OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp strongly:

rwp@1Corinthians:7:16 @{For how knowest thou?} (\ti gar oidas;\). But what does Paul mean? Is he giving an argument _against_ the believer accepting divorce or _in favour_ of doing so? The syntax allows either interpretation with \ei\ (if) after \oidas\. Is the idea in \ei\ (if) _hope_ of saving the other or _fear_ of not saving and hence peril in continuing the slavery of such a bondage? The latter idea probably suits the context best and is adopted by most commentators. And yet one hesitates to interpret Paul as _advocating_ divorce unless strongly insisted on by the unbeliever. There is no problem at all unless the unbeliever makes it. If it is a hopeless case, acquiescence is the only wise solution. But surely the believer ought to be sure that there is no hope before he agrees to break the bond. Paul raises the problem of the wife first as in verse 10|.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:49 @{We shall also bear} (\phoresomen kai\). Old MSS. (so Westcott and Hort) read \phoresmen kai\. Volitive aorist active subjunctive, Let us also bear. Ellicott strongly opposes the subjunctive. It may be merely the failure of scribes to distinguish between long o and short o. Paul hardly means to say that our attaining the resurrection body depends on our own efforts! A late frequentative form of \pher\.

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@1Thessalonians:2:4 @{But even as we have been approved by God} (\alla kaths dedokimasmetha hupo tou theou\). Perfect passive indicative of \dokimaz\, old verb to put to the test, but here the tense for completed state means tested and proved and so approved by God. Paul here claims the call of God for his ministry and the seal of God's blessing on his work and also for that of Silas and Timothy. {To be entrusted with the gospel} (\pisteuthnai to euaggelion\). First aorist passive infinitive of \pisteu\, common verb for believing, from \pistis\ (faith), but here to entrust rather than to trust. The accusative of the thing is retained in the passive according to regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:17; strkjv@Galatians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:3:2; strkjv@1Timothy:1:11; strkjv@Titus:1:3|, though the active had the dative of the person. {Songs:we speak} (\houts laloumen\). Simple, yet confident claim of loyalty to God's call and message. Surely this should be the ambition of every preacher of the gospel of God. {Not as pleasing men} (\ouch hs anthrpois areskontes\). Dative case with \aresk\ as in strkjv@Galatians:1:10|. Few temptations assail the preacher more strongly than this one to please men, even if God is not pleased, though with the dim hope that God will after all condone or overlook. Nothing but experience will convince some preachers how fickle is popular favour and how often it is at the cost of failure to please God. And yet the preacher wishes to win men to Christ. It is all as subtle as it is deceptive. God tests our hearts (the very verb \dokimaz\ used in the beginning of this verse) and he is the only one whose approval matters in the end of the day (1Corinthians:4:5|).

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:5 @{Using words of flattery} (\en logi kolakeias\). Literally, {in speech of flattery or fawning}. Old word, only here in N.T., from \kolaks\, a flatterer. An Epicurean, Philodemus, wrote a work \Peri Kolakeias\ (Concerning Flattery). Milligan (_Vocabulary_, etc.) speaks of "the selfish conduct of too many of the rhetoricians of the day," conduct extremely repugnant to Paul. The third time (verses 1,2,5|) he appeals to their knowledge of his work in Thessalonica. Frame suggests "cajolery." {Nor a cloke of covetousness} (\oute prophasei pleonexias\). Pretext (\prophasis\ from \prophain\, to show forth, or perhaps from \pro-phmi\, to speak forth). This is the charge of self-interest rather than the mere desire to please people. Pretext of greediness is Frame's translation. \Pleonexia\ is merely "having more" from \pleonekts\, one eager for more, and \pleonekte\, to have more, then to over-reach, all old words, all with bad meaning as the result of the desire for more. In a preacher this sin is especially fatal. Paul feels so strongly his innocence of this charge that he calls God as witness as in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:23; strkjv@Romans:9:1; strkjv@Phillipians:1:8|, a solemn oath for his own veracity.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ ANACHRONISMS It used to be said that it was impossible for II Peter to have been written in the first century, because it had the atmosphere of the second. But one fact is strongly against that argument. In strkjv@2Peter:3:8| occurs the quotation of strkjv@Psalms:90:4| about the thousand years without any chiliastic turn at all, a thing sure to happen in the second century after chiliasm had come to have such a swing. Peter's use of it suits the first century, not the second. As a matter of fact, the false teachers described in II Peter suit the first century precisely if one recalls Paul's troubles with the Judaizers in Galatia and Corinth and with the Gnostics in Colossae and Ephesus. "Every feature in the description of the false teachers and mockers is to be found in the apostolic age" (Bigg).

rwp@Acts:2:35 @{Till I make} (\hes an th\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \tithmi\ with \an\ after \hes\ for the future, a common Greek idiom. This dominion of Christ as Mediator will last till the plan of the kingdom is carried out (1Corinthians:15:23-28|). Complete subjugation will come, perhaps referring to the custom of victorious kings placing their feet upon the necks of their enemies (Joshua:10:24|). {Therefore assuredly} (\Asphals oun\). Assuredly therefore, without any slip or trip (\asphals\ from \a\ privative and \sphall\, to trip, to slip. Peter draws a powerfully pungent conclusion by the use of the adverb \asphals\ and the inferential conjunction \oun\. Peter's closing sentence drives home the point of his sermon: "This very Jesus whom ye crucified (note \humeis\, strongly emphatic {ye}), him God made both Lord and Messiah" (\kai kurion kai Christon\), as David foretold in strkjv@Psalms:110| and as the events of this day have confirmed. The critics are disturbed over how Luke could have gotten the substance of this masterful address spoken on the spur of the moment with passion and power. They even say that Luke composed it for Peter and put the words in his mouth. If so, he made a good job of it. But Peter could have written out the notes of the address afterwards. Luke had plenty of chances to get hold of it from Peter or from others.

rwp@Acts:4:13 @{The boldness} (\tn parrsian\). Telling it all (\pan, rsia\). See also verses 29,31|. Actually Peter had turned the table on the Sanhedrin and had arraigned them before the bar of God. {Had perceived} (\katalabomenoi\). Second aorist middle participle of \katalamban\, common verb to grasp strongly (\kata\), literally or with the mind (especially middle voice), to comprehend. The rulers recalled Peter and John from having seen them often with Jesus, probably during the temple teaching, etc. {They were unlearned} (\agrammatoi eisin\). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. Unlettered men without technical training in the professional rabbinical schools of Hillel or Shammai. Jesus himself was so regarded (John:7:15|, "not having learned letters"). {And ignorant} (\kai iditai\). Old word, only here in the N.T. and strkjv@1Corinthians:14:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:6|. It does not mean "ignorant," but a layman, a man not in office (a private person), a common soldier and not an officer, a man not skilled in the schools, very much like \agrammatos\. It is from \idios\ (one's own) and our "idiosyncracy" is one with an excess of such a trait, while "idiot" (this very word) is one who has nothing but his idiosyncracy. Peter and John were men of ability and of courage, but they did not belong to the set of the rabbis. {They marvelled} (\ethaumazon\). Imperfect (inchoative) active, began to wonder and kept it up. {Took knowledge of them} (\epeginskon autous\). Imperfect (inchoative) active again, they began to recognize them as men that they had seen with Jesus.

rwp@Acts:5:39 @{But if it is of God} (\ei de ek theou estin\). The second alternative is a condition of the first class, determined as fulfilled, \ei\ with the present indicative. By the use of this idiom Gamaliel does put the case more strongly in favor of the apostles than against them. This condition _assumes_ that the thing is so without _affirming_ it to be true. On the basis of this alternative Gamaliel warns the Sanhedrin that they cannot "overthrow" (\katalusai\) these men for they in that case must "overthrow" God, {lest haply ye be found} (\m pote--hurethte\, negative purpose with first aorist passive subjunctive) {even to be fighting against God} (\kai theomachoi\, late adjective from \theos\ and \machomai\, in LXX and here only in the N.T.).

rwp@Acts:12:7 @{Stood by him} (\epest\). Ingressive second aorist active indicative of \ephistmi\, intransitive. This very form occurs in strkjv@Luke:2:9| of the sudden appearance of the angel of the Lord to the shepherds. Page notes that this second aorist of \ephistmi\ occurs seven times in the Gospel of Luke, eight times in the Acts, and nowhere else in the N.T. Note also the same form \apest\ (departed from, from \aphistmi\, stood off from) of the disappearance of the angel in verse 10|. {In the cell} (\en ti oikmati\). Literally, a dwelling place or habitation (from \oike\, to dwell, \oikos\, house), but here not the prison as a whole as in Thucydides, but the room in the prison (cell) where Peter was chained to the two guards. Old word, but only here in the N.T. {He smote Peter on the side} (\pataxas tn pleuran tou Petrou\). More exactly, "smote the side of Peter." Strongly enough to wake Peter up who was sound asleep and yet not rouse the two guards. It was probably between 3 A.M. and 6 A.M., hours when changes in the guards were made. {Rise up} (\anasta\). Short form (_Koin_) of \anastthi\, second aorist active imperative of \anistmi\, intransitive. Songs:also strkjv@Acts:9:11| (Westcott and Hort text); strkjv@Ephesians:5:14|. {Fell off} (\exepesan\). Second aorist active with \a\ ending like first aorist of \expipt\, old verb. This miracle was necessary if Peter was to escape without rousing the two guards.

rwp@Acts:14:2 @{That were disobedient} (\hoi apeithsantes\). First aorist active articular participle, not the present \apeithountes\ as the Textus Receptus has it. But the meaning is probably the Jews that disbelieved, rather than that disobeyed. Strictly \apeithe\ does mean to disobey and \apiste\ to disbelieve, but that distinction is not observed in strkjv@John:3:36| nor in strkjv@Acts:19:9; strkjv@28:24|. The word \apeithe\ means to be \apeiths\, to be unwilling to be persuaded or to withhold belief and then also to withhold obedience. The two meanings run into one another. To disbelieve the word of God is to disobey God. {Made them evil affected} (\ekaksan\). First aorist active indicative of \kako\, old verb from \kakos\, to do evil to, to ill-treat, then in later Greek as here to embitter, to exasperate as in strkjv@Psalms:105:32| and in Josephus. In this sense only here in the N.T. Evidently Paul preached the same message as in Antioch for it won both Jews and Gentiles, and displeased the rabbis. Codex Bezae adds here that "the chiefs of the synagogue and the rulers" brought persecution upon Paul and Barnabas just as was argued about Antioch. Outside the synagogue the Jews would poison the minds of the Gentiles against Paul and Barnabas. "The story of Thecla suggests a means, and perhaps the apostles were brought before the magistrates on some charge of interference with family life. The magistrates however must have seen at once that there was no legal case against them; and by a sentence of acquittal or in some other way the Lord gave peace" (Rackham). As we have it, the story of Paul and Thecla undoubtedly has apocryphal features, though Thecla may very well be an historical character here at Iconium where the story is located. Certainly the picture of Paul herein drawn cannot be considered authentic though a true tradition may underlie it: "bald, bowlegged, strongly built, small in stature, with large eyes and meeting eyebrows and longish nose; full of grace; sometimes looking like a man, sometimes having the face of an angel."

rwp@Acts:19:33 @{And they brought Alexander out of the crowd} (\ek de tou ochlou sunebibasan Alexandron\). The correct text (Aleph A B) has this verb \sunebibasan\ (from \sunbibaz\, to put together) instead of \proebibasan\ (from \probibaz\, to put forward). It is a graphic word, causal of \bain\, to go, and occurs in strkjv@Acts:16:10; strkjv@Colossians:2:19; strkjv@Ephesians:4:16|. Evidently some of the Jews grew afraid that the mob would turn on the Jews as well as on the Christians. Paul was a Jew and so was Aristarchus, one of the prisoners. The Jews were as strongly opposed to idolatry as were the Christians. {The Jews putting him forward} (\probalontn auton tn Ioudain\). Genitive absolute of the second aorist active participle of \proball\, old verb to push forward as leaves in the spring (Luke:21:30|). In the N.T. only in these two passages. Alexandria had already disgraceful scenes of Jew-baiting and there was real peril now in Ephesus with this wild mob. Songs:Alexander was pushed forward as the champion to defend the Jews to the excited mob. He may be the same Alexander the coppersmith who did Paul much evil (2Timothy:4:14|), against whom Paul will warn Timothy then in Ephesus. "The Jews were likely to deal in the copper and silver required for the shrines, so he may have had some trade connexion with the craftsmen which would give him influence" (Furneaux). {Beckoned with the hand} (\kataseisas tn cheira\). Old verb \katasei\, to shake down, here the hand, rapidly waving the hand up and down to get a hearing. In the N.T. elsewhere only in strkjv@Acts:12:17; strkjv@13:16; strkjv@21:40| where "with the hand" (\ti cheiri\, instrumental case) is used instead of \tn cheira\ (the accusative). {Would have made a defence unto the people} (\thelen apologeisthai ti dmi\). Imperfect active, wanted to make a defence, tried to, started to, but apparently never got out a word. \Apologeisthai\ (present middle infinitive, direct middle, to defend oneself), regular word for formal apology, but in N.T. only by Luke and Paul (twice in Gospel, six times in Acts, and in strkjv@Romans:2:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:19|).

rwp@Acts:19:37 @{Neither robbers of temples} (\oute hierosulous\). Common word in Greek writers from \hieron\, temple, and \sula\, to rob, be guilty of sacrilege. The word is found also on inscriptions in Ephesus. The Jews were sometimes guilty of this crime (Romans:2:22|), since the heathen temples often had vast treasures like banks. The ancients felt as strongly about temple-robbing as westerners used to feel about a horse-thief. {Nor blasphemers of our goddess} (\oute blasphmountas tn theon hmn\). Nor those who blasphemed our goddess. That is to say, these men (Gaius and Aristarchus) as Christians had so conducted themselves (Colossians:4:5|) that no charge could be placed against them either in act (temple-robbery) or word (blasphemy). They had done a rash thing since these men are innocent. Paul had used tact in Ephesus as in Athens in avoiding illegalities.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ The conclusion of Lock is that "either they are genuine 'letters' or artificial 'Epistles'" (_Int. Crit. Comm._, p. XXV). If not genuine, they are forgeries in Paul's name (pseudepigraphic). "The argument from style is in favour of the Pauline authorship, that from vocabulary strongly, though not quite conclusively, against it" (Lock, _Op. Cit._, p. XXIX). I should put the case for the Pauline authorship more strongly than that and shall treat them as Paul's own. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXIII) well says: "It is not reasonable to expect that a private letter, addressed to a personal friend, for his own instruction and consideration, should exhibit the same features as a letter addressed to a community for public, oral communication."

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ THE REASON FOR HIS EPISTLES In a real sense Paul's Epistles are tracts for the times, not for the age in general, but to meet real emergencies. He wrote to a particular church or group of churches or persons to meet immediate needs brought to his attention by messengers or letters. Dr. Deissmann contends strongly for the idea of calling Paul's Epistles "letters" rather than "Epistles." He gives a studied literary character to "epistles" as more or less artificial and written for the public eye rather than for definite effect. Four of Paul's Epistles are personal (those to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy) beyond a doubt, but in these which can properly be termed personal letters there are the principles of the gospel applied to personal, social, and ecclesiastical problems in such a pungent fashion that they possess permanent value. In the earliest group of Paul's Epistles, he reminds the Thessalonians of the official character of the Epistle which was meant for the church as a whole (1Thessalonians:5:27|). He says also: "But if any one does not obey our word by the epistle, mark this one, not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame" (2Thessalonians:3:14|). He calls attention to his signature as proof of the genuineness of every epistle (2Thessalonians:3:17|). He gave directions for the public reading of his epistles (Colossians:4:16|). He regarded them as the expression of God's will through the life of the churches and he put his whole heart into them. Two great controversies stirred Paul's life. That with the Judaizers called forth the great doctrinal group (I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans). That with the Gnostics occasioned the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians (Laodiceans) and this controversy ran on into the Pastoral Epistles. Each Epistle had its particular occasion which will be pointed out in due season. But even in the short ones like Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians Paul deals with the sublimest of all themes, the Person of Christ, with a masterfulness never equalled elsewhere. Even in I Corinthians, which deals so largely with church problems in Corinth, two great chapters rise to the heights of real eloquence (Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13| on Love and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15| on the Resurrection). Romans, the greatest of his Epistles, has the fullest discussion of Paul's gospel of grace and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:8| has a sweep of imagination and a grasp of faith unsurpassed. Hence, while denying to Paul the artificial rules of the rhetoricians attributed to him by Blass, I cannot agree that Paul's church Epistles are mere incidental letters. It is not a question whether Paul was writing for posterity or for the present emergency. He wrote for the present emergency in the most effective possible way. He brought the whole gospel message to bear upon the varied and pressing problems of the early Christians in the power of the Holy Spirit with the eloquence of a mind all ablaze with the truth and with a heart that yearned for their souls for Christ. They are not literary epistles, but they are more than personal letters. They are thunderbolts of passion and power that struck centre and that strike fire now for all who will take the trouble to come to them for the mind of Christ that is here.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE DATE Here again modern scholars differ widely. Westcott places it between A.D. 64 and 67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written strkjv@Hebrews:10:1f.|: "Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in strkjv@Hebrews:8:13| "nigh to vanishing away" (\eggus aphanismou\) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in strkjv@Hebrews:13:23| as being "set free" (\apolelumenon\) raises an inquiry concerning Paul's last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Timothy:4:11-13|). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero's own death (June 8, A.D. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 A.D. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

rwp@James:1:17 @{Gift} (\dosis\) {--boon} (\drma\). Both old substantives from the same original verb (\didmi\), to give. \Dosis\ is the act of giving (ending \-sis\), but sometimes by metonymy for the thing given like \ktisis\ for \ktisma\ (Colossians:1:15|). But \drma\ (from \dre\, from \dron\ a gift) only means a gift, a benefaction (Romans:5:16|). The contrast here argues for "giving" as the idea in \dosis\. Curiously enough there is a perfect hexameter line here: \psa do / sis aga / th kai / pn d / rma te / leion\. Such accidental rhythm occurs occasionally in many writers. Ropes (like Ewald and Mayor) argues for a quotation from an unknown source because of the poetical word \drma\, but that is not conclusive. {From above} (\anthen\). That is, from heaven. Cf. strkjv@John:3:31; strkjv@19:11|. {Coming down} (\katabainon\). Present active neuter singular participle of \katabain\ agreeing with \drma\, expanding and explaining \anthen\ (from above). {From the Father of lights} (\apo tou patros tn phtn\). "Of the lights" (the heavenly bodies). For this use of \patr\ see strkjv@Job:38:28| (Father of rain); strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17|. God is the Author of light and lights. {With whom} (\par' hi\). For \para\ (beside) with locative sense for standpoint of God see \para ti thei\ (Mark:10:27; strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@9:14; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9|. {Can be no} (\ouk eni\). This old idiom (also in strkjv@Galatians:3:28; strkjv@Colossians:3:11|) may be merely the original form of \en\ with recessive accent (Winer, Mayor) or a shortened form of \enesti\. The use of \eni en\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:5| argues for this view, as does the use of \eine\ (\einai\) in Modern Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 313). {Variation} (\parallag\). Old word from \parallass\, to make things alternate, here only in N.T. In Aristeas in sense of alternate stones in pavements. Dio Cassius has \parallaxis\ without reference to the modern astronomical parallax, though James here is comparing God (Father of the lights) to the sun (Malachi:4:2|), which does have periodic variations. {Shadow that is cast by turning} (\trops aposkiasma\). \Trop\ is an old word for "turning" (from \trep\ to turn), here only in N.T. \Aposkiasma\ is a late and rare word (\aposkiasmos\ in Plutarch) from \aposkiaz\ (\apo, skia\) a shade cast by one object on another. It is not clear what the precise metaphor is, whether the shadow thrown on the dial (\aposkiaz\ in Plato) or the borrowed light of the moon lost to us as it goes behind the earth. In fact, the text is by no means certain, for Aleph B papyrus of fourth century actually read \h trops aposkiasmatos\ (the variation of the turning of the shadow). Ropes argues strongly for this reading, and rather convincingly. At any rate there is no such periodic variation in God like that we see in the heavenly bodies.

rwp@James:5:16 @{Confess therefore your sins one to another} (\exomologeisthe oun alllois tas hamartias\). Present middle (indirect) of \exomologe\. Confession of sin to God is already assumed. But public confession of certain sins to one another in the meetings is greatly helpful in many ways. This is not confessing to one man like a priest in place of the public confession. One may confess to the pastor without confessing to God or to the church, with little benefit to anybody. {Pray for one another} (\proseuchesthe huper allln\). Present middle imperative. Keep this up. {That ye may be healed} (\hops iathte\). Purpose clause with \hops\ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \iaomai\. Probably of bodily healing (verse 14|), though \iaomai\ is used also of healing of the soul (Matthew:13:15; strkjv@1Peter:2:24; strkjv@Hebrews:12:13|) as Mayor takes it here. {Availeth much} (\polu ischuei\). "Has much force." Present active indicative of \ischu\ (from \ischus\, strength). {In its working} (\energoumen\). Probably the present middle participle of \energe\ as Paul apparently uses it in strkjv@Galatians:5:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:12; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:7|, meaning "when it works." The passive is possible, as is the usual idiom elsewhere. Mayor argues strongly for the passive here, "when it is exercised" (Ropes).

rwp@John:11:56 @{They sought therefore for Jesus} (\eztoun oun ton Isoun\). Imperfect active of \zte\ and common \oun\ of which John is so fond. They were seeking Jesus six months before at the feast of tabernacles (7:11|), but now they really mean to kill him. {As they stood in the temple} (\en ti hieri hestkotes\). Perfect active participle (intransitive) of \histmi\, a graphic picture of the various groups of leaders in Jerusalem and from other lands, "the knots of people in the Temple precincts" (Bernard). They had done this at the tabernacles (7:11-13|), but now there is new excitement due to the recent raising of Lazarus and to the public order for the arrest of Jesus. {That he will not come to the feast?} (\hoti ou m elthi eis tn heortn;\). The form of the question (indirect discourse after \dokeite\) assumes strongly that Jesus will not (\ou m\, double negative with second aorist active \elthi\ from \erchomai\) dare to come this time for the reason given in verse 57|.

rwp@John:13:10 @{He that is bathed} (\ho leloumenos\). Perfect passive articular participle of \lou\, to bathe the whole body (Acts:9:37|). {Save to wash his feet} (\ei m tous podas nipsasthai\). Aleph and some old Latin MSS. have only \nipsasthai\, but the other words are genuine and are really involved by the use of \nipsasthai\ (first aorist middle infinitive of \nipt\, to wash parts of the body) instead of \lousasthai\, to bathe the whole body (just used before). The guest was supposed to bathe (\lou\) before coming to a feast and so only the feet had to be washed (\nipt\) on removing the sandals. {Clean} (\katharos\). Because of the bath. For \katharos\ meaning external cleanliness see strkjv@Matthew:23:26; strkjv@27:59;| but in strkjv@John:15:3| it is used for spiritual purity as here in "ye are clean" (\katharoi\). {Every whit} (\holos\). All of the body because of the bath. For this same predicate use of \holos\ see strkjv@9:34|. {But not all} (\all' ouchi pantes\). Strongly put exception (\ouchi\). Plain hint of the treachery of Judas who is reclining at the table after having made the bargain with the Sanhedrin (Mark:14:11|). A year ago Jesus knew that Judas was a devil and said to the apostles: "One of you is a devil" (6:64,70|). But it did not hurt them then nor did they suspect each other then or now. It is far-fetched to make Jesus here refer to the cleansing power of his blood or to baptism as some do.

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@Matthew:4:1 @{To be tempted of the devil} (\peirasthnai hupo tou diabolou\). Matthew locates the temptation at a definite time, "then" (\tote\) and place, "into the wilderness" (\eis tn ermon\), the same general region where John was preaching. It is not surprising that Jesus was tempted by the devil immediately after his baptism which signified the formal entrance upon the Messianic work. That is a common experience with ministers who step out into the open for Christ. The difficulty here is that Matthew says that "Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil." Mark (Mark:1:12|) puts it more strongly that the Spirit "drives" (\ekballei\) Christ into the wilderness. It was a strong impulsion by the Holy Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness to think through the full significance of the great step that he had now taken. That step opened the door for the devil and involved inevitable conflict with the slanderer (\tou diabolou\). Judas has this term applied to him (John:6:70|) as it is to men (2Timothy:3:3; strkjv@Titus:2:3|) and women (she devils, strkjv@1Timothy:3:11|) who do the work of the arch slanderer. There are those today who do not believe that a personal devil exists, but they do not offer an adequate explanation of the existence and presence of sin in the world. Certainly Jesus did not discount or deny the reality of the devil's presence. The word "tempt" here (\peiraz\) and in strkjv@4:3| means originally to test, to try. That is its usual meaning in the ancient Greek and in the Septuagint. Bad sense of \ekpeiraz\ in strkjv@4:7| as in strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:16|. Here it comes to mean, as often in the New Testament, to solicit to sin. The evil sense comes from its use for an evil purpose.

rwp@Philippians:1:19 @{Will turn} (\apobsetai\). Future middle indicative of \apobain\, old verb, to come from, to come back, to turn out. {To my salvation} (\eis strian\). For his release from prison as he strongly hopes to see them again (1:26|). Lightfoot takes the word to be Paul's eternal salvation and it must be confessed that verse 20| (the close of this sentence) does suit that idea best. Can it be that Paul carried both conceptions in the word here? {Supply} (\epichorgias\). Late and rare word (one example in inscription of first century A.D.). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:4:16|. From the late verb \epichorge\ (double compound, \epi, choros, hgeomai\, to furnish supply for the chorus) which see in strkjv@2Corinthians:9:10; strkjv@Galatians:3:5|.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE DATE There are two chief theories, the Neronic, soon after Nero's death, the other in the reign of Domitian. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius as saying expressly that the Apocalypse of John was written at the close of the reign of Domitian. This testimony is concurred in by Clement of Alexandria, by Origen, by Eusebius, by Jerome. In harmony with this clear testimony the severity of the persecutions suit the later date better than the earlier one. There is, besides, in strkjv@Revelation:17:11f.| an apparent reference to the story that Nero would return again. The fifth king who is one of the seven is an eighth. There was a Nero legend, to be sure, that Nero either was not dead but was in Parthia, or would be _redivivus_ after death. Juvenal termed Domitian "a bald Nero" and others called Domitian "a second Nero." But in spite of all this Hort, Lightfoot, Sanday, Westcott have argued strongly for the Neronic era. Peake is willing to admit allusions to the Neronic period as Swete is also, but both consider the Domitianic date the best supported. Moffatt considers any earlier date than Domitian "almost impossible."

rwp@Romans:9:1 @{In Christ} (\en Christi\). Paul really takes a triple oath here so strongly is he stirred. He makes a positive affirmation in Christ, a negative one (not lying), the appeal to his conscience as co-witness (\sunmarturouss\, genitive absolute as in strkjv@2:15| which see) "in the Holy Spirit."