NONE.filter - rwp doubts:

rwp@Info @ I have called these volumes _Word Pictures_ for the obvious reason that language was originally purely pictographic. Children love to read by pictures either where it is all picture or where pictures are interspersed with simple words. The Rosetta Stone is a famous illustration. The Egyptian hieroglyphics come at the top of the stone, followed by the Demotic Egyptian language with the Greek translation at the bottom. By means of this stone the secret of the hieroglyphs or pictographs was unravelled. Chinese characters are also pictographic. The pictures were first for ideas, then for words, then for syllables, then for letters. Today in Alaska there are Indians who still use pictures alone for communicating their ideas. "Most words have been originally metaphors, and metaphors are continually falling into the rank of words" (Professor Campbell). Rather is it not true that words are metaphors, sometimes with the pictured flower still blooming, sometimes with the blossom blurred? Words have never gotten wholly away from the picture stage. These old Greek words in the New Testament are rich with meaning. They speak to us out of the past and with lively images to those who have eyes to see. It is impossible to translate all of one language into another. Much can be carried over, but not all. Delicate shades of meaning defy the translator. But some of the very words of Jesus we have still as he said: "The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life" (John:6:63|). We must never forget that in dealing with the words of Jesus we are dealing with things that have life and breath. That is true of all the New Testament, the most wonderful of all books of all time. One can feel the very throb of the heart of Almighty God in the New Testament if the eyes of his own heart have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. May the Spirit of God take of the things of Christ and make them ours as we muse over the words of life that speak to us out of the New Covenant that we call the New Testament. A.T. ROBERTSON. LOUISVILLE, KY. strkjv@Info:1Corinthians @ FIRST CORINTHIANS FROM EPHESUS A.D. 54 OR 55 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION It would be a hard-boiled critic today who would dare deny the genuineness of I Corinthians. The Dutch wild man, Van Manen, did indeed argue that Paul wrote no epistles if indeed he ever lived. Such intellectual banality is well answered by Whateley's _Historic Doubts about Napolean Bonaparte_ which was so cleverly done that some readers were actually convinced that no such man ever existed, but is the product of myth and legend. Even Baur was compelled to acknowledge the genuineness of I and II Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (the Big Four of Pauline criticism). It is a waste of time now to prove what all admit to be true. Paul of Tarsus, the Apostle to the Gentiles, wrote I Corinthians.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:13 @{And for this cause we also} (\kai dia touto kai hmeis\). Note \kai\ twice. We as well as you are grateful for the way the gospel was received in Thessalonica. {Without ceasing} (\adialeipts\). Late adverb for which see on strkjv@1:2| and for \eucharistoumen\ see on ¯1:2|. {The word of the message} (\logon akos\). Literally, {the word of} hearing, as in Sir. strkjv@42:1 and strkjv@Hebrews:4:2| \ho logos ts akos\, the word marked by hearing (genitive case), the word which you heard. Here with \tou theou\ (of God) added as a second descriptive genitive which Paul expands and justifies. {Ye received it so} (\paralabontes\) and {accepted or welcomed it} (\edexasthe\) so, {not as the word of men} (\ou logou anthrpn\), {but as the word of God} (\alla logon theou\), {as it is in truth} (\kaths alths estin\). This last clause is literally, {as it truly is}. Paul had not a doubt that he was proclaiming God's message. Should any preacher preach his doubts if he has any? God's message can be found and Paul found it. {Worketh in you} (\energeitai en humin\). Perhaps middle voice of \energe\ (\en, ergon\, work) late verb, not in ancient Greek or LXX, but in papyri and late writers (Polybius, etc.) and in N.T. only by Paul and James. If it is passive, as Milligan thinks, it means "is set in operation," as Polybius has it. The idea then is that the word of God is set in operation in you that believe.

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ FIRST CORINTHIANS FROM EPHESUS A.D. 54 OR 55 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION It would be a hard-boiled critic today who would dare deny the genuineness of I Corinthians. The Dutch wild man, Van Manen, did indeed argue that Paul wrote no epistles if indeed he ever lived. Such intellectual banality is well answered by Whateley's _Historic Doubts about Napolean Bonaparte_ which was so cleverly done that some readers were actually convinced that no such man ever existed, but is the product of myth and legend. Even Baur was compelled to acknowledge the genuineness of I and II Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (the Big Four of Pauline criticism). It is a waste of time now to prove what all admit to be true. Paul of Tarsus, the Apostle to the Gentiles, wrote I Corinthians.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:4 @{He that opposeth and exalteth himself} (\ho antikeimenos kai huperairomenos\). Like John's Antichrist this one opposes (\anti-\) Christ and exalts himself (direct middle of \huperair\, old verb to lift oneself up {above} others, only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| in N.T.), but not Satan, but an agent of Satan. This participial clause is in apposition with the two preceding phrases, the man of sin, the son of perdition. Note strkjv@1Corinthians:8:5| about one called God and strkjv@Acts:17:23| for \sebasma\ (from \sebazomai\), object of worship, late word, in N.T. only in these two passages. {Songs:that he sitteth in the temple of God} (\hste auton eis ton naon tou theou kathisai\). Another example of the infinitive with \hste\ for result. Caius Caligula had made a desperate attempt to have his statue set up for worship in the Temple in Jerusalem. This incident may lie behind Paul's language here. {Setting himself forth as God} (\apodeiknunta heauton hoti estin theos\). Present active participle (\mi\ form) of \apodeiknumi\, agreeing in case with \auton\, {showing himself that he is God}. Caligula claimed to be God. Moffatt doubts if Paul is identifying this deception with the imperial cultus at this stage. Lightfoot thinks that the deification of the Roman emperor supplied Paul's language here. Wetstein notes a coin of Julius with \theos\ on one side and \Thessaloniken\ on the other. In strkjv@1John:2:18| we are told of "many antichrists" some of whom had already come. Hence it is not clear that Paul has in mind only one individual or even individuals at all rather than evil principles, for in verse 6| he speaks of \to katechon\ (that which restraineth) while in verse 7| it is \ho katechn\ (the one that restraineth). Frame argues for a combination of Belial and Antichrist as the explanation of Paul's language. But the whole subject is left by Paul in such a vague form that we can hardly hope to clear it up. It is possible that his own preaching while with them gave his readers a clue that we do not possess.

rwp@Acts:9:38 @{Delay not} (\m oknsis\). Ingressive aorist active subjunctive in prohibition. Direct discourse and not indirect as late MSS. have (aorist active infinitive, \oknsai\). Possibly the two messengers started before Dorcas was quite dead, though we do not know. Peter had recently healed Aeneas and the disciples may have had faith enough to believe that he could raise the dead by the power of Christ. W. M. Ramsay doubts if Dorcas was really dead, but why see legends in these supernatural events?

rwp@Ephesians:5:26 @{That he might sanctify it} (\hina autn hagiasi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hagiaz\. Jesus stated this as his longing and his prayer (John:17:17-19|). This was the purpose of Christ's death (verse 25|). {Having cleansed it} (\katharisas\). First aorist active participle of \kathariz\, to cleanse, either simultaneous action or antecedent. {By the washing of water} (\ti loutri tou hudatos\). If \loutron\ only means bath or bathing-place ( = \loutron\), then \loutri\ is in the locative. If it can mean bathing or washing, it is in the instrumental case. The usual meaning from Homer to the papyri is the bath or bathing-place, though some examples seem to mean bathing or washing. Salmond doubts if there are any clear instances. The only other N.T. example of \loutron\ is in strkjv@Titus:3:5|. The reference here seems to be to the baptismal bath (immersion) of water, "in the bath of water." See strkjv@1Corinthians:6:11| for the bringing together of \apelousasthe\ and \hgiasthte\. Neither there nor here does Paul mean that the cleansing or sanctification took place in the bath save in a symbolic fashion as in strkjv@Romans:6:4-6|. Some think that Paul has also a reference to the bath of the bride before marriage. Still more difficult is the phrase "with the word" (\en rmati\). In strkjv@John:17:17| Jesus connected "truth" with "sanctify." That is possible here, though it may also be connected with \katharisas\ (having cleansed). Some take it to mean the baptismal formula.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE AUTHOR Origen bluntly wrote: "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul's while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in strkjv@Hebrews:11:32| (\me digoumenon\) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply \Pros Hebraious\ as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

rwp@John:13:23 @{Was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom} (\n anakeimenos en ti kolpi tou Isou\). No word for "table" in the text. Periphrastic imperfect of \anakeimai\, to lie back, to recline. \Kolpos\ usual word for bosom (1:18|). {Whom Jesus loved} (\hon gapa Isous\). Imperfect active of \agapa\, John's description of himself of which he was proud (19:26; strkjv@20:2; strkjv@21:7,20|), identified in strkjv@21:24| as the author of the book and necessarily one of the twelve because of the "explicit" (Bernard) language of Mark (Mark:14:17; strkjv@Luke:22:14|). John son of Zebedee and brother of James. At the table John was on the right of Jesus lying obliquely so that his head lay on the bosom of Jesus. The centre, the place of honour, Jesus occupied. The next place in rank was to the left of Jesus, held by Peter (Westcott) or by Judas (Bernard) which one doubts.

rwp@Luke:7:40 @{Answering} (\apokritheis\). First aorist passive participle, redundant use with \eipen\. Jesus answers the thoughts and doubts of Simon and so shows that he knows all about the woman also. Godet notes a tone of Socratic irony here.

rwp@Matthew:2:4 @{He inquired of them where the Christ should be born} (\epunthaneto par' autn pou ho Christos genntai\). The prophetic present (\genntai\) is given, the very words of Herod retained by Matthew's report. The imperfect tense (epunthaneto) suggests that Herod inquired repeatedly, probably of one and another of the leaders gathered together, both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes). McNeile doubts, like Holtzmann, if Herod actually called together all the Sanhedrin and probably "he could easily ask the question of a single scribe," because he had begun his reign with a massacre of the Sanhedrin (Josephus, _Ant_. XIV. ix. 4). But that was thirty years ago and Herod was desperately in earnest to learn what the Jews really expected about the coming of "the Messiah." Still Herod probably got together not the Sanhedrin since "elders" are not mentioned, but leaders among the chief priests and scribes, not a formal meeting but a free assembly for conference. He had evidently heard of this expected king and he would swallow plenty of pride to be able to compass the defeat of these hopes.

rwp@Matthew:27:24 @{Washed his hands} (\apenipsato tas cheiras\). As a last resort since the hubbub (\thorubos\) increased because of his vacillation. The verb \aponipt\ means to wash off and the middle voice means that he washed off his hands for himself as a common symbol of cleanliness and added his pious claim with a slap at them. {I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man} (or {this blood}); {see ye to it}. (\Athios eimi apo tou haimatos tou dikaiou toutou\ or \tou haimatos toutou\ as some manuscripts have it, \humeis opsesthe\.) The Jews used this symbol (Deuteronomy:21:6; strkjv@Psalms:26:6; strkjv@73:13|). Plummer doubts if Pilate said these words with a direct reference to his wife's message (26:19|), but I fail to see the ground for that scepticism. The so-called _Gospel of Peter_ says that Pilate washed his hands because the Jews refused to do so.

rwp@Philippians:3:20 @{Our citizenship} (\hmn to politeuma\). Old word from \piliteu\ (Phillipians:1:27|), but only here in N.T. The inscriptions use it either for citizenship or for commonwealth. Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship and found it a protection. The Philippians were also proud of their Roman citizenship. But Christians are citizens of a kingdom not of this world (John:18:36|). Milligan (_Vocabulary_) doubts if commentators are entitled to translate it here: "We are a colony of heaven," because such a translation reverses the relation between the colony and the mother city. But certainly here Paul's heart is in heaven. {We wait for} (\apekdechometha\). Rare and late double compound (perfective use of prepositions like wait out) which vividly pictures Paul's eagerness for the second coming of Christ as the normal attitude of the Christian colonist whose home is heaven.

rwp@Philippians:3:21 @{Shall fashion anew} (\metaschmatisei\). Future active indicative of \metaschmatiz\ for which see strkjv@1Corinthians:4:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13ff|. {Conformed to} (\summorphon\). For which (\sun, morph\) see strkjv@Romans:8:29|, only N.T. examples. With associative instrumental case. The body of our state of humiliation will be made suitable to associate with the body of Christ's glory (1Corinthians:15:54f.|). {According to the working} (\kata tn energeian\). "According to the energy." If any one doubts the power of Christ to do this transformation, Paul replies that he has power "even to subject all things unto himself."

rwp@Philippians:4:2 @{Euodia} (\Euodian\). This name means literally "prosperous journey" (\eu, hodos\). It occurs in the inscriptions. {Syntyche} (\Suntuchn\). From \suntugchan\, to meet with and so "pleasant acquaintance" or "good-luck." Occurs in the inscriptions and identified with Lydia by some. Klopper suggests that each of these rival women had church assemblies in their homes, one a Jewish-Christian church, the other a Gentile-Christian church. Vincent doubts the great influence of women in Macedonia held by Lightfoot who also suggests that these two were ladies of rank or perhaps deaconesses of the church in Philippi. Schinz suggests that in such a pure church even slight bickerings would make a real disturbance. "It may have been accidental friction between two energetic Christian women" (Kennedy).

rwp@Romans:14:1 @{Him that is weak} (\ton asthenounta\). See on ¯1Corinthians:8:7-12; strkjv@9:22; strkjv@Romans:4:19|. {Receive ye} (\proslambanesthe\). Present middle imperative (indirect), "take to yourselves." {Yet not to doubtful disputations} (\m eis diakriseis dialogismn\). "Not for decisions of opinions." Note \dia\ (between, two or \duo\) in both words. Discriminations between doubts or hesitations. For \diakrisis\, see strkjv@1Corinthians:12:10; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14| (only N.T. examples). For \dialogismos\ see strkjv@Luke:2:35; strkjv@24:38; strkjv@Phillipians:2:14|. The "strong" brother is not called upon to settle all the scruples of the "weak" brother. But each takes it on himself to do it.