NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp dispose:

rwp@1Corinthians:7:34 @{And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin} (\kai memeristai kai h gun kai h parthenos\). But the text here is very uncertain, almost hopelessly so. Westcott and Hort put \kai memeristai\ in verse 33| and begin a new sentence with \kai h gun\ and add \h agamos\ after \h gun\, meaning "the widow and the virgin each is anxious for the things of the Lord" like the unmarried man (\ho agamos\, bachelor or widow) in verse 32|. Possibly so, but the MSS. vary greatly at every point. At any rate Paul's point is that the married woman is more disposed to care for the things of the world. But, alas, how many unmarried women (virgins and widows) are after the things of the world today and lead a fast and giddy life.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:8 @{Will not commend} (\ou parastsei\). Future active indicative of \paristmi\, old word to present as in strkjv@Acts:1:3; strkjv@Luke:2:22; strkjv@Colossians:1:28|. Food (\brma\) will not give us an entree to God for commendation or condemnation, whether meat-eaters or vegetarians. {Are we the worse} (\husteroumetha\). Are we left behind, do we fall short. Both conditions are of the third class (\ean m, ean\) undetermined. {Are we the better} (\perisseuometha\). Do we overflow, do we have excess of credit. Paul here disposes of the pride of knowledge (the enlightened ones) and the pride of prejudice (the unenlightened). Each was disposed to look down upon the other, the one in scorn of the other's ignorance, the other in horror of the other's heresy and daring.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:28 @{Besides those things that are without} (\chris tn parektos\). Probably, "apart from those things beside these just mentioned." Surely no man ever found glory in such a peck of troubles as Paul has here recounted. His list should shame us all today who are disposed to find fault with our lot. {That which presseth upon me daily} (\h epistasis moi h kath' hmeran\). For this vivid word \epistasis\ see strkjv@Acts:24:12|, the only other place in the N.T. where it occurs. It is like the rush of a mob upon Paul. {Anxiety for all the churches} (\h merimna pasn tn ekklsin\). Objective genitive after \merimna\ (distractions in different directions, from \meriz\) for which word see on ¯Matthew:13:22|. Paul had the shepherd heart. As apostle to the Gentiles he had founded most of these churches.

rwp@Acts:2:4 @{With other tongues} (\heterais glssais\). Other than their native tongues. Each one began to speak in a language that he had not acquired and yet it was a real language and understood by those from various lands familiar with them. It was not jargon, but intelligible language. Jesus had said that the gospel was to go to all the nations and here the various tongues of earth were spoken. One might conclude that this was the way in which the message was to be carried to the nations, but future developments disprove it. This is a third miracle (the sound, the tongues like fire, the untaught languages). There is no blinking the fact that Luke so pictures them. One need not be surprised if this occasion marks the fulfilment of the Promise of the Father. But one is not to confound these miraculous signs with the Holy Spirit. They are merely proof that he has come to carry on the work of his dispensation. The gift of tongues came also on the house of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts:10:44-47; strkjv@11:15-17|), the disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts:19:6|), the disciples at Corinth (1Corinthians:14:1-33|). It is possible that the gift appeared also at Samaria (Acts:8:18|). But it was not a general or a permanent gift. Paul explains in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:22| that "tongues" were a sign to unbelievers and were not to be exercised unless one was present who understood them and could translate them. This restriction disposes at once of the modern so-called tongues which are nothing but jargon and hysteria. It so happened that here on this occasion at Pentecost there were Jews from all parts of the world, so that some one would understand one tongue and some another without an interpreter such as was needed at Corinth. The experience is identical in all four instances and they are not for edification or instruction, but for adoration and wonder and worship. {As the Spirit gave them utterance} (\kaths to pneuma edidou apophtheggesthai autois\). This is precisely what Paul claims in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:10,28|, but all the same without an interpreter the gift was not to be exercised (1Corinthians:14:6-19|). Paul had the gift of tongues, but refused to exercise it except as it would be understood. Note the imperfect tense here (\edidou\). Perhaps they did not all speak at once, but one after another. \Apophtheggesthai\ is a late verb (LXX of prophesying, papyri). Lucian uses it of the ring of a vessel when it strikes a reef. It is used of eager, elevated, impassioned utterance. In the N.T. only here, verse 14; strkjv@26:25|. \Apophthegm\ is from this verb.

rwp@Acts:28:16 @{Paul was suffered to abide by himself} (\epetrap ti Pauli menein kath' heauton\). Second aorist passive of \epitrepo\, to permit or allow. Literally, "It was permitted to Paul to abide by himself." Some late documents (Textus Receptus) here add: "The centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard" (or the \stratopedarch\). This officer used to be considered Burrus who was Prefect of the Praetorian Guard A.D. 51-62. But it is by no means certain that Julius turned the prisoners over to this officer. It seems more likely that Julius would report to the captain of the Peregrini. If so, we may be sure that Julius would give a good report of Paul to this officer who would be kindly disposed and would allow Paul comparative freedom (living by himself, in his lodging, verse 23|, his own hired house verse 30|, though still chained to a soldier). {With the soldier that guarded him} (\sun ti phulassonti auton stratiti\). Probably a new soldier every day or night, but always with this soldier chained to his right hand day and night. Now that Paul is in Rome what can he do for Christ while he awaits the outcome of his own appeal to Nero?

rwp@Colossians:2:9 @{For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily} (\hoti en auti katoikei pn to plrma ts theottos smatiks\). In this sentence, given as the reason (\hoti\, because) for the preceding claim for Christ as the measure of human knowledge Paul states the heart of his message about the Person of Christ. There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very \essence\ of God, from \theos, deitas\) and not to be confused with \theiotes\ in strkjv@Romans:1:20| (from \theios\, the {quality} of God, _divinitas_), here only in N.T. as \theiots\ only in strkjv@Romans:1:20|. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. \Theiots\ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions. Paul here asserts that "all the \plrma\ of the Godhead," not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form (\smatiks\, late and rare adverb, in Plutarch, inscription, here only in N.T.), dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity (Phillipians:2:9-11|), "the body of his glory" (\ti smati ts doxs\). The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation (John:1:1,18; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6|), during the Incarnation (John:1:14,18; strkjv@1John:1:1-3|). It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (Phillipians:2:7|). Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE AUTHOR Origen bluntly wrote: "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul's while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in strkjv@Hebrews:11:32| (\me digoumenon\) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply \Pros Hebraious\ as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

rwp@Hebrews:12:20 @{For they could not endure} (\ouk epheron gar\). Imperfect active of \pher\, "for they were not enduring (bearing)." {That which was enjoined} (\to diastellomenon\). Present passive articular participle of \diastell\, old verb to distinguish, to dispose, to order. The quotation is from strkjv@Exodus:19:12f|. The people appealed to Moses (Exodus:20:19|) and the leaders did so also (Deuteronomy:5:23f.|), both in terror. {If even} (\kan\). "Even if." Condition of third class with second aorist active subjunctive of \thiggan\ as in strkjv@11:28|, followed by genitive \orous\ (mountain). {It shall be stoned} (\lithobolthsetai\). From strkjv@Exodus:19:13|. Late compound verb from \lithobolos\ (from \lithos, ball\) as in strkjv@Matthew:21:35|.

rwp@Info_John @ LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as "the Elder" (\ho presbuteros\), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Peter:5:1|) he calls himself "your fellow-elder" (\ho sunpresbuteros\). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in strkjv@1John:1:1-4| and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the _aeon_ Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in strkjv@1John:2:22|. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

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@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@Mark:10:1 @{Into the border of Judea and beyond Jordan} (\eis ta horia ts Ioudaias kai peran tou Iordanou\). See on ¯Matthew:19:1| for discussion of this curious expression. Matthew adds "from Galilee" and strkjv@Luke:17:11| says that Jesus "was passing through the midst of Samaria and Galilee" after leaving Ephraim (John:11:54|). A great deal has intervened between the events at the close of Mark 9 and those in the beginning of Mark 10. For these events see strkjv@Matthew:18; strkjv@John:7-11; strkjv@Luke:9:57-18:14| (one-third of Luke's Gospel comes in here). It was a little over six months to the end at the close of Mark 9. It is just a few weeks now in Mark 10. Jesus has begun his last journey to Jerusalem going north through Samaria, Galilee, across the Jordan into Perea, and back into Judea near Jericho to go up with the passover pilgrims from Galilee. {Multitudes} (\ochloi\). Caravans and caravans journeying to Jerusalem. Many of them are followers of Jesus from Galilee or at least kindly disposed towards him. They go together (\sunporeuontai\) with Jesus. Note dramatic historical present. {As he was wont} (\hs eithei\). Second past perfect used like an imperfect from \eitha\, second perfect active. Jesus {was teaching} (\edidasken\, imperfect, no longer present tense) this moving caravan.

rwp@Matthew:5:25 @{Agree with} (\isthi eunon\). A present periphrastic active imperative. The verb is from \eunoos\ (friendly, kindly disposed). "Mak up wi' yere enemy" (_Braid Scots_). Compromise is better than prison where no principle is involved, but only personal interest. It is so easy to see principle where pride is involved. {The officer} (\ti hupreti\). This word means "under rower" on the ship with several ranks of rowers, the bottom rower (\hupo\ under and \ress\, to row), the galley-slave, then any servant, the attendant in the synagogue (Luke:4:20|). Luke so describes John Mark in his relation to Barnabas and Saul (Acts:13:5|). Then it is applied to the "ministers of the word" (Luke:1:2|).

rwp@Matthew:11:25 @{At that season Jesus answered and said} (\en ekeini ti kairi apokritheis eipen\). Spoke to his Father in audible voice. The time and place we do not know. But here we catch a glimpse of Jesus in one of his moods of worship. "It is usual to call this golden utterance a prayer, but it is at once prayer, praise, and self-communing in a devout spirit" (Bruce). Critics are disturbed because this passage from the Logia of Jesus or Q of Synoptic criticism (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|) is so manifestly Johannine in spirit and very language, "the Father" (\ho patr\), "the son" (\ho huios\), whereas the Fourth Gospel was not written till the close of the first century and the Logia was written before the Synoptic Gospels. The only satisfying explanation lies in the fact that Jesus did have this strain of teaching that is preserved in John's Gospel. Here he is in precisely the same mood of elevated communion with the Father that we have reflected in John 14 to 17. Even Harnack is disposed to accept this Logion as a genuine saying of Jesus. The word "thank" (\homologoumai\) is better rendered "praise" (Moffatt). Jesus praises the Father "not that the \sophoi\ were ignorant, but that the \npioi\ knew" (McNeile).

rwp@Revelation:7:14 @{I say} (\eirka\). Perfect active indicative of \eipon\, "I have said." "To the Seer's mind the whole scene was still fresh and vivid" (Swete) like \kekragen\ in strkjv@John:1:15| and \eilphen\ in strkjv@Revelation:5:7|, not the so-called "aoristic perfect" which even Moulton (_Prol_. p. 145) is disposed to admit. {My lord} (\Kurie mou\). "An address of reverence to a heavenly being" (Vincent), not an act of worship on John's part. {Thou knowest} (\su oidas\). "At once a confession of ignorance, and an appeal for information" (Swete), not of full confidence like \su oidas\ in strkjv@John:21:15ff|. {They which come out of the great tribulation} (\hoi erchomenoi ek ts thlipses ts megals\). Present middle participle with the idea of continued repetition. "The martyrs are still arriving from the scene of the great tribulation" (Charles). Apparently some great crisis is contemplated (Matthew:13:19ff.; strkjv@24:21; strkjv@Mark:13:10|), though the whole series may be in mind and so may anticipate final judgment. {And they washed} (\kai eplunan\). First aorist active indicative of \plun\, old verb, to wash, in N.T. only strkjv@Luke:5:2; strkjv@Revelation:7:14; strkjv@22:14|. This change of construction after \hoi erchomenoi\ from \hoi plunsantes\ to \kai eplunan\ is common in the Apocalypse, one of Charles's Hebraisms, like \kai epoisen\ in strkjv@1:6| and \kai plani\ in strkjv@2:20|. {Made them white} (\eleukanan\). First aorist active indicative of \leukain\, to whiten, old verb from \leukos\ (verse 13|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:9:3|. "Milligan remarks that _robes_ are the expression of character and compares the word _habit_ used of dress" (Vincent). The language here comes partly from strkjv@Genesis:49:11| and partly from strkjv@Exodus:19:10,14|. For the cleansing power of Christ's blood see also strkjv@Romans:3:25; strkjv@5:9; strkjv@Colossians:1:20: strkjv@Ephesians:1:7; strkjv@1Peter:1:2; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14; strkjv@1John:1:7; strkjv@Revelation:1:5; strkjv@5:9; strkjv@22:14|. "The aorists look back to the life on earth when the cleansing was effected" (Swete). See strkjv@Phillipians:2:12f.| for both divine and human aspects of salvation. {In the blood of the Lamb} (\en ti haimati tou arniou\). There is power alone in the blood of Christ to cleanse from sin (1John:1:7|), not in the blood of the martyrs themselves. The result is "white," not "red," as one might imagine.

rwp@Revelation:20:14 @{Were cast} (\eblthsan\). As the devil (20:10|) followed the two beasts (19:20|) into the same dread lake of fire. Death is personified and is disposed of, "the last enemy" (1Corinthians:15:26|) and Paul sings the paean of victory over death (1Corinthians:15:54f.|, from strkjv@Hosea:13:14|). Hades has no more terrors, for the saints are in heaven. There is no more fear of death (Hebrews:2:15|), for death is no more (Revelation:21:4|). The second death (2:11; strkjv@20:6; strkjv@21:8|) is here identified as in strkjv@21:8| with the lake of fire.