OT-PROPHET-MINOR.filter - rwp Repeat:

rwp@John:13:35 @{By this} (\en touti\). Locative case with \en\, "In this way," viz., "if ye have love" (\ean agapn echte\), condition of third class (in apposition with \en touti\) with \ean\ and present active subjunctive of \ech\ ("keep on having love"). See strkjv@17:23| where Jesus prays for mutual love among the disciples "that the world may know" that the Father sent him. Jerome (_ad Galat_. vi. 10) says that in his extreme old age John repeated often this command of Jesus and justified it: "Because it is the Lord's commandment; and if it be fulfilled it is enough." See also strkjv@14:31|. Tertullian (_Apol_. 39) urges it also as proof of being disciples. Hatred of one another _per contra_, is an argument that we are \not\ disciples (learners) of Jesus.

rwp@Mark:14:56 @{Their witness agreed not together} (\isai hai marturiai ouk san\). Literally, the testimonies were not equal. They did not correspond with each other on essential points. {Many were bearing false witness} (\epseudomarturoun\, imperfect, repeated action) {against him}. No two witnesses bore joint testimony to justify a capital sentence according to the law (Deuteronomy:19:15|). Note imperfects in these verses (55-57|) to indicate repeated failures.

rwp@Mark:14:58 @{Made with hands} (\cheiropoiton\). In Mark alone. An old Greek word. The negative form \acheiropoiton\ here occurs elsewhere only in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:1; strkjv@Colossians:2:11|. In strkjv@Hebrews:9:11| the negative \ou\ is used with the positive form. It is possible that a real \logion\ of Jesus underlies the perversion of it here. Mark and Matthew do not quote the witnesses precisely alike. Perhaps they quoted Jesus differently and therein is shown part of the disagreement, for Mark adds verse 59| (not in Matthew). "And not even so did their witness agree together," repeating the point of verse 57|. Swete observes that Jesus, as a matter of fact, did do what he is quoted as saying in Mark: "He said what the event has proved to be true; His death destroyed the old order, and His resurrection created the new." But these witnesses did not mean that by what they said. The only saying of Jesus at all like this preserved to us is that in strkjv@John:2:19|, when he referred not to the temple in Jerusalem, but to the temple of his body, though no one understood it at the time.

rwp@Matthew:9:13 @{But go ye and learn} (\poreuthentes de mathete\). With biting sarcasm Jesus bids these preachers to learn the meaning of strkjv@Hosea:6:6|. It is repeated in strkjv@Matthew:12:7|. Ingressive aorist imperative (\mathete\).

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@Romans:9:30 @{Attained} (\katelaben\). Second aorist active indicative of \katalamban\, old verb, to grasp, to seize, to overtake (carrying out the figure in \dik\ (to pursue). It was a curious paradox. {Which is of faith} (\tn ek pistes\). As Paul has repeatedly shown, the only way to get the God-kind of righteousness.