NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp evolution:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:11 @{For it hath been signified unto me} (\edlth gar moi\). First aorist passive indicative of \dlo\ and difficult to render into English. Literally, It was signified to me. {By them of Chloe} (\hupo tn Chlos\). Ablative case of the masculine plural article \tn\, by the (folks) of Chloe (genitive case). The words "which are of the household" are not in the Greek, though they correctly interpret the Greek, "those of Chloe." Whether the children, the kinspeople, or the servants of Chloe we do not know. It is uncertain also whether Chloe lived in Corinth or Ephesus, probably Ephesus because to name her if in Corinth might get her into trouble (Heinrici). Already Christianity was working a social revolution in the position of women and slaves. The name {Chloe} means tender verdure and was one of the epithets of Demeter the goddess of agriculture and for that reason Lightfoot thinks that she was a member of the freedman class like Phoebe (Romans:16:1|), Hermes (Romans:16:14|), Nereus (Romans:16:15|). It is even possible that Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus (1Corinthians:16:17|) may have been those who brought Chloe the news of the schisms in Corinth. {Contentions} (\erides\). Unseemly wranglings (as opposed to discussing, \dialegomai\) that were leading to the {schisms}. Listed in works of the flesh (Galatians:5:19f.|) and the catalogues of vices (2Corinthians:12:20; strkjv@Romans:1:19f.; strkjv@1Timothy:6:4|).

rwp@1Corinthians:6:15 @{Members of Christ} (\mel Christou\). Old word for limbs, members. Even the Stoics held the body to be common with the animals (Epictetus, _Diss_. l. iii. 1) and only the reason like the gods. Without doubt some forms of modern evolution have contributed to the licentious views of animalistic sex indulgence, though the best teachers of biology show that in the higher animals monogamy is the rule. The body is not only adapted for Christ (verse 13|), but it is a part of Christ, in vital union with him. Paul will make much use of this figure further on (12:12-31; strkjv@Ephesians:4:11-16; strkjv@5:30|). {Shall I then take away?} (\aras oun;\). First aorist active participle of \air\, old verb to snatch, carry off like Latin _rapio_ (our rape). {Make} (\pois\). Can be either future active indicative or first aorist active subjunctive (deliberative). Either makes good sense. The horror of deliberately taking "members of Christ" and making them "members of a harlot" in an actual union staggers Paul and should stagger us. {God forbid} (\m genoito\). Optative second aorist in a negative wish for the future. {May it not happen!} The word "God" is not here. The idiom is common in Epictetus though rare in the LXX. Paul has it thirteen times and Luke once (Luke:20:16|).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:39 @{The same flesh} (\h aut sarx\). Paul takes up animal life to show the great variety there is as in the plant kingdom. Even if evolution should prove to be true, Paul's argument remains valid. Variety exists along with kinship. Progress is shown in the different kingdoms, progress that even argues for a spiritual body after the body of flesh is lost. {Of beasts} (\ktnn\). Old word, from \ktaomai\, to possess, and so property. See strkjv@Luke:10:34|. {Of birds} (\ptnn\). Old word from \petomai\, to fly, winged, flying. Only here in N.T.

rwp@Acts:10:35 @{Acceptable to him} (\dektos auti\). Verbal adjective from \dechomai\. _Acceptabilis_. That is to say, a Gentile would not have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Evidently Peter had not before perceived this fact. On the great Day of Pentecost when he spoke of the promise "to all those afar off" (2:39|) Peter understood that they must first become Jews and then Christians. The new idea that now makes a revolution in Peter's outlook is precisely this that Christ can and will save Gentiles like this Cornelius group without their becoming Jews at all.

rwp@Acts:11:2 @{They that were of the circumcision} (\hoi ek peritoms\). Literally, those of circumcision (on the side of circumcision, of the circumcision party). The phrase in strkjv@10:46| is confined to the six brethren with Peter in Caesarea (11:12|). That can hardly be the meaning here for it would mean that they were the ones who brought the charge against Peter though Hort takes this view. All the disciples in Jerusalem were Jews so that it can hardly mean the whole body. In strkjv@Galatians:2:12| the phrase has the narrower sense of the Judaizing or Pharisaic wing of the disciples (Acts:15:5|) who made circumcision necessary for all Gentile converts. Probably here by anticipation Luke so describes the beginning of that great controversy. The objectors probably did not know of Peter's vision at Joppa, but only of the revolutionary conduct of Peter in Caesarea. These extremists who spoke probably had abundant sympathy in their protest. The apostles are mentioned in verse 1|, but are not referred to in verse 2|. Apparently they are in contrast with the circumcision party in the church. {Contended} (\diekrinonto\). Imperfect middle of the common verb \diakrin\, to {separate}. Here to separate oneself apart (\dia\), to take sides against, to make a cleavage (\dia\, two, in two) as in strkjv@Jude:1:9|. Songs:Peter is at once put on the defensive as the contention went on. It is plain that Peter was not regarded as any kind of pope or overlord.

rwp@Luke:9:21 @{To tell this to no man} (\mdeni legein touto\). Indirect command with the negative infinitive after {commanded} (\parggeilen\). It had been necessary for Jesus to cease using the word {Messiah} (\Christos\) about himself because of the political meaning to the Jews. Its use by the disciples would lead to revolution as was plain after the feeding of the five thousand (John:6:15|).

rwp@Luke:19:38 @{The king cometh} (\ho erchomenos, ho basileus\). The Messianic hopes of the people were now all ablaze with expectation of immediate realization. A year ago in Galilee he had frustrated their plans for a revolutionary movement "to take him by force to make him king" (John:6:15|). The phrase "the coming king" like "the coming prophet" (John:6:14; strkjv@Deuteronomy:18:15|) expressed the hope of the long-looked-for Messiah. They are singing from the Hallel in their joy that Jesus at last is making public proclamation of his Messiahship. {Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest} (\en ourani eirn kai doxa en hupsistois\). This language reminds one strongly of the song of the angels at the birth of Jesus (Luke:2:14|). strkjv@Mark:11:10; strkjv@Matthew:21:9| have "Hosannah in the highest."

rwp@Luke:23:14 @{As one that perverteth the people} (\hs apostrephonta ton laon\). Pilate here condenses the three charges in verse 2| into one (Plummer). He uses a more common compound of \streph\ here, \apostreph\, to turn away from, to seduce, to mislead, whereas \diastreph\ in verse 2| has more the notion of disturbing (turning this way and that). Note the use of \hs\ with the particle, the alleged reason. Pilate understands the charge against Jesus to be that he is a revolutionary agitator and a dangerous rival to Caesar, treason in plain words. {Having examined him before you} (\enpion humn anakrinas\). Right before your eyes I have given him a careful examination (\ana\) up and down, \krin\, to judge, sift. Old and common verb in the general sense and in the forensic sense as here and which Luke alone has in the N.T. (Luke:23:14; strkjv@4:9; strkjv@12:19; strkjv@28:18; strkjv@Acts:24:8|) except strkjv@1Corinthians:9:3|. {Whereof} (\hn\). Attraction of the relative \ha\ to the case (genitive) of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\.

rwp@Mark:2:19 @{The sons of the bridechamber} (\hoi huioi tou numphnos\). Not merely the groomsmen, but the guests also, the \paranymphs\ (\paranumphoi\ of the old Greek). Jesus here adopts the Baptist's own metaphor (John:3:29|), changing the friend of the bridegroom (\ho philos tou numphiou\) to sons of the bridechamber. Jesus identifies himself with the bridegroom of the O.T. (Hosea:2:21|), God in his covenant relation with Israel (Swete). Mourning does not suit the wedding feast. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all give the three parables (bridegroom, unfulled cloth, new wineskins) illustrating and defending the conduct of Jesus in feasting with Levi on a Jewish fast-day. strkjv@Luke:5:36| calls these parables. Jesus here seems iconoclastic to the ecclesiastics and revolutionary in emphasis on the spiritual instead of the ritualistic and ceremonial.

rwp@Mark:8:29 @{Thou art the Christ} (\Su ei ho Christos\). Mark does not give "the Son of the living God" (Matthew:16:16|) or "of God" (Luke:9:20|). The full confession is the form in Matthew. Luke's language means practically the same, while Mark's is the briefest. But the form in Mark really means the full idea. Mark omits all praise of Peter, probably because Peter had done so in his story of the incident. For criticism of the view that Matthew's narrative is due to ecclesiastical development and effort to justify ecclesiastical prerogatives, see discussion on ¯Matthew:16:16,18|. The disciples had confessed him as Messiah before. Thus strkjv@John:1:41; strkjv@4:29; strkjv@6:69; strkjv@Matthew:14:33|. But Jesus had ceased to use the word Messiah to avoid political complications and a revolutionary movement (John:6:14f.|). But did the disciples still believe in Jesus as Messiah after all the defections and oppositions seen by them? It was a serious test to which Jesus now put them.

rwp@Mark:15:2 @{Art thou the King of the Jews?} (\Su ei ho basileus tn Ioudain;\). This is the only one of the charges made by the Sanhedrin to Pilate (Luke:23:2|) that he notices. He does not believe this one to be true, but he has to pay attention to it or be liable to charges himself of passing over a man accused of rivalry and revolution against Caesar. strkjv@John:18:28-32| gives the interview with Jesus that convinces Pilate that he is a harmless religious fanatic. See on ¯Matthew:26:11|. {Thou sayest} (\su legeis\). An affirmation, though in strkjv@John:18:34-37| there is a second and fuller interview between Pilate and Jesus. "Here, as in the trial before the Sanhedrin, this is the one question that Jesus answers. It is the only question on which his own testimony is important and necessary" (Gould). The Jews were out on the pavement or sidewalk outside the palace while Pilate came out to them from above on the balcony (John:18:28f.|) and had his interviews with Jesus on the inside, calling Jesus thither (John:18:33|).

rwp@Mark:15:7 @{Bound with them that had made insurrection} (\meta tn stasiastn dedemenos\). A desperate criminal, leader in the insurrection, sedition (\en ti stasei\), or revolution against Rome, the very thing that the Jews up at Bethsaida Julias had wanted Jesus to lead (John:6:15|). Barabbas was the leader of these rioters and was bound with them. {Had committed murder} (\phonon pepoikeisan\). Past perfect indicative without augment. Murder usually goes with such rioters and the priests and people actually chose a murderer in preference to Jesus.

rwp@Matthew:26:65 @{He hath spoken blasphemy} (\eblasphmsen\). There was no need of witnesses now, for Jesus had incriminated himself by claiming under oath to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Now it would not be blasphemy for the real Messiah to make such a claim, but it was intolerable to admit that Jesus could be the Messiah of Jewish hope. At the beginning of Christ's ministry he occasionally used the word Messiah of himself, but he soon ceased, for it was plain that it would create trouble. The people would take it in the sense of a political revolutionist who would throw off the Roman yoke. If he declined that role, the Pharisees would have none of him for that was the kind of a Messiah that they desired. But the hour has now come. At the Triumphal Entry Jesus let the Galilean crowds hail him as Messiah, knowing what the effect would be. Now the hour has struck. He has made his claim and has defied the High Priest.

rwp@Matthew:27:17 @{Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ?} (\Barabbn Isoun ton legomenon Christon;\). Pilate was catching at straws or seeking any loophole to escape condemning a harmless lunatic or exponent of a superstitious cult such as he deemed Jesus to be, certainly in no political sense a rival of Caesar. The Jews interpreted "Christ" for Pilate to be a claim to be King of the Jews in opposition to Caesar, "a most unprincipled proceeding" (Bruce). Songs:he bethought him of the time-honoured custom at the passover of releasing to the people "a prisoner whom they wished" (\desmion hon thelon\). No parallel case has been found, but Josephus mentions the custom (_Ant_. xx. 9,3). Barabbas was for some reason a popular hero, a notable (\epismon\), if not notorious, prisoner, leader of an insurrection or revolution (Mark:15:7|) probably against Rome, and so guilty of the very crime that they tried to fasten on Jesus who only claimed to be king in the spiritual sense of the spiritual kingdom. Songs:Pilate unwittingly pitted against each other two prisoners who represented the antagonistic forces of all time. It is an elliptical structure in the question, "whom do you wish that I release?" (\tina thelete apolus;\), either two questions in one (asyndeton) or the ellipse of \hina\ before \apolus\. See the same idiom in verse 21|. But Pilate's question tested the Jews as well as himself. It tests all men today. Some manuscripts add the name Jesus to Barabbas and that makes it all the sharper. Jesus Barabbas or Jesus Christ?

rwp@Romans:13:1 @{Every soul} (\psa psuch\). As in strkjv@2:9; strkjv@Acts:2:43|. A Hebraism for \ps anthrpos\ (every man). {To the higher powers} (\exousiais huperechousais\). Abstract for concrete. See strkjv@Mark:2:10| for \exousia\. \Huperech\ is an old verb to have or hold over, to be above or supreme, as in strkjv@1Peter:2:13|. {Except by God} (\ei m hupo theou\). Songs:the best MSS. rather than \apo theou\ (from God). God is the author of order, not anarchy. {The powers that be} (\hai ousai\). "The existing authorities" (supply \exousiai\). Art ordained (\tetagmenai eisin\). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of \tass\, "stand ordained by God." Paul is not arguing for the divine right of kings or for any special form of government, but for government and order. Nor does he oppose here revolution for a change of government, but he does oppose all lawlessness and disorder.