OT-POET.filter - rwp collection:

rwp@2Corinthians:12:16 @{I did not myself burden you} (\eg ou katebarsa humas\). First aorist active of late verb \katabare\, to press a burden down on one. Only here in N.T. {Crafty} (\panourgos\). Old word from \pan\, all, and \ergo\, to do anything (good or bad). Good sense is skilful, bad sense cunning. Only here in N.T. and Paul is quoting the word from his enemies. {With guile} (\doli\). Instrumental case of \dolos\, bait to catch fish with. The enemies of Paul said that he was raising this big collection for himself. Moffatt has done well to put these charges in quotation marks to make it plain to readers that Paul is ironical.

rwp@Acts:20:33 @{No man's silver or gold or apparel} (\arguriou chrusiou himatismou oudenos\). Genitive case after \epethumsa\. One of the slanders against Paul was that he was raising this collection, ostensibly for the poor, really for himself (2Corinthians:12:17f.|). He includes "apparel" because oriental wealth consisted largely in fine apparel (not old worn out clothes). See strkjv@Genesis:24:53; strkjv@2Kings:5:5; strkjv@Psalms:45:13f.; strkjv@Matthew:6:19|. Paul did not preach just for money.

rwp@Acts:21:19 @{He rehearsed} (\exgeito\). Imperfect middle of \exgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Songs:Paul is pictured as taking his time for he had a great story to tell of what had happened since they saw him last. {One by one} (\kath' hena hekaston\). According to each one (item) and the adverbial phrase used as an accusative after the verb \exgeito\ as Demosthenes does (1265), though it could be like \kath' hena hekastos\ in strkjv@Ephesians:5:33|. {Which} (\hn\). Genitive attracted from \ha\ (accusative) into the case of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\. {God had wrought} (\epoisen ho theos\). Summary constative aorist active indicative that gathers up all that God did and he takes pains to give God the glory. It is possible that at this formal meeting Paul observed an absence of warmth and enthusiasm in contrast with the welcome accorded by his friends the day before (verse 17|). Furneaux thinks that Paul was coldly received on this day in spite of the generous offering brought from the Gentile Christians. "It looks as though his misgiving as to its reception (Romans:15:31|) was confirmed. Nor do we hear that the Christians of Jerusalem later put in so much as a word on his behalf with either the Jewish or the Roman authorities, or expressed any sympathy with him during his long imprisonment at Caesarea" (Furneaux). The most that can be said is that the Judaizers referred to by James do not appear actively against him. The collection and the plan proposed by James accomplished that much at any rate. It stopped the mouths of those lions.

rwp@Acts:21:20 @{Glorified} (\edoxazon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to glorify God, though without special praise of Paul. {How many thousands} (\posai muriades\). Old word for ten thousand (Acts:19:19|) and then an indefinite number like our "myriads" (this very word) as strkjv@Luke:12:1; strkjv@Acts:21:20; strkjv@Jude:1:14; strkjv@Revelation:5:11; strkjv@9:16|. But it is a surprising statement even with allowable hyperbole, but one may recall strkjv@Acts:4:4| (number of the men--not women--about five thousand); strkjv@5:14| (multitudes both of men and women); strkjv@6:7|. There were undoubtedly a great many thousands of believers in Jerusalem and all Jewish Christians, some, alas, Judaizers (Acts:11:2; strkjv@15:1,5|). This list may include the Christians from neighbouring towns in Palestine and even some from foreign countries here at the Feast of Pentecost, for it is probable that Paul arrived in time for it as he had hoped. But we do not have to count the hostile Jews from Asia (verse 27|) who were clearly not Christians at all. {All zealous for the law} (\pantes zltai tou nomou\). Zealots (substantive) rather than zealous (adjective) with objective genitive (\tou nomou\). The word zealot is from \zlo\, to burn with zeal, to boil. The Greek used \zlts\ for an imitator or admirer. There was a party of Zealots (developed from the Pharisees), a group of what would be called "hot-heads," who brought on the war with Rome. One of this party, Simon Zelotes (Acts:1:13|), was in the number of the twelve apostles. It is important to understand the issues in Jerusalem. It was settled at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|) that the Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be imposed upon Gentile Christians. Paul won freedom for them, but it was not said that it was wrong for Jewish Christians to go on observing it if they wished. We have seen Paul observing the passover in Philippi (Acts:20:6|) and planning to reach Jerusalem for Pentecost (20:16|). The Judaizers rankled under Paul's victory and power in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles and gave him great trouble in Galatia and Corinth. They were busy against him in Jerusalem also and it was to undo the harm done by them in Jerusalem that Paul gathered the great collection from the Gentile Christians and brought it with him and the delegates from the churches. Clearly then Paul had real ground for his apprehension of trouble in Jerusalem while still in Corinth (Romans:15:25|) when he asked for the prayers of the Roman Christians (verses 30-32|). The repeated warnings along the way were amply justified.

rwp@Info_John @ HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his _Diatessaron_, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter strkjv@John:11| which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in strkjv@Matthew:23|, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter strkjv@John:21| with that in strkjv@Luke:5|, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter strkjv@John:12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in strkjv@Luke:7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter strkjv@John:1| is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910).

rwp@John:5:39 @{Ye search} (\eraunte\). Proper spelling as the papyri show rather than \ereunte\, the old form (from \ereuna\, search) as in strkjv@7:52|. The form here can be either present active indicative second person plural or the present active imperative second person plural. Only the context can decide. Either makes sense here, but the reason given "because ye think" (\hoti humeis dokeite\, clearly indicative), supports the indicative rather than the imperative. Besides, Jesus is arguing on the basis of their use of "the Scriptures" (\tas graphas\). The plural with the article refers to the well-known collection in the Old Testament (Matthew:21:42; strkjv@Luke:24:27|). Elsewhere in John the singular refers to a particular passage (2:22; strkjv@7:38; strkjv@10:35|). {In them ye have eternal life} (\en autais zn ainion echein\). Indirect assertion after \dokeite\ without "ye" expressed either as nominative (\humeis\) or accusative (\humas\). Bernard holds that in John \doke\ always indicates a mistaken opinion (5:45; strkjv@11:13,31; strkjv@13:29; strkjv@16:20; strkjv@20:15|). Certainly the rabbis did make a mechanical use of the letter of Scripture as a means of salvation. {These are they} (\ekeinai eisin hai\). The true value of the Scriptures is in their witness to Christ (of me, \peri emou\). Luke (24:27,45|) gives this same claim of Jesus, and yet some critics fail to find the Messiah in the Old Testament. But Jesus did.

rwp@Luke:19:2 @{Chief publican} (\architelns\). The word occurs nowhere else apparently but the meaning is clear from the other words with \archi-\ like \archiereus\ (chief priest) \archipoimn\ (chief shepherd). Jericho was an important trading point for balsam and other things and so Zacchaeus was the head of the tax collections in this region, a sort of commissioner of taxes who probably had other publicans serving under him.

rwp@Mark:7:19 @{Making all meats clean} (\katharizn panta ta brmata\). This anacoluthon can be understood by repeating {he says} (\legei\) from verse 18|. The masculine participle agrees with Jesus, the speaker. The words do not come from Jesus, but are added by Mark. Peter reports this item to Mark, probably with a vivid recollection of his own experience on the housetop in Joppa when in the vision Peter declined three times the Lord's invitation to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts:10:14-16|). It was a riddle to Peter as late as that day. "Christ asserts that _Levitical_ uncleanness, such as eating with unwashed hands, is of small importance compared with _moral_ uncleanness" (Vincent). The two chief words in both incidents, here and in Acts, are {defile} (\koino\) and {cleanse} (\kathariz\). "What God cleansed do not thou treat as defiled" (Acts:10:15|). It was a revolutionary declaration by Jesus and Peter was slow to understand it even after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus was amply justified in his astonished question: {Perceive ye not?} (\ou noeite;\). They were making little use of their intelligence in trying to comprehend the efforts of Jesus to give them a new and true spiritual insight.

rwp@Matthew:7:29 @{And not as their scribes} (\kai ouch hs hoi grammateis autn\). They had heard many sermons before from the regular rabbis in the synagogues. We have specimens of these discourses preserved in the Mishna and Gemara, the Jewish Talmud when both were completed, the driest, dullest collection of disjounted comments upon every conceivable problem in the history of mankind. The scribes quoted the rabbis before them and were afraid to express an idea without bolstering it up by some predecessor. Jesus spoke with the authority of truth, the reality and freshness of the morning light, and the power of God's Spirit. This sermon which made such a profound impression ended with the tragedy of the fall of the house on the sand like the crash of a giant oak in the forest. There was no smoothing over the outcome.

rwp@Matthew:18:1 @{Who then is greatest} (\tis ara meizn estin\). The \ara\ seems to point back to the tax-collection incident when Jesus had claimed exemption for them all as "sons" of the Father. But it was not a new dispute, for jealousy had been growing in their hearts. The wonderful words of Jesus to Peter on Mount Hermon (Matthew:16:17-19|) had evidently made Peter feel a fresh sense of leadership on the basis of which he had dared even to rebuke Jesus for speaking of his death (16:22|). And then Peter was one of the three (James and John also) taken with the Master up on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter on that occasion had spoken up promptly. And just now the tax-collectors had singled out Peter as the one who seemed to represent the group. Mark (Mark:9:33|) represents Jesus as asking them about their dispute on the way into the house, perhaps just after their question in strkjv@Matthew:18:1|. Jesus had noticed the wrangling. It will break out again and again (Matthew:20:20-28; strkjv@Luke:22:24|). Plainly the primacy of Peter was not yet admitted by the others. The use of the comparative \meizn\ (so \ho meizn\ in verse 4|) rather than the superlative \megistos\ is quite in accord with the _Koin_ idiom where the comparative is displacing the superlative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 667ff.). But it is a sad discovery to find the disciples chiefly concerned about their own places (offices) in the political kingdom which they were expecting.

rwp@Romans:12:13 @{Communicating} (\koinnountes\). "Contributing." From \koinne\ for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:9:13|. Paul had raised a great collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. {Given to hospitality} (\tn philoxenian dikontes\). "Pursuing (as if in a chase or hunt) hospitality" (\philoxenia\, old word from \philoxenos\, fond of strangers, \philos\ and \xenos\ as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:2|). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:2|. See strkjv@2Corinthians:3:1|. They were to pursue (\dik\) hospitality as their enemies pursued (\dikontas\) them.