2:5¹ ^These were men residing for more than just the festival season for religious reasons and study reasons.
2:5² ^A hyperbole meant to convey the notion of every nation that people generally knew about. Used by other writers.
2:40¹ ^And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Save yourselves¹ from this perverse generation!” הִוָּשְׁעוּ. The sense has to be reflexive because a total passive imperative does not make sense. A passive and reflective sense can be that the imperative is to take yourself the action necessary to be saved (passive), which is to affirm faithfulness to Mĕssiah.
The following is a response from Carl W. Conrad, Department of Classics, Washington University (Ret) concerning the translation of Acts 2:40: “It is of course true that the form σώθητε (SWQHTE) is "passive"
in terms of morphological paradigm. The question is: How can you command a person to be acted upon by another or others? A command
requires action on the part of the person to whom the command is issued. The usual workaround for this problem is to call SWQHTE [σωθητε] a
"permissive passive" and assert that the command is an exhortation to do something that will result in the completion of the action
indicated by the verb: "Get yourselves saved" might express this notion well. On the other hand, some might say that "Save yourselves"
really conveys the same meaning -- that those to whom the command is given will take an action that will result in their salvation, even if
the salvation is not something that they bring directly upon themselves.
From the perspective of the morphology and meanings inherent in the middle-passive forms, I think it should be noted that there is no SEMANTIC differentiation between such a form as SWSASQE [σωσασθε]or SWSATE [σωσατε]
hEAUTOUS [εαυτους] or SWQHTE [σωθητε]. SWSASQE [σωσασθε] doesn't appear in the GNT although we do
find such expressions as SWSON SEAUTON [σωσον σεαυτον] (Mk 15:30) and SWSAI THN YUCHN
AUTOU [σωσαι...την ψυχην αυτου] ("save one's own soul"). That is to say: all these expressions
indicate that the subject acts in such a way as to bring about or effect his/her salvation. An argument that I have been urging in this very forum for some time is that the
The imperative requires action on the part of the receiver. The text refutes the passive-monergistic notion of salvation. It is necessary for the saved person to affirm faithfulness to Mĕssiah and to continue to confirm it while being saved by the Almĭghty.
3:16¹ ^Or, “the faithfulness in his name,” or “the reliability of his reputation.”
4:30¹ ^See Isa. 37:35; 44:21; 49:6. Compare LXX with GNT; παῖδά μου = עַבְדִּי.
5:14¹ ^Or, “in.” To affirm/confirm faithfulness to (or in) Yăhwēh. The Hebrew sense is to “put support on” or “give support to.” It is an affirmation of support to Him and that he supports. To affirm/confirm faithfulness in Yăhwēh means to confirm that he is faithful by being faithful to him.
5:21¹ ^γερουσίαν. The Great Sanhedrin.
5:31¹ ^δοῦναι: To “allow,” or “permit” (Friberg).
7:43¹ ^Sikkūt. See Amos 5:26. Stephen gives Greek equivalents in the LXX of the names of these deities.
9:26¹ ^affirming being faithful.
9:36¹ ^Gazelle.
10:3¹ ^Whether the messenger is the Sŏn of Yăhweh or a mere angel is not known from the text, nor is it clear if Cornelius would have recognized Him. The Sŏn did not always mean to disclose himself without being directly asked (cf. Judges 13:18).
10:3† ^The 9th hour is counted from sunrise, and translates to 3 pm. This time is the time of prayer and the afternoon sacrifice in the Temple, “between the settings,” between when the sun begins to set at noon, and sunset, when it disappears.
10:9‡ ^The second day, counting from the day he saw the vision.
10:9† ^The sixth hour is noon.
10:12† ^The vision presented all kinds of animals, both clean and unclean. Perhaps Peter did not notice this at first, but his response was an automatic no because of the associated unclean animals all around.
10:14¹ ^The word here is κύριε, the equivalent of אֲדוֹן, which means “Sir.” Peter’s answer does not identify the speaker. It is just a voice that came to him.
10:14† ^The Rabbis distinguished two categories, and also Peter. That which is unclean is the forbidden animals in the Law. That which is common is that which is associated with something unclean, and has become traditionally unclean by association with the unclean. The common thing is not by nature unclean, but only acquires uncleanness by contact or association with the unclean. For example, the most religious Yehūdi̱m will not generally eat food prepared by a Gentile even when it was clean food. It became common by association with the unclean Gentile. The clean animals mixed in with the unclean one’s on the sheet were common by association with the unclean ones. According to the Scripture, however, the eating of what is regarded as common by the Yehūdi̱m, is generally permitted, because it is not common or unclean by itself (cf. Rom. 14:14). The words common (κοινὸν) and unclean (ἀκάθαρτον) are two separate words in Greek, and translators often treat them as if they are the same, because they presuppose that the Law is abolished contrary to Mat. 5:17-19. But they are not.
Codex Bezae and other manuscripts read “or” here instead of “and” (C04 t Dgr E08 L020 P025 31.69. 61.81. al plu cop Ps-Iustqu 89Or1,388 etint 2,224 et4,669 Baseth 241 Chr9,191
). If Peter was replying in Hebrew, the use of a
10:14‡ ^The vision must be interpreted according to Ezekiel 4:12-15. At first Yăhwēh commanded that he use human dung, knowing Yeḥezqē’l would object. When Yeḥezqē’l objected, pointing out that it would defile him, then Yăhwēh altered the commandment to use cow dung instead. The point was made, and the Law was upheld. And the Law was upheld. Ezekiel refers the law of clean and unclean again in 22:26 and 44:23. Yĕshūa̒ includes it in Mat. 5:17-19. We must conclude that the commandment to use human dung was only given until a point was made, and then it was altered to uphold the Law before it was broken. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture, it follows the commandment in Acts 10:13 was not given because the Law of clean and unclean was abolished, but only because Yăhwēh wanted to make a point.
After Peter objects the command is not repeated again, but only the words in vs. 15 three times. Since the command was not repeated, but only these words, Peter was perplexed.
10:23b† ^This is the third day, counting from when Cornelius saw the messenger.
10:24† ^This is the fourth day, counting from when Cornelius saw the messenger.
10:28‡ ^Peter’s conclusion is that he should not generally refer to non-Yehūdi̱m as common or unclean just because they are non-Jewish. Peter’s new set of conditions are more clearly stated in vs. 35.
10:30† ^The reckoning is going backward 72 hours, counting that part day as first; the day when Peter set out as second; the day when Peter saw his vision as third; and going back the part day to when Cornelius saw his vision as fourth. Going forward the four days are 3 hours, 12 hours, 12 hours, and 9 hours. The narrative thus proves another example of inclusive counting, and also that part of a day is counted with a whole number.
For the sake of illustration, if Cornelius saw his vision on a Wednesday at 3 pm., then at 3 pm on the following Shabbat, it would be called the fourth day. On the other hand, any time before dawn on the Shabbat would still be called the third day.
10:39† ^The word ξύλου may mean a
10:40† ^It should be noted that the point of departure for the third day is the day of the crucifixion. There is no zero based counting in the Scriptures, as per the example of four days above, so the first day counts as the day of the crucifixion.
10:46‡ ^γλώσσαις. This means “tongues, languages.” They were real languages that could be understood by anyone knowing the language. As in Acts 2, the miracle may have been temporary. The languages spoken were not the pseudo-language faked by many charismatics at the present day. But Missionaries have reported tribal people being given the ability to speak a language of a neighboring tribe they did not know in order to bring them the good news.
15:9† ^A proleptic aorist followed by an aorist participle. This looks better in Hebrew: כִּי טִהַר אֶת־לְבָבָם, “because he will have cleansed their hearts [by the faith].” See Revelation 10:7. When the nations have been rejoined to Yisra’ēl then at the future point there will be no distinction between Jew and non-Jew, because by that time he has cleansed all sin from the heart by the faith. The saying is in the perfect in Hebrew, or the aorist in Greek to underscore the certitude of it.
16:3† ^See LSJ, WITH Acc. III. casual:
16:31¹ ^See ἐπὶ with the accusative.
17:30¹ ^Or, “despised,” “shown contempt for,” “passed over,” “overlooked,” “looked past.”
19:31¹ ^Each of the cities of proconsular Asia, at the autumnal equinox, assembled its most honorable and opulent citizens, in order to select one to preside over the games to be exhibited that year, at his expense, in honor of the gods and the Roman emperor. Thereupon each city reported the name of the person selected to a general assembly held in some leading city, as Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis. This general council, called το κοινον, selected ten out of the number of candidates, and sent them to the proconsul; and the proconsul, apparently, chose one of these ten to preside over the rest. This explains how it is that in Acts, the passage cited several Asiarchs are spoken of, while Eusebius mentions only one; (perhaps also the title outlasted the service). Thayer.
19:37† ^We may gather from this verse that the language of St Paul and his companions had been measured when they had spoken about the special worship of Ephesus. They had inculcated the great principle that those were no gods which were made with hands and had allowed that to do its work. We find the same restraint put on himself by St Paul at Athens, though he was greatly moved to see the city wholly given to idolatry. Different conduct in either of these cities would most likely have deprived him of all chance of a hearing.
20:6¹ ^Or “within”; see below.
20:6† ^And we sailed with¹ the days of unleavened bread from Philippi. And we came to them into Troas, up to five days, where we used up the seven days.† Sunday apologists regularly depend on the mistranslation of this verse to condemn the translation, “first of the Sabbaths,” in vs. 7 referring to the first Shabbat after the annual Passover holy day, Nisan 15, because they have mistranslated the text to make make the timing impossible. Also the textual condition of key words in the text is poor, probably due to scribes not agreeing with what the original showed.
First the practical sense. They sailed
Now for the mistranslations. Firstly the phrase ἐξεπλεύσαμεν μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν ἀζύμων, “we sailed with the days of unleavened bread” does not automatically mean “we sailed after the days...”, unless one wants to think of “after” in the sense of going after or following the days of unleavened bread. For example, “They sailed following the tide from the inlet bay.” This would mean they sailed going with the outgoing tide, which would be in favor of the crew. In this case, the use of the preposition μετὰ in the accusative with a verb of motion (ἐξεπλεύσαμεν, we sailed) calls for the translation, “into the middle of”; This can be seen from the entry for μετὰ in Liddell and Scott in the Perseus database: “C. WITH ACCUS.,
I. of motion,
We find in Philo’s writings the usage of μετα with the accusative to mean “during the day;” i.e. μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτωρ = “by day and night.” The contrast with night makes it impossible for the phrase μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν to mean, “after day.” (cf. Philo
Jos. Ant. 1:301:
εἶτα μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν γνοὺς ἀδικίαν ἐπεκάλει Λαβάνῳ
then with day knowing the injustice he reproached Laban
knowing =during day, accompaniment with the day
Temporally simultaneous
Jos. Ant. 1:312
Λάβανος δὲ μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν πρώτην γνοὺς τήν τε Ἰακώβου ἀναχώρησιν
Laban yet with day first knew the of Ya‘aqōv̱ flight
knew=after the first day terminated
Temporally sequential
Jos. Ant. 2:126
μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν οὐδὲν τούτων εἰδότες
with day nothing of this they knew
=Temporally simultaneous
Jos. Ant. 6:355
ἀλλ᾽ ἄπιθι μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν εἰς ὃν ἔδωκά σοι τόπον
but depart with day to where I have given to you a place
departure =accompaniment with the day
Temporally simultaneous
Jos. Ant. 7:279
καὶ μετὰ τοὺς λόγους σαλπίσας κέρατι
and with those words he blew a horn
=after the words terminated
Temporally sequential
Phi De Josepho 1:92
μεθ᾽ ἃς ὑπομνησθήσεται σου
with which he will remember you
=within/during cf. Heb. בעוד
Temporally simultaneous
Phi De Scrificiss Abelis et Caini 1:38
οὐ μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν οὐ νύκτωρ
not with day, not night
=not during day: Temporally simultaneous
Phi De Ebrietate 1:134
ὡς μὴ μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ νύκτωρ περιλάμπεσθαι
as not with day only, but also night to shine about
Temporally simultaneous
Phi De Confusione Linguarum 1:46
οὐ μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ νύκτωρ
not with day alone but also night
Temporally Simultaneous
Phi De Decalogo 1:87
μήτε μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν μήτε νύκτωρ ἀφιστάμενος
neither with day neither night withdrawing
by/during day: Temporally simultaneous
Exodus 2:23 (cf. Phi Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari 1:94).
μετὰ δὲ τὰς ἡμέρας τὰς πολλὰς
with yet the days the many
=during cf. Hebrew text: ויהי בימים הרבים ההם
Temporally simultaneous
Jos. Ant. 1:91
μετὰ δὲ ἡμέρας ἑπτα
with yet days seven
= after seven days terminate
Temporally sequential
Jos. Ant. 1:214a
μετ᾽ ὀγδόην ἡμέραν περιτέμνουσι
with eighth day they circumcised
*strictly in accompaniment with
(used with ordinal number)
Jos. Ant. 1:214b
μετὰ τοσαύτας ἔθος ἔχουσιν
with so many days a custom they have
The darkness over Egypt:
Jos. Ant. 2:309
διασκεδασθέντος μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τοσαύτας νύκτας
was scattered with three days and so many nights
=after three days and three nights terminate
Temporally sequential
Jos. Ant 3:143
μετὰ δὲ ἡμέρας ἑπτὰ
with yet days seven
=after the seven days terminate
Temporally sequential
Jos. Ant 3:262
μετὰ τοσαύτας ἡμέρας
with so many days
=after so many days terminate
Temporally sequential
Concerning Saul’s orders:
Jos.Ant. 6:100
μετὰ γὰρ ἡμέρας ἑπτὰ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἥξειν
within indeed days seven to him he would come
=during, in the course of.
ὅπως θύσωσι τῇ ἑβδόμῃ τῶν ἡμερῶν
so that they may sacrifice on the seventh of the days
=Temporal accompaniment, simultaneity. The idiom does not follow
the LXX rendition of 1Sam. 10:8 or 13:8.
Note: ἡμέρας could be genitive, but see next example.
Concerning Amasa’s orders:
Jos. Ant. 7:280 .......Ant. 7:281
μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας τρεῖς ..ὡς οὐκ ἐπανῄει τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν ἡμερῶν
within days three...as not he returned on the third of the days
Temporal simultaneity. The word τρεῖς is declinable in both genitive
and accusative, and here is declined in the accusative, yet it is
evident from the context that “after three days” is not meant.
It is clear that the orders were to return within the time period stated. The Hebrew text makes it clear the calling out ot the army
(2Sam 20:4-8) was to be during the three days, “Make called out
for me the men of Yehūdah three days, and you stay here.”
Concerning Rehoboam’s answer:
Jos. Ant. 8:214
ὁ δὲ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας εἰπὼν αὐτοῖς ἀποκρινεῖσθαι
the yet within three days he would speak to them an answer
Jos. Ant 8:218
συνῆλθεν ἀκουσόμενον τὸ πλῆθος τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν ἡμερῶν
came together listening the multitude on the third of the days
The accusative of time cannot be avoided here since τρεις is declined
in the accusative. The corresponding genitive is τριων. The context is
clear that the sense is not “after three days.” The LXX does not use
μετα.
Concerning Hezekiah’s Illness:
2Kings 20:5: בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי תַּעֲלֶה on the third day you shall go up
Jos. Ant. 10:27
μετὰ τρίτην ἡμέραν
with [the] third day
Temporally Simultaneous with the third day.
Conclusion: “within” or “during” the days of unleavened bread in Acts 20:6 appears to have considerable external justification. Internally, it must have absolute justification due to the relation between Passover and the first of the Sabbaths.
Secondly, the next mistake is not one of mistranslation so much as misinterpretation. The ESV has it, “in five days” (ἄχρι ἡμερῶν πέντε), which is very slightly mistranslated to imply that they sailed for five days. But there is no “in” (ESV) in the texts or “within” (NAS). The phrase means “until five days,” or “as far as five days,” or “up to five days.” The time indicated is the counting of the seven days of unleavened bread from Nisan 15, and it is mentioned to mark the day of their arrival in Troas. It is not mentioned to say how long the voyage was, or how long a typical voyage would take. In fact, it took only two days to make the crossing! See Acts 16:11. Also during the spring the wind blows from the N and NW, during the Passover season (April-May: N to NW 4 Beaufort). For this reason the prevailing wind would favor Paul and his companions. And Paul does not mention a hard or unusual passage, as surely as it should have been, given the haste Paul was in to reach Yerūshalayim by Shav̱ū‘ōt. So the time notation is from the beginning of the feast. Having left in the midst of the feast on say day 3 of the feast, they reached Troas in the typical time.
More info on the speed of ancient ship can be found here: Speed Under Sail of Ancient Ships (Transactions of the American Philological Association Vol. 82 (1951), pp136-148 ) Another thing to note is that with haste in mind, Paul would have selected a relatively fast passenger ship. See also The Potential Performance of Ancient Mediterranean Sailing Rigs. If a ship makes 2 knots/hr forward tacking between 70 and 60 degrees off of a head wind, then the 113 nautical miles would take 56 hours, or 2.3 days.
The NAS says, “and came to them at Troas within five days.” The translation “within” cannot mean a smaller space of time in the five days, such as 2 days within 5 days, because the NAS has chosen to translate the previous clause “after the days of unleavened bread,” and having made that choice, the five days only make sense as the length of the voyage. Within X days being a smaller unit in the X days only makes sense when the X days are already definite. But if they are indefinite before the phrase is used, as the NAS has set itself up, then the sense of “within five days” can only mean the trip took the entire five days.
The next time notation is typically translated, “where we stayed seven days,” but is better, “where we used up the seven days.” Another way of translating the passage, “And we sailed away from Philippi during the days of Unleavened Bread and we came to them in Troas within five days where we rubbed away the seven days” (KM). Taking the last clause as the accusative of direct object (i.e. את שׁבעת יםים = ἡμέρας ἑπτά), it may be explained that the clause is definite in Luke’s context, since the seven days are always in mind during the feast (cf. Exodus 12:15). It should be noted that Luke composes differently to clearly indicate remaining in a place for a duration of seven days: ἐπεμείναμεν αὐτοῦ ἡμέρας ἑπτά (Luke 21:4), “We continued there seven days.”
Finally, I will point out the options in order of possibility for anyone who might want to say that μετα must always mean “after” in the strictest sense. 1. There could be a further textual corruption that is hidden from us in the gap between the oldest known text and the original. 2. Days of unleavened bread may refer to the 14th and 15th of Nisan as two notable days on which no Jew would travel, and 3. most importantly, any possibility of rendering the “after three days” passages (Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34, etc.) as “in three days” or “within three days” has to be denied. I think these passages are explained by the night after the third day, and taking “day” to refer to a literal day (i.e. dawn to dusk). But you can see how anyone who believes in a Friday-Sunday crucifixion will be in a bind. And the conservative approach I think is to say those passages do mean “after,” and to let a duration be the sense only when the nature of the verb used before μετα strongly suggests it is sensible.
20:7† ^And on the first of the Shabbats, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul was talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.† The literal Greek, μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων expands to μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων due to a well known grammar rule that the adjective must agree with the implied noun “day.” Once the phrase is expanded, it is evident that it is nothing more than the ordinary idiom for the Shabbat day ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων, with the word “first” prefixed to the idiom, i.e. “first day of the Sabbaths.”
Paul began his teaching on the first of the Sabbaths, but it carried over into the following night, because he was going to leave in the morning. Probably, he planned to catch up on sleep aboard ship, and he was in a hurry to avoid detection.
21:21‡ ^Ya‘aqōv̱ is here reporting not the opinion of the Yehūdi̱m who affirmed faithfulness, but the words of the false witnesses that were trying to influence them. It is important to understand that the implications and theology of these false witnesses was not the position of the emissaries. First the false witnesses only included other Yehūdi̱m in their definition of Yisra’ēl. So their accusation against Paul is framed down those lines. Second, the omission of circumcision was defined by them to mean forsaking Mōshēh, and therefore of salvific importance. Third, they were also promoting oral traditions. All there positions are refuted by Scripture. First to the house of Yisra’ēl the kingdom would be given without them becoming Jewish. Second, the neglect of circumcision in the exilic context was not an offense that rose to salvific status. And third, the oral traditions were not the Law.
21:25‡ ^The rumors were charging Paul with rebellion. Because Paul was born Yehūdi̱, he is held to a higher standard than those just introduced to the faith from paganism. We should note however, that John writing to second and third generation faithful many years later also holds them to a higher standard. Paul did not neglect the teaching of Torah. His willingness to agree with Ya‘aqōv̱ shows that he kept the Sabbaths and feast days, and the clean and unclean laws, and further that he supported the Levitical priests and the Temple in Jerusalem. Paul is not agreeing to the manner in which the false charges were framed, nor is Ya‘aqōv̱, but only to disproving the main point, that Paul had forsaken the Law, which in the eyes of the faithful Yehūdi̱m was the only material point.
The Council only defined the duties of initial repentance for pagans so that they could be saved. The prohibitions were exactly those sins that Greek and Roman pagans were in the habit of committing. But Greeks and Romans also had a much more extensive cultural moral code that they knew they should follow, and this moral code overlapped large portions of the Law. One cannot lie, cheat, steal, murder, commit adultery, etc and truly affirm faithfulness to Mĕssiah. These things were omitted from the decree because they were understood, and were taken for granted by Greeks and Romans. Yet refraining from them is necessary to faithfulness. The point then is that omission of a commandment from the decree does not imply there is no obligation to the commandment either in respect to salvation or in respect to sanctification after salvation.
False teachers, therefore have interpreted the decree to mean such things as Sabbath or circumcision or the laws of clean and unclean, or that ritual purity laws are abolished for the faithful, or for non-Jewish faithful. But they have not understood that the decree is only a measure of merciful leniency, and not a comprehensive definition of obligations.
21:28† ^All the charges were false. For it should be noted that the Yehūdi̱m from Asia were willing to create riots, conspire with pagans, and commit murder in order to stop the good news of Mĕssiah from being announced to Jews and non-Jews. By their definition, proclaiming Mĕssiah is against Yisra’ēl, and against the Law, and the Temple. This is what they wanted Jews and non-Jews to believe about the good news. And even to this day, these charges are what they want people to believe, and they have conspired with lawless teachers who have infiltrated the faith to promote the same myths, even corrupting translations of Scripture, both in the Torah and Prophets, and in the Emissaries’ Writings.
23:5† ^Ḥananyah was an ex-High Priest (AD 46-52). He was not in fact the ruling High Priest at the time. The High Priest was actually a man named Jonathan, who was murdered in the Temple by
24:5† ^or Nōtsri̱m. Jer. 31:6.
28:29† ^Texts omit vs. 29.