NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp ridicule:

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). Imperfect active of \sunball\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gnthi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zenn daimonin dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@John:3:20 @{That doeth ill} (\ho phaula prassn\). The word \phaulos\ means first worthless and then wicked (usually so in N.T.) and both senses occur in the papyri. In strkjv@5:29| see contrast between \agatha poie\ (doing good things) and \phaula prass\ (practising evil things). {Hateth the light} (\misei to phs\). Hence talks against it, ridicules Christ, Christianity, churches, preachers, etc. Does it in talk, magazines, books, in a supercilious tone of sheer ignorance. {Cometh not to the light} (\ouk erchetai pros to phs\). The light hurts his eyes, reveals his own wickedness, makes him thoroughly uncomfortable. Hence he does not read the Bible, he does not come to church, he does not pray. He goes on in deeper darkness. {Lest his works should be reproved} (\hina m elegchthi ta erga autou\). Negative final clause (\hina m\) with first aorist passive subjunctive of \elegch\, old word to correct a fault, to reprove, to convict. See also strkjv@8:46; strkjv@16:8|. To escape this unpleasant process the evil man cuts out Christ.

rwp@John:7:26 @{They say nothing unto him} (\ouden autoi legousin\). But only make sneering comments about him (7:16|) in spite of his speaking "openly" (\parrsii\, for which word see strkjv@7:13; strkjv@18:20|) before all. lt was sarcasm about the leaders, though an element of surprise on the part of "these shrewd townsmen" (Bernard) may have existed also. {Can it be that the rulers indeed know} (\m pote alths egnsin hoi archontes\). Negative answer expected by \m pote\ and yet there is ridicule of the rulers in the form of the question. See a like use of \m pote\ in strkjv@Luke:3:15|, though nowhere else in John. \Egnsan\ (second aorist ingressive active indicative of \ginsk\) may refer to the examination of Jesus by these rulers in strkjv@5:19ff.| and means, "Did they come to know or find out" (and so hold now)? {That this is the Christ} (\hoti houtos estin ho Christos\). The Messiah of Jewish hope.

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@Luke:8:19 @{His mother and brethren} (\h mtr kai hoi adelphoi autou\). strkjv@Mark:3:31-35; strkjv@Matthew:12:46-50| place the visit of the mother and brothers of Jesus before the parable of the sower. Usually Luke follows Mark's order, but he does not do so here. At first the brothers of Jesus (younger sons of Joseph and Mary, I take the words to mean, there being sisters also) were not unfriendly to the work of Jesus as seen in strkjv@John:2:12| when they with the mother of Jesus are with him and the small group (half dozen) disciples in Capernaum after the wedding in Cana. But as Jesus went on with his work and was rejected at Nazareth (Luke:4:16-31|), there developed an evident disbelief in his claims on the part of the brothers who ridiculed him six months before the end (John:7:5|). At this stage they have apparently come with Mary to take Jesus home out of the excitement of the crowds, perhaps thinking that he is beside himself (Mark:3:21|). They hardly believed the charge of the rabbis that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub. Certainly the mother of Jesus could give no credence to that slander. But she herself was deeply concerned and wanted to help him if possible. See discussion of the problem in my little book _The Mother of Jesus_ and also on ¯Mark:3:31| and ¯Matthew:12:46|. {Come to him} (\suntuchein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \suntugchan\, an old verb, though here alone in the N.T., meaning to meet with, to fall in with as if accidentally, here with associative instrumental case \auti\.

rwp@Luke:16:14 @{Who were lovers of money} (\philarguroi huparchontes\). Literally, being lovers of money. \Philarguroi\ is an old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:2|. It is from \philos\ and \arguros\. {Heard} (\kouon\). Imperfect active, were listening (all the while Jesus was talking to the disciples (verses 1-13|). {And they scoffed at him} (\kai exemuktrizon\). Imperfect active again of \ekmuktriz\. LXX where late writers use simple verb. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:23:35|. It means to turn out or up the nose at one, to sneer, to scoff. The Romans had a phrase, _naso adunco suspendere_, to hang on the hooked nose (the subject of ridicule). These money-loving Pharisees were quick to see that the words of Jesus about the wise use of money applied to them. They had stood without comment the three parables aimed directly at them (the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son). But now they do not remain quiet while they hear the fourth parable spoken to the disciples. No words were apparently spoken, but their eyes, noses, faces were eloquent with a fine disdain.

rwp@Luke:23:39 @{Railed} (\eblasphmei\). Imperfect active, implying that he kept it up. His question formally calls for an affirmative answer (\ouchi\), but the ridicule is in his own answer: "Save thyself and us." It was on a level with an effort to break prison. Luke alone gives this incident (39-43|), though strkjv@Mark:15:32; strkjv@Matthew:27:44| allude to it.

rwp@Mark:2:16 @{The scribes of the Pharisees} (\hoi grammateis tn Pharisain\). This is the correct text. Cf. "their scribes" in strkjv@Luke:5:30|. Matthew gave a great reception (\dochn\, strkjv@Luke:5:29|) in his house (Mark:2:15|). These publicans and sinners not simply accepted Levi's invitation, but they imitated his example "and were following Jesus" (\kai kolouthoun auti\). It was a motly crew from the standpoint of these young theologues, scribes of the Pharisees, who were on hand, being invited to pick flaws if they could. It was probably in the long hall of the house where the scribes stood and ridiculed Jesus and the disciples, unless they stood outside, feeling too pious to go into the house of a publican. It was an offence for a Jew to eat with Gentiles as even many of the early Jewish Christians felt (Acts:11:3|) and publicans and sinners were regarded like Gentiles (1Corinthians:5:11|).

rwp@Mark:15:32 @{Now come down} (\katabat nun\). Now that he is nailed to the cross. {That we may see and believe} (\hina idmen kai pisteusmen\). Aorist subjunctive of purpose with \hina\. They use almost the very language of Jesus in their ridicule, words that they had heard him use in his appeals to men to see and believe. {Reproached him} (\neidizon auton\). Imperfect tense. They did it several times. Mark and Matthew both fail to give the story of the robber who turned to Christ on the Cross as told in strkjv@Luke:23:39-43|.

rwp@Matthew:6:16 @{Of a sad countenance} (\skuthrpoi\). Only here and strkjv@Luke:24:17| in the N.T. It is a compound of \skuthros\ (sullen) and \ops\ (countenance). These actors or hypocrites "put on a gloomy look" (Goodspeed) and, if necessary, even "disfigure their faces" (\aphanizousin ta prospa autn\), that they may look like they are fasting. It is this pretence of piety that Jesus so sharply ridicules. There is a play on the Greek words \aphanizousi\ (disfigure) and \phansin\ (figure). They conceal their real looks that they may seem to be fasting, conscious and pretentious hypocrisy.

rwp@Matthew:12:31 @{But the blasphemy against the Spirit} (\h de tou pneumatos blasphmia\). Objective genitive. This is the unpardonable sin. In 32| we have \kata tou pneumatos tou hagiou\ to make it plainer. What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? These Pharisees had already committed it. They had attributed the works of the Holy Spirit by whose power Jesus wrought his miracles (12:28|) to the devil. That sin was without excuse and would not be forgiven in their age or in the coming one (12:32|). People often ask if they can commit the unpardonable sin. Probably some do who ridicule the manifest work of God's Spirit in men's lives and attribute the Spirit's work to the devil.

rwp@Matthew:22:5 @{Made light of it} (\amelsantes\). Literally, neglecting, not caring for. They may even have ridiculed the invitation, but the verb does not say so. However, to neglect an invitation to a wedding feast is a gross discourtesy. {One to his own farm} (\hos men eis ton idion agron\) or field, {another to his merchandise} (\hos de epi tn emporian autou\) only example in the N.T., from \emporos\, merchant, one who travels for traffic (\emporeuomai\), a drummer.

rwp@Matthew:23:5 @{To be seen of men} (\pros to theathnai tois anthrpois\). See strkjv@6:1| where this same idiom occurs. Ostentation regulates the conduct of the rabbis. {Phylacteries} (\phulaktria\). An adjective from \phulaktr, phulass\ (to guard). Songs:a fortified place, station for garrison, then a safeguard, protecting charm or amulet. The rabbis wore \tephillin\ or prayer-fillets, small leather cases with four strips of parchment on which were written the words of strkjv@Exodus:13:1-10,11-16; strkjv@Deuteronomy:6:4-9; strkjv@11:13-21|. They took literally the words about "a sign unto thy hand," "a memorial between thine eyes," and "frontlets." "That for the head was to consist of a box with four compartments, each containing a slip of parchment inscribed with one of the four passages. Each of these strips was to be tied up with a well-washed hair from a calf's tail; lest, if tied with wool or thread, any fungoid growth should ever pollute them. The phylactery of the arm was to contain a single slip, with the same four passages written in four columns of seven lines each. The black leather straps by which they were fastened were wound seven times round the arm and three times round the hand. They were reverenced by the rabbis as highly as the scriptures, and, like them, might be rescued from the flames on a sabbath. They profanely imagined that God wore the _tephillin_" (Vincent). It is small wonder that Jesus ridiculed such minute concern for pretentious externalism and literalism. These _tephillin_ "are still worn at the present day on the forehead and left arm by Jews at the daily Morning Prayer" (McNeile). "The size of the phylacteries indexed the measure of zeal, and the wearing of large ones was apt to take the place of obedience" (Bruce). Hence they made them "broad." The superstitious would wear them as mere charms to ward off evil. {Enlarge the borders} (\megalunousin ta kraspeda\). In strkjv@9:20| we see that Jesus, like the Jews generally, wore a tassel or tuft, hem or border, a fringe on the outer garment according to strkjv@Numbers:15:38|. Here again the Jewish rabbi had minute rules about the number of the fringes and the knots (see on ¯9:20|). They made a virtue of the size of the fringes also. "Such things were useful as reminders; they were fatal when they were regarded as charms" (Plummer).

rwp@Matthew:27:29 @{A crown of thorns} (\stephanon ex akanthn\). They wove a crown out of thorns which would grow even in the palace grounds. It is immaterial whether they were young and tender thorn bushes, as probable in the spring, or hard bushes with sharp prongs. The soldiers would not care, for they were after ridicule and mockery even if it caused pain. It was more like a victor's garland (\stephanon\) than a royal diadem (\diadma\), but it served the purpose. Songs:with the reed (\kalamon\), a stalk of common cane grass which served as sceptre. The soldiers were familiar with the _Ave Caesar_ and copy it in their mockery of Jesus: {Hail, King of the Jews} (\chaire, Basileu tn Ioudain\). The soldiers added the insults used by the Sanhedrin (Matthew:26:67|), spitting on him and smiting him with the reed. Probably Jesus had been unbound already. At any rate the garments of mockery were removed before the _via dolorosa_ to the cross (verse 31|).

rwp@Revelation:2:24 @{To you the rest} (\humin tois loipois\). Dative case. Those who hold out against Jezebel, not necessarily a minority (9:20; strkjv@19:21; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13|). {As many as} (\hosoi\). Inclusive of all "the rest." {This teaching} (\tn didachn tautn\). That of Jezebel. {Which} (\hoitines\). "Which very ones," generic of the class, explanatory definition as in strkjv@1:7|. {Know not} (\ouk egnsan\). Second aorist (ingressive) active of \ginsk\, "did not come to know by experience." {The deep things of Satan} (\ta bathea tou Satan\). The Ophites (worshippers of the serpent) and other later Gnostics (Cainites, Carpocratians, Naassenes) boasted of their knowledge of "the deep things," some claiming this very language about Satan (the serpent) as Paul did of God (1Corinthians:2:10|). It is not clear whether the words here quoted are a boast of the Nicolaitans or a reproach on the other Christians for not knowing the depths of sin. Some even claimed that they could indulge in immorality without sinning (1John:1:10; strkjv@3:10|). Perhaps both ideas are involved. {As they say} (\hs legousin\). Probably referring to the heretics who ridicule the piety of the other Christians. {None other burden} (\ou--allo baros\). \Baros\ refers to weight (Matthew:20:12|), \phortion\, from \pher\, to bear, refers to load (Galatians:6:5|), \ogkos\ to bulk (Hebrews:12:1|). Apparently a reference to the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:28|) where the very word \baros\ is used and mention is made about the two items in verse 20| (fornication and idolatry) without mentioning the others about things strangled, etc. See the Pharisaic narrowness in strkjv@Matthew:23:4|.