NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp decisive:

rwp@1John:5:10 @{Believeth on} (\pisteun eis\). John draws a distinction between "not believing God" (\m pisteun ti thei\) in next clause, the testimony of God about his Son, and surrender to and reliance on the Son as here (\eis\ and the accusative). See the same distinction less clearly drawn in strkjv@John:6:30f|. See also \eis tn marturian\ after \pepisteuken\ in this same verse and strkjv@John:2:23|. {In him} (\en hauti\). "In himself," though the evidence is not decisive between \hauti\ and \auti\. {Hath made} (\pepoiken\). Perfect active indicative of \poie\ like \memarturken\ and \pepisteuken\, permanent state. {A liar} (\pseustn\). As in strkjv@1:10|, which see. {Because he hath not believed} (\hoti ou pepisteuken\). Actual negative reason with negative \ou\, not the subjective reason as in strkjv@John:3:18|, where we have \hoti m pepisteuken\). The subjective negative is regular with \ho m pisteun\. Relative clause here repeats close of verse 9|.

rwp@2Corinthians:13:2 @{As when I was present the second time} (\hs parn to deuteron\). This translation assumes the second visit as already made. It is a natural way to take the Greek \hs parn\. But \hs\ with \parn\ can also mean "as if present" the second time (Authorized Version). Probably "as when" is the more natural rendering, but the other cannot be ruled entirely out in view of strkjv@1:15-23|. {If I come again} (\ean elth eis to palin\). Condition of third class. The use of \palin\ of itself suits the idea that Paul had not yet made the second visit as it means simply "again" or "back," but in strkjv@Matthew:26:44| we find \palin ek tritou\ (again a third time) and so it is not decisive.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ CLAIMS PETRINE AUTHORSHIP Not only so, but in fuller form than strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, for the writer terms himself "Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon (Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in strkjv@Acts:15:14|) is the real name (John:1:42|) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas, the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the fact remains that II Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and orthodox teaching.

rwp@Acts:20:10 @{Fell on him} (\epepesen auti\). Second aorist active indicative of \epipipt\ with dative case as Elijah did (1Kings:17:21|) and Elisha (2Kings:4:34|). {Embracing} (\sunperilabn\). Second aorist active participle of \sunperilamban\, old verb to embrace completely (take hold together round), but only here in the N.T. In strkjv@Ezra:5:3|. {Make ye no ado} (\m thorubeisthe\). Stop (\m\ and present middle imperative of \thorube\) making a noise (\thorubos\) as the people did on the death of Jairus's daughter (Matthew:9:23| \thoruboumenou\ and strkjv@Mark:5:38| \thorubou\) when Jesus asked \Ti thorubeisthe?\ {For his life is in him} (\h gar psuch autou en auti estin\). This language is relied on by Ramsay, Wendt, Zoeckler to show that Eutychus had not really died, but had merely swooned. Paul's language would suit that view, but it suits equally well the idea that he had just been restored to life and so is indecisive. Furneaux urges also the fact that his friends did not bring him back to the meeting till morning (verse 12|) as additional evidence that it was a case of swooning rather than of death. But this again is not conclusive as they would naturally not take him back at once. One will believe here as the facts appeal to him.

rwp@John:8:12 @{Again therefore} (\palin oun\). This language fits in better with strkjv@7:52| than with strkjv@8:11|. Just suppose Jesus is in the temple on the following day. {Unto them} (\autois\). The Pharisees and crowds in the temple after the feast was past. {I am the light of the world} (\eg eimi to phs tou kosmou\). Jesus had called his followers "the light of the world" (Matthew:5:14|), but that was light reflected from him. Already Jesus (the Logos) had been called the true light of men (1:9; strkjv@3:19|). The Psalmist calls God his Light (27:1|). Songs:Isaiah:60:19|. At the feast of tabernacles in the Court of the Women where Jesus was on this day (8:20|) there were brilliant candelabra and there was the memory of the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. But with all this background this supreme and exclusive claim of Jesus (repeated in strkjv@9:5|) to being the light of the whole world (of Gentiles as well as of Jews) startled the Pharisees and challenged their opposition. {Shall have the light of life} (\hexei to phs ts zs\). The light which springs from and issues in life (Westcott). Cf. strkjv@6:33,51| about Jesus being the Bread of Life. In this sublime claim we come to a decisive place. It will not do to praise Jesus and deny his deity. Only as the Son of God can we justify and accept this language which otherwise is mere conceit and froth.

rwp@Info_Matthew @ If the book is genuine, as I believe, the date becomes a matter of interest. Here again there is nothing absolutely decisive save that it is later than the Gospel according to Mark which it apparently uses. If Mark is given an early date, between A.D. 50 to 60, then Matthew's book may be between 60 and 70, though many would place it between 70 and 80. It is not certain whether Luke wrote after Matthew or not, though that is quite possible. There is no definite use of Matthew by Luke that has been shown. One guess is as good as another and each decides by his own predilections. My own guess is that A.D. 60 is as good as any.

rwp@Matthew:1:20 @{An angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream} (\aggelos kuriou kat' onar ephan auti\). This expression (\aggelos kuriou\) is without the article in the New Testament except when, as in strkjv@1:24|, there is reference to the angel previously mentioned. Sometimes in the Old Testament Jehovah Himself is represented by this phrase. Surely Joseph needed God's help if ever man did. If Jesus was really God's Son, Joseph was entitled to know this supreme fact that he might be just to both Mary and her Child. It was in a dream, but the message was distinct and decisive for Joseph. He is called "Son of David" as had been shown by Matthew in strkjv@Matthew:1:16|. Mary is called his "wife" (\tn gunaika sou\). He is told "not to become afraid" (ingressive first aorist passive subjunctive in prohibition, (\m phobthis\), "to take to his side" (\paralabein\, ingressive aorist active infinitive) her whom he had planned (\enthumthentos\, genitive absolute again, from \en\ and \thumos\) to send away with a writ of divorce. He had pondered and had planned as best he knew, but now God had called a halt and he had to decide whether he was willing to shelter Mary by marrying her and, if necessary, take upon himself whatever stigma might attach to her. Joseph was told that the child was begotten of the Holy Spirit and thus that Mary was innocent of any sin. But who would believe it now if he told it of her? Mary knew the truth and had not told him because she could not expect him to believe it.

rwp@Matthew:11:12 @{Suffereth violence} (\biazetai\). This verb occurs only here and in strkjv@Luke:16:16| in the N.T. It seems to be middle in Luke and Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 258) quotes an inscription "where \biazomai\ is without doubt reflexive and absolute" as in strkjv@Luke:16:16|. But there are numerous papyri examples where it is passive (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_, etc.) so that "there seems little that promises decisive help for the difficult Logion of strkjv@Matthew:11:12; strkjv@Luke:16:16|." Songs:then in strkjv@Matthew:11:12| the form can be either middle or passive and either makes sense, though a different sense. The passive idea is that the kingdom is forced, is stormed, is taken by men of violence like "men of violence take it by force" (\biastai harpazousin autn\) or seize it like a conquered city. The middle voice may mean "experiences violence" or "forces its way" like a rushing mighty wind (so Zahn holds). These difficult words of Jesus mean that the preaching of John "had led to a violent and impetuous thronging to gather round Jesus and his disciples" (Hort, _Judaistic Christianity_, p. 26).

rwp@Matthew:25:9 @{Peradventure there will not be enough for us and you} (\mpote ou m arkesei hmn kai humn\). There is an elliptical construction here that is not easy of explanation. Some MSS. Aleph A L Z have \ouk\ instead of \ou m\. But even so \m pote\ has to be explained either by supplying an imperative like \ginesth\ or by a verb of fearing like \phoboumetha\ (this most likely). Either \ouk\ or \ou m\ would be proper with the futuristic subjunctive \arkesei\ (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 192; Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1161,1174). "We are afraid that there is no possibility of there being enough for us both." This is a denial of oil by the wise virgins because there was not enough for both. "It was necessary to show that the foolish virgins could not have the consequences of their folly averted at the last moment" (Plummer). It is a courteous reply, but it is decisive. The compound Greek negatives are very expressive, \mpote--ou m\.