NONE.filter - rwp akathart:

rwp@1Corinthians:7:14 @{Is sanctified in the wife} (\hgiastai en ti gunaiki\). Perfect passive indicative of \hagiaz\, to set apart, to hallow, to sanctify. Paul does not, of course, mean that the unbelieving husband is saved by the faith of the believing wife, though Hodge actually so interprets him. Clearly he only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce. If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set aside. This is so simple that one wonders at the ability of men to get confused over Paul's language. {Else were your children unclean} (\epei ara ta tekna akatharta\). The common ellipse of the condition with \epei\: "since, accordingly, if it is otherwise, your children are illegitimate (\akatharta\)." If the relations of the parents be holy, the child's birth must be holy also (not illegitimate). "He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not \hagios\ till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism" (Robertson and Plummer).

rwp@2Corinthians:6:17 @{Saith the Lord} (\legei Kurios\). strkjv@Isaiah:52:5; strkjv@Ezekiel:20:33|. Cf. strkjv@Revelation:18:4|. {Unclean thing} (\akathartou\). Or unclean person. Genitive case is the same for both.

rwp@Acts:10:14 @{Not so, Lord} (\Mdams, kurie\). The negative \mdams\ calls for the optative \ei\ (may it not be) or the imperative \est\ (let it be). It is not \oudams\, a blunt refusal (I shall not do it). And yet it is more than a mild protest as Page and Furneaux argue. It is a polite refusal with a reason given. Peter recognizes the invitation to slay (\thuson\) the unclean animals as from the Lord (\kurie\) but declines it three times. {For I have never eaten anything} (\hoti oudepote ephagon pan\). Second aorist active indicative, I never did anything like this and I shall not do it now. The use of \pan\ (everything) with \oudepote\ (never) is like the Hebrew (_lo--kl_) though a like idiom appears in the vernacular _Koin_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 752). {Common and unclean} (\koinon kai akatharton\). \Koinos\ from epic \xunos\ (\xun, sun\, together with) originally meant common to several (Latin _communis_) as in strkjv@Acts:2:44; strkjv@4:32; strkjv@Titus:1:4; strkjv@Jude:1:3|. The use seen here (also strkjv@Mark:7:2,5; strkjv@Romans:14:14; strkjv@Hebrews:10:29; strkjv@Revelation:21:27; strkjv@Acts:10:28; strkjv@11:8|), like Latin _vulgaris_ is unknown in ancient Greek. Here the idea is made plain by the addition of \akatharton\ (unclean), ceremonially unclean, of course. We have the same double use in our word "common." See on ¯Mark:7:18f.| where Mark adds the remarkable participle \katharizn\ (making all meats clean), evidently from Peter who recalls this vision. Peter had been reared from childhood to make the distinction between clean and unclean food and this new proposal even from the Lord runs against all his previous training. He did not see that some of God's plans for the Jews could be temporary. This symbol of the sheet was to show Peter ultimately that Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews. At this moment he is in spiritual and intellectual turmoil.

rwp@Luke:4:33 @{Which had} (\echn\). Mark has \en\. {A spirit of an unclean demon} (\pneuma daimoniou akathartou\). Mark has "unclean spirit." Luke's phrase here is unique in this combination. Plummer notes that Matthew has \daimonion\ ten times and \akatharton\ twice as an epithet of \pneuma\; Mark has \daimonion\ thirteen times and \akatharton\ eleven times as an epithet of \pneuma\. Luke's Gospel uses \daimonion\ twenty-two times and \akatharton\ as an epithet, once of \daimonion\ as here and once of \pneuma\. In Mark the man is in (\en\) the power of the unclean spirit, while here the man "has" a spirit of an unclean demon. {With a loud voice} (\phni megali\). Not in Mark. Really a scream caused by the sudden contact of the demon with Jesus.

rwp@Luke:6:18 @{With unclean spirits} (\apo pneumatn akathartn\). In an amphibolous position for it can be construed with "troubled," (present passive participle \enochloumenoi\) or with "were healed" (imperfect passive, \etherapeuonto\). The healings were repeated as often as they came. Note here both verbs, \iaomai\ and \therapeu\, used of the miraculous cures of Jesus. \Therapeu\ is the verb more commonly employed of regular professional cures, but no such distinction is made here.

rwp@Mark:1:23 @{With an unclean spirit} (\en pneumati akatharti\). This use of \en\ "with" is common in the Septuagint like the Hebrew _be_, but it occurs also in the papyri. It is the same idiom as "in Christ," "in the Lord" so common with Paul. In English we speak of our being in love, in drink, in his cups, etc. The unclean spirit was in the man and the man in the unclean spirit, a man in the power of the unclean spirit. Luke has "having," the usual construction. See on ¯Matthew:22:43|. Unclean spirit is used as synonymous with {demon} (\daimonion\). It is the idea of estrangement from God (Zechariah:13:2|). The whole subject of demonology is difficult, but no more so than the problem of the devil. Jesus distinguishes between the man and the unclean spirit. Usually physical or mental disease accompanied the possession by demons. One wonders today if the degenerates and confirmed criminals so common now are not under the power of demons. The only cure for confirmed criminals seems to be conversion (a new heart).

rwp@Mark:1:27 @{They questioned among themselves} (\sunztein autous\). By look and word. {A new teaching} (\didach kain\). One surprise had followed another this day. The teaching was fresh (\kain\), original as the dew of the morning on the blossoms just blown. That was a novelty in that synagogue where only staid and stilted rabbinical rules had been heretofore droned out. This new teaching charmed the people, but soon will be rated as heresy by the rabbis. And it was with authority (\kat' exousian\). It is not certain whether the phrase is to be taken with "new teaching," "It's new teaching with authority behind it," as Moffatt has it, or with the verb; "with authority commandeth even the unclean spirits" (\kai tois pneumasin tois akathartois epitassei\). The position is equivocal and may be due to the fact that "Mark gives the incoherent and excited remarks of the crowd in this natural form" (Swete). But the most astonishing thing of all is that the demons "obey him" (\hupakouousin auti\). The people were accustomed to the use of magical formulae by the Jewish exorcists (Matthew:12:27; strkjv@Acts:19:13|), but here was something utterly different. Simon Magus could not understand how Simon Peter could do his miracles without some secret trick and even offered to buy it (Acts:8:19|).

rwp@Mark:5:2 @{Out of the boat} (\ek tou ploiou\). Straightway (\euthus\) Mark says, using the genitive absolute (\exelthontos autou\) and then repeating \auti\ associative instrumental after \apntsen\. The demoniac greeted Jesus at once. Mark and strkjv@Luke:9:27| mention only one man while Matthew notes two demoniacs, perhaps one more violent than the other. Each of the Gospels has a different phrase. Mark has "a man with an unclean spirit" (\en pneumati akatharti\), strkjv@Matthew:8:28| "two possessed with demons" (\duo daimonizomenoi\), strkjv@Luke:8:27| "one having demons" (\tis echn daimonia\). Mark has many touches about this miracle not retained in Matthew and Luke. See on ¯Matthew:8:28|.

rwp@Revelation:16:13 @{Coming out of} (\ek\ alone, no participle \erchomena\). {Of the dragon} (\tou drakontos\). That is Satan (12:3,9|). {Of the beast} (\tou thriou\). The first beast (13:1,12|) and then just the beast (13:14ff.; strkjv@14:9,11; strkjv@15:2; strkjv@16:2,10|), the brute force of the World-power represented by the Roman Empire" (Swete). {Of the false prophet} (\tou pseudoprophtou\). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:7:15; strkjv@Acts:13:6; strkjv@1John:2:22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7|. Identified with the second beast (13:11-14|) in strkjv@19:20; strkjv@20:10|. Songs:the sixth bowl introduces the dragon and his two subalterns of chapters strkjv@Revelation:12; 13| (the two beasts). {Three unclean spirits} (\pneumata tria akatharta\). Out of the mouths of each of the three evil powers (the dragon and the two beasts) comes an evil spirit. See the use of mouth in strkjv@1:16| (9:17f.; strkjv@11:5; strkjv@12:15; strkjv@19:15,21|) as a chief seat of influence. In strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:8| we have "the breath of his mouth" (the other sense of \pneuma\). For \akatharton\ (unclean) with \pneuma\ see strkjv@Mark:1:23f.; strkjv@3:11; strkjv@5:2ff.; strkjv@Acts:5:16; strkjv@8:7|. Christ expelled unclean spirits, but His enemies send them forth" (Swete). See strkjv@Zechariah:13:2| "the false prophets and the unclean spirits." {As it were frogs} (\hs batrachoi\). Cf. strkjv@Exodus:8:5; strkjv@Leviticus:11:10ff|. Old word, here alone in N.T. Like loathsome frogs in form.

rwp@Revelation:17:4 @{Was arrayed} (\n peribeblmen\). Periphrastic past perfect indicative of \periball\, to fling round one. {In purple and scarlet} (\porphuroun kai kokkinon\). Accusative retained after this passive verb of clothing, as so often. \Porphurous\ is old adjective for purple (from \porphura\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:19:2,5|. See preceding verse for \kokkinos\. {Decked} (\kechrusmen\). Perfect passive participle of \chruso\, old verb, to gild, to adorn with gold, here alone in N.T. {With gold and precious stone and pearls} (\chrusii kai lithi timii kai margaritais\). Instrumental case. \Chrusii\ is cognate with the participle. \Lithi timii\ is collective (18:12,16; strkjv@21:19|). There is a \zeugma\ also with \margaritais\ (18:12,16; strkjv@21:21|), for which word see strkjv@Matthew:7:6|. Probably John is thinking of the finery of the temple prostitutes in Asia Minor. {Full of abominations} (\gemon bdelugmatn\). Agreeing with \potrion\, "cup" (neuter singular accusative). Some MSS. read \gemn\ (nominative masculine like \echn\ in verse 3|, quite irregular). For \bdelugmatn\ (genitive after \gemon\) see strkjv@Matthew:24:15|; (Mark:13:14|), common in the LXX for idol worship and its defilements (from \bdeluss\, to render foul), both ceremonial and moral. See strkjv@Jeremiah:15:7|. {Even the unclean things of her fornication} (\kai ta akatharta ts porneias auts\). Either the accusative after \gemon\ as in verse 3| (and full of the unclean things of her fornication) or the object of \echousa\, like \potrion\.

rwp@Revelation:18:2 @{Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great} (\epesen, epesen Babuln h megal\). The very words of strkjv@14:8|: "Did fall, did fall Babylon the great." Prophetic aorists of \pipt\ repeated like a solemn dirge of the damned. {Is become} (\egeneto\). Prophetic aorist middle. {A habitation of devils} (\katoiktrion\). Late word (from \katoike\, to dwell), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:2:22|. Devils should be demons, of course. Songs:Isaiah prophesied of Babylon (Isaiah:12:21f.|) and also Jeremiah (Jeremiah:50:39|) and Zephaniah of Nineveh (Zephaniah:2:14|). Both Babylon and Nineveh are ruins. {A hold of every unclean spirit} (\phulak pantos pneumatos akathartou\). \Phulak\ is garrison or watch-tower as in strkjv@Habbakkuk:2:1|, rather than a prison (20:7|). {A hold of every unclean and hateful bird} (\phulak pantos orneou akathartou kai memismenou\). \Orneou\ is old word for bird, in N.T. only strkjv@Revelation:18:2; strkjv@19:17,21|. "The evil spirits, watching over fallen Rome like night-birds or harpies that wait for their prey, build their eyries in the broken towers which rise from the ashes of the city" (Swete). Long ago true of Babylon and Nineveh, some day to be true of Rome.