NONE.filter - rwp recognition:

rwp@1Corinthians:8:3 @{The same is known of him} (\houtos egnstai hup' autou\). Loving God (condition of first class again) is the way to come to know God. It is not certain whether \houtos\ refers to the man who loves God or to God who is loved. Both are true. God knows those that are his (2Timothy:2:19; strkjv@Exodus:33:12|). Those who know God are known of God (Galatians:4:9|). We love God because he first loved us (1John:4:19|). But here Paul uses both ideas and both verbs. \Egnstai\ is perfect passive indicative of \ginsk\, an abiding state of recognition by (\hup'\) God. No one is acquainted with God who does not love him (1John:4:8|). God sets the seal of his favour on the one who loves him. Songs:much for the principle.

rwp@1John:4:6 @{We} (\hmeis\). In sharp contrast with the false prophets and the world. We are in tune with the Infinite God. Hence "he that knoweth God" (\ho ginskn ton theon\, present active articular participle, the one who keeps on getting acquainted with God, growing in his knowledge of God) "hears us" (\akouei hmn\). This is one reason why sermons are dull (some actually are, others so to dull hearers) or inspiring. There is a touch of mysticism here, to be sure, but the heart of Christianity is mysticism (spiritual contact with God in Christ by the Holy Spirit). John states the same idea negatively by a relative clause parallel with the preceding articular participle, the negative with both clauses. John had felt the cold, indifferent, and hostile stare of the worldling as he preached Jesus. {By this} (\ek toutou\). "From this," deduction drawn from the preceding; only example in the Epistle for the common \en touti\ as in strkjv@4:2|. The power of recognition (\ginskomen\, we know by personal experience) belongs to all believers (Westcott). There is no reason for Christians being duped by "the spirit of error" (\to pneuma ts plans\), here alone in the N.T., though we have \pneumasin planois\ (misleading spirits) in strkjv@1Timothy:4:1|. Rejection of the truth may be due also to our not speaking the truth in love (Ephesians:4:15|).

rwp@1Peter:3:7 @{Ye husbands likewise} (\hoi andres homois\). Probably "likewise" here refers to honouring all men (2:17|), not "likewise" of strkjv@3:1|. {Dwell with} (\sunoikountes\). Present active participle of \sunoike\, old verb for domestic association, here only in N.T. Used as imperative here like the participle in strkjv@2:18; strkjv@3:1|. {According to knowledge} (\kata gnsin\). "With an intelligent recognition of the nature of the marriage relation" (Vincent). {Giving honour unto the woman as unto the weaker vessel} (\hs asthenesteri skeuei ti gunaikeii aponemontes timn\). Present active participle of \aponem\, old verb, to assign, to portion out (or off), here only in N.T. \Skeuos\ is an old and common word for vessel, furniture, utensil (Matthew:12:29; strkjv@2Timothy:2:20|). Here both husband and wife are termed vessels or "parts of the furniture of God's house" (Bigg). See Paul's use of \skeuos\ for ministers (2Corinthians:4:7|). \Gunaikeii\ here is an adjective (female, feminine) from \gun\ (woman, wife). She is termed "the weaker" (\ti asthenesteri\), not for intellectual or moral weakness, but purely for physical reasons, which the husband must recognize with due consideration for marital happiness. {Joint-heirs of the grace of life} (\sunklronomoi charitos zs\). Late double compound found in an Ephesian inscription and the papyri, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Romans:8:17; strkjv@Ephesians:3:6; strkjv@Hebrews:11:9|. God's gift of life eternal belongs to woman as well as to man. In the eyes of God the wife may be superior to the husband, not merely equal. {To the end that your prayers be not hindered} (\eis to m egkoptesthai tas proseuchas humn\). Purpose clause with \eis to\ and the present passive infinitive (with negative \m\) of \egkopt\, to cut in, to interrupt, late verb (Polybius), as in strkjv@Romans:15:22|, etc. Very vivid to us now with our telephones and radios when people cut in on us. \Proseuchas\ (prayers) is the accusative of general reference. Husbands surely have here cause to consider why their prayers are not answered.

rwp@1Timothy:5:14 @{I desire} (\boulomai\). See strkjv@2:8|. {The younger widows} (\neteras\). No article and no word for widows, though that is clearly the idea. \Neteras\ is accusative of general reference with \gamein\ (to marry) the object (present infinitive active) of \boulomai\. {Bear children} (\teknogonein\). A compound verb here only in N.T. and nowhere else save in Anthol. See \teknogonia\ in strkjv@2:15|. {Rule the household} (\oikodespotein\). Late verb from \oikodespots\ (Mark:14:14|), twice in the papyri, only here in N.T. Note that the wife is here put as ruler of the household, proper recognition of her influence, "new and improved position" (Liddon). {Occasion} (\aphormn\). Old word (\apo, horm\), a base to rush from, Pauline use in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:12; strkjv@11:12; strkjv@Galatians:5:13|. {To the adversary} (\ti antikeimeni\). Dative case of the articular participle of \antikeimai\, a Pauline idiom (Phillipians:1:28|). {Reviling} (\loidorias\). Old word (from \loidore\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:3:9|. Genitive case with \charin\.

rwp@1Timothy:5:22 @{Lay hands hastily} (\cheiras taches epitithei\). Present active imperative of \epitithmi\ in the sense of approval (ordination) as in strkjv@Acts:6:6; strkjv@13:3|. But it is not clear whether it is the case of ministers just ordained as in strkjv@4:14| (\epithesis\), or of warning against hasty ordination of untried men, or the recognition and restoration of deposed ministers (verse 20|) as suits the context. The prohibition suits either situation, or both. {Be partakers of other men's sins} (\koinnei hamartiais allotriais\). Present active imperative of \koinne\ (from \koinnos\, partner) with \m\ in prohibition with associative instrumental case as in strkjv@2John:1:11; strkjv@Romans:12:13|. On \allotrios\ (belonging to another) see strkjv@Romans:14:4|. {Keep thyself pure} (\seauton hagnon trei\). "Keep on keeping thyself pure." Present active imperative of \tre\.

rwp@Acts:13:13 @{Paul and his company} (\hoi peri Paulon\). Neat Greek idiom as in Plato, Cratylus 440 C \hoi peri Herakleiton\. On this idiom see Gildersleeve, _Syntax_, p. 264. It means a man and his followers, "those around Paul." Now Paul ranks first always in Acts save in strkjv@14:2; strkjv@15:12,25| for special reasons. Heretofore Saul (Paul) held a secondary position (9:27; strkjv@11:30; strkjv@13:1f.|). "In nothing is the greatness of Barnabas more manifest than in his recognition of the superiority of Paul and acceptance of a secondary position for himself" (Furneaux). {Set sail} (\anachthentes\). First aorist passive participle of \anag\. Thirteen times in the Acts and strkjv@Luke:8:22| which see. They sailed up to sea and came down (\katag, katabain\) to land. Songs:it looks. {Departed from them} (\apochrsas ap' autn\). First aorist active participle of \apochre\, old verb to withdraw, go away from. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:7:23; strkjv@Luke:9:39|. He is called John there as in verse 5| and Mark in strkjv@15:39|, though John Mark in strkjv@12:12,25|. This may be accidental or on purpose (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 317). Luke is silent on John's reasons for leaving Paul and Barnabas. He was the cousin of Barnabas and may not have relished the change in leadership. There may have been change in plans also now that Paul is in command. Barnabas had chosen Cyprus and Paul has led them to Perga in Pamphylia and means to go on into the highlands to Antioch in Pisidia. There were perils of many sorts around them and ahead (2Corinthians:11:26|), perils to which John Mark was unwilling to be exposed. Paul will specifically charge him at Antioch with desertion of his post (Acts:15:39|). It is possible, as Ramsay suggests, that the mosquitoes at Perga gave John malaria. If so, they bit Paul and Barnabas also. He may not have liked Paul's aggressive attitude towards the heathen. At any rate he went home to Jerusalem instead of to Antioch, _zu seiner Mutter_ (Holtzmann). It was a serious breach in the work, but Paul and Barnabas stuck to the work.

rwp@Acts:18:21 @{I shall return} (\anakamps\). Future active indicative of \anakampt\, old verb to bend back, turn back (Matthew:2:2|). {If God will} (\tou theou thelontos\). Genitive absolute of present active participle. This expression (\ean\ with subjunctive) occurs also in strkjv@1Corinthians:4:19; strkjv@16:7; strkjv@James:4:15|. Such phrases were common among Jews, Greeks, and Romans, and are today. It is simply a recognition that we are in God's hands. The Textus Receptus has here a sentence not in the best MSS.: "I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem." This addition by D and other documents may have been due to a desire to give a reason for the language in verse 22| about "going up" to Jerusalem. Whether Paul said it or not, it was in the spring when he made this journey with a company of pilgrims probably going to the feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem. We know that later Paul did try to reach Jerusalem for Pentecost (20:16|) and succeeded. As the ship was leaving, Paul had to go, but with the hope of returning soon to Ephesus as he did.

rwp@Acts:19:29 @{With the confusion} (\ts sugchuses\). Genitive case after \eplsth\. An old word, but in the N.T. only here, from verb \sugche\, to pour together like a flood (only in Acts in the N.T.). Vivid description of the inevitable riot that followed "the appearance of such a body in the crowded agora of an excitable city" (Rackham) "vociferating the city's watch-word." {They rushed} (\hrmsan\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \horma\, old verb for impetuous dashing, a case of mob psychology (mob mind), with one accord (\homothumadon\ as in strkjv@Acts:1:14|, etc.). {Into the theatre} (\eis to theatron\). A place for seeing (\theaomai\) spectacles, originally for dramatic representation (Thucydides, Herodotus), then for the spectators, then for the spectacle or show (1Corinthians:4:9|). The theatre (amphitheatre) at Ephesus can still be traced in the ruins (Wood, _Ephesus_) and shows that it was of enormous size capable of seating fifty-six thousand persons (some estimate it only 24,500). It was the place for large public gatherings of any sort out of doors like our football and baseball parks. In particular, gladiatorial shows were held in these theatres. {Having seized Gaius and Aristarchus men of Macedonia} (\sunarpasantes Gaion kai Aristarchon Makedonas\). See strkjv@6:12| for this same verb. They wanted some victims for this "gladiatorial" show. These two men were "Paul's companions in travel" (\sunekdmous Paulou\), together (\sun\) with Paul in being abroad, away from home or people (\ek-dmous\, late word, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:8:19|). How the mob got hold of Gaius (Acts:20:4|) and Aristarchus (20:4; strkjv@27:2; strkjv@Colossians:4:10; strkjv@Philemon:1:24|) we do not know whether by accidental recognition or by search after failure to get Paul. In strkjv@Romans:16:4| Paul speaks of Priscilla and Aquila as those "who for my life laid down their own necks." Paul lived with them in Ephesus as in Corinth. It is possible that Demetrius led the mob to their house and that they refused to allow Paul to go or to be seized at the risk of their own lives. Paul himself may have been desperately ill at this time as we know was the case once during his stay in Ephesus when he felt the answer of death in himself (2Corinthians:1:9|) and when God rescued him. That may mean that, ill as he was, Paul wanted to go and face the mob in the theatre, knowing that it meant certain death.

rwp@Colossians:2:6 @{As therefore ye received} (\hs oun parelabete\). Second aorist active indicative of \paralamban\ in same sense as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:1; strkjv@Phillipians:4:9| (both \manthan\ and \paralamban\) that is like \manthan\, to learn (1:7|), from Epaphras and others. {Christ Jesus the Lord} (\ton Christon Isoun ton Kurion\). This peculiar phrase occurs nowhere else by Paul. We have often \ho Christos\ (the Christ or Messiah) as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:15|, \Isous Christos\ (Jesus Christ), \Christos Isous\ (Christ Jesus), \ho Kurios Isous\ (the Lord Jesus, very often), but nowhere else \ho Christos Isous\ and \Isous ho Kurios\. Hence it is plain that Paul here meets the two forms of Gnostic heresy about the Person of Christ (the recognition of the historical Jesus in his actual humanity against the Docetic Gnostics, the identity of the Christ or Messiah with this historical Jesus against the Cerinthian Gnostics, and the acknowledgment of him as Lord). "As therefore ye received the Christ (the Messiah), Jesus the Lord." Ye were taught right. {Walk in him} (\en auti peripateite\). "Go on walking in him" (present active indicative of \peripate\). Stick to your first lessons in Christ.

rwp@Colossians:3:18 @{Wives} (\kai gunaikes\). The article here distinguishes class from class and with the vocative case can be best rendered "Ye wives." Songs:with each group. {Be in subjection to your husbands} (\hupotassesthe tois andrasin\). "Own" (\idiois\) is genuine in strkjv@Ephesians:5:22|, but not here. The verb \hupotassomai\ has a military air, common in the _Koin_ for such obedience. Obedience in government is essential as the same word shows in strkjv@Romans:13:1,5|. {As is fitting in the Lord} (\hs anken en Kurii\). This is an idiomatic use of the imperfect indicative with verbs of propriety in present time (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 919). Wives have rights and privileges, but recognition of the husband's leadership is essential to a well-ordered home, only the assumption is that the husband has a head and a wise one.

rwp@Luke:4:7 @{Wilt worship before me} (\proskunsis enpion emou\). strkjv@Matthew:4:9| has it more bluntly "worship me." That is what it really comes to, though in Luke the matter is more delicately put. It is a condition of the third class (\ean\ and the subjunctive). Luke has it "thou therefore if" (\su oun ean\), in a very emphatic and subtle way. It is the ingressive aorist (\proskunsis\), just bow the knee once up here in my presence. The temptation was for Jesus to admit Satan's authority by this act of prostration (fall down and worship), a recognition of authority rather than of personal merit. {It shall all be thine} (\estai sou psa\). Satan offers to turn over all the keys of world power to Jesus. It was a tremendous grand-stand play, but Jesus saw at once that in that case he would be the agent of Satan in the rule of the world by bargain and graft instead of the Son of God by nature and world ruler by conquest over Satan. The heart of Satan's program is here laid bare. Jesus here rejected the Jewish idea of the Messiah as an earthly ruler merely. "He rejects Satan as an ally, and thereby has him as an implacable enemy" (Plummer.)

rwp@Luke:16:27 @{That you send him} (\hina pempsis auton\). As if he had not had a fair warning and opportunity. The Roman Catholics probably justify prayer to saints from this petition from the Rich Man to Abraham, but both are in Hades (the other world). It is to be observed besides, that Abraham makes no effort to communicate with the five brothers. But heavenly recognition is clearly assumed. Dante has a famous description of his visit to the damned (_Purg_. iii, 114).

rwp@Mark:1:24 @{What have we to do with thee?} (\ti hmin kai soi?\) The same idiom in strkjv@Matthew:8:29|. Ethical dative. Nothing in common between the demon and Jesus. Note "we." The man speaks for the demon and himself, double personality. The recognition of Jesus by the demons may surprise us since the rabbis (the ecclesiastics) failed to do so. They call Jesus "The Holy One of God" (\ho hagios tou theou\). Hence the demon feared that Jesus was come to destroy him and the man in his power. In strkjv@Matthew:8:29| the demon calls Jesus "Son of God." Later the disciples will call Jesus "The Holy One of God" (John:6:69|). The demon cried out aloud (\anekraxen\, late first aorist form, \anekragen\, common second aorist) so that all heard the strange testimony to Jesus. The man says "I know" (\oida\), correct text, some manuscripts "we know" (\oidamen\), including the demon.

rwp@Matthew:4:9 @{All these things will I give thee} (\tauta soi panta ds\). The devil claims the rule of the world, not merely of Palestine or of the Roman Empire. "The kingdoms of the cosmos" (4:8|) were under his sway. This word for world brings out the orderly arrangement of the universe while \h oikoumen\ presents the inhabited earth. Jesus does not deny the grip of the devil on the world of men, but the condition (\ean\ and aorist subjunctive, second class undetermined with likelihood of determination), was spurned by Jesus. As Matthew has it Jesus is plainly to "fall down and worship me" (\pesn prokunsis moi\), while Luke (Luke:4:7|) puts it, "worship before me" (\enpion emou\), a less offensive demand, but one that really involved worship of the devil. The ambition of Jesus is thus appealed to at the price of recognition of the devil's primacy in the world. It was compromise that involved surrender of the Son of God to the world ruler of this darkness. "The temptation was threefold: to gain a temporal, not a spiritual, dominion; to gain it at once; and to gain it by an act of homage to the ruler of this world, which would make the self-constituted Messiah the vice-regent of the devil and not of God" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:6:9 @{After this manner therefore pray ye} (\houts oun proseuchesthe humeis\). "You" expressed in contrast with "the Gentiles." It should be called "The Model Prayer" rather than "The Lord's Prayer." "Thus" pray as he gives them a model. He himself did not use it as a liturgy (cf. strkjv@John:17|). There is no evidence that Jesus meant it for liturgical use by others. In strkjv@Luke:11:2-4| practically the same prayer though briefer is given at a later time by Jesus to the apostles in response to a request that he teach them how to pray. McNeile argues that the form in Luke is the original to which Matthew has made additions: "The tendency of liturgical formulas is towards enrichment rather than abbreviation." But there is no evidence whatever that Jesus designed it as a set formula. There is no real harm in a liturgical formula if one likes it, but no one sticks to just one formula in prayer. There is good and not harm in children learning and saying this noble prayer. Some people are disturbed over the words "Our Father" and say that no one has a right to call God Father who has not been "born again." But that is to say that an unconverted sinner cannot pray until he is converted, an absurd contradiction. God is the Father of all men in one sense; the recognition of Him as the Father in the full sense is the first step in coming back to him in regeneration and conversion.

rwp@Matthew:8:29 @{Thou Son of God} (\huie tou theou\). The recognition of Jesus by the demons is surprising. The whole subject of demonology is difficult. Some hold that it is merely the ancient way of describing disease. But that does not explain the situation here. Jesus is represented as treating the demons as real existences separate from the human personality. Missionaries in China today claim that they have seen demons cast out. The devil knew Jesus clearly and it is not strange that Jesus was recognized by the devil's agents. They know that there is nothing in common between them and the Son of God (\hmin kai soi\, ethical dative) and they fear torment "before the time" (\pro kairou\). Usually \ta daimonia\ is the word in the New Testament for demons, but in strkjv@8:31| we have \hoi daimones\ (the only example in the N.T.). \Daimonion\ is a diminutive of \daimn\. In Homer \daimn\ is used synonymously with \theos\ and \thea\. Hesiod employed \daimn\ of men of the golden age as tutelary deities. Homer has the adjective \daimonios\ usually in an evil sense. Empedocles considered the demons both bad and good. They were thus used to relieve the gods and goddesses of much rascality. Grote (_History of Greece_) notes that the Christians were thus by pagan usage justified in calling idolatry the worship of demons. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20f.; strkjv@1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@16:13f|. In the Gospels demons are the same as unclean spirits (Mark:5:12,15; strkjv@3:22,30; strkjv@Luke:4:33|). The demons are disturbers (Vincent) of the whole life of man (Mark:5:2f.; strkjv@7:25; strkjv@Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|).

rwp@Revelation:11:13 @{There was} (\egeneto\). "There came to pass" (second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\). Earthquakes are often given as a symbol of great upheavals in social and spiritual order (Swete) as in strkjv@Ezekiel:37:7; strkjv@38:19; strkjv@Haggai:2:6; strkjv@Mark:13:8; strkjv@Hebrews:12:26f.; strkjv@Revelation:6:12; strkjv@16:18|. {Fell} (\epesen\). Second aorist active indicative of \pipt\, to fall. Only the tenth (\to dekaton\) of the city fell. Cf. \to triton\ (the third) in strkjv@8:7-12|, perhaps a conventional number. {Were killed} (\apektanthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \apoktein\ as in strkjv@9:18|. {Seven thousand persons} (\onomata anthrpn chiliades hepta\). This use of \onomata\ (names of men here) is like that in strkjv@3:4; strkjv@Acts:1:15| and occurs in the papyri (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 196f.). {Were affrighted} (\emphoboi egenonto\). "Became terrified," old adjective (\en, phobos\, fear) as in strkjv@Luke:24:5; strkjv@Acts:10:4; strkjv@24:5|. "A general movement toward Christianity, induced by fear or despair--a prediction fulfilled more than once in ecclesiastical history" (Swete). {Gave glory} (\edkan doxan\). First aorist active indicative of \didmi\, when they saw the effect of the earthquake, recognition of God's power (John:9:24; strkjv@Acts:12:23; strkjv@Romans:4:20|).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE REVELATION OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 95 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION DIFFICULTY IN THE PROBLEM Perhaps no single book in the New Testament presents so many and so formidable problems as the Apocalypse of John. These difficulties concern the authorship, the date, the apocalyptic method, the relation to the other Johannine books, the purpose, the historical environment, the reception of the book in the New Testament canon, the use and misuse of the book through the ages, etc. In the eastern churches the recognition of the Apocalypse of John was slower than in the west, since it was not in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to Cerinthus the Gnostic, but he was ably answered by Hippolytus, who attributed it to the Apostle John. The Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 360) omitted it, but the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) accepted it. The dispute about millenarianism led Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the third century, A.D.) to deny the authorship to the Apostle John, though he accepted it as canonical. Eusebius suggested a second John as the author. But finally the book was accepted in the east as Hebrews was in the west after a period of doubt.