NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp genese:

rwp@James:1:23 @{And not a doer} (\kai ou poits\). Condition of first class, assumed as true, and \ou\ (rather than \m\) contrasts \poits\ with \akroats\. {Unto a man beholding} (\andri katanoounti\). Associative instrumental case after \eoiken\ as in strkjv@1:6|. Note \andri\ as in strkjv@1:8| in contrast with \gunaiki\ (woman), not \anthrpi\ (general term for man). Present active participle of \katanoe\ to put the mind down on (\kata, nous\), to consider attentively, to take note of, as in verse 24| (\katenosen\). {His natural face} (\to prospon ts geneses autou\). "The face of his birth" (origin, lineage, nativity). For this use of \genesis\ see strkjv@3:6; strkjv@Matthew:1:1,18; strkjv@Luke:1:13|. {In a mirror} (\en esoptri\). Old word (from \eis, opt\) in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|. The mirrors of the ancients were not of glass, but of polished metal (of silver or usually of copper and tin). See \katoptrizomai\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18|.

rwp@James:3:6 @{The tongue is a fire} (\h glssa pur\). Songs:necessarily since there is no article with \pur\ (apparently same word as German _feuer_, Latin _purus_, English _pure, fire_). This metaphor of fire is applied to the tongue in strkjv@Proverbs:16:27; strkjv@26:18-22|; Sirach strkjv@28:22. {The world of iniquity} (\ho kosmos ts adikias\). A difficult phrase, impossible to understand according to Ropes as it stands. If the comma is put after \pur\ instead of after \adikias\, then the phrase may be the predicate with \kathistatai\ (present passive indicative of \kathistmi\, "is constituted," or the present middle "presents itself"). Even so, \kosmos\ remains a difficulty, whether it means the "ornament" (1Peter:3:3|) or "evil world" (James:1:27|) or just "world" in the sense of widespread power for evil. The genitive \adikias\ is probably descriptive (or qualitative). Clearly James means to say that the tongue can play havoc in the members of the human body. {Which defileth the whole body} (\h spilousa holon to sma\). Present active participle of \spilo\ late _Koin_, verb, to stain from \spilos\ (spot, also late word, in N.T. only in strkjv@Ephesians:5:27; strkjv@2Peter:2:13|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Judges:1:23|. Cf. strkjv@1:27| \aspilon\ (unspotted). {Setteth on fire} (\phlogizousa\). Present active participle of \phlogiz\, old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from \phlox\ (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See \anaptei\ (verse 5|). {The wheel of nature} (\ton trochon geneses\). Old word for wheel (from \trech\, to run), only here in N.T. "One of the hardest passages in the Bible" (Hort). To what does \trochon\ refer? For \geneses\ see strkjv@1:23| apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests "the wheel of birth" (cf. strkjv@Matthew:1:1,18|). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or \kuklos\, cycle, in place of \trochos\), but either in a physiological or a philosophical sense. James may have caught the metaphor from the current use, but certainly he has no such Orphic or Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, "the unending round of death and rebirth" (Ropes). The wheel of life may be considered either in motion or standing still, though setting on fire implies motion. There is no reference to the zodiac. {And is set on fire by hell} (\kai phlogizomen hupo gehenns\). Present passive participle of \phlogiz\, giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with \gehenna\ see strkjv@Matthew:5:22|.

rwp@Matthew:1:1 @{The Book} (\biblos\). There is no article in the Greek, but the following genitives make it definite. It is our word Bible that is here used, _the_ Book as Sir Walter Scott called it as he lay dying. The usual word for book is a diminutive form (\biblion\), a little book or roll such as we have in strkjv@Luke:4:17|, "The roll of the prophet Isaiah." The pieces of papyrus (\papuros\), our paper, were pasted together to make a roll of varying lengths according to one's needs. Matthew, of course, is not applying the word book to the Old Testament, probably not to his own book, but to "the genealogical table of Jesus Christ" (\biblos geneses Isou Christou\), "the birth roll of Jesus Christ" Moffatt translates it. We have no means of knowing where the writer obtained the data for this genealogy. It differs radically from that in strkjv@Luke:3:23-38|. One can only give his own theory of the difference. Apparently in Matthew we have the actual genealogy of Joseph which would be the legal pedigree of Jesus according to Jewish custom. In Luke we apparently have the actual genealogy of Mary which would be the real line of Jesus which Luke naturally gives as he is writing for the Gentiles.