NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp transition:

rwp@1Corinthians:7:28 @{But and if thou marry} (\ean de kai gamsis\). Condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of being determined, with the ingressive first aorist (late form) active subjunctive with \ean\: "But if thou also commit matrimony or get married," in spite of Paul's advice to the contrary. {Thou hast not sinned} (\ouch hmartes\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan\, to sin, to miss a mark. Here either Paul uses the timeless (gnomic) aorist indicative or by a swift transition he changes the standpoint (proleptic) in the conclusion from the future (in the condition) to the past. Such mixed conditions are common (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1020, 1023). Precisely the same construction occurs with the case of the virgin (\parthenos\) except that the old form of the first aorist subjunctive (\gmi\) occurs in place of the late \gamsi\ above. The MSS. interchange both examples. There is no special point in the difference in the forms. {Shall have tribulation in the flesh} (\thlipsin ti sarki hexousin\). Emphatic position of \thlipsin\ (pressure). See strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| \skolops ti sarki\ (thorn in the flesh). {And I would spare you} (\eg de humn pheidomai\). Possibly conative present middle indicative, I am trying to spare you like \agei\ in strkjv@Romans:2:4| and \dikaiousthe\ in strkjv@Galatians:5:4|.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:17 @{This} (\touto\). Probably the preceding one about the head-dress of women, and transition to what follows. {I praise you not} (\ouk epain\). In contrast to the praise in strkjv@11:2|. {For the better} (\eis to kreisson\). Neuter articular comparative of \kratus\, but used as comparative of \kalos\, good. Attic form \kreitton\. {For the worse} (\eis to hsson\). Old comparative from \hka\, softly, used as comparative of \kakos\, bad. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:12:15|.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:50 @{Cannot inherit} (\klronomsai ou dunantai\). Hence there must be a change by death from the natural body to the spiritual body. In the case of Christ this change was wrought in less than three days and even then the body of Jesus was in a transition state before the Ascension. He ate and could be handled and yet he passed through closed doors. Paul does not base his argument on the special circumstances connected with the risen body of Jesus.

rwp@Acts:3:17 @{And now} (\kai nun\). Luke is fond of these particles of transition (7:34; strkjv@10:5; strkjv@20:25; strkjv@22:16|) and also \kai ta nun\ (4:29; strkjv@5:38; strkjv@22:32; strkjv@27:22|), and even \kai nun idou\ (13:11; strkjv@20:22|). {I wot} (\oida\). Old English for "I know." {In ignorance} (\kata agnoian\). This use of \kata\ occurs in the _Koin_. See also strkjv@Philemon:1:14|. One may see strkjv@Luke:23:34| for the words of the Saviour on the Cross. "They had sinned, but their sin was not of so deep a dye that it could not have been still more heinous" (Hackett). If they had known what they were doing, they would not knowingly have crucified the Messiah (1Corinthians:2:8|).

rwp@Acts:10:41 @{Chosen before} (\prokecheirotonmenois\). Perfect passive participle dative plural from \procheirotone\, to choose or designate by hand (\cheirotone, cheir\, hand, and \tein\, to stretch, as in strkjv@Acts:14:23; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:19|), beforehand (\pro\), a double compound as old as Plato, but here alone in the N.T. Peter is evidently stating the thing as it happened and not trying to make a convincing story by saying that both friends and foes saw him after his resurrection. It is the "historian's candour" (Paley) in Luke here that adds to the credibility of the narrative. The sceptical Jews would not have believed and Jesus was kept from open contact with the world of sin after his Passion. {To us who did eat and drink with him} (\hmin hoitines sunephagomen kai sunepiomen auti\). The "who" (\hoitines\) is first person agreeing with "us" (\hmin\). Second aorist active indicative of the common verbs \sunesthi\ and \sumpin\. \Auti\ is associative instrumental case. There are difficulties to us in understanding how Jesus could eat and drink after the resurrection as told here and in strkjv@Luke:24:41-3|, but at any rate Peter makes it clear that it was no hallucination or ghost, but Jesus himself whom they saw after he rose from the dead, "after the rising as to him" (\meta to anastnai auton\, \meta\ with the accusative articular infinitive second aorist active and the accusative \auton\ of general reference). Furneaux dares to think that the disciples misunderstood Jesus about eating after the resurrection. But that is to deny the testimony merely because we cannot explain the transition state of the body of Jesus.

rwp@Acts:22:20 @{Was shed} (\exechunneto\). Imperfect passive of \ekchunn\ (see on ¯Matthew:23:35|), was being shed. {Witness} (\marturos\). And "martyr" also as in strkjv@Revelation:2:13; strkjv@17:6|. Transition state for the word here. {I also was standing by} (\kai autos mn ephests\). Periphrastic second past perfect in form, but imperfect (linear) in sense since \hests=histamenos\ (intransitive). {Consenting} (\suneudokn\). The very word used by Luke in strkjv@Acts:8:1| about Paul. _Koin_ word for being pleased at the same time with (cf. strkjv@Luke:11:48|). Paul adds here the item of "guarding the clothes of those who were slaying (\anairountn\ as in strkjv@Luke:23:32; strkjv@Acts:12:2|) him" (Stephen). Paul recalls the very words of protest used by him to Jesus. He did not like the idea of running away to save his own life right where he had helped slay Stephen. He is getting on dangerous ground.

rwp@Colossians:1:13 @{Delivered} (\erusato\). First aorist middle indicative of \ruomai\, old verb, to rescue. This appositional relative clause further describes God the Father's redemptive work and marks the transition to the wonderful picture of the person and work of Christ in nature and grace in verses 14-20|, a full and final answer to the Gnostic depreciation of Jesus Christ by speculative philosophy and to all modern efforts after a "reduced" picture of Christ. God rescued us out from (\ek\) the power (\exousias\) of the kingdom of darkness (\skotous\) in which we were held as slaves. {Translated} (\metestsen\). First aorist active indicative of \methistmi\ and transitive (not intransitive like second aorist \metest\). Old word. See strkjv@1Corinthians:13:2|. Changed us from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. {Of the Son of his love} (\tou huiou ts agaps autou\). Probably objective genitive (\agaps\), the Son who is the object of the Father's love like \agaptos\ (beloved) in strkjv@Matthew:3:17|. Others would take it as describing love as the origin of the Son which is true, but hardly pertinent here. But Paul here rules out the whole system of aeons and angels that the Gnostics placed above Christ. It is Christ's Kingdom in which he is King. He has moral and spiritual sovereignty.

rwp@James:2:1 @{My brethren} (\adelphoi mou\). Transition to a new topic as in strkjv@1:19; strkjv@2:5,14; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@5:7|. {Hold not} (\m echete\). Present active imperative of \ech\ with negative \m\, exhortation to stop holding or not to have the habit of holding in the fashion condemned. {The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tn pistin tou kuriou hmn Isou Christou\). Clearly objective genitive, not subjective (faith of), but "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," like \echete pistin theou\ (Mark:11:22|), "have faith in God." See the same objective genitive with \pistis\ in strkjv@Acts:3:6; strkjv@Galatians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:3:22; strkjv@Revelation:14:12|. Note also the same combination as in strkjv@1:1| "our Lord Jesus Christ" (there on a par with God). {The Lord of Glory} (\ts doxs\). Simply "the Glory." No word for "Lord" (\kuriou\) in the Greek text. \Ts doxs\ clearly in apposition with \tou kuriou Isou Christou\. James thus terms "our Lord Jesus Christ" the Shekinah Glory of God. See strkjv@Hebrews:9:5| for "the cherubim of Glory." Other New Testament passages where Jesus is pictured as the Glory are strkjv@Romans:9:4; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3|. Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {With respect of persons} (\en prospolmpsiais\). A Christian word, like \prospolmpts\ (Acts:10:34|) and \prospolmpteite\ (James:2:9|), not in LXX or any previous Greek, but made from \prospon lambanein\ (Luke:20:21; strkjv@Galatians:2:6|), which is \a\ Hebrew idiom for _panim nasa_, "to lift up the face on a person," to be favorable and so partial to him. See \prospolmpsia\ in this sense of partiality (respect of persons) in strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@Colossians:3:25; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9| (nowhere else in N.T.). Do not show partiality.

rwp@John:1:21 @{And they asked him} (\kai rtsan auton\). Here the paratactic \kai\ is like the transitional \oun\ (then). {What then?} (\Ti oun;\). Argumentative \oun\ like Paul's \ti oun\ in strkjv@Romans:6:15|. _Quid ergo?_ {Art thou Elijah?} (\Su Elias ei;\). The next inevitable question since Elijah had been understood to be the forerunner of the Messiah from strkjv@Malachi:4:5|. In strkjv@Mark:9:11f.| Jesus will identify John with the Elijah of Malachi's prophecy. Why then does John here flatly deny it? Because the expectation was that Elijah would return in person. This John denies. Jesus only asserts that John was Elijah in spirit. Elijah in person they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration. {He saith} (\legei\). Vivid dramatic present. {I am not} (\ouk eimi\). Short and blunt denial. {Art thou the prophet?} (\ho prophts ei su;\). "The prophet art thou?" This question followed naturally the previous denials. Moses (Deuteronomy:18:15|) had spoken of a prophet like unto himself. Christians interpreted this prophet to be the Messiah (Acts:3:22; strkjv@7:37|), but the Jews thought him another forerunner of the Messiah (John:7:40|). It is not clear in strkjv@John:6:15| whether the people identified the expected prophet with the Messiah, though apparently so. Even the Baptist later became puzzled in prison whether Jesus himself was the true Messiah or just one of the forerunners (Luke:7:19|). People wondered about Jesus himself whether he was the Messiah or just one of the looked for prophets (Mark:8:28; strkjv@Matthew:16:14|). {And he answered} (\kai apekrith\). First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense of voice gone) indicative of \apokrinomai\, to give a decision from myself, to reply. {No} (\Ou\). Shortest possible denial.

rwp@John:1:22 @{They said therefore} (\eipan oun\). Second aorist active indicative of defective verb \eipon\ with \a\ instead of usual \o\. Note \oun\, inferential here as in verse 21| though often merely transitional in John. {Who art thou?} (\Tis ei;\). Same question as at first (verse 19|), but briefer. {That we give answer} (\hina apokrisin dmen\). Final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \didmi\ with \apokrisin\ from \apokrinomai\, above, old substantive as in strkjv@Luke:2:47|. {To those that sent} (\tois pempsasin\). Dative case plural of the articular participle first aorist active of \pemp\. {What sayest thou of thyself?} (\Ti legeis peri seautou;\). This time they opened wide the door without giving any hint at all.

rwp@John:3:1 @{Now} (\de\). Songs:often in John \de\ is explanatory and transitional, not adversative. Nicodemus is an instance of Christ's knowledge of men (2:25|) and of one to whom he did trust himself unlike those in strkjv@2:24|. As a Pharisee "he belonged to that party which with all its bigotry contained a salt of true patriotism and could rear such cultured and high-toned men as Gamaliel and Paul" (Marcus Dods). {Named Nicodemus} (\Nikodmos onoma\). Same construction as in strkjv@1:6|, "Nicodemus name to him." Songs:Revelation:6:8|. It is a Greek name and occurs in Josephus (_Ant_. XIV. iii. 2) as the name of an ambassador from Aristobulus to Pompey. Only in John in N.T. (here, strkjv@7:50; strkjv@19:39|). He was a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, and wealthy. There is no evidence that he was the young ruler of strkjv@Luke:18:18| because of \archn\ (ruler) here.

rwp@John:3:22 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). Transition after the interview with Nicodemus. For the phrase see strkjv@5:1; strkjv@6:1; strkjv@7:1|. {Into the land of Judea} (\eis tn Ioudaian gn\). Into the country districts outside of Jerusalem. The only example of this phrase in the N.T., but "the region of Judea" (\h Ioudaia chra\) in strkjv@Mark:1:5|. {He tarried} (\dietriben\). Descriptive imperfect active of \diatrib\, old verb to rub between or hard, to spend time (Acts:14:3|). {Baptized} (\ebaptizen\). Imperfect active of \baptiz\. "He was baptizing." The six disciples were with him and in strkjv@4:2| John explains that Jesus did the baptizing through the disciples.

rwp@John:4:1 @{When therefore} (\Hs oun\). Reference to strkjv@3:22f|. the work of the Baptist and the jealousy of his disciples. \Oun\ is very common in John's Gospel in such transitions. {The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). Songs:the best manuscripts (Neutral Alexandrian), though the Western class has \ho Isous\. Mark usually has \ho Isous\ and Luke often \ho Kurios\. In the narrative portion of John we have usually \ho Isous\, but \ho Kurios\ in five passages (4:1; strkjv@6:23; strkjv@11:2; strkjv@20:20; strkjv@21:12|). There is no reason why John should not apply \ho Kurios\ to Jesus in the narrative sections as well as Luke. Bernard argues that these are "explanatory glosses," not in the first draft of the Gospel. But why? When John wrote his Gospel he certainly held Jesus to be \Kurios\ (Lord) as Luke did earlier when he wrote both Gospel and Acts This is hypercriticism. {Knew} (\egn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. The Pharisees knew this obvious fact. It was easy for Jesus to know the attitude of the Pharisees about it (2:24|). Already the Pharisees are suspicious of Jesus. {How that} (\hoti\). Declarative \hoti\ (indirect assertion). {Was making and baptizing more disciples than John} (\pleionas mathtas poiei kai baptizei Ians\). Present active indicative in both verbs retained in indirect discourse. Recall the tremendous success of John's early ministry (Mark:1:5; strkjv@Matthew:3:5; strkjv@Luke:3:7,15|) in order to see the significance of this statement that Jesus had forged ahead of him in popular favour. Already the Pharisees had turned violently against John who had called them broods of vipers. It is most likely that they drew John out about the marriage of Herod Antipas and got him involved directly with the tetrarch so as to have him cast into prison (Luke:3:19f.|). Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. v. 2) gives a public reason for this act of Herod Antipas, the fear that John would "raise a rebellion," probably the public reason for his private vengeance as given by Luke. Apparently John was cast into prison, though recently still free (John:3:24|), before Jesus left for Galilee. The Pharisees, with John out of the way, turn to Jesus with envy and hate.

rwp@John:4:5 @{Songs:he cometh} (\erchetai oun\). Vivid present middle indicative and transitional \oun\. {Sychar} (\Suchar\). There is a dispute whether this is just a variation of Shechem as meaning "drunken-town" (Isaiah:28:1|) or "lying-town" (Habbakkuk:2:18|) or is a separate village near Shechem (Neapolis, Nablous) as the Talmud and Eusebius indicate. Apparently the present village Askar corresponds well with the site. The use of \polin\ (city) does not mean that it was a large town. Mark and John use it freely for small places. {Parcel of ground} (\chriou\). Old use of this diminutive of \chros\ or \chra\, a piece of ground. {That Jacob gave to his son Joseph} (\ho edken Iakb ti Isph ti huii autou\). See strkjv@Genesis:33:19; strkjv@48:22|. Relative \ho\ is not attracted to case of \chriou\. First aorist active indicative \edken\.

rwp@John:4:45 @{Songs:when} (\hote oun\). Transitional use of \oun\, sequence, not consequence. {Received him} (\edexanto auton\). First aorist middle of \dechomai\, "welcomed him." Jesus had evidently anticipated a quiet arrival. {Having seen} (\herakotes\). Perfect active participle of \hora\. Note \therountes\ in strkjv@2:23| about this very thing at the feast in Jerusalem. The miracles of Jesus at that first passover made a stir. {For they also went} (\kai autoi gar lthon\). The Samaritans did not go and so Jesus was a new figure to them, but the Galileans, as orthodox Jews, did go and so were predisposed in his favour.

rwp@John:5:24 @{Hath eternal life} (\echei zn ainion\). Has now this spiritual life which is endless. See strkjv@3:36|. In verses 24,25| Jesus speaks of spiritual life and spiritual death. In this passage (21-29|) Jesus speaks now of physical life and death, now of spiritual, and one must notice carefully the quick transition. In strkjv@Revelation:20:14| we have the phrase "the second death" with which language compare strkjv@Revelation:20:4-6|. {But hath passed out of death into life} (\alla metabebken ek tou thanatou eis tn zn\). Perfect active indicative of \metabain\, to pass from one place or state to another. Out of spiritual death into spiritual life and so no judgement (\krisis\).

rwp@John:12:1 @{Jesus therefore} (\Isous oun\). Here \oun\ is not causal, but simply copulative and transitional, "and so" (Bernard), as often in John (1:22|, etc.). {Six days before the passover} (\pro hex hmern tou pascha\). This idiom, transposition of \pro\, is like the Latin use of _ante_, but it occurs in the old Doric, in the inscriptions and the papyri. See strkjv@Amos:1:1| for it also (cf. Moulton, _Proleg_., pp. 100ff.; Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 621f.). If the crucifixion was on Friday, as seems certain from both John and the Synoptics, then six days before would be the Jewish Sabbath preceding or more probably the Friday afternoon before, since Jesus would most likely arrive before the Sabbath. Probably we are to put together in one scene for the atmosphere strkjv@John:11:55-57; strkjv@John:12:1, 9-11|. {Came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead} (\tlhen eis Bthanian, hopou n Lazaros, hon geiren ek nekrn Isous\). Each phrase explains the preceding. There is no reason for thinking this a gloss as Bernard does. It was a place of danger now after that great miracle and the consequent rage of the Sanhedrin (12:9-11|). The crowd of eager spectators to see both Lazarus and Jesus would only intensify this rage.

rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoisan oun auti deipnon ekei\). Here again \oun\ is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark:14:3-9|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6-13|) just two days (Mark:14:1|) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9|) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1|). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John "is here more probably accurate." It all turns on John's purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11|), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19|), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a|), and with two summary judgements (36b-50|). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke:7:36-50|). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. {And Martha served} (\kai h Martha dikonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\polln diakonian\, \diakonein\ as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6|) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke:7:36|), but Simon the leper (Mark:14:3; strkjv@Matthew:26:6|) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. {That sat at meat} (\tn anakeimenn\). "That lay back," reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after \ek\) of the common verb \anakeimai\. Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John:12:9|). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.

rwp@John:13:6 @{Songs:he cometh} (\erchetai oun\). Transitional use of \oun\ and dramatic present again (\erchetai\). {Lord, dost thou wash my feet?} (\Kurie, su mou nipteis tous podas;\). Emphatic contrast in position of \su mou\ (away from \podas\), "Dost thou my feet wash?" "Peter, we may suppose, drew his feet up, as he spoke, in his impulsive humility" (Bernard).

rwp@Luke:4:15 @{And he taught} (\kai autos edidasken\). Luke is fond of this mode of transition so that it is not certain that he means to emphasize "he himself" as distinct from the rumour about him. It is the imperfect tense, descriptive of the habit of Jesus. The synagogues were an open door to Jesus before the hostility of the Pharisees was aroused. {Being glorified} (\doxazomenos\). Present passive participle, durative action like the imperfect \edidasken\. General admiration of Jesus everywhere. He was the wonder teacher of his time. Even the rabbis had not yet learned how to ridicule and oppose Jesus.

rwp@Romans:3:21 @{But now apart from the law} (\nuni de chris nomou\). He now (\nuni\ emphatic logical transition) proceeds carefully in verses 21-31| the {nature} of the God-kind of righteousness which stands manifested (\dikaiosun theou pephanertai\, perfect passive indicative of \phanero\, to make manifest), the {necessity} of which he has shown in strkjv@1:18-3:20|. This God kind of righteousness is "apart from law" of any kind and all of grace (\chariti\) as he will show in verse 24|. But it is not a new discovery on the part of Paul, but "witnessed by the law and the prophets" (\marturoumen\, present passive participle, \hupo tou nomou kai tn prophtn\), made plain continuously by God himself.