OT-LAW.filter - rwp objects:

rwp@1Corinthians:3:22 @{Yours} (\humn\). Predicate genitive, belong to you. All the words in this verse and 23| are anarthrous, though not indefinite, but definite. The English reproduces them all properly without the definite article except \kosmos\ (the world), and even here just world will answer. Proper names do not need the article to be definite nor do words for single objects like world, life, death. Things present (\enestta\, second perfect participle of \enistmi\) and things to come divide two classes. Few of the finer points of Greek syntax need more attention than the absence of the article. We must not think of the article as "omitted" (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 790). The wealth of the Christian includes all things, all leaders, past, present, future, Christ, and God. There is no room for partisan wrangling here.

rwp@2Corinthians:8:10 @{Judgment} (\gnmn\). Deliberate opinion, but not a "command" (\epitag\ verse 8|). Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:7:25|. {A year ago} (\apo perusi\) From last year. {Not only to do, but also to will} (\ou monon to poisai, alla kai to thelein\). Articular infinitives the objects of \proenrxasthe\ on which verb see verse 6|). That is to say, the Corinthians promised before any others.

rwp@Ephesians:2:3 @{We also all} (\kai hmeis pantes\). We Jews. {Once lived} (\anestraphmen pote\). Second aorist passive indicative of \anastreph\, old verb, to turn back and forth, to live (2Corinthians:1:12|). Cf. \pote periepatsate\, of the Gentiles in verse 2|. {The desires} (\ta thelmata\). Late and rare word except in LXX and N.T., from \thel\, to will, to wish. Plural here "the wishes," "the wills" of the flesh like \tais epithumiais ts sarkos\ just before. Gentiles had no monopoly of such sinful impulses. {Of the mind} (\tn dianoin\). Plural again, "of the thoughts or purposes." {Were by nature children of wrath} (\metha tekna phusei orgs\). This is the proper order of these words which have been the occasion of much controversy. There is no article with \tekna\. Paul is insisting that Jews as well as Gentiles ("even as the rest") are the objects of God's wrath (\orgs\) because of their lives of sin. See strkjv@Romans:2:1-3:20| for the full discussion of this to Jews unpalatable truth. The use of \phusei\ (associative instrumental case of manner) is but the application of Paul's use of "all" (\pantes\) as shown also in strkjv@Romans:3:20; strkjv@5:12|. See \phusei\ of Gentiles in strkjv@Romans:2:14|. The implication of original sin is here, but not in the form that God's wrath rests upon little children before they have committed acts of sin. The salvation of children dying before the age of responsibility is clearly involved in strkjv@Romans:5:13f|.

rwp@Luke:1:3 @{It seemed good to me also} (\edoxe kamoi\). A natural conclusion and justification of Luke's decision to write his narrative. They had ample reason to draw up their narratives. Luke has more reason to do so because of his fuller knowledge and wider scope. {Having traced the course of all things} (\parkolouthkoti psin\). The perfect active participle of a common verb of the ancient Greek. Literally it means to follow along a thing in mind, to trace carefully. Both meanings occur abundantly in the ancient Greek. Cadbury (Appendix C to _Beginnings of Christianity_, Vol. II, pp. 489ff.) objects to the translation "having traced" here as implying research which the word does not here mean. Milligan (_Vocabulary_) is somewhat impressed by this argument. See my discussion of the point in Chapter XVI of _Studies in the Text of the N.T._ (The Implications in Luke's Preface) where the point is made that Luke here claims fulness of knowledge before he began to write his book. He had the traditions of the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word and the narratives previously drawn up. Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had _mentally_ followed along by the side of these events. Galen used this verb for the investigation of symptoms. Luke got himself ready to write before he began by full and accurate knowledge of the subject. \Akribs\ (accurately) means going into minute details, from \akron\, the topmost point. And he did it {from the first} (\anthen\). He seems to refer to the matters in Chapters strkjv@1:5-2:52|, the Gospel of the Infancy. {In order} (\kathexs\). Chronological order in the main following Mark's general outline. But in strkjv@9:51-18:10| the order is often topical. He has made careful investigation and his work deserves serious consideration. {Most excellent Theophilus} (\kratiste Theophile\). The name means god-lover or god-beloved. He may have been a believer already. He was probably a Gentile. Ramsay holds that "most excellent" was a title like "Your Excellency" and shows that he held office, perhaps a Knight. Songs:of Felix (Acts:23:26|) and Festus (Acts:26:25|). The adjective does not occur in the dedication in strkjv@Acts:1:1|.

rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Isous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\n hsei etn triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\n huios hs enomizeto Isph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\hs enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

rwp@Matthew:5:22 @{But I say unto you} (\eg de leg humin\). Jesus thus assumes a tone of superiority over the Mosaic regulations and proves it in each of the six examples. He goes further than the Law into the very heart. "{Raca}" (\Raka\) and "{Thou fool}" (\Mre\). The first is probably an Aramaic word meaning "Empty," a frequent word for contempt. The second word is Greek (dull, stupid) and is a fair equivalent of "raca." It is urged by some that \mre\ is a Hebrew word, but Field (_Otium Norvicense_) objects to that idea. "_Raca_ expresses contempt for a man's head=you stupid! _Mre_ expresses contempt for his heart and character=you scoundrel" (Bruce). "{The hell of fire}" (\tn geennan tou puros\), "the Gehenna of fire," the genitive case (\tou puros\) as the genus case describing Gehenna as marked by fire. Gehenna is the Valley of Hinnom where the fire burned continually. Here idolatrous Jews once offered their children to Molech (2Kings:23:10|). Jesus finds one cause of murder to be abusive language. Gehenna "should be carefully distinguished from Hades (\hids\) which is never used for the place of punishment, but for the _place of departed spirits_, without reference to their moral condition" (Vincent). The place of torment is in Hades (Luke:16:23|), but so is heaven.

rwp@Matthew:13:3 @{Behold, the sower went forth} (\idou lthen ho speirn\). Matthew is very fond of this exclamation \idou\. It is "the sower," not "a sower." Jesus expects one to see the man as he stepped forth to begin scattering with his hand. The parables of Jesus are vivid word pictures. To understand them one must see them, with the eyes of Jesus if he can. Christ drew his parables from familiar objects.

rwp@Revelation:4:2 @{Straightway I was in the Spirit} (\euthes egenomn en pneumati\). But John had already "come to be in the Spirit" (1:10|, the very same phrase). Perhaps here effective aorist middle indicative while ingressive aorist in strkjv@1:10| (sequel or result, not entrance), "At once I found myself in the Spirit" (Swete), not "I came to be in the Spirit" as in strkjv@1:10|. {Was set} (\ekeito\). Imperfect middle of \keimai\, old verb, used as passive of \tithmi\. As the vision opens John sees the throne already in place as the first thing in heaven. This bold imagery comes chiefly from strkjv@1Kings:22:19; strkjv@Isaiah:6:1ff.; strkjv@Ezekiel:1:26-28; strkjv@Daniel:7:9f|. One should not forget that this language is glorious imagery, not actual objects in heaven. God is spirit. The picture of God on the throne is common in the O.T. and the N.T. (Matthew:5:34f.; strkjv@23:22; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3| and in nearly every chapter in the Revelation, strkjv@1:4|, etc.). The use of \kathmenos\ (sitting) for the name of God is like the Hebrew avoidance of the name _Jahweh_ and is distinguished from the Son in strkjv@6:16; strkjv@7:10|. {Upon the throne} (\epi ton thronon\). \Epi\ with the accusative, as in strkjv@4:4; strkjv@6:2,4f.; strkjv@11:16; strkjv@20:4|, but in verses 9,10, strkjv@4:1,7,13; strkjv@6:16; strkjv@7:15| we have \epi tou thronou\ (genitive), while in strkjv@7:10; strkjv@19:14; strkjv@21:5| we have \epi ti throni\ (locative) with no great distinction in the resultant idea.

rwp@Romans:9:22 @{Willing} (\theln\). Concessive use of the participle, "although willing," not causal, "because willing" as is shown by "with much long-suffering" (\en polli makrothumii\, in much long-suffering). {His power} (\to dunaton autou\). Neuter singular of the verbal adjective rather than the substantive \dunamin\. {Endured} (\negken\). Constative second aorist active indicative of the old defective verb \pher\, to bear. {Vessels of wrath} (\skeu orgs\). The words occur in strkjv@Jeremiah:50:25| (LXX strkjv@Jeremiah:27:25|), but not in the sense here (objective genitive like \tekna orgs\, strkjv@Ephesians:2:3|, the objects of God's wrath). {Fitted} (\katrtismena\). Perfect passive participle of \katartiz\, old verb to equip (see strkjv@Matthew:4:21; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11|), state of readiness. Paul does not say here that God did it or that they did it. That they are responsible may be seen from strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:15f|. {Unto destruction} (\eis apleian\). Endless perdition (Matthew:7:13; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@Phillipians:3:19|), not annihilation.

rwp@Romans:16:17 @{Mark} (\skopeite\). Keep an eye on so as to avoid. \Skopos\ is the goal, \skope\ means keeping your eye on the goal. {Divisions} (\dichostasias\). Old word for "standings apart," cleavages. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Galatians:5:20|. {Those which are causing} (\tous--poiountas\). This articular participle clause has within it not only the objects of the participle but the relative clause \hn humeis emathete\ (which you learned), a thoroughly Greek idiom.