OT-POET.filter - rwp Provide:

rwp@Acts:17:26 @{And he made of one} (\epoisen te ex henos\). The word \haimatos\ (blood) is absent from Aleph A B and is a later explanatory addition. What Paul affirms is the unity of the human race with a common origin and with God as the Creator. This view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan (the Jews were \laos\, the Gentiles \ethn\). The cosmopolitanism of Paul here rises above Jew and Greek and claims the one God as the Creator of the one race of men. The Athenians themselves claimed to be \antochthonous\ (indigenous) and a special creation. Zeno and Seneca did teach a kind of cosmopolitanism (really pantheism) far different from the personal God of Paul. It was Rome, not Greece, that carried out the moral ideas of Zeno. Man is part of the universe (verse 24|) and God created (\epoisen\) man as he created (\poisas\) the all. {For to dwell} (\katoikein\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose, so as to dwell. {Having determined} (\horisas\). First aorist active participle of \horiz\, old verb to make a horizon as already in strkjv@19:42| which see. Paul here touches God's Providence. God has revealed himself in history as in creation. His hand appears in the history of all men as well as in that of the Chosen People of Israel. {Appointed seasons} (\prostetagmenous kairous\). Not the weather as in strkjv@14:17|, but "the times of the Gentiles" (\kairoi ethnn\) of which Jesus spoke (Luke:21:24|). The perfect passive participle of \prostass\, old verb to enjoin, emphasizes God's control of human history without any denial of human free agency as was involved in the Stoic Fate (\Heirmarmen\). {Bounds} (\horothesias\). Limits? Same idea in strkjv@Job:12:23|. Nations rise and fall, but it is not blind chance or hard fate. Thus there is an interplay between God's will and man's activities, difficult as it is for us to see with our shortened vision.

rwp@Acts:23:24 @{Provide beasts} (\kten parastsai\). Change from direct to indirect discourse just the opposite of that in verse 22|. {Beasts} (\ktn\). For riding as here or for baggage. See on ¯Luke:10:34|. Asses or horses, but not war-horses. Since Paul was chained to a soldier, another animal would be required for baggage. It was also seventy miles and a change of horses might be needed. The extreme precaution of Lysias is explained in some Latin MSS. as due to fear of a night attack with the result that he might be accused to Felix of bribery. Luke also probably accompanied Paul. {To bring safe} (\hina diasssin\). Final clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \diasz\, old verb, to save through (\dia\) to a finish. Eight times in the N.T. (Matthew:14:36; strkjv@Luke:7:3; strkjv@Acts:23:24; strkjv@27:43,44; strkjv@28:1,4; strkjv@1Peter:3:20|). {Unto Felix the governor} (\pros Phlika ton hgemona\). Felix was a brother of Pallas, the notorious favourite of Claudius. Both had been slaves and were now freedmen. Felix was made procurator of Judea by Claudius A.D. 52. He held the position till Festus succeeded him after complaints by the Jews to Nero. He married Drusilla the daughter of Herod Agrippa I with the hope of winning the favour of the Jews. He was one of the most depraved men of his time. Tacitus says of him that "with all cruelty and lust he exercised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave." The term "governor" (\hgemn\) means "leader" from \hgeomai\, to lead, and was applied to leaders of all sorts (emperors, kings, procurators). In the N.T. it is used of Pilate (Matthew:27:2|), of Felix, (Acts:23:24,26,33; strkjv@24:1|), of Festus (26:30|).

rwp@Acts:24:2 @{When he (Paul) was called} (\klthentos autou\). Genitive absolute (as so often in Acts) with first aorist passive participle of \kale\. Seeing that by thee we enjoy much peace (\polls eirns tugchanontes dia sou\). Literally, obtaining much peace by thee. A regular piece of flattery, _captatio benevolentiae_, to ingratiate himself into the good graces of the governor. Felix had suppressed a riot, but Tacitus (_Ann_. XII. 54) declares that Felix secretly encouraged banditti and shared the plunder for which the Jews finally made complaint to Nero who recalled him. But it sounded well to praise Felix for keeping peace in his province, especially as Tertullus was going to accuse Paul of being a disturber of the peace. {And that by thy providence} (\kai dia ts pronoias\). Forethought, old Greek word from \pronoos\ (\pronoe\ in strkjv@1Timothy:5:8; strkjv@Romans:12:17; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:21|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:13:14|. "Providence" is Latin _Providentia_ (foreseeing, _provideo_). Roman coins often have _Providentia Caesaris_. Post-Augustan Latin uses it of God (Deus). {Evils are corrected for this nation} (\diorthmatn ginomenn ti ethnei touti\). Genitive absolute again, \ginomenn\, present middle participle describing the process of reform going on for this nation (dative case of personal interest). \Diorthma\ (from \diortho\, to set right) occurs from Aristotle on of setting right broken limbs (Hippocrates) or reforms in law and life (Polybius, Plutarch). "Reform continually taking place for this nation." Felix the Reform Governor of Judea! It is like a campaign speech, but it doubtless pleased Felix.

rwp@John:12:4 @{Judas Iscariot} (\Ioudas ho Iskarits\). See \ho Iskarits\ 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, \Simnos\ and \Iskaritou\ (agreeing with the father), but in strkjv@13:1| \Iskarits\ agrees with \Ioudas\, not with \Simnos\. 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 tn mathtn 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 melln 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@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@Romans:11:36 @{Of him} (\ex autou\), {through him} (\di' autou\), {unto him} (\eis auton\). By these three prepositions Paul ascribes the universe (\ta panta\) with all the phenomena concerning creation, redemption, providence to God as the {Source} (\ex\), the {Agent} (\di\), the {Goal} (\eis\). {For ever} (\eis tous ainas\). "For the ages." Alford terms this doxology in verses 33-36| "the sublimest apostrophe existing even in the pages of inspiration itself."