OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp issue:
rwp@
1Timothy:6:9 @{Desire to be rich} (\boulomenoi ploutein\). The will (\boulomai\) to be rich at any cost and in haste (Proverbs:28:20|). Some MSS. have "trust in riches" in strkjv@Mark:10:24|. Possibly Paul still has teachers and preachers in mind. {Fall into} (\empiptousin eis\). See on ¯3:6| for \en -- eis\ and ¯3:7| for \pagida\ (snare). {Foolish} (\anotous\). See strkjv@Galatians:3:1,3|. {Hurtful} (\blaberas\). Old adjective from \blapt\, to injure, here alone in N.T. {Drown} (\buthizousin\). Late word (literary _Koin_) from \buthos\ (bottom), to drag to the bottom. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:5:7| (of the boat). Drown in the lusts with the issue "in destruction and perdition" (\eis olethron kai apleian\). Not annihilation, but eternal punishment. The combination only here, but for \olethros\, see strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:3; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:5:5| and for \apleia\, see strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@Phillipians:3:19|.
rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ It is clear therefore that Paul wrote what we call I Corinthians in a disturbed state of mind. He had founded the church there, had spent two years there (Acts:18|), and took pardonable pride in his work there as a wise architect (1Corinthians:3:10|) for he had built the church on Christ as the foundation. He was anxious that his work should abide. It is plain that the disturbances in the church in Corinth were fomented from without by the Judaizers whom Paul had defeated at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:1-35; strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10|). They were overwhelmed there, but renewed their attacks in Antioch (Galatians:2:11-21|). Henceforth throughout the second mission tour they are a disturbing element in Galatia, in Corinth, in Jerusalem. While Paul is winning the Gentiles in the Roman Empire to Christ, these Judaizers are trying to win Paul's converts to Judaism. Nowhere do we see the conflict at so white a heat as in Corinth. Paul finally will expose them with withering sarcasm (2Corinthians:10-13|) as Jesus did the Pharisees in strkjv@Matthew:23| on that last day in the temple. Factional strife, immorality, perverted ideas about marriage, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection, these complicated problems are a vivid picture of church life in our cities today. The discussion of them shows Paul's manysidedness and also the powerful grasp that he has upon the realities of the gospel. Questions of casuistry are faced fairly and serious ethical issues are met squarely. But along with the treatment of these vexed matters Paul sings the noblest song of the ages on love (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13|) and writes the classic discussion on the resurrection (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15|). If one knows clearly and fully the Corinthian Epistles and Paul's dealings with Corinth, he has an understanding of a large section of his life and ministry. No church caused him more anxiety than did Corinth (2Corinthians:11:28|).
rwp@2Corinthians:12:18 @{The brother} (\ton adelphon\). Probably the brother of Titus (cf. strkjv@8:18|). {Did Titus take advantage of you?} (\mti epleonektsen humas Titos?\). That puts the issue squarely. {By the same Spirit} (\ti auti pneumati\). That translation refers to the Holy Spirit and makes the case instrumental. The locative case, "in the same spirit," makes it mean that Paul's attitude is the same as that of Titus and most likely is correct, for "in the same steps" (\tois autois ichnesin\) is in locative case.
rwp@2Thessalonians:1:11 @{To which end} (\eis ho\). Songs:Colossians:1:29|. Probably purpose with reference to the contents of verses 5-10|. We have had the Thanksgiving (verses 3-10|) in a long, complicated, but rich period or sentence. Now he makes a brief Prayer (verses 11-12|) that God will fulfil all their hopes and endeavours. Paul and his colleagues can still pray for them though no longer with them (Moffatt). {That} (\hina\). Common after \proseuchomai\ (Colossians:4:3; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17; strkjv@Phillipians:1:9|) when the content of the prayer blends with the purpose (purport and purpose). {Count you worthy} (\humas axisi\). Causative verb (aorist active subjunctive) like \kataxio\ in verse 5| with genitive. {Of your calling} (\ts klses\). \Klsis\ can apply to the beginning as in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26; strkjv@Romans:11:29|, but it can also apply to the final issue as in strkjv@Phillipians:3:14; strkjv@Hebrews:3:1|. Both ideas may be here. It is God's calling of the Thessalonians. {And fulfil every desire of goodness} (\kai plrsi pasan eudokian agathsuns\). "Whom he counts worthy he first makes worthy" (Lillie). Yes, in purpose, but the wonder and the glory of it all is that God begins to count us worthy in Christ before the process is completed in Christ (Romans:8:29f.|). But God will see it through and so Paul prays to God. \Eudokia\ (cf. strkjv@Luke:2:14|) is more than mere desire, rather good pleasure, God's purpose of goodness, not in ancient Greek, only in LXX and N.T. \Agathsun\ like a dozen other words in \-sun\ occurs only in late Greek. This word occurs only in LXX, N.T., writings based on them. It is made from \agathos\, good, akin to \agamai\, to admire. May the Thessalonians find delight in goodness, a worthy and pertinent prayer. {Work of faith} (\ergon pistes\). The same phrase in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3|. Paul prays for rich fruition of what he had seen in the beginning. Work marked by faith, springs from faith, sustained by faith. {With power} (\en dunamei\). In power. Connect with \plrsi\ (fulfil), God's power (Romans:1:29; strkjv@Colossians:1:4|) in Christ (1Corinthians:1:24|) through the Holy Spirit (1Thessalonians:1:5|).
rwp@2Thessalonians:3:14 @{And if any one obeyeth not our word by this epistle} (\ei de tis ouch hupakouei ti logi hmn dia ts epistols\). Paul sums up the issue bluntly with this ultimatum. Condition of the first class, with negative \ou\, assuming it to be true. {Note that man} (\touton smeiousthe\). Late verb \smeio\, from \smeion\, sign, mark, token. Put a tag on that man. Here only in N.T. "The verb is regularly used for the signature to a receipt or formal notice in the papyri and the ostraca of the Imperial period" (Moulton & Milligan's _Vocabulary_). How this is to be done (by letter or in public meeting) Paul does not say. {That ye have no company with him} (\m sunanamignusthai auti\). The MSS. are divided between the present middle infinitive as above in a command like strkjv@Romans:12:15; strkjv@Phillipians:3:16| or the present middle imperative \sunanamignusthe\ (\-ai\ and \-e\ often being pronounced alike in the _Koin_). The infinitive can also be explained as an indirect command. This double compound verb is late, in LXX and Plutarch, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:5:9,11|. \Auti\ is in associative instrumental case. {To the end that he may be ashamed} (\hina entrapi\). Purpose clause with \hina\. Second aorist passive subjunctive of \entrep\, to turn on, middle to turn on oneself or to put to shame, passive to be made ashamed. The idea is to have one's thoughts turned in on oneself.
rwp@Info_Acts @ THE TEXT OF THE ACTS A special problem arises concerning the text of Acts inasmuch as the Codex Bezae (D) with some other Western support presents a great many additions to the Neutral-Alexandrian text of Aleph A B C. Blass has even proposed the idea that Luke himself issued two editions of the book, an attractive hypothesis that is not generally accepted. J. M. Wilson has published _The Acts of the Apostles from Codex Bezae_. The whole subject is elaborately treated by J. H. Ropes in Vol. III, _The Text of Acts_ in Part I of _The Beginnings of Christianity_. Besides thorough discussion of all the problems of text involved Ropes gives the text of the Vatican Codex (B) on the left page and that of Codex Bezae (D) on the right, making comparison easy. Blass's ideas appear in his _Acta Apostolorum_.
rwp@Acts:4:33 @{Gave their witness} (\apedidoun to marturion\). Imperfect active of \apodidmi\, old verb to give back, to pay back a debt (Luke:7:42|), but a late omega form instead of the usual \apedidosan\. They kept on giving their witness with power after the answer to their prayer (verse 31|). {Of the resurrection} (\ts anastases\). It was on this issue that the Sadducees had arrested them (4:1-3|).
rwp@Acts:8:25 @{They therefore} (\hoi men oun\). Demonstrative \hoi\ with \men\ (no following \de\) and the inferential \oun\ (therefore) as often in Acts (1:6|, etc.). {Returned} (\hupestrephon\). Imperfect active picturing the joyful journey of preaching (\euggelizonto\, imperfect middle) to the Samaritan villages. Peter and John now carried on the work of Philip to the Samaritans. This issue was closed.
rwp@Acts:9:29 @{Preaching boldly} (\parrsiazomenos\). For a while. Evidently Saul did not extend his preaching outside of Jerusalem (Galatians:1:22|) and in the city preached mainly in the synagogues of the Hellenists (\pros tous Hellenistas\) as Stephen had done (Acts:8:9|). As a Cilician Jew he knew how to speak to the Hellenists. {Disputed} (\suneztei\). Imperfect active of \sunzte\, the very verb used in strkjv@6:9| of the disputes with Stephen in these very synagogues in one of which (Cilicia) Saul had probably joined issue with Stephen to his own discomfort. It was intolerable to these Hellenistic Jews now to hear Saul taking the place of Stephen and using the very arguments that Stephen had employed. {But they went about to kill him} (\Hoi de epecheiroun anelein auton\). Demonstrative \hoi\ with \de\ and the conative imperfect of \epicheire\, to put the hand to, to try, an old verb used in the N.T. only three times (Luke:1:1; strkjv@Acts:9:29; strkjv@19:3|). They offer to Saul the same conclusive answer that he gave to Stephen, death. Paul tells how the Lord Jesus appeared to him at this juncture in a vision in the temple (Acts:22:17-21|) with the distinct command to leave Jerusalem and how Paul protested that he was willing to meet the fate of Stephen in whose death he had a shameful part. That is to Saul's credit, but the Lord did not want Saul to be put to death yet. His crown of martyrdom will come later.
rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.
rwp@Acts:15:5 @{But there rose up} (\exanestsan de\). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive). Note both \ex\ and \an\. These men rose up out of the crowd at a critical moment. They were believers in Christ (\pepisteukotes\, having believed), but were still members of "the sect of the Pharisees" (\ts haireses tn Pharisain\). Evidently they still held to the Pharisaic narrowness shown in the attack on Peter (11:2f.|). Note the dogmatism of their "must" (\dei\) after the opposition of Paul and Barnabas to their "except" (\ean me\) at Antioch (15:1|). They are unconvinced and expected to carry the elders with them. Codex Bezae says that they had appealed to the elders (15:2,5|). At any rate they have made the issue in open meeting at the height of the jubilation. It is plain from verse 6| that this meeting was adjourned, for another gathering came together then. It is here that the private conference of which Paul speaks in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| took place. It was Paul's chance to see the leaders in Jerusalem (Peter, James, and John) and he won them over to his view of Gentile liberty from the Mosaic law so that the next public conference (Acts:15:6-29|) ratified heartily the views of Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and John. It was a diplomatic triumph of the first order and saved Christianity from the bondage of Jewish ceremonial sacramentalism. Songs:far as we know this is the only time that Paul and John met face to face, the great spirits in Christian history after Jesus our Lord. It is a bit curious to see men saying today that Paul surrendered about Titus and had him circumcised for the sake of peace, the very opposite of what he says in Galatians, "to whom I yielded, no not for an hour." Titus as a Greek was a red flag to the Judaizers and to the compromisers, but Paul stood his ground.
rwp@Acts:15:6 @{Were gathered together} (\sunchthsan\). First aorist (effective) passive indicative. The church is not named here as in verse 4|, but we know from verses 12-22| that the whole church came together this time also along with the apostles and elders. {Of this matter} (\peri tou logou toutou\). Same idiom in strkjv@8:21; strkjv@19:38|. They realized the importance of the issue.
rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). Imperfect active of \sunball\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gnthi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zenn daimonin dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.
rwp@Acts:19:12 @{Handkerchiefs} (\soudaria\). Latin word for \sudor\ (sweat). Used in strkjv@Luke:19:20; strkjv@John:11:44; strkjv@20:7|. In two papyri marriage-contracts this word occurs among the toilet articles in the dowry (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 223). {Aprons} (\simikinthia\). Latin word also, _semicinctilum_ (\semi, cingo\). Only here in the N.T. Linen aprons used by servants or artisans (Martial XIV. 153). Paul did manual work at Ephesus (20:34|) and so wore these aprons. {Departed} (\apallalsethai\). Present passive infinitive with \hste\ for actual result as in verse 10|. If one wonders how God could honour such superstitious faith, he should remember that there is no power in superstition or in magic, but in God. If God never honoured any faith save that entirely free from superstition, how about Christian people who are troubled over the number 13, over the moon, the rabbit's foot? The poor woman with an issue of blood touched the hem of Christ's garment and was healed (Luke:8:44-46|) as others sought to do (Matthew:14:36|). God condescends to meet us in our ignorance and weakness where he can reach us. Elisha had a notion that some of the power of Elijah resided in his mantle (2Kings:2:13|). Some even sought help from Peter's shadow (Acts:5:15|).
rwp@Acts:19:35 @{The town-clerk} (\ho grammateus\). Ephesus was a free city and elected its own officers and the recorder or secretary was the chief magistrate of the city, though the proconsul of the province of Asia resided there. This officer is not a mere secretary of another officer or like the copyists and students of the law among the Jews, but the most influential person in Ephesus who drafted decrees with the aid of the \stratgoi\, had charge of the city's money, was the power in control of the assembly, and communicated directly with the proconsul. Inscriptions at Ephesus give frequently this very title for their chief officer and the papyri have it also. The precise function varied in different cities. His name appeared on the coin at Ephesus issued in his year of office. {Had quieted the multitude} (\katasteilas ton ochlon\). First aorist active participle of \katastell\, to send down, arrange dress (Euripides), lower (Plutarch), restrain (papyrus example), only twice in the N.T. (here and verse 36|, be quiet), but in LXX and Josephus. He evidently took the rostrum and his very presence as the city's chief officer had a quieting effect on the billowy turmoil and a semblance of order came. He waited, however, till the hubbub had nearly exhausted itself (two hours) and did not speak till there was a chance to be heard. {Saith} (\phsin\). Historical present for vividness. {How that}. Merely participle \ousan\ and accusative \polin\ in indirect discourse, no conjunction at all (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1040ff.), common idiom after \ginsk\, to know. {Temple-keeper} (\nekoron\). Old word from \nes\ (\naos)\, temple, and \kore\, to sweep. Warden, verger, cleaner of the temple, a sacristan. Songs:in Xenophon and Plato. Inscriptions so describe Ephesus as \nekoron ts Artemidos\ as Luke has it here and also applied to the imperial _cultus_ which finally had several such temples in Ephesus. Other cities claimed the same honour of being \nekoros\, but it was the peculiar boast of Ephesus because of the great temple of Artemis. A coin of A.D. 65 describes Ephesus as \nekoros\. There are papyri examples of the term applied to individuals, one to Priene as \nekoros\ of the temple in Ephesus (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). {And of the image which fell down from Jupiter} (\kai tou diopetous\). Supply \agalma\ (image), "the from heaven-fallen image." From Zeus (\Dios\) and \pet\ (\pipt, pipet\), to fall. Zeus (Jupiter) was considered lord of the sky or heaven and that is the idea in \diopetous\ here. The legend about a statue fallen from heaven occurs concerning the statue of Artemis at Tauris, Minerva at Athens, etc. Thus the recorder soothed the vanity (Rackham) of the crowd by appeal to the world-wide fame of Ephesus as sacristan of Artemis and of her heaven-fallen image.
rwp@Acts:21:20 @{Glorified} (\edoxazon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to glorify God, though without special praise of Paul. {How many thousands} (\posai muriades\). Old word for ten thousand (Acts:19:19|) and then an indefinite number like our "myriads" (this very word) as strkjv@Luke:12:1; strkjv@Acts:21:20; strkjv@Jude:1:14; strkjv@Revelation:5:11; strkjv@9:16|. But it is a surprising statement even with allowable hyperbole, but one may recall strkjv@Acts:4:4| (number of the men--not women--about five thousand); strkjv@5:14| (multitudes both of men and women); strkjv@6:7|. There were undoubtedly a great many thousands of believers in Jerusalem and all Jewish Christians, some, alas, Judaizers (Acts:11:2; strkjv@15:1,5|). This list may include the Christians from neighbouring towns in Palestine and even some from foreign countries here at the Feast of Pentecost, for it is probable that Paul arrived in time for it as he had hoped. But we do not have to count the hostile Jews from Asia (verse 27|) who were clearly not Christians at all. {All zealous for the law} (\pantes zltai tou nomou\). Zealots (substantive) rather than zealous (adjective) with objective genitive (\tou nomou\). The word zealot is from \zlo\, to burn with zeal, to boil. The Greek used \zlts\ for an imitator or admirer. There was a party of Zealots (developed from the Pharisees), a group of what would be called "hot-heads," who brought on the war with Rome. One of this party, Simon Zelotes (Acts:1:13|), was in the number of the twelve apostles. It is important to understand the issues in Jerusalem. It was settled at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|) that the Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be imposed upon Gentile Christians. Paul won freedom for them, but it was not said that it was wrong for Jewish Christians to go on observing it if they wished. We have seen Paul observing the passover in Philippi (Acts:20:6|) and planning to reach Jerusalem for Pentecost (20:16|). The Judaizers rankled under Paul's victory and power in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles and gave him great trouble in Galatia and Corinth. They were busy against him in Jerusalem also and it was to undo the harm done by them in Jerusalem that Paul gathered the great collection from the Gentile Christians and brought it with him and the delegates from the churches. Clearly then Paul had real ground for his apprehension of trouble in Jerusalem while still in Corinth (Romans:15:25|) when he asked for the prayers of the Roman Christians (verses 30-32|). The repeated warnings along the way were amply justified.
rwp@Acts:21:21 @{They have been informed concerning thee} (\katchthsan peri sou\). First aorist passive indicative of \katche\. A word in the ancient Greek, but a few examples survive in the papyri. It means to sound (echo, from \ch\, our word) down (\kata\), to resound, re-echo, to teach orally. Oriental students today (Arabs learning the Koran) often study aloud. In the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:4| which see; strkjv@Acts:18:25; strkjv@21:21; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:19; strkjv@Galatians:6:6; strkjv@Romans:2:18|. This oral teaching about Paul was done diligently by the Judaizers who had raised trouble against Peter (Acts:11:2|) and Paul (15:1,5|). They had failed in their attacks on Paul's world campaigns. Now they try to undermine him at home. In Paul's long absence from Jerusalem, since strkjv@18:22|, they have had a free hand, save what opposition James would give, and have had great success in prejudicing the Jerusalem Christians against Paul. Songs:James, in the presence of the other elders and probably at their suggestion, feels called upon to tell Paul the actual situation. {That thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses} (\hoti apostasian didaskeis apo Muses tous kata ta ethn pantas Ioudaious\). Two accusatives with \didaskeis\ (verb of teaching) according to rule. Literally, "That thou art teaching all the Jews among (\kata\) the Gentiles (the Jews of the dispersion as in strkjv@2:9|) apostasy from Moses." That is the point, the dreadful word \apostasian\ (our apostasy), a late form (I Macc. strkjv@2:15) for the earlier \apostasis\ (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3| for \apostasia\). "In the eyes of the church at Jerusalem this was a far more serious matter than the previous question at the Conference about the status of Gentile converts" (Furneaux). Paul had brought that issue to the Jerusalem Conference because of the contention of the Judaizers. But here it is not the Judaizers, but the elders of the church with James as their spokesman on behalf of the church as a whole. They do not believe this false charge, but they wish Paul to set it straight. Paul had made his position clear in his Epistles (I Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) for all who cared to know. {Telling them not to circumcise their children} (\legn m peritemnein autous ta tekna\). The participle \legn\ agrees with "thou" (Paul), the subject of \didaskeis\. This is not indirect assertion, but indirect command, hence the negative \m\ instead of \ou\ with the infinitive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p.1046). The point is not that Paul stated what the Jewish Christians in the dispersion do, but that he says that they (\autous\ accusative of general reference) are not to go on circumcising (\peritemnein\, present active infinitive) their children. Paul taught the very opposite (1Corinthians:7:18|) and had Timothy circumcised (Acts:16:3|) because he was half Jew and half Greek. His own practice is stated in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:19| ("to the Jews as a Jew"). {Neither to walk after the customs} (\mde tois ethesin peripatein\). Locative case with infinitive \peripatein\. The charge was here enlarged to cover it all and to make Paul out an enemy of Jewish life and teachings. That same charge had been made against Stephen when young Saul (Paul) was the leader (6:14|): "Will change the customs (\eth\ the very word used here) which Moses delivered unto us." It actually seemed that some of the Jews cared more for Moses than for God (Acts:6:11|). Songs:much for the charge of the Judaizers.
rwp@Acts:27:12 @{Because the haven was not commodious to winter in} (\aneuthetou tou limenos huparchontos pros paracheimasian\). Genitive absolute again present tense of \huparch\: "The harbour being unfit (\aneuthetou\, this compound not yet found elsewhere, simplex in strkjv@Luke:9:62; strkjv@14:35; strkjv@Hebrews:6:7|) for wintering" (\paracheimasia\, only here in N.T., but in Polybius and Diodorus, in an inscription A.D. 48, from \paracheimaz\). {The more part advised} (\hoi pleiones ethento bouln\). Second aorist middle indicative of \tithmi\, ancient idiom with \bouln\, to take counsel, give counsel. Lysias held a council of the officers of the ship on the issue raised by Paul. {If by any means they could reach Phoenix and winter there} (\ei ps dunainto katantsantes eis Phoinika paracheimasai\). The optative \dunainto\ (present middle of \dunamai\) here with \ei\ is a condition of the fourth class with the notion of purpose implied and indirect discourse (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). "We vote for going on the chance that we may be able" (Page). Phoenix is the town of palms (John:12:13|), the modern Lutro, the only town in Crete on the southern coast with a harbour fit for wintering, though Wordsworth and Page argue for Phineka which suits Luke's description better. The verb \paracheimaz\, to winter, is from \para\ and \cheimn\ (see also strkjv@28:11|). Used in several _Koin_ writers. {Looking northeast and southeast} (\bleponta kata liba kai kata chron\). There are two ways of interpreting this language. \Lips\ means the southwest wind and \chros\ the northwest wind. But what is the effect of \kata\ with these words? Does it mean "facing" the wind? If so, we must read "looking southwest and northwest." But \kata\ can mean down the line of the wind (the way the wind is blowing). If so, then it is proper to translate "looking northeast and southeast." This translation suits Lutro, the other suits Phoenike. Ramsay takes it to be Lutro, and suggests that sailors describe the harbour by the way it looks as they go into it (the subjectivity of the sailors) and that Luke so speaks and means Lutro which faces northeast and southeast. On the whole Lutro has the best of the argument.
rwp@Info_Colossians @ PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE Epaphras did not come in vain, for Paul was tremendously stirred by the peril to Christianity from the Gnostics (\hoi gnstikoi\, the knowing ones). He had won his fight for freedom in Christ against the Judaizers who tried to fasten Jewish sacramentarianism upon spiritual Christianity. Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. Songs:then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God. One cannot understand Colossians without some knowledge of Gnosticism such as may be obtained in such books as Angus's _The Mystery-Religions and Christianity_, Glover's _The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire_, Kennedy's St. _Paul and the Mystery-Religions_, Lightfoot's _Commentary on Colossians_.
rwp@Galatians:2:14 @{But when I saw} (\All' hote eidon\). Paul did see and saw it in time to speak. {That they walked not uprightly} (\hoti orthopodousin\). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse, "they are not walking straight." \Orthopode\ (\orthos\, straight, \pous\, foot). Found only here and in later ecclesiastical writers, though \orthopodes bainontes\ does occur. {According to the truth of the gospel} (\pros tn altheian tou euaggeliou\). Just as in strkjv@2:5|. Paul brought them to face (\pros\) that. {I said unto Cephas before them all} (\eipon ti Kphi emprosthen pantn\). {Being a Jew} (\Ioudaios huparchn\, though being a Jew). Condition of first class, assumed as true. It was not a private quarrel, but a matter of public policy. One is a bit curious to know what those who consider Peter the first pope will do with this open rebuke by Paul, who was in no sense afraid of Peter or of all the rest. {As do the Gentiles} (\ethniks\). Late adverb, here only in N.T. Like Gentiles. {As do the Jews} (\Ioudaiks\). Only here in N.T., but in Josephus. {To live as do the Jews} (\Ioudazein\). Late verb, only here in the N.T. From \Ioudaios\, Jew. Really Paul charges Peter with trying to compel (conative present, \anagkazeis\) the Gentiles to live all like Jews, to Judaize the Gentile Christians, the very point at issue in the Jerusalem Conference when Peter so loyally supported Paul. It was a bold thrust that allowed no reply. But Paul won Peter back and Barnabas also. If II Peter is genuine, as is still possible, he shows it in strkjv@2Peter:3:15|. Paul and Barnabas remained friends (Acts:15:39f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6|), though they soon separated over John Mark.
rwp@Galatians:2:16 @{Is not justified} (\ou dikaioutai\). Present passive indicative of \dikaio\, an old causative verb from \dikaios\, righteous (from \dike\, right), to make righteous, to declare righteous. It is made like \axio\, to deem worthy, and \koino\, to consider common. It is one of the great Pauline words along with \dikaiosun\, righteousness. The two ways of getting right with God are here set forth: by faith in Christ Jesus (objective genitive), by the works of the law (by keeping all the law in the most minute fashion, the way of the Pharisees). Paul knew them both (see strkjv@Romans:7|). In his first recorded sermon the same contrast is made that we have here (Acts:13:39|) with the same word \dikaio\, employed. It is the heart of his message in all his Epistles. The terms faith (\pistis\), righteousness (\dikaiosun\), law (\nomos\), works (\erga\) occur more frequently in Galatians and Romans because Paul is dealing directly with the problem in opposition to the Judaizers who contended that Gentiles had to become Jews to be saved. The whole issue is here in an acute form. {Save} (\ean m\). Except. {Even we} (\kai hmeis\). We Jews believed, had to believe, were not saved or justified till we did believe. This very point Peter had made at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:10f.|). He quotes strkjv@Psalms:143:2|. Paul uses \dikaiosun\ in two senses (1) Justification, on the basis of what Christ has done and obtained by faith. Thus we are set right with God. strkjv@Romans:1-5|. (2) Sanctification. Actual goodness as the result of living with and for Christ. strkjv@Romans:6-8|. The same plan exists for Jew and Gentile.
rwp@Hebrews:9:12 @{Through his own blood} (\dia tou idiou haimatos\). This is the great distinction between Christ as High Priest and all other high priests. They offer blood (verse 7|), but he offered his own blood. He is both victim and High Priest. See the same phrase in strkjv@13:12; strkjv@Acts:20:28|. {Once for all} (\ephapax\). In contrast to the repeated (annual) entrances of the Levitical high priests (9:7|). {Into the holy place} (\eis ta hagia\). Here, as in verses 8,24| heaven itself. {Having obtained} (\heuramenos\). First aorist middle (indirect) participle of \heurisk\, simultaneous action with \eislthen\, and by or of himself "as the issue of personal labour directed to this end" (Westcott). The value of Christ's offering consists in the fact that he is the Son of God as well as the Son of man, that he is sinless and so a perfect sacrifice with no need of an offering for himself, and that it is voluntary on his part (John:10:17|). \Lutrsis\ (from \lutro\) is a late word for the act of ransoming (cf. \lutron\, ransom), in O.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:1:68; strkjv@2:38|. But \apolutrsis\ elsewhere (as in strkjv@Luke:21:28; strkjv@Romans:3:24; strkjv@Hebrews:9:15; strkjv@11:35|). For "eternal" (\ainian\, here feminine form) see strkjv@6:2|. The author now turns to discuss the better sacrifice (9:13-10:18|) already introduced.
rwp@Hebrews:13:7 @{Remember} (\mnmoneuete\). Present active imperative of \mnmoneu\, old verb to be _mindful_ of (from \mnmn\, mindful) with genitive (John:15:20|) or accusative (Matthew:16:9|). "Keep in mind." Cf. strkjv@11:22|. {Them that had the rule over you} (\tn hgoumenn humn\). Present middle participle of \hgeomai\ with genitive of the person (\humn\) as in verses 17,24|. The author reminds them of the founders of their church in addition to the long list of heroes in chapter strkjv@Acts:11|. See a like exhortation to respect and follow their leaders in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12f|. Few lessons are harder for the average Christian to learn, viz., good following. {The word of God} (\ton logon tou theou\). The preaching of these early disciples, apostles, and prophets (1Corinthians:1:17|). {And considering the issue of their life} (\hn anatherountes tn ekbasin ts anastrophs\). No "and" in the Greek, but the relative \hn\ (whose) in the genitive case after \anastrophs\, "considering the issue of whose life." Present active participle of \anathere\, late compound, to look up a subject, to investigate, to observe accurately, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:17:23|. \Ekbasis\ is an old word from \ekbain\, to go out (Hebrews:11:15|, here only in N.T.), originally way out (1Corinthians:10:13|), but here (only other N.T. example) in sense of end or issue as in several papyri examples (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). {Imitate their faith} (\mimeisthe tn pistin\). Present middle imperative of \mimeomai\, old verb (from \mimos\, actor, mimic), in N.T. only here, strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:7,9; strkjv@3John:1:11|. Keep on imitating the faith of the leaders.
rwp@Info_James @ THE DATE If the Epistle is genuine and James was put to death about A.D. 62, it was clearly written before that date. There are two theories about it, one placing it about A.D. 48, the other about A.D. 58. To my mind the arguments of Mayor for the early date are conclusive. There is no allusion to Gentile Christians, as would be natural after A.D. 50. If written after A.D. 70, the tone would likely be different, with some allusion to that dreadful calamity. The sins condemned are those characteristic of early Jewish Christians. The book itself is more like the Sermon on the Mount than the Epistles. The discussion of faith and works in chapter strkjv@James:2| reveals an absence of the issues faced by Paul in strkjv@Romans:4; strkjv@Galatians:3| after the Jerusalem Conference (A.D. 49). Hence the date before that Conference has decidedly the better of the argument. Ropes in his Commentary denies the genuineness of the Epistle and locates it between A.D. 75 and 125, but Hort holds that the evidence for a late date rests "on very slight and intangible grounds." Songs:we place the book before A.D. 49. It may indeed be the earliest New Testament book.
rwp@John:4:2 @{Although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples} (\kaitoige Isous autos ouk ebaptizen all' hoi mathtai autou\). Parenthetical explanation that applies also to strkjv@3:22|. Imperfect tense means that it was not the habit of Jesus. This is the only N.T. instance of \kaitoige\ (and yet indeed), compound conjunction (\kaitoi\ in strkjv@Acts:14:17; strkjv@Hebrews:4:3|) with intensive particle \ge\ added. This is the last mention of baptism under the direction of Jesus till the Great Commission (Matthew:28:19|). It is possible that Jesus stopped the baptizing because of the excitement and the issue raised about his Messianic claims till after his resurrection when he enjoined it upon his disciples as a rite of public enlistment in his service.
rwp@John:4:3 @{Left Judea} (\aphken tn Ioudaian\). Unusual use of \aphimi\. First (\Kappa\) aorist active indicative. Originally the word means to send away, to dismiss, to forsake, to forgive, to allow. Jesus uses it in this sense in strkjv@16:28|. Evidently because Jesus did not wish to bring the coming conflict with the Pharisees to an issue yet. Songs:he mainly avoids Jerusalem and Judea now till the end. Each time hereafter that Jesus appears in Jerusalem and Judea before the last visit there is an open breach with the Pharisees who attack him (John:5:1-47; strkjv@7:14-10:21; strkjv@10:22-42; strkjv@11:17-53|). {Again into Galilee} (\palin eis tn Galilaian\). Reference to strkjv@2:1-12|. The Synoptics tell nothing of this early work in Perea (John:1:19-51|), Galilee, or Judea (2:13-4:2|). John supplements their records purposely.
rwp@John:5:18 @{Sought the more} (\mallon eztoun\). Imperfect active of \zte\, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (\auton apokteinai\, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in strkjv@7:1,19,25; strkjv@8:37,40|. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. {Not only brake the Sabbath} (\ou monon elue to sabbaton\). Imperfect active of \lu\. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. \Lu\ means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of \lu\ in this sense like \luein ta penth\ (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. {But also called God his own Father} (\alla kai patera idion elege ton theon\). "His own" (\idion\) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See strkjv@Romans:8:32| for \ho idios huios\, "his own Son." {Making himself equal with God} (\ison heauton poin ti thei\). \Isos\ is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means {equal}. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ \isa thei\, "equal to God" (plural \isa\, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be \isos thei\ because in strkjv@John:14:28| he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in strkjv@14:7| that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in strkjv@10:33; strkjv@19:7|. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47|).
rwp@John:8:12 @{Again therefore} (\palin oun\). This language fits in better with strkjv@7:52| than with strkjv@8:11|. Just suppose Jesus is in the temple on the following day. {Unto them} (\autois\). The Pharisees and crowds in the temple after the feast was past. {I am the light of the world} (\eg eimi to phs tou kosmou\). Jesus had called his followers "the light of the world" (Matthew:5:14|), but that was light reflected from him. Already Jesus (the Logos) had been called the true light of men (1:9; strkjv@3:19|). The Psalmist calls God his Light (27:1|). Songs:Isaiah:60:19|. At the feast of tabernacles in the Court of the Women where Jesus was on this day (8:20|) there were brilliant candelabra and there was the memory of the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. But with all this background this supreme and exclusive claim of Jesus (repeated in strkjv@9:5|) to being the light of the whole world (of Gentiles as well as of Jews) startled the Pharisees and challenged their opposition. {Shall have the light of life} (\hexei to phs ts zs\). The light which springs from and issues in life (Westcott). Cf. strkjv@6:33,51| about Jesus being the Bread of Life. In this sublime claim we come to a decisive place. It will not do to praise Jesus and deny his deity. Only as the Son of God can we justify and accept this language which otherwise is mere conceit and froth.
rwp@John:11:4 @{Heard it} (\akousas\). The messenger delivered the message of the sisters. The reply of Jesus is for him and for the apostles. {Is not unto death} (\ouk estin pros thanaton\). Death in the final issue, to remain dead. Lazarus did die, but he did not remain dead. See \hamartia pros thanaton\ in strkjv@1John:5:16|, "sin unto death" (final death). {But for the glory of God} (\all' huper ts doxs tou theou\). In behalf of God's glory, as the sequel shows. Cf. strkjv@9:3| about the man born blind. The death of Lazarus will illustrate God's glory. In some humble sense those who suffer the loss of loved ones are entitled to some comfort from this point made by Jesus about Lazarus. In a supreme way it is true of the death of Christ which he himself calls glorification of himself and God (13:31|). In strkjv@7:39| John had already used \doxaz\ of the death of Christ. {That the Son of God may be glorified thereby} (\hina doxasthi ho huios tou theou di' auts\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \doxaz\. Here Jesus calls himself "the Son of God." In strkjv@8:54| Jesus had said: "It is my Father that glorifieth me." The raising of Lazarus from the tomb will bring glory to the Son of God. See strkjv@17:1| for this idea in Christ's prayer. The raising of Lazarus will also bring to an issue his own death and all this involves the glorification of the Father (7:39; strkjv@12:16; strkjv@13:31; strkjv@14:13|). The death of Lazarus brings Jesus face to face with his own death.
rwp@John:11:41 @{Songs:they took away the stone} (\ran oun ton lithon\). First aorist active indicative of \air\, but without the explanatory gloss of the Textus Receptus "from the place where the dead was laid" (not genuine). {I thank thee that thou heardest me} (\eucharist soi hoti kousas mou\). See strkjv@6:11| for \euchariste\. Clearly Jesus had prayed to the Father concerning the raising of Lazarus. He has the answer before he acts. "No pomp of incantation, no wrestling in prayer even; but simple words of thanksgiving, as if already Lazarus was restored" (Dods). Jesus well knew the issues involved on this occasion. If he failed, his own claims to be the Son of God (the Messiah), would be hopelessly discredited with all. If he succeeded, the rulers would be so embittered as to compass his own death.
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:13:8 @{Thou shalt never wash my feet} (\ou m nipsis mou tous podas eis ton aina\). Strong double negative \ou m\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \nipt\ with \eis ton aina\ (for ever) added and \mou\ (my) made emphatic by position. Peter's sudden humility should settle the issue, he felt. {If I wash thee not} (\ean m nips se\). Third-class condition with \ean m\ (negative). Jesus picks up the challenge of Peter whose act amounted to irreverence and want of confidence. "The first condition of discipleship is self-surrender" (Westcott). Songs:"Jesus, waiting with the basin" (Dods), concludes. {Thou hast no part with me} (\ouk echeis meros met' emou\). Not simply here at the supper with its fellowship, but in the deeper sense of mystic fellowship as Peter was quick to see. Jesus does not make foot-washing essential to spiritual fellowship, but simply tests Peter's real pride and mock-humility by this symbol of fellowship.
rwp@Luke:2:46 @{After three days} (\meta hmeras treis\). One day out, one day back, and on the third day finding him. {In the temple} (\en ti hieri\). Probably on the terrace where members of the Sanhedrin gave public instruction on sabbaths and feast-days, so probably while the feast was still going on. The rabbis probably sat on benches in a circle. The listeners on the ground, among whom was Jesus the boy in a rapture of interest. {Both hearing them and asking them questions} (\kai akouonta autn kai epertnta autous\). Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts:22:3|). Picture this eager boy alive with interest. It was his one opportunity in a theological school outside of the synagogue to hear the great rabbis expound the problems of life. This was the most unusual of all children, to be sure, in intellectual grasp and power. But it is a mistake to think that children of twelve do not think profoundly concerning the issues of life. What father or mother has ever been able to answer a child's questions?
rwp@Luke:3:5 @{Valley} (\pharagx\). Here only in the N.T., though in the LXX and ancient Greek. It is a ravine or valley hedged in by precipices. {Shall be filled} (\plrthsetai\). Future passive indicative of \plro\. In 1845 when the Sultan visited Brusa the inhabitants were called out to clear the roads of rocks and to fill up the hollows. Oriental monarchs often did this very thing. A royal courier would go ahead to issue the call. Songs:the Messiah sends his herald (John) before him to prepare the way for him. Isaiah described the preparation for the Lord's triumphal march and John used it with great force. {Hill} (\bounos\). Called a Cyrenaic word by Herodotus, but later Greek writers use it as does the LXX. {Brought low} (\tapeinthsetai\). Future passive indicative of \tapeino\. Literal meaning here of a verb common in the metaphorical sense. {Crooked} (\skolia\). Common word, curved, opposite of \orthos\ or \euthus\, straight.
rwp@Luke:12:12 @{What ye ought to say} (\h dei eipein\). Literally, what things it is necessary (\dei\) to say. This is no excuse for neglect in pulpit preparation. It is simply a word for courage in a crisis to play the man for Christ and to trust the issue with God without fear.
rwp@Mark:5:26 @{Had suffered many things of many physicians} (\polla pathousa hupo polln iatrn\). A pathetic picture of a woman with a chronic case who had tried doctor after doctor. {Had spent all that she had} (\dapansasa ta par' auts panta\). Having spent the all from herself, all her resources. For the idiom with \para\ see strkjv@Luke:10:7; strkjv@Phillipians:4:18|. The tragedy of it was that she "was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse" (\mden pheltheisa alla mllon eis to cheiron elthousa\). Her money was gone, her disease was gaining on her, her one chance came now with Jesus. Matthew says nothing about her experience with the doctors and strkjv@Luke:8:43| merely says that she "had spent all her living upon physicians and could not be healed of any," a plain chronic case. Luke the physician neatly takes care of the physicians. But they were not to blame. She had a disease that they did not know how to cure. Vincent quotes a prescription for an issue of blood as given in the Talmud which gives one a most grateful feeling that he is not under the care of doctors of that nature. The only parallel today is Chinese medicine of the old sort before modern medical schools came.
rwp@Mark:5:35 @{While he yet spake} (\Eti autou lalountos\). Genitive absolute. Another vivid touch in Mark and strkjv@Luke:8:49|. The phrase is in strkjv@Genesis:29:9|. Nowhere does Mark preserve better the lifelike traits of an eyewitness like Peter than in these incidents in chapter 5. The arrival of the messengers from Jairus was opportune for the woman just healed of the issue of blood (\en husei haimatos\) for it diverted attention from her. Now the ruler's daughter has died (\apethane\). {Why troublest thou the master any further?} (\Ti eti skulleis ton didaskalon;\). It was all over, so they felt. Jesus had raised from the dead the son of the widow of Nain (Luke:7:11-17|), but people in general did not expect him to raise the dead. The word \skull\, from \skulon\ (_skin, pelt, spoils_), means to skin, to flay, in Aeschylus. Then it comes to mean to vex, annoy, distress as in strkjv@Matthew:9:36|, which see. The middle is common in the papyri for bother, worry, as in strkjv@Luke:7:6|. There was no further use in troubling the Teacher about the girl.
rwp@Mark:10:3 @{What did Moses command you?} (\Ti humin eneteilato Muss;\). Jesus at once brought up the issue concerning the teaching of Moses (Deuteronomy:24:1|). But Jesus goes back beyond this concession here allowed by Moses to the ideal state commanded in strkjv@Genesis:1:27|.
rwp@Matthew:4:11 @{Then the devil leaveth him} (\tote aphisin auton ho diabolos\). Note the use of "then" (\tote\) again and the historical present. The movement is swift. "And behold" (\kai idou\) as so often in Matthew carries on the life-like picture. "{Angels came} (aorist tense \proslthon\ punctiliar action) {and were ministering} (\dikonoun\, picturesque imperfect, linear action) {unto him}." The victory was won in spite of the fast of forty days and the repeated onsets of the devil who had tried every avenue of approach. The angels could cheer him in the inevitable nervous and spiritual reaction from the strain of conflict, and probably also with food as in the case of Elijah (1Kings:19:6f.|). The issues at stake were of vast import as the champions of light and darkness grappled for the mastery of men. strkjv@Luke:4:13| adds, that the devil left Jesus only "until a good opportunity" (\achri kairou\).
rwp@Matthew:15:2 @{The tradition of the elders} (\tn paradosin tn presbutern\). This was the oral law, handed down by the elders of the past in _ex cathedra_ fashion and later codified in the Mishna. Handwashing before meals is not a requirement of the Old Testament. It is, we know, a good thing for sanitary reasons, but the rabbis made it a mark of righteousness for others at any rate. This item was magnified at great length in the oral teaching. The washing (\niptontai\, middle voice, note) of the hands called for minute regulations. It was commanded to wash the hands before meals, it was one's duty to do it after eating. The more rigorous did it between the courses. The hands must be immersed. Then the water itself must be "clean" and the cups or pots used must be ceremonially "clean." Vessels were kept full of clean water ready for use (John:2:6-8|). Songs:it went on _ad infinitum_. Thus a real issue is raised between Jesus and the rabbis. It was far more than a point of etiquette or of hygienics. The rabbis held it to be a mortal sin. The incident may have happened in a Pharisee's house.
rwp@Matthew:15:3 @{Ye also} (\kai hmeis\). Jesus admits that the disciples had transgressed the rabbinical traditions. Jesus treats it as a matter of no great importance in itself save as they had put the tradition of the elders in the place of the commandment of God. When the two clashed, as was often the case, the rabbis transgress the commandment of God "because of your tradition" (\dia tn paradosin hmn\). The accusative with \dia\ means that, not "by means of." Tradition is not good or bad in itself. It is merely what is handed on from one to another. Custom tended to make these traditions binding like law. The Talmud is a monument of their struggle with tradition. There could be no compromise on this subject and Jesus accepts the issue. He stands for real righteousness and spiritual freedom, not for bondage to mere ceremonialism and tradition. The rabbis placed tradition (the oral law) above the law of God.
rwp@Matthew:15:11 @{This defileth the man} (\touto koinoi ton anthrpon\). This word is from \koinos\ which is used in two senses, either what is "common" to all and general like the _Koin_ Greek, or what is unclean and "common" either ceremonially or in reality. The ceremonial "commonness" disturbed Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Acts:10:14|). See also strkjv@Acts:21:28; strkjv@Hebrews:9:13|. One who is thus religiously common or unclean is cut off from doing his religious acts. "Defilement" was a grave issue with the rabbinical ceremonialists. Jesus appeals to the crowd here: {Hear and understand} (\akouete kai suniete\). He has a profound distinction to draw. Moral uncleanness is what makes a man common, defiles him. That is what is to be dreaded, not to be glossed over. "This goes beyond the tradition of the elders and virtually abrogates the Levitical distinctions between clean and unclean" (Bruce). One can see the pettifogging pretenders shrivel up under these withering words.
rwp@Matthew:15:18 @{Out of the mouth} (\ek tou stomatos\). Spoken words come out of the heart and so are a true index of character. By "heart" (\kardias\) Jesus means not just the emotional nature, but the entire man, the inward life of "evil thoughts" (\dialogismoi ponroi\) that issue in words and deeds. "These defile the man," not "eating with unwashed hands." The captious quibblings of the Pharisees, for instance, had come out of evil hearts.
rwp@Revelation:12:7 @{There was war in heaven} (\egeneto polemos en ti ourani\). "There came to be war in heaven" (\egeneto\, not \n\). "Another \tableau\, not a \smeion\ (vv. 1,3|), but consequent upon the two \smeia\ which precede it. The birth and rapture of the Woman's Son issue in a war which invades the \epourania\" (Swete). The reference is not to the original rebellion of Satan, as Andreas held. As the coming of Christ brought on fresh manifestations of diabolic power (Mark:1:13; strkjv@Luke:22:3,31; strkjv@John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|), just so Christ's return to heaven is pictured as being the occasion of renewed attacks there. We are not to visualize it too literally, but certainly modern airplanes help us to grasp the notion of battles in the sky even more than the phalanxes of storm-clouds (Swete). John even describes this last conflict as in heaven itself. Cf. strkjv@Luke:10:18; strkjv@1Kings:22:1ff.; strkjv@Job:1; 2; strkjv@Zechariah:3:1ff|. {Michael and his angels} (\ho Michal kai hoi aggeloi autou\). The nominative here may be in apposition with \polemos\, but it is an abnormal construction with no verb, though \egeneto\ (arose) can be understood as repeated. Michael is the champion of the Jewish people (Daniel:10:13,21; strkjv@12:1|) and is called the archangel in strkjv@Jude:9|. {Going forth to war} (\tou polemsai\). This genitive articular infinitive is another grammatical problem in this sentence. If \egeneto\ (arose) is repeated as above, then we have the infinitive for purpose, a common enough idiom. Otherwise it is anomalous, not even like strkjv@Acts:10:25|. {With the dragon} (\meta tou drakontos\). On the use of \meta\ with \poleme\ see strkjv@2:16; strkjv@13:4; strkjv@17:14| (nowhere else in N.T.). The devil has angels under his command (Matthew:25:41|) and preachers also (2Corinthians:11:14f.|). {Warred} (\epolemsen\). Constative aorist active indicative of \poleme\, picturing the whole battle in one glimpse.
rwp@Revelation:13:14 @{And he deceiveth} (\kai plani\). Present active (dramatic) indicative of \plana\, the very thing that Jesus had said would happen (Matthew:24:24|, "Songs:as to lead astray" \hste plansthai\, the word used here, if possible the very elect). It is a constant cause for wonder, the gullibility of the public at the hands of new charlatans who continually bob up with their pipe-dreams. {That they should make an image to the beast} (\poisai eikona ti thrii\). Indirect command (this first aorist active infinitive of \poie\) after \legn\ as in strkjv@Acts:21:21|, not indirect assertion. This "image" (\eikn\, for which word see strkjv@Matthew:22:20; strkjv@Colossians:1:15|) of the emperor could be his head upon a coin (Mark:12:16|), an _imago_ painted or woven upon a standard, a bust in metal or stone, a statue, anything that people could be asked to bow down before and worship. This test the priests in the provinces pressed as it was done in Rome itself. The phrase "the image of the beast," occurs ten times in this book (13:14,15| _ter_; strkjv@14:9,11; strkjv@15:2; strkjv@16:2; strkjv@19:20; strkjv@20:4|). Emperor-worship is the issue and that involves worship of the devil. {The stroke of the sword} (\tn plgn ts machairs\). This language can refer to the death of Nero by his own sword. {And lived} (\kai ezsen\). "And he came to life" (ingressive first aorist active indicative of \za\). Perhaps a reference to Domitian as a second Nero in his persecution of Christians.
rwp@Revelation:22:14 @{Blessed} (\makarioi\). This is the last beatitude of the book and "deals with the issues of the higher life" (Swete). {They that wash their robes} (\hoi plunontes tas stolas autn\). Present active articular participle of \plun\. See strkjv@7:14| for this very verb with \stolas\, while in strkjv@3:4| the negative statement occurs. Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:6:11|. {That they may have the right} (\hina estai h exousia autn\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the future middle of \eimi\ (a common construction in this book, strkjv@6:4,11; strkjv@9:5,20; strkjv@13:12; strkjv@14:13|), that there may be their right." {To come to the tree of life} (\epi to xulon ts zs\). "Over the tree of life." On \exousia epi\ = "power over" see strkjv@6:8; strkjv@13:7; strkjv@16:9; strkjv@Luke:9:1|. On "the tree of life" see strkjv@2:7; strkjv@22:2|. {May enter in} (\eiselthsin\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \eiserchomai\ parallel with \hina estai\ (future). {By the gates} (\tois pulsin\). Associative instrumental case of \puln\ (21:12|), "by the gate towers."
rwp@Info_Revelation @ EMPEROR WORSHIP AS THE OCCASION FOR JOHN'S APOCALYPSE There is no doubt at all that the emperor cult (emperor worship) played a main part in the persecution of the Christians that was the occasion for this great Christian apocalypse. The book itself bears ample witness to this fact, if the two beasts refer to the Roman power as the agent of Satan. It is not possible to single out each individual emperor in the graphic picture. Most would take the dragon to be Satan and the first and the second beasts to be the imperial and provincial Roman power. The Roman emperors posed as gods and did the work of Satan. In particular there were two persecuting emperors (Nero and Domitian) who were responsible for many martyrs for Christ. But emperor worship began before Nero. Julius Caesar was worshipped in the provinces. Octavius was called Augustus (\Sebastos\, Reverend). The crazy Emperor Caius Caligula not simply claimed to be divine, but actually demanded that his statue be set up for worship in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was killed in January A.D. 41 before he could execute his dire purpose. But the madcap Nero likewise demanded worship and blamed in A.D. 64 the burning of Rome on the Christians, though guilty of it himself. He set the style for persecuting Christians, which slumbered on and burst into flames again under Domitian, who had himself commonly termed _Dominus ac Deus noster_ (Our Lord and God). The worship of the emperor did not disturb the worshippers of other gods save the Jews and the Christians, and in particular the Christians were persecuted after the burning of Rome when they were distinguished from the Jews. Up till then Christians were regarded (as by Gallio in Corinth) as a variety of Jews and so entitled to tolerance as a _religio licita_, but they had no standing in law by themselves and their refusal to worship the emperor early gave offence, as Paul indicates in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|. It was \Kurios Isous\ or \Kurios Kaisar\. On this very issue Polycarp lost his life. The emperors as a rule were tolerant about it, save Nero and Domitian, who was called Nero _redivivus_, or Nero back again. Trajan in his famous letter to Pliny advised tolerance except in stubborn cases, when the Christians had to be put to death. After Nero it was a crime to be a Christian and all sorts of slanders about them were circulated. We have seen already in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3ff.|, the man of sin who sets himself above God as the object of worship. We have seen also in strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7| the term antichrist applied apparently to Gnostic heretics. One may wonder if, as Beckwith argues, in the Apocalypse the man of sin and the antichrist are united in the beast.
rwp@Info_Romans @ THE PURPOSE Paul tells this himself. He had long cherished a desire to come to Rome (Acts:19:21|) and had often made his plans to do so (Romans:1:13|) which were interrupted (Romans:15:22|), but now he definitely plans to go from Jerusalem, after taking the contribution there (Romans:15:26|), to Rome and then on to Spain (Romans:15:24,28|). Meanwhile he sends this Epistle that the Romans may know what Paul's gospel really is (Romans:1:15; strkjv@2:16|). He is full of the issues raised by the Judaizing controversy as set forth in the Epistles to Corinth and to Galatia. Songs:in a calmer mood and more at length he presents his conception of the Righteousness demanded by God (Romans:1:17|) of both Gentile (Romans:1:18-32|) and Jew (Romans:2:1-3:20|) and only to be obtained by faith in Christ who by his atoning death (justification) has made it possible (Romans:3:21-5:21|). This new life of faith in Christ should lead to holiness of life (sanctification, chapters strkjv@Romans:6-8|). This is Paul's gospel and the remaining chapters deal with corollaries growing out of the doctrine of grace as applied to practical matters. It is a cause for gratitude that Paul did write out so full a statement of his message. He had a message for the whole world and was anxious to win the Roman Empire to Christ. It was important that he go to Rome for it was the centre of the world's life. Nowhere does Paul's Christian statesmanship show to better advantage than in this greatest of his Epistles. It is not a book of formal theology though Paul is the greatest of theologians. Here Paul is seen in the plenitude of his powers with all the wealth of his knowledge of Christ and his rich experience in mission work. The church in Rome is plainly composed of both Jews and Greeks, though who started the work there we have no way of knowing. Paul's ambition was to preach where no one else had been (Romans:15:20|), but he has no hesitation in going on to Rome.
rwp@Romans:7:13 @{Become death unto me?} (\emoi egeneto thanatos?\). Ethical dative \emoi\ again. New turn to the problem. Admitting the goodness of God's law, did it issue in death for me? Paul repels (\m genoito\) this suggestion. It was sin that (But sin, \alla h hamartia\) "became death for me." {That it might be shown} (\hina phani\). Final clause, \hina\ and second aorist passive subjunctive of \phain\, to show. The sinfulness of sin is revealed in its violations of God's law. {By working death to me} (\moi katergazomen thanaton\). Present middle participle, as an incidental result. {Might become exceedingly sinful} (\gentai kath' huperboln hamartlos\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ with \hina\ in final clause. On \kath' huperboln\, see on ¯1Corinthians:12:31|. Our _hyperbole_ is the Greek \huperbol\. The excesses of sin reveal its real nature. Only then do some people get their eyes opened.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}