OT-POET.filter - rwp Matthew:10:3:

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorge\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai iditai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

rwp@John:1:20 @{And he confessed} (\kai hmologsen\). The continued paratactic use of \kai\ (and) and the first aorist active indicative of \homologe\, old verb from \homologos\ (\homon, leg\, to say the same thing), to confess, in the Synoptics (Matthew:10:32|) as here. {And denied not} (\kai ouk rnsato\). Negative statement of same thing in Johannine fashion, first aorist middle indicative of \arneomai\, another Synoptic and Pauline word (Matthew:10:33; strkjv@2Timothy:2:12|). He did not contradict or refuse to say who he was. {And he confessed} (\kai hmologsen\). Thoroughly Johannine again in the paratactic repetition. {I am not the Christ} (\Eg ouk eimi ho Christos\). Direct quotation again with recitative \hoti\ before it like our modern quotation marks. "I am not the Messiah," he means by \ho Christos\ (the Anointed One). Evidently it was not a new question as Luke had already shown (Luke:3:15|).

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@Revelation:12:11 @{They overcame him} (\autoi eniksan\). First aorist active indicative of \nika\, the verb used by Jesus of his own victory (John:16:33|) and about him (Revelation:3:21; strkjv@5:5|). "The victory of the martyrs marks the failure of Satan's endeavours" (Swete). {Because of the blood of the Lamb} (\dia to haima tou arniou\). As in strkjv@1:5; strkjv@5:6,9; strkjv@7:14|. The blood of Christ is here presented by \dia\ as the ground for the victory and not the means, as by \en\ in strkjv@1:5; strkjv@5:9|. Both ideas are true, but \dia\ with the accusative gives only the reason. The blood of Christ does cleanse us from sin (John:1:29; strkjv@1John:1:7|). Christ conquered Satan, and so makes our victory possible (Luke:11:21f.; strkjv@Hebrews:2:18|). "Thus the Lamb is the true \sungoros\ (like Michael) of the New Israel, its \parakltos pros ton patera\ (1John:2:1|)" (Swete). {Because of the Word of their testimony} (\dia ton logon ts marturias autn\). The same use of \dia\, "because of their testimony to Jesus" as in John's own case in strkjv@1:9|. These martyrs have been true to their part. {They loved not their life even unto death} (\ouk gapsan ten psuchn autn achri thanatou\). First aorist active indicative of \agapa\. They did resist "unto blood" (\mechris haimatos\ strkjv@Hebrews:12:4|) and did not put their own lives before loyalty to Christ. There is a direct reference to the words of Jesus in strkjv@John:12:25| as illustrated also in strkjv@Mark:8:35; strkjv@Matthew:10:39; strkjv@16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24; strkjv@17:33|. Paul's own example is pertinent (Acts:21:13; strkjv@Phillipians:1:20ff.|). Jesus himself had been "obedient unto death" (Phillipians:2:8|). These martyrs seem to be still alive on earth, but their heroism is proleptically pictured.