OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp convinced:

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ FIRST CORINTHIANS FROM EPHESUS A.D. 54 OR 55 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION It would be a hard-boiled critic today who would dare deny the genuineness of I Corinthians. The Dutch wild man, Van Manen, did indeed argue that Paul wrote no epistles if indeed he ever lived. Such intellectual banality is well answered by Whateley's _Historic Doubts about Napolean Bonaparte_ which was so cleverly done that some readers were actually convinced that no such man ever existed, but is the product of myth and legend. Even Baur was compelled to acknowledge the genuineness of I and II Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (the Big Four of Pauline criticism). It is a waste of time now to prove what all admit to be true. Paul of Tarsus, the Apostle to the Gentiles, wrote I Corinthians.

rwp@Acts:1:3 @{To whom also} (\hois kai\). He chose them and then also manifested himself to these very same men that they might have personal witness to give. {Shewed himself alive} (\parestsen heauton znta\). To the disciples the first Sunday evening (Mark:16:14; strkjv@Luke:24:36-43; strkjv@John:20:19-25|), the second Sunday evening (John:20:26-29|), at the Sea of Tiberias (John:21:1-23|), on the mountain in Galilee (Matthew:28:16-20; strkjv@Mark:16:15-18; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:6|), to the disciples in Jerusalem and Olivet (Luke:24:44-53; strkjv@Mark:16-19f.; strkjv@Acts:1:1-11|). Luke uses this verb \paristmi\ 13 times in the Acts both transitively and intransitively. It is rendered by various English words (present, furnish, provide, assist, commend). The early disciples including Paul never doubted the fact of the Resurrection, once they were convinced by personal experience. At first some doubted like Thomas (Mark:16:14; strkjv@Luke:24:41; strkjv@John:20:24f.; strkjv@Matthew:28:17|). But after that they never wavered in their testimony to their own experience with the Risen Christ, "whereof we are witnesses" Peter said (Acts:3:15|). They doubted at first, that we may believe, but at last they risked life itself in defence of this firm faith. {After his passion} (\meta to pathein auton\). Neat Greek idiom, \meta\ with the articular infinitive (second aorist active of \pasch\) and the accusative of general reference, "after the suffering as to him." For \pathein\ used absolutely of Christ's suffering see also strkjv@Acts:17:3; strkjv@26:23|. {By many proofs} (\en pollois tekmriois\). Literally, "in many proofs." \Tekmrion\ is only here in the N.T., though an old and common word in ancient Greek and occurring in the _Koin_ (papyri, etc.). The verb \tekmair\, to prove by sure signs, is from \tekmar\, a sign. Luke does not hesitate to apply the definite word "proofs" to the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ after full investigation on the part of this scientific historian. Aristotle makes a distinction between \tekmrion\ (proof) and \smeion\ (sign) as does Galen the medical writer. {Appearing} (\optanomenos\). Present middle participle from late verb \optan\, late _Koin_ verb from root \opt\ seen in \opsomai, phthn\. In LXX, papyri of second century B.C. (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 83). Only here in the N.T. For \optasia\ for vision see strkjv@Acts:26:19; strkjv@Luke:1:22; strkjv@24:23|. {By the space of forty days} (\di' hmern tesserakonta\). At intervals (\dia\, between) during the forty days, ten appearances being known to us. Jesus was not with them continually now in bodily presence. The period of forty days is given here alone. The Ascension was thus ten days before Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came. Moses was in the mount forty days (Exodus:24:18|) and Jesus fasted forty days (Matthew:4:2|). In the Gospel of Luke 24 this separation of forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension is not drawn. {The things concerning the Kingdom of God} (\ta peri ts basileias tou theou\). This phrase appears 33 times in Luke's Gospel, 15 times in Mark, 4 times in Matthew who elsewhere has "the kingdom of heaven," once in John, and 6 times in Acts. No essential distinction is to be drawn between the two for the Jews often used "heaven" rather than "God" to avoid using the Tetragrammaton. But it is noticeable how the word kingdom drops out of Acts. Other words like gospel (\euaggelion\) take the place of "kingdom." Jesus was fond of the word "kingdom" and Luke is fond of the idiom "the things concerning" (\ta peri\). Certainly with Jesus the term "kingdom" applies to the present and the future and covers so much that it is not strange that the disciples with their notions of a political Messianic kingdom (Acts:1:6|) were slow to comprehend the spiritual nature of the reign of God.

rwp@Acts:9:27 @{Took him} (\epilabomenos\). Second aorist middle (indirect) participle of \epilamban\, common verb to lay hold of. Barnabas saw the situation and took Saul to himself and listened to his story and believed it. It is to the credit of Barnabas that he had the insight and the courage to stand by Saul at the crucial moment in his life when the evidence seemed to be against him. It is a pleasing hypothesis that this influential disciple from Cyprus had gone to the University of Tarsus where he met Saul. If so, he would know more of him than those who only knew his record as a persecutor of Christians. That fact Barnabas knew also, but he was convinced that Jesus had changed the heart of Saul and he used his great influence (Acts:4:36; strkjv@11:22|) to win the favour of the apostles, Peter in particular (Galatians:1:19|) and James the half-brother of Jesus. The other apostles were probably out of the city as Paul says that he did not see them. {To the apostles} (\pros tous apostolous\). Both Barnabas and James are termed apostles in the general sense, though not belonging to the twelve, as Paul did not, though himself later a real apostle. Songs:Barnabas introduced Saul to Peter and vouched for his story, declared it fully (\digsato\, in detail) including Saul's vision of Jesus (\eiden ton kurion\) as the vital thing and Christ's message to Saul (\elalsen auti\) and Saul's bold preaching (\parrsiasato\, first aorist middle indicative of \parrsiaz\ from \pan--rsia\ telling it all as in strkjv@Acts:2:29|). Peter was convinced and Saul was his guest for two weeks (Galatians:1:18|) with delightful fellowship (\historsai\). He had really come to Jerusalem mainly "to visit" (to see) Peter, but not to receive a commission from him. He had that from the Lord (Galatians:1:1f.|). Both Peter and James could tell Saul of their special experiences with the Risen Christ. Furneaux thinks that Peter was himself staying at the home of Mary the mother of John Mark (Acts:12:12|) who was a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians:4:10|). This is quite possible. At any rate Saul is now taken into the inner circle of the disciples in Jerusalem.

rwp@Acts:10:16 @{Thrice} (\epitris\). For three times. Peter remained unconvinced even by the prohibition of God. Here is a striking illustration of obstinacy on the part of one who acknowledges the voice of God to him when the command of the Lord crosses one's preferences and prejudices. There are abundant examples today of precisely this thing. In a real sense Peter was maintaining a pose of piety beyond the will of the Lord. Peter was defiling what God had cleansed. {Was received up} (\anelmphth\). First aorist passive indicative of \analamban\, to take up. The word used of the Ascension (1:22|).

rwp@Acts:15:5 @{But there rose up} (\exanestsan de\). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive). Note both \ex\ and \an\. These men rose up out of the crowd at a critical moment. They were believers in Christ (\pepisteukotes\, having believed), but were still members of "the sect of the Pharisees" (\ts haireses tn Pharisain\). Evidently they still held to the Pharisaic narrowness shown in the attack on Peter (11:2f.|). Note the dogmatism of their "must" (\dei\) after the opposition of Paul and Barnabas to their "except" (\ean me\) at Antioch (15:1|). They are unconvinced and expected to carry the elders with them. Codex Bezae says that they had appealed to the elders (15:2,5|). At any rate they have made the issue in open meeting at the height of the jubilation. It is plain from verse 6| that this meeting was adjourned, for another gathering came together then. It is here that the private conference of which Paul speaks in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| took place. It was Paul's chance to see the leaders in Jerusalem (Peter, James, and John) and he won them over to his view of Gentile liberty from the Mosaic law so that the next public conference (Acts:15:6-29|) ratified heartily the views of Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and John. It was a diplomatic triumph of the first order and saved Christianity from the bondage of Jewish ceremonial sacramentalism. Songs:far as we know this is the only time that Paul and John met face to face, the great spirits in Christian history after Jesus our Lord. It is a bit curious to see men saying today that Paul surrendered about Titus and had him circumcised for the sake of peace, the very opposite of what he says in Galatians, "to whom I yielded, no not for an hour." Titus as a Greek was a red flag to the Judaizers and to the compromisers, but Paul stood his ground.

rwp@Acts:15:28 @{To the Holy Spirit and to us} (\ti pneumati ti hagii kai hmin\). Dative case after \edoxen\ (third example, verses 22,25,28|). Definite claim that the church in this action had the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That fact was plain to the church from what had taken place in Caesarea and in this campaign of Paul and Barnabas (verse 8|). Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John:16:13|). Even so the church deliberated carefully before deciding. What a blessing it would be if this were always true! But even so the Judaizers are only silenced for the present, not convinced and only waiting for a better day to start over again. {No greater burden} (\mden pleon baros\). The restrictions named did constitute some burden (cf. strkjv@Matthew:20:12|), for the old word \baros\ means weight or heaviness. Morality itself is a restraint upon one's impulses as is all law a prohibition against license.

rwp@Acts:17:3 @{Opening and alleging} (\dianoign kai paratithemenos\). Opening the Scriptures, Luke means, as made plain by the mission and message of Jesus, the same word (\dianoig\) used by him of the interpretation of the Scriptures by Jesus (Luke:24:32|) and of the opening of the mind of the disciples also by Jesus (Luke:24:45|) and of the opening of Lydia's heart by the Lord (16:14|). One cannot refrain from saying that such exposition of the Scriptures as Jesus and Paul gave would lead to more opening of mind and heart. Paul was not only "expounding" the Scriptures, he was also "propounding" (the old meaning of "allege") his doctrine or setting forth alongside the Scriptures (\para-tithemenos\), quoting the Scripture to prove his contention which was made in much conflict (1Thessalonians:2:2|), probably in the midst of heated discussion by the opposing rabbis who were anything but convinced by Paul's powerful arguments, for the Cross was a stumbling-block to the Jews (1Corinthians:1:23|). {That it behoved the Christ to suffer} (\hoti ton Christon edei pathein\). The second aorist active infinitive is the subject of \edei\ with \ton Christon\, the accusative of general reference. This is Paul's major premise in his argument from the Scriptures about the Messiah, the necessity of his sufferings according to the Scriptures, the very argument made by the Risen Jesus to the two on the way to Emmaus (Luke:24:25-27|). The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah was a passage in point that the rabbis had overlooked. Peter made the same point in strkjv@Acts:3:18| and Paul again in strkjv@Acts:26:23|. The minor premise is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. {To rise again from the dead} (\anastnai ek nekrn\). This second aorist active infinitive \anastnai\ is also the subject of \edei\. The actual resurrection of Jesus was also a necessity as Paul says he preached to them (1Thessalonians:4:14|) and argued always from Scripture (1Corinthians:15:3-4|) and from his own experience (Acts:9:22; strkjv@22:7; strkjv@26:8,14; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:8|). {This Jesus is the Christ} (\houtos estin ho Christos, ho Isous\). More precisely, "This is the Messiah, viz., Jesus whom I am proclaiming unto you." This is the conclusion of Paul's line of argument and it is logical and overwhelming. It is his method everywhere as in Damascus, in Antioch in Pisidia, here, in Corinth. He spoke as an eye-witness.

rwp@Acts:17:32 @{The resurrection of the dead} (\anastasin nekrn\). Rather, "a resurrection of dead men." No article with either word. The Greeks believed that the souls of men lived on, but they had no conception of resurrection of the body. They had listened with respect till Paul spoke of the actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead as a fact, when they did not care to hear more. {Some mocked} (\hoi men echleuazon\). Imperfect active of \chleuaz\, a common verb (from \chleu\, jesting, mockery). Only here in the N.T. though late MSS. have it in strkjv@2:13| (best MSS. \diachleuaz\). Probably inchoative here, began to mock. In contempt at Paul's statement they declined to listen further to "this babbler" (verse 18|) who had now lost what he had gained with this group of hearers (probably the light and flippant Epicureans). {But others} (\hoi de\). A more polite group like those who had invited him to speak (verse 19|). They were unconvinced, but had better manners and so were in favour of an adjournment. This was done, though it is not clear whether it was a serious postponement or a courteous refusal to hear Paul further (probably this). It was a virtual dismissal of the matter. " It is a sad story--the noblest of ancient cities and the noblest man of history--and he never cared to look on it again" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:18:28 @{Powerfully} (\eutons\). Adverb from \eutonos\ (\eu\, well, \tein\, to stretch), well-strung, at full stretch. {Confuted} (\diakatlegcheto\). Imperfect middle of the double compound verb \dia-kat-elegchomai\, to confute with rivalry in a contest, here alone. The old Greek has \dielegch\, to convict of falsehood, but not this double compound which means to argue down to a finish. It is the imperfect tense and does not mean that Apollos convinced these rabbis, but he had the last word. {Publicly} (\dmosii\). See strkjv@5:18; strkjv@16:37|. In open meeting where all could see the victory of Apollos. {Shewing} (\epideiknus\). Present active participle of \epideiknumi\, old verb to set forth so that all see. {By the Scriptures} (\dia tn graphn\). In which Apollos was so "mighty" (verse 24|) and the rabbis so weak for they knew the oral law better than the written (Mark:7:8-12|). {That Jesus was the Christ} (\einai ton Christon Isoun\). Infinitive and the accusative in indirect assertion. Apollos proclaims the same message that Paul did everywhere (17:3|). He had not yet met Paul, but he had been instructed by Priscilla and Aquila. He is in Corinth building on the foundation laid so well by Paul (1Corinthians:3:4-17|). Luke has here made a brief digression from the story of Paul, but it helps us understand Paul better There are those who think that Apollos wrote Hebrews, a guess that may be correct.

rwp@Acts:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \ginsk\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisain\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastases nekrn krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.

rwp@John:2:22 @{When therefore he was raised from the dead} (\Hote oun gerth ek nekrn\). First aorist passive indicative of \egeir\, to raise up. And not at first then, but only slowly after the disciples themselves were convinced. Then "they believed the Scripture" (\episteusan ti graphi\). They "believed" again. Dative case \graphi\. Probably strkjv@Psalms:16:10| is meant (Acts:2:31; strkjv@13:35|). {And the word which Jesus had said} (\kai ti logi hon eipen\). Dative case \logi\ also, but \hon\ (relative) is not attracted to the dative. Clearly then John interprets Jesus to have a parabolic reference to his death and resurrection by his language in strkjv@2:19|. There are those who bluntly say that John was mistaken. I prefer to say that these scholars are mistaken. Even Bernard considers it "hardly possible" that John interprets Jesus rightly in strkjv@1:21|. "Had he meant that, He would have spoken with less ambiguity." But how do we know that Jesus wished to be understood clearly at this time? Certainly no one understood Christ when he spoke the words. The language of Jesus is recalled and perverted at his trial as "I will destroy" (Mark:14:58|), "I can destroy" (Matthew:26:61|), neither of which he said.

rwp@John:3:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one." {By night} (\nuktos\). Genitive of time. That he came at all is remarkable, not because there was any danger as was true at a later period, but because of his own prominence. He wished to avoid comment by other members of the Sanhedrin and others. Jesus had already provoked the opposition of the ecclesiastics by his assumption of Messianic authority over the temple. There is no ground for assigning this incident to a later period, for it suits perfectly here. Jesus was already in the public eye (2:23|) and the interest of Nicodemus was real and yet he wished to be cautious. {Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). See on ¯1:38|. Technically Jesus was not an acknowledged Rabbi of the schools, but Nicodemus does recognize him as such and calls him "My Master" just as Andrew and John did (1:38|). It was a long step for Nicodemus as a Pharisee to take, for the Pharisees had closely scrutinized the credentials of the Baptist in strkjv@1:19-24| (Milligan and Moulton's _Comm_.). {We know} (\oidamen\). Second perfect indicative first person plural. He seems to speak for others of his class as the blind man does in strkjv@9:31|. Westcott thinks that Nicodemus has been influenced partly by the report of the commission sent to the Baptist (1:19-27|). {Thou art a teacher come from God} (\apo theou elluthas didaskalos\). "Thou hast come from God as a teacher." Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\ and predicative nominative \didaskalos\. This is the explanation of Nicodemus for coming to Jesus, obscure Galilean peasant as he seemed, evidence that satisfied one of the leaders in Pharisaism. {Can do} (\dunatai poiein\). "Can go on doing" (present active infinitive of \poie\ and so linear). {These signs that thou doest} (\tauta ta smeia ha su poieis\). Those mentioned in strkjv@2:23| that convinced so many in the crowd and that now appeal to the scholar. Note \su\ (thou) as quite out of the ordinary. The scorn of Jesus by the rulers held many back to the end (John:12:42|), but Nicodemus dares to feel his way. {Except God be with him} (\ean m i ho theos met' autou\). Condition of the third class, presented as a probability, not as a definite fact. He wanted to know more of the teaching accredited thus by God. Jesus went about doing good because God was with him, Peter says (Acts:10:38|).

rwp@John:4:29 @{All things that ever I did} (\panta ha epoisa\). {Ha}, not \hosa\ (as many as), no "ever" in the Greek. But a guilty conscience (verse 18f.|) led her to exaggerate a bit. {Can this be the Christ?} (\mti houtos estin ho Christos;\). She is already convinced herself (verses 26f.|), but she puts the question in a hesitant form to avoid arousing opposition. With a woman's intuition she avoided \ouk\ and uses \mti\. She does not take sides, but piques their curiosity.

rwp@John:20:28 @{My Lord and my God} (\Hosea:kurios mou kai ho theos mou\). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the _Koin_. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SAME AUTHOR FOR GOSPEL AND ACTS The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as "the first treatise," \ton prton logon\, (Acts:1:1|) and both are addressed to Theophilus (Luke:1:3; strkjv@Acts:1:1|). He speaks of himself in both books as "me" (\kamoi\, strkjv@Luke:1:3|) and {I made} (\epoisamn\, strkjv@Acts:1:1|). He refers to himself with others as "we" and "us" as in strkjv@Acts:16:10|, the "we" sections of Acts. The unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the author's statement. It is quite possible that the formal Introduction to the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|) was intended to apply to the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury, who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: "In my study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom." He adds: "They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author's original plan and purpose."

rwp@Luke:1:1 @{Forasmuch as} (\epeidper\). Here alone in the N.T., though common in literary Attic. Appears in the papyri. A triple compound (\epei\ = since, \d\ = admittedly true, \per\ = intensive particle to emphasize importance). {Many} (\polloi\). How many no one knows, but certainly more than two or three. We know that Luke used the Logia of Jesus written by Matthew in Aramaic (Papias) and Mark's Gospel. Undoubtedly he had other written sources. {Have taken in hand} (\epecheirsan\). A literal translation of \epicheire\ (from \cheir\, hand and \epi\, upon). Both Hippocrates and Galen use this word in their introduction to their medical works. Here only in the N.T., though a common literary word. Common in the papyri for undertaking with no idea of failure or blame. Luke does not mean to cast reflection on those who preceded him. The apocryphal gospels were all much later and are not in his mind. Luke had secured fuller information and planned a book on a larger scale and did surpass them with the result that they all perished save Mark's Gospel and what Matthew and Luke possess of the Logia of Jesus. There was still room for Luke's book. That motive influences every author and thus progress is made. {To draw up, a narrative} (\anataxasthai digsin\). Ingressive aorist middle infinitive. This verb \anataxasthai\ has been found only in Plutarch's _Moral_. 968 CD about an elephant "rehearsing" by moonlight certain tricks it had been taught (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). That was from memory going regularly through the thing again. But the idea in the word is plain enough. The word is composed of \tass\, a common verb for arranging things in proper order and \ana\, again. Luke means to say that those before him had made attempts to rehearse in orderly fashion various matters about Christ. "The expression points to a connected series of narratives in some order (\taxis\), topical or chronological rather than to isolated narratives" (Bruce). "They had produced something more than mere notes or anecdotes" (Plummer). \Digsis\ means leading or carrying a thing through, not a mere incident. Galen applies this word some seventy-five times to the writing of Hippocrates. {Which have been fulfilled} (\tn peplrphormenn\). Perfect passive participle from \plrophore\ and that from \plrs\ (full) and \pher\ (to bring). Hence to bring or make full. The verb is rare outside of the LXX and the N.T. Papyri examples occur for finishing off a legal matter or a financial matter in full. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 86f.) gives examples from the papyri and inscriptions for completing a task or being convinced or satisfied in mind. The same ambiguity occurs here. When used of persons in the N.T. the meaning is to be convinced, or fully persuaded (Romans:4:21; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|). When used of things it has the notion of completing or finishing (2Timothy:4:5,17|). Luke is here speaking of "matters" (\pragmatn\). Luke may refer to the matters connected with Christ's life which have been brought to a close among us or accomplished. Bruce argues plausibly that he means fulness of knowledge "concerning the things which have become widely known among us Christians." In strkjv@Colossians:2:2| we have "fulness of understanding" (\ts plrophorias ts suneses\). In modern Greek the verb means to inform. The careful language of Luke here really pays a tribute to those who had preceded him in their narratives concerning Christ.

rwp@Mark:8:12 @{He sighed deeply in his spirit} (\anastenaxas ti pneumati\). The only instance of this compound in the N.T. though in the LXX. The uncompounded form occurs in strkjv@Mark:7:34| and it is common enough. The preposition \ana-\ intensifies the meaning of the verb (perfective use). "The sigh seemed to come, as we say, from the bottom of his heart, the Lord's human spirit was stirred to its depths" (Swete). Jesus resented the settled prejudice of the Pharisees (and now Sadducees also) against him and his work. {There shall no sign be given unto this generation} (\ei dothsetai ti genei tauti smeion\). strkjv@Matthew:16:4| has simply \ou dothsetai\, plain negative with the future passive indicative. Mark has \ei\ instead of \ou\, which is technically a conditional clause with the conclusion unexpressed (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1024), really aposiopesis in imitation of the Hebrew use of \im\. This is the only instance in the N.T. except in quotations from the LXX (Hebrews:3:11; strkjv@4:3,5|). It is very common in the LXX. The rabbis were splitting hairs over the miracles of Jesus as having a possible natural explanation (as some critics do today) even if by the power of Beelzebub, and those not of the sky (from heaven) which would be manifested from God. Songs:they put up this fantastic test to Jesus which he deeply resents. strkjv@Matthew:16:4| adds "but the sign of Jonah" mentioned already by Jesus on a previous occasion (Matthew:12:39-41|) at more length and to be mentioned again (Luke:11:32|). But the mention of the sign of Jonah was "an absolute refusal of signs in their sense" (Bruce). And when he did rise from the dead on the third day, the Sanhedrin refused to be convinced (see Acts 3 to 5).

rwp@Matthew:28:11 @{Told unto the chief priests} (\apggeilan tois archiereusin\). These Roman soldiers had been placed at the disposal of the Sanhedrin. They were probably afraid also to report to Pilate and tell him what had happened. They apparently told a truthful account as far as they understood it. But were the Sanhedrin convinced of the resurrection of Jesus?

rwp@Matthew:28:12 @{They gave large money} (\arguria hikana edkan\). The use of the plural for pieces of silver (\arguria\) is common. The papyri have many instances of \hikana\ for considerable (from \hikan\, to reach to, attain to). These pious Sanhedrists knew full well the power of bribes. They make a contract with the Roman soldiers to tell a lie about the resurrection of Jesus as they paid Judas money to betray him. They show not the slightest tendency to be convinced by the facts though one had risen from the dead.

rwp@Matthew:28:17 @{But some doubted} (\hoi de edistasan\). From \dis\ (in two, divided in mind). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:14:31|. The reference is not to the eleven who were all now convinced after some doubt, but to the others present. Paul states that over five hundred were present, most of whom were still alive when he wrote (1Corinthians:15:6|). It is natural that some should hesitate to believe so great a thing at the first appearance of Jesus to them. Their very doubt makes it easier for us to believe. This was the mountain where Jesus had promised to meet them. This fact explains the large number present. Time and place were arranged beforehand. It was the climax of the various appearances and in Galilee where were so many believers. They worshipped (\prosekunsan\) Jesus as the women had done (28:9|). He is now their Risen Lord and Saviour.

rwp@Romans:8:38 @{For I am persuaded} (\pepeismai gar\). Perfect passive participle of \peith\, "I stand convinced." The items mentioned are those that people dread (life, death, supernatural powers, above, below, any creature to cover any omissions).