NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp Adam:

rwp@1Corinthians:15:21 @{By man also} (\dai di' anthrpou\). That is Jesus, the God-man, the Second Adam (Romans:5:12|). The hope of the resurrection of the dead rests in Christ.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:22 @{Shall be made alive} (\zopoithsontai\). First future passive indicative of \zopoie\, late verb (Aristotle) to give life, to restore to life as here. In verse 36| \zopoieitai\ is used in the sense of natural life as in strkjv@John:5:21; strkjv@6:63| of spiritual life. It is not easy to catch Paul's thought here. He means resurrection (restoration) by the verb here, but not necessarily eternal life or salvation. Songs:also \pantes\ may not coincide in both clauses. All who die die in Adam, all who will be made alive will be made alive (restored to life) in Christ. The same problem occurs in strkjv@Romans:5:18| about "all," and in verse 19| about "the many."

rwp@1Corinthians:15:45 @{Became a living soul} (\egeneto eis psuchn zsan\). Hebraistic use of \eis\ in predicate from LXX. God breathed a soul (\psuch\) into "the first man." {The last Adam became a life-giving spirit} (\ho eschatos Adam eis pneuma zopoioun\). Supply \egeneto\ (became). Christ is the crown of humanity and has power to give us the new body. In strkjv@Romans:5:12-19| Paul calls Christ the Second Adam.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:48 @{As is the earthly} (\hoios ho choikos\). Masculine gender because of \anthrpos\ and correlative pronouns (\hoios, toioutoi\) of character or quality. All men of dust (\chokoi\) correspond to "the man of dust" (\ho chokos\), the first Adam. {As is the heavenly} (\hoios ho epouranios\). Christ in his ascended state (1Thessalonians:4:16; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:7; strkjv@Ephesians:2:6,20; strkjv@Phillipians:3:20f.|).

rwp@Jude:1:14 @{And to these also} (\de kai toutois\). Dative case, for these false teachers as well as for his contemporaries. {Enoch the seventh from Adam} (\hebdomos apo Adam Hench\). The genealogical order occurs in strkjv@Genesis:5:4-20|, with Enoch as seventh. He is so termed in Enoch strkjv@60:8; strkjv@93:3. {Prophesied} (\eprophteusen\). First aorist active indicative of \prophteu\. If the word is given its ordinary meaning as in strkjv@1Peter:1:10|, then Jude:terms the Book of Enoch an inspired book. The words quoted are "a combination of passages from Enoch" (Bigg), chiefly from Enoch strkjv@1:9. {With ten thousand of his holy ones} (\en hagiais muriasin autou\). "With (\en\ of accompaniment, strkjv@Luke:14:31|) his holy ten thousands" (\murias\ regular word, feminine gender, for ten thousand, strkjv@Acts:19:19|, there an unlimited number like our myriads, strkjv@Luke:12:1|).

rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Isous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\n hsei etn triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\n huios hs enomizeto Isph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\hs enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

rwp@Luke:4:2 @{Being tempted} (\peirazomenos\). Present passive participle and naturally parallel with the imperfect passive \geto\ (was led) in verse 1|. This is another instance of poor verse division which should have come at the end of the sentence. See on ¯Matthew:4:1; strkjv@Mark:1:13| for the words "tempt" and "devil." The devil challenged the Son of man though also the Son of God. It was a contest between Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, and the slanderer of men. The devil had won with Adam and Eve. He has hopes of triumph over Jesus. The story of this conflict is given only in strkjv@Matthew:4:1-11; strkjv@Luke:4:1-13|. There is a mere mention of it in strkjv@Mark:1:12f|. Songs:then here is a specimen of the Logia of Jesus (Q), a non-Markan portion of Matthew and Luke, the earliest document about Christ. The narrative could come ultimately only from Christ himself. It is noteworthy that it bears all the marks of the high conception of Jesus as the Son of God found in the Gospel of John and in Paul and Hebrews, the rest of the New Testament in fact, for Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Peter, and Jude:follow in this same strain. The point is that modern criticism has revealed the Messianic consciousness of Jesus as God's Son at his Baptism and in his Temptations at the very beginning of his ministry and in the oldest known documents about Christ (The Logia, Mark's Gospel). {He did eat nothing} (\ouk ephagen ouden\). Second aorist (constative) active indicative of the defective verb \esthi\. Mark does not give the fast. strkjv@Matthew:4:2| has the aorist active participle \nsteusas\ which usually means a religious fast for purposes of devotion. That idea is not excluded by Luke's words. The entrance of Jesus upon his Messianic ministry was a fit time for this solemn and intense consecration. This mental and spiritual strain would naturally take away the appetite and there was probably nothing at hand to eat. The weakness from the absence of food gave the devil his special opportunity to tempt Jesus which he promptly seized. {When they were completed} (\suntelestheisn autn\). Genitive absolute with the first aorist passive participle feminine plural because \hemern\ (days) is feminine. According to Luke the hunger (\epeinasen\, became hungry, ingressive aorist active indicative) came at the close of the forty days as in strkjv@Matthew:4:2|.

rwp@Mark:3:8 @{Hearing what great things he did} (\akouontes hosa poiei\). Masculine plural present participle, though \plthos\ is neuter singular (construction according to sense in both number and gender). This crowd by the sea came from Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond Jordan (Decapolis and Perea), Tyre and Sidon, Phoenicia, North, South, East, and Northwest, even from Idumea (mentioned here alone in the N.T.) won by John Hyrcanus to Palestine. "In our Lord's time Idumea was practically a part of Judea with a Jewish circumcised population" (George Adam Smith). Many of these were probably Gentiles (Phoenicia and Decapolis) and may have known only the Greek language. The fame of Jesus had spread through all the regions round about. There was a jam as the crowds came to Jesus by the Sea of Galilee.

rwp@Matthew:1:1 @{The Son of David, the son of Abraham} (\huiou Daueid huiou Abraam\). Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. Songs:Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son (\bn\) for the quality or character, but here the idea is descent. Christians are called sons of God because Christ has bestowed this dignity upon us (Romans:8:14; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Galatians:3:26; strkjv@4:5-7|). Verse 1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17|. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (2-6|), David to Babylon Removal (6-11|), Jechoniah to Jesus (12-16|). The removal to Babylon (\metoikesias Babulnos\) occurs at the end of verse 11|, the beginning of verse 12|, and twice in the resume in verse 17|. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then verse 17| makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list.