KJV: Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.
YLT: who, having examined me, were wishing to release me, because of their being no cause of death in me,
Darby: who having examined me were minded to let me go, because there was nothing worthy of death in me.
ASV: who, when they had examined me, desired to set me at liberty, because there was no cause of death in me.
ἀνακρίναντές | having examined |
Parse: Verb, Aorist Participle Active, Nominative Masculine Plural Root: ἀνακρίνω Sense: examine or judge. |
|
με | me |
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Accusative 1st Person Singular Root: ἐγώ Sense: I, me, my. |
|
ἐβούλοντο | were wanting |
Parse: Verb, Imperfect Indicative Middle or Passive, 3rd Person Plural Root: βούλομαι Sense: to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded. |
|
ἀπολῦσαι | to let [me] go |
Parse: Verb, Aorist Infinitive Active Root: ἀπολύω Sense: to set free. |
|
διὰ | on account of |
Parse: Preposition Root: διά Sense: through. |
|
τὸ | - |
Parse: Article, Accusative Neuter Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
μηδεμίαν | not one |
Parse: Adjective, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: μηδείς Sense: nobody, no one, nothing. |
|
αἰτίαν | cause |
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: αἰτία Sense: cause, reason. |
|
θανάτου | of death |
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: θάνατος Sense: the death of the body. |
|
ὑπάρχειν | existing |
Parse: Verb, Present Infinitive Active Root: ὑπάρχω Sense: to begin below, to make a beginning. |
|
ἐμοί | me |
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Dative 1st Person Singular Root: ἐγώ Sense: I, me, my. |
Greek Commentary for Acts 28:18
First aorist active participle of ανακρινω anakrinō the same verb used already in Acts 24:8; Acts 25:6, Acts 25:26 of the judicial examinations by Felix and Festus. [source]
Imperfect middle of attempted action or picture of their real attitude. This is a correct statement as the words of both Felix and Festus show. Because there was (δια τουπαρχειν dia tȯ̇huparchein). Accusative case with δια dia (causal use) with the articular infinitive, “Because of the being no cause of death in me” (εν εμοι en emoi in my case, naitian, usual word for crime or charge of crime). [source]
Accusative case with δια dia (causal use) with the articular infinitive, “Because of the being no cause of death in me” (εν εμοι en emoi in my case, naitian, usual word for crime or charge of crime). [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Acts 28:18
These two words, describing the working of Joseph's mind, and evidently intended to express different phases of thought, open the question of their distinctive meanings in the New Testament, where they frequently occur ( θέλω much oftener than βούλομαι ), and where the rendering, in so many eases by the same words, furnishes no clue to the distinction. The original words are often used synonymously in eases where no distinction is emphasized; but their use in other eases reveals a radical and recognized difference. An interchange is inadmissible when the greater force of the expression requires θέλειν . For instance, βαούλεσθαι , would be entirely inappropriate at Matthew 8:3, “I will, be thou cleansed;” or at Romans 7:15. The distinction, which is abundantly illustrated in Homer, is substantially maintained by the classical writers throughout, and in the New Testament. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Θέλειν is the stronger word, and expresses a purpose or determination or decree, the execution of which is, or is believed to be, in the power of him who wills. Βούλεσθαι expresses wish, inclination, or disposition, whether one desires to do a thing himself or wants some one else to do it. Θέλειν , therefore, denotes the active resolution, the will urging on to action. Βούλεσθαι is to have a mind, to desire, sometimes a little stronger, running into the sense of purpose. Θέλειν indicates the impulse of the will; βούλεσθαι , its tendency. Βούλεσθαι can always be rendered by θέλειν , but θέλειν cannot always be expressed by βούλεσθαι . -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Thus, Agamemnon says, “I would not ( οὐκ ἔθελον )-DIVIDER- receive the ransom for the maid (i.e., Irefused to receive), because I greatly desire ( βούλομαι )-DIVIDER- to have her at home” (Homer, “II.,” 1:112). So Demosthenes: “It is fitting that you should be willing ( ἐθέλειν ) to listen to those who wish ( βουλομένων ) to-DIVIDER- advise” (“Olynth.,” 1:1). That is to say, It is in your power to determine whether or not you will listen to those who desire to advise you, but whose power to do so depends on your consent. Again: “If the gods will it ( θέλωσι ) and you wish it ( βούλησθε )”-DIVIDER- (Demosth., “Olynth.,” 2:20). -DIVIDER- In the New Testament, as observed above, though the words are often interchanged, the same distinction is recognized. Thus, Matthew 2:18, “Rachael would not ( ἤθελε ) be comforted;” obstinately and positively refused. Joseph, having the right and power under the (assumed) circumstances to make Mary a public example, resolved ( θέλων )-DIVIDER- to spare her this exposure. Then the question arose - What should he do? On this he thought, and, having thought ( ἐνθυμηθέντος )his mind inclined (tendency), he was minded ( ἐβουλήθη )-DIVIDER- to put her away secretly. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Some instances of the interchanged use of the two words are the following: Mark 15:15, “Pilate willing ”-DIVIDER- ( βουλόμενος ); compare Luke 23:20, “Pilate willing ”-DIVIDER- ( θέλων ). Acts 27:43, “The centurion willing ”-DIVIDER- ( βουλόμενος ) Matthew 27:17, “Whom will ye that I release” ( θέλετε ); so Matthew 27:21. John 18:39, “Will ye that I release” ( βούλεσθε ); Matthew 14:5, “When he would have put him to death” ( θέλων ). Mark 6:48, “He would have passed by them” ( ἤθελε ); Acts 19:30, “Paul would have entered” ( βουλόμενος ). Acts 18:27, “He was disposed to pass” ( βουλόμενος ). Titus 3:8, “I will that thou affirm” ( βούλομαι ) Mark 6:25, “I will that thou give me” ( θέλω ), etc., etc. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In the New Testament θέλω occurs in the following senses:1.A decree or determination of the will. (a ) Of God (Matthew 12:7; Romans 9:16, Romans 9:18; Acts 18:21; 1 Corinthians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 12:18; 1 Corinthians 15:38). (b ) Of Christ (Matthew 8:3; John 17:24; John 5:21; John 21:22). (c ) Of men (Acts 25:9). Festus, having the power to gratify the Jews, and determining to do so, says to Paul, who has the right to decide, “Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem?” John 6:67, Others of the disciples had decided to leave Jesus. Christ said to the twelve, “Will ye also go away?” Is that your determination? John 7:17, If any man sets his will, is determined to do God's will. John 8:44, The lusts of your father your will is set to do. Acts 24:6.2. A wish or desire. Very many of the passages, however, which are cited under this head (as by Grimm) may fairly be interpreted as implying something stronger than a wish; notably Mark 14:36, of Christ in Gethsemane. Our Lord would hardly have used what thou wilt in so feeble a sense as that of a desire or wish on God's part. Mark 10:43, “Whosoever will be great,” expresses more than the desire for greatness. It is the purpose of the life. Matthew 27:15, It was given to the Jews to decide what prisoner should be released. Luke 1:62, The name of the infant John was referred to Zacharias' decision. John 17:24, Surely Christ does more than desire that those whom the Father has given him shall be with him. Luke 9:54, It is for Jesus to command fire upon the Samaritan villages if he so wills. (See, also, John 15:7; 1 Corinthians 4:21; Matthew 16:25; Matthew 19:17; John 21:22; Matthew 13:28; Matthew 17:12.) In the sense of wish or desire may fairly be cited 2 Corinthians 11:12; Matthew 12:38; Luke 8:20; Luke 23:8; John 12:21; Galatians 4:20; Matthew 7:12; Mark 10:35.3. A liking (Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46; Matthew 27:43). (See note there.) Βούλομαι occurs in the following senses:1.Inclination or disposition (Acts 18:27; Acts 19:30; Acts 25:22; Acts 28:18; 2" translation="">2 Corinthians 1:15).2.Stronger, with the idea of purpose (1 Timothy 6:9; James 1:18; James 3:4; 1 Corinthians 12:11; Hebrews 6:17).In most, if not all of these cases, we might expect θέλειν ; but in this use of βούλομαι there is an implied emphasis on the element of free choice or self-determination, which imparts to the desire or inclination a decretory force. This element is in the human will by gift and consent. In the divine will it is inherent. At this point the Homeric usage may be compared in its occasional employment of βούλομαι to express determination, but only with reference to the gods, in whom to wish is to will. Thus, “Whether Apollo will ( βου.λεται ) ward off the plague” (“II.,” 1:67). “Apollo willed ( βούλετο ) victory to the Trojans” (“Il.,” 7:21).To make a public example ( δειγματίσαι )The word is kindred to δείκνυμι , to exhibit, display, point out. Here, therefore, to expose Mary to public shame (Wyc., publish her; Tynd., defame her). The word occurs in Colossians 2:15, of the victorious Saviour displaying the vanquished powers of evil as a general displays his trophies or captives in a triumphal procession. “He made a show of them openly.” A compound of the same word ( παραδειγματίζω ) appears in Hebrews 6:6, “They crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. ” [source]
First aorist active participle of ανακρινω anakrinō old verb to sift up and down, to question thoroughly, in a forensic sense (Luke 23:14; Acts 4:9; Acts 12:19; Acts 28:18). [source]
Second aorist active with usual negative of the participle. As a matter of fact the Sanhedrin did charge Jesus with blasphemy, but could not prove it (Matthew 26:65; Matthew 27:24; Luke 23:22). At this time no Gospel had probably been written, but Paul knew that Jesus was innocent. He uses this same idiom about his own innocence (Acts 28:18). [source]
Augustus (Octavius) and Tiberius refused the title of κυριος kurios (lord) as too much like rex (king) and like master and slave, but the servility of the subjects gave it to the other emperors who accepted it (Nero among them). Antoninus Pius put it on his coins. Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 105) gives an ostracon dated Aug. 4, a.d. 63 with the words “in the year nine of Nero the lord” Deissmann (op. cit., pp. 349ff.) runs a most interesting parallel “between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term κυριος kurios lord” in ostraca, papyri, inscriptions. Beyond a doubt Paul has all this fully in mind when he says in 1 Corinthians 12:3 that “no one is able to say Κυριος Ιησους Kurios Iēsous except in the Holy Spirit” (cf. also Philemon 2:11). The Christians claimed this word for Christ and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say “ Lord Caesar” and insisted on saying “Lord Jesus” when it meant his certain death. Before you (επ υμων eph' humōn). The whole company. In no sense a new trial, but an examination in the presence of these prominent men to secure data and to furnish entertainment and pleasure to Agrippa (Acts 25:22). Especially before thee Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as Acts 25:22 shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul‘s case. After examination had (της ανακρισεως γενομενης tēs anakriseōs genomenēs). Genitive absolute, “the examination having taken place.” Ανακρισις Anakrisis from ανακρινω anakrinō (cf. Acts 12:19; Acts 24:8; Acts 28:18) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. That I may have somewhat to write Ingressive aorist subjunctive σχω schō (may get) with οπως hopōs (final particle like ινα hina). Τι γραπσω Ti grapsō in indirect question after σχω schō is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a “trial,” but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament. [source]
Genitive absolute, “the examination having taken place.” Ανακρισις Anakrisis from ανακρινω anakrinō (cf. Acts 12:19; Acts 24:8; Acts 28:18) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. [source]
Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as Acts 25:22 shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul‘s case. After examination had (της ανακρισεως γενομενης tēs anakriseōs genomenēs). Genitive absolute, “the examination having taken place.” Ανακρισις Anakrisis from ανακρινω anakrinō (cf. Acts 12:19; Acts 24:8; Acts 28:18) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. That I may have somewhat to write Ingressive aorist subjunctive σχω schō (may get) with οπως hopōs (final particle like ινα hina). Τι γραπσω Ti grapsō in indirect question after σχω schō is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a “trial,” but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament. [source]
Rev., judged. Used only by Luke and Paul, and by the latter in this epistle only. By Luke, mostly of judicial examination: Luke 23:14; Acts 4:9; Acts 12:19; Acts 24:8; Acts 28:18. Of examining the Scriptures, Acts 17:11, but with the sense of proving or coming to a judgment on. The fundamental idea of the word is examination, scrutiny, following up ( ἀνά ) a series of objects or particulars in order to distinguish ( κρίνω ). This is its almost universal meaning in classical Greek. At Athens it was used technically in two senses: to examine magistrates with a view to proving their qualifications; and to examine persons concerned in a suit, so as to prepare the matter for trial, as a grand jury. The meaning judged is, at best, inferential, and the Rev. inserts examined in the margin. Bishop Lightfoot says: “ Ανακρίνειν is neither to judge nor to discern; but to examine, investigate, inquire into, question, as it is rightly translated, 1 Corinthians 9:3; 1 Corinthians 10:25, 1 Corinthians 10:27. The apostle condemns all these impatient human praejudicia which anticipate the final judgment, reserving his case for the great tribunal, where at length all the evidence will be forthcoming and a satisfactory verdict can be given. Meanwhile the process of gathering evidence has begun; an ἀνάκρισις investigationis indeed being held, not, however, by these self-appointed magistrates, but by one who alone has the authority to institute the inquiry, and the ability to sift the facts” (“On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament”). See, further, on 1 Corinthians 4:3, 1 Corinthians 4:4. [source]