NT.filter - rwp pointedly:

rwp@1Corinthians:7:1 @{Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote} (\peri de hn egrapsate\). An ellipsis of \peri toutn\, the antecedent of \peri hn\, is easily supplied as in papyri. The church had written Paul a letter in which a number of specific problems about marriage were raised. He answers them _seriatim_. The questions must be clearly before one in order intelligently to interpret Paul's replies. The first is whether a single life is wrong. Paul pointedly says that it is not wrong, but good (\kalon\). One will get a one-sided view of Paul's teaching on marriage unless he keeps a proper perspective. One of the marks of certain heretics will be forbidding to marry (1Timothy:4:3|). Paul uses marriage as a metaphor of our relation to Christ (2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@Romans:7:4; strkjv@Ephesians:5:28-33|). Paul is not here opposing marriage. He is only arguing that celibacy may be good in certain limitations. The genitive case with \haptesthai\ (touch) is the usual construction.

rwp@Acts:5:41 @{They therefore} (\hoi men oun\). No answering \de\. {They were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name} (\katxithsan huper tou onomatos atimasthnai\). First aorist passive indicative of \kataxio\, old verb to count worthy. Three times in N.T. (Luke:20:35; strkjv@Acts:5:41; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:5|). First aorist passive infinitive of \atimaz\, old verb to make one dishonoured (\atimos\). Forms here an oxymoron (\oxus\, sharp, \moros\, foolish) pointedly foolish saying "which is witty or impressive through sheer contradiction or paradox as laborious idleness, sublime indifference" (Vincent). The apostles felt honoured by dishonour. Note the same use of "the Name" as in strkjv@James:2:7; strkjv@3John:1:7|. With the Jews this absolute use of "the Name" meant Jehovah. The Christians now apply it to Jesus.

rwp@Colossians:3:9 @{Lie not to another} (\m pseudesthe eis alllous\). Lying (\pseudos\) could have been included in the preceding list where it belongs in reality. But it is put more pointedly thus in the prohibition (\m\ and the present middle imperative). It means either "stop lying" or "do not have the habit of lying." {Seeing that ye have put off} (\apekdusamenoi\). First aorist middle participle (causal sense of the circumstantial participle) of the double compound verb \apekduomai\, for which see strkjv@2:15|. The \apo\ has the perfective sense (wholly), "having stripped clean off." The same metaphor as \apothesthe\ in verse 8|. {The old man} (\ton palaion anthrpon\). Here Paul brings in another metaphor (mixes his metaphors as he often does), that of the old life of sin regarded as "the ancient man" of sin already crucified (Romans:6:6|) and dropped now once and for all as a mode of life (aorist tense). See same figure in strkjv@Ephesians:4:22|. \Palaios\ is ancient in contrast with \neos\ (young, new) as in strkjv@Matthew:9:17| or \kainos\ (fresh, unused) as in strkjv@Matthew:13:52|. {With his doings} (\sun tais praxesin autou\). Practice must square with profession.

rwp@James:2:21 @{Justified by works} (\ex ergn edikaith\). First aorist passive indicative of \dikaio\ (see Galatians and Romans for this verb, to declare righteous, to set right) in a question with \ouk\ expecting an affirmative answer. This is the phrase that is often held to be flatly opposed to Paul's statement in strkjv@Romans:4:1-5|, where Paul pointedly says that it was the faith of Abraham (Romans:4:9|) that was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, not his works. But Paul is talking about the faith of Abraham before his circumcision (4:10|) as the basis of his being set right with God, which faith is symbolized in the circumcision. James makes plain his meaning also. {In that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar} (\anenegkas Isaak ton huion autou epi to thusiastrion\). They use the same words, but they are talking of different acts. James points to the offering (\anenegkas\ second aorist--with first aorist ending--active participle of \anapher\) of Isaac on the altar (Genesis:22:16f.|) as _proof_ of the faith that Abraham already had. Paul discusses Abraham's faith as the basis of his justification, that and not his circumcision. There is no contradiction at all between James and Paul. Neither is answering the other. Paul may or may not have seen the Epistle of James, who stood by him loyally in the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|).

rwp@Info_John @ THE BELOVED DISCIPLE The book claims to be written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John:21:20|) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: "This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (John:21:24|). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with strkjv@John:20:31|, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in strkjv@John:21:24| is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922).

rwp@John:11:40 @{Said I not unto thee?} (\Ouk eipon soi;\). Jesus pointedly reminds Martha of his promise to raise Lazarus (verses 25f.|). {That if thou believedst} (\hoti ean pisteusis\). Indirect discourse with \ean\ and the first aorist active subjunctive (condition of third class) retained after the secondary tense \eipon\. He had not said this very phrase, \ean pisteusis\, to Martha, but he did say to her: \Pisteueis touto\; (Believest thou this?). He meant to test Martha as to her faith already hinted at (verse 22|) on this very point. Jesus had also spoken of increase of faith on the part of the disciples (verse 15|). {Thou shouldest see the glory of God} (\opsi tn doxan tou theou\). Future middle indicative of the old defective verb \hora\ retained in the conclusion of this condition in indirect discourse. Jesus means the glory of God as shown in the resurrection of Lazarus as he had already said to the disciples (verse 4|) and as he meant Martha to understand (verse 25|) and may in fact have said to her (the report of the conversation is clearly abridged). Hence Bernard's difficulty in seeing how Martha could understand the words of Jesus about the resurrection of Lazarus here and now seems fanciful and far-fetched.

rwp@Luke:10:42 @{The good portion} (\tn agathn merida\). The best dish on the table, fellowship with Jesus. This is the spiritual application of the metaphor of the dishes on the table. Salvation is not "the good portion" for Martha had that also. {From her} (\auts\). Ablative case after \aphairthsetai\ (future passive indicative). Jesus pointedly takes Mary's side against Martha's fussiness.

rwp@Matthew:9:18 @{Is even now dead} (\arti eteleutsen\). Aorist tense with \arti\ and so better, "just now died," "just dead" (Moffatt). Mark (Mark:5:23|) has it "at the point of death," Luke (Luke:8:42|) "lay a dying." It is not always easy even for physicians to tell when actual death has come. Jesus in strkjv@9:24| pointedly said, "The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth," meaning that she did not die to stay dead.

rwp@Matthew:19:24 @{It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye} (\eukopteron estin kamlon dia trmatos rhaphidos eiselthein\). Jesus, of course, means by this comparison, whether an eastern proverb or not, to express the impossible. The efforts to explain it away are jejune like a ship's cable, \kamilon\ or \rhaphis\ as a narrow gorge or gate of entrance for camels which recognized stooping, etc. All these are hopeless, for Jesus pointedly calls the thing "impossible" (verse 26|). The Jews in the Babylonian Talmud did have a proverb that a man even in his dreams did not see an elephant pass through the eye of a needle (Vincent). The Koran speaks of the wicked finding the gates of heaven shut "till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle." But the Koran may have got this figure from the New Testament. The word for an ordinary needle is \rhaphis\, but, Luke (Luke:18:25|) employs \belon\, the medical term for the surgical needle not elsewhere in the N.T.

rwp@Matthew:21:34 @{His servants} (\tous doulous autou\). These slaves are distinguished from {the husbandmen} (\gergoi\, workers of the soil) or workers of the vineyard who had leased it from the householder before he went away. The conduct of the husbandmen towards the householder's slaves portrays the behaviour of the Jewish people and the religious leaders in particular towards the prophets and now towards Christ. The treatment of God's prophets by the Jews pointedly illustrates this parable.

rwp@Matthew:24:36 @{Not even the Son} (\oude ho huios\). Probably genuine, though absent in some ancient MSS. The idea is really involved in the words "but the Father only" (\ei m ho patr monos\). It is equally clear that in this verse Jesus has in mind the time of his second coming. He had plainly stated in verse 34| that those events (destruction of Jerusalem) would take place in that generation. He now as pointedly states that no one but the Father knows the day or the hour when these things (the second coming and the end of the world) will come to pass. One may, of course, accuse Jesus of hopeless confusion or extend his confession of ignorance of the date of the second coming to the whole chain of events. Songs:McNeile: "It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Jesus as Man, expected the End, within the lifetime of his contemporaries." And that after his explicit denial that he knew anything of the kind! It is just as easy to attribute ignorance to modern scholars with their various theories as to Jesus who admits his ignorance of the date, but not of the character of the coming.

rwp@Matthew:26:69 @{Thou also} (\kai su\). Peter had gone within (\es\) the palace (26:58|), but was sitting {without} (\ex\) the hall where the trial was going on in the open central court with the servants or officers (\hupretn\, under rowers, literally, strkjv@26:58|) of the Sanhedrin. But he could possibly see through the open door above what was going on inside. It is not plain at what stage of the Jewish trial the denials of Peter took place nor the precise order in which they came as the Gospels give them variously. This maid (\paidisk\, slave girl) stepped up to Peter as he was sitting in the court and pointedly said: "Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean." Peter was warming himself by the fire and the light shone in his face. She probably had noticed Peter come in with John the Beloved Disciple who went on up into the hall of trial. Or she may have seen Peter with Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem.

rwp@Philippians:3:12 @{Not that} (\ouch hoti\). To guard against a misunderstanding as in strkjv@John:6:26; strkjv@12:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:24; strkjv@Phillipians:4:11,17|. {I have already obtained} (\d elabon\). Rather, "I did already obtain," constative second aorist active indicative of \lamban\, summing up all his previous experiences as a single event. {Or am already made perfect} (\ d teteleimai\). Perfect passive indicative (state of completion) of \teleio\, old verb from \teleios\ and that from \telos\ (end). Paul pointedly denies that he has reached a spiritual impasse of non- development. Certainly he knew nothing of so-called sudden absolute perfection by any single experience. Paul has made great progress in Christlikeness, but the goal is still before him, not behind him. {But I press on} (\dik de\). He is not discouraged, but encouraged. He keeps up the chase (real idea in \dik\, as in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:1; strkjv@Romans:9:30; strkjv@1Timothy:6:11|). {If so be that} (\ei kai\). "I follow after." The condition (third class, \ei--katalab\, second aorist active subjunctive of \katalamban\) is really a sort of purpose clause or aim. There are plenty of examples in the _Koin_ of the use of \ei\ and the subjunctive as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1017), "if I also may lay hold of that for which (\eph' hi\, purpose expressed by \epi\) I was laid hold of (\katelmphthn\, first aorist passive of the same verb \katalamban\) by Christ Jesus." His conversion was the beginning, not the end of the chase.

rwp@Philippians:3:15 @{As many as be perfect} (\hosoi teleioi\). Here the term \teleioi\ means relative perfection, not the absolute perfection so pointedly denied in verse 12|. Paul here includes himself in the group of spiritual adults (see He strkjv@5:13|). {Let us be thus minded} (\touto phronmen\). Present active volitive subjunctive of \phrone\. "Let us keep on thinking this," viz. that we have not yet attained absolute perfection. {If ye are otherwise minded} (\ei ti heters phroneite\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. That is, if ye think that ye are absolutely perfect. {Shall God reveal unto you} (\ho theos humin apokalupsei\). He turns such cases over to God. What else can he do with them? {Whereunto we have already come} (\eis ho ephthasamen\). First aorist active indicative of \phthan\, originally to come before as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:15|, but usually in the _Koin_ simply to arrive, attain to, as here.