NONE.filter - rwp scrap:

rwp@Info @ It has now been forty years since Dr. Marvin R. Vincent wrote his most useful series of volumes entitled _Word Studies in the New Testament_. They are still helpful for those for whom they were designed, but a great deal of water has run under the mill in these years. More scientific methods of philology are now in use. No longer are Greek tenses and prepositions explained in terms of conjectural English translations or interchanged according to the whim of the interpreter. Comparative grammar has thrown a flood of light on the real meaning of New Testament forms and idioms. New Testament writers are no longer explained as using one construction "for" another. New light has come also from the papyri discoveries in Egypt. Unusual Greek words from the standpoint of the literary critic or classical scholar are here found in everyday use in letters and business and public documents. The New Testament Greek is now known to be not a new or peculiar dialect of the Greek language, but the very lingo of the time. The vernacular _Koin_, the spoken language of the day, appears in the New Testament as in these scraps of Oxyrhynchus and Fayum papyri. There are specimens of the literary _Koin_ in the papyri as also in the writings of Luke, the Epistles of Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews. A new Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament will come in due time which will take note of the many startling discoveries from the Greek papyri and inscriptions first brought to notice in their bearing on the New Testament by Dr. Adolf Deissmann, then of Heidelberg, now of Berlin. His _Bible Studies_ (Translation by Alexander Grieve, 1901) and his _Light from the Ancient East_ (Revised Edition translated by L.R.M. Strachan, 1927) are accessible to students unfamiliar with the German originals.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:13 @{Being defamed we intreat} (\dusphmoumenoi parakaloumen\). The participle \dusphmoumenoi\ is an old verb (in I Macc. strkjv@7:41) to use ill, from \dusphmos\, but occurs here only in the N.T. Paul is opening his very heart now after the keen irony above. {As the filth of the world} (\hs perikatharmata tou kosmou\). Literally, sweepings, rinsings, cleansings around, dust from the floor, from \perikathair\, to cleanse all around (Plato and Aristotle) and so the refuse thrown off in cleansing. Here only in the N.T. and only twice elsewhere. \Katharma\ was the refuse of a sacrifice. In strkjv@Proverbs:21:18| \perikatharma\ occurs for the scapegoat. The other example is Epictetus iii. 22,78, in the same sense of an expiatory offering of a worthless fellow. It was the custom in Athens during a plague to throw to the sea some wretch in the hope of appeasing the gods. One hesitates to take it so here in Paul, though Findlay thinks that possibly in Ephesus Paul may have heard some such cry like that in the later martyrdoms _Christiani ad leones_. At any rate in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:32| Paul says "I fought with wild beasts" and in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:9| "I had the answer of death." Some terrible experience may be alluded to here. The word shows the contempt of the Ephesian populace for Paul as is shown in strkjv@Acts:19:23-41| under the influence of Demetrius and the craftsmen. {The offscouring of all things} (\pantn peripsma\). Late word, here only in N.T., though in Tob. strkjv@5:18. The word was used in a formula at Athens when victims were flung into the sea, \peripsma hmn genou\ (Became a \peripsma\ for us), in the sense of expiation. The word merely means scraping around from \peripsa\, offscrapings or refuse. That is probably the idea here as in Tob. strkjv@5:18. It came to have a complimentary sense for the Christians who in a plague gave their lives for the sick. But it is a bold figure here with Paul of a piece with \perikatharmata\.

rwp@1Corinthians:16:21 @{Of me Paul with mine own hand} (\ti emi cheiri Paulou\). Literally, "With the hand of me Paul." The genitive \Paulou\ is in apposition with the possessive pronoun \emi\ which is in the instrumental case just as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:17|, the sign in every Epistle. He dictated, but signed at the end. If we only had that signature on that scrap of paper.

rwp@2Timothy:3:7 @{Never able to come to the knowledge of the truth} (\mdepote eis epignsin altheias elthein dunamena\). Pathetic picture of these hypnotized women without intellectual power to cut through the fog of words and, though always learning scraps of things, they never come into the full knowledge (\epignsin\) of the truth in Christ. And yet they even pride themselves on belonging to the intelligentsia!

rwp@Acts:16:24 @{Into the inner prison} (\eis tn esteran phulakn\). The comparative form from the adverb \es\ (within), Ionic and old Attic for \eis\. In the LXX, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:6:19|. The Roman public prisons had a vestibule and outer prison and behind this the inner prison, a veritable dungeon with no light or air save what came through the door when open. One has only to picture modern cells in our jails, the dungeons in feudal castles, London prisons before the time of Howard, to appreciate the horrors of an inner prison cell in a Roman provincial town of the first century A.D. {Made their feet fast} (\tous podas sphalisato autn\). First aorist (effective) middle of \asphaliz\, from \asphals\ (safe), common verb in late Greek, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:24:64ff|. The inner prison was safe enough without this refinement of cruelty. {In the stocks} (\eis to xulon\). \Xulon\, from \xu\, to scrape or plane, is used for a piece of wood whether a cross or gibbet (Acts:5:30; strkjv@10:39; strkjv@13:29; strkjv@Galatians:3:13; strkjv@1Peter:2:24|) or a log or timber with five holes (four for the wrists and ankles and one for the neck) or two for the feet as here, \xuloped\, Latin _vervus_, to shackle the feet stretched apart (Job:33:11|). This torment was practiced in Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Adonirom Judson suffered it in Burmah. \Xulon\ is also used in the N.T. for stick or staff (Matthew:26:47|) and even a tree (Luke:23:31|). Tertullian said of Christians in the stocks: _Nihil crus sentit in vervo, quum animus in caelo est_ (Nothing the limb feels in the stocks when the mind is in heaven).

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:23:9 @{Strove} (\diemachonto\). Imperfect middle of \diamachomai\, old Attic verb, to fight it out (between, back and forth, fiercely). Here only in the N.T. It was a lively scrap and Luke pictures it as going on. The Pharisees definitely take Paul's side. {And what if a spirit hath spoken to him or an angel?} (\ei de pneuma elalsen auti aggelos?\). This is aposiopesis, not uncommon in the N.T., as in strkjv@Luke:13:9; strkjv@John:6:62| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1203). See one also in strkjv@Exodus:32:32|.

rwp@Acts:27:44 @{Some on planks} (\hous men epi sanisin\). Common Greek idiom (\hous men--hous de\) for "some--some." The only N.T. instance of the old Greek word \sanis\ for board or plank. The breaking of the ship gave scraps of timber which some used. {They all escaped safe} (\pantas diasthnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \diasz\ (the very word used for the desire of the centurion about Paul) with accusative of general reference, the clause being subject of \egeneto\. Songs:Luke in this marvellous narrative, worthy of any historian in any age, shows how Paul's promise was fulfilled (verse 24|). Paul the prisoner is the hero of the voyage and shipwreck, a wonderful example of God's providential care.

rwp@Colossians:2:14 @{Having blotted out} (\exaleipsas\). And so "cancelled." First aorist active participle of old verb \exaleiph\, to rub out, wipe off, erase. In N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:3:19| (LXX); strkjv@Revelation:3:5; strkjv@Colossians:2:14|. Here the word explains \charisamenos\ and is simultaneous with it. Plato used it of blotting out a writing. Often MSS. were rubbed or scraped and written over again (palimpsests, like Codex C). {The bond written in ordinances that was against us} (\to kath' hmn cheirographon tois dogmasin\). The late compound \cheirographon\ (\cheir\, hand, \graph\) is very common in the papyri for a certificate of debt or bond, many of the original \cheirographa\ (handwriting, "chirography"). See Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 247. The signature made a legal debt or bond as Paul says in strkjv@Philemon:1:18f.|: "I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it." Many of the papyri examples have been "crossed out" thus X as we do today and so cancelled. One decree is described as "neither washed out nor written over" (Milligan, N. T. _Documents_, p. 16). Undoubtedly "the handwriting in decrees" (\dogmasin\, the Mosaic law, strkjv@Ephesians:2:15|) was against the Jews (Exodus:24:3; strkjv@Deuteronomy:27:14-26|) for they accepted it, but the Gentiles also gave moral assent to God's law written in their hearts (Romans:2:14f.|). Songs:Paul says "against us" (\kath' hmn\) and adds "which was contrary to us" (\ho n hupenantion hmin\) because we (neither Jew nor Gentile) could not keep it. \Hupenantios\ is an old double compound adjective (\hupo, en, antios\) set over against, only here in N.T. except strkjv@Hebrews:10:27| when it is used as a substantive. It is striking that Paul has connected the common word \cheirographon\ for bond or debt with the Cross of Christ (Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 332). {And he hath taken it out of the way} (\kai rken ek tou mesou\). Perfect active indicative of \air\, old and common verb, to lift up, to bear, to take away. The word used by the Baptist of Jesus as "the Lamb of God that bears away (\airn\) the sin of the world" (John:1:29|). The perfect tense emphasizes the permanence of the removal of the bond which has been paid and cancelled and cannot be presented again. Lightfoot argues for Christ as the subject of \rken\, but that is not necessary, though Paul does use sudden anacolutha. God has taken the bond against us "out of the midst" (\ek tou mesou\). Nailing it to the cross (\proslsas auto ti stauri\). First aorist active participle of old and common verb \proslo\, to fasten with nails to a thing (with dative \stauri\). Here alone in N.T., but in III Macc. strkjv@4:9 with the very word \stauri\. The victim was nailed to the cross as was Christ. "When Christ was crucified, God nailed the Law to His cross" (Peake). Hence the "bond" is cancelled for us. Business men today sometimes file cancelled accounts. No evidence exists that Paul alluded to such a custom here.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ THE FOURTH GROUP THE PASTORAL EPISTLES FIRST TIMOTHY TITUS SECOND TIMOTHY A.D. 65 TO 68 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION It is necessary to discuss introductory matters concerning the three because they are common to them all. It is true that some modern scholars admit as Pauline the personal passages in strkjv@2Timothy:1:15-18; strkjv@4:9-22| while they deny the genuineness of the rest. But that criticism falls by its own weight since precisely the same stylistic characteristics appear in these admitted passages as in the rest and no earthly reason can be advanced for Paul's writing mere scraps or for the omission of the other portions and the preservation of these by a second century forger.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64, this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_ (1921). Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII) notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the amanuensis for the Pastorals.

rwp@John:6:12 @{And when they were filled} (\hs de eneplsthsan\). First aorist (effective) passive indicative of \empimplmi\, old verb to fill in, to fill up, to fill completely. They were all satisfied. The Synoptics have \echortasthsan\ like strkjv@John:6:26| (\echortasthte\). {Gather up} (\sunagagete\). Second aorist active imperative of \sunag\, to gather together. {Broken pieces} (\klasmata\). From \kla\, to break. Not crumbs or scraps on the ground, but pieces broken by Jesus (Mark:6:41|) and not consumed. {Be lost} (\apoltai\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of \apollumi\ with \hina\ in purpose clause. Only in John. There was to be no wastefulness in Christ's munificence. The Jews had a custom of leaving something for those that served.

rwp@Luke:16:21 @{With the crumbs that fell} (\apo tn piptontn\). From the things that fell from time to time. The language reminds one of strkjv@Luke:15:16| (the prodigal son) and the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark:7:28|). Only it does not follow that this beggar did not get the scraps from the rich man's table. Probably he did, though nothing more. Even the wild street dogs would get them also. {Yea, even the dogs} (\alla kai hoi kunes\). For \alla kai\ see also strkjv@12:7; strkjv@24:22|. \Alla\ can mean "yea," though it often means "but." Here it depends on how one construes Luke's meaning. If he means that he was dependent on casual scraps and it was so bad that even the wild dogs moreover were his companions in misery, the climax came that he was able to drive away the dogs. The other view is that his hunger was unsatisfied, but even the dogs increased his misery. {Licked his sores} (\epeleichon ta helk autou\). Imperfect active of \epileich\, a late vernacular _Koin_ verb, to lick over the surface. It is not clear whether the licking of the sores by the dogs added to the misery of Lazarus or gave a measure of comfort, as he lay in his helpless condition. "Furrer speaks of witnessing dogs and lepers waiting together for the refuse" (Bruce). It was a scramble between the dogs and Lazarus.

rwp@Mark:7:28 @{Even the dogs under the table} (\kai ta kunaria hupokat ts trapezs\). A delightful picture. Even the little dogs (\kunaria\) under the table {eat of the children's crumbs} (\esthiousin apo tn psichin tn paidin\). Little dogs, little scraps of bread (\psichion\, diminutive of \psichos\, _morsel_), little children (\paidia\, diminutive of \pais\). Probably the little children purposely dropped a few little crumbs for the little dogs. These household dogs, pets of and loved by the children. _Braid Scots_ has it: "Yet the wee dowgs aneath the table eat o' the moole o' the bairns." "A unique combination of faith and wit" (Gould). Instead of resenting Christ's words about giving the children's bread to the dogs (Gentiles) in verse 27|, she instantly turned it to the advantage of her plea for her little daughter.

rwp@Mark:8:8 @{Broken pieces that remained over} (\perisseumata klasmatn\). Overplus, abundance, remains of broken pieces not used, not just scraps or crumbs.

rwp@Matthew:14:20 @{Were filled} (\echortasthsan\). Effective aorist passive indicative of \chortaz\. See strkjv@Matthew:5:6|. From the substantive \chortos\ grass. Cattle were filled with grass and people usually with other food. They all were satisfied. {Broken pieces} (\tn klasmatn\). Not the scraps upon the ground, but the pieces broken by Jesus and still in the "twelve baskets" (\ddeka kophinous\) and not eaten. Each of the twelve had a basketful left over (\to perisseuon\). One hopes that the boy (John:6:9|) who had the five loaves and two fishes to start with got one of the basketsful, if not all of them. Each of the Gospels uses the same word here for baskets (\kophinos\), a wicker-basket, called "coffins" by Wycliff. Juvenal (_Sat_. iii. 14) says that the grove of Numa near the Capenian gate of Rome was "let out to Jews whose furniture is a basket (_cophinus_) and some hay" (for a bed). In the feeding of the Four Thousand (Matthew and Mark) the word \sphuris\ is used which was a sort of hamper or large provisions basket.

rwp@Revelation:11:1 @{A reed} (\kalamos\). Old word for a growing reed (Matthew:11:7|) which grew in immense brakes in the Jordan valley, a writer's reed (3John:1:7|), a measuring-rod (here, strkjv@21:15f.; strkjv@Ezekiel:40:3-6; strkjv@42:16-19|). {Like a rod} (\homoios rabdi\). See strkjv@2:27; strkjv@Mark:6:8| for \rabdos\. {And one said} (\legn\). "Saying" (present active masculine participle of \leg\) is all that the Greek has. The participle implies \edken\ (he gave), not \edoth\, a harsh construction seen in strkjv@Genesis:22:20; strkjv@38:24|, etc. {Rise and measure} (\egeire kai metrson\). Present active imperative of \egeir\ (intransitive, exclamatory use as in strkjv@Mark:2:11|) and first aorist active imperative of \metre\. In strkjv@Ezekiel:42:2ff.| the prophet measures the temple and that passage is probably in mind here. But modern scholars do not know how to interpret this interlude (11:1-13|) before the seventh trumpet (11:15|). Some (Wellhausen) take it to be a scrap from the Zealot party before the destruction of Jerusalem, which event Christ also foretold (Mark:13:2; strkjv@Matthew:24:2; strkjv@Luke:21:6|) and which was also attributed to Stephen (Acts:6:14|). Charles denies any possible literal interpretation and takes the language in a wholly eschatological sense. There are three points in the interlude, however understood: the chastisement of Jerusalem or Israel (verses 1,2|), the mission of the two witnesses (3-12|), the rescue of the remnant (13|). There is a heavenly sanctuary (7:15; strkjv@11:19; strkjv@14:15|, etc.), but here \naos\ is on earth and yet not the actual temple in Jerusalem (unless so interpreted). Perhaps here it is the spiritual (3:12; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:16f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:16; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19ff.|). For altar (\thusiastrion\) see strkjv@8:3|. Perhaps measuring as applied to "them that worship therein" (\tous proskunountas en auti\) implies a word like numbering, with an allusion to the 144,000 in chapter 7 (a zeugma).

rwp@Romans:1:31 @{Without understanding} (\asunetous\). Same word in verse 21|. {Covenant-breakers} (\asunthetous\). Another paronomasia or pun. \A\ privative and verbal \sunthetos\ from \suntithmi\, to put together. Old word, common in LXX (Jeremiah:3:7|), men "false to their engagements" (Sanday and Headlam), who treat covenants as "a scrap of paper." {Without natural affection} (\astorgous\). Late word, \a\ privative and \storg\, love of kindred. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:3|. {Unmerciful} (\anelemonas\). From \a\ privative and \elemn\, merciful. Late word, only here in N.T. Some MSS. add \aspondous\, implacable, from strkjv@2Timothy:3:3|. It is a terrible picture of the effects of sin on the lives of men and women. The late Dr. R. H. Graves of Canton, China, said that a Chinaman who got hold of this chapter declared that Paul could not have written it, but only a modern missionary who had been to China. It is drawn to the life because Paul knew Pagan Graeco-Roman civilization.