OT-LAW.filter - rwp affirmative:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:13 @{Is Christ divided?} (\memeristai ho Christos;\). Perfect passive indicative, Does Christ stand divided? It is not certain, though probable, that this is interrogative like the following clauses. Hofmann calls the assertory form a "rhetorical impossibility." The absence of \m\ here merely allows an affirmative answer which is true. The fourth or Christ party claimed to possess Christ in a sense not true of the others. Perhaps the leaders of this Christ party with their arrogant assumptions of superiority are the false apostles, ministers of Satan posing as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:12-15|). {Was Paul crucified for you?} (\M Paulos estaurth huper humn;\). An indignant "No" is demanded by \m\. Paul shows his tact by employing himself as the illustration, rather than Apollos or Cephas. Probably \huper\, over, in behalf of, rather than \peri\ (concerning, around) is genuine, though either makes good sense here. In the _Koin_ \huper\ encroaches on \peri\ as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1|. {Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?} (\eis to onoma Paulou ebaptisthte;\). It is unnecessary to say {into} for \eis\ rather than {in} since \eis\ is the same preposition originally as \en\ and both are used with \baptiz\ as in strkjv@Acts:8:16; strkjv@10:48| with no difference in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). Paul evidently knows the idea in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| and scouts the notion of being put on a par with Christ or the Trinity. He is no rival of Christ. This use of \onoma\ for the person is not only in the LXX, but the papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions give numerous examples of the name of the king or the god for the power and authority of the king or god (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 146ff., 196ff.; _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 121).

rwp@1Corinthians:9:1 @{Amos:I not free?} (\Ouk eimi eleutheros;\). Free as a Christian from Mosaic ceremonialism (cf. strkjv@9:19|) as much as any Christian and yet he adapts his moral independence to the principle of considerate love in strkjv@8:13|. {Amos:I not an apostle?} (\ouk eimi apostolos;\). He has the exceptional privileges as an apostle to support from the churches and yet he foregoes these. {Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?} (\ouchi Isoun ton Kurion hmn heoraka;\). Proof (15:8; strkjv@Acts:9:17,27; strkjv@18:9; strkjv@22:14,17f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:1ff.|) that he has the qualification of an apostle (Acts:1:22|) though not one of the twelve. Note strong form of the negative \ouchi\ here. All these questions expect an affirmative answer. The perfect active \heoraka\ from \hora\, to see, does not here have double reduplication as in strkjv@John:1:18|.

rwp@1Corinthians:9:6 @{Have we not a right to forbear working?} (\ouk echomen exousian m ergazesthai;\). By \\ (or) Paul puts the other side about Barnabas (the only allusion since the dispute in strkjv@Acts:15:39|, but in good spirit) and himself. Perhaps (Hofmann) Paul has in mind the fact that in the first great mission tour (Acts:13; 14|), Barnabas and Paul received no help from the church in Antioch, but were left to work their way along at their own charges. It was not till the Philippian Church took hold that Paul had financial aid (Phillipians:4:15|). Here both negatives have their full force. Literally, Do we not have (\ouk echomen\, expecting the affirmative reply) the right not (\m\, negative of the infinitive \ergazesthai\) to do manual labour (usual meaning of \ergazomai\ as in strkjv@4:12|)?" There was no more compulsion on Paul and Barnabas to support themselves than upon the other workers for Christ. They renounced no rights in being voluntarily independent.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:14 @{Nature itself} (\h phusis aut\). He reenforces the appeal to custom by the appeal to nature in a question that expects the affirmative answer (\oude\). \Phusis\, from old verb \phu\, to produce, like our word nature (Latin _natura_), is difficult to define. Here it means native sense of propriety (cf. strkjv@Romans:2:14|) in addition to mere custom, but one that rests on the objective difference in the constitution of things.

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@James:5:6 @{Ye have condemned} (\katedikasate\). First aorist active indicative of \katadikaz\, old verb (from \katadik\, condemnation, strkjv@Acts:25:15|). The rich controlled the courts of justice. {Ye have killed the righteous one} (\ephoneusate ton dikaion\). First aorist active indicative of \phoneu\ (2:11; strkjv@4:2|). "The righteous one" (\tn dikaion\) is the generic use of the singular with article for the class. There is probably no direct reference to one individual, though it does picture well the death of Christ and also the coming death of James himself, who was called the Just (Eus. _H.E_. ii. 23). Stephen (Acts:7:52|) directly accuses the Sanhedrin with being betrayers and murderers (\prodotai kai phoneis\) of the righteous one (\tou dikaiou\). {He doth not resist you} (\ouk antitassetai humin\). It is possible to treat this as a question. Present middle indicative of \antitass\, for which see strkjv@James:4:6|. Without a question the unresisting end of the victim (\ton dikaion\) is pictured. With a question (\ouk\, expecting an affirmative answer) God or Lord is the subject, with the final judgment in view. There is no way to decide definitely.

rwp@John:8:25 @{Who art thou?} (\Su tis ei;\). Proleptic use of \su\ before \tis\, "Thou, who art thou?" Cf. strkjv@1:19|. He had virtually claimed to be the Messiah and on a par with God as in strkjv@5:15|. They wish to pin him down and to charge him with blasphemy. {Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning} (\tn archn hoti kai lal humin\). A difficult sentence. It is not clear whether it is an affirmation or a question. The Latin and Syriac versions treat it as affirmative. Westcott and Hort follow Meyer and take it as interrogative. The Greek fathers take it as an exclamation. It seems clear that the adverbial accusative \tn archn\ cannot mean "from the beginning" like \ap' archs\ (15:27|) or \ex archs\ (16:4|). The LXX has \tn archn\ for "at the beginning" or "at the first" (Genesis:43:20|). There are examples in Greek, chiefly negative, where \tn archn\ means "at all," "essentially," "primarily." Vincent and Bernard so take it here, "Primarily what I am telling you." Jesus avoids the term Messiah with its political connotations. He stands by his high claims already made.

rwp@Luke:12:22 @{Unto his disciples} (\pros tous mathtas autou\). Songs:Jesus turns from the crowd to the disciples (verses 22-40|, when Peter interrupts the discourse). From here to the end of the chapter Luke gives material that appears in Matthew, but not in one connection as here. In Matthew part of it is in the charge to the Twelve on their tour in Galilee, part in the eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives. None of it is in Mark. Hence Q or the Logia seems to be the source of it. The question recurs again whether Jesus repeated on other occasions what is given here or whether Luke has here put together separate discourses as Matthew is held by many to have done in the Sermon on the Mount. We have no way of deciding these points. We can only say again that Jesus would naturally repeat his favourite sayings like other popular preachers and teachers. Songs:Luke:12:22-31| corresponds to strkjv@Matthew:6:25-33|, which see for detailed discussion. The parable of the rich fool was spoken to the crowd, but this exhortation to freedom from care (22-31|) is to the disciples. Songs:the language in strkjv@Luke:12:22| is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:6:25|. See there for \m merimnte\ (stop being anxious) and the deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question (\phagte, endussthe\). Songs:verse 23| here is the same in strkjv@Matthew:6:25| except that there it is a question with \ouch\ expecting the affirmative answer, whereas here it is given as a reason (\gar\, for) for the preceding command.

rwp@Luke:17:8 @{And will not rather say} (\all' ouk erei\). {But will not say?} \Ouk\ in a question expects the affirmative answer. {Gird thyself} (\perizsamenos\). Direct middle first aorist participle of \periznnumi\, to gird around. {Till I have eaten and drunken} (\hes phag kai pi\). More exactly, till I eat and drink. The second aorist subjunctives are not future perfects in any sense, simply punctiliar action, effective aorist. {Thou shalt eat and drink} (\phagesai kai piesai\). Future middle indicative second person singular, the uncontracted forms \-esai\ as often in the _Koin_. These futures are from the aorist stems \ephagon\ and \epion\ without _sigma_.

rwp@Luke:23:3 @{Thou sayest} (\su legeis\). A real affirmative as in strkjv@22:70|. The Gospels all give Pilate's question about Jesus asking of the Jews in precisely the same words (Mark:15:2; strkjv@Matthew:27:11; strkjv@Luke:23:3; strkjv@John:18:33|).

rwp@Luke:23:39 @{Railed} (\eblasphmei\). Imperfect active, implying that he kept it up. His question formally calls for an affirmative answer (\ouchi\), but the ridicule is in his own answer: "Save thyself and us." It was on a level with an effort to break prison. Luke alone gives this incident (39-43|), though strkjv@Mark:15:32; strkjv@Matthew:27:44| allude to it.

rwp@Luke:24:21 @{But we hoped} (\hmeis de lpizomen\). Imperfect active, we were hoping. Note emphasis in \hmeis\ (we). {Redeem} (\lutrousthai\). From the bondage of Rome, no doubt. {Yea and beside all this} (\alla ge kai sun psin toutois\). Particles pile up to express their emotions. {Yea} (\alla\ here affirmative, as in verse 22|, not adversative) at least (\ge\) also (\kai\) together with all these things (\sun psin toutois\). Like Pelion on Ossa with them in their perplexity. {Now the third day} (\tritn tautn hmeran agei\). A difficult idiom for the English. "One is keeping this a third day." And he is still dead and we are still without hope.

rwp@Mark:12:24 @{Is it not for this cause that ye err?} (\Ou dia touto plansthe;\). Mark puts it as a question with \ou\ expecting the affirmative answer. Matthew puts it as a positive assertion: "Ye are." \Planaomai\ is to wander astray (cf. our word _planet_, wandering stars, \asteres plantai\, strkjv@Jude:1:13|) like the Latin _errare_ (our _error_, err). {That ye know not the scriptures} (\m eidotes tas graphas\). The Sadducees posed as men of superior intelligence and knowledge in opposition to the traditionalists among the Pharisees with their oral law. And yet on this very point they were ignorant of the Scriptures. How much error today is due to this same ignorance among the educated! {Nor the power of God} (\mde tn dunamin tou theou\). The two kinds of ignorance generally go together (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15:34|).

rwp@Mark:14:62 @{I am} (\ego eimi\). Matthew has it, "Thou hast said," which is the equivalent of the affirmative. But Mark's statement is definite beyond controversy. See on ¯Matthew:26:64-68| for the claims of Jesus and the conduct of Caiaphas.

rwp@Matthew:7:22 @{Did we not prophesy in thy name?} (\ou ti si onomati eprophteusamen;\). The use of \ou\ in the question expects the affirmative answer. They claim to have prophesied (preached) in Christ's name and to have done many miracles. But Jesus will tear off the sheepskin and lay bare the ravening wolf. "I never knew you" (\oudepote egnn hms\). "I was never acquainted with you" (experimental knowledge). Success, as the world counts it, is not a criterion of one's knowledge of Christ and relation to him. "I will profess unto them" (\homologs autois\), the very word used of profession of Christ before men (Matthew:10:32|). This word Jesus will use for public and open announcement of their doom.

rwp@Matthew:22:36 @{The great commandment in the law} (\entol megal en ti nomi\). The positive adjective is sometimes as high in rank as the superlative. See \megas\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:19| in contrast with \elachistos\. The superlative \megistos\ occurs in the N.T. only in strkjv@2Peter:1:4|. Possibly this scribe wishes to know which commandment stood first (Mark:12:28|) with Jesus. "The scribes declared that there were 248 affirmative precepts, as many as the members of the human body; and 365 negative precepts, as many as the days in the year, the total being 613, the number of letters in the Decalogue" (Vincent). But Jesus cuts through such pettifogging hair-splitting to the heart of the problem.

rwp@Matthew:26:64 @{Thou hast said} (\su eipas\). This is a Greek affirmative reply. Mark (Mark:14:62|) has it plainly, "I am" (\eimi\). But this is not all that Jesus said to Caiaphas. He claims that the day will come when Jesus will be the Judge and Caiaphas the culprit using the prophetic language in strkjv@Daniel:7:13| and strkjv@Psalms:109:1|. It was all that Caiaphas wanted.

rwp@Philippians:1:18 @{What then?} (\ti gar?\). Sharp problem put up to Paul by the conduct of the Judaizers. {Only that} (\pln hoti\). Same idiom in strkjv@Acts:20:23|. \Pln\ is adverb \pleon\ (more besides). As a preposition \pln\ means "except." This essential thing Paul sees in spite of all their envy and selfishness that Christ is preached. {Whether in pretence} (\eite prophasei\). Either from \prophain\, to shew forth, or \prophmi\, to speak forth, the ostensible presentation often untrue. See strkjv@Acts:27:30|. Paul sees clearly through the pious pretence of these Judaizers and rejoices that people get some knowledge of Christ. Some Christ is better than no Christ. {Yea, and will rejoice} (\alla kai charsomai\). Note affirmative, not adversative, use of \alla\. Volitive use of the future (second future passive) indicative (\charsomai\) of \chair\. Paul is determined to rejoice in spite of the efforts of the Judaizers to prod him to anger.

rwp@Romans:9:21 @{Or hath not the potter a right over the clay?} (\ ouk echei exousian ho kerameus tou plou?\). This question, expecting an affirmative answer, is Paul's reply to the previous one, "Why didst thou make me thus?" \Plos\, old word for clay, is mud or wet clay in strkjv@John:9:6,11,14f|. The old word for potter (\kerameus\) in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:27:7,10|. {Lump} (\phuramatos\). Late word from \phura\, to mix (clay, dough, etc.). {One part} (\ho men\) {--another} (\ho de\). Regular idiom for contrast (\men--de\) with the old demonstrative \ho\ (this), "this vessel (\skeuos\, old word as in strkjv@Mark:11:16|) for honour, that for dishonour." Paul thus claims clearly God's sovereign right (\exousian\, power, right, authority, from \exesti\) to use men (already sinners) for his own purpose.