OT-LAW.filter - rwp prospect:

rwp@1Corinthians:4:15 @{To admonish} (\nouthetn\). Literally, admonishing (present active participle of \nouthete\). See on ¯1Thessalonians:5:12,14|. {For though ye should have} (\ean gar echte\). Third-class condition undetermined, but with prospect of being determined (\ean\ and present subjunctive), "for if ye have." {Tutors} (\paidaggous\). This old word (\pais\, boy, \aggos\, leader) was used for the guide or attendant of the child who took him to school as in strkjv@Galatians:3:24| (Christ being the schoolmaster) and also as a sort of tutor who had a care for the child when not in school. The papyri examples (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_) illustrate both aspects of the paedagogue. Here it is the "tutor in Christ" who is the Teacher. These are the only two N.T. examples of the common word. {I begot you} (\humas egennsa\). Paul is their {spiritual father} in Christ, while Apollos and the rest are their {tutors} in Christ.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:28 @{But and if thou marry} (\ean de kai gamsis\). Condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of being determined, with the ingressive first aorist (late form) active subjunctive with \ean\: "But if thou also commit matrimony or get married," in spite of Paul's advice to the contrary. {Thou hast not sinned} (\ouch hmartes\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan\, to sin, to miss a mark. Here either Paul uses the timeless (gnomic) aorist indicative or by a swift transition he changes the standpoint (proleptic) in the conclusion from the future (in the condition) to the past. Such mixed conditions are common (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1020, 1023). Precisely the same construction occurs with the case of the virgin (\parthenos\) except that the old form of the first aorist subjunctive (\gmi\) occurs in place of the late \gamsi\ above. The MSS. interchange both examples. There is no special point in the difference in the forms. {Shall have tribulation in the flesh} (\thlipsin ti sarki hexousin\). Emphatic position of \thlipsin\ (pressure). See strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| \skolops ti sarki\ (thorn in the flesh). {And I would spare you} (\eg de humn pheidomai\). Possibly conative present middle indicative, I am trying to spare you like \agei\ in strkjv@Romans:2:4| and \dikaiousthe\ in strkjv@Galatians:5:4|.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:3 @{Let no man beguile you in any wise} (\m tis humas exapatsi kata mdena tropon\). First aorist active subjunctive of \exapata\ (old verb to deceive, strengthened form of simple verb \apata\) with double negative (\m tis, mdena\) in accord with regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:11| rather than the aorist imperative which does occur sometimes in the third person as in strkjv@Mark:13:15| (\m katabat\). Paul broadens the warning to go beyond conversation and letter. He includes "tricks" of any kind. It is amazing how gullible some of the saints are when a new deceiver pulls off some stunts in religion. {For it will not be} (\hoti\). There is an ellipse here of \ouk estai\ (or \gensetai\) to be supplied after \hoti\. Westcott and Hort make an anacoluthon at the end of verse 4|. The meaning is clear. \Hoti\ is causal, because, but the verb is understood. The second coming not only is not "imminent," but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of verse 2|. {Except the falling away come first} (\ean m elthi h apostasia prton\). Negative condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of determination and the aorist subjunctive. \Apostasia\ is the late form of \apostasis\ and is our word apostasy. Plutarch uses it of political revolt and it occurs in I Macc. strkjv@2:15 about Antiochus Epiphanes who was enforcing the apostasy from Judaism to Hellenism. In strkjv@Joshua:22:22| it occurs for rebellion against the Lord. It seems clear that the word here means a religious revolt and the use of the definite article (\h\) seems to mean that Paul had spoken to the Thessalonians about it. The only other New Testament use of the word is in strkjv@Acts:21:21| where it means apostasy from Moses. It is not clear whether Paul means revolt of the Jews from God, of Gentiles from God, of Christians from God, or of the apostasy that includes all classes within and without the body of Christians. But it is to be {first} (\prton\) before Christ comes again. Note this adverb when only two events are compared (cf. strkjv@Acts:1:1|). {And the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition} (\kai apokaluphthi ho anthrpos ts anomias, ho huios ts apleias\). First aorist passive subjunctive after \ean m\ and same condition as with \elthi\. The use of this verb \apokalupt\, like \apokalupsin\ of the second coming in strkjv@1:7|, seems to note the superhuman character (Milligan) of the event and the same verb is repeated in verses 6,8|. The implication is that {the man of sin} is hidden somewhere who will be suddenly manifested just as false apostles pose as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:13ff.|), whether the crowning event of the apostasy or another name for the same event. Lightfoot notes the parallel between the man of sin, of whom sin is the special characteristic (genitive case, a Hebraism for the lawless one in verse 8|) and Christ. Both Christ and the adversary of Christ are revealed, there is mystery about each, both make divine claims (verse 4|). He seems to be the Antichrist of strkjv@1John:2:18|. The terrible phrase, the son of perdition, is applied to Judas in strkjv@John:17:12| (like Judas doomed to perdition), but here to the lawless one (\ho anomos\, verse 8|), who is not Satan, but some one definite person who is doing the work of Satan. Note the definite article each time.

rwp@Acts:5:38 @{Refrain from} (\apostte apo\). Second aorist (ingressive) active imperative of \aphistmi\ of verse 37|. Do ye stand off from these men. "Hands off" was the policy of Gamaliel. {For if--be} (\hoti ean--i\). \Hoti\ gives the reason for the advice. Gamaliel presents two alternatives in terms of two conditional clauses. The first one is stated as a condition of the third class, \ean\ with the present subjunctive \i\, undetermined with prospect of determination. Assuming that it is from men, "it will be overthrown" (\kataluthsetai\, first future passive of \katalu\, to loosen down like a falling house) as was true of the following of Theudas and Judas the Galilean.

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@Ephesians:6:8 @{Whatsoever good thing each one doeth} (\hekastos ean ti poisi agathon\). Literally, "each one if he do anything good." Condition of third class, undetermined, but with prospect. Note use here of \agathon\ rather than \adikon\ (one doing wrong) in strkjv@Colossians:3:25|. Songs:it is a reward (\komisetai\) for good, not a penalty for wrong, though both are true, "whether he be bond or free" (\eite doulos eite eleutheros\).

rwp@Hebrews:8:1 @{In the things which we are saying} (\epi tois legomenois\). Locative case of the articular present passive participle of \leg\ after \epi\ as in strkjv@Luke:5:5; strkjv@Hebrews:11:4|, "in the matter of the things being discussed." {The chief point} (\kephalaion\). Neuter singular of the adjective \kephalaios\ (from \kephal\, head), belonging to the head. Vulgate _capitulum_, nominative absolute in old and common sense, the main matter (even so without the article as in Thucydides), "the pith" (Coverdale), common in the papyri as in Greek literature. The word also occurs in the sense of the sum total or a sum of money (Acts:22:28|) as in Plutarch, Josephus, and also in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). {Such an high priest} (\toiouton archierea\). As the one described in chapters strkjv@4:16-7:28| and in particular strkjv@7:26| (\toioutos\) strkjv@7:27,28|. But the discussion of the priestly work of Jesus continues through strkjv@12:3|. \Toioutos\ is both retrospective and prospective. Here we have a summary of the five points of superiority of Jesus as high priest (8:1-6|). He is himself a better priest than Aaron (\toioutos\ in strkjv@8:1| such as shown in strkjv@4:16-7:28|); he works in a better sanctuary (8:2,5|); he offers a better sacrifice (8:3f.|); he is mediator of a better covenant (8:6|); his work rests on better promises (8:6|); hence he has obtained a better ministry as a whole (8:6|). In this resum (\kephelaion\) the author gives the pith (\kephalaion\) of his argument, curiously enough with both senses of \kephalaion\ (pith, summary) pertinent. He will discuss the four points remaining thus: (1) the better covenant, strkjv@8:7-13|. (2) The better sanctuary, strkjv@9:1-12|. (3) The better sacrifice, strkjv@9:13-10:18|. (4) The better promises, strkjv@10:19-12:3|. One point (the better high priest, like Melchizedek) has already been discussed (4:16-7:28|). {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). Repetition of strkjv@1:3| with \tou thronou\ (the throne) added. This phrase prepares the way for the next point.

rwp@John:3:3 @{Except a man be born anew} (\ean m tis gennthi anthen\). Another condition of the third class, undetermined but with prospect of determination. First aorist passive subjunctive of \genna\. \Anthen\. Originally "from above" (Mark:15:38|), then "from heaven" (John:3:31|), then "from the first" (Luke:1:3|), and then "again" (\palin anthen\, strkjv@Galatians:4:9|). Which is the meaning here? The puzzle of Nicodemus shows (\deuteron\, verse 4|) that he took it as "again," a second birth from the womb. The Vulgate translates it by _renatus fuerit denuo_. But the misapprehension of Nicodemus does not prove the meaning of Jesus. In the other passages in John (3:31; strkjv@19:11,23|) the meaning is "from above" (\desuper\) and usually so in the Synoptics. It is a second birth, to be sure, regeneration, but a birth from above by the Spirit. {He cannot see the kingdom of God} (\ou dunatai idein tn basileian tou theou\). To participate in it as in strkjv@Luke:9:27|. For this use of \idein\ (second aorist active infinitive of \hora\) see strkjv@John:8:51; strkjv@Revelation:18:7|.

rwp@John:3:27 @{Except it have been given him from heaven} (\ean m i dedomenon auti ek tou ouranou\). See the same idiom in strkjv@John:6:65| (cf. strkjv@19:11|). Condition of third class, undetermined with prospect of determination, \ean m\ with the periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive of \didmi\. The perfect tense is rare in the subjunctive and an exact rendering into English is awkward, "unless it be granted him from heaven." See strkjv@1Corinthians:4:7| where Paul says the same thing.

rwp@Luke:12:38 @{And if} (\k'an = kai + ean\). Repeated. \Elthi\ and \heuri\, both second aorist subjunctive with \ean\, condition of the third class, undetermined, but with prospect of being determined. {Blessed} (\makarioi\). Beatitude here as in verse 37|.

rwp@Luke:12:45 @{Shall say} (\eipi\). Second aorist subjunctive, with \ean\, condition of the third class, undetermined, but with prospect of being determined. {Delayeth} (\chronizei\). From \chronos\, time, spends time, lingers. {Shall begin} (\arxtai\). First aorist middle subjunctive with \ean\ and the same condition as \eipi\, above. {The menservants} (\tous paidas\) {and the maidservants} (\kai tas paidiskas\). \Paidisk\ is a diminutive of \pais\ for a young female slave and occurs in the papyri, orginally just a damsel. Here \pais\ can mean slave also though strictly just a boy.

rwp@Luke:13:3 @{Except ye repent} (\ean m metanote\). Present active subjunctive of \metanoe\, to change mind and conduct, linear action, keep on changing. Condition of third class, undetermined, but with prospect of determination. {Ye shall perish} (\apoleisthe\). Future middle indicative of \apollumi\ and intransitive. Common verb.

rwp@Mark:3:23 @{In parables} (\en parabolais\). In crisp pungent thrusts that exposed the inconsistencies of the scribes and Pharisees. See on ¯Matthew:13| for discussion of the word {parable} (\parabol\, placing beside for comparison). These short parabolic quips concern Satan's casting out (\ekballei\, the very word used of casting out demons) Satan (rhetorical question), a kingdom divided (\meristhi\, for a mere portion) against itself, a house divided (\meristhi\) against itself, two conditions of the third class undetermined, but with prospect of determination.

rwp@Mark:10:12 @{If she herself shall put away her husband and marry another} (\ean aut apolusasa ton andra auts gamsi\). Condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of determination). Greek and Roman law allowed the divorce of the husband by the wife though not provided for in Jewish law. But the thing was sometimes done as in the case of Herodias and her husband before she married Herod Antipas. Songs:also Salome, Herod's sister, divorced her husband. Both Bruce and Gould think that Mark added this item to the words of Jesus for the benefit of the Gentile environment of this Roman Gospel. But surely Jesus knew that the thing was done in the Roman world and hence prohibited marrying such a "grass widow."

rwp@Matthew:8:2 @{If thou wilt} (\ean thelis\). The leper knew that Jesus had the power to heal him. His doubt was about his willingness. "Men more easily believe in miraculous power than in miraculous love" (Bruce). This is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined), a hopeful doubt at any rate. Jesus accepted his challenge by "I will." The command to "tell no one" was to suppress excitement and prevent hostility.

rwp@Matthew:14:3 @{For the sake of Herodias} (\dia Hridiada\). The death of John had taken place some time before. The Greek aorists here (\edsen, apetheto\) are not used for past perfects. The Greek aorist simply narrates the event without drawing distinctions in past time. This Herodias was the unlawful wife of Herod Antipas. She was herself a descendant of Herod the Great and had married Herod Philip of Rome, not Philip the Tetrarch. She had divorced him in order to marry Herod Antipas after he had divorced his wife, the daughter of Aretas King of Arabia. It was a nasty mess equal to any of our modern divorces. Her first husband was still alive and marriage with a sister-in-law was forbidden to Jews (Leviticus:18:16|). Because of her Herod Antipas had put John in the prison at Machaerus. The bare fact has been mentioned in strkjv@Matthew:4:12| without the name of the place. See strkjv@11:2| also for the discouragement of John \en ti desmtrii\ (place of bondage), here \en ti phulaki\ (the guard-house). Josephus (_Ant_. xviii. 5.2) tells us that Machaerus is the name of the prison. On a high hill an impregnable fortress had been built. Tristram (_Land of Moab_) says that there are now remains of "two dungeons, one of them deep and its sides scarcely broken in" with "small holes still visible in the masonry where staples of wood and iron had once been fixed. One of these must surely have been the prison-house of John the Baptist." "On this high ridge Herod the Great built an extensive and beautiful palace" (Broadus). "The windows commanded a wide and grand prospect, including the Dead Sea, the course of the Jordan, and Jerusalem" (Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus_).

rwp@Matthew:16:26 @{Gain} (\kerdsi\) and {profit} (\zmithi\). Both aorist subjunctives (one active, the other passive) and so punctiliar action, condition of third class, undetermined, but with prospect of determination. Just a supposed case. The verb for "forfeit" occurs in the sense of being fined or mulcted of money. Songs:the papyri and inscriptions. {Exchange} (\antallagma\). As an exchange, accusative in apposition with \ti\. The soul has no market price, though the devil thinks so. "A man must give, surrender, his life, and nothing less to God; no \antallagma\ is possible" (McNeile). This word \antallagma\ occurs twice in the _Wisdom of Sirach_: "There is no exchange for a faithful friend" (6:15); "There is no exchange for a well-instructed soul" (26:14).

rwp@Matthew:18:3 @{Except ye turn and become} (\ean m straphte kai gensthe\). Third-class condition, undetermined but with prospect of determination. \Straphte\ is second aorist passive subjunctive and \gensthe\ second aorist middle subjunctive. They were headed in the wrong direction with their selfish ambition. "His tone at this time is markedly severe, as much as when He denounces the Pharisaism in the bud He had to deal with" (Bruce). The strong double negative \ou m eiselthte\ means that they will otherwise not get into the kingdom of heaven at all, let alone have big places in it.

rwp@Matthew:28:20 @{I am with you} (\eg meta humn\). This is the amazing and blessed promise. He is to be with the disciples when he is gone, with all the disciples, with all knowledge, with all power, with them all the days (all sorts of days, weakness, sorrows, joy, power), till the consummation of the age (\hes ts sunteleias tou ainos\). That goal is in the future and unknown to the disciples. This blessed hope is not designed as a sedative to an inactive mind and complacent conscience, but an incentive to the fullest endeavor to press on to the farthest limits of the world that all the nations may know Christ and the power of his Risen Life. Songs:Matthew's Gospel closes in a blaze of glory. Christ is conqueror in prospect and in fact. Christian history from that eventful experience on the Mountain in Galilee has been the fulfilment of that promise in as far as we allow God's power to work in us for the winning of the world to Christ, the Risen, all powerful Redeemer, who is with his people all the time. Jesus employs the prophetic present here (\eimi\, I am). He is with us all the days till he comes in glory.

rwp@Romans:4:25 @{For our justification} (\dia tn dikaisin hmn\). The first clause (\paredoth dia ta paraptmata\) is from strkjv@Isaiah:53:12|. The first \dia\ with \paraptmata\ is probably retrospective, though it will make sense as prospective (to make atonement for our transgressions). The second \dia\ is quite clearly prospective with a view to our justification. Paul does not mean to separate the resurrection from the death of Christ in the work of atonement, but simply to show that the resurrection is at one with the death on the Cross in proof of Christ's claims.