OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp discussed:

rwp@1Corinthians:7:36 @{That he behaveth himself unseemly} (\aschmonein\). Old verb, here only in N.T., from \aschmn\ (1Corinthians:12:23|), from \a\ privative and \schma\. Occurs in the papyri. Infinitive in indirect discourse after \nomizei\ (thinks) with \ei\ (condition of first class, assumed as true). {If she be past the flower of her age} (\ean i huperakmos\). Old word, only here in N.T., from \huper\ (over) and \akm\ (prime or bloom of life), past the bloom of youth, _superadultus_ (Vulgate). Compound adjective with feminine form like masculine. Apparently the Corinthians had asked Paul about the duty of a father towards his daughter old enough to marry. {If need so requireth} (\kai houts opheilei ginesthai\). "And it ought to happen." Paul has discussed the problem of marriage for virgins on the grounds of expediency. Now he faces the question where the daughter wishes to marry and there is no serious objection to it. The father is advised to consent. Roman and Greek fathers had the control of the marriage of their daughters. "My marriage is my father's care; it is not for me to decide about that" (Hermione in Euripides' _Andromache_, 987). {Let them marry} (\gameitsan\). Present active plural imperative (long form).

rwp@1Peter:3:19 @{In which also} (\en hi kai\). That is, in spirit (relative referring to \pneumati\). But, a number of modern scholars have followed Griesbach's conjecture that the original text was either \Ne kai\ (Noah also), or \Ench kai\ (Enoch also), or \en hi kai Ench\ (in which Enoch also) which an early scribe misunderstood or omitted \Ench kai\ in copying (\homoioteleuton\). It is allowed in Stier and Theile's _Polyglott_. It is advocated by J. Cramer in 1891, by J. Rendel Harris in _The Expositor_ (1901), and _Sidelights on N.T. Research_ (p. 208), by Nestle in 1902, by Moffatt's New Translation of the New Testament. Windisch rejects it as inconsistent with the context. There is no manuscript for the conjecture, though it would relieve the difficulty greatly. Luther admits that he does not know what Peter means. Bigg has no doubt that the event recorded took place between Christ's death and his resurrection and holds that Peter is alluding to Christ's _Descensus ad Inferos_ in strkjv@Acts:2:27| (with which he compares strkjv@Matthew:27:52f.; strkjv@Luke:23:34; strkjv@Ephesians:4:9|). With this Windisch agrees. But Wohlenberg holds that Peter means that Christ in his preexistent state preached to those who rejected the preaching of Noah who are now in prison. Augustine held that Christ was in Noah when he preached. Bigg argues strongly that Christ during the time between his death and resurrection preached to those who once heard Noah (but are now in prison) and offered them another chance and not mere condemnation. If so, why did Jesus confine his preaching to this one group? Songs:the theories run on about this passage. One can only say that it is a slim hope for those who neglect or reject Christ in this life to gamble with a possible second chance after death which rests on very precarious exegesis of a most difficult passage in Peter's Epistle. Accepting the text as we have, what can we make of it? {He went and preached} (\poreutheis ekruxen\). First aorist passive (deponent) participle of \poreuomai\ and first aorist active indicative of \kruss\, the verb commonly used of the preaching of Jesus. Naturally the words mean personal action by Christ "in spirit" as illustration of his "quickening" (verse 18|) whether done before his death or afterwards. It is interesting to observe that, just as the relative \en hi\ here tells something suggested by the word \pneumati\ (in spirit) just before, so in verse 21| the relative \ho\ (which) tells another illustration of the words \di' hudatos\ (by water) just before. Peter jumps from the flood in Noah's time to baptism in Peter's time, just as he jumped backwards from Christ's time to Noah's time. He easily goes off at a word. What does he mean here by the story that illustrates Christ's quickening in spirit? {Unto the spirits in prison} (\tois en phulaki pneumasin\). The language is plain enough except that it does not make it clear whether Jesus did the preaching to spirits in prison at the time or to people whose spirits are now in prison, the point of doubt already discussed. The metaphorical use of \en phulaki\ can be illustrated by strkjv@2Peter:2:4; strkjv@Jude:1:6; strkjv@Revelation:20:7| (the final abode of the lost). See strkjv@Hebrews:12:23| for the use of \pneumata\ for disembodied spirits.

rwp@2Peter:3:3 @{Knowing this first} (\touto prton ginskontes\). Present active participle of \ginsk\. See strkjv@1:20| for this identical phrase. Nominative absolute here where accusative \ginskontas\ would be regular. Peter now takes up the \parousia\ (1:16|) after having discussed the \dunamis\ of Christ. {In the last days} (\ep' eschatn tn hmern\). "Upon the last of the days." strkjv@Jude:1:18| has it \ep' eschatou chronou\ (upon the last time). In strkjv@1Peter:1:5| it is \en kairi eschati\ (in the last time), while strkjv@1Peter:1:20| has \ep' eschatou tn chronn\ (upon the last of the times). John has usually \ti eschati hmeri\ (on the last day, strkjv@6:39f.|). Here \eschatn\ is a predicate adjective like \summus mons\ (the top of the mountain). {Mockers with mockery} (\empaigmoni empaiktai\). Note Peter's play on words again, both from \empaiz\ (Matthew:2:16|), to trifle with, and neither found elsewhere save \empaikts\ in strkjv@Jude:1:18; strkjv@Isaiah:3:4| (playing like children).

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:21:18 @{The day following} (\ti epiousi\). As in strkjv@20:15| which see. {Went in} (\eisiei\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\, old classic verb used only four times in the N.T. (Acts:3:3; strkjv@21:18,26; strkjv@Hebrews:9:6|), a mark of the literary style rather than the colloquial _Koin_ use of \eiserchomai\. Together with us to James (\sun hmin pros Iakbon\). Songs:then Luke is present. The next use of "we" is in strkjv@27:1| when they leave Caesarea for Rome, but it is not likely that Luke was away from Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The reports of what was done and said in both places is so full and minute that it seems reasonable that Luke got first hand information here whatever his motive was for so full an account of these legal proceedings to be discussed later. There are many details that read like an eye witness's story (21:30,35,40; strkjv@22:2,3; strkjv@23:12|, etc.). It was probably the house of James (\pros\ and \para\ so used often). {And all the elders were present} (\pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi\). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in chapter 15. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours. The whole church was not called together probably because of the known prejudice against Paul created by the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:26:3 @{Especially because thou art expert} (\malista gnstn onta se\). Or like the margin, "because thou art especially expert," according as \malista\ is construed. \Gnstn\ is from \ginsk\ and means a knower, expert, connoisseur. Plutarch uses it and Deissmann (_Light_, etc., p. 367) restores it in a papyrus. Agrippa had the care of the temple, the appointment of the high priest, and the care of the sacred vestments. But the accusative \onta se\ gives trouble here coming so soon after \sou\ (genitive with \epi\). Some MSS. insert \epistamenos\ or \eids\ (knowing) but neither is genuine. Page takes it as "governed by the sense of thinking or considering." Knowling considers it an anacoluthon. Buttmann held it to be an accusative absolute after the old Greek idiom. \Tuchon\ is such an instance though used as an adverb (1Corinthians:16:6|). It is possible that one exists in strkjv@Ephesians:1:18|. See other examples discussed in Robertson's _Grammar_, pp. 490f. {Customs and questions} (\ethn te kai ztmatn\). Both _consuetudinum in practicis_ and _quaestionum in theoreticis_ (Bengel). Agrippa was qualified to give Paul an understanding and a sympathetic hearing. Paul understands perfectly the grand-stand play of the whole performance, but he refused to be silent and chose to use this opportunity, slim as it seemed, to get a fresh hearing for his own case and to present the claims of Christ to this influential man. His address is a masterpiece of noble apologetic. {Patiently} (\makrothums\). Adverb from \makrothumos\. Only here in the N.T., though \makrothumia\ occurs several times. Vulgate has _longanimiter_. Long spirit, endurance, opposite of impatience. Songs:Paul takes his time.

rwp@Acts:26:23 @{How that the Christ must suffer} (\ei pathtos ho Christos\). Literally, "if the Messiah is subject to suffering." \Ei\ can here mean "whether" as in strkjv@Hebrews:7:15|. This use of a verbal in \-tos\ for capability or possibility occurs in the N.T. alone in \pathtos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 157). This word occurs in Plutarch in this sense. It is like the Latin _patibilis_ and is from _pasch_. Here alone in N.T. Paul is speaking from the Jewish point of view. Most rabbis had not rightly understood strkjv@Isaiah:53|. When the Baptist called Jesus "the Lamb of God" (John:1:29|) it was a startling idea. It is not then "must suffer" here, but "can suffer." The Cross of Christ was a stumbling-block to the rabbis. {How that he first by the resurrection of the dead} (\ei prtos ex anastases nekrn\). Same construction with \ei\ (whether). This point Paul had often discussed with the Jews: "whether he (the Messiah) by a resurrection of dead people." Others had been raised from the dead, but Christ is the first (\prtos\) who arose from the dead and no longer dies (Romans:6:19|) and proclaims light (\phs mellei kataggellein\). Paul is still speaking from the Jewish standpoint: "is about to (going to) proclaim light." See verse 18| for "light" and strkjv@Luke:2:32|. {Both to the people and to the Gentiles} (\ti te lai kai tois ethnesin\). See verse 17|. It was at the word Gentiles (\ethn\) that the mob lost control of themselves in the speech from the stairs (22:21f.|). Songs:it is here, only not because of that word, but because of the word "resurrection" (\anastasis\).

rwp@Colossians:3:8 @{But now} (\nuni de\). Emphatic form of \nun\ in decided contrast (to \pote\ in verse 7|) in the resurrection life of strkjv@2:12; strkjv@3:1|. {Put ye also away} (\apothesthe kai humeis\). Second aorist middle imperative of old verb \apotithmi\, to put away, lay aside like old clothes. This metaphor of clothing Paul now uses with several verbs (\apothesthe\ here, \apekdusamenoi\ in verse 9|, \endusamenoi\ in verse 10|, \endusasthe\ in verse 12|). {All these} (\ta panta\). The whole bunch of filthy rags (anger \orgn\, wrath \thumon\, malice \kakian\, railing \blasphmian\, shameful speaking \aischrologian\). See somewhat similar lists of vices in strkjv@Colossians:3:5; strkjv@Galatians:5:20; strkjv@Ephesians:4:29-31|. These words have all been discussed except \aischrologian\, an old word for low and obscene speech which occurs here only in the N.T. It is made from \aischrologos\ (\aischros\ as in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:6| and that from \aischos\, disgrace). Note also the addition of "out of your mouth" (\ek tou stomatos humn\). The word was used for both abusive and filthy talk and Lightfoot combines both ideas as often happens. Such language should never come out of the mouth of a Christian living the new life in Christ.

rwp@Galatians:1:4 @{For our sins} (\huper tn hamartin\). Some MSS. have \peri\ (concerning). In the _Koin_ this use of \huper\ as like \peri\ has come to be common. He refers to the death of Christ (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15:3; strkjv@Galatians:2:20; strkjv@Romans:5:6f.|). As a rule \peri\ occurs of things, \huper\ of persons. {Deliver} (\exeltai\). Second aorist middle subjunctive (final clause with \hops\) of \exaire\, old verb to pluck out, to rescue (Acts:23:27|). "Strikes the keynote of the epistle. The gospel is a rescue, an emancipation from a state of bondage" (Lightfoot). {Out of this present evil world} (\ek tou ainos tou enesttos ponrou\). Literally, "out of the age the existing one being evil." The predicate position of \ponrou\ calls emphatic attention to it. Each word here is of interest and has been already discussed. See on ¯Matthew:13:22| for \ain\, strkjv@Matthew:6:23| for \ponros\. \Enesttos\ is genitive masculine singular of \enests\ second perfect (intransitive) participle of \enistmi\ for which see on ¯2Thessalonians:2:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22; strkjv@7:26|. It is present as related to future (Romans:8:38; strkjv@Hebrews:9:9|). {According to the will of God} (\kata to thelma tou theou\). Not according to any merit in us.

rwp@Hebrews:8:1 @{In the things which we are saying} (\epi tois legomenois\). Locative case of the articular present passive participle of \leg\ after \epi\ as in strkjv@Luke:5:5; strkjv@Hebrews:11:4|, "in the matter of the things being discussed." {The chief point} (\kephalaion\). Neuter singular of the adjective \kephalaios\ (from \kephal\, head), belonging to the head. Vulgate _capitulum_, nominative absolute in old and common sense, the main matter (even so without the article as in Thucydides), "the pith" (Coverdale), common in the papyri as in Greek literature. The word also occurs in the sense of the sum total or a sum of money (Acts:22:28|) as in Plutarch, Josephus, and also in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). {Such an high priest} (\toiouton archierea\). As the one described in chapters strkjv@4:16-7:28| and in particular strkjv@7:26| (\toioutos\) strkjv@7:27,28|. But the discussion of the priestly work of Jesus continues through strkjv@12:3|. \Toioutos\ is both retrospective and prospective. Here we have a summary of the five points of superiority of Jesus as high priest (8:1-6|). He is himself a better priest than Aaron (\toioutos\ in strkjv@8:1| such as shown in strkjv@4:16-7:28|); he works in a better sanctuary (8:2,5|); he offers a better sacrifice (8:3f.|); he is mediator of a better covenant (8:6|); his work rests on better promises (8:6|); hence he has obtained a better ministry as a whole (8:6|). In this resum (\kephelaion\) the author gives the pith (\kephalaion\) of his argument, curiously enough with both senses of \kephalaion\ (pith, summary) pertinent. He will discuss the four points remaining thus: (1) the better covenant, strkjv@8:7-13|. (2) The better sanctuary, strkjv@9:1-12|. (3) The better sacrifice, strkjv@9:13-10:18|. (4) The better promises, strkjv@10:19-12:3|. One point (the better high priest, like Melchizedek) has already been discussed (4:16-7:28|). {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). Repetition of strkjv@1:3| with \tou thronou\ (the throne) added. This phrase prepares the way for the next point.

rwp@Hebrews:10:19 @{Having therefore} (\echontes oun\). The author now gives a second (the first in strkjv@8:1-6|) resum of the five arguments concerning the superior priestly work of Christ (10:19-25|) coupled with an earnest exhortation like that in strkjv@4:14-16|, with which he began the discussion, before he proceeds to treat at length the fifth and last one, the better promises in Christ (10:26-12:3|). {Boldness} (\parrsian\). This is the dominant note all through the Epistle (3:6; strkjv@4:16; strkjv@10:19,35|). They were tempted to give up Christ, to be quitters. Boldness (courage) is the need of the hour. {Into the holy place} (\tn hagin\). That is, the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus is (6:18-20|). This is the better sanctuary (9:1-12|). {By the blood of Jesus} (\en ti haimati Isou\). This is the better sacrifice just discussed (9:13-10:18|).

rwp@Hebrews:10:23 @{Let us hold fast} (\katechmen\). Present (keep on holding fast) active volitive subjunctive of \katech\ as in strkjv@3:6,14|. {That it waver not} (\aklin\). Common compound adjective (alpha privative and \klin\, unwavering, not leaning, here only in N.T. It is a confession of hope, not of despair. {That promised} (\ho epaggeilamenos\). First aorist middle articular participle of \epaggell\. This is the argument remaining to be discussed (10:26-12:3|) and already alluded to (6:13f.; strkjv@8:6|). The ministry of Jesus rests upon "better promises." How better? God is "faithful," but he made the other promises also. We shall see.

rwp@Hebrews:13:12 @{Wherefore Jesus also} (\dio kai Isous\). The parallel is drawn between the O.T. ritual and the better sacrifice of Jesus already discussed (9:13-10:18|). The purpose of Jesus is shown (\hina hagiasi\, \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hagiaz\, to sanctify), the means employed (\dia tou idiou haimatos\, by his own blood), the place of his suffering (\epathen\, as in strkjv@5:8|) is also given (\ex ts puls\, outside the gate, implied in strkjv@John:19:17|) which phrase corresponds to "outside the camp" of verse 11|.

rwp@John:11:2 @{And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair} (\n de Mariam h aleipsasa ton kurion muri kai ekmaxasa tous podas autou tais thrixin auts\). This description is added to make plainer who Mary is "whose brother Lazarus was sick" (\hs ho adelphos Lazaros sthenei\). There is an evident proleptic allusion to the incident described by John in strkjv@12:1-8| just after chapter 11. As John looks back from the end of the century it was all behind him, though the anointing (\h aleipsasa\, first aorist active articular participle of \aleiph\, old verb for which see strkjv@Mark:6:13|) took place after the events in chapter 11. The aorist participle is timeless and merely pictures the punctiliar act. The same remark applies to \ekmaxasa\, old verb \ekmass\, to wipe off or away (Isaiah:12:3; strkjv@13:5; strkjv@Luke:7:38,44|). Note the Aramaic form \Mariam\ as usual in John, but \Marias\ in verse 1|. When John wrote, it was as Jesus had foretold (Matthew:26:13|), for the fame of Mary of Bethany rested on the incident of the anointing of Jesus. The effort to link Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene and then both names with the sinful woman of strkjv@Luke:7:36-50| is gratuitous and to my mind grotesque and cruel to the memory of both Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene. Bernard may be taken as a specimen: "The conclusion is inevitable that John (or his editor) regarded Mary of Bethany as the same person who is described by Luke as \hamartlos\." This critical and artistic heresy has already been discussed in Vol. II on Luke's Gospel. Suffice it here to say that Luke introduces Mary Magdalene as an entirely new character in strkjv@8:2| and that the details in strkjv@Luke:7:36-50; strkjv@John:12:1-8| have only superficial resemblances and serious disagreements. John is not here alluding to Luke's record, but preparing for his own in chapter 12. What earthly difficulty is there in two different women under wholly different circumstances doing a similar act for utterly different purposes?

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@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Luke:8:12 @{Those by the wayside} (\hoi para tn hodon\). As in strkjv@Mark:4:15; strkjv@Matthew:13:19| so here the people who hear the word = the seed are discussed by metonymy. {The devil} (\ho diabolos\). The slanderer. Here strkjv@Mark:4:15| has Satan. {From their heart} (\apo ts kardias autn\). Here Mark has "in them." It is the devil's business to snatch up the seed from the heart before it sprouts and takes root. Every preacher knows how successful the devil is with his auditors. strkjv@Matthew:13:19| has it "sown in the heart." {That they may not believe and be saved} (\hina m pisteusantes sthsin\). Peculiar to Luke. Negative purpose with aorist active participle and first aorist (ingressive) passive subjunctive. Many reasons are offered today for the failure of preachers to win souls. Here is the main one, the activity of the devil during and after the preaching of the sermon. No wonder then that the sower must have good seed and sow wisely, for even then he can only win partial success.

rwp@Luke:11:33 @{In a cellar} (\eis kruptn\). A crypt (same word) or hidden place from \krupt\, to hide. Late and rare word and here only in the N.T. These other words (lamp, \luchnon\, bushel, \modion\, stand, \luchnian\) have all been discussed previously (Matthew:5:15|). strkjv@Luke:11:33| is like strkjv@Matthew:6:22f.|, which see for details.

rwp@Matthew:13:13 @{Because seeing} (\hoti blepontes\). In the parallel passages in strkjv@Mark:4:12| and strkjv@Luke:8:10| we find \hina\ with the subjunctive. This does not necessarily mean that in Mark and Luke \hina=hoti\ with the causal sense, though a few rare instances of such usage may be found in late Greek. For a discussion of the problem see my chapter on "The Causal Use of _Hina_" in _Studies in Early Christianity_ (1928) edited by Prof. S.J. Case. Here in Matthew we have first "an adaptation of strkjv@Isaiah:6:9f.| which is quoted in full in v. 14f.|" (McNeile). Thus Matthew presents "a striking paradox, 'though they see, they do not (really) see'" (McNeile). Cf. strkjv@John:9:41|. The idiom here in Matthew gives no trouble save in comparison with Mark and Luke which will be discussed in due turn. The form \suniousin\ is an omega verb form (\suni\) rather than the \mi\ verb (\sunimi\) as is common in the _Koin_.

rwp@Info_Romans @{Paul} @(\Paulos\). Roman name (\Paulus\). See on ¯Acts:13:9| for the origin of this name by the side of Saul. {Servant} (\doulos\). Bond-slave of Jesus Christ (or Christ Jesus as some MSS. give it and as is the rule in the later Epistles) for the first time in the Epistles in the opening sentence, though the phrase already in strkjv@Galatians:1:10|. Recurs in strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| and \desmios\ (bondsman) in strkjv@Philemon:1:1|. {Called to be an apostle} (\kltos apostolos\). An apostle by vocation (Denney) as in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:1|. In strkjv@Galatians:1:1| \kltos\ is not used, but the rest of the verse has the same idea. {Separated} (\aphrismenos\). Perfect passive participle of \aphoriz\ for which verb see on ¯Galatians:1:15|. Paul is a spiritual Pharisee (etymologically), separated not to the oral tradition, but to God's gospel, a chosen vessel (Acts:9:15|). By man also (Acts:13:2|). Many of Paul's characteristic words like \euaggelion\ have been already discussed in the previous Epistles that will call for little comment from now on.

rwp@Romans:14:23 @{He that doubteth} (\ho diakrinomenos\). Present middle participle of \diakrin\, to judge between (\dia\), to hesitate. See strkjv@James:1:6f.| for this same picture of the double-minded man. Cf. strkjv@Romans:4:20; strkjv@Mark:11:23|. {Is condemned} (\katakekritai\). Perfect passive indicative of \katakrin\ (note \kata-\), "stands condemned." {If he eat} (\ean phagi\). Third class condition, \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive. If in spite of his doubt, he eat. {Whatsoever is not of faith is sin} (\pan ho ouk ek pistes hamartia estin\). {Faith} (\pistis\) here is subjective, one's strong conviction in the light of his relation to Christ and his enlightened conscience. To go against this combination is sin beyond a doubt. Some MSS. (A L etc.) put the doxology here which most place in strkjv@16:25-27|. But they all give chapters 15 and 16. Some have supposed that the Epistle originally ended here, but that is pure speculation. Some even suggest two editions of the Epistle. But chapter 15 goes right on with the topic discussed in chapter 14.