NONE.filter - rwp exception:

rwp@1Corinthians:9:1 @{Amos:I not free?} (\Ouk eimi eleutheros;\). Free as a Christian from Mosaic ceremonialism (cf. strkjv@9:19|) as much as any Christian and yet he adapts his moral independence to the principle of considerate love in strkjv@8:13|. {Amos:I not an apostle?} (\ouk eimi apostolos;\). He has the exceptional privileges as an apostle to support from the churches and yet he foregoes these. {Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?} (\ouchi Isoun ton Kurion hmn heoraka;\). Proof (15:8; strkjv@Acts:9:17,27; strkjv@18:9; strkjv@22:14,17f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:1ff.|) that he has the qualification of an apostle (Acts:1:22|) though not one of the twelve. Note strong form of the negative \ouchi\ here. All these questions expect an affirmative answer. The perfect active \heoraka\ from \hora\, to see, does not here have double reduplication as in strkjv@John:1:18|.

rwp@2Corinthians:4:8 @{Pressed} (\thlibomenoi\). From \thlib\, to press as grapes, to contract, to squeeze. Series of present passive participles here through verse 9| that vividly picture Paul's ministerial career. {Yet not straitened} (\all' ou stenochroumenoi\). Each time the exception is stated by \all' ou\. From \stenochre\ (\stenochros\, from \stenos\, narrow, \chros\, space), to be in a narrow place, to keep in a tight place. Late verb, in LXX and papyri. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:6:12|. {Yet not unto despair} (\all' ouk exaporoumenoi\). Late perfective compound with \ex-\ of \exapore\. A very effective play on words here, lost, but not lost out.

rwp@Acts:11:18 @{Held their peace} (\hsuchasan\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \hsuchaz\, old verb to be quiet, to keep quiet. The wrangling (verse 2|) ceased. The critics even "glorified God" (\edoxasan\, ingressive aorist again). {Then to the Gentiles also} (\Ara kai tois ethnesin\). \Ergo\ as in strkjv@Luke:11:20,48| and like \ara oun\ in strkjv@Romans:5:18|. In ancient Greek inferential \ara\ cannot come at the beginning of a clause as here. It was reluctant acquiescence in the undoubted fact that God had "granted repentance unto life" to these Gentiles in Caesarea, but the circumcision party undoubtedly looked on it as an exceptional case and not to be regarded as a precedent to follow with other Gentiles. Peter will see in this incident (Acts:15:8|) the same principle for which Paul contends at the Jerusalem Conference. Furneaux suggests that this conduct of Peter in Caesarea, though grudgingly acquiesced in after his skilful defence, decreased his influence in Jerusalem where he had been leader and helped open the way for the leadership of James the Lord's brother.

rwp@Acts:14:19 @{But there came thither Jews from Antioch and Iconium} (\Eplthan de apo Antiocheias kai Ikoniou Ioudaioi\). Came to or upon them, \eplthan\, second aorist (ingressive) indicative of \eperchomai\. Whether news of the miracle had reached those cities we do not know. These may have been travelling grain merchants. At any rate there was an interval in which Paul and Barnabas won some disciples (verse 22|). There would be a natural reaction, even revulsion, in the minds of many who had come so near to worshipping Paul and Barnabas. The pendulum swings easily from one extreme to the other. The hostile Jews from Antioch and Iconium may even have followed Paul and Barnabas along the fine Roman road on purpose to keep them on the run. They had driven them out of Antioch and out of Iconium and now appear at Lystra at an opportune moment for their work. {Having persuaded the multitudes} (\peisantes tous ochlous\). First aorist (effective) active participle of \peith\. They had complete success with many and struck at the psychological moment. {They stoned Paul} (\lithasantes ton Paulon\). First aorist active participle of \lithaz\, late verb from \lithos\ for throwing stones (used by Paul referring to this one incident when alone he was stoned, strkjv@2Corinthians:11:25|). The wounds inflicted may have left some of the scars (\stigmata\) mentioned in strkjv@Galatians:6:17|. They stoned Paul as the chief speaker (Mercury) and passed by Barnabas (Jupiter). It was a Jewish mode of punishment as against Stephen and these Jews knew that Paul was the man that they had to deal with. Hackett notes that the Jews with two exceptions incited the persecutions which Paul endured. The exceptions were in Philippi (16:16-40|) and Ephesus (19:23-41|). {Dragged him out of the city} (\esuron ex ts poles\). They hurled Stephen outside of the city before stoning him (\7:58\). It was a hurried and irregular proceeding, but they were dragging (imperfect active of \sur\, old verb) Paul out now. {Supposing that he were dead} (\nomizontes auton tethnkenai\). Present active participle with infinitive (second perfect active of \thnsk\) in indirect discourse with accusative of general reference. The Jews are jubilant this time with memories of Paul's escape at Antioch and Iconium. The pagan mob feel that they have settled accounts for their narrow escape from worshipping two Jewish renegade preachers. It was a good day's work for them all. Luke does not say that Paul was actually dead.

rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Acts:17:30 @{The times of ignorance} (\tous chronous ts agnoias\). The times before full knowledge of God came in Jesus Christ. Paul uses the very word for their ignorance (\agnoountes\) employed in verse 23|. {Overlooked} (\huperidn\). Second aorist active participle of \huperora\ or \hupereid\, old verb to see beyond, not to see, to overlook, not "to wink at" of the Authorized Version with the notion of condoning. Here only in the N.T. It occurs in the LXX in the sense of overlooking or neglecting (Psalms:18:62; strkjv@55:1|). But it has here only a negative force. God has all the time objected to the polytheism of the heathen, and now he has made it plain. In Wisdom strkjv@11:23 we have these words: "Thou overlookest the sins of men to the end they may repent." {But now} (\ta nun\). Accusative of general reference, "as to the now things or situation." All is changed now that Christ has come with the full knowledge of God. See also strkjv@27:22|. {All everywhere} (\pantas pantachou\). No exceptions anywhere. {Repent} (\metanoein\). Present active infinitive of \metanoe\ in indirect command, a permanent command of perpetual force. See on \metanoe\ ¯Acts:2:38| and the Synoptic Gospels. This word was the message of the Baptist, of Jesus, of Peter, of Paul, this radical change of attitude and life.

rwp@Hebrews:9:22 @{I may almost say} (\schedon\). Old adverb, only three times in the N.T., here, strkjv@Acts:13:44; strkjv@19:26|. Here it qualifies the entire clause, not just \panta\. {With blood} (\en haimati\). In blood. There were exceptions (Exodus:19:10; strkjv@32:30f.; strkjv@Leviticus:5:11f.; strkjv@15:5; strkjv@Numbers:16:46f.; strkjv@31:23f.|, etc.). {Apart from shedding of blood} (\chris haimatekchusias\). A double compound first found here (coined by the writer) and later in ecclesiastical writers (\haima\, blood, \ek\, out, \che\, to pour, like \ekchusis haimatos\ strkjv@1Kings:18:28|). "Pouring out of blood." The author seems to have in mind Christ's words in strkjv@Matthew:26:28|: "This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins." The blood is the vital principle and is efficacious as an atonement. The blood of Christ sets aside all other plans for pardon.

rwp@Info_John @ A PERSONAL WITNESS It is manifest all through the book that the writer is the witness who is making the contribution of his personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. In strkjv@John:1:14| he plainly says that "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory" (\etheasametha tn doxan autou\). He here associates others with him in this witness to the glory of the Word, but in strkjv@John:21:25| he employs the singular "I suppose" (\oimai\) in sharp dis- tinction from the plural "we know" (\oidamen\) just before. The writer is present in nearly all the scenes described. The word witness (\marture, marturia\) so common in this Gospel (John:1:7,8,19; strkjv@3:11,26,33; strkjv@5:31; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@21:24|, etc.) illustrates well this point of view. In the Gospel of Luke we have the work of one who was not a personal witness of Christ (Luke:1:1-4|). In the Gospel of Matthew we possess either the whole work of a personal follower and apostle or at least the Logia of Matthew according to Papias preserved in it. In Mark's Gospel we have as the basis the preaching of Simon Peter as preserved by his interpreter John Mark. John's Gospel claims to be the personal witness of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and as such deserves and has received exceptional esteem. One may note all through the book evidences of an eye-witness in the vivid details.

rwp@John:1:12 @{As many as received him} (\hosoi elabon auton\). Effective aorist active indicative of \lamban\ "as many as did receive him," in contrast with \hoi idioi\ just before, exceptional action on the part of the disciples and other believers. {To them} (\autois\). Dative case explanatory of the relative clause preceding, an anacoluthon common in John 27 times as against 21 in the Synoptists. This is a common Aramaic idiom and is urged by Burney (_Aramaic Origin_, etc., p. 64) for his theory of an Aramaic original of the Fourth Gospel. {The right} (\exousian\). In strkjv@5:27| \edken\ (first aorist active indicative of \didmi\) \exousian\ means authority but includes power (\dunamis\). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right. {To become} (\genesthai\). Second aorist middle of \ginomai\, to become what they were not before. {Children of God} (\tekna theou\). In the full spiritual sense, not as mere offspring of God true of all men (Acts:17:28|). Paul's phrase \huioi theou\ (Gal strkjv@3:26|) for believers, used also by Jesus of the pure in heart (Matthew:5:9|), does not occur in John's Gospel (but in strkjv@Revelation:21:7|). It is possible that John prefers \ta tekna tou theou\ for the spiritual children of God whether Jew or Gentile (John:11:52|) because of the community of nature (\teknon\ from root \tek-\, to beget). But one cannot follow Westcott in insisting on "adoption" as Paul's reason for the use of \huioi\ since Jesus uses \huioi theou\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:9|. Clearly the idea of regeneration is involved here as in strkjv@John:3:3|. {Even to them that believe} (\tois pisteuousin\). No "even" in the Greek, merely explanatory apposition with \autois\, dative case of the articular present active participle of \pisteu\. {On his name} (\eis to onoma\). Bernard notes \pisteu eis\ 35 times in John, to put trust in or on. See also strkjv@2:23; strkjv@3:38| for \pisteu eis to onoma autou\. This common use of \onoma\ for the person is an Aramaism, but it occurs also in the vernacular papyri and \eis to onoma\ is particularly common in the payment of debts (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). See strkjv@Acts:1:15| for \onomata\ for persons.

rwp@John:7:13 @{Howbeit} (\mentoi\). See strkjv@4:27| for this compound particle (\men, toi\), by way of exception, but yet. {Spake} (\elalei\). Imperfect active of \lale\, "was speaking," picturing the whispering or secret talk ({no man openly}, \oudeis parrsii\). Best MSS. do not have \en\ here with \parrsii\ (locative or instrumental case of manner) as in strkjv@7:26; strkjv@10:24; strkjv@11:54|, but \en\ genuine in strkjv@7:4; strkjv@Colossians:2:15|. This adverbial use of \parrsii\ is common enough (Mark:8:37|). {For fear of the Jews} (\dia ton phobon tn Ioudain\). Objective genitive. The crowds really feared the Jewish leaders and evidently did not wish to involve Jesus or themselves. See the same phrase and attitude on the part of the disciples in strkjv@19:38; strkjv@20:19|.

rwp@John:13:10 @{He that is bathed} (\ho leloumenos\). Perfect passive articular participle of \lou\, to bathe the whole body (Acts:9:37|). {Save to wash his feet} (\ei m tous podas nipsasthai\). Aleph and some old Latin MSS. have only \nipsasthai\, but the other words are genuine and are really involved by the use of \nipsasthai\ (first aorist middle infinitive of \nipt\, to wash parts of the body) instead of \lousasthai\, to bathe the whole body (just used before). The guest was supposed to bathe (\lou\) before coming to a feast and so only the feet had to be washed (\nipt\) on removing the sandals. {Clean} (\katharos\). Because of the bath. For \katharos\ meaning external cleanliness see strkjv@Matthew:23:26; strkjv@27:59;| but in strkjv@John:15:3| it is used for spiritual purity as here in "ye are clean" (\katharoi\). {Every whit} (\holos\). All of the body because of the bath. For this same predicate use of \holos\ see strkjv@9:34|. {But not all} (\all' ouchi pantes\). Strongly put exception (\ouchi\). Plain hint of the treachery of Judas who is reclining at the table after having made the bargain with the Sanhedrin (Mark:14:11|). A year ago Jesus knew that Judas was a devil and said to the apostles: "One of you is a devil" (6:64,70|). But it did not hurt them then nor did they suspect each other then or now. It is far-fetched to make Jesus here refer to the cleansing power of his blood or to baptism as some do.

rwp@John:17:6 @{I manifested} (\ephanersa\). First aorist active indicative of \phanero\ (from \phaneros\, manifest). Another word for claiming successful accomplishment of his task as in verse 4| with \edoxasa\ and in verse 26| with \egnrisa\. {Whom} (\hous\). Accusative case after \edkas\, not attracted to case of antecedent (\anthrpois\). Jesus regards the apostles as the Father's gift to him. Recall the night of prayer before he chose them. {They have kept} (\tetrkan\). Perfect active indicative, late _Koin_ form for the third plural instead of the usual \tetrkasin\. Jesus claims loyalty and fidelity in these men with the one exception of Judas (verse 12|). He does not claim perfection for them, but they have at least held on to the message of the Father in spite of doubt and wavering (6:67-71; strkjv@Matthew:16:15-20|).

rwp@John:17:12 @{I kept} (\etroun\). Imperfect active of \tre\, "I continued to keep." {I guarded} (\ephulaxa\). First aorist (constative) active of \phulass\. Christ was the sentinel (\phulax\, strkjv@Acts:5:23|) for them. Is he our sentinel now? {But the son of perdition} (\ei m ho huios ts apleias\). The very phrase for antichrist (2Thessalonians:2:3|). Note play on \apleto\, perished (second aorist middle indicative of \apollumi\). It means the son marked by final loss, not annihilation, but meeting one's destiny (Acts:2:25|). A sad and terrible exception (Mark:14:21|). {The scripture} (\h graph\). It is not clear whether this is John's own comment or the word of Jesus. Not in strkjv@18:9|. The Scripture referred to is probably strkjv@Psalms:41:9| quoted in strkjv@13:18| with the same formula \hina plrthi\ which see there.

rwp@Luke:10:29 @{Desiring to justify himself} (\theln dikaisai heauton\). The lawyer saw at once that he had convicted himself of asking a question that he already knew. In his embarrassment he asks another question to show that he did have some point at first: {And who is my neighbour?} (\kai tis estin mou plsion;\). The Jews split hairs over this question and excluded from "neighbour" Gentiles and especially Samaritans. Songs:here was his loop-hole. A neighbour is a nigh dweller to one, but the Jews made racial exceptions as many, alas, do today. The word \plsion\ here is an adverb (neuter of the adjective \plsios\) meaning \ho plsion n\ (the one who is near), but \n\ was usually not expressed and the adverb is here used as if a substantive.

rwp@Mark:10:11 @Mark does not give the exception stated in strkjv@Matthew:19:9| "except for fornication" which see for discussion, though the point is really involved in what Mark does record. Mere formal divorce does not annul actual marriage consummated by the physical union. Breaking that bond does annul it.

rwp@Matthew:5:32 @{Saving for the cause of fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). An unusual phrase that perhaps means "except for a matter of unchastity." "Except on the ground of unchastity" (Weymouth), "except unfaithfulness" (Goodspeed), and is equivalent to \m epi porneii\ in strkjv@Matthew:19:9|. McNeile denies that Jesus made this exception because Mark and Luke do not give it. He claims that the early Christians made the exception to meet a pressing need, but one fails to see the force of this charge against Matthew's report of the words of Jesus. It looks like criticism to meet modern needs.

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|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Matthew:23:9 @{Call no man your father} (\patera m kaleste hmn\). Jesus meant the full sense of this noble word for our heavenly Father. "Abba was not commonly a mode of address to a living person, but a title of honour for Rabbis and great men of the past" (McNeile). In Gethsemane Jesus said: "Abba, Father" (Mark:14:36|). Certainly the ascription of "Father" to pope and priest seems out of harmony with what Jesus here says. He should not be understood to be condemning the title to one's real earthly father. Jesus often leaves the exceptions to be supplied.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE AUTHOR The writer calls himself John (Revelation:1:1,4,9; strkjv@22:8|). But what John? The book can hardly be pseudonymous, though, with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas, that is the rule with apocalypses. There would have been a clearer claim than just the name. The traditional and obvious way to understand the name is the Apostle John, though Dionysius of Alexandria mentions John Mark as held by some and he himself suggests another John, like the so-called Presbyter John of Papias as quoted by Eusebius. The uncertain language of Papias has raised a deal of questioning. Swete thinks that the majority of modern critics ascribe the Apocalypse to this Presbyter John, to whom Moffatt assigns probably II and III John. Irenaeus represents the Apostle John as having lived to the time of Trajan, at least to A.D. 98. Most ancient writers agree with this extreme old age of John. Justin Martyr states expressly that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse. Irenaeus called it the work of a disciple of Jesus. In the ninth century lived Georgius Hamartolus, and a MS. of his alleges that Papias says that John the son of Zebedee was beheaded by the Jews and there is an extract in an Oxford MS. of the seventh century which alleges that Papias says John and James were put to death by the Jews. On the basis of this slim evidence some today argue that John did not live to the end of the century and so did not write any of the Johannine books. But a respectable number of modern scholars still hold to the ancient view that the Apocalypse of John is the work of the Apostle and Beloved Disciple, the son of Zebedee.

rwp@Romans:14:14 @{I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus} (\oida kai pepeismai en kurii Isou\). He knows it and stands persuaded (perfect passive indicative of \peith\, to persuade), but in the sphere of the Lord Jesus (cf. strkjv@9:1|), not by mere rational processes. {Unclean of itself} (\kainon di' heautou\). Songs:Paul takes his stand with the "strong" as in strkjv@1Corinthians:8:4f.|, but he is not a libertine. Paul's liberty as to food is regulated by his life in the Lord. For this use of \koinos\, not as common to all (Acts:2:44; strkjv@4:32|), but unhallowed, impure, see on ¯Mark:7:2,5; strkjv@Acts:10:14,28|. God made all things for their own uses. {Save that} (\ei m\). The exception lies not in the nature of the food (\di' heautou\), but in the man's view of it (to him, \ekeini\, dative case).