rwp - guilty

rwp@1Corinthians:1:17 @{For Christ sent me not to baptize} (\ou gar apesteilen me Christos baptizein\). The negative \ou\ goes not with the infinitive, but with \apesteilen\ (from \apostell, apostolos\, apostle). {For Christ did not send me to be a baptizer} (present active infinitive, linear action) like John the Baptist. {But to preach the gospel} (\alla euaggelizesthai\). This is Paul's idea of his mission from Christ, as Christ's apostle, to be {a gospelizer}. This led, of course, to baptism, as a result, but Paul usually had it done by others as Peter at Caesarea ordered the baptism to be done, apparently by the six brethren with him (Acts:10:48|). Paul is fond of this late Greek verb from \euaggelion\ and sometimes uses both verb and substantive as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1| "the gospel which I gospelized unto you." {Not in wisdom of words} (\ouk en sophii logou\). Note \ou\, not \m\ (the subjective negative), construed with \apesteilen\ rather than the infinitive. Not in wisdom of speech (singular). Preaching was Paul's forte, but it was not as a pretentious philosopher or professional rhetorician that Paul appeared before the Corinthians (1Corinthians:2:1-5|)...Apollos may have been guilty of...(Lightfoot). {Lest the cross of Christ should be made void} (\hina m kenthi ho stauros tou Christou\). Negative purpose (\hina m\) with first aorist passive subjunctive, effective aorist, of \keno\, old verb from \kenos\, to make empty. In Paul's preaching the Cross of Christ is the central theme. Hence Paul did not fall into the snare of too much emphasis on baptism nor into too little on the death of Christ. "This expression shows clearly the stress which St. Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great moral spectacle, and so the crowning point of a life of self-renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation" (Lightfoot).

rwp@1Corinthians:3:18 @{Let no man deceive himself} (\Mdeis heauton exapat\)...some of them were guilty of...(\m\ and the present imperative). Excited partisans can easily excite themselves to a pious phrenzy, hypnotize themselves with their own supposed devotion to truth. {Thinketh that he is wise} (\dokei sophos einai\). Condition of first class and assumed to be true. Predicate nominative \sophos\ with the infinitive to agree with subject of \dokei\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1038). Paul claimed to be "wise" himself in verse 10| and he desires that the claimant to wisdom may become wise (\hina gentai sophos\, purpose clause with \hina\ and subjunctive) by becoming a fool (\mros genesth\, second aorist middle imperative of \ginomai\) as this age looks at him. This false wisdom of the world (1:18-20,23; strkjv@2:14|), this self-conceit, has led to strife and wrangling. Cut it out.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:4 @{For I know nothing against myself} (\ouden gar emauti sunoida\). Not a statement of fact, but an hypothesis to show the unreliability of mere complacent self-satisfaction. Note the use of \sunoida\ (second perfect active indicative with dative (disadvantage) of the reflexive pronoun) for guilty knowledge against oneself (cf. strkjv@Acts:5:2; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@14:6|). {Yet} (\all'\). Adversative use of \alla\. {Amos:I not hereby justified} (\ouk en touti dedikaimai\)...Most prisoners plead "not guilty." Who...(\ho anakrinn me\). Probably, who examines me and then passes on my fidelity (\pistos\ in verse 2|).

rwp@1Corinthians:11:27 @{Unworthily} (\anaxis\). Old adverb, only here in N.T., not genuine in verse 29|. Paul defines his meaning in verse 29f|. He does not say or imply that we ourselves must be "worthy" (\axioi\) to partake of the Lord's Supper. No one would ever partake on those terms. Many pious souls have abstained from observing the ordinance through false exegesis here. {Shall be guilty} (\enochos estai\). Shall be held guilty as in strkjv@Matthew:5:21f.|...which see. Shall be guilty of...(cf. strkjv@Hebrews:6:6; strkjv@10:29|).

rwp@1John:2:28 @{And now} (\kai nun\). John tenderly repeats the exhortation, "keep on abiding in him." {If he shall be manifested} (\ean phanerthi\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and first aorist passive subjunctive as in verse 19; strkjv@Colossians:3:3|. A clear reference to the second coming of Christ which may be at any time. {That we have boldness} (\hina schmen parrsian\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the ingressive second aorist active subjunctive of \ech\, "that we may get boldness." {And not be ashamed} (\kai m aischunthmen\). Likewise negative purpose (after John's fashion) with \m\ and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \aischun\, to put to shame. {Before him} (\ap' autou\)...away from Christ in guilty surprise....2Thessalonians:1:9| for this use of \apo\ (from the face of the Lord).

rwp@2Thessalonians:1:8 @{Rendering} (\didontos\). Genitive of present active participle of \didmi\, to give, agreeing with \Isou\. {Vengeance} (\ekdiksin\). Late word from \ekdike\, to vindicate, in Polybius and LXX. {To them that know not God} (\tois m eidosin theon\). Dative plural of perfect active participle \eids\. Apparently chiefly Gentiles in mind (1Thessalonians:4:3; strkjv@Galatians:4:8; strkjv@Romans:1:28; strkjv@Ephesians:2:12|)...though Jews are also guilty of...(Romans:2:14|). {And to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus} (\kai tois m hupakouousin ti euaggelii tou kuriou hmn Isou\). Repetition of the article looks like another class and so Jews (Romans:10:16|). Both Jews as instigators and Gentiles as officials (\politarchs\) were involved in the persecution in Thessalonica (Acts:17:5-9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:6|). Note the use of "gospel" here as in strkjv@Mark:1:15| "believe in the gospel."

rwp@Acts:7:57 @{Stopped their ears} (\suneschon ta ta autn\). Second aorist active of \sunech\...affected to believe Stephen guilty of...(cf. strkjv@Matthew:26:65|). {Rushed upon him with one accord} (\hrmsan homothumadon ep' auton\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \horma\, to rush impetuously as the hogs did down the cliff when the demons entered them (Luke:8:33|). No vote was taken by the Sanhedrin. No scruple was raised about not having the right to put him to death (John:8:31|). It may have taken place after Pilate's recall and before his successor came or Pilate, if there, just connived at such an incident that did not concern Rome. At any rate it was mob violence like modern lynching that took the law into the hands of the Sanhedrin without further formalities. {Out of the city} (\ek ts poles\). To keep from defiling the place with blood. But they sought to kill Paul as soon as they got him out of the temple area (Acts:21:30f.|). {Stoned} (\elithoboloun\). Imperfect active indicative of \lithobole\, began to stone, from \lithobolos\ (\lithos\, stone, \ball\, to throw), late Greek verb, several times in the N.T. as strkjv@Luke:13:34|. Stoning was the Jewish punishment for blasphemy (Leviticus:24:14-16|). {The witnesses} (\hoi martures\). The false testifiers against Stephen suborned by the Pharisees (Acts:6:11,13|). These witnesses had the privilege of casting the first stones (Deuteronomy:13:10; strkjv@17:7|) against the first witness for Christ with death (_martyr_ in our modern sense of the word). {At the feet of a young man named Saul} (\para tous podas neaniou kaloumenou Saulou\). Beside (\para\) the feet. Our first introduction to the man who became the greatest of all followers of Jesus Christ. Evidently he was not one of the "witnesses" against Stephen, for he was throwing no stones at him. But evidently he was already a leader in the group of Pharisees. We know from later hints from Saul (Paul) himself that he had been a pupil of Gamaliel (Acts:22:3|). Gamaliel, as the Pharisaic leader in the Sanhedrin, was probably on hand to hear the accusations against Stephen by the Pharisees. But, if so, he does not raise his voice against this mob violence. Saul does not seem to be aware that he is going contrary to the views of his master, though pupils often go further than their teachers.

rwp@Acts:19:37 @{Neither robbers of temples} (\oute hierosulous\). Common word in Greek writers from \hieron\, temple, and \sula\...The Jews were sometimes guilty of...(Romans:2:22|), since the heathen temples often had vast treasures like banks. The ancients felt as strongly about temple-robbing as westerners used to feel about a horse-thief. {Nor blasphemers of our goddess} (\oute blasphmountas tn theon hmn\). Nor those who blasphemed our goddess. That is to say, these men (Gaius and Aristarchus) as Christians had so conducted themselves (Colossians:4:5|) that no charge could be placed against them either in act (temple-robbery) or word (blasphemy). They had done a rash thing since these men are innocent. Paul had used tact in Ephesus as in Athens in avoiding illegalities.

rwp@Acts:23:5 @{I wist not} (\ouk idein\). Second past perfect of \oida\...him. He had been guilty of...22:18| (LXX) shows and confesses his fault, but the rebuke was deserved. Jesus did not threaten (1Peter:2:23|) when smitten on the cheek (John:18:22|), but he did protest against the act and did not turn the other cheek.

rwp@Acts:25:8 @{While Paul said in his defence} (\tou Paulou apologoumenou\). Genitive absolute again, present middle participle of \apologeomai\, old verb to make defence as in strkjv@19:33; strkjv@24:10; strkjv@26:1,2|. The recitative \hoti\ of the Greek before a direct quotation is not reproduced in English. {Have I sinned at all} (\ti hmarton\). Constative aorist active indicative of \hamartan\, to miss, to sin. The \ti\ is cognate accusative (or adverbial accusative). Either makes sense. Paul sums up the charges under the three items of law of the Jews, the temple, the Roman state (Caesar)...proved, would render Paul guilty of...(\majestas\). Nero was Emperor A.D. 54-68, the last of the emperors with any hereditary claim to the name "Caesar." Soon it became merely a title like Kaiser and Czar (modern derivatives). In Acts only "Caesar" and "Augustus" are employed for the Emperor, not "King" (\Basileus\) as from the time of Domitian. Paul's denial is complete and no proof had been presented. Luke was apparently present at the trial.

rwp@James:2:4 @{Are ye not divided in your own mind?} (\ou diekrithte en heautois;\). First aorist (gnomic) passive indicative of \diakrin\, to separate, conclusion of the third-class condition (future) in a rhetorical question in the gnomic aorist (as if past) with ou expecting an affirmative answer. For this idiom (gnomic aorist) in a conclusion of the third-class condition see strkjv@1Corinthians:7:28|. "Were ye not divided in (among) yourselves?" Cf. strkjv@1:6; strkjv@Matthew:21:21|. {Judges with evil thoughts} (\kritai dialogismn ponrn\). Descriptive genitive as in strkjv@1:25|. \Dialogismos\ is an old word for reasoning (Romans:1:21|). Reasoning is not necessarily evil, but see strkjv@Matthew:15:19| (\ponroi\) and strkjv@Mark:7:21| (\kakoi\) for evil reasonings, and strkjv@1Timothy:2:8| without an adjective. See strkjv@James:1:8; strkjv@4:8| for \dipsuchos\. They are guilty of partiality (a divided mind) as between the two strangers.

rwp@James:2:10 @{Whosoever shall keep} (\hostis trsi\). Indefinite relative clause with \hostis\ and aorist active subjunctive of \tre\, old verb, to guard (from \tros\ guarding), as in strkjv@Matthew:27:36|, without \an\ (though often used, but only one example of modal \ean=an\ in James, viz., strkjv@4:4|). This modal \an\ (\ean\) merely interprets the sentence as either more indefinite or more definite (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 957f.). {And yet stumble in one point} (\ptaisi de en heni\). First aorist active subjunctive also of \ptai\, old verb, to trip, as in strkjv@3:2; strkjv@Romans:11:11|. "It is incipient falling" (Hort). {He is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect indicative of \ginomai\, "he has become" by that one stumble. {Guilty of all} (\pantn enochos\). Genitive of the crime with \enochos\, old adjective from \enech\ (to hold on or in), held in, as in strkjv@Mark:3:29|. This is law. To be a lawbreaker one does not have to violate all the laws, but he must keep all the law (\holon ton nomon\) to be a law-abiding citizen, even laws that one does not like. See strkjv@Matthew:5:18f.|...omit one, he is guilty for...

rwp@James:5:12 @{Above all things} (\pro pantn\). No connection with what immediately precedes. Probably an allusion to the words of Jesus (Matthew:5:34-37|). It is not out of place here. See the same phrase in strkjv@1Peter:4:8|. Robinson (_Ephesians_, p. 279) cites like examples from the papyri at the close of letters. Here it means "But especially" (Ropes). {Swear not} (\m omnuete\). Prohibition of the habit (...quit doing it if guilty...) with \m\ and the present active imperative of \omnu\. The various oaths (profanity) forbidden (\mte\, thrice) are in the accusative case after \omnuete\, according to rule (\ouranon, gn, horkon\)...they were not really guilty of...{Let be} (\t\). Imperative active third singular of \eimi\, late form (1Corinthians:16:22|) for \est\. "Your yea be yea" (and no more). A different form from that in strkjv@Matthew:5:37|. {That ye fall not under judgment} (\hina m hupo krisin peste\). Negative purpose with \hina m\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \pipt\, to fall. See \hina m krithte\ in verse 9|. \Krisis\ (from \krin\) is the act of judging rather than the judgment rendered (\krima\ strkjv@James:3:1|).

rwp@John:4:29 @{All things that ever I did} (\panta ha epoisa\). {Ha}, not \hosa\ (as many as)...the Greek. But a guilty conscience...(verse 18f.|) led her to exaggerate a bit. {Can this be the Christ?} (\mti houtos estin ho Christos;\). She is already convinced herself (verses 26f.|), but she puts the question in a hesitant form to avoid arousing opposition. With a woman's intuition she avoided \ouk\ and uses \mti\. She does not take sides, but piques their curiosity.

rwp@John:8:5 @{Commanded} (\eneteilato\). First aorist middle indicative of \entell\, old verb to enjoin (Matthew:4:6|). {To stone such} (\tas toiautas lithazein\). Present active infinitive of \lithaz\ (from \lithos\)...of a betrothed woman guilty of...(Deuteronomy:22:23f.|)...a priest's daughter if guilty. In...(Leviticus:20:10; strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:22|). The Talmud prescribes strangulation. This case may have strictly come within the regulation as a betrothed virgin. {What then sayest thou of her?} (\su oun ti legeis;\). "Thou then, what dost thou say?" This was the whole point, to catch Jesus, not to punish the woman.

rwp@John:8:53 @{Art thou greater than our father Abraham?} (\M su meizn ei tou patros hmn Abraam;\). Negative answer expected by \m\ with ablative case of comparison in \patros\ after \meizn\. The question was designed to put Jesus in a difficult position, for Abraham and the prophets all "died." They do not see that Jesus uses death in a different sense. {Whom makest thou thyself?} (\tina seauton poieis;\). \Seauton\ is predicate accusative with \poieis\...suspect that Jesus is guilty of...5:18| in making himself equal with God. Later they will make it specifically (10:33; strkjv@19:7|). They set a trap for Jesus for this purpose.

rwp@John:10:24 @{Came round about him} (\ekuklsan auton\). Aorist active indicative of \kuklo\, old verb from \kuklos\ (cycle, circle). See strkjv@Acts:14:20| for the circle of disciples around Paul when stoned. Evidently the hostile Jews cherished the memory of the stinging rebuke given them by Jesus when here last, particularly the allegory of the Good Shepherd (10:1-19|), in which he drew so sharply their own picture. {How long dost thou hold us in suspense?} (\hes pote tn psuchn hmn aireis;\). Literally, "Until when dost thou lift up our soul?" But what do they mean by this metaphor? \Air\ is common enough to lift up the eyes (John:11:41|), the voice (Luke:17:13|), and in strkjv@Psalms:25:1; strkjv@86:4| (Josephus, _Ant_. III. ii. 3) we have "to lift up the soul." We are left to the context to judge the precise meaning. Clearly the Jews mean to imply doubt and suspense. The next remark makes it clear. {If thou art the Christ} (\ei su ei ho Christos\). Condition of first class assumed to be true for the sake of argument. {Tell us plainly} (\eipon hmin parrsii\). Conclusion with \eipon\ rather than the usual \eipe\ as if first aorist active imperative like \luson\. The point is in "plainly" (\parrsii\), adverb as in strkjv@7:13,26| which see. That is to say "I am the Christ" in so many words. See strkjv@11:14; strkjv@16:29| for the same use of \parrsii\. The demand seemed fair enough on the surface. They had made it before when here at the feast of tabernacles (8:25|). Jesus declined to use the word \Christos\ (Messiah) then as now because of the political bearing of the word in their minds. The populace in Galilee had once tried to make him king in opposition to Pilate (John:6:14f.|). When Jesus does confess on oath before Caiaphas that he is the Christ the Son of God (Mark:14:61f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:63f.|)...Sanhedrin instantly vote him guilty of...

rwp@John:15:17 @{That ye may love one another} (\hina agapte alllous\). Repetition of strkjv@13:34; strkjv@15:12|...the disciples had been guilty of...(Luke:22:24; strkjv@John:13:5,15|).

rwp@John:19:5 @{Wearing} (\phorn\). Present active participle of \phore\, an early frequentative of \pher\, denoting a continual wearing, though not true here (only temporary). Jesus bore the mockery with kingly dignity as part of the shame of the Cross (Hebrews:12:2|). {Behold, the man} (\Idou ho anthrpos\). _Ecce Homo!_...pitiable figure should be guilty of...

rwp@Luke:7:49 @{Who even forgiveth sins} (\hos kai hamartias aphisin\). Present indicative active of same verb, \aphimi\...the Pharisees considered Jesus guilty of...(Luke:5:21|). Jesus read their inmost thoughts as he always does.

rwp@Luke:16:3 @{Within himself} (\en heauti\)...knew that he was guilty of...{Taketh away} (\aphaireitai\). Present (linear) middle indicative of \aphaire\, old verb to take away. Here the middle present means, He is taking away for himself. {To beg I am not ashamed} (\epaitein aischunomai\). The infinitive with \aischunomai\ means ashamed to begin to beg. The participle, \epaitn aischunomai\ would mean, ashamed while begging, ashamed of begging while doing it.

rwp@Mark:6:14 @{Heard} (\kousen\). This tour of Galilee by the disciples in pairs wakened all Galilee, for the name of Jesus thus became known (\phaneron\) or known till even Herod heard of it in the palace. "A palace is late in hearing spiritual news" (Bengel). {Therefore do these powers work in him} (\dia touto energousin hai dunameis en auti\). "A snatch of Herod's theology and philosophy" (Morison). John wrought no miracles (John:10:41|)..."Herod's superstition and his guilty conscience...(Gould). Our word _energy_ is this same Greek word here used (\energousin\). It means at work. Miraculous powers were at work in Jesus whatever the explanation. This all agreed, but they differed widely as to his personality, whether Elijah or another of the prophets or John the Baptist. Herod was at first much perplexed (\diporei\, strkjv@Luke:9:7| and strkjv@Mark:6:20|).

rwp@Mark:11:17 @{For all the nations} (\psin tois ethnesin\). Mark alone has this phrase from strkjv@Isaiah:56:7; strkjv@Jeremiah:7:11|...the temple authorities were guilty of...

rwp@Mark:16:14 @{To the eleven themselves} (\autois tois hendeka\). Both terms, eleven and twelve (John:20:24|), occur after the death of Judas. There were others present on this first Sunday evening according to strkjv@Luke:24:33|. {Afterward} (\husteron\) is here alone in Mark, though common in Matthew. {Upbraided} (\neidisen\). They were guilty of unbelief (\apistian\) and hardness of heart (\sklrokardian\). Doubt is not necessarily a mark of intellectual superiority. One must steer between credulity and doubt. That problem is a vital one today in all educated circles. Some of the highest men of science today are devout believers in the Risen Christ. Luke explains how the disciples were upset by the sudden appearance of Christ and were unable to believe the evidence of their own senses (Luke:24:38-43|).

rwp@Matthew:5:10 @{That have been persecuted for righteousness' sake} (\hoi dedigmenoi heneken dikaiosuns\)...goodness, not who are guilty of...

rwp@Matthew:14:2 @{His servants} (\tois paisin autou\). Literally "boys," but here the courtiers, not the menials of the palace. {Work in him} (\energousin\). Cf. our "energize." "The powers of the invisible world, vast and vague in the king's imagination" (Bruce). John wrought no miracles, but one _redivivus_...powers. Songs:Herod argued. A guilty conscience...(Bruce). Cf. Josephus (_War_, I. xxx. 7) for the story that the ghosts of Alexander and Aristobulus haunted the palace of Herod the Great. There were many conjectures about Jesus as a result of this tour of Galilee and Herod Antipas feared this one.

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autn moicheuthnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenn gamsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\m epi porneii\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha or moicheu\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|...but not of the guilty one....

rwp@Matthew:23:24 @{Strain out the gnat} (\diulizontes ton knpa\). By filtering through (\dia\), not the "straining at" in swallowing so crudely suggested by the misprint in the A.V. {Swallow the camel} (\tn de kamlon katapinontes\). Gulping or drinking down the camel. An oriental hyperbole like that in strkjv@19:24|. See also strkjv@5:29,30; strkjv@17:20; strkjv@21:21|. Both insects and camels were ceremonially unclean (Leviticus:11:4,20,23,42|)...the Sabbath is as guilty as...(Jer. _Shabb._ 107).

rwp@Matthew:26:66 @{He is worthy of death} (\enochos thanatou estin\). Held in the bonds of death (\en, ech\) as actually guilty with the genitive (\thanatou\). The dative expresses liability as in strkjv@Matthew:5:21| (\ti krisei\) and as \eis\ and the accusative (Matthew:5:22|). They took the vote though it was at night and they no longer had the power of death since the Romans took it away from them. Death was the penalty of blasphemy (Leviticus:24:15|). But they enjoyed taking it as their answer to his unanswerable speeches in the temple that dreadful Tuesday a few days before. It was unanimous save that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus did not agree. They were probably absent and not even invited as being under suspicion for being secret disciples of Christ.

rwp@Matthew:27:17 @{Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ?} (\Barabbn Isoun ton legomenon Christon;\). Pilate was catching at straws or seeking any loophole to escape condemning a harmless lunatic or exponent of a superstitious cult such as he deemed Jesus to be, certainly in no political sense a rival of Caesar. The Jews interpreted "Christ" for Pilate to be a claim to be King of the Jews in opposition to Caesar, "a most unprincipled proceeding" (Bruce). Songs:he bethought him of the time-honoured custom at the passover of releasing to the people "a prisoner whom they wished" (\desmion hon thelon\). No parallel case has been found, but Josephus mentions the custom (_Ant_. xx. 9,3). Barabbas was for some reason a popular hero, a notable (\epismon\), if not notorious, prisoner, leader of an insurrection or revolution (Mark:15:7|)...against Rome, and so guilty of...(\tina thelete apolus;\), either two questions in one (asyndeton) or the ellipse of \hina\ before \apolus\. See the same idiom in verse 21|. But Pilate's question tested the Jews as well as himself. It tests all men today. Some manuscripts add the name Jesus to Barabbas and that makes it all the sharper. Jesus Barabbas or Jesus Christ?

rwp@Matthew:27:39 @{Wagging their heads} (\kinountes tas kephalas autn\). Probably in mock commiseration. "Jews again appear on the scene, with a malice like that shewn in the trial before the Sanhedrin" (McNeile)...worst enemies could be guilty of...(Bruce). These passers-by (\paratroumenoi\) look on Jesus as one now down and out. They jeer at the fallen foe.

rwp@Revelation:2:20 @{Thou sufferest} (\apheis\). Late vernacular present active indicative second person singular as if from a form \aphe\ instead of the usual \aphimi\ forms. {The woman Jezebel} (\tn gunaika Iezabel\)...of Ahab who was guilty of...(1Kings:16:31; strkjv@2Kings:9:22|) and who sought to drive out the worship of God from Israel. Some MSS. here (A Q 40 min.s) have \sou\ (thy wife, thy woman Ramsay makes it), but surely Aleph C P rightly reject \sou\. Otherwise she is the pastor's wife! {Which calleth herself a prophetess} (\h legousa heautn prophtin\). Nominative articular participle of \leg\ in apposition with the accusative \gunaika\ like \ho martus\ in apposition with \Antipas\ in strkjv@2:13|. \Prophtis\ is an old word, feminine form for \prophts\, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:2:36| (Anna), two extremes surely. See strkjv@Acts:21:9| for the daughters of Philip who prophesied. {And she teacheth and seduceth} (\kai didaskei kai plani\). A resolution of the participles (\didaskousa kai plansa\) into finite verbs (present active indicatives) as in strkjv@1:5f|. This woman was not a real prophetess, but a false one with loud claims and loose living. One is puzzled to know how such a woman had so much shrewdness and sex-appeal as to lead astray the servants of God in that church. The church tolerated the Nicolaitans and this leader whose primary object was sexual immorality (Charles) and became too much involved with her to handle the heresy.

rwp@Revelation:2:22 @{I do cast} (\ball\). Futuristic present active indicative rather than the future \bal\, since judgment is imminent. {Into a bed} (\eis klinn\). "A bed of sickness in contrast with the bed of adultery" (Beckwith). {Them that commit adultery with her} (\tous moicheuontas met' auts\). Present active articular participle accusative plural of \moicheu\...of the woman Jezebel, guilty of...\porneia\ (fornication, verse 21|) and \moicheia\ (adultery), works of Jezebel of old and of this Jezebel. There may be also an allusion to the spiritual adultery (2Corinthians:11:2|) towards God and Christ as of old (Jeremiah:3:8; strkjv@5:7; strkjv@Ezekiel:16:22|). {Except they repent} (\ean m metanosousin\). Condition of first class with \ean m\ and the future active indicative of \metanoe\, put in this vivid form rather than the aorist subjunctive (\-sin\) third-class condition. {Of her works} (\ek tn ergn auts\). \Auts\ (her) correct rather than \autn\ (their). Jezebel was chiefly responsible.

rwp@Revelation:14:9 @{A third} (\tritos\). "The third of this succession of herald angels denounces the Caesar-worshippers" (Swete). Cf. strkjv@13:12ff|. This counter proclamation (verses 9-12|) warns those tempted to yield to the threats of the second beast about boycott and death (13:11-17|). {If any man worshippeth the beast and his image} (\ei tis proskunei to thrion kai tn eikona autou\). Condition of first class challenging those afraid of the beast. Note accusative (\thrion\) after \proskunei\, not dative as in verse 7|. {And receiveth a mark} (\kai lambanei charagma\). Carries on the same condition and picks up the very language of strkjv@13:16|. These Caesar-worshippers are guilty of an "eternal sin" (Mark:3:29|).

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)...on the Christians, though guilty of..._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.

CONCORD guilty