Bible:
Filter: String:

NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp practically:

rwp@1Corinthians:2:2 @{For I determined not to know anything among you} (\ou gar ekrina ti eidenai en humin\). Literally, "For I did not decide to know anything among you." The negative goes with \ekrina\, not with \ti\. Paul means that he did not think it fit or his business to know anything for his message beyond this "mystery of God." {Save Jesus Christ} (\ei m Isoun Christon\). Both the person and the office (Lightfoot). I had no intent to go beyond him and in particular, {and him crucified} (\kai touton estaurmenon\). Literally, {and this one as crucified} (perfect passive participle). This phase in particular (1:18|) was selected by Paul from the start as the centre of his gospel message. He decided to stick to it even after Athens where he was practically laughed out of court. The Cross added to the \scandalon\ of the Incarnation, but Paul kept to the main track on coming to Corinth.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE USE OF PAUL'S EPISTLES There are two extremes about the relation of Peter to Paul. One is that of violent antithesis, with Peter and Paul opposing one another by exaggerating and prolonging Paul's denunciation of Peter's cowardice in Antioch (Galatians:2:11-21|) and making Peter also the exponent of a Jewish type of Christianity (practically a Judaizing type). This view of Baur once had quite a following, but it has nearly disappeared. Under its influence Acts and Peter's Epistles were considered not genuine, but documents designed to patch up the disagreement between Peter and Paul. The other extreme is to deny any Pauline influence on Peter or of Peter on Paul. Paul was friendly to Peter (Galatians:1:18|), but was independent of his ecclesiastical authority (Galatians:2:1-10|) and Peter championed Paul's cause in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-13|). Peter was certainly not a Judaizer (Acts:11:1-18|), in spite of his temporary defection in Antioch. Undoubtedly Peter was won back to cordial relations with Paul if any confidence can be placed in strkjv@2Peter:3:15f|. There is no reason for doubting that Peter was familiar with some of Paul's Epistles as there indicated. There is some indication of Peter's use of Romans and Ephesians in this Epistle. It is not always conclusive to find the same words and even ideas which are not formally quoted, because there was a Christian vocabulary and a body of doctrinal ideas in common though with personal variations in expression. Peter may have read James, but not the Pastoral Epistles. There are points of contact with Hebrews which Von Soden considers sufficiently accounted for by the fact that Peter and the author of Hebrews were contemporaries.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:5 @{How that} (\hoti\). It is not certain whether \hoti\ here means "because" (\quia\) as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:7; strkjv@1Corinthians:2:14; strkjv@Romans:8:27| or declarative \hoti\ "how that," knowing the circumstances of your election (Lightfoot) or explanatory, as in strkjv@Acts:16:3; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:15; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:3f.; strkjv@Romans:13:11|. {Our gospel} (\to euaggelion hmn\). The gospel (see on ¯Matthew:4:23; strkjv@Mark:1:1,15| for \euaggelion\) which we preach, Paul's phrase also in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:3; strkjv@Romans:2:16; strkjv@16:25; strkjv@2Timothy:2:8|. Paul had a definite, clear-cut message of grace that he preached everywhere including Thessalonica. This message is to be interpreted in the light of Paul's own sermons in Acts and Epistles, not by reading backward into them the later perversions of Gnostics and sacramentarians. This very word was later applied to the books about Jesus, but Paul is not so using the term here or anywhere else. In its origin Paul's gospel is of God (1Thessalonians:2:2,8,9|), in its substance it is Christ's (3:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:8|), and Paul is only the bearer of it (1Thessalonians:2:4,9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:14|) as Milligan points out. Paul and his associates have been entrusted with this gospel (1Thessalonians:2:4|) and preach it (Galatians:2:2|). Elsewhere Paul calls it God's gospel (2Corinthians:11:7; strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@15:16|) or Christs (1Corinthians:9:12; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:12; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@10:14; strkjv@Galatians:1:7; strkjv@Romans:15:19; strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|). In both instances it is the subjective genitive. {Came unto you} (\egenth eis hums\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\ in practically same sense as \egeneto\ (second aorist middle indicative as in the late Greek generally). Songs:also \eis hums\ like the _Koin_ is little more than the dative \humin\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 594). {Not only--but also} (\ouk--monon, alla kai\). Sharp contrast, negatively and positively. The contrast between \logos\ (word) and \dunamis\ (power) is seen also in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:4; strkjv@4:20|. Paul does not refer to miracles by \dunamis\. {In the Holy Spirit and much assurance} (\en pneumati hagii kai plrophorii polli\). Preposition \en\ repeated with \logi, dunamei\, but only once here thus uniting closely {Holy Spirit} and {much assurance}. No article with either word. The word \plrophorii\ is not found in ancient Greek or the LXX. It appears once in Clement of Rome and one broken papyrus example. For the verb \plrophore\ see on ¯Luke:1:1|. The substantive in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:2; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|. It means the full confidence which comes from the Holy Spirit. {Even as ye know} (\kaths oidate\). Paul appeals to the Thessalonians themselves as witnesses to the character of his preaching and life among them. {What manner of men we showed ourselves toward you} (\hoioi egenthmen humin\). Literally, {What sort of men we became to you}. Qualitative relative \hoioi\ and dative \humin\ and first aorist passive indicative \egenthmen\, (not \metha\, we were). An epexegetical comment with {for your sake} (\di' hums\) added. It was all in their interest and for their advantage, however it may have seemed otherwise at the time.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE DATE There are three views about the date of the Acts. Baur and his Tubingen School held the second century to be the date of this late pamphlet as they termed it after the fashion of the Clementine Homilies. But that view is now practically abandoned save by the few who still strangely oppose the Lukan authorship. Probably the majority of those who accept the Lukan authorship place it in the latter part of the first century for two reasons. One is that the Gospel according to Luke is dated by them after the destruction of Jerusalem because of the prophecy by Jesus of the encompassing of the city by armies. Predictive prophecy that would be and so it is considered a prophecy _post eventum_. The other reason is the alleged use of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus by Luke. Josephus finished this work A.D. 93 so that, if Luke did use it, he must have written the Acts after that date. Usually this argument is made to show that Luke could not have written it at all, but some hold that he may have lived to an age that would allow it. But it cannot be assumed that Luke used Josephus because of his mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. They differ so widely (Acts:5:36f|. and Josephus, _Ant_. XX. v, 1, 2) that Von Dobschutz (_Dictionary of the Apostolic Church_, art. Josephus) argues that the two accounts are entirely independent of each other. Songs:Luke (Luke:13:1f.|) alludes to a Galilean revolt not mentioned by Josephus and Josephus records three revolts under Pilate not referred to by Luke. A comparison of the accounts of the death of Agrippa I in strkjv@Acts:12:20-23| and _Ant_. XIX. viii, 2 redounds to the credit of Luke. The Josephus phase of the argument may be brushed to one side. The third view, held by Harnack and adopted here, is that Luke wrote the Acts while with Paul in Rome and finished the book before Paul's release, that is by A.D. 63. This is the obvious and natural way to take the language of Luke at the close of Acts. Events had gone no farther and so he ends the narrative right there. It is argued against this that Luke contemplated a third volume and for this reason closed with the arrival of Paul in Rome. But the use of \prton\ (first) in strkjv@Acts:1:1| is a common _Koin_ idiom and does not imply three volumes any more than first and second stories with us means that the house has three. Of course this date for the Acts puts the date of the Gospel further back either in Caesarea (57 to 59) or in Rome (60 to 62). And that means that Mark's Gospel is still earlier since Luke used it for his Gospel and the Logia (Q) earlier still. But all these dates are probable in the light of all the known facts.

rwp@Acts:6:9 @{The synagogue of the Libertines} (\ek ts sunaggs ts legomens Libertinn\). The Libertines (Latin _libertinus_, a freedman or the son of a freedman) were Jews, once slaves of Rome (perhaps descendants of the Jews taken to Rome as captives by Pompey), now set free and settled in Jerusalem and numerous enough to have a synagogue of their own. Schuerer calls a Talmudic myth the statement that there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. There were many, no doubt, but how many no one knows. These places of worship and study were in all the cities of the later times where there were Jews enough to maintain one. Apparently Luke here speaks of five such synagogues in Jerusalem (that of the Libertines, of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, of Cilicia, and of Asia). There probably were enough Hellenists in Jerusalem to have five such synagogues. But the language of Luke is not clear on this point. He may make only two groups instead of five since he uses the article \tn\ twice (once before \Libertinn kai Kurnain kai Alexandren\, again before \apo Kilikias kai Asias\). He also changes from the genitive plural to \apo\ before Cilicia and Asia. But, leaving the number of the synagogues unsettled whether five or two, it is certain that in each one where Stephen appeared as a Hellenist preaching Jesus as the Messiah he met opposition. Certain of them "arose" (\anestsan\) "stood up" after they had stood all that they could from Stephen, "disputing with Stephen" (\sunztountes ti Stephani\). Present active participle of \sunzte\, to question together as the two on the way to Emmaus did (Luke:24:15|). Such interruptions were common with Jews. They give a skilled speaker great opportunity for reply if he is quick in repartee. Evidently Stephen was fully equipped for the emergency. One of their synagogues had men from Cilicia in it, making it practically certain that young Saul of Tarsus, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, was present and tried his wits with Stephen. His ignominious defeat may be one explanation of his zest in the stoning of Stephen (Acts:8:1|).

rwp@Acts:6:11 @{Then they suborned men} (\tote hupebalon andras\). Second aorist active indicative of \hupoball\, old verb, but here only in the N.T., to put under like a carpet, to bring men under one's control by suggestion or by money. One recalls the plight of Caiaphas in the trial of Jesus when he sought false witnesses. _Subornaverunt_. They put these men forward in an underhand way for fraud. {Blasphemous words against Moses and God} (\blasphma eis Musn kai ton theon\). The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death. See strkjv@Matthew:12:31| for discussion of the word \blasphmia, blasphme, blasphmos\, all in the N.T. from \blapt\, to harm, and \phm\, speech, harmful speech, or \blax\, stupid, and \phm\. But the charge against Stephen was untrue. Please note that Moses is here placed before God and practically on a par with God in the matter of blasphemy. The purpose of this charge is to stir the prejudices of the people in the matter of Jewish rights and privileges. It is the Pharisees who are conducting this attack on Stephen while the Sadducees had led them against Peter and John. The position of Stephen is critical in the extreme for the Sadducees will not help him as Gamaliel did the apostles.

rwp@Ephesians:6:22 @{That ye may know} (\hina gnte\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \ginsk\. Just as in strkjv@Colossians:4:8| he had not written \hina eidte\ in verse 21|. {Our state} (\ta peri hmn\). "The things concerning us," practically the same as \ta kat' eme\ of verse 21|. See both phrases in strkjv@Colossians:4:7,8|.

rwp@Hebrews:3:7 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). Probably this inferential conjunction (\dia, ho\, because of which) goes with \m sklrunte\ (harden not) in verse 8| rather than with \blepete\ (take heed) in verse 12| unless the long quotation be considered a parenthesis. The long quotation in verses 7-11| is from strkjv@Psalms:95:7-11|. After the quotation the author has "three movements" (Moffatt) in his discussion of the passage as applied to the Jewish Christians (3:12-19; strkjv@4:1-10; strkjv@4:11-13|). The peril of apostasy as shown by the example of the Israelites is presented with vividness and power. {As the Holy Ghost saith} (\kaths legei to pneuma to hagion\). Just this phrase nowhere else in the N.T., except Act strkjv@21:11| (Agabus), though practically the same idea in strkjv@9:8; strkjv@10:15|. In strkjv@1Timothy:4:1| the adjective "Holy" is wanting as in strkjv@Revelation:2; 3|. But the writer quotes this Psalm as the Word of God and in strkjv@4:7| attributes it to David. {If ye shall hear} (\ean akouste\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \akou\.

rwp@James:4:14 @{Whereas ye know not} (\hoitines ouk epistasthe\). The longer relative \hostis\ defines here more precisely (like Latin _qui_) \hoi legontes\ (ye who say) of verse 13| in a causal sense, as in strkjv@Acts:10:47|, "who indeed do not know" (present middle indicative of \epistamai\). {What shall be on the morrow} (\ts aurion\). Supply \hmeras\ (day) after \aurion\. This is the reading of B (Westcott) "on the morrow" (genitive of time), but Aleph K L cursives have \to ts aurion\ ("the matter of tomorrow"), while A P cursives have \ta ts aurion\ ("the things of tomorrow"). The sense is practically the same, though \to ts aurion\ is likely correct. {What is your life?} (\poia h z humn\). Thus Westcott and Hort punctuate it as an indirect question, not direct. \Poia\ is a qualitative interrogative (of what character). {As vapour} (\atmis\). This is the answer. Old word for mist (like \atmos\, from which our "atmosphere"), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:2:19| with \kapnou\ (vapour of smoke (from strkjv@Joel:2:30|). {For a little time} (\pros oligon\). See same phrase in strkjv@1Timothy:4:8|, \pros kairon\ in strkjv@Luke:8:13|, \pros hran\ in strkjv@John:5:35|. {That appeareth and then vanisheth away} (\phainomen epeita kai aphanizomen\). Present middle participles agreeing with \atmis\, "appearing, then also disappearing," with play on the two verbs (\phainomai, aphaniz\ as in strkjv@Matthew:6:19|, from \aphans\ hidden strkjv@Hebrews:4:13|) with the same root \phan\ (\phain, a-phan-s\).

rwp@John:16:4 @{Have I spoken} (\lelalka\). Perfect active indicative as in strkjv@15:11; strkjv@16:1|. Solemn repetition. {When their hour is come} (\hotan elthi h hra autn\). Indefinite temporal clause, \hotan\ with the second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\, "whenever their hour comes." The time appointed for these things. {Now that} (\hoti\). Simply "that" (declarative conjunction in indirect discourse. Forewarned is to be forearmed. Cf. strkjv@13:19|. {From the beginning} (\ex archs\). As in strkjv@6:64| but practically like \ap' archs\ in strkjv@15:27|. While Christ was with them, he was the object of attack (15:18|).

rwp@John:16:26 @{I say not} (\ou leg\). "I speak not." Christ did pray for the disciples before his death (John:14:16; strkjv@17:9,15,24|) and he prays also for sinners (Luke:23:34; strkjv@1John:2:1|). Here it is the special love of God for disciples of Jesus (John:14:21,23; strkjv@17:23; strkjv@1John:4:19|). Note \aite\ and \erta\ used in practically the same sense as in verse 23|.

rwp@John:20:21 @{Even so send I you} (\kag pemp humas\). Jesus has often spoken of the Father's sending him using both \apostell\ and \pemp\. Here he employs both words in practically the same sense. Jesus still bears the Commission of the Father (perfect active indicative). For this balanced contention (as... so) see strkjv@6:57; strkjv@10:15|. This is the first of the three commissions given by the Risen Christ (another on the mountain in Galilee (Matthew:28:16-20; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:6|), another on the Mount of Olives (Luke:24:44-51; strkjv@Acts:1:3-11|).

rwp@Luke:5:24 @{He saith unto him that was palsied} (\eipen ti paralelumeni\). This same parenthesis right in the midst of the words of Jesus is in strkjv@Mark:2:11; strkjv@Matthew:9:6|, conclusive proof of interrelation between these documents. The words of Jesus are quoted practically alike in all three Gospels, the same purpose also \hina eidte\ (second perfect active subjunctive).

rwp@Luke:20:42 @{For David himself} (\autos gar Daueid\). This language of Jesus clearly means that he treats David as the author of strkjv@Psalms:110|. The inspiration of this Psalm is expressly stated in strkjv@Mark:12:36; strkjv@Matthew:22:43| (which see) and the Messianic character of the Psalm in all three Synoptics who all quote the LXX practically alike. Modern criticism that denies the Davidic authorship of this Psalm has to say either that Jesus was ignorant of the fact about it or that he declined to disturb the current acceptation of the Davidic authorship. Certainly modern scholars are not agreed on the authorship of strkjv@Psalms:110|. Meanwhile one can certainly be excused for accepting the natural implication of the words of Jesus here, "David himself." {In the book of the Psalms} (\en bibli Psalmn\). Compare strkjv@3:4| "in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet."

rwp@Mark:3:8 @{Hearing what great things he did} (\akouontes hosa poiei\). Masculine plural present participle, though \plthos\ is neuter singular (construction according to sense in both number and gender). This crowd by the sea came from Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond Jordan (Decapolis and Perea), Tyre and Sidon, Phoenicia, North, South, East, and Northwest, even from Idumea (mentioned here alone in the N.T.) won by John Hyrcanus to Palestine. "In our Lord's time Idumea was practically a part of Judea with a Jewish circumcised population" (George Adam Smith). Many of these were probably Gentiles (Phoenicia and Decapolis) and may have known only the Greek language. The fame of Jesus had spread through all the regions round about. There was a jam as the crowds came to Jesus by the Sea of Galilee.

rwp@Mark:8:14 @{Bread} (\artous\). {Loaves}, plural. {More than one loaf} (\ei m hina arton\). Except one loaf. Detail only in Mark. Practically for thirteen men when hungry.

rwp@Mark:8:29 @{Thou art the Christ} (\Su ei ho Christos\). Mark does not give "the Son of the living God" (Matthew:16:16|) or "of God" (Luke:9:20|). The full confession is the form in Matthew. Luke's language means practically the same, while Mark's is the briefest. But the form in Mark really means the full idea. Mark omits all praise of Peter, probably because Peter had done so in his story of the incident. For criticism of the view that Matthew's narrative is due to ecclesiastical development and effort to justify ecclesiastical prerogatives, see discussion on ¯Matthew:16:16,18|. The disciples had confessed him as Messiah before. Thus strkjv@John:1:41; strkjv@4:29; strkjv@6:69; strkjv@Matthew:14:33|. But Jesus had ceased to use the word Messiah to avoid political complications and a revolutionary movement (John:6:14f.|). But did the disciples still believe in Jesus as Messiah after all the defections and oppositions seen by them? It was a serious test to which Jesus now put them.

rwp@Matthew:6:9 @{After this manner therefore pray ye} (\houts oun proseuchesthe humeis\). "You" expressed in contrast with "the Gentiles." It should be called "The Model Prayer" rather than "The Lord's Prayer." "Thus" pray as he gives them a model. He himself did not use it as a liturgy (cf. strkjv@John:17|). There is no evidence that Jesus meant it for liturgical use by others. In strkjv@Luke:11:2-4| practically the same prayer though briefer is given at a later time by Jesus to the apostles in response to a request that he teach them how to pray. McNeile argues that the form in Luke is the original to which Matthew has made additions: "The tendency of liturgical formulas is towards enrichment rather than abbreviation." But there is no evidence whatever that Jesus designed it as a set formula. There is no real harm in a liturgical formula if one likes it, but no one sticks to just one formula in prayer. There is good and not harm in children learning and saying this noble prayer. Some people are disturbed over the words "Our Father" and say that no one has a right to call God Father who has not been "born again." But that is to say that an unconverted sinner cannot pray until he is converted, an absurd contradiction. God is the Father of all men in one sense; the recognition of Him as the Father in the full sense is the first step in coming back to him in regeneration and conversion.

rwp@Matthew:17:26 @{The sons} (\hoi huioi\). Christ, of course, and the disciples also in contrast with the Jews. Thus a reply to Peter's prompt "Yes." Logically (\arage\) free from the temple tax, but practically not as he proceeds to show.