OT-POET.filter - rwp showing:

rwp@John:1:18 @{No man hath seen God at any time} (\theon oudeis heraken ppote\). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of \hora\. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus:33:20; strkjv@Deuteronomy:4:12|). Paul calls God \aoratos\ (Colossians:1:15; strkjv@1Timothy:1:17|). John repeats the idea in strkjv@John:5:37; strkjv@6:46|. And yet in strkjv@14:7| Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. {The only begotten Son} (\ho monogens huios\). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after \hs monogenous para patros\ in verse 14|. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read \monogens theos\ (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to \ho monogens huios\ to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like strkjv@3:16|. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called \theos\ in verse 1|. The Incarnation is stated in verse 14|, where he is also termed \monogens\. He was that before the Incarnation. Songs:he is "God only begotten," "the Eternal Generation of the Son" of Origen's phrase. {Which is in the bosom of the Father} (\ho n eis ton kolpon tou patros\). The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like \pros ton theon\ in verse 1|. In strkjv@3:13| there is some evidence for \ho n en ti ourani\ used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father. {He} (\ekinos\). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son. {Hath declared him} (\exgsato\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \exgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke's Gospel (24:35|) and four times in Acts:(10:8; strkjv@15:12,14; strkjv@21:19|). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.

rwp@John:5:33 @{Ye have sent} (\humeis apestalkate\). Emphatic use of \humeis\ (ye) and perfect active indicative of \apostell\, official and permanent fact and so the witness of the Baptist has to be recognized as trustworthy by the Sanhedrin. The reference is to the committee in strkjv@1:19-28|. {He hath borne witness} (\memarturken\). Perfect active indicative of \marture\ showing the permanent and abiding value of John's testimony to Christ as in strkjv@1:34; strkjv@3:26; strkjv@5:37|. Songs:also strkjv@19:35| of the testimony concerning Christ's death. This was the purpose of the Baptist's mission (1:7|).

rwp@Jude:1:16 @{Murmurers} (\goggustai\). Late onomatopoetic word for agent, from \gogguz\ (Matthew:20:11; strkjv@1Corinthians:10:10|) in the LXX (Exodus:16:8; strkjv@Numbers:11:1,14-29|). {Complainers} (\mempsimoiroi\). Rare word (Isocrates, Aristotle, Plutarch) from \memphomai\ to complain and \moira\ lot or fate. Here alone in N.T. {Lusts} (\epithumias\). As in strkjv@2Peter:3:3|. {Swelling} (\huperogka\). Songs:in strkjv@2Peter:2:18| (big words). {Showing respect of persons} (\thaumazontes prospa\). Present active participle of \thaumaz\ to admire, to wonder at. Nowhere else in N.T. with \prospa\, but a Hebraism (in strkjv@Leviticus:19:15; strkjv@Job:13:10|) like \lambanein prospon\ (Luke:20:21|) and \blepein prospon\ (Matthew:22:16|) and \prosoplempte\ (James:2:9|). Cf. strkjv@James:2:1|. {For the sake of advantage} (\pheleias charin\). To themselves. See also verse 11|. The covetousness of these Gnostic leaders is plainly shown in strkjv@2Peter:2:3,14|. For \charin\ as preposition with genitive see strkjv@Ephesians:3:1,14|.

rwp@Mark:8:15 @{Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod} (\Horte, blepete apo ts zums tn Pharisain kai ts zums Hridou\). Present imperatives. Note \apo\ and the ablative case. \Zum\ is from \zumo\ and occurs already in strkjv@Matthew:13:33| in a good sense. For the bad sense see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:6|. He repeatedly charged (\diestelleto\, imperfect indicative), showing that the warning was needed. The disciples came out of a Pharisaic atmosphere and they had just met it again at Dalmanutha. It was insidious. Note the combination of Herod here with the Pharisees. This is after the agitation of Herod because of the death of the Baptist and the ministry of Jesus (Mark:6:14-29; strkjv@Matthew:14:1-12; strkjv@Luke:9:7-9|). Jesus definitely warns the disciples against "the leaven of Herod" (bad politics) and the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (bad theology and also bad politics).

rwp@Matthew:16:19 @{The Keys of the kingdom} (\tas kleidas ts basileias\). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18|. In strkjv@Revelation:1:18; strkjv@3:7| Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (\oikonomos\) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew:18:1|) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21|) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (\dsis\) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (\lusis\) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (\estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon\), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (18:18|). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John:20:23|), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, _primus inter pares_, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.

rwp@Matthew:22:33 @{They were astonished} (\exeplssonto\). Descriptive imperfect passive showing the continued amazement of the crowds. They were struck out (literally).

rwp@Matthew:24:2 @{One stone upon another} (\lithos epi lithon\). Stone upon stone. A startling prediction showing that the gloomy current of the thoughts of Jesus were not changed by their words of admiration for the temple.