polybius has it. The idea then is that the word of God is set in operation in you that believe.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:18 @{Is approved} (\dokimos\). Accepted (from \dechomai\) by the Lord. The Lord accepts his own recommendation (\sunistsin\, see on ¯2Corinthians:3:1f.|).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ SLOW IN GENERAL ACCEPTANCE It was accepted in the canon by the council at Laodicea (372) and at Carthage (397). Jerome accepted it for the Vulgate, though it was absent from the Peshito Syriac Version. Eusebius placed it among the disputed books, while Origen was inclined to accept it. Clement of Alexandria accepted it and apparently wrote a commentary on it. It is probable that the so-called Apocalypse of Peter (early second century) used it and the Epistle of Jude:either used it or II Peter used Jude. There are undoubted allusions also to phrases in II Peter in Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome. When one considers the brevity of the Epistle, the use of it is really as strong as one can expect. Athanasius and Augustine accepted it as genuine, as did Luther, while Calvin doubted and Erasmus rejected it. It may be said for it that it won its way under criticism and was not accepted blindly.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE TEXT OF THE ACTS A special problem arises concerning the text of Acts inasmuch as the Codex Bezae (D) with some other Western support presents a great many additions to the Neutral-Alexandrian text of Aleph A B C. Blass has even proposed the idea that Luke himself issued two editions of the book, an attractive hypothesis that is not generally accepted. J. M. Wilson has published _The Acts of the Apostles from Codex Bezae_. The whole subject is elaborately treated by J. H. Ropes in Vol. III, _The Text of Acts_ in Part I of _The Beginnings of Christianity_. Besides thorough discussion of all the problems of text involved Ropes gives the text of the Vatican Codex (B) on the left page and that of Codex Bezae (D) on the right, making comparison easy. Blass's ideas appear in his _Acta Apostolorum_.

rwp@Acts:1:1 @_The Title_ is simply _Acts_ (\Praxeis\) in Aleph, Origen, Tertullian, Didymus, Hilary, Eusebius, Epiphanius. _The Acts of the Apostles_ (\Praxeis apostoln\) is the reading of B D (Aleph in subscription) Athanasius, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret, Hilary. _The Acts of the Holy Apostles_ (\Praxeis tn hagin apostoln\) is read by A2 E G H A K Chrysostom. It is possible that the book was given no title at all by Luke, for it is plain that usage varied greatly even in the same writers. The long title as found in the Textus Receptus (Authorized Version) is undoubtedly wrong with the adjective "Holy." The reading of B D, "_The Acts of the Apostles_," may be accepted as probably correct.

rwp@Acts:12:23 @{Smote him} (\epataxen auton\). Effective aorist active indicative of \patass\, old verb, used already in verse 7| of gentle smiting of the angel of the Lord, here of a severe stroke of affliction. Like Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel:4:30|) pride went before a fall. He was struck down in the very zenith of his glory. {Because} (\anth' hn\). \Anti\ with the genitive of the relative pronoun, "in return for which things." He accepted the impious flattery (Hackett) instead of giving God the glory. He was a nominal Jew. {He was eaten of worms} (\genomenos sklkobrtos\). Ingressive aorist middle participle, "becoming worm-eaten." The compound verbal adjective (\sklx\, worm, \brtos\, eaten, from \bibrsk\) is a late word (II Macc. strkjv@9:9) of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, used also of a tree (Theophrastus), here only in the N.T. The word \sklx\ was used of intestinal worms and Herodotus (IV. 205) describes Pheretima, Queen of Cyrene, as having swarms of worms which ate her flesh while still alive. Josephus (_Ant_. XIX. 8, 2) says that Herod Agrippa lingered for five days and says that the rotting of his flesh produced worms, an item in harmony with the narrative in Luke. Josephus gives further details, one a superstitious sight of an owl sitting on one of the ropes of the awning of the theatre while the people flattered him, an omen of his death to him. Luke puts it simply that God smote him. {Gave up the ghost} (\exepsuxen\). Effective aorist active of \ekpsuch\, to breathe out, late verb, medical term in Hippocrates, in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:5:5,10; strkjv@12:23|. Herod was carried out of the theatre a dying man and lingered only five days.

rwp@Acts:13:18 @{Suffered he their manners} (\etropophorsen\). First aorist active indicative of \tropophore\, late word from \tropos\, manner, and \pher\, reading of Aleph B D and accepted by Westcott and Hort. But A C Sahidic Bohairic read \etrophophorsen\ from \trophophore\ (\trophos\, a nurse, and \pher\,) late word (II Macc. strkjv@7:27), probably correct word here and strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:31|.

rwp@Acts:13:46 @{Spake out boldly} (\parrsiasamenoi\). First aorist middle participle of \parrsiazomai\, to use freedom in speaking, to assume boldness. Both Paul and Barnabas accepted the challenge of the rabbis. They would leave their synagogue, but not without a word of explanation. {It was necessary to you first} (\Humin n anagkaion prton\). They had done their duty and had followed the command of Jesus (1:8|). They use the very language of Peter in strkjv@3:26| (\humin prton\) "to you first." This position Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles will always hold, the Jew first in privilege and penalty (Romans:1:16; strkjv@2:9,10|). {Ye thrust it from you} (\aptheisthe auton\). Present middle (indirect, from yourselves) indicative of \apthe\, to push from. Vigorous verb seen already in strkjv@Acts:7:27,39| which see. {Judge yourselves unworthy} (\ouk axious krinete heautous\). Present active indicative of the common verb \krin\, to judge or decide with the reflexive pronoun expressed. Literally, Do not judge yourselves worthy. By their action and their words they had taken a violent and definite stand. {Lo, we turn to the Gentiles} (\idou strephometha eis ta ethn\). It is a crisis (\idou\, lo): "Lo, we turn ourselves to the Gentiles." Probably also aoristic present, we now turn (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 864-70). \Strephometha\ is probably the direct middle (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 806-08) though the aorist passive \estraphn\ is so used also (7:39|). It is a dramatic moment as Paul and Barnabas turn from the Jews to the Gentiles, a prophecy of the future history of Christianity. In strkjv@Romans:9-11| Paul will discuss at length the rejection of Christ by the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles to be the real (the spiritual) Israel.

rwp@Acts:13:48 @{As the Gentiles heard this they were glad} (\akouonta ta ethn echairon\). Present active participle of \akou\ and imperfect active of \chair\, linear action descriptive of the joy of the Gentiles. {Glorified the word of God} (\edoxazon ton logon tou theou\). Imperfect active again. The joy of the Gentiles increased the fury of the Jews. "The synagogue became a scene of excitement which must have been something like the original speaking with tongues" (Rackham). The joy of the Gentiles was to see how they could receive the higher blessing of Judaism without circumcision and other repellent features of Jewish ceremonialism. It was the gospel of grace and liberty from legalism that Paul had proclaimed. Whether strkjv@Galatians:4:13| describes this incident or not (the South Galatian theory), it illustrates it when Gentiles received Paul as if he were Christ Jesus himself. It was triumph with the Gentiles, but defeat with the Jews. {As many as were ordained to eternal life} (\hosoi san tetagmenoi eis zn ainion\). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of \tass\, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word "ordain" is not the best translation here. "Appointed," as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an _absolutum decretum_ of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away. {Believed} (\episteusan\). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of \pisteu\. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.

rwp@Acts:15:2 @{When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them} (\Genomens stases kai ztses ouk oligs ti Pauli kai Barnabi pros autous\). Genitive absolute of second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, genitive singular agreeing with first substantive \stases\. Literally, "No little (litotes for much) strife and questioning coming to Paul and Barnabas (dative case) with them " (\pros autous\, face to face with them). Paul and Barnabas were not willing to see this Gentile church brow-beaten and treated as heretics by these self-appointed regulators of Christian orthodoxy from Jerusalem. The work had developed under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas and they accepted full responsibility for it and stoutly resisted these Judaizers to the point of sedition (riot, outbreak in strkjv@Luke:23:25; strkjv@Acts:19:40|) as in strkjv@23:7|. There is no evidence that the Judaizers had any supporters in the Antioch church so that they failed utterly to make any impression. Probably these Judaizers compelled Paul to think through afresh his whole gospel of grace and so they did Paul and the world a real service. If the Jews like Paul had to believe, it was plain that there was no virtue in circumcision (Galatians:2:15-21|). It is not true that the early Christians had no disagreements. They had selfish avarice with Ananias and Sapphira, murmuring over the gifts to the widows, simony in the case of Simon Magus, violent objection to work in Caesarea, and now open strife over a great doctrine (grace vs. legalism). {The brethren appointed} (\etaxan\). "The brethren" can be supplied from verse 1| and means the church in Antioch. The church clearly saw that the way to remove this deadlock between the Judaizers and Paul and Barnabas was to consult the church in Jerusalem to which the Judaizers belonged. Paul and Barnabas had won in Antioch. If they can win in Jerusalem, that will settle the matter. The Judaizers will be answered in their own church for which they are presuming to speak. The verb \etaxan\ (\tass\, to arrange) suggests a formal appointment by the church in regular assembly. Paul (Galatians:2:2|) says that he went up by revelation (\kat' apokalupsin\), but surely that is not contradictory to the action of the church. {Certain others of them} (\tinas allous\). Certainly Titus (Galatians:2:1,3|), a Greek and probably a brother of Luke who is not mentioned in Acts. Rackham thinks that Luke was in the number. {The apostles and elders} (\tous apostolous kai presbuterous\). Note one article for both (cf. "the apostles and the brethren" in strkjv@11:1|). "Elders" now (11:30|) in full force. The apostles have evidently returned now to the city after the death of Herod Agrippa I stopped the persecution.

rwp@Acts:15:8 @{Which knoweth the heart} (\kardiognsts\). Late word from \kardia\ (heart) and \gnsts\ (known, \ginsk\). In the N.T. only here and strkjv@1:24| which see. {Giving them the Holy Spirit} (\dous to pneuma to hagion\). And before their baptism. This was the Lord's doing. They had accepted (11:18|) this witness of God then and it was true now of these other Gentile converts.

rwp@Acts:16:15 @{And when she was baptized} (\hs de ebaptisth\). First aorist passive indicative of \baptiz\. The river Gangites was handy for the ordinance and she had now been converted and was ready to make this public declaration of her faith in Jesus Christ. {And her household} (\kai ho oikos auts\). Who constituted her "household"? The term \oikos\, originally means the building as below, "into my house" and then it includes the inmates of a house. There is nothing here to show whether Lydia's "household" went beyond "the women" employed by her who like her had heard the preaching of Paul and had believed. "Possibly Euodia and Syntyche and the other women, strkjv@Phillipians:4:2,3|, may have been included in the family of Lydia, who may have employed many slaves and freed women in her trade" (Knowling). "This statement cannot be claimed as any argument for infant baptism, since the Greek word may mean her servants or her work-people" (Furneaux). In the household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the jailor, Crispus) one sees "infants" or not according to his predilections or preferences. {If ye have judged me} (\ei kekrikate me\). Condition of the first class, assumed to be true (\ei\ and the indicative, here perfect active of \krin\). She had confessed her faith and submitted to baptism as proof that she was "faithful to the Lord" (\pistn ti kurii\), believing on the Lord. "If she was fit for that, surely she was fit to be their hostess" (Furneaux). And Paul and his party had clearly no comfortable place to stay while in Philippi. The ancient hotels or inns were abominable. Evidently Paul demurred for there were four of them and he did not wish to sacrifice his independence or be a burden even to a woman of wealth. {And she constrained us} (\kai parebiasato hmas\). Effective first aorist middle of \parabiazomai\, late word, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:24:29|. Some moral force (\bia\) or hospitable persuasion was required (cf. strkjv@1Samuel:28:23|), but Lydia had her way as women usually do. Songs:he accepted Lydia's hospitality in Philippi, though he worked for his own living in Thessalonica (2Thessalonians:3:8|) and elsewhere (2Corinthians:11:9|). Songs:far only women have been won to Christ in Philippi. The use of "us" shows that Luke was not a householder in Philippi.

rwp@Acts:24:26 @{He hoped withal} (\hama kai elpizn\). "At the same time also hoping." Paul had mentioned the "alms" (24:17|) and that excited the avarice of Felix for "money" (\chrmata\). Roman law demanded exile and confiscation for a magistrate who accepted bribes, but it was lax in the provinces. Felix had doubtless received them before. Josephus (_Ant_. XX. 8, 9) represents Felix as greedy for money. {The oftener} (\puknoteron\). Comparative adverb of \puknos\, old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:5:33| which see and strkjv@1Timothy:5:23|. Kin to \pugm\ (Mark:7:3|) which see from \puk\, thick, dense, compact. Paul kept on not offering a bribe, but Felix continued to have hopes (present tense \elpizn\), kept on sending for him (present tense \metapempomenos\), and kept on communing (imperfect active \hmilei\ from \homile\, old word as in strkjv@Acts:20:11; strkjv@Luke:24:14|, which see, only N.T. examples of this word). But he was doomed to disappointment. He was never terrified again.

rwp@Acts:25:26 @{No certain thing} (\asphales ti--ou\). Nothing definite or reliable (\a\ privative, \sphall\, to trip). All the charges of the Sanhedrin slipped away or were tripped up by Paul. Festus confesses that he had nothing left and thereby convicts himself of gross insincerity in his proposal to Paul in verse 9| about going up to Jerusalem. By his own statement he should have set Paul free. The various details here bear the marks of the eyewitness. Luke was surely present and witnessed this grand spectacle with Paul as chief performer. {Unto my lord} (\ti kurii\). Augustus (Octavius) and Tiberius refused the title of \kurios\ (lord) as too much like _rex_ (king) and like master and slave, but the servility of the subjects gave it to the other emperors who accepted it (Nero among them). Antoninus Pius put it on his coins. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105) gives an ostracon dated Aug. 4, A.D. 63 with the words "in the year nine of Nero the lord" (\enatou Nernos tou kuriou\). Deissmann (_op. cit._, pp. 349ff.) runs a most interesting parallel "between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term \kurios\, lord" in ostraca, papyri, inscriptions. Beyond a doubt Paul has all this fully in mind when he says in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| that "no one is able to say \Kurios Isous\ except in the Holy Spirit" (cf. also strkjv@Phillipians:2:11|). The Christians claimed this word for Christ and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say " Lord Caesar" and insisted on saying "Lord Jesus" when it meant his certain death. {Before you} (\eph' humn\). The whole company. In no sense a new trial, but an examination in the presence of these prominent men to secure data and to furnish entertainment and pleasure to Agrippa (verse 22|). {Especially before thee} (\malista epi sou\). Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as verse 22| shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul's case. {After examination had} (\ts anakrises genomens\). Genitive absolute, "the examination having taken place." \Anakrisis\ from \anakrin\ (cf. strkjv@12:19; strkjv@24:8; strkjv@28:18|) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. {That I may have somewhat to write} (\hops sch ti graps\). Ingressive aorist subjunctive \sch\ (may get) with \hops\ (final particle like \hina\). \Ti graps\ in indirect question after \sch\ is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a "trial," but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament.

rwp@Acts:28:17 @{Those that were the chief of the Jews} (\tous ontas tn Ioudain prtous\). This use of \prtos\ for the leading men of a city or among the Jews we have already had in strkjv@13:50; strkjv@25:2; strkjv@Luke:19:47|. Literally, "Those that were first among the Jews." The position of the participle \ontas\ between the article and the adjective \prtous\ is regular (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 777). {When they were come together} (\sunelthontn autn\). Genitive absolute again. Paul could not go to the synagogue, as his custom was, being a bound prisoner. Songs:he invited the Jewish leaders to come to his lodging and hear his explanation of his presence in Rome as a prisoner with an appeal to Caesar. He is anxious that they may understand that this appeal was forced upon him by Festus following Felix and lot because he has come to make an attack on the Jewish people. He was sure that false reports had come to Rome. These non-Christian Jews accepted Paul's invitation. {Nothing against} (\ouden enantion\). Adjective here as in strkjv@26:9|, not preposition as in strkjv@7:10; strkjv@8:32|. From \en\ and \antios\ (\anti\), face to face. Concessive participle \poisas\ as in verse 4| (\diasthenta\) which see. {Yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans} (\desmios ex Ierosolumn paredothn eis tas cheiras tn Romain\). This condensed statement does not explain how he "was delivered," for in fact the Jews were trying to kill him when Lysias rescued him from the mob (22:27-36|). The Jews were responsible for his being in the hands of the Romans, though they had hoped to kill him first.

rwp@Colossians:1:6 @{In all the world} (\en panti ti kosmi\). A legitimate hyperbole, for the gospel was spreading all over the Roman Empire. {Is bearing fruit} (\estin karpophoroumenon\). Periphrastic present middle indicative of the old compound \karpophore\, from \karpophoros\ (Acts:14:17|) and that from \karpos\ and \pher\. The periphrastic present emphasizes the continuity of the process. See the active participle \karpophorountes\ in verse 10|. {Increasing} (\auxanomenon\). Periphrastic present middle of \auxan\. Repeated in verse 10|. The growing and the fruit-bearing go on simultaneously as always with Christians (inward growth and outward expression). {Ye heard and knew} (\kousate kai epegnte\). Definite aorist indicative. They heard the gospel from Epaphras and at once recognized and accepted (ingressive second aorist active of \epiginsk\, to know fully or in addition). They fully apprehended the grace of God and should be immune to the shallow vagaries of the Gnostics.

rwp@Colossians:2:14 @{Having blotted out} (\exaleipsas\). And so "cancelled." First aorist active participle of old verb \exaleiph\, to rub out, wipe off, erase. In N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:3:19| (LXX); strkjv@Revelation:3:5; strkjv@Colossians:2:14|. Here the word explains \charisamenos\ and is simultaneous with it. Plato used it of blotting out a writing. Often MSS. were rubbed or scraped and written over again (palimpsests, like Codex C). {The bond written in ordinances that was against us} (\to kath' hmn cheirographon tois dogmasin\). The late compound \cheirographon\ (\cheir\, hand, \graph\) is very common in the papyri for a certificate of debt or bond, many of the original \cheirographa\ (handwriting, "chirography"). See Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 247. The signature made a legal debt or bond as Paul says in strkjv@Philemon:1:18f.|: "I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it." Many of the papyri examples have been "crossed out" thus X as we do today and so cancelled. One decree is described as "neither washed out nor written over" (Milligan, N. T. _Documents_, p. 16). Undoubtedly "the handwriting in decrees" (\dogmasin\, the Mosaic law, strkjv@Ephesians:2:15|) was against the Jews (Exodus:24:3; strkjv@Deuteronomy:27:14-26|) for they accepted it, but the Gentiles also gave moral assent to God's law written in their hearts (Romans:2:14f.|). Songs:Paul says "against us" (\kath' hmn\) and adds "which was contrary to us" (\ho n hupenantion hmin\) because we (neither Jew nor Gentile) could not keep it. \Hupenantios\ is an old double compound adjective (\hupo, en, antios\) set over against, only here in N.T. except strkjv@Hebrews:10:27| when it is used as a substantive. It is striking that Paul has connected the common word \cheirographon\ for bond or debt with the Cross of Christ (Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 332). {And he hath taken it out of the way} (\kai rken ek tou mesou\). Perfect active indicative of \air\, old and common verb, to lift up, to bear, to take away. The word used by the Baptist of Jesus as "the Lamb of God that bears away (\airn\) the sin of the world" (John:1:29|). The perfect tense emphasizes the permanence of the removal of the bond which has been paid and cancelled and cannot be presented again. Lightfoot argues for Christ as the subject of \rken\, but that is not necessary, though Paul does use sudden anacolutha. God has taken the bond against us "out of the midst" (\ek tou mesou\). Nailing it to the cross (\proslsas auto ti stauri\). First aorist active participle of old and common verb \proslo\, to fasten with nails to a thing (with dative \stauri\). Here alone in N.T., but in III Macc. strkjv@4:9 with the very word \stauri\. The victim was nailed to the cross as was Christ. "When Christ was crucified, God nailed the Law to His cross" (Peake). Hence the "bond" is cancelled for us. Business men today sometimes file cancelled accounts. No evidence exists that Paul alluded to such a custom here.

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ ORDER AND DATES The oldest Greek manuscripts give these General Epistles immediately after the Acts, and Westcott and Hort so print them in their Greek New Testament. But the English Versions follow the Textus Receptus and put them just before the Apocalypse. The order of the seven letters varies greatly in the different manuscripts, though usually James comes first and Jude:last (as the last accepted and the least known of the four authors). It is possible that the order of James, Peter, and John (omitting Jude) represented a sort of chronological precedence in some minds. It is possible also that no importance is to be attached to this order. Certainly John wrote last and after the destruction of Jerusalem, while the others come before that great event if they are genuine, as I believe, though there are difficulties of a serious nature concerning II Peter. James may be very early. If so, these seven Epistles are scattered all the way from A.D. 45 to 90. They have no connection with one another save in the case of the Epistles of Peter and Jude.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE AUTHOR Origen bluntly wrote: "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul's while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in strkjv@Hebrews:11:32| (\me digoumenon\) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply \Pros Hebraious\ as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

rwp@Info_John @ EARLY AND CLEAR WITNESS TO THE APOSTLE JOHN Ignatius (_ad Philad_. vii. 1) about A.D. 110 says of the Spirit that "he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to strkjv@John:3:8|. Polycarp (_ad Phil_. S 7) quotes strkjv@1John:4:2,3|. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell "of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his _Diatessaron_ out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch (_Ad Autol_. ii. 22) calls John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about A.D. 180. The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has stronger external evidence.

rwp@John:1:13 @{Which were born} (\hoi egennthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna\, to beget, "who were begotten." By spiritual generation (of God, \ek theou\), not by physical (\ex haimatn\, plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; \ek thelmatos sarkos\, from sexual desire; \ek thelmatos andros\, from the will of the male). But _b_ of the old Latin reads _qui natus est_ and makes it refer to Christ and so expressly teach the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Likewise Irenaeus reads _qui natus est_ as does Tertullian who argues that _qui nati sunt_ (\hoi egennthsan\) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass (_Philology of the Gospels_, p. 234) opposes this reading, but all the old Greek uncials read \hoi egennthsan\ and it must be accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in verse 14|, but it is not stated in verse 13|.

rwp@John:3:10 @{The teacher of Israel} (\ho didaskalos tou Isral\). The well-known or the authorized (the accepted) teacher of the Israel of God. Note both articles. {And understandest not these things?} (\kai tauta ou ginskeis;\). After being told by Jesus and after so propitious a start. His Pharisaic theology had made him almost proof against spiritual apprehension. It was outside of his groove (rote, rut, rot, the three terrible r's of mere traditionalism).

rwp@John:6:68 @{Lord, to whom shall we go?} (\Kurie, pros tina apeleusometha;\). Peter is the spokesman as usual and his words mean that, if such a thought as desertion crossed their minds when the crowd left, they dismissed it instantly. They had made their choice. They accepted these very words of Jesus that had caused the defection as "the words of eternal life."

rwp@John:8:57 @{Thou art not yet fifty years old} (\pentkonta eti oup echeis\). Literally, "Thou hast not yet fifty years." Not meaning that Jesus was near that age at all. It was the crisis of completed manhood (Numbers:4:3|) and a round number. Jesus was about thirty to thirty-three. {And hast thou seen Abraham?} (\Kai Abraam herakas;\). Songs:A C D and B W Theta have \herakes\, both second person singular of the perfect active indicative of \hora\. But Aleph, Sin-syr., Coptic versions (accepted by Bernard) have \kai Abraam herake se?\ "Has Abraam seen thee?" Either makes sense here.

rwp@John:9:13 @{They bring him} (\agousin auton\). Vivid dramatic present active of \ag\. These neighbours bring him. {To the Pharisees} (\pros tous Pharisaious\). The accepted professional teachers who posed as knowing everything. The scribes were usually Pharisees. {Him that aforetime was blind} (\ton pote tuphlon\). Simply, "the once blind man."

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION AND AUTHOR LUKE All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in the title. We should know that Luke wrote these two books if there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. Even Renan says: "There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name."

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

rwp@Luke:7:2 @{Centurion's servant} (\Hekatontarchou tinos doulos\). Slave of a certain centurion (Latin word \centurio\, commander of a century or hundred). strkjv@Mark:15:39,44| has the Latin word in Greek letters, \kenturin\. The centurion commanded a company which varied from fifty to a hundred. Each cohort had six centuries. Each legion had ten cohorts or bands (Acts:10:1|). The centurions mentioned in the N.T. all seem to be fine men as Polybius states that the best men in the army had this position. See also strkjv@Luke:23:47|. The Greek has two forms of the word, both from \hekaton\, hundred, and \arch\, to rule, and they appear to be used interchangeably. Songs:we have \hekatontarchos\; here, the form is \-archos\, and \hekatontarchs\, the form is \-archs\ in verse 6|. The manuscripts differ about it in almost every instance. The \-archos\ form is accepted by Westcott and Hort only in the nominative save the genitive singular here in strkjv@Luke:7:2| and the accusative singular in strkjv@Acts:22:25|. See like variation between them in strkjv@Matthew:8:5,8| (\-archos\) and strkjv@Matthew:8:13| (\archi\). Songs:also \-archon\ (Acts:22:25|) and \-archs\ (Acts:22:26|). {Dear to him} (\auti entimos\). Held in honour, prized, precious, dear (Luke:14:8; strkjv@1Peter:2:4; strkjv@Phillipians:2:29|), common Greek word. Even though a slave he was dear to him. {Was sick} (\kaks echn\). Having it bad. Common idiom. See already strkjv@Matthew:4:24; strkjv@8:16; strkjv@Mark:2:17; strkjv@Luke:5:31|, etc. strkjv@Matthew:8:6| notes that the slave was a paralytic. {And at the point of death} (\mellen teleutin\). Imperfect active of \mell\ (note double augment \\) which is used either with the present infinitive as here, the aorist (Revelation:3:16|), or even the future because of the future idea in \mell\ (Acts:11:28; strkjv@24:15|). He was about to die.

rwp@Luke:9:35 @If \ekeinous\ be accepted here instead of \autous\, the three disciples would be outside of the cloud. {Out of the cloud} (\ek ts nephels\). This voice was the voice of the Father like that at the baptism of Jesus (Luke:3:22; strkjv@Mark:1:11; strkjv@Matthew:3:17|) and like that near the end (John:12:28-30|) when the people thought it was a clap of thunder or an angel. {My son, my chosen} (\Hosea:huios mou, ho eklelegmenos\). Songs:the best documents (Aleph B L Syriac Sinaitic). The others make it "My Beloved" as in strkjv@Mark:9:7; strkjv@Matthew:17:5|. These disciples are commanded to hear Jesus, God's Son, even when he predicts his death, a pointed rebuke to Simon Peter as to all.

rwp@Luke:11:50 @{That... may be required} (\hina... ekztthi\). Divinely ordered sequence, first aorist passive subjunctive of \ekzte\, a late and rare verb outside of LXX and N.T., requiring as a debt the blood of the prophets. {Which was shed} (\to ekkechumenon\). Perfect passive participle of \ekche\ and \ekchunn\ (an Aeolic form appearing in the margin of Westcott and Hort here, \ekchunnomenon\, present passive participle). If the present passive is accepted, it means the blood which is perpetually shed from time to time. {From the foundation of the world} (\apo katabols kosmou\). See also strkjv@Matthew:25:34; strkjv@John:17:24; strkjv@Ephesians:1:4|, etc. It is a bold metaphor for the purpose of God.

rwp@Luke:13:33 @{The day following} (\ti echomeni\). See strkjv@Acts:20:15|. The same as the third day in verse 32|. A proverb. {It cannot be} (\ouk endechetai\). It is not accepted, it is inadmissible. A severely ironical indictment of Jerusalem. The shadow of the Cross reaches Perea where Jesus now is as he starts toward Jerusalem.

rwp@Mark:2:16 @{The scribes of the Pharisees} (\hoi grammateis tn Pharisain\). This is the correct text. Cf. "their scribes" in strkjv@Luke:5:30|. Matthew gave a great reception (\dochn\, strkjv@Luke:5:29|) in his house (Mark:2:15|). These publicans and sinners not simply accepted Levi's invitation, but they imitated his example "and were following Jesus" (\kai kolouthoun auti\). It was a motly crew from the standpoint of these young theologues, scribes of the Pharisees, who were on hand, being invited to pick flaws if they could. It was probably in the long hall of the house where the scribes stood and ridiculed Jesus and the disciples, unless they stood outside, feeling too pious to go into the house of a publican. It was an offence for a Jew to eat with Gentiles as even many of the early Jewish Christians felt (Acts:11:3|) and publicans and sinners were regarded like Gentiles (1Corinthians:5:11|).

rwp@Mark:2:23 @{Through the cornfields} (\dia tn sporimn\). See on ¯Matthew:12:1|. Songs:Matt. and strkjv@Luke:6:1|. But Mark uses \paraporeuesthai\, to go along beside, unless \diaporeuesthai\ (BCD) is accepted. Perhaps now on the edge, now within the grain. Mark uses also \hodon poiein\, to {make a way} like the Latin _iter facere_, as if through the standing grain, {plucking the ears} (\tillontes tous stachuas\). Work of preparing food the rabbis called it. The margin of the Revised Version has it correctly: They began to make their way plucking the ears of corn (grain, wheat or barley, we should say). See on ¯Matthew:12:1-8| for discussion of this passage, parallel also in strkjv@Luke:6:15|.

rwp@Mark:4:40 @{Why are ye fearful?} (\Ti deiloi este;\). They had the Lord of the wind and the waves with them in the boat. He was still Master even if asleep in the storm. {Have ye not yet faith?} (\Oup echete pistin;\). Not yet had they come to feel that Jesus was really Lord of nature. They had accepted his Messiaship, but all the conclusions from it they had not yet drawn. How like us in our troubles they were!

rwp@Mark:6:32 @{And they went away in a boat} (\kai aplthon en ti ploii\). They accepted with alacrity and off they went.

rwp@Matthew:3:1 @{And in those days cometh John the Baptist} (\en de tais hmerais paraginetai Ians ho Baptists\). Here the synoptic narrative begins with the baptism of John (Mt. strkjv@3:1; strkjv@Mark:1:2; strkjv@Luke:3:1|) as given by Peter in strkjv@Acts:1:22|, "from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us" (cf. also strkjv@Acts:10:37-43|, Peter's summary to Cornelius very much like the outline of Mark's Gospel). Matthew does not indicate the date when John appeared as Luke does in ch. 3 (the fifteenth year of Tiberius's reign). It was some thirty years after the birth of John, precisely how long after the return of Joseph and Mary to Nazareth we do not know. Moffatt translates the verb (\paraginetai\) "came on the scene," but it is the historical present and calls for a vivid imagination on the part of the reader. There he is as he comes forward, makes his appearance. His name John means "Gift of Jehovah" (cf. German _Gotthold_) and is a shortened form of Johanan. He is described as "the Baptist," "the Baptizer" for that is the rite that distinguishes him. The Jews probably had proselyte baptism as I. Abrahams shows (_Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels_, p. 37). But this rite was meant for the Gentiles who accepted Judaism. John is treating the Jews as Gentiles in demanding baptism at their hands on the basis of repentance.

rwp@Matthew:4:6 @{Cast thyself down} (\bale seauton kat\). The appeal to hurl himself down into the abyss below would intensify the nervous dread that most people feel at such a height. The devil urged presumptuous reliance on God and quotes Scripture to support his view (Psalms:91:11f.|). Songs:the devil quotes the Word of God, misinterprets it, omits a clause, and tries to trip the Son of God by the Word of God. It was a skilful thrust and would also be accepted by the populace as proof that Jesus was the Messiah if they should see him sailing down as if from heaven. This would be a sign from heaven in accord with popular Messianic expectation. The promise of the angels the devil thought would reassure Jesus. They would be a spiritual parachute for Christ.

rwp@Matthew:4:19 @{Fishers of men} (\haleeis anthrpn\). Andrew and Simon were fishers by trade. They had already become disciples of Jesus (John:1:35-42|), but now they are called upon to leave their business and to follow Jesus in his travels and work. These two brothers promptly (\euthes\) accepted the call and challenge of Jesus.

rwp@Matthew:8:2 @{If thou wilt} (\ean thelis\). The leper knew that Jesus had the power to heal him. His doubt was about his willingness. "Men more easily believe in miraculous power than in miraculous love" (Bruce). This is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined), a hopeful doubt at any rate. Jesus accepted his challenge by "I will." The command to "tell no one" was to suppress excitement and prevent hostility.

rwp@Matthew:14:33 @{Worshipped him} (\prosekunsan auti\). And Jesus accepted it. They were growing in appreciation of the person and power of Christ from the attitude in strkjv@8:27|. They will soon be ready for the confession of strkjv@16:16|. Already they can say: "Truly God's Son thou art." The absence of the article here allows it to mean a Son of God as in strkjv@27:54| (the centurion). But they probably mean "the Son of God" as Jesus was claiming to them to be.

rwp@Matthew:16:19 @{The Keys of the kingdom} (\tas kleidas ts basileias\). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18|. In strkjv@Revelation:1:18; strkjv@3:7| Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (\oikonomos\) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew:18:1|) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21|) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (\dsis\) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (\lusis\) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (\estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon\), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (18:18|). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John:20:23|), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, _primus inter pares_, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autn moicheuthnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenn gamsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\m epi porneii\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha or moicheu\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Matthew:21:3 @{The Lord} (\ho kurios\). It is not clear how the word would be understood here by those who heard the message though it is plain that Jesus applies it to himself. The word is from \kuros\, power or authority. In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. as master of the slave (Matthew:10:24|), of the harvest (9:38|), of the vineyard (20:8|), of the emperor (Acts:13:27|), of God (Matthew:11:20; strkjv@11:25|), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts:10:36|). Note strkjv@Matthew:8:25|. This is the only time in Matthew where the words \ho kurios\ are applied to Jesus except the doubtful passage in strkjv@28:6|. A similar usage is shown by Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_ and Deissmann's _Light from the Ancient East_. Particularly in Egypt it was applied to "the Lord Serapis" and Ptolemy and Cleopatra are called "the lords, the most great gods" (\hoi kurioi theoi megistoi\). Even Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I are addressed as "Lord King." In the west the Roman emperors are not so termed till the time of Domitian. But the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. It seems as if already the disciples were calling Jesus "Lord" and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here.

rwp@Revelation:1:7 @{Behold, he cometh with the clouds} (\idou erchetai meta tn nepheln\). Futuristic present middle indicative of \erchomai\, a reminiscence of strkjv@Daniel:7:13| (Theodotion). "It becomes a common eschatological refrain" (Beckwith) as in strkjv@Mark:13:26; strkjv@14:62; strkjv@Matthew:24:30; strkjv@26:64; strkjv@Luke:21:27|. Compare the manifestation of God in the clouds at Sinai, in the cloudy pillar, the Shekinah, at the transfiguration" (Vincent). {Shall see} (\opsetai\). Future middle of \hora\, a reminiscence of strkjv@Zechariah:12:10| according to the text of Theodotion (Aquila and Symmachus) rather than the LXX and like that of strkjv@Matthew:24:30| (similar combination of Daniel and Zechariah) and strkjv@26:64|. This picture of the victorious Christ in his return occurs also in strkjv@14:14, 18-20; strkjv@19:11-21; strkjv@20:7-10|. {And they which} (\kai hoitines\). "And the very ones who," Romans and Jews, all who shared in this act. {Pierced} (\exekentsan\). First aorist active indicative of \ekkente\, late compound (Aristotle, Polybius, LXX), from \ek\ and \kente\ (to stab, to pierce), in N.T., only here and strkjv@John:19:37|, in both cases from strkjv@Zechariah:12:10|, but not the LXX text (apparently proof that John used the original Hebrew or the translation of Theodotion and Aquila). {Shall mourn} (\kopsontai\). Future middle (direct) of \kopt\, old verb, to cut, "they shall cut themselves," as was common for mourners (Matthew:11:17; strkjv@Luke:8:52; strkjv@23:27|). From strkjv@Zechariah:12:12|. See also strkjv@Revelation:18:9|. {Tribes} (\phulai\). Not just the Jewish tribes, but the spiritual Israel of Jews and Gentiles as in strkjv@7:4-8|. No nation had then accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour, nor has any yet done so.

rwp@Revelation:2:23 @{I will kill with death} (\apokten en thanati\). Future (volitive) active of \apoktein\ with the tautological (cognate) \en thanati\ (in the sense of pestilence) as in strkjv@Ezekiel:33:27|. {Her children} (\ta tekna auts\). Either her actual children, like the fate of Ahab's sons (2Kings:10:7|) or "her spiritual progeny" (Swete) who have completely accepted her Nicolaitan practices. {Shall know} (\gnsontai\). Future (ingressive punctiliar) middle of \ginsk\, "shall come to know." "The doom of the offenders was to be known as widely as the scandal had been" (Charles). {Searcheth} (\eraunn\). Present active articular participle of \erauna\, to follow up, to track out, late form for \ereuna\, from strkjv@Jeremiah:17:10|. {Reins} (\nephrous\). Old word for kidneys, here only in N.T., quoted also with \kardias\ from strkjv@Jeremiah:17:10|. See strkjv@22:17| for the reward of punishment.

rwp@Revelation:11:4 @{The two olive trees} (\hai duo elaiai\). The article seems to point to what is known. For this original use of \elaia\ see strkjv@Romans:11:17,24|. In strkjv@Zechariah:4:2,3,14| the lampstand or candlestick (\luchnia\) is Israel, and the two olive trees apparently Joshua and Zerubbabel, but John makes his own use of this symbolism. Here the two olive trees and the candlesticks are identical. {Standing} (\hesttes\). Masculine perfect active participle agreeing with \houtoi\ instead of \hestsai\ (read by P and cursives) agreeing with \elaiai kai luchniai\, even though \hai\ (feminine plural article) be accepted before \enpion tou kuriou\ (before the Lord).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE REVELATION OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 95 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION DIFFICULTY IN THE PROBLEM Perhaps no single book in the New Testament presents so many and so formidable problems as the Apocalypse of John. These difficulties concern the authorship, the date, the apocalyptic method, the relation to the other Johannine books, the purpose, the historical environment, the reception of the book in the New Testament canon, the use and misuse of the book through the ages, etc. In the eastern churches the recognition of the Apocalypse of John was slower than in the west, since it was not in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to Cerinthus the Gnostic, but he was ably answered by Hippolytus, who attributed it to the Apostle John. The Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 360) omitted it, but the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) accepted it. The dispute about millenarianism led Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the third century, A.D.) to deny the authorship to the Apostle John, though he accepted it as canonical. Eusebius suggested a second John as the author. But finally the book was accepted in the east as Hebrews was in the west after a period of doubt.

rwp@Romans:5:2 @{We have had} (\eschkamen\). Perfect active indicative of \ech\ (same verb as \echmen\), still have it. {Our access} (\ten prosaggn\). Old word from \prosag\, to bring to, to introduce. Hence "introduction," "approach." Elsewhere in N.T. only strkjv@Ephesians:2:18; strkjv@3:12|. {Wherein we stand} (\en hi hestkamen\). Perfect active (intransitive) indicative of \histmi\. Grace is here present as a field into which we have been introduced and where we stand and we should enjoy all the privileges of this grace about us. {Let us rejoice} (\kauchmetha\). "Let us exult." Present middle subjunctive (volitive) because \echmen\ is accepted as correct. The exhortation is that we keep on enjoying peace with God and keep on exulting in hope of the glory of God.

rwp@Romans:16:2 @{Worthily of the saints} (\axis tn hagin\). Adverb with the genitive as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:27| because the adjective \axios\ is used with the genitive (Luke:3:8|). "Receive her in a way worthy of the saints." This word \hagios\ had come to be the accepted term for followers of Christ. {Assist her} (\parastte\). Second aorist (intransitive) active subjunctive of \paristmi\, to stand by, with the dative case ("beside her"), the very word used by Paul of the help of Jesus in his trial (\parest\, strkjv@2Timothy:4:17|). Used with \hina\ as \prosdexsthe\. {In whatsoever matter} (\en hi pragmati\). Incorporation of the antecedent (\pragmati\) into the relative clause (\hi\). {She may have need of you} (\an humn chrizi\). Indefinite relative clause with \an\ and the present subjunctive of \chriz\ with genitive. {A succourer} (\prostatis\). Old and rare feminine form for the masculine \prostats\, from \proistmi\ (\prostate\, common, but not in the N.T.), here only in the N.T. and not in the papyri. The word illustrates her work as \diakonon\ and is perhaps suggested here by \parastte\, just before. {Of mine own self} (\emou autou\). "Of me myself."

rwp@Titus:1:12 @{A prophet of their own} (\idios autn prophts\). "Their own prophet." Self-styled "prophet" (or poet), and so accepted by the Cretans and by Cicero and Apuleius, that is Epimenides who was born in Crete at Cnossos. It is a hexameter line and Callimachus quoted the first part of it in a Hymn to Zeus. It is said that Epimenides suggested to the Athenians the erection of statues to "unknown gods" (Acts:17:23|). {Liars} (\pseustai\). See strkjv@1Timothy:1:10| for the word. The Cretans had a bad reputation on this line, partly due to their claim to having the tomb of Zeus. {Evil beasts} (\kaka thria\). "Wicked wild beasts." Lock asks if the Minotaur was partly responsible. {Idle gluttons} (\gasteres argai\). "Idle bellies." Blunt and forceful. See strkjv@Phillipians:3:19| "whose god is the belly" (\h koilia\). Both words give the picture of the sensual gormandizer.