Discovery Box| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 2:45) |
2 tn It is possible that the first term for property (κτήματα, kthmata) refers to real estate (as later usage seems to indicate) while the second term (ὑπάρξεις, Juparxeis) refers to possessions in general, but it may also be that the two terms are used together for emphasis, simply indicating that all kinds of possessions were being sold. However, if the first term is more specifically a reference to real estate, it foreshadows the incident with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 6:13) |
2 sn The law refers to the law of Moses. It elaborates the nature of the blasphemy in v. 11. To speak against God’s law in Torah was to blaspheme God (Deut 28:15-19). On the Jewish view of false witnesses, see Exod 19:16-18; 20:16; m. Sanhedrin 3.6; 5.1-5. Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 may indicate why the temple was mentioned. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 9:34) |
3 tn The translation “make your own bed” for στρῶσον σεαυτῷ (strwson seautw) is given by BDAG 949 s.v. στρωννύω 1. Naturally this involves some adaptation, since a pallet or mat would not be ‘made up’ in the sense that a modern bed would be. The idea may be closer to “straighten” or “rearrange,” and the NIV’s “take care of your mat” attempts to reflect this, although this too probably conveys a slightly different idea to the modern English reader. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 11:6) |
2 tn Or “snakes.” Grk “creeping things.” According to L&N 4.51, in most biblical contexts the term (due to the influence of Hebrew classifications such as Gen 1:25-26, 30) included small four-footed animals like rats, mice, frogs, toads, salamanders, and lizards. In this context, however, where “creeping things” are contrasted with “four-footed animals,” the English word “reptiles,” which primarily but not exclusively designates snakes, is probably more appropriate. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 13:11) |
3 sn The term translated mistiness here appears in the writings of the physician Galen as a medical technical description of a person who is blind. The picture of judgment to darkness is symbolic as well. Whatever power Elymas had, it represented darkness. Magic will again be an issue in Acts 19:18-19. This judgment is like that of Ananias and his wife in Acts 5:1-11. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 13:41) |
2 sn A quotation from Hab 1:5. The irony in the phrase even if someone tells you, of course, is that Paul has now told them. So the call in the warning is to believe or else face the peril of being scoffers whom God will judge. The parallel from Habakkuk is that the nation failed to see how Babylon’s rising to power meant perilous judgment for Israel. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 17:23) |
3 tn BDAG 13 s.v. ἀγνοέω 1.b has “Abs. ὅ ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε what you worship without knowing it (on the subject matter Maximus Tyr. 11, 5e: all sorts of philosophers ἴσασιν οὐκ ἑκόντες καὶ λέγουσιν ἄκοντες sc. τὸ θεῖον = they know and name God without intending to do so) Ac 17:23.” Paul, in typical Jewish Christian style, informs them of the true God, of whom their idols are an ignorant reflection. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 20:13) |
5 tn Or “for he told us to do this.” Grk “for having arranged it this way, he.” The participle διατεταγμένος (diatetagmeno") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style. BDAG 237 s.v. διατάσσω 1 has “οὕτως διατεταγμένος ἦν he had arranged it so Ac 20:13.” L&N 15.224 has “‘he told us to do this.” |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 20:28) |
6 tn Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.” The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, “The Blood of God,” CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 20:33) |
1 tn Traditionally, “coveted.” BDAG 371 s.v. ἐπιθυμέω 1 has “to have a strong desire to do or secure someth., desire, long for w. gen. of the thing desired…silver, gold, clothing Ac 20:33.” The traditional term “covet” is not in common usage and difficult for many modern English readers to understand. The statement affirms Paul’s integrity. He was not doing this for personal financial gain. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 22:19) |
2 tn For the distributive sense of the expression κατὰ τὰς συναγωγάς (kata ta" sunagwga") BDAG 512 s.v. κατά B.1.d has “of places viewed serially, distributive use w. acc.…κατ᾿ οἶκαν from house to house…Ac 2:46b; 5:42…Likew. the pl.…κ. τὰς συναγωγάς 22:19.” See also L&N 37.114. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 23:6) |
5 tn That is, concerning the hope that the dead will be resurrected. Grk “concerning the hope and resurrection.” BDAG 320 s.v. ἐλπίς 1.b.α states, “Of Israel’s messianic hope Ac 23:6 (ἐ. καὶ ἀνάστασις for ἐ. τῆς ἀν. [obj. gen] as 2 Macc 3:29 ἐ. καὶ σωτηρία).” With an objective genitive construction, the resurrection of the dead would be the “object” of the hope. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 25:16) |
5 tn Or “indictment” (a legal technical term). BDAG 273-74 s.v. ἔγκλημα 1 states, “legal t.t.…ἀπολογία περὶ τοῦ ἐ. defense against the accusation Ac 25:16.” L&N 56.6 defines ἔγκλημα (enklhma) as “(a technical, legal term) a formal indictment or accusation brought against someone – ‘indictment, accusation, case.’ …‘and might receive an opportunity for a defense against the indictment’ Ac 25:16.” |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 26:16) |
3 tn BDAG 719 s.v. ὁράω A.1.b states, “W. attraction of the relative ὧν = τούτων ἅ Lk 9:36; Ac 22:15. The attraction may be due to colloq. breviloquence in μάρτυρα ὧν τε εἶδες με ὧν τε ὀφθήσομαί σοι a witness to the things in which you saw me and to those in which I shall appear to you Ac 26:16b.” |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Act 27:32) |
2 tn Or “let it fall away.” According to BDAG 308 s.v. ἐκπίπτω 1 and 2 the meaning of the verb in this verse could be either “fall away” or “drift away.” Either meaning is acceptable, and the choice between them depends almost entirely on how one reconstructs the scene. Since cutting the boat loose would in any case result in it drifting away (whether capsized or not), the meaning “drift away” as a nautical technical term has been used here. |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Rom 3:25) |
5 tn The prepositional phrase διὰ πίστεως (dia pistew") here modifies the noun ἱλαστήριον (Jilasthrion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV: “effective through faith”). |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Rom 4:13) |
1 sn Although a singular noun, the promise is collective and does not refer only to Gen 12:7, but as D. Moo (Romans 1-8 [WEC], 279) points out, refers to multiple aspects of the promise to Abraham: multiplied descendants (Gen 12:2), possession of the land (Gen 13:15-17), and his becoming the vehicle of blessing to all people (Gen 12:13). |
| (0.59041280645161) | (Rom 4:17) |
2 tn The words “He is our father” are not in the Greek text but are supplied to show that they resume Paul’s argument from 16b. (It is also possible to supply “Abraham had faith” here [so REB], taking the relative clause [“who is the father of us all”] as part of the parenthesis, and making the connection back to “the faith of Abraham,” but such an option is not as likely [C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:243].) |
| (0.59041280645161) | (1Co 2:6) |
1 tn In extrabiblical literature this word was applied to an initiate of a mystery religion (BDAG 995 s.v. τέλειος 3, gives numerous examples and states this was a technical term of the mystery religions). It could here refer to those who believed Paul’s message, the mystery of God (v. 1), and so be translated as “those who believe God’s message.” |
| (0.59041280645161) | (1Co 3:9) |
1 tn Although 1 Cor 3:9 is frequently understood to mean, “we are coworkers with God,” such a view assumes that the genitive θεοῦ (qeou) is associative because of its relationship to συνεργοί (sunergoi). However, not only is a genitive of association not required by the syntax (cf. ExSyn 130), but the context is decidedly against it: Paul and Apollos are insignificant compared to the God whom they serve (vv. 5-8). |
