NONE.filter - rwp Pharisaic:

rwp@Acts:5:34 @{Gamaliel} (\Gamalil\). The grandson of Hillel, teacher of Paul (Acts:22:3|), later president of the Sanhedrin, and the first of the seven rabbis termed "Rabban." It is held by some that he was one of the doctors who heard the Boy Jesus in the temple (Luke:2:47|) and that he was a secret disciple like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, but there is no evidence of either position. Besides, he appears here as a loyal Pharisee and "a doctor of the law" (\nomodidaskalos\). This word appears already in strkjv@Luke:5:17| of the Pharisaic doctors bent on criticizing Jesus, which see. Paul uses it of Judaizing Christians (1Timothy:1:7|). Like other great rabbis he had a great saying: "Procure thyself a teacher, avoid being in doubt; and do not accustom thyself to give tithes by guess." He was a man of judicial temper and not prone to go off at a tangent, though his brilliant young pupil Saul went to the limit about Stephen without any restraint on the part of Gamaliel so far as the record goes. Gamaliel champions the cause of the apostles as a Pharisee to score a point against the Sadducees. He acts as a theological opportunist, not as a disciple of Christ. He felt that a temporizing policy was best. There are difficulties in this speech of Gamaliel and it is not clear how Luke obtained the data for the address. It is, of course, possible that Saul was present and made notes of it for Luke afterwards. {Had in honour of all the people} (\timios panti ti lai\). Ethical dative. \Timios\ from \tim\, old word meaning precious, dear. {The men} (\tous anthrpous\). Correct text as in verse 35|, not "the apostles" as Textus Receptus.

rwp@Acts:7:57 @{Stopped their ears} (\suneschon ta ta autn\). Second aorist active of \sunech\, to hold together. They held their ears together with their hands and affected to believe Stephen guilty of blasphemy (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:11:2 @{They that were of the circumcision} (\hoi ek peritoms\). Literally, those of circumcision (on the side of circumcision, of the circumcision party). The phrase in strkjv@10:46| is confined to the six brethren with Peter in Caesarea (11:12|). That can hardly be the meaning here for it would mean that they were the ones who brought the charge against Peter though Hort takes this view. All the disciples in Jerusalem were Jews so that it can hardly mean the whole body. In strkjv@Galatians:2:12| the phrase has the narrower sense of the Judaizing or Pharisaic wing of the disciples (Acts:15:5|) who made circumcision necessary for all Gentile converts. Probably here by anticipation Luke so describes the beginning of that great controversy. The objectors probably did not know of Peter's vision at Joppa, but only of the revolutionary conduct of Peter in Caesarea. These extremists who spoke probably had abundant sympathy in their protest. The apostles are mentioned in verse 1|, but are not referred to in verse 2|. Apparently they are in contrast with the circumcision party in the church. {Contended} (\diekrinonto\). Imperfect middle of the common verb \diakrin\, to {separate}. Here to separate oneself apart (\dia\), to take sides against, to make a cleavage (\dia\, two, in two) as in strkjv@Jude:1:9|. Songs:Peter is at once put on the defensive as the contention went on. It is plain that Peter was not regarded as any kind of pope or overlord.

rwp@Acts:15:5 @{But there rose up} (\exanestsan de\). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive). Note both \ex\ and \an\. These men rose up out of the crowd at a critical moment. They were believers in Christ (\pepisteukotes\, having believed), but were still members of "the sect of the Pharisees" (\ts haireses tn Pharisain\). Evidently they still held to the Pharisaic narrowness shown in the attack on Peter (11:2f.|). Note the dogmatism of their "must" (\dei\) after the opposition of Paul and Barnabas to their "except" (\ean me\) at Antioch (15:1|). They are unconvinced and expected to carry the elders with them. Codex Bezae says that they had appealed to the elders (15:2,5|). At any rate they have made the issue in open meeting at the height of the jubilation. It is plain from verse 6| that this meeting was adjourned, for another gathering came together then. It is here that the private conference of which Paul speaks in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| took place. It was Paul's chance to see the leaders in Jerusalem (Peter, James, and John) and he won them over to his view of Gentile liberty from the Mosaic law so that the next public conference (Acts:15:6-29|) ratified heartily the views of Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and John. It was a diplomatic triumph of the first order and saved Christianity from the bondage of Jewish ceremonial sacramentalism. Songs:far as we know this is the only time that Paul and John met face to face, the great spirits in Christian history after Jesus our Lord. It is a bit curious to see men saying today that Paul surrendered about Titus and had him circumcised for the sake of peace, the very opposite of what he says in Galatians, "to whom I yielded, no not for an hour." Titus as a Greek was a red flag to the Judaizers and to the compromisers, but Paul stood his ground.

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:22:3 @{I am a Jew} (\Eg eimi anr Ioudaios\). Note use of \Eg\ for emphasis. Paul recounts his Jewish advantages or privileges with manifest pride as in strkjv@Acts:26:4f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:22; strkjv@Galatians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {Born} (\gegennmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \genna\. See above in strkjv@21:39| for the claim of Tarsus as his birth-place. He was a Hellenistic Jew, not an Aramaean Jew (cf. strkjv@Acts:6:1|). {Brought up} (\anatethrammenos\). Perfect passive participle again of \anatreph\, to nurse up, to nourish up, common old verb, but in the N.T. only here, strkjv@7:20ff.|, and MSS. in strkjv@Luke:4:16|. The implication is that Paul was sent to Jerusalem while still young, "from my youth" (26:4|), how young we do not know, possibly thirteen or fourteen years old. He apparently had not seen Jesus in the flesh (2Corinthians:5:16|). {At the feet of Gamaliel} (\pros tous podas Gamalil\). The rabbis usually sat on a raised seat with the pupils in a circle around either on lower seats or on the ground. Paul was thus nourished in Pharisaic Judaism as interpreted by Gamaliel, one of the lights of Judaism. For remarks on Gamaliel see chapter strkjv@5:34ff|. He was one of the seven Rabbis to whom the Jews gave the highest title \Rabban\ (our Rabbi). \Rabbi\ (my teacher) was next, the lowest being \Rab\ (teacher). "As Aquinas among the schoolmen was called _Doctor Angelicus_, and Bonaventura _Doctor Seraphicus_, so Gamaliel was called _the Beauty of the Law_" (Conybeare and Howson). {Instructed} (\pepaideumenos\). Perfect passive participle again (each participle beginning a clause), this time of \paideu\, old verb to train a child (\pais\) as in strkjv@7:22| which see. In this sense also in strkjv@1Timothy:1:20; strkjv@Titus:2:12|. Then to chastise as in strkjv@Luke:23:16,22| (which see); strkjv@2Timothy:2:25; strkjv@Hebrews:12:6f|. {According to the strict manner} (\kata akribeian\). Old word, only here in N.T. Mathematical accuracy, minute exactness as seen in the adjective in strkjv@26:5|. See also strkjv@Romans:10:2; Gal strkjv@1:4; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {Of our fathers} (\patriou\). Old adjective from \pater\, only here and strkjv@24:14| in N.T. Means descending from father to son, especially property and other inherited privileges. \Patrikos\ (patrician) refers more to personal attributes and affiliations. {Being zealous for God} (\zlts huparchn tou theou\). Not adjective, but substantive {zealot} (same word used by James of the thousands of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, strkjv@21:20| which see) with objective genitive \tou theou\ (for God). See also verse 14; strkjv@28:17; strkjv@2Timothy:1:3| where he makes a similar claim. Songs:did Peter (Acts:3:13; strkjv@5:30|) and Stephen (7:32|). Paul definitely claims, whatever freedom he demanded for Gentile Christians, to be personally "a zealot for God" "even as ye all are this day" (\kaths pantes humeis este smeron\). In his conciliation he went to the limit and puts himself by the side of the mob in their zeal for the law, mistaken as they were about him. He was generous surely to interpret their fanatical frenzy as zeal for God. But Paul is sincere as he proceeds to show by appeal to his own conduct.

rwp@Colossians:2:16 @{Let no one judge you} (\m tis humas krinet\). Prohibition present active imperative third singular, forbidding the habit of passing judgment in such matters. For \krin\ see on ¯Matthew:7:1|. Paul has here in mind the ascetic regulations and practices of one wing of the Gnostics (possibly Essenic or even Pharisaic influence). He makes a plea for freedom in such matters on a par with that in strkjv@1Corinthians:8-9; strkjv@Romans:14; 15|. The Essenes went far beyond the Mosaic regulations. For the Jewish feasts see on ¯Galatians:4:10|. Josephus (_Ant_. III. 10, 1) expressly explains the "seventh day" as called "_sabbata_" (plural form as here, an effort to transliterate the Aramaic _sabbathah_).

rwp@Galatians:4:9 @{Now that ye have come to know God} (\nun de gnontes\). Fine example of the ingressive second aorist active participle of \ginsk\, come to know by experience through faith in Christ. {Rather to be known of God} (\mallon de gnsthentes hupo theou\). First aorist passive participle of the same verb. He quickly turns it round to the standpoint of God's elective grace reaching them (verse 6|). {How} (\ps\). "A question full of wonder" (Bengel). See strkjv@1:6|. {Turn ye back again?} (\epistrephete palin?\). Present active indicative, "Are ye turning again?" See \metatithesthe\ in strkjv@1:6|. {The weak and beggarly rudiments} (\ta asthen kai ptcha stoicheia\). The same \stoicheia\ in verse 3| from which they had been delivered, "weak and beggarly," still in their utter impotence from the Pharisaic legalism and the philosophical and religious legalism and the philosophical and religious quests of the heathen as shown by Angus's _The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World_. These were eagerly pursued by many, but they were shadows when caught. It is pitiful today to see some men and women leave Christ for will o' the wisps of false philosophy. {Over again} (\palin anthen\). Old word, from above (\an\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:51|, from the first (Luke:1:3|), then "over again" as here, back to where they were before (in slavery to rites and rules).

rwp@James:1:26 @{Thinketh himself to be religious} (\dokei thrskos einai\). Condition of first class (\ei-dokei\). \Thrskos\ (of uncertain etymology, perhaps from \threomai\, to mutter forms of prayer) is predicate nominative after \einai\, agreeing with the subject of \dokei\ (either "he seems" or "he thinks"). This source of self-deception is in saying and doing. The word \thrskos\ is found nowhere else except in lexicons. Hatch (_Essays in Biblical Greek_, pp. 55-57) shows that it refers to the external observances of public worship, such as church attendance, almsgiving, prayer, fasting (Matthew:6:1-18|). It is the Pharisaic element in Christian worship. {While he bridleth not his tongue} (\m chalinaggn glssan heautou\). "Not bridling his own tongue." A reference to verse 19| and the metaphor is repeated in strkjv@3:12|. This is the earliest known example of the compound \chalinagge\ (\chalinos\, bridle \ago\, to lead). It occurs also in Lucian. The picture is that of a man putting the bridle in his own mouth, not in that of another. See the similar metaphor of muzzling (\phimo\) one's mouth (Matthew:22:12| \ephimth\). {Deceiveth} (\apatn\). Present active participle from \apat\ (deceit). He plays a trick on himself. {Religion} (\thrskeia\). Later form of \thrski\ (Herodotus) from \thrskos\ above. It means religious worship in its external observances, religious exercise or discipline, but not to the exclusion of reverence. In the N.T. we have it also in strkjv@Acts:26:5| of Judaism and in strkjv@Colossians:2:18| of worshipping angels. It is vain (\mataios\, feminine form same as masculine) or empty. Comes to nothing.

rwp@John:3:5 @{Of water and the Spirit} (\ex hudatos kai pneumatos\). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah. Why does Jesus add \ex hudatos\ here? In verse 3| we have "\anthen\" (from above) which is repeated in verse 7|, while in verse 8| we have only \ek tou pneumatos\ (of the Spirit) in the best manuscripts. Many theories exist. One view makes baptism, referred to by \ex hudatos\ (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus (3,5,7|)? Calvin makes water and Spirit refer to the one act (the cleansing work of the Spirit). Some insist on the language in verse 6| as meaning the birth of the flesh coming in a sac of water in contrast to the birth of the Spirit. One wonders after all what was the precise purpose of Jesus with Nicodemus, the Pharisaic ceremonialist, who had failed to grasp the idea of spiritual birth which is a commonplace to us. By using water (the symbol before the thing signified) first and adding Spirit, he may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit. That is to say the mention of "water" here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism. Bernard holds that the words \hudatos kai\ (water and) do not belong to the words of Jesus, but "are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation." Here Jesus uses \eiselthein\ (enter) instead of \idein\ (see) of verse 3|, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom).

rwp@John:3:10 @{The teacher of Israel} (\ho didaskalos tou Isral\). The well-known or the authorized (the accepted) teacher of the Israel of God. Note both articles. {And understandest not these things?} (\kai tauta ou ginskeis;\). After being told by Jesus and after so propitious a start. His Pharisaic theology had made him almost proof against spiritual apprehension. It was outside of his groove (rote, rut, rot, the three terrible r's of mere traditionalism).

rwp@John:6:14 @{Saw the sign which he did} (\idontes ha epoisen smeia\). "Signs" oldest MSS. have. This sign added to those already wrought (verse 2|). Cf. strkjv@2:23; strkjv@3:2|. {They said} (\elegon\). Inchoative imperfect, began to say. {Of a truth} (\alths\). Common adverb (from \alths\) in John (7:40|). {The prophet that cometh} (\ho prophts ho erchomenos\). There was a popular expectation about the prophet of strkjv@Deuteronomy:18:15| as being the Messiah (John:1:21; strkjv@11:27|). The phrase is peculiar to John, but the idea is in Acts (3:22; strkjv@7:37|). The people are on the tiptoe of expectation and believe that Jesus is the political Messiah of Pharisaic hope.

rwp@John:6:29 @{The work of God that ye believe} (\to ergon tou theou hina pisteute\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3| Paul speaks of "your work of faith" (\humn tou ergou ts pistes\). Songs:here Jesus terms belief in him as the work of God. These Jews were thinking of various deeds of the Pharisaic type and rules. Jesus turns their minds to the central fact. "This simple formula contains the complete solution of the relation of faith and works" (Westcott). Note the present active subjunctive \pisteute\, "that ye may keep on believing." {On him whom he hath sent} (\eis hon apesteilen ekeinos\). The pronominal antecedent (\eis touton hon\) is omitted and the preposition \eis\ is retained with the relative \hon\ really the direct object of \apesteilen\ (sent). Note \ekeinos\ for God (emphatic he).

rwp@John:9:24 @{A second time} (\ek deuterou\). He had given the Pharisees the facts the first time (9:15|). It was really the third time (see \palin\ in strkjv@9:17|). Now it was like a joke unless the Pharisees meant to imply that his previous story was untrue. {Give glory to God} (\dos doxan ti thei\). Second aorist active imperative of \didmi\ (cf. \sches, hes\). This phrase does not mean gratitude to God as in strkjv@Luke:17:18|. It is rather an adjuration to speak the truth (Joshua:7:19; strkjv@1Samuel:6:5|) as if he had not done it before. Augustine says: "_Quid est Daniel:gloriam Deo? Nega quod accepisti._" Is a sinner (\hamartlos estin\). They can no longer deny the fact of the cure since the testimony of the parents (9:19|) and now wish the man to admit that he was lying in saying that Jesus healed him. He must accept their ecclesiastical authority as proving that Jesus had nothing to do with the cure since Jesus is a sinner. They wish to decide the fact by logic and authority like all persecutors through the ages. Recall the Pharisaic distinction between \dikaios\ (righteous) and \hamartlos\ (sinner).

rwp@Luke:5:32 @{To repentance} (\eis metanoian\). Alone in Luke not genuine in strkjv@Mark:2:17; strkjv@Matthew:9:12|. Only sinners would need a call to repentance, a change of mind and life. For the moment Jesus accepts the Pharisaic division between "righteous" and "sinners" to score them and to answer their criticism. At the other times he will show that they only pretend to be "righteous" and are "hypocrites" in reality. But Jesus has here blazed the path for all soul-winners. The self-satisfied are the hard ones to win and they often resent efforts to win them to Christ.

rwp@Luke:6:11 @{They were filled with madness} (\eplsthsan anoias\) First aorist passive (effective) with genitive: In strkjv@5:26| we saw the people filled with fear. Here is rage that is kin to insanity, for \anoias\ is lack of sense (\a\ privative and \nous\, mind). An old word, but only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:9| in the N.T. {Communed} (\dielaloun\), imperfect active, picturing their excited counsellings with one another. strkjv@Mark:3:6| notes that they bolted out of the synagogue and outside plotted even with the Herodians how to destroy Jesus, strange co-conspirators these against the common enemy. {What they might do to Jesus} (\ti an poisaien Isou\). Luke puts it in a less damaging way than strkjv@Mark:3:6; strkjv@Matthew:12:14|. This aorist optative with \an\ is the deliberative question like that in strkjv@Acts:17:18| retained in the indirect form here. Perhaps Luke means, not that they were undecided about killing Jesus, but only as to the best way of doing it. Already nearly two years before the end we see the set determination to destroy Jesus. We see it here in Galilee. We have already seen it at the feast in Jerusalem (John:5:18|) where "the Jews sought the more to kill him." John and the Synoptics are in perfect agreement as to the Pharisaic attitude toward Jesus.

rwp@Luke:6:20 @{And he lifted up his eyes} (\kai autos eparas tous opthalmous autou\). First aorist active participle from \epair\. Note also Luke's favourite use of \kai autos\ in beginning a paragraph. Vivid detail alone in Luke. Jesus looked the vast audience full in the face. strkjv@Matthew:5:2| mentions that "he opened his mouth and taught them" (began to teach them, inchoative imperfect, \edidasken\). He spoke out so that the great crowd could hear. Some preachers do not open their mouths and do not look up at the people, but down at the manuscript and drawl along while the people lose interest and even go to sleep or slip out. {Ye poor} (\hoi ptchoi\). {The poor}, but "yours" (\humetera\) justifies the translation "ye." Luke's report is direct address in all the four beatitudes and four woes given by him. It is useless to speculate why Luke gives only four of the eight beatitudes in Matthew or why Matthew does not give the four woes in Luke. One can only say that neither professes to give a complete report of the sermon. There is no evidence to show that either saw the report of the other. They may have used a common source like Q (the Logia of Jesus) or they may have had separate sources. Luke's first beatitude corresponds with Matthew's first, but he does not have "in spirit" after "poor." Does Luke represent Jesus as saying that poverty itself is a blessing? It can be made so. Or does Luke represent Jesus as meaning what is in Matthew, poverty of spirit? {The kingdom of God} (\h basileia tou theou\). strkjv@Matthew:5:3| has "the kingdom of heaven" which occurs alone in Matthew though he also has the one here in Luke with no practical difference. The rabbis usually said "the kingdom of heaven." They used it of the political Messianic kingdom when Judaism of the Pharisaic sort would triumph over the world. The idea of Jesus is in the sharpest contrast to that conception here and always. See on ¯Matthew:3:2| for discussion of the meaning of the word "kingdom." It is the favourite word of Jesus for the rule of God in the heart here and now. It is both present and future and will reach a glorious consummation. Some of the sayings of Christ have apocalyptic and eschatological figures, but the heart of the matter is here in the spiritual reality of the reign of God in the hearts of those who serve him. The kingdom parables expand and enlarge upon various phases of this inward life and growth.

rwp@Luke:12:1 @{In the meantime} (\en hois\). It is a classic idiom to start a sentence or even a paragraph as here with a relative, "in which things or circumstances," without any expressed antecedent other than the incidents in strkjv@11:53f|. In strkjv@12:3| Luke actually begins the sentence with two relatives \anth' hn hosa\ (wherefore whatsoever). {Many thousands} (\muriadn\). Genitive absolute with \episunachtheisn\ (first aorist passive participle feminine plural because of \muriadn\), a double compound late verb, \episunag\, to gather together unto. The word "myriads" is probably hyperbolical as in strkjv@Acts:21:20|, but in the sense of ten thousand, as in strkjv@Acts:19:19|, it means a very large crowd apparently drawn together by the violent attacks of the rabbis against Jesus. {Insomuch that they trode one upon another} (\hste katapatein alllous\). The imagination must complete the picture of this jam. {Unto his disciples first of all} (\pros tous mathtas autou prton\). This long discourse in strkjv@Luke:12| is really a series of separate talks to various groups in the vast crowds around Jesus. This particular talk goes through verse 12|. {Beware of} (\prosechete heautois apo\). Put your mind (\noun\ understood) for yourselves (dative) and avoid (\apo\ with the ablative). {The leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy} (\ts zums htis estin hupocrisis tn Pharisain\). In strkjv@Mark:8:15| Jesus had coupled the lesson of the Pharisees with that of Herod, in strkjv@Matthew:16:6| with that of the Sadducees also. He had long ago called the Pharisees hypocrites (Matthew:6:2,5,16|). The occasion was ripe here for this crisp saying. In strkjv@Matthew:13:33| leaven does not have an evil sense as here, which see. See strkjv@Matthew:23:13| for hypocrites. Hypocrisy was the leading Pharisaic vice (Bruce) and was a mark of sanctity to hide an evil heart.

rwp@Mark:6:45 @{To Bethsaida} (\pros Bthsaidan\). This is Bethsaida on the Western side, not Bethsaida Julias on the Eastern side where they had just been (Luke:9:10|). {While he himself sendeth the multitude away} (\hes autos apoluei ton ochlon\). strkjv@Matthew:14:22| has it "till he should send away" (\hes hou apolusi\) with the aorist subjunctive of purpose. Mark with the present indicative \apoluei\ pictures Jesus as personally engaged in persuading the crowds to go away now. strkjv@John:6:41f.| explains this activity of Jesus. The crowds had become so excited that they were in the mood to start a revolution against the Roman government and proclaim Jesus king. He had already forced in reality the disciples to leave in a boat {to go before him} (\proagein\) in order to get them out of this atmosphere of overwrought excitement with a political twist to the whole conception of the Messianic Kingdom. They were in grave danger of being swept off their feet and falling heedlessly into the Pharisaic conception and so defeating the whole teaching and training of Jesus with them. See on ¯Matthew:14:22,23|. To this pass things had come one year before the Crucifixion. He had done his best to help and bless the crowds and lost his chance to rest. No one really understood Jesus, not the crowds, not the disciples. Jesus needed the Father to stay and steady him. The devil had come again to tempt him with world dominion in league with the Pharisees, the populace, and the devil in the background.

rwp@Mark:7:8 @{Ye leave the commandment of God} (\aphentes tn entoln tou theou\). Note the sharp contrast between the command of God and the traditions of men. Jesus here drives a keen wedge into the Pharisaic contention. They had covered up the Word of God with their oral teaching. Jesus here shows that they care more for the oral teaching of the scribes and elders than for the written law of God. The Talmud gives abundant and specific confirmation of the truthfulness of this indictment.

rwp@Mark:7:9 @{Full well do ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your traditions} (\kals atheteite tn entoln tou theou hina tn paradosin humn trste\). One can almost see the scribes withering under this terrible arraignment. It was biting sarcasm that cut to the bone. The evident irony should prevent literal interpretation as commendation of the Pharisaic pervasion of God's word. See my _The Pharisees and Jesus_ for illustrations of the way that they placed this oral tradition above the written law. See on ¯Matthew:15:7|.

rwp@Mark:7:18 @{Are ye so without understanding also?} (\Houts kai humeis asunetoi este;\). See on ¯Matthew:15:16|. You also as well as the multitude. It was a discouraging moment for the great Teacher if his own chosen pupils (disciples) were still under the spell of the Pharisaic theological outlook. It was a riddle to them. "They had been trained in Judaism, in which the distinction between clean and unclean is ingrained, and could not understand a statement abrogating this" (Gould). They had noticed that the Pharisees stumbled at the parable of Jesus (Matthew:15:12|). They were stumbling themselves and did not know how to answer the Pharisees. Jesus charges the disciples with intellectual dulness and spiritual stupidity.

rwp@Mark:8:15 @{Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod} (\Horte, blepete apo ts zums tn Pharisain kai ts zums Hridou\). Present imperatives. Note \apo\ and the ablative case. \Zum\ is from \zumo\ and occurs already in strkjv@Matthew:13:33| in a good sense. For the bad sense see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:6|. He repeatedly charged (\diestelleto\, imperfect indicative), showing that the warning was needed. The disciples came out of a Pharisaic atmosphere and they had just met it again at Dalmanutha. It was insidious. Note the combination of Herod here with the Pharisees. This is after the agitation of Herod because of the death of the Baptist and the ministry of Jesus (Mark:6:14-29; strkjv@Matthew:14:1-12; strkjv@Luke:9:7-9|). Jesus definitely warns the disciples against "the leaven of Herod" (bad politics) and the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (bad theology and also bad politics).

rwp@Mark:12:18 @{There come unto him Sadducees} (\erchontai Saddoukaioi pros auton\). Dramatic present. The Pharisees and Herodians had had their turn after the formal committee of the Sanhedrin had been so completely routed. It was inevitable that they should feel called upon to show their intellectual superiority to these raw Pharisaic and Herodian theologians. See on ¯Matthew:22:23-33| for discussion of details. It was a good time to air their disbelief in the resurrection at the expense of the Pharisees and to score against Jesus where the Sanhedrin and then the Pharisees and Herodians had failed so ignominiously.

rwp@Matthew:5:20 @{Shall exceed} (\perisseusi pleion\). Overflow like a river out of its banks and then Jesus adds "more" followed by an unexpressed ablative (\ts dikaiosuns\), brachylogy. A daring statement on Christ's part that they had to be better than the rabbis. They must excel the scribes, the small number of regular teachers (5:21-48|), and the Pharisees in the Pharisaic life (6:1-18|) who were the separated ones, the orthodox pietists.

rwp@Matthew:5:48 @{Perfect} (\teleioi\). The word comes from \telos\, end, goal, limit. Here it is the goal set before us, the absolute standard of our Heavenly Father. The word is used also for relative perfection as of adults compared with children. strkjv@Matthew:6:1 @{Take heed} (\prosechete\). The Greek idiom includes "mind" (\noun\) which is often expressed in ancient Greek and once in the Septuagint (Job:7:17|). In the New Testament the substantive \nous\ is understood. It means to "hold the mind on a matter," take pains, take heed. "Righteousness" (\dikaiosunn\) is the correct text in this verse. Three specimens of the Pharisaic "righteousness" are given (alms, prayer, fasting). {To be seen} (\theathnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of purpose. Our word _theatrical_ is this very word, spectacular performance. {With your Father} (\para ti patri humn\). Literally "beside your Father," standing by his side, as he looks at it.

rwp@Matthew:9:14 @{The disciples of John} (\hoi mathtai Ianou\). One is surprised to find disciples of the Baptist in the role of critics of Christ along with the Pharisees. But John was languishing in prison and they perhaps were blaming Jesus for doing nothing about it. At any rate John would not have gone to Levi's feast on one of the Jewish fast-days. "The strict asceticism of the Baptist (11:18|) and of the Pharisaic rabbis (Luke:18:12|) was imitated by their disciples" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:12:2 @{Thy disciples do} (\hoi mathtai sou poiousin\). These critics are now watching a chance and they jump at this violation of their Pharisaic rules for Sabbath observance. The disciples were plucking the heads of wheat which to the Pharisees was reaping and were rubbing them in their hands (Luke:6:1|) which was threshing.

rwp@Matthew:12:9 @{Lord of the Sabbath} (\kurios tou sabbatou\). This claim that he as the Son of Man is master of the Sabbath and so above the Pharisaic regulations angered them extremely. By the phrase "the Son of man" here Jesus involves the claim of Messiahship, but as the Representative Man he affirms his solidarity with mankind, "standing for the human interest" (Bruce) on this subject.

rwp@Matthew:12:23 @{Is this the Son of David?} (\mti houtos estin ho huios Daueid?\). The form of the question expects the answer "no," but they put it so because of the Pharisaic hostility towards Jesus. The multitudes "were amazed" or "stood out of themselves" (\existanto\), imperfect tense, vividly portraying the situation. They were almost beside themselves with excitement.

rwp@Matthew:14:22 @{Constrained} (\nagkasen\). Literally, "compelled" or "forced." See this word also in strkjv@Luke:14:23|. The explanation for this strong word in strkjv@Mark:6:45| and strkjv@Matthew:14:22| is given in strkjv@John:6:15|. It is the excited purpose of the crowd to take Jesus by force and to make him national king. This would be political revolution and would defeat all the plans of Jesus about his kingdom. Things have reached a climax. The disciples were evidently swept off their feet by the mob psychology for they still shared the Pharisaic hope of a political kingdom. With the disciples out of the way Jesus could handle the crowd more easily, {till he should send the multitudes away} (\hes hou apolusi tous ochlous\). The use of the aorist subjunctive with \hes\ or \hes hou\ is a neat and common Greek idiom where the purpose is not yet realized. Songs:in strkjv@18:30; strkjv@26:36|. "While" sometimes renders it well. The subjunctive is retained after a past tense instead of the change to the optative of the ancient Attic. The optative is very rare anyhow, but Luke uses it with \prin \ in strkjv@Acts:25:16|.

rwp@Matthew:15:16 @{Are ye also even yet without understanding?} (\Akmn kai hmeis asunetoi este\). \Akmn\ is an adverbial accusative (classic \aichm\, point (of a weapon)=\akmn chronou\ at this point of time, just now=\eti\. It occurs in papyri and inscriptions, though condemned by the old grammarians. "In spite of all my teaching, are ye also like the Pharisees without spiritual insight and grasp?" One must never forget that the disciples lived in a Pharisaic environment. Their religious world-outlook was Pharisaic. They were lacking in spiritual intelligence or sense, "totally ignorant" (Moffatt).

rwp@Matthew:19:8 @{For your hardness of heart} (\pros tn sklrokardian hmn\). The word is apparently one of the few Biblical words (LXX and the N.T.). It is a heart dried up (\sklros\), hard and tough. {But from the beginning it hath not been so} (\ap' archs de ouk gegonen houts\). The present perfect active of \ginomai\ to emphasize the permanence of the divine ideal. "The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superseded, but continues in force" (Vincent). "How small the Pharisaic disputants must have felt in presence of such holy teaching, which soars above the partisan view of controversialists into the serene region of ideal, universal, eternal truth" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:19:10 @{The disciples say unto him} (\legousin auti hoi mathtai\). "Christ's doctrine on marriage not only separated Him \toto caelo\ from Pharisaic opinions of all shades, but was too high even for the Twelve" (Bruce). {The case} (\h aitia\). The word may refer to the use in verse 3| "for every cause." It may have a vague idea here = \res\, condition. But the point clearly is that "it is not expedient to marry" (\ou sumpherei gamsai\) if such a strict view is held. If the bond is so tight a man had best not commit matrimony. It is a bit unusual to have \anthrpos\ and \gun\ contrasted rather than \anr\ and \gun\.

rwp@Matthew:22:16 @{Their disciples} (\tous mathtas autn\). Students, pupils, of the Pharisees as in strkjv@Mark:2:18|. There were two Pharisaic theological seminaries in Jerusalem (Hillel, Shammai). {The Herodians} (\tn Heridiann\). Not members of Herod's family or Herod's soldiers, but partisans or followers of Herod. The form in \-ianos\ is a Latin termination like that in \Christianos\ (Acts:11:26|). Mentioned also in strkjv@Mark:3:6| combining with the Pharisees against Jesus. {The person of men} (\prospon anthrpn\). Literally, face of men. Paying regard to appearance is the sin of partiality condemned by James (James:2:1,9|) when \prospolmpsia, prospolmptein\ are used, in imitation of the Hebrew idiom. This suave flattery to Jesus implied "that Jesus was a reckless simpleton" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:23:13 @{Hypocrites} (\hupokritai\). This terrible word of Jesus appears first from him in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew:6:2,5,16; strkjv@7:5|), then in strkjv@15:7| and strkjv@22:18|. Here it appears "with terrific iteration" (Bruce) save in the third of the seven woes (23:13,15,23,25,27,29|). The verb in the active (\hupokrin\) meant to separate slowly or slightly subject to gradual inquiry. Then the middle was to make answer, to take up a part on the stage, to act a part. It was an easy step to mean to feign, to pretend, to wear a masque, to act the hypocrite, to play a part. This hardest word from the lips of Jesus falls on those who were the religious leaders of the Jews (Scribes and Pharisees), who had justified this thunderbolt of wrath by their conduct toward Jesus and their treatment of things high and holy. The _Textus Receptus has eight woes, adding verse 14| which the Revised Version places in the margin (called verse 13| by Westcott and Hort and rejected on the authority of Aleph B D as a manifest gloss from strkjv@Mark:12:40| and strkjv@Luke:20:47|). The MSS. that insert it put it either before 13 or after 13. Plummer cites these seven woes as another example of Matthew's fondness for the number seven, more fancy than fact for Matthew's Gospel is not the Apocalypse of John. These are all illustrations of Pharisaic saying and not doing (Allen). {Ye shut the kingdom of heaven} (\kleiete tn basileian tn ourann\). In strkjv@Luke:11:52| the lawyers are accused of keeping the door to the house of knowledge locked and with flinging away the keys so as to keep themselves and the people in ignorance. These custodians of the kingdom by their teaching obscured the way to life. It is a tragedy to think how preachers and teachers of the kingdom of God may block the door for those who try to enter in (\tous eiserchomenous\, conative present middle participle). {Against} (\emprosthen\). Literally, before. These door-keepers of the kingdom slam it shut in men's faces and they themselves are on the outside where they will remain. They hide the key to keep others from going in.

rwp@Matthew:23:15 @{Twofold more a son of hell than yourselves} (\huion geenns diploteron hmn\). It is a convert to Pharisaism rather than Judaism that is meant by "one proselyte" (\hena prosluton\), from \proserchomai\, newcomers, aliens. There were two kinds of proselytes: of the gate (not actual Jews, but God-fearers and well-wishers of Judaism, like Cornelius), of righteousness who received circumcision and became actual Jews. But a very small per cent of the latter became Pharisees. There was a Hellenistic Jewish literature (Philo, Sibylline Oracles, etc.) designed to attract Gentiles to Judaism. But the Pharisaic missionary zeal (compass, \periagte\, go around) was a comparative failure. And success was even worse, Jesus says with pitiless plainness. The "son of Gehenna" means one fitted for and so destined for Gehenna. "The more converted the more perverted" (H.J. Holtzmann). The Pharisees claimed to be in a special sense sons of the kingdom (Matthew:8:12|). They were more partisan than pious. \Diplous\ (twofold, double) is common in the papyri. The comparative here used, as if from \diplos\, appears also in Appian. Note the ablative of comparison hmn. It was a withering thrust.

rwp@Matthew:23:23 @{Ye tithe} (\apodekatoute\). The tithe had to be paid upon "all the increase of thy seed" (Deuteronomy:14:22; strkjv@Leviticus:27:30|). The English word tithe is tenth. These small aromatic herbs, mint (\to hduosmon\, sweet-smelling), anise or dill (\anthon\), cummin (\kuminon\, with aromatic seeds), show the Pharisaic scrupulous conscientiousness, all marketable commodities. "The Talmud tells of the ass of a certain Rabbi which had been so well trained as to refuse corn of which the tithes had not been taken" (Vincent). {These ye ought} (\tauta edei\). Jesus does not condemn tithing. What he does condemn is doing it to the neglect of the {weightier matters} (\ta barutera\). The Pharisees were externalists; cf. strkjv@Luke:11:39-44|.

rwp@Revelation:2:24 @{To you the rest} (\humin tois loipois\). Dative case. Those who hold out against Jezebel, not necessarily a minority (9:20; strkjv@19:21; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13|). {As many as} (\hosoi\). Inclusive of all "the rest." {This teaching} (\tn didachn tautn\). That of Jezebel. {Which} (\hoitines\). "Which very ones," generic of the class, explanatory definition as in strkjv@1:7|. {Know not} (\ouk egnsan\). Second aorist (ingressive) active of \ginsk\, "did not come to know by experience." {The deep things of Satan} (\ta bathea tou Satan\). The Ophites (worshippers of the serpent) and other later Gnostics (Cainites, Carpocratians, Naassenes) boasted of their knowledge of "the deep things," some claiming this very language about Satan (the serpent) as Paul did of God (1Corinthians:2:10|). It is not clear whether the words here quoted are a boast of the Nicolaitans or a reproach on the other Christians for not knowing the depths of sin. Some even claimed that they could indulge in immorality without sinning (1John:1:10; strkjv@3:10|). Perhaps both ideas are involved. {As they say} (\hs legousin\). Probably referring to the heretics who ridicule the piety of the other Christians. {None other burden} (\ou--allo baros\). \Baros\ refers to weight (Matthew:20:12|), \phortion\, from \pher\, to bear, refers to load (Galatians:6:5|), \ogkos\ to bulk (Hebrews:12:1|). Apparently a reference to the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:28|) where the very word \baros\ is used and mention is made about the two items in verse 20| (fornication and idolatry) without mentioning the others about things strangled, etc. See the Pharisaic narrowness in strkjv@Matthew:23:4|.

rwp@Romans:7:24 @{O wretched man that I am} (\talaipros eg anthrpos\). "Wretched man I." Old adjective from \tla\, to bear, and \pros\, a callus. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:3:17|. "A heart-rending cry from the depths of despair" (Sanday and Headlam). {Out of the body of this death} (\ek tou smatos tou thanatou toutou\). Songs:the order of words demands. See verse 13| for "death" which finds a lodgment in the body (Lightfoot). If one feels that Paul has exaggerated his own condition, he has only to recall strkjv@1Timothy:1:15| when he describes himself a chief of sinners. He dealt too honestly with himself for Pharisaic complacency to live long.

rwp@Titus:1:10 @{Vain talkers} (\mataiologoi\). Late and rare compound, empty talkers, in Vett. Val. and here. See strkjv@1Timothy:1:6| for \mataiologia\. {Deceivers} (\phrenapatai\). Late and rare compound, in papyri, eccl. writers, here alone in N.T. "Mind-deceivers." See strkjv@Galatians:6:3| for \phrenapatin\. {Specially they of the circumcision} (\malista hoi ek ts peritoms\). Same phrase in strkjv@Acts:11:2; strkjv@Galatians:2:12; strkjv@Colossians:4:11|. Jews are mentioned in Crete in strkjv@Acts:2:11|. Apparently Jewish Christians of the Pharisaic type tinged with Gnosticism.

rwp@Titus:1:14 @See strkjv@1Timothy:1:4| for \prosech\ and \muthois\, only here we have _Jewish_ (\Ioudaikois\) added. Perhaps a reference to the oral traditions condemned by Christ in strkjv@Mark:7:2-8|. See also strkjv@Colossians:2:22|, apparently Pharisaic type of Gnostics. {Who turn away from the truth} (\apostrephomenn\). Present middle (direct) participle of \apostreph\, "men turning themselves away from the truth" (accusative according to regular idiom). "The truth" (1Timothy:4:3|) is the gospel (Ephesians:4:21|).

rwp@Titus:2:1 @{But speak thou} (\su de lalei\). In contrast to these Pharisaic Gnostics in Crete. {Befit} (\prepei\). Old verb to be becoming, seemly. See strkjv@1Timothy:2:10; strkjv@Ephesians:5:3|. With dative case \didaskalii\. {Sound} (\hugiainousi\). Healthful as in strkjv@1:13; strkjv@2:2; strkjv@1Timothy:1:10|, common word in the Pastorals.

rwp@Titus:3:9 @{Fightings about the law} (\machas nomikas\). "Legal battles." See strkjv@1Timothy:6:4; strkjv@2Timothy:2:23|. Wordy fights about Mosaic and Pharisaic and Gnostic regulations. {Shun} (\periistaso\). Present middle imperative of \periistmi\, intransitive, step around, stand aside (2Timothy:2:16|). Common in this sense in the literary _Koin_. {Unprofitable} (\anpheleis\). Old compound adjective (\a\ privative and \ophelos\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:7:18|.