OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp individuals:

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:4 @{He that opposeth and exalteth himself} (\ho antikeimenos kai huperairomenos\). Like John's Antichrist this one opposes (\anti-\) Christ and exalts himself (direct middle of \huperair\, old verb to lift oneself up {above} others, only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| in N.T.), but not Satan, but an agent of Satan. This participial clause is in apposition with the two preceding phrases, the man of sin, the son of perdition. Note strkjv@1Corinthians:8:5| about one called God and strkjv@Acts:17:23| for \sebasma\ (from \sebazomai\), object of worship, late word, in N.T. only in these two passages. {Songs:that he sitteth in the temple of God} (\hste auton eis ton naon tou theou kathisai\). Another example of the infinitive with \hste\ for result. Caius Caligula had made a desperate attempt to have his statue set up for worship in the Temple in Jerusalem. This incident may lie behind Paul's language here. {Setting himself forth as God} (\apodeiknunta heauton hoti estin theos\). Present active participle (\mi\ form) of \apodeiknumi\, agreeing in case with \auton\, {showing himself that he is God}. Caligula claimed to be God. Moffatt doubts if Paul is identifying this deception with the imperial cultus at this stage. Lightfoot thinks that the deification of the Roman emperor supplied Paul's language here. Wetstein notes a coin of Julius with \theos\ on one side and \Thessaloniken\ on the other. In strkjv@1John:2:18| we are told of "many antichrists" some of whom had already come. Hence it is not clear that Paul has in mind only one individual or even individuals at all rather than evil principles, for in verse 6| he speaks of \to katechon\ (that which restraineth) while in verse 7| it is \ho katechn\ (the one that restraineth). Frame argues for a combination of Belial and Antichrist as the explanation of Paul's language. But the whole subject is left by Paul in such a vague form that we can hardly hope to clear it up. It is possible that his own preaching while with them gave his readers a clue that we do not possess.

rwp@Info_3John THIRD JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION Certainly III John is addressed to an individual, not to a church, though which Gaius we do not know. There are three friends of Paul with this name; Gaius of Corinth (1Corinthians:1:14|), Gaius of Macedonia (Acts:19:29|), Gaius of Derbe (Acts:20:4|), but it is unlikely that this Gaius of Pergamum (Findlay would call him) is either of these, though the _Apostolical Constitutions_ does identify him with Gaius of Derbe. It is possible that in strkjv@3John:1:9| there is an allusion to II John and, if so, then both letters went to individuals in the same church (one a loyal woman, the other a loyal man). Three persons are sharply sketched in III John (Gaius, Diotrephes, Demetrius). Gaius is the dependable layman in the church, Diotrephes the dominating official, Demetrius the kindly messenger from Ephesus with the letter, a vivid picture of early church life and missionary work. John is at Ephesus, the last of the apostles, and with an eagle's eye surveys the work in Asia Minor. The same Gnostic deceivers are at work as in the other Johannine Epistles. Pergamum is described in strkjv@Revelation:2:13| as the place "where Satan's throne is." strkjv@3John:1:1 @{The beloved} (\ti agapti\). Four times in this short letter this verbal adjective is used of Gaius (here, 2,5,11|). See strkjv@2John:1:1| for the same phrase here, "whom I love in truth."

rwp@Acts:5:13 @{Durst} (\etolma\). Imperfect active of \tolma\, old verb, not to fear or shun through fear, boldly to take a stand. The fate of Ananias and Sapphira continued to hold many in check. {Join} (\kollasthai\). Present middle infinitive of \kolla\, old verb to cleave to like glue as in strkjv@Luke:15:15| which see. Seven times in Acts (9:26; strkjv@10:28; strkjv@17:34|). The outsiders (the rest) preferred, many of them, to remain outside for the present, especially the rulers. {Howbeit the people} (\all'--ho laos\). Probably individuals among the people, the populace as distinct from the rulers and hostile outsiders.

rwp@Acts:10:12 @{Were} (\huprchen\). Imperfect of \huparch\ in sense of \n\, to exist, be. Fish are not mentioned, perhaps because the sheet had no water, though they were clean and unclean also (Leviticus:11:9; strkjv@Deuteronomy:14:9|). {All manner of} (\panta\). Literally, all, but clearly all varieties, not all individuals. Both clean and unclean animals are in the sheet.

rwp@Acts:10:36 @{The word which he sent} (\ton logon hon apesteilen\). Many ancient MSS. (so Westcott and Hort) read merely \ton logon apesteilen\ (he sent the word). This reading avoids the anacoluthon and inverse attraction of \logon\ to the case of the relative \hon\ (which). {Preaching good tidings of peace through Jesus Christ} (\euaggelizomenos eirnn dia Isou Christou\). Gospelizing peace through Jesus Christ. There is no other way to have real peace between individuals and God, between races and nations, than by Jesus Christ. Almost this very language occurs in strkjv@Ephesians:2:17| where Paul states that Jesus on the cross "preached (gospelized) peace to you who are afar off and peace to you who are near." Peter here sees what Paul will see later with great clearness. {He is Lord of all} (\houtos estin pantn kurios\). A triumphant parenthesis that Peter throws in as the reason for his new truth. Jesus Christ is Lord of all, both Jews and Gentiles.

rwp@John:8:55 @{And ye have not known him} (\kai ouk egnkate auton\). Adversative use again of \kai\="and yet." Perfect active indicative of \ginsk\, the verb for experiential knowledge. This was true of the \kosmos\ (1:10; strkjv@17:25|) and of the hostile Jews (16:3|). Jesus prays that the world may know (17:23|) and the handful of disciples had come to know (17:25|). {But I know him} (\eg de oida auton\). Equipped by eternal fellowship to reveal the Father (1:1-18|). This peculiar intimate knowledge Jesus had already claimed (7:29|). Jesus used \oida\ (8:19; strkjv@15:21|) or \ginsk\ (17:23,25|) for the knowledge of the Father. No undue distinction can be drawn here. {And if I should say} (\kan eip\). Third-class condition (concession), "even if I say," with \kai ean\ (\kan\) and second aorist active subjunctive. "Suppose I say." {I shall be like you a liar} (\esomai homoios humin pseusts\). Apodosis of the condition. \Homoios\ (like) is followed by the associative-instrumental case \humin\. The word \pseusts\ (liar), in spite of the statement that they are the children of the devil, the father of lying (8:44|), comes with a sudden jolt because it is a direct charge. This word liar is not considered polite today in public speech when hurled at definite individuals. There is a rather free use of the word in strkjv@1John:2:4,22; strkjv@4:20; strkjv@5:10|. It is not hard to imagine the quick anger of these Pharisees.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ A PRACTICAL PURPOSE Songs:considered, this vision of the Reigning Christ in heaven with a constant eye on the suffering saints and martyrs is a guarantee of certain triumph in heaven and ultimate triumph on earth. The picture of Christ in heaven is a glorious one. He is the Lamb that was slain, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Word of God, the Victor over his enemies, worshipped in heaven like the Father, the Light and Life of men. Instead of trying to fit the various symbols on particular individuals one will do better to see the same application to times of persecution from time to time through the ages. The same Christ who was the Captain of salvation in the time of Domitian is the Pioneer and Perfecter of our faith today. The Apocalypse of John gives glimpses of heaven as well as of hell. Hope is the word that it brings to God's people at all times.

rwp@Romans:9:17 @{To Pharaoh} (\ti Phara\). There is a national election as seen in verses 7-13|, but here Paul deals with the election of individuals. He "lays down the principle that God's grace does not necessarily depend upon anything but God's will" (Sanday and Headlam). He quotes strkjv@Exodus:9:16|. {Might be published} (\diaggeli\). Second aorist passive subjunctive of \diaggell\.

rwp@Romans:9:20 @{Nay, but, O man, who art thou?} (\O anthrpe, men oun ge su tis ei?\). "O man, but surely thou who art thou?" Unusual and emphatic order of the words, prolepsis of \su\ (thou) before \tis\ (who) and \men oun ge\ (triple particle, \men\, indeed, \oun\, therefore, \ge\, at least) at the beginning of clause as in strkjv@Romans:10:18; strkjv@Phillipians:3:8| contrary to ancient idiom, but so in papyri. {That repliest} (\ho antapokrinomenos\). Present middle articular participle of double compound verb \antapokrinomai\, to answer to one's face (\anti-\) late and vivid combination, also in strkjv@Luke:14:6|, nowhere else in N.T., but in LXX. {The thing formed} (\to plasma\). Old word (Plato, Aristophanes) from \plass\, to mould, as with clay or wax, from which the aorist active participle used here (\ti plasanti\) comes. Paul quotes these words from strkjv@Isaiah:29:16| verbatim. It is a familiar idea in the Old Testament, the absolute power of God as Creator like the potter's use of clay (Isaiah:44:8; strkjv@45:8-10; strkjv@Jeremiah:18:6|). \M\ expects a negative answer. {Why didst thou make me thus?} (\ti me epoisas houts?\). The original words in Isaiah dealt with the nation, but Paul applies them to individuals. This question does not raise the problem of the origin of sin for the objector does not blame God for that but why God has used us as he has, made some vessels out of the clay for this purpose, some for that. Observe "thus" (\houts\). The potter takes the clay as he finds it, but uses it as he wishes.

rwp@Romans:11:2 @{Whom he foreknew} (\hon proegn\). The same form and sense as in strkjv@8:29|, which see. Probably the Hebrew sense of choice beforehand. The nation of Israel was God's chosen people and so all the individuals in it could not be cast off. {Wot ye not?} (\ouk oidate?\). "Know ye not?" Why keep the old English "wot"? {Of Elijah} (\en Eleii\). "In the case of Elijah." Cf. "in the bush" (Mark:12:26|). {He pleadeth} (\entugchanei\). See on ¯8:27|. \Entugchan\ means to happen on one and so to converse with (Acts:25:24|), to plead for (Romans:8:27,34|), to plead against as here with \kata\, but the "against" is in \kata\.