OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp skill:
rwp@
1Corinthians:14:16 @{Else if thou bless with the spirit} (\epei ean eulogis en pneumati\). Third class condition. He means that, if one is praying and praising God (10:16|) in an ecstatic prayer, the one who does not understand the ecstasy will be at a loss when to say "amen" at the close of the prayer. In the synagogues the Jews used responsive amens at the close of prayers (Nehemiah:5:13; strkjv@8:6; strkjv@1Chronicles:16:36; strkjv@Psalms:106:48|). {He that filleth the place of the unlearned} (\ho anaplrn ton topon tou iditou\). Not a special part of the room, but the position of the \iditou\ (from \idios\, one's own), common from Herodotus for private person (Acts:4:13|), unskilled (2Corinthians:11:6|), uninitiated (unlearned) in the gift of tongues as here and verses 23f|. {At thy giving of thanks} (\epi ti si eucharistii\). Just the prayer, not the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper, as is plain from verse 17|.
rwp@2Thessalonians:2:10 @{With all deceit of unrighteousness} (\en pasi apati adikias\). This pastmaster of trickery will have at his command all the energy and skill of Satan to mislead and deceive. How many illustrations lie along the pathway of Christian history. {For them that are perishing} (\tois apollumenois\). Dative case of personal interest. Note this very phrase in strkjv@2Corinthians:2:15; strkjv@4:3|. Present middle participle of \appollumi\, to destroy, the dreadful process goes on. {Because} (\anth' hon\). In return for which things (\anti\ and the genitive of the relative pronoun). Same idiom in strkjv@Luke:1:20; strkjv@12:3; strkjv@19:44; strkjv@Acts:12:23| and very common in the LXX. {The love of the truth} (\tn agapn ts altheias\). That is the gospel in contrast with _lying_ and _deceit_. {That they might be saved} (\eis to sthnai autous\). First aorist passive infinitive of \sz\ with \eis to\, again, epexegetic purpose of {the truth} if they had heeded it.
rwp@Info_Acts @ THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTS It is not easy to say in a word precisely the object of Luke in writing this book. It is not the Acts of all the apostles. Outside of Peter and John little is told of any of them after chapter 3. And all the acts of Peter and John are not given for Peter disappears from the narrative after chapter 15, though he has been the central figure through chapter 11. Paul is not one of the twelve apostles, but Luke follows Paul's career mainly after chapter 8. Stephen and Barnabas come in also. Still (_St. Paul on Trial_, 1923) argues that Luke meant the book as an apology to be used in Paul's trial at Rome or at any rate to put Paul in the right light with the Jews in Rome. Hence the full account of Paul's series of defences in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Rome. There may be an element of truth in this idea, but it clearly does not cover the whole purpose of Luke. Others hold that Luke had a dramatic plan to get Paul to Rome as the climax of his campaign to win the Roman Empire to Christ. The book is not a history of all early Christianity. Peter and Paul dominate the atmosphere of the book with Paul as the great hero of Luke. But one can easily see that the work is done with consummate skill. The author is a man of culture, of Christian grace, of literary power. The book pulses with life today.
rwp@Acts:4:13 @{The boldness} (\tn parrsian\). Telling it all (\pan, rsia\). See also verses 29,31|. Actually Peter had turned the table on the Sanhedrin and had arraigned them before the bar of God. {Had perceived} (\katalabomenoi\). Second aorist middle participle of \katalamban\, common verb to grasp strongly (\kata\), literally or with the mind (especially middle voice), to comprehend. The rulers recalled Peter and John from having seen them often with Jesus, probably during the temple teaching, etc. {They were unlearned} (\agrammatoi eisin\). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. Unlettered men without technical training in the professional rabbinical schools of Hillel or Shammai. Jesus himself was so regarded (John:7:15|, "not having learned letters"). {And ignorant} (\kai iditai\). Old word, only here in the N.T. and strkjv@1Corinthians:14:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:6|. It does not mean "ignorant," but a layman, a man not in office (a private person), a common soldier and not an officer, a man not skilled in the schools, very much like \agrammatos\. It is from \idios\ (one's own) and our "idiosyncracy" is one with an excess of such a trait, while "idiot" (this very word) is one who has nothing but his idiosyncracy. Peter and John were men of ability and of courage, but they did not belong to the set of the rabbis. {They marvelled} (\ethaumazon\). Imperfect (inchoative) active, began to wonder and kept it up. {Took knowledge of them} (\epeginskon autous\). Imperfect (inchoative) active again, they began to recognize them as men that they had seen with Jesus.
rwp@Acts: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:7:22 @{Was instructed} (\epaideuth\). First aorist passive indicative of \paideu\, to train a child (\pais\), the usual idea in ancient Greek as here. The notion of chastisement (Hebrews:12:6|) is also in the old Greek and especially in the LXX and the N.T. Here with instrumental case (\pasi sophii\) or the locative. The accusative would usually be retained after this verb. The priestly caste in Egypt was noted for their knowledge of science, astronomy, medicine, and mathematics. This reputation was proverbial (1Kings:4:30|). Modern discoveries have thrown much light on the ancient civilization of Egypt. Moses, like Paul, was a man of the schools. {Mighty in his words and works} (\dunatos en logois kai ergois autou\). The same phrase used of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:24:19|. The adjective \dunatos\ is employed of Apollos as an interpreter of the Scriptures (Acts:18:24|). Moses did not have the rhetorical skill or eloquence of Aaron (Exodus:4:10|), but his words like his deeds carried weight and power.
rwp@Acts:16:10 @{We sought} (\eztsamen\). This sudden use of the plural, dropped in strkjv@17:1| when Paul leaves Philippi, and resumed in strkjv@20:5| when Paul rejoins Luke in Philippi, argues conclusively that Luke, the author, is in the party ("we" portions of Acts) and shows in a writer of such literary skill as Luke that he is not copying a document in a blundering sort of way. Paul told his vision to the party and they were all ready to respond to the call. {Concluding} (\sunbibazontes\). A very striking word, present active participle of \sunbibaz\, old verb to make go together, to coalesce or knit together, to make this and that agree and so to conclude. Already in strkjv@9:22| of Paul's preaching. This word here gives a good illustration of the proper use of the reason in connection with revelation, to decide whether it is a revelation from God, to find out what it means for us, and to see that we obey the revelation when understood. God had called them to preach to the Macedonians. They had to go.
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:17:23 @{For} (\gar\). Paul gives an illustration of their religiousness from his own experiences in their city. {The objects of your worship} (\ta sebasmata humn\). Late word from \sebazomai\, to worship. In N T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4|. The use of this word for temples, altars, statues, shows the conciliatory tone in the use of \deisidaimonesterous\ in verse 22|. {An altar} (\bmon\). Old word, only here in the N.T. and the only mention of a heathen altar in the N.T {With this inscription} (\en hi epegegrapto\). On which had been written (stood written), past perfect passive indicative of \epigraph\, old and common verb for writing on inscriptions (\epigraph\, strkjv@Luke:23:38|). {To an Unknown God} (\AGNOSTO THEO\). Dative case, dedicated to. Pausanias (I. 1, 4) says that in Athens there are "altars to gods unknown" (\bmoi then agnstn\). Epimenides in a pestilence advised the sacrifice of a sheep to the befitting god whoever he might be. If an altar was dedicated to the wrong deity, the Athenians feared the anger of the other gods. The only use in the N.T. of \agnstos\, old and common adjective (from \a\ privative and \gnstos\ verbal of \ginsk\, to know). Our word agnostic comes from it. Here it has an ambiguous meaning, but Paul uses it though to a stern Christian philosopher it may be the "confession at once of a bastard philosophy and of a bastard religion" (Hort, _Hulsean Lectures_, p. 64). Paul was quick to use this confession on the part of the Athenians of a higher power than yet known to them. Songs:he gets his theme from this evidence of a deeper religious sense in them and makes a most clever use of it with consummate skill. {In ignorance} (\agnoountes\). Present active participle of \agnoe\, old verb from same root as \agnstos\ to which Paul refers by using it. {This set I forth unto you} (\touto ego kataggell humin\). He is a \kataggeleus\ (verse 18|) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is. By this master stroke he has brushed to one side any notion of violation of Roman law or suspicion of heresy and claims their endorsement of his new gospel, a shrewd and consummate turn. He has their attention now and proceeds to describe this God left out of their list as the one true and Supreme God. The later MSS. here read \hon--touton\ (whom--this one) rather than \ho--touto\ (what--this), but the late text is plainly an effort to introduce too soon the personal nature of God which comes out clearly in verse 24|.
rwp@Hebrews:11:3 @{By faith} (\pistei\). Instrumental case of \pistis\ which he now illustrates in a marvellous way. Each example as far as verse 31| is formally and with rhetorical skill introduced by \pistei\. After that only a summary is given. {We understand} (\nooumen\). Present active indicative of \noe\, old verb (from \nous\, intellect) as in strkjv@Matthew:15:17; strkjv@Romans:1:20|. The author appeals to our knowledge of the world in which these heroes lived as an illustration of faith. Recent books by great scientists like Eddington and Jeans confirm the position here taken that a Supreme Mind is behind and before the universe. Science can only stand still in God's presence and believe like a little child. {The worlds} (\tous ainas\). "The ages" as in strkjv@1:2| (cf. Einstein's fourth dimension, time). Accusative case of general reference. {Have been framed} (\katrtisthai\). Perfect passive infinitive of \katartiz\, to mend, to equip, to perfect (Luke:6:40|), in indirect discourse after \nooumen\. {Songs:that} (\eis to\). As a rule \eis to\ with the infinitive is final, but sometimes as here it expresses result as in strkjv@Romans:12:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003). {Hath been made} (\gegonenai\). Perfect active infinitive of \ginomai\. {What is seen} (\to blepomenon\). Present passive articular participle (accusative case of general reference) of \blep\. {Of things which do appear} (\ek phainomenn\). Ablative case with \ek\ (out of) of the present passive participle. The author denies the eternity of matter, a common theory then and now, and places God before the visible universe as many modern scientists now gladly do.
rwp@James:3:13 @{Who} (\Tis\). Rhetorical interrogative like strkjv@Luke:11:11|. Common in Paul and characteristic of the diatribe. James here returns to the standpoint of verse 1| about many teachers. Speech and wisdom are both liable to abuse (1Corinthians:1:5,17; strkjv@2:1-3:20|). {Wise and understanding} (\sophos kai epistmn\). \Sophos\ is used for the practical teacher (verse 1|), \epistmn\ (old word from \epistamai\, here only in N.T.) for an expert, a skilled and scientific person with a tone of superiority. In strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:13,15; strkjv@4:6|, the two terms are practically synonyms. {Let him shew} (\deixat\). First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, old verb to show. As about faith in strkjv@2:18|. Emphatic position of this verb. {By his good life} (\ek ts kals anastrophs\). For this literary _Koin_ word from \anastrephomai\ (walk, conduct) see strkjv@Galatians:1:13|. Actions speak louder than words even in the case of the professional wise man. Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:15|. {In meekness of wisdom} (\en prautti sophias\). As in strkjv@1:21| of the listener, so here of the teacher. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:5:5; strkjv@11:29| and Zac strkjv@9:9| of King Messiah quoted in strkjv@Matthew:21:5|. Startling combination.
rwp@Luke:5:17 @{That} (\kai\). Use of \kai\ = \hoti\ (that) like the Hebrew _wav_, though found in Greek also. {He} (\autos\). Luke sometimes has \autos\ in the nominative as unemphatic "he" as here, not "he himself." {Was teaching} (\n didaskn\). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom. {Were sitting by} (\san kathmenoi\). Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no "by" in the Greek. {Doctors of the law} (\nomodidaskaloi\). A compound word formed after analogy of \hierodidaskalos\, but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and strkjv@Acts:5:34; strkjv@1Timothy:1:7|. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word "doctor" is Latin for "teacher." These "teachers of the law" are called elsewhere in the Gospels "scribes" (\grammateis\) as in Matthew and Mark (see on ¯Matthew:5:20; strkjv@23:34|) and strkjv@Luke:5:21; strkjv@19:47; strkjv@21:1; strkjv@22:2|. Luke also employs \nomikos\ (one skilled in the law, \nomos\) as in strkjv@10:25|. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see on ¯Matthew:3:7,20|. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the "Pharisees" were "teachers of the law" so that both terms often occur together as in verse 21| where Luke has separate articles (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in strkjv@Matthew:5:20| or no article as here in verse 17|. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law "which were come" (\hoi san elluthotes\, periphrastic past perfect active, {had come}). {Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem} (\ek pass kms ts Galilaias kai Ioudaias kai Ierousalm\). Edersheim (_Jewish Social Life_) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use "every village." But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that strkjv@John:4:1-4| shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:23|. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life. {The power of the Lord was with him to heal} (\dunamis Kuriou n eis to isthai auton\). Songs:the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: "Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus)." Here \Kuriou\ refers to Jehovah. {Dunamis} (dynamite) is one of the common words for "miracles" (\dunameis\). What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion.
rwp@Matthew:13:25 @{While men slept} (\en ti katheudein tous anthrpous\). Same use of the articular present infinitive with \en\ and the accusative as in strkjv@13:4|. {Sowed tares also} (\epespeiren ta zizania\). Literally "sowed upon," "resowed" (Moffatt). The enemy deliberately sowed "the darnel" (\zizania\ is not "tares," but "darnel," a bastard wheat) over (\epi\) the wheat, "in the midst of the wheat." This bearded darnel, _lolium temulentum_, is common in Palestine and resembles wheat except that the grains are black. In its earlier stages it is indistinguishable from the wheat stalks so that it has to remain till near the harvest. Modern farmers are gaining more skill in weeding it out.
rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE VISIONS No theory of authorship, sources, or date should ignore the fact that the author claims to have had a series of visions in Patmos. It does not follow that he wrote them down at once and without reflection, but it seems hardly congruous to think that he waited till he had returned from exile in Patmos to Ephesus before writing them out. In fact, there is a note of sustained excitement all through the book, combined with high literary skill in the structure of the book in spite of the numerous grammatical lapses. The series of sevens bear a relation to one another, but more in the fashion of a kaleidoscope than of a chronological panorama. And yet there is progress and power in the arrangement and the total effect. There is constant use of Old Testament language and imagery, almost a mosaic, but without a single formal quotation. There is constant repetition of words and phrases in true Johannine style. Each of the messages to the seven churches picks out a metaphor in the first picture of Christ in chapter I and there are frequent other allusions to the language in this picture. In fact there is genuine artistic skill in the structure of the book, in spite of the deflections from ordinary linguistic standards. In the visions and all through the book there is constant use of symbols, as is the fashion in apocalypses like the beasts, the scorpions, the horses, etc. These symbols probably were understood by the first readers of the book, though the key to them is lost to us. Even the numbers in the book (3 1/2, 7, 3, 4, 12, 24, 1000) cannot be pressed, though some do so. Even Harnack called the Apocalypse the plainest book in the New Testament, by using Harnack's key for the symbols.
rwp@Romans:2:20 @{A corrector of the foolish} (\paideutn aphronn\). Old word (from \paideu\) for instructor, in Plato, and probably so here, though corrector or chastiser in strkjv@Hebrews:12:9| (the only N.T. instances). See strkjv@Luke:23:16|. Late inscriptions give it as instructor (Preisigke). \Aphronn\ is a hard word for Gentiles, but it is the Jewish standpoint that Paul gives. Each termed the other "dogs." {Of babes} (\npin\). Novitiates or proselytes to Judaism just as in strkjv@Galatians:4:1|. Paul used it of those not of legal age. {The form} (\tn morphsin\). Rare word only in Theophrastus and Paul (here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:5|). Pallis regards it as a Stoical term for education. Lightfoot considers the \morphsis\ as "the rough-sketch, the pencilling of the \morph\," the outline or framework, and in strkjv@2Timothy:3:5| "the outline without the substance." This is Paul's picture of the Jew as he sees himself drawn with consummate skill and subtle irony.
rwp@Romans:10:8 @{But what saith it?} (\alla ti legei?\). That is "the from faith righteousness." {The word of faith} (\to rma ts pistes\). The gospel message concerning faith (objective genitive). Only here. In contrast to the law. {Which we preach} (\ho krussomen\). The living voice brings home to every one the faith kind of righteousness. Paul seizes upon the words of Moses with the orator's instinct and with rhetorical skill (Sanday and Headlam) applies them to the facts about the gospel message about the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}