NONE.filter - rwp happens:
rwp@
1John:3:16 @{Know we} (\egnkamen\). Perfect active indicative, "we have come to know and still know." See strkjv@2:3| for "hereby" (\en touti\). {Love} (\tn agapn\). "The thing called love" (D. Smith). {He for us} (\ekeinos huper hmn\). \Ekeinos\ as in strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:3,5|, \huper\ here alone in this Epistle, though common in John's Gospel (10:11,15; strkjv@11:50|, etc.) and in strkjv@3John:1:7|. {Laid down his life} (\tn psuchn autou ethken\). First aorist active indicative of \tithmi\, the very idiom used by Jesus of himself in strkjv@John:10:11,17f|. {We ought} (\hmeis opheilomen\). Emphatic \hmeis\ again. For \opheil\ see strkjv@2:6|. Of course our laying down our lives for the brethren has no atoning value in our cases as in that of Christ, but is a supreme proof of one's love (John:13:37f.; strkjv@15:13|), as often happens.
rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 65 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR The Epistle is not anonymous, but claims to be written by "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1Peter:1:1|), that is Cephas (Simon Peter). If this is not true, then the book is pseudonymous by a late writer who assumed Peter's name, as in the so-called Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc. "There is no book in the New Testament which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation, though Irenaeus is the first to quote it by name" (Bigg). Eusebius (_H.E_. iii. 25.2) places it among the acknowledged books, those accepted with no doubt at all. We here assume that Simon Peter wrote this Epistle or at any rate dictated it by an amanuensis, as Paul did in Romans (Romans:16:22|). Bigg suggests Silvanus (Silas) as the amanuensis or interpreter (1Peter:5:12|), the obvious meaning of the language (\dia\, through). He may also have been the bearer of the Epistle. It happens that we know more of Peter's life than of any of the twelve apostles because of his prominence in the Gospels and in the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. In the _Student's Chronological New Testament_ I have given a full list of the passages in the Gospels where Peter appears with any clearness and the material is rich and abundant. The account in Acts is briefer, though Peter is the outstanding man in the first five chapters during his career in Jerusalem. After the conversion of Saul he begins to work outside of Jerusalem and after escaping death at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts:12:3ff.|) he left for a while, but is back in Jerusalem at the Conference called by Paul and Barnabas (Acts:15:6-14; Gal strkjv@2:1-10|). After that we have no more about him in Acts, though he reappears in Antioch and is rebuked by Paul for cowardice because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-21). He travelled for the Gospel among the Jews of the Dispersion (Galatians:2:9|) with his wife (1Corinthians:9:5|), and went to Asia Minor (1Peter:1:1|) and as far as Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|). Besides Silvanus he had John Mark with him also (1Peter:5:13|), who was said by the early Christian writers to have been Peter's "interpreter" in his preaching, since Peter was not expert in the Greek (Acts:4:13|), and who also wrote his Gospel under the inspiration of Peter's preaching. We are not able to follow clearly the close of his life or to tell precisely the time of his death. He was apparently put to death in A.D. 67 or 68, but some think that he was executed in Rome in A.D. 64.
rwp@1Peter:2:16 @{As free} (\hs eleutheroi\). Note nominative again connected with \hupotagte\ in verse 13|, not with \phimoin\ in verse 14| (a parenthesis in fact). For this ethical sense of \eleutheros\ see strkjv@Galatians:4:26|. {And not using your freedom} (\kai m echontes tn eleutherian\). "And not holding your liberty" (present active participle of \ech\, with usual negative \m\ with participle. {For a cloke of wickedness} (\hs epikalumma ts kakias\). \Epikalumma\ (from \epikalupt\ strkjv@Romans:4:7|) is a rare word (Aristotle, LXX) for veil, here only in N.T. and in figurative sense for pretext to do wickedness under, a thing, alas, that sometimes happens. {But as bondservants of God} (\all' hs theou douloi\). Paul's proud title. There is no such thing as absolute freedom (personal freedom), for that is anarchy. Cf. strkjv@Romans:6:22| "enslaved to God."
rwp@1Timothy:3:13 @{Gain to themselves} (\heautois peripoiountai\). Present middle indicative of \peripoie\, old verb, to make besides (\peri\, around, over), to lay by. Reflexive (indirect) middle with reflexive pronoun (\heautois\) repeated as often happens in the _Koin_. In N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:17:33; strkjv@Acts:20:28| (Paul also, quoting strkjv@Isaiah:43:21|). {A good standing} (\bathmon kalon\). Late word from \bain\, in LXX for steps at a door (1Samuel:5:5|). In plural the steps of a stair. In the inscriptions it means a good foothold or standing. The ecclesiastical writers (Theodoret) take it to be a higher grade or rank, but it is doubtful if Paul means that here. {Much boldness} (\polln parrsian\). A Pauline phrase (2Corinthians:3:12; strkjv@7:4; strkjv@Phillipians:1:20|). {In the faith which is in Christ Jesus} (\en pistei ti en Christi Isou\). Pauline phrase again (Acts:26:18; strkjv@Galatians:3:26; strkjv@Colossians:1:4; strkjv@Ephesians:1:15; strkjv@2Timothy:1:13; strkjv@3:15|).
rwp@2Corinthians:4:4 @{The god of this world} (\ho theos tou ainos toutou\). "Age," more exactly, as in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:20|. Satan is "the god of this age," a phrase nowhere else in the N.T., but Jesus uses the same idea in strkjv@John:12:31; strkjv@14:30| and Paul in strkjv@Ephesians:2:2; strkjv@6:12| and John in strkjv@1John:5:19|. Satan claimed the rule over the world in the temptations with Jesus. {Blinded} (\etuphlsen\). First aorist active of \tuphlo\, old verb to blind (\tuphlos\, blind). They refused to believe (\apistn\) and so Satan got the power to blind their thoughts. That happens with wilful disbelievers. {The light} (\ton phtismon\). The illumination, the enlightening. Late word from \photiz\, to give light, in Plutarch and LXX. In N.T. only in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4,6|. Accusative case of general reference here with the articular infinitive (\eis to m augasai\ that should not dawn). That is, if \augasai\ is intransitive as is likely, though it is transitive in the old poets (from \aug\, radiance. Cf. German _Auge_=eye). If it is transitive, the idea would be "that they should not see clearly the illumination, etc."
rwp@Acts:9:7 @{That journeyed with him} (\hoi sunodeuontes auti\). Not in the older Greek, but in the _Koin_, with the associative instrumental. {Speechless} (\eneoi\). Mute. Only here in N.T., though old word. {Hearing the voice, but beholding no man} (\akouontes men ts phns, mdena de therountes\). Two present active participles in contrast (\men, de\). In strkjv@22:9| Paul says that the men "beheld the light" (\to men phs etheasanto\), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, "but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me" (\tn de phnn ouk kousan tou lalountos moi\). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in strkjv@9:7| it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the "light" and "no one") a distinction between the "sound" (original sense of \phn\ as in strkjv@John:3:8|) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that \akou\ is used either with the accusative (the extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of \phn\. They heard the sound (9:7|), but did not understand the words (22:9|). However, this distinction in case with \akou\, though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in strkjv@John:3:8| where \phnn\ undoubtedly means "sound" the accusative occurs as Luke uses \kousen phnn\ about Saul in strkjv@Acts:9:4|. Besides in strkjv@22:7| Paul uses \kousa phns\ about himself, but \kousa phnn\ about himself in strkjv@76:14|, interchangeably.
rwp@Acts:9:9 @{Not seeing} (\m blepn\). The usual negative \m\ of the participle. It was a crisis for Saul, this sudden blindness for three days (\hmeras treis\, accusative of extent of time). Later (Galatians:4:15|) Paul has an affection of the eyes which may have been caused by this experience on the road to Damascus or at least his eyes may have been predisposed by it to weakness in the glare of the Syrian sun in the land where today so much eye trouble exists. He neither ate nor drank anything, for his appetite had gone as often happens in a crisis of the soul. These must have been days of terrible stress and strain.
rwp@Acts:11:23 @{The grace of God, was glad} (\tn charin tn tou theou echar\). Note repetition of the article, "the grace that of God." The verb (second aorist passive indicative of \chair\) has the same root as \charis\. See the same _suavis paronomasia_ in strkjv@Luke:1:28|. "Grace brings gladness" (Page). "A smaller man would have raised difficulties as to circumcision or baptism" (Furneaux). {He exhorted} (\parekalei\). Imperfect active, picturing the continuous encouragement from Barnabas. {With purpose of heart} (\ti prothesei ts kardias\). Placing before (from \pro-tithmi\), old word for set plan as in strkjv@Acts:27:13; strkjv@Romans:8:28|. The glow of the first enthusiasm might pass as often happens after a revival. Barnabas had a special gift (4:36|) for work like this. {Cleave unto the Lord} (\prosmenein [en] ti kurii\). Dative case (locative if \en\ is genuine) of \kurios\ (here Jesus again) after \prosemenein\ to keep on remaining loyal to (present active infinitive). Persistence was needed in such a pagan city.
rwp@Acts:24:11 @{Seeing that thou canst take knowledge} (\dunamenou sou epignnai\). Genitive absolute again. The same word and form (\epignnai\) used by Tertullus, if in Greek, in verse 8| to Felix. Paul takes it up and repeats it. {Not more than twelve days} (\ou pleious hmerai ddeka\). Here \\ (than) is absent without change of case to the ablative as usually happens. But this idiom is found in the _Koin_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 666). {Since} (\aph' hs\). Supply \hmeras\, "from which day." {To worship} (\proskunsn\). One of the few examples of the future participle of purpose so common in the old Attic.
rwp@Acts:26:9 @{I verily thought with myself} (\eg men oun edoxa emauti\). Personal construction instead of the impersonal, a touch of the literary style. Paul's "egoism" is deceived as so often happens. {I ought} (\dein\). Infinitive the usual construction with \doke\. Necessity and a sense of duty drove Paul on even in this great sin (see on ¯23:1|), a common failing with persecutors. {Contrary} (\enantia\). Old word (adjective), over against, opposite (Acts:27:4|), then hostile to as here.
rwp@Acts:28:2 @{The barbarians} (\hoi barbaroi\). The Greeks called all men "barbarians" who did not speak Greek (Romans:1:14|), not "barbarians" in our sense of rude and uncivilized, but simply "foreign folk." Diodorus Siculus (V. 12) says that it was a colony of the Phoenicians and so their language was Punic (Page). The word originally meant an uncouth repetition (\barbar\) not understood by others (1Corinthians:14:11|). In strkjv@Colossians:3:11| Paul couples it with Scythian as certainly not Christian. These are (with verse 4| below) the only N.T. instances. {Showed us} (\pareichan\). Imperfect active of \parech\ with \-an\ instead of \-on\ as \eichan\ in strkjv@Mark:8:7| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 339). It was their habit on this occasion, Luke means, they kept on showing. {No common kindness} (\ou tn tuchousan philanthrpian\). The old word \philanthrpia\ (\philos\, \anthrpos\), love of mankind, occurs in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:4| (adverb in strkjv@27:3|). See on ¯19:11| for this use of \ou tn tuchousan\, "not the kindness that happens every day." They were not "wreckers" to take advantage of the calamity. {They kindled a fire} (\hapsantes puran\). The only N.T. example and verse 3| of the old word \pura\ (from \pur\, fire), a pile of burning fuel (sticks). First aorist active participle of \hapt\, to set fire to, to kindle. Cf. \anapt\ in strkjv@Luke:12:49|. {Received us all} (\proselabonto pantas hms\). Second aorist middle (indirect indicative of \proslamban\. They took us all to themselves (cf. strkjv@Acts:18:26|). {The present} (\ton ephestta\). Second perfect active participle (intransitive) of \ephistmi\, "the rain that stood upon them" (the pouring rain). Only in Luke and Paul in N.T.
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:2:4 @{But because of the false brethren privately brought in} (\dia de tous pareisaktous pseudadelphous\). Late verbal adjective \pareisaktos\ from the double compound verb \pareisag\, found in papyri in the sense of brought in by the side or on the sly as here. Evidently some of the Judaizers or sympathizers whom Paul had not invited had come in as often happens. Paul terms them "false brethren" like "the false apostles" in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13| of the Judaizers in Corinth. {Who came in privily} (\hoitines pareislthon\). Repetition of the charge of their slipping in unwanted (\pareiserchomai\, late double compound, in Plutarch, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:5:20|). {To spy out} (\kataskopsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \kataskope\, old Greek verb from \kataskopos\, a spy, to reconnoitre, to make a treacherous investigation. {That they might bring us into bondage} (\hina hmas katadoulsousin\). Future active indicative of this old compound, to enslave completely (\kata-\) as in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:20|. Nowhere else in N.T. This was their purpose (\hina\ and future active indicative of this causative verb). It was as serious a conflict as this. Spiritual liberty or spiritual bondage, which?
rwp@John:12:25 @{Loseth it} (\apolluei autn\). The second paradox. Present active indicative of \apollu\. This great saying was spoken at various times as in strkjv@Mark:8:35| (Matthew:16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24|) and strkjv@Mark:10:39| (Luke:17:33|). See those passages for discussion of \psuch\ (life or soul). For "he that hateth his life" (\ho misn tn psuchn autou\) see the sharp contrasts in Luke strkjv@14:26-35| where \mise\ is used of father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, as well as one's own life. Clearly \mise\ means "hate" when the issue is between Christ and the dearest things of life as happens when the choice is between martyrdom and apostasy. In that case one keeps his soul for eternal life by losing his life (\psuch\, each time) here. That is the way to "guard" (\phulaxei\) life by being true to Christ. This is the second paradox to show Christ's philosophy of life.
rwp@John:18:26 @{Did not I see thee in the garden with him?} (\ouk eg se eidon en ti kpi met' autou;\). This staggering and sudden thrust expects an affirmative answer by the use of \ouk\, not \m\ as in verses 17,25|, but Peter's previous denials with the knowledge that he was observed by a kinsman of Malchus whom he had tried to kill (verse 10|) drove him to the third flat denial that he knew Jesus, this time with cursing and swearing (Mark:14:71; strkjv@Matthew:26:73|). Peter was in dire peril now of arrest himself for attempt to kill. {Straightway} (\euthes\). As in strkjv@Matthew:26:74| while Luke has \parachrma\ (Luke:22:60|). Mark (Mark:14:68,72|) speaks of two crowings as often happens when one cock crows. See strkjv@Matthew:26:34| for \alektr\ (cock). That was usually the close of the third watch of the night (Mark:13:35|), about 3 A.M. Luke (Luke:22:61|) notes that Jesus turned and looked on Peter probably as he passed from the rooms of Annas to the trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (the ecclesiastical court). See Mrs. Browning's beautiful sonnets on "The Look".
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:11:17 @{But he} (\autos de\). In contrast with them. {Knowing their thoughts} (\eids autn ta dianomata\). From \dianoe\, to think through or distinguish. This substantive is common in Plato, but occurs nowhere else in the N.T. It means intent, purpose. Jesus knew that they were trying to tempt him. {And a house divided against a house falleth} (\kai oikos epi oikon piptei\). It is not certain that \diameristheisa\ (divided) is to be repeated here as in strkjv@Matthew:12:25; strkjv@Mark:3:25|. It may mean, {and house falls upon house}, "one tumbling house knocking down its neighbour, a graphic picture of what happens when a kingdom is divided against itself" (Bruce).
rwp@Luke:11:35 @{Whether not} (\m\). This use of \m\ in an indirect question is good Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1045). It is a pitiful situation if the very light is darkness. This happens when the eye of the soul is too diseased to see the light of Christ.
rwp@Mark:11:24 @{Believe that ye have received them} (\pisteuete hoti elabete\). That is the test of faith, the kind that sees the fulfilment before it happens. \Elabete\ is second aorist active indicative, antecedent in time to \pisteuete\, unless it be considered the timeless aorist when it is simultaneous with it. For this aorist of immediate consequence see strkjv@John:15:6|.
rwp@Matthew:8:34 @{That he would depart} (\hops metabi\). The whole city was excited over the destruction of the hogs and begged Jesus to leave, forgetful of the healing of the demoniacs in their concern over the loss of property. They cared more for hogs than for human souls, as often happens today.
rwp@Romans:8:26 @{Helpeth our infirmity} (\sunantilambanetai ti astheneii hmn\). Present middle indicative of \sunantilambanomai\, late and striking double compound (Diodorus, LXX, Josephus, frequent in inscriptions, Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 87), to lend a hand together with, at the same time with one. Only twice in N.T., here and strkjv@Luke:10:40| in Martha's plea for Mary's help. Here beautifully Paul pictures the Holy Spirit taking hold at our side at the very time of our weakness (associative instrumental case) and before too late. {How to pray} (\to ti proseuxmetha\). Articular clause object of \oidamen\ (we know) and indirect question with the deliberative aorist middle subjunctive \proseuxmetha\, retained in the indirect question. {As we ought} (\katho dei\). "As it is necessary." How true this is of all of us in our praying. {Maketh intercession} (\huperentugchanei\). Present active indicative of late double compound, found only here and in later ecclesiastical writers, but \entugchan\ occurs in verse 27| (a common verb). It is a picturesque word of rescue by one who "happens on" (\entugchanei\) one who is in trouble and "in his behalf" (\huper\) pleads "with unuttered groanings" (instrumental case) or with "sighs that baffle words" (Denney). This is work of our Helper, the Spirit himself.
rwp@Romans:12:9 @{Without hypocrisy} (\anupokritos\). Late double compound adjective for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:6:6|. Hypocritical or pretended love is no love at all as Paul describes \agap\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:13|. {Abhor} (\apostugountes\). Old verb with intensive (\apo\) dislike, only here in N.T. The present active participle is here employed in the sense of the present active indicative as sometimes happens with the independent participle (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1132ff.). This same idiom appears with \kollmenoi\ (cleaving) for which verb see on ¯1Corinthians:6:17|, with \progoumenoi\ (preferring) in verse 10| (old verb here only in N.T.), and with the participles in verses 11-13| and again in verses 16-18|. One can supply \este\ if he prefers.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}