OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp actions:

rwp@1Corinthians:3:10 @{As a wise masterbuilder} (\hs sophos architektn\). Paul does not shirk his share in the work at Corinth with all the sad outcome there. He absolves Apollos from responsibility for the divisions. He denies that he himself is to blame. In doing so he has to praise himself because the Judaizers who fomented the trouble at Corinth had directly blamed Paul. It is not always wise for a preacher to defend himself against attack, but it is sometimes necessary. Factions in the church were now a fact and Paul went to the bottom of the matter. God gave Paul the grace to do what he did. This is the only New Testament example of the old and common word \architektn\, our architect. \Tektn\ is from \tikt\, to beget, and means a begetter, then a worker in wood or stone, a carpenter or mason (Matthew:13:55; strkjv@Mark:6:3|). \Archi-\ is an old inseparable prefix like \archaggelos\ (archangel), \archepiscopos\ (archbishop), \archiereus\ (chiefpriest). \Architektn\ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions in an even wider sense than our use of architect, sometimes of the chief engineers. But Paul means to claim primacy as pastor of the church in Corinth as is true of every pastor who is the architect of the whole church life and work. All the workmen (\tektones\, carpenters) work under the direction of the architect (Plato, _Statesman_, 259). "As a wise architect I laid a foundation" (\themelion ethka\). Much depends on the wisdom of the architect in laying the foundation. This is the technical phrase (Luke:6:48; strkjv@14:29|), a cognate accusative for \themelion\. The substantive \themelion\ is from the same root \the\ as \ethka\ (\ti-thmi\). We cannot neatly reproduce the idiom in English. "I placed a placing" does only moderately well. Paul refers directly to the events described by Luke in strkjv@Acts:18:1-18|. The aorist \ethka\ is the correct text, not the perfect \tetheika\. {Another buildeth thereon} (\allos epoikodomei\). Note the preposition \epi\ with the verb each time (10,11,12,14|). The successor to Paul did not have to lay a new foundation, but only to go on building on that already laid. It is a pity when the new pastor has to dig up the foundation and start all over again as if an earthquake had come. {Take heed how he buildeth thereon} (\blepet ps epoikodomei\). The carpenters have need of caution how they carry out the plans of the original architect. Successive architects of great cathedrals carry on through centuries the original design. The result becomes the wonder of succeeding generations. There is no room for individual caprice in the superstructure.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:19 @{Must be} (\dei einai\). Since moral conditions are so bad among you (cf. chapters 1 to 6). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:7|. {Heresies} (\haireseis\). The schisms naturally become {factions} or {parties}. Cf. strifes (\erides\) in strkjv@1:11|. See on ¯Acts:15:5| for \haireseis\, a choosing, taking sides, holding views of one party, heresy (our word). "Heresy is theoretical schism, schism practical heresy." Cf. strkjv@Titus:3:10; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. In Paul only here and strkjv@Galatians:5:20|. {That} (\hina\). God's purpose in these factions makes {the proved ones} (\hoi dokimoi\) become {manifest} (\phaneroi\). "These \haireseis\ are a magnet attracting unsound and unsettled minds" (Findlay). It has always been so. Instance so-called Christian Science, Russellism, New Thought, etc., today.

rwp@1John:3:18 @{In word, neither with the tongue} (\logi mde ti glssi\). Either instrumental or locative makes sense. What John means is "not merely by word or by the tongue." He does not condemn kind words which are comforting and cheering, but warm words should be accompanied by warm deeds to make real "in deed and in truth" (\en ergi kai altheii\). Here is a case where actions do speak louder than mere words.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:12 @{That ye may walk honestly} (\hina peripatte euschmons\). Present subjunctive (linear action). Old adverb from \euschmn\ (\eu, schma\, Latin _habitus_, graceful figure), becomingly, decently. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:13:13|. This idea includes honest financial transactions, but a good deal more. People outside the churches have a right to watch the conduct of professing Christians in business, domestic life, social life, politics.

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ The occasion of the Epistle is made plain by numerous allusions personal and otherwise. Paul had arrived in Ephesus from Antioch shortly after the departure of Apollos for Corinth with letters of commendation from Priscilla and Aquila (Acts:18:28-19:1|). It is not clear how long Apollos remained in Corinth, but he is back in Ephesus when Paul writes the letter and he has declined Paul's request to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). Some of the household of Chloe had heard or come from Corinth with full details of the factions in the church over Apollos and Paul, clearly the reason why Apollos left (1Corinthians:1:10-12|). Even Cephas nominally was drawn into it, though there is no evidence that Peter himself had come to Corinth. Paul had sent Timothy over to Corinth to put an end to the factions (1Corinthians:4:17|), though he was uneasy over the outcome (1Corinthians:16:10f.|). This disturbance was enough of itself to call forth a letter from Paul. But it was by no means the whole story. Paul had already written a letter, now lost to us, concerning a peculiarly disgusting case of incest in the membership (1Corinthians:5:9|). They were having lawsuits with one another before heathen judges. Members of the church had written Paul a letter about marriage whether any or all should marry (1Corinthians:7:1|). They were troubled also whether it was right to eat meat that had been offered to idols in the heathen temples (1Corinthians:8:1|). Spiritual gifts of an unusual nature were manifested in Corinth and these were the occasion of a deal of trouble (1Corinthians:12:1|). The doctrine of the resurrection gave much trouble in Corinth (1Corinthians:15:12|). Paul was interested in the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Corinthians:16:1|) and in their share in it. The church in Corinth had sent a committee (Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus) to Paul in Ephesus. He hopes to come himself after passing through Macedonia (1Corinthians:16:5f.|). It is possible that he had made a short visit before this letter (2Corinthians:13:1|), though not certain as he may have intended to go one time without going as he certainly once changed his plans on the subject (2Corinthians:1:15-22|). Whether Titus took the letter on his visit or it was sent on after the return of Timothy is not perfectly clear. Probably Timothy returned to Ephesus from Corinth shortly after the epistle was sent on, possibly by the committee who returned to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:17|), for Timothy and Erastus were sent on from Ephesus to Macedonia before the outbreak at the hands of Demetrius (Acts:19:22|). Apparently Timothy had not fully succeeded in reconciling the factions in Corinth for Paul dispatched Titus who was to meet him at Troas as he went on to Macedonia. Paul's hurried departure from Ephesus (Acts:20:1|) took him to Troas before Titus arrived and Paul's impatience there brought him to Macedonia where he did meet Titus on his return from Corinth (2Corinthians:2:12f.|).

rwp@2Corinthians:9:13 @{Seeing that they glorify God} (\doxazontes ton theon\). Anacoluthon again. The nominative participle used independently like \ploutizomenoi\ in verse 11|. {Obedience} (\hupotagi\). Late and rare word from \hupotass\, to subject, middle to obey. Only in Paul in N.T. {Of your confession} (\ts homologias humn\). Old word from \homologe\ (\homologos, homou, leg\), to say together. It is either to profess (Latin _profiteor_, to declare openly) or to confess (Latin _confiteor_, to declare fully, to say the same thing as another). Both confess and profess are used to translate the verb and each idea is present in the substantive. Only the context can decide. Actions speak louder than words. The brethren in Jerusalem will know by this collection that Gentiles make as good Christians as Jews. {For the liberality of your contribution} (\haplotti ts koinnias\). This is the point that matters just now. Paul drives it home. On this use of \koinnia\ see on ¯8:4|.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:28 @{Besides those things that are without} (\chris tn parektos\). Probably, "apart from those things beside these just mentioned." Surely no man ever found glory in such a peck of troubles as Paul has here recounted. His list should shame us all today who are disposed to find fault with our lot. {That which presseth upon me daily} (\h epistasis moi h kath' hmeran\). For this vivid word \epistasis\ see strkjv@Acts:24:12|, the only other place in the N.T. where it occurs. It is like the rush of a mob upon Paul. {Anxiety for all the churches} (\h merimna pasn tn ekklsin\). Objective genitive after \merimna\ (distractions in different directions, from \meriz\) for which word see on ¯Matthew:13:22|. Paul had the shepherd heart. As apostle to the Gentiles he had founded most of these churches.

rwp@Info_Acts @ LUKE THE AUTHOR It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two volumes (_The Acts of the Apostles_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; _The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911). Ramsay's view may be found in Chapter I of _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_, Chapter XII of _Pauline and Other Studies_. A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_ by Dr. D. A. Hayes, in Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, and in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling, Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass, Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of _The Acts of the Apostles_, Vol. II of _The Beginnings of Christianity_, edited by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented: _The Case for the Tradition_ by C. W. Emmet, _The Case against the Tradition_ by H. Windisch. _The Internal Evidence of Acts_ is discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys _The Tradition_ (the external evidence) and draws a negative conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars. A similar position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, _The Making of Luke--Acts_ (1927). But all the same the traditional view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that Acts is a _Tendenz_ writing for the purpose of healing the breach between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came together had great influence for a while. In fact both Ramsay and Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.

rwp@Acts:5:17 @{Which is the sect of the Sadducees} (\h ousa hairesis tn Saddoukain\). Literally, "the existing sect of the Sadducees" or "the sect which is of the Sadducees," \h\ being the article, not the relative. \Hairesis\ means a choosing, from \haireomai\, to take for oneself, to choose, then an opinion chosen or tenet (possibly strkjv@2Peter:2:1|), then parties or factions (Gal strkjv@5:20; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:19|; possibly strkjv@2Peter:2:1|). It is applied here to the Sadducees; to the Pharisees in strkjv@Acts:15:5; strkjv@26:5|; to the Christians in strkjv@24:5-14; strkjv@28:22|. Already Luke has stated that the Sadducees started the persecution of Peter and John (Acts:4:1f.|). Now it is extended to "the apostles" as a whole since Christianity has spread more rapidly in Jerusalem than before it began.

rwp@Acts:14:4 @{But the multitude of the city was divided} (\eschisth de to plthos ts poles\). First aorist passive indicative of \schiz\, old verb to split, to make a schism or factions as Sadducees and Pharisees (23:7|). This division was within the Gentile populace. Part held (\hoi men san\), literally "some were with the Jews" (\sun tois Ioudaiois\), part with the apostles (\hoi de sun tois apostolois\). Common demonstrative of contrast (\hoi men, hoi de\, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 694). The Jewish leaders made some impression on the Gentiles as at Antioch in Pisidia and later at Thessalonica (17:4f.|). This is the first time in the Acts that Paul and Barnabas are termed "apostles" (see also verse 14|). Elsewhere in the Acts the word is restricted to the twelve. Certainly Luke does not here employ it in that technical sense. To have followed Jesus in his ministry and to have seen the Risen Christ was essential to the technical use (1:22f.|). Whether Barnabas had seen the Risen Christ we do not know, but certainly Paul had (1Corinthians:9:1f.; strkjv@15:8|). Paul claimed to be an apostle on a par with the twelve (Galatians:1:1,16-18|). The word originally means simply one sent (John:13:16|) like messengers of the churches with the collection (2Corinthians:8:23|). The Jews used it of those sent from Jerusalem to collect the temple tribute. Paul applies the word to James the Lord's brother (Galatians:1:19|), to Epaphroditus (Phillipians:2:25|) as the messenger of the church in Philippi, to Silvanus and Timothy (1Thessalonians:2:6; strkjv@Acts:18:5|), apparently to Apollos (1Corinthians:4:9|), and to Andronicus and Junias (Romans:16:6f.|). He even calls the Judaizers "false apostles" (2Corinthians:11:13|).

rwp@Acts:19:39 @{Anything about other matters} (\ti peraiter\). Most MSS. here have \ti peri hetern\, but B b Vulgate read \ti peraiter\ as in Plato's \Phaedo\. Several papyri examples of it also. It is comparative \peraiteros\ of \pera\, beyond. Note also \epi\ in \epizteite\. Charges of illegal conduct (Page) should be settled in the regular legal way. But, if you wish to go further and pass resolutions about the matter exciting you, "it shall be settled in the regular assembly" (\en ti ennomi ekklsii\). "In the lawful assembly," not by a mob like this. Wood (_Ephesus_) quotes an inscription there with this very phrase "at every lawful assembly" (\kata psan ennomon ekklsian\). The Roman officials alone could give the sanction for calling such a lawful or regular assembly. The verb \epilu\ is an old one, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:4:34| (which see) where Jesus privately opened or disclosed the parables to the disciples. The papyri give examples of the verb in financial transactions as well as of the metaphorical sense. The solution will come in the lawful assembly, not in a riot like this. See also strkjv@2Peter:1:20| where the substantive \epilusis\ occurs for disclosure or revelation (prophecy).

rwp@Acts:28:4 @{The beast} (\to thrion\). Diminutive of \thr\ and so little beast. See on ¯Mark:1:13|. Aristotle and the medical writers apply the word to venomous serpents, the viper in particular (Knowling), as Luke does here. Vincent calls attention to the curious history of our word "_treacle_" for molasses (Latin _theriaca_) from \thriak\, an antidote made from the flesh of vipers. Coverdale translates strkjv@Jeremiah:8:22|: "There is no more treacle in Gilead." Jeremy Taylor: "We kill the viper and make treacle of him." {Hanging from his hand} (\kremamenon ek ts cheiros autou\). Vivid picture of the snake dangling from Paul's hand. Present middle participle of \kremamai\, late form for \kremannumi\, to hang up, to suspend (cf. strkjv@Galatians:3:13|). {No doubt} (\pants\). Literally, By all means, old adverb. Cf. strkjv@21:22; strkjv@Luke:4:23; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:22|. Only by Luke and Paul in the N.T. "They _knew_ that he was a prisoner being taken to Rome on some grave charge, and _inferred_ that the charge was murder" (Page). {Though he hath escaped} (\diasthenta\). First aorist passive participle of \diasz\ (same verb used in strkjv@24:43,44; strkjv@28:1|), so-called concessive use of the participle (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1129). {Yet Justice} (\dik\). An abstraction personified like the Latin _Justitia_ (Page). The natives speak of \Dik\ as a goddess, but we know nothing of such actual worship in Malta, though the Greeks worshipped abstractions as in Athens. {Hath not suffered} (\ouk eiasen\). Did not suffer. They look on Paul as a doomed man as good as dead. These people thought that calamity was proof of guilt, poor philosophy and worse theology.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE Epaphras did not come in vain, for Paul was tremendously stirred by the peril to Christianity from the Gnostics (\hoi gnstikoi\, the knowing ones). He had won his fight for freedom in Christ against the Judaizers who tried to fasten Jewish sacramentarianism upon spiritual Christianity. Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. Songs:then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God. One cannot understand Colossians without some knowledge of Gnosticism such as may be obtained in such books as Angus's _The Mystery-Religions and Christianity_, Glover's _The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire_, Kennedy's St. _Paul and the Mystery-Religions_, Lightfoot's _Commentary on Colossians_.

rwp@Galatians:3:19 @{What then is the law?} (\ti oun ho nomos?\). Or, why then the law? A pertinent question if the Abrahamic promise antedates it and holds on afterwards. {It was added because of transgressions} (\tn parabasen charin proseteth\). First aorist passive of \prostithmi\, old verb to add to. It is only in apparent contradiction to verses 15ff.|, because in Paul's mind the law is no part of the covenant, but a thing apart "in no way modifying its provisions" (Burton). \Charin\ is the adverbial accusative of \charis\ which was used as a preposition with the genitive as early as Homer, in favour of, for the sake of. Except in strkjv@1John:3:12| it is post-positive in the N.T. as in ancient Greek. It may be causal (Luke:7:47; strkjv@1John:3:12|) or telic (Titus:1:5,11; strkjv@Jude:1:16|). It is probably also telic here, not in order to create transgressions, but rather "to make transgressions palpable" (Ellicott), "thereby pronouncing them to be from that time forward transgressions of the law" (Rendall). \Parabasis\, from \parabain\, is in this sense a late word (Plutarch on), originally a slight deviation, then a wilful disregarding of known regulations or prohibitions as in strkjv@Romans:2:23|. {Till the seed should come} (\achris an elthi to sperma\). Future time with \achris an\ and aorist subjunctive (usual construction). Christ he means by \to sperma\ as in verse 16|. {The promise hath been made} (\epggeltai\). Probably impersonal perfect passive rather than middle of \epaggellomai\ as in II Macc. strkjv@4:27. {Ordained through angels} (\diatageis di' aggeln\). Second aorist passive participle of \diatass\ (see on ¯Matthew:11:1|). About angels and the giving of the law see on strkjv@Deuteronomy:33:2| (LXX); strkjv@Acts:7:38,52; strkjv@Hebrews:2:2|; Josephus (_Ant_. XV. 5. 3). {By the hand of a mediator} (\en cheiri mesitou\). \En cheiri\ is a manifest Aramaism or Hebraism and only here in the N.T. It is common in the LXX. \Mesits\, from \mesos\ is middle or midst, is a late word (Polybius, Diodorus, Philo, Josephus) and common in the papyri in legal transactions for arbiter, surety, etc. Here of Moses, but also of Christ (1Timothy:2:5; strkjv@Hebrews:8:6; strkjv@9:15; strkjv@12:24|).

rwp@Galatians:5:19 @{Manifest} (\phanera\). Opposed to "hidden" (\krupta\). Ancient writers were fond of lists of vices and virtues. Cf. Stalker's sermons on _The Seven Cardinal Virtues_ and _The Seven Deadly Sins_. There are more than seven in this deadly list in verses 19-21|. He makes the two lists in explanation of the conflict in verse 17| to emphasize the command in verses 13f|. There are four groups in Paul's list of manifest vices: (I) Sensual sins like fornication (\porneia\, prostitution, harlotry), uncleanness (\akatharsia\, moral impurity), lasciviousness (\aselgeia\, wantonness), sexual vice of all kinds prevailed in heathenism. (2) Idolatry (\eidlatreia\, worship of idols) and witchcraft (\pharmakeia\ from \pharmakon\, a drug, the ministering of drugs), but the sorcerers monopolized the word for a while in their magical arts and used it in connection with idolatry. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:18:23|. See strkjv@Acts:19:19| \perierga\, curious arts. (3) Personal relations expressed by eight words, all old words, sins of the spirit, like enmities (\exthrai\, personal animosities), strife (\eris\, rivalry, discord), jealousies (\zlos\ or \zloi\, MSS. vary, our very word), wraths (\thumoi\, stirring emotions, then explosions), factions (\eritheiai\, from \erithos\, day labourer for hire, worker in wool, party spirit), divisions (\dichostasiai\, splits in two, \dicha\ and \stasis\), heresies (\haireseis\, the very word, but really choosings from \haireomai\, preferences), envyings (\phthonoi\, feelings of ill-will). Surely a lively list. (4) {Drunkenness} (\methai\, old word and plural, drunken excesses, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:34; strkjv@Romans:13:13|), revellings (\kmoi\, old word also for drinking parties like those in honour of Bacchus, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:13:13; strkjv@1Peter:4:3|). {And such like} (\kai ta homoia toutois\). And the things like these (associative instrumental \toutois\ after \homoia\, like). It is not meant to be exhaustive, but it is representative.

rwp@Hebrews:11:1 @{Now faith is} (\estin de pistis\). He has just said that "we are of faith" (10:39|), not of apostasy. Now he proceeds in a chapter of great eloquence and passion to illustrate his point by a recital of the heroes of faith whose example should spur them to like loyalty now. {The assurance of things hoped for} (\elpizomenn hupostasis\). {Hupostasis} is a very common word from Aristotle on and comes from \huphistmi\ (\hupo\, under, \histmi\, intransitive), what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise). See the philosophical use of it in strkjv@1:3|, the sense of assurance (une assurance certaine, Mngoz) in strkjv@3:14|, that steadiness of mind which holds one firm (2Corinthians:9:4|). It is common in the papyri in business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. "And as this is the essential meaning in strkjv@Hebrews:11:1| we venture to suggest the translation 'Faith is the _title-deed_ of things hoped for'" (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_, etc.). {The proving of things not seen} (\pragmatn elegchos ou blepomenn\). The only N.T. example of \elegchos\ (except Textus Receptus in strkjv@2Timothy:3:16| for \elegmon\). Old and common word from \elegch\ (Matthew:18:15|) for "proof" and then for "conviction." Both uses occur in the papyri and either makes sense here, perhaps "conviction" suiting better though not in the older Greek.

rwp@James:3:13 @{Who} (\Tis\). Rhetorical interrogative like strkjv@Luke:11:11|. Common in Paul and characteristic of the diatribe. James here returns to the standpoint of verse 1| about many teachers. Speech and wisdom are both liable to abuse (1Corinthians:1:5,17; strkjv@2:1-3:20|). {Wise and understanding} (\sophos kai epistmn\). \Sophos\ is used for the practical teacher (verse 1|), \epistmn\ (old word from \epistamai\, here only in N.T.) for an expert, a skilled and scientific person with a tone of superiority. In strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:13,15; strkjv@4:6|, the two terms are practically synonyms. {Let him shew} (\deixat\). First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, old verb to show. As about faith in strkjv@2:18|. Emphatic position of this verb. {By his good life} (\ek ts kals anastrophs\). For this literary _Koin_ word from \anastrephomai\ (walk, conduct) see strkjv@Galatians:1:13|. Actions speak louder than words even in the case of the professional wise man. Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:15|. {In meekness of wisdom} (\en prautti sophias\). As in strkjv@1:21| of the listener, so here of the teacher. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:5:5; strkjv@11:29| and Zac strkjv@9:9| of King Messiah quoted in strkjv@Matthew:21:5|. Startling combination.

rwp@Matthew:5:31 @{A writing of divorcement} (\apostasion\), "a divorce certificate" (Moffatt), "a written notice of divorce" (Weymouth). The Greek is an abbreviation of \biblion apostasiou\ (Ma strkjv@19:7; strkjv@Mark:10:4|). Vulgate has here _libellum repudii_. The papyri use \suggraph apostasiou\ in commercial transactions as "a bond of release" (see Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_, etc.) The written notice (\biblion\) was a protection to the wife against an angry whim of the husband who might send her away with no paper to show for it.

rwp@Matthew:21:19 @{A fig tree} (\sukn mian\). "A single fig tree" (Margin of Rev. Version). But \heis\ was often used = \tis\ or like our indefinite article. See strkjv@Matthew:8:10; strkjv@26:69|. The Greek has strictly no indefinite article as the Latin has no definite article. {Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever} (\ou mketi sou karpos gentai eis ton aina\). Strictly speaking this is a prediction, not a prohibition or wish as in strkjv@Mark:11:14| (optative \phagoi\). "On you no fruit shall ever grow again" (Weymouth). The double negative \ou m\ with the aorist subjunctive (or future indicative) is the strongest kind of negative prediction. It sometimes amounts to a prohibition like \ou\ and the future indicative (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 926f.). The early figs start in spring before the leaves and develop after the leaves. The main fig crop was early autumn (Mark:11:14|). There should have been figs on the tree with the crop of leaves. It was a vivid object lesson. Matthew does not distinguish between the two mornings as Mark does (Mark:11:13,20|), but says "immediately" (\parachrma\) twice (21:19,20|). This word is really \para to chrma\ like our "on the spot" (Thayer). It occurs in the papyri in monetary transactions for immediate cash payment.

rwp@Matthew:25:27 @{Thou oughtest therefore} (\edsi se oun\). His very words of excuse convict him. It was a necessity (\edei\) that he did not see. {The bankers} (\tois trapezeitais\). The benchers, money-changers, brokers, who exchanged money for a fee and who paid interest on money. Word common in late Greek. {I should have received back} (\eg ekomisamn an\). Conclusion of a condition of the second class (determined as unfulfilled). The condition is not expressed, but it is implied. "If you had done that." {With interest} (\sun toki\). Not with "usury" in the sense of extortion or oppression. Usury only means "use" in itself. The word is from \tikt\, to bring forth. Compound interest at six per cent doubles the principal every twenty years. It is amazing how rapidly that piles up if one carries it on for centuries and millenniums. "In the early Roman Empire legal interest was eight per cent, but in usurious transactions it was lent at twelve, twenty-four, and even forty-eight" (Vincent). Such practices exist today in our cities. The Mosaic law did not allow interest in dealings between Hebrews, but only with strangers (Deuteronomy:23:19,20; strkjv@Psalms:15:5|).

rwp@Revelation:4:10 @{Shall fall down} (\pesountai\, future middle of \pipt\), {shall worship} (\proskunsousin\, future active of \proskune\), {shall cast their crowns} (\balousin tous stephanous\, future active of \ball\). The two actions by the two groups (living creatures, elders) are coordinated (simultaneous in the repetition). They thus acknowledge that all this kingly dignity comes from God, who is King of kings and Lord of lords. Charles takes the elders, however, to be angels, not redeemed men.

rwp@Romans:2:15 @{In that they} (\hoitines\). "The very ones who," qualitative relative. {Written in their hearts} (\grapton en tais kardiais autn\). Verbal adjective of \graph\, to write. When their conduct corresponds on any point with the Mosaic law they practise the unwritten law in their hearts. {Their conscience bearing witness therewith} (\sunmarturouss autn ts suneidses\). On conscience (\suneidsis\) see on ¯1Corinthians:8:7; strkjv@10:25f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:12|. Genitive absolute here with present active participle \sunmarturouss\ as in strkjv@9:1|. The word \suneidsis\ means co-knowledge by the side of the original consciousness of the act. This second knowledge is personified as confronting the first (Sanday and Headlam). The Stoics used the word a great deal and Paul has it twenty times. It is not in the O.T., but first in this sense in Wisdom strkjv@17:10. All men have this faculty of passing judgment on their actions. It can be over-scrupulous (1Corinthians:10:25|) or "seared" by abuse (1Timothy:4:12|). It acts according to the light it has. {Their thoughts one with another accusing or also excusing them} (\metaxu allln tn logismn katgorountn kai apologoumenn\). Genitive absolute again showing the alternative action of the conscience, now accusing, now excusing. Paul does not say that a heathen's conscience always commends everything that he thinks, says, or does. In order for one to be set right with God by his own life he must always act in accord with his conscience and never have its disapproval. That, of course, is impossible else Christ died for naught (Galatians:2:21|). Jesus alone lived a sinless life. For one to be saved without Christ he must also live a sinless life.