OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp quality:

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:15 @{Songs:then} (\ara oun\). Accordingly then. The illative \ara\ is supported (Ellicott) by the collective \oun\ as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:6; strkjv@Galatians:6:10|, etc. Here is the practical conclusion from God's elective purpose in such a world crisis. {Stand fast} (\stkete\). Present imperative active of the late present \stko\ from \hestka\ (perfect active of \histmi\). See on ¯1Thessalonians:3:8|. {Hold the traditions} (\krateite tas paradoseis\). Present imperative of \krate\, old verb, to have masterful grip on a thing, either with genitive (Mark:1:31|) or usually the accusative as here. \Paradosis\ (tradition) is an old word for what is handed over to one. Dibelius thinks that Paul reveals his Jewish training in the use of this word (Galatians:1:14|), but the word is a perfectly legitimate one for teaching whether oral, {by word} (\dia logou\), or written, {by epistle of ours} (\di' epistols hmn\). Paul draws here no distinction between oral tradition and written tradition as was done later. The worth of the tradition lies not in the form but in the source and the quality of the content. Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:23| says: "I received from the Lord what I also handed over (\paredka\) unto you." He praises them because ye "hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them unto you." The {tradition} may be merely that of men and so worthless and harmful in place of the word of God (Mark:7:8; strkjv@Colossians:2:6-8|). It all depends. It is easy to scoff at truth as mere tradition. But human progress in all fields is made by use of the old, found to be true, in connection with the new if found to be true. In Thessalonica the saints were already the victims of theological charlatans with their half-baked theories about the second coming of Christ and about social duties and relations. {Which ye were taught} (\has edidachthte\). First aorist passive indicative of \didask\, to teach, retaining the accusative of the thing in the passive as is common with this verb like _doce_ in Latin and teach in English.

rwp@Acts:11:17 @{The like gift} (\tn isn drean\). The equal gift, equal in quality, rank, or measure. Common word. {When we believed} (\pisteusasin\). First aorist active participle of \pisteu\ in the dative case. It agrees both with \hmin\ (unto us) and with \autois\ (unto them), "having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ." Both classes (Gentiles and Jews) trusted in Christ, and both received the Holy Spirit. {Who was I} (\eg tis mn\). Note order, "_I_, who was I." "{That I could withstand God}" (\dunatos klsai ton theon\). Literally, "able to withstand or hinder God." It is a rhetorical question, really two questions. Who was I? Was I able to hinder God? Peter's statement of the facts made an unanswerable defence. And yet Peter (Galatians:2:11|) will later in Antioch play the coward before emissaries from Jerusalem on this very point of eating with Gentile Christians.

rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Hebrews:7:11 @{Perfection} (\teleisis\). Abstract substantive of \teleio\. More the act than the quality or state (\teleiots\, strkjv@6:1|). The condition is of the second class, "if there were perfection, etc." The Levitical priesthood failed to give men "a perfectly adequate relation to God" (Moffatt). {Priesthood} (\hierosuns\). Old word, in N.T. only here, verses 12,24|. Cf. \hieretia\ in verse 5|. The adjective \Leueitik\ occurs in Philo. {Received the law} (\nenomothettai\). Perfect passive indicative of \nomothete\, old compound to enact law (\nomos, tithmi\), to furnish with law (as here), only other N.T. example in strkjv@8:6|. {What further need was there?} (\tis eti chreia;\). No copula expressed, but it would normally be \n an\, not just \n\: "What need still would there be?" {Another priest} (\heteron hierea\). Of a different line (\heteron\), not just one more (\allon\). Accusative of general reference with the infinitive \anistasthai\ (present middle of \anistmi\ intransitive). {And not to be reckoned} (\kai ou legesthai\). The negative \ou\ belongs rather to the descriptive clause than just to the infinitive.

rwp@Hebrews:7:18 @{A disannulling} (\athetsis\). Late word from \athete\ (alpha privative and \tithmi\), to set aside (Mark:6:26|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@9:26|. Common in the papyri in a legal sense of making void. Involved in \metathesis\ (change in verse 12|). {Foregoing} (\proagouss\). Present active participle of \proag\, to go before (1Timothy:1:18|). {Because of its weakness} (\dia to auts asthenes\). Neuter abstract adjective with article for quality as in verse 7| with \dia\ and accusative case for reason. {Unprofitableness} (\anpheles\). Old compound (alpha privative and \ophelos\) useless, and neuter singular like \asthenes\. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:9|.

rwp@Hebrews:9:14 @{How much more} (\posi mallon\). Instrumental case, "by how much more," by the measure of the superiority of Christ's blood to that of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer. {Through the eternal Spirit} (\dia pneumatos ainiou\). Not the Holy Spirit, but Christ's own spirit which is eternal as he is. There is thus a moral quality in the blood of Christ not in that of other sacrifices. {Offered himself} (\heauton prosnegken\). Second aorist active indicative of \prospher\ (used so often as in strkjv@5:1,3; strkjv@8:3|). The voluntary character of Christ's death is again emphasized. {Without blemish} (\ammon\). Old compound adjective (Colossians:1:22; strkjv@1Peter:1:19|) as the sacrifice had to be (Exodus:29:1; strkjv@Leviticus:1:3,10|). {Shall cleanse from conscience} (\kathariei tn suneidsin humn\). Future active indicative of \kathariz\. Some MSS. have \hmn\ (our). The old Greek used \kathair\, not \kathariz\ (in inscriptions for ceremonial cleansing, Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 216f.), for cleansing. {From dead works} (\apo nekrn ergn\). As in strkjv@6:1|. "A pause might be made before \ergn\, from dead--(not bodies but) works."

rwp@Info_James @ THE EPISTLE OF JAMES BEFORE A.D. 50 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR He claims to be James, and so the book is not anonymous. It is either genuine or pseudonymous. He does not claim to be the brother of the Lord Jesus, as one might expect. James the brother of John was put to death by Herod Agrippa I about A.D. 44 (Acts:12:2|). But James the brother of Jesus (Galatians:1:19|) was still alive and became a leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts:12:17|), presiding over the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts:15:13-21|) and apparently writing the message from the Conference to the Gentile churches (Acts:15:22-29|), and was still the leading elder in Jerusalem on Paul's last visit (Acts:21:18-25|). James does not claim here to be an apostle and he was not one of the twelve apostles, and the dispute about accepting it of which Eusebius spoke was about its apostolicity since James was only an apostle by implication (Galatians:1:19|) in the general sense of that term like Barnabas (Acts:14:14|), perhaps Silas and Timothy (1Thessalonians:2:7|), certainly not on a par with Paul, who claimed equality with the twelve. James, like the other brothers of Jesus, had once disbelieved his claims to be the Messiah (John:7:6f.|), but he was won by a special vision of the Risen Christ (1Corinthians:15:7|) and was in the upper room before the great pentecost (Acts:1:14|). It is plain that he had much to overcome as a zealous Jew to become a Christian, though he was not a mere cousin of Jesus or a son of Joseph by a former marriage. He was strictly the half-brother of Jesus, since Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. There is no reason to believe that he was a Nazirite. We know that he was married (1Corinthians:9:5|). He came to be called James the Just and was considered very devout. The Judaizers had counted on him to agree with them against Paul and Barnabas, but he boldly stood for Gentile freedom from the ceremonial law. The Judaizers still claimed him at Antioch and used his name wrongly to frighten Peter thereby (Galatians:2:12|). But to the end he remained the loyal friend to Paul and his gospel rightly understood (Acts:21:18-25|). Clement of Alexandria (_Hypot_. vii) says that, when he bore strong testimony to Jesus as the Son of man, they flung him down from the gable of the temple, stoned him, and beat him to death with a club. But Josephus (_Ant_. XX. ix. I) says that the Sadducees about A.D. 62 had James and some others brought before the Sanhedrin (Ananus presiding) and had them stoned as transgressors of the law. At any rate he won a martyr's crown like Stephen and James the brother of John.

rwp@James:3:11 @{The fountain} (\h pg\). Old word for spring (John:4:14|). {Opening} (\ops\). Old word for fissure in the earth, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:11:38| (caves). {Send forth} (\bruei\). Present active indicative of \bru\, old verb, to bubble up, to gush forth, here only in N.T. The use of \mti\ shows that a negative answer is expected in this rhetorical question. {The sweet and the bitter} (\to gluku kai to pikron\). Cognate accusatives with \bruei\. Separate articles to distinguish sharply the two things. The neuter singular articular adjective is a common way of presenting a quality. \Glukus\ is an old adjective (in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:10:9f.|), the opposite of \pikron\ (from old root, to cut, to prick), in N.T. only here and verse 14| (sharp, harsh).

rwp@John:5:18 @{Sought the more} (\mallon eztoun\). Imperfect active of \zte\, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (\auton apokteinai\, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in strkjv@7:1,19,25; strkjv@8:37,40|. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. {Not only brake the Sabbath} (\ou monon elue to sabbaton\). Imperfect active of \lu\. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. \Lu\ means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of \lu\ in this sense like \luein ta penth\ (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. {But also called God his own Father} (\alla kai patera idion elege ton theon\). "His own" (\idion\) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See strkjv@Romans:8:32| for \ho idios huios\, "his own Son." {Making himself equal with God} (\ison heauton poin ti thei\). \Isos\ is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means {equal}. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ \isa thei\, "equal to God" (plural \isa\, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be \isos thei\ because in strkjv@John:14:28| he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in strkjv@14:7| that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in strkjv@10:33; strkjv@19:7|. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47|).

rwp@John:5:19 @{The Son} (\ho huios\). The absolute use of the Son in relation to the Father admitting the charge in verse 18| and defending his equality with the Father. {Can do nothing by himself} (\ou dunatai poiein aph'heautou ouden\). True in a sense of every man, but in a much deeper sense of Christ because of the intimate relation between him and the Father. See this same point in strkjv@5:30; strkjv@7:28; strkjv@8:28; strkjv@14:10|. Jesus had already made it in strkjv@5:17|. Now he repeats and defends it. {But what he seeth the Father doing} (\an m ti blepi ton patera poiounta\). Rather, "unless he sees the Father doing something." Negative condition (\an m\=\ean m\, if not, unless) of third class with present (habit) subjunctive (\blepi\) and present active participle (\poiounta\). It is a supreme example of a son copying the spirit and work of a father. In his work on earth the Son sees continually what the Father is doing. In healing this poor man he was doing what the Father wishes him to do. {For what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner} (\ha gar an ekeinos poii tauta kai ho huios homois poiei\). Indefinite relative clause with \an\ and the present active subjunctive (\poii\). Note \ekeinos\, emphatic demonstrative, that one, referring to the Father. This sublime claim on the part of Jesus will exasperate his enemies still more.

rwp@John:14:12 @{Shall he do also} (\kakeinos poisei\). Emphatic pronoun \ekeinos\, "that one also." {Greater works than these} (\meizona toutn\). Comparative adjective neuter plural from \megas\ with ablative case \toutn\. Not necessarily greater miracles and not greater spiritual works in quality, but greater in quantity. Cf. Peter at Pentecost and Paul's mission tours. "Because I go" (\hoti eg poreuornai\). Reason for this expansion made possible by the Holy Spirit as Paraclete (16:7|).

rwp@John:18:6 @{Fell to the ground} (\epesan chamai\). Second aorist active indicative of \pipt\ with first aorist ending (\-an\). This recoil made them stumble. But why did they step back? Was it the former claim of Jesus ({I am}, \eg eimi\) to be on an equality with God (8:58; strkjv@13:19|) or mere embarrassment and confusion or supernatural power exerted by Jesus? B adds \Isous\ which must mean simply: "I am Jesus."

rwp@Romans:1:17 @{For therein} (\gar en auti\). In the gospel (verse 16|) of which Paul is not ashamed. {A righteousness of God} (\dikaiosun theou\). Subjective genitive, "a God kind of righteousness," one that each must have and can obtain in no other way save "from faith unto faith" (\ek pistes eis pistin\), faith the starting point and faith the goal (Lightfoot). {Is revealed} (\apokaluptetai\). It is a revelation from God, this God kind of righteousness, that man unaided could never have conceived or still less attained. In these words we have Paul's statement in his own way of the theme of the Epistle, the content of the gospel as Paul understands it. Every word is important: \strian\ (salvation), \euaggelion\ (gospel), \apokaluptetai\ (is revealed), \dikaiosun theou\ (righteousness of God), \pistis\ (faith) and \pisteuonti\ (believing). He grounds his position on strkjv@Habbakkuk:2:4| (quoted also in strkjv@Galatians:3:11|). By "righteousness" we shall see that Paul means both "justification" and "sanctification." It is important to get a clear idea of Paul's use of \dikaiosun\ here for it controls the thought throughout the Epistle. Jesus set up a higher standard of righteousness (\dikaiosun\) in the Sermon on the Mount than the Scribes and Pharisees taught and practised (Matthew:5:20|) and proves it in various items. Here Paul claims that in the gospel, taught by Jesus and by himself there is revealed a God kind of righteousness with two ideas in it (the righteousness that God has and that he bestows). It is an old word for quality from \dikaios\, a righteous man, and that from \dik\, right or justice (called a goddess in strkjv@Acts:28:4|), and that allied with \deiknumi\, to show, to point out. Other allied words are \dikaio\, to declare or make \dikaios\ (Romans:3:24,26|), \dikaima\, that which is deemed \dikaios\ (sentence or ordinance as in strkjv@1:32; strkjv@2:26; strkjv@8:4|), \dikaisis\, the act of declaring \dikaios\ (only twice in N.T., strkjv@4:25; strkjv@5:18|). \Dikaiosun\ and \dikaio\ are easy to render into English, though we use justice in distinction from righteousness and sanctification for the result that comes after justification (the setting one right with God). Paul is consistent and usually clear in his use of these great words.

rwp@Romans:1:20 @{The invisible things of him} (\ta aorata autou\). Another verbal adjective (\a\ privative and \hora\, to see), old word, either unseen or invisible as here and elsewhere in N.T. (Colossians:1:15f.|, etc.). The attributes of God's nature defined here as "his everlasting power and divinity" (\h te aidios autou dunamis kai theiots\). \Aidios\ is for \aeidios\ from \aei\ (always), old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Jude:1:6|, common in Philo (\z aidios\), elsewhere \ainios\. \Theiots\ is from \theios\ (from \theos\) quality of \theos\ and corresponds more to Latin _divinitas_ from _divus_, divine. In strkjv@Colossians:2:9| Paul uses \theots\ (Latin _deitas_ from _deus_) {deity}, both old words and nowhere else in the N.T. \Theots\ is Divine Personality, \theiots\, Divine Nature and properties (Sanday and Headlam). {Since the creation of the world} (\apo ktises kosmou\). He means by God and unto God as antecedent to and superior to the world (cf. strkjv@Colossians:1:15f|. about Christ). {Are clearly seen} (\kathoratai\). Present passive indicative of \kathora\ (perfective use of \kata-\), old word, only here in N.T., with direct reference to \aorata\. {Being perceived} (\nooumena\). Present passive participle of \noe\, to use the \nous\ (intellect). {That they may be without excuse} (\eis to einai autous anapologtous\). More likely, "so that they are without excuse." The use of \eis to\ and the infinitive (with accusative of general reference) for result like \hste\ is reasonably clear in the N.T. (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 219; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003). \Anapologtous\ is another verbal with \an\ from \apologeomai\. Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:2:1| ("inexcusable" here).

rwp@Romans:2:4 @{Or despiseth thou?} (\ kataphroneis?\). Another alternative, that of scorn of God's kindness (\chrstottos\, strkjv@2Corinthians:6:6|) and forbearance (\anochs\, old word, holding back from \anech\, only here in N.T.) and longsuffering (\makrothumias\, late word for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:6:4,6|). \Kataphrone\ is old verb to think down on (\kata, phrone\) as in strkjv@Matthew:6:24; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:22|. This upstart Jew actually thinks down on God. And then "the riches" (\tou ploutou\) of all that comes from God. {Leadeth thee to repentance} (\eis metanoian se agei\). The very kindness (\to chrston\, the kindly quality) of God is trying to lead (conative present \agei\) thee to a right-about face, a change of mind and attitude (\metanoian\) instead of a complacent self-satisfaction and pride of race and privilege.

rwp@Romans:5:12 @{Therefore} (\dia touto\). "For this reason." What reason? Probably the argument made in verses 1-11|, assuming our justification and urging exultant joy in Christ because of the present reconciliation by Christ's death and the certainty of future final salvation by his life. {As through one man} (\hsper di' henos anthrpou\). Paul begins a comparison between the effects of Adam's sin and the effects of the redemptive work of Christ, but he does not give the second member of the comparison. Instead of that he discusses some problems about sin and death and starts over again in verse 15|. The general point is plain that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants, though he does not say how it was done whether by the natural or the federal headship of Adam. It is important to note that Paul does not say that the whole race receives the full benefit of Christ's atoning death, but only those who do. Christ is the head of all believers as Adam is the head of the race. In this sense Adam "is a figure of him that was to come." {Sin entered into the world} (\h hamartia eis ton kosmon eislthen\). Personification of sin and represented as coming from the outside into the world of humanity. Paul does not discuss the origin of evil beyond this fact. There are some today who deny the fact of sin at all and who call it merely "an error of mortal mind" (a notion) while others regard it as merely an animal inheritance devoid of ethical quality. {And so death passed unto all men} (\kai houts eis pantas anthrpous dilthen\). Note use of \dierchomai\ rather than \eiserchomai\, just before, second aorist active indicative in both instances. By "death" in strkjv@Genesis:2:17; strkjv@3:19| physical death is meant, but in verses 17,21| eternal death is Paul's idea and that lurks constantly behind physical death with Paul. {For that all sinned} (\eph' hi pantes hmarton\). Constative (summary) aorist active indicative of \hamartan\, gathering up in this one tense the history of the race (committed sin). The transmission from Adam became facts of experience. In the old Greek \eph' hi\ usually meant "on condition that," but "because" in N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 963).

rwp@Romans:9:16 @{Songs:then} (\ara oun\). In view of this quotation. {It is not of} (\ou\). We must supply \estin eleos\ with \ou\. "Mercy is not of." The articular participles (\tou thelontos, tou trechontos, tou elentos\) can be understood as in the genitive with \eleos\ understood (mercy is not a quality of) or as the predicate ablative of source like \epiluses\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20|. Paul is fond of the metaphor of running.