OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp paradox:

rwp@Acts:3:18 @{Foreshewed} (\prokatggeilen\). First aorist active indicative of \prokataggell\, late compound to announce fully beforehand. Only twice in the N.T. in the critical text (Acts:3:18; strkjv@7:52|). {That his Christ should suffer} (\pathein ton Christon autou\). Accusative of general reference with the aorist active infinitive (\pathein\ of \pasch\) in indirect discourse (predictive purpose of God). Their crime, though real, was carrying out God's purpose (2:23; strkjv@John:3:16|). See the same idea in strkjv@Acts:17:3; strkjv@26:23|. This "immense paradox" (Page) was a stumbling block to these Jews as it is yet (1Corinthians:1:23|). Peter discusses the sufferings of Christ in strkjv@1Peter:4:13; strkjv@5:1|.

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@Acts:15:14 @{Hearken unto me} (\akousate mou\). Usual appeal for attention. James was termed James the Just and was considered a representative of the Hebraic as opposed to the Hellenistic wing of the Jewish Christians (Acts:6:1|). The Judaizers had doubtless counted on him as a champion of their view and did later wrongfully make use of his name against Peter at Antioch (Galatians:2:12|). There was instant attention when James began to speak. {Symeon} (\Sumen\). The Aramaic form of Simon as in strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. This little touch would show his affinities with the Jewish Christians (not the Judaizers). This Aramaic form is used also in strkjv@Luke:2:25,34| of the old prophet in the temple. Possibly both forms (Symeon, Aramaic, and Simon, Greek) were current in Jerusalem. {How} (\kaths\). Strictly, "according as," here like \hos\ in indirect discourse somewhat like the epexegetic or explanatory use in strkjv@3John:1:3|. {First} (\prton\). Told by Peter in verse 7|. James notes, as Peter did, that this experience of Barnabas and Paul is not the beginning of work among the Gentiles. {Did visit} (\epeskepsato\). First aorist middle indicative of \episkeptomai\, old verb to look upon, to look after, provide for. This same verb occurs in strkjv@James:1:27| and is one of various points of similarity between this speech of James in Acts and the Epistle of James as shown by Mayor in his _Commentary on James_. Somehow Luke may have obtained notes of these various addresses. {To take from the Gentiles a people for his name} (\labein ex ethnn laon ti onomati autou\). Bengel calls this _egregium paradoxon_, a chosen people (\laon\) out of the Gentiles (\ethnn\). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give. This new Israel from among the Gentiles is one of Paul's great doctrines as set forth in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|. Note the use of God's "name" here for "the Israel of God" (Galatians:6:16|).

rwp@Galatians:5:14 @{Even in this} (\en ti\). Just the article with \en\, "in the," but it points at the quotation from strkjv@Leviticus:19:18|. Jews (Luke:10:29|) confined "neighbour" (\plsion\) to Jews. Paul uses here a striking paradox by urging obedience to the law against which he has been arguing, but this is the moral law as proof of the new love and life. See also strkjv@Romans:13:8|, precisely as Jesus did (Matthew:22:40|).

rwp@Info_James @ THE STYLE James assumes the doctrinal features of Christianity, but he is concerned mainly with the ethical and social aspects of the gospel that Jewish followers of Christ may square their lives with the gospel which they believe and profess. But this fact does not justify Luther in calling the Epistle of James "a veritable Epistle of straw." Luther imagined that James contradicted Paul's teaching of justification by faith. That is not true and the criticism of Luther is unjust. We shall see that, though James and Paul use the same words (faith, works, justify), they mean different things by them. It is possible that both Paul and Peter had read the Epistle of James, though by no means certain. M. Jones (_New Testament in the Twentieth Century_, p. 316) thinks that the author was familiar with Stoic philosophy. This is also possible, though he may have learned it only indirectly through the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. What is true is that the author writes in the easy and accurate _Koin_ Greek of a cultivated Jew (the literary _Koin_, not the vernacular), though not the artificial or stilted language of a professional stylist. Principal Patrick (_James the Lord's Brother_, p. 298) holds that he "had a wide knowledge of Classical Greek." This does not follow, though he does use the manner "of the Hellenistic diatribe" (Ropes, _Int. and Crit. Comm_., p. 19) so common at that time. Ropes (pp. 10-22) points out numerous parallels between James and the popular moral addresses of the period, familiar since the days of Socrates and at its height in Seneca and Epictetus. The use of an imaginary interlocutor is one instance (James:2:18f.; strkjv@5:13f.|) as is the presence of paradox (James:1:2,10; strkjv@2:5|; etc.). But the style of James is even more kin to that seen in the Jewish wisdom literature like Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, etc. It is thus both tract and Epistle, a brief Christian sermon on a high plane for a noble purpose. But it is all natural and not artificial. The metaphors are many, but brief and remind one constantly of the Master's use of them in the Sermon on the Mount. Did not Mary the mother of Jesus and James make frequent use of such homely parables? The author shows acquaintance with the LXX, but there are few Hebraisms in the language, though the style is Hebraic, as is the whole tone of the book (Hebraic and Christian). "The style is especially remarkable for constant hidden allusions to our Lord's sayings, such as we find in the first three Gospels" (Hort).

rwp@James:1:9 @{But} (\de\). Return to the point of view in verse 2|. {Of low degree} (\ho tapeinos\). "The lowly" brother, in outward condition (Luke:1:52|), humble and poor as in strkjv@Psalms:9:39; strkjv@Proverbs:30:14|, not the spiritually humble as in strkjv@Matthew:11:29; strkjv@James:4:6|. In the LXX \tapeinos\ was used for either the poor in goods or the poor in spirit. Christianity has glorified this word in both senses. Already the rich and the poor in the churches had their occasion for jealousies. {Glory in his high estate} (\kauchasth en ti hupsei autou\). Paradox, but true. In his low estate he is "in his height" (\hupsos\, old word, in N.T., also in strkjv@Luke:1:78; strkjv@Ephesians:3:1|; etc.).

rwp@John:5:31 @{If I bear witness of myself} (\Ean eg martur peri emautou\). Condition of third class, undetermined with prospect of determination (\ean\ and present active subjunctive of \marture\). The emphasis is on \eg\ (I alone with no other witness). {Is not true} (\ouk estin alths\). In law the testimony of a witness is not received in his own case (Jewish, Greek, Roman law). See strkjv@Deuteronomy:19:15| and the allusion to it by Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:18:16|. See also strkjv@2Corinthians:13:1; strkjv@1Timothy:5:19|. And yet in strkjv@8:12-19| Jesus claims that his witness concerning himself is true because the Father gives confirmation of his message. The Father and the Son are the two witnesses (8:17|). It is a paradox and yet true. But here Jesus yields to the rabbinical demand for proof outside of himself. He has the witness of another (the Father, strkjv@5:32,37|), the witness of the Baptist (5:33|), the witness of the works of Jesus (5:36|), the witness of the Scriptures (5:39|), the witness of Moses in particular (5:45|).

rwp@John:12:7 @{Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying} (\Aphes autn, hina eis tn hmeran tou entaphiasmou mou trsi auto\). This reading (\hina trsi\, purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \tre\) rather than that of the Textus Receptus (just \tetreken\, perfect active indicative) is correct. It is supported by Aleph B D L W Theta. The \hina\ can be rendered as above after \aphes\ according to _Koin_ idiom or more probably: "Let her alone: it was that," etc. (supplying "it was"). Either makes good sense. The word \entaphiasmos\ is a later and rare substantive from the late verb \entaphiaz\, to prepare for burial (Matthew:26:12; strkjv@John:19:40|), and means preparation for burial. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:14:8|. "Preparation for my burial" is the idea here and in Mark. The idea of Jesus is that Mary had saved this money to use in preparing his body for burial. She is giving him the flowers before the funeral. We can hardly take it that Mary did not use all of the ointment for Mark (Mark:14:3|) says that she broke it and yet he adds (Mark:14:8|) what John has here. It is a paradox, but Jesus is fond of paradoxes. Mary has kept this precious gift by giving it now beforehand as a preparation for my burial. We really keep what we give to Christ. This is Mary's glory that she had some glimmering comprehension of Christ's death which none of the disciples possessed.

rwp@John:12:24 @{Except} (\ean m\). Negative condition of third class (undetermined, supposable case) with second aorist active participle \pesn\ (from \pipt\, to fall) and the second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnsk\, to die. {A grain of wheat} (\ho kokkos tou sitou\). Rather, "the grain of wheat." {By itself alone} (\autos monos\). Both predicate nominatives after \menei\. It is not necessary to think (nor likely) that Jesus has in mind the Eleusinian mysteries which became a symbol of the mystery of spring. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:36| uses the same illustration of the resurrection that Jesus does here. Jesus shows here the paradox that life comes through death. Whether the Greeks heard him or not we do not know. If so, they heard something not in Greek philosophy, the Christian ideal of sacrifice, "and this was foreign to the philosophy of Greece" (Bernard). Jesus had already spoken of himself as the bread of life (6:35-65|). {But if it die} (\ean de apothani\). Parallel condition of the third class. Grains of wheat have been found in Egyptian tombs three or four thousand years old, but they are now dead. They bore no fruit.

rwp@John:12:25 @{Loseth it} (\apolluei autn\). The second paradox. Present active indicative of \apollu\. This great saying was spoken at various times as in strkjv@Mark:8:35| (Matthew:16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24|) and strkjv@Mark:10:39| (Luke:17:33|). See those passages for discussion of \psuch\ (life or soul). For "he that hateth his life" (\ho misn tn psuchn autou\) see the sharp contrasts in Luke strkjv@14:26-35| where \mise\ is used of father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, as well as one's own life. Clearly \mise\ means "hate" when the issue is between Christ and the dearest things of life as happens when the choice is between martyrdom and apostasy. In that case one keeps his soul for eternal life by losing his life (\psuch\, each time) here. That is the way to "guard" (\phulaxei\) life by being true to Christ. This is the second paradox to show Christ's philosophy of life.

rwp@Luke:5:26 @{Amazement} (\ekstasis\). Something out of its place, as the mind. Here the people were almost beside themselves as we say with the same idiom. See on ¯Mark:5:42|. Songs:they kept glorifying God (imperfect tense, \edoxazon\) and at the same time "were filled with fear" (\eplsthsan phobou\, aorist passive). {Strange things} (\paradoxa\). Our very word paradox, contrary to (\para\) received opinion (\doxa\). Plato, Xenophon, and Polybius use it. Here alone in the N.T.

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:11:11 @{He that is but little} (\ho mikroteros\). The Authorized Version here has it better, "he that is least." The article with the comparative is a growing idiom in the vernacular _Koin_ for the superlative as in the modern Greek it is the only idiom for the superlative (Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek N.T._, p. 668). The papyri and inscriptions show the same construction. The paradox of Jesus has puzzled many. He surely means that John is greater (\meizn\) than all others in character, but that the least in the kingdom of heaven surpasses him in privilege. John is the end of one age, "until John" (11:14|), and the beginning of the new era. All those that come after John stand upon his shoulders. John is the mountain peak between the old and the new.

rwp@Matthew:11:20 @{Most of his mighty works} (\hai pleistai dunameis autou\). Literally, "His very many mighty works" if elative as usual in the papyri (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 79; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 670). But the usual superlative makes sense here as the Canterbury translation has it. This word \dunamis\ for miracle presents the notion of _power_ like our _dynamite_. The word \teras\ is wonder, portent, _miraculum_ (miracle) as in strkjv@Acts:2:19|. It occurs only in the plural and always with \smeia\. The word \smeion\ means sign (Matthew:12:38|) and is very common in John's Gospel as well as the word \ergon\ (work) as in strkjv@John:5:36|. Other words used are \paradoxon\, our word _paradox_, strange (Luke:5:26|), \endoxon\, glorious (Luke:13:17|), \thaumasion\, wonderful (Matthew:21:15|).

rwp@Matthew:13:13 @{Because seeing} (\hoti blepontes\). In the parallel passages in strkjv@Mark:4:12| and strkjv@Luke:8:10| we find \hina\ with the subjunctive. This does not necessarily mean that in Mark and Luke \hina=hoti\ with the causal sense, though a few rare instances of such usage may be found in late Greek. For a discussion of the problem see my chapter on "The Causal Use of _Hina_" in _Studies in Early Christianity_ (1928) edited by Prof. S.J. Case. Here in Matthew we have first "an adaptation of strkjv@Isaiah:6:9f.| which is quoted in full in v. 14f.|" (McNeile). Thus Matthew presents "a striking paradox, 'though they see, they do not (really) see'" (McNeile). Cf. strkjv@John:9:41|. The idiom here in Matthew gives no trouble save in comparison with Mark and Luke which will be discussed in due turn. The form \suniousin\ is an omega verb form (\suni\) rather than the \mi\ verb (\sunimi\) as is common in the _Koin_.

rwp@Romans:7:17 @{Songs:now} (\nuni de\). A logical contrast, "as the case really stands." {But sin that dwelleth in me} (\all' h enoikousa en emoi hamartia\). "But the dwelling in me sin." Not my true self, my higher personality, but my lower self due to my slavery to indwelling sin. Paul does not mean to say that his whole self has no moral responsibility by using this paradox. "To be saved from sin, a man must at the same time own it and disown it" (Denney).

rwp@Romans:9:6 @{But it is not as though} (\ouch hoion de hoti\). Supply \estin\ after \ouch\: "But it is not such as that," an old idiom, here alone in N.T. {Hath come to nought} (\ekpeptken\). Perfect active indicative of \ekpipt\, old verb, to fall out. {For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel} (\ou gar pantes hoi ex Isral houtoi Isral\). "For not all those out of Israel (the literal Jewish nation), these are Israel (the spiritual Israel)." This startling paradox is not a new idea with Paul. He had already shown (Galatians:3:7-9|) that those of faith are the true sons of Abraham. He has amplified that idea also in strkjv@Romans:4|. Songs:he is not making a clever dodge here to escape a difficulty. He now shows how this was the original purpose of God to include only those who believed. {Seed of Abraham} (\sperma Abraam\). Physical descent here, but spiritual seed by promise in verse 8|. He quotes strkjv@Genesis:21:12f|.

rwp@Romans:9:30 @{Attained} (\katelaben\). Second aorist active indicative of \katalamban\, old verb, to grasp, to seize, to overtake (carrying out the figure in \dik\ (to pursue). It was a curious paradox. {Which is of faith} (\tn ek pistes\). As Paul has repeatedly shown, the only way to get the God-kind of righteousness.