NT.filter - rwp profound:

rwp@Acts:15:18 @{From the beginning of the world} (\ap' ainos\). Or, "from of old." James adds these words, perhaps with a reminiscence of strkjv@Isaiah:45:21|. His point is that this purpose of God, as set forth in Amos, is an old one. God has an Israel outside of and beyond the Jewish race, whom he will make his true "Israel" and so there is no occasion for surprise in the story of God's dealings with the Gentiles as told by Barnabas and Paul. God's eternal purpose of grace includes all who call upon his name in every land and people (Isaiah:2:1; strkjv@Micah:4:1|). This larger and richer purpose and plan of God was one of the mysteries which Paul will unfold in the future (Romans:16:25; strkjv@Ephesians:3:9|). James sees it clearly now. God is making it known (\poin tauta gnsta\), if they will only be willing to see and understand. It was a great deliverance that James had made and it exerted a profound influence on the assembly.

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@Info_Ephesians @ THE CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE The same Gnostic heresy is met as in Colossians, but with this difference. In Colossians the emphasis is on the Dignity of Christ as the Head of the Church, while in Ephesians chief stress is placed upon the Dignity of the Church as the Body of Christ the Head. Paul has written nothing more profound than chapters strkjv@Ephesians:1-3| of Ephesians. Stalker termed them the profoundest thing ever written. He sounds the depths of truth and reaches the heights. Since Ephesians covers the same ground so largely as Colossians, only the words in Ephesians that differ or are additional will call for discussion.

rwp@John:18:36 @{My kingdom} (\h basileia h em\). Christ claims to be king to Pilate, but of a peculiar kingdom. For "world" (\kosmou\) see strkjv@17:13-18|. {My servants} (\hoi hupretai hoi emoi\). For the word see verse 3| where it means the temple police or guards (literally, under-rowers). In the LXX always (Proverbs:14:35; strkjv@Isaiah:32:5; strkjv@Daniel:3:46|) officers of a king as here. Christ then had only a small band of despised followers who could not fight against Caesar. Was he alluding also to legions of angels on his side? (Matthew:26:56|). {Would fight} (\gnizonto an\). Imperfect middle of \agnizomai\ common verb (only here in John, but see strkjv@1Corinthians:9:25|) from \agn\ (contest) with \an\, a conclusion of the second-class condition (assumed as untrue). Christians should never forget the profound truth stated here by Jesus. {That I should not be delivered} (\hina m paradoth\). Negative final clause with \hina m\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \paradidmi\ (see verses 28,36|). Jesus expects Pilate to surrender to the Jews. {But now} (\nun de\). In contrast to the condition already stated as in strkjv@8:40; strkjv@9:41; strkjv@15:22,24|.

rwp@Luke:2:46 @{After three days} (\meta hmeras treis\). One day out, one day back, and on the third day finding him. {In the temple} (\en ti hieri\). Probably on the terrace where members of the Sanhedrin gave public instruction on sabbaths and feast-days, so probably while the feast was still going on. The rabbis probably sat on benches in a circle. The listeners on the ground, among whom was Jesus the boy in a rapture of interest. {Both hearing them and asking them questions} (\kai akouonta autn kai epertnta autous\). Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts:22:3|). Picture this eager boy alive with interest. It was his one opportunity in a theological school outside of the synagogue to hear the great rabbis expound the problems of life. This was the most unusual of all children, to be sure, in intellectual grasp and power. But it is a mistake to think that children of twelve do not think profoundly concerning the issues of life. What father or mother has ever been able to answer a child's questions?

rwp@Luke:16:10 @{Faithful in a very little} (\pistos en elachisti\). Elative superlative. One of the profoundest sayings of Christ. We see it in business life. The man who can be trusted in a very small thing will be promoted to large responsibilities. That is the way men climb to the top. Men who embezzle in large sums began with small sums. Verses 10-13| here explain the point of the preceding parables.

rwp@Mark:1:4 @{John came} (\egeneto Ians\). His coming was an epoch (\egeneto\), not a mere event (\n\). His coming was in accordance with the prophetic picture (\kaths\, strkjv@1:2|). Note the same verb about John in strkjv@John:1:6|. The coming of John the Baptizer was the real beginning of the spoken message about Christ. He is described as {the baptizing one} (\ho haptizn\) in the wilderness (\en ti ermi\). The baptizing took place in the River Jordan (Mark:1:5,9|) which was included in the general term the wilderness or the deserted region of Judea. {Preached the baptism of repentance} (\krussn baptisma metanoias\). Heralded a repentance kind of baptism (genitive case, genus case), a baptism marked by repentance. See on ¯Matthew:3:2| for discussion of repent, an exceedingly poor rendering of John's great word \metanoias\. He called upon the Jews to change their minds and to turn from their sins, "confessing their sins" (\exomologoumenoi tas hamartias autn\). See strkjv@Matthew:3:16|. The public confessions produced a profound impression as they would now. {Unto remission of sins} (\eis aphesin hamartin\). This is a difficult phrase to translate accurately. Certainly John did not mean that the baptism was the means of obtaining the forgiveness of their sins or necessary to the remission of sins. The trouble lies in the use of \eis\ which sometimes is used when purpose is expressed, but sometimes when there is no such idea as in strkjv@Matthew:10:41| and strkjv@Matthew:12:41|. Probably "with reference to" is as good a translation here as is possible. The baptism was on the basis of the repentance and confession of sin and, as Paul later explained (Romans:6:4|), was a picture of the death to sin and resurrection to new life in Christ. This symbol was already in use by the Jews for proselytes who became Jews. John is treating the Jewish nation as pagans who need to repent, to confess their sins, and to come back to the kingdom of God. The baptism in the Jordan was the objective challenge to the people.

rwp@Mark:2:27 @{For man} (\dia ton anthrpon\). Mark alone has this profound saying which subordinates the sabbath to man's real welfare (mankind, observe, generic article with \anthrpos\, class from class). Man was not made for the sabbath as the rabbis seemed to think with all their petty rules about eating an egg laid on the sabbath or looking in the glass, _et cetera_. See 2Macc. strkjv@5:19 and _Mechilta_ on strkjv@Exodus:31:13|: "The sabbath is delivered unto you and ye are not delivered unto the sabbath." Christianity has had to fight this same battle about institutionalism. The church itself is for man, not man for the church.

rwp@Mark:8:34 @{And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples} (\kai proskalesamenos ton ochlon sun tois mathtais autou\). Mark alone notes the unexpected presence of a crowd up here near Caesarea Philippi in heathen territory. In the presence of this crowd Jesus explains his philosophy of life and death which is in direct contrast with that offered by Peter and evidently shared by the disciples and the people. Songs:Jesus gives this profound view of life and death to them all. {Deny himself} (\aparnsasth heauton\). Say no to himself, a difficult thing to do. Note reflexive along with the middle voice. Ingressive first aorist imperative. See on ¯Matthew:16:24| about taking up the Cross. The shadow of Christ's Cross was already on him (Mark:8:31|) and one faces everyone.

rwp@Mark:9:40 @{He that is not against us is with us} (\hos ouk estin kath' hmn huper hmn estin\). This profound saying throws a flood of light in every direction. The complement of this logion is that in strkjv@Matthew:12:30|: "He that is not with me is against me." Both are needed. Some people imagine that they are really for Christ who refuse to take a stand in the open with him and for him.

rwp@Info_Matthew @ The Gospel of Matthew comes first in the New Testament, though it is not so in all the Greek manuscripts. Because of its position it is the book most widely read in the New Testament and has exerted the greatest influence on the world. The book deserves this influence though it is later in date than Mark, not so beautiful as Luke, nor so profound as John. Yet it is a wonderful book and gives a just and adequate portraiture of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. The author probably wrote primarily to persuade Jews that Jesus is the fulfilment of their Messianic hopes as pictured in the Old Testament. It is thus a proper introduction to the New Testament story in comparison with the Old Testament prophecy.

rwp@Matthew:7:29 @{And not as their scribes} (\kai ouch hs hoi grammateis autn\). They had heard many sermons before from the regular rabbis in the synagogues. We have specimens of these discourses preserved in the Mishna and Gemara, the Jewish Talmud when both were completed, the driest, dullest collection of disjounted comments upon every conceivable problem in the history of mankind. The scribes quoted the rabbis before them and were afraid to express an idea without bolstering it up by some predecessor. Jesus spoke with the authority of truth, the reality and freshness of the morning light, and the power of God's Spirit. This sermon which made such a profound impression ended with the tragedy of the fall of the house on the sand like the crash of a giant oak in the forest. There was no smoothing over the outcome.

rwp@Matthew:10:39 @{Shall lose it} (\apolesei autn\). This paradox appears in four forms according to Allen (I) strkjv@Matthew:10:39| (2) strkjv@Mark:8:35; strkjv@Matthew:16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24| (3) strkjv@Luke:17:33| (4) strkjv@John:12:25|. _The Wisdom of Sirach_ (Hebrew text) in strkjv@51:26 has: "He that giveth his life findeth her (wisdom)." It is one of the profound sayings of Christ that he repeated many times. Plato (_Gorgias_ 512) has language somewhat similar though not so sharply put. The article and aorist participles here (\ho heurn, ho apolesas\) are timeless in themselves just like \ho dechomenos\ in verses 40| and 41|.

rwp@Matthew:15:11 @{This defileth the man} (\touto koinoi ton anthrpon\). This word is from \koinos\ which is used in two senses, either what is "common" to all and general like the _Koin_ Greek, or what is unclean and "common" either ceremonially or in reality. The ceremonial "commonness" disturbed Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Acts:10:14|). See also strkjv@Acts:21:28; strkjv@Hebrews:9:13|. One who is thus religiously common or unclean is cut off from doing his religious acts. "Defilement" was a grave issue with the rabbinical ceremonialists. Jesus appeals to the crowd here: {Hear and understand} (\akouete kai suniete\). He has a profound distinction to draw. Moral uncleanness is what makes a man common, defiles him. That is what is to be dreaded, not to be glossed over. "This goes beyond the tradition of the elders and virtually abrogates the Levitical distinctions between clean and unclean" (Bruce). One can see the pettifogging pretenders shrivel up under these withering words.

rwp@Matthew:16:20 @{That they should tell no man} (\hina mdeni eipsin\). Why? For the very reason that he had himself avoided this claim in public. He was the Messiah (\ho Christos\), but the people would inevitably take it in a political sense. Jesus was plainly profoundly moved by Peter's great confession on behalf of the disciples. He was grateful and confident of the final outcome. But he foresaw peril to all. Peter had confessed him as the Messiah and on this rock of faith thus confessed he would build his church or kingdom. They will all have and use the keys to this greatest of all buildings, but for the present they must be silent.

rwp@Revelation:8:1 @{And when he opened} (\kai hotan noixen\). Here modal \an\ is used with \hote\ (used about the opening of the preceding six seals), but \hotan\ is not here rendered more indefinite, as is sometimes true (Mark:3:11; strkjv@Revelation:4:9|), but here and possibly (can be repetition) in strkjv@Mark:11:19| it is a particular instance, not a general rule (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 973). {There followed a silence} (\egeneto sig\). Second aorist middle of \ginomai\. "There came silence." Dramatic effect by this profound stillness with no elder or angel speaking, no chorus of praise nor cry of adoration, no thunder from the throne (Swete), but a temporary cessation in the revelations. See strkjv@10:4|. {About the space of half an hour} (\hs hmiron\). Late and rare word (\hmi\, half, \hra\, hour), here only in N.T. Accusative of extent of time.

rwp@Romans:3:26 @{For the shewing} (\pros tn endeixin\). Repeats point of \eis endeixin\ of 25| with \pros\ instead of \eis\. {At this present season} (\en ti nun kairi\). "In the now crisis," in contrast with "done aforetime." {That he might himself be} (\eis to einai auton\). Purpose with \eis\ to and the infinitive \einai\ and the accusative of general reference. {Just and the justifier of} (\dikaion kai dikaiounta\). "This is the key phrase which establishes the connexion between the \dikaiosun theou\ and the \dikaiosun ek pistes\" (Sanday and Headlam). Nowhere has Paul put the problem of God more acutely or profoundly. To pronounce the unrighteous righteous is unjust by itself (Romans:4:5|). God's mercy would not allow him to leave man to his fate. God's justice demanded some punishment for sin. The only possible way to save some was the propitiatory offering of Christ and the call for faith on man's part.