NONE.filter - rwp synonymous:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:20 @{Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?} (\Pou sophos; pou grammateus; pou sunztts tou ainos toutou;\). Paul makes use of strkjv@Isaiah:33:18| without exact quotation. The sudden retreat of Sennacherib with the annihilation of his officers. "On the tablet of Shalmaneser in the Assyrian Gallery of the British Museum there is a surprisingly exact picture of the scene described by Isaiah" (Robertson and Plummer). Note the absence of the Greek article in each of these rhetorical questions though the idea is clearly definite. Probably \sophos\ refers to the Greek philosopher, \grammateus\ to the Jewish scribe and \sunztts\ suits both the Greek and the Jewish disputant and doubter (Acts:6:9; strkjv@9:29; strkjv@17:18; strkjv@28:29|). There is a note of triumph in these questions. The word \sunztts\ occurs here alone in the N.T. and elsewhere only in Ignatius, Eph. 18 quoting this passage, but the papyri give the verb \sunzte\ for disputing (questioning together). {Hath not God made foolish?} (\ouchi emranen ho theos;\). Strong negative form with aorist active indicative difficult of precise translation, "Did not God make foolish?" The old verb \mrain\ from \mros\, foolish, was to be foolish, to act foolish, then to prove one foolish as here or to make foolish as in strkjv@Romans:1:22|. In strkjv@Matthew:5:13; strkjv@Luke:14:34| it is used of salt that is tasteless. {World} (\kosmou\). Synonymous with \ain\ (age), orderly arrangement, then the non-Christian cosmos.

rwp@Hebrews:5:6 @{In another place} (\en heteri\). That is strkjv@Psalms:110:4|. It is this crucial passage by which the author will prove the superiority of Jesus to Aaron as high priest. Only the word priest (\hiereus\) occurs here which the author uses as synonymous with high priest (\archiereus\). The point lies in the meaning of the phrase "After the order of Melchizedek" (\kata tn taxin Melchisedek\). But at this point the only thing pressed is the fact of the divine appointment of Jesus as priest. He returns to this point (5:10-7:28|).

rwp@John:4:42 @{Not because of thy speaking} (\ouketi dia tn sn lalian\). "No longer because of thy talk," good and effective as that was. \Lalia\ (cf. \lale\) is talk, talkativeness, mode of speech, one's vernacular, used by Jesus of his own speech (John:8:43|). {We have heard} (\akkoamen\). Perfect active indicative of \akou\, their abiding experience. {For ourselves} (\autoi\). Just "ourselves." {The Saviour of the world} (\ho str tou kosmou\). See strkjv@Matthew:1:21| for ssei used of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term \str\ to Jesus again in strkjv@1John:4:14|. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (verse 22|). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (verse 26|) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews. Sanday thinks that probably John puts this epithet of Saviour in the mouth of the Samaritans, but adds: "At the same time it is possible that such an epithet might be employed by them merely as synonymous with Messiah." But why "merely"? Was it not natural for these Samaritans who took Jesus as their "Saviour," Jew as he was, to enlarge the idea to the whole world? Bernard has this amazing statement on strkjv@John:4:42|: "That in the first century Messiah was given the title str is not proven." The use of "saviour and god" for Ptolemy in the third century B.C. is well known. "The ample materials collected by Magie show that the full title of honour, Saviour of the world, with which St. John adorns the Master, was bestowed with sundry variations in the Greek expression on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, and other Emperors in inscriptions in the Hellenistic East" (Deissmann, _Light_, etc., p. 364). Perhaps Bernard means that the Jews did not call Messiah Saviour. But what of it? The Romans so termed their emperors and the New Testament so calls Christ (Luke:2:11; strkjv@John:4:42; strkjv@Acts:5:31; strkjv@3:23; strkjv@Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23; strkjv@Titus:1:4; strkjv@2:13; strkjv@3:6; strkjv@2Timothy:1:10; strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11; strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|). All these are writings of the first century A.D. The Samaritan villagers rise to the conception that he was the Saviour of the world.

rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\h psuch mou\). The soul (\psuch\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, sson me ek ts hras tauts\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto lthon eis tn hran tautn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.

rwp@Jude:1:6 @{And angels} (\aggelous de\). The second example in Jude, the fallen angels, accusative case after \tetrken\ (perfect active indicative of \tre\, for which verb see strkjv@2Peter:2:4,7|) at the end of the verse (two emphatic positions, beginning and end of the clause). {Kept not} (\m trsantas\). First aorist active participle with negative \m\, with play on "kept not" and "he hath kept." {Principality} (\archn\). Literally, "beginning," "rule," (first place of power as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:24; strkjv@Romans:8:38|). In strkjv@Acts:10:11| it is used for "corners" (beginnings) of the sheet. In strkjv@Ephesians:6:12| the word is used for evil angels. See strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:8|. Both Enoch and Philo (and Milton) discuss the fallen angels. {But left} (\alla apolipontas\). Second aorist active participle of \apoleip\, old verb, to leave behind (2Timothy:4:13,20|). {Their own proper habitation} (\to idion oiktrion\). Old word for dwelling-place (from \oiktr\, dweller at home, from \oikos\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:5:2| (the body as the abode of the spirit). {In everlasting bonds} (\desmois aidiois\). Either locative (in) or instrumental (by, with). \Aidios\ (from \aei\, always), old adjective, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:1:20| (of God's power and deity). It is synonymous with \ainios\ (Matthew:25:46|). Mayor terms \aidios\ an Aristotelian word, while \ainios\ is Platonic. {Under darkness} (\hupo zophon\). See strkjv@2Peter:2:4| for \zophos\. In Wisd. strkjv@17:2 we find \desmioi skotous\ (prisoners of darkness). {Great} (\megals\). Not in strkjv@2Peter:2:9|, which see for discussion.

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

rwp@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|).